A Europol expert who six years ago was tasked to extract data from Daphne Caruana Galizia’s cloned mobile phone, never reported directly back to the court because he “was never asked to.”

Constantinos Petrou was in court on Monday at the re-opened compilation of evidence against Yorgen Fenech who stands charged with complicity in the journalist’s murder.

He was one of a number of experts appointed by the magistrate conducting the inquiry into the fatal car bomb that killed Caruana Galizia a few metres away from her Bidnija home on October 16, 2017.

On November 23, 2017 then-Magistrate Anthony Vella had named Petrou as the expert to extract data from the victim’s cloned mobile phone as well as a related hard drive.

The victim’s actual phone was destroyed in the blast.

Four days after that appointment, the cloned phone together with the hard drive were handed to Petrou by digital forensic expert, lawyer Martin Bajada, at Europol headquarters at The Hague.

Petrou completed the extractions and handed over his work to the weapons and explosives unit at Europol.

The relative report was subsequently incorporated into another report drawn up by his former colleague, Marinus Martin Van Der Meij, who last Thursday presented his report at Fenech’s murder case.

That report, based on the extracted data, came up with seven possible scenarios and possible instigators behind Caruana Galizia’s assassination, the court heard last week.

Petrou’s own report was included as ‘Appendix 16’ under Van Der Meij’s report and was dated March 28, 2018.

Van Der Meij had completed his data analysis in May.

“I was never asked”

Asked by Fenech’s lawyer whether he had ever presented his report to the Maltese courts, Petrou replied, “No, I was never asked.”

Nor was he ever told to report back to the inquiring magistrate, he said.

The experts’ conclusions were handed in physical format to the inquiring magistrate by his former colleague, Van Der Meij.

When shown a copy of the document that was removed from its sealed envelope by presiding Magistrate Rachel Montebello, Petrou confirmed that it was his report and that he had completed his task faithfully, to the best of his abilities.

Petrou said the cloned phone was handed to him by Bajada together with a court order, in Maltese, setting out his task. 

Bajada explained the instructions to him, the witness said. He also said that he never communicated with the magistrate who had appointed him. 

Petrou said he did not need to report to his manager on this occasion, as preparing the data for the analyst was “an everyday task”. 

Asked by defence lawyer Charles Mercieca about the extracted data and the original exhibits he had worked on, Petrou said, one needed to ask Europol because he did not work for Europol any more. 

The court pointed out that the experts had only been asked to present reports.

However, the defence insisted, observing that normally a court expert would include the original exhibits and data used to perform his assigned task. This had clearly not happened in Fenech’s case.

The defence observed that neither Van Der Meij’s nor Petrou’s testimonies shed light on what had happened to the extractions and exhibits they had worked on. Data had been extracted from the victim’s cloned phone and the relative hard drive was copied but no one knew who those exhibits were handed to. And since they formed the basis of Van Der Meij’s conclusions, it was all the more important for them to be in the records of the murder case, argued Mercieca.

Moreover, presenting evidence “in fits and starts” meant more delays to the detriment of his client.  

Moreover, Madam Justice Grima had ordered a Europol representative to testify so as to explain why the experts’ report was in possession of the agency which was a third party, extraneous to the proceedings.

Mercieca insisted the report must be presented “in its entirety,” in the same manner as any other report produced by a court expert.

In light of those submissions, the court remitted the case to the Criminal Court which has to clarify whether the two Europol experts who have already testified need to produce the exhibits they worked on.

AG lawyers Anthony Vella and Godwin Cini prosecuted, together with inspector Kurt Zahra.

Lawyers Gianluca Caruana Curran, Charles Mercieca and Marion Camilleri were defence counsel.

Lawyers Therese Comodini Cachia and Jason Azzopardi appeared parte civile.