I assured him I had not gone queer and tried not to get buggered by anyone, within the bounds of possibility.
We reached the entrance to the law courts. Time for goodbye and each to his own work. We absolutely must meet one evening along with the rest of the gang. He said some names that faintly rang a bell. For a pizza or perhaps a good game of poker. Of course, a real reunion. Yes, we’ll call each other this week or next at the outside. Ciao, Guido, fucking hell it’s done me good to see you. Ciao, Alberto. Me too.
He disappeared towards the lift up to the fifth floor, where the civil courtrooms were. I stood there watching him, thinking that in some far distant place lost in the mists of time we two had been friends. Really friends.
The very thought was beyond belief.
Farewell, Alberto, I wanted to say. And I did say it, quietly, but audibly enough for anyone who happened to be close by at that moment.
But no one was.
Before the hearing started I had a word with Abdou. I had to find out whether the idea that had come to me on the beach made sense and could be followed up.
It could. Perhaps we had one further chance, but I did my best to repress any enthusiasm. When you get an idea that seems perfectly brilliant it usually doesn’t work, I told myself. In which case it’s a let-down for you.
As had happened all too often. But not often enough to make me accept it.
Margherita arrived on the dot of half-past nine. She greeted me with a smile from the public benches. I beckoned to her to come and sit near me. She shook her head and gestured with both hands as if to say she was all right where she was. I went up to her.
“You look very fine in your robe,” she said.
“Thanks. Now come and sit next to me. You’ve done your law exams, so it’s permitted.”
She gave a short laugh.
“If it comes to that, I’m even a member of the Bar Association. My father never gave up and went on paying the dues for me year after year. If I want to, I can start practising law at any moment.”
“Excellent. Then come and sit by me. If you want to see how this trial is going, that’s the best place to see it from.”
She nodded agreement and came and sat on my right. I was glad to have her there. It gave me a sense of security.
We began with the police doctor. He confirmed what he had written in the autopsy report. He said that the boy’s death had been caused by suffocation. He could not be more precise, because the causes of suffocation could be many. The boy had not been strangled, because there was no trace of the pertinent injuries. But he could have been smothered with a pillow, or by blocking his nose and mouth, or else suffocated by being kept in a very restricted space, such as the boot of a car. It was also possible – scientific literature cited several cases of the kind – that the suffocation had taken place during violent oral intercourse.
However, there were no signs of sexual violence and search for seminal fluid had given negative results. When his body was recovered, the boy was fully dressed in the clothes he had been wearing when he disappeared.
When thrown into the well the boy was already dead, because there was no water in the lungs.
I had no particular interest in cross-examining the doctor. I confined myself to getting him to state more clearly that the references to oral violence were merely the fruit of his conjectures, and that there were no objective data from which it could be inferred that that form of sexual violence – or any other – had in fact been used on the child.
After the police doctor the prosecution called Sergeant-Major Lorusso, second-in-command of the operations unit in Monopoli. Of the investigators, he was the most important witness. The reports of the main investigations had nearly all been drafted by him. I had come across him in other trials, and knew that he was a hard nut to crack. He looked like a clerk or a teacher, with glasses, thin fairish hair, and off-the-peg jacket and tie. At first sight he looked innocuous enough. But his eyes, if one managed to see them behind his spectacles, were cold and intelligent. Previously he had worked in the organized crime department in Bari, then he was involved in a story of violence inflicted on a suspect, along with a captain and another non-commissioned officer. They were all transferred, and Lorusso himself spent two years training recruits. For a cop like him that was a fitting punishment.
The examination conducted by Cervellati lasted more than an hour. The witness told of the searches for the boy, of how they had come to identify the witnesses; he spoke of Abdou’s arrest, the searches of his lodgings, everything.
It was a clear and effective deposition. Sergeant-Major Lorusso was someone who knew his onions.
Counsel for the civil party, as usual, had no questions. What the prosecution did in this case was always all right with him. Then the judge called on me.
“Good morning, Sergeant-Major.”
“Good morning, Avvocato.” He answered without looking in my direction. He was sharp enough to know that my cordiality was aimed entirely at the jury.
Leave off the tomfoolery, Avvocato, and let’s see what you can do. That is what was behind his “good morning”. So be it, I thought.
“Would you repeat the nature of your appointment?”
“I am second-in-command of the operations unit in Monopoli.”
“And what was your previous appointment?” I might as well get down to the knuckle at once, I thought.
“What has that got to do with it, Avvocato?”
Touche.
“Would you please tell the court the nature of your previous appointment?”
He hesitated a moment, seemed about to glance at Cervellati, then set his jaw briefly and finally answered.
“I was an instructor to the Carabinieri Cadet Battalion at Reggio Calabria.”
“Not a position in the criminal police, if I understand rightly.”
“No.”
“And before that?”
At this point Cervellati intervened.
