Sacco & Vanzetti Test - Richard Escobedo

In his sworn affidavit proctor later said although i

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: h would disprove any theory the prosecution presented by essentially ruling out that Sacco or Vanzetti could have been in South Braintree. In doing so, they presented multiple witnesses who did just that. However, the jury treated these witnesses with great skepticism as they spoke in thick Italian accents, and given the Italian prejudice at this time, their testimony was taken with a grain of salt (22). 4. Please comment on the reliability or unreliability of the evidence presented by both sides. Cite examples. The evidence presented by both sides was shaky. The prosecution’s presentation of evidence was, for the most part, a narrative. One of the major flaws in the evidence the prosecution presented was with testimony – specifically with people who were unreliable (Mary Splaine), or in the case of Carlos Goodridge, convicted felons who had, no less, perjured themselves in previous legal situations (23). There were considerable differences between testimony Splaine and others gave to Pinkerton detectives (22). Of the six bullets that were fired at the time of the murder and robbery, only one was proven to have come from Sacco’s pistol–it was nearly impossible to prove if Sacco fired the fatal shot which killed Berardelli. Furthermore, testimony surrounding the bullets Richard Escobedo should have been thrown out as Captain William Proctor, who initially led the investigation, later confirmed he gave “intentionally vague testimony” and even went as far as to previously arrange his testimony (questions and answers) with the prosecution. In his sworn affidavit, Proctor later said, “althou...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online