Eliza Presley's DNA evidence no Legal Evidence?

[*Mo*]

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.

[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.

LOL! :lol:  Yes I understand better. I really am an empty shell when it comes this.

[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.

Mo, bravo very in-depth investigation. thank you for sharing this with us all. I also sadly must admit that I failed the test if this is what it was all about.  :oops:

We live and learn!

[Sarahli]

Maybe that Elvis himself will show up finally? I feel like I'm losing my mind piece by piece  :?

[jacilovesmichael]

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.

[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.

Well, as I am not a very tactful person (as is obvious by my posts) someone else will have to tackle that and that is why I asked.

[Puff]

Maybe that Elvis himself will show up finally? I feel like I'm losing my mind piece by piece  :?

I don't think so, IMO Elvis is not interested in spotlight at all, and as far as he wrote - " Sir, I don't know if you believe in my continued existence or not, but if I continue to expose myself like I did in the book, I will be eliminated very easily. Pure and simple as that"- it's for his safety as well....

[~Souza~]

Why would Eliza want to prove in court that she is Vernon´s daughter, why isn´t it enough for her to just know? We simply don´t know. Everyone has different reasons to do different things. Some might think it's enough to just know, others may have reasons to think otherwise. It is not up to us to judge that. If I look at all the people ridiculing her, I think I might have done the same. Sometimes you just want to be taken serious and shoot down your opposers.

Eliza already has the evidence herself which she filed in court accompanied with a sworn statement where the samples came from. Jesse's samples might have been from anyone, but if he relates to both sides of Elvis' family tree, he is either Elvis or Elvis' brother, who died at birth. No one of us has ever seen the evidence so formally we don't even know it exists, we only know it was filed and that it was reason enough to open the estate. There have been many blogs and threads on Elvis forums already about the validity of the DNA evidence, so this is really nothing new. 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.

On this site we discuss the fact that Michael Jackson is still alive, without having any legal evidence at all. If we look at the legal 'evidence',  Murray was charged for manslaughter and MJ is dead. But enter common sense and MJ is clearly alive. I use my common sense with this case as well. 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. She paid thousands of dollars for this case and she will gain nothing from it (at least not from any estate) since she is not the legal heir of Elvis, LMP is, and Vernon's Estate doesn't have a dollar in it anymore. Some people might think that LMP is Vernon´s daughter and not Elvis´, that is fine and everything is possible, but that is just a theory. LMP was born in the marriage between Elvis and Priscilla and is therefore the only legal heir of Elvis until proven otherwise, which would be a complete different case and has nothing to do with this one. And if that would be the case, then how would Eliza know that so sure that she would walk through 2 expensive lawsuits to get that proven? On emust be very sure about that to risk that amount of money, time and ridicule. Besides that, filing a false sworn statement to gain money out of this is fraud, and therefore a crime. That means Eliza can be sued for that, and also for accepting donations. If you look at the giant she is fighting in this case, a false sworn statement would mean asking for getting bankrupt, because the estate would be very willing and able to prove her wrong. Besides that, I am sure LMP wouldn't allow fraud in her father's name and would have made a statement one way or the other that she does not support the case.

As for her not needing money for this case: that's not true. Filing documents, traveling costs, lawyer costs etc. all need to be paid by her, but that aside.

I am not jumping on this bandwagon and I can imagine some of the comments are even hurtful. As long as neither of us know the truth about this case or the MJ hoax, I am not judging anyone. As I get from the replies, this is merely to search for proof that Eliza is in it for the money. Sorry, but this didn't convince me at all. Vernon's estate is empty and she will not be the legal heir of Elvis if she wins this, Lisa Marie is. We gain nothing but confusion and prejudice with this.

Eliza contacted me and asked me to delete her account, since she feels offended by some of the posts. WE invited HER in here, she did not come herself to "play with the MJ fans". We tweeted the site to her a hundred times before she decided to join and post something. She felt support from us after all the bashing she has already endured the last couple of years and now we are pushing her away again and judging her because her evidence is not legal. People still believe it's real, but not legal. I didn't know that was the same as fraud. Questioning is fine, judging based on theories is not in my book.

I am sorry, but I am not participating in this. To hell with any tests, if I fail this test, I fail without any regrets. There are real people out there as well that have real feelings. I for one can speak out of experience about what comments on a screen can do. There might not be legal DNA evidence, but there is no evidence at all that this is all fraud or a test or whatever, that are just theories. I will not accuse someone of fraud because of this and I do not stand for that. This is not my thread and I will let it be, I just wanted to make clear what my opinion is on the accusations this is leading towards.
 

[Puff]

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 the probate lawyer knows about the lack of the chain of custody, but A LOT of lawyers do EVERYTHING just to win a case....... and that lawyer is writing books and promoting them all over his blog........  :roll:

[jacilovesmichael]

Souza, you made a lot of good points as well. I personally am not judging this either way. I don't think this makes Eliza a fraud or money-hungry. I think that we should give her a chance to explain this in a way that is easier to understand. Legal talk and real talk are just so different. That was kind of what I was trying to say in one of my earlier posts. Just because something isn't legal doesn't mean it's not real. Like I said before, I found out who my real dad was and met him, but I am not legally claimed by him or anything. But that doesn't change the fact that he's my dad. I personally would not take him to court for it, but as I said, this is a different situation and Eliza's dad is not living so she will never get to meet him.

When did Eliza contact you, Souza? Do you mean recently in response to this particular thread or was it months ago when we first welcomed her?

This doesn't change the Elvis/MJ connections and it doesn't change the fact that Elvis is alive. I feel there has to be a way to discuss this respectively and objectively, and if we contact Eliza we cannot accuse her or jump to conclusions. I'm just thinking if this was all be speculated about me, I would want the chance to explain.

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.

That part specifically is a good point. Surely they wouldn't let this go on if her evidence was fake...

[Sarahli]

I think that we should wait and see what is going to happen on the 14th.

[jacilovesmichael]

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!

[Puff]

@ Souza
The sworn statement it's not like the chain of custody...
The Presleys don't know if the items that they sent her were the items that she sent to the LAB for the DNA tests.. They lost sight of them the moment that they put them into the mailboxes. They can't swear about something they lost track of....
And also Eliza can't swear these items containing DNA came from the presleys, because she doesn't know that...

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.

Oh, so all the people involved have already agreed on taking legal tests..?  Then why not do them right away, as these tests are per definition inadmissible. They just waisted a whole year...
BUT....It's not true...... The case will be dismissed if she doesn't have the legal DNA...
And as far as I understand she doesn't have it.....

[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!

Thanks Jaci     We don't know what can happen....

[~Souza~]

That's the problem, it's all "As far as I understand" and "As far as I am concerned" etc. and based on that someone is accused in this thread of fraud, while none of us know the complete story. I have told my opinion on this case many times and again in my post above, I only now wanted to point out that I do not agree with a go to accuse someone like that we invited ourselves without ANY evidence at all. Because Mo posted this thread, some might think I also agree with where this is leading towards, but I don't. That's all.
 
I agree with Sarahli, we should wait and let it unfold.