Roy Moore's accuser has admitted to faking the yearbook.

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Perfectenemy

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: fiverx313
moore wrote 'christmas 1977' himself. he wrote the sweet and beautiful girl bit himself.

why would falsely attributing a specific date and place to him make this any worse for him?

talk about grasping at straws...

How do you know that? Moore has denied writing anything in her yearbook. He's the one who wants the handwriting analyzed. Gloria Allred is stonewalling by setting ridiculous conditions that can't possibly be met before the special election.

You tell me what conclusion I'm supposed to draw here.

The refusal to submit the yearbook to be analyzed says it all really.

I wouldn't either.

There is no obligation, and there is no criminal charge or trial.

Except that it is the total proof of her accusation. She herself presented it as "proof" of their connection. C'mon now....

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: Jiggly

...and people dont see a big red flag here?

She has literally nothing to gain by saying she added notes, except more doubt.
Which is evident by the responses in this thread and across the web.

So personally I don’t see it as a red flag at all.

Wrong. I read where she was having some family issues on not telling the whole story so she decided to come out with the truth.
Plus her step-son had repeatedly stated she was lying.

I will look for the link where I read that.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I am only of the opinion that he should be voted for because he would be removed from office and replaced immediately if these allegations are proven

I think he'll be removed/resign and replaced regardless of whether the allegations are proven. I believe he's only hanging in there to save the seat.

That being said, not releasing the yearbook for analysis makes it look like there are some inconsistencies other than the notes added, which were obviously in a different script.

No longer relevant.

a reply to: neo96

According to an article in Slate, Moore's account of that court case isn't accurate:

On Nov. 21, Moore said Nelson knew she “had a divorce filed before me” when he was a circuit judge in 1999 and that she was therefore lying when she claimed not to have had any contact with him since 1978. (“Everybody in a divorce case knows who the judge is,” Moore told Beason.) Moore asserted that the case “came to me, and after several months … she asked for it to be dismissed.” This account by Moore is demonstrably false. Court records show that the case was before another judge, that Nelson asked that judge to delay a hearing, and that five weeks later, when Nelson asked the court to dismiss the case, Moore’s assistant stamped Moore’s name on the dismissal order, as a formality, only because he was the circuit judge.

To all of her defenders... why is she still delaying, changing her story and jumping through hoops instead of handing over the book for forensic testing? I'm sure she'll come clean AFTER the election, right guys?

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

They are reporting something similar on One America News.
www.oann.com...

Democrats being Democrats I guess. On air they are reporting one other accuser has admitted making up her story and is reported to have a rather checkered drug fueled life. And a third accuser has been outed as a chronic liar of questionable mental stability.

It makes you realize......think about it, most Teachers in the Public School systems are Democrats and now we see flurries of female teachers bedding down underage boys.

And you send your kids to Public Schools why?

a reply to: Tekaran

Plus her step-son had repeatedly stated she was lying.

They are reporting that on One America News TV. But I havent seen it in print.

Those dirty Dems and their media attack dogs at it again trying to influence an election with plenty of dirty tactics and fake news.

a reply to: Krakatoa

That's a question that would be answered if submitted for handwriting analysis, possibly. It's very possible to date when ink was applied to paper, if it's the same ink, if that ink was available in the area of the country where it was claimed to have been written at the time, etc.

So, like others have noted, it's no wonder that she doesn't want it submitted for analysis. I guarantee that the inference has been made at one point or another to wait until after the election, and at that point it won't really matter anymore.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Here we go again! With a Trumpy jumping the gun. Press conference proved that this entire thread is a lie! Fake news sources and all! Signature is real. Proved. Hired an expert.Fact. She offered the yearbook to the senate if they did a proper hearing. Did you just ignore that fact?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Interesting information. Im also interested in counter points.

To me, and this goes for Trumps accusers, too...if the only time they come out of the woodwork is during an election, then they have no credibility.

That is the problem I've been having with this entire sexual misconduct flap, even as it spilled over onto Weinstein, Franken, Conyers and others.

It all started with an attempt to upset an election with a bevy of women who mysteriously seem to have waited for decades and now decided to bring their allegations at the 11th hour of a campaign and are backed to the hilt by the opposition.

And we've seen this same tactic now time after time ...

Then there is the whole aspect of trying the case in the court of public opinion instead of using the actual legal system which is, I believe, the whole point of bringing this all forward at the 11th hour of a campaign. No time for real legal discovery at all, it's all designed to impugn someone's honor publicly, true or not. By the time legal discovery happens, it's too late either way.

The whole thing is deplorable.

She admits it now 4 days before the election...
could be she was paid off by associates of project veritas to begin with , knowing the false allegations would be exposed , hence discrediting the allegations by the others...

originally posted by: queenofswords
Has anybody even checked to see if there was another Roy Moore back then from her class, or maybe even a teacher? That's a very common name. Maybe "a" Roy Moore did sign her yearbook. It's a very generic message.

Maybe Nelson remembered she went to school with a Roy Moore and that he had written in her yearbook. Maybe she decided to "alter" it by adding the D.A. and her personal notes to make it seem like it was this Roy Moore.

That could be another reason she doesn't want to turn it over for forensic evaluation.

There's a Roy Miller class of '77.

Gadsden Times

Roy Miller, class of 1977, still lives in Gadsden and tries to never miss a class reunion. Tim Heard, also class of 1977 said the homecoming activities were “a real good send off.”

originally posted by: Stevenjames15
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Here we go again! With a Trumpy jumping the gun. Press conference proved that this entire thread is a lie! Fake news sources and all! Signature is real. Proved. Hired an expert.Fact. She offered the yearbook to the senate if they did a proper hearing. Did you just ignore that fact?

LOL! So, are you saying they hired an independent expert, who has concluded the signature is legitimate? When did this happen?

The lawyer's "offer" is transparently a stalling tactic, because no such hearing will happen until after the election, at which point the accusations will be irrelevant. She could have offered the yearbook for analysis weeks ago, with no strings attached, but has refused.

I hope Gloria Allred gets called before the Bar Association for her conduct in this.

originally posted by: Zarniwoop
I think he'll be removed/resign and replaced regardless of whether the allegations are proven. I believe he's only hanging in there to save the seat.

You're very likely correct. This www.al.com... is a serious problem at play here.

"Any amendment filed after the 76th day before a primary or a general election shall be accepted by the judge of probate or the Secretary of State but shall not be cause for reprinting of the ballots," according to the statute. "The name of a candidate who is the subject of the amendment and who is disqualified by a political party or who has withdrawn as a candidate shall remain on the ballot, not be replaced by the name of another candidate, and the appropriate canvassing board shall not certify any votes for the candidate."

These accusations came to light after the point of no return had been reached. I don't believe that fact is coincidental, either. The plan here was to set up a scenario in which the "usually unelectable liberal in Alabama" Doug Jones could essentially waltz in unopposed with any votes for his opponent going uncertified. Hell, at this point I sort of feel like the GOP has played lip service here, publicly distancing themselves from Moore while privately encouraging him to stay the course until after the election. It's dirty pool, but I can't blame them for playing it that way, the seat is more important than instantaneous action against 30+ year old claims, especially considering these claims weren't considered important enough by the "victims" to be made public until, conveniently, right now. If Moore was accused of assaulting a woman right now, I'd feel like there was considerably greater reasoning to swing the ax and take immediate action... but as it stands, justice can be served after the election, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater and tossing a Senate seat to a candidate the majority of Alabama voters don't want representing their state (Jones).

originally posted by: Perfectenemy

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Liquesence
Adding notes beneath what someone writes is not forgery.

Thread and article title are Intentionally misleading.

Claiming that the entire message was Moore's even after people questioned it, and refusing to allow it to be independently verified.

And then weeks after questions on it saying oh yeah, I did write some of that is very shady.

Again, of she is telling the truth, let am independent investigator prove it.

Until then in light of this story, I do not take her accusation seriously.

Hiring a lawyer with a questionable reputation wasn't the best move either. Beverly is now under fire from the #metoo crowd. They are saying she is hurting their cause. They are not wrong. What a mess.

They are absolutely right. She's about as good for their cause as Danica Patrick was for female athletes.

originally posted by: Jiggly
so... first she said he wrote the whole thing, wont get it independently verified, now says she wrote part of it, still wont get it verified, yet she says he still signed it..... and people dont see a big red flag here?

come on now...

That's the thing. These people keep saying "Well what's the big deal if she wrote the date and notes?" My question is why would you jeopardize your position by alleging he wrote the whole thing in the first place? Even if she is telling the truth she just destroyed her credibility. I don't have a dog in this fight. It would be nice if the story stayed consistent though.

originally posted by: Zarniwoop
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I am only of the opinion that he should be voted for because he would be removed from office and replaced immediately if these allegations are proven

I think he'll be removed/resign and replaced regardless of whether the allegations are proven.

Resign ok, but there are some questions about whether he can be removed. Some legal experts interpret the law about this that Congress can only remove you for things you did while in office. Also, there lack of evidence is troublesome. If Congress can start forcibly removing members just on the basis of accusations, what happens next time one party controls enough seats in Congress to kick out anyone they want? It could set a dangerous precedent. I don't know what they should do to be honest.