I refer to the item titled ‘“100 suspicions do not amount to a single piece of evidence”’ (July 23), quoting some parts from the magisterial inquiry into the Egrant allegations.

What hit me most is the piece about the Pilatus Bank chairman’s arrival in Malta and his (apparent) very urgent need to go to the bank (at 9pm). He even had a bank employee with him and the report says that: “The inquiry, however, found no evidence that Mr [Sayed Ali Sadr] Hasheminejad (difficult surname) took any key documents on the night Ms [Daphne] Caruana Galizia first published the Egrant allegations.”

Right, but what constitutes a “key” document? In a bank, I presume, all documents are “key”.

Later on, the report says “it found that the chairman entered the bank carrying the same luggage that he was seen exiting with later on that night” (the night in which the Police Commissioner was eating rabbit in Mġarr).

Before he exited the bank, he placed a tablet and “some papers” he had taken out of his bag earlier and a “single paper handed to him that evening and which he barely paid attention to”. Who gave the chairman this “paper”?

The inquiry found that, judging by CCTV footage, one could rule out that the chairman had taken out “large quantities of documentary evidence from the bank”.

That single paper, perhaps, was quite enough and the importance is not the “large” quantity but the content of even a very, very small quantity (for example, that single paper handed to him to place in the luggage).

I do not think the editor will allow me to occupy more space, so I will stop here with just a little remark. The magistrate’s efforts are really appreciated but certain things give rise to more doubts.