I’m not a court of law (and neither, incidentally is the Daphne Caruana Galizia inquiry). Therefore I’m under no obligation to restrain myself from inferring anything from someone’s “choice not to answer a question” in order not to incriminate themselves.
I mean, ask me any time if I’m a fraudster, and after some form of half-arsed and clumsy physical reaction that will remind me of long, dark days trying to be invisible in the school yard, I will definitely tell you I’m not a fraudster. I will not worry that by telling you I’m not a fraudster I risk incriminating myself. I know I’m not a fraudster so I don’t expect to say anything that might get me into trouble when I deny that.
Now let’s try to understand Brian Tonna’s logic today. He’s asked, under oath, if he’s a fraudster. He refuses to answer because the response could incriminate him. There are only two possible answers to that question. One is ‘yes’ which obviously incriminates him. The other answer is ‘no’ which is only incriminating if he’s ever caught lying about not being a fraudster. Either way then, as far as the only possible logical alternatives available can tell us, Brian Tonna implicitly admitted he’s a fraudster.
He’s also implicitly admitted that he is contemptuous of the entire process of the search for truth he is best placed to know before everyone else. Because he also “chose not to answer” questions made by the inquiry he’s already answered outside it.
Brian Tonna, Karl Cini, you won’t get away with it forever. In the meantime, it’s nice watching your squirm. Bastards.