Liborio Cataliotti explains why Alberto Stasi’s statements on intimate videos could favor his client
THE’lawyer Liborio Cataliotti he is completely convinced of this: the statements made by Alberto Stasi on 20 May 2025 before the prosecutor Fabio Napoleone, at the Pavia Prosecutor’s Office, could prove to be an element in favor of his client Andrea Sempio. He declared this on Tuesday 9 June, speaking on the program Iunknown.
The central node concerns i intimate videos which portrayed Stasi together with Chiara Poggi. The victim’s ex-boyfriend said he “had no information that those videos had circulated.” A phrase, apparently simple, which however takes on considerable specific weight for Sempio’s defense.
What emerges from the technical consultancy
To strengthen this reading there is the consultancy signed by IT expert Paolo Dal Checcofiled by the Pavia Prosecutor’s Office as part of the latest investigation into the Garlasco crime. According to the analysis, in fact, the four videos, one of which is divided into three parts and another dated 1 May 2007, “until proven otherwise have never been seen by third parties other than Chiara”. Cataliotti and his colleague Angela Taccia submitted the consultancy to their experts, who confirmed the conclusions.
In their opinion, therefore, since the videos were never circulated, the hypothesis that the 38-year-old could have come into possession of one of them would fall. A pass that the defense considers decisive.
The distinction that changes everything for the Garlasco case
During the broadcast, the host Pino Rinaldi praised Stasi’s correctnesswho “could have made some jokes or raised suspicion”. Cataliotti, however, immediately corrected him: “He was under oath, though.” To which Rinaldi replied laconically: “Look, under oath I heard some incredible things.”
The lawyer then clarified an essential technical point. The one on May 20th was not an interrogation in the strict sense, but an «assisted examination of witnesses»: Stasi testified under oath about the position of others. And here lies the substantial difference: “The accused can lie”, Cataliotti specified, “the assisted witness cannot”.
