Ever since the court system was established in America, many have come to ask the question, “What case still raises controversy because it is unclear whether or not the defendants are guilty?” Though many scholars can list different cases, the Sacco-Vanzetti trial is probably one of the first major cases that remains a mystery to this day. Even though most of America was focused on World War II, the court case in Massachusetts sparked political outbreaks and violent terrorism across America and Europe. The case was about two Italian immigrant anarchists named Ferdinando Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Venzetti who were accused of murdering Frederick Paramenter, a paymaster, and Alesandro Berardelli, a security guard during a robbery in South Braintree, Massachusetts. Though they were charged as guilty and executed on August 23, 1927, many scholars and lawyers believed that they were innocent due to their convincing alibis, lack of evidence against them, and the belief that the judge and jury were prejudiced in their decision because the accused were anarchists. These beliefs brought many people to give motions to prolong or review the case such as the Medeiros Confession.
Montgomery believes that the case was judged fairly, and that Sacco and Venzetti had truly committed the crime. He argues that there was enough evidence to be held against them, analyzes the flaws in their alibis, and gives evidences of testimonies of both the jury and other witnesses that the trial was not judged unfairly because of Vanzetti and Sacco’s beliefs about the government. He also argues the validity of the motions for Vanzetti and Sacco, and affirms his belief that the Medeiros Confession was another false alibi to clear up Vanzetti and Sacco’s name.
In the first opening chapters, he summarizes the arrest that led up to the case. He then proceeds to introduce and expand upon each chapter: the alibis of Sacco and Venzetti at the trial in Plymouth and in Dedham (though Vanzetti did not take the stand at Plymouth), the jury and witnesses, the evidences that many people proved them innocent such as the cap which could not fit on Sacco’s head, the misconception that radicalism was a large factor, and Madeiro’s confession, the Morelli Hypothesis, and the conspiracy between Katzmann and the Department of Justice that was given during and after the case. To argue against the points that were presented, Montgomery relies heavily on his use of facts and logic. For example, when Vanzetti presented his alibi during the trial at Dedham, Montgomery shows he is guilty because after the trial, “…thousands of dollars were spent by the defense to find new witnesses and new evidence…” (120), but there was no new evidence or new witnesses that were brought to the court. Montgomery then speculates that Moore, Vanzetti’s lawyer, was really doing all he could to better the circumstances of the situation because he knew that Vanzetti was guilty of committing the murder.