Sure you're right! So we're all going with a paternity test and a maternity test are only one test now?
That is correct. There were two tests for two different labs, and each test took samples from all three individuals. There were no separate paternity and maternity tests.
Problem is, as you well know but wish to ignore in this discussion, that there is no proof presently that the child tested was the child that was supposed to be tested. And that is the question that is still not resolved.
I'm going with the DNA test was accurate and Mrs Shelton is the Mother.So if the wrong child was tested how many other children does Mrs Shelton have? Are they close in age? Which of her children do you think it was?
According to how I read the report Nosir Myzing posted from who knows where, she has a 19,999/20,000 chance of being the mother. That means she has a 1/20,000 of not being the mother.
I have no way presently to prove how many children she has. And I don't know the odds of a niece having the same test results.
Yet you spout your opinions anyway.. FYI She has 2 children the oldest is 16, and there is no way she would be mistaken for a 6 yr old by Dr Day, or take the place of the 8 yr old child who was tested. To the best of my knowledge there are no nieces, and she would not pass as their mother even if there were although you will no doubt keep trying to pretend that is a possibility.
I guess you also don't care or think it relevant that Dr Day payed for only a paternity test, and then after her and your silly excuses and arguments on the internet about not knowing who the child was, the Sheltons called and in order to clear up any confusion caused by your continuing libel requested that a Maternity test be done on the same samples so that the question could be resolved and put to rest for all the rational people? That of course explains the difference in dates on the mailed out lab results - at least it does for us.
And Pickle, EVERY U.S. court of law accepts 99.99% as proof of Paternity or Maternity. The one-one hundredth of a percent is a standard allowed for error. You are grasping at illogical and unreasonable straws to maintain your "wrong" stance, which is not unusual and imo is why you have lost most of your supporters and defenders even in your own little group.
Your double standards are revealed yet again by the fact that you posted:
Actually, according to what the surmising Nosir Myzing posted, the one lab said that paternity was 99.99% certain, which would make Danny the father of the child. A likely typo.
So if it had been about Danny he would have been the father, but since it was about Brandy, you say there is not proof she is the mother?
That is ABSURD and IDIOTIC, and yes that is my opinion and I am entitled to it whether it is edited or not.
I am done here with this topic, the fat lady sang long ago, you Fran, Tinka and Jodi and your little sock puppets can continue arguing and protesting and pretending your opinions and judgments are reality without me.
I'm sorry to have bothered your little world here with documents and facts, and that's the only apology you will get from me, but hey why don't you shout my entire name out one more time just for kicks as there might be at least one person out there who hasn't heard you and doesn't know it by now.
toodles...