Roy Moore's accuser has admitted to faking the yearbook.

You said..

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: soberbacchus

Too many lies from the accusers

I assumed you had a list?

a reply to: soberbacchus

The actual person in charge of security says Moore was not banned from the mall - undermining the claim. I didn't realise that the claim had shifted down a gear to be 'monitored' lol. That must have happened after the lie was uncovered about the ban.


It was very very clear in the press conference what was said about the yearbook -


from 12:10.

Her OWN words, which she later corrected. She lied.
I am not sure which sources you use to debunk reality, but let's stick to the accusers' ACTUAL words recorded on video.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Another fake news post from righty, wow who have ever guessed.

a reply to: soberbacchus

"Proof" is for a jury trial.

No, proof is for those who act reasonably. That reason is enforced in a trial (whether in front of a jury or a judge).

Evidence and facts is what the public weighs when making any decision absent a full trial.

In the absence of actual proof, yes. But in this case, what are the facts?

• Several women have stated Moore asked them out when they were young (not a crime and not all that unusual for the time period.)
  
• Three of those have claimed sexual misconduct.
  
• The allegations are from 40 years ago, but only were brought to light 30 days before Moore's Senate election.
  
• Moore has been a political icon in the state for decades, the center of attention for most of that time, yet no similar accusations ever were presented.
  
• One of the accusers (Nelson) has a yearbook inscription from 40 years ago that Moore has challenged as to its authenticity.
  
• Nelson has retained the services of an attorney under investigation for ethics violations, despite there being no legal avenue for prosecution.
  
• As far as I can find, this attorney is not licensed to practice in the state of Alabama.
  
• Nelson's attorney has refused to turn the yearbook over for unbiased examination until after the election.
  
• Nelson's attorney has allowed a party of her choosing to make a statement on the yearbook, without giving Moore's attorneys any chance to have their 'expert' examine it.
  
• Even if the inscription was authentic, it does not indicate anything other than Moore signed her yearbook. You can probably find my signature in a few dozen yearbooks, many belonging to people I only knew of in passing.
  
• The other two accusers have presented absolutely no evidence.

There is no evidence other than the aforementioned yearbook.

And yet, from that list of facts and a single piece of evidence that is disputed, you have determined not only the Roy Moore is a pedophile, but all his supporters are!

By your standard, Harvey Weinstein should be voted into office without any consideration for the evidence for his misconduct.

I believe Weinstein has admitted to the charges concerning him, as has Franken and Conyers.

There is "proof" that Roy Moore repeatedly publicly lied about knowing these women.

No, there is some evidence that Moore had contact with at least one. That is different from 'knowing' someone.

There is not "proof" that any of these accusations are not real.

Doesn't work that way, haus. There is no 'proof' that any of the allegations are real.

On the other hand, we have 'proof' that you are against Moore for other reasons and are simply using these allegations to cover your actual objections to his religious/political stance. I listed it above, in your own words.

TheRedneck

a reply to: soberbacchus

The sexual predation of teen-age girls should be "controlled".

The victimization of children is not a "freedom" we as a society choose to permit.

Who is arguing that victimization of children is a "freedom"?

In fact, it is and should be a crime.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

"Proof" is for a jury trial.

No, proof is for those who act reasonably. That reason is enforced in a trial (whether in front of a jury or a judge).

No.
When a house fills with smoke, those who act reasonable get the children outside.
They do no search for court worthy proof that their is a fire in the house.

Ditto with Million other decisions.

Voting is one of those decisions where people decide based on best available evidence without the benefit of a court of law.

a reply to: soberbacchus

When a house fills with smoke, those who act reasonable get the children outside.
They do no search for court worthy proof that their is a fire in the house.

I'm honestly speechless... you seriously made that comparison?

Wow... just, wow...

TheRedneck

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: soberbacchus

The actual person in charge of security says Moore was not banned from the mall - undermining the claim.

You have a link for that?

[Former mall worker Greg] Legat says that he saw Moore there a few times, even though his understanding then was that he had already been banned. “It started around 1979, I think,” Legat said. “I know the ban was still in place when I got there.” Legat recalled a Gadsden police officer named J. D. Thomas, now retired, who worked security at the mall. “J. D. was a fixture there, when I was working at the store,” Legat said. “He really looked after the kids there. He was a good guy. J. D. told me, ‘If you see Roy, let me know. He’s banned from the mall.’ ” Legat recalled Thomas telling him, “If you see Moore here, tell me. I’ll take care of him.’ ”

I spoke or messaged with more than a dozen people—including a major political figure in the state—who told me that they had heard, over the years, that Moore had been banned from the mall because he repeatedly badgered teen-age girls. Some say that they heard this at the time, others in the years since. These people include five members of the local legal community, two cops who worked in the town, several people who hung out at the mall in the early eighties, and a number of former mall employees.

www.snopes.com...

www.newyorker.com...

a reply to: soberbacchus

You have a link for that?

I do.

Barnes Boyle, who managed the Gadsden Mall from 1981 to 1996, told WBRC FOX 6 on Wednesday that Roy Moore was not actually banned from the local mall for approaching teenaged girls.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

You have a link for that?

I do.

Barnes Boyle, who managed the Gadsden Mall from 1981 to 1996, told WBRC FOX 6 on Wednesday that Roy Moore was not actually banned from the local mall for approaching teenaged girls.

TheRedneck

First off - Your source lies. According to the original source?
Your link claims he was manager 1981-1996.
He was manager for 5 years, from 1981-1986, according to his official published statement.

We did have written reports and things. To my knowledge, he [Moore] was not banned from the mall." - Barnes Boyle, Former Manager of the Gadsden Mall (1981-1986).

www.al.com...

Secondly:
The accusations were from the late 1970's, before Barnes Boyle was a manager.

Thirdly:

(Boyle)
His wife, Brenda, told me that Moore was a longtime acquaintance of his—they went to the Y.M.C.A. together often—and that he planned to vote for him.

www.newyorker.com...

Compared to the dozen plus people that have spoken publicly about Moore being on a call-the-cops list at the mall?

Also strange, the Cop that was tasked with dealing with Moore when the mall would call?

Legat recalled a Gadsden police officer named J. D. Thomas, now retired, who worked security at the mall. “J. D. was a fixture there, when I was working at the store,” Legat said. “He really looked after the kids there. He was a good guy. J. D. told me, ‘If you see Roy, let me know. He’s banned from the mall.’

Reached by phone on Saturday, J.D. Thomas, who lives in the nearby town of Southside, declined to discuss the existence of a ban on Moore at the Gadsden Mall. “I don’t have anything to say about that,” he said.

www.newyorker.com...

Strange he did not refute the story? Defend Roy?

Breit bart is defending its claim of "forgery."

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “forgery” as follows (original emphasis):

forgery, n. 1. The act of fraudulently making a false document or altering a real one to be used as if genuine … 2. A false or altered document made to look genuine by someone with the intent to deceive … 3. Under the Model Penal Code, the act of fraudulently altering, authenticating, issuing, or transferring a writing without appropriate authorization.

Note that forgery includes altering a real document. It does not matter if part of the document — say, the signature — is real. If any part of the document is altered and presented as original and authentic, it is a forgery and the entire document is legally useless — or worse than useless, since it impeaches the credibility of the person presenting it.

They then present evidence of both Beverly Nelson and Gloria Allred claiming the entire inscription was written by Moore -- including the date and "Roy Moore DA".

One important thing they bring up is, the date is being used, specifically, to place Roy Moore at that restaurant on that day, to further Nelson's claim that Moore assaulted her. That she wrote the date in herself is absolutely a big deal.

They also touch on something I haven't heard before: some internet sleuths think that "Roy" was signed in a different ink then the rest of it.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Was that the date of the alleged assault? Pretty stupid of an assistant DA to time-stamp his being there........

a reply to: TheRedneck

You realize this is the old "think of the children" scapegoat to paint anyone that disagrees as hating children. It, in itself, shows how low some people will go to shame an opponent in a discussion. Usually at a time when they have no real argument to debate anymore.

To me, it speaks volumes about this poster's intent and personal morality more than anything Sen Moore has allegedly (yes, allegedly since none of this has been proven) done now or decades in the past.

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Was that the date of the alleged assault? Pretty stupid of an assistant DA to time-stamp his being there........

Supposedly, yes.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

So far, nobody has answered the simple question as to WHEN she modified the entry to add the date. Was it back then, at the time, or more recently? That could provide intent to deceive if it was recently.

a reply to: knoxie

You're ignoring the elephant in the living room. It's when, did she modify that signature?? In the weeks after he signed her yearbook, or just recently, in order to smear him?? Old ink or new ink, that's the question?? A yearbook signing is quite informal, but putting a date with a signature, gives it more legal meaning, IIRC. And what if she went and copied his signature, when he signed off on her divorce agreement. It may well have his assistant's initials, folded into the signature. Then this is as bad, or worse, than the smear on W. Bush, which purported to be a Viet Nam era Nat'. Guard, slam letter, typed out, but in fact, was printed out from a word processing program. Even if Bush's letter had been properly formatted to duplicate a known Nat'l Guard officer's typewriter, the ink would never have been in a typewriter ribbon, and the stationary's watermarks would be wrong too.
With this known, dated yearbook, only the ink, and the signature, itself, would give away a forging. I think that diddling with an old yearbook, using today's ball point inks, makes it a whole lot worse. And if she did also copy his signature, with the assistant's initials attached, from a Court's divorce document, then this gal is in for a world of hurt.

originally posted by: carpooler
a reply to: knoxie

You're ignoring the elephant in the living room. It's when, did she modify that signature?? In the weeks after he signed her yearbook, or just recently, in order to smear him?? Old ink or new ink, that's the question??

This is why Moore wanted her to submit the yearbook for analysis. That her lawyer responded by refusing, then setting ridiculous prerequisites for this analysis, and finally by essentially saying "Our guy says it's real. Just trust us on this, Mkay?" suggests the answer to your question rather strongly.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: carpooler
a reply to: knoxie

You're ignoring the elephant in the living room. It's when, did she modify that signature?? In the weeks after he signed her yearbook, or just recently, in order to smear him?? Old ink or new ink, that's the question??

This is why Moore wanted her to submit the yearbook for analysis. That her lawyer responded by refusing, then setting ridiculous prerequisites for this analysis, and finally by essentially saying "Our guy says it's real. Just trust us on this, Mkay?" suggests the answer to your question rather strongly.

Has anyone found the report the expert gave that Allerd supposedly handed out to the press?

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: TheRedneck

You realize this is the old "think of the children" scapegoat to paint anyone that disagrees as hating children. It, in itself, shows how low some people will go to shame an opponent in a discussion.

It is much more simple than that.

Grown men who prey upon teen-age girls are immoral, disgusting, horrific human beings.

They should be held accountable, not elected to the Senate.

People who defend men like that for political purposes are immoral.

You guys are trying to split hairs about whether he was "banned" or simply on watch-list to call the police if spotted at the local mall. Splitting hairs about whether an accuser dated a signature in her yearbook.

Meanwhile the accusers are 9 women now, with mothers, husbands, siblings and friends backing their stories contemporaneously.

He molested a 14 year old girl:

A woman has told the Washington Post that Republican Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore tried to initiate a sexual encounter with her in 1979 when she was 14 and he was 32:


Moore chatted with her and asked for her phone number, she says. Days later, she says, he picked her up around the corner from her house in Gadsden, drove her about 30 minutes to his home in the woods, told her how pretty she was and kissed her. On a second visit, she says, he took off her shirt and pants and removed his clothes. He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear.

The Post notes that Moore’s accuser, Leigh Corfman, says she voted for the Republican candidate in the last three presidential elections. The newspaper says it confirmed that Corfman’s mother attended a 1979 court hearing at the time and place that Corfman says she first met Moore. It also reports that two individuals who knew Corfman when she was younger confirmed to the Post that she told them (with varying degrees of specificity) about her relationship with Moore in terms that match her current account.

www.slate.com...

a reply to: soberbacchus

Yes, it is very simple. Accusations are NOT PROOF OF ANYTHING. That is simple as it applies to everyone in this country.
Regardless of how many accusers there are, we are all supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law with due process. However, it seems you are more willing to accept baseless accusations as fact and rely upon the court of public opinion to make you mind up on things.

Welcome to the 17th century witch trial's latest 21st century remake. Hop on board the victimization train.

Think of the children....please.

SMH