0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Okay so I have read and tried to understand something. Basically I understand that it is the way the DNA has been collected that will cause problems? If so it does not make the DNA sample to be a fake. Now and sorry if I seem stupid but I don't understand that chain of custody thing. I mean that if the DNA sample has been proven to be from Elvis and if it matches Eliza's... what the chain of custody is for? Is it just about a legal procedure?
Quote from: "Sarahli"Okay so I have read and tried to understand something. Basically I understand that it is the way the DNA has been collected that will cause problems? If so it does not make the DNA sample to be a fake. Now and sorry if I seem stupid but I don't understand that chain of custody thing. I mean that if the DNA sample has been proven to be from Elvis and if it matches Eliza's... what the chain of custody is for? Is it just about a legal procedure?Chain of Custody in DNA testing means that the person who has submitted the DNA has to identify himself by showing a government-issued ID to an independent third party who is certified to collect the test. Then the whole process of handling, shipping, processing and analyzing the DNA sample has to be documented, meaning every step, from taking the swap up until the final analysis, must be written down and signed for by the persons who were in possession of the sample all through the process. Without Chain of Custody the court has no idea about the identity of the individual who was tested and who had access to the sample while being processed. In this case the DNA sample has NOT been proven to be from Elvis, because since there is no Chain of Custody the person who submitted the DNA sample is NOT identified. This in simple words means that a court of law says this DNA sample could belong to just about everyone - from Bill Clinton to Bart Simpson.In this case it's proven that there is a family connection between the submitted DNA samples, but since there is no Chain of Custody these DNA samples can't be submitted as evidence of Eliza's claim, because there is no evidence of these samples belonging to the Presleys.
Is anyone going to ask the probate lawyer about why he has written, the articles concerning this case, the way he has? This lawyer, is obviously aware of the requirements of "Chain of Evidence". He would also know that these requirements haven't been met. He would also be aware that the DNA isn't admissible and that the case will most likely be dismissed or overturned on appeal and yet he has misrepresented that (or neglected to mention it) and is deceiving people about this case in his blog.Is anyone going to ask Eliza about this and why she is asking for donations?If she knows that the case will be dismissed because the DNA is inadmissible and is than asking for money to support her, this is very questionable behaviour.
Quote from: "Serenitys_Dream"Is anyone going to ask the probate lawyer about why he has written, the articles concerning this case, the way he has? This lawyer, is obviously aware of the requirements of "Chain of Evidence". He would also know that these requirements haven't been met. He would also be aware that the DNA isn't admissible and that the case will most likely be dismissed or overturned on appeal and yet he has misrepresented that (or neglected to mention it) and is deceiving people about this case in his blog.Is anyone going to ask Eliza about this and why she is asking for donations?If she knows that the case will be dismissed because the DNA is inadmissible and is than asking for money to support her, this is very questionable behaviour.Good point about the lawyer's blog. Surely he knows this info and you wouldn't think he would want to write about it that way if he knew that nothing would come of it. That would only make him look ignorant, especially as a lawyer. I think Eliza visits our forum. But I have a feeling she might not respond unless directly asked. There's also a chance that she won't see this thread, or at least not right away. Perhaps someone representing this site could send her an email.
Maybe that Elvis himself will show up finally? I feel like I'm losing my mind piece by piece :?
The fact that it is not legal evidence, does not mean that it is not evidence. No one is opposing her evidence, they oppose her case claiming it has been too long ago. If the evidence was false, the estate would have opposed the evidence and would have made sure the case would have been dismissed by the court if they don't want her to proceed.
I think that we should wait and see what is going to happen on the 14th.
Eliza does not have the financial means to get the legal DNA evidence as described, so she filed the evidence she does have. As soon as someone will oppose her evidence, they need to prove she is wrong and then the required tests will have to be done.
Quote from: "Sarahli"I think that we should wait and see what is going to happen on the 14th.GOOD IDEA! Thank you for being the "voice of reason", lol! We need that sometimes!