Sacco and Vanzetti- Innocent AFTER Proven Guilty...and killed

"Since the defense had weakend the ballistics evidnce, Katzmann based his case promarily on 'consciousness of guilt.'"

I like this quote in the sense of how great of an example the court systems form the 1920's operated. The whole idea of innocent until proven guilty, took on an entirely different meaning. Today, all people, are supposedly treated fairly through the justice system and there are restrictions set by the Constituion and Bill of Rights to ensure this. In the 1920's, even though most, not all, but most laws were in affect then, the laws were seen as merely guidelines, to help guide the courts to their decisions. Innocent until proven guilty was only the the WASP- white anglo-saxon protestant memebers of society who controlled the industries and were born in america. If immigrants were on trial, such as Sacco and Vanzetti were, their trail was strictly conducted to end with the defendants either dead or in jail. Sacco and Vanzetti were victimes of racial and ethnical profiling by the governemnt and the towns people of Dedham. I found it ironic though, that townspeople of Dedham and American born citizens only started to recognize the injustice towards the end of the trial, and by that point, nothing could be done. I found it embarassing that we, as a country, were hypocritcal towards immigrants. In times of economic boom, we welcomed them through the "gates of America", persuading them to come and make a new life for themselves (as long as the American people could benefit from it). But when times got hard, just as they did after World War I, people, like Thayer and Katzmann were eager to get rid of the "suspects of criminal activity", also known as immigrants. People who were once welcomed into the country were now watched over carefully by the goverment in fear that these immigrants might retaliate against the country that welcomed them and then stripped away their rights day by day.

When Katzmann's evidence fell through, he had only one other route to take. The ethnical/political route, in which he would show, to all members of the jury, that Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty of something: being different. Katzmann used the fact that they were anarchists against them and he used his ties with the judge to help put the two into jail. This showed how badly immigrants were treated during the 1920's.

"...historical methods to understand that history affords foar more latitude in weighing and collecting evidence that does the legal system. The law attempts to limit the flow of evidence in a trial to what can reasonably be constructed as fact".

I liked this quote because I think that it is the thesis. Historians can go back and look at past court cases that were considered to be controversial and historians can make assumptions based off of evidence. Historians differ from lawyers and other people who work in the legal system because they can make assumptions based off of evidence. In the legal system, the quote stand "innocent until proven guilty". I believe that after reading Sacco and Vanzetti, that they were not guilty of murdering Berardelli. I do believe that they deserved jail time because they avoided the draft and if they did assemble the bombs, than they deserve time for that. I think that this article was a good example of how desperate the government was to crack down on immigrants and make an example of Sacco and Vanzetti. The example that if you step out of line, the government might not be able to prove how you did, but they can get you on something and even though this isn't legitimately legal, it doesn't matter.

I liked this article becuase the historians didn't just agree with Thayer and Katzmann on the fact that Sacco and Vanzetti were automatically guilty because they were different. I liked how they examined everything from the mens' history to society and the people who influenced the outcome of the case. I would argue that this is one of the better written articles by Davidson and Lytle.