He also accused the Thai forensic pathologist of having a wild imagination to make up her findings and for attacking the integrity of the MACC despite her lack of background knowledge of Teoh Beng Hock's case, unlike the British expert witness hired by the MACC, Dr Peter Vanezis.
But Dr Pornthip, looking flamboyant with her hair tinted in autumn shades, took it all in her stride.
"I do not know if my university is recognised here. But I know that it is one of the top five universities in Asia. You should not look down on Asians," she said.
"I work for the rights of the dead and not the Selangor government."
She said although it was important to be told the background of the case, sometimes it helps not to know too much so that she would not take sides when examining the body.
Razak: "You do not have enough information, yet you come here to say (previously) that Teoh's case was 80 per cent homicide. And that was splashed across the newspapers the next day."
Dr Pornthip: "I think you need to look back at your notes. (Dr Pornthip had previously said she came to her earlier conclusion based on the first post-mortem report and photographs as she did not have the opportunity to examine the body.)"
Razak: "I have spent three days reading the notes."
Dr Pornthip: "I think you need more than three days then. Are you really a lawyer?"
Razak: "I have been a lawyer for 24 years."
Dr Pornthip: "But not in forensic science."
Her answer drew laughter from the courtroom which was packed with reporters, several DAP leaders and the public.