The Garlasco case: the Pavia Public Prosecutor’s Office calls for Andrea Sempio to stand trial
Following the second closure of the investigation and the lawyers’ rebuttals, the decision now rests with the judge presiding over the preliminary hearing
The Pavia Public Prosecutor’s Office is seeking a trial for Andrea Sempio, who is under investigation for the murder – aggravated by cruelty and base motives – of Chiara Poggi, who was killed in Garlasco on 13 August 2007. Following the second closure of the investigation and the defence lawyers’ rebuttals, the decision now rests with the judge presiding over the preliminary hearing.
The Public Prosecutor’s Office’s account
In particular, according to the Pavia Public Prosecutor’s Office’s account, ‘after an initial scuffle, he repeatedly struck the victim in the face with a blunt object, causing her to fall to the ground. Following this, he dragged her towards the entrance to the cellar and, after she tried to fight back by getting down on all fours, struck her again at least 3–4 times’ – again to the head – ‘causing her to lose consciousness’, according to the statement signed by Chief Prosecutor Fabio Napoleone.
He then ‘pushed the victim’s body, causing it to slide down the stairs leading to the cellar’ where, ‘despite the fact that she was already unconscious, he struck her at least four or five times’, causing ‘serious head and brain injuries which resulted in her death’.
A murder committed ‘with the aggravating circumstance of having acted with cruelty towards the victim, given the brutality of the killing and the number and severity of the injuries inflicted on the victim, including at least 12 injuries to the skull and face’. A crime further aggravated by ‘having committed the offence for despicable motives, stemming from hatred of the victim following her rejection of his sexual advances’.
Nordio: ‘Respect for the judiciary; I understand the unease felt by both parties’
‘I cannot comment on the decisions of the judiciary, which is autonomous and independent; I can say that, so many years on – as might be the case with the Pasolini case, which I see has been reopened – it is very difficult to recover all the evidence that could have been, or perhaps should have been, obtained straight away. In any case, we obviously respect the judiciary’s decisions.”
