Defence addresses missing evidence in police expert’s election fraud testimony
(Kaieteur News) – The 2020 election fraud trial took a turn during the cross-examination of police handwriting expert Corporal Ameer Mohamed, as defense attorney Nigel Hughes explored the scientific foundation of the prosecution’s document analysis.
Under questioning, Mohamed admitted under oath that his conclusion of “natural variation” used to explain structural discrepancies across signatures attributed to former minister Volda Lawrence and former election official Carol Joseph, was reached without a single piece of backing data regarding how, where, or under what conditions those documents were signed.
When confronted with physical differences between older reference signatures (from 2010 and 2015) and the questioned 2020 Form 24 documents, including the sudden appearance of diagonal lines, shifted loops, and missing pen lifts, Mohamed repeatedly cited “natural variation.”
To justify why a signature would undergo such dramatic structural shifts over time, the police expert offered a list of recognised handwriting variables: changes in the author’s mood, health, physical writing surface, position, or the writing instrument used.
However, under systematic cross-examination by Hughes, Mohamed admitted that he had gathered no background information or forensic data on any of those factors for the documents in question, writing surfaces, mood or health of the author, writing instruments, writing position. “None of the variables that you have identified, do you have any information on any of those variables, correct?” Hughes asked. “That’s correct, sir,” Mohamed stated.
“Your expertise, in the absence of information, in the absence of any evidence, your expertise is your explanation for why you say it was a natural variation, correct?” Hughes pressed.
“Yes, sir, correct,” the witness replied. The admission laid bare a core defense argument, that the police handwriting report relied on subjective opinion rather than verifiable science.
Earlier in his testimony, Mohamed was pressed on why glaring differences between the signatures were left out of his written report entirely. Hughes highlighted a 2010 signature of Volda Lawrence that showed a clear pen lift between the letters “V” and “O”, whereas the 2020 Form 24 sample showed continuous stroke connection. Similarly, an “E” formed in a 2010 signature appeared transformed into an “O” shape in 2020. Mohamed maintained these were not significant anomalies, describing them as unique characteristics within natural limits.
Hughes later pointed to a horizontal line running above Lawrence’s 2015 passport application signature, a feature completely absent in 2010 that suddenly transformed into a steep diagonal line cutting straight through the text in 2020.
Mohamed claimed the signatory had developed a “flare,” attributing the shift to a change in mood or circumstance on the day of signing. Yet, he confirmed that this striking difference was omitted from his formal report because he personally deemed it unimportant.
The examination of comparative charts for co-defendant Carol Joseph revealed similar gaps. Hughes pointed out that a large elliptical loop present within the body of Joseph’s 2016 application signatures had migrated entirely outside and to the front of the signature on the 2020 document. Mohamed again attributed the relocation to “natural variation,” despite conceding he could point to no specific physical factor explaining why the mark moved.
The technical methodology used at the police laboratories further crumbled under questioning. While Mohamed testified that he used a forensic comparator equipped with multi-spectrum lighting and 20x magnification, he clarified that the device generated no automated comparative data or diagnostic readouts, functioning merely as a visual zoom and lighting tool.
When asked to produce the contemporaneous lab notes recorded during his examination, Mohamed was unable to provide them to the court or state where they were currently stored. He was similarly unable to identify the specific type of writing instrument used on the primary questioned Form 24 document.
Closing his line of cross-examination, Hughes suggested to the court that the police expert’s findings amounted to an unverified hypothesis lacking basic forensic documentation, a charge Mohamed disputed as proceedings adjourned.
Source: Kaieteur News
