If you’ve seen pictures of Danney Williams you know he bears an uncanny resemblance to former President Bill Clinton who Danney claims his father. The facial features, nose, chin line— strongly suggest a biological connection.
Danney’s mother and two aunts insist Danney is Bill’s son citing the cash financial support furtively slipped to Danney’s mother over years as well as her insistence that Bill was the only Caucasian man she had been with in the year before Danney’s birth.
In 1999, various news organizations including the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times and Time Magazine reported that Danney Williams was not Bill Clinton’s son based on a widely reported DNA test that was based on the DNA report included in independent counsel Kenneth Starr’s impeachment report and a DNA sample that was taken from me. This is false. In fact, the test proved to be inconclusive because the Starr report did not contain the necessary data to reach such a conclusion.
As Slate , Snopes.com and the New York Daily News all reported ,the Starr report only included the results of the two tests required to establish paternity. The Starr report included a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) but did not include the FBI lab’s test refraction fragmented length polymorphism (RFLP) would be also required to make this determination. The PCR test alone would not be enough to legally prove or disprove paternity.
In other words, an accurate DNA test to determine paternity requires two different DNA tests to determine paternity polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and the refraction fragmented length polymorphism (RFLP). The Starr Report included only the PCR data, thus any paternity test using the incomplete report would have to be inconclusive.
Dr. Henry Lee, one of the world’s foremost forensic scientists told the New York Daily News “You would need to put President Clinton’s [DNA] side by side, using RFLP,” to determine paternity.
Slate reported, “The FBI performed two genetic fingerprinting tests on the president’s DNA. The Starr report, for unexplained reasons, gives data only for the less specific of the two tests. In fact, this test is imprecise enough that it would probably not be persuasive to a judge… (to determine paternity).
Snopes.com cited the evidence published in 1999 by Slate, concluding that without obtaining a sample of Clinton’s blood, the DNA released by Starr was insufficient to prove one way or another whether he was or was not Williams’ father.
Snopes, an Internet “fact checking” source examined the question of whether or not Bill Clinton was Danny Williams’ father only to conclude not that the charge was “false,” but that the charge was “unproven.”
No legitimate, complete, DNA test settling the paternity issue was ever published. It is possible that no legitimate DNA test settling the paternity issue was ever conducted, despite the impression repeated in press reports in Time and theWashington Post from 1999 until today that definitive DNA evidence exists establishing that Clinton is not Danney Williams’ father.
The point is that proof simply does not exist yet media types like Megyn Kelly continue to claim otherwise.
Also, troubling is the fact that the STAR tabloid that first hyped and then allegedly conducted, the flawed “test’ was owned by Robert Altman – a close friend, a college classmate, political supporter, major donor and federal appointee of Bill Clinton. The Editor later admitted that no sample of DNA was ever obtained from Bill Clinton and that the incomplete DNA test included in the Starr Report had been used to compare with a sample obtained by Danney Williams. The Editor Phil Bunton would also later admit he had not seen written test results.
Bunton recently confirmed that the tabloid relied on the DNA evidence for Clinton published by independent counsel Kenneth Starr, extracted from the infamous Monica Lewinsky blue dress.
Bunton confirmed that no blood sample was obtained from Clinton and Star Magazine never published a story documenting a laboratory test.“I don’t remember ever seeing any laboratory test that was done on Clinton’s DNA,” Bunton said.
The STAR hyped the story substantially; promising bombshell results before the “test’ was conducted, then did not publish the test results but announced that the test “did not prove Clinton was Danney Williams father.” This is where the mainstream media has gotten the false impression that the 1999 test showed that Danney was not Bill’s son . It didn’t prove that he was or was not. It proved nothing. The test was incomplete and thus inconclusive.
This is why Bill Clinton should voluntarily submit a verified DNA sample to resolve the key question in Danney Williams life. Alternatively, Danney Williams could seek a DNA sample from the famous blue dress owned by Monica Lewinsky or file a suit to establish paternity against Bill Clinton and ask a judge to order the former President to submit a sample for Court supervised testing.