Counsel For Roy Moore Make A Bad Situation Worse With Bizarre Press Conference and Notice Letter

GW247H200The unfolding disaster surrounding Roy Moore truly gets worse the day.  In the last 24 hours, two more women with highly compelling accounts described the same conduct of Moore pursuing very young girls while a prosecutors in his 30s.  This includes a girl who Moore allegedly pulled out of her trig class in high school to ask out.  She said that she later avoided him after one date where she felt he forced himself on her against her will.  Moore has made the situation worse with conflicting and unconvincing statements about his alleged penchant for very young girls.  However, if Moore’s self-defense has been wanting, the defense by two of his lawyers has been even worse.


Phillip L. Jauregui represented Moore in his unsuccessful effort to defy federal courts  (and the Constitution) in refusing to remove the Ten Commandments monument in front of his courthouse and later his defiance of order concerning same-sex marriage.  Now he is defending Moore again with equally deleterious results.

Jauregui went on the attack against one of the latest accusers by suggesting that she lied about having no contact with Moore after the alleged abuse in the 1970s.   Jauregui declared

“As it turns out, in 1999, Ms. Nelson filed a divorce action against her then-husband, Mr. Harris. Guess who that case was before? It was filed in Etowah County and the judge assigned was Roy S. Moore – circuit judge of Etowah County. There was contact.”

Ok, but how does that really help Moore regarding the underlying allegations?  First, it is not clear that Nelson denied any contact, but even if she did this contradiction would not seriously undermine the allegations — particularly when the allegations are consistent with other women.

Jauregui also suggested that Moore did not sign Nelson’s high school yearbook as discussed earlier.  He notes that Moore put “D.A.” after his signature but that he was really only an assistant DA. Jauregui suggests that the signature appears to have been copied from court papers.  He supplied pictures of the yearbook and the court document to prove the point but the signatures actually do not look the same. Jauregui also demanded that the yearbook be handed over for expert handwriting analysis.  The suggestion is that a handwriting expert cannot work off a photo copy which is news to me.  While you can test the ink, a photo copy can be used for handwriting analysis. Having the original is always better, but it is not an absolute bar for some analysis.

To use a seven-minute press conference (with no questions allowed from the press) for such marginal issues is self-defeating.  It would have been far better not to hold any press conference and reminds one of the disastrous show put on by Lisa Bloom with Kathy Griffin before their very public breakup.

Moore’s other lawyer fared little better.  Trent Garmon sent a letter that is a grammatical and logical pile up.  The letter begins with the statement that the recipient should “allow this to serve as notice that our firm has been retained to represent The Foundation for Moral Law, it’s President Kayla Moore and Chief Justice Roy Moore.”  He then states

Your client’s organization has made and/or supported defaming statements. This is due to the careless and/or intentionally refused to advance the truth regarding our clients. We also believe that your client, by and through its agents, have damaged our clients by being careless in how they handle headlines and report the contextual of the allegations.

 If that is not confusing enough, try this:

Thus, do you know this clearly, yet significant difference which your client’s publication(s) have failed to distinguish. And the legal requirement that your client retract the stories, to include the details which clearly are false.

Here is the whole letter.

Moore should obviously withdraw from the race.  I have practiced for decades and have not seen a more extensive record of witnesses describing such a clear pattern of misconduct.  At best it is creepy and at worst criminal.  Moore’s effort to portray this as a “spiritual battle” by groups that fear him is ridiculous on its face.  It is also not working. He is plummeting in most polls and even Ivanka Trump weighed in to say “There’s a special place in hell for people who prey on children.”

It is a well known rule of thumb that the first 48 hours of a scandal is the key window to get out a defense and counter spin.  That defense however has to be actually effective and not self-incriminating.  The defense of Moore has thus far deepened rather than reduced suspicions.  At the same time, adding a threat of a lawsuit against the Washington Post is becoming increasing implausible.  If Moore has a real defense to offer, it is long overdue and could well become immaterial to the outcome of this election.

150 thoughts on “Counsel For Roy Moore Make A Bad Situation Worse With Bizarre Press Conference and Notice Letter”

  1. Claim: Joe Biden Likes To Swim Nude in Front of Female Secret Service Agents

    Katie Pavlich
    Posted: Jul 31, 2015 9:18 AM

    Claim: Joe Biden Likes To Swim Nude in Front of Female Secret Service Agents

    Apparently Vice President Joe Biden, who is reportedly readying a campaign against Hillary Clinton for the White House, has even creepier habits than we previously thought.

    According to Secret Service expert and best selling author Ronald Kessler, Biden likes to skinny dip in front of female Secret Service agents assigned to protect him. Naturally, they find this offensive.

    “Talk about a war on women. Biden likes to swim nude both at his Vice President’s residence in Washington and also at his home in Wilmington which he goes back to several times a week, all at our expense. By the way, a million dollars in Air Force 2 expenses, and this offends female Secret Service agents,” Kessler said to Fox News’ Sean Hannity Thursday night. “You know, they signed up to take a bullet for the President as you said but they didn’t sign up to…they certainly didn’t sign up to see Biden naked. It is offensive, it’s abusive.”

    Joe Biden isn’t just “uncle Joe,” he’s the Vice President of the United States and a potential presidential nominee with a long history of creepy, gross behavior that shouldn’t be tolerated or laughed at. Further, his creepy behavior is a reflection of his character, which should be taken seriously should be decide to run for President.

  2. Is Obama Inc. Protecting Biden from a Sexual Assault Accusation?

    November 14, 2017

    Daniel Greenfield

    In the midst of all the usual media pablum, a curious item has been making its way across the leftsphere. Its title is, “Breitbart’s Coming Exploitation of the Believe Women Movement.”

    It’s been cited by a number of lefty media outlets, including Michelle Goldberg’s New York Times piece attacking Bill Clinton’s accusers and challenging the idea that women should be believed when they accuse politicians, at least Democrats, of assault.

    There are two very curious things about “Breitbart’s Coming Exploitation of the Believe Women Movement.”

    1. The article appears to be anticipating a sex scandal about a Democrat presidential candidate in 2020

    2. It ran on Crooked, which was founded by Obama staffers

    Crooked isn’t just another lefty site. Its top people are Jon Favreau, Tommy Vietor, Jon Lovett, and Dan Pfeiffer. All Obama spokesmen, speechwriters and staffers. The site is very much an obvious attempt to attack Trump. But it would be foolish not to understand that it’s meant as a key platform for the emerging Dem candidate in 2020.

    Whoever that will be. And whomever, Obama and his operation decide to back.

    So here’s this key Obama asset warning that the right will exploit(s) “the beneficence of the “believe women” campaign” to hit the future Dem nominee with a sex scandal.

    Imagine it’s September or October 2020, and out of nowhere multiple women accuse the Democratic presidential nominee of sexual abuse, but instead of surfacing in a meticulously sourced story in a news outlet with a healthy tradition of careful reporting, it runs in a blind item on Or imagine such a story about a current Democratic candidate or leader landed in such an outlet tomorrow.

    Yes, imagine.

    Imagine why a key part of the Obama machine would suddenly need to speculate about such an eventuality. And warn Dems off it.

    “Believe women” is an important movement, but it also obligates its adherents not to dismiss thinly-sourced allegations out of hand, even when they appear in outlets that have torched their credibility… We underrate—as in haven’t considered at all—how low the rot of bad faith in conservative media could drag the rest of us, the whole country, all on its own. But the test of it is almost certainly coming.

    This hypothetical scenario seems very definitive. And of great and sudden concern to Crooked.

    That test is “almost certainly coming”. We think this scandal might hit any day. And we’re playing preemptive defense. Because this is bad enough that it might taint him among Democrats during the primaries. Or even the pre-campaign.

    So the questions are, What and Who.

    The ‘What’ is almost certainly sexual harassment or assault. The Crooked piece worries about “Sex abuse” as the charge. The reports of it have obviously been traveling in lefty circles. Especially among former Obama people. That’s why Crooked is on this early.

    The #MeToo campaign after Harvey Weinstein has led to a lot of women sharing names. This guy’s name is being shared among lefty activists. But it hasn’t broken through yet. And Crooked is worried that it will. Associating it with Breitbart is preemptive defense.

    Crooked appears to think that the mainstream media won’t touch it. Which is probably true. And even if it does, Obama Inc. will be able to claim that it was originally a Breitbart story based on this Crooked piece. And that makes it a rather clever plant. (Does Ben Rhodes get credit for this one?) But like the Soviet Union’s Pravda, the story has to be read between the lines for what it’s really talking about.

    And so we have to work our way backward.

    A top Dem, presumably male, allied with Obama Inc, has abused a female staffer. Or, probably, more than one.

    He’s a potential 2020 candidate and may win the backing of the Obama machine. Orders went out to try and preemptively protect him.

    Can we figure out who it is?

    1. Biden

    This answer is too obvious. Biden is on a book tour and has a history of creepy interactions with women. He’s also a likely candidate. The timing and the motive are just too perfect.

    Obama dissuaded Biden from running before, but threw him quite a bone with that White House event. Biden wants Obama’s nod. Possibly sex scandals might be why Obama never got on board before. And he’s close enough to Obama that even if he never runs, sexual assault allegations against him would be very damaging to Obama.

    Especially since they probably occurred during the White House years.

    Imagine a Biden staffer coming forward to allege that she tried to talk to White House people about Biden and it went nowhere. I can’t think of anything more likely to generate this nervous response from Crooked.

    2. Deval Patrick

    Patrick is reportedly a favorite of Valerie Jarrett. And he’s got a major sex scandal that hasn’t hit the national media yet.

    Gov. Deval Patrick said he fired the chairwoman of the state’s Sex Offender Registry Board and put its executive director on leave last week, in part, because they tried to pressure a hearing officer to change a decision involving Patrick’s brother-in-law.

    The case “involved some inappropriate at least, maybe unlawful pressuring by the chair and the executive director of a hearing fficer to change an outcome of a case” and resulted in a lawsuit, which the state settled last year – and was the “final straw,” Patrick told reporters today,

    The brother-in-law, Bernard Sigh, was convicted in 1993 of raping his wife, who is Patrick’s sister. The Herald first reported Sigh’s failure to register as a sex offender in Massachusetts in 2006, during Patrick’s first campaign for governor, setting off a firestorm that Patrick said today “nearly destroyed” his sister and brother-in-law’s lives.

    So Patrick’s brother-in-law raped his sister. And Patrick fired Sex Offender Registry board members for trying to get him to register as a sex offender.

    Ugly stuff.

    Probably not relevant. In this case. Unless Patrick has a little bit more in common with his brother-in-law.

    3. Julian Castro

    Obama’s former HUD guy who desperately wants this. The Obama connections could easily have led to the HUD piece. Could the Henry Cisneros curse be about to catch up with him?

    4. Bernie Sanders

    I don’t see Crooked going to these lengths to defend Bernie. But there’s no denying that Bernie Sanders has a shady background and some creepy views when it comes to women. And his campaign has been beset with accusations of sexual harassment from staffers.

    5. Cory Booker

    The perp here is probably male. But no one says he has to be heterosexual. It’s hard imagine a worse double whammy, than Booker’s complicated private life exploding Kevin Spacey style after the nomination. Somehow I think a nomination speech concluding with, “I now choose to live my life as a gay man and please disregard the 16-year-old” would be a new low in American politics.

    That’s all just speculation. But Booker is a likely 2020 candidate. And speculations about his private life are one reason few Dems have climbed on board despite his obvious Obamaesque qualities.

    It will be interesting to learn which top Dem is really being protected from sexual assault allegations.

  3. America Shouldn’t Tolerate ‘Biden Being Biden’

    By Karol Markowicz
    February 18, 2015

    Karol Markowicz is a writer in New York City. She has worked on GOP campaigns in four states.

    There isn’t anything new about men in positions of power behaving inappropriately. A handsy boss, who has no filter and no fear of offending, is a staple of old movies and shows like Mad Men. For much of history people just looked the other way. These men were too powerful, to criticize them was to cross them, and to cross them might mean a lot of trouble for the whistleblower. Your career might be lost, your family ostracized.

    What then can be said of people, today, looking the other way as the vice president of the United States paws woman after woman in public, with cameras flashing and their husband or parent three feet away? We’d love to imagine that the husband or father would step in, remove Joe Biden’s hands from his wife or daughter, and give him a hard, warning look. The truth is, Biden’s harassment often comes at the swearing-in events of the husband or parent. These men, reaching the pinnacle of their career, stand on a stage or at a podium with their supportive families at their side. The vice president’s attendance is itself a showing of respect and a recognition of their success. It is not the time for anyone to make a scene.

    The most recent victim is Stephanie Carter. Her husband, Ashton Carter, was sworn in as the new defense secretary. As Ashton spoke at the podium, Biden rubbed Stephanie’s shoulders and whispered in her ear. She is only the latest in a series of women inappropriately groped by the vice president, America’s “Creepy Uncle Joe” as people stood by and watched. One of the more awkward moments from the Joe Biden inappropriate behavior reel is his whispering, grabbing, and ultimately trying to kiss Delaware Senator Chris Coon’ daughter Maggie. She is 13. Coons defended Biden saying that “he was being Joe” and it was just his way of being “thoughtful and sweet” to a young girl in the spotlight. Ultimately, what else could he say? Biden being Biden is an acceptable explanation to the media watching, what is a senator from the vice president’s party supposed to do?

    His defenders claim he’s from a different era, the equivalent of the kissing host on Family Feud. Except this isn’t the 1970s and these women aren’t on a game show. Others find the humor in sexual harassment in a way they likely wouldn’t if Joe Biden didn’t have a (D) after his name. NBC’s Capitol Hill Correspondent Kelly O’Donnell joshed Biden was “multi-tasking” when he had his arm wrapped around a teenager while swearing in her mother, Senator Joni Ernst. Biden also told the teen “I hope mom has a big fence around your house.” Today co-host Matt Lauer wise-cracked that this was Biden’s way of “welcoming” the families of the new Senate class. Even PBS found “Biden being Biden” just so adorable.

    The phrase “boys will be boys” has been used historically to excuse bad behavior by men with a shrug instead of with punishment. But in 2015, things should be different. We don’t allow bosses to rub their secretaries’ shoulders, smell their hair, or look them up and down and exclaim “holy mackerel!” all things Biden has done to daughters and wives of people with much less power than he has.

    That this goes on in front of all of us, and few criticize it, is shameful. It might be hard for the families of these girls and women to stand up to the vice president. It shouldn’t be as hard for the rest of us.

  4. And presenting the next Democrat Presidential Candidate – we in Delaware call him

    Grope-y Joe!

    1. I call what Joe Biden regularly does a gross personal boundary violation. There is no way it is appropriate or normal for a grown man to be touching, stroking, sniffing, kissing young girls who he doesn’t even personally know. He does it to adult women as well. It’s very concerning behavior.

    2. I agree that “Handsy Joe” Biden inappropriately invades women and girls’ personal space and touches then inappropriately. It’s sleazy.

      I also think that Moore should withdraw from the race. Enough people have come forward that the investigation will be time consuming. As with Bill Cosby, there are a lot of people with similar stories.

      I am disappointed that no one made the charge before now, and believe the timing is purely political. But that does not mean the allegations are not true. This needs to be thoroughly investigated and a replacement from his party needs enough time to take over before the election.

      1. Karen S. I seldom disagree with what you say, but if Moore is forced to withdraw from the race because of a hit job this may be the future of our democratic elections. Nothing he did was apparently illegal and everything discussed is beyond the statute of limitations. Moreover, he has lived the last 25 years or so without a blemish on his marriage.

        I can see the future. How to win an election. Find a circumstance that cannot be proven or disproven and that occurred decades ago and then find a woman 20 years younger than the candidate who at one time or another could have been in the same vicinity as a potential candidate that one wants to be removed. The rest of the job can be handled by fiction writers and if he is a Republican the Republican leadership will run away from him.

  5. Opioid Epidemic. Mental Health Crisis. I’m beginning to believe those are symptoms of an unreported sexual deviancy pandemic among the the nation’s powerful elite; Corporate, Political and Celebrity classes.

    1. There’s a perfectly logical explanation for this. Franken was simply demonstrating just how Roy Moore treated teenage girls back in the 70’s.

      1. We can’t have a serial sexual assailant in the White House.

        Do we need to get in the way back machine to jog your memory?

        Of course we can, but they must support the progressive agenda.

        1. Clinton was impeached and maybe should have resigned. Wonder why the Trumpers believe him and do not believe even one of the women.

          1. Seriously? Remember when all the Democrats applauded and cheered Bill Clinton after his impeachment hearings and rallied around him and his Manager of Bimbo Eruptions who smeared and attempted to destroy the women who accused her husband? And remember how they all rallied around the Clintons AGAIN to knowingly put an accused rapist and serial sexual predator BACK into the White House in 2016 along with his evil, corrupt, incompetent wife? Yeah, well there’s your answer. What goes around comes around.

            1. Since Weinstein, the serial abusers are having a rough time of it. Moore has 8 accusers. Trump has eighteen. Franken has one but there will probably be more before the end of the day. Plus more will come out concerning other elected officials in the next few days.

              1. MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt is now calling what Franken did “mock-groping.” It wasn’t actual groping.

                Sort of like what Senator Bob Menendez did wasn’t corruption or bribery — that was just “friendship.”

                1. He was in a skit but if there are more accusations he will be forced to resign.

                    1. Okay. Maybe he should leave then along with Menendez, Trump and Moore. An abuse scandal in the Congress is getting ready to break.

                    2. No. We don’t need young people in Congress. We need late-middle-aged people and people in their early retirement years. Two terms and back home. Kristol’s not that old. He could run, except that he lives in NoVa and as a Republican he’s dead meat.

                    3. SWM,
                      I think he is right that incumbents are vulnerable. I hope people are indeed paying attention.

                      ” An abuse scandal in the Congress is getting ready to break.”

                      I think you are right.

                      I do agree with Around that older middle age/early retirement is best. The Founders set the lower age limit for President for a reason. The thought, if I remember correctly (please correct me), that they believed the mind was not sufficiently matured and knowledge and life experience gained and synthesized prior to 35. I never really understood that perspective, I was skeptical, until I passed 35. There is a kind of maturation, like a late developmental phase for adults that happens. Young people have fantastic ideas and enthusiasm, but I do think it needs to be balanced, tempered, by frequent and direct interaction with wise elders.

          2. Because he’s in the middle of an election campaign and he’s being hit with allegations re events which occurred 35-40 years ago which cannot be readily refuted, because the Washington Post is playing games by publishing a compendium of ‘accusations’ attempting to use the accounts of various women he crossed paths with between the ages of 30 and 38 to buttress the money shot, which was the unprovable allegation that he groped a 14 year old girl. Its throwing chaff in everyone’s face.

            The timing of the appearance of Allred with supposed documentary proofs has the scent of War-Room orchestration. The graphological curios in that documentation have been remarked upon. It now appears he was the presiding judge in that woman’s divorce case and his signature on documents related to that case has some odd initials (by some accounts, those of Moore’s secretary) which are unaccountably found on her yearbook inscription supposedly entered 22 years earlier.