“Objection, Your Honour. I do not see the relevance of the sergeant-major’s previous appointments to his deposition.”
The judge turned to me.
“Avvocato, what is the relevance of the witness’s previous appointments to this trial?”
“Your Honour, I need to ask these questions for purposes as under Article 194 sub-section 2 of the procedural code. The answers, as will become clear in due time, are of use to me in assessing the reliability of the witness.”
The judge was silent for a moment, then the associate judge said something in his ear. At last, after another pause, he gestured to me to go ahead.
“So then, Sergeant-Major, what was your appointment previous to being an instructor of recruits?”
While I was asking this, Lorusso turned towards me for an instant and gave me a glare of hatred. I was about to do something not often done. I was about to violate the tacit pact of non-aggression that exists during trials between defence counsel and cops. He had realized this. If he ever got a chance, he’d make me pay for it. For sure.
“I was attached to the operations unit of the operations department in Bari, first section, organized crime.”
“That is, the unit comprising the best investigators in the whole province. So if I have understood rightly you were transferred from a position in the front rank to that of… of an instructor of recruits in Reggio Calabria. Is that correct?”
“Yes.”
“Was this a normal occurrence or was there some particular reason?”
I didn’t much like what I was doing, but I had to shake his calm before going on to what really interested me.
“Avvocato, you know very well why they transferred me, and that I emerged from that business without a stain on my character.”
“Would you tell us what business that was?” My tone was one of false cordiality. Perfectly odious.
The judge intervened, this time without waiting for the prosecution.
“Avvocato, take care not to abuse the patience of the court
. Come to the point.”
“Sergeant-Major, can you tell us why you were transferred to Reggio Calabria?”
“Because a crook caught red-handed in the possession of a kilo of cocaine with intent to peddle it, with a police record three pages long, had accused me, a captain and another NCO of having beaten him up. We were all three acquitted and that gentleman got ten years for drug trafficking. Will that do?”
“All right. You took the statements of Signor Renna, proprietor of the Bar Maracaibo, and also of the two Senegalese citizens Diouf and
… I forget the name of the other. However, is that right?”
“Yes.”
“Can you tell the court what methods you used for putting them on record?”
“In what sense, Avvocato?”
“Did you tape or videotape these statements?”
“We did not tape them. If you look carefully at those reports, you will see it in black and white that due to the unavailability of recording equipment the statements were drawn up only in summary form.”
“Ah, yes, of course. So let us see if I have properly understood. You drew up the report in summary form only because the equipment for video or audio recording was not available. Is that correct?”
Lorusso realized what I was leading up to, but it was too late.
“At that moment I don’t think we… it was an emergency situation
…”
“I have a very simple question to ask you: in the operations unit of the carabinieri in Monopoli do you not have a tape recorder or video camera?”
“We had them, but at that moment… I think the tape recorder was out of order. I don’t at this time remember exactly, but there was definitely some problem.”
“The tape recorder was out of order. And the video camera?”
“We are not issued with a video camera.”
“Excuse me, but I have here the report on the on-the-spot investigation relating to the finding of the child’s body. It is stated here that ‘the on-the-spot investigations were documented also by means of video-recording’. And, in fact, a video cassette is attached to the report. What have you to say about that?”
Cervellati almost shouted his objection. He was losing his cool.
“Objection, Your Honour, objection. It is inadmissible to conduct the cross-examination of a witness on the basis of how he drafted a report, whether he had a tape recorder, a pen or a computer.”
“Your Honour, that it is inadmissible is the opinion of the public prosecutor. We are interested in finding out how certain statements were put on record, in order to discover whether, albeit involuntarily – since no one doubts the good faith of the investigators – I repeat, to discover whether there might have been some conditioning of the witnesses, or misunderstanding of what was actually said. Do not let us forget that the prosecution has asked for the reading of the declarations made during the inquiries of the two non-European citizens-”
Zavoianni interrupted me. He was getting rattled. He didn’t like all these questions, he didn’t like my procedural method and – I had always suspected it but now I was certain – he didn’t like me.
“Avvocato, let us go on to something else. I have put up with a lot of totally irrelevant questions. Let us have some questions pertinent to the proceedings at last.”
While looking at the judge as he spoke, I managed to steal a glance at Lorusso, who was breathing deeply, to relax.
“Your Honour, I believe it relevant to know for what motives the examination of persons in possession of the facts, and in particular that of the non-European citizens whom we cannot re-examine here because they are nowhere to be found, was not fully documented.”
“Avvocato, I have made up my mind. Proceed without questioning my decisions.”
I compressed my lips for a moment or two. Then I started in again.
“Thank you, Your Honour. I would like you, Sergeant-Major, to tell us about the searches carried out at the defendant’s lodgings.”
“What in particular do you want to know, Avvocato?”
“How you set about it from an operative point of view, whether you were looking for anything in particular, what state the place was in, everything.”
