Terry Andrews

Terry Andrews is a land-development figure drawn into the investigation through two connected suspicions: his voice is identified in recordings of threatening calls, and detectives consider whether he might have hired someone to kill Katy Devlin. The evidence also reveals a bitter financial dispute between Andrews and Jonathan Devlin. These threads make Andrews a consequential suspect, but they do not resolve whether he arranged the murder or identify him as its perpetrator.

Identification in the Threat-Call Investigation

Sam O'Neill organizes a voice lineup by having Andrews and several other men read sentences drawn from the threatening phone calls. Andrews tries to disguise his voice by mumbling and drawling, but Jonathan Devlin identifies him within seconds. Sam has Devlin listen over the phone while Andrews and his lawyer are present, so they hear the identification directly; Andrews is visibly unsettled by the result. The identification gives the investigation a specific lead, though it does not by itself establish who made the calls or what Andrews knew about them.

Sam deliberately does not tell Andrews anything more after the lineup, leaving him to worry while the detectives consider their next steps. He proposes seeking permission to monitor Andrews’s phone, reasoning that if Andrews is involved, he may contact someone else rather than carry out any criminal act himself. Sam also wants the detectives to revisit Andrews’s phone records and see whom he contacted the previous month. The plan is investigative rather than conclusive: the voice identification prompts further scrutiny, not a settled finding of guilt.

Money, Land, and the Dispute with Devlin

A recorded exchange presents Andrews in open conflict with Devlin over a stalled development scheme. Andrews complains that injunctions have stopped progress and challenges Devlin’s assurance that the delay is temporary. He says he paid thousands of pounds, including money for a councillor, and accuses Devlin of taking the funds while leaving him with land he considers worthless and police investigating him. Andrews’s anger makes clear that their association involved substantial payments and that he believes Devlin has failed to deliver what he promised.

The exchange also links Andrews’s financial grievance to land under police scrutiny. He asks how the police learned that the land belonged to him, and says that he trusted Devlin. Devlin insists that he obtained what Andrews paid for and that the situation will be resolved. The competing claims leave their arrangement contested: Andrews portrays himself as cheated and exposed, while Devlin maintains that the problem is only a delay. The scene gives Andrews a concrete stake in the development scheme, without independently confirming every accusation either man makes.

Suspicion Around Katy Devlin’s Murder

The detectives extend their suspicion beyond the threatening calls and land dispute. Rob Ryan asks whether Andrews might have hired someone to kill Katy and whether the police should allow such a person to escape accountability. At this point, the question remains a hypothesis, not a revealed fact. Sam’s working theory is that Andrews would be unlikely to carry out the violence personally, partly because his alibi checks out and because he would not risk damaging his expensive equipment; if implicated, he might instead have hired someone.

That possibility shapes the proposed phone monitoring and renewed examination of Andrews’s contacts. Yet the available evidence does not show that a call to a hired killer was made, that Andrews commissioned the murder, or that he was charged with it. His identification in the voice lineup and the argument over land make him a focus of inquiry, but neither settles his connection to Katy’s death.

An Unresolved Role

Andrews’s significance rests on the gap between a strong investigative lead and an unproven accusation. Jonathan Devlin’s quick identification places Andrews’s voice among those associated with the threats, while the financial dispute supplies a separate source of hostility and possible motive for further investigation. The detectives nevertheless speak of a possible intermediary and seek corroboration through records and potential surveillance. In the evidence presented here, Andrews remains under suspicion: the case raises the possibility that he hired someone, but does not establish that he did.