Admitting that the construing of silence into evidence is a dangerous course, all fraught with pitfalls, yet it seems permissible to pose the following questions: If the revelation of the circumstances under which she was found, the revelations contained in her letters to the Senate, and the revelations which one imagines must have followed her return to her husband, confirm past rumours and convict Cesare of the outrage, how does it happen that Sanuto--who has never failed to record anything that could tell against Cesare--should be silent on the matter?
And how does it happen that so many pens that busied themselves greedily with scandal that touched the Borgias should be similarly silent?
Is it unreasonable to infer that those revelations did not incriminate him--that they gave the lie to all the rumours that had been current?
If that is not the inference, then what is?
It is further noteworthy that on January 16--after Dorotea's letter to the Senate giving the details of her misfortunes, which details Sanuto has suppressed--Diego Ramires, the real and known abductor, is still the object of a hunt set afoot by some Venetians.

Would that be the case had her revelations shown Ramires to be no more than the duke's instrument?
Possibly; but not probably.

In such a case he would not have been worth the trouble of pursuing.
Reasonably may it be objected: How, if Cesare was not guilty, does it happen that he did not carry out his threat of doing exemplary justice upon Ramires when taken--since Ramires obviously lay in his power for years after the event?
The answer to that you will find in the lady's reluctance to return to Caracciolo, and the tale it tells.

It is not in the least illogical to assume that, when Cesare threatened that vengeance upon Ramires for the outrage which it was alleged had been committed, he fully intended to execute it; but that, upon taking Ramires, and upon discovering that here was no such outrage as had been represented, but just the elopement of a couple of lovers, he found there was nothing for him to avenge.

Was it for Cesare Borgia to set up as a protector and avenger of cuckolds?
Rather would it be in keeping with the feelings of his age and race to befriend the fugitive pair who had planted the antlers upon the brow of the Venetian captain.
Lastly, Cesare's attitude towards women may be worth considering, that we may judge whether such an act as was imputed to him is consistent with it.