Eliza Presley's DNA evidence no Legal Evidence?
I ask you to take the time and thoroughly read this post, although it’s a long one. I’m sorry for that, but this is the only correct way I can present my findings.
This post is not to ridicule anyone, nor to present non-evidence based objections, this post is based on evidence. I do not intend to offense nor hurt anyone with this post. My post is expressing my opinion, based on logical reasoning and thorough investigation.
The index of this website clearly states that people are invited here to forensically examine the obviously strange and discordant events of June 25 2009 and beyond. As of June 16 2010 Elvis Presley and Eliza Presley’s court case became part of this forensic examination due to the thread “TIai update #6: Michael & Elvis, DOuble-bam This Summer?!?” by TS.
In forensic examination there’s no place for emotions. Fact is that in official forensic examinations investigators are taken off a case when they start getting emotionally involved. In official forensic examinations no stone is unturned, also not when this part of the forensic examination could offend or hurt the people who are involved in this part of the investigation.
TS has always urged us to think for ourselves and unbiasedly assess evidence based upon the evidence itself—and not on who the evidence came from, or who we think it came from. That automatically also means to examine the presented evidence, based upon the evidence itself—and not on who the evidence came from, or who we think it came from.
This post is however not about TS, this post is about Eliza Presley’s court case.
In one of my posts about Eliza’s court case in the thread “Linda Hood Sigmund's website update” at <!-- l -->viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15574&start=0<!-- l --> I wrote these paragraphs:
I decided to investigate the scenario I described in the last paragraph a bit more. My investigation is purely based upon the facts Andrew Mayoras provides us with in his blogs which are, according to Mayoras, based on Eliza Presley’s story as he writes: “Eliza Presley shared her DNA evidence with me, as well as the story about how she got it”.
First of all, I reread the article Mayoras links to titled “Estate of Elvis' dad reopened for woman claiming she's his daughter” at <!-- m -->http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/20 ... aim-shes-/<!-- m -->
Nowhere in this article does it say that the DNA test results were submitted, accepted and used as evidence to have Vernon Presley’s estate re-opened. The article mentions Eliza testified she has DNA proof, she said she obtained Elvis Presley's DNA from an envelope, and that he [Jesse] thinks he's Elvis Presley. She said that DNA, along with samples from a Presley cousin, showed she is not the daughter of Elvis, as she initially thought, but of Vernon. Nowhere in this article does it say she already proved by the submitted DNA evidence that Vernon Presley is her father.
The “Order Reopening Estate”, which I downloaded from the website of the Probate Court of Shelby County Tennessee, confirms this. Here’s a link to that order:
<!-- m -->http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/ ... estate.pdf<!-- m -->
The “Order Reopening Estate” reads:
As far as I was able to research, in case of a Petition for Paternity involving an alleged deceased father of which the estate is closed, the estate has to be re-opened so that its interests (and the interests of his heirs) can be represented. The court can not leave his estate unopened and unrepresented. Had the judge not re-opened Vernon’s estate, then no one would have been given the opportunity to appear, answer, raise appropriate defences, challenge the validity of the submitted DNA test results, and no one would have been given the opportunity to challenge the paternity judgment on Vernon’s behalf. Had Vernon’s estate not been re-opened, a final ruling in Eliza’s Paternity case would have easily been declared void due to a failure to join necessary parties (Vernon’s heirs).
Again, the “Order Reopening Estate” confirms this:
Mayoras states on his blog regarding re-opening Vernon’s estate: “That alone was a big accomplishment, because no Presley Estate had ever been reopened”. Well, many people had tried to sue Elvis Presley Enterprises over the years, usually a self proclaimed love child of Elvis, but this was the first time that someone had claimed being Elvis' half sister. Since there’s no reason at all to re-open Vernon’s estate for a self proclaimed love child of Elvis, and no one had ever before claimed to be a child of Vernon, there had never been a reason at all to re-open Vernon’s estate. Eliza’s claim, alleging that she is a Pretermitted Heir of Vernon E. Presley, was the first claim an alleged child of Vernon filed.
According to Mayoras Eliza refiled the paternity case on August 14, 2009. That indicates she initially filed a paternity case in 2008, but she filed in probate court and that was the wrong court because heirship will not be decided by a probate court. According to the “Order Reopening Estate”, the Probate Court re-opened that estate (based on upon the sworn Petition of Eliza A. Presley, a nonresident of Shelby County, Tennessee, to Reopen the Estate of Vernon E. Presley) to issue proper process upon the surviving heirs of Vernon E. Presley, and not based on the evidence Eliza provided as Mayoras makes it look like. Probate court can’t rule on paternity and heirship, so there was no reason for probate court to thoroughly examine her complaint and the submitted evidence. Petitioning to Re-open an Estate and Petitioning for Paternity and Heirship are two totally different things.
Summary: In my opinion Mayoras sensationalizes the re-opening of Vernon’s estate on his blogs, but according to the law this was a normal, legal procedure. Vernon’s estate was re-opened to establish a correct court case for the surviving heirs of Vernon E. Presley for when Eliza was filing a Petition for Paternity.
On his blogs Mayoras describes how Eliza got possession of the DNA samples of Jesse Presley, Donna Presley and Brenda Smith.
According to Mayoras all DNA samples were analyzed by Paleo-DNA Laboratory in Ontario, Canada. According to Mayoras it’s the only lab to have issued reports about all the various samples. When Eliza Presley filed her Complaint to Determine Parentage and Heirship in the Shelby County, TN Chancery Court on 08/14/2009 she submitted the DNA test results as evidence to support her request to be declared the daughter of Vernon Elvis Presley and the half-sister of Elvis A. Presley.
Now right here a problem kicks in. This way of submitting DNA samples does not assure anyone of the identity of the individuals who say they were tested. The main difference between Eliza’s submitted test results and legal test results is that there is no Chain of Custody in Eliza’s tests.
Chain of Custody refers to the chronological documentation or paper trail, showing the seizure, custody, control, transfer, analysis, and disposition of evidence. The Chain of Custody requires that from the moment the evidence is collected, every transfer of evidence from person to person be documented and that it be provable that nobody else could have accessed that evidence.
A Chain of Custody is a legal documentation process that proves:
The way Eliza obtained the DNA samples is totally lacking Chain of Custody legal documentation process.
Since Eliza had been required to sign a non-disclosure agreement with FOX 8 News about Jesse's DNA sample from 2002 she could not use this sample, and therefore she needed Jesse to lick-seal the pink envelop. I seriously doubt a Chain of Custody test was done in 2002 as the Fox8 video from 2008, narrated by Suzanne Stratford, clearly states at 2.45:
[youtube:1j8p8w2t]
Eliza could, due to the non-disclosure agreement with FOX 8 News, only use the test results from the lick-sealed envelop that was mailed to her which wasn’t obtained by Chain of Custody.
Chain of Custody is required for the DNA test results to be legally defensible (accepted by courts and other government agencies). DNA test results without Chain of Custody have minimal legal standing because it is generally impossible to independently verify the identity of the individuals who have been tested. Only a DNA parentage test that follows strict chain of custody can generate legally admissible results that are used in a court of law.
I have visited a large number of websites of DNA testing laboratory in the United States and found this information listed on all of these websites. I sent some of them the following email describing a situation similar to Eliza’s except in “my case” my alleged half brother has collected the items containing DNA and shipped them to me:
I received the following answers:
From DNA Identifiers at <!-- m -->http://www.dna-testing-paternity.com/<!-- m -->:
From Genesys at <!-- m -->http://www.paternity-answers.com/<!-- m -->:
From Universal Genetics at <!-- m -->http://www.dnatestingforpaternity.com/<!-- m -->:
I even emailed Paleo-DNA Laboratory in Ontario, Canada, the laboratory that analyzed Eliza’s samples, and received the following answer:
I then decided to verify this information with a lawyer in Tennessee who specializes in paternity cases. Here’s the email I sent this lawyer (I have removed the name of the lawyer in order to avoid him being harassed by email to get my personal info, as I have emailed him from my personal email address):
His reply to me was:
I then sent him another email, to make sure we’re talking about the same type of Petition for Paternity:
He replied:
In my emails to this lawyer I referred to Eliza Presley’s case as a Petition for Paternity, as this is how it’s listed on the website of the Shelby County, TN Chancery Court:
So what does this mean? It simply means that the DNA test results Eliza Presley submitted as evidence to prove parentage, which are lacking the Chain of Custody legal documentation process, are not admissible in court.
I know that the first question people would ask now is: Why hasn’t the judge thrown out her case, since it was filed on August 14, 2009 already? As of the date Eliza filed this complaint, Lisa Marie Presley and all other surviving or unknown heirs of Vernon Presley were given 12 months time to object to her complaint. Until someone files an objection within these 12 months, there’s no reason for a court to pay attention to the content of the petition nor to the submitted evidence. As far as I was able to research it, that won’t happen until:
In this case a Motion for Default Judgment was filed by the plaintiff, and the judge was scheduled to rule on the Motion by September 10, 2010 because the defendants were given 30 days to object to this motion. Before ruling on the motion, the judge would start examining the petition. It never came to a ruling around September 10, as on August 16, 2010 attorney William R. Bradley (who represents Elvis Presley Enterprises and Lisa Marie Presley-Lockwood) filed a Motion for Summary Judgement.
According to Andrew Mayoras attorney William R. Bradley filed a 20-pages motion, asking the judge to dismiss Eliza's lawsuit on legal grounds, such as the "statute of limitations" (meaning that too many years have passed, he argued, since Vernon died) as well as that Eliza was adopted by another family (he argued the adoption means she can't become a legal heir of Vernon).
Mayoras provides us with a PDF file of the Motion for stay on Motion for Summary Judgment Eliza’s attorney Kathleen L Caldwell filed on Eliza’s behalf, he published a PDF files of the letter attorney Kathleen L Caldwell sent to William R. Bradley, but does not provide us with a PDF file of William R. Bradley’s motion.
