So the second pathologist has asserted the likelihood of Teoh’s suicide, with so-called scientific justifications … such as …
… On why he believed Teoh had deliberately thrown himself off the building, Dr Prashant … blah blah blah …, and
… He also said Teoh had probably squatted on the window sill before the plunge as marks on both the shoes co-relate with the width of the window sill … blah blah blah …
or has he?
In today’s Star Online Teoh Inquest : No signs of assault found, when questioned by Gobind Singh Deo, “… on whether a person would freeze up in fear if he were being held in that position on the window sill, Dr Prashant said yes, adding that there would also be not much of a struggle.”
The cross-examination went as follows:
Gobind: Do you agree that someone could have held him there in that position?
Dr Prashant: It is possible.
On Dr Prashant’s testimony that there were “disturbances” in the area around the window, like smudges and finger drag marks, Gobind asked the pathologist if these could be due to some form of resistance.
Dr Prashant: Yes.
Gobind: Shows that the person standing there had resisted falling?
Dr Prashant: Possible, sir.
The annoying thing is the pathologist had provided only one possibility (suicide) when there were others just as likely (like being threatened with scare tactics as scenario-ized by Gobind Singh).
Why must he only present the one the MACC (and Police) wanted?
Why not say, “Look, from the forensic evidence gathered (limited as these may be) there are a number of possibilities … blah blah blah …”