In evidence that was given on that morning “by police officers and forensic experts, it transpired that David Gatt was in possession of weapons that were similar to police issue”.
Also, a “Magnum pistol, known to be among the most powerful hand guns on the market was elevated from the crime scene by investigators.”
“According to a police licensing officer, David Gatt owned a Smith & Wesson revolver, and had a number of applications to carry and to keep firearms in his possession.”
“The applications were filed almost days from the armed heist on an armoured vehicle in Mriehel in January 2010, and another just days before the HSBC Qormi heist. During both attempted heists, a number of shots were fired.”
“Interestingly, a police licence for the firearms David Gatt applied for on those days, were subsequently issued weeks after the Mriehel and Qormi heists.” Did Gatt possess the three weapons found in his posssession at his parents’ house illegally?
It was April 2010 when David Gatt ‘joked’ with star witness PC99 Mario Portelli by putting a gun to his head telling him “You’ll soon hear enter the dragon.” I will ask questions about this phrase in the future.
This ‘joke’ was recalled later in court during the testimony of Portelli. This gun was a (Magnum) Ruger, which was, according to the information that has reached this site, the same weapon that was left behind from the criminals in panic mode later in June during the HSBC heist. So, if this is allegedly true, was Gatt alraedy in the possession of such a weapon months before the heist, when he put it to Portelli’s head?
The other question I pose is to MaltaToday, in the article which was written by Karl Stagno-Navarra and which I also quoted above. Why was the reported sentence “A Magnum pistol, known to be among the most powerful hand guns on the market was elevated from the crime scene by investigators.” Was it a Magnum or specifically a Magnum Ruger?
However, in another article published by MaltaToday, we read that this gun was “similar to the one presented in court” and that Portelli had pointed out “that the weapon was a ‘Ruger’ and the same one prosecutors elevated from Gatt’s apartment and exhibited in court”.
Was it the same one elevated from Gatt’s apartment or the same one found on the scene? Isn’t there a difference between being ‘the same’ or ‘being a similar one’? Or was it the case that after the shoot-out, Gatt bought a similar one, legally? Or was it the case that after the shoot-out, Gatt bought a similar one so that in court he could state that what Portelli had stated wasn’t possible because he had no (Magnum) ‘Ruger’ in April 2010?
By any chance, did Gatt lose the ‘Ruger’ he had before the hold-up or did it, by a magic wand, find itself in the hands of the robbers, only to then leave it on the scene when they panicked?
Malta is so small. So much information. Same crime. Weapons seized from Gatt’s house. ‘Same’ or ‘similar’ weapon make found on the crime scene. Same village lawyer. Same David Gatt.
And yet, he was acquitted from our court. And the mind continues to boggle.