Kota Kinabalu: A forensic document examiner told the Coroner’s Court here that her findings differed from those of the Chemistry Department, which had concluded that the questioned handwriting in two documents was written by Zara Qairina Mahathir.
Tay Eue Kam said she identified multiple writers in the documents and excluded several pages from Zara’s authorship.
She said some pages could not be attributed to Zara because there were insufficient handwriting samples for comparison.
Tay, the 79th deponent, said this during questioning by Deputy Public Prosecutor Dana Arabi Wazani.
Dana: And Jabatan Kimia concluded that the questioned handwriting on W1 and W2 was written by Zara. You found multiple writers and excluded a number of pages from Zara’s authorship. That is another difference between your conclusion, correct?Tay: Yes, My Lord.
Dana: In relation to W2, what feature caused you to conclude that pages 58, 59, 61, 76, 87, 88, 98 and 100 were not Zara’s handwriting when Jabatan Kimia had attributed the questioned handwriting in W2 to Zara?Tay: I couldn’t reach any conclusion for these pages because they are all scribbles and there are no comparative samples of Zara’s scribbles. In handwriting analysis, you have to compare apple to apple.
“Page 59, it’s just a few words, so there’s no conclusion for this. We just look at page 87 for an assessment, but page 87 is also scribbles. It was written in capital letters and just another few words. So still inconclusive.
“Page 88 is just a word called ‘malas’. Page 98 is also a lot of scribbles with a few lines on the top. And page 100 is only ‘diam damar’ as well. So, there’s not much samples for me to make a conclusion.”On pages 51 and 53, Tay explained that she was able to identify different writers based on several handwriting characteristics.
She said one of the prominent features was the leftward slant in the entries.
“Number two is that there are handwriting characteristics like there’s a blue pen there, the Y extension and ‘orang’, the G is actually just coming down straight,” she said.
Tay said she referred to page 51I because the top layer was clearer and allowed the writing to be seen more clearly.
However, she said some words on page 53I had already been covered by another writing.
She also pointed to the consistent spacing between words as another feature that differed from Zara’s handwriting.
“That I have not seen, this characteristic in Zara’s handwriting,” she said.
Tay agreed with Dana that although she and certified handwriting expert Dr Linthini Gannetion had examined the same exhibit, Y10B, they reached opposite conclusions regarding it.
Dana: Are you aware that another forensic document examiner instructed in this same inquest, Dr Linthini, concluded that Y10B was written by Zara, that there was significant similarity with her handwriting?Tay: I am not aware.
Dana: Okay, Dr Linthini and yourself examined the same exhibit, but both of you reached the opposite conclusion, correct?Tay: If that’s Y10B, yes.
Dana: You both applied the same recognised methodology of comparative handwriting analysis, correct?Tay: The methodology generally, yes. Generally, I couldn’t speak for Dr Linthini because I’m not too sure what methodology she used. But I’m not too sure what standard Dr Linthini has been using.
Dana: If two qualified examiners apply the same methodology and reach opposite conclusions on the same page, doesn’t that demonstrate that the finding on Y10B is not reliable to the standard of strong support?Tay: I cannot comment on that because I don’t know what Dr Linthini depended on to reach her conclusion.
The inquest is scheduled to resume in September.
