Innocent!

It is my belief, after watching the documentary, that Sacco and Vanzetti were wrongly convicted. Sacco and Vanzetti were Italian immigrants. They were also anarchists during a time when both of these traits were frowned upon by the general public. I think they are innocent for all of the following reasons:

1. A hat found at the scene of the crime was said to be Sacco's but the hat didn't fit him.
2. The crime seemed to have been done by professionals and Sacco and Vanzetti were not robbers up until that incident. Also, they said because they were anarchists they would be tied with crime however, anarchists were not known for murdering specific people and stealing money. 
3. At the Bridgewater crime, eyewitnesses didn't see anyone who looked like Sacco.
4. The Judge and the Jury were very biased. They were against anarchists especially because this case took place during the Red Scare. The jury foreman was even quoted before the case as saying that there was no way they were innocent.
5. Vanzetti had strong alibis for the Bridgewater case. Because those witnesses were Italian immigrants, the jury discredited them. He had twice as many witnesses for his innocence than for his guilt. 
6. The night they were arrested they lied about their political beliefs. While the prosecutors used this as evidence that they had consciousness of guilt, this was during a time when a lot of immigrants were being deported for views similar to theirs. 
7. The prosecution said that the gun found on Vanzetti had been stolen from the guard, but the gun had a different serial number and was a different type of gun. Also, the bullet found in the body of the guard that was "consistent" with the guns Sacco and Vanzetti had was fired after the guard's death. It's possible that the police or the prosecution team had tampered with the evidence to make them seem more guilty. Bullet cartridges found at the scene of the crime did not match the bullets that they said were fired from Sacco's and Vanzetti's guns. 
8. The appeals that might have proved them innocent were turned down because the same judge that did their case was in charge of allowing appeals. This same judge told a friend of his, a professor, about how proud he was that he got them in jail. The Lowell committee, who was appointed to test the legitimacy of the trial, had started drafting their statement before they had even begun investigating. 
9. Celestino Madeiros admitted that he was there and pointed to others that had been at the crime. He said that the crime was done by the notorious Morelli gang and that Sacco and Vanzetti hadn't been there at all.
10. In Sacco's letter to Vanzetti's son, he told him that his father was an innocent man. 

The significance of this case was great. First of all, it opened many people's eyes to the faults of America. It showed the biases of the American people clearly both to Americans and people all over the world. Many people sympathized with them, which may have impacted later feelings toward anarchists and immigrants later. Lastly, they became a symbol, worldwide, because of their dignity and quotes. Do you believe that they were guilty or innocent? And besides that, was the trial a fair trial? How would this trial have been different today?