Please open this on a desktop or laptop.
This is a reading tool, not an article. It places 237 actors and 857 connections against a panel showing the verbatim court quote each one rests on, and the two have to be on screen together for any of it to mean anything. On a phone it cannot be shown honestly, so it is not shown at all.
On a larger screen you can read 831 dated moments, 43 points where the record contradicts itself, and all 4,661 verbatim citations behind them.
Search the full record instead →
Every word
said in court, searchable with the source quote and link. That one works on a phone.
This analysis was generated by an AI system and has not been fact-checked by a journalist or a lawyer. Treat every claim as a pointer to the transcript, not as a finding.
It places 237 actors and 857 connections side by side with a reading panel, which does not survive a phone. Open this page on a laptop to use it.
Everything else works here: the Timeline, the Contradictions and the Audit are all readable on a phone, and every quote carries the same day, paragraph and source link.
This analysis was generated by an AI system and has not been fact-checked by a human. It was built by MyRA using Claude, Anthropic's language model, reading the trial transcripts and structuring what it found. No journalist, lawyer or editor has reviewed the result.
One thing here is mechanically verified: every quotation is checked, character by character, against the paragraph it cites, and the build is refused if any quote fails. So the words in quotation marks are reliably the words in the source. Everything around them — which claims were picked out, how they were labelled, how confident the analysis says it is — is model judgement and may be wrong.
Treat this as a research aid that tells you where to look, not as a finding of fact and not as a substitute for reading the transcripts. Nothing here is a verdict, and none of it is legal advice. Yorgen Fenech has pleaded not guilty, denies the accusations, and is presumed innocent until a verdict is delivered. Others named in this record are not on trial in this case and deny what is alleged against them.
This is an independent record produced by MyRA, built with Claude. It is not affiliated with the Courts of Justice, with any of the outlets whose reporting it draws on, or with the Caruana Galizia family, and carries no endorsement from any of them.
Version 42.4661 · built 19 August 2026 · covers Days 1–42. The version number is the last trial day followed by the total number of citations, so any two copies can be compared at a glance.
A map of who is connected to whom in the trial record, when each event is said to have happened, and where the record contradicts itself — with the exact words behind every line.
Each tie in the network means a claim was made in court, with this much support. It does not mean the claim is true. A tie marked "High confidence" is well-evidenced within the trial record, which is a statement about corroboration, not about proof.
41 day-by-day live-blog transcripts of the trial as reported by Times of Malta and MaltaToday, covering 1 July to 18 Aug 2026, supplied as Word documents — roughly 217,000 words across 13,734 paragraphs.
These are journalists' contemporaneous accounts, not the official court record. Reporters compress, paraphrase and occasionally mishear. A quotation here is an exact quote of the reporting, which is not the same as an exact quote of the witness.
| Element | Status |
|---|---|
| Quotation wording | Verified. Character-exact against the cited paragraph, re-checked on every rebuild. |
| Citation (day, date, timestamp, paragraph) | Verified. The paragraph is confirmed to contain the quote. |
| Which claims were extracted | Not verified. Model judgement. Coverage is thorough but not guaranteed exhaustive — material may have been missed. |
| Labels (tie type, evidence type, hearsay, contested) | Not verified. Model judgement applied to each claim. |
| Confidence levels | Not verified. Computed by a fixed rubric from unverified labels, so a mislabelled input yields a confident-looking wrong output. |
| Analytic and assessment notes | Not verified. Model-written commentary. |
| Contradictions | Not verified. The pairings are model-identified. Both sides cite verified quotes, but whether they truly conflict is a judgement. |
| Event dates | Not verified. Many are inferred from phrases like "the day after". Each carries a "dating basis" stating how it was arrived at. |
| Entity merges | Not verified. E.g. "Edwin Brincat" and "Edgar Brincat" were treated as one person on the basis of a shared nickname. |
Every line in the network is one of four kinds.
What kind of thing the claim rests on. The first six count as non-testimonial support in the confidence rubric; the last two are the weakest.
Each tie is scored by a fixed rubric, not by impression. The score starts at zero.
The chronology is a second index of the same corpus, ordered by when each event happened rather than when it was described in court. A witness testifying on Day 25 about a September 2019 meeting produces a moment dated September 2019; the trial day becomes the citation.
Places where the record conflicts with itself: incompatible accounts of the same event, a witness contradicting their own earlier evidence, an allegation flatly denied, or documentary evidence cutting against sworn testimony. Each side cites existing verified quotes rather than new text, so the contradictions inherit the verification of the claims they point at. Whether the two sides genuinely conflict is a judgement, and that judgement was made by a model.
Every passage carries a "read in source" link. It opens the full transcript of that trial day in the side panel, scrolled to the cited paragraph, with the quoted words highlighted in place — so you can see what came immediately before and after, which is where a quote taken out of context usually gives itself away. All 4,661 citations in this file open that way.
Every citation also gives a trial day, a date, a live-blog timestamp, a source document and a paragraph number. The numbered plain-text transcripts sit alongside this file in "transcript text (citation source)", and paragraph numbers there correspond exactly to those in the citations. The "copy quote + citation" button gives you both together.
Verify independently before relying on anything here. Check the quote against the original reporting, and preferably against the court record. Where an allegation is denied, the denial is recorded in the data — carry it across. And keep the distinction that runs through the whole analysis: this documents what was said in a courtroom, not what happened.