Prosecutors laid out their case against four men accused of the fatal shooting of Letrae Doeman as the Supreme Court trial neared its conclusion yesterday.

The Crown told the jury that there was ample evidence to link all four defendants to the murder but counsel for the alleged gunman said the prosecution case fell short of linking his client to the crime.

Nasaje Anderson, Aaron Perinchief, Jukai Burgess and QuaZori Brangman have denied murdering Mr Doeman, who was shot dead in Flatts in the early hours of July 1, 2022.

Cindy Clarke, the Director of Public Prosecutions, said that all four defendants were intrinsically involved in the murder of Mr Doeman, even if only one pulled the trigger.

Ms Clarke said that the evidence pointed to Mr Anderson being the gunman, noting that the clothing worn by the shooter on CCTV matched clothing found in a plastic bag outside Mr Burgess’s house.

She said several of the clothing items were found to have particles of gunshot residue on them, while shoes and a pair of gloves were also found to have both Mr Anderson’s DNA and GSR.

“That bag had Mr Anderson’s clothing from that night,” Ms Clarke said. “It was Mr Anderson that takes it from the car less than eight hours from the murder.

“It was Mr Anderson that heads up the tree. It’s Mr Anderson that is left-handed and the shooter is clearly left-handed.”

Ms Clarke said that Mr Brangman had been the rider of the motorcycle and that it was his clothing found in a second bag outside Mr Burgess’s house, which she said was similar to that worn by the rider in CCTV footage that caught the shooting.

She said that the evidence showed Mr Brangman was not at home when the murder was committed and it made little sense for him to drive his car all the way to St David’s hours after the shooting to have it cleaned by someone he did not know.

Ms Clarke agreed that messages between Mr Brangman and Mr Anderson before the shooting were about stealing a motorcycle but argued that the discussion was about stealing a motorcycle to use in the murder.

Ms Clarke added that while Mr Burgess and Mr Perinchief were not at the scene of the crime, they were not “bystanders”.

“They were brothers in blood,” he added.

She noted that the bike seized in the case, which the Crown believes was the one used by the killers, was registered to Mr Perinchief’s address and was seen being ridden by Mr Burgess a month before the shooting.

Ms Clarke said that Mr Burgess was a “facilitator” for the crime who organised the transportation and told his co-defendants that their targets would be going to Bailey’s Bay Cricket Club that night.

She added that Mr Burgess also called someone to clean Mr Brangman’s car at 1.50am — less than an hour after the shooting.

Meanwhile, Ms Clarke said that Mr Perinchief was caught red-handed cleaning the motorcycle used in the murder but argued that phone records showed he was more than just an accessory after the fact.

She said that Mr Perinchief had an “obsession” with a member of the Friswells Hill gang, who he blamed for death of a friend, “Banky”.

Ms Clarke highlighted messages recovered on his phone in which Mr Perinchief allegedly wrote, “I have got more guns than them” before the shooting, and that he needed more “teeth for the nine” after the shooting.

She also noted another message, sent from the phone at 11.10am on the day of the murder, which read: “We ain’t finished yet. Watch this weekend.”

Ms Clarke also said that while Mr Perinchief told police he only learnt about the shooting while getting a haircut the next day, his phone records showed he sent a message that said “that for Banky” at 2.01am.

“The ambulance didn’t even leave the scene until 1.40am,” she said. “He’s not pronounced dead until 1.55am. How did he know? Did Mr Anderson tell him? Was it the plan all along?”

Marc Daniels, counsel for Mr Anderson, told the jury that the evidence in the case, individually and cumulatively, failed to prove his client was guilty of murder.

He told the court that while there was “strong, cogent evidence” that Mr Perinchief was involved and had reason to lash out at gang members from Friswells Hill, there was no evidence that Mr Anderson had any such motivation.

To the contrary, he said that Mr Anderson had familial ties with Natrae Eversley, who was injured in the shooting.

“There’s no evidential basis to believe that Mr Anderson harbours any ill will towards Mr Eversley or that he wanted to see the demise of Mr Doeman,” he said.

Mr Daniels said that while Mr Anderson’s DNA was found on clothing linked to the shooting, he said that it could have been transferred from a pair of football shorts found in the bag, which his client had worn.

He argued it would make little sense for Mr Anderson to include items that could easily be traced to him in the bag with the clothing — nor would it make sense for him to drop the bag when police arrived, if he knew its contents would link him to the crime.

While some particles consistent with GSR were found on Mr Anderson’s hands, Mr Daniels said that those particles also contained tin, which the particles found on the clothing did not, suggesting that they came from a different source such as transfer from the arresting officer.

Mr Daniels said that while Mr Anderson had declined to name his drug source or the woman he said he was with at the time of the shooting, he had good reason not to.

He said the female had asked him not to identify her because of fear of reprisals.

“Knowing that his life is on the line, he chose to put her safety first,” Mr Daniels said.

He added that Mr Anderson was left in a bad position of having to choose between staying silent and risking being convicted of murder, or “snitching” and risking being killed.

“Either option is not a good option to choose,” Mr Daniels said. “He did what he could do. He sat there, he took the abuse. He took the allegations.”

The trial continues.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers