Maksar gang trial: Degiorgio prison call tapping led investigators to Melvin Theuma, jury hears

Juror seeks clarification

One of the jurors seeks clarification on a detail mentioned earlier by Superintendent Cilia - specifically asking what “GVP 228” refers to. Cilia replies that it is the number plate assigned to a police vehicle.

This marks the end of Cilia’s testimony. With no further witnesses called for the day, the jury concludes its session for today. Proceedings are set to resume tomorrow at 9:30am.

A full report of today's proceedings will be uploaded shortly.

Thank you for following.

A quick reminder

We are in the second day of the trial by jury of brothers Adrian and Robert Agius, and their associates Jamie Vella and George Degiorgio. They are being accused of involvement in the murders of Daphne Caruana Galizia and lawyer Carmel Chricop.

Robert Agius and Jamie Vella are accused of supplying the bomb that killed Caruana Galizia, while Adrian Agius, Vella and Degiorgio are accused of plotting and executing the murder of Chircop.

All accused deny the accusations.

Caruana Galizia was murdered in 2017, while Chircop was shot dead in a Birkirkara garage complex in 2015.

Our reporter Jaelle Borg has been following proceedings.

Police officer describes murder scene: 'Only the head and a few other body parts could be seen'

Superintendent Antoine Cilia takes the witness stand, providing testimony on his involvement in the 2017 investigation into the car bomb that killed journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia.

Cilia explains that at the time, he was stationed with the Special Intervention Unit. Recalling the events of that tragic afternoon, he told the court that around 3pm, he heard a call over the police radio reporting an explosion involving a vehicle.

He describes the scene upon arrival, saying the car had been completely engulfed in flames. The driver’s side door was blown off, the steering wheel had been dislodged, and inside the wreckage, a body was visible. “Only the head and a few other body parts could be seen,” Cilia says, highlighting the severity of the blast and the extensive damage to the vehicle.

Jurors ask about cigarette butt

Jurors are now given the chance to ask any questions. One of the jurors asks Inspector Zahra about a reference made during his testimony to a cigarette butt. Zahra confirms that forensic analysis had matched the cigarette to Alfred Degiorgio.

With no further questions from the jury, the court shifts to follow-up questions from the prosecution.

One of the questions focuses on whether Melvin Theuma had ever communicated with Vincent Muscat regarding the assassination of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia. However, Zahra states he cannot answer, implying that he has no direct knowledge of any such exchange.

The prosecution also asks Zahra about the contents of a note that had reportedly been found inside an ice cream container. Zahra clarifies that he cannot provide details, as he was not involved in that specific aspect of the investigation.

Defence asks about pressure on Vince Muscat to disclose information in exchange for pardon

Lawyer Amadeus Cachia turns his questions toward the broader Daphne Caruana Galizia inquiry, asking Inspector Kurt Zahra about the current status of the investigation. Zahra responds that, to his understanding, part of the inquiry is still ongoing.

However, when Cachia attempts to cite a 2020 public statement by the Police Commissioner regarding the case, Zahra interrupts him, stating firmly, “I’m not the Commissioner’s parrot to repeat whatever he said,” indicating that he will not echo statements made by others, particularly those outside of his direct responsibilities.

Cachia then refers to a document involving Vince Muscat’s cooperation with investigators. He highlights a particular moment when Zahra was present during an interview in which Muscat was being encouraged to speak truthfully. According to a quote cited by Cachia, Inspector Keith Arnaud had told Muscat: “I always told you that for a presidential pardon, you need to tell the truth.” Muscat reportedly responded, “Yes, I’m telling the truth,” to which Arnaud replied, “The whole truth - because it could cost you.”

The reference to this exchange was used to underscore the pressure on Muscat to fully disclose his knowledge in order to secure a pardon.
Following this line of questioning, Amadeus Cachia indicated he had no further questions.

Inspector confirms Jamie Vella's name was not mentioned by Melvin Theuma and Yorgen Fenech

Defence lawyer Amadeus Cachia points out that Vince Muscat had applied for a presidential pardon in 2018, and was rejected at first while Melvin Theuma was arrested in 2019 and granted a pardon shortly thereafter.

Zahra clarifies that it wasn’t a matter of “a few days,”. Cachia asks whether he knew how many times Vince Muscat had applied for a pardon. Zahra says he believes it was twice. Cachia asks whether it was true that Muscat had been denied the first time because he wasn’t clear enough in his statements. Zahra says he could not exclude that possibility.

Cachia also questions whether Zahra agreed that Yorgen Fenech never mentioned Jamie Vella in his statements. Zahra confirms that to be the case. He also confirms he was aware that Fenech had requested a pardon. The lawyer notes that neither Melvin Theuma nor Fenech had mentioned Vella, not even in their recordings - though many other names were brought up. Zahra agrees.

Cachia refers to Zahra’s own notes, asking him to reflect on the interviews with Theuma. Zahra acknowledges that several names were mentioned throughout, but Jamie Vella’s was not among them.

Cross-examination of Inspector Zahra continues by defence

Nicholas Mifsud concludes his cross-examination and defence lawyer Amadeus Cachia takes over. He starts by asking Inspector Kurt Zahra how long he had been working in this particular field and whether this was since his involvement in the investigation of the Caruana Galizia murder. Zahra affirms this and also confirms the involvement of foreign experts brought in to assist Maltese investigators.

The defence lawyer presses for details about which arrests Zahra had personally been involved in and asks whether any drug squad inspectors had also been part of the process. Zahra responds that various inspectors were involved but did not give specific names. When asked if he had taken part in the arrest of Jamie Vella, Zahra says he had not. Cachia follows up by asking whether Inspector Keith Arnaud had ever told him the reasons behind Vella’s arrest, to which Zahra replies he was not involved.

Cachia moves on to the €1 million reward offered by the government in the Caruana Galizia murder case and the police task force that had been set up. Zahra explains that the task force was created to assess and filter incoming information, ensuring investigators could distinguish between valid and invalid leads. When asked whether the inquiring magistrate was kept informed of such developments, Zahra confirms that the magistrate was notified whenever a lead was considered credible.

Pressed further, Zahra says he was not aware who exactly had requested FBI involvement in the case, and stated firmly that it was not his role to speculate on such matters - his focus, he says, was conducting the investigation.

Inspector pushes back against notion that Vince Muscat's testimony to police was prompted

With Nicholas Mifsud concluding his cross-examination, defence lawyer Noel Bianco takes over. He begins by asking about the €1 million reward that had been offered in relation to the Daphne Caruana Galizia murder. However, Inspector Kurt Zahra appears confused by the question and seeks clarification.

Bianco then shifts to asking about the arrest of Melvin Theuma but Zahra immediately clarifies that he had no involvement in that particular arrest.

Continuing, Bianco highlights how Vince Muscat would repeatedly say “remind me” during his interrogations, but later in 2021, he appeared to recall everything in more detail. In response, Zahra pushes back against the notion that Muscat’s testimony was entirely built on prompts or memory lapses. While acknowledging that there were moments when Muscat forgot certain details, Zahra insists that his evidence was not solely composed of forgetful moments and should not be characterised that way.

Adrian Agius not charged in relation to Caruana Galizia's murder

As the cross-examination by defence lawyer Rene Darmanin concludes, lawyer Nicholas Mifsud takes over for the next round of questioning.
Mifsud begins by asking Inspector Kurt Zahra whether he agrees that, based on the investigation, nothing emerged against Adrian Agius in connection with the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia. Zahra confirms, stating that Adrian Agius is not among the individuals charged in relation to Daphne Caruana Galizia's case.

Shifting focus, Mifsud questions Zahra about the presidential pardon granted to Vince Muscat, known as il-Koħħu, and whether Zahra recalls an instance during Muscat’s interrogation when he turned to the assistant commissioner and said, “you need to remind me” — implying that Muscat was being prompted or reminded during questioning. Zahra acknowledges that he remembers this exchange taking place during one of the interrogation sessions.

Muddled timelines provided by Vince Muscat

Rene Darmanin shifts his questioning to focus on the bombs discussed in Kurt Zahra’s testimony.

He refers to Zahra’s earlier statement in which he mentioned that Vince Muscat had told him that three bombs had been acquired. Darmanin asks Kurt Zahra whether Vince Muscat had ever mentioned when the bombs would be used.

Zahra responds that Muscat did not know the exact timing or specific dates of the bombings, admitting that he had no clear understanding of when they would be deployed.

Darmanin then highlights Zahra’s earlier testimony where he said one of the bombs was intended for the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia, one for Romeo Bone while another left police questioning where and how it would be used.

The lawyer points out the bombs were expected to be used in 2020, according to Muscat, but in reality, they were used in 2017, much earlier than originally anticipated.

