Suicide theory totally baseless and not supported by evidence

I wonder what motivated pathologist Dr Khairul Azman Ibrahim to make such a bias and unprofessional, sweeping conclusion of “suicide” based on 4 totally flimsy and lame reasons not substantiated by concrete evidence. He appears to be hell bent on leading the whole inquest to the “suicide conclusion”. My question is WHY????

Malaysiakini

The theory that political aide Teoh Beng Hock committed suicide by jumping from the 14th floor of Plaza Masalam is baseless, said a counsel holding a watching brief for his family in the inquest into his death today.

Lawyer Gobind Singh Deo said the theory by pathologist Dr Khairul Azman Ibrahim could not be accepted because it was not supported by evidence.

“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,” he told Khairul

Azman, a senior medical consultant at the Forensics Department, Tengku Ampuan Rahimah Hospital in Klang.

Teoh, 30, who was political secretary to Selangor executive councillor Ean Yong Hian Wah, was found dead on July 16 on the fifth floor corridor of Plaza Masalam, after giving a statement in an investigation into alleged abuse of state government funds.

Why no shoeprint?

Gobind questioned why there was no shoeprint on the window sill if Teoh had stood on it before jumping.

“Perhaps, there was, but it could not be seen. I checked, but didn’t see it. It is not easy to find a shoe print near the window area because the place is carpeted,” responded Khairul.

He then demonstrated how Teoh could have fallen from the window by lifting his right leg and then the left leg out of the witness stand, with both hands holding the railing (as the window sill), before standing outside the stand and pretending to jump.

Following the demonstration, Gobind wanted to know why there was no fingerprint on the window sill.

“There was none. Fingerprints should be detected with suitable tools, but we don’t have them in my laboratory,” Khairul Azman said, adding that he also did not ask the police to test for fingerprints.

The shoe theory

To another question on why no shoe print was found outside the window where Teoh was alleged to have stood before jumping, he said if the shoe soles were dusty, they could be easily seen.

When Gobind suggested that one of Teoh’s shoes was purposely thrown out of the window after his body was thrown to show elements of homicide in his death, Khairul said that in his opinion, the shoe dropped from Teoh’s foot because of strong impact.

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.

The pathologist will continue with his testimony on Monday.

– Bernama

read what my friend Kaytee Moc has to say:

Inquest pathologist backed MACC – that Teoh committed suicide
Today at 10:58am
Malaysiakini – Counsel: Suicide theory baseless.

Predictablyand 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?

Why?

Stupid question – it’s predictable!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: