Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Roy Moore “handwriting analyses” prove Trial by Twitter is no way to determine guilt or innocence

Roy Moore “handwriting analyses” prove Trial by Twitter is no way to determine guilt or innocence

Mitch McConnell and others suggest a Senate Ethics Committee hearing will be held should Moore win.

Sunday night I asked, Would the Senate invoke Article I, Section 5, clause 2, to “expel” Senator Roy Moore?

If enough evidence accumulates, and if Moore does win the election, the Senate has wide discretion in expelling members.  Article I, Section 5, clause 2, provides that: “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.” The Senate could hold proceedings in which testimony and other evidence is gathered, and could reach a determination.

Since then, many Republicans have suggested that the remedy for a Moore win would be an effort to “expel” Moore. The latest suggestion was by Mitch McConnell, as reported by The Hill:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is warning that Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore will immediately face a probe by the Senate Ethics Committee if he wins the special election next month.

“It would be a rather unusual beginning,” McConnell told The Wall Street Journal at a CEO Council event on Tuesday. “I’d like to save the seat, and it’s a heck of a dilemma when you’ve got a completely unacceptable candidate bearing the label of your party within a month of the election.”

McConnell said that as part of an investigation Moore would be asked to testify under oath, the WSJ reported.

An Ethics Committee investigation could pave the way for the Senate to try to expel Moore, though McConnell hasn’t publicly backed that option.

The Senate last expelled a member in 1862. McConnell oversaw the Senate’s ethics panel when then-Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.) resigned in 1995 amid sexual harassment allegations and under the threat of expulsion.

A Senate committee trial at least would take real evidence, under oath, subject to cross-examination. Similarly, forensic evidence would be subject to professional examination, and may help resolve credibility issues.

One good example of how public sleuthing is clouding the issue of guilt or innocence is the online analyses of the handwritten note in the yearbook of accuser Beverly Nelson. That note, if authentic, ties Moore to Nelson, and is being cited widely as proof Moore is guilty.

A slew of public personalities are claiming the handwriting is a match, including Lawrence O’Donnell.

Others are claiming it’s not a match.

Trial by Twitter is no way to determine guilt or innocence.

When I was in private practice, I handled several cases in which handwriting examination was critical. The issues in most of the cases were whether certain securities brokerage documents were signed by the customer, and whether other markings on the documents were those of the customer. I hired and cross-examined handwriting examiners, and learned a few things that have stuck with me even though I’ve been out of private practice for a decade.

First, a copy of a document is totally inadequate. TOTALLY. The original needs to be examined.

Second, the entire field of non-forensic handwriting analysis is questionable. I once cross-examined a well-known non-forensic handwriting analysis expert who testified that the signature and handwriting on a document was my client’s (who denied it). I took another document, which I knew but the expert didn’t know was authored by the branch manager, and covered up most of the document to show only certain writing that (to my eye) looked like the customer’s. The expert testified that the handwriting was consistent with the customer’s handwriting. I then removed the post-its covering the rest of the document to reveal that it was from the branch manager (consistent with our belief someone at the branch forged the signature and writing). That expert left with her tail between her legs.

Third, the FBI and people trained by the FBI and other law enforcement labs know how to do it right, and it’s all about forensics. Inks can be tested and time dated, pressure marks can be measured, and there are a slew of forensic imaging and other tools that can be used. I’d trust such an analysis far more that an “it looks similar” analysis.

Fourth, the entire field of non-forensic handwriting analysis is questionable. But I repeat myself. For a reason.

Guilt or innocence matters here, particularly since the charges came so close to the election. Trial by Twitter, however, is no way to determine guilt or innocence.

UPDATE: The handwritten note is disputed by Moore’s attorney’s based on non-forensic handwriting analysis.

[Featured Image: Montage of Images posted on Twitter]


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



DieJustAsHappy | November 14, 2017 at 9:56 pm


    Paul In Sweden in reply to DieJustAsHappy. | November 15, 2017 at 6:36 am

    There are no fingerprints, and at this time there is no proof that the yearbook inscription with two different inks and wrong restaurant name(back then it was old not olde) brought forward weeks prior to an election by the same people that have brought forth similar fraudulent scurrilous allegations repeatedly in the past is not valid this time.

    What we do know is that there are 100s perhaps 1000s or more cases that are documented against past and seated Senators, Representatives and staff members that have been hidden from not just the public eye but from prosecution. Often by paying the victims with large sums of tax money.

    Prior to Moore sitting through hearings(should he even win) the justice department should clear the house, the senate and the whole hill of the known perverts and sexual assailants.

    Judge Moore is innocent until proven guilty. It would be wrong for Judge Moore to be judged by documented perverts and sexual assailants in the Senate.

    Drain the Swamp. Eliminate the taxpayer funded Rape Shield, and then talk about hearings for an incoming senator should the accusers paraded by the usual suspects not fade into the woodwork as we have seen in the past.

      ”wrong restaurant name(back then it was old not olde)”

      The city directory and several contemporaneous ads confirm that Olde Hickory House stood at 305 East Meighan Blvd in Gadsden in 1977.

      You’re regurgitating a debunked narrative from a trashy no-cred internet blog.

        Paul In Sweden in reply to Amy in FL. | November 15, 2017 at 7:22 am

        I haven’t seen records that indicate that the reference to the restaurant in the second handwriting and in different ink was olde and not old.

          Right-wing trashblog The Gateway Pundit excitedly claimed, “‘Old Hickory House’ in Gadsden was never called ‘Olde Hickory House.’ The person who forged the signature got the name wrong”. Like so many other of their claims, that is false.

          Paul In Sweden in reply to Paul In Sweden. | November 15, 2017 at 7:54 am

          Amy FL., I don’t consider something that you found on twitter as credible. I will believe it false when I see something credible or I see a retraction.

          Gateway Pundit never issues retractions – like fellow trashblog Conservative Treehouse, they just stealth-edit or memory-hole their biggest bloopers away. I have screenshots, but no easy way to post them here.

          The The Library of Congress does, however, have copies of a 1977 business directory and a 1978 phone book showing that there was indeed an Olde Hickory House Restaurant at the time. Again, I’m limited by this blog’s comment field as far as attaching images goes. But you’re welcome to look it up yourself. As Gateway Pundit should have done before going all-out to beclown themselves once again.

          Paul In Sweden in reply to Paul In Sweden. | November 15, 2017 at 8:46 am

          Amy, Your dislike of the conservative blog, and your seeing something on twitter along with your assurance everything is in the Library of Congress tells me all I need to know.

          Ragspierre in reply to Paul In Sweden. | November 15, 2017 at 10:41 am

          Dim Jim Hoft’s blog is a cartoon of T-rumpian cultism, as is The NOT Conservative Tree Sloths.

          As several T-rump cultist here aver, T-rumpism is NOT conservative. In this one thing, they are being truthful.

It’s the two different color inks in the color shots that’s really saying something. Something like it’s fake.

    Paul In Sweden in reply to gospace. | November 15, 2017 at 7:51 am

    Yes, it is two different color inks. It looks like someone named Roy wrote the original inscription and someone else in different color ink and different handwriting wrote “Moore DA. and a second unnecessary date(Christmas 1977 was already written above in the original ink and handwriting)Olde Hickory House”.

    I would assume if they were alive and running against the Democrats in the special elections and not Judge Moore, we would have seen the second handwriting and second ink possibly read Clark Country Singer or Rogers Film Star. If the kid that wrote the original inscription had been named Mickey perhaps the second handwriting and second ink would have been, Mouse Disney Film Star…

What about the numbers? Google around. The candidate signature also has the date with it (which has been cropped out on the images above). The date written by Moore definitely does not match the yearbook dates.

Here’s one with the date included:

Why you should not take 38 year old allegations at face value:

    As well, and along those lines, there’s a very good reason most jurisdictions in the criminal justice system have a statute of limitations on allegations/charges such as the ones being made here.

      Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | November 15, 2017 at 9:32 am

      There are several good reasons why…like murder…there should be no statute of limitation on sex crimes against children. I’ll elaborate if you want, but you can probably name many of them.

        gmac124 in reply to Ragspierre. | November 15, 2017 at 11:54 am

        There are also several good reasons including a lack of physical evidence why a statute of limitations is a great idea. If someone could spend years in prison I want a little more to go on than she accused him of improper touching 40 years ago.

          Close The Fed in reply to gmac124. | November 15, 2017 at 3:32 pm

          Re: GMAC124

          That’s what KILLS me about this: the WORST he’s accused of, he wouldn’t get years in prison.

          I’m sick and tired of this being elevated to something it wasn’t.

          She wasn’t raped. Manhandled, she claims, but not raped.

          Geeze, 35 years ago, and people are acting like he’s a raving serial killer psychopathic maniac. Which he most assuredly is NOT.

          This is a squirrel for all those GOPers and dems that are UTTERLY TERRIFIED THE GUY MEANS WHAT HE SAYS AND WILL ACTUALLY VOTE THAT WAY!!!!!!!

          Ragspierre in reply to gmac124. | November 15, 2017 at 9:36 pm

          “If someone could spend years in prison I want a little more to go on than she accused him of improper touching 40 years ago.”

          And you’d have to have it to obtain a conviction. Or even an indictment.

          ONE of the prime reasons for my position is that sexual crimes against minors are perhaps the most “silent” of crimes against the person of another.

          Think about it; murder either leaves a human corpse or it leaves a hole in some part of society. That advertises that there has been a crime.

          In the case of a sexually abused minor, there is no apparent crime in most cases for anyone to observe. Only two people know about it, and it will never be discovered by an outsider in most cases.

          THAT is just one of many reasons.

          Barry in reply to gmac124. | November 15, 2017 at 11:31 pm

          “Only two people know about it, and it will never be discovered by an outsider in most cases.”

          A difficult problem, especially after 20-30-40 years. No way to prove or disprove it. It is a terrible crime. The only possible solution I see is to get rid of the stigma so the victim is willing to report it, and make sure the perp goes away for a long time upon conviction.

          Ragspierre in reply to gmac124. | November 15, 2017 at 11:37 pm

          “No way to prove or disprove it.”

          I disagree. There ARE various ways to prove the crime, and conversely, there ARE ways to defend against an untrue allegation.

          The “stigma” is only one element of a witches brew of awful psychological effects on the victims. Fear is one…and a huge one.

          Barry in reply to gmac124. | November 16, 2017 at 1:59 am

          Enlighten us. How are you going to prove/disprove such an allegation after 30 years?

To many differences for some people to say it is definately his signature. Not mentioned is why someone gives the location they are signing a yearbook? I didn’t write “homeroom” on any I did. Why does she say she had him sign it if she said he was creepy and oulled her hair and then further gets in his car when her boyfirend is just late. lastly it is a pretty sever move to shove a woman’s face in your critch and not one that a man with his IQ would expect results from. Too many contradictions for me to accept this is a real account of real people who don’t chnage their behavior constantly.

    rokiloki in reply to Conan. | November 15, 2017 at 12:39 am

    Why would someone gives the year twice in a presumably 1977 yearbook? Its dated Christmas 1977 and 12-22-77, like someone is trying to overemphasize when it was written.

These accusations are way past their expiration date.

No one signs yearbooks at Christmas.

Sexual predators should have a pattern throughout their adult life.

    JLSpeidel in reply to InEssence. | November 15, 2017 at 12:21 pm

    It shouldn’t be too difficult to see when the yearbooks were issued to the students. I have NEVER seen them come out before the end of the school year. How would they be able to put the second part of the school year in the book. If I was a senior that year I would be mad that my yearbook was incomplete.

Actually to my eye the two signatures look too similar for the allegedly 40-year-old one to be authentic. Whose signature stays exactly the same for 40 years? Seems to me more likely that the one in the yearbook looks so like the contemporary one because that’s where it was copied from. But by all means test the ink and see what it shows.

    Yeah, like the young lady is going to allow *any* kind of independent writing analysis on the document until after the election, when the yearbook will mysteriously vanish.

    Best Tweet Yet on this:
    I don’t know what Roy Moore did or didn’t do, but if people think a signed yearbook is definitive proof of attempted rape, they are a truly special kind of stupid.

    Paul In Sweden in reply to Milhouse. | November 15, 2017 at 8:57 am

    The different color ink, the second date and signature being at a different angle than the original inscription leads me to believe that “Moore DA” was added with malicious intent, next to the signer, someone named Roy back in 1977.

Also, he wasn’t the DA. If he was signing his name with that title, wouldn’t he be worried his boss would find out and object?

Don’t think I’ve ever seen such a concerted effort, by BOTH Party’s and their media allies, to keep a candidate from winning office.

Its like they are terrified of him.

The RINO’s, I mean. The D’s just want the seat. The RINO’s seem completely freaked out that someone that isn’t in their country club might win.

McConnell and all the rest are behaving like Ted Knight in Caddyshack.

    MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to Aarradin. | November 15, 2017 at 12:21 pm

    McConnell’s job is to defend incumbents. Incumbents defend the status quo.

    McConnell has done something similar twice before. When Republican primary voters wanted to be represented by Joe Miller, McConnell helped his loyalist Lisa Murkowski run a successful write in campaign.

    When Todd Akin won the primary in Missouri, the timing of his utterance heard round the world that cost him the Senate seat was such that if he dropped out within two days, then the GOP establishment could install their own candidate on the ballot. They did everything they could to force him out. Karl Rove said his PAC would not finance his campaign and the NRSC under Cornyn pulled its financing and support. Just as they are doing to Moore.

    I think this is as much about McConnell sending a signal to Bannon and anybody Bannon tries to recruit to run against incumbents next year that he will destroy them if he can.

Given the superseding nature of the 17thA vs Article I, Section 5, clause 2 and various USSC decisions like the “one man one vote”…..
Can they deny the seat to someone who has been elected to it pursuant to the aforementioned 17th?

    Milhouse in reply to jhn1. | November 15, 2017 at 1:12 pm

    Yes, they can. A majority of the senate can simply declare they don’t accept the returns and don’t believe he won the election. Or, if they don’t want to blatantly lie, they can seat him and then expel him on a 2/3 vote. 2/3 of either chamber can expel a member for any reason whatsoever, or even none at all. There is a long tradition in Congress that this power should only be used for an offense committed while in office, but it is only that, a custom that Congress has observed for a long time, and is absolutely not binding on the current congress.

McConnell should eat sh-t and die – the sooner the better.

We should offer a bounty on the scandals likely surrounding the likes of him. Ryan too.

As with everything else, internet trolls have zero knowledge, zero experience, and zero credibility, but still maintain that they know more than the experts.

    Paul In Sweden in reply to Cleetus. | November 15, 2017 at 8:38 am

    Good thing we have eyes, ears & minds and don’t blindly follow ‘experts’ and trolls.

      Except a lot of commenters on this very blog (which I still hold to be one of the more intelligent blogs out there) were regurgitating now-debunked “facts” from self-proclaimed Internet sleuths.

        Paul In Sweden in reply to Amy in FL. | November 15, 2017 at 9:08 am

        As I said Amy, your assurance you saw something on twitter is not credible. If you want to prove to me that the person that wrote in a different color ink in a different handwriting next to the original inscription the correct name of the restaurant go ahead and prove it. It does not change the fact that when you look at the original inscription from someone named Roy, that someone added “Moore DA.” in different ink, at a different angle in what appears to be different handwriting with the incorrect job title and superfluous second date.

        “…were regurgitating now-debunked “facts” from self-proclaimed Internet sleuths.”

        Other than “Olde”, name the now-debunked “facts”.

        Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | November 15, 2017 at 9:58 am

        This does not prove that Ms. Young worked there, that Moore was a regular, or that he assaulted her — but it does prove that a foolish, baseless claim repeated by Moore’s wife to undermine Young was complete garbage. If journalists are able to establish that Moore dined at the Olde Hickory House frequently, his blanket denial will be dead. It’s worth noting that Mrs. Moore has also (a) shared the baseless allegation that previous accusers had been paid, (b) promulgated the nonsense that Leigh Corfman’s (the first accuser) mother said her daughter was lying, based on the location of a telephone in their family home, and (c) appears to have recycled a pre-scandal list of pastors who once supported her husband’s candidacy — at least three of whom now say she did not get their permission to include them as current backers and have asked to be removed from the roster. Separate attempts to “prove” Moore’s innocence include doctoring images of the yearbook inscription he appears to have made out to Young in 1977 (compare the altered image with the actual image):

        This apparent hoax originates from a Twitter feed that also falsely asserted that the Olde Hickory House was never spelled with an ‘e,’ which is disproven by both the city directory and contemporaneous advertisement shown above. Others are resting their theories on the numeral ‘7’ looking slightly different in separate elements of the yearbook message (perhaps the least ridiculous issue being raised), which shifts from cursive in the note to printed letters after the signature. A separate theory brewing involves speculating that Young couldn’t have received her yearbook in December, as she says (which I’ve addressed, with other social media users and reporters stating that the timeline was entirely plausible, especially because she transferred high schools). As for Mrs. Moore’s stream of rash falsehoods, her defenders will say that it’s understandable, if not romantic, that a woman would do anything she could to help her embattled spouse. (Surely they feel the same way about Hillary Clinton). But that defensive impulse, no matter how relatable, should not give anyone license to repeatedly create or spread fake information. I’d also bet that if the roles were reversed and the accusers’ families were exposed as sharing fraudulent claims in defense of their loved ones, Mrs. Moore’s apologists would wield those disproven claims as evidence against the women’s stories.

        To recap: Debunking Kayla Moore’s conspiratorial social media posts does not affirmatively prove that Roy Moore is guilty of what his accusers say he did — even if even more accounts about his pattern of behavior with teenage girls continue to crop up. It does, however, call into question the credibility of Moore’s most ardent defenders, whose desperate and sloppy theorizing undercuts their trustworthiness as sources every time a bogus claim is raised and cut down. And again, what would be truly devastating to Moore’s pushback is compelling evidence — in the form of records or witnesses — that can blow up his statement that he never met Corfman or Young, or that he didn’t dine at the Olde Hickory House in the late 1970s. I’m open to changing my mind based on proof (that’s why I followed the evidence about the restaurant today), but as of right now, my tentative conclusion remains the same: The women are credible. He, and the fever swamp toiling on his behalf, are not. Drain the swamp.

        Butt-hurt Barri, you knew all this last night, and STILL you choose to lie about it.

          An ignorant prog is going to be a prog.

          I asked for the “debunked facts” other the “Olde” that were brought up here at LI by LI commenters, as Amy referenced.

          You continue to push BS. You have nothing but allegations by women of something that they say happened 40 years ago.

          You believe them because you want to. I don’t believe them because there is a history of false accusations by progs like you.

          No proof, nothing. Zero. Just accusations. And you believe it, because.

          Once again, you prove that there is no evidence to support the accusers or Moore. None. The yearbook entry would only prove the Moore signed the yearbook, if it is authenticated [which it has not been]. And, even if Moore did sign the yearbook for a casual employee of a restaurant, it hardly proves that he had any contact with her outside of her employment or that he committed the actions which she ascribed to him. As to it proving that he lied about knowing her, this is also a HUUUGGGEE stretch. After 30+ years, it is very likely that he would not remember a waitress at a local restaurant, even if he signed her yearbook. How many wait staff do you remember from over 30 years ago? [If you say all of them, then I am going to laugh my a** off. To do that you are obviously a mutant, extraterrestrial or an elephant.]

          What has happened with Moore, is that people have arbitrarily made up their minds as to his guilt or innocence and are now grasping at any straw to justify that decision. When, in reality, there is NO way to prove that either one is uttering the truth. So, as we are a nation of fair play, we should default to the innocent until PROVEN guilty philosophy upon which our nation’s jurisprudence is based. Moore should be given the benefit of the doubt until such time as real, corroborated evidence proves that he is guilty of the “crimes” charged. And, if this is never proven, then he should sue his accusers and demand proof to corroborate their charges.

          This is a campaign based solely upon innuendo, at this point. Given the political situation, it should not be given ANY credence until someone actually produces verifiable evidence that the alleged acts actually occurred. All of us would demand the same thing if we were the target of such charges.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | November 15, 2017 at 9:49 pm

          Apparently, Mrs. Moore does not even believe her husband. She relies on falsehoods and outright lies in his defense.

          That’s not nothing, and neither is a clear pattern of behavior, along with is dishonest statements.

          So, I’m not the tribal nutter here. I gave Moore money, and he sends me emails at LEAST once a day.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | November 15, 2017 at 10:09 pm

          “And, even if Moore did sign the yearbook for a casual employee of a restaurant, it hardly proves that he had any contact with her outside of her employment or that he committed the actions which she ascribed to him.”

          All true.

          It WOULD prove that he flat-footed lied about not knowing her.

          Wrong, again. It only PROVES that he signed a BOOK. It does not prove that she presented the book to him. It does not prove that he Knew her name or had any contact beyond signing a book that someone placed in front of him. Politicians and celebrities sign hundreds, thousands, sometimes millions of autographs every year. Does this mean that they KNOW everyone of the people to whom they give an autograph? Would any rational being claim that they were LYING if they said that they did not KNOW every single person to who they had given a signature? NO. You will need something much more concrete than a yearbook which has a signature which may, or may not, have been done by Roy Moore to state, categorically that he is lying when he says that he does know Nelson. And, this is before we factor in the 30 year gap between the yearbook and today. So, Brainiac, do you KNOW every single waiter and waitress who has waited on you in the last 30 years? If so, please post their names so we can verify the accuracy of YOUR memory.

Evidence and pseudo-evidence continues to drift in. I can’t evaluate it. The voters of Alabama can’t evaluate it fairly, certainly not before the elections. If I were an AL voter, I would vote for him to hold the seat, expecting that some Senate ethics committee would sort it all out, expel him if justified and try to convince him to resign his seat so that another Republican could be appointed. There is no way the Democrat running against Moore could effectively represent the citizens of Alabama.

    Immolate in reply to cwillia1. | November 15, 2017 at 11:56 am

    Yup. I don’t have a particular dog in the fight over whether Moore guilty or innocent. Neither possibility should be allowed by Alabama’s voters, a group that many of my family members belong to, to see a Democrat elected. I’ll encourage them to vote for Moore, and let Moore’s fate be sorted after the election, once all the evidence is available. I don’t think it will be a hard sell.

    inspectorudy in reply to cwillia1. | November 15, 2017 at 12:47 pm

    Your comment was exactly what I told my wife this morning. If Moore were to tell the people of AL that he would resign after he is elected so that another Republican could be appointed in his place, I think the people of AL would respond overwhelmingly to his request. The thought of a Demorat taking this seat through totally unfair, whether or not he eventually is found guilty, tactics is so underhanded that most voters will vote for Moore especially if he offers to resign after being elected. One thing that we all despise is the tactics used by the Dems that really started under the clinton’s. To me, I would do anything to keep this tactic from being successful INCLUDING electing Moore.

If Roy Moore is elected to the Senate, he should be expelled immediately. Imagine him leaving that poor girl to drown in his car.

I have A novel idea. Why doesn’t Mitch and his “esteemed” colleagues actually focus on passing meaningful legislation, confirm the president’s nominees and do the people’s business as they promised to do?

    Bucky Barkingham in reply to natdj. | November 15, 2017 at 7:37 am

    The answer is that Mitch and the boys are there to do the bidding of the GOPe, not the people’s business. They only campaign on doing the people’s business in order to get elected. Notice how just when Trump’s judicial nominees are finally clearing the Senate the Roll-Over Party leaders want to cede effective control of the Senate to the LibDems?

Fox News host Sean Hannity issued an ultimatum to GOP Senate candidate Roy Moore over his response to the flood of sexual harassment allegations against him.

Hannity gave Moore 24 hours to either explain the inconsistencies in his account or drop out of the race. If not, Hannity — who supported Moore early on — will withdraw his support. Hannity’s ultimatum came after a fifth woman accused Moore of making advances on teenage girls while he was an attorney in his 30s.

You can read the whole thing.

    Meh. If I lived in Alabama and was already a Moore supporter, I don’t think I’d dump him and let the Democrat in just because a New York talk show host said I should. Of course maybe I’m underestimating Hannity’s influence on the electorate – I can only speak for myself.

    rokiloki in reply to Ragspierre. | November 15, 2017 at 10:20 am

    I agree with Hannity on this. Moore has not helped his case at all with some of his non-committal, vague, or even confusing answers to specific questions. Some of his answers were ambiguous, at best, or very damning, at worse.



    Hannity: “Do you remember dating young girls?”

    Moore: “Not generally, no. And if I did I’m not going to dispute anything or anything like that.”

    Hannity: “Do you remember having any girlfriend who was in her teens at the time?”

    Moore: “No, I don’t remember that and I don’t remember dating any girl without the permission of her mother.”


    Seriously, WTF do these answers mean? Moore is either very stupid answering like that or he is so worried about being caught in a lie that he can’t bring himself to give a definitive answer.

    I do not want a Democrat in this seat and I do not believe the yearbook writing is legitimate. I think the allegations like those against Moore are BS, especially 40 years later and just before an election. But some of Moore’s answers are very concerning to me.

    inspectorudy in reply to Ragspierre. | November 15, 2017 at 12:53 pm

    The very slappable Hannity has issued an ultimatum! Wow! That is it for old Roy! When the Sean issues an ultimatum that’s the final say. How in God’s name can that have any meaning? 24 hours? Will the latest accuser give him the yearbook to have it forensically verified? Will the other 14-year-old come forward to be cross-examined? Will Moore have the time to hire a PI to check on all the times and dates mentioned by his accusers? I am at the point that I think there is something here in Moore’s background that is amiss but to give this Senate seat up to dirty tricks is too much for me.

      Ragspierre in reply to inspectorudy. | November 15, 2017 at 9:57 pm

      I think you’re being intentionally deceptive regarding Hannity’s statement, which has to be taken on its own terms.

      He called on Moore to make a convincing case, after interviewing him and finding he dissembled. That doen’t require anything by clear, plain speaking by Moore addressing the claims made against him with no extraneous bullshit.

The really ironic part is that many Alabama voters objected to Luther Strange, thinking he’d gotten his appointment as a payoff from the outgoing governor who was involved in … a sex scandal.

PersonFromPorlock | November 15, 2017 at 8:21 am

I know this is a stupid question, but sometimes ‘stupid’ works; has anybody checked when that yearbook was published?

