Structural Analysis SI Edition 4th

Edition Kassimali Solutions Manual

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://testbankdeal.com/download/structural-analysis-si-edition-4th-edition-kassimali-
solutions-manual/
Structural Analysis SI Edition 4th Edition Kassimali Solutions Manual

Visit TestBankDeal.com to get complete for all chapters

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
representative of that tumult. For my father Sacco and Vanzetti became a
challenge to the institutions he believed in, and he shut his mind against
them. After Captain Van Amburgh’s testimony convinced him they were
guilty he did not concern himself further with the fairness of the trial,
although as an honest man he took a thin view of Judge Thayer. My Aunt
Amy could not imagine that her friends of the Elizabeth Peabody House
and The Women’s City Club might be wrong, that John Haynes Holmes,
whom she had known as a young man, might be wrong, that liberalism
could be wrong. She, too, closed her mind.
For the more extreme partisans on both sides the belief in the guilt or
the innocence of the two Italians became a dogma. Just before the 1961
ballistics tests were conducted a member of the Committee for the
Vindication of Sacco and Vanzetti told me that even if a test should show
indisputably that Bullet III had come from Sacco’s pistol, he would still
be convinced that Sacco was innocent.
For myself, I found that when I examined the various confessions,
they had a way of falling apart. After Sammarco’s lie-detector test there
was nothing to be said for Silva’s Bridgewater tale. Madeiros’ various
statements about South Braintree had just too many discrepancies in
them. Once I had driven and checked the getaway route and found that
the license-plate number of the murder car noted down in South
Braintree was last identified by Julia Kelliher in Brockton eight miles
beyond Randolph, I could no longer believe that the bandits had
switched cars in the Randolph Woods. They would not have been foolish
enough to go to the useless trouble of putting the telltale plates on a
second car and driving away in it. Nor did it seem possible for Madeiros,
if he had been in the back seat of the Buick, to have mistaken two metal
boxes planted at his feet for a leather bag. And of course if he and the
Morellis had not arrived at South Braintree until noon—as he claimed—
then who were the men who shadowed Neal, who strolled around the
town during the morning, who spoke to Lola Andrews? It has been
asserted that Madeiros had nothing to gain by making a fraudulent
confession to the South Braintree crime, but in fact by making one he
prolonged his life two years.
The hypothesis that the Morelli gang committed the South Braintree
holdup is at first plausible, yet it is too closely bound to the Madeiros
confession to stand alone. Extraordinary coincidences are brought to
light in Ehrmann’s book but, just in the matter of the cars, I could not
imagine the one that Mike Morelli was casually driving through the
center of New Bedford three hours after the crime was the murder car.
Nor could I believe that the Morellis would on three separate occasions
drive forty miles to an obscure Boston suburb to steal two sets of license
plates and a car. Why all the way to Needham when there were so many
nearer places? It was as absurd as imagining Mike, the night of the
crime, driving the Buick back through those miles of waste land to
abandon it in Brockton when all the police in New England were on the
alert for it.
As for Joe Morelli’s confession, he knew how much money Silva had
made with his pseudo-confession, and he may have thought Morris Ernst
an easy mark. When he was writing his autobiography in the Lewisburg
penitentiary, he used as source material Osmond Fraenkel’s 550-page
summary of the case. The still-extant volume, inscribed “Joseph Morelli,
Nov. 10, 1935,” is larded with marginal notes made by Joe and his
friends. Yet the later parts of Joe’s autobiography were written after he
had lost contact with Ernst. To dismiss it completely is to leave a number
of intruding questions unanswered. How did it happen that Joe was so
familiar with the names Coacci, Boda, and Orciani—all mentioned only
casually in the trial record? How did he know that Coacci had worked at
Slater & Morrill unless he had had some contact with him? Was there
something, after all, in the persistent rumors that Berardelli had
recognized the men who shot him? It was hard to imagine Sacco, even
harder to imagine Vanzetti, associated with the anthropoid Morellis, but
Boda, as a bootlegger, would have needed underworld connections for
his supplies. For a time Boda and his brother had run a dry-cleaning shop
in Wellesley, within walking distance of Needham. Boda drove a car. He
fits the description of the man who tried to borrow license plates at
Hassam’s garage. And it is easier to imagine him walking from
