Teoh inquest: It was not suicide, says Pornthip
Renowned Thai pathologist Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand is testifying at the Teoh Beng Hock inquest, to share her findings after observing the second autopsy procedure.
Renowned Thai pathologist Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand is testifying at the Teoh Beng Hock inquest, to share her findings after observing the second autopsy procedure.
Pornthip, who had previously claimed that political aide's death was 80 percent homicide and 20 percent suicide, caused a stir when she entered the court room as Teoh's supporters in the packed gallery began applauding.
Activists have been rallying the public to attend the inquest to show support for Teoh, as not only to hear from Pornthip, but also to express displeasure at the Attorney-General's Chambers over the 'mystery note'.
Amidon Anan, former forensic chief of police Crime Scene Investigation Unit, is also in the gallery. He is observing the inquest in his personal capacity.
'Live' reports follow:
9.30am: Coroner Azmil Munthapa Abas kicks off proceedings by calling Pornthip as the first witness. She is questioned by Malek Imtiaz Sarwar, who represents her and the Selangor government.
He takes her through her report and photos based on the second post-mortem.
9.55am: Pornthip says she found deep haemorrhage on Teoh's neck reaching to the muscle. The area affected is larger than if there had been manual strangulation, as the force was more than that exerted by a physical grip on the neck.
But based on reviews she had done on 34-35 fall-from-height cases previously, none had that sort of wound. She thinks it's not possible that the bruise was caused by impact with the ground.
10am: Pornthip also rules out the possibility that the bruise was caused by fracture of the spine. She maintains her observation that it was a pre-fall injury with "more force and more weight" than caused by manual strangulation.
She concedes she has no experience on neck holds. She says it could be that "someone put something on Teoh's neck or pressed his head on something".
Referring to the first autopsy report, she cannot exclude that Teoh was unconscious before falling, as the report shows cerebral edema.
It shows that Teoh experienced hypoxia, where brain does not receive oxygen, for at least 5 minutes. Hypoxia is due to a blocked vein, artery or trachea.
10.10 am: Pornthip disagrees wtih Dr Peter Vaneziz that the mark on the neck was due to fracture of the chin. She says a chin fracture area is small and hemorrhage does continue to the chest. Also there are no blood vessels on the chin to cause excessive bleeding.
10.20am: She says there was no fracture to the wrist, which would have been the case if someone protects themselves from a fall with their hands.
There was a fracture and external wound above one ankle, but none at the base of the skull. So she disagrees with Vaneziz that Teoh had landed on his feet and that he was concious when he fell.
10.30am: Pornthip says the anal tear and injury to the buttocks was caused by the fall and not by beating as she had previously thought.
10.43am: She maintains her opinion about the pre-fall injury, but cannot confirm that Teoh was concious during the fall, She declines to go into the percentage of her certainty on the cause of death, because she has had to base this on a report. But she is sure it was not suicide.
10.45am: Malik completes his examination. Gobind Singh Deo, who is representing Teoh's family, begins questioning the witness.
10.55am: Pornthip says that, in her experience as a crime scene investigator and forensic scientist, any note found should be tested for DNA, fingerprints and palm prints immediately, and then be subjected to handwriting analysis. "This is protocol."
But such notes have very little impact on investigation because these are emotional in nature. As such, she prefers to rely on science.
That said, it would be important for police, "especially the crime scene investigator", to examine the note.
11.00am: MACC prosecution head Abdul Razak Musa begins cross- examining Pornthip, to establish her credentials as an expert witness.
He suggests that her testimony is based on her imagination. Pornthip refutes this, saying it is based on her work.
Razak notes that she is not qualified as a forensic expert in Malaysia as the university from which she graduated is not recognised in Malaysia. Pornthip replies that the university is one of the top five in Thailand - some in the public gallery applaud.
[More to follow]


Are you sure you want to delete this comment?
This action cannot be undone.