Daughter Claims Parents Wrongly Convicted in 1960 Twannie Aquilina Murder Case

The daughter of Ġiġa Camilleri, one of Malta's most infamous convicted murderers, has broken decades of silence to declare her parents' innocence in the 1960 killing of 8-year-old Twannie Aquilina—a case that became a focal point in Valletta and remains the island's most contested criminal verdict. Speaking publicly for the first time, Marthese Camilleri told Campus FM that the prosecution's case was built on testimony from a 7-year-old and virtually no forensic evidence, calling it "a grave miscarriage of justice" that destroyed her family.

Why This Matters:

• No forensic match: A nail clipping found in the victim's underwear—one of the few physical traces at the scene—did not belong to either parent or the child. The nail clipping's owner was never identified, suggesting a possible unidentified perpetrator.

• Child witness recanted: Carmen Camilleri, whose testimony anchored the conviction, later admitted publicly she never actually saw her parents commit the crime. She was 7 at the time of the murder in 1960 and approximately 8 when she testified at the 1961 trial.

• Sexual assault ignored: Twannie was sexually assaulted before his throat was cut, a fact Marthese argues makes her mother's guilt "impossible."

• Rapid jury verdict: After a 17-day trial in 1961, the jury took just 2 hours to convict both parents—Ġiġa received a death sentence (later commuted), Leli got 20 years hard labor.

The Case That Divided Malta

Twannie Aquilina was found dead in April 1960 in the family's cramped Valletta apartment, his throat severely slashed. Bloody handprints, brain matter, and small pools of blood marked the common stairway leading to the home. His mother, Luigia "Ġiġa" Camilleri, and her husband, Leli Camilleri (the boy's stepfather), were arrested within days.

The trial that followed became a significant public event. The prosecution's key witness was Carmen, Twannie's sister, who testified she had seen her parents kill her brother. The jury convicted both adults after minimal deliberation. Ġiġa was sentenced to hang—the last woman in Malta to face capital punishment for murder—but a public petition and appeals to the Governor saw her sentence reduced to life imprisonment. She served 10 years before release. Leli served a longer stretch of his 20-year sentence.

It is important to note that this case occurred in 1960, before Malta's independence in 1964, when the island was under British colonial governance. This context is significant for understanding the judicial framework that operated at the time, which was rooted in the colonial legal system and lacked many of the protections and procedures adopted by independent Malta in later decades.

Both maintained their innocence until death. Ġiġa, in particular, became a polarising figure—viewed as either a murderer or a victim of judicial failure, depending on perspective. For decades, the case was considered closed in official circles, even as questions persisted in Valletta's communities.

"There Was No Evidence"

In her interview with journalist Andrew Azzopardi, Marthese Camilleri laid out a systematic critique of the prosecution's case. She emphasized that no fingerprints were recovered from the crime scene that matched her parents. The only tangible forensic clue—a nail clipping found in Twannie's underwear—was analyzed and confirmed not to belong to Ġiġa, Leli, or Twannie himself. The clipping's owner was never identified. Traces described as "could have been blood" were found in a washing machine drain, but no definitive link was ever established.

"Where is the evidence?" Marthese asked. "There were no fingerprints, no DNA, nothing that tied them to this horrible crime. And yet they were convicted in a matter of hours."

She also pointed to a detail often buried in trial records: Twannie had been sexually assaulted before his murder. Marthese argues this fact alone should have shifted the investigation's focus away from her mother, yet it was largely overlooked by prosecutors and the press at the time.

The Child Witness Who Changed Her Story

Central to Marthese's argument is the testimony of her half-sister, Carmen, who was only 7 years old at the time of the murder and approximately 8 when she took the stand at trial. According to Marthese, Carmen was coached by lawyers and pressured into delivering testimony she did not fully understand. In 2012, decades after the trial, Carmen gave a public interview in which she admitted she had not actually witnessed her parents killing Twannie.

"She was a child," Marthese said. "She was manipulated. And that testimony was the cornerstone of the entire case."

Journalist Fabian Demicoli, who has investigated the case extensively, corroborated Marthese's claims in his own reporting. Demicoli concluded that the conviction rested on circumstantial evidence and public perception rather than concrete proof. He noted the prosecution's failure to account for the unmatched nail clipping and the absence of any direct physical evidence linking the parents to the crime scene.

Law student Omar Rababah, who reviewed the case more recently, reached a similar conclusion: the verdict is riddled with "doubts that question the guilty verdict."

What This Means for Malta's Justice System

While there is no formal mechanism in Malta for posthumous exoneration in the absence of a living appellant, the Ġiġa case has become significant in discussions about wrongful convictions and the limitations of mid-century forensic standards. Under Malta's current legal framework, appeals and compensation for miscarriages of justice are available, though typically for living appellants. This represents a constraint for cases where the convicted have already died, even if compelling evidence of wrongful conviction emerges. The 2021 case of Emmanuel Camilleri (no relation), who was awarded over €23,000 after his daughter recanted false sexual abuse allegations, illustrates what redress is possible for living appellants.

Marthese Camilleri's public intervention raises important questions: How many other verdicts from Malta's pre-DNA era rest on similarly thin foundations? And what recourse exists for families when the convicted have already served their time—or died—maintaining innocence?

Legal experts note that the Court of Criminal Appeal can overturn convictions if new facts demonstrate a miscarriage of justice, but the burden of proof remains high, and the passage of 66 years complicates any retrospective review. No formal appeal has been filed by Marthese or her family in recent years, though her media appearance signals a renewed push for public acknowledgment, if not legal vindication.

Impact on Residents and Legal Precedent

For Maltese residents and those living in Malta, the Ġiġa case is more than historical interest—it illustrates how criminal justice can be compromised when forensic science is rudimentary and public emotion runs high. The case predates modern DNA analysis, standardized interrogation protocols, and child witness protections. Carmen's testimony would face far stricter scrutiny under today's standards, and the lack of forensic corroboration would raise immediate concerns.

This case continues to influence Malta's approach to child witness testimony and forensic evidence standards in current criminal proceedings. Modern safeguards, including video testimony for child witnesses and psychological assessments, exist precisely because of cases like this. The Ġiġa verdict remains a stark lesson in what happens without such protections.

The case also underscores the importance of child testimony reforms and the dangers of relying on circumstantial narratives in the absence of physical evidence.

The Unanswered Question

If Ġiġa and Leli Camilleri did not kill Twannie, who did? Marthese did not offer an alternative theory in her interview, but the sexual assault component of the crime—rarely discussed in public accounts—suggests a perpetrator with motives the original investigation never pursued. The bloody handprints in the stairway, the unmatched nail clipping, and the lack of forensic connection to the parents all point to gaps the prosecution never filled.

Demicoli and others have suggested that the case was rushed to verdict under intense public pressure, with authorities eager to close a horrifying case that had gripped the island. The two-hour jury deliberation, following a 17-day trial, is often cited as evidence of a predetermined outcome rather than careful consideration of the evidence.

Marthese Camilleri's decision to speak out now, more than six decades after the trial, reflects a desire to reclaim her parents' reputations and challenge the official narrative that has defined her family for generations. Whether her claims will prompt any formal review remains uncertain, but her voice adds to a growing body of opinion—among journalists, legal scholars, and the public—that Malta's most notorious murder conviction may have been built on insufficient evidence.