December 8th, 2017

Moore accuser Nelson: well yes, I did…

add some notes underneath that inscription in the yearbook.

That link is to a story on ABC based on a recent interview with Beverly Young Nelson, Moore’s accuser. The article is long, and the news about the additions by Nelson comes only towards the end rather than the beginning, and not in the headline. The rest of the article is about how fearful Nelson is of the possibility of Moore’s election, and reiterates the original charges. Then there’s this:

Moore has denied it’s his handwriting, and his campaign and attorney have called for her to release the yearbook so a handwriting expert can examine and evaluate it.

Nelson has not done so but insists that Moore signed her yearbook, though saying she made notes underneath.

Nelson and her attorney Gloria Allred plan to hold a news conference later today [Friday].

“We’re going to present evidence that we think is important on the issue whether Roy Moore signed the yearbook,” Allred told ABC News today.

And so they did. At the news conference, which just occurred, the announcement was made that they had engaged a handwriting expert who says the signature is Moore’s:

Allred says she sought the opinion of a forensic document expert, Arthur Anthony, to analyze the signature. Allred provided reporters with the report provided by Anthony, with his assessment that the signature in the yearbook is Moore’s. Included in the sheaf of papers she presented were examples of Moore signature from when he was a deputy district attorney decades ago.

So far I haven’t seen a copy of that report. It would be important to see it and read it; for example, did Anthony say the whole inscription is authentic, or just the signature? Did he say what method he used to authenticate it?

This announcement by Allred and Nelson is the equivalent of allowing the prosecution to present all its evidence and blocking the defense from even examining the evidence, which would be necessary in order to refute it. Quite a ploy. And of course, there is zero evidence of the alleged assault except for Nelson’s description.

There’s a reason we have the procedures we do in a court of law. One of the most basic of those procedures involves allowing the defendant to examine the evidence and to present his/her own expert witnesses. You can find an expert witness to attest to practically anything, as anyone who has followed trials knows. And in a court, attorneys for the defense get to challenge the credentials of a prosecution’s expert[s] and to cross-examine him or her.

Several weeks ago Moore had asked for an opportunity to examine the yearbook and to have experts compare it to other official signatures of Moore’s in order to try to establish whether it is authentic or not. Allred and Nelson refused. Apparently in the meantime they shopped around and found at least one expert (I don’t know what his credentials are, although I assume he has them—credentials would be part of the record in a court of law, but this is no court of law) who would agree with them.

Of course, even if the signature is real (and we still have no idea whether it is or isn’t), that doesn’t tell us whether Nelson’s accusation is true. However, lately the story has become all about the inscription. Now, in addition to the Anthony report, Nelson has indicated that there was something she added to the inscription, just as her doubters had claimed—although interestingly enough she doesn’t say when she added it (at least, I haven’t seen any indication she addressed that issue). Could have been a few days before that first press conference, or it could have been earlier. She doesn’t say exactly what she added, either, but we can assume it was the printed part that many observers had noticed was in a different ink.

The likelihood is that, when Nelson and Allred finally found someone to authenticate at least part of the inscription, they had to face the fact that even that person was pointing out that there was an added part in a different ink and handwriting. Therefore, if they wanted to present that person’s report that said the inscription was by Moore, they absolutely were forced to also admit to the additions by Nelson, although they’d failed to say that before in all their talks with the press. They must have done a calculus and decided that the probative value of their expert saying part of it was real outweighed the necessary admission that some of the inscription was Nelson’s. But it seems to me that the addition tends to indicate that Nelson padded the “evidence,” which opens up the possibility of other padding of evidence by Nelson (or perhaps of a made-up story that cannot be authenticated and has not been authenticated). I also think it’s likely that, if they hadn’t been forced to admit the additions, they would never have done so.

As this NBC news story points out:

At the initial November 13 press conference where she first made the allegation, she held up her yearbook — which included a message that appeared to be written and signed by Moore, with the date and the name of the restaurant below — as corroboration of her account of her acquaintance with the then-assistant district attorney. She did not mention anything about adding notes then.

Nor did she say it in appearances since then, until today.

Previously, some people supporting Moore had also noted that the word “Moore” seemed to be in that different ink as well. Did the original inscription just say “Roy”? Was “Moore” actually written in a different ink? Does Anthony’s report address that question?

I have no idea whether the following photo is authentic—there’s a lot of bogus stuff online, and Photoshop is always a possible tool for the motivated. But for what it’s worth, this is sort of thing that’s been offered by Nelson’s doubters to show what was added in a different ink, and it includes the “Moore” part of the signature.

