Melvin Theuma’s evidence in court contradicted by both Vince Muscat and Kurt Zahra
During this week, there was the resumption of the compilation of evidence against the Degiorgio brothers. Vince Muscat was the main witness in this court hearing. His testimony gave rise to more questions about what Melvin Theuma told the court in the compilation against Yorgen Fenech. In the compilation of evidence against the Degiorgio brothers, Vince Muscat appeared as a witness for the police. In his testimony Muscat made reference to the general election and how this was related to the plot to kill Daphne Caruana Galizia. This election was also mentioned by Melvin Theuma in the compilation of evidence against Yorgen Fenech. It was also referred to by inspector Kurt Zahra. The way how Vince Muscat and Kurt Zahra testified about this point contradicts what Melvin Theuma stated under oath, as their version is completely different from the one given by Melvin Theuma on this subject.
In the compilation of Yorgen Fenech, Melvin Theuma said that an inebriated Yorgen Fenech called him after elections and told him to resume with the plan and that he (Theuma) was shocked at the call. This is how this story was reported by Malta Today.
Clearly Melvin Theuma’s narrative differs completely from the one given by Vince Muscat this week in court about this important fact. We now have from Thursday’s compilation of evidence (11 March 2021) a different version. Muscat states and I quote
“Once the price was agreed Theuma told Alfred Degiorgio that he would give the go ahead once the elections were over. At one point they thought that nothing would happen.”
Therefore, it is not true, as Melvin Theuma declared in court that the plan was suspended because of elections. The masterminds of this murder wanted their plan executed once election day was over.
Under oath, Melvin Theuma said that Yorgen Fenech had commissioned the hitmen and then cancelled everything because of elections to the extent that he, Theuma, gave money to Alfred Degiorgio to save face. Now, it transpires that this is not true. There was no cancellation of plans but from the beginning, Melvin Theuma was told by the masterminds to be committed after elections.
Thus, Melvin Theuma’s narrative is now being contradicted by Muscat. If Yorgen Fenech is the mastermind of this murder, as Theuma is claiming, he would not have cancelled the killing because of the elections, because the truth is that the masterminds wanted, from the beginning, that this murder takes place after the elections – something which makes political sense.
Furthermore, Inspector Kurt Zahra testified that Yorgen Fenech knew about the early election date way back in December 2016. Now, let’s for one moment agree that this is true. Again, there is a problem because this detail contradicts again what Melvin Theuma said in court. Why would Yorgen Fenech suspend the execution of the plan in May 2017 because of the election, as stated by Melvin Theuma in court, when the same Yorgen Fenech already knew in December 2016, that elections were going to be held in May next year? If one has to believe inspector Zahra that Yorgen Fenech knew about these elections already in December 2016, Yorgen Fenech would not have said to Melvin Theuma to suspend the plan but to wait until the elections are over? This detail confirms that the version given by Vince Muscat il-Koħħu is the correct one. The masterminds of this murder waited for the election to be over and then, they wanted the murder to take place.
Therefore, this is another instance where two different witnesses of the prosecution do not tally with their narrative of events given by Melvin Theuma. The testimony of Zahra does not tally with that of Melvin Theuma, but it agrees with the version given by Vince Muscat il-Koħħu. These are details that cannot be overlooked. One needs to remember that Melvin Theuma is the witness for the prosecution and this witness for the prosecution made statements that were contradicted by one of the main prosecutors under oath: this speaks volumes.
Bottom of Form