The Pavia Prosecutor’s Office has requested the indictment of Andrea Sempio for the murder of Chiara Poggithe twenty-six year old killed on August 13, 2007 in the family house in Garlasco. Nineteen years after the crime, one of the most discussed judicial cases in Italian news thus reaches a new passage, particularly delicate because for the same murder there is already a final sentence of sixteen years of imprisonment for Alberto Stasi, the victim’s boyfriend at the time.
According to what was reported by Tgcom24 on 3 November, the Prosecutor’s Office led by Fabio Napoleone formalized the request for trial against the thirty-eight year old, accusing him of voluntary homicide aggravated by cruelty and abject motives. A decision that comes after months of investigations, new scientific advice and investigative investigations, but which is not yet equivalent to an indictment: the judge of the preliminary hearing will decide whether the elements collected by the prosecution are sufficient to open a trial.
Garlasco, because the Prosecutor’s Office wants to prosecute Andrea Sempio
At the center of the accusatory reconstruction there is a hypothesis of motive which profoundly modifies the perspective with which the crime has been interpreted for almost twenty years. According to the Pavia magistrates, Chiara Poggi was attacked after having rejected a sexual approach from Andrea Sempio, who at the time of the events was nineteen years old and was a friend of Marco Poggi, the victim’s younger brother.
The refusal would have provoked, in the reconstruction of the Prosecutor’s Office, a violent reaction culminating in the murder. It is on this hypothesis that the contestation of the abject motives is also based, which the prosecutors trace back to the hatred developed towards the young woman after the alleged refusal.
The dynamics outlined by the investigators describe an attack divided into several phases. After an initial struggle, Chiara was apparently hit repeatedly in the face and head with a blunt object, until she fell to the floor. The attacker then dragged her towards the access to the cellar, where the young woman attempted to react by getting up on her hands and knees, before receiving further blows that made her lose consciousness.
According to the accusatory hypothesis, the body would have subsequently been pushed down the cellar stairs and the victim, already unconscious, would have been hit again in the head. The very serious cranial-encephalic injuries would ultimately cause death.
It is necessary to underline that this is the reconstruction proposed by the Prosecutor’s Office and not facts already established against Sempio by a sentence.
The aggravating circumstances: at least twelve injuries and the accusation of cruelty
One of the most relevant aspects of the request concerns the contested aggravating circumstances. The Prosecutor’s Office believes that the violence of the attack, the number of wounds and the repetition of the blows could constitute cruelty towards the victim.
In the accusatory approach, at least twelve injuries to Chiara Poggi’s skull and face are indicated, an element which, together with the alleged continuation of the attack when the young woman had already lost consciousness, is valorised by the magistrates to support the seriousness of the conduct.
Added to the cruelty are the abject motives, linked to the alleged sexual motive. Both aggravating circumstances must be subjected to the evaluation of the judge and, in the case of indictment, to the possible trial.
The new investigations between DNA, fingerprints and scientific consultancy
The request comes at the end of an investigative process which in recent months has brought some of the most controversial elements of the crime scene back to the center of attention.
These include the so-called palm print number 33, the biological traces found under Chiara Poggi’s nails and the imprints left by a shoe with a dot sole. On each of these elements, a comparison was developed between the prosecution’s consultants and those of the defence, with different assessments on the attribution of the traces and their actual ability to identify who was in the house on the day of the murder.
On September 28, the Prosecutor’s Office notified a new notice of the conclusion of the investigations, accompanied by further technical investigations. On October 16, Sempio’s lawyers presented five defense opinions, contesting, among other things, the compatibility of the shoe print with the suspect’s foot, the attribution of the palm print and the reliability of the genetic evaluations.
The central point of the comparison remains the probative value of these findings, especially in light of the time that has passed since the crime and the different scientific interpretations formulated over the years.
Andrea Sempio rejects the accusations: «I will prove my innocence»
Andrea Sempio’s response to the Prosecutor’s decision came through his lawyers, Angela Taccia and Liborio Cataliotti. The thirty-eight year old said he was ready to face this new phase of the proceedings before the judge of the preliminary hearing and was convinced that he could prove his innocence.
A position consistent with that maintained during the investigations, during which Sempio always denied any responsibility in the murder of Chiara Poggi, also contesting the hypothesis of a motive linked to a sexual approach.
The defense also raised a possible question of constitutional legitimacy linked to the coexistence of a proceeding against Sempio and a final sentence already pronounced against Alberto Stasi for the same crime.
What happens now and what will be the fate of Alberto Stasi’s conviction
The request from the Prosecutor’s Office opens a judicial phase which presents particularly complex questions. The judge of the preliminary hearing will have to schedule the hearing and evaluate whether to order Sempio’s indictment or pronounce a ruling of no place to proceed.
At the same time, the question of Alberto Stasi’s conviction, which became final in 2015, remains open. His defenders are working on a request for review, a proceeding distinct from that concerning Sempio, but inevitably linked to the reconstruction of responsibility for the death of Chiara Poggi.
The possible opening of a trial against Sempio would not automatically lead to the cancellation of the sentence against Stasi, just as the request for indictment does not constitute a declaration of guilt by the new suspect.
It is precisely this overlap of judicial paths that makes the next step particularly important. On the one hand, a definitive sentence, on the other, an accusation that identifies another person as the presumed person responsible for the murder. In the middle, a series of scientific elements and investigative reconstructions destined to be subjected once again to the scrutiny of justice.
Nineteen years after that morning of August 13, 2007, the Garlasco crime continues to question investigators, magistrates and public opinion. But the new judicial chapter will have to be addressed by distinguishing the prosecution’s hypotheses from the evidence actually ascertained, respecting the presumption of innocence of Andrea Sempio and the procedural truth already pronounced against Alberto Stasi.
