Death at MACC: My CSI XVI – Making sense of the 80% probability
By Dr. Rafick
1. I guess everyone is still shocked with the imported Pathologist from Thailand, Dr Porntip Rojanasunan (Dr PR) revelation that there is 80% probability that TBH died from Homicide and not suicide. As usual, I prefer to analyze the exact facts reveal during inquest by visiting the AG Chamber website but I found that the “Nota Keterangan” has not been updated since 14 Aug 2009. The video recording was has a poor audio quality and I really need to read the “Explanatory Notes” to digest what was asked and what was said by all parties.
2.. As I do not have access to the crucial information, I have to rely on what was printed in the MSM as well as on the online media. To ensure consistency, I use The Star, NST, Malaysian Insider, Malaysiakini and Malaysian Mirror as my source of reference.
3. Some people are wondering on how Dr PR came to this 80% conclusion. I can safely say that is based on facts and her own personal experience. She would then make a guesstimate on the probability that TBH was murdered and did not commit suicide. We must appreciate that Dr PR came to the conclusion without examining the actual body but based on document review which includes photos, reports and the reports by her 2 assistance that came over several months back. I will try to explain in the simple manner on how Dr PR arrived at this conclusion.
4. Dr PR concluded that that TBH was unconscious and was already injured when he exited the window based on the type, severity and location of injuries. It appears that TBH has two types of injuries. One is due to the fall and the other is due to physical abuses. She concluded that in the absence of reactive injury when the late TBH impacted the floor, he must be unconscious.
5. Firstly, Dr PR concluded that he was unconscious because she expected that someone that is conscious during a fall would cushion his/her fall with an outstretched hand. This is a common sense which I believe many people who had slipped would have experience injuries on the hand or wrist as a result of the body reflex where the person hand would automatically be outstretched. At the height, speed and momentum, one would expect severe injuries to the hands but in this case there were none. For this reason she concluded TBH was unconscious. This is a fair, simple and acceptable argument.
6. The second issue is that whether TBH has injuries consistent with a fall from height. In this aspect, Dr PR agreed with Malaysian doctors that there is substantial evidence to show that there is a fall from height. Among others, these include the leg and hip fractures. Again this is a reasonable and fair conclusion.
7. The other significant comment that was highlighted by Dr PR that indicates that TBH was brutalized before being thrown out of the window is based on several signs on the body. The first being the skull fracture where she said is consistent with a blunt trauma. In this case, the skull injury does not match those that are due to the fall. Personally, I think both side of the camp can split hair and probably there is a strong probability that both parties are right in the sense that it is hard to differentiate the outcome of an injury due to a fall and due to a blunt trauma.
8. The most damaging evidence came from the findings of Dr PR on the signs of strangulation around the neck. A quick review of the pathologist report (Item No 5, pg 7 and Item under heading of injuries on page 3) showed that the Malaysian Pathologist acknowledge the presence of the wound but did not account for the reason of the wound. Certainly, Dr PR has a point as she demonstrated how the wound would have come about i.e. by manual strangulation.
9. Another interesting interpretation by Dr PR is with regards to the anal wound. Again the Malaysian Pathologist noted the presence of a penetrating wound injury measuring 2cmx6cm (Item 7 and 8, page No4) (item 7, 8 page No8 ) but did not take into account the cause of this injury when making their conclusions. Dr PR claim such a longitudinal wound must have been due to a penetrating injury rather that the fractures around the hip. This is also logical
10. From Dr PR findings, it is obvious that the Malaysian doctors actually saw what Dr PR saw but did not take into account the seriousness of the two injuries at the neck and anus. Is there a possibility that they had intentionally omitted their conclusions on these two injuries? If there is such a possibility, then why did they do it? A senior pathologist like Dr Khairul surely could not have concluded that the injury especially in the neck is due to a fall from height.
