[WATCH] Danny Rosso: They killed my brother, admitted and walked free

Danny Rosso is speaking out: the men who were accused of murdering his brother Brian in 2005 had signed guilty statements to the police when they were charged that same year, admitting of having shot Rosso and dumped his body out at sea. 

18 years later, the verdict of yet another delayed trial by jury is in: acquittal for Anthony Bugeja and Piero di Bartolo, thanks to the fact that at the time of their interrogation, the statements they made to the police were without any form of legal assistance. 

Danny Rosso knew, as the trial by jury entered its final days last week, that after so much clear-cut evidence in the case against his brother’s murderers had been declared inadmissible by the Court, jurors would be directed to ignore all the evidence. 

“I’m sorry for the prosecution,” Danny Rosso says. “They were facing an uphill battle, despite the evidence and admission of these two men. And not too many feathers in the cap for the defence counsels, who had little to do, except to object to any sort of proof presented in court.” 

In 2022, the determining statements given by Bugeja, 55, and Di Bartolo, 49, for the murder of Albert ‘Brian’ Rosso back in 2005, were held to be inadmissible, because they had been given without legal assistance. It was only five years after the Rosso murder that the right to consult a lawyer, for not longer than one hour prior to interrogation, was introduced under Maltese law. In 2016, the right to legal assistance was granted all throughout the pre-trial stage, including during the interrogation.  

Brian was a family man, a hardworking man, a father of a 15-year-old when he was murdered... he disappeared the day his wife was waiting for him to return from work, so that they could celebrate their wedding anniversary. Today, she is still waiting for justice

Bugeja and Di Bartolo had been interrogated at length back in 2005, releasing three and four statements respectively. They were not allowed to seek legal assistance, a right which at the time was not provided for under Maltese law. Subsequently, both were charged with wilful homicide, possessing a firearm while committing a crime against the person as well as disposing of the corpse. Rosso’s body was never retrieved. 

But almost two decades years after the murder, the Criminal Court, presided over by Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera, declared the accused’s statements as inadmissible since they were given without legal assistance and could thus result in irremediable prejudice for the accused – a right introduced in 2016, while the Rosso murder trial had yet to be appointed. 

“Brian was a family man, a hardworking man, a father of a 15-year-old when he was murdered... he disappeared the day his wife was waiting for him to return from work, so that they could celebrate their wedding anniversary. Today, she is still waiting for justice,” Danny Rosso says. 

A marine biologist at the San Luċjan Aquaculture Cetre, Brian Rosso had a fishing trawler co-owned by Bugeja. Police claim that a violent row broke out when Rosso met Bugeja outside his Marsaxlokk home over the fishing vessel Desiree. Bugeja allegedly fetched a firearm and shot Rosso in the presence and in agreement with Di Bartolo, who used to operate the vessel. The men then allegedly placed the victim’s body inside a sack, transported it out to sea and dumped their load near the Freeport, weighing down the sack by means of some stone blocks.  

“Di Bartolo and Bugeja had concocted a story to scare Brian into believing that a group of Sicilian fishers wanted him dead because he had reported them for fishing illegally in Maltese waters,” Danny Rosso says. 

“Under interrogation, first they claimed not to have seen Brian the day of his disappearance, and later alleged they saw ‘some Sicilians’ bundling him up in a black car and speeding off... until they finally admitted of having shot him and got rid of his body at sea. 

“Their separate statements to the police were corroborated... and they explained how they had dumped Brian’s body out at sea. They were even taken out at sea, with a police inspector, and a lawyer accompanying them, to show them the area where they had dumped the body – a zone of around 100 metres depth where no fishing can take place.” 

But much of this evidence had to be disregarded by the jury this week, when the Constitutional Court last year decreed those statements given without adequate legal assistance, could not be declared admissible. 

Despite knowing that the law had turned against them, Danny Rosso feels that the defence, while poking holes at any sort of evidence brought in court, could have made a mockery of the facts that had, after all, already been admitted to by the two accused. “Without any respect or morality, defence counsel Franco Debono tried to rubbish the evidence by insinuating that Brian ‘might still be alive’ because nobody has ever been found, or that he had run afoul of the Mafia,” Danny Rosso says. “This dissembling was a lack of respect towards the court, because he knew well of their admissions, and he knew that it was only their statements that could not be presented in court. But he did know what had happened.” 

The judge had to direct the jury to the fact that the evidence of the accused’s admission, was in fact inadmissible, and indeed, they had to acquit them. 

Rosso says that despite the meticulous compilation of evidence, the delay in the case has meant that two alleged murderers who admitted with the police of having shot his brother, were now scot-free. 

“The practice at the time was that the accused did not have a lawyer by their side during interrogation: a signed admission was admissible evidence in court. But what happened was that as the years rolled on, the interpretation of a fair trial changed, meaning any such guilty admission to the police under interrogation requires the assistance of a lawyer,” Rosso says. 

“So now we ended up with a fair trial, and despite the admission of these two men, with all the details of what they did, they are out and roaming freely... after shooting a man, killing him and dumping his body at sea. This is what our justice system is.” 

Danny Rosso says there is no justice for people like him, or Brian Rosso’s wife and daughter, who have had to wait for years before serious cases like these started to unravel due to legal developments. 

“To the Maltese people, I say: do not believe for one second that there is justice in our country. This is not a partisan issue or something to blame on one government or the other. Brian’s case is not the only one to have suffered this kind of delay – many cases are being held up, spending years in suspension until they are decided. That is not justice. When nothing happens, there is no justice. 

“I appeal to everyone: everyone must protest, and say this is something we have to fix. I appeal to the members of the judiciary, the Chamber of Advocates, our MPs and MEPs... we cannot be quiet, lest our silence mean that we approve of what is wrong. We’re simply not even conscious of this fundamental deficiency in our justice – and without justice, there is no liberty or democracy. I can only thank the police and prosecution for their work... and may God give peace to those who, actively or passively, are working to put the spokes in the wheels of justice.”

READ ALSO: An injustice in slow motion

Right of reply from Dr Franco Debono: On the issue of court delays it has to be clarified that whilst criminal proceedings have been ongoing for 18 years, Dr Franco Debono only assumed the brief in this case two years ago and was not involved in any way prior before this time.

In his submissions to the court Dr Debono expressed compassion for the victim and his family declaring more than once that on a human level he understood the grief and had full sympathy for a wife who saw her husband leave and never return.

In his submissions Dr Debono made reference to the fact that jurors have only to consider the evidence produced in court and no death certificate had been exhibited and the body never found.

The police statements given by the suspects in this case were removed by the Criminal Court and the judgment confirmed on appeal because they were deemed to breach their rights in terms of the Constitution and the European Convention for Fundamental Human Rights.

Defence lawyers are duty bound to defend their clients and their rights.