-Caveat Lector-
Having seen Danny's photograph, I have wondered how the DNA test could have
been negative. Others have too, I'm sure, but none of us has been willing to
say it out loud. My questions were: Did the Clintonistas get to the DNA lab,
or was Danny's photo doctored?
A HREF="http://38.201.154.103/articles/?a=1999/1/18/145516"NewsMax.com:
Articles/A
www.newsmax.com
Clinton Paternity 'Test' Called into QuestionCarl LimbacherJanuary 18, 1999
FBI Mum on Accuracy of DNA Report on President
The FBI refused last week to say that its lab report accurately portrays
President Clinton's DNA profile, or whether that profile may have been altered
in documents released to the House Judiciary Committee for reasons of national
security or privacy.
If the President's DNA was camouflaged in FBI documents, a DNA paternity test
recently arranged by STAR Magazine would be unreliable. Reportedly test
results rule out any possibility that Clinton is the father of Little Rock
teen Danny Williams.
Experts say that the only proper method for checking the paternity of the boy
is through a paternity law suit, where the boy's DNA sample could be matched
against a subpoenaed and verified sample of the President's.
The four-page FBI Lab report on the President's DNA was included as part of
the 60,000 pages of documents turned over to Congress by Independent Counsel
Kenneth Starr last fall. NewsMax.com obtained a copy of the lab report last
week.
In an exclusive interview with NewsMax.com, STAR editor Phil Bunton revealed
that those four pages were the sole basis for the Clinton DNA profile used by
a Nashville lab to compare against a full DNA analysis of blood drawn from
Danny Williams and his mother, Bobbie Ann. Bunton would not identify the lab.
Mr. Bunton said staffers on the House Judiciary Committee told STAR they
"believed" the limited Clinton DNA profile was accurate but that STAR had been
unable to get any confirmation from the FBI or Independent Counsel. Bunton
said STAR Magazine would not report on its Danny Williams investigation in any
upcoming issue.
However, Christopher Curioli, an editor of scientific and medical textbooks
whose recent work includes the CD-ROM version of "Gray's Anatomy", told
NewsMax.com that the Clinton DNA information may have been deliberately
changed in public documents.
"Since it is rather easy to synthesize any gene sequence, the OIC, FBI or
Secret Service might, as a matter of ethics or national security, present the
results of the Clinton DNA tests and yet publish in the appendix (of Starr's
report) an altered version of Clinton's DNA sequence or fragment lengths - for
his protection," Curioli said.
Curioli suggested that presenting a "protected sequence"; i.e., an altered
version of actual DNA information, is commonplace in the fields of genetic and
virological research as a matter of industrial security. In a president's
case, the need for DNA confidentiality could be more pressing.
The Secret Service seems acutely aware of this need. When the President took a
few sips of beer during a photo-op at a pub in Manchester, England in 1997,
Mr. Clinton's security detail wasted little time confiscating his glass as he
departed. Reportedly, the Secret Service smashed the glass and were concerned
that Clinton's fingerprints and DNA could fall into the wrong hands.
NewsMax.com put Curioli's theory to a former high ranking official at the FBI
laboratory who had dealt with the Bureau's DNA activities. He said the
uniqueness of a Presidential DNA investigation may have led Bureau scientists
to camouflage the results as reported in the Starr documents.
Dr. Shirley Chan, of the DNA Learning Center at the world famous Cold Spring
Harbor Labs in New York, reviewed the FBI lab report on Clinton's DNA for
NewsMax.com. Dr. Chan explained that there was ample information in the FBI
documents to rule out paternity. "If even one polymorphic marker doesn't
match, then he's not the father." STAR editor Bunton confirmed to NewsMax.com
that the Clinton-Danny Williams DNA comparison "wasn't even close."
But Dr. Chan refused to rule out the possibility that the FBI's DNA markers on
Clinton had been released in a protected sequence, suggesting that only the
FBI or the OIC could answer that question.
NewsMax.com contacted the FBI lab examiner who prepared the documents
forwarded to the House Judiciary Committee; materials subsequently used by
STAR Magazine for the Clinton paternity test. NewsMax.com's call was referred
to FBI press spokesman Paul Bresson.
Bresson himself was unavailable. But a staffer in his office responded to the
question of whether Clinton's DNA profile had been camouflaged with a terse,
"We're not going to answer a question like that."
The Office of Independent Counsel surely knows whether the FBI Lab report was
accurate about Clinton's DNA. But the OIC did not respond to repeated calls
about the matter. If the Clinton DNA information is accurate, apparently no
one is
