Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Myth and Legends of Survivors => Topic started by: AGRBear on August 02, 2005, 12:07:44 AM

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: AGRBear on August 02, 2005, 12:07:44 AM
Quote
Post by Michael G.:

« Reply #402 on: Today at 6:22pm »
 Quote  Modify

on Today at 5:07pm, Annie wrote:

>>This has been discussed many times. No it couldn't. This was Martha Jefferson hospital, and unlike UVA med center which was found to have had an accidental baby switch a few years back, has an INFALLIBLE record of accuracy. First, there are no names on the samples, only code numbers, and these correspond to a name in the records accessed only by a few people. No one can just walk in off the street and switch things, they wouldn't even know what was what. And there is security! So unless you are among those who believe Queen Elizabeth paid for the switch, that's out of the question.<<

 
Michael G.'s Ans:  Are you saying there is no possibility of human error
With a hospital, no matter how highly regarded it is,
there is every chance for error, and a mistake in the protocols, etc.
------
 
Quote from Annie:

>>Also, consider that it was the Schweitzers who requested the sample, not some evil anti-AA person. They honestly wanted to know and believed they'd get a positive answer. << 

 
Michael G Answ.: Evil anti-AA person Oh come now Annie, not a person here has said they are anti-AA.  We are just interested in investigating all areas of this mystery.
While the Schweitzer's might not have gotten the answer they want out of the test, they however deserve answers about the reliablity & accuracy & probability of that test.
-----
 
Quote from Annie:
>>And last of all, even IF it was switched, with WHO? Someone would have had to find a member of the Schanskowska family, cut them open and remove exactly the same portion of intestine AA had removed, and sneak it in! That's even less realistic than an invasion from Mars, come on.<<

 
Michael Answ: I can recall no one saying it was actually switched, Pentetorri brought up a possiblity that it could actually be excluded as evidence in a US Court of Law.
-------
 
Quote from Annie:

Michael Answ: And on OJ's DNA evidence being tampered with, the jury did believe it, but that does not mean it was true. The jurors were mostly from neighborhoods that distrusted the LAPD due to the 92 riots and were much more likely than anyone else to accept the tampering theory which was never really proven, only used as a defense.

 
Michael Answ: Let me state that while he "may" have not been innocent of the crimes committed, the LAPD were no better than criminals themselves by contaminating and possibly manufacturing evidence.  If they stoop to this level then they are no better than the criminals they are trying to convict.   They also have STRICT protocols in how evidence was to be gathered, stored, preserved, and documented, they didn't follow the guidelines, which was why the evidence was suspect.  

-----
 
 


End
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 02, 2005, 12:11:22 AM
It's true.  No hospital is infallible and it is reasonable to question whether the hospital that kept AA's intestinal tissue might have erred.

That is step one of a theory that the tissue was the wrong tissue.  But, as Annie has pointed out, the distance between step one and step two is chasmic.

There is NO evidence that anyone switched the tissue.  There is NO evidence that anyone went and obtained tissue containing the S family's mitochondrial dna.  There is NO evidence that anyone with access to both the intestinal tissue and the S family's mitochondrial dna could have exchanged the stuff.

I don't think ANYONE has ventured a claim that a deliberate switch was made.  I cannot even fathom the odds that a negligent switch was made using the S family's mitochondrial dna.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 02, 2005, 12:12:05 AM
(having said the above, I am still not convinced that AA was FS, though I will assume it for the sake of argument only on Annie's thread.)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: AGRBear on August 02, 2005, 12:23:06 AM
Quote
When did Anna M have her surgery?


THE QUEST FOR ANASTASIA by Klier and Mingay p. 205:

"In 1979, when she had been admitted to the Martha Jefferson Hospital in Charlottesville for the operation to remove a gagrenos bowel obstruction and part of her small bowel, samples of her tissue were retained and sent to the hospital laboratory.  In common with other US institutions, the hospital routinely keeps pathology samples from patients to use for comparative study and in case of future lawsuites ...."

Hmmm.  Were AA's intestines ever used for comparative studies?

Farther down the same page.

"Frustratingly for Mandelbaum, his first request to the hospital in connection with the tissue samples held there did not succeed.  He had written in early 1993 to ask for informtion on samples of a faormer patient -- Anna Anderson or Mrs. Jack Manahan.  At the time the hospital was in a chaotic administrave state due to a major refurbishment, and although officals conducted a cursory serch of their files, they did not find any records under either of those names.  Hospital officials claim did not intentionally mislead Mandebaum.  Indeed there was no sample stored in the hospital under either name proposed by Mandelbaum."

I guess it was discovered later that Anna was listed as Anastasia Manahan and the samples were found....

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 02, 2005, 12:35:44 AM
Better question is:  were any tissue samples kept at the hospital which had the same mitochondrial dna as the S family?

(what are the odds?)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: AGRBear on August 02, 2005, 12:42:05 AM
Quote
Better question is:  were any tissue samples kept at the hospital which had the same mitochondrial dna as the S family?

(what are the odds?)


Why would a family, the Schankowskys,  living in Europe have any tissue samples in Charlottesville?

Hmmmmm.  Some relative, a cousin, could have migrated into the area.

Anyone know if their were any families from the area of Posen??? who was a patient of Jefferson Hospital?  Or was a sample for study ever sent to this hospital for study?   This is a REAL stretch but WHAT IF   ::)

Is this another theory that's gone pass the dead end sign  8)

Probably not possible since we have to add to this the name linked to it was Anastasia Manahan.

Well, since  I'm way out here on the end of the plank and looking down at the waters filled with hungry sharks,  I might as well wonder,  was Manahan an unsual name in in or near Charlotesville?

Was there more than one  Anastasia Manahan in the area???

Yuk!  A skunk has just perfumes our downhill side.  Gotta go to the other end of the house.  Talk more tomorrow.....  

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 02, 2005, 12:53:33 AM
Here's an idea.  I am sure that Richard Schweitzer has thought of the same questions we have.

If he doesn't have answers, then may we assume that we are past the dead end sign?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: etonexile on August 02, 2005, 09:46:32 AM
It has been asked on another thread...What are the chances that someone was able to obtain just the matching part of the intestine of a close member of the S family...and then steal the original AA sample and substitute the bogus sample...?....I mean....COME ON NOW.... ::)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Forum Admin on August 02, 2005, 09:52:27 AM
 irst, laboratory samples handled in accordance with established protocols from a hospital with proper credentials and certification (which Martha Jefferson Hospital is and has) are PRESUMED as a matter of LAW to be reliable unless genuine contamination can be proved by evidence. There is no evidence to give rise to even a possible doubt of contamination beyond mere speculation. Further, any attorney with a brain would introduce the fact that that it matched FS exactly as further direct evidence that there was no contamination UNLESS and until you can show by direct evidence that either 1. a direct maternal descendant of FS actually was physically present in the hospital AND actually HANDLED the sample or 2. You have direct physical evidence that someone A. intentionally switched the sample, with B. an exactly corresponding piece of tissue C. FROM a direct maternal descendant of FS D. who had reason and motive to do so and E. actually had the knowledge and expertise to fabricate the sample and F. had actual opportunity to gain entrance into the pathology storage facility at Martha Jefferson Hosptial to make the switch.

Second, Dr. Melton is recognized by the Courts in the US as an expert in the field of forensic DNA testing. She conducted the testing herself and can and would testify under oath that the test results were in fact 100% accurate, and reliable.
Trust me when I tell you that this IS admissible in the courts of both the US and UK and would in fact be accepted by the courts as such.  

If you feel you have genuine evidence to refute this beyond mere speculation then I welcome seeing it.  Legally speaking, the burden of proof to DISPROVE the reliability of evidence presumed by law as reliable is upon the party wishing to challenge the reliability.  Which is in fact the case here.

I am sorry if you feel that the statement by someone far more schooled and experienced in DNA sequencing and analysis than either you or I, or frankly anyone else posting here, which says essentially that "Science has proven that test so reliable that to question IT is like questioning whether the earth is round" to be insulting.  I for one simply accepted it as the statement of the opinion by an expert in the field about the question.  I offer my apology if anyone here finds the expert's opinion insulting to their beliefs.

FA
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: lexi4 on August 02, 2005, 01:04:29 PM
Just curious, why to we have this same conversation going on on two threads???
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 02, 2005, 01:09:43 PM
Because.  <sheesh!>
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: lexi4 on August 02, 2005, 01:13:17 PM
Because why Finelly
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: AGRBear on August 02, 2005, 01:31:04 PM
BECAUSE some silly bear thought we should give this topic it's own thread.

So back to the other thread.  No need to post here anymore.

THE END

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: lexi4 on August 02, 2005, 01:42:58 PM
Quote
BECAUSE some silly bear thought we should give this topic it's own thread.

So back to the other thread.  No need to post here anymore.

THE END


Would that be a wooly bear?  ;)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: lexi4 on August 02, 2005, 07:21:12 PM
I am sitting on a jury that is to decided whether the tissue, used to test the DNA of AA was contaminated. All 11 jurors are convinced that it was in fact contaminated. I am the only hold out. So have at it, convince me I am wrong. Before I get based, I am not saying that this is my belief or opinion. This is just for discussion. Please present evidence.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: etonexile on August 02, 2005, 07:43:02 PM
Aren't we stretching this intestine matter a bit far.... ???
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: lexi4 on August 02, 2005, 07:58:20 PM
Quote
Aren't we stretching this intestine matter a bit far.... ???

roflmao! ;D
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on August 02, 2005, 07:59:23 PM
Quote
Aren't we stretching this intestine matter a bit far.... ???


Now, now! Where's you're intestinal fortitude? You're British, for gosh sake.

Actually we can stretch the intestine matter about 20 feet.  ;D But it would use up way too many bits on this site.


Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: lexi4 on August 02, 2005, 08:01:18 PM
Quote

Now, now! Where's you're intestinal fortitude? You're British, for gosh sake.

Actually we can stretch the intestine matter about 20 feet.  ;D But it would use up way too many bits on this site.



I don't know if I could stomach 20 feet of this IM.  ;)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: AGRBear on August 02, 2005, 08:52:24 PM
Before you could even start to wonder if the intestines were  contaminated,  I think you'd have to go into the questions as to if it was possible that anyone who was unauthorized  could get to the specimen.

Quote
AA's intestines specimens and questions that may surround them.


THE QUEST FOR ANASTASIA by John Klier and Mingay wrote on p. 225 about Martha Jefferson Hospital in Charlottesville where the specimens of AA was stored, found and later sent out to be tested for DNA / mtDNA:

"Was tampering possible?  The Martha Jefferson Hospital in Charlottesville has been storing specimens from patients since 1978, when it opened a pathology department.  The basement department was relatively easy to enter, according to visitors.  When the Manahan biopsy became the subject of such intense interest, the hospital authorites moved it to a safer place for storage, suggesting some concern by the hospital managment that the existing site was not secure."


At this point in the thread this is not about the matching of mtDNA with samples from Karl Maucher or Marg. Ellerick.    This is just about the possibility of someone  [matters not who] could have tampered with this evidence which is so important in proving AA was not GD Anatasia.

Let me add:  This is not a thread which has any purpose of condeming the hospital, it's staff, it's doctors or anyone responsible for the safe keeping of the specimen.  From reliable sources, I understand the hospital has an excellent reputation.

So let the discussion begin.

AGRBear


Quote

THE QUEST FOR ANASTASIA by Klier and Mingay p. 205:

"In 1979, when she had been admitted to the Martha Jefferson Hospital in Charlottesville for the operation to remove a gagrenos bowel obstruction and part of her small bowel, samples of her tissue were retained and sent to the hospital laboratory.  In common with other US institutions, the hospital routinely keeps pathology samples from patients to use for comparative study and in case of future lawsuites ...."

Hmmm.  Were AA's intestines ever used for comparative studies?

Farther down the same page.

"Frustratingly for Mandelbaum, his first request to the hospital in connection with the tissue samples held there did not succeed.  He had written in early 1993 to ask for informtion on samples of a faormer patient -- Anna Anderson or Mrs. Jack Manahan.  At the time the hospital was in a chaotic administrative state due to a major refurbishment, and although officals conducted a curtosy search of their files, they did not find any records under either of those names.  Hospital officials claim did not intentionally mislead Mandebaum.  Indeed there was no sample stored in the hospital under either name proposed by Mandelbaum."

I guess it was discovered later that Anna was listed as Anastasia Manahan and the samples were found....

AGRBear


It's not so much that the samples couldn't be found, it's the fact that once the hospital understood the importance of the samples that they moved them to a more secure area which jumps out at me.

Evidently it had been possible so what is the next step?

If the specimen was contaminated,  what would have caused contamination which would produce the results needed to show the intestines were a match to Karl Maucher and Marg. Ellerik.  

I assume it would have had to be done before the specimens went out to be tested by the various labs.


AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 02, 2005, 09:12:39 PM
We must also consider whether the contamination was deliberate or negligent.

If deliberate, why then motive and opportunity come in to play.

lexi - are you assuming it would be a negligent or deliberate contamination we are going to discuss, 'cause as a former lawyer, I'd have different approaches...
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 02, 2005, 09:13:54 PM
If we stretch the intestine issue too far, we could end up with sausages, which would bring us back 'round to Grossman.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on August 02, 2005, 09:20:41 PM
This is a subject which coils itself like a serpent.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 02, 2005, 09:30:02 PM
Ah, the twists and turns.....
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Margarita Markovna on August 02, 2005, 09:31:16 PM
Whuy.  ::)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: lexi4 on August 02, 2005, 10:02:09 PM
deliberate, that would be more fun. Can we move some of the posts about this from the question's thread (annie's) to here?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on August 02, 2005, 10:13:25 PM
Deliberate....willful. Yep, let's go with that.

Most people are not of a criminal mind. They are trusting and they aren't conspirators.

We have a great hospital humming at top preformance most likely with the finest minds housed under one roof.Not thinking about anything criminal but maybe the next cure for cancer.

So how secure was the system? I have had to overhaul my security in my business and write manuals to prove I did it over the last 3 years to abide by the laws. Frankly before this became a national issue of privacy, I just never considered anything but the cash on hand. Now we have identity theft.

So first we have to consider how someone could get access to computer files and then into the actually storage facility.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: AGRBear on August 02, 2005, 10:22:37 PM
Criminal intent.  Oh goodie, said bear rubbing her paws togather.  This is gonna be fun.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: lexi4 on August 02, 2005, 10:29:48 PM
Quote
Criminal intent.  Oh goodie, said bear rubbing her paws togather.  This is gonna be fun.

AGRBear

I think so too.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: lexi4 on August 02, 2005, 10:31:54 PM
It will all come out in the end.  8)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on August 02, 2005, 10:45:45 PM
Access into computer files.....easy according to my geek computer son whose education I paid for willingly.

It just depends on how much you put profit first and compare it to jail time. And how you understand limits and covering your tracks.

Subjective yes...but fun.

No system is totally secure. And it is getting worse instead of better. The first day my son came to work for me, he pointed out 3 programs that we needed to communicate and fix  problems that put me at risk. No solution.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Richard_Schweitzer on August 02, 2005, 11:12:12 PM

There are some other issues related to what has been raised here. I may try to come back to them when time permits.

But, I for one, have never used the term "contaminated" (which I think is a technical state in Lab parlance). What I query is whether the sample might have been "compromised."

This was "Bloc" tissue, not slides. It was foralin-fixed, but, I don't think there was any way to date the fix.

Unfortunately the pathologist who did the original work died soon after (age 37 I think).

Penny Jenkins, who was in charge of Histology records when Willi Korte "found" the sample's location, was quite ceratin it had never been "missing."
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 02, 2005, 11:24:13 PM
Fact:  The hospital in Virginia housed the actual intestinal tissue of AA.  It did not contain any of the other tissue/samples that were tested in this case. (Prince Phillip's blood, Gertrude's blood, etc)

Fact:  The place Dr. Gill worked eventually had all of the samples that were tested.  AA's intestinal tissue, Gertrude's blood, the Romanov bones, etc.

Now, the issue with AA is that we have two dna results.  First, the result of her dna compared to the Romanov dna.  The result is that she is not a Romanov.  Second, the result of her dna compared to the Schw family.  The result is that she shares mitochondrial dna with them.

If AA's tissue was merely contaminated, it wouldn't have shown both results.  Just not likely or really even possible.

But, if AA's tissue was somehow mixed with or contaminated with the Schw family tissue, why then we'd have something like th results we got.  She was not a Romanov.  She was related to the Schw family.

(Let me also say that if the tissue was NOT contaminated, we'd also have the above result.  She tested as not a Romanov, and as a matriarchal relative of the Schw family)

The mix/contamination with the Schw family tissue could not have happened at the Virginia hospital.  (Unless someone went in and did it deliberately, and would they have had the access/opportunity?)

Where could it have happened?  Why, at the facility where ALL of the dna samples were located, of course.  Gill's facility.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 02, 2005, 11:32:15 PM
As I've said on other threads, the likelihood is far greater that the tissue was "compromised" at Gill's place.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: etonexile on August 03, 2005, 10:05:50 AM
Quote
It will all come out in the end.  8)


Let's not go there... ;D
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Annie on August 03, 2005, 11:02:48 AM
Quote
It will all come out in the end.  8)



It already has.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: lexi4 on August 03, 2005, 11:07:07 AM
Annie,
I was not being serious with my comment. Merely teasing in response to other posts throughout the thread.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: AGRBear on August 03, 2005, 05:34:19 PM
Unfortunately for Richard S., who is making a serious post, this thread has gotten silly in it's comments about bowels.

Quote
There are some other issues related to what has been raised here. I may try to come back to them when time permits.

But, I for one, have never used the term "contaminated" (which I think is a technical state in Lab parlance). What I query is whether the sample might have been "compromised."

This was "Bloc" tissue, not slides. It was foralin-fixed, but, I don't think there was any way to date the fix.

Unfortunately the pathologist who did the original work died soon after (age 37 I think).

Penny Jenkins, who was in charge of Histology records when Willi Korte "found" the sample's location, was quite ceratin it had never been "missing."


Think I'll take it over to another thread so his post can be discussed without the jokes about bowels and such.

Quote
follow this thread to new thread


AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: AGRBear on August 03, 2005, 05:47:06 PM
I think this is getting lost among some silliness over on another thread so I thought to bring it over here.

Quote
There are some other issues related to what has been raised here. I may try to come back to them when time permits.

But, I for one, have never used the term "contaminated" (which I think is a technical state in Lab parlance). What I query is whether the sample might have been "compromised."

This was "Bloc" tissue, not slides. It was foralin-fixed, but, I don't think there was any way to date the fix.

Unfortunately the pathologist who did the original work died soon after (age 37 I think).

Penny Jenkins, who was in charge of Histology records when Willi Korte "found" the sample's location, was quite ceratin it had never been "missing."
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 03, 2005, 06:11:05 PM
That helps to confirm my theory that no mixup would have occurred at the hospital......
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: AGRBear on August 03, 2005, 07:38:46 PM
Quote
That helps to confirm my theory that no mixup would have occurred at the hospital......


Because someone thinks it's never been missing?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 03, 2005, 08:33:15 PM
Yes.  As I said, it partly confirms my theory.

Really hard to imagine someone bringing Schw. family dna tissue to a hospital in Virginia and then gaining access to the AA tissue (which, as you will recall, nobody knew about for the longest time) and contaminating it.............
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 03, 2005, 09:56:49 PM
http://www.freewarehof.org/manahans.html

You have to scroll down towards the end to get to the pertinent part about the tissue, the labs, the dna.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: lexi4 on August 03, 2005, 11:06:32 PM
Who is Althea Hurt and why would she be an heir? (This question comes after reading the link Finelly found.)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 03, 2005, 11:09:18 PM
Quote
Who is Althea Hurt and why would she be an heir? (This question comes after reading the link Finelly found.)


She was the second(?) wife of John Manahan and is his widow.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: lexi4 on August 03, 2005, 11:35:20 PM
That would hardly qualify her has an heir as the thread Finelly posted suggests.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 03, 2005, 11:38:10 PM
Oh, yes it would, Lexi.

She inherited John Manahan's entire estate, including the community property of his marriage to AA.  If AA was proven to be a Romanov GD, Althea would have been the one to get the riches, the licenses to any publicity or books, etc.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: lexi4 on August 03, 2005, 11:39:07 PM
Thank you Finelly. I stand corrected.  :)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Forum Admin on August 04, 2005, 09:21:18 AM
Just so you understand the implication of "block tissue" foralin fixed.  It is a solid block of the tissue. preserved in Foralin. A sample would be snipped off and sent to the individual labs for sampling. THIS is the ONLY single possible place that alleged contamination might have occurred. The only way is if Gill used the same tools to handle the Sch. dna as the AA dna, or had physically touched the Sch. sample before handling the AA sample. NOW, don't forget one thing. The AA sample was the one tested FIRST. They did not test the Sch. sample until afterwards, so the likelihood Gill had handled the Sch. sample immediately prior to the AA sample is probably very small.

Carry on.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: AGRBear on August 04, 2005, 09:59:01 AM
Remember,  this thread has added to the mix that there was criminal intent so we're suggesting IN THIS THREAD a "bad person/persons" , so before we start naming names and end up in some legal mess,  why don't we label her/him/they  "the culprits with a motive", who can have been anyone one from the KGB to some crazy person ......

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 10:15:26 AM
FA - actually, another way for the samples to have been contaminated would have been that a nefarious outsider broke in and did it.

I would eat my sox if Gill did anything negligent.

(Again, we have no evidence, no evidence, this is all speculation)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: etonexile on August 04, 2005, 10:21:08 AM
Some will remember that it's just speculation.....
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Forum Admin on August 04, 2005, 12:26:49 PM
Well Finelly, the "nefarious" culprit is a 'possibility', but again, ANY speculation along that lines must answer the specific questions of
A. Actual opportunity to enter Gill's lab.
B. Motive
C. Actual ABILITY to obtain the Sch. sample
D. Make the contamination possible unnoticed and undetected.
E. Actual opportunity to do D.

and assess PROBABILITIES to each step.

I wholly concur that even accidental contamination on the part of Dr. Gill himself is virtually impossible and I'd eat more than socks....

FA
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 12:33:24 PM
FA - yep, yep, yep, and again yep.

And to date, I have heard of NOTHING, not one jot of evidence to support any of those requirements.

And although it's an interesting line of questioning to pursue, I have to assume that Schweitzer, among others, would be providing hints if any evidence existed.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: AGRBear on August 04, 2005, 12:33:43 PM
In this thread we have the "culprits" who have the criminal intent and thinking in these terms,  contamination was possible.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 12:34:53 PM
There certainly was motive.  
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Kimberly on August 04, 2005, 12:38:27 PM
Am I a total lame brain... but why contaminate it and why contaminate it with Schanzkowska material.(I usually just lurk here and don't come out of the woodwork) ;)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Annie on August 04, 2005, 12:39:38 PM
Quote
There certainly was motive.  


What could the motive possibly be? After all these years, and now that we know there is no money? And really, who even cares, except us?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Annie on August 04, 2005, 12:41:05 PM
Quote
Am I a total lame brain... but why contaminate it and why contaminate it with Schanzkowska material.(I usually just lurk here and don't come out of the woodwork) ;)



Well I'm glad you did, I was wondering how all this looked to an innocent bystander. Yes, it does not seem realistic that it could be switched or contaminated, and even if it was, with material from the Schankowskas?? Like I said, you'd have had to find a family member, cut them open and take out exactly the same slice of intestines to do a swap. That is impossible.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 12:49:42 PM
1.  Plenty of people had a motive.  Not for money, necessarily.  But wouldn't it be horrible after years of discrediting her, to have been wrong?  What would people THINK about the royals who did that to poor dear AN?

2.  No need to get tissue itself to contaminate the dna in the lab.  Can use any dna - blood, etc.    No need to actually contaminate the tissue, either.  Can just switch it out.

Now, just so I won't be continually accused of believing in this theory, let me repeat that this is all conjecture.  Not one whit of evidence, not one whiff of odor of verity at this point.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Annie on August 04, 2005, 12:53:59 PM
Quote
1.  Plenty of people had a motive.  Not for money, necessarily.  But wouldn't it be horrible after years of discrediting her, to have been wrong?  What would people THINK about the royals who did that to poor dear AN?


I really don't think so, but even if they would be embarrassed, it would not be worth risking criminal activity for! The things you are suggesting are against the law, and could land a lot of people in jail.

Quote
2.  No need to get tissue itself to contaminate the dna in the lab.  Can use any dna - blood, etc.    No need to actually contaminate the tissue, either.  Can just switch it out.


Switch it out? There is no way to switch out the intestines without cutting open a Schankowska family member and finding exactly the same tiny piece of intestine AA had removed. No, you can't just sprinkly blood on it (assuming you got this blood by cutting a Schanskowska family member) because they tested the tissue itself, they would not be fooled by fresh blood on it, and they'd wonder where the blood came from! Scientists are not that stupid!


Who is it you are accusing of doing all this, or even wanting to?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 04, 2005, 01:10:03 PM
Quote
1.  Plenty of people had a motive.  Not for money, necessarily.  But wouldn't it be horrible after years of discrediting her, to have been wrong?  What would people THINK about the royals who did that to poor dear AN?

2.  No need to get tissue itself to contaminate the dna in the lab.  Can use any dna - blood, etc.    No need to actually contaminate the tissue, either.  Can just switch it out.


Seriously, Finelly. Do you think that the current Royal Family of England has a shame-feeling bone left in their bodies? To say nothing of the fact that the accusation of abandoning the Romanovs has been levelled at them for years, and is now widely accepted.

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Forum Admin on August 04, 2005, 01:19:13 PM
Quote
1.  2.  No need to get tissue itself to contaminate the dna in the lab.  Can use any dna - blood, etc.    No need to actually contaminate the tissue, either.  Can just switch it out.


Actually, Simon and Finelly, your statement is incorrect. We have the test result which shows 99% match to Schw. family. This result is 100% impossible UNLESS the Schw family DNA was the contaminate. "Just any dna" could NEVER have produced that result. This point is without any doubt.

"just any dna" would have necesarily resulted specifically in a non-match to both the Hesse line and the Schw. family.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Kimberly on August 04, 2005, 01:45:31 PM
the piece of intestine "they" were going to swap would also have to have had a good old soak in Foralin too.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Kimberly on August 04, 2005, 01:47:14 PM
If there is no money, what would "they" gain from this piece of work?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: lexi4 on August 04, 2005, 02:25:19 PM
Quote
I am sitting on a jury that is to decided whether the tissue, used to test the DNA of AA was contaminated. All 11 jurors are convinced that it was in fact contaminated. I am the only hold out. So have at it, convince me I am wrong. Before I get based, I am not saying that this is my belief or opinion. This is just for discussion. Please present evidence.

Back to topic please
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: AGRBear on August 04, 2005, 02:26:48 PM
How would I,  if I was thinking about being the "culprit"make the specimen, the intestines, match Karl Maucher and Marg. Ellerik's DNA/mtDNA before Dr. Gill or anyone else got a piece of it to test?

This needs to be addressed, I think, by all sides, because if this was possible then then we can go to other subjects on this topic.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 04, 2005, 02:27:50 PM
Quote

Actually, Simon and Finelly, your statement is incorrect. We have the test result which shows 99% match to Schw. family. This result is 100% impossible UNLESS the Schw family DNA was the contaminate. "Just any dna" could NEVER have produced that result. This point is without any doubt.

"just any dna" would have necesarily resulted specifically in a non-match to both the Hesse line and the Schw. family.


I agree. Just for the record, I didn't say that. I ineptly attempted to c&p something Finelley had said.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 04, 2005, 02:41:33 PM
Annnnnnnnnnnd . . .back to topic.

The statement has been made that "plenty of people had a motive" to contaminate the evidence. One of the first questions that would be asked in a court of law is cui bono? Who benefits?

The contamination, if there was one, would have had to be done in the late 1980s. As I said in the above post, it would be incredible if the Brit royals were involved. They had already been blamed for the deaths of the family through George V's refusal to consider asylum.

There is no money.

Manahan left no blood heirs, so there was no potential challenge to the Grand Duke Georgiy claim (::pauses for a moment to enjoy the fantasy of Helen and Georgiy breaking into Martha Jeff Hospital::)

So who benefits?

People seem to make a great deal of the reference to moving the sample to more secure quarters. But isn't that just common sense, to prevent being challenged about contamination, once it became apparent that DNA testing could be used?

