Ranucci’s off-the-script remarks regarding that visit to the Lavitola home

However, is Sigfrido Ranucci genuine, or is he merely putting on an act? Is he not fully lucid, or is he deliberately throwing us off the scent? Does he fail to grasp the questions, or is he deliberately providing incorrect answers in order to mislead the public?

During the various stops on his book promotion tour, the former presenter of Report is repeatedly pressed to address the many doubts surrounding the ‘love bomb’ planted on him by his friend Valter Lavitola and the twists and turns emerging from the investigations. But all too often, his answers are misleading or blatantly false.

This tendency has become more evident following the emergence of Natalia Potenza, Lavitola’s former Argentine partner, who decided to distance herself from the father of her children after discovering his affair with a Brazilian woman and to reveal everything she knows about ‘Valterino’s’ business dealings. Natalia Potenza’s first revelation, reported by Libero before she was interviewed by the prosecutors, concerns the existence of a chat (previously secret) between her and Laura Cianfoni (Ranucci’s “girlfriend” or ‘business partner’ – depending on the account – on the night of 4 July, immediately after the search during which Lavitola discovered he was under investigation as the instigator of the attack on his friend. 

In that chat, which took place at the same time as Ranucci and Lavitola were discussing Lavitola’s possible alibi via an encrypted app, Ranucci’s friend sent Lavitola’s partner the arrest warrant for the perpetrators of the attack on the journalist, along with other messages highlighting the name ‘Corrado’ as a possible perpetrator of the attack (it was later clarified that this man does not exist, but was a typographical error in the transcript of the wiretaps). This was a completely different account from the investigators’ reconstruction (which proved to be true).

Ranucci’s initial reaction to the news was to deny everything. “There’s no chat, it’s all rubbish,” the journalist commented at the Avs party. But since those messages did exist – as demonstrated by the publication of screenshots the following day – Ranucci backtracked with a post that denied the story whilst effectively confirming it. “There is no secret chat between my colleague and Natalia, Lavitola’s wife,” the journalist had commented. “A court order, which is already public, was sent at my request and on her own initiative – a simple polite message to ask how she was getting on. Full stop, nothing more.” The chat therefore did exist and was not “rubbish”; rather, for Ranucci, it was not “secret” (even though it had been up to that point).

The same approach was applied in the days that followed to other statements made by Ms Potenza. For example, according to reports in numerous newspapers, the woman told the prosecutors that a few days after the attack, the journalist met Lavitola at the home of his friend – the bomber. “Sigfrido Ranucci, when questioned by the magistrates, failed to mention that five days after the bombing, acting as if nothing had happened, he turned up at Lavitola’s house for the first and only time. He wasn’t shaken because Natalia spoke to us. He and Valter left their mobile phones in the kitchen, and my client saw them go out into the garden to talk for half an hour or so. Is it all clear? Does it take a genius?” This is how Potenza’s lawyer described the meeting to *Libero*. Ranucci has denied it, but once again in an ambiguous manner. “What Open has written about my meeting with Lavitola at his home is false. I did not leave my phone in the kitchen,” he posted on Facebook. But what does this denial mean? Is the meeting itself false, or is it false that he left his phone in the kitchen? And does it perhaps mean that he left it in the bathroom or that he took it with him?

Speaking at Il Fatto Quotidiano’s party, Ranucci also denied that the meeting had taken place: “Just check that I was on tour for seven days. So...” he replied to reporters who, according to ANSA, asked him about a meeting at Lavitola’s home following the search of the friend-turned-attacker’s property. However, this is yet another red herring. The meeting, as described by Potenza, took place five days after the attack on 16 October 2025 (i.e. on 21 October) and not five days after the search of Lavitola’s home on 4 July 2026 (i.e. on 9 July). That meeting did in fact take place, according to the evidence gathered by the investigators – and revealed by La Repubblica and Il Fatto Quotidiano – which shows messages between Lavitola and Ranucci in the two days leading up to it to arrange the meeting: on 21 October, Sigfrido’s tour stopped off at Lavitola’s house.

It remains unclear why the journalist continues to provide the public with misleading or false accounts. This ambiguity will certainly no longer be possible when Ranucci is questioned by the prosecutors at the end of the month: he will have to provide clear answers to specific questions.