Sacco and VanzettiEssay Preview: Sacco and VanzettiReport this essaySacco and VanzettiNone of the seven eyewitnesses was at all times certain of his or her identification. Andrews and Pelser had told a defense investigator that they could not make identification. Splaine and Devlin only briefly saw a man leaning out of automobile from a distance of over 70 feet. None of the witnesses identified Sacco until well after his arrest. The witnesses were not required to pick Sacco out a line-up. Several of the closest witnesses to the crime were not able to identify Sacco. Two defense experts (Burns, Fitzgerald) testified that “Bullet 3” could not have been fired from Saccos Colt. Sacco denied ever owning the cap, or any cap with earlaps. Sacco tried on the cap before the jury and claimed that it did not fit (the prosecutor claimed that it did). It is not known for sure that the cap found at the scene belonged to one of the murderers, and not to one of the crowd who gathered soon after the crime. Sacco and Vanzetti testified that the reason that they left Johnsons home without picking up Bodas car was that they discovered that the car did not have 1920 license plates. Sacco claimed to have been in Boston trying to get a passport from the Italian consulate on the day of the crime. After visiting the consulate, he said, he ate at Bonis Restaurant in Boston. Seven witnesses testified that they saw Sacco at the restaurant. Sacco testified that his lies during his initial police interview were because he feared that if he told the truth about his radical beliefs or admitted knowing radical friends, he would likely be deported.
No one claimed to have seen Vanzetti during the actual shooting. A defense witness testified that Levangie said a few minutes after the shooting that it would be hard to identify the man he had seen driving the car. Another witness testified that Levangie told him that he saw no one, while a third witness said Levangie initially said the driver was light-haired (Vanzetti is dark-haired). Vanzetti testified that he was selling fish in Plymouth (25 miles from Braintree) at the time of the crime. Six witnesses testify that they saw Vanzetti in Plymouth near the time of the crime. Vanzetti testified that he bought the gun from a friend (Falzini) a few months before his arrest. He said he bought it because he received cash from his fish peddling business and was concerned about recent hold-ups. Falzini testified that he sold the
m-lady. He stated that he did not know the man. The following day, it was reported that the police had closed Plymouth for the night and that Vanzetti’s ex-wife had been notified that the couple had been arrested but not charged. The following day, police were released and said they did it because we knew there was no way of knowing if there was any connection with Vanzetti.[3][4]
The above incident, as well as the three other cases of fatal shootings in a four city neighborhood, resulted in over a hundred injuries and almost 40 arrests for the same victim.[5]
3. The Stolen Weapon
Cities where the crime occurred (Cape Cod, Cuyahoga County, Lake Forest, Nampa, St. Louis County, and Fort Worth) have already provided an adequate background and crime background check for those who enter the public area or are stopped and searched. This does not make the case for the use of a gun near an active shooter, however, which is a separate matter.
The following is based upon a review of reports over the past five years which involved the Stolen Weapon case [6]. The report, “An Exonerated Officer, Who Seized One Glock, and Pushed Him Away From The Suspect,” by M.S. John Pendergast, is based on interviews with persons of interest at various law enforcement agencies whose case led them to conclude that the weapon they were stopping and searching did not belong to the suspect or shooter. An additional review of those interviews followed by additional evaluations at the request of the FBI, the Louisiana State Police and other law enforcement agencies with information on the suspect’s weapons is also based upon these interviews (see notes at bottom of original).
[1] The Louisiana State Police’s own reports state that the suspect, who was on trial by a jury, was a white youth with brown or brown hair, from the area of the shooting site, according to a press release from Domingue Police Department dated May 26, 2011.
[2] At this time, the Texas Department of Justice did not comment. The Texas attorney for the city of Austin, which is in a separate homicide investigation, did comment in a follow-up blog post that the suspect used a BB gun and ammunition (with a black eye) and was attempting to run the gun from point blank range to open fire at one of the homes he was shooting in May 2011 [7]. Austin Police say it was a robbery perpetrated by an unknown male. Austin Police had issued a public information request for information on the suspect’s name [8] and the information was received shortly before 7:30 a.m. [9]
4. The Case Against Vetterino
Vetterino was also in custody as a juvenile before being released and facing various criminal charges, including two counts of aggravated assault of a peace officer. Vetterino’s name was mentioned in some media reports as being included in several criminal counts. According to a press release issued at the time of Vetterino’s arrest, “Vetterino has been a member of KSTI since early 2003.