|
Post by pennylane on Oct 24, 2004 9:29:34 GMT -5
has anyone ever seen a picture of this "allesged" illegitamet child? There must be pictures of her somewhere.. like from the court hearing or.. anything! [img src="http://galeon.hispavista.com/akostuff/img/Dunno2[1].gif"]
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Oct 24, 2004 15:09:25 GMT -5
I "Googled" her and didn't turn up anything....maybe someone else will have better luck
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2004 16:41:14 GMT -5
I "Googled" her and didn't turn up anything....maybe someone else will have better luck It would appear she is a porn star.
|
|
|
Post by Morph on Oct 24, 2004 19:46:59 GMT -5
This is all I could find... Had to crop them a bit...
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Oct 25, 2004 1:24:20 GMT -5
lol... yeah i came across those pics too.. but apparently it's not her!
I would love to see if she resembles him at all!
|
|
|
Post by Girl on Oct 25, 2004 9:56:08 GMT -5
News story dated Sept. 28, 1984: To me she looks nothing like Paul, but if PID, then of course the DNA wouldn't match... hmmm, maybe somebody got away with something after all... Would be nice to talk to Erika about that one... if she confirmed there was truly "nobody else", there's proof right there... egads!
|
|
|
Post by Morph on Oct 25, 2004 10:10:19 GMT -5
Hmm...
|
|
|
Post by Morph on Oct 25, 2004 11:47:15 GMT -5
It would appear she is a porn star. I'm not sure...these photos were more like artistic nudes than smut, but some site owners trying to generate hits presented them as porn. I could be wrong but that's what I think is the case.
|
|
|
Post by Girl on Oct 25, 2004 13:07:43 GMT -5
Nice work, Morph! I stand corrected. PennyLane, according to this it is her... April 6, 1983 Regarding the results: October 14, 1983 HAH! Why wouldn't he? He must have known he had nothing to worry about! Her birthdate: December 19, 1962! Guys, do you realize what this could mean?? I would like to know if the issue of PWR was raised at any time during the hearing. Does anyone have this information? Just found this link! sentstarr.tripod.com/beatgirls/hubers.html and this one... www.beatlemoney.com/paul64.htmWow, imagine if this is how the truth finally comes out...... ? Here endeth the investigation... maybe.
|
|
|
Post by jerriwillmore on Oct 25, 2004 15:16:39 GMT -5
I already posted about her here, you'll find it in the files.
She doesn't look a lot like Paul.
|
|
|
Post by Morph on Oct 25, 2004 20:04:40 GMT -5
Nice work, Morph! I stand corrected. I was actually more curious about it than anything. When I first saw those photos I didn't see a resemblance, but now some of the features, like the chin and nose, appear similiar...still, it's just two pictures, more would be helpful.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Oct 25, 2004 20:54:13 GMT -5
It's more the back story than the resemblence (if any) that's of interest. The long and short of it is that it's proposed as an issue of settling (back in '66) rather than fight a long drawn out court battle. True, that happens often, but they do seem to be connected, there seems to be no denial of that. Just an opinion, but it would seem that if you were willing to get involved with DNA testing so long after the fact, you would likely be genuinely convinced your case had merit, rather than be looking to imidate the defendant into a quick settlement. Might have better in this case to try the uncle first, who knows..
|
|
|
Post by Girl on Oct 25, 2004 22:10:46 GMT -5
Right you are, JoJo! Surely they must have known about the rumour... but if not, then all she would have to do is check the DNA from another family member, and compare... geez, I've got chills! There is a slight resemblance in facial structure... the curve of the cheek, the browbone, the corners of the nose... I believe she's Paul's daughter. It was a long time ago, but it would sure be interesting to see what comes of this in the future, if she chooses to pursue. Somebody get her email address This is the most important clue yet. Oh, of course, there will be those who say they're lying, or maybe even that Paul paid off the doc, but what JoJo said makes sense:
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Oct 26, 2004 1:40:19 GMT -5
wow... mmm... maybe we could combine a joint effort in trying to contact her...
|
|
|
Post by ecenzo1 on Oct 26, 2004 17:28:30 GMT -5
I admit this is from left field before I say this, but my first view, knee-jerk reaction as to who this young lady looks like is...Linda McCartney. Oh well. It's been a very long two weeks. And it shows!...
About the DNA, my only comment is this: It not being a DNA match to F/P really proves nothing. It may or may not be the pre '66 Paul's child or it could be someone else's kid. Even if pre-Paul slept with her mom, who's to say she was monogamous with him? From everything I've heard about the Hamburg days it was a pretty wild and "carefree" enviornment. A non-match could also mean that the current Paul is not the same person as pre-Paul. The only true test ( as has already been stated on this thread) would be to DNA test her against brother Michael, whose DNA would be very similar to pre-Paul. While not positive in proving paternity, it could be a positive test in who can be eliminated as the father.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Oct 26, 2004 22:14:29 GMT -5
I admit this is from left field before I say this, but my first view, knee-jerk reaction as to who this young lady looks like is...Linda McCartney. Oh well. It's been a very long two weeks. And it shows!... I was subconciously thinking the same thing, but couldn't put my finger on it. The top photo does look a bit like Linda. Can't say she looks too much like Paul, but she was half-German after all. I bet she was real suprised when the DNA didn't match. Somebody should clue her in about testing Paul's brother. If he matched afer Paul didn't, boy would that create a stir.
|
|
|
Post by Girl on Oct 26, 2004 22:34:21 GMT -5
Yeah, hellraisers unite... LOL
|
|