Asymmetrical Information

I'm going to wait for the document analysis on that letter before I believe it. It seems just a little too much in line with my view of how progressives behave and have behaved in the past for me not to be a little suspicious.

Oh no! Next, we'll find out that Alger Hiss really was guilty.

Typical of the progressive-lefties.

They proclaim their scrupulous honesty, but they lie freely and frequently if it is for their "noble" cause. Why, they even MURDER for it !

There's never been any doubt that S&V were guilty. But the letter does tell us a lot about Sinclair and his crowd.

I'm puzzled by the tendency of leftist types to embrace convicted killers as martyrs, seemingly absolutely convinced of their innocence. It's really strange.

I don't have any illusions about the justic system being infallible, and I'm sure innocent people are convicted all the time. So I don't know if Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty, just like I don't know for sure whether Mumia or Tookie Williams is/was guilty. Their leftists defenders have no such troubling doubts.

The last time I had really looked into the matter, it seemed that most people (who had studied the matter and were generally intellectually honest) had at least conceded that Sacco was really guilty, but there was still some question about Vanzetti. This is partially because old anarchists and socialists had confessed that Sacco had done it (and "everybody knew it"), but insisted that Vanzetti was not involved in the actual act (but may have known about it or planned it or something).

But has the letter been checked for proper kerning, proportional font and superscripts?

The best quote from the article, IMHO, is this:

"I've never heard of this," added Lauren Coodley, a professor of history and psychology at Napa Valley College who edited a recent Sinclair anthology. "It's one of those amazing things. That's why history is so fascinating, because we keep revising it."

Heh.

I guess "fake but accurate" has been a journalistic rule a long time. At least he won a Janet Cooke Award for his work.

Anthony -

Not just Alger Hiss. I hear some disquieting rumors about that Rosenberg couple too...

Maybe next time the left comes up with some martyr figures, they could pick innocent ones? That would be swell.

Well, they *thought* they had it with Mumia. But no worries. The left still has Oscar Romero and George Hill.

I've always been pretty convinced of their guilt ever since I reviewed the case.

What blows my mind is the spin that the Left has been practicing to generate outrage. The article Megan links to above has this line in it...

Historians agree that prosecutors in the case were biased and shoddy, and that the two men failed to receive a fair trial.

Uh, excuse me? Aren't prosecutors supposed to be biased? I always thought they were supposed to be lined up against the criminals, after all.

So far as being shoddy is concerned, that should have been exploited by the defense. The fact that it wasn't proves that there really wasn't all that much reasonable doubt.

James

Next you'll tell me that the reason that Bruno Hauptmann had $14,000 of Lindbergh ransom money in his garage was that he was involved in the Lindbergh kidnapping.

Actually, since at least 1941, former anarchists have said that Sacco was guilty, and that Vanzetti was innocent, at least in that he did not commit the actual act.

For me, the only thing this changes is that maybe it shows that Vanzetti was not as innocent as he claimed.

As an Italian American, I have always felt some shame about this as the perpertrators (Sacco at least) were immigrants who repaid their new country with terrorism.

Historian Francis Russell wrote a book about 20 years ago alleging that Sacco pulled the trigger but there were doubts about Venzetti. I withhold my judgement until more facts emerge.

I find it interesting that Sinclair apparently feared being assassinated if he revealed the truth about Sacco and Vanzetti.

The most disturbing revelation is that the defense attorney knew they were guilty and as an officer of the court constructed false alibis for their defense.

This tactic of the most strenuous defense possible (the truth notwithstanding) has continued to the present day. In my opinion, it results in more innocent people going to jail. Everyone, guilty or innocent, gets the benefit of a very believable defense if the attorney is not concerned about suborning perjury, etc. for "their guy". The jury has a much more difficult time in their deliberations.

If the defense attorneys had higher ethics(?) [poor word choice]in clear cut cases of guilt, then I believe the jury would perform their job with greater accuracy in regard to both the guilty and the innocent.

There was California case from a few years ago where the attorney of the pedophile-murderer was negotiating with the police to disclose the location of the child's body. The police found the body themselves before the negotiations were finalized, yet the attorney later argued his client's innocence at trial.

I apologize to any offended trial attorneys for this poorly expressed post. I am just thinking out loud about how many guilty people go free and how many innocent people are convicted - and thinking of ways to improve the system.

I have argued with my defense attorney friends

Scrap the last line in the previous post.

(Note to self, preview is my friend.)

Why would you scrap that line, rap? Seems like a worthy thing to do, arguing with your defense attorney friends. I believe that the requirement that an accused person have a competent defense is a very good thing - but I also think it's a very good thing to keep on arguing with defense attorneys so that they never forget that the first purpose of a justice system is justice, not the winning of a legal contest. (IMHO, of course.)

Dan, I too was struck by the fact that Sinclair feared his own movement so much that he hesitated to write what he believed was true because it might cost his life. Wow. I guess the Progressive omelet might've required the breaking of eggs, now and again...

It's a shame S&V never got to search the golf courses for The Real Killers.

"If they're anarchists, you must acquit!"

Historian Francis Russell wrote a book about 20 years ago alleging that Sacco pulled the trigger but there were doubts about Venzetti.

In many states, aiding and abetting gets you the same penalty as for the actual crime. With that in mind I have to say: So what if Vanzetti didn't actually pull the trigger? What does that have to do with anything?

James

In the 60's, the state went back and performed ballistic tests on Sacco's gun and found that it matched one of the bullets found at the scene. The question about Venzetti is whether he was present at the robbery. Even the old anarchists agree that he helped plan it.

Comments are Closed.