Garlasco – Analisi giuridica in diretta con l’Avv. Colzani

本站添加: 2026-05-17

[00:00:09]Eh, we're live, we should we should be live. I don't see myself yet.

[00:00:18]In the meantime, I'll let you know if you're here. Okay.

[00:00:29]Yes, I don't feel it. Let's do some tests, sorry. I do n't feel like it yet.

[00:00:39]Now yes, I feel it. Okay.

[00:00:42]Good evening.

[00:00:43]Good evening. Here we are. I still don't see it. I'll see a bit. Eh, [laughter] I'm not very tech-savvy.

[00:00:50]Ah, yes, very little. So I scheduled the live for 6pm. Now we have some time to talk, so obviously the live.

[00:01:00]Ok, I'll be able to see myself a little better when my screen starts, but in any case we're live, okay?

[00:01:08]On one hand I see her, I see both of us, on the other I don't see myself alone, but it's not a problem. In the meantime, thank you, you're welcome.

[00:01:15]For accepting the invitation on Mediamente Crime, eh I welcome the community, of course. Um, and today we have lawyer Colzani and with him, well, we're having a law lesson, [laughter] a jurisprudence lesson on this case that sometimes leaves us with a lot of doubts. [laughter] You know Attorney Consani, we all know him, we know him well because he's very active in the community on this case and he's doing a very clear, technical job, but also quite understandable, I must say, even for those who aren't in the field, for those who don't know much about law and jurisprudence and laws.

[00:02:00]I would give her the floor right away.

[00:02:03]Yes, that's how I don't do it, I don't make her learn very much.

[00:02:07]Um, the first thing I'd like to ask you, which many also asked me yesterday live, um what's been circulating about Garlasco in these last few hours, in these last two days, in these 306 pages, you know, they're asking me but it's an informative version made for the media and the actual Discovery. What is it we are seeing? What is it we are reading? So, good evening Emilia, thanks for the invitation, first of all because we haven't had the chance to try out the various connections outside of this live broadcast, so we're going a bit at a whim there, a bit of a hug.

[00:02:52]Well, indeed, so there are absolutely no problems and I hope the viewers will understand that. Well, that's a very interesting question, I hope I'm being as clear as possible. The information I was also able to read is dated April 21, 2026, excluding the date, which is very suggestive because the first thing that came to mind was the Rome Foundation, but I know that because it is something that struck me a bit, I also remembered that in any case, between the information, the delivery of April 21 and the end of the preliminary investigations, approximately two and a half weeks passed, and there were also the SIT of the K twins, as well as the SIT of Marco Poggi, the second important one, and the interrogation which in any case concluded after 3 hours, about 3 and a half hours with the exercise of the right not to answer by the accused.

[00:03:54]So, in my opinion, this report, although very, let's say, complex and complicated, because it concerns several areas of the investigation, is not a single report, a document that concerns a single area, a single conclusion, but has actually shifted across three distinct time periods: 2007-2009, 2016-2017, when there was the complaint from Mrs. Elisabetta Ligabò, Alberto Stasi's mother, and then last but not least, today's one which, to be fair, has been going on for about a year and a half with the reopening of the preliminary investigations ordered by the Court of Cassation following the appeal by Prosecutor Napoleone. And from this point of view, the information very often acts as a sort of summary, even when it moves between different time frames, it shows the discrepancies, the discrepancies, the cracks in the official version that first emerged from the final conviction of Alberto Stasi and then with the first closure, the first archiving of Mrs. Ligabò's complaint and then [snorting] instead it goes on to point out all these discrepancies which are in any case extremely important because they demonstrate the desire to close the Alberto Stasi case, while instead there were definitely so many doubts, so many doubts and, as you rightly said, the information was released, it is still not known today who was the first to have it and how to disseminate it, but doubts arise, a slight suspicion arises that it was part of a strategy by the Public Prosecutor's Office precisely to put a bit of pressure on the suspect. It must be said that this is not, to borrow the language of war, a strategy of symmetrical warfare, of unorthodox warfare, because culture, which is the strong subject that has at its disposal the machinery of the state of force, of the police forces and of a whole series of subjects to carry out investigations, so much so that it has a monopoly on criminal prosecution. On the other hand, faced with the silence of the accused and a whole series of strategies that we have seen explained and reading the information, the excerpts that have been published are quite disheartening.

[00:06:35]In short, the Public Prosecutor's Office found itself dealing with a person with a whole host of connections, help, and protection, including in the media. So, from a certain point of view I tend to understand the Public Prosecutor's Office. On the other hand, from a legal and judicial perspective, we cannot help but note that, from this point of view, there is an abuse of information regarding the information given to journalists or a whole series of subjects external to the trial in the best tradition of media trials. This is to ensure that the public takes the news outside of the proper ways, but from my point of view it is a somewhat thorny situation and if I had been lawyer Cataliotti I would probably have been very angry, but instead lawyer Catalioti remained strangely silent. And on the other hand, I repeat, the Public Prosecutor's Office has immersed itself in an unorthodox war context and if you read the extracts in which there is a hubbub of lawyers who are not those of the accused, of journalists who are complacent and even from the civil party who have attitudes that are completely incomprehensible because from the very beginning they have continued to say, even since 2016, that Alberto Stasi is the only one convicted.

[00:08:05]correct profile, essentially they denied me the possibility of conducting investigations. Investigating, in my opinion, is essential to clarify all the doubts that the sentences have brought with them, so much so that we now even have a prosecutor who has put them down in black and white.

[00:08:25]Okay? Eh, so this isn't the discovery, right? The discovery, no discovery, then in the prosecutor's file, the Discovery is simply the discovery of the prosecutor's file containing the accusatory system that must be done first and this is an absolute guarantee of criminal procedural law that the investigated subject must do through his lawyers. That is, they are the first to receive the notice pursuant to Article 415 bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that is, the closure of the preliminary investigations, and are therefore the first entitled to get their hands on the PM's file to extract all the activity, therefore the SIT, and possibly copies of the interrogations, but we know that in one case he did not appear and in the other he availed himself of the right to remain silent. the expert opinions of the consultants appointed by the prosecution and the deductions of the other consultants for the parties, therefore also those that were trivially filed by the civil party, for example the Reale, Bassetti Falleti, eh, and then also all those documents that in various capacities were included in the proceedings, let's not forget the evidentiary incident which to this day is still classified.

[00:09:48]and which were in fact, um, incorporated into the PM's file. So even if by chance I had filed a preliminary opinion with the Public Prosecutor's Office and the Public Prosecutor's Office had deemed it of interest, it would still have entered the file.

[00:10:12]Yes.

[00:10:12]Okay. So Discovery actually now since so many documents are circulating, I was referred to the consultancy of Dr. Cattaneo, to the BPA of the RIS of Cagliari, that is, one must always be very cautious because these documents, when they go beyond the path of the judicial process and begin to enter the media process, can represent a vulnerability, that is, a wound against what is the fairness of this process because if we are not looking at other legal systems in which there is total investigative secrecy and that is acceptable, but also procedural secrecy like the English system, they cannot even be done f... Yes.

[00:11:00]Can I stop you just for a second, do you mind?

[00:11:05]I wanted to ask about this, about the media trial and the criminal justice process.

[00:11:16]Yes.

[00:11:16]Eh, I would be very interested, if you agree, in doing a live just about that.

[00:11:24]Yes, it can be done. It would make me very happy.

[00:11:29]Yes, gladly. There are also other colleagues who are very well versed. on this topic. Let's keep in mind that in Italy, for a whole series of reasons, we have had three trials in the space of 3 years, or rather three very important investigations, let's say 4 years, which were the grass massacre, the murder of Chiara Poggi and the disappearance before the murder of little Gambber. Then, within four years, they practically exploded, bringing to the attention of the public some issues that would otherwise have remained confined to specialists and, in fact, and this is precisely what I am referring to, highlighting through these three cases exactly what I was telling you, that is, the media trial and the judicial process in the guise of a criminal trial.

[00:12:24]Of course yes, I would be happy to and this is something I wanted to anticipate as my idea. On my channel I had already expressed the desire, the attention to making this episode. If it were a live with someone who can explain it in a technical and clear way, it could only be more appreciated.

[00:12:50]Oh okay. I can, I can, I'll close if you want, I'll close the previous reasoning for a moment. In my opinion, we need intermediaries who can convey information, so the journalist responsible for providing information should also have the technical training—many journalists do— to explain in detail what happens within the process.

[00:13:12]Unfortunately, one of the current evils in the short circuit between information and justice is that of partisanship, not only in terms of taking a critical stance—maybe I like this suspect, while I dislike that other defendant—but also in terms of certain interests that are not acknowledged during investigations and then trials, which then lead to a whole series of distortions.

[00:13:44]That is, months ago, during a conference organized in Milan, I had a conversation with Dr. Kuno Tarfus, who has also been a prosecutor in some very prestigious offices that will host an event on judicial errors in Bolzano on May 30th.

[00:14:01]He agreed with me that from the Public Prosecutor's Offices—and I use the term from the Public Prosecutor's Office building, not exactly from the Public Prosecutor's Office— interesting news often emerge that serves to give what is called spin, that is, the direction of the news. Because because the journalist can clearly act as a megaphone and then subsequently the journalist himself is indebted to certain figures who are not only the magistrates, eh, that is to say more or less unscrupulous, but also sometimes in the police force, eh he must then return the favor and then trouble happens because it is the poisoned fruit of the judicial media process of this short circuit that inevitably leads to judicial error.

[00:14:53]Because if the journalist abdicates the function of controlling the judiciary, yes. of power, in this case of the right, process.

[00:15:04]Then the risk is that we end up with a trial like the one in the Alberto Stasi case with so many structures that in the end the judiciary, after years, after several years, deemed it not only appropriate, it deemed it necessary to review it—dutifully, I would say.

[00:15:20]Obligatory. Obligatory.

[00:15:22]Yes, exactly. Good, good. We have many broad topics to discuss.

[00:15:32]addressing these these these issues. Well, I don't deviate much from this because in fact the second thing I wanted to ask you is whether in this Garlasco case there really is this procedural anomaly, that is, many have with respect to the review of the Stasi trial and the new trial that could open against Sempio. Someone talked about a two-headed monster, practically.

[00:16:02]Can you explain to us what you are referring to? And if this procedural number is real, it exists.

[00:16:10]So, because there are always, as you said, there are the partisan lawyers who are naturally partisan lawyers and explain the problem in their own way and from their own side. Let's hear who's third.

[00:16:23]Well, there is a problem, there is a premise that needs to be made, in my opinion, which is essential, namely, Garlasco represents and will increasingly represent in the years to come a watershed in the field of criminal proceedings. Why? Because we've had several firsts, several firsts. Let me give you a simple example.

[00:16:47]The Pavia Public Prosecutor's Office, faced with a case already closed with a convicted person who was also awaiting semi-liberty, decided not only to reopen the case, but took Jeep, or rather Jeep, Dr. Daniela Garlaschelli, to the Supreme Court of Cassation, who persisted in saying "No, you cannot, you cannot reopen the case."

[00:17:12]And in the Court of Cassation, the Supreme Court was very clear, that is, it was very determined in saying not only that the prosecution was right to reopen the file, a file that had also been preceded by a so-called ghost file so as not to lose any sources of evidence acquired in the meantime, but also because, above all, we know nothing about this ghost cycle. We're getting there, we're getting there.

[00:17:42]Well, I'll basically finish this for a moment.

[00:17:45]The Public Prosecutor's Office of Pavia was ruled in favor by the Supreme Court, and therefore the Supreme Court ordered Dr. Garlaschelli to reopen the case because she was talking about an abnormal res judicata, that is, she was talking about a sphere of jurisdiction so broad and abnormal on the part of the Jeep that it practically went beyond its own duties. So if there had been a need or opportunity to reopen, Jeep should have provided it, which it didn't. And in fact the prosecution was then honored with this reopening of the file. The ghost file is a file that Lovati had spoken about for the first time and is dated 2000 and 23, the 7270 of 2023, form 44.

[00:18:39]44 is the form for opening the files for information against unknown persons, that is, the 21 known, 44 unknown, 45 news of crimes that could strictly constitute a crime. And now my criminal lawyer colleagues will be out of my depth for having said this thing about 45, but the important ones are 21 and 44. In this case it was a 44 against unknown persons because at the time they were not known, which was then subsumed within the file eh 642 of 2025 which is the brand new one. So this was extremely important because it allowed the prosecution to acquire all those sources of evidence and to carry out all those activities that could not be postponed, because this is extremely important. As a power of attorney, you cannot afford to wait to carry out those activities that would otherwise lose their value. But let's go back for a moment, or rather forward, and say, " Can Andrea Sempio be tried for Chiara Poggi's murder?" Yes. So, the short answer is this. One is that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code that prohibits it, but the key point is that the Pavia Public Prosecutor's Office is not only convinced, it is strenuously convinced that Alberto Stasi was convicted in the absence of evidence that connects him to the crime scene in the time frame that has been attributed to him as, er, the perpetrator of the same crime. Let me explain better. Alberto Stasi was not at Via Pascoli 8 between 9:12 and 9:35.

[00:20:26]So the Public Prosecutor's Office, I believe, is right in having gathered sufficient material to be able to then provide it to the Attorney General, which is one of the two bodies—I'll explain who the other is later— two bodies entitled to request the review. They opted first of all to collect all the evidentiary material and then to transmit part of it following the conclusion of the preliminary investigations, precisely so as not to compromise, on the one hand, the right to defense of the current suspect and, on the other, to avoid the subsequent leakage of information. Because, given what happened in 2016-2017, Dr. Napoleone deemed it appropriate to exercise a moment's caution.

[00:21:19]The review can then be requested by the Attorney General's Office, which is the last one entitled to bring the charges. At the time, the Attorney General's Office, the prosecution of the Attorney General's Office was being carried out by Dr. Laura Barbaini, now by Dr. Francesca Nanni, and Dr. Nanni said she was very interested, so much so that she received in an informal meeting the head of the Pavia Prosecutor's Office, Dr. Napoleone, who, among other things, she has known for a long time, having more or less treaded the same courtrooms and even was an office colleague in Milan at the Attorney General's Office with Kuno Tarfus, among other things, and finally Dr. Nanni was explained to him, roughly, probably a copy of the information was given, and Dr. Nanni deemed it appropriate to share with her colleague from the State Attorney's Office, Dr. Tonto Donati, the material and clearly the burden of the decision, and then, at the end of a summary investigation, the two will see the prosecutor and the state attorney bear the burden, then ask in Brescia that the Court of Appeal of Brescia, which is the judicial body entitled The second party, the convicted Alberto Stasi, will be added to the review of whether to proceed with this practice and to the request for review that seems likely from the Milan General Prosecutor's Office.

[00:22:56]Normally, the convicted person or a relative of his, depending on a series of levels, can present a request for review. One was introduced in 2020, if I remember correctly, 2020 or 2021, if I remember correctly. This is very important because at this point, if the Attorney General's Office goes ahead, which now seems likely, it will be much easier for the convicted person's office to propose a review. It's clear that if you have a highly prestigious judicial office on your side, not just at the national level, and not just in terms of hierarchy, those who have to listen to you on the other side—namely, the Brescia Court of Appeal and, clearly, the Attorney General's Office of Brescia, which will have to accept the request from the Milan Prosecutor's Office—will be much more willing to pursue this request. That is, there won't be a head-on confrontation, as happened, for example, in the case of the attempted review for the Erba massacre. Instead, everyone will be more or less oriented toward the same solution.

[00:24:11]And in terms of timing, can these two things proceed in sync, or must a review be carried out first and then how can it work? In my personal opinion, it would be better to have a final judgment regarding the trial of Andrea Sempion, which remains to this day, as far as we know and we do not know any confidential materials, by the Public Prosecutor's Office of Pavia, but also by that of Brescia, and then I will also explain why the Public Prosecutor's Office of Brescia, so not the general one I just mentioned, but the Public Prosecutor's Office of Brescia because it is important.

[00:24:53]It's a lot, we were saying, the Pavia Prosecutor's Office can proceed with the trial of Andrea Sempio and, possibly, for the request for review, it would be an additional argument to have a final judgment, even a first- instance judgment, against Andrea Sempio, from which evidence can emerge, because evidence emerges only from the trial or from the evidentiary hearing, which is a preview of the trial, obtaining different evidentiary material to then use in the review process.

[00:25:29]Technically, you can go hand in hand, but it's clear that the evidence that comes out of a trial has more value than the material provided by the prosecutor's office, because the material provided by the prosecutor's office is not probative, it's excellent, it's advice that's worth more than zero, but unfortunately it absolutely cannot be used within a review proceeding.

[00:25:59]But what is important to say is that yes, and yes, and you also win, as can be understood from reading the information note from the Carabinieri of Via Moscova, is that essentially that [clears throat] in that file there is a lot of material that was sent for jurisdiction to the Brescia Prosecutor's Office, which has jurisdiction over crimes committed within the proceedings in the district of the Milan Court of Appeal. Lombardy has two courts of appeal, one in Milan and one in Brescia. Well, we learned in the Bossetti trial that the proceedings against, for example, the prosecutor Letizia Ruggeri, which ended with the case being dismissed, were then under the jurisdiction of the Public Prosecutor's Office of Venice, precisely because there is a sort of shift in jurisdiction and no Court of Appeal can judge its own magistrates and I consider this a step towards civilisation.

[00:26:57]But, getting back to the point, the [snorting] Public Prosecutor's Office of Brescia will soon close the investigation, this is news from last week, it will close the preliminary investigations and to this day we do not know who is under investigation other than Dr. Venditti, who was the deputy prosecutor and then also acting prosecutor of the Pavia Public Prosecutor's Office.

[00:27:17]This is extremely important to clarify because the mass of documents that have been filed is particularly substantial and, in my opinion, in order to proceed while avoiding, as Battisti said, the most difficult pitfalls, that is, also the risks of later disclosing too much, Dr. Napoleone sent a lot of material to Brescia, omitting it by omitting a reference within the folder where possible so as not to clearly compromise the rights of the accused to defense.

[00:27:53]But the real problem with the simultaneity of the trials is the one between Pavia and the Pavia investigation, which was recently concluded, and the one in Brescia, which will be concluded soon. The stasis review is something more. Well, now there are other suspects and Stasi can actually be fine. I know I know I'm saying something unpopular, but if I were Stasi's defense attorney, faced with having to file a lawsuit now, an appeal for review, which is my right, I still risk having the fact that I don't have evidence, not just consultancy, against me. This is important because let's say Andrea Sempio were also acquitted, but from the consultancy, for example, of Dr. Cattaneo it would be clear that the person who killed Chiara Poggi was 1.95 m tall or had, for example, characteristics that do not fit with either one or the other, from this point of view Stasi would be out. So this is essential to me, right?

[00:29:09]So we need to understand there too, how we can understand the choices they will make as well.

[00:29:18]Yes.

[00:29:21]Okay.

[00:29:24]Another other doubt.

[00:29:28]We will always ask her questions this afternoon [laughter] they will be a series of doubts that suit us.

[00:29:36]Yes, the height of doubt. So, the position of the Poggi family through its lawyers is a very clear one.

[00:29:47]They continue to maintain that the only guilty party remains Alberto Stasi and that they absolutely do not believe in the possible guilt of the new suspect. I ask you because I asked myself, but in this position, should we expect the Poggi family not to join the civil action in a possible counter-evil trial?

[00:30:19]So, for consistency's sake, they should n't be able to, that is, they shouldn't, by their own choice, constitute themselves as civil parties, but it is possible, from my point of view, it is probable that the Public Prosecutor's Office will request the, or rather not the requisition, the exclusion of the injured parties from constituting themselves as civil parties, even if they have already completed the evidentiary hearing. they can ask for it. But it depends on the other party, so I refer to the judge, who is the third-party body that is in charge of the judgment, and can accept it or order it, because it's clear that even if, I don't know, for example, I'm a prosecutor, I don't like the civil party, I decide to ask for exclusion, the judge says to me "But why? I have no reason, I just don't like her, the judge sends me packing. But if I am the prosecutor, I start filing all the interviews on TG1 of the injured parties, so not their lawyers, the lawyers' statements, the deductions from the investigations in which it is deduced that a lawyer has passed material to a party that is not exactly his own, so as there are also in the wiretaps, but it's something that has been known for years, so at that point the judge says "Oh no, stop, there 's an inconsistency here". So if I authorize the constitution of the civil party, the intervention It is defined ad adiuvandum. That is, I, as the civil party, am essentially not exercising my own independent function; I work in tandem with the prosecutor's office. The prosecutor's office exercises the criminal action and I am right behind it because I must be compensated and whoever is clearly behind it, I am shielded by the prosecutor's office, by the prosecutor's office's activities. However, let us remember that already in the previous trial, the civil party had almost promoted a surrogate activity, that is, at a certain point replacing the prosecutor's office, so much so that the prosecutor's office incorporated into its documents, especially in the second phase, after the Supreme Court, after the first Supreme Court, many of the ideas and theories of the civil party's office, not least the issue of the pedal swap, which has now been discredited everywhere. Also the issue, I'll give an example that is also quite, um, little known, let's say, that of the suggestion of the domestic accident, why even continue to say that it was a domestic accident when in the first instance the Carabinieri Serra Muscatelli had said that it had been their idea and that it was not Alberto Stasi who... I mean, it's something that objectively cannot be tolerated after years, so much so that it was written by the same Court of Appeal, let's say the second Court of Appeal, the one with Dr. Bellio as the presiding judge, but then the Supreme Court had to simply state that this argument had never been brought up, which the doctor therefore removed from the serious and precise consistent evidence that then contributed to the conviction of Alberto Stasi. In any case, to put it briefly, if the civil party were to remain consistent and therefore continue to consider a certain individual innocent and therefore consequently this trial useless, they should not be a civil party.

[00:34:12]But we'll see, because unfortunately, it's not just everyone's beliefs that are at stake, but there's a lot of money involved because the convicted Alberto Stasi has paid them, sentenced to reimbursement of not only the legal fees, but also to payment of the damages for which he was convicted.

[00:34:33]Indemnity.

[00:34:35]Yes, compensation.

[00:34:37]So the reimbursement would cost a lot, and the possible reimbursement to the gentlemen Poggi would cost a lot, but not in this trial, but after the review. So it's clear, I would now fight for Andrea's innocence precisely to prevent the res judicata from ending up in the review process and thus contributing to the rescission of the old res judicata and therefore to the solution of Alberto Stasio, and we've also understood something else. We can never give very clear explanations on these things.

[00:35:20]Okay. I hope I've helped clarify the Yes. No, no, no. Yes, yes, yes, definitely, because then there are decisions that we can't understand why they are made or why perhaps there is a lack of coherence to carry them forward in other venues.

[00:35:37]So, then, according to Allora, I would have kept a much lower profile, precisely to avoid finding myself in the uncomfortable position of having to eat my words. For us, I would have said Alberto Andrea Sempio is innocent, but let's see what the prosecutor's office proposes.

[00:36:00]That is, saying something like that would have left the door open for you to say, "Ah, the material is interesting, let's think about it." Instead, going to make statements on TG1, which is an institutional medium by its very nature, isn't exactly a smart move, because on the other hand, magistrates, who aren't robots, but men and women, have the unpleasant tendency to remember even the slightest slight, including what happened during the preliminary investigation where Dr. Civardi spoke of a civil party acting as the defendant's defense, even though he was the defendant at the time. It really seems like a re-edition of the world in reverse. I do n't know what more they want. I mean, they gave you a very specific limit, and you decided not to care. Then everyone will draw their own conclusions, their own considerations, and the consequences.

[00:37:06]Yes. And let's say that most people are looking for explanations for this too, let's say, for this pushing this defense so hard, and then they come up with, well, a series of conspiracy theories that, frankly, I do n't follow, but it remains quite inexplicable.

[00:37:28]Oh, who follows? So, then, yes, But we have much less knowledge of the actual information deriving from the investigations, and that's a good thing compared to what they have at the Public Prosecutor's Office. That is, the Public Prosecutor's Office has been under the radar for a year and a half and has handled extremely important and dangerous trials like Clean 1, Clean 2, and now we've reached the preliminary investigations into Clean 3, the Adriatici trial, which ended with the conviction of the former councilor of Boghera. And then, last but not least, we have the entire transmission of the relevant files to Brescia.

[00:38:09]I imagine that in Brescia they're extremely happy to have seen several files raining down on them, which will then eventually be subsumed into one. So, to call it a serious Public Prosecutor's Office is an understatement. We don't have magistrates who spend more time on television than in their offices; we have prosecutors who are a source of pride for the profession from this point of view. And in my opinion, the logical consequence is that they do their job and maintain maximum confidentiality. From this confidentiality, however, we can draw some small conclusions, because where a magistrate in an evidentiary hearing If someone makes a statement like that, it's clear they know a little more than those on the outside, so much so that everything is classified, and I, in fact, don't expect the full Discovery, which I think will arrive no less than 10 days later, because then let's remember that, and this is important.

[00:39:16][Clearing throat] Let's remember that within 20 days of notification of the notice of closure of the preliminary investigation, the suspect and his defense have the right to request an interrogation, in addition to carrying out a whole series of activities. But the interrogation is essential because if the suspect requests it and the prosecutor's office doesn't grant it, this failure to grant it invalidates all the activities carried out by the prosecutor's office in the future. This is important because I imagine that lawyer Cataliotti has considered whether or not to request it and is still evaluating it with the investigative material before the interrogation for his client, and this is a factor of no small importance. We, who are external observers, will only know about the Discovery, I think after those fateful 20 days. Circulating of the material, but I assure you that the material in an investigation that is going to be spread out over a year, will stretch out over a year and a half, in fact it will be no less than 20,000 pages. Many will be technical outlines, but there will be a lot of consultancy and a lot of written material to read.

[00:40:32]Well, today, yes, yes, yes, please.

[00:40:35]From there we will understand more, but we are out of this game.

[00:40:40]Okay, I'll read you a question. Right now they're asking me if the indictment is presumably certain or if there could be surprises.

[00:40:55]So, well, in my opinion, given the situation, it's certain. The surprise could be if, during a possible interrogation, he spoke and brought other people into the picture or gave an explanation of the elements that were found.

[00:41:16]So it's not exactly, it's not a given, to use a somewhat strong word.

[00:41:24]But to date, well, also with the Cartabia reform and all the various reforms that have followed, the GUP, who is the judge accepts the preliminary hearing, meaning it orders the indictment, it doesn't say, "No, this can't be done, this investigation wasn't done properly, it can't be indicted." My only suspicion is that, possibly following requests from the defense, new investigations could be ordered. In that case, the preliminary investigation file would have to be reopened. But if we knew, because we always have to go through the Jeep and that's a piece of data, it's essential data, and yet we could know as soon as the 20 days are up and we'll see what was requested and what wasn't. Yes, so as far as I understand, Sempio's defense, so Catagliotti and Taccia, could also not request Andrea Sempio's interrogation, right?

[00:42:27]Correct, correct. They could also not ask.

[00:42:30]Correct, it's their right, their choice.

[00:42:32]Yes, yes.

[00:42:33]They could also ask for an abbreviated trial, but asking for an abbreviated trial would mean giving up all the rights.

[00:42:39]own expert opinions that are not already in the file, because we even remember what happened with Alberto Stasi. That attorney Giarda thought it appropriate to request a summary trial because the prosecutor's file contains the opinions of his own consultants. Instead, in this case, the prosecutor's file would contain all the expert opinions answered by the prosecution, the evidentiary incident, which is therefore a preview of the actual trial and little else, but it would not contain the deductions of the deductions of his own consultants to, let's say, counter the expert opinions instead of those of the Public Prosecutor's Office. It would be a sort of total reliance on what the Public Prosecutor's Office says. It would not be a choice, and in my opinion, it would be very much the case even if there is a reduction of a third of the sentence, which makes me say it would be 30 years instead of life imprisonment, one could play it from this point of view and among other things in this case the summary trial can be used because at the time of the murder in 2007 there was still the possibility that there will then be until 2019 to request a summary trial for this type of murder, which would be punishable by life imprisonment.

[00:44:01]Yes, yes, of course, very clear. Oh, by the way, in the preliminary investigation, if I remember correctly, fingerprint 33, for example, isn't included, right?

[00:44:11]No, no, it was n't included precisely because some of the consultants' deductions were missing, and perhaps also as a sort of pre- trial tactic, as also appeared in a note that was leaked by Dr. Civardi, who said that all the consultant's deductions on the merits will be calmly analyzed during the trial, as if to say, don't worry, we'll get to the trial, that is, the actual trial. We'll get there.

