This is by far the worst "scholarly" work I've ever read. I never would have finished if I wasn't being paid to read it. Here's why: 1) All sources with allegedly commumnist affiliations are dismissed as un-believable. 2) Although he Russell claims to have read the trial transcript and he concludes that it supports his conclusions, he only quotes the jury instructions in support of his conclusions. 3) He discounts the 21 witnesses for the defence as members of a catholic/Italian conspiracy and therefore they are not credible. 4) Russell has footnotes but they are limited to newspaper headlines and other books. Russell makes many conclusions based on works he does not give citations to. 5) He concludes that Sacco's son's silence is proof of his father's innocense. When, Dante finally spoke out most eloquently in his fathers defense, Russell discounts Dante's words as "too eloquent" to have been written by Dante and therefore Dante is not credible. 6) Russell relies on evidence of people who made claims but those people all died before they could be cross examined or even double-checked. 7) Russell is inconsistent in presenting what evidence he has bothered to present. Russell relies on a letter (he claims he has) implicating Sacco, but also the letter states that the DA at the time was willing to ensure exile for S&V for $35,000; two pages latter Russell is lauding the DA for his moral standing and saying he never offered to let S&V go for a bribe. 8) Finally, Russell relies on balistic tests on Sacco's gun which had been tampered with and which had been in the Judge's possession for years after the trial.

In conclusion, the balistic evidence does give some food for thought. But the circumstances surrounding Sacco's gun are too strange for such balistic evidence to be considered as the slam-dunk of evidence in this case. For a better presentation of the balistic evidence watch the documentary on S&V's balistic evidence. Russell refers to the documentary in the book, but he doesn't give a footnote for it; I assume it was PBS, probably NOVA.

For a more objective presentation of the evidence read any encyclopedic entry.

This is the only book I have read on this subject. It has been an article of faith of the political Left that Sacco and Vanzetti were framed, or, at least, that the law was determined to find them guilty, no matter what. Russell grew up in such a family, and never questioned this conclusion until he was well into writing a book which he hoped would conclusively prove their innocence. He concluded that Sacco, at least, was certainly guilty, although it is entirely possible that Vanzetti wasn't involved at all. A must read for anyone interested in this subject.

I have read almost the whole series, although I do not rate this one as high as the others I still is great for a new history student. I have not read this new addition yet but the old edition is top notch work, and I expect that the new will only be better. Jeff