Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore accused of statutory rape

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

This is red-hot shit right here, the news is only a couple of hours old.

Roy Moore is the theocratic ex-judge who won the GOP nomination to the Senate a few weeks ago, beating Luther Strange.

He is most infamous for having been twice elected and twice removed from the Alabama Supreme Court, both times for defying federal court orders - once to have a massive slab with the Ten Commandments on it removed from his court house, and once because he directed the state's judges to continue enforcing the state's ban on same-sex marriage after such a ban was declared unconstitutional. At least, he was most infamous for that. Now, it's likely he'll be more infamous for the, uh, alleged sexual abuse of a minor.

From the Washington Post:

The tl;dr is that a woman named Leigh Corfman - a registered Republican and Trump voter - has accused Roy Moore of essentially hitting on her when she was 14, leading her to his house, then coming into the room in nothing but a pair of briefs and trying to get her to touch his genitals. The story is backed up by Corfman's mother and friends, and comes alongside numerous similar allegations from unrelated women, all of whom were in their teens when Moore is said to have hit on them. The initial meeting that Corfman describes is consistent with court records that show that her and her mother were present at the courthouse at the day they describe, where Roy Moore's office was down the hall. Corfman described the encounter in a consistent manner across six interviews.

As the encounter dates back to 1979, the statute of limitations has obviously expired. But if true, Moore's actions would constitute sexual abuse under Alabama state law. There's also a section on "enticing a child younger than 16 to enter a home with the purpose of proposing sexual intercourse or fondling of sexual or genital parts," which is a felony offence.

Mitch McConnell and the rest of the GOP Senate have been hesitant to embrace Moore, and have reacted to the accusations by calling on Roy Moore to withdraw from the race. The Democratic candidate for Alabama is Doug Jones, who is likely to start receiving a lot more funding now.

Jux:
There is no SOL for sexual assault of a victim under 16 in alabama.
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/alabama-statutes-of-limitations-for-sexual-abuse.html?redesigned=1

But you have to be able to provide evidence, and simply saying he did something, 'cause look see we were at the same place at the same time! isn't going to be enough to get a conviction.

Silentpony:
But you have to be able to provide evidence, and simply saying he did something, 'cause look see we were at the same place at the same time! isn't going to be enough to get a conviction.

Assuming this goes to trial (I doubt it will), victim testimony is admissible as evidence. So I'm not sure what you mean by 'they need evidence'.

Jux:

Silentpony:
But you have to be able to provide evidence, and simply saying he did something, 'cause look see we were at the same place at the same time! isn't going to be enough to get a conviction.

Assuming this goes to trial (I doubt it will), victim testimony is admissible as evidence. So I'm not sure what you mean by 'they need evidence'.

Meaning victim testimony is admissible, but so is defendant testimony. It will come down to a he said/she said, and any conviction will likely be turned over in appeals for lack of evidence.

Silentpony:

Jux:

Silentpony:
But you have to be able to provide evidence, and simply saying he did something, 'cause look see we were at the same place at the same time! isn't going to be enough to get a conviction.

Assuming this goes to trial (I doubt it will), victim testimony is admissible as evidence. So I'm not sure what you mean by 'they need evidence'.

Meaning victim testimony is admissible, but so is defendant testimony. It will come down to a he said/she said, and any conviction will likely be turned over in appeals for lack of evidence.

Dunno, at this point you have like, four different women that have accused him of predatory behavior, all of them in the 14-18 age range? I would say multiple women accusing a person of the same thing would constitute enough evidence to uphold a conviction, unless they can prove that the testimony was falsified. On top of that, being able to establish that at the accused was in the same place at the same time as the victim goes a long way in credibility to the testimony. Also, Corfman's mother clearly recalls Moore offering to watch her kid during a custody hearing, so you have another source that the accused had initiated contact with the victim.

Again, I don't think this will go to trial. I would love to see another holy roller exposed as a sex predator go to jail, but I don't think it'll happen. A very real possibility though is him losing the election over this.

Jux:

Silentpony:

Jux:

Assuming this goes to trial (I doubt it will), victim testimony is admissible as evidence. So I'm not sure what you mean by 'they need evidence'.

Meaning victim testimony is admissible, but so is defendant testimony. It will come down to a he said/she said, and any conviction will likely be turned over in appeals for lack of evidence.

Dunno, at this point you have like, four different women that have accused him of predatory behavior, all of them in the 14-18 age range? I would say multiple women accusing a person of the same thing would constitute enough evidence to uphold a conviction, unless they can prove that the testimony was falsified. On top of that, being able to establish that at the accused was in the same place at the same time as the victim goes a long way in credibility to the testimony. Also, Corfman's mother clearly recalls Moore offering to watch her kid during a custody hearing, so you have another source that the accused had initiated contact with the victim.

Again, I don't think this will go to trial. I would love to see another holy roller exposed as a sex predator go to jail, but I don't think it'll happen. A very real possibility though is him losing the election over this.

Also potentially a civil case where you only need to have a preponderance of evidence rather than proving beyond a reasonable doubt.

For criminal case it depends on corroboration and if they can place him at the scene around the time the victims claim, if he wasn't a wealthy judge I would put the chances of the prosecutor pushing charges or at least a legit police investigation a bit higher, with his own power and some expensive legal representation I imagine a criminal case would be hard to bring.

EternallyBored:
Also potentially a civil case where you only need to have a preponderance of evidence rather than proving beyond a reasonable doubt.

For criminal case it depends on corroboration and if they can place him at the scene around the time the victims claim, if he wasn?t a wealthy judge I would put the chances of the prosecutor pushing charges or at least a legit police investigation a bit higher, with his own power and some expensive legal representation I imagine a criminal case would be hard to bring.

I doubt the victim could even get a fair trial in alabama. This is a dude that was elected to Chief Justice of the state SC after he was already removed once for his 10 commandment fuckery. To say he's pretty popular is probably an understatement.

EternallyBored:
SNIP

Any defense lawyer will get the entire thing thrown out during discovery. All he needs to say is the State can only prove Moore was in a place at a time, and we're not disputing that. They can't prove a crime was committed, as they only have at best circumstantial evidence. They can't provide video recordings, or audio tape, or a rape kit, DNA, photos of wounds, nothing.

If they put any of the women on the stand, cross examination would make an absolute mockery of their testimony, especially if they can do a character assassination by pointing to any instance at all where the women were less than truthful. All you have to do is prove there is doubt. And without hard evidence, by definition almost there is doubt.

Civil case would be different, but even then a preponderance of evidence can only call upon testimony. Being in the same room 30 years ago isn't a crime, nor indication of foul intent. Lots of people are in lots of rooms with lots of other people all the time, including 30 years ago.

Silentpony:

EternallyBored:
SNIP

Any defense lawyer will get the entire thing thrown out during discovery. All he needs to say is the State can only prove Moore was in a place at a time, and we're not disputing that. They can't prove a crime was committed, as they only have at best circumstantial evidence. They can't provide video recordings, or audio tape, or a rape kit, DNA, photos of wounds, nothing.

I've got multiple former clients serving felony terms based on nothing more than witness testimony for various crimes, there have been people put on death row based on nothing more than witnesses stating they were at the scene.

I'm not sure where you get this idea that a case would automatically be laughed out of court without an audio/video tape or rape kit, though in this scenario the one accuser is stating nothing more than he forced her to touch him, and the others are stating it was consensual and they only realized the illegality of it as they got older so a rape kit would be pointless. In those circumstances nobody would ever get charged with statutory rape, but they do, a former classmate of mine served 2 years for statutory with a 15 year old that he claims he thought was 18 based on nothing more than the testimony of the girl and multiple people that saw them at the same party.

He had a lawyer, they failed to laugh it out of court. In mr. Moore's case I imagine he would have a much better lawyer and more pull with the court system to try and ensure it never gets that far.

If they put any of the women on the stand, cross examination would make an absolute mockery of their testimony, especially if they can do a character assassination by pointing to any instance at all where the women were less than truthful. All you have to do is prove there is doubt. And without hard evidence, by definition almost there is doubt.

With a good lawyer perhaps, the preponderance of multiple testimonies would still leave it to a jury to decide how convincing that character assassination would be.

Civil case would be different, but even then a preponderance of evidence can only call upon testimony. Being in the same room 30 years ago isn't a crime, nor indication of foul intent. Lots of people are in lots of rooms with lots of other people all the time, including 30 years ago.

If they can prove he was alone in the room with a minor without the parent's knowledge or consent, well, things get hairy especially if multiple unrelated witnesses can place him there and confirm he's had odd or unusual interactions with said minors, again, seen plenty of similar cases go in favor of the accusers.

His money and power will almost definitely protect him, but I have seen enough similar cases to know its not nearly as simple as you are trying to paint it.

EternallyBored:
SNIP

That sounds an awful lot like guilty until proven innocent. That they don't have to prove he did anything, he has to prove he's not weird.
I didn't think that's how the justice system worked - that an allegation isn't a conviction, its just an allegation.

>Alabama

I think the question is less if he did it and more if anyone can actually prove it.

Members of the Alabama state GOP have already blown past "these allegations are false" and arrived at "these allegations are no big deal," because apparently trying to get a 14-year-old to touch your penis is totally normal.

As an extra plus? Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter, and they gave birth to Jesus, so it's double normal.

Silentpony:

EternallyBored:
SNIP

That sounds an awful lot like guilty until proven innocent. That they don't have to prove he did anything, he has to prove he's not weird.
I didn't think that's how the justice system worked - that an allegation isn't a conviction, its just an allegation.

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-one-be-convicted-solely-on-testimony-with-no-e-1924282.html

Look at the answers from the lawyers below. as one states: "the testimony of one witness, if believed, is enough evidence."

Your assumption is a common mistake I see people make so don't feel bad, a lot of people throw around this belief that witness testimony is "only circumstantial evidence" or "not real evidence" or "not sufficient evidence to convict without something else".

The truth is, witness testimony is evidence, doesn't matter if its circumstantial evidence, evidence is evidence and you absolutely can convict on witness testimony alone, all you have to do is convince a jury, partially selected by the prosecutor, or the judge that the evidence is "beyond a reasonable doubt".

For good and for ill, what a jury of your peers considers reasonable can be very different from what you might consider reasonable.

Besides the disgusting implications of another man in power doing something that is a perversion of law in the sickening degrees available, there is a sad irony to this.

People like him go day in and day out about the evils of Islamic fanatics and practices like marring off girls hardly into puberty, yet he is doing something in the same vein.

bastardofmelbourne:

As an extra plus? Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter, and they gave birth to Jesus, so it's double normal.

I can't even tell if this is a joke or not. It should be a satire, not reality!

Xsjadoblayde:

bastardofmelbourne:

As an extra plus? Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter, and they gave birth to Jesus, so it's double normal.

I can't even tell if this is a joke or not. It should be a satire, not reality!

Yeah, this is where a I go from "probably true but could just be political slander" to "absolutely true".

You don't bring out a defense that weak unless your ass is already nailed to the wall.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/sean-hannity-defends-roy-moores-sexual-misconduct-charges-saying-they-were-consensual-
Hannity?s co-host defended Moore against the allegations by claiming the sexual relationship Moore had with 14-year-old Corfman ?was consensual,? to which Hannity agreed.

Morality, republican style.

Kwak:

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/sean-hannity-defends-roy-moores-sexual-misconduct-charges-saying-they-were-consensual-
Hannity?s co-host defended Moore against the allegations by claiming the sexual relationship Moore had with 14-year-old Corfman ?was consensual,? to which Hannity agreed.

Morality, republican style.

In defence of the man-shaped shit sausage whose mortal name is Sean Hannity, he later apologised, claiming that he misspoke and was referring to the other victims who were over the age of consent (16, 17 and 19) at the time Moore is said to have harassed them. It's really hard to take that interpretation reading the transcript, but whatever, people say shit that looks super dumb when they're put down on a transcript and talking over one another. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt if he gives Corfman the benefit of the doubt.

(Still a shit sausage, though. Not walking that one back.)

So EVEN pedophilia is OK as long as Republicans do it? Is there nothing that these psychopaths can't get away with?

Adam Jensen:
So EVEN pedophilia is OK as long as Republicans do it? Is there nothing that these psychopaths can't get away with?

He's doing worse than that; he's using it to raise funds.

I fully expect him to win the election in December.

Adam Jensen:
So EVEN pedophilia is OK as long as Republicans do it? Is there nothing that these psychopaths can't get away with?

To be entirely correct this is not a case of Pedophile actions unless Corfman was a late bloomer. Let's not conflate a mental condition (which isn't always paired with criminal actions) with a plain old sex crime on teenagers.
But more on topic, if he gets a pass and wins despite that, Jesus... Anthony Wiener got crucified for sending dick pics to adults, isn't grooming and sexually assaulting teenagers worse? Where has all the social conservatism and puritanism gone?

bastardofmelbourne:

Adam Jensen:
So EVEN pedophilia is OK as long as Republicans do it? Is there nothing that these psychopaths can't get away with?

He's doing worse than that; he's using it to raise funds.

I fully expect him to win the election in December.

The guy is basically like a parody of a comic book villain. He's evil to such an exaggerated degree. Makes Trump look like a fuckin' saint. Just when you thought that Republicans can't go any lower, this guy happens.

bastardofmelbourne:
Members of the Alabama state GOP have already blown past "these allegations are false" and arrived at "these allegations are no big deal," because apparently trying to get a 14-year-old to touch your penis is totally normal.

As an extra plus? Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter, and they gave birth to Jesus, so it's double normal.

Ok, so... Joseph wasnt Jesus's father, God was. Ya know, the whole 'virgin miracle birth' and all that, though God is I guess much older than Joseph, which is creepier, but if Moore wants to uh, compare himself to God...

Saelune:
Ok, so... Joseph wasnt Jesus's father, God was. Ya know, the whole 'virgin miracle birth' and all that, though God is I guess much older than Joseph, which is creepier, but if Moore wants to uh, compare himself to God...

I know! I was talking to a friend about this over dinner just a few hours ago, and he pointed that out, and my mouth just dropped at the ridiculousness of it. Not just citing the Bible to justify ephebophilia, but citing it incorrectly.

bastardofmelbourne:

Saelune:
Ok, so... Joseph wasnt Jesus's father, God was. Ya know, the whole 'virgin miracle birth' and all that, though God is I guess much older than Joseph, which is creepier, but if Moore wants to uh, compare himself to God...

I know! I was talking to a friend about this over dinner just a few hours ago, and he pointed that out, and my mouth just dropped at the ridiculousness of it. Not just citing the Bible to justify ephebophilia, but citing it incorrectly.

I knew most religious whackjobs no fuck all about Christianity, figuredthey at least knew Jesus was the son of God. Then again they clearly don't know that the sermon on the mount undermines pretty much all of their "christian" beliefs.

bastardofmelbourne:

Saelune:
Ok, so... Joseph wasnt Jesus's father, God was. Ya know, the whole 'virgin miracle birth' and all that, though God is I guess much older than Joseph, which is creepier, but if Moore wants to uh, compare himself to God...

I know! I was talking to a friend about this over dinner just a few hours ago, and he pointed that out, and my mouth just dropped at the ridiculousness of it. Not just citing the Bible to justify ephebophilia, but citing it incorrectly.

It happens all the time. The Bible is just used as a childish player's 'nuh uh' house rules whenever they think they are losing.

EternallyBored:
SNIP

But isn't the whole point of sworn testimony that you need to be able to validate it? Like what's to stop two random people from just making stuff up about anyone, and just agreeing with one another in court?

And why does victim testimony count more than defendant? Like I'm feeling very naive right now, but I thought you had to prove someone did something, not that someone proves he didn't do something. As is common knowledge, its virtually impossible to prove a negative. I thought reasonable doubt was in favor of the defendant, not the other way around. Isn't it supposed to be there's a chance he didn't do it, so not guilty instead of technically there's a chance he did, so guilty?

I mean theoretically anything is possible. Time traveling clones of you and I could have been in that room with Moore! And we can't prove they weren't there, so why aren't we being accused too?

On the whole Marry and Joseph thing:

You were an adult, or at least old enough to start having a career by 13 (Barmitzva age if I am Correct). You needed to be closer to 16 or 20 to be in the army (been a while since I ready that part of the old testament), but otherwise you were an adult. This was also a time period where life was tough, and you were surounded by peoples that didn't like you and would war with you often enough to make life tougher (How things have changed). To compare this to classical Greece, the average lifespan of a commoner was about 14.

Medical, and lifestyle, and everything elsesih has largely improved since Bible Times, the Black Plague, The French Revelation, The THe Spanish American War, The Great Depression, The Manson Murders, and the Star Wars Holiday Special.

Also to note: The legal age of consent in Alabama is 16. This theoretically could have been given less scrutiny if the girl was two years older. Still reepy, and I am not sure if said polatician is a native Alamaban (if not still 18 Federaly), but still CREEEEEEPY.

Silentpony:

EternallyBored:
SNIP

But isn't the whole point of sworn testimony that you need to be able to validate it? Like what's to stop two random people from just making stuff up about anyone, and just agreeing with one another in court?

No, you don't have to validate it, it can support itself depending on the circumstances, the only time a sworn testimony itself is insufficient is if it is the defendant confessing to a crime that has no other evidence. I.E. you can't walk in to a police station and confess to robbing someone unless there is corroboration that a crime took place, even if that corroboration is just another person walking in and confirming the story.

Now, for a crime with only witness testimony, that's generally where Lawyers come in handy, you establish things like alibi, character witnesses, past history with the victim, in the end it is up to the jury or judge to decide if the "he said/she said" is enough to convict. You may not see it as reasonable, but juries and judges absolutely have and will in the future convict for crimes based only on sworn testimony.

Ideally, false charges are stopped by the threat of perjury, if it comes out you lied, even if it comes out years later, you are still liable to spend time in prison for it, police still investigate witness testimony. Usually unified stories aren't easy to pull off, and contradictions come out during discovery. However, it is not a perfect system, people have lied, and gotten away with it for years, or just gotten away with it, there are innocent people sitting in prison right now put there based just on witness testimony.

And why does victim testimony count more than defendant? Like I'm feeling very naive right now, but I thought you had to prove someone did something, not that someone proves he didn't do something. As is common knowledge, its virtually impossible to prove a negative. I thought reasonable doubt was in favor of the defendant, not the other way around. Isn't it supposed to be there's a chance he didn't do it, so not guilty instead of technically there's a chance he did, so guilty?

Victim testimony doesn't automatically count for more, but if an allegation has gone so far as to get to trial, then the witness testimony is enough to convict.

Generally its up to a District attorney to decide if the evidence has enough weight to press charges, if it has reached a court room you've already had multiple people signing off that they believe the available evidence is strong enough to press charges. A criminal conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt", but to actually press charges and go to court all the DA needs to show is probable cause.

For more serious cases, the DA presents the evidence to a grand jury, again, basically a bunch of registered voters they pulled off the voting rolls, and empanels them to pull evidence and make a decision on whether or not to press charges. Thus where we get the saying about any decent DA can convince a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

In the end, all they have to do is convince the jury or judge depending on the type of case.

I mean theoretically anything is possible. Time traveling clones of you and I could have been in that room with Moore! And we can't prove they weren't there, so why aren't we being accused too?

In a serious sense, because time travel cannot be conceived of in a realistic way, like claiming magic or demons, so establishing probable cause would be nearly impossible if someone did accuse you and I of time traveling shenanigans. More mundane accusations, especially from multiple sources and corroborating from the general public, is taken more seriously.

In the end, the decision rests with multiple parties, if the bulk of society decided that time travel was probable, then a DA could likely argue to a group of your peers that we should be indicted for traveling back in time to molest random girls in Alabama.

That said, I was challenging your assertion that conviction or indictment would get laughed out of court, it is certainly possible to convict Mr. Moore, it however is not at all very likely to actually happen. Convicting Mr. Moore after so many years based on testimony alone, coupled with his own power and money, and him being a controversial public figure giving his defense a go-to motivation for why people might lie, the chances of him ever seeing the inside of a prison cell is very small.

EternallyBored:
SNIP

So wait, how do you ever prove someone is innocent? It sounds like so long as a DA can convince a jury there's a chance you did something, they'll convict you, with the addendum than unless physically impossible ie Time Travel, there is always a chance you did something?

Silentpony:
So wait, how do you ever prove someone is innocent? It sounds like so long as a DA can convince a jury there's a chance you did something, they'll convict you, with the addendum than unless physically impossible ie Time Travel, there is always a chance you did something?

And this is why we generally only give licenses to practice law to people who went to law school. The legal system deems you either guilty of wrong-doing beyond reasonable doubt, or they decide that there is enough reasonable doubt that it would be unjust to convict. On the surface that sounds like a semantic difference, but it's actually a crucial distinction.

Which is not to say that it doesn't fail a lot *cough*druglaws*cough*. Rather, the point of court defense is to demonstrate reasonable doubt as opposed to proving a negative. What constitutes reasonable doubt is heavily dependent not just on the evidence presented in court, but also the context of that evidence, the history of the accused, and many other factors.

BeetleManiac:

Silentpony:
So wait, how do you ever prove someone is innocent? It sounds like so long as a DA can convince a jury there's a chance you did something, they'll convict you, with the addendum than unless physically impossible ie Time Travel, there is always a chance you did something?

And this is why we generally only give licenses to practice law to people who went to law school. The legal system deems you either guilty of wrong-doing beyond reasonable doubt, or they decide that there is enough reasonable doubt that it would be unjust to convict. On the surface that sounds like a semantic difference, but it's actually a crucial distinction.

Which is not to say that it doesn't fail a lot *cough*druglaws*cough*. Rather, the point of court defense is to demonstrate reasonable doubt as opposed to proving a negative. What constitutes reasonable doubt is heavily dependent not just on the evidence presented in court, but also the context of that evidence, the history of the accused, and many other factors.

Okay so help me with reasonable doubt, because I'm struggling as to when its applied, for lack of a better term. I'm assuming it means there is enough evidence to doubt that a crime took place. Fair enough.

But can you convict someone without evidence, only by showing there is no reasonable doubt? As in 'no reason to think they didn't do it' without any evidence that they did?

Silentpony:
Okay so help me with reasonable doubt, because I'm struggling as to when its applied, for lack of a better term. I'm assuming it means there is enough evidence to doubt that a crime took place. Fair enough.

More accurately, reasonable doubt means that the evidence is not conclusive enough. Paul Manafort is sweating right now because Mueller's indictment has a buttload of documented evidence for his financial crimes, which makes the case rather difficult to dispute.

But can you convict someone without evidence, only by showing there is no reasonable doubt? As in 'no reason to think they didn't do it' without any evidence that they did?

That's not how it works. The burden of creating reasonable doubt lies with the defense. The plaintiff has the burden of proof for their claims against the accused. The judge is to act as a reasonable skeptic to both in order to see that the claims and testimonies of either party hold up. The accused is presumed innocent of wrong-doing so that the trial can actually take place. If however you say or do something in the context of the case that makes the judge question your honesty, that it doesn't matter if you are defendant or plaintiff, he still has a responsibility to investigate as part of the process.

EDIT: As another indication that Moore is probably guilty, his story keeps changing.

Silentpony:

EternallyBored:
SNIP

So wait, how do you ever prove someone is innocent? It sounds like so long as a DA can convince a jury there's a chance you did something, they'll convict you, with the addendum than unless physically impossible ie Time Travel, there is always a chance you did something?

In court, you aren't proving innocence, there's a reason the court doesn't declare you innocent, they declare you not guilty, basically the court only admits they don't have enough to convict you, not that you are suddenly innocent. A defense's job is to create enough doubt in the jury or judge to decide not guilty.

Innocent until guilty is a concept that guides how we conduct investigation and court procedures, largely the idea that the prosecution is tasked with trying to convince the jury that the defendant is guilty rather than the defendant pleading their innocence while the jury operates under the assumption that they are already guilty.

as for the second half, Indictment is not conviction, a good DA can probably get an indictment from even the flimsiest evidence, especially if the DA has a pet cause like the war on drugs or an anti-gang agenda. However conviction is much harder. In this case specifically, a DA could almost certainly acquire an indictment against Mr. Moore if they tried, a conviction would be a different matter entirely.

As for convincing a jury, yeah, that is pretty much it, if you can convince the jury then they get final decision, you can appeal if you can make a case that the ruling was unjust or contradicts previous rulings by taking it to a higher court, but that can take years and you need to build a solid case for it.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here