The yearbook signature “is” Roy Moore’s

Roy Moore has yet to explain how a seemingly perfect match of his signature appeared in a 16-year-old girl’s yearbook from 1977.

The now-woman, Beverly Young Nelson, says Moore approached her at a diner, asked to sign her yearbook, and then later offered to give her a ride home and tried to rape her.

Moore denies knowing the woman or even having heard of the diner. (Moore’s wife even claimed the diner never existed — in fact, the media found it, it did.)

But not much has been said about the “Roy Moore” signature in the yearbook. Josh Barro got a copy of Moore’s recent signature from this year and published it on Twitter. And lo and behold, it sure looks like the same signature that you’ll find in that little girl’s high school yearbook.

I took the signatures, and using Photoshop, isolated them and cleaned them up a bit to make them higher contrast. Here they are side by side:

roy moore signature

They sure look like the same person signed both documents. Look at the unique R and the unique M — they’re identical. The way the o flows in the y in Roy. The way the top part of the y is written. The way the first o in Moore is written, and the way the the “ore” is written as well.

It certainly appears that either Roy Moore signed that girl’s yearbook, or someone signed it attempting to forge Roy Moore’s signature. So now the question is — what era does the ink date from? Is it new ink, or is it ink that’s 40 years old? I can’t imagine an expert can’t check that. And that would seal the deal, as it’s difficult to believe that someone 40 years was trying to impersonate a 32-year-old Roy Moore in a rural Alabama diner.


Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

233 Responses to “The yearbook signature “is” Roy Moore’s”

  1. Zorba says:

    You do realize that this article was written over a month ago, don’t you? And that the election is over?
    Are you going to spend the next two years whining and moaning and bitching about this? What is it with Republicans and their obsessive behaviors? Talk about special snowflakes who can’t handle losing.
    Roy Moore lost. Get over it.

  2. Antifa-geddaboutit says:

    So to recap:

    “Victim’s” lawyer refuses to allow access to the original.

    She admits to forging parts.

    The signatures are CLEARLY different from one another (the R and Y in Roy are both off. The O’s don’t string together with the R correctly in Moore, and the M is missing is’t flourished loop).

    Allred STILL refuses to allow anyone to see it up close without a court battle.

    But this BLOG insists it’s true. Because they say so?

    This is why you barely beat this already unpopular candidate. Because of tactics like this. Let’s not forget how the whole story started with WaPo claiming the women came to them (that was a lie). Or how he was “banned from the mall” (also a lie). I hope you try this stupidity in 2018 so we can watch all of your races implode.

  3. David Kleine says:

    This is stupid, just turn over the yearbook and have it verified by someone that does this profssionally. Really, photoshop!, and a copy of something you pulled off the internet. John Aravosis, I can make it look like you are waterskiing naked in the ocean with a hundred great white sharks about to eat you in photoshop. What are you trying to do, impress CNN?

  4. Philip Cole says:

    Fact: No handwriting analysis has been performed by an independent handwriting analyst.

    You are the one displaying ignorance.

  5. Ned Christy says:

    You are displaying your ignorance. They have several of Moore’s signatures from the 1970s and his signature has changed some with age, which is perfectly normal after 40 years of time.

  6. Philip Cole says:

    No, you are the fool for believing the liberal lying MSM. I know I repeated myself with liberal, lying and MSM designations. They are all synonyms.

  7. Ned Christy says:

    LOL.. You claim your signature is the same after 40 years… Really? Prove it. Mine isn’t nor is my wife’s or other family members.

    What you say is silly but you wish to defend Roy Moore… That alone makes you a fool.

  8. Philip Cole says:

    My signature is the same after 40 years. Your premise is silly and unsubstantiated. The “o” in what they claim to be Roy is the same as the “a” in say and the “R” looks more like a “K” than an “R”. If it is an “R”, that would still make it “Ray”. Allred even read it as “Ray” before she was “corrected”.

    Why hasn’t the yearbook been turned over for analysis by independent analysts? Probably because Allred knows that Roy didn’t sign it.

  9. Ned Christy says:

    Yearbooks are handed out at graduation.

  10. Ned Christy says:

    Don’t expect to have a person’s signature be exact after 40 years… Both Os in Roy are near identical, it is not an A… The way he wrote his R in Roy could be said to look like a K but it is obviously an R and near the same in both signatures.

    What is very clear is how he wrote his last name in both signatures, the M and the two Os and the R… Remember the signatures are 40 years apart…. No one has the exact same signature at age 70 as they had at age 30… It is the little things that really matter.

  11. Philip Cole says:

    Do you actually know that Debbie Gibson’s graduation card was written by Roy Moore? Especially since there is no “Moore” after the signature?

    Why would Roy sign with his first and last name on one and not the other?

  12. Philip Cole says:

    The two signatures don’t look the same. The second signature looks like a “K” instead of an “R”. Is there a Kay who went to the High School at the same time?

    Also the second two letters in the first name of the signature look just like the “ay” in say. Additionally, Kay would rhyme with say which would make it a rhyme.

    I’m sure that someone could find out if there was a Kay and track them down.

  13. Anna says:

    Interesting… who is the author of the “original” quote?

  14. Carl says:

    To a sweeter more beautiful girl, I could not say,
    ‘Merry Christmas’ – Love Ray

    That was the original quote. It rhymes. Everything from “Moore” onward was put in later.

  15. Brian Draiger says:

    The R and the Y is different.
    The ink for his last name, the date and location ARE DIFFERENT.
    The last name is an attempt at FORGERY!!
    She is a liar !!

  16. Jonathan Singletary says:

    And now we find out she did write some of it herself and that she actually didn’t see him sign it. (According to her attorney, Gloria Allred).

    She wrote the information about the date and the location so she would supposedly remember who he was. This was all written after the fact. But she has been claiming all along that HE WAS THE ONE that wrote it. If you get sexually assaulted by someone, chances are you aren’t going to forget who he is. But yet in 1999 for her divorce she didn’t know who he was when, despite seeing his name on all of her paperwork and in front of him on the Judges Bench. Nor did he know who she was when he ruled against her in her divorce case.

    IF she WOULD HAVE KNOWN HIM, she could have said…..
    “Wait, I know you, you tried to sexually assault me when I was a kid”
    and the verdict against her in her divorce case would have been thrown out and a new judge ordered for a retrial. BUT, she didn’t. Unless she was being sexually assaulted by numerous different men (something she actually did claim at one time), she would have remembered who he was.

    At this point we know it appears he signed her yearbook. We don’t even know for sure if he wrote the inscription above it. The information below the signature was writen by her despite her claim originally all the way up till today that HE WROTE IT. This was a blatant lie on her part. We also know this woman has lied now a few different time. At this point, you cannot trust anything this woman has or will say.

    In other words, INNOCENT…… CASE DISMISSED. Congrats Senator Roy Moore.

  17. Badgerite says:

    Well, no, not quite. The signature on Beverly Nelson’s paperwork from her divorce that didn’t happened because the couple reconciled has a Roy Moore signature on it and that particular signature has the Y with a loop at the top AND a loop at the bottom.
    People who make flourishes are likely to experiment and vary those flourishes from time to time. No two signatures from the same person are ever exactly alike. There are always variations.
    Those are both Moore’s signatures. Just at different times in his life. I have been through this bullshit with others who literally measured the dimensions of the letters and thought that if they didn’t match exactly it was evidence of forgery. No. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
    That is his signature. And one of the women interviewed as background by the post has similar signatures on notes and correspondence from him when she as in high school. It was a practice he engaged in. And in all likelihood, that signature on the yearbook is his and it is real.

  18. kuhnkat says:

    This can be fun if you ignore the consequences.

    “Roy Moore has yet to explain how a seemingly perfect match of his signature appeared in a 16-year-old girl’s yearbook from 1977”

    We will get back to that PERFECT MATCH!!

    This article claims it IS Judge Moore’s signature in the yearbook. After reading several accounts I agree. It IS Judge Moore’s signature. They then use a recent signature by Judge Moore to well support this claim.

    So, how can we possibly claim there is an issue?? Well, let’s list the reasons.

    First, the ink is a different color from what was used for the message. With no indication of a problem with the pen, Judge Moore changed to a new pen?? Not impossible.

    Next, there are the letters following the signature, in the same ink as the signature, that the accusers interpret as him giving himself a promotion. Again, not completely out of the question.

    So they seem to have a tight case right?? Well, no. Judge Moore has produced a document from his office, years later, for an issue the woman had him handle. It IS a PERFECT match including the letters after the name. Apparently he had an assistant who used a signature stamp for him and who would add her initials to indicate that. Again, they are a PERFECT match! In this article the signature they show is not PERFECT, but, especially to an expert, shows it is almost certainly Judge Moore’s. The fact that the yearbook signature and the signature on that document, that was also also in the woman’s posession, is a PERFECT match shows that it is a forgery, along with the initials.

    I mean, did the Judge have his assistant and stamp with him when he signed the yearbook?? snicker

    Then there are the other issues pointed out by experts having to do with the some of the other writing…

  19. Badgerite says:

    Ah the Y. Actually, the Roy Moore signature on the paperwork from the divorce of Beverly Nelson that Moore’s attorney said meant she had lied about ever having contact with Moore after the alleged incident where he attacked her ( and as it turned out that was not true as the couple decided to reconcile and did not follow through with any proceedings that involved Roy Moore) has a loop at both the top of the Y and at the bottom. Top loop and bottom loop. This is not uncommon with signatures of people who use studied flourishes in their signatures like Moore does. They experiment and vary it sometimes. It is still his signature.
    I have actually had idiots reply to me to defend him who literally measured the dimensions of the signature (centimeters etc.) expecting that the two signatures should be exact replicas. No one’s signature is ever exactly the same. There are always variations. This one you mention happens to be on one of Roy Moore’s official signatures from court paperwork. The Y on it is looped at both the top and the bottom.

  20. KainAnderson says:

    Readjust your glasses, man… The yearbook and the graduation note has the loop of the y ending below the baseline. All of Moore’s known signatures has it flying above the baseline into another loop back.

  21. KainAnderson says:

    Which still has no bearing whatsoever on the yearbook nor the apparent differences in inks. If you want to debate whether or not he knows Debbie Gibson, do it on another thread. The original post was regarding the apparent forgery in the yearbook.

  22. Badgerite says:

    Debbie Gibson, whom Moore called a “liar” has now provided “additional evidence about their relationship.”
    “This includes a graduation invite, signed graduation card, and notes about them dating.”
    Hmmm. And he called her a liar. Hmmmm.
    And Gibson was just background on the WaPo story. She did not accuse Moore of anything beyond dating her when she was a very young teenage high school student and he was a 30 some year old grown man. And he called her a liar. So she is now quite disillusioned and she provided written evidence of their relationship as did Beverly Nelson. Hmmmm.
    9th Commandment anyone?

  23. Stanley_Krute says:

    We now have a second note by Roy Moore to compare with the yearbook note.

    It’s a match, kids.

  24. Badgerite says:

    The two notes do have the distinctive flourishes of Roy Moore. John Aravosis posted the yearbook signature and Moore’s signature as Alabama Supreme Court justice side by side at his website, America Blog, and the two are virtually the same. Same flourishes. Same signature.
    As to ink, it is forty year old signature on a yearbook. It’s called fading.
    In all likelihood. That is what the difference in whatever is.
    No one can say that is different ink unless and until a forensic specialists looks at the ink. My guess it is the same ink that just degraded differently due to storage issues or differences in areas of the same paper.

  25. Badgerite says:

    Oh stop trying to act like you know what you are talking about.

  26. KainAnderson says:

    Uh, what does that have to do with the obvious differences in inks in the yearbook? While there are similarities in the script of the message to the new note, there are minor differences as well. That’s why handwriting analysis isn’t done purely on the text itself. Even if we were to attempt to go off the text itself we’d need a verified sample of his writing from around that time which we don’t have yet. It would be especially helpful to know when Moore started using the flourish in his y’s in his first name. All the verified samples I’ve seen has the flourish. The two notes do not.

  27. Badgerite says:

    Yeah, yeah, yeah. Bullshit. One of the ‘girls’ he was dating way back when who was interviewed by the Post, had supported him in all his campaigns and had ‘fond memories’ of him has changed her mind about him because he called her a liar about the relationship. She also has a signature of his and that that is his signature and she recognized it instantly. After him having called her a liar, she sees that relationship she had with this 30 some year old man a little differently now. Go figure.

  28. KainAnderson says:

    It’s not because it’s two different color inks. That would be an obvious forgery. In natural lighting both inks look approximately the same color. However different chemical compositions causes pigments to look different in different lighting instances. It’s the same reason why you can get a “color matched” bucket of paint and put it on your wall but when the sun goes down or when hit with direct sunlight you can now see your touch-up job. The CNN photo that was tweeted out happened to catch the yearbook signature at the exact instance either a flash went off or one of the lights hit it wrong and it revealed the forgery portion because the different ink composition reflected the light differently. So your analysis is still correct that the inks are different, but it wasn’t obvious to the forger which kind makes this even more devious because they not only took the time to match the last name signature in the forgery including the slip up of adding the D.A., but they attempted to match the ink color as well. It has nothing to do with fading like another user suggested as the photos in natural lighting show the ink color to be the same. The anomaly in the one CNN photo is definitely due to a difference in ink compositions.

  29. KainAnderson says:

    Mike W – With regards to your question on different inks, CNN’s twitter feed had posted a picture of the message that had been taken at the exact right time when a flash was apparently going off. Because inks have different properties including reflection, the inks that look somewhat natural under normal lighting showed that the last name, D.A., date and location (basically everything after the First name) was written with a pen with a different ink composition. In the CNN photo one ink looks black and one looks blue even though in natural light both look black. The different ink compositions caused the forgery portion to look a different color when the flash went off. That makes it highly likely this is a forgery.

  30. Paul Paad says:

    What I find to be ironic is that Moore must have had his signature on several public papers throughout the years. So why are they comparing signatures that are so far apart in time? I have to believe they could come up with his signature from something he signed close to the time the yearbook was said to be signed. .

  31. iamjamieq says:

    Can’t even spell the website’s name right, but I’m supposed to believe you? Haha!!!

    By the way, if you are so sure that ThinkProgress is bullshit, then by all means, please refute the court documents in the post. I’ll wait.

  32. Ncrdbl1 says:

    She will not release the yearbook to be examined.

  33. Ncrdbl1 says:

    You are ACTUALLY offering thing progress as a legitimate source???? The Boston Globe is more believable.

  34. Ncrdbl1 says:

    Do not give up your day job because you are clearly not an investigative reporter.

    First there are significant differences in the “R”. Not to mention the “M”, “O”s and the “y”.

    All of the “O”s in the 1977 signature are slanted to the right while his 2017 signature they are upright.

    The tail on the “Y” and “R” are more pronounced in the 2017 signature.

    The top of the “M” is more pointed in the 1977 signature unlike the rounded top of the “M” in 2017.

    A decent attempt at forgery but not good enough to deceive a forensic expert. You are right about one thing a forensic expert could date the ink and tell when it is written and that is most likely why they will not allow it to be examined.

    RELEASE THE YEARBOOK and allow professional forensic experts to go through it and let’s find ot the truth. And maybe we can find out the reason for the use of two different colors of ink.

  35. Tracker says:

    “I’m sure he was going to hold Bible study with them.” – Actually yeah, that’s probably right. Your comment was particularly nasty because they were referring to three of the so-called accuser’s mothers, women we know next to nothing about.

  36. moniss says:

    Oh that’s right I forgot and thank you for pointing out that Roy surely wasn’t trying to get in someone’s pants. Oh no, not at all. I’m sure he was going to hold Bible study with them. I don’t care if you feel the description is nasty and mean. The description fits a great many folks we’ve seen on “Cops” with a Southern accent. I’ve known all kinds of folks from the South. The good ones would have shot Roy where he stood if he had showed up on their doorstep trying to go after their daughters. Now you and your kid-touching kind can just pride yourself that one of your own is running for Senate.

  37. Tracker says:

    “some toothless, inbred hillbilly mother” – That’s an incredibly nasty and mean thing to say. “What doesn’t get talked about much is how common this was and still is in the so-called Christian South.” – The so called accusations don’t describe someone trying to “get into someone’s pants”. They describe someone looking for a wire. Woman got married on average before the age of 22 back then, 5 years younger than today. I find Corfman to be highly suspect, and Nelson I’m fairly certain she’s lying about the signature (not 100% though) which makes any part of her story suspect. The rest of the so called accusations are stories of Moore acting legally and respectfully.

  38. moniss says:

    Just because some toothless, inbred hillbilly mother gives “permission” for a man in his 30’s to try to get in the pants of her 17 year old daughter doesn’t make it OK or show that Roy didn’t do other things. It certainly appears that you are cool with the whole idea. What doesn’t get talked about much is how common this was and still is in the so-called Christian South.

  39. Craig Smith says:

    Too bad onyxbook and the others here don’t realize this is what this whole Moore thing is, a smear campaign. They have convicted the man on heresy. Accusations from 40 years ago with no basis or proof. If the yearbook signature was legit her lawyer would have no problem turning it over for examination. But they know it faked and a forensic examination would reveal this. This is the same tactic used when the demo paraded out Anita Hill to attempt to derail the Clarance Thomas Supreme Court nomination.

  40. Craig Smith says:

    Exactly, you got it. Too bad onyxbopk and every other liberal cannot understand this. They have already convicted and hung Moore based on a smear campaign just like I have explained

  41. Attila Iskander - Turul Fia says:

    They have had decades to expose him
    And Poof they appear just before an election in which the Dems have a lot to lose
    And they are backed by a bunch of Dem operatives who have participated in such actions before.

    Sounds like you WANT to believe he’s guilty and therefore are quite comfortable with questionnable evidence that supports YOUR desire for his alleged guilt.

  42. Attila Iskander - Turul Fia says:


    That is exactly the strategy for a smear campaign
    And this one smells of that in spades.

  43. Attila Iskander - Turul Fia says:

    You have 3 problems
    1) You clearly demonstrate that you
    a) you DO believe
    b) you WANT TO believe
    the accusers EVEN THOUGH, the evidence to support the accusations is sketchy and keeps collapsing
    2) You can not really provide credible evidence to support your belief
    3) You conclude that ANYONE who question YOU and YOUR belief are automatically believers of the opposite.

    It’s NOT a case of “if not A then NOT A”, with only 2 clear black and white choices.
    This whole pre-election accusation, of which there was ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE for 40 years, justifies questionning the veracity of the tale.

    And the last time I checked, one is innocent UNTIL proven guilty.
    And right now, the so-called proof is not credible.
    In fact, it stinks more than a fish washed up on shore for 4 days.

  44. paulej says:

    Of course, I’m skeptical since these women have had years to expose this man, but they wait until he’s running for Senate and then wait until the election is nigh. It almost looks like planned sabotage. Why not expose the man when he first launched his campaign? Then there is the yearbook issue. Why has that lady not given the yearbook to a third-party examiner who can verify the date of the ink on the page or performed hand-writing analysis? Seems that if he really signed it, taking that step would go a very long way in lending credibility to her story. Refusal, though, casts a very large shadow of doubt. As the days pass, it looks more and more like a political operation in action.

  45. Craig Smith says:

    You do not even know what a pedophile is. I heard you dated a ten year old girl. Prove me wrong. A girl I won’t saw her name emailed me last night and told me about this. I believe her

  46. onyxbook says:

    If you don’t believe the women, cool. I do and that’s where I’ll leave it.

  47. onyxbook says:

    Why is what you say fact and what I say speculation? It’s clear you believe the pedophile and I believe the women. We’ll leave it there.

  48. paulej says:

    So what evidence do you want to give everyone to prove you’re not a pedophile? Seriously, such accusations are dangerous if they’re lies. And nobody should be asked to prove something that’s untrue.

  49. Craig Smith says:

    You cannot convict some just on accuasations. I hope no one accuses you of anything you didn’t do. You’ll look at this in a whole new light

  50. Craig Smith says:

    So how do you know he has a propensity for dating underage girls. Because he’s been accused? That is not proof. You make no sense in your logic. The yearbook is fake or Allred would have turned it over to a hand writing any list. If it is real then why not turn it over. Also who remembers such detail from when you were 14. Their stories read from a bad romance novel. They are all fake and bought out to make these stories up

  51. Attila Iskander - Turul Fia says:

    What “a whole town knows you’re a creeper “

    Sounds like you’re trying to invent more FAUX data

  52. onyxbook says:

    I agree with dumber…..the day Drump was selected.

  53. onyxbook says:

    Most certainly I can…..It doesn’t help when a whole town knows you’re a creeper as in his case.

  54. onyxbook says:

    By not having a woman who was 14 when she said he did in his history and a propensity to want to date girls less than 18 as a 30+ year old….that’s how you prove it. BTW this is not a trial.

  55. bayouscrubs says:

    Did you look at the “T” in “To Terry” in the picture on the right and the “T” in the “To” that begins the yearbook passage? They appear very close if not identical in my opinion.

  56. Rocky Ray Antoky says:

    dashes rather than slashes weren’t in common use for dates in the 70’s..late 80’s it became a computer standard.

  57. Badgerite says:

    As it turns out, that press conference where they accused Beverly Johnson of having had contact with Moore because of her divorce filing and lying about it was not actually true. All she did was file.
    The case never made it to court. The filing was withdrawn and they went to counseling. And the one signature that she would have gotten from Moore…..wait for it…..was looped at both the top and the bottom. Which means that what I said about his writing style was exactly right. This was someone who was very studied in writing his signature and experimented with different versions of the same thing. And the signature she had on the document, which was stamped, is not exactly the same as the one in the yearbook or the 2017 signature.
    So. There’s that. As of yet, there is no reason that I can see not to believe Beverly Johnson and every reason to question Moore’s non-denial denials.

  58. Moderator4 says:

    Calm down and eliminate the ad hominem attacks.

  59. Steerforth says:

    After all that, you still know SQUAT about handwriting and document analysis, but keep trying. Your ignorance amuses us.

  60. Steerforth says:

    Now, look at it again when you’re not drunk.

  61. David Lassing says:

    The flourish is his middle initial – S. He may have started signing his name Roy S Moore when he became a judge.

    The D.A. Could stand for district Attorney. In 1977 he was the Deputy District Attorney. So did he drop the Deputy part to make it more impressive?

  62. butlermonkey says:

    Duh, the yearbook was from her sophomore year, the year before. And only Roy Moore can tell you why he thought fit to write the year in there twice. Too busy ogling the teenager with lust, probably.

  63. arcsinice says:

    The two signatures ARE distinctly different.

  64. Old enough to know better. says:

    How do you get around his handwriting? It’s too long a message and his cursive too distinct to suggest it’s been faked. The little anomalous only add to it credibility. If one was good enough to fake this rather long hand written note, why not be more salacious.

  65. UnmentionableDeeds says:

    I like your jokes

  66. seegul says:

    CNN has a reputation over the years of being a low life lying liberal organization. This just supports their well earned evil image.

  67. Robert Campbell says:

    He has not been convicted of anything therefor he is not guilty.

  68. Attila Iskander - Turul Fia says:

    This is very questionable.

    Anyone who believes that their handwriting and signature will remain perfectly identical over 40 years is an idiot.

    I know for example that my signature deteriorated during a few years when I ended up signing a lot of letters, reports and documents.
    It took me an effort to get back to a more legible signature in the following years.
    I also changed from with the use of my middle name and the use of my middle initial.

    And then physical changes also affected my handwriting and signature.
    Age and injuries can do that.

    I would like to see an analysis of the actual chemical composition of the ink

  69. Johnny Higgs says:

    Oh ! So its not something YOU would do …… SO THATS IT …. final …. nobody else should do it if you dont ! A

  70. Jubal Durden says:

    The stutters and stops on the yearbook signature is a clear indicator of a slowly forged signature. You’ll notice that the real signature has zero stutters, and the fake one has probably over 100 of them.

  71. SeeThroughYou says:

    It’s a forgery, dummy. Literally lifted from her 1999 divorce paperwork judge moore signed off on.

  72. Mike W says:

    I addressed these issues in the paragraph you’re replying to.

  73. Ian Chin says:

    The Blaze is the source of the falsehood.

  74. Ian Chin says:

    After school job? When I worked in high school I went straight to work after school… books and all.

  75. Karen Mullins says:

    Why would she even bring a yearbook to work? It is not an item I would bring to a job. I also have several questions regarding the date yearbooks are not signed in the time around Christmas.

  76. Badgerite says:

    I have no problem with “obvious scrutiny.” But that “scrutiny” must be held to forensic standards to ensure some level of accuracy.
    That is Ray Moore’s signature. The only question for me is who put it there. And that would require forensics to come to a reliable conclusion on that point. It is the same point John made in his post. And he is right.
    FYI, science is “objective”. The simple fact is, if the testing the ink shows that it has been on the page for a long time, then it was Moore who made the signature. If there is indication that the ink is a more recent addition to the yearbook, then Moore didn’t.
    Simple. And reliable. Science don’t lie.

  77. Yonatan_Maccabim says:

    The world is getting dumber by the day. “he needs to prove he is not a pedophile”. Sheesh. Ridiculous.

  78. Yonatan_Maccabim says:

    It’s funny that you’re arguing up the science angle when the original is being brought under obvious scrutiny. Why are you so married to the idea that it is real rather than it might be a fake? Seriously, open the original image in photoshop and look at it for yourself. I think you want to believe something, rather than being objective. Science!

  79. Alec Dacyczyn says:

    “…seemingly perfect match…” ?!?!

    A fifth-grader could forge it better than that.

  80. Craig Smith says:

    The D.A. on the signature is the initials of the county clerk who used a rubber stamp signature of Moore’s on legal documents. D.A. does not mean district attorney. that is why the yearbook signature is a fabrication. They copied the signature from the rubber stamp signature on her divorce papers.

  81. Craig Smith says:

    in a trial one does not have to prove his innocence. the prosecution must prove guilt and a jury has to agree. if I asked you to prove you were not a pedophile how would you do that?

  82. Mike W says:

    I’m referring to text that follows and includes ” D.A.” the “Moore” in his signature.
    She said a lot at the presser, and was emotionally upset, so it’s easy for me to understand how she would not dwell on minutiae. Maybe someone will put the question to her, under oath, and also ask Moore some questions under oath. Inquiring minds want to know.

  83. Keith_Indy says:

    So, where’s the flourish after the Y in his name in the yearbook? Flourish or it’s his middle name… but it’s in his 2009 and 2016 signatures.

    Of course, if his signature has changed in the years since the yearbook, what we really need are other examples from the same time frame.

    And, what’s with the D.A. after the signature he provided. Clearly states he is Circuit Judge, not District Attorney.

    Just questions that aren’t answered from what I’ve seen.

  84. Truthnotrelative2 says:

    Look…as I understand the facts…. Roy Moore was the judge that took an official action in her divorce in 1999. At the time she was Beverly Harris. The yearbook signature that she purports to be Roy Moore’s signature appears to be a near duplicate of judge Moore’s “stamp signature” used by the clerk of the court whose initials were D.A. and were affixed next to the judge’s “stamp signature” in Beverly’s divorce papers….it is suspected by many that the judge’s signature may have traced in the yearbook entry which would make the entry a fabrication. Maybe it is or maybe not. I am sure a full investigation we’ll be conducted by the authorities to determine whether it was a forgery. By the way, her step son says he has reason not to believe her…maybe he is right….he knows much more about the character of his step mother than we do…. Also it’s reported that one of the reporters that issued a hit piece on judge Moore may have been convicted of fraud for passing bad checks….if so….hardly a reliable source for news.

  85. Keith_Indy says:

    If this were the case that “she decides to add the block of text after his signature” why is the last name a match for his hand writing?

    And, if she did that, would they not say so in the press conference about this for full disclosure?

  86. Paul Paad says:

    First off. The “R” and “M” are NOT the same. The top loops from 1977 are more pointed than from 2017. And the “R” from 1977 has a loop at the bottom And the “Y” is completely different. Just look at the tail of the “Y”. Open and short from 1977 and closed at the bottom with a loop well above the line on the one from 2017. The “e” in Moore from 2017 is more open with a shorter tail as well. And the double “OO” in Moore. In 2017 the first O is smaller than the second. IN 1977 the first O is larger than the second. I know most people don’t sign their name “exactly” the same every time. But these look to be different to me. I am not an expert. But there are too many differences for me to ignore. IMO

  87. iamjamieq says:

    Use The Blaze as a source, look like an idiot.

  88. Badgerite says:

    Well, I tell you. I made a typo in one of my comments and put Ray down instead of Roy and had thereafter several comments that said the signature was fake because his real name is Roy.
    It was a typo, and I got that response.
    Why would you object to a chemical analysis?
    No. As I have replied to other comments, if that is indeed a 40 year old signature on a 40 year old year book, then there are any number of reasons why there might be discoloration or fading.
    Moore’s attorney wanted an analysis and I think that is fair. But the analysis I would rely on would be a forensic one that looked at the chemical make up of the ink to determine age and how long it has been on the page to determine if it is recent or much older.
    That is the only definitive proof that would be acceptable.
    I don’t “believe” in UFOs either. There is usually an explanation for some light in the sky which that person just hasn’t thought of.
    It was Moore’s attorney that insisted on having the signature examined. And I agree but with emphasis on a forensic examination of the ink, etc. That shouldn’t be too hard to arrange.

  89. Tracker says:

    “Cause nothing is ever altered on the internets” – who altered the photo CNN tweeted out? Was it an intern? Was it the Getty’s Images photographer? Was it someone at Twitter? Any explanation like that is a huge stretch. You don’t need a chemical analysis to see those are two different color inks. You just need to look at it at the right angle with enough lighting for the camera to pick it up, which is exactly what happened in the photo CNN tweeted out.

  90. Badgerite says:

    “Really easy to see?” Uh huh. Cause nothing is ever altered on the internets. Is it? You can rely that everything you see and hear on the internets must be so. Just as presented. No. There are forensic ways to verify, say for instance, how long the ink has been on the paper. Chemical analysis of the ink could probably determine who manufactured, where sold and when. Things like that. If this is a recent writing, there would be the possibility of chemical tags that were placed in the ink by the manufacturer.
    So, no. I would only accept a forensic analysis of the signature and particularly the ink to determine authenticity or the lack thereof.
    It is science. And science I trust.

  91. Tracker says:

    You’re speaking about different political and legislative philosophies, a completely different discussion. I could point out how Trump’s travel ban is constantly being interfered with by 9th circuit judges in the discussion about judicial overreach, but it is a different discussion.

    And there is no doubt about the forgery. The “Moore DA” and everything after was in completely different ink, you don’t need experts and tests or anything like that. It’s really easy to see. It might show up better (higher resolution) in the CNN tweet that the photo originated from

  92. Badgerite says:

    Know what else? I can guarantee you that some over 30 guy trolling for teenage dates at the mall made a hell of a lot of teenage girls more uncomfortable than any trans kid just wanting to use the bathroom.

  93. Dr. Tar says:

    Thanks for the information. I hope I never have to have my handwriting analyzed, thought I’d feel sorry for who ever had to do it.

  94. Badgerite says:

    Actually the court does. And then the legislature reacts. It is a question of interpretation of the statute. If the court gets it wrong, the legislature is free to amend the law and frequently does.
    See the Lilly Ledbetter case.
    But with respect to this one case, yes I think his reasoning was ridiculous. The law as written was clearly flawed. But in terms of the justice of that particular case, where there were allegedly more rapes than one, and where it is an adult, then yes, I think that with a 4 year-old, the fear of serious injury is part and parcel of the act. The other members of the court took that into account. Moore didn’t As you said, the legislature did alter the law, which clearly needed altering to have it comport with the decision the court had reached. Didn’t they. Moore was wrong. And he showed a certain insensitivity to the parents of the children involved, I thought. And to the child. Law is actually quite malleable. And judgement matters. I think his is awful.
    Speaking of which you are absolutely getting ahead of yourself.
    No forgery has been shown. His lawyer has merely raised the possibility and frankly for my money, an analysis of the ink and other forensic markers would be the key to claiming forgery or authenticity. No handwriting ‘analysis’ which is simply one person’s subjective opinion. There is no science involved in that.
    The only change here is that the possibility exists that one of
    Moore’s original signatures was copied or traced. It does raise doubt but is not dispositive at all.
    As to the other women, no one has accused him of committing a crime except for the woman who was 14 at the time. And yes, I think a man who is interested in young teenage girls to the extent that he goes to the mall, and high school events to find ‘dates’, does make it more likely that the story by the woman who was 14 at the time is true. It certainly doesn’t make it less likely.

  95. Stan_Hooper says:

    Without a doubt, he signed it, he was there. He flirted with her. She was a beautiful girl. He found an opportunity to make his move when the BF didn’t show up. I believe her. She is reliving that night over and over now everyday.

  96. Patrick Butler says:

    Prove you’re not one!!!

  97. Tracker says:

    None of that changes the fact that Ms. Yearbook forged half (at least) of the signature. We can look at the “corroborative evidence” real quick. Even if you assume the very worse interpretations you have three woman who said Moore acted legally, respectfully, and with full knowledge and/or permission of their mothers, and that’s supposed to support a story where he acted illegally, disrespectfully, and in secret? Then you have the woman who said he eye raped her, then you have have the woman who say he slapped her ass as an adult, are we supposed to take those seriously? Anyone who is willing to forge a signature and present it as real instantly has no credibility. The only allegation that matters is the first one.

    And don’t bring legal opinions into this. Do you really think he wanted to set that guy free? Of course not. He believes you can’t legislate from the bench, that it’s actually up to the legislators to create law not judges. It’s fine if you don’t agree, but that’s a completely different discussion. Don’t be obtuse.

    [This Court has potentially opened the door to cases in which a 10–year–old could be convicted of “first-degree sodomy by forcible compulsion” for intercourse with an 8–year–old, or a 6–year–old with a 4–year–old, or a 16–year–old with a 14–year–old. The legislature, however, has already drawn these lines in the statute under which Higdon was convicted, stating that a person commits sodomy in the first degree if “[h]e, being 16 years old or older, engages in deviate sexual intercourse with a person who is less than 12 years old.” § 13A–6–63(a)(3). Because the Legislature of Alabama has adopted § 13A–6–63(a)(3), which covered Higdon’s conduct, for which he is being punished, this Court has no “right” or “authority” to make a “new” law to govern conduct between minors the legislature obviously chose not to address. Therefore, because I believe this Court is adding its own rule to the statute, I respectfully dissent.]

  98. Laura says:

    This has already been debunked, dummy.

  99. Badgerite says:

    No such thing when hand writing is involved. Lawyers know that. It is not a science.
    Expertise is simply someone who spends a lot of time doing it. That’s about it.
    There are ways to verify authenticity but it usually has to do with the same methods of evidence that exist in other areas of law. Corroborative evidence like the paper used, the ink used, etc. Common sense. There is no ‘science’ of handwriting analysis. It is a practice of those who spend time at it and the only thing that makes their opinion persuasive is if it is attached to some common understanding. Like they didn’t make that kind of paper back then. I don’t know if ink can be dated or not but that would be an objective, observable fact that would determine authenticity or lack thereof.
    Case in point. The handwriting “experts” at the FBI were completely off the wall when they identified the mother of Joan Benet Ramsey as the author of the note left in their house after their daughter’s murder. They claimed there was no intruder in the house. And DNA found on the girls body ( the killer pissed on her) proved to be from no one connected to the family.
    A stranger. An intruder. It is subjective analysis. Not science.
    Just did some googling and ink dating can be done. Type of ink. Date of manufacture.
    Chemical date tags. Somewhere in there they can probably determine how long the ink has been on the page. There are no “experts” in handwriting as it is not a science. It is a subjective analysis based on familiarity through study with a particular persons method of writing over time.

  100. Dr. Tar says:

    I don’t see expertise in handwriting analysis among the author’s credentials. Perhaps this is best left to the experts.

  101. Badgerite says:

    Yeah. That’s the ticket. Because that’s what most forgers do. Use two different pens.
    And not notice. You know, there are more women who have come forward and when interviewers asked why they didn’t say anything at the time to anyone but their friends their answer was, “No one asked.” That sounds about right. A professor from the University of Alabama School of Law was on the Lawrence O’Donnell show tonight and she gave what is the laws viewed on corroborative evidence. Indicia of reliability will attach when the person making the claim has told someone contemporaneous in time to the event. Quite a few of these women did just that. And the similarity of what they say happened and what was recounted to others at the time are also corroborative. But I digress.
    I have two words for you. Well three. The Higdon case.
    This was a case which involved the rape of a 4 year old at a Christian daycare center.
    The man was accused of raping other children but there was only sufficient evidence to bring a case to trial for one of the children. The man was convicted of statutory rape and forcible rape. The appeals court overturned the forcible rape charge which carried a much tougher sentence then statutory rape. Luther Strange was the prosecutor in that case and appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that the lower court’s interpretation of the law as applied to the evidence was in error and that the conviction rape of a 4 year old could be reinstated as forcible rape with the harsher sentence.
    Ray Moore was the sole dissenting vote from this decision. He wrote:
    “Because there was no evidence in this case of of an implied threat of serious physical injury, or an implied threat of death, Higdon cannot be convicted of sodomy in the first degree ‘by forcible compulsion.”
    This is what you are defending. A man who cannot grasp that sodomy of a 4 year old by a grown man should be considered “forcible” under the law because there was no threat of serious physical injury. That sodomy of someone else’s child at a day care center would just be statutory rape. Which has a lesser sentence as it can be and often is consensual.
    There is nothing not forcible about the rape of a 4 year old. And one would have to interpret the “threat of injury or death” to be a part and parcel of the action when rape of a 4 year old is involved.
    Watching those people try to get one some moral high horse while defending this guy kind made me sick.

  102. Tom Pettinat says:

    Lol if you do not believe the Russians interfered in the election you have your head up your ass. P.S. I am a republican fool

  103. Tracker says:

    If there are two different color inks, the allegations sink.

  104. Tiffany says:

    Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
    On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
    ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleOnlineEasyDesignTechJobsOpportunities/easy/jobs ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!da156luuuu

  105. R. Shultz says:

    I can see two different ink colors….
    Get Real!

  106. goulo says:

    So here you’re saying that they are remarkably similar, therefore it’s a forgery.

    And 4 hours before that, earlier in this same thread, you said that they have vast differences, therefore it’s a forgery.


  107. WarrenHart says:

    These clearly match. They arent a perfect match, but they wouldn’t be since there was so much time between them, but you’d have to be blind not to see the same person signed both.

  108. Bavak says:

    Our futures rely on such drivel. So sad.

  109. Badgerite says:

    No. That hasn’t been shown. As John said, a test as to the age of the ink would be the only definitive way to show authenticity or lack of authenticity of the autograph. Moore’s lawyer has raised the possibility that it could have been copied from a document that one would assume would be in Beverly Johnson’s possession. Nothing more. And the definitive test would be of the ink. As we have seen what handwriting “analysis” amounts to by reading this thread. A lot of ridiculousness that is just as easily explained by the natural discrepancies of anyone’s signature even within the same 24 hours let alone over 40 years. If this was a copied signature, then it was copied from one of Moore’s own signatures. And the discrepancies in loops, and what not are his own natural variations on own signature.
    The ink would actually be the key to the whole thing. Not the “loops” or various other bullshit items that his defenders have listed here.

  110. Badgerite says:

    Actually, that is what I would say about you. The crap I have heard from Moore’s defenders is absolutely ridiculous. Hand writing analysis is not really a science, you know. The definitive issue would be, as John posited, the age of the ink on the page. If it were to date to 1977, that’s Moore’s signature made by Moore himself.
    The rest is window dressing. As to the “authorities”, remember the case of Joan Benet Ramsey. The FBI handwriting analyst insisted that the note left by the killer was written by her mother. And they just ignored the DNA sample on the child’s body that they could not connect to anyone in the family and claimed the family did it. We all know how that one turned out. They haven’t found the real killer to this day. Hand writing analysis is not really a science. Nor is hair comparisons. We had a case in Madison involving the murder of a young college nursing student. The prosecution claimed that the defendant’s hair placed him at the scene of the crime. This was before DNA testing. It was persuasive. Until DNA testing proved years later that it was not actually the defendant’s hair and the conviction had to be thrown out.
    John had it right. No “hand writing analysis” will be definitive proof one way or the other. There is no ‘science’ of handwriting analysis. All Moore’s attorney has done is raise the possibility that this one woman is not on the up and up. And the definitive test of that would be the age of the ink on the page.
    That and only that would be proof one way or another as to the authenticity or lack or authenticity of the autograph.
    And with respect to every other person who has come forward about Moore’s behaviors at that time? His co-workers, local officials of the town, the 14 year old? Was Moore the judge for her divorce as well?

  111. David Lassing says:

    Does not look like two different colors of inks in this image.

  112. David Lassing says:

    Here is an example of his signature from 1999 that looks the same.

  113. Badgerite says:

    Uh huh. As I said, he could have written Howdy Dowdy. It was a high school year book.

  114. Jonaos says:

    DA was his assistant’s initials from the 1990s, smart guy. And it did NOT mean district attorney.

  115. Jonaos says:

    The leftist trolls are all over this blog now and spreading their lies, thats for sure. Right Mike W.

  116. Jonaos says:

    The DA in the signature is not for “district attorney” – Its the initials of Roy’s former assistant, Delber Adams. The entire signature is a forgery, only the “message” part looks genuine. The accuser stole Roy’s signature and the DA [thinking it meant district attorney] from a divorce paper Roy signed in the 90’s for her…He was her divorce judge – She left that info out at her press conference – and why would she allow a judge she claimed try to rape her, oversea her divorce 18 some years later? That makes no sense at all, she would not trust him. She is caught LYING. She is a FRAUD.

  117. Mike W says:

    Scroll up and look at how I answered these questions. More information is needed before you can say with great confidence that the signature is forged.

  118. Mike W says:

    Perhaps she brought in last year’s yearbook. If the yearbook is for the senior class of 1976, that resolve the 1977 date issue.

  119. Mike W says:

    Check the date on the cover of the yearbook. If it’s for the senior class of “1976”, then it’s simply the prior year’s yearbook. If it’s “1977”, then it’s suspicious.

  120. Mike W says:

    I can imagine a scenario where Moore chats her up at the diner, and she’s talking about her high school friends or activities, and later on brings in her yearbook for show and tell. Moore allegedly frequented the diner after all. Moore looks through the yearbook, and signs it on a whim. She’s flattered by the attention of a powerful, older man paying her so much attention, and she decides to add the block of text after his signature, recording his title (DA to her was no different than ADA), the exact date, and the location, to preserve the memory. To me, this seems plausible as the handwriting looks different from the text above it, and somewhat girlish. It’s fairly easy to determine if different ink was used in each section ( simple chromatography would identify different inks, not sure how you would determine the age of the ink, but it can probably be done). Knowing the date of the yearbook would give credence to this scenario, and also explain the December 1977 date. If the yearbook is for the class of 1976, and he signs it in 1977, then it’s simply her yearbook from the prior school year. If the yearbook itself is for the class of 1977, then the 1977 date makes no sense as the class of 1977 yearbook would be released 5-6 months later. Do these explanations make sense to you?

  121. BC says:

    not so much, but compare the M in Merry and Moore are they the same, doesn’t look like it

  122. Steerforth says:

    Again, the reason the officials don’t come to you for the answers to the current issue of the yearbook page is that you know absolutely NOTHING about handwriting and document analysis. Oh, and I told you before, neither of the Clintons are running for office or hold high office. What part of that don’t you understand? Get wisdom.

  123. Mike Walsh says:

    What about the 7’s? How can they be so different in the top section than the odd December date below? There are certainly enough questions that it is reasonable to have it examined by experts and not the ones on this forum. Lol.

  124. contradictioncounter says:

    Yeah…the Clintons have brainwashed millions for decades…amazing they’re still getting away with such corruption

  125. genesis3 says:

    Oh really? It faded RIGHT THERE at the last name and the other added material? C’mon, your IQ is greater than your shoe size, right? Or is it? How about this — the accuser submits that yearbook to forensic testing. Betcha the blue ink isn’t 40 years old. And if she’s lying (and I’m sure she is) she does 40+ years for the crime she accused Moore of, Allred does too, and you drink a can of Drano.

  126. paulej says:

    Can you prove you’re not? A tough thing to prove one is innocent. (I’m not making a judgement call, because I don’t know whether he is or is not, but you cannot ask him to prove something he did not do.)

  127. paulej says:

    I went to my bank to withdraw money one day and the lady refused to give to me initially because my signature did not match the signature card on file. And that was 10 years. Just imagine how much different his signature likely was in 1977 versus 2017. If he kept a signature so close to the same through all these years, would he be a first? I have no idea if it’s legit, but it could very well be a fake given how much I know my signature has changed.

  128. Steerforth says:

    The reason the authorities don’t come to you for the definitive analysis of the yearbook page is that you know SQUAT about handwriting and document analysis. Did you figure that one out yet?

  129. R. Shultz says:

    No..but voting for the Clinton’s means you are a hypocrite!
    Check it out…2 different inks….Forged!

  130. Larry says:

    The signatures are not even close. The R is completely different. The line first goes up, then down and then loops over that line and up to form the top loop, then down to the center where a new line is started and curved downward almost straight. That is not even close to how the person wrote the R in 2017.

  131. Steerforth says:

    Boy, you need to get some learnin’ in you. Your facts are full of holes, but can’t see them because of your blind desire to win. I will give you one: The recording “by WaPo” is FAKE! it has already been exposed as a fake, but you missed that part, didn’t you? “Bernie Bernstein” and his message had Morning Joe and his crew laughing out loud this morning. The actual message is on YouTube now, so check it out. And you know nothing about handwriting and document analysis, so stop pretending you do!

  132. Steerforth says:

    I am not running for the U.S. Senate. Moore is. I did not pretend to be “Holier than thou”. Moore did. The Clintons are not running for office. I bet you didn’t notice.

  133. R. Shultz says:

    Yes…as a forged signature should be…

  134. R. Shultz says:

    Puritan!…Let he who is innocent cast the 1st stone…
    I bet you voted for Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton..
    BTW the age of consent was 16 in AL back then…

  135. Pat Cannon says:

    pretty sure the most brazen con job ever is the brainwashing of americans for the past election.

  136. Steerforth says:

    What difference does the answer make? Moore is a sexual predator who molested underage girls. The evidence is overwhelming; your good ole southern boy is toast.

  137. gimmesometruth says:

    Why did the accuser deny she was later before Judge Moore in a divorce proceeding? She no doubt received copies of his signature during the proceeding. So I say have an expert analyze the yearbook. That will determine the issue. Also, is there any doubt she received money for her performance? Let her swear whether or not she received any money. That would be very relevant.

  138. Steerforth says:

    A woman manager at a nearby mall was interviewed, and she said that there was a general warning issued about Roy Moore who was trying to pick up teenage girls. She is not the only one, either. Sorry, kick your feet in the air and cry, but Moore is guilty as hell – and it’s very obvious to t hose who examine the current evidence.

  139. Adam Muziq says:

    The message was written by someone named roy.They added the moore da date and place after the fact.Either they thought it wouldnt stick or they added it to make a false accusation.

  140. onyxbook says:

    Fuck a signature…..he needs to prove he’s not a pedophile.

  141. DavidAppell says:

    Where are the links to the supporting documents? Without those this is just heresay…

  142. R. Shultz says:

    Are you seriously quotes Snopes as a source???
    Those people lie about the noses on their faces…
    Snopes is long discredited…

  143. R. Shultz says:

    How do you know that??? It’s only your opinion..

  144. R. Shultz says:

    So who did Judge Moore rape 30+ years ago??…

  145. Penn says:

    Wrong, there were no rumors of any kind over the years. A few quotes from this week’s democrats do not change that there have been no rumors of any kinds. Both times the politicians removed Moore would have been the first times the rumors would have surfaced. But they didn’t because there weren’t any.

  146. Penn says:

    I have more experience and actual knowledge. You are nothing to the discussion.

  147. Mike W says:

    He prolly asked her to bring the yearbook in (see above).

  148. Penn says:

    So you do believe Russians are involved. Redneck moron = Democrat

  149. Cyrano Thebirdsareback says:

    Humorous: Laugh and the world laughs with you. Sneeze and its goodbye Seattle.

  150. Penn says:

    Why would there be the year twice? Why would she show a book that wasn’t sold until the following spring? Why would you believe this fraud by that woman?

  151. Mike W says:

    I’m 59, and have kept everyone of my signed driver’s licenses. Looking at them, I see variation over time in how I formed and spaced letters, experimented with flourishes, stayed on the line, dotted or not dotted the letter “i”, and even how I spelled my last name (the last four letters of my twelve letter name appear as squiggle). Generally speaking, my handwriting was neater 40 years go and contained more flourishes. That said, some of my signatures look like different people wrote them.

    That said, the two Moore signatures look like they were written by the same person. The “12-22-77…” text looks like it was added by someone else. I can easily imagine the girl adding the that text after Moore signed, to memorialize it, as she has stated that his attention flattered her. I can also imagine her
    keeping her yearbook at her place of very public place of employment, to have it handy for friends to sign.

  152. Badgerite says:

    Nice nose.

  153. Cyrano Thebirdsareback says:

    Got it, the fact that something could be suspected and still go unreported. Thanks.

