Why hadn’t the police investigated further the ‘lost phone’ of Keith Schembri and why did the Constitutional Court revoke the decision to have his data handed over to Yorgen Fenech’s lawyers?

In the mind-boggling court theatre in the case of Yorgen Fenech, we had got Jason Azzopardi’s soft questioning of an amateurish lawyer which prompted judge Said Pullicino to intervene. Then we got Schembri’s reply:

“Azzopardi asks Schembri if he was involved in a ‘Where is the laptop?’ campaign concerning Caruana Galizia’s laptop.”

That had prompted judge Said Pullicino “to quip ‘where is the laptop, or where is the mobile?’”

[Schembri ‘lost his mobile phone hours before he was arrested].

Laughter all around.

Schembri said “he had nothing to do with the laptop campaign.”

But what about his phone? He said he had lost it. But wasn’t this ‘lost phone’ last turned on close to Schembri’s own home, just 30 minutes before the police’s arrival to take him into custody? Why didn’t the police search for this phone? We must remember that although he was released after two days, he was arrested briefly a year later, when he was charged with a series of financial crimes in court in March 2021. What data on the phone which might incriminate him, was he hiding?

Rest assured dear readers, that if it was Yorgen Fenech who lost his phone, or whose laptop and other devices were not found in his cabin cruiser, we would have had the mainstream media proclaiming him guilty on the spot!

In the meantime, Schembri’s replacement phone, which was the phone that Judge Mintoff decreed must be produced, was seized by police.

I raise more questions concerning this ‘lost’ mobile…Why wasn’t it further investigated? Oh but I am sure that the lead investigator and prosecutor Keith Arnaud did his best in the search. After all, the Degiorgios told us:

“We know that Inspector Keith Arnaud is a close friend of Keith Schembri, and he arraigned persons we believe played no involvement in the case. We are aware that instructions were given and actions were taken, which did not result from a proper investigation but from the direct orders of a prominent person in order that they [i.e., the real culprits of the murder] are protected.”

No wonder that Yorgen Fenech, had sought the removal of the same Arnaud!

Was Schembri informed apriori of his arrest, considering that he had deleted his Signal account too before his arrest?

Couldn’t the police track Schembri’s ‘lost phone’ using either Schembri’s number of the phone’s IMEI (International Mobile Equipment Identity)? Doesn’t his service provider have all his messages and calls stored? As far as I know, data is not mislaid and is available on the servers of the carrier or cloud service. If the police or our local service providers do not have the necessary devices to do so, foreign expertise could be used to carry out the job. Moreover, many people, especially business people, have two phones and/or two sim cards which is the same like having two phones. Why was it the case that because one phone was ‘lost’, then it was treated as if all was lost? In addition, couldn’t the police retrieve messages from sequestred phones of people closely tied to Schembri?

Ah yes, I forgot that the Degiorgios told us that they were used by different people, who include “high-ranking officers within the police corps” and that although they have “passed on sensitive information to the Police concerning a number of cases, the police took no action, perhaps on instructions of certain important people. Worse still, we believe that in certain cases the justice system is being used to side-track the truth.”

But then we had another u-turn in this saga. When Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff had ruled in favour of Yorgen Fenech’s lawyers, when they argued that Schembri’s devices, “though not the same as the one that allegedly went offline shortly before the former chief of staff’s arrest in 2019 and was still ‘missing’, contained data that was nonetheless essential to their case,” and ordered the police commissioner to hand data extracted from Schembri’s phones, this decision was revoked by the Constitutional Court when an appeal was filed by the state advocate! The reason given was that by disclosing such mobile data, ongoing police investigations could be prejudiced! But it was the police themselves who admitted that the case of Daphne Caruana Galizia is already prejudiced!

Who presided over the Constitutional Court? Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, together with Justices Giannino Caruana Demajo and Anthony Ellul. They noted “that the first court had deemed that the law granted the judiciary ‘wide discretion’ to take adequate measures where fundamental rights were to be safeguarded and the Constitutonal Court agreed.”

Malta is so small. Same building with the stairs. Same chief justice. Same u-turns in favour of Keith Schembri.

 Isn’t this unfolding information making it abundantly clear that our Floriana and Valletta institutions are in collusion with the circle to which the Degiorgios were introduced, causing obstruction and miscarriage of justice in every way? Didn’t the Degiorgios write that they believe that in certain cases the justice system is being used to side-track the truth?

Malta deserves to be cleansed from anything which it does not deserve. And until Daphne Caruana Galizia’s case is solved, Malta’s credibility, if it has anything left considering the scandals it is being named in, like the latest Hunter Biden’s account scandal, will be destroyed.

X (Formerly Twitter)