The Court confirms that Melvin Theuma probably lied under oath, but the judge did not take steps against him because of a legal caveat

I am not saying this, but a court sentence has decreed so. The prime witness of the procession in the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia has probably been lying under oath. This site was sceptical about Melvin Theuma’s testimony in the case of Daphne Caruana Galizia’s murder. This site began asking many questions about this case and Theuma’s testimony. Remember that the Caruana Galizia family concurred that Melvin Theuma should be given a presidential pardon and requested the Court to start criminal procedures against me, which happened. Matthew Caruana Galizia and his pals even attacked the University Rector for not taking steps against me for what I had been writing and am still writing about this case and Melvin Theuma.

We now have it in black and white that even the Court – here I am referring to the sentence handed down by Judge Audrey Demicoli – is doubting Melvin Thelma’s testimony. So imagine how, in this particular case, one can rely on a verdict based on Theuma’s recordings. One must not forget that the police, the prosecution and even the parte civile agree that these recordings were used arbitrarily. They also agree and believe that part of these recordings can be used, but other parts are to be discarded because, they claim, they cannot be relied upon.

But now, it has been revealed that even Melvin Thelma’s testimony given under oath in Court is probably based on lies. However, for technical reasons, the Court did not order that steps be taken against him. And to ensure that there is no misunderstanding. I am here quoting from the decision handed down by the Court with regard to Melvin Theuma. This is what the Court established:

“Verily the passages cited by the Appellant who is appealing and from the proves in the acts are somewhat suspicious in the fact that in the testimony under oath given by Melvin Theuma in the Magisterial Inquiry and the evidence presented in the investigation are contradictory”.

In simple words, the judge is saying that what Yorgen Fenech – the appellant – said is true because facts show that Melving Theuma is inconsistent in what he is saying in this case. In Court, he gives different versions of the same facts. The Court continued:-

“In truth, there is a probability that Melvin Theuma perjured himself before the inquiring magistrate “.

Now, the Court is stating that there is the possibility that Melvin Theuma, under oath, did not testify the truth. Therefore, what The Times has written is not true when it writes that Yorgen Fenech’s petition was “thrown out”’. The Times journalists have ended up going to the defence of a criminal who, amongst other things, lent money at high rates of interest, thus mercilessly destroying many families.

It has to be remembered that Melvin Theuma was given a pardon at the request and suggestion of the Deputy Advocate General, who has now been chosen by the Chief Justice to be a magistrate. Is somebody coming forward from the Opus Dei lot to tell me that I am talking nonsense?

As a result of Melvin Thelma’s testimony, an individual is being denied bail by the same Court. The excuse is no longer Melvin Theuma’s testimony. The reason now is that the individual could run away. Obviously, they can no longer rely on Theuma’s testimony because it has been defined as problematic. However, even if one believes that the reason for denying bail is that of possibly absconding, this is also a problematic argument.

Even here, the Court has burst another bubble. Why am I saying this? In the last few days, we had the case of the Libyan who was accused of serious crimes for which the police have solid evidence. But the Court had no problem in granting him bail. Here, I am referring to the case of Lilu King; hence, Lily King is entitled to bail. Thus, in this case, there is no fear that a foreigner could run away. But in the case of a Maltese person, bail is continually denied because the prosecution is saying that he could leave his country!

When one writes that the Maltese are ending up being discriminated against in their own country, the allies of the Repubblichini come out en masse and call one a racist. We have ended up in the ludicrous situation that if you are Maltese, you end up a foreigner in your own country.