TBH Hearing-not suicide.

Pornthip rules out suicide

By Neville Spykerman and Boo Su-Lyn

August 18, 2010

SHAH ALAM, Aug 18 — Thai pathologist Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand maintained today that she is sure Teoh Beng Hock’s death last year was not a result of suicide, but she declined to repeat her previous assertion that it was 80 per cent a homicide.
“I still maintain my findings on pre-fall injuries. I cannot confirm he was conscious during the fall.
‘I will not go into percentage. I am sure it is not suicide,” she told the Coroner’s Court here under questioning from Selangor government lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar.
Dr Pornthip was testifying for the second time at the inquest into DAP political aide Teoh’s death. Teoh was said to have fallen from the 14th floor of Plaza Masalam here where the state headquarters of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) was once housed.
Before his body was found on a fifth floor landing he had been questioned overnight by the MACC.
Earlier today in court, Dr Pornthip testified that she disagreed with the findings of Dr Peter Vanezis, the British forensic pathologist brought in by MACC to observe a second post mortem on Teoh last year. Dr Pornthip also observed the second post mortem.
“I still believe he was unconscious because there is no significant pathology to show he was conscious (when he fell),” she said, adding there was no sign of bilateral wrist fractures, so “I cannot confirm he was fully conscious.”
She disagreed with Dr Vanezis that Teoh broke his fall with his feet because she said there were no fractures on both ankles and wrist.
Dr Pornthip also disagreed with Dr Vanezis’s finding that neck injuries were caused by impact of fall. She pointed out that the neck was a protected area.
She said she found hemorrhaging on the neck which was bigger than what would have been caused by a fall. She and her staff reviewed 30 other cases at her institute and they did not find similar injuries.
She concluded it was impossible that the wound was caused by the fall.
On the injury to Teoh’s spine, she reviewed six cases at her institute and found no contusion under the skin as was the case with Teoh.
As such, she concluded that it was a pre-fall injury which was more severe than a manual strangulation.
The wound, she said, was caused by a blunt object which could be something pressed against Teoh’s head or neck.
The injury to Teoh’s anal region was also caused by a blunt object, she said.
As the second post-mortem showed severe fracture to Teoh’s pelvis which could have caused Teoh’s anus to be torn, she concluded that his anal injuries were a result of the fall and not from any beating.
Testifying in April, Dr Vanezis, had said a mysterious bruise to the left of Teoh’s neck was likely caused upon impact on the rough ground and consistent with death from a high place when he took to the witness stand in April this year, reinforcing the findings of previous government pathologists who concluded that Teoh had jumped to his death.
But the British pathologist — famed for his role in Princess Diana’s inquest — did not rule out the possibility that Teoh could also have suffered pre-fall injuries.
Vanezis told the inquest a broad bruise on the left side of Teoh’s neck could have been caused by a chokehold, a move he demonstrated in court.
He added the move may have knocked out Teoh, or at the very least, disoriented the latter enough when he fell out a 14th floor window at Plaza Masalam onto the fifth floor rooftop on July 16 last year.
“Sometimes you cannot take an injury in isolation. I’m uncomfortable to call it a pre-fall injury with confidence…I can’t rule it out,” Vanezis responded under cross-examination from lawyer Gobind Singh Deo, representing Teoh’s family during the hearing in April.
MI