Witness Predrag Nikolić said that he sold the gun used to kill Miodrag Kruščić to Marko Filaminović.
He said this today at the Higher Court in Podgorica, before the special panel of judge Radovan Vlaović, in the continuation of the trial of the defendants for the murder of Kruščić and the wounding of former "Vijesti" journalist Olivera Lakić.
The subject of the indictment is the attack on Lakić on May 8, 2018, the aggravated murder of Kruščić on May 21, 2018, and the smuggling of 554 kg of the narcotic drug marijuana from Albania to Montenegro on January 26, 2021.
"I previously received two pistols as a gift from the Ministry of the Interior. I sold that pistol to Filaminović in 2017 for 2.000 euros. After the murder, I was sentenced to three years in prison, which I served," said Nikolić.
He added that at the time he received the pistols as a gift, Jusuf Kalamperović was the head of the Ministry of Police.
"Ranko Krivokapić gave me the gun, but the then minister was present. According to papers that I later failed to find, Kalamperović gave me the gift," Nikolić said.
In addition to him, witnesses Aleksandar Kavarić and Maja Radosavović were also heard.
Kavarić said that the accused Sanja Božović was employed by his company and that she was always a professional and conscientious worker, while Radosavović said that the accused Aleksandar Ljumović was her neighbor.
"I saw him once 20 years ago, he moved away and I haven't heard anything about him since," said Radosavović.
Witness Anđela Dizdar said that she knew the defendant Milan Vujotić.
"I know Milan Vujotić because he furnished the apartment in our salon. I also know Mario Milošević, we were in a relationship in 2015 or 2016," said Dizdar.
Milan Vujotić, former policeman Darko Lalović, Filip Knežević, Mario Milošević, Goran Rakočević, Veselin Bubanja, Filip Bešović, Luka Bulatović, Dejan Vukašinović, Branislav Karadžić, Goran Vukčević, Mijajlo Stojanović, Aleksandar Ljumović and Sanja Božović are included in the indictment.
They are also charged with smuggling 554 kilograms of marijuana from Albania to Montenegro on January 26, 2021.
"The Council of the High Court in Podgorica, by decision Kvso no. 39/23, confirmed the indictment, Kt-S no. 265/20, dated June 20 this year, which the Special State Prosecutor's Office filed against 14 accused persons, namely: MV, GR, FB, FK, SB, VB, LB, DV, DL, BK, MM, MS, A. Lj. and GV, for the criminal offenses of creating a criminal organization, grievous bodily harm, grievous murder, murder by incitement, illegal possession of weapons and explosives and unauthorized production, possession and distribution of narcotic drugs. The subject of the indictment is, among other things, the attack on the journalist of "Vijesti", the injured party Olivera Lakić, dated May 8, 2018, the aggravated murder of the injured party Miodrag Kruščić, dated May 21, 2018 and the smuggling of 554 kg of the narcotic drug marijuana from Albania to Montenegro, "January 26, 2021," it was stated earlier in a statement by special prosecutor and spokesperson for the Special State Prosecutor's Office, Vukas Radonjić.
SDT proposes excluding the public from the trial while Bajram Pista testifies
Defendant Mario Milošević opposed the SDT's proposal to exclude the public from the main trial hearing at which Bajram Pista was to testify.
"Everyone should see what a sick liar he is. I think it's really important that he comes, so you can see what kind of clown he is. It would be important for him to appear in court, unless the court has previously decided how he will plead," Milosevic said.
The SDT's proposal is to grant Pista the status of a protected witness and for the hearing at which he would testify to be closed to the public.
Defendant Goran Rakočević agreed with Milošević and added that it was time for the public to see what kind of man he was.
The Special State Prosecutor's Office proposed that Bajram Pista be granted protected witness status. Attorney Marko Radović believes that the legal requirements have not been met.
"We believe that the SDT's request does not contain legal reasons, that it is not sufficiently explained. On the other hand, bearing in mind a provision of the CPC that we referred to today, we would not object to him being granted that status because, in that case, the evidentiary potential of his testimony would be called into question and the charges in relation to individual criminal offenses and in relation to individual defendants would not be supported by evidence, if we bear in mind the provision of the CPC that a conviction cannot be based on the testimony of a protected witness," Radović pointed out.
DON'T MISS IT
Regarding the proposal to exclude the public from the main trial hearing when Pista would testify, Radović said that there are not sufficient reasons that would justify a positive decision on such a proposal by the SDT.
"Witness Bajram Pista has been proposed to be heard at the main trial as a witness. In another case before this court, he has the status of a cooperating witness, when he testified in relation to the same circumstances in relation to which he was later heard only as a witness. The two statements he gave in the investigation that preceded this phase of the proceedings are disputable, with one specific situation occurring, that his statement given before the SDT was legally separated," Radović stated.
He added that they learned this fact four years after his first hearing, at the main trial, because the SDT did not submit the High Court's decision on the exclusion of this evidence.
"His second statement is also legally invalid, but given that we, as the defense, treated his first statement as legally valid, we did not particularly problematize the issue of the legal validity of the second statement. However, if we had known about these facts in time, if we had been provided with the court's decision on the separation of this first statement in time, we would certainly have raised this issue at the stage of reviewing the indictment and a situation could have occurred that would have been in the defendants' favor, that the proceedings for individual criminal offenses would have been suspended because by separating those two statements from the case file there would be no evidence in relation to individual criminal offenses. Today, we requested the separation of the second statement for the reason that in another case before this court, the evidence of another witness was previously legally separated from the case file as legally invalid. Therefore, for exactly the same reasons, we expect that such a decision will be made in relation to today's proposal, with the provost of the criminal panel in that case where that decision was made being the same as in this case," Radović emphasized.
Bonus video:
