The resumption of the Teoh Beng Hock inquest in Shah Alam today saw his family lawyer’s Gobind Singh Deo exchanging words with British pathologist Dr Peter Vanezis on three issues.

The first of the three concerned how the pathologist - engaged by the MACC - had obtained information before the second post-mortem was conducted. The second was on the shoe marks on the wall of the MACC office in Plaza Masalam and third, an injury to the back of Teoh’s wrist.

azlan The heated exchange resulted in the lawyer to calling the pathologist ‘arrogant’ in not answering his question with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ while Vanezis asked why he was being ‘harassed’ by Gobind as he was here to assist the inquest.

"Why are you so defensive," Gobind asked at one point and the witness replied: "I know I am not on trial here."

Coroner Azmil Muntapha Abas at times had to caution Gobind although he agreed there were some portions in Vanezis’s report that needed further clarification.

One of them was over Vanezis stating that he was not in a position to categorically say that Teoh had somehow been physically forced out of the MACC building’s 14 th floor window whilst conscious although in his view, such a circumstance was unlikely.

On where he obtained his facts to come-up with his findings, Vanezis replied he was briefed on the matter by the MACC.

Gobind then asked him if it did not occur to him that he should have obtained certain facts from others. The lawyer was referring to the corruption investigations that the MACC had launched on Teoh.

‘Not professional’

The lawyer said it was important to obtain all information to get an actual picture of what had transpired before preparing his report to which Vanezis agreed.

Outside the court, Teoh's sister, Lee Lan, claimed Vanezis was not doing a professional job as he did not take into consideration other views or the background surrounding Teoh’s death.

"He should be a professional as he was brought in and was hired by the MACC to come up with the report," she told reporters.

NONE On the shoe-marks on the MACC office walls, Vanezis said: "I do not have specialisation in this field. The matter should have been inspected earlier. I am a pathologist and this question should have been asked to a criminologist or some other people," he said.

Thai pathologist Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand, engaged by the Selangor government, had before this suggested that it was possible that Teoh had been dragged resulting in the shoe mark to the wall and also the possibility that he had been thrown out the window.

Gobind continues with his cross-examination of Vanezis tomorrow.

Teoh, the 30-year-old political secretary to Selangor executive councillor Ean Yong Hian Wah, had been summoned to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) office on the 14th floor of Plaza Masalam to be quizzed over irregularities in the disbursement of state funds on July 15, 2009.

He was found dead the following day on the fifth-floor’s exterior service platform of the building. The MACC had engaged Vanezis to observe the second post-mortem on Teoh's remains and to provide his opinion on the case.

Written guarantees

Earlier, at the outset of the proceedings, lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar told the court that the Thai government wanted assurances in writing over Pornthip safety if she were to testify at the inquest.

azlan Pornthip had earlier claimed that there had been threats to her safety should she testify.

"My client (the Selangor state government) has written to the home ministry and the Attorney- General Chambers on April 20, to get these assurances."

"However, there is no reply from then. Hence, I am still waiting for such assurances before relating it to the Thai government," he said.