Low Law Copy Number
It’s a very simple case for prosecutor Horsehair.
Can you convict someone with no proof? Sure! You just have to sum up all circumstantial evidence.
But is there circumstantial evidence? Sure, plenty of it!
Horsehair has indeed a time machine and brings us back to when people were still asking if Curatolo may be true, if Quintavalle may be true, if the break-in could be a fake, if there could really be blood of Amanda and Meredith in Filomena’s room, if the statements of Amanda and Raffaele could be revealing their guilt, if they could have called the 112 after the postal police arrived, if their alibi could be a false, if… if… if…
And for all these questions he has one only answer: yes.
He missed the best years of the century, when all that nonexistent circumstantial evidence was explained, by us, and then by the court. It was wonderful, but he wasn’t with us. He instead learned the case from the appeals of the accusers, and he believed them. And so naturally he sides up with them now.
Let’s enjoy some of today’s fine reasoning.
Curatolo is reliable. Why? Because he said he was certain. And we can’t doubt someone who says to be certain. We can not even doubt him because he was a heroin addict (indeed, we doubted him because he said (for instance) that Amanda and Raffaele were there from 9:27 to midnight. And we know that at 9:26 they finished watching the movie at home and that in the remaining time either they remained at home or they were killing Meredith, therefore, in any case, they couldn’t have been in the square). No problem for Horsehair: Curatolo is reliable. Just not for the time. I wonder why we were complicating our life like that when it was so easy. We –because we were not lawyers, we were not qualified– thought that if one is reliable is reliable for everything, and if he’s unreliable is unreliable for everything. And we thought that even more after having seen and heard Toto for real, a pleasure that was denied to Horsehair. The principle we learned today, instead, thanks to this great man of law, is that one is reliable in the things that are convenient to me, and unreliable when he says something I don’t like. Thank you!
Quintavalle is also reliable. And why? The same: because he said he was certain. But there are two other reasons much more poignant: because he is a store owner, and store owners have of course good memory for faces, indeed Quintavalle had said that: “I have good memory for faces”. And because he said that he had looked into her eyes, and when you look into someone’s eyes you of course can never forget and you can’t mistake anything, not even what day it was…
Horsehair quickly gets rid of the computer interactions, freshly re-provided by Raffaele’s defense to prove he was at home during the whole evening. According to Horsehair the closing of a movie at 9:26 is not important, that interaction doesn’t prove Curatolo false, so, doesn’t count towards an alibi since, as we saw above, Curatolo is not reliable about the time: he said they were in the square at 9:27 but he maybe meant 11. The other interactions along the evening –all interruptions of the screen saver, which means someone was touching the keyboard– are also per Horsehair not important, and he finds proof of that in Raffaele’s statements: Raffaele didn’t say “I touched the keyboard everytime the screensaver was starting”, but “I was on my computer”, which means “I was working on the computer”, not “I was only touching the computer”, therefore there’s no doubt that those interactions weren’t made by Amanda and Raffaele…
All like this were the arguments by Horsehair. By dropping out such high principles of law, though, he finally admitted a couple of concepts and data that were always denied by all prosecutions, and with no reason. Little things, like, for instance, that there’s no proof of guilt but only circumstantial evidence! (Kind of subscribable, no? ).
Or that those interactions in the computer there were! Yes: by denying the importance of those interactions Horsehair admitted their existence. Finally, we needed 6 years to hear that! So, unless a mosquito was touching the keyboard while Amanda and Raffaele were killing Meredith, Amanda and Raffaele have an alibi.
If this court thinks that people get convicted with a proof, not with a sea of nonsense words or with mere desires, they will acquit Amanda and Raffaele.
A clue? “People should know, because it’s unbelievable”, Nencini said today, “that the prosecution never asked to interrogate Sollecito”. Ha!
Nencini is starting to discover that there are unbelievable things in this case….Excellent.
Tomorrow Horsehair will delight us with a lesson about DNA, of which, he assured, became an expert. (why doubt him? It’s such a simple field…).
The guy is quite diffuse actually, and thanks to his precious and slow speech the whole calendar had to be rescheduled… Verdict not anymore on January 10, we’ll see when.