First: Madeiros is, without doubt, a crook, a thief, a robber, a liar, a rum-runner, a 'bouncer' in a house of ill-fame, a smuggler, and a man who been convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of a carpenter, who was cashier of the Wrentham Bank. An affidavit from a man of this type must be examined and scrutinized with with the greatest possible care, caution and judgment before the verdict of a a jury approved by the Supreme judicial Court of this Commonwealth is set aside....
Let us pursue this subject further with the object of showing whether Madeiros was, or was not, in the murder car. One would naturally think that if he was in the important event of killing two human beings he would know something about what took place, and what the immediate vicinity looked like where the murders were committed. There are some things that even a murderer ought never to forget in an event of this kind. But Madeiros' mind seemed to be, on these matters, almost perfectly
His failure to recall any of these things would seem to be more consistent with the fact that he was not there, rather than that fear benumbed his sight and his memory. Madeiros also affirmed that at the time he had with him a .38.
"His failure to recall any of these things would seem to be more consistent with the fact that he was not there, rather than that fear benumbed his sight and his memory. Madeiros also affirmed that at the time he had with him a .38 Colt automatic pistol. This does not seem to indicate much fear. He also said that the others had automatic pistols. If this is true, it would not seem to indicate that there could be much fear on the part of any of the gang. His co-murderer Weeks, in his interrogatories, said that he believed that Madeiros was capable of any crime. If this is true, it would not seem to indicate any fear on the part of Madeiros in the commission of any crime. . . . Counsel also said that Madeiros was qualified by age because it is a.matter of common knowledge that murders and robberies are committed by boys under twenty years of age. But after counsel had qualified Madeiros' criminal tendencies to the highest degree, he (Madeiros) in almost the twinkling of an eye becomes a poor scared boy only eighteen years of age and an easy subject to the temptations of the Morelli Gang in order to account for his tremendous lapse of memory.
Now, let us go a step further and ask: If Madeiros' statement of fear is true, why did the Morelli Gang desire to take a timid young man with them, on a fully-planned and intentional murder job? For the evidence conclusively established the fact that the deceased were shot down at sight and were not given even a chance. This Morelli Gang was a gang of thieves and bootleggers, of mature years and large experience in crime. There were in their gang eight or nine, which would seem to be a sufficient number without calling upon a timid young man whom they had known but a short time, to go with them on an intentional murder job. Joe Morelli and others of the Morelli Gang, who have signed affidavits, have affirmed that they never
knew Madeiros in their lives. Even tho they are crimina seem to be a semblance of truth to be attached to their statements, because there is no affidavit from any police officer or anybody else whose word would be considered reliable who affirmed that they ever saw with their own eyes Madeiros in the company of any of the Morelli Gang. Police authorities, who were constantly watching the Morelli Gang, would be pretty apt to know whether or not Madeiros ever was a member of that Gang. . . .
Why, then, should he, already convicted'of murder in the first degree and being absolutely safe as against the world, refuse to give the names of these men and answer a great many of the questions, if he was deeply anxious to save two men, whom, he says, he knew were innocent. It was argued that this refusal to give the names of this gang might have been due to the 'code of criminal ethics.' Is this true? On this question, Madeiros, according to the affidavits of Weeks and Drs. Cahoon and Thomas, told them that the Morelli Gang had 'double-crossed' him and he did not get a cent out of the South Braintree job. If this is true, then he must have had an enmity against the Morelli Gang and being safe as against the world, why did he refuse to give their names, if by doing it he could help save the two defendants, who he claimed were innocent, rather than safely guard the names of the real murderers....