In the malaysiakini report on the coroner's enquiry at the Kuala Lumpur Magistrate's Court, magistrate Nazran Mohd Sham is quoted as saying:

'We are here to identify the cause of death of the deceased (whose) identity is yet to be determined conclusively. It is through this inquest, we are here to resolve this question mark. I cannot say for sure that Sara (Francis G Udayappan's mother) falls under the category of an interested person'

If that is so, I cannot understand the reason why the questioning of witnesses has been focused on one alleged escapee from the Brickfields police station, Francis G Udayappan.

There surely is a very obvious and serious contradiction in this inquest to wit the magistrate will not allow Francis' family lawyer to question witnesses, even though they have so far have only been testifying events associated to Francis.

When the deceased is not identified and presumably not known, it is indeed funny and presumptuous that this inquest begins with the tale of one Francis G Udayapan who was in the custody of the Brickfields police.

Has it been established that the body referred to in this inquest - which was fished out of the Klang River about a month after the purported escape of Francis from the Brickfields police - was indeed of someone whose last known address was the Brickfields police station?

What is the connection between the body and Brickfields police? Why are these police officers testifying not about the body, but about one alleged escapee?

Shouldn't we firstly be dealing with the person who first found the body? What was he doing there and where the body was found? Followed by his testimony about the condition of the body at that point, and what he did and so on. About what happened from then on and so forth.

At this point, there is still no connection between the body and the witnesses the public prosecutor has so far produced. The only connection between the body and the police is the reported fact that the body was dressed in a police station issued T-shirt for remand suspects and prisoners.

Considering the line the inquest's deputy public prosecutor is taking, where it seems to be more important to establish that the body is not that of Francis, it is obvious he is not keen on establishing for the magistrate ' ... the cause of death of the deceased (whose) identity is yet to be determined conclusively'.

What have all the witnesses and their testimonies so far got to do with '... the cause of death of the deceased (whose) identity is yet to be determined conclusively'? What is their special expertise or knowledge that will help the magistrate determine the cause of death?