  154. Tom Pettinat says:

    what a idiot

  155. Badgerite says:

    Rumors of Jerry Sandusky molesting young boys was known by Paterno and he did nothing for decades while it was on going. Rumors of Moore have gone on in Alabama apparently for some time. “Common knowledge” seems a rather damning description of Moore’s interest in teenage girls.

  156. Cyrano Thebirdsareback says:

    It does, vaguely. I honestly don’t know much about that.
    What does that have to do with Roy Moore?

  157. Badgerite says:

    Ah but they are. Look at the M in each signature.
    As I said, no one signs their name exactly the same every time. I know I don’t. The signatures are similar but certainly not exact.
    They are close enough that a bank can verify that it is mine.
    But not exact. Ever. There are going to be discrepancies in anyone signature especially with a 40 year gap in between. It will be recognizable as these two signatures are as being from the same person. But certainly not exact copies. If they were, it would be suspicious.

  158. Badgerite says:

    Joe Paterno. Jerry Sandusky. Penn State. Ring a bell.

  159. Badgerite says:

    I never sign my name exactly the same. Do you? There are always discrepancies.
    They are similar but never exactly the same. And the lack of exact matching would mean that this earlier signature could not have been “traced”. This was a free hand signature.
    And that would be a difficult task to master the flourishes and get the level of similarity there that exists.

  160. Cyrano Thebirdsareback says:

    I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

  161. Badgerite says:

    It’s a teenagers high school year book. He could have signed it any way he wanted including the King of Siam.
    Don’t know why December. But I find it hard to believe that a forger would forge a December date. Don’t you?

  162. Jon says:

    They are remarkably similar.

  163. Badgerite says:

    Don’t know. Why would a forger not take that into account?
    Why would a forger get that wrong.

  164. Badgerite says:

    You have nothing to back that up.

  165. Badgerite says:

    Try to get something straight here. This is only one of the women who have come forward. I believe at current count there are five or seven. I’ve lost count. One of them was 14 at the time of his contact with her and no he did not have the mother’s permission.
    Old Hickory House is printed. It isn’t cursive. I don’t find this particularly convincing. It would seem that Roy Moore himself did not remember these divorce proceeding. But that is a point. About the only one I have heard so far in Moore’s favor. As to a handwriting expert, well, I got eyes. Who ever wrote that 1977 signature did so free hand. It was not “traced”.
    And the similarities in the flourishes would be hard to emulate. I think it is his.
    This is the first time I haven’t seen his lawyer be an absolute creep.
    And I have to wonder what that creepiness was about. He was literally on national TV trying to justify Moore’s interest in young teen girls by comparisons to other cultures. This was a much better performance God knows.
    But I can’t say as I am convinced as this is one person and the rumors and statements of people who knew and worked around Moore at that time back up the allegations.

  166. Penn says:

    Yes it is. And that proves the lawyer and the woman are frauds.

  167. Fujison says:

    Why would anyone sign a yearbook in December? Yearbooks are published at the end of the school year: summer.

  168. Penn says:

    Funny how stories written by a coach sound the same. Problem is, the coach had to stop the lies because they couldn’t find a pattern over time for something that the experts all agree would be a pattern over time.

  169. Fujison says:

    Why would anyone sign a yearbook in December? Yearbooks are published at the end of the school year: summer. And why is there a “D.A.” after his signature when he was the Deputy District Attorney?

  170. Penn says:

    Actually they are not. The frauds are caught.

  171. Penn says:

    Funny funny stuff. So a forged signature in a book that wasn’t published in December is used by the Russians (I guess) ……is that how this will play out?

  172. markend says:

    The ink can be dated.

  173. Cheeto Libre says:

    These idiots. They forged the signature, as well as the assistant’s initials. Moore was the judge that presided over the “victim’s” divorce, and he was not the District Attorney. When they copied the stamped signature, they even wrote the “DA” which followed the stamping. Which are the initials of Moore’s assistant at the time.

    This is the most brazen con job I have ever witnessed!

  174. Badgerite says:

    You did not “learn” any such thing. What would be dispositive is some way to have the ink dated. But the silly things that people have been claiming point to a faked or forged signature are ridiculous. The was a 32 year old man signing a teenage girls high school yearbook. He could have called himself the King of England if he had wanted.

  175. R. Shultz says:

    He wasn’t the DA….but he did have an assistant Delbert Adams. Judge Roy Moore presided over this accusers divorce case….the decree was signed by Moore and witnessed by Delbert Adams..D.A.

  176. Badgerite says:

    Actually they are. But one is the same man signing his name 40 years earlier.
    I know that there are variations in how I sign my name even from one day to the next.
    You are never going to get an exact replica unless it is a “traced” signature, which the 1977 signature clearly is not. Or it would match the 2017 one more exactly.
    What’s more, why would a forger change anything in the 2017 signature? Let alone move the loop of the Y from the top to the bottom. That makes no sense, unless that is Roy Moore’s signature but 40 years earlier. Since his official signature is available, why forge it wrong? Unless it isn’t forged at all.

  177. Kim Kirk says:

    We just learned today that this is likely a forged signature. He never signed his name with a D.A., this was the initials of his assistant. The Alred team appears to be busted.

    Also, this woman claims to be a huge Trump supporter. I find impossible to believe given how emotional she is about this alleged 40 year old groping while Trump was accused of the same thing. Not plausible.

  178. Badgerite says:

    They are not “entirely different”. What they show is the variation that might occur from the signature of someone at 32 and the signature of that same person 40 years later.
    Nothing more, nothing less. You would not expect them to be exact. Were it a present day forgery, and “traced” it would be a more exact match. That argues for the authenticity of the signature.

  179. R. Shultz says:

    No way these signatures are the same…..
    Similar but with vast differences…esp. the R and the Y…
    …The Y isn’t even close…
    Good attempt…but no way the same.

  180. Badgerite says:

    It does not “appear” to be a forgery. Quite the contrary. There is no “Ray” there. Both signatures clearly have an O as in “Roy”. In writing a comment at a ridiculous hour of the morning I made a typo that I didn’t catch and someone has been saying that one of the signatures says “Ray” which it doesn’t ever since. You people are ridiculous. There is no A there. That was an early AM typo. God.
    And look how you run with that. Look at the above signatures that John has posted.
    They both clearly say Roy Moore. Not Ray. Roy. Jesus.

  181. Badgerite says:

    By the by, what you are saying and I think you are right is that the two signatures so not match up exactly meaning that they could not have been “traced”. This would have to have been free hand. And that would be extremely difficult to get such an exact match to the particular flourishes Roy Moore used. That is his signature, only 40 years ago.

  182. Badgerite says:

    Not particularly. Why is there air? Nothing you have said here means very much.
    Why would an assistant DA bother to be particular about that when signing a high school year book of as a 32 year old. It is hardly official and he could call himself the King of Siam if he wanted to. Couldn’t he. A better question would be why was a 32 year old assistant DA hanging out signing the high school year book of a teenage girl. We already know that of course because one of his colleagues at the time has stated on the record that it was “common knowledge” that Moore sought relationships with young teenage high school girls and trolled the mall and high school athletic events to that purpose.
    Why did he sign it “Merry Christmas”? Probably because it was signed a couple of days before Christmas. Why sign a high school year book as a 32 year old at all? Unless you are a teacher at that school, that in and of itself is quite…..unusual.
    One other comment noted that the two signatures, 1977 vs 2017, have slightly different dimensions. And he is right. They do. Which would mean that the signature could not have been traced. It had to be free hand. And for free hand, the flourishes are so similar as to have to have been written by the same person. That looks for all the world like the Roy Moore signature of 2017, only the 40 years earlier version.
    No forger is going to use two different pens or kinds of ink. Probably of discolored over time.

  183. Badgerite says:

    They don’t seem to get this though. They keep making the same stupid points that are ridiculous. Why would a “forger” change the loop on the Y from the top as it is in 2017 to the bottom of the Y. That can only be a change made over time by Moore himself. Changing up and experimenting with the flourishes, which would not be all that uncommon for someone like Moore.

  184. Badgerite says:

    Yes, because forgers always use two separate ink pens to forge a signature.
    That is utterly ridiculous, you know. That is more likely the fading or discoloration of the ink over the span of 40 years. Far more likely that than a forger deciding it would be a good idea to use two different types of ink and to not copy the signatures very well and to put the loop at the bottom of the Y as opposed to the top. Because that is what a ‘forger’ would do, don’t cha know.

  185. Cyrano Thebirdsareback says:

    “Common sense” = Moore defender’s kryptonite.

  186. Badgerite says:

    Right. Because that is what forgers do. They work in twos. And use two different kinds of ink on the same autograph. And they also don’t trace the signature to the specifications of the original that they are tracing. You people are really desperate.
    Everything you point to, the discrepancies, indicate that this is not a forgery.
    No forger tracing a signature would actually TRY to copy the signature to different specifications than the original. Or change the loop in the Y from bottom to the top.
    Jesus. That actually tells you that a person who has a studied method of writing his name that involves a lot of loops and flourishes, as Moore clearly does, would probably change his signature somewhat over the course of 40 years and that one signature is from that person 40 years ago and the other from the same person in 2017. That is just common sense.

  187. Cyrano Thebirdsareback says:

    It is Moore’s signature, the woman (then girl’s) story is similar to the other stories, inappropriate touching with a minor occurred, and Moore should withdraw from the race.
    But he won’t because of his ego.

  188. Moderator4 says:

    Enough with the insults. You are banned.

  189. genesis3 says:

    Use the CNN image; they were dumb enough to shoot it in color. Look right here:

  190. Badgerite says:

    Uh huh. Gibberish.

  191. Badgerite says:

    Oh they were brought up. One of his co-workers pretty much said his trolling of the mall for teenage girls was “common knowledge”.
    But the old boys network is the old boys network. Then. And now.

  192. Badgerite says:

    There is an old picture of the restaurant and the name on it is…..Olde Hickory. Go figure.
    Both signatures say Roy. Ray was a typo I made. Not the signature.
    The phone calls are fake. WaPo didn’t make them and has paid no money to anyone. They would be sued for such an action. It would be malicious and would therefore fall outside of the protections of the First Amendment Freedom of the Press. I will not hold my breath waiting for Roy Moore to sue as he or some friends who have said they would vote for him even if the allegations were true are likely behind these fake calls.
    No forger would use different inks. That is like the product of the chemical fading of old ink over time. That would lend itself to the authenticity of the autograph.
    Between some estranged step son and local professionals like legal co-workers and police that were in the town at the time of the alleged behavior of Mr. Moore, I would regard the latter as the more relevant, material and reliable testimony. The step son was not even alive at the time. There are other women besides Beverly Nelson, you know. At the current time, there are 5 I believe. The youngest was 14 years old at the time of her alleged encounter with Mr. Moore.
    The Ys are different only in the the writer has changed the loop from the bottom of the Y in 1977 to the top of the Y in 2017. No “forger” would make such an obvious and readily apparent mistake. But people with ostentatious signatures with great flourishes in them are known to experiment with their signatures and change them over time. This does not discredit the authenticity of the signature in the least.
    Yes, one line is printed. But it is not really part of the signature.
    Might have been added later by someone else. Does not discredit the signature itself.
    The phone calls are fake and WaPo has made a public statement saying those calls were not from them. This is the most ridiculous thing yet. The phone calls identify the caller as “Bernie Bernstein”.
    Jesus. Why not just call yourself Jewy McJewerson. This was a call made by someone whose only knowledge of WaPo had to be the names Woodward and Bernstein. Laughably phony.
    As I mentioned in another comment, such a call would place WaPo outside the protections of the First Amendment Freedom of the Press as it would demonstrate malicious intent. They could be sued.
    But since they did not make the calls and I’m sure can prove this, I am absolutely sure no one will sue them. Certainly not Moore.
    The last thing he wants is these women to testify in a court of law.
    To sum up, you have no facts. You are blowing smoke.
    And that is the act of desperation. And guilt. At the very least,….
    knowledge of guilt.

  193. Rich Tillett says:

    Badgerite again for the slowwww….You SEE IT, wtf dude are you really that fkn BLIND…At the very least it calls into question HER account not HIS….Now that being said I never claimed he did or didn’t. However this is “tangible” unlike he said she said crap…..As for you “arguments reasons points bla bla bla” crap…. All you have is the SAME thing we all have which is a possible forgery, and that is the only FACT…..

  194. Badgerite says:


  195. Badgerite says:

    Yeah. Typo. But since you are so upset about that I will edit it to soothe your “snowflake” feelings. Those are robocalls of fake origin. Bernie Bernstein? Seriously. WaPo has already said those calls are not from them. They paid no one for the information they received. Some local phone calls prove only that someone is trying to discredit the story. Hmmmm. I wonder who would have a motive to do that? Hmmmm. Let me think. Breitbart? Bannon? Anyone associated with Roy Moore. As I said in my posts, how would her step son know “she was lying” exactly and why would she lie. To get what?
    Again. I did not read the signature to say RAY. That was a typo due to the hour I wrote the comment and not enough proof reading.
    And you go on about it as if you have uncovered some great thing.
    You are an idiot. Clearly. Both signatures say Roy Moore.
    That he put down DA as opposed to DDA…….well it is a 32 year old man hanging out in a local teen haunt signing a high school yearbook. I can’t imagine he was that concerned with particularities. That is hardly something that discredits the authenticity of the signature. Not in the least. As John pointed out, if the ink is tested and is dated to 40 years ago, the signature would have to be his. It just defies credibility that some teen 40 years ago would decide to get an autograph from the local DDA.
    It isn’t like he was a local celebrity or Elvis now is it.

  196. Badgerite says:

    I didn’t have to “try” at all. What I observed about all of the allegations and evidence against Roy Moore is really pretty obvious. Even to a dope.
    These women, I heard there are now five, are Alabama people. These aren’t some “coastal elites”. And that is where the accusations are coming from.
    The Washington Post only wrote a story about them. The accusations are coming from local Alabamians.
    And I wouldn’t care about “impressing” you. I do care about the rule of law and just basic decency in our society.

  197. Badgerite says:

    Well, you don’t have a “lot of words” and the ones you have aren’t very good or convincing. That is the crap people resort to when they can’t answer your ….arguments, reasons, points of evidence. But ….whatever.

  198. Webster says:

    The author says that if it is a forgery, it is almost certainly recent:

    > And that would seal the deal, as
    > it’s difficult to believe that
    > someone 40 years [ago] was
    > trying to impersonate a
    > 32-year-old Roy Moore in a
    > rural Alabama diner.

  199. Rich Tillett says:

    psychofish lmao just cant handle the truth huh? Only rubes and dolts would think that the ACTUAL document (which clearly indicates forgery) is some how less credible than the person that has possession of said forgery…. Just cant fix STUPID….

  200. Rich Tillett says:

    Badgerite dude go find a safe place were you dont have to SEE the truth….What a fkn dolt…. No amount of drivel coming out of your mouth is even remotely impressive, so why try so hard? PS that “ninth” you so eloquently point out works both ways dumb ass…….

  201. Rich Tillett says:

    Badgerite your kinda stupid huh? That was a “a lot of words” does that some how make you right? Your one of them people that doesn’t “believe” what the see just the KOOLAID they drink….

  202. sheckyshabaz says:

    Why do i jump to name calling? Because you responded with a condescending attitude to begin with.

    You want facts?
    1. The ink in the signature is both blue and black.
    2. There’s a recorded WaP voicemail asking for people to make false claims against Moore by any woman between the ages of 54-57 and will be paid $5,000-$7,000 for said information. It’s also said that claims won’t be investigated This report has been on the news in Mobile Alabama. They played the actual message for the public to hear.
    3. The stepson made a claim in regards to his stepmother’s credibility and publicly stated he’d testify.
    4. The signature in the yearbook says Ray and not Roy.
    5. The Y’s are unquestionably different.
    6. The signature says “Ray Moore D.A. 1977”. His name is “Roy”, not Ray, and he was the DDA in 1977. This is documented for crying out loud.
    7. The restaurant in question has the wrong name.
    8. The entire message up until the end is written in cursive while the name of the restaurant is printed.
    9. A former secret service agent has a family member who was contacted by the WaP asking to pay money for false accusations against Moore. The information is currently sitting with an Alabama DA right now.
    10. Yearbooks are given away in May and the signature in question is from December, which is 7 months later.

    The other “14 year old” has a criminal history, extreme debt, multiple divorces, made false accusations about other people in the past, and lied about having a phone in her bedroom. Her own mother was the one who publicly stated that her daughter never had a bedroom phone and that the WaP pressured her daughter into making this claim.

    These are FACTS. Now how you choose to interpret said facts are up to you, but you can’t dispute the actual FACTS.

  203. Richard_Iowa says:

    The “Moore” in both signatures above are tracings. From the middle of the “M” to the top of the
    “r” in the 2017 signature it is 20 mm. From the middle of the “M” to the top of the
    “r” in the 1977 signature it is 19 mm. From the bottom of the “M” on the first down stroke to the break to the right in the 2017 signature it is 9 mm. From the bottom of the “M” on the first down stroke to the break to the right in the 1977 signature it is 9.5 mm. From the bottom of the “M” to the middle of the “e” it is 32 mm in both signatures. Someone likely signed “Roy” as the original signature while a second person traced “Moore” from one of Roy’s original signatures.

  204. lunar62 says:

    Why do people immediately jump to name calling? Can’t you say something in a reasonable way? “Ron Panzer” said that amateurs shouldn’t be offering opinions on this and I’m agreeing. Only highly trained experts, looking at ORIGINAL documents, using scientific methods of checking ink, paper, etc have any hope of getting at the truth. Laymen looking at pictures on the internet can’t say what is real and not real…that applies to people who say it’s a forgery and to those who says it’s not.

    You know don’t the facts… I don’t know the facts. The rest is just opinion and confirmation bias. None of us know this woman. None of us know her stepson who says she’s lying. None of us know Moore. The only people who know the truth are Moore and the woman invovled. Why is that so hard to accept? We don’t KNOW and I’m OK with saying I don’t know.

  205. sheckyshabaz says:

    His name is Roy Moore, not RAY you dumbass. Yet you call him Ray, and where did you get Ray from? Oh that’s right, you got it from the signature in the YEARBOOK. Why would Judge moore sign RAY Moore instead of his own Freaking name!!!!!! Besides that, the signature says D.A. 1977. Roy Moore was the D.D.A. in 1977, not the district attorney. Not to mention the restaurant in question has the wrong name and that she was carrying her previous year’s yearbook to work 7 months later. Oh, not to mention the WaP voicemail report out of Mobile showing the WaP is paying 5k-7k for false testimony against Moore from women 54-57 years of age. It’s all over the news in Alabama. And finally, Beverly Nelson’s own stepson made a 15 minute FB video saying she was lying and would testify on behalf of it if need be.

  206. sheckyshabaz says:

    He used the site because it provides an enhanced photo of the document. It doesn’t matter whether the site is bias or not when what’s in question is the document itself. The gateway pundit is not the one issuing their opinion. They are showcasing other people’s discussion of the document and different forms of evidence. Had you actually read the article he provided you would know this, but you chose to use bias confirmation which lessens your opinion in and of itself.

  207. sheckyshabaz says:

    You idiot, it doesn’t matter what site he used when it’s documented evidence. He used the site because it provided an enhanced view of the document and anyone can see the difference in the writing. You’re just choosing not to accept the facts.

  208. Aajaxx says:

    gateway pundit. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  209. Aajaxx says:

    How do you know that’s really her stepson, or that he is telling the truth if he is? And the blue ink was probably faked by gatewaypundit. Any forger good enough to forge that signature wouldn’t make such a mistake.

  210. icposse2k says:

    The blue ink that you refer to only seems to appear in still photographs of the yearbook inscription. In the press conference video, they zoom WAY in on the signature and there’s no evidence of blue ink. Maybe because it’s easier to photoshop the ink color on a photograph than in a video?

  211. lunar62 says:

    You’re right – handwriting analysis should be left to the experts. So I assume you’ll be going to other websites like the gateway pundit so you can say that to the people who are saying that it IS a forgery, right? You can’t just say that to the people who say that it ISN’T a forgery. You do see the irony of saying that only experts should offer an opinion and then end by saying “it’s very likely A FAKE” based on what other amateur handwriting analysts are saying. You’re even doing it yourself: “The 7s are quite different.” Are you an expert?

  212. Truthnotrelative2 says:

    if indeed it is a forgery, as it appears it is, why on earth would one jump to the conclusion the forgery was committed 40 years ago? That is not Plausible. There is more reason to believe that it is a current forgery tacked unto the first name of some poor bloke whose name is Roy or Ray that she knew in high school assuming the yearbook is even hers.

  213. Truthnotrelative2 says:

    The “R” in Roy/Ray and the “Y” in Roy/Ray are entirely different. In addition, if you look at the colored pictures of the yearbook entry (instead of the black and white ones) you will see that the ink is different after the Roy/Ray…. it goes to Blue ink and the handwriting is different. Clearly a doctoring by someone. Assuming it’s her yearbook and assuming the entry was actually written when she was in high school, she probably had a friend in high school who was named Roy or Ray. In addition, Beverly Nelson’s stepson has a video out in which he says none of it is true.

  214. psychofish says:

    It was only brought up now because the WA Post followed up on rumors of that time and place, found the women, and asked them point blank in their face, “Did he really do these things?” “Oh really? Then right here, right now, can you tell me all the details, and who else you told these details to at the time it happened?”
    These women didn’t say, “oh give me a few days to get my story straight. I’m a Republican and this will hurt our party if I don’t say this just right.” Its like these 50 year old men who were raped by their Catholic priest from the age of 10 to 16 and we ask, well why didn’t you say anything for these 35 years? Plus, in 1978, attempted rape of a young teen is not seen as a crime, just as most staes did not have laws against the rape of a spouse.Hell, 30 years before, there wasn’t even a single child abuse law in the U.S.
    Just as a middle aged man does not want to talk about being anally raped as a child, these women did not “bring it up” until they were confronted with the truth, and had to either confirm or coverup the assault.

  215. Alfred Rocha says:

    You mean the allegations that, in the 40 years since Moore started his political career, no one has ever brought up until now?

  216. goulo says:

    You’re seriously quoting Gateway Pundit as a source?
    The same conspiracy website which recently lied and claimed that journalists offered women thousands of dollars to lie about Roy Moore, quoting only an anonymous twitter feed as their source?

    And spreads other bogus urban legends?

  217. Badgerite says:

    Well pardon my French, but how would her “step-son” know or not know if she was “lying”? That is hardly dispositive of anything. Was he even alive at the time?
    Here is the thing. In a court of law there are rules. In presenting evidence to prove a case those rules are the Rules of Evidence. This isn’t a he said/she said as such. There are at least three who have come forward and come forward in a hostile political environment where they are likely to be viciously attacked and have every aspect of their privacy stripped away. That has already happened, in fact. One of those women was 14 at the time and what she alleges Moore did would indeed be a crime. The statute of limitations has tolled for her and there can be no case brought, criminal or civil. There is nothing in this for the women coming forward. Other than the relief of an particular mental burden that they have had to carry. That lends to the credibility of what they say. There is also quite a lot of corroboration from professional people in the area at the time. Co-workers such as other lawyers, local cops, etc. It seemed to be rather common knowledge in the town that Moore was interested in young teenage girls. A jury is allowed to use this kind of corroborating information as evidence to infer guilt. As they are a lack of a motive for the women to lie. As they are that in this environment of taking on a powerful political figure they are likely to be attacked. As they are that the mother of the 14 year-old confirms that Moore offered to have her daughter spend time with him in his office rather than attend the custody hearing where Moore opined the child might hear upsetting testimony. He kept contact with her and at one point had her at his home in the woods where he made improper contact with her, according to her account. In fact, what there is there in the public domain right now is sufficient, were the statute of limitations not tolled, to provide the probable cause needed for an indictment. This cannot be dismissed blithely as a political “hit job”. There is just too much real evidence, corroborating evidence there to ignore.
    As to your other points, do you see no contradiction in claiming that southern culture sanctioned his actions then and saying that as a pedophile he would have to be doing this still if it was true then. I don’t know that he is a classic pedophile.
    Would you need to be to “date” young teenage girls where it is sanctioned by your culture? I don’t think so. I do think he pushed the legal bounds with a 14 year-old. You do realize that such a person would probably be just getting out of 8th grade. And no, her mother did not even know about his advances toward her daughter let alone give her consent.
    Moore was indeed known locally at that time as someone who was interested in young teenage girls. The rumors were there at the time these alleged events were to have taken place. They weren’t “accusations”. Guess why.
    Teenage girls. These are not fully formed adults you understand. These were teenage girls we are talking about in a southern culture of 40 years ago.
    And this isn’t just about him chasing teenagers and improper actions with at least one underage 14 year-old. It is about that. But it is also about him lying. I believe that signature is his. If the ink dates from that time, his denial is not believable. His contemporaries in the town stated that it was common knowledge that Moore was interested sexually in young teenage high school girls. He claims that is untrue. This is about his truthfulness as much as about the alleged actions with this 14 year-old girl who allegations started this whole thing. He has denied everything that could corroborate her allegations.
    And some of those denials are in dispute with a lot of other people who were there at the time and in positions of responsibility and trust within that society.
    This is about his honesty as well.

  218. Badgerite says:

    I’m sorry, did you somehow miss all the accounts by former police and colleagues of Moore which corroborated that he was known in the area for trolling and hitting on teenage girls?
    At the local mall. At local high school athletic events. And the local diner would seem the same kind of thing. Wouldn’t it?

  219. Ron Panzer says:

    OK, good points. But, Roy Moore was a Deputy District Attorney, not a District Attorney and would never have signed his name “Roy Moore, D.A.” It would be Roy Moore, DDA and another point: pedophiles do not change just as leopards don’t lose their spots. If Moore was a pedophile, there would be rumors and stories for the decades since the late 1970s and there is nothing about him being a pedophile in all those years he served in the courts.

    Nelson’s step-son says she’s lying and also that the family says she’s lying. I believe he may have dated young high school girls, and that may have been common in some parts of Alabama/Southern culture with an age of consent at 16 and age for marriage (with parental consent) is 14. If the law even envisioned a 14 year old getting married with parental consent, some must have been married at such an early age. Muslims approve child marriages even younger.

    Just dating young high school girls does not prove rape or molestation. Just signing a year book doesn’t prove molestation. I don’t find the allegations credible. Sorry. But you and everyone else are entitled to their opinion. No crime has been proved and no molestation has been proved. Where are the years of accusations we see with people like Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein, etc. Moore has not been the subject of years of accusations. Why not?

  220. Badgerite says:

    Yeah, I looked at the link and the simple fact is there is no real case there made for the idea of a forged signature. If you look at the Chief Justice signature next to the yearbook signature you can see that the yearbook signature is not an attempt at forgery. Want to know why? Oh good. I’m glad you asked.
    Please don’t tell me that someone tried to forge the guys signature 40 years ago. Why would they bother? So any attempt to ‘forge’ Ray Moore’s signature would have to have been a recent one and the model used would have to have been some official one such as the one shown as his Chief Justice signature. So how could an attempt at forgery get so many of his particular loops and flourishes right but somehow manage to get the loop of the Y at the bottom as opposed to the top of the Y. Seems a bit of an obvious mistake, doesn’t it. If you are actually trying to forge a believable signature you would surely not make such an obvious or ridiculous error, one would think. When something is an attempted forgery, it is reasonable to believe that the attempt would be as close as humanly possible to the original.
    And in actual fact, Roy Moore’s signature is clearly a studied one. Most people do not put those kinds of flourishes in their signature. When someone does, it is a studied exercise and those kinds of flourishes can change over time. This is a far more reasonable explanation for that discrepancy than an extremely incompetent attempt at forgery that got the loop of the Y at the bottom rather than the top. You don’t need to be a “graphologist” for this conclusion.
    It is simple common sense and human experience. Idiot. The ‘gateway pundit’ is full of it.
    As John correctly points out, the only issue left in question is the ink.
    As to the “two different pens”, oh Lord. This is a signature on a yearbook that was from 40 years ago. Portions of the ink could have faded through natural processes. And in fact that would lend credibility to the age of the autograph because no forger would use “two different pens”. If the ink could be dated to 40 years ago, case closed. Moore is lying and it would be a real time lie in the present which everyone could see.

  221. Ron Panzer says:

    Well, you’re a lawyer and you would never advise a lay person to argue their own case or analyze the legal issues if it could not be avoided. Yet, you act like you’re a graphologist who understands everything that goes into forensic analysis of a signature. Nobody but an expert should even try, and you would need to also test the ink to see if the ink on the differently colored parts of the signatures were from the same time period or totally different. Looks like a fraud to anyone with clear thinking: who uses 2 different colored inks to sign a yearbook?

    Also, the step son of this lady and her family say she’s lying and are willing to testify under oath about that!

    As a lawyer, you would never analyze a case from media reports, but here you do. Shame on you! Rush to judgment and hey, didn’t you learn that in law school — that old thing about someone being “innocent until PROVEN guilty.” A mob can lynch someone believing they are guilty yet often they are not. Have you joined the mob? Or can you re-consider your amateurish venture into graphology?

  222. Donald J. Mouse says:

    Why is the side with ‘Moore’ with blue-looking ink? Faded? Someone spill water on the book 40 years ago? And was Moore even a DA in ’77? Who signs a kids yearbook with their profession?
    “Have a lovely and Happy Merry Christmas”
    signed Happydance Petrol Atty Gen.?
    Comon, ain’t this a little odd?
    Besides, if it was in a restaurant 40 years ago and some teenager wanted your signature; you gonna say; “No, you are too young to get one”? Really? This proves nothing. He probably didn’t even know her; just some kid.

© 2020 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS