The chats being published by Mark Camilleri are chats on which there is a Court order issued by Magistrate Rachel Montebello banning publication. However today no journalist is taken aback that one is breaking the law whenever these chats are published. After all, not one of the Caruana Galizias’ lawyers are disputing the fact that whoever publishes material on which there is a court ban is probably in cahoots with criminals.
This fact and the publication of these chats continue to back up what I have been saying on this site: Jason Azzopardi is not working as the lawyer of the Caruana Galizia family because now that some snippets are being divulged regarding what passed between Keith Schembri and Yorgen Fenech, the logical question is: Why has Jason Azzopardi never asked anything about these chats when he was appearing in the Courtroom? Jason Azzopardi has a copy of these chats and therefore had the opportunity to question both the police as well as Keith Schembri when they appeared in court.
Attention is drawn to the fact that Jason Azzopardi had the opportunity to question Keith Schembri in court regarding his relationship with Yorgen Fenech when Schembri was called as a witness for the prosecution. But not a word from Jason. Why? What does Keith Schembri know about Jason Azzopardi to make the latter refrain from asking the former, direct and obviously difficult questions?
Mark Camilleri has published WhatsApp chats that, according to Camilleri, are chats between Yorgen Fenech and Keith Schembri held on 19th November 2019; a day before Fenech was arrested. Camilleri states that these chats were made precisely before Fenech’s attempt to flee Malta!
Let’s assume that it is true that Yorgen Fenech wanted to flee. Why was Keith Schembri never questioned on this point by the parte civile? Readers should remember that the Deputy Advocate General of the Republic ended up never citing Keith Schembri to be cross-examined thus denying the defence lawyers their right to question him. I am quite certain that the question they would ask the witness would be: What did Yorgen Fenech mean by the word ‘leave’.
Yorgen Fenech used this word in a message sent to Keith Schembri. He asks him whether he should leave or not. This is being interpreted as clear proof that he wanted to flee. But does it really mean to abscond? Or was he asking whether he should have remained in Malta and not go to Sicily with the yacht so that if the police were planning to arrest him, they would find him in Malta? It must be noted that Yorgen Fenech cannot speak and explain exactly what he meant because procedure wise during a Compilation of Evidence he has not got the right to speak; only the witnesses of the prosecution do.
I am saying this for readers to understand how private chats can be manipulated or doctored. In this case, manipulation is being carried out with assistance from the police and that of the Office of the Advocate General. These chats are being presented by the prosecution as proof of why Yorgen Fenech should not be granted bail. But then we have the person with whom he was chatting who has never been questioned on this point not even by the defence.
Through these chats, we also got to know that Fenech asked Schembri not to leave him alone and to give him his support. We also get to know that Schembri told Fenech to be aggressive and fight. Yet, we do not know the full context of these chats and worse still, the defence team has not been able to cross-examine Schembri.
One remains dumbfounded how, when Jason Azzopardi had Keith Schembri on the witness stand before him, he did not question Schembri about these chats or any other information considering the ugly allegations coming to light in this fashion. Even worse, Keith Schembri has never been called by the Advocate General to be cross-examined by the Defence.
Therefore, to conclude. Not only do these chats not confirm that Fenech wanted to flee, as the published chats could imply, but they endorse the dirty tricks played by the Deputy Advocate General in compiling the witnesses so that at any cost he can keep in prison for all these years despite the fact that this man before the law should still be considered innocent.