But now both are flipped to show the opposite.
Basically trawling all of Alabama for people who would slob anti-Moore stuff all over the place. Not exactly what one expects from "investigative reporting", and indeed WaPo once had to give up a Pulitzer because of outright fabrication.
Corfman’s mother, Wells, said reporters for the Washington Post convinced her daughter to give them an interview.
“She did not go to them,” said Wells. “They called her.”
“They tried to convince her to do it?” this reporter asked.
“Yes,” replied Wells, matter-of-factly.
Wells was asked about Corfman’s motivations for going public. “It wasn’t done for politics, you know,” Wells replied. “It was done for personal reasons. And it wouldn’t have been done if the reporters hadn’t contacted my daughter.”
Asked about the timing of ThePost interview and why 38 years after the alleged incident her daughter decided to speak out weeks before the election, Wells replied: “She was contacted by the reporter. That’s why.”
Here's the second leg, crumbled too:
After her mother went into the courtroom, Corfman says, Moore asked her where she went to school, what she liked to do and whether he could call her sometime. She remembers giving him her number and says he called not long after. She says she talked to Moore on her phone in her bedroom, and they made plans for him to pick her up at Alcott Road and Riley Street, around the corner from her house.
Wells, Corfman’s mother: “Back then did she have her own phone in her room or something?”
“No,” she replied matter-of-factly. “But the phone in the house could get through to her easily.”
On the face of it, Moore’s detractors may purport the location of Corfman’s phone matters little, but the Post story relies heavily on Corfman’s memory and her ability to recount events consistently.
If Corfman cannot accurately recall if Moore called a phone in her room, what else was falsely claimed?