As others have pointed out, we are not talking about someone sprinkling a sample with fresh DNA or anything. The sample in Martha Jeff first proved that she wasn't related to Alexandra. After that, what would be the point of faking evidence that she was a Schanzkowska? Her specific claim to be Anastasia Nikolaevna was dismissed.

But I would be interested in a list of those who would have had motive to tamper with the evidence in the first place. I should think it equally as likely that some of her die-hard supporters would have attempted to 'cook' things so that the sample proved she was Romanov. At any rate, before getting into the mechanics of how one would have danced through the Martha Jeff beauracracy --- I mean, come on, moving it to a more secure place doesn't mean that the tissue was lying around the hospital cafeteria before that --- and contaminated it, I still would like to know who would have done it.

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 03:11:06 PM
When I said "Just any dna" I didn't mean "just anyONE's" dna.  Clearly it would have to be Schw dna.

Oh, I don't know, Louis Charles, about whether the royal family of England has shame.  But Mountbatten was pretty much frothing at the mouth over AA, and so was Kyrill, and I'm sure there were others.

Interesting sideline:  Tikhon, the son of Olga N, refused to submit his dna for comparison because he thought the entire bones in the forest thing was a kgb plot and all fake.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Annie on August 04, 2005, 03:40:13 PM
Quote

Interesting sideline:  Tikhon, the son of Olga N, refused to submit his dna for comparison because he thought the entire bones in the forest thing was a kgb plot and all fake.


First, he was Olga A's son, Olga N. sadly died in Ekaterinburg. Second, I never heard he was even asked, he would only be a possible mtDNA match for Nicholas, not Alexandra or the girls. I've never heard the 'fake' story.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 03:45:51 PM
Right, he was asked because of Nicky's dna.  And it's in The Fate of the Romanovs and also, I think, in Massie's book.  Or else The Quest for Anastasia, I can't remember which and I'm too lazy to go look.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: AGRBear on August 04, 2005, 04:23:13 PM
While the rest of you are thinking about motives,  I'm trying to discover if it was possible to find the intestines, contaiminate it so the DNA/mtDNA would match Gertrude's des., before Dr. Gill and the others made their tests.

So,  I'm back on the first stepping stone and  I'm still not sure about these two questions.

So,  does the culprit submerge the intestines into blood of Gertrude or one her female children's or what in order to get the DNA/mtDNA to match Karl's and Marg.'s????

I think we have plenty of different people who had motives, including some old high offical in Russia.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 04:26:14 PM
Bear - I am assuming that at some point in the process of getting dna from tissue, the "tissue" is no longer there.....so one could just substitute in the dna of the SCH family.

If at some point, everything is on slides, or in a test tube, or whatever, it would be fairly simple, IF one could get into the lab, etc etc etc

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Forum Admin on August 04, 2005, 05:01:31 PM
Finelly,
Actually what happens is this. The tissue is dissolved chemically to extract the mtDNA itself.  Then a specific reagent is added to the original sample to amplify the existing DNA. Simply put, it causes the DNA to exactly replicate itself over and over to create a larger sample to test.

This amplified DNA is then injected into a special gel and subjected to a weak current and the DNA then becomes sequenced in the gel.

Essentially, there are ony two ways to get the "contaminated result". 1 is that the original sample tested was contaminated OR someone else sneaked in and removed the original amplified sample in the gel and then substituted a forged exact duplicate.

Frankly, the only even remotely possible alternative is the first, that the original sample had been somehow tampered with.  The way the block of tissue was stored in  formalin makes Bears idea mostly moot. In order for that sample to achieve the same results across four labs the ENTIRE sample of tissue would have had to from Sch. family as no one could know exactly what part of the sample would be snipped for testing. You can't just dump "blood" or other tissue into a solid block sample encased in formalin and expect the whole thing to become "contaminated".
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 05:45:47 PM
Essentially, there are ony two ways to get the "contaminated result". 1 is that the original sample tested was contaminated OR someone else sneaked in and removed the original amplified sample in the gel and then substituted a forged exact duplicate.

Frankly, the only even remotely possible alternative is the first, that the original sample had been somehow tampered with


WHy?  Can you explain this to me, remembering (even if you didn't know it) that I took "Plants and Society" to fulfil my college science requirement, because it had open-book tests?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Forum Admin on August 04, 2005, 06:18:22 PM
In order for the second possilbility to happen, the "culprit" would have had to know the exact day the sequencing would be done, and would have first have had to prepare a Sch. family dna sample, amplified it in exactly the same technique as Gill and created a new duplicate gel for the sequencing then gained access to the lab and switched the gels. Now remember this one IMPORTANT fact: The very first time forensic mtDNA sequencing and amplification for analysis was ever done was......(drumroll) THIS VERY TEST. No one had EVER done it before, so the "culprit" would have had to know exactly HOW Gill intended the testing to be done in advance, something nearly impossible, since it had never been published before.  The only possible culprits would out of necessity be part of the Gill team. So, start speculating away. Its a short list.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 06:22:39 PM
Righto.  So the kgb, or Romanov cabal, or whomever, would have had to have previously infiltrated VERY deeply with someone well-versed in dna sequencing and the procedures used, and I assume that there were very few people in the world who would be like that plus have access plus be willing to do it.

But still.......we are merely speculating.  However far-fetched or close-fetched (that's a scientific term <g>), we have absolutely no evidence of anything like this, but are still speculating nonetheless, because it's FUN.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: lexi4 on August 04, 2005, 07:26:05 PM
So, it seems that it would have virtually been impossible to switch the tissue. It went from Martha J. hospital directly to the Gill team.
FA, I did now know that was the first time this type of testing had been done. Thank you for the information. From the gest of the posts so far, it seems that we are ruling  out any possibility that AA tissue sampe was contaminated/compromised.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 07:34:35 PM
WHAT?

No we haven't.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: lexi4 on August 04, 2005, 08:22:07 PM
Ok. We haven't. Let's keep going.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 08:23:56 PM
<whew!>

Geez, lexi, haven't you seen the James Bond films?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: lexi4 on August 04, 2005, 08:24:52 PM
Oh yeah, I forgot about him.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on August 04, 2005, 08:45:29 PM
 Here's one I've wondered about. AA was often hospitalized. She was even institutionalized right before her death over the best efforts of her friends. She probably was not of sound mind given her age and generally state of health.

What's the first thing they do in hospitals when you are admitted? Usually draw blood.

What bothered me about the slide sent to Dr Ginter was that he also received broken pieces of a metal dish?(something like that too tired to go back) This had to be saved only because she was AA.

In all the time she was ill there was but one tissue sample, one slide and maybe some hair.

What was to stop someone from walking in to an old woman's nursing home room and drawing blood?

If there was a conspiracy against this woman, it would have been fairly easy to find out if she was the czar's daughter.

Just having some fun which is what I believe this thread is about.

Now that would make Ian Fleming write a book. ::)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 08:55:58 PM
True, true.  Although dna testing wasn't really done until recently..........
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on August 04, 2005, 09:10:19 PM
Geez Finelly, haven't you ever watched the X files.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 09:17:24 PM
You're right......you're right.......

lolol
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: lexi4 on August 04, 2005, 09:24:41 PM
Inquiring Mind makes a good point. How many samples of blood must there have been for her. I don't know the protocal for storing blood, I doubt they  did that.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 04, 2005, 10:07:25 PM
Quote
When I said "Just any dna" I didn't mean "just anyONE's" dna.  Clearly it would have to be Schw dna.

Oh, I don't know, Louis Charles, about whether the royal family of England has shame.  But Mountbatten was pretty much frothing at the mouth over AA, and so was Kyrill, and I'm sure there were others.

Interesting sideline:  Tikhon, the son of Olga N, refused to submit his dna for comparison because he thought the entire bones in the forest thing was a kgb plot and all fake.



Mountbatten was dead before DNA testing was available, so unless he had remarkable foresight . . .ditto for Kyrill. "I'm sure there were others." Well, these would be?

I think that FA's explanation as to how this test worked --- and I am so with you, Finelly, on the "Plants Are Our Friends" course in college --- pretty much rules out the possibility of contamination.

I really do think that before we run off with the assumption that a test which was first used for this sample was somehow compromised --- and everything that FA posted pretty much rules it out --- then my answer to the original thread question would have to be "no".
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 11:15:21 PM
Oh, definately.  The possibility is remote.  The actuality is ridiculous given that nobody in the inner circle of original AA supporters has ventured to present any evidence.

But it's still fun to think about.  
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: AGRBear on August 05, 2005, 04:19:45 PM
Okay,  I am a desperate culprit, and, I don't know anyone in the Gill group in his lab,  and,  I have blood drawn from Marg. Ellrick which she donated for the Red Cross blood bank [no real evidence of this, of course, but just a thought/speculation....].  Before Dr. Gill received any samples,  could this blood be used to soak the intestines before anyone finds it [it was lost for a time/ hospital staff couldn't find it/ looking for it under the wrong label] ?  I assume the answer to this is yes.   And, this soaking would have done what?  Contaiminated the entire chuck of intestines or would it have ended up like the glass side Dr. Ginther tested which showed hints of other DNA [I think that is what it was]?  Or would he have replaced the old with the fresh  blood and thus making it impossible for anyone to realize the original DNA had been eliminated?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 05, 2005, 04:22:34 PM
There is a certain Rube Goldberg element to this discussion, isn't there? :)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: AGRBear on August 05, 2005, 04:42:04 PM
I think Rube graduated from CAL and if you could see my new hat, which  I bought yesterday  at the PEP rally for our football team,  then you'd know my opinion.   ;D  

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Kimberly on August 05, 2005, 04:47:12 PM
But if they contaminated the intestine with blood, it would have to have a different DNA match to the intestine cos thats the whole point of the exercise. So wouldn't the resulting DNA be extremely bizarre?The intestine would surely not absorb the "foreign" blood, so wouldn't you have two sets of DNA?
1) DNA of intestinal origin and 2) of contaminate origin. ???
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 05, 2005, 04:54:05 PM
Seriously, the general feeling is that Gill had nothing to do with any possible 'contamination', right? So we are proposing that someone --- and for the umpteenth time, I will settle for one credible named candidate here --- sneaked into the holding area, performed a contamination of the tissue to prevent it being examined by a technique which was first used on this tissue, and then sneaked out (presumably cackling at his cleverness, you have no idea how much, how very, very much I want this to have been Grand Duke George), and only now we are realizing how nefarious this was?

I was wrong. Not Rube. Harry, as in Houdini.

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Kimberly on August 05, 2005, 04:56:57 PM
Obi Wan Kenobi  ;D
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 05, 2005, 05:51:02 PM
I was wrong. Not Rube. Harry, as in Houdini.

Or.........Potter.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 05, 2005, 06:25:57 PM
 ;D
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Annie on August 05, 2005, 06:54:56 PM
<----I have already confessed, I told you,  it was me!  ;D
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 05, 2005, 06:57:28 PM
Annie - as we have REPEATEDLY told you, nobody will believe you until and unless you provide a source for your confession.  <g>  Or photos.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Annie on August 05, 2005, 07:21:28 PM
Quote
Annie - as we have REPEATEDLY told you, nobody will believe you until and unless you provide a source for your confession.  <g>  Or photos.


Sigh, but I did it, I was there, I remember it all! I just don't have it recorded! :P : :-/ ;)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: AGRBear on August 05, 2005, 08:02:47 PM
So, how did you  contiminate the intestines so the test test would match the DNA/mtDNA of  Karl Maucher and Marg. Ellerik?

[sigh]

Tell me,  tell me, tell me .....   ::)

OH DEAR!

You don't know, do you???

Can't fool this old bear  ;D

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 05, 2005, 08:11:21 PM
Sigh, but I did it, I was there, I remember it all! I just don't have it recorded!  :  

What a load of crap.  You'd at least have brough back some souvenirs......a test tube......a petri dish.......a "Peter Gill Laboratory" visor.....
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on August 05, 2005, 08:30:09 PM
Quote
Sigh, but I did it, I was there, I remember it all! I just don't have it recorded!  :  

What a load of crap.  You'd at least have brough back some souvenirs......a test tube......a petri dish.......a "Peter Gill Laboratory" visor.....


Finelly,  there wasn't any Ebay back then. No need to compromise one's self.

( Listed now, Space Shuttle repair kit...Crazy glue, duct tape and a tile.)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 05, 2005, 08:38:24 PM
Ok, no ebay.

But do you really, truly think Annie did it?  I mean, look at the woman.  She sits around on a computer all day, posting about ......oh........wait.......yeah, she had motive.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Annie on August 06, 2005, 06:48:00 AM
Quote
Ok, no ebay.

But do you really, truly think Annie did it?  I mean, look at the woman.  She sits around on a computer all day, posting about ......oh........wait.......yeah, she had motive.


Apparently, I am not alone! :D
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: AGRBear on August 06, 2005, 10:40:00 AM
Quote
....[in part]...

I spoke earlier today (on an unrelated matter) with the head of a large and well respected DNA lab, that does DNA sequencing.  The man, a well respected biologist in the field, was kind enough to answer some questions about the AA testing for me.  Basically, he said this: The testing done on the AA samples is 100% accurate. Nothing today is at all different than then. The only difference is the work is done by special machine, instead of by hand. (This dittos what Dr. Melton said). There is virtually no possiblility that the AA sample was "contaminated". We then discussed the theories put forward about contamination, switching samples, conspiracy etc. He laughed.
....



Quote

...[in part]....


....First, laboratory samples handled in accordance with established protocols from a hospital with proper credentials and certification (which Martha Jefferson Hospital is and has) are PRESUMED as a matter of LAW to be reliable unless genuine contamination can be proved by evidence. There is no evidence to give rise to even a possible doubt of contamination beyond mere speculation. Further, any attorney with a brain would introduce the fact that that it matched FS exactly as further direct evidence that there was no contamination UNLESS and until you can show by direct evidence that either 1. a direct maternal descendant of FS actually was physically present in the hospital AND actually HANDLED the sample or 2. You have direct physical evidence that someone A. intentionally switched the sample, with B. an exactly corresponding piece of tissue C. FROM a direct maternal descendant of FS D. who had reason and motive to do so and E. actually had the knowledge and expertise to fabricate the sample and F. had actual opportunity to gain entrance into the pathology storage facility at Martha Jefferson Hosptial to make the switch.

Second, Dr. Melton is recognized by the Courts in the US as an expert in the field of forensic DNA testing. She conducted the testing herself and can and would testify under oath that the test results were in fact 100% accurate, and reliable.
Trust me when I tell you that this IS admissible in the courts of both the US and UK and would in fact be accepted by the courts as such.

If you feel you have genuine evidence to refute this beyond mere speculation then I welcome seeing it.  Legally speaking, the burden of proof to DISPROVE the reliability of evidence presumed by law as reliable is upon the party wishing to challenge the reliability.  Which is in fact the case here.

...

FA


So,  if our culprit accomplished the contamination before it ever reached Dr. Gill,  what would he have have needed to do to the intestines so no one would suspect the original DNA/mtDNA did not match the Romanovs but matched Karl Maucher and Marg. Ellerik's DNA/ mtDNA???

We understand that some of you think this didn't occur, however,  if it did,  I'd like to know how and what the culprit had to do it.

Remember, this is a  culprit who's motive is serious and he's desperate to make sure the real DNA isn't discovered.


AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 06, 2005, 10:50:48 AM
In a Mission Impossible moment, perhaps on the airplane to England, someone would have had to have removed the tissue sample in its formalin-encased state and replaced it with tissue from a Schw member's tissue, in identical formalin storage.

Perhaps one of us should take a trip over to Poland and Germany and demand that every single known member of the Schw family lift up their shirts so that we can see if they have a scar near their intestines.........I would volunteer, but I have to wash my hair that day......

I still think it is more feasible that the dna was switched at some point during the process that is done to pull the dna out of the sample.......as I recall, Tom Cruise could get in and out of highly-secure locations in MI films, so perhaps we should ask him.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: AGRBear on August 06, 2005, 10:59:01 AM
We understand that some of you think this didn't occur, however,  if it did,  I'd like to know how and what the culprit had to do it.


AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: AGRBear on August 06, 2005, 11:00:49 AM
Quote
I am sitting on a jury that is to decided whether the tissue, used to test the DNA of AA was contaminated. All 11 jurors are convinced that it was in fact contaminated. I am the only hold out. So have at it, convince me I am wrong. Before I get based, I am not saying that this is my belief or opinion. This is just for discussion. Please present evidence.


This is the topic to which was added that the culprit who accomplished it had criminal intent.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: AGRBear on August 06, 2005, 11:05:19 AM
Quote
...[in part]...

Well Finelly, the "nefarious" culprit is a 'possibility', but again, ANY speculation along that lines must answer the specific questions of
A. Actual opportunity to enter Gill's lab.
B. Motive
C. Actual ABILITY to obtain the Sch. sample
D. Make the contamination possible unnoticed and undetected.
E. Actual opportunity to do D.

and assess PROBABILITIES to each step.
...

FA


We don't need to get into Gill's lab, the contamination could have occured at the hosptial.

Movtive.  Many.

Gaining Karl Maucher and Marg. Ellerik DNA.  Simple task.

Opportunity.  Easy.  

So,  this is the part we need to know:  >>Make the contamination possible unnoticed and undetected.<<

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: etonexile on August 06, 2005, 12:18:39 PM
Sigh...I fear Teddy and I must sort reality for some....NO ONE had either the interest or where-with-all to "contaminate" any tissue samples...FGS...People!!!....The KGB wouldn't have had the focus to do this in their prime....We here in this forum are interested in the IF and AA...but the rest of the planet?....Come on now.... ::)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Forum Admin on August 06, 2005, 12:35:16 PM
Quote

We don't need to get into Gill's lab, the contamination could have occured at the hosptial.

Movtive.  Many.

Gaining Karl Maucher and Marg. Ellerik DNA.  Simple task.

Opportunity.  Easy.  

So,  this is the part we need to know:  >>Make the contamination possible unnoticed and undetected.<<

AGRBear

Ummm, not quite Bear. In your circumstance of Hospital contamination you have to know also:
1. they had actual knowledge that the sample was there AND
2. they had actual knowledge that Dr. Gill would at some point in the future decide to do his never before done mtDNA testing ON that sample and
3. they had actual knowledge that a Schw. family member would be donating a sample for aforesaid NEVER before done DNA testing AND
4. the sample had not yet been found and
5. ACTUAL opportunity to have "contaminated" the exact sample Gill was going to use before he decided to use it.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Annie on August 06, 2005, 12:37:47 PM
I think this is FA's kind and intelligent way of telling us 'it could not and did not happen.'
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: etonexile on August 06, 2005, 12:55:43 PM
Erm...yes then.....
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 06, 2005, 01:16:36 PM
I mean this in the kindest possible way. I have no problem with further discussion of possible contamination, but to me, after reading everything that has been posted, it is akin to discussing something like "If the Imperial Family had been given submachine guns, could they shot their way out of the Ipatiev House?" Yes, probably, provided someone had thoughtfully gone ahead and invented submachine guns in 1918.

The evidence was not contaminated in Charlottesville. Which simply means that AA was not a Romanov. Since her only claim to fame is that she pretended to be Anastasia, I don't really care much one way or the other if she was Franziska, but I do recognize that this is an interesting question for others. But once the "nefarious culprit" had demonstrated that AA was not a Romanov, why bother to go to the trouble of making her a Schanzkowska?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 06, 2005, 01:21:17 PM
Quote

We don't need to get into Gill's lab, the contamination could have occured at the hosptial.

Movtive.  Many.

Gaining Karl Maucher and Marg. Ellerik DNA.  Simple task.

Opportunity.  Easy.  

So,  this is the part we need to know:  >>Make the contamination possible unnoticed and undetected.<<

AGRBear


Ohhhhhhhhkay. I am still waiting for a motive to be demonstrated. Simply saying "many"? Not good enough for me, as someone weighing the evidence, as we were asked to at the beginning of the thread.

Gaining the DNA would be "easy". And that would be because?

Opportunity? Easy? Have you been in Martha Jefferson hospital? I have. It isn't some podunk little emergency care facility in a strip mall, people. It is a working university hospital with all of the protocols that involves. As I mentioned above, the fact that the tissue was moved into a secure location after DNA testing became a recognized procedure does not mean that the tissue was sitting on a cart in the middle of a hallway before that.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Mgmstl on August 06, 2005, 01:28:07 PM
Quote

Ohhhhhhhhkay. I am still waiting for a motive to be demonstrated. Simply saying "many"? Not good enough for me, as someone weighing the evidence, as we were asked to at the beginning of the thread.

Gaining the DNA would be "easy". And that would be because?

Opportunity? Easy? Have you been in Martha Jefferson hospital? I have. It isn't some podunk little emergency care facility in a strip mall, people. It is a working university hospital with all of the protocols that involves. As I mentioned above, the fact that the tissue was moved into a secure location after DNA testing became a recognized procedure does not mean that the tissue was sitting on a cart in the middle of a hallway before that.


Simon,

May I point out that hospitals, and this goes for university hospitals, are quite capable of error, in following protocols, and I don't feel it is something that is out of the realm of possibility.  While I go to a university hospital myself, Barnes Hospital in St. Louis, affiliated with Washington University School Of Medicine,
and my late father was treated there, I notice that they could not keep track of certain things upon return visits,  and this is one of the top 10 hospitals in the nation.

I can't say that any facility would be without error in following procedures or protocols.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Forum Admin on August 06, 2005, 01:55:25 PM
But Michael, you still fail to account for how a "failure" could result in a test that 99% without doubt matched Schw family. Random contamination can not account for that. Further, HOW would anyone know to contaminate the sample BEFORE DNA testing was being done at all?? THESE are the two major questions this line of questioning MUST answer.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: etonexile on August 06, 2005, 02:15:40 PM
Quote
But Michael, you still fail to account for how a "failure" could result in a test that 99% without doubt matched Schw family. Random contamination can not account for that. Further, HOW would anyone know to contaminate the sample BEFORE DNA testing was being done at all?? THESE are the two major questions this line of questioning MUST answer.


As if such logic would deter some... ::)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 06, 2005, 02:32:36 PM
But Michael, you still fail to account for how a "failure" could result in a test that 99% without doubt matched Schw family. Random contamination can not account for that. Further, HOW would anyone know to contaminate the sample BEFORE DNA testing was being done at all?? THESE are the two major questions this line of questioning MUST answer.

FA, FA, FA...............<sigh>

Please, the logic is really getting a bit much, here................<g>
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Mgmstl on August 06, 2005, 02:40:25 PM
Quote

As if such logic would deter some... ::)



You know EE, if you cannot join this discussion in a productive manner, then I would suggest you but out, and find Teddy and play with him....Do I make myself clear?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Mgmstl on August 06, 2005, 02:44:09 PM
Quote
But Michael, you still fail to account for how a "failure" could result in a test that 99% without doubt matched Schw family. Random contamination can not account for that. Further, HOW would anyone know to contaminate the sample BEFORE DNA testing was being done at all?? THESE are the two major questions this line of questioning MUST answer.



I am not saying it did happen, all I am stating is that it could happen.  Everyone is relying on this process and standing by it as error free.  We hope that these hopsitals and labs are error free and follow strict protocols, and of course as we have seen that is sometimes not the case.

Much of what you say I agree with, a person wanting to contaminate a certain sample would have to go to a great deal of trouble to do so.  I completely see the logic in that.  

I just don't believe in infallibility.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 06, 2005, 02:50:51 PM
Quote

Simon,

May I point out that hospitals, and this goes for university hospitals, are quite capable of error, in following protocols, and I don't feel it is something that is out of the realm of possibility.  While I go to a university hospital myself, Barnes Hospital in St. Louis, affiliated with Washington University School Of Medicine,
and my late father was treated there, I notice that they could not keep track of certain things upon return visits,  and this is one of the top 10 hospitals in the nation.

I can't say that any facility would be without error in following procedures or protocols.



I concede the point, of course. But I would also argue that this kind of behavior is an exception, rather than the norm. To pick up on another question, do you have any idea as to what the motive might have been?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Annie on August 06, 2005, 03:31:31 PM
All people keep saying is 'no one is infallible' and 'it could happen.' Yeah, and as Wayne says, monkeys might fly out of my butt. If anyone wants to hold onto the possibility, they should give a reasonable explaination of how SCHANSKOWSKA FAMILY DNA just 'happened' to contaminate the intestines. We have already established that dumping blood on them will not do it, and that the only way to get a new intestine to switch is to cut open a Sch. family member and remove exactly the same piece of tissue. Considering intestines are many many yards long, the person would likely be killed or severely injured in this attempt. So what we have here is a completely unrealistic scenario.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 06, 2005, 03:35:21 PM
Unless your icon is telling the truth! :)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Annie on August 06, 2005, 04:26:31 PM
Quote
Unless your icon is telling the truth! :)


It is the symbolic mascot that represents most of this forum :P ;)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Mgmstl on August 06, 2005, 04:48:08 PM
Quote

It is the symbolic mascot that represents most of this forum :P ;)



For you at least, but not for me.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Mgmstl on August 06, 2005, 04:53:48 PM
Quote


I concede the point, of course. But I would also argue that this kind of behavior is an exception, rather than the norm. To pick up on another question, do you have any idea as to what the motive might have been?


I can only make an educated guess at motive, however, as I stated someone would have to know what tissue sample to contaminate.  It would have to be a very cloak and dagger sort of thing, the only motive I could forsee is that of changing the results of the test.  As to who could do it, that is only guessing also.  
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Annie on August 06, 2005, 04:59:04 PM
Quote


For you at least, but not for me.


You sure it doesn't represent how you feel about me?;)

*still waiting for reasonable explaination as to how Schanskowska family material made its way into AA's intestines*
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Mgmstl on August 06, 2005, 05:23:55 PM
Quote

You sure it doesn't represent how you feel about me?;)

*still waiting for reasonable explaination as to how Schanskowska family material made its way into AA's intestines*


At times it may represent that, but I know you will never convince me or me you, so I don't try.

When I receive the long awaited sources, articles and quotes that we have continually asked for, then I will give it my best guess, however as I stated earlier I leave the guessing up to others at this point.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: lexi4 on August 06, 2005, 07:03:02 PM
Quote

At times it may represent that, but I know you will never convince me or me you, so I don't try.

When I receive the long awaited sources, articles and quotes that we have continually asked for, then I will give it my best guess, however as I stated earlier I leave the guessing up to others at this point.


Correct my if I am wrong, but I don't think the tested "miles of intestines" but rather a tissue sample. Am I right Michael?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 06, 2005, 07:06:16 PM
miles of intestines?  lolol.

A tiny section was saved.  Can you just imagine if a hospital had to save a mile of intestines every time it had a surgery on the digestive tract?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on August 06, 2005, 07:25:08 PM
Some people have had the misfortune of having a colonoscopy where they take tissue samples of any place that looks suspicious. The journey can be right to the stomach. No cutting open or sewing up. People routinely live afterward.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 06, 2005, 10:09:55 PM
Quote

I can only make an educated guess at motive, however, as I stated someone would have to know what tissue sample to contaminate.  It would have to be a very cloak and dagger sort of thing, the only motive I could forsee is that of changing the results of the test.  As to who could do it, that is only guessing also.  



Michael,

It does seem a central issue to me, i.e. who had motive to do this incredibly complicated "cloak and dagger" sort of thing. There were people, we know, who fervently believed (and perhaps still do) that Anna Manahan was really AN. So they are eliminated.

Who is left? I can't imagine that the disintegrating Soviet government did, because if there had been serious belief that she was AN, and her survival represented a threat, she would have been eliminated during the 47 years she lived in Europe after the rescue from the canal. And she left no heirs. The decision of the German court had marginalized her anyway.

The British royal establishment? I know Mountbatten hated her, but he was dead.

The surviving Romanovs? To what purpose? Her claim had been denied.

I agree that the results of the test would have been changed by the action. But why would someone have wanted the results changed?

Best,

Si
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Annie on August 06, 2005, 11:35:00 PM
Oh please, I KNOW only a small sample was saved! What I was trying to say is that if someone was going to cut a sample from a Schanskowska family member they would have to DIG THROUGH all those 'miles' of intestines to find JUST EXACTLY THE SAME PIECE OF TINY SAMPLE that AA had removed! So that makes it even more impossible!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 06, 2005, 11:58:22 PM
Oh please, I KNOW only a small sample was saved! What I was trying to say is that if someone was going to cut a sample from a Schanskowska family member they would have to DIG THROUGH all those 'miles' of intestines to find JUST EXACTLY THE SAME PIECE OF TINY SAMPLE that AA had removed! So that makes it even more impossible!

Unless......there was a family member who only HAD a very short piece of intestine.............

Betcha didn't think about THAT, did you?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Annie on August 07, 2005, 07:20:35 AM
Quote
Oh please, I KNOW only a small sample was saved! What I was trying to say is that if someone was going to cut a sample from a Schanskowska family member they would have to DIG THROUGH all those 'miles' of intestines to find JUST EXACTLY THE SAME PIECE OF TINY SAMPLE that AA had removed! So that makes it even more impossible!

Unless......there was a family member who only HAD a very short piece of intestine.............

Betcha didn't think about THAT, did you?


You'd still have to capture them and cut them open. And how could it be exactly the same piece AA had taken out? If you're that lucky, play the powerball lotto.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Annie on August 07, 2005, 07:25:34 AM
Quote



Who is left? I can't imagine that the disintegrating Soviet government did, because if there had been serious belief that she was AN, and her survival represented a threat, she would have been eliminated during the 47 years she lived in Europe after the rescue from the canal. And she left no heirs. The decision of the German court had marginalized her anyway.


A good point, this has never been brought up this way. Very true. And since the Soviet gov't fell before the tests, this is absolutely not even remotely a threat.

Quote
The British royal establishment? I know Mountbatten hated her, but he was dead.


You weren't here when some guy OPENLY accused QEII herself of having it rigged ::)

Quote
The surviving Romanovs? To what purpose? Her claim had been denied.


The Romanovs knew it wasn't her and didn't waste their time. They'd waste even less time now. Plus they don't even have the money or the influence if they wanted to. Besides, NOBODY is stupid enough to even consider risking jail time for criminal mischief.



Quote
I agree that the results of the test would have been changed by the action. But why would someone have wanted the results changed?

Best,

Si


Since FA has repeatedly explained how NO ONE could have done anything except the scientists, still believing in contamination is a direct insult to them and their integrity. The results could NOT have been switched or tampered with, so what must be hinted at here is that they just plain LIED to make some anonymous person with some unknown and insignificant 'motive' happy. But I'm sure even if they read this they'd think it was so stupid they wouldn't even bother to yell defamantion.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Annie on August 07, 2005, 07:29:09 AM
Quote

When I receive the long awaited sources, articles and quotes that we have continually asked for, then I will give it my best guess, however as I stated earlier I leave the guessing up to others at this point.


AA is 100% NOT AN

AA is 99.9% FS

If you don't accept those sources, I don't see how anything else is ever going to help!No matter what I posted, you'd just say they were liars, or a part of some conspiracy. And speaking of evidence, I'm still waiting for an explaination on how Schanskowska family DNA found its way into AA's intestines and hair. Quote sources now!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: etonexile on August 07, 2005, 09:55:33 AM
Quote


You know EE, if you cannot join this discussion in a productive manner, then I would suggest you but out, and find Teddy and play with him....Do I make myself clear?


Yes..."SIR"....I guess I've been told.....lol
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: lexi4 on August 07, 2005, 11:45:32 AM
Hey EE,
You can post here anytime you want. I enjoy your humor.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Mgmstl on August 07, 2005, 12:14:01 PM
Quote

AA is 100% NOT AN

AA is 99.9% FS

If you don't accept those sources, I don't see how anything else is ever going to help!No matter what I posted, you'd just say they were liars, or a part of some conspiracy. And speaking of evidence, I'm still waiting for an explaination on how Schanskowska family DNA found its way into AA's intestines and hair. Quote sources now!


Annie let's take a walk down the path of FACT for a moment, I know it's an unusual destination for you, but let's do this together.  

FIRST FACT:  I never stated that ALL of the sources you have posted were "liars".  That is an ASSUMPTION made by you.

SECOND FACT:  You keep quoting sources which you refuse to name, list, or at least publish the articles here, that is because you don't have them, somone else has told you they have them, and they won't put them out here for us to examine.  

THIRD FACT:  All I have stated is that I don't believe in the infallability of ANY institution, they all make mistakes, also that I hesitate to "guess" how, who, or what could have possibly contaminated the evidence, I don't necessarily even believe that it was contaminated, but I believe in the possibility of such a thing happening.


You constantly make this out to be some kind of ongoing "war" between you & myself.  That is untrue, I am on a search for ALL of the facts so I can know ALL that is possible about this subject.  I have said to you ages ago that this is more than just the DNA and the results, it is every facet or aspect of this case, as Bear said on a previous post on different subject: "It's like putting together a jigsaw puzzle."  That is the way I look at it.   However the puzzle comes out, I cannot control the results nor do I have an interest in what the result is.  I just have an unending curiosity to know how, what, when, where, why & who.  It is what makes me the indefatigable genealogical researcher that I am, it is what makes this case in particular of interest to me.
She could very well turn out to be FS, that is fine with me, but I am still not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt at this point.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: AGRBear on August 07, 2005, 12:31:07 PM
I thought this was a thread about the possibility of the intestines being contaminated by the fellow I labeled as being the "culprit".

So far, no one has told me that the "culprit" with a motive and the smarts could not have contaiminated the intestines to make it appear the DNA matched Karl Maucher and Marg Ellerik.  

Yes Michael G.,  a real cloak and dagger kind of "culprit".....

So, now, I am curious to know why those who know how it could have been done,  haven't explained it to me and others the process it took for the "culprit" to be successful.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Forum Admin on August 07, 2005, 12:34:52 PM
Ok Bear here goes.
First, the contamination idea at MJ Hospital is out because the "culprit" would have had to been psychic to know that mtDNA testing would become possible and that Gill would use that sample before any others for his first test of the process. So,

only possbility is in the Gill lab. Either, the culprit already knew that they were going to test the Schw family after AA so they had other Schw dna which they somehow slipped into the AA sample in the lab or they took their own Schw dna and exactly forged a replicated gel just like the one Gill made and switched it with the original one. Thats it folks.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: AGRBear on August 07, 2005, 12:42:25 PM
Quote
Ok Bear here goes.
First, the contamination idea at MJ Hospital is out because the "culprit" would have had to been psychic to know that mtDNA testing would become possible and that Gill would use that sample before any others for his first test of the process. So,

only possbility is in the Gill lab. Either, the culprit already knew that they were going to test the Schw family after AA so they had other Schw dna which they somehow slipped into the AA sample in the lab or they took their own Schw dna and exactly forged a replicated gel just like the one Gill made and switched it with the original one. Thats it folks.


When it comes to being a very smart cloak and dagger kind of "culprit" he didn't need to be psychic.  This is the  kind of guy who does his homework.  The kind of guy who doesn't want the intestines to prove AA was a Romanov.  The kind of guy who knows about FS's family.  And, what better way to steer information away from the Romanov is to contaiminate the intestines before any of it was sent anywhere with the DNA with someone whom they thought was part of the FS's family which in this case was Gertrude's  link through Karl or Marg .....  

So,  how did this smart "culprit" achieve this?  What would he have had to do?

So how large is this original specimen? Less than an inch?  Less than a quarter inch..?  Smaller?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Forum Admin on August 07, 2005, 02:03:34 PM
But, how COULD he know that the intestines could be used to PROVE who she was, before the test had been invented?????
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Forum Admin on August 07, 2005, 02:06:08 PM
In fact, Im done with this thread. I mean no disrespect to any individual, but frankly am now exactly where I get with the five year old up the block, who stops asking "real questions" and just keeps going "but why?" "but why?" "but why?"

all y'all enjoy your science fiction as that is about where this entire thread has ended up. Am back to the real world. play nice.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: AGRBear on August 07, 2005, 02:42:47 PM
Bear's fur is thick and I'm proud to be one of those who never stop asking, "WHY?"  A bear as well as people can never learn anything if you don't ask.  And, if the answer carries me to another,  "WHY?" then that means I'm still trying to discover more stuff about a subject.

And, yes,  I, before the age of five,  drove my parents crazy just as I'm evidently driving FA to his edge of patience.  Sorry.  But,  I still haven't been given an answer:  If the culprit wanted to contaminate the intestines how would he have done it so it ended up matching Karl and Marg NDA / mtDNA  before Dr Gill had it for his tests???

I may be wrong but I don't think Dr. Gill was the first to discover DNA or mtDNA.  I think he was the first to establish it was possible to show the mtDNA chain with bones as old as the Romanovs.

Gotta run.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: AGRBear on August 08, 2005, 05:01:00 PM
Quote
I have a question.

On another thread we're talking about contaminating the intestines of AA's in the Jefferson Hospital before samples are sent out to be tested by Dr. Gill.    

I should add this is a all hypothical and not based on any known evidence.

The hypotheical is:  There was the real cloak and dagger kind-of culprit who wanted to change the DNA of the intestines tests.  How would this culprit accomplish this task?   His goal would be to make sure the tests would not match the Romanovs or Prince Philip's.  To add to this, he wanted to make it appear the intestines DNA tests would match that of  Karl Maucher and Marg. Ellerik, the two people conected to Gertrude whom everyone believed was the sister of FS.

We don't need to get bogged down on who the culprit was or if the hospital security was iron tight,  I just would like to know if it was possible and what the culprit would have to do.

I am not an AA supporter.  I've always thought AA and FS were the same person, however, I am keeping my mind open due to all the differences listed between AA and FS being talked about on various threads.  

This is not about making a switch.

So,  was it possible???

AGRBear


A answer from FA will be brought here which answers this question so just a sec and I'll go get it.

Here is it:
Quote
Formalin was used to fix the intestine sample. Formalin removes the water from the cell structures and replaces it with an inert rigid gel that keeps the cell structures intact.  Injecting blood or other DNA into the intestine sample after the fact would cause obvious destruction to a block sample of intestine tissue. The first time anyone would look at it, they could see clearly that it was tampered with.

So, no, the only possiblilty that could have gone "un noticed" would be a switch.


This time I understand.

Thanks

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: AGRBear on August 08, 2005, 05:19:23 PM
Quote
Finelly,
Actually what happens is this. The tissue is dissolved chemically to extract the mtDNA itself.  Then a specific reagent is added to the original sample to amplify the existing DNA. Simply put, it causes the DNA to exactly replicate itself over and over to create a larger sample to test.

This amplified DNA is then injected into a special gel and subjected to a weak current and the DNA then becomes sequenced in the gel.

Essentially, there are ony two ways to get the "contaminated result". 1 is that the original sample tested was contaminated OR someone else sneaked in and removed the original amplified sample in the gel and then substituted a forged exact duplicate.

Frankly, the only even remotely possible alternative is the first, that the original sample had been somehow tampered with.  The way the block of tissue was stored in  formalin makes Bears idea mostly moot. In order for that sample to achieve the same results across four labs the ENTIRE sample of tissue would have had to from Sch. family as no one could know exactly what part of the sample would be snipped for testing. You can't just dump "blood" or other tissue into a solid block sample encased in formalin and expect the whole thing to become "contaminated".


FA>>Essentially, there are ony two ways to get the "contaminated result". 1 is that the original sample tested was contaminated OR someone else sneaked in and removed the original amplified sample in the gel and then substituted a forged exact duplicate.<<

So, it seems the original sample needed to be contaminated before it went into the formalin.

If this dastardly culprit showed up this time before it went into the formalin would he have to be part of the operating team or a lab tech?

What I'm asking is:  When was  the piece of intestines placed into the formalin?     In the operating room right after the piece of intestine is removed or later [how much later] in the lab?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: lexi4 on August 08, 2005, 06:01:26 PM
I am still the lone dissenting juror and I am not convinced that the evidence was comtaminated as I have seen no evidence to prove that. From the posts, I would say that there is no evidence that indcates the tissue was contaminated and that it would have been right next to impossilbe for someone to rig it.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Forum Admin on August 08, 2005, 06:12:43 PM
All of the intestine removed would be sent straight from the Operating Room down to the Pathology Lab, either immediately upon removal or very shortly afterward.  The Path Lab will remove the part for storage and immediately fix it in the formalin. It does not "sit around" somewhere for any great length of time beyond literally a few minutes.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 08, 2005, 06:21:12 PM
You'd still have to capture them and cut them open. And how could it be exactly the same piece AA had taken out? If you're that lucky, play the powerball lotto

Dear Annie,

I would really appreciate it if you would stop asking me questions I can't answer.

I also want you to know that I do play the powerball lotto.  I happen to refrain from buying tickets, on principle, because I think I deserve to win without spending any money at the 7/11, but I am playing nonetheless.  My lucky numbers are 19, 14, 11, 3, 9, and 4.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: lexi4 on August 08, 2005, 06:56:17 PM
Finelly,
I am stealing your numbers.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 08, 2005, 07:25:46 PM
<snort>  You can't have them.  I keep them in my pocket.  

Also, anyone who uses my numbers has to share any winnings with me.  90% for me, 10% for you.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: AGRBear on August 09, 2005, 11:26:57 AM
HAVEN'T EVEN STEPPED INTO THE COURT ROOM, yet.

I am just trying to understand how contamination occured, if this dastardly culprit  did accomplish this deed.

Quote
All of the intestine removed would be sent straight from the Operating Room down to the Pathology Lab, either immediately upon removal or very shortly afterward.  The Path Lab will remove the part for storage and immediately fix it in the formalin. It does not "sit around" somewhere for any great length of time beyond literally a few minutes.


So, the contamtionation would have been before it as placed in the formalin in the lab.

How large of piece of intestines is needed for this "storage"?

Is specimen fixed to a slide or placed in a tube?

Is this tube/? marked with a code?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Forum Admin on August 09, 2005, 11:29:49 AM
Bear
There is no reason to actually bother with even this as a hypothetical. The contamination at this point STILL would have had to have been with Schw familiy DNA. Remember, back at the time the intestine sample was placed in storage there WAS NO IDEA of the existence of DNA testing period.

If you want to answer these questions, go Google pathology protocols for samples..

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: AGRBear on August 09, 2005, 11:50:47 AM
It you do not wish to continue this conversation  that is fine.  Maybe, some other poster knows these answers.  Because,  I am not alone in wondering about the possibilities of contamination.

My next question is:
My culprit in my hypothesis is creative and has a vile of blood in his pocket from a donner named Marg. Ellerick.  He is a lab "gopher" and is taking AA's intestines to the lab.  Could he use the blood in his pocket to contiminate the original DNA/ mtDNA?  Would this contamination destroy the original or would testing, later, reveal there is more than one DNA/mtDNA, and Dr. Gill and others would just set it aside and claim they could not work with it ....?  

