Adding the inscription isn't forgery. Adding "Moore" at the end is. That's why nobody is pressing her on how much exactly she added.
Note the different angles of the lines of writing on each side of that yellow line.
Saw a pic last night where someone had drawn straight lines under them.
That’s what sealed it for me, even moreso than the ink
To this armchair amatuer this looks like a very bad forgery the "o" in the word could connect differently than it does in the Signature
But we knew all this
However we can get hung up on words here. She “altered” the document and to many this clasifies what she did as a forgery.
But she also is lying about when she did it. I hope we will eventually learn that the addition was not done until Allred explained that to be useful, the note would have to have elements that clearly implicated Roy Moore (simply the first name would not do) and would have to tie him to the restaurant and the date when she would be under age. (the added notes do this nicely but the “DA” confuses things until we learn that that is how Roy Moore’s assistant initialed off when she used a signature stamp. This stamp was used on the signature of the divorce settlement many years later. I doubt that Moore actually signed his name like the stamp back when he was 32.
The more I look at that, the more the o in Roy looks like an a.
I would also add that the inscription is part of the forgery.
Ordinarily, I would agree with you, but in this case, adding the inscription is a material alteration because this now “places” (attempts to place) Moore at the restaurant.
Black’s law dictionary says this is a textbook forgery.
Have you noticed how the forgery is being reported as "Beverly Young Nelson told ABC News she amended an inscription from Moore in her high school yearbook, adding the date and location."
They conveniently leave out that she also added last last name, as is evident by the color change between "Roy" and "Moore."
-PJ