Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Roy Moore accuser says she added date and location to yearbook entry (Updated)

Roy Moore accuser says she added date and location to yearbook entry (Updated)

But insists the rest of the writing is Moore’s, including the signature.

When Beverly Young Nelson, accompanied by Gloria Allred, accused Roy Moore of sexual assault behind a diner when she was 16, she showed a high school yearbook with Moore’s purported dated signature to prove she knew him.

The yearbook entry was a piece of evidence that immediately raised questions. I wrote at the time Roy Moore “handwriting analyses” prove 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 ….

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.

Gloria Allred repeatedly declined to make the yearbook available for forensic analysis, as I covered in If Roy Moore wins, thank Gloria Allred and Al Franken:

If there was a turning point in Roy Moore’s political fortunes, it was the press conference Gloria Allred held with accuser Beverly Nelson, who emotionally described what she said was a sexual assault behind a diner at which she worked.

That press conference gave Moore two things he needed politically: a chance to make Allred an issue in the campaign, and a piece of physical evidence to attack, the handwriting in the yearbook….

But Allred has refused so far to subject the yearbook to an independent examination, unless done at a Senate hearing, which isn’t going to happen. Allred also refused to declare the signature authentic. Perhaps Allred secretly is having the yearbook examined and will hold a press conference with a qualified document examiner to declare authenticity, but that doesn’t look likely at the moment.

All Moore needs to do politically is to call the accusations into question, to raise doubts, to turn it into a 40-year-old he said/she said dispute. The yearbook that was declared by the media to be proof of Moore’s guilt now has become that cloud obscuring possible guilt.

There is a twist that just surfaced today. In an ABC News interview, Nelson acknowledged adding information to the yearbook entry, but says most of the writing is Moore’s:

https://youtu.be/O9FI8mAVebw?t=2m2s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9FI8mAVebw

The questioning in the interview on this point was inadequate. When did she add the notes underneath? That’s important because the notes she added, by her own admission, were the date and the location, the diner where she allegedly was assaulted. Otherwise, it’s just a high school yearbook entry which may prove Moore knew her, but doesn’t place her and Moore together at the diner without the information Nelson added. (added) It’s also unclear from this interview whether the initials “D.A.” were added by Nelson.

Apparently Nelson and Allred are having another press conference this afternoon. Perhaps more will be learned, including whether there has been a forensic examination of the yearbook and if so, by whom.

We will update.

UPDATE 4:40 p.m.

I didn’t see it, so here is the CBS report on Allred’s press conference. After I find the full video of the press conference, I may have more comment.

Gloria Allred held a news conference Friday to defend Beverly Young Nelson amid accusations about the signature in her yearbook, which some Roy Moore defenders have said does not match his handwriting.

Allred says she sought the opinion of a forensic document expert, Arthur Anthony, to analyze the signature. Allred provided reporters with the report provided by Anthony, with his assessment that the signature in the yearbook is Moore’s. Included in the sheaf of papers she presented were examples of Moore signature from when he was a deputy district attorney decades ago.

WaPo adds that Allred admitted her client also wrote “D.A.” after the signature.

Nelson’s attorney Gloria Allred announced Friday that Nelson’s previous statement, which Allred had repeated, was incorrect. Moore only wrote the first part of that message up to his signature, she said. The rest of the words, not shown in cursive — “D.A. 12-22-77 Olde Hickory House” — were written later by Nelson, Allred said.

That seem’s a significant omission from the first press conference as well. A key part of her story is that Moore presented himself as the District Attorney. Hence, the “D.A.” which she now admits she added and was not part of the signature appears to be another attempt to bolster her story by doctoring the evidence.

[Note: Headline and text updated to reflect that Beverly Young was the accuser’s name at the time of the alleged incident, she’s now Beverly Young Nelson]

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Early releases of the yearbook image showed differences in ink color.

    Milhouse in reply to Petrushka. | December 8, 2017 at 1:48 pm

    No, they didn’t.

    Note that she never claimed Moore had written the date and place, and that it is perfectly normal for the person receiving the autograph to add these. If she did so at the time he signed it, then she would almost certainly have used the same pen, and a forensic analysis would show no difference between the inks. On the other hand if (as so many of us suspect) she added these only a few weeks ago then she’d hardly be so stupid as to use a different color ink, but an analysis would probably find a significant difference between the two inks.

      willow in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2017 at 2:12 pm

      The information should have been disclosed at the press conference. Allred knew that. There is no reason for Ms. Young to have disclosed that she added the date and provided when and why. That she is doing it now is calculated for some reason.

        willow in reply to willow. | December 8, 2017 at 2:12 pm

        no reason NOT to have disclosed.

        Milhouse in reply to willow. | December 8, 2017 at 2:46 pm

        You had it right the first time. Nobody asked who wrote the date and location, and if it was really added 40 years ago then there would be no reason for her to have specifically mentioned — or even remembered — it. It’s not as if she suddenly came out with that information now, out of the blue. In the course of an interview she was asked about it, so she answered.

        None of which proves she is telling the truth. We simply don’t have good evidence one way or the other.

          willow in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2017 at 2:58 pm

          First statement: “He wrote in my yearbook as follows: ‘To a sweeter more beautiful girl, I could not say Merry Christmas, Christmas, 1977, Love, Roy Moore, Olde Hickory House. Roy Moore, DA,'” she said.

          New statement: During a press conference in Atlanta on Friday, Nelson and Allred stood by their claim that Moore himself inscribed a message in the yearbook. But Allred acknowledged the last part, including the date and location, was written by Nelson.

          “Beverly indicates she added that to remind herself of who Roy Moore was and where and when Mr. Moore signed her yearbook,” Allred said.

          So she also wrote D.A. as well.

          willow in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2017 at 2:59 pm

          DA

          Observer in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2017 at 4:19 pm

          Actually we have some pretty compelling evidence that Young-Nelson is not telling the truth (aside from the fact that she forgot to mention that she wrote part of the yearbook inscription herself, and she also forgot to mention that Moore had been the judge who signed her divorce decree).

