Today is a strange day regarding the investigation corruption is being investigated by the Brescia prosecutor’s office, an investigation that in a sense influences Garlasco’s crimes. Because, the two suspects Mario Vendittiprosecutor who filed the case for the second time in 2017 Andrea Sempioand the father of the last, Giuseppe Sempio. Corruption and graft, according to the prosecutor’s hypothesis, have not yet been proven, but today’s hearing at the Court of Judicial Review brought a big surprise: the absence of a public prosecutor.
“I think – said Venditti in an interview with Gianluigi Nuzzi For In the Newsthen resent to Fourth Degree – to be honest they were going to file three minutes in the last two days, the trial minutes, the lawyers, and to my great surprise, the public prosecutor wasn’t even there. In my opinion, it would have been a serious error not to submit the report provided by Lovati’s lawyer and two other lawyers who had handled Sempio’s defense.”.
The lawyers are three lawyers who followed Andrea Sempio in 2017 Massimo Lovati, Federico Soldani And Simone Grassi. Who would have thought that the unusual financial movements recorded in Sempio’s accounts in 2017 – movements that attracted the attention of Brescia prosecutor’s investigators – turned out to represent their stamp. Therefore, there is no corruption. According to Venditti, these statements weakened the charges against him: “I was supposed to be the corrupt person, the aware person, the ultimate beneficiary of this money movement. The movement of this money stopped with Sempio’s lawyers”.
Are you interested in the topic?
Garlasco Crime
In an interview in recent months with Fourth DegreeVenditti will say he believes Sempio is innocent of the murder Chiara Poggiwhich occurred on August 13 2007. In fact, on that occasion he stated that the filing took 21 days, but it could also take 21 seconds. And he would still be convinced of this, today if Sempio were again questioned, speaking of excessive enthusiasm regarding the continuation of the investigation at that time: “Today I corrected myself, rereading all the documents of the last few days: I should have stopped in January 2017, I should not have continued the investigation. I should have stopped when the Brescia Court of Appeal ruled on the inadmissibility of the revision.
I should have stopped right then and there, as stated by the Investigating Judge in his dismissal decision letter which clearly stated that I should have stopped right then and that the investigation – which is on today’s agenda, is being examined – was due to my excessive zeal.”
