Was the Sacco and Vanzetti trial a fair case? Or was the idea of nativism too forceful and they were found guilty of association? Both Sacco and Vanzetti were Italian anarchists, or in other words, Italian immigrants who revolted against any established rule, law, or custom. I believe that the police force wanted to catch Sacco and Vanzetti because of their anarchist political views, not because of the “evidence” that was given. The evidence that was found at the scene is clearly not enough for a fair conviction.
None of the seven eyewitnesses identified Sacco until after his arrest, and several of the closest witnesses to the crime were not even able to identify him. Two defense experts testified that “bullet 3” could not have been fired from Sacco’s colt and it did not fit while he was on the stand. Sacco claimed that he had been in Boston trying to get a passport from an Italian consultant on the day of the crime. After he visited the consultant, he ate lunch at a restaurant. Seven witnesses stated that they did see Sacco at the restaurant. Sacco did lie during the initial police interview, but he claimed that he only lied because he did not want to be deported for his anarchist political views. No one claimed to have seen Vanzetti at all at the initial shooting. Vanzetti testified that he told a few lies when he was initially questioned because the country was in the grip of the Red Scare, and he feared for his own safety and that of his anarchist comrades.
Therefore, I believe that the two men were only put on trial and put to death because of their anarchist political views.
