Roy Moore

Roy Moore Could Be Digging His Own Grave By Denying Any Contact With His Accusers

If the he is lying about courthouse chats and restaurant meals, he is probably lying about his alleged crimes too.

|

William Thornton on Twitter

Roy Moore does not deny that he dated teenagers when he was a local prosecutor in his early 30s. But the Republican Senate candidate vehemently denies that he initiated a sexual encounter with a 14-year-old girl at his home and that he sexually assaulted a 16-year-old girl outside the restaurant where she worked. He goes further than that, denying that he ever met either woman. Which could be a problem for him.

Referring to Leigh Corfman, the woman who said Moore dated her when she was 14 and during one encounter touched her over her bra and panties after stripping down to his underwear, the former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court told Sean Hannity: "The allegations are completely false. I don't know Miss Corfman from anybody. I've never talked to her. I've never had any contact with her….I never knew this woman. I never met this woman."

As I noted on Sunday, that denial contradicts not just Corfman but her mother, Nancy Wells, who describes a 1979 encounter with Moore at the Etowah County Courthouse in which he offered to sit with Leigh during her mother's child custody hearing. So far no other witnesses to that encounter have emerged, but The Washington Post confirmed that Wells did have a hearing at the courthouse that day.

Potentially even riskier for Moore is his blanket denial of contact with Beverly Young Nelson, who at a press conference on Monday said Moore attacked her when she was 16 after offering her a ride home from the Olde Hickory House, a restaurant on Meighan Boulevard in Gadsden where she worked as a waitress after school. According to Nelson, Moore parked his car behind the restaurant, where he groped her breasts, grabbed her neck, and pushed her head toward his crotch. Nelson said he eventually relented in the face of her resistance and let her out of the car.

As with Corfman, Moore says he never met Nelson. "I can tell you without hesitation this is absolutely false," Moore told reporters on Monday. "I never did what she said I did. I don't even know the woman. I don't know anything about her." He also claimed to be unfamiliar with the Olde Hickory House, saying, "I don't even know where the restaurant is or was."

Nelson, by contrast, said, "Mr. Roy Moore was a regular customer. He came in almost every night and would stay until closing time. He sat at the counter in the same seat night after night. I remember exactly where he sat." If Moore "came in almost every night," it seems likely that someone else at the restaurant, an employee or a customer, can recall seeing him there.

Moore, a deputy district attorney who had graduated from West Point and served in Vietnam before attending law school at the University of Alabama, was well-known locally. "I knew that he was the district attorney in Etowah County," Nelson said. "I did not understand what that meant, but I knew that he was an important person and I always treated him with respect." When Moore signed a yearbook that she had brought to work, she said, "I felt honored that Mr. Moore, who was such an important person, would write in my yearbook."

Moore, who says he never met Nelson, obviously has to deny that he signed her yearbook. A letter that Moore's lawyer sent yesterday to the Alabama Media Group, threatening a defamation lawsuit over AL.com's coverage of the allegations against the candidate, says the yearbook was signed "in a manner that experts, to include our own, have confirmed is not consistent with his handwriting (To wit: structure, strokes, slant, base alignment, etc.) and does not comport to his typical vernacular." But a bigger danger for Moore than a disputed autograph is the possibility that someone else who worked or ate at the Olde Hickory House in 1977 can testify that, contrary to his unambiguous denial, Moore was a customer there.

Eating at the Olde Hickory House, like chatting with a woman and her teenaged daughter at the courthouse, is not a crime and in itself would not prove the charges against Moore. But if it becomes clear that he is lying about these otherwise innocent details, the only plausible explanation will be that he is also lying when he denies victimizing these women.

NEXT: Chaos in Africa, Apologias in Alabama, and the Rise of Democratic Socialism

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “But a bigger danger for Moore than a disputed autograph is the possibility that someone else who worked or ate at the Olde Hickory House in 1977 can testify that, contrary to his unambiguous denial, Moore was a customer there.”

    Obviously, so I guess they need to find that witness before the election.

    1. This works both ways. If Moore’s team can show that the yearbook entry is fake, then *boom* there goes the only physical piece of evidence against him, plus he’s shown that at least one accuser is lying.

      1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

        This is what I do… http://www.netcash10.com

  2. A guy in his 30s is friends with teenagers for one reason only.

    1. Dungeons & Dragons?

    2. “I get older, they stay the same age.”

    3. So he can buy ritalin from them?

    4. To be “Friends”?

    5. To employ a kid who’s a reliable worker?

    6. He wasn’t their friends. He courted and dated them and occasionally finger-raped them all in traditional Southern gentlemanly style.

      1. Tony, according to the WAPO article he tried to force himself on one of the girls, but the other three have said nothing like that happened to them. And now #5 has said something similar to #1. Any thoughts on why he wouldn’t have repeated this behavior with all of them?

        1. Roy Moore’s head may be the last place on earth I want to get inside of.

      2. Tony knows all about finger-raping, but only from the receiving end.

    7. A good citizen mentoring out youths?

  3. No idea if Moore is guilty or innocent, but I do know I’d hate to be required to remember everyone I might have met in 1977 even not having been in the kind of profession where a zillion people are trying to ingratiate themselves with you.

