Prosecution Office of the Republic at the Lower Court of Perugia

N. 2782/05 R.G.N.R. - model 21

REQUEST of CAUTIONARY MEASURES

(articles 273 and follow. c.p.p.)

The Public Prosecutor Dr. Giuliano Mignini, deputy

Seen the acts of the criminal proceedings n. 2782/05 R.G.N.R. (Mod 21) in charge to:

1) CALAMANDREI Francesco, born in San Casciano Val di Pesa (Florence) on 08.27.1941,

therein resident in Piazza [address edited] a former pharmacist;

2) SPEZI Mario, born in S. Angelo in Vado (Pesaro) on 30.07.1945, resident in Bagno a Ripoli (FI),

Via [address edited];

3) CAPPELLI Gianfranco;

4) Stefano or Salvatore CAVATAIO, born in Terrasini (Palermo) on 09.03.1965;

5) unidentified SUTERA;

6) CAVALLARO Matteo, born in Villabate (Palermo) on 29.07.1956, res. in Florence, Viale

[address edited]

7) CAVALLARO Ignazio, born in Villabate (Palermo) on 20.02.1960, res. in Florence, Viale

[address edited]

8) RUOCCO Luigi, born in Gragnano (Naples) 8 .11.1955, housed in Scandicci (Florence) in

[address edited]

9) ZACCARIA Ferdinand, born in Sant'Angelo a Scala (Avellino) 8 .03.1954, resident in Florence,

Via [address edited]

10) PRESTON Douglas, born in Boston (Massachusetts - USA) on 20/05/1956, resident in [address

edited] in the State of Maine (USA), formally addressed at the U.S. Embassy in Via Veneto, Rome: a) The first seven - among them Mr. SPEZI – with regard to the crime to which art. 110, 575, 576 apply, in

relation to art. 61 § 2 of penal code, for having, concurring with other people at the moment unknown (some

of which were physically carrying on the same deed) caused the killing of gastroenterologist Francesco

Narducci, born in Perugia on 10.04.1949 through throttling or strangling or anyway through a „constraint of

the neck‟ such to provoke a violent mechanical asphyxia, this with the purpose of gaining, to himself and to

others concurring in the crime, impunity from other crimes, that are the double murders of couples killed

while having private time in cars, which had already been attributed to the so-called „Monster of Florence‟;

this, at the Trasimeno Lake (PG) on October 8. or 9. 1985. [2]

b) Mr. SPEZI and Mr. RUOCCO, in concourse with Mr. ZACCARIA and Mr. PRESTON, of the crimes to

which art. 110, 81 and 368 penal code apply, [the latter] aggravated on basis of paragraph 2 of the same

article, and art. 61 paragraph 1 n. 2 penal code, for having, concurring together, through a formal complaint

physically presented by the same Mr. ZACCARIA to the D.I.G.O.S. Police Executive of Florence Dr.

Gianfranco Bernabei, on a previous a day close to the date of 02. 24. 2006, falsely placed blame while

knowing they were innocent on Mr. Antonio Vinci, born in Villacidro on 02.15.1959, resident in Prato in Via

[address edited] for the double murders of couples already attributed to the so-called „Monster of Florence‟,

and the murder in detriment of Francesco Narducci, and for having concealed within „Villa Bibbiani‟ in

Capraia e Limite (FI) things pertaining such crimes; the members of the family of Mrs. Lucia Piras, born in

Terralba (OR) on 06.14.1949, resident in Capraia e Limite (FI) in [address edited] and Prof. Luigi Donato,

born in Turin on 03.15.1929, resident in Pisa in Via [address edited] the husband of the owner of the Villa,

for „physical protecting of criminals‟ [It: favoreggiamento reale] for what concerns what was concealed by

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

Vinci and „personal protecting of criminals‟ [It: favoreggiamento personale] in favor of criminals on the run,

such as Mario Sale, who was implicated in kidnappings aimed to extortion; all of this, as for Spezi and his

accomplices, in order to obstruct investigation on: the murder of Francesco Narducci and the motive of the

same, which was the aim of making others accomplish impunity for the double murders of couples killed

while having private time in cars already attributed to the so-called „Monster of Florence‟; the murder in

detriment of Francesco Narducci, for which Mr. Spezi knows being investigated in Perugia; facts committed

on a previous time close to 02.24.2006 in Florence;

c) The same SPEZI, RUOCCO, Zaccaria and Preston of the crime to which art. 110 and 340 of penal code

and art. 61 n. 2 penal code - SPEZI with the aggravation of having being the mastermind and organizer of

such crime – for having, concurring together, obstructed the regular activity of the Prublic Prosecution office

in Perugia, of the Judiciary Police Section (the Carabinieri personnel part) at the same Office, of the

Carabinieri R.O.N.O. district of Perugia and of the G.I.De.S. district of „Florence-Perugia‟, through the

activity described in b), committed in Florence, on a previous time close to 02.24.2006, in detriment of the

Minister of Justice, with the aggravation of having committed the deed to conceal the murder in detriment of

Francesco Narducci and the motive of the same that is the purpose of making others achieve impunity for the

double murders of couples killed while having private time in cars, already attributed to the so-called

„Monster of Florence‟.

d) Mr. RUOCCO of the crime of favoring criminals to which art. 378 c.p applies, for having released false

declarations to the GIDeS „Firenze – Perugia‟ within summary information collected under art. 351 c.p.p.,

so helping Mr. Spezi to elude investigations by the Authority with regards to the murder addressed in a); in

particular for having maintained that one of the Sardinian men who had allegedly attended the „Villa

Bibbiani‟ in Capraia e Limite was a person named Mr. Cabras - and not „Mr. Fenu‟, as he declared to the

P.M. on the following day – and also for having said to have completely made up both the presence of

objects pertaining the crimes of the double murders above mentioned, both the attending of the Villa by

Sardinians; committed in Florence on 02.19.2006

With specific recidivism for Mr. Spezi; with specific multiple recidivism over a period of less than five years

for Mr. Ruocco.

OBSERVATIONS

Through a confidential report dated 02.27.2006, the G.I.De.S. [serial crimes investigation office]

reported as follows:

“As already reported (….) by the notes of February 22. and 23. about the investigation activity on Mr.

Mario SPEZI (…) we recorded several contacts between the same Mr. SPEZI and other persons - who were

subsequently all identified – [contacts] by which the suspect intended to solve his own judicial situation,

clearly alluding to his involvement in the killing of Francesco Narducci for which he is investigated, since

the day he happened to became aware of this, on December 15. 2005.

In fact, after he gained knowledge that he had become an object of the investigation for such events, as he

was discussing on the phone with his friend Mr. Zaccaria, he told him:

“ The only thing we need to do… you know what? .. to move along that other thing I told you about… that

one would solve everything… and very well” (wiretapping n. 15780 of 12. 21. 2005) Since that day, contacts became more intense between the two, and between them and third character, the

previous offender from Campania Mr. Luigi RUOCCO, about whom a short premise must be done. [3]

Mr. SPEZI and Mr. ZACCARIA, before starting to have direct contacts with Mr. RUOCCO, they became

interested – the first as a journalist, the second as a family friend – into a judicial case that allegedly had to

do with mistakes in a pharmacological experimentation on RUOCCO‟s daughter carried on by Dr. Donatella

Marazziti of the University of Pisa, who was herself sentenced to six month imprisonment by the Low Court

of Pistoia on 11.24.2005 (you can see a report on the weekly magazine “Gente” n. 51 of 12.22.2005 and the

transcript of the conversation between Spezi and Pino Aprile – the magazine director – on 11.24.2005,

wiretapping n. 14981 on the phone account of the suspect‟s house landline).

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

From the telephone contacts between the three characters (Spezi – Zaccaria – Ruocco) such events were

detected that can be summarized as follows:

1. The finding of a villa where Mr. Ruocco, by using a small photo camera provided by Mr. Spezi (who had been given it by Florentine photographer Massimo Sestini) reportedly has been more than once,

by night, in order to shot some pictures, which he later gave to Mr. Spezi;

2. The explanation about the location of the villa by Mr. Ruocco to the other two, however they were unable to locate it exactly themselves;

3. Mr. Ruocco accompanying Mr. Spezi and Mr. Zaccaria on the place; 4. A subsequent survey of the place during day time by Spezi and Zaccaria; on this occastion they were

followed by hired personnel which this way identified the place as „Villa Bibbiani‟, property of the

Del Gratta family, located in the comune of Limite e Capraia;

5. A further exploration by the two together with a third person, who – we learn – was American journalist and author Mr. Douglas Preston;

6. The writing of a note with indications about the villa to be given to Dr. Bernabei, executive of the Questura of Florence, with the purpose to induce the executive to go for a “walk” [passeggiata] on

that location and be able to find there a number of pieces of circumstantial evidence that could be

linked to the Monster of Florence, among them „six small boxes‟;

7. A visit done by Mr. Zaccaria to the Questura, while Mr. Spezi was waiting for him outside the building;

8. Euphoric mood expressed by the two (Mr. Spezi and Mr. Zaccaria) and soon after also by Mr. Douglas Preston, on believing that everything was done already and that within a short time the

police would do the passeggiata so they would achieve a “global strike” and would solve everything.