Wellesley to Needham to steal plates and a car than it is to imagine the
Morellis making the successive trips from Providence.
Having begun the writing of this book with the assumption that Sacco
and Vanzetti were innocent, I found myself holding to it with an
increasingly troubled mind as my work progressed, but I did not begin to
consider whether they might not, after all, have been guilty until I
learned of what Moore had told Upton Sinclair. That Moore had come to
doubt his hotly held convictions made me feel I must at least re-examine
mine. Moore, the dedicated radical, the battler for lost and almost-lost
causes, was not the man to have denied himself out of pique. His reasons
for his change of mind must have been profound. According to Eugene
Lyons, he had spent much time following the trail of a criminal group he
had reason to believe was involved in the South Braintree crime. “But
when he got near the end of the trail,” Lyons wrote, “the Italian anarchist
members of the Defense Committee called him in and ordered him to
‘lay off.’ They wouldn’t say why, but the inference is that they feared his
line of investigation.”
One of Moore’s investigators told me that Moore had finally come to
the conclusion that Boda was the man who engineered the holdup. As
convincing to me as Moore’s reluctant reversal was the fact that Upton
Sinclair’s experience seemed to support it.
I had visited Sacco’s family [Sinclair wrote in 1953], and I felt certain
that there was some dark secret there. Nobody would be frank with me,
and everybody was suspicious even though I had been introduced and
vouched for by Mrs. Evans, a great lady of Boston who had led and
financed the fight for freedom of these two Italians.
To thousands like my Aunt Amy the innocence of Sacco and Vanzetti
appeared so transparent that it should have been obvious to anyone with
the slightest knowledge of the case. Yet at the very core of the defense
there was disbelief. I was overwhelmed when I discovered that even
Carlo Tresca shared it—Tresca, the acknowledged and admired leader of
the anarchists in the United States, to whom they turned as a matter of
course when they were in trouble. No one, not even the police who
arrested him—and he had been arrested thirty-six times—questioned his
integrity. He looked after his own. According to Sinclair, when Moore
was leaving for Boston in 1920, Tresca—to Moore’s annoyance—put
two comrades wanted by the police for a robbery in the car with him. In
the defense of Sacco and Vanzetti, Tresca played the part of guardian
angel or great-uncle. If anyone should have had inside knowledge of the
affair, Tresca was the man.
In 1943, a few weeks before Tresca was murdered in New York by the
Italian-born Soviet agent Enea Sormenti, Max Eastman, who had known
Tresca for years and had written a profile on him for The New Yorker,
talked with him about the Sacco-Vanzetti case:
I felt close enough to ask him one day, when whispers had reached me
concerning Upton Sinclair’s distressing experiences in Boston:
“Carlo, would you feel free to tell me the truth about Sacco and
Vanzetti?”
 He answered: “Sacco was guilty but Vanzetti was not.”
At that moment some people entered the room where we were talking
and I lost the chance to ask more. I lost it permanently, for I had no
opportunity to see Carlo again before he was himself shot by an
assassin.
The reasons for Tresca’s answer died with him, yet they must have been
compelling or he would have skirted the question.
Thirteen years after Tresca’s death a new and conclusive series of
ballistics tests was to bear him out. Many times postponed, they were
finally conducted in the laboratory of the Massachusetts State Police on
October 11, 1961, by Jac Weller, the honorary curator of the West Point
Museum, and Colonel Frank Jury, a former head of the Firearms
Laboratory of the New Jersey State Police.
The one certain method of determining whether two bullets have
passed through the same gun barrel is examination with a comparison
microscope, which brings the bullets together in one fused image. If the
striations match, the conclusion is that both bullets were fired from the
same weapon.
Using a comparison microscope and bullets they themselves had just
fired from Sacco’s pistol, Weller and Jury determined beyond dispute
that Bullet III had been fired from that pistol. The other five bullets, they
found, had all been fired from a single unknown gun. As for the four
shells that Bostock had picked up and given to Fraher, three had been
fired in an unknown gun. Weller and Jury agreed, after comparing the
breechblock markings of Shell W with those of a newly fired test shell,
that Shell W had unquestionably been fired in Sacco’s pistol. Thus, the
comparison microscope findings of 1961 confirmed the tests made by
Major Goddard in 1927.
Turning to the question of a bullet substitution, Weller and Jury found
it unlikely that the prosecution or its agents would have attempted to
obtain suitable bullets by firing them from Sacco’s pistol into a side of
beef; such a deception would not only have been difficult to keep secret,
but the method would have offered no certainty of a plausibly lopsided
bullet.
Captain Proctor had custody of the bullets and the guns, the bullets
from the time of Berardelli’s autopsy until they were offered in evidence
at the trial. If any substitution was made, Proctor was the only one with
the extended opportunity to accomplish it. Van Amburgh was called to
the trial as an outside expert; at that time he would have had neither the
motive nor the occasion to make such a substitution.
When, just before the ballistics testimony at the trial, Van Amburgh,
Proctor, and the defense expert Burns test-fired Sacco’s pistol, none of
them was able to get hold of any obsolete Winchester cartridges similar
to Bullet III. Proctor fired three Winchesters of the new type without the
cannelure; Van Amburgh fired three Peters; Burns fired eight U.S.
cartridges. None of these could have been used as a substitute for the
obsolete Winchester Bullet III.
That Proctor made any switch of bullets or shells seems impossible in
view of his character and the relevant facts. Proctor was amateurish in
his knowledge of ballistics, and it was for other reasons than the bullet
evidence that he felt Sacco and Vanzetti were not guilty. At the trial he
had not thought Bullet III had come from Sacco’s pistol, and in 1923, in
his affidavit for Thompson, he still insisted that Sacco’s pistol had not
fired the mortal bullet. But if the prosecution had somehow replaced the
original Bullet III by a falsely marked bullet actually test-fired from
Sacco’s pistol, there would have been no need for Van Amburgh to be so
qualifying in his identification of the bullet, and no need for Proctor to
use his ambiguous “It is consistent with.” Both he and Van Amburgh
would have known that the false bullet came from Sacco’s pistol and
could have said so flatly.
Then, too, there is the matter of motive. When the case first came to
trial it was no earth-shaking issue for District Attorney Katzmann or for
the State Police. Katzmann, if he had lost, would still have been re-
elected district attorney. The case could not have been worth the risk of
detection and disgrace for him or for Proctor to forge the evidence for a
conviction.
After examining Bullet III, Weller and Jury concluded that it had been
fired into a body—though whether a human or animal body, whether
living or dead, they could not say. They did not think it possible that the
slightly flattened side of the bullet could have been produced in a test
firing. In contrast to Ehrmann and Wilbur Turner, Thompson’s expert,
Weller and Jury did not find that the identifying scratches on the bullet’s
base varied noticeably from the scratches on the other three bullets.
The inquest record of April 17, 1920, bears out these findings.
Eighteen days before Sacco and Vanzetti were arrested, Dr. Frederick
Jones testified that the bullet which lodged against Berardelli’s hip bone
and was subsequently marked III had been slightly flattened as it came to
rest against the bone. Dr. Magrath, who performed the autopsy, identified
the bullet at the trial a year later by the three scratches he had made on it:
As I found it, it lay sideways against the flat surface of the hip bone, and
in my opinion the flattening of the bullet was due its striking that bone
side on. The bone is curved at that point, and a very slight amount of
impact from the more pointed part of the bullet would bring its side
against the bone, if it had not force enough at that point to perforate the
bone and go through it, which it did not.
The cumulative evidence is overwhelming that the Colt automatic
found on Sacco the night of his arrest was one of the two pistols used to
kill Berardelli. Even if one accepts the possibility that someone other
than Sacco fired the Colt, Sacco knew who that someone was.
Vanzetti’s innocence is, at least for me, confirmed by my talks with
Brini and by Tresca’s admission to Eastman, as well as by the
contradictions to the court testimony brought out in the Pinkerton
reports. Yet it would have been like Vanzetti to go to the chair rather than
betray a friend. He had once remarked that it was an evil to be arrested,
but a still greater evil to desert a comrade. When Moore was preparing
his closing argument at Dedham, he felt that if he sacrificed Sacco he
had a fighting chance of persuading the jury to acquit Vanzetti. “So I put
it up to Vanzetti,” he later wrote; “‘What shall I do?’ and he answered,
‘Save Nick, he has the woman and child.’”
Both men died bravely, undoubtedly fortified by the thought,
expressed by them many times, that they were dying for the working
class of the world. Vanzetti, in the death chamber, calmly reasserted his
innocence. Yet it is noteworthy that Sacco, who had refused to sign all
pleas for clemency, chose rather in his last moment to proclaim his
vindicating belief in anarchy.
It is possible that Sacco, whatever his guilt, may have considered
himself innocent in the sense that he was serving a higher cause. His
dreams were of violence. He was, as he told Thompson, at war with the
government. To defend anarchy in the persons of his comrades Elia and
Salsedo may have seemed to him to justify Parmenter and Berardelli
sprawled in the gravel. The paymaster and his guard would merely be
soldiers on the other side of the barricades, their deaths insignificant in
comparison with the triumph of the cause. Vanzetti could express his
anarchistic beliefs and then say, “Of course, I may be wrong.” Sacco
could not qualify himself. His was the iron belief, one that has caused so
much slaughter in the world, that the cause is more important than the
individual. So he turned with fanatic hatred against Moore; so he applied
the imagery of the Passion to his dilemma; so he died.
Over forty years have passed since the convictions of Sacco and
Vanzetti. Their case was the American case of the century, one that
became all things to all men. So divisive was it, that only now is it
possible to see it in perspective. The accusations and counteraccusations
fade, those who played their roles in it die, but the tragedy—however
one may define it—remains.
SOURCES AND
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
In spite of the great amount of material that may be found in print about
the Sacco-Vanzetti case, important new information came to light during
the writing of Tragedy in Dedham, much of it from the following
persons. While many of them hold opposing views, I am grateful to them
all for giving me of their knowledge and time:
Ben Bagdikian, Dr. William C. Boyd, Alfonsina Brini, Beltrando
Brini, Paul J. Burns, Frank W. Buxton, Albert L. Carpenter, John
Conrad, Anthony W. DiCecca, Barbara B. Dolliver, John Dos Passos,
Michael J. Dray, Max Eastman, Herbert B. Ehrmann, Aldino Felicani,
Michael C. Flaherty, Frank S. Giles, the late James M. Graham, Alden
Hoag, John Hurd, Frank J. Jury, Suzanne La Follette, Isaac Don Levine,
the Reverend Donald G. Lothrop, Eugene Lyons, Charles A. McCarthy,
Robert A. McLean, Robert H. Montgomery, Mary DeP. Murray, Shelley
A. Neal, Willis A. Neal, Tom O’Connor, James Rorty, Joseph Sammarco,
Charles E. Sands, the late Dr. Warren Stearns, Michael E. Stewart, the
Reverend Hillyer H. Stratton, Upton Sinclair, Jac Weller, Otto Zausmer.
For permission to quote passages from their writings about the case I
am indebted to Dr. Ralph Colp, Jr., Max Eastman, Eugene Lyons, Robert
H. Montgomery, and Upton Sinclair. Permission to quote from the
manuscript of John F. Dever was granted by his executor; permission to
quote from two letters in The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti was granted
by the publisher, The Viking Press, Inc.
I wish also to acknowledge the help of the Braintree Public Library,
the Boston Public Library, the libraries of the Boston Globe and the
Providence Journal, the Boston Athenaeum, the Dartmouth College
Library, and the Harvard Law School Library.
Among the many sources I consulted, the following were the most
pertinent:
Colp, Ralph, Jr. “Sacco’s Struggle for Sanity.” The Nation,
Vol. 187, No. 4 (August 16, 1958).
——. “Bitter Christmas: A Biographical Inquiry into the Life
of Bartolomeo Vanzetti.” The Nation, Vol. 187, No. 22
(December 27, 1958).
Dr. Colp consulted the files of the Massachusetts
Department of Mental Health in writing these
accounts of the periods when Sacco and Vanzetti
were confined in mental institutions.
Dever, John F. Memoirs of the Sacco-Vanzetti Case.
Manuscript, estate of John F. Dever.
Presents the Dedham trial from the jury’s point of
view.
Dos Passos, John. “Facing the Chair.” Boston, Sacco-Vanzetti
Defense Committee, 1927.
Eastman, Max. “Is This the Truth about Sacco and Vanzetti?”
National Review, Vol. XI, No. 16 (October 21, 1961).
Eastman’s account of Carlo Tresca’s assertion of
Sacco’s guilt; incorporates the essence of Upton
Sinclair’s “The Fishpeddler and the Shoemaker.”
Ehrmann, Herbert B. The Untried Case: The Sacco-Vanzetti
Case and the Morelli Gang. Second edition, New York,
The Vanguard Press, Inc., 1960.
A brilliant working-out of the hypothesis that the
South Braintree crime was committed by the Morelli
Gang of Providence, Rhode Island. It remains,
however, only a hypothesis.
Frankfurter, Felix. The Case of Sacco and Vanzetti. Boston,
Little, Brown & Co., 1927.
Frankfurter, Marion D., and Jackson, Gardner. The Letters of
Sacco and Vanzetti. New York, The Viking Press, Inc.,
1928.
The manuscript originals of most of these letters,
plus others, are in the Harvard Law School Library.
The published versions have been edited as to
spelling and grammar, a number of class-war and
 anticlerical passages have been suppressed, and in
some cases meanings have been altered.
The Good Shoemaker and the Poor Fish Peddler. Four reels
of documentary motion picture film. Thought to be lost,
discovered in Rockport, Massachusetts, in 1960 by Tom
O’Connor, Donald G. Lothrop, and Francis Russell. Now
in possession of Brandeis University.
Joughin, G. Louis, and Morgan, Edmund M. The Legacy of
Sacco and Vanzetti. New York, Harcourt, Brace & Co.,
Inc., 1948.
At the time of its publication the most balanced
and comprehensive study. Morgan wrote the
chapters on the two trials and their legal aftermaths;
Joughin dealt with the historical, sociological, and
literary aspects of the case.
Lyons, Eugene. Assignment in Utopia. New York, Harcourt,
Brace & Co., Inc., 1937.
Montgomery, Robert H. Sacco-Vanzetti—The Murder and the
Myth. New York: The Devin-Adair Co., 1960.
The first book attempting to prove that the trial
and subsequent proceedings were fair and that the
men were justly convicted. While arid in style, it
offers a careful analysis of the evidence and presents
many telling points requiring detailed answers from
those who think otherwise.
Morelli, Joseph. Autobiography. Manuscript, 574 pages.
Copies are said to be in the possession of the
author’s granddaughter, a Providence criminal
lawyer, and Louis V. Jackvony, Jr., son of the one-
time counsel for the Morellis.
Musmanno, Michael A. After Twelve Years. New York, Alfred
A. Knopf, Inc., 1939.
An account, by one of the younger defense
lawyers, of the last legal maneuvers.
Pinkerton Report on the South Braintree Holdup. Manuscript,
Travelers Insurance Company, Hartford, Connecticut.
This report does not appear in The Sacco-Vanzetti
Case: Transcript of the Record....
Record of Public Hearing Before Joint Committee of the
Judiciary of the Massachusetts Legislature on the
Resolution of Representative Alexander J. Cella,
Recommending a Posthumous Pardon for Nicola Sacco
and Bartolomeo Vanzetti. Boston, Committee for the
Vindication of Sacco and Vanzetti, 1959.
The Sacco-Vanzetti Case: Transcript of the Record of the Trial
of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti in the Courts of
Massachusetts and Subsequent Proceedings, 1920-1927.
New York, Henry Holt & Co., Inc., 1928-1929.
The five volumes and supplemental volume
include the complete record of the Dedham trial, a
nearly complete record of Vanzetti’s Plymouth trial,
the various appeals and their outcomes, affidavits
concerning Madeiros and the Morellis, a partial
record of the Lowell Committee hearings, the
minutes of the Parmenter-Berardelli inquest, and the
Pinkerton report on the Bridgewater holdup.
Sinclair, Upton. “The Fishpeddler and the Shoemaker.” New
York, Institute of Social Studies Bulletin, Vol. 2, No. 2
(Summer, 1953).
Article expressing Sinclair’s doubts of Sacco’s
innocence and reporting Fred Moore’s similar
doubts.
Vanzetti, Bartolomeo. “The Story of a Proletarian Life.”
Boston, The Sacco-Vanzetti New Trial League, 1924.
Zelt, Johannes. Proletarischer Internationalismus im Kamp
um Sacco und Vanzetti. East Berlin, Dietz Verlag, 1958.
Drawing on records in Moscow, this book
contains valuable information about the Communist-
controlled development of the protest movement in
Central Europe and the directed demonstrations
inside the Soviet Union. Its balancing of facts,
however, cannot always be relied on. Typical of its
distortions is Zelt’s quotation from Putj MOPR, the
organ of the International Red Aid, to the effect that
“in 1926 the students of the University of Brockton,
in spite of a ban by reactionary professors,
unanimously chose as their graduation thesis ‘The
Case of Sacco and Vanzetti.’” There is, of course, no
college or university in Brockton, but according to
the Boston Herald of June 3, 1927, “discussion of
the Sacco-Vanzetti case by the class in current
events in the local high school has been banned by
the history teacher, Miss Sarah McGrory, on the
theory the students are not old enough to understand
it. The action was taken by the teacher after the
class, in its usual manner of selection of a subject for
discussion, voted in favor of the Sacco-Vanzetti
case.”
INDEX
Adrower, Giuseppe, 124, 173-174, 193
Affe (Afa), Carlos, 183, 196-197
Aiken, John, 127, 128, 216
Anderson, George, 423, 443, 446
Anderson, Maxwell, 8, 13
Andrews, Lola, 12, 32-33, 146-151, 153, 224, 230-232, 390
Andrews motion, 221, 264, 265
Arrogni, Harry, 155
Atwater, Eldridge, 161
Atwood, Alfred, 136, 212
automobile, getaway:
at Bridgewater, 49, 50, 51-52
at Dedham trial, 156, 204-205
in Madeiros’ confession, 281, 300, 301, 461
in Manley woods, 56-57
at Plymouth trial, 99
route checked by Francis Russell, 306, 307-308
at South Braintree, 38, 39, 41, 44-46
stolen from Francis Murphy, 51

Bagdikian, Ben, 305, 309

Baker, Alta, 44
Balboni, Carlo, 102
Balboni, Rosa, 102
Barone, Bibber, 290, 292, 299, 300
Barr, C. A., 52-53, 56
Barry, John, 267, 268
Bastoni, Enrico, 102
Beal, Fred, 421, 448, 452
Bedard, Alfred, 282
Beffel, John Nicholas, 113, 115, 116
Behrsin, Hans, 34-35, 37, 69, 146
Benchley, Robert, 391, 412
Benkosky, Steve (Steve the Pole), 294, 295, 297, 300
Bent, Silas, 304, 312
Berardelli, Alessandro, 35, 36, 37-38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 46, 314, 462
autopsy on, 47, 158
revolver of, 26, 142, 160-162, 163, 176
Berardelli, Sarah, 162, 176, 391-392
Bernkopf, Elizabeth, 246-247, 412
Blackwell, Alice Stone, 253
Bloor, Ella Reeve, 436, 448, 451
Boda, Mike, 54, 55, 57-59, 60-61, 70, 88, 91, 92, 96-97, 101, 140,
156, 166, 178, 180, 181, 183, 190, 197, 314, 462
pistol of, 58, 295 fn.
Boice, Mae, 284, 286-287, 299
bombings, 17, 84-85, 117, 121, 219, 331, 412, 426
Bongiovanni, Adeladi, 103
Borsari, Emma, 103
Bosco, Albert, 172, 182, 193, 395-397
Bostock, Jimmy, 37, 38, 40, 42, 47, 48, 69, 142, 159, 162, 224
Bowles, Benjamin, 49-50, 69, 94, 99
Boyd, Dr. William, 318
Brandeis, Louis, 114, 435
Branting, George, 386
Brenner, William, 39, 146, 307
Brini, Alfonsina, 77, 104, 169-170
Brini, Beltrando, 21-23, 78, 103-104, 369, 392, 466
Brini, Vincenzo, 77, 93, 95, 104
Brooks, Edward, 152
Brooks, Georgina, 95, 99-100
Brouillard, Albert, 51, 52, 57, 58, 118, 148, 356
Broun, Heywood, 419
Bruno, “Doggy,” 272-273, 319, 320, 321, 324
Bullard, F. Lauriston, 344-345
bullets, 13, 47, 158-160, 201, 202, 205, 209, 212, 233, 234-235, 242-
244, 314-318, 376-377, 402, 415, 461, 464-465
Burgess, Henry, 105
Burke, Frank, 40, 69, 164, 224, 225, 297
Burns, James, 158-159, 160, 163, 295, 376, 464

Cahoon, Dr. Charles, 238

Callahan, Jack, 271, 304
Callahan, William, 68, 93, 94, 139, 164, 166
Campbell, Dr. C. MacFie, 239
Campbell, Julia, 31-33, 149, 151
Cannon, James, 332, 333, 335
Canter, Harry, 253, 405, 416, 421
cap, found near Berardelli, 42, 47, 125, 157, 183, 190, 194, 197, 401,
415
Carbarn Bandits, 349-350
Carbone, Antony, 122, 340
Carpenter, Albert, 224, 231, 253, 278, 279
Carrigan, Mark, 36, 40, 69, 142
Carter, Edward, 164
Casey, Richard, 52, 101
Cellucci, Joseph, 167
Cerro, Henry, 167
Chase, Elmer, 41, 168
Chisholm, George, 44
Christophori, Esther, 103
Cicchetti, Beniamino, 118, 120
Citizens National Committee for Sacco and Vanzetti, 427
Clark, Francis, 45, 301
Cline, Charles, 335-336, 338
Coacci, Ferruccio, 54, 55-56, 57, 96, 97, 112, 140, 287 fn., 462
pistol of, 58
Codman, John, 114, 253, 382
Coes, Loring, 194, 391
Colarossi, Vincent, 177
Colbert, Maurice, 40
Cole, Austin, 62, 101, 152-153
Collins, John, 315, 316-317
Colp, Dr. Ralph, 241
Communists, and Sacco-Vanzetti case, 6-7, 217-218, 328-329, 330,
332-333, 335-336, 338, 366-367, 454
Connolly, Michael, 62-63, 100, 156, 406
Conrad, John, 324, 325
Constantino, Dominic, 146
Cook, Waldo, 419, 427
Coolidge, Calvin, 406-407, 435
Corl, Melvin, 170, 177
Cox, Alfred E., 49-50, 69, 94, 99, 390, 403
Cummings, Homer S., 250-51
Daley, William, 244, 263
Damato, Nicola, 41, 155
Darroch, Lola, 111, 224, 232, 253
Darrow, Clarence, 336, 338
DeBeradinis, Louis, 41, 69
Debs, Eugene, 326
DeFalco, Angelina, 118-121
Defense Committee, 107, 141, 219, 222, 267, 326, 333-334, 335, 338,
417, 427
and conduct of defense, 125-126
DeForest, Ralph, 34
Dentamore, Antonio, 182, 196, 395, 396
Department of Justice, 121-123, 340-341, 426-427, 433
Desmond, Walter, 44, 168, 300
Dever, John, 13, 133-136, 137, 138, 143, 144, 145, 148, 150, 153, 155,
159, 163, 164, 170-171, 174-175, 180, 211-212, 233, 413
Devlin, Frances, 35, 36, 40, 69, 143, 144, 165
Di Bona, Candido, 412
DiCarlo, John, 102
DiCecca, Anthony, 319-323
Dodson, William, 270 fn.
Dolbeare, Harry, 31, 151-152
Donato, Narciso, 89-90
Donovan, Mary, 268, 334, 356, 362, 384, 405, 408, 416-417, 424, 425,
436, 451, 454, 456
Dorr, Wilson, 45, 168
Dos Passos, John, 421
Doyle, Tommy, 224, 225, 228, 278
Dray, Michael, 24-26
Dreyfus, Alfred, 381
Driver, Thomas, 285
Duval, Clement, 86

Eastman, Max, 463

eels, delivery from Corso & Cannizzo, 404-405
Ehrmann, Herbert, 3, 286-289, 292-298, 308, 314, 355, 369, 376, 402,
404-405, 411, 461, 465
Elia, Roberto, 12, 88-91
Emerson, Marion, 108
Ensher, Napoleon, 101, 156
Ernst, Morris, 303-305, 308, 309, 310, 314, 462
Ettor, Joe, 109, 326
Evans, Elizabeth Glendower, 114, 139, 157, 165-166, 190, 207, 223,
237-238, 240, 244, 252, 258, 327, 334, 336, 337, 341, 356, 362,
382, 385, 419, 423, 452
Evarts, Richard, 411, 431, 433, 435

Fabbri, Amleto, 267, 333

Falcone, Emilio, 166
Falzini, Luigi, 160, 161
Farmer, Albert, 44, 300, 301
Farnum, George, 433
Faulkner, John, 152, 153
Felicani, Aldino, 14, 15, 16-18, 82, 107, 108, 113, 139, 172, 177, 252,
253, 268, 269, 334-335, 338, 356, 404, 405, 409, 424, 432, 434,
458
and DeFalco episode, 118, 119, 120
and defense funds, 223, 333
Ferguson, Lawrence, 165
Ferrari, Joseph, 282, 298, 299, 322, 356
Field, Elias, 242, 243, 411, 412, 433, 442
Finerty, John, 422, 428, 443, 446
Fiochi, Margherita, 103
Fitzemeyer, George, 162-163
Fitzgerald, J. Henry, 160, 163
Flaherty, Michael, 268, 459
Fleming, Michael, 290-291, 299, 356
Florence, Aldeah, 176
Flynn, Elizabeth Gurley, 108, 109, 113, 116, 268, 269
Flynn, William J., 87, 88, 89
Foley, William, 166
Fortini, Mary, 102, 404
Fraher, Thomas, 47, 48, 370, 401
Frankfurter, Felix, 8, 87, 268, 286, 332, 334, 341, 353-354, 366, 383,
408, 411, 424, 435, 459
Atlantic Monthly article, 352-353
vs. John Wigmore, 371-372
Frantello, Albert, 36, 48, 69, 165
Frazer, Dr. John Chisholm, 46, 141
Fuller, Alvan T., 20, 23, 278, 346, 347, 349, 353, 355, 363, 366-367,
368, 389, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426-427, 441, 446-447
character of, 5-6, 350-351
investigation by, 369-370, 373, 390-391, 392, 404, 405, 406, 407,
408-409
and Madeiros, 378-379, 388
and Vanzetti, 394
Fuller, Charles, 56-57, 156

Gaines, Mary, 198

Galleani, Luigi, 78, 80, 84, 86, 87, 88
Gallivan, Jeremiah, 43-44, 47, 118, 397, 401, 412, 415
Ganley, John, 131, 212
Gatti, Nicola, 167
Geary, Daniel, 288
Gerard, George, 136, 175, 212
Gill, Augustus, 234, 376, 390
Giovannitti, Arturo, 78, 80, 109, 326
Goddard, Calvin, 376-377, 402, 415, 464
Goodridge, Carlos, 12, 41, 154, 155-156, 224, 228-230, 390
Goodridge motion, 221, 228, 246, 264, 265
Gould, Roy, 36-37, 224-225, 369, 403, 415
Gould-Pelser motion, 221, 224, 263, 265
Govoni, Doviglio, 93, 94, 102
Grabill, Ethelbert Vincent, 367, 371, 431
Graham, James, 94, 95-96, 97, 98, 105, 443
Grant, Robert, 373, 375, 389, 400, 403, 413, 414
Graves, Earl, 49-50, 51, 52, 94
Greenslet, Ferris, 374, 451
Guadagni, Felice, 93, 119, 120, 171-172, 173, 182, 193, 253, 395-397,
405
Guerin, Lieutenant, 198, 199
Guidierris, Sibriano, 167
Guidobone, Angelo, 170

Hamilton, Albert, 233-235, 242-243, 262, 295, 377, 402

and switched pistol barrels, 247-249
Hamilton-Proctor motion, 221, 233, 244, 247, 264, 265
Hapgood, Powers, 436, 441, 442
Harding, Frank (“Slip”), 50, 52, 69, 70, 94-95, 99
Hassam, George, 51, 69, 100
garage of, 96, 271 fn., 462
Hassam, John, 232, 369