them. He said "No." He said all he could see was the gun and he ducked. (R. 1040.)
Moreover, LeVangie was discredited by all the other identification witnesses on both sides, who insisted that the driver of the car was a young, small, light-haired man, whereas Vanzetti was middle-aged, dark, with a black moustache. But, though the District Attorney had to repudiate LeVangie, he characteristically held on to LeVangie's identification. The following quotation from the District Attorney's summing up reveals the worthlessness of LeVangie's testimony; it throws no less light on the guiding attitude of the prosecution:—
They find fault, gentlemen, with Levangie. They say that Levangie is wrong in saying that Vanzetti was driving that car. I agree with them, gentlemen. I would not be trying to do justice to these defendants if I pretended that personally so far as you are concerned about my personal belief on that, that Vanzetti drove that car over the crossing. I do not believe any such thing. You must be overwhelmed with the testimony that when the car started it was driven by a light haired man who showed every indication of being sickly.
We cannot mold the testimony of witnesses, gentlemen. We have got to take them as they testify on their oath, and we put Levangie on because necessarily he must have been there. He saw something. He described a light haired man to some of the witnesses. They produced Carter, the first witness they put on, to say that he said the light haired man,—the driver was a light haired man. That is true. I believe my brothers will agree with me on that proposition, but he saw the face of Vanzetti in that car, and is his testimony to be rejected if it disagrees with everybody else if you are satisfied he honestly meant to tell the truth?
