EBAPA Open Letter to Nagib Tajdin - Re Aga Khan Lawsuit
98 views
Skip to first unread message
Taj Esmail
May 4, 2010, 10:38:39 AM5/4/10
to tes...@rogers.com
Please Forward.
An Open Letter to Mr. Nagib Tajdin (Re: Forensic Report Sent by Soulmate)
As your "Heritage" website is highly sanitized, you may decide not to display my post. That was exactly the fate of my previous messages posted on your message boards. Not sharing this post with your subscribers would be highly unethical and bring into question your true intentions. That would be sufficient proof that you are totally biased and will not post anything that favors the plaintiff, in this case, His Highness the Aga Khan.
You have produced your partial forensic report in your attempt to challenge the authorship of the letters in question. I have cited, hereunder, 3 cases that set precedent as to how the courts treat the testimony of handwriting experts.
As your "Heritage" website is highly sanitized, you may decide not to display my post. That was exactly the fate of my previous messages posted on your message boards. Not sharing this post with your subscribers would be highly unethical and bring into question your true intentions. That would be sufficient proof that you are totally biased and will not post anything that favors the plaintiff, in this case, His Highness the Aga Khan.
You have produced your partial forensic report in your attempt to challenge the authorship of the letters in question. I have cited, hereunder, 3 cases that set precedent as to how the courts treat the testimony of handwriting experts.
In evaluating handwriting analysis argument, it should be recognized that in a court of law "expert" witnesses are not the only witnesses that can testify about the genuineness of handwriting. Even lay-persons who are familiar with a person's handwriting can also testify about whether or not the handwriting is authentic. Their opinions are considered by the court alongside the opinion of the experts as bearing on whether a document is genuine. Thus non-expert testimony by those familiar with a person's handwriting cannot be simply ignored by the court.
In Skidmore v. Gilcrease, slip op. (Ark Ct. App. Oct. 10, 1984), an Arkansas court was confronted with a handwritten will. Three non-expert witnesses "had known the deceased for substantial periods of time, they were familiar with his handwriting, and they all unequivocally identified the writing as being in his handwriting. On the other side, a handwriting expert testified that the will was a forgery. The court chose to believe the three non-experts over the expert. The appellate court agreed; since the expert was less believable than the three lay witnesses familiar with the deceased's handwriting, the court was justified in accepting their testimony and discounting the expert's claim that forensic science proved the writing was a forgery.
In Danvir Corp. v. Wahl, (slip op. Sept. 8. 1987) in Delaware Chancery court, the signature on a stock certificate was at issue. Plaintiffs claimed to be the only stockholders in the company while defendant claimed that stock ownership was evidenced by the stock certificate. The court noted that "Plaintiffs' handwriting expert testified at trial that certificate No. 1X is a forgery" and "defendants' handwriting expert reached the opposite conclusion." Accordingly, the court concluded that the "testimony of the handwriting experts does not weigh on either side because they reached opposite conclusions as to the genuineness of the signature on that certificate and I find no basis on which to prefer one expert opinion over the other."
A federal Court of Appeals considered a case in which an insurance company wanted to avoid paying out on an insurance policy. Continental Casualty Co. v. Brightman, 437 F.2d 37 (10th Cir. 1972). To avoid payment, the insurance company claimed that insurance policy application was forged and thus it did not have to pay the insured's claim. The insurance company hired its own forensic scientist who testified that the application was a fake, but the court decided not to believe the insurance company's handwriting expert. Instead, the court credited the opinion of the handwriting expert for the insured's representative, who testified that the application was genuine. The court accordingly required the insurance company to pay on the policy.
These cases demonstrate that handwriting analysis does not provide definitive proof. In commercial and criminal litigation in the United States, it is common for opposing parties to obtain experts to support both sides of a claim: the plaintiff may have an "expert" who testifies the writing is authentic; the defendant could have another "expert" who testifies that the writing is forged. The courts recognize this and hence do not treat the testimony of handwriting experts as fact, but merely as informed opinion which must be weighed against the remainder of the evidence.
-- In Skidmore v. Gilcrease, slip op. (Ark Ct. App. Oct. 10, 1984), an Arkansas court was confronted with a handwritten will. Three non-expert witnesses "had known the deceased for substantial periods of time, they were familiar with his handwriting, and they all unequivocally identified the writing as being in his handwriting. On the other side, a handwriting expert testified that the will was a forgery. The court chose to believe the three non-experts over the expert. The appellate court agreed; since the expert was less believable than the three lay witnesses familiar with the deceased's handwriting, the court was justified in accepting their testimony and discounting the expert's claim that forensic science proved the writing was a forgery.
In Danvir Corp. v. Wahl, (slip op. Sept. 8. 1987) in Delaware Chancery court, the signature on a stock certificate was at issue. Plaintiffs claimed to be the only stockholders in the company while defendant claimed that stock ownership was evidenced by the stock certificate. The court noted that "Plaintiffs' handwriting expert testified at trial that certificate No. 1X is a forgery" and "defendants' handwriting expert reached the opposite conclusion." Accordingly, the court concluded that the "testimony of the handwriting experts does not weigh on either side because they reached opposite conclusions as to the genuineness of the signature on that certificate and I find no basis on which to prefer one expert opinion over the other."
A federal Court of Appeals considered a case in which an insurance company wanted to avoid paying out on an insurance policy. Continental Casualty Co. v. Brightman, 437 F.2d 37 (10th Cir. 1972). To avoid payment, the insurance company claimed that insurance policy application was forged and thus it did not have to pay the insured's claim. The insurance company hired its own forensic scientist who testified that the application was a fake, but the court decided not to believe the insurance company's handwriting expert. Instead, the court credited the opinion of the handwriting expert for the insured's representative, who testified that the application was genuine. The court accordingly required the insurance company to pay on the policy.
These cases demonstrate that handwriting analysis does not provide definitive proof. In commercial and criminal litigation in the United States, it is common for opposing parties to obtain experts to support both sides of a claim: the plaintiff may have an "expert" who testifies the writing is authentic; the defendant could have another "expert" who testifies that the writing is forged. The courts recognize this and hence do not treat the testimony of handwriting experts as fact, but merely as informed opinion which must be weighed against the remainder of the evidence.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "EBAPA" group.
To post to this group, send email to eb...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
ebapa-un...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/ebapa?hl=en
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages