Are these the reasons why George should never have been charged?
*His Wife's testimony that he never left their bedroom.
*His Daughter's
testimony that nobody entered her room.
*There was none of his DNA found on
her or in her.
*There was none of her DNA found on him.
*The first time
blood was evident in her anal region was after the second suppository was
inserted, and no injuries were noticed first time around.
*Rape and
suffocation can not cause all of the damage her body suffered, but untreated HIV
can.
On a broader dialogue Charlene was aids infected, a sure deterrent if for no other reason that self preservation. The Crown said that George may have strangled her and if he did not she therefore died from blunt instrument trauma. So the inconceivable persists George killing one daughter in front of another by strangulation to uphold secrecy of what was said to be a regular event - no purpose in that. The blunt trauma was revealed in the autopsy as less than the sum total of the clinician's observations by a wide margin, and even then, as set out above, there was a potential reason for it. Thinking about the 'secrecy,' a dead girl, some secret there, certainly a murder inquiry anyway so what would possibly have been avoided. In George's case he was subjected to 2 trials anyway, the later with what an appears to have been one juror that made me feel uncomfortable that a rogue verdict might have been entered. Though in the end, as we know, nothing could demolish the facts and the lack of facts in this case - not even prejudice.
I believe there was a prejudicial element in George's arrest and like other similar cases where the wrong person is charged, or in this case a person charged for a crime that was never committed, the police did not understand the evidence before the charge was laid. They had a prejudicial weave against a black man, a back ground of aids, immigrants, witchcraft beliefs, a poor child, all the ingredients of mediaeval times and which allowed a Prosecutor to make allegations against George as though they were facts. It seems the Prosecution is no longer bound to differentiate between speculation and proof and this man could tell the Jury that George was the killer of Charlene despite there being not clear proof that she was killed rather than having died from her condition.
George and Charlene, their entire family, were terribly let down here, and in all reflections one cannot avoid that the Supreme Court ultimately permitted this retrial in an unprecedented step that overlooked double jeopardy in order to what could be seen, as enabling the Crown, rather than Justice.
David Meates, CEO of Cantebury DHB said this morning on National Radio "the DHB stands behind the clinical experts in sexual abuse who provided evidence in this case".
ReplyDeleteAs with Peter Ellis, experts in sexual abuse saw what they were trained to look for. But they were blind to other disorders, such as the impact of HIV/ AIDES on multiple systems in the human body.
And as with many other cases, police listened only to experts who would support their theory of guilt.
I wouls suggest
Being Christchurch, it also supported their theory of sexual perversion around every corner.
DeleteThey like to pick and choose their sexual perversions in Christchurch. If you're white and a school teacher, anything goes and they will turn cartwheels to ignore evidence from many that incest and abuse is happening, but if you aren't part of the klan, then naturally you're perverted, especially if mr plod says so.
DeleteAll said and done 23 Christchurch citizens fairly appraised the Gwaze case and that's something to be appreciated. In some ways the hate-siters and those that spit at juries are being left behind in that city and I reckon that is bloody great.
ReplyDeleteI was concerned by the position taken by one juror apparently, but that person's position just showed the determination of the others to embrace the truth. Perhaps we should be recognising that Christchurch post Peter Ellis has benefited from the tragedy that beset him.
This case clearly illustrates the limitations of our "justice system". So that innocent people aren't locked up, it is unavoidable that many guilty ones get let off. Let us not confuse "not guilty" and "innocent". As long as you don't confess to the crime, Charlene isn't around to testify - nice one George. Stats show successful convictions in child sex abuse are rare. All you need is a good pro child sex abuse lawyer such as Jonathan Eaton and a few well paid wacko defense medical experts and you off Scott free.
ReplyDeleteLet's be clear - Charlene was a healthy girl with undiagnosed HIV. She didn't have AIDS. The HIV did not sodomise and suffocate her. The problem is lay person juries aren't capable of understanding the medical issues and so are reliant on one medical expert vs another. Defence can always drag up someone with an MD who is short of cash to say what ever they want.
RIP Charlene, dont worry you won't be seeing George or Jonathan in the next world
There is a distinct anger and misinformation running through your comment. You are entitled to your view of course but I'm sure you are aware, unless you know nothing at all of the case that Charlene wasn't a 'healthy girl.' I don't recall that there was any evidence at all that Charlene didn't have aids. In fact I'm sure the emergency services diagnosed that at some point. Additionally, there was no proof that she was suffocated and sodomised. There was proof that she was dehydrated and losing the function of breathing because her blood pressure had fallen. There was proof that there was insignificant anal damage before a medical procedure performed on her and that the coroner's report didn't match the description of the clinicians who it has been said did their best but didn't comprehend what they were working with because of lack of experience.
DeleteThe argument about experts has no wings unless you have specifics, your general statement is worthless. As worthless as the 2 failed prosecutions. Comment's such as 'short of cash' properly show that you have no sympathy for the Gwaze family, Charlene in particular because of an over-riding hate that you are unable to justify with any basic evidence to support.
I feel sorry for you.
I think you need to consider the role the press has played in this case. As 'anonymous' demonstrates, there is a general ignorance to the actual facts of the case, which can be attributed to an increasingly irresponsible media, who rather than report such matters factually, spectacularise them. The result is that people like anonymous, who lack the time and ability to sort out the crap from the truth, absorb the 'juiciest' part, which they then convince themselves is the truth, and promote to anyone who will listen.
ReplyDeleteThe general dumbing down of the population means that people like anonymous above, don't have the ability to see that what has been promoted by the crown and then in the media, was impossible. Thank goodness there was only one person with anonymous' level of intelligence on the jury -
When anonymous said 'lets be clear' that's exactly what anonymous didn't intend.
Delete