Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[One Bad Pig]

If you have to ask why are you commenting?

Because I have better things to do than follow every detail of this sordid story, and I didn't want to assume.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f33nZuJk_Dk

17:43 allred starts with "moore says" and reads the whole thing, including the date and location. It was passed off as having been written by moore from the start.

by Allred, who may or may not have known better at the time.

So she wrote the statement, Moore borrowed her pen to write "RayRoy" then the pen just ran out of ink (with no visible marks on the page), borrowed ANOTHER pen which he then used to complete his signature and handed it over to her so she can write the date and location?

Makes about as much sense as her doing that on her own.

Given her history and the facts of this case there's no reason to give her the benefit of the doubt.

No, but there's no need to invent additional theories either.

It's not a theory at this point given that the accused partially confessed.

...to adding the date and location.

If she can't actually forge his writing (the signature was copied off a stamp) then that is the only logical explanation

Assuming the whole thing was forged, yes.

[Cow Poke]

If true she could find herself in deep doo-doo

Naw, she's a liberal and a woman. She'll get a pass.

[One Bad Pig]

If true she could find herself in deep doo-doo

It would be far from the first time a lawyer messed up a case like that.

[Mountain Man]

It would be far from the first time a lawyer messed up a case like that.

Allred didn't "mess up". She's spent weeks trying to sidestep this whole issue because I suspect she knew it was phony from the start. She never explicitly confirmed or denied the authenticity of the signature, and when pressed on it by Wolf Blitzer, she even admitted that she wasn't sure if her client had seen Moore sign it! It seemed she tried very hard to maintain a layer of plausible denial between herself and her client.

[Cow Poke]

Allred didn't "mess up". She's spent weeks trying to sidestep this whole issue because I suspect she knew it was phony from the start. She never explicitly confirmed or denied the authenticity of the signature, and when pressed on it by Wolf Blitzer, she even admitted that she wasn't sure if her client had seen Moore sign it! It seemed she tried very hard to maintain a layer of plausible denial between herself and her client.

It's kind of a stupid bluff move: "we have a smoking gun, so y'all better back down", but when called on it..... um.... nothing to see here, folks, move along...,

[One Bad Pig]

Allred didn't "mess up". She's spent weeks trying to sidestep this whole issue because I suspect she knew it was phony from the start. She never explicitly confirmed or denied the authenticity of the signature, and when pressed on it by Wolf Blitzer, she even admitted that she wasn't sure if her client had seen Moore sign it! It seemed she tried very hard to maintain a layer of plausible denial between herself and her client.

That she knowingly presented false evidence is a rather serious charge, and would be exceedingly stupid for her to do. I expect lawyers to be devious, but they're not usually that stupid.

[Darth Executor]

by Allred, who may or may not have known better at the time.

Her client was right next to her, and had corrected her when she said "ray" instead of "roy" but couldn't be bothered to correct the much bigger error?

Makes about as much sense as her doing that on her own.

I never said she did that on her own. Some guy named ray (or roy) signed her yearbook, then she added the additional information to make it look like it was roy moore.

No, but there's no need to invent additional theories either.

You are the one inventing additional theories. I've "invented" one theory, that they're both liars, and so far it fits the facts perfectly.

...to adding the date and location.

After trying to pass it off as Roy Moore's. She confessed to partially being a liar, there's no reason to trust that she's telling the truth on everything else.

Which is the same ink as half the signature, and thus a de facto confession of having forged the signature.

Assuming the whole thing was forged, yes.

The whole thing wasn't forged, some guy named ray or roy probably did write the bulk of the statement. The part that actually identifies Moore, the date and the location are all part of her forgery tho.

[Sparko]

Her client was right next to her, and had corrected her when she said "ray" instead of "roy" but couldn't be bothered to correct the much bigger error?



I never said she did that on her own. Some guy named ray (or roy) signed her yearbook, then she added the additional information to make it look like it was roy moore.

Who ever wrote "Moore" wrote all of the cursive stuff. It's all the same handwriting. But all of the printed stuff after that DA, and the place and date are someone else's, apparently the woman's handwriting.

I don't see how even if Moore did sign some teenybopper's yearbook in 1977 it really makes any difference. If they hung out at the same diner and knew each other from that, I can see the girl asking him to sign the yearbook. I would check the yearbook for other adult signatures from the diner too. It doesn't mean he dated her or tried to rape her. The whole thing is a red herring.

[Darth Executor]

Who ever wrote "Moore" wrote all of the cursive stuff. It's all the same handwriting.

It's not.

171115170159-beverly-young-nelson-yearbook-signature-exlarge-169.jpg

The cursive stuff is visibly more compressed than Moore's (particularly the small letters). And the M in Merry is completely different from the M in Moore

I don't see how even if Moore did sign some teenybopper's yearbook in 1977 it really makes any difference. If they hung out at the same diner and knew each other from that, I can see the girl asking him to sign the yearbook. I would check the yearbook for other adult signatures from the diner too. It doesn't mean he dated her or tried to rape her. The whole thing is a red herring.

It's a red herring if true but it kills her credibility if false.

[Cow Poke]

It's not.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]25305[/ATTACH]

The cursive stuff is visibly more compressed than Moore's (particularly the small letters). And the M in Merry is completely different from the M in Moore

While it's not at all unusual for a handwritten signature to look different from other handwriting by the same person, that just looks "too different".

[Mountain Man]

While it's not at all unusual for a handwritten signature to look different from other handwriting by the same person, that just looks "too different".

I've also seen analysis showing that each line of the note is perfectly aligned relative to itself. but the "Roy Moore" signature is offset with the "Roy" slanting upward and the "Moore" slanting downward relative to each other suggesting that the body of the note and the signature were written by different people.

[Sparko]

I've also seen analysis showing that each line of the note is perfectly aligned relative to itself. but the "Roy Moore" signature is offset with the "Roy" slanting upward and the "Moore" slanting downward relative to each other suggesting that the body of the note and the signature were written by different people.

The thing you have to be careful of is people who want it to be fake finding something to support their theory. Kinda like Tassy and crew does with just about everything to do with Trump. To me the signature and the text above look enough alike to be the same person. Without actually having the actual text in front of an expert, we are all just guessing and making up stuff that supports our view.

I think there is enough doubt planted by the way they presented the yearbook, what they allowed people to think, refusal to allow it to be examined and then admitting to adding words to the text, all that means that it can't be trusted unless verified by an expert who can check the ink.

I know my signature and handwriting don't match that closely. Most people exaggerate and do more flourish on their signatures, especially if they do a lot of signing which a lawyer would do. Whereas their handwriting might be plainer and terser.

[Darth Executor]

The thing you have to be careful of is people who want it to be fake finding something to support their theory. Kinda like Tassy and crew does with just about everything to do with Trump. To me the signature and the text above look enough alike to be the same person. Without actually having the actual text in front of an expert, we are all just guessing and making up stuff that supports our view.

I think there is enough doubt planted by the way they presented the yearbook, what they allowed people to think, refusal to allow it to be examined and then admitting to adding words to the text, all that means that it can't be trusted unless verified by an expert who can check the ink.

I know my signature and handwriting don't match that closely. Most people exaggerate and do more flourish on their signatures, especially if they do a lot of signing which a lawyer would do. Whereas their handwriting might be plainer and terser.

Moore looks fundamentally different from both Roy and the rest of the text. Between that and the fact that the forged part (including moore) reflects light differently at certain angles it's obvious it was an addition. This isn't us making stuff up, they are clearly different.

[Sparko]

Moore looks fundamentally different from both Roy and the rest of the text. Between that and the fact that the forged part (including moore) reflects light differently at certain angles it's obvious it was an addition. This isn't us making stuff up, they are clearly different.

You can't say that from a still from a video, videos are notorious for color shifting form frame to frame. That is why I said we can guess all we want but until someone who knows actually sits down with the real thing, all it is is guesses.

I tend to believe it is faked, but that is just me. I have no expertise on the matter and can't say other than it is highly suspicious.

[carpedm9587]

I'm hearing that the "forgery" is no more than adding, in an obviously different hand, the date and location for where Moore allegedly signed it. How is that a forgery? This is not a "bombshell"; this is a nothing burger.

I have to agree. Her original announcement said nothing about the added note - but also did not explicitly claim Moore wrote the whole thing. The two sections are rather obviously in different hands. I'd be curious to know WHEN the second note was added, but I suspect that is something we will never know. Would be nice if they would submit the thing for comparison of the inks.

That being said, I have never really understood the significance of this, other than to prove they knew each other at that time.