Defence says prosecution failed to prove guilt

Evidence produced by the prosecution was insufficient to prove that the man in the dock was guilty of either murder or theft, a defence lawyer told jurors yesterday.

"The version which Mario Pollacco gave throughout the court proceedings is the most likely version because he was consistent and coherent throughout... But if you choose to believe the prosecution's version you still will not find my client guilty," Dr Michael Sciriha said.

"That is because the prosecution has not proven that my client is guilty of murder or theft to the level beyond reasonable doubt."

Dr Sciriha was presenting his line of defence as the trial by jury of Pollacco, 38, of Msida, who is pleading not guilty to Rose Mary Schembri's wilful homicide in her house on June 3, 1998, nears its end.

Pollacco is also accused of the theft of over Lm1,000 worth of cash and precious objects, qualified with violence.

The trial, presided by Mr Justice Joseph Galea Debono, yesterday entered its second week.

Dr Sciriha began his address when Pollacco stepped off the witness stand after testifying for 10 hours.

The first line of defence, the lawyer said, was that Pollacco's version should be believed because it was consistent and coherent throughout.

The second line of defence, Dr Sciriha added, was that if jurors chose to believe the prosecution's version, that version did not lead to guilt.

"The prosecution had to prove that Schembri was killed, that she was killed by Pollacco and that he specifically intended to kill her. All this has not been proven," Dr Sciriha submitted.

He said the prosecution failed to prove the elements of theft. It had not been proven that so much as one cent had been stolen from Schembri and neither had the prosecution proved that Pollacco stole anything.

The lawyer urged the jurors to keep in mind the fact that they were the judges of fact and should not be prejudiced.

Dr Sciriha noted that, during investigations, the police had failed to investigate all possible evidence. DNA tests had not been carried out on a blood sample and a hair found on the scene of the crime. Neither had residue under Schembri's fingernails been tested.

If such tests had been carried out, the lawyer said, the picture would have been made clearer. But they were not carried out and, therefore, the evidence produced by the prosecution was not complete.

He told jurors not all evidence carried the same weight. Circumstantial evidence might be placed somewhere by someone with the scope of putting the blame on someone else or with the scope of revenge, Dr Sciriha said.

Earlier, Pollacco was confronted with clinical forensic expert Dr Mario Scerri and forensic odontologist Professor Hector Galea with regard to what happened when they examined him at the police headquarters.

He was also confronted with a friend who earlier testified that Pollacco had asked him to burgle Schembri's house with him.

The trial continues this morning.

Dr Sciriha, Dr John Attard Montalto and Dr Philip Galea Farrugia are appearing for Pollacco.

The Senior Counsel to the Republic, Dr Mark Said, is prosecuting.