I think we've got the Crown story, George Gwaze sodomised his adopted daughter Charlene causing her to die shortly after from anal blunt instrument intrusion during a time in which George's natural daughter was in the room and heard nothing, absolutely nothing.
I'm entirely confident that there has never been another case in nz recent memory, or reported law, where a child has died within hours from being sexually assaulted in the way the Crown have claimed. Put the obvious narrative discrepancies aside, that George's family including his natural daughter and wife would lie to protect him, put aside that a professional man would not be concerned as to the danger of having sex with somebody infected with aids, put aside the idea that the Gwaze family might not have revealed their adopted daughter had aids, or was suspected of having aids when they brought her to New Zealand - and try to find a case, not just in nz but worldwide, where a child has died an almost immediate death from a single act of sexual assault, one it is alleged was among a number. Try hooking that together.
The prosecutor in his final address is reported to have commented 'that good men do bad things.' I'm sure they do, and the narrative proves that George Gwaze is not one of them.
Sorry, but I fail to see what is missing from this narrative at all.
ReplyDeleteIt is Christchurch.
The family concerned were newly arrived Africans, so at a disadvantage.
The Police attempted their usual bully tactics to get confessions.
They introduced depraved sex into the mix.
The usual people have sharpened their pitchforks in readiness.
What is missing? This is a narrative we have read before, it seems rather familiar.
Yes, the question is asked whether an impartial investigation includes pressuring witnesses to say what would suit the prosecution as was the case her when police tried to get the sister, whom shared the room with Charlene, to say that somebody had entered the room. The answer can only be no.
DeleteI can recall Charlene's older sister saying that one of the worst features of having her father charged was that she 'hadn't been able to grieve for her little sister.'
It's all hopefully in the safe hands of Justice now, the unsettling aspect is the picture painted by the Crown, even if it has been dispelled with evidence the worry is that it lingers like a ghost to take George Gwaze when all else has failed.
How unsettling it must be for the family to feel the full pressure of the attitudes that can be found in NZ against those that suffer diseases that we are frightened of, I've noted hostility that they must have known Charlene had aids. Well, if they did, would that mean they would turn away from her in her last years. Or, that they would risk infection themselves. I think we are seeing a very brave and kind family being punished by ignorance.
"pressuring witnesses to say what would suit the prosecution"
ReplyDeleteCommon practice I reckon (Guy Wallace - DI Tom Fitzgerald)
Or as in the Alan Hall case ignore the witnesses that describe the assailant as dark and over 6ft and arrest a white shorter man with learning difficulties.
DeleteIn this case it was ignore the witness who said nobody entered Charlene's room AND the one who said Mr Gwaze never left his bed.
DeleteI agree with most you say apart from the fact that the family, a wife and even a child would protect or deny their father having done such a thing. There are many many instances where wives, children and extended family have denied what they've heard, and have great trouble accepting their loved ones could have sexual relations with a child.
ReplyDeleteI DO NOT BELEIVE in this case that they are lying, but it does happen. The ability to accept that someone like us, love by us, perhaps in a position of responsibility, such as a school teacher, could do something so heinous is difficult for some.
There are many reasons why Gwaze is innocent, however, nobody wanted to know them.
Interesting post Nostalgia, which I stumbled across whilst reseraching my own post on Gwaze's acquittal. Even though he has now been cleared by a second jury, George Gwaze and his family will carry the stigma of his prosecution for the rest of their lives.
ReplyDeleteDNA semen from George Gwaze was found on the crotch area of underpants ,on the bedsheets & a dress all belonging to his niece Charlene. Yet the jury were told to treat this evidence with "caution" that this could have happened through cross contamination of laundry.Yeah right. I dont buy it.
ReplyDeleteModern DNA tests are extremely sensitive - a single molecule can be multiplied up to millions of copies, so that the tiniest amounts, such as might be transferred between items in the laundry, are readily detectable. Google PCR. George Gwaze's innocence should have been perfectly clear from the first trial (arguably it should never have gone as far as the first trial), and it's a terrible indictment of this country's legal system that he and his family had to go through this ordeal.
DeleteThe Crown scientist conceded the point about the semen not being able to have been determined as having been through the wash. From memory semen could survive up to four washes and still be attached or reattached to other laundry. That's one side of it, another is because the amounts were so insignificant in size I believe they were inconsistent with having arrived on those various items that morning - more semen would have been expected if you were of a mind to ponder the feasibility of the Crown's unaccepted scenario. Rather than look to resolve evidence with good science and information they looked to set the evidence in stone so that it might have no other explanation than one that suited their 'case.' That's not the job of the police or prosecution.
Delete