In light of the above findings, on 2.20.2006 Your Honor summoned for summary information Mr. Ruocco,

who, at the end, was declared a suspect of the crime of personal favoring of a criminal.

In fact, Mr. Ruocco, after he explained he knew Mr. Spezi for the first time about a month before at his ex-

wife‟s house, because the journalist was interested in the judicial case about his daughter, he told that, after

about ten days the journalist called him on the phone and, when they met each other, he asked if he could

help him “because he was being investigated for a crime of the Monster of Florence” and he wanted to find

evidence in his favor.

He added that Mr. Spezi told him that the true „Monster‟ was Antonio Vinci, and he had been knowing him

since about 20 years ago at a club in the village of Settimello, near Calenzano; but he did not know his uncle

Francesco Vinci. At that point – Ruocco goes on explaining – Mr. Spezi asked him if he knew about places

attended by Antonio Vinci, where he could have met people and where he made shooting trainings. At that

point – he kept on explaining – he mentioned the villa, of which he didn‟t know who the owner was.

He explained, then, that Mr. Spezi asked him to take pictures at night to see if he could manage to take any

picture of someone in the villa, and that the journalist insisted for obtaining the name of the Sardinian man

who lived at that place, so much that he made the name of a Mr. FENU, saying his name was Francesco or

Ferdinando. [4]

He explained he made up everything, so thinking he could get some money from Mr. Spezi, who seemed to

believe the name of Fenu that he had told.

Mr. Ruocco then confirmed, albeit being reticent on some points, the [criminal] activity performed by Mr.

Spezi and his friend Mr. Zaccaria.

On 2.21.2006, operating as a proxy of Your Honor, this office heard Antonio VINCI who – among other

things - he categorically asserted of not knowing „Villa Bibbiani‟, thus of never having attended the place,

denied knowing any Sardinian-born person who ever worked at that place, and said his uncle Francesco

never talked to him about that place.

On the same day (Feb. 21.) we collected summary information also from prof. Luigi Donato, the husband of

Giovanna Paola Del Gratta the co-owner of the villa together with her sister Donatella. The latter

[Donatella], even after she questioned the guardian and the workers – and subsequently also checked the

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

Villa record – she stated that the only Sardinian who ever worked there was a person named Mr. Carmine

SENES, who hired a country house belonging to the villa from 1997 until 2004. She then said – through a

written note that she sent to the Carabinieri at Capraia e Limite - that a woodcutter named Mr. Raffaello

Pontani had worked there over the years „87-‟90 who was marred to a Sardinian woman, Mrs. Nicoletta

Carau, an occasional hired country worker.

On 2.22.2006 the Carabineri of the Capraia e Limite station operating as proxy of Your Honor collected

summary information from the guardian and from the workers at Villa Bibbiani, formalizing the notice about

suspicious information which had lead the workers to advise the Carabinieri station after taking note of type

and plate number of a car - which later turned out to be the one used by Mr. Zaccaria. On that occasion it was

found out that, among the presence – even at previous times – of Sardinian people at the villa, and on the

basis of the provided names, no „Mr. Fenu‟ resulted to have ever been there, even less Mr. Vinci.

On 2.23.2006 Your Honor collected summary information from Mr. Douglas PRESTON who, on the closing

of the legal act, was declared a suspect of the charge of releasing false declarations to the Prosecutor.

The American journalist and author, a friend of Mr. Spezi, from our on-going technical activity [ed:

wiretappings] he came out to be perfectly acknowledged about the [criminal] activity of the suspect ; among

the rest, he told he had been together with Mr. Spezi and Mr. Zaccaria at a villa with a large garden on top of

a hill where – according to Spezi – the Sardinians were „connected‟. Then, after he was made listen some

conversations which had been recorded and documented, he explained:

“I know someone had got in touch with Dr. Bernabei because he wanted him to intervene at the area around

the villa, so to find clues of the murders which could have solved all his problems, by corroborating Spezi‟s

theory about the Sardinian track”.

While about their mentioning of a „passeggiata‟ that some would have to do, about which the author was

totally acknowledged based on the tone of the telephone conversation with Mr. Spezi, he explained:

“I know Dr. Bernabei said he couldn‟t do this thing and Spezi and Zaccaria wanted to get in touch with

another police executive who could do that, and maybe the „passeggiata‟ referred to this. I don‟t know what

to think. I know Mario Spezi had contacts with a man called Luigi, I don‟t know when and whether Spezi and

Zaccaria got in touch with him. Luigi is somehow involved but I don‟t know how and I don‟t know when they

got in touch with him, but it must be not more than a few months ago”.

On February 24 it was the turh of Dr. Ginfranco BERNABEI who was summoned for summary information

by Your Honor as a person under investigation for a connected case, at the presence of his defence attorney.

In this session the executive, currently responsible of the DIGOS of the Questura of Florence, confirmed a

confidential source of his had got in touch with him, and told him about the possibility of finding, inside a

farmhouse – maybe now abandoned – located within a large farm in Capraia e Limite, the notorious pistol

used to kill the Florentine couples, as well as other objects – like jars or tins – linked to these murders. [5]

He explained then that, given that the piece of information did not belong to the competence of his office, he

gave advice his collegue Dr. Filippo FERRI executive of the mobile squad, he sent his source to him and sent

an advice not to the Procura of Florence.

He added that the source declared to be ready to accompany the police at the Capraia farmhouse.

As he was asked about it, he answered that he was on excellent friendship terms with journalist Mario Spezi

and he was in touch with the ex-police inspector Ferdinando Zaccaria over the recent days. Then, as for the

name the „source‟ has made him as the one implicated in the „Monster‟ deeds, he explained he made the

name of Antonio VINCI, who reportedly had worked at the Capraia farm as a herd or farmer.

Finally, the executive explained he became suspicious about the confidential information, so much that he

felt a strange feeling.

By that point the whole picture of events appeared to be clear enough, so that the same day February 24.

Your Honor issued a decree of local and personal search against Mario Spezi, Ferdinando Zaccaria, and of

the rooms of „Villa Bibbiani‟; the searches were done at the same time on the following day 25.

The act of Judicial Police lead to the finding and seizure of indisputable evidence of crimes committed by the

people involved in the events explained above.

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

In fact:

Inside the dwelling of Mario SPEZI, among other things, it was found:

a. “a typed sheet of paper with the following headline: A note to dr. Bernabei. It was devoid of date and signature. Such typed text speaks about a confidential reliable source indicating the presence of

weapons and other items within the Villa Bibbiani estate”;

b. “a topographic color map of the area of Empoli, Pantame, Limite, S. Ansano and other places, with some spots highlighted in red and connected by straight lines”;

c. from the cellphone of the searched person – with his permission – three pictures were downloaded, showing the façade and the side arch of Villa Bibbiani, which were taken – as for what the suspect

says – by himself (see the minutes records of searching and seizure from the Section of Judiciary

Police of the Carabinieri of Perugia).

The content of the said note provided full evidence of a criminal conduct by the group and at the same

time it corroborated the declarations by dr. Bernabei.

Therefore we deem useful to report its text entirely as follows:

“Note for dr. Bernabei

[A source of ] confidential notice, reliable, since an accomplice of some livestock thefts in the past,

referred that in in the place called Limite sull‟Arno, just after Montelupo, within the estate area of Villa

Bibbiani in via di Pullicciano (400 hectars), inside a house detached from the Villa, the one located at

the back of the villa along a downhill way, on the left. The room of interest is the one facing the old

bread-baking oven under the entrance arch. In the past, in this house Sardinian absconds used to receive

hospitality; among them the notorious Mario Sele and other implicated in kidnappings. The house was

used by a man named Fenu ( Francesco or Fernando).

Such house was also attended by the known Francesco and Salvatore Vinci, and by Antonio Vinci, the

son of Salvatore and very loyal to his uncle Francesco, with whom he used to commit the thefts.

Antonio Vinci currently uses this house, where he regularly goes.

Such villa is an estate property of a Professor at the University of Pisa, who seldom goes there for short

periods.

Antonio Vinci should be living at **** address and telephone edited*** in a house belonging to his

mate, Ms. Delia Martinetti.

Mr. Antonio Vinci should be currently working as a truck driver for a tile manufacturing company. [6]

In order to obtain information please speak to the gardener, Salvatore, who lives there in another house

at the villa, at some distance from the previous one.”

Inside the dwelling and the car of Mr. Fernando ZACCARIA we found, among other things:

a. pistol bullets of different caliber, of which there was no declaration in the copy of weapon possession that we were given; about the legitimacy of their possession, this office has ordered a

check/investigation procedure at the competent police offices.

About the bullets, we need to highlight that, in the declaration, there were 50 bullets of caliber .22

“Long Rifle”, which however were not found during the search;

b. “a map of the surroundings of Empoli in which some places were marked” (see the seizure report written by the Gides and by the Perugia Carabinieri).

Inside the „Villa Bibbiani‟ the search – to which Your Honor was present – gave a negative result, not only

about the material that supposedly we could found (weapon and items linked to the Florentine murders) but

also about the use of the house by a person named Mr. Fenu.

The only positive match was the precise location of the house as described by the text where the above said

objects should have been.

The house was in fact located along a downhill way on the left and in fact in front of the mentioned building

there was an old baking oven located below the entrance arch.

The same Zaccaria, as he reached the place after the search on his effects, he indicated exactly that building,

inside which however there were not the indicated objects.

Mr. Ferdinando Zaccaria, in such occasion, admitted to the activity carried on by Spezi, by Ruocco and by

himself, explaining that such result would have made a “world scoop”, subsequently to which they would

have made “a lot of money”.

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

He also confirmed he had redacted a note together with Spezi for dr. Bernabei, then he went to the Questura

to submit it, but there, since the executive told him he was not available for that, he gave it to the executive

of the Mobile Squad, Mr. Ferri.

He also admitted to the inspections made at the Villa together with Mr. Spezi and, in one occasion, also with

American journalist Mr. Douglas Preston.

He then explained that Mr. Spezi had confidentially told him that “In the event they developed the Sardinians

track and found some corroboration for it, it would have been a great satisfaction to him, Giuttari would

have been smeared and myself, having cooperated to the investigation, given that my candidacy in politics

was close, I would have been elected Minister of Interiors”.

When the search on Mr. Spezi and the redaction of the documentation reports was over, the suspect

immediately set himself to work to give notice about what happened to all the organs of local press,

including the ANSA press agency and the RAI of Perugia, describing the events as an action by investigators

aimed to discredit himself and his American friend because of the counter-investigation they made which

was collected in a book that was about to be published. Then he stated “they are always the same” and that

he believed “the task was finished for Florence but not for Perugia”.

Yesterday the local papers reported the suspect‟s statements.

This umpteenth behavior demonstrates once again how Mr. Spezi wants to give an image of himself as a

victim of investigators, and so manage to found solidarity – as he did in the past after all (after the search

against him) as he managed to obtain protection by not less than his magistrate friend, the chief Prosecutor,

Dr. Ubaldo Nannucci, who, as we know, took care of knowing the details of the events in order to assess

whether there could be issues of territorial competence, he gave information to the suspect by phone – and by

the phone of the Prosecution‟s office – about such initiative he was taking, and made him understand that his

attorney should orient his strategy in the same direction as well.

In conclusion, it is just the case to note that the conduct of the persons named in reference to the fact exposed

is of an unprecedented gravity, as Mr. Spezi this time did not limit himself to discredit investigators [7]

through press articles he wrote, or by his taking part to national TV broadcasts (like the known episode of

„Chi l‟ha Visto‟? of a few years ago) in which he always tried to drag attention on the Sardinians track, but

[this time] he was the mastermind and organizer of an actual criminal plot designed to frame innocents, and

to gain to himself and to others the impunity in relation to the judicial cases in which he is implicated.

On the other hand, having such conduct reached a really high level of social danger, shall require the

enforcing of an adequate restrictive measure against Mr. Spezi; which, in the present moment, also given the

necessity to avoid further actions aimed to pollute the ongoing investigation, can only be an ordnance of

custody in prison, to be requested to the legitimate Preliminary Investigation Judge”.

This was the content of the info-report, which we reported entirely.

Premise.

At this point, we must make a brief introduction.

When someone finds themselves to be under investigation for some particular charge, and

especially if for a particularly serious crime, they may react in different ways, depending on a

number of variables that depend on their personality, cultural orientations, on a defensive line

previously chosen and on whether the suspicion is perceived by the recipient as founded or

unfounded.

In general, however, when the person investigated is and feels to be totally uninvolved in the

alleged charges, they would tend to show up themselves to the judicial authorities, put themselves at

the disposal of the same and would seek with loyalty and transparency to clarify their situation.

Those who have nothing to fear tend to have an open and available attitude, they tend to not hide

anything to the investigators, because they have no reason to conceal any detail about their conduct.

Sometimes an attitude of pride - quite widespread today - along with an attitude of distrust and

hostility against the judicial authority (which is unfortunately powered by the climate of our present

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

society) would bring the subject who feels unfairly investigated to a behavior of closure and

rejection, attitudes which normally won‟t have beneficial effects on the defensive line of the person

investigated.

So far, however, we are within normality.

It‟s a different story when the subject who is touched by an investigation not only starts a kind of

"personal war" against the judicial authorities and investigators, and puts in place a violent "de-

legitimizing" action, a scheme aimed to throw discredit on the same, to invoke some authoritative

intervention with the purpose of intimidating, isolating, and even to try to hit at disciplinary or

criminal proceedings level the magistrate conducting the investigation, or aimed to remove the head

of the department of judicial police in charge of the same; but even, to strike on the investigation in

its roots, misleading it along against to other subjects completely unrelated to the case; so

attempting to „destroy‟ the investigators, their investigation line, their prestige, accusing innocent

people just because this way they think they may succeed - more effectively and with a better mass

media impact - in getting rid of a charge which is likely to affect their own [the suspect‟s] image of

authority, prestige, social influence. The fact that this objective may be achieved by accusing an

innocent, it is perceived by some individuals - pervaded by a sense of omnipotence and „being

untouchable‟ - as a secondary issue.

Indeed, if accusing an innocent may well [try to] drag „water to their own mill‟ - not only because it

would allow them to gain impunity but also because it would corroborate their own convenient and

instrumental theories regarding events of interest in social life, and would allow them to keep, and

maybe indeed of increase their relevance in the community, then, the temptation to engage in

criminal behaviour would be abnormally strong to them, and, to some subjects, irresistible.

When this happens, it is clear that such a behaviour may not be ignored by those conducting the

investigation and cannot be considered irrelevant. It becomes itself a strong indication that, together

with other indicators, tends to show a possibly deep involvement by the subject in the criminal

matter for which he/she is being investigated, a sort of implicit confession of guilt, the more

significant the more aggressive, resentful and even unscrupulously libellous [calunnioso] the

demeanour of the suspect it progressively becomes; especially, when we consider how [8] the same

subject could have easily avoided to get involved into it so much, because the situation he/she were

into at the start it would have been easily „manageable‟ through a normal defensive demeanour - at

least that was what it looked like in the appearance; but perhaps it was not so [manageable] in the

substance.

* * *

The „character Spezi‟, his links to Ferdinando Zaccaria, Luigi Ruocco and Douglas Preston, ad his

conduct.

“The serious circumstantial evidence of guilt” as for calunnia, the charge to which art. 340 second

paragraph c.p. applies and, for Mr. Ruocco, also that to which art. 378 c.p. applies.

Mario Spezi, a journalist working at the daily newspaper “La Nazione” was for a long time

considered the “monsterologist” [expert about the Monster of Florence case, ed.] number one in

Italy; he‟s the person who, since the 80s‟, had manifested an extreme attention for the tragic series

of double murders attributed to the so-called “Monster of Florence”, an almost obsessive attention

and in eternal conflict against the Florentine investigators since 1989, the day they definitively

abandoned the “Sardinian track”.

He entered the investigation on the death of Francesco Narducci because he literally jumps on it

himself about two years ago, even if apparently he could have ignored it. The recollection of all

stages of his voluntary implicating himself into the Perugian judicial investigation appears

disturbing.

The investigation on the death of Francesco Narducci began by the end of October 2001, following

a series of disquieting telephone calls, made by a man and maybe two women speaking with a

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

disguised voice, to a woman, a beautician in Foligno. The anonymous interlocutors, speaking in a

horror-movie like voice, used to introduce themselves as belonging to a brotherhood of a “Satanist”

kind (including the usual erotic surround themes) and keep on heavily cursing her, threatening to

kidnap her son Filiberto (saying he appeared interesting to them because he had red hair) and they

threaten they would make share the same fate of Francesco Pacciani and that of the “great doctor

Narducci”, both killed because they were “betrayer of Satan”.