Moore has denied even knowing Nelson. If the inscription is actually his—something we still don’t know—then he would have been wrong about that. But since this occurred forty years ago, and if the “knowing” was confined to an acquaintance rather than the sort of attack Nelson alleges, then why on earth would he remember such a thing?

I still have no idea whether Moore is guilty or innocent. But I do know that Nelson and Allred are playing politics, that they are not allowing the accused access to the evidence he would need to defend himself, and that Nelson failed to divulge a very important fact regarding the inscription she is using to bolster her claims of sexual assault.

The election in Alabama is due to be held in four days. This is clearly timed so that Moore has only a short period in which to respond. I detest this sort of hit job right before an election no matter which side presents it. Unless the alleged incident had just happened—and Nelson’s accusations most definitely do not fall into that category—all such last-minute well-timed allegations are inherently suspicious to me unless the evidence is completely solid and convincing. And I repeat that this holds true no matter what side is being attacked, Democrat or Republican.

33 Responses to “Moore accuser Nelson: well yes, I did…”

  1. Tom Says:

    My immediate though is that even if the year book signature is authentic, which I now have SERIOUS doubts about, it doesn’t prove Moore knew her. It also doesn’t prove any of the allegations. It’s very possible that she got Moore’s signature in any one of a dozen different ways. It’s not unthinkable that maybe she walked up to Moore and asked him to sign her yearbook, and he did. If Allred says it, I assume it’s BS, because Allred has an agenda. Nelson admitted to forging a part of the signature, which to me makes the whole thing a DEAD issue. I will not accept the tales of a liar, who’s admitted to a lying about a claim which was always dubious to begin with.

  2. Darrell Says:

    The “D A” has always made the signature suspect, his admin assistant used to stamp his signature and place initials after the stamp. The initials were D A. Roy Moore was never district attorney, but most people think that is what the initials mean, it tells me they copied the signature from a stamped document, likely from her divorce papers. She has zero credibility.

  3. Dave Says:

    Neo:

    I was the second person here posting the theory that the accuser add the last name, date and place on an existing inscription written by a Ray, Roy or Kay who didn’t leave a last name. (I forgot who was the first)

  4. Dave Says:

    the color of the inks are probably the same but because of being of different brands with different chemical compositions and written in different time they reflected light differently.

  5. Dave Says:

    That picture is legit, it was a blowup of a part of a CNN picture. liberals argued that the change of color was caused by depth of field but I think otherwise, how convenient that depth of field just happens to change the color of the part that was called into question but not everything else.

  6. Dave Says:

    look at the word Roy and how the ending stroke of the Y goes side way. All of Roy’s signature I could find has the middle initial ‘S’ in it. The reason why the forger didn’t include the middle initial simply was because they couldn’t since the Y lacks the upward stroke that is required to connect to a S there.

    also compare the letter ‘o’ in Moore and the ‘o’ in the word Love, completely different. if you compare the ‘o’ in Roy and ‘a’ in the inscription you will come to the conclusion that it was Ray or Kay, not Roy.

  7. Yancey Ward Says:

    Dave, it was probably me. I wrote several weeks ago that it looked like to me that everything after “Roy” was added in a different pen and ink, and that “Roy”, at least, did look authentic to me when compared to other proven Moore signatures. I signed a lot of yearbooks when I was younger, and I never signed more than my first name, and no one did in mine either.

  8. Yancey Ward Says:

    Dave, I have read that “Kay” theory, too, but the inscription seems masculine to me in tone and content.

  9. Dave Says:

    sorry it is not his middle initial, since his middle initial should be S not a L, but most of his real signatures have that L thing at the end of y.

  10. expat Says:

    Not having his last name on the original seems strange to me. How many 30 somethings are on a first name basis with teens who aren’t close family friends? I am not taking a position yet.

  11. Dave Says:

    because the original without last name could be written by anyone. no one as yet has been compared the rest of the inscription to Moore’s handwriting beside the signature. If the inscription was truly written by Moore, even without the last name she could still easily authenticate it by comparing to his other writings. writing the last name in was to frame Moore, and as long as she could filibuster the allegation past the election day which was a month after her allegation they win.

  12. neo-neocon Says:

    expat:

    Well, if it was written by another “Roy,” that could certainly explain the lack of a last name.

    The expert hired by Allred is practically meaningless, because (as I wrote) you can find a single expert who will say almost anything. That’s the point of having a trial with multiple experts hired by both sides—to avoid that sort of one-sided situation. Or, if there’s no trial (and here there isn’t), at least a group of independent experts not hired by either party.

    Do you not find it of great interest that Allred and Nelson refused to surrender the notebook when asked? That they have only offered one expert hired by them? Do you wonder how many experts they asked before they found him?

  13. Ann Says:

    The handwriting analyst, Arthur T. Anthony, does seem to have a pretty good professional background; for example, he was the chief forensic document examiner and manager of the Questioned Documents and Forensic Imaging Section at the Georgia Bureau of Investigation from 1981 to 2009.

  14. neo-neocon Says:

    Ann:

    I never doubted that he had some bona fide credentials. Allred is not so stupid as to find someone who doesn’t.

    As I said several times now, you can always find someone who will say what you want. It may even be that person’s honest professional opinion. But that doesn’t make it right. In a trial, usually each side presents its own experts, and they are cross-examined by the opposite side. Then the judge or jury gets to decide which expert or experts are most credible.

    This is nothing like that.

  15. expat Says:

    neo,
    That’s why I’m not taking a position. If it is Moore’s handwriting, it makes him look bad. If it is someone else’s, then Moore is off the hook for this accuser.

  16. neo-neocon Says:

    expat:

    If it’s in Moore’s handwriting, it means he sexually assaulted her?

    If you don’t believe that, then why does it “look bad” if it’s in his handwriting? All it would indicate is that they knew each other, and that he thought she was pretty (this was 40 years ago), and that he signed her yearbook. It doesn’t indicate the depth of the relationship or whether he’d be expected to recall 40 years later that he knew her. I am pretty sure I signed people’s yearbooks many years ago—maybe even wrote cute little things in them—and yet would not recall knowing them today. Moore also already may have had political aspirations on a local level (he was already the Deputy DA), who could have been trying to ingratiate himself with a lot of people and would not be expected to remember all of them.

    On the other hand, we know for a fact—from her own words—that Nelson doctored evidence without telling us until now, and timed its release to try to hurt Moore’s campaign. That makes her entire testimony very very suspicious. The allegations of assault—which, after all, are the point, not a yearbook inscription—rely solely on her account and on her veracity. Her veracity is extremely suspect at this point.

    Like you, I withhold judgment. But unlike you, I don’t think it is so terrible for him if he indeed did write the inscription. His main accuser has misled us in her previous press conferences about at least part of that inscription, and now she is admitting it.

  17. Dave Says:

    even if Moore is guilty, vote for republicans to secure the seat then throw him out through disciplinary committee, no reason to reward the scheming democrats who only choose to have the yearbook examined right before the election, of course they are going to announce the handwriting belongs to Moore on Monday, who believes them? Moral High ground? did Al Franken resign right away? even he was playing safe by only offering a promise to resign after the AL result is in.

  18. Ed Bonderenka Says:

    Read the comments above.
    All agree.
    Reasonable doubt.
    Case closed.

  19. Ann Says:

    I found it mystifying that Allred wouldn’t have anticipated this reaction, but then I watched a bit of her news conference today and she spent some time talking about a Senate ethics hearing once he’s seated, so maybe she’d already decided that Moore was going to win.

  20. Dave Says:

    I can’t bring myself to watch Lying Allred especially after she represented the paralyzed biker who was in the gang of bikers surrounded a Chinese family trying to hustle some money from the rich Chinese guy.

    can someone fill me in? are they saying that the inscription was indeed written by Moore without leaving a last name, and she filled up the rest of it to make sure that people know it is Moore who wrote the inscription? If that is their explanation then I do think it makes sense

  21. Esther Says:

    “Moore D.A.,” and what’s written underneath, does not look to me like the same pen or handwriting as the other part of the note.

    Looks like it’s written by someone with a rounder, more vertical hand, with a larger x-height/higher waistline to shorter cap and baseline ratio. The numerals should look the same in print or cursive, but don’t.

    My husband’s handwriting now is similar, and is identical to 40 years ago. Luckily he is not Roy Moore 🙂

    But, that’s to my obsessive draftsman’s eye looking at this one example of the writing only, not the content– and I’m not a professional forensic analyst.

  22. neo-neocon Says:

    Ann:

    That’s just Plan B of Allred’s, in case Plan A (Moore loses the election) doesn’t work out.

    Plan B is shared by the Democratic Party, which is why they threw Franken under the bus.

    And there’s a Plan C and a Plan D, etc..

  23. Dave Says:

    I blame Sessions for this debacle, he put a senate seat of ours at risk to the democrats to become the attorney general to basically do nothing.

  24. Dave Says:

    Neo:

    would you vote for Moore if you are from AL?

  25. AesopFan Says:

    Dave Says:
    December 8th, 2017 at 4:10 pm
    Neo:

    I was the second person here posting the theory that the accuser add the last name, date and place on an existing inscription written by a Ray, Roy or Kay who didn’t leave a last name. (I forgot who was the first)
    * *
    Don’t know if I was first, but I did opine that the Roy on the book didn’t match Moore’s typical signature, and might have been someone else.
    Has anyone found another yearbook and checked it for other Roys?
    All the other suppositions-of-innocence are also feasible.
    Won’t rehash all the arguments from the first thread, but this wrinkle tickles me:

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/08/gloria-allred-knew-yearbook-faulty-violated-california-bar-rules/
    “The rule arguably applies to Nelson’s accusations against Moore. Allred’s refusal to submit the yearbook to an independent expert suggests that she may have known there was something wrong with the evidence that she and Nelson presented as proof of a relationship with Moore. Or, if Allred is given the benefit of the doubt, the moment she suspected that something might be wrong with the yearbook, she should have made that clear immediately.”

  26. Dave Says:

    i remember most on here assumed that the date and place was added by the accuser as a reminder for who Roy Moore was. I don’t understand why they didn’t outright mention it in the first presser, the fact that she was hiding something that could be explained with an innocent intent clearly exposed that they had something to hide. Perhaps they underestimated Moore’s supports and his resilience, they didn’t expect that the yearbook would be under such extent of scrutiny because this allegation was more or less icing on the cake as it was assumed to be matter of days before Moore drops out of the race at the breaking of this allegation.

  27. AesopFan Says:

    Dave Says:
    December 8th, 2017 at 8:39 pm
    i remember most on here assumed that the date and place was added by the accuser as a reminder for who Roy Moore was. I don’t understand why they didn’t outright mention it in the first presser, the fact that she was hiding something that could be explained with an innocent intent clearly exposed that they had something to hide.
    * *
    “It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up.”

  28. AesopFan Says:

    The Weekly Standard is already on the Spin Cycle.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/moore-accuser-nelson-did-not-admit-yearbook-forgery-and-her-story-doesnt-discredit-others/article/2010789

    “… And Nelson’s lawyer Gloria Allred appeared to inaccurately attribute all of the writing to Moore.

    If you look at the photo below, there is a clear difference between the script used to write the words “To a sweeter more beautiful girl I could not say ‘Merry Christmas.’ Christmas 1977. Love, Roy Moore, D.A.” and the one used to write the words that follow: “12-22-77 Olde Hickory House.” It also wouldn’t make sense for one writer to have written the date twice.”
    * * *
    They are right about the second date not making sense, but the photos clearly show that the “Moore, D.A.” is also disputable.
    Which, after essentially asserting that it’s Moore’s writing, they acknowledge in the next graf .
    Then continue to spin:
    * * *
    “It would be very significant if the yearbook inscription were proven to be a forgery—…
    Nelson and her lawyer Gloria Allred could’ve cleared this up somewhat had they earlier allowed a handwriting expert to test the age of the ink. Allred said she’d release the yearbook to the Senate if it held a hearing investigating Moore. But, as THE WEEKLY STANDARD noted last week, that was an odd offer, given the fact that the Senate would not have jurisdiction over the matter unless and until Moore wins and is seated.

    So, as a matter of objective truth, Nelson’s admission by itself is not an admission of forgery and does not disprove her allegation.

    Corfman’s account, unlike Nelson’s, was backed up by contemporaneous accounts and journalistic vetting by the Washington Post.Efforts to poke holes in her story in the month since the Post published its original report have failed. But there’s no doubt that Moore and his allies will use this admission to cast doubt on all the accusations against him.”

    * *
    I’m not sure that “So” is the appropriate conjunction there; and the vetting of the WaPo is now a running joke.
    What else ya got, WS?

  29. AesopFan Says:

    On the third hand, this is the only article I have seen with a convincing reason why the victims didn’t speak up at the time, by one who DID.

    https://www.chronicle.com/article/I-Spoke-Up-Against-My-Harasser/241991?cid=trend_right_a

    “Still, I wasn’t sure what to do. Complaining seemed selfish, histrionic, a distraction from the mathematical work I should have been doing. … Fending off unwanted advances from the one person in the department who might understand my research, and whose support would be crucial for my tenure decision, was an unappealing prospect, but it would be less trouble than lodging a formal complaint. Maybe, I thought, I should let the incident go unremarked.

    Then a student told me her story of harassment by the same man. I heard firsthand stories from college employees. I saw him flirting with a different student. He was a repeat offender. He was nowhere near retirement age, so stopping his behavior might benefit dozens of women. Speaking up might save students from experiences that could color or even ruin their mathematical careers, might be an act for the good of the community, even an act for the good of mathematics itself. In that light, coming forward no longer seemed selfish, and speaking up was the right thing to do.

    So it makes sense to me that women stay silent for years, even decades. I might easily have done the same if I had thought that I was the only person affected. And it makes sense to me that when an outside event — a newspaper exposé, a senate campaign, or another woman’s story — reframes a single disgusting personal experience into part of a pattern that promises continued harm to others, women will come forward, as I did, out of a sense of obligation.

    Over the next several years the man cut me off from professional opportunities and damaged my reputation. The administration told me little about the progress of my case and surprised me with observers at meetings I expected to be one on one. Without on-campus colleagues who shared my mathematical interests, I fought to stave off intellectual isolation. I earned tenure, but I never felt comfortable at work.

    Then one day, about seven years after the original incident, the college announced that the man would give up his regular faculty position, though no reason was given. A burden on the math department was lifted, and we hired an energetic, talented and kind assistant professor to fill the vacancy. A happy ending to the story, except that my relationship with the college remained deeply damaged. Seven long years of uncertainty and alienation had taken their toll.

    Physical illness, born of stress but taking on a life of its own, made it harder and harder for me to continue. Only after I tendered my resignation did I dare ask the administration whether my complaint had anything to do with the man’s departure. And only then did they show me the final report recommending his early retirement and commending me for my courage and professionalism in coming forward.”

    * * *
    Nothing that some transparency and courage from the administration wouldn’t have taken care of – although they did finally get aroundtuit.

    But Weinstein effectively WAS the administration, and the bosses of the media flacks didn’t even try to help.

  30. neo-neocon Says:

    AesopFan:

    The issue isn’t believing that some women decide to stay silent for years and even decades, and then speak up later when others have already spoken up. Of course it’s possible, and they might have good reasons.

    The issue is that it destroys (or at least damages) two things.

    The first thing is their credibility, which would be much stronger if they were on record saying something at the time it happens (particularly for accusations with suspect timing, such as those of the Moore accusers). I just had an idea—if a woman is abused but can’t bring herself to say something to anyone at the time, she should send herself a registered letter with the information, and store it away in a safe place without opening it. Then, when she’s ready (if she ever is), she can bring the sealed letter to the authorities. It’s kind of an odd idea, but maybe it would help.

    The second thing it destroys, ordinarily (or at least makes more difficult) is the ability to prove something. Also, sometimes there’s a statue of limitations that has run out.

    The point is not the ability to psychologically understand why someone might wait. The point is deciding whether that person who waited is telling the truth, and delays make it less likely that they are telling the truth or at least less easy to decide.

  31. Dave Says:

    Don’t be surprised if the following is the real story behind the allegation, everything is based on my speculation only please treat it as a fictional story.

    Accuser had an one night stand with an older guy named Roy in her teens, she didn’t know his last name, only souvenir he had left her is an inscription in her yearbook. Many years later the accuser saw Roy Moore on tv, she assumed that this Roy was the Roy she met in her teens based on the similar appearance and found joy in the fact that she had a thing with a now famous somebody. Fate bought them together again, as she thought, when she met Roy Moore as Moore was the judge overseeing her divorce. She bought the yearbook to meet Moore in person, perhaps to rekindle an old relationship or just for reminiscing, but Moore denied that he knew her. She believed he played dumb but in reality those were two different Roy’s, but since then she has been holding a grudge against Roy Moore. Chances come for her to exact revenge against this heartless monster when liberals were fishing sexual allegations against Moore, but a yearbook inscription with only his first name wasn’t a strong enough evidence to prove that it was written by him, so she doctored it, added stronger favour to try to consolidate the yearbook inscription was in fact written by Roy Moore…

  32. neo-neocon Says:

    Dave:

    I think you’ve got a future in fiction writing!

  33. Dave Says:

    Allred was lying, with the whole inscription available to determine if the inscription was written by Moore, why continue to focus on the signature.

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge