Four men were found not guilty yesterday of the murder of a teenager who was shot dead almost three years ago.

Nasaje Anderson, Aaron Perinchief, Jukai Burgess and QuaZori Brangman denied murdering Letrae Doeman, who was killed in Flatts at about 1.10am on July 1, 2022.

A jury returned a majority verdict of not guilty on all counts against the four, who were also charged with using a firearm to commit an indictable offence.

During a six-week trial, the Supreme Court heard that Mr Doeman, 19, was the pillion passenger on a motorcycle that was fired upon by two men on a black Honda motorcycle.

Mr Doeman suffered ten gunshot wounds and was subsequently pronounced dead at King Edward VII Memorial Hospital at 1.55am.

Later that morning, police investigating the case arrested Mr Brangman and Mr Burgess at the latter’s home on Rock Oven Lane in St David’s.

They subsequently arrested Mr Anderson, who was found in a tree during a search of a nearby wooded area.

During the search of the Rock Oven Lane property, officers found a trash bag containing two shopping bags of clothing.

Some of the clothing items were found to have particles characteristic of gunshot residue, along with DNA that linked the items to Mr Anderson and Mr Burgess.

Later that day, police arrested Mr Perinchief at his home in Well Bottom, Southampton, where they also recovered a black motorcycle, which matched the description of the vehicle used by the attackers, without a licence plate.

The court heard that at the time of his arrest, Mr Perinchief had a rag in one hand and a bottle of cleaning fluid in the other.

Mr Perinchief subsequently told police that he was contacted by Mr Anderson early on July 1 and that he was told Mr Anderson had run out of petrol and wanted to wait for a ride at Mr Perinchief’s house.

He told the court that he let Mr Anderson sleep in his car and only learnt about the shooting when he went to get his hair cut the following morning.

During the trial, Mr Anderson testified that on the night of the shooting he was with a female friend and a drug supplier — neither of whom he was willing to name, referring to the latter only as his “plug”.

He said that he agreed to drive a black motorcycle to Mr Perinchief’s home for the plug, knowing nothing about the shooting that had taken place, but had to make a series of calls en route because he did not know where Well Bottom was.

Mr Anderson said Mr Brangman picked him up from Mr Perinchief’s house later that morning and drove him to Mr Burgess’s home, where he said he received a call about police coming into St David’s.

He said that after getting an indication from Mr Brangman that there was some “s***” in the car, he said he took a trash bag from the car to a wooded area and tossed it when he saw police arrive on the scene.

Cindy Clarke, for the Crown, argued that all four men were involved in a murder plot, with Mr Brangman riding the bike and Mr Anderson pulling the trigger.

She further alleged that phone records showed Mr Burgess and Mr Perinchief played a role in the crime before and after the fatal shooting, making them equally culpable.

Marc Daniels, for Mr Anderson, argued that the evidence failed to prove Mr Anderson was knowingly involved in the shooting or that he harboured any ill will towards Mr Doeman.

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

Susan Mulligan, for Mr Brangman, said that members of the biking community were known to share gloves and jackets, which would explain her client’s DNA being in the bag.

She added that there was little evidence as to the movements of the killers after the shooting and urged the jury not to just accept the Crown’s “storyline”.

Mark Pettingill, for Mr Burgess, said it was accepted that his client was at home when the shooting took place and argued that phone records should leave the jury with “considerable doubts” about his involvement.

He said there was insufficient evidence to prove his client was even using the phone or social-media accounts attributed to him, and none of the records linked to Mr Burgess contained comments about gangs, guns or murder.

Jerome Lynch KC, for Mr Perinchief, said that his client was guilty of being an accessory after the fact, but there was no evidence of any involvement before the shooting took place.

He said his client had spoken to police about his movements on the night of the shooting, including verifiable details, and that it made little sense for Mr Perinchief to not be home if his property was intended to be used as a “safe harbour” for the gunman.

All four walked free from court after about eight hours of deliberations by the jury.

• 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