The trial by jury of Yorgen Fenech for the assassination of investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia entered its second day Thursday.

The opening day at the Valletta law courts was largely procedural, centred on the selection of nine jurors and six substitutes, who have now been placed in isolation - stripped of all technology to ensure a verdict reached without external influence. Judge Edwina Grima emphasised that Fenech, who has pleaded not guilty to complicity in wilful homicide and criminal association, is presumed innocent, with the burden of proof resting firmly on the prosecution.

The bill of indictment alleges that Fenech commissioned the 2017 murder through middleman Melvin Theuma, providing €150,000 for the hit.

Five others have already been convicted for their roles in the bombing, with sentences ranging from 15 years to life imprisonment.

The proceedings have drawn significant global attention, with international media outlets and press freedom advocates closely monitoring the case as a potential turning point for justice in Malta.

Refresh for updates

17:05 That concludes today's sitting. 

The trial will continue tomorrow as the defence is expected to staart the day with its own submissions.

Thank you for following this live blog, and tune in tomorrow for the updates as they happen.

17:02 Prosecutor Vella brings his address to a close.

He tells the jury that it is a "great failure" if an innocent person is found guilty, but an equally grave failure, he says, if someone who committed such a serious crime is not brought to justice.

He reminds the court that Daphne Caruana Galizia was killed in the most brutal way, and robbed of what he calls the most precious thing - her life - leaving those close to her devastated.

He urges the jury to decide as they see fit, as "honest and free people". 

With that, the opening speech, which has been going on since early afternoon, concludes.

16:58 Jurors are told the trial will move on from opening submissions to the evidence stage tomorrow morning.

Prosecutor Vella says this is where things "start to take shape", as the case shifts from argument to evidence.

He explains that they will hear two types of evidence: direct and circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence, he says, is not direct proof, but a chain of indications that, taken together, start to point in a clear direction, much like seeing people come in from outside with raincoats and wet umbrellas and drawing the inference that it has been raining.

He urges jurors to take their time with the testimony they will hear, to follow it closely, and to work through it carefully as it unfolds in court.

From Friday morning, he says, witnesses will start taking the stand viva voce, beginning with police officers and investigators involved in the case. As the trial goes on, forensic experts will also be called, including medical specialists and foreign experts from agencies such as Europol, the FBI, and the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI).

"This is when the evidence begins," he tells the jury.

Vella also tells them to keep a close eye on how witnesses come across in the box; who appears credible, who hesitates, and who may have a stake in how their evidence is being presented

16:51 The prosecution begins to wrap up this section of the address on proof.

Vella shifts back to Melvin Theuma and puts a simple question to the jury: why did he start recording in the first place?

He tells the court that Theuma was terrified and stresses this is not hearsay. Panic, he says, set in after the arrest of the alleged hitmen, the Degiorgio brothers, as Theuma, the prosecutor reminds the jury, was the only link connecting the brothers, Vince Muscat, and Yorgen Fenech.

At that stage, Vella says, Theuma began to fear he could either be "taken out" or end up behind bars himself.

He tells the jury that Theuma never, on his own initiative, brought Yorgen Fenech into conversations with Vince Muscat or the Degiorgios.

Instead, he says, Muscat came forward and spoke up, only Theuma was drawn into the picture.

The hitmen, he points out, never themselves mentioned Yorgen Fenech.

16:37 Everyone is back in place and the opening address is set to conclude.

16:07 The judge has ordered a 30-minute break.

We are told that only a small portion of the prosecutor's opening address remains before proceedings move on.

Court will resume at 4.30pm.

16:06 The prosecutor tells the jury that the courtroom is known as the "court of proof", and that they must decide the case solely on the evidence before them. 
Anything they may have heard outside the courtroom, he stresses, must be put aside. Their verdict must be based solely on the evidence, without allowing sympathy or prejudice to sway them.

Vella then turns to what he calls the different "levels of proof" required by law. To explain them, he reaches for an analogy.

"Imagine an apartment block," he says. "Unfortunately, it doesn't have a lift, so we'll have to take the stairs." Each step, he explains, represents a piece of evidence. Jurors must climb one step at a time, carefully building up the case. The ground floor represents what is merely possible.

"Under the sun, anything is possible," he says. But what is merely possible carries no weight in law. This level is not taken into account. The first floor is where things start to matter. This is the balance of probabilities, where, after weighing the evidence, something is more likely than not to have happened.

That, Vella explains, is the standard the defence must meet for the issues it bears the burden of proving. If the defence shows that its version of events is more likely than not, it has reached the legal threshold required of it.

The second floor is "beyond reasonable doubt." 

"We are not saying beyond any doubt," he stresses. "Neither beyond the shadow of a doubt. Beyond reasonable doubt." So what does that actually mean?

"It means being morally convinced of the accused's guilt," Vella says. Jurors must assess and analyse all the evidence before deciding which version of events is credible and which is not.

"If, after doing that, you are morally convinced, then the accused is guilty." There is one final floor: absolute certainty.

Like the ground floor of mere possibility, Vella says, this level does not come into play. "Absolute certainty belongs only to the Eternal Father," he says. "We are not omniscient. We can never have absolute certainty."

To drive the point home, Vella gestures towards the coat of arms of the Republic of Malta, mounted against a red draped backdrop behind the bench.  "Imagine I peel back a tiny corner of the backdrop," he says. At that stage, all the jurors could say is that it is possible there is a painting behind it.

He imagines pulling back a little more of the drape. Now, part of a figure dressed in dark clothing is visible. At this stage, they could probably conclude it is a painting of a woman.

As he peels back another section, the woman's face comes into view. "At this point, I am morally convinced it is a painting of a woman," the prosecutor says.
He stresses that he has not removed the drape entirely-and never will.

"We can never uncover the whole picture," he says, returning to his earlier point that the law does not require absolute certainty, only proof beyond reasonable doubt. 

15:52 Prosecutor Vella is back on his checklist for the jury, breaking down the points they must be satisfied about on the second accusation, complicity.

Among others, he asks whether there was an agreement between two or more persons to carry out the killing; whether that agreement was aimed at a serious offence punishable by imprisonment; and whether there was a clear plan of action, with each person knowing their role and playing their part.

He pauses to stress that, in legal terms, an "agreement" is not a formal contract signed and sealed. 

Instead, he tells the jury, it is something they will have to piece together and draw inferences from as the evidence is laid out and put before them.

Vella also underlines that the case is against Yorgen Fenech alone, and not other people the defence may draw attention to. He tells the jury that the accusation reads: "Repubblika ta' Malta vs Yorgen Fenech."

He adds that the prosecution does not need to prove motive, but rather intention, making it clear that the jury is not here to second-guess why something was done, but to get to grips with whether it was planned, intended, and knowingly carried through.

15:22 After a brief interruption, when defence lawyer Charles Mercieca raised a legal point that briefly sent the jurors out of the courtroom, prosecutor Vella is back on his feet with what he calls a "checklist" for the jury.

He runs through the questions one by one.

Was Yorgen Fenech acting as a complicit party?

Did he have the intent to kill Daphne Caruana Galizia, or to place her life in manifest jeopardy?

Vella reminds the jury that the law doesn't require proof of a specific intent to kill, but of an intention to put the victim in serious danger. He then asks whether the murder came about through an arrangement that Fenech financed, wanted, and signed off on.

He also asks the final question - was the killing unlawful, with no legal justification whatsoever?

Vella tells jurors that if, after hearing all the evidence, they can tick off each of these points, then they should, "with the greatest serenity," return a guilty verdict.

15:22 Prosecutor Vella turns to complicity, telling the jury that responsibility in a homicide can be shared across several people.

He stresses: "without Yorgen Fenech's role, Daphne Caruana Galizia would not have been killed." He says this is exactly why the law puts the person who commissions the offence on the same footing as the one who carries it out.

While Fenech was not present at the Bidnija crime scene, Vella tells the jury that according to the prosecution, he was the one who who set the plan in motion, coordinated it, and financed it from behind the scenes.

On that basis, he tells the jury, Fenech is being treated as a complicit party to the murder.

15:14 There's a brief hiccup in proceedings when a court marshal walks over to a courtroom sketch artist, who is drawing a portrait of the judge, and tells him to stop sketching and hand over his drawings.

Judge Grima quickly steps in to clear things up. She says that the artist is allowed to continue working, as long as the jurors are not depicted in his drawings.

For this trial, court permission has been given for sketch artists to sit in.

Two other illustrators are also present in the courtroom.

15:10 Vella refers to several instances from the recordings.

In one, Fenech is heard saying: "a person like her [Daphne] I'd throw down from here [Portomaso]". Both were in Portomaso when the exchange happened.

In another exchange, Fenech is said to have referred to a "middle man", to which Theuma replies: "I am the middle man. I never mentioned your name with them; with the police."

He also points to another exchange in which payments were discussed in connection with the Degiorgio brothers: "What they asked for, I gave it to them... when he said he wanted another five thousand, I gave it as well." To this, Theuma replied "It's not coming from Fredu [Alfred Degorgio]'s side, but from George's [George Degorgio]."

In another remark attributed to Fenech, he says: "the one who plans out the matter has less of a problem than the one who does it."

In the same recording, Theuma is heard saying: "you gave me the 150," to which Fenech replies: "I remember." He tells the court these are only some of the recordings that will be played during the proceedings.

15:07 Prosecutor Vella now refers to the Melvin Theuma recordings. 

The audio recordings made by middleman-turned-state witness Melvin Theuma, hidden in a Smiles ice-cream box, were later handed to the police.

He tells the court that, "fortunately, for justice and for the truth, Melvin Theuma had the presence of mind to record his conversations." The court, he adds, will hear Yorgen Fenech speaking with Melvin Theuma about Daphne Caruana Galizia over a number of hours.

15:01 Before the break, prosecutor Anthony Vella told the court he had been examining the sequence of actions leading up to the alleged offence. 

He now shifts focus to intent - the specific mental element required by law, namely the deliberate placing of a person's life in manifest jeopardy, or causing their death.

He describes this as the point where thought and physical act come together, with the act effectively bringing the intention to life.

To draw a line between voluntary and involuntary homicide, Vella turns to the jury with an example: "Imagine I've had a long day at the office, it's dark, and I start reversing my car. Out of fatigue, I fail to notice someone passing behind me and I hit them. In that case, there is no intention."

He stresses that even where a person pays another to carry out a killing, the element of intent still stands. 

"The thought and the intention are still there," he says, insisting this is what the court must home in on.

The jurors, he says, must be satisfied that when Yorgen Fenech allegedly ordered the murder, he had either the direct intention of killing Daphne Caruana Galizia, or of placing her life in manifest jeopardy.

He goes on to explain that the law draws a distinction between two forms of intent: direct and indirect intent.

14:37 We're back in court as the afternoon session is about to get under way.

The courtroom is filling up again, with spectators filtering back into their seats a.

Proceedings are expected to resume shortly.

The prosecution is set to pick up where it left off before the break: outlining the charges against Yorgen Fenech.

12:47 Judge Edwina Grima adjourns the sitting for lunch break. The sitting resumes at 2:30pm.

This live blog will pause for a while, and returns when the sitting resumes. 

12:46 Prosecutor Anthony Vella explains the legal principles that jurors will be required to apply when assessing the evidence.

He reminds jurors that "life is precious", describing Daphne Caruana Galizia as "a wife, a mother, a sister" whose death had a profound impact on her family.

"Daphne was a journalist who wrote constantly. You may agree or disagree with what she wrote, but keep in mind that she was killed because of her work," he said.

"She was a person like us, with dignity and many dreams still to fulfil. She was killed in a brutal and cruel manner," he tells the jury. 

Vella then turns to the law governing the charge of wilful homicide, explaining that the offence requires proof that a person acted with the intention of killing another person or knowingly placed that person's life in clear danger.

The prosecutor tells jurors that, in criminal law, two essential elements must be established before someone can be found guilty.

The first is 'mens rea', which he describes as the "guilty mind" - the criminal intent or state of mind behind the alleged offence. In this case, he explains, it refers to the alleged intention to bring about another person's death.

The second is 'actus reus', the physical act that constitutes the alleged crime.

Vella stresses both elements must be present for a court to find an accused person guilty of the offence, telling jurors that proving one without the other is not sufficient.

12.28 The prosecution says the extra money was requested to cover expenses incurred in preparing the assassination, including the purchase of sophisticated binoculars.

Vella says that in the months following the murder, a further €400,000 was paid to finance the legal defence of Alfred and George Degiorgio after they were arrested and charged.

12.17 The hitmen executed the plan on the night of October 15-16, 2017, by planting a bomb under the driver's seat of Caruana Galizia's Peugeot 108. The device was rigged to be detonated remotely via a text message. On the afternoon of October 16, as the journalist departed for a bank appointment, Alfred Degiorgio and Vince Muscat signalled George Degiorgio, who was waiting on his boat, the Maya, just outside the Grand Harbour. According to the prosecution, George Degiorgio then sent the coded text message that triggered the explosion, killing the journalist.

12.15 Vella details that the three hitmen decided to use a bomb for the assassination. The prosecution says the explosive was procured from brothers Robert and Adrian Agius and Jamie Vella. To avoid detection, the group purchased burner phones and SIM cards that lacked internet connectivity. Throughout the weeks leading up to the murder, the men maintained constant surveillance of the area around Caruana Galizia’s home in Bidnija to track her daily habits.

12.10 The prosecution alleges that the plot was temporarily halted when the 2017 general election was called. However, following the election, Fenech reportedly urged Theuma to restart the plan. The two met at the Busy Bee outlet in Msida, where Fenech provided the deposit money to be split among the three hitmen. Vella explains that as the journalist continued her investigative work, Fenech grew anxious and repeatedly pressured Theuma to expedite the murder before she could publish damaging information about him.

12.05 Theuma initially failed to reach George Degiorgio directly and instead contacted his brother, Alfred. During a meeting at the Marsa potato shed, Theuma proposed the contract killing without disclosing the identity of the person behind it. Alfred Degiorgio asked if the client would pay, and after consulting with his associates, he later met Theuma at the Busy Bee outlet in Msida to quote a price of €150,000. This included a €30,000 non-refundable deposit and a final payment of €120,000, terms which Fenech subsequently approved.

12.00 The prosecution describes Melvin Theuma as a close confidant of the Fenech family, noting he often drove the businessman and his relatives. Vella tells the jury that in April 2017, Fenech instructed Theuma to arrange the murder of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia to prevent the publication of information regarding his uncle. Fenech suggested that Theuma contact George Degiorgio, whom he knew to be a regular at the Marsa potato shed.

11.55 Vella explains how the trial will unfold, beginning with the examination and cross-examination of witnesses.

He tells jurors each prosecution witness will first be examined by the prosecution before being cross-examined by the defence. If the defence chooses to call its own witnesses later in the trial, the same process will apply, with the defence conducting the examination first, followed by cross-examination by the prosecution.

Vella also explains the difference between examination and cross-examination.

During examination, lawyers are not permitted to ask leading questions. Instead of asking a witness, for example, "Were you at that house on that date?", counsel must ask open-ended questions such as, "Where were you on that date?" Leading questions are, however, permitted during cross-examination.

The prosecutor once again reminds jurors that the accused has an absolute right not to testify. He stresses if the accused chooses not to take the witness stand, jurors cannot interpret that decision as an indication of guilt or dishonesty.

"He is simply exercising a right the law gives him," Vella tells the jury.

