You are right: DNA is conclusive. Plus, the two purported fathers look NOTHING alike: one has dark hair, light eyes, and a big nose; the other has sandy hair, sandy eyes, and a pug nose that even before it was (probably) fixed, would have been smaller than the other guy's schnoz. My point is that it'll probably be evident soon, just by eyeballing the baby, which guy is the more likely father.
I guess they figure a guy could just temporarily "borrow" some other guy's DNA for the night. These kinds of shysters will say absolutely anything for a buck.
Not legally. The man who raises the kid and changes the diapers is the father, not the sperm donor.
It might not be conclusive if the two claimants were closely related to each other, but given that they're not it should be pretty darned conclusive in terms of ruling one of them out (technically the baby's father could still be a close relative of the claimant whose DNA was a good match, rather than the claimant himself, but a reality could pretty quickly rule out that possibility).
DNA evidence is given as a percentage. So I guess in that sense it's never 100%. But true parentage is usually up in the high 90's. Pretty conclusive. He's playing with language, I imagine.
What if NEITHER man is father?................
Actually, his statement that DNA is not conclusive is itself conclusive, but not in his client's favor.