It is therefore possible to establish the presence of Cardace – in the company of another individual it has not been possible to identify – in the immediate vicinity of the victim’s residence shortly before the murder. In this respect it is important to specify that Gaglione’s residence is about two miles from Cardace’s residence. It can be ruled out with a reasonable degree of certainty that Cardace left home and went more than two miles simply to have coffee in a cafe on the outskirts of the city.

The ruling then went on to examine the results of the forensics investigation.

The test carried out on Cardace, the results of which were provided by the central laboratories of the police Forensics department within a very short period of time, made it possible to ascertain that particles of lead, barium and antimony were present on the fibres of his jacket. Such particles do not exist in nature and derive exclusively from the phenomenon of the shooting of a firearm. It is therefore possible to state that Cardace used a firearm or at least was very close to a firearm being used. 40This fact, already quite significant in itself, gains a crucial weight if seen within the overall inclusive framework of the evidence.

The defence has tried to counter this fundamental piece of evidence.

During the preliminary phase of the investigation, the accused consistently availed himself of the right to remain silent. At the trial Cardace opted of his own free will to make a statement in which he basically tried to present an alternative explanation to that of the prosecution of the results of the forensic investigation. He stated that a few days prior to the murder, wearing the same jacket as mentioned above, he had gone to a quarry in the province to practise target shooting with a friend. He specified that he did not wish to indicate the particulars of the above-mentioned friend in order not to expose him to legal consequences, given that he was the unauthorized possessor of the firearm used on that occasion. He concluded by denying that he was responsible for the murder and suggesting that the contamination on his jacket, as ascertained by the forensics team of the State Police, was to be linked to the use of a firearm in the days immediately preceding the murder.

Needless to say, such a vague, entirely unconfirmed suggestion, made of his own free will by the accused in the course of his statement (thus avoiding the scrutiny of examination in court), is totally unfit to establish a case of reasonable doubt.

At this point the ruling lingered over the one piece of counter-evidence put forward by the defence, that is, the testimony of the defendant’s mother, which the judges had not believed.41