Look, I believe Moore inscribed & signed the book, as I said in my first post here.I'm kind of lost as to the point of all these posts (unless it's just a mysterious grudge re. Allred).
A yearbook inscription was produced, that plainly contradicted Moore's claim to have never met this particular accuser.
The Moore defense has focused on added details, not the signature itself (which matches many others of the time).
So what exactly is the significance of how many lines of a 3 page document
(that merely reinforces that it's Moore's signature) are widely reprinted?
Okay.I don't think it's relevant, it's just the more detail oriented folk want to read it.
But, if he claims he did not sign it (when presented with the signature) then he is lying.
Moore claims the signature is fraudulent. That is was copied from some judgement of his. That is different to not remembering.
um... have you been living under a rock? hes being attacked for allegedly pushing a very young woman (16) head down into his crotch, hard enough to leave bruises on her neck.. is her claim.He's being attacked for making "naughty remarks"
Again, since Moore appears to be clearly caught in a lie about a young lady he was trying to seduce (and/or assault)This is a very hot topic all over right now.
awesome thanks. We have some good definite info now.At any rate, for those trying to distract from the alleged crimes, here's the full 20 page Arthur T. Anthony "signature +" report of 12/6/17:
Slate is publishing the report, with Allred’s permission, so that it can be fully examined by all parties
First, on the opening page, it says of the yearbook inscription: “[T]he handwritten notation after the signature ‘D.A. 12-22-77 Olde Hickory House’ is not in question.” http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._that_yearbook_inscription.html?ref=hvper.com
he says otherwisehe was not a D.A. He had barely graduated from law school in fact in 1977
During his legal career, Judge Moore became the first full-time Deputy District Attorney in Etowah County, Alabama, and served in this position from 1977 until 1982 https://www.roymoore.org/About-Judge-Moore/
except the last name of "Moore". that has a chromatic difference as well and she does not admit to writing it.and chromatic differences in areas that we now know Nelson admits that she herself wrote (
if he signed it...how can it be a forgery?
If it was a forgery, don't you find it odd that they would release it with 2 different colored inks?
I'm not so sure about that. From what I'm reading it sounds like handwriting analysis may not be allowed in federal courts. So I'm not sure an ethics committee would waste tax payer money, esp. since even if he did sign it and forgot.. it doesn't prove anything. It does kinda make you hope he'll win, so we can find out!And likely will continue to as this moves to a Senate Ethics hearing. Where this document will likely be subpoenaed as evidence. At which time--I'm certain--the document will be subjected not only to handwriting analysis, but will finally be subjected to ink and paper analysis to determine its authenticity
For a long time forensic handwriting analysis seemed more respectable, but its status has been shaky since 1993, when the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals
No forensic technique has taken more hits than handwriting analysis. In one particularly devastating federal ruling, United States v. Saelee (2001), the court noted that forensic handwriting analysis techniques had seldom been tested, and that what testing had been done "raises serious questions about the reliability of methods currently in use." The experts were frequently wrong — in one test "the true positive accuracy rate of laypersons was the same as that of handwriting examiners; both groups were correct 52 percent of the time." The most basic principles of handwriting analysis — for example, that everyone's handwriting is unique — had never been demonstrated. "The technique of comparing known writings with questioned documents appears to be entirely subjective and entirely lacking in controlling standards," the court wrote. Testimony by the government's handwriting expert was ruled inadmissible.
In 2009, a National Academy of Sciences committee embarked on a long-overdue quest to study typical forensics analyses with an appropriate level of scientific scrutiny—and the results were deeply chilling. Aside from DNA analysis, not a single forensic practice held up to rigorous inspection.
Ballistics and handwriting analysis, the committee noted, are also based on tenuous and largely untested science
"Once a jury hears something scientific, there’s a kind of mythical infallibility to it," Peter Neufeld, a co-founder of the Innocence Project, told me. "That’s the association when a person in white lab coat takes the witness stand. By that point—once the jury’s heard it—it’s too late to convince them that maybe the science isn’t so infallible."
I think you should lose the "he knew her". I still don't personally believe that a 'celebrity' signing an autograph for you equates to them knowing you. Him signing the yearbook does indicate that their paths did indeed cross at some point at least.That he knew her, signed her yearbook and his claims to the contrary false?
I think you should lose the "he knew her". I still don't personally believe that a 'celebrity' signing an autograph for you equates to them knowing you. Him signing the yearbook does indicate that their paths did indeed cross at some point at least.
add: my opinion is that if he knew her, he would have just signed it Roy... like he did with the other girl.
[There are] chromatic differences in areas that we now know Nelson admits that she herself wrote.
To back this up you would have to look at all the photos and videos of the yearbook and find a consistent "chromatic difference" - which, as the other thread shows, isn't actually present.I think she used the closest ink color she could find, and it was nearly identical but not quite.
it wouldn't matter anyway. I still think it reasonable he signed it "Roy", she read it a few minutes later, then asked him to add the Moore and then she added the documentation under. Seems reasonable to me anyway, either because she did think he was a celebrity or she didn't want her "do something crazy" boyfriend to get mad if he saw it and didn't know who Roy was.But, I mean, I'm sure everyone would fully endorse someone looking for it and presenting the evidence.