The jury in the retrial of the Christchurch man accused of the rape and murder of his 10-year-old niece has failed to reach a verdict today.|
They were sent home for the weekend and told to come back on Monday.|
Justice Christine French this morning summed up the case on the 20th day of the retrial of George Gwaze, a 60-year-old Zimbabwean vet accused of killing Charlene Makaza in January 2007.|
Justice French accepted the jury of seven men and five women in the High Court at Christchurch had heard and seen some ``very distressing evidence'' over the last four weeks.|
She urged them to consider the evidence dispassionately and to reach a ``calm'' decision.|
But after almost six hours of deliberations, the jury of five women and seven men asked to retire for the weekend. |
They were sent home at 5pm by Justice French to resume their considerations at 9.30am on Monday.|
Not even the 5.2 magnitude earthquake that rocked Christchurch this afternoon stopped the jury from deliberating.|
Gwaze denies one count of murder and two charges of sexual violation of HIV positive Charlene.|
The Crown alleges that Charlene, who had HIV, was sexually attacked and suffocated by her uncle.|
But the defence claimed she had HIV which she had carried since birth, and that was what killed her.|
Justice French told the jury that both sides were critical of each other's expert medical witnesses, with the Crown arguing that hospital experts had the distinct advantage of being on the spot when a dying Charlene was brought to them.|
She reminded them of Crown prosecutor Brent Stanaway's point in his closing address that all six expert Crown witnesses said Charlene's injuries were caused by blunt force trauma. Even the defence witnesses could not exclude that possibility, he said.|
Mr Stanaway told the jury that Charlene was sexually assaulted by Gwaze and during the attack he stopped her breathing and she died of asphyxiation.|
He added that although Gwaze was an urbane and intelligent man, and the crime appeared to lack motive, the Crown did not have to prove why he did it, only that he did.|
But the defence said their witnesses were independent of emotion, came to the case with fresh eyes, and were the only ones with ``true experience'' in HIV cases.|
Justice French said the jury could take inference from the evidence,as long as they were reasonable and logical.|
Gwaze's lawyer Mr Eaton earlier told the jury in his closing argument that Mr Gwaze was a kind and loving family man and that no crime had been committed.|
He said it was utterly inconceivable his client would commit the ``vicious, violent and heinous assault''.|
The Crown case was so ``bizarre, illogical, and inexplicable'', he said, that there had to be another explanation _ and that was HIV.|
Mr Eaton suggested the Crown and its experts had ``closed their minds'' and were not interested in exploring alternatives for Charlene's injuries.|
Justice French concluded by asking the jury whether the Crown has proved guilt, or whether they had been left with reasonable doubt.
