{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Sacco & Vanzetti Test - Richard Escobedo

Also the gun that vanzetti had on him at the time of

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: murders. She not only placed Sacco in South Braintree, but she gave a visual description of him that was oddly accurate for having seen him for about “1 ½ to 3 seconds.” Furthermore, she observed him at a distance of 60- 80 feet in a moving car which was only visible to her for about 30 feet (99- 100). Carlos Goodridge, another eyewitness, who went by the name Erastus Corning was not only a criminal, but he had previously committed perjury to obtain a marriage license; he identified Sacco as the who pointed a gun at him (102- 103). Material evidence, too, was questionable. Fingerprints, objects found at the crime scene, and weapons were all supposed to directly link Sacco and Vanzetti to the robbery and murder, but there were serious doubts about their authenticity and accuracy. The ball cap that had been found (two days after the crime, no less) was believed to have been manipulated and tampered with, and a police officer attested to the latter – having torn the lining as to figure out to whom the cap belonged. Also, the gun that Vanzetti had on him at the time of the murders was a point of serious doubt. The prosecution said Vanzetti’s gun was taken from a dying police guard Berardelli, but the gun Vanzetti had on him was of a different caliber from Berardelli’s own pistol (24). Lastly, the ballistics evidence was presented, and consisted of linking the six shots that were fired in the heist (25). 3. What evidence did the defense present to prove their innocence? The defense presented much less evidence. Their primary method of defense was to present alibis whic...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}