Susanna Riva The Garlasco case, nearly twenty years later, has returned to the spotlight thanks to a new complaint from Alberto Stasi 's defense . Attorney Giada Bocellari announced, before reporters outside the Pavia courthouse, her intention to request a review of the trial based on two genetic analyses that, she claims, were omitted from the court file.
The two DNA analyses never delivered to the public prosecutor
According to the expert reports filed by the Pavia Prosecutor's Office, the electrophoresis tests performed on September 20, 2007, produced negative results: no traces of Chiara Poggi 's DNA were found on the pedals of the "Umberto Dei" bicycle seized from Stasi's family. Bocellari emphasized that this data never reached the prosecutor's office, nor was it included in the case file, contrary to the law.
The role of the 2009 expert report
In 2009, a judge appointed two experts for an expert report, requiring the prosecutor's consultant to submit the results of the analysis of the pedals. The defense argues that, had the negative results been available, the switch theory —the basis for the 16-year sentence—would have been completely invalidated.
In practice, the presence or absence of Poggi's DNA is the key element on which the entire prosecution was built.
The reactions of the judicial authorities
The Milan Prosecutor's Office has not yet received the documentation relating to the second closure of the investigation, nor a formal request for a review. Experts describe the process toward a possible review as "long and tortuous," with a decision timeline that cannot be determined with certainty.
The case was also discussed by the prosecutor Francesca Nanni and the Attorney General Lucilla Tontodonati, to whom the defense intends to raise the issue of the DNA on the pedals, considered one of the seven decisive elements indicated by the Supreme Court of Cassation in the original conviction.
The contribution of geneticist Giorgio Portera
Geneticist Giorgio Portera, former head of the Parma RIS, has spoken out to clarify his involvement. In a statement, he specified that he never performed the genetic analysis of the sample nor interpreted the profiles related to the case. His only intervention was technical access to the sequencer during the final phase of sample loading, an activity described as "marginal" and lacking scientific evaluation.
What would the absence of DNA mean?
According to the defense, if the evidence of Poggi's DNA's absence on the pedals were recognized, the entire conviction would be dismissed . The logic is simple: without that genetic piece, the switch theory no longer holds up, and the entire reconstruction of the facts would lose its coherence. The defense states that it intends to file the request for review "as soon as possible," emphasizing that "a month more or less makes no difference" to the truth of the facts.
Review procedure and eligibility criteria
The Code of Criminal Procedure requires a disruptive element for a review , typically new evidence or an unpublished confession. Prosecutor Fabio Napoleone, during his meeting last May, had already outlined the initial steps of the new investigation to Nanni, but has not yet expressed a final assessment on the possible opening of a new judicial chapter in Brescia.
The debate between the defense and the Poggi family's consultants
Consultant Marzio Capra, representing the Poggi family, disputes the defense's version, stating that the two "negative" files were always present in the 2007 documents and that there was no concealment. According to Capra, the test results were "written down" in the Parma RIS report, but the defense interprets them as data modified on September 20, the day the positive match with the victim's DNA was obtained.
This interpretative divergence concerns the meaning of “run date” (10 September 2007) and “date modified” (20 September 2007) in electronic files, a technical aspect that has assumed decisive legal relevance.
Future perspectives
The request for review, if granted, would open the door to a new examination of the facts, potentially involving the Poggi family, the former Parma investigator, and, inevitably, the entire Piedmontese judicial system. However, the case remains stalled: the Milan Prosecutor's Office is still awaiting official documents, and the defense is preparing to submit the request as soon as it has completed its review of the "defense investigations" it has already discussed outside the courtroom.
Meanwhile, the public remains divided between those who believe that the truth has already emerged with the 2009 conviction and those who, in light of recent revelations, hope for a “sanity cure” for a trial that, according to the defense, was built on a non-existent genetic element.