The kid-glove approach of Rome’s public prosecutors in the Lavitola-Ranucci case

There is something rather curious about the way in which the Rome Public Prosecutor’s Office is conducting its investigation into the attack on Sigfrido Ranucci. It concerns the timing of certain crucial decisions (in particular the arrest of the alleged instigator, Valter Lavitola) and, above all, the delay in other equally important decisions (such as the retrieval of the chat history from Ranucci’s smartphone).

On 4 July, the Carabinieri searched Lavitola’s premises and seized three mobile phones, USB sticks, handwritten notes and computer equipment. This was a turning point in the investigation. Lavitola was now under the investigators’ microscope. He knew he was under investigation. He knew that his devices had been seized and that the investigators were piecing together his relationships with Ranucci and the other key figures in the case. Yet he remained at liberty for a further 37 days.

Thirty-seven days during which he was able to continue making phone calls, meeting people, discussing the investigation, organising his defence and maintaining his relationships. And indeed, Lavitola did speak – including to Ranucci. On the night of 4–5 July, a few hours after the search, Lavitola spoke for around two hours with the then presenter of Report. The call was picked up via an environmental wiretap. The two discussed the investigation, the investigators’ suspicions and the presence of Lavitola and Gomes Clesio Tavares near Ranucci’s home in Torvaianica. They sought explanations, pieced together their movements and considered possible justifications.

Two days later, on 6 July, Lavitola spoke to Tavares, whom the investigators regard as the link to the perpetrators of the attack. Tavares was in Cameroon. Lavitola relayed information to him about the charges and put him in touch with his own lawyers. One of the conversations also reveals concern about what the two might say to each other and the risk that speaking could harm them. All this takes place whilst Lavitola is still at liberty. The prosecution arrests him on 10 August.

It is a rather unusual investigative decision. For 37 days, in fact, the alleged instigator of the attack was left free to speak to anyone, including the victim and another individual considered central to the investigation, with obvious repercussions for the body of evidence.

In recent days, this unusual investigative strategy has brought another issue to light. An analysis of the mobile phones seized from Lavitola has reportedly revealed to investigators that many of the conversations the fixer had with Ranucci via Signal and WhatsApp had been deleted. There is almost no trace on the devices of any contact between Lavitola and members of the secret services—links which the judicial police have, however, documented through parallel channels—and there is also very little evidence regarding the carbon credit affair and business dealings in Africa, matters on which the former editor of Avanti had frequently discussed with Ranucci. In other words, knowing he had become the focus of the investigation, Lavitola is said to have deleted a large number of chats from his smartphones, leaving only what he wanted to be found.

This raises the obvious question: why aren’t the prosecutors checking whether those messages are still on Ranucci’s phone? The conversations that Lavitola deleted from his own device may, in fact, still be present on Ranucci’s smartphone. A forensic copy of the former Report presenter’s smartphone would make it possible to verify which messages have survived, reconstruct the timeline of their interactions, compare their accounts and, above all, establish what the two actually said to each other. This would also serve to protect the complainant, namely Ranucci. Instead, the Rome Public Prosecutor’s Office prefers to take no action – yet again.