Why the Vatican investigation on the Orlandi case lacks legal standing

The Vatican Girl 

A worldwide famous crime story, potential allegations against the Catholic Church and a still unsolved mystery. How could these elements not lead to a story full of gossip? This is, in fact, the case. But, the Orlandi case is not just an unbelievable riddle: it is full of legal implications. Starting from the beginning, the 22nd of October 1983. A girl, a Vatican girl called Emanuela Orlandi, was kidnapped in Rome. Her body was never found and the real truth has never emerged, even if various leads are still on the table. On them, journalists spent huge quantities of ink and a Netflix documentary was released, bringing the case to the international scene. If the debate on the potential solutions to the thriller is still ongoing, what still lacks is a critical analysis of how the case was handled. As a matter of fact, if a case is still pending after more than 40 years, beyond many red herrings, it means that a problem from the legal point of view is there, as well. 

Tracking the legal history 

From a judicial point of view, the history of the investigations on Emanuela’s disappearance is as tangled as the affair in itself. Currently, and this is why it seems the appropriate moment to have a look at them, there are even three investigations running on the case. The first and probably most important investigation is the one opened in Vatican City by the order of the Pope himself. It is the first time in the history of this case that the Holy See accepts to somehow collaborate. Then, a bicameral committee of inquiry has been  established by the Italian parliament. And, furthermore, the third case before the Prosecutor of Rome has begun. The first two cases in Rome turned out to be a completely non-event. The one started immediately after that damn day of 1983 was in the end dismissed in 1997. The second trial ended in 2015 in controversial circumstances, which fuel doubts on both the current cases, either the third Italian attempt and the Vatican one. 

Doubts on the legal standing of the Vatican investigation

Judges should not only be impartial, but also appear to be so. The series of facts that will be here listed is without prejudice to the intentions of the people mentioned. Nevertheless, a series of “casual coincidences” depict an unsettling picture. This at least raises a matter of opportunity and appropriateness on the legitimacy of the case in regards to the impartiality of the people involved. The same concerns were exteriorized by Emanuela’s brother, Pietro Orlandi, who spent his entire life fighting for truth for his sister. Let’s put the events in order. 

Firstly, the second Orlandi case in Rome was dismissed after the arrival of Giuseppe Pignatone as the Chief Prosecutor of Rome. The investigations  were at the time headed by Giancarlo Capaldo, who would later tell  to have been approached by two Vatican’s envoys, who tried to influence the case. Pignatone repeatedly denied knowing about this fact and contextually decided to dismiss the case. Later on, wiretapping on a call between two members of the Banda della Magliana, an Italian criminal organization potentially involved in the case, were speaking of Pignatone as “our Prosecutor” - or maybe the “new Prosecutor”, this is not clear - sure that he will acquit them, as happened. This controversial man arrived at the Prosecutor of Rome spot after being involved in the Palamara case, a scandal in which a man was accused of manipulating judicial nominees in Italy. Palamara wanted to send Pignatone to Rome, according to other wire tappings, in order to let him deal with two hot cases, including the Orlandi case. Regardless of all these facts, including also the fact that Pignatone is currently investigated in Caltanissetta for having favored the Mafia, he was later appointed President of the Vatican Tribunal. He was in charge until a few months ago, when he resigned because of supervening age limits, just as a verdict on Emanuela is awaited. 

Another question of legitimacy could be raised against the Vatican Promoter of Justice, Alessandro Diddi. This one is related to the fact that, previously, Diddi served as an advocate in the Italian jurisdiction, defending members of the Banda della Magliana and publicly expressing his thought about the fact that the role of the organization in the case is “overestimated”. In addition, he opposed the establishment of the inquiry commission in the Italian Parliament, labelling it as a “pernicious interference”. Pietro Orlandi is accusing him of having done nothing in two years from now, including not hearing persons informed about the facts. Diddi once confirmed that an “Orlandi dossier” somewhere exists in the Vatican City. Nothing can be said regarding the accuracy of these allegations. On the opposite side, much more could be said on the questionable way in which the whole inquiry has been managed.

References and Further Reading

“Pignatone fa lo gnorri: Orlandi? Non sapevo del fascicolo né degli incontri col Vaticano” (Il Giornale)

“Caso Orlandi, parla Giuseppe Pignatone: “Su di me illazioni, non ho elementi per ipotizzare piste””(La Repubblica)

“Il sistema. Potere, politica affari: storia segreta della magistratura italiana” (Luca Palamara, Alessandro Sallusti)

Another twist in the 40-year-old missing ‘Vatican girl’ case (CNN)