“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. 188Let’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.”189

“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.