S
Sacco and Vanzetti case
The Sacco and Vanzetti case is widely regarded
as a miscarriage of justice in American legal history.
Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, Italian immigrants and anarchists, were executed for murder by
the state of Massachusetts in 1927 on the basis of
doubtful ballistics evidence. For countless observers
throughout the world, Sacco and Vanzetti were convicted because of their political beliefs and ethnic
background.
The Sacco and Vanzetti case began in South
Braintree, Massachusetts, on April 15, 1920. Workers
at the Slater & Morrill shoe factory were paid in
cash. The money to be paid out that day,
$15,773.51, was placed in two steel boxes, each
secured by a Yale lock, and picked up by payroll
guard Alessandro Berardelli and paymaster Frederick
A. Parmenter for escort to the factory. The two
guards began walking toward the shoe factory at
3 o’clock in the afternoon. Just as they passed two
men leaning against a pipe-rail fence, the men
attacked the guards. In the struggle that followed,
Berardelli was shot four times, with the last shot
coming as he had fallen to his knees. Parmenter
was shot once in the chest and once in the back as
he staggered and fell in the street.
The two attackers fired several other shots,
apparently to signal accomplices. A dark-colored
touring car, with three men inside, picked up the
robbers and the payroll boxes. The car headed west,
out of town. Berardelli was dead when the medical
WORLD of FORENSIC SCIENCE
examiner arrived on the scene at 4 p.m. Parmenter
regained consciousness long enough to make a statement that he did not recognize the gunmen. He then
died at 5 a.m. the next day.
Eyewitness reports differed on almost every crucial part of the evidence. The description of the gunmen’s builds, appearances, and clothes varied widely
among the many people on the street that day. There
was also disagreement about when the bullets were
fired and who fired them. Some witnesses reported
that a third robber had fired shots. Even the exact
sequence of the crime varied among observers.
The police suspected anarchists, in part because
anarchists at the time were engaged in a number of
bombings and robberies. Michael Stewart, the police
chief of Bridgewater, Massachusetts, had been assisting the Justice Department in rounding up Italian
anarchists for deportation. One of the anarchists,
Ferrucio Coacci, failed to report for deportation at
the east Boston immigration station on the same day
as the payroll robbery. Stewart concluded that
the robbery and murders must have been committed
by Coacci and his comrades, among whom were
Sacco, Vanzetti, Riccardo Orciani, and Mario Buda.
Stewart also considered them responsible for a
botched holdup of a shoe factory in Bridgewater in
December 1919.
Nicola Sacco (1891–1927) and Bartolomeo Vanzetti
(1888–1927) both immigrated to the United States from
Italy in 1908. Sacco found work as an edge-trimmer in
shoe factories, while Vanzetti labored as a fish peddler.
Both men were followers of Luigi Galleani, an anarchist
591
SACCO AND VANZETTI CASE
who advocated revolutionary violence, including bombings and assassinations. On May 3, 1920, they learned
that an Italian anarchist had died of a purported suicide
while in federal custody. The dead man had been
involved in a bomb plot with other anarchists, including
Sacco and Vanzetti.
On May 5, 1920, Sacco and Vanzetti were either
hiding Italian anarchist literature, including a bomb
manual, or moving dynamite. Both men were carrying
pistols and ammunition when arrested, and during
their interrogation—initially about their radical activities, not the payroll robbery and murders—they
told lies and gave contradictory statements to the
police. The authorities concluded that the behavior
of Sacco and Vanzetti meant that the men were guilty
of something—presumably the payroll murders.
The trial of Sacco and Vanzetti for the South
Braintree murders was held in Dedham, Massachusetts, from May 31 to July 14, 1921. Police believed
that Sacco was one of the gunmen and that Vanzetti
had been one of the three men seen in the getaway
car. During the trial, 169 witnesses testified about 226
items of evidence. Sacco claimed to be in Boston on
April 15 to arrange for passports so that he could
return to Italy with his family. An Italian consul officer supported Sacco’s statement. More than twenty
witnesses, all of Italian background, testified that
Vanzetti had sold them fish on the day of the crime.
The prosecution’s chief expert, Captain William
Proctor of the state police, did not hold that Sacco’s
Colt .32-caliber automatic fired the bullet that killed
Berardelli (The remaining five bullets taken from
the two bodies could not have been fired from the
guns found on Sacco and Vanzetti.) Nevertheless,
by prearrangement with District Attorney Frederic
G. Katzmann, Proctor testified that the bullet in
question was consistent with having been fired from
the gun, meaning any Colt .32-caliber automatic, not
necessarily Sacco’s weapon. Katzmann also knew
that the .38-caliber revolver found on Vanzetti at
the time of his arrest could not have been taken
from the slain guard, as the prosecution claimed.
The guard’s weapon was a .32-caliber revolver with
a different serial number—evidence withheld from
the defense.
The jury returned a guilty verdict on July 14,
1921. Each of the defendants was found guilty of
first-degree murder. The weight of evidence—the
weapons, ballistic tests, and eyewitness testimony—
and the issue of consciousness of guilt were crucial
in convicting Sacco and Vanzetti, but emotional factors were also heavily present. The presiding judge, a
592
man who had requested to work on the trial because
he hated anarchists, influenced the jury against the
suspects with his instructions about the guilty behavior of the men. The prosecutor emphasized the
Italian background of Sacco and Vanzetti.
A six-year struggle to save Sacco and Vanzetti
followed the trial. Countless observers worldwide
were convinced that political intolerance and racial
bigotry had condemned two men whose only offense
was that of being foreigners, atheists, and anarchists.
Sacco and Vanzetti defenders eventually included
radicals, trade unionists, intellectuals, liberals, and
even some conservatives. Others were steadfast in
their belief that the American system of justice could
do no wrong and that the two subversives were guilty
as charged, had been fairly tried, and deserved the
maximum penalty.
The fate of Sacco and Vanzetti, however, was not
decided in the arena of public opinion. Eight motions
for a new trial in accordance with Massachusetts law
were submitted to the trial judge. Several pertained
to perjured testimony by prosecution witnesses and
to collusion between local police and Justice Department agents. Another addressed a jailhouse confession by a convicted bank robber, Celestino Madieros,
who claimed he and other members of the Morelli
gang of professional criminals had committed the
South Braintree holdup and murders. Each motion
was denied. After the Massachusetts Supreme Court
ruled that no errors of law or abuses of discretion
had been committed, the judge sentenced Sacco and
Vanzetti to death on April, 9, 1927.
In the face of mounting criticism of the legal
proceedings and the impending death sentence, Massachusetts Governor Alvan T. Fuller appointed a committee on June 1, 1927 to review the case and advise
him on the issue of clemency. The Lowell committee,
named after its chair, Harvard University President A.
Lawrence Lowell, ignored exculpatory evidence the
defense had discovered since the trial while validating
the prosecution’s every step. Reporting its findings to
Governor Fuller on July 27, the Lowell Committee
declared that the trial and appeals process had been
fair and advised against clemency. Governor Fuller
followed the committee’s recommendation. Despite
continuing worldwide protests and demonstrations,
Sacco and Vanzetti were electrocuted at Charlestown
State Prison on August 23, 1927.
By this point, the case had become too controversial to quietly fade away. Scholars and scientists
have spent the subsequent decades reexamining the
evidence and the trial testimony. In the most current
thinking about the case, Vanzetti is regarded as
WORLD of FORENSIC SCIENCE
SALIVA
Italian immigrants Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti (middle, foreground) were accused of killing a paymaster and stealing about
$16,000 in 1920. Many believed they were convicted and executed in 1927 because of their anarchistic beliefs. A P/ WI DE WO RLD
P HO TOS . REP RODU CED BY P ERM I SS ION .
innocent of any involvement in the murders. The
weight of opinion is that Vanzetti, although innocent,
was willing to die to become a martyr for the cause of
anarchy.
prove the guilt or innocence of the two anarchists at
this late date.
Less certainty exists about the innocence of
Sacco. Ballistics tests in 1983 showed that the bullet
that allegedly killed Berardelli came from the Colt
revolver taken from Sacco at the time of his arrest.
A panel of firearms experts concluded that Sacco
was probably guilty either as a conspirator or a perpetrator of the crime. Another group of experts
insists that there exists an overwhelming probability
that a substitution of bullets took place and that
Sacco was completely innocent. They contend that
both Sacco and Vanzetti were innocent victims of a
frame-up.
SEE ALSO
Forensic evidence in the Sacco and Vanzetti case
has badly deteriorated in the passage of time. It is
unlikely that anyone will ever be able to conclusively
WORLD of FORENSIC SCIENCE
Ballistic fingerprints; Ballistics; Circumstantial
evidence; Firearms.
Sagittal plane
SEE
Anatomical
nomenclature
Saliva
A forensic investigation can involve the analysis
of body fluids, including saliva, for evidence of
toxins and both prescription and illicit drugs.
Obtaining a saliva sample is far less obtrusive and
593
SALIVA
A staff research associate at the University of California-Davis veterinary genetics lab takes a swab of a spot of saliva off a sweatshirt
worn by a victim in a dog attack case in 2002. A P/ WIDE WOR LD P H OTOS . RE PRO DUCED BY P ERM I SS ION .
cumbersome than obtaining a blood or urine sample,
especially at the scene of an accident or crime.
Saliva is a clear liquid that is made and is present
in the mouth, where it has a number of functions. It
wets food and makes the food easier to swallow. As
well, specialized proteins that are present in saliva
trigger chemical reactions that begin to break apart
chemical bonds in the food (the proteins are generically termed enzymes). This begins the process of
digestion, whereby the food is converted to a form
that can be utilized by the body to provide energy.
For example, the salivary enzyme alpha-amylase initiates the breakdown of starch into its constituent
maltose sub-units.
In addition to wetting the food, saliva also wets the
tongue, which aids the various receptors on the surface
of the tongue in differentiating the different tastes of
foods. Washing of saliva over the surface of teeth, and
the presence of antibacterial enzymes, helps keep teeth
clean and helps lessen the chance of infections.
Saliva production lessens during sleep. The resulting build-up of bacteria on the teeth and in the mouth
594
produces the characteristic objectionable morning
breath. Even though production lessens during sleep,
the production of saliva is a round-the-clock affair.
Every day, 2–4 pints (approximately 1–2 liters) of
saliva are produced. This large volume is secreted by
three pairs of salivary glands located in the mouth.
Within each gland a cluster of cells called the
acinus secrete the salivary fluid. The fluid contains
water, electrolytes (minerals such as sodium, potassium, and calcium that are present in body fluids and
cells, and whose concentrations are important in
maintaining proper body function), mucus (a slippery, jelly-like substance that helps coat and protect
cells) and the aforementioned enzymes.
From the acinus, the fluid collects in ducts
within each salivary gland. Here, the composition of
the fluid is changed. Most of the sodium is reabsorbed and potassium and bicarbonate ions are
added. The latter is particularly important in ruminant animals like cows, since, when swallowed, it
helps counteract the corrosive action of the large
quantity of acid that is produced in the forestomachs.
WORLD of FORENSIC SCIENCE
WILLIAM C. SAMPSON
From the collecting ducts, the saliva passes to
larger ducts, which ultimately merge to form a single
large duct, from which the saliva empties into the
mouth.
Most animals, including humans, have three
pairs of salivary glands that are located on either
side of the mouth in three different locations.
They differ in the nature of the saliva that is
produced.
The parotid glands are located near the upper
teeth, in a broad area underneath the earlobe. The
secreted saliva is watery and reminiscent of the
serum portion of blood; indeed, it is described as
being serous. Submaxillary (or submandibular)
glands are located on the floor of the mouth, underneath the back portion of the tongue. The saliva
produced by these glands is a mixture of serous and
mucus portions. Finally, the sublingual glands are
located on the floor of the mouth in the region of
the chin. Sublingual saliva is predominantly mucous
in composition.
In addition to the three pairs of glands, hundreds
of small glands called minor salivary glands are
located in the lips, inside of the cheeks, and throughout the remainder of the mouth and throat.
Saliva can be of forensic significance because
traces of drugs that are circulating in the body can
be present in saliva. The composition of the saliva
accurately mirrors the proteins that are present in
both the blood and the urine. Thus, testing of saliva,
which is easier and less obtrusive than obtaining a
blood or urine sample, can be used to reveal the
presence of prescription and illicit drugs.
Similar tests are being refined that will enable
the detection of viral and bacterial infections as well
as diseases such as cancer. These tests are based on
the presence of signature proteins that are unique to
the maladies, such as antibodies, from the microorganism or cancerous cells.
For example, an antibody-based saliva test for the
human immunodeficiency virus (HIV; the accepted
cause of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) is
available for clinical use. No home-use tests are officially approved as of yet, although a number of nonsanctioned and independently evaluated tests are
available through Internet-based companies.
Promising preliminary research results published
in February 2005 have shown that aberrant genetic
material (deoxyribonucleic acid; DNA) and the messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) that helps process
the genetic information into a protein from cancerous
cells can also be detected in saliva. In the future,
WORLD of FORENSIC SCIENCE
forensic analysis of saliva may help determine if the
subject has (or did have) cancer.
SEE ALSO
Barbiturates; Illicit drugs.
Sample control
SEE
Control samples
William C. Sampson
AMERICAN
CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATOR
Retired crime scene investigator William C.
Sampson worked for the Miami-Dade Police Department for almost forty years, and is recognized as an
expert in recovering latent fingerprints from skin.
Using his experience and expertise, Sampson has
consulted with and taught hundreds of law enforcement personnel on his innovative techniques. He has
also written and lectured widely on the subject.
Sampson’s career was spent serving the MiamiDade Police Department, where he held posts as a
training advisor, liaison to the department’s crime
laboratory, administrative supervisor, and crime
scene investigator. He is a certified instructor by the
Florida State General Police Standards Commission,
and has worked as an adjunct professor at MiamiDade Community College.
During the course of his career, Sampson made
the discovery that the environment can affect the
ability to obtain latent fingerprints from materials
like skin and cloth. Previous to this, it was widely
accepted that this type of fingerprint was unlikely, if
not impossible, to obtain. Sampson experimented
with manipulating the environmental ambient temperature and humidity and keeping the skin at a
certain temperature, thus creating readable prints.
He consulted with doctors, medical examiners, funeral directors, and even air conditioning companies.
Working on his technique, he was able to yield a very
high success rate, and as a result Sampson’s work led
to the identification and conviction of numerous
perpetrators. Sampson has been teaching his techniques to law enforcement personnel across the country, and lecturing at many industry events and
conferences. He has also written about developing
latent fingerprints for trade publications such as the
Journal of Forensic Identification, The Print, and
Evidence Technology.
In 1995, Sampson, along with his wife and
fellow forensic scientist Karen Sampson, formed
595