There's more to it than just he-said-she-said. For example, there's the fact that he had admitted relationships to some of the (older) accusers. And now he has just been issuing blanket denials. Which recently caused one of the accusers to come up with even more evidence:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/woman-shares-new-evi...

One thing that struck me after the James O'Keefe sting blew up in his face [0] was how hard it is to backfill the details of a fabricated life, especially details, public records, witnesses and relationships for your whereabouts and actions 30 years ago. The WP has found 7 women who not only face terrific abuse for speaking up, but whose claims have stood up to deep research.

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approa...

> I honestly don't know pretty much anything about that case.

You should read about the case.

I've read about it and I'm still waiting for the definitive proof that his denials about sexual misconduct are false. Although, I understand the standard of proof required for the court of popular opinion is much lower than an actual legal court.

> I've read about it and I'm still waiting for the definitive proof that his denials about sexual misconduct are false. Although, I understand the standard of proof required for the court of popular opinion is much lower than an actual legal court.

The standard required in an actual legal court for anything other than a criminal conviction is much lower than what you demand, and even the criminal burden of proof is singificanrtly lower, as “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a far cry from “definitive proof that denials are wrong”.

Ironically, the standard you demand is exactly the standard many people apply in the court of public opinion for rejecting their priors, especially when those priors are tribal (e.g., political partisan) identity markers, like “the guy on my team is virtuous”.

Yes, there is definitely enough evidence to conclude Ray Moore's accusers are telling the truth, if you use "beyond a reasonable doubt". Too bad so many people politicize this and take it way beyond reasonable.

The civil standard is preponderance of evidence. The criminal standard is beyond reasonable doubt. I believe that the civil standard is appropriate for public elections. And for this type of proceeding, hearsay is admissible as evidence.

At this time, the prosecution in the court of public opinion has offered reams of eyewitness testimony (even as unreliable as that category of evidence may be), and the defense has offered "nuh-uh, wazzenme" and a parade of character witnesses--that are strangely reticent to back up their assertions with their specific reasons for believing that it would be out of character for Roy Moore to have pursued and sexually molested children when he was younger. As I am a cynical anarchist atheist, "he votes Republican and regularly attends Christian churches" actually holds negative weight for me.

There is also the other thing, the thing that is undeniable fact, and a matter of public record. He has twice been evicted--dragged kicking and screaming--from public office, for flouting the law. He has twice proven himself to be incapable of upholding the parts of the U.S. constitution that he doesn't like, and it would have only taken once for me to consider him unfit to be a U.S. senator.

And besides all that, he gives me the same vibe as an Alabama politician that I got from Rod Blagojevich as a Chicago politician. It's as though all the bacteria in my intestines are screaming in unison: "That guy is a colossal piece of isht, and we know isht better than anyone! Do not allow him within 100m of your government, your bank accounts, or your children!"

Roy Moore is saying he doesn't even know the women. There is documented evidence that he does (Year books and the like).

As it stands now, there is evidence that Roy Moore is a liar.

That yearbook is the only physical evidence presented yet it seems to be forgery. That doesn't bode well for the veracity of the allegations from that accuser or the level of due diligence offered by Gloria Allred.

There are two pieces and the only one claiming forgery, is Roy Moore's camp (Shocking, i know)

Roy Moore's camp is also asking the yearbook be handed over to a third-party for analysis but so far the request has been ignored.

it was examined by Mark Songer an ex-FBI Forensic Examiner. And now there is a second piece of evidence.

On a side note, Man, you guys will go to some great lengths in your misinformation. I can understand some critical thought, but its like talking to defense attorneys.

Just a note: since this discussion was had the lady in question has admitted that a portion of the yearbook entry was indeed forged by her. The portion that a great number of people online claimed looked suspicious that was also looked at by the WAPO's expert.

>We did not ask the expert to examine the printing after the cursive writing and signature,” Allred said Friday.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/roy-moore-accuser-a...

