"The document is likely to shift focus at the trial away from the role of Pope Francis in the London deal at its center, and back onto the key prosecution witness, Msgr. Alberto Perlasca."
But Sandro Magister comes to a diametrically different conclusion:
"But that Francis was among the protagonists of the affair that has ended up on trial at the Vatican is now firmly established. And if the accused take him to court? The great unknown will be how to untie this knot."
Sandro Magister tells us:
'The alternative hypotheses initially evaluated at the Secretariat of State were the following: “1) file a suit against Torzi; 2) acquire full control of the asset (thus quantifying the value of the one thousand shares).”
The solution adopted was the second, not only because it was “considered cheaper and with more contained risks,” but above all because it was “strictly aligned with the Superior will,” that is, with the will of the pope. Who not only encouraged the Secretariat of State to proceed along this path, but himself gave the impetus to the negotiations, as reported by Peña Parra in the Note'
Effectively Pope Francis is a trustee of the Vatican money. Sandro Magister paints him as a friend of Tortzi. Given the choice of legal action against Tortzi or paying 10 million euros to Tortzi to buy the controlling shares Pope Francis favours the latter. That is an appalling breach of trust if true.
I suspect this trial will collapse if this allegation is maintained as as Diddi says the one person who cannot be cross-examined is Pope Francis.
In the end it depends on how much one buys the "the pope and senior officials were duped/misled" thing.
From a standpoint of criminal law, it's a pretty powerful excuse. From a standpoint of scandal/corruption, the bottom line is a lot of corruption happened under this pontificate, and Francis' attempts to redress it have been mixed, at best.
Duped or misled as to what Tortzi intended to do and did may be a good excuse as you say. But it was what they did subsequently that matters i.e. paying him the 10,000 euros. They were not duped or misled at that point.
You start this article saying:
"The document is likely to shift focus at the trial away from the role of Pope Francis in the London deal at its center, and back onto the key prosecution witness, Msgr. Alberto Perlasca."
But Sandro Magister comes to a diametrically different conclusion:
"But that Francis was among the protagonists of the affair that has ended up on trial at the Vatican is now firmly established. And if the accused take him to court? The great unknown will be how to untie this knot."
Sandro Magister tells us:
'The alternative hypotheses initially evaluated at the Secretariat of State were the following: “1) file a suit against Torzi; 2) acquire full control of the asset (thus quantifying the value of the one thousand shares).”
The solution adopted was the second, not only because it was “considered cheaper and with more contained risks,” but above all because it was “strictly aligned with the Superior will,” that is, with the will of the pope. Who not only encouraged the Secretariat of State to proceed along this path, but himself gave the impetus to the negotiations, as reported by Peña Parra in the Note'
Effectively Pope Francis is a trustee of the Vatican money. Sandro Magister paints him as a friend of Tortzi. Given the choice of legal action against Tortzi or paying 10 million euros to Tortzi to buy the controlling shares Pope Francis favours the latter. That is an appalling breach of trust if true.
I suspect this trial will collapse if this allegation is maintained as as Diddi says the one person who cannot be cross-examined is Pope Francis.
In the end it depends on how much one buys the "the pope and senior officials were duped/misled" thing.
From a standpoint of criminal law, it's a pretty powerful excuse. From a standpoint of scandal/corruption, the bottom line is a lot of corruption happened under this pontificate, and Francis' attempts to redress it have been mixed, at best.
Duped or misled as to what Tortzi intended to do and did may be a good excuse as you say. But it was what they did subsequently that matters i.e. paying him the 10,000 euros. They were not duped or misled at that point.