If I was not mistaken and there had been an argument, it must chiefly have been between the judge and the associate judge. This I inferred from the way they were sitting. The judge had ostentatiously turned away from his associate, even to the point of shifting his chair. As for the latter, he was staring straight ahead of him and polishing his spectacles nervously and almost obsessively. They exchanged not a single word during the entire hearing.

It struck me that these were not the ideal conditions for a hearing of such moment. I also thought, quite irrationally, that the judge had already made up his mind to convict Abdou. This feeling weighed on my mind the whole morning.

Margherita had not come, but nor had I expected her to.

I can’t say exactly why I was convinced that I wouldn’t be seeing her that morning. In fact, I don’t know if there was any reasoning behind it. But certain it is that I didn’t expect to see her, only a few hours after that message.

Abdou was allowed out of the cage, unhandcuffed, and accompanied to the seat reserved for witnesses. Behind him, half a pace away, two warders.

The judge began by asking him if he confirmed the fact that he had no need for an interpreter. Abdou nodded, and Zavoianni told him that he could not confine himself to gestures but must say yes or no, speaking close to the microphone. Abdou said no, he didn’t need an interpreter, he could understand.

The judge then asked whether he intended to answer questions, and Abdou said yes in a firm voice and speaking right into the microphone. Then the public prosecutor took the floor.

“First of all, Thiam, did you know little Francesco Rubino.”

“Yes.”

“But when you were interrogated you said you didn’t know him, you remember?”

We were off to a flying start. I leapt to my feet for the first objection.

“Objection, Your Honour. This question is inadmissible. If the public prosecutor intends to impugn the defendant on the grounds of his previous statements, he must do so by declaring which document he is referring to and giving a full reading of the statements he intends to question.”

The judge was about to say something but Cervellati got in first.

“I am referring to the record of his interrogation before the public prosecutor dated 11 August 1999. I will read it with a view to the impugnment, so that the defence will have nothing to complain about. So then ... in the course of that interrogation you said word for word that—”

“Objection, Your Honour. The prosecution cannot affirm that my client said something word for word when he is referring to a report in summary form, such as is the one in question. In the interrogation cited by the public prosecutor – which is the first and the only one to which Signor Thiam has been subjected – use was not made of shorthand typing or any other form of recording.”

This was not a genuine objection, but it enabled me to get across to the court from the start an important item of information: that the first – and indeed the only – time that Abdou had been questioned, there was no recording equipment, no video camera, no shorthand typist.

The judge overruled the objection and told me that he didn’t like the way in which we had begun. I would have liked to say I didn’t either, but I refrained. I simply thanked the judge and Cervellati resumed.

“I will read this statement: ‘I am not acquainted with any Francesco Rubino. This name means nothing to me.’ ”

“May I explain? I knew the little boy by the name of Ciccio. That’s what I called him. Everyone on the beach called him that. When I heard the name Francesco Rubino I didn’t realize that it was Ciccio. For me the boy’s name was Ciccio.”

“In the course of that interrogation, however, at a certain point you admitted you knew the boy, did you not?”

“Yes, when I saw the photograph.”

“You mean to say, when you were challenged with the fact that a photograph of the boy had been found in your room?”

“When they showed me the photograph ... yes, the one I had at home.”

“Then it is correct to say that you admitted knowing the boy only when you realized that we had found the photograph—”

He was going too far.

“Objection. That is not a question. The public prosecutor is trying to draw conclusions and he cannot do that at this point.”

Unwillingly, the judge sustained my objection.

“Signor Cervellati, please confine yourself to questions. Leave conclusions for when it comes to your final speech.”

Cervellati resumed his questioning but he was plainly getting nettled, and not only at me.

“Well, Thiam, are you able to say where you were on the afternoon of 5 August 1999?”

“Yes.”

“Tell the court.”

“I was returning from Naples by car.”

“What had you gone to Naples to do?”

“To buy goods to sell on the beaches.”

“I have a question to raise, concerning the same document as before. I read from the text: ‘On the afternoon of 5 August, I believe I went to Naples ... I went to visit some fellow countrymen of mine, whose names I am, however, unable to indicate. We met, as on other occasions, in the neighbourhood of the Central Station. I am unable to provide useful indications for the identification of these fellow countrymen of mine and I am unable to indicate anyone in a position to confirm that I was in Naples that day.’ You understand, Thiam? When you were interrogated, in August of last year, you said you had been to Naples but you did not mention the purchase of goods etc. You only said you had gone to visit your fellow countrymen, whose particulars you were, however, unable to supply. What can you tell us on this point?”

“I went to buy goods. And I also went to buy hashish. I didn’t mention these things because I didn’t want to involve the people who sold me the goods and the hashish. And I didn’t want to involve my friend who kept my goods and the hashish at his place.”

“Who is this friend of yours?”

“I don’t wish to say.”

“Very well. This will serve in the assessment of the reliability of your story. What were you going to do with the hashish?”

“We bought it in a group with other African friends, to smoke it together.”

“What quantity of hashish had you bought?”

“Half a kilo.”

“And you expect us to believe this story? To believe that in order not to reveal the possession of hashish and counterfeit goods, you did not defend yourself on a charge of murder?”

“I don’t know whether you believe my story. However, when I was interrogated I was very confused. I didn’t understand exactly what was happening and I didn’t want to involve people who had nothing to do with it. I didn’t know what to do. If I’d had a lawyer I might have—”

“During that interrogation you had a lawyer!” Cervellati almost shouted. He was really losing his cool. I had no need to intervene.

“I had a lawyer appointed by the court. We didn’t exchange a word before the interrogation and afterwards I never saw him again. If you asked me what he looked like I wouldn’t be able to tell you.”

“Very well,” said Cervellati, trying to control himself and turning to the court. “I must not argue with the accused. Listen, Thiam, you said you went to Naples that day. Describe the events of the day in detail.”

“The day I went to Naples?”

“Yes.”

“I set off early in the morning, at about six. I got to Naples around nine. I went to a depot in the neighbourhood of the prison at Poggioreale, where I get my goods, and I loaded up the car. Then I went to a place really close to the station, where my friends were who had the hashish, and I bought it. I had the money we had put together in Bari—”

“Why did you have to go to Naples to buy the hashish? Can’t it be got in Bari?”

“You can find stuff in Bari, but it’s mostly grass, that is marijuana, which comes from Albania. But I had to go to Naples anyway for my goods. These friends in Naples have very good stuff and let me have it cheap, at cost price.”

“What price do your pusher friends ask you?”

“A million lire for half a kilo.”

“Which you then peddled in Bari.”

“No. I didn’t peddle it. We bought it cooperatively and then divided it up to smoke it ourselves.”

“What time did you get back to Bari?”

“In the afternoon. I don’t know exactly what time. When I unloaded the car at my friend’s place it was still daylight.”

“And of course – you’ve already told us – you don’t want to tell us the name of this friend.”

“I can’t.”

“Is there anyone who can confirm the story you have told us in this courtroom today?”

“A witness?”

“Yes, a witness.”

“No, I cannot call anyone. What’s more, I have been in prison for nearly a year, and I don’t know if the people in Naples, or even my friend in Bari, are still in Italy.”

“Very well. We therefore have only your word for it. In any case you can exclude the possibility of having gone to Monopoli, to Capitolo, that evening.”

“No.”

“You can’t exclude it?”

“I mean I didn’t go. When I finished unloading, I stayed in Bari. It was late and I wouldn’t have found anyone on the beaches.”

“You say you didn’t go to Monopoli that evening. In that case, how do you explain the fact that Signor Renna – the proprietor of the Bar Maracaibo – declares that he saw you passing in front of his bar that very evening at about six o’clock? Are you of the opinion that Signor Renna has not told the truth? Do you think that Signor Renna has some reason for hostility towards you?”

“I don’t understand. What is the meaning of ‘hostility’?”

“Is it your opinion that Renna is accusing you falsely because he wishes you harm? Has he something against you?”

I was on the point of objecting, but Abdou answered first, and answered well.

“That is not what I said. I did not say that he is accusing me falsely. I know he is mistaken, but that is a different thing. To accuse falsely is when someone says something he knows is not true. He is saying something untrue but I think he believes it to be true.”

“In the days following 5 August did you take your car to be washed?”

“Yes, after my trip to Naples. I took it to be washed at that time.”

“Why?”

“Because it was dirty.”

I seemed to perceive the trace of a smile on the lips of some of the bench. Those who remained deadly serious were the judge, the associate judge, the buxom woman who appeared to be embalmed, and the elderly man who looked like a retired officer. I remained very serious indeed. So did Cervellati, who continued his examination for a few more minutes, asking Abdou about the photograph of the child and a handful of other things.

Counsel for the civil party put a few questions, just to show he was there, then the judge gave me permission to proceed.

“Signor Thiam, could you tell us what work you did in Senegal?”

“I am a primary-school teacher.”

“How many languages do you speak?”

“I speak Wolof – my native language – Italian, French and English.”

“Why did you come to this country?”

“Because I couldn’t see a future in my own country.”

“Are you an illegal immigrant?”

“No, I have a residence permit and also a licence to sell goods. However, I also sold counterfeit goods. That’s the illegal thing I did.”

“How long did you know little Francesco?”

“I met him last summer ... no, I mean the summer before ... in 1998.”

“Why did you have that photograph of the boy?”

“He gave it to me himself ... the boy and I were friends. We often used to talk ...”

“When was it given to you?”

“Last year, in July. The boy said that if I went back to Africa I could take it with me as a memento. I told him that I wouldn’t be going back to Africa, but he gave it to me all the same.”

“When was the photo taken?”

“The very day he gave it to me. His grandfather had a Polaroid camera and was taking photographs. The boy chose one of them and gave it to me.”

“I would now like to turn to another matter. I see you speak very good Italian. I would therefore like to ask you something. Can you tell us the meaning of the sentence: ‘I expressly renounce any time for defence’?”

“I don’t know what that means.”

“That’s odd, Signor Thiam, because it’s a phrase you appear to have pronounced during your interrogation by the public prosecutor. Would you care to read it?”

I went up to Abdou and showed him my copy of the record. I was expecting Cervellati to raise an objection, but he stayed seated and said nothing.

Abdou peered at the document, as I had told him to last week in prison. Then he shook his head.

“No, I don’t know what it means.”

“Excuse me, Signor Thiam, but did you not say that you renounced any time for you to prepare for your appearance and interrogation?”

“I don’t know what this means.”

That was the place for me to stop. The message, I thought, had got across. The record of Abdou’s interrogation had been drafted pretty casually, and now the court knew it. I could change the subject and get on to the decisive point.

“You have said that on 5 August you went to Naples but that there are no witnesses who can confirm this fact. Is that right?”

“Yes.”

“Have you got a mobile telephone?”

“I had one. When they arrested me they confiscated that too.”

“Of course, it is on file in the report. When you went to Naples did you have that mobile with you?”

“Yes.”

“Do you remember whether you made or received any calls that day?”

“I think so. I don’t remember exactly, but I think so.”

“Can you tell us the number of that mobile telephone?”

“Yes. The number was 0339-7134964.”

“I have finished, Your Honour. Thank you.”

The public prosecutor had no more questions and requested the attachment of the document used for his assertions. I made no objections. The judge said that after half an hour’s break would be the time to put forward any applications for additional evidence. The court would decide whether to accept or reject them and we would agree on the dates for further hearings.

My feeling was that I was seriously in need of coffee and a cigarette.