In the evidence found for the trial, seven witnesses said that they saw Sacco, or someone who looked like Sacco, nearby in the time of the crime. There was also evidence that the bullets found in the crime scene came out of Sacco's pistol. In the crime scenes, it was also found a cap with a hole in it that looked like it was from Sacco. A witness said that the cap looked like the style Sacco wore. When they were arrested, they had just gone to the house of the owner of a car repair shop where a man had taken an Overland to be repaired. In a prearranged plan, the wife of the repair shop owner called the police and Sacco and Venzetti suddenly left. People say they left because Sacco and Venzetti suspected the woman's actions of calling the police. Sacco also missed work the day of the crime. He worked at a shoe story but did not come in that day. When he was arrested he denied and lied about were he had been the whole day, if he know people that he obviously knew and denied having anarchists beliefs.
I think that all this evidence obviously explains that Sacco was guilty of the murder of those two men. I did not find a lot of information about Venzetti being involved in it but Sacco seemed to have so much evidence of being guilty of the murder. I think that they should not have been sentenced to death, if most, like in prision.
I think there is a lot of controversy with this case and you can see there is enough evidence on both sides to side them. They could have not been guilty because evidence could be wrong and some of it wasnt accurate. But you can also side the side that they were guilty and that they did deserve death. What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment