“Did you ask him anything?”

At this point, predictably, Gastoni got to her feet.

“Objection, Your Honour. The question is in violation of article 62, which I quote from memory: ‘Statements made by the accused in the course of police inquiries cannot be the object of testimony.’”

Marinelli turned to me. “What observation does the defence wish to make on this point?”

I stood up and arranged my gown, which as usual was tending to fall to one side. “Actually, Your Honour, sorry if I’m splitting hairs, my question was about what the witness asked the defendant, not the substance of the answer. But this, I agree, is indeed splitting hairs, because in fact I really am interested in knowing what Cardace said on that occasion and I don’t think article 62 can be invoked to deny me this chance, for two reasons. Firstly, we have to ask ourselves what the ratio is for the rule. Its aim is to protect suspects and defendants from the possible use against them of statements made in the absence of legal guarantees. So it’s not possible to make use of this rule for different purposes, purposes 180actually opposed to the principle of favor rei. Whenever testimony about statements made by the accused can offer evidence useful to the defence, evidence that may introduce an element of reasonable doubt, it must be admitted. The rule of article 62, which is there to safeguard the defence, cannot be transformed into a trap for the right of the accused to defend themselves with evidence. The second reason follows naturally. The things said on that occasion, in that police car on its way to Headquarters, are not important for their substance as a statement, their narrative significance. They do not prove the truth of what was said. Their importance is purely factual. Basically, we’re interested to know if a certain fact, the fact that Cardace stated certain things, happened at a particular moment. What makes this event important to us, what makes it a declarative event, as we might so call it, is that it happened at that particular moment in time.”

Gastoni tried to reply. “This argument is unacceptable. I don’t think —”

Judge Marinelli interrupted her. “All right, Dottoressa Gastoni, you’ve already stated your objection. Let’s not stretch this out.”

He turned towards the associate judge, and they conferred for a few seconds. Then he turned to the stenographer and dictated.

“The court, having considered that article 62 of the code of practice should be interpreted in conformity with its ratio and therefore according to the principle of favor rei, and having heard and approved the arguments of the defence, overrules the objection and orders that the matter may be pursued further. You may answer, Sergeant De Tullio.”

“I’m sorry, Your Honour, I’ve lost the thread.”181