>>Handwriting analysis can also be ambiguous. First of all in this case there is not much to look at ....

Nice googling, but actually DNA isn't perfect either, especially in an aged or disturbed crime scene. By your logic, an accuser who possesses potential DNA evidence should witthold it because the result might not be convincing. Alternatively, consider that DNA can be HIGHLY convincing, just as QDE can be highly convincing. You only need ask Bill why he didn't wait for analysis of Monica's dress. Voila the power of potential evidence over a guilty liar, and the sort of reaction lawyer Allred presumably anticipated when she called a press conference to reveal the yearbook.

In this case, experts are saying that the R and M are sufficiently distinctive that if they're by the same person, it ought to be possible to demonstrate this. So IMHO the most useful outcome of the examination will be to call Moore a liar. The second-most useful finding would be that the yearbook shows the characteristic hesitancy and other signs of a forgery, or appears to have been copied from a stamp if it exhibits none of Moore's habits. Either of these would be helpful to the decent voters of Alabama.

>>And then of course you're still attempting to defend a sexual predator with at least 9 known victims and a zillion witnesses based on this one thing (which may or may not be 'a thing' anyway) - which you seem rather hung up on. You're ignoring everything else and defending the sexual predator and thus calling ALL the women and ALL the witnesses liars. geeeze.

I challenge you to identify the explicit horrors that you insist I am ignoring. No paraphrases: quote the actual words of 9 women who claim he molested them as a child.

Of course you can't, because it's a false narrative. To assist you, I fully accept the stories from the legal women who dated him, especially the ones who did so with mother's blessing. These "victims" are rolled in with the rest so that people like you will believe there's a huge list of child molested "victims."

For the fifth time, there are 2 stories in particular that worry me. One provided a yearbook to support her claim. I'd like to see that examined, since if it confirms Moore as a liar, there's no civilized requirement to allow him any benefit of the doubt IMHO.

Meanwhile one of your victims is since identified as a felon fraudster against her own family who (according to my Alabama sources) demanded custody of her child who she'd ignored from birth, because she thought it would force relatives to give her money. She only ever met Moore once, in his office to sign over custody to the family member Moore had urged the court to appoint rather than her. According to her, her opponent Moore then fondled her behind as she left his office with her support person (mother) to whom she never mentioned the assault, until now. Moore hasn't bothered to respond to that allegation since this person is quite well known in her community.

This is the problem with insisting that you have to believe ALL the stories. Inclusion of the above "victim" can take down the rest if you insist they're all glued together in truth, especially for those who know her, since birds of a feather flock together. Far better to apply discrimination and think things through rather than being convinced by the LOUDNESS or lewdness of accusations.

The other problem with your logic is that several of Bill Clinton's victims allege that Hillary went after them to destroy their reputations and life prospects when they spoke out. So by your insistence that they MUST be believed, what sort of human being would have supported a woman for president who not only disbelieved but set out to punish and destroy rape victims? You'd have to be an unobservant idiot, or a disgusting misogynist, or a rapist yourself to support such a person. And yet millions voted for this rape culturalist! Including some right here who are quick to call others names.

Don't try to pin this on me now- this is YOUR logic that surely doesn't only get wheeled out when it suits you politically? My view is that this logic is designed to stifle debate and put others on the defensive but again, it is owned by YOU so go ahead and explain yourself.