The checks that were made around Mr. Marducci‟s death, within the scope of the investigation

about the phone threats to the beautician, and, above all, because of the finding of consistent and

serious anomalies within questions on the events regarding the doctor‟s death, they lead to the

opening of investigation proceedings on the death of the latter; soon after, to the linking of the

investigation to the existing proceedings on alleged “masterminds” of double murderers of pairs,

[proceedings] currently active in Florence (subsequently merged into one proceedings, the n.

1277/03 RGNR Mod. 21). It was the Florentine Prosecution Office itself who requested the linking,

and then they remained linked without interruption until the closure of the Florentine investigation;

the link is now definitively made official by the ruling of the Cautionary Appeal Tribunal of Perugia

of Dec. 7/21 2004; and by a subsequent ruling, this one by the Tribunal of Review of Perugia, of

Dec. 14. 2005.

Nobody thought about Spezi; but Mr. Spezi instead became interested into the linked

investigation, and immediately he attacked it with a peculiar vehemence and spite, first since the

promotion of the book by Alessandro Cecioni and Gianluca Monastra “The Monster of Florence.

From 1968 to the satanic track. An infinite thriller story”, pub. By Nutrimenti s.r.l., in March 2002;

at that time the investigation was running since less than six months, and the order of inspection

under art. 360 of Narducci‟s body had not occurred yet.

Up to this point however, Mr. Spezi had just expressed – albeit with his utmost, already proverbial

despise for the institutional organs in charge of ascertaining the truth – his personal convincement

about the investigation, and he remained within the sphere of journalism.

It is however surprising that he never felt the need to offer his contribution of knowledge about

the events; meaning not as far as to the Florentine Judiciary Authority, which was responsible of the

decision that he was criticizing, but rather to the Perugia Prosecution Office, which had just started

a cold-case investigation as by its duty on a person‟s [Narducci] death that had been too hastily

dismissed at the time, and [the Office] would have certainly taken in account – under a critical light

in accord to the investigation – elements offered by any source; even more if the source was

journalist who followed the whole time all steps of the developing of those events that were just

beginning to be linked at the investigation level with the death of the Perugian physician.

But the course of events entirely changes about two years later. The journalist, yet foreign to the

Perugian proceedings about Narducci‟s death (proceedings n. 8970/2002 R.G.N.R. Mod. 21 and

n. 1789/01 R.G. Mod. 44 that was „against unknowns‟ at the time) sets up a [9] criminally serious

as much as ramshackle operation of investigation-diverting through both mass-media and judicial

means, together with the suspects of the Perugian case n. 8970/2002 R.G.N.R. Mod. 21, with the

explicit intent to rescue his friend Francesco Calamandrei; [the operation] aimed at presenting the

Perugian investigation on Narducci as “flawed” from its origin by the erroneous attribution of

Narducci‟s identity to the „doctor who died at the Trasimeno lake‟ – „the same fate‟ of whom a

woman, victim of loan sharks, was threatened – the identity of whom they alleged to be instead of a

man called Mr. Puletti, a Perugian dentist, who committed suicide by gunshot in the nearby of the

Trasimeno lake shores.

It was not just about a TV broadcast – albeit an important one – as Mr. Spezi wanted some unaware,

hasty and incautious journalist supporters of him to believe (as if the judicial Authority were

interested in prosecuting journalistic scenarios). There was much way beyond this, and Mr. Spezi

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

(and his accomplices too) perfectly knew that. Theirs, it was an attempt to use that TV broadcast as

a ploy to involve the wife of the poor dentist – who committed suicide because of money (or maybe

because of a lover‟s pain) – so make one of Spezi‟s accomplishes be the one hired as her attorney,

the Perugian lawyer Alfredo Brizioli; he would operate in order to have the suicidal dentist‟s case

re-opened, by giving credit to the scenario of threats from usurious loan sharks; this way [Spezi]

masterminded an extremely serious crime of fraudulent attorney assistance [patrocinio infedele =

the crime of betrayal of the client interest by an unfaithful/fraudulent attorney] to push the

unfortunate widow to go for the loan sharks‟ threats investigation scenario. This was done in the

hope that by such a cynical [spregiudicata = reckless and cynical] and clumsy operation, a collapse

of the Perugian investigation would follow.

Why all this? The aim, it could not be anything else but to turn away and avert possible growing

suspicions, and formal involvement as suspects, of Mr. Spezi and Mr. Calamandrei (and others) into

the main investigation on the death of Francesco Narducci; and above that, in the Florentine

investigation, since they are inseparable in the true thinking of Mr. Spezi (and Mr. Calamandrei) –

despite his journalistic and literary claims made for his convenience.

It is easy to qualify the reasoning of Mr. Spezi and his accomplishes in their investigation-diverting

operation: it was a kind of cocktail of uncritically taken leaks and with peculiar shallowness, put

together with the sole purpose of hitting the core of the Perugian investigation (in the

expectations of Mr. Spezi and his companions); to which – we remark – Mr. Spezi and Mr.

Calamandrei were still formally foreign. They did so being totally conscious of their

disingenuousness and through an true “disinformation” operation, not different from what a

deviant intelligence agency would do.

Any agent acts and moves in view of an aim to pursue. The aim may regard themself directly

and/or his/her friends. Neither Mario Spezi nor Francesco Calamabrei can be exceptions to

this rule. If Mr. Spezi wages attacks against the Perugian investigation which are so much in

advance and “unexplainable”, this means two things: first, Mr. Spezi knows such investigation is

tightly linked to the Florentine ones; second, he knows these investigations may, soon or later,

touch him.

But that was not enough. As he was involved, at the beginning, into a secondary criminal operation

– albeit serious and within the proceedings n. 8970/2002 RGNR Mod. 21. – what does the tireless

journalist do? Apart from insult and pressures he scatters full-handed on investigators on the most

various occasions, calling for the help of those personalities from the press business and politics

(from all coalitions) who still take him into consideration – and they buy, taking them for pure gold

value, his journalistic theories and his libelous allegations?

Presenting himself before the magistrate investigating him, that would be to him something

reprehensible and humiliating.

When he does that, it is because he is summoned to this Prosecution Office as a person informed

about facts with relation to something else, an alleged case of information-leaking in his detriment

and in detriment of [the chief prosecutor of Florence] Dr. Nannucci, [a case] for which Mr. Spezi

had filed a complaint about, raising a great clamor as usual. The latter [Mr. Spezi] came at the

hearing wearing a micro-recorder in order to fraudulently capture the minutes transcription activity

of his own declarations (transcriptions of which he should not be allowed to have a copy, since he

would talk as a person informed about facts); and, moreover, declarations he released were false,

hence he ended being investigated himself for that, with other separate proceedings.

No, Mr. Spezi really could not do that [to present himself before the Perugian magistrate]. Is the

problem due to the fact that the Perugia investigation is linked to the Florentine one? Well, than he

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

PeterHighlight

must find a way to manage to move it to the Florentine venue, a safer and more reassuring

environment (to him), where he will find an even more important safe shore: the Chief Prosecutor

of Florence Ubaldo Nannucci, who, for some time has been unexplainably and peculiarly irritable

about the investigation that was connected, urged – and this is even more strange – by his own

Office.

The magistrate was deliberately acting as ploy of Spezi, who wanted him to get into considerable

activity in order to request [10] explanations to the Perugia Prosecution Office about territorial

competence of the same Office to investigate the Narducci case, and in the scheme of taking all

investigations that were somehow pertaining to something kinked the facts known as “Monster of

Florence”, back into the Florentine venue.

Their operation was aborted because of the implications of art. 11 cpp, but they restored their

attempt again with even greater determination in the first semester of 2005, this time with the

endorsement of Mr. CALAMANDREI, who happened to become a suspect also in Perugia because

of the judicial action for a case of murder of the gastroenterologist; but at that point, the Procurator

General Office at the Supreme Court – whom was demanded by this Prosecution Office to rule on

the contrast about territorial competence – promptly solved the conflict and determined that this

Prosecution Office is the one competent to investigate on the Narducci case. And such settlement is

now finalized.

Mr. Spezi however didn‟t know that Domenico Rizzuto, an inmate in the Lauro Correctional

Centre, had released articulate and precise testimony statement in the current investigation, and

finally told the names of people that, at that time, in such scenario, are involved in the murder;

among them Mr. Spezi was not missing.

Mr. Spezi didn‟t know that because his official entering the record of formal suspects was classified

as secret act by this Prosecutor. As soon as the legal time of the secrecy order expired, Mr. Spezi

was formally told about his being a suspect, together with several other people (part of those are

Sicilians), in a case of murder in detriment of Francesco Narducci.

Mr. Spezi came to know this in December 2005. So what does he do [at this point]?

Does he present himself at this Prosecutor, or anyway does he turn to his lawyer for performing

some defensive activity, like submit a memory, ask to be questioned, make defensive

investigations?

Nothing about all this. As usual, he chooses instead a clandestine, tortuous and criminal path. He

calls a friend, the ex-police inspector Nando Zaccaria and asks him, on the phone – after the usual,

“ritual” offensive slurs against investigators (the Perugian ones and the G.I.De.S.), against which he

fails to conceal a profound hatred, he adds: “The only thing we need to do… you know what?.. to

move on with the other thing I told you about… that one would fix everything… and very well”

(telephone wiretapping n. 15780 of 12. 21. 2005).

Since that day, contacts become more intense between the two of them and between them and a

third person, the habitual previous offender [pregiudicato] from Campania, Mr. Luigi RUOCCO, a

man who carries an amazing series of criminal records.

This turn has a capital importance. For a long time the investigation on Francesco Narducci‟s

death had been allowing us to ascertain that the physician had been killed, though throttling or

strangling, and that an incredible staging had followed: Mr. Narducci‟s body, who was killed that

way, was definitively hidden while – in order to corroborate a fictional narrative about a death due

to drowning (or in denegata ipotesi [formally denied scenario] as lawyers would say, because of

suicide), the body of an unknown was collected, it was immersed – probably with weight sinkers –

in the waters of the Trasimeno Lake, than it was „found‟ and drawn out again before an amazing

arrays of Authorities after the “canonic” five days delay. It was paraded as Mr. Narducci and the nit

was quickly taken back where they collected it. The “fake” Narducci‟s body was photographed by

journalists and for about 16 years it was believed to have been that of the physician, swollen and

disfigured because of its permanence in water. Until the day when, on the opening of the coffin in

Pavia in a re-exhumation laboratory, they realize that the body – which is Narducci‟s for sure –

cannot be the same that was fished up at the time on Oct. 13. 1985, because of its size, because of

its conservation state, because it had hair – moreover they were blondish – and, among other things,

because of the absence of diatoms.

In the notes belonging to Spezi that were seized, Mr. Spezi pretends to not understand this scenario

and he misrepresents it saying the incompatibility with Narducci was about the unburied corpse in

Pavia, but it is an obvious sham, because no one could believe Mr. Spezi to be so naïve as he wants

to appear.

To be able to give names to the authors of the homicide, it is what appeared to be impossible. But

everyone has learned to say “never say never” in this story.

In fact, in the Spring of 2005 Francesco Calamandrei becomes a formal suspect; and then, as a

consequence of the detailed witness statements of Mr. Rizzuto, other people will become too,

among them the journalist Mr. Spezi.

It is obvious that statements of Mr. Rizzuto need to become an object of thorough search for

corroboration (which have already begun with positive results), but the fact that the same

should be considered a heavy [11] piece of circumstantial evidence against the same Mr.

SPEZI, is demonstrated by not just the content of them, but indeed by the abnormal and

criminal reaction set up by Mr. SPEZI to escape [the consequence] of them.

In fact, as soon as Mr. Spezi is formally given information that he is a co-suspect in the case of

Narducci‟s murder (this on 12. 15. 2005; see advise n. 101/2006 by Gi.De.S. of 02. 22. 2006), he

tells his companion Zaccaria the remarked statements [recorded] in the telephone call n. 15780 of

12. 21. 2005. As for Spezi‟s opinion, there is no other option but setting up a secret criminal

operation – as detailed by Gi.De.S. in their advice note – to be carried on together with the multiple

previous offender Mr. Ruocco (with whom Spezi and his ex-policeman friend had been in contact

for long) and with Mr. Zaccaria.

He [decides he] can‟t defend himself not even through his valiant lawyer, attempting to object the

pieces of circumstantial evidence against him. No, he has no choice but to commit further crimes

and… to accuse the usual Sardinian guy, this time Antonio Vinci, the nephew of Francesco who

was implicated at the time and then found innocent and foreign to the double murderers. And

[decides] to blame him of possessing some closed, small boxes, allegedly containing items

belonging to the „Monster of Florence‟, which possibly his uncle gave him. In Spezi‟s view, [he

thinks] this finding would have „set him free‟ from his judicial problems; however unfortunately,

and it is not at all an irrelevant detail, such problems aren‟t pending in Florence but in Perugia, for

events that are knowingly connected to the tragic double murders which is those regarding the case

of the Perugian Francesco Narducci.

This is what Mario Spezi thought. Hence, in the “monsterologist” journalist‟s mind, if he manages

to resume investigations on the already dead Sardinians track and they [the police] resuscitate it,

this would unavoidably lead to the collapse of not only the Florentine investigation against

Calamandrei, but also – and maybe above all – of the Perugian investigation on the ones responsible

of the suspected Narducci murder, an investigation which involves Mr. Spezi directly, for a good

reason, since he was being investigated because of this suspicion of murder. What this means to Mr.

Spezi – beyond his „proclaims‟ – is that the latter case [the Narduci] is tightly linked to the

Florentine investigation against Mr. Calamandrei (maybe even more [than the Monster of Florence

case], and that Mr. Spezi might feel he is “personally” threatened with a possible involvement of

himself in the Florentine case); Mr. Spezi had attempted, in vain, to exculpate Mr. Calamandrei

through the clumsy “Operation Puletti” [a previous criminal side-tracking case]. All four of them

would have taken a big advantage from the fraudulent calumnious operation:

- Mr. Ruocco, maybe could have taken his revenge for his daughter‟s vicissitude against prof. Donato, of the CNR [scientific research centre] of Pisa, possibly linked to Dr.

Marazziti who was sentenced to six month imprisonment on 11. 24. 2005 by the Tribunale

of Pistoia because of a wrongdoing in a pharmacological experimentation on Ruocco‟s

daughter, about whom the usual weekly magazine “Gente” that this Precura well knows had

published a story endorsing the “complaints” by the Ruocco family and in particulare those

of the person whom Mario Spezi – the author of the article – defines “Mother Courage”,

who is nobody else but Ruocco‟s wife, thus indicating that he is Mr. Spezi‟s “protégé”.

Moreover, Mr. Ruocco received a monetary reward by Spezi.

- Mr. Spezi would have gotten definitively rid of the Perugian charges and of possible further “Florentine risks”, and he could demonstrate that his insistence on the “Sardinian track” was

founded, with obvious, resounding “pay backs” in terms of credibility and authority.

- Mr. Preston, who uncritically embraced Spezi‟s setting and who shares book interests with the latter, he would too gained a significant acknowledgment for his “foresight” and

“acuteness” shown by endorsing his journalist friend‟s “reconstruction”.

- Mr. Zaccaria could realize his “political ambitions” and he could become… “minister of interior” of a future government: it‟s not a joke, this is what Mr. Zaccaria maintains Spezi

had promised hims (see declarations of Mr. Zaccaria before G.I.De.S. and before the

Carabinieri group at the Perugia Station working with the judicial police of this Procura on

02. 25. 06).

Such is the bleak, extremely serious picture, about the interests that were pursued by a

heterogeneous group of people involved into an intolerable action of investigation side-tracking;

they were ready to do anything including accusing innocents, in order to reach their criminal aims;

and, while we may consider a bewildering naiveté - to say the least - for Mr. Preston, a curious

attitude to be manipulated and oriented by [12] someone whom he had given total trust in an

uncritical and „fideistic‟ manner; while for Mr. Zaccaria we don‟t know if we could call in his

defence a kind of even more bizarre gullibility, or just having a personality incapable of a reality

check about his own limitations; for Mr. Spezi, no excuses are possible.

Mr. Ruocco, as we said, has collected an amazing series of criminal records, in matter of: favoring

criminals; exploitation of prostitution; violations of residence prohibitions; crimes against property;

illicit possession and illicit carrying of firearms; attempted extortion; robbery; crimes against

personal safety; threat of public officer. Moreover, Mr. Ruocco is linked to Ignazio Cavallaro, a co-

suspect in the investigation on the murder of Mr. Narducci (see info-note 101 – 2006 G.I.De.S.).

Mr. Ruocco, after obtaining by Spezi the “benefit” gift of the “Gente” article – and so, after he was

already in contact with the “monsterologist” – he was called on the phone by Spezi, and then they

met each other in person. Spezi asked for his help “because he [Spezi] was being investigated for a

crime of the Monster of Florence” (see declarations of Luigi Ruocco on 02. 20. 2006). This is what

he said: “he was investigated for a crime by the Monster of Florence”.

Actually, the journalist was being investigated for the Narducci murder, which according to Spezi,

is a crime “by the Monster of Florence”.

That‟s far more than a simple connection: here, according to Spezi, the murder of the

gastroenterologist was committed by the “Monster of Florence”. Mr. Spezi tells Mr. Ruocco that the

true “Monster” is Antonio Vinci (see request n. 111 / 2006 by G.I.De.S.). So Mr. Ruocco spots the

villa that will become the theatre of what we could now define “Operation Villa Bibbiani”, which

he picked so that he could take revenge against Prof. Donato as well for the wrongful

pharmacological experimentation on his daughter. Mr. Ruocco maintains he knew Antonio Vinci

20 years before in a club in Settimello, near Calenzano. It was him [Mr. Ruocco] the one who lead

the two associates [Spezi and Zaccaria] on the chosen place, after they had looked for it in vain, it‟s

him who takes some sloppy photos with a camera which Spezi provided him and it‟s him who

cashes in the reward they agreed upon. It was Ruocco the one who, despite he admitted to [taking

part to] the action which was committed by Spezi and Zaccaria, he tries to make us believe the

hypotheses that he made up everything, including the name of another Sardinian implicated in it,

named “Fenu”, in order to get out some money from Mr. Spezi, and it‟s him the one who gets the

reward they had agreed,

Whether Mr. Ruocco, whom Mr. Preston himself knew he was involved in the plot, made up

everything as he claims, or if instead he cooperated to the search of the location where they would

place the famous “boxes” – an operation about which Mr. Spezi cared so much hoping that so he

could set himself free from the burden of the Perugian investigation – independently on how one

wants to interpret what the role of the previous felony offender Ruocco was, what is sure is, that he

perfectly knew how Mr. Spezi would use them [the boxes]: he would reveal the presence of the

boxes inside Prof. Donato‟s villa in order to deceive the police, to accuse Antonio Vinci and

Ruocco would get the money they agreed about.

As for Spezi, we obviously don‟t even have such a problem: he is the one who masterminded

everything in order to obtain a twofold purpose: bring a blow against the investigation in which he

was a suspect, and then slip out from the same investigation (with humiliation and shame on

investigators) and have the alternative “Sardinian” investigation track - so important and vital to

him - backed by a finding.

In order to do this, he organizes, thought his contacts with Mr. Ruocco and Mr. Zaccaria, an

umpteenth, conscious side-tracking operation: the hiding of some objects related to the crimes –

which apparently he has in his possession or one of his accomplishes‟ – inside a villa which not

only belongs to Prof. Donato (a detail that would please his multiple-offender friend) but it is

located in an area bordering the 1968 murder area, that one crime which was so different from those

others committed in 1974 and the subsequent years; but [it‟s] an area that by definition it could be

linked to the world of Sardinian immigrants [in Tuscany], and, among those, he picks up Antonio

Vinci to draw on him the accusation of being implicated in the murders; and together with him, also

the unaware Prof. Donato, whose wife is the owner of the villa, and those Sardinian workers who

live in it.

If there‟s no malice in this… The objects were in the hand of the “reporters” [those who reported

the information to the police] and they were the ones who put them – or better who were about to

put them – in that location, their victims unbeknownst, before they would call there some unaware

Judiciary Police organ (the DIGOS) not because they had a competence for this, but because such

[department] was directed by Mr. Gianfranco Bernabei, whom Spezi had been knowing for a long

time, who then ended in troubles for having helped him.

Unfortunately for the suspects, Antonio Vinci, who was called for summary information by the

GIDeS on Feb. 21. 2006, categorically denied of knowing and of having ever attended “Villa

Bibbiani”, he ruled out he could know Sardinian people who ever worked there and maintained that

his uncle Francesco never spoke about having attended said villa.

On the same day Prof. Luigi Donato, after asking the keeper and the workers, and after he consulted

the registers at the villa, pointed out that the only Sardinian man who ever worked there was a guy

named Carmine Senes, to whom he lend a homestead only in 1997, and he added that over the years

1987-„90 a woodcutter had worked there, a guy named Raffaello Pontenani, married with a

Sardinian-born woman, Nicoletta Carau, a temporary agriculture worker. That‟s all.

The fraudulent calunnia-operation however could have caused extremely serious

consequences in the short term; even if the truth would have realistically come out in the end, the

four [perpetrators] might have achieved maybe unexpected success, amplified by the open hostility

that the Florentine establishment had against the – now solid – scenario about the existence of

“notables” who masterminded or protected the so called “picnic comrades” [popular name to

indicate the three found guilty of being the „MoF‟ killers], Mr. Narducci apparently being one of

those, who became unreliable or dangerous for the others so they decided to eliminate him. To this

group of people, everything should have stopped, in the worst scenario, with [the finding of guilt]

of Lotti, Vanni and Pacciani, but it would have been even better if they managed to concentrate the

investigation and the responsibilities towards “alien” characters, maybe involved in family feuds,

such as the Sardinian immigrants are. In that case, there would be no risk that the investigation

could touch “important” people or “masterminds”. Mario Spezi had been guarding and was keeping

on guarding so that this would not happen. All attention should be focused on the Sardinians,

viewed as already guilty as such.

Mr. Gianfranco Bernabei, however, as he himself confirmed when he was heard as person informed

about facts in a connected case, on February 24. he confirmed a “confidential source” had contacted

him on a previous day, which told him about the possibility of finding, inside a homestead (maybe

abandoned) located within a big farm in Capraia e Limite, nothing less than the famous handgun

used for the killings of Florentine couples, together with other objects (probably cans) related to

those murders. He explained also that the source had told him he was ready to accompany him to

that place.

Mr. Bernabei however, becoming suspicious of that information and unwilling to take further risks,

sent the information to the competent office, which was the Florence Flying Squad directed by Dr.

Filippo Ferri, who later informed the Florence Prosecution Office.

Mr. Bernabei pointed out that he was in excellent terms of friendship and attendance with Mario

Spezi and he had contacts with ex-Inspector Nando Zaccaria (a friend of Spezi too) over the last

days. In short he was confirming that the source was Zaccaria himself. During the search

accomplished in the dwelling od Mr. Spezi they found a precise copy of that complaint-report

which Bernabei refers to, as well as pictures of “Villa Bibbiani” in the journalist‟s mobile-

phone memory, [photos] the suspect declared he took himself (see note n. 111/06). In the

complaint-report there is an explicit mentioning of “Villa Bibbiani”, of a house detached from

the villa at the rear of it, downhill on a declivity on the left, about a room facing the old

baking oven below the entrance arch; it was also reported that Sardinian fugitives used to be

hosted there and that the house was currently used by someone named Fenu and by Antonio

Vinci (very close to his uncle Francesco, with whom he was used to committing thefts, the

source points out), and that the house had been attended by the known Salvatore and

Francesco Vinci. Finally it pointed out that the villa belonged to a professor from the

University of Pisa.

On February 25. 2006 Mr. Zaccaria confirmed that the complaint-report found at Spezi‟s home was

the one he brought to Mr. Bernabei.

Mr. Spezi and Mr. Zaccaria had gone together to the Questura, so that in the phone call

[wiretapping] n. 17011 of February 18. 2006 Mr. Spezi reports to Mr. Preston that he has

done everything, and now they only need to wait until “they do that passeggiata.. I hope they do

that soon”. The American author in fact had gone together with Mr. Spezi and Mr. Zaccaria to the

villa for a first inspection of the place, and the three were caught there by the villa custody

personnel, namely by Salvatore Occhipinti, to whom one of the two [Italians] introduced himself

with the fake name „Sergio‟. As the three men had arrived at the place driving a Renault used by

Mr. Zaccaria which was leased (see note n. 101/06 G.I.De.S.) they rose personnel suspicion so that

they reported them at the Carabinieri Station of Capraia e Limite.

A first meeting between Zaccaria and Bernabei however must have failed (because the executive

had already transferred the source report to a competent colleague) and thus Zaccaria will need to

try again. During the phone call [wiretapping] n. 17095 of Feb. 19. 2006 Mr. Zaccaria in fact

complains that Bernabei was incredulous and did not comply, so Spezi suggests he explains

thoroughly to the Flying Squad officer about those “six small boxes” and he adds “the important

thing is that you instruct him well, you understand?”. In other words Mr. Spezi expects Mr.

Zaccaria to take action aimed at persuasion and at conditioning of the appointed officer, who is the

director of the Florence Flying Squad, who will have to “follow instructions faithfully”. That‟s it.

Mr.Spezi has now completely crossed any tolerability limit; and if you add to this the subsequent

conduct of the journalist and his accomplishes (in particular, the factual and further, extremely

serious, misinformation action operated [later] by Mr. Preston, which included some objectively

raving statements which the American author could only have expressed disingenuously, regarding

the police minutes of summary information as a consequence of which he ended up investigated

under art. 371 bis c.p.p. – see e-mail from Preston to Sara Whyatt of March 2. 2006), any further

consideration is unnecessary.

Under the light of those consideration, the “serious circumstantial evidence of guilt” for the charges

for which we proceed, except that of murder, since we wait for corroboration from the investigation

(the circumstantial evidence of this, albeit substantial, must be further assessed and verified, given

the complexity of the scenario in the ascribed charge, and the necessity of further investigation), is

obvious, based on the above findings, and the fact that the famous “small boxes” were not found

during the search, doesn‟t put it into question, because it is anyway sure that the suspects had

organized themselves to accomplish [the deed] and they submitted a false report with calunnia to

organs of the Judiciary Police, which as their duty they sent the report to the Judicial Authority.

Maybe, as soon as the Judiciary Police would ask Zaccaria to take them to the place, Mr. Spezi and

Mr. Ruocco would have operated to leave the incriminating objects, which anyway thy must have

had in their possession, and which might even correspond to those .22 calibre bullets that should

have been in possession of Mr. Zaccaria while instead the latter was not keeping them in his

dwelling any more.

The quick intervention of investigators prevented a shameful and intolerable sidetracking operation,

one of the many, maybe the most egregious one of those that Mr. Spezi carried on over these years

in order to pollute all investigations somehow connected to the Florence murders.

We should add to all that the unequivocal content of wiretappings number: 17168, 17287, 17186,

17187, 17192, 17249, 17252, 17228, 17276, 17285, 17170, 17246, 17256, 17077, 17159, 17231,

16950, 17006, 17023, 17056, 17095, 17111, 16950, 16975, 17169, 17170, 17285, reported in the

information request note by G.I.De.S. n. 114/06.

In conversations 17168 and 17172 of February 22. 2006, Mr. SPEZI call his friend lawyer Antonino

Filastò (which is not his attorney and about which there is no legal limitation) and informs him that

the [today] co-suspect Preston has been called for interrogation and they agree that they will meet

later on.

In conversation 16975 Mr. SPEZI informs Pino Rinaldi (a co-suspect of Spezi in the “Puletti

sidetracking case”) and gives him anticipation about the further upcoming operation.

In conversations 17186, 17187, 17192, 17226 of February 23. 2006, Mr. Spezi informs several

journalists about the summoning of Douglas Preston as a person informed about facts, and attempts

to condition the media organs suggesting that Preston himself was being charged, just as if he

[Spezi] already imagined the final result of the summon and he was attempting to safeguard

himself, revealing them an obvious worry, besides his “usual” insults to investigators by which he

tries to influence public opinion. When he knew that Mr. PRESTON ended up being investigated,

he operated again with lucid and cynical determination in order to make the dutiful action of this

magistrate (an action which he was not supposed to be interested about, if he is interested in it, this

reveals the link between the two [suspects]) appear like a “persecutory” attitude aimed at attacking

a journalist-author who brought up scenarios conflicting with the accusation theory. In

conversations n. 17249, 17252, 17228 of Feb. 23. 2006, and b. 17285 of Feb. 25. 2006, Mr. SPEZI,

unsatisfied about what he had already done, further goes on with his “disinformation” operation

about the charging of Mr. PRESTON.

In conversation n. 17110 of Feb. 22. 2006, Mr. PRESTON, while talking with SPEZI‟s wife,

indulges to comments expressing satisfaction about what the latter [Spezi] intends to do and two

days later, in conversation n. 17246, Myriam (the journalist‟s wife) comments with her friend

Chichì the news that Mr. PRESTON ended up being investigated, as something which her husband

is apparently interested (and worried) about.

In conversation n. 17077 of Feb. 18. 2006, PRESTON calls Mr. SPEZI, who informs him,

expressing satisfaction:

“We have done everything.. I mean… we went and we did it… you know my telephone is ugly

[sic]…”

and Mr. PRESTON, still in a chummy and allusive tone:

“Oh yes, I understand perfectly, yes, hey… the… the… the „passeggiata‟ isn‟t that… isn‟t

that… we have … someone has done the „passeggiata‟?”

and the journalist pointed out, interspersing that with chukles of satisfaction: “No, no, no,

but… they are going to do it!!”

and Mr. PRESTON: “Yes, yes… but… isn‟t that interesting wow….”

and Mr. SPEZI: “…. We told them to do it !”

At PRESTON‟s question about when they would be going to do the „passeggiata‟, SPEZI

answers: “Well… I don‟t know but I hope soon” and at a further question by PRESTON, he

says: “In.. within.. within the 24th”

SPEZI again answers: “I hope yes”, laughing.

Then, Mr. Preston adds: “It‟s fantastic!... Oh the end maybe, I don‟t know but…”

and Mr. SPEZI: “That would be beautiful!” still sniggering, and Mr. PRESTON agrees

enthusiastically.

After his charging, in conversation n. 17231, Mr. PRESTON calls SPEZI and tells him that

they need to speak about it in person.

The criminal operation stands out even more egregiously in conversation n. 16950 of

February 13. 2006, between Mr. SPEZI, the deviser of the plot, and his right hand man Nando

Zaccaria; and when RUOCCO gives Mr. SPEZI “information” about the name of the person

who allegedly attended the villa, Mr. SPEZI himself calls Mr. ZACCARIA, and, while making

him understand that Mr. Gianfranco Bernabei had already been contacted and the report-

complaint had been given to him, he adds: “So he called me.. not him Gianfranco… the other

guy, we have an appointment at 2:30pm, because he knew about the name”; and ZACCARIA

cries out: “Beautifuuul!” with satisfaction.

In conversation n. 17095 of February 19. 2006, Mr. SPEZI calls Mr. ZACCARIA again and

urges him to explain him (to the Flying Squad chief) thoroughly about the “six small boxes”,

that is to convince him that the objects are related to the murders. Mr. ZACCARIA tells him

that he already explained it to the other guy and says: “If they go there they must look very

well.. at everything…”, and Mr. SPEZI: “What I mean to say… if he finds a hairpin this

doesn‟t mean anything to him…”, making him understand that he will need to “work” him

out. Mr. ZACCARIA adds in the end: “Then I told him, well while we go… when it‟s… when

you are going… he says anyway he advises us”. Mr. SPEZI says he agrees and Mr.

ZACCARIA reassures him saying he [Bernabei] doesn‟t know anything about the case and

never dealt with it, then he complains about that the nowadays officers are incapable of doing

their job. Thus the chief of the Flying Squad, Dr. Fillippo Ferri, will need to be led by

“malicious” Mr. ZACCARIA. Then Mr. SPEZI asks Mr. ZACCARIA to advise him when he

goes there (to the Villa). Anyway we remand to the unequivocal content of the conversation, at

pages 6, 7 and 8 of request n. 114/06 G.I.De.S.

Thus, the four designed the plot aimed at hiding compromising material related to the “Monster of

Florence” inside Villa Bibbiani, and at making believe that the villa was attended by Francesco and

Salvatore Vinci and by Antonio the nephew of the first, alleging they are involved in crimes they

never committed. They denounced the fact at the Chief of Florence D.I.G.O.S. Mr. Bernabei (who

dealt with the investigation at the time) and then at the Chief of Flying Squad (which forwarded the

report) whom should have been led there by Mr. ZACCARIA, who would have previously advised

Mr. SPEZI.

The Judiciary Police organ [Flying Squad] advised the Judicial Authority about the report.

The progression of an incriminating position of [first] Mr. RUOCCO (the “explorer” and

“photographer” guy), and [then] of Mr. PRESTON, thwarted the plan, and when the searches were

launched the [police] couldn‟t find the objects in the villa, but they found the denouncement-report

at SPEZI‟s place, who also had pictures of Villa Bibbiani, taken during the several inspections, in

his mobile phone; while Mr. ZACCARIA was keeping stocks of both civil and military ammunition

without declaring them, while instead he did not have the .22 calibre bullets which he had declared.

But the calunnia-report was submitted, and what‟s worst: in a secret, well-guarded location, maybe,

the mysterious “six small boxes” are [still] hidden, and – a disturbing detail – they are possessed by

Mr. SPEZI, [a man] who sure could not decide to accomplish such an egregious scoop and attempt

to bring a blow against the investigation about him [just] because of some molehill. Moreover, the

“resurrection” of the already dead and buried “Sardinian track” would have exculpated [16]

CALAMANDREI from the Florentine investigation, and Mr. SPEZI from the connected one for the

murder of NARDUCCI pending in Perugia. “Excusatio non petita….”.

It must be added, at last, that as for accepted jurisprudence (see Cass. VI Sez. n. 40355 of Sep. 21.

„01 (deposited on Nov. 13. 2001), reviewed 220314) the charge of calunnia exists also when the

report is delivered anonymously. In the specific case the authors of the report have been identified

and the problem would be passed.

***

About cautionary needs. Cautionary needs, in particular the one deriving from Mr. Spezi‟s and Mr.

Ruocco‟s dangerousness and the actual danger that the suspects commit further crimes of the same

kind of that for which we are proceeding, are obvious;

Mr. Spezi has a specific criminal record of defamation, also related to the “Monster” case (that is an

authentic obsession for this person), while Mr. Ruocco has collected a stunning series of serious

criminal records, including some violent ones.

Among the two, anyway, besides their records, Mr. Spezi is the most dangerous one, because of his

psychological features which are manifested by his conduct: he is a subject with extremely high and

disturbing criminal capability, because of his callousness; because of his hatred against

investigators; because of his obsession with the Florentine case; because of his claim of being

untouchable; because he has been operating for years incessantly in order to resuscitate a dead and

buried investigation track which would definitively shelter himself and his friends and bring the

investigation into an inextricable dead-end; because of his radical denial of decisions of the Judicial

Authority; because of his strong tendency to illegal and secret operations; because of his stubborn

refusal to defend himself by licit means; because of his astonishing capability to lie; because of his

total refusal of any attitude of cooperation with investigators; because of his remarkable capability

of rallying some “powerful” as much as irresponsible people, as well as “press-freedom” groups, as

if he was accused because of journalistic activities instead of intolerable criminal actions, which he

committed – possibly thus using the “freedom-press” stance as an instrument of his crime – even at

the cost of involving innocents; because of his arrogance and presumptuousness; just to mention

only some of the unfortunate features of the subject which gradually emerged over the course of the

investigation.

The prognosis is certainly inauspicious: Mr Ruocco won‟t be able to help but committing other

crimes of the kind of that for which we proceed, because he is a multiple previous offender with

very little to lose and because he is in the hands of Mr. Spezi.

The latter is constitutionally compelled to repeat the crimes for which we proceed, both because he

is now completely involved in the Florentine case, and above all into the “Perugian” proxy of it, and

because of his personality.

For Mr. Ruocco, given the astonishing series of previous criminal records, and the fact that he is

housed in a location different from his place of residence, there is also a practical danger of escape.

Mr. Ruocco is a multiple previous offender, living in a city different from the one where he is a

resident. Mr. Spezi committed all the crimes for which we proceed and the activities linked to them

from his home (besides Villa Bibbiani) always entrenched in his “protected” Florentine refuge,

where he has been enjoying, unfortunately for years, support and complicities which is no longer

possible to ignore. The cautionary requirements could not be granted by house arrest nor by other

less afflictive measures.

The only possible measure applicable is the custody in prison.

***

Summary considerations:

Summing up the following must be considered:

1) About territorial jurisdiction. All crimes for which we proceed belong to the jurisdiction of

the Perugian Judicial Authority, as for art. 16, first paragraph c.p.p. In fact the first, and in

the assumed scenario the most serious of the crimes for which we proceed, was committed

within the territory of Perugia (multi-aggravated murder). So, while the double-murders

already attributed to the „Monster of Florence‟, who are previous to the murder in detriment of

Narducci (which occurred exactly one month after the last crime in the series) could not be

concealed, the one in detriment of Narducci instead could be concealed through an impressive plot,

[17] and was pretended to be an accidental death caused by a sudden „illness‟ or „accident‟, and in

the extreme event, a „suicide‟, for almost 17 years. Mr Spezi has always been pursuing, and still

aims to, the concealment of such murder and of its “Florentine” motives.

Spezi is being investigated in Perugia both for this crime and for those subsequent ones for which

we proceed now, which were committed with the purpose of concealing the original crime

committed on the Trasimeno lake and its motives, and consequently, and indirectly, in order to have

Mr. Spezi achieve impunity from his possible involvement in the Narducci murder, and

hypothetically, from other crimes related to the double murders. The „Florentine‟ felonis for which

we proceed are, thus, teleologically connected to the first and more serious crime, which was

committed at the Trasimeno Lake, within the territory of this jurisdiction.

Basically Mr. Spezi has linked the charge of concurring in the murder for which he is investigated,

to the side-tracking operation in detriment of Antonio Vinci and others, re-iterating the identical

operation which Spezi carried on since the time of the Florentine double murders, and in occasion

of the murder of Narducci which occurred one month after the last double-murder, and then the

time of the “Puletti side-tracking” which occurred in 2004, for which the office proceeded ascribing

it in the file [against unknown people] n. 8970 of 2002 R.G.N.R. Mod. 21.

Moreover, the present investigation is linked in its evidence under art. 12. letter c) c.p.p. with the n.

8970/2022 R.G.N.R. pending at this office, in which Mr. Spezi is investigated too in relation to the

similar “side-tracking” operation known as “operation Puletti” in which the defendants (thus Mr.

Spezi too) acted with the purpose of concealing the murder in detriment of Mr. Narducci, creating

thus a very tight formal link under the art. 12. c) c.p.p. which can justify a possible merging of the

two investigations in the future. In both investigations the most serious and original crime was

committed at the Trasimeno Lake that is in the Perugia district.

To this, we need to add the ruling by the Prosecution General of the Republic at the Supreme Court,

already recalled.

Mr Ruocco, Mr. Preston and Mr. Zaccaria thus have concurred with Mr. Spezi (who anchors the

jurisdiction to Perugia) in order to help him to achieve impunity. Moreover Mr. Preston and Mr.

Ruocco are investigated also for crimes committed in Perugia.

With such clarifications, we close the discourse addressing jurisdiction.

2) The felonies of „aggravated calunnia‟ and, for Mr. Spezi, of concurring in „interruption‟ and

„perturbation of public offices‟, in the aggravated form which he is charged with, as well as, for

Ruocco, the charge of favouring a felon [favoreggiamento personale] do widely justify the coercive

statutory measures, and the custody in prison in particular.

So noted that, while for felony under letter a) the circumstantial evidence, albeit consistent, still

needs to find a full corroboration, it appears to be serious circumstantial evidence of guilt against

Mr. SPEZI and Mr. RUOCCO for the the felonies under letters b), c) and d), also under the light of

the rule to which art. 11 of law 63/2001, in light of the above considerations;

Noted that the penalty provided as a maximum for the crimes for which we proceed allows the

application of coercive cautionary measures, by art. 280 c.p.p. and that, given that it‟s about

cautionary custody in prison, for the crimes for which we proceed the law provides a maximum

penalty of a prison term not shorter than four years;

FOR THESE REASONS

Seen articles 273 and following of c.p.p. [18]

REQUESTS

that the Preliminary Investigating Judge of Perugia would issue, within generalized ruling, the

measure of cautionary custody in prison against Mario SPEZI and Luigi RUOCCO.

Requests moreover since now, the revocation of the cautionary measure at the expiration of the

provided maximum term as provided by art. 303 c.p.p. with modifications introduced by Law

Decree n. 341/2000, converted in Law with modifications in Law n. 341 of Jan 19. 2001 (which

means within six months – one year – one year and six months if the events provided for by letter b)

of first paragraph of art. 303 c.p.p.; within nine months – one year – one year and six months, in the

events provided for by letter c) of first paragraph of art. 303 c.p.p. and those provided for by letter

d) of the same first paragraph of art. 303 c.p.p., and in any event those provided for by the fourth

paragraph art. 303 c.p.p.).

Given the huge size of the case file, we submit the following documents:

1) Expert‟s analysis report performed under art. 360 c.p.p. by Prof. Giovanni Pierucci;

2) Cautionary order of the Court of Appeal of Perugia of December 7. and 21. 2004

3) Phone wiretapping n. 5585 of Nov. 26. 2004 in the file n. 8970/2002 R.G.N.R. mod. 21.

4) Report of Feb. 27. 2006 by the G.I.De.S

5) Phone wiretapping n. 15780 of Dec. 12. 2005 6) Report on “Gente” weekly magazine n. 51 of Dec 22. 2005 and transcription of conversation between

Spezi and Pino Aprile, the weekly director, on Nov 24. 2005, the wiretapping n.1481 of the suspect‟s

home landline.

7) police minutes of information from Luigi Ruocco of Feb. 19. and 20. 2006

8) police minutes of summary information from Antonio Vinci and Prof. Luigi Donato on Feb 21. 2006

9) G.I.De.S. service report of Feb 22. 2006 and Feb 14. 2006;

10) investigation performed by the Carabinieri of the Capraia e Limite station (file 8938/7 -2,

Carabinieri Station of Capraia e limite);

11) police minutes of information from Douglas PRESTON of Feb 23. 2006

12) police minutes of information from Dr. Gianfranco BERNABEI of Feb 24. 2006 (investigated in a

connected case);

13) police minutes of information from Domenico RIZZUTO (and attached memoir) in date May 30.

2005;

14) setting for adjudication of territorial competence in date July 17. 2005

15) order by the Prosecutor General of the Republic at the Supreme Court of July. 29. 2005

16) report n. 101/ 2006 of G.I.De.S. of Feb 22. 2006.

17) search order