          Multiple witnesses have come forward, by name and not anonymously, since Young-Nelson’s first press conference and publicly contradicted key points of her story:

          Young-Nelson’s boyfriend in 1977, who is now a minister, said that he doesn’t recall her working at the restaurant in 1977.

          Several employees of the restaurant in 1977 also said that they don’t remember Young-Nelson working there. They also said that the restaurant had a policy of not hiring anyone under age 16 (Young-Nelson claimed to have started her employment there at age 15). The employees also said that the restaurant’s wait staff did not interact with or serve the counter customers, who were always waited on by either the bartender or the short-order cook. (Young-Nelson said she met Moore when he came in to eat at the counter and flirted with her). The employees also said that there was no vehicle exit from the back lot of the restaurant, as the restaurant’s back lot bordered the back yards of private homes. (Young-Nelson said she wasn’t concerned when Moore drove her into the restaurant’s back lot, because she knew there was an exit to the street from the back lot). The employees also said that the restaurant’s dumpsters were not kept in the back lot, which was too small, but were instead kept on the sides of the restaurants, and that it was impossible to park a car between them. (Young-Nelson claimed Moore had driven her to the dark and deserted back lot and parked his car between the dumpsters there so it would not be seen). The employees also said that the restaurant had a porch and bright lights that extended all the way around the restaurant, so that the back of the restaurant was never dark and deserted as Young-Nelson claimed. The employees also said that they did not recall ever seeing Roy Moore in the restaurant.

          A former regular customer of the restaurant in 1977, a deputy sheriff who knew Roy Moore in 1977 and said he would have recognized him, also said that he never saw Moore in the restaurant.

          This isn’t a “he said/she said” case. It’s a “she said/they said” case. And “they” appear to be a lot more credible than “she” is.

      Barry in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2017 at 4:08 pm

      Quoting milhouse:

      “Citing some garbage blog doesn’t add credibility to the claim,”

      Doesn’t prove one damn thing other than light might change the appearance.

      So would two different inks.

      Bonus questions:

      Can the lighting change the angle of the writing?
      Do you have to be hit over the head with a clue bat to get the truth?

      Mercyneal in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2017 at 5:08 pm

      Yes, she and Allred both said on November 13 that Moore wrote everything on that page.

Seemed obvious to me that this was the case all along.

I’m going to have to check my yearbook again, but I’m pretty sure nobody put the date and location next to any signature.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Semper Why. | December 8, 2017 at 6:23 pm

    Yea, and no one I know would have added that to a yearbook inscription. Maybe to a autograph book, but a yearbook….not likely.

Getting closer to election day. Time to try to inflict more damage to keep Moore out of office. Another he said/she said episode, hopefully without the crocodile tears this time.

Yet Moore is now claiming he didn’t know any of these young ladies.

We know that’s a lie. He admitted knowing at least two in earlier statements.

Why?

    tlcomm2 in reply to Ragspierre. | December 8, 2017 at 11:15 am

    Everybody has seen each other in small towns – especially politicians like Moore. Depends on what is meant by “knowing” somebody.

      Ragspierre in reply to tlcomm2. | December 8, 2017 at 11:22 am

      No, it does NOT. Read what he said on Hannity.

      He’s lying. Why?

        Close The Fed in reply to Ragspierre. | December 8, 2017 at 5:33 pm

        I DO NOT CARE.

        Dead babies, or living babies?
        Muslim ban, no muslim ban.
        Dead terror victims, or no dead terror victims.
        The Wall, or no wall.
        Aliens swamping our votes, or immigration reduced.

        I DO NOT CARE ABOUT MINOR ACTS FROM 35 YEARS AGO.

          I do care if he’s lying, simply because if he’s going to lie, then he’s going to lie, which is a character flaw. I can forgive a lot, but I want to KNOW that my politician is going to do what he is telling me he’s going to do, not lie to me to get a vote, and then turn around and stab me in the back.

          He said he didn’t know the accusers. Perfectly reasonable to not remember some woman whose divorce case you dismissed decades ago. The women he dated when they were of legal age, who didn’t allege that he molested them, should not be considered “accusers”, even though the MSM has lumped them in with the 3 women who made these very dubious and uncorroborated allegations. People may not approve of a 30 to 34 year old man dating 17-19 year old women, but it is not illegal, and none of them have claimed he did anything more than kiss them. Where was all this outrage when 38 year old Jerry Seinfeld dated (and undoubtedly had sex with) 17 year old Shoshanna Lonstein? Nonexistent of course. People magazine wrote a glowing article about their relationship.

        (Tongue firmly in cheek and dripping with Sarcasm) Maybe he meant he didn’t “know” them in the Biblical sense?

        [End Sarcasm] – I’m in a bad mood.

        Arminius in reply to Ragspierre. | December 9, 2017 at 6:25 pm

        Why? In order to P.O. all the right people. Such as you, rags. Who have a kneejerk, rabid hatred for people like him in search of a justification, and now that justification has just been destroyed. At least in this case.

        Or, it could be because a bunch of people who were never really important to him 40 years ago are coming out of the woodwork with these accusations. I couldn’t tell you the names of the girls I dated 30 years ago, and while I have a vague recollection of what they looked like THEN, I couldn’t connect the their now 50 plus year old faces with my vague recollection.

        But that’s just too sane for you, so please wallow in and put your inchoate hatred on full display.

    Paul In Sweden in reply to Ragspierre. | December 8, 2017 at 12:11 pm

    Yes, he knew some of the women, the one knows Roy Moore because he sentenced her brother to prison.

      (1) Moore ruled against Beverly Young, the yearbook creature, in her divorce settlement in 1999. (2) Tina Johnson, who claims that Moore grabbed her bottom, lost a nasty custody dispute when he represented her mother who argued that Johnson was an “unfit, absent, and unstable mother.” (3) The brother in prison is a new one for me.

