After Charlene died, immediate family members were taken to the police station for further interviewing. George Junior was already there, still undergoing questioning. George and George Junior, Sifiso, Nothando and Tafadzwa underwent medical examinations.1 Samples were taken for DNA testing.2 Finally at about 5 am on Sunday 7 January 2007, the family were told they were free to go. However, most of their vehicles had been impounded by the police for forensic investigations.3 Furthermore they were not allowed to go back to their family home because it was now a crime scene. They were overwhelmed with grief and shock, they were exhausted and they were very hungry. Some of them had not eaten since going to bed on Friday night.
The family all crowded into Lilian and Irvine Kombora’s small house. They were crying and sharing their experiences of what had happened to them and their police interviews. They had only the clothes they were wearing, except for Sifiso, who had the small bag she had packed to accompany Charlene to Starship. Someone went off to The Warehouse to buy toothbrushes, towels and other necessities. Over the next few days friends of the family came to the rescue with the loan of clothes.
Maggie flew down from Auckland to be with her family. At 10 am the police liaison officer arrived with people from Victim Support. The family had to insist that they did not want counselling from these people but would get support from their family, friends and members of their church congregation. The house was soon crammed with family and supporters, singing and praying, in line with their traditions when someone has died. Musa told Charmaine her sister had died and brought her round to the home.
George and one of Lilian and Irvine’s boys slept in one room; Sifiso and Nothando together in a bed in another room, with Maggie on the floor; the other young boy in Lilian and Irvine’s bedroom; and George Junior and Tafadzwa in the living room. Because there was no room, Charmaine went back to sleep at Musa’s house.
They were not able to grieve in private. Even before Charlene died the doctors at the hospital and the police had decided that Charlene had been raped and murdered. This immediately became national news. DI Johnston issued the first press release on Sunday afternoon, the day that Charlene died. The press release described it as a homicide. It reported that ‘Early indications from the post mortem indicate that [Charlene] died from suspected suffocation. A scene examination is currently under way and all the family members are being spoken to.’4 There were over 40 police working on the case.5 The police concluded from what they had been told by the medical professionals that Charlene had been raped and murdered. Their key focus thus became not whether a crime had been committed, but who had committed it. According to Johannsen, ‘everyone in the house was a suspect’.6 The family were always the prime suspects; however, the police wanted to be sure this was not the work of an intruder.
The police investigation was exceedingly thorough but it focused on evidence to identify the offender and find evidence that corroborated the offences. The police uplifted the rubbish bag containing the soiled blue towel, bed sheet, paper towels, disposable cloths and latex gloves from the 24 Hour Surgery. These items underwent extensive forensic testing. However, they were looking for DNA or sperm from the offender. These items were soaked with diarrhoea and were thrown away before Charlene received antibiotics. They were ideal to test for a bug that may have caused her infection; but looking for a possible source of her sepsis was not part of the police’s brief, so this opportunity was lost.
The Canterbury District Health Board Record of Death completed by Dr Downward recounted that Charlene had presented in ED with an increased temperature, a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 3, and rectal bleeding. There was no mention of diarrhoea nor of her positive HIV test.7 It noted that ‘a large anal tear was found on examination’, that Charlene had been intubated and ventilated but had very poor blood profusion and needed medication to maintain her blood pressure, and that she had continued to deteriorate despite maximal therapy. The record reported that it was ‘unknown’ whether the death was the result of an injury; there was doubt as to whether the ‘the death was a consequence of natural processes or disease’; the police had been notified; and the case was referred to the coroner.
Canterbury pathologist Martin Sage was rung by Johnston at 7.30 on the morning of Charlene’s death and asked to perform the autopsy.8 Sage read the clinical notes from the hospital admission and met with Doocey and Meates-Dennis for a pre-autopsy briefing. He started the post-mortem examination at 10 am, a little under nine hours after her death. Johnston, Johannsen, several other police officers, the police photographer, Doocey and Meates-Dennis and Environmental Science and Research (ESR) forensic scientists were present for some or all of the autopsy.
Sage noted some fine pinpoint blood spots on the skin (haemorrhages) around the eyes and cheeks and inside the lower lids of both eyes. There were some bruises on her forearms and signs of bleeding from punctures to her skin related to taking blood and putting in the drip lines. There were no other signs of injury on her head, face, throat, back, buttocks, thighs, knees or ankles.
Sage described ‘multiple fresh tears to the skin of the anal sphincter with a radial pattern typical of overstretch effect caused by penetration of the anus by an oversize object’. He claimed that there were fine haemorrhages in the lining of the anal canal and lower rectum to a level of 7.5 cm, after which ‘there was abrupt transition to entirely normal looking lining’. He noted small grazes (abrasions) to the skin between her vagina and the anus (the perineum), some focal bruising at the top of the inner vaginal lips and a ‘fresh tear’ of the hymen at the ‘9 o’clock position’. No other significant injuries were noted.
There was a localised pneumonia in the right upper and middle lung and the lungs were congested. There was widespread diffuse damage to the air sacs in the lungs (alveolae), which can be due to shock or infection. There was also a pre-existing disease called lymphocytic interstitial pneumonitis (LIP). Culture of samples and examination of stained lung sections through the microscope found no evidence of bacteria, fungi (including Pneumocystis) or tuberculosis.
The large bowel contained watery clear fluid only. There was no formed stool. Otherwise it was described as normal. Fluid from the bowel grew Candida albicans but no bacteria, and there was no evidence of any parasites or worms. The anal and rectal region showed minor chronic inflammation (meaning it had been there for some weeks or months), which Sage attributed to either minor inflammation of the mucous membrane (mucositis) due to HIV or the result of ‘previous anal penetration’.
Apart from the damage caused by hypoxia, no abnormalities were seen in the brain, either with the naked eye or under the microscope. Tests were negative for herpes group viruses, cytomegalovirus and toxoplasma, and the cerebrospinal fluid did not grow any bacteria. Blood cultures and the test for the bacterium that causes meningococcal disease were also negative.
Possible signs of HIV disease noted were an increased number and size of lymph nodes, especially in Charlene’s neck and armpits. Under the microscope the presence of LIP in the lungs was confirmed. LIP is a rare lung condition that occurs in patients with immune deficiency; in this case the cause would have been HIV. The brain showed possible evidence of early HIV brain damage (encephalopathy). However, Sage believed that being HIV positive was not the cause of Charlene’s collapse.
The following morning Sage attended an informal meeting with Doocey, Johnston and Detective Morgan to discuss his findings. He re-examined the body, as is standard practice, to make sure that all his findings were recorded accurately. He was also looking for changes to the body, especially the development of any bruising.
Sage was of the opinion that the ‘ano-genital injuries’ could not have been caused ‘by any natural condition or unreported accidental injury’, and were highly consistent with ‘forcible anal penetration either by a phallus or any similar smooth-surfaced inanimate object’ which would have caused ‘intense pain and probably significant bleeding’. The injury to the hymen and bruise to the vaginal lips was more likely to have been caused by attempted or successful vaginal penetration ‘with a smaller calibre item such as a finger or fingers’. These injuries ‘indicated assault with either sexual or punitive overtones’ but could not have been the direct cause of her death. While there was no direct evidence of suffocation (such as compression bruises), he thought that this was a possible cause of her collapse; and sepsis occurring in conjunction with the severe ano-genital injury was ‘an improbable coincidence’.
The police investigation continued. On the Sunday Charlene died, forensic investigators checked the locks and looked for fingerprints to see whether anyone had broken into the home. By Monday 8 January it was determined that the homicide was not caused by an intruder. Johnston reported to the media that ‘after an extensive scene examination, there is no evidence that someone broke in’. He said that the police had interviewed four adults and a child who had been in the house on the Friday night (clearly these were Sifiso, George, Nothando, George Junior and Charmaine). He denied that the family were stonewalling the investigation. ‘She’s been suffocated by another person; that’s what the pathologist has reported back to us.’9
The police returned to the Kombora household to continue their questioning of the family. Sifiso says she was told that if she did not tell the truth about what had happened she could lose Charmaine and her grandsons through Child, Youth and Family Services (CYFS). By Wednesday 10 January it was reported by the media that the police thought the family were blocking the enquiry: ‘Christchurch police are waiting for someone from the family of a dead girl to tell them what happened to her.’
Between these two press releases, on Tuesday 9 January, Johannsen had again interviewed George. Johannsen asked about their living situation in Harare, his education and his family life, including his sex life with his wife. He then said he understood that in Zimbabwe anal intercourse is common. This George adamantly denied, saying that it is taboo.
Johannsen then claimed that ‘AIDS is prevalent in up to 80% of the adult population’ in Africa and that young virgins are prized because having anal sex with them ‘would drive the AIDS away’ but ‘still leave them untouched shall we say vaginally’. George retorted that this is certainly not the case in Zimbabwe. After two hours the interview was terminated because a request had come through from the family that George should be able to seek legal advice.10
A similar line of questioning was used with George Junior; and he answered in a similar way to his father. George Junior subsequently confirmed in testimony that the police had asked him whether men in Zimbabwe have sex with virgins to try and get rid of HIV/AIDS. He thought this was a very racist comment to make.11
Neither George nor George Junior had HIV disease, so the suggestion that a possible motive for raping Charlene was to rid themselves of the infection was completely illogical. The point seemed to be lost that this case was the reverse: adult males without HIV were being accused of sexually assaulting a young girl who was positive for the virus, which would mean putting themselves at grave risk of getting infected. George Junior told the police that neither he nor other family members had HIV: ‘when we came here we got tested, you know, we just got our residency and they test for all those things now’.12 However, while all the adults were tested, Charmaine and Charlene would not have been. They entered New Zealand on student visas, and furthermore, HIV tests were not required for immigrants under the age of 15.13
This line of questioning made its way into the media. On 21 January it was reported that the police ‘have been briefed on African beliefs about sex, including the myth that sex with a virgin can cure Aids, as part of the Christchurch investigation into a Zimbabwean girl’s death’.14
The police focused particularly on Nothando. Because she was in the bedroom the night of Charlene’s collapse, the police believed that she must have been witness to the assault: she must be protecting either her brother George or her father. She says:
I was always regarded as the key to the investigation by the police as they believed I had seen or heard something and as a result they put a lot of pressure on me. At one time they told me if I confessed they would find me a flat so that I could live away from my family. I had two detectives interview me, one of them told me he was a Christian and that if anyone had done anything to Charlene it was right for me to confess. He took out photos of black children and he showed me, he said they were kids from South Africa whom he had helped who had been sexually abused and so I needed to confess what happened to Charlene. They called me a ‘great kid’ as they were adamant that I knew something had happened and I would eventually tell them. Each time I told them if I knew that anything had happened I would not hide it, I would tell them. Sifiso was told that if ever I was to have children then they would take those children away from me to keep them away from the family.
Detective Barry Tinkler interviewed Nothando on 9 January. He says, ‘as far as I was concerned she was the key to this entire enquiry and that if she simply told us who was responsible the matter could be sorted sooner rather than later’.15
The job sheet from Detective G. Shaw on 16 January confirms the pressure placed on Nothando to confess.16 Shaw told her that he shared her Christian faith. He quoted scripture and said that ‘God hates the empty noise of worship when it is not accompanied by obedience in the form of protecting the vulnerable and seeking justice for the oppressed.’ In this case, the vulnerable victim was her cousin, and ‘God’s heart breaks on account of her murder and rape and seeks justice for Nyasha.’ Shaw told Nothando that the police found it difficult to understand how she could have been in the bedroom and not be aware of what was happening. Nothando said many times that she would tell the police if she knew anything, and she did not believe that anything had happened at all. She was clearly not believed. Shaw quoted the Old Testament Book of Joshua and said that she had to choose between her family and God: ‘she must choose God and tell the truth’. He told her that she ‘could not lead worship in her church again in the knowledge that she knew something relevant to Nyasha’s murder but did not tell the police’.
The family felt intimidated by the interviews. They thought they were being followed whenever they ventured out, which they found disturbing. However, Maggie, because she was not under suspicion, was free to move around Christchurch. She went in search of a family lawyer – which was not easy, as most lawyers take their summer holidays in January. With persistence, early in the week she made contact with family law specialist Susan Lewis. Lewis was alarmed at what was happening to the family and agreed to represent them. She advised them that they should no longer speak to the police without a lawyer present.
Detective Sergeant Cottam rang Lewis on 10 January to tell her that all four family members should have their own lawyers. He said that it was a conflict of interest for her to act for them all.17 Lewis insisted that she was acting for the family and, given that the matter had been referred to the coroner, it was completely acceptable for her to represent them. Because of the circumstances in which the family found themselves, it would have been extremely difficult for them to have found and paid for separate lawyers to represent each of them individually.
The police spent four days investigating the Gwaze home. They conducted ‘a fine tooth examination of the premises’. Between 200 and 300 exhibits were seized.18 These included the contents of the washing machine, other clothing and various containers in the bedrooms, such as hair products. Squares of cloth were cut from the mattress on Charlene’s bed and sent for forensic testing. However, for some reason the electric blanket, which had been between the sheet and the mattress and had undergone only light sponging, not washing, did not form part of the investigation. This was despite the fact that, when George had tried to bring it off the line the evening of her death when it started to rain, the police had prevented him from doing so: they had pegged a tarpaulin over it to stop it getting wet.
The police executed a search warrant of the Kombora home on 8 January. They were looking for clothing worn by George and George Junior, Sifiso and Nothando on 6 January (the day Charlene was taken ill), as well as collecting DNA samples and fingerprints.19 Before the search they had to ‘remove the occupants’, so they took George, Lilian, Tafadzwa, Nothando and Maggie to the Christchurch Central Police Station while they searched the property.20 The police took a number of items including Sifiso’s jeans, Nothando’s tracksuit top, three T-shirts off the clothesline and a fleece top belonging to George, as well as George Junior’s driver’s licence.
On 12 January 2007, six detectives and a constable arrived with another search warrant and ordered everyone out of the house.21 The family gathered up the children and went to wait at a neighbour’s property. The detectives were joined by two members of the New Zealand Police Specialist Search Group. The nine police searched the Kombora’s home thoroughly, including inside the ceilings and in the garden. They were looking for ‘inanimate phallic-shaped objects’, but found nothing. They uplifted more clothing, especially items belonging to George Junior.
Eighteen police officers went door to door around the neighbourhood where the Gwazes lived. Johnston said police ‘hoped to speak to people who knew Charlene and may have known of concerns she had about her safety’. They were hoping to find someone Charlene might have confided in about being abused by her family.22
Before they let the Gwaze family return to their own home the police tapped their telephones and also put audio listening devices (‘bugs’) in the house so that conversations between people in the house could be listened to. They obtained search warrants to seize a record of all calls and text messages made on the cellphones owned by Gwaze family members. The family all had prepaid cellphones, and they suspected that the police must be accessing their phones because their credit did not run out even when they made international calls to family in Zimbabwe. The landlines at the Gwaze and Kombora households also had strange crackling noises, which made them suspicious that they were tapped. They had no idea that the police had also placed bugs in the rooms. An interpreter was employed to translate their Shona conversations into English. There were many weeks of communications collected or recorded by the police. None revealed any evidence that was used in the subsequent trial.
The family computer was seized, and computer technicians engaged by the police searched it thoroughly for any incriminating evidence. None was found. Most of the videotapes seized recorded birthday parties of George and Sifiso’s grandchildren, Lilian’s small sons.
Charmaine did not return to her family. On 8 January, the day after Charlene’s death, the police told Charmaine she might have HIV and needed to be tested. Charmaine was terrified. Sifiso was asked to give permission for Charmaine to have the test. Charmaine and her mother were taken in a police car to Christchurch Hospital where the blood was taken. Charmaine says that they sat for about an hour waiting for the results, not daring to even talk to each other. The findings were negative. The police car dropped Sifiso off at Lilian’s house but Charmaine was not allowed to go in and be with her grieving family. She was returned to Musa’s home.
The following day, 9 January, now two days after her sister’s death, a place of safety warrant was executed in relationship to Charmaine. She was ‘placed with independent caregivers’.23 This information was given to the media. On 15 January it was reported that ‘a Child, Youth and Family spokeswoman has confirmed that Charlene’s sister has been taken into care, but would not say why’.24
Charmaine was taken by the authorities to the Cambridge Clinic (DSAC Canterbury) on 12 January 2007, where a forensic medical examination was conducted by a DSAC doctor to assess whether there were any signs of sexual abuse. The findings were negative.
Police job sheets indicate that on 9 January 2007, George was sharing a bedroom with one of Lilian and Irvine’s two boys. CYFS sought an emergency place of safety warrant for Charmaine Makaza and the two boys to be uplifted from the family and taken into care and protection.25 The police supported the removal of Charmaine but not the two boys. However, ‘CYFS advised that head office in Wellington want this done, despite police views’. The judge signed the warrant for Charmaine but not for the boys. The police job sheet indicates that CYFS was unhappy about this decision; they advised the police that ‘the Minister in Wellington has an overview of this case’. However, Lilian and Irvine were able to keep their sons.
The family had looked at taking Charlene back to Zimbabwe to be buried. They wanted her extended family to be able to attend the funeral. Sifiso thought it was important that Charmaine should go too, to say farewell to her little sister. However, Charmaine’s passport had already been seized by the police; she could not leave the country. The costs of returning Charlene to her homeland also ruled out this option. The family then contacted a Christchurch funeral company. They arranged for Charlene to be buried in the children’s section of Avonhead Park Cemetery, and ordered a coffin.
Sifiso wanted to get Charlene a white dress to wear in the casket. In the end this was not possible. According to both the funeral director and the Gwaze family, Charlene’s body was returned in a sealed body bag with a label identifying the remains as being those of Charlene Makaza. However, no viewing was allowed. Two reasons were given for the bag: first, because Charlene was infected with HIV, and second, because her body was badly decomposed. There had been a 10-day delay between the autopsy on 8 January and the return of the body on 18 January. The bag was not opened. The family were not able to view even her face, nor have her face photographed. They buried her without seeing her again. George says, ‘We just hope that it was Charlene we buried.’ Nothando adds:
When they finished doing the autopsy on Charlene, her corpse … was in such a bad state we couldn’t see her for the last time. The upsetting thing was that we wanted to dress her in a nice white dress but that was not possible as she was put in a sealed plastic bag. We had requested that we would want a second opinion on Martin Sage’s findings from another pathologist. We tried ringing all around New Zealand for about three days and no one was willing to do it so in the end we had to just bury her … Their reason was that she [her corpse] was infectious so they had to seal her in a plastic bag. Even when we asked to just see her head, they refused. It was so difficult to comprehend that our little Charlene was to be buried in such a way. We sometimes feel as though we may not even have buried her. Having her corpse decompose was terrible for us. In our culture, it is very meaningful to see your dead for the last time.
Because Charlene’s remains were in the bag, the family says, the funeral director told them she would not fit in the child’s coffin they had chosen; they had to get a larger one. This meant that she could not be laid to rest in the children’s cemetery. She had to be buried in the adult section.
There was a story in the media nearly every day. By Thursday 18 January the police said that they were dealing with a case of sexual assault and suffocation, and that a family member was the suspect:
Dead girl was sexually abused. Detectives say Charlene Makaza was the victim of a violent sexual assault at the same time as someone tried to suffocate her two weeks ago … ‘We are obviously focusing on family members in the house at the time to ascertain how Charlene could have sustained the injuries that she had,’ says Detective Inspector Malcolm Johnston. Police are now waiting for toxicology and DNA results. Police believe she was suffocated and have yet to make an arrest. Meanwhile the girl’s body has now been released to her family.26
The Christchurch Press ran an editorial which proclaimed that, having come to New Zealand for a better life, Charlene had suffered the ‘worst imaginable betrayal’; she had died of suffocation following ‘a violent sexual assault shortly before the fatal injuries were inflicted’.27
Initially Charlene’s family were not named in the media, but the newspaper stated that ‘the investigation has centred on Charlene’s family members – her aunt, uncle, two cousins and 12-year-old sister – who were at their Bryndwr home when she sustained her injuries’.28 Detective Inspector Johnston was quoted as saying, ‘people who believed the death may have been natural were making the investigation very difficult. We want to make it very, very clear to those people that that is not the case and we need their co-operation.’
Charlene’s funeral was held on Saturday 20 January, 13 days after her death. Sifiso had asked the music teacher from her school to play soft music while Charlene was brought in and out of the church.29 About 150 people attended, including many from the Zimbabwean community and children from Charlene’s school, as well as the media. Maggie, Tafadzwa, George Junior and Nothando carried Charlene’s white coffin out of the church. They were led by Charmaine, holding a photograph of Charlene and a white teddy bear. Charmaine was chaperoned by Musa Masenda, who had been told to prevent Charmaine from having any contact with her father.
The family were told that local Māori must be brought in to conduct a cleansing ritual on their house before they could return. This did not fit with their own deeply held religious beliefs.
On 24 January 2007, two and a half weeks after taking Charlene to the hospital, the Gwaze family were allowed to return home. The media were there in force, recording their arrival.30 They discovered that their beds had all been stripped of bed linen and part of George Junior’s mattress had been removed. Many items of clothing had been taken. Some items were later returned; however, the police had not made a complete inventory of removed clothing and a number of items were never seen again. The police had seized many documents, including George’s university degrees, their marriage certificate and their passports. Despite requests, George was unable to get any of these back for five and a half years.
Then scientists from ESR reported that George’s sperm had been found on Charlene’s underpants. Here was evidence directly linking George to the crime. Up until then George Junior was their prime suspect, rather than George.
Detective Johannsen’s third interview with George took place on 2 February 2007 in the presence of the lawyer acting for the family, Susan Lewis.31 Sifiso, George and George Junior had all been summoned to the police station for yet more interviews. George went first. The interview was long and Sifiso and her son sat waiting and wondering.
Johannsen repeatedly asked George how the injuries to Charlene had come about. Then he told George that his semen had been found on Charlene’s underpants. Johannsen insisted that George explain how this could be. He said ‘there’s only one way that your semen can be in Charlene’s underpants, and that’s if you put it there.’32 When George insisted he had done nothing so it must be all lies, the interview was terminated and George was arrested.33
George Gwaze Junior was terribly disturbed and had to be calmed down by Susan Lewis. George later said that, terrible though it was that he was accused, he was glad it had not been his son who was accused, and whose young life would have been ruined as a result. George writes:
The day I was arrested following another lengthy interview on 2 February 07, Detective Johannsen took me to a room within the police station complex where I was to surrender and sign for any possessions in my pockets, including shoelaces and wristwatch. There were two female officers in that room and upon entering that room Johannsen started shouting at me threateningly, ‘Since you have AIDS I shall have your blood collected for confirmation of your HIV status. You hear that?’ To which I replied, ‘Are you going to say that to my lawyer?’ Johannsen just looked at me and did not answer back.
I was then escorted to a lift and asked to enter the lift. I looked back towards the lift door and standing there in the corridor by the lift door was Johannsen, who was now joined by Detective Sergeant Cottam. They were all smiles as they were talking to each other while looking at me. Cottam then shouted at me, ‘I am quite sure your family is now going to be very happy because we are going to keep you away for a very long time.’ The two detectives then looked at each other all smiles on their owlish faces. Johannsen then extended his hand and pressed the button to close the lift door. The lift descended with me to the basement where I was put in a cell for the first time ever since I was born.
George slept the night in the police cells. The following day Sifiso was allowed to see him. George suspected that the police were allowing the visit as an attempt to collect evidence against him. When she arrived he told his wife, ‘This is a set-up.’ His suspicions were confirmed when, after the visit, Johannsen asked him, ‘George, did you tell Sifiso the visit was a set-up?’
That morning George Gwaze was charged in the Christchurch District Court with the sexual violation and murder of 10-year-old Charlene Makaza. His name was published in the paper even before his lawyer could apply for name suppression.34 He was remanded in custody. He categorically denied the charges.