In his latest blog Mayoras writes:
I don’t know why Mayoras doesn’t provide us with PDF files of the letters between William R. Bradley and himself nor with a PDF file of William R. Bradley’s motion, since he is already telling us what according to him is written in it, but I’m not going to speculate about why we are not provided with this motion because I simply don’t know the answer.
On 10/27/2010 a Scheduling Conference was set for November 30, but that Scheduling Conference was reset to December 14 on 11/10/2010.
Before the conference takes place, the judge studies each file in advance and gets acquainted with the case for each side. Since the DNA test results Eliza Presley submitted as evidence to prove parentage are not admissible in court, the judge can’t rule on her Petition for Paternity based on her DNA evidence. The judge comes to this conclusion by studying the case himself and I’m quite positive that in case he doesn’t notice this, attorney William R. Bradley will point out to the inadmissible evidence. Therefore, according to the law, Eliza’s case should be dismissed.
The inadmissible DNA evidence would explain why Lisa Marie Presley never bothered to send in a DNA sample so that it could be tested against anyone claiming to be related to Elvis. Why would she do that while she most likely already knew the DNA evidence Eliza submitted is per definition inadmissible?
I can not imagine that neither both Eliza’s attorneys Glenwoon P. Roane (who filed the original complaint on behalf of Eliza) and Kathleen L Caldwell (Eliza’s current attorney), Eliza Presley herself and probate lawyer Andrew Mayoras did not know in advance that Eliza’s submitted DNA evidence, lacking Chain of Custody which is required when filing a Petition for Paternity in a Tennessee court of law, would be inadmissible.
The choice of words by Maroyas in his latest blog post is certainly interesting:
When statutory rules are adhered and this case will be dismissed, the only thing Eliza might be able to do is obtain Chain of Custody DNA test results and file a new Petition for Paternity. In that case Jesse Presley, Donna Presley and Brenda Smith will have to submit new DNA according to the legal documentation process including being positively identified (i.e. they present a government-issued ID and are photographed and fingerprinted for records).
Immediately these questions arise: If Jesse Presley is, to this very day, still alive, can he show a valid, legit government-issued ID, is he willing to officially identify himself, does he wants to be photographed and is he willing to have his fingerprints taken when Eliza asks him for a Chain of Custody DNA test?
If, and I say IF, the judge rules in Eliza’s favour based on the inadmissible DNA test results, then it’s still not case closed. Since Vernon Presley's estate was re-opened, Lisa Marie Presley can challenge the final paternity judgment.
If, and I say IF, it turns out that the DNA evidence submitted in court to prove parentage IS Chain of Custody DNA evidence after all, then Eliza Presley and Andrew Mayoras have been lying to everybody about how the DNA evidence was obtained and submitted in court as evidence for years.
One way or the other – someone is hiding the truth.
This post is not to ridicule anyone, nor to present non-evidence based objections, this post is based on evidence. I do not intend to offense nor hurt anyone with this post. My post is expressing my opinion, based on logical reasoning and thorough investigation.
The index of this website clearly states that people are invited here to forensically examine the obviously strange and discordant events of June 25 2009 and beyond. As of June 16 2010 Elvis Presley and Eliza Presley’s court case became part of this forensic examination due to the thread “TIai update #6: Michael & Elvis, DOuble-bam This Summer?!?” by TS.
In forensic examination there’s no place for emotions. Fact is that in official forensic examinations investigators are taken off a case when they start getting emotionally involved. In official forensic examinations no stone is unturned, also not when this part of the forensic examination could offend or hurt the people who are involved in this part of the investigation.
TS has always urged us to think for ourselves and unbiasedly assess evidence based upon the evidence itself—and not on who the evidence came from, or who we think it came from. That automatically also means to examine the presented evidence, based upon the evidence itself—and not on who the evidence came from, or who we think it came from.
This post is however not about TS, this post is about Eliza Presley’s court case.
In one of my posts about Eliza’s court case in the thread “Linda Hood Sigmund's website update” at <!-- l -->viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15574&start=0<!-- l --> I wrote these paragraphs:
Second - I don't think a court ruling in Eliza's favor regarding her Complaint to Determine Parentage and Heirship will automatically bring trouble to the Elvis Presley Estate. Someone will have to start a lawsuit against the Elvis Presley Estate and file the Eliza Presley court ruling as evidence. As you said the Elvis Presley Estate still earns around $50 million a year, and there's no way they will give up on that just like that, they will fight that suit in every way they can.
Highly plausible scenario: They will demand a new DNA swap from Jesse. The last one was taken in 2008, they can say he could have passed away in the meanwhile. Do you think the Elvis Presley Estate would accept DNA on an envelop, sent in by mail? I don't think so... They would demand a swap being taken from Jesse by an expert, and they will probably demand that witnesses from the Estate be present when that happens.