            And, of course, this is supplemented with the WaPoo publishing supposedly remembered accounts of ‘neighbors’ and ‘mall employees’. The WaPoo manages to locate someone employed at a particular mall 35 years ago who remembers by name some man on the security office’s supposed ‘watch list’. That’s like an episode of Cold Case where the team heads out to suburban Philadelphia in 2005 and finds 3 people on one block who all lived there in 1967, are unaccountably young looking for all that they’re 85 years of age, and have precise memories of this one traveling salesman they met three times.

          3. swm – it was the blue dress with the semen stain that turned out to be Bill’s. Kind of nailed him.

          4. Wonder why the Trumpers believe him and do not believe even one of the women.

            Have you spoken to all the Trumpers?

            There is a 3rd option (perhaps more): He’s not innocent of every allegation; not all the allegations are true; Moore does not have the character necessary for the Senate; Moore has exactly the character for this 21st century Senate; political elites don’t want his type in the Senate; this is a DNC/Leftist hit job; and so on.

            Compare the allegations against Moore and today’s revelations about Franken. One has multiple alleged victims with no validated evidence; the other has one victim (not alleged) because there is clear evidence. The action against Franken has been swift and that against Moore will drag on. This presents an interesting dilemma for McConnel, either the Ethics Committee forces Franken to resign because that is not the character we want as a U.S. Senator or, he and the GOP fully endorse Moore because that is the character they will accept.

              1. No, Moore is accused of that. You couldn’t be fair to someone to save your life.

                1. Don’t have any tolerance for those creeps or those who defend them while you have excused this same type of conduct when it was conducted by catholic priests.

                  1. you have excused this same type of conduct when it was conducted by catholic priests.

                    Just to be clear, by same type of conduct, are you talking about the conduct of Franken proven by a photo or the alleged conduct of Moore with no proof other than a questionable yearbook? I ask because I have a very difficult time believing DSS would excuse conduct that has proven to be of this nature.

                  2. I don’t have any tolerance for people whose reaction to their world is fundamentally emotions-driven and bereft of critical thought or charity.

                    You fancy you’re a decent human being. You’re not.

          5. Hey, sorry to barge in but, can you please get your leftist friends to:
            (1) release the Yearbook so we can prove once and for all the genuineness of Gloria’s evidence -and without the self-aggrandizing Senate side show – c’mon do it for Wolf for crying out loud!
            (2) Get rid of Franken from the Senate by Thanksgiving at the latest


            1. Jacques, I’m all in favor of an expert forensic analysis of the yearbook inscription at issue. Maybe Moore should file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission for an expedited examination of type needed to settle the issue. I wonder why he hasn’t done so yet.

      1. Franken has called for an investigation but some in his state are calling on him to resign.

        1. It could be the end of Franken if more stories like this come to light. They had his vote to pass the ACA. No big loss if he is forced to resign now. They’ll replace him with another Democrat.

  6. Our justice system is designed to elicit truth. The problem with our political process is that it’s designed only to elicit winners. This is precisely why due process matters and should reasonably be applied to the political process—truth doesn’t change, regardless of political partisanship.

  7. There is a bumper sticker in alabama. Someone needs to send us a photo of it. It says: Vote For Roy! Pork em if Ya Gottem.

  8. Of course Moore appears guilty as hell. That’s the point isn’t it? If I were hiring people to coordinate a hit job on Moore, I would time it so it does the most damage without time to recover before the election. Let’s forget the issue of lack of evidence and age of the claims and ask some basic questions:

    What is more reasonable to believe, that:
    – Moore did all the things he’s alleged to have done 40 years ago but nothing in this century.
    – Moore was a sexual predator on teenage girls, but turned it off.
    – Moore did all these horrendous things and not one person brought it to the attention of authorities.


    – The DNC or operatives on the Left coordinated these attacks to influence the outcome of an election.
    – Made the allegations as salacious as possible.
    – Falsify evidence (yearbook) that won’t be able to be validated until after the election.
    – Use the MSM to disseminate the false allegations.

    Now which of these two scenarios actually has evidence of being reasonably true?

    1. Olly, I like your discussion.

      Let’s assume what Nelson said is true and let’s assume she went to the police. The likely outcome is no conviction. Did he rape her? No. Was she 16? Yes. Did she voluntarily get in the car with him? Yes. Did she leave the car? Yes. Did she go to the police? No. The end.

      Assuming what she says is true and there is only one side of the story: Was Moore’s actions appropriate? Absolutely not. I would have nothing to do with the guy.

      Take all the above and add that Moore was found as guilty and even served jail time even though I don’t see how. Then for the next 30 years, he lives an exemplary political life (forgetting his controversial politics). He then runs for Senator after serving his sentence. Isn’t that up to the people of Alabama and not Turley, the DNC or the Republican leadership?

      Why hasn’t Turley brought up some of the Senators names that served or served? Ted Kennedy’s name was brought up and I believe his dealing with women and girls to be worse than Moore’s. I’ll add another one, Alcee Hastings who serves today. Alternatively, let’s look at the statute being proposed for Marion Barry.

      If we continue in the direction we are heading we won’t have to worry about Korean nukes. We will destroy our own Republic.

        1. I appreciate your evidence in favor of Judge Moore. We will probably never know the answer and one has to assume the judge innocent until proven guilty. Additionally, I don’t believe a criminal act ever occurred with Nelson.

          No matter what the facts this is a political hit job and it should be up to the people of Alabama to make their own decisions and as I said to Olly we will destroy the Republic if people play into the hands of such politically expedient attacks.

        2. AAWG said, “It appears that Nelson wasn’t an altogether disinterested party. (Notice the initials his secretary entered by his signature).”

          So I read the link you provided. First they claim that Nelson would’ve asked for a different Judge than Moore if her allegation against Moore were true. She didn’t ask for a different Judge than Moore. Therefore her allegation against Moore is supposedly false.

          Secondly they claim that Nelson has a motive to lie because her divorce complaint was dismissed by Moore. Which might otherwise explain why she didn’t need to ask for a different Judge than Moore. Hmmm. Does that put the prospective truth of Nelson’s allegation against Moore back in play? Supposedly not because Nelson is supposedly upset about her divorce complaint having been dismissed by Moore.

          Is there an alternative explanation for Moore’s dismissal of Nelson’s divorce complaint? Supposedly not because the reconciliation of the parties to the divorce complaint still put Moore’s signature with his secretaries initials next to it into the possession of Beverly Young Nelson; and that’s supposedly the point that matters most–not Nelson’s supposed motive to lie. Huh? What???

          Supposedly it cannot be a mere coincidence that Moore’s secretary’s initials were D A in 1999 while the alleged yearbook inscription at issue features the acronym D. A. for District Attorney next to Moore’s alleged signature. Because there are no coincidences. And nobody puts the acronym D. A. on a yearbook inscription, anyhow. Unless they’re an incompetent forger. Case closed???

          Out of curiosity, why can’t the DNC, Soros, Bezos, or Addison Mitchell McConnell afford a competent forgery instead of the amateurishly hackneyed forgery alleged against Beverly Young Nelson??? Lack of Russian connections perhaps??? Where’s Crazy George when you need him?

          1. Not to put too fine a point on it but, Beverly Young Nelson had no contact with Moore during her 1999 divorce action. So, contrary to Moore’s lawyer, Nelson did not lie about not having had contact with Moore.

            Here’s what Allred told MSNBC:

            “Her attorney filed for a dismissal of the case because the parties have reconciled and so there was no hearing because in Alabama, when that happens, no hearing was necessary,” Allred told MSNBC.

            So, contrary to the claim made on the link that AAWG provided, Nelson had no reason to be upset about the dismissal of her divorce complaint, since it was her and her then husband’s decision–not Moore’s decision.

            In fact, Moore’s own lawyer concedes that Moore’s signature on the dismissal document was rubber stamped by his assistant who thereby had to initial it as well. Whence there’s no good reason to doubt that the secretary’s initials D A are anything other than a mere coincidence with the acronym D. A. for District Attorney in the yearbook inscription.

            1. Diane – Gloria Allred had been backing and hoeing since Moore called her on it. Actually, it might be enough to get Allred sanctioned in CA. She did minimal work before making a major accusation.

              1. Paul, Beverly Young Nelson never appeared in court before Roy Moore. Moore’s lawyer claimed the contrary. And that claim was false. AAWG posted a link to an article that claims that Nelson’s supposed motive to lie about Moore is that Nelson is supposedly upset about Moore having dismissed her divorce complaint. That claim is also false. That leaves you with an evident coincidence between the initials of Moore’s administrative assistant and the acronym for District Attorney. You’re going to need more than a typographical coincidence, Schulteacher.

                1. Diane – my statement is about Gloria Allred and her statements. I make no claims about anyone else.

                  1. Paul said, “Gloria Allred had been backing and hoeing since Moore called her on it.”

                    What did Moore call Allred on? The yearbook inscription? The letters D and A in the yearbook inscription? The notion that Nelson had had contact with Moore in 1999? The fact that Moore’s rubberstamped signature doesn’t match Moore’s handwritten signature? The notion that somehow it must be the fault of a presumed forger that Moore’s rubberstamped signature doesn’t match Moore’s handwritten signature rather than being, say, Moore’s fault, instead? Exactly how many additional claims are you NOT going to make about anyone else other than Gloria Allred?

          2. And then there’s the following from Turley’s original post on this thread:

            “Jauregui [Moore’s lawyer] also suggested that Moore did not sign Nelson’s high school yearbook as discussed earlier. He notes that Moore put “D.A.” after his signature but that he was really only an assistant DA. Jauregui suggests that the signature appears to have been copied from court papers.”

            Pay particularly close attention to the second sentence in which Moore’s own lawyer concedes that Moore put “D. A.” after his signature. So the coincidence between Moore’s administrative assistant’s initials D A in 1999 and Moore’s admitted use of the abbreviation “D. A.” after his signature when he was an assistant DA well prior to 1999 is also irrelevant to the allegation that Moore’s signature was supposedly copied from the court document.

  9. Have any of Roy’s accusers taken or volunteered to take a polygraph examination?

    1. Polygraph exams are not overwhelmingly conclusive, and some people can fool them. However, if all these women took polygraph exams and all or most passed, then it would represent a very serious problem for Moore. And would he likewise take the test? I really really doubt it !

      1. Jay S – there are a certain number of people who are innocent who fail polygraphs, which is one of the reasons they are not allowed in court. If you are ADD you should never take a polygraph, the results will be inconclusive and the police will keep you on their suspect list forever. Just explain you are covered by the ADA and refuse to take one.

  10. With such an obviously guilty client, the loser attorney should have kept his mouth shut or at least do a little homework to sound less lame.

    At this point, almost no one (excepting bible before country trash) should be on the side of the acknowledged pedophile/sexual predator. The thought that so many victims lied or that malls, the Y, etc….. all made up stories about either banning or having to watch the scum Moore whilst he was near younger girls is a ridiculous stretch – and only makes his supporters sound as scary and creepy as the sexual predator Moore.

    1. Roy’s team should make a donation to the Crooked Clinton Foundation in exchange for advice on how to
      handle teenage bimbo eruptions,

  11. It would be difficult to find any woman who has not experienced male assault. There’s every reason for those women to come forward when the assaulter holds himself out as holier than thou and runs for political office with his religiosity as his rai·son d’ê·tre.

      1. mespo – with how broad they have made the definition, it would be hard not to assault a woman these days. It is a broad brush for a broad definition.

      2. “That’s a big statement.”

        That is a big statement, but then he goes on to say “There’s every reason for those women to come forward when the assaulter holds himself out as holier than thou”

        In other words, unless one isn’t offended by the individual’s politics there is no reason to do anything about an assaulter. That is the rationale for Ted Kennedy’s existence. ‘we like Kennedy politics so let’s forget about the assaults’.

    1. It would be difficult to find any woman who has not experienced male assault.

      No, Chris, they react to you as if you were assaulting them because they find you disgusting.

  12. I have no idea why anyone would presume Moore’s guilt when the stepson of the most recent accuser says she’s a liar, the handwriting she offers as proof looks fraudulent and she failed to mention that she had appeared before the judge in a divorce action without complaint and had acquired the judge’s signature therefrom. There are additional allegations that another claimed victim didn’t get her story straight since the alcohol she claims was purchased to further the alleged sexual assault was somehow obtained in a “dry” county. In addition, her claim that Moore called her on her bedroom phone were refuted by her mother who claims no such phone existed. Finally, another supposed victim didn’t mention her adverse political leanings and work. We’ll find more chinks in the armor of lurid stories which date back undisclosed for over 40 years and that we’re timed to be released 30 dats before an election. JT assumes to much good will in political charges of crimes. The UVA Rape Case was initially equally “solid” with lots of women coming forward with “me too” stories. The same with Duke Lacrosse. Some people love the attention supposed victimhood brings. . We need to know more about Moore and his accusers.

    1. Mespo, can you figure out what Turley’s getting at with the following sentence from the original post for this thread:

      “Jauregui suggests that the signature appears to have been copied from court papers. He supplied pictures of the yearbook and the court document to prove the point but the signatures actually do not look the same.”

      Which signatures do not look the same? Moore’s signature in the court document and Moore’s alleged signature in Beverly Young Nelson’s yearbook–presumably. Does Turley’s sentence, above, allude to some other instance of Moore’s signature? What’s Turley getting at?

        1. Mespo,

          Family relationships are often strained or broken. This is also true of relations between step-parents and their step-children. Yes, people lie, and some lie often. I would like to know something more about her relationship with her step-son before making his account a means of discounting her accusation.

          I guess she did have means of acquiring Moore’s signature, but she did not appear before him in a divorce action. That petition was dismissed as the couple attempted reconciliation.

        2. Mespo, as it turns out, there is a rubberstamped Roy Moore signature that does not match Roy Moore’s own handwritten signature. The rubberstamped signature is the one on the divorce dismissal document that Nelson acquired in 1999. The handwritten signature was provided by Jauregui at his press conference. Therefore, I suggest that the seemingly inexplicable sentence from Turley that I asked you about is best explained by Turley arguing that Moore’s rubberstamped signature does not match Moore’s handwritten signature. That makes more sense to me than Turley arguing against his own position.

    2. And here’s another befuddlement. Can you explain this one, Mespo? It’s the blurb that Turley cited from Jauregui’s letter:

      “As it turns out, in 1999, Ms. Nelson filed a divorce action against her then-husband, Mr. Harris. Guess who that case was before? It was filed in Etowah County and the judge assigned was Roy S. Moore – circuit judge of Etowah County. There was contact.”

      Since Nelson acquired Moore’s signature from a court document in 1999, and since Nelson’s allegation against Moore was leveled mere days ago in 2017 (eighteen years later), wouldn’t that argue that Nelson had no malicious intent to acquire Moore’s signature in 1999; and that Nelson’s alleged forgery of Moore’s signature on the yearbook inscription would’ve been relatively recent, as in contemporaneous with the several, successive allegations against Moore? Can the forensic analysts tell how old ink is?

      1. Late4dinner:

        Malicious Intent is a funny thing. You don’t always get it when you get the means to be malicious handed to you. Most folks keep important legal documents or can easily get ’em at the courthouse but I don’t know why she’d keep a dismissal. That’s why I say we need to know more.

        1. Mespo said, “Malicious Intent is a funny thing. You don’t always get it when you get the means to be malicious handed to you.”

          I understand your point, since it’s about the same as the question I posed. So the next question is why would Nelson take such a big risk [forgery] for no reward other than satiating her malice? From where else would Nelson’s supposed malice have come, if her allegation against Moore were false?

          And please don’t tell she was supposedly paid to forge Moore’s signature to bolster an allegedly false accusation. That theory would require the presumption of an additional crime and an additional criminal to bolster the suspicion of the previously alleged crime and supposed criminal. Exactly how far out there are you all willing to go with your suspicion-mongering?

      2. “Can the forensic analysts tell how old ink is?”

        Good point Diane. I think they can within certain limits. I would think it would also depend in part upon the ink. Just thinking about it, over a period of 30 years the paper and writing would dry and deteriorate somewhat so that brand new ink would travel slightly differently than the ink thirty years before. Just as a point of interest that is how they determine at autopsy whether the person was dead before certain actions were taken. However, a photocopy of the book would not be good enough.

        1. Allan – I am not an expert in this field, but I do watch Forensic Files and they do have to try to age ink in samples from time to time. It has to do with the particular ink and the paper as to how successful they can be. Different colored inks on a document are always a tip-off that something screwy might be happening. Now, you might just have run out of ink and changed pens, but then, it might be a new writer. Shakespeare signed his will three times during his lifetime, the last two were inter-limitations. The last signature gives every indication that he had had a stroke. BTW, not one of them is spelled, Shakespeare, they are all different spellings. 🙂 It would be enough to drive a document examiner mad.

        2. Allan, the supposed color difference in the yearbook inscription is currently based upon viewing photographs that were taken at the press conference in which Nelson held the yearbook up to the cameras under glaring TV lights and flashbulbs.

          Am I the only one who remembers the controversy over the black and blue dress that some people thought was white and gold? Turley has posted on several controversies based upon misperceived photographs.

          1. Diane, I am not considering superficial color differences which can easily be determined rather how the ink flows into the paper and what happens to that ink over time. You are talking about something completely different than I.

            Too many things are suspicious and one cannot have a functioning government based upon using this type of hatchet technique to destroy the other party. It is up to the people of Alabama to accept or reject Moore, not up to the leadership of either party. I am more concerned about the integrity of our republic.

            1. Allan said, “Too many things are suspicious . . . ”

              For instance, Allan, there is a rubberstamped Roy Moore signature that does not match Roy Moore’s own handwritten signature. That strikes me as highly suspicious. Exactly who should we blame for the fact that Roy Moore’s handwritten signature does not match Roy Moore’s rubberstamped signature? Beverly Young Nelson? Gloria Allred? The DNC? George Soros? Jeff Bezos? Addison Mitchell McConnell? Obama administration holdovers plugged into the vast Deep-State witch-hunt conspiracy?

              But then, Allan, will no doubt reply, ” You are talking about something completely different than I.” Because Allan is talking about the notion that “one cannot have a functioning government based upon using this type of hatchet technique to destroy the other party.”

              1. But then, Allan, will no doubt reply

                When you start providing the arguments for the other side, then that might be a clue that you’ve exhausted the conversation. I believe everyone is in agreement that Moore seems to be a bit creepy. The evidence against him is nearly non-existent and what is there is overworked. The timing is suspicious, the stakes at hand are huge, and it’s not as if the DNC hasn’t tried to use this tactic to influence an election before.

                1. Olly said, “When you start providing the arguments for the other side, then that might be a clue that you’ve exhausted the conversation.”

                  Olly, with all due respect, the arguments in quotation marks were Allan’s arguments and can be found just upstream from your post. The litany of rhetorical questions are courtesy of AroundandAroundWeGo and can also be found upstream from here. I might more readily apologize for exhausting your patience, if you’d let go of the allegation of forged evidence against Roy Moore. The last sentence in your post, above, suggests that you’re not yet willing to move on from that allegation of forged evidence against Roy Moore. So I politely decline your cordial invitation to drop the subject.

