I had thought carefully how to approach my next task. I informed them as a group that ‘new information’ had been supplied by a witness. Then, assisted by the public slaves who guarded them, I interviewed each slave individually. I did it the same way as before, not letting them return to the others afterwards. As the waiting group decreased, the remnants had an opportunity to discuss among themselves, and perhaps to worry, what I might have been told.

With each, I began by stating angrily that I knew they had lied. Nicostratus was not attacked by robbers bursting in, because the robbers entered discreetly and they never even saw him. Valerius Aviola and Mucia Lucilia were dead before Nicostratus was attacked. The robbers did not find, let alone steal, the silver.

Every slave stuck doggedly to his or her original story. They refused to explain discrepancies. None had any idea, they claimed, why the robbers said they failed to encounter Nicostratus nor could they tell me who removed the silver wine set, if it was not thieves.

Diomedes who, according to the tale, had been lying in the courtyard in a drunken stupor with Amethystus, claimed the searching robbers must have stepped right over them. ‘Must have tiptoed like dancers, very light-footed!’ he quipped. His impudent implication was that Roscius and his men were lying about what they saw, or did not see.

Only Amaranta and Olympe, together with the young scribe Melander, seemed frightened that this new evidence was casting doubts on their story, though none of them changed it. All the others stuck to their bluff.

Daphnus, the bright tray carrier, fiddled with his amulet and did query why this witness of mine had not come forward before. I said he had not wanted to get involved, which seemed to satisfy Daphnus. Most people think giving evidence about a crime will rebound on them and cause too much trouble.

It was left to Chrysodorus to challenge me outright. ‘So,’ he proposed, ‘you have nine of us saying one thing and one person supplying new evidence – yet you automatically believe the singleton? Numerical probability is against you, Flavia Albia. And who is your surprise witness? Am I to deduce that if he can speak for the robbers, he is a robber himself?’

I had to admit he was. ‘Intriguingly, Chrysodorus, you are alone in working that out! How pleasing to find a philosopher with a genuine enquiring mind, and willing to engage in debate. Something to be said for intellectual training.’

‘Your informant is a person of such admirable character, Flavia Albia!’

‘Now you are speaking like a lawyer, which does not endear you to me. Keep your irony to yourself, please. I’ll do the rhetoric, if any is needed.’