Page:The Case of Sacco and Vanzetti.pdf/79

this issue, in the light of his comments during the trial, must have left the impression on the jury that the case turned on "consciousness of guilt." As we have seen, Judge Thayer himself did in fact so interpret the jury's verdict afterward.

As to motive, the Court expatiated for more than a page on its legal conception and the undisputed claim of the Commonwealth that the motive of the murder of Parmenter and Berardelli was robbery, but made no comment whatever on the complete failure of the Commonwealth to trace any of the stolen money to either defendant or to connect them with the art of robbery. Undoubtedly, great weight must have been attached by the jury, as it was by the Court, to the identification of the fatal bullet taken from Berardelli's body as having passed through Sacco's pistol. This is a point soon to be dealt with in detail. Here the summary statement must suffice that the Court instructed the jury that Captain Proctor and another expert had testified in effect that "it was his [Sacco's] pistol that fired the bullet that caused the death of Berardelli" (R. 1152), when in fact, as we shall see, that was not Captain Proctor's testimony. Of course, if the jury believed Proctor's testimony as interpreted by Judge Thayer Sacco was doomed. In view of the temper of the times, the nature of the accusation, the opinions of the accused, the tactics of the prosecution, and the conduct of the Judge, no wonder the "men of Norfolk" convicted Sacco and Vanzetti!

Hitherto the prejudicial methods pursued by the