Bartolomeo Vanzetti Case
The murder case of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti is one of the most discriminatory and controversial trials to prevail throughout the history of Massachusetts’ courts. On July 14th, 1921, Sacco and Vanzetti were wrongfully found guilty of first degree murder; not because there was ample evidence suggesting they were guilty, but because of their political beliefs. When Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were arrested in 1920 (“The Sacco & Vanzetti Trial: A Chronology” p.2) many nations were undergoing major political changes and how the government and the people reacted to these changes affected Sacco and Vanzetti’s case. Americans feared people with extreme political views in their country, and believed that all radicals were plotting
…show more content…
White Shoe Company in Bridgewater, Massachusetts. The bandits were unsuccessful and escaped, but one of them shot at the truck and later became known to the media as the “Shotgun Bandit”(“The Sacco & Vanzetti Trial: A Chronology” p.1). Later on April 15th, in South Braintree, two workers for the Slater & Morrill Shoe Company were shot. The two men shot, Frederick Parmenter and Alessandro Beradelli, were carrying a payroll of $15,776.51, which the thieves stole. The robbers were picked up by a stolen Buick and managed a quick getaway. (“The Sacco & Vanzetti Trial: A Chronology” p.1). The crime itself had taken less than one minute, and the Bridgewater chief of police, Michael E. Stewart and his men, began investigating immediately. They questioned people near the crime and several witnesses said the bandits were Italian. Later a fur-lined cap was found near the scene of the crime, which was rumored to belong to Nicola Sacco (Monroe p.8). The next day, Ferruccio Coacci, an Italian anarchist who was to be deported on the day of the crime, told the Bureau of Immigration Inspector O.L. Root that he did not report as he was supposed to because his wife was ill and he needed a couple of days to take care of her. Root was dubious of Coacci’s story and requested that Michael E. Stewart, help him investigate to learn if Coacci was indeed being truthful. Stewart sent patrolman Frank LeBaron to go with Root to …show more content…
Johnson’s tip, two policemen set out to the garage and soon found Saco and Vanzetti. The policemen arrested them as “suspicious characters” (“The Sacco & Vanzetti Trial: A Chronology” p.2). Both men were armed and Vanzetti was found with shotgun shells, leading authorities to believe that he was the “shotgun bandit” in Bridgewater (“The Sacco & Vanzetti Trial: A Chronology” p.2). Sacco had a meeting announcement that was to be held on May 9th that said: “Fellow Workers, you have fought all the wars. You have worked for all the capitalists. You have wandered over all countries. Have you harvested the fruits of your labor…? On…this argument, and on this theme the struggle for existence, Bartolomeo Vanzetti will speak…. Admission free. Freedom of discussion to all.” (Avrich p.199). When arrested, the police never told Sacco and Vanzetti they were being picked up for questioning about the murders in Braintree. The police also never informed Nicola and Bartolomeo of theirs rights, including the one where they did not have to answer questions asked by the police (Monroe p.25). “In 1920, they did not have to be legally informed of their rights.” (Monroe p.25). Police chief Michael Stewart questioned the men after their arrest about their political views and anarchist activities and both men lied about being anarchists (“The Sacco & Vanzetti Trial: A Chronology” p.2). Stewart never asked either of the men about the shooting in Braintree (Monroe p. 25). “Sacco came to
White Shoe Company in Bridgewater, Massachusetts. The bandits were unsuccessful and escaped, but one of them shot at the truck and later became known to the media as the “Shotgun Bandit”(“The Sacco & Vanzetti Trial: A Chronology” p.1). Later on April 15th, in South Braintree, two workers for the Slater & Morrill Shoe Company were shot. The two men shot, Frederick Parmenter and Alessandro Beradelli, were carrying a payroll of $15,776.51, which the thieves stole. The robbers were picked up by a stolen Buick and managed a quick getaway. (“The Sacco & Vanzetti Trial: A Chronology” p.1). The crime itself had taken less than one minute, and the Bridgewater chief of police, Michael E. Stewart and his men, began investigating immediately. They questioned people near the crime and several witnesses said the bandits were Italian. Later a fur-lined cap was found near the scene of the crime, which was rumored to belong to Nicola Sacco (Monroe p.8). The next day, Ferruccio Coacci, an Italian anarchist who was to be deported on the day of the crime, told the Bureau of Immigration Inspector O.L. Root that he did not report as he was supposed to because his wife was ill and he needed a couple of days to take care of her. Root was dubious of Coacci’s story and requested that Michael E. Stewart, help him investigate to learn if Coacci was indeed being truthful. Stewart sent patrolman Frank LeBaron to go with Root to …show more content…
Johnson’s tip, two policemen set out to the garage and soon found Saco and Vanzetti. The policemen arrested them as “suspicious characters” (“The Sacco & Vanzetti Trial: A Chronology” p.2). Both men were armed and Vanzetti was found with shotgun shells, leading authorities to believe that he was the “shotgun bandit” in Bridgewater (“The Sacco & Vanzetti Trial: A Chronology” p.2). Sacco had a meeting announcement that was to be held on May 9th that said: “Fellow Workers, you have fought all the wars. You have worked for all the capitalists. You have wandered over all countries. Have you harvested the fruits of your labor…? On…this argument, and on this theme the struggle for existence, Bartolomeo Vanzetti will speak…. Admission free. Freedom of discussion to all.” (Avrich p.199). When arrested, the police never told Sacco and Vanzetti they were being picked up for questioning about the murders in Braintree. The police also never informed Nicola and Bartolomeo of theirs rights, including the one where they did not have to answer questions asked by the police (Monroe p.25). “In 1920, they did not have to be legally informed of their rights.” (Monroe p.25). Police chief Michael Stewart questioned the men after their arrest about their political views and anarchist activities and both men lied about being anarchists (“The Sacco & Vanzetti Trial: A Chronology” p.2). Stewart never asked either of the men about the shooting in Braintree (Monroe p. 25). “Sacco came to