Hitman who killed fashion icon Maurizio Gucci shoots son in face, turns gun on self: reports
Benedetto Ceraulo, 63, was hosting family at his Pisa, Italy, home for the Easter holidays when the shocking attempted filicide occurred, according to Italian newspaper La Stampa.
A family argument broke out on Tuesday — which escalated when the high-fashion hitman allegedly resolved the issue by firing a small-caliber pistol into the face of Gaetano Ceraulo, Il Tirreno reported.
Advertisement
3 Benedetto Ceraulo pictured in 1995 after his arrest for the shooting of Maurizio Gucci.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Ceraulo then turned the pistol on himself in the front garden of the Santa Maria a Monte home in an apparent suicide attempt, according to the local reports.
Despite being shot in the face, Gaetano never lost consciousness and managed to drive himself to a bar in a town in the nearby province of Valdinievole, while gushing blood. Once there, he was picked up by first responders and rushed to the hospital, according to Il Tirreno.
He is currently in stable condition after receiving treatment at Felice Lotti Hospital, the outlet reported.
Advertisement
Meanwhile, his father, Gucci's assassin, remains in very serious condition at Cisanello Hospital in Pisa, Il Tirreno stated.
Ceraulo was convicted alongside another hitman of the 1995 killing of the third-generation Italian fashion house head on orders from the doomed businessman's ex-wife, Patrizia Reggiani.
Gucci, 46, was shot to death outside his offices in Milan.
Advertisement
3 Maurizio Gucci was shot to death outside his offices in Milan in 1995.
Ipa/Shutterstock
In 2023, Ceraulo was granted semi-liberty after serving only 18 years of his sentence upon condition of participating in a social reintegration project, La Stampa reported.
Reggiani, dubbed the 'Black Widow,' was sentenced to 29 years in prison in 1998, but was released in 2016 after serving just 18 years.
The high-profile assassination became fodder for Hollywood in 2021 when director Ridley Scott's 'House of Gucci' hit the silver screen — much to the dismay of Reggiani and Gucci's daughter, Allegra Gucci.
Advertisement
The 'bad caricature' of her beloved father inspired the devoted daughter to pen the book 'Game Over' in which she tried to set the record straight on her 'hard working' dad and her 'elegant' mother who was portrayed by Lady Gaga in Scott's film.
3 Patrizia Reggiani, dubbed the 'Black Widow,' ordered the hit on her ex-husband Maurizio Gucci.
Associated Press
For years, Allegra averred the innocence of her mother, bringing the 'Black Widow' care packages in prison and even being inspired to study law due to what the daughter perceived to be an unjust legal accusation of her mother.
Reggiani eventually admitted to her daughter that she had hired the hitmen to kill Gucci.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business of Fashion
a day ago
- Business of Fashion
Are Luxury Brands Responsible for What Happens in Their Supply Chains?
Until the end of 2023, Z Production, a leather goods factory located in an industrial suburb of Florence, made bags and backpacks for Richemont-owned luxury pen and leather goods maker Montblanc. The items were made by workers who earned as little as $3 an hour, working 12 hours a day, six days a week, according to local union Sudd Cobas, which led a months-long campaign of strikes that succeeded in securing better hours and wages at the factory for its members in early 2023. Within weeks of the agreement, Richemont's local manufacturing unit announced plans to terminate its contract with Z Production, pointing to consistent infractions against its code of conduct. Sudd Cobas alleges the move amounted to a form of union busting and ultimately led to the dismissal of six of its members in October last year. Now it is helping the workers take the Richemont unit to court, hoping to hold the luxury giant legally accountable for damages to workers in its supply chain. Montblanc contests the claims laid out in the case and is separately suing the union for defamation. The company said the manufacturing unit ended its relationship with Z Production after audits turned up persistent issues, including a case of unauthorised subcontracting. Any dismissals took place months after its contract with the supplier ended and its inspections uncovered no evidence of the kinds of labour abuses alleged by Sudd Cobas, it added. 'We categorically reject these unfounded and defamatory accusations,' Montblanc said in an emailed statement. 'The termination of the supply relationship with Z Production has, for months, been extensively exploited… based on numerous inaccuracies, falsehoods and conjectures.' The litigation is the latest move in a high-stakes debate over how much responsibility big brands should have for what happens in their supply chains. With the case, Sudd Cobas is aiming to set a new legal precedent in Italy, where roughly half of the world's luxury goods are made. If successful, 'the ruling could represent a turning point for thousands of exploited workers across the 'Made in Italy' supply chains,' Sudd Cobas said in a press release it jointly issued with Abiti Puliti, the Italian branch of labour rights campaign group Clean Clothes Campaign, earlier this month. 'It would be the first time a fashion brand is held directly responsible for working conditions within its supply chain.' Limited Liability Business Models Most fashion companies — even high-end, luxury labels — don't make their own products. Instead they outsource production to a complex and often opaque network of third-party suppliers. That means they don't have direct control, or even real visibility, over working conditions. Critics argue it also allows them to sidestep legal liability when things go wrong. Labour rights advocates have pushed against this framing for decades, campaigning to bring more accountability to a system that they argue is deeply flawed and ultimately exists to boost the profits of big, multinational corporations. It's the constant pressure big brands place on manufacturers with much tighter margins to provide cheaper, faster, more flexible production that ultimately leads to cut corners and labour exploitation, they say. Brands use 'these subcontracting companies to save money on production,' said Francesca Ciuffi, an organiser with the Sudd Cobas union. 'They externalise everything.' Regulators have flip flopped on the issue. Over the last decade governments around the world have introduced a number of policies that require companies to get a better handle on where and how their products are made, often in response to scandals like the Rana Plaza disaster in Bangladesh and an alleged government-backed scheme of forced labour in China's cotton-producing region of Xinjiang. But often these measures have lacked teeth or been weakly enforced. Shifting political winds mean some of the most progressive rules on the table now look likely to get drastically pushed back. Litigation is seen by labour and human rights advocates as one tool to help shift the paradigm, moving the pressure on brands from one of moral accountability that impacts their reputations to one of concrete, legal consequence. Climate and human rights cases against big companies have increased alongside regulatory changes and growing investor engagement with environmental, social and governance issues. Often such cases take years and may not result in a straight win for either party. But the attention they bring to the issues and even incremental changes to the way the law is applied can make a significant difference, advocates say. 'These cases are very robustly fought by brands. Very rarely do they resolve quickly, they're always heavily contested,' said Oliver Holland, a partner at UK-based law firm Leigh Day who specialises in corporate accountability litigation. 'As cases become more common won't take as long and won't be as difficult.' Luxury Exceptionalism The case supported by Sudd Cobas comes as luxury's supply chains are facing unprecedented scrutiny. For decades, the sector has tried to pass off reports of labour abuses in apparel and leather goods factories as a fast-fashion problem, isolated to far-flung manufacturing hubs with weak worker protections. Steep prices and 'Made in Italy' labels are wielded as tools in this narrative, designed to signal to consumers that luxury products were made in tightly regulated labour markets by well-paid and highly skilled artisans. And previous scandals largely came and went, without damaging brands. But over the last 18 months, an ongoing investigation into labour exploitation in fashion workshops near Milan has exposed major issues at many of luxury's most established brands. Regional prosecutors have linked companies including Dior, Armani, Valentino and Loro Piana to local sweatshops. (The brands say that they are committed to upholding high ethical standards and the incidents don't reflect the way they operate). The scandal has proved reputationally bruising. And it's landed at a particularly unhelpful moment, when luxury's biggest players are already grappling with a downturn in consumer spending, linked in part to growing criticism of declining quality and rising prices playing out in viral posts on social media platforms. Still, the material impact has thus far been limited, While the court in Milan has been critical, arguing that luxury's links to sweatshops are the result of an entrenched operating model that ignores labour risks in order to maximise profits, sanctions against brands have focused on alleged failings in their monitoring systems and have not held them legally responsible for the way workers were treated at suppliers and subcontractors. Political efforts to address the issues have focused on developing certification programmes companies can use to prevent exposure to illicit actors. A new scheme in Milan aims to establish a database of 'good' suppliers, based on voluntary disclosures and participation. Last week, Italy's Ministry of Enterprise and Made in Italy announced plans to introduce a new law that would ensure the sustainability and legality of companies operating in the sector. Its aim is 'to combat the illicit labour practices of a few, which can compromise the reputation of the entire sector,' the ministry said in a statement, adding that the law would protect brands that have carried out preventative checks on their suppliers from liability. Critics argue such measures fail to address the underlying business practices that they say ultimately lead to exploitation. 'Brand reputations are safeguarded — not workers' rights — by the ethical codes published on corporate websites and the so-called system of 'audits,'' Sudd Cobas and Abiti Puliti said in their statement earlier this month. 'The conflict of interest is clear, and it offers no real accountability to those employed along the production chains.' Who Pays? With the case in Tuscany, Sudd Cobas is seeking to shift this paradigm. According to the argument put forward by the workers' lawyers, Richemont's local subsidiary was Z Production's only client and had active involvement in its day-to-day operations. The factory was in effect an 'empty vessel' for Richemont's Montblanc manufacturing business, making the luxury giant the ultimate responsible employer, the case claims. It alleges the Richemont unit cancelled its contract with Z Production because output dropped after working hours were regularised for union members. The lawsuit seeks to restore jobs and secure at least five months' salary as compensation for the six plaintiffs, who it claims ultimately lost their jobs as a result of the luxury company's actions. Montblanc said the case mischaracterises its manufacturing division's relationship with Z Production and that the six workers involved in the case were dismissed 18 months after the unit announced plans to terminate its contract, and 10 months after it stopped working with the supplier. Its decision to end the relationship was made after audits turned up 'persistent incidents of non-compliance' with the company's code of conduct, including unauthorised subcontracting, Montblanc said, adding that neither its own inspections, nor a third-party forensic audit conducted in early 2023 found evidence of working conditions like those alleged by Sudd Cobas. A judge in Florence's labour court consented to hear arguments in July. The next court date is set for December. Simone Stern Carbone contributed to this story.