I decided to investigate the scenario I described in the last paragraph a bit more. My investigation is purely based upon the facts Andrew Mayoras provides us with in his blogs which are, according to Mayoras, based on Eliza Presley’s story as he writes: “Eliza Presley shared her DNA evidence with me, as well as the story about how she got it”.
First of all, I reread the article Mayoras links to titled “Estate of Elvis' dad reopened for woman claiming she's his daughter” at <!-- m -->http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/20 ... aim-shes-/<!-- m -->
Nowhere in this article does it say that the DNA test results were submitted, accepted and used as evidence to have Vernon Presley’s estate re-opened. The article mentions Eliza testified she has DNA proof, she said she obtained Elvis Presley's DNA from an envelope, and that he [Jesse] thinks he's Elvis Presley. She said that DNA, along with samples from a Presley cousin, showed she is not the daughter of Elvis, as she initially thought, but of Vernon. Nowhere in this article does it say she already proved by the submitted DNA evidence that Vernon Presley is her father.
The “Order Reopening Estate”, which I downloaded from the website of the Probate Court of Shelby County Tennessee, confirms this. Here’s a link to that order:
<!-- m -->http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/ ... estate.pdf<!-- m -->
The “Order Reopening Estate” reads:
“This cause came to be heard on October 8, 2008 upon the sworn Petition of Eliza A. Presley, a nonresident of Shelby County, Tennessee, to Reopen the Estate of Vernon E. Presley, who died a legal resident of Shelby County, Tennessee, to determine Heirship, and to Redistribute the Net Estate, from all of which it appears:”
“4. Eliza A. Presley alleges that she is a Pretermitted Heir of Vernon E. Presley.”
As far as I was able to research, in case of a Petition for Paternity involving an alleged deceased father of which the estate is closed, the estate has to be re-opened so that its interests (and the interests of his heirs) can be represented. The court can not leave his estate unopened and unrepresented. Had the judge not re-opened Vernon’s estate, then no one would have been given the opportunity to appear, answer, raise appropriate defences, challenge the validity of the submitted DNA test results, and no one would have been given the opportunity to challenge the paternity judgment on Vernon’s behalf. Had Vernon’s estate not been re-opened, a final ruling in Eliza’s Paternity case would have easily been declared void due to a failure to join necessary parties (Vernon’s heirs).
Again, the “Order Reopening Estate” confirms this:
“A. That proper process be issued upon the surviving heirs of Vernon E. Presley; the Clerk is hereby directed to cause Summons to be issued and serve upon all known heirs of Vernon E. Presley.”
Mayoras states on his blog regarding re-opening Vernon’s estate: “That alone was a big accomplishment, because no Presley Estate had ever been reopened”. Well, many people had tried to sue Elvis Presley Enterprises over the years, usually a self proclaimed love child of Elvis, but this was the first time that someone had claimed being Elvis' half sister. Since there’s no reason at all to re-open Vernon’s estate for a self proclaimed love child of Elvis, and no one had ever before claimed to be a child of Vernon, there had never been a reason at all to re-open Vernon’s estate. Eliza’s claim, alleging that she is a Pretermitted Heir of Vernon E. Presley, was the first claim an alleged child of Vernon filed.
According to Mayoras Eliza refiled the paternity case on August 14, 2009. That indicates she initially filed a paternity case in 2008, but she filed in probate court and that was the wrong court because heirship will not be decided by a probate court. According to the “Order Reopening Estate”, the Probate Court re-opened that estate (based on upon the sworn Petition of Eliza A. Presley, a nonresident of Shelby County, Tennessee, to Reopen the Estate of Vernon E. Presley) to issue proper process upon the surviving heirs of Vernon E. Presley, and not based on the evidence Eliza provided as Mayoras makes it look like. Probate court can’t rule on paternity and heirship, so there was no reason for probate court to thoroughly examine her complaint and the submitted evidence. Petitioning to Re-open an Estate and Petitioning for Paternity and Heirship are two totally different things.
Summary: In my opinion Mayoras sensationalizes the re-opening of Vernon’s estate on his blogs, but according to the law this was a normal, legal procedure. Vernon’s estate was re-opened to establish a correct court case for the surviving heirs of Vernon E. Presley for when Eliza was filing a Petition for Paternity.
On his blogs Mayoras describes how Eliza got possession of the DNA samples of Jesse Presley, Donna Presley and Brenda Smith.
-
[li]Suzanne Stratford reported she was contacted by Jesse. In 2002 Stratford asked for, and received, a cheek swab DNA sample of Jesse. In 2008 Eliza received a pink envelop which was lick-sealed by the same person that had submitted the cheek swab DNA sample back in 2002. [/li]
[li]Donna Presley sent Eliza's children a sealed envelope with strands of her hair in it. [/li]
[li]Brenda Smith’s DNA was taken from cigarette butts. Lois Smith Black, Elvis' maternal aunt (related through marriage) took these cigarette butts from the ashtray her daughter had been using one night and sent them to Eliza.[/li]
According to Mayoras all DNA samples were analyzed by Paleo-DNA Laboratory in Ontario, Canada. According to Mayoras it’s the only lab to have issued reports about all the various samples. When Eliza Presley filed her Complaint to Determine Parentage and Heirship in the Shelby County, TN Chancery Court on 08/14/2009 she submitted the DNA test results as evidence to support her request to be declared the daughter of Vernon Elvis Presley and the half-sister of Elvis A. Presley.
Now right here a problem kicks in. This way of submitting DNA samples does not assure anyone of the identity of the individuals who say they were tested. The main difference between Eliza’s submitted test results and legal test results is that there is no Chain of Custody in Eliza’s tests.
Chain of Custody refers to the chronological documentation or paper trail, showing the seizure, custody, control, transfer, analysis, and disposition of evidence. The Chain of Custody requires that from the moment the evidence is collected, every transfer of evidence from person to person be documented and that it be provable that nobody else could have accessed that evidence.
A Chain of Custody is a legal documentation process that proves:
-
[li]Samples are collected by a neutral third party, such as a clinic or laboratory[/li]
[li]The individuals tested are positively identified (i.e. They presented a government-issued ID and are photographed and fingerprinted for records.).[/li]
[li]The samples are carefully tracked throughout the process.[/li]
[li]The tested parties sign a
The way Eliza obtained the DNA samples is totally lacking Chain of Custody legal documentation process.
Since Eliza had been required to sign a non-disclosure agreement with FOX 8 News about Jesse's DNA sample from 2002 she could not use this sample, and therefore she needed Jesse to lick-seal the pink envelop. I seriously doubt a Chain of Custody test was done in 2002 as the Fox8 video from 2008, narrated by Suzanne Stratford, clearly states at 2.45:
“Jesse, doctor Hinton’s patient, sent us his DNA, which we tested against several items, certified as The King’s, including blood stained jeans.”
[youtube:1j8p8w2t]
Eliza could, due to the non-disclosure agreement with FOX 8 News, only use the test results from the lick-sealed envelop that was mailed to her which wasn’t obtained by Chain of Custody.
Chain of Custody is required for the DNA test results to be legally defensible (accepted by courts and other government agencies). DNA test results without Chain of Custody have minimal legal standing because it is generally impossible to independently verify the identity of the individuals who have been tested. Only a DNA parentage test that follows strict chain of custody can generate legally admissible results that are used in a court of law.
I have visited a large number of websites of DNA testing laboratory in the United States and found this information listed on all of these websites. I sent some of them the following email describing a situation similar to Eliza’s except in “my case” my alleged half brother has collected the items containing DNA and shipped them to me:
Dear sir, madam,
I'd like to get your expert advice on the following:
I'm currently living abroad, but I was born in the US and put up for adoption when I was a baby. Recently I may have found my biological family. It looks like I have a half brother, allegedly his father is my father as well. Unfortunately my alleged father is deceased...
My alleged half brother gathered items containing DNA from himself, a cousin on his maternal side and a cousin on his paternal side and shipped these items to me.
My question is: is your lab able to extract their DNA from these items (hair and items containing saliva), test it and compare it to my DNA?
If so, then my next question is: suppose the test results prove we are related, what would be the legal standing of these DNA test results after following the procedure I described above, and will I be able to submit these results as evidence when I file a petition for paternity in a Tennessee court of law?
I'd really appreciate it if you could answer my questions, and I'm looking forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
Monique
I received the following answers:
From DNA Identifiers at <!-- m -->http://www.dna-testing-paternity.com/<!-- m -->:
“Below is some information about Sibling DNA Testing. Unfortunately this test would not be a Legal test and could not be used for official reasons. In order to have a test that you could use for official/legal reasons we would need to have the DNA samples collected by a clinic or doctorr.”
From Genesys at <!-- m -->http://www.paternity-answers.com/<!-- m -->:
“These reports cannot be used in court as there is no chain of custody to back up where the samples came from.”
From Universal Genetics at <!-- m -->http://www.dnatestingforpaternity.com/<!-- m -->:
“In terms of the samples that you mentioned in your message that your half-brother has collected for himself and his cousins, if what you are looking to have in the end is a document that is valid for any type of legal procedure we would not recommend testing those samples.
The type of samples that you would be sending have not followed a proper chain of custody procedure, and therefore, we would be able to test them, but we would not use any names on the final report. That is, the final results would be completely anonymous since we cannot be certained whose samples you are providing.”
I even emailed Paleo-DNA Laboratory in Ontario, Canada, the laboratory that analyzed Eliza’s samples, and received the following answer:
“For any paternity test results you require for use in court, a Legal paternity test (one requiring chain of custody) will need to be done. Using the home test will raise too many questions and the results may be thrown out because the samples were not collected in a legal fashion.”
I then decided to verify this information with a lawyer in Tennessee who specializes in paternity cases. Here’s the email I sent this lawyer (I have removed the name of the lawyer in order to avoid him being harassed by email to get my personal info, as I have emailed him from my personal email address):
Dear Mr. […],
I'm sorry for taking up your time, but I can't find the answer I'm looking for on the internet despite extensive searching. Hopefully you are able and willing to answer my question.
My question is: is a chain of custody DNA test required when one files a Petition for Paternity in a Tennessee court of law and wants to submit DNA test results as evidence in order to prove parentage, or can one simply submit the test results of a home paternity DNA test as evidence?
I would really appreciate it if you could answer my question, and I'm looking forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
Mo
His reply to me was:
Yes, a chain of custody is required, which is why one cannot just submit a home DNA test. Another way to establish paternity is for both parents to swear in open court that they are certain that the man is the biological father.
I then sent him another email, to make sure we’re talking about the same type of Petition for Paternity:
Dear Mr. […],
Is a chain of custody also required when it's a paternity case in which the alleged father is deceased, but DNA test results of family members could be submitted as evidence in order to prove parentage?
Sincerely,
Mo
He replied:
Yes. The chain of custody assures the court of the identity of the individuals who say they were tested.
In my emails to this lawyer I referred to Eliza Presley’s case as a Petition for Paternity, as this is how it’s listed on the website of the Shelby County, TN Chancery Court:
So what does this mean? It simply means that the DNA test results Eliza Presley submitted as evidence to prove parentage, which are lacking the Chain of Custody legal documentation process, are not admissible in court.
I know that the first question people would ask now is: Why hasn’t the judge thrown out her case, since it was filed on August 14, 2009 already? As of the date Eliza filed this complaint, Lisa Marie Presley and all other surviving or unknown heirs of Vernon Presley were given 12 months time to object to her complaint. Until someone files an objection within these 12 months, there’s no reason for a court to pay attention to the content of the petition nor to the submitted evidence. As far as I was able to research it, that won’t happen until:
-
[li]An objection is filed,[/li]
[li]A Motion for Default Judgment is filed.[/li]
In this case a Motion for Default Judgment was filed by the plaintiff, and the judge was scheduled to rule on the Motion by September 10, 2010 because the defendants were given 30 days to object to this motion. Before ruling on the motion, the judge would start examining the petition. It never came to a ruling around September 10, as on August 16, 2010 attorney William R. Bradley (who represents Elvis Presley Enterprises and Lisa Marie Presley-Lockwood) filed a Motion for Summary Judgement.
According to Andrew Mayoras attorney William R. Bradley filed a 20-pages motion, asking the judge to dismiss Eliza's lawsuit on legal grounds, such as the "statute of limitations" (meaning that too many years have passed, he argued, since Vernon died) as well as that Eliza was adopted by another family (he argued the adoption means she can't become a legal heir of Vernon).
Mayoras provides us with a PDF file of the Motion for stay on Motion for Summary Judgment Eliza’s attorney Kathleen L Caldwell filed on Eliza’s behalf, he published a PDF files of the letter attorney Kathleen L Caldwell sent to William R. Bradley, but does not provide us with a PDF file of William R. Bradley’s motion.
In his latest blog Mayoras writes:
but he doesn’t provide us with PDF files of the letters."I also emailed him [William R. Bradley] directly and offered him for a chance to respond to the last article I wrote on this topic. He wrote me back and politely declined to do so, without explanation."
I don’t know why Mayoras doesn’t provide us with PDF files of the letters between William R. Bradley and himself nor with a PDF file of William R. Bradley’s motion, since he is already telling us what according to him is written in it, but I’m not going to speculate about why we are not provided with this motion because I simply don’t know the answer.
On 10/27/2010 a Scheduling Conference was set for November 30, but that Scheduling Conference was reset to December 14 on 11/10/2010.
Before the conference takes place, the judge studies each file in advance and gets acquainted with the case for each side. Since the DNA test results Eliza Presley submitted as evidence to prove parentage are not admissible in court, the judge can’t rule on her Petition for Paternity based on her DNA evidence. The judge comes to this conclusion by studying the case himself and I’m quite positive that in case he doesn’t notice this, attorney William R. Bradley will point out to the inadmissible evidence. Therefore, according to the law, Eliza’s case should be dismissed.
The inadmissible DNA evidence would explain why Lisa Marie Presley never bothered to send in a DNA sample so that it could be tested against anyone claiming to be related to Elvis. Why would she do that while she most likely already knew the DNA evidence Eliza submitted is per definition inadmissible?
I can not imagine that neither both Eliza’s attorneys Glenwoon P. Roane (who filed the original complaint on behalf of Eliza) and Kathleen L Caldwell (Eliza’s current attorney), Eliza Presley herself and probate lawyer Andrew Mayoras did not know in advance that Eliza’s submitted DNA evidence, lacking Chain of Custody which is required when filing a Petition for Paternity in a Tennessee court of law, would be inadmissible.
The choice of words by Maroyas in his latest blog post is certainly interesting:
They are trying to convince a judge to accept evidence and issue an order? In case admissible DNA evidence was submitted, then they wouldn’t have to try to convince a judge to accept that evidence.“Eliza Presley and her lawyer are trying to convince a judge to accept evidence and issue an order that would mean what the world believed to be fact, for more than 30 years, was actually fiction.”
