Some tips Kenty.
1/ If your goose is cooked it'll be as scrawny and naked as you and Vic Purkiss comparing doodles in the mirror.
2/ If your goose is cooked you'll be feeling slightly sick after trooping off to the High Court and making a dick or yourself. Any reasonable person would know that, in your case, you wouldn't have to go to the High Court to prove that were a dick, you just needed to look in the mirror at you Vic and notice the missing willies.
3/ If your goose is cooked Kent you'll notice your rotten crew have slunk off, that you're not popular anymore and the contributions of 'another $5 sent in' as described by Rita Cochrane wont be pouring through your door faster that your tears are rolling out.
4/ Failing all this helpful advice assisting you, stick a fork in your bottom and record how many weeks it takes before you go 'ooch.'
Hope this helps Kent, jolly good and spot on, bottoms up and forks at 2 cm.
Nos.
PS, pitch forks are acceptable, no need to use those fancy stainless steel ones.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Classic question in the Amanda Knox case.....
This weekend has been the opportunity for the Prosecution to question 2 Court appointed forensic experts, Carla Vechchiotti and Stefano Conti, whose evidence has been that the Prosecution dna evidence used to convict Amanda Knox was unreliable. This pertained to dna samples taken from a knife and a bra clip and said to be proven to be that of Amanda Knox. Evidence which some may recall wasn't 'found' until weeks after intial searches, like that used against AA Thomas, David Bain, Scott Watson and others.
Prosecutor Manuela Comodi asked the loaded, and irrelevant question anyway, whether the experts could be sure there was no dna on the blade just after Kercher's death.
Of course from what I've read the question was not qualified as to being specific about whether or not Knox's dna might have been on the knife shortly after Kercher's death - which if correct, means that the Prosecutor was asking if anybody's dna might have been on the blade. How that could possibly connect to the guilt or innocence of Knoz is beyond me, unless it did exist and was shown not to be that of Knox because the dna Vechiotti and Conti examined was unable to be matched to Amanda Knox. But the Prosecutor uses the common trick of talking about something that doesn't exist, ie the possibility of something, to give an illusion of weight to non-existant evidence against Knox - nothing can only ever be nothing, not possibly something else at an earlier time. So his question ventures to the ground of asking the Court (and on other occasions Jurys)to accept that while something doesn't exist as evidence now, it may have possibly been evidence earlier and therefore should not be discounted.
The way of MOJs, talking about an undetermined event or possibility in order for it to be considered evidence. Vecchiotti in his answer confirmed that they (the scientists) could not exclude the possibility, that dna 'might' have been on the knife shortly after Kercher's death, but said that on the basis of their tests 'done today' there was no traces of dna,' adding that the original procedures were unreliable. So we have it no dna, and original procedures unreliable. How Comodi expects to ever change those facts contains the same motivation we see in NZ cases, such as that against Scot Watson. Rather than except the obvious and their duty to the Law, the Prosecution fudge for another answer. In the Watson case that nobody saw a ketch, apart from 2 Crown witnesses. In the Knox case there was no dna, but perhaps it was there at another point in time.
The court also heard read a letter from a scientific police director Piero Angeloni, defending the work of the original forensic team, another classic measure defending the indefensible rather that letting the victim go. If the testing methodology was flawed no defence of the original forensic team will ever turn non-existent dna into dna, or even into more importantly Amanda Knox's dna.
Prosecutor Manuela Comodi asked the loaded, and irrelevant question anyway, whether the experts could be sure there was no dna on the blade just after Kercher's death.
Of course from what I've read the question was not qualified as to being specific about whether or not Knox's dna might have been on the knife shortly after Kercher's death - which if correct, means that the Prosecutor was asking if anybody's dna might have been on the blade. How that could possibly connect to the guilt or innocence of Knoz is beyond me, unless it did exist and was shown not to be that of Knox because the dna Vechiotti and Conti examined was unable to be matched to Amanda Knox. But the Prosecutor uses the common trick of talking about something that doesn't exist, ie the possibility of something, to give an illusion of weight to non-existant evidence against Knox - nothing can only ever be nothing, not possibly something else at an earlier time. So his question ventures to the ground of asking the Court (and on other occasions Jurys)to accept that while something doesn't exist as evidence now, it may have possibly been evidence earlier and therefore should not be discounted.
The way of MOJs, talking about an undetermined event or possibility in order for it to be considered evidence. Vecchiotti in his answer confirmed that they (the scientists) could not exclude the possibility, that dna 'might' have been on the knife shortly after Kercher's death, but said that on the basis of their tests 'done today' there was no traces of dna,' adding that the original procedures were unreliable. So we have it no dna, and original procedures unreliable. How Comodi expects to ever change those facts contains the same motivation we see in NZ cases, such as that against Scot Watson. Rather than except the obvious and their duty to the Law, the Prosecution fudge for another answer. In the Watson case that nobody saw a ketch, apart from 2 Crown witnesses. In the Knox case there was no dna, but perhaps it was there at another point in time.
The court also heard read a letter from a scientific police director Piero Angeloni, defending the work of the original forensic team, another classic measure defending the indefensible rather that letting the victim go. If the testing methodology was flawed no defence of the original forensic team will ever turn non-existent dna into dna, or even into more importantly Amanda Knox's dna.
Kent Parker - gone a bit quiet.
Kent seems to have gone a bit quiet. Maybe he's got a secret that he doesn't want to let his followers know in case they all crap themselves.
It's such a shame. I use to enjoy all the lectures he gave people about the law, defamation in particular. A right expert is our Kent, or maybe not? I remember when he gave me a big lecture, banned me from his hate-site and kept the lecture going even though I couldn't reply. Oh dear, he had the upper hand - then.
I seem to recall blogging a few months ago that his defence would be struck out. If that happened he'd be deep in it, as would all the other blabber mouths that thought they could defame at will. Well I did suggest that he get a lawyer because Judges didn't like dealing with know it all nutters from hate-sites. Surely that couldn't have happened, not to dear old Kenty. Maybe fiddler Ralph, or one of the other arse-wipes, might let us know.
Hmmh, I wonder what it could be then? If were the that his defence is struck out because it has no merit in law, the next thing he'll either have a sex-change or announce that he now has a lawyer. Hold on, didn't have a lawyer earlier. Yes, he did. Maybe Kent didn't like being told the law being an expert himself and all.
Oh well, I'm probably just mistaken.
It's such a shame. I use to enjoy all the lectures he gave people about the law, defamation in particular. A right expert is our Kent, or maybe not? I remember when he gave me a big lecture, banned me from his hate-site and kept the lecture going even though I couldn't reply. Oh dear, he had the upper hand - then.
