The witness is reliable and her initial reticence strengthens rather than weakens her credibility. She had been familiar with Cardace for some time (even if only by sight), and provided a sufficiently exact idea as to help pinpoint the time when she saw the accused in the cafe that afternoon.
It is therefore possible to establish the presence of Cardace – in the company of another individual it has not been possible to identify – in the immediate vicinity of the victim’s residence shortly before the murder. In this respect it is important to specify that Gaglione’s residence is about two miles from Cardace’s residence. It can be ruled out with a reasonable degree of certainty that Cardace left home and went more than two miles simply to have coffee in a cafe on the outskirts of the city.
The ruling then went on to examine the results of the forensics investigation.
The test carried out on Cardace, the results of which were provided by the central laboratories of the police Forensics department within a very short period of time, made it possible to ascertain that particles of lead, barium and antimony were present on the fibres of his jacket. Such particles do not exist in nature and derive exclusively from the phenomenon of the shooting of a firearm. It is therefore possible to state that Cardace used a firearm or at least was very close to a firearm being used. This fact, already quite significant in itself, gains a crucial weight if seen within the overall inclusive framework of the evidence.
The defence has tried to counter this fundamental piece of evidence.
During the preliminary phase of the investigation, the accused consistently availed himself of the right to remain silent. At the trial Cardace opted of his own free will to make a statement in which he basically tried to present an alternative explanation to that of the prosecution of the results of the forensic investigation. He stated that a few days prior to the murder, wearing the same jacket as mentioned above, he had gone to a quarry in the province to practise target shooting with a friend. He specified that he did not wish to indicate the particulars of the above-mentioned friend in order not to expose him to legal consequences, given that he was the unauthorized possessor of the firearm used on that occasion. He concluded by denying that he was responsible for the murder and suggesting that the contamination on his jacket, as ascertained by the forensics team of the State Police, was to be linked to the use of a firearm in the days immediately preceding the murder.
Needless to say, such a vague, entirely unconfirmed suggestion, made of his own free will by the accused in the course of his statement (thus avoiding the scrutiny of examination in court), is totally unfit to establish a case of reasonable doubt.
At this point the ruling lingered over the one piece of counter-evidence put forward by the defence, that is, the testimony of the defendant’s mother, which the judges had not believed.
Lorenza had stated that from 7.30 to 8.20 p.m. (the murder of Gaglione had been committed just before 7.47, the time of the telephone call to 118) Iacopo was at home with her. The assistant prosecutor had subjected her to an aggressive cross-examination, making her contradict herself and eventually bringing up the fact that she had a criminal record, having been charged with aiding and abetting and with resisting an officer of the law, which had definitely put her in a bad light with the judges and jury. In short, the ruling described the witness as unreliable, “firstly because as mother of the accused she has an interest in his acquittal, and secondly because she has a previous conviction for offences against the administration of justice”.
My eyes were starting to smart and I told myself that maybe it was time to go to bed. Partly because that first reading had spoiled the good mood I’d been in at dinner and I didn’t want the situation to get worse. It looked as if Costamagna’s daughter was right, and I can’t say if I was upset more by this observation – that she was right, regardless of the matter in hand – or the rather uncertain nature of the case I had just taken on.
Of course the work was only just starting, in fact it hadn’t even started yet; of course I also had to read the transcripts; of course it was necessary to check for possible flaws in the investigation or procedural irregularities, if there were any. But for the moment I had in front of me a straightforward ruling that provided a perfectly adequate explanation for what appeared to be a completely justified sentence.
It was this, more or less, that I told myself, speaking out loud – speaking out loud when I’m on my own is an old habit of mine that has got worse with age.
I told Mr Punchbag that I was going to bed and that we’d see each other the next morning if he was still around. He looked at me the way you look at someone who’s made an unfunny joke. I took out the mobile phone I’d left in my rucksack and noticed there were a few messages. A couple were from annoying colleagues to whom I would reply the following Monday, maybe. A third was an invitation from a film club.
The fourth was from Annapaola. It said: Hi Guerrieri, everything here objectively boring, but let’s not tell the girls. Actually, the fact that I leave feeling happy and free and after a day I miss you is getting tiresome. Are you having fun without me? Have you picked up one of those crazy women lawyers who go all starry-eyed every time they see you in court?
The message was from more than an hour earlier. Once I’d removed the idiotic smile that had leapt to my lips, I replied. With two messages.
The first was this: Hi kid, sorry to delay answering but I’m having a party with these gorgeous Cuban dancers. Let’s talk when we have more time.
The second, immediately afterwards, was: I miss you too. Please come back soon.
5
I opened my eyes exactly six hours after switching off the light. I got up immediately, had a quick shower, made my usual black coffee, ate a few pieces of shortbread from the bakery near my building, then, to silence my health-freak conscience (which was a little fragile, to tell the truth), told myself I would have a fruit juice later in the morning and went back to the table and the case file. More specifically, to the transcript of Lorenza’s testimony.
I skimmed quickly through the preliminaries and moved on to the main part.
avvocato costamagna: Signora Delle Foglie, do you remember the day the police came to your home? The day you later learned that a murder had been committed and that your son was suspected of the crime?
witness: Yes, of course.
avvocato costamagna: Does your son Iacopo live with you?
witness: Yes, I mean, up until then, when he was arrested.
avvocato costamagna: Of course. Do you remember what you had been doing that afternoon?
witness: I’d been working.
avvocato costamagna: Can you tell us what work you do?
witness: Actually, I have more than one job. I’m a self-employed teacher, I do substitute teaching, sometimes for long periods, sometimes for a whole year. But I also do other things to make ends meet: I give private lessons and sometimes I keep elderly ladies company.
avvocato costamagna: Like a carer?
witness: Not exactly. I don’t provide what I’d call material care. I keep them company when they’re alone. These are old people who are completely self-sufficient. Sometimes I read to them, we talk…
avvocato costamagna: That afternoon, what had you done?
witness: I’d gone to see one of these old ladies.
avvocato costamagna: I see. Do you remember what time you got home?
witness: I can’t say the exact time, but my shift at that lady’s was from three to seven, from her home to mine is more or less twenty minutes on foot, so I’d say I got home roughly around 7.15.
avvocato costamagna: Was your son Iacopo at home?
witness: No, but he came in soon after me.
avvocato costamagna: Can you tell us how soon after?
witness: Ten minutes, maybe a little more.
avvocato costamagna: So is it correct to say that at 7.47 your son —
assistant prosecutor: Objection, Your Honour, defence is drawing
conclusions, which he obviously can’t do at this point.
presiding judge: Avvocato, stick to questions. You can draw any conclusions you wish in your closing statement.
avvocato costamagna: I’m sorry, Your Honour, but you can’t stop me, I need to —
presiding judge: Avvocato, please don’t argue with my decisions. If you have other questions ask them. The question to which the prosecution objected is not admissible.
avvocato costamagna: So you got home at 7.15 and your son ten minutes later. After coming home, did he go out again?
witness: Yes.
avvocato costamagna: How soon afterwards?
witness: I couldn’t say exactly. Not immediately. An hour later, slightly more.
avvocato costamagna: Are you sure?
witness: I’m certain.
avvocato costamagna: Thank you, I have no other questions.
presiding judge: Does the prosecution wish to cross-examine?
assistant prosecutor: Yes, Your Honour, thank you. Good morning, signora, as you know I’m the assistant prosecutor and I’m going to ask you some questions to get a clearer idea of what you’ve just told us. Is that all right?
witness: Yes.
assistant prosecutor: You told us that your son got home … at what time, did you say?
witness: About 7.30 or just before.
assistant prosecutor: And then he went out again?
witness: About an hour later.
assistant prosecutor: Then the police came to your home?
witness: Yes.
assistant prosecutor: At what time did the police arrive?
witness: I couldn’t say exactly.
assistant prosecutor: Had you already gone to bed?
witness: No, I was watching television. It might have been about eleven, maybe a little earlier. My son had been gone for some time by then.
assistant prosecutor: Would you be surprised if I told you that the police came to your home at about 9.30?
witness: As I said, I can’t remember exactly what time the police came to my home.
assistant prosecutor: But it seems you remember very well the time your son came home.
witness: But that’s because —
assistant prosecutor: Please don’t interrupt, I haven’t yet asked my question. So, if I’ve understood correctly, you worked as a substitute teacher but also had other jobs. Is that correct?
witness: Yes, that’s correct.
assistant prosecutor: Still?
witness: I’m sorry?
assistant prosecutor: I asked you if you still do various jobs, including this assistance to elderly people, this keeping them company.
witness: Yes.
assistant prosecutor: And in particular, do you still work with the lady you were with that afternoon?
witness: Yes.
assistant prosecutor: How old is this lady? What’s her name?
witness: She’s eighty-seven now. Her name is Rosa Bonomo.
assistant prosecutor: Do you do the same shift you did then?
witness: I always go there in the afternoon.
assistant prosecutor: Yes, but do you do exactly the same shift you did then?
witness: No, not exactly. Let’s say the schedule is more flexible now, it depends on requirements.
assistant prosecutor: Is that a recent change?
witness: No.
assistant prosecutor: How long ago did your schedule with this lady change?
witness: Do you want the exact date?
assistant prosecutor: You needn’t get upset, signora. I just want you to tell us what you remember. If you can’t remember, you only have to say so.
witness: I’m sorry. I don’t know exactly. More than a year, anyway.
assistant prosecutor: For what reason did you go from a fixed schedule to a flexible schedule?
witness: She’s an old lady, but she’s completely self-sufficient. To be on the safe side, though, her children found a permanent carer, a woman from Moldova. But she – the woman from Moldova, I mean – also has another job, so when she’s not there, or when her children aren’t taking turns to keep their mother company, I go. Actually, it’s almost every day.
assistant prosecutor: Do you know this woman from Moldova?
witness: I meet her when I arrive or when I leave.
assistant prosecutor: When did you first meet?
witness: When she started working for Signora Bonomo.
assistant prosecutor: And when exactly was that?
witness: I couldn’t say exactly.
assistant prosecutor: Then let me ask you a different question. When the events that are the subject of this trial occurred, did you already know this woman from Moldova?
witness: …
assistant prosecutor: Your Honour, can it be entered in the record that the witness is hesitating to answer?
presiding judge: So entered. Signora, please answer the question. When these events occurred, did you already know this woman from Moldova?
witness: Maybe… I don’t know, maybe yes… I’m not sure.
assistant prosecutor: We can easily check, but I’d like to hear it from you.
witness: Maybe I already knew her.
assistant prosecutor: Does that mean she had already taken up service with the lady at whose house you worked? Or did you first meet before this woman from Moldova started working —
witness: No, no.
assistant prosecutor: No, what?
witness: I didn’t know her before —
assistant prosecutor: So you met her when she took up service?
witness: I assume so.
assistant prosecutor: You assume so?
witness: She’d already taken up service. I remember now.
assistant prosecutor: So you’d already started the flexible schedule you told us about?
witness: No, I definitely had the shift from three to seven.
assistant prosecutor: But you told us it was when the woman from Moldova arrived that you started a flexible schedule.
witness: I wasn’t accurate.
assistant prosecutor: At what time did you get back home that afternoon or evening?
witness: About 7.15, I already said.
assistant prosecutor: How can you be so precise about the time? You told us that you could state with certainty that you left the home of the elderly lady you worked for at seven basically because that was the schedule you were on before the woman from Moldova arrived.
witness: I see, yes, you’re right, I wasn’t accurate, I got confused. I mean that for a while, even after the woman from Moldova arrived, I continued doing that fixed schedule. It wasn’t until later that the situation changed in the way I said, after a trial period, I think. I got confused about that, but I’m sure I got home no later than 7.20 and that my son arrived soon afterwards.
assistant prosecutor: Which, as it happens, would allow you to give your son an alibi. Don’t you think it strange that on all the other questions of time you say you can’t be accurate and yet —
avvocato costamagna: Objection, Your Honour, prosecution is arguing with the witness, badgering her, and even asking her for an opinion, which is obviously inadmissible.
presiding judge: Let’s drop the word “badgering”, Avvocato. That seems to me an exaggeration. That said, Assistant Prosecutor, the witness has answered. Any evaluation of the evidence can be left until the time is right, in other words, when we come to closing statements. If you have other questions, please proceed.
assistant prosecutor: Very well, Your Honour. Signora, I still have a few questions. Do you have a criminal record?
witness: No.
assistant prosecutor: You’ve never been subject to legal proceedings?
witness: No.
assistant prosecutor: Would you be surprised if I told you that I have here a judgement concerning you, relating to a charge of resisting an officer of the law and aiding and abetting?
witness: I
’ve never been convicted of anything. I don’t know what you’re talking about.
assistant prosecutor: Actually, I asked you if you had ever been subject to legal proceedings. This in fact is a ruling not to proceed because of an amnesty. May I approach, Your Honour? I would like to show the witness the document.
avvocato costamagna: Your Honour, I object to the assistant prosecutor’s methods. We don’t know what this document is, it wasn’t produced during the discovery phase and is now suddenly brought up in contempt of all the rules of discovery and of correct consultation between the parties. I object most strongly.
presiding judge: Assistant Prosecutor, before showing the document to the witness, please put it at the disposal of the defence. Avvocato Costamagna, do you need time to examine the document?
avvocato costamagna: Your Honour, while reiterating my objection to any inopportune production of documents, I ask you only for a few minutes, long enough to understand what it’s about and if it’s even slightly pertinent to the object of this trial, which I doubt.
At 10.25 the hearing is suspended and the witness is taken by the bailiff into the witness room. At 10.40 the hearing resumes.
presiding judge: We may resume. Does the defence have any observations to make?
avvocato costamagna: The document is completely irrelevant to the object of this trial. A ruling not to proceed because of an amnesty, regarding events that supposedly happened almost thirty years ago. I object to any request to produce this document and to any use being made of it at this trial, and I repeat my objection to this method of suddenly bringing out documents when there is a specific phase of proceedings when such requests may be made.
assistant prosecutor: Your Honour, I fear that this impassioned reaction on the part of the defence is the result of a misunderstanding. I haven’t asked to produce this ruling, although naturally I reserve the right to do so should the need arise. I simply wanted to show it to the witness in order to jog her memory. She has denied ever being subject to legal proceedings, whereas this ruling demonstrates the opposite.
The Measure of Time Page 4