Zahra confirms this discrepancy, explaining that Vince Muscat had provided inaccurate dates, which led to some confusion about the timeline of events.

Police inspector questioned on Melvin Theuma

Rene Darmanin continues his cross-examination by shifting focus to the arrest of Melvin Theuma.

He asks Kurt Zahra if he agrees that Melvin Theuma was the middleman in the case, to which Zahra confirms. Darmanin then presses further, inquiring whether Melvin Theuma ever mentioned Robert Agius in his statements. Zahra recalls that Robert Agius was not mentioned, but acknowledges that he is familiar with Agius’s nickname (Tal-Maksar).

Darmanin challenges Zahra by suggesting that if he is told that Robert Agius was not mentioned in the statements, would he accept that? Zahra responds, stating that while he may not remember every single detail, he is confident that what he has said is consistent with the truth.

The defence lawyer then turns to an incident in 2020, asking Zahra if he remembers being told about rifles. Zahra confirms that he was aware of the rifles, agreeing with what he had previously testified. Darmanin, however, digs deeper, asking Zahra if he would recall whether Vince Muscat referred to the number of rifles as being two or three. Zahra responds by saying that he recalls the number of rifles being three.

To verify the details, Darmanin introduces a transcript of an audio-visual recording, in which Zahra had asked Vince Muscat if they had received two or three rifles, to which Muscat replied, "two or three." Zahra, however, clarifies that the discussion was about telescopes and not firearms, pointing out that the rifles were not the subject of that particular conversation.

Rene Darmanin proceeds with another line of questioning, asking Zahra if Melvin Theuma had ever told them that he was watching Daphne Caruana Galizia’s car to ensure it did not move.

Zahra responds by recalling that Vince Muscat had mentioned they observed Daphne Caruana Galizia and her companion preparing to travel, and they began to fear that she might leave and never return. Zahra remembers that they tried to monitor the situation to see if she was coming back.

Europol involvement

The defence lawyer starts questioning the police inspector over Europol’s involvement in the case, asking whether they were involved in the operation when the suspects were arrested.

Zahra confirms that Europol was part of the operation, though he was not involved in the specifics. He further explains that although he was not part of the arrest process, he was aware that between nine to 11 arrests had been carried out.

The questioning moves on to Robert Agius, and Darmanin asks Zahra if he was aware that Agius had been arrested. Zahra replies that he did not have that information, as he was not personally involved in the case at that time. He repeats this reply when asked about the interrogation of Agius.

Darmanin proceeds to inquire whether Zahra was aware that other individuals, including Sandro Cilia, had been arrested during the same period. Zahra responds that he was only familiar with the individuals under his specific responsibility.

The defence lawyer continues to press Zahra, asking whether there was any particular reason why Vince Muscat did not want the DNA, and Zahra says no.

Darmanin then questions Zahra on the updates he had received from Inspector Keith Arnaud. "Can you confirm that Arnaud was giving you updates?" Zahra acknowledges this, stating that it was clear Arnaud would be taking the lead in providing updates since he had more direct involvement in the case.

Defence begins cross-examination

Lawyer Rene Darmanin, who is representing Robert Agius, begins his cross-examination of Kurt Zahra.

He refers to Zahra’s previous testimony, asking: "You told us that a month before 4 December 2017, you had mentioned in court that the date had been agreed upon three days prior to this date. Can you confirm this?"

Zahra replies, acknowledging the agreement, but clarifies that he was not directly involved in the decision-making process at that point.

Darmanin continues, questioning Zahra about the police's role in requesting arrest warrants for the suspects. "You and your team, as the police force, requested a warrant for the arrest of the mentioned accomplices. Were you personally involved?" Zahra confirms he was aware of the request, though he repeats that he was not directly involved in the operation.

Police inspector continues testimony

Inspector Kurt Zahra continues his testimony in court as the AG lawyer distributes documents to the jury and to the witness.

Zahra points to the documents, stating: "These are the notes I referred to earlier when I was in front of the Magistrate's Court. They are the notes I personally made." He clarifies that the documents being presented are his own records from the investigation.

The jurors are back in the court room, and proceedings resume. 

We are back 

We are back in the courtroom and proceedings are expected to begind shortly. 

Court breaks for lunch

The court has broken for lunch, with jurors excused until 3pm.

Murder plot paused briefly

Then according to Melvin Theuma, after an initial pause in the murder plot, he received another call from Yorgen Fenech instructing him to go ahead with the killing. Theuma then met Alfred Degiorgio once more to pass on the message and handed over a €30,000 deposit.

The police inspector says Theuma later asked Fenech if he had any idea where Caruana Galizia might be at certain times, noting that the suspects were struggling to determine her movements and needed a clearer pattern.

Following the assassination, Theuma told police that Fenech warned him during a meeting in Żebbuġ that authorities had cracked an encrypted communication code. Phrases such as “there is a problem” and “a major raid will happen” were reportedly part of that code, indicating police were closing in.

Fenech also reportedly informed Theuma that Vince Muscat had started cooperating with police. This revelation deeply concerned Theuma, fearing the entire plot might unravel.

In December 2019, inspector Zahra was informed that Vince Muscat had formally requested a presidential pardon, similar to what had previously been granted to Theuma. Muscat admitted his role in the murder of Caruana Galizia and, in a plea deal, was sentenced to 15 years in prison.

Muscat also provided investigators with new information, stating that between 2014 and 2015, there had been an earlier plan to assassinate Caruana Galizia, allegedly hatched by the Degiorgio brothers. They had reportedly been contacted by a man named David Gatt, who, in turn, had allegedley been spoken by then-Minister Chris Cardona. That plan, however, never progressed due to the failure to deliver a promised deposit.

According to Muscat, the initial method discussed for the assassination involved shooting the journalist using a rifle equipped with a scope. The plan was fully prepared, but ultimately abandoned. Muscat claims that George Degiorgio rejected the idea, arguing that a gunshot would make too much noise, whereas a bomb could be detonated remotely and from a distance — making it harder to trace.

The explosive device used in the actual murder was allegedly provided by Robert Agius and Jamie Vella. Muscat says he was told it contained 500g of explosive material.

In his testimony, Inspector Zahra also confirms that Muscat admitted involvement in another high-profile crime: the 2015 murder of lawyer Carmel Chircop. Muscat described the motive as a financial dispute and explained that he was inside the getaway vehicle when shots were fired at Chircop outside his garage — the very spot where his lifeless body was later discovered.

Melvin Theuma’s meeting with Keith Schembri

Zahra also testifies that former OPM customer care chief Sandro Craus, who currently faces proceedings over Melvin Theuma’s phantom job, had reportedly asked the middleman to attend a meeting at Castille, where he was met by former OPM chief of stadd Keith Schembri.

Theuma was allegedly offered a government job, though Zahra stresses this was part of a separate investigation.

Later, alleged Caruana Galizia murder mastermind Yorgen Fenech had called Theuma again and told him to pause the plan.

Theuma passed this message to Alfred Degiorgio, who told him to get in touch again if needed. Despite the pause, Theuma claimed he still paid some money to Degiorgio, feeling embarrassed.

Melvin Theuma enters the fray

While he initially led the case, Zahra says eventually handed over the investigation to Inspector Keith Arnaud, after being assigned to a different case.

However, Zahra remained informed of developments and shared critical updates received from Arnaud.

Zahra explains that it became clearer that Alfred and George Degiorgio, along with Vince Muscat, were not the only individuals involved. While monitoring prison communications, police noticed frequent calls between the suspects and a man named Mario Degiorgio. During these communications, another individual’s name repeatedly emerged — Melvin Theuma.

Police later discovered that Melvin Theuma was allegedly involved in illegal lotteries and that he had recordings related to the murder. According to Zahra, Theuma was arrested in November 2019.

At the time of his arrest, he was in possession of a box of ice cream containers, which in it there were two USB drives, two rolled-up packages, and a photo of himself with Keith Schembri — back then Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister.

Zahra reminded the court that this information came via updates from Keith Arnaud, as he was no longer directly involved in the case.

On the evening of the arrest, Zahra went to the police station and was informed that Melvin Theuma had requested a presidential pardon in exchange for information about the murder.

Police arrest suspects

Inspector Kurt Zahra details the next phases of the complex investigation, highlighting how authorities relied on digital, forensic, and intelligence resources to advance the case.

Among the key steps was the analysis of video surveillance. Police handed over various CCTV recordings, including dashcam footage, to expert Martin Bajada for examination. This digital evidence was crucial in mapping out movements and identifying suspects in the hours before and after the fatal explosion.

Inspector Zahra also recounts how, when FBI officials arrived in Malta to assist, Maltese police walked them through the crime scene, pointing out where key evidence - such as a cigarette butt - had been found. The FBI began their own forensic investigations on-site.

Authorities also noted that the Maltese government had issued a public reward for any information relating to the case. Expecting an influx of tips, police set up structured channels and thematic teams to filter and process the incoming information efficiently.

Through joint efforts with Europol and the FBI, investigators discovered a recurring pattern involving mobile numbers. A cluster of three phone numbers appeared to be linked to Alfred Degiorgio, George Degiorgio, and Alfred Muscat. These findings laid the groundwork for one of the operation's most critical turning points.

On 4 December 2017, police carried out a series of arrests, detaining Alfred Degiorgio, George Degiorgio, and Vince Muscat, where multiple vehicles were also seized. A search of the nearby sea turned up several disposable, low-cost mobile phones.

Additional arrests included Jamie Vella, Adrian Agius, and Robert Agius, among others. In total, nine to eleven individuals were arrests, with Europol representatives aiding the operation.

Zahra confirms that the Degiorgio brothers consented to DNA swabbing, while Vince Muscat declined. Following these procedures, suspects were informed of their rights and later formally charged in connection with the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia.

Inspector Zahra describes these developments as the “first phase” of a far-reaching investigation.

Cigarettes at the crime scene – key evidence explained  

Another key witness, Carmel Sammut, also provided vital information, Zahra tells court.

Sammut, who lived some distance from the scene but had a clear view of the area, recalled seeing a small white car around the time of the explosion. He noted seeing the car at 9 am, 12:30pm, and 2:30 pm.

His wife also reported seeing it at 2:30 pm, but not at 6:30 pm, where the car was usually parked in the same location.

In the wake of this new lead, Zahra says that police launched a targeted investigation into leasing companies, seeking to identify any white small cars that had been rented recently.

The search led to an extensive list of potential vehicles. Additionally, forensic teams conducted a sweep of the area where the car was reportedly seen. Among the findings were discarded cigarette butts, which were collected and analysed by forensic experts.

The DNA from the cigarette butts matched the suspect, adding a key piece of evidence to the case.

Inspector Zahra also mentions that he had instructed PC512 to meet with Matthew Caruana Galizia, Daphne's son, to discuss the car's movements on the days leading up to the explosion.

Matthew confirmed that on 15 October 2017, Daphne had used the car to go for coffee in Naxxar. From there, Matthew took the car to Exiles in Sliema, and then parked it in front of the family residence. He confirmed the car was not moved again until the incident.

The day of Daphne’s murder

Zahra explains that as he moved towards the residence, he encountered Daphne’s son, Matthew Caruana Galizia, and her sister, Corrine Vella.

Matthew Caruana Galizia explained that his mother had left the house earlier but had returned briefly to retrieve a checkbook. Shortly after leaving again, he heard a loud explosion. He ran out and saw a car speeding away towards a field, eventually realizing it was his mother’s car. He also recalled the night before the explosion, the car was parked outside the residence, and hadn’t been used before the incident.

Police inspector Zahra further details the arrival of Daphne’s husband, Peter Caruana Galizia, and their son Andrew, who had to be informed of the news. When asked by the Attorney General lawyer about the family’s reaction, Zahra struggles to find words to describe the grief he witnessed.

Zahra then directed officers PC 432 and PC 232 to scan the area for any additional evidence or witnesses. A number of individuals were questioned, but most had not seen anything significant.

However, one witness, Frans Sant, was identified. Sant who was walking coming from opposite direction of the car described hearing a small explosion, following a pause where he said that he saw a woman panicking in the car, followed by a larger blast and seeing the car rolling away.

Police inspector takes the stand

As testimonies begin, Kurt Zahra, a police inspector at the Major Crimes Unit, tells court about his investigations on the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia. He recalls receiving a phone call on 16 October 2017, in which he was informed of the car bomb. Preliminary information showed the lifeless body of a female had been found.

He says he was later contacted by his colleague Police Inspector James Grech, who had informed him it was Daphne Caruana Galizia. When he arrived at the scene of the crime, Caruana Galizia’s car was on fire.

Police inspector Zahra also says he met with Nicholas Vella, who provided him with crucial information about the case include the car’s number plate – QQZ 668.

After inspecting the wreckage, he tells court he had noted pieces of the car and human remains scattered around the scene of the crime. He specifically recalled seeing a large piece of flesh, which he initially thought was part of a leg. A search of the number plate revealed the car is registered to Daphne Caruana Galizia, confirming the victim’s identity.

First phase of proceedings concluded

Jurors are temporarily excused as the defence lawyer raises concerns about the prosecution’s handling of witness testimonies. The defence points out that, according to the Attorney General’s office, certain individuals listed as witnesses had not appeared in the official charge sheet.                                                                                                                                                                                             

The court rejects the defence’s objections. Everything will continue as planned

The first phase of the jury proceedings is now concluded, with the focus shifting to the next crucial stage of the trial. However, before this transition, jurors are asked to step out as the defence lawyers raise a point regarding certain aspects of the case.

The human impact of the murders

Anthony Vella reminds the jury of the “profound human impact of the murders”.

He speaks of how Carmel Chirchop, the accused, left behind a family—a wife, children, and loved ones. Similarly, he highlighted the devastating consequences for Daphne Caruana Galizia’s family, noting that her husband was left without a wife, and her children without a mother.

Richard Aquilina testimony 

Before the jury enters back into the courtroom, the court allows the prosecution to read the testimony of architect Richard Aquilina, “when its time”, due to the fact that he is currently recovering in hospital.

The defence raised no objection to this course of action, and the court upheld the prosecution’s approach given the circumstances.

Proceedings break

Vella is requesting a brief break, citing an urgent matter that required his attention. The magistrate informs those present that proceedings will resume at 10:30am.

Hearsay in court

Vella is now speaking about hearsay evidence in court. Hearsay refers to information that a witness relays not from their own direct experience, but from what they have heard or learned from someone else. Vella explains that there are key exceptions where hearsay evidence can be permitted.

According to Vella, the court may allow hearsay when the information being shared is substantial and important to the case. Additionally, hearsay may be admitted if the person who originally provided the information is unavailable to testify themselves. These exceptions are designed to ensure that crucial evidence is not excluded simply because of its source, especially when the testimony could provide essential context to the case.

Circumstantial evidence

Anthony Vella is discussing the importance of circumstantial evidence in legal cases. He says his colleague, Danica, went to a supermarket and noticed several people with wet hair, wearing raincoats or holding umbrellas. While Danica didn’t directly see the rain, these observations served as circumstantial evidence, suggesting that rain had occurred.

Vella adds that, with another layer of circumstantial proof, Danica then spoke with another colleague, who confirmed that heavy rain had fallen. This additional information reinforces the idea that it was indeed raining, even though Danica had not witnessed it firsthand.

Circumstantial evidence, while indirect, can accumulate to a point where one is morally convinced of the truth—in this case, that it had rained. Vella says that, much like in legal investigations, the pieces of circumstantial evidence can build a strong case.

A puzzling analogy

Anthony Vella is speaking about the challenges of reaching absolute certainty in a complex murder case, urging caution when forming conclusions without direct evidence.

He tells the jurors to look at the coat of arms affixed to the panel on the wall behind the magistrate. He asks them to imagine the wall without the coat of arms, and that by peeling away a section of this panel, a hidden painting might be uncovered.

Vella insists that one cannot be absolutely certain about what lies beneath the surface. The revelation is gradual. He says that when a fragment of the wall is removed, the figure of a woman emerges. Yet, only when another piece is revealed, showing the face, it is clearer that behind the panel there's the painting of the Mona Lisa.

Vella says this is similar to legal cases where one may not have all the pieces of the puzzle, but with enough evidence, one can reasonably infer the truth. "Even without having every single piece, we can still understand the bigger picture," he says. Vella draws a parallel to the ongoing murder case. However, he reminds the jurors that the accused must still be considered innocent until proven guilty.

Stick to the facts, lawyer tells jury

Anthony Vella addressed the jury, stressing the importance of basing their verdict solely on the evidence presented during these proceedings.

“Your decision must rest entirely on these facts — nothing more, nothing less,” he said. He insisted that any form of prejudice or external influence should be avoided.

Court reporters allowed into courtroom 

Court reporters are allowed into the courtroom, and proceedings begin. 

What happened yesterday?

On the first day of the trial, the jury was empanelled and prosecution lawyers made their submissions, laying out the facts on the two murders.

According to prosecutors, both murders are tied to the same organised crime network, whose members carried out or facilitated contract killings to eliminate threats.

Good morning, our court reporter Jaelle Borg is inside court and waiting to be let into the court room to follow the second day of proceedings in the jury trial of brothers Robert and Adrian Agius, known as the ‘Ta’ Maksar’ brothers, along with Jamie Vella and George Degiorgio who are accused of the murders of investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia and lawyer Carmel Chircop.