Zara's inquest: Expert says writer could erase or alter own writing

 By Olivia Miwil

June 25, 2026 @ 5:49pm

The coroner's court was told today that it was possible for the original writer of a document to erase, amend or obliterate his or her own writing.

KOTA KINABALU: The coroner's court was told today that it was possible for the original writer of a document to erase, amend or obliterate his or her own writing.

Coordinating officer and deputy public prosecutor Dana examined the 74th witness, Dr Linthini Gannetion, on her findings regarding "unauthorised alterations" and the conclusions contained in her Forensic Document Examination Report (Part II) and witness statement.

Dana asked: "On the issue of obliteration, it is possible for a writer to erase, amend or obliterate his or her own writing, correct?"

Linthini replied: "Possible."

Dana then asked: "The mere presence of obliteration does not automatically mean another person tampered with the document, correct?"

Linthini replied: "Possibly correct."

The 34-year-old document examiner and handwriting expert also agreed that it was possible for the same writer to continue or add an entry later using a different pen.

However, she testified that the use of a different pen for corrections or to fit additional information into an existing document was "a bit peculiar".

She also told coroner Amir Shah Amir Hassan that ink-dating analysis was not carried out because Malaysia did not have the necessary database for such testing.

On Tuesday, Linthini read her witness statement, in which she said she could not conclusively rule out elements of tampering involving torn pages marked Y1 to Y15.

Her conclusion was based on observations of removed pages, differences in ink types in certain sections, the presence of obliterated writing and variations in the dating patterns on certain pages.

Linthini also said she was unable to reach a conclusion on the authorship of documents marked Y1A to Y10A due to the absence of contemporaneous handwriting samples.

Dana asked: "Therefore, the phrase 'mixed authorship pattern' should not be interpreted as proof that Y1A to Y10A were written by somebody other than Ms Zara?"

Linthini replied: "I leave it as indeterminate."

Dana then asked: "Therefore, your evidence is partly supportive of Zara Qairina's authorship, partly inconclusive because of limitations, and does not conclusively prove that Nurul Atiqah Mohd Noh's handwriting opinion is wrong, correct?"

Linthini replied: "Correct."

Dana further asked: "Where the evidence is insufficient, the proper conclusion is 'no conclusion', correct? Therefore, your use of 'no conclusion' reflects professional caution rather than a finding of different authorship, correct?"

Linthini replied: "Correct."

The inquest will resume tomorrow with a new expert witness.