Anil then reminds us that ‘the findings of the second post mortem report are so different from the first’ and suggests that the ‘Serdang Hospital personnel who conducted the first examination must now explain why all this was not detected or highlighted in their post mortem report’.
“How many other post mortems have there been like this? What have you got to say, Serdang Hospital?”, Anil asks.
Malaysiakini reports today that Bar Council Vice-President Ragunath said that the new autopsy raised several serious questions including “the integrity of the police force and the independence of the pathologist who conducted the initial autopsy”.
“The fact that the results of the second autopsy differ so extensively from that of the first smacks of an apparent attempt to cover up and protect members of the police force who were in charge of A Kugan during the period of detention”, Ragunath is reported to have opined.
NST online reports today that Serdang hospital director, Dr Mohd Norzi Ghazali, said a mob of about 50 people had barged in and tampered with the body before any post-mortem was carried out by the hospital’s forensics pathologist, and that consequently, both post-mortems were “weak evidence” in the case as they had been conducted after the body had been tampered with.
I’d suggest you read the NST report in full.
Even if Dr Mohd Norzi is right about the tampering of the body by the mob, that still does not explain the vast difference in the findings between the two post-mortem reports.
This still remains unexplained.
What I found most distressing, though, in all that Dr Mohd Norzi said, was his contention that the wounds on the body could have been inflicted after Kugan’s death, the clear insinuation being that these were inflicted by the mob, which included family members of the deceased.
Why, Doc, would you imagine that family members of a recently departed might mutilate the otherwise unblemished body of that recently departed?
To save some disgraceful men in the police force?
Doc, you need help!
