Attorney General's Office objected to serious error, handwriting CTI opinion on the signing of Edgar Villamizar in the case of the Palace of Justice

The Attorney General's Office objected to the study by serious errors yielded by a handwriting expert of the Technical Investigation Corps (CTI) of the Attorney General's Office, which provides a correspondence between firms manuscritural Edgar Villamizar and Edgar Villarreal Espinel.

The survey was ordered by the Circuit Criminal Court 55 of Bogota in the trial being conducted against the Colonel (r) Edilberto Sanchez Rubiano, and others, the missing of the Palace of Justice.

That court had ordered the signature matching dubitada described as "Edgar Villareal" surplus in the process, with several samples of documents in various formats, including the resume of Edgar Villamizar Espinel and 17 pages of samples taken Villamizar in the statement given in the Court of knowledge.

However, these documents were not examined by the expert, but merely the study of three firms, two of which procedure in the resume and a signature on a document originated unknown to the process and procedural subjects, provided by the Prosecutor instructed the process, the inquiry being conducted by the investigative agency.

The prosecution objected to the expert's serious errors in three aspects:

1. A service of legality. Not only because the document that records the firm now made known by the former prosecutor, is unknown to the parties to the proceedings and was not part of any cause for the events of the Palace of Justice, and also because apparently corresponds to a copy of the statement in question, also dubitada, admitting no comparison with one that is in question.

2. Insufficient analysis. The expert was limited to the comparison of three firms, one law flawed, as alluded to previously, and nothing was said about the other quantity of the same samples on which the collation was ordered, in violation of the legal mandate that requires you to examine everything the material contained in the case process to reach its conclusions.

3. Fragility of the technical foundation that was based on the concept. The expert did not build its opinion with arguments that take the strength and depth technical - scientific required to arrive at the conclusions, therefore, was widespread and did not advance to detail and individualization of truly characteristic features that allow to draw conclusions as described in study.

In sum, for the DA, the opinion has serious shortcomings that impose the need for a new assessment, which should provide full and satisfactory answer to the original principles of transparency and truth-seeking purpose of governing the administration of justice, also, to save expert opinion technique, method and proper procedure, for which the objection with evidence sought to be practiced incidentally.