Friday, May 17, 2019

Seafield Inquest in white heat

In a previous post Seafield temple inquest - the subtext I mentioned that we have quite a prolonged tussle between two sides, the government (HKL) forensic expert versus the lawyer for the Fire Service Department, and that the tussle seems to be more about apportioning blame than about identifying the cause of the injuries.

Fortunately no chair nor table was flung around, wakakaka - I'm sure the presiding coroner Rofiah Mohamad would have been annoyed.

In earlier sessions, another (29th) witness, Prof Dr Shahrom Abd Wahid, former senior forensic and pathology consultant at Hospital Canselor Tuanku Muhriz, lodged a police report over a newspaper report about him in the inquest.

Prof Dr Shahrom Abd Wahid

NST photo

From earlier media reports:

Prof Dr Shahrom, referring to the videos to support his testimony, said that Adib’s injuries could not have come from being hit by the EMRS open front passenger door as the control tests on dummies and a live subject showed them always landing on their side and back rather than on their front.

He also believed that medical officers who treated firefighter Muhammad Adib Mohd Kassim were not aware of the victim’s seven broken ribs.

He said there should be abrasive marks on Adib’s back due to the injuries.

When questioned by deputy public prosecutor Hamdan Hamzah, Prof Dr Shahrom said, “As I said before, I believe that someone grabbed Adib and pushed him towards the edge of the Emergency Medical Rescue Service (EMRS) van door."

“The power of the push could have been more than 2500 N (Newton units), equivalent to the power of two and a half men."

“These should be an abrasive concussion from the impact as the door edge’s surface is hard, thin and vertical in shape."

“I believe nobody had examined Adib’s back during examination”.

Lawyer Syazlin said the newspaper report, which claimed Prof Dr Shahrom had threatened other witnesses in the inquest, was untrue and unfounded.

Such was the white heat of the inquest.

But nonetheless, the most recent and perhaps overly robust proceedings might have led to grievances - read below.

From MM Online:

Adib inquest: Forensic expert hits back at lawyer for ‘humiliating’ him in court

Dr Ahmad Hafizam Hasmi attends the inquest into fireman Muhammad Adib Mohd Kassim’s death at the Shah Alam High Court March 28, 2019

Picture by Mukhriz Hazim

SHAH ALAM, May 17 — A forensic expert witness expressed his sorrow after being ‘humiliated’ in court when testifying in the inquest into the death of fireman Muhammad Adib Mohd Kassim.

Kuala Lumpur Hospital (HKL) forensic pathologist Dr Ahmad Hafizam Hasmi said his only intention was to assist the court in measuring the force of impact in relation to the injuries sustained by Muhammad Adib.

The 24th witness who was recalled to testify insisted several times that he is not a physicist and urged the court to refer to an expert in the field, for any confirmation regarding impact force determinations.

“I have always emphasised that I am not a physicist... I might have misunderstood (about the request to calculate the impact force). When asked by the lawyer, I thought I have explain it to the coroner.

“This is not a trial and I should not have been humiliated in court over the calculation,” he said at the 36th day of the proceedings at the Coroner’s Court here today.

Earlier, the witness had a heated argument with counsel Syazlin Mansor representing the Fire and Rescue Department of Malaysia as well as the Housing and Local Government Ministry when Syazlin claimed his explanation on the force of impact calculation was confusing.

Syazlin Mansor 

Syazlin: The calculation on the force of gravity you presented in court is wrong, let an expert talk about this. You do not have to confuse the court further.

Dr Ahmad Hafizam: I am not making it confusing for the court. Yesterday, I thought I was told to do the calculation, so I came up with a new calculation. I should not be humiliated over this calculation.

Syazlin: Earlier you said the calculation by Prof Shahrom was wrong, but when you showed a new calculation on gravitational force I see that it is incorrect. So, I am saying that you are wrong and confusing the court, I am not trying to embarrass you.

In reply to another question from Syazlin, Dr Ahmad Hafizam said the bruises found on Muhammad Adib’s abdomen were not due to impact pressure but was likely to have occurred when the victim was treated at the National Heart Institute (IJN).

Dr Ahmad Hafizam

“In this case, the victim died after 21 days of receiving treatment and within the course of the treatment there were certain movements such as being moved to the left or right, when he was unconscious. Based on the post-mortem, the bruises were not due to the victim being pulled,” he said.


  1. Wakakakaka…

    What's yr take?

    Many people CAN read yr underlaying intention CLEARLY.

  2. The likely outcome of this inquest is an open verdict, ie the death has suspicious circumstances but no specific cause is identifiable. Which means the poor fireman’s death will continue to be used as a tool for propaganda.

    1. Meanwhile let's keep very quiet about the 50 Malay thugs ( or is it 150 to 200 Malay thugs ) who had infiltrated the temple in the dead of night and started the whole mayhem.

    2. The paid thugs ( who was their ultimate paymaster and why ? ) are an inconvenient fact for those seeking quick and superficial apportionment of blame , therefore the fact must be suppressed and not mentioned.

  3. If, according to Prof. Dr Shahrom's statements of :

    "He also believed that medical officers who treated firefighter Muhammad Adib Mohd Kassim were not aware of the victim’s seven broken ribs."


    "He said there should be abrasive marks on Adib’s back due to the injuries"


    "“I believe nobody had examined Adib’s back during examination”

    as reported by the media are allegedly as what he said, then all those statements are very incriminating towards SJMC and IJN and the doctors who treated the fireman inspite of all the X-rays, CT scans and diagnostic reports which can clearly refute or substantiate his statements.

    If it is true of negligence, then the fireman's family should immediately file a civil suit of negligence against those doctors and the hospitals for negligence in performing their duties as medical doctors.

    Those doctors who treated him should also be taken disciplinary actions by the MMC and struck of the register.

    If OTOH, it isn't true of what Prof. Shahrom or the media reported, then SJMC, IJN and all those doctors incriminated should sue the Prof. and the media for making unfounded defamation against them.

    The public surely must be worried whether SJMC and IJN and their doctors are really professionals in providing medical treatment to everyone with such testimonies coming out.

    1. Hahahahah…

      U hit the right nail at the head instead of this wordsmith's twisted play!