In the sense that a document which is altered after being signed is a forgery, we know that it’s forged. If I’m anywhere near correct in my understanding, the whole thing about two different kinds of ink having been admitted to as showing the division between what was written first, putatively in 1977, “Moore” was written later by the complaining woman - and that falls under any definition of “forgery.”And, IMHO the jury is definitely still open on whether it was written by anyone named “Roy” or by someone named “Ray.” Altho I initially was dismissive of that theory, TigerClaws has me convinced. For not only is it true that it is not difficult to read the cursive written name either way, it would be just as easy to see the handwritten word “say” as “soy” if “say” did not make sense, and “soy” did.
And the kicker is that when you read the last word of the first line as “say,” and the signature as “Roy,” does the inscription as a whole actually make sense??? It reads clunky. But if you read the signature as “Ray,” suddenly the inscription, including the signature, is a rhyme. And coincidentally, the complainant had a classmate named Ray! I would sure like a handwriting analyst to see Ray’s inscriptions in other classmates’ yearbooks!
So, what do we have???? A published account that then-assistant DA Moore hit on a “child.” It does not matter that what was alleged would have been legal, it was hyped as “creepy." It is based on one woman’s word, of a putative memory from 40 years ago (itself inherently dubious), and buttressed by an unquestionably forged document. Oh, BTW, also buttressed by the one thing that really mattered - Moore’s side of the issue was stonewalled by all of the MSM. That’s “the dog that didn’t bark” in this case.
It was an anti-Moore propaganda campaign which is part of a pattern of anti-Republican - actually anti-mainstream American society - campaigns. Including the campaign which got “white hispanic” George Zimmerman put on trial for murder. And the white boys on the Duke Lacrosse team subjected to a hoax rape charge. Fundamentally these are “Man Bites Dog” stories because they allege that perpetration of evil by the demographic upon which society most depends - white men.
And the campaign gets most vociferous against conservative women (Palin) or blacks (Cain) precisely because such people cannot be allowed to exert their identity as cred to undermine the “white man him bad” narrative.
I agree with everything that you are saying, but when he is the one filing the lawsuit, he must prove something (in this instance—that he did not assault them?). How exactly does he prove that?
If he filed suit against them, what exactly would the charge be? I guess that’s what I’m not understanding here.
If it’s something like Defamation/Slander, would proving the yearbook is a forgery actually prove anything? The yearbook caption doesn’t make any claims of assault so how would it prove anything either way? Sure, a forgery would help to make the accuser less believable, but her claim of an assault is strictly a “he-said, she-said” account. To me, it’s the same reason why defendants (who win their cases) don’t turn around and sue witnesses who testified during their trials. The witnesses may have had their stories wrong or were unbelievable, but that doesn’t rise to the level of Defamation/Slander.
If he was defending himself, it would be a no-brainer—there is no evidence that he assaulted them so that would be easy to win. But since he would be the accuser, he has the burden of proof.