Who was the Pathologist who had certified that Kugan had died of Fluid in his Lungs.

Now that the second post-mortem conducted by a pathologist from the Universiti Malaya Medical centre has shown that the victim died after being repeatedly beaten , surely the family and the public deseve to know why the initial post-mortem revealed that he had died due to fluid in his lungs.

The pathologist who conducted the initial post-mortem must be called to explain why his examiniation did not uncovered what was obviously a case of a man being held in custody and beaten to death.Certainly we would also like to know how he arrived at the conclusion that the man had died as a result of fluid in the lungs and not mentioning in his report that the man was repeatedly beaten to death .

Was the pathologist acting in concert with the police to conceal evidence of a felony being committed?If so then the pathologist can be charged with being an accessory to the commisiion of a murder. Further investigation should be conducted to see if there were any previous incidents of such cases where the same pathologist had given a misleading account of a post-mortem report.If he had done one misleading report it is most likely that he could be involved in a series of other fallacious reports on deaths in custody cases.

If at all he is found to have tampered evidence in order to help the police avoid any criminal prosecution for the custodial deaths, then he should be charged for abetment and accessory to murder.

What remains a mystery is why is there no attempt by the relevant authorities to seek an explanation from the first pathologist to explain his derecliction of duty which totally gave a misleading account as to the cause of death of Kugan.