Innocent until proven guilty

Sacco and Vanzetti were Italian anarchists, they were charged for murder. They were both Italian immigrants. Followed Luigi Guilani who was an Italian Anarchist that advocated violence, bombings, etc.
Background:
-Bartoleomeo Vanzetti
Born on June 11, 1888, Italy. Immigrated to the United States in 1908
Occupation: Fish Peddler
-Nicola Sacco
22nd April, 1891, Italy. Also Immigrated to the United States in 1908
Occupation: Textile Company worker
The crimes that were committed:
May 5th,1920,
On 5th May, 1920, Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were arrested and interviewed about the murders of Frederick Parmenter and Alessandro Berardelli were murdered in Bridgewater, Massachusetts while carrying boxes of payroll for a factory. They were shot, and $15,000 was stolen. Eyewitnesses made claims that the men who committed the crime appeared to be Italian. On May 5th,1920 Sacco and Vanzetti were arrested for this crime
They also had guns on them during the time of their arrest.
EVIDENCE:
- Sacco was absent from his job.
- Vanzetti lied about where he bought his gun, and from whom he purchased the bullets
-Ballistic testing claimed bullets resembled the ones that come from Saccos gun.
Things to take into consideration:
- The red scare. People were quick to blame immigrant.
Could be bias, and pointing fingers.
- Both men had legitimate alibis
-The men had no previous criminal record.
None of the wittnesses actually wanted to identify Sacco and Vanzetti as the criminals.
After evaluating the evidence, it seems as though Sacco and Vanzetti are innocent. They both have legitimate alibis. Also, I believe people are bias in this trial, because of the Red Scare, and they are do not agree with Sacco and Vanzetti's choice of politics, or lack thereof. Anarchists. Also , evidence showed that Vanzetti lied about the purchase of his guns and bullets. Could it be that he was merely lying in order to protect his friends.There is no doubt in my mind that Sacco and Vanzetti are indeed, innocent. here is not enought evidence against them, and the evidence that is prevented is not convincing.

picture:http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/SaccoV/courtspeech.html