Roy Moore yearbook signature faked?

qed

Senior Member
I shall focus on one claim of evidence, with three subclaims.

theguardian

The following analysis, undertaken by thegatewaypundit together with journalist and author Thomas Wictor claims to show that the yearbook entry is a fake.

[ADMIN NOTE - The blue black color difference appears to be an artifact of the depth of field, see: https://www.metabunk.org/explained-...re-depth-of-field-chromatic-aberration.t9253/ ]






Roy Moore's lawyers are calling this a fake too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
The blue ink starts after the name Roy; so it was written by some other guy who didn't put his last name in. Then recently the rest was put in. Is that the accusation?


Pure speculation...

-The girl wrote the message herself, then went to Moore to put his signature behind it. At the time she was a young admirer.

-Maybe the black ink pen stopped writing and he switched to another.

Can a chemical analysis of the blue ink be done to determine its age?

They're noting that the signature is not exactly the same between the yearbook version and more recent documents. My signature has changed significantly across the decades. And signatures vary somewhat even when done in succession. The hallmark of a crude forgery is when the forged signature is absolutely identical to a single example of a genuine signature.
 
Last edited:

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
You get your yearbook in May or June, just before school ends. Your friends sign at that time. But this message was written near (the following?) Christmas. Odd if we're to believe the hypothesis that first part of the message was written by a school friend coincidentally named Roy. Your high school friends just don't sign at Christmas.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The blue ink starts after the name Roy; so it was written by some other guy who didn't put his last name in. Then recently the rest was put in. Is that the accusation?
I think the theory is that more that one person forged the whole thing, but they did it with two different pens, the second person adding the "Moore ...." etc, to make it seem more real.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
[off topic text removed. Blue ink topic split to https://www.metabunk.org/explained-...re-depth-of-field-chromatic-aberration.t9253/ ]
Hmmm...sincerely not clear why documenting the sketchy credibility of
the one source
alleging "blue ink" would be 'off topic'...but I'm over it... :)



Also, I think it's important to note that when Phillip Jauregui (Moore's lawyer) challenged the yearbook
yesterday, he was careful not to declare it forged...he was more 'just asking questions.'
"We'll find out: Is it genuine, or is it a fraud?"
Interestingly, he said nothing about supposedly blue ink.
 
Last edited:

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
I can't find a single photo - other than the one in the Gatewaypundit article - that shows different colored inks.

Except here: http://reverbpress.com/politics/won...p-conspiracy-theory-to-defend-perv-roy-moore/

 

SR1419

Senior Member.
I can't find a single photo, other than the one in the Gatewaypundit article that shows different colored inks.
I was just going to ask what the provenance of that photo was...If one were to forge a signature, would it be likely they would use 2 different colored pens to do so?
 

Rory

Senior Member.
The following analysis, undertaken by thegatewaypundit together with journalist and author Thomas Wictor claims to show that the yearbook entry is a fake.

And yet, even zooming in on the two different sections from this image shows that the ink is the same colour:

colours1.jpg

My speculation is that "12-22-77 Olde Hickory House" (and maybe "D.A.") was written by someone different, though with the same pen, and that the rest was written by Roy Moore. Certainly, the signatures appear to match incredibly well, and much closer than mine will when written five minutes apart.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
people are saying the 7s are wrong. I think she wrote everything after Roy (to document who Roy was) and probably just forgot she did since it was 40 years ago. I would do that - (add notes as to who it is) - and the handwriting looks female to me.
 

qed

Senior Member
people are saying the 7s are wrong. I think she wrote everything after Roy (to document who Roy was) and probably just forgot she did since it was 40 years ago. I would do that - (add notes as to who it is) - and the handwriting looks female to me.
If she wrote "Moore" after "Roy," then why is "Moore" so close to the actual signature? That would be a forgery.

 

deirdre

Senior Member.
hat would be a forgery
true. maybe since she was working at the restaurant when he signed it (although why anyone would want a signature of a new assistant DA I couldn't tell you!) .. he signed it Roy, then she read it later and saw he only put Roy. Grabbing a different pen from her waitress outfit she asked him to put his last name.. then in the kitchen she added the handwritten notes. ?
 

Rory

Senior Member.

Next, Wictor points out “the “R” and “y” in “Roy,”” are not written the same way. The inflection of the “Y” is more pronounced in Moore’s signature as Chief Justice. The “R” is noticeably longer in the signature of Chief Justice, as well.
Another part of Wictor's defense is that the y's are different. But comparing with the signature Deirdre posted above, that falls down also. In the two 'official' signatures, he has signed his middle initial, but not on the one at the diner. Meanwhile, the 'M' from the diner is closer to the one above than the one from the divorce papers, while the similarities of the R's are far more striking than the differences. All this seems perfectly plausible given the passing of time and natural variances.
 
Last edited:

Rory

Senior Member.
My speculation is that "12-22-77 Olde Hickory House" (and maybe "D.A.") was written by someone different, though with the same pen, and that the rest was written by Roy Moore. Certainly, the signatures appear to match incredibly well, and much closer than mine will when written five minutes apart.
Moore's attorney questions the authenticity of the writing in the yearbook in this video:


Interestingly, he focuses on the numbers 7s, "Olde Hickory House", and the initials "D.A." He says they're clearly not in Moore's handwriting. But he doesn't say anything about the entire rest of the note or the signature - which one would think he would, had they not been written by Moore.

Likewise, though they've released his signature, wouldn't it be logical to share a sample of his handwriting, which must be different to that in the note if he didn't write it?

CNN video of the yearbook is here (set to start at 1:58):


Screenshot from the video appears to show the ink consistently coloured across the page:

Screenshot (330).png

Note: this doesn't appear to be the footage the image in the OP was taken from: that image has the woman's thumb on the page, by the dark shape at the left, whereas that doesn't appear to happen in the 10 seconds of this clip.
 
Last edited:

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
people are saying the 7s are wrong. I think she wrote everything after Roy (to document who Roy was) and probably just forgot she did since it was 40 years ago. I would do that - (add notes as to who it is) - and the handwriting looks female to me.
I've done exactly that in books I got autographed by the author. Place and date after the author's autograph.

I don't know that she wrote the "Moore." It's likely that this blue ink thing is a hoax.
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
Interestingly, he focuses on the numbers 7s, "Olde Hickory House", and the initials "D.A." He says they're clearly not in Moore's handwriting.
Does anybody actually claim that "Olde Hickory House" is in his handwriting? It seems pretty obvious to me that those words and the date 12-22-77 are written by someone else - presumably Nelson, as a reminder of when and where she got the signature.

That part of the inscription doesn't match the rest and looks like female handwriting to me. But the signature looks perfectly genuine.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
Moore's attorney questions the authenticity of the writing in the yearbook in this video:

Interestingly, he focuses on the numbers 7s, "Olde Hickory House", and the initials "D.A." He says they're clearly not in Moore's handwriting. But he doesn't say anything about the entire rest of the note or the signature - which one would think he would, had they not been written by Moore.
The whole freakin' thing is weird.
Both Moore and the lawyer kept dancing around it,
as if expecting some day to have to fess up, but not tooooo embarrassingly...thus choosing words too carefully,
and not--as you point out--just boldly declaring that Moore didn't write any of it.

But since Moore's story is that he's never met Ms. Nelson, and is not at all familiar with "Olde Hickory House,"
that she claims he was "a regular" at, etc., his story is already fully committed to it not being possible
that he ever signed her yearbook. So all the weird evasiveness seems entirely unnecessary. Weird.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
The whole freakin' thing is weird.
Moore supporters on Twitter seem to be focusing on the "D.A." The theory goes that Moore signed Nelson's divorce papers (or the signature was stamped by the assistant) and the assistant/clerk put his/her initials - which Nelson then unsuspectingly copied, thinking it stood for 'District Attorney'. The name most often quoted for the assistant is Deborah Adams, though Dilbert Adams is mentioned also (including in the Chicago Tribune).

Some will wryly note that Dilbert is the name of the cartoon creation of Scott Adams.

Anyway, for the supporters, this doubt around the "D.A." is enough. For me, it seems like a curious puzzle. Moore was Assistant District Attorney in December 1977, though Nelson refers to him a few times as being the District Attorney. Is it possible that she noted this after the 'autograph' and Moore's clerk had those initials and wrote them on documents in the same place?

Of course, if he didn't write any of the note, why don't they just say "that's not his handwriting" and release some samples to show it? Very strange defense.
 

qed

Senior Member
Of course, if he didn't write any of the note, why don't they just say "that's not his handwriting" and release some samples to show it? Very strange defense.
The Washington Post asked an expert to analyse the text.
Given @Mick West's debunking of claim one, the the alleged different colored texts, there is currently no evidence to support forgery. We just do not have enough texts, yet...

