Prosecution accuses Yorgen Fenech’s defence team of ‘misleading’ jury

State prosecutors accused Yorgen Fenech’s legal team of “misleading” the jury by being “selective” in its references to evidence included in the case.

Lead prosecutor Anthony Vella accused the defence of deliberately obfuscating the jury’s perception of police work through selective references to reports, testimonies and information from third parties who had not yet testified before the jury.

The accusation was made during the ongoing cross-examination of lead police investigator Keith Arnaud, who faced a full day of questions from the defence, largely focused on scrutinising whether the police had failed to adequately investigate former OPM chief of staff Keith Schembri.

In particular, the defence homed in on the police’s failure to locate Schembri’s personal phone and laptop, which they did not seize when Schembri became a suspect and was arrested in November 2019.

Asked whether police had simply accepted Schembri’s claim that he had lost his phone just before being arrested, Arnaud said investigators had searched for it but came up empty-handed. He said Schembri’s office at Castille was also sealed before searches were carried out.

Arnaud’s recollection of which items were seized seemed hazy. Initially, he said he did not remember whether electronic devices were seized from Schembri’s office. Then, following sustained questioning, he said no laptops, phones or personal computers belonging to Schembri had been seized from the former chief of staff’s home or office.

The lead prosecutor objected to the defence’s line of enquiry. “The jurors are being misled,” Vella said, “very selective reference” was being made to facts.

Defence lawyer Giannella de Marco rejected the accusation, arguing that without the defence’s cross-examination, Arnaud would not have been forced to clarify what was and was not seized during the searches carried out on Schembri.

Defence lawyer Charles Mercieca argued that the cross-examination was intended to contrast Arnaud’s earlier testimony with what emerged from reports in the acts of the case.

Arnaud was also asked about claims made by Edgar Brincat, known as il-Ġojja, who said he paid €15,000 to former police commissioner Lawrence Cutajar for a meeting linked to a possible pardon.

Arnaud rejected the allegation. He said Cutajar had claimed that his meetings with Brincat were intended to see what information could be obtained about Theuma’s secret recordings and where they might be stored.

De Marco then questioned Arnaud about the overlap between Castille meetings attended by senior officials and Cutajar’s meetings with Brincat, which took place around the same period. Arnaud conceded that Cutajar only told investigators about his secret meetings with Brincat after they were exposed.

The defence also asked whether Arnaud considered Schembri a suspect before November 2019. Arnaud said Schembri was not considered a suspect by the investigating team until then, because the evidence generated by the investigation had not placed him in the murder plot.

The trial continues on Wednesday.