Monday, November 20, 2017

Roy Moore Yearbook Signature Analysis by Steve Johnson, Veritas


Steve Johnson is a certified Statement Analysis and Hand Writing Analysis.
His work is so precise that in cases we have worked together, he has matched the psychological profile with the psycho-linguistic profile which matched the diagnosis.
Steve's work is principle driven and is subordinated to the wording, yet so strong, that it never experiences incongruence.
After many years of seeing poor, predominantly guess work, Steve's work has brought me new confidence in hand writing analysis; something I've not had.

Steve is now a full time instructor having recently retired from almost 3 decades of law enforcement.

Roy Moore Yearbook
by Steve Johnson, Veritas

There has been a lot of talk and speculation lately regarding the validity of Roy Moore’s year book signature.  This is a great example of Handwriting Analysis and Statement Analysis working hand in hand.  One science should confirm the other and in this case, they do.  

The exemplar we have in the year book raises three questions:
  1. Is the signature that of Roy Moore himself?
  2. Is the writing after the signature also that of Roy Moore?
  3. If the writing after the signature is not Moore’s, does it mean the signature was forged?

Those that say the signature is a fake, have cited the differences in handwriting that appears after the signature, compared to the writing before it.  I agree with them, there are two styles of handwriting.  The author of the inscription and signature, is different than the author of 12-22-77, Olde Hickory House.  The yearbook has obviously been tampered with.  However, that does not mean Roy Moore didn’t sign the year book in 1977.   
Let’s examine the year book signature in comparison to Roy Moore’s signature when he was Chief Justice.  
                      
When examining the signatures, keep in mind that signatures typically have minor changes depending on what is occurring in our lives at the time.  In this case, there are a couple minor inconsistencies, but they pale in comparison to the major consistent traits in both signatures.   
  1. We first note the slant and letter size are consistent.
  2. The entrance stroke of the capital R begins with an upstroke, followed by a down and up stroke.  This appears as a muddy or pasty area in the known signature on the right.
  3. The R loop is consistent, followed by the exit stroke that ends slightly higher than the afore mentioned down/ up stroke to it’s left.  
  4. Also note the slight exit to the right in both signatures.
  5. The R in both signatgures is disconnected from the “oy” in both signatures.
  6. The y cup is at the top end of the o to it’s left.
  7. The capital M begins with a “clubbed” or pasty entrance stroke, creating a third hump in the M.
  8. The Humps and strokes within the M are identical to each other, with a point in the final hump.
  9. The M is disconnected from the rest of the letters in Moore.
  10. The o’s in Moore are different size, with the right o higher than the left.
  11. The r in both signatures is consitent.
  12. The e exit stroke is identical in both.   
  13. We do not see hesitation points in the yearbook signature.  It was written in one flowing motion, greatly increasing the validity of the signature.  

The many consistent traits in both signatures leave no doubt they were written by the same person.  Roy Moore has not denied signing the year book. He has however, spent much time highlighting the differences in the writing after the signature, which he can truthfully do.  During my 28 years in Law Enforcement, I often witnessed criminals do this same thing.  They spoke with confidence and at length about that which was truthful and led focus away from their crimninal actions.  However, they spent very little time or avoided all together the incident in question.  It is a common tactic among liars.  

Regarding the year book signature, Roy Moore came very close to an embedded admission when he said, the signature has been “tampered” with.   We have to believe him.  If it wasn’t his signature, how would he know it had been tampered with?  Furthermore, what would it matter?  If he did not sign the year book, he could stand with confidence in front of the wall of truth and reliably deny signing the book.  He knows the signature is his, and he cannot deny it.  I believe him.   

51 comments:

Anonymous said...

There were quite a few similarities in hand writing of Patsy Ramsey and the alleged ransom note (novel)

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous, good question for Steve.

The analysis of the Ransom note (in depth) is clear. Even the basic or "101" analysis (statement) indicates the author's guilt, deception and attempt to portray that which was not a kidnapping.

The advanced analysis gives us the author's gender, age, personality traits, background, experiences...

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

My history with hand writing analysts has been decidedly negative and I have not been shy in writing about it.

One common denominator has been the lack of principle. A couple of years ago, Steve's work showed me something different: a science to be studied and taught and not the unprincipled non-reference point that is frequently used.

I appreciated some of the commentators here who, upon publishing something from Steve, trusted me enough to inquire, rather than condemn, without any benefit of the doubt. It was respectful and appreciated.

I've been studying HWA and have found it helpful in Employment Analysis, but I am not an expert and won't weigh in on some public cases without oversight.

Steve and I will be teaching a seminar this winter in Phoenix, Arizona for law enforcement. The text book recommended has been a huge help and I love the disciples involved.

When used to go deeper, it is another terrific tool. Consider the overall power of Statement Analysis, Hand Writing Analysis taken with the polygraph.

Petr

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

JDW,

You lost me at "this analysis is severely lacking..." because of what it does not include.

If you're an expert, why not first address what is in the analysis before you get to what is not?

He is not analyzing color, but referenced the analysis of the words of the accuser, the denial and then specifics within the handwriting.

His record is outstanding.


Peter

Anonymous said...

When I was in high school (70s), one favorite pen among several students had four colors that could be changed with a click of the color button. It was larger than typical pens and better for writing with- alleviating hand cramps.

Leigh Corfman gave an interview and is convincing and soft spoken on TV.

Beverly Young Nelson may not be convincing to those that know and hate her lawyer. I don't know her lawyer and was convinced of her story though her performance was wretched and the written statement matched her TV filmed tale. There aren't any typical TV "experts" calling her a liar as of yet. Even her lawyer looked at her in disgust prior to the interview in what looked like a 'hope you don't blow this' type of look.

Thomas said...

Someone who is an actual expert in a specific field is not going to deride something else in this manner. how do we know he did not photoshop the colors? I would have been more interested in his post had he sought to add to the analysis rather than start by attacking . his need to deride the analyst came right at the beginning: does that make it his priority? I am learning a lot here and have a lot to learn but where he started, is very important to him? Also isn't it kind of agreeing with the analysis that the signature may be added by the creepy attorney?

JDW said...

It's severely lacking because it compared only two signatures. That shouldn't be an offensive statement, most of the hand writing analyzers sought out by the MSM explicitly say that the more samples the better.

"If you're an expert, why not first address what is in the analysis before you get to what is not?"

First I explicitly stated I'm not an expert, so why would I doubt what he wrote? My point is the two signatures Beverly had access to look nearly identical, more so than the others. What he wrote sort of proves the point I was trying to make. However looking at all seven other available signatures here's what I observed ( numbers corresponding to the points made in the article):

3. R loop not consistent, sometimes traveling just a little past the 'y', sometimes a lot further reaching the second arch of the 'M'

6. The line connecting the 'o' and 'y' sometimes stays towards the top of the 'o', others it starts closer to the middle. Also I'm not sure how to describe this but only in the yearbook signature the line starts well above the 'o', which is why some say it looks more like "Ray".

8. The M humps differ in spread in height subtly, the third hump appears more pointed once and other times more rounded

9. In one signature the M and o are connecting, in another it's hard to tell if they are connecting or just close to each other

10. To o's in Moore vary widely. Sometimes the right is larger, sometimes the left is, sometimes there's no slant in either, sometimes a slant in only one, and onetime it looks like the right o merged with the r in a funky way


11. Slight inconsistencies in the Rs in terms of loop size and where each stroke cross each other

12. The e's are mostly consistent, except for that there is a pronounced gap between the r and the e that's only present in the yearbook and divorce papers (and sort of halfway there in one of the book signings)

My own observation: In most the initial downward stroke starts above the first arch of the M. In the yearbook it's much lower making it look like part of the first hump. This is the only significant difference between the yearbook and divorce paper.

I know I'm not an expert, but you don't need to be an expert to notice how varied the o's in Moore are. Aren't you curious why the signature most closely matches the yearbook is the one from Beverly's divorce papers? And those are the only two that have "D.A." after them? I'm sure Mr. Veritas doesn't waste his life on the internet as much as I do, so it's reasonable to assume he didn't look at the other signatures. My opinion is not expert, that's why I'm curious to what his is if he compares the rest. The picture I linked had my note on them, the originals are at the bottom of this post https://www.metabunk.org/posts/215020/

JDW said...

About the color, fine I won't ask your opinion. But it is obvious, and it's not photoshopped. It was originally tweeted out by CNN about 5 days ago. If you were to ask a Chinese teenager (someone with no knowledge about any of this) to look at that second photo in the CNN tweet they would say that one part war written in black ink, another in blue ink (except in Chinese).

If the "Moore" half of the signature wasn't forged that photo has to be explained away. The guy from Metabunk does a decent job, but there are holes in his arguments. So I understand why you don't want to comment on it but you should be made aware of the photo in question https://twitter.com/CNN/status/930205088299257859

John mcgowan said...



Cina Wong found over 250 similarities between the ransom note and Patsy' hand writing

@ 2:40

https://youtu.be/Dg85wR8Uy5Q

Anonymous said...

McGowan, Yep. But there are valid theories that someone may have imitated her handwriting.
The fact that many cops, etc have said "what are the odds someone would have broke in & written the note?" Answer: Very high. Especially amongst serial killers you can find this behavior. BTK broke into a woman's home & while waiting for her, penned a psycho poem & left it there. Serial killers love to communicate using the written word & often enjoy creating "puzzles" in those communications (some meaningless & stupid) or even ciphers designed to give clues or to completely mislead investigators or a combination of those 2 things as to who the killer is.
In my opinion, the note was written BEFORE Jonbenet was killed.
I do believe Patsy killed Jonbenet, but there are many oddities about the ransom
note that are difficult to explain imo.

CptKD said...

I may be WRONG here,
&
If so - I'll stand corrected, as I usually do! Still, proud & Prepared to'Learn' from my Mistakes!

Where you state,
That the 2 Signatures that DO
MOST Match:
ARE the Signed YEARBOOK
&
The DIVORCE Papers/Documentation!

Might I suggest that
THIS, in ALL probability
Is on Account, and due
To THEM being the CLOSEST
To each other and/or
To one another with respect to
Their DATES!
Thereby decreasing, NOT Only the time between THEM, but similarily the length of time where one may also change
Their SIGNATURE,
Due to Title, Time
&
One's Age?

Veritas said...

The Ramsey Ransom note is a fabulous case study for both Handwriting and Statement Analysts. Another case in which we see the two sciences complimenting each other.
Anonymous said...
There were quite a few similarities in hand writing of Patsy Ramsey and the alleged ransom note (novel)

Anonymous is right, the handwriting does appear to be that of Patsy Ramsey. The Statement Analysis affirms.

JDW, you are right, I don’t have the time to search the internet like you do. I appreciate you sending the link with additional signatures and handwriting of Roy Moore. The additional exemplars affirm my original analysis that the signature is that of Roy Moore.

Anonymous said...

The ransom note was written before the killing of Jon Benet. It was written in a calm, relaxed, imaginative state of mind. Thats why it is a "novel" as you call it. The content does not reflect the mind of a middle-aged woman. You also really have to wonder how an intelligent woman such as Patsy Ramsey wpuld have kept the notebook it was written on along with "practice pages" in that notebook and allowed it to be handed over to police. The whole "kidnapping" thing doesnt even make sense as a way to throw off police since Jonbenet was right in the basement. I agree Patsy did it, but it was a premeditated act & her death was not "accidental". I am not convinced she write that note alone & there are many oddities that dont totally add up. Also, why John would go along with the whole coverup is mind-boggling.

John mcgowan said...

The ransom note was compared to over 100 samples from Patsy, past and present. They ruled John out and friends and family.

Over 250 markers from so many samples (imo) is not a coincidence.

It [note] is also in a league of it's own in length. It is 3 pages long. Never before has this been found.
Ransom notes are, "we have xyz and demand x amount by a certain time or" (Well you get the picture)

The pen and paper are from the house. Plus there was a practice note.
The reconstruction of writing the note took almost 20inites. Z and that was copying it. Add in the thought process of writing such a long note, uou're probably looking at an hour, whom breaks in and does that
?. All the time risking being caught. I'm sorry for digressing.

Anonymous said...

McGowan, BTK did that exact same thing--broke into a womans house & waited for a long time and wrote psycho poems just to kill time & the lady luckily DID NOT come home, so BTK got sick of waiting but left the super creepy poems there.

I asked an intelligent PSYCHOPATH once what they thought of the Jonbenet case. They thought it was hilarious that people think Patsy did it. Each item of "proof" I brought up to them that Patsy did it, they thought it was ludicrous that anyone would think an intruder hadnt done it. Literally scoffing at things like "well, it totally looked like her handwriting, it was on her pad", they responded with a tone like "how naive you "normal" people are"..."the intruder probably just waited there and wrote the note".

Yeah but it was her handwriting!

Psychopath: So what? The intruder probably practiced it before he even got there. He just wanted to frame her.

The psychopath thought it was a frame job & thought it was hilarious that people seemed to think that something like imitating handwriting would be a problem. And that went for every detail of the case.
They also thought it was hilarious that people dont recognize the hate & sarcasm in the ransom note, thinking Patsy wrote "John use your good Southern sense"...they literally thought that was ridiculous that people didnt see it was sarcasm written by someone who hated both of them.
Just saying, if you want to know what an evil, calculating mind thinks, it is that intruder did it.

Anonymous said...

Im not saying I agree w the psychopath, but I am saying the psychopath just scoffed at things like "yeah but the handwriting was analyzed--it matched her handwriting." The psychopath would make a face of almost disgust at how naive that was and said "So what? He (intruder) probably just practiced till he got the handwriting right (to look like Patsys."

Anonymous said...

Also, as far as every point I brought up to the psychopath about why people think Patsy did it (excessive beauty pageants, objectifying Jonbenet, excessive doctor visits for UTI) the psychopath thought these points were ridiculous & just thought these points explain nothing about the crime and that neither parent had any reason to do it--literally to the point where they just discredited any of the "reasons"
(beauty pageants etc) as being ridiculous
& explaining nothing & the psychopath thought it was a frame job by someone who hated John & Patsy.

JDW said...

I probably wasn't clear to the point I was making, which is the 'Moore' part of the signature looks like a forgery. You really should look at that second photo in the CNN tweet. You don't need to be an expert in anything to see something isn't quite right https://twitter.com/CNN/status/930205088299257859

So my questions are really about the yearbook and divorce signatures and how they compare to the rest. Why are those the only two that have a pronounced gap between the 'r' and 'e'? [one of the book signings has a gap that not nearly as pronounced] Why are those the only two where the second 'o' is smaller AND slanted to the right? Why are those the only two that have the "D.A." after them? Would you be willing to put your professional reputation on the line and say that's all one big coincidence and the "Moore" part of the signature was not forged? If your answer is 'yes' to that then I'll accept my position as a hyper partisan conspiracy nut.

But before you answer you should analyze some of Allred's statements. I'll add them to my next post which I promise will be the last one from me. My amature opinion is that Allred gets asked multiple times if that signature is a forgery and she spends about 10 minutes not answering the question.

JDW said...

Article: https://bigleaguepolitics.com/gloria-allred-refuses-say-high-school-yearbook-signature-not-fabricated/
Video: https://youtu.be/GbRDFswFPfc

“Well, all I’m saying is, we will permit an independent examiner of the writing…We will allow all of this to be asked and answered at the hearing,” Allred said.

“But that’s not a flat denial, Gloria,” Blitzer said.

“Well, all I’m saying is, we’re not denying, we’re not admitting, we’re not addressing,” Allred said. “We will not be distracted.”

Blitzer asked why Allred needed a Senate hearing and would not just permit an independent handwriting expert to take a look.

“Well, uh, all I can say is we want it done in a professional setting to the extent possible, that’s the only setting in which people can testify under oath,” Allred said.

Article and video: http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/16/gloria-allred-why-does-anybody-doubt-roy-moore-yearbook-signature-video/

RUSH EXCERPT:
TUR: “Does your client, Beverly Nelson, remember him signing it?”
ALLRED: “She remembers — well, she remembers being with him. It was on the counter.”
TUR: “She alleges that he took it, that he signed it and she was thrilled that he had signed it, because, as far as she knew, he was a D.A. And that was an important position, so she saw him sign it?”
ALLRED: “I don’t believe at the time she had a clue whether he was an assistant D.A. Or a D.A., but he signed it, she took it. As far as she knows, I mean, there’s no reason for her to think it’s anybody’s but his signature.”
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. That what she alleges was that she put it on the counter. That I think he 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?”
TUR: “Well, Roy Moore’s campaign and Roy Moore himself is saying it’s not his signature.”
ALLRED: “Well, he has a motive to say that 3. And let him prove that it’s not. We have offered to provide it to an independent expert at the hearing, which would be held in Washington, and they — we have allowed it to be examined.”
TUR: “Have you gotten any response?”

Anonymous said...

Ive looked at the signatures. It's unusual that the neatly looped "y"way under the baseline turns into a "y" that flies way up in the air. I know my writing of the letter "y" has never changed in that way! Of course it could be forged!

Concerned said...

I continue to be surprised that anyone is in a lather
about the yearbook. Between the analysis of the
14 year old's statement, the others who reported
Moore's treatment of them, the police department
and mall employees who knew to watch for him as
the creepy mall guy, Moore's unreliable statements
about his "innocence" and then, the juicy little
nugget that he remembered having first noticed his
wife (the woman he married at 24 when he was 38)
when he saw her in a dance recital eight years earlier!
What on earth was a 30 year old man doing at a
dance recital for young girls?! Forget the yearbook!
This dude is certified creepy.

CptKD said...

I'm sorry
&
AGAIN,
For the sake of simply
EXAMINING
The SIGNATURES of Roy Moore
&
As I understood this
Exercise/Examination to be,
Hence, the above 'Examples'
WERE provided to us,
IN 'Black & White'
&
NOT going beyond the
Names/SIGNED Paperwork
And/Or
Into the Numbers & Colors,
OR further,
Into 'Other' Analysts
Analysis & Video/TV
'Bits & Bites'!

Simply going,
By that which is provided to us
Up above . . .
I MUST agree
With Both Analysts, HERE!
The two of course, being Peter and Steve!
I've yet to stray into other areas, or Blogs, to really get into the 'Thick' of THIS!

As I am really quite busy, with keeping things focused on the 'MISSING' & Woman who need ASSISTANCE - Having Been VICTIMS of Sexual ABUSE/ASSAULT & Needing THAT 'Voice' TODAY!!

Michael said...

The pics with the blue ink next to the black, such as the one linked above, are faked. Find any pic of the yearbook with Nelson's actual face in the picture and see if the ink is one color or two. Moore has folks faking pics for him when all he needs to do is issue a reliable denial.

Michael said...

"I didn't sign that yearbook."

See! Easy!

CptKD said...

He WAS a D.A (District Attorney)
&
Actually, he WAS an ASSISTANT District Attorney
Prior to, or before being
ELECTED TO THE BENCH
&
Thereby,
Becoming a Justice, or as you Americans prefer, a JUDGE!

Once THERE, he'd drop the D.A (Really FAST)
From the end of His Name!

CptKD said...

TOUCHÉ!

I BELIEVE,
That you 'Nailed it' -
Right THERE!

BRAVO!!

JDW said...

Michael - That pic was tweeted by CNN who obtained it from Getty Images. I linked to the CNN tweet to remove any doubt as to it's authenticity. And to your comment before most of the signatures are within 15 years of each other (I think). A 22 year difference is a big gap relatively speaking.

CptKD - I only posted links to evidence (photos of signatures), and asked clarifying questions based on that evidence. The Allred interviews were meant as evidence too, which I figured would be acceptable since this blog analyzes statements.

