I swear to tell the whole truth if it’s convenient, half-truths when it’s necessary, and lies to save some asses

There are two ongoing inquests.

Teoh Beng Hock’s.

Gunasegaran’s.

Both having the same objective.

To get to the truth of why and how these two men died.

Practitioners of the law will tell you that the worth of a witness’s testimony turns on how much of what he or she says remains intact and uncontradicted after cross-examination and re-examination.

I have not received the transcript of the testimony in Teoh’s case.

Like most of you, I depend on the online alternative news portals for accounts of what has transpired in Teoh’s case.

In Gunasegaran’s case, I am sent the notes of proceedings taken by someone who faithfully attends court to record as best he can all that is said.

I am behind in reporting to you on Gunasegaran’s case. I shall post them as soon as I can.

____________________________________________

On 19th February, the Teoh inquest resumed hearing after having been adjourned to allow for a second, court-ordered, postmortem to be performed on the remains of the deceased. This arose following the earlier testimony of Thai pathologist Dr Porntip Rojanasunand that based on photographs and the first post-mortem report, she suspected that there was an 80 percent likelihood Teoh’s death was homicidal.

That second postmortem was carried out by Sungai Buloh hospital resident pathologist Dr Shahidan Md Noor.

He gave his evidence-in-chief on 19th February.

He disputed Porntip’s suggestion that there was a manual strangulation injury on the neck of the deceased.

He said  that although there was a round bruise “berry” mark on the left side of the neck of the deceased, he believed it was not as a result of strangulation.

“If there was strangulation the degree of force applied by the fingers would be different and would not result in such marks. It would require a great degree of force to result in asphyxia, where there would be signs of force to the neck. The injuries to the neck is consistent as a result of falling from a high place“, he is reported to have said.

Shahidan said there was bruising at the thyroid of the deceased and a permanent blood clot at the back of the tongue near the neck. He went on to confirm that the injuries found on Teoh’s neck was caused by the fall.

Shahidan also said that the two pathologists, Dr Khairul Azman Ibrahim from Klang Hospital, and Dr Prashant Naresh Samberkar, from Universiti Malaya Medical Centre, who performed the first post mortem had done their job well.

This aspect of Shahidan’s testimony has been extracted from this Malaysiakini report.

Shahidan was cross-examined on his evidence-in-chief on 1st March.

He said that in any death-in-custody case, two procedures have to be observed:

1) examination for evidence of pressure imposed on the neck, such as signs of strangulation

2) Dissection of limbs and certain muscles would need to be carried out to ascertain whether there were beatings

He agreed that failure to perform these procedures in post-mortems in custodial death cases might suggest an attempted cover-up.

He then confirmed that the limb dissection procedure were not performed during the first post-mortem.

Asked to explain the red mark which stretched from the left to the right of Teoh’s neck and was clearly visible from a photo taken during the first post-mortem, Shahidan agreed that this was not noted in the first postmortem report, agreed that looking at the bruises on the neck was an important factor to consider in the case, and was a serious omission on the part of the two pathologists who performed the first post-mortem.

He agreed that the first postmortem might not have been done in a prudent and competent manner.

He could not explain the cause of the red bruise to the neck.

Shahidan agreed that there was a possibility that Teoh may have been choked before the fall, but said it did not cause his death.

Referring to his own postmortem report he said : “There was also a left platysma muscle contusion on the left side of the neck and also similar but smaller signs on the right. This implies there was some form of oxygen deprivation to the blood. Contusion of the platysma could be a sign of choking or strangulation“.

Shahidan agreed that Teoh could have been choked or tortured before he fell. “It was a possible scenario but not probable,” he said.

This aspect of Shahidan’s testimony has been extracted from this Malaysiakini report.

After a 9-day break, Shahidan was re-examined yesterday.

Shahidan informeed the court that the red mark on Teoh’s neck was probably there some 72 hours before Teoh fell.

Shahidan said it was not possible that Teoh was hit or strangled before he fell.

He said there was no injury to suggest that Teoh had been hit prior to his death as there were no defensive wounds.

He could not say for certain whether a choke-hold or neck-lock was applied to Teoh, but he believed Teoh to have been conscious before and during the fall.

This aspect of Shahidan’s testimony has been extracted from this Malaysiakini report.

_________________________________________________

On 5th March, I reported about day 4 of the Gunasegaran case HERE.

The proceedings on the day saw the cross-examination of the police officer who led the raiding party that arrested Gunasegaran and 4 others.

I reproduce below the relevant part of my report of the proceedings on that day. I have highlighted in red the parts you should note.

______________________________________________

Rajinder said that he was in a room with other colleagues when Subari told him someone had fainted at the back at about 6.45pm.

Visva: Subari was with you in the room. He can’t be in 2 places at the same time. I am putting it to you that you are not telling the truth.

Visva then referred the witness to the Markings on a photograph indicating the position of Guna on the floor.

Viava: My witnesses have instructed that Guna screamed in pain.

Rajinder : I didn’t hear.

Visva: You said Subari heard something. What did he hear?

Rajinder : I don’t know.

The witness said he did not go near the deceased but only saw Guna from the doorway, and did not touch Guna.

He said he saw Zahir sprinkle water on Guna.

Visva: Did you or your men give any first aid.

Rajinder : No

Visva: Why?

Rajinder : (Hesitates) Because Zahir sprinkled water. Besides him, Tuan Azrul sprinkled water and shook his hands.

The witness said nobody gave first aid or called for assistance or ambulance, because suspects usually pretend to be unconscious.

Visva: That is the truth, and so he was assaulted?

Rajinder : Not true

Visva: How long did you witness this sprinkling of water?

Rajinder : About 10 minutes.

________________________________________

The Gunasegaran inquest resumed on 13, 14th, 19th and 25th January, 2010 and, more recently, on 8th and 9th March, 2010.

I have not as yet reported on what transpired on those days in January. I will do that the soonest some aspects of the notes forwarded to me are clarified.

For now, let me reproduce here the unedited report I received of what transpired in court on 8th March.

It is of the testimony of Lance Corporal Zahir, who Rajinder said had sprinkled water on Gunasegaran as the latter lay on the floor of the Sentul police station.

_______________________________________________

March 8, 2010

Day 9 of the Gunasegaran Inquest

The 9^th witness, Lance Corporal Zahir took the court by surprise today when he contradicted the testimony of all his collegues on several points.

Four of his collegues had testified that when the deceased collapsed, it was Zahir (who was then taking his fingerprints) who had sprinkled water on his face and moved his hands. However, the witness denied this and went further to say he did not even touch the deceased.

Questioned by the DPP, Zahir said SM Rajinder had sprinkled water on the deceased.

The witness reaffirmed this during cross examination.

Other contradictions

• The deceased was not handcuffed en-route to the station
• There were only three persons around when Gunasegaran collapsed, and named Rajinder as one of them, omitting Insp. Azrul.

.The witness also said the arrest report only names 4 suspects and omitted Guna’s name because his was a case of drug possession.

Visva: Then why was a separate arrest report not made?

Witness: Because the urine test was not complete, the suspect could not give his urine sample.

Visva: If it was a drug possession case, the urine test was irrelevant.

The witness could not explain.

The Coroner then repeated the question.

The witness paused a while, then said he did not know.

The witness was then referred to the third report  made at 8.27pm.

Visva: About an hour after the deceased was certified dead, it is stated that he possessed drugs, that he attempted to run away etc, knowing very well he will not be able to deny it. However no mention is made of his death. Isn’t this strange, or is this normal?

Witness: Don’t know.

The witness agreed with Visva that it is normal anywhere in Malaysia to make a report when there is a death.

Visva : Why is there no report in Gunasegaran’s  death?

Witness: I am given to understand the hospital will make the report.

The witness denied Visva’s suggestion that he is lying in court, & that he and his collegues had conspired to conceal Guna’s death to avoid an investigation.

The witness was then referred to statements of  3 of the suspects.

He agreed the accusations are serious, but denied it is the truth.

Visva: Why would they make such a serious allegation?

Witness: Because drug addicts don’t like the police.

Visva then referred the witness to the testimony of Selvaraj, whom the witness affirmed had tested negative for drugs and was subsequently freed.

However, before Visva could proceed further, the witness blurted out that Selvaraj was “drunk with toddy”.

Visva: Is this stated anywhere in the report.

Witness: No

Visva then severely admonished the witness for making unsubstantiated statements to mislead the court.

The witness then affirmed that Rajinder had sprinkled water on Guna when he collapsed. When Visva  pointed out that Rajinder and his other collegues  had testified it was  the witness who did it he was silent.

Visva reminded the  witness he was under oath to tell the truth and that sprinkling water on an unconscious person was a noble act –  there was no reason to deny it if he had actually done so.

Visva: So who is telling the truth? Who sprinkled water and attended to Guna – or nobody at all?

Witness: (long pause)

Asked if he now wants to change his testimony, he said he “feels it was Rajinder”.

The witness also affirmed he did not touch the deceased.

Visva: Rajinder said you sprinkled water and moved his hands. Now you say you did not touch him.

Witness. I am not sure.

Visva: You are a compulsive liar. There is no point in going on.

After an hour and fifteen minutes of cross examination, the credibility of the witness was in shambles.

Visva  had earlier asked the Coroner to note the delayed answers and demeanor of  the witness.

Posted in: Right to know