So I was aware that what I was saying had no legal foundation and that, put quite simply, Rafaschieri’s testimony, at least where it touched on the fight in the disco, was worthless. I was presenting this argument to make the jurors reflect on the possibility that there really was an alternative hypothesis, and that not even considering it exposed them to the risk of a grave miscarriage of justice.

“And in any case,” I resumed, “regardless of what Rafaschieri told us, it was the accused himself who introduced the subject of how worried Gaglione was. Gaglione, who preferred not to leave home because of a fight that had taken place at Chilometro Zero, fearing a reprisal from individuals connected with organized crime. This testimony is perfectly usable. And what it offers us is a possible scenario from which we may conclude that there is reasonable doubt.

“The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that evidence must allow for the reconstruction of events in terms of such certainty as to rule out the possibility of any other reasonable solution. On the other hand, it must exclude more theoretical and remote possibilities.

“What does that mean? It means that in an evidential hearing, and this is an evidential hearing, there is no reasonable doubt if the alternative explanation to that of the prosecution is theoretical or remote. In other words, the validity of 263a reconstruction cannot be contested with alternatives that are purely conjectural and, ultimately, absurd. Outside such cases, the presentation of a possible alternative solution must lead to a verdict of acquittal.

“Basically, in evidential hearings, we take the evidence that has emerged from the hearing and construct a story in which everything fits together in a plausible way. We could say: a plausible reconstruction of events that happened in the past. When is a story that reconstructs the events of the past plausible? It’s plausible when it explains all the evidence, without leaving anything out, and if it is constructed according to criteria of narrative consistency.

“Having established this theoretical and methodological premise, let us see which stories the evidence presented here allows us to construct.

“The first is that proposed by the assistant prosecutor in her closing statement, which basically follows the substance of the original ruling.