Gianrico Carofiglio - Reasonable Doubts

“Whereas you did?”

“No. But I’d realized that I had no way out, that I was caught up in something beyond my control. So what I wanted first of all was to keep my wife and daughter out of it. I mean, it wasn’t my choice. Either they’d arrest both of us or they’d arrest only me.”

“Go on.”

“The customs police told me there was only one way to keep my wife out of it. I had to say that the drugs were mine, only mine, and that I’d been carrying them without her knowledge. That was the only way they’d have a pretext not to arrest her, a reason…”

“They’d have a reason they could put on the arrest report as to why they were arresting you and not your wife. Because the car was registered to your wife, wasn’t it?”

“Yes, the car is hers.”

“So you made that statement, and they let her go and arrested you. At the beginning of this examination, you claimed to be innocent. Is it correct to say that you made that statement solely with the aim of keeping your wife out of this affair?”

“Yes. The drugs weren’t mine. I never knew they were in our car until the customs police found them.”

“Are you able to explain, or surmise, when the drugs could have been put in your car?”

It was a question which, in theory, the assistant prosecutor could have objected to. It isn’t usually possible to ask a witness to express a personal opinion or to make conjectures. But this was a special case, and anyway the giant squid was there in body only. He gave no sign of having noticed. So Paolicelli was able to answer unhindered. He told the whole story of the hotel car park and the keys he’d left with the porter, and how easy it would have been to fill the car with drugs during the night. He answered well, clearly and spontaneously. For what it was worth, he gave the impression of someone who was telling the truth.

Once we had got through the part relating to Montenegro, we went on to Macri. We briefly recapped the things Natsu had said and then concentrated on the question of what he and his counsel had talked about in the prison.

“What did Macri say when you asked him who the people were who had approached your wife?”

“He told me not to worry, some friends had asked him to help me.”

“Whose friends?”

“I don’t know. He said friends, but didn’t go into any details.”

“But did you have any idea who he was referring to?”

“Absolutely none.”

“Do you, or did you, have any friends or acquaintances in common?”

“No.”

“Did you ever tell Avvocato Macri that you were innocent?”

“No.”

“Why not?”

“Because I had the impression he knew that perfectly well.”

“What gave you that impression?”

“He often said to me, I know you’re innocent, it was a bit of bad luck but you’ll see, we’ll sort everything out. Not in so many words, but that was the sense of it.”

“What did Macri say to you before your first interrogation by the examining magistrate?”

“He told me to exercise my right to remain silent.”

“Why?”

“He said there was a risk of making the situation worse. He said I shouldn’t worry, he would sort everything out. I just had to be patient.”

“Did he tell you that he would get you acquitted?”

“No. He never said that. But he often told me that if I was patient and let him get on with it, he would get me a lower sentence. He said it in a knowing kind of way, as if he knew the right channels

… I don’t know if I’m making myself clear.”

“Yes, you’re making yourself very clear,” I said, looking at the judges. “You trusted completely in this unknown lawyer, who appeared out of the blue in somewhat mysterious circumstances. Can you explain why?”

“I felt – and still feel – as if I was in the middle of something I didn’t understand and couldn’t control. Macri seemed to know what he was doing, it seemed as if he knew things… I don’t know how to put it… it seemed as if he really could do what he promised.”

“Didn’t you know any lawyers you trusted who could have worked with Macri?”

“I didn’t know anyone well enough to trust them. As I said, Macri had this knowing way about him that-”

Mirenghi broke in. “Please avoid giving us your impressions and personal feelings. If there are facts, then state them, but keep your personal opinions and conjectures to yourself.”

“With all due respect, Your Honour, the defendant was explaining why he-”

“Avvocato, I have ruled on this point. Ask another question.”

Actually, he’d already said what I’d wanted him to. How useful it would be was another matter. It was time to bring the examination to its conclusion. I asked Paolicelli to talk about his last meeting with Macri in prison and the quarrel they had had. I’d advised him to tone things down in his account of that meeting, and in particular not to mention Macri’s threats. I wanted to avoid the court refusing to allow Macri’s testimony on the – perfectly reasonable – grounds that it was impossible to summon someone as a witness and then ask him questions which might oblige him to incriminate himself. That would have brought our case to a premature halt.

Paolicelli was good. He used exactly the right tone, once again implying that there was something not quite above board about Macri’s conduct, but without exaggerating, without explicitly accusing him of anything. When his account of that last meeting was over, I told myself that so far we had done everything we could, as well as we could. The difficult part was coming up now.

Paolicelli was led back to the cage. Mirenghi looked ostentatiously at his watch and turned to me.

“We still have pending your request to call your client’s former defence counsel as a witness. Do you still wish this request to be considered, Avvocato Guerrieri?”

I got to my feet, making my usual gesture, almost a tic with me, of pulling my robe up over my shoulders. Yes, I said, I did still wish the request to be considered. Avvocato Macri’s testimony was important to us. Indeed, after the statements we had heard during this hearing, its importance should have been obvious.

Very briefly, I went over the objections the assistant prosecutor had made in the previous hearing, concerning the admissibility of the testimony, and tried to explain why those objections should not be heeded. Then the judges retired to their chamber to make their decision.

Mirenghi had said that they would be in their chamber for twenty minutes at the most. They took an hour and a half. I wondered – as I had often done during similar delays – if they were completely incapable of foreseeing how long their work would take them, or if they did it deliberately. As a petty and more or less conscious demonstration of power.

Mirenghi sat down, checked that the clerk of the court was in his seat, cast a glance at me and at the giant squid, just to make sure that we were also there, put on his glasses and read out the ruling.

“Regarding the defence counsel’s request to hear further testimony, and having heard the opinion of the assistant prosecutor, the court declares as follows. There are no obstacles of a formal nature to the request to call the defendant Paolicelli’s previous defence counsel as a witness. Considering the objections of the prosecution and the subsequent observations of the defence it is possible to state that:

“One. Given the version of the facts presented by the defence, to which we have adhered in evaluating the admissibility of the requests, Avvocato Macri’s testimony must not focus on the conduct of the aforesaid lawyer but on circumstances within his knowledge; within these limits his testimony is admissible;