Yorgen Fenech was acquitted of all charges in connection with the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia on Wednesday evening, in a jury verdict that shocked many.
Fenech was acquitted of both complicity and conspiracy for the murder of the journalist on the basis of an 8-1 jury vote - a vote that is considered as being effectively unanimous in Malta's legal system.
The verdict came after a 55-day trial which stopped the country in its tracks and which featured over 100 witnesses and hours of sometimes dramatic testimony.
Fenech's trial was deemed as the trial of the century, and it may well have even been the most significant trial in Malta's judicial history. International eyes also watched, and they watched on in shock as Fenech was acquitted.
It's a jury decision that will no doubt shape the discourse in Malta in the months, and even years, to come.
The Keith Schembri defence
The verdict was already shocking in and of itself: but it is only when one begins to take into consideration the elements which likely led to it that one can reach the point of view that this is something that can be severely damaging, even politically.
Fenech's lawyers' argument throughout the trial was that he had no involvement in the murder, and that the actual mastermind who ordered Daphne Caruana Galizia to be killed was none other than Keith Schembri, who at the time was the chief of staff of the Prime Minister Joseph Muscat.
This was coupled with a cover-up by the State and its investigative institutions - and there were testimonies that the defence latched onto as giving credence to that theory.
Take the testimony of a scene of crime officer during the trial: she said that investigators who searched Keith Schembri's home only took what Schembri told them to take. Another technical witness testified that he had not been instructed to digitally clone the data that was on Schembri's lost phone.
While we cannot know exactly what led the jurors to reach the verdict that they reached, enough reasonable doubt was created for them not to convict Fenech - despite there being voice recordings, mountains of documents, and hours of testimony acting against him.
That doubt came from the defence's theory that this murder was ordered not by a businessman - but by one of the top men in the highest corridor of power in a Labour government.
As the dust settles, that's a realisation that more and more people will start to piece together.
An Attorney General and police force under scrutiny
This was the trial of the century, and potentially the most important jury trial in Malta's legal history. Yet the country's authorities - the police and the Attorney General's office - failed to get a conviction.
It's another high-profile murder which, at its core, has gone unsolved. While the authorities have a very good track record when it comes to solving murders, the track record when those murders are of a high profile is not as great.
Daphne Caruana Galizia sadly joins the ranks of Karin Grech, Raymond Caruana, and Lino Cauchi who were victims of brutal, grizzly assassinations and whose killers have not - and at this point may never - face the punishment they deserve.
Questions may well start to be asked of the police: Why was it that, for instance, it appeared that there were moments during the investigation that police treated Keith Schembri with kid's gloves when compared to other suspects?
That's a question that the defence asked, and a question that the jury seem to have taken into consideration.
What about the Attorney General's office? The eyes will inevitably fall onto the prosecution with questions raised as to whether they put forward an effective and coherent case.
But questions are likely also to be asked of Attorney General Victoria Buttigieg herself. At no point during the 55-day jury trial was she seen in the courtroom - something unusual, given the status of the case.
Some may feel that it is time to ask questions over her own leadership as the Attorney General. She and her office have not covered themselves in glory on various occasions and in various cases over the last six years, but this could - and perhaps should - prove to be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back.
Could Malta's legal framework change?
The regulatory debate has already begun, with several legal minds questioning whether Malta's laws are fully up to scratch and others questioning whether in cases such as these, a trial by jury is really the best way to go.
Lawyer Jason Azzopardi, who represented the Caruana Galizia family as parte civile in the case, said in his reaction to the verdict that there are three laws that Malta's legal framework currently lacks: one governing misconduct in public office, another on perverting the course of justice, and another of assisting the offender.
"You heard of behaviour from after the murder which still scandalised us, but it was not a crime," Azzopardi said, noting that he had proposed such laws in 2022 but they were voted down.
Experienced lawyer Georg Sapiano also made a point on the jury system itself: "We pluck nine ordinary men and women out of their everyday lives and force them to serve as jurors," he said.
They are then told that the accused was no ordinary criminal, that he has money and power at his beck and call, and they can see witnesses left blubbering on the stand in fear of answering questions.
"We expected - demanded - that they behave like heroes," he said.
Sapiano pointed out that in other countries, people accused of high-profile killings are tried by a panel of specialised judges who are doing the job willingly and fully conscious and prepared for the risks involved.
Law professor Kevin Aquilina has pointed out that in this day and age where crime is becoming more advanced and more technologically and legally complex, the average man or woman on the street who may end up being a juror can have a hard time truly grasping what is before them.
Then there remains the uncomfortable truth for the government that it is yet to implement practically all of the reforms recommended by the Daphne Caruana Galizia public inquiry.
The PN has now filed a motion for those recommendations to be implemented - it will be interesting to see how the government reacts.
Protests and international fallout
The fallout among civil society and, more so, internationally will be a very real prospect.
The PN already held an impromptu demonstration attended by a couple hundred people, but civil society NGOs have also announced a protest on the 16th September - the 16th being the day each month that the same NGOs used to organise a vigil for Caruana Galizia.
International organisations meanwhile have reacted in collective shock and outrage at Fenech's acquittal - and they make their stance very clear: that justice has once again been denied.
This fallout will no doubt spread and no doubt make it to the highest institutions in Europe.
Malta's reputation is once again on the chopping block, and it's up to Prime Minister Robert Abela and his government to find a way to deal with it.
Having the Culture Minister Malcolm Paul Agius Galea tell journalists that he isn't sure that Daphne was killed because of her journalistic work is not an auspicious start, to say the least.
What can happen next in court?
In the midst of all this, the legal side of this story is not over just yet either.
The prosecution had 15 working days to decide whether to file an appeal or not, and on Friday it emerged that it would indeed be filing an appeal. Any appeal cannot challenge the verdict itself, but it can challenge legal circumstances surrounding the proceedings of the case.
One such example is that during the trial, the judge ruled that jurors should not be told that Fenech had applied for a presidential pardon. Should an appeals court find that there was an error of law which was serious enough to affect the verdict, then it could order a retrial.
There is then the possibility of parallel cases: the Caruana Galizia family may, should it wish, sue to the State on human rights grounds because the question of who masterminded the murder remains unanswered, while Fenech could also sue the State and argue that his human rights had been breached, particularly because he was held in preventive custody for five years for a crime that a jury decided he did not commit.
Another aspect is Melvin Theuma's pardon: the not guilty verdict in and of itself does not automatically rescind Theuma's pardon as that was tied to Theuma saying the whole truth in court, and not to Fenech being found guilty.
If there is a suspicion that Theuma failed to say the full truth though, then there can be an investigation and eventual direction for Theuma's pardon to be withdrawn, which would then lead to proceedings against him.
Finally, there is a possibility that more people will face charges. Judge Edwina Grima, who presided over the trial, ordered that all evidence given by witnesses is directed to the police so investigators can determine whether there are others who should face criminal proceedings.
The Attorney General's lawyers themselves said in their closing address that the inquiry into whether there were more third parties involved in the murder had been reopened.
Is Yorgen Fenech himself now out of the woods? He is still facing corruption and money laundering charges in court in relation to the Electrogas power station, he is facing further charges for bribing the now former head of the Malta Police anti-money laundering unit Ray Aquilina, and he is also facing charges of purchasing illicit weapons.
What's certain though is that, pending an appeals court ordering a retrial, Fenech cannot be charged afresh in connection with the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia.