Forensics put John Agius at the gun

More than 2,000 gunshot residue particles were detected on John Agius’s hands and face, a forensic expert told a court hearing evidence against the 74-year-old over the St Julian’s shooting and fire case.

The figure matters because it narrows the room for ambiguity. Matthew Grima, testifying in the compilation of evidence, said the results strongly support the conclusion that Agius discharged a firearm during the confrontation of 24 July.

Grima said five characteristic particles were found on Agius’s left hand and two on his face. Those particles, the court heard, contained a three-element chemical combination treated as stronger evidence of exposure to gunfire. In court, residue is not the whole case. It does not by itself answer where a person was standing, what was aimed at whom, or whether every alleged shot can be attributed in the same way. But it does bear directly on one point the proceedings cannot evade: whether Agius had recently been in contact with a fired weapon.

The same sitting also heard from construction worker Nawaf Khasem, who said Agius pointed a firearm at him and a colleague while they were working on a suspended platform about three storeys above street level. Khasem also recounted the later episode in which police entered the property and came under fire.

According to the evidence presented, the incident began when material beneath the platform was set alight as workers were plastering the outside of a building next to Agius’s property. Khasem said he had never met Agius before that date.

Project developer Frederick Pierre Villa told the court he saw smoke and flames rising from beneath the platform after workers shouted for help and said they were brought down immediately. Villa said he later watched video footage that appeared to show Agius pouring liquid onto wood beneath the workers and igniting it. Under cross-examination, he clarified that he did not personally see the fire being started. That distinction is not technical theatre. It separates direct observation from what a witness says a recording appears to show.

Chemical analysis of items recovered from the scene identified hydrocarbons consistent with petrol, including in a metal container, a bottle containing brown liquid and four small glass bottles with a dark substance. But swabs taken from the hands and faces of John and George Agius did not provide enough evidence to confirm contact with such a liquid. The court heard that volatile substances can evaporate quickly, limiting what later tests can prove.

Villa also described hearing shots after two police officers entered Agius’s property, followed by another series of shots when more officers arrived. He estimated about 45 minutes passed between the two episodes before Agius surrendered.

The hearing exposed a longer dispute running underneath the violence. Villa said the neighbouring development had been going on for about three years and that Agius had repeatedly objected to parts of the works, especially when labourers operated near the boundary wall. There were also complaints about noise and claims of damage to Agius’s property. Villa said one reported damage issue was inspected and not confirmed.

That background explains friction. It does not explain away gunfire. Agius is charged, among other offences, with the attempted murder of two police officers. The case was deferred to 23 and 30 November.