“Avvocato, please don’t debate my decisions. Go on to the next question.”
I nodded. I hoped the implication was clear: I don’t agree with this decision, but all I can do is respect it. I turned back to the witness. His face was as closed as a fist.
“Does the name Sabino Arcidiacono mean anything to you?”
His hostile expression turned to one of bewilderment. “To be honest, no.” Then he asked the judge: “If I can consult my papers…”
Marinelli nodded and I intervened.
“In the spirit of not weighing proceedings down with pointless wastes of time, let me just say that the name Sabino Arcidiacono isn’t in any of the documents relating to the investigation. Just as, for clarity’s sake, there’s no mention of the height of the inner balcony or the possibility of entering the apartment from the back.”
Marinelli looked at me and his eyes told me he was starting to get annoyed. Montesano had his hand on the papers he had started leafing through.
“If it’s not in the papers I don’t know what to tell you.”
“So maybe, before going on to the specific point that interests me, it’ll be necessary for you to give us a brief recap of the investigation.”
His face registering a mixture of impatience and resignation, Montesano started recounting things we all knew already. This would usually have been pointless, but in this case hearing the list of what had been done would help – at least I hoped it would – to give an idea of what hadn’t been done.
It lasted about a quarter of an hour and I was surprised that neither Judge Marinelli nor Assistant Prosecutor Gastoni made any comments or asked where I was going with this. Maybe the simple reason was that they had understood. When the account of the first day of the investigation was over, I cut in again with a question.
“So, Assistant Commissioner Montesano, if I understand correctly, a significant element in the investigation conducted in the immediate aftermath of the murder, when you had not yet returned to your post, was the questioning of the woman named Antonia Sassanelli, who worked in the cafe. Is that correct?”
“Yes. The statement she made allowed us to place Cardace in the immediate vicinity of the victim’s apartment at a time that matched our working hypothesis.”
“What was your working hypothesis?”
Montesano sighed ostentatiously. “That Cardace had quarrelled with Gaglione over something to do with narcotics, that he had gone to Gaglione’s apartment to get even for some unspecified slight and that he had shot him, probably just with the intention of kneecapping him.”
“This was the working hypothesis.”
“Precisely.”
“Were there any others?”
“No, there was no reason for any others.”
“Let’s see if I’ve got this right. A few minutes after the murder had been committed, you formulated a hypothesis to explain what had happened, which then, after the initial stages of the investigation, remained the only one. Is that correct?”
“That’s correct.”
“Do you know what work Gaglione did? I mean legitimate work.”
“If I remember correctly, he worked in security, I think he was a nightclub bouncer.”
“I see. Why isn’t this mentioned in the papers?”
“Right now I don’t remember if it’s in the papers or not.”
“You can take my word for it: it isn’t. If you want to check, you may do so, obviously.”
He took another deep breath. As often happens, he had come to court thinking he would only have to confirm what was in his report. And now he found himself in a situation that was starting to become irksome.
“If it’s not there, it must be because we considered it irrelevant to the investigation.”
“From which I think I may infer that you didn’t carry out any checks on possible motives for the murder linked to Gaglione’s work as a bouncer.”
“No. As I just said —”
“Yes, you did say. There was a very promising lead, so you didn’t follow any other, or even speculate on an alternative. Let’s continue. You told us that Signora Antonia Sassanelli stated that Cardace had been in the cafe that afternoon together with another customer. Did you ask Signora Sassanelli who this customer was?”
“I wasn’t the one who questioned her, but I think so, yes.”
“I ask you this because it’s nowhere in your report.”
“Objection, Your Honour, that’s quite enough,” Gastoni intervened at last. “What does counsel for the defence think he’s doing? Is he challenging the report? As far as I recall, it’s possible to challenge the substance of a witness’s previous statements, not the substance of a police report or other official documents.”
“Avvocato, the assistant prosecutor is right. You can’t challenge the substance of the report, let alone any possible hypothetical omissions from the writing of the report or the conduct of the investigation.”
“Your Honour, I wasn’t challenging anything, I was merely attempting to bring up elements missing from the investigation. This is relevant to our defence strategy. I’ll rephrase the question.” I turned back to the witness. “Let me ask you again: Do you recall if a certain Sabino Arcidiacono was identified in your investigation?”
“No.”
“Sabino Arcidiacono is the person who was with Cardace in the cafe when Signora Sassanelli saw them. Did you not know that?”
“This is the first I’ve heard of it.”
“Did you instruct your subordinates to identify the person with whom Cardace, according to Signora Sassanelli’s testimony, had been talking in the cafe?”
“I don’t remember now, it’s been years. I assume I did.”
“I see. Given that you assume you did, can you explain why this person is not identified in any of the documents relating to the investigation?”
The look he gave me was almost one of hate. I couldn’t blame him: my tone was deliberately annoying and suggested that there had been some shortcomings in his work and that of his men. It was what I thought, and it was what I wanted the judges and jury to think.
Sometimes when you ask questions of a witness the real aim isn’t to obtain a specific answer, which very often is already known. It isn’t to obtain an element of knowledge, that is, the object and reason for the testimony. The aim is to send, through the question, a message to the judges and jury. I ask you something to communicate indirectly with those who are present at our dialogue and will then have to decide on the case. It’s a technique that should be used sparingly: if you overdo it, it becomes pointless, if not damaging, because it may annoy the judges.
“Obviously we considered it unnecessary. We had a lot of significant evidence against Cardace, as a result of which he was placed in custody, a measure that was later upheld several times in court.”
It was his way of evening the score. My questions had suggested that the investigation had been incomplete and, above all, inspired by a single hypothesis. This answer of his reminded the judges and jury that the investigation had been so thorough as to justify a custody order that had been confirmed at every stage. Not to mention the trial verdict.
Montesano continued, almost didactic now. “A statement from this individual had become irrelevant. Mind you, I don’t remember anything concerning this specific matter, but if you ask me the reason we didn’t identify this individual and I think back to my memories of the case and our investigation, I can say that in all probability that must have been it.”
Ignoring the hint of provocation in his tone, I smiled. “So, correct me if I’ve misunderstood, you didn’t consider it relevant to hear what a witness who had spoken with the prime suspect, or rather, the only suspect, immediately before or immediately after the murder might have been able to tell you?”
As sometimes happens, he realized too late that he had said too much.
“I didn’t say that. I was speculating. You asked me why this person wasn’t identified, and remembering n
othing of the matter, which as far as I can see was irrelevant anyway, I tried to give you a plausible explanation.”
“To be honest, I didn’t ask you to speculate. Anyway, I note that Sabino Arcidiacono, who, by the way, we will be calling as a witness, wasn’t identified and questioned during the investigation.”
Judge Marinelli intervened. “All right, Avvocato, it seems to me the witness has answered fully. If you have no further questions, which I hope not, we could move on to cross-examination – if, that is, the assistant prosecutor has any questions for the witness.”
Once again, Gastoni said she had no questions.
Marinelli dismissed Montesano – who didn’t deign to look at me as he passed me on the way out – and said we could call the final witness scheduled for this hearing.
19
The name of the inspector who had handled the analysis of the gunshot residue test was De Luigi. He was wearing a jacket and tie like someone who isn’t used to wearing them and looked like a young boy who had just joined the police. He was actually forty-four, as I discovered when he gave his particulars.
“You work at the regional laboratory of the Police Forensics Department, is that correct?”
“Yes. I’ve been working there for ten years.”
“What does the gunshot residue test consist of? I ask you to explain given that the jurors probably have no idea.”
“Yes, of course. The test is carried out when there’s a suspicion that somebody has fired a shot.”
“Can you describe to us the operation from the start?”
“Swabs are applied to the suspect’s hands, arms, face, neck and hair to collect particles deriving from a shot, if there are any, though they may only be identified during the next stage, when the specimen is examined under a scanning electron microscope.”
“One moment, I’m sorry. The test is done only on hands, face, hair, arms and neck? Aren’t specimens also taken from the nostrils?”
“Yes, also from the nostrils, that’s correct.”
“And from the clothes?”
“It depends. If they’re the clothes the individual was wearing … or rather, if they’re the clothes the individual is believed to have been wearing at the time of the offence for which they’re being investigated, yes.”
“How exactly do particles end up, not only on the hands and arms, but also on the face and hair and in the nostrils?”
“When a firearm is discharged, a kind of cloud is released which spreads in a radius that varies depending on the type and calibre of the weapon. This cloud of volatile material falls rather like talcum powder, and may also settle on the face and hair.”
“How many hours after the event is it sensible to do the test?”
“It isn’t possible to indicate an exact time. It depends on a number of factors. If the individual has washed themselves thoroughly, it’s quite unlikely we’d find anything even ten minutes after the shot. If they were wearing surgical gloves and removed them in the correct way, we definitely wouldn’t find anything on their hands. Alternatively, if someone doesn’t wash themselves and hasn’t taken any precautions to protect themselves from contamination, like overalls, hoods and gloves which they then removed, traces can be found as much as four hours later. If more time passes, it’s very difficult: these particles are very volatile and tend to disperse, even if no washing takes place.”
“I have a specific question. If someone has fired a shot, and a few minutes later they’re given the test and nothing is found on their hands, arms or face, it’s very likely, not to say certain, that they’ve washed themselves. Is that correct?”
“That’s correct.”
“Has it ever happened to you that you’ve done a test on an individual, not found anything on their hands or face, but have found something in their nostrils?”
“I should say that I’m not the one who finds the particles. I do the test – the samples are analysed by others. That said, yes, it has happened. Getting gunshot residue out of your nostrils is more complicated, and sometimes people don’t even think about it.”
