It remains a mystery why the draft motion to dismiss of Andrea Sempio of 2017 came out of Pavia Prosecutor’s Office and ended up in Sempio’s “permanent file” drawn up by Information unit of the provincial command of the force.
The commander of that office was Major Maurizio Pappalardonow accused of numerous crimes and recently sentenced to 5 years and 8 months in prison for corruption and stalking of his ex-girlfriend. But no one has yet officially involved him in the investigations into Sempio’s controversial dismissal, which remains an open investigation for corruption.
The yellow of the photocopied sketch and the three images in the cell phone
The buyers of the Brescia Prosecutor’s OfficeIn this regard, they heard Pappalardo as a person informed of the facts, also because in the mobile phone of the officer on leave the investigators found three photos which immortalized as many documents from the file on Sempio. But no one was able to explain how the draft of the request for dismissal, complete with handwritten corrections and a new incipit of eleven lines jotted down by hand on a piece of paper (with the logo of the wiretapping company Rcs), could have ended up in Sempio’s «P» file.
The certain fact is that the draft was photocopied, probably with a certain haste or superficiality. In fact, two pages were duplicated together: of the 17th only a corner can be seen, under the fold of the previous one. Therefore, whoever made the copy of that secret document did not bother to check that they had the complete document. Was he doing it secretly, without the authorization of the magistrates? Investigations will have to find the answer.
Meanwhile, the prosecutor who admitted having drafted the request, Giulia Pezzino (who resigned from the judicial system in February 2025), explained to her colleagues in Brescia that she had only sent it to her direct superior, Mario Vendittinow under investigation for corruption.
And regarding the attached handwritten note, he explained: «I have never seen this writing. I don’t recognize the handwriting or the logo on the paper (Rcs, ed.). I don’t know what it means.” The former magistrate does not realize that that text is nothing more than the beginning of the document she signed on 15 March 2017.
The discrepancies between the secret draft and the formal deposited document
As can be seen in the photos on this page, those on the incipit were, however, not substantial interventions. What is striking is the acronym “fact” at the bottom of the text typical of the Prosecutor’s Office, even if no one, as we will see, has, for now, acknowledged the authorship of the document.
As regards the rest of the draft found in the «P» file, the corrections made in pen are very few and some of these were not incorporated into the final document (such as the proposal to insert the addition «his possible» to the word «guilt»).
In the informal and unsigned request prepared by Pezzino, the dismissal is requested without making any reference to any notices to be served to the offended or damaged people entitled to object.
Instead, in the formal request signed by Pezzino, Venditti and the prosecutor Giorgio Reposothe magistrates explain why the complainant cannot be considered a person offended or damaged by the crime Elisabetta Ligabòmother of Alberto Stasiand the same son. This is in order to justify the failure to notify the notice of the request for dismissal to the two, thus unable to object. The argument, of a formal nature, is that the people offended or damaged by the murder are the closest relatives of the victim and not the person who at that moment was detained, hypothetically unjustly, for the same fact.
The investigating judge Fabio Lambertuccion 23 March 2017, just eight days after the request, accepted this erroneous approach in its dismissal decree, acknowledging that only the Poggi family. But how can we not consider, at least theoretically, “damaged people” Stasi or his parents who had to pay hundreds of thousands to the Poggi? Was it more interesting to oppose the request for dismissal if someone had already had a guilty party in prison and had obtained substantial compensation or if someone was exonerated in the new proceeding to the detriment of Sempio?
The mystery of the anonymous handwriting and the suspicions of the pg section
But let’s go back to the note written in pen.
The handwriting is not that of Venditti, as confirmed yesterday by the former magistrate’s lawyers. Equally available to clarify the issue was the former prosecutor Reposo: «The handwriting of that document does not appear to be attributable to mine. On the other hand, the file was assigned to the deputy prosecutor and the deputy, who certainly did not need my advice: or, if they had any, they would have asked me for it.”
For their part, even the defenders of “categorically” exclude the authorship of the note Silvio Saponethe former head of the judicial police section of the Pavia Prosecutor’s Office. For twenty years he was the trusted collaborator of the prosecutor’s magistrates and his colleagues told us that he often wrote drafts of prosecutor’s information in pen.
In the new interceptions filed by the Pavia Prosecutor’s Office he is attributed to him, by Sempio familya role for which he was never investigated. On the morning of September 27, 2025, Andrea Sempio explains to his family who that soldier is: «(…) Now he is in the Clean investigation (…) they basically intercepted, so to speak, various entrepreneurs like this and said “Ciccio look” what do I know, “the Finance will arrive next month” and in exchange, let’s say, for protection (…) they took money». Then he adds: «The problem is that that guy was also dealing with the Garlasco case (…) he had also intercepted us in that period».
The environmental wiretap reports and the links with the Clean investigation
Therefore Andrea connects some contacts he had with Sapone during the 2017 investigations to Cleana mega investigation in three sections which, in addition to entrepreneurs, politicians and public officials, also involved some of the carabinieri of the so-called “Squad” of investigators who operated in Pavia. «I told Angela», specifies Sempio, «if they got that one in Clean, they will probably make a connection with us, sooner or later in my opinion». The current investigators, however, point out that Sapone “does not appear to have ever been investigated” in the Clean investigation (even though he is mentioned several times in the Clean 2 files).
According to Sempio, the retired lieutenant had contacted him directly: «This Sapone called me once because, according to what they told me, there was also a system in which they tried to catch people who were under investigation or who (…) “if you give me money I’ll help you”».
The suspect also assures that he immediately forwarded the contact to his lawyer, who would later define the marshal as “an idiot”. In another conversation Sempio comments: «In my opinion it was actually him who was calling, because here he is when he offered me the stuff…». According to Sempio, therefore, Sapone may have offered him help at the height of the investigations in 2017 and when the magistrates, in 2025, seem interested in his relations with the policeman, he gives the idea of wanting to dump him, while he lists to his father the contacts with Sapone and with his lawyer, probably contained in a printout: “I only printed it for you… because if they want to know about Sapone… here they have the three calls”. The parent replies: “No, I don’t do anything… this is something I don’t know if it’s useful.” But the son insists: «Show them… then… they would get annoyed about various things, we knew things first. They said why did you have (…) the filing in February if it was filed in March?”.
The question of the 100 guns remains: but why, just a few months ago, were the Sempios ready to hand over to the magistrates the head of the man who had offered them protection and who would have given them first-hand information on the investigation? This is yet another question, for now, unanswered.
