“That’s what happened to the investigators in this case. From the start, the one conjecture to be confirmed was: Iacopo Cardace quarrelled with Gaglione, he went to his apartment to have it out with him, he shot him and left.

“At no point in the investigation, let alone in the most delicate phase of this, that of the initial inquiries, was any alternative taken into consideration.

“The questions asked of the witnesses Montesano and Rafaschieri served to give you a glimpse of different investigative possibilities that should have been examined and weren’t.

“This explains the fact – although it remains somewhat disconcerting – that the ways in and out of the crime scene weren’t checked. I ask you, without any polemical intent: Does it strike you as justifiable that the possibility of a different way into Gaglione’s apartment wasn’t taken into consideration? Does it strike you as justifiable that a thorough search was not made for possible prints in the courtyard? Does it strike you as justifiable that no attention was paid to the French windows leading to the balcony to see if they were open or closed?

“And again: Does it strike you as justifiable that no footage was obtained from the security cameras that must have existed in the area?

“These were checks that were very easy to carry out in the immediate aftermath of the crime. Routine checks in an investigation like this, but which today are impossible. Because today, obviously, any possible prints in the courtyard 260have disappeared; because today, obviously, the footage from the security cameras in the area has been recorded over, as usually happens.

“I don’t want to victimize the investigators. I understand the mistake, brought about by the desire to solve an alarming case as quickly as possible. What I wanted to show is that the investigation is not devoid of flaws, of gaps, of avenues of enquiry not followed up and now lost for ever. And it’s precisely in taking account of what isn’t in the investigation that we must ask ourselves if it’s possible to have a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. A reasonable doubt which means a possible alternative explanation of the evidence.

“It is therefore time to deal with the fight in the disco called Chilometro Zero. The accused mentions it in his testimony and so does the witness Rafaschieri. It has been said that Rafaschieri’s testimony on this subject is unusable because it violates the prohibition on allowing common rumour as evidence. I don’t think the matter is quite so straightforward. I think the sanction of unusability must be modified on the basis of the principles of favor rei and favor libertatis. Unusability, in my opinion, isn’t an absolute category, but a criterion for protecting the citizen from possible abuses on the part of the investigating agencies.