“I hosted the Marogna, he was afraid of going to a hotel for Covid”
VATICAN CITY. Eight hours of tight questions and answers from the adjunct promoter of justice Alessandro Diddi to Cardinal Angelo Becciu, the most prominent defendant in the Vatican trial on the investments of the Secretariat of State, born from the sale of the building at Sloane Avenue 60, in London. This was the 15th hearing held today, with the second part of the interrogation of the Sardinian cardinal, which will continue tomorrow. But at the beginning Becciu wanted to clarify that he had no role in the resignation, on June 19, 2017, of the then Vatican auditor general Libero Milone. Last time, on the question, Becciu had made use of the faculty not to answer, “to safeguard the Holy Father”.
“In these days I asked the Pope if I could speak freely and he said yes – he then reported -. I therefore want to briefly clarify what I am aware of. I have no responsibility for the resignation of Dr. Milone. I only carried out the order of the Holy Father ». «The Pope called me – he continued -: ‘Your Excellency, I would ask you to call Dr. Milone and tell him that he no longer enjoys the Holy Father’s trust and he must resign. I called Milone himself in the morning and informed him of the Pope’s decision. The reasons were those that were then written in the statement of September 24, 2017, after Milone’s statements to the press. In short, Milone, ‘beyond his competence, illegally hired an external company to carry out investigative activities on the private life of exponents of Santa Sedè. I strongly reiterate that I had no role in the Holy Father’s decision ».
Becciu, of which part of the press conference of 25 September 2020 was screened in the hall, in the aftermath of the shock-hearing in which Pope Francis deprived him of his office in the Curia and of the rights of the cardinalate, had to respond to the Pg on a series of documents on the records concerning the management of the funds, on which, however, admitting the need for a great effort, he often replied “I don’t remember”.
“It was the Administrative Office (that of Mons. Alberto Perlasca and Fabrizio Tirabassi) that prepared the dossiers for me and I limited myself to visiting – explained the former substitute for General Affairs -. The Office had to show me the pros and cons. He had the moral obligation not to put the superior in difficulty. The task also of not making the superior look bad. And if they presented me with something as advantageous, I signed it. It was their duty to facilitate the decision of the substitute ».
The climate in the classroom was very tense, with frequent bickering between the defenses and the accusation and the need on the part of President Giuseppe Pignatone to stop the controversy. In addition to the London Palace, Becciu speaks of relations with the diocese of Ozieri, of the alleged ‘misdirection that is contested with the proposal formulated by third parties on the purchase of the London Palace (“I spoke to Prof. Gian Piero Milano, I said there is this offer, a fund that wants to propose itself for this building. He said: “Maybe! Go ahead. If I had had different purposes, I would have talked about it with the promoter of justice?”), again tackles the question Cecilia Marogna and he denies ever having spoken of “ransom” for the Colombian nun kidnapped in Mali.
But on the former Sardinian manager, in particular on her overnight stay at his house mentioned in the indictment file, he gives his version: «I am a faithful reader of Manzoni. Do you remember Fra Cristoforo who welcomes Lucia to the Monastery and responds to the disputes ‘Omnia munda mundis’? She came to me in the evening, we had to talk. It got late. When she was leaving the nuns who assist me at home told me: ‘the lady is afraid to go to a hotel because there is Covid. Can we house it? ‘ I said yes. I found her the next morning at breakfast and then she left. The thing went like this ». At the beginning of the hearing, President Pignatone read the ordinance with which he partly rejected and partly accepted the exceptions of the defenses on the civil action of the key witness Alberto Perlasca, admitted only against card. Becciu for the crime of “subornation of a witness” and instead rejected against the other defendants Tirabassi, Torzi, Crasso and Squillace for the crime of fraud for having been – according to him – “misled” in the signing of the provision that he left to Torzi the thousand shares with voting rights and therefore control of the Sloane Avenue Building. (Fausto Gasparroni / ANSA)