S

Sacco and Vanzetti caseThe Sacco and Vanzetti case is widely regarded

as a miscarriage of justice in American legal history.

Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, Italian immi-

grants 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 con-

victed 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

examiner arrived on the scene at 4 p.m. Parmenter

regained consciousness long enough to make a state-

ment that he did not recognize the gunmen. He then

died at 5 a.m. the next day.

Eyewitness reports differed on almost every cru-

cial part of the evidence. The description of the gun-

men’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 assist-

ing 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

WORLD of FORENS IC SC IENCE 591

who advocated revolutionary violence, including bomb-

ings 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 activ-

ities, 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, Massachu-

setts, 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 offi-

cer 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 fac-

tors were also heavily present. The presiding judge, a

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 beha-

vior 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 Depart-

ment agents. Another addressed a jailhouse confes-

sion 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, Mas-

sachusetts Governor Alvan T. Fuller appointed a com-

mittee 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 contro-

versial 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

SACCO AND VANZETTI CASE

592 WORLD of FORENS IC SC IENCE

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.

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 per-

petrator 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.

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

prove the guilt or innocence of the two anarchists at

this late date.

SEE ALSO Ballistic fingerprints; Ballistics; Circumstantialevidence; Firearms.

Sagittal plane SEE Anatomicalnomenclature

SalivaA 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

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. AP/WIDE WORLD

PHOTOS. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION.

SALIVA

WORLD of FORENS IC SC IENCE 593

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 gener-

ically 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 initi-

ates 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 result-

ing build-up of bacteria on the teeth and in the mouth

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, potas-

sium, and calcium that are present in body fluids and

cells, and whose concentrations are important in

maintaining proper body function), mucus (a slip-

pery, 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 reab-

sorbed and potassium and bicarbonate ions are

added. The latter is particularly important in rumi-

nant animals like cows, since, when swallowed, it

helps counteract the corrosive action of the large

quantity of acid that is produced in the forestomachs.

A staff research associate at the University of California-Davis veterinary genetics lab takes a swab of a spot of saliva off a sweatshirtworn by a victim in a dog attack case in 2002. AP/WIDE WORLD PHOTOS. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION.

SALIVA

594 WORLD of FORENS IC SC IENCE

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, under-

neath 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 through-

out 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 microor-

ganism 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 offi-

cially approved as of yet, although a number of non-

sanctioned 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 mes-

senger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) that helps process

the genetic information into a protein from cancerous

cells can also be detected in saliva. In the future,

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. SampsonAMERICANCRIME SCENE INVESTIGATOR

Retired crime scene investigator William C.

Sampson worked for the Miami-Dade Police Depart-

ment 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 enforce-

ment personnel on his innovative techniques. He has

also written and lectured widely on the subject.

Sampson’s career was spent serving the Miami-

Dade 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 Miami-

Dade 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 tem-

perature and humidity and keeping the skin at a

certain temperature, thus creating readable prints.

He consulted with doctors, medical examiners, fun-

eral 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 techni-

ques to law enforcement personnel across the coun-

try, 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

WILLIAM C. SAMPSON

WORLD of FORENS IC SC IENCE 595