（马六甲）赵家今日（週六，3月20日）为明福遗腹子赵尔家提早举行弥月之喜庆祝会，逾百名亲友及社会人士到来祝贺，为小尔家及母亲苏淑慧送上真诚祝福。
精灵活泼的尔家並不怕生，躺在床上不时转动著眼睛，仿佛对陆续来探望他的人们感到好奇，而床头置放著赵明福的遗照。
在旁看护的苏淑慧看起来精神不错，不时露出笑容；她希望儿子过著平淡的生活，不要生活在社会压力下，因此故婉拒媒体拍摄儿子的样子。
赵家週六也准备丰盛菜肴祭拜祖先，祈愿赵家第一名內孙平安长大。
於2月22日出生的赵尔家，弥月正日是在3月24日，赵家为方便亲友探访，提早数天举办庆祝会。
苏淑慧家人、赵明福兄姐妹、阿姨、舅舅及朋友们都到来祝贺，马六甲行动党州议员邱培栋及林敬贤亦有出席。
隆尊孔独中组团探望
另外，吉隆坡尊孔独中特组成一支18人的探访队伍，送上一幅写满祝福的温馨“母子图”予淑慧，以及其他祝福卡片、图书及小礼物，同时也移交一笔5300令吉捐款予赵明福基金。
苏淑慧：完成学业之前
“不想孩子曝光成焦点”
苏淑慧表示，目前不想太多，把精神放在照顾孩子上，一切顺其自然，只希望自己和孩子不要成为眾人焦点，尤其是孩子。“希望孩子在完成学业之前都不要曝光，因为我们不希望孩子去到哪儿都被人认出来。”
询及日后是否將把明福事件告诉孩子，她说，“顺其自然吧！”对於孩子出生后的情况，她说一切还好，半夜会起来喂奶。
淑慧指出，她个人认为让孩子未来自由发展，並不会特別阻止他从政。
4月杪返校执教
在峇株巴辖执教的苏淑慧目前享有2个月產假，4月杪才返回学校执教。她表示，孩子由本身母亲照顾，往后將不时回马六甲，带尔家回去见公公婆婆。
她说，赵明福基金由张念群任信托人，每个月给予一笔费用，作为尔家的教育、生活及医药费用，而她生產住院费用，亦由基金支付。
喜迎孙忆亡儿
赵妈妈悲喜交集
明福的妈妈张秀花虽然开心迎来赵家第一个內孙，但坦言永远无法忘记失去明福之痛。“有內孙是很开心的，但內孙没有了父亲，是很悲伤的事情。”
她说，失去明福的痛苦仍存在，尤其抱著尔家时，仿佛回到当年抱著明福的时光，让她觉得又开心又悲伤。赵妈妈希望尔家健康长大，乖巧听话，做个像明福一样孝顺的孩子。
询及孩子长相与谁相似，赵妈妈露出难得的笑容说：“小孩子的样子一直变的，不过还是像妈妈比较多。”她说，日后將会经常到峇株巴辖去探望孙子。
普緹供证恰逢明福生忌
赵丽兰盼看到公道
泰国法医普緹將於4月20日上庭供证，当天凑巧是赵明福生忌，妹妹赵丽兰希望能在这天看到公道，正义获得伸张！
赵丽兰表示，希望当天能看到对赵明福案有帮助的线索，让案子能早日水落石出。“我们对普緹有信心！”
在今日的尔家弥月之喜盛会上，赵丽兰觉得心情復杂，脑海里也不时浮现哥哥的笑容，感慨万千。“如果哥哥还有在，他一定是最高兴的。
我还记得他一知道嫂嫂怀孕后，不断打电话来问妈妈如何照顾孕妇。”她说，家人会在清明节时，带著尔家去拜祭爸爸赵明福。
她表示，转眼间明福已过世9个月，但每一个佳节来临，都让家人更加思念。“不过，我们不会放弃寻找真相。”
Read more!
