Ranucci attack: the alleged perpetrators remain in prison. The judge: "They knew how much damage that explosive could do."

Rome – No alternative measures, no mitigating precautionary measures: the two men considered by the Rome Prosecutor's Office to be the perpetrators of the bombing of Sigfrido Ranucci remain behind bars.

Preliminary Investigations Judge Livio Sabatini issued a clear order rejecting the request for release and house arrest filed by the two suspects' lawyers at the end of the final interrogation sessions. This decision was motivated by the continuing need for precautionary measures and, above all, by the defendants' uncooperative conduct during the proceedings.

Omissions in the minutes and the issue of wiretaps

At the center of the magistrate's order are the positions of Pellegrino D'Avino and Antonio Passariello, two of the four individuals under investigation for the firebomb explosion that detonated outside the property of the former Report host.

Despite the defense's attempts to downplay the prosecution's case following recent questioning, investigating judge Sabatini noted that D'Avino's reconstructions were "inconsistent in many respects, reticent in their complete reconstruction of the facts, and openly contradicted by the findings of wiretapped telephone conversations" in the investigators' possession. He is, in fact, believed to be the individual who was directly responsible for procuring the explosive material used in the punitive expedition.

Awareness of the power of explosives

A similar assessment was made of Antonio Passariello's position. The judge noted in the order that, despite having undergone a lengthy examination before investigators, the suspect provided a clearly incomplete version of events riddled with significant omissions.

According to the Magistrate's Court's assessment, the wiretaps included in the investigation reveal a key element: Passariello was fully aware of the nature and potential lethal effects of the device. These findings led the investigating judge to conclude that the defense had not offered any evidence to undermine the "presumption of appropriateness of pre-trial detention." The investigation is now continuing to reconstruct the entire chain of command that led to the intimidation.