Lavitola feared an "Israeli attack" on Ranucci and acted on that basis. Investigating magistrate: "Vague remarks"

Now there is even an Israeli angle to the Ranucci case. Let’s take it one step at a time. Valter Lavitola’s statements are “vague, entirely generic and devoid of any concrete evidence that can be verified”. This was written by the investigating magistrate in Rome in the order confirming the detention of the fixer, who yesterday admitted to being the instigator of the attack on journalist Sigfrido Ranucci in order to “get him a higher security detail”. In the order, the judge cites the Public Prosecutor’s Office’s opposition to his release, stating that the motive given by Lavitola is “implausible” but “also contradicts the findings of the investigation”. The businessman, in fact, “claims that, shortly before the attack, he had learnt of an unspecified plot to murder Ranucci by Israeli intelligence, prompted by the report broadcast by ‘Report’ on the ‘Vittoria’ shipyard affair. This news – the document continues – is said to have caused him great concern for his friend’s safety, prompting him to carry out the attack on 16 October.” A claim described by the Public Prosecutor’s Office as “unsubstantiated”.

Whilst admitting to being the instigator of the criminal act, the suspect, according to the investigating judge, “he has sought to significantly downplay the role he played in organising the criminal act, denying any knowledge of the specific methods actually employed, denying that he carried out the site inspection on 15 September 2025, and offering a different motive, evidently aimed at demonstrating that he had acted solely in the interests of the victim and not for personal gain”. Furthermore: "The statements made regarding the role played in organising the act of intimidation appear to be contradicted by the evidence on file, which, at this stage, leads us to rule out the possibility that Clesio Tavares (a Cameroonian national believed to be the intermediary between the businessman and the perpetrators, ed.) could have taken independent action regarding the specific methods of carrying out the criminal act or, at the very least, that the suspect did not give his prior consent to such actions”, writes the judge.

Furthermore, with regard to the statements concerning the motive, the order concurs with “the inconsistency, highlighted by the public prosecutor, in the account provided by the suspect, who allegedly urged” a journalist from Report “to seek out those responsible for the criminal act precisely within that very milieu from which he had, according to his own account, attempted to safeguard Ranucci’s safety by carrying out the act of intimidation – it must, however, be emphasised that these are, at present, vague statements, entirely generic and devoid of any concrete indication capable of being verified”. Finally, as regards the risk of absconding, “there is no doubt that Lavitola has a network of contacts in Italy and abroad that would allow him, with the greatest of ease, to leave Italian territory and cover his tracks”.