By C. Roy ReynoldsBY LATE November 1952 the evidence provided against Vincent Silvera in the murder of his wife seemed substantial, but one element that appeared to be less than clear was the matter of motive. On November 26 this was to change.
An early witness in this stage of the proceedings was Francella James of Long Lane, Port Antonio. She told the court that on one occasion Martha Silvera, who was a friend of hers, had left her husband and came to live with witness. Mrs. Silvera had shown her "black and blue" welts which she said had been caused by a beating from her husband.
The arrangement lasted for about a year. Then, Mrs. Silvera got a job at Richmond Hill and returned to her husband. During the time Mrs. Silvera stayed with her, witness said her husband visited and told her that he could do without his wife because she was of no use to him. He could not tell the last day she had allowed him to put a hand on her.
Kenneth Sinclair testified to visiting his girl friend at the premises where the Silveras live and of hearing her grumbling to her husband about his association with a girl who worked at the Collectorate and lived at Boundbrook.
Then it was the turn of "the girl" to tell her story. Princess Campbell, office maid at the Collectorate, said Silvera had first sought friendship with her in 1945 and had kept "worrying" her until she gave in in 1949. She alleged ignorance of the fact that he was married and accepted his story that he lived with his aunt.
However in 1950 a woman she did not know spoke to her and she "talked back." Witness said when she saw accused later she asked why he had told her he was not married when a woman had confronted her and claimed to be his wife. Accused was angry and she stopped seeing him for about two months but resumed the relationship later. In 1951 accused had told her that he and his wife could not agree and she had left to live with a Mrs. James.
Witness said that during the extended time that Mrs. Silvera was away she would visit the accused at his home. Some time in 1952 he told her that his wife was going to England and that he would then marry her. One day in June, 1952, accused told her his wife had left for the country and would be going to England from there.
Mr. Erasmus Campbell for the defence cross-examined at some length but witness stuck to her story. There followed a procession of police and medical witnesses, including Professor Walter Harper of the University College of the West Indies.
The Gleaner of December 3, 1952 reported that the case closed after thirteen days of hearing in which 79 witnesses had been heard. Both counsel asked for time to prepare their final addresses to the jury after Professor Harper had testified on the afternoon of December 2 and that exercise was set for the following day.
A mountain of forensic evidence had been presented, including photographic comparison between the corpse and a known photograph of Martha Silvera and the observation of a mole on the body which was consistent with others in her family. An attempt to suggest that the manner of decapitation of the head suggested it was done by someone with expert knowledge was refuted by the professor, who demonstrated how it could have been done by a layman. During this graphic display one woman fainted in court.
The curious crowd which had followed the trial assembled in the Port Antonio courthouse on December 3, 1952 for the finale of the case. As The Gleaner of December 4 reported, there was an air of expectancy and they were so intent on missing nothing that they brought their lunches with them.
Prosecuting counsel Victor Grant opened his closing remarks to the jury by telling them that they had the doubtful distinction of sitting on one of the most important, "most intricate, most interesting and, sad to say, one of the most gruesome cases in this fair island."
The evidence, he said, had shown that Vincent Silvera had been seen walking with the victim toward Anchovy on the night in question. She had not been seen since.
The evidence of guilt was overwhelming, he said, and no clear or connected defence had emerged from the mountain of evidence presented to the court. The summary of that evidence was to occupy the entire day of December 3, 1952.
