Monday, November 13, 2017

Roy Moore's Denial of Accusations



When someone makes a public statement, everyone has an opinion on whether the person is telling the truth or not.  

Statement Analysis gives its opinion based upon principles that are tried and proven.  

It is to give an opinion and explain why the opinion exists.  


Sexual assaults always warrant clarity of definition but within the accusation and in the denial.  

In context here, the accusation should be  singular:  the sexual abuse of a 14 year old girl. 

The sexualized environment, age and sophistication disparity and alleged actions all are "sexual abuse" in definition and the alleged victim, at 14, is legally "underaged." 

We look at two things to guide us to know the truth:  

1.  The language of the accuser
2.  The denial of the accused


Question for Analysis:

Is Judge Moore telling the truth in denying sexual abuse of a 14 year old?

Sean Hannity interviewed Judge Moore. The complete interview and transcript is at You Tube.  Mr. Hannity did not seek to protect a pedophile as the Soros based business has claimed.  Sponsors such as Ford, Keurig and others, have dropped commercials from his radio program based upon this deceptive claim.  

Motive and Timing 

The alleged victim's motive is immaterial at this point. We are seeking to learn if the accused with give a statistically reliable denial.  

The amount of time that has passed is not something we look at in analyzing the statement.  Why one would wait to make an accusation is a separate question.  First we seek to learn if it is true. 

We may know if it is truthful or deceptive based upon two things:

1.  The accuser's words
2.  The accused's words 

When accused of a crime, the guilty (de facto guilty; not judicially) will avoid issuing a reliable denial.  

Those who "did not do it", will plainly state it as much. 

This blog has hundreds of examples of such.  

A reliable denial consists of three components:

1.  The pronoun "I"
2.  The past tense "did not" or "didn't."  Any substitution with the word "never" is not reliable. The Reid Technique designation of one being more reliable than the other is not supported by the statistics.  Either "did not" or the casual "didn't" is acceptable. 

3.  The allegation specifically addressed. Any alteration of the accusation is not reliable. 

Any addition or subtraction to this formula is not reliable.  

The accusation is about the 14 year old, not about dating others.  

"I did not molest _______ _____" or "I did not have her touch me" and "I did not remove her clothes" or "I did not have her remove her clothes..." and so on, are all examples of reliable denials. 


A reliable denial is something that deceptive people avoid. 

For years, we covered Lance Armstrong who said,

"I never used PEDs"

The word "never" is to avoid "did not" and is vague. 

Chris Christie's denial of "Bridgegate" was not reliable because he added to the three components (talking for more than 40 minutes worth). 

Another example is that if Bill Clinton were to be polygraphed when asked, "Did you have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky?" he could have passed had he said, "no." 

Each of us has an internal subjective and personal dictionary.  

Mr. Clinton said to Monica Lewinsky that "sexual relations" means "intercourse."  

This is why pre-screening is mandatory for the polygraph.  

If they asked him, "Define sexual relations" and under the polygraph asked, "Did you have sexual contact with Monica Lewinsky" a denial would have shown deception. 

If someone says "I did not _____" in a reliable denial, it is 90% like to be true. 

If asked, "Why should I believe you?" and the subject says,
"Because I told the truth" it is 99.9% likely to be true. 

A reliable denial is often "boring" to media because it ends the discussion. 

I have only had two events in which my analysis and the polygraph results disagreed. 

1.  Sexual molestation of a child.  The analysis of the child's statement and of the alleged perpetrator's statement showed:

a.  veracity by the child, and the time and location of the molestation
b.  deception via withholding information of the event, yet matching time and location.

The perpetrator "tickled" the victim, not "molested."  By not using his personal subjective language, he was able to pass the polygraph, move back into his girlfriends home, and reoffend. 

2.  Double Murder 

This was a case where a man called 911 to report his girlfriend and her son were murdered.  He fully cooperated, passed his polygraph, and the coroner and district attorney were satisfied with the evidence, including forensics. 

The only doubt was due to the 911 call. 

This short call was analyzed for over 6 hours in which the analysis showed:

1.  He did it
2.  When he did it
3.  Who he killed first
4.  His motive (greed)
5.  His history and background 

Eventually, justice prevailed and he was convicted of the murder. 

"Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks" is timeless truth. 

Motives

That accusers come out against political candidates is a given.  We listen for two things:

1. Reliability versus deception indicators in the accuser
2. Reliable Denial versus Unreliable Denial in the accused. 

This is where Statement Analysis runs at or near 100% accuracy in detecting deception. 

The Washington Post, a most unreliable and politicized news source, alleges that Roy Moore had sexual contact with a 14 year old girl.  This is precisely what Sean Hannity addressed. 

For us, the question is not "why come forth now, after all these years?" yet. 

First, the question is, "Is this true?"

If the subject is making a false allegation, we then seek to learn the motive.  