Another perhaps stupid question: If someone were going to go to the trouble of forging something to sink Moore, why wouldn’t they have forged something with a more incriminating message?

    Like what, “Had fun raping you”?

    If forged, the message likely already existed, written by someone else.

    There is zero evidence anything said by the pair of accusers is true. Zero.
    There is nothing but there word. Words pushed by those that wish to restrict freedom should always be viewed with deep suspicion.

    rokiloki in reply to Amy in FL. | November 15, 2017 at 10:29 am

    I don’t think the entire message was forged. I think Roy Moore may have signed the yearbook, but stopped at “Roy”. The accuser probably had the last name, the date, and the place added after it became evidence Moore was running for office. It wasn’t meant to incriminate him, but just to confirm a relationship had existed. It could have been a completely innocent relationship and nothing inappropriate.

    There is nothing incriminating in the message itself, which makes it that much more believable. However, the additions, especially the redundant date (imo), makes any allegations based on this message very questionable.

    inspectorudy in reply to Amy in FL. | November 15, 2017 at 12:56 pm

    Oh, you mean like using different ink and then repeating the date and then using the wrong office title? Or do you think he should have said “Nice tits”!

    You mean like the long form birth certificate that Barry O produced? Several respected forensic examiners attested to the fact that the document was a total computer forgery. Remember that? Not that it was simply questionable, but that IT WAS CREATED USING A COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE COMPUTER PROGRAM. I capitalized this for the hard of hearing. What happened with that? What’s that? I can’t hear you over the crickets.

    The point is that even if Roy Moore had signed Nelson’s year book, it still means nothing. If he did it at the casual request of a waitress in a local restaurant, something that politicians do all the time, it still does not mean that he accosted her or that he even remembers having met her. But, when agents of the President of the United States release a document alleging to prove he was born within the US and the Territory of Hawaii and that document is shown to be a forged construct [a felony criminal act by the way] this is VERY HHHUUUGGGEE. As you note why would someone go to all that trouble to produce an obvious forgery? Priorities people, priorities.

“Please allow this to serve as notice that our firm has been retained to represent The Foundation for Moral Law, it’s President…”

How could Garmon & Liddon allow such an egregious grammatical error to appear in the very first sentence of their letter?

    Valerie in reply to MTED. | November 16, 2017 at 5:20 am

    It’s called a secretary. I have had this type of grammatical error inserted into my letters after I wrote it correctly in the first place. More than once.

If anyone had any doubts that these allegations are anything more than a political smear campaign, they should have disappeared the second the parasite Allred showed up.

As a comment noted earlier “As with everything else, internet trolls have zero knowledge, zero experience, and zero credibility, but still maintain that they know more than the experts.” But wasn’t the incident with George Bush’s National Guard letter that used a type style not available that year, actually discovered by the Internet “wisdom of the crowd”, then later confirmed by the “experts”?

I tend to believe there is a lot of knowledge contained with Internet readers that can shed light on accusations and so-called “official” documents.

    murkyv in reply to NOLA69. | November 15, 2017 at 6:36 pm

    That would be “buckhead” at Free Republic who first saw the discrepancies.

    Interesting story. An attorney who became an expert on font type because of the stubbornness of a judge during the transition from typewriters to word processors in court filings.

    He spotted it in an instant and got the ball rolling on the ‘net.

buckeyeminuteman | November 15, 2017 at 2:39 pm

The plethora of accusers should make a statement, under oath, at a deposition, with perjury in the balance, that Moore inappropriately did whatever they’re saying he did. To date, this has not been done.


Allred’s paid accuser and Allred lied. Moore was the judge in Nelson’s divorce…

And on CNN, Allred refused to say the yearbook signature was not a forgery.

And since it’s Wed, we have a new accuser claiming Mr. Moore grabbed her ass in his office once.

    Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | November 15, 2017 at 10:45 pm

    Start about 26:00.

    Allred is no more a handwriting expert than any of the nutters on the internet. If I were asked by Wolfed to provide an opinion as to the authenticity of EITHER an exhibit I was sponsoring OR opposing counsel was offering, I’d decline. That isn’t for me to say. All I can do is express faith in my client.

    As to the divorce action, it’s an open question whether the lady ever appeared in court. Clients are often adrift as to procedural matters, and don’t bother to read pleadings, partly because they’d be confused by what they were reading. A case that ends in non-suit is often one in which no party has ever seen the inside of the court.

    It IS salient that the lady has offered to testify under oath. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

    Moore should step up.

      Granted that internet opinions form no basis of actual fact.
      OTOH, some of those internet “nutters” are exceptionaly qualified to render opinions when the problems are so clear.

      “It IS salient that the lady has offered to testify under oath.”
      Sure, before the senate, the same senate already convicting Mr. Moore. That’s a laugher.

      I might believe her when she files charges, and that will never happen.

      Her “story”, and the yearbook are full of big holes. Might be true of course. The problem remains, there is no way to prove or disprove such.
      Perhaps had she and the other accuser brought this out 6 months ago, or a year ago, they might be believable. Doing it now is just politics. Dirty politics.

      The accuser should just turn over the yearbook to an independent firm for forensic analysis. After all, if they are telling the truth they have nothing to fear.
      And that, is not going to happen.

      Oh, regardless of court appearance or not, the paperwork has the judges name… Didn’t seem to bother her. Didn’t seem to even rate a mention.

      The story still stinks.

        Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | November 16, 2017 at 1:07 am

        “I might believe her when she files charges, and that will never happen.”

        Way to set an impossible hurdle…!!!

        The truth is you would call her a liar because you CAN’T believe her under ANY circumstances. You’ve immediately and uncategorically declared she’s a paid liar.

        “The accuser should just turn over the yearbook to an independent firm for forensic analysis. After all, if they are telling the truth they have nothing to fear.
        And that, is not going to happen.”

        That’s another unsupported…and unsupportable…stupid lie. The offer has been made. The only condition is that there be a level playing field. Both sides under oath, and subject to probing questions.

        “Oh, regardless of court appearance or not, the paperwork has the judges name… Didn’t seem to bother her.”

        It may not have bothered her because she never saw it. You cannot ASSume she did. Regardless, she MAY never have seen the man again, which surely is the point. Good subject for some questions.

        “The problem remains, there is no way to prove or disprove such.”

        You’re just lying again. We’ve discussed this at length. But the nut-cutting is Moore’s denialsssssss. If any one of them is shown to be a lie, he’s done. And they DO appear to be lies.

        You can’t see this because it’s against your religion.

        C’mon, Roy. Step up! Be a man! Don’t hide behind “god”, or appeal to conspiracy nutters. Insist on testifying under oath.

        File a law suit. Or agree to a Senate hearing. ON the RECORD, and under oath.

          “That’s another unsupported…and unsupportable…stupid lie. The offer has been made. The only condition is that there be a level playing field. Both sides under oath, and subject to probing questions.”

          More of your BS. Turn it over to for independant forensic analysis. No other conditions needed.
          Your “level playing field” is BS and you know it. It’s an outright lie. If it’s the real thing, nothing to fear.

          But then it’s not. Its a forgery. They will not turn it over.

          Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We have zero evidence, just Gloria Allred and this womans words.

          “You’re just lying again. We’ve discussed this at length”

          Yea, Mr. Lawyer, explain how you are going to prove or disprove this accusation.

          You are a crap representative of your profession.

It seems pretty silly how the Leftist Democrats, Have to go back as far as 40 years, to try to discredit a Republican, when they can’t remember the Democrat ” Criminals,” who committed heinous acts, 6 years ago or less. These never seem to be mentioned. The Left keeps chasing false stories, even after nothing is found. It is sickening.

Conservative-Author | November 15, 2017 at 9:20 pm

In an article on the trouble with unscientific forensics, half the comments are unscientific forensics.

Moore’s jeopardy here is real no matter how much we try and wish it away. The WAPOST presented a great article that really went above and beyond in getting the facts straight. They convinced four reluctant witnesses to go on the record. They confirmed the logistics of each testimony through extensive fact checking. Moore will not sue the Post because he won’t win.

The question then becomes two-fold. Do you believe Corfman, whose account is indeed he-said she said, and what is your feeling on pedophilia, is it disqualifying to a candidate for office.

Corfman cannot be sued for any form of libel because two people have already been found by that confirm she told this story earlier to close friends. A lawyer trying to bring the case would have it shot down, only the most partisan judge would allow it.

The question on pedophilia is tougher. In most states among the average audience a powerful man dating a 16-year old is reason to refuse to vote for him. In Alabama though and some areas of religious conservatives, pedophilia is not only not debilitating, it had been called an acceptable practice using biblical quotes.

The evidence against Moore keeps rolling in, but the first article was enough. It left us with an ethical dilemma.

    Since you don’t understand the meaning of pedophilia, the rest of your typing is just nonsense.

    Look it up and try again.

    So far, we have NO details concerning when the Corfman inciden supposedly happened. This makes it difficult to poin down Moore’s movements at the time. Then we have the age of Corfman, at the time of the alleged incident, 14 yoa. This would place her in junior high school. From this, we can assume that any friends, to whom she may have allegedly spoken about this, were also between 13 and 15 yoa. And, again we do not have an accurate account of what they have said about the matter. And, of course, we have a 30 year gap between the time of the alleged incident and today. All of these factors seriously reduce the amount of credibility concerning the accuracy of these statements.

    So, let’s do this the right way. Let’s interview all of these “witnesses” under oath. let’s conduct an investigation to confirm the accuracy and veracity of their statements. If they prove to be accurate, then action can be taken against Roy Moore. If he has been elected to the Senate, the Senate can expel him. But, so far, we do not have enough evidence to determine whether either Corfman or Moore is telling the truth.

    By the way, pedophilia involves and attraction to prepubescent children. A 14 year old would not qualify as prepubescent and, therefor, any attraction to such a person would not be considered pedophilia.

I would have no problem with a formal trial except that everyone knows the statute of limitations passed long ago. This case is the textbook definition of a smear, designed so that no resolution can ever be reached.

P.S. I don’t trust Mitch McConnell’s Senate to conduct a fair trial.

Apparently it’s come out now that Roy Moore never wrote DA after his signature, his assistant did, because those are his initials.

Or is the accuser going to say his assistant was with him there in the restaurant and added the DA, or some other equally ridiculous story?

    Barry in reply to Finrod. | November 16, 2017 at 12:46 am

    Most fabricated stories fall apart in short order.
    It’s possible the woman’s story is true, but embellished.
    But not likely, just too many dump truck sized holes.

    They came out too early. The power of millions of eyeballs makes short work of the lies these days.

      Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | November 16, 2017 at 1:17 am

      “It’s possible the woman’s story is true, but embellished.”

      But you determined she’s a paid liar just over IMMEDIATELY on the story coming out.

      Now you’re pretending some rationality. Bollocks.

      Did the meds kick in…???

        Your FOS as is normal.

        I believe the woman is lying. I believe Allred is knowingly participating in a smear job.

        The story is and has been full of holes to start with.
        In spite of my belief it is a smear job, I understand it’s possibly the truth. It’s up to the accuser to prove it, Mr. Attorney.
        You determined the story was true immediately.

        You believe yearbooks are issued twice a year, among other stupid things.

        You drunk?

        Ratbert in reply to Ragspierre. | November 16, 2017 at 4:34 pm

        Whereas you are happy to lie without the expectation of payment.

I’ll go out on a limb, and guess that Drudge is not a Moore supporter…

    Drudge is $$$

    Bannon has put that propaganda to bed.

      Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | November 16, 2017 at 1:26 am


      What are we up to in tin-foil world…???

      Everybody is a paid liar…but Moore.

      This is all a conspiracy.

      There’s no way that Moore could get a fair hearing before the Senate…because…CONSPIRACY!!!!

      Drudge is $$$.

      Butt-hurt Barri would believe the paid liar IF she filed a complaint that cannot be filed now.

      I’m a “prog”.

      I’m a fan of Allred…!!!

      That’s just a taste. And it leaves a bad, bad feel.


        Most of those in the media are paid, Drudge included. It always clouds judgement.

        The progs conspire routinely. You can’t be that stupid. Scatch that, you are.

        If you believe a senate hearing led by McConnel is going to be fair, your dumber than I thought.

        You think Drudge does this for what?

        Yes, you take the side of progs all the time, therefore.

        You believe Allred. You took that side.

        That’s just a taste. Doesn’t bother me.

        Ratbert in reply to Ragspierre. | November 16, 2017 at 4:33 pm

        Well, you did vote for Hillary Clinton as well as stump for her on this site, so there’s that.

“There’s a special place in hell for people who prey on children,” Trump told The Associated Press in an interview otherwise focused on tax reform published Wednesday.

“I’ve yet to see a valid explanation and I have no reason to doubt the victims’ accounts,” the first daughter and presidential adviser said.

Today another interesting day.

“If you are a liberal and hate Judge Moore, apparently he groped you,” the statement said. “If you are a conservative and love Judge Moore, you know these allegations are a political farce.”

This is the response in the face of two more very credible allegations against Moore.

They’ve given up even trying to deny facts. They’re down to tribal appeals.

    I bet you believe Moore called the school, had her drug out of class, to ask for a date.

    You progs will buy into anything. Including obvious forgery.

