Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL)’s pathologist Dr Ahmad Hafizam Hasmi said during an inquest into the death of fireman Muhammad Adib Mohd Kassim that they could not pinpoint the actual cause of the injuries.
- Likely that Adib hit the door and fell on a hard, wide, blunt and rough surface
- He fell in front and not on the back
- Unlikely that he could have been pulled from the van
“The injuries that I witnessed on Adib’s body were bruises, but I don’t dare associate them with any specific object other than the fact the object must be wide, blunt, slightly rough surfaced and hard,” Hafizam said.
“The injuries on the victim’s right chest were likely caused by a blunt, hard and wide object with a rough surface, and could have been the road shoulder, obstruction object or any other objects on the scene.
“What specific object caused the bruises on the right chest of the victim, I cannot explain it because we are working ‘blind’ as there no eyewitness came forward to give clues (on the incident),” he said.
“Based on my experiment and that of another expert (former senior forensic and pathology consultant at Hospital Canselor Tuanku Muhriz, Prof Dr Shahrom Abd Wahid), Adib’s injuries were not specifically due to the left side door of the Emergency Medical Rescue Services (EMRS) vehicle,” Hafizam said at the Shah Alam High Court.
He was responding to Adib’s family lawyer Kamaruzaman A Wahab who had asked him about the bruises on Adib.
Hafizam said he did not see bruises when he conducted the post mortem on Adib.
“The intradermal bruises would have surfaced days after the incident.
“I can only say that it could have happened when he hit the door and fell on a hard, wide, blunt, and rough surface.
“The injury marks were consistent with him falling in front and not on the back.”
Kamaruzaman then questioned Hafizam on his conclusion that Adib could have exited the vehicle himself or he could have been pulled out.
“Do you stand by your report that he came out by himself or was pulled out?”
Hafizan said based on what the testimonies and his experiments told him, Adib was not pulled out.
“The victim exited from the EMRS (vehicle) himself and this is based on the (accounts of the) witnesses and further evidence (experiments).
“There is no evidence to show that he was pulled out.”
Earlier, the inquest witnessed a demonstration of the incident that could have happened on the night in question.
For the demonstration, the EMRS vehicle that was involved on the night was brought to the Shah Alam Court complex.
During the demonstration, Hafizam said the van that Adib was in had been reversing between two speeds – 8kmh and 17kmh – to justify his theory that it was unlikely that Adib could have been pulled from the van if it was reversing at those speeds.
Kamaruzaman then asked Hafizam what he meant in his report about the EMRS vehicle being in the “danger zone”.
“Why did Adib exit the vehicle if that was a danger zone?
Hafizam said he did not want to guess why Adib left the vehicle.
“I don’t want to speculate but based on the evidence (from the experiments) he wen† out (of the vehicle).”