In false accusations, the motive is often evident in the subject's own language.  On the blog here, you can find false allegations of rape where the false accuser uses the word "left" in her statement after the rape.  The motive is, many times, revenge for being "left"; that is, used, by the accused. 

Statement Analysis is not political.  

We have had an increase in the number of "fake hate" reports, in which politics have been the motive, as well as financial exploitation.

Statement Analysis has helped convict the guilty and it has helped clear the innocent. 

Experiential Knowledge versus Non-experiential Knowledge 

Kristina Cohen reported being raped by Ed Westhill. Her language indicated she spoke from experiential knowledge.  This is knowledge indicating something she experienced, herself.  It did not come from a book, or from a TV program, or even from someone else.  

The analysis is here

It shows she is telling the truth:  it comes from experiential memory. 

I said the based upon the language of the accused, it is not likely the first time he has done this.  The next day, another accuser came forth. 

She is deceptive and the analysis is here.   Her motive is also in her language as she attempts to ingratiate herself into Ms. Cohen's Hollywood status.  She does not speak from experiential knowledge; instead, she intermingles some things she experienced with Ms. Cohen's statement. 

Time does not impact truth.  It either happened or it did not happen but time, nor culture, nor change of language nor revisionism can change truth.  Why someone might wait is a different issue to be addressed; first we seek to learn if it is true or not.  

If Roy Moore sexually abused a 14 year old, voters will have to weigh this versus what his opponent stands for but Statement Analysis only seeks the truth of whether it happened or not. 

Corporate or "main stream media" has shown a brash willingness to deceive the American public "for its own good."  CNN, MSNBC and others have fabricated stories, altered videos and have even changed the meaning of language in ways that Josef Goebells did not dare to.  We only seek the truth. 

Let's look at the accusation, and then the denial.  

I. The Accusation

A 53 year old woman has accused Judge Roy Moore of sexually molesting her when she was 14 years old. 

We do not have many direct quotes from her to go on.  

“I wanted it over with — I wanted out. Please just get this over with. Whatever this is, just get it over.

This is inconclusive by itself.  There are no signals of deception; it is just not enough of a sample to be certain about.  We therefore rely upon Judge Moore to tell us he did not do it.  

To know with certainty, we need to hear her, in her own words, tell us that Roy Moore did this to her. It will have to be with the pronoun "I", with the past tense verbs and without qualification.  

Question:  Why has the Washington Post not revealed her words?

It does not matter for whom the accuser, Leigh Corfman voted for, we need her words to know if she is truthful or not. 

“I wasn’t ready for that — I had never put my hand on a man’s penis, much less an erect one,"

This does not show signals of deception but who's penis is this?  If it is Moore's, we need her to tell us that.  The Washington Post has not given us quotes; instead, only what the writer says.  











II.  the Denial 

We hold to the presumption of innocence and truth, not as a moral nor even judicial exercise, but because this is how lie detection is done.  

We presuppose that Judge Moore did not do this and will plainly state so, as innocent people do, by telling us so. 

If he tells us so, we will be able to believe him.  

Given that the allegation by the 14 year old is the worst, we expect that one who "did not do it" is going to address it directly.  

The other two women who said they dated him even though they were young, indicate political motive.  Inappropriate, but it is not criminal. 

The sexual molestation of a 14 year old should be addressed by him, however, taking precedent over all else. 

This is, in Statement Analysis, the expected.  

Her statement is not reliable because it is too short.  It does not show deception indicators, but again, it is too short for conclusion.  

All we need to hear is her tell us, in her own words, "what happened" for us to know. 


The full interview is available on the Foxnews channel on Youtube. 

Moore said when Hannity asked him to respond to the dozens of establishment Republicans demanding he step down from his race for the U.S. Senate:
If you step aside for any allegation, then you might as well not run because when you run you’re going to get allegations.
He uses the universal "you", but this is an accusation against him, right before the election.  The universal would be appropriate after addressing his situation first, as it would be a principle for all to follow. 



First, I would tell these individuals they wouldn’t make good judges. 
His "first" point (numeric indicates logic) is that "these" individuals wouldn't make good judges.  Better is that "I did not remove her clothing..."  where a denial consists of:

1.  The pronoun "I"
2.  The past tense "did not" or "didn't" (Reid's distinction is not supported by statistics) 
3.  The allegation answered. 

These three elements present represent a "reliable denial."  It is 90% likely to be accurate. 

If he is then asked, "Why should I believe you?" and answers,

"Because I told the truth", it is 99.9% reliable.  

Adding to, altering or subtracting from these three elements will make an allegation either "not reliable" or the stronger, "unreliable."  

Next note:  

The use of "individuals" seeks to minimize the now four women who have come forward.  

In Statement Analysis, we look to learn, "is the subject telling the truth?", and if so, the motive or timing is immaterial.  If the subject is deceptive, we then look to the motive for making a false allegation. 

Previous analysis indicated that Roy Moore issued was not reliable.  This interview with Sean is the perfect opportunity to issue a denial and refuse to step down from the race. 

A false accusation is not likely to lead to resignation from a political race.  The psychological "wall of truth" is too powerful. It is something de facto innocence will not allow. 

We need to learn the truth and the truth lies within Judge Roy Moore. 



They wouldn’t make good people in the judicial system because you are innocent until proven guilty. 

Tangent noted

The subject is judicially innocent.  We look for him to tell us that he holds to a de facto innocence.  He does not.  Instead, he attacks his accusers.  

In this case, this woman has waited over 40 years to bring a complaint four weeks out of an election? It’s obvious to the casual observer that something is up. We’re also doing an investigation and we have some evidence of some collusion here but we’re not ready to put that to the public just yet.

Here he focuses on the timing of the accusation, rather than the accusation itself. This was not lost on Sean as we see a growing suspicion. 

Note the numeric did not continue logically, but went to lengthy (emotional) tangents. 



Well, just like you said, they’re doing it to defeat this senate campaign. They’re bringing something, they’re trying to mix something up from other girls that never said anything about sexual impropriety and they’re all labeling it on this 14-year-old. I had nothing to do with this. This is a completely manufactured story meant to defraud this campaign. They’re losing. They’re 11 points behind. They don’t like my acknowledgment there is a God. We’ve refused to debate them because of their very liberal stance on transgenderism and transgenderism in the military and bathrooms. They’re desperate. Sean, they’re simply desperate.

Having "nothing to do with this" indicates that something, in deed, happened, but that he was not involved.  It is technically an "unreliable denial" but in the conclusion, it is weighed with other points. 

He, himself, gave it the preeminence above the "other" girls, which is appropriate.  He adds that the "other" girls did not accuse him of sexual improprieties.  This is the perfect time for him to address the specific allegation made by one who claimed to be 14 at the time.  

He does not issue a denial. 

If he can't say he did not do it, we cannot say it for him. 




Here we see the growing doubt within Sean:  
HANNITY: “Well, let me ask you a general question.” 

Sean recognized that this man did not deny touching the 14 year old, so he sets up a scenario which allows Moore to make that denial.  Sean gave him many opportunities to say a single sentence that would clear him, but Moore does not. 
MOORE: “Yes.”


HANNITY: “Let’s take you out of this for a second. Let’s say, if any Senate candidate who was 32 at the time had done this to a 14-year-old girl, to me it’s disgusting. To me, it would be despicable. To me, that is a predator.


MOORE: “Yeah.


HANNITY: “Do you agree with me, that no such person who ever does that should ever be in the United States Senate?”


MOORE: “Of course. Nobody who abuses a 14-year-old at age 32 or age 17—it doesn’t matter—if you abuse a 14-year-old you shouldn’t be a Senate candidate. I agree with that. But I did not do that.”

In the subject's personal dictionary, he did not "abuse" the 14 year old girl.   This is the same as President Clinton did not have "sexual relations" with Lewinsky; the subjective definition of "sexual relations" being for Clinton, intercourse. 

This language from the subject suggests that he believed it was consensual and not abuse because the girl did not fight. 

The sophistication disparity between a 32 year old Male and 14 year old Female is acute allowing for exploitation. 

Here is where Sean's suspicion rises to the surface.  He begins with projection; something investigators must avoid:  he sees this from his own daughter's perspective, even with a difference of age. 

Although we all think this way, in investigative interviews, we must remain neutral in posing questions: 


HANNITY: “Let’s go back to it one more question, because I didn’t understand this. If you were 32, and you do date a 17 or 18 year old—that’s a pretty big gap for a pretty young girl—is that something that you did when you were dating? I’m not talking about the 14-year-old in that specific allegation. Would it be normal behavior back in those days for you to date a girl that’s 17 or 18?”


MOORE: “No. Not normal.”


HANNITY: “My daughter is 16 years old. If she’s 17 or 18, I don’t want her dating a 32-year-old.”

This is the suspicion and outrage building  


MOORE: “I wouldn’t either.”


HANNITY: “And you can say unequivocally that you never dated anybody that was in their late teens like that when you were 32?”
This is a yes or no question and Sean is doing everything possible to let Moore issue a reliable denial.  
MOORE: “It would have been out of my customary behavior, that’s right.”
We now know:

He dated teens while in his 30's. 

There was a comical scene from the show, "The Office" in which the adulteress was directly asked, "Did you sleep with him? ("him" being the rival).

The guilty said, "That doesn't sound like me."  

This is the "normal" factor, where one tells us what they normally do.  It is a linguistic signal that the subject is avoiding telling you what they actually did, because what they actually did, is not what they "normally" or, in this language, "customarily" did. 

 This was part of the "pile on" of the Washington Post.  Inappropriate, and very concerning, but not illegal activity.  

Now we have a new concern:

Does he  not believe taking off her clothes was "abusive" but it was out of his "customary behavior."
HANNITY: “In other words, you don’t recall dating any girl that young when you were that old?”


MOORE: “I’ve said no.”

This is a signal of deception.  He is "self referencing" rather than re-stating what was not stated plainly.  It is an example of how the brain seeks to avoid the internal stress of deception. 

No further question should be needed, but he has not given a strong answer so Sean follows up:  


HANNITY: “And you think that’s inappropriate, too, that’s what you’re saying?


MOORE: “Yes.”

                         Analysis Conclusion:  

Deception Indicated. 

Roy Moore is not telling the truth about the claims made against him.  

At best, he was deceptive about dating high school teens while being an attorney his his 30's. 

At worst, he refused to deny molesting a 14 year old. 

His language suggests even more may be forthcoming. 

I cannot say that the accuser is truthful because the Washington Post has not let her speak for herself.  The few words we have do not show deception, but the sample is too small for a conclusion. 

I can conclude, however, that Roy Moore  is not being truthful.  At one point in the full interview, he stutters after an assertion by Sean about wrong doing.  This is what deception sounds like, and Sean picked up on it.  

We do have a tricky issue to view:  

Precisely, over what is he deceptive?

Are they "all" "false allegations"? or just one of them?  Did he molest the 14 year old, or is he deceptive only about "not remembering" being in his 30's dating high school girls?

This is why we avoid compound questions and why we must separate allegations.  

With multiple accusations, it is difficult to discern precisely what Judge Moore is denying.  

Regarding dating teenaged girls, he is deceptive. 
Regarding sexually molesting the 14 year old, he is Unreliable. 

He is unreliable in his denial and he was deceptive about dating teens but his "unreliable" portion is loaded.  

He did not deny the most pressing allegation about molesting the then 14 year old.  

The Washington Post wishes to portray this as three allegations.  For the point of analysis, we want to know if he sexually molested an underaged girl.  


Here, in the perfect opportunity to assert de facto innocence, the subject uses deceptive techniques, including deflection, to not only avoid a denial, but to employ language that indicates an event took place that he knows of.  

What we wanted to hear:

"I did not touch the then 14 year old."

We don't want to hear that it is morally wrong; this is unnecessary. 

We don't want to hear that the allegations insult or hurt him:  they are already made.   Insult is  that is what faux moralizing does in guilt.  

We do not want to hear that this is fake news or politically motivated.  

We don't want to hear that he is a father, grandfather or God-fearing man. 

These are all signals of deception.  One who "did not do it" does not need his background to support him, nor impugn the motive of others:  he is protected by the psychological "wall of truth" because truth stands on its own.

Q.  "Why should we believe you?"

A. "You should believe me because I am telling the truth."

Q,.  What would you say if we later determined you were lying?

A.  "Its impossible.  I'd say 'you're wrong.' Get a new job.  I told the truth." 

We want to hear that he did not touch her, nor have her touch him and that he is telling the truth. 

This is all he had to say.  

I am concerned how much his internal dictionary sounds like an abuser.  

If a 32 year old went after your 16 year old, you'd call him a predator, and I would agree. 

Yet, we seek to know the truth about criminal behavior that is alleged. 

We do not have reliable quotes from the accuser. 
We have unreliable and deceptive answers from the accused.  

He likely believes that it was not "abusive" but harmless, which is consistent with many child abusers, while acknowledging that this was not his normal behavior with the opposite sex.  That he was 32 and "dated" teenagers is concerning due to both age and sophistication disparity. 

If a 32 year old taught at my daughter's school and asked for her phone number, I'd show up at his house, instead, unless friends can stop me and spare me trouble I'd bring upon myself.  

Sean Hannity gave him ample opportunity to assert the truth, but Moore shows how the human brain works overtime to avoid making a direct lie.  

No one should resign under a false allegation; it would destroy the nation.  We let the subject guide us to the conclusion of whether or not it is a truthful accusation.  
  
The Sean Hannity Interview 

The complete audio with transcript is on youtube.  In it those interested in learning will find many signals of both deception and unreliable denials, including:

a.  tangents
b.  establishing his moral character (unnecessary)
c.  assigning motives
d.  "I don't remember" 
e.   using his 40 year career as a defense rather than denying it.  
f.  deity 
g.  political correctness 

From here, Sean gave a strong statement on morality and reminded Moore that this was not ideological: he only wanted the truth.  This is the point of Statement Analysis:  discerning truth from deception.   The Soros group then took this and bullied sponsors into dropping their commercials.  

It is based upon deception.  
**************************************************

For training for your law enforcement department, or as a private citizen, visit Hyatt Analysis Services. 

We are booking Law Enforcement seminars for 2018

Also, see at Amazon:

"Wise As a Serpent; Gentle as a Dove" 

55 comments:

Concerned said...

Yet another woman was just interviewed
and spoke of Roy Moore molesting her
in his car behind the restaurant where she
worked at 15 and 16 years of age.
I look forward to Peter's comments on her
statement. She certainly appears to be
speaking from memory.

She presented her yearbook which had been
left on the restaurant counter. He asked to
sign it. It will be hard for him to say he never
even met this one.

June Bug said...

I posted her full statement in the "Veteran's Day" thread.

Anonymous said...

I know he is lying , but but when he referred to "these individuals" not making good judges he was referring to Mitt Romney and Jon McCain, not the accusers.

Dwight said...

It's pretty clear that Moore, like many Americans, lost his head during the Carter years. Reagan got elected, and Moore straightened himself out and has been good ever since.. Seriously ya'll! 40.Years.Ago.

Lon Spector said...

Everybody is a molester and murderer except me!

Bobcat said...

Beverly Young Nelson:

"...I tried fighting him off, while yelling at him to stop, but instead of stopping he began squeezing my neck attempting to force my head onto his crotch. I continued to struggle. I was determined that I was not allow him to force me to have sex with him. I was terrified. He was also trying to pull my shirt off. I thought that he was going to rape me. I was twisting and struggling and begging him to stop.
...
The day after Mr. Moore assaulted me I called the restaurant and quit my job. I never went there again. About two years later I told my younger sister what Mr. Moore did to me. About four years ago I told my mother what happened. Before I married my husband, John, I told him what Mr. Moore had done to me. My husband and I supported Donald Trump for President. This has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats. It has everything to do with Mr. Moore’s sexual assault when I was a teenager. I thought that I was Mr. Moore’s only victim. I would probably have taken what Mr. Moore did to me to my grave, had it not been for the courage of four other women that were willing to speak out about their experiences with Mr. Moore. Their courage has inspired me to overcome my fear. Mr. Moore attacked me when I was a child. I did nothing to deserve his sexual attack."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/us/politics/text-beverly-young-nelson-statement.html

Anonymous said...

Pedophiles don't stop molesting/raping children until they are dead or incarcerated. Roy Moore's accusers declare they were allegedly attacked in 1977 and 1978. If he was a pedophile, he'd have recent victims.

He likely dated teenagers (following statement analysis "rules"), but in the rural South in the 1970s, this was "normal" and not scandalous. Leigh Corfman's own mother gave birth to her at age 17, so she could have been pregnant at 16. According to the US Census Bureau in 1970, the median age of first marriages was 20.6 years for women. In the rural South, the median age would have been younger than 20.6 years.

Anonymous said...

Realize that electric child-proof car locks did not exist in the 1970s. Yes, electric locks existed, but not child-proof electric locks passenger can't open the doors. Beverly Young Nelson was, therefore, NOT locked in Roy Moore's car. She could have easily pulled up on the car door lock knob and released herself if the doors were locked.

June Bug said...

I lived in the South in the 1970s. It was not normal for a 32-year old to take a 14-year old to his house, undress them both and start groping her. It was both immoral and illegal and would have creeped anybody out except the pervert himself.

Your disparaging an entire region with generalizations, your assumptions about pedophiles, your quoting census data...none of it changes what Roy Moore did and has not denied.

But by all means, vote for him if you want.

June Bug said...

She said he "reached over" and locked it. She made no claims of an electric lock. If you missed all the details of how he physically restrained her, I don't blame you. It's disgusting.

Anonymous said...

Blame the victim. That's okay. That's what you always do. At her age, I doubt it will matter much now as she's lived with guilt for almost 40 years.

She most likely isn't as shook up telling it one-on-one as she is in front of the cameras after hearing about the 14 year old that was molested, and worse of all, taken advantage of because of his position at the court house. That, imo, is worse than the molestation itself.It's as if he knew the girl was from a broken home and no one would believe her. Perhaps that is what he thought of Ms. Young-Nelson since she had to work through high school. Perhaps someone has made her aware of the danger she may have been in back then.

Yes, at barely 16 she should have known how to escape the clutches of an ex-Vietnam trained soldier, and hindsight being 20/20, she surely sees the error of her ways.

June Bug said...

What do we think of Nelson's statement?

She expresses emotions, but we'd expect with so much time to process, right?

She does "explain why" in places in anticipating questions. She tells us early on she sometimes worked until 10 which comes up later as Moore sees her as she's waiting for a ride after shift. She mentions boyfriend first as a reason for not thinking of Moore as date material, only later bringing him into the narrative.

What about the form: intro-event- conclusion? Does it take too long to get to the event?

Anonymous said...

Nelson read from a script. Tears on cue. Perfectly timed.

Anonymous said...

The manager of the mall stated he didn't remember Roy Moore being banned from the mall.

Anonymous said...

Nobody brings their yearbook to their job in November. The photo of the alleged yearbook signing doesn't state Beverly's name. This might not be her yearbook. Old Hickory House is printed and the statement is written in cursive. Hmm. Someone added that later?

Beverly also said she was an employee of Old Hickory House in 1977 when attacked by Roy Moore, but this restaurant (located on same highway mentioned in the press conference) opened in 2001.
https://www.manta.com/c/mm3l763/old-hickory-house-bar-b-que
Glencoe is part of Gadsden suburbs.

Anonymous said...

No one from the YMCA was interviewed for the article which stated Roy was banned from that establishment. Hmm.

Anonymous said...

And again, Nelson READ FROM A SCRIPT.

Anonymous said...

Yearbook signature was forged. See for yourself. Not the same signature.
And Roy Moore was DEPUTY District Attorney, not District Attorney as the forger wrote. Roy Moore was never a DA. He wouldn't have signed his name as DA.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/11/fake-analyst-says-judge-roy-moore-signature-inside-gloria-allred-accusers-yearbook-forged/

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
I know he is lying , but but when he referred to "these individuals" not making good judges he was referring to Mitt Romney and Jon McCain, not the accusers.



It was difficult to separate for me, as said. I hope you're right.

Peter

Anonymous said...

"First, I would tell these individuals they wouldn’t make good judges." At least not as good as Roy Moore. Just ask him.

Anonymous said...

@Junebug,

I get confused on the 25/50/25 part, but without actually counting it looks right to me. Not too long to get to the point as her first statement is acknowledging her husband of 13 years. The fact that he took off work to be with her during her statement is telling that she now has support. I'm glad he did.

I believe her statement that she was attacked in his car. I m biased as I watched the video a couple of times and was repulsed by the 14 year old's story prior to that. This is two years prior to putting the phone number of a 14 year old in his little black book when her mother (his age) is in court for a custody battle. Perhaps something worse happened before Mrs. Nelson and he got better instead of worse.

Peter Hyatt said...

regarding the signature, I've asked Steve Johnson to weigh in. It may not be enough sample to work from.

I would not be surprised if the date/location was added.

Peter

Anonymous said...

weird how feminists condemn Moore but defended Bill Clinton the serial rapist

how can they think the4mslves so morally superior

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
weird how feminists condemn Moore but defended Bill Clinton the serial rapist

how can they think the4mslves so morally superior


If they didn't think themselves superior than they would be treated the same. This is the political/progressive nature of the left. They are not as concerned about the crime as they are their end goals. The media is established to be roughly 95 percent left leaning. Conservatives (and Republicans of which many are NOT conservative) are attacked for what they say and do and the leftist/socialists/progressives are not.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the first accuser had a political agenda, the second one doesn't appear to, though. The towns people and colleagues recall him being drawn to teen girls. I would think single women in his age group at that time noticed it first.

Bannon is making it worse on him, imo. Every time you see Moore he's either sporting a 'military police' cap or donning a cowboy hat and flashing a gun. Bannon uses words like 'operatives' 'information dropped and paid for'...'hits'...as if they are about to wage war on private citizens that come forward with information that personally hurt them 40 years ago. Surely these women expect nothing to come from their stories, as historically it never has, but to slur and slander them at this stage of the game isn't working. Perhaps it's because Moore is vying for a Senate seat and not the Presidency.

Alex Jones conspiracy news that backs Trump is aligned with Bannons war machine talk and these people are cutting down citizens each and every day militarizing the media and political machinery and causing undue stress over relative unimportant things in the lives of everyday people.

This is bad. It's all bad. And for Roy Moore whose appointment to the Senate won't make a difference in most lives of Americans. However, hiding in church and abusing women and children will make a significant difference in the every day lives of every day citizens.

Anonymous said...

Peter, Are you going to dissect Beverly Young Nelson's statement?

Anonymous said...

Peter, in the follow part of the interview, is the "yeah" less of a commitment than "yes"?


HANNITY: “Let’s take you out of this for a second. Let’s say, if any Senate candidate who was 32 at the time had done this to a 14-year-old girl, to me it’s disgusting. To me, it would be despicable. To me, that is a predator.”



MOORE: “Yeah.”

June Bug said...

HANNITY: “Well, let me ask you a general question.”

MOORE: “Yes.”

HANNITY: “Let’s take you out of this for a second. Let’s say, if any Senate candidate who was 32 at the time had done this to a 14-year-old girl, to me it’s disgusting. To me, it would be despicable. To me, that is a predator.”

MOORE: “Yeah.”

HANNITY: “Do you agree with me, that no such person who ever does that should ever be in the United States Senate?”

MOORE: “Of course. Nobody who abuses a 14-year-old at age 32 or age 17—it doesn’t matter—if you abuse a 14-year-old you shouldn’t be a Senate candidate. I agree with that. But I did not do that.”

HANNITY: “Let’s go back to it one more question, because I didn’t understand this. If you were 32, and you do date a 17 or 18 year old—that’s a pretty big gap for a pretty young girl—is that something that you did when you were dating? I’m not talking about the 14-year-old in that specific allegation. Would it be normal behavior back in those days for you to date a girl that’s 17 or 18?”

MOORE: “No. Not normal.”

HANNITY: “My daughter is 16 years old. If she’s 17 or 18, I don’t want her dating a 32-year-old.”

MOORE: “I wouldn’t either.”

HANNITY: “And you can say unequivocally that you never dated anybody that was in their late teens like that when you were 32?”

MOORE: “It would have been out of my customary behavior, that’s right.”

HANNITY: “In other words, you don’t recall dating any girl that young when you were that old?”

MOORE: “I’ve said no.”

HANNITY: “And you think that’s inappropriate, too, that’s what you’re saying?”

MOORE: “Yes.”


Seeing that he states "Yes" to two other questions, I'd say the "yeah" is wesker.

Lee Smith said...

Peter can't accurately analyze a written SCRIPT for the reader's truthfulness.

Body language expert says Beverly Young Nelson was lying while reading her script.
https://www.waynedupree.com/body-language-expert-says-roy-moores-latest-accuser-liar/

Anonymous said...

I looked at that website and found it to be like listening to nails on a chalkboard. the author lies by omission. Note the last sentence before plugging itself to be liked and admired among other liars and you will SEE why:


...Sometimes you can just this isn't going to pass the smell test."

Anonymous said...

I don't think the printed version was added later. The two "e"s are different.
He would feel the need to add where he knew her from.

Moore is coming off as a jeckel/hyde personality.

Perhaps there is a photo of the restaurant in the album. As I recall from high school, it was the students responsibility to sell ads to area businesses to support the album. Maybe her class didn't have to, but Jrs and Srs surely did.

Abuse of power of DAs never go out of style. A Dallas county DA just got fired over threatening and abusing an Uber driver. These Uber drivers really know how to stand up for themselves-good for them!

According to what has been told about Moore, it's frightening creepy moreso than belligerent criminal behavior that can be prosecuted.

No one wants to address the creepy nature of it all. Just like the Texas church shooter. One out of hundred of article nail it on the head. Others just spew idiot stuff that promotes their aged and tired old agendas. Even American Think has produced at least two articles that made me want to hurl.

Anonymous said...

Lee Smith, Peter analyzes Facebook posts on here all the time. IIRC, these are written, edited, and posted and then transferred here for Peter's opinion.

tania cadogan said...

MOORE: “Of course. Nobody who abuses a 14-year-old at age 32 or age 17—it doesn’t matter—if you abuse a 14-year-old you shouldn’t be a Senate candidate. I agree with that. But I did not do that.”

Which prompts the question, What did you do then?

This is close, that is distancing, for there to be a that, there has to be a this.

I would ask his definition of abuse and then narrow the subject Dow to specifics such as physical contact.
Did you touch her?
Did she touch you?
Over clothes?
Under clothes?

And soon

Hey Jude said...

Anonymous said:

'And Roy Moore was DEPUTY District Attorney, not District Attorney as the forger wrote. Roy Moore was never a DA. He wouldn't have signed his name as DA.'

---

He might have, to impress a schoolgirl who had taken her yearbook to work, and left it on the counter, in the hope that he might sign it.

Sincerely,
Dwight Schrute, Assistant (to the) Regional Manager

---

Sorry, couldn't resist that.

Db said...

I don't see anything inappropriate in a 32-year-old man dating girls in their late teens. Yes, the 14-year-old was a little too young, but was Moore aware of that? Was Corfman particularly mature for her age? By her own account, she enjoyed his attention and when she became uncomfortable and asked him to take her home, he complied. He's certainly guilty of exercising poor judgement 40 years ago, but that hardly makes him a predator. This latest accusation from Nelson is obviously a lie. Her association with Gloria Allred alone is enough to tell us this.

Hey Jude said...

^^
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA9kQuWkU7I

Dwight Schrute, Assistant (To The) Regional Manager

Anonymous said...

I believe her account regardless of her lawyer.

Handwriting experts are already weighing in; almost 40 years and no ones stays exactly the same.

She may have printed the "Olde Hickory House" under it as a form of remembering him since she'd moved there within the last couple of years and did not know everyone-especially males.

What's scary about her story is it's worse than the one before ('79). I doubt 1977 was his first year of abusing women. Between '73 and '77 there will come some horror tales.

He married in '85. A bunch of creepy events up until that time?

June Bug said...

LOL. And note the first word in the post's picture: Judge Roy Moore. Yeah, man likes his titles.

Peter Hyatt said...

I am working on the analysis now. I announced on Twitter and FB that I would get to it.

The body language expert who said that rapists don't just start and stop is unprofessional. To make such a statement, she'd have to have no experience working in sex crimes. I don't know a professional who would make such a claim. It may be very entertaining, but its not the reality of crimes, nor understanding of rapists.

We can learn if the alleged victim is reliably reporting, in spite of influence from Gloria Allred or not, by the words chosen.

Peter

Bradbury said...

Off topic, but of interest to longtime readers.......

Davey Blackburn is getting married again. It's on the Indy news.

June Bug said...

Well, I'm sure it's what Amanda would've wanted.

June Bug said...

OMG, he met her at the gym!

Bradbury said...

Her father is a pastor at the jail and ministers to inmates, including the suspects in this case. Jesus works in mysterious ways.

Anonymous said...

I know Peter doesn't believe in voice inflection, but, to me, even though she was reading her 'story' I could hear her voice change whenever she'd get to a sentence that put her in the car or getting ready to be in the car, e.g. statements she did not lead him on. Most of the time she sounds like she's reading a bedtime story to a child.

And, though she appeared scared throughout the newscast (and who wouldn't be knowing that it would be broadcast around the world and all those reporters there making noises), she looked mad when she described him "burning rubber" as he left with the passenger side car door still open.

Peter Hyatt said...

Its not that I do not believe in voice inflection, it is that we analyze the words first and foremost.

Voice inflection can communicate sarcasm, love, hatred, just like giggling on a 911 call.

Readers may not like my analysis of the Gloria Allred victim's statement....

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous:

by the way, you wrote she appeared "mad" when he drove away:

To this, the statement analysis agrees.

Peter

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter: can you explain in more detail the concept of age and/or sophistication disparity. Is it referring to the difference in ages between a pedophile or predator and a young victim, or is it the difference between the age someone was when they were assaulted and the age when they tell the story? Thank you.

SLH

Anonymous said...

10:15, What Peter is trying to say is what the hell does a 32 yr old have in common with a teen? Why would someone that age wat to date a teen?

Control. They are predators.

June Bug said...

I took it to mean that, but also that the disparity is what makes it not "sex" but "abuse."

Anonymous said...

Anon at 10:33

I don't think that is what he meant. He has used this phrase before, in the article "Judge Roy Moore Accusation", posted November 9th..

QUOTE: '“I wanted it over with — I wanted out. Please just get this over with. Whatever this is, just get it over.

This statement indicates age sophistication disparity."'

It is specifically referring to something in the language, I believe.

SLH

Anonymous said...

They are more malleable than a mature woman who expects certain things, responses, has responsibilities, etc.

A former law student said the professor made him talk for a full hour and afterwards nicknamed him "fruitcake".

Even in his Hannity interview, he claims to know the parents but not the daughters.That's really creepy.

Regardless of what Peter writes about Mrs. Nelson's accusations, I believe most of it, though it may not pass statement analysis. It would be difficult to remember something like that 40 years earlier unless it was shocking. The fact he was twice her age and she describes lying on the cold ground as he was peeling away would be shocking...and the bruises.

Mr. Moore uses "good girl" (Hannity interview) as if he decides who is a good girl and who is not. It's infantile and archaic.

The same applies to some of the language in Mrs. Nelson's account.

She recalls him trying to force her head to his crotch, tugging at her shirt and groping her breasts (she said she was well developed at 16)and grabbing the ends of her long hair as she'd walk by in the restaurant.(That would pizz me off to no end!)

That all sounds like something an 18 year old would do. And, according to what most people from the area described, that's what he wanted to be.

Most people don't get to the Jesus freak stage without a revelation of some sort at some time. It doesn't sound like he was a "good boy" during that time either.

Anonymous said...

@11:17, Yes the age sophistication disparity is in the language, when she says "whatever this is, get it over with"....if someone has no sexual experience they would not know what is happening or where it could/might/most likely lead.
Martial arts is really the best remedy for this type of abuse. I give my karate teacher such credit for instilling the confidence that I could always escape a rapist--it helped me out when a guy had me trapped in his car and told me he was going to rape me, exposing himself, and hr drove to deserted area saying "youre gonna s&-- my d---". I bet he was surprised whrn I spit a huge amount of salive right in his eyes that I had been accumulating in my mouth as he drove saying he was going to rape me. And then I flung open the car door and fled. Martial arts is great & it gets you thinking like a ninja!

Hey Jude said...

Anon at 8.49 Nov 13 - she didn't say it was an electric lock. if he pushed down the lock button on a standard car door lock it would have been difficult for her to reach if he was restraining her - she would have had to reach up over her shoulder whilst also trying to stop him molesting her. She said he later let her open the door -'my' door. I don't know if there is any significance that she said 'my' rather than 'the' door.

It sounds as if she may have been sexually active at that young age, or at least not adverse to the possibility, and that she also was flattered by the attention of older men, but that doesn't mean she wanted to be molested. To me, she sounds genuine. I wonder if she may have unwittingly led him along, not understanding that an older man in a trusted position might have designs on her, if he did. I will be interested to read Peter's analysis.

Bobcat said...

Regarding Mrs. Nelson's statement about being attacked by Mr. Moore, I believe her to be truthful.

I wonder what prompted her to describe his "brown" hush puppies.

Hey Jude said...

One possibility is that If he had opened the passenger door for her, she would have seen his shoes - well, if she was looking down as the door closed. She didn't say he opened the door for her, though - just that she got in.