Put under a microscope, the sometimes disjointed and tentative writing in Wang's will - possibly done by someone with a background in Chinese calligraphy - was not a match for Mr Wong's emphatic, flowing style, Mr Radley testified.

Wang's 2006 will allegedly left the HK$100 billion estate to fung shui master Tony Chan Chun-chuen, voiding an earlier will that gave the woman's property empire to her Chinachem Charitable Foundation.

Yesterday, Mr Radley said he found almost a dozen differences between Mr Wong's penmanship and his signature on Mr Chan's will. 'It is just, in my opinion, non-comparable,' he said.

'It's very difficult to get the pen pressure right. The pen in Mr Wong's samples knows where it is going.'

As he pointed to magnified letters on an overhead projector, Mr Radley showed alleged inconsistencies, including an 'extremely important' distinction with the F in 'Winfield'.

That letter had not mirrored how Mr Wong would have started his pen stroke and 'ignores where the pen moved in the air', Mr Radley said.

'It's not the natural way that Mr Wong wrote,' he added. 'It goes in totally the wrong direction.'

Also, a straight line through the top of the W in 'Wong' showed that the person who wrote the letter had not used enough pen pressure, the forensic examiner said.

'The very emphatic bar in Mr Wong's samples is totally different than the questioned writing,' Mr Radley added. Similarly, the U in 'Cheung' did not the hit the paper at the right angle or direction, court heard. 'There was a total change in direction of the pen.'

Certain numbers in Mr Wong's Hong Kong identification number on the will, including a loop in the number 9 and the strokes that formed the number 4, also showed key differences from his own handwriting, Mr Radley said.

But the 'masterful point of this forgery' was that the signature had matched Mr Wong's handwriting in some ways, Mr Radley said.

He discounted the possibility that crucial differences could be explained by Mr Wong being inattentive. 'I don't think that is a likely proposition.'

Mr Radley was expected to give evidence today about signatures by Wang and Chinachem Group sales executive Ng Shung-mo on the will.

In a report Mr Radley submitted to the court, he said he found 18 differences between Wang's signature on the will and 135 samples of her writing. He was to be followed by Mr Chan's expert, Paul Westwood, who was expected to rebut the forgery claims.

The charitable foundation had fought to keep Mr Westwood off the witness stand after Mr Chan's first handwriting expert, Audrey Giles, also concluded the signatures on Wang's will were forged.

Mr Justice Johnson Lam Man-hon ruled that Mr Westwood's analysis would be heard.

The hearing continues today.