Below are the excerpts of the UK pathologist's 14-page report entitled 'Medical Report and Opinion Concerning the Death of Teoh Beng Hock' which was submitted to the court on Monday .

My comments on the cause and manner of death taking into account all the information available to me:

1. The pattern, distribution and extent and severity of the injuries seen are typical of a fall from a height. I base this opinion on my own personal experience of all types of trauma cases that I have conducted autopsies on over 35 years of practice and from the experience of my colleagues that I have with, as well as a review of the relevant literature in this area.

2. The distribution of the fractures to the upper and lower limbs, pelvis and elsewhere strongly indicate that the victim had landed in such a manner so that the initial impact was to the lower part of his body, most probably feet, then onto buttocks, and at the same time as landing he had attempted to break his fall as can be seen from the pattern of the lower limb fractures.

    

3. He had also landed partly on his hands in an attempt to break his fall taking into account the fractures seen as well as the forceful impact of his wrist watch causing patterned injuries to his left wrist and then breaking up into parts, which were found on the landing near the body.

 

4. Following the initial impact, the distribution of injuries indicate that he had then impacted onto the front of his chest, neck and head, causing injuries to these areas as seen at the post-mortem examination.

    

5. In my view in order to produce the injuries he must have been fully conscious and spatially orientated at the time of his fall.

             

6. None of the injuries show that he was killed by any other means and then thrown out of the window from the 14th floor. The injuries seen to the body are accompanied by evidence of vital reactions (bruising, bleeding into cavities and organs and as well as the distribution of the fractures as discussed above.

                 

7. His shoes show marks on the soles which are typical of sudden and sufficiently forceful friction contact against a surface such as seen on the landing. Furthermore it is not unusual for forceful impact to dislodge a shoe from a foot. The damage seen to the shoes taken together with the severe fractures and other damage to feet reinforce the view that he had landed feet first.

            

8. Other damage to clothing, especially in the seat area of the trousers is not uncommon in such falls where there has been forceful deceleration and impact of the body onto a surface, in this case the fifth floor landing, and when such damage is associated with the extensive pelvic injuries seen.

     

9. There had been concern that the damage to the anus could have been caused by an object being forcefully inserted in that region prior to death. The photographs I have seen and the post-mortern examinations carried out, entirely refute this view and indeed support the fact that they were caused in the fall.

10. The pelvic injuries in my view are responsible for the lacerated area of the anus, resulting from free downward and upward movement of the sacrum and coccyx which was entirely dislocated from the ilium.

11. There were severe injuries to the chest resulting from forward impact of the body and this motion also caused hyperextension of the neck resulting in fracture dislocation of the cervical spine.    

    

12. The fractured skull and subarachnoid haemorrhage seen are also in keeping with the pattern of injuries resulting from the fall.

13. There is no evidence that the deceased's neck had been compressed as in strangulation prior to death. The bruising of the neck region is part of the overall pattern of injury from the fall. The larynx and hyoid bone were intact. There were no ligature marks, nail scratches or finger tip bruises seen to the surface of the neck.

         

14. The use of a neck hold with the forearm at some stage cannot be excluded, but in any event he was not unconscious when he precipitated out of the window. Furthermore there were no petechial haemorrhages present in the eyes which would substantiate forceful or prolonged compression of the neck.

        

15. There were no obvious marks of restraint seen on the body. However, it is possible that a person can be restrained with no bruising being found. It depends on the manner and force applied in such circumstances.

            

16. Toxicological analysis did not reveal any evidence that he was incapacitated or under the influence of alcohol or drugs.             

17. I am not in a position to say categorically whether or not the deceased had been somehow physically forced out of the window whilst conscious although in my view from the evidence I have seen this appears unlikely.

18. I am also not able to say whether or not he had been subjected to some form of intimidation which may have led to his fall. This is a matter for others to give a view on as it is outside my area of expertise.

'Teoh was fully conscious when he fell'