Roy Moore yearbook signature faked?

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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?

I don't think it's relevant, it's just the more detail oriented folk want to read it.
 

paperview

New Member
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?
Look, I believe Moore inscribed & signed the book, as I said in my first post here.

The reason the report is significant is so many out there
1) keep insisting it was never analyzed by an independent expert.
2) Allred provided the report to journalists.
3) Not one journalist or Allred has produced that report for public consumption.

I want to see it, and so do many more out there. This is a very hot topic all over right now.

It must be that she asked them not to publish it, for reasons, likely, deirdre stated above: she wants the attention to be on the conclusion vs. the caveats.

Any report will be picked apart like vultures on roadkill -- by both sides. But still, it should be released for us to see it.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
I don't think it's relevant, it's just the more detail oriented folk want to read it.
Okay.

(I think of myself as pretty detail oriented, but generally when that detail is about a significant point.
He apparently knew her though he claims he didn't...attention on trivialites is just red herring obfuscation...)
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
But, if he claims he did not sign it (when presented with the signature) then he is lying.

OR he very plausibly doesnt remember doing it. I have a hard time remembering names of people I met 40 minutes ago. How many thousands or hundreds of thousands of people has Moore met in the 40 YEARS since he signed some year book. How many other autographs did he give during that time or in the years since.

I think the issue here is that everyone's jumping on the "guilt by social media" train and not giving the man a fair shake.
[off topic text removed]

Is the signature legit? Probably, but getting wrapped around the axle about the implications WITHOUT other evidence is counter productive. [...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
No!

Moore claims the signature is fraudulent. That is was copied from some judgement of his. That is different to not remembering.

Either way, what difference does it make? If I recall correctly, originally he said he didnt remember, and then it changed later. What he's being dragged through the mud for is something that happened 4 decades ago. He's being attacked for making "naughty remarks" and has gone into deny deny deny mode.. EXACTLY the same thing Clinton and Franken have done and still do. If its his sig and not his wording, then he lied to protect himself from being attacked.. if they're both his (which is STILL in question because the accuser is changing her story) then hes still in protect mode. Im not condoning anything anyone's done or not done, but all this bandwagon hate needs to be pulled back a bit. Its a completely irrational and emotional response to an innocuous message from nearly a half century ago.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
He's being attacked for making "naughty remarks"
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.

all of which is very off topic.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
This is a very hot topic all over right now.
Again, since Moore appears to be clearly caught in a lie about a young lady he was trying to seduce (and/or assault)
I still don't see the excitement for this. I see no evidence that this "is a very hot topic all over right now,"
though I concede that in the dark "attempted defenses of alleged pedophiles" corners of the internet, it probably is trending.

The desire of some to make Moore's candidacy about what was added to his legit signature, an effective
distraction from his behavior with multiple young ladies and infamy at the local mall, is not hard to comprehend.

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:

https://www.scribd.com/document/366...cret_password=2Poj4YrvvPpsrLqPklFu#from_embed
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
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:

https://www.scribd.com/document/366...cret_password=2Poj4YrvvPpsrLqPklFu#from_embed
awesome thanks. We have some good definite info now.

and unless I'm reading this wrong, he did not examine the yearbook in person. So I was wrong about that.
ss.JPG
 

JDW

New Member
I still consider it a forgery. Both Nelson and Allred specifically said Roy "signed" the Olde Hickory part. Furthermore neither Nelson, Allred, ABC News, nor the handwriting expert mentioned anything about the "DA" part (the expert report states "Note the handwritten notation after the signature 'D.A. 12-22-77 Olde Hickory House' is not in question"). Until they state that she wrote the DA part they are still representing Roy did. This matters because this document isn't really proof of anything, only her statement and her credibility are.

I still hold the position that he signed it "Roy" (just like the graduation note) and she added "Moore D.A." using the divorce dismissal as a template. Most people can't but I can see two color inks in the highest resolution head on photograph available. I find it odd that with they chose to have the expert examine electronic copies. With that picture two drastically different color inks floating around (which could possibly be explained with chromatic aberration, but I have doubts about that) I would think it would be a priority for them to address those claims.
 

MorganB

New Member
I believe its clear now the signature has been forged based on what now has to be "explained way" as the story has developed. The first element that had to be "explained away" about his signature was that he signed it with "D.A." in his name--even though, at the time, he was not a D.A. He had barely graduated from law school in fact in 1977. So becoming a D.A. by December would be a meteoric rise. The way that defenders of Nelson have explained this way is to say that Moore was inflating his position deliberately. That he exaggerated to impress a young girl. Okay. But it is still an inconsistency in known facts. He wasn't a D.A at the time. Later there would be signed documents given to Nelson where "D.A." was used by him. That's another fact to keep in mind.
Second issue is the chromatic effect of the ink showing up as blue colored in some photographs--and does anyone know if this effect was only achieved in photos using flash photography?--and then black colored in other photos. This seeming indication of two different inks being used to write in the entry has to be "explained away" as a photo-chromatic effect of angle and distance. But it is another inconsistency in the document to find seeming evidence of two different colored inks. It's the type of evidence that would seemingly demand an analysis of the ink take place from multiple points on the yearbook to determine which inks were used where. I'm sure that in the 1970's ink was produced using uranium, child absorbent lead, ozone destroying chemicals and unicorn's blood. So testing of the physical ink samples--in the areas indicated by the changing ink colors in particular--would seemingly be required.
Third issue is her original statement that Moore signed the entirety of the document. In video, she clearly states that Moore signed the entire document. Now that she admits she wrote portions of it, her original statement has to be "explained away" as memory lapse on her part and not as a deliberate effort to implicate Moore in a fuller fashion. It though represents yet a continuing stream of inconsistencies. Forget Allred's behavior in not immediately taking this document to be studied by document analysts at the Smithsonian or some other 3rd party independent agency. The continued level of increasing inconsistencies that keep cropping up are enough to bring this document into question.
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.
Based on the accumulated "points of error" that exist around the signature's "D.A." addition, and Nelson original statements attributing the entirety of the text to Moore and chromatic differences in areas that we now know Nelson admits that she herself wrote (including that same chromatic effect on part of Moore's signature), I believe it is more likely than not that Nelson, or Allred, or both fabricated this document. Taken individually as singular points of contention, any one of these data points by themselves might not invalidate the document. Taken collectively though--as a greater picture--it does not inspire confidence in the document's authenticity.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
he was not a D.A. He had barely graduated from law school in fact in 1977
he says otherwise
and chromatic differences in areas that we now know Nelson admits that she herself wrote (
except the last name of "Moore". that has a chromatic difference as well and she does not admit to writing it.
 

JDW

New Member
if he signed it...how can it be a forgery?

IMHO the evidence points to him signing it "Roy", then her forging "Moore D.A.".

If it was a forgery, don't you find it odd that they would release it with 2 different colored inks?

I think she used the closest ink color she could find, and it was nearly identical but not quite. This is the best way I can illustrate. To my the R and everything written before it looks closer to the bottom line, the M and everything after looks closer to the top line.

 

deirdre

Senior Member.
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
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!
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
IMHO the evidence points to him signing it "Roy"

Then isn't that the crux of the issue? That he knew or at least met her, signed her yearbook and his claims to the contrary false?

Edit: Edited for Dierdre...
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
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.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
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.

Meh- hard to call a deputy DA of a sparsely populated county in rural Alabama a "celebrity"...indeed all the more likely that he did know her...but point taken.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
[There are] chromatic differences in areas that we now know Nelson admits that she herself wrote.
I think she used the closest ink color she could find, and it was nearly identical but not quite.
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.

But, I mean, I'm sure everyone would fully endorse someone looking for it and presenting the evidence.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
But, I mean, I'm sure everyone would fully endorse someone looking for it and presenting the evidence.
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.

He lost election, so unless he sues her we well never really know.
 
Top