Have you been intrigued and perplexed by the twists and turns in the Sushant Singh case too?
Only a day after being grilled by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Rhea Chakraborty’s lawyer has shared two pictures which she claims to be “the only property of Sushant” possessed by her.
One was Sushant’s Chichchore Sipper, the other was a “Gratitude List” allegedly written by Sushant, listing seven reasons he was grateful for, which included his life, Lillu (Rhea’s brother), Bebu (Rhea), Sir (Rhea’s father), Ma’am (Rhea’s mother), Fudge (his dog) and all the love in his life.
Students and practitioners of forensic sciences are bound to get curious to analyse both of these handwritten notes and compare them. You would have encountered this under questioned documents.
Therefore, we have decided to do a handwriting comparison considering the “Gratitude List” as our questioned writing “Q1” and the writings uploaded by Sushant as the admitted writings “A1”, “A2”, “A3”……..“A11”.
Before we move further
Some quick points before we start analyzing the various writing samples:
- This article is solely meant for education and demonstration purpose of the concepts of handwriting analysis.
- We really have no way to verify the authenticity of any of the samples.
- The ‘questioned document’ does not have a date on it.
- It also lacked several characters that were found in the ‘admitted writings’, making it insufficient for a detailed comparison.
- It also needs to be considered that the handwriting of an individual is affected by various internal (mental state, sickness, under the influence of drugs, etc) and external factors (writing surface, writing instrument, writing position, etc) – which are not known to us.
Description of the documents
A gratitude note doing rounds on social media, shared by Ms. Rhea Chakraborty allegedly written by Sushant Singh Rajput. For us this is the ‘questioned document’ and marked as ‘Q1′.
The ‘admitted samples’ taken from Twitter/ Instagram and Facebook marked from ‘A1 to A11’
Figure: Juxtaposition chart of the questioned writing Q1 (left) and the admitted writing A1 (right) highlighting the general characteristics
Note- It would have been a great deal of effort to put in all the admitted writings here, so we have made the Juxtaposition Chart showing Q1 and A1 only. You can see the other admitted writings in the gallery below (click to expand).
|Alignment||While most words are straight on line, words from the last point slanted up from the baseline||Ascending upwards from the baseline||Ascending upwards from the baseline||Straight on line|
|Pen Pressure||Light/Average||Heavy, which is evident from the indented impressions||Heavy pressure||Heavy pressure, also evident from the indentation marks|
|Slant||Inconsistent; The title “Gratitude List” has a straight or vertical slant while the rest are forward||Forward slant||Forward slant||Forward Slant|
|Spacing||Uniform Interword and Intraword spacing; Less spacing within words||Uniform Inter-word and Intra-word spacing;wider spacing||Uniform Inter-word and Intra-word spacing;wider spacing||Uniform Inter-word and Intra-word spacing; Similar spacing to Q1|
|Relative Size||Capital and small letters are almost of the same size||Relative size of tall letters with the small letters are normal||Relative size of tall letters with the small letters are normal||Relative size of tall letters with the small letters are normal|
Note: The admitted writings A4-A11 showed similar characteristics to A1-A3.
|Characters||Q1||A1 to A11 (see the image below)|
|‘5’||The sleeping stroke is slanted upwards||It is a straight line, parallel to the paper|
|‘G’||G is vertical without any hook.||Slanted forward with a small hook in the initial stroke|
|‘S’||The terminal stroke of the letter ‘S’ forms a small knot to connect to the next letter||‘S’ does not form a knot and is usually detached with the letter after it.|
|Pen Lifts||Each letter of the every word is connected with a connecting stroke||Pen lifts in many words, resulting in a detached writing|
|Connecting stroke||Presence of a connecting stroke between ‘o’ and ‘r’ in the word “for”||The letters ‘o’ and ‘r’ in the word “for” are not connected, but detached|
Figure:Juxtaposition chart of the questioned writing Q1 and admitted writings A1-A11 highlighting the individual characteristics
Opinion – On the basis of the differences found in the above General and individual characteristics, the questioned writing ‘Q1’ may not have been written by the same person who wrote admitted writings ‘A1 to A11’.
Disclaimer: The analysis is based on publicly available handwriting samples whose authenticity has not been verified. Please note, handwriting analysis can be subjective and expert opinions may vary.
Sushant had an inclination of writing with a heavy pen pressure which is evident from the indented impressions that are commonly found on a lot of the admitted writings.
That being so, the absence of any form of indented impressions on the questioned writing Q1 (Gratitude List) is doubtful, more so due to the fact that it was a whole diary and not just a single piece of paper.
On this account, we can assume that either there were no writings of any kind on the preceding pages or that it was altogether not written by him.
Seeing the incomplete formation of certain characteristics, not so good line quality and very fast speed, it may be presumed that the document was perhaps written in haste.
Sushant was also an avid believer of God and loved his mother dearly. It is thus odd that he did not mention them in his gratitude list!
Also, he seem to have a habit of writing date but in this particular case, despite of the presence of the date column, he did not write the date.
It seems that the list probably has 3-4 additional points as can be seen from the imprints of the back of the paper. A closeup on the note is shown below where you can clearly see that something is written on the backside as well!
As claims have been made by Rhea about this “Gratitude list” having written by Sushant Singh Rajput, it is undoubtedly a crucial piece of evidence for the investigation of this case.
For this purpose, the individual in possession of the diary should be asked to produce the original copy in physical form. Various details such as the time in which it was written, the conditions under which it was written and other relevant questions should be asked.
An Expert Forensic Document Examiner can really provide useful information for the investigating agencies. Hopefully CBI and other agencies will consider this important element.