I feel that Marilyn Monroe's father should be changed to Charles Stanley Gifford

Question

Often times we as genealogists put a lot of trust in legal documents and for the most part they are accurate. However, in this case with Marilyn Monroe not including the strong circumstantial evidence but now clear DNA evidence it is erroneous to think of Edward Mortensen as Marilyn Monroe's biological father. Gladys Pearl Monroe obviously listed  his name on Marilyn's birth certificate to avoid scandal and the fact that Stanley Gifford did not wish to be the father of Marilyn. The DNA evidence looks solid and from very reputable, skillful experts in their field, especially when it comes to DNA and hair analysis.  Had this been some upstart DNA company, amateurish and with little experience I would have my doubts.

The other night I viewed the documentary on Marilyn Monroe, Her Final Secret, which was released in France but the English version was now shown in Australia. The professionalism and experience of the scientists of the laboratories in Huntsville, Texas and in Toulouse France leaves little doubt.

I was able to watch this documentary in English on SBS Australia. Overall, it was very professional with very reputable geneticists and scientists conducting the research. I think it was very sound research, 22% of her genome decoded. and revealed a three generation connection between Francine Gifford and Marilyn Monroe using the text lines from their DNA. Several statistical methods were used to compare and verify the final results. They definitely chose the right scientist for the job, Ludovic Orlando, PhD in Paleogenomics, an expert in extracting DNA from ancient hair samples. . It was kept secret from him as to the identity of the hairs until the final results were made. Until the revelation of the hair belonging to Marilyn Monroe the samples were identified as 'Hair Girl'.

I also want to mention that two sets of saliva samples from Francine and Lisa Deir (I'm not certain if Lisa is the daughter of Francine Gifford or a niece of Francine. Regardless, she is still the great granddaughter of Charles Stanley Gifford and also submitted her DNA), and Marilyn Monroe's hair samples were sent to two different laboratories. The hair sample from Marilyn's hairdresser, Robert Champion, was sent to a DNA laboratory in Huntsville, Texas, north of Houston. This research facility is capable of deciphering damaged DNA in human or body hair. Dr. Rachel Houston is a research geneticist. Dr. Houston is also an active member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) and the Association of Forensic DNA Analysts and Administrators (AFDAA). Her other research interests include exploring the use of alternate DNA markers (INNULs, INDELs, SNPs) and Massively Parallel Sequencing (MPS) for human identification (HID) and intelligence purposes. After DNA extraction from this sample was made it was useless yielding no results. This is fairly common with DNA in the keratin of the hair where what little DNA there is it is probably damaged. DNA resides mostly in the roots of the hair.

The second hair sample came from Marilyn's embalmer, Allan Abbott,. This was sent to Centre for Anthropobiology and Genomics of Toulouse (CAGT) lab dedicated to deciphering old DNA located in southern France. Head researcher, Ludovic Orlando, PhD in Paleogenomics headed this project. His experience, includes deciphering DNA from hairs of a 50,000 year old woolly mammoth. and hair from a 700,000 year old horse. It was this sample of Marilyn's hair that yielded results from which sequencing could be conducted and a link made back to the common ancestor (Charles Stanley Gifford) of Marilyn Monroe and Francine Gifford Deir and Lisa..

Getting back to the research done by Ludovic Orlando, PhD in Paleogenomics at the Centre for Anthropobiology and Genomics of Toulouse, France. He stated that the results of 22% of Marilyn's genome showed a three generational difference between Francine Gifford Deir and Marilyn Monroe. This confused me because Francine would be the niece of Marilyn Monroe and that would be only one generational difference. But then it dawned on me. Marilyn Monroe was Francine's HALF Aunt. They both descend from different mothers. This means according to the cM (centimorgan) chart the amount of cM for a half aunt and a great grandparent are about the same, in the 870-880 range on average. A great grandparent would be three generations away from Francine. Obviously, Marilyn could not be Francine's great grandparent which leaves only one other option, Marilyn was Francine's half aunt. The amount of this cM fits perfectly in the half aunt category. The likelihood of a false-positive would be 1 in 46 billion. Ludvovic Orlando was extremely fortunate to find the very small amount of Marilyn's DNA within the keratin of her hair but it was all that was needed to establish 22% of Marilyn's genome, and as Ludovic stated, make it irrefutable that Charles Stanley Gifford was the biological father of Marilyn Monroe.

Answer 1

Reading the biography and the sources on the profile, I agree with you assessment.

Comments

It is difficult to change.  I'm having the same issue over on Geni.com.  People are against changing the father to Charles Stanley Gifford regardless of this latest DNA evidence.  They give a legal birth certificate priority even if the father's  name is likely incorrect.  They don't put enough trust in the DNA findings. The only site I did see changed to Stanley Gifford was Find A Grave.

Answer 2

I agree 100% with James Stratman.  I was the person who insisted on listing Mortensen as her father due to her birth certificate, and her own statement to the Los Angeles County recorder when asked at her first marriage, "Who is your father?" and she answered E. Mortensen.  True, he was legally her father, but dna does not lie, and we must now correct her profile to reflect the dna recently revealed.

Best regards,

Lilly Martin

Comments

Thank  you Lilly. I appreciate your support.  I have already notified the Notables Project Team. Your input is always welcome.

Answer 3

So this means somebody (I'd suggest James Stratman as he is the thread-opener) should ask the Notables Project to access the Trusted List of Marilyn Monroe to be able to change the father. Please add a link to this thread as well so that the Notables Project can assess your reasoning.

Comments

Thank you  Jelena. I will be in touch with the Notables Project concerning this change and as you stated link this thread to them as well.

Answer 4

I haven been hearing how the quality of the samples are not sufficient or that the testing itself does not meet quality standards. I would like to know if these same people took the time to look at the accomplishments and curriculum vitae of those integral to this study. In particular the head of this study, Ludovic Orlando, PhD. Andaine, Seguin-Orlando who exracted Marilyn Monroe's DNA from her  hair for analysis, and Dr. Rachel Houston who examined the quality of hair samples belonging to Marilyn Monroe but concluded that the quality could not be used.

I present here their qualifications:  

https://cagt.cnrs.fr/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/LudovicOrlando-20210106-Resume.pdf

https://cagt.cnrs.fr/seguin-orlando-andaine/

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rachel-Houston-2

Comments

Hi James - I was curious, as I suspect others were as well, as to how the information of this testing would be viewed in general. It does appear relatively positive, which is a bit surprising in today's age of doubt and conspiracy. I would agree that there did not appear to be an agenda by these testers to find in one way or another, nor were they likely to be paid more or less depending on which way they found. And while there is always a bit of "fame" that travels when stirring up some sort of controversy, such did not appear to be their goal in doing their job in evaluating the DNA sample the team was presented with, and then comparing it to other samples. To me that says much more than the outcome, the hype, or the impact this may or may not have towards her genealogy. I agree as well that it does appear to be the right thing to do in making this change to her profile, so I'll update it and we can review the impacts of this change to her connections. Thanks for bringing it to the attention it needed and for following up as well.

---

Thank you Scott for your thoughtful reply.  I think part of the problem is  that this documentary has not been released to the American audience.  I don't see it on the list of media companies to carry this documentary in the USA.  I was lucky to find it on SBS Australia in English, but had to pay a fee to watch it. Therefore, there are probably very few Americans who have seen this documentary.  The Marilyn Monroe hair samples  were kept hidden from the testers, identified only as "hair girl'.  It was only until after the results were finalized that Ludovic was informed they belonged to Marilyn Monroe.  It finally made sense to him why the hair strands were so colored.

I do think it is important to link Edward Mortensen as the LEGAL father of Marilyn Monroe. Perhaps, put a section on him in the body of the profile for both him and Marilyn Monroe linking the two along with pertinent information.   Then change the biological father to Charles Stanley Gifford.  I would be happy to outline the key DNA findings on Charles Stanley Gifford's profile.

Here is a little more information on the methodology used:  

At CAGT in France, Andaine Seguin, Associate Professor of Paleogenomics led the extraction process where the hair samples were first cleaned. added an enzyme solution to break down the proteins and completely dissolves the strand of hair. Any potential DNA was now in liquid form inside the tubes. Scientists amplify it to make it visible to their detection system. However, this provided 5% of the molecules in Marilyn's hair allowing for billions of sequences which provided enough sequences to identify a significant amount of 'Hair Girl's (Marilyn's) DNA. This was then put through high speed sequencing to read each letters of the strands of DNA. The results exceeded expectation. The risk of a false-positive is about 1 in 46 billion.