Rimini, September 15, 2026 – He had entered the Monti jewelry store in Rimini with a gun in hand, along with two other men, all with covered faces. The plan, according to investigators, was simple: to keep the owners under control and get their hands on the valuables. But something goes wrong. The couple reacts and a struggle breaks out. The jeweler’s wife grabs a pointed metal tweezer and strikes the armed robber several times, injuring him. The shot misfires and the three are forced to flee empty-handed. But during those few minutes they leave behind traces that, months later, become decisive. Precisely on the tweezer used by the woman to defend herself, Ris specialists manage to isolate a male genetic profile. The subsequent comparison, according to the order, leads to a 27-year-old Italian, born and residing in Rimini. And this is not the only element. During the same struggle, the bandit also loses a pair of mirrored glasses: on one lens a palm print is found that the investigations attribute to the right hand of the same young man.
DNA on the tweezer, a print on the glasses, and footage from the cameras thus, according to the prosecution, point in the same direction. For the attempted robbery on June 16, 2025, more than a year later, the 27-year-old has now ended up in prison. The order was signed on September 14 by the judge of the Rimini Court Raffaella Ceccarelli, who accepted the request of the Prosecutor’s Office (pm Davide Ercolani) at the end of investigations conducted by the mobile squad and the carabinieri of the Rimini provincial command. The young man is charged with complicity in the attempted aggravated robbery and the illegal carrying of the revolver used during the heist. The charges will have to be verified during the proceedings and the suspect is presumed innocent until a possible final conviction. Everything happens shortly after 10 in the morning. The jeweler and his wife are in the store when a young man shows up at the door asking to come in. He is let in and, according to the investigative reconstruction, it is at that point that the other two accomplices, both disguised, burst in. One of them is more robust, wears mirrored glasses, and holds a revolver. He goes straight to the jeweler, points the weapon at him, grabs him by the neck, pushes him, and hits him on the chin with the barrel of the gun. The internal cameras record the scene and also capture a phrase spoken by the man: “I’m covering you… look, the gun is good!” This is where the plan goes off the rails. The jeweler’s wife intervenes, takes the tweezer, and repeatedly strikes the robber. In the struggle, the man is injured and loses his glasses. Faced with the reaction of the couple, the three drop everything and flee without managing to take the valuables. However, several pieces of evidence remain inside the store. Investigators recover a cap, the mirrored glasses, a blank cartridge, and the tweezer. Blood traces are also identified. It is on this material that the investigations focus in the following months. One of the most important findings comes from the glasses. The images show that they are worn by the man with the gun and that they are lost during the fight. On one lens, a useful palm print is identified, attributed by specialists to the right hand of the 27-year-old. The second finding comes from the tweezer with which the robber was struck: the analyses allow isolating a male genetic profile which, according to the order, is compatible with that of the young man. The investigators’ reasoning is therefore quite straightforward: the 27-year-old’s print would be on the glasses worn by the armed man, while his genetic profile would be compatible with the one isolated on the object used to injure that same robber. Added to this is the comparison between the robbery footage and some more recent photographs of the suspect, from which compatibility in build and general features would emerge. However, the judge specifies that the images alone would not allow a certain identification: they gain weight when read together with the other evidence. According to investigators, moreover, the heist was prepared in advance. The cameras would show one of the alleged accomplices near the jewelry store already on June 7 and 9. For the prosecution, these would have been reconnaissance visits. The same man would then have returned on the day of the robbery, having the door opened and allowing the other two to enter. The 27-year-old had already come under investigation a few days after the assault. On June 21, 2025, he was stopped for the same episode, but the detention was not confirmed because the risk of flight was considered absent. The young man had exercised his right to remain silent. However, the investigation continued and subsequently the results of the scientific tests arrived.
Read more Casini becomes a grandfather: little Camillo is born. “But keep calling me Pier Ferdinando”
