Microsoft’s default font is at the center of a government corruption case

[StandForInsaf]

The fact that the forensic expert was demonstrably wrong in at least one aspect of the assessment may be important for credibility. Possibly.

Law firms are not beta testers why would they copy unfinished product and use it for their clients?

Court can order maryam nawaz to bring in original document and send them uk for ink dating , that will reveal when it was printed and signed , it will be even more shameful for noon league.

Forensic experts are not wrong stop your lies now.

 

[Malik Shani]

I think it's interesting to ask from the Law Firm which prepared this document back in 2006 if they can produce similar documents with calibri font dated back to 2006.

 

[expert]

Tenuous, at best. It is up to a solicitor when to work.

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. -Aristotle

 

[litman]

its very obvious to the whole world but only the patwaris cant see and believe.

 

[expert]

The fact that the forensic expert was demonstrably wrong in at least one aspect of the assessment may be important for credibility. Possibly.

He wasn't wrong. He was correct in saying that the fonts were commercially made available in January 2007. The creator of the fonts, Groot has confirmed that the verson of Calibri used in the forged documents was not available on February 4, 2006.

 

[VCheng]

He wasn't wrong. He was correct in saying that the fonts were commercially made available in January 2007. The creator of the fonts, Groot has confirmed that the verson of Calibri used in the forged documents was not available on February 4, 2006.

Sir, MS Office 2010 still uses version 0.90, which was the first version released. The expert is clearly wrong in assuming that commercial release of the font is a requisite for its use and thus cannot, by itself, be used to cast doubt on the date of the document. The proof must come from somewhere else.

 

[expert]

Sir, MS Office 2010 still uses version 0.90, which was the first version released. The expert is clearly wrong in assuming that commercial release of the font is a requisite for its use and thus cannot, by itself, be used to cast doubt on the date of the document. The proof must come from somewhere else.

(1) You can use an OLDer version later. But you cannot use a NEWer version earlier.

(2) The standard of proof in criminal cases is beyond reasonable doubt and not beyond a shadow of doubt.

• Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not involve proof to an absolute certainty. It is not proof beyond any doubt, nor is it an imaginary or frivolous doubt.

If the version wasn't even released at that time, it's beyond shadow of doubt that the documents were forged. Otherwise, looking at the tampering alongside the fonts, it's beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[VCheng]

(1) You can use an OLDer version later. But you cannot use a NEWer version earlier.

(2) The standard of proof in criminal cases is beyond reasonable doubt and not beyond a shadow of doubt.

If the version wasn't even released at that time, it's beyond shadow of doubt that the documents were forged. Otherwise, looking at the tampering alongside the fonts, it's beyond reasonable doubt.

As I said Sir, there are more substantive issues in the whole case. This font issue is demonstrably false. These rest of the case has more merit to it.

If the version wasn't even released at that time, it's beyond shadow of doubt that the documents were forged. Otherwise, looking at the tampering alongside the fonts, it's beyond reasonable doubt.

I will tell you that the original document will have a series of precise hidden microdots that identify the source of the document beyond any doubt at all.

 

[expert]

As I said Sir, there are more substantive issues in the whole case. This font issue is demonstrably false. These rest of the case has more merit to it.

It's not false at all. In fact, it is beyond reasonable doubt that it's true. To prove the forensic report's falsity, the defense will have to get an expert opinion of their own that contradicts the original expert. Then the court will decide.

I will tell you that the original document will have a series of precise hidden microdots that identify the source of the document beyond any doubt at all.

According to the JIT report, the document submitted as "original" was a copy. According to the forensic report, ink dating can be done on a document less than two years old. If we are lucky and the criminal trial requires ink dating, and it is done before June 2018, we will be sure.

 

[VCheng]

According to the JIT report, the document submitted as "original" was a copy. According to the forensic report, ink dating can be done on a document less than two years old. If we are lucky and the criminal trial requires ink dating, and it is done before June 2018, we will be sure.

What I describe above does not need ink-dating Sir. The original document is all that is needed, and knowing where to look. It can identify the source precisely, beyond any doubt. If I may assume, that could be the reason the original was not submitted. An analog photocopy would destroy those microdots.

 

[ghazi52]

 

[Panther 57]

Sir, there is a difference between justifying the use of the font (which I am not) and showing that it is technically possible to have used that font for that document (which I am, because it is correct), as even admitted by the originator of the font. The TTF file of the font was available far before the commercial release by Microsoft. Fact.

But, it is only one aspect of authenticating the document, and even that document is only one aspect of a huge and complex indictment. There are more substantive questions to answer.

It is important to remain fair despite a blood rush to judge.

using a font before its official release starts up another legal claim and violation of copyright. LOL

 

[VCheng]

using a font before its official release starts up another legal claim and violation of copyright. LOL

Not really. The TTF file was released into the public domain by the owner of the copyright voluntarily. The point to understand is the assumption that commercial release is a pre-requisite for the font to be used on the date of the document. That can be shown to be incorrect in less than a minute in a court of law.

But, that is not the only issue here. The document is only one piece in a rather large puzzle, much of which remains unassailable.

 

[Radd-ul-Fasaad]

Okay so the first Public Beta for Windows Vista, Beta 2 was released on 6 June 2006:

The first Public Beta of Microsoft Office 2007 was available on Late May 2006 (22nd or 23rd):

And the email from Lucas de Groot believed that Calibri was NOT available in Longhorn first betas (Windows Vista Beta 1):

So it will be really hard for the defendant(Sharifs) to prove that they had access to the font at that time.

And the firm Freeman Box who attested the documents have been dissolved on 30 May 2017, interesting date

Check it out @PakSword @Farah Sohail @Zibago @QatariPrince

 

[Zibago]

Okay so the first Public Beta for Windows Vista, Beta 2 was released on 6 June 2006:
View attachment 411464

The first Public Beta of Microsoft Office 2007 was available on Late May 2006 (22nd or 23rd):
View attachment 411465

And the email from Lucas de Groot believed that Calibri was NOT available in Longhorn first betas (Windows Vista Beta 1):
View attachment 411470
So it will be really hard for the defendant(Sharifs) to prove that they had access to the font at that time.

And the firm Freeman Box who attested the documents have been dissolved on 30 May 2017, interesting date
View attachment 411472

Check it out @PakSword @Farah Sohail @Zibago @QatariPrince

And the most important thing is law firms are not beta testers they domt use beta fonts to write official documents