“He had it, so the woman got it all back. The kid was put on probation, he behaved well – or pretended to behave well – and in the end the case was declared null and void. But it was a nasty robbery and the modus operandi suggests they’d done it before.”

I took a deep breath. I wondered if it had been a good idea to take on this assignment.

“All right, let’s not let ourselves be influenced by that.” I hadn’t even finished the sentence before it struck me as being as fake as a brass sovereign.

The situation didn’t improve with Annapaola’s contribution.

“I also read the ruling. Last night. The long and the short of it is, I think the guy’s guilty. The investigation was clean and the verdict is perfectly justified.”61

I turned to Consuelo, though I wasn’t sure I could expect any help from her.

“I agree. I also think he’s guilty. It was a nasty murder, and I don’t understand why you took on the case. There, I’ve said it.”

I felt the surge of irritation that goes through me every time I discuss these subjects with Consuelo and have to confront her prosecutorial intransigence. If it was up to her, we would only deal with plaintiffs in civil cases or with defendants who were unequivocally innocent. There’s no doubt she should have been a prosecutor or a judge rather than a counsel for the defence.

I waited a few seconds until the wave of irritation faded, otherwise I’d have started at a total disadvantage and would have been beaten in the debate that was about to start.

“I also know he’s probably guilty. Or rather: I get the impression he’s guilty.”

“Then why have you agreed to defend him?” Consuelo asked. “We’ve talked about this so often. As a practice, we don’t handle organized crime.”

“First of all, this has nothing to with organized crime. Worst-case scenario, if Cardace really is guilty, we’re dealing with a settling of scores between low-level dealers. And anyway, I have news for you: if we had to make a living agreeing only to defend those who were guaranteed innocent, we might as well go and work in the fields.”

“Working in the fields isn’t bad,” Annapaola said, in that typical tone of hers, where you can’t tell if she’s serious or if she’s pulling your leg.

“Have you read the court transcripts?” I asked.

I knew that wasn’t possible, given that I hadn’t had copies made for them. My question was only there to gain a little 62breathing space in the ongoing debate. They replied no, obviously.

“I have. The defence was practically non-existent.”

“Wasn’t Costamagna his lawyer?” Annapaola asked. The implication being: Costamagna was good.