I knew that Lowell had been involved in the Sacco and Vanzetti case and I had looked forward to hearing his account of the case. In the 1920's, in response to widespread claims that Sacco and Vanzetti had not received a fair trial, the governor of Massachusetts had appointed a three-man committee that had included Lowell and the president of Massachusetts Institute of Technology to review the evidence of the trial. The committee had found no solid grounds for overturning the guilty verdict. Along with million others, I had believed that Sacco and Vanzetti were not guilty of murder and had been convinced because of their views and activities as anarchists.
Harry Levin had told me that Lowell would not be reluctant to discuss the case, and an opportunity came on a Monday evening. As several of us gathered around, Lowel went thought the evidence, step by step. As his story unfolded, I found my confidence in my interpretation being shaken. My knowledge was drawn from newspaper accounts and family discussions, whereas Lowell seemed to weigh all the evidence dispassionately. Furthermore, he had no axe to grind and had been reluctant to get involved. He had agreed to serve on the committee only at the urging of some of his Harvard colleagues.
I raised all the questions I could think of, without finding any holes in Lowell's story. When I was stuck, Harry Levin pointed out that Sacco and Vanzetti had testified that they were elsewhere when the murder took place, and other individuals had testified in their defense. Lowell replied that there was always question of weighing conflicting evidence, and added, ''You know, Italians always have an alibi.''
Fifty years after the execution, when all records of the Sacco and Vanzetti case were opened for public scrutiny, Harvard magazine ran an article suggesting that the records did not provide solid grounds for reversing the conviction. After checking with Harry Levin on my memory of our evening with Lowell, I wrote a letter to Harvard recounting our conversation. They did not print letter nor did I ever get an answer.
I learned another bit of evidence later on from P.A. Santosuosso, editor and publisher of the weekly Italian News. At the time of the murder, he was a reporter on the Boston Globe. When the news had come in, he had gone to Braintree, where the murder took place, to investigate. The murder had occured in a payroll office on the ground floor of a factory. The factory workers were on the second floor. When they heard shots, some of them rushed to the windows and saw two men running by. When Santosuosso asked them to describe the two men, they replied that it was twilight so that they could not see well enough to provide useful information. Nevertheless, during the trial, workers had testified that these two men looked like Sacco and Vanzetti. After the trial Santosuosso asked his editor if he should make public what he had been told by the workers on the scene. His editor ordered him not to get involved.
[...]
William Foote Whyte (1994) Participant Observer: An Autobiography, 58-59
