Teoh Beng Hock; Who?

1. I am not sure how many articles I wrote about TBH from the moment he ejected or was ejected through the window of the Shah Alam office window. I have loss count. One reader suggests that I wrote a book because he says that it has been so many articles. Writing a book is something that can be done but getting it published is another story all together especially in Malaysia.
   

    

2. TBH is a human being. Some people want to make it into a racial issue. Clearly, I think there are enough cases of injuries involving Malaysian while being in the custody of enforcement agencies in Malaysia. So let us expect nothing less than a decent and fair justice for TBH. It is important not so much for TBH but for the living i.e. the family, the fatherless child and all Malaysian who can a potential victim like TBH.
   

    

3. Sadly, this inquest seems to be taking too long. The interest in the case is dying. A friend even told me today that TBH is an old story and is no longer relevant. That shocks me. I guess the dragging case and the many experts and witnesses that have been called have made it no longer interesting to follow.
   

    

4. Today a British pathologist (Dr Vanezis) gave his views. In his statement he said that TBH was alive when he “ejected” through the window. To quote, he said, “I’m a pathologist. All I can say is that person was alive, oriented and fell”. I find that the choice of words use has been very carefully selected. Being alive and oriented means that TBH has been well. The word fell suggest accidental. He did not use the word push or thrown out from the window.
   

    

5. I am not a pathologist but as a doctor, I cannot comprehend on what basis that the Dr Vanezis claims that TBH was alive and oriented prior to his fall. How can one make such a conclusion by looking at a body during a second post-mortem? The absence of defensive injury on the deceased is not good enough to come to such conclusion. An unconscious person would also not have any defensive injuries. A man under tremendous intimidation and pressure would not fight especially if there is more than intimidator in the same room. Dr Vanezis has intentionally close his professional options by making such statements. It is down right unprofessional.
   

    

6. In any death, there are motives. The motives of a suicide are clearly missing here. The possibility of an accidental fall can be disputed by the following facts
   

    

   1. Size of the window
      
   2. The torn pants
      
   3. The broken window latch
      
   4. Unexplained scratch marks on the shoes
      
   5. The unsubstantiated facts that he was released a few hours before he was found dead.
      

       

7. The fact that he had broken legs could jolly well means that he had been carried through the window and threw out of the window leg first and in the process his pants got stuck in the window latch and it broke it. It cannot be use as a basis of jumping out of a window. Why this possibility not being considered by the pathologist in coming to a conclusion? A bruise mark around the neck if diffuse can be attributed to a fall but a bruise that matches a persons hand print cannot be equate due to a fall. Dr Vanezis fails to explain on why the presence of the unique shape of the bruise. This is a point that I agree with Dr Porthnip.
   

    

8. At the rate this case is dragging, I am not convinced that a reasonable explanation is being considered as the cause of the “ejection” and the eventual death. It seems that the MACC lawyers are looking at extra ordinary (or unreasonable) explanation circumstances that led to the death. From where I am standing it appears that MACC lawyers are not trying to seek the truth but behaving as if they are defending a guilty party. This is sad. That is not what inquest is all about.
   

    

   Previous write up/analysis on TBH case.