«Today, the notice of conclusion of the investigations pursuant to art.415 bis was served against Andrea Sempio with the consequent filing of all the documents of the criminal proceeding no.642/2025 relating to the murder of Chiara Poggi. As already announced, it will be forwarded to the Attorney General of Milan the act contested against the suspect during his interrogation on 6 May 2026 illustrating and summarizing the new evidentiary elements, collected following the reopening of the 2016/2017 investigations, for the possible exercise of any of your prerogatives”.
With this note, the Public Prosecutor of Pavia Fabio Napoleone communicated the notification of the conclusion of the investigations. With this act, which is a prelude to the request for committal to trial, which the Judge for preliminary investigations will have to examine, the investigations of the proceeding which will go down in history as Garlasco bis, against Andrea Sempio, have formally been closed.
The reference the sending of the documents to the General Prosecutor’s Office of Milan and the activities within its competence obviously refers to the evaluation of the conditions for a possible request for revision for Alberto Stasi convicted with a final sentence for the murder of Chiara Poggi. The request, which can also be made by the convicted person or a close relative, is also the responsibility of the District Attorney General.
In recent weeks there had already been a meeting between the General Prosecutor’s Office of Milan and the Prosecutor of Pavia. On that occasion Francesca Nanni, general prosecutor of Milan, had stated that she would study the papers, “not a simple or short job” she had underlined – after all it is a long and complex case made up of five sentences, with many conflicting scientific advice stratified over time – at the end of which she would evaluate whether to request further documents.
It is natural that the request for review can also originate directly from Stasi and his defenders, but as there is no final sentence incompatible with the one already in res judicata, the whole issue will be played out on the presence of new or new evidence “which, alone or combined with that already evaluated, demonstrates that the convicted person must be acquitted”.
