Twin brothers Raymon and Richard Miller are the father and uncle to a 3-year-old little girl. The problem is, they don’t know which is which. Or who is who.

The identical Missouri twins say they were unknowingly having sex with the same woman. And according to the woman’s testimony, she had sex with each man on the same day. Within hours of each other.

When the woman in question, Holly Marie Adams, got pregnant, she named Raymon the father, but he contested and demanded a paternity test, bringing his own brother Richard to court.

But a paternity test in this case could not help. The test showed that both brothers have over a 99.9 percent probability of being the daddy— and neither one wants to pay the child support. The result of the test has not only brought to light the limits of DNA evidence, it has also led to a three-year legal battle, a Miller family feud and a little girl who may never know who her real father is.

“‘Did you sleep with him [Richard Miller] while in Sikeston for the rodeo?’,” Cameron Parker, Richard’s lawyer, said she asked Holly Marie Adams in 2003 court testimony, to which she answered “‘Yes ma’am.’” “She then said she went to appellant’s [Raymon Miller's]home where they had sex later that night or early the next morning,” Parker said.

As soon as Raymon was asked to pay child support, he demanded that he and his brother both take a paternity test. When the paternity test came back with the same results, he took the matter to the courts where Judge Fred Copeland ruled that even in light of the identical DNA tests and overlapping relationships, Raymon would remain the legal father of the child. Raymon hopes to continue appealing the decision.

“I want to go to the Supreme Court,” Raymon told ABC News. “If they can’t prove it’s me then they should throw it out of court.” And as for the child support, he said, “The state should eat it.”

As for the mother, Holly Marie Adams just wants the whole battle to be over.

Richard, while admitting that he had a sexual relationship with Adams, believes that there is no way that he is the father and said that his brother just doesn’t want the financial burden of a child.

“Raymon’s the one that done everything,” Richard told ABC News. “He’s the one that brought this to court. It’s just him not wanting to pay child support. It’s a big mess if you ask me.”

It seems, however, that the Millers and the courts will never know the true father.

“With identical twins, even if you sequenced their whole genome you wouldn’t find difference…they’re clones,” said Dr. Bob Gaensslen, a forensic scientist at Orchid Cellmark labs in Texas. “There are a few things in science that are cut and dried and this is one of them.”

Dr. Bob Giles, a paternity testing expert, agrees. “There is simply no test that explains the difference between two identical twins,” he said.

The final appellate court decision, filed this year, ruled that Raymon will remain the legal father. In Missouri, a paternity test must come back with 98 percent or higher probability that DNA matches in order for a man to be named the legal father.

“They say you have to prove with 98 percent certainty that you’re the father. But since with my brother it’s a 99 percent chance and with me it’s a 99 percent chance — that seems like more of a 50/50. What if there was a rape or murder case with twins? Then they could just go around pointing the finger at the other,” Ramon said.

But a paternity suit is very different from a criminal case, noted Lori Andrews, a top genetics lawyer.

“In a criminal case there is a chance that the twin would get off because the DNA cannot pinpoint only one person, but here there is a different issue. The legal standard is lower.”

Copeland agrees that the case will not be going any further. “When DNA cannot be definitive you just go back to the same evidence that we used before,” Copeland said. As for the nature of the case, Copeland said it is one of the stranger legal situations he’s encountered. “When you are on the bench long enough though, you see a lot of strange things,” he said.

As for the child support,Gaensslen has his own suggestion as to who should be paying. “Split it down the middle,” he told ABC News. “They both played, so they should both pay.”

Today’s poll question is located here:

We encourage and invite you to submit your own poll ideas here.

What happened in the town of Hooksett, N.H., is no rumor.

Four town employees with 46 years of service between them were fired, in part for gossiping and discussing rumors of an improper relationship between the town administrator and another employee that Hooksett residents now agree were not true.

The administrator complained, and after an investigation the town council fired the women, finding, “Gossip, whispering, and an unfriendly environment are causing poor morale and interfering with the efficient performance of town business.”

“When I was given my termination papers, I just looked at the gentlemen that were present in the room and I said, ‘You’ve got to be kidding!’” said fired worker Sandy Piper, who insisted her comments weren’t out of line. “We discussed it on a lunch break, and then it ended.”

“It kind of sort of was, ‘Oh did you hear that too,’” said Michelle Bonsteel, Piper’s fired co-worker.

Gossip is ingrained in American culture, from the elementary school playground to the office water cooler. But Tory Johnson, “Good Morning America’s” workplace contributor, said people should be careful about what they say when they’re on the clock.

“Free speech only goes so far,” Johnson said. “An employer definitely has the right to defend his reputation.”

In Hooksett the four firings are ironically now the talk of the town. But for the women out of work, the controversy is not a matter of idle chatter — they want to get back to work.

“I did love my job. And do I want to return? Absolutely,” Piper said.

Lawyers for the Town Council of Hooksett told ABC News they have “no comment” at this time, but there could be a decision this week on whether to reinstate some or all of the women.

Today’s poll question is located here:

We encourage and invite you to submit your own poll ideas here.

Ellen Frankel stands just 4-foot-8 inches tall, a size that allowed larger co-workers to playfully scoop her up at the office and make remarks about her height. Some even patted her on the head.

Lawmakers are considering complaints such as hers as they review a bill that would make Massachusetts just the second state to bar discrimination based on height or weight.

”People in authority will very easily make comments about height that they wouldn’t make about race or gender,” said Frankel, a Marblehead author.

Jeanne Toombs understands the frustration. She says overweight people routinely are discriminated against because of their size.

”It’s not fair. No matter what you think of fat people, they deserve to be treated like human beings,” said Toombs, 59, a piano teacher who weighs 300 pounds.

But Republican analyst Todd Domke is concerned that lawmakers will scare off businesses if they expand protection to include short and overweight workers.

”We might as well add colorblind, left-handed, allergic-to-cashews, and get it over with,” Domke said.

Today’s poll question is located here:

We encourage and invite you to submit your own poll ideas here.