No, the English lead and the possible involvement of Cardinal Ugo Poletti in the disappearance of Emanuela Orlandi are nothing new. According to some testimonies, which Pietro Orlandi recently spoke about, Poletti was responsible for managing Emanuela in London, as also demonstrated by an epistolary communication between him and the archbishop of Canterbury: “He often spoke with my sister at Sant’Apollinare, my sister Emanuela knew him well. She was not returned to her family because she witnessed…”
THEtogether with Pietro Orlandi we of MOW we have participated to the sit-in to remember Emanuela on the anniversary of his disappearance. They have passed forty-one years from that hot summer afternoon, from that June 22, 1983 who changed the life of the Orlandi family forever, delivering Emanuela, fifteen year old Vatican citizen, to the realm of missing persons. But no one had taken into account a brother, Pietro, willing to do anything just to find her. As in every sit-in, Pietro retraced the salient moments of the events that have occurred in all these years, but it seems that the journalists have only discovered now the possible involvement of Cardinal Ugo Poletti. Also because of him, and of the possible English trackthere was really a lot of talk: “A manage Emanuela’s situation in London it would have been Cardinal Ugo Poletti. He often talked to my sister a Saint ApollinarisEmanuela lo he knew well as we knew other cardinals and prelates well, having been born and raised in the Vatican. I was told that it was for Poletti difficulty And painful this situation but he couldn’t help it. The London track it’s trueI am convinced. I think that Emanuela, after some requests were satisfied by the blackmailed people, was returned but not to the family because she was a direct witness of things that were too big. They didn’t have the conscience to feed it to criminals again (probably the Magliana band) because there would forever be gods witnesses and therefore a new blackmail. Someone like this took charge of Emanuela on behalf of the Vatican. Even though she was still alive, they destroyed her life that day”. But what is this English track that Pietro talks about? We are in 2015 when Emiliano Fittipaldidirector of Domani, comes into possession of a document, the famous five sheetspreviously preserved in Prefecture of Economic Affairs of the Vaticanwithin one safe. The title of the document is surprising: “summary report of the expenses incurred by the Vatican City State for related activities to home removal of the citizen Emanuela Orlandi”.
Ddocument that follows a time frame starting from 1983 to 1997 and which, needless to say, was immediately branded as false from the Vatican, even if there are some collateral evidence that would demonstrate its authenticity, as Pietro Orlandi told us several years ago. Ergo, nothing new for the writer: “I have come into possession of documents in which there is evidence that tells me that what is written in those papers is true. Some people, in contact with personalities from the Anglican Church, told me things in relation to Emanuela’s presence in London. There are relationships between high-level figures from the Vatican and English institutions”. Who are these personalities? We remind you once again: the Archbishop of Canterbury and Cardinal Ugo Polettiknown for having consented to the burial of Enrico De Pedis, boss of the Banda della Magliana, in the Basilica of Sant’Apollinare. There is evidence of one epistolary communication between the two, in which clear reference is made to Emanuela, when Poletti he was no longer vicar of Rome, but archpriest of the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore. This one too coincidence? A misdirection? Everything regarding the English track is yet to be verified. The Archbishop of Canterbury writes to Poletti as follows: “Dear Eminence, knowing that you will be here in London for a few days, I feel obliged to invite you to visit me in the next few days, to discuss personally the situation of Emanuela Orlandi of which I am a knowledge. After years of correspondence, I think it is right to discuss a situation of such importance personally. Please let me know if you need a personal translator or if you will bring one with you. I await your response in the next few days.” At first glance, Poletti’s response could be identified as a fake, given that it was sent using his letterhead as vicar, and we know that in that period of time he no longer exercised that role. But there is a however, because Poletti he had all the remaining paper headed in his name sent to him. Is this also a coincidence? Forty-one years after Emanuela’s death we are still waiting for clarity.
