It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven
Legally, if one cannot be proven guilty, one is innocent of the crime. I am not going to state at this point that he is truly innocent, only that he is legally innocent. I believe he is truly innocent.
If I were to state that he is absolutely innocent of any wrongdoing without any evidence to support my claim, I would be as bad as you, placing myself in a position of mob-rule judge.
And what do you make of Moore's lawyer lying about what 'DA' meant?
And how do you know it was a lie? Are you playing mob-rule judge again?
TheRedneck
I would like to see proof that this Deborah Adams exists, though.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven
and recall this when people used those fancy fountain pens a lot more commonly than now
We're talking about 1977, not 1877.
Let me guess... you think the 'car' was horse-drawn too, right?
Sheesh...
TheRedneck
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven
and recall this when people used those fancy fountain pens a lot more commonly than now
We're talking about 1977, not 1877.
Let me guess... you think the 'car' was horse-drawn too, right?
Sheesh...
TheRedneck
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Willtell
None of this would be needed if Moore could simply examine the evidence. Allred is withholding it.
TheRedneck
originally posted by: carewemust
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Willtell
None of this would be needed if Moore could simply examine the evidence. Allred is withholding it.
TheRedneck
Why would the Plaintiff's attorney not release EVIDENCE for unbiased inspection? That's damning in and of itself, according to legal experts, and common sense.
If the yearbook signature is moores, then the accuser and her attorney should jump at the opportunity to prove it.
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: carewemust
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Willtell
None of this would be needed if Moore could simply examine the evidence. Allred is withholding it.
TheRedneck
Why would the Plaintiff's attorney not release EVIDENCE for unbiased inspection? That's damning in and of itself, according to legal experts, and common sense.
Yes this is the most relevant point.
Questions of pens, who was in the courtroom, etc are all irrelevant.
If the yearbook signature is moores, then the accuser and her attorney should jump at the opportunity to prove it.
Their hesitation speaks volumes.
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: carewemust
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Willtell
None of this would be needed if Moore could simply examine the evidence. Allred is withholding it.
TheRedneck
Why would the Plaintiff's attorney not release EVIDENCE for unbiased inspection? That's damning in and of itself, according to legal experts, and common sense.
Yes this is the most relevant point.
Questions of pens, who was in the courtroom, etc are all irrelevant.
If the yearbook signature is moores, then the accuser and her attorney should jump at the opportunity to prove it.
Their hesitation speaks volumes.
oh it's his.
originally posted by: Greven
What professional just outright claims he didn't know her without checking whether or not he had, even though it's quite possible that he had met her one or multiple times while serving as a judge?
originally posted by: odzeandennz
is it a question of guilt or pointing out other guilty parties to make the guilty seem not that bad by' proxy'