Gwaze verdict II

Mr Gwaze is probably the most relieved person in the country today.  He has had the most terribly dark cloud hanging over him for many years.  He could have been a vicious monster - looking at a 15+ years minimum prison sentence, or - as the jury have found - a victim himself, of unwarranted police and medical suspicion. Given Gwaze is a black Zimbabwean living in a white city like Christchurch claims of racism have been inevitable. NZ Herald:
George Gwaze has been acquitted on charges he sexually violated and murdered his 10-year-old niece for the second time.
After a four-week retrial, a jury of seven men and five women took almost 15 hours to reach their verdict at the High Court in Christchurch today.

This is an extraordinary case for many reasons. Firstly the Supreme Court set a precedent in overturning a not guilty verdict by a jury and ordering a retrial. This was done on the basis that some of the HIV evidence given by a doctor was misleading/wrong (if I recall correctly). If it was a substantial error to allow this evidence as it was put then I don't have a problem with a deviation from the double jeopardy rule as the Supreme Cout would not have done this without serious concerns with the first trial.

Secondly is the circumstances of the alleged offending - having taken place in the family home with his daughter being in the bed next to the girl (the alleged victim).  Maybe that isn't so strange - as sexual offending within households is more prevalent than "stranger" attacks - but where was he and when? I do wonder what the sequence of events was supposed to be from the prosecution position. Maybe this is where the jury also had elements of doubt in comparing the two versions of the story? Gwaze chose not to take the stand so we don't know his side of the story beyond what his lawyers have intimated.

Thirdly is the strange and tragic circumstances of the girl's HIV/AIDS infection.  It is presumed that the girl has had HIV since birth and yet no-one in the household knew of it?  Given the high rates of HIV/AIDS in Zimbabwe and Gwaze's own medical (albeit veterinary) experience and knowledge I find this difficult to understand. I take it that consistent with the Immigration Service's atrocious inability and unwillingness to bother about checking anything, that the Immigration authorities did not know and did not want to know whether this girl, and indeed anyone coming from Zimbabwe, had HIV or not.  The other question is does Mr Gwaze have HIV or not? I guess that was batted away as a breach of privacy and as not holding enough probative value, but I see how it could be relevant if different strains could be identified (but I don't know how scientific that is).

While I'm glad a jury - again - has decided there isn't enough evidence to go along with the Crown assertion he is a peadophile rapist killer that has more to do with me not wanting to believe a family man in his own house could do such an unforgiveable and unthinkable act rather than purely from what the evidence indicates. [UPDATE: After hearing a bit more about the trial (second one) and the nature of the conflicting medical evidence I realise I'm not in a position to make a call on that evidence and I should just STFU and trust the 11 jurors who reached their conclusion. The facts they determined seems to be the NZ medics had no clue as to how HIV/AIDS presents and could not be dissuaded from their initial speculation. My co-blogger, Mr Bradbury, has been well vindicated for his Alabama/banjo critique of this case in terms of how the Christchurch Police operate and their perverse prosecutions and the reliance on dodgy DNA testimony from the government scientists. I think since the AIDS scare of the mid 1980s and the success of retro-viral medicines in the 90s the virus has been destigmatised to the extent that people in NZ have forgotten how deadly it is when not treated. The effects of the disease in this case sounds something akin to the Black Death. The poor girl was a bit ill - but not sick enough for anyone to consider she needed to go to the hospital or see a doctor - and then 18 hours later she's dead of a massive haemorrhagic episode so horrific the only explanation they could come up with is that she was the victim of a vicious sex attack.  That's full-blown, final stage AIDS for you. Is this disease not the most horrendous malignancy ever? How many other non-diagnosed HIV/AIDS infected people are there in this country who may be in similar danger? From this case the infected person may have as little as only one day between presentation of symptoms and death - that is terrifying.]  The whole case has been unsettling: layers of uneasiness upon layers of doubt upon layers of suspicion and then wrapped in prejudice.