Roy Moore accuser's timestamp misreported as forgery of Roy Moore letter

That meme is a lie.

He is an ALLEGED ephebophile. I know you don’t know the difference but once again:

Pedophile likes pre-pubescent girls

Ephebophile likes young teen girls 14-17. His accusers ALL fall into this category.

Doesn’t sound as scary though does it? Have to add the exaggeration to make him sound scary. That’s called bias. Congratulations, you have it.

 

Good, then there is evidence...? And we all have at least a generally accurate concept of what "evidence" actually is.... So, please give us just two or three links to credible sources of this real evidence. You will have done all of 'Liberaldom' a great service, and Moore will be forced to run for his life and defect to North Korea!

 

Excuse me, but Jeffery Epstein, Bill Clinton, Anthony Wiener, Bob Menendez, and Harvey Weinstein and many, many more.

What about Woody Allen, Roman Polanski? There are so many sex offenders that are lionized by the liberal democrats and Hollywood elitists.

Harvey Milk was given an actual STATE HOLIDAY and HOLLYWOOD MADE A MOVIE PORTRAYING HIM AS A HERO!!!

Yet you come out with allegations against one republican which are likely to be false and use that to smear the entire republican party?

 

Didn't read whole thread. Flailing attempt by LW on this issue is a great example of what I like to call the "concerned social scientist" fallacy LW constantly engage in, a variant of "for thee, but not for me." Everything they say, no matter how strained and ridiculous, is to be taken at face value. Everything their political opposition says must be proven to epistemological certainty, and in cases like this, is subject to near infinite levels of nitpicking. After seeing this so many times here and elsewhere, one likely conclusion is that because so many of the left are associated with gov-edu, either as teachers or teacher-bureaucrats, teacher union reps or loyalists, they are used to running this canard on students without being called on it. Sorry, this isn't a classroom where students can be bullied with grades hanging over their heads.

When presenting EVIDENCE of wrongdoing, especially wrongdoing in the distant past, and especially when aided by nationally known, experienced LEGAL COUNSEL, omitting NECESSARY CONTEXT that the EVIDENCE has been ALTERED by a party, even in the SLIGHTEST WAY, destroys credibility ENTIRELY.

THE...END.

 

OK, then. I would suggest that all of Moore's accusers challenge him to a 'lie-detector test'! Seriously! And actually, if I were Roy Moore, that is one thing I would have done proactively on day-one of the accusations. I would demand that sworn depositions be taken first, and then for a carefully monitored, fairly conducted polygraph test be administered to everyone involved in this matter, including all accusers and Moore, too.

Now, THAT would be proof, but, I've said that before. The reply from the Moore-haters is usually something like, "Polygraph tests aren't reliable and they aren't admissible in courts of law". Then, I reply, "So why is it standard procedure for polygraph tests to be administered to candidates for government security clearances if they are so 'unreliable' ...?" I remember this very well... because I have held two different top-secret security clearances. And believe me, when these professional investigators start picking apart the tiny pieces of your entire life, they don't miss a thing!

But, there will be no polygraph test. There will be nothing but accusations, innuendo, rumor, unsubstantiated claims, and, so far, discredited "evidence".

Moore will be defeated, and the Democrats will pick up another Senate seat -- which was all they were really 'gunning' for in the first place... by any means necessary....

 

You keep repeating this. I'll assure you that -no- competent legal counsel would advise Moore... or Franken... or Weinstein... or Lauer... or Spacey... or Hoffman... or Cosby...or... to sue an accuser outside of the most exceptional circumstances. You don't have to be a lawyer to understand why near instantly in a culture where men, especially white men, and especially faced with a female accuser, are presumed guilty. Think about it, then read the following:

http://ncfm.org/libraryfiles/Children/rape/greer.pdf

 

You have an expert who has now identified the letter as matching the handwriting to the signature, and identifying the signature as belonging to Roy Moore.. but none of that matters now because the victim says she wrote a time stamp at the bottom of the letter? I’m sorry, but that is completely illogical

 

Moore persists in lying concerning what multiple parties attest was his chronic perversion, and his wife's fake aspersion that all who attested to his depravity would be exposed as having been paid to do so remains unfulfilled.

The White evangelicals of Alabama will send the pervert to the US Senate.

 

The rabid ideologues need to cling to something, anything, no matter how feeble.

Rational folks comprehend that all the disinterested parties attesting to Moore's stalking teenage girls far outweighs his self-interested denials.

 

I'm not a lib, but truthfully I've wondered why Moore doesn't sue the accusers for libel, slander, and defamation. These accusations certainly do stand up to the standard of being destructive to one's "trade, calling, and profession"... loosely paraphrased.

