Pathologist: Adib could have been attacked from behind

SHAH ALAM: Firefighter Muhammad Adib Mohd Kassim could have been attacked by someone who came from behind the Emergency Medical Rescue Services (EMRS) van he was in.

This was the opinion of Dr Shahrom Abdul Wahid, retired pathologist from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre, who told the coroner’s court that there might have been rioters who came from behind Adib’s position.

He said his finding was based on studies and controlled experiments made after scrutinising a 46-second amateur video of the incident, in which Adib and other firefighters were faced with a charging mob outside the Sri Maha Mariamman Temple in Subang Jaya on Nov 27 last year.

He explained this when answering questions from coroner Rofiah Mohamad and Syazlin Mansor, who represented the Housing and Local Government Ministry, and the Fire and Rescue Department.

Syazlin: You were previously asked by Conducting Officer Hamdan Hamzah on why Adib did not close the passenger door (of the EMRS van) despite seeing people approaching the van. Can you explain this?

Dr Shahrom: Based on normal human behaviour, and if we look at a video of the incident, rioters came from the front of the Fire Rescue Tender (FRT) truck.

However, there were other people who were potentially rioters behind the FRT and near the EMRS. If Adib had seen these rioters from the front going to his (EMRS passenger) door, he would be prejudiced to think that he would likely be attacked. Rationally, he would close the door.

However, after looking at the video (which was tendered as an exhibit in the coroner’s court), I did not see rioters approaching where the victim was. It is highly possible that there were other people who came from the rear who went towards him.

If people approached us in that situation, we would be looking at that person and that person will be looking at us, and we will think ‘what does this person want?’ It’s human behaviour.

Only by having someone suddenly push and kick you would you get this outcome (the victim’s injury). These people were not among the rioters in front (of him). Rofiah: Are you referring to the 46-second video?

Dr Shahrom: Yes.

Dr Shahrom, the 29th witness in the inquest into Adib’s death, was testifying on the 29th day of the hearing yesterday.

He also spoke about an incorrect hypothesis made by a Kuala Lumpur Hospital (HKL) forensic expert in the post-mortem report about how Adib sustained his injury.

He dismissed the findings made in the post-mortem report, which concluded that Adib could have voluntarily alighted from the EMRS and was hit at his back by the EMRS door before being hurled and ending up on a road kerb.

He said the momentum of such an occurence would not have caused his ribs to break.

“This hypothesis was not tested. I scrutinised this hypothesis and found it’s not possibly true.

“It was not right because firstly, even if the EMRS reversed (at a speed of) 15kph, and the victim alighted, the inertia will be from (someone) on a vehicle that moved 15kph as both his feet touched the road.

“If he slowed down to 12kph and was hit by the EMRS door moving at 15kph, the momentum would be 15kph minus 12kph. That will be a speed of 3kph, which is too slow for it to break bones, even the ribs. To me, it’s almost improbable.

“Secondly, if he had fallen at 3kph, it would be falling at that one spot. He won’t be hurled or flung. (The momentum) is not strong. The probability is not there,” said Dr Shahrom.

The coroner’s court was shown video clips of controlled experiments conducted by Dr Shahrom to determine how the EMRS’ rear and side windows were smashed and how two motorcycle helmets ended up inside the van.

“Two experiments were conducted, and I found it was impossible (for the rear and side windows to break) if (the helmets) were thrown from a distance.”

He said the experiments were done to determine how long it took a person to hurl a helmet towards the windows before they broke and the helmet thrown inside.

“With a person who stood at arm’s length of the EMRS’ rear window, it took three knocks of the helmet on the window for it to break, and the helmet to be thrown into the van.

“For the side window, it took eight knocks for the glass to break and for the helmet to be thrown into the van,” he said, adding that a van of the same model of the EMRS was used in the controlled experiments.

Dr Shahrom added the 46-second amateur video showed the rear and side windows of the EMRS were broken because light from inside the van could be seen from the outside when the vehicle left the scene.