Sexual accusations

[windwalker]

 

[windwalker]

"Gloria Allred: ‘I Haven’t Asked’ Beverly Young Nelson If She Saw Roy Moore Sign Her Yearbook"

 

TUR: But did she see him sign it?

ALLRED: You know, I don’t — I haven’t asked her if she saw him, but we did describe what happened that evening in question. What she alleges was that she put it on the counter; that I think she asked to sign — or that he did sign it. That’s all.

TUR: I ask this, because it seems you’re not 100% sure that it is his signature, and if you’re not 100% sure that it is his signature, why would you show it at a press conference?

ALLRED: Well, why would — you know, why does anybody doubt that it is his signature?

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/11/16/gloria-allred-havent-asked-beverly-young-nelson-saw-roy-moore-sign-yearbook/

 

ya why would anyone doubt that it is his signature?

 

Didn't think it would be this soon, its started.

For those who just knew that he was the one,,,

Thoughts?

Edited November 17, 2017 by windwalker

[Marblehead]

Most of the media has become gossip magazines.

 

He said she said, etc.

 

But they still accidently report some factual information.

 

 

 

[Trunk]

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000158-26b6-dda3-afd8-b6fe46f40000

[Marblehead]

That is ridiculous Trunk.  How is one supposed to defend one's self against the accusations of a no named individual.  No court should consider such a document.

 

[dawei]

23 hours ago, Kar3n said:

I have changed the name of the thread. We do not need a new one for every person accused. I am more than sure the list will get longer.

 

I think I need to change it again.. Trunk is right.... so much bigger than Moore.. and Politics !

[rene]

33 minutes ago, dawei said:

 

I think I need to change it again.. Trunk is right.... so much bigger than Moore.. and Politics !

 

So... now it looks like Ralis started a thread called 'Sexual Accusations'

:rene faints:

How does it get better than this??

j/k

all good

 

 

[ralis]

Edit

Edited November 18, 2017 by ralis

[windwalker]

 

 

In our interview, Moore spotlighted the initials “D.A.,” linking it to a signature on Nelson’s 1999 divorce document over two decades later. That signature was followed by the initials of his former assistant, Delbra Adams, who only started working for him in 1987.

 

 

At the press conference with Allred, Nelson failed to mention the divorce case entirely and that Moore was the judge whose stamped signature appears on her 1999 divorce document. And alongside Moore’s signature are the initials “D.A.” for Delbra Adams, Roy Moore’s former longtime secretary and judicial assistant.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/17/exclusive-roy-moore-gloria-allreds-refusal-to-release-yearbook-proves-allegations-are-completely-untrue/

 

It remains to be seen how this plays out.....it does show an oddity as to why would someone sign their name using a signature from work that has yet to be explained or examined.

 

The obvious point being the dates of when DA was used and when he allegedly signed the yr book.  "Nelson claims that Moore signed her yearbook in 1977 sometime just before Christmas."

 

1977 and 1987 whats  wrong with this, picture.

 

If they want to prove it true just find another personal doc.  by the judge showing the same initials as signed.  should be easy right? 

 

 

Edited November 18, 2017 by windwalker

[Trunk]

I thought this thread was mostly sexual accusations in politics...

Seems it kind of loses its focus now but whatever

Edited November 18, 2017 by Trunk

[Marblehead]

I'm surprised that no woman has yet complained about Hilary hitting on them.

 

Maybe they enjoyed it?

 

 

[dawei]

If folks want to talk about the political or entertainment industry and sexual accusations... whatever.

 

I now see porn stars accusing other porn stars of rape...   it is turning surreal.

 

[ralis]

1 minute ago, dawei said:

If folks want to talk about the political or entertainment industry and sexual accusations... whatever.

 

I now see porn stars accusing other porn stars of rape...   it is turning surreal.

 

 

My post was to expose the allegations against Roy Moore and not some watered down generalized diversion from this very important matter. The mods completely missed that point. 

[dawei]

8 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

My post was to expose the allegations against Roy Moore and not some watered down generalized diversion from this very important matter. The mods completely missed that point. 

 

I do realize that... but I can't see 10 separate topics on the same kind of accusations.   I'm sure folks will continue to talk about Moore as the signature issue seems to give pause.

 

why hasn't even one of them just said, "I'll take a lie detector test"... 

[thelerner]

lie detector tests have been largely discredited or at least found inconclusive.  I believe not allowed in court (googled depends on the judge).  Still people take them and perhaps they'll show up here.  Course you could have Moore take them to, but they shouldn't be considered gospel.  They create enough false positives and negatives to be questionable.  Especially if the polygraph tester or people around them have bias's.  

 

I find Moore adding the word Generally, to the question if he dated teens in his 30's to be somewhat damning.  If someone said 'Generally, I'm not a serial killer', I don't think you'd want to spend the weekend with them in a cabin.   

[Marblehead]

I have never been able to pass a lie detector test.  Even in the Army for my Top Secret clearance I failed.  They sure grilled me afterwards though.

 

[rene]

23 minutes ago, thelerner said:

lie detector tests have been largely discredited or at least found inconclusive.  I believe not allowed in court (googled depends on the judge).  Still people take them and perhaps they'll show up here.  Course you could have Moore take them to, but they shouldn't be considered gospel.  They create enough false positives and negatives to be questionable.  Especially if the polygraph tester or people around them have bias's.  

 

Agree.

 

23 minutes ago, thelerner said:

I find Moore adding the word Generally, to the question if he dated teens in his 30's to be somewhat damning.  If someone said 'Generally, I'm not a serial killer', I don't think you'd want to spend the weekend with them in a cabin.   

 

Why damning? The question was about 'teens' (not the 14yo accuser). I dated older guys when I was 16-17...and that was 40+ years ago. My late husband was 13 years older than me. Maybe you find it to be damning - but not everyone does.

[Trunk]

Quote

 

... the deep sourcing that went Washington Post investigative into reporting and cross-checking and confirming details of the accusations against Moore, including a dozen interviews with people who worked or hung out at the mall and 30 interviews surrounding the actual accusations, ...

 

 

1. Lots of sourcing went into the Roy Moore reporting.

 

2. Under-aged dating is not the only accusation.  There was coercion, violence.

[rene]

2 minutes ago, Trunk said:

 

1. Lots of sourcing went into the Roy Moore reporting.

 

2. Under-aged dating is not the only accusation.  There was coercion, violence.

 

IF all of that is true, the man should be hung by his stones and left to rot.

 

IF all of that is purchased 'evidence' by the other side, the same ^^^ should be done to each of them.

 

So much corruption, deception, everywhere. Both sides.

Regardless of who 'wins' anything - we're all the losers now, imo.

 

 

 

[Trunk]

I suggest that you look up the filmed interview of R.Moore's accuser on youtube.  Watch that (post it here if you like) and see for yourself whether it looks sincere or not.

[thelerner]

6 hours ago, rene said:

Why damning? The question was about 'teens' (not the 14yo accuser). I dated older guys when I was 16-17...and that was 40+ years ago. My late husband was 13 years older than me. Maybe you find it to be damning - but not everyone does.

Poor sentence structure on my part.  I didn't mean to aim 'damning' at dating younger, though a 30+ year old trolling malls for teens is bit creepy, imo.  Damning was a poor choice of words, shoulda used contrary or adds doubt.

 

The word 'Generally' before a 'no' statement, is damning or better yet puts doubt on it.  Ie- I generally never drink alcohol, tends to mean I sometimes do, or if evidence comes in to the contrary I'm not lying, I said 'generally' never. 

 

Reportedly when Hannity pressed Moore on whether he had dated girls in their teens when he was in 30s- “Not generally, no,” the former judge said in response.   Seems like a good prosecutor would ask if that meant Yes, No, or Sometimes. 

Edited November 18, 2017 by thelerner

[Marblehead]

Would some woman please accuse me of making sexual advances?  It has been so very long!

 

 

Edited November 18, 2017 by Marblehead

[windwalker]

54 minutes ago, Trunk said:

I suggest that you look up the filmed interview of R.Moore's accuser on youtube.  Watch that (post it here if you like) and see for yourself whether it looks sincere or not.

 

After so much time people can believe a lot of things that never really happened.

Is it now that all one has to be  is "accused"  not found guilty 

 

There are many cases later proved to be false after the damage has been done because?

 

If one takes it as true then the timing must be questioned,  why 1 month before the election not in the run up to it.

Why at such a time that very little can be done.  It would be very interesting to understand when they had the information.

 

The not free press, fake news, often holds information until the right time.

 

Another point, I feel should be addressed is the issue of time,,,Why are there no 

 

"Six Laws with no Statute of Limitations. There are only a few instances when the period when a perpetrator of a crime can be charged and convicted never expires: If you kill someone: A charge of murder can be made at any time. Fraud and embezzlement: You will be looking over your shoulder forever."  

 

but nothing in there about sex,,,   In each case the  woman do not bring charges fearing retribution but do accuse at the right time....why? 

  

Edited November 18, 2017 by windwalker

[windwalker]

"In 1994, the California State Legislature enacted a specific statute of limitations (PC Section 803(g) (3)(A)) for child sexual abuse crimes, allowing charges to be filed within one year of the time that the crime was reported to the police. It allowed, when the prior limitations period has expired, criminal prosecution on child molesting charges many years after its occurrence.

In 1998, petitioner Marion Stogner was indicted for molesting for acts committed between 1955 and 1973, under California's specific statute of limitations. It occurred after Stogner's two sons were both charged with molestation. During the state's investigation of one of the sons, Stogner's daughters reported that their father sexually abused them for years when they were under the age of 14. The grand jury found probable cause to charge Stogner with molestation of his two daughters.[3][4]"

 

apparently its  state by state 

 

In AL

 

At the time, the statute of limitations for bringing felony charges involving sexual abuse of a minor would have expired three years after the alleged incidents, or sometime between 1980 and 1983. Neither Corfman nor Jones filed a police report after the alleged incidents and no charges were ever brought against Moore.

 

Alabama law was later changed to remove the statute of limitations for "any sex offense involving a victim under 16 years of age." However, the change only applied to crimes committed before Jan. 7, 1985 -years after the alleged Moore incidents- for which there were no existing statute of limitations law, meaning Moore couldn't be brought up on criminal charges now in connection to sexual abuse charges from 1977 to 1979."

 

This means that he can not even be charged even if the allegations were true which has yet to be proven.

 

talk about a perfect set up,,,,no need to prove because they cant and yet he is apparently assumed to be guilty 

of something that can not be tried in a court of law.... 

[Trunk]