He goes on to explain the prosecution's final opportunity to address the jury will come during its closing submissions, followed by the defence's reply.

After that, the prosecution is not permitted to address the jury again, as the law does not allow it. The judge will then deliver her final directions before jurors retire to deliberate.

Vella reminds jurors that when the time comes to reach a verdict, they must base their decision solely on the evidence presented in court and on nothing else.

Prosecutor Vella also outlines how evidence is gathered during a criminal investigation. He explains evidence collected from the crime scene is passed on to the inquiring magistrate, who compiles the inquiry before forwarding it to the Attorney General.

The Attorney General then determines whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed with charges or whether further investigations are required.

Pointing towards around ten boxes in the courtroom, behind him, Vella tells jurors that these represent the physical manifestation of the prosecution's case, containing the material gathered throughout the investigation.

11:36 Prosecutor Anthony Vella starts by explaining the role of the prosecution, telling jurors prosecutors are not in court simply to secure a guilty verdict, but to ensure the accused receives a fair trial.

He likened everyone involved in the proceedings to "gears in a system", explaining each person in the courtroom has a distinct role to ensure justice is served.

He also explains why the state is prosecuting the case, noting because this is a homicide case, proceedings are brought by the state against Yorgen Fenech.

Vella goes on to outline the work carried out by prosecutors before a case reaches the jury stage, explaining their role includes gathering evidence and overseeing the legal process required before a trial can proceed.

He stresses prosecutors have no financial interest in the outcome of the case, remarking "whether there is a trial or not, we still receive our salary at the end of the month."

Addressing jurors directly, Vella acknowledges some of them may feel unfortunate to have been selected. However, he assures them by the end of the proceedings they would likely feel privileged to have taken part in such an important process, telling them they would have "worn the shoes of a judge."

11:20 The judge has read out her decree, and for the first time today, the jurors enter the courtroom.

The panel, composed of 10 women and 5 men, files in (nine jurors and six substitutes). The opening speech by prosecutor Anthony Vella is now set to begin.

11:14 Judge Edwina Grima retires to her chambers to deliberate and issue a decree on a legal point raised during a heated procedural debate between the prosecution and defence.

The sitting grows rowdy, prompting the judge to warn lawyers they risked being held in contempt of court.

Because the court has barred the media from reporting the details of this dispute, further updates will be provided once reporting restrictions are lifted.

10:19 The defence and prosecution are currently discussing some legal points.

The jurors are not yet in the courtroom.

They cannot enter while these legal points are being discussed, as they are the judges of facts only.

09:59 Judge Edwina Grima enters the courtroom.

Everyone in the courtroom stands up as the judge takes her place.

09:56 Defence lawyers Charles Mercieca and Giannella de Marco, AG lawyer Godwin Cini and parte civile lawyer Jason Azzopardi, have just exited the judge's chambers and entered the courtroom.

They have now joined those already in court: parte civile lawyer Therese Comodini Cachia, AG lawyers Anthony Vella and Danica Vella, and defence lawyer Gianluca Caruana Curran.

All lawyers are now assembled in the courtroom.

Meanwhile, the gallery is becoming more and more packed with people as we edge closer to the start of today's session.

09:34 We are still waiting for this morning's session to get under way, but here is what we can anticipate happening.

The prosecution is expected to give its opening statement.

During this statement, the prosecution will set out its version of events, explain the evidence it intends to rely on, introduce the main witnesses, and tell the jury what it says that evidence will prove.

09:05 Up in the gallery of Hall 22, the atmosphere is thick with anticipation. The gallery is filled with law students, two sketch artists, journalists, and police.

Down below, some lawyers, court marshals, and other court employees are already in place.

The 15 jury seats, waiting to be filled by the nine jurors and six substitutes, are all lined up and ready to go.

Each spot has been prepared for the long haul ahead, complete with a bright yellow file, papers, and a large two-litre bottle of water to get them through what promises to be a gruelling session.