Worry is part of life. Some people worry about the future, others about their health and safety or that of their loved ones.

But we don’t all inform the police whenever we are worried. When worrying levels spiral to levels that push someone to reach out to the police – the country’s highest powers of protection – it means that worry is intense.

It means that their “worry” is fear. Nicolette Ghirxi was one of those people.

The gender of the worried person makes a massive difference because statistics show us that women are more at risk of being victims of domestic violence and femicide.

Nicolette, 48, was stabbed to death in her apartment in Birkirkara by her ex-partner, Edward William Johnston on August 11.

After her death, a Police Complaints Board inquiry was launched to look into the police and its handling of the investigations leading up to the femicide.

Last week, the inquiry’s conclusions were published. It emerged that, although there were no previous reports of violence between the two, Nicolette had filed a harassment report in April linked to some e-mails Johnston sent her after their break-up in December.

The police tried to speak to him but he mocked them, and told them he was abroad – something they confirmed. The police put him on the wanted list.

On August 8, Nicolette sent an e-mail to the police saying: “Today I was scrolling on Tinder and I see him there only 3km away. This means he is in Malta and I’m worried.”

Seventy-two hours later she was dead.

The inquiry absolved the police of responsibility. The reasons were there was no clear indication of an imminent threat, and Johnston’s messages to Nicolette were considered “mere words, insults and harassment” and that the inspector was busy with another case.

After Nicolette’s femicide, women’s rights experts agreed that the reporting system needs to be more sensitive to the realities of women who feel harassed or threatened. The women might not recognise the risks but professionals should guide them and take any threats more seriously.

The inquiry flipped this on its head when it cautioned about the underestimation of danger by the victims “as it tends to dampen the vigilance and urgency with which the authorities react”.

What is implied between the lines?

Is it being implied that it is the duty of the woman, who is living in fear, to make more noise or use bigger words if she wants to be taken seriously?

Is this victim blaming?

The Malta Women’s Lobby picked up on this, saying that the situation exposes evident critical failings in the protection of women in Malta and called for changes in policy and procedure to address this.

Would the outcome have been different if Nicolette typed the word “scared”, “afraid” or “terrified” instead of “worried” in her e-mail to police?

Because we know that she was scared. But, according to the inquiry, this was not clear: she was a woman “worried” about a man who had “merely” harassed and insulted her but who was also on the police wanted list.

But as she battled with this reality and sat down to write that e-mail to the police, she did not stop to think about the semantics.

She used the wrong word.

And that word has now been used against her. It will continue to be used against other women in her situation – unless something changes. And that is something to be very “worried” about.

Actually, scratch that last sentence. That is potentially “terrifying”.