Me too!

In the court of law, once you're a proven liar you're a proven liar.  It's really hard to overcome.

The, "yes I lied about the yearbook and forged it, but the rest of my story is totally true" line of evidence doesn't hold any water at all.  Especially when a case is 100% based on the believability and integrity of the accuser.

The 14 year old accuser has a lot of factual holes in her story as well based on what's been reported.

What are the factual holes in Leigh Corfman's accusation? 

So he only had a 12 day window to go on two dates with her, and therefore that's proof that she's lying? Or, as the Breitbart article says, it's theoretically possible but unlikely. Shoot, I went on two dates within 4 days of meeting my wife. I knew she was out of my league and I didn't want to give her any opportunity to meet someone else. 

Come on, she added the date to it. My mom does that with Christmas cards. It doesn't mean she's committing forgery. This was the stupidest set of headlines I've seen in a while.

She did more than that.  She's now disclosing that she altered it by adding the date and location.  What's even more ironic is the WaPo which broke the story had a "handwriting expert" state that the entire note, including the date and location at the bottom were indeed from the same person, Roy Moore.  She's now saying she forged the date/location so egg on face of WaPo handwriting expert.  (or she wrote the whole thing, hmm)

She didn't disclose that Roy Moore ruled pretty negatively against her in her divorce proceedings in 1999.  If she was truly sexually assaulted by him, don't you think she would have brought that up in divorce court in 1999?  Most believe she copied his signature from her divorce papers because she included the DA to his signature thinking it was district attorney, but in reality it was the initials of his clerk who initialed every signature on his court documents with DA.

She's trying to gently back off the yearbook signature by admitting that "some" of it was added by her, but still maintain that the important stuff is legitimate.
If that's the case, then why didn't she mention that to the Washington Post, or their handwriting expert when they did the original story and "proved" that the entire message was from Roy Moore?

I think it's more along the lines of the timeline she described doesn't really fit into a 12 day window.  Her torment seemed to be over a longer period of time the way she described it.

**edit**

To be clear.  I have no clue what happened and neither does anyone else here.  What we do know is that She came forward at exactly the most punitive political time and used a known liar and Hillary delegate Gloria Allred to bring it to the worlds attention.

That makes me become instantly skeptical of anything she says and give the benefit of the doubt to Judge Moore.  If she has some hard evidence other than statements, then I'm all ears.

In contrast, somebody like Franken or Conyers just came out and wasn't timed with any political campaign.  In the case of Franken there was credible evidence including pictures that makes the trial via public opinion much more indicting.  I don't know the evidence in Conyers' case, but he resigned so that alone says there's something there.

Originally posted by Oysterboy

Originally posted by Bob Loblaw

Originally posted by Rogillio

Originally posted by Bob Loblaw

Originally posted by tuwood

In the court of law, once you're a proven liar you're a proven liar.  It's really hard to overcome.

The, "yes I lied about the yearbook and forged it, but the rest of my story is totally true" line of evidence doesn't hold any water at all.  Especially when a case is 100% based on the believability and integrity of the accuser.

The 14 year old accuser has a lot of factual holes in her story as well based on what's been reported.

What are the factual holes in Leigh Corfman's accusation? 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/21/court-documents-...

So he only had a 12 day window to go on two dates with her, and therefore that's proof that she's lying? Or, as the Breitbart article says, it's theoretically possible but unlikely. Shoot, I went on two dates within 4 days of meeting my wife. I knew she was out of my league and I didn't want to give her any opportunity to meet someone else. 

Was she 14 Bob?

Oh heavens no! That's disgusting. I'm no paedo. By the time I met her she was a fully matured, 16 year old woman. And I was still a young lad a few years out of high school, in my mid-30's. But like, just barely into my mid-30's. Not a late mid-30's, that's a line I would have never crossed.

Originally posted by Bob Loblaw

Originally posted by Oysterboy

Originally posted by Bob Loblaw

Originally posted by Rogillio

Originally posted by Bob Loblaw

Originally posted by tuwood

In the court of law, once you're a proven liar you're a proven liar.  It's really hard to overcome.

The, "yes I lied about the yearbook and forged it, but the rest of my story is totally true" line of evidence doesn't hold any water at all.  Especially when a case is 100% based on the believability and integrity of the accuser.

The 14 year old accuser has a lot of factual holes in her story as well based on what's been reported.

What are the factual holes in Leigh Corfman's accusation? 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/21/court-documents-...

So he only had a 12 day window to go on two dates with her, and therefore that's proof that she's lying? Or, as the Breitbart article says, it's theoretically possible but unlikely. Shoot, I went on two dates within 4 days of meeting my wife. I knew she was out of my league and I didn't want to give her any opportunity to meet someone else. 

Was she 14 Bob?

Oh heavens no! That's disgusting. I'm no paedo. By the time I met her she was a fully matured, 16 year old woman. And I was still a young lad a few years out of high school, in my mid-30's. But like, just barely into my mid-30's. Not a late mid-30's, that's a line I would have never crossed.

lol, that's just wrong (but funny)

Also, a fun fact for everyone.  Pedophile is an often misused term.  A pedophile is a person whom is attracted to pre-pubescent children.  A person attracted to post-pubescent children/teenagers is called an ephebophile.  I know it doesn't roll off the tongue as well, but it's factually incorrect to call Moore a Pedophile, even if guilty on all counts.  ;-)

lol, i know.  It doesn't just doesn't roll off the tongue.  It just doesn't sound bad at all when you say "that guy is an Ephebo".

Can we at least agree that the yearbook lady more likely than not lied about being assaulted?