They had needed the automobile “to carry books and newspapers.” As Vanzetti vaguely explained it, they planned to collect this unspecified material “from any house and from any house in five or six places, five or six towns. Three, five or six people have plenty of literature, and we went, we intend to take that out and put that in the proper place ... not subject to policemen go in and call for, see the literature, see the papers, see the books, as in that time they went through in the house of many men who were active in the radical movement and socialist and labor movement, and go then and take letters and take books and take newspapers, and put men in jail and deported many.” Everyone in the courtroom from Judge Thayer to the defendants themselves knew that this was the great divide. In these few sentences the issue of radicalism, moving so long just below the surface, finally emerged. Katzmann at once objected, and his objection was a warning to the defense. The district attorney was perfectly willing to avoid any reference to the political views of the two anarchists if the defense would agree to do the same. For the latter it was a peculiar dilemma. Moore was aware of the latent syllogism that the jurors no doubt then shared with most native-born Americans. An anarchist is capable of anything; Sacco and Vanzetti are anarchists; Sacco and Vanzetti are capable of anything: _Q.E.D._ Yet to go along with the district attorney, to gloss over the defendants’ political beliefs, would be to destroy any explanation except that of consciousness of guilt for their actions on the night of their arrest. Before Vanzetti took the stand, Judge Thayer had advised the McAnameys that they had better consider whether or not they were going to inject the radical issue into the trial. Moore insisted there was no alternative. John McAnamey told his brothers the same thing: that the defendants would have to tell about their connection with the radical movement fully and frankly. Only thus could they account for their equivocal behavior. When Vanzetti from the stand finally pronounced the words _radical movement_, John McAnamey was just leaving the courtroom. “As I was passing out,” he testified six years later before the Lowell Committee, “Judge Thayer looking over to me, well in his peculiar way of laughing or smiling, sort of threw back his head as much as to say, ‘Well you see Mr. McAnamey it is coming out.’ That is what he was telling me by his facial gesture. That stands out clearly in my mind. The government would have wanted that kept out of the case I am thoroughly satisfied because how could the men explain the facts?”