HONG KONG: Questions of forgery versus authenticity of signatures again dominated testimony in the battle over who should inherit Nina Wang's estate at the Court of First Instance yesterday.

Fung shui master Tony Chan's handwriting expert Paul Westwood was on the stand giving his assessment of signatures on a 2006 document, purported as the last will and testament of Wang. His analysis, in supporting the document naming Tony Chan as beneficiary, was diametrically opposed to opinions stated over the past two days by Robert Radley, the handwriting expert for the rival claimant, Chinachem. Westwood even characterized Radley's analysis as "not entirely fair".

In Westwood's estimation the signatures of Nina Wang and her solicitor Winfield Wong and that of Ng Shung-mo, affixed to the 2006 document, probably are authentic.

Radley had testified over the two previous days that the signatures of Nina Wang and Winfield Wong probably were forgeries.

On the 22nd day of the probate trial to determine the rightful heir to Nina Wang's massive fortune, Westwood told the court: "In my 41 years of experience, it is extremely rare to come across a situation like this. Very rarely do handwriting experts focus just on one side of a case. I cannot say it is biased, but it is not entirely fair."

Radley, while on the stand, repeatedly stressed inconsistencies between known signatures of Nina Wang and solicitor Winfield Wong and the signatures appearing on the disputed document. Radley acknowledged that there were similarities in the signatures, but said similarities are of little relevance while discrepancies are crucial.

Radley's final report pointed to numerous "rarities" in Nina Wang's signature on the 2006 document - the one Chan claims is Nina Wang's last will - compared to 135 known samples of Wang's signatures.

Westwood countered: "In order to determine if something is 'rare', you can't just do it over 135 samples. That is a very small sample. Mrs Wang was a businesswoman. She must have signed a lot of signatures. "

Counsel for Chinachem Dennis Chang asked Westwood if he agreed that one of the favorite defenses of forgery is to seek out extensive samples of handwriting to increase the probability of finding a match for a signature in dispute.

Westwood said he could not agree.

"There are three signatures on the document in question (the purported 2006 will), it is very difficult for a forger to execute all the signatures authentically, putting aside his own style," he added.

"I think it is fair to say Mrs Wang's writing ability deteriorated during the time the signature was signed," he said.

Radley, testifying for Chinachem, was on the stand, under cross examination prior to Westwood.

Radley said: "Without a doubt, there is a high concentration of good calligraphers in Hong Kong and not everyone is entirely honest. If someone wants something copied, we have the situation in front of us now."

He added: "There is a large number of people who would be prepared to forge a document, especially when the stakes are high."

Chan's counsel Ian Mill asked Radley if he equates being a good calligrapher with being a good forger.

Radley replied he has seen esteemed calligraphers do an excellent job of replicating Chinese signatures, applying the right pressure and paying attention to the proportion of the letters.

Radley maintained that Wong's signature on the 2006 document has "incorrect curvatures, proportions, on-paper and off-paper marks, slopes, rhythm of writing and baseline."

Mill suggested that this could be induced by external factors such as the evenness of the writing surface. Radley refused to accept the proposition, saying "If there are external influences, you would expect it to affect all the letters. In this case however, they are isolated incidents."

Radley continued, "If you have one or two rarities, that's fine. But we have up to 15 amongst a sample of 135 signatures. The likelihood of so many rarities occurring in one signature is quite improbable."

Court was told however that Radley's written submission of his analysis was inconclusive. Radley stated in that submission he could not assert with certainty whether the signatures on the 2006 document are genuine or forged.

Radley said: "I do not consider there is enough evidence to form a conclusive finding. But I have come here to tell what I genuinely believe, having weighed up the pros and cons."

The hearing continues today with Westwood resuming the stand.

(HK Edition 06/18/2009 page1)