Moore opened by remarking wryly that in the six weeks of the trial, he, as a Californian, had felt almost an alien in the Dedham court. He then went on to develop his argument, claiming that the primary—in fact the only—issue was one of identification. Taking the Commonwealth’s witnesses in order, he asked why it was that the expressman Neal, when he felt his life was in danger, had not bothered to look at the number of the threatening car directly in front of his door? How was it that Faulkner, on the train, could remember the man he said was Vanzetti leaning over from the rear seat and yet could not remember the man in the seat beside him? Moore recalled to the jury the Italian railroad worker, Nicola Gatti, the one witness who had known Sacco before the crime, and begged them not to be prejudiced by the fact that the man was an Italian. He pointed out that Mary Splaine’s elaborate identification must have derived from the times she saw Sacco at the police station and not from the fleeting glimpse she had had from the upper window of the Hampton House, and he brought up again her indecisive statements in Quincy, so opposed to her Dedham positiveness. As for Lola Andrews, “even though we had not offered a single witness against her, she killed herself on the witness stand by her own personality, but Campbell, Fay, La Brecque finished her up.” Pelser was unemployed when he told defense investigator Robert Reid that he had seen nothing of the shooting, but a few months after he got a job with Rice & Hutchins he was willing to testify for the Commonwealth. Goodridge, the poolroom man, was in the courtroom for some other purpose when he identified Sacco. Why? “Gentlemen,” Moore summed up, “there isn’t a single witness called by the government who had an unqualified opportunity of observation who gives an identification. Bostock had the opportunity and wouldn’t. McGlone had the opportunity and wouldn’t. So on down the line. But it is the Lola Andrews, the Goodridges, the Pelsers that made the identification. Miss Splaine and Miss Devlin I reject, because their testimony is utterly unreasonable. They did not have the opportunity. They could not. You know it and I know it.” Moore asked the jury to consider again whether or not the defendants believed on the night of May 5 they were in fear of deportation or that they believed their lives or liberties were in danger, and whether Stewart’s questions about anarchism had not inflamed Sacco’s suspicions. There were, too, Sacco’s alibi witnesses for April 15—Bosco, Dentamore, Williams, Affe, Kelley, Hayes. Had all these men committed perjury?