 It is now 12 o'clock so without further ado welcome everyone to the September 25th History Bites lecture sponsored by the Amherst History Society and today's speaker will be Bruce Watson who along with his popular column in the Amherst Bulletin has written for the Smithsonian American Heritage Yankee Nautilus and other publications. He's the author of four books on American history and a recent book on the history of the Johns Library. Currently he writes The Attic which is an online magazine for a kinder cooler America. I would like to say that I first met Bruce when he was coaching my son's Little League team and that was the time that I came to respect his talents as a sportswriter. This is a small valley with a lot of very talented people and you never quite know who you're gonna run into. But today Mr. Watson is going to talk about his book on the Sacco and Vensity trial and its aftermath. In the words of the nation, quote, dozens of books have been written about the case but Bruce Watson's Sacco and Vensity, the men, the murders and the judgment of mankind, is the most thorough and readable plumbing yet of the case record, unquote. So without further ado, here is Bruce Watson. Hello, one and all. Thanks for having me into your Zoom rooms. I don't do this as often as most people. Can you all hear me? Okay, I'd ask everybody have your mic muted and I'll hold forth for about 30 or 40 minutes with pictures and slides and things and then open it up to questions and I trust because I'm just skimming over this. I would just be skimming over this vast case that you will have questions because as I said, as I wrote in my preface to the letters of Sacco and Vensity, which Viking put out when this book came out, Sacco and Vensity are still on trial and probably all this will be. And so I'm welcome, when I wrote the book about what 13 years ago came out, it was the 80th anniversary of their execution and not thinking about this, of course, time I didn't realize all these other anniversaries would be coming up. We have now entered a period where the 100th anniversary of all sorts, the 100th anniversary of the whole case, will now march before us until 2027. Last April was the 100th anniversary of the crime that they were accused of. We'll talk about that. Next May will be the 100th anniversary of the trial and we'll talk about that. And then the 100th anniversary of a whole bunch of milestones, including the years of appeal and finally, of course, the execution. So I'm going to start with February. I'm going to start at the beginning. I'm trying to share this. There you go. You should be seeing the cover of the book. It starts at the end or toward the end with a very sad letter from Sacco. And his English after years in America was not great, but I felt it was important to quote it exactly as he wrote it. February 4th, 1927, Devon Jail, Dear Bartolo. Here I am always in this narrow sad cell walking up and down, up and down while I were giving, while I were trying to give an idea to each one of the dear images that very often they cross my mind. After all these long persecution years instead to open our prison door, the storm continues to pass upon our shoulder, one more cruel than the other. But there beneath these turbulent clouds, a luminous path run always toward the truth. This morning, just soon as I were sitting, I took my pen and I began to write you this lines with certain that you would be pleased to get it and to know that through all these long way crossroad, I am still alive. Oops, sorry. Okay, I didn't know I did that. Very shortly after that on the day, my story sort of begins at the beginning, at the end of the day of their execution. It was August 22nd, 1927. And it was one of the more astounding days in American history. The world was very peaceful at the time. There were no major wars going on, but there was a huge war going on over the fate of these two men, Sacramento and Zeddy. They were by then world famous, perhaps the most famous men in the world. And in every capital in the world, Paris, Johannesburg, Tokyo, Buenos Aires, London, Rome, Brussels, Boston and New York, and many more, there were protests saved Sacramento and Zeddy. To this one agonizing Monday, all talk of tomorrow ceased and all attention focused on a huge granite prison in Massachusetts where Sacramento and Zeddy were due to die at midnight. They had been presented in the press as a good shoemaker and the poor fish peddler. They were much more than that. That was a bit of a distortion, as we'll talk about. Now, as I say, they're the most famous people on the planet. To some people, they were demonic, murderers, anarchists, immigrants bent on savaging everything we stood for. And to others, they were shining lights, gentle pacifists framed by a heartless judge and a ruthless prosecutor. Almost no one knew them as men, which I was lucky to get to do, one a dedicated father and the other a vagabond with a soul of a poet. And both, as we later found out, were fierce militants, anarchists. And so, outside the American embassy in Paris, tanks squared off against angry mobs. And of course, as we know, the execution went on anyway. And the next day, there were riots in Paris. It broke up the Moulin Rouge. It broke windows in London. People simply couldn't believe that Massachusetts went through with this. And there were, after a while, some occasional anniversaries. But my favorite quote about the memory of Sack of Manzetti came from none other than Albert Einstein. He said on the 20th anniversary of the execution, everything should be done to keep alive the tragic affairs of Sack of Manzetti and the conscience of mankind. They remind us of the fact that even the most perfectly planned democratic institutions are no better than the people whose instruments they are. So about 20, about 17 years ago, after I wrote a book about bread and roses strike, I thought, I was looking for my next book, and I noticed something at the end of the book, and that was a guy named Nicholas Sacko, who had attended some of the bread and roses, some of the bread and roses protests in Lawrence, a whole other story, and heard some of the people who were in the Sack of Manzetti book speak. And so this was sort of a sequel in a way. However, as the 80th anniversary approach, I had one little problem. There had been a few books about Sack of Manzetti. In fact, I think there is something like 50 of them. Here are just some of them. And so what was I going to find that was new? What was that? Well, amazingly enough, I did find an awful lot that was new. But in addition to new things, which I could discuss later if you're interested, I decided I would take a different approach. Unlike the others, I would not be right a polemic. Every one of these books takes a very, very strong point of view. A few, such as, I don't know if you can see my pointer here, but a few such as this one, Sack of Manzetti, The Murder and The Myth, and protests, Sack of Manzetti, the rituals, absolutely the men are guilty, and they give you all this information, and you feel like you're being beaten with a blunt instrument. But the others, which argue for the innocence of the men, are really not much easier to read. They are also really these polemics. And I don't know about you, but when I'm reading a history book and I'm being told what to think, I start to think the other. And it's the thing, what would you're not telling the full story here? Why don't you let me decide? And so that's what I decided I would do. I would tell the full story and let people decide. And so throughout the book, I never say, my book, I never say whether I think they were guilty or innocent. I'd be glad to share my opinion with you later. But let's let you decide. The story begins with one of the worst terrorist attacks in American history until 9-11. And I'll start right here. This. Neatly wrapped and labeled, 30 identical bombs were mailed from Manhattan in late 1919. Each bomb was addressed to a prominent American, John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and each was a masterpiece of sinister intent. Enclosed in brown paper bags, the long thin packages were marked Gimble Brothers, New York, Sample, and graced with the drawing of an alpine mountaineer. Pending on their destination, some bombs were mailed earlier than others so that all would be detonated in one devastating May Day demonstration. Along with more famous recipients, the targets of the plot included many prominent Americans singled out for suppressing radicals. Among these were Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, who you see here, congressman from both parties, and Judge Kennesaw Mountain Landis. He was a baseball commissioner. But before he was a baseball commissioner, his court had sent scores of wobblies from the IWW into jail, guilty of sedition. Seattle's mayor targeted for breaking a general strike that winter received the first bomb. Taking the tan package from the mayor's mail, a clerk unwrapped it upside down. A slim vial of acid fell to the floor, leaving hundreds of metal slugs packed around a stick of dynamite. The package was taken to the bomb squad who admired its ingenuity. The following day in Georgia, an ex-senator received his Gimble's package. His wife started to open it, but thinking it contained only pencils, she told her maid to put the contents in a cabinet. Tearing off the paper, the maid unscrewed the top of the enclosed tube. Two screws punctured a glass file, pouring acid onto cotton wadding. The acid soaked through the cotton. The bomb blew off the maid's hands. That afternoon, a dozen other Gimble's packages arrived in post office throughout the nation. I hope I have your attention. The bombs did not go off, but this headline is from three weeks later, when midnight bombs were delivered to officials in eight cities. Bombers died, as it says at the Attorney General's house. One guy who was bringing it to Attorney General Palmer's house in Washington, DC, tripped and fell on the steps and blew himself all over the neighborhood. Right across the street, Franco Delano Roosevelt and his wife had just come home. So that was how close we came. There were bombs in Cleveland and Pittsburgh and Boston, et cetera, and that set off a series of events called the Palmer raids. You might have heard of them. A. Mitchell Palmer and other and his men, led by a 24-year-old J. Edgar Hoover, masterminded these raids that rounded up thousands of so-called radicals, and 250 were deported. The raids were just winding down, just about 100 years ago this spring, when in April 1920, on this street, this is brain tree, believe it or not. If you go there now, it's a strip mall and CVS and everything, but this is what it looked like on April 15th, 1920. Right about three in the afternoon. This is a shoe factory over here. Another one over here on both sides. I don't know if you can see the arrow. And right around three o'clock when the payroll was coming through town, they actually would, in those days, they would actually march the payroll, several thousand envelopes each containing $20,000 to $30,000. So something like $15,000 in cash being marched in a strong box by two guards around the corner and right past this window. Dozens of people were looking out both windows because here comes to pay. And right about that time, a car, an old car, actually a shiny new car came running up. Two men jumped out of the car. They gunned down the payroll clerks. They stole the box. They took off here through the gate. They took the corner almost on two wheels. They threw tax out the back window. The two men lay dying in the street and the people poured into the street to see what was going on. There were a number of witnesses, as I say. It was a shocking crime. There was one of many armed robberies being held at that time. And America, the local paper, the brain tree paper set, had to stand firm and stamp out lawlessness and terrorism. Two weeks later, these men were arrested. It was a dark night in May. They were out looking, they said, for anarchist literature because they thought they were anarchists, as we'll discuss later. They thought another Palmer raid was coming. Two of their friends, incidentally, who had been involved in the bombings we just discussed. And there was evidence that Sackland-Banzetti knew all about them because it was their group that did the bombing, although no evidence that they were actually planning any of the bombs. Two of their friends were in VEPI custody or Bureau custody in New York. And Sackland-Banzetti were convinced that another raid was coming, so they said. And they were out on a dark night in May. And there was a trap set for them if anyone comes for this car. And they were arrested on a street car. Now, this is the most famous picture in Sackland-Banzetti. It's on the cover of my book. It was 1923, you see over here on, I guess it would be your left. Next to Banzetti's hand, there's another man there out of the picture. Their hand kept together. Sackland looks lean because he's in the middle of a hunger strike. They've been in jail for three years. This is the picture their supporters loved because this is a picture that makes them look like innocent victims. Here's the picture of them that appeared the day after the crime in the Boston papers. They don't look so innocent now. These are the mug shots that would be touted throughout all the way up until their trial. They look like, sort of, Sackland with the little top hat or the little bowler. Looks like the brains of the gang, Banzetti with that mustache looks like an ordinary thought. These were the mug shots that were taken of them the day after they were arrested and put into custody. They were fully armed when arrested. They lied when questioned. But it's interesting to look at the transcript of the initial questioning because that sort of tells you a little bit about men. Are you a communist? The chief asked Sacco? No. Anarchist? No. Do you believe in this government of ours? Yes. Some things I like different. Banzetti, questioned by the same chief, echoed his friends evasions. Are you an anarchist, the chief asked? Well, I don't know what you call them. I'm a little different. Do you like this government? Well, I like things a little different. Do you believe in changing the government by force, if necessary? No. Do you subscribe for literature or papers of the anarchist party? Sometimes I read them. So the two men killed who killed two guards or led cues to killing two guards in broad daylight were anarchists. Now, let's put that in perspective. Today, we are hearing the word anarchist bannered around with some of the Black Lives Matter protests, but it's not the same thing. In the 1900s, early 1900s, anarchists were the terrorists of their time. An anarchist had killed President William McKimmy. He said, I did my job. I'm an anarchist. An anarchist had killed an Austrian Empress. An anarchist killed a Spanish Premier. An anarchist who was living in New Jersey went back to Italy and killed the king of Italy. An anarchist killed the president of France, and it was an anarchist who fired the bullet in Sarajevo that triggered World War I. So surely, these men had to be guilty of this crime. Now, there will be all sorts of questions about do anarchists actually do armed robberies or are they just assassins? Most anarchists, of course, believe in a peaceful transition to anarchy, but that's a different story. But sacrament bans any word we now know devout anarchists. It was a creed for them. Anarchism in those days, let me see if I can try to explain it, it was a belief that not in lawlessness. It was a belief that had a deep philosophy that was both naive and tragically naive and hopeful and in some aspects sinister. Anarchists believe that like the people in a lifeboat, people without any laws, any government, any religion, any police would get along. They would just cooperate. Have sweet. How nice. That's a nice thought. But there were some anarchists who believed in what was called the propaganda of the deed and that was the assassination. That was the bombing. That was the type of thing. How that was going to lead to a society? I have no idea, but there's still anarchists who believe that and don't get me started. Anyway, let's go to the trial. So after a year, the men came to trial and they were put in a cage as people, an open cage as people in capital crimes were in Massachusetts in those days. Here you see Banzetti and Sacco, and that's Sacco's wife Rosina talking to them prior to the trial. The trial transcript is 2,000 pages long. I read it all. It's two very thick volumes and it's fascinating. It was not hard to read it at all because you saw so much more than just reading the books about the trial. I don't know if the other authors had read the books or not, but read the whole transcript or not. I think not because it wasn't published until the 60s, but at any rate, the trial lasted 37 days. There were 167 witnesses. Most of the trial took place during intense heat with the courtroom doors open and windows open and jurors sweating, no air conditioning at all. It was the courthouse in Dedham, which is still there. It's a national landmark, although for certain reasons they chose not to put that up outside. The courtroom was an armed camp. There were police all over the courtroom. These were anarchists after all, and they had bombed a court. The courtroom was an armed camp. Sacco and Banzetti were marched every day through the streets from the jail a couple of blocks away, completely surrounded by policemen up to stairs and into the court. That might prejudice a jury, do you think? The testimony was given in Italian, Spanish, and broken English. It was laden with details about guns and bullets and tenders and cars. That part was really hard to read. Now, as far as evidence, there were eight witnesses who identified Sacco and Banzetti at the scene of the crime. I seen this fellow shoot this fellow. I love the language of the 20s. I seen this fellow shoot this fellow, one witness said, and one man told the courtroom it was a last shot. He put four bullets into him. Remember that? Four bullets. The gunman, one man said, had a dark green pair of pants and an army shirt tucked up. He had a wavy hair pushed back, very strong, wiry hair, very dark, dark complexion. Staring at Sacco another added, I wouldn't say he was a man, but he's a dead image of the man I seen. However, there were more than a dozen witnesses, including only