Allred Admits That Client Wrote Some Of The Words Attributed To Moore In Yearbook

downloadI have been critical of the representation afforded by Gloria Allred and her daughter Lisa Bloom in past cases, including the rapid calling of press conferences at the height of news cycles.  Most recently I was critical of Allred’s handling of Roy Moore accuser Beverly Nelson, the press conference has not only resulted in her being nationally ridiculed but she was accused of falsifying Moore’s signature on a yearbook.  Allred’s defense of her client on the charge has been so anemic and uncertain that many have taken it as a concession.  Allred’s eagerness to hold press conferences gave Moore exactly what he hoped to find: a basis for challenging the veracity of his accusers.  After numerous evasive interviews that played into Moore’s hand, Allred called another press event and admitted that Nelson did indeed write some of the words attributed to Moore in the yearbook.  Now Moore can go into the final stretch of the election claiming that the victim’s evidence was not what she had claimed.  It would have been better to have admitted this weeks ago, but Allred waited for the Friday before the election to bury her own gross negligence in the news cycle. This does not alter my view that the allegations against Moore are credible and disqualifying (including another witness who came forward this week), but rather than the blunder played into the hands of those who are struggling to ignore the moral hazard that is Roy Moore.


Beverly Young Nelson admitted that she added “notes” beneath Roy Moore’s signature in her high school yearbook. She says that she wrote “12-22-77 Olde Hickory House.”  However, in the press conference with Allred in November, she knowingly misrepresented the facts about Moore writing all of these words.  She stated: “He wrote in my yearbook as follows: ‘To a sweeter more beautiful girl, I could not say Merry Christmas, Christmas, 1977, Love, Roy Moore, Olde Hickory House. Roy Moore, DA.'”

Allred sat there and did not say a thing.  She also remained silent about any knowledge during interviews in the days to come — without confirming forgery or denying it. The interviews with Allred were eagerly replayed by Moore supporters.

Either Allred never bothered to confirm that facts before taking her client into a national press conference or she played an active role in a misrepresentation to the media. Either way, she has again failed to meet the minimal standard for professional conduct.  This is ultimately a question of due diligence.  Of course, her client could have lied to her or failed to discuss, but Allred post-press conference conduct further undermined the credibility of both the client and counsel alike.

Moore was delighted and proclaimed today that Nelson is a liar (even though most of the writing remains allegedly Moore’s and the point that was establish a prior relationship).  While Allred says that a handwriting expert found the rest was written by Moore, that is lost in the aftermath of this debacle.  Moore announced: “Now she herself admits to lying.”  Moore campaign attorney Phillip Jauregi was equally jubilant: “What [Nelson and Allred] said [in November] was either a lie or what they said today was a lie, and the voters are going to have to decide.”

Just for the record, if Allred knew that Moore had not written all of the words, it would run afoul of the spirit, if not the text, of the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, in Rule 5-120 on trial publicity. This rule applies to both investigations and litigation and says that an attorney “shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the member knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.” Such a violation includes a determination that “the extrajudicial statement presents information the member knows is false, deceptive, or the use of which would violate Business and Professions Code section 6068(d).”


327 thoughts on “Allred Admits That Client Wrote Some Of The Words Attributed To Moore In Yearbook”

  1. Well, you have to hand it to Jon Turley. Although he hates the facts, hates the evidence, hates the truth, and abhors logic, he is, at least, consistent.

    According to Turley, it doesn’t matter that the evidence against Moore was forged and fabricated. It doesn’t matter that Nelson and Allred lied and changed their stories many times. And it doesn’t mater that they did so brazenly before the media because they knew the Fake-News media would defend their lies because they are liars themselves. And it doesn’t matter that Nelson and Allred would not submit the yearbook to forensic testing of the ink to determine its age by an independent lab because they knew they would be proven liars and fraudsters if such a test were conducted.

    No, none of those things matter to Turley. So, naturally enough, Turley concludes from all this that “the allegations against Moore are credible and disqualifying.”

    All this proves, however, is that Leftism is a form of mental impairment and a disease. I suspect that Turley is well aware of his disease, yet he refuses to do anything about it. Given these circumstances, as a public service, I will translate what Turley really means but is too afraid to say:

    “Yes, Ray Moore’s accusers are liars and fraudsters, but Moore is an enemy of our Leftist agenda and he must be attacked by any and all means necessary, including prevarications, canards, deceptions, falsifications, fabrications, dishonesty, and other tools of our trade.”–Jon Turley (as truth teller for the first time.)

      1. Here’s what would happen if DBB’s argumentative “skills” were somehow raised to the third power:

          1. Look DBB, we all know here that you’re a stupid Leftist. But do you also have to be so boring and uncreative? I’ve known plenty of dumb Leftists, but some of them are at least capable of arguing with some measure of creativity.

            But when you come out with such tired, feckless drivel like “you need mental health counseling” or “you need to go take your meds” or “you need to get your tin-foil-hat refitted,” you impress nobody. Those are lines only used by desperate losers. You end up just looking like the stupid, feckless, lame, inept, inarticulate Leftist that you are.

            Try to be a little more creative. Maybe you could see your doctor and see if he will implant the brain of an ultrasubcretin next to your own? That way your current brain won’t be so lonely, and, in any case, misery loves company.

                1. What’s the difference between Benson & Linda and two ultrasubcretins?

                  The ultrasubcretins are smarter.

          2. The definition of David B. Benson.

            “Narcissistic Personality Disorder”

            Individuals with this disorder exhibit a lack of ability to empathize with others and an inflated sense of self-importance.


            The hallmarks of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) are grandiosity, a lack of empathy for other people, and a need for admiration. People with this condition are frequently described as arrogant, self-centered, manipulative, and demanding. They may also concentrate on grandiose fantasies (e.g. their own success, beauty, brilliance) and may be convinced that they deserve special treatment. These characteristics typically begin in early adulthood and must be consistently evident in multiple contexts, such as at work and in relationships.

            People with narcissistic personality disorder believe they are superior or special, and often try to associate with other people they believe are unique or gifted in some way. This association enhances their self-esteem, which is typically quite fragile underneath the surface. Individuals with NPD seek excessive admiration and attention in order to know that others think highly of them. Individuals with narcissistic personality disorder have difficulty tolerating criticism or defeat, and may be left feeling humiliated or empty when they experience an “injury” in the form of criticism or rejection.

      1. Benson
        Ralph uses the same, lame one-liners, to insult us both. I’m honored to share the territory with you, until the asylum takes corrective action with Ralph.

        1. Linda, you and Benson and anonymous and Ken certainly have the right to say things that are beyond stupid–but you’ve abused that privilege.

                1. anonymous – if you have to name us we are not dumb or dumber. You are just bad at descriptors.

                  1. Paul C. Schulte and Allan, A few months ago someone wrote that I was “worse than Allan”.
                    I see the different levels here, the “honor rolls” of being lncluded in one or the other targeted group…..with all of this competition/ bragging rights, I just wanted to remind you guys of my “worse than Allan” award.😁😄

                    1. No trophy or blue ribbon or anything.
                      I guess it was intended as kind of a “stingy” award….perhaps even an insult!??

                    2. No trophy or blue ribbon or anything.
                      I guess it was intended as kind of a “stingy” award….perhaps even an insult!??

                    3. Tom, if that came from anonymous then it is the top award coming from the bottom of the gutter. You can’t do much better than that, but then you have to remember that it is from anonymous who has become a laughing stock with an ever-growing crowd.

  2. A prosecutor should demand the document and have experts examine the ink, cursive, etc.
    Gloria Allred should be sued along with her client for civil rights violation.

  3. #1 Bill of Rights: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”

    The “establishment of…” doesn’t mean religion cannot exist in government. The original Constitutions of the 13 states established a religion in some of them where taxes helped to fund one or several denominations of the Christian faith.

    1. You are correct. What our founders wanted to avoid was a Church of England scenario, a Church of The United States I suppose it might have been had things gone that way. The “separation of Church and State” concept was never written into founding documents but rather, was contained in I believe a campaign letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a Connecticut denomination.

  4. If Allred wasn’t a slip ‘n fall flim flam lawyer she’d do what any good liberal would suggest (in any case but the yearbook case) that it be subjected to science science sciencey sci sci science!

  5. There was a case 30-35 years ago involving discovery of publication of dairies written by Hitler.
    The Hitler Dairies were unamimously deemed authentic by a panel of reknown handwriting experts.
    I think there were three experts on the panel, and as I recall, they were considered to neutral on the issue of authenticity.
    That is, they were not “hired guns” for one side or the other side.
    Later analysis found that the paper of the dairies was not manufactured until the mid 1950s, or c.10 years after Hitler’s suicide.
    There are probably many examples of dueling experts to be found as well, where reputable experts ( and maybe some who aren’t) disagree on authenticity.
    I don’t think the opinion of Ms. Allred’s expert carries much weight.
    Eventually, there may be additional experts brought in…..if the yearbook is made available to others for examination.
    Even then, the Hitler dairies show that experts in agreement can get it wrong.
    In a trial, I think a judge can generally decide whether to allow, or prohibit, the testimony of handwriting experts.
    While not universally inadmissable ( like polygraph results), there seems to be some degree of skepticism about the reliabilty of handwriting analysis.

  6. OT:

    Our America:

    “Shaver died trying his best to comply with a highly unusual, complicated set of commands while under extreme duress. Scared cops still need to be competent cops, and members of the public shouldn’t face death because a police officer can’t keep his emotions in check. Finally, I know that police have a dangerous job, but they’re not at war. As I noted above, it’s infuriating to see civilian police exercise less discipline than I’ve seen from soldiers in infinitely more dangerous situations. Not one of the men I deployed with would have handled a terrorist detention the way these officers treated American citizens.

    “Arizona law defines second-degree murder as killing a person without premeditation “under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, the person recklessly engages in conduct that creates a grave risk of death and thereby causes the death of another person.” In this instance, the charge fit the crime. The jury’s verdict was a gross miscarriage of justice. My heart breaks for Daniel Shaver’s family.”

    -National Review

  7. OK, I get it, the same group of people that want LAW & ORDER and yell ” THE CONSTITUTION ” every chance they get now believe, and want elected, a man who broke his oath of office sworn to execute the laws of the constitution and I’m sure to his God………….TWICE.

    1. Fishwings – the ruling on the cake case may have broader implications. It could allow the implementation of the 10 Commandments on the Courthouse lawns again. That would drive liberals crazy,

      1. So if he broke the laws twice in Alabama and the USA and you’re ok if he breaks a couple more in the US Senate ? Will he treat other religions the same as his own? So you’re ok with state sponsored religion?

        1. FishWings – in the Senate he is one of 100 Senators whose job it is to get along. And if states want to fund religions that is historically what they did. At the beginning of the Republic, several states had state-supported churches.

          1. That explains Utah. That also explains why the right-wing and so-called christians read their bible and constitution in ways only they know.

            1. I have no idea why you’d want to disrespect Utah. Oh wait I do. You’ve never been to Utah have you. That explains a lot. Utah is an amazing place with incredible people. Let’s replace “Christians” in your comment with “Islamists”. Now your statement is bigoted. See where I’m going with this?

            2. Franklin Graham’s brand is having trouble gaining traction in westernized Europe. (Actually, he’s not wanted at all.)

  8. We talk about Allred and Nelson lying and producing false documents. How about the FBI lies?

    Chris Farrell from Judicial Watch interviewed.

    1. Da T rumpers liked law and order until da T rumpers were fingered. Now they call da law officers da deep state. It is Bannonese for leave our crooks alone. Got it.

      1. Don’t omit that Da Trumpers like family values. Trump is a to be admired for putting model-esque aides in his inner circle and then, restraining himself.

        1. Linda, if you’re going to fan-girl Ken, you have to put a space after the T in Trump’s name. Then it’s T rump. Get it? Isn’t that just too clever to be believed????

  9. Many sleazy attorneys are smart enough to not make such stupid mistakes. I have worked w/ thousands of attorneys from smart to dumb and from honorable to sleazy. This bimbo is the dumb/sleazeball combo. If you wonder how she still is licensed, understand NO PROFESSION protects their own like attorneys. They are worse than cops in that regard.

  10. “If you’re half right, you’re half wrong.

    If you’re half wrong, you’re all wrong.”

    Your witness has been impeached.

    1. George, you’re half right. Nelson has damaged her credibility. You’re also half wrong, George. The yearbook inscription has not yet been proven to be a forgery. Meanwhile, the notion that half wrong equals all wrong is mathematically all wrong and rhetorically half wrong.

      1. Diane – Nelson has now admitted to forging some, if not all of the signature in the yearbook that she originally purported that Roy Moore had signed and dated on his own. She is a liar and a forger. So, she is an unreliable witness and would be ripped apart on the stand. BTW, Allred should be disbarred for supporting her.

        1. In what state should Allred be disbarred? The Moore forces have condemned her to hell but disbarred too?

          1. swm – Allred should be disbarred in CA. She had to know the yearbook was suspicious and yet she let her client go on national tv and tell everyone that it was all done by one hand. When Moore called her on it, she folded her bluff and tried to a new tactic, Congressional hearing. Now her client has admitted lying and forging. There should be several CA lawyers who are filing complaints with the CA bar about her behavior. If I were Moore, I would be faxing a complaint to the CA bar right now.

        2. Paul, if you got that from FOX or Breitbart, be advised that they’ve both already retracted the claim that Nelson admitted to forgery. If you got it from somewhere else, then show your cards. My first post on this thread has a link to what Nelson actually admitted. You could click on it and find out. Or not.

      2. I will repeat what I said earlier. A handwriting expert said the entire inscription was written by one hand. If Nelson admits to forging a part then according to that handwriting expert Nelson forged the entire document.

        What you are doing Diane, is selectively choosing evidence and witnesses. That is how dictatorships conduct their justices. It seems wherever discussion occurs you choose the side of the dictator and not the Constitution.

  11. Liberals and democrats will never be able to hide, minimize or live down their endorsement of and complicity with amoral and criminal elected democrat officials and amoral and criminal campaign contributors.

    Bill Clinton completed two terms as President without challenge by liberals and democrats while conducting many multiple extramarital “affairs,” abusing women and allegedly raping Juanita Broaddrick.

    Hillary Clinton has lived most of her adult life as the “enabler,” AKA aiding and abetting, of Bill Clinton without challenge by liberals and democrats. “Campaign narratives written by reporters detailed how she honchoed the campaign team that handled “bimbo eruptions,” – WT

    JFK was elected and held the office of President without challenge by liberals and democrats while conducting multiple extramarital “affairs.”

    “Alford, then 19, had just completed her first year at Wheaton College when she started a job in the (John F. Kennedy) White House press office in the summer of 1962. Within days of her arrival, the beautiful young blonde was invited to join the president for an afternoon swim — and later that day, lost her virginity to him in the first lady’s bedroom, according to excerpts published in the New York Post, which snagged an early copy. “I wouldn’t describe what happened that night as making love, but I wouldn’t call it nonconsensual either,” she wrote.”

      1. “The past is prologue.”

        “A tiger never changes his stripes.”

        Is Queen Hillary late for her coronation…is she here and now?

        Whom will Hillary endorse that will not be tainted by that endorsement?

          1. Another beneficiary of “Affirmative Action Privilege” entirely lacking in acumen and merit.

            Good luck with that.

      2. I keep hearing the “times have changed” defense. It rings hollow mainly because Bill Clinton is still venerated by the Democratic Party, cheered at their functions and hailed as a great President.
        There is also the odd circumstance of the same people complaining that bad acts of 22 years ago are from a different time, while claiming that bad acts of over 40 years ago, are immediately relevant.

        Not justifying either, just saying.

        1. Don’t look at the intellectual or logical side of anonymous. It doesn’t seem to exist on this blog. I don’t think she will be able to answer the simple question you raise.

  12. “Friend says Roy Moore’s accuser told her of sexual assault”

    Saturday, December 9th 2017, 5:05 am CST

    LOS ANGELES (CNN) – A friend of the woman accusing the senatorial candidate of sexual abuse has corroborated her story.

    In the past couple of months, a number of high-profile men have been accused of sexual harassment and sexual assault.

    Betsy Rutenberg Davis lives in California but grew up in Gadsden, AL, the hometown of judge Roy Moore.

    She is friends with Leigh Corfman, the woman who said Moore sexually abused her when she was a 14-year-old girl, an allegation that Moore denies.

    Davis is one of the two friends Corfman has said she told at the time.

    “Leigh and I grew up together. I’ve known her since we were babies,” she said.

    Corfman confided in Davis when both were 14.

    “She told me she snuck out of the house and went on a date with Roy Moore, and he had sexually assaulted her,” Davis said.

    Davis understood who Moore was at the time. “He was a big lawyer. He was a powerful guy. He was supposed to put criminals in jail,” she said. “I knew he was a lot older. I didn’t know he was 32.”

    Davis described the incident.

    “I remember her saying that he made a pallet on the floor – maybe with blankets, something like that,” Davis said. “And he came out of his room with nothing but tighty whiteys, which is what’s called white jockey underwear. They started to fool around, and he guided her, to – it’s like he was trying to teach her what to do, and she wanted no part of it, and she told him so.”

    Davis said the incident left Corfman feeling “definitely creeped out.”

    She said she advised Corfman not to date Moore again.

    “I said, ‘You cannot see him again. He’s too old for you. You’re too young for him. You’ve got your life ahead of you. You have to go to college and, you know, live your life,'” Davis said.

    Davis said she wasn’t mature enough at 14 to realize how mentally and psychologically debilitating it is for a 14-year-old to be with a man.

    “I don’t think I understood that, but what my mother always said to be and drilled into my head was, you know, in terms of sex, men take what they want, and it’s always the woman’s fault,” Davis said. “And I knew if she went down this path, she would be blamed, and she was the one who was going to be left behind, and it wouldn’t affect him at all. So I told her, as my friend, get out, this is no good.”

    She said the girls didn’t tell any adults about what happened.

    “We felt were were equipped to handle it. We decided it wasn’t a good idea. Nobody wanted to get in trouble, and we didn’t think anybody would believe us,” Davis said.

    Betsy Davis and her husband Charlie live in Los Angeles and are the parents of two boys.

    He said he’s known about this for 19 years.

    “I met Leigh in Gadsden,” Charlie Davis said. “I knew she had an incident. But I didn’t know who Roy Moore was then but learned as time went on.”

    Though Davis said she is a Democrat, “I’m not here to tear Roy Moore down, I’m here to hold my friend up.”

    She said she hasn’t been offered money to talk.

    Davis said she is doing this “because at the end of the day, I need to set examples for my kids. And one of those examples is to stand up for the truth and to stand up for my friend.” -WTOL, CNN

    1. Sorry, but not buying it. People lie all the time to help their friends and families. And for other reasons.

      She waited 40 years, and then comes out with it right before an important election? Sorry, Leigh Corfman does not deserve to have her claims taken as credible.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

        1. I’m not plenty of people. I work part time for a lawyer, and I see up close and personal how much blatant lying goes on in court, under oath. I have to believe the quantum of untruth is even larger outside of court.

          Look up The Statute of Frauds, and see how come certain agreements have to be in writing. Because friends will lie for friends, and people will lie for financial benefits. Others lie for the sheer joy of screwing with people.

          Leigh Corfman’s mouth isn’t a prayer book, and neither is her friend’s IMHO. I have no good reason to believe them. Or even to disbelieve them when you get right down to it, except that they waited 40 years to bestow their story upon us.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. “I’m not plenty of people.”

            Thank goodness for that, Squeeky.

            (And you’re not telling me anything I don’t know — about liars and frauds. I’ve seen plenty.)

                  1. “…some are beyond help.”

                    Yes, you are, Allan, but keep trying to help yourself. You clearly have your hands full.

                    1. Yes, anonymous, you are a beyond that handful of help and will have to languish in the slow lanes while even the dullards pass you by.

                    2. Speaking of “dullards”:

                      “Stephen Paddock wasn’t an Isis terrorist,”


                      “The massacre in Las Vegas was not carried out by an Islamist and the attempt by Isis to claim credit for the murders of 58 people was bogus, the US authorities concluded fairly swiftly.”

                      Refer to another thread in which Allan was claiming “…but ISIS…”

                    3. “doesn’t it seem weird that we STILL don’t know anything about what happened in Vegas?”

                      Yes, that is both weird and troublesome. Anonymous must be working the case and she knows absolutely nothing.

                    4. Anonymous, you lie. I didn’t claim that Paddock was ISIS. I didn’t rule out ISIS involvement and to this day we don’t have a clear picture of what happened and why.

                      You are such a dullard that you have to lie and bend reality.



                      “I want to hear the interview with his girlfriend. On the top of the list has to be terrorism since terrorism has a tendency to repeat itself over and over again.ISIS took credit for it in at least one release. When has ISIS taken credit for something they have had absolutely no part of?

                      “The Las Vegas attack was carried out by a soldier of the Islamic State and he carried it out in response to calls to target states of the coalition. The Las Vegas attacker converted to Islam a few months ago.”

                      When has ISIS made a claim of this nature where they didn’t have some involvement?

                      -end of Allan’s comment

                      “When…?, ” asks the dullard Allen.

                    6. You are not very bright anonymous. What I said was “on the top of the list has to be terrorism”. I didn’t say ISIS was involved. We still don’t know the answers. I did say ISIS took credit for it in a release which is true whether what they said was true or not.

                      You really have to learn how to read. You also have to recognize that until we know what happened or have proof we cannot rule anything out. I don’t expect very much from you anonymous, so you can continue quoting me while demonstrating the low intellect you harbor.

          1. ti317 – I believe in the possibility of Big Foot and the Loch Ness Monster. However, I am not going to spend any time looking for them. 😉

        1. If Leigh lied in front of the world with a horribly forged yearbook, what else would she lie about in more intimate sit-downs with two WaPo reporters (one of whom has skeletons in her closet)?

          1. andrewworkshop, you’re confusing two different Moore accusers. Beverly Young Nelson is the Moore accuser with the yearbook inscription. Leigh Corfman is not the Moore accuser with the yearbook inscription. If Nelson’s yearbook is eventually proven to be a forgery, that prospective fact would not damage Leigh Corfman’s credibility. Adding the date and the restaurant name to the yearbook inscription does not prove that the yearbook inscription is a forgery. It does, however, damage Nelson’s credibility. But it does not damage Leigh Corfman’s credibility. Try to get unconfused, andrewworkshop.

            1. “If Nelson’s yearbook is eventually proven to be a forgery, that prospective fact would not damage Leigh Corfman’s credibility. ”

              It certainly does, because it appears there are those out there playing the strings and that makes it more likely they could be doing the same to Corfman. The best story you had Diane, was Nelson’s. Now that Nelson admitted to forgery you are moving on to the second-best witness who would have been number one if her case was better than Nelson’s. It’s hard to prove one’s case when the primary witness has been proven involved in the forgery of evidence.

  13. 120+ comments and not one of them will change the outcome of the election. IT should charge a fee for this kind of therapy.

    1. Olly,…
      You mean this column is FREE?
      I’m going to be asking Darren for refund on the check I sent him for the subscription.😄

        1. Paul C. Schulte,…
          Rumor is that he sells the subscriptions door to door.
          If untrue, I apologize for starting that rumor.☺

  14. Here is another analysis of the forgery, from November 15, 2017:

    Jesus, it’s that obvious and CNN ran this crap?

    People need to go to ****ing prison for this. NOW.

    Yes, including Gloria Allred. The yearbook is an obvious forgery and she peddled it on national television; that needs to be good for disbarment and prosecution.

    The original tweet from CNN can still be looked at. We’ll see how long it is before they try to take it down. (Update: It appears one of Getty’s photographers shot the original photo; it’s been linked in the comments, and I checked it. It’s pretty-clearly the image CNN used and it was also clearly shot in color as it includes portions of the people holding it in the picture….)

    I took the image on the right side of their tweet, brought it into Photoshop and increased the size.

    I will swear under oath that I did nothing to tamper with the color or tone and in fact did nothing other than increasing its zoom level to 400% because it would be impossible to tamper with the image at said greatly enhanced zoom level without causing visible artifacts in the background and periphery of the letters. There is also a gradient in the paper caused by a B&W photo being in part of the area where the signature is, which again will cause visible artifacts if I were to try to tamper with it. In other words I did this to add irrefutable proof that I did not in any way tamper with the image itself. I also saved the extract from the tweet as a “PNG” which is lossless from my desktop to yours; no compression so there are no artifacts added in my process either; whatever CNN put forward, that’s what I (and you) have.

    Those are clearly different inks for everything after the first name.

    Was the original signature Roy or was it Ray?

    Whatever it was, someone added “Moore DA”, the date and “Olde Hickory House” in a different ink color.

    By the way, the claimant says that Moore knew she had a boyfriend “and offered to give her a ride home” when he assaulted her. Was the boyfriend’s name RAY?

    This must be criminally investigated right ****ing now as attempted federal election tampering. Jeff Sessions, you claim to be “for the rule of law”, let’s see a search warrant for that yearbook to perform forensic testing of the ink, and if the latter part of the “signature” is not 40 years old indictments must issue right now for everyone involved in this crap or you are a lying, sniveling sack of ****.

    If the image did not come out, just go to the link to see for yourself.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

      1. Photographic images are not processed with ink. To look at a photographic image and conclude that one is looking at ink is an instance of semiotic dementia–mistaking the sign for the signified.

        TV scanning cameras routinely distort the depth of field of TV images and especially so when the camera angle is misaligned with the plane of a page in a book, and when that page is a curved surface rather than a planar surface.

        The provenance (chain of custody) for the particular image presented above is an unnamed author looking at a tweeted image from CNN and pasting it into a photo-shop program file that enlarged the image four times the original size. And the unnamed author “guesses” that the original is a Getty image that “appears” to be the one CNN used in its tweet, rather than CNN using a freeze-frame from one of its own TV scanning cameras. And the unnamed author swears he or she didn’t tamper with the enlarged photo-shop image.

        That provenance is poppycock. There are plenty of photographic images of the yearbook at issue available to study. Why focus exclusively on the only image that distorts the depth of field in just such a way as to create the illusion of different colors? You can’t prove a handwritten forgery from a photographic image anyway.

        1. On and on Diane goes not proving her case, but trying to show alternatives to conclusions that are becoming more and more obvious. Can anyone say that Diane even attempts to be fair? I don’t think so unless they are on the same point of the ideological pin and don’t care about logic and truth.

            1. Bam, Diane is Late4Dinner. I guess she was wrong so many times she decided to change her name.

          1. You’re suggesting that the digital scanning camera image that Squeeky posted above shows two different colors of ink, when, in fact, it only shows different colors of blinking photons on a video-display screen. There’s no evidence of different colors of ink. None. You’re assuming it based upon an image from a digital scanning camera. So much for Allan’s grasp of logic. Were it true that Nelson forged Moore’s signature with two diferent colors of ink, then Nelson would be dumb as dirt. Were Nelson dumb as dirt, how could she also be savvy enough to leave Moore’s middle initial “S” out of the yearbook inscription?

            OTOH, It is perhaps humanly understandable that Allan, especially, would presume Nelson to be both stupid and clever at one and the same time with respect to one and the same alleged forgery.

            1. What you are trying to provide is science, not logic, but science isn’t your strong suit and come to think of it logic isn’t either. You blame it on the photons.

              How come the photons are different only on the admitted forged parts of the document along with Moore’s last name? Do you think Nelson actually kept that pen for 40 years so she could add something later? You are a fool. Different pens will have slightly different color variations.

              You then ask how Nelson would be savvy enough to leave out the middle initial letter. That goes to my question above. How many people sign autograph books with middle initials and then how many sign with their last names.

              It’s a lot to ask you to follow the direction of the conversation, but you really need to start recognizing the facts in the case and what other people are saying. You have been mixed up since our first encounter and I don’t see you getting any better.

              1. Allan – Diane does not have the slightest clue as to what is going on. At this point, she is an apologist for Nelson and Allred.

                1. Paul, Diane lives in a fantasy world. Next stop for her is claiming she was raped by Ray.

                  Who is Ray? He could have been the one to actually sign Nelson’s yearbook. There is only a small difference between an ‘a’ and an ‘o’ so they can be confused. Forging the rest was the hard part.

  15. “Beverly Young Nelson admitted that she added “notes” beneath Roy Moore’s signature in her high school yearbook. She says that she wrote “12-22-77 Olde Hickory House.” However, in the press conference with Allred in November, she knowingly misrepresented the facts about Moore writing all of these words. She stated: “He wrote in my yearbook as follows: ‘To a sweeter more beautiful girl, I could not say Merry Christmas, Christmas, 1977, Love, Roy Moore, Olde Hickory House. Roy Moore, DA.’””

    Actually, she very likely also included “DA”, since that was not his true title at the time. All she had to do was say from the beginning that he signed it, and she added his title and location as a reminder. Give it to a handwriting expert to verity.

    But she didn’t, and that has consequences.

    Gloria Alred should have remarked on the obviously different handwriting and inks before calling the press conference, and done the above.

    But she didn’t, and that has consequences.

    I am not familiar with all of the accusations. The salient point is whether he sexually assaulted anyone of any age, and if he pursued or had intimate relations with anyone under the age of consent at the time. Any willing relationships with girls 16 and older, the AOC in Alabama, do not count. It is disingenuous for the media to say he pursued “teenage girls”. That implies criminal behavior with underage girls. Jerry Seinfeld started dating his wife when she was a 17 year old high school student. The AOC in NY is 16. It’s legal. Dating teenage girls over the AOC would only show a pattern of being attracted to younger women of legal age. I certainly think it’s objectionable and impacts character if the girl is younger than 18, but that’s my personal opinion, and not the majority view of Alabama 30 years ago, who thought the AOC should be 16.

    I want to know what age as well as consent issues.

    His accusers waited many years to come forward, after several elections, right before an election when there is insufficient time to analyze their cases. One of the accusers was caught forging at least part of the proof.

    There are consequences to that.

    It would be tragic if anyone accusing him of any illegal behavior turns out to be right. Then they will have to go through a recall or other avenues. It doesn’t mean the opportunity to hold him accountable is gone forever, even if the statute of limitations has run out. Why in the world would they wait so long? This is not the first time he’s run for office. Why wait until the clock ran out on spending sufficient time investigating, right on top of an election? There are consequences for their inaction, and their timing. They might have had their reasons for not saying anything, for all these years and for all these elections. Maybe they were young and embarrassed at the time, and then later they let so much time go by they just dropped it. Maybe they just didn’t want to be first. But no matter the reason, there is an effect.

    This is always my frustration when any accuser waits many years to come forward. In Juanita Broderick’s case, there was no longer any physical evidence. She did have witnesses to her injuries, and documentation of her location. I wish I could have gone back in time and begged her to go to the police when it happened. He might have been stopped from hurting anyone else. But perhaps even then the Clinton Machine would have been powerful enough to ruin her.

    The bottom line is that when accusers come forward at the last minute like this, they need to be resigned to the fact that the investigation timing may not coincide with election timing. You just deal with each issue as it arises, and first they need to establish guilt or innocence of each and every accusation, and move on from there. Even if the statute of limitations is over, or they do not file charges, they can at least find out all they can. Whether he wins or not should be immaterial to finding out what happened in any accusations of criminal wrongdoing.

    It is my understanding that there is some corroboration of his dating girls at least as young as 17, but I do not know if they have verified if he had any inappropriate contact with anyone younger than 16, or if they have proven non consensual acts with anyone. I do need something more than someone’s word. And they could very well produce some sort of verification.

    Parents, it pains me to say this, but clearly we all need to teach our children what to do if they, or anyone they know, gets assaulted. Go immediately to the hospital and call the police, or take your friend there and call for them. Don’t let anyone intimidate you from reporting.

    1. That was not all that she added. She also added the “Moore” and the “D.A.” to it because those items are in the same shade of ink as the date and the “Olde Hickory House.” What is most indicative of forgery, is that she added the “Moore” in cursive, as if it were part of the signature, and right next to the “Roy” (or Ray or Kay) while the other items are in non-cursive print.×600.jpg

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. Incredible. And that the media went wild like hogs eating slop over this…says much about the media that they took nonsense and ran with it like Watergate just happened all over again.

      2. Squeeky, if what you say about the ink and all the rest were true, then Beverly Young Nelson would have to be at one and the same time both one of the most incompetent forgers in the history of forgery and one of the savviest forgers in the history of forgery. What forger uses a different color of ink to add a name to a signature, if not a hopelessly incompetent forger?

        Moreover, if Nelson added the initials D. A., rather than adding the acronym D. A., then she would not have had to have copied those initials from the court document she received in 1999 when her divorce complaint was dismissed–unless she didn’t already know that Moore was a Deputy District Attorney in 1977 but no longer a Deputy District Attorney in 1999 when Moore was a Judge whose signature was rubberstamped on the court document in 1999.

        Finally, if, as you’re suggesting, Nelson copied the “Moore” portion of the signature from the court document she received in 1999, then she neglected to copy Moore’s middle initial S from the rubberstamped Roy S. Moore signature on the court document into the yearbook inscription. So, Nelson would have to be stupid enough to mistake the initials D. A. for the acronym D. A. at a time when Moore was a Judge and savvy enough to leave Moore’s middle initial S out of her supposed forgery of the “Moore” portion of the yearbook inscription. And Nelson foolishly chose a different color of ink to perpetrate this “savvy forgery” in 1999???

        Now what kind of a forger is simultaneously incompetent and savvy???

        1. “What forger uses a different color of ink to add a name to a signature, if not a hopelessly incompetent forger?”

          A forger that uses a different pen of the same color because the first pen dried up after 40 years, or was lost, or was the other person’s pen, etc.

          A lot of conjecture by Diane, but very little of it makes legal sense. She likes to convict people based on ideology rather than guilt.

          1. Allan, your theory of the alleged forgery of Roy Moore’s signature in Beverly Young Nelson’s yearbook inscription necessarily presupposes that Nelson is exactly as stupid as you need her to be. How convenient your presumptuousness must be for you, Allan.

            1. Nelson isn’t too bright, but humans don’t follow a singular pattern like you suggest. There are too many variables that upset that pattern. It seems you are no smarter than Nelson (maybe less smart), but your life has been different so when you put yourself in her shoes expect different results.

    2. Actually, Karen S, with regard to Seinfeld, I believe that you are incorrect. He once did start DATING someone, named Shoshanah, when she was just 17 years old and still in high school. They dated. They never married. His wife–the woman with whom he is married and has several kids–was actually a married woman when they met. Yep. Quite the scandal at the time. I remember reading about this story years ago. If my memory serves me correctly, the two, purportedly, met one day while both were at the gym. She was back, in New York, fresh off of her honeymoon. She had just come back from celebrating a huge wedding and vacationing on her honeymoon when she met Seinfeld. Within a short period of time, she divorced her husband and married Seinfeld. I am able to remember this story because the facts seemed so peculiar and because Seinfeld took somewhat of a beating in the press. They labeled him, a home wrecker, and her, a gold digger.


    “Our ruling”

    “The Gateway Pundit’s headline reads “WE CALLED IT! Gloria Allred Accuser **ADMITS** She Tampered With Roy Moore’s Yearbook ‘Signature’ (VIDEO).”

    “But Nelson does not claim she tampered with Moore’s actual signature. She said she added a time and location below the signature. Nelson still attributes the note and signature to Moore.

    “We rate the statement Pants on Fire.”

    1. Mandy Rice Davies applies. Of course Politifact would say that, wouldn’t they.

      But the truth is, the entire page was presented as something by Moore, when actually the only signature was “Roy” or maybe “Ray” or “Kay.”

      Nelson added the last name “Moore” to it, the “D.A.” to it, and the “Olde Hickory House” to it. That is what was presented to the public, without bothering to mention the additions. While the legal definition of forgery differs from state to state, this definition is pretty close to the legal standard elements:

      noun, plural forgeries.
      the crime of falsely making or altering a writing by which the legal rights or obligations of another person are apparently affected; simulated signing of another person’s name to any such writing whether or not it is also the forger’s name.
      the production of a spurious work that is claimed to be genuine, as a coin, a painting, or the like.

      The entry in question:

      Notice how the “Moore” was added right next to the “Roy” or “Ray” or “Kay” in an effort to make it look like Judge Moore’s signature. Notice how the other “added info” is printed, but the “Moore” is in cursive, to make it look like part of the signature.

      Sorry, but that is forgery, pure and simple.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. In addition to ink color, the DA after the name is identical to how the signature appears on her divorce papers. In the case of the divorce papers Moore’s signature was applied using a stamp and then initialed DA by his assistant to show that she was the one who used the stamp on the document. The DA did not stand for District Attorney. Moore was not district attorney at the time of the year book being signed, and he was not District Attorney at the time his assistant initialed the stamped signature on the “victim’s” divorce papers.

        1. Let’s cut to the chase shall we? A few months ago Democrats won Virginia and New Jersey governorships. They tried to pretend those wins represented a tidal wave of blue. In fact, both states trend blue so there was nothing remarkable about either win. Democrats have been on a losing streak since 2010 and they know it. What better coup than to win a red state like say…Alabama. That’s the sole factor behind ALL of this. The Moore allegations. Franken, Weinstein, etc. They want to win a red state that badly.

          They have a Plan B. If Moore wins, they’ll hold hearings. They will parade women around the way a strip joint owner parades his dancers around on stage to try and gin up drink sales at the bar. The media will gush. And the media will try and trace it back to Trump because the media traces every story back to Trump. If there’s a cat missing on Elm Street the media finds that Trump once hired a construction crew to pave Elm Street and it must be that a Russian foreman on the crew didn’t mix the asphalt correctly so the missing cat can’t figure out what smells like home and what smells like Elm Street.

          This whole thing is as manufactured as the car you drive or the shoes you wear.

        2. Nelson’s divorce was dismissed in 1999 at her and her then husband’s request. They did not divorce until five years later. The rubberstamped Roy S. Moore signature prominently features his middle initial “S” which is entirely absent from the yearbook inscription. You’re presuming that Nelson did not know that Moore was no longer a Deputy District Attorney at the time that he was a Judge whose signature was rubberstamped on Nelson’s dismissal of divorce document in 1999. You’re further presuming that Nelson used two different colors of ink to perpetrate a forgery.

          Finally you’re presuming falsely that Moore never added the acronym D. A. for district attorney after his signature when he was a Deputy District Attorney. Moore’s own lawyer Phillip Jauregui released samples of Moore’s signature to the press from the time that Moore was Deputy D. A. that clearly show that Moore routinely added the acronym D. A. to his signature in those years.

          If it makes you feel good about yourself to presume that other people are as dumb as you are, then all that the rest of us can do about that is to rub your nose in the folly of your presumptuousness.

          1. That last one goes to Sierra Rose. Although Squeeky and andrewworkshop deserve it, too.

          2. “The rubberstamped Roy S. Moore signature prominently features his middle initial “S” which is entirely absent from the yearbook inscription. ”

            Curiosity! How many people signed yearbooks with their middle initial?

            1. So now you’re conceding that it is Roy Moore’s handwritten signature on the yearbook inscription??? Or are you arguing that Nelson is smart enough to leave Moore’s middle initial out but not smart enough to know that Moore was a Judge in 1999 and no longer a Deputy D. A. in 1999???

              Pick a theory and stick with, Allan.

              1. I have my theory and the number one theory is that if you say something then it is likely untrue.

                The question I had (take note of the question mark at the end) was a real question. I don’t think many use their middle names or middle initials when signing a yearbook. The followup question is how many use their last names?

                I think my theories on the case are stated in black and white for anyone to read…if only you could read the words said rather than the words you want to see.

        1. That one goes to Squeeky, who presumes that Nelson is both an incompetent forger and a savvy one at the same time. Squeeky also presumes that Moore and D. A. were added in or after 1999 when Nelson’s divorce complaint was dismissed at her own and her then husband’s request. But most of all, Squeeky presumes that she’s looking at ink when, in fact, she’s looking at a bunch of blinking photons on a computer screen. Or maybe Squeeky is just hoping nobody else will notice the difference.

          1. I forgot to mention that Squeeky and Sierra Rose’s theory of the forgery of Moore’s yearbook inscription depends upon the notion that Beverly Young Nelson both copied and didn’t copy the rubberstamped Roy S. Moore signature from the 1999 court document she received when her divorce complaint was dismissed because she had reconciled with her then husband. So, what kind of forger both copies and doesn’t copy the signature that she is allegedly forging?

        2. “Assumed facts not in evidence.”

          So goes Diane who seems not to understand that her facts are not even permitted to become evidence since Nelson refuses to permit the yearbook to be analyzed by third parties.

          Diane, it is your job to provide evidence against Moore and so far you haven’t presented any tangible evidence except the words of a forger. You dig awfully deep into the garbage.

          1. Allan, you have not yet proven the yearbook inscription to have been forged. Your theory of the alleged forgery requires the alleged forger to be both incompetent and competent with one and the same forgery. Your theory of the alleged forgery is hopelessly inconsistent with your theory of the alleged forgery.

            1. Diane – read the CA statute on forgery, then listen to both Nelson and Allred in the first news conference. They are both forgers. You have to catch up here, Diane.

              1. Read Turley’s original post on this thread. Or read the linked article I provided in my first post on this thread.

                Nelson admitted to adding the date, 12-22-’77, and the name of the restaurant, Olde Hickory House, to the yearbook inscription. If the yearbook were submitted as evidence in a legal proceeding, the worst that could be charged is tampering with evidence–not forgery. The remainder of the yearbook inscription, including Roy Moore’s signature, has not yet been proven to have been forged. The theory of the alleged forgery presumes that the alleged forger is both exactly as incompetent as Moore needs the alleged forger to have been and exactly as competent as Moore needs the alleged forger to have been. It’s extremely unlikely that Nelson would be competent enough to leave Moore’s middle initial “S” out of the alleged forgery and incompetent enough to add the acronym D. A. to the alleged forgery when the alleged forger already knew that Moore was a Judge in 1999 and no longer a Deputy D. A. in 1999.

                Meanwhile, the notion that the alleged forger used two different colors of ink to add Moore’s last name to somebody else’s first name necessarily presupposes that the alleged forger is exactly as imbecilic as Moore needs the alleged forger to have been. Those presumptions are far too precious to be believed.

                1. Diane – by purporting that Moore signed the whole thing originally, both Nelson and Allred are admitting to forgery. It is that simple. Don’t play idiotic games. Walking it back doesn’t make the forgery go away, it just confirms it.

                  1. Wrong, Paul. Adding the date and the place name to the yearbook inscription does not turn Moore’s signature and the remainder of the inscription into a forgery. It damages Nelson’s credibility. And that’s all it does. The theory put forth alleging the forgery of the entire yearbook inscription is downright preposterously special pleading.

                    1. Diane – what you know about criminal law would fill a very small Post-It. You could not be more wrong on the law. I could walk you through the whole thing again, however, I am going to let you wallow in your ignorance.

            2. Diane, how much more of a fool can you make yourself. Nelson admitted to the forgery. No one had to prove it. Prior to her admission, we could assume some type of hanky-panky based upon the refusal to release the yearbook to a third party. Your argument then had almost no validity and now with the admission by Nelson no validity at all.

                1. Don’t assume that because all the mirrors in your house are broken that others don’t have them. Most of us can live with ourselves. You apparently can’t.

                  1. I’m living with your ambiguity just fine, Allan. Now go look at yourself in one of those mirrors of yours.

                    1. Diane, my opinions have been crystal clear while you have engaged in bullsh!t. You can’t even admit that forgery occurred after it was admitted to by the person who committed the forgery. Your words have a big credibility problem.

                1. It’s a document altered with an intention to deceive where the individual lied and now recants a portion of her lie, but doesn’t state whether or not the last name, Moore, was part of the alteration. Perhaps she recognizes that to be a later entry as well and doesn’t want to face legal action without her clarifying her claims about the authenticity of “Moore”.

                  I think her intent to deceive and gain benefit from the deception makes the document a forgery even though parts of the document have yet to be proven forgeries.

                  After the election, I wonder how quickly the yearbook will disappear.

    2. Da Turley bloggers are invested in da Roy Boy, why is that? Wink wink they are pundit gaters but they don’t earn dat much. Back to their familiar scripts and their friendly co workers. When they change their identity their coworkers say oh we missed you laughing out loud.

  17. What Ms. Nelson did was incredibly stupid. Many people were already primed to disbelieve her a priori, now she’s just given them the suspicion they need to not pay attention to known facts in this case. Ms. Allred should be fired for gross negligence for reasons JT has pointed out.

    The facts remain that Roy Moore did write most of note in Ms. Nelson’s yearbook. That fact has been established. It was stupid of Ms. Nelson to not admit immediately that she had added the other words. The words she wrote and spoke do not change the fact that Roy Moore wrote what he wrote, nor do they change the substance of what he wrote. All of this information will be lost to those who will use this situation to cast every accusation as a lie.

    Thanks Gloria! Did Roy pay you for that job or did you just do it on your own?

    1. No, you are incorrect. You said, and I quote, “. . . the FACT remains. . .”. No it doesn’t. The INSINUATION remains, The ALLEGATION remains. That is all you can say at this point.

