The Milan Prosecutor’s Office requests a trial for the death of Ramy Elgaml: both the carabiniere driving and the fugitive are accused, with hypotheses of misdirection and forgery
On one side those who flee, on the other those who chase. Two trajectories with the same point of impact. And with the same judicial profile. Fares Bouzidi on the scooter, without a license, at times “against traffic” and at over 120 per hour. The policeman Anthony Lenoci driving the Gazzella dell’Arma. For the Milan Prosecutor’s Office led by Marcellus Viola the two are on the same legal level: both called to answer for vehicular homicide, both within the same causal chain that led to the death, on 24 November 2024, of Ramy Elgaml.
In practice the two conducts are distinct (that of the soldier for negligent excess) but, according to the prosecutors, they converge in the same outcome. With Lenoci And Bouzidi six other soldiers risk trial. The charges, for various reasons, are of aiding and abetting, misdirection and forgery. That is, the second level of the investigation conducted by the prosecutors Giancarla Seraphim And Mark Cirigliano (coordinated by the deputy prosecutor Paul Ielo), which no longer concerns the road, but what happened afterwards with the reports, the alleged omissions and the videos.
The request for indictment comes after the closure of the preliminary investigations notified on February 16th. And now it will have to be evaluated by the judge of the preliminary hearing. According to the prosecution, Lenoci (defended by lawyers Roberto Burgundy And Ariadne Dutto) would have maintained «a distance and speed unsuitable to prevent any collisions or rear-end collisions with the fleeing vehicle», with a «particularly reckless manoeuvre». The fact that he was acting ‘in the performance of a duty’ is not disputed. For the prosecutors, however, he would have “culpably exceeded the limits established by law”, with a “disproportionate driving conduct” compared to the need to block the scooter, also because the license plate of the fleeing TMax had already been communicated via radio. TO Lenoci injuries against are also contested Bouzidi (sentenced in first instance for resistance to 2 years and 8 months and defended by lawyers Deborah Square And Mark Romagnoli), again for “culpable excess in the performance of duty”. The defensive line, however, moves on a different ridge: recognizing the pursuit as a necessary act, within an operational context marked by urgency and the need to stop dangerous conduct. The dynamics of the crash, despite expert reports and technical reports not always aligning, is established in the documents. A passage that already indicates possible margins for comparison between consultancy and reconstructions. The collision between the right rear side of the TMax and the “front bumper strip” of the Giulietta. Then the final crash at the intersection of via Ripamonti and via Quaranta. Ramy is thrown against a traffic light pole. And immediately afterwards crushed by the police car. It is the sequence which, according to the prosecution, would materially link the two conducts to the fatal outcome. The crux of the trial will be to establish whether that sequence is the inevitable effect of a dangerous escape or the result of operational choices deemed disproportionate.
On the opposite side, that of the escape, the prosecutors contest a Bouzidi involvement in vehicular homicide. Then comes the turn of four of the seven soldiers, who are accused of misdirection and aiding and abetting, also for having forced, according to the prosecution, witnesses to delete videos. Another thread concerns arrest reports and forgery charges. According to the prosecutors, four carabinieri failed “to mention the collision”, writing “falsely” that the scooter “slipped due to the oversteer”. A difference that for the investigators would not only be lexical, but substantial in the description of the dynamics. The version would then be denied by the reconstruction of the local police, by the advice of the prosecutor’s expert and by the images acquired. Four, however, are also accused of having failed to report the presence of an eyewitness, a dashcam and a bodycam, “devices which”, reports the prosecution, “recorded the entire phase of the chase”. The complaint of false information to the prosecutors, which sees two soldiers under investigation, was, however, dropped for technical-procedural reasons and will continue in further criminal proceedings.