    1. Yeah. That’s one of the things that annoy me. Politicians take pictures and shake hands with tons of people. I’ve done advance work for politicians and, rest assured, while they shook my hand and said thank you — not a single one knew me from a hole in the ground.

      1. These encounters were not campaign handshakes and photo ops. Of course he could have hit on so many teenagers that he doesn’t remember most of them. That is quite probable.

      2. Reminds me of a story I read, where one fellow says to another “Watch this:” and he goes up to John Kerry and introduces himself as a House member with a completely bogus name, and Kerry smiles and goes along with it.

    2. No one “required” him to remember everyone. He voluntarily asserted that he had never met her. He could have just not said that.

      1. He said he never ate at a specific restaurant, she says he was there all the time. There’s a conflict which could be investigated…

        but apparently wasn’t investigated by the WaPo. Wouldn’t it have helped them to find someone backing up that detail, or do they have the witness under wraps in case Moore denied eating there?

        1. This *is* the WaPo “breaking” this story, isn’t it?

          1. No, the restaurant one came out this Monday, a few days after the WaPo story, and was done through the attorney the accuser hired.

          2. This is a political hit piece to try and help Democrats grab an Alabama Senate seat [period]

            The left will move onto the next useful idiot after Roy Moore wins his Senate seat.

            1. I think we’ll get a few comments after the election, then they disappear like Trump’s last minute pre-election accusers,

            2. Remember the woman who accused Herman Cain?

              Remember how she disappeared in a puff of greasy black smoke the microsecond after he dropped out of the Presidential race?

        2. And that is why courthouse girl is FAR more significant than restaurant girl. Restaurant girl can place herself at her place of employment but he can just deny deny deny and it goes nowhere. Courthouse girl can place herself at HIS place of employment – and can prove it – and has a very reasonable witness to confirm that first meeting. And she told two friends about it all contemporaneously – and she told her mother ten years later.

          There is ZERO chance that she is an ‘election surprise’.

    3. I do know I’d hate to be required to remember everyone I might have met in 1977 even not having been in the kind of profession where a zillion people are trying to ingratiate themselves with you.

      Very true. Although to be fair, he’s not expected to remember everyone he met in 1977, just whether or not he attempted to sexually assault a waitress from a restaurant. I’d think he would probably be able to remember that, although maybe he just didn’t remember the waitress’ name, which would make his denial kind of true. “From a certain point of view,” as Obi-Wan Kenobi might say.

      1. And he does. He says it didn’t happen. He also says he never met the waitress. To say he has any reason to remember her than he does anyone else is to assume that he is guilty, which is the whole question.

    4. You can just remember if you signed one’s yearbook with a personal message when shown said yearbook.

      Or would you hate that too?

      1. Why would anyone remember that? Moreover, if someone says they didn’t sign it, why would you automatically assume that wasn’t the truth?

      2. Except that there’s a DA after his name in the yearbook, and all those official documents that have his name and DA afterwards? The DA are the initials of his assistant, not short for ‘District Attorney’. Moore never put DA after his name, his assistant always did. So how did that DA make it into the yearbook?

  4. And this is exactly why your lawyer tells you to STFU. If you say at the time of the crime you were at the IHOP eating blueberry pancakes and the surveillance video and the cash register tape says you were eating strawberry pancakes, well, you’re still a dirty lying perjurer, aren’t you?

    1. Part of the reason is that people are so sure sometimes that their memory is great, when its not.

      If you are sure you ate blueberry pancakes and are wrong, what else are you wrong about.

      Its pretty much why hundreds of eyewitness convicted people have been released by the Innocence Project. People cannot admit that their memory is not great or they only remember irrelevant parts of an event that cannot lead to being a star witness in a conviction of an innocent person.

    2. I’m not sure if Moore is thinking like a lawyer at this point…either he’s a total liar on this subject and wants to get away with it (even adding unnececssary lies – he could always say he ate at the restaurant but didn’t screw the waitresses), or he’s innocent and is indignantly issuing the broadest denials possible because the denials are true.

      Who even knows?

      1. He does, his alleged victims do, and certainly the one whose yearbook he signed knows he was there

        1. He denies signing the yearbook. There is no way to tell if he actually did.

          1. Furthermore it’s come out that he signed a document that was part of her divorce proceeding (she didn’t get divorced, the petition was withdrawn), so she has a document with his signature on it.

        2. I just want to know more about why she had her yearbook with her at Christmas time.

      2. I’m not sure if Moore is thinking like a lawyer at this point

        He has himself created a situation where either everyone else is deliberately lying and is also part of a conspiracy or he is deliberately lying. He’s eliminated all grey and all ‘explanations’ that could temper their story by putting it in a different light.

        Which means if they are telling the truth – he is a complete sociopath.

        1. I see. Dating or hitting on girls it was perfectly legal for him to have sex with equals “complete sociopath.” Pretty stiff standard, there.

  5. By the same token, analyzing Moore’s purported signature might be helpful. If it’s Moore’s then it’s bad for him. If it’s not Moore’s then it’s bad for the accuser.

    1. Good grief, handwriting can change a lot over 35 years. I have a hard time accepting that the courts take such analyses seriously.

      1. handwriting can change a lot over 35 years.

        No shit. I sometimes find things that I wrote 20 years ago that look nothing like my handwriting today.

      2. ^ This.

        My handwriting today is completely different than it was twenty years ago. That’s if you even accept that handwriting analysis is a valid science in the first place, rather than an ‘educated guess’.

        Still, I’d at least say that such analysis is something that can be done. And since something must be done, this must be done. Of course, the results are only valid if they agree with my preconceptions!

        Sheesh.

        1. Actually, nevermind. The obvious answer is to compare the writing to something he definitely wrote at the time. Duh. I have a feeling he’s written enough things in his life that a comparison sample in the public record would be simple enough to find.

        2. The problem is his signature today is actually damn close to that signature then.

          http://americablog.com/2017/11…..oores.html

          His lawyer is obviously doubling down on this – but by doing that he has just opened the door to everyone and their hacker doing an ‘open source’ comparison of these signatures on the internet.

          1. Except there’s that pesky DA after his signature in the yearbook– when he never wrote that himself on any official documents, that’s his assistant’s initials.

            Did the assistant write the DA after his name in the yearbook?

      3. There really are a significant number of similarities.
        The R in yearbook is constructed similar to known signatures.
        The “ore” sequences are similar to known signatures.
        Can’t be sure, but Its not an obvious forgery.
        There are a lot of accusers, and calling young, nubile girls out of trig class is a bit creepy even for Alabama.

        1. Just like all the other Democrat paid last minute accusers of the past few decades, these women will be discredited by basic investigation work and will vanish into the mists. Do you remember those who accused Schwarzenegger back in his first run? The various ones who accused either Bush? Dan Rather was outed within hours, Moore’s accusers are lasting a few days before their lies are outed.

          1. “A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth even gets its boots on.” — Mark Twain

  6. I can definitely remember all the people that I met, when, where back on a specific day in 1979.

    I can definitely remember all the specific actions of early sexual experiences over 35 years later

    Since then I have met some famous people but I cannot remember exactly when or what was said beyond generalities.

    Maybe its true. Women have better memories.


    1. I can definitely remember all the specific actions of early sexual experiences over 35 years later

      To be honest, I do remember at the least the people I’ve fucked over the course of my life. As far as the specifics? Not so much.

      A few of them are actually a little hazy, especially during college, but LSD and assorted other things can make memory a funny thing. Something tells me that Moore doesn’t have that particular excuse, and even under the influence of many, many difference substances I still remember the people.

      Honestly, the only way I can see Moore remembering these girls is if he did what he is accused of. Otherwise, what’s to remember about them? So I can see a situation where he was where they say he was, but the things that he’s accused of didn’t happen.

      1. So I can see a situation where he was where they say he was, but the things that he’s accused of didn’t happen.

        And, I should add, the reason I can see such a situation is because the best lies always have a grain of truth. This is common knowledge, in fact.

    2. I can definitely remember not touching 14 yo girls when I was 30, no matter what day you ask about.
      I went after women old enough I didn’t have to ask their mothers.
      As the saying goes, 15 will get you 20.

      1. But 16 will get you no time at all, and only one of the stories alleges a girl under 16.

  7. So far, there isn’t enough to say for sure what Moore did in the early Reagan administration or thereabouts.

    If you apply a presumption of guilty (“this isn’t a court!”), then it will encourage unfounded last-minute charges as a routine tactic.

    Applying a presumption of innocence could mean “we warned you he fooled around with teenage girls but you wouldn’t believe us and now he’s a Senator…how will the other Senators possibly put up with someone of such low character, who couldn’t even be bothered to drown the girls?”

    1. Yes, because OJ did not kill his wife and that waiter. Even a court found him “not guilty”

      But Bill Clinton raped Juanita Brodderick if she made the claim, retracted it and then retracted the retraction

      1. Oh, no, you insulted my hero Juanita Brodderick!

        (not really)

      2. Factual guilt and legal guilt are two different things. Stating that says nothing about Moore’s factual guilt or innocence here.

        1. Like you didn’t get a semi every time one of Trump’s crowds went into their ecstatic “Lock her up!” routines.

          There is such a thing as being too partisan. It’s somewhere around when it starts to make me throw up.

          1. Yes Tony, you are the one screaming about Hillary Clinton but everyone else is partisan.

            1. You would not be who you are if not for decades of Clinton conspiracy theories. You couldn’t possibly, as that is half of the Republican party playbook. A partisan Republican who does not wallow in anti-Clinton muck is like a shark with legs. It’s a categorical impossibility.

              The surprising thing, and sometimes you do surprise me, is not that you’re a complete and obvious hypocrite on the “innocent until really really proven guilty” thing depending on the party of the accused. It’s that you’d be so flamboyant in it when the subject was one of the worst men in the country even before it was known he was a child molester.

              1. Hillary Clinton admitted to having a private server and storing above top secret information on it. That is a matter of public record. It is also a matter of public record that the Clinton foundation received enormous sums of money from countries who had business with the state department while she was DOS. This after she promised to have the Foundation stop accepting foreign money. Those are facts, not conspiracy theories.

                None of those facts have anything to do with this. If there is a 40 year old allegation that Hillary Clinton tried to date a 14 year old, I will be skeptical of that as well.

                There is nothing hypocritical about my position. If I were the partisan you claim I am, I would be lying about Moore pretending I knew he is guilty because that seems to be the position of the national GOP. I am not doing that because unlike you I think for myself and give honest opinions. Just because you are dishonest, ignorant and stupid, doesn’t mean everyone else is Tony. Stop projecting.

                1. *Bangs head into wall*

              2. But it’s NOT “known”, fucktard. That’s the problem.

                There hasn’t been an investigation, much less a trial. There’s no evidence besides 35 year old hearsay.

                1. Are you talking about Roy Moore or Paula Jones?

                  1. Paula Jones had her day in court and got a huge settlement and saw Bill Clinton disbarred over the whole thing. Do you just not read the papers, Tony?

                2. Tony is so stupid it is comical. You tell Tony “hey this shit was 40 years ago and there is no way to determine what really happened or what if anything Moore is guilty of doing”. And Tony responds with “why are you making excuses for a child molester”.

                  You really can’t make up that kind of irrationality and stupidity. Tony is so stupid you feel like there should be a team of specialists at some university studying him so that future generations can understand him and hopefully avoid that level of irrationality occurring within the human race.

                  1. But John, everyone in the world is saying what I’m saying and you’re in a tiny little corner with a couple retards and Roy Moore’s own buddies. I have to say it’s almost impressive how many unwinnable positions you take.

                    1. But Tony. everyone is judging this case by their politics. The people who say they know for sure this can’t be true are no different. Moore is an unpopular person in many places and people being what they are, generally, believe what confirms their biases. This is why innocent people go to jail or there used to lynch mobs.

                      That is not how I roll. I couldn’t care less what Moore’s politics are. The facts are what they are. You just can’t grasp that because you are too stupid to see anything other than what your politics demand that you see. And running around calling me an apologist for a dreaded child molester does nothing but confirm my rationality and integrity and your complete lack of both.

                    2. Democrats and Republicans are on the same page here. This is like one of the easiest positions I’ve ever taken, which is why your stubbornness is so ridiculously hilarious. If Mitch McConnell thinks it’s in his partisan interest to give Roy Moore the boot, then why would I stand in Roy Moore’s way? I even think Donald Trump has a silver lining in that he’s destroying your party like Godzilla in Tokyo.

                    3. Your stupidity is sad, You can’t make a single argument for why any of this is true other than you don’t like Moore and a bunch of political hacks agree with you.

                      You are a stupid and irrational person Tony. It is a waste of time to respond to you. The facts are what they are. You have no rational reason why anything I have said about this is wrong. Worse, you don’t even understand why you need a rational reason. You honestly seem to believe that “everyone says its true” is sufficient. It is really terrifying to think that there are people as stupid as you are out there. You don’t possess anything more than an animal level of intelligence.

                    4. I’m not jumping to the defense of a probable pedophile who I already hated for being a lawless theocrat, because I’m stupid.

                      Well maybe you’re right and this will be the one thing you’ll be vindicated on after taking so many horrible positions on so many things. Wanna put money on it?

                    5. But John, everyone in the world is saying what I’m saying and you’re in a tiny little corner with a couple retards and Roy Moore’s own buddies. I have to say it’s almost impressive how many unwinnable positions you take.

                      Argumentum ad populum?

                    6. You could just… refrain from defending him.

                    7. You could just try to not be so fucking stupid, Tony.

                    8. He’s not defending Moore, he’s defending a premise of civilized society – presumption of innocence before any proof to the contrary.


  8. But a bigger danger for Moore than a disputed autograph is the possibility that someone else who worked or ate at the Olde Hickory House in 1977 can testify that, contrary to his unambiguous denial, Moore was a customer there.

    So if no one does remember, that means he’s totes innocent right? Something tells me the lack of any corroboration won’t be taken as innocence.

    1. Besides, if they find such a person, Moore has to deny that too.

      When it comes to Republicans, “vid cam or it did not happen” unless you are a cop. Then it is “it did not happen”


      1. Besides, if they find such a person, Moore has to deny that too.

        This is definitely true, but such a corroboration would at the very least take some of the wind out of Moore’s sails since multiple people’s account of something tends to lend more credence to their accusations, especially if they don’t stand to gain anything in coming forward.

        1. I find it very unlikely that anyone could credibly make such a claim.

          1. I would also agree with that, but someone could remember that the former home-town ADA, who’s now running for Senate, used to frequent their restaurant every day. Of course, those previous owners are probably dead now but it’s possible while it’s also improbable.

            The nature of this story also, unfortunately, increases the odd’s of people making stuff up as well. It’s really a mess.

      2. We’ll settle for a stain

  9. It’s no use, he sees her
    He starts to shake and cough
    Just like the old man in
    That book by Nabakov

    Don’t stand, don’t stand so
    Don’t stand so close to me
    Don’t stand, don’t stand so
    Don’t stand so close to me

  10. This article makes me terrified of the jury system. Every person has thousands of people whom they have met and interacted with that they have no memory of doing so. So if someone asks you “have you ever met this person” and you say “no” and it turns out you have, it does not necessarily mean you were lying. It could be that you just don’t remember the person. Without reading your thoughts, there is no way to know for sure which it is. The author of this piece assumes that if it turns out Moore did know this woman that he must be lying and not mistaken because that is what fits his beliefs. That is known as confirmation bias.

