Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[Cow Poke]

No, we were screaming...

Drama Queens!

[Cow Poke]

And he had proudly just signed legislation that declared that if someone in a position of power over a woman (such as their boss) has sex with an underling it should not be regarded as consensual.

Then had his own cabinet members doing media gigs proclaiming his innocence!

[JimL]

Yeah I do.

[JimL]

Jimmy, I already said that even if he was dating "legal" teenage girls (16-19) when he was 32, that alone is disgusting to me and I believe it to be immoral, regardless of the other accusations. If he has done that and admits it, then I think he should step down.

Good enough for ya?

Not quite, does he have to admit it or will a preponderance of the evidence be enough?

[Sparko]

Not quite, does he have to admit it or will a preponderance of the evidence be enough?

JimL, so far there are only accusations. They have not even been investigated yet.

Besides I thought you atheists don't believe in eye-witness testimony without physical proof? Double-standard much?

Or do you now believe the Gospels and the claims within?

[Mountain Man]

Not quite, does he have to admit it or will a preponderance of the evidence be enough?

I think a preponderance of evidence would be enough, but so far, there is NO evidence to corroborate Corfman's accusations. There appears to be evidence that Moore may have engaged in other unrelated and perfectly legal activities, but that doesn't come close to even implying that he's guilty of assault. And remember, the burden of proof is 100% on Corfman.

[rogue06]

If this is true it doesn't look good: Roy Moore was reportedly banned from Alabama mall for bothering teen girls

[Sparko]

If this is true it doesn't look good: Roy Moore was reportedly banned from Alabama mall for bothering teen girls

If you follow that story which is just reporting another news story (I hate it when they do that) you get to the New Yorker's article here:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...social_twitter

Which when you read it is full of unsubstantiated rumor and anonymous sources or sources that say they have a friend who told them blah blah.

[Mountain Man]

If you follow that story which is just reporting another news story (I hate it when they do that) you get to the New Yorker's article here:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...social_twitter

Which when you read it is full of unsubstantiated rumor and anonymous sources or sources that say they have a friend who told them blah blah.

Classic fake news.

[Teallaura]

Not quite, does he have to admit it or will a preponderance of the evidence be enough?

Why the civil standard in a criminal matter?

[Teallaura]

If this is true it doesn't look good: Roy Moore was reportedly banned from Alabama mall for bothering teen girls

Um, if I'm reading these correctly he was 'banned' at the time the other girls claim to have met him there.

Also, I'm wondering why they couldn't talk to anyone who could actually give first hand information - just a lot of hearsay instead.

In the early Eighties kids weren't the only ones that hung out at malls - heck, we did just about everything but vote at the mall (and I'd bet someone managed that, too).

[Terraceth]

I think a preponderance of evidence would be enough, but so far, there is NO evidence to corroborate Corfman's accusations. There appears to be evidence that Moore may have engaged in other unrelated and perfectly legal activities, but that doesn't come close to even implying that he's guilty of assault. And remember, the burden of proof is 100% on Corfman.

On the other hand, such encounters, even if true, often don't leave behind much definite evidence besides one person's testimony, so all they can really do in such cases is say what happened without additional backup.

That said, I don't think any of the accusers have demonstrated a particular reason to believe they would be going against a bias they had. What I mean is, someone who would have reason to not accuse Moore of something, but are doing it anyway. One of the most damning things against Kevin Spacey in my view is the fact that other people who worked on House of Cards confirmed some of the rumors regarding him, despite the fact that they had strong incentive to not confirm it due to their jobs potentially being on the line as a result; after all, if Spacey got fired, the chances of the series getting cancelled went up considerably, which is exactly what happened. When your TV series is over, your paycheck generally comes to an end.

[JimL]

Why the civil standard in a criminal matter?

Because this isn't simply about the criminal nature of the alleged act, the statute of limitations I would assume is up anyway, but this is about sitting a pedophile not to mention a religious hypocrite in the U.S. Senate. I see absolutely no reason why I should disbelieve all these women who have similar stories concerning the moral character of Roy Moore.

[Mountain Man]

On the other hand, such encounters, even if true, often don't leave behind much definite evidence besides one person's testimony, so all they can really do in such cases is say what happened without additional backup.

One person's testimony can be enough, if it's credible, for instance, if she was able to give a detailed description of the location where it happened (more than just "at his house"), or an exact date and time, perhaps an identifying characteristic of his body, such as a mole on a part of the accused's body that wouldn't be common knowledge -- basically, anything that could be independently verified by a disinterested third-party. It's the lack of specific details that makes her accusations suspicious.

[Cow Poke]

One person's testimony can be enough, if it's credible, for instance, if she was able to give a detailed description of the location where it happened (more than just "at his house"), or an exact date and time, perhaps an identifying characteristic of his body, such as a mole on a part of the accused's body that wouldn't be common knowledge -- basically, anything that could be independently verified by a disinterested third-party. It's the lack of specific details that makes her accusations suspicious.

And the logical question - why now, after all these years?