“If someone fired a shot, let’s say an hour ago, then you do the test and nothing is found on their hands, face or even in their nostrils, what might you deduce from that?”
The assistant prosecutor objected. “Your Honour, the defence is asking the witness for his opinion.”
“Yes, Your Honour, that’s true. I am asking an opinion of the witness, given that he’s an expert witness. I refer in addition, I think correctly, to the conditions laid out in article 194 paragraph 3 of the code of practice, which hypothesizes the impossibility of separating the personal evaluation of an expert witness from a testimony on the facts.”
Judge Marinelli made a gesture of annoyance, as if to dismiss a small object that was bothering him. “Objection overruled. You may answer, Inspector.”
“If I’m certain that someone fired a shot an hour ago and we don’t find any residue on them, I’d conclude that they washed and cleaned themselves thoroughly and blew their nose, maybe even rinsed their nostrils with a saline solution.”
“So an individual who washed themselves so thoroughly would show a remarkable degree of caution and even a degree of knowledge of this test, is that correct?”
“Your Honour, this really is asking for inadmissible speculation,” Gastoni cried.
“Avvocato Guerrieri, this is an observation we could even make ourselves, if necessary. I’d say we’ve gone beyond the provisions of article 194 paragraph 3. Ask another question.”
“Very well, Your Honour. Inspector, was it you who carried out the test on the person and clothes of Iacopo Cardace within the context of the investigation into the murder of Cosimo Gaglione?”
“Yes, though not alone, with colleagues.”
“But you participated in the whole operation, is that correct?”
“All the test operation. The analysis of the samples is carried out at the central laboratory because you need a scanning electron microscope.”
“The clothes on which you carried out the test were those that Cardace was wearing when he was taken to police headquarters, is that correct?”
“Yes.”
“And how many hours after the estimated hour of the murder did this happen?”
“I don’t remember exactly, I’d need to look in the records.”
Judge Marinelli gave him permission to do so. He took a little longer than necessary. In the end he looked up and turned to me.
“You asked me how many hours after the murder the test was done?”
“Yes.”
“About four hours.”
“Are you sure? Having the records at your disposal, maybe you could be more precise.”
He checked again.
“Yes, I’m sorry, I made a mistake, it was about three hours.”
“So we’re still within the time frame during which the residue remains on the body of the individual, if no washing has taken place?”
“Yes, basically.”
“Yes or no?”
“Yes.”
“You then saw the results of the analysis carried out at the central laboratory using a scanning electron microscope?”
“Yes, of course.”
“Can you summarize these results?”
“There were various particles of lead, barium and antimony on Cardace’s jacket.”
“What does that mean?”
“It means that while wearing that jacket Cardace fired a shot or was very close to somebody who fired a shot. You have to remember that particles of lead, barium and antimony don’t exist in nature, and that in our current state of knowledge, they’re the results of a single physico-chemical process, which is the discharge of a firearm. I should specify that lead, antimony and barium are part of the chemical composition of the powders produced by firearms.”
“Were there particles of lead, barium and antimony on Cardace’s hands?”
“No.”
“Were there parti
cles of lead, barium and antimony on Cardace’s arms?”
“No.”
“Were there particles of lead, barium and antimony on Cardace’s face?”
“No.”
“Were there particles of lead, barium and antimony in Cardace’s nostrils?”
“No.”
“So the particles were only on the jacket, is that correct?”
“That’s correct.”
“You told us earlier that particles remain on the surface of the skin, in the absence of washing, for four hours. How long do they remain on clothes?”
“That depends on many factors. How they’ve been kept, if they’re washed.”
“What if they’re not washed?”
“They can remain for a few days.”
“I again call on your technical expertise. If Cardace had fired a shot that afternoon, how would you explain the complete absence of gunshot residue on his hands, arms and face, and in his nostrils?”
“He could have washed.”
“Thoroughly, we could say, given that there wasn’t even anything in his nostrils.”
“Yes.”
“So the explanation would be that Cardace had washed his hands, face and all the rest, this showing full awareness of the need to eliminate gunshot residue, and yet continued wearing the same jacket. Doesn’t that strike you as odd?”
“Objection, Your Honour,” Gastoni said. “This is a leading question, and certainly outside the provisions of article 194 paragraph 3.”
“I withdraw the question,” I said before Marinelli could intervene. This time Gastoni was right. It wasn’t a question, it was an observation I wanted to plant in the minds of the judges and jury. I would return to it in my closing statement.
I said I had finished and Marinelli asked Gastoni if she wished to cross-examine. This time she said yes.
“Inspector, I call on your experience. Has it ever happened to you that you carried out a test on a suspect and obtained positive results on the clothes and negative ones on the body – hands, face, etc.?”
“Yes. I remember at least two other cases.”
“When these individuals were put on trial, what was the outcome?”
The Measure of Time Page 16