Accusing Roy Moore's Accusers: What the Evidence Show So Far...

[Silver Pines]

I recall you explaining it once,  and that after I had already done it.   If you explained it before somewhere else,   I must have missed it,  you see,  I don't bother with "pings".   I look at the threads.   I see my "Profile [147] " is up to 147.   I guess I should clear it out or something.   I've done that before,  but I do not have a habit of checking it.   


So far as learning is concerned,  I try to confine what I learn to things I perceive as important or useful,  and obviously that is a subjective criteria, my preferences of which might not be the same as yours. 

@DiogenesLamp

Well, if you want me to answer something, it’s up to you whether you ping me or not.  But I don’t have the time to comb through threads, so I might miss it.

If I’m going to be discussed when I’m not here, then yeah, ping me.  It’s common courtesy.



Choices are wrong.  Don't make them.    Let the default evil win.   


Let the world burn.

[DiogenesLamp]

@DiogenesLamp

"Since you seem to be another who doesn't understand that Moore isn't being judged by legal standards, let's go with legal standards. 

I understand that Moore isn't being judged by any standards.   He is being judged by accusations motivated by emotion,  and nothing else.   


He is a "Witch!"   

Testimony is a form of evidence, and people have been convicted on circumstantial evidence (testimony) alone.  In the case of Moore, the evidence---testimony---is corroborated by quite a few individuals.

It is NOT.  It is disputed strongly by quite a few individuals,  and the claims aren't even inherently consistent.   

There is no corroboration for the two accusations of impropriety.  None.  Zero. Zilch.   There are serious and honest seeming people disputing these claims as actual witnesses to the time and place involved.   

The Post's article is pretty much airtight."

You are orbiting a different planet.   The Post's article is the opposite of "airtight",   it has so many holes that it resembles a colander.    I can't imagine what you have been reading,  but it is not what i've been reading.   


Both accusers have fishy smelling stories that don't even have internal consistency.  (especially Beverly Nelson.)   Leigh Corfman has at least three smelly/false claims in her accusation. 

[Silver Pines]

Both are wrong, both are evil.  Abstain from involving yourself with either and let God handle it, unless you think He just can’t manage without your help.

[Silver Pines]

Yes,  we all love "child molesters",   because the alternative explanation is that you are behaving like a psycho obsessed nut-ball,   and you know that can't be right.   


Your behavior reminds me of the Democrat accusations that opposing Obama care is only motivated by a desire to see poor people and the elderly die.   


No other explanation would be permitted.

@DiogenesLamp

What I’m doing is not helping you salve your conscience by telling you Moore is innocent, so you and others are lashing out with ad hominem attacks.  You want this place to be like TOS, where “anti-Moore” speech is frowned upon.

Some of you are doing a good job of imitating that bitchy, shrieky harpy mob over there, but I can deal with it, so you better deal with my opinion.

[DiogenesLamp]

@DiogenesLamp

What I’m doing is not helping you salve your conscience by telling you Moore is innocent, so you and others are lashing out with ad hominem attacks. 

I do not have any pangs of conscience about Moore.   I've repeatedly stated that I think a thirty something dating teenagers is a big nothing burger,   and I don't believe the two more serious accusations, so for what would I feel any pangs of conscience?   

What bothers me is that in an effort to snatch defeat from the Jaws of Victory,   some would have us forget greater moral issues in favor of lesser ones of more dubious character.   

In my calculus,  real possibilities of future baby murder handily beat distant past accusations of possibly "heavy petting"  a minor,  especially when said minor by her own statement did not inform of her age until after she had already engaged in soliciting attention.   

You want this place to be like TOS, where “anti-Moore” speech is frowned upon.

Some of you are doing a good job of imitating that bitchy, shrieky harpy mob over there, but I can deal with it, so you better deal with my opinion.

Calling him a "child molester"  on the basis of two kookbats,  one of which has been convincingly debunked by three other witnesses,   is not exactly rational.   


I don't mind rational speech with which I disagree,   but  it is funny to see you object to screeching when that is exactly what it looks like you have been doing.   


"Child Molester"?   Really?   

[Silver Pines]

@DiogenesLamp

Undressing in front of a 14 year old, taking off her clothes, touching her and forcing her to touch him is child molestation.  That’s what you’re stroking out to defend.

You call me an emotional screecher, but who’s posting with caps, exclamation marks, yelling about witches and the “Jaws of Victory”, which judging by the capitalization must be some unprecedented apocalyptic event.

You can deny reality all you want, but it will stay the same.  Nothing has been debunked except the notion that conservatism stands for morality. 

[cato potatoe]

Right, but now he denies dating or even knowing them.  So instead of being a molester, he's just an incredible liar.

"Liar" is such a strong word.  Think of it as Christian taqiyya.

[DiogenesLamp]

@DiogenesLamp

Undressing in front of a 14 year old, taking off her clothes, touching her and forcing her to touch him is child molestation. 

