Lucrezia Ciotti Nearly twenty years after Chiara Poggi 's death , the Garlasco case could enter an unprecedented judicial phase. New investigations by the Pavia prosecutor's office have brought renewed attention to Andrea Sempio , while Alberto Stasi, already sentenced to 16 years in prison, is preparing to request a retrial.
Two initiatives that could overlap.
Garlasco, upcoming developments including new tests and a review: what could happen?
The next few weeks could be crucial for the future of the Garlasco case . The Pavia prosecutor's office will have to evaluate whether to proceed with the request to commit Andrea Sempio to trial , while Alberto Stasi's defense is preparing to file a motion to review his conviction , expected in the second half of November.
The two initiatives could open a complex legal debate, especially if incompatible decisions emerge regarding liability for the same murder.
Sempio's lawyers have also reportedly considered requesting a stay of proceedings or raising questions of constitutionality. Nineteen years after Chiara Poggi's death, the case remains open to further developments: the magistrates' next decisions and the evaluation of the evidence gathered will clarify whether the new investigations will be able to alter a judicial truth that has been consolidated for years.
Garlasco, Stasi and Sempio could be convicted of the same murder: the legal issue
As reported by Fanpage , according to Professor Oliviero Mazza , Professor of Criminal Procedure at Milan's Bicocca University, there is no prohibition preventing a trial against Sempio while Stasi's conviction remains valid . The real obstacle could emerge when the judge is called upon to evaluate the evidence gathered against the new suspect. The final sentence handed down against Stasi, in fact, sets a precedent that cannot be ignored.
Article 238-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows irrevocable decisions to be used as evidence of established facts. In this case, the established judicial reconstruction attributes the murder to Chiara's ex-boyfriend. " There is no legal preclusion from holding a trial against a person even if another person has been convicted of the same crime ." However, the professor highlights a substantial difficulty: " It is clear," adds Mazza, "that in a potential trial against Sempio, if there is evidence that the murder was committed by another person, it becomes somewhat difficult to secure a conviction ." The issue also concerns the criteria required to send a person to trial. With the amendment to Article 425 of the Code of Criminal Procedure introduced by the Cartabia Reform in 2022, committal for trial requires a reasonable expectation of conviction. This requirement could be difficult to meet if a sentence that already identifies someone else as responsible remains in effect.
The possible holding of both proceedings could therefore lead to a conflict between judicial decisions. " At that point, there would be a conflict between the two judgments that would need to be resolved with a review of the trial. Moreover, paradoxically, with a review of both trials ," observes Mazza. This is a scenario that would involve both Stasi's conviction and a possible future sentence against Sempio.
Meanwhile, the defense team for Chiara's ex-boyfriend is preparing its own initiative. Attorney Antonio De Rensis has announced that the motion for review is expected to be filed in the second half of November. The lawyer, who represents Stasi along with Giada Bocellari, revealed during "Ore 14 Sera" on Rai 2 the presence of new evidence he considers particularly significant, but did not reveal its content.
Among the aspects being examined by the defense are the genetic analyses performed in 2007 on the pedals of the bicycle linked to Stasi. During the new investigation, two negative electrophoresis results were recovered, which, according to the Pavia Prosecutor's Office, had not been included in the original case file. The observations concern palm print number 33, a shoe print found at the scene, the genetic analyses, and the forensic reconstruction of the attack. Among the disputed points is the compatibility attributed by the Prosecutor's consultants to a size 42 Frau shoe. The lawyers maintain that the print does not match their client's shoe, which is size 44. Interpretations regarding the biological traces found under the victim's fingernails also remain differing.