Concerned - I've always felt disproving anything about the yearbook doesn't mean anything because the yearbook doesn't prove anything, but that and the other stuff you mentioned is besides the point.

CptKD said...

Not a Problem, JDW!
O/T & Extras ARE ALWAYS Welcome here!

I was simply pointing out
&
Strictly sticking to
THAT which had been given to us,
By both, Peter and Steve.
ESPECIALLY, in relation to the specific & TWO signatures!

It's ALL good!
&
I know, that the extras that you have provided, ARE ALL - VERY MUCH Appreciated
&
WILL come in handy,
I've no doubt ...
As this gets ANALYZED & Looked into much further!!

So, I thank you in advance for that!

CptKD

Anonymous said...

JWD is an all American thinker with his light show. He'll be remembered as olde saint nick.

Mrs. Nelson is toast. Her step-son, who rarely sees her and only talks to her a couple times a year at most, has called her a liar and Breitbart printed that little factoid.Now, they've unearthed some old employees that say the counter was a bar and she wouldn't have been serving from it (Let's hope not since she'd just turned 16).But, the regular barflys don't remember Moore being in there (do they remember how to get home after night at the bar?)and, the dumpster wasn't in the back but on the side...okay...settles that when a 16 year old can't decide which is the front of a bldg with a wrap around porch.

They even dredged up her old boyfriend and he gave them a shot of her howdy-doos of '77. Seems he enjoyed picking fleas off her fur coat (who wore fur in the 70s?..a Californian, that's who) and this is the very reason he is doing ministry work in Thailand. Bet she is glad she's married to a trucker now!

BTW, that looks more like her writing under the Roy Moore fraud signature than anyone elses...to me, that is.

And, it sounds as if the restaurant was next door to a Goodyear plant. Eeeuuwheee!

I would not want to be any of these women right now.

Anonymous said...

@Concerned, Roy Moore's behavior does not surprise me at all. Most people who reach high levels of power are frequently demonically possessed.
You may laugh at that, but I was speaking with someone in a very high level of power one time, we began arguing & her face suddenly contorted & froze into a hideous expression with what can only be described as an evil demonic sneer...I realized something very f&cked up was going on & I looked into her eyes & there was a demon looking out at me through her eyes. I did not divert my eyes but kept looking into her eyes. The demonic entity possessing her KNEW that I recognized what it was & I received the message inside my head from it "I am very old, I am as old as Satan himself". Whatever that means but it was loud & clear that it knew I recognized what it was and was identifying itself as an ancient demonic entity. SCARIEST thing Ive ever seen--I had adrenaline going for at least 4 hrs after cause it was absolutely crazy having it KNOW that I recognized what it was. Oh, and I also knew that that is why & how it had gotten power was by possessing this woman and helping her reach a high level of authority.

Anonymous said...

I ate shrooms once. Good times.

Anonymous said...

No, no psychedelics. It was real!

The reason I looked into her eyes is bc her face contorted & froze into a hideous expression like you would see depicted in artwork showing demons. Her mouth froze into a non-human snarl. I realized oh shit something is very f&cking wrong & looked into her eyes & was like oh fuck Im looking at a demon looking out through her eyes! When I didnt divert my eyes and continued looking into her eyes it somehow knew I knew what it was and telepathically communicated to me "I am old, I am as old as Satan himself" like it was bragging. Like "you are seeing what I am so I will tell you what I f&cking am!" I got the hell out of there immediately.

I was so disturbed by it I wanted to go speak to a priest but realized there was nothing he could do.

She was demonically possessed & was in the highest position of power.

Scary and I wont forget it.

Peter Hyatt said...

Now the left thinks rape is immoral?!

They now admit Juanita Broderick truthful.

The hypocrisy is stunning.

Anonymous said...

Hypocrisy is always stunning. That's the problem with the Roy Moore debacle-he stands for the 10 commandments.

Most of these women are recalling things that happened in the late '70s and early '80s. None sound forceful- except for Nelson's account and when you think how easy it is to bruise a fair skinned teen much force wouldn't have been needed-and the 14 year old admits her part in the ordeal. That is a point of contention when you take her at her word he met her at the courthouse...it becomes a big deal then. Calling the one girl at school is odd, but not anything near criminal.

The others are stating things that really don't matter. Of course, he did not get banned at the mall. That would be next to impossible to do. Stringing all these statement together, though, sheds light on the type of person he was and the fact others knew it and laughed about it...even the police.

Now, pastors and church members are making nasty statements to the allegations that only hurts other people listening that may have been abused in their past and they see how the church deals with it: Maybe the girl was fantasying about Roy and now 40 years later we have this mess.???? Absurd retorts. Painful and hurtful.

If anyone is adding drama to her statements, it would be Nelson. The rest sound spot on.

General P. Malaise said...

Peter will you do an update on Leigh Corfman?


https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/leigh-corfman-roy-moores-accuser-i-was-expecting-candlelight-and-roses

"I was a 14-year-old child trying to play in an adult's world, and he was 32 years old,"

"I'd been reading Harlequin romances, you know, for years at that point, and I was expecting candlelight and roses, and what I got was very different.

"It took away a lot of the specialness of, you know, interactions with men. It took some trust away. It allowed me to delve into some things that I, you know, wouldn't have otherwise. It took years for me to regain a sense of confidence in myself. And I felt guilty," she said. "You know, I felt like I was the one to blame. And it was decades before I was able to let that go."

JDW said...

One thing Corfman said that stood out like a sore thumb:

“But here’s the beauty of what has happened. The support has been amazing. Women and men have come forward to tell their stories ... because of my courageous actions."

I would never use the word "courageous" to describe anything about me, it simply wouldn't enter my mind. I can't think of a single example of someone using the word "courageous" to describe themselves or something they did. People only use it to describe other people, or at the most some group that they are part of. I have no idea what it means, it's just so weird.

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous JDW said...
One thing Corfman said that stood out like a sore thumb:

“But here’s the beauty of what has happened. The support has been amazing. Women and men have come forward to tell their stories ... because of my courageous actions."



THAT (courageous) MAY be the language of her support group, friends and family. I am more troubled by her use of the word "beauty" .. “But here’s the beauty of what has happened..."

I find it strange that she would use the word "beauty" as she is trying to convince us it caused her lifelong trauma/drama. This does not sound like words of a therapist so I would be interested in knowing where that language came from.


"I was a 14-year-old child trying to play in an adult's world, and he was 32 years old,"

Here she tells us there was her consent (I am not arguing about her ability to consent) in her activity.

"I'd been reading Harlequin romances, you know, for years at that point, and I was expecting candlelight and roses, and what I got was very different..."

I think those romance novels are fairly specific and graphic. This does indicate she had a fairy tale view of relationships. I would not be surprised that many of those novels had age disparity in the male female characters.

Anonymous said...

JDW said...
One thing Corfman said that stood out like a sore thumb:

“But here’s the beauty of what has happened. The support has been amazing. Women and men have come forward to tell their stories ... because of my courageous actions."

I would never use the word "courageous" to describe anything about me, it simply wouldn't enter my mind.

I can't think of a single example of someone using the word "courageous" to describe themselves or something they did.




where have you been the last decade? living under a rock?

Concerned said...

The comments here reinforce why it's hard for women
to tell their stories. We have dealt with this sort of thing
forever so it doesn't surprise us; it only disappoints.

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous Concerned said...

why did you bring gender into this discussion? truth has no gender.

Anonymous said...

because she has a monopoly on virtue

JDW said...

Mr. Veritas - there's one other thing you should take a quick look at, the highest resolution photograph of the yearbook signature at the original resolution. The initial downward stroke into the first hump looks... strange. It more resembles the loops in the twos and sevens than any other sample of Moore's handwriting. https://i.imgur.com/D4Ca6V1.png

But more importantly they appear to be two different colors (and I'm not talking about the weird angle that shows blue, I'm talking about really close but not quite matching inks). Everything "Roy" and before looks closer to the bottom paint stroke I added, everything after looks closer to the top one. https://i.imgur.com/onyWLA0.png

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Uncle Sam said...

Anonymous @ 4:48-

Either learn English or go back to your home country.

Anonymous said...

I am here legal b ut I do struggle with it

Anonymous said...

I agree Peter. Complete hypocrisy from the left surrounding Bill Clinton & his rapes.
In fact, the #metoo campaign started the day after the left had celebrated Eminem for his anti-Trump rap, and cnn had had guests who explained away Eminem's fondness for rapping about raping and murdering women & young girls as "art".
The left is so painfully hypocritical.

Anonymous said...

They, attorneys for Roy Moore, are going after the accusers and have stated so on Cnn. It'll get more ugly before it gets better.

One woman claims she worked at the restaurant Nelson claims to have worked at in '77, '78, and '79 while going to college. Her sister worked there the summer of '77.She claims no one under 16 was allowed to work there, though she also states they were paid cash and no records would exist. Her maiden name was Kiser, not to be confused with Moore's wife's maiden name Kisor (Bet that was confusing in such a small town). What's worse, if they served alcohol in what would have once been a dry county, I'd think the liquor license alone would generate a certain amount of paperwork.

Neither the woman, a retired school teacher, her sister, or a cop that was a regular in the establishment remember Beverly.(Everyone hopes not if they had a liquor license).

They don't state what month they went to work there. Beverly could have been there for only a month...maybe a few days prior to her birthday and a couple weeks afterwards.Do these witnesses not think Mrs. Nelson has relatives and maybe a friend that recalls picking her up there?

The trip down memory lane will get fuzzier by the minute...just watch and wait.

You'll have to change your blog to BS analysis.

Anonymous said...

The Roy Moore situation is getting worse. It's like having Nancy Grace go to bat for the little children.

Now a lawyer for an insurance company reassures everyone of Moore's character by his actions and reactions to being taken to a Vietnamese brothel in '71 or '72. What ugly Vietnamese hookers have to do with chasing beautiful American teens is beyond me, but I digress.

It's the moral of the story that counts.

MeAt14 has done a lot to promote awareness of what happens to young girls.

Whether any of the claims are accurate or not, it is a reality for many young people both male and female.

Many legislators and senators have gotten their positions under the guise of being 'family oriented' only to find out they were bashing gays to fit in and fulfill their political careers when they were bisexual or gay altogether.

Disliking intimate moments with hookers does not clear someone of pedophilia claims (which I don't think Moore falls into that category), but would explain more of why they'd prefer minors than not.The more hyperbole they use to promote their cause, the more children and minors, and women become victims as others turn their heads and look away and continue to believe the lies...they are only for politics and these things never happen.

JDW said...

You don't think Vietnamese brothels had teenage girls in them? Vietnam brothels are like pedophilia Disneyland and hebephilia heaven. If he turns down boinking 14 year old prostitutes in Vietnam it makes it less likely he would right a year in prison diddling with one in the states.

Anonymous said...

article in Huffington post says Moore's opponent is so left wing radical they advise he lie about his position. Moore is less dangerous than his opponent.

Anonymous said...

The author of the article does not state nor allude to the age group of the brothel members. Remember, Mr. Moore was military police and they know how others are entrapped as they spend an inordinate amount of time entrapping others.

Steve Bannon and his Breitbart news is starting a round of nails into Moore's political coffin. Albeit, they may think they are helping- or clearly do not understand the situation-and publish reports of the custody hearing in which Moore had opportunity to come in contact with Corfman and had a 12 day window in which to do so.All they state in the article is it's UNLIKELY that the meeting occurred.

Most of his defenders have been so off-base that it makes the allegations more credible.

Having said that, calling Nelson's attack 'violent' when others are brutally raped and left to die diminishes the problem of which they are trying to correct.Look at how tall Nelson is now. She most likely was withing 1-2 inches of that height back then. Calling Moore a pedophile diminishes the work upon which real pedophiles have on younger children.If it is true, there is only one 14 year old to have made claims at this point...and, she had behavioral problems at that time. This where the problem lies. Was Moore aware of the situation and took advantage?