LEGAL NOTICE, EDITORIAL DISCLAIMER AND CORRECTIONS POLICY

Publication: If Not Him, Who? The Acquittal That Reopened Malta’s Greatest Question
Author: Alexander Hartmann
Last updated: 15 September 2026
Research cutoff: 15 September 2026

1. Nature and Purpose of This Publication

This publication is an independently produced work of investigative narrative nonfiction concerning the assassination of Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, the criminal investigations and proceedings that followed, and the subsequent trial and acquittal of Yorgen Fenech.

It is intended to inform readers, document matters of significant public interest, examine publicly reported evidence and encourage informed discussion about the legal and institutional questions arising from the case.

This publication is not an official court record, judicial judgment, police report or statement issued by any public authority. It must not be treated as a substitute for the original court records, judgments, testimony, legislation or official documents on which parts of the publication are based.

2. Yorgen Fenech’s Acquittal

Yorgen Fenech was acquitted of the charges brought against him in connection with the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia.

On 2 September 2026, a Maltese jury found him not guilty of both charges before it by eight votes to one.

This publication respects that verdict fully and unequivocally. It does not state, suggest or invite readers to conclude that Yorgen Fenech is legally or factually guilty of ordering, financing, participating in or otherwise being criminally responsible for the assassination.

References to the case against him describe historical allegations, evidence presented in court, witness testimony, prosecutorial arguments or contemporaneous reporting. They are not assertions by the author that those allegations were true.

The title If Not Him, Who? is an investigative and rhetorical question concerning the absence, following the acquittal, of a final criminal judgment identifying the person who commissioned the assassination. The title is not an assertion that Yorgen Fenech was guilty, nor is it an assertion that another identifiable person must have been responsible.

3. No Accusation Against Another Person

Nothing in this publication should be interpreted as accusing Keith Schembri, Joseph Muscat, Konrad Mizzi, Melvin Theuma or any other identifiable person of ordering, authorising or participating in the assassination unless that particular responsibility has been established by a final judicial decision.

Where an individual was accused, implicated or discussed by:

• The prosecution;
• The defence;
• A witness;
• A convicted participant;
• An investigator;
• A journalist;
• A political figure;
• A civil-society organisation; or
• Another published source,

the publication attributes that claim to the person or source that advanced it.

Reporting that an allegation was made does not mean that the author or publisher adopts, endorses or believes the allegation.

The acquittal of one accused person does not establish the guilt of any other person.

4. Categories of Information

The publication distinguishes, expressly or through context, between:

Established fact: Information supported by a final conviction, admission, official record, court decision, public inquiry finding within its lawful remit or reliable and substantially uncontested reporting.

Prosecution allegation: A claim, interpretation or theory advanced by prosecutors. It is not necessarily an established fact.

Defence position: A claim, interpretation or alternative theory advanced by the accused or his lawyers. It is not necessarily an established fact and was not automatically accepted by the jury.

Witness testimony: What a witness stated in court or to investigators. The fact that testimony was given does not establish that every part of it was accurate or accepted by a court.

Court or jury outcome: What a court or jury formally decided.

Media or public interpretation: Commentary or analysis published by journalists, organisations, political figures or members of the public.

Author’s analysis: Questions and interpretations drawn from the publicly available record. Such analysis is not presented as a judicial finding or accusation of criminal responsibility.

No allegation should be read separately from its attribution, context, denial, evidential limitations or subsequent legal outcome.

5. Presumption of Innocence

Every person accused or suspected of an offence is entitled to the presumption of innocence unless and until found guilty by a competent court in accordance with law.

Where proceedings remain pending, unresolved, under appeal or under investigation, the publication does not presume their outcome.

A person’s arrest, questioning, prosecution, inclusion in testimony, association with another person or appearance in a court report does not by itself establish criminal responsibility.

Any person who has not been convicted of a particular offence must be treated as not guilty of that offence.

6. Alternative Theories

The publication examines alternative theories only where they were raised during judicial proceedings, appeared in official records or were reported by credible sources.

Discussion of an alternative theory does not mean that the theory has been accepted by the author, police, prosecutors, a court or a jury.

For each significant theory, the publication seeks to distinguish:

• Who advanced it;
• What evidence was said to support it;
• What evidence or testimony contradicted it;
• Whether it was investigated;
• Whether any charges resulted;
• Whether any court accepted it; and
• What remains unknown.

Readers must not interpret the discussion of a theory as a finding that an identifiable person committed a criminal offence.

7. The Jury’s Decision

The publication does not claim to know why individual jurors voted as they did.

Unless lawfully disclosed through an authorised public record, the private discussions, reasoning and opinions of jurors remain unknown. No attempt has been made to identify anonymous jurors, investigate their private lives or reconstruct confidential deliberations.

Analysis of factors that may have created reasonable doubt is based solely on evidence and arguments publicly reported from the proceedings. It is analytical commentary and not a statement of what occurred inside the jury room.

The verdict legally establishes that the prosecution did not obtain the required finding of guilt. It does not provide a judicial explanation of each juror’s reasoning.

8. Quotations and Court Reporting

Quotations attributed to witnesses, lawyers, judges, public officials or other persons are drawn from sources believed to be reliable at the time of publication.

Some courtroom statements were originally made in Maltese and were reported or translated into English by journalists. Minor differences may exist between published translations, summaries and the official spoken words.

Where a complete official transcript was unavailable, this publication relies on contemporaneous reporting and identifies the relevant source. Longer courtroom exchanges may be paraphrased to preserve context and avoid misleading selective quotation.

No dialogue has knowingly been invented.

9. Sources and Accuracy

The author has made reasonable efforts to:

• Consult multiple independent sources;
• Prioritise court records, official documents and reputable journalism;
• Verify important dates, quotations and legal outcomes;
• Separate allegations from established facts;
• Include relevant denials and responses;
• Avoid presenting speculation as fact; and
• Reflect material developments available up to the stated research cutoff.

News reporting and public records may contain errors, inconsistencies, incomplete information or different translations. Where reliable sources disagree, the publication seeks to acknowledge the disagreement.

The inclusion of a source does not mean that the author endorses every statement, opinion or allegation published by that source.

10. Developments After Publication

The case and related proceedings may continue to develop after the research cutoff.

Appeals, investigations, judgments, corrections, new testimony or additional proceedings occurring after that date may alter the legal or factual position.

Statements concerning possible or intended future legal action describe the position publicly reported at the research cutoff. They must not be interpreted as confirmation that an appeal, prosecution or investigation was subsequently filed, accepted or decided.

Readers should consult current official records for the latest legal position.

11. Public Inquiry Findings

References to findings of the public inquiry into the assassination describe conclusions reached by that inquiry within its terms of reference.

A public inquiry finding is not automatically equivalent to a criminal conviction. Institutional or political responsibility must not be interpreted as a finding that a particular person committed murder or another criminal offence unless a competent criminal court has made that finding.

12. Opinions and Analysis

Any opinions expressed by the author are honestly held interpretations based on the information available at the research cutoff.

Expressions such as “one possibility is”, “this raises the question”, “the evidence may suggest” or “another interpretation is” identify analysis rather than established fact.

Readers are encouraged to examine the cited material and reach their own conclusions. No analytical section should be read as declaring an identifiable person guilty of a criminal offence.

13. No Implication Through Inclusion or Omission

The inclusion of a person’s name, company, relationship, communication or business interest does not imply criminal conduct.

Similarly, the omission of a person, event, allegation or source does not mean that the author considers it irrelevant, false or unimportant. Editorial decisions may be based on reliability, relevance, space, legal caution or the information available at the time.

14. Photographs, Illustrations and Design

Any photographs, illustrations, maps or documentary images are included under licence, permission, an applicable legal exception or another lawful basis.

Illustrative cover artwork and promotional imagery may be symbolic or interpretative. Such imagery must not be understood as a photographic reconstruction or factual representation of an event unless expressly described as such.

The appearance of a yacht, marina, building, silhouette or other symbolic element does not assert that the depicted person or property was involved in criminal conduct.

15. Privacy and Personal Information

This publication concerns matters of substantial public interest. Nevertheless, reasonable efforts have been made to avoid unnecessary publication of private personal information, particularly information concerning minors, private addresses, anonymous jurors and persons not materially connected to the public record.

No reader may use this publication to harass, threaten, identify or target any person mentioned in it.

16. Corrections and Right of Reply

The author and publisher are committed to correcting material factual errors.

A person who believes that the publication contains:

• A materially inaccurate factual statement;
• A quotation attributed incorrectly;
• An allegation presented without proper attribution;
• An omitted material denial or legal outcome;
• Unlawfully disclosed private information; or
• Another statement requiring correction,

may submit a detailed written request to:

Email: theverdictmalta@gmail.com
Publisher: Alexander Hartmann

The request should identify:

1. The exact passage concerned;
2. The page or section where it appears;
3. The alleged error;
4. The correction or response requested; and
5. Supporting court records, official documents or other reliable evidence.

All genuine correction requests will be reviewed reasonably and in good faith. Where appropriate, a correction, clarification, response or revised digital edition may be issued.

Submission of a request does not guarantee that the challenged material will be removed where it is accurate, fairly attributed, protected opinion or otherwise lawful.

17. External Links

The website and publication may refer or link to third-party websites. Those websites are controlled by their respective publishers.

The author and publisher are not responsible for subsequent changes to external content, broken links, third-party privacy practices or material appearing elsewhere on those websites.

18. Intellectual Property

Except for properly attributed third-party material, the original text, structure, analysis, artwork and design of this publication are protected by applicable intellectual-property law.

No part may be reproduced, distributed, uploaded, resold or republished without written permission, except where expressly permitted by law.

19. Limitation of This Notice

This notice explains the editorial character and intended meaning of the publication. It does not excuse or legalise any statement that would otherwise be unlawful.

Nothing in this notice excludes liability that cannot legally be excluded. If any provision is found invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will continue to apply to the extent permitted by law.

20. Governing Law

Unless mandatory law requires otherwise, this legal notice and any dispute concerning this publication shall be governed by the laws of Malta and subject to the jurisdiction of the competent Maltese courts.

21. Reader Acknowledgement

By purchasing, accessing or reading this publication, the reader acknowledges that:

• Yorgen Fenech was acquitted of the charges discussed;
• Allegations are not established facts merely because they are reported;
• Defence theories are not judicial findings;
• No alternative person is declared guilty by the author;
• Legal and factual developments may occur after publication; and
• The work must be read as a whole, together with its sources, qualifications and corrections policy.