                  1. You are mistaking scepticism for allegation. I really don’t care what you do. It won’t change the actual evidence. It won’t change the DNC’s history of what they’ll do to win an election. It won’t make Moore any more or less creepy. It won’t make the allegations any more true or false.

                    So despite your mistaken belief I’ve invited you to drop the subject; post away. Log the frequent posting miles.

                    1. I thank you for your permission, Olly.

                      P. S. I do not seek your approval, Chief.

              2. Too many things are suspicious! Unless you believe the individual is guilty until proven innocent it is up to you to prove the guilt. You also need to prove the evidence is legitimate. Without that you can have mob rule. Think of the French Revolution.

                1. Yours is the worst Perry Mason impersonation in the history of Perry Mason impersonations.

                  Also, your hand-wringing agonistics over The Reign of Terror are both irrelevant and disproportionate to the predicament in which Roy Moore has placed himself. When are you going to stop trivializing terrorism???

                  1. “Yours is the worst Perry Mason impersonation in the history of Perry Mason impersonations.”

                    Diane, Really? Actually, it is not a Perry Mason. It’s the way we perceive innocence or guilt. You seem to believe in the individual’s guilt and that one is guilty until proven innocent. That is not the American way or the idea behind its criminal system. Your views come from a different nation and don’t belong here. As I said earlier and despite your desire to close your eyes, it appears you believe in mob rule something seen in the French Revolution.

                    1. Allan,
                      You both are coming at the problem from two different worldviews. If Diane’s prevails then we no longer put presumption of innocence and rights above ideology. It would simply be majority rule, and all that would be necessary is to excite the majority behind your rules.

                      Your point has been made and if you haven’t noticed, she’s locked on and won’t let go.

                    2. “she’s locked on and won’t let go.”

                      It is like a disease. Diane even thinks what she says is earthshaking and erudite when it represents quite the opposite. There is a use of circuitous logic in an attempt to prove tangential points that are misleading and fail to prove anything else. I this is extraordinary delusion, but it is not surprising.

        3. Allan said, “Just as a point of interest that is how they determine at autopsy whether the person was dead before certain actions were taken. However, a photocopy of the book would not be good enough.”

          I’m prepared to concede that a photocopy of a corpse would not be good enough for an autopsy; provided that Allan will concede that the difference between a rubberstamped Roy Moore signature versus a handwritten Roy Moore signature would not be good enough for an expert forensic examination into an alleged forgery of a Roy Moore signature on a yearbook inscription–whether photocopied or “in the flesh.”

          1. It’s up to you to prove your evidence including origin, date etc. It is not up to the accused to bargain away his rights.

            1. This is not a court of law, Allan. If it were a court of law, then it would be up to Moore’s lawyer, Jauregui, to demonstrate the foundation for alleging that Beverly Young Nelson forged Roy Moore’s signature on the yearbook inscription. Jauregui cannot demonstrate a foundation for alleging forgery of Moore’s signature. Because the rubberstamped Roy Moore signature on the court document Nelson received in 1999 does NOT match, I repeat DOES NOT MATCH, the handwritten Roy Moore signature that Jauregui provided at his press conference, which, in turn, DOES MATCH the Roy Moore signature on Nelson’s yearbook inscription. Now pay especially close attention, Allan:

              Jauregui’s supposed foundation for alleging forgery of Moore’s signature is that Nelson supposedly copied Moore’s signature from the court document she received in 1999. Had she done as Jauregui alleges, the Roy Moore signature on the yearbook inscription would have looked like the rubberstamped Roy Moore signature on the court document. But the Roy Moore signature on the yearbook inscription DOES NOT look like the rubberstamped Roy Moore signature on the court document. Ergo, Beverly Young Nelson DID NOT copy Roy Moore’s signature from the court document as Jauregui alleges she did.

              IOW, Allan, the sole remaining foundation for alleging forgery of the Roy Moore signature on the yearbook inscription is the freeze-frame image from CNN’s TV scanning camera that purportedly shows two different colors of ink on the yearbook inscription. That image from CNN is likely to be an optical illusion created by glaring lights, flashbulbs, curvature of the yearbook page, off-center camera angle and enlargement of a cropped freeze-frame image.

              Were this a court of law, Allan, Jauregui’s case against Nelson would be dismissed for lack of foundation.

              1. “Were this a court of law, Allan, Jauregui’s case against Nelson would be dismissed for lack of foundation.”

                Diane, You seem on a ‘high’ where you have deluded yourself into believing your circuitous reasoning leads to the truth. The proof regarding the signature lies in what the experts have to say. For that, they need the yearbook.

                Of course, some people don’t feel they need the truth (take note of all the Democratic Party scandals). Those people make a mockery of our Constitutions and our laws getting what they want by force or trickery.

    3. ” JT assumes to much good will in political charges of crimes.”

      Excellent comment. I like JT and think he generally has solid arguments in specific areas of the law, but I wonder if he isn’t a little too naive in the way humans interact?

    4. The accuser in the a Duke case didn’t do it for the attention of victim Hood. The state already had her children and if they found out she was passed out drunk while working as a stripper at a frat party she probably figured she would never get her kids back permanently. I am not defending her, she could have ruined these students lives with her lies. I am saying she was clearly a disturbed person. That is who lies about rape. She has since killed her boyfriend, I don’t know how long she was sentenced for. As far as I know none of Moore’s accusers has displayed this type of behavior or mental illness or dysfunction.

      1. She did it to avoid being sectioned by the staff of Duke University Medical Center. She gave various authorities, including Nifong’s office interviewers, confused, contradictory, and blatantly false answers. Supersensitive DNA testing revealed she had the DNA of 4-5 men in her various orificies, none of it matchine lax players or any of her 3 identified bfs. Didn’t matter. Niforng needed a defendant so he managed to hide the DNA results for 8 months (while his office gumshoe set about a program of witness intimidation).

  13. Gloria Allred did an even worse job (than the two Turley mentions above) on Wolf tonight. She spluttered and could not “say flatly that (what Moore ‘wrote’ in the yearbook in 77) was not a forgery”. She evaded. “But that’s not a flat denial Gloria”. She refused to ‘testify’ to the veracity of her own evidence to Wolf – so why take her demands (or her accusations for that matter) seriously?

    1. Jacques, it is possible that Allred doesn’t know for sure whether or not her client’s yearbook inscription might include the alleged forgery of Moore’s signature. Allred might have to take her client’s word for it while providing her client adequate counsel. If Allred flatly denied the alleged forgery, and if the alleged forgery were subsequently proven, then Allred’s flat denial could be used against her as well as her client.