a few, some only a few yards away, who didn't identify the man, who said who couldn't. One of them said, the best I can remember is close shaven, clean shaven. I don't, I never seen any mustache. And another said, well, I can't say they are the man or they're not the man, because I ain't sure. But there was more evidence. There was a cap. Please raise your hand if this reminds you of another trial, something that might fit or might not. The cap was said to have been, was found at the scene of the crime the day after the crime. Nobody said that during your trial, but it was found there the day after the crime. It was said to have been Sacco's. He always hung it on a, on a nail when he, when he went to work in the shoe factory, in his own shoe factory. And there was a hole in the back of the, of the cap. Get to that later, maybe. Some people said it fits Sacco. You can judge from yourself in our photos. So it looks here like it doesn't. Sacco said it didn't, but that was part of the, part of the evidence. And there were guns. This was Sacco's Colt. This was Vanzetti's, Harrington revolver. Found, found on them when they were arrested. There were all sorts of debates about whether or not about the gun, we'll get to the Sacco's gun in a minute. Vanzetti's gun was said to have been lifted from the guard. The guard, one of the guards was found with no gun on him. And how could that be? So they said the Sacco said Vanzetti took the gun. And above all, there were bullets. These four bullets were taken out of, were said to be, have been taken out of the guard, Berardelli. As you can see, three of them have slants going one way. And one of them, bullet number three, has slant grooves going the other way. It was said these bullets were test fired, bullets were test fired from Sacco's gun. Sacco said, I'm innocent. I have no reason not to let you test a gun. So about two weeks into the trial, don't know why they didn't do this sooner. They took the gun, Sacco's gun, they test fired several bullets through it, and they came away with bullets that resemble this. And they use this as, as the prosecution used it. There was a state police captain who said, my opinion is that bullet three is consistent with being fired with that pistol, by that pistol. And another cat, another guy said, another expert said, I'm inclined to believe that it was fired. Now, bullet number three was fired from this automatic pistol. But two defense experts swore that bullet three did not match. And then there's a question, if four bullets were fired into one guy, why would only one of them resemble, be, be linked to the crime? Finally, there was anarchism. And there was a long testimony, even though it was advised, even though various people advised Sacco against it, he was called to testify, Benzetti was called to testify. And their testimony is tragic to read, because they just simply incriminate in themselves as anarchists before the whole court. Not only anarchists, but draft dodgers. During World War One, just a few years before, they had gone to Mexico to dodge the draft. Basically, they'd gone with their anarchist circle. They'd stayed there for six weeks, and come back. And all of that came out in the court. So they're not only anarchists, they're draft dodgers two years after World War One, when 100,000 people were killed. And so the testimony, Sacco's testimony went on for two days, but in fact, by that time, the testimony was basically the jury had made of its mind. But there's one other ingredient in this. And that is the judge. This is Judge Webster Seder. He will be the judge, not only he was a judge of a trial before this, where Benzetti was convicted of a crime that he clearly did not commit. And now here he is again, he asked for and he was given this trial. Judge Steyer was born in the 1870s, he's from Worcester. He was a not so eminent Victorian. And above all, he hated anarchists, whom he called anarchists. He once said if he could save the country from anarchists by going through a door being shot down, he would. And here he was with an anarchist, anarchist in his court. And not only whether the defendants anarchists, their lawyer was, this is Fred Moore, he was an IWWI'er. He had gone around the country defending wobblies in all sorts of charges. He was not only, he was not especially competent, I don't think. And you can come up with your own reasons why. But he was, above all, not only an anarchist and known radical, but he was, get ready for this, from California. I am from California, so I can make a joke about that. Whenever Fred Moore addressed the judge, one lawyer recalled, it was quite similar to having a red flag waved in the face of a wolf. Mr. Moore would make an objection of some remark. And it would be perfectly clear that God under Judge Steyer's skin. With each confrontation, the judge summoned his propriety, informing Mr. Moore that such tactics might work in the West or in California, but not in Massachusetts. Very early into the trial, reporters were shocked by some of the things Judge Steyer was saying during the lunch hour. He would come back on the way for lunch and he would say, I'll show them that no long-haired anarchist in California can run this court. And then he would say, you wait till I give my charge to the jury. He said, I'll show them. Now, I read all the books. I read the full transcript. I thought I had everything I needed to know about the trial, but then, and this is a very good lesson for historians, go to the scene of the crime. In this case, not the scene of the crime, but the scene of the trial. So I went to get them and I went to the courthouse. You can go right in. It looks pretty much like it did in 1920. Beautiful walnut paneling and things. And then I walked around the corner to where the jail was. And the jail is now a series of condominiums. The only link to Sacramento Manzetti is if you look inside, there's a picture. I couldn't go in because they're condos. But if you look inside, there's a picture of Sacramento Manzetti and it says that this is the jail. But when I turned around, I saw something I hadn't read about in any of the books about Sacramento Manzetti because right across from the jail is a graveyard. The jury reached to verdict in three hours, but decided it would look hasty if announced so soon. A journey for dinner, they returned to the jury, jury room at 7.30. Out on the courthouse steps, lawyers were enjoying the cool of the evening, expecting the deliberation to drag on, perhaps for days. Then at 7.55 p.m., word raced through the square. Within minutes, the courtroom was sealed off. Arm guards took their posts inside and out. Sacramento Manzetti were hurried out of their cells, down the street and through a side entrance, arriving in the lighted courtroom just 10 minutes after the news had been announced. Sacco looked deathly pale. Manzetti's broad forehead was creased, his brow furrowed. More MDA castmen waited at their tables. More was tapping a pencil and shifting his gaze. Finally, the jury entered, each man averting his eyes. Judge Thayer told the clerk, you will please take the verdict. Gentlemen of the jury, have you agreed upon your verdict? We have. Nicholas Sacco, the clerk called. Sacco stood and raised his right hand. Present, he said. What say you, Mr. Forman? Is the prisoner at the bar guilty or not guilty? The verdict was met with no gasp, no expressions of surprise. Sacco remained silent as his friend rose and raised one hand. When the same verdict was announced, Manzetti stood stunned. His right hand raised for several seconds. The packed courtroom remained quiet. Gentlemen of the jury, Judge Thayer began. I again offer you thanks for your services. But seconds after the judge's gavel cracked down, Sacco's voice rang out. Sono inocente, he cried. Juries were already filed out, but Sacco pointed at them. Two innocent men, he shouted. You killed two innocent men. As the words lingered, a streak of red hair surged from behind the cage. Bursting past startled guards, Rosina Sacco flung herself at her husband. Her hat fell to the floor. She leaned over the iron rail and threw her arms around Sacco. You bet your life she cried. What am I going to do? I've got two children. Oh, Nick, they kill my man. Sorry. Benzetti watched his eyes melting as Rosina buried her face in her husband's shoulder. Sacco stood, holding his wife, caressing her hair, whispering to her. Guards hesitated. Judge Thayer stood and walked out. Don't forget, Sacco shouted at him. Two innocent men, they killed. Finally, a guard pried Rosina loose and led her away, sobbing and calling for his son. When the courtroom cleared, Benzetti, when the courtroom cleared, Benzetti, sorry, where am I here? When the courtroom cleared, Casper retired to the DA's office, refusing to talk to the press. Fred Morris strolled alone through the town square to a diner. At a counter, the lieutenant greeted him. Tough luck, Mr. Moore. What could you expect with the case I had, Moore said. As the last rays of light faded from the summer sky, Sacco and Benzetti made one more march through the streets of Dedham. Hemmed in by police, handcuffed to deputies, they walked again past the tall white steeple of the first church, beside the black shuttered colonial homes beneath the wrestling trees. More than a hundred people had gathered along the common to stare. Passing white picket fences, the two Italians walked in a daze, spelled by a single word, guilty, that made this warm July twilight seem nightmarish, surreal and final. Turning the corner, they saw the jail looming ahead, marching toward it, not knowing when they would again see this side of its walls. The condemned men took one last look at Dedham's colonial stage set. The last thing they saw before entering the jail was the graveyard. I'll come back to that in a minute. The story would have ended there and they thought it would. All of the anarchists that they had read about and that they knew of, who had been convicted, had been gone to jail within months, weeks sometimes. And so they expected that would happen right away. They had no idea that over the next six years they would be touted around the world. Their names chanted in streets around the world as victims of injustice, championed by all sorts of social reformers, poets, writers, artists, etc. Because Fred Moore was a pretty lousy lawyer, but he was a very good propagandist. And he spent the next three years before they changed lawyers, touting their case around the world and trying to drum up support. He also researched five appeals that were too complex for me to go into here. But it turns out that a lot of the witnesses who had convicted, who had identified sacraments, that he retained it with all sorts of prejudices and uncertainties. One of them had said, I don't know who they are. These men, they're pressuring me to say they identified them. I know them. She went into court and clearly identified the man even though she had all sorts of doubts. Another guy had a criminal record as long as your arm. There were questions about the bullets that captain who had said I consistent with. The bullet is consistent with going through the gun. Later said I never intended to say it was a gun. I just said consistent with. They forced me to, so now the prosecution is charged, basically subordined perjury. There were all sorts of other charges, but every single appeal was held before the same judge, Judge Thayer. And every single appeal was denied, denied, denied, denied. So as you can see, you can see where this is headed. And right after he denied the last appeal, Judge Thayer went to Dartmouth where he was an alumni and he went to his alumni reunion and he said to a friend, did you see what I did to those anarchist bastards the other day? I guess that'll hold him for a while. Let them go to the Supreme Court now and see what they can get out of them. Well, of course that quote later came to life. The trial did go to the Supreme Court. There was a new lawyer, very noble man named William Thompson. He was a Boston corporate lawyer. He did not have to take this case, but he thought it was wrong. This had been going on and they should not, injustice had been going on. They should not be going, going to the electric chair. He risked his reputation and defended them for the next three years. And there was also a confession and it led to a certain other. Okay, here's another example of some of the, some of the protests around the world. And there was a man in jail down the hall from Sacco, a man named Celestino Medeiros, who came up with a confession, who confessed in 1925. He said, I was in that car, the car that came up and gunmen jumped out and gunned the man down. I was 20 years old. I was drunk. I was scared to death. Sacco man said he had nothing to do with this crime. And he fingered, he put the blame on this man, Joe Morelle. He said the Morelle gang out of Providence was robbing shoe factories in those days. They were, they went up there. We went, we drove up into Braintree. We did the robbery. We ditched the car. We took off and Sacco Man's Eddie Renison. Another reason, another appeal denied by Judge Thayer. But it's very interesting to look at these two men. This is Joe Morelle. This is Sacco. They look an awful lot alike. And in fact, people who were shown the two, the lawyers took, took a stack of mug shots, including Morelle and Sacco and some others. And people looked at him and they pull out Morelle and they say, this is Sacco, isn't it? And he said, I never saw a man. Two men look so much alike. So another case, another appeal, it goes to the state supreme court. Our esteemed Massachusetts state supreme court denied again. They ruled, and this is a quote I want to give you from the Massachusetts state supreme court. It is not imperative that a new trial be granted even though the evidence is newly discovered and presented to a jury would justify a different verdict. I'm going to read that again. It is not imperative that a new trial be granted even though evidence is newly discovered and it presented to a jury would justify a different verdict. So what you see going on here, this is sort of an Alice in Wonderland type statement from the trial and Alice in Wonderland is Massachusetts in those days was a very different place than it is now. And if you've read about it, you know that he was very conservative, very proud of its institutions, very locked down. Some people said it was the most conservative place in, socially conservative place in America. And you have the entire world coming together and pointing fingers at Massachusetts, not just the town of debt. I'm not just Norfolk County, but Massachusetts is doing this. And Massachusetts said, you're not going to tell us that our institutions could be flawed. You're not going to tell us that a Norfolk jury, 12 men, and our own supreme court and our own system of appeals, all these appeals could be wrong. We can't let this happen. And one guy even stood up in front of a group and said, it's more important that two innocent men go, it's more important that the institutions of Massachusetts be upheld, even if two innocent men have to die. And so the protests continued right up until the day of the event. This is Sacco Land's ID coming out for their sentencing. As you see, they're surrounded by cops. This is in Dedham going into the courthouse. They're simply astonished at their fame and their reputation and how this has come, has made them so notorious. Banzendi said something along the lines of, all of our writing, all of our being, all of our actions for anarchy have done nothing. But this, this is our final triumph. And so he felt it somewhat vindicated. The protests continued. I'm sorry, I'm not going to stop that because I wanted to go back a bit. Hang on a sec. I'm going to go back one. What happened to the antecedents in the way? Anyway, I had, so we'll do it from there. Okay, back to this. Where am I? Are you seeing this screen, Sacco Manzendi? I'm not really sure. Okay, back to the Zoom. Okay. There we go. Sorry about that. There were protests held. All sorts of famous writers, Enesine Vincent Millay was protesting, John Drozd passives. Dorothy Parker, the celebrated wit from the Algonquin Roundtable, came to Boston and somehow snuck into, somehow snuck into the prison the night before the execution. So eventually, of course, I had to describe an execution and I wrote probably the saddest thing I've ever written in my life about how the men were led to the, led to the electric chair and they were done in. And right after this, there was a funeral held. 200,000 people marched through the streets of Boston. The men were re-uogized and eventually buried and their ashes were cremated and taken back to, back to Italy. And I want to read the last part of this. While the crowd drifted away in a driving rain, this is the body, this is after the, after the funeral. While the crowd drifted away in a driving rain, the bodies were taken to the crematorium. Within the hour and ash and thin clume of smoke were all that remained. All week, there'd been talk and a few arguments about what to do with the ashes. Plans were made to send them on a tour to London, Paris, and across Europe. The day after the funeral, hundreds in Manhattan waited in vain for the ashes to arrive. They had to settle in, they had to settle for seeing the death masks and a few, and a quick appearance by Rosina, cheered by 10,000 people in New York's Union Square. Sacco's widow had considered circling, circulating her copper urn of ashes, but chose instead to divide its contents. She gave some to the Brini, it's a family that had been Vanzetti's friend. She kept some and she sent the rest of the ashes back to Italy with Luigia Vanzetti, Vanzetti's sister, who had come to see her sister, her brother one last time. Luigia wanted no part of any tour of the ashes. Two urns, each containing a mixture of the men's ashes, crossed the Atlantic with Vanzetti's sister. When she arrived in Villa Fuletto, which was Vanzetti's hometown, near the entire town met her train and followed her to the cemetery amidst the flat fields with the alps in the distance, and visited Villa Fuletto's writings. There, one urn was entombed beside the remains of Vanzetti's mother. Another urn was sent south to Sacco's town of Torre Maggiore, where the Sacco family buried it in the cemetery, overlooking the soft green olive groves like those young Nicola had once tended. In ashes and sorrow, forever intermingled, Sacco and Vanzetti had come home. This is a plaque made by Gutson Borglum, the man who carved Mount Rushmore, one of many people who wanted to help commemorate the case. It was interesting, in the years after the case, to read about how it was dealt with in Boston. Boston was still in shock. The whole town had knuckled down and for the most part supported the execution. Gutson Borglum's presented this plaque to the city of Boston, and Boston said no way. Another year later, on the first anniversary, he did it again. And for several more years, he presented it. In 1997, Mayor Menino said, okay, we'll take the plaque and we'll put it on display. It still isn't on display. It's in, it's in the Boston Public Library, up in the archives, where they have the Sacco and Vanzetti papers. I saw it every time I walked in to see those papers. So Boston still has a guilty conscience. As you might know, in 1977, on the 50th anniversary of the case, Governor Michael Dukakis did not pardon the men, but he said, but he cleared them of all charges. And so he said the, he admitted that the institutions of justice in Massachusetts, which we are so proud of, did not serve Sacco and Vanzetti. He said they deserved second trial, and that's about as far as he would go. And so the case remains. There are still people today who are absolutely convinced the Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty. And in the next few years, as this case says, some universities unfold, you're going to see this battle wage again. The bullets will be brought out, the cap will be brought out as if it fits Sacco perfectly. The, all of the witnesses who swore they were the men will be trotted in front of conservatives. I know this is going to blow up. It's going to be, we're more divided now than we were then. And it's going to be the same type of thing, especially in 1927. And you will have all sorts of people telling you they were guilty. They were anarchists. Everything happened. Some people tell you that Sacco is guilty and Vanzetti innocent. That was a theory that circled for a while. What do you think? I throw it open to questions. Please turn on your mics and let them fly. Well, first, I have a question for you, which is simply, did you read all 50 books? No, I think there's some that are just not worth, it's clear there, there's nothing new. I read the major works. There were some written by one of, one of their lawyers, Herbert Ehrman, whose wife worked for a long time in there against the death penalty, Sarah Ehrman, well known in Boston. And I read his because they present the case of the Maderos. I read the Tragedy and Dedim, the one by Francis Russell, a long time Boston institution that said Sacco is guilty, Vanzetti not. Russell wrote a follow book that said he thought they were both guilty because an anarchist from the old Boston days told him that they were. I read Upton Sinclair's novel about the case. I read a case by some UMass, a book by some UMass professors in the 80s that used ballistic evidence to prove their innocence. And I read several more. And of course I read the whole, each transcript book is this thick. I read all of those and all the papers are three more. So I did a lot of research. And when Governor Dukakis didn't pardon the men, to pardon someone assumes that they were guilty, doesn't it? Yes. So this would have been a fine point that he wasn't going to say that they were guilty. That is, that is, I think maybe one of the reasons he avoided it. In the 30th anniversary, there had been some hearings in 1957. There had been some hearings in the state house, state legislature, to try to do something along the lines of that. And no, it was not going to have people shouted down. And Dukakis was a young law student. He actually attended those hearings. And so 20 years later, he saw what that was going to do. And he took, he took this route. But even then it was very controversial. Some of the people who were involved in the trial, including I think some of the descendants of some of the witnesses, would not let him do that. And they protested loudly, but he did, he did get the pardon for the clearing passed. So it remained a very hot ticket even to now it's not so much. It will be again, I think, but not just in Boston. Would you say that or sorry? It seems to me that clearly we're not convicted in a fair trial. That's totally clear. My guess is they probably were innocent, but I don't know because we don't there's a lack of actual facts. I have an opinion. Yes, please. But the one thing I said in the book was they clearly deserved a second trial. And then I raised these questions and I will read them to you. If they were innocent, why did bullet three implicate Sacco? If they were substituted, if the bullets were substituted, which I honestly believe one was, but if they were substituted, how could such a crime be kept secret for so long? What were the men really doing armed to the teeth on the night they were arrested? They looked very guilty. And if they were really rounding up radical literature, as they said, why didn't they hide the radical literature in their own house, which when it was, which when they were searched, the houses were searched, they had plenty of radical literature there. Why did, why did they round up wait until five days after Vanzetti returned from New York, warning of imminent raids? Why did their anarchist friends stop Fred Moore's search for the real murders? And why did so many ghosts, including Fred Moore, their lawyer, their lawyer was later quoted saying he thought they were guilty and their first lawyer and some of the anarchists said that they thought they were guilty. But over that, what was that about? But if they were guilty, how did they get so many people? Casual witnesses, an Italian consulate clerk. There was a clerk that Sacco said he visited on the day of the, of the murders. That was his alibi. I was, I went to the Italian consulate in the north end. I was going to go back to, back to Italy. He was his wife was pregnant. I was getting my papers. I, there was this guy there who saw me and said, your picture is wrong. They had Fred Moore sent a guy to Italy, found the clerk. Like I said, I remember that guy, his picture was wrong. Yeah, that was April 15th, I think. So the guy wouldn't come to America, he refused to come to America. And Fred Moore just sort of read this into the trial and it was totally, totally lost. But how did they get all these people to lie for them if they were guilty? If they were guilty, why did those who heard the bandits speak? This happened in, came up in court. Why did they say the bandits fleeing that some term of the, the crime had shouted out, get out of the way, no accent, nothing. If Sacco was really there, why did, or guilty, why did he allow his gun to be, to be tested? If witnesses, this is the big one, if witnesses saw one gunman, four bullets into the, into the guard, how could Sacco fire one of those four bullets? How come only one implicated? Would Vansetti, who was, if he were guilty, have planned a public speech the next day or the next few days in front of his fellow workers? Would Sacco have taken the day off to do a payroll robbery and go on to work the next day? But the most crucial questions probe the depths of human nature. If either man was guilty, wouldn't, wouldn't even years of relentless and impassioned pleas qualify them for the most incredible liars and con men in world history? Finally, their letters came out and you should read them. They're very interesting. Sacco's are hard to read because the English was not that good. Vansetti's are marvelous. He was a wonderful, impassioned writer and there's nothing in those letters which they did not know would be published that suggest guilt. Walter Lippmann, the old pundit, when their letters came out, he said, if Sacco and Vansetti are really guilty, then everybody who does history based on documents should just quit because these are the letters of innocent men. So I do think they were innocent. Now you know. Other questions? Did they have alibis? Well, actually, do they, I think they're innocent of this crime, but they had alibis because they were covering up a much bigger crime. You remember, as I said briefly, but I sort of skipped over it, you remember those bombings? That was their group. That was the east, that was the anarchist fighters, they call themselves, and they were an east Boston anarchist group of Italians. Sacco and Vansetti were proud members. They went every week to the meeting. This was a group of people they had gone to Mexico with and to dodge the draft and came back. And while in Mexico, that group hardened into a very fierce group of anarchist fighters and they were responsible. Nobody knows again whether Sacco and Vansetti did it, but they were there during the planning. That's pretty well known, which means they were guilty conspiracy. They were planning all of these bombings. Do you remember the Wall Street bombing? It was only two weeks ago that it was a hundredth anniversary. Wall Street was laid low. Thirty people were killed by a bomb that went off. You can watch a PBS special. That was one of their friends who did it to protest Sacco Vansetti's indictment five days earlier. So they were involved with a rough group and they were not the sweet innocent people they were portrayed by their supporters. They weren't guilty. Most people admit of this crime, they were guilty of that crime. Their alibis where Sacco said I was at the Consulate Office. Vansetti said I was out peddling fish. He was a fish peddling. He had a bunch of people come in saying that they bought fish from him that day. And of course the DA said, how do you know? How can you remember when you bought a fish? And so that's pretty good attack. Anyway, those are the alibis. Other questions? Anyone? Well, well, thank you. Okay, I have one more screen I'd like to share with you here if I can. And that is I'm gonna share it right now. Don't go away. Some of you know this screen, I hope. Not that one. That one. Can you see it? It's the attic. The attic is what I do now and I've done it for three and a half years since a certain day in January in 2017. There are no politics in it because I was just so sick of seeing our history politicized that I decided even before the election, when it looked like it would not go the way it did, I decided that I would begin to write somehow not feel good history, but history that is for a kinder cooler America, as I say. And so every week there's a new article in the attic for a kinder cooler America. This week it's The Girls Who Played Hardball. It's about the women's baseball that you might have seen in the movie a few years ago or 20 years ago. Last week it was about Herbert Hoover and his efforts to feed Belgium and save millions of lives. A week before that it was about Will Rogers. A week before that it was about the science fiction writer Octavia Butler. You never know who you'll find in the attic. This was a praise for our mail service and this was about Robinson Jeffers, the poet. And if I take you somewhere else, you'll see by now I have 170 articles in the attic. I've been writing one a week. Here's one about Eliza Hamilton because I saw Hamilton. Here's one about Leslie Marmonsoco. Here's one about Emma Lazarus. Maya Lin. Let's go somewhere else while I'm here. There's scientists. I've got Richard Feynman and some others, some of the astronauts and Voyager. It's just my head is kind of an attic to tell you the truth and I'm just pulling all these stories out and here's one about Harry Metzalli and Pat Paulson for president and there are lists every week, although not a new list every week, but here's some of them and no fear nor rage, just a kinder cooler America and you can subscribe. It's free and every week you get a new article. You get a notice in your mailbox. One per week. I don't like to be deluged and neither do you and you get one email elite telling you about the new article in the attic. It's www.theattic.space and I hope you sign up. Okay and thank you for giving us this lecture on Sackle and Benzetti. I hope that you follow along in the next few years and watch as the as the anniversaries come up and perhaps even read Sackle and Benzetti. We have our copy. Yes. Okay. Thank you, George. Thank you everybody. Goodbye, everyone.