Allred:I never asked Beverly if she saw Moore sign her yearbook. Ruh roh

[tinydancer]

This is in an interview with MSNBC. Very interesting. It turns out the yearbook might have just been on the counter and Gloria isn't sure if Young Nelson saw him sign the yearbook. I'm impressed with Tur. I don't have television so I don't know this journalist but she's good. Hard hitting.

Partial transcript:

"TUR: Does your client, Beverly Young Nelson, remember him signing it?

ALLRED: She remembers — well, she remembers being with him. It was on the counter. 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.

TUR: 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. What she alleges was that she put it on the counter; that I think she asked to sign — or that he did sign it. That’s all."

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Allred was always a dufus.

 

[tinydancer]

Allred was always a dufus.

If I remember correctly wasn't the original story that Moore asked to sign her yearbook?

 

[jon_berzerk]

sweet

i think so

--LOL

 

[usmbguest5318]

Allred:I never asked Beverly if she saw Moore sign her yearbook.

You're really reaching...

Ask any defense attorney whether they ask their client whether they did indeed do the crime they're alleged to do.

• In truth, the defense lawyer almost never really knows whether the defendant is guilty of a charged crime....defense lawyers often do not ask their clients if they committed the crime.
  
• Many defense lawyers never ask their clients if they committed the crime.

Defense attorneys, which is what Ms. Allred is, are going to do what attorneys do: represent their client and their client's interests to the very best of their ability. Quite often that requires them to not find out whether the accusation is in fact so. A non-prosecutorial attorney's job is to obtain the best possible outcome(s) for their client, not determine whether the client "did it" or not. Showing who did what is the prosecution's job.


As goes whether Beverly saw Roy sign her yearbook...that is irrelevant. The woman, then a girl, was at the time working as a waitress in a restaurant Moore visited, one that even Roy isn't denying he patronized. Just how many yearbooks do you suppose were there, let alone sitting there awaiting Moore's signature? For whatever I may think about Moore, even if there were a passel of yearbooks or just one laying where he was, I'm fairly certain he's not a sort who'd just pick them up and sign them and writing notes in them.

There's also the matter that were the girl to have been working as a waitress, she as likely as not could have been called away to actually work -- clear a table, carry food, respond to another customer who was signaling a need for her, etc. -- rather than chit chat with a customer who simply wanted to sign her yearbook. If she had any sense at all in such a situation, she'd have said something akin to, "Oh, yes, I'd be honored for you to sign my yearbook. Go ahead. I'll be right back. An order's up, and I have to get it." In such a situation, of course she might not have seen him sign the thing. Seeing him sign the book and knowing damn well that he just did are two very different things, different enough that whether she saw him sign the book is irrelevant.


As for the authenticity of the handwriting itself, well, the "litigatory" goal is to determine the author of a particular document, in Roy's case a passage rather than the document itself, many good handwriting experts will only go so far as opining that the writing is either consistent or inconsistent with having been authored by the person in question. If one is faced with an ostensible expert who, on the record, makes 100% definitive statements about authorship, it should be a red flag regarding the person's qualifications and professional affiliations and integrity. The overriding factor in Beverly's/Roy's case is that the matter isn't ever going to court, so there will be no "on the record" testimony; thus handwriting experts who are, for whatever reason, partisan or perfunctory can without recourse say whatever they want or whatever they may have been paid (in cash or in kind) to say.

 

[usmbguest5318]

People are now talking about the signature. Within the range of variability that exists in my own signature and those of others whose signatures I have seen often over the years, it looks like his signature to me.

Moore says it's not his signature -- I doubt the "Hickory House" part is his writing, but that isn't the relevant part of the writing -- but Moore has plenty of motive to say that. What motive has that woman? None unless she's an emotional masochist. Who would give up their otherwise calm life by libelling someone else, most especially a wealthy and well connected public figure? People, "regular" people, just don't do that.