My comments are based on the evidence available to me; that is the MaltaToday image of an email dated 19 June 2004 and published online at 13:06 on 13 February 2013. MaltaToday did not qualify the source, origin or format of the email given to it and the image published appears to be a photographed punch-holed arch-lever file printout. I have raised a number of points about this particular image and others that go beyond the date language – all of which will be given to the police whose role it is, ultimately, to investigate the case. 

There are several factors that can affect, intentionally or otherwise, how an email date is displayed – the type of software, date of printing, language settings, regional settings and Operating System, character-sets, file-format and selected date format. The number of possible permutations for displaying an email date is increased by user-preferences on the sender’s computer storing the emails, and user-defined settings on the receiving computer. All of these factors can influence how a date is ultimately displayed.

Equally, there are several situations in which an email date cannot be changed automatically by the default settings on the sender’s computer or the receiver’s computer. An email stored in PDF, or as a WORD Document, an HTML export, or a JPG image file is not affected by different email settings, even if it is stored (or transmitted) as a forwarded email file. In these cases, changes to an email’s appearance can only be made through voluntary and intentional manipulation.

On the matter of the images published by MaltaToday, distributed through the MLP network on Facebook, picked up by The Times and then published in the newspaper and online, it is for the Police to discover what file-format the images were originally stored in and at what point such alteration may have occurred and why.

My statement at the press conference, and which I will make to the police, clarified that an email dated June 2004 cannot have a date-format in Maltese on the original date in which it was drawn up. This statement stands and indicates that the published images are not of email messages in their original format. In the context of the case at hand, this is certainly not a ‘dud’. 

Any later reproduction or amendment of an email message or an image of an email message may, of course, easily change the date (or other elements) and it is specifically this alteration or alterations that I am asking the Police to investigate. It is highly suspicious when alterations to evidence occur in cases that are politically manipulated to tarnish one’s reputation, especially when one repeatedly and categorically denies any wrongdoing, as I have done throughout.

Three questions from my press conference of last Saturday week remain ultimately unanswered: 

(I) Why are three Malta Labour Party candidates so closely linked to this case, two of whom have now admitted to serving as lawyers for the Farrugia family, including one who had previously denied doing so?

(II) Why has evidence collected through an IT Audit never been taken to the Police Commissioner for examination – as I have done with my analysis – even though that evidence was discovered several years ago?

(III) Why is the MLP so distressed about the fact that Farrugia has now been given a conditional presidential pardon, which obliges him to return any illicit commissions and will enable justice to be served? Could it be that the MLP fears that the tables might turn?

Austin Gatt

VALLETTA