Yorgen Fenech’s defence team attempts to discredit police investigation into Daphne’s murder

During a tense cross-examination of Assistant Commissioner Keith Arnaud, the lead investigator in the murder of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, the defence for the accused, Yorgen Fenech, repeatedly accused the police force of failing to adequately look into all possible avenues of investigation, repeatedly steering the narrative towards high-ranking government officials and other conspirators allegedly involved in the plot.

Arnaud, who’s testifying for the fourth consecutive hearing in the trial in which Fenech stands accused of the voluntary homicide of Daphne Caruana Galizia, was facing a raft of questions from Fenech’s legal team about how the police force handled the case. Fenech denies the charges and claims that he was coerced into following through with the murder plot.

In one particularly striking exchange, lawyer Giannella de Marco, who is handling the witness’ questioning on the defence’s behalf, insisted on asking Arnaud whether he had actually looked into the contents of the victim’s laptop – a refrain commonly repeated by Labour Party supporters seeking to discredit anti-corruption critics.

Referring to Arnaud’s prior testimony, in which he indicated that Matthew Caruana Galizia was one of the best sources the police had to ascertain the immediate facts of Caruana Galizia’s brutal murder, de Marco noted that Arnaud had highlighted the victim’s laptop as a key node of information for the investigation.

“Do we agree that you never personally investigated the contents of this laptop?” De Marco asked.

Confirming that the police had filed a formal request to access the victim’s laptop but that the family had denied access, Arnaud noted that the workaround was to liaise with Daphne’s son directly and that the family “had passed on relevant information about what they believed was of interest to the police.”

“So they could have said anything they wanted to you,” de Marco continued, with the investigator responding that “there was never a situation in which a victim’s family member deliberately misguided us during an investigation”, rejecting de Marco’s suggestions that the victim’s son had only given the police what he wanted to give them.

De Marco then questioned Arnaud about several individuals whose names have been raised in connection with the wider murder investigation, including former OPM chief of staff Keith Schembri, former minister Chris Cardona, former police inspector David Gatt, Anthony Sammut, known in criminal circles as Tony l-Iblaħ, and Anthony Chetcuti, known as il-Bigli.

Arnaud said some of those names were only raised late in the investigation, particularly through a letter which Fenech had claimed was intended to mislead police. He said investigators looked into them when their names emerged, but that evidence had not led police to those individuals before then.

The defence also questioned Arnaud about Muscat’s claims involving Gatt and alleged contacts with the Marsa potato shed (where the executors were arrested). Arnaud said police had looked into those claims, but noted that Muscat’s evidence on some of these points was limited. The key confirmation, he said, remained that the executors had accepted €150,000 from middleman Melvin Theuma for the murder.

On claims involving Cardona and Alfred Degiorgio’s alleged bid for a Freeport licence – which would have been issued through Cardona’s office – Arnaud said police investigated whether permits had been issued to the Degiorgios or the other executors. No such permits were found, he told the court.

De Marco also challenged Arnaud on whether police investigated why patrols outside Caruana Galizia’s home had stopped before the murder.

Arnaud said he did not ask the police commissioner about earlier patrols because his role began after the assassination and the investigation was focused on identifying those responsible for the murder.

He rejected as “unimaginable” the suggestion that patrols would have been ordered away from Bidnija on the instructions of the police commissioner.

The defence also pressed Arnaud on the broader criminal context surrounding the Degiorgio brothers and Muscat, including other bombings and shootings in Malta at the time.

Arnaud described them as part of one of the largest organised crime groups Malta had seen, saying it was normal for such groups to have access to weapons, ammunition and explosives. He confirmed that police knew the group had obtained multiple bombs but had no prior intelligence on what they were going to be used for – including the one used to kill Caruana Galizia.

Questioned on why police did not arrest Theuma earlier, Arnaud said then police commissioner Lawrence Cutajar had wanted to move in and seize the recordings, but Arnaud argued against doing so before investigators had stronger grounds.

If that decision had gone wrong, he said, police risked losing the only person who could help them solve the case.

Arnaud also rejected the suggestion that Europol had clashed with Maltese police over the way forward. He said Europol supported the Maltese action plan and described it as “very solid”, while continuing to ask how best to exploit the information police already had on Theuma.

The defence later questioned Arnaud about Theuma’s presidential pardon and the extent of the assets he retained after becoming a state witness.

Arnaud said Theuma had asked for a pardon in relation to the murder and money laundering charges, adding that the value of the information he provided had to be weighed against the crimes he exposed.

De Marco suggested that Theuma and his family had recovered their assets after proceedings against them. Arnaud said this was not his investigation and not his remit.

Madam Justice Edwina Grima clarified that the court had, in fact, seized all movable and immovable property belonging to Theuma’s partner and her daughter.

“In this case, the witness was being misguided,” the Judge said, adding that there had been confiscation of those assets.

The Judge ordered jurors to ignore the question about whether Theuma’s proceeds had been released, noting that this did not fall within Arnaud’s remit.

The trial continues in the afternoon.