The Press
May 21 2008; 05:00
‘No assault' on Charlene
by Dean Calcott
A jury must ask
whether George Evans Gwaze sexually violated and killed his adopted daughter, as
the Crown contends, or whether he is an innocent man incapable of such acts, as
the defence argues.
Justice Chisholm
will sum up for the jury this morning, in the fourth week of the case.
Gwaze is charged
with the sexual violation and murder of his adopted daughter, Charlene Makaza,
10.
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.