No Roy Moore fans here, but this one’s interesting.
We’ve thought from the beginning that the idea of Roy Moore signing a “D.A.” after his name in 1977 was more than a little weird. Like, why would he do so? He wasn’t one.
Turns out there might more to the story. But, you’ve got to check the Alabama papers in order to get the actual details of this latest accusation from his defenders:
Roy Moore wants yearbook handwriting analysis; lawyer claims he handled accuser’s divorce
By Howard Koplowitz
An attorney representing former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore attempted to discredit one of the women accusing the Republican Senate candidate of sexual misconduct, alleging that Beverly Young Nelson was not forthcoming during her press conference with her attorney, Gloria Allred.
Phillip L. Jauregui, who represented Moore in cases involving the Ten Commandments monuments and same-sex marriage, spoke to reporters but declined to answer questions.
Jauregui said Nelson was not forthcoming about having no contact with Moore after the alleged abuse in the 1970s.
“As it turns out ,in 1999, Ms. Nelson filed a divorce action against her then-husband, Mr. Harris. Guess who that case was before? It was filed in Etowah County and the judge assigned was Roy S. Moore – circuit judge of Etowah County. There was contact,” Jauregui said.
Jauregui also contended that Moore did not sign Nelson’s high school yearbook — a signature that Nelson and Allred used to bolster their claims. He added that the signature was inconsistent with Moore’s handwriting, and that the postscript on the signature — D.A. — matched the initials of Moore’s assistant at the time.
He called on Allred to release the yearbook so experts hired by Moore can analyze the handwriting.
Now here’s the interesting part:
In an open letter to Sean Hannity, who said yesterday he needed evidence from Moore to continue supporting him, Moore said the handwriting in Nelson’s divorce case is different than the signature in her yearbook, among other inconsistencies.
“My signature on the order of dismissal in the divorce case was annotated with the letters ‘D.A.,’ representing the initials of my court assistant. Curiously the supposed yearbook inscription is also followed by the same initials–‘D.A.’ But at that time I was deputy district attorney, not district attorney,” Moore wrote. “Those initials as well as the date under the signature block and the printed name of the restaurant are written in a style inconsistent with the rest of the yearbook inscription. The ‘7’s’ in ‘Christmas 1977’ are in a noticeably different script than the ‘7’s’ in the date ’12-22-77.’ I believe tampering has occurred. “
It’s actually worse than even his attorney is pointing out.
If it’s true that Judge Moore did handle this woman’s divorce case in 1999, and that his court assistant did indeed also have the initials “D.A.,” then Gloria A. and her friends in the media have a big problem. Huge, in fact.
Which is, that unless Roy Moore had a long history of weirdly putting “D.A.” next to his signature — even when he wasn’t one, as when he was a judge in 1999 — then the evidence is clear and compelling that someone merely cribbed his signature from this same woman’s 1999 divorce papers.
Why? It’s because they obviously didn’t know that the “D.A” was actually the court assistant’s initials instead, and so they just blindly affixed it to an old signature in the 1977 yearbook.
Or, much worse, they forged the signature entirely in that 1977 yearbook instead, leaving intact of course the same “D.A” that they saw in the 1999 court document already in her possession. And not knowing any better.
Where else did that 1977 “D.A.” come from, but the later signature annotated by his assistant? It was obviously copied from a much later document. Or, wackily, the guy always puts “D.A” on his signature. Which makes no sense.
So unless Moore is lying about his old court assistant and her initials — which would be insanely dumb — this all sounds more than likely, because screwing up so royally is how people always get caught when they forge things unaware. And the whole thing’s pretty hinkie anyway in the timing and the corny Gloria Allred tie-in.
Think though that the MSNBC crowd is going to be exploring this possibility anytime soon? In the name of truth and accuracy in storytelling?
So what’s the deal, press?
— Did Roy Moore handle this same woman’s divorce proceedings in 1999?
— Did he really have a court assistant with the initials “D.A.” who routinely signed such documents in 1999?
— Did he have a history instead of always putting “D.A.” next to his signed name, which would explain away any possible excuses from his defenders?
— Or, does Gloria A. have some big ‘splainin’ to do? Like maybe a nutty client, and a deficit of conscientious research skills back in the LA office?