“Is it conceivable that such an impressive amount of evidence is the result of a chain of incredible coincidences? Is it possible that it’s all a question of chance conspiring against the accused? Of course, if one considers every single piece of evidence, every single outcome of the process separately, it is conceivable that there may be alternative explanations, in terms of probability. But the more the evidence mounts up, the more drastically is the probability of an alternative reduced.

“Let us examine the mountain of evidence produced first by the investigation and then by the trial. We observe that such a mountain wasn’t even dented by the efforts exerted by the defence during this hearing.

“The first piece of evidence comprises the two telephone conversations intercepted on the morning of the crime. As you will all remember, Gaglione’s telephone was being tapped 245within the context of an investigation into criminal association for the purpose of trafficking in narcotics, in particular synthetic drugs.

“On the afternoon of 13 October 2011, members of the Flying Squad involved in the telephone-tapping record two calls between the accused and the victim. The subject isn’t clear, but the tone is animated and it’s quite obvious that there is some bone of contention between the two men. It isn’t irrelevant to underline that both calls come from the telephone of the accused. It is he, in other words, who has an incentive, a specific motive, a reason, let’s say, a claim on Gaglione. The second telephone call quickly degenerates into a quarrel and concludes with the decision, laden with threat, to meet in order to resolve the dispute.

“The threatening tone is already commented upon in the police notes appended to the transcript of the intercept operations, although nothing led anyone to suppose that the harsh conclusion of the conversation was the premise, the portent, of a lethal outcome.

“Be that as it may, and here we come to the second point, the accused soon afterwards proceeds to the home of the victim. It’s possible to say that on the basis of the testimony of Antonia Sassanelli, who was questioned by the police in the hours immediately following the murder. The accused himself has admitted his presence in the vicinity, although giving it a different explanation during his testimony. A testimony, it’s hardly worth recalling, given only during this appeal hearing. Up until then Cardace had availed himself of the right to remain silent. A right granted him by the law, but the exercise of which should be evaluated within the overall framework of the evidence.”

*

246She continued by listing in a somewhat fussy way all the evidence against Iacopo as described and commented on in the ruling by the original judges.