Murder in the Vatican

by Lucien Gregoire

  Even the American cardiologist, Dr. C. Francis Roe, the ‘expert’ witness Cornwell bases his conclusion on, tells Cornwell “I’ve seen many embolism deaths. Yet, I’ve never seen any of them die unresponsive to what was happening to them.”12

  Eye embolism vs. pulmonary embolism

  Lina based her theory on an incident that had occurred in 1975.

  Yallop and Cornwell interviewed Dr. Rama who treated Luciani for what was thought to be a clot in the left retina. The condition was treated with aspirin and mild medication and the result was quick and recovery of vision was complete and had never reoccurred.

  According to Dr. Rama’s testimony Luciani’s viscosity level was normal—the reason he was not put on the anticoagulant Warfarin.

  When I talked to Luciani’s doctor Da Ros after the Pope’s death I asked him why Luciani’s physical exams included ultrasound and viscosity testing? This seemed strange to me, as this kind of testing was done only when a clotting problem is suspected. I assumed Da Ros had made it a part of his exams because of the ‘eye’ incident.

  He told me it had nothing to do with it. Though he avoided the word ‘hypochondriac,’ he told me Luciani was overly concerned with his health and made use of every available test. Ultrasound and viscosity had been a part of his exams for a decade or more.

  Da Ros told me to think an eye embolism could develop into a massive pulmonary embolism would be as much as to think a man died of pneumonia because he sneezed on a single occasion a few years ago. Though both clots, one has very little to do with the other.

  A retina embolus originates in the throat and is microscopic in nature whereas a pulmonary embolus generally originates in the legs and is enormous in nature. A pulmonary embolism that blocks the pulmonary artery—an inch and quarter in diameter—can be as big around as a man’s thumb and a foot long.9

  It would not take a world-renowned cardiologist to tell one that a massive pulmonary embolus could not develop in the human body instantly when the patient has had no history of it. Also, that it could move from the legs through the heart to the lungs without the patient being aware of it. Again, one can draw on common sense.

  This is precisely the position of the medical community today, though both clots, one has very little to do with the other.9

  Yes, had Luciani died of a clot to the brain—a microscopic clot that comes up from the throat—one might relate it to the retina problem. Yet, as we have just demonstrated, this was not the case.

  This is consistent with a study involving twenty-five hundred patients who succumbed to pulmonary embolism, not one had a history of retina blockage. Yet, another study which examined fifteen hundred patients who had died of cerebral hemorrhage disclosed three percent had a history of retina blockage.10

  Low blood pressure, heart attack, embolism, anticoagulants

  When Yallop and Cornwell wrote their books, low blood pressure was thought to be a contributing cause to myocardial infarction and pulmonary embolism.11 Yet, today, low blood pressure is known to be as surefire prevention of heart attack and embolism that exists.4

  In the case of a massive myocardial infarction—heart attack—one that kills quickly—there is a strangulating pain in the heart, like a ‘charley horse’ to the heart. For those who don’t already know it, the heart is technically a muscle. Death occurs in minutes.4

  In the case of a massive pulmonary embolism—one that kills quickly—a sharp piercing stabbing pain to the lungs is followed by a period of painful shortness of breath, in turn, followed by a period of palpitations—rapid beating of the heart—ending in cardiac arrest.4

  In a massive embolism, death normally occurs within an hour or two. There have been rare cases where death occurs in minutes, yet, these have been limited to patients being treated for the condition.4

  Yet, Lina Petri’s testimony is important in determining the truth.

  Again, when one investigates the possibility of murder, one must consider not only the evidence that is there, but also the evidence which should be there, and is not there.

  As we have said, in Hercule Poirot’s Hickory Dickory Dock we have the footprints which should have been there and were not there. In Sherlock Holmes’ Silver Blaze we have the dog which should have barked and did not bark. In the Swiss Guard Murders we have the commander’s weapon which should have been there and was not there. In the case of the 33-day Pope, we have the alarm clock which should have rung and did not ring. In the case of Lina Petri, we have the testimony that should be there and is not there.