I seem to recall blogging a few months ago that his defence would be struck out. If that happened he'd be deep in it, as would all the other blabber mouths that thought they could defame at will. Well I did suggest that he get a lawyer because Judges didn't like dealing with know it all nutters from hate-sites. Surely that couldn't have happened, not to dear old Kenty. Maybe fiddler Ralph, or one of the other arse-wipes, might let us know.
Hmmh, I wonder what it could be then? If were the that his defence is struck out because it has no merit in law, the next thing he'll either have a sex-change or announce that he now has a lawyer. Hold on, didn't have a lawyer earlier. Yes, he did. Maybe Kent didn't like being told the law being an expert himself and all.
Oh well, I'm probably just mistaken.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Safety first policy ignored by 2 brave constables.
Two constables were honoured recently for their bravery. James Muir a dog handler was part of a team tracking 2 teenagers who had fled a farmhouse after a burglary with firearms and ammunition. The boys, only 14, and less likely to be as predictable as more seasoned offenders fired on police during a car pursuit and continued to threaten another officer with a rifle after their car stopped. That officer stopped in his tracks and the gun was turned on James Muir and the boy pulled the trigger but the chamber was empty. James Muir set his dog Neo on the offenders who were arrested. James Muir didn't want to speak about the ordeal yesterday at the awards but acting Commissioner Viv Rickard said Mr Muirs actions 'undoubtedly saved the life of a colleague and prevented potential harm to others.'
Nicolas Corley came across a vehicle crash-site near One Tree Hill Auckland. A car was ablaze, the cars passenger had alighted but the driver remained inside and Nicolas beckoned for him to get out before realising the man was unconscious. A ball of fire hit Nicolas Corley and he suffered burns to his face and arms but remained to his task reaching into the car and pulled the driver to safety with the help of the passenger. Of course most people know the danger of fire and how lifted to extreme that danger is when there are potential explosive fuels or gases involved. Whether Nicolas Corley thought of it at the time or not he was certainly aware that the car could have exploded again perhaps killing him or setting him on fire. After accepting his award Nicolas Corley was quoted as saying in respect of the incident and the driver 'But just his thank you was fine with me.'
How far we get away from the day to day dangers police take in their strides, let down by a few of their colleagues who hog the headlines for the wrong reasons. But there is more to this than these 2 men's bravery because their actions expose the fact that procedures and rules are not always the best solution. By the book James Muir was probably required to withdraw to safety from potentially more rounds being fired and killing him, but his natural instinct was to see the job completed and render the offender harmless and therefore the danger to himself and others. He certainly wasn't thinking of his own safety and nor was Nicolas Corey who might have had an ever higher appreciation of the danger to his life because he was already burnt in one explosion, but he went on when perhaps rules, commonsense, fear might have stopped him.
The police force is full of people like James Muir and Nicolas Corley, unselfish, unassuming types that can be relied on in any extreme. Yesterday they were honoured by their country and commended by acting Commissioner Rickard for acting in a way that many nzers think the police will act with bravery and scant regard for their personal safety. So I wonder how it is as a country that we applaud these men, as do their leaders, yet by all standards they broke the rules of safety first. These 2 would have gone into that Manurewa dairy and saved the owner lying wounded on the ground, and who was later to die for not having medical treatment soon enough while police did shut down and mapping of the store because they didn't know where the robbers were. A safety first situation that defies logic because robbers don't hang around after they've got the loot - they gone, more quickly if they've injured or shot somebody, and in this case the deceased man's tormented family told the police the robbers were gone but the police wouldn't enter or let anyone else enter.
Let's move to to 2010 and the Pike River disaster, a high ranking officer with no mining experience in charge probably by default. But we'll put James Muir and Nicolas Corley there with the old mining inspector George Bell in charge and appreciating from a lifetime of experience that the safest time to enter the mine was now (right after the explosion,) but a fair man he is, asking for volunteers - two of the first I venture would have been Muir and Corley and on the 6 o'clock news that night the families and the country wouldn't have heard a senior officer angrily declaring that nobody was going in to the mine because it wasn't safe, while word might have been out that Bell and a crew were gone in many many days before the next explosion would happen.
Nicolas Corley came across a vehicle crash-site near One Tree Hill Auckland. A car was ablaze, the cars passenger had alighted but the driver remained inside and Nicolas beckoned for him to get out before realising the man was unconscious. A ball of fire hit Nicolas Corley and he suffered burns to his face and arms but remained to his task reaching into the car and pulled the driver to safety with the help of the passenger. Of course most people know the danger of fire and how lifted to extreme that danger is when there are potential explosive fuels or gases involved. Whether Nicolas Corley thought of it at the time or not he was certainly aware that the car could have exploded again perhaps killing him or setting him on fire. After accepting his award Nicolas Corley was quoted as saying in respect of the incident and the driver 'But just his thank you was fine with me.'
How far we get away from the day to day dangers police take in their strides, let down by a few of their colleagues who hog the headlines for the wrong reasons. But there is more to this than these 2 men's bravery because their actions expose the fact that procedures and rules are not always the best solution. By the book James Muir was probably required to withdraw to safety from potentially more rounds being fired and killing him, but his natural instinct was to see the job completed and render the offender harmless and therefore the danger to himself and others. He certainly wasn't thinking of his own safety and nor was Nicolas Corey who might have had an ever higher appreciation of the danger to his life because he was already burnt in one explosion, but he went on when perhaps rules, commonsense, fear might have stopped him.
The police force is full of people like James Muir and Nicolas Corley, unselfish, unassuming types that can be relied on in any extreme. Yesterday they were honoured by their country and commended by acting Commissioner Rickard for acting in a way that many nzers think the police will act with bravery and scant regard for their personal safety. So I wonder how it is as a country that we applaud these men, as do their leaders, yet by all standards they broke the rules of safety first. These 2 would have gone into that Manurewa dairy and saved the owner lying wounded on the ground, and who was later to die for not having medical treatment soon enough while police did shut down and mapping of the store because they didn't know where the robbers were. A safety first situation that defies logic because robbers don't hang around after they've got the loot - they gone, more quickly if they've injured or shot somebody, and in this case the deceased man's tormented family told the police the robbers were gone but the police wouldn't enter or let anyone else enter.
Let's move to to 2010 and the Pike River disaster, a high ranking officer with no mining experience in charge probably by default. But we'll put James Muir and Nicolas Corley there with the old mining inspector George Bell in charge and appreciating from a lifetime of experience that the safest time to enter the mine was now (right after the explosion,) but a fair man he is, asking for volunteers - two of the first I venture would have been Muir and Corley and on the 6 o'clock news that night the families and the country wouldn't have heard a senior officer angrily declaring that nobody was going in to the mine because it wasn't safe, while word might have been out that Bell and a crew were gone in many many days before the next explosion would happen.
Juliet Leigh and Lindsay Gurnow - driven from their home.
The two women having endured an arson attack earlier this year have again been targeted with homophobic graffiti and it's obviously frightening intention in the Northland settlement of Mangawhai. After January's arson attack they incurred around $100,000 worth of damage to their shed, office and equipment used in their floral business.
At that time locals rallied around and 7 months later just when they were coming to terms with the earlier attack, the two women in their 60s, who obviously wouldn't harm a fly, and who no doubt are strongly community minded as judged by the community support they received, had 'God hates dikes + qeers' sprayed across their back fence in black paint.
It wasn't reported but I would expect the second intrusion is what they had dreaded for months after the first attack and were only slowly feeling confident living their own lives in their own home when the second attack happened. No doubt on of the worst things for the couple is that they know they are dealing with a nutter or nutters whom may not know when to stop. It's a short call from burning a shed to throwing a Molotov through a bedroom window. As well as the issue of looking at strangers and neighbours and wondering if they were involved earlier or know something about it, and being almost constantly on the look out for danger.
Well I hope they don't shift, I hope their community rallies around them again to strengthen in the face of this cowardly hate. It's difficult to think of a more harmless job than arranging flowers in order to bring beauty and appreciation into other people's life's. As to the perpetrator(s) it's difficult to imagine someone more cowardly and afraid of their own insignificance and personal value that needs to strike back at a bizarre world they've conjured from ignorance and fear.
Be strong Juliet and Leigh, don't be fearful because your fear is what this person or persons need in order to make their own lives seem less pathetic and to give them a sense of power. Harry Cohan described the 'whipping boys' those that others look for to persecute in order to hide their own insecurities and doubts, terribly weak people who hate themselves so much they must off-load that hate elsewhere in order to bolster themselves however temporarily. But if you should leave(and who could blame you if you do) I'm sure you will remain strong and I wish you well.
I'll finish here with some words from Juliet..
'This person, whoever it is, is a coward, and bigot and absolutely brazen.
'We have absolutely no idea who might have done this to us.
'In this day and age. It's hard to believe this sort of thing still happens. Where's the humanity? Who can show this much hatred?'
At that time locals rallied around and 7 months later just when they were coming to terms with the earlier attack, the two women in their 60s, who obviously wouldn't harm a fly, and who no doubt are strongly community minded as judged by the community support they received, had 'God hates dikes + qeers' sprayed across their back fence in black paint.
It wasn't reported but I would expect the second intrusion is what they had dreaded for months after the first attack and were only slowly feeling confident living their own lives in their own home when the second attack happened. No doubt on of the worst things for the couple is that they know they are dealing with a nutter or nutters whom may not know when to stop. It's a short call from burning a shed to throwing a Molotov through a bedroom window. As well as the issue of looking at strangers and neighbours and wondering if they were involved earlier or know something about it, and being almost constantly on the look out for danger.
Well I hope they don't shift, I hope their community rallies around them again to strengthen in the face of this cowardly hate. It's difficult to think of a more harmless job than arranging flowers in order to bring beauty and appreciation into other people's life's. As to the perpetrator(s) it's difficult to imagine someone more cowardly and afraid of their own insignificance and personal value that needs to strike back at a bizarre world they've conjured from ignorance and fear.
Be strong Juliet and Leigh, don't be fearful because your fear is what this person or persons need in order to make their own lives seem less pathetic and to give them a sense of power. Harry Cohan described the 'whipping boys' those that others look for to persecute in order to hide their own insecurities and doubts, terribly weak people who hate themselves so much they must off-load that hate elsewhere in order to bolster themselves however temporarily. But if you should leave(and who could blame you if you do) I'm sure you will remain strong and I wish you well.
I'll finish here with some words from Juliet..
'This person, whoever it is, is a coward, and bigot and absolutely brazen.
'We have absolutely no idea who might have done this to us.
'In this day and age. It's hard to believe this sort of thing still happens. Where's the humanity? Who can show this much hatred?'
Monday, July 25, 2011
Hold on mate, you're shagging a sheep.
Well, maybe not quite but reading the comments by Felicity Goodyear-Smith, GP and forensic physician in the preceding blog on George Gwaze it seems that those like me that swallow stories by new Police Commissioners that things have changed on the subject of past false-imprisonments are not realising that the Commissioners intent is flawed by a systematic abuse of the truth.
Here's what Goodyear-Smith was quoted as saying, 'Goodyear-Smith says she approached HIV experts and pathologists to help but found it difficult to get experts willing to testify. "It is very difficult because if you do come out for the defence against your colleagues you may end up as a pariah."
The question remains how can it be that our Justice system still tolerates a situation so partisan that a Doctor is able to confirm in the case of contradictory scientific findings or opinion that "It is very difficult because if you do come out for the defence against your colleagues you may end up as a pariah." What place can this difficulty have in a modern system of law and what drives it?
Well, only one thing can drive it and that is the pursuit of gaining convictions, and where does that pursuit begin but with investigators already convinced of a particular accused's guilt. So how can a modern police force undergoing changes be expected to function in any other way from Superintendents down if the focus is not on finding the truth but rather on finding the culprit and the evidence that fits that? Simply it can't. In each of the major cases where there has recently been exposed miscarriage of justices, single-minded policing and so forth there has been no top-level auditing, or on site-scene auditing of evidence that might have a different explanation or indicate a different suspect. The reason for this can only be that the from the top down there is no will to hold ambivalence toward evidence but rather a frenzied grasp of what might fit and an avoidance of that which doesn't. That's bad policing and bad policy that surely starts at the top.
This partisanship, grasp of feeling, should have no place in evidence gathering, everything should be dispassionate and no allowance given to 'feelings' or 'hunches' or indications that a certain suspect might be a bad bastard and therefore the one that 'did it.' So evidence is missed, good leads not investigated and as the case comes together so does the expectation that the forensic science will prove the case as well. It all shows a drive toward conviction at any cost, and that a suspect was chosen and the incriminating evidence found while to the public information was leaked in a type of preliminary trial. A man in a bar already knew that a particular accused was guilty because of the sometimes oblique and other times pointed police information fed to the media. And there is plenty of evidence that 'off the record' comments are fed to selected media as a myth is turned into an arrangement of facts and good hard evidence. Why?
Partly because of perceived public pressure to solve major investigations, when in fact there is never sufficient reason, nor should there be any inclination to hasten when time is not an issue - if only for the reason that we see the nightmare proportion of time taken to remedy mojs is diabolical.
I just here mention George Gwaze's case and the report of it in the preceding blog to note that even in our 'modern' times a decision is made on who is guilty then evidence found to support it whilst at all times holding comfort in the fact, as Dr Goodyear-Smith records there is a 'reluctance' by professionals to confront the integrity of forensic evidence least one becomes a pariah. And I also return to the letter written to the Coroner in the Sounds Murder (if even murder was ever proven) that there were no sighting of a ketch apart from 'only' 2 crown witnesses and also noting that it would be inadvisable that the real and 'fragile' heart of the crown case not be examined again by calling to the Coroner's court the 2 prison inmate 'secret' witnesses.
Just the language of this betrays the intent. The mention of witchcraft surrounding rituals in Charlene's death, a black man in a white city. 2 nzers sure they saw a ketch relegated to Coventry because the Crown didn't want a ketch, and the protective nature of needing to looking after 2 witnesses whose evidence might be quoted in the Coroner's Court but not cross-examined. It's a bloody sham. Audit the auditors if they actually do exist. Free police from the burden or misapprehension that the are responsible for making or ignoring evidence by insisting that they gather all relevant evidence and put aside personal feelings about potential perpetrators or about victims - whilst at all times conducting quality and recorded audits.
Here's what Goodyear-Smith was quoted as saying, 'Goodyear-Smith says she approached HIV experts and pathologists to help but found it difficult to get experts willing to testify. "It is very difficult because if you do come out for the defence against your colleagues you may end up as a pariah."
The question remains how can it be that our Justice system still tolerates a situation so partisan that a Doctor is able to confirm in the case of contradictory scientific findings or opinion that "It is very difficult because if you do come out for the defence against your colleagues you may end up as a pariah." What place can this difficulty have in a modern system of law and what drives it?
Well, only one thing can drive it and that is the pursuit of gaining convictions, and where does that pursuit begin but with investigators already convinced of a particular accused's guilt. So how can a modern police force undergoing changes be expected to function in any other way from Superintendents down if the focus is not on finding the truth but rather on finding the culprit and the evidence that fits that? Simply it can't. In each of the major cases where there has recently been exposed miscarriage of justices, single-minded policing and so forth there has been no top-level auditing, or on site-scene auditing of evidence that might have a different explanation or indicate a different suspect. The reason for this can only be that the from the top down there is no will to hold ambivalence toward evidence but rather a frenzied grasp of what might fit and an avoidance of that which doesn't. That's bad policing and bad policy that surely starts at the top.
This partisanship, grasp of feeling, should have no place in evidence gathering, everything should be dispassionate and no allowance given to 'feelings' or 'hunches' or indications that a certain suspect might be a bad bastard and therefore the one that 'did it.' So evidence is missed, good leads not investigated and as the case comes together so does the expectation that the forensic science will prove the case as well. It all shows a drive toward conviction at any cost, and that a suspect was chosen and the incriminating evidence found while to the public information was leaked in a type of preliminary trial. A man in a bar already knew that a particular accused was guilty because of the sometimes oblique and other times pointed police information fed to the media. And there is plenty of evidence that 'off the record' comments are fed to selected media as a myth is turned into an arrangement of facts and good hard evidence. Why?
Partly because of perceived public pressure to solve major investigations, when in fact there is never sufficient reason, nor should there be any inclination to hasten when time is not an issue - if only for the reason that we see the nightmare proportion of time taken to remedy mojs is diabolical.
I just here mention George Gwaze's case and the report of it in the preceding blog to note that even in our 'modern' times a decision is made on who is guilty then evidence found to support it whilst at all times holding comfort in the fact, as Dr Goodyear-Smith records there is a 'reluctance' by professionals to confront the integrity of forensic evidence least one becomes a pariah. And I also return to the letter written to the Coroner in the Sounds Murder (if even murder was ever proven) that there were no sighting of a ketch apart from 'only' 2 crown witnesses and also noting that it would be inadvisable that the real and 'fragile' heart of the crown case not be examined again by calling to the Coroner's court the 2 prison inmate 'secret' witnesses.
Just the language of this betrays the intent. The mention of witchcraft surrounding rituals in Charlene's death, a black man in a white city. 2 nzers sure they saw a ketch relegated to Coventry because the Crown didn't want a ketch, and the protective nature of needing to looking after 2 witnesses whose evidence might be quoted in the Coroner's Court but not cross-examined. It's a bloody sham. Audit the auditors if they actually do exist. Free police from the burden or misapprehension that the are responsible for making or ignoring evidence by insisting that they gather all relevant evidence and put aside personal feelings about potential perpetrators or about victims - whilst at all times conducting quality and recorded audits.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
George Gwaze.
The following was sent by a correspondent.
The conflicting way in which the Prosecution has sought to use evidence is alarming but for a true measure of this tragedy - note the comments of George's wife and daughter.....
Have a read of this its the upcoming Gwaze murder retrial
The ones the JRBG constantly harp on about as a parallel to the Bain trial
supporting in their twisted belief a retrial of David.
Cops are pushing a barrow uphill with this one too.
Crown looks to appeal after Gwaze verdict
by Donna Chisholm - Sunday Star Times | Sunday, 25 May 2008
PROSECUTORS IN the George Gwaze murder trial are trying to challenge
his acquittal in a rare legal move.
Christchurch prosecutor Chris Lange says he has asked the
solicitor-general to consider an appeal after the Crown failed to have
the trial aborted in its final days.
The challenge stems from a dramatic development late in the trial when
lawyers became aware of the "bombshell" comments of South African
paediatric surgeon Heinz Rode that there were similarities between
10-year-old Charlene Makaza's symptoms and those of children who died
of Aids there.
Police were told of Rode's views after a Crown witness met Rode at a
conference in Hong Kong and discussed the case. Rode told Christchurch
paediatrician Spencer Beasley that some HIV children in South Africa
died rapidly and had anal tears and diarrhoea the symptoms New Zealand
experts said were unrelated to HIV when they argued Charlene was
sexually attacked and suffocated.
The development caused a flurry of behind-the-scenes debate the week
before the end of the trial which cleared Gwaze of murder and sex
charges. Jurors deliberated less than five hours.
Lange objected to the fact Rode's evidence was to be admitted as
"hearsay" through a police statement but the judge refused to abort
the trial or delay it several weeks so Rode could be called as a
witness or prepare in-depth evidence. He said the jury had to hear the
crux of Rode's comments or Gwaze couldn't receive a fair trial.
Gwaze's lawyer, Jonathan Eaton, said the Crown's move was very unusual
but "nothing would surprise me".
Gwaze's family is considering laying a complaint with police alleging
racial discrimination during the investigation. It is also trying to
regain custody of Charlene's 13-year-old sister, Charmaine, who is
forbidden to live with her adopted parents Gwaze and his wife Sifiso
after Child Youth and Family removed her from their care during the
investigation.
Gwaze's daughter Maggie told the Sunday Star-Times the investigation
was botched. "We have never been people who play the race card but
there comes a point when you ask what the hell is going on. We believe
if we had been a different skin colour we would have been treated
differently.
"We still have people saying `he got away with it, this is a
technicality because police didn't do a good job'. People still think
Charlene was raped and murdered."
In a special Focus section investigation today, the Sunday Star-Times
examines the evidence that put the Zimbabwean vet in the dock and
speaks to the defence advisers who helped to win his acquittal.
They believe that once Christchurch doctors began to suspect a sexual
assault, they lost sight of other possible explanations.
Maggie, 27, said the family which had been upper middleclass at home
in Zimbabwe was actually worse off in New Zealand, living in a small
roughcast bungalow in the working-class Christchurch suburb of Papanui
after leaving their mansion-like home in Harare three years ago. "It
is torture," she said. "We feel so alone."
She said one policeman even asked her if it was a culture shock to
come to New Zealand to see cars and buildings.
Sifiso, who works nights as a rest-home caregiver, says she hasn't
been allowed to mourn the child she regarded as her baby daughter.
"It is bad enough to lose a child, but this ... "
Maggie said Sifiso was frightened of looking after old people now "in
case they die and she gets the blame".
Asked why the family did not get Charlene treated for HIV, Maggie said
children regularly died in Zimbabwe despite being aggressively
treated.
On a website taken down in March on the orders of the
solicitor-general, Maggie said "children die of the disease every day
in Zim and I've never heard of a big deal being made of it like they
did Charlene's death. Knowing Charlene's health status (her death)
wasn't difficult to accept".
What is the problem with the police in the South Island and especially
in Christchurch.
Another trial where the media has been misled in an attempt to
prejudice the outcome and colour public opinion before the trial.
Facts don't seem to matter, good investigation seems to be lacking and
trial by trickery and media sem to be the norm.
Bain, Ellis, Watson and now Makaza. Who knows whoever else that hasn't
come to light.
Its past time that the Law Society or the Attorney General or whoever
took a good hard look at them. - comment by correspondent
Charlene Makaza went into hospital as a victim of HIV. By the time she
died 18 hours later, doctors had decided she was a victim of murder.
Their testimony in the High Court at Christchurch over the past month
that the 10-year-old Zimbabwean girl had suffered atrocious genital
injuries and been suffocated in a sexual assault could have seen an
innocent man jailed for life.
Wednesday's acquittal of Charlene's uncle, vet George Gwaze, 56, on
murder and sex charges would have surprised many. But that is because
the public has been misinformed about Charlene's case since she died
on January 7 last year.
This is what police told the media in the days following the death:
* Charlene did not die by accident or natural causes.
* There was no evidence she was sick or ill.
* Charlene had been suffocated.
* Charlene was found in her bed having difficulty breathing.
* Her family washed her bedding and clothing after she was the victim
of a "horrific" sexual assault.
* Police had been briefed on African beliefs about sex, including the
myth that sex with a virgin could cure Aids.
By the time the Crown revealed at a depositions hearing in July that
George Gwaze's semen had been found on Charlene's underwear, the court
of public opinion had found a new hate figure.
But this is what really happened and this, in the first days after her
death, is what we were NOT told.
Charlene was indeed found in her bed at 6am having difficulty
breathing. But she was deeply unconscious and awash in her own
diarrhoea. It was like porridge, chalky, white and watery. There was
so much of it that it had plastered to her legs, the white skirt and
pink undies she had worn to bed and drenched her bedding. When her
aunt, Gwaze's wife Sifiso, changed her into new clothes before rushing
her to an emergency GP clinic, the faeces continued to pour out and
soaked those clothes as well. In the end Sifiso wrapped her in a
towel.
By the time Charlene got to a 24-hour accident and medical clinic, she
had a temperature topping 40C, a racing pulse over 180, and no
recordable blood pressure.
She had lost so much fluid from her blood because of the diarrhoea
that she was in what was known as hypovolemic shock. There wasn't
enough blood to pump to her brain, causing the oxygen deprivation that
was later attributed to suffocation.
Charlene was regularly unwell. She had 20 days off school the year before.
The evening before her collapse an elder at her church noticed she was
hot to the touch and was having difficulty with her breathing.
Charlene had contracted HIV at birth from her mother Senzeni who died
of HIV-related tuberculosis when Charlene was nearly two. Senzeni's
husband Edgar also died of Aids in 2000.
Charlene's "horrific" anal injuries amounted to a series of tiny
lateral tears and such fissures have been reported in HIV-Aids
patients.
Charlene's older sister Charmaine, 12, had chicken pox a virus that
could prove devastating to a child whose immunity was as compromised
as Charlene's.
The semen on Charlene's underwear always looked bad for George Gwaze.
When the defence raised the suggestion of innocent transfer through
the wash, it was easy to see how the first reaction could have been
"Yeah, right".
But defence counsel Jonathan Eaton's DNA adviser, Arie Geursen the
scientist whose work helped to free wrongly convicted David Dougherty
in 1996 was in no doubt, given the other facts of the case, that
innocent transfer was the most likely explanation.
The morning Charlene was found near death in her bed, Sifiso had
returned home from hospital after being told Charlene was likely to be
transferred to Auckland's Starship Children's Hospital. Sifiso rinsed
all Charlene's soiled sheets and clothes and threw them in the washing
machine. It was from here that police recovered the underwear on which
Gwaze's semen was found.
But that morning there was none of George or Sifiso's underwear, which
could have been the source of such contamination, in the same wash. So
how could semen be transferred? Sifiso's habit was to wash underwear
her own and Charlene's, in a hand basin together, or throw them in the
machine if there was a full wash.
For Geursen, the contamination theory came down to scientific facts,
and the lack of any other evidence of a sexual assault. Gwaze's DNA
was not found anywhere else on Charlene, nor Charlene's on him.
The average male produces around 130,000,000 sperm heads in each
ejaculation. A peer-reviewed international study has found that cotton
underwear retains 43% of the DNA after it's been through each wash.
"So you have to do quite a few washes to reduce DNA below the
detectability of the tests," he says. That means the contamination
could well have occurred in an earlier handwash.
The total DNA sample from Charlene's underpants was the size of about
one hundred thousandths of a single grain of sugar. Had Gwaze been
convicted, says Geursen, it would have been "a terrible travesty of
justice. It would have been science and medicine gone astray".
So how did things go so badly wrong for George Gwaze?
GP and forensic physician Felicity Goodyear-Smith, the medical adviser
for the defence, believes that once sexual abuse had been raised,
other possible explanations were never considered.