Boston Globe
a day ago
- Boston Globe
Rose Leiman Goldemberg, 97, dies; her ‘Burning Bed' was a TV benchmark
Ms. Goldemberg was working as a playwright in the mid-1970s when she sent a few story outlines to an unusually receptive television producer. One of them, a drama about immigrants set on the Lower East Side of Manhattan in 1910, caught his interest. It became a television movie, 'The Land of Hope' (a title Ms. Goldemberg hated), which aired on CBS in 1976. It centered on a Jewish family and their Irish and Italian neighbors. There were labor organizers, gangsters, and musicians, and a rich uncle who wanted to adopt a child to say Kaddish for him when the time came. Such an ethnic stew was a stretch for the network, and critics loved it. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'A thoroughly charming surprise,' John O'Connor wrote in his review for The New York Times. Advertisement As a pilot for a series, 'The Land of Hope' went nowhere, but it made Ms. Goldemberg's reputation, and she began receiving stories to be turned into scripts. 'Where did you spring from?' one network executive asked her, she recalled in a 2011 interview for the nonprofit organization New York Women in Film & Television. 'As though I were a mushroom.' It was Arnold Shapiro, the veteran producer, writer and director behind 'Scared Straight!,' a well-received TV documentary about teenage delinquents being brought into contact with prison inmates, who sent Ms. Goldemberg 'The Burning Bed,' a 1980 book by The New Yorker writer Faith McNulty about the case of Francine Hughes. Advertisement Hughes's story was horrific. For 13 years, she had been terrorized by her alcoholic husband. One day in March 1977, after a brutal beating, she called the police in their Michigan town. Two officers responded and then left, saying there was nothing they could do because they hadn't witnessed the attacks. That night, the beating resumed, and Hughes's husband raped her. When he fell asleep, she doused the bed with gasoline, lit a match, and set the bed on fire. Then she put her children in the car and drove to the county jail to report what she had done. Her husband died that night, and Francine Hughes was charged with first-degree murder. Nine months later, a jury pronounced her not guilty by reason of temporary insanity. The verdict made national headlines. Fawcett, the pinup star of 'Charlie's Angels,' the frothy crime series, was already attached to the project; she had shown her dramatic chops in 'Extremities,' an off-Broadway production about a woman who exacts revenge on her rapist, and wanted to continue working in that vein. Yet the project was initially turned down by all three networks. When it was resurrected, by NBC, in one of those complicated scenarios particular to Hollywood, Shapiro was somehow left out of the production. The movie aired in October 1984, to mostly critical acclaim. (Paul Le Mat played the husband.) It was seen by tens of millions of viewers, and NBC's ratings soared, pulling the network out of third place and putting it on top for the first time in a decade. Fawcett, Ms. Goldemberg, the producers, and even the makeup artist were nominated for Emmy Awards, and the movie set off a national conversation about domestic abuse. Women's shelters, a rarity in those days, began opening all over the country; the film was shown in men's prisons; and Ms. Goldemberg was often asked to speak to women's groups. Advertisement Inevitably, as she recalled in 2011, 'someone would say, 'I couldn't talk about my own abuse until I saw the film.'' She added: 'It wasn't because of me. It was a wonderful performance by Farrah, and the timing was right. It was just a remarkable confluence of the right things happening at the right time.' Still, Ms. Goldemberg began fielding entreaties from other actresses who wanted her to write star vehicles for them, projects akin to 'The Burning Bed.' She did so for one of Fawcett's fellow angels, Jaclyn Smith, cowriting the TV movie 'Florence Nightingale' for her. Broadcast in April 1985, it did not have the same impact as 'The Burning Bed'; most critics found it soapy and forgettable. A Lucille Ball vehicle fared much better. Ball wanted a script about homelessness, and when she and Ms. Goldemberg met at her Beverly Hills house, Ball laid out her terms: She wanted to play a character with some of the personality traits of her grandmother, and named for her. Ms. Goldemberg came up with 'Stone Pillow,' a television film about a homeless woman named Florabelle. In his Times review, under the headline 'Lucille Ball Plays a Bag Lady on CBS,' O'Connor called the movie 'a carefully contrived concoction' but praised Ball 'as wily and irresistible as ever.' Advertisement Rose Marion Leiman was born on May 17, 1928, on Staten Island, N.Y. Her mother, Esther (Friedman) Leiman, oversaw the home until World War II, when she became an executive secretary at Bank of America; her father, Louis Leiman, owned a chain of dry-cleaning stores in New Jersey. Rose earned a bachelor's degree in 1949 from Brooklyn College, where she had enrolled at 16, and a Master of Arts in English from Ohio State University. She married Raymond Schiller, a composer who followed her from Brooklyn College to Ohio State, in 1949; he later became a computer systems designer. They divorced in 1968. Her marriage, in 1969, to Robert Goldemberg, a cosmetic chemist, ended in divorce in 1989. Her first television-related job was at TV Guide in the 1950s, writing reviews of shows airing on what was then a new medium. She eventually began writing plays. Ms. Goldemberg is survived by a son, Leiman Schiller, and three stepchildren, David Goldemberg, Kathy Holmes, and Sharanne Goldemberg. This article originally appeared in
New York Post
2 days ago
- New York Post
Crypto bro in horrific NYC kidnap, torture case sprung on whopping $1 million bond
One of the crypto bros accused of sadistically tormenting an Italian millionaire in a Manhattan townhouse was sprung on $1 million bond Thursday after spending two months behind bars. John Woeltz, 37, was released from Rikers Island just a week after a Manhattan judge granted the accused madman and his accomplice, William Duplessie, 33, bail in the shocking alleged kidnapping and torture of Italian crypto trader Michael Valentino Teofrasto Carturan. Woeltz had been holed up in the city's jail since his arrest on May 23 after prosecutors alleged he tortured Carturan for his Bitcoin password, including lighting him on fire and cutting him with a chainsaw. Advertisement 3 John Woeltz (right) was released from Rikers Island after a Manhattan judge granted him and his accomplice, William Duplessie (left), bail in the alleged kidnapping and torture of Italian crypto trader Michael Valentino Teofrasto Carturan. Steven Hirsch Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Gregory Carro granted the seven-figure bail package on July 23 after attorneys for the crypto bros argued that the so-called torture was akin to 'fraternity-like hazing.' The judge agreed to spring the pair free — with the stipulation they couldn't pay in cryptocurrency. Advertisement Woeltz's bond was secured by celebrity bondsman Ira Judelson, who was sworn in shortly before a Thursday court hearing. 3 Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Gregory Carro granted the seven-figure bail package on July 23. During the hearing, Woeltz, who appeared in a tan prison jumpsuit, was released to home confinement and placed on electronic monitoring. The judge warned him that the monitoring bracelet must remain charged while he's out of jail. Advertisement 'If it happens, you're not going to be on electronic monitoring anymore,' Carro said. 3 Duplessie was not released on Thursday. His next court date is scheduled for October. James Keivom The hard-partying duo allegedly tortured Carturan, who has since returned to Italy, at a swanky SoHo townhouse in order to hijack his Bitcoin password worth $100 million, according to law-enforcement sources. Woeltz, a Kentucky-based cryptocurrency investor, allegedly threatened the 28-year-old victim's family in Italy — while subjecting him to humiliation by having people urinate on him and forcing him to take drugs during captivity, authorities said. Advertisement But Woeltz's attorney, Wayne Gosnell, waved off the alleged torture tactics — some of which were captured on video and photo — as a 'long running frat party.' 'Mr. Carturan was there in the role of a pledge. He was essentially pledging and being hazed,' Gosnell said at a previous hearing. Duplessie, of Miami, Fla., was not released Thursday. His next court date is scheduled for October 15.
