coordinating operations, had not taken part in the searches, had not interrogated the chief witnesses, and was therefore from my point of view of secondary importance.
The judge said I could now put questions, if I had any.
In point of fact I had very little to ask the lieutenant, and could easily have done without cross-examining him at all. But I had to make the jury aware of my existence. I therefore said yes, I did have a few questions to ask the witness.
“So, Lieutenant, you have said that the telephone call reporting the boy’s disappearance reached your operations room at…”
“At 19.50 hours.”
“At 19.50. Thank you. And the patrol you sent out, when did that arrive at the grandparents’ villa?”
“The time it takes to get from our station in Monopoli to Capitolo. I should say a quarter of an hour, twenty minutes at most.”
“At what time did the child disappear?”
“How can I give an exact time…”
“Look here, Lieutenant, I have asked you that question because you, in replying to the prosecution, said that the patrolmen realized the child had already been missing for two hours.”
“Yes, of course, I mean to say that it was my men who informed me of this circumstance.”
“Would you therefore kindly tell the court, on the basis of the data in your possession, at roughly what time the child disappeared?”
“A couple of hours before, as I said.”
“And therefore…”
“At about six, more or less.”
“The child disappeared at about 18.00 and the grandfather called at 19.50. Is that correct?”
“They are approximate times.”
“Yes, the child disappeared at approximately 18.00 and the grandfather telephoned at 19.50. Correct?”
“Yes.”
“Have you, even informally, asked the grandfather what reason he had for waiting nearly two hours before giving the alarm?”
“I don’t know why he waited. They probably went hunting around-”
“Forgive me for interrupting, Lieutenant. I did not ask you for your opinion in this regard. I asked you to state whether the grandfather said for what reason he waited for those – nearly – two hours. Can you answer that question?”
“I don’t remember if he mentioned it.”
“Do you remember having asked him, even informally?”
“No, I don’t remember.”
“It is therefore correct to say that you do not know what happened during the two hours between the child’s disappearance and the report of it on the telephone.”
“Excuse me, Avvocato, at that time we were busy looking for the boy, organizing search parties and so on, not concerned with how and why the grandfather delayed reporting it, always supposing he did delay.”
“Certainly, no one is disputing the correctness of your actions. I want to ask you only a few more questions. Before the public prosecutor interrupted you, you hinted at the fact that the boy’s parents are separated-”
Now the public prosecutor interrupted me too.
“Objection, Your Honour. I do not see what the fact that the parents are separated has to do with the proceedings.”
Cotugno also put his oar in.
“The civil party supports the objection. This is a family which has suffered a tragedy, and I cannot see what motive there may be for introducing private matters with no bearing on the question before the court.”
As a rule I would not have persisted. I had asked the question simply to feel out the ground and because Cervellati had interrupted the lieutenant on that point. But now the reactions from the other side seemed to me excessive. So I thought I would push the matter a little further. To see what happened.
“Your Honour, I do not understand the strong reactions of the public prosecutor and the civil party on this point. I intend absolutely no lack of respect for the family of the child and the tragedy that has struck it. In any case, I fail to see how my question could have such an effect. My only interest is in understanding what happened during the minutes and hours after the disappearance and whether the child’s parents took part in the search.”
“Within these limits you may continue, Avvocato.”
“Thank you, Your Honour. So we were saying that the boy’s parents were – or are? – separated. Is that so?”
“So I believe.”
“When did you learn of this circumstance?”
“When I went to the house.”
“The child’s parents were there?”
“No.”
“Do you know where they were?”
“No… that is, I think the mother was away on a few days’ holiday, and I don’t know where the father was.”
“How did you learn of these facts?”
“They were reported to me on my arrival by Signor Abbrescia, the grandfather on the mother’s side.”
“Did Signor Abbrescia tell you whether the parents had been informed of the disappearance?”
“Yes, he told me that he had got in touch with his daughter on her mobile and that she was on her way back, I don’t remember where from. Or perhaps they didn’t tell me. In any case, late on in the evening I saw the boy’s mother, there at the villa, which we were using as a base for our search.”
“And the father?”
“Look, I can’t tell you about the father. I saw Signor Rubino the following day, but I don’t know when he arrived or where from.”
“Do you know if he was on holiday too?”
“No.”
“Do you know if the grandparents telephoned the father, as well as the child’s mother?”
“I don’t know.”
“In more general terms, do you know who informed the boy’s father?”
“No.”
“In any case, on the evening of the disappearance the mother had arrived and the father not. Is that correct?”
“It is.”
“Thank you, I have no more questions.”
In actual fact these were pointless questions. The separation of the parents had nothing to do with the child’s disappearance, with the trial or any of the rest of it. The prosecution and the civil party were probably right in objecting.
But I had very little room to move. Very little indeed. So I had to do something, even loose off shots at random, in the hope of hearing some sound, learning if in that direction there might be some way. Some track to follow.
Handbooks for lawyers would have said that this was the wrong way to set about it.
Never ask questions for which you cannot foresee the answer. Never cross-examine blindly, without having a precise object in mind. Your cross-examination must be punctiliously planned, nothing left to improvisation, because otherwise you might even strengthen the position of your adversary. And so on and so forth.
I’d really like to see the fine fellows who write such manuals conduct a damned trial. I’d like to see them in the thick of the noise, the dirt, the blood, the shit of a real trial. I’d like to see them apply their theories then.
Never cross-examine blindly.
I’d like to see them at it! Me, I was forced to go ahead blindly. And not only in the trial either.
That hearing continued with several other witnesses. There was the carabiniere who had received the call
