Moore lawyer disputes yearbook signature

[mystery-ak]

Moore lawyer disputes yearbook signature
By Ben Kamisar and Lisa Hagen - 11/15/17 05:24 PM EST

The lawyer for GOP Senate nominee Roy Moore disputed the recent allegation of sexual assault against him at a press conference Wednesday, casting doubt on the high school yearbook signature one accuser says Moore made.

In a defiant afternoon press conference outside of the state Republican Party headquarters, Moore attorney Phillip L. Jauregui called on the accuser to turn over the yearbook to a neutral party for handwriting analysis.
 
"We demand you immediately release the yearbook to a neutral custodian, so our expert can look at the actual document, release the yearbook so we can determine is it genuine or is it a fraud," Jauregui said.

more
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/360569-moore-lawyers-disputes-yearbook-signature

[Frank Cannon]

FUN!

[roamer_1]

It's a good briefing - If anyone has a good clean link to it, it ought to be posted.

The questions raised are such:

Roy Moore admits he DID have contact with the woman. He presided over her divorce as a circuit judge.
Roy Moore questions the inscription, for much the reasons already known (the 7's etc), with this addendum:
He claims he NEVER signed his name with a 'D.A' at the end (and he was Assistant DA at the time).
But it was customary for his interns to initial after a stamped signature to maintain who signed what... And one of those intern's initials were D.A., and that intern initialed after the signature on the accuser's divorce papers, precisely like in the yearbook.

They are requesting that the yearbook go to a neutral party, where writing experts (for both sides if desired) can ascertain the veracity of the document, and the age of the ink.

@Smokin Joe
@INVAR
@Bigun

[Frank Cannon]

It's a good briefing - If anyone has a good clean link to it, it ought to be posted.

The questions raised are such:

Roy Moore admits he DID have contact with the woman. He presided over her divorce as a circuit judge.
Roy Moore questions the inscription, for much the reasons already known (the 7's etc), with this addendum:
He claims he NEVER signed his name with a 'D.A' at the end (and he was Assistant DA at the time).
But it was customary for his interns to initial after a stamped signature to maintain who signed what... And one of those intern's initials were D.A., and that intern initialed after the signature on the accuser's divorce papers, precisely like in the yearbook.

They are requesting that the yearbook go to a neutral party, where writing experts (for both sides if desired) can ascertain the veracity of the document, and the age of the ink.

This is a good avenue to destroy these accusations. There are so many weird things about that yearbook. If they can just prove one thing wrong, this whole house of cards falls.

[roamer_1]

This is a good avenue to destroy these accusations. There are so many weird things about that yearbook. If they can just prove one thing wrong, this whole house of cards falls.

It sure was letter perfect for countering his denial - to include 'Olde Hickory Inn', after he claimed he'd never been there...
Who the hell signs a yearbook with the date (twice), and the location? It never did track right for me.

[Frank Cannon]

It sure was letter perfect for countering his denial - to include 'Olde Hickory Inn', after he claimed he'd never been there...
Who the hell signs a yearbook with the date (twice), and the location? It never did track right for me.

Everything about it stinks. It doesn't look like the inks match. The 40 times the date is mentioned in 4 lines. Mentioning that restaurant that has nothing to do with jack. The signature being an exact match to his current signature. The yearbook being signed in Dec when they are handed out in Spring. It stinks.

[roamer_1]

Everything about it stinks. It doesn't look like the inks match. The 40 times the date is mentioned in 4 lines. Mentioning that restaurant that has nothing to do with jack. The signature being an exact match to his current signature. The yearbook being signed in Dec when they are handed out in Spring. It stinks.

Yeah that's right.

[truth_seeker]

But but but it is not the facts of the case, but rather the seriousness of the (false?) charges.

Dan Rather proved the media has no "standards" about verifying evidence.

[roamer_1]

But but but it is not the facts of the case, but rather the seriousness of the (false?) charges.

Dan Rather proved the media has no "standards" about verifying evidence.

That's right - It's too early to tell (They are specifically calling these questions, not allegations), but proving a forgery will shut them all the way up - and this election will be a skate for Moore, by double digits... I reckon Alabamans would see that as dirty pool.

[Smokin Joe]

Everything about it stinks. It doesn't look like the inks match. The 40 times the date is mentioned in 4 lines. Mentioning that restaurant that has nothing to do with jack. The signature being an exact match to his current signature. The yearbook being signed in Dec when they are handed out in Spring. It stinks.

Add that the phraseology is just awkward. A guy who makes his living writing clear legal documents would be unlikely to word things that way.

[Right_in_Virginia]

It's a good briefing - If anyone has a good clean link to it, it ought to be posted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfC-v4-R1q0


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfC-v4-R1q0

[roamer_1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfC-v4-R1q0

@Right_in_Virginia
Thanks RIV
 

[Right_in_Virginia]

@Right_in_Virginia
Thanks RIV
 

Welcome @roamer_1   ^-^

[Fishrrman]

I didn't watch the Gloria Allred presentation regarding the yearbook.

But... didn't she say something to the effect that... because no actual lawsuit would be filed... that the yearbook was not going to be provided so that experts might examine it?

My prediction:
The yearbook won't be permitted to be examined.

Makes sense.
For the left, these are crusades of faith... the faith of leftism-communism, that is!

[roamer_1]

My prediction:
The yearbook won't be permitted to be examined.

Then it loses all credibility - the request is reasonable.

[DB]

Moore should sue immediately to get the yearbook examined legally by an expert third party.

There should be plenty of well established writing references from that time to make the comparison with.

If the experts say with reasonable certainty that it is not his writing the woman who made the claim should face serious criminal charges.

If the experts say with reasonable certainty that it is his writing he should be in big trouble for publicly calling her a liar - at a minimum.

If there's any hard evidence he frequented the restaurant in question he should be in big trouble after denying even knowing where it was located.

[Sighlass]

Just found this, apologies if already posted.... First is screenshot I took from CNN twitter account... URL is at the top of the picture for proof.

[TomSea]

Yes, and the 7s, sevens seem different.

[Free Vulcan]

Everything in the blue is drastically different handwriting than the black. The blue is big and loopy, almost looks writtien by a woman. The black is tight cursive that look more written by a man.

[Sighlass]

Everything in the blue is drastically different handwriting than the black. The blue is big and loopy, almost looks writtien by a woman. The black is tight cursive that look more written by a man.

More I look at it, the more I am not sure if this color difference is just due to the angle the picture was taken and the reflection of the background light... so it may be a big "nothingburger"...

[Hoodat]

The word 'Love' and the comma were added later.  The angle does not match the rest, nor would anyone crowd their own signature in that fashion.

All printed (non-cursive) text was also added later by a different hand than the rest.

[jpsb]

Just found this, apologies if already posted.... First is screenshot I took from CNN twitter account...

To me that looks like someone documenting the Who, When, Where of the signature.

[Smokin Joe]

To me that looks like someone documenting the Who, When, Where of the signature.

That's what I figured, either to 'add validity' or to place Moore where he could do as asserted, neither of which would be necessary if the allegation was true. Is that Roy one whose "Roy" Looks like Moore's but not Moore? Is the signature from a different time, without the lighter blue, but done by Moore?

Withoug a forensic opinion, we are left to guess, but my guess is the add-so is an alteration, and the whole thing becomes suspect--as does any account it is supposed to support.

[Smokin Joe]

The word 'Love' and the comma were added later.  The angle does not match the rest, nor would anyone crowd their own signature in that fashion.

All printed (non-cursive) text was also added later by a different hand than the rest.

"Love" and the first 1977 are at a different angle from the test in dark blue and "Roy". The light blue is at still another angle.

[DiogenesLamp]

This is a good avenue to destroy these accusations. There are so many weird things about that yearbook. If they can just prove one thing wrong, this whole house of cards falls.

Such as,  why are there different colors of ink if it was all supposedly written at the same time?