23
The opening formalities of the hearing were
quickly dispatched. The judge ordered the clerk of the court to
read out the counts of indictment and then gave the floor to the
public prosecutor.
Cervellati got to his feet, adjusted his robe with
its gold cordons, put on his glasses and began to read from his
notes.
“On 5 August 1999 at 19.50 hours the carabinieri of
Monopoli received a telephone call reporting the disappearance of
Francesco Rubino, a minor nine years old. The telephone call was
made by the boy’s grandfather on his mother’s side, Domenico
Abbrescia, who had ascertained the disappearance of the boy, who,
until a short time before, had been playing in front of the villa
in Contrada Capitolo, the property of the said grandparents. A
search for the boy was put in hand at once, including the use of
dog teams, and continued without success throughout the night. At
the same time preliminary investigatory activities were set in
motion, with the examination of persons in possession of the facts,
of subjects resident, holidaying or pursuing commercial activities
in the zone in which the disappearance took place.
“Searches continued throughout the following day
and night, again without results. On 7 August the carabinieri of
Polignano received an anonymous communication to the effect that in
the zone lying between State Road No. 16 and the zone of San Vito,
the body of a child was to be found in a well. Search promptly put
in hand in that area unfortunately led to positive results, in the
sense that the corpse of little Francesco was discovered. The body
showed no obvious signs of violence.
“The autopsy subsequently carried out showed that
death had been due to suffocation.
“The investigations carried out immediately after
the finding of the body led to the acquisition of decisive evidence
against the Senegalese citizen Abdou Thiam, who today stands
accused.
“In the briefest of summaries, and with a view to
bringing out the points on which the hearing will be based, the
evidence is as follows.
“A number of witnesses have declared that on
several occasions they saw the accused stop and talk to little
Francesco at the Duna Beach bathing establishment.
“The proprietor of a bar in the immediate vicinity
of the house belonging to the boy’s grandparents – and therefore
the place in which the boy was last seen alive – has reported
having seen the accused pass by a few minutes before the child’s
disappearance. Thiam was walking in the direction of the house
owned by the boy’s grandparents.
“Two of Thiam’s compatriots have reported,
respectively, that the aforesaid did not appear on the beach – we
still refer to the Duna Beach establishment – on the day subsequent
to the boy’s disappearance, and that in the course of those days he
took the trouble to have his car washed. Clearly to get rid of all
incriminating traces.
“A search of the accused’s lodgings brought to
light a Polaroid photograph of the boy. The importance of this
evidence requires no comment. Also in the course of the search were
found numerous books for children,
the possession of which, in itself suspect in the case of an adult
living alone, becomes a disturbing and significant element in the
probative context of the matter in hand.
“Of particular significance, finally, are the
results of the interrogation to which the accused was subjected
during the inquiries. In view of the fact that the prosecution
applies herewith to examine Thiam in the course of the hearing, I
only wish to point out that the aforesaid, when asked if he knew
little Rubino, denied it. Except that he provided ludicrous
explanations when shown the photograph of the child found at his
lodgings.”
Cervellati spoke – or rather read – in his usual
nasal, monotonous voice. I was expecting no surprises from his
report, so I set about observing the court, one by one.
His Honour Judge Nicola Zavoianni was a personage
well known in Bari society. A handsome man, nearing seventy but
well preserved, an habitué of the sailing club, a great poker
player and, it was rumoured, a great whoremonger. He was one of
those who had never killed himself with overwork but had presided
over the Assizes for a number of years and more or less knew his
job. I had never taken a liking to him and had always had the
impression that the feeling was reciprocated.
The associate judge was a grey, bald, short-sighted
man with a shiny complexion. He came from the civil courts and it
was the first time I had come across him at a trial. He hugged his
gown around him in front, as if protecting himself from something.
I didn’t manage to get a good look at his eyes, shielded as they
were behind thick lenses.
The jury was composed of four women and two men.
They all had the lost air typical of jurors at their first
hearing. Two women of about fifty or sixty were seated at opposite
ends of the bench. One of them reminded me obsessively of a
great-aunt of mine, a cousin of my mother. I expected her at any
moment to call me up to the bench and offer me sugared almonds made
by the nuns.
The two men sat on the associate judge’s side. One
was about sixty or a bit over, with very short white hair, an
old-fashioned jacket with two buttons, a black tie, slits for eyes
and the look of a retired military man. He didn’t look like good
news. The other was a youngster, thirty at the outside. He was
gazing around him with an intelligent air.
