Adnkronos (Adnkronos) – "The investigative material" against Valter Lavitola "is rock-solid" with regard to "the existence of serious circumstantial evidence (...) also taking into account the admissions, albeit partial." This is what the judges of the Rome Review Court wrote in the reasons for the order with which last September they rejected the defense's requests, confirming the precautionary measure.
The former publisher, who instigated the attack in front of Sigfrido Ranucci's home, is in prison.
With their decision, the judges also confirmed the aggravating circumstance of the mafia method.
The Court of Appeal emphasized the "contradictory nature" of Lavitola's statements regarding the organization of the bombing. "At first, Lavitola claimed to have given a specific assignment, specifically to his trusted man Clesio Tavares Gomes, to fire three or four shots himself, without involving anyone else, into the wall of Ranucci's home. Only the day after the attack did he discover from the media that the co-suspect had not followed his instructions and had acted on his own, hiring individuals unknown to him who had planted the device near Ranucci's home."
However, Lavitola subsequently "significantly changed his version, initially stating that he had accepted the risk that the co-defendant, by virtue of his previous experience not only in the security field but also in the international military sphere, might deviate from his instructions, and then claiming that he had given Clesio Tavares a sort of 'blank warrant' because 'I didn't tell him to do it this way or it's better not to carry out the attack'.
Beyond the indisputable and significant differences between the versions offered by Lavitola, the judges emphasize in their 31-page reasoning, "it seems completely unlikely that Clesio Tavares would have, on his own initiative, changed the execution methods of the attack in the manner indicated without first consulting Lavitola. This is precisely because of the relationship between the two suspects, repeatedly reiterated by Lavitola himself, of an almost filial nature, based on extreme mutual trust; a trust that it is incomprehensible why the co-defendant would have betrayed, assuming the resulting serious responsibilities and also the related financial burdens."
Among the lies told by Lavitola, according to the preliminary investigation judges, is the inspection carried out by Lavitola and Clesio Tavares in front of Ranucci's home on September 15, 2025. "Lavitola denied this inspection both in his initial spontaneous statements and during questioning. However, an analysis of the suspects' telephone traffic revealed that that afternoon, Lavitola and Clesio Tavares went to the Torvajanica area, where Ranucci's home is located, and then immediately returned to Rome." The judges also confirmed the aggravating circumstance of mafia methods, particularly due to the "alarming nature of the action (...) already evocative of the intimidating power of mafia methods and thus immediately perceived by the victim, who, in the complaint and subsequent sit-in, reported having been subjected to repeated threats and warnings over the past few years in connection with his journalistic and investigative work, including in the field of organized crime. For this reason, he had been placed under a personal protection measure since August 2021." The judges highlighted the "serious nature of the action, indicative of an unscrupulous personality with an uncommon propensity for crime, given that Lavitola instructed the co-defendant to identify perpetrators who, for little money, agreed to carry out the crime in question, which could have had much more serious consequences given that the victim's cars ran on gas." Finally, the Court of Appeal also found that there was a risk of Lavitola fleeing, given that, as revealed by wiretaps, "starting July 1, 2026, immediately after the execution of the order against the four perpetrators, he was about to leave for Africa." Lavitola's defense attorneys, Sergio and Arturo Cola, stated that "the reasons given by the preliminary hearing are not convincing, particularly regarding the aggravating circumstance," and they announced they would appeal to the Supreme Court of Cassation.
News
webinfo@adnkronos.com (Web Info)