An objective view of Freemasonry (II): the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia and Freemasonry as a convenient distraction
By a blog reader
The allegations that ‘freemasons’ are behind the brutal murder of the late Daphne Caruana Galizia owe their origin to a statement made by star witness Melvin Theuma that (quote): “Theuma testified that an individual, who cannot be identified on court order, had to hand over €100,000 to Muscat, known as il-Koħħu. The money purportedly came from freemasons and was payment for Caruana Galizia’s murder.”
First I note that Theuma stated freemasons in the plural and this can be taken to mean either individual freemasons or as has been also interpreted an organized masonic conspiracy.
To begin with, there is the credibility of Theuma himself, who as this site itself made it clear several times is to put it charitably, an extremely unreliable witness, who has often contradicted his own testimony and in its own opinion should have his pardon revoked due to possible perjury.
Secondly, given that Theuma stated in his testimony that he was told this by another person, it legally falls under hearsay, and therefore cannot qualify as any meaningful evidence. As this site has rightfully stated on many an occasion, justice cannot be based on ‘il detto del detto’. For all we know Theuma could have been simply making it up, or perhaps it was a code word or the word was used in its colloquial sense (which in Maltese can mean anything from a corrupt group to anti-catholic unbelievers or indeed both). But most logically and probably, assuming that Theuma was telling the truth when testifying, the person who told him was lying to him for it is highly unlikely that the persons tasked to act as a middleman between Theuma and whoever is truly higher up in the food chain and closer to who really commissioned this vile act would tell him the truth. It is well known that criminals are fed misinformation by their commissioners to misinform them so that if they ever get caught they would not be in a position to reveal the true source even if they wanted to. And what better way to buy his silence than to claim that the ‘freemasons’ were involved, given the notoriety of the term as understood in popular parlance?
It is also curious that neither Vince Muscat nor the Degiorgio brothers, ever mentioned freemasonry per se as being behind the murder in their statements and dispositions. What they did actually mention is a lawyer alleged to be a mason but a single man (if he is actually involved in the crime since we are basing this solely on claims made by the executors of the crime and one should always be presumed innocent until proven otherwise) does not translate to me that this means that an entire masonic community was behind this lurid affair. There might have been people from the ruling party and for all I know also the opposition involved but all of us would agree that this does not mean that their respective parties were actively involved let alone commissioned the murder. As regards the mentioned lawyer, if indeed a ‘mason’, one has to establish whether he actually belonged or still belongs to a regular or irregular lodge. The difference is far from inconsequential.
For starters, regular masons meet on established dates in established locations defined by their regular warrant. They cannot meet anywhere else or at any other time else in any circumstance without a specially written dispensation that can be given only by the Grand Master in exceptional cases. In Malta, this means either at 6/7 Marsamxett or at Villa Blye. Dates are fixed, and some Constitutions like the English also publish them on the internet for good measure, so that masonic visitors from both local and foreign regular lodges can attend the meetings. Summonses with an agenda are communicated in advance. Any motion put forward in front of the lodge has to be given due notice, and cannot be voted upon by the members of the lodge in the same meeting. While visitors cannot vote they are still witnesses to the proceedings. All decisions are minuted by the secretary and minutes are then circulated to the members of the lodge so they can scrutinize them for their correctness and are voted upon at the subsequent meeting and then archived. These minutes are priceless for the historian and shed further light on our historical knowledge, for not only do they capture the names of past members but many a time also decisions and important events that were happening at the time. Sadly, when it comes to Malta, several British lodges that worked here either disbanded altogether or moved back to the UK when the British Armed Forces withdrew from our island in 1979 and took their minute books with them. In at least one particular case, as I discovered when researching my own ancestors, many of the minute books belonging to the 19th century have been either lost or misplaced, depriving us of potentially important historical facts in the process.
All these formalities may seem peculiar and pedantic but are in fact not only intended to be a way to limit the potentiality of abuse but are also necessary procedures if a lodge wants to obtain and maintain its regularity.
Of course a bogus masonic lodge by its very nature is not constrained by such formalities.
I therefore find it hard to believe that such a criminal organization (if it is after all an organization and not an individual that commissioned the murder) as that behind the gruesome homicide of Mrs Caruana Galizia would take the trouble to meet in a place where the public is free to spy on who is a member simply by standing outside the entrance and observing who’s going in and out of the buildings but also risking having their decisions recorded for posterity and possibly also leaked.
All of this takes us back to the question of what is exactly a Freemason. Many people wouldn’t know the difference or even cared about the different types of ‘masons’ let alone between self-styled ‘masonic’ bodies and any other type of organization entities such as Opus Dei and this is why I put the term in quotes intentionally. But such differences are extremely important and should be highlighted rather than painting everyone with the same brush. In Maltese, the term Mażun is a deeply pejorative term, with extremely unsavory connotations, so much so that in Maltese case law (there were two cases, one in the 1930s and the other in 1992) where it has been ruled as defamation if not used in any other sense other to describe someone who is an actual freemason.
Contrast the images that would come to your mind if you were told that Mr. X is Freemason with those when being told that Mr Y is a member of Opus Dei or a Catenian. Probably if Mr Y was the latter, hardly anyone would bat an eyelid even though all three are ‘secret’ organizations and I put the term secret in quotes too because it all depends on how you define it. But call someone a Mażun and I am certain all kinds of lurid images would spring to the minds of the general reader.
Thus it is important to give an objective account as possible on the subject of freemasonry – rather than reinforce an already deeply established prejudice further – There are truths and there are falsehoods, and there is above all an unwarranted degree of generalization.
Therefore we need to start by addressing the most fundamental of misconceptions, namely the fact that contrary to what is being erroneously portrayed by many, ‘Freemasonry’ is not a singular body. This will be the subject of my next blog.
One thought on “An objective view of Freemasonry (II): the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia and Freemasonry as a convenient distraction”
And yet you fail to see the network. So where was Daphne’s murder plotted? In a cafeteria? In a bar? In which place? It does not mean they met in Marsamxett. But can’t you see the network in each and every tier from the police force to the army to politicians to lawyers? In addition, I never said that Cusens is a bad guy. I tackled and asked questions about freemasonry in general. Clearly, you are taking up the narrative of the Times of Malta. So what makes you think, in this case, that Theuma was lying all along? For all we know, Theuma could have been saying the truth here and then was asked to change version later because while the narrative of Yorgen Fenech pursued, this did not. Also, your interpretation happened to be quite subjective since you also claimed in another blog, that you have ancestors who were freemasonry. I repeat, as I stated in another blog, no one has ever denied that there are good and decent freemasons. But we are at the stage where criminal, psyopaths have infiltrated each and every tier. The question you must ask is how the origin of their infiltration, the fact that they all happened to be appointed in high positions and the fact that they all protect each other, took place. You wrote here yourself that a mason was already mentioned as a criminal which you agreed to. How many more criminals do we have in freemasonry? Because this should raise eyebrows to you. Another question I have is what makes your opinion and your research right but mine wrong? Why is mine a conspiracy and yours not? The truth is first ridiculed, then VIOLENTLY OPPOSED, then it become self-evident.