The second call is at 4.18 p.m., once again from the telephone of Cardace, who first of all complains very excitedly that he has not been called back. Gaglione’s answer is very sharp and aggressive (“I’m doing my own stuff, if I want to call I will, if I don’t I won’t, so stop pissing me off” – a translation of the dialect used). Cardace raises his voice and replies that Gaglione should not treat him like this, otherwise he will “smash his face in” and it will not take him long to find a replacement (in all likelihood 38another supplier of narcotics). At this point, Gaglione becomes worried that the contents of the conversation may be incriminating if it should so happen that their phones are being tapped. He therefore says: “If you want to talk, forget about the phone, I’m at home.”

Cardace cuts short the conversation, saying in a tone of barely controlled anger: “I’m coming now.”

What emerges from these two telephone conversations is a situation of serious personal conflict between two individuals involved in an illegal business, in particular a demand that Cardace has to make of Gaglione. The way in which the second call is cut off does not in any way suggest that a reconciliation is imminent and Cardace’s laconic conclusion – “I’m coming now” – points rather to a continuation of the quarrel without the mediation of a telephone call.

The second item of evidence consists of the statement of the witness Antonia Sassanelli, who works in a cafe in the immediate vicinity of the victim’s residence. She (like many other potential witnesses) was questioned by the police in the immediate aftermath of the crime. She was shown a specially prepared photograph album, which included a photograph of Cardace. The woman stated that she knew him from having seen him on several occasions in the cafe, often in the company of Gaglione, who was well known to her because he lived in the vicinity and was a frequent customer of the cafe. After a first phase of (almost instinctive) reticence towards the police, Sassanelli stated that she had seen Cardace in the cafe that afternoon together with another person she had never seen before. She was not in a position to indicate the exact time but did state that it 39had happened not very long before the arrival of the police and of “all that kerfuffle”, to quote the witness verbatim. Such statements were reiterated in the course of her testimony in court.

The witness is reliable and her initial reticence strengthens rather than weakens her credibility. She had been familiar with Cardace for some time (even if only by sight), and provided a sufficiently exact idea as to help pinpoint the time when she saw the accused in the cafe that afternoon.