Everything Ranucci did for Lavitola, he did in good faith

In the investigation into the attack on Sigfrido Ranucci, many details have become clear, while several remain to be clarified; however, one point is beyond dispute. It is almost taken for granted. Ranucci is acting in good faith. Everything is clear in the arrest warrant for the instigator of the ‘love bomb’ attack on his ‘brotherly friend’: ‘No evidence has emerged to suggest that the journalist was in agreement with Lavitola’. Ranucci got on well with Lavitola, but he did not agree with him. His only fault, if one can call it that, is that he is too good-natured. A good faith that borders on naivety. Not exactly the trait one would expect from the prince of investigative journalism. And yet, according to the investigating magistrate, the sleuth who uncovers the most secret plots, the decoder of the codes of power, was “a victim of manipulation” by Lavitola: the owner of the Cefalù Bistro, with his “refined cunning”, duped the investigative journalist. 

Everything Ranucci did, he did in good faith. For a year, he suggested that to find the instigators and perpetrators of the bombing, one had to follow the trail of organised crime, the secret services, politics and international arms trafficking. Nothing came of it; it was all wrong. However, there was certainly no intention to mislead the investigation. It is true that he never mentioned Lavitola to the investigators, but, in all honesty, how could he have suspected that his friend was involved?

The proof of good faith lies precisely in the fact that Ranucci did not believe the accusations against Lavitola, even afterwards. Whilst the search was underway, Ranucci contacted a journalist from Report, who, acting in good faith, wrote to the suspect in the mafia massacre case: “Hi Valter, Sigfrido rang me and told me the Carabinieri had come to see you. Shall we have a chat?”. Once the Carabinieri had left, at four in the morning, Ranucci spoke in good faith with Lavitola for a couple of hours via an app that could not be tapped. The investigative journalist, acting in complete good faith, did not think to record the conversation with the man suspected of having planted a bomb on him, so as to hand it over to the magistrates. Not at all. In good faith, he helped his friend Lavitola construct an alibi explaining why he might have passed by his house for a reason other than planting a bomb. Still acting in good faith, that very same night, at 5 o’clock in the morning, he had his ‘colleague’ send the pre-trial detention order for the perpetrators of the bomb attack to the partner of their alleged instigator, Lavitola. But Ranucci believed him to be innocent. He believed, in good faith, that the man to be monitored was this ‘Corrado’ – sometimes portrayed as a member of the Camorra and at other times as a member of the secret services – who was, in fact, merely a typographical error in the transcripts of the wiretaps.

Ranucci’s good faith—one might even say his innocence—is so evident that Lavitola has even defended him publicly. He said he was ‘convinced of his innocence’, adding that he was also convinced that even if any liability were to emerge, he would never have harmed me or my family. Ranucci was so sincere that he even believed in Lavitola’s good faith, regardless of whether or not Lavitola had planted the bomb. Lavitola, on the other hand, before confessing that he had been the instigator, had laid everything out clearly: “If Gomes did it, it means I had it done, and if I had it done, it means I did it in agreement with Sigfrido.” However, regarding this last point, one cannot help but believe that Lavitola was acting in bad faith—something the naive Sigfrido failed to see. Moreover, Ranucci also trusted Clesio Gomes Tavares, Lavitola’s right-hand man with a criminal record for drug trafficking, as well as a ruthless debt collector for the Russo clan and a former bodyguard to the TikToker Rita De Crescenzo: “You should lend me Gomes,” he would say in all good faith to his friend Valter regarding certain professional issues at Rai that needed resolving.

However, how could anyone have suspected that cunning individual, Lavitola? Ranucci stated that he had become friends with him because he was La Repubblica’s “black box” and because he was aiming for the scoop of a lifetime: an interview with Marcello Dell’Utri. Instead, it turned out that Ranucci, acting in good faith as ever, found himself giving an interview to a Zimbabwean newspaper to protect his friend Valter’s shady business dealings in Africa. He had even acted as a sort of financial adviser to him on the carbon credit business, to prevent the naive Lavitola from getting into trouble. Shortly before Lavitola’s arrest, Ranucci had approached the Zimbabwean embassy and was ready to send Report’s correspondents all the way to Africa to track down whoever was trying to rip off his friend. He was acting in good faith right up to that point.

According to press reports, the public prosecutor’s office is investigating suspicious deletions in the chats between Ranucci and Lavitola, both before and after the attack. However, suspicions appear to focus on the enigmatic Lavitola. It would be remarkable if, at this stage, the prosecutors were to question the good faith of the seemingly innocent Ranucci.