• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Roy Moore accuser admits she wrote part of yearbook inscription attributed to Alabama Senate candida

JoeTrumps said:
exactly. if she had come out from day one and made it clear she added the date then all is well.

problem is she didn't mention it. and when Moore wanted the yearbook looked at by experts(and her refusing to turn the book over), she should have admitted it then.

but after stonewalling for weeks then FINALLY admitting she added that information herself she becomes totally unreliable. everything she says can now be questioned and it is HER FAULT, not anyone elses.
Click to expand...
Valid point.

When Moore cast doubt on the signature, there was no direct rebuttal by the lawyer.

However, the lawyer did say she would not comment further on the case until in a professional legal venue, which I think is reasonable.

The problem is, here she now is commenting again - outside a legal venue!

So I could see the optics problems, here.

The main deal is, that note needs to go thorough forensic analysis. In a safe place.
 
Chomsky said:
Interesting.

But to me, a most important analysis would be in attempting to determine the type and age of the ink on the page.

If it's of the right age and type for it's purported date, then while still not conclusively proving it's his signature by itself, it goes a long way to believe it very well could be. And combined with the handwriting expert's testimony, the forensics then could prove very powerful.
Click to expand...

Well, if it is his signature, how much does it really matter to pin down the type and age of ink? I suppose it might further cement its validity, but, Moore denied he signed the yearbook and denied knowing her.

Consider:

She says it was late '77 or early '78, when she was in HS. It was a yearbook. What's the probability that Roy Moore signed a HS yearbook years after she left HS, ie, 1980 or 1983? She'd be of legal age then, so why would he deny having done it?

And why would someone do that anyway? If you're going to ask someone to sign your yearbook, you do it around the time when you actually got the thing, no?

Has anyone here asked someone to sign their yearbook years after they've left HS? I certainly wouldn't think to do that. I don't even have my HS yearbooks, unless they're buried in some box in the basement. I certainly didn't bring them with me to college, etc.





So, I'm not very concerned about the date or type of ink, so long as it actually is his signature (I suppose, and so long as it wasn't somehow transferred to the yearbook from something else - but that would be even more bizarre). Besides, we do have all the other accusers and witness "statements".

Edit in:

Chomsky said:
If she added her notes contemporaneously with the time-frame of Moore's signature (40 years ago), I think she's alright.

But if she added them in the current time period, as she produced the yearbook as evidence of her claim, then she badly injured her credibility.
Click to expand...

Oh, wait, did you mean you wanted the date and type of ink re: the additions vs. the sig? That would make more sense because it would test your point in the final sentence.

I might just knock myself unconscious with a facepalm if she waited until now to write in the date.
 
Last edited:
Chomsky said:
Maybe. but I'm not so sure.

It's not uncommon at all, to add references to year book notes (and signatures).

As long as the reference is relatively contemporaneous to the time of the signature, there's nothing unusual here. In fact, in my high school we sometimes replied to each other's yearbook notes over the time the yearbook was passed around - a matter of weeks!

Now in retrospect, perhaps Allered might have anticipated a possible backlash. But I'm not so sure. There's only so many topics & claims that can be gotten out in a brief press conference, and many other topics were far more salient.
Click to expand...

I suppose it depends on how much attention one pays to politics.

If I was going to the press with something like that, I'd make sure everything was on the table for the very reasons we see in this thread. There is a whole bunch of evidence against Moore and what she did really does not change anything, yet people are acting like it completely discredits everything she has said or will say.

I suppose it also depends on how one would choose to interact with a reporter. Do you simply answer questions ("And you say he signed it?" "yes") or do you volunteer extra information ("And you say he signed it" "yes, but I wrote a note underneath; just so you know.")?
 
Mason66 said:
Again, she was not asked why she added those details or when she did it.

I would expect she added them to make her story more believable in the first place.

She just got busted on that one.

Even if Moore did write Merry Christmas on her yearbook, what does that prove to anybody?

Nobody has asked the woman whet the circumstances were as to why Moore signed it like he did.

Does anybody know about the school system in Alabama? Why did she have a yearbook in December when they usually come out at the end of a school term, like in June.
Click to expand...
If she added her notes contemporaneously with the time-frame of Moore's signature (40 years ago), I think she's alright.

But if she added them in the current time period, as she produced the yearbook as evidence of her claim, then she badly injured her credibility.
 
Chomsky said:
Well, she claims she added the notes under the signature. So I'm not at all sure how that would nullify the evidence, if the inscription and signature are authentic.

I also see how those disputing the women's claims see this as a reason to cast further doubt, though it's far from conclusive.



Apparently, in a press conference later today, the accuser's attorney, along with a handwriting expert, will be disputing Moore's claim the signature is fake.

I suspect the attorney is going to rally for the Senate to hold a hearing.
Click to expand...

Republican defense against a victim? Blame the victim. It's SOP for them.
 
iliveonramen said:
It's amazing you feel the need to "fight" for a guy that has basically been accused by multiple women of being a child molester.
Click to expand...

oh, you don't want to hear facts. you just want me to pick up the torch and follow the mob, right? I think for myself. This guy's a super-creep who I really hope loses next week. However of all the girls only one said he touched her inappropriately. I would like to know exactly how well her facts check out before making a final decision. is that so horrible to you? that I don't automatically accept the word of a total stranger about an event that happened 40 years ago?

These are serious accusations and I would like to know the truth, not be bullied and name-called into taking whatever position YOU think is the right one. sorry.

P.S. you can stop with the child molester line. France is about to drop the age of consent to 14 and I'm pretty sure none of these girls were under the age of 14. You are using the term all wrong and it doesn't apply here.
 
Last edited:
Mr Person said:
More general info...


Updated at 1:23 p.m.: A handwriting expert has determined that the signature in the yearbook of one of Roy Moore's accusers is authentic, according to the accuser's lawyer. Gloria Allred, attorney for Beverly Young Nelson, said the Georgia-based handwriting expert retained by Nelson, Arthur Anthony, studied multiple examples of original and copies of signature samples of Moore's in reaching his conclusion.. . . . Nelson has more evidence against Moore that she is withholding at this time but would be used in an ethics investigation against Moore if he wins Tuesday's election against Democrat Doug Jones. Moore has said he would welcome an independent analysis of the yearbook signing but Allred has insisted that such an analysis would have to be part of a Senate judicial or ethics hearing, which has not taken place. Moore has said he did not sign the yearbook and he does not know Nelson as well as any of his other accusers.

[continues]

Roy Moore accuser believes her life is in danger, lawyer Gloria Allred says | AL.com
Click to expand...

Fake news!
Democrats!
HILLARY!
 
MaggieD said:
I don’t even know how it HELPS her case. Nothing untoward with what he wrote...
Click to expand...
The yearbook is not a conclusive piece of evidence in terms of guilt, but if verified as legit it nullifies the former judge's steadfast claim that he does not know, nor had acquaintance, with the 14yo.

It then becomes one more piece of evidence supporting her claim, to be evaluated with the others.
 
Chomsky said:
Interesting.

But to me, a most important analysis would be in attempting to determine the type and age of the ink on the page.

If it's of the right age and type for it's purported date, then while still not conclusively proving it's his signature by itself, it goes a long way to believe it very well could be. And combined with the handwriting expert's testimony, the forensics then could prove very powerful.
Click to expand...

Although her admission does not compromise the meat of her story, it will likely give ammo to the Alabama Republican and his supporters who have called his accusers liars and suggested Nelson’s yearbook signature was a forgery.
 
Chomsky said:
If she added her notes contemporaneously with the time-frame of Moore's signature (40 years ago), I think she's alright.

But if she added them in the current time period, as she produced the yearbook as evidence of her claim, then she badly injured her credibility.
Click to expand...

Well we know she added the notes after her divorce case that was in his court.

She got the DA from the document she received in that case.

That was quite a bit of time after the fact.

I would bet the addition was made in the last few months though.
 
Chomsky said:
The yearbook is not a conclusive piece of evidence in terms of guilt, but if verified as legit it nullifies the former judge's steadfast claim that he does not know, nor had acquaintance, with the 14yo.

It then becomes one more piece of evidence supporting her claim, to be evaluated with the others.
Click to expand...

What do you mean 14?

This woman claims she was 16 or 17, she doesn't remember which, when she met him.
 
This is how the Fox propaganda network works. They seed a grain of uncertainty, that gives those sitting on the fence credibility to the pedophile, when any reasonable person would know that Moore signed the year book, which is the operative evidence that he knew her -- which is the whole point -- he denied knowing her.
 
Mr Person said:
Well, if it is his signature, how much does it really matter to pin down the type and age of ink? I suppose it might further cement its validity, but, Moore denied he signed the yearbook and denied knowing her.

Consider:

She says it was late '77 or early '78, when she was in HS. It was a yearbook. What's the probability that Roy Moore signed a HS yearbook years after she left HS, ie, 1980 or 1983? She'd be of legal age then, so why would he deny having done it?

And why would someone do that anyway? If you're going to ask someone to sign your yearbook, you do it around the time when you actually got the thing, no?

Has anyone here asked someone to sign their yearbook years after they've left HS? I certainly wouldn't think to do that. I don't even have my HS yearbooks, unless they're buried in some box in the basement. I certainly didn't bring them with me to college, etc.





So, I'm not very concerned about the date or type of ink, so long as it actually is his signature (I suppose, and so long as it wasn't somehow transferred to the yearbook from something else - but that would be even more bizarre). Besides, we do have all the other accusers and witness "statements".

Edit in:



Oh, wait, did you mean you wanted the date and type of ink re: the additions vs. the sig? That would make more sense because it would test your point in the final sentence.

I might just knock myself unconscious with a facepalm if she waited until now to write in the date.
Click to expand...
Yes (to the bolded).

Perhaps I could have been clearer.

My understanding is that handwriting analysis is a fairly ambiguous analysis. But ink typing and dating is far more a science.

We need to see if the body and signature of the claimed note, is contemporaneous with the claimed date.
 
Mason66 said:
What do you mean 14?

This woman claims she was 16 or 17, she doesn't remember which, when she met him.
Click to expand...

they keep trying with this "child molester" line. Nothing he's accused of puts him in that category because these girls were simply to old. He's a huge, A1 creep, but that's all he is.
 
MaggieD said:
I don’t even know how it HELPS her case. Nothing untoward with what he wrote...
Click to expand...

It's corroboration.

The guy was a prosecutor. I think it rather unlikely that he'll have left any explicit confession in writing. But it does contradict his denial that he knew her.
 
When Moore’s people came to his defence, the yearbook accuser’s account was the ONLY incident that they disputed. Speaks loudly that he sends his henchmen out to defend his behavior before they ever knew him.
 
JoeTrumps said:
they keep trying with this "child molester" line. Nothing he's accused of puts him in that category because these girls were simply to old. He's a huge, A1 creep, but that's all he is.
Click to expand...

I realize that. They think it has some sway on how rational people think.

Maybe they have convinced themselves that anybody under the arbitrary age of 18 is a child.
 
Rexedgar said:
When Moore’s people came to his defence, the yearbook accuser’s account was the ONLY incident that they disputed. Speaks loudly that he sends his henchmen out to defend his behavior before they ever knew him.
Click to expand...

The yearbook accuser is the only one that accused him of attempted rape.
 
What is fraudulent is that she took what may very well be a signature of his (he is reported to have been asked to speak at many events and signed many books and cards) and then added a tag that would indicate a connection to her allegation regarding an attack that is supposed to have occurred at the Old Towne Inn...a story refuted as pert near impossible by the people that actually worked there (and a story refuted as a lie by her own son).

Its almost like Gloria Allred said "Hey...lets see if we can **** with the credibility of the other 4 people that have made allegations"
 
LowDown said:
These women coming out trying to take down a conservative politician. Too convenient, too opportunistic.

The thing that has been missing from the current moral panic over sexual assault is a close examination of the accusers and the evidence. It think it is reasonable to insist on this.
Click to expand...

Except that they didn't come out.... most of this controversy is as a result of a Washington Post investigative piece following up on rumors about Moore that were prevalent in Alabama. The Post found this people and did sufficient work to collaborate the story.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...f60b5a6c4a0_story.html?utm_term=.155079a9ca45

Yes, after the article was published, other people surfaced, by contrary to your assertion, it did not begin with woman outing Moore.
 
Rexedgar said:
When Moore’s people came to his defence, the yearbook accuser’s account was the ONLY incident that they disputed. Speaks loudly that he sends his henchmen out to defend his behavior before they ever knew him.
Click to expand...
To be fair...the yearbook was the ONLY piece of evidence offered...and it was OBVIOUSLY fraudulent from the get go.
 
Mason66 said:
I realize that. They think it has some sway on how rational people think.

Maybe they have convinced themselves that anybody under the arbitrary age of 18 is a child.
Click to expand...

Anybody under the age of 18 IS a child.
 
Chomsky said:
Yes (to the bolded).

Perhaps I could have been clearer.

My understanding is that handwriting analysis is a fairly ambiguous analysis. But ink typing and dating is far more a science.

We need to see if the body and signature of the claimed note, is contemporaneous with the claimed date.
Click to expand...


Oh, it is.

Most forensic science is bunk, at least as far as it's classified a "science." Unlike a true science, the fundamental assumptions underlying some major forensics have generally not been proven.

Fingerprinting (assumption that it is impossible for two fingerprints from different people to match on a certain number of comparison points), toolmark analysis (the idea that every gun leaves a unique set of striations on each bullet fired), voice identification, so on and so forth. Self-appointed experts just started saying things in court cases and their guesstimations became accepted as proven "science" over time. People just went with it. Until defense attorneys started getting suspicious.

Even stuff like blood spatter analysis and ballistics involves a good deal of guesstimation, even if actual hard physics underlies parts of it.



The National Academy of Sciences has issues a series of pretty damning reports going back to about 2009. Interesting, if dry. Worrisome too.



I'm not sure about exact dating, but definitely matching ink types should have a solid rooting.
 
Mr Person said:
I suppose it depends on how much attention one pays to politics.

If I was going to the press with something like that, I'd make sure everything was on the table for the very reasons we see in this thread. There is a whole bunch of evidence against Moore and what she did really does not change anything, yet people are acting like it completely discredits everything she has said or will say.

I suppose it also depends on how one would choose to interact with a reporter. Do you simply answer questions ("And you say he signed it?" "yes") or do you volunteer extra information ("And you say he signed it" "yes, but I wrote a note underneath; just so you know.")?
Click to expand...
True.

I suspect it comes down to whether one is in "legal mode", or "PR mode".

I'm not a lawyer, but in anything legal I'm abhorrent to give any type of facts out. In fact, when conducting business in general, I only give out information and data that is absolutely required for the transaction or deal.

But yeah, now Allered has a PR problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom