Vanezis: Second autopsy not reliable

A British forensics pathologist has testified that the first autopsy on Teoh Beng Hock yielded the most reliable information, while the second autopsy conducted five months after death, could have been manipulated.

Dr Peter Vanezis (left) told the royal commission of inquiry into Teoh's death that the best conclusions can be drawn from the photos from the first autopsy.

Vanezis, who has more than three decades of experience in the field, said that the second autopsy could have been manipulated by the pathologist.

He was referring particularly to a bruise on left neck region, which has led to varying conclusions by several pathologists and forensics experts.

“You can hardly see anything on the first post mortem (showing) a bruise,” Vanezis.

He was commenting on a photograph from the second autopsy that was shown during the inquiry .

“This photograph reveals manipulation of pathologists by opening the neck... it’s unreliable,” he said.

Vanezis had previously disagreed with Thai pathologist Dr Porntip Rojanasunan (right) that the marks were signs of strangulation or blunt force being applied, which could have rendered Teoh unconscious or caused his death.

Vanezis’ conclusion concurred with that of government pathologists Dr Khairul Azman Ibrahim and Dr Prashant Naresh Sambekar, who conducted the first autopsy and concluded that Teoh’s injuries were a result of a fall from height.

Khairul had earlier testified at the inquiry that the bruising was discolouration of the skin from the first post-mortem and it was not distinct.

This was backed by Prashant, who also submitted his own collection of photographs on the first autopsy.

Vanezis insisted that only the original photographs of the first autopsy would provide a concrete understanding on the extent of the injuries.

“We have to rely on the first post-mortem to find what has been found,” he said.

Khairul, who is from the Hospital Tengku Ampuan Rahimah, Klang, conducted the first post-mortem on July 17, 2009 aided by Prashant, who is from the Universiti Malaya Medical Centre.

Teoh, the political secretary to Seri Kembangan assemblyperson Ean Yong Hian Wah, was taken in as a witness by the Selangor Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission's (MACC) over a probe into alleged misuse of state funds by several elected representatives.

He was questioned overnight on July 15, 2009. His body was found on the fifth floor service landing of Plaza Masalam, Shah Alam, the next day.

Both Vanezis and Porntip had testified in the coroner's inquest, which delivered an open verdict.

‘Could neck bruises be artefacts?’

MACC lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah (right) asked if the neck bruises “could be artefacts”, and Vanezis agreed.

Muhammad Shafee, reading out from Porntip’s summary of the second post-mortem, said: “The injuries or contusions could have been caused by a blunt force. This type of injury can be sustained by manual strangulation and/or from a strike from or onto a hard blunt object, the effects of which could lead to the person being rendered unconscious or to death.”

The lawyer explained that Porntip was referring to lacerated wounds below Teoh’s chin and on the left side of the anterior neck.

She had indicated, when testifying during Teoh’s inquest, that these injuries could have been sustained prior to the fall, and hence concluded that Teoh's death was due "80 percent" to homicide.

Vanezis opposed this suggestion again today as “there were no indications of manual strangulation”.

“She is not even saying it (could) have been caused by a neck hold... there is absolutely no indication... of strangulation.

“There isn’t anything abnormal with the hyoid bone or larynx (in the neck)... no pressure exerted and no haemorrhages in the eyes.

“Also we can’t tell absolutely that blunt force was applied prior to the fall, there isn’t any evidence."

He stuck by his assertion that the it was most probably the backward hyperextension of Teoh’s neck that was the cause of the injuries.

“There are no injuries found to indicate restrain in a forceful way or that he was incapacitated. I’m leaving it hanging in the air a bit, I’m sorry but I’m certain in my mind  that he (Teoh) was alive and concious when he fell,” said Vanezis.

Commissioner Mohamed Hatta Shaharom then asked the professor to summarise what could have happened to Teoh.   

“In terms of pathology and from my experience as well as my colleagues and literature (reviews)... the injuries that we see here are typical of someone who has fallen from height... and this person was alive and fully orientated..

“As a pathologist have to rely on other people investigations on how that person came to fall from the window... perhaps he was leaning to close to the window but from the photographs of the window it’s an unlikely scenario.

“Other possibilities are that he tried to kill himself or forced out of the window. But the absences of marks makes a difference (to the theory of force).

“It is precisely difficult to give (accurate description), to indicate that he was restrained before he fell (well, no marks). I’m afraid I have to let it hang but for certain he was alive and orientated,” Vanezis reiterated.

Yesterday, Vanezis stressed that Teoh’s injuries must be taken in totality and not in isolation.

He indicated that the bruises could pre-fall injuries if taken in isolation but the absences of obvious external marks cannot support the theory.

“All injuries have to be taken in total and we make a view on that,” Vanezis had said.