  In her testimony to Cornwell, she speaks of retinas and swollen legs of elephantine proportions to support her theory of embolism. She speaks in speculations and implications and innuendos. She ‘thinks’ he may have been on anticoagulants.

  Yet, there is something that should be there, but is not there. She tells us what she ‘thinks.’ She does not tell us what she ‘knows.’

  Lina Petri was, by all accounts, the closest family member of the Pope. So close, she had visited him a number of times in his brief papacy. So close, she had been the first of the family at his bedside.

  What’s more, she was a physician.

  To ‘think’ he could have been on anticoagulants and she not have ‘known’ of it would boggle the imagination. After all, it would be no secret, many people would have known of it. At the time, anticoagulants, still true today, required weekly visits to a hospital or laboratory for viscosity testing.

  Warfarin, the common anticoagulant of 1978 as it remains today, is a dangerous drug and requires ongoing testing lest one risk bleeding to death internally.

  It is well known, during his papacy he was never examined by a physician other than Dr. Da Ros, the pharmacy never issued him a prescription of any kind, and had he showed up at the Vatican clinic every week we certainly would have heard about it by this time.

  We also know from Dr. Da Ros’ testimony to the press, viscosity testing had not been a part of the three visits he made to the Papal Palace during John Paul’s papacy.15

  Lina is not an impartial witness. As a surviving family member, particularly one so close to him, in the Cornwell testimony, she was at the mercy of John Paul II. She would do anything he asked of her. Like his other surviving kin, Lina’s driving ambition for her beloved uncle rests entirely with the sitting Pontiff—sainthood.

  For this reason today, clergy books and websites are designed to destroy the controversial life of Albino Luciani and bury the truth of his death. The Vatican is calling the shots. It holds the cards.

  “…upright in his hands.”

  Yet, concerning the most critical piece of evidence determining the question of murder vs. natural causes, all parties agree.

  Both Vatican releases were explicit the ‘Imitation of Christ (1st release) and ‘the papers’ (2nd release) were ‘upright in his hands.’1&3

  John Magee, in the testimony he gave Cornwell, is explicit in his description of the body, “…there he was, propped up with pillows, his papers still erect in his hands, his face turned to the right, with his spectacles on, he looked intent on what he was reading.”12

  Magee agrees with Sister Vincenza’s description as released by ANSA—Italy’s most reputable wire service—the day the pope was found dead, “…The light was on. He was sitting up in bed in his daytime clothes reading papers held upright in his hands. He was looking in my direction. I greeted him, ‘Good morning.’ He held to a mime position as if deeply involved in what he was reading…”12

  Lorenzi told Cornwell he took the papers from the Pope’s hands. “‘…He was sitting up in a position like this.’ Lorenzi imitated a typical reading position pushing his glasses slightly down on his nose… ‘The light by the bed was on. One would never guess he was dead. The sheets of paper were upright…That is, they had not fallen… I, myself, took the papers out of his hands…’”12

  It has been well documented Lina Petri spent a half-hour in the room with her uncle before the embalmers took charge. She deta
iled her description to Cornwell which agreed with that of Lorenzi, Magee, Vincenza and all the others bought to the room. “It was as if he was smiling at me. His face showed no sign of suffering…there was something very strange. He was wearing his daytime clothes…if in bed why was he wearing his daytime clothes? …His sleeves were all torn. Why should they be torn like that? I wondered…”12

  Lina does not mention the papers as she viewed the body five hours after it had been found and they had already been removed.

  One can trust these descriptions as all of these witnesses were at the mercy of John Paul II. Vincenza, Magee and Lorenzi were clergy and Lina depended on the sitting Pontiff for her uncle’s sainthood.

  None of them mention vomit which erases the digitalis-Effortil myth which in her testimony she refers to as ‘a crackpot idea.’12

  As already pointed out, Dr. Da Ros had denied having prescribed Effortil.14 What’s more, the Vatican pharmacy testified it had not issued prescriptions of any kind to John Paul.12

  Fifteen years later, Da Ros crushed the rumor of ‘swollen legs of elephantine proportions.’ He spent the Saturday afternoon before the Pope’s death with him and assured the press the Pope had never suffered from swollen feet either during of before his papacy.15

  Regardless, who took the papers from his hands is immaterial. What is important here is that all parties agree they were upright.

  You will not find a cardiologist in the world who would testify in a court of law today that John Paul could have died of myocardial infarction or pulmonary embolism and not have dropped his papers.

  John Paul II personally met with John Cornwell and approved those interviewed. One can speculate Magee, after nine years, added ‘pain’ to the soup as part of his being made a bishop as a prerequisite to the Cornwell interviews. One can speculate Lorenzi, after nine years, added ‘pain’ to the soup as a part of his special allegiance to a reigning pontiff required by his order of the Don Orione Brothers. As Lorenzi told Cornwell, “I have taken a vow of obedience. I do anything I am told.”12 One can speculate Lina Petri gave her ‘expert’ testimony to pave the way for Luciani’s sainthood in a conservative church—the reason why others who knew him tend to annihilate the controversial life of Albino Luciani today. One will never know.

  Yet, what one does know is John Paul did not die of heart attack or, for that matter, pulmonary embolism. As we shall see, he died of a more deadly malady…the collaborating and politicking of men.

  It is not important to know who took the papers from his hands. All that is important is who put the papers in his hands. Who put the papers in his hands is the same person who placed the glasses on his nose. Someone who did not know he did not require them to read.

  Suicide

  Next, we have suicide. That he did not pull the cord or press a button could have been intentional on his part—true if suicide had been his intent. There is only one method of suicide that would have not left evidence of foul play for those who found him—poison.

  Only two poisons result in painless, instantaneous or close to instantaneous death, strychnine and cyanide—the reason they have found their way into mystery novels.19 Strychnine can be eliminated as it results in massive convulsions for a few minutes before death—it would have never left him in the position he was found.

  Cyanide concealed in food would take several minutes, as much as an hour, to kill him. Yet, biting down on a cyanide capsule would kill him almost instantly as in a gaseous form it is deadly. When one bites down on the capsule the gas attacks membranes cutting off oxygen flow almost immediately. Yet, had this been the case, he would have required an accomplice. Death occurs so suddenly it is impossible to swallow the capsule. No capsule was found.

  Yet, what closes the lid on suicide is motive. Here was a very purposeful man who had worked all of his life to attain the position he now found himself in. Now he had the power to right the wrongs of the past, to bring an end to bigotry once and for all. Now he was in a position to bring an end to poverty and starvation in the world. That he would take his own life on the very brink of the realization of his lifelong dreams makes no sense at all.

  What’s more, one has the testimony of Dr. Da Ros. It boggles the imagination to think a ‘hypochondriac’ would take one’s own life.

  Accident

  Again, the position of the body is the clue.

  If you can come up with an accident that could have left the body in the position in which it was found you are much more a Sherlock Holmes than I. For certain an accident was not involved.

  Unless, he had been killed by an accident caused by someone’s negligence who, in covering up, sat him up in the position found. This would be true if Lorenzi had accidentally killed his master.

  Lorenzi? Why Lorenzi?

  Of all the men in the world, other than the guard, he was the only one who had unlimited access to the Pope throughout the night. In his case, he would not even have to pass through the main corridor, as a door connected the secretaries’ office directly to the papal study which annexed the papal bedroom. Let us consider the possibility.

  Dr. Da Ros was emphatic that the only prescription he had issued Luciani still active at the time of the Pope’s death was for treatment of the adrenal cortex. The injections were given twice a year—toward the end of March and toward the end of September.15

  Although not required for the medicine involved one normally refrigerates injection vials. It is likely they were stored in the kitchen refrigerator with other medicine of members of the papal household. Cardinal Confalonieri stored his insulin in this refrigerator and one of the nuns who suffered from a thyroid condition also stored her medicine there. There may have been others. One will never know.