    Tell us again how stupid we are to not believe yearbooks are issued twice a year.

    Like all SJW’s, you double down on the stupid.

      Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | November 16, 2017 at 10:52 am

      “I bet you believe Moore called the school, had her drug out of class, to ask for a date.”

      I bet you can’t find any denial by Moore. Has he claimed he didn’t know THIS minor? Because their are several people who will support her story.

      And, yeah, I do believe he did just what’s been alleged. It is CONSISTENT with the FACTS, including his dissembling answers to some pointed questions.

      You nutters will excuse anything.

    Still trolling, I see.
    To begin, there are NO credible allegations against Moore. Why, you ask? Because none of the allegations are supported by anything other than verbal statements from those making the allegations. And, none of the complainants or “witnesses” have been proven to be reliable. At this point these are all largely unsupported allegations. In fact, you couldn’t get these cases past an initial motion to dismiss, unless the judge hearing the case owed you money.

    This is a really simple case. 30 year old allegations have been made against the leading political candidate just a few weeks before the election. The facts surrounding the alleged incidents are vague, with regard to the candidate’s actual contact and relationship with the parties, the time and dates of the incidents and whether there is any physical evidence that they occurred at all. All of this makes it incredibly difficult for the accused to mount an effective defense, because he is unable to produce any evidence which will dispel the suspicion caused by such vague allegations. So what you are left with is nothing more than a personal opinion on the reliability of the person making the claim or the the accused, based upon factors other than evidence that the allegations are true.

    To reiterate, at this point, we have no way of knowing who is telling the truth and to what degree. And, given the amount of time which has elapsed since the alleged incidents allegedly took place, we may never be able to make that determination to any significant degree. So, until such time as such a determination can be made, we have to accord equal validity to both parties. This means that no harm should befall either party, as a result of these allegations, until such time as some proof exists as to their validity.

      Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | November 16, 2017 at 10:59 am

      Juanita Broderick.

      We DO have a means of determining who is truthful. Moore has lied, dissembled and threatened. Now he’s down to shear demagoguery, and the basest tribal appeals.

      As with Dollar Bill Clinton, we have a clear pattern of behavior, and as with Clinton during HIS scandal, we have a cult using the most vile crap they can contrive to defend him.

        Sorry, but you are completelym off-base here.

        We have NO pattern of behavior. What we have is alleged behavior, none of which has been proven. People can say anything. And they often do. And, testimonial evidence is always the least reliable. So, what we have is pretty much nothing but innuendo. What we had with Bill Clinton was actual, physical proof which corroborated the testimony of the accusers. No such evidence exists with regard to Moore. This is not to saay that such evidence may not surface in the future. However, at the moment it either does not exist or has not been presented.

        As to Moore lying about anything, what has he lied about and can you prove it is a lie? The assumption that the “signature” in the yearbook is just that, an assumption. It has not been proven that he wrote it. And, if he did, this is not conclusive evidence that he knew or had an relationship with Nelson [I have already shot you assumption on that matter down in flames]. So, what are lies?

This is a replay of what happened to Herman cain.

I adamantly deny the allegations of Leigh Corfman and Beverly Nelson, did not date underage girls, and have taken steps to begin a civil action for defamation. Because of that, at the direction of counsel, I cannot comment further.

— Roy S. Moore.

That’s from Moore’s “open letter” to Hannity.

That is an obvious lie regarding dating underaged girls.

If he’s bringing a defamation action, he’s insane and any lawyer pleading such an action would be his darkest enemy.

But, hey…nutters LOVES the man…!!!

    It is important to define underage according to the law. I am trying to maintain an open mind, which both sides deserve. I found the following link on a Twitter thread when someone wondere whether a Roy Moore was enrolled at her high school.

      Ragspierre in reply to willow. | November 16, 2017 at 3:31 pm

      Well, keeping an open mind is fine to a point. No doubt.

      Is your point that the ladies involved were confused about a Roy Moore in their age cohort? Because the context of their statements puts that out of the realm of the sensible.

      I’m not being combative. I’m trying to understand your point.

        No, my point is there is favorable evidence to both sides concerning Ms. Nelson. She has a couple of witnesses who claim that she told that she related the assault. There are other women who claim unwanted touching by Moore. Yet, she has a yearbook with legitimate questions. Did D.A. stand for the initials of Moore’s assistant who used a stamp in the divorce decree? Why two different inks? All the other good points made by commenters here need to be answered. For whatever reason, did Ms. Nelson have a yearbook signature from a Ray Moore, a high school student, that she doctored? Calumny is a serious issue for me.

          Ragspierre in reply to willow. | November 16, 2017 at 4:50 pm

          “Did D.A. stand for the initials of Moore’s assistant who used a stamp in the divorce decree?”

          Who was NOT his assistant at the time of the reported signing?

          “Why two different inks?”

          I don’t know that’s established, but have you ever had a pen fail on you, and had to switch? Ever started an inscription and been asked to continue, and handed a different pen?

          ALLLLLLLLLLLL of which are fair questions to explore under oath and cross-examination.

          For both sides. Any problem with that?

          Mac45 in reply to willow. | November 16, 2017 at 5:35 pm

          The D.A. part of the yearbook signature is really interesting. In 1977, Moore was a rookie assistant DA, having just graduated from law school. In 1999 he was a judge and his stamped signature on Nelson’s divorce case paperwork bore the D.A. addendum. Why? If one assumes that he was using the DA, in 1977, because he was a member of the DA’s office, why would he use it 12 years later as a judge? Or is it more likely that someone copied the last name in his signature from 1999, when he was a judge, into the yearbook and added the 1977 date to create the illusion that Moore’s signed the yearbook in 1977?

          My personal opinion in this matter is that as more information surfaces, the allegations will become less and less credible.

          Ragspierre in reply to willow. | November 16, 2017 at 5:40 pm

          “Why? If one assumes that he was using the DA, in 1977, because he was a member of the DA’s office, why would he use it 12 years later as a judge?”

          Sorry, even for a rank apologist, that sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

    gmac124 in reply to Ragspierre. | November 16, 2017 at 5:36 pm

    “Simple fix for that; Moore sue them.

    Of course, Moore would be deposed under oath, too.

    So the law suits will never happen.”

    Later followed by

    “That is an obvious lie regarding dating underaged girls.

    If he’s bringing a defamation action, he’s insane and any lawyer pleading such an action would be his darkest enemy.”

    So which is it. Moore should sue to clear his name or he is a lying idiot? A little consistency would be nice.

So, all of you who are on record saying that the existing evidence against Moore is adequate to ask him to step aside, what do you think should be done about sitting senator Al Franken?

    Ragspierre in reply to elle. | November 16, 2017 at 4:10 pm

    Franken is a pig. He should resign. Barring that, he should be expelled.

      So this will come to good after all. I”m sure you took to your keyboard with the same outrage over Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Barney Frank as well as the many many other Dems and Republicans. This is one way to achieve term limits. Just make an accusation (no statute of limitations) and we can get rid of the majority of them. Suits me just fine.

        Ragspierre in reply to elle. | November 16, 2017 at 7:29 pm

        “Just make an accusation…” But that’s an implicit lie.

        There are a coherent series of allegations, not “an accusation”.

        There is a series of unbelievable “denials”.

        But, sure, any time this body of evidence comes out, there should be a serious move to remove someone from high office. It should NOT be tolerated. REGARDLESS of party or politics.

        See Clinton, Bill.

          Funny you didn’t mention Ted, or Barney or Joe. Personally, I’m beginning to think this is just a big Rope A Dope by Bannon. He gets everyone on record calling them pigs and demanding their resignation, then he trots out photos like Franken’s. Haha. It’s going to be fun to watch.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | November 16, 2017 at 9:04 pm

          Funny, if you read my comment that you’d expect a laundry list. I could not begin to name all the people in my category, MOSTLY because we currently don’t know all of them.

          Well I’m sure you know of the other 3 I mentioned, unless you are more naive than most. But you are right, here should be a serious move to remove someone from high office for these crimes. It should NOT be tolerated. REGARDLESS of party or politics.

          I’m surprised to hear that you did not vote for Bill in his second term. I’m assuming that to be true, since to have done so would make you an first class hypocrite of the highest order.

Who was NOT his assistant at the time of the reported signing?

Exactly. It could be lifting and inserting to show he was signing as the D.A. If D.A. is there, it has a purpose. Either Roy Moore signed it that way or it was lifted from a different source.

I don’t have any problem with under oath and cross-examination to come to a more reasoned decision. We don’t have that now.

    Ragspierre in reply to willow. | November 16, 2017 at 5:17 pm

    But, again, we DO have Moore’s dissembling and outright lying. We DO have him invoking gaaaawd as his defense. We DO have his campaign dropping direct denials in favor of pure tribal appeals.

    We DO have a string of consistent stories from credible people with credible support from other credible people.

    Focus on the yearbook all you want, but you have to ignore all the rest of the picture to make this a toss-up.

      Actually, Rags, I’d be interested in hearing what you think Moore is alleged to have done.

      In a comment to me, you implied that you believe Moore has been accused of rape:

      “If you wish to impose today’s leftist measures of what is acceptable on all human action prior to the development of these rules in this decade, go for it.”

      Yeah, Fussy, that’s just despicable of you.

      Is rape a new, now, and happening “leftist” idea?

      Rape? Where did that come from? Certainly not from the women who are alleging that Moore flirted with them, asked them out, asked for their phone number, kissed them, or in the worst accusation thus far, Corfman says he disrobed and “touched” her through her clothing. She was allegedly 14 at the time, and thus under the age of consent, so this is a serious allegation even though she states that when she asked to be taken home, Moore immediately complied. He certainly didn’t rape her, as even she attests.

        Ragspierre in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | November 17, 2017 at 6:39 am

        Actually, Fussy, no. You are interested in starting a fight.

        I don’t care.

        You know the accusations against Moore. So do I. Go feed your cats.

Who was NOT his assistant at the time of the reported signing?
But WAS at the time of the signature on her stamped signature copy of her divorce which is the probable Roy Moore signature available to her to copy.

    Ragspierre in reply to Elliott. | November 16, 2017 at 5:24 pm

    “But WAS at the time of the signature on her stamped signature copy of her divorce which is the probable Roy Moore signature available to her to copy.”

    So your thesis is that the lady created this forgery sometime proximate to her divorce?

    And that the only sample of his signature was on the order procedurally ending her divoce, and not the thousands of other samples on the public record?


      You have finally gotten the point. It is also interesting that Nelson stated that she had no seen Moore in 40 years, since he “assaulted” her in 1977, yet he was the presiding judge at her divorse hearing in 1999. According to your theory, this proves that she is a liar and had contact with Moore during the 40 years she said she did not. Of course, unlike in Moore’s case, we actually have a legal document showing that she very likely DID have contact with Moore during that time.

        Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | November 16, 2017 at 5:45 pm

        No, sparky, you’re lying about what I HAVE said, and your trying to lie about the facts around a divorce proceeding that ended without trial and where the lady likely was never in court, never paid any attention to the pleadings, and etc.

        The issue is really simple to resolve. Ask her attorney.

If you are going to copy, it would be easy to use a signature in your own possession, if such were your intent.

    Ragspierre in reply to willow. | November 16, 2017 at 5:53 pm

    OK. Again, let’s ask, with EVERYBODY under oath and subject to cross.

    But, also again, you are focused on one set of evidence, when there are other pieces of evidence that ALL point in one direction, including the ample evidence FROM Moore himself.

In my opinion, Moore’s awkward responses show his discomfort with the fact that he did date much younger women, according to his words. Dating teenagers is not pedophilia and does not automatically make him a predator looking to assault, but is nowadays not the norm. The left hates him because of everything he stands for. They hate him as much as some people hate Trump. Hatred takes away all objectivity.

    Ragspierre in reply to willow. | November 16, 2017 at 7:21 pm

    “Hatred takes away all objectivity.”

    I’d have to only agree in some measure.

    A good person hates lies, cheating, and any offense against the person of another human or their property to satisfy some selfish drive.

    We are equipped to objectively discern when those things are present. And one does not lose their objectivity when they identify them with their perpetrator.

    We do lose all integrity when we will excuse such conduct for any reason, especially rank politics.

I guess that the point of Prof Jacobson’s article, on which we are currently posting, that doing handwriting analysis via Twitter is a sad idea, was either not read or completely lost on many here.

    But it’s so fuuuuuuun. 🙂

    I’m laying odds *if* this is a forgery, that the forger used a signature from the copy of the divorce decree. Did Moore have the assistant back then who signed his documents with the ‘D.A.’ after them? If so, that would explain the extra letters.

Well I’m sure you know of the other 3 I mentioned, unless you are more naive than most. But you are right, here should be a serious move to remove someone from high office for these crimes. It should NOT be tolerated. REGARDLESS of party or politics.

I’m surprised to hear that you did not vote for Bill in his second term. I’m assuming that to be true, since to have done so would make you an first class hypocrite of the highest order.

    Ragspierre in reply to elle. | November 16, 2017 at 9:36 pm

    WTF are you EVEN going on about here?

    I’ve been a CONSTANT opponent of ANYTHING Clinton for decades. There’s a LOOOOOOOONG record here of my posts, pre-dating ‘elle’ by a decade or two.

so then apparently my assumption was correct. lol