The Paternity Test

[Daryl Fawcett]

I guess we will all need to read this report from Dr. Day regarding the Paternity Test and come to a conclusion based on that, however, as it was all supposed to have been video-taped, I would be interested in that being produced to, either back up the report, or to refute it, therefore, I think Dr. Day should be asked to produce the video to see if it is in line with what she wrote at her site.

[Cynthia]

I guess we will all need to read this report from Dr. Day regarding the Paternity Test and come to a conclusion based on that, however, as it was all supposed to have been video-taped, I would be interested in that being produced to, either back up the report, or to refute it, therefore, I think Dr. Day should be asked to produce the video to see if it is in line with what she wrote at her site.

What is there to back up or refute, Daryl? The video was only to document that everything was above board and that the dna samples weren't compromised or messed with from the time they were taken till they were sent to the lab. The test was arranged and administered twice and mailed to the lab by Dr Day, and Danny witnessed her do so. There is no disagreement about that So, let's wait for the results.

[Cynthia]

Did you read the latest on this over at Advent Talk?

If not, then I suggest you go there and read the latest.

It definitely doesn't help Danny Shelton's case!!! In fact it worsens it!!!

Not possible for the average joe to just go over there and read the latest.

True. And I have no idea what Daryl is talking about when he says "It definitely doesn't help Danny Shelton's case!!! In fact it worsens it!!!" Perhaps he could explain (?) and then I can say more.

As far as his "Did you read the latest?" goes. Bob Pickle posted this, imo, cockamamie story from Dr Day about when she came to do the paternity test, but claims she couldn't recognize or identify Brandy's daughter and thinks another child may have been substituted.

Meanwhile Dr Day has published the child's passport/photo on her website. (along with Danny and Brandy's and their Licenses) I think that is totally uncalled for and unnecessary, (as well as being a violation of their privacy rights) but at least all who have seen the little girl on 3abn, as Dr Day said she did, or know or have met the child will easily recognize her from her passport photo and know this woman is an absolute nut. No random child or even a niece is going to pass a DNA test as Brandy's daughter.



It's all dumb to me... Dr Day goes on and on about what a lab requires, and how she couldn't get more pictures of the girl or her fingerprints etc, but forgets I guess that it was she who made the arrangements and she didn't schedule them at a lab. Nor is she herself a lab. She bought kits which do not require fingerprints etc... and Danny and Brandy brought what she asked.

She is upset that they brought her copies of passports and ID's because she claims pictures can be substituted in copies - as if she didn't look at all three face to face and couldn't see that they are photo's of them, or realize that there is not a Xerox machine in most school or Post office parking lots and so this was most helpful on their part.

Strangely Dr Day also claims she can't understand why Brandy would be upset and angry with her...

Anyway Bob quoted from her website and then Sam replied.. and for now that's all I find worth quoting here, as even the emails Dr Day posted on her website are partial and edited... To be frank, I find the whole thing disgusting, and the majority of the posts in reply on AT more so, but I will go find the 2 posts I referred to at least and get them posted here after I remove the little girl's name from them.

[Cynthia]

Bob Pickle posted On Advent Talk:

>From http://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies ... helton.htm


DNA Testing of Danny and Brandy Shelton and [minor's name removed]

Will the Results have ANY validity?

by Lorraine Day, M.D.

Posted 5/1/09

On Wednesday, April 29, 2009 I met Danny and Brandy Shelton in the parking lot of the Benton, Illinois Post Office to collect DNA specimens for Paternity testing of [minor's name removed], the daughter of Brandy .... Shelton.

It should be noted that we were first scheduled to meet in the parking lot of the public school in Thompsonville, Ill. Danny Shelton subsequently asked if we could move the meeting place to the county Courthouse in Benton, Illinois – a few miles up the freeway north of West Frankfort, Ill (West Frankfort/Thompsonville, Ill is the location of the headquarters of 3ABN).

I agreed. But just minutes before we were to meet, Danny called me on my cell phone and asked to change the location again, to the Post Office in Benton, Ill.

Court-approved, legal DNA testing requires:

1. a picture to be taken of the one tested
2. fingerprinting of each person who is tested
3. the social security number of each person who is teste
4. examination of 2 pieces of government issued I.D., such as a Driver’s license and a Passport.

This court-approved, legal, DNA testing is done in an accredited laboratory. Home testing units are available but the DNA test results are not legally admissible in a court of law.

To travel several hours to and from a certified DNA testing laboratory would have been a major imposition on the Sheltons, including the child, [minor's name removed], who would have missed a day of school.

To make it as convenient as possible for the Sheltons, I traveled from California to Southern Illinois at my own expense, and brought along two DNA testing kits obtained from certified, AABB (American Association of Blood Banks) licensed DNA testing laboratories, with the goal of obeying all the other rules for legal DNA testing results, to make it as official as possible without the travel inconvenience for the Sheltons.

I asked Danny to have each person bring the two required pieces of U.S. government approved Identification (usually a passport and a government issued I.D. card or Driver’s license). I brought fingerprinting equipment, a still camera for picture taking of those being DNA tested and to photograph the original identification documents, as well as a video camera to videotape the actual taking of the DNA specimens, plus I had two people with me to run the cameras (a still camera and a video camera).

My crew and I were in the parking lot of the Benton, Illinois, Post Office at 10:30 A. M. on Wednesday morning, April 29.

A few minutes later, Danny arrived driving his truck with Brandy in the passenger seat. There was no visible evidence that the child, [minor's name removed], was with them. No one could be seen sitting in the back seat of the truck.

Brandy was belligerent, hostile, aggressive, and very discourteous

Danny got out of the truck, we said “Hello” and he began to sign the consent for DNA testing. Brandy refused to get out of the truck at first, or even to look at us, or acknowledge our presence. She was clearly angry, even though she (apparently) had willingly signed the consent to be tested and have [minor's name removed] tested. I say “apparently” because the signature on the DNA testing agreement that is alleged to be Brandy’s looks very different from her signature on the license of her marriage to Kevin ...., her second husband, and different from her signature on her passport.

If indeed Brandy signed the original DNA testing agreement on April 1 – an entire month before the testing took place – as the document shows, why was she angry now? But if she did not sign the agreement and someone else signed her name without her knowledge, her quarrel should be with that person – not us!

Finally, Brandy did get out of the truck, but as the videotape will show, she was furious. She accused me of harassing her family, something that was totally untrue, as will be shown below. She called me “un-Christian” for asking Danny to sit down with Linda to try to conclude their marital financial settlement without expensive lawyers.

Even though Danny and I agreed that the testing would be video-taped, this made Brandy angry. She belligerently got out her own video camera and started videotaping me –putting her camera almost in my face, while continuously berating me.

She even rudely accused me of having Alzheimer’s. Why? Because I have said that I worked with Brandy at 3ABN when I was there in June of 1999. I said this way back in 2005 – innocently - not even knowing that Danny and 3ABN were saying that Brandy did not arrive at 3ABN until November of 2004. In addition, I had no idea in, at first, that Brandy had any children.

I learned in 2008 that Brandy had a child, [minor's name removed], who was born in February of 2000. That would mean that the child was conceived in May or June of 1999,

My working with Brandy at 3ABN in June of 1999 places Brandy in the West Frankfort area at the time she became pregnant. That fact, by itself, does not prove that Danny is the father of [minor's name removed], but it does establish opportunity.

And I am not the only one who knows that Brandy was in the Thompsonville/West Frankfort area long before November of 2004. There is a witness who was privy to a conversation Danny Shelton had with Brandy's mother long before 2004, telling Danny that Brandy was coming out for a job interview. That witness was not even in Thompsonville in November of 2004, so the job interview clearly took place long before that time.

There are also two witnesses who have knowledge of Danny Shelton looking for housing for Brandy, and purchasing a washer and dryer for Brandy, many months before November of 2004, the month Danny says he first met Brandy as an adult.

Brandy’s behavior during the DNA specimen collection was an embarrassment to everyone, including Danny, as he tried first to calm her down. But when that was unsuccessful, he repeatedly tried to stop us from videotaping her temper tantrum.

Now Danny has attempted to put a good “spin” on her very bad behavior by saying she has "every right to be angry." Well, if Brandy has a right to be “angry” she should turn her anger either on herself for willingly signing the DNA testing agreement in the first place, or on Danny, as he is the one who brought up the subject of the paternity of [minor's name removed]. And he is the one who offered to be DNA tested – but only if I would put up $10,000.00.

Who WAS the child presented for testing?

I asked to see the government-approved Identification documents, including the passports for Danny, Brandy and [minor's name removed]..

But no one had brought them. Instead Danny handed me Xeroxed copies of the documents (a picture of one page of the passports for Danny and Brandy and [minor's name removed], and Driver’s licenses for Danny and Brandy).

But Xerox copies of identification documents are NOT acceptable. They can be altered easily in the process of copying. A different picture or signature can be superimposed on any document, something that would completely invalidate it.

In addition, I was not allowed to videotape or even take a still picture of [minor's name removed], something the DNA testing laboratory requires. Danny and Brandy vehemently refused to allow “[minor's name removed]” to be photographed. Obviously it was not for security reasons, because on the special holiday programs at 3ABN, Danny has his whole family on camera, including all of his grandchildren even when they were babies and young children.

Nor was I allowed to have the Social Security numbers for any of them, something that is required by the DNA testing companies.

So why would Brandy and Danny refuse to allow a picture of “[minor's name removed]”?

In addition, I was not allowed to take fingerprints of “[minor's name removed]” nor of Danny or Brandy.

And “[minor's name removed]” was at all times kept out of sight in the truck, lying down on the back seat, “under a blanket” according to Brandy. The child was never allowed to sit up in the back seat of the truck where she could be seen. Nor was she allowed to stand on the ground when she was brought out of the truck for 30 seconds so I could swab the inside of her mouth. Danny held her in his arms the whole time she was out of the truck. She was not given an opportunity to stand on her own so it was impossible to tell how tall she was. The “[minor's name removed]” to be tested is reported to be 9 years old. This child looked and acted about 6 years old.

It is highly unusual for a 9-year old to stay quietly - under a blanket in the back seat of a truck - never looking out the window or wanting to watch the commotion going on right outside the truck window. Nine-year olds want to be "grown up" - not carried around like a baby. They usually are very curious to see what is going on around them. But that was not the case with this child.

I have purposely put the name “[minor's name removed]” in quotation marks, because I have no way of knowing if the child presented for testing was actually [minor's name removed]. Since I had never seen [minor's name removed], and Danny knew that, I was expected to take Danny and Brandy’s word for it – with no objective documentation whatsoever to prove the child’s identity.

So, to summarize: I do not know the identity of the child who was tested. I have no idea if that child was [minor's name removed].

I was not allowed to take her picture, or take her fingerprints, or to examine her identification documents directly. I was not allowed to see her stand up by herself. She never spoke a word, and she was kept lying down on the back seat of the truck – under a blanket, according to Brandy – for the whole time we were all together (close to an hour) except for the 20 seconds or so that it took to swab the inside of her cheek.

WHY?

Why was I not allowed to photograph, fingerprint, or examine the identification documents for this child?

Why did Danny and Brandy keep this child hidden under a blanket for almost the entire time we were together?

Why did Danny want to change our meeting location to a town other than Thompsonville or West Frankfort?

Could it be that the child who was tested was NOT [minor's name removed], and any friend of Danny’s who might be passing by could point that out?

If this child WAS [minor's name removed], why was I not allowed to photograph her (as a DNA lab requires for legal testing)?

If this child WAS [minor's name removed], why was I not allowed to take her fingerprints (as a DNA lab requires for legal testing)?

If this child WAS [minor's name removed], why was I not allowed to examine her identification documents – or the identification documents of Danny and Brandy (as a DNA lab requires for legal testing)??

Why was I given Xerox copies of the documents, copies that could easily have been altered?

Why the secrecy?

If the child tested was NOT [minor's name removed] – who was she?

It is known that Brandy has several sisters. Could this child be the daughter of one of Brandy’s sisters? I don’t know. But it’s a question that must be addressed.

