I am not aware that there was a “first immediate response from MACC officer on Teoh’s death” who said “Who the hell will expect that there would be an accident!”. If there was such an MACC officer who said that, was he called to testify at the Inquest?

As far as I know it was “first immediate response” from some journalist writing for mainstream papers – and RPK in MalaysiaToday speculating what could have happened.

However, you simply did not remember that the first immediate response from MACC officer on Teoh’s death was “Who the hell will expect that there would be an accident!” I am sure that the MACC staff who were on duty on the same day as Teoh’s death would have the some clue and a strong feeling on who really did it. However, as a matter of fact it is not a conventional practice for Barisan Nasional Government employees to voluntarily pinpoint the fault of other who works in the same department. The MACC top officer may just want a foreign expert to pinpoint the true culprit on his behalf so that he won’t have to offend the alleged by straightforward saying to the public that Mr so and so really did it! Sadly, to keep other colleague’s fault secretive and confidential has already become a bad office culture in Malaysia’s government offices! That is the reason why MACC needs to pay an expensive fees to engage a foreign expert in order to pinpoint the fault of MACC itself!

A medical report from Penang GH by a “specialist” and lecturer of the Medical College as follows can also tell how “creditable” Government Medical Report be even for a simple Lawyer assaulting clients case:
1. The blood pressure for patient A, 8 hours after being assaulted, was 158 when his normal pressure was 110. An intravenous Infusion was done to bring the pressure done.
2. He was admitted also because of blurring of eyesight.
3. He was discharged after blood pressure resumed to 110 but still with blurring of eyesight, sore-limbs. Bruises were found 2-3days after discharged and was examined by the doctors.
4. The report was written saying
a) The Patient was admitted with biological data normal and was discharged…..
b) The medical report for Client B being assaulted: Blood pressure 158 – a known case of hypertension…
5. After a compliant to the Health Ministry, then the second report for Client A came with the blood pressure and the bruises but a 2nd reading was given without mentioning that Intravenous Infusion was given and blurring of eyesight remains. It was diagnosed as Cerebral concession but only x-ray of the skull was done and repeated to the chest even with repeated complaint of blurring of eyesight.
Head Chart examination was done.

5. The hand was numb after 2 days and blood shot out of the vein after a normal acupuncture.

Shouldn’t at least CT scan on the skull be the more appropriate examination? Or, at least some other examination to look into the eye-blurring?

Did Doctors think of Professionalism before they write a Medical Report, especially when it also related to Grievance?
Gone even their hearts?

The above is only my speculation. I have not been to the MACC office and I do not know whether it is possible to overhear talking going on in any of the rooms!

Thats true. As you said, “no right minded person will ever think so”. So its killing – that leaves two possibilities:

1. caused by MACC personnel during MACC interrogation; or

2. caused by MACC personnel or unknown persons (with complicity of one or two persons inside MACC) (after interrogation).

If you believe MACC interrogation ended at 3.30 am and TBH’s death was hours later after 8 am, then it has to be situation 2. In such a case, it must be asked, and one cannot escape the question, of who stands to benefit from the killing of TBH.

Agrre that in either 1 or 2 situation, MACC will be responsible as crime occurred within its precincts. That however however cannot prejudge who actually perpetrated the act and for whom. You can point fingers at MACC if you think it benefits from TBH’s elimination but do you really believe that’s the case? Is it rational to so believe?

Teoh’s case looks set to be 99% murder case. If those people had nothing to do with Teoh’s death, they would not have followed Dr Pornthip.

His probable death is – I would speculate – likely a private initiative, an unofficial and unsanctioned act of an individual or individuals with clear motives of wanting specifically to torture and kill him and who have access to him in the time between end of interrogation at 3.30 am and his death at 8 am.

Who the killer is – is likely someone whose interests or who represents interest that will gravely be threatened and prejudiced by his being alive…..

His being alive was of course of no threat to anyone (until he walked into MACC office for questioning as a witness). So it boils down to WHAT he was going to testify (after interrogation) that will truly determine the motive of his killing and who might that be.

The circumstances then point to him being prepared to cooperate with the MACC – consistent with him being held back and not leaving MACC after official interriogation ended at 3.30 pm.

It is well nigh possible – as I see no motive on MACC part (officially) to kill TBH (a part of Opposition DAP) when he (alive) he would be more useful as key witness to bring down Pakatan Rakyat Selangor state govt (as desired by their bosses in Putrajaya). Also if TBH was killed by accidental 3rd degree methods in the course of official interrogation, his death would be around 3 am during or when interrogation ended rather than after 8 am estimated time of death. There is a big question mark of why he stayed on in MACC after interrogation ended after 3 am. Of course the MACC did not release him or give him back his hand phone/ belongings which is just as consistent to the speculation that he could be cooperating (maybe due to earlier threats and coercion) and awaiting complilation of reports for signing…We don’t know this part.

MACC’s denial syndrome that TBH was killed is understandasble because whichever way one looks at it – whether by MACC’s personnel or accidentally or “subversive elements out to protect their own interests” – MACC would still be culpable as death occurred whilst he was under their custody, control and protection. If “subversive elements” could get to him within MACC precincts it shows that elements within MACC were in complicity with subversive elements – so MACC would still be culpable.

I assume ultimately we want to know the Truth of his death and it matters not whether investigations lead to who and open the pandora box – whether pointing at govt agencies, “subversive elements” or further to door steps of one or two miscreant Pakatan Rakyat assemblymen!

///It seems unlikely that the outcome of today’s investigation will point the finger at anyone in particular./// – OrangRojak

At this moment, before the question of who killed him may be addressed, it is trite that the other prior question of whether he was killed by others or he committed suicide in the first place must first be settled conclusively.

Once Prof Vanezis settles the issue that he was killed (homicide) it means clearly that there cannot be a closure to this matter, and no matter that the Inquest could not determine the identity of the killer, the finding of homicide (as opposed to suicide) will make it (1) imperative for police to re-open investigation or continue with more intensive investigations along that line of homicide, and also (2) provide all justification for public/opposition demand for the Royal Commission on the MACC itself to determine how and why murder most foul could occur in the course of MACC’s work in their premises!

Such a finding (of homicide) will effectively dispel all official pretensions that security agencies are performing their duties with professionalism. It immediately shifts onus on authorities and BN govt to show cause why they should not be booted out in the next election.

Even if it is proven that TBH was killed, what is the remit of the Inquest? Do they continue investigating, or do they declare “murder” and pass the case back to the police? It seems unlikely that the outcome of today’s investigation will point the finger at anyone in particular. We can only hope.

The professional record of this man evinces that he looks for clues of homicide (1,500) where others said that they were not.

[He was engaged by Harrods owner Mohamed al-Fayed to determine if Henri Paul, who was driving the car in which his son Dodi and the late Princess Diana died, was drunk during the accident. The suggestion is if Henri Paul were not, then it could be foul play, whether by British Secret Intelligence (M5) or others - for it is Mohamed al-Fayed’s conspirarcy theory that Diana was pregnant with Dodi’s child].

The temper of mind and record of this man is to uncover foul play.

It’s a mystery to me why MACC wants to engage this man whose professional forte is to expose foul play – unless MACC itself is open minded enough to accept exposure of foul play which only serves to shoot its own foot & implicates the entire Malaysian system of criminal investigation and forensics!

To conclude suicide on the side of MACC, Prof Vanezis has to ignore injuries of the neck and anus sustained by Teoh Beng Hock (TBH) before death that Pornthip suggested.

How could a professional like Prof Vanezis ignore neck and anus injuries that appear like an elephant in the room?

Surely he cannot claim that THB’s decomposition within 6 months period is so advanced that these injuries cannot be inferred.

After all it only 6 months – a flash in the pan – compared to 5,300 years which was the age of the an Italian shepherd, whose mummified body was found at the tztaler Alps near the Austrian and Italian border in 1991 that the good professor conducted forensic tests upon on how he had died!