The "Calibri" font really become popular in Pakistan when JIT on Panamagate scandal recently declared the documents submitted by Hassan Nawaz and Maryam Safdar to be forged/fake and has concluded that Maryam Safdar is the beneficial owner of the Avenfield (Park lane) apartments. It all happened because of Microsoft's "Calibri" font.
The team stated in their report that the font used in the document was Calibri whereas this font was not available before 31st January, for the general public. Surprisingly, the documents submitted by Maryam Safdar were dating back to February 2006.
Now, many people are debating whether the font in dispute was available before January 2007, whereas, the real question should be if it was POSSIBLE or at all LIKELY to be used before Feb 2006? In my review below, I'll try to answer this question with references.
“INSIDE” MICROSOFT ECOSYSTEM:
In case of “Microsoft Office 2007”:
- Microsoft Office 2007, Beta-1 was released on November 16, 2005, it was a "closed beta" sent only to "small number of testers", thus it was not available for “general public”.
- Microsoft Office 2007, Beta-2 was announced by Bill Gate at WinHEC 2006, and was initially released to the public on 23rd May, 2006.
Microsoft Office 2007 - Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office_2007#Development
Thus, It is HIGHLY UNLIKELY in case of “Beta-1” (legal firm not likely to be among small number of beta testers) and IMPOSSIBLE in case of “Beta-2” (May 2006 is after Feb 2006, the date legal document was signed) that a law firm used “Calibri” font to compose a legal document.
———-
In case of “Windows Vista”:
- Windows Vista, Beta-1 was released on July 27, 2005, it was also a “closed beta” and released only to "small number of testers".
- Windows Vista, Beta-2, released inJune 6, 2006, was the first beta build to be made available to the “general public”.
Development of Windows Vista - Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Windows_Vista#Beta_1
The conclusion is same as in “Microsoft Office 2007” section. It is HIGHLY UNLIKELY in case if “Beta-1” and IMPOSSIBLE in case of “Beta-2”.
———-
Important Note:
Here I’m assuming that “Calibri” font was included in early closed “Beta-1″ releases of both “Microsoft Vista (Longhorn)” and “Microsoft Office 2007”. As it is not confirmed yet. The designer of the font “Lucas” also stated his concern about this:
If it proved to be the case, It would be IMPOSSIBLE instead of HIGHLY UNLIKELY in all the cases above.
Further, I’m only discussing release dates of Microsoft products in beta format. The “Calibri” font was first officially released by Microsoft (within its products) on January 30, 2007.
“OUTSIDE” MICROSOFT ECOSYSTEM:
The font was never officially released for the general public as a stand-alone font(s) package “outside” Microsoft ecosystem (before January 2007). Which means this font was released ONLY as part of some operating system or word processor before. I’ve got this confirmation from “LucasFonts” themselves.
This also means, if anyone offered “Calibri” font outside Microsoft ecosystem (which was illegal), it was taken out from early Microsoft beta releases.
Now, although this was EXTREMELY UNLIKELY but POSSIBLE (provided font was included in early closed “Beta-1”) that someone got this font from someone who was among a few Windows Vista early beta-testers, installed the font in their system, and then selected this font specifically in the word processor for drafting a legal document.
But if the authenticity of the said document is already in dispute (through some other objections), in my opinion, It would be reasonable to conclude that document is forged.
That is why the “Calibri” font designer himself suspects the authenticity of document in subject:
http://www.valuewalk.com/2017/07/calibri-font-jit-panama-case-nawaz-sharif/
Following are the legal documents which are alleged to be forged, these documents are date “2nd February 2006” and are using “Calibri” font.
The team stated in their report that the font used in the document was Calibri whereas this font was not available before 31st January, for the general public. Surprisingly, the documents submitted by Maryam Safdar were dating back to February 2006.
Now, many people are debating whether the font in dispute was available before January 2007, whereas, the real question should be if it was POSSIBLE or at all LIKELY to be used before Feb 2006? In my review below, I'll try to answer this question with references.
“INSIDE” MICROSOFT ECOSYSTEM:
In case of “Microsoft Office 2007”:
- Microsoft Office 2007, Beta-1 was released on November 16, 2005, it was a "closed beta" sent only to "small number of testers", thus it was not available for “general public”.
- Microsoft Office 2007, Beta-2 was announced by Bill Gate at WinHEC 2006, and was initially released to the public on 23rd May, 2006.
Microsoft Office 2007 - Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office_2007#Development
Thus, It is HIGHLY UNLIKELY in case of “Beta-1” (legal firm not likely to be among small number of beta testers) and IMPOSSIBLE in case of “Beta-2” (May 2006 is after Feb 2006, the date legal document was signed) that a law firm used “Calibri” font to compose a legal document.
———-
In case of “Windows Vista”:
- Windows Vista, Beta-1 was released on July 27, 2005, it was also a “closed beta” and released only to "small number of testers".
- Windows Vista, Beta-2, released inJune 6, 2006, was the first beta build to be made available to the “general public”.
Development of Windows Vista - Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Windows_Vista#Beta_1
The conclusion is same as in “Microsoft Office 2007” section. It is HIGHLY UNLIKELY in case if “Beta-1” and IMPOSSIBLE in case of “Beta-2”.
———-
Important Note:
Here I’m assuming that “Calibri” font was included in early closed “Beta-1″ releases of both “Microsoft Vista (Longhorn)” and “Microsoft Office 2007”. As it is not confirmed yet. The designer of the font “Lucas” also stated his concern about this:
If it proved to be the case, It would be IMPOSSIBLE instead of HIGHLY UNLIKELY in all the cases above.
Further, I’m only discussing release dates of Microsoft products in beta format. The “Calibri” font was first officially released by Microsoft (within its products) on January 30, 2007.
“OUTSIDE” MICROSOFT ECOSYSTEM:
The font was never officially released for the general public as a stand-alone font(s) package “outside” Microsoft ecosystem (before January 2007). Which means this font was released ONLY as part of some operating system or word processor before. I’ve got this confirmation from “LucasFonts” themselves.
This also means, if anyone offered “Calibri” font outside Microsoft ecosystem (which was illegal), it was taken out from early Microsoft beta releases.
Now, although this was EXTREMELY UNLIKELY but POSSIBLE (provided font was included in early closed “Beta-1”) that someone got this font from someone who was among a few Windows Vista early beta-testers, installed the font in their system, and then selected this font specifically in the word processor for drafting a legal document.
But if the authenticity of the said document is already in dispute (through some other objections), in my opinion, It would be reasonable to conclude that document is forged.
That is why the “Calibri” font designer himself suspects the authenticity of document in subject:
http://www.valuewalk.com/2017/07/calibri-font-jit-panama-case-nawaz-sharif/
Following are the legal documents which are alleged to be forged, these documents are date “2nd February 2006” and are using “Calibri” font.
