AS a layperson I am puzzled why the inquest into fireman Adib’s death is not starting with an enquiry into the nature of the injuries sustained by him, i.e. by adducing medical, forensic evidence of the nature of his injuries and their probable cause if the cause cannot be determined with accuracy.
Why do I feel thus? A few doctors were involved in the emergency treatment of the person and later performing the autopsy and forensic examination of the body.
Their evidence should be taken first to establish the nature and cause, or probable cause, of the injuries. If their evidence strongly points to severe, brutal attack only then would it be necessary to enquire into the attack, how it happened and who might be responsible for it.
On the other hand, if medical evidence does not reveal any signs of a “severe, brutal attack” or any injuries that could be sustained by being hit with helmets, sticks, bricks, etc. then what could have caused the injuries – a vehicle running over the person?
“Severe, brutal attack” would surely leave clearly visible marks on the body – blue-black marks, skin ruptures, swellings, blod clots, a broken nose, etc.
There have been claims that there were no signs of a “severe, brutal, attack” on Adib’s body. Why is the inquest not determining this first?
On the contrary, there are claims that the rib cage was fractured. Can a “severe, brutal attack” fracture the rib cage without leaving clearly visible marks on the body, not only in the rib-cage area, but on other parts as well?
If medical evidence reveals that the rib cage was not fractured due to a “severe, brutal attack”, then the line of enquiry should be what other factors could have caused the fractures? Were there other vehicles there? Could anything heavy have fallen on the person?
Right now, the inquest is proceeding on the “assumption” that he was “severely, brutally attacked” as stated in the police report. But pictures of him at IJN, where his face can be seen, do not seem to suggest him having any injuries.
It is my humble opinion that investigations should proceed from the known to the unknown. What is known is the injuries sustained. What is unknown is how they were sustained.
Ravinder Singh
Penang
