Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1546553
HOT on the heels of the "not guilty" verdict in the Yorgen Fenech trial, which left almost everyone reeling and more con- spiracy theories than you can shake your fist at, fresh news emerged which continued to stun an already shell-shocked nation. It was reported that before the trial started, Vincent Marma- ra had confirmed under oath during a meeting behind closed doors between the defence and prosecution in front of Judge Ed- wina Grima that he had accept- ed to carry out a survey for the defence team, after it was com- missioned by Yorgen Fenech's uncle, Ray Fenech. The survey was purportedly to "gauge the public's perception" of Yorgen Fenech. Marmara claims that the sample of 500 respondents was chosen after their phone numbers were randomly gener- ated. According to news reports, the questions were about Yorgen Fenech, murdered journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, the police investigation and the ju- dicial system. Respondents were also asked for their views on the presidential pardon grant- ed to self-confessed middleman Melvin Theuma and whether they believed the mastermind behind the murder had been caught. They were also asked if they believed Fenech had or- dered the assassination and what their opinion of the case would be without the influence of media scrutiny. Once again, the public has been hit between the eyes with astonishing revela- tions which have led to multiple questions, some of which imme- diately spring to mind. The questions 1. Did Marmara really use the name Malta Surveys, a separate company belonging to Silvio de Bono, when phoning respond- ents? He claims he didn't, the parte civile lawyer Jason Azzo- pardi says he has the names of people who were contacted, who said he did. Either one side or the other is not telling the truth on this very crucial point. The name of another survey compa- ny does not just appear magical- ly out of thin air for no reason, especially when it concerns such a hot potato as this particular trial. Apart from the fact that an innocent party was dragged into it, if someone lies about something like this then I would think their very credibility about everything else they say would be immediately shot down. 2. Were the respondents truly chosen at random from among the public, or was the list of po- tential jurors for the month of July, whose names are openly published in Government Ga- zette, the ones who were specif- ically targeted for this survey? This, of course, is the crux of the matter because it is one thing to get a general feel of what the man-in-the street thinks—a le- gitimate tool used elsewhere— but it is a completely different kettle of fish if those who were selected to serve on jury were included in the survey and therefore allegedly handpicked to favour the defence. The ques- tion which arose here is one which many, including myself, were repeatedly asking: Were those who replied to the survey cross-checked with the people who were eventually chosen as jurors? In his right of reply, Marmara said that he did pro- vide the phone numbers of the respondents and all other infor- mation requested by the court. 3. Should the practice of pub- lishing the names of the poten- tial jury pool be abolished? I think it should. If you google the Government Gazette and list of jurors for any given month, you will find people's full names, their occupation, and place of residence. In such a highly po- liticised trial such as this one, even a layperson could easily figure out their political opin- ions with a couple of clicks on Facebook, especially since so many people on social media are no longer reticent about openly stating their views. In a country where we all know each other and are probably even distantly related to someone who knows someone, narrowing down the list of who the potential jurors were would not really have been that difficult. This also raises the question of whether trials by jury should be discarded in an insular, highly polarised so- ciety such as ours, not just in this high-profile case, but for all murder cases. After nine years of hearing about this case in the media, I doubt there was any person in Malta who didn't have an opinion about who was behind the murder of Daph- ne Caruana Galizia, or indeed, an opinion about the journalist herself. Would judges have re- turned a different verdict? We will never know. 4. The next, most obvious question is: Are we questioning the validity of trails by jury sim- ply because the verdict jarred against our own personal opin- ions and was not what many were hoping for? Would there have been the same outraged reaction had Yorgen Fenech been found guilty? When news of the possible jury tampering emerged, there were many who drew parallels with the film The Runaway Jury, in which an unethical jury consultant us- es all means possible to black- mail, profile and manipulate the chosen jurors in favour of his client. This is, of course, a very grave allegation, and in fact the defence has threatened legal action against any further "baseless accusations" against them, although this statement does not seem to have deterred public perception one iota; the comment boards are still replete with speculations about how the jury could have possibly come back with this bizarre verdict. I don't think this threat was a wise move, as it smacks too much of trying to use a chilling effect to clamp down on freedom of ex- pression and the right of the public to ask questions. On the contrary, the not so veiled 'warning' has served to simply rekindle the fire embers once again. If there was any shadow of a doubt that the jury had been compromised, I would assume that the judge would have asked for a fresh list of jurors, even if it meant delaying the start of the trial. The statement released on Friday by the defence team pointed out that this is what happened: "The court subse- quently changed the list of po- tential jurors for July as a pre- caution and asked each person drawn whether they had been contacted to participate in a poll. Each and every single juror whose name was drawn, wheth- er subsequently empanelled or not, replied in the negative. This was done on oath." Be that as it may, it could also very well be that the representa- tive sample was used during the jury selection stage to accurately profile the demographic of the "ideal juror" who would most likely return the not guilty ver- dict. Of course, there is also anoth- er possible explanation. Despite all the evidence to the contra- ry, including the infamous in- terrogation tape where Yorgen Fenech admitted his collusion, the prosecution simply failed to prove their case against Fenech beyond a reasonable doubt. In- stead, it seems the jury believed he had been set up to take the fall instead of someone else (or several others) and should not be punished further. And yet… having heard it for ourselves, that interrogation leaves no doubt in many peo- ple's minds, including mine, that Fenech should have been found guilty, if not for complici- ty, at the very least, for criminal association to commit murder. Personally, I can't imagine one of my good friends, let alone my bosom buddy, talking to me about a murder plot and not go- ing straight to the authorities. Of course, I would like to think none of my friends would be ca- pable of such a thing, but I also know that if they were, I would not want anything further to do with them, and I would definite- ly not allow myself to be em- broiled in some heinous crime. We heard a lot about supposed "friendships" in this trial, but there comes a point when one's clean conscience has to come first when someone's life is at stake. However, as I said last week, we were not the jurors, we were not privy to their deliberations, and we do not know what other aspects of the reams of testimo- ny, or indeed any other factors, were enough to sway their vote. We can only wait and see if the Caruana Galizia family is suc- cessful with their appeal of this verdict. Meanwhile, I will end this column the same way I end- ed last week's column: It cannot be that "no one" orchestrated Daphne's murder. All those who were behind it, no matter who they are, need to face the conse- quences for what they did—an- ything less than that is unthink- able. 3 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 13 SEPTEMBER 2026 OPINION Josanne Cassar She has worked in the field of communications and journalism for the last 30 years Was it a 'runaway jury' or did the prosecution fail to prove their case?