Andrea Semplio’s defense disputes the attribution of imprint 33: “It is not blood, but sweat”. Criticisms of the methods of the prosecutor’s consultants and doubts about compatibility with the suspect
Is it really blood, or just sweat? It is around this crucial question that the debate on the imprint “33” lights up, found on the wall of the staircase that leads to the cellar where Chiara Poggi’s body was discovered. An apparently minor detail, which however could radically change the fate of Andrea Semplio, a new investigated in case. According to the defense consultants, that track has nothing hematic: it would be only the sign left by an involuntary and physiological contact, and not an incriminating proof. In other words: “It’s just sweat, not blood”.
This is what experts say Luciano Garofano and Luigi needin charge of supporting the defensive seed strategy, investigated for the murder of Garlasco, in a recent integration to the technical advice filed in the Prosecutor.
The two consultants reiterate their opposition with respect to the conclusions of the experts appointed by the Prosecutor, who instead attributed the imprint precisely to the semium. The 37 -year -old’s lawyers, the lawyers Massimo Lovati and Angela Taccia, thus continue to dismantle the accusatory reconstruction, insisting on the fact that the macchia hypotens is compatible only with sweat and not with a blood substance, as instead supported by the accusation.
According to Garofano and need, the prosecutor’s consultants would have made a method of method, letting themselves be influenced by a “Interpretative prejudice” and deviating from scientifically recognized practices. They would also have mistaken for “minutiae” – or identifying details of the papillary footprints – those who in reality would be only “Wall interference”simple signs of the wall without identification value.
Doubts from the first analyzes
In integration it is also underlined that, already during the initial investigations, The RIS had excluded the presence of blood in the track. Investigators, in 2007, had even tried to recover the plaster removed for analyzes, but without success. For the defense, these elements confirm only one conclusion: it would be a track left by sweat, not by blood.
Semve consultants also question the correspondence between the imprint and that of the suspectclaiming that the overlap would not be sufficiently precise, not even taking into account the tolerances provided for by the protocols. To them, the imprint 33 would have been left in three different moments, in an “involuntary and composite” way, further complicating the possibility of attributing it with certainty to a single subject.
The doubt about the software
Another critical aspect raised by the defense concerns the possible use of the consultants of the Prosecutor’s Office, of a software for the automatic identification of the 15 characteristic points necessary to attribute the imprint to the semium. A choice that, according to carnation and need, would be inadequate for this type of traces, potentially leading to “Overlaps” and the identification of Minutzie “not founded from a morphological point of view”.
The two experts also note that there would be no certainty even on the belonging to the five of the five minutiae already reported, while the remaining – according to them – should be considered as simple interference of the wall fund.
In the meantime, even one Technical consultancy filed in recent days by the lawyers of the Poggi family would have excluded the attribution of the imprint 33 in Semipio. In parallel, the defense of Alberto Stasi is preparing to present “technical observations” to support their position, asking for public prosecutors further insights. According to Stasi’s lawyers, in fact, the imprint would appear “dense and full of biological material”, therefore compatible, with the presence of blood.
