Fifteen months after the ambush – the shooting on the night of 15 July 2024 when a showdown was triggered in via Pio The three suspects are very young: Paolo Labate, 20 years old; Filippo Labate, 19 years old; Umberto Rogolino, 23 years old. Specifically, the accusation is that he acted “in an unequivocal way to cause the death of Massimiliano Sinisi, exploding three rifle shots in his direction and hitting him in the right leg and abdomen”.
Subjected to warrant interrogation a few hours after the arrest, all three – Paolo and Filippo Labate defended by the lawyer Francesco Gatto; Umberto Rogolino by the lawyer Giulia Dieni – made use of the right not to respond before the investigating judge Francesca Mesto.
The dynamics of the facts and the individual responsibilities have been reconstructed in a more in-depth and scientific manner. According to investigators, the evening before the shooting, a heated argument had taken place, which immediately degenerated into a violent physical assault, between the victim and the three arrested. The investigation papers underline how «after having discussed during the evening with Massimiliano Sinisi, as he had set fire to a vehicle near the house of the Labate brothers (located in via Pio three shots hit him in the legs and abdomen “thus placing him in very serious danger to his life”. Rescued and transported to hospital, he was saved by a delicate surgery after having fought between life and death for days.
The video surveillance images acquired and analyzed by the policemen of the “homicide” section of the Flying Squad were decisive for identification purposes. For the Prosecutor who coordinated the investigations, the aggravating factor of the intimidating force of the associative bond must also be contested since it was done – writes the investigating judge – “in order to claim the dominance and control of the criminals over the area to which they belong, evoking the notorious criminal capacity of the ‘ndrina Barreca”.
In the precautionary custody order, the serious circumstantial framework is underlined: «In the case in question, there is no residual margin of doubt regarding guilt, given the dynamics of the facts immortalized by the videos extrapolated from the video surveillance system installed near the case logos, the precious compendium of interceptions, the converging statements of the eyewitnesses, the scientific investigations of the Judicial Police».
Public prosecutors and investigating magistrates are in agreement on the precautionary needs: “There is a real danger that if they are free they could commit other crimes of the same kind.”