Caruana Galizia murder: Doubts over IT expert’s competence to identify threats on victim’s phone
The compilation of evidence against George and Alfred Degiorgio and Vince Muscat continued today, with a debate ensuing on whether IT expert Martin Bajada had the authority to identify threatening messages on the murdered journalist’s phone
The compilation of evidence against the three men accused of murdering journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia in October 2017 continued on Thursday, with IT expert Martin Bajada taking the witness stand.
In the last sittings, lawyers for the accused had insisted with the court that Bajada not be allowed to testify, and had presented a constitutional case asking the court to stop him from doing so since he had a criminal conviction dating back to 1993. This was turned down by the court.
Today’s sitting saw a somewhat heated debate between lawyers on whether Bajada - who had analysed data cloned off Caruana Galizia’s cellular phone - was able to say if there were any threatening message found on the journalist’s mobile.
Alfred Degiorgio’s lawyer William Cuschieri asked Bajada about any sources which were on the victim’s phone, with lead inspector Keith Arnaud objecting to the question, and pointing out that there was a decree by Magistrate Anthony Vella in place protecting the late journalist’s sources.
Cuschieri insisted that it was threats he was interested in, not journalistic sources, however, Magistrate Claire Stafrace Zammit said that Bajada had never been authorised to analyse threats.
Bajada suggested to the court that he could be given a list of keyword which would constitute threats, and that he could then search the data for this, but parte civile lawyer for the victim’s family Therese Commodini Cachia said such a system would still have its shortcomings since it still wouldn’t protect the journalist’s wider sources.
Subsequently the magistrate clearly stated that it was not within Bajada’s remit to determine what or what wasn’t a threat, and Cuschieri said he would be asking for the cloned phone data to be removed from the case’s records.
Earlier in the sitting, Bajada explained how, from analysing all the calls made on the day of the car bomb in the area where the explosion took place, he had identified two calls of interest.
The calls involved two devices, one which was identified from its IMEI number as a Nokia mobile phone, and the other which had “alarmed” him, because it was not a phone, but a GPS receiver.
He said that the mobile in question had sent the message “#rel1=on”, and that the purpose of that text was to give power to a component. After the explosion on October 16, the two device were never used again, he highlighted.
Bajada also explained how the two devices’ activity on the day of the murder fit exactly into the timeline of how the car bomb explosion unfolded, as established by witnesses at the scene, calls to the 112 emergency number and civil protection department personnel.
The IT expert clarified that he could only determine that the two devices in question had communicated. “I can never say who was behind every device or who made what call,” he said.
At the sitting drew to a close, all the defence lawyers said they were reserving their right to raise preliminary pleas over the admissibility of evidence, in particular that which required particular expertise to compile, and on whether any local or European laws had been breached.
The case was adjourned to April 12.
The key courtroom players:
William Cuschieri and Martha Muscat are appearing for Alfred Degiorgio, known as il-Fulu, 53.
Martin Fenech is appearing for Vince Muscat, known as il-Koħħu, 55.
Josette Sultana is appearing for George Degiorgio, known as iċ-Ċiniz, 55.
Philip Galea Farrugia from the Attorney General's Office and Inspectors Keith Arnaud and Kurt Zahra are appearing for the prosecution.
Lawyers Jason Azzopardi and Therese Comodini Cachia are appearing parte civile.