Every time you think that the Garlasco case has said it all, a fragment resurfaces. A voice, an expertise, a name. This time, that name is heavy: Carlo Taormina.
According to what the broadcast reported Unknown on La7, Andrea Sempio – the friend of Chiara Poggi’s brother who ended up in the new line of investigation reopened by the Brescia Prosecutor’s Office – would have attempted to contact the Roman criminal lawyer, a leading figure in criminal law and a well-known face of the trials that have marked the Italian news, from Cogne to the case Marta Russoup to the drama of Ustica.
The attempt, however, was shattered by a firm “no”. A “no” that weighs more than a sentence.
The “no” of Taormina
No talks, no official proposals, no meetings. Just a message sent through through an intermediarywith the aim of understanding whether the professor was willing to take over a defense which in the meantime had become a minefield between law, DNA and the media.
Taormina’s response was firm: no availabilitymotivated by a personal conviction gained from years of observation of the case. He does not consider Sempio the material perpetrator of Chiara Poggi’s murder, but he believes that was at the crime scene together with Alberto Stasialready definitively convicted.
A clear, clear position and – in fact – incompatible with taking on the role.
The contact was never direct: neither Andrea Sempio nor his lawyer, Angela Tacciathey spoke personally with Taormina. The mediation took place behind the scenes, entrusted to a third person who would simply “test the waters”. Result: impassable terrain.
The tear with Lovati
Before the “great refusal”, there was the rift.
On October 14, after weeks of friction, Andrea Sempio revoked the mandate of the lawyer Massimo Lovatithe man who had accompanied him for years and who had defended the family in one of the most exposed phases of the investigation.
The causes? Public and private. Officially, differences in strategy. But when held against the light, a deeper fracture can be seen: the media management of the case. Lovati had become a regular presence on talk shows and news broadcasts, but that overexposure, instead of strengthening the defense, would have – according to Sempio’s entourage – put too much spotlight on a still fragile investigation.
The result was inevitable: a clear break, and Sempio was suddenly left without a trusted lawyer.
The defensive void
From that moment, the thirty-eight year old from Garlasco moves in a complex limbo: formally under investigation, but without a lawyer in charge of the file.
In the meantime, the Brescia Prosecutor’s Office continues to dig. The new genetic analyzes and the parallel trend on the former deputy prosecutor of Pavia, Mario Vendittiaccused of corruption, have brought the case back to the center of public attention – and not just journalistic attention.
In this context, the choice of the next lawyer will not be just a technical decision. It’s a question of judicial and media survival: we need a defense capable of dealing with scientific evidence, managing television streams and keeping the bar straight between truth and narration.
The mother’s illness
As if that wasn’t enough, the day after the revocation of the mandate, a new episode shook the family.
Daniela Ferrarimother of Andrea Sempio, was taken ill in her home and was urgently transported to the San Matteo Polyclinic in Pavia, where she underwent a series of tests.
It is not the first time that the woman has experienced moments of severe stress: already at the end of April, during testimony before the police, she had suffered a panic attack which had forced her to interrupt her testimony.
Signs of an exhausted family atmosphere, crushed by the weight of a case that – eighteen years later – does not stop making noise.
The “pizzini” and the shadow of Pavia
At the center of the Brescia investigation remains the issue of “pizzini” found in the Sempio house during the searches of 14 May and 26 September.
One of them reported a sentence that made the folders tremble:
“Sold investigating judge archives for 20. 30. euros.” It is from there that the hypothesis of a crime arose corruption in official acts against Venditti, the magistrate who in 2017 had requested and obtained the dismissal for Sempio.
The former prosecutor denied all charges, speaking of “ruined lives and unfounded accusations”. “I have never taken a euro,” he said, “other than from my salary.” And his lawyers reiterate: “The cards contain no evidence of money being passed.”
During the second search other notes were found: one with the words “Calls vs Poggi landline”another with the phrase “He knows the whole story”both handwritten and found between Andrea’s room and his mother’s bedside table.
Nothing criminally relevant, but enough to fuel suspicion. In a case like this, even a word can turn into evidence.
The theater of television news continues to move around the proceedings: talk shows, prime time, connections, reconstructions, consultants who become characters and lawyers who become regular guests.
Programs like 2pm Evening of Milo Infante have turned the case into a judicial soap which alternates revelations, clashes and “scoops” on wiretaps and old files.
Each new episode adds a piece, but also a risk: that of superimpose the story on the procedural realityto create a short circuit between the media debate and the judicial process. And in the middle, Andrea Sempio. Still without a defender.
The next move
Eighteen years after that 13 August 2007, the house in Via Pascoli remains the symbol of a mystery that Italy has never stopped chasing.
Today, Sempio finds himself poised between a past that returns and a future that he has yet to write: Lovati’s revocation, Taormina’s “no”, the silence that followed. Finding a new lawyer now means choosing the direction of your destiny: staying in the labyrinth or trying, once again, to get out of it.
Because in Garlasco, more than anywhere else, the truth is not only sought in finds. It is built, one detail at a time.
