So yes, one of the bodies WAS exhumed yesterday

Published: July 24, 2013 at 10:37am

exhumation

My sources were correct about the exhumation yesterday, except that it was only Mario Camilleri senior’s corpse that was pulled out of the ground again yesterday for further forensic examination.

Signs of tension with the pathologists were evident at the police press conference yesterday, when the police were rudely dismissive of questions as to whether Camilleri senior died of a heart attack or a bullet.

“That’s something you should ask the pathologists,” they said, knowing full well that the pathologists can’t speak without authorisation from those heading the investigation.

Given that the dead men were clients of the Police Minister, Manuel Mallia, the public needs to know whether authorisation for the immediate return of the bodies to the family had anything to do with this, with the result that the pathologists could not do their work properly and at least one body had to be exhumed just three days after burial.

The two corpses were discovered late on Friday morning. Within 24 hours, there had been buried already, in a full funeral with all the trappings.

This means that as soon as the bodies were found, the family were told they could have the bodies right away. They would not have had the necessary 24 hours notice to organise a funeral, otherwise.

It is rapidly becoming clear that Manuel Mallia is the prime minister’s shabbiest appointment in a largely embarrassing cabinet.




23 Comments Comment

    • Watchful eye says:

      I have seen it reported in L-Orizzont; The Malta Independent; Maltarightnow, but NOT in The Times of Malta.

  1. Neil says:

    It seems Times of Malta hasn’t twigged yet. Very poor show.

    This story is like some tragi-comedy. The pathologists are now in doubt as to whether the bullet had in fact penetrated the head? That’s a massive, key detail, not an easy one to miss is it?

    And yet the guy was buried with that crucial, evidential factor still not known – because having doubts is the same as not knowing.

  2. La Redoute says:

    Did the pathologists get to see the body at all? The news report says they knew a gun was fired in Mario Camilleri’s direction.

    Knew? Were they told that? Wouldn’t they have seen the bullet entry wound themselves before the burial?

  3. Evelyn says:

    Jien is-soltu ma naqbilx ma’ DCG pero rajtha wisq stramba kif awtorizzaw id-difna hekk malajr malajr – aktar u aktar meta m’hemmx evidenza konkreta dwar kif sehhet il-mewt.

    Il-pulizija striehu fuq id-dikjarazzjoni tal-akkuzat. Pero x’jigri jekk l-akkuzat aktar il-quddiem jichad dak li qal jew il-pulizija jkunu kkonfrontati b’dikjarazzjoni ohra?

  4. M... says:

    It’s OK then, he died of natural causes, a heart attack, what’s all the fuss about, anyone can have a cardiac arrest.

  5. JPS says:

    ”….. appointment in a largely embarrassing cabinet.”

    Makes me wonder if the names of the current cabinet were thrown in a hat and randomly allocated ministries according to the draw – by the twins, of course.

  6. r meilak says:

    The death of a loved one is already traumatic on his/her next of kin, having the body exhumed is putting the family through an even worse time while grieving, this has nothing to do. With Mario Camilleri being a criminal or not.

    It’s to do with doing things right and proper in the first place.

    • La Redoute says:

      The hasty burial is the reason for the exhumation. Who but the family would want burial to be ASAP?

  7. Lomax says:

    This begs the question: was Mario Camilleri Sr. murdered? One cannot kill a dead body. The intention might have well been there – but the criminal offence of wilful homicide would not subsist.

    There has to be what, in the trade, we call “actus reus”. I can shoot a body but if it is already dead, that act does not amount to murder. There might be other criminal offences (occultation of a cadaver, for example) but certainly not wilful homicide even if the murderer thought that he was killing the victim.

    Which, of course, leads me to another question: who on earth gave authorisation for the body to be buried? Who is behind the inquiry? Not just the Magistrate but also all the experts, PO’s and all the assorted professionals who are key to a criminal inquiry.

    Then, who authorised its exhumation and on what grounds? I mean this is just less than four full days after burial.

    Funny but I get the sneaking suspicion that quickly burying the body might have been beneficial to the accused when, in fact, further examination might prove to be even more beneficial to the accused.

    I’m quickly becoming a conspiracy theorist as of late (after 9th March) because there is always some explanation or other – when I never wanted to belong to that category of people who cry foul at each little illogical act. However, the mind really really boggles.

    Was a full autopsy really conducted on the body? I’m no expert in autopsies or burials, for that matter, but I really thought it quite hasty. Now that the story of the exhumation of the body has surfaced (excuse the pun), I cannot but conjure my own conspiracy theory.

    The key question remains: who authorised the burial and why was the burial done so hastily? Another thing: was it leaked to the press that the burial would actually take place?

    I learnt about the (presumably) funeral and burial (I only heard about the burial in fact) on Sunday. However, I might have missed the news item. But then again, I need to ask this question: did the press even know that the burials would happen sometime on Saturday?

  8. Min Jaf says:

    So, what are the odds now that, when these cases eventually are heard in court, probably some years hence, those so charged will be acquitted due to insufficient or conflicting evidence.

  9. Futur mill-aghar says:

    If I could stomach the carnage, I’m sure I’d have been able to tell the difference between a bullet entering the brain and a bullet grazing the scalp, in which case the bullet would have been found on site or on/in his son’s body.

    Was an autopsy done at all? Wouldn’t an autopsy have picked up on a massive heart attack?

    Even if the cause of death is pretty obvious, wouldn’t they still run toxicology tests for instance? Why the rush?

    They didn’t exactly die in their sleep, did they?

    Wouldn’t the police have normally held on to the bodies for as long as possible, to give them time to check up on any leads that crop up?

  10. Tracy says:

    Was an autopsy made on their bodies ?

  11. Il-Pestezz!! says:

    Who gave permission for the burial?

  12. where are we? says:

    All those years at the law courts must have given Mallia a skin as tough as that of a crocodile

  13. Francis Saliba MD says:

    Someone must be gravely disappointed that cremation isn’t yet available in Malta.

    That would have eliminated the possibility of a forensic pathologist belatedly discovering evidence of a non-penetrating wound of the skull at a second autopsy when that wound should have been detected at the first autopsy had it been done unhurriedly and “secundum artem”.

    As the saying goes “Qattusa ghaggelija taghmel frieh ghomja”.

  14. Mimmi says:

    The fruits of orchestration are still unripe. Given a few months things will start to unravel the direction they are heading for…. not shabby, not unethical…possibly criminal?

  15. Muxu says:

    Gvern tad-dilettanti.

  16. rpacebonello says:

    If this is not scary, I do not know what is.

  17. JP says:

    Hemm xi haga mhux f’postha hawn. Fi zmien daqshekk qasir zgur ma sarux l-ezamijiet kolla. Minn awtorizza d-difna? Minn kellu l-poter li jaghti l-ordni li jerga jtella l-katavru?

    Wisq nahseb li difna saret malajr biex jfixkel x-xoghol tal-pulizija, jsir inqas studji u allura titressaq inqas evidenza finalmet fil-qorti. Rizultat? Nuqqas ta provi, johorgu liberati jew tinghata sentenza qasira hafna.

    Anyway, suppost taht il PL, pulizija u l-qorti kellhom jmorru ghal-quddiem, pero bil-provi sejrin lura!

  18. The Sting says:

    I would have thought that if someone is shot in the head, the least that would be done would be to extract he bullet for the sake of evidence when the case goes to court otherwise how can it be proved which gun had shot him?

    This hurried burial is very suspicious.

Leave a Comment