Edwards's Ex-Lover Rejects Idea Of DNA Test

Source: Washington Post

Rielle Hunter, the former presidential campaign aide who had an affair with John Edwards, said yesterday that she will not pursue DNA testing to establish the paternity of her 5-month-old daughter, despite the former senator's offer to participate in such a test.

In a statement provided to The Washington Post, Hunter said through her attorney that she will not be party to such a test "now or in the future."

The attorney, Robert Gordon, called Hunter a "private" person who is "not running for public office" and would not comment further.

"She wishes to maintain her privacy and her daughter's privacy," he said in the statement. "Furthermore, Rielle will not participate in DNA testing or any other invasion of her or her daughter's privacy now or in the future."



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/09/AR2008080901298.html?nav=hcmodule

Go back to your Hillary threads.

Geez, we know where you stand.

This response was unnecessary.

Of course she is keeping it quiet. That was her part of the deal.

"Geez, we know where you stand." Here is where I stand: I said nothing when the rumors flew...giving Edwards the benifit of the doubt. I trusted him when he called them liars. I felt for them because Elizabeth Edwards was sick and those nasty tabloid lies were over the top.

And then, we find out that Edwards lied (and I believe continues to lie, based on his continued behavior).

The idea that the girlfirend was paid to cover for him is not off base.

If you have nothing better to contribute than to attack me becasue I was a Hillary Clinton supporter--perhaps you need to leave your mom's basement for awhile.

That's the way it is.

Your "sympathy" for the Edwards' is duly noted.

And I have no sympathy for John Edwards. He made his bed. I do have sympathy for Elizabeth.

And, frankly, I am not certain if you the "Duly noter." I picture you now with a giant piece of paper on your basement wall with a red marker. "Not sympathetic enough," "too sympathetic" "Clinton supporter."

because she knows that Edwards isn't the father?

Many single women choose to leave the father "unnamed" on the birth certificate so that there are not custody battles, etc.

do you think he would disown this child if he thought it was his child?

if the child 15 years from now decides she wants her back child support from her father, could she then demand a paternity test, and collect?

Could she sue her mother for not having a test done and therefore denying her her child support?

Could a man demand a paternity test if he thought he might be the father?

Quite a complicated issue because three different people's rights are concerned.

Any lawyers out there tonight?

but on your knucklehead opinion expressed in this thread alone.

And I also agree...I think she's being paid off. So very, very sad.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

What, precisely, are you afraid of? As for attacking someone for having been a Hillary supporter, well, I do not like that.

But we do have experience with betrayed wives and cheating husbands. Still, if you're agin' the discussion, you're agin' it. It's good to know that Bill's behavior never crossed your lips or keyboard during the primaries.

or do you like telling women what to do? :eyes:

There is more to life than being the center of a media frenzy.

As soon as I heard Hedge Fund Johnny's overly-emphatic desires for a paternity test, I figured that this would happen in the next few days.

Sorry...I'm not buying it. I'm not buying that he's not the father, I'm not buying that his friends just happened to funnel money to her without knowing full well it was something he would want. I'm sure he made sure he had 'plausible deniability.

She's surely being well compensated to play along with this game. Although I also think she's secretly been the source for the National Enquirer.

This whole story is messed up all the way around.

That's about as relevant as your full of shit post.

SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SURPRISE

Except in this case, you could see this coming a mile away.

The tests aren't about proving who the father is, but rather who the father isn't in this case.

She has quite a past according to MoDo's column. She inspired a book about a party girl in NYC a few years ago. This would make her a very wealthy woman.

and I bet this was not any protracted relationship, to boot. that's what i think. i don't understand why he's the only one taking the heat here.

I think because he was a Democratic candidate that he owes those who supported him

an apology ---

She may eventually have to apologize to the kid. She doesn't have to apologize to anybody else and that includes Elizabeth.

you shouldn't have sex with married people.

Of course the married person's even more wrong, but so is the one having sex with someone she/he knows is married.

The woman is free. John Edwards isn't. He is bound by oath. He broke the oath. What's next is entirely up to Elizabeth. What's between two people is between two and not three.

It's so simple to view the world in black and white. You miss really great sunsets, though.

the child of another public figure that doesn't want to be revealed.

I doubt this turn of events will achieve that. Just the opposite. Irrespective of whether he is or isn't OR Hunter's rationale for refusing DNA testing, public opinion will now assume the worst. Particularly in light of the fact that although Edwards' aide, Andrew Young, claimed paternity before she was born, there was no father listed on the birth certificate.

Such a damn shame. For everyone.

I'm hoping that Edwards perhaps got concerned the night he was "called to the meeting"

with these people --- and maybe then realized he had to go public.

I predict Frederick von Anhalt will announce on Monday that he is the father. And Zsa Zsa bought her the house in Beverly Hills. Shortly thereafter, he will again be found nude in Zsa Zsa's Corniche on Bel-Air Road after a band of pretty young things carjacked him and took his clothes as well as his wallet. Zsa Zsa will of course say nothing. Again. Which is what Elizabeth Edwards should have said. Nothing.

The baby is his.

the night he was at the hotel.

THEY would have known that the hotel was overrun with reporters/photographers ---

MAYBE Edwards felt he had to tell the truth after the meeting --- perhaps it was

an attempt to blackmail him into giving them more money to keep quiet?

Maybe they've been trying to suggest this is his child --- and maybe it's not????

If either party wishes a test it should be done. If both say not test than there should not be a test. As for the 'moral' issues they are both in the wrong, It is not like she did not know he was married. I feel great sympathy for the innocent in this matter his wife and children. It can not be easy having the world watching and passing judgement on one's life.

This whole situation is sad and unfortunate for all.

She ought to agree to the test for the child's sake.

It's the media that thinks a test needs to be done - and it's none of their business.

Still, the child will probably be dogged by gossip, rumor and innuendo as she gets older, regardless of what the mother tells her.

John Edwards isn't president. He isn't even a presidential nominee. He doesn't loom so large in the public consciousness that years from now this scandal will affect the child.

In any case, I also think Hunter herself knows the truth and will tell her daughter when she sees fit. There's no reason for the rest of us to be involved.

This is not our business.

Neither of us know what she will do, but we do know that major cash has already been involved and that Edwards has already proven that what he says to the public cannot be trusted. He lied serially about this for a long time with no evident "tells." He made his special relationship with his wife a centerpiece of his campaign, and these admissions reveal that Edwards was lying through his teeth even as he was appearing with his wife to affirm their devotion to each other.

If you believe the current retail version of this story then we do not share a common set of critical thinking standards. I see a lot of incentive for a behind-the-scenes deal with Hunter that would let Edwards "welcome" a paternity test knowing it won't happen. I see almost no incentive for Hunter to not get a test, given the claims upon Edwards' wealth and support the child legally deserves should paternity be established. Follow the money, in other words.

I have little further interest in this matter, but I do agree with Daleo's point that the child deserves to know who its father is. How that would be accomplished is not my concern. The mother has already shown that she doesn't much care how her actions affect other innocent parties (specifically Edwards' wife and family).

But also for the child's support.

The child has the right to child support from her father.

Does the mother have the right to give away the child's right to support? Child support is for the child, not the mother after all.

when she made the choice to sleep with a very public, very married person......one who was running for President. You play with the big married boys, you better be prepared to pay the price.

and being the subject of two pop novels.

And Edwards knew that she would refuse when he offered to take the test. What a weasel.

The press has done its job.

How disappointing, though, that Edwards has done such a tremendous job at assisting his political downfall by handling this all wrong - when we need him so much.

Why doesn't he just admit it? Everybody knows it's his baby and she's being paid off.

I feel for that campaign worker who took the fall for this baby. But I guess he's living in a mansion now too. Payolla all around.

and center. This will ensure speculation right through the Democratic Convention and probably through the election. :(. Sure smells like a wink-wink, nod-nod setup.

you are welcome to ask Edwards and perhaps he is obligated to answer, but as for the child and mother, they owe you NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER (meaning those that seem to think she does owe them something).

:rant:

Fact, john edwards stepped out on his wife.

Fact, this woman now has a child out of wedlock.

Who is it that is claiming that its edwards' baby, the woman, or the media?

So far I have not heard her say its edwards's baby. Just the media. This is the same media that conflates adultery as a reason to murder. (ie: he had an affair, he must have killed his wife, for example)

Unless she comes out and says Edwards is the father, and/or DNA testing is done, there is no story here, just an attack to make Edwards dirty.