Beside the judge were the two other women. One of
them – I thought at that moment – looked like a headmistress and
the other, by chance seated next to the judge, was suntanned,
heavily made-up, with garish lips, fresh from the
hairdresser’s.
I broke off my scrutiny when I realized that the
public prosecutor was rounding off with the applications for
evidence.
“... I therefore request the admission of the
witnesses indicated in the list, the acquisition of the documents
previously indicated and the questioning of the accused, if he
consents. Should the accused not intend to submit to questioning, I
herewith request the attachment of the statement rendered by him in
the course of the preliminary inquiries. Furthermore, since the two
witnesses of Senegalese nationality are nowhere to be found, and it
is therefore impossible to have them here present as witnesses, I
herewith – in accordance with Article 512b – request the attachment
of the statements made by them in the course of the preliminary
inquiries.”
The judge then called on Cotugno, who spoke
briefly. The civil party, he said, was not involved in this trial
for revenge but for justice alone. And justice is done when,
responsibility having been rigorously ascertained, a penalty
commensurate with the gravity of the offence is inflicted with
equal rigour. He had no applications for evidence and associated
himself with all the requests of the public prosecutor, whose
position he fully shared.
It was my turn.
“Your Honour, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the
public prosecutor has just spoken as if he were reading out the
grounds for a verdict of guilty. In the course of the proceedings,
by cross-examining the witnesses, the witnesses called by the
public prosecutor himself, we intend to show that the verdict of
guilty, already pronounced in the mind of the representative of the
public prosecution, is nothing more than a house of cards. We will
demonstrate that from the first moment on, the investigations were
directed not towards finding the culprit responsible for
this horrible crime, but towards finding a culprit. We will
show that the urgency – the justifiable urgency – of satisfying the
demand for justice of the family of poor Francesco Rubino, and of
the community as a whole, has led to an objective manipulation of
the probative material. I wish to be clear on this point. We do not
intend to maintain that the evidence has been deliberately
manipulated – either by the carabinieri or still less by the public
prosecutor – to the damage of my client, Signor Abdou Thiam. We do,
however, intend to maintain that the desperate need to find a
guilty party as soon as possible, in order to satisfy that demand
for justice, gave rise in the investigations to short-sightedness,
mistaken perspective, errors of method—”
The judge interrupted me.
“Avvocato Guerrieri, you have to make your
applications for evidence, if you have any. Do not anticipate your
harangue.”
“With respect, Your Honour, I point out that I am
confining myself to indicating the facts which I intend to prove,
in accordance with Article 493 of the code of criminal procedure.
In particular I intend to prove that a defective approach to the
inquiries – arising certainly from the best intentions – has
affected the quality and reliability of the probative material
assembled. In any case, I have nearly finished, so, with your
permission, I would like to continue.”
“Avvocato, you may proceed, but stay within the
limits.”
“Thank you, Your Honour. I was saying, then, that
the almost immediate singling out of a possible suspect, by a
series of coincidences, has led the investigators to transform
suspicions into conjectures and conjectures into alleged proofs in
a kind of involuntary chain. The objective which we shall pursue in
the course of the hearing will be to reveal this mechanism, to
reverse it, to identify the defective links, the incorrect
deductions, and show the substantial and grave, even though
involuntary, iniquity of it.
“I have no applications for evidence to put forward
at the present time, though I state in advance that in the course
of some of my cross-examination I shall make use of a number of
documents. Documents of which I shall subsequently request the
attachment by the court. I wish to conclude by reminding the ladies
and gentlemen of the jury that, in a civilized country, the
defendant does not have to prove a thing. Let me repeat that: the
defendant does not have to prove a thing. It is up to the
prosecution to prove the
responsibility of the defendant beyond all reasonable doubt. I ask
you to bear this in mind at all times during this trial. Thank
you.”
I had improvised, but when I sat down I was almost
pleased. I liked the brainwave about working backwards, from
presumptive proofs to conjectures to mere suspicions. And in
speaking in order to convince others – the court – I had begun to
convince myself. It happens in this job. It has to happen.
Perhaps we might make it. Perhaps the situation was
not as desperate as I had thought that morning, and for some days
before.
Perhaps.
The judge dictated for the record a brief ruling
whereby he admitted the applications for evidence and adjourned the
proceedings until the next day, for the beginning of the hearing.
That morning, he explained to us off the record, two of the jurors
had personal commitments that could not be deferred, so the
adjournment was unavoidable.
The court left the room, Abdou was handcuffed again
and escorted away, the public dispersed.
I put away my papers. I folded my robe over one
arm, picked up my briefcase with the other and was the last to head
for the exit.