Is it because the courts would consider him a "public figure" and therefore legally unprotected because of New York Times v Sullivan (1964)? Obviously, I'm not an attorney, but it seems to me that Moore might be able to sue these women into permanent poverty with relatively little effort. (?)

 

Disagree. Moore is guilty. He flipped too many times.

 

She only forged part of it, classic!

 

OK then answer this question
When you write something your self then pass it off as somebody else writing it what do you call it?
I call it committing a forgery

 

yes she sure the hell did
her first press conference she said Moore wrote this note in her year book then showed the note and passed out copies of that note to the press and what she showed and what was passed out to the press included what she later claimed she wrote
Not once tell yesterday did she say that what was below Moore's signature WAS HER WRITEING
what she did in her first press conference implied Moore wrote all what was presented because not once did she reveal the place and date at the bottom was her writing

 

First, check out the law review article I linked above. You can skip most of the citations and footnotes. The gist is that -legal- academia (not just feminist crackpots at large, but legal "scholars" in top schools) has perpetuated a claim that only 2% of rape accusations are false based on absolutely -nothing-, no credible evidence or scholarship whatsoever, for decades. An important tangent is that "1 in X women are victims of sexual abuse" where "X" is usually 3, 4 or 5, again based on the most faulty data imaginable.

In the U.S., We live in a toxic, anti-male culture where a significantly large portion of the population believe the following due to feminist, government and MSM propaganda for 50 years: any man accused by any woman of sexual misbehavior is guilty, women never lie about sexual accusations, 90% of sexual abuse goes unreported, the incidence of rape/abuse in any given year is 10x larger than government crime statistics, all utter bullshit. A suit by Moore or any other of the wave of recent accused allows infinite regurgitation of these lie narratives in media, local, national.

Even worse, hack judges in many courts will allow opportunist hack lawyers (without naming names) to present such bullshit with aplomb as legitimate statistics and "expert testimony." In addition, we have a MSM, news, movies, TV shows that perpetually exaggerate the incidence of sexual crimes towards political and marketing ends. The pool of fact finders is irredeemably poisoned by pop culture exaggeration of the incidence and nature of sexual abuse.

And what does a falsely accused get for it even if successful? The people who thought he was guilty still think so, regardless of verdict, and it is a rare plaintiff with deep enough pockets to finance a countersuit by a falsely accused defendant. Why would Moore spend millions in legal fees to receive 0 vindication, more bad publicity even, and 0 dollars to defray those legal fees? It is NOTORIOUSLY difficult to get just remedy against false accusers of sexual crimes.

 

Isn't the burden of proof supposed to be on the accuser? If we've changed that part of how we run a civilized country then we'd all better start learning how to do a proper goose-step.

. "Take our word for it, Moore tried to play with our asses, too!"

 

Did Beverly Young Nelson just forget to mention her own post script next to the alleged signature of Roy Moore?
That seems unlikely. Or did she hope that her own notation would sell her claim so she never told anyone, until she had to,
in the hope people would think it was all Moore's doings?

That seems blatantly dishonest and doesn't speak well for her claims.

 

You are absolutely wrong. The signature is not Roy Moore's.What is your proof that it's his signature? How do you account for the A following the do that since day 1. Why??? It would settle this matter instantly.

 

Is legality the bar? We overlook his behavior as long as he didn't break the law?

What kind of man goes after teenaged girls in his mid-30s?

 

Keep in mind that she has come forward and admitted that she forged portions of the evidence she submitted to support her allegations, so don't let that taint the parts she claims aren't forged. They remain in unblemished splendor, a glorious dagger, righteously aimed at the black heart of Judge Moore's Senate campaign.

 

Yes it's a forgery. The way to settle it is to have the ink tested for age.Moore has been asking for the yearbook since day one. The accusers refuse to submit it for testing. Why? That's a re flag. Testing will prove it and then Moore will have the evidence need to sue.

Why can't any of you people insisting the signature is not a forgery explain the DA following the signature? Y'all just pretend it's not there. Sad.

 

It's not grounds for calling him a pedophile. That's the issue. If it was just about dating some legally aged girls from 38 years ago, this story would have no legs.

 

When you write something yourself then pass it off as somebody else writing it what do you call it?
I call it committing a forgery

 

I understand that but I want Moore's team to have a chance to prove he didn't sign it because Moore has been swearing he never knew this girl. If he swears that he can't have his signature show up.They need to turn over the yearbook for age testing of the ink but they refuse. Ask yourself why. It would settle this thing with no doubts remaining..

 

How do you know Moore didn't sign the yearbook?

Republicans are going to pay a huge political price across the country for Roy Moore.