Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bob Pickle]

If you write him, he probably will send you a reply.

In the past he has told folks not to post things, but feel free to pass the info along.

[Jodi]

Tinka, I never said I know all. 

I don't think I worded my last post very well, though ~ ....let me clarify.  I believe the DNA test did not prove that Danny was the father of the child presented (and Danny - in my opinion -  manipulated that test to show that very result);  however, consider that the test also did NOT PROVE THAT BRANDY WAS THE MOTHER!!  Interesting, indeed. 

Here's a possible scenario:  If the child presented was a niece to Brandy, then of course, Danny wouldn't be the father and Brandy couldn't be the mother.  Of course, Danny could then say he complied with the DNA test to prove to the world he wasn't the father of Brandy's "child" and brag that he had complied with the request to be tested.  Just so like him to do that. 

 

[tinka]

Tinka, I never said I know all. 

I don't think I worded my last post very well, though ~ ....let me clarify.  I believe the DNA test did not prove that Danny was the father of the child presented (and Danny - in my opinion -  manipulated that test to show that very result);  however, consider that the test also did NOT PROVE THAT BRANDY WAS THE MOTHER!!  Interesting, indeed. 

Here's a possible scenario:  If the child presented was a niece to Brandy, then of course, Danny wouldn't be the father and Brandy couldn't be the mother.  Of course, Danny could then say he complied with the DNA test to prove to the world he wasn't the father of Brandy's "child" and brag that he had complied with the request to be tested.  Just so like him to do that. 

 

Jodie, Thank you so much for clearifying. It seemed you were stating that you knew for sure the Results were neg for sure because you knew behing the scenes differently. At that point it threw a turn of SPECULATION of just who's it might be. But thanks again for answering and clarifying. It is my opinion that he really outsmarted Dr. Day. But then a person of honesty does not think of the things a corrupted person has the great ability of doing. They are always trying to cover their tracks. They are used to it and it comes very easy for them.

[Bob Pickle]

...  however, consider that the test also did NOT PROVE THAT BRANDY WAS THE MOTHER!!

Jodi, I've been under the impression that the test showed that Brandy was most likely the mother. Did I read the test results incorrectly?

[Jodi]

Nowhere do I find, in the test results, that it proved that Brandy was the mother.  The fact that DS didn't allow the child to stand (Danny held her on his lap), it was difficult for Dr. Day to assess the height and size of the child.  It appeared to her that the size of the child's legs were that of about a 6 year old, not an eight year old that Brandy's child is.  The child presented was not allowed to be seen nor photographed for identification.  Why all the secrecy on DS's part?  ~ unless there was something to hide!  The child was required to remain laying down in the back seat of his pickup (for 30 minutes!), covered up at all times, and DS took her out only for the collection of her mouth swab - head covered.  I do not believe that the child presented was indeed, Brandy's birth child. 

[princessdi]

You all will have to forgive me, but am I understanding that you all are upset that Danny shielded or protected the child during the test?  I mean I am thinking that it was bad enough to submit the child to your requests.(You all do realize that this was actually none of your business.  This is s a most brazen case of invasion of privacy.  Who of you would consent to do this to your daughter, granddaughter, neice, etc.?  You had no right to even make the request.  You know, "he is that without sin....")

Also, I agree with Bob.  From what I see with paternity tests, they are kind of like birth control pills, they will never give you a 100% result  It is generally something like 99.9%, etc.  They allow for that usually less than 1%. 

[childoftheking]

If I am not mistaken, it was Danny himself who suggested doing a DNA test. Not the group here. If you will read the correspondence between him and Dr Day, he was the instigator and she took him up on it (whether he was serious in the first place or not we do not know-maybe he shot his mouth off and didn't think she would call his bluff). But I don't know of anyone here who called for a test, surely not the majority. I didn't think he was the father before that and I think Dr Day did more harm than good. The signature that was supposed to be Brandy's looks more like his to me than hers. And if I was Brandy I would be furious with him for forcing her into it.

Frankly if this behavior of his was supposed to be protecting the child I wouldn't want him protecting any of mine. And with such strange behavior as he exhibits, I am usually more suspicious of why he is acting so strange than I have been of anyone's guesswork about what he might have done.

[GrandmaNettie]

Nowhere do I find, in the test results, that it proved that Brandy was the mother.  The fact that DS didn't allow the child to stand (Danny held her on his lap), it was difficult for Dr. Day to assess the height and size of the child.  It appeared to her that the size of the child's legs were that of about a 6 year old, not an eight year old that Brandy's child is.  The child presented was not allowed to be seen nor photographed for identification.  Why all the secrecy on DS's part?  ~ unless there was something to hide!  The child was required to remain laying down in the back seat of his pickup (for 30 minutes!), covered up at all times, and DS took her out only for the collection of her mouth swab - head covered.  I do not believe that the child presented was indeed, Brandy's birth child. 

Jodi, perhaps you weren't around when the results from the DNA lab were posted on Page 29 of the Paternity test thread.

(Note: This particular thread was moved to "3ABN Other", a semi-private area of Advent talk to protect the child involved and can only be accessed by members who are signed in.)

There, member Nosir Myzing attached a picture of the lab results of the specimens collected and submitted by Dr. Lorraine Day and tested by Genetic Profiles Corporation, located in San Diego, CA.

The Director of Parentage Testing, Thomas Gilroy, Ph.D, states:

“The item submitted as a specimen from 15735 MO cannot be excluded as the mother of the item submitted as specimen from 15735 CH.  The combined maternity index (genetic odds In favor of maternity) is 1,832,372. The relative chance of paternity, assuming a prior chance of 50%, is 99.99%.”

Please also note that Thomas Gilroy, Ph.D, the Director of Parentage Testing, also states:

“(1)The collection of specimens, for the performance of the genetic testing and analysis that forms the basis for this report, was  not in compliance with the laboratories’ established sample collection guidelines.  Thus, the results of this report cannot be considered a legally admissible genetic test for use in a court of law.  The tested parties explicitly understand that the result from this test is only for personal knowledge.”

The adults involved in this knew that the samples they were collecting in that Southern Illinois parking lot on their own were for personal knowledge only.  In order to rise to the standard of being considered a legally admissable genetic test for use in a court of law, the test would need to have been conducted in an authorized lab by a qualified technician with all of the required documentation.

[princessdi]

The test was done ina parking lot? Please tell me I misunderstood.........

[childoftheking]

That location was Danny's choice.

[Bob Pickle]

The Director of Parentage Testing, Thomas Gilroy, Ph.D, states:

“The item submitted as a specimen from 15735 MO cannot be excluded as the mother of the item submitted as specimen from 15735 CH.  The combined maternity index (genetic odds In favor of maternity) is 1,832,372. The relative chance of paternity, assuming a prior chance of 50%, is 99.99%.”

I wonder if Danny will sue Dr. Gilroy for saying that the chance of paternity is 99.9%, if 3ABN foots the bill.

By the way, where did the surmising Nosir Myzing get that report from? Anyone know?

[princessdi]

You know these folks are really strange!

That location was Danny's choice.

[childoftheking]

That's what I'm sayin.

[childoftheking]

I re-read Dr Day's statements and though she said it was Danny who brought up the question of paternity, she said she then asked if he would be willing to have a DNA test to prove it. So I was wrong, It was She who asked if he would do a test. On the other hand though Dr Day asked, I believe that she was acting alone. As I said, I for one wasn't even aware of the possibility of testing until Dr Day revealed that she and Danny were negotiating doing a test. I don't think most of us were aware of it.

[Bob Pickle]

I think it was supposed to be a school parking lot, but then got changed by Danny et. al. to a post office parking lot, I think in Benton.

You know these folks are really strange!

That location was Danny's choice.