The journalist Andrea Cionci has once again asked me to republish one of his new articles. The english translation provided is his.
___________________
In any investigation, it is precisely the contradictions of those who try to keep the truth concealed that bring it out IN A DISRUPTIVE WAY. This is what is happening with the possible attack suffered by Benedict XVI in 2012, via overdose of sleeping pills, which we already wrote about and which is looking more plausible by the day.
In fact, at least THREE DIFFERENT VERSIONS have been circulating regarding the accident which could very well have been the basis for his choice to retire (via impeded see). The first version to emerge was that of Andrea Tornielli, then Vaticanist for La Stampa and now editorial director of antipope communications, who on Feb. 14, 2013, with keen timing, published an article titled "He fell, injured his head and decided: I'm leaving," citing an account from a mysterious prelate. The source of this information would have to have been on of the five of cardinals who were part of the papal retinue on the apostolic journey (Bertone, Ouellet, Cañizares, Sarah, Baragán), the two bishops (Becciu. Mamberti) and the six Monsignors Marini, Gänswein, Xuereb, Arellano, Krajewski and Ravelli.
The second version of the case is recounted in Pseudo-Gänswein's book "Nothing but the Truth" published in January 2023. We write "pseudo" because this book, as already discussed, contains egregious contradictions, which are useful only to legitimize Bergoglio. The book seems to have been manipulated by other hands, so much so that Ganswein wanted to withdraw it before its release.
Finally, the third is Benedict XVI's version, in a letter sent on Oct. 28, 2022 to Peter Seewald, partially published by his German colleague after the release of Gänswein's book, and then granted to us in full by him in April.
Today we demonstrate for the first time why pseudo-Gänswein's version is resoundingly FALSE, disproved by the videos, while that of the unknown prelate differs from the Pope's account in equally glaring details.
Let's start with the first version, that of the Prelate interviewed by Tornielli: "On the morning of March 25, on the last day spent in León (Mexico ed.)," the prelate recounts, "Benedict XVI got up with blood in his hair. His collaborators asked him what had happened. The Pope said that he did not fall, but that he ran into the sink a few hours earlier. He had gotten up to go to the bathroom, and as sometimes happens when we awaken in the middle of the night in an environment that is not our usual one, he had not immediately found the light switch and so had moved in the dark. [...] Even the pillow was stained with blood," our interlocutor continues, "and a few drops had stained the carpet as well. [...] But it was not a deep or worrying wound. The affected area remained under the white skullcap and was anyway well disguised by the Pontiff's thick hair [... ] There were no visible patches," the prelate added, "as happened to John Paul II [...] He had no problems wearing the miter that we placed on his head during Mass [...] Everything went well and only in the evening, back at the residence of the religious, there was a more thorough dressing done. [...] Perhaps that nighttime incident in the Capuchin nuns' house, with the possibility of more serious consequences, of hospitalization far from Rome, helped to mature a decision that nine months later would lead to last Monday's historic announcement."Please note: the prelate who, during Mass, places the miter on Benedict's head is Archbishop Kraiewsky, as seen in the video we have found at minute 20.10. Could it perhaps have been he who provided this account to Tornielli? Kraiewsky will receive in 2018, invalidly, the galero from Bergoglio passing to the headlines as the "cardinal electrician," the one who went to illegally reattach the light in occupied buildings, without paying the bills.
Here, instead, is Pseudo-Gänswein's version in Nothing but the Truth: "What's more, in Mexico, the Pope tripped over a mat while in the bathroom to shave and fell on his back, hitting his head on the shower stall ledge. He had no loss of consciousness or particular problems, but a couple of stitches were needed to suture the wound. Despite the dressing, the bleeding continued, to the point that Monsignor Guido Marini was forced not to remove his skullcap, which covered the stained gauze, at times when the liturgy would have required it during the Mass in the Parque del bicentennial in León, so much so that some thought the Master of Celebrations had been distracted!"
First of all, Pseudo-Gänswein's version is resoundingly refuted by the video of the Mass at Leon's bicentennial Parque on March 25, 2012, which you will find HERE since on the Vatican website, strangely enough, the video "cannot be reached" by clicking on the link provided.
Now, according to the Bishop's Ceremonial, the skullcap is to be removed before the consecration and after communion. At minute 52.00, HERE you see that Bishop Guido Marini does not remove the skullcap from the Pope because he is obviously holding the missal in Spanish that the Holy Father is reading, and not for any other reason.
Instead, the Pope's head is uncovered by the 2nd Master of Ceremonies, Bishop Krajewsky, and the liturgy goes off perfectly smoothly. But what is important is that the Holy Father's snow-white head does not show any bloodstained gauze.
HERE are images from the video showing Benedict XVI's hair completely intact, without swabs or patches. Why infuse that account with so many details about the gauze, the skullcap, Msgr. Marini's "distraction," knowing that a quick check would be enough to blow the reconstruction apart?
At this point, one might assume that the real Gänswein did it on purpose, to stir up controversy, as he had done in the past HERE , or that the pseudo-Gänswein was really so careless as to clumsily expose himself to the debunking.
Finally, there is Benedict XVI's account: "During my apostolic trip to Santiago de Cuba in March 2012, I woke up the morning after the first night and, as usual, I used my handkerchief and realized that it was completely soaked in blood. I must have hit something in the bathroom and fallen. Thank God, there was an extremely well-respected surgeon on the team of doctors escorting me who knew how to treat it so it wouldn't become obvious."It speaks of "first night," so it had to be March 26 in Cuba, since the Mass at Parque had been on the 25th and the pope had arrived in Mexico on the 23rd. In no way could it refer to the 25th.
From this diagram you will be able to see, at a glance, how the three versions present macroscopic differences In addition to the differences, we will see how the two versions unrelated to Benedict offer reconstructions of absurd, as well as mutually contradictory, dynamics.
Prelate-Tornielli: the night is the one between the 24th and 25th, in Mexico. The Pope bumps from disorientation caused by darkness in a new environment. He slams his head on the sink in the parietal area, which he later covers with his skullcap. Blood comes out, but the wound is not deep and there is no mention of stitches. Benedict does not wear gauze or band-aids on his head during the mass at Parque because his thick hair covers everything and the wound has clotted. Now, since the sink is usually no more than a meter off the ground, how does someone moving in the dark at night, looking for the switch, bump into it in the parietal area of the head? Mystery.
The dynamic described by Pseudo-Gänswein is even more "creative": the incident takes place on the morning of the 25th in Mexico, before Easter Mass. The Pope, while shaving, in bright light, trips over the mat and falls backwards on the edge of the raised floor of the shower. He does not lose consciousness but he has to get two stitches. Such a tumble, from the back, on the edge of the shower floor would probably have killed him. Indeed, comments internist Dr. Maurizio Luchena, a former emergency room expert: "Such a frightening fall that resolves with a small cut, two stitches, without the presence of a hematoma? Typically, when such traumas occur, to prevent complications, people resort to the emergency room to perform a CT scan to avert brain damage. Let alone if the patient is the Pope."
Again, Benedict would have lost his balance from a simple household accident. Why resign over a stumble? Not to mention the farce of the skullcap that would have covered the nonexistent bloody gauze.
Instead, Pope Benedict XVI, the only one who can be believed, is talking about the night of the 26th and 27th in the city of Santiago in CUBA, not Mexico. The pope is unconscious and does not remember what happened. In the morning the blood soaked his handkerchief, so this comes out of his nose or at most out of his mouth because he notices it by using it. Certainly he was not using the handkerchief by passing it over the parietal area of his head, in his hair, in that area that would have been covered by the skullcap. The incident is linked by Benedict without any doubt to the insomnia-sleeping pills issue, which he described as a central reason for his resignation. Thus, it is entirely plausible that, due to (induced) overdose of sleeping pills, he went to the bathroom during the night and lost his balance, as per the side effects described for excess sedatives/hypnotics, fell face forward, bumped his nose, which produced the nosebleed, and then went back to sleep. In the morning he could not remember what happened because of amnesia caused by the drugs. In fact, on the morning of the 27th he was waxy in the face, insecure, and slow in his movements, and according to psychiatrist Antonio Bussi, was showing exactly sedative overdose symptomatology. Given the blatant attack he had suffered, Benedict decided it was time to enter the impeded See and thus defend the Papacy from internal aggression. Completely consistent, unlike the other two versions.
As you see, both Tornielli's prelate and Pseudo-Gänswein change day, place, time and end up in open contradiction with each other.
It is clear that both had every intention of deflecting any suspicion from the episode. In the event, however, that the second version was really the handiwork of Gänswein , a faithful servant of the Pope, then such a ridiculous and easily debunked reconstruction, as already stated, may have been inserted on purpose to fuel suspicion and draw attention to the attack. In this case, the mission would succeed.