Posted on 12/08/2017 8:16:28 AM PST by Trump20162020
Beverly Young Nelson has finally admitted that she forged a portion of the infamous high school yearbook that she and attorney Gloria Allred used as proof of her accusations against U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore.
And in yet another blow to the credibility of ABC News, the disgraced, left-wing network downplayed the bombshell by presenting this admission of forgery as adding “notes” to the inscription.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I think it is. If you review the original press conference video, Allred showed the front cover of the yearbook and Nelson's name is embossed on the front cover.
-PJ
Why not take an honest look at the writing on the graduation card and compare it to the writing on the yearbook up to the word "Roy?" Tell me why the "Roy's" are the same to two different women?
I'm not holding it against Moore that he dated barely legal girls, and I don't believe he assaulted anyone. I believe that someone in a public office like his meets so many people he might not remember everyone he dated 38 years ago.
But I do want an explanation for the same handwriting on two documents claimed to be written by Moore. The writing in the yearbook cannot be swept aside because Nelson tampered with the end of it, when the rest of it matches another document.
I dismiss Nelson's story, but not the writing in the yearbook up to "Roy."
-PJ
I don’t think they were written by the same person. I do think the Year Book was written by someone who saw a sample of Moore’s writing. But the main reason I doubt he wrote it is that the linguistic style is all wrong. Read the card it is congratulatory without being effusive. Notice he does not sign it “Love, Roy”.
How likely is it that he would write an entry in the yearbook of a seventeen year old that reads like it was written by a peer and not a grown man? From what I have read he respected the proprieties. Trust me those include what to write and what not to write to a young lady who slings your hash at the local diner. Also the wording is just awkward almost as if someone was trying to write an dedication that would match a made up story. I now call your attention to the word “more”. Why is it so different than the other words. Could it be someone was testing how well they could forge another person’s handwriting?
So then, why did the assistant initial it, did she sign the yearbook for Moore?
Allred should be disciplined by the Bar Association of California and have her license to practice law suspended for 6 months at minimum.
If she was practicing “pro vice” in Alabama, she should be prevented from doing so anywhere in the state.
She should be charged by the State with tampering with evidence and obstruction of justice by not turning over the yearbook to the police for forensic testing by a certified agency. Then she should be put in jail and forgotten.
It is because of people like her that many people hate most lawyers. Count me in and I’m a paralegal who works with great attorneys who have integrity and ethics, none of which this ambulance-chasing Democrat bitch has or had.
WVMnteer thus proves himself a principled moron! Sheesh!
The Senate wields far too much power for us to indulge WVMnteer's sense of right and wrong.
If Roy's guilty, leave it to the Senate Ethics Committee to find out. Then the Senate can expel him, and Governor Ivey can appoint a Republican replacement!
The assistant initialed legal documents, not the yearbook.
-PJ
Let me check to see if I understand you.
If someone was trying to copy Moore's writing, was he important enough in 1977 to motivate others to scheme against him or pretend to be him in a high school yearbook?
If this was done more recently to derail Moore, why was part written with one ink and the rest written with another? Wouldn't it all be written at the same time?
Was the forged portion written by another long ago but far after 1977 in Moore's style, or was it added recently, to implicate Moore?
And finally, why does everything up to the word "Roy" match the style of the Gibson graduation card? Was Gibson also trying to match Moore's style, or did the same copycat inscribe Nelson's yearbook and send a graduation card to Gibson?
-PJ
No the forgery was recent. Anyone can write a backdate on a entry. Two different people wrote the dedication and the dating. Nelson has admitted as much. Probably figured making the notation would bolster her claim.
The signatures are somewhat alike is style but they are not the same upon closer examination. There are some obvious differences which are more apparent if you view them as if they were on lined paper. Not sure how better to describe this.
But then there is the whole matter of linguistic signature or style. The two items are nothing alike in that aspect. I would surmise that whoever wrote that dedication was not a thirty something veteran who was now a assistant district attorney conscience of the conventions of the town he lived in doing a favor for a young woman who served him at a local restaurant. Plus the dedication is just plain mawkish and awkward and nonsensical on its face.
Otherwise, I am happy to disagree, since I asked for thoughts and you objectively presented yours.
Thanks.
-PJ
Thanks to you as well. I am not a handwriting expert where you see similarities I see differences. Which I guess is why handwriting experts exist in the first place. But I do stand by my assertion that the linguistic styles are very different. Linguistic styles are usually consistent even in brief examples. There are exceptions of course,mostly deliberate to suit circumstances or the audience. It is also a reflection of personality. So just ask yourself.
With what we know of Roy Moore at this time in his life in that town does that dedication fit what you know? If you read this without any supposition about the author how old do you think the author would be? How familiar with the person he was writing to? Stage of education? How much thought was put into the wording? How much sense does what was written make? Just some things to ponder.
It's possible that Moore was trying be romantic and personal in Nelson's yearbook, and professional and inspirational at Gibson's graduation.
Also, Moore signed the yearbook in 1997 (right out of law school) and sent the graduation card in 1980, so he may have sharpened his approach a bit in the three years.
-PJ
That is one crappy seduction attempt. And why would anyone leave evidence of attempted seduction in a place that is likely to be seen by her peers and very probably family members? And I think you got the date wrong. The yearbook was signed in 1977.
I don’t know what you mean by sharpened his approach.
To your point, it probably is a crappy attempt at overt sentimentality. After all, Moore was a straight-arrow MP in Vietnam until 1974, so what did he know? 1977 was his first year of dating, so he sounds like a nervous teen. He built up his dating confidence by 1980.
I'm not saying this is what happened, but I am trying to come up with plausible scenarios that rely on the fewest assumptions.
-PJ
How do you know it was his first year of dating? No one has suggested (I mean people who knew him then) that Moore wanted to date/court young women in their late teens because he lacked the emotional maturity to date women of his own age. The lack of emotional maturity argument has been advanced to explain some such relationships (mostly in the matter of sexual pederasty by priests) but I don’t think it fits here.
But even if he was emotionally mature that would not show through only when he wrote in a yearbook. But lets suppose it was an attempt to seduce Nelson. So he wrote an effusive, awkward, overly familiar dedication in an attempt to show his attraction to her. Was he hoping for a response? I have no idea. But it certainly does not follow that if he wrote that he would then force himself sexually upon Nelson.
What you are suggesting (I think) is that an emotionally immature man in his thirties wrote a yearbook dedication to a 17 year old girl in an attempt to seduce her rather a non-aggressive approach to establishing a relationship. Yet Moore also connived to take advantage of a vulnerable Nelson relying on her trust to sexually assault her and threaten her. He did this on the property of a place where they were both well known (according to Nelson). A bit of risky behavior on his part. Would an emotionally immature person who was not also a total sexual deviant take such a risk? Nope. I think I am safe in asserting Moore was not a sexual deviant.
See my logic previously posted here.
Yet Moore also connived to take advantage of a vulnerable Nelson relying on her trust to sexually assault her and threaten her.
No. I never said Moore assaulted Nelson. That is her narrative that is to be disbelieved because of her lying. The only thing I suggested is that if we are to believe Nelson that *something* happened, that it was an attempt to "make out," to initiate petting that was rebuffed, as a result of misreading signals. Again, a result of immature dating.
-PJ
Oh, the tangeled web they weave.
She wrote the date and location under the inscription, right?
Nope, not on the big screen, and Megyn never mentioned it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.