The Garlasco crime returns before a judge. And this time the problem does not only concern who killed Chiara Poggi, but also how Italian justice can deal with two different judicial reconstructions of the same murder. On the one hand there is Alberto Stasi, definitively sentenced to 16 years in prison. On the other Andrea Sempio, for whom the Pavia Prosecutor’s Office has requested that he be sent to trial on charges of aggravated voluntary homicide. Two positions that risk intertwining in a particularly delicate procedural step.
The date has been set: February 25, 2027. Andrea Sempio, 38 years old, a friend of Marco Poggi, the victim’s brother, will appear before the judge for the preliminary hearing Luigi Umberto Riganti. The magistrate will decide whether to accept the Prosecutor’s request and send him to trial before the Assize Court. But even before delving into the merits of the evidence, he may find himself facing a question destined to affect the entire proceeding: is it possible to hold a new trial for a murder for which there is already a final conviction?
Garlasco, because Sempio’s defense wants to stop the trial
Andrea Sempio’s lawyers, Liborio Cataliotti and Angela Taccia, have already announced their strategy. The objective is to obtain the suspension of the proceedings pending the review of Alberto Stasi’s conviction. The lawyers are also ready to raise a question of constitutional legitimacy to avoid the simultaneous celebration of the two trials.
The problem is anything but secondary. The final sentence of 2015 identified Stasi as the person responsible for the murder of Chiara Poggi, which occurred on 13 August 2007. The new investigation coordinated by the Pavia Prosecutor’s Office, however, attributes responsibility for the crime to Sempio, on the basis of a different reconstruction of the dynamics and further scientific investigations.
It does not mean that Stasi’s conviction is automatically destined to fall, nor that the request for indictment against Sempio must necessarily be rejected. It means, however, that the judge will have to face a complex legal problem, on which the defense intends to open a preliminary discussion.
Sempio, who has always rejected all accusations, declared that he is confident in the possibility of clarifying his position during the preliminary hearing, thus avoiding a trial.
The evidence against Andrea Sempio: from DNA to fingerprint 33
The Prosecutor’s Office led by Fabio Napoleone believes it has gathered sufficient elements to support the accusation in court. At the center of the file are the analyzes of the genetic traces, the controversial palm print number 33 identified on the wall of the staircase leading to the cellar of the Poggi villa and the investigations on the shoe prints.
According to the prosecution’s consultants, the defense’s observations did not change the conclusions reached on footprint 33. Even the in-depth analysis of the shoe mark would not have highlighted a physical incompatibility with the characteristics of Sempio’s foot.
Another chapter concerns the genetic material detected on the victim’s nails, the subject of evaluations and disputes by consultants. These are technical elements whose interpretation remains at the center of the discussion between the prosecution and defense, not evidence already judicially established against Sempio.
The prosecutor’s reconstruction claims that Chiara Poggi was attacked after having rejected a sexual approach. According to the indictment, the attacker repeatedly struck the young woman with a blunt instrument, dragged her towards the cellar stairs and continued to attack her. The magistrates dispute the aggravating circumstances of cruelty and abject motives.
The defense disputes both the reconstruction of the murder and the meaning attributed to the scientific elements. Precisely for this reason, before the judge, he could ask for new reports on the fingerprints and other traces collected in the house.
Alberto Stasi and the review of the sentence: what can happen
The second judicial front concerns Alberto Stasi. His defenders, Giada Bocellari and Antonio De Rensis, are preparing a request for review to be presented to the Court of Appeal of Brescia.
The lawyers anticipated the existence of elements that they believe are important to call into question the reconstruction accepted in the final sentence. The full content of the request, however, has not yet been made public.
At the same time, rumors have emerged about a possible initiative by the Milan Prosecutor’s Office, which is apparently evaluating a critical rereading of some investigations carried out during the first investigations, including those of the Ris. Among the points discussed is also the question of biological traces on the pedals of Stasi’s bicycle.
For the moment, however, a decision by the Attorney General’s Office to independently support or present a request for review has not been formalised.
The distinction is fundamental: a request for review is not equivalent to annulment of the conviction. The Court of Appeal of Brescia will eventually evaluate its admissibility and, if the conditions are met, address the merits of the case again.
Former prosecutor Venditti returns to court as a witness
Further complicating the situation is the parallel investigation into the alleged corruption linked to the first dismissal of Andrea Sempio, which took place in 2017.
The former deputy prosecutor of Pavia Mario Venditti was heard for over three hours by the Pavia magistrates, but this time in the capacity of a witness. His position, initially the subject of an investigation by the Brescia Prosecutor’s Office for corruption in judicial documents, was archived.
The investigation was also born from the discovery of a note seized from the home of Andrea Sempio’s parents, containing a reference to Venditti and the dismissal of the proceedings. However, the investigations did not lead to the identification of sufficient elements to support the accusation against the former magistrate.
Venditti said he answered all the questions from prosecutors Giuliana Rizza and Stefano Civardi, without hiding his bitterness at having been involved in the investigation. He also reiterated that he considered the elements gathered against Andrea Sempio to be extremely weak.
However, the investigative line relating to the alleged passage of money that should have favored the archiving of 2017 remains open. Among the positions still being examined by the investigators is that of Giuseppe Sempio, Andrea’s father. The investigative hypotheses have yet to be proven and do not constitute a finding of responsibility.
The Poggi family and the weight of the final sentence
In the midst of the two judicial reconstructions, the position of Chiara Poggi’s family remains. The family members continue to recognize the final conviction of Alberto Stasi as the point of reference in the trial and have made it known that they do not wish to become a civil party in the possible trial of Sempio.
It is an element that contributes to making a matter even more complex in which the reopening of the investigations has not canceled the results of the previous judgements.
The new accusation from the Pavia Prosecutor’s Office will have to be subjected to the judge’s scrutiny, while Stasi’s defense will attempt to reopen a proceeding that has been concluded for eleven years now.
Garlasco, what will happen on February 25th
The preliminary hearing will represent the first real test of the new investigation. The judge could be called upon to rule on the request for suspension made by Sempio’s defense, evaluate any evidentiary investigations and, subsequently, decide whether to order the indictment or not to proceed.
Much will also depend on the timing and developments of the request for review of Stasi’s sentence.
Almost twenty years after the murder of Chiara Poggi, the Garlasco case is therefore faced with a passage that goes beyond the judicial fate of the individual protagonists. On the table there is not only a new accusatory hypothesis, but the need to compare it with a procedural truth that has already become definitive.
And it will be precisely this contradiction, even before the new expert reports and testimonies, one of the issues that justice will have to face.
