Not even with the news of the reopening of the investigation last year, the Garlasco crime had experienced a week so full of news, of twists one after the other, which brought the investigation to its conclusion. Let’s start from the three thousand messages that Andrea Sempio, the only person under investigation for the murder of Chiara Poggi, wrote on the forum in seven years «Italian Seduction Club»blog frequented by seducers. His nickname was «Andrea S.». Among the posts that appeared between 2009 and 2016, one attracted the attention of the investigators: a reference to a girl he met “between the ages of 18 and 20”, with whom the author allegedly had an obsession that lasted almost two years.
Act I: Sempio and the seduction blog
«The only time I fell in love happened in a dark moment in my life. Between 18 and 20″, we read in the message cited by Courier of the evening. And also: «No one has ever had that disruptive impact on my life». Words that the Pavia Prosecutor’s Office included in the accusatory framework, hypothesizing a “sexual” motive and contesting the aggravating circumstance of abject motives.
Shocking, however, is another release from the same period, in which «Andrew S.» he reasoned about rape: «Rationally it may be a horror but, from the point of view of biology, evolution and reproduction, it is a practical demonstration of the strength of the male.
Act II: all the protagonists of Garlasco summoned to the Prosecutor’s Office
Then, on May 4th, the news comes finally a real breakthrough in the investigations: the magistrates of Pavia announce that they intend to interrogate, in sequence, all the protagonists who have been at the center of the case over the years: Andrea Sempio, the only suspect; the victim’s brother, Marco Poggi; cousins Paola and Stefania Cappa.
Act III: interrogate the Cappa twins
And while Sempio expressed his intention to make use of the right not to respond, in the Montebello barracks in Milan, in via Vincenzo Monti 58, took place on May 5th the auditions of Paola and Stefania Cappa. The first was heard in the morning, the second in the afternoon. Both, their lawyers Antonio Marino, Gabriele Casartelli and Valeria Mettica point out, “have renewed the collaborative spirit demonstrated since the beginning of the investigations”.
The short-lived hearings focused on the personal relationships between the protagonists of the story: in particular, the bond between Chiara Poggi and Andrea Sempio. However, the motive hypothesized in the indictment, or the alleged ones, would not have been addressed advances sexual assaults rejected by the victim, nor the question of the weapon searched in the Tromello canal, evoked by a witness who had called Stefania Cappa into question, without however any concrete confirmation.
Act IV: Sempio’s shocking interceptions
On May 6, after three and a half hours, Andrea Sempio leaves the Pavia prosecutor’s office. By car, escorted by a judicial police vehicle, he passed through the wall of cameras and journalists without stopping. His lawyers, Liborio Cataliotti and Angela Taccia, spoke for him: «There is basically nothing new, it’s all very explainable. We are calm and clear-headed.”
On the other hand, the deputy prosecutor Stefano Civardi and the prosecutors Valentina De Stefano and Giuliana Rizza have illustrated in detail the elements collected in over a year in the investigation that tries to rewrite the history of the Garlasco crime. A case that already has a definitive sentence: Alberto Stasi, the victim’s ex-boyfriend, who is serving 16 years confirmed by the Supreme Court.
The most delicate point of the day does not concern what the 38-year-old said in court, but what he would have said alone, in the car, without knowing he was being listened to. According to what was exclusively reported by Tg1, in the interceptions held by the prosecutor’s office Sempio spoke about the phone calls made to Poggi’s home in the days preceding the crime, suggesting that the objective was to contact Chiara, and not her brother Marco.
The version that Sempio has always supported is different: those calls, three in total, would have been a mistake. He wanted to talk to his friend Marco, he didn’t remember that he was in the mountains with his parents. Di Chiara, he always said he barely knew her, “by sight”as his friend’s sister.
The wiretaps would tell something else. Sempio, speaking to himself, would have said that he had seen Chiara’s videos, and that he had “attempted an approach” with her. But Chiara would have replied: “I don’t want to talk to you”and would hang up. Again according to Tg1, in one of the conversations captured Sempio also reported having seen intimate videos of the victim with Alberto Stasi. Lawyer Taccia specified that during the interrogation “we were not allowed to listen to any audio” and that the receipt considered to be an alibi was not discussed. The investigations, the magistrates announced, are not yet concluded.
Marco Poggi: «I don’t believe in his guilt»
On the same day, Marco Poggi, Chiara’s younger brother and the victim of the proceedings together with her parents, was heard for around two hours in the Prosecutor’s Office. His lawyer, Francesco Compagna, stated that «having never had anything to hide, Marco answered all the questions». It was the prosecutors who showed him the wiretaps regarding Sempio.
What emerges, however, is that Marco Poggi does not believe in the guilt of his childhood friend. He would have said that he had read the transcripts of the evidentiary incident, and that the picture that emerges is different from that presented by the prosecution. The record of his testimony was classified.
What is the accusation based on?
The elements that the prosecutors illustrated to Sempio in the interrogation are those that have already partially emerged in recent weeks. The DNA on Chiara Poggi’s nails: a mixed, partial trace, compatible with the suspect’s paternal lineage, but, as Dr. Albani’s fingerprint assessment estimated, insufficient to identify “a single subject”. Science, at present, does not allow us to establish how that trace was deposited, nor when, nor whether it is above or under the nails.
Then the footprint 33found on the wall of the stairs leading to the cellar. The case of the receipt, considered a possible false alibi. Technical consultancy, including that of the pathologist Cristina Cattaneo.
A complex accusatory architecture, built on clues that add up. The defense considers them all “very explicable”. Meanwhile, magistrates continue to investigate.
The situation of Alberto Stasi
Commenting on the developments is Giada Bocellari, Stasi’s lawyer. Speaking on the program «Realpolitik», hosted by Tommaso Labate on Retequattro, the lawyer was clear: if the text of the wiretaps were confirmed, «it would be chilling, and at that point the objective would be to get Alberto Stasi out of prison as soon as possible».
Bocellari raised a personal point of view that could not go unnoticed. «If there had been a similar wiretap on Alberto Stasi“, he said, “he would not have been given a life sentence: he would have received three life sentences.” Then he added: «There is not a wiretap of Alberto Stasi that was used in the proceedings by the Prosecutor’s Office in 2007, there isn’t one. The problem is that of double standards.”
It is a criticism of the investigative method, not just the merit. It should also be noted that Stasi has been in prison for over ten years. The final conviction came in 2015, after a long and tortuous trial process, with two previous acquittals. Today, with a new suspect and new evidence on the table, his defense is starting to think aloud about scenarios that until recently seemed much more remote.
The review of the process: when and how it is requested
And instead, the hypothesis of procedural review now appears very concrete. Bocellari said it with a certain caution, but he said it: «Some time ago I said that we wouldn’t have asked for it, we wouldn’t have wanted it. But if the circumstantial framework was solid and there were interceptions of this type, then the picture would probably change a lot.” And again: “We could ask, because we remember that there is a boy detained for more than ten years for this murder.”
The review of the trial is a tool provided by the criminal procedure code to remedy judicial errors. It can be requested when new evidence emerges which, alone or together with that already acquired, demonstrates that the convicted person should have been acquitted. The application can be presented at the same time as a request for suspension of the execution of the sentence: Stasi, pending the outcome, he could theoretically be released from prison before the review proceedings are concluded.
Final act: according to the Pavia Prosecutor’s Office, Sempio is guilty
And we arrive at the final twist, which after the news of the last few hours wasn’t even too much of a twist. What was surprising was, after 19 years, the sudden choice to summon all the protagonists and immediately close the investigations the following day. According to the Pavia Prosecutor’s Office, in fact, Andrea Sempio alone is responsible for the murder of Chiara Poggi. The notice of closure of the investigation was served to Sempio around mid-afternoon on Thursday 7 May. The request for indictment will follow. Investigators believe that the motive is linked to the refusal of a sexual approach by the then 19-year-old, who, presumably with a hammer, hit the victim at least 12 times. The would also be included aggravating abject motives and cruelty.
Following thorough examination of all documentation, too Alberto Stasi’s lawyers will formalize the request for review of the trial with the aim of canceling the final sentence. Together with this request, as has already emerged, the defense could request the suspension of the execution of the sentence; this would entail the release of Stasi (currently admitted to the semi-liberty regime) for the period necessary for the conclusion of the trial. The procedural process will first of all follow the evaluation of the Court of Appeal of Brescia, competent for the review, and then the ruling final decision of the Court of Cassation in the event of an appeal.
At the same time, the Pavia Prosecutor’s Office will find itself in a waiting position. Before proceeding with a possible request for indictment for a new suspect, investigators will likely have to wait for the final outcome of the review. In fact, it is not possible to support the accusation against an alleged perpetrator if for the same crime there still exists a final sentence which indicates another person as responsible.
