Attempted murder trial | Jury hears victim admit to perjury, adultery

Wife of Carmelo Cutajar, on trial for her attempted murder, says she had misled court of inquiry and compilation 'out of shame,'  as the defence reads out steamy SMS received by victim from her lover on the day of the shooting

The attempted murder trial of Carmelo Cutajar took an unusual turn this afternoon, as the victim and estranged wife of the accused was forced to admit in court that she had lied in her testimony before two courts and had been meeting a lover on the day of her shooting.

Maria Cutajar, who is currently going through separation proceedings with retired policeman Carmel Cutajar, testified in his trial. Mr Cutajar is accused of attempting to murder his wife when he shot her outside the Point De Vue restaurant, where she worked, in 2012.

Her husband, the accused, was obsessive and wanted everything to be precise, she had told the jury in the morning, adding that their children had not wanted to meet him.

But in a textbook cross-examination this afternoon, defence lawyer Mark Vassallo laid waste to the witness' credibility, asking a series of questions leading the woman to admit that she had been conducting an extramarital affair with a man living close to the Point De Vue - which means that she had consistently lied in the four years since the incident.

The defence started by pointing out that her testimony before the jury had added several details which she had not mentioned to two previous courts, when she had testified during the inquiry and during the compilation of evidence.

“Closer to the event, you had said five shots were fired. Today you said three. You never mentioned having felt the bullet parting the air near you either before today, four years later,” Vassallo pointed out.

“You told us you had seen the CCTV film before. Where did you see it before?” asked the lawyer. The woman replied that she had seen it for the first time today. “But you referred to it before we had showed it to you”.

He asked why today was also the first time that she had described the weapon as having been held close to her heart. She insisted that she had testified to this before. “So the magistrate must have made a mistake,” the lawyer observed.

He moved on to the alleged beatings. She had testified before the inquiring magistrate that the accused would beat her every day, throwing her against the wall. Inspector Arnaud however, had said that the beatings had not been a regular occurrence, the defence pointed out.

Why had she not filed a police report in 21 years of marriage or gone to a doctor with her bruises, asked Vassallo. “No, because I was very scared of him,” came the reply. She claimed that she had filed police reports. “So you had told two police officers, specifically that he had beaten you?” “Yes.” “And you are saying that they had not done anything about it?” “I don't know what they did.”

“Did you mention this to Inspector Arnaud?” the lawyer asked. “I...I don't know,” she stuttered.

The woman had claimed that after filing this report, the accused had started beating the children, but Vassallo confronted her with a report from psychiatrists who had examined the eldest daughter. “They had not mentioned a comma of violence on the children, so much so the court of magistrates had told you 'you know children bruise too.'”

Lover's texts read out in court

Her husband's number was saved as “Rabat” on a mobile which only she used. When asked why this was so, she replied that this was because the girls had not wanted to see their father's name.

But Vassallo suggested that the phone might have belonged to another man. He asked why she had not told the police about the existence of this mobile phone before the 2nd October. “I hadn't told them anything...I left it there hux

The first time this mobile was mentioned was before Magistrate Hayman, who had observed that a week had elapsed before the woman had even mentioned it's existence to the police.

Asked whether she had erased any messages or phone records before handing the device to the police, she replied that she “might have.”

Vassallo went on, pointing out that whereas on her other two mobile phones, there had been a list of calls sent and received, on this phone there were none. The call timers were at zero. The lawyer suggested that she had reset the mobile. “I didn't do it on purpose...if it would ring I would erase it,” the woman countered.

He moved on to the third mobile phone. Directing the jurors to a list of contacts retrieved from the phone,he asked who “ZA” was. She said it was “a friend, of hers,” later giving his name as Stephen. The jury was told that he happened to live right next to Point de Vue. He would accompany her between the Point De Vue and the bus stop, she explained. “He's your partner today, is he not?” Vassallo inquired. The witness said he was.

The incident happened on the 26th at around 1pm, said the lawyer. “Who was the first person you called after the incident?” The woman replied that it was Stephen. The call was placed just four minutes after the shooting.

He said that others had testified that she had been concerned about the couple's children but she had revealed that they had been at Dar Merhba Bik.

Vassallo read out a passage from the inquiry. Magistrate Hayman had asked Mrs Cutajar whether she had been seeing another man, to which she had replied “no no no.”

“Were you seeing another man at the time?” asked Vassallo. “Yes,” the woman replied. “But at the time I was too embarrassed to admit it in court.”

“As you lied that you were not committing adultery and that the children were being beaten, did you also lie that you had gone to work on your off-day? Did you also lie that you had started working there to be near your lover?”

A series of text messages from the other man were read out. “Aw sex ta qalbi. Aw bqajt ma mort imkien,” read one.

Another, from the day of the shooting, “qalbi, sorry ghax edtlek hekk, imma vera ghandi aptit. Minix ser niffittak imma ghamel dak li thoss” [Darling, I'm sorry I told you that, but I really feel like. I'm not going to pester you...do what you feel is best.”

Vassallo asked what this was about.“I imagine that he wanted to have sex,” the witness replied. “il-grillu nisparawh ghada,”[We'll pull the trigger tomorrow] reads a subsequent message. Asked about what he had meant by 'il-grillu nisparawh', she admitted that it probably meant that he wanted to have sex.

During her cross-examination, the woman conceded that she had also introduced her lover to the youngest daughter, whom he had picked up from school. “So you were depriving your husband of access to his children whilst making arrangements for your lover to pick up your children from school,” the lawyer declared.

Earlier this morning, the jury had heard the prosecution read a string of affectionate text messages which the accused had sent her. Vassallo made reference to this. “One man was texting you saying he loved you and sending you flowers and another man was sending you aw sex ta qalbi” he remarked.

Answering questions from jurors, the witness explained that the relationship with her lover had started 10 months before she had left home.

The trial continues.

Judge Edwina Grima is presiding. Lawyers Giannella Busuttil and Anthony Vella from the Attorney General's office are prosecuting. Lawyers Edward Gatt and Mark Vassallo are defence counsel.