A family forever scarred by the assassination of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia was laid bare in court on Saturday as her husband, Peter Caruana Galizia, gave an emotional account of the devastating impact her murder has had on their lives.

Speaking before jurors in the trial by jury of Yorgen Fenech, Peter Caruana Galizia revisited the events of 16 October 2017, the day his wife was assassinated by a car bomb outside their Bidnija home.

The trial has now entered its second month. Fenech has pleaded not guilty to complicity in the wilful homicide of Caruana Galizia and to criminal association to commit the murder. Caruana Galizia, a columnist with The Malta Independent, was killed in a car bomb on 16 October 2017.

Peter Caruana Galizia told the court that he had left for work at around 7.30am that day, leaving Daphne and their son Matthew asleep. Hours later, he received a telephone call before learning from his son Andrew that a bomb had exploded in Daphne's car. At that stage, he did not know whether she had survived.

When he arrived in Bidnija, emergency vehicles and police had already sealed off the area. It was there that Inspector Kurt Zahra approached him.

"I asked him if she died," Peter Caruana Galizia recalled. "The inspector said yes, she died."

The witness also spoke of the trauma suffered by their son Matthew, who had rushed to the scene immediately after hearing the explosion.

Peter Caruana Galizia said there were simply no words to describe what Matthew experienced.

"Matthew saw his own mother burnt, and couldn't do anything about the fire," he told the jury. He explained that Matthew, himself an investigative journalist, had been deeply affected by what he witnessed.

Turning to Daphne's work in the months leading up to her death, Peter Caruana Galizia described an intensity unlike anything he had previously seen during her 15 years of publishing her blog.

He recalled that after the 2017 general election she told him she was pursuing what she described as a very significant story. She had obtained Yorgen Fenech's telephone number and intended to contact him.

"I never saw her working at such a relentless pace," he said.

Asked whether the family had ever discussed the dangers associated with her journalism, Peter Caruana Galizia replied that fear simply did not seem to exist for Daphne.

"Something was missing from the makeup of her brain - the word fear did not bother her," he said.

He admitted that he knew her reporting had created many enemies, adding that immediately after the assassination it was difficult even to imagine who could have been responsible because so many people had motives to want her dead.

The court also heard how the family fought a series of legal battles after the assassination.

Peter Caruana Galizia recounted how they successfully sought the removal of former Deputy Police Commissioner Silvio Valletta from the murder investigation because of his close friendship with Yorgen Fenech.

He recalled that the family had challenged Valletta's role through constitutional proceedings and won both at first instance and on appeal. He noted that Valletta and Fenech were close friends who attended football matches together and that Valletta had even driven Fenech's Jaguar.

He also described the family's efforts to persuade the Council of Europe to push for a public inquiry into the assassination, while noting that civil proceedings seeking damages against Fenech and several others remain ongoing.

The personal toll, however, formed the emotional centre of his testimony.

Peter Caruana Galizia described how malicious rumours spread after the murder falsely suggested that their son Matthew had deliberately left his car outside to facilitate the bomb attack. Other false stories claimed that Peter himself had wanted his wife dead or had been involved in extra-marital affairs.

The family was forced not only to cope with overwhelming grief but also with what he described as a campaign of defamation.

"The children found something within themselves to fight so that, at least, justice could be served," he said, while expressing gratitude to Inspector Keith Arnaud for the role he played during the investigation.

Addressing jurors directly, Peter Caruana Galizia asked them to understand what the homicide had done to his family.

He said he had suddenly found himself raising his children alone. Daphne never saw their son Paul marry the following year and never had the opportunity to meet any future grandchildren.

His own legal career, he said, effectively came to an end.

"I have never been the same since. I am no longer taking on cases or accepting new clients because I cannot focus," he testified before adding quietly: "I mean, yes, I am still alive, but the impact is unimaginable."

During cross-examination, defence lawyer Giannella De Marco questioned him extensively about correspondence relating to Daphne Caruana Galizia's laptop and data storage devices, as well as a list of investigations the family had provided to investigators following the assassination.

Peter Caruana Galizia explained that his memory had been severely affected by the trauma of losing his wife and said he had left many decisions to his children because he had not been in the right state of mind after the murder.