      So three (at least) of the seven accusers had cases prosecuted or judged by Moore that were not in their favor. That’s a pretty big percentage (43%, but check my math), and we don’t know yet if any of the other accusers also have previous grievances against Moore. Spite is another dish best served cold.

      Amazing coinkydink, ain’t it?

        Milhouse in reply to J Motes. | December 8, 2017 at 1:53 pm

        Moore ruled against Beverly Young, the yearbook creature, in her divorce settlement in 1999.

        No, he didn’t.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2017 at 2:09 pm

          No, he didn’t. Citing some garbage blog doesn’t add credibility to the claim, and the fact that you think it does diminishes your credibility (if such a thing were possible).

          Mercyneal in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2017 at 5:10 pm

          Um, yes he did. Please stop posting false information

          Technically, Milhouse is correct in that there was no ruling against Nelson in a divorce case; however, Moore is indeed the judge who signed an order of dismissal on her 1999 divorce case. It was never heard.

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/16/roy-moores-open-letter-to-sean-hannity-annotated/

          Shrug. For all intents and purposes, he ruled against her by dismissing her divorce case. As Moore himself points out, her attorneys could have filed an appeal of the dismissal based on her allegations against Moore for alleged sexual misdeeds in 1977. He would have been forced to recuse himself from her case (and had the allegations been made known, he may have been removed from the bench, possibly even disbarred). That didn’t happen. Further, Nelson failed to disclose Moore’s role in her divorce case dismissal.

          Of course all of this raises questions about her truthfulness. On this one point, Milhouse, don’t you think it’s possible that you’re letting your emotions lead your intellect? She’s a textbook case of an unreliable witness, a proven liar who had ample opportunity to use these charges to her advantage in a divorce case and didn’t. Was she really so high-minded in 1999 that she didn’t want to challenge and remove the judge who ruled against her because of allegations for which she is now fabricating evidence? It takes a very special sort of person to believe her at this point.

          Barry in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2017 at 8:44 pm

          “It takes a very special sort of person to believe her at this point.”

          LOL, yep.

          First, the person has to be blind.
          2nd, they would need to be gullible.
          3rd, they have to believe in Gloria Allred, that purveyor of truth.
          4th, they have to have an IQ lower than dog poo.

          They probably call everyone else a liar.

          Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | December 9, 2017 at 6:32 pm

          You forgot the lobotomy or, at the very least, the electroshock treatment they received during their last few involuntary committals.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | December 9, 2017 at 7:44 pm

          Shrug. For all intents and purposes, he ruled against her by dismissing her divorce case.

          Bullshit. The case was dismissed because the couple were no longer interested in getting divorced.. It was not a decision or a ruling, but a completely automatic bit of paperwork, which he didn’t even bother signing himself. So how can you possibly call that a ruling against her?

          On this one point, Milhouse, don’t you think it’s possible that you’re letting your emotions lead your intellect?

          What emotions? I’ve got no dog in this fight. I didn’t support Moore in the primary, but if I were an AL citizen I would vote for him this Tuesday. I don’t care whom he dated 40 years ago, I don’t expect him to remember everyone he knew 40 years ago, and whether he signed this woman’s yearbook has no bearing on whether he assaulted her. What’s more, I’m not even sure that two 40-year old assaults, of such a relatively minor kind as those that have been alleged, should be a bar to his election now, even if they happened.

          As far as the yearbook is concerned, I don’t think it matters who wrote the date and location, but rather when they were added. If the addition is 40 years old then it can be assumed to be genuine. As Allred pointed out, it’s silly to suppose that 40 years ago all these women were already setting him up so they could sabotage his political career now. But that’s obviously not what Moore and his supporters claim. Instead they claim this conspiracy happened recently, not 40 years ago, which would mean the addition to the inscription would be only a few weeks old, and a forensic analysis should be able to detect that.

I wonder how much she is being paid.

So, she should be believed now that everything else was the truth. Amazing how the story changed once it was clear that it was doctored. I don’t believe this woman’s allegations. The whole mess against Moore seems far too politically motivated, and yet its only coming out now, instead of years ago with his many public issues. Dems play dirty frequently, and have at the very least a compliant press that helps them push the dirty plays. The whole mess going on now has accusations of serial offenses that have continued for years. Moore’s issues all stem from long ago, and he suddenly changed? Sure, it’s possible, but predators rarely change unless caught and punished in some manner.

    Close The Fed in reply to oldgoat36. | December 8, 2017 at 5:36 pm

    I repeat:

    I DO NOT CARE.

    Dead babies, or living babies?
    Muslim ban, no muslim ban.
    Dead terror victims, or no dead terror victims.
    The Wall, or no wall.
    Aliens swamping our votes, or immigration reduced.

    I DO NOT CARE ABOUT MINOR ACTS FROM 35 YEARS AGO.

Well, that completes this allegation’s trip down the drain. And, it takes the other serious allegation with it. What we have left is much ado about nothing. And probably Senator Roy Moore.

    Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | December 8, 2017 at 11:29 am

    You claim to be a LEO of 30 years experience. (Gag)

    I bet you were a real treat to confront for rape victims, not to say any other victims. (If your claim has any truth to it at all.)

      scaulen in reply to Ragspierre. | December 8, 2017 at 11:49 am

      Why is he wrong? The evidence they say proves his guilt has been tampered with by the accuser. Nothing on that page can be looked at without suspicion. No telling if that is her year book now, or when it was signed and even by who at this point. They discredited their own evidence and their own testimony.
      Would you take that book and go to trial with it as your key piece of evidence?

        Ragspierre in reply to scaulen. | December 8, 2017 at 11:56 am

        1. Nothing on that page is proffered “to prove his guilt”.

        2. “Tampering” is not what has been stated. That’s YOUR loaded term.

        3. Nothing anywhere should be looked at without suspicion. This includes Moore’s conflicting statements, his wife’s manifold lies, etc.

        4. I’d be happy to take the year book to trial, along with a good hard cross of Roy “Jail-bait” Moore and his defenders.

          alaskabob in reply to Ragspierre. | December 8, 2017 at 12:43 pm

          The waters were muddied by Allred. It would have been so easy say, “this was so special for me that I wanted to remember the moment and added the extra lines to remind me of that day. Yes, I added to the writing just as one would choose a really nice frame for a special picture. I didn’t want the memory to fade.” Allred has consistently let her clients hang out in the breeze with piecemeal representation. From my experience with judicial corruption, lawyers reminded me that when you attempt to “kill the king” it has to the be complete.

          scaulen in reply to Ragspierre. | December 8, 2017 at 1:09 pm

          Ragspierre,
          Your client would be asking for their money back then.

          You would go to trial with tampered evidence and 40 year old memories? Well I guess if you were an ambulance chaser like Allred and were just looking for billable hours or some settlement money then fine. Your win loss record (and credibility) would be in the toilet but your bank account would be fat.

          MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | December 8, 2017 at 2:08 pm

          It is interesting that her added note included the “DA”, which came from court documents. Even if she was telling the truth, it looks contrived.

          So:

          Added note in year book is suspicious an purposefully meant to deceive

          Recollection of parking lot does not match other witnesses

          Moore regularity at the restaurant in doubt by other employees

          Age of her working at the restaurant in question based on restaurant employees

          Ok, sound like a real winner here. It that the best they can do!?

          “I’d be happy to take the year book to trial…”

          I’d say that is proof you are not a lawyer.
          Or, you’re an ambulance chaser.

        mailman in reply to scaulen. | December 8, 2017 at 12:28 pm

        scaulen, you ask a question that any real lawyer would be asking….how much of the evidence can now be trusted of some part of it has been tampered with????

        A real lawyer would probably reply with “none of it can be trusted”.

        Well thats in a sane world. The world inhabited by lieberals is anything BUT sane!

      Wisewerds in reply to Ragspierre. | December 8, 2017 at 12:20 pm

      He claims to be a LEO of thirty years experience.

      You claim to be a human being.

      stevewhitemd in reply to Ragspierre. | December 8, 2017 at 12:53 pm

      That is a scurrilous, reprehensible statement. It is a new low for you, Rags. You are impugning the reputation of a person you don’t even know for the sake of making a cheap attack in a political argument on a blog.

      You should apologize, and be ashamed for what you’ve written. Good Lord.

      “I bet you were a real treat to confront for rape victims…”

      One can just imagine you doing so.

      Ugh.

      Wow, I really frost your cookies, don’t I? LOL. I must be doing something right.

      So we have documentary evidence which was altered by the presenter. This makes the evidence tainted. And, if the presented documentary evidence is tainted, then we must assume that the testimonial evidence is also tainted, until proven otherwise. The accuser has actually impeached herself, as a witness. Hense why this charge has just been flushed down the drain.

      As to my interaction with alleged rape victims, that was never a problem. There are well established procedures for investigating sexual assaults. Dealing with a victim of sexual assault requires kindness and compassion. However, it does not include arresting, trying and convicting a person without corroborating evidence. Interestingly enough, I never investigated a sexual assault which was even a year old, let alone three decades. Oh, just an aside, I did investigate a couple of sexual assault claims which turned out to be fabricated.

        Anonamom in reply to Mac45. | December 8, 2017 at 5:04 pm

        “Oh, just an aside, I did investigate a couple of sexual assault claims which turned out to be fabricated.”

        Except we’re not allowed to discuss that anymore. Which is stupid.

        My husband is a retired patrol sergeant, and I was a prosecutor for almost twenty years. Whenever he’d tell me that his shift had a rape report, the first question I’d ask was, “Is it a righteous ?” The VAST majority of rape reports were BS, most commonly a dope transaction gone sideways. I have prosecuted real rapes, and I’ve seen how devastated real rape victims are. All this “we have to believe the women” hooey only serves to demean true victims. And, quite frankly, it really p*sses me off. (rant over)

          Anonamom in reply to Anonamom. | December 8, 2017 at 5:11 pm

          Sorry; some of what I typed got eliminated. What I originally wrote was that I asked was it a righteous rape, using the code number for rape in California. Apparently the material inside carats doesn’t post. I apologize for the lack of clarity.

          Milhouse in reply to Anonamom. | December 9, 2017 at 7:52 pm

          To insert < and > signs in a comment, type &lt; and &gt;.

          I’m not surprised at all by your experience. It seems to me that false reports of rape or “sexual assault” are much like electoral fraud — so easy to do, and so unlikely to be detected, let alone punished, that I assume, just on general principles, that they must be rampant.

      Close The Fed in reply to Ragspierre. | December 8, 2017 at 5:37 pm

      Re: Rags:
      NONE of the women alleged rape.
      None of them.
      Get a grip.

      And you claim to be a lawyer. Given the intersection between your dishonesty and the general reputation of the profession, we’d believe THAT!

        stevewhitemd in reply to SDN. | December 9, 2017 at 8:10 am

        Well wait. As much as we might enjoy the old joke, “it’s the 95% of bad lawyers who give the rest a bad name”, it isn’t true.

        There are plenty of ethical, smart, decent lawyers out there. Our host is one. He doesn’t need me to defend him, and good lawyers likewise just shrug their shoulders at the jibes, go on about their lives and do their work. I’m a doc; I rub elbows with and have worked with all sorts of lawyers. I’ve encountered very few bad ones.

        I have no idea who Ragspierre is, what he does for a living (he says he’s a lawyer, but I know there are people who claimed to be the Tsar’s last surviving daughter), where he lives, and so on. All I know about him is what he writes here. That small sample of the man allows me to judge that he’s a hot mess of a human being. Too bad for him.

          I read a joke somewhere:

          California has the most lawyers, New Jersey has the most EPA designated dumps.

          Why?

