Marginalia #1: C.A.Barr and his amazing machine

There are various tangential stories that come out of the woodwork when you research deep into a subject matter.  These marginal stories have always had a strong lure for me, and I have had a constant desire to tell the full story only through the marginalia.  I also become part of that marginalia;  my adventures chasing the story begin to blend into the narrative.

This is the original marginal story that I tried to research further on its own:  C.A. Barr and his amazing machine.

The Pinkerton Detective Agency was hired by the L.Q.White company after a botched robbery of its payroll on Christmas Eve (this robbery attempt was the prequel to the Braintree Robbery).  They began to follow a dapper man who either claimed to know who the bandits were or was one of them.  He later was overheard saying that the would-be bandits were Italian Anarchists.  

The Pinkerton detectives along with Chief Stewart of the Bridgewater Police (the man who eventually set the trap that caught Sacco and Vanzetti) finally caught up with the dapper man.  He stated his name was C.A.Barr (originally Barosso, an Italian) and that he had invented a machine

 "with which he could detect who had committed a crime no matter where it was committed."

 He stated that one Mrs. Vetilia had looked into the machine and saw the [attempted Bridgewater] holdup happening and saw the men plainly but did not know who they were.

The detective declared his statement rambling and no one tried to examine the incredible machine, nor tried to find and interview Mrs. Vetilia.

BUT it is very interesting that someone planted early on into Chief Stewart's head that "it was a group of Italian Anarchists."  No matter how ridiculous the story is, it could have had a material, practical effect of subtly slanting Chief Stewart's investigation.

I refer to the handmade Opaque projector used at the beginning of the show as

 C.A.Barr's Miraculous machine.

Vanzetti's Uncertainty

It is Monday night, and we finished the latest WIP at Culturemart this last weekend.  It went well with full houses and smooth presentations.  We focused on the nuances of the performance rather than the technical experimentation of earlier rehearsal periods.  It was strong and potent.  I will post a version of the video asap.

But that is not what I wish to talk about now.  I just happened on this video from the NYT Opinionator:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/02/the-dangers-of-certainty/?hp&rref=opinion

It is about the need for a scientific embrace of toleration for imperfection.  Against the hubris of certainty.

 And those same thoughts are what draws me towards Vanzetti.  I have lately been unable to find the exact quotes but he often refers to uncertainty- that he has studied, and has embraced the tenets of anarchy with his heart- but if he is wrong- If someone could argue strong enough to disabuse him of these beliefs- he would be willing to move on.  The ability to embrace the concept that, though you hold something dear to your heart, you might still be wrong, is to me the purest form of strength in humanity because it acknowledges your own fallibility. 

And it is contrasted with the grayness of the opposition, which entailed:

The foreman of the original trial replied to the possibility that they were innocent that "Damn them, they ought to hang them anyway."

And 

The Blue Ribbon Committee that reviewed the entire case found Sacco "Guilty." And on Vanzetti they stated:  "On the whole, we are of opinion that Vanzetti also was guilty beyond reasonable doubt."  On the Whole, they find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt!?!  Does not that sentence contradict itself? If it is only On the Whole, then it HAS a reasonable doubt.

And Vanzetti was executed, On the Whole.  

I suggest you watch the video, if not also read the article, and let me know if you also see these parallels...