In today’s episode of Morning Five the Garlasco case is once again being discussed, but this time not due to a new expert opinion or a judicial document, but rather due to a sentence pronounced live by the lawyer Massimo Lovati which immediately sparked the debate: “There could be a witness who can change everything… but if he doesn’t come out, it’s better.”
Words which, in the space of a few seconds, transformed a technical analysis into a moment of television tension, leaving the studio with an atmosphere full of suspicions and unspoken questions.
The comparison in the studio and the key question about Sempio
The presenter Federica Panicucci brought attention to some of the behaviors of Andrea Sempio in the hours following the crime, in particular on his presence on the street after the news of Chiara Poggi‘s death spread and on the failure to call Marco Poggi.
Lovati, however, reduced the weight of these elements, maintaining that they do not constitute proof of anything and that every gesture can also be interpreted as prudence or embarrassment, not necessarily as a clue.
The lawyer also intervened Fabrizio Gallowho underlined that the images shown were not the only ones in existence and that the photographs released were only part of the material in the hands of the Prosecutor’s Office. According to Gallo, Sempio’s behavior should be interpreted with more caution and without retrospective forcing.
The phrase that changes the climate: the “witness who must not speak”
The twist came in the final part of the confrontation, when Lovati referenced a possible new person informed about the facts:
“I think there could be a witness who could come out and change things… But if he doesn’t come out, it’s better.”
A deliberately ambiguous sentence, which does not clarify who this person is, what he knows and why it would be “better” for him not to speak. Panicucci tried to delve deeper:
– “Lawyer, would this witness help Sempio or harm him?”
– “I don’t know – Lovati replied – it could go both ways.”
A statement that left the firm suspended between two opposing scenarios: a truth that has never emerged that could overturn the investigation, or an element that would risk complicating it further.
A case that never ceases to worry
Almost twenty years after the murder of Chiara Poggithe Garlasco case continues to produce unresolved questions, including wiretaps never delivered, disputed reports and leads never fully clarified.
The revelation – or rather the allusion – about the “mysterious witness”, now adds a further level of complexity: not only what we don’t know, but who might know something and hasn’t spoken.
And a question remains, simple and disturbing:
Why would it be better if that witness never comes out?