When statutory rules are adhered and this case will be dismissed, the only thing Eliza might be able to do is obtain Chain of Custody DNA test results and file a new Petition for Paternity. In that case Jesse Presley, Donna Presley and Brenda Smith will have to submit new DNA according to the legal documentation process including being positively identified (i.e. they present a government-issued ID and are photographed and fingerprinted for records).
Immediately these questions arise: If Jesse Presley is, to this very day, still alive, can he show a valid, legit government-issued ID, is he willing to officially identify himself, does he wants to be photographed and is he willing to have his fingerprints taken when Eliza asks him for a Chain of Custody DNA test?
If, and I say IF, the judge rules in Eliza’s favour based on the inadmissible DNA test results, then it’s still not case closed. Since Vernon Presley's estate was re-opened, Lisa Marie Presley can challenge the final paternity judgment.
If, and I say IF, it turns out that the DNA evidence submitted in court to prove parentage IS Chain of Custody DNA evidence after all, then Eliza Presley and Andrew Mayoras have been lying to everybody about how the DNA evidence was obtained and submitted in court as evidence for years.
One way or the other – someone is hiding the truth.
Comments
Why Eliza is asking for money ( the donation button in her blog) if she probably knows that she will lose the case when the law will be applied and the evidences will be dismissed…? Try to convince?? I know that a lawyer tries to use every single tricks that he/she has in his/her pockets even 'to fool' the judge giving to the law his/her own interpretation, maybe a wrong one…. but a lawyer is more willing to help his/her client if behind the case he/she sees BIG bucks!
I always thought that those DNA proofs were taken and accepted within the law to proceed with a court meeting.
Back to point 0 again?
I second this.
Mo you have proven through investigation the concerns a number of us raised about the validity of the DNA evidence as described by A Mayoras and Eliza.
I have been wondering for a while whether MJ may be orchestrating the whole Linda/Eliza/Elvis/Mayoras story and if so with which intend?
-Revealing that Elvis did indeed hoax his Death whether the latter wants it or not.
-Adding an additional "twist" in the hoax production and getting us into a rabbit hole --- in a symbolic move to bury Elvis once more.
-Testing our capability in assessing information --- MO you passed the test!
The Eliza Presley court hearing being on the 14th December, on the same day the new album is due to be released is more than a mere coincidence IMO....
This is all puzzling!
With L.O.V.E
.... and what about if when the Eliza's lawyer asked when to reschedule it, Eliza pointed out the 14th December date...? After all, this is not an hearing... it's just a meeting...
BTW I don't think MJ is behind Eliza's court case..... probably she is just using MJ hoax and MJ fans, but this is just my opinion...
This is another option Puff! However what is the role of TS in all of this? I somehow cannot imagine TS being Hoaxed that easily and HE is the ONE who took us there!
With L.O.V.E
But I was wondering why Eliza is asking for donations?
I thought the American lawyer payment system, most of the time is on a No Cure No Pay base?
Specially in cases where there is a lot of money involved.
And I really think that this is such a case.
Its not only about Vernon being the father, Elvis is also mentioned.
Or am I missing something here?
Chappie
I knew it would be just a matter of time before the question “What is the role of TS in all of this?” would appear after posting this thread. In my opinion, there are two possible answers to this question.
Option 1:
No, he didn’t know, he believed Eliza’s evidence to be legal evidence, admissible in a court of law, like all of us did.
In my opinion TS is way too smart to be fooled, so I vote for option 2.
Option 2:
Yes he knew, but he was testing us to see if we would indeed be able to unbiasedly assess evidence based upon the evidence itself—and not on who the evidence came from, or who we think it came from.
In TIai update #6: Michael & Elvis, DOuble-bam This Summer?!? TS wrote these paragraphs regarding his identity:
In his post “Silencing the Critics, And $999 REwarD??? You bET”, posted September 9, he says:
All I did was assess the evidence based upon the evidence we were presented with, and after extensive research (based on the stories we have been provided with by Eliza Presley and Andrew Mayoras on how Eliza got possession of the DNA from Jesse, Donna & Brenda) and verifying my findings with several experts it turns out that the evidence on which Eliza’s court case is based is inadmissible.
I did however not question the authenticity of the DNA evidence itself and I won’t even go there, because I simply don’t know if it’s authentic or not. There’s no way any one of us will be able to find out about that until those DNA test results are no longer under seal, and only when they are no longer under seal we can actually assess and verify them.
IF IT TURNS OUT THIS INDEED WAS A TEST:
To the ones who will get angry with TS – Don’t blame TS. In fact, if it turns out that this was a test, then there’s no one to blame but yourself. You, like me, gullibly believed everything TS said in Update #6. Keep in mind that he simply summarized the already existing stories on the internet, he didn’t make this up himself.
Don’t point out fingers to TS, but look in the mirror and point towards the one you see in that mirror - the one who was gullible.
We were warned.
So, why did TS start talking about this case if it's not what it seems? Is that the point? For us to figure that out on our own? Or am I missing something?
God this is interesting... I had a feeling something was up after Linda said she didn't support the case.
This doesn't necessarily mean that the whole thing is a lie. Eliza could very well be telling the truth about knowing Jesse and about Vernon being her father. Perhaps she knows without having concrete "proof" but wants to get the proof. Maybe she knows of Jesse by some other means than what she said, but maybe he has not provided her the DNA yet but she knows thats her ticket. Or maybe she does have the DNA already and is trying to talk the judge into letting it be used as evidence.
And these are the days of our lives.... <!-- s
Wonder what happens next!
If I would have DNA prove that someone was my father.
That would be enough for me.
My search would be over.
But who am I.... <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
But then again.....I guess it's all about the Money....is it Honey?
Chappie
[youtube:vxyps4sa]
You know, that is a very good point that I never thought of before but should have! Because I just met my biological father earlier this year. We have not had a paternity test. My mother always knew who my dad was but I just never met him. For one thing, I look just like him, so a test really isn't needed. I also am not sure what legal rights (if any) I would have to his money? It never even crossed my mind because all I wanted was to meet him. Now, my case is a bit different though because my father is still alive and is not a celebrity. But you would think that just knowing who her dad is would be sufficient. Ahhh.... my head hurts!
Mo, I agree that this is not about whether to Blame TS or Not - my conscience is totally clear on this!
TS did not get HOAXED by Eliza... but is it possible that TS has got no involvement at all in staging any of it... really?...
IMO, TS either used existing characters and events to test us or TS (I mean MJ sorry!) is orchestrating the whole Linda/Eliza/Elvis/Mayoras story in order to either reveal that Elvis did indeed hoax his Death (whether the latter wants it or not) or to Add an additional "twist" in the hoax production and get us into a rabbit hole --- in a symbolic move to bury Elvis once more and teach us a lesson in the process.
With L.O.V.E
... but if this was the test then I lamentably failed ...
Well, if TS is orchestrating Eliza's case, he is involved also in the donation thing, while he KNOW that the evidences were inadmissible......So do you really think he allow Eliza to ask people money for her case?
I don't know if this is the test or Eliza fooled TS... I have to think more about that.... BUT I'm sure that TS or MJ are not behind her case....
I don't think Mike would accept the donation button....
But that is just my humble opinion.... <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
Chappie
I completely agree with you. I've thought the same thing since I first started reading about Eliza's claims and case. The minute she proves that she is a legal heir to Vernon (if it ever happens), she will likely go after the estate for Vernon's stake, since Vernon was a member of the estate prior to his death in 1980. Eliza will say that she is entitled to Vernon's portion (or at least half of it since the other half should really go to the other heir - Lisa).
I've never understood why she is so hell bent on proving that Vernon is her biological father (except for the money aspect of course). If he is her father, he clearly wanted nothing to do with her, hence her being put for adoption, so why else would she want to prove it so badly? I know 2 different people who were adopted as infants, and neither of them has any desire to find their biological parents, since the biological parents chose to give them up. I have been following this story because I'm intrigued that Elvis may still be alive, but I have thought since day one that Eliza's ultimate goal is to stake a claim for some of the estate's money since Vernon was a member of the estate.
However, I also agree that the DNA evidence shouldn't be admissible without the proper chain of custody, so I have doubts that this case will ever go anywhere. I think Eliza is just wasting her money.
I know, I keep thinking of that also. I am curious to see if Eliza will confront this issue. Will be interesting to see what she has to say.
We are not saying that Elvis is not alive and the Elvis/MJ parallels don't exist... Those stuffs are there... Eliza wants to prove that Elvis is alive and she got his DNA just to prove that she is his half-sister and Vernon's daughter.. We are not even saying that Eliza's evidences are not real.... Mo pointed out that those evidences are inadmisible in her court case for the lack of the chain of custody..... There is no money left in Vernon's estate.... the DNA evidences have already showed that she is his daughter... my question is WHY she wants so bad that verdict? I repeat... if she will win the case she will become Elvis heir as well.........
Let me quess.....there will be no reply.....
someone is suddenly dead?
Impossible would you think if you are already dead..... <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
No I don't think so that she will be Elvis heir as well....
Unless....
Lisa Marie is not the daughter we all think she is....
Well, if she will win the case, with the verdict in her pocket, she could try to get money from Elvis' estate... who knows..... <!-- s:arrow: -->:arrow:<!-- s:arrow: -->
They will need another DNA kitt....<!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->
Is LMP ready to take the plane back to the USA?
[youtube:2ziyd3ea]
According to the law in EU If your father recognized you lawfully in court, you will be his heir also. Civil registration will be needed and he declearing that he is your dad.
What I don´t understand is how people can apply in court not having the basic requirements for submitting an application.
If A-B and C is needed to proceed, neither A B or C can be missing.
I think that we are may be pointed to this case to see the lagoons in the legal system in USA?