Customer Reviews

Sacco & Vanzetti: The Case Resolved

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This is the only book I have read on this subject. It has been an article of faith of the political Left that Sacco and Vanzetti were framed, or, at least, that the law was determined to find them guilty, no matter what. Russell grew up in such a family, and never questioned this conclusion until he was well into writing a book which he hoped would conclusively prove their innocence. He concluded that Sacco, at least, was certainly guilty, although it is entirely possible that Vanzetti wasn't involved at all. A must read for anyone interested in this subject.

A convincing examination of the Sacco-Vanzetti case which argues that Sacco was guilty of murder and Vanzetti of being an accessory after the fact. Even defenders of the radicals will have to answer this evidence. Nevertheless, subtitling the book "The Case Resolved" goes too far. The story does have to be told as part of Russell's own search for the truth, but Russell (1910-1989) pushes his own intellectual martyrdom too far to the foreground, especially at the conclusion of Chapter 14. Nonetheless, this is a satisfying book, thoughtful, lucid, and written with an absolute minimum of academic posturing.

        Back in 1920, five men pulled a payroll robbery in South Braintree, Massachussetts.  Two men were later arrested, and tried for the crime, Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti. In 1921, the two were convicted and sentenced to death, in 1927 they were executed.

        In the six years between conviction and execution, there was a long campaign aimed at convincing people that Sacco and Vanzetti were innocent men, deliberately framed by the prosecutors because of their political convictions.

        Francis Russell once believed that.  Then, while serving on jury duty in the late 1950s, he watched the former prosecutor in action in a civil case, and became convinced that this man couldn't have deliberately sent two innocent men to their death.  But of course, they were innocent. Therefore, the prosecution must have been sincere, but wrong, in believing they were guilty.

        Russell wrote an article on these lines for American Heritage magazine, and then got a contract to do a whole book on the subject, Tragedy in Dedham, which is out of print.  Since his article had shown he didn't believe the cops and district attorney were murderers, he got a lot of cooperation.  He reviewed the evidence thoroughly, and in doing so, it occurred to him that there were new forensics tests available that might settle some long disputed questions.

        The tests were performed, and what do you know?  They showed that Sacco was guilty, though Vanzetti may have been innocent.  Russell so wrote in Tragedy in Dedham.

        But the people who insisted on Sacco's and Vanzetti's innocence weren't interested in facts, and still aren't.  They start out with the proclamation that S. & V. were innoncent, then come up with reasons to dismiss the evidence in the case that goes against their line.  It's all a vast conspiracy, a conspiracy so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man, as Sen. Joe McCarthy said.  Not only was the evidence introduced at the trial faked, but evidence that no one would think to test for nearly forty years was faked too, just in case.  With such reasoning, one can "prove" anything.

        In Sacco & Vanzetti: The Case Resolved, Russell follows up his first book, showing how the politics of the case has always been more important than the truth, and how the Sacco & Vanzetti partisans have used the case for their political goals.  For those interested in the truth, this book will be immensely interesting.  Among the most interesting facts new facts Russell uncovered for this volume is that many of the S. & V. defenders believed them to be guilty.  Another is that many 'defenders' were quite happy to see the two executed.  Martyrs were better for the cause than live prisoners.

        Sacco was guilty.  Vanzetti may have been innocent.  No one was framed.  People who want to attack "the system" frequently lie about this case.  People interested in what happened will find this book a good place to start.

Sacco and Vanzetti: The Case Resolved, by Francis Russell

In the `Foreword' to "Tragedy in Dedham" Russell said he was convinced that Sacco and Vanzetti were "innocent men" and hoped to "prove this once and for all" (p.xv). But then he changed his mind. Russell also said that he considered S&V guilty when he was younger (Chapter 1). So when Russell pretends to be a believer in their innocence on page 2 he can't be totally accurate. Since you can't prove innocence only a lack of guilt his claims seemed exaggerated. Who paid him to write the book? Lawyers and experts work for the side that pays them, are authors really different? [I can find his bias and assumptions here, can you?] Today S&V are little known, like Tom Mooney, Bill Haywood, or Lizzie Borden (p.207). Unlike other books there are no photographs. Russell created this shorter book to argue his belief. In "Tragedy in Dedham" Russell said Vanzetti was innocent (p.466). Did he change his mind again?

Did the District Attorney offer to fix the case for $50,000? Or was that just a scam by his close friend (p.14)? Suspicious either way? There is a letter in Chapter 2 with statements that are nto corroborated. Chapter 3 provides a historical background of the people involved in the defense. There is the quote from Carlo Tresca that Sacco was guilty but Vanzetti innocent (p.29). Yet both claimed innocence. People were divided and emotional about S&V (Chapter 4). [Was that like a religious belief?] If they were convicted because of mistaken identity "their conviction was flawed" (p.38). Chapter 5 tells of the robbery-murder in Braintree. Russell shows his sarcasm towards the defense team. He is particularly nasty to Michael Musmanno, an elected Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court; Musmanno joined the Naval Reserve and ended a Captain when he was a judge at Nuremberg. Chapter 6 tells how S&V were arrested for trying "to steal a auto" (p.61). Chapter 7 tells about anarchists of the 1890s and the history of Sacco and Vanzetti. Russell says S&V separately left for Mexico in the hope of returning to Italy to start a revolution (p.77). S&V became anarchists after coming to America (p.85).

Chapter 8 tells about the many who believed S&V innocent although they were neither anarchists or immigrants. The experts testified about Bullet III. S&V's stories about their presence in Bridgewater were contradictory (p.104). In Chapter 9 Russell asks if they got "a fair trial", where the rules were followed. [This is not the same as "a just trial".] Chapter 10 tells of the growing protest against S&V's conviction (pp.135-137). Russell never asks "why?" (P.141). Chapter 11 discusses Bullet III, the ONLY link between Sacco and the crime. While a bullet can be linked to the gun that fired it, there is no way to determine when it was fired (p.152). A bullet would be deformed by firing into a wooden plank (p.159)! Berardelli has a .32 revolver (p.163), it was not the .38 revolver owned by Vanzetti! Did they know who drove the bandit car (p.171)? Chapter 13 says Federal agents knew Katzmann framed S&V (pp.175-176). Or did they (p.179)? Could the files have been cleansed "absolutely nothing in the files" (p.180)? Did Russell expect a reply to his letter (p.191)? Russell's attitude shows (p.194).

There were no surprises in the Lowell Committee archives (Chapter 15). Chapter 16 ends with Russell's colorful opinions on other cases. [Do not depend on them for the whole story.] Russell does not mention the long detective work in tracing the explosives (p.211). Aside from this book, most modern books claim innocence for S&V (p.213). There are notes about the "Bribe Offer" (p.219). Russell ends with a show of his skill at writing (p.220). Russell argues for guilt but this book presents facts that contradict his opinion. Do not read this book unless you have a background knowledge of this case. Russell can't explain why so many believe in their innocence.

This is by far the worst "scholarly" work I've ever read. I never would have finished if I wasn't being paid to read it. Here's why: 1) All sources with allegedly commumnist affiliations are dismissed as un-believable. 2) Although he Russell claims to have read the trial transcript and he concludes that it supports his conclusions, he only quotes the jury instructions in support of his conclusions. 3) He discounts the 21 witnesses for the defence as members of a catholic/Italian conspiracy and therefore they are not credible. 4) Russell has footnotes but they are limited to newspaper headlines and other books. Russell makes many conclusions based on works he does not give citations to. 5) He concludes that Sacco's son's silence is proof of his father's innocense. When, Dante finally spoke out most eloquently in his fathers defense, Russell discounts Dante's words as "too eloquent" to have been written by Dante and therefore Dante is not credible. 6) Russell relies on evidence of people who made claims but those people all died before they could be cross examined or even double-checked. 7) Russell is inconsistent in presenting what evidence he has bothered to present. Russell relies on a letter (he claims he has) implicating Sacco, but also the letter states that the DA at the time was willing to ensure exile for S&V for $35,000; two pages latter Russell is lauding the DA for his moral standing and saying he never offered to let S&V go for a bribe. 8) Finally, Russell relies on balistic tests on Sacco's gun which had been tampered with and which had been in the Judge's possession for years after the trial.

In conclusion, the balistic evidence does give some food for thought. But the circumstances surrounding Sacco's gun are too strange for such balistic evidence to be considered as the slam-dunk of evidence in this case. For a better presentation of the balistic evidence watch the documentary on S&V's balistic evidence. Russell refers to the documentary in the book, but he doesn't give a footnote for it; I assume it was PBS, probably NOVA.

For a more objective presentation of the evidence read any encyclopedic entry.

I have no idea about exactly what happened in South Braintree in 1920, and neither apparently does anyone else. People's interpretations of the evidence seems to divide along political lines.

However, Mr. Russell's man-crushes on Katzmann and other figures in the case are useless as evidence. "No one could imagine the prosecutor sending innocent men to their deaths" is absolutely meaningless drivel. And whatever ballistics evidence Russell feels can be had from firing old bullets from an old gun still does not prove who fired that gun on the day of the crime.

The jury will always be out on this case. Whatever merits or demerits Mr. Russell's book has, it does nothing to resolve the case, or remove the fact that guilty or innocent, Sacco & Vanzetti did not get a fair and honest trial.

Francis Russell spent a lifetime studying this case but was it a life well spent? Russell's 1962 book "Tragedy in Dedham" is a well-written and thorough, though now very dated, account but this one was dashed off late in his life. The book weaves together some new evidence, quashes all of Russell's own earlier doubts, and seems designed to put his own mind to rest. Its scholarship is shoddy, its selection of evidence highly suspect, and its conclusions far from solid. The writing isn't very good, either. As to the verdict, this book will give you all the evidence for the men's guilt. That's why it's so slim. If it contained all the evidence for their innocence, it would be 500 pages, like lawyer Herbert Ehrmann's "The Case That Will Not Die." The debate over Sacco and Vanzetti goes on and anyone who claims the case is resolved obviously has an agenda to serve. In Russell's case, it was the conservative agenda of "The National Review" for whom he had frequently written, whose backers simply could not admit that an American court could have brought and sustained this verdict that shocked the world. The truth of this case is elusive but one thing is indisputable -- the men did not get a fair trial and deserved a second one.