There are countless media “turning points” in the Garlasco case since the proceedings were reopened. Every time an alleged twist. Only the time of the trial, with its rules, but still far from opening (we are still in the preliminary investigations of a reopened case, nine years after the final sentence that condemned Alberto Stasi), will tell which of these infinite elements, of presumed turning point, will have proof value in the courtrooms, if they have it.
In the meantime, these are rumors that each party releases and comments on, based on their own biased interest: a common mechanism, but very evident in the situation of this particular case where there are two parties(the one representing Sempio, the current suspect, for complicity, and the one representing Stasi, the one convicted with a final sentence for the murder, and which would aim for revision) who have two diametrically opposed procedural interests and who try to convey, as is their right to do, each using every detail in the media, to public opinion the interest of their client, as opposed to that of the other party.
Added to these two parties is the point of view of the Prosecutor’s Office, which reopened the proceedings and which in this case – which is generally not the case – finds itself opposed to that of the civil party representing the family of the murdered girl, convinced of the validity of the decision of the final sentence, the only party who, completely legitimately, and from an emotional point of view understandably, would not like to see the face of a daughter killed 18 years ago on TV every evening just before dinner time. But the schedule demands it, the show must go on, because this is ultimately what it’s about, of a mix in which entertainment and information mix, with a relationship that is every day further removed from what takes place in the courtrooms.
The latest indiscretion speaks of the biostatistical report on the DNA trace under Chiara Poggi’s nails believed, based on what has been leaked, compatible with the male line of the Sempio family, but not able to identify a single individual.
The conclusions will be filed on December 5th in view of the hearing for the evidentiary incident scheduled for the following December 18th, by the consultant of the Judge for preliminary investigations of Pavia, signed by the biological technician Denise Albani: only from that day will the parties’ consultants face each other in the courtroom.
The issue will always be the same: establishing not only whether that DNA can be traced back to Andrea Sempio, current suspect, but prove that it landed on the hands of the victim on the occasion of the crime and not due to previous contamination with objects touched by both of them, lawfully, before, in her house which the suspect frequented as a friend of Chiara’s brother.
If there is an indictment, that
with the rules of the Cartabia reform it is only possible if what is collected in the investigations leads the Judge for preliminary investigations to a prognosis of conviction for the suspect, the whole process will be played out on a complex conflict between highly specialized scientific consultants, complicated by the fact that, due to the time that has passed and initial errors, some elements will remain irremediably lost.
The only certain thing for now is that, whatever outcome the proceedings have, even if they are as accurate as possible, it will displease the fans of one or the other side in the parallel trial which has now taken on stadium dynamics on TV: a show which has almost nothing to do with the rules of the real trial but which never ceases to attract the public and invent new showcases.
To those who wish not to support but to understand in all this, all that remains is to suggest the only rational path: arm yourself with patience and use caution in the face of indiscretionsbecause if on TV the applause meter is enough and on the internet virality, in the Court of Assizes you need evidence that holds up to the Supreme Court. Even more so in a case already marked by bumpy beginnings.
