Murder That Wasn't: The Case of George Gwaze by Goodyear-Smith Felicity

Author:Goodyear-Smith, Felicity
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Otago University Press

Dr David Hammer, microbiologist

Detective Senior Sergeant David Harvey had requested a report from Dr David Hammer, who was the microbiology registrar at Canterbury Health Laboratories during Charlene’s admission period. He was now employed as the clinical microbiologist for the Northland District Health Board. Hammer had partially prepared his report in February 2011. He later finalised it in 20 December 2011, after disruptions resulting from the Canterbury earthquake.8

As the microbiology registrar on call when Charlene was admitted, Hammer had given advice about Charlene’s management to the paediatric registrar. Because the blood tests and clinical picture were suggestive of infection, he had recommended that a lumbar puncture be performed to check for infection in the cerebrospinal fluid – but this test was not performed. Hammer had also suggested Charlene be tested for HIV. Because he had worked in South Africa, he said that he ‘had a very low threshold for suggesting HIV tests on patients with unexplained symptoms and so I suggested a test be performed and arranged for the on-call scientist to come into the laboratory and perform the test’. This subsequently proved positive.

Hammer concluded that ‘although no significant pathogen was isolated from the numerous microbiology tests performed, looking at the combined picture of the clinical notes and laboratory results, I am of the opinion that an infective process was present, in the form of an overwhelming sepsis with disseminated intravascular coagulation’. He added that ‘the presence of an infection does not rule out concurrent trauma. Certainly, in my opinion, the infection hypothesis can in no way whatsoever account for the traumatic genital and rectal lesions described in the clinical notes.’

Harvey arranged a video conference involving Hammer, Meates-Dennis, Doocey and himself on 19 March 2012.9 Hammer continued to maintain that sepsis with disseminated intravascular coagulation was present. In his opinion Charlene had suffered from an overwhelming infection. This did not support the Crown’s case. The Crown decided that it was not going to call Hammer as a witness. It did not release his report to the defence team until 20 April 2012, just before the trial started. Having considered his report and talked with him, the defence team decided that calling Hammer was not required; their four British medical experts could sufficiently address the issue of overwhelming sepsis.

Briefs of evidence were circulated. The High Court in Christchurch was deemed safe to occupy. The date of the trial was extended out one week because of demolition of a nearby hotel. The hearing was finally set for the end of April 2012, four years after the first trial had started, on 28 April 2008.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.