• 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

Moderate Right said:
And maybe the only thing he did was sign her yearbook and that's it. All of the rest was added.
Click to expand...

Nope, she added the date and the location, the rest was all Roy Pervert Moore.
 
Taylor said:
That what she had said earlier was false.
Click to expand...

She said nothing of any consequence that disqualified the inscription Moore himself wrote in her yearbook putting a LIE to the idea that he did not know her.
 
Taylor said:
That what she had said earlier was false.
Click to expand...

Saying that adding the date and location of a signed inscription now makes the entire document false, is like saying that me adding something to the memo field of a signed check now invalidates the check.
 
Rich123 said:
Really! There are two women with signatures of said Roy Moore. Seems to me an honest observer would be more interested in comparing the two signatures instead of focusing only on what she freely admits. Her writing obviously doesn't match his signature but his signature in her year book certainly looks to me like the signature the women in Florida offered. Furthermore a hand writing expert who is now retired from the Georgia Bureau of investigations says that the two signatures match. Why obsess on what she admits and omit all these other relevant facts?
Click to expand...

Obsess? You're making up **** now. You've been here since August, and you think you know everyone here enough to determine who's honest. It's quite laughable.
 
DiAnna said:
From your link:
Click to expand...

So how will they know what is what? Someone else pointed out that a correction has come out, but I haven't seen it.
 
DiAnna said:
There's also a second piece of evidence that he did indeed know another accuser; his handwritten note and signature on a graduation card he gave her. Guess what? The handwriting on the yearbook and graduation card are exactly the same!
Click to expand...

Yup I saw that!
 
danarhea said:
Time to put this slime attack to bed......

https://www.facebook.com/FoxNews/videos/10156390340306336/

The link is a FOX News press conference, in which Roy Moore's signature is shown to be real, NOT A FAKE. Meanwhile, she has armed guards protecting her, due to death threats she is receiving.



Christians my ass! Roy and his minions are going to be sued for defamation. Then God will deal with them appropriately at the end of days.

Meanwhile, I have a proposal to make. Open diplomatic relations with Iran, and give them Alabama. They'll fit right in.
Click to expand...

Why? We already have diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia. That's much closer to what Alabamastan is like.
 
DiAnna said:
Even in Alabama, a 14 yr old being stripped to her underwear, having her breasts and genitals fondled, then trying to press her hand on his penis while wearing nothing but his own underwear is by legal definition, "child molestation".
Click to expand...

Or as Roy Moore and his supporters call it, second base.
 
haymarket said:
She said nothing of any consequence that disqualified the inscription Moore himself wrote in her yearbook
Click to expand...
So you're saying you don't understand why she lied about it. I'm with you there.
 
danarhea said:
Donald Trump said the other day..... "Go get 'em Roy".

I think Roy replied "I can't right now, they are still in home room".
Click to expand...

I thought he said "I don't run fast enough anymore."
 
Objective Voice said:
I agree.

What the alleged victim (and her attorney) should have done from the start was:

1) Have the inscription and signature analysed and verified before going public.

2) Admit up front which parts were Roy Moore's writing and which were her additions.

I think had the above been done from the start, it would have gone a long way to credibility and there wouldn't have been a thing Roy Moore could have done to refute it. But now since that addition to the inscription has be discredited the entire thing will be discredited. Never mind that handwriting experts have confirmed that the inscription and signature are Roy Moore's writing. That no longer matters to some people, but if you look at three key parts of Roy Moore's signature and certain portions of the inscription:

*The upper-case "R" has a distinctive point to it rather than a wide loop.
*The second arch on his upper-case "M" also has a distinct point and the right-leg goes straight on down stroke.
*Note the "ore" in both the word "more" in the inscription and in "Moore". Notice now the "o" and "r" connect and the writing in the "o" and "e" flatten out at the bottom in the same way.

If you compare those characteristics to other signatures by Roy Moore you'll find that are identical. People don't change the way they write. Their hand motions remain the same no matter how much time passes.
Click to expand...

The problem is not whether or not the inscription is real or not, it is the falsehoods made in the statements regarding the inscription. The words of the inscription are harmless, the testimony by the woman is what is damning. The problem is that the lie makes her a questionable witness. If it were a legal proceeding then her case would be thrown out.
 
MTAtech said:
Saying that adding the date and location of a signed inscription now makes the entire document false, is like saying that me adding something to the memo field of a signed check now invalidates the check.
Click to expand...
I agree. People who claim to know that the signature is forged are just as bad as those who claim to know that the signature is authentic. Best to wait for the professionals to sort it out, if that's even possible. They can't do that until the book is released.
 
jmotivator said:
The problem is not whether or not the inscription is real or not, it is the falsehoods made in the statements regarding the inscription. The words of the inscription are harmless, the testimony by the woman is what is damning. The problem is that the lie makes her a questionable witness. If it were a legal proceeding then her case would be thrown out.
Click to expand...

No, her case would not get thrown out. On cross examination she would testify that she inserted information regarding the date and location of the inscription and confirm her essential testimony that
the words of the dedication and the signature were Moore's. It would be left to the jury, or the judge in a court trial, to decide if her original omission of her later testimony justified disregarding the rest, and most important part, of her story.
 
DiAnna said:
Even in Alabama, a 14 yr old being stripped to her underwear, having her breasts and genitals fondled, then trying to press her hand on his penis while wearing nothing but his own underwear is by legal definition, "child molestation".
Click to expand...
The problem (one of them) is what I am going to call the "hillbilly mentality". This was in today's Times:

A retired coal miner who frequents what the cashier called the “liars’ table” put it to me in the familiar Winston County way. “The women,” he said of Mr. Moore’s accusers, were lying to make him look like a sexual predator. “Groping,” he added, “used to be all right anyway.”
Click to expand...
 
JackA said:
No, her case would not get thrown out. On cross examination she would testify that she inserted information regarding the date and location of the inscription and confirm her essential testimony that
the words of the dedication and the signature were Moore's. It would be left to the jury, or the judge in a court trial, to decide if her original omission of her later testimony justified disregarding the rest, and most important part, of her story.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It would have been shown that she withheld evidence, and tampered with evidence. What you are trying to argue now is that she tampered with the evidence but that her further testimony on tampered evidence clears her... it doesn't.

Roy Moore could very well be guilty, but this stunt by the witness would be all you need for reasonable doubt.
 
TheGoverness said:
That depends. Is he a democrat?

Then it's okay to look twice.
Click to expand...


Once it is politically expedient, or they are out of office, or dead... usually all three.
 
JackA said:
No, her case would not get thrown out. On cross examination she would testify that she inserted information regarding the date and location of the inscription and confirm her essential testimony that
the words of the dedication and the signature were Moore's. It would be left to the jury, or the judge in a court trial, to decide if her original omission of her later testimony justified disregarding the rest, and most important part, of her story.
Click to expand...
The purpose of the diary is to undercut Mr. Moore's assertion that he did not know the girl and to prove the girl's claim that she did know Moore. That evidence is not negated by the addition of the date and location. The fact that Moore's handwriting and signature are genuine substantiates the claim that the girl knew Mr. Moore well enough for him to sign her yearbook.
 
tres borrachos said:
Because we don't look twice at a 30+ year old man who lusts after teenage girls?
Click to expand...

We can frown on thirty year old men going out with consenting teenage girls just as we can frown on twenty and thirty year old women preying on rich 80 year old men. As disgusting as it may be, there is nothing illegal about it. You've also got to take into account that down here in the South, 40 years ago, a girl was an "old maid" if she was older than 18 and wasn't married. Hence, several of these girls' parents gave permission for Roy Moore to "date" their daughters since he would have been considered a good catch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom