Evidence says seven eye witnesses are saying that the saw both Sacco and Vanzetti and the supposedly bandit car. The case is actually weak because the eyewitness are not reliable for the reason that they were not certain of the criminals identification. All the accounts of the sightings of the crime took place before or after the crime. The evidence says that there was a third gun shot from Sacco's gun. The test say other wise about this crime many things contradicted this trial. This men should have never been convicted for a crime that no eyewitnesses testfied to have really been there or seen them. The physical evidence also accounts to be very vague or ambiguous. The bullet recovered is said to have not been used with Sacco's gun but eyewitnesses say it did. So there is a mix review of what really happened.
Burns and Fitzgerald argue that they are positive that the bullet could not have been fired from Sacco's Colt. Unfortunately, there is always to sides to a story so what is right to believe is quetionable and that is why the case is unfair. It makes it a weak piece of evidence to sentence a mean to death for. Other evidence like the cap and the car became even more weaker evidence. You cannot link a man to murder because you would need DNA testing to aknowledge that he wore that cap. The car is even more irrelevant, is unuseful evidence. Sacco and Vanzetti should not be stated guilty because of the amount of evidence and the inexplicable wrong doing.
Source:http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/SaccoV/sv.gif
No comments:
Post a Comment