In its story about the Dutchman Julian Hofstra, Lovin Malta revealed an interesting detail that has escaped those who have been commenting on this case. According to Lovin Malta, there was a top police meeting regarding the ongoing investigation on Yorgen Fenech’s case and I quote: “Lovin Malta is informed that Police Commissioner Angelo Gafa and Superintendent James Grech, who works in the homicide department, are working on the case”.
What strikes me in this report is that the prime investigators in this case, superintendent Keith Arnaud and inspector Zahra were not mentioned as being present at this meeting. The obvious question that should be asked to Lovin Malta is the following;
Were these two gentlemen present for this meeting and it was just a reporter’s lapsus by Lovin Malta? If, however, they were not present, then this is indeed a breaking news item! Why were these two gentlemen not present? Incidentally, these two gentlemen recently did not turn up in court both in the compilation of evidence of Yorgen Fenech and that of the three accused of having killed Daphne Caruana Galizia. The reason given is that they are in quarantine. Yet, I don’t think that quarantine is a sufficient reason for these two senior police officers to abstain from attending such a high level meeting. They could have participated through teleconferencing.
What can be concluded from this article by Lovin Malta is that in the rivalry between the police and the defence to lay hands on new recordings, the police are at a disadvantage. This has now been confirmed by an article published by the Times of Malta on 23 January 2021.
One could argue that the defence has more to offer to the young Dutchman. But I don’t think that this would be the main reason why this young man would prefer to pass information to the defence rather than to the prosecution. The Times has now confirmed this.
First, this Dutchman is not being held in Malta. Therefore, our police are at a basic disadvantage. Secondly, the Dutchman has also been in trouble with the local police. The Times even gives us the story that led to this young man ending up in trouble locally.
But most importantly, the police and prosecution appear to be in a quandary. This has carried weight, in my view, as to whom the Dutchman’s lawyer would advise handing over the tapes; whether to the prosecution, the defence or the parte civile that continues to use the law unscrupulously to silence anybody who may expose their double standards.
From the Times’, it is clear that this Dutchman does not want to be of any help to the local police force. This explains why the Times, described this man as a conman and a convicted fraudster. The Times of Malta joined the bandwagon of those newspapers backing the Caruana Galizia family.
As I explained in my previous article, the news that this man is a conman is partially true. This boy is also computer savvy. This is why Melvin Theuma became interested in him. But if one wants to stick to the fact that Hofstra is a fraudster, as the Times reminds us, then even Melvin Theuma is another fraudster. Therefore, with the implied argument of The Times, this Dutchman cannot be a credible witness since he is a conman. It follows that by applying this same logic, even Melvin Theuma is an unreliable witness. He too is a fraudster and a conman. Is this therefore a case of the kettle calling the pot black?