Saturday's sitting began with testimony from a police officer involved in the investigation, who described his work following the murder, including gathering CCTV footage around Bidnija, assisting in searches near the crime scene and participating in the December 2017 raid on the Marsa potato shed that led to the arrests of George and Alfred Degiorgio and Vince Muscat. 

The court was then shown digital extractions from electronic devices seized during the investigation, including mobile phones belonging to state witness Melvin Theuma. Sergeant Gerada explained that his role within a police task force involved reviewing extracted data and flagging communications considered relevant to investigators. Among the material presented were disappearing WhatsApp exchanges between Theuma and a contact identified as Yorgen Fenech, as well as SMS messages exchanged between Theuma's partner, Charmaine Zammit, and her daughter discussing the covert recordings made by Theuma and expressing fears that police were monitoring them.

Further digital evidence included communication records between Theuma and several contacts, including Mario Degiorgio and Johann Cremona, together with call logs and text messages extracted from a Samsung mobile phone seized from Theuma. Jurors also viewed messages dating back to 2019, including communications between Theuma and a contact saved as "Yorgen".

The presentation of this evidence drew objections from the defence. Lawyer Giannella De Marco argued that the witness was selectively reading messages while omitting others and complained that neither the defence nor the jurors had been provided with complete copies of the extracted chats being displayed in court. Defence lawyer Charles Mercieca also argued that the witness had never previously testified about this material and questioned the validity of his evidence.

Madam Justice Edwina Grima warned that proceedings could not continue if participants were unprepared, while prosecutor Godwin Cini maintained that the defence had developed a pattern of objecting whenever prosecution witnesses were called to testify. The witness's testimony was temporarily suspended while an IT expert located the relevant digital extractions within the court system.

The legal arguments continued after the court resumed, with defence lawyers raising fresh objections to the prosecution's use of witnesses who had not testified on certain materials during the compilation of evidence.

FCID Sergeant Dione Agius said he had initially been instructed to filter the extracted digital material and tag information considered relevant to the investigation before later being directed to analyse the contents in greater detail. During cross-examination, he acknowledged that the extraction report ran to more than 3,000 pages and said he could not recall whether it contained anything directly related to the homicide when questioned by the defence. He also clarified that an entry labelled "Yorgen-Sven" referred to Police Constable Sven Sammut rather than the accused.

Sammut subsequently testified that while serving with the Criminal Investigation Department in late 2019, his primary responsibility involved extracting data from seized electronic devices on behalf of Europol. He explained that he received the first copies of seized drives in November 2019 and additional material in January 2020. Sammut also told the court that he had later been instructed to transcribe an audio recording of a conversation between Theuma and Johann Cremona.

The testimony prompted yet another legal challenge from the defence, which argued that Sammut should not be permitted to testify about documents and material that had not formed part of his evidence during the compilation stage. Charles Mercieca maintained that allowing such testimony would run contrary to the principles of a fair trial.

Prosecutor Anthony Vella rejected the argument, insisting that Maltese law contained no provision preventing an investigating officer from testifying under oath about matters personally observed during the course of an investigation. He complained that the prosecution was being prevented from carrying out its duties, a remark that prompted an immediate intervention from Madam Justice Grima, who stressed that the court had never prevented the prosecution from doing its work.

Tensions reached their highest point shortly before the lunch adjournment when Vella argued that the prosecution was being hampered from presenting evidence it had a duty to produce and criticised the court for permitting repeated objections by the defence.

Madam Justice Grima firmly rebuked the suggestion, asking whether the prosecutor was implying that the defence had no right to object. She voiced her frustration at suggestions from both sides that the court lacked impartiality, reminding counsel that every party had the right to raise objections and that it was ultimately for the court to decide on them.

Delivering her ruling after considering the matter in camera, Judge Edwina Grima reminded the prosecution that both parties have an undeniable right to raise objections on points of law.

She firmly rejected any suggestion of judicial bias, noting that the court has never restricted the prosecution's questioning at any stage of the trial.

Turning to the defence's challenge regarding the witness's validity and the chat extracts, the judge observed that although the evidence is only now emerging and was not detailed in the bill of indictment, it had already been presented during the magisterial inquiries.

Accordingly, the court ruled that the material does not constitute fresh evidence and can be made available to the jurors.

The trial continues on Monday.