Maksar gang trial: Defence poke holes in Vince Muscat's testimony

That concludes today's sitting.

We will have a comprehensive report on today's session shortly. Thank you for following.

'We should be scared of you Mr Muscat'

The defence refers to the fear Vince Muscat said that he felt in relation to the Maksar brothers. "Melvin theuma was recording the alleged mastermind of the murder, keeping messages. Theuma’s fear was exemplified but on the other hand, Muscat came here and said that 'you cannot say no to maksar brothers,' that he had no choice but to accompany them. How do you want us to believe you?"

"He took €20,000 in 2015 just to ride as a passenger out of fear right? But yes he’s a victim," Psaila laughs. "He kept going down to the Marsa potato shed, and in your eyes does this constitute fear?," he asks the jurors.

"We should be scared of you Mr Muscat," he continues. "You are manipulating the justice system. Whoever is scared, takes actions, keeps proof against the persons in a situation when you are scared to that extent, just like Theuma did.

Psaila, visibly frustrated, tells jurors that there is no evidence that corroborates Muscat's allegations on Jamie Vella.

Judge warns defence over line of questioning

Psaila tells jurors that Muscat mentioned Jamie Vella when it suited him and when it didnt, he said he did not remember. "The police elevated so many mobile phones, sent them to Europol and nothing resulted from them?" Psaila asked. 
"Instead of mentioning Jamie Vella, what if he mentioned someone close to you? How would you have reacted then?"

The judge warns Psaila to refrain from mentioning such things and not to go there. 

Jamie Vella called Muscat 'society's scumbag'

Vince Muscat, the prosecution’s star witness in this case, was referred to as a “notorious” individual already well known to the police, with other pending legal proceedings unrelated to this case. During questioning, Jamie Vella described Muscat as “society’s scumbag”.

With clear sarcasm, Psaila questioned Muscat’s reliability. “Muscat testified under the terms of his presidential pardon, right?” He highlighted inconsistencies, asking why Muscat had requested access to transcripts of his earlier testimony before taking the stand again. “This is the same Vince Muscat to whom the country granted a pardon to speak the truth and nothing but the truth,” he said.

While being cross-examined by the defence, Muscat took a long time to reply to their questions. Psaila says Muscat is a cunning man.

"As humans we begin to reflect: why did Vince Muscat’s version change various times? Why did Muscat choose not to answer some questions? We know that as jurors you are exhausted, we know you have families that you wish to get back to, but do not take this decision lightly," he tells the jurors. 

"Do not hastily decide something, thinking that is the way to get rid of this. At the end of the day the decision is yours and you have to live with it. Do not take this decision lightly because your subconscious will eventually start reflecting."

Ismael Psaila is the next defence lawyer to bring his arguments forward for his client, Jamie Vella. 

“When Jamie Vella was arrested in a Swieqi villa, everyone thought he was some millionare when the residence was not even his, Psaila says. “Just like the cars weren’t”, he adds. “One must forget the opinions, the discussions, the arguments that one heard outside the courtroom, when making a decision. We only care in the process of justice. The process of the court is so much different than anything you might here outside these doors. What happens in here is what matters and what must only be considered”. 

“The fact that these four men accused are behind me sitting down, does not mean anything. It means nothing," he stresses. “Do not let these visions influence your judgement, but you must only consider the facts presented.

The court is taking a two-hour break until 2:30pm. We will continue this live blog when the court resumes.

Cuschieri challenges police theory and George Degiorgio's motive

The police became fixated on the Ractis vehicle, Cuschieri argued, overlooking other critical angles. Medical experts concluded that the shots were fired from a distance of just two meters. Yet, according to the same narrative, the alleged shooter missed two shots. “How do you miss from such close proximity?” Cuschieri asked. “Doesn’t that suggest that the shooter might not have been inside a car, but rather walking or standing nearby?” He pointed out that the police failed to investigate a man seen in the area shortly before Chircop’s body was discovered, an oversight that casts further doubt on the thoroughness of the investigation.

Turning to motive, Cuschieri questioned the alleged involvement of George Degiorgio. There is no evidence, he said, that Degiorgio even knew Chircop. “There is no vendetta, no proven payment, and no relationship between them. If you remove ‘San Vince’ from the picture, there is no evidence left linking George Degiorgio to this murder,” Cuschieri concluded. He argued that the Attorney General had failed to produce any concrete evidence implicating Degiorgio, marking the end of the defence’s address to the jury.

Lawyer: Muscat was paid €20,000 to sit in backseat and do nothing

Vince Muscat sat in the backseat and was paid €20,000 "for doing nothing"—a detail that immediately raises questions, Cuschieri argued. “You realise straight away that some things don’t add up,” he continued.

To lend credibility to his account, Muscat embellished aspects of the story, the lawyer suggested. For instance, he pointed out that the boat *Maya* was registered under Alfred Degiorgio, not George Degiorgio, as Muscat had claimed.

“Who do you think you’re fooling, Vince Muscat?” Cuschieri repeated rhetorically, as he methodically exposed more contradictions in Muscat’s statements.

Defence undermines Muscat's credibility with sarcasm and route discrepancies

Cuschieri continued to scrutinise the credibility of Vince Muscat by revisiting the route allegedly taken after the shooting and highlighting further inconsistencies in Muscat’s version of events. He pointed out overlooked details and again questioned the thoroughness of the investigation.

He noted that Arnaud seems to hold Muscat in such high regard that he refers to him mockingly as “San Vince.” Continuing with a sarcastic tone, Cuschieri dissected Muscat’s courtroom testimony, painting it as implausible.

“He spent decades living with the accused under the Marsa potato shed—are we really to believe he’s now afraid of them?” he asked. “He’ll be terrified once he comes out of prison?” Cuschieri added, clearly mocking the idea with disbelief.

Cuschieri questions reliability of Vince Muscat's testimony

Vince Muscat first began cooperating with the police in 2018, but his request for a presidential pardon was initially denied due to a lack of substantial evidence, with much of it based on hearsay. He resumed speaking with the police in 2020. During court testimony, lead investigator Keith Arnaud expressed full confidence in Muscat, listing key details provided by him that helped identify the alleged murderers. Defence lawyer Leslie Cuschieri read through this list and acknowledged the facts as accurate.

However, he raised concerns about Muscat’s credibility. “Is there anyone in the world who has never lied or distorted the truth, even slightly?” Cuschieri asked. He argued that Muscat had altered parts of his narrative to suit his own interests. According to the defence, Muscat carefully prepared his testimony in coordination with Arnaud and held extensive consultations with his lawyer before giving evidence.

“We all know Muscat was involved in killing Carmel Chircop. Maybe Muscat went alone but decided to take the others down instead. We will never know.”

Defence questions narrow focus and oversights in police investigation

Leslie Cuschieri, the lawyer representing George Degiorgio, is continuing with his defence in favour of his client. George Degiorgio has already pleaded guilty to his role in the Daphne Caruana Galizia murder. In this case, he is being charged with murdering Carmel Chircop.  

Although several police officials were present at the scene, most of the investigative work fell on Keith Arnaud, according to the defence. Lawyer Leslie Cuschieri argued that the investigation was riddled with shortcuts. For instance, police focused almost exclusively on the door and ramp at Triq John Borg and a limited number of vehicles. This narrow scope meant that crucial possibilities were overlooked, such as the chance that the killer arrived at the Birkirkara garage on foot, or that other vehicles may have entered the complex earlier in the day.

Cuschieri claimed these investigative shortcuts were made to prematurely narrow down suspects. Both Arnaud and court-appointed expert Martina Bajada, who downloaded the CCTV footage, testified with what Cuschieri described as a predetermined belief that the perpetrators were inside the Toyota Ractis car seen leaving the scene.

“But what about the man walking his dog in the footage around the time of the shooting? He was never questioned,” Cuschieri said. “And another man wearing white was seen just before Chircop’s body was discovered. He too was ignored.”

Despite Arnaud basing his suspicions on the Ractis car footage, Vince Muscat, a key witness, had told the court: “It’s definitely not it.” Cuschieri pressed further: “Why was this detail ignored?”

Good morning and welcome to today's live blog. MaltaToday court reporter Maya Galea is in the courtroom following the proceedings today.