The jury in Yorgen Fenech's murder will co tinue today with more witnesses being brought up by the prosecution. Former Cief of staff at the OPM Keith Schembri is expected to take the witness stand.

On Monday, two former Scene of Crime Officers described the operation as highly unusual and different from the way searches are normally carried out.

Michelle Camilleri and Mario Azzopardi testified that they had been sent to collect electronic devices from Schembri's home on 26 November 2019, shortly after his arrest. They said Schembri, members of his family, Neville Gafa and his lawyers were present during the search. The officers told the jury they acted on instructions from Assistant Police Commissioner Keith Arnaud and took only the devices handed over or identified by Schembri.

Yorgen Fenech, a businessman, has pleaded not guilty to two principal charges: complicity in the wilful homicide of Daphne Caruana Galizia and criminal association to commit the murder. 

Caruana Galizia, a columnist with The Malta Independent, was killed in a car bomb on 16 October, 2017.

Five men have already been convicted in connection with Caruana Galizia's assassination. Vince Muscat admitted his role in the murder in 2021 and was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment. Alfred and George Degiorgio each received 40-year prison sentences after pleading guilty in 2022, while Robert Agius and Jamie Vella were sentenced to life imprisonment in 2025 for supplying the bomb used in the attack.

The prosecution is being led by Attorney General lawyers Godwin Cini, Anthony Vella and Danika Vella, assisted by Assistant Commissioner Keith Arnaud and Inspector Kurt Zahra. Fenech is represented by lawyers Charles Mercieca, Gianella Demarco and Gianluca Caruana Curran, while lawyers Therese Comodini Cachia and Jason Azzopardi are appearing parte civile on behalf of the Caruana Galizia family.

Judge Edwina Grima is presiding.

Please refresh for updates

10:37 Europol digital forensics expert Daniel Fernandes Mallheiro also testifies via video link.

His testimony largely mirrors that of his Europol colleague, Margarita Louka. He carried out the forensic examination as part of a money laundering investigation involving Melvin Theuma.

He explains that his role involved the extraction and analysis of data from the exhibits seized from Theuma and members of his family.

Referring to his report, Mallheiro confirms that he personally carried out the forensic extractions and analysis of the listed devices.

10:22 The witness is questioned about one of her reports. She explains that the police asked her to verify the date and time attached to the voice recordings found on one of the exhibits. 

To do this, she obtained a brand-new device of the exact same make and model as the one from which the recordings originated.  

⁠She tested how the device records voice notes. 

Her findings were that the timestamps shown on the recordings are the actual timestamps generated by the device.

However, she cannot confirm that the recordings were actually made on those real-world dates and times.

09:53 Europol digital forensics expert Margarita Louka takes the stand. Referring to her forensic report, she tells the court that a request for assistance came from the Maltese police.

She confirms that she carried out the forensic extraction of devices belonging to Melvin Theuma, Charmaine Zammit, Shianne Zammit and Ryan Farrugia.

Louka explains that the forensic acquisition took place in Malta at the Malta Security Service premises in Valletta in 2019.

09:45 The jurors enter the courtroom and digital forensics expert Martin Bajada is first on the witness stand.

Bajada tells the court that he was appointed to examine the screenshots presented by Johann Cremona in court, which were used to accuse Fenech's defence lawyers of colluding with Keith Schembri the day before Schembri was due to testify in the compilation of evidence. 

Explaining his analysis, Bajada says the material consists of two separate screenshots-one showing a WhatsApp message and the other a phone call.

He says the image appears to have been cut between the two and that it would not be possible to capture both elements in a single screenshot of that type because WhatsApp displays calls and messages in separate sections of the application.

Presenting his findings, Bajada tells the court that the screenshots were not found on either of the mobile phones he was ordered to examine, namely those belonging to Keith Schembri and Johann Cremona. He also says he is unable to match the screenshot with the extracted call profiles. 

Under questioning by prosecutor Godwin Cini, Bajada acknowledges that if a conversation had been deleted, it might no longer be recoverable.

Bajada also confirms that he examined the WhatsApp chats between Keith Schembri and defence lawyer Charles Mercieca and found no conversation between the two.

At one point, Mercieca objects to the prosecution's line of questioning. The exchange escalates into a heated argument between Mercieca and prosecutor Godwin Cini, prompting the court to intervene. "Your reaction to the screenshot says alot," Cini jabs. 

"I will find both of you in contempt of court. I am fed up with this fighting," the judge warns.

Bajada adds that he cannot say whether the screenshots ever existed, only that he did not find them during his examination.

Defence lawyer Giannella de Marco then asks whether the screenshot shown in court appears to have been "constructed".

Bajada replies that, based on his analysis, it consists of two distinct parts. He explains that WhatsApp stores messages and calls in separate sections of the application, meaning they cannot appear together in a single screenshot of that type.

09:23 A legal point is being discussed before jurors enter the courtroom.

Fenech's legal team asks the court to instruct Keith Schembri not to mention that Yorgen Fenech had requested a presidential pardon, relying on an earlier court ruling that barred witnesses from referring to the pardon request before the jury. The defence also says that if the court prohibits any reference to the pardon but Schembri mentions it anyway, it will ask for the jury to be dissolved.

Prosecutors object to the request, arguing that there is no reason why Schembri should be prevented from mentioning it.

They maintain that the defence is attempting to censor the truth and stressed that Schembri is not an investigative witness, meaning he is entitled to refer to facts within his own knowledge.

In its decision, the court agrees with the defence and noted its original ruling, that no witness should make any reference to the accused himself having made a request for a presidential pardon.

9:08 The sitting has started