    Then there is the idea that if someone else who ate or worked at this restaurant says Moore did eat there that would finish Moore. That is absurd. Absent a very compelling explanation why they would remember seeing Moore at the restaurant, there is no way someone could claim that they remember serving or seeing someone they didn’t know very well at the time at a restaurant 40 years ago. The author would automatically believe such a thing, again because it fits his pre-conceived notion.

    1. Along with the thousands of people whom we’ve all met and don’t remember, most people don’t weasel the answers the way a lawyer might recommend, “I don’t recall ever meeting this person, but it’s possible that we met and I don’t remember,” and most people won’t trust a person who answers that way – they’ll think to themselves, “That guy is hiding something.”

    2. if someone asks you “have you ever met this person” and you say “no” and it turns out you have, it does not necessarily mean you were lying. It could be that you just don’t remember the person.

      Which is precisely why if you don’t know/remember that someone in question or the question is so vague as to time/place/setting/context that there can’t be an answer – the correct answer is ‘I don’t know’ or ‘I don’t remember’. The only time that sort of answer then comes into question is when it is repeated so often – to questions where you SHOULD know – that it is indicative of Alzheimers or trying to cover something up.

    3. Hell, I can meet someone and forget that I met them the very same day, let alone 40 years later.

  11. The only way you can judge the veracity of two contradictory claims is by examining the circumstances around the claims and determine which claim fits best with the circumstances that are known to be true. The problem with an accusation this old is that those circumstances are nearly all lost in time. There is no way to say with the necessary certainty what the circumstances surrounding these incidents were to allow for any kind of a reliable examination of their truthfulness.

    Basically, anyone who claims to have a definitive opinion about this issue is kidding themselves and just believing whatever fits their existing opinion of Moore, be it good or bad.

    1. I worked in a restaurant once in a small town. You know who the regulars are, especially if they are in any way unusual. Especially in a small town. I still remember who many of the regulars were. If a waitress says that Roy Moore used to be a regular who would stick around until closing time, I has the ring of authenticity about it. It doesn’t mean Moore is guilty of assault, but it does mean he’s probably lying when he says he never met the accuser.

      1. Is it possible? Sure. But only under very specific circumstances. Let’s say someone comes up and says about Moore what you are saying. Okay, how do we know they are telling the truth? How do you determine who the “regulars” were 40 years ago? How do you determine anything other than maybe that you actually worked at the restaurant at the time in question? You likely can’t. So we are left with no way to judge your veracity. How do I know you are not lying unless I have some known circumstances that allow me to evaluate your statement? I don’t. And that is why allegations this old are almost always impossible to judge.

        1. If other regulars and waitresses confirm that Moore was a regular customer there, I would believe them. Why would they embellish such a basic detail? If someone there said Moore liked to host a golden shower in the restaurant, I would be skeptical because the accusation is a bit outlandish.

          Of course we can ask “Were you actually a regular in that restaurant” but that shouldn’t be hard to confirm, especially in a small town.

          Which is why it’s strange that not many people have confirmed or denied with certainty that Moore was a regular at this place. The owner should definitely know, we should have heard from him by now if he’s still alive.

          1. He likely isn’t alive. And a lot of the people who went to that restaurant likely are not alive either. And not every restaurant has a group of regulars.

            Gadsden, Alabama has a population of 35,000. It was probably around the same back then. That is more of a medium sized town than a small town. A small town is 2,000 people. In a town like that, absolutely everyone is going to know who goes to what restaurant. In a town of 35,000, no way. 35,000 is a lot of people. I have lived in a town that big and you have some anonymity in a town that big. You don’t know all 35,000 people or even half of them the way you likely know all 2,000 people in a town of that size.

            1. Thanks for that info. I assumed a small southern town would have 300,000 people or something.

              But I keep hearing that Moore was a minor celebrity there. If a well known DA ate a certain bbq place all the time, the community should be able to confirm it.

              Moore is either completely innocent, or he has the utmost confidence that no one else in the restaurant can ever place him there. Personally I have hard time believing that a DA (or an ADA) would say “I’m a DA, so no one will believe you” to his victim after a botched rape attempt, even though he signed his name, date and profession on her yearbook earlier that day.

              1. Anything is possible. I find it a very odd coincidence that he would sign and date a yearbook on the very day that he is supposed to have raped the woman. Again, anything is possible. But that is a bit hard to believe. It all boils down to the fact that you can’t ever determine with any certainty events that happened this long ago and were not recorded or discussed at the time. Even if someone showed up and claimed that they had seen him there, there is no particular reason to think that person is remembering correctly or isn’t just lying.

                This entire thing adds up to nothing. There is no way to tell what the truth is. People are just pretending they can because they either like Moore and want it not to be true or don’t like Moore and want it to be true. It is confirmation bias and bullshit all the way around.

              2. I find “minor celebrity” to be a bit of a stretch. I grew up in a place a bit smaller than Gadsden, and I’m pretty sure that nobody who wasn’t regularly involved with the court system remembers who the DA was in the 1970s, unless they were related to him or a close family friend. There are maybe a half dozen people of approximately equivalent stature to the local DA that I remember from that time period, and I can’t tell you where any of them spent any of their time other than at their workplace.

            2. Gadsden, Alabama has a population of 35,000. It was probably around the same back then.

              According to wiki it was more like 48,000 then and dropping quickly (58k in 1960; 54k in 1970; 47k in 1980; 42 in 1990). Which would also explain why a)even back then people who appeared to be in a position where they would stick around WOULD be noticed and b)why it will be impossible now to find a lot of people who even lived in Gadsden then.

              1. why it will be impossible now to find a lot of people who even lived in Gadsden then.

                Spoken like someone who knows little about rural America.

                There is going to be a very sizable percentage still there that has lived there for generations, if it’s anything like the small towns and cities around here, but a much smaller number of people who would have known Roy Moore from Adam.

                1. very sizable percentage still there that has lived there for generations

                  Facts say that there were 47k peeps then (the peeps that might remember something then) and only 35k peeps now (the peeps available for talking to now). And shrinking pies all shrink the same (barring plague/war as the cause) – those young enough TO move DO move cuz the future ain’t bright there for a new entrant into the workforce.

                  Hell even Moore (near the top of the job ladder not the bottom) left for a couple of years from 83 after he lost his 1982 election. The only window for these stories to have come out was that election – a 1982 article from Anniston Star is really interesting – http://bit.ly/2zI2Gfw

                  1. And from that article – that 1982 election was a pretty vicious fight – among sharks at the top of the food chain in that town. I can see why one side would have welcomed the story back then – and I can see why a minnow would avoid getting in the middle and would just STFU.

          2. I wonder how many people making the claim that “Gadsden Alabama is a small town” have any idea what the population actually is? Damn few I bet.

            1. I’m actually from a ‘rural small town’ of about 9,000 people, but I’m well aware that such a community is actually quite large by small town standards since it is the seat of the county government. The outlying towns are miniscule, say around 200-2,000 people, tops.

              People who think 35,000 people is a ‘small town’ have never actually been to a small town, or have their perceptions warped by living in an urban environment. I can say that pretty confidently now that I live in a city with around 1.5 million people.

              1. Exactly. In the rural area where I live, Zanesville, OH — 25,000 people — is the nearest real city. The thought that everyone there knows everyone’s business is ridiculous. My whole neighboring county has about 35,000 people and everyone in the county doesn’t know everyone else’s business. You have to get down to much smaller groups like the few hundred people in my township before those kind of tribal relationships are effective.

      2. I was interning as a reporter in London, OH (pop. ~10,000) in the mid-’80s. I was a regular at a couple local restaurants, because they were convenient to the newspaper. I would be willing to bet that nobody at all who worked at those restaurants recalls me. I certainly don’t remember any faces or names from those places.

  12. He was widely known for bothering teenage girls at malls and restaurants, local reports say. Lots of people corroborating that:

    http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/
    gadsden_residents_say_moores_b.html

    1. So the whole town knew this, yet in 30+ years of politics, the last ten of which as one of the most controversial and well-known figures in the state, no one said anything? His opponents didn’t use this against him out of kindness?

      There are six people in that article who say that about Moore. If they are telling the truth, why did this not come out before now? It is possible that they are telling the truth. It is possible that Moore, being a politician, has a lot of enemies and there are six people willing to lie about him to the newspaper. There is no way to tell which is the case. What efforts if any did the newspaper who printed that take to verify those people’s stories? Who are these people? What reason is there to believe them?

      You take what they are saying as the Gospel Truth because you have concluded Moore is guilty and are looking for ways to ensure the facts conform with that assumption. That is nice, but it is not very compelling.

    2. And remember, the town has 35,000 people. So how does coming up with six people who claim this make it “well known” in the town? Six out of 35,000?

      1. *Finds a town with 35,000 that I’ve been to*

        Yeah, that’s a moderate-sized Bumfuckville. Entirely likely to know the goings-on of local politicians and officials. Especially flamboyantly ridiculous ones who like to touch children.

        1. yes, Tony, you believe anything people tell you as long as it confirms your political biases. We know that. I don’t really understand why you keep telling us that over and over again. We get it. You are going to believe whatever fits your politics. It is noted. No one is doubting you about that.

          1. I was against Roy Moore when he was merely a lawless theocratic bible-thumper shitting on the constitution.

            I’m sure I’m shocked just shocked that a person like that might turn out to be a kid diddler.

            1. Yes Tony, you hate Roy Moore’s politics and as a result, will uncritically accept any accusation made against him. We know that. You don’t need to tell us again.

              1. I’m just following Mitch McConnell’s lead.

                1. You probably look like Mitch McConnell’s twin brother too, don’t you, Tony?

                2. You’re trying to get both Democrats and Republicans to hate you like they hate McConnell?

            2. Despite there being zero accusations of “kid diddling.”

            3. Despite there being zero accusations of “kid diddling.”

    3. The article is taken down.

      But I did read another article in which one of the mall employees claimed to have seen a well dressed Moore talking to young girls at the mall. She said everyone thought he was a creepy old guy.

      It’s not in dispute that he dated or courted younger women. If he was trying to pick girls past the age of consent, then this is less of an issue. Still not great news for Moore.

      Thanks to the Weinstein scandal, we’re conditioned to think that all decades old accusations are now viable. But both Moore’s republican and democrat challengers already followed up on these rumors and they found nothing. I can believe that the alleged victims stayed silent out of fear an shame – but the entire community said nothing, even when he was supposedly banned at a mall? There weren’t any democrat voters in that town?

      1. Yeah, to me the Mall claims are a bridge too far. There is no way in hell that would not have come out before now if it were true.

        1. What an interesting defense. The more shocking the claims, the less they are to be believed. (Or, the exact reverse of how you treat everything ever said about a Clinton.)

          1. Yes. The more serious the claim, the more likely it would have been known by now. That is how reality works Tony. You think “the more serious the claim the more likely it is to be true”, which is so fucking stupid that you frankly should not be allowed to live on your own if you think that way.

            Please tell me if you are ever called to serve on a jury so I can try and make sure you are not seated. The thought of you on a jury is just fucking terrifying.

            1. It’s possible that this is all a giant conspiracy cooked up by Democrats so they could get a temporary senate foothold in the reddest state in the country.

              But you’re neglecting the zeitgeist–we believe accusers, especially when there are a lot of them. It’s not proper court-of-law rules, but it’s a reflection of a positive change in attitude from a world that protected predators. Like the one you’re describing. One where he can get away with it for decades. If Weinstein could do it why can’t Moore?

              1. It is possible that all or some of this or none of it is a lie. There is no way to know one way or another.

                1. I think we’re somewhere between preponderance of evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt.

                  Is it only witness testimony of claimed rape victims that you don’t count as evidence, or all witness testimony?

                  1. There are no witnesses to any sexual assault. Two women made specific accusations. Everyone else is corroborating that Moore either dated younger women or courted them. I think few of them allege that Moore pulled at ponytails and skirts.

                    1. Victims of sexual assault count as witnesses. Sexual assault often happens in private.

                    2. Well, witnesses come in many forms: credible, not credible, honest, dishonest, accurate, inaccurate, etc.

                      In any case, witness testimony is weak evidence even under the best of circumstances because people’s memory is notoriously bad. The testimony of these women is worthless unless corroborated by independent physical evidence.

              2. Well, you are free to believe whoever you want. So are the voters in Alabama. They are also free not to care about Moore’s lust for teenage p***y, and they are free to care about WaPo’s obvious attempt at manipulation.

                Moore is a homophobic prick, but if I were a voter in AL, I’d seriously consider voting for him at this point just to demonstrate that as a voter, I refuse to be pushed around by the billionaire cronies of the Democratic party.

        2. Indeed. NO ONE made a quick anonymous tip to a reporter during Moore’s many times in the spotlight that he was actually a creep who was known to chase young girls at the mall?
          Especially a ‘moral crusader’ type like him?

          Bullshit.

      2. even when he was supposedly banned at a mall?

        The word ‘banned’ has been used in those articles – but the explanations from the people themselves indicates more that he was being watched. Like some girls had complained that he was pestering them so the mall guards were just paying more attention to someone they knew (because teenage girls hanging around are good business for malls).

        It sounds to me more like the journalist/witnesses are taking liberties with the word – 40 years later. I put this in the same category as his co-workers – who thought something was a bit weird but didn’t bother finding out anything more than that.

      3. Article is still up just the address that Lester gave was wrong. Here it is as of 23:14 EST on 11/15/2017

        http://www.al.com/news/index.s…..res_b.html

    4. The vast majority of the accounts describe legal behavior. Evidence of legal behavior is not evidence of illegal behavior. Sad that needs to be said.

  13. Moore’s attorney says his client handled a divorce action filed Nelson in 1999, meaning she (possibly) lied about not having any contact with Moore after the alleged sexual assault.

    Thomas Wictor (don’t know him, apparently a journalist) pointed out some inconsistencies in the yearbook scribbling. The lower half looks like it was written in blue ink, while the top was written in black ink.

  14. But if it becomes clear that he is lying about these otherwise innocent details, the only plausible explanation will be that he is also lying when he denies victimizing these women.

    I don’t know how old you are, but let me tell you: I don’t remember everybody I sat next to 40 years ago. I’m not sure I even remember everybody I dated.

    I believe this story less and less. Who the fuck signs their name with an abbreviation of a professional title? And the wrong abbreviation and title to boot? I think it’s far more plausible that the disturbed fat woman copied his signature from her divorce papers complete with the assistant’s initials and made the whole thing up, except possibly for actually getting a ride home.

    Incidentally, I also don’t remember every Takei-like creep who grabbed my ass or tried to kiss me against my will, and there were a few. I think anybody who obsesses over such incidences 40 years later, let alone gives tear-filled press conferences describing them, is either lying or mentally ill.

    1. And before you object, I am euphemistic when I say “trying to kiss me against my will”.

  15. Drip, drip, drip. One accusation is just that, and should have little bearing without hard evidence. However, it’s not just one accusation.

    I’ve lost count, but I think there are 6 or 8 accusations as of November 15, plus interviews with Gadsden locals about D.A. Moore being banned from the local mall for hitting on teenagers at the time period of the accusations. The reports grow daily, while Judge Moore offers no real defense, other than denial and threatening his accusers ? which is exactly what some of them report.

    “He told me, ‘You’re just a child.’ And he said, ‘I am the district attorney of Etowah County, and if you tell anyone about this, no one will ever believe you.'”

    Hitting on teens 16+ is not illegal in Alabama, but Judge Moore, who has run on a platform of rectitude for years, has feet of clay, and should pull out, as his denials are utterly unbelievable.

    I have lived in Georgia for 32 years; the unofficial state motto of Georgia is “Thank god for Alabama.” And in Alabama, the unofficial state motto is “Thank god for Mississippi.” Judge Moore is doing nothing positive to dispel stereotypes about Alabama politics and the intelligence of its voters.

    1. Yes he looks more and more guilty of the illegal stuff, while the legal stuff is bad enough to dump him already too. The problem is the suspicious timing and difficulty of doing much short of handing the seat to the democrats.

      But if they can’t convict him in the next few days via some kind of turbo-trial, and he refuses to voluntarily withdraw, what options are there short of waiting till he wins and then booting him? Which seems perfectly fine doesn’t it? Oh but then democrats wouldn’t get the senate I guess.

      1. Why do nonpartisan freethinking libertarian wunderkinds give a crap which party takes a senate seat? I thought it was all the same big government hydra.

        1. Surely there’s more direct defenses of Moore you could be trolling around here, or have they all gone to bed?

        2. Because the best way to control one evil party is with the other evil party.

    2. I’ve lost count, but I think there are 6 or 8 accusations as of November 15, plus interviews with Gadsden locals about D.A. Moore being banned from the local mall for hitting on teenagers at the time period of the accusations. The reports grow daily, while Judge Moore offers no real defense, other than denial and threatening his accusers ? which is exactly what some of them report.

      I’ve lost count as well.

      But I’ve gotta say that we’ve gotten to the point that it’s pretty clear that Moore was the town perv in the late 70s and early 80s and that everyone knew it. That his atrocious actions were common knowledge that has never, not once before, come to light in all the years of the media trying to destroy him for his strident Christianity.

      And it’s this mass of accusations that let’s me know that its all lies.

      One person, coming forward years later, on person who was scared and intimidated–maybe.

      Half the town? He was ‘banned from malls’? He was ‘inappropriate’ with every woman or girl who got near him? And everyone knew it?

      And not a whisper of this cane out when he was being ripped to shreds over his ten commandments protest? Nothing? From all that?

      No.

  16. When he starts to say he’s never been to Alabama, then you know you got him cold.

  17. “If the he is lying about courthouse chats and restaurant meals, he is probably lying about his alleged crimes too.”

    Or he’s just aware that his ass is on the line and the election is days away, and is trying to say anything he can to save himself, without particular regard for what he remembers for certain or what he can prove.

    I believe this was referred to as getting carried away and hanging himself, in the “don’t talk to the police” video.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

  18. Many if’s… We’ll see later, but an accusation is not a proof.

  19. This is rag material. Move on….

  20. I went to a dinner with a woman I had dated about ten years previously. The relationship didn’t end well, and we became estranged for a couple years and then later became friends. There was a particular very intense evening in our relationship that I remember very well, as it brought out the issues in our relationship and really marked the end of it, in my mind. I was shocked at that dinner ten years later to find that she didn’t remember it AT ALL!

    Conversely, about 15 years ago, my wife and I went before a judge to correct an error with the filing of my second daughter’s birth certificate. My wife remembers it just fine, and I have to admit that it happened, because we have the document to prove it, but I have absolutely no memory of it. It recently became relevant when we were obtaining a passport for that daughter. And these incidents were far less than 30 years delayed.

    Memory is a funny thing and that’s part of the reason there are statutes of limitations on crimes.

    Studies have shown how unreliable witness memory is even hours or days after an event, no less 30 years.

    Thus I don’t regard Moore’s statement that he didn’t know the girls as incriminating if found to be untrue, and I find the accusations far too long-delayed to be treated as credible.

  21. Roy Moore is now in good company, Al Franken is caught pants down and he got the “Harvey Weinstein disease”.
    http://moonbattery.com/?p=89852
    http://voxday.blogspot.ca/2017…..sment.html

    1. */ starts popping popcorn /*

  22. As has been repeated, there’s just no way to know. I find it dubious that none of this ever came up in the last decade or two when he had become a prominent figure. You know how when a high profile murder takes places people will call in to confess to a crime they didn’t commit? It think that’s what is going on here. Perhaps the first person had a real incident, or perhaps made it up on purpose out of political spite… But then once it was out the rest of these people are just crazies trying to get attention.

    I WOULD THINK that if any of this was real it would have come up when he was in hot water as a supreme court justice… I hope that signature ends up being fake, which it is sounding like it is with the DA on the end, and this whole thing blows up in the Dems face. Roy Moore is not my preferred type of Republican, but I’d love to see the Dems get embarrassed hardcore in a lie like this because it might hurt the effectiveness of similar campaigns in the future… AND I’d rather have Moore in the senate than the Democrat. Moore will mostly vote for good stuff, and none of his whack social agenda will go anywhere anyway… So we’ll get whatever good out of him on fiscal stuff with his downsides being totally restrained.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.