A respected Brazilian coroner has rebutted a police report claiming holiday-maker Neil Juwaheer died of a suspected drug overdose while in custody.

Dr George Sanguinetti’s said there was “no scientific proof’’ that the 35-year-old died after swallowing a package of cocaine but evidence showed he was beaten to death.

His damning report states pathologists failed to measure bruises and cuts on Mr Juwaheer’s body and crucially failed to perform an exam to check for lesions in the brain despite noting a haematoma on the scalp.

Dr Sanguinetti said pathologists also failed to examine his heart despite Mr Juwaheer dying suddenly and importantly failed to correctly measure the amount of cocaine in his blood.

He also found no evidence of a wrap of cocaine in his stomach and cast doubt on the methods used to analyse the body.

He said: “Acute intoxication by cocaine can cause myocardial infarction – heart attack – or a stroke, but neither the heart nor the brain were checked during the necropsy, which is incomprehensible and unseen even in the poorest of the coroner’s offices in Brazil.

“The body was admitted for necropsy on July 9, 2008, and the material sampled, taken for exam ten days after the death, on July 18, 2007.

“The alcohol dosage has no technical value, because the exam should have been performed no more than five days after the death.

“The blood was, therefore, useless for the exam.”

Dr Sanguinetti said pathologists claimed more than 100,000 ng/ml of cocaine was found in his urine, but this would be enough to drug 333 people “something rather impossible from a practical point of view.”

He said: “If so much pure cocaine was found in the urine exam, the same could have entered the sample bottle after the urine had exited the deceased’s body.

“It is impossible that such amount of cocaine would exist in a human being’s urine while they were alive and quietly sitting in a police station, as reported in police statement, with no handcuffs on.’’

Dr Sanguinetti also said it was unusual that the pathologists themselves analysed the urine and it should have been performed in a toxicology laboratory and signed by the specialist.

He said: “In reality there is no absolute evidence and no correct scientific proof of the facts described in the pathologist’s report.

"Even though the post mortem reports were technically poor, one can conclude form them that the legal cause of death is homicide."