[00:44:44]This was a signal last summer that for me was worth more than 1,000 statements on TG1.

[00:44:52]Yes, yes. Okay. Now, if I may, I'd like to ask you to pass on some of the questions I'm asked. Sure.

[00:45:01]So, I'm asked if there is, in theory, the possibility of a request for pre-trial detention, for example.

[00:45:13]M No, there aren't any prerequisites because, well, the classic triad is, well, the seriousness of the crime is there, but the repetition of the crime is missing. We do n't know that, but we imagine not, otherwise the tampering with evidence and the risk of escape would have already been requested. Of these three, the only one that could exist is the risk of escape, but it also needs to be contextualized. If they find out that Andrea Sempio has booked a trip to Brazil, then there is a risk of escape there. But if someone goes to the European Union, they'll catch him in no time. They'll catch him in no time at all. So there isn't one of the three precautionary requirements and, above all, he ca n't escape from this point of view, so he's destined to at least get to the end of the first phase and therefore with the preliminary hearing by the GUP, but okay, I think this is now enough to be clear enough, to be super obvious.

[00:46:21]Yes, of course. And instead the le I wanted to ask, this is my question, but barely a day has passed and we learned that former Captain Cassese is under investigation for providing false information to the Public Prosecutor.

[00:46:40]Yes. Well, Captain Cassese hasn't yet received a notice of investigation, if I'm not mistaken, right? So, technically, there are deadlines to be met.

[00:46:57]However, we don't know because, as external parties, we wouldn't even be entitled to look at that notice of investigation. A notice of investigation or information of investigation is a document that the suspect needs to exercise his or her right to be protected.

[00:47:14]So, the oral notice that was rightfully given by the Public Prosecutor, because there are Public Prosecutors who might shut down your site.

[00:47:23]Then they say, "Look, I can use everything you've stated. Be careful because I can use it, but then it will be up to the third-party judges to say "No, you couldn't do that". Meanwhile, if you're under investigation there, you're in trouble.

[00:47:40]Civardi, however, behaved well, living up to his reputation as a tough but fair man. Be careful, this is no small thing. Well, and in that case, one of the questions that, let's say, came out was one that made me smile a little. he said, "You are affected by diseases or conditions that can happen, be careful, it's not like we're creating amnesia and there, faced with the no to the no of the obvious no of the captain, now retired colonel of Cassese, the PM thought it appropriate to close the site.

[00:48:21]I imagine that the notice of investigation will arrive in a few days, so if not today, tomorrow or later, but in the end, what are the precautionary requirements there too? It was all written down in black and white, it was within a fit and therefore there is no, I don't see all this rush.

[00:48:42]Yes, there is someone who evidently connected a little later in our live with the lawyer Colzani and therefore asked what the legal steps of the Poggi family could be in the event of a review.

[00:48:55]We had just... So, in the review they have full right, regardless of what they think. They have full right because the previous judicial case ended with the conviction of Alberto Stasi. They had joined as civil parties and rightfully received the compensation or part of it ordered by the from the courts, then from the Court of Appeal, finally from the Supreme Court, and that's fine. So they can object within the review process, they will object when it happens, and therefore their voice will be heard in the appropriate ways. If we remember what happened two years ago with the review process that didn't go well for the Erba massacre, there was lawyer Campa with an M, lawyer Campa who represented the two civil parties, the brothers Giuseppe Detto Beppe and Pietro Castagna, sons of the late Carlo and brothers of the late Raffaella. And there was another civil party, actually, this is interesting because there was lawyer Luca d'Auria, and for Azuzmarz, lawyer Luca Dauria who works in Armanno K's firm, just a note. He's a highly esteemed colleague who usually deals with criminal cases.

[00:50:23]We issued an information note. [laughter] Yes, well, yes, yes, yes, of course. In that case you 're telling me, I remember, but I don't I know if it's a very well-founded news story, that the civil party, as far as Azmuk was concerned, if I'm not mistaken, had renounced joining the civil action at a certain point, right?

[00:50:51]No, no. So, before the proceedings, if I remember correctly, the Supreme Court, let's talk about it, but it really didn't happen that way, right? Zuzmarzuk had informed the surveillance staff and also the director of the Bassone prison that he had doubts about the guilt of Olindo Romano and Ros, either before the appeal or before the Supreme Court. I do n't remember the episode now, except that he was then heard and he had said no, that he had no doubts. These doubts then resurfaced later in the proceedings between the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court, and in that case he expressed all his doubts. Among other things, at the time he was assisted by the lawyer Tropenscovino, who also made some very strong and questionable statements, and then, yes, he was replaced by the lawyer Luca Davia. Then Azuz returned. to live in Italy, eh, where he also works as a bus driver and therefore had fully integrated into civil society and lawyer d'Auria, on the other hand, was in favor of the review for this very reason, but it was a well-known fact by now, also because Azusmarz had collaborated with Le Iene in finding, for example, the witness Ibrain Benchenkum in Tunisia in reconstructing the story which, however, was not accepted by the Court of Appeal of Brescia within the proceedings.

[00:52:27]Okay, perfect.

[00:52:28]So I partially remembered something.

[00:52:32]Um, they still ask us how long a review process can last in this case.

[00:52:39]So, the review process has two phases. A rescission phase which overturns the previous res judicata, then a rescission phase which then goes on to judge on the basis of all the elements, so on the one hand the probability that the new evidence, new in itself or the type of scientific analysis, reevaluates them are precursors to a possible reversal of the res judicata already in place. be and on the other hand there is the phase, sorry, the descending phase, the rescission phase. So in that case that evidence then concretely goes to provide another procedural truth. Look, usually it takes roughly a year, a year. So in reality the review process is quite quick. Let's keep in mind that usually from the proposal to the first analysis and then the evaluation, the evaluation, the first evaluation, up to the scheduling, it takes 4 to 6 months in the Court of Appeal in Brescia, then the Court of Appeal in Brescia, from there it will take another 6-8 months to reach a sentence.

[00:54:03]So okay, we gave an answer that asked us how long it could take.

[00:54:07]In any case, no less than a year.

[00:54:12]Yes, no less than a year from when it is proposed.

[00:54:16]Yes, no less than a year is proposed when there is the proposal. Then if I'm happy, eh, if it does, if it takes less, I'm very happy, but yes, yes, yes. I mean, if they succeed [laughter] if They succeed, let's say that Alberto Stasi would have waited long enough at this point for Yes. By the time he's out, he 'll have also finished his semi-liberty. I reiterate, as I said before, I'm certainly in favor of suspending the execution of the sentence.

[00:54:56]However, if during the review they tell me, "No, look, the review is not, I can't accept it." Or the new evidence is neither abstractly nor concretely capable of overturning the judgment and therefore declaring you acquitted, or at that point not guilty, at that point, I would have to go back to serving the remaining sentence, which for me would be a bit demoralizing at best. So, if I were in Alberto Stasi's defense, I would aim to end the semi-liberty and let it go as it goes. Then he should finish serving his sentence in 2027, right?

[00:55:41]I think so, at the end of 2027 or the beginning of 2028. There are calculations in the context of penitentiary law, I had them. We saw each other a while ago, but more or less it's not that long. I know, I know that it's also inconvenient because, let 's say, the backsides are those of the convicted, not ours. It's easy, it's easy to say, "Ah, well, he's got a year left, what's it costing him?" But I realize that every day is a day, a day.

[00:56:10]Yes, he's actually lucky in a certain sense because he spends two nights a week at his home, which is no longer in Garlasco, and he spends the remaining nights in prison. It must also be said that he's also been good at building a well-deserved fame, or at least a solid reputation, in prison, so much so that he's often been requested by other inmates for a whole series of collateral activities, so he's a person who knew how to take advantage of the opportunity of prison, even though he was convicted with so many doubts.

[00:56:55]Yes, because from the outside, we talk about prison, but we really know nothing about it.

[00:57:01]Unfortunately, unfortunately, or fortunately, on one hand, but Alas, this is the reality of the facts.

[00:57:09]With those clues, I wouldn't have convicted him. Then I've also been researching the matter for years. Given those clues, he couldn't have been convicted because there wasn't a single reasonable doubt, but an almost infinite series of doubts, all of them non- logical, that's the problem.

[00:57:31]One says it's reasonable—you know, for you, a lawyer, it's reasonable; for me, who's not involved, no, mind you, they were purely logical doubts. For example, someone never uses their own bicycle; they have to use another one to get to work. This is the conviction.

[00:57:48]He goes to work, but he changes the pedals, and where does he put them? He puts them on the bike he uses every day.

[00:57:57]What is Sylvester the Cat?

[00:57:59]Furthermore, Mr. Lawyer, excuse me, in this specific case, if this crime charged to Alberto Stasi wasn't premeditated, because the Supreme Court doesn't speak of a premeditated crime, premeditation, right?

[00:58:17]Yes. So, logically, Alberto Stasi, having to go from Chiara, but therefore not intending to kill, why would he have to ride a bike that wasn't his usual one, so the one to Bordeaux in this case, or by car?

[00:58:33]Good, good.

[00:58:34]How did it usually go?

[00:58:35]Very good. And then there's another problem with the bike, because then what she said then leads to a fundamental problem, that is, the sentence. Why 24 years for a crime that is premeditated and there are elements to define it as premeditated if we accept the reconstruction of the Court of Appeal bis later confirmed by the Supreme Court because you are not 24 years old, you get a life sentence and minus 1/3 you get 30 years, you don't make 24 - 1/3 16 because at that point it occurs to you that little evidence means little punishment, classic, but you can't talk about little evidence, either it's all and nothing, or you acquit him with a doubtful formula or in any case by writing that there are several doubts and therefore you must be acquitted or he cannot exercise the presumption of guilt, that is, he is in doubt pro Reo, don't contradict Reum, I mean, this really needs to be marked. But then with the bicycle, there's another point that was absurd to me, aside from my knowledge of the geography of the area. But how do you get home by bike? No one sees you, neither on the way there nor on the way back. Then they tell me, "Hey, but Garlasco was deserted."

[00:59:41]It's a shame that in the street you find four witnesses like that and Via Pascoli is small, so there wasn't all this deserted that summer, [laughter] it wasn't so deserted No, but there, that area there, there are a lot of people who prefer to take their holidays later or earlier to avoid the chaos and therefore and therefore therefore you find all the witnesses who have now emerged also in the new in the new investigations who in any case were in Garlasco and the surrounding area, they weren't on Mars, they were in Garlasco and the surrounding area.

[01:00:10]Yes, yes, yes. And that's another thing, another detail, eh, because I 've read all the sentences on Stasi, naturally, not being an expert, sometimes I had to stop, try to understand, to comprehend. Honestly, I understood Judge Vitelli's sentence much better the way it was written. I didn't quite understand the one about the condemnation of the second appeal, maybe because it was badly written, I don't know. But speaking of pedals, the question I wanted to ask you about the blessed history of pedals at a certain point requires an expert opinion. Exact.

[01:00:54]A consultation. a consultation.

[01:00:57]The consultancy by Nolfi wasn't an appraisal, right? It was the consultancy of the Public Prosecutor's Office, which is from the Bardazza di Nolfi firm, signed by Pierangelo di Nolfi, an engineer, who is one of the two or three owners: Massimo Bardazza, Gabriele Bardazza, who also became famous for his role as consultant to the civil parties in the Moby Prince trial, which is truly one of those events that digs deep inside.

[01:01:25]and by the way, another expert on this is Luigi Grimaldi, just to give you an overview, since he is also very well known on Garlasco. [snorting] And Gabriele Pierangela Dinolfi actually explained in great detail, because among other things there is an underlying problem, that the Luxury Holland, defined as a Dutch car that was brought before the Court of Appeal had pedals that were the same as the one that had been given as a gift by the auto parts supplier owned by Nicola Stasi, it had the same pedals, therefore the pedals had not been replaced.

[01:02:04]The Umberto Day, having been a valuable bike when it was the original Umberto Day, was then purchased by Arizzato and finally Rizzato was absorbed by Atala, but vintage bicycles or in any case those of a certain type have a whole series of problems because the pedals are not supplied directly from the manufacturer assembled, but must be assembled by the dealer because they take up space. But especially for certain bikes, riding around with the original pedals can be a problem because you use them, you ruin them and then when you find yourself selling it, especially collector's bikes, I have one in Monza, and that bike is ruined, it's ruined and or rather the pedal is ruined and then above all because, as a friend of mine who started cycling pointed out to me, he told me "Be careful because there is a black market for so-called aftermarket or post-sale parts because you have those pedals that are original and are very often worth a lot more than the corresponding bike. So what do you do? You put them on the cyclist, the cyclist, the buyer who doesn't care much, you put two ugly pedals on them and in the meantime you resell those elsewhere or the same thing can be done by someone who resells it in a subordinate way. So about those pedals, the Bardazza di Olfi consultancy tells us exactly that, it tells us, look, the pedals are compatible and instead in the ruling it refers not to a technician, but to the CEO of A. I mean, as if I had to ask a piece, a consultation on a specific part of a Ferrari, I wouldn't go and get a mechanic, a designer, a Ferrari mechanic, a designer, but I would call the CEO Benedetto Vigna. How much does this guy know about what he's going to produce? But rightly so, he deals with company policy, with marketing, he doesn't deal with—I ca n't tell you, for example, the difference in the wheel rim between a 308 GTB and a Scaglietti 458. I mean, this is normal. And then, among other things, the very last thing, the bicycle that was seized in 2014 wasn't the one that Marshal Marchetto saw, because Marshal Marchetto, with Mrs. Bermani's seat in his hand, went to Nicola Stasi's warehouse. They opened it. Yes, at the time it was called Autoricambi Nuovo Invernizzi on Via Tramia, then the Invernizzi expert and he said it smelled musty, I saw the bicycle, Nicola Stasi He told me this: the bike I had at Marchetto was completely dusty because the warehouse had been closed for two weeks.

[01:05:12]He walked over the saddle and picked up a finger's breadth of dust. That bicycle, as General Garofano Icoculi says, was different from the one described by Bermani. It was different. So much so that on October 1st, Cassese, Tizzoni, Nicola Stasi, and his lawyer went to check whether the alarm system's memory had been opened or not, and they saw that bicycle, but no one seized it. When the search warrant was issued against Alberto Stasi, he would have had access to all the places available, and Marchetto had nothing to do with it.

[01:06:01]Cassese was there, who was Dr. Muso's trusted man.

[01:06:06]The warehouse was not searched, a sign that it was known that that bike was not the right one, not the one, let's say, incriminated.

[01:06:20]And this then implies, on the other hand, that the second bike, even though more similar, was not It too, because Bermani said it was a nice bike, while both those bikes, both the first and the second, weren't. They were landing bikes, that is, for everyday use.

[01:06:43]And speaking of the bike, today we hear— uh, I read something—uh, in the press, today's articles, and there's—uh, especially Tizzoni insisting on the fact that the prosecutors can't get rid of this black bike anymore and can't give an explanation for that black bike within the new investigation on Andrea Sempio. The problem is that that black bike without a user makes no sense. It makes absolutely no sense. So, lawyer Tizzoni is doing his job and will continue to do so.

[01:07:24]So, continuing to point to Alberto Stasi as the culprit, but now he sounds more and more like a broken record, because that bicycle wasn't charged to Alberto Stasi, while they had to metaphorically drag Alberto Stasi from his home to be able to put him on board from the saddle of that bicycle. But no one, and this is a fact, no one has ever seen him between outside his house that morning and especially on the bike going towards Via Pascoli or back or coming back. Exactly.

[01:08:01]So I don't know what more can be said.

[01:08:04]Yes, yes, yes, yes, absolutely yes.

[01:08:08]We cannot explain the inexplicable.

[01:08:12]Another question. They ask us, they ask us about the... So, yes, if the review sentence were to acquit Alberto Stasi, they ask me about the money already paid, that compensation given to the Poggi family, would it technically become an undue payment? Yes, there would be room for the recovery of the undue payment, that is, the request for the restitution of the money actually paid by Alberto Stasi over all these years. It's a logical thing of common sense, because the State that condemned you on behalf of the family that joined the civil action, the same State, if it acquits you, at that point will allow you to ask for the money already paid back to the family, lacking the cause of the payment. It's an undue payment.

[01:09:13]Okay, perfect. So he has... He took our [laughter] our AB. Well, I'm taking you somewhere else now, lawyer. I don't know how long I'll take you because I have to... Oh, well, no, I'm not taking you anywhere else because you told me you had an hour and so lawyer Colzani's time is up.

[01:09:41]It's 7 pm, you're right. So, thank you very much, we thank you and everyone in the community who continues to ask questions.

[01:09:50]How many questions do we have to ask you?

[01:09:52][laughter] Well, we'll do another episode without a problem.

[01:09:54]We'll do another... Yes, yes. In fact, I had already told you this at the beginning, so I'll ask you to come back here with us because it's interesting when you can talk to a technician who can also clearly explain things that, without knowing too much about law and criminal procedures, we don't really know how to deal with. So for now, yes, we thank you.

[01:10:25]Thank you. Thank you and thank you for the invitation.

[01:10:28]Thank you... You, lawyer. Good evening, and we'll meet again here in a little while live.

[01:10:36]Good evening to you too. Thank you.

[01:10:38]Thank you very much.

[01:10:52]The lawyer has to close. If I don't close, he won't either.