But...

While we (and Songer) don't yet have access to enough of Moore's texts to analyse the image for forgery, Moore's defence team do. While direct access to the yearbook will help, they have sufficient samples to call in a handwriting expert like Songer and tear the "forgery" to shreds.

As @Rory noted, to date they have not.
 
Last edited:

Rory

Senior Member.
I've managed to find some examples of Roy Moore's handwriting, which can be compared to the inscription in the yearbook:

moore1.jpg
Source: twitter.com/WarOnDumb/status/930163967783292928

moore2.jpg
Source: twitter.com/BobVanceJr/status/930221242375864320

Seems very clear to me that all three were either written by the same person, or by an incredibly skilled forger.

Compare the Ts, for example:

Ts.jpg
Not 100% exactly the same, but the same distinctive style, and as alike as most of us write our letters.

We can also compare what looks like 'Jerry' in the biography inscription, and 'Merry' in the yearbook:

Jerry.jpgmerry.jpg

Again, not exact, but basically the same styles - bearing in mind that they were written 32 years apart.

I won't go over all the similarities, of which many could be made - nor can I find any glaring differences, beyond the slight variances that would be expected.

The thing is, for those who support him, it is the differences that are key, and what they are focused on. Hence analyses like this:


Source: cowgernation.com/2017/11/14/vindicated-signature-forged-12-discrepancies-roy-moores-alleged-yearbook-signature/

Sure, there are subtle differences - though obviously we can discount 9 thru 12 - but it's the similarities that are more glaring in my eyes, and I guess this is where an awareness of confirmation bias comes in, on both sides.

I wonder, though, if those producing analyses like this will have found suspicion in the marked differences in the different ways he has printed his name in the two places in the above image, or in the various examples of his accepted signature, which are about as different from one another as any of them are from the one in the yearbook:

sig1.JPG sig2.JPG sig4.JPG sig6.jpg sig5.jpg
sig7.jpg sig3.jpg

Note: all of these signatures contain his middle initial. Would be quite interesting to find when he started doing this.
 
Last edited:
Remarkable consistency. I once spent half an hour in a a Grenoble bank trying (almost in vain) to replicate my own signature on travelers checks.
 

Allen D

New Member
Where’s the “S”? Why is his middle initial missing in the yearbook inscription? If someone is going to take the time to include initials (DA), wouldn’t they also include the “S”? I took a look at the signature on the “divorce” papers, it’s there as well.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Where’s the “S”? Why is his middle initial missing in the yearbook inscription? If someone is going to take the time to include initials (DA), wouldn’t they also include the “S”? I took a look at the signature on the “divorce” papers, it’s there as well.
Indeed. My speculation is that at some time between 1977 and 1999 he started adding the 'S'. Or possibly he didn't use it back then for 'casual' signatures - though seems to now, given the book autograph.
 
Last edited:

Rory

Senior Member.
Is it worth doing a bit of a handwriting analysis on this, since Moore supporters are focusing on that, or will it get removed as being off-topic or speculative or something?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Is it worth doing a bit of a handwriting analysis on this, since Moore supporters are focusing on that, or will it get removed as being off-topic or speculative or something?
Only if it's something really obvious. Handwriting analysis is a bit of a dark art.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Only if it's something really obvious. Handwriting analysis is a bit of a dark art.
Yeah, one for the experts, I'm sure - and to do it properly would require the original documents.

I was just thinking that, in interactions with Moore defenders, it would be nice to be able to point to somewhere that had a comparison of the samples.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I was just thinking that, in interactions with Moore defenders, it would be nice to be able to point to somewhere that had a comparison of the samples.
it doesn't matter. Even if Moore did forget signing some part time waitress's yearbook 40 years ago, that doesn't prove the allegations are true or not.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
And it would also strongly suggest that he's being somewhat disingenuous and deceitful.
 
Last edited:

Spectrar Ghost

Senior Member.
And given that Roy’s letter to Hannity strongly implies forgery, it’s significant.

Judge Roy Moore on Twitter: "An Open Letter to @seanhannity https://t.co/XpwfiuF8sA" -
Source: https://mobile.twitter.com/MooreSenate/status/930947969012158464?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2F
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
And it would also strongly suggest that he's being somewhat disingenuous and deceitful.
Not really. My cousin started dating a guy who I apparently (he saw a pic of me she had) dated for a few months 20 years prior. I had literally no recollection of his name or his face when I finally saw him again. Still don't.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Not really. My cousin started dating a guy who I apparently (he saw a pic of me she had) dated for a few months 20 years prior. I had literally no recollection of his name or his face when I finally saw him again. Still don't.
I don't think that's quite the point. Let's say the guy said, "you must remember me, you signed my yearbook." You say, "sorry, I don't - but let's see the yearbook". He pulls it out. You see your handwriting and signature.

Do you:

a) Say, "wow, I guess I forgot"
b) Say, "this must be a forgery, you're lying"
c) Point to someone else's handwriting on the same page and say "that's not my handwriting"?

(You may answer more than one.)
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
I don't think that's quite the point. Let's say the guy said, "you must remember me, you signed my yearbook." You say, "sorry, I don't - but let's see the yearbook". He pulls it out. You see your handwriting and signature.

Do you:

a) Say, "wow, I guess I forgot"
b) Say, "this must be a forgery, you're lying"
c) Point to someone else's handwriting on the same page and say "that's not my handwriting"?
If he had hired a lawyer and was smearing me in the press for beating him up 40 years ago, I may well say that part of it doesn't look like I write at all, and assume a forgery since I didn't attend his high school and I don't remember him at all. Just saying.

But as far as you doing a hand writing analysis, I don't really see the point. Even experts aren't infallible. And you are not an expert. Also, as you dismiss the letters that don't match, the 'other side' will dismiss the few letters that seem to match. I already sent you in PM a sample of another Roy Moore who had as many matching strokes as not. I just don't, personally, see the point of wasting your time.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
I suppose I should have added one more:
d) Say, "well that sure looks like my handwriting, but I honestly don't remember writing in this and I'm still not convinced I did"
 

Rory

Senior Member.
This still sounds like "I think it's a forgery"
Could be. Or could also include "maybe it was someone who looked and wrote like me who had the same name".

I think we also need to add to the analogy, 'cos you've actually got 4-8 guys saying you beat them up, and 30 other people adding that you had violent tendencies. Plus there's your reputation to consider. ;)

I'm not a politician with a lawyer whispering in my ear.
That's a very salient point - and perhaps the most salient.

As far as you doing a hand writing analysis [...] as you dismiss the letters that don't match...
Hey! I wouldn't do that. :)

And, more than analysis - even though I did use that word - I was more just thinking of showing what's there, matching the letters together, etc - so would be including all of it, not just the bits that support what I want to be true. ;)
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
I think we also need to add to the analogy, 'cos you've actually got 4-8 guys saying you beat them up, and 30 other people adding that you had violent tendencies. Plus there's your reputation to consider. ;)
That is irrelevant to whether guy X forged his yearbook or not.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
That is irrelevant to whether guy X forged his yearbook or not.
But perhaps not irrelevant to the question of whether Girl Y will look honestly at evidence showing they had actually met.

Mainly what I was trying to get to with that question was: "what would an honest person with nothing to hide/lose answer to a-d?" - which is what I assumed you were when you proposed the missing memory of the cousin's date - rather than "what would someone with a charge against them and a lawyer in their ear answer?"

And given that Roy’s letter to Hannity strongly implies forgery, [showing if Moore did inscribe the yearbook] is significant.

Judge Roy Moore on Twitter: "An Open Letter to @seanhannity https://t.co/XpwfiuF8sA" -
Source: https://mobile.twitter.com/MooreSenate/status/930947969012158464?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2F
Anyway, back to the topic, and the subject of Nelson's divorce hearing, which Moore is using to allege that she is being dishonest because she said she hadn't had any further contact with him, when it has subsequently been shown that his signature was on her divorce papers.

It appears, however, that there was no interaction between them during these proceedings. All of the initial documents were signed by a different judge, and then before the hearing was due to take place Nelson and her husband decided to attempt reconciliation, and they filed a motion to dismiss the case.

 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Anyway, back to the topic, and the subject of Nelson's divorce hearing, which Moore is using to allege that Nelson is being dishonest because she said she hadn't had any further contact with him, when it has subsequently been shown that his signature was on her divorce papers.
that's off topic too. The topic is not whether Moore or Nelson are liars. The topic of this thread is whether the yearbook entry is fake.
 
Top