A government pathologist who performed the second autopsy on Teoh Beng Hock's remains has ruled out strangulation as the cause of death, although he had earlier indicated the probability that this had happened before the fall.

Dr Shahidan Md Noor, the head pathologist from the Sungai Buloh Hospital, told coroner Azmil Muntapha Abas this morning that a red mark on the neck was probably there some 72 hours before Teoh fell from the 14th floor of Plaza Masalam in Shah Alam.

NONE At the on-going inquest, Shahidan maintained that the cause of death was consistent with a fall.

Gobind Singh Deo, the lawyer for Teoh’s family, then asked if the court was taking cognizance that the red mark on the neck was present before the fall.

The witness agreed but could not provide specific answers as to the cause of the mark. He said, though, that Teoh did not die of strangulation as there were no signs of trite of asphyxia.

“If there is trite of asphyxia, there would be signs of cyanosis (bruises) to the neck or the lips. There would also be signs of congestion, where the face would have turned red. Also there would be signs of petechial haemorrhage, where there would be blood to the throat area,” he said under re-examination by government-appointed lawyer Tan Hock Chuan.

Questioned earlier by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission's legal and prosecution division head Abdul Razak Musa, Shahidan said it was not possible that Teoh was hit or strangled before he fell.

"There is a bruise on his neck. but there are no signs of asphyxia. There could have been pressure applied (to the neck). However, the red line on the neck did not cause Teoh's death."

NONE Shahidan (left) also said the injury to Teoh's anal region was not the result of sodomy but was consistent with a fall.

"The stratum area suffered a fracture where it broke during the fall and was then inserted back due to the impact (with the ground)."

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

In this, he dismissed findings by Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand - the Thai pathologist representing the Selangor government - that Teoh had been hit on the head with a blunt object.

"The fracture to the right side of the body and the skull is consistent with a fall. Furthermore, falling (itself) could also be considered as (being) hit by a blunt object,” explained Shahidan.

‘Teoh was conscious’

Answering Abdul Razak, he could not say for certain  where a choke-hold or neck-lock was applied to Teoh, as suggested by Gobind and Selangor government lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar.

Shahidan  also told the court that he believed Teoh to have be conscious before and during the fall.

The inquest is being held following the mysterious death of Teoh, a day after he was questioned by the MACC on July 16 last year.

gobind singh deo jalan duta court 230409 01 At the last session, when being questioned by Gobind (left) , Shahidan had suggested the possibility but not the probability that Teoh had been choked or strangled before his fall.

After Shahidan ended his testimony, MACC's Abdul Razak asked for the two pathologists who had performed the first post-mortem be called to testify, to clarify the first paragraph of Pornthip's report.

"They performed the first post-mortem and were present during the second," he said.

Tan said he would consider the request, noting that Abdul Razak's application has merit.

But Malik objected, saying that allowing them to do re-testify would give them an opportunity to correct their earlier testimony.

The coroner said he would also consider Abdul Razak’s application, and adjourned the inquest at noon.

NONE Pornthip (right) is due to testify on April 20, while April 26 and 27 have been set aside for the testimony of Dr Peter Venezis, the British pathologist hired by MACC.

Gobind told a press conference afterwards that, although Shahidan seemed to have turned back on the possibility that Teoh could have been strangled, questions remain about the mark found on Teoh’s neck.

“That is why I want the coroner to make sure on the record that the mark was pre-fall (or sustained before the fall). We are not disputing that the cause of death was a result of the fall. But questions remain as to the mark on the neck,” he added.

VIDEO | 4 mins