It is not "child molestation"  in the sense that most people think of the term.   That usually involves far more serious acts,  and usually with much younger people.    When people hear "child molestation",  they usually  think of the worst sort of abuse,   not what has been alleged that he did.   

And what evidence do we have that he even did this beyond the word of someone who at the time and subsequent to the time has been a real mess?   


Her claimed rendezvous point with him was almost a mile away from her house and across a busy thoroughfare,  not "around the corner".    She claimed this experience messed her up,  yet she was in court precisely because her mother felt she was already out of control.    (Custody Transfer to the Father) 


The paperwork evidence indicates there was only a 12 day window in which the alleged events could have even possibly have happened,  and the idea that an assistant district attorney would involve himself with a juvenile which was obviously known to be a juvenile because she was going through a custody hearing,  is ludicrous.   It requires us to believe that this West Point Graduate,  Vietnam War Officer,  and Law School graduate was some sort of imbecile.   

This girl was doing drugs and acting promiscuous at this time,  and has admitted to a suicide attempt shortly thereafter.    She is simply not very credible,  especially if you have any experience with this sort,  and know that lying is as easy as breathing for them.   

She may have met Moore in the Court house as she says,   but the rest I suspect is outright fantasy.   

That’s what you’re stroking out to defend.


You call me an emotional screecher, but who’s posting with caps, exclamation marks, yelling about witches and the “Jaws of Victory”, which judging by the capitalization must be some unprecedented apocalyptic event.

Continued usage of that unsubstantiated and emotionally rigged term "child molester",   is pretty good evidence of emotional screeching. 

You can deny reality all you want, but it will stay the same.

OMG!  If only you would listen to your own advice!     Yes,  you are denying reality.   You are using unsubstantiated claims that do not even hold together very well or even make sense in context to make a judgement against someone for whom all the actual evidence argues that this accused behavior is inconsistent. 

The man has 50 years of consistent character behavior,  and testaments from other people who knew him,  and they all say these accusations are inconsistent with their own experiences,   and yet you would believe the words of these two Democrat motivated troubled women instead of the larger body of evidence? 


Even the two women's stories don't mesh.   Why would he near rape one,  (1977) and only heavy pet another,  meekly surrendering to  her desire to be taken home?  (1979)   And in his car versus his bedroom?    Did he somehow develop less ardor between 1977 and 1979?   


And why didn't all the other girls he dated make such claims?   They all said he was a gentleman.   

Nothing has been debunked except the notion that conservatism stands for morality.

Yes,  *that*  is the takeaway lesson you learn from all of this.   Not that it is best to withhold judgement in the absence of proof,   but to deride people who don't jump on the conclusion jumping train with you.   

[TomSea]

Yes, child molester is too strong of a word, also,  I thought this would be what they would call "pederasty", too, something like this could have happened but I think there's a good chance the story is being embellished or something. We know Soros money backs Jones or at least, I've heard this.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes, child molester is too strong of a word, also,  I thought this would be what they would call "pederasty", too, something like this could have happened but I think there's a good chance the story is being embellished or something. We know Soros money backs Jones or at least, I've heard this.

I have entertained the possibility that this girl could be telling something she believes to be true.   I have suggested that perhaps when this girl was 14 or 15,  she looked physically much older,  (I don't see any possibility that an Assistant District Attorney would have been fooled by a boobless young girl)    and it might not have been apparent to anyone that she really was that young.   


She may have in fact told Moore that she was older,  and lied about the reasons why she was in court,   and that he might not have checked on the case to see what it was about.   


I have contemplated the possibility that she did rendezvous with him and did go with him to his house.  That she some how led him on,  and then when things started getting steamy,  changed her mind,  told him she was 14,  and that he then took her home.   


This seems to me to be a far more plausible scenario than what is alleged and implied by what this girl has so far said,   and even that calls for some seriously bad judgement on the behalf of a man who should know better.   


The idea that an Assistant DA would knowingly take a minor to his home and do anything sexual with her is a non-starter in my opinion.    It requires a lapse of judgement too great to accept as probable,  and therefore I reject that claim outright. 




In light of the circumstances,  I find it more plausible to reject her accusations altogether.   They do not pass the common sense test in my opinion. 

[Silver Pines]

@DiogenesLamp, I don't think I should post to you again tonight.  You're too agitated.  Go sit in a dark room and calm down, k?

[DiogenesLamp]

@DiogenesLamp, I don't think I should post to you again tonight.  You're too agitated.  Go sit in a dark room and calm down, k?

I guess you missed the newsflash.   "Agitated" is my norm.  


Beyond that,  my argument is cogent.   The body of extant evidence weighs against the accusations. 

[Frank Cannon]

You're too agitated.  Go sit in a dark room and calm down, k?

I don't think people are into photography anymore. It's a digital world now.

[Emjay]

It is not "child molestation"  in the sense that most people think of the term.   That usually involves far more serious acts,  and usually with much younger people.    When people hear "child molestation",  they usually  think of the worst sort of abuse,   not what has been alleged that he did.   

And what evidence do we have that he even did this beyond the word of someone who at the time and subsequent to the time has been a real mess?   


Her claimed rendezvous point with him was almost a mile away from her house and across a busy thoroughfare,  not "around the corner".    She claimed this experience messed her up,  yet she was in court precisely because her mother felt she was already out of control.    (Custody Transfer to the Father) 


The paperwork evidence indicates there was only a 12 day window in which the alleged events could have even possibly have happened,  and the idea that an assistant district attorney would involve himself with a juvenile which was obviously known to be a juvenile because she was going through a custody hearing,  is ludicrous.   It requires us to believe that this West Point Graduate,  Vietnam War Officer,  and Law School graduate was some sort of imbecile.   

This girl was doing drugs and acting promiscuous at this time,  and has admitted to a suicide attempt shortly thereafter.    She is simply not very credible,  especially if you have any experience with this sort,  and know that lying is as easy as breathing for them.   

She may have met Moore in the Court house as she says,   but the rest I suspect is outright fantasy.   





Continued usage of that unsubstantiated and emotionally rigged term "child molester",   is pretty good evidence of emotional screeching. 






OMG!  If only you would listen to your own advice!     Yes,  you are denying reality.   You are using unsubstantiated claims that do not even hold together very well or even make sense in context to make a judgement against someone for whom all the actual evidence argues that this accused behavior is inconsistent. 

The man has 50 years of consistent character behavior,  and testaments from other people who knew him,  and they all say these accusations are inconsistent with their own experiences,   and yet you would believe the words of these two Democrat motivated troubled women instead of the larger body of evidence? 


Even the two women's stories don't mesh.   Why would he near rape one,  (1977) and only heavy pet another,  meekly surrendering to  her desire to be taken home?  (1979)   And in his car versus his bedroom?    Did he somehow develop less ardor between 1977 and 1979?   


And why didn't all the other girls he dated make such claims?   They all said he was a gentleman.   





Yes,  *that*  is the takeaway lesson you learn from all of this.   Not that it is best to withhold judgement in the absence of proof,   but to deride people who don't jump on the conclusion jumping train with you.

I don't know whether to admire you or think you are crazy.

All your points are spot on but you will make no headway with this woman and you should know it by now.

[RoosGirl]

I don't know whether to admire you or think you are crazy.

All your points are spot on but you will make no headway with this woman and you should know it by now.

And you continue to talk about 'this woman' you supposedly have on ignore.

[DiogenesLamp]

I don't know whether to admire you or think you are crazy.

All your points are spot on but you will make no headway with this woman and you should know it by now.

I think we are all a little crazy.  Our subjective perspective may seem perfectly reasonable to us,  but people often come across as a little unsound to others,  and they may not even realize it. 


I embrace my eccentricities,  and often joke I probably have Asperger's syndrome or something.

In any case,  one can only try.  :)   

[RoosGirl]

I think we are all a little crazy.  Our subjective perspective may seem perfectly reasonable to us,  but people often come across as a little unsound to others,  and they may not even realize it. 


I embrace my eccentricities,  and often joke I probably have Asperger's syndrome or something.

In any case,  one can only try.  :)

Not everyone is a little crazy.  Some of y'all are batshit.

[Silver Pines]

I don't think people are into photography anymore. It's a digital world now.

@Frank Cannon

That kind of fell flat.  But I know you can do way better, so I’m gonna grade on a curve and move on to your next smart-assed remark.  See how charitable I am.

[Restored]

I don't think people are into photography anymore. It's a digital world now.

I believe technically it is a 5 o clock world

[Frank Cannon]

@Frank Cannon

That kind of fell flat.  But I know you can do way better, so I’m gonna grade on a curve and move on to your next smart-assed remark.  See how charitable I am.

Cheese you. That was well crafted gag. It was meant for the Steve Allen/New Yorker cartoon cerebral crowd here, not the knuckle dragging fart joke folks.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I don't know whether to admire you or think you are crazy.

All your points are spot on but you will make no headway with this woman and you should know it by now.

Are you certain?

[Silver Pines]

Cheese you. That was well crafted gag. It was meant for the Steve Allen/New Yorker cartoon cerebral crowd here, not the knuckle dragging fart joke folks.

@Frank Cannon

So it’s going to be that way, is it?

Challenge accepted.

[Frank Cannon]

@Frank Cannon

So it’s going to be that way, is it?

You cheddar believe it.

[Silver Pines]

Are you certain?

@IsailedawayfromFR

Oh, this gets better and better, lol!  Let’s see...for the crime of speaking against a child-molesting politician,  I’ve had accusations of being a slut who posed for Penthouse, a liberal Democrat, a Deep State Dem plant, someone suffering from “daddy issues”, and now, that tired, unimaginative TOS-level insult—-“that’s a man, baby.”  I love it.

Is your masculinity feeling threatened?  Aw.

[Silver Pines]

You cheddar believe it.

@Frank Cannon

You SOB, lol.

Well, I did ask for better content.  That undeniably gets points.