Friday, August 14, 2009

Inquest pathologist backed MACC - that Teoh committed suicide

Malaysiakini - Counsel: Suicide theory baseless.

Predictably - and most Malaysians, regardless of political affiliations, yes, even some BN people, would have arrived at the same cynical contemptuous conclusion as I did - the government appointed pathologist at the inquest of Teoh Beng Hock's death suggested that the most likely cause of Teoh’s death was what had been asserted by MACC in the first place – suicide.

Suicide by a man who was, on the day following his interrogation by MACC, to marry the mother of his unborn child?

Suicide by a man who, just prior to being hauled in MACC, had rang up his best man to remind him of the wedding?

Gobind Singh Deo, the lawyer for Teoh’s family, said pathologist Dr Khairul Azman Ibrahim, had come to the inquest merely as a witness to give his theories of Teoh's suicide without any evidence.

He thundered: "I put it to you that you are wrong. This is not a case of the deceased jumping and committing suicide because there is no shoe print or fingerprint on the window. This theory on suicide is based on non-existing facts because you, yourself, did not conduct checks to support the theory.”

When cross-examined by Gobind, the pathologist sounded like a stuck record, with his confession of NOT checking for vital evidence – see following extract from the Malaysiakini news report:

Gobind: Would you agree with me that there was a possibility of the deceased being thrown out first, then the shoe?

Khairul: Yes, there was a possibility.

Gobind: Did you test the shoe for fingerprints?

Khairul: No.

Gobind: Isn't it significant?

Khairul: Yes. But we have no facilities.

Gobind: Why not? You could have directed someone. You are the forensic expert on the scene.

Khairul: I expected the police to do it.

Gobind: But you didn't make sure that they did it because it would have indicated a homicide. Were you covering it up?

YET, yes, YET this witness had the nerve to propound a likely case of suicide by Teoh Beng Hock. What a half-past-six conclusion!

It reminds me of another bloke like him in the Udayappan inquest – see my post Was Udayappan Beheaded After His Death?

In that case in 2006, Coroner Nazran Mohd Sham claimed there was
no foul play after returning an open verdict (yes, that's right, an 'open verdict') into Udayappan’s death, contradicting himself in the same breath.

He pompously said the court could not be involved in a guessing game as to the cause of death by basing its finding on assumptions, and YET, yes, YET he himself assumed there was no foul play. Another half-past-six verdict.

As I had commented, if the coroner couldn’t determine the death "was a result of natural causes, an act of God or an accident", how could the coroner say there’s no foul play?

He made it worse by then going on to assert there was nothing to contradict police evidence of Udayappan’s escape, claiming: "The fact is that the deceased found a way through the fence to escape and jumped into the river behind the station."

Fact? I questioned his use of this word ‘fact’!

How did the coroner know that "there was nothing to contradict police evidence of the late Upayappan's escape", ending in his jump into the river?

Did he rely solely on the police report?

If so, could that report from an 'interested party' in an allegation of police abuse be claimed as a 'fact'?

Should he have relied solely on a report by an ‘interested party’, considering the inquest had been for the specific purpose of verifying an allegation associated with a death of a police detainee?

That’s the problem with these half-past-six government officials.

Back to the current inquest on Teoh’s death – did the pathologist consider that his all-too-premature conclusion actually contradicted those of DNA expert Dr Seah Lay Hong of the Chemistry Department, who
testified that there were DNA traces of two unknown males on Teoh's waist belt and at the back of his blazer. At least she checked, unlike the pathologist!

Teoh’s trousers were also noted to be torn at his back.

This group of evidence would appear to suggest a possible scene of Teoh being dangled by his belt-trousers outside the 14 floor window by some unknown person or persons (maybe to frighten Teoh into providing the ‘required evidence’) before the trousers gave way to disastrous consequences for Teoh.

Why have these evidence been ignored by the pathologist?


Stupid question – it’s predictable!


  1. Every single Malaysian with a conscience already knew the answer to Teoh Beng Hock's death.

    The government and its goons are wasting their time trying to spin the verdict.


  2. my observation, without soundng prejudice or stereotyping, malay (i am one too) buat kerja memang main2, selalu kena marah ngan bos, selalu kerja kena betulkan dengan bos, and bos normally almost all the time is non-bumi too

  3. So, TBH took off his long pants, tore it and then put in on, snapped his belt and then put it on, and then jumped out the 14th floor window of MACC's office?

    And to confound us, took a clean running dive so as not to leave fingerprints and shoe imprints on the window sill, pane or ledge? And for good measure, snapped the window latch and dived with it?

    If anything, it is sure that SUICIDE Is DEFINITELY OUT! Why? Ther is no reason for TBH to kill himself whatsoever!!

    The unidentified blood on his blazer and belt indicate that others were involved in his death. No sane person will countenance the pathologist's lame excuse that these articles may have been tainted in the post mortem room! Are they that unprofessional as to handle or bring a body into a PM room without completely cleaning up the room first?

    And why were the MACC still in possession of his handphone and car keys if he was officially discharged as a witness at 3.45 a.m.? Why was MACC's offfice closed between 1.15-1.35 p.m.?

    Were the two others, Tan Boon Wah and Ng Wye Wing, left alone in MACC's premises for hours without any MACC officer or staff being present? This defies belief!

    There are too many gaps in all these events to go remotely near a suicide hypothesis at this point. A really professional pathologist cannot draw conclusions without considering all the circumstances surrounding TBH's death.

    Let's see what the experts engaged by TBH's family and lawyers have to say. I bet it will be a humdinger!!

    We are all of 1 race, the Human Race

  4. New York post just run an article CSI: WITHOUT A CLUE.

    The best part are at the last page
    The "evidence never lies," says the charismatic character Gil Grissom on "CSI," giving millions of viewers the false impression that, across the board, forensic science equals certainty. In fact, these programs show scientists brainstorming with cops on the guilt of a suspect - exactly what scientists should not be doing. Worse, they zip through analyses so fast it all looks automatic. The courtroom becomes a mere formality, because science has solved the crime. They use techniques - yes, even lip prints - that are unproven, or even worse, debunked.

    It's hard for juries to shake such images, and they've come to expect miracles and absolute certainty. But for the sake of justice and science, forensic experts need to be honest - in investigations and on the stand - about the limitations.

    Apparently, the pathologist watch too much CSI.

  5. untuk Ketuanan UMNO, lying thru the teeth is an acceptable trait.

    probably, this moron will tell you he is not aware that there is a party called DAP. Just like the moronic reporter from Utusan who has the temerity that she doesnt know a person by the name of Karpal Singh. and she is a reporter for Utusan, the mouth piece of UMNO. Can you beat that? I cant.

  6. We all make jokes, sarcastic comments etc, but let's not ignore the fact that this is a pressure cooker of an incident... it's hard to see any probable outcome that will be regarded as "justice", and yet this kind of outrage demands it.

    We can't provide justice, but we need to diffuse the outrage. So where is the outrage going to go? Elect a few more Pakatan representatives in the next GE? Problems: 1) in the seats to be gained it's not up to non-Malay voters anyway, and 2) the next GE is a long long time away.

    The one possible vent I can see is for a DAP by-election. Clearly we don't want any DAP reps to drop dead (well, maybe there are one or two fellas, but no lah, not nice to wish for such things). The alternative is for DAP to bring in the second string to the Federal level now.

    We all know that many DAP reps are overstretched (I've personally heard less than pleasant things being said about Teresa Kok by some of her 2004-2008 machais - her availability is now understandably very very limited). DAP leadership appears comatose to me (they are all busy with elected jobs, no time for party building, except for Tony Pua whom for reasons that boggle my puny non-Oxford-educated mind seems to think it's a good idea to open a coffee shop specially for DAP machais in PJ, and it seems he is even micromanaging the menu, but I digress...).

    So to simultaneously channel the outrage, bring in new faces, and ease the burden on the current crop of leaders, I suggest we force some DAP by-elections by getting some DAP MPs to resign their Federal seats (but retain the critical ADUN seats).

    The most notable new face that we need to see in a DAP MP seat is Tengku Aziz. It's been way too long since we've seen a Malay sporting those colors in Parliament. The time has come, we cannot wait.

    And by all means, let's not stop at just one new face... the other name that comes to mind is Teh Chi-Chang, who can fill the void that Tony Pua left behind when Tony decided he preferred microeconomics (coffee shop) to macroeconomics (remember his 2008 shadow budget?).

    How about a spree of concurrent DAP by-elections to really let the outrage blast through? DAP is in a position of ample comfort here, getting to choose when and where to trigger the by-elections. Sun Tzu said something about this kind of advantage...

  7. Btw, I didn't mean to single out Teresa Kok, I am sure she is doing the best she can under the tough circumstances, I mentioned her only as an example.

  8. researcher discover3:38 am, August 15, 2009

    1. The TBH inquest yesterday focused on his right shoe. I received some photograph of the shoe from readers and the same image of the show also appeared on various MSM and online media. I read the line of questions that was posed to the investigating officer. I must say, I am disappointed with the quality of questions being asked.

    2. The way the questions was asked as if the lawyers were trying to imply that he was killed elsewhere in the MACC office and he was dragged to the window and then threw out of the window.

    3. Let us analyze the sole of the Right shoe and some other picture in MACC office and by looking at the shoe I would not even considering asking such questions. It does not add value.
    The picture of the Right shoe showed that heel of the right shoe has come off and there is scraped mark on the sole of the shoe especially on the outer side of the shoe. The upper surface of the shoe is normal. To appreciate the difference one need to compare with pictures of his left shoe that is available on the internet.

    4. The police say that he could probably have been dragged on his side and not from behind based on the marks on the shoe heel. This is a flawed thinking. If someone ones to move a motionless body, he would approach the body from behind and put his hand under the arms of TBH and then pull it as such. No one will drag on a motionless body on its side as it simply takes too much effort and difficult to do. Furthermore one would expect other marks on the trousers.

    5. The other interesting observation is that such a scrape must have been made against a rough surface. I saw a series of pictures that was sent to me by a reader which showed the various parts of MACC office. The floor is carpeted wall to wall. That means the scrape cannot be made against the floor.

    6. The shoe alone tells a lot of story. It goes beyond doubt that TBH did not jump. If he had jumped, the shoe would not be in that shape. From any angle of a jump, and the eventual landing position and the injuries sustained, it is with certainty that I can say he did not jump. So what contribute to the damage to the shoe?

    7. My theory is that, TBH was lifeless. Someone (or two) carried his body and threw out of the window. As the body raced down, the right foot scraped trough over a cemented portion of the building external side wall. The force of impact is so hard that the heel came off and a deep scraped mark was left on shoe.

    8. The I/O said that there were no marks on the outside of the building on the 14th floor. I do not expect to find it there in the first place. Based on the damaged on the shoe, I expect the momentum to be great. Some readers earlier calculated the speed of fall to be at 80km/hour (if you are reading this, please confirm) and the momentum (mass x velocity) is so great that the shoe just came off and landed about 10 feet to 12 feet from the body.

    9. Based on the momentum, the police should be looking for the mark the right foot hit the wall anywhere in between the 14th and 5th floor and not only at the 14th floor. My own estimate suggest that shoe marks could be found anywhere between the 12th and 9th floor on the outside wall of the building. If the police estimated the trajectory of the body correctly, they would be able to find the mark.

    10. That basically explains the shoe condition. More importantly, it reemphasized the possibility that an unconscious (or dead) body was thrown out of the 14th floor MACC office.

  9. Why can't just those why pay taxes get health b'out that Obama and the rest of the health care reform starters??? NO seriously, this I could be in favor of, but not just letting any old person that comes to America, even the illegal’s to get healthcare and our taxes go up the roof???? No, sure, I will cont. to fight this...

  10. Which is why I never bothered to call for an inquiry. This is exactly the conclusion I was expecting.

    But one day, justice will be served for Teoh Beng Hock.

  11. That poor pathologist has come only to exonerate the MACC and not to help in the inquest. That will account for him giving silly answers like.
    a_ TBH committed suicide by jumping from the window then did not leave hand or foot marks.
    b_ The Dr didn't bother to confirm by check for prints because he did not have the tools.
    c_ He did not ask the Police to verify his theory
    c- He claim because of the carpet probably there are no mark but did nothing to confirm.

    It cannot be anyone can be so incompetent unless he had been instructed to make up a story to influence the inquest.

    I don't think his career will be adversely affected despite all this.


  12. when you read some testimonies on utusan and rtm reporters in karpal's sedition charge, you know some professionals are really dumb in their job.....

    the pathologist are dumb and weak in their job, that's all...

  13. In the name of Supremacy as preached and dictated by UMNO?

  14. i suggest you ppl go and download the inquest video 14 Aug to see how lame the pathologist is. gobind asked him is it important to know the distance and height of the fall, the pathologist replied "it's good to know", and then gobind ask him if he measured the deceased feet, the pathologist said he forgot. and gobind asked him how's the shoe manage to comes off and the pathologist contradicted himself his earlier statement and agree there's possibility somebody threw his show instead fell off. and yet this idiot still concluded the case is suicide!

  15. denzook,

    remeber the govt pathologist who tried to cover up Kugan's death until he was exposed? gee, for UMNO, they are prepared to lie and looking stupid is yeah alrite.

  16. the good doctor must have bought his degree off the internet..

  17. Dear KTEMOC,

    As I was reading this article I became dizzy I fell off my chair. May be it was because of my age. I was in government for over 35 years and I am unable to understand how we have come to this. In the early days there was a distinct seperation between a criminal offence and a civil offence.And for all that he was the witness for the prosecution.

    I have to gather my thoughts before I comment on this. That is the extent to which I am disturbed by this story. Ramlax