back of the front seat. He had a gray, what I thought was a shirt,—had a grayish, like navy color, and the face was what we would call clear-cut, clean-cut face. Through here [indicating] was a little narrow, just a little narrow. The forehead was high. The hair was brushed back and it was between, I should think, two inches and two and one-half inches in length and had dark eyebrows, but the complexion was a white, peculiar white that looked greenish. (R. 114–5.)
Q. Is that the same man you saw at Brockton? A. It is.
Q. Are you sure? A. Positive. (R. 115.)
The startling acuity of Splaine's vision was in fact the product of a year's reflection. Immediately after Sacco's arrest the police, in violation of approved police methods for the identification of suspects, brought Sacco alone into Splaine's presence. (R. 121, 130.) Then followed in about three weeks the preliminary hearing at which Sacco and Vanzetti were bound over for the grand jury. At this hearing Splaine was unable to identify Sacco:—
Q. You don't feel certain enough in your position to say he is the man? A. I don't think my opportunity afforded me the right to say he is the man. (R. 132.)
When confronted with this contradiction between her uncertainty forty days after her observation and her certainty more than a year after her observation, she first took refuge in a claim of inaccuracy in the transcript of the stenographer's minutes. This charge she later withdrew and finally maintained:—
From the observation I had of him in the Quincy court and the comparison of the man I saw in the machine, on reflection I was sure he was the same man. (R. 133.)
