Skip to playerSkip to main contentSkip to footer
dmdmdtvs
  • 6/2/2025
The Jury Room S01E02
Transcript
00:00In the series you're about to see, we review real murder cases in which the convicted killer
00:11refuses to accept the guilty verdict. Days, weeks, even months of courtroom deliberations
00:17may have been held, but generally cases whittle down into a handful of key disputed points
00:23of evidence. Our specifically selected jury will review the original trial evidence, alongside
00:29revelatory new evidence or analysis. Will you and the jury find the convicted killer guilty
00:36or perhaps not guilty?
00:39Hello, I'm Will Hanrahan. Welcome to the Jury Room. Today we're hearing the case of Andrew
00:47Feather. Here's how it all began.
00:53Barry Selby, an innocent father of three, was asleep with his wife in bed when masked
01:03armed men broke into his house. Barry urged his terrified wife to stay out of the way.
01:08She was powerless to stop the gang as first they shot her husband and then poured acid over
01:13him. He died in agony a few days later. Four men were to be arrested and later found guilty,
01:18but the convicted getaway driver Andrew Feather insisted he was not part of the crime.
01:23The jury room will debate the case of Andrew Feather, involved in a murder or innocent suffering
01:28a miscarriage of justice.
01:48Andrew Feather is serving a life sentence for driving three men away from a crime scene involving
01:53what police justifiably described as a sickening and cowardly attack. But did he do it? Feather's
01:59lawyers say he was elsewhere at the time of the murder. In the jury room, 12 specifically
02:04selected citizens will be asked to revisit the case and consider evidence not heard by the
02:08original jury before reaching their own verdict. Will they find Andrew Feather guilty or not
02:14guilty of murder? First, let's hear from former senior detective Colin Sutton as we consider
02:19the prosecution case against Andrew Feather.
02:27Donna and Barry Selby may have thought it was a nightmare. A steep at two in the morning,
02:32masked men screaming and pointing a gun at them had burst into their bedroom. This was
02:36not their world. Donna was a loving mother of three. Barry liked football and a pint on
02:42a Friday night. Assaulted the earth man, who that early morning was to become the innocent
02:47victim of a horrific murder. All murder is horrible, but this is a particularly horrible,
02:52nasty murder, both in the way that it was carried out and actually in kind of the way that the victim
02:58was killed. The victim was Barry Selby, who lived in Bradford. In his own home, the home was stormed by
03:07at least three men. He was shot in the leg, possibly as a warning, demonstration of force, but then had acid
03:17poured over him. And it was the acid that actually killed him. It was the acid attack, not the shot in
03:22the leg. And yeah, I mean, a horrible attack, a horrible way to die, horrible, painful method of killing somebody.
03:33Unsavory incidents are common in this part of Bradford, but the attack in Raley Street shocked
03:39even locals hardened to violent crime. His wife was present at the time that these men came in,
03:45and he did his best to protect her from harm and got her to get out of the way. And she was sort of
03:52cowering down, but was present and heard and saw what was going on in the immediate aftermath. And,
03:58you know, even when the assailants had gone, she was still there and obviously went to her husband
04:04and saw him in this state, literally dying from this acid attack. I mean, it's just horrific,
04:13absolutely horrific.
04:17Police soon conclude that the gang had carried out a gun attack on a house 1.7 miles away,
04:22and that the incidents were part of a feud between rivals involving Mr. Selby's son.
04:28Based on the identification of one killer by Mrs. Selby and tip-offs, police arrest three men.
04:34When in custody, one unwittingly connects a fourth man, Andrew Feather, to the events of that evening.
04:40He tells a fellow prisoner to contact a man known as Bogart and gives him something else.
04:45A phone number for Feather, because it was suggested to the prisoner that when he got out,
04:53he may be able to use Feather to dispose of something. And referred to him by his nickname,
04:59which was Bogart, and which was only used amongst that group and that gang of which he was a member.
05:07Police decided that Bogart and Andrew Feather were the same man.
05:10They came across a CCTV image of four men running down an alley shortly after the murder
05:16and not far from Feather's home in Bradford. They arrest him and seize his computer,
05:22which shows he's been searching Facebook that early morning for information about the first shooting.
05:27They worked on uncovering his precise role in the murder.
05:31There was a suggestion, first of all, that he might have been the person who supplied the gun
05:36to the group that went into Barry Selby's house.
05:41However, as the trial progressed, it was sort of felt that that shouldn't really be proceeded with
05:45and the evidence didn't really stack up for that.
05:48Perhaps the police reasoned he was the getaway driver.
05:51They concluded that the gang had escaped first in a Mitsubishi scene on CCTV footage
05:56and then hooked up with another car, also detected by security cameras,
06:00which showed what looked like a gold Astra in the area.
06:05This becomes the key to the case against Andrew Feather.
06:09What he did have was a gold Vauxhall Astra car
06:13and the CCTV evidence that says that his gold Vauxhall Astra car
06:19was nearby to the scene of the attack at the right time.
06:24So the suggestion was that he was there in some kind of getaway driver capacity.
06:30Using the CCTV images, police could show that Feather was on the road that early morning in Bradford.
06:35They had established that he knew the gang.
06:38An eyewitness came forward saying that he heard voices in area of Homewood.
06:43He went to investigate and saw a gold Astra Mark II.
06:47Andrew Feather owned a gold Astra Mark II.
06:50If he was the getaway driver, then he too would be guilty of murder.
06:55A jury heard that evidence and found Feather guilty under the doctrine known as Joint Enterprise.
07:01Evidence put before the original jury.
07:12Now, our jury has selected Tracey as four-person.
07:16Jess, our psychology graduate, tell us, what was the thinking behind Tracey's choice?
07:20Well, Tracey always seems to be able to bring stuff back to the facts,
07:24what we've been told, and she deals with everything in a very cool and logical manner.
07:27Thank you very much, and good luck, Tracey.
07:30So, we've heard the prosecution case and the police evidence.
07:34What have we heard?
07:36What was the case against Andrew Feather?
07:39Well, basically, the prosecution stated that he was the getaway driver.
07:46His gold Astra was seen on CCTV.
07:48Also, four men were seen running on CCTV also.
07:56He was searching Facebook for info on the first shooting,
08:02and there was the witness who heard talking,
08:08and then on investigation saw a gold Astra,
08:13and Andrew Feather owns a gold Astra.
08:15It was also established that he knew the gang,
08:20and he was known in that criminal fraternity,
08:23and he had a nickname, a sort of gang nickname, Bogart.
08:27There was Facebook evidence as well.
08:29He actually went on Facebook after the murder.
08:32He was looking for information about what had gone on that night in Bradford.
08:35With Facebook, I mean, especially living in a local state,
08:39I mean, if a shooting was to happen within ten minutes of a shooting,
08:42that would be on Facebook.
08:42Everybody would be looking, yeah.
08:43It's not necessarily an admittance to guilt.
08:46It's everyone's going to be looking up,
08:48because he's going to be out in that area at that time.
08:51What are our thoughts about the evidence we've heard?
08:53If the gold Astra, the particular model, is a popular model,
08:58I'm not sure.
08:58I don't know enough about cars to know if it's a popular model or not.
09:01It's quite a small area, isn't it?
09:02And how many gold cars do you see generally?
09:05I mean, I don't think gold is a particularly popular colour for a car, is it?
09:10Probably not.
09:11And particularly a gold Astra.
09:13It might have been his car anyway,
09:14because it was not far from where he lived, wasn't it, I think?
09:17So it might well have been his car in that area.
09:19And four people were...
09:21There's three people we know were involved in the attack
09:23because the wife saw three people in the bedroom.
09:26And we know there's a fourth person,
09:27which is why we're looking for a fourth person.
09:30Yes, he has a gold Astra.
09:31Yes, it's on CCTV.
09:33And the Facebook thing is what we said really...
09:35Lots of people would have looked at...
09:36That was an earlier incident anyway,
09:38at 8 or 9 o'clock in the evening,
09:40which he probably would have looked up
09:41and doesn't really bear any relationship
09:44to whether he was involved later on.
09:46What I find quite intriguing is that they suggested to a prisoner
09:50that they contact Bogard to dispose of something.
09:54It would be really interesting to know
09:55what they were suggesting he could dispose...
09:58What was it he could dispose of?
10:00Why would they bring his name off?
10:01Because he was supposedly a good mate.
10:03You don't bring your mate in to an investigation
10:06and sort of put their name forward, do you?
10:08I mean, that was by accident, really, wasn't it?
10:10They didn't do it on purpose.
10:12But what was he disposing of?
10:13And he's obviously well known for being able to...
10:16For the man that can.
10:17Yeah, the man that can.
10:18He's obviously relied on to do something.
10:19While you're talking, Adrian,
10:21just also, what witness evidence do we have?
10:24What was seen?
10:26Witness that started, they heard three men talking.
10:30I think they heard voices.
10:32Voices.
10:33Near where a gold aster was parked.
10:35And we also, it was established now, don't we,
10:40that the gang knew Andrew Feather.
10:43Yeah.
10:44But at this stage, having heard that,
10:48can at least you see why he was arrested?
10:50Yes.
10:50Yeah.
10:50And does anybody feel strongly at this case
10:55about the crime itself?
10:57Horrific.
10:58Yeah, absolutely horrific.
10:59It was made for somebody to suffer.
11:02Yeah.
11:02I mean, just the first shot into the kneecap,
11:04you can argue that maybe that's a warning shot.
11:07Unless you're not of sound mind,
11:10you know an amount of acid poured on someone,
11:12it's going to call serious damage.
11:14And you've gone in with acid,
11:16carrying this stuff,
11:17with the intention to do that.
11:18What a horrific...
11:20Yeah.
11:21It's intentions to seriously harm.
11:23Even if that person would die.
11:25Second thing to...
11:26I don't forget the fact they're carrying a weapon as well,
11:28they're carrying a gun as well as the acid.
11:31They've got intentions to do this.
11:32Cowardly, horrible, it's just revolting,
11:35doing that sort of...
11:36You know, this is not just a revenge thing,
11:38this is quite serious.
11:40It was sending a message, wasn't it, I think, probably,
11:43in a weird way.
11:45Bryn, this discussion about the gold aster,
11:47having been a policeman for 30 years,
11:51how would you imagine,
11:55in terms of finding a gold aster?
11:56Would that be easy?
11:58What we would generally do
11:59is use the Police National Computer,
12:02and you can do various searches
12:04in the Police National Computer.
12:05One of those would be for a gold-coloured aster.
12:09If you have a partial registration number,
12:11you'd be able to put the different digits in
12:14or the different characters in
12:15and search that way.
12:17But certainly in a post-coded area,
12:19you would be able to find
12:20how many gold asteris would live...
12:23You know, the owners would live in a particular area.
12:27OK, before the break,
12:29you're all confident you know
12:29the Police and Prosecution case.
12:32OK, for those unfamiliar with how a jury works
12:34at a Crown Court, let's be clear.
12:36If at least ten jurors find a suspect guilty,
12:39they can return a majority verdict.
12:41If only nine believe in his or her guilt,
12:44then they return a not-guilty verdict.
12:46Join us after the break
12:47when we hear the case for the defence
12:49of Andrew Feather.
12:51Welcome back to the jury room.
13:08So far, we have heard the case
13:10of the Police and Prosecution.
13:11In the company of Matt Stambury, a barrister,
13:14we will now hear the case for the defence
13:15of Andrew Feather.
13:21Feather, say the defence, was a young man
13:24who simply wasn't the sort
13:26to get involved in a crime like this.
13:30Let's not forget,
13:31this was a really gruesome murder.
13:34And to assume from that
13:35that somebody from a lovely family
13:37has gone from being an associate
13:41of some certain individuals
13:43to being somebody who's prepared
13:44to sign up to an agreement
13:46of this nature,
13:48the defence would say
13:49and did say at trial
13:51that this is a quantum leap.
13:54The Police did not offer
13:56the original jury forensic
13:57or physical evidence
13:58from Feather's car linking him
13:59to the murder that night.
14:02According to the defence team,
14:04the Police's suggestion
14:05that he was a getaway driver
14:06was no more than
14:07an investigative fishing trip.
14:09They were looking for ways
14:10of linking the gold Astra to the crime.
14:13The Police believe
14:14that the killers had been taken away
14:16in a dark Mitsubishi vehicle
14:17which was never traced,
14:19but they then put together a theory
14:21that Andrew Feather's vehicle
14:22had been used
14:23to take the offenders
14:25away from the scene thereafter
14:27as the Mitsubishi sped off
14:28in the other direction.
14:31The trial jury heard
14:32that sightings on CCTV
14:33of his car confirmed
14:35that he had left the area
14:36of Homewood
14:37and headed along Wakefield Road
14:39to the scene of the murder
14:41on Raley Street.
14:42He had driven the car
14:43between 1 and 2 a.m.,
14:45the time of the murder,
14:46and then returned
14:47to park the car
14:48near to where he lived.
14:50It was critical
14:51to the prosecution case
14:52to show that he had left
14:53the Homewood estate
14:54and there were two cameras
14:56in particular
14:56that were relevant to that
14:57and they were the cameras
14:59at a location
15:00called the Gold Shop
15:01and a location
15:02called the Galloper's Pub
15:04and they were effectively
15:05the crossover point
15:06from the Homewood estate
15:07to the location
15:09of the murder.
15:09Two things emerged.
15:13First, the vehicle
15:14used as a getaway car
15:15for the first attack
15:16may have looked
15:17like a Gold Astra,
15:18but it wasn't.
15:20Feather's car
15:21was never at
15:22that first crime scene.
15:25That part of its case
15:27fell apart
15:28in front of the eyes
15:29of the jury
15:29as it became clear
15:31and was proved
15:32that in fact
15:33the vehicle
15:33that the prosecution
15:35relied on
15:36in connection
15:36with that shooting
15:37was in fact
15:38owned by a taxi driver.
15:39and not Andrew Feather.
15:42So, having said
15:44Feather's car
15:44was on the street
15:45before the first attack
15:46the prosecution
15:47had to accept
15:47it was wrong
15:48as it had already accepted
15:50Feather was not
15:50the so-called armourer.
15:52As for the second gun attack
15:54the defence argued
15:55that the timings
15:55on the CCTV footage
15:57undermined
15:58the prosecution case.
15:59The defence say
16:00look,
16:01this simply isn't enough
16:02these sightings
16:03aren't reliable
16:03you can't rely
16:05on the timings
16:05you can't rely
16:06on the movements
16:07you can't rely
16:08on
16:09a light-coloured vehicle
16:11necessarily being an Astra
16:12particularly when
16:13the prosecution
16:14could be shown
16:15to have made a mistake
16:17in relation to
16:18the Raley Street case.
16:20Something else
16:21was unconvincing.
16:22It related to the witness
16:23who had claimed
16:24that he had heard voices
16:25near to where
16:26he then saw
16:27a gold Astra.
16:28That incident
16:29took place
16:29according to the witness
16:30at 2.20am.
16:33A curious feature
16:34of the case
16:34was that he said
16:35that his clock
16:36was not set
16:38to the normal time
16:39he always set it
16:40for a different time
16:41than the actual time
16:43but that he'd
16:43made the appropriate
16:44adjustments
16:45and the defence said
16:46look,
16:47none of this
16:47is sufficiently reliable
16:49the jury shouldn't
16:51be attaching
16:51any weight to this
16:52it's just too
16:53inherently unreliable
16:54it's not enough
16:55to prop up
16:56the defence said
16:57an otherwise weak case
16:59you can't be sure
17:00that this was individuals
17:01getting out of
17:02Andrew Feather's vehicle
17:03and running away
17:04In answer to the
17:06prosecution's evidence
17:07that Feather's
17:07Facebook searchers
17:08proved he was
17:09monitoring events
17:10closely in the early hours
17:11that, said the defence
17:12proved nothing
17:13Don't forget
17:14that the Facebook searches
17:16that he'd been
17:17carrying out that night
17:18or in the early hours
17:19of that morning
17:19related to the earlier
17:21shooting at Raley Street
17:22and it had been proved
17:23that he had no
17:25involvement in that
17:26and in those circumstances
17:28it was questionable
17:29what if any
17:30evidential value
17:31those Facebook searches
17:34had in the context
17:35of the case
17:36it's not as if
17:36for example
17:37he was looking up
17:38the victims
17:39of the murder itself
17:41Well that's
17:45both sides
17:47of this story
17:47the police and prosecution
17:48evidence
17:49and the defence evidence
17:50let's be clear
17:51what are the defence saying
17:52They said they're saying
17:55not to rely
17:56on any of the CCTV evidence
17:58because of
17:59time differences
18:00and things like that
18:01there is a mention
18:03of a chap
18:04who sets his clock
18:06at a different time
18:07to what it really is
18:08and defence
18:09are dismissing that
18:10as well
18:11that wouldn't happen
18:12I do know people
18:13who do that
18:14I do that
18:14I say that
18:15and I know the time
18:16It's common practice
18:18for certain clocks
18:20to be set
18:21at a different time
18:22maybe to make sure
18:23that you're set off
18:24on time
18:25and to be at
18:26an appointment
18:26on time
18:27so you know
18:28you've got to rush
18:29so to dismiss that
18:32outright
18:34I think that's
18:35the wrong thing
18:35to do
18:36The other thing
18:38the Facebook searches
18:39I don't know
18:40what the terminology
18:41was when
18:43Feather was actually
18:44searching on Facebook
18:45I would have loved
18:47to have known that
18:48was accepted
18:49that Feather
18:50was looking on Facebook
18:51for information
18:52about what had happened
18:53earlier that night
18:54Him searching for that
18:55doesn't mean
18:56you know
18:56he's involved
18:57he's involved
18:58in it
18:59No, no
18:59I'm not suggesting that
19:00it's just
19:01I would love to know
19:03what his mindset was
19:05the reason for
19:06I mean
19:07what I believe
19:09is
19:09he did know
19:10these guys
19:11that committed
19:12this coin
19:12and he probably knew
19:15of their whereabouts
19:17what they like to get up to
19:18he's seen it on Facebook
19:20chances are
19:20he had a pretty good idea
19:21maybe who committed that
19:23who committed that crime
19:24They've got a crime
19:25that's gone wrong
19:26and they needed
19:27to get somewhere else
19:29didn't they
19:29you know
19:30he's probably been called
19:31if he's involved
19:32he's been called in
19:33not expecting to be called in
19:36because
19:36it's a completely
19:37different
19:38place than they expected to be
19:41It is slightly suspicious though
19:43how he is searching
19:44for that event on Facebook
19:45I do find that like
19:46if he did see it
19:48then there is like
19:50he does have an interest
19:51so he wants to know
19:52what's going on
19:52so for me
19:53I kind of think
19:54that he might have known
19:56something may have been happening
19:57I think even if he didn't
19:58actually search for it
19:59he saw that
20:00I'm sure
20:01if it helps
20:02in the defence summing up
20:04it was admitted
20:06that he was searching
20:07for the name of the family
20:08who were involved
20:09in the first attack
20:10along with probably
20:13other people
20:13to be fair
20:14I mean what the defence
20:14is saying it's not characteristic
20:16it would be a quantum leak
20:18it comes from a nice family
20:19etc etc
20:20he wasn't driving the Mitsubishi
20:23he was driving around
20:25at one to two o'clock
20:26in the morning
20:27he's been proven
20:28he wasn't the armourer
20:29he wasn't the one
20:30that's been dismissed
20:30so he wasn't supplying a gun
20:32so the CCTV shows a car
20:36that might be
20:37well it probably is his
20:38part near the house
20:39but also they show a car
20:41similar to that
20:41driving around
20:42which he admits anyway
20:43I dispute that he comes
20:46from a good family
20:46that's quite nothing
20:48to do with
20:49that's what they say
20:49yeah
20:50there's nice families
20:51get caught up in
20:52drug related problems
20:54don't they
20:54you often see
20:55good hearted family man
20:57shot down
20:58or mourned down
20:58and the guy's a multiple
21:00convicted drug dealer
21:02in reality
21:03but the headline is
21:05good hearted family man
21:06so you know
21:08I wouldn't take any credence
21:09about it comes from
21:10a good family
21:11I agree
21:12I think the whole
21:13oh it would be a quantum leap
21:15to be involved in that crime
21:17it doesn't ring very true to me
21:19it might be a quantum leap
21:21to commit it
21:22and be the person
21:22to throw that acid
21:23but it's another thing
21:26to be a getaway driver
21:26you're not that involved
21:28he could afford
21:30it's more a deflection tactic again
21:32isn't it
21:32it's a deflection tactic
21:33from the defence
21:34sort of saying
21:35and you could be
21:37sorry you could say
21:38alright mate
21:39if somebody rings up
21:40and says we need a driver
21:41without knowing about
21:42joint enterprise
21:43you know
21:44because the serious thing
21:45is the joint enterprise
21:46you haven't entered that place
21:47you haven't shot somebody
21:49you haven't thrown the acid
21:50but by virtue of being the driver
21:52you're implicated
21:53you might not know that
21:54but if I'd
21:55if I'd been driving around
21:56and realise that something
21:57had happened
21:58I would be going to the police
21:59saying hang on a minute
22:01I ended up getting caught up
22:02in something
22:03and I think it's really serious
22:04that then you could say
22:06what if you
22:06would you say that
22:07if you thought that
22:08people might take retribution
22:09against you
22:10in that culture
22:13you don't grasp
22:15you're not going to do that
22:16but if he's a good
22:17but he comes from a good family
22:19we're not saying
22:21he had anything to do
22:21with the first
22:22the first incident
22:23and we're not saying
22:24he was an attacker
22:25and we're not saying
22:26that he supplied the guns
22:27but we're saying
22:28that he was
22:29he was a gateway driver
22:30just for the second mum
22:31so it ain't like
22:31we're trying to
22:32confuse everything together
22:34saying he was searching
22:35Facebook
22:35loads of people
22:36millions of people
22:37must have searched that
22:38but the family name
22:40that's what's confusing
22:41how does he know
22:42the family name
22:42of the innocent victims
22:44in that house
22:45that's happened in his area
22:46and he's driving
22:47he would know most people
22:48in that area
22:49you may search that
22:50to see what the severity
22:51of that incident was
22:52before you leave your house
22:53he knew the name
22:54of the family
22:55wouldn't you search
22:56very close-knit
22:57the area
22:57wouldn't you search
22:59the area
23:00and the shooting
23:01how would you know
23:03the family
23:05that would have been involved
23:06do you know
23:07it just seems
23:08so that's something
23:08that needs to be thought about
23:09yeah
23:10that's something
23:10that's one of the issues
23:11that you have to consider
23:12go for it
23:12you're trying to get in
23:13yeah yeah
23:13so I don't think
23:14that we should
23:15say that it's a small area
23:16and that we should assume
23:17that he knows
23:18like that family
23:19like that's only an assumption
23:20we can only go on
23:21that he searched
23:22for that family name
23:23on Facebook
23:24so from that evidence
23:25that we've got
23:26that's what he's done
23:27so he must
23:28he may have known something
23:29yeah
23:30so that's my point
23:31if they shot this person
23:32by mistake
23:32they had the wrong address
23:33would they actually know
23:34the family
23:36who lived in the house
23:37they weren't supposed
23:38to be shooting
23:38that's true
23:39because they weren't
23:39supposed to be there anyway
23:40so certainly something
23:41for you to consider
23:42Bryn
23:42can I just ask you a question
23:44yeah
23:44when a policeman arrives
23:47at a scene
23:47or indeed when a policeman
23:49is given CCTV evidence
23:51how do they check the clocks
23:53how does that work
23:55generally
23:55I used to be
23:57what they call
23:58a TSU video technician
23:59so I would go out
24:00to commercial premises
24:02private premises
24:03download CCTV
24:05from the hard drive
24:07whichever recorder it was
24:09what we would do
24:11on arrival
24:12is phone
24:13the speaking clock
24:14to get a time
24:16that is the correct time
24:18and then we would calculate
24:20we would look at the clock
24:22on the machine
24:23so you calibrate
24:24the times
24:24yeah
24:25you calibrate the things
24:26well a jury
24:27found Andrew Feather
24:29guilty
24:29on the evidence
24:30that we've heard today
24:32but Feather's family
24:33and defence team
24:34have far from given up
24:35hope
24:36that he'll be acquitted
24:37they continue to fight
24:38and to gather new evidence
24:40join us in part three
24:41to hear the reasons
24:42why Andrew Feather's
24:44supporters think
24:44that he should be a free man
24:46welcome back
25:03Andrew Feather
25:04was convicted by a jury
25:05they'd heard both sides
25:06of the case
25:07weighed up the evidence
25:07found him guilty
25:08convicted prisoners
25:10must apply to a body
25:11called the Criminal Cases
25:12Review Commission
25:12and they must offer
25:13new evidence
25:14which has emerged
25:15since the trial
25:16that's then considered
25:18by three judges
25:18who have the power
25:19to quash the conviction
25:20or order a retrial
25:21Andrew Feather
25:23was granted an appeal
25:24in 2016
25:25A father's determination
25:32lies at the heart
25:33of the new evidence
25:34supporting Feather's
25:35innocent plea
25:35Andrew Feather's senior
25:37embarked on a forensic
25:39analysis of every
25:39security picture
25:40used by police
25:41and prosecutors
25:42and prosecutors
25:42to place his son
25:43at the scene
25:43of the getaway
25:44he spotted
25:47on one of the
25:49pieces of footage
25:50from the gold shop
25:52camera
25:52a lorry
25:53which had a chicken
25:54on the side of it
25:55and from that
25:57he was able
25:57to work out
25:58to discover
25:59which factory
26:01and which location
26:03that lorry
26:04had come from
26:05and to discover
26:05who it belonged to
26:06and he took that
26:08information
26:08and he went
26:09to the owner
26:10the proprietor
26:11and he spoke
26:12to them
26:12and he asked them
26:13with some lateral
26:15thinking
26:16whether they had
26:16a tachograph
26:17for the lorry
26:18The tachograph
26:20an on-board record
26:21established that
26:22there was a discrepancy
26:23in the prosecution
26:23evidence
26:24The time displayed
26:26on the CCTV footage
26:27was incorrect
26:28The clock on the camera
26:29was 20 minutes out
26:31It was literally
26:32telling the wrong time
26:33The time that
26:35the tachograph showed
26:36was a different time
26:37from the time
26:38that was shown
26:39on the camera
26:40and that was critical
26:42because the
26:43prosecution's case
26:45was heavily dependent
26:47upon a route
26:48upon a case theory
26:49that included a route
26:51which depended on
26:52these various vehicles
26:54having travelled
26:55at various locations
26:56at different times
26:58and different sightings
26:59and if you knocked out
27:00one of those sightings
27:01if you were able to say
27:03well the time on that
27:04is wrong
27:05then of course
27:06the prosecution's
27:07whole route
27:08at least arguably
27:09begins to fall apart
27:11Andrew Feather argues
27:13that he had no case
27:14to answer
27:14He had not been
27:16in the area
27:16at the time
27:17he was alleged
27:18to have picked up
27:18the killers
27:19The main evidence
27:20against him
27:20had fallen apart
27:21on two pieces of evidence
27:23early in the investigation
27:24Now this third element
27:26of the case
27:26had been undermined
27:27The defence case
27:29in summary
27:30in the end
27:32is this
27:32that you had
27:33a weak case
27:34the prosecution
27:34had a weak case
27:35at trial
27:36it was a case
27:36that was hanging
27:37together by a thread
27:38it was a case theory
27:39a very interesting
27:40case theory perhaps
27:41but it was never
27:42seriously anything more
27:44than a circumstantial case
27:46it was never
27:46even on the prosecution's case
27:49an overwhelming case
27:51or a concrete case
27:52it was one that they
27:53chose to put before a jury
27:55they had a just about
27:57tenable case
27:57to put before a jury
27:58but the new evidence
28:00has turned
28:00what was already
28:01a weak case
28:02into a completely
28:03untenable case
28:04The 2016 appeal court
28:10rejected that evidence
28:12and here's why
28:13The judges found that the issue
28:21about the timings of the sightings
28:23of Andrew Feather's car
28:24had been considered
28:25by the original trial jury
28:27The defence then
28:28as they were now
28:29claimed that the police evidence
28:31of where the Astra had been
28:33and at what time
28:34was fundamental
28:35to the case against him
28:36The prosecution then
28:38and at appeal
28:39argued it was not
28:40the CCTV evidence
28:41established one crucial fact alone
28:44What that was trying to do
28:46it was trying to kind of
28:47prove that Andrew Feather
28:50was out and about
28:51driving around
28:52and how he got
28:54to the scene of the crime
28:55but actually
28:57all that was telling us
28:59was how he got there
28:59The fact that the timings
29:02were all over the place
29:04ultimately it doesn't really matter
29:05to what went on
29:06at that house
29:08and in the immediate vicinity
29:09at quarter past two
29:11or half past two
29:12whenever it was
29:12what happened an hour before
29:14and where the car was
29:15doesn't really influence that
29:16At trial
29:19Feather exercised
29:20his right to silence
29:21By the time
29:22the appeal was heard
29:23he was repeating
29:24an early reason
29:24he gave to the police
29:25that he was out
29:26with his girlfriend
29:27on the Homewood Estate
29:28that night
29:28He has to say something
29:30to justify
29:31the presence of his car
29:32on the CCTV
29:33and you know
29:35an aimless
29:37yes I was out
29:38driving with my girlfriend
29:39is perhaps
29:40the best way
29:42of doing that
29:43because there's nothing
29:44there that needs
29:44to be confirmed
29:46or can be checked
29:46you know
29:47so it's kind of
29:48an excuse
29:49which can't be confirmed
29:51or denied
29:51so it's a reasonable
29:52response I suggest
29:53to his presence
29:56and his admission
29:57that he was
29:58that was his car
29:59and he was near by
30:00At that same appeal
30:05incidentally
30:06Andrew Feather
30:07asked for a reduction
30:08in the tariff
30:09the sentence
30:10he'd been given
30:10which was 26 years
30:12and it was granted
30:12it will be 20 years
30:14that he serves in prison
30:15so he's due to be
30:15released in 2033
30:16well make some sense
30:18of all that for me
30:19where do we stand now?
30:22Well he was out
30:23with his girlfriend
30:23that night
30:24and there's nobody
30:25telling us
30:27did they ask
30:28where he was going
30:29with his girlfriend
30:30or where had he been
30:31with his girlfriend
30:31what plans had they had
30:34just they were driving
30:35and would you actually
30:37be driving round
30:38an estate
30:40for that length of time?
30:42Is that a reliable witness
30:43your girlfriend?
30:44Has she actually confirmed
30:45that she was with him?
30:46We haven't actually
30:47been told that
30:48Where is the girlfriend?
30:49Where is she?
30:51As well with the CCTV
30:53because they weren't
30:54using the CCTV
30:55like this is the shooting
30:57the street the shooting
30:58happens on
30:58or the attack
30:59happened on
30:59and that's the car
31:01and then you see him
31:02get in the car
31:02and drive away
31:03I don't think it really
31:04matters
31:04they're just showing
31:06that he was driving
31:07are you not impressed
31:10by the father's
31:11diligence
31:12in tracing this lorry
31:14with the chicken on it?
31:15No I'm not
31:16most parents
31:17would do that
31:18but you wouldn't
31:19do it
31:20if you knew
31:21he was guilty
31:22most parents
31:23don't think
31:24their children
31:24are guilty
31:25you'd prove
31:26they're innocent
31:27difficult to accept
31:28no matter what
31:29no matter what
31:30your child
31:31would have done
31:31you'd do whatever
31:32it takes
31:33I feel like there's
31:34an element of
31:35I couldn't imagine
31:36my son or daughter
31:37doing that
31:38there's no way
31:39that they have it
31:40or that they got
31:41caught up in something
31:42they didn't understand
31:43his joint enterprise
31:45the fact that he was
31:46found guilty
31:46on joint enterprise
31:47I think I would find
31:48that quite difficult
31:49to cope with
31:50to be honest
31:51if it was my child
31:52in what way Nicole?
31:54well because
31:54he didn't necessarily
31:55know what was going on
31:57in that house
31:58he might have just
32:00thought they were
32:00just going to frighten
32:01Barry
32:02that's the big question
32:03and it's turned into
32:04a horrific murder
32:05he may not have known
32:07about the acid
32:08but just the fact
32:11he may have thought
32:13they were just going
32:14to frighten him
32:14that in itself
32:15is a serious
32:16it's a serious
32:18enough offence
32:19to be caught
32:20them in joint enterprise
32:21so he's reckless
32:22in his actions
32:25to do that
32:26also four people
32:28were running away
32:29weren't they
32:30therefore
32:30if there's four people
32:31running away
32:32somewhere
32:33did he give four people
32:35a lift and only three
32:35men in the house
32:36and the other four
32:37run away
32:37and he sat there
32:38wondering
32:38if four people
32:39if four people
32:40were running away
32:41I presume three
32:41were in the car
32:42with one driver
32:43which is four
32:43the four people
32:44running away
32:45were running
32:46near Feathers house
32:48and near where
32:49his car was
32:50so the fourth
32:52but could have been
32:53we don't know
32:54who these people are
32:55in the CCT
32:56so he must have
32:57an idea something
32:58was wrong
32:58if it was him running
33:00if it was the four men
33:01three men running
33:02we don't know
33:02so I don't really see
33:04if you're a massive
33:05part of it
33:06if you get involved
33:07he knew the game
33:08he knew the game
33:10he knew of
33:11he knew
33:11he knew of them
33:12they knew of him
33:12very well
33:13they gave his number
33:14in prison
33:14his name
33:15and he was
33:17he was searching
33:17that case on Facebook
33:18and it's reasonable
33:19to believe he knew
33:20something of what
33:21happened that night
33:22when they called him
33:23the big question is
33:24even though he may have
33:26knew of that first case
33:27so he was in effect
33:28you know given
33:28going to pick up criminals
33:30but was he going
33:31did he know he was
33:32picking up murderers
33:33I don't even think
33:35the killers per se
33:37knew that
33:38they were going to
33:38go out and murder
33:39someone
33:39I think everybody
33:40thought that
33:41it was a scare tactic
33:43I think it just
33:45went wrong
33:45the fact that
33:46the guy died
33:47unless he knew
33:48who he was
33:48the guys he was
33:50picking up
33:51what they were
33:51involved in at the time
33:52could it then be
33:53called joint enterprise
33:54but would he have
33:55known straight away
33:56when they got into
33:56the car
33:57do you know
33:58but why wouldn't
33:58he admit that
33:59if that was the case
34:00you would say in court
34:01that hang on a minute
34:02I did do it
34:03but I didn't know
34:04that that's what
34:05they'd done
34:06because that's then
34:07because that's then
34:08you know
34:08go ask them
34:09my biggest question
34:10is this right to silence
34:12and I know you can't
34:13convict on necessarily
34:14you know
34:15not actually saying
34:17anything
34:18but to me
34:19anyone that suddenly
34:20goes no comment
34:21no comment
34:21no comment
34:22why would you do that
34:24as an innocent person
34:25why do you say
34:26no comment
34:26to me
34:27straight away
34:27they're guilty
34:28give us a time
34:28to definitely speak up
34:29I was definitely
34:30you beat me to it
34:31I was definitely
34:31going to say
34:32the same thing
34:32like if I was going
34:34like if I was
34:35being accused of that
34:35and knowing that
34:36like I could be
34:38going down for murder
34:39or whatever
34:39like that
34:39I would not
34:41stop talking
34:42until I prove
34:42my innocence
34:43I think that's
34:44just a big thing
34:45like why would you
34:45not say anything
34:46if you are
34:47not guilty
34:48yeah
34:49well suddenly
34:50this girlfriend
34:51comes in
34:52on appeal
34:53that is very fishy
34:54because you'd say
34:55that if you were
34:55with your girlfriend
34:56you'd say so
34:57right away
34:57where is she
34:58yeah
34:59I don't feel like
35:01that's liable enough
35:02from my perspective
35:03I think
35:03I think that's just
35:04like an easy thing
35:06to say I think
35:06because there's not
35:07there's not a lot
35:08that we can prove
35:10or disprove
35:11as you said
35:11so I think that's
35:12a very easy thing
35:13and an easy way
35:13to put yourself
35:15somewhere else
35:15I believe
35:16and the three other
35:17people had already
35:17been arrested
35:18and charged
35:19presumably
35:19if one of them
35:20managed to give
35:21his number and name
35:22so it's not like
35:23he was going to
35:23drop them in it
35:24if he turned around
35:25and said
35:25yes I did drive them
35:26but I had no idea
35:27why
35:28as everybody else
35:30thinks
35:30why would you
35:31say nothing
35:32when you're innocent
35:33it just doesn't ring true
35:34okay
35:35well
35:36you're drawing
35:37your conclusions
35:38you're reaching
35:39your opinions
35:39I think you're clear
35:40on the evidence
35:41from both sides
35:41you've heard the appeal
35:42and what the
35:44Andrew Feather Sr. did
35:45which was a remarkable
35:46piece of detection work
35:47in part four
35:49we're going to ask you
35:50to come to your verdict
35:51John is after the break
36:04welcome back to the jury room
36:10it's time for our verdict
36:12but before that
36:13the case for the prosecution
36:15and the case for the defense
36:16in summary
36:17in a horrific attack
36:23an innocent man
36:24is caught up in a dispute
36:25between rival gangs
36:26and is killed
36:27in front of his wife
36:28even for a tougher state
36:30this was a shocking offense
36:31and four men are arrested
36:32three for direct involvement
36:34in the attack
36:35and a fourth
36:36as the getaway driver
36:37all are found guilty
36:39with Andrew Feather
36:40caught up in a joint
36:41enterprise offense
36:41by providing the means
36:43of escape
36:43Andrew Feather's family
36:45have led a campaign
36:45on his behalf
36:46proving that some
36:47of the evidence
36:47against him
36:48CCTV footage
36:49was unreliable
36:50as the timing
36:52shown by a camera
36:53time display
36:53was wrong
36:54and they pointed to evidence
36:56showing Andrew Feather
36:57was elsewhere
36:58in the city that night
36:59our jury selected
37:04Tracy
37:04housing support officer
37:06from Ipswich
37:06in Suffolk
37:07as their fall person
37:08Tracy
37:08you're the person
37:09I'm going to ask
37:09to collate
37:10the verdicts
37:11guilty and not guilty
37:12but it is your turn
37:13your time now
37:15jury room
37:16to tell us
37:16what you think
37:17guilty or not
37:18well for me
37:18I don't think
37:19I can't actually see
37:20any concrete evidence
37:21to show that Feather
37:22was driving the car
37:23we've got CCTV footage
37:25which shows the car
37:26which could be
37:27we've got
37:28I think the thing
37:29with the chicken lorries
37:30is by the buyer
37:31he wasn't
37:33it was proven
37:33it was thrown out
37:34that he was the armourer
37:35his only thing is
37:37he does know the gang
37:38and they have got
37:38his phone number
37:39the Facebook thing
37:41I think is irrelevant
37:42really because
37:43I think a lot of people
37:43might well have been
37:44trying to
37:45to find out
37:47what's happening
37:48in the local area
37:49and when I was
37:50in the fire service
37:50there was a fire
37:51everyone would be there
37:52and that was before Facebook
37:53but for me
37:54I'm just a little worried
37:55that there just isn't
37:57a concrete
37:57concrete evidence
37:59so even though
38:00the family
38:00wasn't the family
38:02that was supposed
38:03to be targeted
38:03and he searched
38:06the name of that family
38:07he was trying to
38:08yeah
38:09trying to
38:10yeah totally
38:11because it was also proven
38:13he wasn't there
38:14so
38:15but someone
38:16surely then
38:17must have told him
38:18and somebody could have
38:19called him
38:19and said guess what
38:20you know
38:20it might not have been
38:21the actual killers
38:22it could have been
38:23another phone
38:23and it was
38:24on the fact that
38:25communities
38:26talk to each other
38:27like that
38:27and I don't know
38:29many communities
38:30that are kind of like that
38:31I actually do know that
38:32through the use of Facebook
38:33that first one
38:34was eight months ago
38:34sorry just one at a time guys
38:36I'm not hearing
38:37Kim you were saying
38:38I was saying I can confirm
38:39that's how it works
38:40because I'm in a community
38:41that it's just
38:43spread near and far
38:46you know
38:46it's like something happens
38:47in the locality
38:49within the locality
38:50within ten minutes
38:50everyone knows about it
38:51I totally agree
38:52that like within the community
38:53you'll know about it
38:54but for me
38:55within the Facebook community
38:56I still don't think
38:57that we should
38:58just take off that evidence
38:59I still do think
39:00that we should consider it
39:01because the thing is
39:02that you're searching
39:04the family name
39:04like you're trying
39:05to search it anyway
39:06so you know something
39:07like you have some type
39:09of inside
39:10and sight
39:10to what these people
39:12are doing
39:12so I don't think
39:13from my perspective
39:14we should rule that out
39:16completely
39:16I think like
39:17I personally do still
39:18slightly consider
39:20that Facebook search
39:20if he was the getaway driver
39:23and there's been
39:25all this stuff happening
39:27and imagine how dramatic
39:28it would be
39:28when they got in the car
39:29and acid
39:30and everybody cursing
39:31and swearing
39:31and running
39:32and here and there
39:32and he gets home
39:33and he starts looking
39:35on Facebook
39:35but he wasn't out
39:36and about apparently
39:37but he was with his girlfriend
39:39but
39:39oh with his girlfriend
39:40that's right
39:41but I mean it's still
39:42either way
39:44don't you find looking
39:46well I don't know
39:46I don't know
39:47the pretense as well
39:49of when you're
39:50when you see
39:51something popping up
39:52is because
39:52obviously everybody's awake
39:53and so that's
39:55but at three o'clock
39:55in the morning
39:56not that many people
39:56are going to be awake
39:57yeah maybe the very
39:58very immediate
39:59community would hear
40:02the original shots
40:04but I don't understand
40:06why lots of people
40:07would be on Facebook
40:08sharing stuff
40:09at three o'clock
40:09in the morning
40:09I agree
40:10it all depends
40:11what shift you work
40:12doesn't it
40:13but do you still not
40:13see the feed though
40:14because you go on
40:15you'd have to be awake
40:16at three o'clock
40:17in the morning
40:17to see the feed
40:18it wasn't a feed
40:18he was trying to search
40:20making that effort
40:22but nothing actually
40:23puts him outside
40:24that house
40:25does it
40:25nothing puts him there
40:27no there's no
40:28eyewitnesses
40:28there's no forensic
40:29evidence
40:29to put him outside
40:31that house
40:32in a black Mitsubishi
40:33or any other vehicle
40:35would you be outside
40:36that house
40:37if you were in a gang
40:39and you planned
40:40an attack on someone
40:41whether it was
40:42supposed to be
40:44murder or not
40:45wouldn't you make sure
40:46everything goes to plan
40:48so I'm not going to be
40:49our getaway car
40:51won't be just hanging out
40:52outside of the house
40:53because it will draw
40:55attention to people
40:56when you hear gunshots
40:57the first attack
40:58was they used a taxi
40:59so it was an unwilling
41:01participant
41:02probably a taxi driver
41:03supposing the Mitsubishi
41:04is ditched
41:05and then he
41:05he goes to his own car
41:08but there's no evidence
41:09that the three murderers
41:11went into the
41:12I think the point
41:14that was made as well
41:15that we can't actually
41:16put him at the scene
41:17but I think
41:18we can kind of
41:19connect the dots
41:20a little bit
41:20that these people
41:22were using his name
41:23his cold name
41:24and they were trying
41:25to contact him
41:26so I think we can
41:27make a link there
41:27that there is some
41:29type of relationship
41:29between these people
41:30which may put him there
41:32but is it certain enough
41:34he knows more
41:35than he's willing to say
41:36I just feel like
41:37he hasn't got
41:38a big alibi
41:40this girlfriend
41:41hasn't surfaced
41:42to corroborate his story
41:44there are a couple of things
41:46there's the
41:46the unknown Mitsubishi
41:49that could have been
41:49a vehicle
41:50which Feather
41:52has had access to
41:54which is used
41:55for this crime
41:56but the other thing
41:58we're talking
41:58early hours of the morning
42:00there were four people
42:02seen running away
42:03from something
42:04was it near his house
42:05the four people
42:06the four people
42:07was near his house
42:08how do we know
42:08they didn't go to his house
42:10and knock on his door
42:11and
42:11we don't know
42:13but there were four people
42:14seen running from
42:16from something
42:18and his car
42:20was seen nearby
42:21and that's what we know
42:23how many groups
42:24of four people
42:25would be running
42:26about that housing estate
42:27at that time of the morning
42:29I would say
42:30me being on patrol
42:32very rarely
42:33that you'd see
42:34a group of four people
42:35running about
42:37unless they're up
42:37or something
42:37but that still doesn't
42:38necessarily
42:39take him to that car
42:40also don't forget
42:41he did live in that area
42:42his car will be in that area
42:43yes I know
42:44but
42:44you know
42:45we think
42:46we've got three
42:46we've got three baddies
42:47who have been arrested
42:49he is arrested
42:51sometime afterwards
42:52after his phone number
42:53has been passed
42:54by one of the
42:54one of the gang members
42:55to somebody else
42:56can you ring him
42:58on this number
42:58so they knew him
42:59quite well
43:01for somebody to have
43:02his mobile phone number
43:04in the heads
43:05in the memories
43:05it's not something that
43:07you know
43:07I don't even know
43:09the ex-wife's phone number
43:10they could all be on
43:11to the same football team
43:12that could be a linkage
43:13you know
43:14that's how they've got
43:15the phone number
43:15you know
43:16you can't
43:17you can't
43:17sort of say
43:18well
43:18you know
43:19he must have given them
43:20the phone number
43:21they must be really close
43:22and he'd go
43:22I don't know if you're
43:22in a football team
43:23you all want contact numbers
43:24not a darts team
43:26anything like that
43:27the guy would have had to
43:29loan the number
43:30I don't even know
43:32my mother's number
43:32and to know a number
43:34you have to dial it
43:35and how many times
43:35these days
43:36do you dial an actual number
43:37because you use
43:37the names on the phone
43:38so that's like a phone box
43:39thing to do
43:40you don't have a phone
43:41and you
43:41someone
43:42someone to pick you up
43:43what year was all of this
43:44all of this though
43:45my boyfriend's 10 years ago
43:47weren't as left as they are now
43:48excuse me Kim
43:48for interrupting
43:49I do apologise
43:49what do you make
43:50of this concept
43:52that you hear a lot
43:53from police and prosecution
43:54when they say
43:54it's the totality
43:56of the evidence
43:57you can pick that bit
44:00and pull it apart
44:00and pick that bit
44:01and pull it apart
44:02and so on
44:02but look at the whole event
44:04what do you make of that
44:05it's all ifs and buts
44:08and whys
44:08but it's
44:10at the end of the day
44:11somebody's been
44:12murdered with
44:13acid
44:15all the
44:16all the ifs and buts
44:17that you mentioned
44:19I've got to find out
44:19who's done it
44:19all the ifs and buts
44:21you mentioned
44:21all funnel into one
44:23one target
44:24and that target
44:26is
44:26is feather
44:27so the time's come
44:29for you to make
44:30whatever last point
44:30you want to
44:31for those jurors
44:31that you think
44:32aren't on
44:33on this in the same
44:33wavelength as you
44:34and the other way around
44:35because in a few moments
44:37I'll be asking for your verdict
44:38well I'm still in the same
44:39opinion that I was
44:40before
44:40I don't see there's
44:42enough enough evidence
44:43to convict him
44:44the fact that there was
44:46they had his
44:46they had his number
44:48I'm sure those three guys
44:49together probably had
44:50lots of the same numbers
44:51and did they look
44:53into all of those
44:53as well
44:54if it is just a thing
44:55they gave a prisoner
44:56he could get rid of
44:57something
44:57again you're relying
44:58on the prisoner
44:59no disrespect
44:59but for me
45:01he hasn't been seen
45:02he hasn't
45:03there's no concrete
45:04evidence is what I said
45:05earlier
45:05and I still think it's
45:06he's seen with these
45:08people so they could
45:09have panicked
45:09no he wasn't
45:10four people were seen
45:11and voices were heard
45:12nothing specifically
45:13was detailed
45:14what was said
45:15okay Tracy
45:16I'm going to ask you
45:17now to collate our verdicts
45:18because it is that time
45:19in the jury room
45:20where I ask you
45:21the key question
45:22I'm going to start
45:23with Bryn
45:2430 years a policeman
45:25do you find
45:27Andrew Feather
45:28guilty
45:29or not guilty
45:30guilty
45:31and next to you
45:33Gerprit
45:33work in a shop
45:34you live in the back
45:35country do you find
45:37Andrew Feather
45:38guilty
45:38or not guilty
45:39guilty
45:41let's swap sides
45:43now and join
45:43full-time carer
45:44Kerry
45:44Kerry do you find
45:46Andrew Feather
45:47guilty
45:47or not guilty
45:48guilty
45:51and Janet
45:52a nurse
45:52next to you
45:53do you find
45:54Andrew Feather
45:55guilty
45:55or not guilty
45:56not guilty
45:57let's move
45:59down the line
46:00Trevor
46:00a retired fireman
46:02do you find
46:02Andrew Feather
46:03guilty
46:03or not guilty
46:04not guilty
46:05Make-up artist Adrian, sitting next to you
46:08Do you find Andrew Feather guilty or not guilty?
46:11Not guilty
46:11Jess, next to Adrian
46:14Do you find Andrew Feather guilty or not guilty?
46:17Guilty
46:17And Kim, the last lid on your side
46:20Do you find Andrew Feather guilty or not guilty?
46:23Not guilty
46:24Moving back now to Nicole
46:26Do you find Andrew Feather guilty or not guilty?
46:29Not guilty
46:29Ben, your verdict
46:31Andrew Feather guilty or not guilty?
46:34Guilty
46:35And, Belle, your verdict, please, on Andrew Feather.
46:38Guilty or not guilty?
46:39Not guilty.
46:40Finally, four-person Tracy,
46:42do you find Andrew Feather guilty or not guilty?
46:44Guilty.
46:45You have the verdicts in front of you.
46:47Please stand and return your verdict.
46:49In the case of Andrew Feather,
46:50does the jury room find Andrew Feather guilty or not guilty?
46:55Not guilty.
46:58Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, of our jury.
47:02This has been a four-television trial
47:04based on the facts and the evidence
47:06established in the case against Andrew Feather.
47:08The jurors are members of the public.
47:10They've made their own decisions.
47:12Andrew Feather is currently serving a minimum of 20 years,
47:15but he and his family continue to protest his innocence.
47:18What's your verdict?
47:19We'll see you next time on the jury room.
47:32We'll see you next time on the jury room.