Only a day has gone by since the deposition of the trial papers by the Milan Prosecutors and already the story starts to be disentangled.
First of all, the declarations made by the person directly involved, Marco Tronchetti Provera to the Prosecutor are being taken note of.
Apart from the formal distancing from his accuser, in essence, Tronchetti recognises what Giuliano Tavaroli is saying: to be the one used to fix up meetings for him with various political people. Certainly, Tronchetti Provera now says: “…convinced after the fact that he, Tavaroli, used me a lot to give credence to himself …” But the fact remains that up until 2006 he allowed him to do that.
Thus Tronchetti received Tavaroli in his office and from him – whether he wished it or not – he received information.
Certainly, he said that Tavaroli “ … has never been reporting directly to me …” but he admits that he was not just anyone inside Telecom in as much as “… he started to report directly to Dr. Buora …” (who was the number 2 in the company, straight after Tronchetti himself) and anyway “… in specific cases, if it was something of general importance in the company that related to me directly as president of the company, signor Tavaroli turned to me directly…”
So basically, Tavaroli, in the company behaved exactly how a recognised and accredited Head of Security should behave and he regularly referred to the CEO and when necessary directly to the President.
Thus, when Tavaroli refers facts and circumstances, these cannot be, sic et sempliciter, thrown in the waste paper bin, but we need to go and reconstruct the context and to go and “clean up” the affirmations to try to disentangle the truth from that of the possible rumours, from influence peddling or from calumny.
Still from the documents, however another circumstance emerges, that goes back to an earlier date, to 2001 (and that is to a time that is not compatible with the arrival of Tronchetti himself in the company) the “OAK FUND” operation, that is the spying operation set up by Tavaroli and Cipriani (a private investigator paid by Telecom, who is now himself under investigation) that concluded with the attribution to leaders of the D.S. party of a foreign account in London where sums of money were made to land up on behalf of Colaninno, who was the first to take an interest in the Telecom operation.
If that is true, this means that, independently of the truth or not of the “OAK FUND” operation, Tronchetti Provera cannot be accused of anything that is criminally relevant in relation to that. Not even if – following his arrival in Telecom – that had been told to him by Tavaroli (as the latter sustains and as Tronchetti slightly modestly denies).
Meanwhile, the attention must be moved somewhere else: who had an interest in reconstructing this operation? Or rather: who had an interest in “constructing it”, in concocting it, that is to throw a “cloak of responsibility” on to the shoulders of Fassino, the then Secretary of the D.S.?
And above all exactly in the same period in which they were trying to let another dirty cloak fall onto Fassino with the false Mitrokin scoop?
And who gave the orders to Tavaroli to carry them out? And still in a more meaningful way: the order was to discover a bribe or to construct false proof – even by means of gratifying documentary evidence – to make it appear that that was the case?
And are we certain that the one who went off to search for “disseminated proof” along the track that led to London had knowledge of the possible instrumentalisation with which it was set up on purpose and on command?