“I don’t altogether understand your question. Operatively speaking, we searched Thiam’s room, examining everything. We were not looking for anything in particular, but for anything that might be useful to the inquiry. It was there we found the photograph of the accused with the boy and the children’s books, which are listed in the report.”
“Did you find nothing else relevant to the inquiries?”
“No.”
“Otherwise you would have taken them.”
“Otherwise we would have taken them, obviously.”
“Did you find a Polaroid camera, or any other kind of camera?”
“No.”
“Now I would like to talk for a moment about those books. I read in the report of the search and the related seizure that Signor Thiam had in his room three novels for children in the Harry Potter series, The Little Prince, a fairy-tale in French, the well-known children’s story Pinocchio, and another book for children entitled Doctor Dolittle. Is that correct?”
“Yes.”
“Did Signor Thiam have only these books in his room?”
“I don’t clearly remember now. There may have been something else.”
“When you say something else, you mean some other books?”
“Yes, I think there were a few other books.”
“Are you able to say approximately how many books?”
“I don’t know. Five, six, ten.”
“Would you be surprised if I told you that in that room there were over a hundred books?”
“Objection,” put in the public prosecutor. “The witness is being asked for an opinion.”
“I will rephrase the question, Your Honour. Are you certain, Sergeant-Major, that the books were not many more than ten or so?”
“Perhaps about twenty, not a hundred.”
“Can you describe the room, and in particular whether there were any bookshelves?”
“It’s nearly a year ago, however there was a bed, a bedside table
… yes, there was a shelf beside the bed.”
“Just one shelf or several, a bookcase?”
“Perhaps… it is possible there was a small bookcase.”
“Now, I realize it is not easy after nearly a year, but I would ask you to make an effort to remember what there was in this little bookcase.”
“Avvocato, I can’t remember. Certainly there were books, but I can’t remember what else there was.”
“Sergeant-Major, you will certainly have understood that I wish it to emerge how many books there were, roughly speaking. I know the answer, but I would like you to remember.”
“There were several shelves in the bookcase, and there were books, but I can’t say how many.”
“But you took only those indicated in the report. Why was that?”
“Because plainly they were the only ones pertinent to the inquiry.”
“Because they were books for children?”
“Exactly.”
“I see… Now I would like to talk about the photograph, the one showing Signor Thiam with little Francesco. What can you tell me about this photograph?”
“I don’t understand the question.”
“Was it the only photograph in Signor Thiam’s possession, or do you remember if there were others?”
“I don’t remember, Avvocato. There were three of us carrying out the search, and I don’t remember whether the photo was found by me or by a colleague.”
“I would like to show you something.” I took an envelope out of my briefcase, opened it unhurriedly and asked the judge permission to show the witness some photographs. He nodded.
“You see these photos, Sergeant-Major? Can you tell us in the first place whether you recognize any of the people represented?”
Lorusso looked at
the photos I had given him – about thirty of them – and then replied.
“The accused is in many of them. The other people are unknown to me.”
“Do you remember if these photos were in the defendant’s room at the time of the search, or can you rule it out?”
“I do not remember and I cannot rule it out.”
It was the moment for me to stop, to overcome the temptation to ask another question. Which would have been one question too many.
“Thank you, Your Honour, I have finished with this witness. I request the attachment as documentary evidence of the photographs I have exhibited to the sergeant-major.”
I showed the photos to Cervellati and Cotugno. They raised no objection, though Cervellati gave me a look of palpable disgust. Then I put them back in their envelope and consigned them to the judge.
Lorusso departed after taking leave of the bench and the public prosecutor. He walked straight past me, ignoring me deliberately. I could scarcely blame him.
The judge said that we would take a ten-minute break, and only then did I realize that Margherita had been next to me all the time without saying a word.
I asked her if she wanted a cup of coffee. She nodded. I would have liked to ask her what she thought of it. If she thought I had done well, and things of that kind, but then I thought it was a childish question so I didn’t ask it. Instead it was she who spoke, while we were entering the bar inside the Palace of Justice, notorious for serving the worst coffee in town.
It was very interesting – she said – even if I did seem to be a different person. I had done well, but I had not been, as it were, exactly charming. Had it really been necessary to humiliate the sergeant-major that way?
I was on the verge of saying that I didn’t think I had humiliated him, and in any case trials of this kind are bound to be brutal. This brutality was the cost of civil rights that we could not forgo, and in any case better a carabiniere humiliated than an innocent man convicted.
Luckily I said nothing of all this. Instead I stayed silent for a moment before replying. I then said I didn’t know if it had been really necessary. It was certainly necessary to elicit those facts, which were important, and that maybe there was another way and maybe not. However, in those situations, that is in trials, especially tricky ones, with the media focused on them and all that, it’s only too easy to show one’s worst side. It was even easy to acquire a taste for it, for torturing people, with the excuse that it’s sometimes a dirty job but someone has to do it.
Involuntary Witness gg-1 Page 14
