Forensic medicine specialist Dr Nurliza Abdullah, who supervised Smit’s post-mortem on Dec 8 last year at the Kuala Lumpur Hospital morgue, was responding to questions by SN Nair, the lawyer keeping a watching brief for the Smits, on how the model was found dead.

Earlier, Nurliza, 53, reiterated her view that Smit injured the left side of her back, and then her skull, when she fell 14 storeys down, crashing through a balcony roof at CapSquare Residence off Jalan Dang Wangi in Kuala Lumpur on the afternoon of Dec 7.

She also said she was not there that day.

This prompted both Nair and coroner Mahyon Talib to ask how she could make such a conclusion without being there in person to see Smit fall. They noted that Nurliza had repeated a number of times to the court that she was certain Smit received those injuries then and not before she fell from the 20th floor.

Nurliza said she saw pictures taken on that day.

“My opinion is based on the facts of the case and the pictures shown by the police when the body was still there. These are the facts of the case and I have been professional and truthful while under oath,” she said, earning a chuckle from Nair who said he would leave it to Mahyon.

She later asked the court to allow her to elaborate on what she meant by this, saying she was certain Smit’s head injuries, where the minimal internal bleeding was found, were only consistent with a fall from a height. She said that was the only “strong force” which could have caused such significant damage.

Nurliza previously said Smit had died of injuries to her pelvic bone and left chest due to the fall.

Asked how she could say that the blood that had coagulated and pooled in Smit’s thoracic region, which Nurliza previously said was caused by a broken artery consistent with blunt force trauma, was proof the model was still alive despite another expert saying otherwise, Nurliza maintained that she was right.

“I disagree,” she said, when asked about Dr Frank van de Goot’s comments that her view was just “textbook theory”.

“I arrived at this conclusion based on my practice and experience,” she said, adding that it was the whole truth and not an opinion.

“Frozen blood needs coagulation to occur… It means the person is still alive,” she said, disagreeing that coagulation could take place either before or after death as van de Goot, who was hired by the Smits, had suggested when testifying in court.

Asked about her view that falling at a speed of 25.66m/s, which she said was how fast Smit had plummeted, does “not always” lead to instantaneous death, Nurliza said she came to that conclusion based on the number of post-mortems she had conducted so far.

“But are you disagreeing based on data?” Nair asked at this point. “Do you agree that your (correlating as facts) experiences must be based on independent factors… and unless you do that, it will be not generally accurate?”

However, Nurliza said she did not agree with his view.

She also disagreed with Nair’s contention that expert pathologists “normally never speak with certainty about their findings” unless they are based on hard evidence and that pathology itself is not an exact science and largely based on assumptions. She said she did not agree that this was now the norm.

She also shrugged aside concerns about injury dating, the science of determining the approximate time when an injury occurred, saying it did not “necessarily” help in determining the timing of Smit’s major damages. “Maybe, but it’s not a very big deal.”

Van de Goot had highlighted this previously.

When asked by deputy public prosecutor N Joy Jothi whether her previous autopsies were similar to Smit’s case in which a body had fallen from a height, Nurliza replied in the affirmative. She said these injuries were similar in nature and usually multiplied on the body, often leading to the victim’s death.

Nurliza also said she had conducted 6,000 autopsies.

Earlier, Nair apologised to the court for his abrupt behaviour on Monday, when he lost his temper and reprimanded Nurliza, saying she was a “very difficult” witness to examine. He said she was evading his questions but expressed disappointment in himself for losing his cool.

Today is the 18th day of the inquest, which is underway to determine the facts and events leading up to Smit’s sudden death and whether there is enough evidence to reopen the case and bring it to trial.

Nurliza was the 21st witness to testify.

Smit is believed to have fallen from a 20th floor condo belonging to an American-Kazakh couple she had befriended, with whom she was staying on the morning of her death.

Police originally classified the case as sudden death, but it was re-opened this year after pressure from Smit’s family who claimed there were elements of foul play and a cover-up.

Three pathologists have testified as to how Smit died. Van de Goot said there was a chance she was dead well before she fell while Nurliza and her junior, Dr Zunaizah Hilmi, said Smit died due to blunt-force trauma consistent with a fall from a height.