A man accused of attempted murder told detectives he lost three cousins to Bermuda’s gang war, but denied committing a shooting in revenge.Noet Barnett, 25, is said by prosecutors to have been the gunman who targeted Jeremiah Dill in a drive-by attack on Parson’s Road, Pembroke, on October 4 2010.He is now on trial at Supreme Court.An eyewitness, who cannot be named due to a reporting restriction, told the jury last week that she recognised Mr Barnett as the shooter.In his opening speech to the jury, prosecutor Rory Field suggested the motivation for Mr Barnett carrying out the attack was that he and Mr Dill were on “either side of a serious dispute that was going on”.Yesterday, the jury watched videos of interviews police conducted with Mr Barnett over the shooting. During them, he told Detective Constables Rohan Henry and Llewellyn Edwards that three of his cousins; Kumi Harford, Perry Puckerin and Shane Minors have been killed by Parkside.“They killed my family; they’re dead. I cry every night,” he explained.Mr Barnett admitted having friends in the rival gang, 42. However, when Det Con Henry suggested he shot Mr Dill in a “quest to get revenge” over the deaths of his relatives, Mr Barnett replied that “I don’t do that stuff,” and “I ain’t into all this gang stuff”.The detectives also told Mr Barnett his DNA was found on a gun, gloves and rag found in a bag in his neighbourhood some three months after the shooting. A ballistics expert compared the gun to the bullets that hit Mr Dill, and established it was the firearm used in the crime.Mr Barnett denied having anything to do with the items, saying: “I’ve never seen that gun before”. When it was pointed out by Det Con Henry that his DNA was found on it, he responded: “That’s a lie sir.” He gave the same response when told he had been identified as the shooter by an eyewitness.Mr Barnett told the detectives he did not believe what they were saying about the forensic evidence. However, when they produced paperwork about it for him, he admitted that he “can’t read at all”.Det Con Edwards ended up reading the report from Dennis McGuire, of Forensic Expert Services, to him. However, the accused man responded: “I’m innocent”.The jury heard from Mr Dill, who knew Mr Barnett prior to the shooting, that the accused man speaks with a distinctive stutter. When defence lawyer Victoria Pearman cross-examined Det Con Henry, she referred to Mr Barnett’s “very unique” way of speaking, his inability to read and apparent difficulty understanding what the detectives were saying at times during the interview.Ms Pearman also noted Mr Barnett’s apparent confusion when it came to talking about times and dates which, she said, caused him to “scrunch up his face” when answering questions.Det Con Henry said he did not recall those things.Ms Pearman inquired if he was aware that special rules apply to the police “in interviews with children and people that are mentally challenged”.The detective confirmed that he was.“Did you have any indication that you were dealing with someone who’s mentally challenged in Mr Barnett?” asked Ms Pearman.“No,” replied Det Con Henry.Mr Barnett denies charges of attempted murder, using a firearm to commit attempted murder and handling a firearm, and the case continues.