Oh, well that was very convenient for them wasn't it?

argumentum ad consequentiam

This is an ironic comment for this particular HN submission, as it’s a story about women whose single testimony brought down industry leaders.

And Roy Moore has eight independent accusers to date.

While eight may seem like a lot, it's not that hard to find people willing to lie. If eight women came forward and said that a guy in the shipping department had harassed them, I may question it less because there is less motivation for eight women to say that. With a senate seat at stake there is a lot more reason to question it without any accompanying evidence.

It’s pretty had to get 8 people to get interviewed by the cops on something this serious without screwing it up badly.

Look at the fake accuser plant and the WP, they sussed it out very quickly.

What police interviews are you speaking of? As far as I know the Moore accusations have only been made to the press with no legal aspect to it at this time.

You’re right my bad I was thinking about the Washington Post but I said cops.

It’s actually 9 now.

Innocent until proven guilty is a fine principal for a court of law, but I feel no obligation to apply it to my own decisions. I see enough evidence (not proof, evidence) to make my own decision that Moore’s accusers are telling the truth.

To each his own.

What sort of evidence would you consider dispositive?

I think a clear photograph of the person committing the misdeeds would be useful, but not for everybody it seems.

Well yes of course that would be useful.

But let's try again. What's the least amount of evidence that you would find dispositive?

If the accused accuses back, the lack of proofs (despite evidences) would be an evidence of the plot.

The absense of evidence is not evidence.

Unless you have tens of accusers and no proof. Not talking about the case, but sure a lot of accusations without proof could be a plot.

Our not. The comment was about the right for people to claim their innocence.

I have no idea who the guy is.

someone defaming some other person before court case is heard is doing a public service of indicating their guilt...and its also a crime in fact...this is what Trump is being charged with in NY court...defaming an accuser

I think you need to read the charges more closely. Sexual assault of a 14 year old is not something you can judge a persons character on solely? What in your mind would be a “deal breaker” by itself?

It was 30 years ago. Even if he had killed somebody 30 years ago and lived ever since without any serious incident I would consider it to have minor relevancy for someone's character today. From a legal perspective, sure there have to be consequences. But from a moral perspective, I respect it even higher when somebody was able to change the life to the better.

To clarify you disagree with “an unpunished and unrepentant paedophile at the age of 30 should not be elected to office” and you actually just said that they are _improved morally your eyes by the experience_.

Just blows my mind. I can’t believe I’m on the internet arguing with such ignorant garbage.

You need to get a reality check and meet some victims mate, because that opinion is _objectively_ disgusting.

Your inability to tolerate different viewpoints and resulting parade of ad hominems are exactly the reason why many keep their opinions to the voting booth.

The attacks aren't ad hominem if they are "you are an abhorrent human being for considering pedophilia a 'different viewpoint'". The attack is directly against you for your terrible views. Ad hominem would be: "Your views on Net Neutrally are wrong because you and your party support child rapists".

It's not a different viewpoint.

Minor relevancy? They would have improved in character if they owned it when exposed and accepted whatever would be their fate. That is being moral.

Going on a concerted effort to deny their actions, diminish the victims, delegitimatise the media and further divide people IS NOT MORAL.

I hope you change your stupid point of view, it's just that: stupid.

> Judging a person's character by their sexuality alone is just absurd

If you rape someone, you are a bad person. End of story. There is no _other viewpoint_. There is no _other side of the story_. I'll refrain from name calling, but I do have one request for you. Really think about what you're saying. Try to see it from the eyes of the victim. What if your mom was the one that was raped?

You might say he brutally raped a child and is a pedophile.

I say he dated a teenager who told him on the 2rd date that she is actually 14 but they both undressed and he 'touched her over her bra and underpants' but drove her immediately home, after she said she didn't want to go further (not making things up - that is the official story in the Washington Post).

Being a child rapist is not 'having an alternative sexuality'.