“No. It was a joint decision. I bought out his share and that was it. I didn’t want to argue, I just wanted to find a way to get out of the situation. I was afraid there’d be problems and that my customers, who were normal people, women, kids, would be scared off. Some had already stopped coming.”

“After the end of the partnership, did you maintain relations with Gaglione?”

“No.”

“Did you ever see him again?”

“It happened. But only to say hi, good morning, good evening.”

“Did you ever find out what he was doing? Did he have another gym?”226

“I don’t think so. I heard he sometimes worked as a nightclub bouncer.”

“Did you ever hear of any specific episode connected with this work of Gaglione’s? I’m referring to an episode that took place in the weeks before the murder.”

The witness looked at Consuelo. His face expressed something like: Do I really have to talk about this stuff? He remained silent until Marinelli prompted him.

“You must answer. If you have something to say, of course. If you don’t, just say no.”

“There was a rumour going around that he’d quarrelled with some dangerous people in a club. That he’d beaten up a kid who’d got drunk and was causing trouble, and … well, they were people it was better not to go near.”

“But did Gaglione know that? I mean that he’d beaten someone ‘it was better not to go near’?”

“When it happened, no. Then he found out and started to get worried.”

“Are you able to tell us how long before the murder this episode took place? Weeks, days?”

Gastoni stood up to object. She was perfectly right to do so. In fact, I was surprised she and Marinelli had allowed us to go ahead like this with inadmissible questions.

“Your Honour, the witness said ‘there was a rumour going around’, which should already have been enough to make us interrupt the examination, being an answer contrary to article 194 paragraph 3 and article 195 paragraph 7 of the code of practice, which prohibits testimony based on common rumour, and in the case of indirect testimony requires that the witness indicate the person or the source from which he or she learned the facts which are the object of the examination. As if that weren’t enough, in his subsequent question 227counsel for the defence takes it for granted that an episode happened when there is no usable evidence pointing to the event having occurred at all.”

“Objection sustained. Signor Rafaschieri, from whom did you hear about this quarrel in a disco?”

Rafaschieri opened his arms wide. “I can’t say, Your Honour. The rumour was going around, even in the gym, it was common knowledge…”

“Precisely. Testimony cannot be based on rumour. Avvocato Favia, Avvocato Guerrieri, do you have any further questions? Admissible questions, I mean.”