Garlasco case: Sempio defense presents new evidence on shoe print

New developments in the case of the murder of Chiara Poggi, which occurred in Garlasco (Pavia) on August 13, 2007. Lawyer Angela Taccia, the defense attorney for the sole suspect in the new investigation, Andrea Sempio, went to the Courthouse in Pavia to listen to additional wiretaps. According to what emerges from the expert reports that the lawyers will file with the Prosecutor's Office, the footprint of Chiara Poggi's killer would be attributable to a foot wearing a shoe size 39-40.

This measurement is reportedly not only incompatible with the size 44 worn by Andrea Sempio, but also smaller than the size 42 established in the first investigation and smaller than Alberto Stasi's foot. Concurrently, the former head of the RIS, Luciano Garofano, interviewed on television, reaffirmed the honesty and correctness of the analyses conducted by his department in the initial investigations, rejecting criticisms of delegitimization.

The murder of Chiara Poggi, a 19-year-old girl, occurred in Garlasco (Pavia) on August 13, 2007. The case, which remained unsolved for years, saw numerous judicial and media developments. In the initial investigation, Chiara's boyfriend, Alberto Stasi, was initially convicted in the first instance in 2010, but later acquitted on appeal in 2012 and definitively by the Supreme Court in 2014, after spending four years in prison. The trial was characterized by the importance of scientific evidence, particularly genetic and fingerprint evidence.

The investigation reopened in 2025 with a new inquiry that led to suspect Andrea Sempio, who had already been heard as a witness in previous trials. The central issue remains "Fingerprint 33," a trace found at the crime scene. Sempio's defense now argues, through new expert consultations, that this fingerprint belongs to someone who wears a shoe size 39-40, thus excluding both Sempio (size 44) and Stasi (a larger size). The former head of the Ris, Luciano Garofano, who led the initial analyses, continues to defend the work carried out by his department, creating a contrast between the new defense evidence and the conclusions of the original investigation.