For fark’s sake.

Moore has denied it’s his handwriting, and his campaign and attorney have called for her to release the yearbook so a handwriting expert can examine and evaluate it.

Nelson has not done so but insists that Moore signed her yearbook, though saying she made notes underneath.

Nelson and her attorney Gloria Allred plan to hold a news conference later today.

“We’re going to present evidence that we think is important on the issue whether Roy Moore signed the yearbook,” Allred told ABC News today.

Here’s the inscription, to refresh your memory. The date and location don’t look to be written in the same hand as the inscription itself, and it turns out there’s a good reason for that.

Did Nelson add the “D.A.” after his signature too? Moore has been adamant that he never signed his name with his job title appended to the end, and in fact wasn’t even the local D.A. yet when that was signed. He was an assistant D.A.

It’s not *that* weird for someone to memorialize an inscription made by another by noting the circumstances, especially if that person was a figure of some importance like the assistant district attorney. (People did it on the backs of old snapshots, right?) But how the hell does Gloria Allred let her client go out there last month at a press conference, produce the yearbook as a smoking gun proving that she and Moore knew each other, and not acknowledge immediately that she added to the inscription? Did Allred not notice the discrepancy in the handwriting or did Nelson not think to bring it up? It’s not a minor addition, either. The location and especially the date are crucial to showing that Moore and Nelson were acquainted when she said they were. Turns out she wrote that part, though, not him. Was it contemporaneous with his signature or did she add it years afterward?

Nelson, remember, is the one accuser who’s claimed that Moore got violent with her, so in that sense she has less to lose than the other accusers if it turned out that she was above the age of consent when they knew each other. Merely proving that they *did* know each other would lend a bit of credence to the possibility that Moore assaulted her. But adding to the inscription and not disclosing it immediately will naturally undermine her credibility, which is a huge gift to Moore with only a few days to go before Alabama votes. Whatever Allred has planned for today’s press conference had better be more impressive than, say, some random handwriting analyst attesting that the signature is his. Moore’s going to say, “Hand over the yearbook and let our own expert analyze it.” If she refuses, what then?

Update: Here’s the best counterargument available to Nelson and Allred.

Right. If the supposed forger could reproduce Moore’s signature that well, why not have him/her reproduce the date and location in the same hand?