Replies

Here is my criteria: 1. The number of allegations 2. The credibility of the accusers 3. The amount of corroborating details 4. The length of time that has passed. 5. Disqualifying motivations by the accuser.
I mean, how else can we evaluate these kind of claims? The length of time that has passed is common to many of these kind of claims, and is somewhat understandable. But, even that falls short because sexual harassment 'came out of the closet' in the 1990's.

Given that, according to my evaluation, Corfman's claims fall short, and I believe that the benefit of doubt has to go to Moore.

I like the logical approach you bring to this issue. Moore essentially admits to dating young girls. There is not much doubt about that and Moore essentially offers no real defense on that.

So one question is -- if Moore had no problem as a 32 year old going after an 18 year old then is it reasonable to think he would have no problem going after a 14 year old? I think that is a fair question.

But we have two things to consider. First -- although Moore is a sinner as we all are he has demonstrated his commitment to morals and love of God throughout his life. It doesn't mean he is incapable of sin but it is a consideration. Second -- we are left with your statement which I will paraphrase -- Moore gets the benefit of the doubt absent proof. There is zero proof that he diddled a 14 year old. All they have is a claim and the expectation of extrapolation that if he would go after an 18 year old then he could have gone after a 14 year old. I submit there is a HUGE difference between girls of 14 and 18. Therefore I don't buy their assertion that he is capable of doing it. Even if I DID think he was capable of doing it -- Moore still gets the benefit of the doubt absent proof.

Now if we get 20 girls coming forward saying Moore tried to have sex with them when they were 14 then we get to your point where the number of allegations matter. At some point it begins to look unreasonable that dozens of women were paid off.

However in this case we don't have any of that. We have one allegation with no proof. The rest of it is noise designed to condition the public into believing the story about the 14 year girl.