      1. Oh I get it, choking like that in public is ‘adequate counsel’. Well then let’s have Gloria provide much more adequate counsel I say!

        1. Jacques – when Gloria Allred comes out to represent someone, all my warning flags go up. Danger, Will Robinson, Danger! I know they don’t have a case and I know they are looking to settle out of court.

          1. Paul, you confuse me. Who wants to settle out of court? This is a political hatchet job whether or not Nelson is telling the truth the way she remembers it.

              1. Paul, I do not believe Allred will derive any financial gain from a settlement in this case. That doesn’t mean she doesn’t derive benefit even if it is just publicity.

                1. Allan – Allred doesn’t whore herself out for nothing. Somebody is footing the bill.

                  1. The smart money says there are bank deposits to Allred from shell companies ultimately traceable to the DNC or to the sorsophere, or to Jeff Bezos or to parties connected to the Senate Majority Leader. It took months to discover that the Trump dossier was commissioned by a lawyer retained by the Clinton campaign.

                    1. AAWG said, “The smart money says there are bank deposits to Allred from shell companies ultimately traceable to the DNC or to the sorsophere, or to Jeff Bezos or to parties connected to the Senate Majority Leader. It took months to discover that the Trump dossier was commissioned by a lawyer retained by the Clinton campaign.”

                      So the smart money hedges all of it’s bets. The money must be coming from someone. If not the DNC, then Soros. If not Soros, then Bezos. If not Bezos, then Addison Mitchell McConnell. If not McConnell, then . . . ??? The smart money never welches. Allred never works pro-bono. Everybody knows that.

                      P. S. Who’s paying Beverly Young Nelson to run such inordinate risk [alleged forgery, alleged defamation] with no chance of any reward beyond gratifying her presumed malice??? If not the DNC, then Soros. If not Soros, then Bezos. If not Bezos, then Addison Mitchell McConnell???

                    1. Allan – Allred is billing minutes to someone or something. The question is who. I doubt it is the girl/woman, she couldn’t afford her.

    2. Lisa Blood, mentioned by JT and formerly attorney for Kathy Griffin, is not the same person as Gloria Allred, attorney for Ms. Nelson. Allred is the mother of Bloom.

  14. He needs to travel to Crescent City, California, and then walk, continue to walk, into the sunset.

      1. Paul, the sun sets every day now pretty much everywhere. And it would take quite a few daily sunsets to get from Alabama to Crescent City, California.

        1. I produce 1:1 reproductions of artwork for museums, PCS; the output of my work allowing replicas of the original. The work encompasses both 3D subjects and 2D; mostly 2D, but 3D is becoming more common.

          So tell me, how is 1:1 reproduction not really 1:1, and what is it I should learn more of?

          Perhaps you aren’t aware of optical formulas that haven’t changed in centuries for computing magnification of a lens vs. distance to subject, vs. focal length of lens and the size of the capturing medium given the exit node of a particular lens.

          As to the budding argument of originals, if I was a “handwriting expert” I would refuse to work off of copies. But not because, “photo-copying . . . shrinks the work.”

          My concern would be accurate color temperatures and flatness of field of the capture, which encompasses many variables.

          Just can’t have cops make a photocopy on the same machine they just spilled their coffee on.

          So, tell me again how “photo-copying . . . shrinks the work” and what exactly I should learn more about.

          I can’t wait.

          1. WWAS – copy a $20 bill on a regular copier 25 times and see what size it is. It is a fun experiment and wastes part of a day. 🙂

            1. You obviously didn’t read what I wrote, and then you trot out an elementary school example of why your snark is superior.

              1:1 reproduction can be measured both after the fact, and predicted given the particulars of a capture environment and equipment used.

              In any capture chain the limitations of every tool are known and modeled. I have lenses that cost close to six figures with the manufacturer providing correction coefficients for the field of view given the distance to subject at multiple points of wavelength.

              Rarely are they needed, unless one is concerned of the capture being off by a few microns in the corners of the capture medium. But if they are, it can be corrected.

              Basically, you don’t know a damn thing about 1:1 reproduction.

              As I said, it just can’t be a photocopy machine the cops just spilled their coffee on. But it also doesn’t require extremely sophisticated tools either for the purpose of the subject at hand.

              You really are a fool.

              “1:1 is not really 1:1. You need to learn more about copying.”

              Then you offer an experiment that any child possessing curiosity has played with. And this is your proof.

              You are laughable.

              Your comments offer nothing. You chip and chirp away, disguising your ignorance with self-made statements that read like idioms.

              1. WWAS – I based my original comment on what Gloria Allred has in her office, not what you are using to duplicate You, on the other hand, wanted to use your 6 figure copier, which no one could afford using. Gloria Allred doesn’t have one of your copy machines in her office, you and I both know it. So, even if it did 1:1, the duplicate price would be prohibitive.

                Send me the name and model number of this 1:1 printer/copier, so I can check it out for myself. Personally, my art collection is originals or 3 and 4 stone lithographs, none numbering higher than 75. I am sure you know the difference. There I know I am getting a one-to-one from the artist and signed and numbered by them.

              2. WWAS, there are several photos of the yearbook inscription at issue available. Can we presume that those photos were taken at the press conference in which Beverly Young Nelson and her lawyer, Gloria Allred, presented Nelson’s allegation against Moore?

                If so, and given your expertise with 1:1 reproductions of artwork for museums, could you expertly speculate on the adverse effects of bright TV camera lights and flash-bulbs on the photos of the yearbook inscription at issue? Would any of those cameras have had filters on their lenses to compensate for the glare? What effects might those lens-filters produce? What adverse effects might camera angles produce? What adverse effects might the curved surface of a page in a book produce?

                Do the colors of original artworks being reproduced appear to change under any of the foregoing circumstances or conditions?

    1. I’ve used handwriting experts from private services and the FBI several times and in every case they wanted the original writing and exemplars before making a judgment. They need the original for the 3D aspects of the sample like stroke pressure and line filling which the copies do not show. JT is misinformed here.

      1. mespo – JT does torts and Constitutional law. He has specialized so long, I am willing to give him a break. 😉 However, he should admit he is out of his field.

          1. mespo – I am not sure he has handled a tort case in a long time, mostly Constitutional, which seems to be his real wheelhouse. However, maybe you could suggest some articles on examination of questioned documents for him.

  15. Regarding the handwriting analysis (since you brought it up), experts do require original samples to make a definitive assessment.

    1. Yup. I’ve used handwriting exemplars to kill a criminal case. The government didn’t ask for copies.

Comments are closed.