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 190I 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 nothing 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.

191

19