A man accused of fatally shooting Latrae Doeman denied being the gunman as the murder trial continued in the Supreme Court yesterday.

While prosecutors have alleged that Nasaje Anderson was the man who pulled the trigger on July 1, 2022, Mr Anderson told the court that he had no involvement in the murder plot.

“I didn’t do that,” he said. “I never handled a gun, I didn’t see a gun and I never shot Mr Doeman.”

Mr Anderson has been charged alongside Aaron Perinchief, Jukai Burgess and QuaZori Brangman with the murder of Mr Doeman and using a firearm to commit an indictable offence.

The court previously heard that Mr Doeman was the pillion passenger on a motorcycle travelling from Bailey’s Bay Cricket Club when they were fired upon by the pillion passenger of a second motorcycle shortly after 1am.

Mr Doeman was shot ten times and died as a result of his injuries.

Mr Anderson told the court that he and Mr Burgess were friends since childhood, while he knew Mr Brangman from school but only later developed a bond over their shared love of motorcycles.

He told the court that he knew Mr Perinchief through his brother, but they had few interactions.

“We weren’t friends like that, just through his brother,” he said. “We never linked up, never chilled, nothing like that.”

Questioned about phone records, Mr Anderson said that on June 29 he and Mr Brangman had discussed going out to steal a motorcycle.

However, he told the court that he did not actually meet Mr Brangman that night because he decided to go to a hotel with a woman instead.

“I dissed him for a girl,” he said. “I brushed him off. We had plans to get a bike and that fell through due to me not being available, in a sense.”

Mr Anderson said he did not know who had booked or paid for the hotel room and he did not want to name the woman because she had asked him not to.

He told the court that he spoke with Mr Brangman again the next day and further discussed plans to steal a motorcycle.

Mr Anderson said he spent most of the rest of the day “chilling” at home or at the home of the woman he spent the previous night with.

He said that he and Mr Brangman continued to discuss the bike theft, and acknowledged in one message that he had said he was not good at hot-wiring vehicles but was the “muscle”.

Mr Anderson said the comment was intended as a joke because he did not know how to hot-wire a bike, but he understood how investigators could take it another way.

He said that in other messages they discussed “gear”, which he said was in reference to clothing and “s***” that had been left in a car, which he said referred to a “bike switch” used to steal motorcycles.

He told the court that on the evening of June 30, he had a phone conversation with Mr Brangman and said that he was not up for meeting up that evening, and another conversation with Mr Burgess about getting cannabis.

Mr Anderson said he decided he was going to go to his dealer, whom he referred to as his “plug”, to buy the drug.

He told the court he did not want to name the “plug”, saying: “This is a serious thing. People are getting shot left, right and centre. Women at that.

“This has already been on my shoulders. I don’t want to say a name because that brings more heat on me.”

He said that he and the unnamed woman drove to the home of the “plug” in Devonshire sometime before midnight to buy a half pound of cannabis, and stayed there for “probably more than an hour”.

“I was there for a little while and I could see he was on his phone,” he said. “He had asked me if it’s possible for me to take a bike up the road.”

Mr Anderson told the court that he agreed to take the motorcycle to Well Bottom and his female friend drove him to where he was told the bike had been left parked in the area of Island Construction.

“I did ask if the bike was stolen and he told me no,” he added.

He told the court he put the cannabis he had purchased in the bike seat and drove west until he reached Cobbs Hill, where he stopped to make a call to find out where exactly he was going.

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