Garlasco Case Update: The Unresolved Mystery of Chiara Poggi’s Murder and the “Unknown 3” DNA
By [Your Name], Crime and Justice Correspondent
Published: July 20, 2025
The murder of Chiara Poggi in Garlasco, Italy, on August 13, 2007, remains one of Italy’s most debated criminal cases. The 26-year-old was brutally killed in her family’s villa, and her then-boyfriend, Alberto Stasi, was convicted in 2015 and sentenced to 16 years in prison. In 2025, new developments, particularly the discovery of an unidentified male DNA profile, dubbed “Unknown 3,” on a gauze used to collect biological material from Chiara’s mouth, have reignited interest in the case. While recent forensic analyses have ruled out contamination from those handling the evidence in 2025, questions persist about the origins of this DNA, its significance, and whether it points to a new suspect or procedural errors from 2007. This article examines the latest findings, excluding recent contaminations, and explores their implications for the Garlasco case.
Background: The Garlasco Murder
Chiara Poggi was found dead at the bottom of a staircase in her family’s villa in Garlasco, a small town in Pavia, Italy. She had been bludgeoned to death, likely with a hammer that was never recovered. Alberto Stasi, her boyfriend, was convicted based on circumstantial evidence, including blood traces on his shoes and inconsistencies in his alibi. However, doubts about his guilt have persisted, fueled by the lack of direct forensic evidence and new findings in 2025. The case was reopened after a report by Stasi’s defense prompted the Pavia Prosecutor’s Office to investigate Andrea Sempio, a friend of Chiara’s brother, Marco, for possible involvement in the murder.
The “Unknown 3” DNA Discovery
In 2025, a significant breakthrough emerged during a court-ordered evidentiary hearing (incidente probatorio) as part of the new investigation. A gauze used during Chiara’s 2007 autopsy to collect biological material from her oral cavity revealed a male Y-chromosome DNA profile, labeled “Unknown 3.” This sample, which had never been analyzed in the original investigation, does not match Stasi or Sempio, raising the possibility of another individual’s presence at the crime scene.
The gauze, not a sterile swab, was used to collect Chiara’s genetic material for comparison with blood traces at the scene. Five samples were taken from it in 2025, with the following results:
- One sample matched Ernesto Gabriele Ferrari, the assistant to coroner Dr. Dario Ballardini, who performed the autopsy.
- Another sample contained a mixed profile, partially overlapping with Ferrari’s DNA but also showing markers of an unidentified male, “Unknown 3.”
- Three samples were illegible.
Crucially, forensic geneticist Denise Albani, appointed by Pavia’s investigating judge Daniela Garlaschelli, confirmed that the “Unknown 3” DNA was not contaminated by those handling the gauze during the 2025 analyses, including Albani’s team, Luciano Garofano (Sempio’s defense consultant and former RIS commander), and Marzio Capra (Poggi family consultant). This rules out recent contamination, focusing attention on the 2007 autopsy process or the crime scene itself.
Excluding Recent Contaminations
Albani’s team compared the “Unknown 3” DNA with profiles of individuals who accessed the evidence in 2025, confirming no matches. This eliminates the possibility that the unidentified DNA resulted from modern laboratory errors. Instead, the focus has shifted to potential contamination during the 2007 autopsy or earlier handling of Chiara’s body. Key points include:
- Non-Sterile Gauze: The gauze used was not a standard oral swab but a piece of fabric intended for general biological sampling, increasing the risk of contamination. Experts note it may have been handled without sterile tools or gloves, possibly by someone in the autopsy room.
- Autopsy Procedures: Albani has requested clarification from Dr. Ballardini on how the gauze was used, who was present in the autopsy room, and whether proper protocols were followed. For example, an unmasked individual sneezing or improper handling could have introduced foreign DNA.
- Historical Handling: The investigation is now testing DNA from 2007 responders, including rescuers, funeral workers, and others who accessed Chiara’s body, to rule out accidental contamination. Verbal reports from 2007 indicate that 118 medics, including Dr. Elisabetta Rubbi, wore latex gloves and disposable suits, minimizing direct contact, but funeral workers’ procedures are less clear.
Implications of the “Unknown 3” DNA
The discovery of “Unknown 3” has sparked multiple theories:
- Potential Accomplice: The Pavia Prosecutor’s Office, led by Fabio Napoleone, hypothesizes that multiple individuals may have been involved in the murder. The “Unknown 3” DNA, combined with unidentified male DNA under Chiara’s fingernails, suggests a possible accomplice. However, the absence of a complete DNA profile and the minute quantity of “Unknown 3” DNA weaken this theory.
- Contamination in 2007: Experts like Marzio Capra argue that the gauze likely picked up trace DNA during the autopsy, possibly from Ferrari or another male present, due to non-sterile handling. The low presence of Chiara’s own DNA on the gauze’s central portion supports this, suggesting it was touched by others.
- No New Suspect: Luciano Garofano, Sempio’s consultant, insists the DNA is from contamination, not the killer, as the gauze was only meant for reference sampling, not forensic analysis. He argues it’s unlikely to indicate a new suspect given the lack of other corroborating evidence.
The prosecution is testing DNA from at least 30 individuals who had contact with Chiara’s body or were in her social circle, including friends of her brother and Sempio, to identify “Unknown 3.” This includes rescuers, funeral workers, and crime scene investigators.
Challenges and Controversies
The case faces several hurdles:
- Incomplete DNA Profile: Marzio Capra notes that no full DNA profile was obtained from the gauze, only a Y-chromosome haplotype, which can identify a paternal lineage but not an individual. This limits its investigative value compared to cases like Yara Gambirasio’s, where a full profile led to a conviction.
- Procedural Errors: The use of non-sterile gauze and potential lapses in 2007 autopsy protocols raise doubts about the evidence’s integrity. X posts reflect public frustration, with users like @Stephanie_yy criticizing the use of inadequate tools like “non-sterilized tweezers” or “a Vileda mop.”
- Media Speculation: The Pavia Prosecutor’s Office, via Fabio Napoleone, has rebuked media and TV pundits for speculative reconstructions, urging restraint until official findings are released. This follows sensationalized coverage, including an ex-police officer’s attempt to sell case photos for €30 conferences, prompting privacy concerns.
- Legal Implications: Justice Minister Carlo Nordio commented that the case’s complexity and Stasi’s prior acquittals in lower courts highlight flaws in Italy’s judicial system. A new trial or revision for Stasi, who is nearing the end of his sentence, remains possible but challenging after 18 years.
Broader Context and Public Sentiment
The Garlasco case has gripped Italy for nearly two decades, with public sentiment divided between those who believe Stasi is guilty and others who see the new DNA evidence as proof of a miscarriage of justice. X posts reflect this tension, with @Masssimilianoo expressing “shock” at new evidence like a blood-stained handprint not matching Stasi, and @KtStefi criticizing the initial investigation’s failure to analyze the oral swab for non-seminal DNA. The case’s high profile, amplified by TV shows like Quarto Grado and Chi l’ha visto?, has fueled public fascination and debate, often bordering on sensationalism.
Next Steps
The evidentiary hearing resumes on July 23, 2025, with fingerprint expert Domenico Marchigiani tasked with analyzing additional evidence, such as garbage items (tea packets, cereal boxes, yogurt containers) and acetate sheets with fingerprints from 2007. The prosecution aims to identify “Unknown 3” by expanding DNA comparisons, but the minute quantity and potential contamination complicate this effort. If no match is found, the case may remain unresolved, leaving questions about whether “Unknown 3” was a killer, an innocent bystander, or a procedural artifact.
Conclusion
Excluding recent contaminations, the “Unknown 3” DNA in Chiara Poggi’s oral gauze represents a tantalizing yet ambiguous clue in the Garlasco case. While it does not match Alberto Stasi or Andrea Sempio, its minute quantity and the use of non-sterile gauze suggest contamination during the 2007 autopsy is the most likely explanation. The Pavia Prosecutor’s Office continues to explore the accomplice theory, but without a full DNA profile or corroborating evidence, the case remains a complex puzzle. As Italy grapples with this high-profile mystery, the focus on forensic integrity and judicial fairness underscores the challenges of revisiting cold cases after nearly two decades.
Disclaimer: This article is based on reports available as of July 20, 2025. Ongoing investigations may yield new findings. Readers are encouraged to follow official updates from the Pavia Prosecutor’s Office.
Sources: