Lawrence Abina murdered Rita Ellul because he was jealous of her fictitious suitor and sought to be the last person to possess her, the prosecution told the jury as Abina’s trial drew nearer to an end. 

On Tuesday, the jurors heard closing statements from both the prosecution and the defence in the trial of Abina, 32, who is accused of strangling his partner Rita Ellul, 49, to death in an apartment in Għajnsielem in February 2022. He has denied these charges. 

AG lawyer Kaylie Bonnet recalled much of the evidence brought forward by the prosecution to the jury, particularly the instances in which Abina had confessed to killing Ellul on three different occasions to different people. 

Despite initially claiming another version of events had occurred, once he was presented with evidence, Abina’s story about how he had strangled Ellul with his bare hands had been consistent, she said. 

Lawrence Abina confessed three times, police told the jury. Photo: Facebook

She also picked on arguments made by the defence about the discrepancy in the medico-legal expert’s testimony, in which he said that Ellul was strangled with one hand, and the description that Abina gave to the police in which he said he had used both his hands to kill her. 

The context in which Ellul was killed is important here, she added, highlighting that the accused had said that the victim was struggling to free herself from him and he had closed his eyes as he could not bear to look at her as he killed her. 

There could be several explanations for this discrepancy, Bonnet said, but ultimately the jury should consider that Abina is being accused of strangling Ellul and not whether he had done so with one hand or two.

Beyond the confessions, the prosecution had also pieced together evidence that Abina and Ellul had been alone in the apartment when she died and the accused had gone to work late without providing an explanation that day, thanks to pathological evidence as well as CCTV and employer testimony. 

There can never be absolute certainty of what happened in that window when the murder occurred, but the defence had not questioned the substance of the legality of the evidence presented, she said. 

The turbulent nature of the relationship between the victim and the accused as well as the previous domestic violence report made against the accused should also be kept in mind, Bonnet said. 

The main character in her own horror show

Making an impassioned statement, Bonnet said that while Abina had paused the horror film he and Ellul were watching the night before he killed her, this was not so for the victim as she unwillingly found herself cast as the main character in her own horror show. 

“Her life was snatched away from her while she was sleeping, not while on her feet, but lying defenceless on her bed in one of the most gruesome manners imaginable,” she said. 

“They had sexual intercourse the night before the murder, he was the last person to touch her and he wanted to make sure he would be the last person to ever touch her, because if she couldn’t be his, she could be no one else’s. He saw her as his property, his possession and ultimately he killed her because of a lie,” Bonnet said, referring to Ellul making up a fictitious suitor. 

One can only imagine the pain and suffering Ellul went through knowing that she was being murdered by the person she loved, whom she had sex with the night before and whom she had shared a bed with for several years, she added. 

Abina had “ruined” Ellul’s life by taking it away from her and such behaviour has no place in society, Bonnet said conclusively. 

Emotions have no place in decision-making

In turn, defence lawyer Simon Micallef Stafrace reminded the jury that if any of the evidence presents a doubt in their mind they have an obligation to rule in favour of the accused. 

While the prosecution had delved into the emotional aspects of the murder, notwithstanding that it is a horrible crime, emotions have no place when it comes to decision-making and a rigorous reliance on the evidence must be the gold standard in coming to a verdict. 

“Whether that conclusion is guilty or not guilty, if you arrive at that conclusion though any form of emotion, you would be wrong,” he said.

“You must be hard and clinical and you must decide on the facts alone.” 

When considering the statements that Abina made to the police in which he confessed to the murder, the jury should also consider that he plead not guilty to the charges. 

Abina had shown none of the typical traits of guilt such as panic or attempts to deflect blame or conceal evidence, he said. 

Conversely, while confessions are considered to be the mother of all evidence, they are not necessarily always reliable and there have been instances in which confessions were subsequently thrown out, he said.

And while the prosecution did not agree, beyond the confession the remaining evidence raises a lot of doubt. 

This includes the pathologist placing the time of death in a two-hour window, the discrepancy of the strangulation happening with one or two hands and urine being found under the bed, despite there being clean and dry pyjamas in the washing machine.

These, Micallef Stafrace said, are “puzzling” elements in which doubt could be perceived and if sense cannot be made of them, they should not be accepted as evidence against the accused. 

He implored the jury to take their time and think about the case carefully as the future of an individual as well as the delivery of justice rests upon their decision.

The jury is expected to begin deliberating on Thursday. 

AG lawyers Nathaniel Falzon and Mauro Abela also prosecuted. 

Lawyers Franco Debono and Marion Camilleri are appearing parte civile for the Ellul family.