          NJ got to pick first 🙂

    Observer in reply to Mac45. | December 8, 2017 at 3:54 pm

    I think the multiple other witnesses who have come forward, by name, to contradict Young-Nelson’s story were even more damaging to her credibility than this yearbook problem.

    Young-Nelson’s boyfriend in 1977, who is now a minister, said that he doesn’t recall her working at the restaurant in 1977.

    Several employees of the restaurant in 1977 also said that they don’t remember Young-Nelson working there. They also said that the restaurant had a policy of not hiring anyone under age 16 (Young-Nelson claimed to have started her employment there at age 15). The employees also said that the restaurant’s wait staff did not interact with or serve the counter customers, who were always waited on by either the bartender or the short-order cook. (Young-Nelson said she met Moore when he came in to eat at the counter). The employees also said that there was no vehicle exit from the back lot of the restaurant, as the restaurant’s back lot bordered the back yards of private homes. (Young-Nelson said she wasn’t concerned when Moore drove her into the restaurant’s back lot, because she knew there was an exit to the street from the back lot). The employees also said that the restaurant’s dumpsters were not kept in the back lot, which was too small, but were instead kept on the sides of the restaurants, and that it was impossible to park a car between them. (Young-Nelson claimed Moore had driven her to the dark and deserted back lot and parked his car between the dumpsters so as not to be seen). The employees also said that the restaurant had a porch and bright lights that extended all the way around the restaurant, so that the back of the restaurant was never dark and deserted as Young-Nelson claimed. The employees also said that they did not recall ever seeing Roy Moore in the restaurant.

    A former regular customer of the restaurant in 1977, a deputy sheriff who knew Roy Moore in 1977 and said he would have recognized him, also said that he never saw Moore in the restaurant.

    Even if we disregard her step-son’s claim that she is a liar (on the grounds that he may be biased against her), and even if we give Young-Nelson the benefit of the doubt on forgetting to mention that Roy Moore was the judge who signed her divorce decree, there seems to be no reason to doubt the multiple other witnesses who have contradicted key points of her story.

Why and when did she add that and for what purpose? It’s a yearbook, what is the meaning of adding the place where she worked? It’s strange.

    Arminius in reply to the wolf. | December 9, 2017 at 4:28 am

    To frame Moore. To place him at the scene of a crime that she later accused him of committing.

    Arminius in reply to the wolf. | December 9, 2017 at 4:37 am

    That was the answer to the why part of the question. The when part is after 1999 when Moore’s court clerk, Delbra Adams, initialed the document dismissing her divorce case after stamping Judge Moore’s signature on it.

    Delbra Adams confirms that those are her initials. Nelson strikes me as none too bright. Apparently she thought that the initials D.A. stood for district attorney, as if district attorneys rule on motions in divorce cases. But in any case she must have thought adding “D.A.” would bolster her claim against Moore. That Moore must have been one hell of a lawyer. He graduated from law school in the spring of 1977 and by the end of the year he’s not just the only full time ADA. He
    he’s the “D.A.” Or, at least he’s claiming to be in a town so small word would have quickly gotten back to the actual DA that his assistant is running around impersonating him.

      Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | December 9, 2017 at 8:06 pm

      Or, at least he’s claiming to be in a town so small word would have quickly gotten back to the actual DA that his assistant is running around impersonating him.

      Indeed, that’s a point I made when this first surfaced. It seems unlikely that a newly hired ADA would risk pissing off his boss by impersonating him to impress girls.

      But if the purpose of the addition was to frame Moore, then it can’t have been added “after 1999”, it must have been very recently. If it was done 18 or 15 or 10 years ago we would have heard it long ago. Nobody sets such a thing up and then lets it sit for so long. How did they know he would ever run for something bigger than the state supreme court?

      No, the only two possible answers to “when” are 40 years ago, or 40 days ago (more or less). If it was 40 years ago then the purpose was not to frame him for anything but simply to note when and where she scored this important person’s autograph. If it was recently then the purpose was to interfere in the election.

and where does the tampering start? With the letters T and O?

CaliforniaJimbo | December 8, 2017 at 12:27 pm

Looking at the color image of the yearbook it appears that everything past the “Roy” is in a different color. Meaning the Moore, the DA, the date and the location.
She also said at her first news conference that Ray (not Roy) signed her yearbook.
Try this theory
Guy named Ray (maybe old boyfriend ) signed her yearbook. She took the signature from the divorce papers (Moore and DA) and added that to Ray (now being called Roy).
This stinks to high heaven

    You make a good point about the name in the signature being Ray. A week or so ago, I saw a comment on another site that also noted the name could be Ray, not Roy. The comment said the message was worded oddly, but when the signature is read as Ray, a rhyming component is added that makes the poem (or “poem” or doggerel) more sensible.

    To a sweeter or more beautiful girl I could not say
    “Merry Christmas” … Love Ray

    The commenter also gave the full name and current city of someone named Ray who went to the same school as Beverly Young. I wonder if anyone has ever looked for students named Ray or Roy to see whether a likely candidate for the original signature can be found.

    There is also the Christmas 1977 under the Merry Christmas comment but before the Love,

    “Merry Christmas”
    Christmas 1977
    Love,

    Looking at that again i just realized the two Christmas that are written don’t match.

    “Guy named Ray (maybe old boyfriend ) signed her yearbook.”
    Easy enough to verify if someone ELSE could be found with that same yearbook and page though looking for a ‘Ray Moore’ in the class pictures.

      rabidfox in reply to pwaldoch. | December 8, 2017 at 7:19 pm

      It doesn’t even have to be Ray Moore – depending on the light, the ink does seem to differ between the first and last name.

    AmandaFitz in reply to CaliforniaJimbo. | December 8, 2017 at 2:08 pm

    Were there any teachers or administrators at the school named Ray/Roy at the time? The note reads like it’s written by an adult, not another teenager. It’s pretty generic and reminds me of the sort of note a teacher would write.

    Also, yearbooks are NOT distributed at CHRISTMAS, they’re distributed in the Spring!!! Why in the world is this one being signed at CHRISTMAS 1977?

I forget whether it was blog comments here or elsewhere that someone claiming to be a certified graphologist said the whole inscription absolutely was written by the same person, and those of us who immediately saw the differences were just plain wrong, he was an expert.

I’ll have to search and check to see if he actually wrote certified or certifiable

From the start, the Democrat machine was relying on the Republican wimps to act normally and remove Moore.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | December 8, 2017 at 1:30 pm

Right on cue. Smalley kinda, sorta “resigns”, now comes the full on attack on Moore for the next several days.

ABC is not only giving anti-Moore supporters free publicity, but they are giving free air time to Allred to allow her to try to clean up the mess she created in putting forward the inauthentic the yearbook inscription.

Reminds me of how The New York Times came to CBS defense after Dan Rather used fake documents about GWB’s military service to try throw the ’04 election to John Kerry.

ABC is effectively doing what the New York Times did back then.

This is “fake but accurate” 2.0.

    “ABC is not only giving anti-Moore supporters free publicity…”

    I’d have to say that today, they did just the opposite.
    Any sane person that was unsure, now knows they lied.
    100% lied. About everything.
    Everyone in Alabama that was fence sitting fell off on the Moore side.

Humphrey's Executor | December 8, 2017 at 1:35 pm

Due process serves a valuable function. We need more of it these days.

She also added the “Moore D.A”. which is in different color ink and the only reason to imitate his signature with “Moore D.A.” would be to frame him. It shows her intent is to frame him. Nobody tries to imitate a signature as “information”. Her and Allred hope to get way with being able to explain away the Olde Hickory House and 12-22-77 away since they are easy to spot without forensic exam.

    Milhouse in reply to Conan. | December 8, 2017 at 1:58 pm

    It is not in a different color ink, and she never claimed the date and location were in Moore’s hand.

      MarkSmith in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2017 at 2:11 pm

      So what was the purpose to show the yearbook anyways?

      Fake yearbook sign = sexually abuse? Well I say fake yearbook sign proves attention getting mentally messed up women.

      Logic of yearbook = sexual abuse is so weak.

        Milhouse in reply to MarkSmith. | December 8, 2017 at 2:50 pm

        The purpose of showing the yearbook was to show that he knew her, not to show that he did anything to her. That allegation rests entirely on her word. Whether the yearbook signature is genuine remains to be determined, and that’s impossible without examining the original. But she never claimed he had written the date & location, so her now saying he didn’t doesn’t discredit her original claim.

          Barry in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2017 at 9:02 pm

          “But she never claimed he had written the date & location, so her now saying he didn’t doesn’t discredit her original claim.”

          You’ve lost your freaking mind. She claimed it was written by Moore. Period.

          She lied. Try not to continue to be a complete and total dupe.

          She hasn’t claimed it is her yearbook either. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to discover it’s not even hers.

          MarkSmith in reply to Milhouse. | December 9, 2017 at 12:04 pm

          Nice try Milhouse but there is more to it than just “he knew me”

          As BB Joel B. Pollak says:

          “The yearbook was presented not just to show that Roy Moore knew Nelson, but to establish the time and place where he allegedly assaulted her.”

          Well it appears that place was added later. Also, witnesses have discredited the place as described by Nelson.

          Watch this video at 11:50. She even claims that Moore is responsible for everything written. Gloria double downs on it, too.

          https://twitter.com/charliespiering/status/939183263192702977

          If Moore was guilty, Nelson/Gloria blew it. With Gloria pointing at the text to tell Nelson to say “D.A. …, Old Hickory House” I think she shows that she knew what she was doing.

      Mercyneal in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2017 at 5:07 pm

      YES, both she and Allred on November 13 claimed that everything on the yearbook page was written by Moore. Go back and watch that press conference

Allred is just doing CYA so she can’t be disbarred. She may have made the mistake of asking her client to have the sig verified.

At any rate, Allred has single-handedly destroyed the credibility of all the Moore accusers, and by extension, the Trump accusers.

A common element is keeping silent until crucial moments in elections.

The other common elements are lack of witnesses and lack of pattern of behavior.

This really is about whoria allred.

She needs to be disbarred over this.

So we have (paraphrased):
Young: Roy abused me as a child! I have proof!
Skeptics: Show us.
Young: You’re supposed to believe me. I’m a woman.
Skeptics: It’s been 40 years. Let’s see proof. Besides, you have a history of doing this.
Young: Ok. We have witnesses!
Skeptics: Of what? That you and he were both in the same town during that time? Besides, some of these claims and reality at that time don’t match at all.
Young: I have this yearbook! See! (briefly flashes it for the cameras)
Skeptics: It looks a little like his signature. There’s some really weird discrepancies in it though (not the color).
Young: Uh. I may have written some of that myself. But I’m not telling what parts.
Skeptics: Uh-huh.

    MarkSmith in reply to georgfelis. | December 8, 2017 at 2:16 pm

    Yep he did it. No doubt about it. I heard that dogs in the neighborhood were scared of him too. If he came down the street, people use to run and hide in their houses. He is evil, evil, evil! /s

    We all know it is not about him. It is about 30 M spent by GOP and the loss of control of the GOP in the Senate. Dems are trying to use the case to go after Trump.

    I think they lost this one. Ha.

      Arminius in reply to MarkSmith. | December 9, 2017 at 4:48 am

      Just wait until the news breaks about the high school girls imprisoned for years in Moore’s B&D/S&M basement sex dungeon breaks, forced to wear gag balls so they couldn’t even scream for help. I’m sure that’ll be next.

      And we’ll be told we must believe the women because, ovaries. People with ovaries never lie. Unless they’re named Juanita Broderick, Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey…

        MarkSmith in reply to Arminius. | December 9, 2017 at 2:58 pm

        It was a pizza joint, did you not get the memo?

          Arminius in reply to MarkSmith. | December 9, 2017 at 6:49 pm

          Roy Moore’s pizza joint/tackle shop/law office/school of truck driving was upstairs.

          Downstairs it was all bondage & discipline/sado-masochism all the time.

          The high school girls chained to the wall in the dungeon say the worst part was the stale pizza that used ketchup instead of tomato sauce, fake cheese, and fake pepperoni, then heated in a microwave instead of an oven.

          I’ve never been to Alabama but I can confirm you don’t go to Mississippi or Kansas for the Italian food, so I can feel their pain.

          Oh, yeah, forgot to add that in Judge Roy Moore’s adolescent girl sex dungeon there was no safe word, they say. So they had to choke down the pizza that made food at the local Gadsden mall food court where he kidnapped them seem like gourmet cuisine.

Oh it is getting better – Nelson is busted!

Mark Songer, a forensics documents examiner said it was the same writer in WAPO. Soooooo……..who wrote it?!

We asked a handwriting expert to evaluate claims that Roy Moore’s writing was forged WAPO

“The writing seems consistent with one writer,” he added, though he pointed out that “Old Hickory House” and the second date appear to be different stylistically — though he’d need to see examples of Moore’s hand-printed writing to be able to determine whether it’s authentic. (Moore’s lawyers didn’t provide any examples of non-script writing that might show an inconsistency.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/16/we-asked-a-handwriting-expert-to-evaluate-claims-that-roy-moores-writing-was-forged/

She’s still lying. When you post photos about this story, this is the photo you need to show, courtesy of CNN. There’s a reason the media doesn’t use this photo any more. See if you can spot it:

https://mobile.twitter.com/CNN/status/930205088299257859/photo/2

And here it is with a little analysis thrown in. No handwriting expert necessary:

https://twitter.com/j_wizzles/status/933394003306958858

    willow in reply to jl. | December 8, 2017 at 3:05 pm

    That angle! I have tried to remain objective, but the last name was added. That is the reason for the weasley, nonspecific words “That last part…”

    CaliforniaJimbo in reply to jl. | December 8, 2017 at 4:30 pm

    Yep. Ray (or Roy) is in black ink. Moore, DA, Date, Location in blue ink.
    Now for the Chromatic Aberration theory. Chromatic Aberration requires the use of a lens. As a matter of fact, the edge of the lens is where you find the aberration. Best way to experience this at home is if you have eyeglasses with transparent frames. Notice the RAINBOW shift if you peer down the edge of the lens from the field of view. (this is negated by polishing the edges of the lenses.
    The important part is that it is a RAINBOW effect (since white light is composed of all colors of the spectrum). Chromatic Aberration would not only manifest in blue across the wide field. It would be a rainbow effect across a predictable narrow field. (Sorry I was a physics major once upon a time).
    Of course direct examination of the yearbook by a forensic handwriting expert would remove all doubt. Any chance of that happening before the election? (I suspect it will when Roy Moore sues them both and calls into evidence the yearbook)
    Sad part is this draws into suspicion other claims of genuine harassment. We have witnessed a lot of “dirty dogs” in hollywood and in washington.

OnTheLeftCoast | December 8, 2017 at 2:58 pm

It may have gotten even worse. Professor Jacobson wrote:

“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.”

Yet Breitbart tells us

“Three weeks ago, in a partisan effort to dismiss what is now an admitted forgery, and what at the time was an obvious forgery, the left-wing Washington Post’s Philip Bump (already a proven liar) consulted former FBI agent Mark Songer, a forensics documents examiner, to examine a yearbook produced by one of Roy Moore’s accusers as evidence he assaulted her. The expert concluded that the ‘writing seems consistent with one writer.'”

Ooops.

Did Songer use the same methods with the yearbook that he used while working for the FBI?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/12/08/flashback-wapo-document-expert-said-forged-roy-moore-yearbook-consistent-one-writer/

Wow, I am still bowled over by that Twitter link. I think Gloria Allred actually believed her client on this. Once the forensic analysis came back to show “the last part” was not the same writer, she knew how screwed she was. “The last part” included Moore’s name in cursive. If she was merely writing information to remember, there would have been no need to write Moore in cursive like it was part of his signature. I gave the woman as much leeway as I could. Game over for me.

Seems consistent – How many jailhouse lawyers are preparing their appeals?

This is even better than the so called “conservatives”, that are actually progs, believing to this day Michelle Fields was assaulted.
They can see it. They know this is truly ol Roy’s signature. They are certain he attempted to rape this girl.

Not one damn bit of difference. No evidence required.

    Arminius in reply to Barry. | December 9, 2017 at 6:57 pm

    Yes, actually there was a difference. A huge difference between the Michelle Fields dust-up and this Nelson/Allred fiasco.

    It’s called surveillance video evidence.

    Don’t go off the deep end and say that since there was no evidence in one case, you think you can gaslight us and claim there was no evidence in all cases.

    Don’t overreach, just stick to the Moore accusers.

      Barry in reply to Arminius. | December 9, 2017 at 8:17 pm

      You are wrong.

      Before the Fields video’s appeared, the same people that convicted Moore, convicted Lewandoski of assault.

      When the video’s appeared, showing without a doubt no assault took place, they continue to insist an assault took place.

      Now, after Nelson and Allred told us Moore wrote the entire inscription, they now admit to forging at least part of it.

      And the same people still insist it’s all true. No difference, same people, progs masquerading as conservatives.

      I have no clue what your reference to gaslighting is. Read what I said again.

        Arminius in reply to Barry. | December 10, 2017 at 4:13 am

        B.S.

        The video clearly shows Lewandowski reaching for Fields, and then subsequently Fields’ arm being pulled backward, stopping Fields from following Trump and asking any more questions.

        https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/03/11/new-cspan-video-shows-trump-campaign-manager-reaching-for-reporter-michelle-fields-n2132371

        Particularly the slow mo version of the C-SPAN video, with synced audio and video. After Lewandowski physically stops Fields you can hear him try to play it off by saying “Thank you.” It’s on the audio.

        Gaslighting is when people present false information with the intent to cause people to question their own memories of past events. It’s typically done by leftists who would like people to believe that, say, the Republicans wanted to impeach and remove Bill Clinton over a private sexual matter that was between him and his wife.

        Rather than what it was really about. That Bill Clinton tried to derail Paula Jones’ sexual harassment lawsuit by perjuring himself and suborning Monica Lewinski’s perjury. Which if you’re not named Clinton will land you in prison. Lots of things the Clintons do will land everyone else in prison but them. But I digress.

        You can shut your eyes if you want to, but don’t try to gaslight me. You can clearly see what Lewandowski did; it’s clearly caught on tape. He grabbed her and pulled her arm to stop her from following Trump anymore, while others kept following him and asking him questions.

        And all Trump had to do was ignore her, like he was ignoring everyone else.

          Barry in reply to Arminius. | December 10, 2017 at 2:02 pm

          BS right back at you.

          As I stated, the video, every one of them, show clearly to any sane person that no assault took place.

          “Someone had grabbed me tightly by the arm and yanked me down. I almost fell to the ground, but was able to maintain my balance.”
          “I’m just a little spooked. No one has grabbed me like that before.”

          The prosecutor dropped it like a hot potato when the video’s appeared.

          History is an excellent teacher. Stop trying to cover it up. Speaking the truth is not gaslighting.

          The parallel to the allegations being believed, in spite of proof existing the accuser is lying, is perfect.

        Arminius in reply to Barry. | December 10, 2017 at 4:16 am

        Like I said, stick to the current case; Moore’s accusers. Here there is no evidence.

        Don’t try to relitigate the past, where there is evidence and it’s all against you.

          Barry in reply to Arminius. | December 10, 2017 at 2:05 pm

          Got it.

          You’re offended because you can see that Fields was assaulted.

          Fields, the one that always seems to be in the wrong place. This is just one of her many accusations.

          Only a handful of diehards can see that dastardly assault. The prosecutor certainly couldn’t.

Why didn’t she and Allred admit this on November 13, when they had their first press conference about the yearbook? Why tell the public that he wrote all of it? Why not turn over the yearbook for analysis by an independent handwriting expert?

Speaking of more fake new. Read the LI CNN Scoop on Don Jr.

Someone really needs to put a stop to this. Come on, Don Jr. received an email from someone so that means he was colluding with the Russians. Man I bet Don Jr. is really in to Nigerian Scams too. Maybe Russian girl friends.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2017/12/cnns-big-scoop-on-don-jr-wikileaks-email-collapses-in-real-time/

The woman forged his name

No handwriting analysis needed. No forensics needed. The original message is signed Roy.

The new color ink begins with Moore, not with D.A.

The woman is lying again.

And this is why Moore will be elected. Not because he’s such an attractive candidate, rather, to kick Democrats in the balls for constantly pulling this crap.

See for yourselves.

But let’s do handwriting analysis anyway, even though legal experts dismiss it. Look at the notch of capital R in Roy and compare with the serif on capita M for Moore they begin opposite directions. Ink color change aside, it doesn’t take an expert to intuit they would be the same notch for both letters or the same serif but not switch one to another. Isn’t this fun?

I think LI should make this a main post. Check out this CNN coverage, it is a lead on reddit:

https://streamable.com/jf1g8

I busted a gut on this one. More fake news blown to pieces.

    MarkSmith in reply to MarkSmith. | December 8, 2017 at 11:55 pm

    I watched this again because I wanted a second good laugh then I noticed something else. Why is CNN covering the Moore race from Pensacola?

    Come on, shouldn’t they be in Mobile, Birmingham or ground zero for the election, Montgomery.

      The president held a rally in Pensacola tonight. I’m not really clear why he held it in Pensacola, Florida and spoke about the need to vote in the Alabama special election (Floridians, of course, cannot vote in Alabama), but I suspect it’s to separate himself from Moore while still appearing to support him. Kind of dodgy and weak, really.

        “(Floridians, of course, cannot vote in Alabama)”

        Well, unless they’re democrats.

        stevewhitemd in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | December 9, 2017 at 8:17 am

        Fuzzy, from the map it looks as if the Pensacola TV market includes parts of southern Alabama. It may be as simple as that. Though I must say that if I were the man and wanted to do a campaign appearance, I would have given the same speech in Mobile.

        “Kind of dodgy and weak, really.”

        Dodgy, yes. Weak, no.

        Political reality. The president has no idea if ole Roy is a sexual offender of some sort.
        He believes it’s all fake D BS, but you never know, thus be careful. Or “dodgy”.

          I see it as weak because Trump supported McConnell and the GOP establishment pick in the primaries and doesn’t want to seem like he’s enthusiastic about Moore. He may not be, but the correct thing to do is to hold a campaign rally in the state in which the actual election takes place. It’s not rocket science. He’s also probably aware that the Senate GOP will try to get rid of Moore once he’s elected, so he wants to create distance rather than defend someone whose politics are more in-line with Trump’s public statements/campaign promises than McConnell’s are.

          If Trump didn’t want to actually campaign for Moore, he should have stayed in DC or Mar-a-largo or wherever. Sometimes halfway is not good enough, and in this case, it signals weakness (at least as I see it).

          Barry in reply to Barry. | December 9, 2017 at 8:22 pm

          “Sometimes halfway is not good enough, and in this case, it signals weakness (at least as I see it).”

          It will be good enough if Moore wins, that is all that matters.

          You will find weakness if that is what you look for. Signaling weakness is not a Trump attribute.

caseoftheblues | December 9, 2017 at 6:33 am

Well she’s continuing to lie because she also added the Moore after Roy….

Bucky Barkingham | December 9, 2017 at 7:36 am

Sorry Bev but having admitted to lying about “part” of the yearbook inscription your entire story is now suspect. False in one thing, false in all things.

All the Vichy GOP detractors of Moore sure look foolish now.

Well McClachy is already talking about taking him up against the ethics committee. This could be fun.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article188844184.html

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend