LOVE’S ecstasy appeared to have turned sour when district constable-cum-playboy Linton Berry was denied the sexual pleasures of the love of his life, 35-year-old Paulette Zaidie of 9 Hope Boulevard in upscale St Andrew.

This sad tale unfolded in the classic style of Shakespearean tragedy, drama and pathos.

It was a love triangle that was doomed to end in disaster with the nation becoming the awe-struck audience lapping up the story in all its morbid detail.

Berry, after a year of professing love to 36-year-old Paulette — mixed with threats to “shoot to kill” her and her new husband, Joseph Zaidie — executed the dastardly threat on January 11, 1987.

It was 10:00 pm. The stillness of the night was suddenly broken by two gunshots. Passerby John Johnson, driven by curiosity, rushed towards an immobile Jeep at the foot of Jack’s Hill off Barbican Road. He noticed, among other things, that a car was speeding up the hill “like a jet”, he would say in testimony later.

Slumped over the steering wheel of the immobile vehicle was the woman driver — later identified as Paulette Zaidie. She had a bullet hole in her head. Johnson called the police.

But the greatest shock, a Home Circuit Court jury would get later, was to hear evidence that about 15 minutes after shooting Paulette Zaidie, Berry allegedly telephoned the unsuspecting husband and told him: “I have just shot your wife, Paulette, at the foot of Jack’s Hill Road!”

Bearing witness at the trial, Zaidie alleged that Berry had also told him he should count himself lucky that he was not present, otherwise he would have suffered the same fate.

Zaidie told the court he “was dumbstruck!” by the phone call, so he requested Berry repeat what he had just said. And he repeated it!

In fact, not only did he repeat the chilling message, but went on to suggest to him that he had better “Go pick her up”. Zaidie only came to grips with the stark reality of the situation when he arrived at the scene that night. He looked at his wife slumped over the Jeep Wagoneer she had been driving. Her face was “completely blown away”.

It hit him like a kick in the stomach that he had become a widower. His grief, he said, was indescribable.

The “eternal triangle” was, according to the prosecution, the reason for what was described as “this crime of passion”. It was alleged that Berry and the deceased woman had had an intimate relationship prior to her unexpected marriage to Joseph Zaidie.

Evidence in court was that the 46-year-old Berry — a former district constable and owner of a garage — was full of rage when he learned that the woman he loved had married Zaidie without his knowledge and he voiced this, both to Joseph Zaidie and Paulette’s sister. He told them that if he confirmed that Paulette had done so while still seeing him, “he would kill her”.

Chief Justice Lensley Wolfe presided over the 11-day trial. Counsel for the defence, Richard Small appeared for Berry.

Small had put forward submissions in law as to why the trial before the court should not proceed at that point in time, but he was overruled by the trial judge. A constitutional motion was also moved but that too did not succeed. A defence of accidental shooting was then relied on.

Berry went into the witness box and demonstrated for the jury how his .44 Magnum Smith and Wesson revolver went off accidentally that night and ended the life of his former lover.

The jury, however, after deliberation, accepted the case as presented by Counsel for the Crown Kent Pantry, now retired Director of Public Prosecutions.

The sentence of death was pronounced on Berry on March 22, 1988. Special leave to appeal to the United Kingdom Privy Council against dismissal of his appeal by the local Court of Appeal was granted in July 1990.

After hearing arguments on both sides, the Privy Council, in July 1990, allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the Jamaican Court of Appeal “with the direction that that court should quash the conviction of the appellant and either enter a verdict of acquittal or order a new trial, whichever course is considered proper in the interests of justice”.

The Crown was ordered to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.

But not before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council observed that “written statements made by (witness) Zaidie and Matadial (the dead woman’s sister) — and not disclosed before or during the trial — had been wrongly withheld from the Appellant (Berry) and his advisers.”

The Committee found that one result of the withholding of the statements was that the trial judge, and in turn the Jamaican Court of Appeal, were ignorant of the contents of the statements and of an addendum by Matadial to her prior statement to the police, this one dated May 9, 1987.

It was noted that Zaidie and Matadial were the two most important prosecution witnesses to the alleged facts which preceded and followed the shooting. It was the Committee’s considered opinion that it was the Crown’s clear duty to give the defence warning of the evidence by producing the three statements to the defence. Failure so to do, in their view, was “a material irregularity”.

Tried a second time, Berry’s case before Justice Pitter and a mixed jury in the No 2 Home Circuit Court was highlighted by as much drama and high tension as the murder itself. For after more than an hour’s deliberation, the jury returned with what was said to be a unanimous verdict.

The hushed courtroom heard this scenario play out:

Registrar: Mr Foreman, will you please stand?

The foreman rose.

Q: Mr Foreman and members of the jury, have you arrived at your verdict?

Foreman: Yes, we have.

Q: Is the verdict unanimous?

A: Yes.

Q: How say you? Do you find the prisoner, Linton Berry, guilty or not guilty of the murder of Paulette Zaidie?

A: Not guilty.

There was jubilation from a section of the courtroom. Then the voice of Juror No 12 came through loud and clear.

Juror No 12: No! No! Mr Foreman, how could you make such a mistake?

A hush engulfed the courtroom for a second time. The silence was deafening.

Foreman: (Regaining his composure after a moment) GUILTY!

The trial judge took over the proceedings and polled each juror individually. The verdict again came up unanimous — Guilty on the charge of murder!

The death sentence was pronounced de novo (anew) on Linton Berry.

The prosecution in this second trial was led by Hugh Wildman, deputy director of public prosecutions, now the Trustee in Bankruptcy (Cash Plus case). Howard Hamilton, QC, former Public Defender, and George Soutar appeared for Berry.

Paulette Zaidie’s widowed husband again gave evidence during the 1988 trial that he and his wife had been living at 9 Hope Boulevard at the time of her death. Prior to June 1986, they had lived together as lovers for nine years. Then in June, the relationship deteriorated. Paulette moved to an apartment at Surbiton Manor Close, St Andrew.

Although he had seen Berry before June 1986, Zaidie testified they had not spoken to each other. He told the Court that he was, therefore, startled when in that same month of June, he met Berry at a night club called ‘Illusions’, and out of the blue, Berry volunteered that he was having an affair with Paulette. Berry also told him that if he (Zaidie) were to physically harm her, he “would kill him”.

So taken aback was he, Zaidie told the court, that he could only respond that he would have to speak to Paulette when he arrived home. But upon his arrival, Berry was already in the house, seated, with his arms folded across his chest. His firearm was resting on his chest, according to Zaidie’s testimony.

Zaidie said he was even more astonished when Berry announced that he had come to remove Paulette and her things. However, when asked what she intended to do, Paulette refused to leave with Berry. It was the beginning of the end.

Next week: Berry accuses Zaidie of kidnapping Paulette

Sybil E Hibbert is a veteran journalist and retired court reporting specialist. She is also the wife of Retired ACP Isadore Hibbert. Send your comments to allend@jamaicaobserver.com

Related article: Comments on the Crimes That Rocked the Nation series