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.
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?
Khairul: No. I don't want to cover up.
Gobind also accused the witness of coming to the inquest to merely give his theories without any evidence.
Gobind: It was not a suicide, isn't it true? Let's be frank and fair... this means your theory comes to naught (and) you are wrong.
Khairul: There is the possibility.
Gobind: You are wrong. Your theory was based on facts but facts don't exist.
Khairul: I don't agree.
The pathologist will continue with his testimony on Monday.
- Bernama
Related story: Doc: Not homicide or accident, more a suicide
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.
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?
Khairul: No. I don't want to cover up.
Gobind also accused the witness of coming to the inquest to merely give his theories without any evidence.
Gobind: It was not a suicide, isn't it true? Let's be frank and fair... this means your theory comes to naught (and) you are wrong.
Khairul: There is the possibility.
Gobind: You are wrong. Your theory was based on facts but facts don't exist.
Khairul: I don't agree.
The pathologist will continue with his testimony on Monday.
- Bernama
Related story: Doc: Not homicide or accident, more a suicide
14/08/09
No comments:
Post a Comment