Author Topic: Weinstein mess  (Read 3600 times)

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #250 on: December 07, 2017, 03:15:50 PM »
There are ways to deny the accusations without slandering the accusers. If they wanted proof of their innocence, they should have promulgated a system intended to deny victims proof.

How did you get the idea that a victim's testimony isn't evidence?

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #251 on: December 07, 2017, 03:53:38 PM »
They can deny all they want, but even absent "proof" (like a photo? Isn't verbal testimony usually considered proof of many crimes?), if five or more people are making accusations, and they've been vetted by a group like WaPo who just demonstrated they do diligence by catching a faker, then I'm going to default to "probably true" and say that I'm putting the he said/they said focus on the accused - as far as my public opinion and support are concerned.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #252 on: December 07, 2017, 05:47:19 PM »
There are ways to deny the accusations without slandering the accusers. If they wanted proof of their innocence, they should have promulgated a system intended to deny victims proof.

How did you get the idea that a victim's testimony isn't evidence?

How did you get the idea that the accused’ testimony is not equally valid evidence? This incredible idea you have that accusations are the ultimate proof is fatally flawed.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #253 on: December 07, 2017, 05:54:21 PM »
They can deny all they want, but even absent "proof" (like a photo? Isn't verbal testimony usually considered proof of many crimes?), if five or more people are making accusations, and they've been vetted by a group like WaPo who just demonstrated they do diligence by catching a faker, then I'm going to default to "probably true" and say that I'm putting the he said/they said focus on the accused - as far as my public opinion and support are concerned.

Vetted by a group like WaPo?  :o Right.

Testimony from alleged victims carry weight, sure. From 40 year old memories? I think a reasonable lawyer could invalidate it - memories from 40 years ago are easy to poke holes in. Add in the clear political motivations involved in waiting for this precise moment, it’s not hard to invalidate the whole thing.

Look, Moore sounds like a creep, not denying that. I just don’t go for mob rule, trying, convicting, and sentencing in the court of public opinion.  I guess that makes me unique here. If insisting on due process is a bad thing, I don’t want to be good.

scifibum

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #254 on: December 07, 2017, 06:49:50 PM »
Quote
Vetted by a group like WaPo?  :o Right.

Argument by incredulity works every time when it's the evil liberal  media.

Quote
I just don’t go for mob rule, trying, convicting, and sentencing in the court of public opinion.

The sentence in this case would be NOT getting elected.  You want voters to wait for proof beyond a reasonable doubt?  That's pretty stupid, and I'd wager you've taken the opposite position with regard to other races and candidates. 

cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #255 on: December 08, 2017, 01:47:40 AM »
I'm still wondering whatever happened to the woman who said she was raped by Trump when she was only 13 years old. Is she okay?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2017-12-06.html#read_more

"One accuser has been called a liar by her own stepson, who says he's voting for Moore. Another neglected to mention that Moore sent her brother to prison.

In defense of one of Moore's accusers, Gloria Allred produced a yearbook allegedly signed by Moore, apparently in two different inks and giving his title as "D.A." He was not the district attorney and didn't sign his name that way. Allred refuses to produce the yearbook for handwriting analysis or to deny that it's a forgery.

Contrary to what you have heard one million times a day on TV, there aren't "multiple accusers." There are two, and that's including the one with the fishy yearbook inscription whose stepson says she's lying.

The other "accusers" claim he dated them when they were 16 to 19 years old and Moore was in his early 30s -- or younger than Jerry Seinfeld was (39) when he dated 17-year-old Shoshanna Lonstein.

That would also make Moore 15 years younger than Bill Clinton when he had a 22-year-old intern performing oral sex on him in the Oval Office. Moore's date "accusers" say he did nothing more than kiss them. "

---------------------------------------------------------------

If the allegations about him sexually assaulting a 14 year old girl are true, then of course he shouldn't be in office, but if they are false then should he drop out anyway? By that standard Trump should have dropped out too since a woman accused him of full on raping her when she was only 13. Why did that story suddenly stop right after the election anyway? I'm sure it's just a coincidence but I don't want a man in office who is guilty of raping 13 year old girls so why hasn't the media gotten to the bottom of that?

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #256 on: December 08, 2017, 08:46:27 AM »
Quote
Vetted by a group like WaPo?  :o Right.

Argument by incredulity works every time when it's the evil liberal  media.
I make the same argument about Infowars, Mother Jones, and Vox. As should you. Outlets with clear motives to engage in political activism are not the most reliable of sources of political analysis so some skepticism is warranted. That being said, believe whatever you want. Doesn’t make it true though.  ;)

Quote
I just don’t go for mob rule, trying, convicting, and sentencing in the court of public opinion.

The sentence in this case would be NOT getting elected.  You want voters to wait for proof beyond a reasonable doubt?  That's pretty stupid, and I'd wager you've taken the opposite position with regard to other races and candidates.
I’d prefer voters not be told accusations are equivalent to ironclad proof and everyone realize that mob rule is a bad thing. You think that’s stupid? I’m pretty sure that if you look at the history of mob actions you won’t find the great results you think there are. As for your wager, let’s see your proof, what do you base that imagined position on? And note, I took the same position on Franken as I have on Moore in regards to due process so you’re behind the 8 ball already.  ;)

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #257 on: December 08, 2017, 10:19:31 AM »
Sure, he chased some "teenage tail" around 40 years ago but it was not illegal to do that. In fact, in the deep south in the 1970's a case could be made that it wasn't all that unusual - it was barely 19 years since Jerry Lee Lewis had married a 13 year old. Oh yeah, that's some creepy *censored*, no doubt about it and I'm not comfortable with it. But it wasn't criminal.

I was thinking about that and, actually, it happens in modem times as well. In 1993 at the age of 39, Jerry Seinfeld dated 17 year old high school senior Shoshanna Lonstein. People Magazine:
Quote
The story of Jerry and Shoshanna is probably best told in a People article titled “The Game of Love,” published in March of 1994, which is positioned from the perspective of the world having taught itself to accept their romance. “When Jerry Seinfeld fell for 17-year-old Shoshanna Lonstein, cynics snickered,” the subheadline reads. “No more.”
Jerry himself:
Quote
“I am not an idiot,” says the comic. “Shoshanna is a person, not an age. She is extremely bright. She’s funny, sharp, very alert. We just get along. You can hear the click.”
I don't recall anyone demanding Jerry's career be destroyed over this. It was a bit of tabloid fodder and that's about it.

More recently, in 2011 51 year old Doug Hutchison married Courtney Stodden - she was 16. Again, tabloid fodder and a few jokes but there was no howling mob demanding Hutchison be destroyed.

So after decades of this being nothing more than eyebrow raising and being nothing more than source for late night jokes as recently as 6 years ago, we're supposed be on board with the idea that Roy Moore doing it 40 years ago is a horror that must result in his political and personal destruction.

Why should anyone buy this as being a horror now? Sure, it has elements of perv to it, no doubt. But it's not illegal and, in fact, not at all unique either.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #258 on: December 08, 2017, 10:45:34 AM »
"One accuser has been called a liar by her own stepson, who says he's voting for Moore. Another neglected to mention that Moore sent her brother to prison.

In defense of one of Moore's accusers, Gloria Allred produced a yearbook allegedly signed by Moore, apparently in two different inks and giving his title as "D.A." He was not the district attorney and didn't sign his name that way. Allred refuses to produce the yearbook for handwriting analysis or to deny that it's a forgery.

So I was beat to the Seinfeld reference  ;D

However, signed "in two different inks", signed unusually, and refusing to allow examination of it? And nobody is supposed to question this? Seriously? I don't know, maybe it is his signature but from what we know now there's absolutely no reason to accept it at face value and the Moore team have a reasonable demand it be checked out. So why stonewalling?

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #259 on: December 08, 2017, 11:33:08 AM »
Vetted by a group like WaPo?  :o Right.

You do realize they caught somebody trying to fake a story to show how evil they are, right?


Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #260 on: December 08, 2017, 11:58:25 AM »
Vetted by a group like WaPo?  :o Right.

You do realize they caught somebody trying to fake a story to show how evil they are, right?
Catching a bad impersonator is not exactly proof of anything.

Now, google up Beverly Nelson and take a look at breaking news, literally minutes before this post! She is now admitting she altered the yearbook. 
Quote
One of the women who accused Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore of making advances on her when she was a teen and he a local prosecutor admitted Friday to forging part of the yearbook inscription she offered as proof.

Beverly Young Nelson told ABC News she wrote part of the disputed note in her high school yearbook that she and famed attorney Gloria Allred presented as proof the then-30-something Moore sought an inappropriate relationship with her in the late 1970s. Nelson still insisted that Moore wrote most of the message and signed the inscription, but said she made “notes” to it.

How confident are we in Nelson now?

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #261 on: December 08, 2017, 01:26:48 PM »
Crunch.

Breitbart has claimed forgery, she claimed she added notes regarding the date and location.  To my knowledge that claim she has made has been that he signed her yearbook and added an inscription.  So the "To a sweeter more beautiful girl I could not say Merry Christmas. Roy Moore".

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #262 on: December 08, 2017, 01:54:30 PM »
Up until a few minutes ago, the claim was Moore wrote the whole thing. So you’re saying, “sure, she lied about that but the rest is 100% accurate!”. Pretty weak.  It very well may be what you say, but with Nelson having misrepresented at least part of it, shouldn’t she now comply with Moore’s request to allow the rest of it be validated? Havng been caught in a deception, the burden if proof is now fully on Nelson and Allred. They need to come clean.

By the way, why admit this now? Nelson knew she was deceiving peole all along, why admit her deception today?

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #263 on: December 10, 2017, 12:27:05 PM »
Crunch.

Breitbart has claimed forgery, she claimed she added notes regarding the date and location.  To my knowledge that claim she has made has been that he signed her yearbook and added an inscription.  So the "To a sweeter more beautiful girl I could not say Merry Christmas. Roy Moore".

I’ve just seen a close up of this and you’re missing a significant part. The inscription is in black ink. The date and location is in blue ink and Nelson admitted she added that. You know what else is in that blue ink? The “Moore DA”. So someone named Roy did sign Nelson’s yearbook. However, Nelson added the surname Moore to it along with the “DA” (which is higly suspect and likely copied from the court documents she had). That is, in fact, forgery.  Did Roy Moore write this or did some other Roy?

Having clearly embellished this, are there other facets of Nelson’s story she embellished? It’s really hard to trust Nelson at this point.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #264 on: December 10, 2017, 04:56:35 PM »
They aren't "different colored inks".  There is a photo that has really inconsistent lighting that the ink color looks different across the page, that is an illusion not actual color differences.  Shots with good lighting show the same color of ink for everything.

A hand writing expert has concluded that it is his signature.

Quote
A handwriting expert has concluded that the signature in then-16-year-old Beverly Young Nelson’s yearbook was, in fact, Roy Moore’s, attorney Gloria Allred said at a Friday press conference.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/roy-moore-signature-yearbook-handwriting-expert_us_5a2aeb19e4b0a290f0507d2b

You probably aren't aware that signature analysis it is quite easy to spot a traced or forged signature due to forgers have entirely wrong pressure points in the signature.  Even with photocopies it is almost impossible to fool experts.  For instance here is the result of an experiment with photocopies of forgeries, and 69 out of 72 experts were able to catch all of the forgeries.

Quote
Lindblom and Gregory Dawson of the Center of Forensic Sciences in Toronto sent photocopies of signatures—both genuine and forged—to 72 document examiners in Canada, the US, Australia and Britain. Each examiner looked for characteristics such as pen lifts, hesitation and tremor, without knowing whether or not the signature was genuine. All but three of the examiners accurately identified these and produced a list of suspect features that was almost the same as that produced by Lindblom and Dawson from the originals.

Lindblom says these results, reported in Science & Justice (vol 38, p 189), suggest that photocopies can provide stronger evidence than courts have assumed. “We have probably been too conservative,” he says. “In many instances, we can give as strong opinions as with the original.”

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15921464-100-copies-of-forged-signatures-dont-fool-experts/

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #265 on: December 10, 2017, 06:20:12 PM »
The hand writing  “expert” hired by Nelson and Alredd confirmed the entire thing as written by the same person. We now know that expert was very wrong - or maybe Nelson wrote the whole thing. Nelson and Alredd still refuse to allow anyone else to examine it. There’s no getting around that Nelson forged at least part of this.

Perhaps it’s just lighting that makes the ink colors change, sure, why not? Until independent experts are allowed to examine it, I’m not accepting this as proof of anything other than Nelson’s willingness to fake things to help cement her accusations - something she’s admitted to doing.

Accusations require proof. That proof should  be available for examination. I know I’m essentially alone here in that idea but, nevertheless, it’s a reasonable and intelligent standard. Only the intellectually dishonest insist otherwise.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #266 on: December 10, 2017, 08:06:51 PM »
The hand writing  “expert” hired by Nelson and Alredd confirmed the entire thing as written by the same person.

What is your source for this?  I've never seen that claim made anywhere.

Quote
There’s no getting around that Nelson forged at least part of this.

Even Fox News edited their story to eliminate the claim of forgery.

Quote
Perhaps it’s just lighting that makes the ink colors change, sure, why not?

It isn't a 'perhaps' situation, you can see other pictures that show they are the same color.  You have to deliberately ignore the evidence to conclude they can be different colors.

Quote
Until independent experts are allowed to examine it, I’m not accepting this as proof of anything other than Nelson’s willingness to fake things to help cement her accusations - something she’s admitted to doing.

There is no evidence that she faked anything.

The yearbook has been offerred for examination if Roy Moore will testify about it under penalty of perjury.  He is willing to defame and slander his victims, in the hopes that people like you will believe his lies.

The yearbook thing is similar to his pattern with other young women,

Quote
What’s most damning is the handwriting on the card. It’s indistinguishable from the handwriting in the yearbook. Nelson and Gibson didn’t know one another, yet both have old documents bearing Moore’s signature, and the writing matches other samples. To believe that the yearbook inscription is forged, you have to postulate that a master forger somehow got access to both Nelson’s yearbook in Anniston, Alabama, and the scrapbook in Gibson’s attic in Delray Beach, Florida. And you can’t blame the Post, which revealed Gibson’s story but not Nelson’s. Only one person had access to both women: Roy Moore.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/12/roy_moore_s_story_is_unraveling.html

Quote
Accusations require proof.

There has been proof of the allegations.  And plenty of proof that Moore lied in his claims of 'never having known' these women.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #267 on: December 11, 2017, 08:22:00 AM »
With the forgery on the yearbook exposed, another piece of the story falls apart; the banning from the mall.
Quote
Johnny Adams said he was employed by the Gadsden Mall for 26 years and the mall’s operations manager for 14 years, overseeing mall security.

“In my 26 years working at Gadsden Mall, I never heard anything about Roy Moore being banned from the mall or any other mention of issues concerning him,” Adams said.

“As the operations manager overseeing mall security, I would have been aware of something like that,” he said.

Yeah, you’d think the guy overseeing security would know about who got banned. There’s more:
Quote
Barnes Boyle, a former manager of the Gadsden Mall from 1981 to 1986, said he would have known if Moore was banned from the mall during his time there. “We did have written reports and things. To my knowledge, he was not banned from the mall.”

So nobody in charge of the mall heard anything about Roy Moore being banned from the mall. How’d it go so wrong?

Quote
Johnnie V. Sanders, Gadsden Mall employee from late 1970s to mid-2000s, said he was intimately knowledgeable about goings-on at the mall.

Sanders said there was a man banned from the mall for behavior similar to acts Moore is accused of doing.

Sanders says:
Quote
There was a prominent man of Etowah County, whom is now deceased that was banned for reasons such as the allegations against Judge Moore. However, due to respect for the family, I decline to reveal his name. Despite allegations against other patrons of the mall, I never heard of Roy Moore’s name come in conversation with any such misconduct against women or a supposed banning from the Gadsden Mall.

So someone prominent got banned, just not Moore. It’s easy to see how memories from 40 years ago conflated this with Moore as the narrative of accusations was spun.

So now we have a yearbook where at least some of it was forged (and the accuser admits to the forgery) and a key facet of the story built against Moore has been completely falsified. I’ll repeat, maybe Moore is a creepy perv but, with the accusations completely unraveling, maybe not.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #268 on: December 11, 2017, 09:08:46 AM »
Quote
With the forgery on the yearbook exposed
Well, no, it hasn't.  I know Moore's people are making that claim, and some people are swallowing it, but one needs to be selectively ignoring the evidence available to do so.   

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #269 on: December 11, 2017, 10:17:41 AM »
https://www.snopes.com/2017/11/17/roy-moore-banned-mall-harassing-teen-girls/

They know there are no hard records. So what we have is one bunch of people saying he was, and another bunch of people saying he wasn't.

Among the people who say he was banned include Greg Legat who worked there and said he was.

Up to you who to believe, I suppose.

But I'm sure even if there were a picture of him being escorted from the building, we'd just hear people fall back on the argument that he had done nothing illegal and that it wasn't that unusual in Alabama to pick up teenagers in the mall.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #270 on: December 11, 2017, 10:24:00 AM »
Quote
With the forgery on the yearbook exposed
Well, no, it hasn't.  I know Moore's people are making that claim, and some people are swallowing it, but one needs to be selectively ignoring the evidence available to do so.   
And this is why a trustworthy media is something we should encourage and protect.  When we can't even be sure if a person confessed to forging something, things have gone to hell.  Not conflicting reports about someone allegedly having forged all or part of the writing, or an accusation about who made the forgery...  But at question is whether or not someone admitted to doing so?  (weakening or entirely dismantling their own accusations in the process)  WTF?   >:(

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #271 on: December 11, 2017, 01:48:42 PM »
Quote
With the forgery on the yearbook exposed
Well, no, it hasn't.  I know Moore's people are making that claim, and some people are swallowing it, but one needs to be selectively ignoring the evidence available to do so.   
Well, yes, it has.  It has nothing to do with Moore’s people, Beverly Nelson admitted it. To selectively ignore her admission, you might as well just make up anything else you want.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #272 on: December 11, 2017, 01:54:07 PM »
Quote
With the forgery on the yearbook exposed
Well, no, it hasn't.  I know Moore's people are making that claim, and some people are swallowing it, but one needs to be selectively ignoring the evidence available to do so.   
And this is why a trustworthy media is something we should encourage and protect.  When we can't even be sure if a person confessed to forging something, things have gone to hell.  Not conflicting reports about someone allegedly having forged all or part of the writing, or an accusation about who made the forgery...  But at question is whether or not someone admitted to doing so?  (weakening or entirely dismantling their own accusations in the process)  WTF?   >:(
There should be no confusion here, Nelson admitted this on ABC News. There is no alleged anything about it. You can see it here, she admits she altered at least part of it.

Not accepting her admission is essentially denial.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #273 on: December 11, 2017, 02:04:34 PM »
https://www.snopes.com/2017/11/17/roy-moore-banned-mall-harassing-teen-girls/

They know there are no hard records. So what we have is one bunch of people saying he was, and another bunch of people saying he wasn't.

Among the people who say he was banned include Greg Legat who worked there and said he was.

Up to you who to believe, I suppose.

But I'm sure even if there were a picture of him being escorted from the building, we'd just hear people fall back on the argument that he had done nothing illegal and that it wasn't that unusual in Alabama to pick up teenagers in the mall.

Is there a picture? No. There’s no use spinning hypotheticals, they’re no more proof than accusations.

Mall management immediately after that time frame and the head of security at the time of the event confirm Roy Moore was not banned. If anyone knows, why wouldn’t these guys? They would have been the people actually involved in the decision to ban someone and then enforce thst ban. Seems like they’d be pretty solid witnesses to all this.

Plus, we have a reasonable alternative from another witness that was there - some other prominent person was, in fact, banned for flirting with underage girls. It’s very possible Greg Legat’s 40 year old memories of that time are mixing that event with the reporting and accusations.

What’s the truth here? Damned if I know. Anyone that says they know, based on current understandings, is a fool or a partisan quack. It’s he said/she said with very authoritative people offering conflicting accounts. Can we send the mob after Moore on that?

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #274 on: December 11, 2017, 02:15:05 PM »
The mall manager is a huge Ray Moore fan. Why is it more likely that his accusers are politically motivated than his defenders?

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #275 on: December 11, 2017, 02:33:12 PM »
Quote
There should be no confusion here, Nelson admitted this on ABC News
Thanks Crunch.  I had heard or read that was the case but thought maybe it was muddier than that due to DonaldD's post.  Will try and watch the clip later. 

scifibum

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #276 on: December 11, 2017, 03:07:14 PM »
Quote
There should be no confusion here, Nelson admitted this on ABC News
Thanks Crunch.  I had heard or read that was the case but thought maybe it was muddier than that due to DonaldD's post.  Will try and watch the clip later. 

I don't think you should thank Crunch just yet.  It's much muddier than "she admitted to forgery". 

She wrote an annotation with date and location under the part she claims Moore wrote. 

She has not admitted that she "forged" anything.  Admittedly it was dumb not to delineate the part she wrote and the part she claims Moore wrote from the get-go.  But look at what Crunch is doing here:

Quote
So now we have a yearbook where at least some of it was forged (and the accuser admits to the forgery) and a key facet of the story built against Moore has been completely falsified.

1) "Some of it was forged" is only true if she represented the part she wrote as something that Moore wrote.  Did she do that, or was that simply one possible assumption people could make when they saw the yearbook?  She should have been clearer (her attorney certainly should have anticipated this as well), but she never specifically claimed that Moore wrote the annotation that she has now clarified that she added. 

2) The annotation was not a "key facet" and which person wrote the annotation does not speak to whether her allegations against Moore are true.  The "completely falsified" claim is completely false.



D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #277 on: December 11, 2017, 03:20:05 PM »
As I said, I'll try and watch it later when I get home.  But my understanding was as follows.

She claimed he wrote the whole thing.  (or at least didn't correct anyone when they assumed that?)
Time passes.
She admits that she wrote part of it.

"Forgery" may be a mischaracterization but it seems like (based on 2nd hand reporting I heard in passing) she mislead people.

Whether this was part of a false claim or used to provide weight to her true claim is another thing.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #278 on: December 11, 2017, 05:13:50 PM »
As I said, I'll try and watch it later when I get home.  But my understanding was as follows.

She claimed he wrote the whole thing.  (or at least didn't correct anyone when they assumed that?)
Time passes.
She admits that she wrote part of it.

"Forgery" may be a mischaracterization but it seems like (based on 2nd hand reporting I heard in passing) she mislead people.

Whether this was part of a false claim or used to provide weight to her true claim is another thing.

I think it was more like, she claimed that Moore wrote in her yearbook.  She showed the page.

Time passes.

She clarifies that part of what was written on the page was something she wrote to clarify/remind her of exactly who it was that wrote it.

So she only "mislead" people if they assumed that every single letter in the area had been written by him.

scifibum

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #279 on: December 11, 2017, 05:17:56 PM »
I don't think anyone was misled in a way that matters.  Whether they believed the annotation was written by the same person as the inscription and signature wouldn't, in my opinion, sway their opinion on whether it would have been a creepy move in the first place.  I think the only people who think this admission looks good for Moore are the same people who didn't believe her in the first place.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #280 on: December 11, 2017, 05:26:59 PM »
Actually, my understanding is that Nelson, when initially displaying the yearbook, read out the complete inscription (including the additional date and location pieces not written by Moore) and claimed the whole thing was written by Moore at the time.  It was only weeks later that she made the clarification that only the parts up to the signature had been written by Moore.

You can interpret that to mean any number of things, from an out and out lie concerning something written just a month ago, to a failure of memory relating to something written 40 years ago. How one interprets that action certainly goes to how convincing Nelson is believed to be (mind you, your initial impression of Nelson probably also factors into whether you attribute error or deceit to Nelson's mistake, so it's a bit of a vicious cycle.)

But none of that changes the existence of first part of the inscription, or the resemblance of the writing and signature to other samples of Moore's from that time period.

Here's an academic question - if it is a complete forgery, why didn't the forger use the same writing style for the date and location portion as for the substantive section of the note?

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #281 on: December 11, 2017, 06:05:59 PM »
The mall manager is a huge Ray Moore fan. Why is it more likely that his accusers are politically motivated than his defenders?
Should we be digging into motivations? We can’t really know them. We could go with Moore ruling against Nelson in her divorce for Nelson’s motivation to lie and hurt Moore. Do we want to?

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #282 on: December 11, 2017, 06:14:46 PM »
Actually, my understanding is that Nelson, when initially displaying the yearbook, read out the complete inscription (including the additional date and location pieces not written by Moore) and claimed the whole thing was written by Moore at the time.  It was only weeks later that she made the clarification that only the parts up to the signature had been written by Moore.

You can interpret that to mean any number of things, from an out and out lie concerning something written just a month ago, to a failure of memory relating to something written 40 years ago. How one interprets that action certainly goes to how convincing Nelson is believed to be (mind you, your initial impression of Nelson probably also factors into whether you attribute error or deceit to Nelson's mistake, so it's a bit of a vicious cycle.)

But none of that changes the existence of first part of the inscription, or the resemblance of the writing and signature to other samples of Moore's from that time period.

Here's an academic question - if it is a complete forgery, why didn't the forger use the same writing style for the date and location portion as for the substantive section of the note?

It may well be Moore wrote the first part, until independent third parties examine it I assumed she was telling the truth about that. Now, she has a higher burden of proof - altering the text and hiding it while damage is done is suspect IMHO. I’d ask, when did she add this text? Was it in 1977 or 2017? Or in between?

She let us believe the entire thing was written by Moore for weeks, presumably because that made a better case against Moore. This is very damaging to the credibility of the rest of her story about the alleged assault - did she engage in any more deception? Damned if I know.  I just know we can’t accept her story without question any more.

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #283 on: December 11, 2017, 07:05:53 PM »
The mall manager is a huge Ray Moore fan. Why is it more likely that his accusers are politically motivated than his defenders?
Should we be digging into motivations? We can’t really know them. We could go with Moore ruling against Nelson in her divorce for Nelson’s motivation to lie and hurt Moore. Do we want to?

Except Moore wasn’t the judge for her divorce. She never had a hearing with Moore because she and her husband stopped the divorce proceedings. She didn’t actually get divorced until 4 years later. Yet Moore would of had us believe otherwise and didn’t. This is very damaging to the credibility of the rest of his denial - is he engaging in more deception? I know I can’t accept his story without question.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #284 on: Today at 08:35:18 AM »
Nelson’s divorce case was before Judge Moore and he signed the order of dismissal, nullifying Nelson’s divorce filing. It’s not inconceivable she would harbor resentment for that (hell hath no fury, you know). Improbable? Maybe. But not inconceivable. That’s why getting into the motivations of all these people is useless. We can’t know and it’s likely a combination of reasons, some of which we may never know. We’ll just end up with “yeah but”, “except”, etc. Why bother?

Although, it’s that signed dismissal that apparently tripped up the forger by including the initials “DA”. Moore was not a DA in 1977 and in the 1990’s that was his assistant’s initials - she put her initials on there to let people know she’d stamped the signature for Moore (common practice). It’s easy to see how anyone forging this botched that detail and it’s a reasonable point for Moore to make. If Nelson altered the signature along with the other parts she altered, it could have happened. Not saying it did, just that it’s possible and the whole thing should not be taken on blind faith any more.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #285 on: Today at 08:57:05 AM »
The mall manager is a huge Ray Moore fan. Why is it more likely that his accusers are politically motivated than his defenders?
Should we be digging into motivations? We can’t really know them. We could go with Moore ruling against Nelson in her divorce for Nelson’s motivation to lie and hurt Moore. Do we want to?

See above on the hearing, which should be an easy google for anyone by now. But in general potential motivations of the women to not be believed, because they are either egged on by the librul media, or are against Roy Moore politically, or are trying to get cash, or have already received cash, or just want notoriety?

The primary way you discern subterfuge is by determining what someone has to gain by lying, is it not?

I see certain outlets, like Breitbart, denying any possible credibility for the women and then acting like this one statement from the mall manager closes the book on the whole thing.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #286 on: Today at 09:56:16 AM »
I have no reason to like Roy Moore.  I've already expressed my views on why the voters may have no choice but to elect him.

What confuses me about this yearbook issue, is the explanation of the initials "D.A." after his signature.  That literally has to be explained.  If he wasn't the D.A. and didn't personally sign that way at that time then I find it hard to believe he would have in this one single case.  I don't see why anyone should trust a hand writing analyst that is hired by the person making the claim, either get a neutral one or let Moore's analyst take a look.  Expert testimony that refuses allowing other experts to confirm or refute it, is absolutely worthless.

That said, it wouldn't particularly shock me if he did write it.  It's not addressed by name to the person in the yearbook, which also makes it seem less personal, kind of like something an aspiring politician may put in any yearbook that's in front of them.  But he did claim he didn't write it so he's got to be held to that standard.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #287 on: Today at 10:07:58 AM »
The part that strikes me as strange is how Moore's campaign has sold (is trying to sell?) the "Why did they wait till now?" line as a defense.  Like they are obvious to the whole #Metoo trend and all the news of people's careers crumbling due to harassment issues. 

Why now?  Because it looks like our society just might be prepared to deal with this now.  Also, better now before he's elected into this office.  The answer to the question is, "Because it may actually matter to people now."

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #288 on: Today at 10:58:01 AM »
Except I can't fully buy that D.W. Moore has been a controversial elected figure for years.  And he's been an arch religious conservative as well, the exact kind of person that would have been damaged by these kinds of claims in pre-"me too" era.  I get that there's an active increase in the amount of belief that people are getting now, but there's no doubt that there's a political motive at play here as well.  Moore's transgressions are no where near the level of some of the others we've heard, yet he's daily national news, the only reason for that is based on a 52 seat majority in the Senate and a chance to steal a seat that is overwhelming representing conservative Republicans.