The Times removed a report from its news website that could put Andrea Prudente and her lawyer in bad light with the public and even the courts of law.

A few weeks ago, The Times reported the continuation of the hearing of the constitutional case instituted by Andrea Prudente and Jay Weeldreyer against the Maltese government. Prudente and Weeldreyer are being represented by lawyer, Lara Dimitrijevic. One must not forget that the Times had erroneously described Weeldreyer as the husband of Prudente in the past.

According to the first report, which has since been removed, but of which this site has a copy, Andrea Prudente was in the same room where her husband was testifying. The court had allowed the couple to testify via video conferencing. But usually, such a concession is only granted on the premise that the witness is alone in the room to eliminate the risk of having someone prompting the witness what to say. The state advocate protested – always according to this first report – about this fact. The Times referred to this story in its original title about this particular court hearing which has now been removed.

But this was not the only oddity happening during this court sitting. Before the start of this sitting, the court was informed that Andrea Prudente could not testify because of health reasons. Then, it turned out that she was in the same room in which Jay Weeldreyer was giving his testimony.

According to this first report in The Times, Prudente’s lawyer, Lara Dimitrijevic, was allegedly caught suggesting to Weeldreyer what he should say under oath. Dimitrijevic replied, saying that she was only helping with technical difficulties that Weeldreyer was experiencing in testifying via video conferencing! What follows is a detailed report from The Times of this particular court sitting:

In this first report, The Times reporter informed the readers that

This report was replaced by a new version where the focus is on the objection of the State Advocate in having Andrea Prudente testify via video conferencing!

If the first version is correct, and Prudente was in the room, then this is very serious case that proves that behind the Prudente story, there is more than what appears prima facie.

In fact, in the first report, The Times stated that the testimony of Prudente partner’s ‘was not done as it should”. Then, for fathomless reasons, the Times removed this story and replaced it with a new one in which Andrea Prudente appears as an innocent victim who had been refused abortion in Malta.

Whatever the case, the Times published two somewhat conflicting versions – one that Andrea Prudente is very fit and well to the extent that she was in the same room where the man, with whom she had a baby was giving testimony. The second version informed readers that Prudente was giving witness from the couple’s home!

Even if, in the second version, reference was made to the fact that Andrea Prudente was in the room while Jay Weeldreyer was giving his testimony, this second version is written in such a way to present Prudente as a sort of a victim of the Maltese state as she was refused an abortion. The truth is that the Maltese doctors did whatever possible to safeguard her health and that of her baby. Prudente’s life was never in danger.

One wonders why The Times removed such a story of what had taken place in court, which is definitely of public interest.