I really hope you read what Dr. Rafick wrote of you and hope your conscience is not troubling you:
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.
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.
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
Size of the window
The torn pants
The broken window latch
The unsubstantiated facts that he was released a few hours before he was found dead.
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. Why isn't this possibility 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. This is a point that I agree with Dr Porthnip.
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 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.
Source: Teoh Beng Hock Who?