Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Myth and Legends of Survivors => Topic started by: ISteinke on November 20, 2004, 02:50:24 PM

Title: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: ISteinke on November 20, 2004, 02:50:24 PM
OK, It seems that [on this forum] the subject of AA-AN has been going round and round for months, with no real progress made in the discussion. I want to make an observation, an observation that I really hope people take seriously.

As I have said before, if I thought that the case was absolutely closed [objectively] against Anna Anderson being one and the same as Anastasia Romanov I would have no problem accepting her as Franziska. Ultimately [to use an expression that is often employed in fundamentalist churches] it isn't going to affect anyone's eternal destiny. Frankly, from an emotional standpoint I don't care who she was.

There is an issue, however, that needs to be dealt with, from an academic standpoint.

Over the period of the many years of Anna Anderson's lifetime a monumental corpus of evidence was amassed in favor of AA being Grand Duchess Anastasia- from uncanny memories, to astonishing physical similarities, recognitions by people who knew AN, etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum. This isn't just hearsay or silliness. It is real evidence, evidence that the opponents of Mrs. Manahan (Anna Anderson) did not ever like or feel comfortable with.


Often the supporters of AA are accused of believing in delusional conspiracy theories. However, opponents of AA have developed a canon of conspiratorial ideas of their own. Do you honestly think that Tatiana Botkin, Gleb Botkin, Maria Rasputin, Lili Dehn, Grand Duke Andrei, Alexandra Gilliard, Princess Xenia of Russia, Zinaida Tolstoy, Felix Dassel, and Kaiser Wilhelm (just to name a few) were all in league with each other? What about the initial recognition from Grand Duchess Olga (albeit later retracted)? Was she originally in on it, as well?


My problem with the anti-Anna people is this. As I mentioned above, there was this huge mass of evidence collected, which would really lead one to believe that AA was one and the same as Anastasia.

Then the DNA tests came out.

After the DNA tests came out the opponents of AA decided that this was convenient justification to writeoff/ignore/ridicule/dismiss out of hand all of the previous evidence. I'm sorry, but regardless of what the DNA tests appear to demonstrate, you CANNOT just dismiss all of the other evidence.

Part of the problem with these threads is this. I will admit, for the sake of this discussion, that the DNA evidence looks pretty damning, and often the pro-Anna people just dismiss it. To do so without a good explanation is incorrect, from a scholarly standpoint. HOWEVER, it is just as incorrect for the anti-Anna people to refuse to deal with the mass of evidence in her favor. It exists, whether you like it or not.

As I see it, the real problem with the DNA is this. THERE IS A VERY REAL PARADOX HERE, which no one seems willing to fearlessly deal with, at least the anti-Anna people. We do, with Anna Anderson, have a strange situation in which every last piece of evidence except the DNA would indicate that this individual is one person, while the DNA indicates that she is another.

It isn't enough, in this case, to simply say that the evidence in her favour wasn't really as good as we thought. That evidence was compelling, and damning, and, logically speaking, the DNA tests do not alter what I would refer to as "the Karlsruhe evidence."

All that I ask of the anti-Anna people is that you be willing to actually deal with all of the evidence, rather than dismissing it out of hand, and pretending that it doesn't exist.

There is something profoundly wierd, unexplainable, and conundrical  about this case, and the opponents need to recognize that. DNA does not take away the conundrum.




















Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Laura Mabee on November 20, 2004, 03:18:38 PM
When we PM'ed eachother ealier today we came to a conclusion that this AN/AA/FS topic will never really be solved through discussion. Since both sides believe in their side we'll just end up arguing to death over the subject and get nothing completed.

I was really dissapointed when it seemed like my thread got turned into another AA Vs. AN Vs. FS. I got to the point where I don't read it anymore because it seems like it's just that battle.

I'm not saying that we should stop debating the issue, but it's really getting tiring of reading how people are going at eachothers throats on the matter  :-[
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Merrique on November 20, 2004, 04:14:30 PM
As has been said on other threads,the DNA evidence proves beyond a doubt that Anna Anderson WAS NOT Anastasia Nikolaevna PERIOD!

It doesn't matter if there was a so called resemblence between the two,that doesn't matter since everyones perceptions of this so called rememblence is different.Everyone sees what they want to see when comparing the 2.Anna may have had some astonishing physical similarities,but obviously those similarities weren't numberous enough to convince everyone,especially her family.
The recognitions by people who knew AN isn't really convincing enough since her family didn't recognise her.I just can't believe her family would reject her if she was Anastasia.They would have welcomed her with open arms.
Ultimately this huge mass of evidence is meaningless.
DNA proved Anna WAS NOT Anastasia.
It makes no logical sense to me why some people still feel the need to grasp at straws.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: ISteinke on November 20, 2004, 04:46:57 PM
Merrique has just proved my point. Thank you, Merrique.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Merrique on November 20, 2004, 06:27:32 PM
I'm sure your point is just to start another thread where sarcastic comments and arguements thrive,and another thread is locked because of it.I'm sorry but I will not be dragged into this kind of crap.It is a total waste of everyones time.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 20, 2004, 06:28:10 PM
Quote
it is just as incorrect for the anti-Anna people to refuse to deal with the mass of evidence in her favor. It exists, whether you like it or not.

.... every last piece of evidence except the DNA would indicate that this individual is one person, while the DNA indicates that she is another.



ISteinke,

Ok, I am going to try this one last time, and then I will give up. I understand what you are trying to say here, but the problem with what you are saying is that all the evidence that you are invoking is subjective evidence, while DNA is objective evidence. You cannot compare the two, as you are continuously trying to do. For example, the issue of AA's appearance is very subjective, and this is clearly demonstrated on this very forum: just look at the difference of opinion about her looks among everyone here: we range from "she looks like an AN clone" to "she couldn't look any less like AN". So obviously this kind of evidence is out because it's too subjective and based too much on individual perception.

If you can present "objective" evidence here, something that is comparable to the DNA evidence, in favor of AA being AN, then I am willing to toy with your theory, otherwise we are comparing "apples and oranges" here.

So far, I have not seen any evidence that even comes close to the DNA evidence as far as objectivity and conclusiveness goes, therefore it cannot be accepted on the same level as DNA. The ear analysis, the handwriting analysis, the body markings, the recognitions - most of that stuff is subjective, depending on whom you talk to, and this is the problem with it. This is why the German courts, that you like to bring up once in a while, could not make their decision based on all that evidence - because all this evidence is inconclusive which means it can have other explanations. Just because we don't know what these explanations are, it doesn't mean that this evidence should be accepted. On the other hand, the DNA evidence is conclusive, there is no other explanation for these results, they are factual, and had the German courts had this DNA evidence back then, they would have immediately decided against AA, regardless of all the other evidence that was presented. In other words, the German court s would do the exact same thing that the so-called anti-AA people, as you call them, are doing. Any court would have done it. And I am not saying this because I want it to be so, I am saying this because it is so, this is the way it works with evidence.

This is why some criminals are getting their sentences reversed now, because of DNA evidence alone. Many of them were convicted in courts beyond a reasonable doubt back when DNA evidence was not available, and many actually had a lot of evidence against them, similar evidence as AA had in her case.

However, once the 'Innocence Project' (http://www.innocenceproject.org/about/index.php) started presenting their DNA evidence it exonerated  wrongly convicted individuals, because this was considered to be much more compelling evidence than any other evidence they had before, prior to DNA. They may have had a mountain of evidence against them before, but it was circumstantial evidence, which is what AA evidence is, and all they needed was this one DNA result in order to reverse this person's sentence. And I should add, many of these cases included eyewitnesses who positively identified these suspects, which was often what convicted them. But eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable, even though they themselves may be convinced they know what they are talking about. This is why I say that testimonies from people regarding AA are not to be compared to DNA evidence - there is no comparison here! So in these legal cases, no matter how many eyewitnesses there were and how much other evidence, once the courts saw that the DNA did not match, these cases were overturned. This is how powerful DNA evidence is considered to be in the legal system. And this is why I for one, keep saying that this is all we need here, regardless of other evidence.

I am sorry you don't buy into this, ISteinke, but I realize that it is only because you don't understand the enormity of this evidence as compared to everything else. This is the way it is. Just to make my point once again: if you had to assign points to each piece of evidence, let's say that all the evidence that AA had to support her case would add up to say 50 points, then compared to that, the DNA evidence would add up to 1,000 points. This is the kind of difference there is. So this is why we can disregard the other evidence. Do yourself a favor, and I know I have said this before, but try to learn more about scientific and legal evidence, that way you can debate this kind of stuff more effectively.

And BTW, as I said once before, I don't consider myself "anti-AA", as I have nothing against the poor woman, what I am is "pro-scientific evidence", which in this case means not being able to support AA's case. That's all.

Helen
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: rskkiya on November 20, 2004, 06:51:54 PM
IST

   You have made some rather outlandish claims (in other AA- AN posts) about the Queeen of England somehow "fixing" or "controlling"  the DNA results...

   Will you please elucidate us on any evidence that you have for this comment?

rskkiya
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Forum Admin on November 20, 2004, 08:02:57 PM
I think the problem, and source of frustration is this. Mr. Steinke believes that the DNA evidence is either unrealiable, or of the same evidentiary weight as the subjective evidence (ear shape, languages, posture, et al.)

Helen A, Merrique, and frankly myself, understand the nature of mtDNA, and the un-changeable FACT that DNA is what it is. the DNA evidence is frankly totally conclusive on the issue of AA NOT being AN, period (and I myself was open to the possibility that she might have been UNTIL the DNA tests). UNLESS you can show for certain that the samples tested were not what they were supposed to be, or far more unlikely, some vast conspiricy to supplant the results.

This statement IS NOT any attempt to thwart supporters of AA, frankly I have given that subject free reign here. This statement is FACT, no different than Newton's first law of thermodynamics, or Copernicus' postulate of the earth revolving around the sun, or the idea that a 10 ton hunk of metal can fly 10,000 miles across the planet.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 20, 2004, 10:11:02 PM
Quote


Often the supporters of AA are accused of believing in delusional conspiracy theories. However, opponents of AA have developed a canon of conspiratorial ideas of their own. Do you honestly think that Tatiana Botkin, Gleb Botkin, Maria Rasputin, Lili Dehn, Grand Duke Andrei, Alexandra Gilliard, Princess Xenia of Russia, Zinaida Tolstoy, Felix Dassel, and Kaiser Wilhelm (just to name a few) were all in league with each other? What about the initial recognition from Grand Duchess Olga (albeit later retracted)? Was she originally in on it, as well?


Botkins- IMO, looking for a good story as Gleb was a journalist. We will never know for sure but the more I think about it the more I feel stupid not seeing this real possibility years ago!

Kaiser Wilhelm- Since when?? I never heard he was a supporter!

Olga- I disagree she claimed and then denied her. As someone recently posted, she knew from the first time she met her the bond was not there. I think she gave her every chance because she wanted her to be her so bad, but she wasn't.

Maria Rasputin- was never in that close of contact with the family, and honestly, sorry, by the time she took up with AA later in life she was just as wacky in the noodle.

Felix Dassel- only met her a few times as a volunteer nurse in a hospital. I doubt I could accurately identify any nurse I'd had in the hospital years later. This holds nothing for me.

Lili Dehn, to put it kindly, she was mistaken


Quote
As I see it, the real problem with the DNA is this. THERE IS A VERY REAL PARADOX HERE, which no one seems willing to fearlessly deal with, at least the anti-Anna people. We do, with Anna Anderson, have a strange situation in which every last piece of evidence except the DNA would indicate that this individual is one person, while the DNA indicates that she is another.


Oh, I beg to differ strongly! Are you saying that besides the DNA everything else points to her being AN? Not from what I see! Even without the DNA it is most unrealistic. Once again, from another thread, the reasons I don't believe, and I will even leave out the DNA!

Reasons why I don't believe in AA anymore:

She did not make a claim until someone at the asylum gave her the idea with a book

She first claimed to be Tatiana

Her story of escape is unbelievable and cannot be proven or verified. There is no evidence Alexander Tchiakovsky ever existed, and it sounds like a conveniently invented name (common first name, famous last name)

It is very unlikely anyone survived the brutal massacre, and if they did, could not possibly have lasted for long, traveling miles in a cart, with no medical attention. If they didn't bleed to death they'd succumb to infection later. It's what, almost 1,000 miles from Ekaterinburg to Romania? How many weeks is that by cart in the mud, hiding from populated areas? It's not realistic.


She doesn't look like Anastasia- fuller lips, wider mouth, wider set eyes, different shaped chin

Any of her 'memories' could be explained as being told to her, intentionally or inadvertently, by Russian emigres'

Even with these 'memories' much of what she said was inaccurate

The Romanov and Hesse families rejected her, and I don't believe they'd have been so cold if she were genuine

The Schanskowska family first accepted, then denied her, and later there is evidence they did so to avoid responsibility for a troublesome sister and as not to spoil her 'career' as 'Anastasia'

Many other acquaitences of the family rejected her as false. When she met some, she hid part of her face or stayed behind a screen so they couldn't get a good look.

with all the rumors of money and vast fortunes (which later proved false) there was the potential for 'gold digging' and 'supporters'  backing her in hopes of a huge payoff if she could win

There are too many different stories and conflicting reports of things like her height, scars, what languages she spoke, and when she spoke them. Most of these stories are from only one source, often unnamed or unverified, and many contradict each other.  

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Laura Mabee on November 20, 2004, 11:15:44 PM
It seems that people are upset again over the subject that we know disscussion will not solve.
I've never stated if I believe or diss-beleive A.Anderson because I don't think it matters anymore. It seems that we can't have a logical discussion without getting emotionally upset.  :(
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 21, 2004, 07:35:35 AM
I don't see anyone emotionally upset. If someone makes a case, someone will make a counterpoint. That's how it goes. That's all.

The reason I posted what I did is because despite all the other contrary evidence, there are 2 or 3 individuals here who continue to claim that we who do not support AA are going by DNA alone and ignoring everything else, so I thought it important to point out that is not my only reason. For some, that's all they need, and if that's good enough for them that's fine. But since it seems that is not enough to satisfy some people, so I simply wanted to give them more reasons besides the DNA.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Olga on November 21, 2004, 07:36:39 AM
That is where the trouble lies; getting emotionally involved.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 21, 2004, 07:38:46 AM
Quote
It seems that people are upset again over the subject that we know disscussion will not solve.
I've never stated if I believe or diss-beleive A.Anderson because I don't think it matters anymore. It seems that we can't have a logical discussion without getting emotionally upset.  :(


Laura,

I don't think anyone is upset here, people are just once again going over things that have been already discussed in depth and should by now be obvious to everyone, so they may sound somewhat exasperated. But just because someone continues to express a different opinion and tries to point out inconsistencies in someone else's argument, that doesn't mean they are upset or that the conversation is not logical.

The way it's supposed to go now, is that Mr Steinke, who initiated this topic, will read all the responses to his post, and then post his own counter-argument (without getting upset of course).

I think that we actually are discussing this logically and like adults this time (at least so far). I am not sure exactly what you mean by a "logical discussion", do you mean that we should all just agree and not argue? But of course that will never happen, nor should it. But if we each are able to present our arguments in a logical manner without attacking anyone, and then counter argue, then what's wrong with that? And this is what we have done on this thread so far, IMO.    
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Alice on November 21, 2004, 08:01:07 AM
Quote

ISteinke,

Ok, I am going to try this one last time, and then I will give up. I understand what you are trying to say here, but the problem with what you are saying is that all the evidence that you are invoking is subjective evidence, while DNA is objective evidence. You cannot compare the two, as you are continuously trying to do. For example, the issue of AA's appearance is very subjective, and this is clearly demonstrated on this very forum: just look at the difference of opinion about her looks among everyone here: we range from "she looks like an AN clone" to "she couldn't look any less like AN". So obviously this kind of evidence is out because it's too subjective and based too much on individual perception.

If you can present "objective" evidence here, something that is comparable to the DNA evidence, in favor of AA being AN, then I am willing to toy with your theory, otherwise we are comparing "apples and oranges" here.

So far, I have not seen any evidence that even comes close to the DNA evidence as far as objectivity and conclusiveness goes, therefore it cannot be accepted on the same level as DNA. The ear analysis, the handwriting analysis, the body markings, the recognitions - most of that stuff is subjective, depending on whom you talk to, and this is the problem with it. This is why the German courts, that you like to bring up once in a while, could not make their decision based on all that evidence - because all this evidence is inconclusive which means it can have other explanations. Just because we don't know what these explanations are, it doesn't mean that this evidence should be accepted. On the other hand, the DNA evidence is conclusive, there is no other explanation for these results, they are factual, and had the German courts had this DNA evidence back then, they would have immediately decided against AA, regardless of all the other evidence that was presented. In other words, the German court s would do the exact same thing that the so-called anti-AA people, as you call them, are doing. Any court would have done it. And I am not saying this because I want it to be so, I am saying this because it is so, this is the way it works with evidence.

This is why some criminals are getting their sentences reversed now, because of DNA evidence alone. Many of them were convicted in courts beyond a reasonable doubt back when DNA evidence was not available, and many actually had a lot of evidence against them, similar evidence as AA had in her case. However, once Project Innocence started presenting DNA evidence, this was considered to be much more compelling evidence than any other evidence they had before, prior to DNA. They may have had a mountain of evidence, circumstantial evidence, which is what AA evidence is, and all they needed was this one DNA result in order to reverse this person's sentence. This is how powerful DNA evidence is considered to be. I am sorry you don't buy into it, but it is only because you don't understand the enormity of this evidence as compared to everything else. This is the way it is. Just to make my point: if you had to assign points to each piece of evidence, let's say that all the evidence that AA had to support her case would add up to say 50 points, then compared to that, the DNA evidence would add up to 1,000 points. This is the kind of difference there is. So this is why we can disregard the other evidence. Do yourself a favor, and I know I have said this before, but try to learn more about scientific and legal evidence, that way you can debate this kind of stuff more effectively.

And BTW, as I said once before, I don't consider myself "anti-AA", as I have nothing against the poor woman, what I am is "pro-scientific evidence", which in this case means not being able to support AA's case. That's all.

Helen


Thankyou, Helen. This is another post from you that echoes my thoughts exactly.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 21, 2004, 08:07:58 AM
Quote

Laura,

I don't think anyone is upset here, people are just once again going over things that have been already discussed in depth and should by now be obvious to everyone, so they may sound somewhat exasperated. But just because someone continues to express a different opinion and tries to point out inconsistencies in someone else's argument, that doesn't mean they are upset or that the conversation is not logical.

The way it's supposed to go now, is that Mr Steinke, who initiated this topic, will read all the responses to his post, and then post his own counter-argument (without getting upset of course).

I think that we actually are discussing this logically and like adults this time (at least so far). I am not sure exactly what you mean by a "logical discussion", do you mean that we should all just agree and not argue? But of course that will never happen, nor should it. But if we each are able to present our arguments in a logical manner without attacking anyone, and then counter argue, then what's wrong with that? And this is what we have done on this thread so far, IMO.    



THANK YOU for putting it so eloquently and perfectly! This is exactly right!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 21, 2004, 08:34:12 AM
I'm glad this helped. Recently I was researching the Innocence Project a little bit, and I realized that it fits perfectly into this discussion about AA because in this project they are excluding people from being suspects via DNA, just like in the AA case, she was excluded from being AN via DNA. I added some more information to my previous post about 'The Innocence Project', in case someone is interested to understand how DNA exclusion is used in the legal system thhese days. So I added their URL and additional explanation. I think this may help people to understand the AA case, and how DNA evidence definitely excluded her from being AN.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 21, 2004, 08:51:35 AM
From the Innocence Project website:

DNA testing has been a major factor in changing the criminal justice system. It has provided scientific proof that our system convicts and sentences innocent people -- and that wrongful convictions are not isolated or rare events. Most importantly, DNA testing has opened a window into wrongful convictions so that we may study the causes and propose remedies that may minimize the chances that more innocent people are convicted.

What does the Innocence Project do?

The Project handles cases where DNA testing of evidence can yield conclusive proof of innocence. We do not handle cases that require a challenge to conclusive DNA testing.

Prosecutorial Resistance to Post-Conviction DNA Testing

When post-conviction DNA testing began to develop a decade ago, too many prosecutors vigorously opposed defense applications for such testing. The inexplicable opposition continues today. In an article in The Washington Post (Sept 21, 2003), former FBI Director William S. Sessions writes that "with 137 post-conviction DNA exonerations now on the books in the United States, I am increasingly concerned about recent news stories that suggest a growing resistance on the part of prosecutors across the country to allow post-conviction DNA testing, even in cases where there is strong evidence of innocence." Judge Sessions argues that prosecutors have a professional duty and moral responsibility to seek the truth. "Just as pretrial DNA testing has illuminated the unexpected frequency with which police and prosecutors have targeted the wrong person, post-conviction testing in cases that were tried 15 or more years ago can exonerate those wrongly convicted, and can possibly identify the true perpetrator." Sessions does not understand why prosecutors oppose a defendant's access to DNA evidence for testing in cases where the results could make a difference. "Prosecutors have nothing to lose -- unless they put their pride before their professionalism -- in allowing post-conviction DNA requests to go forward. If the DNA test proves the defendant is guilty, then all doubts will be resolved. If it exonerates the defendant, then there is an opportunity to correct a tragic mistake and begin the search for the real criminal."
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 21, 2004, 09:02:07 AM
So the moral of the story here is, ISteinke, if everyone felt about DNA the way you do (this is not a personal attack, this is just to make a point), then think about how many innocent people will stay in prison or even get executed when they could very easily and very accurately be exonerated by DNA. So don't be like some of these prosecutors who keep resisting something they probably don't understand, learn about what DNA is capable of proving before you make judgments on these kinds of issues.

I am not saying that the AA case comes even close in importance to these life and death cases, but the point here is exactly the same.

Educate yourself about DNA evidence, ISteinke, and others who feel this way, that's all I have to say.

Thank you....
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 21, 2004, 09:10:59 AM
Thank you so much Helen_azar, excellent points made. But unfortunately no amount of education on DNA will ever satisfy those who believe that the results were rigged, or that Queen insisted the results be changed, or that the piece of intestine was hijacked and replaced.

I apologize to the regular readers of this forum who are fed up with me posting the same things over and over. But  from reading some posts here, there are apparently those who still haven't seen it, or ignore everything I've said, so I feel compelled to try again, useless as it may be. I do think the time has come for the author of this thread to take his/her own chosen title to heart, and "deal fearlessly with reality", the reality being that the DNA tests are not rigged, are accurate, and that AA was not AN.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 21, 2004, 09:18:25 AM
Quote
I do think the time has come for the author of this thread to take his/her own chosen title to heart, and "deal fearlessly with reality", the reality being that the DNA tests are not rigged, are accurate, and that AA was not AN.


ISteinke,

Please read everything that has been posted so far on this thread with an open mind and let us hear your counter-argument. And please do not get angry about people disargeeing with you just because they see more logic in the opposite view. Just counter-argue your points, like we have all been doing so far, and if you can make a good case, people will accept your views as legitimate. But please at the same time don't disregard all the points that have been made here and don't keep insisting that we are ignoring evidence.  

Helen
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: LisaDavidson on November 21, 2004, 11:52:01 AM
I also think it very unfair to put everyone into "Anti AA" and "Pro AA" categories. It's also misleading. Bob Atchison and I - and I know many of you on this forum - started out by believing AA at least on some level. The reason? We wanted to believe! And indeed, who would not want for some part of this little family to have survived? I think wanting to believe in survival explains the identification of many of those who identified her as ANR but who had not known the real gd well.

It may also surprise you to know that many of us you put on one side of the fence or the other are actually great friends in real life. Bob and I both are close to Peter Kurth, who I believe is acknowledged by most as the "reigning AA expert". We adore Peter and admire and respect his work.

In time you, too, may join us on the "side" Helen has so beautifully articulated - the side of objective truth.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 21, 2004, 12:37:57 PM
Quote
I also think it very unfair to put everyone into "Anti AA" and "Pro AA" categories. It's also misleading. Bob Atchison and I - and I know many of you on this forum - started out by believing AA at least on some level. The reason? We wanted to believe! And indeed, who would not want for some part of this little family to have survived? I think wanting to believe in survival explains the identification of many of those who identified her as ANR but who had not known the real gd well.


This is true too! It bothers me to be called 'anti-AA' like I hate her and am out to get her! I also believed in her for many years and had hoped she was AN and would have been happy if she was. But she wasn't, and one of the reasons I am so emphatic about my position is not to be mean to AA or her supporters but to help others see what it took me years to find out so they won't have to spend more time getting their hopes up for something that doesn't exist. For that reason, I hate to see the extreme theories and the 'new' info that is supposed to give people hope, when it's only dragging out the pain of it all. She wasn't Anastasia, but Anna Anderson Manahan was a nice lady and I know I would have liked her. I don't want to harm her memory any more than Anastasia's. But enough is enough, the time comes to let it go.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Laura Mabee on November 21, 2004, 01:40:24 PM
Quote
do you mean that we should all just agree and not argue?

I'm not sure if it was this thread on another thread, but I said before, that I know the pro an anti sides of AA will never agree.  And I guess you didn't mean it, but by your wording.. I would say that ,no, I don't want people to argue. I want people to discuss, debate without getting threads locked.  But I am going to assume that is what you ment, to debate.

You're right that this thread hasn't gone to that point yet. I suppose I am just expecting it too.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 21, 2004, 01:54:29 PM
Quote
I'm not sure if it was this thread on another thread, but I said before, that I know the pro an anti sides of AA will never agree.  And I guess you didn't mean it, but by your wording.. I would say that ,no, I don't want people to argue. I want people to discuss, debate without getting threads locked.  But I am going to assume that is what you ment, to debate.
You're right that this thread hasn't gone to that point yet. I suppose I am just expecting it too.


Hi Laura,

Yes, sorry - wrong choice of words on my part, of course I meant "debate" there. I guess when I was writing this, in my mind "debate = argue", while "fighting dirty and getting confrontational = justifiably locked thread"  ;D

Hopefully we all understand now a little better where each side is coming from and also understand the difference between two ways of disagreeing about something, and we can all try to carry on the "right" way from now on.

And I would still like to hear ISteinke's response about what has been presented so far in response to his post.  :D
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Merrique on November 21, 2004, 02:28:55 PM
I have to agree with what Helen,Annie and Lisa said.Most of us here wanted to believe that Anna A. was Anastasia.It would have been great if one of the IF had survived.
I also do not like being called anti-AA.I think she was a fascinating person in her own right,and someone I would like to know more about.I'm not against Anna Anderson at all.I just don't believe she was Anastasia and the DNA evidence proved that she wasn't.

I also respect and admire Peter Kurth's work.His book "Tsar The Lost World of Nicholas and Alexandra"
was the first one I bought when I started buying stuff to learn more about the Romanovs.

I think we have all shown that we can debate this issue in a calm,civil and respectful manner.It is very refreshing for a change.
I'm also looking forward to ISteinke's comments about what has been said on this thread. :)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Laura Mabee on November 21, 2004, 07:29:54 PM
I agree with everyone that I dislike being called an "anti" But at the time I didn't know what else to call it. I like the wording of "Objective Thinking". I know I wanted to believe in AA aswell. My first book that I ever saw about the Romanovs was Kurth's book.  ;D
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Denise on November 21, 2004, 07:37:39 PM
Quote
I agree with everyone that I dislike being called an "anti" But at the time I didn't know what else to call it. I like the wording of "Objective Thinking". I know I wanted to believe in AA aswell. My first book that I ever saw about the Romanovs was Kurth's book.  ;D


My 1st book was Kurth's also.  And I think that I got very emotionally involved in my belief in AA, as Kurth's dedication and belief were contagious.  As I got older, I became more objective, realizing that in hindsight many things that I ignored before (like AN's closest family denying AA) really made no sense if she were AN.  And with the release of the DNA info, and my acceptance of it, it has been easier to see the holes in AA's claims.

However, as many on this thread have already stated, in no way do I feel I am "anti" AA in any way.  Her story helped define in many people's minds what happened to the Romanovs, and the tragedy of the last trar's reign.  She was a unique woman, inspiring unquestioning loyalty in many.  

I too would like to discuss with Isteinke his response to the many posts already posted here.

Denise
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Alice on November 22, 2004, 03:17:16 AM
I was too young to really have an opinion either way on AA, when the DNA tests came out (I was all of 10 years old, but even at that age, had several Romanov books and videos). So I grew up knowing that AA was not AN.

With that said, I am not anti-AA by any stretch. As someone commented, she is a fascinating individual in her own right.

In some respects, it would be wonderful to know that someone survived the horror of that night. In other ways, it would be very cruel. I really doubt that Anastasia herself would want to survive when her parents, sisters, and younger brother perished (this of course, is another debate altogether).

We can all argue until we're blue in the face. Fact is, some people believe she was AN, and some don't. And because of this, this argument will continue to go around in circles (and continue to end in FA scolding us all (in the nicest possible way, of course!), and locking our threads  :D)

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: ISteinke on November 22, 2004, 08:54:58 AM
I wasn't trying to create new controversy or more upset feelings. All I was trying to do was to bring real, true objectivity to the discussion, from a scholarly standpoint

I admit. The DNA evidence seems extremely damning. It has caused me, over time, to do a great deal of thinking. I first read about it in Massie's Book The Romanovs, The Final Chapter. When I did I was thrown for a loop, honestly and truly. This does seem inexplainable.

Trust me. I am not in the category of a doctrinaire Anastasia supporter. As far as my own philosophical foundations are concerned I probably have much more in common with those persons who are against the idea that Anna Anderson and Anastasia Romanov were the same person. As a graduate school student I am very well aware that this is all about objective evidence.

The pro-Anna people, I believe, have made a huge philosophical mistake. If she was Anastasia, it isn't a mystery. It isn't a beautiful story. If she was, indeed, Anastasia, the memories that she had were not amazing. They were ordinary. We do have to remove the romance from this whole issue.

However, if she was not Anastasia, as the DNA tests SEEM to show, then there are real, true, serious mysteries and even spooky issues that have to be dealt with. You can't just write off the recognitions, memories, and astonishing physical similarities [I quote from Robert Massie, certainly no supporter of AA]. As writers, intellectuals, and scholars, you have to be willing to objectively, fearlessly deal with these things. You can't just say that they are stupid or "not as compelling as they seem."

It seems that the DNA results are being used to justify the complete exclusion of the traditional canon of evidence in this case. You [anyone] cannot do that. It is unscholarly. It is ignorant. It is tunnel-visioned. It represents a viewpoint that seems [at least in this case] to cherish freedom from education.

This year in graduate school we have been discussing the difference between critical thinkers and non-critical thinkers. Both sides in this controversy seem to be operating as non-critical thinkers. One side only considers the DNA. The other side only considers the Karlsruhe evidence. Both sides are wrong.

Pro-Anna people need to be willing to seriously, fearlessly, objectively study DNA, and explain in a plausible manner how the tests could be incorrect.

Anti-Anna people need to be willing to really look at the traditional canon of evidence, and to come up with more than a half-baked way of explaining it away. DNA or no, this woman seemed to have the spiritual, emotional, and mental identity of Anastasia Romanov dwelling inside of her. If she was not Anastasia then her very existance is just plain bizarre. Rather than saying that she did not have the memories or scars that she had, the anti-Anna people [please forgive term] need to be able to accept the evidence, and explain why this woman did have these "uniquely Anastasian characteristics."


Even Grand Duke Alexander (Sandro), a vociferous opponent of Anna Anderson, was floored by this conundrum. Sandro once said that "either she is Grand Duchess Anastasia, or the spirit of Anastasia has come back to Earth to dwell in this woman's body."

Rather than presenting a mantra of three letter combination [DNA, DNA, DNA, etc., etc., ad nauseum, ad infinitum] I wish that the anti-AA people could find some way to be open minded and deal with the traditional canon of evidence, in order to find a plausible way of explaining it, rather than just pretending that it doesn't exist.

That's it. I don't care whether Anna Anderson was AA or not. I just wish that you guys would be scholarly, rather than using DNA as an excuse to be dogmatic, fundamentalist "anti-AA's."

Please accept this in a spirit of friendship and academic comradery.

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 22, 2004, 09:26:53 AM
Quote

You can't just say that they are stupid or "not as compelling as they seem."

It seems that the DNA results are being used to justify the complete exclusion of the traditional canon of evidence in this case. You [anyone] cannot do that. It is unscholarly. It is ignorant. It is tunnel-visioned. It represents a viewpoint that seems [at least in this case] to cherish freedom from education.

This year in graduate school we have been discussing the difference between critical thinkers and non-critical thinkers. Both sides in this controversy seem to be operating as non-critical thinkers. One side only considers the DNA. The other side only considers the Karlsruhe evidence. Both sides are wrong.

Pro-Anna people need to be willing to seriously, fearlessly, objectively study DNA, and explain in a plausible manner how the tests could be incorrect.



ISteinke,

I wonder if you read my very long first post on this thread. Maybe not?  ???

BTW, no one ever said, at least I haven't, that the pro-AA results are "stupid". All we have been saying is that they can be shown to have other explanations, unlike the DNA results. This is why there is a definite answer to the question of AA and AN right now, because of the DNA. There wasn't a definite answer until the DNA technology emerged, but now there is a definite answer, one that does not need to be critically evaluated anymore.

I have studied DNA in graduate school. I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that the tests that excluded AA from being AN are correct. Humanities and social science theories are up for abstract critical discussions, facts, i.e. "hard" science results, are not up for critical discussions. I wonder if you understand the difference between facts and theories? Ask your professor in grad school.
There can be no other explanation here other than it is impossible that AA was AN. I am sorry that you didn't seem to understand anything that was stated previously, I really don't know what else can be said about this, I guess we just have to agree to disagree and move on.  ::)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 22, 2004, 09:28:04 AM
Quote


This year in graduate school we have been discussing the difference between critical thinkers and non-critical thinkers. Both sides in this controversy seem to be operating as non-critical thinkers. One side only considers the DNA. The other side only considers the Karlsruhe evidence. Both sides are wrong.


It hasn't taught you well enough, I guess, because you did not pay any attention to my very deep and critically thought out explaination I gave you. Did you once again totally ignore my post were I listed the reasons I don't believe in her and even omitted the dreaded DNA??!! I feel exactly as Helen described -exasperated! What more do I have to do to prove to you, it's NOT just the DNA, it's everything, and I can't do anything else but spell it out in as much detail as I did. The entire story is absolutely ridiculous and full of holes!

I am not trying to convince you not to believe in her, only to honestly consider and answer my counterpoints in a debate.


Quote
Anti-Anna people need to be willing to really look at the traditional canon of evidence, and to come up with more than a half-baked way of explaining it away.


I have done that, and my reasons are far less 'half baked' than most of the ones I've seen from supporters here (such as the Queen rigging the results) I think you just plain don't want to see the evidence right in your face, what else could it be?

Quote
DNA or no, this woman seemed to have the spiritual, emotional, and mental identity of Anastasia Romanov dwelling inside of her. If she was not Anastasia then her very existance is just plain bizarre. Rather than saying that she did not have the memories or scars that she had, the anti-Anna people [please forgive term] need to be able to accept the evidence, and explain why this woman did have these "uniquely Anastasian characteristics."


Even Grand Duke Alexander (Sandro), a vociferous opponent of Anna Anderson, was floored by this conundrum. Sandro once said that "either she is Grand Duchess Anastasia, or the spirit of Anastasia has come back to Earth to dwell in this woman's body."


And for every off hand comment like that, there are contradictions, and negative ones. So it means nothing.
"Anastasia-like?" What is that? By whose standards? I have also heard many who described her as common and not at all regal. Felix Yussoupov described her as 'a pitiful creature' and a 'frightful playactress' of a manner that 'could not possibly be the daughter of our Tsar." So we are back to subjectivity and various comments being bandied about, some may be inaccurate or changed over time. Unless we could see her, we can't make up our minds. From what I've seen on tape of her, as an old woman, she was not the least bit regal. I do believe she came to believe she was Anastasia. But she wasn't.


Quote
That's it. I don't care whether Anna Anderson was AA or not. I just wish that you guys would be scholarly, rather than using DNA as an excuse to be dogmatic, fundamentalist "anti-AA's."

Please accept this in a spirit of friendship and academic comradery.



For the last time, I am not using the DNA for an excuse. I totally disbelieve the entire story itself for reasons I have already mentioned. Do not take this as an attack, I simply am frustrated that you continue to say the same thing over and over while totally ignoring my counterpoints. I would appreciate it if you would respond to my post and give reasons why you think I'm wrong on all of them, in the best spirit of academic debate of course!

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Forum Admin on November 22, 2004, 10:37:58 AM
Mr. S wrote: It seems that the DNA results are being used to justify the complete exclusion of the traditional canon of evidence in this case. You [anyone] cannot do that. It is unscholarly. It is ignorant. It is tunnel-visioned. It represents a viewpoint that seems [at least in this case] to cherish freedom from education.

Where I think Mr. S. has erred is this. Robert Ennis (Univ. of Illinois) defines one of the crucial elements of critical thinking to be to JUDGE THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION and to EVALUATE the significance of the information.

The scientific evidence establishing the complete exclusion of AA is 100% credible and 100% conclusive. It is totally objective in nature, and does not rely on anyones 'belief', perception, or bias.

The "physical simalarities", AA's "behavior", AA's "stories" are the rest of Mr. S's "canon of evidence". This evidence is not credible. Far more people who KNEW Anastasia Nicholaievna dismissed AA, as those who said they "recognized her". If "ear shape" analysis is such a highly reliable and credible "science" WHY is it no longer recognized by a Court of Law as permissible evidence? DNA analysis IS recognized as such.

We know for a fact that AA had some sort of mental illness, it was certainly evident later in her life, thus anything from her own testimony is subject to question as credible.

Frankly, Occam's Razor also comes into play. WHICH is the simplest explanation?
A Grand Duchess of Russia escapes miraculously from murder in a basement, is spirited away badly injured into the Siberian forests where somehow food, medicine, clothing and shelter are provided and she is nursed back to health. All while also escaping notice of the Bosheviks (who must be frantically SEARCHING for her since they would have had to have known she escaped.) THEN somehow, miraculously again, is rescued to be spirited secretly out of Bolshevik controlled Russia to appear out of nowhere in Berlin...with a convenient case of 'amnesia'...

or
AA was a pathological Schizophrenic or psychotic suffering from delusions and people saw in her exactly what they EXPECTED to see, dismissing the errors as what we know call "post traumatic distress" from her "ordeal".

That to ME defines the two sides of the discussion.
 
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: rskkiya on November 22, 2004, 10:47:24 AM
Quote

Frankly, Occam's Razor also comes into play. WHICH is the simplest explanation?
A Grand Duchess of Russia escapes miraculously from murder in a basement, is spirited away badly injured into the Siberian forests where somehow food, medicine, clothing and shelter are provided and she is nursed back to health. All while also escaping notice of the Bosheviks (who must be frantically SEARCHING for her since they would have had to have known she escaped.) THEN somehow, miraculously again, is rescued to be spirited secretly out of Bolshevik controlled Russia to appear out of nowhere in Berlin...with a convenient case of 'amnesia'...

or
AA was a pathological Schizophrenic or psychotic suffering from delusions and people saw in her exactly what they EXPECTED to see, dismissing the errors as what we know call "post traumatic distress" from her "ordeal".

That to ME defines the two sides of the discussion.
 


Brilliant! Brilliant!

Thank you Forum Admin!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Georgiy on November 22, 2004, 02:25:18 PM
it seems to me if anyone (and it is a massive if) had survived and then been nursed back to health etc, etc, the only possible and safe route out of Russia would have been eastwards. It would be more likely if a survivor escaping from Siberia had turned up in China (where a lot of Russians escaped to) than in Berlin.

I don't think anyone survived. If either GD Anastasia or GD Maria were still clinging to life when thrown down the mineshaft, the exposure would have killed them. Sadly, I think that the two youngest Grand Duchesses had a very slow death, but mercifully, they were probably unconscious for the most part.

When younger i thought there was a possibility of AA being AN, though her features looked more like GD Tatiana, but even before the DNA tests, after reading books about her, I realised that while she herself had come to believe that she was Anastasia, she wasn't. Whether FS or not, I don't know. I think she probably had some kind of amnesia, and even at the hospital in Berlin wasn't entirely sure who she herself was, and because of a vague resemblence to the Romanovs, other people, possibly quite by accident, filled in the gaps for her, so that in the end, she was absolutely convinced of who she was, which is why she was so credible.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Merrique on November 22, 2004, 03:06:16 PM
Quote
Mr. S wrote: It seems that the DNA results are being used to justify the complete exclusion of the traditional canon of evidence in this case. You [anyone] cannot do that. It is unscholarly. It is ignorant. It is tunnel-visioned. It represents a viewpoint that seems [at least in this case] to cherish freedom from education.

Where I think Mr. S. has erred is this. Robert Ennis (Univ. of Illinois) defines one of the crucial elements of critical thinking to be to JUDGE THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION and to EVALUATE the significance of the information.

The scientific evidence establishing the complete exclusion of AA is 100% credible and 100% conclusive. It is totally objective in nature, and does not rely on anyones 'belief', perception, or bias.

The "physical simalarities", AA's "behavior", AA's "stories" are the rest of Mr. S's "canon of evidence". This evidence is not credible. Far more people who KNEW Anastasia Nicholaievna dismissed AA, as those who said they "recognized her". If "ear shape" analysis is such a highly reliable and credible "science" WHY is it no longer recognized by a Court of Law as permissible evidence? DNA analysis IS recognized as such.

We know for a fact that AA had some sort of mental illness, it was certainly evident later in her life, thus anything from her own testimony is subject to question as credible.

Frankly, Occam's Razor also comes into play. WHICH is the simplest explanation?
A Grand Duchess of Russia escapes miraculously from murder in a basement, is spirited away badly injured into the Siberian forests where somehow food, medicine, clothing and shelter are provided and she is nursed back to health. All while also escaping notice of the Bosheviks (who must be frantically SEARCHING for her since they would have had to have known she escaped.) THEN somehow, miraculously again, is rescued to be spirited secretly out of Bolshevik controlled Russia to appear out of nowhere in Berlin...with a convenient case of 'amnesia'...

or
AA was a pathological Schizophrenic or psychotic suffering from delusions and people saw in her exactly what they EXPECTED to see, dismissing the errors as what we know call "post traumatic distress" from her "ordeal".

That to ME defines the two sides of the discussion.
 


That was very well stated FA.I have to agree with Rskkiya,Brilliant!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 22, 2004, 04:28:29 PM
You see, ISteinke, these are the kinds of things that we should use our critical thinking for, not the DNA results.... I can tell from what many have said that most have evaluated this issue critically already and came up with conclusions based on these evaluations. As far as I can see, almost everyone here is a "critical thinker", this is probably why they are here on this forum... I hope you can see this now?

Helen
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 22, 2004, 05:57:16 PM
Jeremy, I think you misunderstand. The cases that are eligble for re-evaluation in Innocence Project have to do with very specific  kind of a scenarios, not at all like the one you describe.  

Keep in mind, this all happened before DNA testing became routine.

Scenario: A woman gets raped and then positively identifies a particular suspect as her rapist in a line up. The guy has no alibi or a very weak one. They do biological tests on his semen or perhaps blood and it is consistent with his but cannot specifically tell if it really belongs to him, it just cannot exclude him from being the donor conclusively. They cannot do any other scientific tests because they are not available. The guy gets convicted for rape and goes to prison. Some years pass and DNA testing becomes available. The guy gets involved with IP and they do DNA testing on the sample in the rape kit (that is usually kept for a certain amount of years). The results conclusively show that the DNA from the rape kit does not match his, therefore he could not have been the rapist. They have now conclusively proven that he was not the rapist. This is the kind of a scenario that will make this particular case eligible for Innocence Project and not the kind you described. This Project does does accept just any DNA case randomly, it has to be something along those lines.
One of the analogies I made between AA case and Innocence Project cases was the exclusion via DNA. We know for sure that the DNA tested belonged to AA's, we test it and it doesn't not match Philip's DNA. Thus, she is definitely excluded from being AN. We can say for a fact that she cannot be AN. This is completely objective evidence. Do you see?

Another analogy I made with IP is on the other side of the coin. Many of these people were wrongly convicted based on eyewitness testimonies, with witnesses swearing up and down (and genuinely believing it themselves) that this is the "right" suspect. Later DNA conclusively proves that this person  couldn't have been the rapist. So, eyewitness = subjective evidence, hence eyewitness testimonies in AA case = subjective evidence. Do you see why I used Innocence Project as example?

This really isn't as simple and straightforward as it seems. DNA cannot prove something in all cases, only in very specific types of cases, AA's case being one of them. I hope this clarified things some more.

Helen
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: AGRBear on November 23, 2004, 04:45:40 PM
Helen wrote:
<<We know for sure that the DNA tested belonged to AA's, we test it and it doesn't not match Philip's DNA. Thus, she is definitely excluded from being AN. We can say for a fact that she cannot be AN.>>

Let me build a protective wall around me and just before I close the trap door to ward off any anti-matter being tossed my way, let me incert:

I am not so sure that the sample tested was Anna Anderson's.

True, the sample was in what one would call a "safe place" in a hospital that I'm told is very good.  However, "safe place" doesn't mean a "secure place" as in a evidence room of a police station, which has proven not to be completely safe at all times.

Nor was the transportation of the sample tested done in a secure and "legal" fashion.

IF [and that is capitalized for a reason because it is a big "if"], there was a "conspiracy" then the sample could have been contaiminated or switched.

This is dealing fearlessly with reality:  The sample used has proven that the doner [ identity is a possible unknown] of the sample used for the DNA testing was not a relative of Philip's.  And, for me, that is as far as the proof stands at this time.

-click-
trap door closed  ;D

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 23, 2004, 04:52:09 PM
But doesn't it also mean something that this 'donor' is also closely related to the Schanskowskas?


Helen, I appreciate all your DNA expertise. However, I knew all along it's not going to help because for most of those who don't believe the DNA, it's not that they don't understand the science, it's that they believe the sample was tampered with/switched/hijacked and wasn't really AA's so it will never convince them. THEN in addition to that you have the camp that believes the tests were rigged, or that the Queen payed the scientists to lie, or whatever. As much as many of us have tried to explain how unlikely these theories are, it will never stop those who choose to believe it :( So it's an endless circle that leads back to the same place. But thanks anyway for trying, it's been very educational and informative for us all.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Forum Admin on November 23, 2004, 06:32:23 PM
The MAJOR logical problem with AGR's statement is this, which I will repeat for like the sixth time.
The AA dna was on hand but NOT sequenced until AFTER Prince Philip's. Whoever was behind the conspiricy of switching the 'purported' AA sample would have HAD to have the dna sequence of Prince Philip already in hand, as well as that of Carl Maucher, in order to make certain that the sample "switched" would NOT match Prince Philip and would exactly match Carl Maucher...
"Occam's Razor" y'all....
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 23, 2004, 06:46:28 PM
Quote
Helen wrote:
<<We know for sure that the DNA tested belonged to AA's, we test it and it doesn't not match Philip's DNA. Thus, she is definitely excluded from being AN. We can say for a fact that she cannot be AN.>>

I am not so sure that the sample tested was Anna Anderson's.

True, the sample was in what one would call a "safe place" in a hospital that I'm told is very good.  However, "safe place" doesn't mean a "secure place" as in a evidence room of a police station, which has proven not to be completely safe at all times.
IF [and that is capitalized for a reason because it is a big "if"], there was a "conspiracy" then the sample could have been contaiminated or switched.

AGRBear


Another problem with the Bear's statement is that there were two samples that were tested, two completely independently obtained samples, one from the hospital and the other was from her hair, which included the root. DNA was extacted from both by separate people in separate labs and the results were identical to each other. So even if they knew what to substitute with, substitution of both samples with the "right" sequence (FS's nephew's) is quite impossible. I reject the "switcheroo" theory as being completely unrealistic - not to mention absurd, no less absurd than the one where the Queen of England rigged the DNA results. Sorry, but come on, Bear, you can do better than that!  ;)  ;D
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 23, 2004, 06:52:59 PM
Quote
But doesn't it also mean something that this 'donor' is also closely related to the Schanskowskas?


Helen, I appreciate all your DNA expertise. However, I knew all along it's not going to help because for most of those who don't believe the DNA, it's not that they don't understand the science, it's that they believe the sample was tampered with/switched/hijacked and wasn't really AA's so it will never convince them. THEN in addition to that you have the camp that believes the tests were rigged, or that the Queen payed the scientists to lie, or whatever. As much as many of us have tried to explain how unlikely these theories are, it will never stop those who choose to believe it :( So it's an endless circle that leads back to the same place. But thanks anyway for trying, it's been very educational and informative for us all.


Annie, to tell you the truth, I honestly don't care that much if those who like conspiracy theories are not convinced by these explanations. I would like to explain this to reasonable people who actually want to know facts. The conspiracy theorists are out of my jurisdiction  (thankfully...)  ;D.

Helen
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: rskkiya on November 23, 2004, 08:01:15 PM
agrebear ???

   I know that we have already discussed this theory regarding mishandled biological materials at the Martha Jefferson Hospital, (in another thread)i and I really don't think that your arguement is viable!
   There have been numerous "failsafes" worked into the system to avoid the sort of "mistake" that you imagine - and make certain that all such materials are handled in an accurate, trackable and scientific manner.

   I have to say that I think you are way out of line on this one!

rskkiya
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 23, 2004, 09:22:28 PM
It's true, the AA DNA conspiracy theory has already been discussed at length on other threads and has been rejected even by the strongest AA supporters so there is really no reason to beat that dead horse again. If someone wants to argue the AA case one way or the other, they should try to use reasonable theories.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: pushkina on November 24, 2004, 12:25:40 AM
i think it's really interesting that steinke has made two statements on considering the constellation of evidence and almost the rest are folks chiming on about the DNA.

i think we need another example from the innocence project scenario:

a woman is raped. she retains a strong imprint of the smell of the rapist, the cadences of his speech.  she can identify marks on his private body accurately.  she makes a positive ID based on these elements of her vivid memories.  the suspect has the same kinds of physical and voice attributes. his alibi is reasonable. the blood samples are inconclusive. the prosecutor has not been handed a slam dunk but his gut tells him/her that the vicitm is able to ID and that will be enough to convict. the suspect is convicted, based on the victim's powerful ID.

along comes barry scheck and the IP.  they dig up the bloods; the DNA doesn't match. yet the victim could identify
the suspect so well; the prosecutor, in his/her gut knows that the victim is right.  yet because of the new, everpresent mantra, "the  DNA, the DNA," the suspect/convict is freed and the state has to make a big payout.

prosecutors all over the western world are facing this scenario.  they don't like the supremecy of DNA evidence, especially in the face of other evidence.  what prosecutors seem to be doing is to try to get consideration of a totality of evidence. some juries are willing to listen.  some prosecutors are scared by the DNA and won't try the cases, only to find later that the suspect is involved in the identical crime.

what do we say to the victim, "so sorry, but the most life-shattering experience that one can survive, must go unjustified, because the DNA, the DNA proves your entire collection of sensory memories, incorrect, inept, invalid"? what kinds of scientists, what kinds of seekers of justice, feminists, thinking, feeling humans are we?

personally, i believe that one day, the technology will change and we will come to an understanding that at this[/b] time, frm the mid 1980s-2004, we really don't know everything about "the DNA, the DNA."  

why do i say that?  because i have seen the exact thing happen, in medical science, to explain MS, for example.  in the 1970s when my mother had MS, there were ten explanations as to why it occurred, none of which was a viral explanation. now, the 'orthodox' explanation is "it's a virus."  in the 1970s, endometriosis was a disease which had a "medical profile" of being that of "white, single unmarried women."  if one was non-white, one couldn't have it. now, some researchers hold that up to 1/5th of all women living have this condition in some form.  why was it "white, etc etc"?  because who else would have sought medical help for it, it was the demographic.  yet if one asked a gynie graduate in 1975 and a 2004 graduate about endo, because the science has matured, the information has too.

so as science develops, we learn more, and i think, it is arrogant to say, we know now as much as we will ever know, simply because one must keep this truth of constant development in mind.

so what has this to do with AA and the constellation of evidence?  somehow, all the evidence must be considered, analysed and developed.  i think that was all steinke was asking. and again, personally, it seems that the anna detractors are all on automatic, arriving at any AA thread and just going on and on to each other about the DNA.

and think about this: what would/will you all say if/when one day the DNA science, as you know and understand it so well, becomes obsolete?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Merrique on November 24, 2004, 03:17:17 AM
Quote
and think about this: what would/will you all say if/when one day the DNA science, as you know and understand it so well, becomes obsolete?


And what would you say when DNA science becomes even more precise and absolutely confirms without any doubt what we already know to be true?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Alice on November 24, 2004, 05:10:28 AM
Quote

And what would you say when DNA science becomes even more precise and absolutely confirms without any doubt what we already know to be true?


Exactly. Sure, there's going to be progression in DNA science . . . but as someone said on another thread, that doesn't mean that we toss everything we know now, out the window.

You need to understand the very nature of DNA. Every person has a different DNA sequence (with the exception of identical twins, who I believe have identical DNA. Please correct me if this is wrong). This is why DNA is called the genetic fingerprint. That's precisely what it is. DNA is not grey. It's black or white. It matches, or it doesn't.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: pushkina on November 24, 2004, 05:27:30 AM
Quote

You need to understand the very nature of DNA. Every person has a different DNA sequence (with the exception of identical twins, who I believe have identical DNA. Please correct me if this is wrong). This is why DNA is called the genetic fingerprint. That's precisely what it is. DNA is not grey. It's black or white. It matches, or it doesn't.


i'm neither stupid nor ignorant. i understand DNA science very well.

my whole statement was about more than the DNA and yet, all the responses are about the DNA.  there is more to be considered; it should all be considered.

all any of us wants to do is look closer at the entire constellation of evidence (which includes the DNA) and explore it.  the DNA is being offered as the solution to a problem that those of us who would just like to be able to discuss this mystery in peace don't have. it's not applicable: we want to be able to examine it all and not be bound by the DNA, that which others seem to think must preclude our conversations.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Denise on November 24, 2004, 06:05:15 AM
Quote


all any of us wants to do is look closer at the entire constellation of evidence (which includes the DNA) and explore it.  the DNA is being offered as the solution to a problem that those of us who would just like to be able to discuss this mystery in peace don't have. it's not applicable: we want to be able to examine it all and not be bound by the DNA, that which others seem to think must preclude our conversations.


Yes, I agree.  Can't we just have a speculative debate over the evidence that seemed to point to AA being AN pre-DNA.  It would be speculative, obviously, because there is no way now to be certain about the hows and whys.  Let's talk about these pieces of evidence and see if they can be explained.  

YES, this is a subjective debate.  YES, I know the DNA is out there.  But rather than get dogmatic, as we know that many people hold strong DNA convictions (as I do myself  :) ), can't we just explore this topic in a friendly, scholarly way?  I think that rather than just list our whys or why nots, we need to find some objective reasons to believe/disbelieve.  

And if this topic bends you out of shape at all, please just let those of us who do want to discuss it do so. Thanks!!  It seems that these AA/AN discussions get heated, but let's try to just discuss these things gently.

Denise  ;D
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Denise on November 24, 2004, 06:07:22 AM
And I wanted to clarify that I am not saying this conversation needs to be "pro" or "anti" Anna.  I am on the fence in terms of the debate.  I just want to get these things out there!!

Denise  8)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 24, 2004, 07:08:08 AM
Quote
posted by pushkina

so what has this to do with AA and the constellation of evidence?  somehow, all the evidence must be considered, analysed and developed.  i think that was all steinke was asking. and again, personally, it seems that the anna detractors are all on automatic, arriving at any AA thread and just going on and on to each other about the DNA.
 


*bangs head against monitor and cries in futility*

I have, all along, gone out of my way to list all the reasons WITHOUT DNA so people would stop saying this, yet all of my posts seem to be ignored. I don't understand this, because at the same time, people are telling me I won't shut up and post the same things over and over. Well, then someone isn't reading them! I have made several posts, both in this and other threads, listing in detail the reasons I feel the story of AA is completely full of holes and there is NOTHING that can't be explained away, NOT COUNTING THE DNA!! After making these lists, I have repeatedly asked the AA supporters to answer my points in an honest debate and it has not happened. I would be glad to post yet another list, or copy and paste one of the old ones for those who still claim everyone is just saying DNA, because that's not me. I don't even bother using the DNA because I know there are so many switch and rig theories it doesn't matter to the people who believe that stuff. But I have listed everything, and it all adds up, she was STILL NOT ANASTASIA, DNA or no DNA.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Denise on November 24, 2004, 07:14:16 AM
Annie, I know you have been great about listing other reasons besides DNA.  I think some folks just want to discuss the evidence FOR AA, and talk about how she had so many similarities.  Maybe you don't see them, but it would be fun to try to figure out where she got her info etc.  As has been stated it is subjective and speculative, but the AA story really has few answers left at this point, as the primary people involved have died.

Denise  :)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Denise on November 24, 2004, 07:16:31 AM
And again, as the DNA has told us, she wasn't AA, so the discussion is fairly moot, as far as I am concerned.  BUT, as AA was an interesting person in her own right, I don't feel this type of academic exercise is a complete waste of time or brain cells.  ;)

Denise
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 24, 2004, 07:26:51 AM
Quote
Annie, I know you have been great about listing other reasons besides DNA.  I think some folks just want to discuss the evidence FOR AA, and talk about how she had so many similarities.  Maybe you don't see them, but it would be fun to try to figure out where she got her info etc.  As has been stated it is subjective and speculative, but the AA story really has few answers left at this point, as the primary people involved have died.

Denise  :)


I realize that, but every single one of those things can be explained away. And speaking of all the people involved being dead, I can't see anything new (other than the dreaded DNA) could possibly be any stronger now than it was when they were all alive and the case was still warm. If it wasn't proven then, the chances are much less now.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 24, 2004, 10:00:00 AM
Quote

my whole statement was about more than the DNA and yet, all the responses are about the DNA.  there is more to be considered; it should all be considered.



If I may interject here, Pushkina, but the reason people keep bringing up DNA here is because you cannot overlook it, as much as you may want to. DNA is the only evidence, out of all the evidence we have, that gives us a definitive answer to this question. Once you have this evidence, you cannot accept any other evidence as true evidence (unless you think there was a conspiracy, in which case this point is moot). If you don't see this, then you don't really understand the nature of DNA like you claim you do, sorry. I know that some people here don't like this idea, but I didn't make this up - and we really want to "deal fearlessly with reality"- this is the reality we must deal with, whether we like it or not.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: AGRBear on November 24, 2004, 10:14:19 AM
For about the sixth time, according to Forum Admin.  ;D  I will voice that I am not an Anna Anderson supporter, at this time.  However, I don't think anyone can prove in court that the samples used for the DNA were Anna Anderson's.   The reason being,  these particular samples [hair with roots and intestines] were not in "secure places".  Let me repeat:  ...NOT in a "secure places".

I am sorry that I can not agree with the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" as some of you have agreed.

Also, the other problem I have is the fact that the samples match FS's "half" nephew's DNA  "exactly".  This is not possible, as I understand it from all your marvelous explainations,  since the DNA, as many of you have explained over and over, is through the mother's line.  The nephew's mother and FS did not have the same mother.  Therefore, the chain of DNA was broken at this point.

The DNA shows just this:  there may be relationship which ranges from being a possible nephew to a sixth cousin to the "donner", who may or may not have been  Anna Anderson's, samples.  

I repeat,  as I did earlier, that I realize the DNA from the samples used showed there is no relationship of these samples to Prince Philip's samples from which DNA was taken.  [I don't think there is a Winsor conspiracy.]

As for all the rest of the evidence written in the German court records,  that would prove to be interesting to see, since they could not conclude if Anna Anderson WAS  or WAS NOT Anastasia.  I'd also wonder if the conclusion would have been the same, even if they had the help of DNA.  I bet they'd think the same as I, the samples can not be proven to have been Anna Anderson's.

AGRBear

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Denise on November 24, 2004, 10:16:04 AM
My idea here is to have a thread to talk about evidence that was used to say AA was AN.  Regardless of whether she was AN or not, there are a lot of pieces of evidence people would like to talk about.  DNA has answered the identity question for many people.  I accept that.  But what a lot of us would like to do is talk about the OTHER evidence and testimony in terms of what it was, whether the people involved had ulterior motives etc.  Many things here may be subjective or speculative.  This is a given.  

One thing I ask for this thread is that if you make a statement please back it up with a source or a concrete example.  Hopefully we can avoid the whole "my opinion, your opinion" dynamic.  

And this thread is NOT about if AA was AN.  It is a discussion of the evidence that was presented to say she was.  

Thanks.  And I know we can get heated, but let's just talk nice, please?  If someone disagrees with you it is not a personal attack.  Let's talk about the AA case, not each other.  ;)

Denise
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 24, 2004, 10:18:34 AM
Again, it is only one author's speculation that FS and Gertrude were not whole sisters. There is no proof. I'm sure the scientists who sought out a family member would not have been foolish enough to waste time on someone who was not a maternal relative. I'm sure they checked this out and that they were whole sisters.


I don't know what else anyone can do to convince you that Martha Jefferson Hospital keeps good records, and that it was her sample. Also as someone pointed out, this thing was stored there YEARS before DNA testing ever existed. There are ways to prove it was from AA's surgery, though nothing will ever convince some.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 24, 2004, 10:26:39 AM
Quote
As for all the rest of the evidence written in the German court records,  that would prove to be interesting to see, since they could not conclude if Anna Anderson WAS  or WAS NOT Anastasia.  I'd also wonder if the conclusion would have been the same, even if they had the help of DNA.  I bet they'd think the same as I, the samples can not be proven to have been Anna Anderson's.



Bear,

I can guarantee you that if the German courts had this DNA evidence back then they would have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that AA was not AN (please see my earlier post about the use of DNA evidence in the legal system). On the other hand, the courts couldn't have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that AA was FS (which doesn't necessarily mean she wasn't). Read up on DNA evidence in the legal system and you will have your answer, and avoid making losing bets.

H
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: AGRBear on November 24, 2004, 10:34:30 AM
Quote
Again, it is only one author's speculation that FS and Gertrude were not whole sisters. There is no proof. I'm sure the scientists who sought out a family member would not have been foolish enough to waste time on someone who was not a maternal relative. I'm sure they checked this out and that they were whole sisters.


I don't know what else anyone can do to convince you that Martha Jefferson Hospital keeps good records, and that it was her sample. Also as someone pointed out, this thing was stored there YEARS before DNA testing ever existed. There are ways to prove it was from AA's surgery, though nothing will ever convince some.



There is no need to prove to me that the hospital keeps good records.  That is a given.  In fact, it is remarkable how well they have kept their records and the length of time they have kept the samples.

There is no need for you to try and convince me who Anna Anderson was or was not.  I am aware of all the pros and cons of this debate.

The questions I've present are about the "samples" and if one could prove they were Anna Anderson's in a court of law here in the USA or in Germany.  I don't think this could be done.


AGRBear


Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: rskkiya on November 24, 2004, 10:40:36 AM
Quote

Bear,

I can guarantee you that if the German courts had this DNA evidence back then they would have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that AA was not AN (please see my earlier post about the use of DNA evidence in the legal system). On the other hand, the courts couldn't have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that AA was FS (which doesn't necessarily mean she wasn't). Read up on DNA evidence in the legal system and you will have your answer, and avoid making losing bets.

H


Agrbear
Please do consider taking Helen A's wise suggestion!
rskkiya
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 24, 2004, 10:45:12 AM
Ok, I see what AGRBear is saying now. That the courts would question not the results but the source of the DNA.  
I have a question for you then, Bear, would you have a problem with this if you watched them draw blood directly from AA and then do the DNA testing on it right in front of you? How far do you think this needs to be taken in order to accept it? Do the court officials need to be present when all the testing is done in order for the courts to accept evidence? Do they have to personally supervise every DNA case in order to make this decision? Are you saying that the courts would think that both samples were substituted?  

I must remind you that reasonable doubt in courts means just that: reasonable....
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 24, 2004, 11:00:47 AM
Quote


There is no need to prove to me that the hospital keeps good records.  That is a given.  In fact, it is remarkable how well they have kept their records and the length of time they have kept the samples.

The questions I've present are about the "samples" and if one could prove they were Anna Anderson's in a court of law here in the USA or in Germany.  I don't think this could be done.



Another thing is that what you just said here is a contradiction. If you (and the courts) accept that the hospital keeps good records (which you say you have accepted and the courts normally do too), and the hospital's records say that this is AA' tissue sample, then we can assume that these samples definitely belong to AA. To question the source of the samples would mean you are questioning the hospital's records, which you are professing you are not.
So you have to make up your mind, you either don't trust the hospital's records hence don't trust the sample, or you trust the hospital's records and therefore trust the sample. The two go together and are not mutually exclusive.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Abby on November 24, 2004, 01:27:19 PM
Quote
And I wanted to clarify that I am not saying this conversation needs to be "pro" or "anti" Anna.  I am on the fence in terms of the debate.  I just want to get these things out there!!

Denise  8)



Ah I feel the same way ! I have been keeping out of these Anna Anderson/ FS/ AN conversations because I don't really have anything worthwhile to contribute -- I have read all there is to read, and I still don't know what to beleive, and I what I read here is just  people's strong opinons and beleifs butting heads. it is one of those things which we might never know the truth about.

Even though I tend to think that the DNA evidence is the deciding factor here, truth is sometimes stranger than fiction, and I find everything that Anna Anderson knew about Anastasia Nicholaevna's life (all her "memories") to be simply fascinating.

As I read Peter Kurth's book I just wondered 'how did she know that??? how?" whenever I read about her identifying Dassel from the hospital, identifying her father's pipe, conversating with Gleb about his "funny animals", identifying the rooms in the palace ...etc. I actually made a list as I was reading the book of all the things which made Anna Anderson's case. I can't find that d*** list but I wish I had it now!  ;)

On the flip side, I don't think she looked anything like her, and when I first saw the pictures of Franziska S. I did a double take -- it looked just like her.

I realize all the memories could have been told to Anderson. I realize that she could have been helped along, and that Hallux Vagus is a common affliction, and it could have been easy to replicate a bayonet scar. That is why I am also on the fence about this whole case, and I don't know if I will ever know. But I enjoy reading what everyone says on these boards.

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 24, 2004, 01:40:24 PM
Hi Abby,

For me personally, I know that I already have the answer, one based not on opinion, but on fact. But it's true, no matter what side of the fence each of us eventually ends up on, it is fun to read about all this.  If nothing else, we have to be grateful to Anna Anderson for all the endless hours of entertainment!  ;D

Helen
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Abby on November 24, 2004, 07:21:03 PM
Yes, you're right Helen -- the DNA evidence is fact, and it is probably the strongest fact in the case. Considering , of course , that it is legitamate. Which I think it probably was. I didn't think that anyone would be able to contaminate the DNA samples...either the hair or the intestine. It is just not probable.
I guess what I meant was, it is everyone's opinion on what  happened with the DNA because no one who is arguing back and forth was doing the research personally. We all know what has been told to us. I think the scientists are to be trusted. They seemed like highly qualified individuals and I don't see how or why they would have intentionally mishanded the DNA evidence. But that is probably for another thread and I am sorry for going off on tangents!!  :-[
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 24, 2004, 07:36:48 PM
Quote
Yes, you're right Helen -- the DNA evidence is fact, and it is probably the strongest fact in the case. Considering , of course , that it is legitamate. Which I think it probably was. I didn't think that anyone would be able to contaminate the DNA samples...either the hair or the intestine. It is just not probable.
I guess what I meant was, it is everyone's opinion on what  happened with the DNA because no one who is arguing back and forth was doing the research personally. We all know what has been told to us. I think the scientists are to be trusted. They seemed like highly qualified individuals and I don't see how or why they would have intentionally mishanded the DNA evidence. But that is probably for another thread and I am sorry for going off on tangents!!  :-[


Yes this is true, Abby, none of us was there, but we are not just going by "blind trust" alone here. In fact, we are not going by trust at all. This is why scientific protocols have very stringent rules about data quality control, and this is why these AA tests were perfomed by more than one person in more than one lab with more than one sample. All got the identical results which pretty much shows us that contamination, accidental or deliberate, was not possible. Humans make mistakes all the time, and this is why very strict precautions are set up to guard against that. The results are also reviewed by the peer review board, before they can be published. If the board sees anything suspicious, it is questioned to death. Many papers get rejected that way. This is what is done with any serious scientific data and this is what was done with AA's tests. So this is not as simple as blind trust in the scientists' integrity, this goes way beyond that, to ensure that these tests were legitimate.

I'd say the term is not "not probable", I'd say the term would be closer to "impossible".  :)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Olga on November 25, 2004, 03:03:50 AM
Isn't it funny that ISteinke hasn't replied yet?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 25, 2004, 07:07:45 AM
Quote
Isn't it funny that ISteinke hasn't replied yet?


Perhaps ISteinke has nothing to say....
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Merrique on November 25, 2004, 07:21:00 AM
I'm sure ISteinke will come up with reasons eventually why all of us "anti-AA" DNA preaching people are all wrong.Cause you know all her memories and scars and similarities are just facts we all don't see cause they are etched in stone. :P

My I sound bitter today don't I. :-/
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 25, 2004, 07:35:01 AM
I'm bitter too  :-/  All he ever does is keep saying that because Andrei and Lili recognized her and she had this or that memory and the ear that it was her, and he ignores all of our evidence against her and our stronger arguments. It's really pointless. I would hope that as a graduate student he would be more willing to consider more than just a few conveniently chosen points.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Merrique on November 25, 2004, 07:42:58 AM
Annie,
I guess it's true what they say,people see what they want to see,their perception is their reality.It seems no matter what we say or how logical it is,some will believe what they choose to believe no matter what.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 25, 2004, 07:54:01 AM
Quote
Annie,
I guess it's true what they say,people see what they want to see,their perception is their reality.It seems no matter what we say or how logical it is,some will believe what they choose to believe no matter what.


That is so true, even when people cry 'opinion' over things like the size of lips, when the pictures clearly show that the lips are thicker on one person. There really is no point to discuss it, I know, I don't know why I still am. I also think some people are so hardheaded they'd never admit they were wrong if you did prove it;)

And sorry about the kid in your sig :'(
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 25, 2004, 07:58:33 AM
I asked ISteinke on another AA thread why he won't address some of the valid points that were made here on this thread - a topic he himself started to deal with reality, but he didn't respond, even though he was clearly here on the forum. He just keeps jumping from thread to thread, only selectively responding to postings that suit him.

This is not good - it is not the way to approach scholarly inquiries, ISteinke - anyone who went to grad school will tell you that. I hate to tell you, but you are going to have a very hard time defending your thesis in grad school when the time comes...
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Merrique on November 25, 2004, 08:00:56 AM
Quote

That is so true, even when people cry 'opinion' over things like the size of lips, when the pictures clearly show that the lips are thicker on one person. There really is no point to discuss it, I know, I don't know why I still am. I also think some people are so hardheaded they'd never admit they were wrong if you did prove it;)

And sorry about the kid in your sig :'(


It does seem kind of pointless to keep discussing this,but for some reason eventhough it is aggravaiting it's hard not to keep posting about it.It's a needed a distraction for me at the moment if that makes any sense.

Thanks for the condolences Annie.It's very much apperciated. :)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 25, 2004, 08:01:26 AM
Quote

That is so true, even when people cry 'opinion' over things like the size of lips...


Hey, forget the lips, people have said that DNA evidence is an opinion too, this is what I am bitter about!  ;)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Merrique on November 25, 2004, 08:08:13 AM
It seems we are all bitter today Helen. ;)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 25, 2004, 08:23:38 AM
Merrique, I am sorry about James too, it sounds very sad...  :(
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Merrique on November 25, 2004, 08:40:26 AM
Quote
Merrique, I am sorry about James too, it sounds very sad...  :(


Thank you very much for that Helen.Death is always very sad,especially for kids,and when it's a murder it becomes unbearable. :'(

I can only imagine what the rest of the IF went through,knowing that the whole family was murdered then here comes this pretender saying she is one of their family when they know that she isn't.They must have went through hell because of AA.

Anywho it looks like we got off topic,better get back to it before FA yells at us lol. :)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 25, 2004, 08:48:51 AM
That's all very true Merrique, the pretenders were a constant source of more pain and reminder of tragedy for the family. I have also heard of people who have claimed to be missing people in America, and it always breaks the family's heart to find out it was just some fake after money. How could anyone do such a thing?

I am so sorry about your friends. Tell your daughter, he's with Alexei now, there has to be a special place for ones taken so soon and so wrongly :'(
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Olga on November 25, 2004, 09:04:20 AM
I don't think Rob will yell at us for this.  ;) He wasn't murdered, was he?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Merrique on November 25, 2004, 09:16:01 AM
Quote
I don't think Rob will yell at us for this.  ;) He wasn't murdered, was he?


If your wondering about the little boy mentioned in my signature and the one we are talking about,yes he was murdered.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: rskkiya on November 25, 2004, 09:25:59 AM
Merrique
My true condolences on your loss.

To All Posters
  I have posted this on another thread -perhaps it will flush IST out- but with your patience I should like to remark again on this side of the AA-AN conundrum...  
  Given the technology available up until and thru the 70-80's - Anna's supporters did a very good job using such evidence as ear shape/scars and personal family knowledge to bolster their case... They made a good arguement. With the advent of sciences use of DNA/mDNA this other technology is rather moot but at the time it was a very good show.
   Some people, once they have accepted a notion or a concept, have a very difficult time changing or rejecting it - it becomes almost an issue of faith to them. I do not know why some Anna supporters refuse to see the mDNA evidence. I am no scientist (much to my rational German husband's disapointment  :P) but I have read the explanations so patiently posted here by those individuals that do comprehend such subtleties..and I accept them ...( ;)I don't understand all the complexities of my PC but I am still able to us it!)
   So to those people who have supported Anna's claims- I don't contemn you - I just don't quite understand you.
As far as I can tell  2+2=4, not 89, pi - or  Avagadro's number!

rskkiya
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 25, 2004, 09:48:03 AM
Quote
  Given the technology available up until and thru the 70-80's - Anna's supporters did a very good job using such evidence as ear shape/scars and personal family knowledge to bolster their case... They made a good arguement.  With the advent of sciences use of DNA/mDNA this other technology is rather moot but at the time it was a very good show.
  
rskkiya


rskkiya,

I have been saying this exact thing on some of these threads over and over until my voice turned hoarse (or rather typing it until my fingers turned numb  ;)). I don't really understand this attitude either, and believe me, I have been trying to. I have never come across anything like this in my life! It's like suddenly encountering a society that still believes that the earth is flat and who defend their views very doggedly and self righteously, and you just don't know what to say in response because it is so absurd that you never thought about an argument you can use against what they are saying because you didn't think it would even be necessary. After a while you even start to think, well perhaps I am the one who is crazy here, but then you realize, no way!

I have to admit it has been a very weird experience for me, I want to say 'surreal' even - The Twilight Zone  :-/  ;D.

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Robert_Hall on November 25, 2004, 10:05:28 AM
Isn't that what it all was though, a show?  The ultimate weakness in those arguments was the loudness with which they were broadcast.  The more noise the truer it is.
Another bit I never quite understand is the constant citing of the volumes of court papers in Germany. Now, ANY court proceedures generate reems of paper. And, those volumes presumably contain ALL testimony, evidence, prosceedural movements, etc. not just the pro AA bits. So, I do not see why dragging out that stuff is supposed to help either side, it is all out-of-date anyway.
Oh well, I really do not mind the debate, I spend little time or effort on it. I do mind, however, the abrasive and abusive manner in which some of those who can offer no better argument do present their defense.
Cheers,
Robert
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Forum Admin on November 25, 2004, 10:13:54 AM
Robert
one of the basic hallmarks of deception and fraud is to keep repeating the lie, over and over, louder and louder because if you do that long enough, some people might actually believe it to be true. Usually, the more IRATE the speaker becomes, shreaking that they are telling the truth, is a clear sign that they themselves know the fallacy of their statement. Those secure in their knowledge may get frustrated, but never lose that security.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 25, 2004, 10:19:09 AM
Quote
Another bit I never quite understand is the constant citing of the volumes of court papers in Germany. Now, ANY court proceedures generate reems of paper. And, those volumes presumably contain ALL testimony, evidence, prosceedural movements, etc. not just the pro AA bits. So, I do not see why dragging out that stuff is supposed to help either side, it is all out-of-date anyway.
 


Yes, this was something that also puzzled me, when it was brought in as an argument in favor of AA. Granted, these documents may be something interesting to read, for those who are interested in this case, but how is this proof in favor of AA? ISteinke never really explained this argument very well and never followed through with counter-arguments when these issues were questioned.
And as you say, the court papers are way out of date by now, as I also pointed out several times: that if the AA case went to court in the 1990's there would have been no question at all: based on DNA evidence the case would have been legally ruled against AA, there is absolutely no question about that. Just like paternity cases based on DNA are decided, this too would have been based solely on DNA and not hearsay or whatever.
So why even bring the German court papers into this discussion? I don't know, ask ISteinke who brought them in as his argument. I suppose he thought it would sound official....  I really can't second guess this guy  ???
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: ISteinke on November 25, 2004, 08:01:13 PM
I have to say that I think it is ridiculous that people on the "forum" are now discussing me, instead of Anastasia, and criticizing me for not responding more to what people say.
    For Heaven's sake. I've got finals next week, and at the moment I simply don't have time to reply as I would like.  
    I wish that you folks didn't take this Anastasia thing SOOOO SERIOUSLY. I think it's fun and interesting, but it doesn't control my life or make me lose sleep at night. For one thing, even if Anastasia and Anna Anderson were the same person [you know what I think], she's dead now. So, what does it matter? Does it really matter whether she died in 1918 or 1985? Not really. I'm not offended by anybody's DNA evidence, and I don't have a dogmatic viewpoint that says all of you are wrong. Like I said, it's just interesting to investigate all of the similarities between them.  

    I don't understand why people think this is such a MAJOR, MASSIVE, IMPORTANT issue. I mean, Anastasia was only important, historically, as the daughter of the Tsar. Anna Anderson, whoever she was, however well known she was, was not important historically. She was an anecdote on the pages of history.

    All I'm saying is that I wish everyone would just lighten up. I don't take this silly issue half as seriously as it seems most of you do. If I did take it that seriously I would hope that someone would just tell me to go and get a life.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Robert_Hall on November 25, 2004, 08:54:05 PM
Probably the most sensible statement I have read on this forum in ages.
Cheers, ISteinke !
Robert
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 25, 2004, 09:13:27 PM
Robert, why don't you check out ISteinke's previous posts on this subject and perhaps then you will understand why we have been asking him to elaborate on his statements.

And I would still like to hear ISteinke's rebuttals on a subject he himself seemed to be taking very seriously not too long ago  ;). If you are going to bother making these statements, ISteinke, it is only fair that you elaborate on them, especially after others took the time to reply to your views. If you don't want to do that, then perhaps you should refrain from making them. That's all  :D
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Robert_Hall on November 25, 2004, 09:25:36 PM
Helen, I have read his previous stements and I myself have asked why he saw the need to drag up those German court documents.
By the same token, he says exactlly what I have also tried to get across, that this whole subject is meaningless.  The argument is moot.
Personally I do not believe AA was AN AND I do not care one bit who she was after that. It makes absolutely no difference. She was a historical curiosity. Nothing more.
The ignorant, rabid fanatacism expressed by someseems just an excercise in frustrated temper. No useful argument, no reason or logic. Wasted energy.
Nothing will ever convince that kind of mindset, they are not interested in proving or disproving.
I think the real effort should go into disproving the living fraudsters. AA had no survivors [that we have heard of-yet],  And you know well of him I speak.
Cheers,
Robert
OK, I vented my 25cents worth on this.

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 25, 2004, 09:40:57 PM
Hi Robert,

This is not a matter of anyone taking this too seriously or being fanatical, in fact I agree with you 100%, this is not such an important matter at all, it's just a fun diversion. But the whole point of being on this discussion forum is to have a discussion/debate about something. One shouldn't just throw out a statement without elaborating on it or without responding to counter arguments. Otherwise what's the point of being here? If one wants to gracefully give in and say "perhaps I was wrong and I admit you win this debate" that's fine, if not, one should respond with a counter argument. These are the standard rules for forums like this. I was actually not only referring to the statements made on this thread, there were some pretty wild statements made on other threads that we all wanted to hear a response to, but the response never came. This is pure curiousity as to what the response would be, more than anything else. And this is what I was referring to. I understand that people may not always have to the time to respond, of course not, but if someone has the time to go on other threads and repeat the same statements then this person should also respond to valid points people made in response to their original statements, don't you think? I think that that is only fair. Hey, if you want to participate in the discussion forum then everyone will expect you to play by the unwritten rules, and this has nothing to do with Anna Anderson, or having to get a life or being fanatical. So that's my take on this  :D.

Helen
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: pushkina on November 25, 2004, 09:49:07 PM
Quote
one of the basic hallmarks of deception and fraud is to keep repeating the lie, over and over, louder and louder because if you do that long enough, some people might actually believe it to be true. Usually, the more IRATE the speaker becomes, shreaking that they are telling the truth, is a clear sign that they themselves know the fallacy of their statement. Those secure in their knowledge may get frustrated, but never lose that security.


and yet, that is what we (who would just like to discuss in peace the karlsruhe transcripts or the constellation of evidence) face in "the DNA" people.  we aren't shouting, we aren't demanding the DNA people accept anything.  yet the rest of us are maligned and our intellegences, our educations and our motives are constantly insulted by folks committing the online equivalent of jumping up and down and screaming at us.

i am simply a woman who has been trained in history, country analysis, jurisprudence and international human rights law. i interview witnesses, read trandscripts, examine all kinds of evidence and forensic data and write briefs and argue cases for a living. i think that a primary insistance the the DNA is always right, may be scientific but may not be smart in the long run.

all day (when i am not tending my baby or teaching at uni) i see real people clients with real life problems that are serious and dire. i come to this board for diversion and intellectual challenge, relaxation and downtime, not to have my intellegence or education sneered at, as it has been by some of the DNAers.

look at the most famous DNA case in the US: OJ.  the prosecutors RELIED on the DNA to make their case: the jury didn't even consider it seriously.  and now, there are questions about DNA reliance being able to deliver justice ...or the truth.

and there are a LOT of really silly theoretical discussions on this board about other what ifs.  why does everyone get so violently disagreeable about this one?

so this should not be about the freedom to discuss something theoretically online as a means to fraud; at least for me, simple problems have simple solutions.   i just want to have the FREEDOM to discuss this civilly, and the POSSIBILITY to play with this (or any other ) evidentiary set.

if you don't like the argument on the thread, don't horn in and hijack it for the beauty of the truth of DNA, just then ignore it.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Michelle on November 25, 2004, 10:03:13 PM
Wonderfully put, pushkina. :)  *applause applause*
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 25, 2004, 10:31:14 PM
Quote
look at the most famous DNA case in the US: OJ.  the prosecutors RELIED on the DNA to make their case: the jury didn't even consider it seriously.  and now, there are questions about DNA reliance being able to deliver justice ...or the truth.


Pushkina,

I am really glad you brought up the OJ case which demostrated what kind of a disaster ignorance about scientific evidence can cause. Unfortunately in the OJ case, justice was not delivered precisely because the DNA evidence was not considered seriously, as it should have been. The jurors did not understand the DNA evidence and the prosecutors failed to explain it to them appropriately and this is why the miscarriage of justice happened in the OJ case. These are the kind of terrible things that ignorance about and the refusal to accept scientific facts can cause. The AA case is not important at all in the grand scheme of things, cases like the OJ case are. People need to be taught about DNA evidence so that they can understand it in case they are faced with something like the OJ case. I am sure you realize all this if you are involved in the legal system as you mentioned.

I never try to belittle anyone for their opinions or lack of knowledge, I only try to explain to people what scientific evidence means, how DNA works, so that things like the OJ case do not happen.  You're absolutely correct, this forum and the AA case is just a diversion, and not really important, but the OJ case and cases like it are, and this is what this frustration is about. I am sorry that some people want to remain ignorant and closed minded, but I believe that it's important that people get educated about things like DNA. Beside the fact that DNA is an integrral and relevant part of the AA case and this is why it is continuously being introduced here, it also provides a great opportunity to introduce this information to people who otherwise would not encounter it.  I don't really understand why you or anyone else would have a problem with that.  ???

Helen
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Alice on November 26, 2004, 07:37:34 AM
You can't just sweep objective evidence under the carpet. The problem I have with the AA is AN argument is that some people think the subjective evidence (ears, etc) outweighs the objective evidence (the DNA). But for me, at least, the objective evidence will always outweigh subjective evidence, because it isn't based on opinion, it's based on fact. It cannot be ignored.

AA's ears being the same as AN's is not a fact (or vice-versa) because it's subjective.

The DNA for AA did not match that of the Hessian relatives. This is a fact. It's objective. Indisputable! Furthermore, the DNA for AA did match that of one of FS's relatives. Fact!

As far as I'm concerned, this argument is simply going around in circles. Perhaps what we need is a thread to de-construct the subjective evidence.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 26, 2004, 07:51:12 AM
Quote
You can't just sweep objective evidence under the carpet. The problem I have with the AA is AN argument is that some people think the subjective evidence (ears, etc) outweighs the objective evidence (the DNA). But for me, at least, the objective evidence will always outweigh subjective evidence, because it isn't based on opinion, it's based on fact. It cannot be ignored.

AA's ears being the same as AN's is not a fact (or vice-versa) because it's subjective.

The DNA for AA did not match that of the Hessian relatives. This is a fact. It's objective. Indisputable! Furthermore, the DNA for AA did match that of one of FS's relatives. Fact!

As far as I'm concerned, this argument is simply going around in circles. Perhaps what we need is a thread to de-construct the subjective evidence.


Alice,

I am starting to be convinced that some people here do not know the difference between subjective and objective evidence: they seem to think that the two are equal and can be argued against each other as such, and that objective evidence can be excluded in these arguments. This is why we are going around in circles in any and all of the AA case discussions.

The problem here is not the effectiveness of the arguments themselves, the problem seems to be rooted in the semantics, or rather it is conceptual. Oh well.  :)

Helen  
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 26, 2004, 08:04:27 AM
With OJ, those who wanted to believe him innocent claimed the DNA was 'planted' by evil cops, the same way some AA people say the DNA was rigged or the samples switched. I guess you will always have that faction. Unfortunately in the OJ case, too many of them were on the jury :-/ :(

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 26, 2004, 08:26:30 AM
Quote
With OJ, those who wanted to believe him innocent claimed the DNA was 'planted' by evil cops, the same way some AA people say the DNA was rigged or the samples switched. I guess you will always have that faction. Unfortunately in the OJ case, too many of them were on the jury :-/ :(


Annie,

The OJ jury was manipulated by the defense to believe that the DNA evidence was somehow tampered with. Since the jury did not understand this evidence, and unfortunately it wasn't explained to them properly, they bought into the 'conspiracy theory'. If they understood the evidence this would not have happened. This is why it's so important for people to try to understand these things - to avoid being manipulated for whatever purpose.

This is why I am glad that Pushkina evoked the OJ case here: it is a really good analogy to the AA case. People are also being manipulated into thinking that the AA DNA evidence could somehow be wrong here, and the reason they can be manipulated is because they don't fully understand this evidence, and for some unexplained reason don't seem to want to understand it.

But this is exactly why a person with  a scientific background would never have ended up being selected for the OJ jury (or a jury for any similar case): because the defense's tactics would never have worked with someone who had full understanding of what they were talking about.

And this is why the people who accept the "AA's DNA may be wrong" theory tend to be the ones who don't fully understand the science of DNA either. They may think they understand it, but they obviously don't. Sorry guys, this is not a put down for those who don't believe the DNA evidence, this is just an observation.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 26, 2004, 08:32:55 AM
Quote
Robert, why don't you check out ISteinke's previous posts on this subject and perhaps then you will understand why we have been asking him to elaborate on his statements.

And I would still like to hear ISteinke's rebuttals on a subject he himself seemed to be taking very seriously not too long ago  ;). If you are going to bother making these statements, ISteinke, it is only fair that you elaborate on them, especially after others took the time to reply to your views. If you don't want to do that, then perhaps you should refrain from making them. That's all  :D


Cheers and applause to Helen!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Dominic_Albanese on November 26, 2004, 09:30:21 AM
This has probably been posted and answered in the past, but does anyone think it is odd that the Sokolov dossier on AA has never been released?  I *think* it is in the possession of the Danish Royal family.  I don't know if it has anything explosive in it (related to AA or something else?) but it seems very odd that it is being kept 'under lock and key'.

Does anyone know if requests to view the dossier are still being rejected by the Danes?

dca
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 26, 2004, 09:43:41 AM
Quote
This has probably been posted and answered in the past, but does anyone think it is odd that the Sokolov dossier on AA has never been released?  I *think* it is in the possession of the Danish Royal family.  I don't know if it has anything explosive in it (related to AA or something else?) but it seems very odd that it is being kept 'under lock and key'.

Does anyone know if requests to view the dossier are still being rejected by the Danes?

dca


Dominic,

This is interesting. From what I understand, there is a copy of the Sokolov Dossier at the Henry Ford Archives in Michigan, but I guess it is not complete. I didn't even realize that Sokolov also investigated the AA case, what year was that? Thanks.

Helen
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Forum Admin on November 26, 2004, 09:56:52 AM
Quote
(snip)  However, I don't think anyone can prove in court that the samples used for the DNA were Anna Anderson's.   The reason being,  these particular samples [hair with roots and intestines] were not in "secure places".  Let me repeat:  ...NOT in a "secure places".

(snip)  I bet they'd think the same as I, the samples can not be proven to have been Anna Anderson's.

AGRBear


Did quite a bit of online research yesterday whilst the bird was roasting, after running into one of the best trial lawyers in the country who is a buddy, at the dog park on Wed.  I asked him about this "chain of custody" issue...he was familiar with the basics of the AA case.

The answer I reached is this. Hospital Labs are PRESUMED reliable custodians by a court when they can provide the lab records about that sample. Which we have in the AA case. SO, the presumption then shifts to PROVE the samples were tampered with (to a degree of beyond reasonable doubt) to rebut the presumption of reliability. First of all, we do not need to worry at all about the security of the samples until perhaps only a year or two prior to the testing. Why? because no one could have FORESEEN the arising of DNA testing for the AA case...

So, next step is to determine a specific person with a MOTIVE to tamper with the sample. You can't just say "someone might have" to create a sufficient doubt...I do not know of anyone with such a genuine motive. I mean, be real. Someone would have had to have seen the small beginnings of mtDNA analysis in the publications, and heard of Dr. Gill's intention to do the work, and gotten SO freaked out (because the SOMEHOW already knew about the samples existence) that they first flew to Europe, found old Carl M. takent the EXACT same samples from HIM (so the mtDNA would match exactly) and then ran quick like a bunny to the hospital to sneak in and KNEW exactly how to switch the samples and tamper with the record books all without being detected. WHO could that be?

THEN, after identifying this person, you have so demonstrate the ABILITY to have done the tampering. Opportunity, access, etc etc. AND you have to show WHY and how the sample was tampered with at odds to the physical record. Hospital records are PRESUMED accurate when kept in accordance with established CAPS (College of American Pathology Sciences) guidelines.

SO, dear Bear, I fear that any Court of Law in the US would indeed admit the DNA evidence in the AA case. Oh, and by the way, in nine years, not ONE peer review publication has ever questioned the AA testing's reliability. In FACT, it is cited as reliable and conclusive in over THIRTY other and more recent peer review articles that I could find. Rest assured that the Court would take that into consideration about reliability as well. scholar.google.com is pretty cool.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: AGRBear on November 26, 2004, 10:57:50 AM
Quote
... with numbers attached by AGRBear....
 (1) Ok, I see what AGRBear is saying now. That the courts would question not the results but the source of the DNA.  
(2)I have a question for you then, Bear, would you have a problem with this if you watched them draw blood directly from AA and then do the DNA testing on it right in front of you? How far do you think this needs to be taken in order to accept it? Do the court officials need to be present when all the testing is done in order for the courts to accept evidence? Do they have to personally supervise every DNA case in order to make this decision?
(3) Are you saying that the courts would think that both samples were substituted?  

I must remind you that reasonable doubt in courts means just that: reasonable....


(1) >>Ok, I see what AGRBear is saying now. That the courts would question not the results but the source of the DNA. <<

Yes, the courts would question the source if there is evidence which proves tampering of the samples.

(2)>> I have a question for you then, Bear, would you have a problem with this if you watched them draw blood directly from AA and then do the DNA testing on it right in front of you?<<

Not if the the rules of evidence was followed and no proof of possible tampering is evident.  

(3) >>Are you saying that the courts would think that both samples were substituted? <<

All the court/jury needs  to hear is evidence which casts doubt.

----

I think a fair lawyer [not even a good lawyer] could find evidence which would cast doubt about the samples being Anna Anderson's.

The most obvious is the samples had not been placed in a "secure place" such as the evidence room in a police station.

Annie and those who believe in the DNA can add twenty more pages to this discussion as to the accuracy of the test of the samples and the honesty of all involved and it will not change the fact that the samples can not be proven to have been Anna Anderson's.  

So, let me say again,  I am not questioning the DNA results of the samples of the hair and intestines.

I am not questioning the hospitals staff of dishonest or shoddy work.

I am concern with the fact that no one can prove to me that the hair was from Anna Anderson's head.

I am concern with the fact that no one can prove to me that the intestines were from Anna Anderson's operation for two reasons.  They were not in a secure place all those years and the shipment of the samples was not done in a secure fashion.

Some of you have brought up OJ's case.  Even with all the evidence piled on top of each other,  it was the "doubt" of the possibility of "tampered" evidence which the jury focused.

It doesn't matter what any of us outside that jury room thought, it mattered only what those 12 jurists thought.  And, they thought there was a reasonable doubt.

Unlike the rest of us,  who were hearing every small detail through the press,  the 12 jurists did not.  And, there is a reason for this.  

So cry foul all you want,  it doesn't change the fact that the 12 felt there was a reasonable doubt in OJ's case.

Logic and the law do not go hand in hand.

I can project that a jury of 12 in the case of  Anna Anderson and the DNA of intestines and a hair root,  would prove similiar to OJ's case and the shroud of doubt would return the verdict that there is doubt and the samples could not be proven to be Anna Anderson's.  

The same doubt would occur if in a court of law that the samples were FS's.

I think all the court could know as a fact is the samples belonged to someone who was related to FS's nephew.  And the probable theory the samples probably  were FS's.  However, it could not be proved the samples were from Anna Anderson.

It is not my intention to be the one to prove or disprove the link between the samples and  Anna Anderson or FS and FS's nephew.
All I am saying is:  There is "reasonable doubt".

Unfortunately, there is no path anyone can take that would changed the events surrounding the samples of hair root and intestines.

I am not writing this to change anyone's mind.  I am merely expressing an unpopular opinion.  

Why am I expressing  my unpopular opinion?  Because this subject is not  just based on DNA evidence,  there is question about the source of these samples.

AGRBear

PS  Admin. Forum and I were writing at the same time.  I will respond later but I just wanted everyone to know my words were not focused on Admin. Forum's post.

Hope everyone had a great Turkey Day.





Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 26, 2004, 11:05:10 AM
AGRBear, please read FA's last posting....
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: AGRBear on November 26, 2004, 11:08:16 AM
I was writing and didn't see Admin. Forum's post until after I posted....

I will read Admin. Forum's post and reply later.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 26, 2004, 11:26:07 AM
Quote
...they first flew to Europe, found old Carl M. takent the EXACT same samples from HIM (so the mtDNA would match exactly) and then ran quick like a bunny to the hospital to sneak in and KNEW exactly how to switch the samples and tamper with the record books all without being detected. WHO could that be?
 


And Bear, don't forget, that this incredibly swift and efficient person would also have to be aware that a stack of old books that used to belong to Mr Manahan was sold to a used book store in NC, and proceed to plant a clump of hair that belonged to a Carl M. maternal relative in one of them to make it look like it belonged to AA! This person would have to know that this hair will later be found and also be tested along with the hospital's intestine sample, and this person would have to make sure that the DNA from this hair matched the DNA of the intestine sample from the hospital (that he or she substituted too). Is this scenario really possible?

Bear, if you can explain to us how all this could have transpired, I will be more than happy to concede to what you are saying. As it stands, if I were the juror on this case, and I am sure anyone else who can think reasonably, we would not accept it as an even remotely reasonable argument. Sorry.

Helen
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: rskkiya on November 26, 2004, 11:50:02 AM
Helen A...
  If one believes in an international conspiricy headed by the Queen and the KGB - all out to tamper with the DNA sample of an elderly, ill, and senile woman in Charlottesville, why oh why should one bring the term Reasonable into the equation?  :D

Mhwahahaha!

LOL LOL LOL (just joking!)  ;D ;D
rskkiya

PS: I do think that IST is being just a bit too defensive in his remarks about "not taking all of this too seriously"... After all, very few people here I should guess, really sit up late into the night worrying about posting the "conclusive evidence" to prove their point...well maybe some people do... :D rs

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: jolie on November 26, 2004, 12:29:54 PM
Newbie here but have been reading along for weeks.

It's quite disturbing to me to read some of these posts from people that can't deal with reality.   They are clinging to a fairy tale or one of those books for kids that have a "choose your own ending".   When you all show them UNDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE, they become unhinged.  
After weeks of reading these posts, I'm impressed by the patience of you who are so diligently trying to lead the way thru the maze of rumors, bad science, tales and fantasy.

It's sad to see adults cling to what they WISH would be, versus what IS.    I pray they NEVER EVER get chosen for jury duty.  

Sorry for the rant.....but after weeks of reading I just couldn't TAKE IT ANYMORE!!

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: LisaDavidson on November 26, 2004, 01:01:28 PM
Jolie - I'm with you, honey! I particularly appreciate the posts of Helen A., who has managed to teach me a thing or two about this relatively new science.

The mistrust of DNA is not confined to this board. OJ Simpson, if you recall, was declared not guilty even though to me the DNA evidence against him was conclusive and damning. He will have to deal with the Almighty on that one! There are those on this case who will just not believe the evidence, or if they don't like the testing outcome, keep demanding new "independent" testing. I, too, am tired of this.

Welcome to the AP Forum!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: jolie on November 26, 2004, 02:25:23 PM
Thanks, Lisa!    Glad to be here.  Sure enjoy the forum and all the info.    I enjoy your posts, along with the other "pros"!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Valmont on November 26, 2004, 03:47:33 PM
Jolie,
Oh.. do not worry.. we have "Pros" like  this all the time. Eventually they come, throw their crazy theories, try to explain them (Without any success)  and vanish, some others have been banned for different reasons, but our dear Bear  can show off to have the longest record of crazy  and "mysterious" theories of them all.  Remember... she "knows" exactly what happened  that night... She just doesn't want to tell....yet.... I guess we are not ready yet to handle the truth....

I hope you have a great time in the forum.. wellcome, and enjoy....
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: AGRBear on November 26, 2004, 04:21:25 PM
I have never even suggested that the courts wouldn't accept the DNA as evidence.

I have never said that the DNA testing was not accurate.

What many of you fail to see  is: It doesn't matter if I believe in a conspiracy.  It doesn't matter if some believe a conspiracy is rediculous.   What would matter is what a jury would believe.

A fair lawyer might be able to  spin enough doubts...   An excellent lawyer might spin some great facts I'm not yet aware and  who knows  I might even start believing there was a conspiracy   8).  If I did believe in conspiracy, then I'd have to get serious.  Oh dear, oh dear...

;D

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 26, 2004, 05:23:59 PM
Thank you so much, Jolie! It helps to know someone noticed. Welcome, and please keep posting!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 26, 2004, 05:39:27 PM
Quote

After weeks of reading these posts, I'm impressed by the patience of you who are so diligently trying to lead the way thru the maze of rumors, bad science, tales and fantasy.... I pray they NEVER EVER get chosen for jury duty.  

Sorry for the rant.....but after weeks of reading I just couldn't TAKE IT ANYMORE!!


Hi Jolie, welcome!

Yep, this is how I myself ended up posting on these AA threads. At first I, like you, was just reading them in complete disbelief, then I just couldn't TAKE IT ANYMORE either!  ;)  
I too feel very disturbed that people still have such an attitude towards scientific evidence, and of course not at all because of this AA case, which does not matter. What you said is so right and I also hope that these types of people never end up as members of a jury on a serious criminal case, where it is imperative to have good judgment of such evidence. I shudder for the victims and their families who would not get justice if this happened!  >:(
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 26, 2004, 05:54:22 PM
AGRBear, yes you did suggest that the courts would question the DNA evidence:

Quote
Yes, the courts would question the source if there is evidence which proves tampering of the samples.
All the court/jury needs  to hear is evidence which casts doubt. The most obvious is the samples had not been placed in a "secure place" such as the evidence room in a police station.
AGRBear
 

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 26, 2004, 06:00:48 PM
Quote
A fair lawyer might be able to  spin enough doubts...   An excellent lawyer might spin some great facts I'm not yet aware and  who knows  I might even start believing there was a conspiracy   8).   ;D
AGRBear

And a fair prosecutor would be able to blow those theories away in one second or less without much effort (providing the jurors have a reasonable sense of judgment)  ;)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: AGRBear on November 26, 2004, 06:48:19 PM
As Admin. Forum has stated,  the evidence of the DNA is the strongest point.  So,  all we need to prove:
(1)  the hair clump was Anna Anderson's
and
(2)  the intestines were Anna Anderson's.

So,  how do we go about proving a clump of hair found in an old book was Anna Anderson's in court?  

How do we go about proving the intestines were Anna Anderson's in court?

Let's take the easier one.  The intestines.  There is a paper trail due to lab work done in a very good hospital and stored with the same care.  Nothing seems wrong and it seems this evidence should be taken into court with no objections.  This includes the DNA.

The hair on to itself doesn't prove anything since the book was in too many hands and in a book shop open to the public.  However, when the DNA matches the intestines which is said to have been Anna Anderson, then,  it takes up a different meaning.  It gives more weight to the test on the intestines.

I give you all of this as evidence in court.

What kind of evidence might follow?  

[This is a guess on my part....]

The next witness brought into the court might be  Peter Kurth who gives evidence that FS's nephew's mother and FS did not have the same mother.  Therefore, the DNA of the nephew and FS should not have matched "exactly".  

The next witness might be  Penny Wilson who might be able to  presents to the court that FS had been murdered by Karl Grossmann.  If this can be proved, then  Anna Anderson was not FS, therefore if AA's  hair or intestines had survived,  they would not have been a match with FS's nephew.

The next witness   is an expert on DNA who shows the patterns of DNA are through the mothers and not the fathers.  Therefore, the DNA of the nephew and FS could not have been a perfect match even if  FS had escaped and had become Anna Anderson. The reason being, FS and the nephew's mother had different mothers.  Even that said,  it has been prove FS was murdered.  Since there is a match in DNA,  then there is an unknown donner who's hair and intestines show family connection to the nephew.

With this evidence,  how could the hair and the intestines been Anna Anderson, whom it might be proven,  was not FS?

AGRBear

PS

I did say:  Yes, the courts would question the source if there is evidence which proves tampering of the samples.  

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: pushkina on November 26, 2004, 07:27:03 PM
i thought the original idea of this thread was the discussion of the possibility of having a discussion in which the DNA chorus didn't just jump in and cast aspersions on all who could even question the DNA.

look, i have a perfectly good grip on reality and it is my job to take my naturally contrarian nature and use it to deal with information presented and either build it into a case or tear it apart.

i just would like to hear/see more of the karlsruhe compilations and examine them without the DNA.

i am not a claimant, i have no ulterior motives, i understand subjective v. objective (and they also have troublesome relationships to/with each other.).  i've presented in my posts two scenaria in which the DNA did not led to either truth nor justice.  i would just like to discuss the material without the mantra of the DNA being used to kill discussion.

one could say that the OJ jury was manipulated but in the end it was understood as a case of my expert is better than your expert.  and since the experts are always on TV now, seemingly on the side of whomever has the most money, there is a cynicism abroad, an understanding that objective science is for sale. and i personally have won cases where the evidence for the other side might have been better presented but i had a bigger, flashier, more internationally known, more sympathetic expert.

i find it interesting that the original poster on this thread has made three postings out of 118; i've made what 4?  the majority of the 110 postings have been the DNAers posting at each other their outrage at those who

Quote
 It's quite disturbing to me to read some of these posts from people that can't deal with reality.   They are clinging to a fairy tale or one of those books for kids that have a "choose your own ending".   When you all show them UNDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE, they become unhinged.  
After weeks of reading these posts, I'm impressed by the patience of you who are so diligently trying to lead the way thru the maze of rumors, bad science, tales and fantasy.

It's sad to see adults cling to what they WISH would be, versus what IS.    I pray they NEVER EVER get chosen for jury duty.


all evidence is disputable. (and while i've never been on jury duty, one day i could be your lawyer, so don't tick me off...8)) since DNA has arrived, the most time honored method of identification, the eyewitness statement, has been virtually discarded.  no one ever expect that[/i] to happen.

this is an impossible discussion because i think that folks are not (at least in the case of my posts) really reading them, not even correctly reading them but just reading them.

i have no opinion as to the quality of the hospital lab; i do have an issue with the origin of the hair sample and in court the tested intestine c/would be challenged easily and successfully too.  i have no doubt that the mountbatten samples were clean.

that stated,i just want to discuss the german court findings and evidence. without the emotional, hysterical, snide remarks about believing in fairy tales or being judged unhinged.

to recap: i have no absolute faith in anything in/of this world, especially in the finality of science: science will keep moving.  that does not make me a believer in "fairy tales" or "unhinged".  i just want to be aware of what else is out there and exercise my right to be informed.

as a slight sidebar, this might explain to some why i don't take anything: from the age of 13, i was told i had an incurable condition and that i would never be able to have children so that i should have a hysterectomy and get on with my life. after a while i began to believe it, especially after one of the most famous international specialists made his "final" pronouncement in 1993. but i never had the hysterectomy, even tho' advised to do so over and over, because i hoped that one day i would benefit from the developments that science always makes. so now, at some ungodly age, i now have a baby daughter.  i took great pleasure in announcing her sucessful birth to EVERY ONE of the dozens of doctors who had told me it was hopeless. only one had the humility to acknowledge that he had been wrong.

thankfully, science does not stand still.  why should discussion?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 26, 2004, 07:43:40 PM
Pushkina, I'm glad you have a baby:) I know a lady whose daughter had cancer at 17 and underwent a lot of chemo and was told she could never have a baby too. She married a guy whose father had died when he was a child and he was the last in his male line. His family was devastated he fell in love with and married an infertile girl. But after four years of marriage, she got pregnant and had a baby boy! There are a lot of happy medical miracles like that. I also know a girl who was the ninth child of a woman the doctors told would never get pregnant. I'm happy you got one:)

But DNA is something totally different. If you only want to discuss the pro-AA case, post something in Denise's 'a discussion of evidence' thread, which so far no one has posted in, that's what she was looking for:)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Denise on November 26, 2004, 08:13:30 PM
Quote
But DNA is something totally different. If you only want to discuss the pro-AA case, post something in Denise's 'a discussion of evidence' thread, which so far no one has posted in, that's what she was looking for:)



Thanks Annie, I appreciate the plug!!  I haven't had time to get anything posted there yet with the holiday shopping and decorating for Christmas.  But I plan on it.  But I do want it to be a thread for folks who want to talk about the AA evidence REGARDLESS of whether or not she was AN.  There are some things in her case that are amazing coincidences since she apparently wasn't AN.  


And Pushkina, I too have 2 baby girls and was told I would never have a child, due to an uncontrolled seizure disorder and the meds used to treat it to manageability (sp?).  Science is amazing--after 1 brain surgery, I finished college, got my MA then got married and am chasing a 2 yr old and a 1 yr old and am close to 40.  It is so wonderful to prove science wrong when you have such a joyous outcome.  ;D

Denise


Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Michelle on November 26, 2004, 08:16:36 PM
Pushkina I'm SO HAPPY FOR YOU!!!!!!  Congratulations!!!
I would never have gotten that hysterectomy either! :D
Doctors and science can be wrong all the time!  

And thank you for your very reasoned post in the midst of all these people calling AA supporters people who can't grip reality and are fairy tale believers and all kinds of other crap.  I hate it whenever a perfectly good discussion like this one is turned into an anti-Anna (for lack of a better and shorter term) love-fest.  
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Denise on November 26, 2004, 08:23:10 PM
What are some of the main pieces of evidence used to back AA?  I'm going to post a few questions to get us started, and as I get my books out I plan to start posting my responses.

1. Well, everyone pulls out the ear evidence.  Frankly, I know very little about this.  I am not sure how scientific it really is.

2. Eyewitness testimony.  Was anyone who was an INTIMATE of the IF ever in contact with AA right after she was 1st identified as a Romanov?  

3. AA personal memories.  Who might AA have gotten these priviledged pieces of info from if she was not connected to the Romanov family?  How much info was presented BEFORE she began making the public statement that she was the missing Grand Duchess?

4. Appearance.  Probably the most subjective, due to "eye of the beholder" mentality.  Some of us see a resemblance, some don't.

5. Uncanny occurrances--things AA did that gave people "ah ha" moments where they felt she was undisputedly AN.  Were these reported immediately, or could they have been embellished by the AA supporters to seem as definite proof?  Were these witnessed by many people, and were the comments that "only AN would know/do that" made immediately?

Just some thoughts to get it started....

Denise
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Evanescence on November 26, 2004, 08:28:17 PM
Well, I can answer one of your questions. Many people who were intimate with the IF did approach Anna, there were Gleb Botkin, Maria Rasputin, Nicholas's sisters, etc. Some were convicned, some were not.

I have another question. How come no one who knew FS before 1920 ever voluntarily approached Anna?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 26, 2004, 08:36:20 PM
Hi Pushkina, thanks for sharing your story with us, it is a nice story.

I have to agree with Annie here, a medical diagnosis is totally different from DNA evidence. Medical science is a lot more ambiguous than molecular biology, I assure you.
I also want to assure you that I read your posts very carefully, so perhaps I am not expressing myself very clearly and this is what's causing miscommunication.

I agree with you that it would be interesting to hear about the German court proceedings and all the details that went along with it, although I don't think it would be too relevant to this case anymore, as Robert Hall said before. But I hope someone does have some information about that because I will listen to it gladly.

But, as someone else already mentioned, when discussing the AA case, it is impossible to keep the DNA evidence out of it, as it happens to be the most important evidence in this case and cannot simply be discarded or ignored. After all, this topic is called "Dealing fearlessly with reality". I am sorry you don't like to hear about DNA evidence, but what is the point of speculating about anything else in this case when we know what the DNA results were? At least this is the way I see it, and I can't help but see it that way. To me, it would be like reading a mystery novel while knowing all along what the ending  is ;). But maybe I am not being fair because perhaps for others it may still be just as exciting, I don't know  :).

BTW, and I think I mentioned this before on this thread, eyewitnesses have been shown to be among the most unreliable sources of evidence - very subjective,  and this is why DNA evidence now takes precedence over everything else as legal evidence. Sorry to keep bringing up DNA since you seem to really dislike it, but I just wanted to reply to some of your comments to show that I am really reading them  ;).

Best,

Helen

P.S. As Annie mentioned, Denise's post may be a better option for you since I don't think it will have too much information about DNA on it, just the kind of things you seem to want to discuss.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Denise on November 26, 2004, 08:36:31 PM
Quote
Well, I can answer one of your questions. Many people who were intimate with the IF did approach Anna, there were Gleb Botkin, Maria Rasputin, Nicholas's sisters, etc. Some were convicned, some were not.


I know that Gleb and Tatiana Botkin were supporters of AA, but how soon did they meet her?  And I am also aware that GD Olga met her.  Her opinion is one that helped sway my opinion as she was very close to the IF.  And I am not sure if we can even classify Maria Rasputin as an intimate of the IF, as her father died 2 years before the IF's execution, and may not have even seen them that much while alive.

Quote
I have another question. How come no one who knew FS before 1920 ever voluntarily approached Anna?


This is a good question.  Why did FS name never become attached to AA while in the Asylum as FU, because FS was supposedly in and out of the asylum's for some time.  Wouldn't they recognize her, especially given the resemblance between the one known picture of FS and the many we have of AA?  

And if AA wasn't AN or FS, who was she?  Why did no one ever come forward to claim her or recognize her?  Wouldn't someone, somewhere, in this woman's previous existence miss her?  Wouldn't AA want to be in touch with SOMEONE?  She didn't hatch from an egg fully grown, for heaven's sake!  ???

Denise
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Denise on November 26, 2004, 08:40:49 PM
Quote
As Annie mentioned, there is a thread that was started yesterday I believe, that asks everyone to post only arguments that support the AA claim, so you may want to check it out since I don't think it will have too much information about DNA on it.


Helen, although the thread discusses the evidence Pro AA, I hope that we can also look at that evidence and see if it is actually as reliable as many Pro Anna people feel it is.  I am all for checking to see if there is an obvious bias to the sources.  I do not believe AA was AN, maybe she was FS, but all that so called evidence that is out there makes me believe a lot of people were hoodwinked or seeing only what they wanted to see.  

FWIW, I believe the DNA.  8)

Denise
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 26, 2004, 08:43:30 PM
I don't want to step into this one too, since I don't have any pro AA evidence, but I do have a comment on (possibly) why none of AA's family approached her. Maybe all of you have happy, friendly, close loving families, but I know people who can't stand their relatives, or certain ones, and avoid them, and people who are shunned by their families. Some disown relatives or are estranged and have no contact. So it could be that no one went looking because no one cared. That sounds sad, but it happens. Also in a time after the war when so much was in turmoil in Europe, there may not have been easy contact, or opportunity for travel, or money for it. It's possible her family had no idea, or did and just didn't want to bother with her. These things could be factors no matter who she was.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 26, 2004, 08:43:50 PM
Hi Denise, our posts must have crossed, so after I just read your post on this thread about that other post, I fixed my P.S.  :D
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Denise on November 26, 2004, 08:54:17 PM
Quote
Also in a time after the war when so much was in turmoil in Europe, there may not have been easy contact, or opportunity for travel, or money for it. It's possible her family had no idea, or did and just didn't want to bother with her. These things could be factors no matter who she was.


True.  I had thought of the fact that the war could have killed her family members, or they were just a distant family.  It just seems like a sad lonely life, starting over among people who want to know you only based on who you might be.  

I think that in a peaceful capitalist society, we probably do have tighter family bonds than they did historically in a harsh society like Russia's.  The goal for the peasant class was to fight for survival.  But it is still tragic to think of her life, regardless of who AA was.  
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Evanescence on November 26, 2004, 09:04:35 PM
There are just too much information showing that FS wasn't AA.

-FS was 5'7 while AA and AN were both 5'2.
-FS had rough hands and a rough personality. Unlike AA.
-FS didn't know how to speak English, Russian or French like Anna.
-Felix commented that there was a very strong resemblance between AA and FS from the front. But a big difference from the side.
-FS's schoolteacher commented that FS wasn't special in any way.
-Everyone, even AA's enemies denied that AA and FS were the same person.
-FS wasn't how we know Polish people today.

There's much more information that is not listed as well.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Denise on November 26, 2004, 09:06:17 PM
Quote
There are just too much information showing that FS wasn't AA.

-FS was 5'7 while AA and AN were both 5'2.
-FS had rough hands and a rough personality. Unlike AA.
-FS didn't know how to speak English, Russian or French like Anna.
-Felix commented that there was a very strong resemblance between AA and FS from the front. But a big difference from the side.
-FS's schoolteacher commented that FS wasn't special in any way.
-Everyone, even AA's enemies denied that AA and FS were the same person.
-FS wasn't how we know Polish people today.

There's much more information that is not listed as well.


I agree.  Plus an obvious one--look at hair color!!  If AA has hair as dark as FS, she would be constantly dyeing it.  And we never saw roots!  ;)

Denise
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: jolie on November 26, 2004, 09:07:10 PM
Hoodwinked is a good way of putting it.

There are people who feverishly believe Anastasia was Anna all these many years later.  They WANT to believe desperately that Anastasia lived.   Now compare those "feelings" to what it must have been like THEN.  Of COURSE people wanted to believe Anna was the real thing.  I am SURE I WOULD HAVE BEEN ONE OF THEM!  :)    I probably could have swallowed the story hook line and sinker.   The Romanov deaths were horrific and much more so because of the children.  The miracle of one of the children surviving was goodness overcoming evil.  Who would ever want to believe the real story?   That man could do such atrocities?

The fervor to believe this poor girl was Anastasia was much preferable over the truth.   For many, it still is....regardless.

As Helen A. states, we can't go back and pretend we don't know the truth.  We know the ending and the rest is moot.  



Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: rskkiya on November 26, 2004, 09:12:26 PM
Quote
!  

And thank you for your very reasoned post in the midst of all these people calling AA supporters people who can't grip reality and are fairy tale believers and all kinds of other crap.  I hate it whenever a perfectly good discussion like this one is turned into an anti-Anna (for lack of a better and shorter term) love-fest.  



Michelle
   As far as I have seen-- this thread is still a very calm discussion about examining the evidence. "Jolie" was just a bit frustrated - as many people here are - and simply vented...
  You have been here for some time and so I do expect that you will continue to behave in a "polite and circumspect manner" in accordance with the FA 's requests.

rskkiya
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Denise on November 26, 2004, 09:13:31 PM
Quote
Hoodwinked is a good way of putting it.

There are people who feverishly believe Anastasia was Anna all these many years later.  They WANT to believe desperately that Anastasia lived.   Now compare those "feelings" to what it must have been like THEN.  Of COURSE people wanted to believe Anna was the real thing.  I am SURE I WOULD HAVE BEEN ONE OF THEM!  :)    I probably could have swallowed the story hook line and sinker.   The Romanov deaths were horrific and much more so because of the children.  The miracle of one of the children surviving was goodness overcoming evil.  Who would ever want to believe the real story?   That man could do such atrocities?

The fervor to believe this poor girl was Anastasia was much preferable over the truth.   For many, it still is....regardless.

As Helen A. states, we can't go back and pretend we don't know the truth.  We know the ending and the rest is moot.  



Beautifully written, jolie.  I wanted to add that although we may know the end, there is still the mystery of Anna Anderson.  She was not a Grand Duchess, but many of us still play with the academic question of who she was and how did she get her information.  I understand why some may not enjoy this type of speculation, but it is intriguing to me!  ;)

Denise
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 26, 2004, 09:18:23 PM
To me, that part of the story is over too. She got her 'information' from Russian emigres', some probably innocently while talking to her, others perhaps (and most likely) fed her the info in order to help her win her claim (and money!)

I believe she was FS, there is enough evidence to show that is most likely, or, like we have no 'real' killer in the OJ case, there are no other prospects of who she was, because we found that out too and no one else or their families have ever spoken up to claim someone was AA. And, if she wasn't AN, does it really matter?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 26, 2004, 09:20:38 PM
Quote

Beautifully written, jolie.  I wanted to add that although we may know the end, there is still the mystery of Anna Anderson.  She was not a Grand Duchess, but many of us still play with the academic question of who she was and how did she get her information.  I understand why some may not enjoy this type of speculation, but it is intriguing to me!  ;)

Denise


Although speculating how AA may still have been AN doesn't do a thing for me, I think it would still be interesting to speculate who she really was (if not FS) and where she was able to get some of the information, if in fact,  these things weren't exaggerated or distorted.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Maria_Romanov_fan on November 26, 2004, 09:22:40 PM
Well, now that I think about it, I think that Anna Anderson was definitly trying to hide something. Wouldn't you think of her being cremated wanting to erase of her true identity if someone in the future questioned her claim? Doesn't that strike you as odd?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: jolie on November 26, 2004, 09:24:49 PM
Denise,

Oh, I enjoy the speculation about Anna!   She certainly was a mystery.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 26, 2004, 09:25:13 PM
Quote

And thank you for your very reasoned post in the midst of all these people calling AA supporters people who can't grip reality and are fairy tale believers and all kinds of other crap.  I hate it whenever a perfectly good discussion like this one is turned into an anti-Anna (for lack of a better and shorter term) love-fest.  


Michele,

I would also like to ask you (very politely) to try to refrain from instigating discord. We are having a pretty good discussion and would appreciate it very much if you just let it continue progressing in the same manner. Thank you.

Helen
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: jolie on November 26, 2004, 09:33:44 PM
Thanks rskkiya.     This IS a frustrating topic and I probably should have stayed out of it!   :-X   Just couldn't help myself!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 26, 2004, 09:38:22 PM
Quote
Thanks rskkiya.     This IS a frustrating topic and I probably should have stayed out of it!   :-X   Just couldn't help myself!


Tell me about it  ;). This is probably the most frustrating topic you will encounter on this forum, but don't let it deter you from participating!  ;D
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Michelle on November 26, 2004, 09:46:43 PM
I just think that it was because she didn't want people forever tampering with her grave and her corpse.  She was sick of the whole bruhaha by the time of her death and probably didn't want scientists etc. fooling around with her dead body.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Michelle on November 26, 2004, 09:53:43 PM
*lets out a huge and heavy sigh*

I was NOT trying to "instigate discord" thank you.  I'm sorry that my wanting to thank pushkina for being a voice of reason in the midst of the usual droll of ranting about fairy tale believers strikes many as "discord."  It seems that anything I say will be miscontrued into something used against me.  Talk about frustrating--now that's frustrating.  

Can we please get back on topic?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 26, 2004, 09:58:14 PM
Interesting point about cremation. Does anyone know if the Russian orthodox church accepts cremation as a means of burial? Some religions don't, and if this is the case with ROC then it would be kind of suspect that AA decided to do it, scientists messing with her body or no, in her mind her eternal soul would be more important to her or something like that, so she would want to get buried according to what ROC prescribes (if she really felt that she were Russian Orthodox that is)...
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: AGRBear on November 26, 2004, 10:11:39 PM
Talk about reality:  If Anna Anderson was not FS then all the DNA evidence is worthless.

With no  DNA of Anna Anderson's,  this takes us back to square one which holds the question: Who was Anna Anderson?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 26, 2004, 10:23:38 PM
Quote
Talk about reality:  If Anna Anderson was not FS then all the DNA evidence is worthless.
AGRBear

Since mtDNA is not unique to an individual, she may have been a relative or someone not related at all. Apparently roughly 4 in 100 people share identical mtDNA, so theoretically she could still have been someone else. I don't see why you would say that all the DNA evidence would be worthless then, not at all!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 26, 2004, 10:34:28 PM
No, the Russian Orthodox Church opposes cremation. I brought this up before.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 26, 2004, 10:37:56 PM
Thanks, Annie. Hmmm... well I don't know then.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 26, 2004, 10:54:55 PM
While they may be 2 questions I can't see how they can be separated. I personally feel that anyone trying vehemently to prove AA was not  FS is aiming to prove she was AN. As long as she was not AN, why does it matter? I am convinced she was FS, I mean, there have been no other theories or leads in all these years, like I said, just as there has been no 'real killer' in the OJ case. She was AN or she was FS. She wasn't AN.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Abby on November 26, 2004, 11:01:53 PM
Jeremy, I agree.  If Anastasia survived it may have had nothing to do with AA. Just as Tatiana sat in the Governor's Mansion in Tobolsk and read about "Tatiana, the Tsar's daughter, moving to America!" in the newspaper headlines, Anastasia may have survived and followed Anna Anderson's case with amusement from another location! Of course, this is all in theory, but still!
There have been SO MANY Anastasia claimants, who knows, maybe one of them was the real Grand Duchess? Or maybe none of them were.  
Anna Anderson is a mystery in herself. Annie, you say that she is either AN or FS, but isn't it a considerable thought that she could have been someone else? There were thousands of misplaced citizens during the crazy time following the Russian Revolution. Probably there were not as many records on file to identify people as there are today.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: AGRBear on November 26, 2004, 11:05:45 PM
I am not trying to prove Anna Anderson was Anastasia.


AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: jolie on November 27, 2004, 02:09:22 AM
Bear,
I'm never sure what you ARE trying to prove.   I'm new and maybe haven't read all your posts.   Are you playing devil's advocate?   I'm never quite sure where you stand.  No offense intended, but maybe you could lay out simply what you believe to be true.....without conspiracy theory's or "what if's".  

btw, when are you going to reveal your info on the "real story"??

Thanks in advance!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: jolie on November 27, 2004, 03:48:17 AM
"Jolie, why do you believe that the question of AA's identity is the same as the question of whether or not AN survived? All arguments about whether she survived or not aside, these really are two very different questions.  
But many of us have made that mistake of confusing the two questions as one from time to time. I'm just as guilty as anyone"


Not the same question.  My point was that people want to believe Anna was Anatasia.  I understand that .   They desperately wanted to believe she survived and Anna filled a need.  Whether Anastasia TRULY survived has never been proven and I don't have a clue!

Fact:  Anna was not Anatasia.
Speculation:  Anatasia survived.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Olga on November 27, 2004, 04:30:50 AM
Quote
-FS didn't know how to speak English, Russian or French like Anna.


AA couldn't speak Russian.

Quote
FS wasn't how we know Polish people today.


Are all Poles the same?

All of the evidence you have presented is extremely subjective, Evanescence.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Alice on November 27, 2004, 05:31:08 AM
Quote
Annie, you say that she is either AN or FS, but isn't it a considerable thought that she could have been someone else?


No, it isn't. AA's DNA matched that of FS's relatives. She was FS, or at least, she was related to FS.

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Alice on November 27, 2004, 05:49:38 AM
OK, a discussion of the subjective evidence.

Subjective evidence against:

- The part in the hair is identical for both AA and FS.

- She spoke with a Polish accent. Furthermore, she was overheard speaking Polish. (Bob Atchison posted about this some time ago). AN did not speak Polish.

- AA first said she was Tatiana. Then she changed it to Anastasia. You either know who you are, or you don't.  And this says to me she didn't know who she was (or that she changed who she was to suit herself . .  ahem, her height), so she could've as easily been Pippy Longstocking as AN.

- I don't think that Olga Alexandrovna would have left her niece, the only surviving child from her brother's family, out in the cold. We know she knew Anastasia. There are photos of her with Anastasia. Are there any photos of Anastasia with Gleb Botkin?

Quote
Plus an obvious one--look at hair color!!  If AA has hair as dark as FS, she would be constantly dyeing it.  And we never saw roots!


We also never saw a colour photograph of both women, to be able to compare the hair colour.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Olga on November 27, 2004, 06:12:58 AM
Quote
Many people who were intimate with the IF did approach Anna, there were Gleb Botkin, Maria Rasputin, Nicholas's sisters, etc.


Maria Rasputina and Gleb Botkin weren't exactly 'intimate' with the IF. Far from it.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 27, 2004, 07:43:31 AM
Quote
Fact:  Anna was not Anatasia.
Speculation:  Anatasia survived.


While I doubt Anastasia surivived, until the mystery of the body is solved there will always be wonder. But the one thing we can rule out is that she was AA. I would love to see someone explore possibilities of her getting away OTHER than the same old tired AA stuff over and over again!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 27, 2004, 07:51:51 AM
Quote
Annie, you say that she is either AN or FS, but isn't it a considerable thought that she could have been someone else?


Yes, but as I said, I think she was, because:

A) The DNA shows she was related to the family of Carl Maucher. It's much more likely she was his aunt than some distant relative who coinicedently matched.

B) There are no other leads, no other suspects besides AN and FS. Like I keep saying, it's like the OJ case where there are no other leads on the 'real killer.'

C) Comments made by the Schanskowska family over the years lead me to believe that they knew her and denied her in order avoid responsibility for her, and to save her 'career' I will post this letter from Gertrude Schaskowska's lawyer once more, it's a smoking gun in my book, and proves the family DID know who she was. Looks like Gertrude lived in fear for years for lying when she denied her!

The lawyer Hans-Herman Krampff wrote to Mrs Gertrude Ellerik the 11 April 1959: "The research made in the meantime has resulted that at the confrotation with Mrs Anderson in 1938 you were not the only one who recognized her as your sister Franziska. Your brothers and sisters also did but abstained to say so in order not to make obstacles of the career of their sister. Afterwards your sister Maria has died and your brother Valerian lives in Poland. So it´s only you and your brother Felix left who can be heard at the trial in Hamburg. I would like to inform you that you have nothing to fear if you told the truth now since the time of a criminal act has expired". From the French journalist Dominique Auclère´s book. Anastasia qui etes-vous?


I also don't see why it would even matter who else she was if not FS or AN, and those who try to prove she was not FS are usually trying to eliminate her to make it look more likely she was AN. But as I said in the last post, it would be interesting to research OTHER possibilities of what may have become of the real Anastasia other than this worn out old tale. Who knows, if people would finally close the door on the AA episode and really start digging elsewhere they may find something!

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 27, 2004, 08:06:22 AM
Quote
Denise,

Where did you find the information on FS'S height? I'm trying to locate first hand notes on it. Thanks, either message me or post if you can.

Jeremy



All the reports of her height are only hearsay and personal observation, there is no record. As I have said before, people meeting a singer I like have had various differing reports of his height, so I think it's the same thing here. I want proof, real evidence on paper.

Quote
posted by Olga

Maria Rasputina and Gleb Botkin weren't exactly 'intimate' with the IF. Far from it.
 


I agree Maria wasn't close to the family, and by the time she met AA when both were elderly I am sorry to say her mental state was no better than Anna's. ;)

As far as Gleb, he did have more contact with them and probably would have known the real AN but I have a problem with him because, as a journalist, I question his motives. We will never know for sure since all these people are dead, and that doesn't help in the hard solid evidence dept. Denise is looking for.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Denise on November 27, 2004, 08:27:05 AM
Quote


All the reports of her height are only hearsay and personal observation, there is no record. As I have said before, people meeting a singer I like have had various differing reports of his height, so I think it's the same thing here. I want proof, real evidence on paper.



Exactly.  I has read on the board a post in which FS is described by someone as 5'7".  However, it is more likely that a member of FS family commented that their sister was taller.  And thus a rumor started.

Quote

I agree Maria wasn't close to the family, and by the time she met AA when both were elderly I am sorry to say her mental state was no better than Anna's. ;)



I agree.  Maria became quite the eccentric.  

Quote

 As far as Gleb, he did have more contact with them and probably would have known the real AN but I have a problem with him because, as a journalist, I question his motives. We will never know for sure since all these people are dead, and that doesn't help in the hard solid evidence dept. Denise is looking for.


Those are my reservations about Gleb.  For example, it is always cited that AA asked if he had brought his pictures about the "funny animals."  I wonder if a member of the IF who survived the Revolution fed her the info which she was then able to use to convince Gleb.

I have started going through Klier's "The Quest for Anastasia" and have a lot of good info on FS to add to this thread.  It will need to wait until my babies' naptimes, as they will never sit long enough to get it all in.  

I have also started looking through Massie's Romanovs: the Final Chapter" but he seems a bit biased in his presentation of FS.  Klier presents more facts and dates, so I will use him for now.

Denise

PS  Welcome Annie, for braving the AA fray!!  ;D

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 27, 2004, 09:37:36 AM
Quote


Those are my reservations about Gleb.  For example, it is always cited that AA asked if he had brought his pictures about the "funny animals."  I wonder if a member of the IF who survived the Revolution fed her the info which she was then able to use to convince Gleb.


My reservations about him are stronger than that. I don't believe anyone tricked him, it is possible that he knew all along she wasn't  Anastasia and used her so he could have a good story and a share of the money (aka Dmitri in the Anastasia cartoon?) He, or his sister, could have lied about the 'funny animal' comment, or even told her to say it! People jump all over me for suggesting this but it seems highly probable to me especially considering he was a writer looking for good stories. It all adds up.


Quote
I have also started looking through Massie's Romanovs: the Final Chapter" but he seems a bit biased in his presentation of FS.  Klier presents more facts and dates, so I will use him for now.


He also has a lot of speculation listed as fact, such as the 'half sister' thing which there is NO evidence of and the DNA proves wrong, so don't put too much trust in him.



Quote
Denise

PS  Welcome Annie, for braving the AA fray!!  ;D



Thanks.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Forum Admin on November 27, 2004, 10:03:04 AM
lets keep focused on a few things.

1. mtDNA showed that 100% certain AA was NOT related to AN. Now, totally UNRELATED:

2. same tests showed that a) AA was related to Carl Maucher to the degree of certainty of 25 to 1 or conversely b) there is a one in 25% chance that AA was NOT at all related to Carl Maucher either.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: AGRBear on November 27, 2004, 10:20:30 AM
Quote
Bear,
I'm never sure what you ARE trying to prove.   I'm new and maybe haven't read all your posts.   Are you playing devil's advocate?   I'm never quite sure where you stand.  No offense intended, but maybe you could lay out simply what you believe to be true.....without conspiracy theory's or "what if's".  

btw, when are you going to reveal your info on the "real story"??

Thanks in advance!


I am an old bear who's just looking for the truth.  

So,  I keep an open mind and read carefully, digest what has been said,  buy more books suggested then sit back with a good pot of honey and  "think, think, think".

As for trying to prove anything,  no, Jollie,  I'm not trying to prove anything.  However, I am trying to find evidence that may disprove a story I was told when I was only 4 or 5 years old.  And,  that is the story that Valmont and Rysskiya and others refer once in a while.

Good luck on your journey into this world of Romanovs which is filled with all kinds of twists and turns so be prepared.  And, enjoy your adventure.  It will take you to places and you'll meet all kinds of interesting characters along the way.

AGRBear  :)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 27, 2004, 10:21:02 AM
Quote
there is a one in 25% chance that AA was NOT at all related to Carl Maucher either.


To put it even more simply (and I "think" I have these stats interpreted correctly):

It appears that there is a 96% chance that AA was maternally related to Carl Maucher (FS's nephew) and a 4% chance that she wasn't at all related....  .

So now it is up for individual interpretation as to how much of this may be coincidence.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: AGRBear on November 27, 2004, 10:44:32 AM
The Berlin police reported to the family of FS that FS had been murdered by Karl Grossmann, so, how could  FS could been AA's.

Since  FS was murdered, how can the "hair" and "intestines" have been FS's?

All the tests prove is the person who's "hair" and "intestines" they have tested  belonged, probably, to  a relative of FS's nephew.  It does not prove the "hair" and "intestines" were from AA.

When you have discovered proof that FS was not murdered by Karl Grossmann. let me know.

AGRBear


Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 27, 2004, 10:52:58 AM
Quote
The Berlin police reported to the family of FS that FS had been murdered by Karl Grossmann, so, how could  FS could been AA's.

Since  FS was murdered than then how can the "hair" and "intestines" have been FS's?

All the tests prove is the person who's "hair" and "intestines" they have tested  belonged, probably, to  a relative of FS's nephew.  It does not prove the "hair" and "intestines" were from AA.

When you have discovered proof that FS was not murdered by Karl Grossmann. let me know.

AGRBear


Bear, I don't know too much about the Grossman murder case, in fact I only learned about it very recently, but from what I understand it has not been conclusively decided by the police that FS was murdered by him, or by anyone else for that matter. It was all just a theory.

Secondly, yes, the 96% chance I was referring to does not tell us that the intestine came from FS, I never said it did, it only tells us that there was 96% chance the donor of the sample was maternally related to Carl M.

As far as the intestines go, we are once again going around in circles, so why don't you re-read FA's post about that and see if you can prove that this sample was substituted at the hospital.
You don't seem to understand that what has to be proven here is the fact that the sample was           substituted and not the fact that it was not   substituted.  That's just the way it works in the real world.  ;)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Forum Admin on November 27, 2004, 11:10:27 AM
Here is the only documented meeting we know of between Maria Rasputina and the IF, from Spiridovitch, "Derniers Annees..." the year 1912:

It was in this house [Vyroubova's] that the Empress came one day to meet Rasputin's wife, a simple and likeable peasant, and her daughter Marfa, or Mara, as she was then called in the "citified" manner, who was studying, as an intern, in the Stebline-Kamenska institution.  As for the rumors which had been spread claiming that the Empress had enrolled her in the Smolni Institute, they were all entirely false.
     "We were very moved, my mother and I" the young girl later recalled, "when we had gone to Anna Alexandrovna's home who then presented us to the Empress.  Lead into the salon, we were asked to wait there.  All of a sudden the doorbell rang.  I was frightened by it.  The Empress entered into the salon, beautiful, majestic, a pretty smile on her lips.  She came right up to us.  We curtsied and we kissed her hand.  She kissed us on the cheeks.
     "The Empress sat down and invited us to sit as well.  She then began to ask my mother about our home life, about the last harvest, about the relations my father had with the peasants.  She wanted to know if the peasants loved my father.  Then the Empress addressed me, asking me if I was doing well in my schoolwork, if there were many of us in my class, if I liked arithmetic.
     " 'Do not be afraid' the Empress reassured me. 'I will not do anything bad to you. Call me Mama. I am the mother to you all. You are all our children.' "
     "She spoke well, and her face was so soft, so good! And she went back to speaking with my mother; as for me, being a little more bold then, I decided to ask her something, but I could not think of any other question to ask her other than :'Mama, do you have a lot of servants?" The empress burst out laughing "Do I know, my little dear one? Well a lot, no doubt…" and she continued to laugh and caress my head. I was so upset that I could not say another word.
     "After about half an hour, the Empress stood up and took her leave of us. We again kissed her hand.
     "At Easter, we had gone, my mother and I, to Tsarskoie Selo to present our compliments to the Empress and we both gave her the Easter kiss.
     "Oh, she was pretty and sweet and kind….I adored her…"
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Evanescence on November 27, 2004, 11:13:32 AM
Quote
OK, a discussion of the subjective evidence.

Subjective evidence against:

- The part in the hair is identical for both AA and FS.

- She spoke with a Polish accent. Furthermore, she was overheard speaking Polish. (Bob Atchison posted about this some time ago). AN did not speak Polish.

- AA first said she was Tatiana. Then she changed it to Anastasia. You either know who you are, or you don't.  And this says to me she didn't know who she was (or that she changed who she was to suit herself . .  ahem, her height), so she could've as easily been Pippy Longstocking as AN.

- I don't think that Olga Alexandrovna would have left her niece, the only surviving child from her brother's family, out in the cold. We know she knew Anastasia. There are photos of her with Anastasia. Are there any photos of Anastasia with Gleb Botkin?


We also never saw a colour photograph of both women, to be able to compare the hair colour.


AA could speak Russian. She spoke Russian with many people and even AA's enemies said she could speak Russian.

FS didn't speak Polish either. She spoke Kashoub. AA spoke German usually with a Russian accent.

AA didn't ever say she was Tatiana.

I don't think I've seen a pic with AA and Gleb Botkin. Though it would be quite interesting to see one (if it did exist).

                                              -Sarah
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 27, 2004, 11:18:27 AM
Quote
I don't think I've seen a pic with AA and Gleb Botkin. Though it would be quite interesting to see one (if it did exist).
                                              -Sarah


Sarah,

I think Alice was talking about a picture of Gleb and Anastasia, not Gleb and AA.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Evanescence on November 27, 2004, 11:22:12 AM
Quote

Sarah,

I think Alice was talking about a picture of Gleb and Anastasia, not Gleb and AA.


Oh, sorry then. I haven't seen a pic of Anastasia and Gleb either though...
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 27, 2004, 11:25:54 AM
Quote

Oh, sorry then. I haven't seen a pic of Anastasia and Gleb either though...


Yes, that's what Alice was trying to say, that there doesn't even seem to be a photo in existance of him and AN, as opposed to some others who did have lots of photos with her, therefore Gleb may not have been as close to AN as people tend to think.

Alice, am I interpreting this correctly?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Val289 on November 27, 2004, 12:01:24 PM
Quote

I know that Gleb and Tatiana Botkin were supporters of AA, but how soon did they meet her?  



Tatiana met AA in August 1926.
Gleb met AA in May 1927
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 27, 2004, 06:52:19 PM
Quote

AA could speak Russian. She spoke Russian with many people and even AA's enemies said she could speak Russian.


Accounts I hear say she did not and would not.

Quote
FS didn't speak Polish either. She spoke Kashoub. AA spoke German usually with a Russian accent.


Again the accent is a matter of who said what. Others say it was Polish.

Quote
AA didn't ever say she was Tatiana.


She didn't say she was anybody until a lady showed her a pic of the IF in a magazine and said she looked like Tatiana. She went along with it. She only switched to Anastasia later when someone said she was too short to be Tatiana.

Quote
I don't think I've seen a pic with AA and Gleb Botkin. Though it would be quite interesting to see one (if it did exist).

                                               -Sarah


I've seen several, the most famous being the one where she first came to NYC.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 27, 2004, 07:11:35 PM
Quote

Bear, I don't know too much about the Grossman murder case, in fact I only learned about it very recently, but from what I understand it has not been conclusively decided by the police that FS was murdered by him, or by anyone else for that matter. It was all just a theory.



Quote


*wants to cry* Yes, again, this is not a proven fact, but a wild theory. The name in his diary is nowhere near Schanskowska, but someone still wanted to say maybe he mispelled it or mispronounced it to try to write her off easily. Come on now, get real. If she had been officially listed as murdered why was there so much about her in the AA court case? There was not one mention of her untimely demise in those days, when everything was fresher and people were still alive, so why in the world is this considered fact now? It's not. IMO, it's someone's beyond desperate, grabbing at straws attempt to eliminate FS so AA can be AN!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 27, 2004, 07:16:44 PM
Quote
*wants to cry* Yes, again, this is not a proven fact, but a wild theory. The name in his diary is nowhere near Schanskowska, but someone still wanted to say maybe he mispelled it or mispronounced it to try to write her off easily. Come on now, get real. If she had been officially listed as murdered why was there so much about her in the AA court case? There was not one mention of her untimely demise in those days, when everything was fresher and people were still alive, so why in the world is this considered fact now? It's not. IMO, it's someone's beyond desperate, grabbing at straws attempt to eliminate FS so AA can be AN!


Bear, what do you have to say about that? Can you prove that FS was murdered?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Denise on November 27, 2004, 07:38:39 PM
Quote
*wants to cry* Yes, again, this is not a proven fact, but a wild theory. The name in his diary is nowhere near Schanskowska, but someone still wanted to say maybe he mispelled it or mispronounced it to try to write her off easily. Come on now, get real. If she had been officially listed as murdered why was there so much about her in the AA court case? There was not one mention of her untimely demise in those days, when everything was fresher and people were still alive, so why in the world is this considered fact now? It's not. IMO, it's someone's beyond desperate, grabbing at straws attempt to eliminate FS so AA can be AN!


Yes, Bear, I want to know why the police did not notify the family if FS was a definite victim of Grossman.  Also, why would the police have the Schanzkowski family try to ID AA in 1927 if they were so sure that she died at the hands of a serial killer? ???

Denise
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 27, 2004, 07:41:53 PM
Denise,

The Bear did say that the police notified FS's family.
Quote
The Berlin police reported to the family of FS that FS had been murdered by Karl Grossmann, so, how could  FS could been AA's.


Bear, can you answer why they bothered to get them to come to the hospital to id AA then??

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Denise on November 27, 2004, 07:52:10 PM
Quote
Denise,

The Bear did say that the police notified FS's family.

Bear, can you answer why they bothered to get them to come to the hospital to id AA then??



Oops!!  :-[ Sorry Bear.  Thanks for the correction, Helen....

D
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 27, 2004, 07:58:18 PM
Quote
One of the problems with the whole Grossman murder theory is that it goes against the court testimony of the woman who first identified AA as FS.
She testified that she saw FS again in August of 1922. Knopff did take liberties with the woman's memory in regards to the month that she says she saw FS again (which she wasn't sure about it COULD have been August of 1922  which was the same time AA disapeared from the Kleist family residence) but no liberty was taken with the year.

Of course, court testimonies are a tricky business. There is also Gertrude's testimony that she didn't regard her sister as insane, but FS was declared insane, in September of 1916, so Gertrude's testimony in that regard is meaningless. My suspicion is that she was following the classic route of trying to save her family embaressment. So, what else was she not truthful about?


And all this, once again, shows how subjective and unreliable eyewitness testimonies really are. Pushkina, I rest my case.  ;)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Merrique on November 27, 2004, 08:23:54 PM
Quote

And all this, once again, shows how subjective and unreliable eyewitness testimonies really are. Pushkina, I rest my case.  ;)


Good one Helen! :)
Gee so I guess were back to DNA evidence again,since it is the only conclusive evidence. ;D 8)
If I was on a jury,I'd have to go with the DNA,DNA,DNA!
lol ;D 8) :D
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 27, 2004, 08:36:16 PM
Quote
...Some of the time Helen...some of the time....


But if happens some of the time, then you can't trust it any of the time, because you just never know...  ;) That's why it is subjective.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 27, 2004, 08:52:10 PM
Quote
Sure you can, if the testimony is backed up by other witnesses, evidence, simple logic, etc.,

I would never suggest taking the word of one witness without anything to back it up...but if we went the route of not trusting testimony at all, because it's "subjective" than our jails would be empty, and no crime would be solved!

This is true, but the problem is that with the AA case, most of the eyewitness testimony seems to be contradictory, so it all cancels each other out. So this is why we need objective evidence in such a case, in the form of you-know-what  ;).
And generally in court cases, they will accept eyewitness testimonies if nothing else is available, like physical evidence, but if they have the other evidence, such as (Pushkina, I am going to have to say the "D" word again, sorry) DNA, then this is preferable to eyewitnesses and such, by far...

Helen
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Alice on November 27, 2004, 10:29:05 PM
Quote

Yes, that's what Alice was trying to say, that there doesn't even seem to be a photo in existance of him and AN, as opposed to some others who did have lots of photos with her, therefore Gleb may not have been as close to AN as people tend to think.

Alice, am I interpreting this correctly?


This is indeed what I meant, Helen. Thankyou.  :)

I have found the quote from Mr. Atchison, from another thread:

Quote
Anna Anderson made many mistakes in describing the rooms of the Alexander Palace.  They were obvious mistakes that someone would make if they has looked at pictures of the palace and misunderstood what they were looking at.  It was obvious Anna Anderson had never been in the palace. The real Anastasia would not have made those errors.
 
One of the Romanov family told me how when one of them entered a chapel with Anna Anderson she crossed herself - the wrong way.  It would be very diffcult for an person born into the Orthodox faith to make this mistake.
 
Also, Anna Anderson attended a lecture by a friend of mine at the Virginia Museum of Art.  She was old and senile at the time.  During the lecture she started speaking Polish loudly - there were some Poles in the lecture who were quiet surprized by this - as you can imagine.  the real Anastasia did not speak Polish.
 
Then there were witnesses to the murder, who saw all the bodies and identified them.  They saw Anastasia and Aleksey - all of them.
 
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: AGRBear on November 27, 2004, 11:11:38 PM
On another thread,  I don't recall which one at the moment,  I wrote the dates of when FS's family were told by the Berlin police that FS had been murdered by Karl Grossmann.

This isn't a rumor, it is in the records.

FS's family believed FS had been murdered.

I do not know what was presented in Anna Anderson's trial about FS's murder.

I do recall it was FS's family who had gone to the police and had reported her missing.

Grossmann kept a diary and did not spell FS's last name correctly, however, it was phoneticaly correct.  And,  if you are a poor speller and spell words, a Polish surname in this case, as they sound,  one can understand Grossmann's spelling.

I believe it was Tsarina Alexandra brother who hired the dectective who started the rumors about  AA being FS.

Apparently,  the records of the Berlin police have sparked the interest of Penny Wilson who has talked about this case on another thread.

I think farther discussion on my part will just be repeating the same.  So,  I'm just going to sit back and wait for Penny to present more in one of their publications about what they are or have found on this subject.

AGRBear

PS  I'll go find my quote and bring it over to this thread so others can read my source and what it said.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: AGRBear on November 27, 2004, 11:25:17 PM
I wrote this:

>>p. 224 QUEST FOR ANASTASIA:
 
"The last the Schanzkowskis heard of their sister was a birthday card she sent to her brother Felix in Februrary 1920.
 
17 Feb 1920 AA was pulled out of the Berlin canal.
 
The family talks about FS having a boyfriend but nothing about her having a child.
 
Schanzkowski family  reported her missing mid-March....  
 
AGRBear <<
---

Quote
I assume, we'll have to hear  from King or Wilson more about the Berlin police reports from which they are finding evidence.  I assume there was a trial so this isn't just something that has suddenly appeared.  It's been known about since 1920s.

Since  all I have is a 3/4 page mention of Grossmann from a book about murderers, Encyclopedia of Murder by Wilson and Pitman, I can't give you much more than I already have.

p. 243-4

"GROSSMANN, Georg Karl

"German mass-murderer, born in Neurueppin in 1863, who, like Denke, commited sudice before his execution."

"The case has many resemblances to the Denke murders.  In August 1921 the owner of a top-storey flat in Berlin near the Silesian railway terminus heard sounds of a sstruggle coming from the kitchen and called police. They found on Grossmann's kitchen bed (camp bed) the trussed-up carcass of a recently killed girl.....  He picked up girls with great regularity (in fact, he seldom spent a night alone).  He killed many of these sleeping partners and sold the bodies for meat, disposing the unsaleable parts in the river.  (The case becme known as the Die Braut auf der Stulle-- 'the bread and butter brides', since a companion for the night is known as a 'bride' in Germany.) At the time of his arrest, evidence was found which indicated that three women had been killed and dismembered in the past three weeks."

"...It is of interest that Grossmann was indirectly invovled in the famous 'Anastasia case....  At one point it was annouced that "Anastasia" was really an imposter named Franziska Schamzkovski, a Polish girl from Buetow in Pomerania.  Franziska's family were told their daughter had been murder by Grossmann on 13 August 1920; an entry in his diary on that date bore the name "Sasnovski".... "

"...The number of his victims will never be known, but they may well have exceeded Haarmann's total of fifty, since he was 'in business' throughout the war until 1921...."

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Dashkova on November 28, 2004, 09:02:04 PM
I occasionally read over these threads dealing with the AA/FS/ANR debate and agree that there is NEVER going to be a consensus.

I played on this little merry go round for 25 years, for most of that time an AA supporter, then against, but finally, thankfully gave it up.  It is just ridiculous and nobody is going to win here. Nobody.

All three ladies in question are quite dead and (to parapharase AA) it doesn't matter one way or the other who was who. Really. It does NOT matter, especially in light of the fact that it's impossible to prove either way, now and most likely (aside from some sort of resurrection of any of the three in question) ever.

A wise person would find something else to talk about.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: AGRBear on November 28, 2004, 10:24:57 PM
I always enjoyed the merry-go-round.  The marvelous old wooden carved horses, lions, bears, swans....   I'd always chose the black horse that was like the horse in my favorite story called Black Beauty and I'd wait, ten turns if needed,  until the black horse was free.  The carnival man would go to the gears, pull the  lever, the music started, my horse would jerk then slowy rise..... then go down and up.... Around and around we'd go.  

Dashkova,  don't expect the merry-go-round to take you anywhere ....  

Meanwhile, learn a lot of interesting information, gain a few more new friends and enjoy the ride as it's meant to be, entertainment.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Dashkova on November 28, 2004, 10:31:25 PM
Quote
I always enjoyed the merry-go-round.  The marvelous old wooden carved horses, lions, bears, swans....   I'd always chose the black horse that was like the horse in my favorite story called Black Beauty and I'd wait, ten turns if needed,  until the black horse was free.  The carnival man would go to the gears, pull the  lever, the music started, my horse would jerk then slowy rise..... then go down and up.... Around and around we'd go.  

Dashkova,  don't expect the merry-go-round to take you anywhere ....  

Meanwhile, learn a lot of interesting information, gain a few more new friends and enjoy the ride as it's meant to be, entertainment.

AGRBear


27 years was enough for me! Same old, same old. And the faction fighting is just so sad and senseless. I gave it up in favor of real Russian history, which really *does* take you places!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: AGRBear on November 28, 2004, 10:43:08 PM
Dashkova: History is a bunch of stories that are collected and these stories are often just as  contradictory as the history of the Romanovs, so,  don't think you're safe from merry-go-rounds.   ;D

Denise:   >>Bear, can you answer why they bothered to get them to come to the hospital to id AA then?? <<  I don't recall who asked them to see AA or what year this was.  Whenever it was, pershaps,  like most people who have not laid a body to rest, the family hoped the police were wrong and FS was still alive, therefore,  FS siblings agreed to go to the hospital to see if AA was FS, I would assume, if that is what happen....

AGRBear

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Dashkova on November 28, 2004, 10:53:47 PM
Quote
Dashkova: History is a bunch of stories that are collected and these stories are often just as  contradictory as the history of the Romanovs, so,  don't think you're safe from merry-go-rounds.   ;D

Denise:   >>Bear, can you answer why they bothered to get them to come to the hospital to id AA then?? <<  I don't recall who asked them to see AA or what year this was.  Whenever it was, pershaps,  like most people who have not laid a body to rest, the family hoped the police were wrong and FS was still alive, therefore,  FS siblings agreed to go to the hospital to see if AA was FS, I would assume, if that is what happen....

AGRBear



History is a little more complex than "story."  As for myself, I prefer the view and un-sedateness of the roller coaster. Twists and turns and surprises are much more fun for someone like me.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: AGRBear on November 28, 2004, 11:29:47 PM
Quote

History is a little more complex than "story."  As for myself, I prefer the view and un-sedateness of the roller coaster. Twists and turns and surprises are much more fun for someone like me.


The old carvings of the animals on the merry-go-round are the product of an artist who loved his work which is hardly deemed to be a simple task.  The tracks of a roller coaster are an engineering joy.  I can see the complexity of both.  However,  it is always the same, the Merry-go-round and roller coaster end up back from where they started.  

History is can be as complex or as simple as you'd like to make it.  However, it is always the same, you end up back from where you started, with yourself, which is where you started.

In the case of GD Anastasia, AA and FS,  we may end up right where we started, but,  we won't know unless we take the journey...  And,  I've been on this journey for 58 years and still learning and keeping an open mind.....

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Dashkova on November 29, 2004, 01:19:46 AM
Quote

The old carvings of the animals on the merry-go-round are the product of an artist who loved his work which is hardly deemed to be a simple task.  The tracks of a roller coaster are an engineering joy.  I can see the complexity of both.  However,  it is always the same, the Merry-go-round and roller coaster end up back from where they started.  

History is can be as complex or as simple as you'd like to make it.  However, it is always the same, you end up back from where you started, with yourself, which is where you started.

In the case of GD Anastasia, AA and FS,  we may end up right where we started, but,  we won't know unless we take the journey...  And,  I've been on this journey for 58 years and still learning and keeping an open mind.....

AGRBear


:-/ I can only continue to agree to disagree, sorry! Ending up back with *myself*?  I don't think so! I seriously do not think that is the case whatsoever! Why do you believe this is true? I have been a student of history all of my life and have had many wise professors but I have never heard any one of them suggest the idea of starting and ending with oneself as an approach to the study of history.  

And the open mind business is not something that really is taught to those entering the history profession, as it frequently leads away from history and into the ridiculous, as is very clearly seen in the subject of this thread.  If new, credible evidence is found, then that is the time to discuss. But endlessly supposing and "what if-ing" and playing with something that will never be proven either way really is, as you said, entertainment, and yes, historians do play that game *as* entertainment, but to take it seriously (as many seem to do in this case) can and does amount to professional suicide.

There's much more to explore out there in the field, and it's all outside the "la la land" of this thread.
And that's it for me and the amusement park.


Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: AGRBear on November 29, 2004, 10:27:38 AM
"For all knowledge and wonder (which is the seed of knowledge) is an impression of pleasure in itself."  Bacon

Your knowlege, your wonder and your pleasure is due to your own unigue ability of having your own thoughts.

Thoughts begin with you and  always circles back to "self".

Perhaps,  this little conversation Dashkova and I are having isn't far off the thread.  History is what we are "dealing fearlessly with reality".   And,  it is through our own knowledge, wonder and thoughts that allowes us to seek out and discover what we see and believe.

I can read history and understand why no one sees the same event the same way.  I see history as a collection of old events,  pageants, science, myths... etc.   All of which are tangled with truths and deciet....

"So difficult a matter is it to determine the truth of anything by history."  Plutarch,  Lives: Themistocles.

"To be a really good historian is perhaps the rarest of intellectual distinctions."  Macaulay, Esssays: History

Good luck Dashkova and I do hope you become a historian who can see all sides and become one of the rare ones.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Dashkova on November 29, 2004, 11:46:23 AM
Quote
"For all knowledge and wonder (which is the seed of knowledge) is an impression of pleasure in itself."  Bacon

Your knowlege, your wonder and your pleasure is due to your own unigue ability of having your own thoughts.

 Thoughts begin with you and  always circles back to "self".

Perhaps,  this little conversation Dashkova and I are having isn't far off the thread.  History is what we are "dealing fearlessly with reality".   And,  it is through our own knowledge, wonder and thoughts that allowes us to seek out and discover what we see and believe.

I can read history and see no one sees the same event the same way.  I see history as a collection of old events,  pageants, science, myths... etc.   All of which are tangled with truths and deciet....

"So difficult a matter is it to determine the truth of anything by history."  Plutarch,  Lives: Themistocles.

"To be a really good historian is perhaps the rarest of intellectual distinctions."  Macaulay, Esssays: History

Good luck Dashkova and I do hope you become a historian who can see all sides and become one of the rare ones.

AGRBear


It's not a matter of seeing "sides."  I am secure with the type of historian I am currently and have been in the past.  Am I rare in my approach?  Yes, in the ways that I believe matter.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but do save your hopes and wishes for someone who shares your particular mindset.  It's not that good wishes (as you interpret them) are not appreciated, but I don't think it's terribly appropriate, as you do not know me and my scope of the understanding of history and the methods with which I pursue my profession are out of the range of any posting I do on this website, and in many ways are of a personal and/or professional nature.  Thank you for understanding.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: JonC on November 29, 2004, 11:55:58 AM
'Kaiser Wilhelm- Since when?? I never heard he was a supporter!

She doesn't look like Anastasia- fuller lips, wider mouth, wider set eyes, different shaped chin '


Annie, you are so right. I have said the same thing over and over before on other threads. It seems so ridiculous to even talk about AA being AN when she differs so much from AN in every physical facial analysis.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Forum Admin on November 29, 2004, 12:17:11 PM
Jon
I removed the reference to that person from your thread because that person threatened to sue us for defamation for discussing his "claims". Therefore, in order to make sure we can't get sued, that person will not be discussed by name at any time ever again here. We simply can't take that kind of risk.

Thanks for understanding.
FA
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: rskkiya on November 29, 2004, 03:26:07 PM
agrebear...
  Many of the people here may like to consider themselves as amatuer historians-- but I do know that our dear Dashkova is a very serious scholar if the first water -- its virtually impossible to pull the wool over her eyes!  Maybe your love of things Romanov has blinded you -temporarily- to her  sharp insites...think about it!

Dashkova -- Congrats on becomming a LizTaylor Kitty Goddess! Would you prefere catnip incense, or offerings of amethysts instead!

I have so missed you!
cloying love
rskkiya
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Dashkova on November 29, 2004, 04:14:38 PM
R Dearest, you are too kind. Serious but weary and beleagured scholar is what I am these days...tired tired tired, but it'll get better.  Thank you for your gracious welcome back...and oh my, the goddess thing and all that...too bad my new title can't help me slog through the next three weeks!
Just a wave of my divine hand and all my work is done!

What do you think of 'Lenin and Krupskaya: Between Comrades' as thesis topic? These two -- king and queen of Bolshevism, no less -- (how's that for an oxymoron...heheh) are my new best friends...lol.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: AGRBear on November 29, 2004, 04:26:20 PM
Quote
..in part....
   ...our dear Dashkova is a very serious scholar if the first water -- its virtually impossible to pull the wool over her eyes!  Maybe your love of things Romanov has blinded you -temporarily- to her  sharp insites...think about it!
rskkiya


Dashkova:  I thought I was wishing you the best toward your quest of being a historian.  Didn't mean to offend. As you wish,    I take it all back.

Ryskkyia: What on earth are you talking about "wool over who's eyes"  ??? ??? ??? ???

Sometimes,  the two of you really confuse this poor old cotton brain bear.

Back to the subject.  I have never thought AA looked like Anastasia, or, I should say, how I thought Anastasia would look, if she survived that eventful night.

Also,  Penny Wilson mentioned that in the Berlin police records it is shown that FS did not suffer any injuries from the grenade which she dropped, although someone did die from the blast. And,  when FS's family was asked if FS had any scars or known marks that would help identify her body if found,  FS's family seem to agree that FS did not have any markings that the Berlin could use for identification purposes.

Added to this,  I always thought it curious that someone named Anastasia would call herself  Anna when Stasia or other Russian nicknames would have been used by Anastasia.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Abby on November 29, 2004, 04:28:45 PM
I thought Anna Anderson lacked the scars on her forehead and finger that were unique to Anastasia Nicholaevna? I read that on this forum, I forget what thread. But then I read on a website that she HAD the scars. this is the site: http://members.ee.net/ahartsook/

and this is the quote.

Quote
In addition, Anna Anderson had a congenital foot deformity just like Anastasia. She had a cauterized mole on a shoulder-blade just like Anastasia. She had a scar on the middle finger of her left hand from a carriage door being shut on it as a child just like Anastasia. She had a small, faint scar on her forehead from a fall as a child just like Anastasia. Three fingers of one of her hands were the same length just like Anastasia and Empress Alexandra.



Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 29, 2004, 04:49:48 PM
Quote
this is the site: http://members.ee.net/ahartsook/



Oh dear. That site starts out by openly attacking our own Bob Atchison and the "My Name is Anastasia" part of AP.  >:(   :(  So I don't give much credit or credibility to those responsible for it :-/
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 29, 2004, 04:55:15 PM
Stop me now before I pick this guy's site apart >:(

I'll start with this part

Your article states, "Our family rejected her, but a few people who hardly knew me claimed they recognized her to be me." One prominent family member who acknowledge her was her cousin, Grand Duke Andrew of Russia. Lili Dehn, one of Empress Alexandra's two closest friends definitely recognized her. Other relatives who acknowledged her were Crown Princess Cecilie of Germany and Prince Sigismund of Prussia.

Andrew- Member of the Vladimirovichi family loathed by Nicholas and Alexandra, not close to the family. He was born in 1879, old enough to be Anastasia's father, did not grow up with her. If his supposed visits during WWI occured, I hardly think OTMA were prominent in the business.

Crown Princess Cecile- she was a second cousin of Anastasia, her mother was Anastasia Mikhailovich, sister of Sergei and Sandro, who were close to the family. BUT she was born in 1886, so she was 15 years older than Anastasia N. and did not grow up with her either, and she was married off to the Kaiser's son and shipped off to Germany while Anastasia was still very small (1904?) so she had little contact with her, especially not after the WWI broke out in 1914 pitting their families as enemies. Remember too that this was about the same time that Anastasia was growing up and looking different. Also, after the war, Cecile and CP Wilhelm became a little eccentric after seeing their dreams of ruling fade away. So I discount her as a witness.

Sigusmund- Never met AA, only sent her questions. His decendants say that if he knew everything we know now, he'd have denounced her.

One more to add- the site I found today quoted the son of Xenia and Sandro's son Rostislav as saying that his family always knew she was a fraud, and that his father grew up with Anastasia and AA refused to meet with him.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Val289 on November 29, 2004, 04:57:57 PM
Abby - I do think that AA had both scars mentioned.  From PK's website :

"And a scar on her forehead, as Mrs. Anderson explained, caused by a fall in childhood, accounts for the fact that Anastasia, from a very young age, always had her hair cut in bangs, even though the tsar’s daughters for years were dressed and wore their hair alike, "big pair" and "little pair."

I don't have his book at hand to verify that - or the other scar.  I also think that AA did have a scar on one of her fingers........but I believe it was later stated that it was perhaps Maria and NOT Anastasia that had the scar on her finger.

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: AGRBear on November 29, 2004, 05:11:27 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong,   I thought it was Marie who had the scar on her finger from getting it caught in some door and not Anastasia.

Can someone, maybe Annie who has mentioned these scars a number of time,  give me a source about the finger scar and also the one about the scar on the forehead?

Thanks.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Dashkova on November 29, 2004, 05:31:15 PM
Quote

Dashkova:  I thought I was wishing you the best toward your quest of being a historian.  Didn't mean to offend. As you wish,    I take it all back.AGRBear


No offence taken, but last time I checked I was not in the questing stage...

As far as Anna Anderson is concerned, I do believe that the name was used initially as a pseudonym, and not connected with her notion of being ANR.

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Evanescence on November 29, 2004, 05:38:58 PM
Quote

Accounts I hear say she did not and would not.



She didn't want to speak it in public because it was the language of those who killed the Romanovs. ALSO Anna understood Russian and spoke back in different languages (man, she knows a lot of them and I only know like three). The Schanzkowsa family didn't understand and didn't speak Russian.

Quote

Again the accent is a matter of who said what. Others say it was Polish.



Well, golly gee, the place where FS lived with her family was contantly changing borders and they weren't exactly Polish as we know Polish people nowadays. Gertrude noted that the family didn't speak Polish but spoke Kashoub.

Quote

She didn't say she was anybody until a lady showed her a pic of the IF in a magazine and said she looked like Tatiana. She went along with it. She only switched to Anastasia later when someone said she was too short to be Tatiana.



She didn't contradict that she was Tatiana but she didn't confirm it either. I think it was Baroness Sophie (one of Alix's late ladies-in-waiting) who commented that she was too short to be Tatiana.

Quote
I've seen several, the most famous being the one where she first came to NYC.


Cool, can you show me some? :D

                                                                        -Sarah
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Abby on November 29, 2004, 06:00:53 PM
Quote

Oh dear. That site starts out by openly attacking our own Bob Atchison and the "My Name is Anastasia" part of AP.  >:(   :(  So I don't give much credit or credibility to those responsible for it :-/



I know! I read that too...but maybe that doesn;t mean everything they have written on the website is inaccurate.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Lanie on November 29, 2004, 06:22:58 PM
I don't get the "bangs" bit.  For as long as I can remember, since I was an itty bit, I had bangs.  I grew them out a few years ago, but it seems to me like I pretty much was stuck with bangs because of my hairline etc (took years to grow them out too).  Perhaps this is what happened with Anastasia?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 29, 2004, 07:20:13 PM
Quote
What do you think of 'Lenin and Krupskaya: Between Comrades' as thesis topic?


Super Cool  ;D
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: rskkiya on November 29, 2004, 07:24:16 PM
Darling dashkova
'Lenin and Krupskaya- Between Comrades"   :-*
I want a copy asap!
Sounds a real delight!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: rskkiya on November 29, 2004, 07:32:03 PM
Agreb...
The "wool over the eyes" was not a retort to anyone here - I was simply trying to point out Dashkova's astute academic skills.

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Olga on November 29, 2004, 09:19:14 PM
Quote
She didn't want to speak it in public because it was the language of those who killed the Romanovs.


That's rather convenient.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Val289 on November 29, 2004, 09:21:11 PM
Quote
Correct me if I'm wrong,   I thought it was Marie who had the scar on her finger from getting it caught in some door and not Anastasia.

Can someone, maybe Annie who has mentioned these scars a number of time,  give me a source about the finger scar and also the one about the scar on the forehead?
 
Thanks.

AGRBear


Hi Bear - From Kurth's Anastasia : The Riddle of Anna Anderson (page 85) :

"Harriet von Rathlef had prepared a list of other identifying marks : a small white scar on the shoulder blade from a cauterized mole; another scar at the root of the middle finger of the left hand, which Anastasia said had been caught in a carriage door when she was very young; and a third 'indistinct' scar on the forehead."


From Klier and Mingay's : The Quest for Anastasia (page 157) :

"Anna also had a small blemish on her forehead, similar to the Grand Duchess Anastasia, which was generally covered with a fringe when she was a girl.  Anna had a scar on the base of the middle finger of her left hand, which made her finger stiff and which Harriet von Rathlef attributed to an accident when a footman closed a carriage door too early and trapped the hand.  This incident did happen, but according to Grand Duchess Olga, it was Anastasia's sister, Grand Duchess Maria, who suffered from having her finger trapped in this way. "
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 29, 2004, 09:42:03 PM
From "The Last Grand Duchess" by Ian Vorres, description of GD Olga's (the girl’s aunt) first meeting with and her impressions of AA:

p. 174

When Olga entered the room, the woman lying on a bed asked a nurse: “Ist das die Tante?”[Is this the Aunt?]  “That”, confessed Olga, “at once took me aback. A moment later I remembered that the young woman having spent five years in Germany, would naturally have learnt the language, but then I heard that when she was rescued from that canal in 1920, she spoke nothing but German – when she spoke at all- which was not often.  I readily admit that a ghastly horror experienced in one’s youth can work havoc with one’s memory but I have never heard of any ghastly experience endowing anyone with a knowledge they had not had before it happened. My nieces knew no German at all. Mrs Anderson did not seem to understand a word of Russian or English, the two languages all the four sisters had spoken since babyhood. French came a little later, but German was never spoken in the family”.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 29, 2004, 09:49:12 PM
Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna:

“My beloved Anastasia was fifteen when I saw her for the last time in the summer of 1916. She would have been twenty four in 1925. I thought Mrs Anderson looked much older than that. Of course, one had to make allowances for a very long illness and the general poor condition of her health. All the same, my niece’s features could not possibly have altered out of all recognition. The nose, the mouth, the eyes were all different.”
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 29, 2004, 09:55:29 PM
P. 175

The Grand Duchess [Olga Alexandrovna] remarked that the interviews were made all the more difficult by Mrs Anderson’s attitude. She would not answer some of the questions, and looked angry when those questions were repeated. Some Romanov photographs were shown to her, and there was not a flicker of recognition in her eyes. The Grand Duchess had brought a small icon of St Nicholas, the patron saint of the imperial family. Mrs Anderson lookes at it so indifferently that it was obvious the icon said nothing to her.

P. 176

Olga Alexandrovna: “…That child was as dear to me as if she were my own daughter. As soon as I sat down by that bed in the Mommsen Nursing Home, I knew I was looking at a stranger… I had left Denmark with something of a hope in my heart. I left Berlin with all hope extinguished. "
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 29, 2004, 10:06:04 PM
P. 176

Olga Alexandrovna:

“…The mistakes she made could not be all attributed to lapses of memory. For instance, she had a scar on one of her fingers and she kept telling everybody that it had been crushed because of a footman shutting the door of a landau too quickly. And at once I remembered the incident. It was Marie, her elder sister, who got her hand hurt rather badly, and it did not happen in a carriage but on board the imperial train. Obviously someone, having heard something of the incident, had passed a garbled version of it to Mrs Anderson.

“Then again I heard that a party in Berlin, when she was offered some vodka, Mrs Anderson said : ‘How nice! It does remind me of the days at Tsarskoe Selo!” Vodka certainly would not have brought any such reminder to my niece… My nieces never touched either wine or spirits – and indeed how could they at their age?…”  

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 29, 2004, 10:09:37 PM
Quote
Correct me if I'm wrong,   I thought it was Marie who had the scar on her finger from getting it caught in some door and not Anastasia.

Can someone, maybe Annie who has mentioned these scars a number of time,  give me a source about the finger scar...


From The Last Grand Duchess by Ian Vorres, Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna (the girls' aunt):

P. 176

“…The mistakes she made could not be all attributed to lapses of memory. For instance, she had a scar on one of her fingers and she kept telling everybody that it had been crushed because of a footman shutting the door of a landau too quickly. And at once I remembered the incident. It was Marie, her elder sister, who got her hand hurt rather badly, and it did not happen in a carriage but on board the imperial train. Obviously someone, having heard something of the incident, had passed a garbled version of it to Mrs Anderson."

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Dashkova on November 29, 2004, 11:30:15 PM
Quote
Darling dashkova
 'Lenin and Krupskaya- Between Comrades"   :-*
I want a copy asap!
Sounds a real delight!


Oh, thank you. I'm afraid it will be a little *while*, though the framework goes up over my so-called winter break.  ~~sigh~~

Truly a most fascinating couple.  I've been reading Krupskaya's memoirs this week, and my favorite resident Russian was just telling me how Stalin plotted to kill her, but she was SO beloved by the people that he didn't dare.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Alice on November 30, 2004, 07:08:38 AM
Evanescence (and others) I would very much like to read your rebuttal of Mr Atchison's comments and of the quotes Helen has posted.  :D
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 30, 2004, 07:47:44 AM
Quote

She didn't want to speak it in public because it was the language of those who killed the Romanovs. ALSO Anna understood Russian and spoke back in different languages (man, she knows a lot of them and I only know like three). The Schanzkowsa family didn't understand and didn't speak Russian.


Well, golly gee, the place where FS lived with her family was contantly changing borders and they weren't exactly Polish as we know Polish people nowadays. Gertrude noted that the family didn't speak Polish but spoke Kashoub.


Again, none of the language stuff on either side is a factor for me because it's all hearsay what she knew, when, what this or that person heard. I throw it out as evidence both pro and con. It's too loosely based and undocumented.


Quote
She didn't contradict that she was Tatiana but she didn't confirm it either. I think it was Baroness Sophie (one of Alix's late ladies-in-waiting) who commented that she was too short to be Tatiana.


She never even thought of the IF at all until someone gave her the idea. Then it must have sounded like a good one. And when Sophie left saying she was too short to be Tatiana, she didn't open her arms and yell out that it was Anastasia, did she? Because she didn't look like her and she didn't think so.


Quote
Cool, can you show me some? :D

                                                                         -Sarah


I told you I don't have a digital copy, but the pics I'm thinking of are in either Kurth's or Lovell's books, I'm sure you must have those! Botkin was very active in supporting her cause and writing stories for the paper in NYC. He was her strongest and most lifelong supporter. He died in 1969, the same year she married John Manahan.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 30, 2004, 07:50:17 AM
Helen, thank you so much for finding and posting those quotes! I hope they finally put an end to the ridiculous notion that Olga did recognize her and was being told not to by somebody. She would never have done that, and judging by pictures of her and the places she lived in her final years she certainly wasn't being paid off by anyone.

And speaking of paying off, I have to ask all AA supporters, WHY would anyone, the Queen especially, still be doing such a thing when it is obvious there is no lost mass fortune? It doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 30, 2004, 09:08:40 AM
Quote
...finally put an end to the ridiculous notion that Olga did recognize her and was being told not to by somebody. She would never have done that, and judging by pictures of her and the places she lived in her final years she certainly wasn't being paid off by anyone.



Olga didn't do very well financially at all in exile. She and her family ended up moving to Canada, where she died a number of years later living with a Russian emigre couple above a store in a small apartment in a pretty shabby area of Toronto. I don't believe for an instant that she was paid off to deny her niece, nor do I think she would ever have done such a thing. Why should we believe people like Andrei et al, and not Olga? This is the woman who gave up her title pretty much, to divorce a prince and marry a commoner. This is the woman who didn't give a rat's butt about clothes or ceremony. And by all accounts she loved her nieces, especially her goddaughter Anastasia very much. Why would she do such a thing? I don't believe it, no matter what anyone says, it would be totall out of character for her.
Out of all the eyewitnesses who did or didn't  'recognize' AA as AN, I tend to believe Olga Alexandrovna most, she knew AN the best - and she did not recognize AA as AN, even though she tried to be nice to her as a human being because she felt this was a scik and wretched woman with mental problems. This is what was distorted as her recognition and then denial of AA. There was no reason for her to lie about this, and out of all the Romanovs, she would have been the one to go against the family's wishes (if this were the case which I seriously doubt) and accept AA as her niece. So this is my take on this.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 30, 2004, 09:43:20 AM
I also posted some more quotes from Olga's biography where she recalls the AA case, if anyone wants to read them, they are on the "AA Discussion of Evidence"
thread....
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Lemur on August 07, 2007, 11:41:49 AM
At request,  from JB Lovell's book page 254


May 16, 1961
The court judged Anastasia's claim of authenticity to be totally unfounded....

The judges seemed to take pains, however, to say they did believe the identity of the plaintiff as Franziska Schanskowska was 'eminently likely.' ...

The judges...felt that Professor Reche- in determining that Anastasia was indeed the Grand Duchess and not FS- had erred and should have considered whether the plaintiff might be someone else altogether. In regard to the evidence provided by the graphologist Minna Becker, they simply said she had not compared enough samples to make an accurate analysis.

(me now) so in a nutshell, the ear and handwriting analysis was not considered reliable and was thrown out of court.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 07, 2007, 01:27:01 PM
...the ear and handwriting analysis was not considered reliable and was thrown out of court.

I am not sure about ears, but handwriting analysis has never been considered reliable and cannot be used in court. It is not scientific, period.   
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: dmitri on August 07, 2007, 02:14:21 PM
How very interesting. More evidence of the fraud and her team at work.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Olishka~ Pincess on August 07, 2007, 03:15:43 PM
How very interesting. More evidence of the fraud and her team at work.

I am not surprised about that at all. The AA suporters all always trying to look for any evidence a resemblence to the romanovs to prove AA was A. It amaze me how people still do that want to try to prove AA was A. I mean, they alrealy know the truth ! :P They are trying their best to support her.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on August 07, 2007, 03:56:49 PM
Reche was the face, not the ears, right? Anyway thanks Lemur, that is what I was looking for :) I just love finding evidence that disproves their list of 'proof' and 'differences' ::)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Olishka~ Pincess on August 07, 2007, 04:04:16 PM
Good to have more evidence to claim that AA was never A. :)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Lemur on August 13, 2007, 11:14:31 AM
Massie, Romanovs The Final Chapter, p. 183

Gleb Botkin's letter to Xenia and Olga Alexandrovna after the death of the Dowager Empress:

Your Imperial Highness!
Twenty four hours did not pass after the death of your mother when you hastened to take another step in the conspiracy against your niece...Before the wrong which Your Imperial Higness is committing, even the gruesome murder of the Emperor, his family and my father by the Bolsheviks pales! It is easier to understand a crime committed by a gang of crazed and drunken savages than the calm, systematic, endless persecution of one of your own family, the Grand Duchess Anastasia Nicholaevna, whose only fault is that, being the only rightful heir to the late Emperor, she stands in the way of her greedy and unscrupuous relatives.


It was after this that Grand Duke Andrew/Andrei, whatever his motives may have been in taking her side, refused to have any further connection to the case. It was after this that Gleb hired Fallows and began the legal claim for the money. IMO the letter sounds cruel, mean spirited, and the desperate and angry act of a frustrated person who was unable to win support from the family for his imposter. The death of the Dowager Empress was the final blow, and now he knew he'd have to resort to other measures.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Temperance on August 13, 2007, 11:38:07 AM
I had forgotten about this letter! Reading it again I have to agree that it does indeed sound cruel and mean spirited. It is my understanding that Gleb Botkin didn't even know the real Anastasia very well, yet her aunts did know and love her. He had some nerve writing such a letter when he wasn't as close to the real Anastasia like her own family was!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: dmitri on August 14, 2007, 03:56:13 PM
Yes Botkin was the ultimate piece of work. There can be no doubt that he fed information to his fraud in an effort to further his own money making at her expense. After all he did not write those newspaper articles about her for nothing now did he? What a piece of work and his lunatic cult was also evidence of his ridiculous nature.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on August 16, 2007, 09:43:11 PM
I just found out a possibly very intriguing bit of info I don't think we've heard before. A girl who lives in Germany just posted on another thread that there was a book accusing Ernie of trying to sneak into Russia during WWI published in Germany in the 1920's. Could this be where AA and/or her supporters got the idea for the story?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: dmitri on August 17, 2007, 01:15:41 AM
Well they certainly didn't get it from any form of fact. It is interesting to read that the German courts through out that piece of 'evidence' as unsubstantiated heresay.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on August 17, 2007, 09:48:49 AM
Well they certainly didn't get it from any form of fact. It is interesting to read that the German courts through out that piece of 'evidence' as unsubstantiated heresay.

You're right. It may even have been a fiction book. But my point is that if AA or one of her supporters saw that book it could have given them the idea to use that story on Ernie, and that IMO would be a bombshell that takes away the last chance of anyone claiming her being AN as the only way she could have 'known' it (Though we know it's all false anyway and she's not AN, it would be nice to have that final way of proving it once and for all and closing the case the way we did with Grossmann and Sophie)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on August 17, 2007, 11:29:58 AM
Thanks to ImperialHighness who has the book, I now know the info:

B. Himmelstjerna, "Im Angesicht der Revolution", 1922, the publisher is Steeler.

This book is allegedly based on letters and diaries and claims to be historical fact. Whether or not it is we will never know, but one thing for sure, the publish date of 1922, and being a German book proves with no doubt that the idea for the story of Ernie visiting Alix during the war was already out there and it was nothing unique and secret that 'only Anastasia could have known.'  I feel another 'mystery' has been put to rest here, if not about the trip itself, certainly about AA's part in it. She or one of her supporters COULD have had access to this book when they made up the story on Ernie.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: dmitri on August 17, 2007, 12:34:07 PM
surprise, surprise ...
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: AGRBear on August 18, 2007, 04:00:33 PM
Thanks to ImperialHighness who has the book, I now know the info:

B. Himmelstjerna, "Im Angesicht der Revolution", 1922, the publisher is Steeler.

This book is allegedly based on letters and diaries and claims to be historical fact. Whether or not it is we will never know, but one thing for sure, the publish date of 1922, and being a German book proves with no doubt that the idea for the story of Ernie visiting Alix during the war was already out there and it was nothing unique and secret that 'only Anastasia could have known.'  I feel another 'mystery' has been put to rest here, if not about the trip itself, certainly about AA's part in it. She or one of her supporters COULD have had access to this book when they made up the story on Ernie.

Since  my great uncles , who were exeucted by the Bolshviks in 1918,  claimed to have been a part of  "uncle Ernie" visit to Nicholas II,  I am grateful for having learned about this book, if it is based on fact.   If anyone ever reads it please  send me a PM because I'd like to know more of the details and, of course,  I will  have a few questions  to which this book may give the answers which may  help me prove this family story.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: dmitri on August 19, 2007, 09:45:29 AM
It is well documented that the "visit" never happened. It was thrown out of the German court during the AA trial as heresay.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: LisaDavidson on August 21, 2007, 05:48:34 PM
How very interesting. More evidence of the fraud and her team at work.

This is not evidence, nor is it a discussion of the evidence.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: dmitri on August 21, 2007, 11:57:14 PM
One wonders what the definition of "evidence" is.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: LisaDavidson on August 22, 2007, 12:49:44 AM
One wonders what the definition of "evidence" is.

You might want to check into that.

Opinion is saying things like "X was a fraud".

Evidence is saying things like: "Anna Anderson claimed that she injured her finger in a carriage accident. Grand Duchess Olga stated it was Maria who had the injured finger. Does anyone know of corroboration for this?"

Opinion is saying, "the Anna Anderson supporters always  xy, purpetuating her fraud"

Evidence is saying, "what is the evidence of the alleged visit to Russia by Ernst of Hesse in 1916?"
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Belochka on August 22, 2007, 02:12:03 AM
One wonders what the definition of "evidence" is.

Opinion is saying things like "X was a fraud".

Evidence is a broad term that requires that a fact is supported by compelling information that can be based (in this example) on one's knowledge or observation.

Thus in this scenario:

"X" was a fraud must be qualified by presenting compelling proof (the DNA profile). The scientific analysis that is reproduceable, demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that based on this submitted information "X" was a fraud.

Opinion is saying, "the Anna Anderson supporters always  xy, purpetuating her fraud"

A valid personal observation that provides information that can provide persuasive evidence in certain circumstances. It relates to the behavior of the "supporters".

Evidence is saying, "what is the evidence of the alleged visit to Russia by Ernst of Hesse in 1916?"

In this case there is no available documented evidence only speculation.

Margarita
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: LisaDavidson on August 22, 2007, 01:44:23 PM
Thank you for amplifying my points.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: dmitri on August 22, 2007, 05:19:25 PM
Yes Belocka you explained things well.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on October 27, 2007, 06:55:27 PM
This topic came up in another thread where one poster insisted no one had been hurt by her claim. I disagree, I believe many people were hurt emotionally, financially, or had their reputations damaged by it all. Let's examine those involved and give our opinions, and evidence if available, of who may have been hurt by the case.

Here's my list:

Olga A.: Spent many years fighting the case, and living with accusations of abandoning her 'niece', a jab at her rep that survived long after her death and sadly surfaces to this day.

Xenia A: Along with her sister Olga, the subject of accusations and rude letters from AA supporters.

Ernie H.: Along with the above two, had to endure the threats and accusations from the claimant which no doubt compounded the grief of losing two siblings, four nieces and a nephew to  hideous violent murder

Gleb Botkin's wife and children: with so much time and money spent on AA instead of earning a living with a real job, the family ended up financially destitute.

Edward Fallows: His daughter said the case broke him financially and physically, and "killed him." It is likely his family suffered as a result, too.

Sophie Buxhoevedon: Falsely accused of 'betrayal' by AA supporters, a blow to her rep

Felix Yussoupov: Allegedly accused of attempted murder by AA

Earl Mountbatten: Accused of poisoning Harriet Rathlef and George Leuchtenberg, again as with the above 2,  character assassination

Anastasia herself: having her identity stolen and being confused with an eccentric old Polish woman

the German court system/German taxpayers: the cost and burden of the long, drawn out trial

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Amanda_Misha on October 27, 2007, 07:40:28 PM
Without offending nobody I would include in list a Marie Feodorovna to give the false hope him to return to see one of its granddaughters :(

Greetings to all
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Belochka on October 27, 2007, 08:02:06 PM
Without offending nobody I would include in list a Marie Feodorovna to give the false hope him to return to see one of its granddaughters :(

Greetings to all


Yet the Dowager prefered not to accept that her son Nikolai and his entire family were murdered. However your point is a valid one.

Margarita  
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: pandora on October 27, 2007, 08:57:55 PM
Anna Anderson's false claim is an early example of "stolen identity" without the involvement of technology, of course. Many people are hurt emotionally and financially in these schemes.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Alixz on October 27, 2007, 11:07:28 PM
Pandora, I had never thought of it that way.

Identity theft is a big industry in the world today.  I would say that Franzeska almost invented it, as you said, without the benefit of today's technology.  Good point.

And a lot of people were hurt by her.  Not just the closest of the Romanovs, but anyone who gave her a chance or a break.  She treated them poorly and acted badly and rudely.  She took everything they gave and gave nothing in return except trouble.

It is no wonder that so many doors closed to her as the years passed.  And it is no wonder that the Romanovs simply tried to ignore her.  They knew the truth and tried their best to get on with life without Franzeska and her lies.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: BobAtchison on October 29, 2007, 12:53:42 AM
AA/FS was a fraud and a professional con-artist.  I am not one of those who believes she was 'nuts' and somehow deluded herself and believed she was the GD.  I think she knew exactly what she was doing all along and was constantly looking for new victims.  When she was senile I can't say - but until then her whole life was one of constant, calculated deception and manipulation of others.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: imperial angel on October 29, 2007, 02:58:03 AM
Obviously, like most of these cases, she hurt many people. I agree with everything Annie posted. I think though she had mental problems, and wasn't fully aware of what she was doing, especially not later on, when she had fully become accustomed to believing that she was Anastasia, when she obviously was not. She wasn't aware at least not fully she hurt so many people, but that doesn't excuse it. She still hurt them. I don't think by saying she didn't know what she was doing, that excuses all the havoc she caused. I think however much she believed herself Anastasia, she was aware of some of this hurt, and simply didn't care, mental problems or no. Some of these people were enemies, many were well meaning people who got caught up in this fraud and almost became her enablers through utterly no fault of their own. I'm not an AA expert, but there were no doubt more people she hurt than just the people listed so far.. what about Harriet Rathlef, or the cousin who had married the millionare in America.. was it Xzenia Leeds, or something like that? I know those names were mentioned on some other thread, but in my opinion, anyone even if they were a supporter, could be defined as hurt, or at least, used.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: dmitri on October 29, 2007, 05:46:39 AM
Yes she was a total and utter fraud and a con artist. What a totally pathetic excuse for a human being.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 02, 2007, 08:58:00 PM
I just found this and thought it was very interesting. It's from a guy who met AA and Manahan in 1977. He said:

"Her husband talked for her since she spoke very little English. Her only functional language was German, her Russian having been wiped out, we were told, as a result of the trauma from seeing her family gunned down in the cellar of a house in Ekaterinburg, Russia."

So this is another blow to her on languages! Even after being in the US for 9 years (and allegedly having been raised speaking English as "Anastasia") AA's English was SO BAD she had to get her husband to speak for her! This guy was random and innocent in meeting her, he was not a supporter, and this was his honest description.

Another 'interesting' thing: using the 'trauma' from "Ekaterinburg"  as the excuse for 'wiping out her Russian' doesn't jive with her early supporters who claimed she could speak Russian! (same for her 'that house' excuse she often gave) Some like Rathlef and Tatiana Botkin claimed that being sick made her forget Russian. So if she could speak it after the 'trauma' of 'that house', that's not an excuse. I still think the most likely conclusion is she never spoke Russian because she never knew it.

source:

http://www.ishipress.com/forkunio.htm

See how he tells how taken he was by the story, but how he later accepted she was a fake after the DNA.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 02, 2007, 09:47:57 PM
Annie,

Despite the very exciting website you land on when you follow the link --- the theme from the cartoon is a nice touch --- there is, in fact, ample testimony from people that Anna Manahan could speak and understand Russian. This testimony was gathered during the fifty-five years that elapsed before the incident described in the article. I might add that Jack and Anastasia Manahan are both dead, and unable to corroborate or disclaim the truth of "some guy's: statement --- a sixteen year-old boy who met her once, according to the article.

It is not necessary to distort the truth to make whatever point you are making. Pardon me. Trying to make.

Simon
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 02, 2007, 09:57:41 PM
This boy was random and innocent, and was not in any way connected to her case, he was just some kid who met her and that was his view. He even said he used to believe her. Yes, I am alleging that some who said she knew Russian were either mistaken or lying. She was never able to prove it in court. That is a big thing. She failed the test.

The other point is that her excuse of not speaking it because she was traumatized by the murders is contradictory with the allleged claims she spoke it in the 20's. What, sure got over that 'trauma' fast, or was it a delayed reaction of many years? Oh or did the TB make her forget it again? But what about that trauma? It doesn't even add up and makes no sense, and is very feeble..As has been mentioned in many threads on many subjects, comments from people really can't be validated. If she could have proven it, she would have. She couldn't.

In any case, this person's eyewitness account is just as worthy as anyone else's of being added to the mix.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 02, 2007, 10:21:31 PM


No, the "boy's" testimony is not particularly useful because it is not corroborated. Indeed, it is contradicted. As part of the Hamburg trial Anderson was examined, and her Russian was noted. It goes without saying that her ability to speak Russian does not make her Anastasia. But it is not necessary to contradict the known facts about Anna Anderson to sledgehammer the woman.

At some point you might find it useful to try and understand why this woman angers you so much that you resort to this kind of thing. Can you really be this bitter because you once believed in her story, and it turned out to be untrue? Do you also hate Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny?

No one ever claimed that she refused to speak Russian because of "trauma", whatever that means. She stated that she would not speak the language willingly because she associated it with the Ipatiev House. The tuberculosis of the bone was agonizingly painful, but I have never heard or read that she claimed it induced amnesia or "trauma". Perhaps you also have access to medical records that might demonstrate the possibility.

In fact, "comments from people" can be validated. It's called "doing history", and you should try it sometime.

Quote
In any case, this person's eyewitness account is just as worthy as anyone else's of being added to the mix.

Fine. When I met her in 1972, she was jabbering away a mile a minute in Russian. Happy?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 02, 2007, 10:38:22 PM
Your testimony is not particularly useful since it is not corroborated.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 02, 2007, 10:46:18 PM
AA was never proven to be able to speak Russian in court. This is stated as fact in Massie's "The Romanovs: The Final Chapter", saying that as  late as 1965, she had not spoken Russian or proved any understanding of Russian in front of the court. The claims that it was in the court record that she spoke it were only statements from people saying they said she could, she herself did not prove it.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: dmitri on November 03, 2007, 04:46:40 AM
AA/FS was completely ridiculous from beginning to end.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 03, 2007, 06:56:41 AM
Exactly right about my "testimony", Annie. I'm glad you get the point about your "witness".

Anna Anderson never appeared in a court. She was examined by several people during the course of the legal actions. There was no ruling by any court that she could not speak Russian.

Massie says no such thing. On page 170 of The Romanovs:The Final Chapter he records testimony from people that she could speak Russian, and also leaves it to the reader to decide whether she could or not. He also records the reasons she gave for not speaking it, which are listed in my previous post. He does not seem to come down on either side.





Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 03, 2007, 10:09:12 AM
Later in the book Massie does indeed state that she never proved her ability to speak or understand Russian. I do not know where my copy is right now  so I can't state the page number but I will try to find out.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 03, 2007, 11:46:42 AM
Further down page 170 it says:

..Tatiana Botkin blamed her inability to speak Russian on brain damage and memory loss,... others said her refusal to speak Russian was the result of a psychological inhibition caused by the trauma ...of the night in the cellar

the issue was never resolved

in 1965 a frustrated German judge tried singing Russian songs to her to determine whether she understood, she listened, impervious.


This does mean she was never able to prove her ability to speak or understand Russian to the court. If she could have why didn't she? Because she couldn't.

It's very odd that while there is so much 'testimony' claiming she could speak Russian and some of her supporters insisted on it, there were still all these excuses from supporters explaining why she couldn't. So, which is it? Can she or can't she? Why make excuses? Was she traumatized, or did she have memory loss, and if she did, why were there reports she spoke it? Was the 'trauma' and 'brain damage' selective and sporatic? All these contradictions only make the whole issue seem more suspicious, and added with the fact that others claimed she could not speak Russian and that she never proved in public she knew it really does make it look an awful lot like she didn't.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 03, 2007, 12:18:07 PM
I invite anyone who can get their hands on Massie's book to examine what he writes. He does not say what Annie claims he says.

Perhaps you could determine the truth of the matter by doing some research, Annie. While your speculations are interesting in terms of pathology, they really have nothing to do with the actual woman.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 03, 2007, 12:25:22 PM
Everything in italics is taken directly from the book. When the typing changes back to normal, that is no longer quoting from the book and I am not claiming Massie said it. I thought that would be obvious.

I have done a great deal of research on the subject, and written extensively on it. I see no need to rehash the same old junk by supporters that we've heard over and over for years.That is readily available for anyone to see in books and online and we all know it.  I want to find the other side, the things that aren't seen or said very often because they're not as interesting. Dr. Berenberg-Gossler said the 'other side' was suppressed by the German media because the public was only interested in AA's side. Because of this, mainly only the things that slant her way are the ones that come down through the years and continue to be repeated. I want to change that.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 03, 2007, 08:27:49 PM
Um . . .the issue was never resolved means that the issue was never resolved. In any event, Massie did not devote a great deal of time or research to the question of Anna Anderson and my understanding is that he shies away from either commenting on her or discussing the case in general.

You have written extensively about it on this board, which means that you have written extensively about it on this board. And I am sorry that you feel that the way to discuss her case is to make things up about the woman. If you want to contribute to the fund of knowledge, try making a serious attempt at doing the research. First clue: avoid citing websites that play "Journey to the Past" as background music. Second clue:  get to a decent research library, and obtain as many serious works as you can, and start reading.

The only thing that is "obvious", by the way, is that you have a fixation on this woman the size of Montana. It leads you into serious error.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: dmitri on November 03, 2007, 08:58:40 PM
AA has been proven to be Franziska Schankowska and no relation whatsoever of the Romanovs. It is as simple as that.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 03, 2007, 09:04:03 PM
Um . . .the issue was never resolved means that the issue was never resolved. In any event, Massie did not devote a great deal of time or research to the question of Anna Anderson and my understanding is that he shies away from either commenting on her or discussing the case in general.

Well, he did write a lot about her in his book...

Quote
You have written extensively about it on this board, which means that you have written extensively about it on this board. And I am sorry that you feel that the way to discuss her case is to make things up about the woman. If you want to contribute to the fund of knowledge, try making a serious attempt at doing the research. First clue: avoid citing websites that play "Journey to the Past" as background music. Second clue:  get to a decent research library, and obtain as many serious works as you can, and start reading.

Uhhh...I've been reading for 30+ years and I am still finding things all the time. I did write an entire project on her, when I ran it off on the printer it was over 35 pages. I did use a lot of different resources, and came across a lot of info I'd never seen used before. I'm actually very proud of myself, and I'm not going to let your bullying belittle me.:)

Quote
The only thing that is "obvious", by the way, is that you have a fixation on this woman the size of Montana. It leads you into serious error.

You're really off base on my feelings on AA. I do not 'hate' her and I probably would have liked her. It's nothing for or against her as a person, it's that I cannot stand the way the myth is perpetuated and innocent information seekers are misled by supporters who just won't give up trying to say she might still be AN (some due to ego and obsession, some due to agenda). For truth in history and justice for the dead, the fantasy needs to be put to rest for good. Hopefully the new DNA tests will do that, but I doubt it.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 03, 2007, 09:05:10 PM
AA has been proven to be Franziska Schankowska and no relation whatsoever of the Romanovs. It is as simple as that.

It should be. How nice it would be if that were just the end of it.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 03, 2007, 09:05:59 PM
You should try to get someone to give you a nickel every time you post that, Dmitri. You can retire young.

We are not discussing Anastasia Nicholaevna, we are discussing Anna Anderson. You above all should appreciate the difference. But don't worry. If anyone creeps onto the thread with the idea that the two were the same woman, we'll send up a smoke signal and you can come a-running.

You know. To remind us that they weren't the same person.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 03, 2007, 09:13:08 PM
Annie,

I am not bullying you. I am disagreeing with you, which is not the same thing.

You are not "finding things", you are "making them up", which is also not the same thing.  It's a little hard to take you seriously as ANR's defender when you are doing that.

But I am glad you are proud of yourself. 35 pages is a lot. Did it include footnotes?







Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 03, 2007, 09:28:58 PM

You are not "finding things", you are "making them up", which is also not the same thing.  It's a little hard to take you seriously as ANR's defender when you are doing that.

No, I'm not, I'm quoting things I've read. If I speculate on a theory, I say so, which is more than so many of her supporters do passing crap that can't be proven off as fact. (like the height and shoes) So somebody said blah, you can prove Mr. X said blah, but that doesn't make it a 'fact.'  You can't prove blah was correct, any more than you can prove or disprove what I say. It's NOT proof.

Quote
But I am glad you are proud of yourself. 35 pages is a lot. Did it include footnotes?

I didn't put the numbers on everything because that would make it more like an English project than fun. I did however mention the source in writing  when possible, ("according to...) and I listed all books and sources I used in a bibliography. I could go back and put the little numbers on everything, and plan to eventually, but I'd have a hard time finding all the page numbers again (though I could easily name the book it came from) I can name where I got everything, and what is my own conclusion, I proudly admit to.

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 03, 2007, 09:42:50 PM
Annie.

It would be helpful if you could respond without dragging in a lot of people who form this mysterious group of AA supporters that haunts you so much. I am not one of them. I do not support her claim to be Anastasia. It would also help if you wrote in English. I have no idea what the "blah" stuff means. You seem to discard all testimony equally, I'll give you that, which makes it even weirder when you pretend to do history. NOTHING is proof to you (except DNA).

And of course I can disprove what you say, both through elemental logic and through testimony. But since you don't accept either of those things . . . oh, well. Here goes.Do you really think that Anderson's case could have sustained itself for fifty years and dragged itself through prolonged trials if the woman had been unable to speak or comprehend Russian? There is ample testimony from witnesses that she could, including the judge who sat and sang to her in 1965.

And I am sure that your project was "fun". I just read a book called Curse of the Romanovs in which Alexei flies through time to New York! That was fun, too. But it wasn't history. Or perhaps it was. I mean, can you prove he didn't?

Perhaps you can uncover something else about Anderson. The "inability" with the Russian language is untrue.

Oh, and Dmitri wants to remind us all that Anderson wasn't Anastasia. Just in case we forgot.

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 03, 2007, 09:52:06 PM
No my project was not a fanfic. It was a well researched project, bringing out quotes and info that usually doesn't get mentioned in the AA saga. I found a lot of historical info that helped fill in some of the blanks, such as the turmoil in Germany and the collapse of the gov't at the time FS vanished, the memoirs of Berenberg-Gossler, and finding out about the 1922 book on Ernie's trip, and quotes against her I'd never seen before,  just to name a few.

In everything I've seen, I have seen NO PROOF AA knew Russian. The only ones who say she knew it were supporters, and they contradicted themselves by making excuses of 'brain damage' and 'trauma' for why she didn't speak it. But, if she did speak it, why the excuses? This is very suspicious to me. If she couldn't prove it in public, read, write, speak, then I don't accept it. Show me! Where's the tape of her speaking Russian? Where are her handwritten Russian letters? Where is the documented evidence she proved her ability to the court?  Nowhere, of course! All we have are he said/she said.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Forum Admin on November 03, 2007, 09:54:06 PM
may we please stick to the topic at hand, a presentation of evidence about the imposter Anna Manahan and leave the personal stuff to PM? Thank you.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 03, 2007, 10:00:15 PM
Annie,

There is a difference between what you have seen and what is known (and I would like to read your paper that used "quotes" without attributions, although when I do read these as a teacher, I tend to give them "F" 's unless it is, you know, a creative writing class).

To anyone reading this thread, especially you youngsters at home:  Annie is not being rational here, and you should check her source materials for her statements about Anna Anderson. Assuming she ever gets around to posting them, of course. Sadly, even when she does, she does not accept her own sources (witness the dismissal of Massie, above).





Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: dmitri on November 03, 2007, 10:01:24 PM
The main evidence is the DNA which proves beyond a doubt that Anderson/Schankowska was an imposter. She was never ever related to the Romanovs.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: dmitri on November 03, 2007, 10:03:55 PM
It would seem a moderator needs to step in here as one poster is being particularly abusive. Perhaps the thread needs to be locked off to stop it.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 03, 2007, 10:04:55 PM
The main evidence is the DNA which proves beyond a doubt that Anderson/Schankowska was an imposter. She was never ever related to the Romanovs.

Cha-ching!

That may be so, but it is not the evidence we are discussing. We are discussing Annie's unsupported claim that Anna Anderson had no facility with the Russian language.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 03, 2007, 10:10:17 PM
may we please stick to the topic at hand, a presentation of evidence about the imposter Anna Manahan and leave the personal stuff to PM? Thank you.


I agree. I will go back to posting the tidbit of evidence I came across and posted that unfortunately started all this.

http://www.ishipress.com/forkunio.htm

"Her husband talked for her since she spoke very little English. Her only functional language was German, her Russian having been wiped out, we were told, as a result of the trauma from seeing her family gunned down in the cellar of a house in Ekaterinburg, Russia."

This person met AA and this was his impression. It deserves to be seen in the discussion of evidence as much as anyone else's comment.


Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: dmitri on November 03, 2007, 10:10:35 PM
The DNA evidence is real and proven. The rest of the so-called "evidence" has been completely demolished.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 03, 2007, 10:17:18 PM
It would seem a moderator needs to step in here as one poster is being particularly abusive. Perhaps the thread needs to be locked off to stop it.

No one is being abusive.

"She [Anderson} spoke to them in English, which from that point [ca.1949-1950] until the end of her life was the language she preferred to speak."
Massie, The Romanovs: The Final Chapter, p. 187. He is describing her conduct with the group of women who cared for her in the Unterlengenhardt house in Germany.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 03, 2007, 10:24:36 PM
Massie, page 170:

..Tatiana Botkin blamed her inability to speak Russian on brain damage and memory loss,... others said her refusal to speak Russian was the result of a psychological inhibition caused by the trauma ...of the night in the cellar..


(please note that when Massie quotes another person, it is not his own words, only relaying those of others)

My problem with AA and Russian is that she was never able to prove her ability to speak, read or understand it in public or in court. Surely if she could have she would have. Most of the accounts of her speaking it come from supporters, and some people who may not have been able to tell Russian from Kashubian Polish. Olga A., Felix Y. and others stated she did not know the language and would not speak it. The most suspicious thing about it all is that if she could speak it, why did her supporters make excuses of 'brain damage' and 'trauma' to cover for her  not speaking it?! Other than some old he said/she said, we have no proof, and certainly no hardcore proof, AA could speak, read, write or even understand Russian.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 03, 2007, 10:31:48 PM
This is simply untrue.

There is ample evidence from people that met her throughout her life that  Anna  could understand Russian, and upon occasion use it correctly.

This dog won't hunt, Annie. Try another effort to discredit her, although I am no longer sure to whom your posts are aimed, Has Dmitri told you? He doesn't believe AA was ANR. And neither do I.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: dmitri on November 04, 2007, 06:06:09 AM
There is ample evidence to prove AA could not speak Russian from extremely credible sources. Trauma does not make a person forget one particular language. Such an excuse is extreme nonsense. None of the so-called evidence when carefully examined stands up to any scrutiny. AA/FS was a fraud and it has been proved. Give up the ridiculous game and let the real Anastasia rest in peace and the fraud do the same.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 04, 2007, 08:48:00 AM
List a credible source that says she could not speak Russian as opposed to would not. And I remind you again, Dmiti, that this discussion is not about whether Anna Anderson was Anastasia. She was not, as you have once again thoughtfully reminded us. Cha-ching. It is about Anna Anderson. Could she speak and understand Russian? Why yes, she could.

There are lots of things that can be used to attack Anderson's claim to be the Grand Duchess. This is not one of them.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Forum Admin on November 04, 2007, 09:31:34 AM
Simon is quite correct on this point:

In September 1965 Anastasia was tested in Unterlengenhardt by a Russian language expert as part of a formal court proceeding in the presence of a judge.  She herself knew only that it was another court proceeding, but was unaware it was to test her knowledge of Russian.  According to all those present she was questioned IN RUSSIAN by the expert for over an hour and a half, but she always responded, correctly, in English.

Clearly she could speak and understand Russian.  Please see Lovell "Anastsaia, the lost princess" pg 271.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 04, 2007, 09:42:44 AM
Thanks, FA.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 04, 2007, 09:49:25 AM
Lovell's book is known for it inaccuracies. If this were true, why did Massie not say it, leaving it at that it was not resolved? And  why does this site's "My Name is Anastasia" clearly state "she couldn't even speak Russian."  Even a very large AA supporter I have talked at length with says the only evidence she spoke Russian was the testimony of others.

There was also testimony that she couldn't speak it, including from Olga A. and Felix Y. in the 1920's. Perhaps she was taught some later, but this still doesn't explain the way people tried to cover for her lack of knowledge of Russian.

I still want to know, if she was able to speak Russian, why did so many supporters make excuses such as 'brain damage' and 'traumatized' to explain her inability in the language? It's also very strange that this 'trauma' and 'brain damage' seemed to be very selective, and is therefore very questionable.  There are simply too many contradictions from too many different directions. I am not at all convinced.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Forum Admin on November 04, 2007, 09:54:27 AM
Annie, yes, Lovell's book has inaccuracies, however, the Court record is not "inaccurate", it is what it is, like it or not.  Perhaps many took Anna Manahan's refusal to speak Russian as "inability" to speak the language and felt obliged to explain it.

As for the "My Name is Anastasia" site, ask Bob, he wrote it, and is responsible for the content. Not me.

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 04, 2007, 09:56:28 AM
I've never heard this before, even from her greatest supporter (Kurth)

And it still doesn't explain her lack of knowledge of Russian in the 1920's when met by several people.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 04, 2007, 09:56:39 AM
Massie meant that people who were not going to accept it --- know anyone like that? --- were not going to accept it. Hence, resolution was not possible. I am not trying to get you to accept this, but to warn those reading the thread that you are wrong.

She did answer the judge --- that's in Kurth as well, and the judge himself was an officer of the court.

Anderson herself said that she would not speak Russian because it was the last language that she heard in the Ipatiev House. Since we know that she could speak it (and that she was not in the Ipatiev House), we may never know why Anderson chose not to do so.

My point is that there are attested statements and observations that Anderson could speak and understand Russian. You are free to reject them and remain "unconvinced", but it betrays a solipsistic view of the world to reject everything that does not agree with your understanding as false.

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 04, 2007, 09:59:00 AM
There are just far too many contradictions on this subject.

I don't know why people want to vigorously defend her if they don't believe her claim. Why would someone want to prove if she could speak Russian unless it was because it helps her claim? It's just like Bear, always saying she doesn't believe in her,yet always coming to her defense.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Forum Admin on November 04, 2007, 10:11:27 AM
Annie,

You are simply missing the point.  There is a flaw in your logic.
You posit that anyone who asserts something that could be evidence AA "could have been ANR" is "support" of the claim.

Sometimes, dear Annie, a Cigar is just a Cigar.  Maybe its just the truth of the matter.  Maybe FS could understand Russian when spoken to her. does that in and of itself mean she WAS ANR? Of course not.  She wasn't. Her not being ANR is taken now as a given, not anylonger in question.

Look, my grandmother was Polish by birth and a subject of Alexander III and Nicholas II  by the time she left Warsawa, ok? It was Russian territory.  She spoke Polish, she always told me she couldn't speak Russian, but could understand it well enough when spoken to her to understand what was being said. Maybe, just maybe that was also the case with Anastasia Manahan. OK?

You really do need to separate a discussion of the truth of the story of Anstasia Manahan from considering her as possbilbly being ANR, those are two distinct and different discussions.

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 04, 2007, 10:43:38 AM
Quote
I don't know why people want to vigorously defend her if they don't believe her claim. Why would someone want to prove if she could speak Russian unless it was because it helps her claim? It's just like Bear, always saying she doesn't believe in her,yet always coming to her defense.

Perhaps because they were interested in the truth? Why would someone want to prove that Anderson couldn't speak Russian, if she is so secure in her knowledge that she wasn't ANR? Is that it? You secretly do think that she was ANR after all, and so you make things up in hopes that we will disprove them and bolster your secret belief that Anderson was the Grand Duchess? HaHAH!

It certainly gets pretty convoluted, doesn't it? Why not restrict your speculations to things based upon evidence? I do not disagree with you about this topic because of hidden motives. I disagree with you about it because you are wrong. In this particular instance.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: dmitri on November 04, 2007, 12:27:01 PM
I would probably agree with FA that AA/FS could possibly had a rudimentary understanding of the Russian language as a Polish peasant but not been able to speak more than a few words. Certainly it was not her mother tongue. Many people living under a foreign regime are forced to understand bits and pieces of a regime's language. Many Poles under the Nazi German regime would have been forced to learn bits and pieces of German to survive. That does not mean they could speak German fluently. It is a difficult language to learn as a foreigner as is Russian. The same would have been the case under the Russian Empire occupation of Poland. The Germans occuppied during the Kingdom of Prussia many areas of modern day Poland hence many Poles speaking varying levels of German.   

If the speech centres in AA/FSs brain had been damaged she would not have been able to speak any language at all well. She did not speak good High German. Her German was that of a badly educated peasant. Her English was rudimentary at best.

Certainly the nonsense about her not speaking Russian because of trauma in the Ipatiev House has been exposed as outrageous mistruth as AA/FS was never there.

She was not Anastasia. It's curious though that all the AA supporters use her ability to speak Russian as a reason to believe she was in fact Anastasia.

Her ability to speak Russian fluently is to be doubted.

The truth about the fraud AA/FS may never be known apart from the DNA evidence that finally exposed her once and for all.

Certainly much of the so-called evidence presented during the German court case was suspect at best. That is why no German court ruled in her favour as they simply did not believe there was sufficient evidence to do so.

Using Lovell as a source is not credible. The vast majority of serious historians treat that work with the contempt it deserves. It is full of the ravings of a demented old woman who was never in the Ipatiev House.

Certainly if a German had no understanding of Russian they would have thought that Polish could have been Russian. It just would not have been understood. Much of the so-called evidence from the 1920s was highly suspect at best. The fact that AA/FS responded only in English to questions put in Russian is ample evidence that she could not speak Russian at all fluently. I would go with FA on this one. There certainly is a great deal of evidence from those who spoke Russian that she could not understand or was unwilling or unable to respond in Russian. To those she responded in German and later her broken English. I would not claim she could speak Russian at all.

At the end of the day AA/FS is not worth wasting time on as she wasn't Russian and she most definitely was not Anastasia. She was a complete fraud who wasted the time of a great many people. Many would call her to be a worthless parasite living off monies from others claiming to be something she never was.

Thank goodness she has been utterly and completely exposed.   
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 04, 2007, 02:00:31 PM
I would probably agree with FA that AA/FS could possibly had a rudimentary understanding of the Russian language as a Polish peasant but not been able to speak more than a few words.

Rob, is that what you meant to say?

Quote
Certainly it was not her mother tongue. Many people living under a foreign regime are forced to understand bits and pieces of a regime's language. Many Poles under the Nazi German regime would have been forced to learn bits and pieces of German to survive. That does not mean they could speak German fluently. It is a difficult language to learn as a foreigner as is Russian. The same would have been the case under the Russian Empire occupation of Poland. The Germans occuppied during the Kingdom of Prussia many areas of modern day Poland hence many Poles speaking varying levels of German.

Confusing syntax of the last sentence in that paragraph aside, it has been established that Franziska Schanzkowska's native tongue was Kashoubian, which is neither Polish or German. 

Quote
If the speech centres in AA/FSs brain had been damaged she would not have been able to speak any language at all well. She did not speak good High German. Her German was that of a badly educated peasant. Her English was rudimentary at best.

Untrue. It was her preferred language for the last thirty or so years of her life.

Quote
Certainly the nonsense about her not speaking Russian because of trauma in the Ipatiev House has been exposed as outrageous mistruth as AA/FS was never there.

Cha-ching. 

Quote
She was not Anastasia.

Cha-ching.

Quote
It's curious though that all the AA supporters use her ability to speak Russian as a reason to believe she was in fact Anastasia.

If this is directed at me, I am not an AA "supporter", whatever that means in the context of someone who has been dead for 23 years. And no person who thinks she was the Grand Duchess Anastasia would base his or her belief upon her ability to speak Russian, a trait Anderson shared with several hundred million people.

Quote
Her ability to speak Russian fluently is to be doubted.

It was considered adequate enough by those entrusted with examining her case.

Quote
The truth about the fraud AA/FS may never be known apart from the DNA evidence that finally exposed her once and for all.

Quite correct, but it certainly won't be helped by distorting the facts about Anna Anderson. 

Quote
Certainly much of the so-called evidence presented during the German court case was suspect at best. That is why no German court ruled in her favour as they simply did not believe there was sufficient evidence to do so.

You probably don't want to go there, Dmitri. I also means that there was insufficient evidence to rule against her. Q.E.D.

Quote
Using Lovell as a source is not credible.
As FA pointed out, he has to be used carefully.

 
Quote
The vast majority of serious historians treat that work with the contempt it deserves. It is full of the ravings of a demented old woman who was never in the Ipatiev House.

Good God, who writes your stuff? And serious historians do not treat issues with "contempt". 

Quote
Certainly if a German had no understanding of Russian they would have thought that Polish could have been Russian. It just would not have been understood. Much of the so-called evidence from the 1920s was highly suspect at best. The fact that AA/FS responded only in English to questions put in Russian is ample evidence that she could not speak Russian at all fluently. I would go with FA on this one. There certainly is a great deal of evidence from those who spoke Russian that she could not understand or was unwilling or unable to respond in Russian. To those she responded in German and later her broken English. I would not claim she could speak Russian at all.

I am sure that wherever she is, the "demented old lady" just breathed a sigh of relief. The inherent illogic of statements like "The fact that AA/FS responded only in English to questions put in Russian is ample evidence that she could not speak Russian at all fluently" is tempting. Is English your first language? Because the evidence of your writing argues against it.

Quote
At the end of the day AA/FS is not worth wasting time on as she wasn't Russian and she most definitely was not Anastasia.

Cha-ching!  So, do you do this because you are, in fact, getting paid for it?

Quote
She was a complete fraud who wasted the time of a great many people.

Heck, she's giving you a lot to do. Give the old girl a break.

 
Quote
Many would call her to be a worthless parasite living off monies from others claiming to be something she never was.

Ladies and gentlemen, Alexis Morell Carrington Colby Dexter has left the building!

Quote
Thank goodness she has been utterly and completely exposed.   

Utterly. Completely.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Forum Admin on November 04, 2007, 04:25:12 PM
I would probably agree with FA that AA/FS could possibly had a rudimentary understanding of the Russian language as a Polish peasant but not been able to speak more than a few words.

Rob, is that what you meant to say?

To be clear, what I meant to say is that the German court records indicate (admittedly I haven't seen them myself, but I trust Lovell did not falsify them out of whole cloth, nobody has ever claimed that to my knowledge) that the woman known as Anastasia Manahan, at least in 1960 understood Russian well enough when spoken to her by a Russian language expert that she was able to immediately and correctly answer all the questions put to her IN RUSSIAN, albeit her replies were in English.

So, since she was never heard to actually "speak" in russian, at least to my knowledge, there is sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the woman known as Anastasia Manahan had a sufficient understanding of Russian to hear it and immediately and correctly answer questions put to her in Russian.  I believe this understanding of Russian to be far more than "rudimentary".  I speak 'rudimentary" Russian, and would be utterly lost in a similar situation.  I could manage it in French, but then I am fluent in French...
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Alixz on November 06, 2007, 02:56:11 AM
With all of this contention, has anyone looked into amnesia caused by trauma to see just what effects it can have?

Does one, for example, awake from a coma with amnesia and not be able to speak their first language?  Does one emerge from a trauma speaking languages that one did not ever speak before?

Doesn't amnesia imply a loss of memory function and not a gaining of new and previously unknown information?

I would have liked to have Mr. Schweitzer's personal interaction with Anna/Franzeska to have told us what language she spoke and how well she spoke it.  However, he would never answer any simple question such as, "What language did Mrs. Manahan speak when you were in contact with her?"

We know from Bob Woodward's brush with death at the hands of an Iraqi IED that some patients emerge from a head trauma with the inability to speak their native tongue with no more competence than that of a five year old.  They need therapy to bring back the skills that they once had and have lost through physical brain injury.  It has something to do with the electrical impulses that control the portions of the brain that are now injured.  Bob Woodward had to be taught to speak "adult" fluent English all over again as well as other physical abilities that the trauma had made difficult for him.

God, I sound like an AA supporter.  I don't mean to.  What I was pointing out is that even though Bob Woodward had speech aphasia when he recovered from his medically induced coma, he still understood English.  He didn't loose his mother tongue, just the ability to express himself clearly and fluently.  However, he worked on it with his family and with his doctors and, as we now see him back on TV doing all kinds of special reporting, we know that he has recovered his original expertise with English.

Since Anastasia was brought up in a multi language household, what language would be considered her mother tongue?  I would guess Russian, but the imperial family spoke very little Russian to each other.  So English then?  French was the court language, could Anastasia speak that language fluently and why is no one asking about AA/Franzeska's ability to speak and understand French?

Also, we are told that Anastasia wasn't the best of students and that she lagged in her studies.  So how well could she speak any of the four main languages that were spoken in her home?  Russian.  French.  English.  German.  And if she had recovered from head trauma, which language would she be most likely to remember?

I was not brought up in a multi language household or in a country that was occupied by another which spoke a different language or required that official business be carried out in occupiers language.  Yet I can understand some spoken French, and some spoken German.  If the questions were simple enough, I would probably be able to answer those question in English!  And I would answer in English because my syntax and accents would be so bad that to answer in any other language would be unintelligible.

Some things just never die and the contention over Ann/Franzeska is just one of those things.  Mrs. Manahan herself may have died 23 years ago, but the controversy still lives on and will continue as long a people like to think, "What if?"

It is too bad that the German courts could do no better than, she did not show conclusive proof that she was Anastasia, because that gave us all about 45 years of the opposite line of thought.  There was no conclusive proof that she was Anastasia but there was no conclusive proof that she wasn't either.

Dmitri - I know that DNA has now conclusively proven that AA was not ANR.  I know that you know that, too.  However nothing is going to stop the speculators from speculating.  Not even the Orthodox Church finally recognizing the remains.  Its a hopeless Mobius strip.  The beginning of our journey always can only bring back to the beginning of our journey.

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Lemur on November 06, 2007, 02:42:26 PM
With all of this contention, has anyone looked into amnesia caused by trauma to see just what effects it can have?

Does one, for example, awake from a coma with amnesia and not be able to speak their first language?  Does one emerge from a trauma speaking languages that one did not ever speak before?

Doesn't amnesia imply a loss of memory function and not a gaining of new and previously unknown information?


Good point, Alixz. In fact Olga Alexandrovna said something very similar after meeting with AA. Here is a paragraph from her bio.

When Olga entered the room, the woman lying on a bed asked a nurse: [Ist das die Tante?[Is this the Aunt?]  "That," confessed Olga, "at once took me aback. A moment later I remembered that the young woman having spent five years in Germany, would naturally have learnt the language, but then I heard that when she was rescued from that canal in 1920, she spoke nothing but German when she spoke at all- which was not often.  I readily admit that a ghastly horror experienced in one's youth can work havoc with one's memory but I have never heard of any ghastly experience endowing anyone with a knowledge they had not had before it happened. My nieces knew no German at all. Mrs Anderson did not seem to understand a word of Russian or English, the two languages all the four sisters had spoken since babyhood. French came a little later, but German was never spoken in the family."
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 06, 2007, 03:58:53 PM
With all of this contention, has anyone looked into amnesia caused by trauma to see just what effects it can have?

Does one, for example, awake from a coma with amnesia and not be able to speak their first language?  Does one emerge from a trauma speaking languages that one did not ever speak before?

Doesn't amnesia imply a loss of memory function and not a gaining of new and previously unknown information?


Good point, Alixz. In fact Olga Alexandrovna said something very similar after meeting with AA. Here is a paragraph from her bio.

When Olga entered the room, the woman lying on a bed asked a nurse: [Ist das die Tante?[Is this the Aunt?]  "That," confessed Olga, "at once took me aback. A moment later I remembered that the young woman having spent five years in Germany, would naturally have learnt the language, but then I heard that when she was rescued from that canal in 1920, she spoke nothing but German when she spoke at all- which was not often.  I readily admit that a ghastly horror experienced in one's youth can work havoc with one's memory but I have never heard of any ghastly experience endowing anyone with a knowledge they had not had before it happened. My nieces knew no German at all. Mrs Anderson did not seem to understand a word of Russian or English, the two languages all the four sisters had spoken since babyhood. French came a little later, but German was never spoken in the family."


There are a couple of things about this quote from Olga that are problematic. Again, they do not prove that Anderson was Anastasia.

(1) Ian Vorres' biography of Olga, The Last Grand Diuchess has been criticized as untrue to the real Grand Duchess' 'voice', and this is somewhat academiically phrased --- Vorres may be interpolating here. The earliest criticism came from Olga's own sons, Guri and Tihon, who might be assumed to know their mother's idiosyncracies of speech.
(2) Some of it is simply wrong. The real Grand Duchess Anastasia had at least some familiarity with the German language. It may be that Olga was simply unaware of this, or it may be something that was added to her statement to make it more damaging to Anderson.
(3) Eyewitness accounts of Olga at Anderson's bedside (as well as Gilliard's wife Shura Tegleva) support the idea that the women were at least on the fence about the identification for 24 hours. If this is Olga speaking in the quote, she is talking more than thirty years after the event, and she may be retconning the experience to support her (by then) well-established opposition to the Anderson claim to be her niece.
(4) Who told her that Anderson could "only" speak German? She seems to be referring to information she had received prior to the 1925 visit, and I think that means it came from Gilliard who was the chief reason she came to Berlin at all. Had she been told prior to coming that the woman she was about to see could only speak German and that there was no resemblance to her niece at all, do you thinks he would have made the trip? I don't.

At any rate, we know that by the point that Olga met Anderson, she (AA) could in fact speak other languages --- to some extent, at any rate.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: dmitri on November 06, 2007, 04:57:20 PM
The above is based on complete fantasy. Vorres knew Olga Alexandrovna, a real Romanov and not a fraud, extremely well over a number of years . He was authorised by her to work on her biography and given unprecedented access to information.  I strongly suggest rather than putting out complete rubbish that you do some research. I doubt any member of the Romanov family now living would back you up. It should also be pointed out that Olga never recognised the fraud Anderson as being part of her family. That too is very well documented.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 06, 2007, 06:01:08 PM
Ian Vorres' biography of Olga, The Last Grand Diuchess has been criticized as untrue to the real Grand Duchess' 'voice', and this is somewhat academiically phrased --- Vorres may be interpolating here. The earliest criticism came from Olga's own sons, Guri and Tihon, who might be assumed to know their mother's idiosyncracies of speech.

I was wondering who exactly criticized this biography for the above, and what is your source for the statement that Olga's own sons felt that the author of this book put words in their mother's mouth - so to speak-? (and  yes, this is decidedly un-academically phrased). Thank you.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 06, 2007, 06:10:53 PM

At any rate, we know that by the point that Olga met Anderson, she (AA) could in fact speak other languages --- to some extent, at any rate.

How is it that 'we know', because of word of mouth from certain people? What makes you take their word for it over Olga's?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 06, 2007, 08:46:14 PM
Dmitri:  Honestly, Alexis, settle down. Exactly what is the "complete fantasy" involved in the statement that Olga's words need to be examined with some reservations? No one is saying the Anna Anderson was a real Romanov (actually, in view of Catherine the Great's shenanigans, Olga Alexandrovna may not have been a "real" Romanov, but leave that aside for the moment). Cha-ching, though, for managing to mention that Anderson was a "fraud". Every nickle helps.
And also for mentioning that Olga never recognized that Anna Anderson was Anastasia. Thanks for that late-breaking bulletin. Did I say that she had?

Helen: Peter Kurth. Who also knows a lot of "real Romanovs". And don't worry, I don't look for academic phrasing, just minimal academic standards,  so feel free to word the questions anyway you want. If you'd like, you can even use the large font so that I will not ignore them.

Annie:  By definition, my "we" does not include "you", so feel free to not know this if you choose. There are a lot of other things you don't know, so add it to your collection. But for the record, I am not sure we are "getting" Olga's exact words. And before you bring it up, I do not think Anna Anderson was Anastasia. I do think she was Franziska Schanzkowska. I am not part of the International Pro-AA Conspiracy to Annoy Annie (although if there is one, I would consider membership).

Goodness. All I did was raise a small caution flag about Olga as "quoted" in the Vorres biography. Which I have, and which I have read. Several times. And if you think that she actually talked using the sentence structure she uses in the book, I have bridge property in Brooklyn that I would like you to examine with an eye to purchase.



Later, kids.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: dmitri on November 06, 2007, 09:29:36 PM
Settle petal.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 06, 2007, 09:31:08 PM
LOL, as the kewl kids say.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: dmitri on November 06, 2007, 09:39:00 PM
I didn't realise this thread had anything to do with goats of any variety.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 06, 2007, 09:40:53 PM
Is this a coded reference to the fact that Anna Anderson was a fraud?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Foxglove on November 06, 2007, 09:48:35 PM
With all of this contention, has anyone looked into amnesia caused by trauma to see just what effects it can have?

... Does one emerge from a trauma speaking languages that one did not ever speak before?


There was a case where a young Czech man awoke from a racing accident speaking in fluent English with a perfect English accent*. In reality, he speaks broken English and has knowledge in basic English phases. However, his ability went away after a few days, and he did not remember anything of his accident, or the next two days. Apparently, he heard enough English to be able to store it subconsciously (he did not just start speaking a language he never heard or spoke before), and utilize it after some brain impulses became crossed, but such incidents appear to be rare, and do not last.

* http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=481651&in_page_id=1770 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=481651&in_page_id=1770)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 07, 2007, 07:50:33 AM
So, Simon, I assume by your post that you are telling us that you believe Peter Kurth and you do not believe Olga A. or her biographer. A lot of what you say seems to be no more than your own, or Kurth's, speculation and drawing of presumed conclusions. While you get picky, like the Brady parents did with Greg, over if 'those are your exact words', you don't even think to question if it may really have been the 'exact words' of those who allegedly criticized the book, or the 'exact words' of whichever persons claimed that she could speak several languages. This appears you are singling out not to believe, or discredit, the only person being discussed  whose words were against AA, it does indeed seem as though you are coming down on the side of AA. Why would you do this if you know she's not AN? Why would it matter, and why would you take the time to come here and defend her? Surely you don't imply, as Kurth does of Prince Christopher's bio, that the author falsified info on the person's true feelings on AA because of the the dreaded 'family plot' to discredit AA?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 07, 2007, 07:57:57 AM
So, Simon, I assume by your post that you are telling us that you believe Peter Kurth and you do not believe Olga A. or her biographer. A lot of what you say seems to be no more than your own, or Kurth's, speculation and drawing of presumed conclusions. While you get picky, like the Brady parents did with Greg, over if 'those are your exact words', you don't even think to question if it may really have been the 'exact words' of those who allegedly criticized the book, or the 'exact words' of whichever persons claimed that she could speak several languages. This appears you are singling out not to believe, or discredit, the only person being discussed whose whose words were against AA, it does indeed seem as though you are coming down on the side of AA. Why would you do this if you know she's not AN? Why would it matter, and why would you take the time to come here and defend her? Surely you don't believe, as Kurth does of Prince Christopher's bio, that it was padded with falsified info on the person's true feelings on AA because of the the dreaded 'family plot' to discredit AA?

Annie.

I can't tear myself away from your charming company.

Simon

P.S. I'm sorry . . .  "like the Brady parents did with Greg"?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 07, 2007, 08:01:38 AM
Since you are always bringing up little pop culture references in your posts (like 'Electric Boogaloo') I thought perhaps you'd recall the episode of the Brady Bunch where Greg was held to his 'exact words' after criticizing the parents for not doing the same, and it backfired on him.

Please answer the question, thank you.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 07, 2007, 08:07:57 AM
Awww. I had no idea you read my posts with such close attention. At least not from your answers, anyway.

I did not "discredit" Olga, I raised cautionary flags about the biography. Period. I have explained over and over how history is done, but you seem determined to have it your way --- all testimony is of equal value until you accept it. So, don't accept the cautionary flags about the biography. We'll both live, Elphaba.

So I'm guessing Jan was your avatar Brady?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 07, 2007, 09:20:00 AM
I did not "discredit" Olga, I raised cautionary flags about the biography. Period. I have explained over and over how history is done, but you seem determined to have it your way --- all testimony is of equal value until you accept it.

Isn't that what you're doing with your selective questioning of only certain sources (ones whose results aren't what you want to think) while totally accepting others as 'we know'?

As 'historians' both real and pretend, we can all pick apart sources and quotes from people through the years and scrutinize if we do or do not accept them as valid and why. However it is interesting that certain people only want to discredit Olga A., Gilliard, and Prince Christopher while standing behind the words of people we don't really know much about, seemingly because what they said backs AA. You pick and choose and target the sources you want to question while not doing the same to others whose comments were positive for AA. Why? For years, I have asked AGR Bear the same question, with no answer. Can you give me one?


Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Forum Admin on November 07, 2007, 09:29:35 AM
This appears you are singling out not to believe, or discredit, the only person being discussed  whose words were against AA, it does indeed seem as though you are coming down on the side of AA. Why would you do this if you know she's not AN? Why would it matter, and why would you take the time to come here and defend her?

Annie,
This is where you keep missing Simon's point. Maybe, just maybe, because Simon is just trying to "keep it real" (since we are using current argot in here).  SOMETIMES A CIGAR IS JUST A CIGAR.

There is no harm in at least trying to get to the bottom of the truth of AA/FS, maybe, just maybe, some ability to comprehend Russian is part of what helped her convince people (and not all of them were stupid...) of being ANR...Just because something in her history might be seen a "plus" in the she WAS ANR column, doesn't mean one is advocating the WAS ANR...

We all accept in this thread, from posting one, that Anastasia Manahan WAS FS, and WAS NOT ANR. So, "settle petal" and just examine the real history without perceiving some grand PRO-AA conspiracy.  Honestly, you really are sounding paranoid.  Have the courage of your convictions to stand up and not feel somehow threatened whenever someone states something that was just "pro" AA in the story of her history.

Is this not really clear? If not, ask away.

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 07, 2007, 09:30:29 AM
Olga's comments certainly put an end to the nonsense in this thread. What an interesting topic this was.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 07, 2007, 09:33:38 AM
I have examined history, both sides, many times, and I have decided whom I believe, and the DNA backs up my decision. However, I cannot understand why Olga A. continues to be targeted as an invalid source, except that she did not accept AA, or that some people like to insinuate that she did, secretly. And no, I don't believe a 'cigar is just a cigar' in this situation. As I say with Bear, show me something that questions the other side equally, and I will accept it's only a historical exploration of all avenues.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Forum Admin on November 07, 2007, 09:38:29 AM
show me something that questions the other side equally, and I will accept it's only a historical exploration of all avenues.

A I say to Bear..."why not gather your own evidence that questions the other side instead of sitting back and asking for it?"

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 07, 2007, 09:39:26 AM
No.

Okay, one more try. But this is the last time.

(1) Olga did not accept that Anna Anderson was Anastasia. However, eyewitnesses agree that she was deeply shaken by the first encounter with her, and there is evidence that this is true in Olga's own hand.
(2) Vorres' book was published four years after Olga's death.
(3) By the time that she knew Vorres, her attitudes toward Anna Anderson had hardened. No more letters asking after Kiki the Kat, no more gift shawls --- if we are to accept what Olga says in The Last Grand Duchess, she deeply resented Anderson's attempt to pass herself off as her niece.
(4) The account given of her first encounter, describing how she knew immediately that Anderson was not Anastasia, is inaccurate. Either one of two possibilities can be considered:
      4.1  She herself was retconning the experience to make it fit with her attitudes by the late 1950s.
      4.2  Olga's statement was shaped by her biographer to reflect her attitudes by the late 1950s.

(4) Vorres was hired to shape Olga's recollections --- which is the purpose of using a professional writer, sorry --- and he occupies a larger role in the book than a mere biographer (Massie doesn't discuss how he "feels" about Nicholas and Alexandra, but it is obvious throughout the book that Vorres is emotionally involved with Olga.) It's there if you read the book. Have you?
(5) For the last time (as if), this thread is not about whether Anna Anderson was really Anastasia. She was not. (Cha-ching! Oh, boy, I get a nickle.) It is about evidence concerning Anna Anderson.
(6) Anna Anderson was someone I met (very briefly). I am interested in her life. No apologies for that.
(7) When people talk about "evidence" that Anna Anderson was Anastasia, you need to understand that it does not mean she was. But she was quite successful in convincing intelligent people that she was. I find that interesting, and would like to know more about how she accomplished that.

Get it? No, I didn't think so.


Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 07, 2007, 09:49:07 AM
show me something that questions the other side equally, and I will accept it's only a historical exploration of all avenues.

A I say to Bear..."why not gather your own evidence that questions the other side instead of sitting back and asking for it?"



I have questioned the validity of many pro AA sources on this forum and elsewhere many times. Sure, I have no actual evidence they were lying, (what do you expect, a diary entry or a deathbed confession admitting to fraud?) other than the ultimate result of AA not being AN, but then again, what he's saying about Olga's bio is pure speculation based on opinion as well.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 07, 2007, 09:56:13 AM
Hey!

"He" is right here.

Annie, they are not "pro" or "anti" AA statements. They are ABOUT her. I am not attempting to prove that she was Anastasia.

Remember when you were a wee tot, watching the Brady Bunch and thinking that Anastasia lived down the road in Charlottesville?  Do you remember WHY you thought that she did?

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Forum Admin on November 07, 2007, 10:04:25 AM
Annie,

Just "who" is "lying", and what empirical evidence supports it (beyond "they must have been because she wasn't ANR.)?

I've read Vorres, and tend to concur with Simon's opinion (all it is...for what its worth) about the book.  Bob has known many many of the living Romanovs. They all to a one agreed she wasn't ANR, many of them knew Olga while she was still alive. So WHAT if for a brief couple of days Olga hoped beyond hoped it WAS ANR?  There is no doubt that Olga's bottom line was that she was NOT, and I published a copy of an original letter from Olga in her own hand where she says so and further says that both she AND HER MOTHER were very hurt by public accusations that they were "abandoning Anastasia". 

So, I don't get the basis for this whole shouting match about Vorres book frankly...Can you explain it to me? I really find Olga's position crystal clear.  She hoped at first it WAS ANR, met her, at first meeting saw some slight resemblance but very quickly realised she wasn't.  Never questioned it again.

Or am I missing something.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 07, 2007, 10:45:14 AM
Annie,

Just "who" is "lying", and what empirical evidence supports it (beyond "they must have been because she wasn't ANR.)?

Not necessarily lying but mistaken. Things like the height, shoes, hair color, whether she had scars, when she did or did not speak this or that, etc. Evidence is as simple as, AA was FS and AA was 5'2" therefore FS was not 5'6".  Like I said if you're looking for complete admissions of guilt, you're never going to find them, however, this doesn't mean they should be let off the hook (which is what AA supporters always use to validate these alleged 'differences', and of course to them the DNA is tampered with so it doesn't count and these things [shoes, height,etc] take precedence.)

Quote
I've read Vorres, and tend to concur with Simon's opinion (all it is...for what its worth) about the book.  Bob has known many many of the living Romanovs. They all to a one agreed she wasn't ANR, many of them knew Olga while she was still alive. So WHAT if for a brief couple of days Olga hoped beyond hoped it WAS ANR? 

So, I don't get the basis for this whole shouting match about Vorres book frankly...Can you explain it to me? I really find Olga's position crystal clear.  She hoped at first it WAS ANR, met her, at first meeting saw some slight resemblance but very quickly realised she wasn't.  Never questioned it again.

Or am I missing something.

I think you are missing something. I do not disagree that Olga hoped very hard that AA was AN, and that she gave her a chance. That's not the point. I was questioning his motives for trying to, as it looked to me, discredit Olga's bio and therefore the content and quotes within, as if there was a reason these quotes needed to be proven 'wrong.'

There are two camps on this: one who believed Olga honestly sadly realized AA was not AN after all, and those who believe she 'turned her back on her' for 'money'. Usually those who set out to discredit Olga are of the second camp, the old 'I believe AA was AN BUT..' thing so many have tried to use here to get us to examine some 'new' piece of 'damning' evidence against those who denied her. I would honestly like to know the motives for questioning the validity of Olga's statements. I agree with what you have said, but I don't see that as the point he's been trying to get across here.

Quote
There is no doubt that Olga's bottom line was that she was NOT, and I published a copy of an original letter from Olga in her own hand where she says so and further says that both she AND HER MOTHER were very hurt by public accusations that they were "abandoning Anastasia". 

Oh, good. Then we do have definitive proof that someone was 'hurt' by AA's claim in ways other than financial, which was a topic on the now closed thread. We now have an answer. Is there any way you can post at least part of it?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 07, 2007, 11:15:38 AM
Annie,

In the ongoing conversations among the voices in your head, please ask whichever one is speculating about my motives to knock it off. I carefully explained them. Now I have to get back to passing the bullets to the Mafia and the Cubans on the grassy knoll.

Simon

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Forum Admin on November 07, 2007, 02:24:23 PM


Quote
There is no doubt that Olga's bottom line was that she was NOT, and I published a copy of an original letter from Olga in her own hand where she says so and further says that both she AND HER MOTHER were very hurt by public accusations that they were "abandoning Anastasia". 

Oh, good. Then we do have definitive proof that someone was 'hurt' by AA's claim in ways other than financial, which was a topic on the now closed thread. We now have an answer. Is there any way you can post at least part of it?
Here it is again, in its entirety, at least my English translation from the original French:
We have been graciously given a copy of an original letter written BY Olga herself. Here is my translation from the original French and the link to the original letter itself:
February, 15th 1928, Hvidore
 
Dear Miss B***,
 
Thank you for your nice letter.
 
Indeed, you understand like us the absurdity of this story! More and more, I see that this story is all about blackmail and money. Let’s say I’m mistaken.
 
But how can you believe that her maid, Ms Gilliard, who knows her since she was 6 weeks (and Mr Gilliard, who was as well with the beloved family until the moment they were separated in June 1918 could be mistaken?)
It’s ridiculous as well to say that the grand mother and I don’t want to have her close to us.
 
What a shame to talk like that.
 
I say openly that my cousin André must have some vile motives to side against us…
Uncle from Hesse is also serene with the fact that the person is not our niece. He has proofs, as you may have seen or read in “L’Illustration” where the photos of the ears were, now it’s a known fact that the ears never change. (small snip)We send you our best wishes.
 
Greetings from Mother, Xenia, Emilia Jr, Cecilia and Gustav.
 
I kiss you heartily, dear Miss B****!

 
Olga" original letter from GD Olga in French here: http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1075191962;start=371#371
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 07, 2007, 02:45:56 PM
I see that Olga rejects Anderson. I see that Olga thinks that it is absurd to assume that MF and she would not want the real giril "close to them". I also see she takes a crack at Andrei, and that she thinks it is absurd to suppose that Shura and Pierre Gilliard could have been mistaken. She accepts that "Uncle from Hessen" has assembled proofs.

Am I missing the sentence that says "I am hurt"? My point is  that I think it took a lot more than an encounter with someone she didn't accept as ANR to "hurt" someone who had been through what Olga Alexandrovnahad; of course MF didn't accept that any of the Family had perished, which I assume is the main reason she rejected the possibility of meeting Anderson.

This sounds like someone who is fed up, not emotionally distraught.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 07, 2007, 07:19:14 PM
Just because she didn't write "I am distraught and this has made me cry" doesn't mean she didn't feel that way. She is clearly bothered, for herself and her mother. Also, this was before Marie F. died, so it was before the vicious attacks by AA supporters. It was also before several decades of trials and accusations of 'abandonment'. So if she was already bothered by it this early it does look like the emotional stress and pain would have gotten much worse over the years as the case dragged on and on throughout her life. I feel so sorry for her having to suffer so long, and dying without it ever being resolved and her name being cleared.

Another interesting thing about this letter is what she said about Andre'. Obviously she doesn't accept for a second that he may really think AA was AN, or that AA might possibly be AN, but seems to say that since he couldn't believe it and he had to be up to something. I have always thought that might be it long before I ever saw this letter. As a member of the Vladimirovichi line, he would have been(besides his brothers) the last person to want a real heir of "Nicky" to show up alive. Also as a member of that branch of Romanovs, he wouldn't have known the real AN anyway, since there was estrangement between his family and the IF, and because he was dating/married to Nicky's old mistress. What a doubly awkward guest he'd have made. For these two reasons, I doubt he ever had enough contact with the real AN to judge any claimant one way or the other. Of course after Gleb's letter, he dropped his support for the AA camp anyway. We will never know what his original intentions and ulterior motives on the case were, but I, like Olga, do not believe he ever believed AA to be AN.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 07, 2007, 08:06:23 PM
Just because she didn't write "I am distraught and this has made me cry" doesn't mean she didn't feel that way. She is clearly bothered, for herself and her mother. Also, this was before Marie F. died, so it was before the vicious attacks by AA supporters. It was also before several decades of trials and accusations of 'abandonment'. So if she was already bothered by it this early it does look like the emotional stress and pain would have gotten much worse over the years as the case dragged on and on throughout her life. I feel so sorry for her having to suffer so long, and dying without it ever being resolved and her name being cleared.

Would you mind documenting any "vicious" attacks on Olga between 1928 (and then I think Gleb took the shot at Ksenia) and her death?  And because she didn't write "I am distraught and this made me cry", you cannot write that she was distraught and it made her cry. I have never said she wasn't "bothered", whatever that means.

Quote
Another interesting thing about this letter is what she said about Andre'. Obviously she doesn't accept for a second that he may really think AA was AN, or that AA might possibly be AN, but seems to say that since he couldn't believe it and he had to be up to something. I have always thought that might be it long before I ever saw this letter. As a member of the Vladimirovichi line, he would have been(besides his brothers) the last person to want a real heir of "Nicky" to show up alive. Also as a member of that branch of Romanovs, he wouldn't have known the real AN anyway, since there was estrangement between his family and the IF, and because he was dating/married to Nicky's old mistress. What a doubly awkward guest he'd have made. For these two reasons, I doubt he ever had enough contact with the real AN to judge any claimant one way or the other. Of course after Gleb's letter, he dropped his support for the AA camp anyway. We will never know what his original intentions and ulterior motives on the case were, but I, like Olga, do not believe he ever believed AA to be AN.


I'm sure that wherever she is, Olga appreciates the show of solidarity. Indeed, she may even understand it, if Olga was unable to conceive that Andrei might have recognized the woman because he actually, you know, thought he recognized her. You think that everyone who did was a liar or a con artist. Maybe you're channeling Olga, Annie!

Wow. Spooky.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 07, 2007, 09:43:35 PM

Would you mind documenting any "vicious" attacks on Olga between 1928 (and then I think Gleb took the shot at Ksenia) and her death?

Here is the letter from Gleb as documented in Massie's book.

Your Imperial Highness!

Twenty four hours did not pass after the death of your mother when you hastened to take another step in the conspiracy against your niece...Before the wrong which Your Imperial Highness is committing, even the gruesome murder of the Emperor, his family and my father by the Bolsheviks pales! It is easier to understand a crime committed by a gang of crazed and drunken savages than the calm, systematic, endless persecution of one of your own family, the Grand Duchess Anastasia Nicholaevna, whose only fault is that, being the only rightful heir to the late Emperor, she stands in the way of her greedy and unscrupuous relatives.


Quote
Andrei might have recognized the woman because he actually, you know, thought he recognized her.

As I stated before, Andre' wouldn't have been a judge of her, since he didn't know her and wasn't exposed to her due to the estrangement of the Vladimirovichi and because he was married to Nicky's old mistress, he was hardly hanging around the palace getting to know her. Any visits he did make wouldn't have included the kids anyway. No, I don't believe he knew her well enough to recognize her or not, and apparently Olga was certain he couldn't have and that's why she thought he was up to something, 'against us' as she says.

In Kurth's book, p. 152, Andre is quoted as saying: "The number of people who have been drawn into this work is very large, and among them such strict discipline is apparent as was never present in Russian circles.” What does he mean by this? What did he mean by ‘discipline? Was this a ‘code of silence’ that those involved in the charade would never speak of it? What did it mean that he distinguished the group from ‘purely Russian circles’, that there were others involved who were not Russians?  His words do prove at least by 1927, the group involved with AA was 'very large.'  A lot can be read into this, nothing ever known for sure except that after the above letter he distanced himself from AA forever.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 08, 2007, 07:20:52 AM
Nonsense. Our strength is as the strength of ten because we North Carolinians are pure of heart, Alexis. And smart. Take notes and be quiet. The adults are now talking.

Annie,

The "vicious" letter from Gleb was addressed to Ksenia, not Olga, and while it is strongly worded, Massie refers to it as "stinging", which seems a more apt descriptor to me. Your speculations about Andrei are just that, speculations, and while based upon your own "research", which I am sure has been thorough, unsupported. On page 183 of the Massie book (The Romanovs: The Final Chapter), Massie also documents Andrew as writing to Tatiana Botkin after the letter to Ksenia was published: "All is lost. Does he realize what he has done? He has completely ruined everything."

"Grand Duke Andrew also remarked that the case was beginning to take on the aspect of an intrigue for the Tsar's fortune," Tatiana Botkin wrote. "This profoundly disgusted the grand duke and he did not further wish to involve his name in it."

But he did not withdraw his recognition of Anderson as Anastasia.

In fact, Gleb's letter was a fatal blow to Anderson's chances for meeting more members of the immediate family. I doubt that it "hurt" them, whatever that means, but it was definitely an act of lese-majeste, and as an attempt to flush the family into the controversy on the public stage, a horrible miscalculation.  Most of them closed ranks and moved on, distancing themselves from the case.

In any event, I agree with you that Andrew's recognition was not particularly determinative --- any more than Olga's was. The "recognitions" of Anna Anderson as Anastasia OR Franziska Schanzkowska are not evidence, since each can (and has) been challenged by opponents. Either they are con artists --- Maria Rasputin, Doris Wingender --- or they are not (Olga Alexandrovna, Andrew Vladimirovich). Others are useless as "evidence" simply because they never knew the real girl. You support Olga's failure to recognize her because you agree with it, Annie, not because you are in a position to know. And the DNA evidence supports your position. But . . .  from the beginning of my time on this forum, I have tried to maintain to either "side" that recognition/lack of recognition from people who knew both women (i.e. Anderson and Anastasia) does not mean that the person was lying. It means that he/she made a mistake.

If you feel yourself unable to sift through evidence and testimonies without leaping to speculative conclusions, might I suggest that you stop trying?

No, I didn't think so.

Simon






Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Alixz on November 08, 2007, 08:12:54 AM

Quote
In Kurth's book, p. 152, Andre is quoted as saying: "The number of people who have been drawn into this work is very large, and among them such strict discipline is apparent as was never present in Russian circles.”[/i] What does he mean by this? What did he mean by ‘discipline? Was this a ‘code of silence’ that those involved in the charade would never speak of it? What did it mean that he distinguished the group from ‘purely Russian circles’, that there were others involved who were not Russians?  His words do prove at least by 1927, the group involved with AA was 'very large.'  A lot can be read into this, nothing ever known for sure except that after the above letter he distanced himself from AA forever.

I don't know why the rest of this is in the quote purple background color




What I  think this means is that the Russian Imperial family was not known for supporting each other in their endeavors.  Andre is surprised that this event has brought so many together for one cause.  Of course there were other non Russians involved.  We know that from Claire Peuthert through the German journalist (I can't remember her name just now) who took her into her home and found her other places to stay and then wrote about the whole thing.

And here, I see how we have imputed the motive of "greed" onto Gleb.  Sorry Mr. Schweitzer.  You have always said that we have imputed our motives onto Gleb because of how we view him, but I believe that Gleb's letter and the mention of the Imperials being "greedy" imputes his owns motives.   In your words, we see him as greedy because in his place we would be.  That means that he saw the imperials as greedy because in their place he would be.

And it sounds as if the AA "support group" of the 1920s was a pretty close and supportive group with some kind of agenda.  Why else would Andrew in a letter to Tatiana Botkina, Gleb's own sister say, "All is lost.  Does he realize what he has done?  He has completely ruined everything."

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Alixz on November 08, 2007, 08:17:51 AM
So what was lost and what evidence do we have that can help us figure it out?

And just for the record, a lot of times when I (and this is only me) ask a question like the one above.  That doesn't mean that I don't want to do my own research.  It just means I want other poster's opinions.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 08, 2007, 08:26:42 AM
I don't think anyone objects to questions being asked, but Annie's tend to be rhetorical, as in she already has the answer in her mind before she asks it. She also is not listening to the answers, but formulating why they are wrong before she completely understands them. At least from the evidence of this thread.

If Gleb Botkin was part of a scheme to make money from the Anderson situation, he was remarkably unsuccessful. Schweitzer also stated that Gleb himself did not profit from the Grandanor enterprise, and he seems to have spent a lot of time on a financially unrewarding cause for his motives to have been mercenary.

But assuming that the reasons that some backed Anderson were mercenary, I don't think that is what Andrew refers to in the letter to Tatiana Botkin. Gleb's actions have created an insurmountable barrier between Anderson and the immediate Romanov family, since it drags them into the limelight. And royalty doesn't like to be dragged into the limelight.  What has been "lost" is any chance that Ksenia, Olga, Irene, Victoria Milford-Haven, Sandro and others will ever meet with Anderson again. Or at all. As indeed they did not.

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: dmitri on November 08, 2007, 08:28:26 AM
I think what was lost was any hope of any form of support from any of the Romanovs. Gleb Botkin's grossly insulting and rude letter to Xenia hardly won him any fans. If he had in fact been wanting to help Anderson he would have never penned it at all.  
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: dmitri on November 08, 2007, 08:35:13 AM
Yes Olga knew her niece well and sadly had the misfortune of meeting the fraud Anderson/Schankowska. How very painful it must have been for her to lose two brothers, a sister-in-law, four nieces and a nephew and countless other members of her family. I wonder how many of us would have coped so well with such losses.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 08, 2007, 08:41:39 AM
Yes Olga knew her niece well and sadly had the misfortune of meeting the fraud Anderson/Schankowska. How very painful it must have been for her to lose two brothers, a sister-in-law, four nieces and a nephew and countless other members of her family. I wonder how many of us would have coped so well with such losses.

Fearlessly, I have no doubt. Cha-ching!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: dmitri on November 08, 2007, 08:46:02 AM
Sounds like you dance the Cha-Ching regularly or is that the Chim Cham from the Thunderbirds?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 08, 2007, 08:55:49 AM
It is the sound of the nickle dropping, young Mitya. Or pfennig. Whatever floats your boat.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: dmitri on November 08, 2007, 08:58:00 AM
Pfennigs haven't been used for years.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 08, 2007, 09:00:12 AM
Take what you can get, Dmitri, take what you can get.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: dmitri on November 08, 2007, 09:03:17 AM
We return you now to the topic of the thread.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Forum Admin on November 08, 2007, 09:06:06 AM

But assuming that the reasons that some backed Anderson were mercenary, I don't think that is what Andrew refers to in the letter to Tatiana Botkin. Gleb's actions have created an insurmountable barrier between Anderson and the immediate Romanov family, since it drags them into the limelight. And royalty doesn't like to be dragged into the limelight.  What has been "lost" is any chance that Ksenia, Olga, Irene, Victoria Milford-Haven, Sandro and others will ever meet with Anderson again. Or at all. As indeed they did not.

Simon,

This is not quite true actually. Prince Vassily, Xenia son who had known ANR as a child, had a meeting arranged with Anna Anderson, when he showed up for the meeting AA refused steadfastly to meet with him, claiming he had showed up "unannounced".

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 08, 2007, 09:08:58 AM
How did the rest of the family feel about Vassily meeting with her? And I think you are actually replying to Dmitri, who used the phrase "any of the Romanovs" to describe the loss of support. I said "the immediate family". After all, Xenia Leeds met with her as well.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Forum Admin on November 08, 2007, 09:20:51 AM
The family approved, actually, from what Bob was told by the Romanovs. Her refusal was seen by the family as further conclusive evidence that AA was actually happy the Romanovs left her alone, as they were really the ones who could have blown her story if she had met with any more of them.  It also gave her the "victim" status, the poor little grand duchess, rejected and abandoned by the evil avaricious relatives.  Actually, quite the opposite was the case.

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: dmitri on November 08, 2007, 09:37:34 AM
Quite right Rob and how Anderson/Schnkowska liked to play the victim against her so-called "relatives" who were in fact never relatives at all.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 08, 2007, 10:06:14 AM
Cha-ching! Goodness, Dimtri, you're on a roll today!

Rob,

I'm not sure I understand your last sentence. If you take out the adjectives, was she not in fact rejected by the family? And did Bob actually have contact with the relatives who knew both women, or are we dealing with people like Nina Leeds here, who did not?

Thanks,

Simon

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Forum Admin on November 08, 2007, 02:29:01 PM
"It also gave her the "victim" status, the poor little grand duchess, rejected and abandoned by the evil avaricious relatives.  Actually, quite the opposite was the case."

She was NOT the poor little grand duchess, she was not "abandoned by evil avaricious relatives."  She was believed by the family to be "an imposter, the best of the imposters, but an imposter nontheless" exact Romanov family quote.

Bob has discussed the matter only with the descendants, who themselves knew both the family that had met both, as well as the family that only knew ANR but not AA, the latter specifically those who were close to Vassily.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 08, 2007, 03:07:46 PM
I've heard the "best of the imposters" line attributed to Princess Vera.

And of course the Romanovs themselves are speculating about why Anderson would not meet with them, or at least some of them. But thanks, this is interesting.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Forum Admin on November 08, 2007, 03:16:22 PM
We have heard the "best of the imposters" line was at least repeated often by Vassily.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 08, 2007, 04:03:33 PM
"It also gave her the "victim" status, the poor little grand duchess, rejected and abandoned by the evil avaricious relatives.  Actually, quite the opposite was the case."



This sums it all up. Yes AA was rejected, but not by her 'relatives', because she was FS and not AN. AN was not rejected, an imposter was, and an imposter should be rejected, so this is nothing bad. AA is not to be pitied, the relatives should not be villainized.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: zackattack on November 08, 2007, 04:05:19 PM
Just because she didn't write "I am distraught and this has made me cry" doesn't mean she didn't feel that way. She is clearly bothered, for herself and her mother. Also, this was before Marie F. died, so it was before the vicious attacks by AA supporters. It was also before several decades of trials and accusations of 'abandonment'. So if she was already bothered by it this early it does look like the emotional stress and pain would have gotten much worse over the years as the case dragged on and on throughout her life. I feel so sorry for her having to suffer so long, and dying without it ever being resolved and her name being cleared.

Another interesting thing about this letter is what she said about Andre'. Obviously she doesn't accept for a second that he may really think AA was AN, or that AA might possibly be AN, but seems to say that since he couldn't believe it and he had to be up to something. I have always thought that might be it long before I ever saw this letter. As a member of the Vladimirovichi line, he would have been(besides his brothers) the last person to want a real heir of "Nicky" to show up alive. Also as a member of that branch of Romanovs, he wouldn't have known the real AN anyway, since there was estrangement between his family and the IF, and because he was dating/married to Nicky's old mistress. What a doubly awkward guest he'd have made. For these two reasons, I doubt he ever had enough contact with the real AN to judge any claimant one way or the other. Of course after Gleb's letter, he dropped his support for the AA camp anyway. We will never know what his original intentions and ulterior motives on the case were, but I, like Olga, do not believe he ever believed AA to be AN.


This is the full English translation of Olga's letter:


February, 15th 1928

Dear Ms bxxx

Thank you for your nice letter.

Indeed, you understand like us the absurdity of this story! More and more, I see that this story is all about blackmail and money. Let’s say I’m mistaken.

But how can you believe that her maid, Ms Gilliard, who knows her since she was 6 weeks (and Mr Gilliard, who was as well with the beloved family until the moment they were separated in June 1918) could be mistaken?

It’s ridiculous as well to say that the grand mother and I don’t want to have her close to us.

What a shame to talk like that.

I say openly that my cousin André must have some vile motives to side against us…

Uncle from Hesse is also serene with the fact that the person is not our niece. He has proofs, as you may have seen or read in “L’Illustration” where the photos of the ears were, now it’s a known fact that the ears never change.

Now to answer your question: Mother feels healthy for her age. My heart too, but every unpleasant event (like the renewal of the Tchaik History) disturb my heart and makes it beat too fast. At night this is bothersome because I feel it more.

I’ve had a little flu with fever, two days in bed and sore throat.

Currently I’m working again relentlessly on our aquarelles, producing things about Crimea.

I have some sketches with me here and I’m working out, mixing things together, so much that I have the feeling the day is too short…

I can start at 8:30am, but at 4pm I can’t work anymore, and I have many other duties…

The boys are charming! They prefer German lessons to French lessons!

Together we saw a very interesting movie: “The man without homeland” (American), very patriotic and nice. They were overjoyed!

We send you our best wishes.

Greetings from Mother, Xenia, Emilia Jr, Cecilia and Gustav.

I kiss you heartily, dear Ms bxxx

Olga
i
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 08, 2007, 04:14:08 PM

Now to answer your question: Mother feels healthy for her age. My heart too, but every unpleasant event (like the renewal of the Tchaik History) disturb my heart and makes it beat too fast. At night this is bothersome because I feel it more.



Thank you, Zack! So good to have you back around here!

So this 'unpleasant event' the 'renewal of the Tchaik history' means AA, since that was the name she was using? (Tchaikovsky) Olga says it disturbs her heart and makes it beat too fast, so that means it's stressing her out and upsetting her. She was also losing sleep over it.


Here's something else I found on Olga's true feelings about her meeting with AA:

"They pretend that she recognized me, but I want to tell you how it all happened: they had warned her of my visit. She herself acknowledged that they had said: 'On Tuesday you will be very happy. Someone is coming from Denmark.' Then, obviously, she could imagine the rest and wait for 'her aunt.' She was unable to reply to any of the small intimate questions which I put to her."

source: Klier and Mingay's "Quest for Anastasia", page 102 (hardcover)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Forum Admin on November 08, 2007, 04:23:15 PM
Thank you Zack. I actually couldn't find the full translation.  I think it disappeared somewhere in the transition to the new forum software. Where did you find it? You can PM me if you don't want to answer publicly.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: dmitri on November 09, 2007, 07:34:40 AM
Yes anybody who claims that the fraud AA/FS and her bunch of fellow travellers did not upset the Romanovs was living in ga ga land. The other whopping big lie is that Olga recognised AA/FS. That never happened.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 09, 2007, 08:44:09 AM
Cha-ching!

Two points for working the lack of recognition by Olga into the meaningless post.

Thanks for the full translation, Zack. It is an interesting look at (1) the way she sounded, at least when she wrote and (2)  the role that Anna Anderson had in her life. Since  Olga describes both herself and her mother as "healthy", indicates that she is working hard and characterizes the Anderson situation as "absurd", I guess that would be non-existent. I mean, do you really think that Olga devoted all that much time to Anderson if she considered the woman an imposter? Why would she? Surely the operative word in this letter is "absurd". I mean, I'm sorry about the heart palpitations, but the woman lived to be 78. And she farmed. She also got her family safely out of revolutionary Russia and then eluded the Soviets after World War II. What I have always liked about the Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna was her ability to do what had to be done when it came to living her life. The vision of her as a delicate flower seared by someone whom she met once doesn't jibe with the larger facts of her life.

If you are hurt by Anderson, Dmitri, well, I can understand that. There are threads on this very forum where people post about what the Imperial Family members mean to them personally. Perhaps it would be a good idea to start one or two: "What Olga Alexandrovna Has Meant in My Life" or "Why Anastasia is My Favorite Grand Duchess". I think there is one of those, but I'm not sure.




Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 09, 2007, 06:18:56 PM


This is the full English translation of Olga's letter:


February, 15th 1928

Dear Ms bxxx

Thank you for your nice letter.

Indeed, you understand like us the absurdity of this story! More and more, I see that this story is all about blackmail and money. Let’s say I’m mistaken.

But how can you believe that her maid, Ms Gilliard, who knows her since she was 6 weeks (and Mr Gilliard, who was as well with the beloved family until the moment they were separated in June 1918) could be mistaken?

It’s ridiculous as well to say that the grand mother and I don’t want to have her close to us.

What a shame to talk like that.

I say openly that my cousin André must have some vile motives to side against us…

Uncle from Hesse is also serene with the fact that the person is not our niece. He has proofs, as you may have seen or read in “L’Illustration” where the photos of the ears were, now it’s a known fact that the ears never change.

Now to answer your question: Mother feels healthy for her age. My heart too, but every unpleasant event (like the renewal of the Tchaik History) disturb my heart and makes it beat too fast. At night this is bothersome because I feel it more.

I’ve had a little flu with fever, two days in bed and sore throat.

Currently I’m working again relentlessly on our aquarelles, producing things about Crimea.

I have some sketches with me here and I’m working out, mixing things together, so much that I have the feeling the day is too short…

I can start at 8:30am, but at 4pm I can’t work anymore, and I have many other duties…

The boys are charming! They prefer German lessons to French lessons!

Together we saw a very interesting movie: “The man without homeland” (American), very patriotic and nice. They were overjoyed!

We send you our best wishes.

Greetings from Mother, Xenia, Emilia Jr, Cecilia and Gustav.

I kiss you heartily, dear Ms bxxx

Olga

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Kransnoeselo on November 09, 2007, 10:21:46 PM
I can agree that most of those listed above suffered negatively from AA's claims. The reputations of GD Hesse, Pierre Gilliard and Sophie Bux. clearly still suffer from attacks by AA's supporters.
 
But Felix Yussuppov? I think that's a stretch.  He and his wife suffered more from the movie about Rasputin (And its portrayal of Felix), than they did with regards to AA.

Lord Mountbatten had his own personal issues which caused him grief,I dont think the AA matter was little more than a headache for him. 

 
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 10, 2007, 09:23:47 AM
I would say that the AA case was way worse than simply an identity theft, although there were a lot of those aspects in there of course. It was much more than just great annoyance and headache resulting from an identity theft. To those who actually cared about and were close to the girl herself (Anastasia) and knew that most likely she died a horrible death, it must have been a lot more painful than a simple identity theft, with an impostor taking on her identity, which had to cause, at least on some level, an emotional roller coaster (is it her? could she be alive? almost like reliving her death again). Contrary to what some have argued on other threads: that the relatives wouldn't have really felt much of anything because they were royalty - which is completely absurd - they were humans, and human psychological experience is similar across the board - royal or not - unless these humans are sociopaths.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 10, 2007, 09:45:50 AM
The fact that OA may have initially accepted that AA was in fact her niece (which I really tend to question, and question strongly) would make me think that it would be even more upsetting for her when she finally realized that she wasn't.

But in any case, I can imagine that the emotional rollercoaster of the situation, at least at the time it was happening, must have been pretty bad for any normal human being. Going in with the hope that the woman at the mental hospital may be her niece (to whom OA was reportedly close - unless you want to dispute that too - perhaps all the authors imbellished that one too...), hoping against hope that Anastasia may have survived what OA knew must have been a blood bath in which the rest of the family perished - it certainly couldn't have been a picnic. Forget everyone else in this tale, but one must admit, there had to be at least some emotional anguish involved for OA, unless someone wants to argue that she was a sociopath?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 10, 2007, 09:59:13 AM
My heart too, but every unpleasant event (like the renewal of the Tchaik History) disturb my heart and makes it beat too fast. At night this is bothersome because I feel it more.

Sounds like OA was having anxiety attacks over this case... perhaps even panic attacks. Perhaps anxiety seems like nothing to some people, but it doesn't seem like "nothing" to me, in fact, it's a very serious "something". Just because OA lived to be 78 (not so unusually old) and seemed like a strong woman and not a "delicate flower", it doesn't mean she didn't suffer emotionally (and not necessarily just from the AA case). People can live through a lot, and live for a long time, it doesn't mean they have not been emotionally hurt, and it doesn't mean it will always be very obvious, especially to those who are not especially sensitive to human emotions in general.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: dmitri on November 10, 2007, 10:05:50 AM
Very well said indeed Helen. It is about time the nonsense stopped and certain people realised the loss of many close relatives in a brutal fashion can only ever be traumatic. I doubt anybody would ever truly gets over that one. Then to have a fraud deliberately claiming to be somebody she clearly wasn't can only make the pain of the loss even worse. It's very simple to work out.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Forum Admin on November 10, 2007, 10:16:04 AM
I finally was able to dig up the original scans of the original letter in French which we were sent three years ago.  As I had suspected and recalled there were a few minor errors in the original translation to English, as one of these errors is being "seized on" by Simon, allow me to present the revised, and I think more accurate version, the differences are in bold:

February, 15th 1928

Dear Ms bxxx

Thank you for your kind letter.

Yes you understand just as we do the absurdity of this story! More and more, I see that this story is all about blackmail and money  One might say I’m mistaken.

But how can you believe that his wife, Mme Gilliard, who knew her since she was 6 weeks (and Mr Gilliard, who was as well with the beloved family until the moment they were separated in June 1918) could be mistaken?

It’s ridiculous as well to say that the grand mother and I don’t want to have her close to us.

What filth to talk like that.

I say frankly that my cousin André must have some very ignoble motives to side against us…

Uncle from Hesse as well, and is completely satisfied -with the fact that the person is not our niece. He has proofs, as you naturally have seen or read in “L’Illustration” where the photos of the ears were, now it’s a known fact that the ears never change.

Now to answer your question: Mother gets along well for her age. My heart too- but every unpleasant thing (like the resurgance of the Tchaik story) upsets my heart and makes it beat faster and stronger At night this bothers me because I feel it then.

I’ve had a little flu with fever, two days in bed and sore throat.

Currently I’m working again relentlessly on my watercolors, painting ones about Crimea.

I have some sketches with me here and I’m working on them, arranging, combining, and am interested in each small detail,  the day is too short…

I  start at 8:30am, but at 4pm I can’t work anymore, as I have many other things to do

The boys are charming! They prefer German lessons to French lessons!

Together we saw a very interesting movie: “The man Without a Country” (American), very patriotic and nice. They were overjoyed!

We send you our best wishes.

Greetings from Mother, Xenia, Emilia Jr, Cecilia and Gustav.

I kiss you heartily, dear Ms bxxx

Olga
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 10, 2007, 10:29:48 AM
The fact that OA may have initially accepted that AA was in fact her niece (which I really tend to question, and question strongly) would make me think that it would be even more upsetting for her when she finally realized that she wasn't.

I don't think Olga ever accepted AA as her niece, but I do think she and Gilliard gave it a chance to make sure. When they ultimately decided she wasn't AN, this has been misconstrued by AA supporters who want to villainize them as 'rejecting' 'changing their minds' and 'turning their backs' (for money, of course ::) ) I never understood why (except that it suits AA's claim and discredits their negative testimony) AA supporters have to look at it that way and not just that they looked, they wondered, they realized it wasn't her, end of story. Like I said in the story of the lady who took the wrong dog home, sometimes it takes longer to be sure, especially if the 'lost' in question is damaged, therefore making their appearance so changed (if it was them) it's harder to make an immediate ID.


In this tragic story, a family sat by the bedside of a girl they thought was their badly injured daughter for weeks, only to find out it was actually her friend Whitney who was in the same crash with her, and their Laura was dead. The mixup occured when the two girls' purses were transposed during the crash, and the grievous injuries to the faces of the two blondes made them harder to identify. Imagine the devastation when they realized the truth, and the shocking gladness of the other family finding their girl was alive. And yes, the wrong girl was given a funeral and buried with the other girl's name. This was not a long time ago,only last year.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-05-31-indiana-mistaken-identity_x.htm

It is entirely possible that a person can make an initial mistake due to the condition of a person, and find out later they were wrong. There is nothing sinister behind it. It's another aspect of the 'hurting' to find your hopes dashed and realize that your relative isn't alive after all. That was another pain for Olga, who said she had left Denmark with hope in her heart, but returned with it estinguised.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 10, 2007, 10:34:13 AM
Thanks, FA. That does make Olga's feelings very clear.

My heart too, but every unpleasant event (like the renewal of the Tchaik History) disturb my heart and makes it beat too fast. At night this is bothersome because I feel it more.

Sounds like OA was having anxiety attacks over this case... perhaps even panic attacks. Perhaps anxiety seems like nothing to some people, but it doesn't seem like "nothing" to me, in fact, it's a very serious "something". Just because OA lived to be 78 (not so unusually old) and seemed like a strong woman and not a "delicate flower", it doesn't mean she didn't suffer emotionally (and not necessarily just from the AA case). People can live through a lot, and live for a long time, it doesn't mean they have not been emotionally hurt, and it doesn't mean it will always be very obvious, especially to those who are not especially sensitive to human emotions in general.

True, just because she never died of the stress of the case doesn't mean she wasn't hurt by it. People sue for such mental anguish that affects their physical health that way.  People also too often disregard that Olga had to endure all this in addition to the grief of losing so many close family members in horrific ways. It was bad enough to live with that, but thanks to AA, there was never any peace.

It's just awful how Olga is continually attacked, questioned and her words picked apart and devalued. The only reason behind it I can see is that her denouncement of AA as AN was so damaging to the case, some people wanted to find ways to discredit her even when there is no valid reasoning behind it. The worst part is saying or insinuating she denied her for money, Olga had no money, which is why she had to be a farmer and a 'strong woman' so that's all contradictory to the image of her as the uppity royal turning her back on her 'niece'! It's strange that whatever someone says in support of AA, no matter how vague and unverified, stands as 'fact' while the words of those who opposed her (Olga, Gilliard, Prince Christopher, etc.) are continually criticized.



Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: dmitri on November 10, 2007, 10:35:24 AM
Once again thanks Rob FA. A very good knowledge of a language does much to clarify information. It just goes to show more primary source information that backs everything up and once again demolishes the pathetic attempts made by the fraud AA/FS and her deluded supporters. It's about time the lies stopped and the rubbish about AA/FS was put into the trash bin of history where it well and truly belongs.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 10, 2007, 12:40:50 PM
Helen,

Your remarks are speculative, as are mine. So in the end, who is right? I tend to read yours with more interest than Annie's and Dmitri's because I don't actually think that you are working through some personal issue in this matter, but I still doubt that Olga was having "anxiety" attacks based upon my understanding and reading about her life. I see no evidence for "anguish" at all, especially considering the kind letters that Olga sent Anderson during the period after she met her. I also do think that she struggled with the decision not to recognize her (as did Madame Gilliard) before coming down on the side that Anderson was not her niece. It does not mean that her eventual decision that Anderson was not her niece was wrong, it means that she gave the matter consideration --- which I think speaks highly of her. In the below letter Olga lumps the "Tchaikovski case" among "unpleasant things" that give her palpitations. I'd be interested in knowing what the other unpleasant things were as a basis for comparison. In any event, the matter does not occupy even the bulk of her attention in the letter, which I think is indicative of how important she found it. I did not say that she didn't "suffer emotionally"; I said that given what the woman went through during the course of her life, the Anderson case was probably not high on her list of causes of emotional distress. And while 78 may not be a great age in 2007, it was for a woman born in the 19th century. And though I am not sure if you think I fall into the category of those insensitive to emotions, I can assure you that I am not.

Simon

Dmitri,

Cha-ching. I will be happy to give attention to anything serious you ever post, and do not worry that such a position will heavily mortgage my future time. The "trash bin of history"? "the fraud AA/FS and her deluded supporters"? It's like being stoned to death by someone throwing Marie Corelli novels.
Lighten up, little dude.

Annie,

I am sure that Olga appreciates you riding to her defense, but like Don Quixote, I think you are tilting at windmills. If you knew anything about the Anderson case at all --- which I am sorry, you manifestly do not --- you would know that Olga (and the rest of the family) were able to completely ignore it. Anderson's supporters have never been legion. No one has said, other than you, that she was an "uppity royal". No one "continually criticizes" her, other than some people on this board. And do you know why? Because most people do not care about this issue (AA=FS=ANR) at all.

 I understand that you and Chat Noir have been going at it hammer and tongs, but you are not a mob. You are two people who care a great deal about this case, and that's about the size of it. Everyone involved --- the real girl, Anderson, Jack Manahan, Olga, Ksenia etc. --- has been pushing up the daisies for quite some time. If people still believe that Anderson was Anastasia, well, there you  go. If I might ask a personal question? Do you believe in God? If you do, can you prove there is a God to a non-believer's satisfaction? If you do not, can you demonstrate that there is not to the satisfaction of a believer? That's about the equivalent.

Again, forgive me for being blunt, but the people I know who dislike you, Annie,  do so on the basis of your personality on the various boards (as I assume do the people who dislike me), not because of the positions you hold. It's remarkable how referring to people as "vicious" and "deluded" and "nasty" causes them to harbor ill-will.

Simon












Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 10, 2007, 01:48:56 PM
I see no evidence for "anguish" at all,

This is you drawing your own conclusions based on your own speculation.

Quote
I'd be interested in knowing what the other unpleasant things were as a basis for comparison.

Like the constant pain and sadness of knowing her brothers and nieces and nephew were brutally murdered?

Quote
In any event, the matter does not occupy even the bulk of her attention in the letter,

It was a big mention, and you don't know what else she was feeling that wasn't written.

Quote
the Anderson case was probably not high on her list of causes of emotional distress. And while 78 may not be a great age in 2007, it was for a woman born in the 19th century.

You don't know that it wasn't, and that she wouldn't have lived longer had she not be burdened. The bottom line fact is, you cannot prove Olga was not upset by the case for many years. Common sense even tells us she would be. What is your purpose of saying she wasn't?

Quote
Annie,
 If you knew anything about the Anderson case at all --- which I am sorry, you manifestly do not --- you would know that Olga (and the rest of the family) were able to completely ignore it.

You are most incorrect about my amount of knowledge on the case. Just because I don't quote AA supporters as much as others doesn't mean I'm not fully aware of what they said. You do NOT know Olga was able to ignore the case, contrary evidence shows that she didn't, and you cannot prove it.

Quote
Because most people do not care about this issue (AA=FS=ANR) at all.

Of course, and this is why I refer only to those who do and not the general masses who have not commented.

Quote
I understand that you and Chat Noir have been going at it hammer and tongs, but you are not a mob. You are two people who care a great deal about this case, and that's about the size of it. Everyone involved --- the real girl, Anderson, Jack Manahan, Olga, Ksenia etc. --- has been pushing up the daisies for quite some time. If people still believe that Anderson was Anastasia, well, there you  go.

Then why do YOU care? In what category would you place yourself?

How do you know about Chat and I, has he been carrying tales to the 'other' forum, has he discussed the PM's he used to send me here, or have you been reading my now closed AA forum? Either way, this has nothing to do with this forum or this discussion and is inappropriate here.

Quote
Again, forgive me for being blunt, but the people I know who dislike you, Annie,  do so on the basis of your personality on the various boards (as I assume do the people who dislike me), not because of the positions you hold.

It's remarkable how referring to people as "vicious" and "deluded" and "nasty" causes them to harbor ill-will.

I hope you realize that such things are not said out of the blue for no reason, the person has to prove this over and over again, and have called me quite a few things as well.  If you've been reading the AA forum then I hope you also saw what he said about me and other members. But again, this personal and  other forum business  is completely wrong and out of line and inappropriate to drag onto this forum and I will not be baited any longer.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 10, 2007, 02:10:09 PM
Dear Annie,

As I have said before, I am interested in Anna Anderson because I met her. I did not say that I did not care about the case. My point was that the number of people who do is restricted, so talking about the legions of attacks on Olga is misrepresenting the facts. There just aren't that many people on the ground who give a damn. Nor were there in Olga's lifetime. Large stretches of Anderson's life were spent in relative obscurity; Marcelle Maurette was stunned to find out she was still alive at the time Anastasia was written.

I did visit your website, and I looked at your forum before you took it down. I did not post attacks. I did not post at all. Did you not wish people to visit your website?

You spend, and have spent, a great deal of time railing against the so-called "other forum", and you joined it yourself under an assumed name, so kindly refrain from telling people what is "appropriate" and "inappropriate" to discuss.

I do not treat you the way that I do because of "them", I treat you the way I do because it irritates me that you make my side in the AA case (i.e. that she was Franziska)  look stupid through your relentless inability to argue based upon logic or reason.  Pure and simple. I am also sitting on a number of semi-hysterical private messages from you in which you personally attacked me, and you know it. Did you think that I wouldn't resent these?

There is no more "connection" between me and "them" than there is between me and "Rob" and this board --- actually, less, because while I have never met anyone from the "other board" (really, you should have melodramatic music playing every time you write that), I have met two people from the Alexander Palace Forum. I have exchanged e-mails with Peter Kurth, Penny Wilson and Greg King. I have also exchanged e-mails with Rob Moshein and Helen Azar. You may find this difficult to believe, but it is possible to have an interest in the Romanovs and not get drawn into the internecine feuds on these boards.

Simon

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 10, 2007, 02:21:53 PM
Quote
and you joined it yourself under an assumed name, so kindly refrain from telling people what is "appropriate" and "inappropriate" to discuss.

No, I did not. And yes, it is inappropriate to bring up issues, especially negative ones, from other forums to cause trouble here.


Even Bear would say, the topic of this thread is "AA: A Discussion of Evidence"
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 10, 2007, 02:27:55 PM
You say you did not. And I say you did.

However . . . how about this? You agree to discuss Anna Anderson without making reference to anything but actual evidence. No scenic side trips to discuss how awful Olga felt on this thread --- there is a thread for that, and I am not posting on it --- and no ranting about the supporters' motives. In return I will stop ragging on you. Deal?

Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 10, 2007, 02:31:41 PM


However . . . how about this? You agree to discuss Anna Anderson without making reference to anything but actual evidence. No scenic side trips to discuss how awful Olga felt on this thread --- there is a thread for that, and I am not posting on it --- and no ranting about the supporters' motives. In return I will stop ragging on you. Deal?



The evidence being discussed is the letter written by Olga.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 10, 2007, 02:39:08 PM
Which is evidence of Olga's feelings, not Anna Anderson. You started a thread about her feelings, and in fact have posted it there.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 10, 2007, 03:02:28 PM
Well, in the end none of us will know of course what anyone was feeling or not feeling at the time since we can't read their minds. We can perhaps interpret documents/letters/archives/memoirs in conjuction with common sense, which is what most historians do, but ultimately history is not like hard science or math, and in the end it's all more or less speculation, as it is in this case... We can only come up with reasonable conjecture.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Annie on November 10, 2007, 03:16:13 PM
ultimately history is not like hard science or math, and in the end it's all more or less speculation, as it is in this case...

Unfortunately, there are still those who put hard science in the category of speculation and conjecture; sadly some of these same people will not allow anyone to speculate any deeper on whether or not someone actually knew FS's height, shoe size, etc., that remains a 'fact'... This is why they prefer no discussion not based on something they can't put a Kurth page number to, and do not like anyone delving into the 'maybes' of why it wasn't exactly so, and questioning supporters' motives...that is, unless they choose to question the motives of detractors such as Gilliard, Olga, her biographer, etc....and of course the validity of hard science... then I guess speculating is okay...and so it goes..and here we are....and it's a beautiful day..
Title: Re: Anna Anderson Discussion of Evidence
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 10, 2007, 04:40:36 PM
Annie,

Scientists themselves put "hard science" in the realm of "conjecture" or "best guess", since you never know what might turn up.

Is it necessary to take cracks at Peter Kurth?  If it makes you feel better, sweetheart, I would raise the same concerns about his book The Riddle of Anna Anderson as I did about Vorres' biography of Olga. Peter Kurth is also emotionally involved with his subject --- something he freely admits, by the way --- and so his conclusions should be rigorously examined to make sure they are correct. And there are more conclusions in the book about Anna Anderson than whether she was the Grand Duchess, so while you can disagree with him about that, it doesn't mean he got other things wrong. I didn't dismiss the Olga biography in toto, either. Or James Lovell, or anyone else who wrote about the case. I have corresponded with Shay McNeal, dear, and while I think her conclusions about the survival of the family are wrong, there was some interesting information in the book. And guess what? I was able to speak with her without getting my knickers in a knot. We ended up talking about the possibility of meeting for a glass of wine. Shay, if you're reading this, give me a call.

And no one is stopping you from doing anything at all, Annie. You're all over this forum, from what I can tell. So you should be prepared for people to disagree with you. That is not bullying, and it is certainly not repression.

It is a beautiful day here as well. Try to enjoy it, and stop being so paranoid about the supporters of Anna Anderson.

Simon

Helen,

No, we can't read their minds. We can only read their letters or diaries, and use the brains that God gave us (if there is a God, if not, never mind). But please understand that you do not have a monopoly on "common sense", dear Helen, and it is possible to come to different conlcusions about her emotional state based upon this letter. Since we can never know for sure, how about we call it a draw?

Simon