  One might assume Vincenza gave the injections. Yet, that they were given in the area of the buttocks it is unlikely a nun would have had the Pope drop his pants. They were most likely administered by his secretary Lorenzi whom he had brought with him from Venice.

  It is possible Lorenzi unknowingly injected the Pope with a lethal substance—he had mistakenly taken the wrong vial. If this had been the case, it would explain many circumstances surrounding the death of the 33-day Pope.

  It would explain why the Pope was dressed in his daytime clothes as the injection would have been given shortly after he retired at 9:30 the evening before—it would make no sense John Paul would awaken Lorenzi at four in the morning to give him an injection.

  It would explain why Lorenzi told Cornwell nine years after the Pope’s death John Paul had experienced chest pains whereas he had not mentioned pain to anyone else for nine years. 6

  It would explain why Lorenzi has repeatedly denied the Pope was murdered when he has no other way to know this.

  It would explain why Lorenzi has repeatedly told the press John Paul wanted to die, as to suggest he was suicidal. For example, his testimony in Cornwell’s A Thief in the Night, “He was constantly talking of death, his papacy would be a short one. John Paul told me, ‘The type of rest I would like is for a good and quick death.’”12

  It would explain the missing slipper socks which Lorenzi may have used to wipe the tinge of blood an injection would leave.

  It would explain why the alarm clock did not go off. It had never been set to begin with.

  It would explain why the Pope was sitting up reading with his glasses on with papers held upright in his hands. It would make sense for Lorenzi to sit the Pope up reading papers to give the impression he died while reading the evening before. Otherwise Lorenzi alone would have had to dress John Paul in his bedclothes.

  Yet, if he staged the body for the nun to find in the morning, why place the glasses on its nose. Of all the people in the Vatican, he and Vincenza would have known John Paul didn’t need them to read. Yet, he may have been clever enough to have done this to place suspicions away from him in the event foul play was suspected.

  It may be the notes held in his hands were, indeed, listings of cardinals to be removed from offi
ce as the rumors had suggested—composed and staged by Lorenzi to cast suspicions toward others.

  Yet, there is an inconsistency in this supposition. It conflicts with the embalmers’ claim ‘the body was warm.’ A corpse will usually fall from 98.6 to its environmental temperature in about 8 hours after death. Yet, there are factors which can slow the rate of cooling.

  We know from the nun’s testimony, though dressed in daytime clothes, the bedclothes were pulled partly up over him which could have warmed the body surface. Body fat, some foods and certain toxic substances can greatly slow the rate of loss of body heat.

  Yet, we are talking here of the chance of a snowball in hell. That these conditions could have misled the embalmers is highly unlikely.

  Then again, it may be the nun Vincenza did ask the Pope to drop his pants. She gave John Paul the injection. She accidentally killed the Pope. In her case, she could have given him the injection when she delivered coffee—consistent with the embalmers’ claim he had not been dead for more than an hour or two.

  The argument against this is that being a small woman she would have had difficulty maneuvering the body into position. Also, in her subsequent actions she never tried to cover up for murder. In fact, it was her unwavering witness through the years which supports much of the investigation that continues to go on today.

  Regardless, this is all speculation. One will really never know.

  One has to assume Lorenzi or someone else accidentally killed the Pope at the exact moment in history his enemies both inside the Vatican and across the pond wanted him dead. This is unfathomable chance of coincidence. Yet, it remains a possibility that someone accidentally killed the Pope and covered up. For this reason, though a long shot, one must keep it on the table.

  A possible alternative is Lorenzi did not accidentally kill the Pope. He was unknowingly an accomplice to murder. He thought he accidentally killed the Pope and staged the cover up, whereas, as a matter-of-fact, someone else had tampered with the vials.