Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1546491
ON Wednesday evening, I for- got my phone at home, which rarely happens. So, when I first heard the news from the friends I was with, I thought surely that can't be right. They showed me their phone and there it was, spelled out in black and white. Like most of the nation, I was beyond shocked at the not guilty verdict in the trial of Yor- gen Fenech. The man charged with complicity in the mur- der of Daphne Caruana Gali- zia and of criminal association, was cleared on both counts and walked out of court a free man. Since then, online chatter has reverberated with the same question: How could this possi- bly have happened in the face of all the damning evidence? Per- sonally, I have been too dumb- founded to write anything on social media. Instead, I have just been reading the comments, trying to absorb the implica- tions of this very unexpected turn of events. The public's re- action, the statements by the family and the media com- mentary have all agreed on one thing: This verdict has left us with more questions than an- swers. The two different narratives which resonated throughout this trial have been brought sharply into focus. The general consensus is that Fenech should have been sentenced for his in- volvement (of which there was ample evidence), while another part of public opinion agreed with the defence's argument that he was a mere scapegoat, being used as the fall guy, while the real mastermind got off Scott free, and hence it is only right for Fenech to have been acquitted. In fact, there were constant ar- guments on FB between Daph- ne's family and well-meaning supporters who could not un- derstand why the family were focussing solely on Fenech but not clamouring for Keith Schembri's head as well. It was explained over and over again that it was Fenech who was on trial, and the prosecution could only proceed against him be- cause that was the concrete evidence they had in hand. If so many people following the case from the outside could not grasp this, then it is no wonder that the seeds of reasonable doubt which were so expertly sowed by the defence team, ap- parently worked. There has also been lots of talk about the validity of the jury sys- tem, the jurors themselves and the inevitable speculation about what could have happened in that room as they were deliber- ating for them to come out with an almost unanimous verdict. Were they threatened, intimi- dated, afraid of the consequenc- es, bought off? Did they harbour resentment against Daphne? Did they feel Yorgen had "suf- fered" enough by spending five years in prison awaiting trial? These and other theories have been bandied about all over the internet. However, after two gru- elling months of the of- ten-mind-numbing court sittings and after being seques- tered against such measly com- pensation, I find it rather unfair that the jurors are now being singled out. None of us were there; we do not know, and cannot presume to know what pressures they were under. It all remains conjecture at this point, unless proven otherwise. These were just your ordinary people, plucked out of obscurity to pass judgement on arguably Malta's most notorious murder case. At one point, some people were de- manding that the jury should be allowed to go home every night, rather than be "kidnapped by the state", but how would that have played out? If many are now saying that someone "got" to the sequestered jury or that they were unduly influenced, how much worse would it have been if they had access to fam- ily, friends and media reports? During the trial I also kept see- ing suggestions from the pub- lic that the whole thing should have been televised, something which I do not agree with it all. What good would that have done except to sensational- ise the whole thing even more, turning it into a veritable cir- cus? It was bad enough that people were calling it a Netflix series simply from what we read from the live blogs; I can't even begin to imagine what the pub- lic reaction would have been if the proceedings had been shown on TV. We were reading about how this horrific murder was cold-bloodedly planned and ex- ecuted and the jury's task was to try and determine whether the man in the dock was di- rectly complicit in ordering the assassination. This was not something designed for our dai- ly entertainment to alleviate the boredom of this long, hot sum- mer. In any case, televising a murder trial is no guarantee of justice being served as the infamous case of OJ Simpson proved. That trial held the US in thrall for over eight months in 1995. As it unfolded, black Americans started to root for the former football star despite all the evi- dence that he had murdered his wife Nicole and Ron Goldman, who had intervened to try and stop the attack, because the de- fence team played the race card to great effect. OJ was acquitted after his defence successfully created reasonable doubt while showing that the prosecution had bungled the case by mis- handling the chain of evidence and possible racism by the po- lice. He eventually spent nine years in prison, not for the murders but for leading an armed rob- bery and a kidnapping in Las Vegas. In 2024, six years after his release, OJ Simpson died of cancer. At this very moment, another murder trial is being televised in the United States; that of Lind- say Clancy, a mother charged with murdering her three chil- dren, who is claiming tempo- rary insanity due to postpartum psychosis. She attempted su- icide on the night of her chil- dren's deaths, leaving her para- lysed and in a wheelchair. At the time of writing, the jurors were still deadlocked after six days of deliberation. The foreman told the judge in a note that a sin- gle juror would not follow the court's instructions about rea- sonable doubt and was holding up the verdict (which has to be unanimous). By the time you read this, the verdict will proba- bly be out. But just as happened with the Yorgen Fenech trial, my feed has been replete with people debating, speculating and coming to their own judge- ment of whether the mother should be found guilty or not, because of her mental state. The televised aspect of the trial has simply added fuel to the online judge and jury. Does streaming such trials promote more trans- parency and accountability or does it simply provide more ma- terial for water cooler gossip? I personally think the court reporters from Malta's major newspapers and news websites did a very good job of conveying what was happening in court and should be complimented for the hours they put in, which must have taken their toll. I doubt televising would have made any difference because the ultimate decision was in the hands of the jurors. So, what happens now? Well, it seems we have not heard the last of this murder trial. The prosecution is apparently going to appeal the verdict, challeng- ing it on the grounds relating to the process itself and seek- ing a retrial. According to law, "prosecutors will have to iden- tify legal or procedural grounds which they believe were serious enough to have potentially af- fected the verdict." The Court of Criminal Appeal is made up of three judges. The presiding Judge Edwina Grima has also ordered evi- dence heard during the trial to be sent to the police commis- sioner to determine whether criminal proceedings should be taken against third parties. The trial proceedings are also to be incorporated into ongoing mag- isterial inquiries connected to the murder. All eyes are on the police now to do their duty, although after what emerged during this trial, I don't blame the public for being completely disillusioned and cynical when it comes to crim- inal investigations. It would be nothing short of a miracle if the investigators had to prove us wrong. Justice has still not been served and too much time has already been wasted without clear-cut answers to so many unanswered questions. It cannot be that "no one" or- chestrated Daphne's murder. All those who were behind it, no matter who they are, need to face the consequences for what they did. Anything less than that is unthinkable. 3 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 6 SEPTEMBER 2026 OPINION Josanne Cassar She has worked in the field of communications and journalism for the last 30 years A trial by jury; a trial by public opinion People on Wednesday protested in Valletta following the acquittal of Yorgen Fenech as Daphne Caruana Galizia murder mastermind (Photo: James Bianchi/MaltaToday)