      The issue has not been proven, one way or the other, to this point. No ” . . . FACT has been established. . .” at all.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter


          1. bam bam,

            If you look at the whole picture, it becomes relevant. There are multiple accusations and in several of the cases, Moore is using the same MO with young girls. One part of that MO is writing in their yearbooks. That is why it is necessary to look at the pattern of the allegations against him.

            1. I signed tons of yearbooks throughout my years in school. Wrote various notes and bestowed well wishes to numerous individuals. My scribblings meant nothing. They were associated with, nothing. They can be tied to, nothing. It’s what we used to do. A rite of passage. We asked everyone to sign our yearbooks; in fact, the more inked up your yearbook was, the more popular you envisioned yourself. Moore’s scribblings–if, they, in fact, are his–mean nothing, as well. Notes in a yearbook are not an indication that he molested the purported victim. Notes in a yearbook do not confirm or prove any sort of sexual molestation. Notes in a yearbook are just that–notes. It’s frightening how people have become so blinded, by some bizarre sort of widespread and infecting hysteria–think, Salem witch trials–that unrelated items, like a signed yearbook, suddenly become proof of sexual impropriety. Notes in a yearbook become proof that one is or was a sexual predator. Madness. Complete and total madness. Alice in Wonderland kind of madness. Want to destroy a life? Want to even a score? Want to affect an election? Simple. Just start throwing around accusations. Unsubstantiated accusations. Accusations, from acts, supposedly, occurring decades and decades ago. Don’t worry. Anyone questioning the veracity or legitimacy of these century old accusations will be told that he or she is blaming the victim. Victim shaming. Open season to destroy anyone and to do so with abandon. Facts be damned. We have yearbooks. Yearbooks where the accused appears to have wished the purported victim a good life. The humanity!!

            2. You are living in your own Fantasy Land of Confirmation Bias and Cognitive Dissonance. In order to perpetuate your erroneous belief system, you have now incorporated scribblings in a yearbook, which may or may not even be Moore’s, into some sort of Modus Operandi for molesting teen girls.

              Moore may, or may not be guilty of any of this, but there is very little to go on, one way or the other. In spite of a lack of evidence, you have chosen to believe him guilty, and to back up your baseless belief, you are grasping for straws.

              It would be more logical to wait for some actual evidence, if any.

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

        2. No, he hasn’t. He has not seen the actual yearbook, or writing samplars from the parties. He has simply done an Internet analysis. For your edification, I submit this article I wrote about a handwriting expert, Reed Hayes, who said that Obama’s Birth Certificate was fabricated after simply reviewing it on the Internet.

          and here is the pdf of Mr. Hayes from that subsequent case:

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

        3. Produce the citation – and was it a professional examination agreeable to both sides? Good luck with that.

          1. dammit – that was meant for Jill – I keep forgetting to adequately point these replies….

        4. “Actually, a hand writing expert has confirmed this is Roy’s handwriting”.
          The hand writing expert was hand-picked by Ms. Allred, if the reporting is accurate.
          If Roy Moore’s lawyer picked a handwriting expert who concluded that it was not Moore’s handwriting, I would not expect people to accept this as “the final word”.
          Just as I don’t expect people to accept, without question, the conclusions of the expert selected by Allred.

          1. Thanks, but that’s not quite what I meant – and perhaps I wasn’t clear –

            I meant did Jill or anyone for that matter have a citation from this – whoever it may be- expert to confirm such a claim? Not from Allred. But from the expert. And if so, Allred ought release to third party agreeable to both sides to examine. Why not? Right now there’s a credibility issue and an election on the line.

            1. Jacques..
              – Actually, the quote in my comment was from Jill’s comment.
              I should have probably noted that in my comment, and double-checked all previous comments on the issue.

            2. Jacques..
              – Actually, the quote in my comment was from Jill’s comment.
              I should have noted that in my comment, and double-checked all previous comments on the issue.

              1. Another fake out, got posted twice.
                Guess I’ll wait 5-10 minutes for a comment to post before trying to post it again.

                1. Thanks – hey no worries – hah I still have (last time I looked) a few posts on this webpage that say ‘awaiting moderation’


          2. The question one has to ask themselves is if he were a good handwriting expert then why didn’t he recognize the additions?

        5. A handwriting expert said everything was written by the same hand. Nelson says she made some additions. Based on that expert it would mean that Nelson wrote everything.

          We really don’t know because those that have the very tainted evidence refused to let the evidence be examined by an agreed upon third party

    2. Jill said, “What Ms. Nelson did was incredibly stupid.”

      Jill added, “The facts remain that Roy Moore did write most of note in Ms. Nelson’s yearbook.”

      Thank you, Jill. I truly appreciate your opinion on this subject. Nelson has damaged her own credibility. And that’s a shame. Because I still firmly believe that Nelson’s act of adding the date and the restaurant name to the yearbook inscription is best explained on the presumption that Roy Moore sexually assaulted Nelson shortly after that date and at that place.

      However, I’m not yet willing to say that it is an established fact that Moore wrote and signed the remainder of the yearbook inscription. Instead, I will say only that I would be utterly dumbfounded if Moore didn’t write and sign the remainder of the yearbook inscription. I cannot yet conceive of a humanly understandable motive for Nelson to have done anything other than add the notes at issue to that yearbook inscription.

      Depriving Moore of the power he wielded over Beverly Young Nelson during his sexual assault of that sixteen year-old waitress is the most humanly understandable explanation for Nelson’s acts.

  18. Now a ‘celebrity’ lawyer will be instrumental in backwards Alabama electing a pedophille to the senate. I guess these same ‘Christians’ are fine with a sexual predator as president, so not much of a stretch.

  19. I am not a Moore supporter – he seems to overlook separation between church and state and his comments about the “good old days” of slavery are reprehensible. BuT I see this as a test case. Dims are angry – that HRC was’nt annointed as well as the losses they have sustained during Obama’s tenure. Isn’t it convenient timing — All these relevations about sexual assault/harassment which are dominating the newz?

    If Moore can be destroyed this tactic will be used again and again.

    1. T rump got another accuser yesterday. Our boy T rump is runnin da numbers high high high but we don’t care. We want da corporate tax cuts.

      1. Ken:

        Using fake dialect in your posting does not do you any favors, but your choice.

        I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but after reading several postings, I am going to have to pass on dim witted writings.

    2. It’s far more nefarious than that. . .if the Democrats can be viewed as sacrificing some of their own. . .eating some of their own. . .like Franken. . .then they feel emboldened to go after Trump. To demand his departure. After all, they aren’t just picking on Republicans. See how we, the Democrats, all pounced on Franken and forced the schmuck to resign? We’re nothing if not fair and just! In the name of all that is fair and just, the President must be ousted. Yeah. That’s what this is all about, and my suspicions were confirmed, the other day, when Bernie Sanders, with foam settling in the corners of his mouth, demanded that Trump be removed from office. Franken, in his miserable speech, lisping through it all, alluded to the same. . .mentioning the fact that Trump bragged about assaults. That’s what is driving this sudden awakening. The desperate and sad attempt to get Trump removed, at all costs. Once enough movie executives, talk show hosts and assorted politicians have been pilloried, the obvious, next step is demanding the same fate for the President. There is a method behind the madness. Don’t think, for one moment, that this is some inexplicable, sudden awakening by all of these purported victims. It has to appear even-handed. Across the board. Across political and racial lines. Only, in the wake of enough dead bodies, cast aside, will it be acceptable and reasonable to go after Trump. These of individuals, losing their jobs, movie roles, political positions. . .all just a stepping stone to the ultimate goal.

    3. Autumn,

      Many of the people who resigned or lost their jobs are Democrats. Do you feel that they women coming forward are being directed by others to do so? If so, who? If they are coming forward against Democrats as well as Republicans, how does this work with your theory about Democrats taking revenge for Hillary’s loss by getting women to accuse Republicans?

      All these people have multiple accusers and most of their actions have been known for a long time. While I am certain there are some false accusations, many of these men have settlements with NDAs. I completely agree that Democrats are going crazy because Hillary wasn’t elected but I don’t see the connection to that when both Republicans and Democrats have women and men coming forward with very credible allegations of abuse by these powerful men.

      1. Jill, as BB mentioned above “…the Democrats can be viewed as sacrificing some of their own. . .eating some of their own” The Establishment Dems outed Weinstein even after taking contributions and being aware for decades of his proclivities. Same with Conyers & Franken. They will do anything to regain power.

        Establishment Republicans do not want to see Moore in the Senate either.


        1. Is Rose McGowan an establishment dem? No.The actresses outed their abusers. You just don’t want Trump and Moore to be held accountable for their sexual assaults. Franken did very little when compared to Trump and Moore .Conyers is another story.. Quit making this tribal.The abusers come from all walks of life and all political parties.

          1. You don’t get it. You, simply, don’t get it. The accusations, from various directions, are coordinated. Who will declare that? No one. But, coordinated, they are. Don’t kid yourself. You must ask yourself–what is different, in society, today, as opposed to the atmosphere that existed a year ago? Two years ago? Did these victims finally find freedom in 2017? A freedom that didn’t exist in 2016? 2015? Dont you comprehend that some people must fall. Democrats and Republicans. Sacrificed for the common good. If you wanna an omlette, you gotta cracked some eggs, baby. Newscasters making 20 million a year. Politicians in office for decades and decades. Producers. Directors. Actors. They need to tumble. Tumble, hard. Lose their positions. Lose, everything. It needs to look justified. It needs to look even-handed. It needs to look like individuals, across the board, will be forced to answer. Why? Why, now? Because, it is the only way to oust Trump. That’s the endgame. Nothing else has worked. This is a desperate attempt to destroy enough lives, ruin enough lives, where the pursuit of Trump will seem normal. Natural. A normal and natural outcome of this “sudden” awakening. Pretty transparent. The same idiots, who blast Moore and others, for unproven sexual improprieties, have busts of Kennedy on their respective mantles. Worship the Kennedy clan as some sort of American dynasty, when, in fact, the outrageous and vile antics, of the entire family, would make these alleged abusers look like Boy Scouts. But, I’m not supposed to mention that.

            1. bam bam, Accusations of priests abusing young people happened a while back, long before Trump became president. Once a few really brave people stood up in multiple nations, a lot of other victims came forward.

              Accusations of pedophilia and other crimes which involve sexual actions used as weapons of violence, have been surfacing before Trump was president. There have been allegations and prosecutions in other countries besides the US, just as in the case of priest abuses. Whole pedophile rings have been exposed in Norway and the UK (for example). You are basically arguing that these people were exposed before Trump was even president and in other nations for the sole purpose of bringing down Trump. I just don’t see that.

              As to the hypocrisy you describe, I agree with you entirely. However, I believe this hypocrisy rests on every side of the aisle concerning this issue, with partisans unable to accept that anyone from “their” side would engage in such heinous crimes. I think it would be better for everyone to take off the partisan blinders and just look at each case as honestly as we are able.

          2. SWM – “The abusers come from all walks of life” – they certainly do. And many are female. Teenage girls, having been raised in the era of internet porn are pursuing boys. I know mothers who are terrified their sons will be falsely accused or vilified. My nephew went through this at 16 — allowed himself to be seduced – decided he didn’t want to have a relationship. Girl stalked him and then claimed rape. My brother threatened to sue and she and her whore of a mother STFU. Still rumours haunted him throughout hs.

            Perps who rape should go to jail – as should those who lie

            1. Sounds like you are not the only loser in your family, comrade. Seems to me you have a bit of Hillary in you, protect your,own.

        2. Autumn,

          So, you feel that powerful Democrats are telling women and men to come forward with their experiences? Is that correct?

          Men and women are coming forward in every field, film, politics, modeling, churches, etc. Is this the work of Democrats “eating their own” or is this people coming forward with things which happened to them?


          1. Jill, from my experience church accusations are mostly true. It just seems awfully convenient that so many film, politics, modeling are all coming forward now. Are the Dems behind all of them? No. But behind Weinstein, Franken, Conyers IMO

            1. Autumn,

              Do you mean that the accusations are false? Even with settlements and NDAs? Or do you mean that powerful Democrats have approached the victims and told them to come forward in all these fields?

              Interestingly, when the accusations against priests began, this opened a flood gate of victims giving testimony of their abuse. Is it impossible that something like this is happening now in these other fields?

              1. I wanted to clarify. Your idea is that powerful Democrats have asked victims to come forward against other powerful Democrats for the purpose of making it possible for other people to be able to make false accusations against Republicans, such as Roy Moore?

                1. no Jill – it is NOT just powerful Dims – it is also Deep State operatives who are trying to see if this tactic works to bring down any contender. Dims don’t even care about Moore – look at the weenie they chose to run against him — a test run

                  1. Thank you for clarifying Autumn. This is different than what you were saying above so I appreciate you fleshing out your thoughts.

                    1. This is an emotional topic for me Jill. My nephew was so traumatized he did not date until he was 19. And I have two other, younger nephews coming up.

              2. no Jill, I don’t believe all the accusations are false – as I keep saying the timing seems politically convenient.

                Also, I may as well admit that i don’t have sympathy for all of the victims – male or female – who went along in silence to further their careers – in some cases continuing to work with perps?!. Where was their personal integrity?

                RE priests – didn’t they mostly molest children? To me it’s like apples and oranges – kids are defenseless

        3. That is a good thing that some of the establishment republicans don’t want to seat a pedophile? Do you thin that the women are lying about him and while we are at it Trump?

          1. Swarth, you throw around a lot of cr-p without evidence. Who are you sleeping with? Underage men? After all according to your statements no evidence is needed to accuse you of that. The accusation even if it is 40 years later and tainted is enough to convict you.

              1. “There you go attacking da women in da name of Roy Moore.”

                Ken, are you that woman?

    4. Autumn wrote: “comments about the “good old days” of slavery are reprehensible.” inserting Autumn’s own ‘good old days’ which is an attempt to change what the individual actually meant. You should be more careful Autumn.

      This is what Moore said: “The greatness I see was in our culture, not in all our policies,” he said. “There were problems. We had slavery, we’ve overcome slavery.”

      That is what Moore was talking about. If one listens to the audio, nothing he said was wrong. This clearly demonstrates that he does not appreciate our former policy of slavery.

      As far as separation of church and state, I think you have that a bit wrong as well. The founders didn’t want to get rid of religion rather they wanted to prevent one religion from being dominant like the Church of England. They weren’t trying to keep religion out of government and if you note some states had official religions.

      Full audio at

      1. The whole separation of Church-State thing isn’t even in founding documents. Rather, it’s found in a letter Jefferson exchanged with the Danbury Baptists in 1801 I believe.

      2. “At a Roy Moore rally in September, one of the only African Americans in the audience asked when Moore thought America was last “great.”

        In response, the Republican candidate for Senate for Alabama acknowledged the nation’s history of racial divisions, but said: “I think it was great at the time when families were united — even though we had slavery — they cared for one another…. Our families were strong, our country had a direction.”

        Families were united? How about slaves who were sold away from their families and never saw them again? Or slave women raped by massa and forced to bear their offspring?

        Some of the founding fathers were deists not Christians,

Comments are closed.

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: