Dr. Vanezis obediently included what he obtained in a briefing from MACC in his report on the second autopsy for the late Teoh Beng Hock. Wonder if a second embarrassment will arise in today's examination by Gobind like in the case below:
"Years ago, Vanezis went to court with a brief about a woman's murder that he had not read thoroughly. When asked about the wounds, he read out "stabbed incised wounds". The judge knew that stab wounds and incisions were two different things and admonished him, saying "you don't give a fig about this case".
Professor Vanezis scurried out of court too quickly to pick up his remittance.
Source: Guardian: Pursuit of truth
Related post: Dr. Vanezis, read what another Doctor said of you
2 comments:
Ha ha... why didn't you bother writing all of what the Guardian wrote about Dr Vanezis in that article? It sounds pretty complimentary to me.
It is clear from the article that that particular anecdote came from Dr Vanezis himself. He was trying to make the point of how important it is to not "get it wrong" when testifying in court.
Doesn't the whole truth matter to you?
HI, Well i understand the pain & frustration written.
Lets talk science...how can a person sustain such a injury to lower limbs including the ankle and foot bone when he is thrown from a window in unconscious state.
kindly read the mechanism and pattern of injuries sustained in a fall from height.
Post a Comment