Extracts from Sun Daily:
Dr Shahrom disputes hospital report of no bruises on Adib’s back
SHAH ALAM: A United Kingdom-based senior consultant forensic pathologist, Prof Dr Shahrom Abd Wahid, told the Coroner’s Court here today that he does not agree with the report by the Kuala Lumpur Hospital (HKL) that there were no bruises on the back of fireman Muhammad Adib Mohd Kassim’s body.
Shahrom, the 29th witness at the inquest into Adib’s death, said the bruises were not found following a post-mortem on the victim because it was not done thoroughly.
“Post-mortem is not just to cut the body but is a thorough examination to find the cause of a person’s death. They (HKL) said they conducted a post-mortem, but actually they did not.
“They did not examine, among others, under the skin layer where if they had, they would have found a bruising effect. They are saying there were no bruises, how to have (bruises) if they did not examine (that place),“ he testified before Coroner Rofiah Mohamad at the inquest which entered its 39th day here today.
Shahrom added that the investigation into the riot at the Sri Maha Mariamman temple site at USJ 25, Subang Jaya on Nov 27, 2018 should have been carried out earlier by investigating officers and forensics.
Explaining further, he said the investigations should have begun at the incident location after Muhammad Adib was attacked to find out which parties committed the act.
“There is no full video on the incident. Therefore, the search needs to start from where the incident took place, and not from the post-mortem.
“In forensics, there are two parts, which is clinical forensic (while alive) and pathology forensic (dead). When a person dies, both examinations need to be combined to find the cause of death,“ he added.
Shahrom, a former senior forensic and pathology consultant at Hospital Canselor Tuanku Muhriz, said all the pieces of evidence submitted at the court for the inquest were sufficient but not enough to implicate a criminal.
“I would say this evidence is enough if it was combined with a report from HKL Forensic Department together with the experiments conducted. (But) if want to bring (evidence) to prove a criminal case, then it is not enough,“ he said.
Shahrom, the 29th witness at the inquest into Adib’s death, said the bruises were not found following a post-mortem on the victim because it was not done thoroughly.
“Post-mortem is not just to cut the body but is a thorough examination to find the cause of a person’s death. They (HKL) said they conducted a post-mortem, but actually they did not.
“They did not examine, among others, under the skin layer where if they had, they would have found a bruising effect. They are saying there were no bruises, how to have (bruises) if they did not examine (that place),“ he testified before Coroner Rofiah Mohamad at the inquest which entered its 39th day here today.
Shahrom added that the investigation into the riot at the Sri Maha Mariamman temple site at USJ 25, Subang Jaya on Nov 27, 2018 should have been carried out earlier by investigating officers and forensics.
Explaining further, he said the investigations should have begun at the incident location after Muhammad Adib was attacked to find out which parties committed the act.
“There is no full video on the incident. Therefore, the search needs to start from where the incident took place, and not from the post-mortem.
“In forensics, there are two parts, which is clinical forensic (while alive) and pathology forensic (dead). When a person dies, both examinations need to be combined to find the cause of death,“ he added.
Shahrom, a former senior forensic and pathology consultant at Hospital Canselor Tuanku Muhriz, said all the pieces of evidence submitted at the court for the inquest were sufficient but not enough to implicate a criminal.
“I would say this evidence is enough if it was combined with a report from HKL Forensic Department together with the experiments conducted. (But) if want to bring (evidence) to prove a criminal case, then it is not enough,“ he said.
马后炮， 100% secondary foresight of guessing work after the incident has happened & covered up!
ReplyDeleteAs I see it, the Seafield Inquest is proceeding properly without fear or favour.
ReplyDeleteLet the evidence be submitted and the facts fall wherever it leads.
Quite a number of commentators who are prejudiced against the Pakatan Government and/or have a preconceived agenda to demand an expected finding had already earlier unfairly condemned the Inquest.
The AG earlier intervened to correct an anomaly in legal representation which resulted in a conflict of interest with one of the lawyers, and the usual suspects went rabid.