Ranucci’s untenable “double victim” argument

There is a whole world – both political and journalistic – holding its breath in hopeful anticipation that sensational scenarios will unfold behind that “no comment” issued by Lavitola’s defence lawyer in response to the question about Ranucci’s own involvement in the hoax attack. And which is rejoicing at the “confession” of the mysterious fixer from Campania. I would suggest caution: from a figure with Lavitola’s political, judicial and business track record, any reasonably astute person can and must expect the most unpredictable pitfalls and surprises. The fact is, however, that it is now certain that Sigfrido Ranucci himself must be categorically excluded from the circle of reasonably astute people. The investigating magistrate’s order goes to great lengths – to put it mildly, generous, if not downright acrobatic – in an attempt to justify this embarrassing picture – revealed to us today by this murky affair – of the critical judgement of ‘Italy’s most important investigative journalist’ (to quote his defence counsel) regarding the ‘sources’ with whom he deals, speaking of a sort of spell, an unspecified, unexplained yet irresistible fascination akin to the Sirens of Odysseus (who, however, being well aware of the danger, at least had himself tied tightly to the mast of his ship). We appreciate the tact of the Roman investigating judge, but perhaps we really must finally acknowledge that Mr Ranucci is – to put it plainly – to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein as Lavitola is to Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

And yet, whilst he feels he can now hold his own alongside the Aldo Moros, the Giovanni Falcones and the Paolo Borsellinos, there is a whole flurry of activity from that other very specific political and journalistic world, which has thrown itself headlong into the fray in defence of the hero, because he is – so goes the thunderous rallying cry – ‘a double victim’: of the attack, they mean, and of the hypnotic charmer from Salerno (with his motley crew in tow).

A victim of what, exactly – twice over? If it was the mouth-watering menus at Lavitola’s restaurant, as we’ve already said, he’s only got himself to blame. The bomb? The only thing certain about the whole affair is that a bomb planted under his car went off. But, investigators tell us, it was a bomb planted out of love for Ranucci, and Lavitola confirms this today. Now, how can one be the victim of an attack orchestrated in the victim’s own interests? Of course, Lavitola will have had to explain in detail, during questioning, how he could have organised this charade whilst ensuring the safety of Ranucci and his family: we shall read about it and understand. But, as things stand, continuing to describe Ranucci as the ‘victim of the attack’ is possible on one single, indispensable condition: that of not believing a single word – not from Lavitola (that would be too easy), but from the entire investigation mounted by the Rome Public Prosecutor’s Office, whose magistrates would then – let us say this without further ado – have committed a legendary blunder, worthy of being recorded in the annals of the worst judicial mishaps in Italian history.

And indeed, a few daring souls are already beginning to say explicitly what all supporters of Ranucci and “Report” are evidently harbouring within themselves – somewhere between a conviction and an act of faith – but do not (yet) have the courage to put down in black and white. Namely, that the truth is quite different: Lavitola has historically been linked to the Italian right-wing, and so he is said to have hatched a sophisticated strategy aimed at discrediting Ranucci, “Report” and everything surrounding the programme. Having wormed his way into Sigfrido’s life and inner circle, using the Trojan horse of delicious fried fish in Monteverde, he organised this (fake? real? real up to a point? who knows?) attack to shatter the credibility of Ranucci and his programme, and, in short, to unleash this personal and professional media witch-hunt, and to finally provide Meloni’s RAI with the opportunity to take down the hero of free investigative journalism.

Now, given that, as a serious-minded schoolmate of mine at the Tasso High School in Salerno would invariably say, “anything goes”, it is truly hard to tolerate this unbridled, brazen double standard that the world of the Italian left (or what remains of it) manages to put on display without fail whenever the vicissitudes of life call into question – or even merely challenge – its own convictions and, above all, its own stereotypes. If one wishes to rebel against the current evidence in this murky affair, shouting hysterically and indignantly “hands off Ranucci” on the grounds that he is “a double victim”, one must be able to plausibly argue – contrary to what has been thoroughly established by the investigations of the Rome Public Prosecutor’s Office (and, at present, by Lavitola’s confession) – that the attack on the journalist was intended to intimidate and terrorise him, even at the cost of endangering his life and that of his family; for it is in this way, and only in this way, that genuine attacks can be distinguished from fabricated ones. This entails the need to trace, with some credible evidence, the alleged and as yet unknown instigators behind Lavitola, and the true reasons why he would have gone to the trouble – no less – of painstakingly building a ‘brotherly’ personal relationship with Ranucci, in order to assassinate him, whether physically or, alternatively, morally and professionally. The persistent, unshakeable bias with which people declare themselves, from the outset, unwilling to accept an unwelcome reality – that is, a reality that conflicts with their own convictions – is truly breathtaking. Ranucci may well have been a little naive in trusting Lavitola, who was, after all, a valuable source for his commendable journalism, but nothing more. He is, and must remain – against all logic and all current investigative evidence – a “double victim”: a victim of his own generosity of spirit in regarding Lavitola as worthy of his friendship, and a victim – full stop – of a genuine attack on his personal safety and that of his family, and on his freedom as a great investigative journalist. It is entirely legitimate, I believe, to wonder how these very same people would have judged and commented on the events if, in Sigfrido Ranucci’s place today, there had been any journalist from the opposing political camp: the answer is crystal clear to anyone who holds even a modicum of intellectual honesty dear. In the meantime, if these unwavering supporters of Ranucci – the ‘twice-victim’ – would at least take it upon themselves to remind their hero that the associations and ‘brotherly friendships’ cultivated by Aldo Moro, Giovanni Falcone and Paolo Borsellino were presumably of a slightly different nature and calibre to his own, we would all already be taking a small step forward. Or am I asking too much?