ISLAMABAD, Jan 5: Medico-legal experts believe that the medical report of slain PPP chairperson Benazir Bhutto, one of the most important pieces of evidence in the probe into her killing, is fraught with lacunae and doctors of Rawalpindi General Hospital acted ‘unprofessionally’ while authoring it.

It is assumed that the doctors could have done a much better job by simply sticking to the basics like writing a proper medico-legal report mentioning the precise nature of injuries, description of wounds and kind of weapon (bullet, shrapnel or other possible object).

Such a detailed report could have compensated the need for an autopsy which her husband Mr Asif Ali Zardari had refused, leaving the investigators to rely on the inconclusive report prepared by the doctors.

The situation has given rise to speculations and conspiracy theories of all sorts about how the Pakistan People’s Party leader actually died, including the “lever theory” propagated by the government, which was eventually retracted.

The government has obtained the services of Scotland Yard, but it is held that their probe would be constrained by the absence of a detailed examination of the former premier’s injuries and loss of other vital forensic evidence.

There are reports, albeit unconfirmed, which suggest that certain doctors had been influenced. A senior hospital source said the doctors had been under intense pressure from all sides over the cause of death.

Exhuming her body could have been a useful option, but that too has been refused by her family.

A senior medico-legal expert Dr Zaman Niazi said the medical report contained alarming technical lapses and was “prima facie a case of foul play”.

He bases his contention on the absence of the casualty medical officer, from the list of seven doctors, who signed the report released a day after the tragic assassination of the PPP leader. Ordinarily, the CMO is the initiator of such reports since he is the doctor who receives the patient in the emergency and hence the most competent person to write the report.

This opinion about the competence of the authors of the report gets credence from the absence of Professor of Neuro-surgery Dr Arif Malik from the list of signatories of the report. Dr Malik says he did not sign the report because “he is a treating doctor and not a medico-legal expert to write such reports.”

The description of wounds in the report, Dr Niazi says, is also inappropriate. The standard depiction of the wounds requires the length, breadth and depth of the injuries to be mentioned. However in Ms Bhutto’s case, the panel of doctors who authored the report just stated that the wound on the right was measuring 5x3cm without specifying the parameters and mentioning which one had been omitted?

Dr Naizi sees the report as just half-truth and an attempt to conceal the other half.

Other doctors, seeking anonymity, also criticise the explanation of the position of the wound. The report says it (wound) was just above the pinna of right ear, whereas medico-legal experts say that the position should have been in relation to some fixed point.

The report mentions the presence of two or three radio-densities, but none of the doctors bothered to explore them through a CT scan or get a detailed opinion of the radiologist.

Absence of a forensic expert from the team has also been questioned.

Professor of Forensic Medicine at the Foundation Medical University and member of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council, Dr Mian Rashid is of the view that the depressed wound to which the report refers to under the section relating to cause of death has been grossly misinterpreted by the doctors.

The doctor, who also specialises in skull injuries, says the wound was in fact the ‘point of exit’ of the bullet. “Since the report says that whitish brain matter was coming out, it can only happen at point of exit.”

Dr Rashid says the doctors attending to the former prime minister omitted the point of entry as they skipped the standard procedure for examining such wounds.

He has reservations about the cause of death mentioned in the report. “The clinical cause of death in the report is most unscientific, he says, adding that it is the mode/route of death and not the cause.

Rawalpindi Medical College Principal Prof Dr Mussadiq Khan, who led the team of doctors authoring the report, was contacted couple of times, but he did not respond.