witness: I have no idea what you’re talking about.

assistant prosecutor: I fear this is a problem of yours. Anyway, thank you, I have no further questions. I place the document at the disposal of the court.

presiding judge: The court orders that it be admitted as evidence. Does the defence wish to re-examine the witness?53

avvocato costamagna: No, thank you, Your Honour. We reserve the right to examine the document at a later time and to ascertain whether or not to make a further request for evidence regarding it.

Assistant Prosecutor Cotturri had been good, although Costamagna hadn’t been entirely wrong in objecting to that ruling being displayed. According to the code of criminal procedure, the submission of documentary evidence should be requested during the introductory phase of the trial. This is a non-mandatory rule, and one interpreted with a certain flexibility, but its aim is to avoid evidence being suddenly sprung on the court, to safeguard the integrity of the proceedings, and to avoid one or other party having to deal with unexpected evidence for which they have not been able to prepare.

The assistant prosecutor had overcome the problem in the proper way: he had asked Lorenza if she had ever been subject to legal proceedings, and it was only after receiving a negative answer that he had brought up that old case that had ended with the implementation of the amnesty. The ruling, therefore, didn’t directly prove anything, but once a certain testimony had been obtained, it helped indirectly to cast doubts on the reliability of the witness. As it had indeed done.

I leafed through the papers in search of a copy of that ruling, even though I already knew I wouldn’t find much that was useful. A ruling that implements the declaring of a charge to be null and void, as in an amnesty, simply says that although there is no evidence for acquittal, the charge should be declared null and void anyway. Apart from amnesties, other reasons for this might be the statute of limitations, the withdrawal of the action, or the death of the offender.54

The only interesting thing, apart from the ritual formulas, was the charge. Lorenza had been charged “as under articles 81, 337 and 278 of the penal code, with violating several provisions of the law by struggling with Sergeant Gattuso and Officer Scarano as they were attempting to arrest Nicola Damiani for the offence of possession of narcotics of the hashish type for the purposes of dealing, thus helping the above-mentioned Damiani to escape or otherwise evade investigation. Offence committed in Torre Canne, Fasano, 5 July 1987.”

It struck me that the Lorenza I had known so many years before – the memories were starting to come back to the surface – was definitely the kind of person to struggle with Treasury officers in order to help a friend “escape or otherwise evade investigation”.