Defence lawyer Charles Mercieca on Wednesday sought to turn the prosecution’s case against Yorgen Fenech back towards former OPM chief of staff Keith Schembri, telling jurors that “all roads lead to Keith” and arguing that crucial avenues of investigation had been ignored or deliberately left unexplored.
Prosecutor Godwin Cini ended his cross-examination with a challenge to Fenech, telling him: "Who are you trying to fool? These are all your fingerprints on the case."
Fenech denied the accusation.
Soon after, defence lawyer Charles Mercieca began addressing jurors, shifting the focus away from Fenech's testimony and onto what the defence says are serious weaknesses in the prosecution's case.
Fenech 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, Giannella de Marco 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
17:04 With a smile, Charles Mercieca turns to the court and asks: "Can we stop here for today?"
The court then orders the end of proceedings for the day.
The defence's submissions are expected to resume tomorrow.
17:00 Mercieca continues linking together the people who, according to the defence, were drawn in by Keith Schembri to carry messages or act on his behalf. This time, he turns to Adrian Vella.
He tells jurors that Vella had allegedly been instructed by Schembri to take Yorgen Fenech to Gozo.
"Why did Keith want to take him to Gozo? Yorgen did not want to escape," he says.
For the defence, the episode forms part of the same pattern Mercieca has been building throughout his submissions: different people appear at different stages, but, in his argument, the same hand remains behind them.
"There can be no doubt who the hidden hand in this affair is," he insists.
Mercieca then returns to Melvin Theuma's arrest, telling prosecutors to look at who Theuma asked for at the time: the police commissioner and Keith Arnaud.
He ties that back to the presidential pardon, noting that the same commissioner signed it while the defence maintains that the process which led to it originated with Keith Schembri.
Mercieca then delivers his strongest formulation of the point:
"Keith Schembri effectively gave himself a pardon."
16:50 Mercieca then turns to Johann Cremona.
He refers to Cremona's allegation that the defence had tried to buy him, saying that after two days of testimony Cremona suddenly "remembered" a note or screenshot which he said had been sent by Schembri and concerned alleged contact between the defence and Schembri before his testimony.
The defence argues that this material was not incidental but kept in reserve to be used at the right moment.
Mercieca also points out that while Cremona gave extensive evidence against Yorgen Fenech, the defence says he never spoke in the same way against Keith Schembri.
He then goes back to 2018, arguing that Schembri was the person who brought Cremona into the chain that led Kenneth Camilleri to Theuma in an effort to calm him.
"Who used Cremona in all this? Who instructed Kenneth Camilleri? Who is the hidden hand behind everything?" Mercieca asks.
He then gives jurors the defence's answer: "Once you start seeing the full picture, you realise Keith Schembri is behind it all."
16:41 Charles Mercieca argued that Keith Schembri used people around him to carry out his interests, this time focusing on Johann Cremona.
He referred to Cremona's allegation that the defence had attempted to bribe him. According to Mercieca, the note connected to the allegation came from Schembri and was intended to be kept and used "at the opportune moment".
Mercieca also drew the jurors' attention to the fact that, while Cremona spoke extensively against Yorgen Fenech during his testimony, he never spoke against Schembri.
The defence lawyer then went back to 2018 and the episode in which Kenneth Camilleri was allegedly sent to calm Melvin Theuma down. According to Mercieca, it was Schembri who brought Cremona into the situation, with Cremona acting as the person who was supposed to take Camilleri to Theuma to calm him down.
16:22 Mercieca focused on Melvin Theuma's connections with former police commissioner Lawrence Cutajar, noting that "the entire Theuma family had the commissioner's phone number," as well as the infamous photograph of Theuma with Keith Schembri at Castille.
He reminded jurors of the scramble between Theuma and his stepdaughter to locate the photograph after they believed it had been lost. Mercieca argued that they needed the photograph to "scare them".
He said Theuma used the same tactic with the recordings and the letter in which he first implicated Yorgen Fenech, arguing that these were used as tools to exert pressure on others.
16:07 Mercieca returned to Melvin Theuma's recordings, arguing that jurors should not view them as a complete or neutral record of events. He said Theuma himself had decided which recordings to keep, with those eventually being placed in the ice-cream box and handed over to police.
Mercieca also referred to the eve of Theuma's arrest, when Theuma was returning from Attard, where he was believed to have visited Edgar Brincat, known as il-Ġojja. He recalled that Theuma had admitted deleting a number of recordings.
The defence therefore argued that the recordings ultimately presented to police and heard in court had already been filtered by Theuma himself.
16:04 Mercieca returned to the searches carried out in connection with Keith Schembri, focusing on the search at Castille which took place around 10 days later. He referred to Kurt Zahra's testimony that Schembri, then chief of staff, had assured investigators that nobody had entered the room. However, Mercieca pointed to footage which he said showed Schembri unlocking the room himself before placing the keys in his pocket. Zahra had also testified that he entered the room before Schembri.
Mercieca argued that the footage showed investigators carrying out only a limited search, with a few items moved but very little actually seized. He questioned what investigators had expected to find, sarcastically asking whether they were looking for a note from Schembri saying, "Yes, I killed her."
He then returned to Keith Arnaud, arguing that Schembri had exercised such influence over him that Arnaud ultimately had to go through two years' worth of Schembri's WhatsApp messages.
15:58 Schembri had said his mobile was lost 28 minutes before his arrest, and Mercieca asks how jurors can trust such an account if, according to the defence, he lied about something so basic.
"If he can lie about something like that, imagine what he can lie about when it comes to involvement in a murder," Mercieca says.
He then contrasts this with the seizure of Schembri's daughter's laptop - someone who, he says, clearly had nothing to do with the case - while other items directly linked to the suspect were left untouched.
Mercieca again points to the photograph of the table inside Schembri's residence, where a mobile phone can be seen, and recalls Arnaud saying he saw nothing of importance there.
The defence says that is not good enough.
"Let's say it belonged an aunt or grandmother. Seize it, examine it, and then tell me it belonged to his aunt or grandmother," Mercieca says.
His point is that investigators cannot decide in advance that an item is irrelevant without first securing and checking it.
15:54 Mercieca returned to the matter of Keith Schembri's missing mobile phone, challenging the varying accounts given regarding its disappearance.
"Keith Schembri expects us to believe that there is some Syrian person running around with his mobile phone," Mercieca told the jurors.
He recalled that, according to the defence, Schembri initially claimed the phone was broken, before later stating that it had been taken by a Syrian worker who was doing jobs at his house.
Mercieca also pointed out the casual manner in which Schembri himself addressed this explanation during his testimony, noting that Schembri had jokingly remarked, "I know you don't believe me, even my friends didn't believe me."
The defence is leveraging these contradictory accounts about the fate of the phone to further cast doubt on Schembri's credibility and to question whether the police did enough to recover a device that could have been crucial to the investigation.
15:52 Scene of Crime officers went to Schembri residence to collect electronic devices that could be relevant to the ongoing investigation, Mercieca says.
According to the testimony of the officers, they had been instructed to seize only the devices that Schembri explicitly pointed out to them. Among the items gathered during the search were a Dell laptop, two MacBook Airs belonging to his children, and an Asus tablet.
During the search, the officers noted that they also observed two other mobile phones on the premises. However, these phones were left behind because they had not been indicated to the officers for collection. Schembri was present throughout the search, accompanied by his lawyers and family members.
15:39 Mercieca once again places Melvin Theuma's presidential pardon under scrutiny, describing it not simply as a favour but, in his words, as a "special favour" through which Theuma was forgiven for everything covered by it.
He says the pardon system is not wrong in itself, but questions why it was necessary in this case. According to the defence, police could have taken the recordings Theuma had and arrested him through the ordinary process, without granting him that protection.
Mercieca then returns to the defence's claim that Keith Schembri was involved in the process that led to the pardon.
"Why did Keith Schembri rush with the pardon to Joseph Muscat?" he asks.
He also stresses that a pardon is not without consequences, noting that it is recorded on a person's criminal conduct record, a point he uses to underline how serious and exceptional such a decision is.
15:31 Defence lawyer Charles Mercieca once again attacks the way the investigation was conducted, describing it as "messy and bad."
He argues that, in the defence's view, it was not normal for Keith Arnaud to carry out a search accompanied by only one inspector, and again raises questions about what happened during that search and who was involved.
Mercieca then turns back to Keith Schembri, saying Schembri had a pattern of using people and then discarding them.
He refers to several individuals who, according to the defence, were used for a particular purpose and then side-lined once they were no longer useful.
Mercieca says that throughout the trial, piece by piece, what he calls a "hidden hand" behind certain events has begun to emerge.
He closes the point with the line: "That hidden hand has now been exposed."
15:25 The afternoon submissions resume with Melvin Theuma's visits to Castille, as the defence argues that they were neither casual nor brief.
Mercieca recalls Theuma's account of meeting Keith Schembri on Castille's main staircase. Referring to the site inspection, he jokes: "Even I'm impressed by that central staircase."
But his broader point is serious. Mercieca says Theuma expects jurors to believe that he and Schembri met there without any meaningful exchange. The defence rejects that account and insists the two men must have spoken.
Mercieca also recalls that Theuma was then taken into another room and given directions to go to a ministry, arguing that this was clearly not a five-minute encounter.
He then points to Theuma's return the following day, when he said he spent around two and a half hours at Castille.
"I'm telling you, not even a head of state spends two and a half hours at Castille," Mercieca says, with irony.
15:07 Before the jurors enter, Charles Mercieca asks the judge to try to limit people going in and out of the courtroom during the sitting.
He says the noise from the doors and constant movement is distracting the jurors while they listen to the submissions.
Jurors enter the courtroom.
12:54 That brings the morning session to an end, with the court breaking for lunch until 3pm.
Defence lawyer Charles Mercieca has not yet concluded the defence's address and is expected to continue addressing jurors when proceedings resume this afternoon.
12:52 Mercieca continues building on his criticism of the way the investigation was conducted, this time describing it as a "shoddy investigation" (investigazzjoni mandra).
He again refers to Assistant Commissioner Keith Arnaud and claims that messages between him and Keith Schembri had been deleted. Mercieca also argues that, according to the defence, the first time Schembri was concretely mentioned in the investigation was when police first entered Castille.
He then turns to Schembri's testimony about an episode involving David Gatt in his office and what Schembri allegedly told Arnaud about it. "So someone is getting things mixed up," Mercieca remarks.
Mercieca also recalls Schembri describing his relationship with Arnaud as one between "family friends" when he testified.
He again raises Melvin Theuma's presidential pardon, which the defence portrays as a "favour" granted to him, before listing other circumstances which he argues should have been investigated further.
Among them, he refers to Consuelo Scerri Herrera, then a magistrate and now a judge, saying she had summoned Keith Schembri and Chris Cardona.
"With all these things, how can this be a fair investigation?" Mercieca asks jurors.
Mercieca returned to the presidential pardon granted to Melvin Theuma and the role which, according to the defence, Keith Schembri played in the process leading to it.
Mercieca claims that during his final days as chief of staff, Schembri was "running around with the pardon" at then-prime minister Joseph Muscat's office to have it signed.
The defence lawyer links this to his argument that the pardon amounted to a "favour" granted to Theuma.
"And you want me to believe that wasn't a favour?" Mercieca asks jurors.
12:49 "You'll smile at this," Charles Mercieca tells jurors as he reaches what he describes as the crux of the defence's argument about Melvin Theuma. According to Mercieca, Theuma knew far more than he disclosed but, in his account, "mixed up" Keith Schembri with Yorgen Fenech - effectively substituting one for the other, the defence argues.
Mercieca again refers to what the defence says was an agreement dating back to 2016, arguing that whenever investigators had an opportunity to pursue a line of inquiry that could have led to Schembri, "they burned the bridges leading to Keith".
