Monday’s compilation of evidence against Abner Aquilina Vitiates the Prosecution’s Case against Fr David Muscat

The compilation of evidence in the case against Abner Aquilina resumed on Monday 14 November. During this session, the defence lawyer questioned one of the prosecution’s witnesses, a member of a religious organisation known in Malta as “River of Love”.  During the cross-examination, the defence lawyer, Mario Mifsud, asked the witness if he had attempted to pull down the zip of Abner Aquilina, implying that he had attempted to do fellatio with the accused. Clearly, by this question, Mifsud was implying that Abner Aquilina has a history of sexual abuse.

This witness was summoned by the prosecution to give testimony because on the night before Abner Aquilina slew Paulina Dembska, he had invited Abner to sleep over at his residence. I shall not delve further into the story, even on the witness’s denial that he had drugged and abused Abner Aquilina. But Abner’s defence, Mario Mifsud, and the parte civile lawyer, Stefano Filetti, seemed little convinced of the witness’s testimony.

But this story shows the injustice committed by the office of the Attorney General in starting prosecution against Fr. David Muscat on account of comments he had passed in an exchange that he had on Facebook with one of his readers.  It is now emerging that Fr. Muscat was right. It is now clear that the Office of the Attorney General started prosecutions against Fr. Muscat with the intention to obfuscate the fact that Abner Aquilina was a victim of sexual abuse from a man or multiple men.  I am not saying this to detract from the horror of Abner Aquilina’s act, but to point out that the prosecution of Fr. David Muscat was a consequence of the fear on the part of the authorities and the liberal media that the case of Abner Aquilina would shatter their pro-LGBTIQ agenda.  

This brave Catholic priest was defending an ex-altar boy whose story of abuse started when he was still a teenager.  He ended up being a rent boy to buy drugs   Yet the Archbishop of Malta Charles Scicluna ignored Fr David Muscat’s intentions. The local archbishop condemned him and gave him a formal canonical warning while Leftist politicians put pressure on the police to prosecute the priest. 

I am drawing attention to all this to make sure that the whole story is taken in context.  The fact is that when Abner Aquilina’s case took place, the pastor of River of Love denied responsibility for Abner Aquilina even after he had prayed over him. This is because, before Abner Aquilina carried out the killing of the unfortunate Paulina Demnska, and attacked a Catholic Church, Abner had been present at one of these “mystical” River of Love meetings. Above all, it is clear that during these meetings, criticism is uttered towards the Catholic Church.

The only person who was brave enough to speak out clearly – too loud and clear perhaps – was Fr David Muscat.  He was the first to speak, and reveal the details that the authorities and the media certainly did not wish to be revealed.  It is clear that there were individuals with significant interest in manipulating the story to obscure the fact that Abner Aquilina was psychologically disturbed because he had suffered from sexual abuse at the hands of male abusers.

The fact is that Abner Aquilina’s life was ruined by all the men who had taken advantage of him. This, after all, was the essence of Fr. David Muscat’s conversation that he had on Facebook with someone else and for which he had ended up in the dock.  But today, we use the excuse of “hate speech” to bury the truth, the actual truth about Abner Aquilina’s case. Fr David Muscat was the first to reveal that at the bottom of this killing, there was egregious sexual abuse.

The point that Fr David Muscat was making has now been confirmed by the court. But it appears that there were individuals in the media, and in the office of the attorney general, that, in a malignant and corrupt way, have and still have an interest to manipulate the facts and turn the contents of a conversation between Fr David Muscat and another individual into a campaign against Fr David himself.  And this is done to detract from the gravity of a killing that took place following a sexual abuse inflicted by a man who, as Abner Aquilina’s defence satirically noted, was inspired by the Holy Spirit!

In conclusion, the facts revealed in court and the whole context of the story show that Magistrate Ian Farrugia’s sentence in finding Fr David Muscat not guilty of the charges against him was both justified as well as just.