One more question: Danny brought up the fact that he and Brandy and this child – purported to be [minor's name removed] – had all been DNA tested just several weeks before I came to Thompsonville on April 29, 2009. The testing was done with a home kit and not in the presence of a third party or at a certified DNA testing laboratory or with government identification documents.

WHY would they all get tested privately?

Obviously Brandy would know that she is the mother of [minor's name removed]. She wouldn't need to be tested to know that. And obviously both Danny and Brandy would know whether Danny is the father of [minor's name removed].

So WHY would they all go through a “dry run” of DNA testing before the real DNA testing?

Siblings can often have fairly close DNA matches as they are often chosen as organ donors. All siblings of the same two parents obviously get their DNA from the same two parents. If the child presented for testing is NOT [minor's name removed], but the daughter of one of Brandy’s sisters (she has apparently has at least two living sisters), it would be important for Danny and Brandy to perform a “dry run” up front, before I arrived on the scene in Thompsonville. They would want to make sure that Brandy’s DNA was close enough to this child’s DNA for Brandy to “pass” as the mother of this child?

If this child belongs to a sister of Brandy and (obviously) another man, naturally Danny would test negative as the father of this child presented for testing.

So the plain fact is this: I do not know the identity of the child who was tested. Without the direct evaluation of the proper original documents for identification, without pictures, without fingerprints, it is impossible to objectively prove she is [minor's name removed].

So the DNA test results cannot be taken as proof that Danny is not the father of [minor's name removed].

Important Factor Documented:

But one very important factor was documented: Both Danny and Brandy kept the child hidden, and kept all identification information about the child secret.

WHY, if this child was in truth [minor's name removed], and Danny is NOT the father of [minor's name removed], would they do that?

Why all the secrecy and intrigue?

The DNA specimen collection materials

I purposely did not open the DNA testing packets until we were all together so I could not be accused of tampering with the sample-testing equipment. When one of the kits was opened, it was found that the laboratory had sent one envelope marked “father” and two envelopes marked “Child” with no envelope marked “mother.” Since each packet contains 4 sealed sterile long-handled “Q-tips” for the mouth swab specimens, there is no problem with marking out the word “Child” and substituting the word ‘Mother” – which Brandy did, and then initialed the correction. This was all properly videotaped.

However, now Danny is accusing me of somehow being underhanded with the testing, because the lab sent the envelopes as noted above. Brandy and Danny watched as every specimen was placed in the container, then one of them personally sealed every container. Again, all this was videotaped and will be posted soon.

He is also suggesting that I chose an unaccredited lab “to save money.” Both labs I chose are fully accredited by the AABB, the acknowledged accrediting agency. The truth is that there are forty accredited DNA testing labs. I called the laboratory that does 85% of all DNA testing in the world to get a referral for another accredited DNA testing laboratory. I was told how to find the forty accredited DNA testing laboratories and I could arbitrarily choose one – which I did.

As I stated, I paid for all of my own expenses to go to Southern Illinois to collect the DNA specimens, and I am personally paying for all the DNA testing.

However, all my time and all my expenses have been largely wasted because Danny and Brandy would not allow me to verify the identification of the child who was presented for testing.

But that in itself – their secrecy about this child – speaks volumes!

It the child presented for testing really IS [minor's name removed], and Danny Shelton is NOT her father, then why all the secrecy?

[Cynthia]

Sam posted in reply on Adventtalk:

Bob, did you get all of this from Linda or from Lorraine?

This woman has composed the biggest bunch of bull that I have ever heard. Most of her DNA testing story is a repetitive claim that she didn’t know if [minor's name removed] was really “[minor's name removed]”. How can someone who has a doctor’s degree say anything this ludicrous? She makes it worse by saying a sibling may have close DNA.

1. Close doesn’t get it in a court approved DNA test.

2. No possible way could Brandy’s niece (what Lorraine is suggesting) pass for her daughter in a DNA test. Incredible that a doctor would make such an ignorant claim. No wonder Lorraine was put on the doctor’s quack list.

3. Lorraine was told from the first that [minor's name removed] would not be videoed or pictures taken of her. I think the reason is obvious to any normal thinking person. They were trying to protect an innocent child as much as possible from this hideous internet mess. A little girl being with family on a holiday special or having that same little girls picture splashed on the internet along with questioning who her parents are, are two completely different things.

4. Of course after thinking it over Danny decided on a location change. T’ville School has kids and parent in and out and walking across the lawn….I’m sure anyone would want to stand in the middle of that with cotton swabs sticking out of their mouths and video camera’s shooting video. Same with the court house in Benton. It is right in the middle of the town square. So Danny said the post office as it was at least a little more private than the other places mentioned and convenient for Danny to watch Lorraine mail one of the tests.

5. Brandy was angry!!!! Wow what insight on Lorraine’s part. As Lorraine’s video will show she basically called Brandy a liar on top of invading Brandy’s life, her daughter’s life and Danny and Brandy’s marriage. When Lorraine made the statement that she had worked with Brandy at 3abn in 99 and Brandy dared her to get a copy of her W2’s for that year….Lorraine says she knows Brandy was there. She is, in essence, is calling her a liar. Brandy knows she wasn’t at 3abn before 04, she knows her child isn’t Danny’s, she knows her and Danny never had a relationship before she came to 3abn in 04 and here stands a woman that Brandy has never seen or heard of before this situation arose, accusing her of all the above. Angry? I would have said and done a lot more than Brandy did in the same circumstances.

All of the doubt that Lorraine tries to cast on [minor's name removed] identity is nothing but a smoke screen. Why? Because DNA does not Lie! Those tests will show that [minor's name removed] is the daughter of Brandy and not an imposter. No imposter could pass as Brandy’s biological child. Go to the internet folks. Read up on DNA and you will agree that Lorraine’s statements are ludicrous.

Let’s discuss the testing procedures. Lorraine came with 2 kits. One was supposedly supposed to be a court approved test that required ID (which the Shelton’s complied with). The other required no ID and just came with 3 envelopes marked Mother, Child and Alleged Father. Lorraine chose and paid for those tests. Why was she satisfied with using a test that required nothing? BECAUSE SHE IS THE STAR WITNESS! She knew Danny, she says she has seen Brandy on the air and CLAIMS to have known her in 99 and she knows that [minor's name removed] was not an imposter. How do I know this? Lorraine mentions in her little saga that [minor's name removed] was on the family Christmas special. When Lorraine swabbed her, she was looking straight into the face of little [minor's name removed]. All she had to do was compare the video special with her face to face look at the little girl and she knew it was the same child. So, Lorraine knew she didn’t have to worry about ID as all 3 participants were already known to her. She also knew that as far as DNA is concerned, there doesn’t have to be names at all. DNA will tell you if the child belongs to an alleged mother or father…no names needed.

Lorraine can pull an Enquirer Special and post the video on You tube or whatever but, as she mentioned, Brandy took video also and that video shows Lorraine swabbing [minor's name removed] and that video can be compared to the Holiday special, if need be, to prove it was really [minor's name removed]. She also makes it sound as if [minor's name removed] wasn’t a normal child because she never spoke and Danny carried her. Pitiful. Here this child was thrown into a situation that she truly didn’t understand, where she was meeting folks that were complete strangers to her, where women were video taping her mother and stepfather and where she knew that her mother was very angry at those women but of course didn’t understand all the why’s and what fors. Of course she was quiet, of course she was tentative and of course she was a little afraid as we all are of the unknown.

As I said, smoke and mirrors folks. Think about this. It only happened this past Wednesday and here is Lorraine frantically putting things on the internet that she thinks will cast doubt on the results of the test. What she is doing is so obvious. Here is the truth of the matter. Lorraine said in her emails to Danny that he would never go through with the testing. She banked on it. She thought that even after she got to Southern Il he would not show up. When he did, it threw her for a loop. She knew then, that he was not [minor's name removed]’s father and she began to hatch a plan to put doubt wherever she could plant it. She couldn’t put it on the test kits as she is the one who purchased them. She couldn’t put doubt on the person that administered the test…as she was that person. She couldn’t put doubt on Danny’s or Brandy’s identity as she knows Danny and Claims to recognize Brandy. So, the only thing she could come up with was to cast doubt on an innocent little girl. How shameful, how evil and how pathetic. And all of this because she doesn’t want to admit publicly that her accusations were wrong.

I guess what she didn’t think about was how her jargon of no fingerprints, enough ID and whatever was full of holes since the DNA would show beyond a shadow of a doubt if [minor's name removed] was an imposter. She’s a doctor? I wouldn’t want her working on me.

[Daryl Fawcett]

What I said was solely based on Dr. Day's account of what happened there.

Are you saying that her account is not the true account of what really happened there?

[Cynthia]

What I said was solely based on Dr. Day's account of what happened there.

Are you saying that her account is not the true account of what really happened there?

I was saying nothing about that yet, as I don't know what you were or are talking about here. I thought I expressed that in my earlier post, when I said:

"And I have no idea what Daryl is talking about when he says "It definitely doesn't help Danny Shelton's case!!! In fact it worsens it!!!" Perhaps he could explain (?) and then I can say more."

Your generic and sweeping condemnations don't help resolve or prove anything imo and it is hard to address or answer your issue or concern when you don't say what it is, and make it known.

So.. Would you care to elaborate so I do know what to reply to specifically? If not, maybe you should just drop it...

[Stan]

The only real thing that happened there was,

3 people got swabbed for DNA, both parties saw one part mailed, one party claimed to see one test fedexed.

The DNA test is able to tell who the mother is, and who the father is.

As agreed on, there was too be no photos of the child.

The signature issue and the others, true or not, are not going to change the DNA.

As far as I can tell, this is not going to be for the courts, but for the small community who were following this.

[Cynthia]

The only real thing that happened there was,

3 people got swabbed for DNA, both parties saw one part mailed, one party claimed to see one test fedexed.

The DNA test is able to tell who the mother is, and who the father is.

As agreed on, there was too be no photos of the child.

The signature issue and the others, true or not, are not going to change the DNA.

As far as I can tell, this is not going to be for the courts, but for the small community who were following this.

Agreed, but would like to clarify one thing, about "no photos of the child". It is true Dr Day was not allowed to take any -- to avoid exploiting the child and having them splashed all over the internet National Enquirer style, but...

It is not true that she is "without a photo of the child" as she claims, for she admits to receiving (and to her shame has published) the copy of the childs passport which was given to her. In addition she looked right at the child so was able to see it was indeed that child's picture on that passport, and she makes no claims to the contrary.

I for one have seen the child in person and know that the child in that photo is indeed Brandy's, as do many others...

By the same token as she looked right at the child and swabbed her herself while Danny held her, and has a copy of her passport with her photo, the following, written by Dr Lorraine Day cannot be true:

"But one very important factor was documented: Both Danny and Brandy kept the child hidden, and kept all identification information about the child secret."

Danny, Brandy and the child's fingerprints and SS#'s are NOT her business. If she wanted that to be on record she should have arranged for the test to be done at an accredited lab, even then though.. the Lab would have been given that info and NOT Dr Day, and it would have been kept confidential and their privacy rights respected.

I can only imagine if she had been given their Social Security numbers and taken their fingerprints as she seemed to think was her due, that she would have published them right along with their passports and drivers licenses as she has already done in an apparent total disregard of and lack of concern for their rights or well being.

A friend expressed to me on seeing that, that she was APPALLED (caps hers) and I wholeheartedly agree as I am still appalled by that, and more...

[proffaberf451]

Ian,

One of the most egregious acts that the Joy/Pickle Consortium continues to commit, is the total lack of regard for the privacy rights of individuals. Their number one rule of engagement is, "everyone is dispensable." They view anyone as potential collateral damage if they can find a way to use them to reach their goal - the destruction of 3ABN and its re-emergence under their auspices. A belief in human dignity is not within their thinking, therefore anyone who serves their purpose can and will be used and discarded.

Gailon Joy's latest bombastic ranting in the closed section of the AT forum is the most transparent picture into his character yet. His is not the spirit of revival and restoration to a wanting world, it is a self-aggrandizing spirit of self over God.

- prof