He then turns directly to the police investigation. Mercieca reminds jurors that the judge will ultimately instruct them to decide the case on the evidence before them, rather than evidence they do not have. But he argues the defence is not simply complaining about missing evidence; it is alleging that certain evidence was deliberately kept from reaching them.
"There's a difference between failing to bring something by mistake and not bringing it on purpose," he argues.
Mercieca says this could have been down to incompetence or because someone was prevented from pursuing certain lines of inquiry. He claims there was important evidence which could have led investigators towards Keith Schembri and even Chris Cardona, but that those avenues were, metaphorically, "burned".
It is on this basis that Mercieca again describes the investigation as "dirty". Among other things, he recalls footage of the search at Castille in which Schembri was seen holding a mobile phone, as well as what the defence alleges was a connection between former police commissioner Lawrence Cutajar and the man described as Melvin Theuma's "father figure".
12:46 The defence again attacks the prosecution's proposed motive, namely that Daphne Caruana Galizia was killed because of what she was about to publish about Electrogas.
Mercieca says that remains "conjecture and speculation," arguing that no concrete evidence has been produced showing that Yorgen Fenech wanted Caruana Galizia killed because of Electrogas.
He says Caruana Galizia wrote about Electrogas, but also about many other subjects, including Keith Schembri, and questions why the prosecution has placed such heavy emphasis on this one theory.
"Why this obsession with Electrogas when the truth is right in front of you?" he asks.
Mercieca then turns the question to the material Caruana Galizia was supposedly preparing to publish.
If that was really the motive, he asks, where is the story that was supposedly so dangerous? And why did no clear evidence emerge after her death showing what she had been working on?
He again points to the fact that Caruana Galizia's laptop was not produced as evidence, arguing that this matters even more if the prosecution's motive rests on unpublished work.
His message to jurors is that a theory may raise suspicion, but it cannot substitute for proof.
12:40
The defence again attacks the prosecution's proposed motive, namely that Daphne Caruana Galizia was killed because of what she was about to publish about Electrogas.
Mercieca says that remains "conjecture and speculation," arguing that no concrete evidence has been produced showing that Yorgen Fenech wanted Caruana Galizia killed because of Electrogas.
He says Caruana Galizia wrote about Electrogas, but also about many other subjects, including Keith Schembri, and questions why the prosecution has placed such heavy emphasis on this one theory.
"Why this obsession with Electrogas when the truth is right in front of you?" he asks.
Mercieca then turns the question to the material Caruana Galizia was supposedly preparing to publish.
If that was really the motive, he asks, where is the story that was supposedly so dangerous? And why did no clear evidence emerge after her death showing what she had been working on?
He again points to the fact that Caruana Galizia's laptop was not produced as evidence, arguing that this matters even more if the prosecution's motive rests on unpublished work.
His message to jurors is that a theory may raise suspicion, but it cannot substitute for proof.
12:36 The defence raises another question about Keith Schembri and his contacts with Melvin Theuma.
Lawyer Charles Mercieca asks whether it is normal for a former chief of staff to send a security officer to speak to Theuma and convey a promise concerning bail.
"Is this normal?" he asks.
He says that regardless of whether the message was delivered by Kenneth Camilleri or somebody else, the defence's point is that it allegedly happened at Keith Schembri's initiative or on his instructions.
Mercieca then returns to Schembri's credibility, pointing to what the defence says are inconsistencies in his testimony. One concerns the time Schembri claimed to have called his doctor, Adrian Vella-a timing the defence says was impossible because Vella had already been arrested.
He also reminds jurors of how Schembri ended his testimony. Mercieca recalls Schembri saying, "I have a good heart," before mentioning that a certain Charles Micallef had come to ask him for a favour as recently as the previous day.
The defence asks jurors what weight they should attach to such testimony, arguing that Schembri knew an isolated witness was not supposed to be discussing matters with others, yet still chose to raise that episode himself in court.
12:24 After dealing with suspicion, Charles Mercieca turns to another word he says is crucial for jurors-'doubt'.
He defines it as uncertainty-the point at which a person cannot be sure of a fact or conclusion because another possibility remains open.
According to Mercieca, it is not enough for one version to appear more likely than another. In a criminal case, he says, the law does not allow a person to be convicted where reasonable doubt remains.
"Certain means certain," he insists.
He tells jurors that when they come to assess the case, they must ask themselves whether the prosecution's arguments have truly put their minds at rest, or whether something still does not sit right.
If that doubt remains - if they have not reached a firm conviction-then, Mercieca says, the verdict must be one of acquittal.
12:22 The defence turns to explain the word 'suspicion'.
Lawyer Charles Mercieca says it is a word used often, but not always understood precisely. He describes suspicion as a thought that gives rise to doubt, a sense that something is not what it appears to be.
From there, he builds his argument around Keith Schembri. He says Daphne Caruana Galizia wrote extensively about him and there was judicial interest in Schembri and Chris Cardona in 2015. He also notes that a 2017 Europol report also referred to those names.
He also points to a request made on 4 July 2018 by Magistrate Neville Camilleri for Schembri's call data, arguing that such a step would not have been taken at random.
Up to that point, Mercieca says, one could still describe the situation as suspicion.
But the defence argues that things then went further. Mercieca refers to testimony from an executor who, according to the defence, directly attributed a role to both Chris Cardona and Keith Schembri.
That is where he turns his fire on the investigation. "If investigators had allegations that were so direct, how could Schembri not have been fully investigated? How can I take you seriously?"
Mercieca then returns to the word he started with: "I have a suspicion; a suspicion that this was a botched investigation."
The defence's final point is that an investigation that respects the integrity of the crime must investigate everyone, not only those whom investigators choose to pursue.
12:13 The defence once again circles back to Keith Schembri, arguing that several strands of evidence heard at trial ultimately point in the same direction.
Defence lawyer Charles Mercieca refers to Yorgen Fenech's testimony about €30,000 which, according to Fenech, Schembri had paid in 2015. He says that episode had not emerged in court at the time, but argues that what Fenech later told police after his arrest was consistent with points George Degiorgio made in his own testimony.
"All roads lead to Keith," Mercieca declares, insisting that however much those indications are pushed aside, the defence believes the evidence keeps circling back to Schembri.
Mercieca then turns to George Degiorgio, saying he had "paid five years of his life" after, in his words, getting caught in the middle of someone else's dispute.
He says Fenech himself testified that he had ended up between two sides, and returns to the defence's central question: If Fenech had no direct interest in the murder, why would he have placed himself in the middle, and what was he trying to achieve?
11:57 Lawyer Charles Mercieca returns to a point, which he says does not fit Melvin Theuma's version - why the murder plot was supposedly accelerated or paused around the 2017 general election.
Mercieca asks what interest Yorgen Fenech had in the timing of the election, arguing that the political result would not have affected him in the same way it might have affected someone involved in politics.
"What does Yorgen have to do with the election? The result doesn't affect him," he says.
The defence then challenges the logic of Theuma's account. "If the murder was so closely tied to the election timetable, why would that make sense for Fenech?"
Mercieca adds that if Fenech is replaced in that scenario by someone with a direct political interest in the election result, then, in the defence's view, the timeline begins to make much more sense.
11:49 The defence now turns to the conspiracy/association charge, explaining to jurors what must exist for such an offence to be established.
Lawyer Charles Mercieca says it is not enough for two or more people to know each other or to appear within the same set of circumstances. There must be an agreement between them to commit a crime.
He says the essential elements are two or more persons, an agreement on the criminal objective, and some mode of action planned or agreed between them to carry it out. That reflects Article 48A of the Criminal Code, which provides that conspiracy exists from the moment any mode of action is planned or agreed between the persons involved.
11:33 The defence turns once again to Melvin Theuma, arguing that jurors cannot safely rely on his version to convict Yorgen Fenech.
Lawyer Charles Mercieca refers to Theuma's own claim that he once paid €5,000 out of his own pocket for a "binoculars", saying he could have asked Fenech for the money but chose not to.
The defence uses that to question the logic of Theuma's account. How could Theuma say he was reluctant to ask for €5,000, Mercieca says, yet expect jurors to accept a very different picture when much larger sums and a murder were involved?
Mercieca sums up the point with the line: "A person can lie, but character never lies."
He also contrasts Theuma's way of explaining events with Fenech's testimony, arguing that Fenech generally answered questions directly rather than constructing elaborate explanations around every point.
Mercieca then turns to the legal structure of the prosecution's case, reminding jurors that Fenech is being accused through several possible forms of complicity. He highlights three out of the five types of complicity at law: That Fenech gave the order, or caused the crime through gifts, promises or threats, or encouraged/strengthened another person's resolve to commit the offence, including through a promise of later compensation.
The defence's central argument is that the only witness who directly placed Fenech in those roles in this jury is Melvin Theuma. And if, as the defence argues, Theuma cannot be safely relied upon, then the prosecution's case is left without a solid foundation.
11:19 The defence resumes its submissions with a direct attack on what lawyer Charles Mercieca describes as an obsession with protecting Keith Schembri and former minister Chris Cardona, while placing responsibility on Yorgen Fenech.
Mercieca asks why Melvin Theuma needed to be granted a pardon in order to tell investigators what, according to the defence, they wanted to hear.
He makes a stronger allegation - the pardon effectively carried an "unwritten condition" that Theuma should not implicate Keith Schembri.
According to Mercieca, the fact that the pardon was never withdrawn shows that Theuma continued to comply with that condition.
The defence also refers to hitman George Degiorgio, arguing that even after he later challenged Theuma's version and accused him of lying, the pardon remained in place.
Mercieca's point to jurors is that they should not automatically accept Theuma's account, but should ask why certain people were kept out of it while others were placed at its centre.
He argues that, however closely Theuma's story is examined, there are still elements which, according to the defence, have never fully emerged at trial.
10:55 The defence clarifies that it is not invoking intoxication as a defence to the commission of the offence. Its argument, it says, concerns Yorgen Fenech's condition when he gave his police statement, not any exemption from criminal responsibility.
The court then rules on the prosecution's request and refuses to address the jury immediately on the point.
The judge says the court will follow the procedure laid down by law and will give jurors its legal directions at the final stage, once both sides have completed their submissions.
10:39 The prosecution argues that under Article 34(1) of Chapter 9, a person cannot rely on being under the influence of narcotics or drugs as an excuse to avoid criminal responsibility.
The prosecution says there are also constitutional judgments on the point, including one concerning Yorgen Fenech himself, in which arguments based on his condition due to narcotics or drugs were rejected.
It therefore raises a formal objection to any defence reference that could suggest Fenech's drug use may amount to a legal excuse or shield him from criminal liability.
10:38 Proceedings have stopped for a short break until 11am. But just after the jurors exit Hall 22, the prosecution raises a point of law.
10:35 The defence again turns its focus to Melvin Theuma's presidential pardon, this time asking what reason he could still have had to conceal or distort the truth.
Mercieca argues that the pardon protected Theuma in relation to the offences it covered and should therefore have left him free to tell the truth without fearing the consequences for himself.
He contrasts this with a witness such as Keith Schembri, who had no pardon and who, under the defence's argument, could therefore have had a personal interest to hide the truth.
But Theuma, Mercieca says, had just one job: "Tell the truth."
The defence therefore asks why was Theuma hiding things or lying on particular points. "Who is he protecting?"
Mercieca insists it could not have been Fenech, mimicking the way Theuma repeatedly referred to him as "Yorgen Fenech ta' Tumas."
10:26 Mercieca continued his focus on the relationship between Melvin Theuma and the Degiorgio brothers.
He recalled how Theuma had approached Alfred Degiorgio, and noted that when de Marco asked him why he did so, Theuma replied that he had expected George Degiorgio to say no and therefore turned to Alfred instead.
Mercieca argued that during his testimony, Theuma had projected the impression that he barely knew the individuals hanging around the potato shed and that he only gravitated toward the Degiorgio brothers to ingratiate himself and build up a certain status among them.
At this point, Mercieca remarked that Theuma had "gone off-script" - a reference to the defence's line of questioning during cross-examination when de Marco repeatedly and sarcastically asked him if his answers were things he had "studied" beforehand.
Mercieca then contrasted this with a conversation Theuma had with his partner, in which, according to the defence, Theuma demonstrated prior knowledge of a plan to burn down two garages linked to Alfred Degiorgio. For the defence, this revelation raises further questions about how truly limited Theuma's relationship with the Degiorgio brothers actually was prior to the murder.
10:23 Charles Mercieca turned his focus to the presidential pardon granted to Melvin Theuma, urging the jurors to independently evaluate the reasons and circumstances behind why that pardon was issued.
Mercieca addressed the matter of the parking spot linked to Theuma's taxi, challenging the prosecution's narrative that Yorgen Fenech had arranged the space so Theuma could earn a living for his family. Reviewing the Attorney General's report, Mercieca argued that the dramatic presentation of the event made it sound "like a story by Trevor Żahra."
The defence argued that this version of events was crafted to create the false impression that Theuma owed a debt or obligation to Fenech over the parking spot. Pointing out that Theuma had actually applied for the space back in 2013, Mercieca questioned why the prosecution attempted to spin a narrative that contradicted the recorded facts.
Mercieca then stated that the one person proven beyond doubt to have facilitated matters for Theuma was former Police Commissioner Lawrence Cutajar. He reminded the jury that after Theuma was arrested and granted a pardon, he was also conveniently permitted to keep operating his taxi.
10:18 The defence returns to the reliability of Yorgen Fenech's police statement and to material it says was never put before jurors.
Lawyer Charles Mercieca reminds jurors that Fenech said he was under the influence of cocaine when he gave his statement to police, using that to question how reliable his account could have been in that condition.
The defence also returns to the recordings Melvin Theuma allegedly had of Keith Schembri, stressing that these were never produced in court.
Mercieca argues that once Schembri began featuring in intercepts and other material as someone who may have had a role in commissioning the murder, investigators should have pursued that line far more thoroughly.
The defence's point is that jurors are being asked to assess Fenech's statement and Theuma's account while potentially important evidence concerning Schembri was either not collected or never presented.
10:13 Mercieca reminded the jury of the fundamental difference in the legal standards required of the two sides as they present their respective cases.
The prosecution carries the heavy burden of bringing forward evidence robust enough to establish moral certainty, Mercieca emphasised, whereas the defence bears no legal obligation to prove innocence or present any evidence at all.
"If there is one reasonable doubt, then you have to acquit," he told the jurors, stressing that an acquittal is not a discretionary favour granted to the accused, but a fundamental legal right. He concluded by reminding the panel that if they harbour any lack of moral certainty that Yorgen Fenech was indeed the individual who conspired with Melvin Theuma and the others to commit the assassination, the law demands an acquittal.
10:05 Mercieca highlighted further inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative, pointing out that forensic evidence showed the bomb used to kill Daphne Caruana Galizia was already present in Malta as early as January 2017, well before Melvin Theuma claimed to have received the murder order from Fenech.
Mercieca also drew attention to a timeline contradiction, noting Theuma's claim that there was a complete blackout in communication during the three weeks leading up to the 2017 general election. This quiet period supposedly occurred even though Fenech had allegedly warned Theuma that the journalist was on the verge of publishing a damaging story about his uncle, Ray Fenech.
"What better time would there be to publish a story about someone?" Mercieca asked the jury, arguing that the middleman's version of events - that the assassination was commissioned to preempt a future disclosure - simply did not hold up to logical scrutiny.
Instead, Mercieca concluded that the motivation was entirely retrospective. "This was revenge," he told the jurors, emphasizing that the articles and writings that genuinely provoked the deadly order had already been published.
10:00 Mercieca continued hammering home his argument that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, turning his focus toward the alleged motive behind the assassination.