And because Charlene's care was handed over between shifts, those on
duty later lost sight of her first symptoms. "They were
well-intentioned but totally wrong. The fact that she was admitted
with sepsis and hypovolemic shock was lost in the retelling.
"Once you get a particular line of thought, like this is sexual abuse,
it colours thinking," she said. "And these were very senior people
saying it was abuse. If it IS sexual abuse that doesn't matter, but
suddenly the possibility that it might not be isn't on the table any
more so everything is focused on looking for evidence of it and this
is really what this case typifies."
Goodyear-Smith says at first, she too thought the odds were stacked
against Gwaze.
"It looked very damning, and very difficult. But when I went through
it bit by bit and produced a timeline it all fell into place and then
it became incredibly compelling that there was actually no crime. Even
though there may be strange coincidences, there are explanations for
all of it."
On her timeline, the turning point in medical opinion as to the cause
of Charlene's death came at around 1pm when a rectal probe was
inserted to take a more accurate temperature. Nurses alerted
consultants to what they thought was a "meaty open wound" in her anus,
or a rectal tear. A paediatric consultant put the size of the wound at
around 7cm while a nurse described it as "a wound you would never
forget".
Quickly, attention switched to a possible sexual assault and the
infection being caused by the anal injury. By the time Charlene took
her last breath 12 hours later, with Sifiso holding her hand and the
rest of her family looking on, police were stationed outside.
And when pathologist Martin Sage reported the results of his autopsy
the following day that Charlene had likely been suffocated and her
genital injuries were consistent with forcible penetration the
prosecution had its murder victim.
But when the jury delivered its not guilty verdicts on Wednesday
afternoon, the Gwaze case became a judicial rarity a murder trial
without a murder. There was a victim, but no crime.
There were no gaping genital wounds, either, says Goodyear-Smith. She
believes what the doctors and nurses were actually seeing was a
swollen and distended anal canal caused probably by a combination of
the severe diarrhoea, Charlene's HIV-Aids status, and the fact she was
being pumped with litres of fluids to increase her blood pressure.
"There was no 7cm laceration. There were lots of tiny fissures but
there wasn't a big tear. But that's what they thought they saw and
they went `gasp'."
Sage's autopsy report made no mention of a 7cm tear, referring only to
cracks in the anal tissue, the largest of which was 5mm. But he
thought these could not be explained by natural causes.
What the doctors were in fact looking at was a very rare HIV-related
death in an untreated child. Charlene, who arrived in Christchurch
with Sifiso and Charmaine in October 2005, had never had an HIV test.
Though tests in Zimbabwe showed her immunity was lowered and HIV was
suspected, she didn't have an Aids-defining condition that would have
triggered treatment. And because she came here on a student visa, she
didn't have an HIV test.
The family probably knew Charlene was infected, but chose to treat
problems as they occurred, pointing to Zimbabwean children dying with
Aids despite aggressive treatment.
Goodyear-Smith says she approached HIV experts and pathologists to
help but found it difficult to get experts willing to testify. "It is
very difficult because if you do come out for the defence against your
colleagues you may end up as a pariah."
Goodyear-Smith has tracked Charlene's 18 hours in hospital, almost by
the minute. Every test, every scan, every examination.
"Their attempts to save Charlene's life were heroic," she says. "They
did everything right. The only thing wrong was the diagnosis."
MEDICAL TIMELINE
JANUARY 6, 2007:
6am: Charlene found in bed, covered with diarrhoea, unconscious, no
recordable blood pressure.
6.45: Arrives at GP clinic. Meningitis or encephalitis suspected. IV
drip. Immediate transfer to Christchurch Hospital.
7.15-10am: Airway tubes and catheter inserted, antibiotics started, IV
lines introduce saline. Blood tests taken. Blood pressure rises to
130/60. X-rays and vaginal swab taken, nasogastric tube inserted.
Charlene has seizure; blood pressure drops to 65/20. Registrar records
diarrhoea. Meningococcal septicaemia or brain abscess suspected.
Charlene in deep coma, peripherally shut down. Starship hospital
consulted. X-rays show fluid on lungs. Vaginal discharge and redness.
10.30: Transfer to ICU. Results of first CT scan show encephalitis or
oxygen deprivation. Preliminary diagnosis viral or bacterial
infection.
12.30: George and Sifiso go home to pack bag and clean up. Do washing.
1pm: Nurses trying to insert rectal thermometer find what they believe
is large, open anal wound. Consultants called, digital photos taken.
Consultant surgeon called in. Doctor calls Sifiso at home, asked about
past medical history and what she found on bed and clothing.
2pm: Rectal exam with proctoscope shows no evidence of rectal
penetration. Doctors discuss whether Charlene was suffocated during
sexual assault. Starship team arrives but decision taken that Charlene
is dying and will not be transferred.
2.45: Tests taken in morning find HIV-positive. Social worker told to
notify CYF and police.
3pm-4.15: Sex abuse doctor called in. Hospital staff advise Gwazes of
anal injury.
6-8pm: Gwazes told Charlene is brain dead. Sex-abuse doctor calls
pathologist. Police liaise with pathologist.
8-9pm: Another rectal exam with proctoscope reveals anal canal
bruising, no evidence of perforation but pinprick haemorrhaging.
Haemorrhage on hymen.
10-11pm: Third proctoscopy; swabs taken. Two police officers in ICU.
Doctors show Sifiso injury to rectum. Family told Charlene is dying.
JANUARY 7
1.05am: Charlene certified dead.
10am-3.30: Autopsy carried out.
JANUARY 8
6-7pm: News and radio reports quote police saying pathologist has
reported Charlene was suffocated
The conflicting way in which the Prosecution has sought to use evidence is alarming but for a true measure of this tragedy - note the comments of George's wife and daughter.....
Have a read of this its the upcoming Gwaze murder retrial
The ones the JRBG constantly harp on about as a parallel to the Bain trial
supporting in their twisted belief a retrial of David.
Cops are pushing a barrow uphill with this one too.
Crown looks to appeal after Gwaze verdict
by Donna Chisholm - Sunday Star Times | Sunday, 25 May 2008
PROSECUTORS IN the George Gwaze murder trial are trying to challenge
his acquittal in a rare legal move.
Christchurch prosecutor Chris Lange says he has asked the
solicitor-general to consider an appeal after the Crown failed to have
the trial aborted in its final days.
The challenge stems from a dramatic development late in the trial when
lawyers became aware of the "bombshell" comments of South African
paediatric surgeon Heinz Rode that there were similarities between
10-year-old Charlene Makaza's symptoms and those of children who died
of Aids there.
Police were told of Rode's views after a Crown witness met Rode at a
conference in Hong Kong and discussed the case. Rode told Christchurch
paediatrician Spencer Beasley that some HIV children in South Africa
died rapidly and had anal tears and diarrhoea the symptoms New Zealand
experts said were unrelated to HIV when they argued Charlene was
sexually attacked and suffocated.
The development caused a flurry of behind-the-scenes debate the week
before the end of the trial which cleared Gwaze of murder and sex
charges. Jurors deliberated less than five hours.
Lange objected to the fact Rode's evidence was to be admitted as
"hearsay" through a police statement but the judge refused to abort
the trial or delay it several weeks so Rode could be called as a
witness or prepare in-depth evidence. He said the jury had to hear the
crux of Rode's comments or Gwaze couldn't receive a fair trial.
Gwaze's lawyer, Jonathan Eaton, said the Crown's move was very unusual
but "nothing would surprise me".
Gwaze's family is considering laying a complaint with police alleging
racial discrimination during the investigation. It is also trying to
regain custody of Charlene's 13-year-old sister, Charmaine, who is
forbidden to live with her adopted parents Gwaze and his wife Sifiso
after Child Youth and Family removed her from their care during the
investigation.
Gwaze's daughter Maggie told the Sunday Star-Times the investigation
was botched. "We have never been people who play the race card but
there comes a point when you ask what the hell is going on. We believe
if we had been a different skin colour we would have been treated
differently.
"We still have people saying `he got away with it, this is a
technicality because police didn't do a good job'. People still think
Charlene was raped and murdered."
In a special Focus section investigation today, the Sunday Star-Times
examines the evidence that put the Zimbabwean vet in the dock and
speaks to the defence advisers who helped to win his acquittal.
They believe that once Christchurch doctors began to suspect a sexual
assault, they lost sight of other possible explanations.
Maggie, 27, said the family which had been upper middleclass at home
in Zimbabwe was actually worse off in New Zealand, living in a small
roughcast bungalow in the working-class Christchurch suburb of Papanui
after leaving their mansion-like home in Harare three years ago. "It
is torture," she said. "We feel so alone."
She said one policeman even asked her if it was a culture shock to
come to New Zealand to see cars and buildings.
Sifiso, who works nights as a rest-home caregiver, says she hasn't
been allowed to mourn the child she regarded as her baby daughter.
"It is bad enough to lose a child, but this ... "
Maggie said Sifiso was frightened of looking after old people now "in
case they die and she gets the blame".
Asked why the family did not get Charlene treated for HIV, Maggie said
children regularly died in Zimbabwe despite being aggressively
treated.
On a website taken down in March on the orders of the
solicitor-general, Maggie said "children die of the disease every day
in Zim and I've never heard of a big deal being made of it like they
did Charlene's death. Knowing Charlene's health status (her death)
wasn't difficult to accept".
What is the problem with the police in the South Island and especially
in Christchurch.
Another trial where the media has been misled in an attempt to
prejudice the outcome and colour public opinion before the trial.
Facts don't seem to matter, good investigation seems to be lacking and
trial by trickery and media sem to be the norm.
Bain, Ellis, Watson and now Makaza. Who knows whoever else that hasn't
come to light.
Its past time that the Law Society or the Attorney General or whoever
took a good hard look at them. - comment by correspondent
Charlene Makaza went into hospital as a victim of HIV. By the time she
died 18 hours later, doctors had decided she was a victim of murder.
Their testimony in the High Court at Christchurch over the past month
that the 10-year-old Zimbabwean girl had suffered atrocious genital
injuries and been suffocated in a sexual assault could have seen an
innocent man jailed for life.
Wednesday's acquittal of Charlene's uncle, vet George Gwaze, 56, on
murder and sex charges would have surprised many. But that is because
the public has been misinformed about Charlene's case since she died
on January 7 last year.
This is what police told the media in the days following the death:
* Charlene did not die by accident or natural causes.
* There was no evidence she was sick or ill.
* Charlene had been suffocated.
* Charlene was found in her bed having difficulty breathing.
* Her family washed her bedding and clothing after she was the victim
of a "horrific" sexual assault.
* Police had been briefed on African beliefs about sex, including the
myth that sex with a virgin could cure Aids.
By the time the Crown revealed at a depositions hearing in July that
George Gwaze's semen had been found on Charlene's underwear, the court
of public opinion had found a new hate figure.
But this is what really happened and this, in the first days after her
death, is what we were NOT told.
Charlene was indeed found in her bed at 6am having difficulty
breathing. But she was deeply unconscious and awash in her own
diarrhoea. It was like porridge, chalky, white and watery. There was
so much of it that it had plastered to her legs, the white skirt and
pink undies she had worn to bed and drenched her bedding. When her
aunt, Gwaze's wife Sifiso, changed her into new clothes before rushing
her to an emergency GP clinic, the faeces continued to pour out and
soaked those clothes as well. In the end Sifiso wrapped her in a
towel.
By the time Charlene got to a 24-hour accident and medical clinic, she
had a temperature topping 40C, a racing pulse over 180, and no
recordable blood pressure.
She had lost so much fluid from her blood because of the diarrhoea
that she was in what was known as hypovolemic shock. There wasn't
enough blood to pump to her brain, causing the oxygen deprivation that
was later attributed to suffocation.
Charlene was regularly unwell. She had 20 days off school the year before.
The evening before her collapse an elder at her church noticed she was
hot to the touch and was having difficulty with her breathing.
Charlene had contracted HIV at birth from her mother Senzeni who died
of HIV-related tuberculosis when Charlene was nearly two. Senzeni's
husband Edgar also died of Aids in 2000.
Charlene's "horrific" anal injuries amounted to a series of tiny
lateral tears and such fissures have been reported in HIV-Aids
patients.
Charlene's older sister Charmaine, 12, had chicken pox a virus that
could prove devastating to a child whose immunity was as compromised
as Charlene's.
The semen on Charlene's underwear always looked bad for George Gwaze.
When the defence raised the suggestion of innocent transfer through
the wash, it was easy to see how the first reaction could have been
"Yeah, right".
But defence counsel Jonathan Eaton's DNA adviser, Arie Geursen the
scientist whose work helped to free wrongly convicted David Dougherty
in 1996 was in no doubt, given the other facts of the case, that
innocent transfer was the most likely explanation.
The morning Charlene was found near death in her bed, Sifiso had
returned home from hospital after being told Charlene was likely to be
transferred to Auckland's Starship Children's Hospital. Sifiso rinsed
all Charlene's soiled sheets and clothes and threw them in the washing
machine. It was from here that police recovered the underwear on which
Gwaze's semen was found.
But that morning there was none of George or Sifiso's underwear, which
could have been the source of such contamination, in the same wash. So
how could semen be transferred? Sifiso's habit was to wash underwear
her own and Charlene's, in a hand basin together, or throw them in the
machine if there was a full wash.
For Geursen, the contamination theory came down to scientific facts,
and the lack of any other evidence of a sexual assault. Gwaze's DNA
was not found anywhere else on Charlene, nor Charlene's on him.
The average male produces around 130,000,000 sperm heads in each
ejaculation. A peer-reviewed international study has found that cotton
underwear retains 43% of the DNA after it's been through each wash.
"So you have to do quite a few washes to reduce DNA below the
detectability of the tests," he says. That means the contamination
could well have occurred in an earlier handwash.
The total DNA sample from Charlene's underpants was the size of about
one hundred thousandths of a single grain of sugar. Had Gwaze been
convicted, says Geursen, it would have been "a terrible travesty of
justice. It would have been science and medicine gone astray".
So how did things go so badly wrong for George Gwaze?
GP and forensic physician Felicity Goodyear-Smith, the medical adviser
for the defence, believes that once sexual abuse had been raised,
other possible explanations were never considered.
And because Charlene's care was handed over between shifts, those on
duty later lost sight of her first symptoms. "They were
well-intentioned but totally wrong. The fact that she was admitted
with sepsis and hypovolemic shock was lost in the retelling.
"Once you get a particular line of thought, like this is sexual abuse,
it colours thinking," she said. "And these were very senior people
saying it was abuse. If it IS sexual abuse that doesn't matter, but
suddenly the possibility that it might not be isn't on the table any
more so everything is focused on looking for evidence of it and this
is really what this case typifies."
Goodyear-Smith says at first, she too thought the odds were stacked
against Gwaze.
"It looked very damning, and very difficult. But when I went through
it bit by bit and produced a timeline it all fell into place and then
it became incredibly compelling that there was actually no crime. Even
though there may be strange coincidences, there are explanations for
all of it."
On her timeline, the turning point in medical opinion as to the cause
of Charlene's death came at around 1pm when a rectal probe was
inserted to take a more accurate temperature. Nurses alerted
consultants to what they thought was a "meaty open wound" in her anus,
or a rectal tear. A paediatric consultant put the size of the wound at
around 7cm while a nurse described it as "a wound you would never
forget".
Quickly, attention switched to a possible sexual assault and the
infection being caused by the anal injury. By the time Charlene took
her last breath 12 hours later, with Sifiso holding her hand and the
rest of her family looking on, police were stationed outside.
And when pathologist Martin Sage reported the results of his autopsy
the following day that Charlene had likely been suffocated and her
genital injuries were consistent with forcible penetration the
prosecution had its murder victim.
But when the jury delivered its not guilty verdicts on Wednesday
afternoon, the Gwaze case became a judicial rarity a murder trial
without a murder. There was a victim, but no crime.
There were no gaping genital wounds, either, says Goodyear-Smith. She
believes what the doctors and nurses were actually seeing was a
swollen and distended anal canal caused probably by a combination of
the severe diarrhoea, Charlene's HIV-Aids status, and the fact she was
being pumped with litres of fluids to increase her blood pressure.
"There was no 7cm laceration. There were lots of tiny fissures but
there wasn't a big tear. But that's what they thought they saw and
they went `gasp'."
Sage's autopsy report made no mention of a 7cm tear, referring only to
cracks in the anal tissue, the largest of which was 5mm. But he
thought these could not be explained by natural causes.
What the doctors were in fact looking at was a very rare HIV-related
death in an untreated child. Charlene, who arrived in Christchurch
with Sifiso and Charmaine in October 2005, had never had an HIV test.
Though tests in Zimbabwe showed her immunity was lowered and HIV was
suspected, she didn't have an Aids-defining condition that would have
triggered treatment. And because she came here on a student visa, she
didn't have an HIV test.
The family probably knew Charlene was infected, but chose to treat
problems as they occurred, pointing to Zimbabwean children dying with
Aids despite aggressive treatment.
Goodyear-Smith says she approached HIV experts and pathologists to
help but found it difficult to get experts willing to testify. "It is
very difficult because if you do come out for the defence against your
colleagues you may end up as a pariah."
Goodyear-Smith has tracked Charlene's 18 hours in hospital, almost by
the minute. Every test, every scan, every examination.
"Their attempts to save Charlene's life were heroic," she says. "They
did everything right. The only thing wrong was the diagnosis."
MEDICAL TIMELINE
JANUARY 6, 2007:
6am: Charlene found in bed, covered with diarrhoea, unconscious, no
recordable blood pressure.
6.45: Arrives at GP clinic. Meningitis or encephalitis suspected. IV
drip. Immediate transfer to Christchurch Hospital.
7.15-10am: Airway tubes and catheter inserted, antibiotics started, IV
lines introduce saline. Blood tests taken. Blood pressure rises to
130/60. X-rays and vaginal swab taken, nasogastric tube inserted.
Charlene has seizure; blood pressure drops to 65/20. Registrar records
diarrhoea. Meningococcal septicaemia or brain abscess suspected.
Charlene in deep coma, peripherally shut down. Starship hospital
consulted. X-rays show fluid on lungs. Vaginal discharge and redness.
10.30: Transfer to ICU. Results of first CT scan show encephalitis or
oxygen deprivation. Preliminary diagnosis viral or bacterial
infection.
12.30: George and Sifiso go home to pack bag and clean up. Do washing.
1pm: Nurses trying to insert rectal thermometer find what they believe
is large, open anal wound. Consultants called, digital photos taken.
Consultant surgeon called in. Doctor calls Sifiso at home, asked about
past medical history and what she found on bed and clothing.
2pm: Rectal exam with proctoscope shows no evidence of rectal
penetration. Doctors discuss whether Charlene was suffocated during
sexual assault. Starship team arrives but decision taken that Charlene
is dying and will not be transferred.
2.45: Tests taken in morning find HIV-positive. Social worker told to
notify CYF and police.
3pm-4.15: Sex abuse doctor called in. Hospital staff advise Gwazes of
anal injury.
6-8pm: Gwazes told Charlene is brain dead. Sex-abuse doctor calls
pathologist. Police liaise with pathologist.
8-9pm: Another rectal exam with proctoscope reveals anal canal
bruising, no evidence of perforation but pinprick haemorrhaging.
Haemorrhage on hymen.
10-11pm: Third proctoscopy; swabs taken. Two police officers in ICU.
Doctors show Sifiso injury to rectum. Family told Charlene is dying.
JANUARY 7
1.05am: Charlene certified dead.
10am-3.30: Autopsy carried out.
JANUARY 8
6-7pm: News and radio reports quote police saying pathologist has
reported Charlene was suffocated
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)