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
“明福不曾被掐颈”‧政府法医反口
（雪兰莪‧沙亚南）没有武器、没有人证，双溪毛糯医院法医组主任沙希淡声称，赵明福身上所有伤势皆与坠楼吻合，推翻本身较早前指赵明福颈部瘀伤或被掐所致的供词。
他也声称，赵明福肛门的伤痕並非硬物插入或鸡姦所致，而是符合坠楼的伤势。他也指赵明福臀部的伤痕是坠楼后所致，並非被人鞭打。
伤痕裂痕瘀痕皆非人为
沙希淡今日（週三，3月10日）在庭上改口称，赵明福在坠楼前不曾被锁喉或掐颈，仅承认赵明福颈部的伤势在坠楼前已存在，但不是致命点。
负责为赵明福“开棺验尸”的沙希淡也是本案第31证人，他週三接受大马反贪委会代表律师拿督阿都拉萨盘问时重申，赵明福肛门处的伤痕、头颅所出现的裂痕和臀部瘀痕皆非人为。
他说，赵明福颈部的瘀伤显示该部位曾被施加“外来压力”，但碍於死者没有出现窒息跡象，所以颈部瘀伤並非为致死赵明福的主因。
沙希淡在3月1日接受赵家代表律师哥宾星和雪州政府代表律师马力英迪亚盘问时曾指出，他不排除赵明福颈部呈红色瘀伤是被人所掐，只是可能性很小。
不过，他週三在阿都拉萨盘问下，全盘否决这项可能性，並坚称赵明福生前不曾遭人掐颈或锁喉。
阿都拉萨在盘问结束前，向沙希淡拋出最后一道被视为总结的问题：“由於没有使用武器、硬物，更没有人证目睹赵明福如何跌下楼，你是否可证明赵明福身上所有的伤都是因从高楼坠下所致，他在坠楼前没有受伤？”
沙希淡回答说：“我认为，赵明福身上的伤痕皆符合坠楼的伤势，因为其身上的骨折和內伤都证明了这一点。”
肛门伤痕非硬物插入所致
另一方面，沙希淡声称，赵明福肛门的伤痕並非硬物插入或鸡姦所致，因为他发现赵明福的荐骨与肠骨在坠楼后断裂，较后又“回归原位”，以致肛门受伤；对他而言，这符合坠楼的伤痕。
“我並没有发现死者肛门有被硬物或其它武器插入的跡象。”
他也反驳泰国法医普緹较早前指赵明福头颅出现的裂痕或遭硬物攻击的说词，他说：“死者头颅右边的裂痕较严重，这也是死者臥尸在5楼时的最后姿势，符合坠楼的伤势。”
“若头颅上的伤势是在14楼发生，14楼会一片杂乱，况且，死者在坠楼时撞击地上；我认为，这足够造成死者的头颅破裂。”
第3度出庭
沙希淡供词前后不一
负责为赵明福开棺验尸的沙希淡被视为鉴定赵明福真正死因的关键人物，不过，已第3度出庭供证的他，在针对赵明福颈部为何出现瘀伤的供词互相矛盾、前后不一。
在今年2月19日首度出庭供证的沙希淡，曾3度否决著名泰国法医普緹指赵明福颈部被掐、肛门被插和大腿后侧被打的论据。
不过，他较后於3月1日接受哥宾星和马力英迪亚盘问时，却表明不排除赵明福被掐颈的可能性，惟这项供词在10天后，又被沙希淡本身推翻。
以下为沙希淡在分別2月19日、3月1日和3月10日的供词：
第31证人
姓名：沙希淡
年龄：不详
职业：双溪毛糯医院法医组主任
证词：赵明福身上所有伤势皆与坠楼吻合，推翻本身较早前不排除赵明福被掐颈的供词。
沙希淡供词反復
沙希淡在2月19日、3月1日和3月10日的供词
从多处伤势判断
明福坠楼时清醒
沙希淡强调，依据赵明福身上多处伤势，与坠楼姿势可判断赵明福从高处坠下前后，还是清醒。
他週三在反贪委会代表律师拿督阿都拉萨引导下，针对赵明福坠楼时是否清醒作出进一步解释。
他强调，如果赵明福是已死亡或失去意识情况下，被人从14楼推下，他身上蒙受的伤势、伤势形状，都会有所不同，而且也不会以脚先著地。
“赵明福身上多处骨折、器官受创、加上严重內出血等伤势，可判断他在坠楼时依然清醒，而且经过解剖，並没有发现遭人掐颈窒息而死或殴打的痕跡。”
同时，他指出，赵明福脚部、臀部遭受的重创，符合坠楼伤势，也进一步证明他坠楼时是以脚先著地。
另外，沙希淡在接受陈福泉的盘问时，也强调赵明福的舌头出现淤血，显示体內有严重內出血的现象，也符合坠落伤势。
解剖时尸体状况良好
首份报告比次份更完整
沙希淡强调，基於首轮解剖时死者尸体状况良好，因此一般上，拥有“第一手”资料的首份解剖报告比起次轮解剖得出的报告，来的更为完整与优异。
他週三下午在阿都拉萨引导下承认，首份解剖报告因尸身“保鲜度”高，报告內容会更优於次轮解剖报告。
虽然赵明福尸体首轮与次轮解剖相距近5个月，但沙希淡指出，基於赵明福下葬时，尸身已进行防腐工作，因此尸体情况尚算完整，可顺利完成解剖工作。
他也解释，在次轮解剖工作进行时，他与另两名本地法医凯鲁阿兹曼与巴拉斯汉都本著要找出真相的態度，相互给予协助，並没有出现爭执的情况，而3人在二度解剖时，也会开会瞭解解剖工作详情。
Read more!
他也声称，赵明福肛门的伤痕並非硬物插入或鸡姦所致，而是符合坠楼的伤势。他也指赵明福臀部的伤痕是坠楼后所致，並非被人鞭打。
伤痕裂痕瘀痕皆非人为
沙希淡今日（週三，3月10日）在庭上改口称，赵明福在坠楼前不曾被锁喉或掐颈，仅承认赵明福颈部的伤势在坠楼前已存在，但不是致命点。
负责为赵明福“开棺验尸”的沙希淡也是本案第31证人，他週三接受大马反贪委会代表律师拿督阿都拉萨盘问时重申，赵明福肛门处的伤痕、头颅所出现的裂痕和臀部瘀痕皆非人为。
他说，赵明福颈部的瘀伤显示该部位曾被施加“外来压力”，但碍於死者没有出现窒息跡象，所以颈部瘀伤並非为致死赵明福的主因。
沙希淡在3月1日接受赵家代表律师哥宾星和雪州政府代表律师马力英迪亚盘问时曾指出，他不排除赵明福颈部呈红色瘀伤是被人所掐，只是可能性很小。
不过，他週三在阿都拉萨盘问下，全盘否决这项可能性，並坚称赵明福生前不曾遭人掐颈或锁喉。
阿都拉萨在盘问结束前，向沙希淡拋出最后一道被视为总结的问题：“由於没有使用武器、硬物，更没有人证目睹赵明福如何跌下楼，你是否可证明赵明福身上所有的伤都是因从高楼坠下所致，他在坠楼前没有受伤？”
沙希淡回答说：“我认为，赵明福身上的伤痕皆符合坠楼的伤势，因为其身上的骨折和內伤都证明了这一点。”
肛门伤痕非硬物插入所致
另一方面，沙希淡声称，赵明福肛门的伤痕並非硬物插入或鸡姦所致，因为他发现赵明福的荐骨与肠骨在坠楼后断裂，较后又“回归原位”，以致肛门受伤；对他而言，这符合坠楼的伤痕。
“我並没有发现死者肛门有被硬物或其它武器插入的跡象。”
他也反驳泰国法医普緹较早前指赵明福头颅出现的裂痕或遭硬物攻击的说词，他说：“死者头颅右边的裂痕较严重，这也是死者臥尸在5楼时的最后姿势，符合坠楼的伤势。”
“若头颅上的伤势是在14楼发生，14楼会一片杂乱，况且，死者在坠楼时撞击地上；我认为，这足够造成死者的头颅破裂。”
第3度出庭
沙希淡供词前后不一
负责为赵明福开棺验尸的沙希淡被视为鉴定赵明福真正死因的关键人物，不过，已第3度出庭供证的他，在针对赵明福颈部为何出现瘀伤的供词互相矛盾、前后不一。
在今年2月19日首度出庭供证的沙希淡，曾3度否决著名泰国法医普緹指赵明福颈部被掐、肛门被插和大腿后侧被打的论据。
不过，他较后於3月1日接受哥宾星和马力英迪亚盘问时，却表明不排除赵明福被掐颈的可能性，惟这项供词在10天后，又被沙希淡本身推翻。
以下为沙希淡在分別2月19日、3月1日和3月10日的供词：
第31证人
姓名：沙希淡
年龄：不详
职业：双溪毛糯医院法医组主任
证词：赵明福身上所有伤势皆与坠楼吻合，推翻本身较早前不排除赵明福被掐颈的供词。
沙希淡供词反復
沙希淡在2月19日、3月1日和3月10日的供词
- 2月19日：明福没被人掐颈“赵明福並没有被人掐颈，因为若赵明福曾被人用手掐颈，分布在颈部的瘀伤不会显得那么平均，同时，赵明福將出现窒息或窒死的现象；不过，这些都没有发生在赵明福身上。”
- 3月1日：不排除明福被掐颈“我不排除赵明福颈部呈红色的瘀伤是被人掐颈所致，也不排除其颈部的伤势与坠楼情况不吻合；我不排除这个可能性，只是这个可能性很小。”
- 3月10日：坠楼前不曾被掐颈“赵明福在坠楼前不曾被锁喉或掐颈，其颈部的瘀伤显示该部位曾被施加“外来压力”，但碍於赵明福没有出现窒息跡象，所以颈部瘀伤並非为致死赵明福的主因。”
从多处伤势判断
明福坠楼时清醒
沙希淡强调，依据赵明福身上多处伤势，与坠楼姿势可判断赵明福从高处坠下前后，还是清醒。
他週三在反贪委会代表律师拿督阿都拉萨引导下，针对赵明福坠楼时是否清醒作出进一步解释。
他强调，如果赵明福是已死亡或失去意识情况下，被人从14楼推下，他身上蒙受的伤势、伤势形状，都会有所不同，而且也不会以脚先著地。
“赵明福身上多处骨折、器官受创、加上严重內出血等伤势，可判断他在坠楼时依然清醒，而且经过解剖，並没有发现遭人掐颈窒息而死或殴打的痕跡。”
同时，他指出，赵明福脚部、臀部遭受的重创，符合坠楼伤势，也进一步证明他坠楼时是以脚先著地。
另外，沙希淡在接受陈福泉的盘问时，也强调赵明福的舌头出现淤血，显示体內有严重內出血的现象，也符合坠落伤势。
解剖时尸体状况良好
首份报告比次份更完整
沙希淡强调，基於首轮解剖时死者尸体状况良好，因此一般上，拥有“第一手”资料的首份解剖报告比起次轮解剖得出的报告，来的更为完整与优异。
他週三下午在阿都拉萨引导下承认，首份解剖报告因尸身“保鲜度”高，报告內容会更优於次轮解剖报告。
虽然赵明福尸体首轮与次轮解剖相距近5个月，但沙希淡指出，基於赵明福下葬时，尸身已进行防腐工作，因此尸体情况尚算完整，可顺利完成解剖工作。
他也解释，在次轮解剖工作进行时，他与另两名本地法医凯鲁阿兹曼与巴拉斯汉都本著要找出真相的態度，相互给予协助，並没有出现爭执的情况，而3人在二度解剖时，也会开会瞭解解剖工作详情。
Read more!
Monday, March 1, 2010
Beng Hock might have been strangled prior to death
By Shazwan Mustafa Kamal
SHAH ALAM, March 1 — Sungai Buloh hospital chief pathologist Dr. Shahidan Md. Noor today agreed with lawyers Gobind Singh Deo and Malik Imtiaz Sarwar that it is possible that that neck injuries sustained by Teoh Beng Hock might have been caused by strangulation.
He, however, affirmed in court that it was not likely that the strangulation killed him and that his fall was the cause of death.
“He (Dr. Shahidan) agreed that the injuries to the front part of the neck might have not been connected to the injuries of the fall. It’s open to argue that it could be a pre-fall injury,” said Malik, who is the lawyer for the Selangor state government.
Teoh, a Selangor government political secretary, was found dead last July 16 at the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Selangor office after an overnight interrogation.
Malik explained to reporters that the injuries to the throat muscle could have been caused by choking or strangulation.
He said that there were three main injuries to the neck, and that the cause of the first two injuries were different from the third injury, which affected the spinal area.
“It has now been accepted that the first two injuries to the neck muscles were separate injuries than the deeper muscle.”
Earlier in the coroner’s court, counsel for Teoh’s family Gobind Singh Deo went all out to establish doubt over the findings of the first post-mortem report by Dr Khairul Azman Hj Ibrahim and Dr Prashant Naresh Samberkar.
The fiery lawyer argued that the report was “insufficient” as no tests were done to examine the marks around the neck, something which should have been “standard procedure” in cases of custodial death.
“There was no dissection done on material parts, most important the injuries to the neck. The two important things to look for are not in the first report.
“No dissections were done in the first report as you have conducted in the second post-mortem,” said Gobind.
While Dr. Shahidan agreed that the report lacked details of the investigations the neck abrasions, and concurred with Gobind that it was strange that these marks were not in the first post-mortem report, he stopped short at agreeing with Gobind’s suggestion that the report was insufficient and “utterly incompetent.”
Dr. Shahidan moved to defend the findings of the first report, despite being open to the possibility that it was evidence of strangulation.
“The superficial injuries on the neck would have only been evident after 24 hours, that’s why they couldn’t see the marks. The signs of asphyxia were not apparent on Teoh Beng Hock’s neck,” said the pathologist.
“Does the report reflect dissection was done?” asked Gobind.
Dr. Shahidan says it was done, but not recorded, which led Gobind to accuse him of going out of the way to defend the first report.
At the beginning of the inquest today, the doctor had explained that the signs to look for in cases of custodial death are pressure marks around neck, signs of beating, internal injuries which are not consistent with input given by the officer in charge of the supposed detainee.
“If it weren’t for Dr. Pornthip’s testimony, we would not know about the cause of injuries to the neck of the deceased. Now, there is a possibility that Teoh Beng Hock was strangled on the 14th floor of the MACC. Now I didn’t say strangled to death, I said strangled. These are material facts to be considered in this case.”
“Teoh was actually tortured before fall, there are marks which prove it.”
Shahidan: “It’s possible but not probable.”
Gobind: “I see... then again you wouldn’t say anything bad about the first report would you?”
Dr Shahidan’s agreement of the possibility of strangulation seemingly contradicts his own report which rules out manual strangulation although there was evidence of bruises on and contusions to Teoh’s neck.
Teoh, a Selangor government political secretary, was found dead last July 16 at the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Selangor office after an overnight interrogation.
The court has fixed March 10 for the cross-examination of Dr. Shahidan to continue and also to call on Kajang councillor Tan Boon Wah to take the witness stand.
Read more!
SHAH ALAM, March 1 — Sungai Buloh hospital chief pathologist Dr. Shahidan Md. Noor today agreed with lawyers Gobind Singh Deo and Malik Imtiaz Sarwar that it is possible that that neck injuries sustained by Teoh Beng Hock might have been caused by strangulation.
He, however, affirmed in court that it was not likely that the strangulation killed him and that his fall was the cause of death.
“He (Dr. Shahidan) agreed that the injuries to the front part of the neck might have not been connected to the injuries of the fall. It’s open to argue that it could be a pre-fall injury,” said Malik, who is the lawyer for the Selangor state government.
Teoh, a Selangor government political secretary, was found dead last July 16 at the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Selangor office after an overnight interrogation.
Malik explained to reporters that the injuries to the throat muscle could have been caused by choking or strangulation.
He said that there were three main injuries to the neck, and that the cause of the first two injuries were different from the third injury, which affected the spinal area.
“It has now been accepted that the first two injuries to the neck muscles were separate injuries than the deeper muscle.”
Earlier in the coroner’s court, counsel for Teoh’s family Gobind Singh Deo went all out to establish doubt over the findings of the first post-mortem report by Dr Khairul Azman Hj Ibrahim and Dr Prashant Naresh Samberkar.
The fiery lawyer argued that the report was “insufficient” as no tests were done to examine the marks around the neck, something which should have been “standard procedure” in cases of custodial death.
“There was no dissection done on material parts, most important the injuries to the neck. The two important things to look for are not in the first report.
“No dissections were done in the first report as you have conducted in the second post-mortem,” said Gobind.
While Dr. Shahidan agreed that the report lacked details of the investigations the neck abrasions, and concurred with Gobind that it was strange that these marks were not in the first post-mortem report, he stopped short at agreeing with Gobind’s suggestion that the report was insufficient and “utterly incompetent.”
Dr. Shahidan moved to defend the findings of the first report, despite being open to the possibility that it was evidence of strangulation.
“The superficial injuries on the neck would have only been evident after 24 hours, that’s why they couldn’t see the marks. The signs of asphyxia were not apparent on Teoh Beng Hock’s neck,” said the pathologist.
“Does the report reflect dissection was done?” asked Gobind.
Dr. Shahidan says it was done, but not recorded, which led Gobind to accuse him of going out of the way to defend the first report.
At the beginning of the inquest today, the doctor had explained that the signs to look for in cases of custodial death are pressure marks around neck, signs of beating, internal injuries which are not consistent with input given by the officer in charge of the supposed detainee.
“If it weren’t for Dr. Pornthip’s testimony, we would not know about the cause of injuries to the neck of the deceased. Now, there is a possibility that Teoh Beng Hock was strangled on the 14th floor of the MACC. Now I didn’t say strangled to death, I said strangled. These are material facts to be considered in this case.”
“Teoh was actually tortured before fall, there are marks which prove it.”
Shahidan: “It’s possible but not probable.”
Gobind: “I see... then again you wouldn’t say anything bad about the first report would you?”
Dr Shahidan’s agreement of the possibility of strangulation seemingly contradicts his own report which rules out manual strangulation although there was evidence of bruises on and contusions to Teoh’s neck.
Teoh, a Selangor government political secretary, was found dead last July 16 at the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Selangor office after an overnight interrogation.
The court has fixed March 10 for the cross-examination of Dr. Shahidan to continue and also to call on Kajang councillor Tan Boon Wah to take the witness stand.
Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
