‘Ranucci’s never going to stand for election!’: Lavitola’s letter to the Review Committee

The defence lawyers argue that the origin of the perpetrators, the planning and the use of the explosives are not sufficient to prove that the crime was carried out using Mafia methods. They also request that the period of detention at the port be taken into account: it has not been proven that the explosives were available prior to and separately from the transport.

In support of this motive, the lawyers point to the repeated requests to increase Ranucci’s security detail, as the suspect believed he was at risk of another attack. The investigating judge, however, considers this version of events to lack concrete evidence.

The defence then refers to the theory concerning the Israeli intelligence services, put forward by Lavitola to the journalist and his colleague Daniele Autieri, linking it to the investigation into the Adria shipyard.

In the minutes reproduced in the document, however, Autieri observes: ‘As things stand, I also regard it as a possible attempt to mislead the investigation.’ He confirms that Lavitola had put forward that version of events, without proving its validity.

The first ground of appeal centres on the ‘loss of effectiveness of the contested order’. According to the lawyers, the documents were received on 18 August and the court should have reached a decision by 28 August: the hearing was scheduled for ten days later. They argue that the allegation of ‘mafia-style conduct’ would preclude the summer recess.

The defence is also requesting that the proceedings be transferred to Naples: the smuggling of the explosives is alleged to have begun in Sperone, in the Avellino area. It acknowledges that the charge of mass murder remains, but considers that this allegation was dropped in the application for pre-trial measures. The written submission does not provide evidence of the case having been dismissed.

The seizure of the devices on 4 July has also been contested. According to the lawyers, the search criteria were too broad, rendering the results inadmissible. The guidelines on keywords and the period to be examined, proposed by the Carabinieri on 8 July and authorised by the Public Prosecutor’s Office on 10 July, did not remedy the initial shortcomings: these were internal communications that had never been notified to the person concerned.

The defence argues that Gomes’s confessions and the charges against him outweigh the risk of tampering with evidence. It disputes the risk of him absconding, citing business dealings in Cameroon as the reason for the trip planned for July and the fact that Lavitola remained in Italia until his arrest on 10 August. It denies that there is a real and present risk of further offences involving weapons, on which the Public Prosecutor’s Office had not based its request.

The investigating judge, on the other hand, had highlighted his international contacts, organisational skills and attempts to influence other key figures in the investigation. The lawyers are requesting, in the alternative, that Noepoli be placed under house arrest in Noepoli, in Basilicata, far from his network of contacts. They report that he was assaulted in Rebibbia after his confession: their request to obtain the case files relating to the incident, they write, was not acted upon.