The alleged commission
Prosecutors say a €150,000 agreement ran from Fenech through Theuma to the hitmen.
Republic of Malta v Yorgen Fenech · Trial monitor
The trial inside
Hall 22.
A navigable account of the evidence, claims and contested narratives reported in MaltaToday’s daily live coverage of the jury trial over Daphne Caruana Galizia’s assassination.
Explore this reportSelect a section to jump directly to it
Yesterday · 30 July 2026
The essential development
Schembri’s evidence ended with his repeated memory gaps under scrutiny.
Cross-examination kept returning to what the former OPM chief of staff could—and said he could not—remember about people, communications and events already raised during the trial. His completed testimony sharpened the divide between the defence’s alternative focus on Schembri and the prosecution case against Fenech.
Read MaltaToday’s court coverage ↗26
Fenech has pleaded not guilty. Allegations and testimony summarised here are not findings of fact. The jury alone determines the evidence.
01 / The brief
The case, as it has unfolded before the jury
The prosecution’s case is that Yorgen Fenech commissioned and financed the October 2017 murder, using Melvin Theuma as an intermediary to the men who carried it out. The defence contests that account and has repeatedly redirected attention toward Keith Schembri, gaps in the investigation and the credibility of pardoned or convicted witnesses.
The opening week established the legal frame and traced the investigation: from the Bidnija bomb scene, through a stalled inquiry, to Theuma’s covert recordings and Fenech’s 2019 arrest. The court then moved through graphic forensic and digital evidence—TNT residue, the bomb’s placement beneath the driver’s seat, burner-phone movements and the fatal SMS.
The centre of gravity later shifted to people. Vince Muscat and the Degiorgio brothers described the planning and execution while making contested allegations about Chris Cardona, Keith Schembri and David Gatt. Police witnesses were pressed on missing devices, a phantom government job, the scope of Theuma’s pardon and his unexplained wealth. Edgar Brincat and Johann Cremona then recounted Theuma’s fears, recordings, payments and conversations. By day 25, Keith Schembri’s own evidence—and the cross-examination of it—had become the trial’s focal point.
The technical trail
Cell-site analysis, burner phones, the detonation SMS and explosives evidence reconstruct the attack.
The contested witnesses
Defence challenges memory, motives, immunity and the financial conduct of key prosecution witnesses.
The alternative focus
Cross-examination repeatedly tests alleged links to Schembri, Cardona and gaps in police searches.
02 / Proceedings
The trial timeline
03 / People
A network of mentions
Who referred to whom in the evidence reported so far. Every person and connection can be selected for more detail.
hostile / adverse neutral / mixed friendly / supportiveline thickness = connection mentionscircle size = total mapped mentions
↗ InteractiveClick a circle for a person’s profile or click a line for details about that connection.
04 / Method & sources
What this visualisation means—and what it does not.
Each arrow runs from the person speaking or whose account was read in court, to the person mentioned. Line thickness encodes an ordinal mention count compiled from MaltaToday’s daily reports: 1–2, 3–5, 6–10, or 10+. Every connection is solid.
Circle size reflects each person’s total incoming and outgoing mapped mentions. Circle colour carries no category: all nodes share the same neutral treatment, while a selected person receives a white outline.
Colour is a contextual editorial classification, not sentiment analysis and not a claim about personal relationships. Red means the reported mention was predominantly accusatory, fearful or adverse; amber means mixed or disputed; green means supportive, protective or friendly. Court officials and routine procedural references are excluded.
Research cut-off: 30 July 2026 · Last editorial review: 31 July 2026