The Press
May 21 2008

Charlene Makaza murder trial jury retires

Photo by Peter Meecham, The Press

THE ACCUSED: George Gwaze.

Charlene Makaza: Adopted daughter.

The jury considering whether George Evans Gwaze sexually violated and murdered his adopted daughter retired shortly after 11am today.

After four weeks of evidence the jury has been asked to decide whether Gwaze killed Charlene Makaza, 10, as the Crown contends, or whether he is an innocent man incapable of such acts, as the defence argues.

Justice Chisholm summed up for the jury this morning, in the fourth week of the case.

Summing up for the Crown yesterday, prosecutor Chris Lange asked the jury to put aside any feelings of sympathy or prejudice, and approach its task dispassionately.

The Crown would say the family had tried to portray Charlene as a sick child, but the jury might think the medical evidence was different, Lange said.

Asking them to apply common sense, Lange said the central issues were whether there was any sexual assault, was it by the accused, and what had caused death.

Charlene suffered anal and sexual injuries which a series of medical witnesses said were probably caused by force.

One forensic pathologist had said they were characteristic of sexual assault, and another that they were consistent with forcible anal penetration.

"It clearly indicates a sexual assault occurred in this case," Lange said.

Examination of Charlene's underwear found in a washing machine showed Gwaze's DNA in the crotch area. A scientist gave evidence it was unlikely to have been deposited during laundering and was consistent with sexual activity.

There was no evidence supporting an intruder in the house.

Doctors thought death most likely resulted from the stopping of air supply to the lungs, in other words asphyxia or suffocation, Lange said.

Comments by a South African professor, Heinz Rode, that Charlene's symptoms were consistent with a group of children with HIV who had died suddenly was evidence in a form the jury could not consider reliable, Lange said.

Summing up for the defence, lawyer Jonathan Eaton said on the contrary, Rode's comments had "dropped a bombshell," showing similar factors between Charlene's death and those of children with HIV in South Africa.

The case was complex, the DNA evidence was seriously flawed, and if the jury accepted that, the case ended there.

The risk of cross-contamination from jumbling of clothing was clearly established.

"She died from natural causes. She did not die from suffocation and was not seriously assaulted by anybody."

The DNA evidence was taken from a minuscule sample in a piece cut from the underwear in a questionable way. A scientist could not say if the sample was taken from the inside or the outside of the underwear, leaving it for the jury to guess.

Eaton asked how a man described as intelligent and loving, who loved Charlene as his own child, could have committed the acts while she was lying at arm's length from another person sleeping in the same room.

The jury had seen about five hours of police video interviews with Gwaze. He appeared the opposite of an evil, callous and manipulative man.

"How could it be possible a man like George Gwaze acted as the Crown says?"

The suffocation theory did not come about until the injury was found.

It could have occurred from medical handling, effects of diarrhoea, and perhaps existing fissures, possibly connected to Charlene's HIV condition, Eaton said.