Edward Marchesi The trial surrounding Chiara Poggi's murder has returned to the forefront with a series of technical documents filed by Andrea Sempio 's defense with the Pavia Public Prosecutor's Office . In the documents, presented in two stages, including October 14 and 16, the lawyers attached a series of technical documents designed to raise specific questions about the prosecution's reconstruction of the case.
The lawyers, led by Angela Taccia and her colleague Liborio Cataliotti, argue that the technical evidence produced by the defense could alter the perception of some key evidence collected in the Garlasco villa where the crime took place on August 13, 2007. Among the disputed points are the analysis of shoe prints, the Y chromosome attributions, and the handling of wiretaps.
Filing of five counter-reports to the Pavia Public Prosecutor's Office
The documents submitted to the magistrates include a package of five technical counter-expert reports that the defense describes as crucial to overturning, or at least calling into question, parts of the evidentiary framework. The stated objective is to highlight alleged methodological and interpretative errors in the original analyses.
The defense strategy, presented without any spontaneous, aggregate statements, aims to provide distinct and documented evidence that can be evaluated by the Pavia Prosecutor's Office before any decision on the request for indictment.
The lawyers stated that they wish to avoid making statements that could prejudice the technical approach of the deposits, prioritizing the findings of the appointed experts.
Specific objections regarding fingerprints and genetic profiles
A key issue raised by the defense concerns the shoe print found on Via Pascoli . According to the experts selected by Taccia and Cataliotti, that print does not match the size indicated in the opposing party's expert reports: it is closer to a size 40 than the previously attributed size 39. The consultants also emphasized that the print identified as size 33 does not show any blood traces, a point that would challenge some interpretations that have suggested a direct connection to the crime scene.
At the same time, the genetic counselling filed by the defence highlights the presence, under the victim's nails, of an additional male contribution: a profile of the Y chromosome which would be only partially compatible with the markers attributed to one of the suspects and which, according to the defense, would indicate the presence of a second man not identified in the investigations.
The defense experts also point out possible errors in the statistical calculation of the compatibilities and criticize the selection of some markers considered orientedIt is emphasized that theY haplotype It describes a paternal lineage and does not uniquely identify a single person, nor does it indicate the time at which the biological material was deposited.
Methodological problems and repeatability of the findings
Among the technical objections, the defense cites the lack of repeated analyses and the presumption regarding the number of contributors to the genetic material. These observations aim to undermine the certainty of some scientific conclusions contained in the documents of the new investigation closure: according to defense consultants, without repetition and cross-checks, it is not possible to confidently attribute a profile to a single individual.
Interceptions, requests and availability of the defense
Alongside the technical findings, the defense emphasized the wiretaps collected as part of the investigation. Taccia announced his intention to request copies of any recordings deemed relevant for analysis with the assistance of a computer technician. The strategy includes evaluating whether to file additional briefs or raise issues during a potential trial.
On the procedural front, the defense has also submitted a request to the prosecutor's office to formally confirm whether Sempio has been included in a case involving corruption issues arising from a file transfer between the Brescia and Pavia prosecutor's offices . The lawyers stated that they have not yet received a response, while emphasizing that the prosecutor's office is not obligated to provide an immediate response.
Finally, the defense said it was willing to submit technical issues such as fingerprint number 33 to an evidentiary hearing , with the aim of resolving the uncertainties that, in their opinion, remain regarding the material traces found in the Garlasco villa.