banner1.jpg


October 20, 2009

Check out Susana's Blog

Susana has posted some of the information she has been talking about in regards to the Anyeli?karen Abigail case - pictures from the failed DNA, pictures of Karen at Primavera, and the DNA test results.

http://susanaluarca-english.blogspot.com/

Posted by Kevin at October 20, 2009 11:53 AM
Comments

I was once hit head on by a drunk driver that left the scene of the crime. But his bumper with his license plate came off when he hit my car so he couldn't say that he wasn't involved in the hit and run.

The aunt says "someone stole my identity." How does she explain the fact that the DNA shows she is the aunt? I would imagine that the photo and the finger print are also hers?

Best, Cheryl

Posted by: cheryl at October 20, 2009 01:33 PM

Thanks for letting us know this was on there, VERY interesting! I left her a comment to ask if she might have a referral dvd of this child? I think that would also be of interest. I guess, in time, it will most likely all be revealed, and the answers to this case will be solved.

Elizabeth

Posted by: Elizabeth at October 20, 2009 06:29 PM

Cheryl, Has the aunt said that? I've been waiting to hear if she's been located and questioned.

Posted by: Terri at October 20, 2009 07:57 PM

Can I point out the dead body in the room? Am I the only one noticing?

Something that continues to bother me in this case, outside the numerous obvious issues, and I don't see much talk about is the original investigator DIED of unnatural causes which is enough to throw up a red flag in itself but also the original case papers disappeared. So an investigator was murdered and particular case papers went missing. I'm no PI but thats enough for me to think they are connected and it bothers me there isn't much talk about it. At what point in the adoption was the investigator killed where his connection to this case was known? What if anything is being done to look into his death? Why hasn't the woman in the photograph been pulled in by the police for questioning? Its small wonder Aps wouldn't trust anyone.

Posted by: lisa at October 20, 2009 08:50 PM

Lisa,
I can agree with the trust issue, since our adoption I personally don't have the trust I once had in people. I think this is due to a BAD AGENCY and CORRUPT FACILITAOTRS lying to us ALL the time!!
I also agree with your post, brings up very good questions!!!

Posted by: Kim at October 21, 2009 11:17 AM

Terri,

Susana's blog said that the aunt is claiming that her identity was stolen. If the DNA showed that you were the aunt of a child that your relatives were claiming was kidnapped, what would you say?

Lisa,

Yes, I did notice that as well. There many people with strong agendas in this case. The fact that Susana has more than once mentioned that the original investigator died of asphyxia, indicates that she may also think it is a smoking gun. So did he drowned, did he choke on his food, was he sufficated with a pillow, was any one around that saw or heard anything?

Why haven't these other people--aunt, Marvin Bran, etc-- received at least as much scrutiny as Susana? Gee even if Susana is guilty of something (I'm not saying she is but lets see where this line of logic takes us), whatever she is guilty couldn't be as heinous as what they are guilty of. AT least from where I sit right now, it doesn't make sense.

Best, Cheryl

Posted by: cheryl at October 21, 2009 01:52 PM

As an AP I am disturbed to see personel information from Karen Abagail's file ( pictures, DNA, ect.) posted. We certainly don't
need to see an origional referral
DVD. Lets try to respect the rights of Karen Abagil and her AP's. Just imagine, for a moment,
going on a sight and seeing personel information about your child that you didn't supply. What
would your feeling be?

Posted by: Karen B. at October 21, 2009 02:24 PM

Lisa,
HOW did I miss that? where did you read that? YES, that is a very important slice of this that has not had a lot of attention!

thanks,
Elizabeth

Posted by: Elizabeth at October 21, 2009 09:12 PM

Before I comment - can someone recap/clarify for the group? Are these two sets of pictures supposed to show they are two different girls or the same girl? In other words - are we supposed to look at the DNA pic and compare it to the Primavera pic and determine they are the same or different?

Thanks,
-Greg

Posted by: GDSinPA at October 21, 2009 11:32 PM

Elisabeth,

Susana mentioned this I think in at least two of her posts on this site. Her blog may also mention it. The first time she mentioned it was probably in one of her first two posts concerning this case, which was a very long time ago. I think you will have to look in the archived files for that one.

Best, Cheryl

Posted by: cheryl at October 22, 2009 02:26 PM

I think that the two sets of pictures were supposed to show us that they are two different girls. However, the girls look alot alike to me.

Posted by: anon at October 22, 2009 05:55 PM

The photo of the child in the DNA test is very bad. It looks like a copy was made of a picture and then the copy was scanned. I printed them out and layed them side by side to compare them. To me, the shapes of the faces are very different. I think the eyes are also different. Honestly, I can't even see the mouth in the DNA photo.

It would be much easier if theposted DNA photo was better quality.

Best, Cheryl

Posted by: cheryl at October 23, 2009 01:08 PM

They looked like they could easily be same girl to me - but not definitively - which is why I wanted clarification.

The pics appear seem to have been removed from the blog - maybe she's going to upload better ones.

Posted by: GDSinPA at October 23, 2009 05:40 PM

I agree with Karen B about the photos being put on the internet of someone elses child, for whos gain??
I feel this has gone too far!

Until we hear personally from all sides,(if we ever will)we will never know what the whole truth is, so why the continuous digging and trying to solve this case here?
The people involved have enough to worry about,without having to worry if their childs picture is being plastered on the internet.

Last question, what are we gaining by comparing pictures to other pictures when no one knows what we're supposed to be comparing ?
What a mixed up mess!

Posted by: me at October 23, 2009 11:21 PM

The pictures and scans have now been taken down.

Posted by: Karen at October 26, 2009 07:37 AM

The thing that has always bothered me is how quickly and easily people can become convinced that someone is who they are posing to be. There are so many entities in this case, "he said/she said", crashed computers (hmmm), a mysterious death, many people to gain by presenting themselves as the "good guy" in such cases, and other claims that someone would have nothing to gain, when in fact they certainly would. Remember, many people have gained much for a great long while in the adoption process as it's been(as it was)in Guatemala. There have been many with a lot to gain and a lot to hide and accuse others of in order to protect oneself. I think the vast majority of us would have no idea who to believe in any of this. I've heard that a "birth mother" often takes other children (her biological)along with an infant to DNA. The DNA is taken from her biological child, the photo taken of the "relinquished" infant, and there you go... matching DNA presented with the wrong child. People say there's no way DNA can be switched, but it can easily be substitued if the many players have their hand in their pockets, too. It's been an unethical, illegal mess for quite some time. It wasn't always this way, but then big money came into the picture.

Posted by: nancy at October 26, 2009 01:16 PM

I can understand some of the elaborate scenarios but some switches seem if possible like bad process to begin with. Like would the embassy allow a woman to bring more than one child to embassy and pose with wrong child? How does that work? I had to take a urine test and they made a big deal about what I had to wear, frisked me, and made me keep my hands above waist level and both hands on the counter when delivering the urine. That was for a pre employment drug test no where near as important as something involving the life of a child. So seems to me you should have picture and DNA done at exact same time. If it wasn't happening that way well then DUH stupidest process on earth. Not to say there still can't be something dreamed up but that would cut out the obvious. As far as who to believe.. I like both sides but completely trust neither.

Posted by: lisa at October 28, 2009 08:50 PM

Lisa- Please note, the DNA is not taken at the US Embassy, but at private labs in Guatemala City. The child is never brought with the birthmother to the US Embassy, no picture is taken there.

The DNA swab and photos are taken at private labs that send the samples to labs (Labcorp, Cellmark, PTC, Orchid, etc) in the US via Fedex, the results are then sent to the US Embassy and a copy sent to the PAPs agency as well also labs send PAPs a copy. Sometimes the latter does not happen and the attorney or agency sends the PAP the copy of the results.

Yes it is very common for the Bmom to arrive with other relatives and friends as well. At this point the child is not in the custody of the Bmom anymore, as she has already signed the first request to relinquish the child that is why it may take months for the DNA test to be taken after the initial referral is made, remember at this point the child is not with the bmom.

The child is taken to the labs with a representative from the hogar if the child is at the hogar or the fostermother if the child is with the fostermother, who can also arrive with others in tow. Hope that clarifies the scene for you.
Marie

Posted by: marie at October 29, 2009 07:38 AM

lisa - the scenario nancy describes couldn't have happened after the 2nd dna was required, but that wasn't until august 2007, so it could have happened a number of times before that. Also, dna tests were admistered by "embassy approved" docs, and not performed at the embassy. after dna was required sometime in 1998, bio moms did not appear at the embassy unless embassy was performing an investigation in a specific adoption. if the mother posing used different names every time, embassy wasn't going to compare every dna picture to see if the same person appeared with different names as a general practice.

Posted by: vj at October 29, 2009 12:02 PM

Lisa - to the best of my knowledge, DNA test and picture are/were not done at the embassy - they are done at an embassy approved facility.

Posted by: GDSinPA at October 29, 2009 12:58 PM

lisa:
That's the deal. The Embassy WAS NOT present for the DNA process. It just had to be done at the Embassy approved locations. NOW, however, Embassy personnel does have to be present. Two from the US Embassy actually--one Guatemalan and one American employee. The doctor stays in the room. He signs the forms now too, saying he was a witness to the collection. Also, the DNA kit must be sent from the US for the particular family. Even though the labs already have sealed DNA kits, you must request one and have it sent for you, following the exact directions (which are lengthy) for packaging the kit. I understand the diligence but it seems that so many of our cases (I'm talking current cases in process right now) have already had so much investigation that I wonder if this is really necessary??? In other words, isn't this a little late?

Posted by: Karen at October 29, 2009 02:59 PM

Thank you for the information. As far as too late I think it should have been done to begin with. My understanding was DNA 1 mom and guardian of child both had to go to embassy for dna and picture. My belief part of that helped with ensuring mom was not under duress otherwise it would prompt an investigation which could turn into a criminal case. Plus, my naivete entering here, I would like to believe our country would protect someone if they came in and said they were being forced into something. Now I find out pictures and DNA are done elsewhere. $#%! With that kind of process I could probably adopt Kevin if you got me in a room with him where I could steal a DNA sample.

Posted by: lisa at November 8, 2009 12:01 AM

All:

I've been reading this thread for some time, with great interest, since my son was actually at Primavera during this same period. I've come to a couple of conclusions that I don't think will be universally popular:

1. Anyeli and Karen Abigail are probably the same child. As an AP, I was hoping that this wasn't the case, and that the family in Missouri isn't facing an agonizing choice--but I think they are. But consider the timing: the failed DNA test results were known in late July, and Karen Abigail arrives at Primavera about six weeks later. If they are not the same child, how did a little girl of approximately the same age magically appear? I looked very carefully at the pictures on Susana's site (before she pulled them down), and I couldn't reach a conclusion one way or the other.

2. Loyda genuinely wants her daughter back. There has been a great deal thrown at Loyda in these forums, and perhaps her story is not perfect in every respect. However, it is clear that she has been incredibly persistent (and consistent) in her efforts to bring Anyeli home. If she were somehow part of a conspiracy to sell her child (or was otherwise coerced, with is entirely possible), she would have faded away long ago.

3. That said, I do not think it is in Anyeli/Karen Abigail's best interest to return to Guatemala. There is simply too much static and controversy for her to be safe. There are multiple people in jail, an allegation of murder, and the almost-certain involvement of a family member (the father's sister, in the failed DNA test). Given this situation, can we reasonably assume that this blameless little girl will be safe? In the long run, she has the right to know who she is, to know her mother, and to untangle this story for herself. I hope that her APs have the strength to help her on this journey.

Posted by: Ellie K at November 9, 2009 01:47 PM

I have also had a lot of problems with the way that the old DNA process was performed. I would like to remind people, that in this case, DNA samples were not switched.

One person said that the US embassy isn't going to compare all of the photos. There are lots of ways to automate things. AT a bare minimum they could:
1) send the mismatched DNA reports to the Guatemalan adoption authorities. Gee, the mistached reports provide important information when one is investigating a kidnapping case.
2) automatically compare DNA profiles to each other. Various kinds of funny business may be exposed by doing this.
3) they may even use face recognition software to automatically compare photos. I do not know if good software for this kind of thing exists yet, but it probably does.
4) take DNA samples of abandoned children and keep them in a repository. THis could be used in many ways. Biological parents with missing children are having a hard time recognizing their child based on the photos due to poor quality photos, the child has aged, etc... These DNA samples can be compared to the DNA of parents who think their child has been kidnapped for international adoption purposes. The DNA samples in the repository can be be used even after the child has left the country.

Best, Cheryl

Posted by: cheryl at November 11, 2009 01:12 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?