Pathologist changes mind, says Beng Hock not strangled

In an apparent about turn, Sungai Buloh Hospital chief pathologist Dr Shahidan Md Noor today testified that Teoh Beng Hock could not have been strangled at all prior his fall last July 16.

The government pathologist took great pains to rule out the possibility that the neck injuries sustained by Teoh could have been caused by strangulation.

He was testifying at the inquest for Teoh, who was found dead outside the Selangor Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) office after overnight interrogation.

“Although the minor injuries upon examination suggest some form of pressure around the neck, the pressure was not the cause of death. This is because there were no signs to support that that might have happened, there were no signs of asphyxia,” said Dr Shahidan, responding to a cross-examination from MACC lawyer Datuk Abdul Razak Musa.

He maintained that the red marks around the neck area were not the result of any form of strangulation, in a move which is seen as disputing Teoh’s lawyer Gobind Singh Deo and Selangor state lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar’s suggestion that while a fall from height might have been the cause of death, there was also a possibility that Teoh might have been strangled prior to the fall.

“We are not disputing that the fall was the cause of death. What we are suggesting is that there is a possibility that strangulation might have been used as a form of fear or intimidation to interrogate Teoh. He was fine before he went to the MACC building, no injuries or wounds. We will be calling witnesses to corroborate this later on,” said Gobind to reporters shortly after the court adjourned for the day.

Dr Shahidan’s statements today seemingly contradicts yet again his statement back on March 1 when cross-examined by Teoh’s lawyer.

Back then, he had agreed with lawyers Gobind and Malik that it was possible that neck injuries sustained by Teoh Beng Hock might have been caused by strangulation.

He had been asked whether the marks could have been a result of strangulation.

“It’s possible but not probable,” said Dr Shahidan at that time.

Today, the doctor is sticking to his guns over the findings of his post-mortem report which had ruled out manual strangulation.

Magistrate Azmil Muntapha Abas had asked Dr. Shahidan whether the wounds around the neck were sustained before the fall, despite the pathologist ruling out strangulation.

According the doctor, the marks around the neck were “likely” sustained before the fall, but he did not elaborate further. Gobind then asked that the statement be put on record.

Dr Shahidan, who was soft-spoken but calm throughout the proceedings also affirmed that Teoh could have been alive at the time of the fall.

“In my opinion, the deceased was conscious at the time of the fall.”

Once again the pathologist disputed Thai foreign forensic expert Dr Porntip Rojasunand’s suggestion that Teoh’s anal injuries might have been a result of penetration by a blunt foreign object.

Abdul Razak drew some flak from the audience when he used the word “sodomized” to ask Dr Shahidan whether there was anal injury. He later retracted his question and rephrased it.

The pathologist then replied that the injury was consistent with the fall, and that it was not a result of an insertion of a blunt object.

Lawyer for Attorney-General’s chambers Tan Hock Chuan then proceeded to clarify some things with the doctor.

Tan: “You are still saying that the cause of death is a fall from height?”

Dr Shahidan: “Yes.”

Tan: “You are also saying that the marks on the neck were caused by some pressure but it was not the cause of death?”

Dr Shahidan: “There was evidence of some force which could have been exerted on the afflicted part but no, it was not the cause of death.”

Abdul Razak had also raised the question of calling back Dr Khairul Azman Ibrahim and Dr Prashant Naresh Samberkar, the pathologists who had conducted the first post-mortem.

He wanted to give them a chance to explain Dr Porntip’s findings.

“Exhumation would not have been made in the first place had first autopsy had been sufficient,” argued Selangor state lawyer Malik.

Eventually it was agreed that they would only be called “if the need arises.”

The coroner’s court has set April 20 for Dr. Porntip and April 26 and 27 for Prof Peter Vanezis to come to court to testify on the findings of the second post-mortem report.



comments


this chief pathologist Dr Shahidan Md Noor is just a carpenter in the pathology department fixing all those dead bodies, carpenter and his family needs to eat and take care of his rice bowl also, anyway this will revealed more on some body is mastering the whole pathologist's report, including the UK pathologist, yet to hear his report.

It is rather interesting that the pathologist would change his mind on this matter. This brings one to conclude one of the following:
a) he is a bad pathologist and is unable to ascertain the correct cause of death with the given evidence
b) got a fat paycheck in the mail
c) was blackmailed into recant his previous stance

I guess the rakyat will once again suffer should any of the above be true.


He denied the strangulation now because his salary is paid by the federal govt. and other pressures which we do not know of, may be personal threats or threats to the family members.
The court should stick to the first admission of strangulation.

I guess whatever credibility this guy had has pretty much been thrown out the window. This is his second time changin' his mind.

Government Credibility gone down drain! All done to hide the MACC murderers - Scratch UMNO back and UMNO will scratch their back.

Why UMNO and MACC have NO concience to find the killer? Call yourself True Muslims or Islam Defenders - when you do not seek True Justice ...

Disgrace to Islam, Malays and Malaysia!!

If Balakrishnan changes his SD and now our Malaysia chief pathologist also, guess we all know who is behind this. This is so sad. Our big brother is now a big gangster!

The next thing he will say because he take kew from MACC chief. "The strangulation marks was likely self inflicted before he jumped out the window!" So what MACC is saying is he killed himself then threw himself out the window! Huh? how can a dead man throw himself out a window... but that is the UMNO/MACC logic. Every victim of a crime is the responsible party, not the person committing the crime. So mongolian girl blew herself up, and submarine naughty, responsible for not being able to sink!