Mercieca told the jurors that if the state's central thesis rests on the claim that the murder was driven by Electrogas and 17 Black, prosecutors carried a strict legal obligation to prove that connection beyond any shadow of a doubt. Furthermore, he argued that the prosecution had entirely neglected to address or refute multiple reasonable doubts raised by the defence throughout the proceedings.
Specifically, Mercieca pointed out that the defence had actively challenged Melvin Theuma's assertion that Fenech could have commissioned the killing as early as April 2017, yet prosecutors had left those critical discrepancies unanswered.
9:47 Charles Mercieca continues arguing that investigators failed to secure evidence that could have confirmed or disproved key parts of Melvin Theuma's version.
He refers to Charmaine Zammit, who the defence says spoke to Chayenne and told her that "someone big" had turned up with Johann Cremona. Mercieca asks why investigators did not try to identify who that person was.
"It certainly wasn't Yorgen," he says.
The defence then turns to call profiles, which Mercieca argues could have provided an objective way of checking several phone calls Theuma said took place.
Mercieca reminds jurors that Theuma said Yorgen Fenech called him twice, that he himself called Alfred Degiorgio, and that other calls were made around crucial moments in the case.
The defence's point is straightforward: if those calls were important enough to support Theuma's account, why were the relevant call profiles not produced as evidence?
Mercieca says the issue is not simply that the records were missing, but that prosecutors are asking jurors to rely on Theuma's version without producing the technical evidence that could have independently tested it.
He adds that, according to the defence, Fenech's call profiles for 2017 and 2018 were not obtained.
9:45 Mercieca turns his attention to the mobile phone belonging to Keith Schembri, arguing before the jury that this crucial piece of evidence was never seized by authorities.
Nothing was done, he said, questioning how a fair investigation could be conducted or how the defence could properly respond when such critical evidence was left untouched. Mercieca pointed out that just one week after a search was conducted at Schembri's residence, he was spotted at the Auberge de Castille holding his phone openly in his hand.
Schembri felt entirely emboldened in the presence of the investigators handling the case, Mercieca told the jury, framing this omission as just one example in a pattern of intentional shortcomings that undermined the integrity of the police probe.
9:39 Defence lawyer Charles Mercieca pressed on with his address to the jury, punching holes in the prosecution's narrative and reminding the panel that an accused person enjoys the fundamental presumption of innocence. He stressed that the burden of proof rests entirely on the state, noting that the defence is under no legal obligation to prove anything.
Mercieca argued that the prosecution had repeatedly fallen short by failing to substantiate key allegations with independent evidence. Specifically, he pointed out that investigators neglected to produce vital call logs to corroborate Melvin Theuma's assertions regarding calls he claimed to have received.
"Is this because they are incompetent, in awe of power, or obsessed with Fenech?" Mercieca asked the jurors, questioning the thoroughness and motivations behind the state's investigation.
9:29 Mercieca then focuses on someone whose name surfaced repeatedly during the trial but who never took the witness stand - Mario Degiorgio, brother of Alfred and George Degiorgio.
"Why wasn't he summoned by prosecutors?" Mercieca asks, suggesting they knew he was lying and feared this would be exposed before the jury.
He also points out that Theuma's stepdaughter, who featured in several messages and conversations involving Theuma heard during the trial, was never called to testify.
9:26 Defence lawyer Charles Mercieca resumed his address to the jury, shifting focus to the laptop belonging to Daphne Caruana Galizia.
Mercieca reminded the jurors that at the inception of the murder investigation in October 2017, law enforcement officials had stressed that the laptop was a vital piece of evidence that could shed light on the motive behind the assassination. However, he noted that by December 2019, investigators abruptly dismissed its importance on the grounds that her published blog entries remained accessible online.
Pointing to a formal request for the device made in 2018, Mercieca directed the jury's attention to correspondence from German authorities indicating that the journalist's family had requested the deletion of the data contained on the computer.
"If we want justice, why would I delete the laptop data?" Mercieca asked the courtroom, arguing that this incident formed part of a broader pattern of questionable actions that introduced heavy doubts into the prosecution's case.
9:15 Judge Edwina Grima is in the courtoom.