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Forum Admin on August 09, 2005, 11:58:10 AM
doubtful. The sample stores tissue only, not blood. AND still remember, no one would have EVER had any possible idea back when the sample was taken that you COULD contaminate a sample to prevent ID later. So WHY would anyone even bother?? There is NO reason to "be creative" like that. There is NOTHING whatsoever to be gained from this "discussion" that has ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL TESTING THAT WAS DONE.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: AGRBear on August 09, 2005, 01:36:12 PM
So soaking the tissue in the blood would not contaminate it???

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Forum Admin on August 09, 2005, 01:46:04 PM
Bear,
Im sorry, but if you are going to continue with fictional speculation, you will have to start a thread over in the Having Fun section. This discussion is really now nothing more than "What if they all lived and got married?".
This line of what ifs adds ZERO to the discussion at hand about the reality of the testing as done and the results obtained.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Annie on August 09, 2005, 02:06:08 PM
Quote
So soaking the tissue in the blood would not contaminate it???

AGRBear



NO! That was ruled out a long time ago. It would not change the tissue. Scientists are not so dumb as to not notice strange blood contamination. You are really insulting the intelligence, as well as the integrity, of the scientists.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: AGRBear on August 09, 2005, 02:11:30 PM
No,  I am not insulting anyone.  I am showing how little I know about  how or if  the intestines  could or could not be contaminated so it would match the DNA/mtDNA of Marg. and Karl?   ;D.

This is not my thread.

Quote
I am sitting on a jury that is to decided whether the tissue, used to test the DNA of AA was contaminated. All 11 jurors are convinced that it was in fact contaminated. I am the only hold out. So have at it, convince me I am wrong. Before I get based, I am not saying that this is my belief or opinion. This is just for discussion. Please present evidence.


In order to present evidence,  one needs to understand how a culprit might have contaminated the evidence.  And, that is what I am trying to do.

So far,  I am being told and it seems that it's true that blood could not contaminate the tissue of the intestines of AA on it's way to the lab or in the lab before some of it is sent off to Dr. Gill.

I suppose a good lawyer when these fact get into court would ask for the creditals of the posters who have made statements which have taken us to the point.  Are they doctors?  Do they work in a lab which deals with DNA?  I can assume they do have some kind of background but I don't know.

As everyone can guess,  I don't have a medical background so I have to go by what people, who seem to know this stuff, tell us.

Thank you FA for your efforts in trying to explain all of this.

It is not my intentions to make a mockery out of someone else's thread.  


AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on August 09, 2005, 09:24:37 PM
Finelly,

Give Lexi her nose back. An investigative reporter needs a nose to the ground. If you don't give her nose back then I think she should get 50 percent of anything you win on the lottery.

Bear,

The people who tested the DNA didn't give two cares to who it belonged to.....and DIDN"T CARE WHERE IT CAME FROM.

Science...I posted about a year ago...I went to see a lecture and found out that what I had been taught in school about the speed of light had been discounted.
Thursday I am going back and will report with any other "truths" we were all suppose to accept.
They had found particles that not only traveled at faster than the speed of light but could be identical in the same place at the same time!

Also we preceive color differently then it appears because it would make our brains work overtime. The sky is not blue but  mauve. The trees and grass are blue but we only preceive green.

So maybe the whole cloak and dagger thing needs to outlive even we two.

Peter Jennings died this week and his favorite statement of mine is " There can never be an absolute truth for everyone.  " He always wanted to look at the flip side.

Bear, keep looking at the flip side.

Susie


Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 09, 2005, 10:11:20 PM
Quote

So maybe the whole cloak and dagger thing needs to outlive even we two.


I'm sure it will ::)


Quote
keep looking at the flip side.


Tabloid reporters do it all the time ::)



Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on August 09, 2005, 10:15:29 PM
Quote

I'm sure it will ::)



Tabloid reporters to it all the time ::)

No, they "do" it all time.




Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on August 09, 2005, 10:19:00 PM
Actually they "do" it all the time.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on August 09, 2005, 10:24:39 PM
Isn't the Palace a wonderful place to post? I recommended to anyone interested in Russian history.

Isn't it great that you can say things  here unlike in movies when you are are an uncredited actor given not one word?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Finelly on August 09, 2005, 10:26:25 PM
Give Lexi her nose back. An investigative reporter needs a nose to the ground. If you don't give her nose back then I think she should get 50 percent of anything you win on the lottery.

Oh, all RIGHT.

Seriously, this is simply a post about a topic about which we are speculating.  Greg King doesn't buy the contamination thing.  Penny Wilson doesn't buy the contamination thing.  Richard Schweitzer.....well, I can't figure out what he thinks.  I wish he would tell us........

There was motive to try to disprove AA as AN.  There may have been opportunity, but we don't have any evidence that it was used.  So............where do we go from here?

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 09, 2005, 10:28:56 PM
Quote
Actually they "do" it all the time.


Thanks for admitting and correcting!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 09, 2005, 10:33:03 PM
Quote
There was motive to try to disprove AA as AN.  There may have been opportunity, but we don't have any evidence that it was used.  So............where do we go from here?



We have our answer. The evidence wasn't contaminated.
But people will continue to speculate anyway. ;)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Forum Admin on August 10, 2005, 10:51:37 AM
Bear,
Im sorry, but on this thread of inquiry, you HAVE all the evidence. You have stopped examining the REALITY of the situation re: the path sample and are now creating PURE fiction for the sake of doing it.  Why?

Simple: WHEN the intestine sample was taken, DNA testing had not even been THOUGHT of. There would be NO possible reason for anyone to think of putting Schw family blood into the sample when it was taken. NONE zero. zip. You yourself said "lets assume the culprit was creative". Thats the problem here. You are NOT looking for any realistic evidence that might stand up in ANY court in this circumstance. There is NOTHING in this discussion that can possibly discredit the REALITY of what happened. If you actually tried to bring this theory into court, I or any attorney would toss it out totally as wholly unfounded speculation and there is not a Judge on a bench anywhere that would permit you to even utter this nonsense in court. This is not investigative. This is Fiction. PERIOD and I can't allow it to continue.

If you want to discuss the REALITY of the circumstances, please do. But I will insist that this fictional discussion will ONLY take place in the having fun thread along with alien abduction and what if they got married and had kids.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: AGRBear on August 10, 2005, 12:23:01 PM
I guess I'm being told to stop fact gathering and to go away.

Since this is FS's forum, I respect his wishes....

"poooooof"  [I'm gone.]  

AGRBear

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Phil_tomaselli on September 14, 2005, 03:52:43 PM
Here's one for the "Computer says No" brigade (sorry but a British joke).

It's from the "Times" dated 12th September 2005, an item entitled "Lost baby finally laid to rest with love".

I shall summarise:  

In September 1992 a man renovating his garage in Barepot, Cumbria, broke open a concrete brick and contacted police after the stench alerted him to possible human remains.  The dead baby found within, that forensic tests shown had been alive when forced into the still wet concrete that made up the brick, was identified as a girl aged between 4 and 6 months.

Police took 950 witness statements, 300 DNA samples and traced over 3,800 locally born children before coming to a conclusion and allowing the burial of the baby.

Forensic scientists have described as DNA samples obtained from the child as "powerful evidence" that Mr Joe Thwaites and Miss Sheila Parker, a local couple who commenced an affair in the mid 1950's and eventually married in 1977 were the parents of the child.

All well and good EXCEPT that other forensic tests on the corpse and the brick that contained it place the death of the baby between March 1990 and January 1992, by which time both alleged parents had been dead for many years.  Police have ruled out other children of the couple as being parents on the basis of medical evidence.  Their current theory is that the fact that both alleged parents smoked may have distorted the results on the child's corpse and produced a false death date.  No comment is made about the smoking habits of the brick or its parents.

Relatives of the couple believe that "police are changing the parameters as they go along."

As I have said before, DNA has become a mantra for a good many people.  This DNA is, at best estimate, half as old as the Pigs Meadow DNA, has been investigated with the very latest techniques (one assumes), has no political agenda attached and has still managed to turn up some distinctly ropy results.

The Times has a website that those of you who actually care to do independent research can check out to see whether what I'm saying conforms to the facts as laid out in the paper.  Since, of course, DNA evidence is faultless, the failure to comply with the DNA must assume some kind of failure in the tests run on the corpse or the brick.  Personally I've never trusted bricks........

Have fun

Phil Tomaselli
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on September 14, 2005, 06:50:41 PM
Phil,

I have never trusted bricks since one broke my toe and I have a deep distrust of cinder blocks. Thanks for one laugh I really needed.

I wish life could be 99.9 percent infallible. We would wake up every morning with no surprises. And we probably would know which morning was the one we didn't get to wake up.

IM
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: etonexile on September 14, 2005, 08:45:06 PM
Poor child....some sad sod put a baby down....if not the parents....then a close family member "Came Home " to shift this kiddy....One might wonder what went on in this"Happy Home" before the child was discovered....?

DNA is NOT a "Communist Plot"...it's just chemistry basically....Do y'all believe in finger print evidence....?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on September 14, 2005, 09:12:16 PM
As much as we can bleed for this discarded child....as so many children who have been discarded from the "big bang". And will be  discarded everyday we breath .

What has that to do with DNA science???

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Phil_tomaselli on September 15, 2005, 11:57:46 AM
Surely here is a case where the DNA evidence appears to point one way and all the remaining forensic evidence (the age of the baby, presumably the calculated rate of decay after death and the age of the brick in which it was encased) appears to flatly contradict it.

Which do we believe and quite what edifice of assumptions do we have to build in order to discredit the other side?

Do we have to assume that DNA evidence is infallible?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Louis_Charles on September 15, 2005, 01:24:01 PM
I take the point. On the other hand, it would have to be demonstrated that there was a flaw in the Manahan DNA analysis that not only made her NOT a Romanov, but PROBABLY a Schanzkowski. This could have happened, of course, if the DNA was tampered with, but so far no one has demonstrated any credible evidence that it was. But your story underlines the fact that NOTHING is infallible.

Except the Pope, of course.  ;)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: etonexile on September 15, 2005, 07:21:31 PM
Which is why I cling to my theory of space alien intervention in the IF story....It could be true.....
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: lexi4 on September 15, 2005, 11:38:13 PM
Interesting article Phil. I am glad you posted it. Yes, I see the similarities in the two cases. So maybe the question becomes a degree of falability. (Is that a word ??)
???
All the information that we have today tells us that DNA is 99.9 percent infaliable, correct?  What is hard for me is that Teddy understands the science of DNA better than I do. So I accept (pretty much blindly) what I am told about DNA because I do not understand it. I haven't studied it. However, I in my profession, I have seen it used as evidence thousands of times.
Not that I am making any sense here, but hey, since when was that a requirement? p.s. I do not believe AA was AN. (just in case.)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: etonexile on September 16, 2005, 10:06:46 AM
For an old teddy from Hamley's toy shop...Tedders is quite logical and well read....
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on September 16, 2005, 08:18:28 PM
All science ( if we discount Roswell) comes from a higher functioning mammal. Maybe from an ape.

I calculate risk for a living.I give a dollar value to any given situation.

I laugh because DNA scientists must pay an excessive amount of insurance to protect their "dupas"(Polish for a**)

Sorry, I have no calculation for any profession that is infallible....according to numbers....Roswell is more likely.

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Margarita Markovna on September 16, 2005, 09:29:27 PM
Quote
Not that I am making any sense here, but hey, since when was that a requirement?


It's not.  ;)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: bigbi on October 13, 2005, 04:14:37 AM
Quote

What could the motive possibly be? After all these years, and now that we know there is no money? And really, who even cares, except us?

Well, its been passed on for years in the House of Hesse that this woman was an imposter. Take Ernest's son for example, who spent his whole life trying to disprove Anderson without even laying eyes on her. Or better yet, the Schowchanzawa family could be really proud to have a royal pretender in their family. I'm sure one of them would be willing to cut out a piece of their tissue from their intestine in order to be related to a famous person? Their is just too much evidence supporting the woman's claim for it to not be so. Her ears were exactly the same as Anastasia's. 12 anatomical points is a match. Anastasia's and hers were the same in 17 anatomical points. Do you think it's just coincidence that the girl she had claimed to be would have the exact same ear as she. That's impossible. And there are all the same birth marks and scars to go along with it. Do you realize that Anastasia's ear would have had to be placed on Anna for the test to come out the way it did? Science is contradicting itself here. And either the tissue and hair were not her's, or that ear was not her's.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Forum Admin on October 13, 2005, 09:42:19 AM
Please read the "calling all judges" thread above. The FBI's Forensic Investigations advisory panel, of doctors, scientists, investigators, etc, disagrees with your statements 100%.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: bigbi on October 14, 2005, 01:10:00 AM
Quote
Please read the "calling all judges" thread above. The FBI's Forensic Investigations advisory panel, of doctors, scientists, investigators, etc, disagrees with your statements 100%.

Instead of trying to point me in a different direction, why not directly state why you oppose what I have stated.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Louis_Charles on October 14, 2005, 07:34:31 AM
Dear Bigbi,

Because it is time-consuming to re-list all of the evidence which has been presented. Please understand that you are not introducing new speculation into the discussion. If every single person who posted in this forum made the same request you have, there would be nothing but long tedious post saying the same thing over and over. Read the evidence and arguments presented, and then come at them with reasons why they cannot be accepted. Basic research will provide the foundations for the arguments, but you must do it yourself.

Several people have suggested that you read THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS by Greg King and Penny Wilson. It deals in developed form with the story of the last days of the Imperial Family.

Anna Andersen's story of survival --- the sympathetic guards, the escape in the cart, the birth of the baby --- remains in the "unproven" category for a variety of reasons. There are, however, sensible reasons advanced by people like Penny Wilson for thinking that some of the people may have survived the actual shooting room, if not the rest of the night.

There are threads throughout the forum that can point you to much interesting information. I would urge you to read as much as possible before forming your opinion.

Simon

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Forum Admin on October 14, 2005, 09:44:12 AM
You are not being directed "elsewhere". You are being directed to the extensive evidence that has already been presented and discussed at length, showing that the sample was without doubt Anna Anderson's. The chain of custody to the Gill lab was followed according to standards and that the teams who performed the testing all have no doubt of that. You are being directed to the fact that the AA sample was sequenced first, before the Maucher sample was even obtained, thus showing it was 100% impossible to know the Maucher DNA sample sequence in advance and the other long discussions which show that the genuine probability of the AA sample not being her's is somewhere less than 1 in 1 BILLION and the exclusion of AA being related to Empress Alexandra is 100% and fully reliable in any court of law in the US and UK, and probably Europe as well.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Bob_the_builder on May 18, 2007, 08:36:25 PM
My understanding is that DNA is not COMPLETELY 100% infallible, but comes close. That is why DNA proved 99.999% that AA wasn't Anastasia and was FS.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Phil_tomaselli on May 20, 2007, 03:23:21 PM
As with so many other threads on this site the morons have taken over.

Phil Tomaselli
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: TheAce1918 on May 20, 2007, 09:25:31 PM
Morons Phil...?

Come now, there isn't a need to be that harsh. 

I've always believed that Science was nothing more than man's tantrum with himself.   ;)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Bob_the_builder on May 20, 2007, 11:16:04 PM
I don't believe there are any morons here either  :).

I mean, there is basically no way that Anna Anderson could have been Anastasia anymore. The DNA proved with 99.99999999999999999999% certainty that she wasn't, and it's been 99.9% certainty that she was as her opponents always alleged, Franziska. I know that there has always been conflicting evidence over whether AA was AN or FS for 74 years, but that's what DNA is for, so we could get an answer.

As for the conspiracy theorists, there still is no evidence of a conspiracy. Just like I said on another thread that there is no evidence Gleb and Tanya Botkin didn't believe AA was Anastasia, there is also no evidence the DNA was flawed.

Like I said before, only the facts. ;)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Forum Admin on May 21, 2007, 09:22:45 AM
OK,
We are getting a bit sloppy in the discussion about "DNA".

There are two different types of DNA testing, mitochondrial and nuclear. 

Mitochondrial testing, as that done on the Anna Manahan sample and the Queen Victoria maternal descendant lineage can do two things, both with different degrees of relaiblitiy.
1: It can either include or exlude someone from the descendant lineage:
     a. Exclusion from lineage: reliability 100%.  It is simply physiologically impossible for someone to carry substantially different mtDNA from their mother. There is NO 1 in a billion slight probability of this. You can not inherit your mtDNA in any other way and it must therefore be identical with only one haplytype mutation even remotely possible. period.  Thus, the possibility that Anna Manahan was related to ANY female descendant of Queen Victoria is ZERO with a reliablitlity of 100%. She had FIVE mis-matches in the sequence tested.  Further testing of sequences will not ever reveal fewer than FIVE mismatches...period.
      b. Inclusion:  Shouldthe mtDNA of the person tested match identically the target mtDNA, then the reliability level of the testing is STILL 100%, as in order for there to BE a match at all, there MUST be maternal relationship.  The question, however, of how CLOSELY the two people sampled may be related is not determined simply by the testing, thus it is NOT 100% reliable to say x was the daughter of y. She could have been the sister of y, or the maternal first cousin of y, etc etc etc.  Thus the fact that the Manahan sample matched the FS lineage can not prove she WAS FS to a reliability of 100%, only 99%

Nuclear testing or nDNA is a different subject. The reliability of the testing can range from 99.999999 percent on down, and depends on many factors about the subject sample tested. 
Fresh DNA, like a cheek scraping or blood drop is virtually foolproof so long as there is no outside contamination of the sample.  The age and level of degradation of the sample will affect the reliability of the results. Essentially the more filling in of gaps in sequence of nucleotides in the sample that must be done in the lab will decrease the level of accuracy of the result.

Lets try to keep this straight in the discussion. Thanks.

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Bob_the_builder on May 21, 2007, 03:49:37 PM
Thanks Forum Admin, so mtDNA can exclude a person 100% from the maternal line, thus making it impossible for AA to be AN. The reason I thought it was less than 100% was because Gill in his announcent in 1995 said it was "almost impossible" for her to have been a Romanov. But an exclusion is an exclusion, so I don't understand why he said that.

So DNA proved she couldn't have been Anastasia, but it of course couldn't prove she was Franziska because it relies on probability, right? Which is why Gill said "This does support the view that she was Schanzkowska."
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Forum Admin on May 21, 2007, 04:56:09 PM
I think Gill said what he did about being "almost impossible" for her to be a Romanov because they had only tested the Victoria line at the time, and had not tested any Romanov female descendent  lineage mtDNA, remember that Alexandra Feodorovna was only a Romanov by marriage.

You are correct that Gill said it "supports the theory that she was FS"  because it can not prove beyond a reliability of 95% that she WAS FS.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Bob_the_builder on May 21, 2007, 06:27:32 PM
Thanks for explanation :). So did Gill ever mention an exact estimation for the probability of AA being FS as he did for the Romanov bones? That is, a 98.5% probability of them being the Romanovs (that is without the anthropological evidence)?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Forum Admin on May 21, 2007, 08:02:40 PM
The estimation of reliability that Anna Manahan was FS was estimated by Gill and other researchers who sequenced the material to be 98.5-99.5% likely.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Bob_the_builder on May 21, 2007, 08:35:22 PM
The estimation of reliability that Anna Manahan was FS was estimated by Gill and other researchers who sequenced the material to be 98.5-99.5% likely.
Hi, where did you get that from? An estimation was never mentioned in Massie or Klier's books nor in any of the documentaries I've seen. I believe you, I just would like to know where you heard that.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: zackattack on May 21, 2007, 10:03:53 PM
The estimation of reliability that Anna Manahan was FS was estimated by Gill and other researchers who sequenced the material to be 98.5-99.5% likely.
Aren't those odds as great as the earth being round? Still haven't found those stats
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: scarlett_riviera on May 21, 2007, 10:40:21 PM
The estimation of reliability that Anna Manahan was FS was estimated by Gill and other researchers who sequenced the material to be 98.5-99.5% likely.
Hi, where did you get that from? An estimation was never mentioned in Massie or Klier's books nor in any of the documentaries I've seen. I believe you, I just would like to know where you heard that.

I think it was mentioned in Massie's book. Those scientists rock, seriously. Both Russians (Abramov) and Dr. Gill. <333
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Bob_the_builder on May 22, 2007, 02:45:22 AM
The estimation of reliability that Anna Manahan was FS was estimated by Gill and other researchers who sequenced the material to be 98.5-99.5% likely.
Hi, where did you get that from? An estimation was never mentioned in Massie or Klier's books nor in any of the documentaries I've seen. I believe you, I just would like to know where you heard that.

I think it was mentioned in Massie's book. Those scientists rock, seriously. Both Russians (Abramov) and Dr. Gill. <333
I totally disagree with you about Abramov "rocking". lol I don't agree with his method of placing badly damaged skulls to pictures as being conclusive.

But I still don't see in Massie's book where he says that there's a 98.5% probability that AA and FS were one and the same.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Bob_the_builder on May 22, 2007, 02:47:45 AM
The estimation of reliability that Anna Manahan was FS was estimated by Gill and other researchers who sequenced the material to be 98.5-99.5% likely.
Aren't those odds as great as the earth being round? Still haven't found those stats
I would say it's 100% proven that the earth is round. All you have to do is go into space and see for yourself.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Annie on May 22, 2007, 07:02:53 AM
The estimation of reliability that Anna Manahan was FS was estimated by Gill and other researchers who sequenced the material to be 98.5-99.5% likely.
Aren't those odds as great as the earth being round? Still haven't found those stats
I would say it's 100% proven that the earth is round. All you have to do is go into space and see for yourself.

But since most of us will never be able to go into space, how do you know the governmnent might be trying to fool us with those pics?! They could be fakes!  ;)

You do see a round earth, but it's only one dimensional! How do you know it's not like a pancake, round but still flat?  :D
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Bob_the_builder on May 22, 2007, 08:08:01 AM
The estimation of reliability that Anna Manahan was FS was estimated by Gill and other researchers who sequenced the material to be 98.5-99.5% likely.
Aren't those odds as great as the earth being round? Still haven't found those stats
I would say it's 100% proven that the earth is round. All you have to do is go into space and see for yourself.

But since most of us will never be able to go into space, how do you know the governmnent might be trying to fool us with those pics?! They could be fakes!  ;)

You do see a round earth, but it's only one dimensional! How do you know it's not like a pancake, round but still flat?  :D

lol Because there is video footage silly! ;D :D ;) :) Now that would be one huge conspiracy, and plus, I think Columbus had the right idea when he sailed across the ocean and came back. The earth was not flat after all, and he never sailed off the earth and get eaten by giant sea serpants.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Forum Admin on May 22, 2007, 09:10:38 AM
Gill stated the "odds were 300 to 1 in favor of Anna Manahan being FS".  That alone converts to 97% accuracy. However, our member DaveK did some compelling research and math, which you can read, which tends to show that this estimate is much too conservative, you can read his work elsewhere in the forum at:

http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php/topic,2094.15.html
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Bob_the_builder on May 22, 2007, 06:58:39 PM
Yes, I do recall Gill giving the estimate of 300 in 1. Perhaps it is conservative, but as was Gill's estimate about the Romanov bones.

So I guess the least estimates we can give are that it's been 98.5% proven that the bones were those of the Romanovs and 97% proven that Anna Anderson was Franziska Schanzkowska.

Here' s a side note, but I was just wondering, why does AA being FS make her any less interesting of a person? I mean, either way she created the greatest mystery of the 20th Century, or atleast added to it. It's like Brien Horen said, "She probably was a much more interesting person than the real Anastasia would have been."
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Annie on May 22, 2007, 07:25:47 PM
I never understood why it was such a bad thing for her to be FS and why so many insist she was nobility or a Cheka plant/red agent or whatever even though the DNA matched FS's family. Just because FS was poor and a farmer and factory worker doesn't mean she wasn't an interesting person. She deserves to be remembered. A girl at the end of her rope attempts suicide and lives on with the identity of a dead princess. What Hollywood writers could have come up with such a tale?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Bob_the_builder on May 22, 2007, 07:59:59 PM
I never understood why it was such a bad thing for her to be FS and why so many insist she was nobility or a Cheka plant/red agent or whatever even though the DNA matched FS's family. Just because FS was poor and a farmer and factory worker doesn't mean she wasn't an interesting person. She deserves to be remembered. A girl at the end of her rope attempts suicide and lives on with the identity of a dead princess. What Hollywood writers could have come up with such a tale?

You are completely right Annie. That is of course, assuming Anastasia was dead since AA probably wouldn't have gotten the idea of it if it weren't for the rumor of Anastasia's escape.

AA was simply a genious and I admire her. She went from being dirt poor, obscure, and unhappy to being hugely famous and unhappy. It's a very tragic story no matter how you look at it, a sad woman struggling for an identity. Just like one guy said who wrote a ballet about Anastasia and Anna Anderson, "All that matters is that she believed she was Anastasia."

I don't know why people keep going on with these theories of AA being a Red or agent of Cheka decoy or whatever. It's all so stupid. It is WAY more than likely that AA was FS, and there's pretty good documentation of FS from the time she moved to Berlin. And guess what, she wasn't a Cheka agent, she was a factory worker.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: scarlett_riviera on May 22, 2007, 10:18:54 PM
I also don't understand why people insist AA can't be FS because FS was not nobility. Well according to Massie, centuries before, FS' family was part of the lower Polish nobility. It doesn't matter though, because FS is an interesting, mysterious figure on her own. So what if she was not Anastasia, it's Anderson and her legend who's selling a lot of books and movies.
The real Anastasia deserves a spotlight of her own... it hurts to see people remember Anastasia- a grand duchess who carried three hundred years of imperial tradition and culture on her little shoulders; who was a smart, modest, mischievous, fun-loving child -as an old, bossy, rude, lunatic woman who ran around naked and collected cats. And what's even worse is the case of FS- and the true story of Anna Anderson -a forgotten person (a real person!) who is being shunned by history simply because she was a polish peasant and not a glamorous princess.
DNA speaks volumes. Testimonies of a few people who really didn't even know Anastasia, or saw her as much, can only go so far. If we are going to shun DNA results in this case, why not in every other case that used DNA results to learn the truth? How about those rape cases DNA helped solve by pinpointing the rapist? Or the murderer? Or the pedophile? Will we be quick to discard those too? Or say, let's just take the testimonies of people (who are now only relying on their memory, and in some cases, are not even relevant to the case) over the DNA evidence. So what then? Do we set the rapist/pedophile/murderer free?
What's even more annoying is that there are people who say that the techniques used in 1994 no longer hold any value. Really? On every case then that used this kind of DNA technique? Or just on the Anna Anderson case because... it's special, and all the other cases are not?
 
Why is it so easy for a lot of people in the AA case to discard the results? I'm sorry if I'm ranting, but sometimes it's frustrating. And if I made any errors on my yakking about DNA, correct me.

 
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Annie on May 22, 2007, 10:56:37 PM
You make a very good point, Scarlett. That's something that's not discussed much but it's true! Both of them deserve to be remembered as separate individuals! Anastasia should be remembered as the girl she was, not the old lady who was never her but an imposter. It bothers me to see AA supporters writing "Anastasia" on pics of old AA, because that's NOT Anastasia! She never got a chance to be an old lady, but if she did, she'd be her own person and not AA. FS  also deserves to be remembered as herself, a unique individual, and not be denied because her background isn't good enough for those who don't want to admit they were duped by an ordinary person. They were two tragic women who should both have their own memory and tribute.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: zackattack on May 22, 2007, 11:27:09 PM
The estimation of reliability that Anna Manahan was FS was estimated by Gill and other researchers who sequenced the material to be 98.5-99.5% likely.
Aren't those odds as great as the earth being round? Still haven't found those stats
I would say it's 100% proven that the earth is round. All you have to do is go into space and see for yourself.
Actually, the odds are about 99.9 % that the earth is round. In science, it seems, there isn't 100% proof for anything. But people fail to realize just how small that .00000001 really is.... 
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Bob_the_builder on May 23, 2007, 03:19:31 AM
Well, I don't agree that AA was a lunatic. :-[

But I'll admit I still have many questions unanswered by the DNA tests. There are a few of the things she knew that I'm still not really sure who could have told her about them, and the other thing is that it's wierd for someone from such lower origins to be able to do alot of the things AA did, such as being able to play the piano with or without sheet music and understand Russian. But it certainly isn't impossible that someone could have learned to do that.
But no matter how many unanswered questions I have, I CANNOT ignore the strongest evidence we've had- DNA evidence. You cannot simply ignore the fact that she was excluded from the Victorian line by her DNA, unless you are a conspiracy theorist. Which I just don't think is possible. Remember, the Russians had nothing to do with the AA testing, so it can't be some "KGB plot" as some people like to think.

But while AN and FS should be remembered as 2 different beings, there is NO doubt that these two's stories will always be linked together. There's a wonderful quote from John Klier's book, "The Quest for Anastasia":

Quote
The Grand Duchess Anastasia is dead, murdered by bullets, bayonets, and rifle butts in a dark cellar in Ekaterinburg, Russia, at 2:30 in the morning of 17 July 1918. The young woman who rose out of the Berlin canal lived on in the person of Fraulein Unbkannt, Anna Tchaivkovsky, Anna Anderson, Anastasia Manahan. The second undoubtably believed she was the first. And, truly, she kept alive the memory of that other Anastasia. Without her there would have been no films, no books, no romantic legend.
   The two Anastasias represent the two faces of the twentieth century. One is a century that really existed, full of war and the slaughter of the innocents. the second is the century we longed to have, of peace and family pleasures, and the dreams of any little girl who would close her eyes and become a princess.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: scarlett_riviera on May 23, 2007, 07:54:47 AM
That was a bittersweet quote!  :'(

the second is the century we longed to have, of peace and family pleasures

This reminds me so much of what Nicholas II and his family have come to symbolize. Family. Remember that part in Russian Ark? When they showed Nicholas II and his family having dinner together, all loving and smiling- peaceful -and completely unaware of the tragedy that awaited them? :-\
What is sad though is that even fairytales can sometimes turn ugly. Anna Anderson's story is an example of this. Sure, she became a legendary "princess"- the toast of high society, championed by real-life princesses and dukes -but she went through many hardships in life, and I don't believe she ever got her long-awaited "happily ever after". In the end, science proves that fairytales are exactly just that. Fairytales.


Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Bob_the_builder on May 23, 2007, 08:07:27 AM
Scarlett, you are right. I don't think there was anything at all about Anna Anderson's life that was like a fairy-tale. When I read biographies of her, they always really depress me. She certainly didn't live "happily ever after". And honestly, it's good that Anastasia wasn't her. How horrible that would have been.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Forum Admin on May 23, 2007, 09:16:33 AM
and the other thing is that it's wierd for someone from such lower origins to be able to do alot of the things AA did, such as being able to play the piano with or without sheet music and understand Russian. But it certainly isn't impossible that someone could have learned to do that.


umm, actually my maternal grandfather, son of dirt poorLithuanian Jewish  immigrants to Milwaukee, born in 1890 and never got past the 6th grade in school could not read a note of sheet music, never had a single piano lesson, yet could hear any piece of music once and repeat it perfectly on the piano by ear, ever since he was about 12 years old. He supported himself for many years in Chicago by playing the piano music accompanyment to silent movies, until "The Jazz Singer" put him out of work...

There was nothing "upper class" at all  about my Papa Isadore's origins, and he could do it.


Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Lemur on May 23, 2007, 09:54:35 AM
None of The Beatles could read sheet music, but they could sure play the piano, the guitar, etc.!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Bob_the_builder on May 23, 2007, 10:37:57 AM
Good point (although AA could read sheet music).

The funny thing is that for years after the DNA tests I kept waiting for there to be "advances" in the science which would make the older tests become obsolete. I just couldn't believe Anna Anderson wasn't Anastasia. I had almost accepted it as fact. There was so much conflicting evidence, and alot of it pointed to her being Anastasia. But the thing that always made me think she wasn't was that Olga Alexandrovna didn't think AA was her niece, and no matter how I tried, I couldn't ever see Olga doing this to her beloved goddaughter no matter what. Now it's been 15 years. The same technique is used that demonstrated that Anna Anderson could not be Anastasia and it's never going to change. AA really wasn't Anastasia. As sad as it is, we've got to learn to cope with it and realize that AA is every bit as interesting even as an imposter. ;D
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: AGRBear on June 06, 2007, 10:19:04 AM
Good point (although AA could read sheet music).
... [ in part]....

What is your source which tells us that AA could  read sheet music?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Mander on June 16, 2007, 08:59:32 AM
Forgive me if this is mentioned somewhere. I've not seen this particular quote anywhere in the threads. I just finished reading The Lost World of Nicholas and Alexandra by Peter Kurth. I was a bit thrown by a sentence on page 218.

The experiment was later successfully repeated by specialists in the United States, and their concclusions, too, were delivered with "certainty" -- Anna Anderson WAS Anastasia.


Was this a typographical error that should have read was NOT Anastasia or was there actually a DNA test that claimed Anna was Anastasia. I'm definitely a "non" believer but this was the first time I'd seen a positive test referred to.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Forum Admin on June 16, 2007, 11:02:28 AM
To MY knowledge, there has NEVER been a "positive" DNA test showing AA was AN. What "test" does the book refer to which was "later repeated"?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Mander on June 16, 2007, 11:44:08 AM
I just reread the paragraph and I did read it incorrectly. I feel stupid  ::) It changed to a forensic comparison of her face and ears  which concluded she was anastasia and then in the same paragraph goes back to DNA again and concludes that the test said she was Anastasia. I feel silly now but the paragraph was rather confusing and jumbled. Thanks for your response, though!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Bob_the_builder on June 17, 2007, 02:12:31 AM
Good point (although AA could read sheet music).
... [ in part]....

What is your source which tells us that AA could  read sheet music?

AGRBear
The website by Peter Kurth. "[Anna Anderson could] play the piano with or without sheet music."
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Bob_the_builder on June 17, 2007, 02:28:05 AM
no no no. I read that paragraph and he's talking about studies of pictures being done twice and those delivered absolute "certainty" that she was Anastasia. All the various DNA tests have always showed she was in all probability to be Shanzkowska.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: dmitri on June 19, 2007, 12:03:02 PM
Katya is completely correct. You could do a million tests on the DNA all coming up with the result that Anna Anderson was not Grand Duchess Anastasia and the unusual ones who still think the dead Grand Duchess Anastasia walked out and survived would still not believe. One wonders what drugs they are taking to hallucinate so badly? You only have to look at photos of Anna Anderson in the 1920s to see she had absolutely no close resemblance at all to the late Grand Duchess. Princess Irene of Prussia, Alexandra's sister could see absolutely no similarity. No wonder she was terribly upset. After all the poor woman lost 2 sisters and her brother-in-law plus four nieces and a nephew. Anderson's eyes were completely different as are other facial features. Eyes cannot be damaged so much that they change shape. It is all so obvious that Anna Anderson was a total fraud.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Annie on June 19, 2007, 05:31:07 PM
You only have to look at photos of Anna Anderson in the 1920s to see she had absolutely no close resemblance at all to the late Grand Duchess.  Anderson's eyes were completely different as are other facial features. Eyes cannot be damaged so much that they change shape. It is all so obvious that Anna Anderson was a total fraud.

I remember a poster used to suggest that AA's lips were so much thicker than AN's because of a rifle butt to the face :P I've never heard of swollen lips being permanent!  ::) They also try to say her injuries changed her face. I always say if AN's face were injured, it would look like a messed up version of HER face, not a totally diffferent person's face!

You are right, the pics from the early 20's- the ones before she started biting her lips and posing in ways to intentionally match up with pics of AN (which is all Kurth's website shows you!) looked NOTHING like AN! It's a joke, really. The woman in the pics, the original pics before she started pretending, bear absolutely no match with AN at all! First, she looks too old, the eyes way too large, hairline wrong, nose too bulbous, lips much too thick, and bone structure all wrong. I can post pics, but I know we've been through all that. I still have them if anyone hasn't seen them.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Olishka~ Pincess on June 22, 2007, 08:42:36 AM
You only have to look at photos of Anna Anderson in the 1920s to see she had absolutely no close resemblance at all to the late Grand Duchess.  Anderson's eyes were completely different as are other facial features. Eyes cannot be damaged so much that they change shape. It is all so obvious that Anna Anderson was a total fraud.

I remember a poster used to suggest that AA's lips were so much thicker than AN's because of a rifle butt to the face :P I've never heard of swollen lips being permanent!  ::) They also try to say her injuries changed her face. I always say if AN's face were injured, it would look like a messed up version of HER face, not a totally diffferent person's face!

You are right, the pics from the early 20's- the ones before she started biting her lips and posing in ways to intentionally match up with pics of AN (which is all Kurth's website shows you!) looked NOTHING like AN! It's a joke, really. The woman in the pics, the original pics before she started pretending, bear absolutely no match with AN at all! First, she looks too old, the eyes way too large, hairline wrong, nose too bulbous, lips much too thick, and bone structure all wrong. I can post pics, but I know we've been through all that. I still have them if anyone hasn't seen them.

I do not think Anna Anderson look anything like Anastasia I agree with you Annie. The nose, eyes and lips, face and the hairline look different plus since Anderson did not know all the langauges Anastasia she is not her. http://www.peterkurth.com/ROMANOV%20BONES.htm that website has so many comparrisons between Anderson and Anastasia. Once you see the pictures being compared you will think that ANderson is not Anastasia. Photos of Anastasia between 1910-1916 and Anderson in the 1920's you can defantly see that is not Anastasia. ;)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Phil_tomaselli on August 02, 2007, 01:03:31 AM
As a comment on the infallibility of DNA testing check out this interesting story:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6925640.stm

My point, as ever, is that DNA is EVIDENCE not fact and subject to interpretation same as every other piece of evidence.

Phil Tomaselli
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Annie on August 02, 2007, 07:05:00 AM
Good point (although AA could read sheet music).
... [ in part]....

What is your source which tells us that AA could  read sheet music?

AGRBear
The website by Peter Kurth. "[Anna Anderson could] play the piano with or without sheet music."

I have known illiterate hillbillies who could do the same. This doesn't make anyone noble.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Annie on August 02, 2007, 07:09:14 AM
As a comment on the infallibility of DNA testing check out this interesting story:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6925640.stm

My point, as ever, is that DNA is EVIDENCE not fact and subject to interpretation same as every other piece of evidence.

Phil Tomaselli

This was not tested by four labs as AA's was. It also wasn't originally tested on both familes as AA's was. Because AA's was tested not only to see if she was related to see if she was related to QV,(no)  but also to see if she was related to the Schanskowska family.(yes) In all that, something would have been unclear if there were anything wrong, but after all those tests, it was the same. I hope you don't think this one article tosses out the AA case, or any of the thousands of criminal cases and paternity cases decided by DNA, because it doesn't mean anything more than what's in that one story, and we don't even know all the details.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Belochka on August 02, 2007, 07:21:31 AM

My point, as ever, is that DNA is EVIDENCE not fact and subject to interpretation same as every other piece of evidence.

Phil Tomaselli

DNA is a molecule, and that is a fact!

While DNA profiles provide the investigator specific information that can be used as evidence.

Margarita  ;)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: dmitri on August 02, 2007, 10:06:53 AM
I never believed Anna Anderson. Reading her so-called biography, 'I, Anastasia', written by others and not herself, made it all very clear indeed. It was so obvious and laughable.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Phil_tomaselli on August 02, 2007, 04:05:12 PM
I would like to point out that I have never expressed an opinion on Anna Anderson/Anastasia except pehaps to say that I couldn't care less.  My interest in DNA comes purely from a desire to shoot down those people for whom DNA seems to have become an automatic arbiter of guilt or innocence in criminal cases.

For all I know this doesn't happen in the USA but in the UK there is an increasing tendency to say "Well, they've got DNA" as if there should be no need for a trial, it's automatic, case closed, guilty.

And then you get the cases where there is absolutely no DNA evidence at all and, in spite of its so apparent God-like status, people are still found guilty.

All I'm trying to do is bring back (in the UK) basic rules of evidence and honest scepticism.  It's your obsession with Anna Anderson that has brought us this far - this thread started with a query about the science of bricks and I don't think anyone has answered the original questions.

Perhaps you'd care to go back and read?

Or perhaps not.

Phil Tomaselli
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Forum Admin on August 02, 2007, 04:24:24 PM
Phil.

I think we need to be a little clear about the use and meaning of nuclear DNA evidence.  mtDNA testing is of limited use in criminal cases.  mtDNA can only prove to EXCLUDE the defendant from a match with the evidentiary sample, it can't be used to prove guilt.  So, the better tests are nuclear DNA. The testing itself is 100% accurate. DNA found at the crime scene is sequenced and a profile is created.  That profile is compared to the same profile of an accused person, and it matches or it doesn't. Period. If it matches exactly it becomes very compelling evidence of guilt.  It is virtually impossible to "accidentally" create a perfect DNA match, more particularly when the defendent was arrested on non-DNA evidentiary grounds.

The problem becomes this:  Defense counsel has a tough row to how when there is an exact 100% match of DNA evidence at the crime scene with the defendent.  The meaning of such a match is one unarguable point. The defendent was AT the crime scene.  There is simply no other possible explanation as people's personal DNA "fingerprint" is unique.  This is why nonDNA evidence is often overlooked. 

So, one must look at the quality of the sample, very degraged DNA leads to a lesser degree of reliability.  Very fresh DNA yields virtually flawless results. 

NOW, some people attempt to argue the chain of custody of the DNA evidentiary sample, in order to show contamination.  Now the problem here is, IF the match is 100%, defense must still demonstrate HOW the sample could have been contaminated by Defendent's DNA. 

The one place where I think I concur with you is the prevalent use in the UK of DNA databases, and the only evidence linking the accused to the crime is the DNA, and the police have no other evidence to tie the defendent to the crime.

I believe (from my days as an articled clerk in a London solicitor's firm) that the UK has the same basic guaranteed right to a trial before conviction of a crime.  I can't believe that the UK would EVER abrogate someone's right to a trial and opportunity to challenge the evidence produced in Court.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: dmitri on August 02, 2007, 05:07:13 PM
I doubt whether anybody will ever know the truth about what the Botkins believed.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Forum Admin on August 02, 2007, 09:08:00 PM
dmitri

No offense, but this thread is not about what the Botkins may or may not have believed, nor is it about any discussion of Anna Manahan. It is only about the reliability of DNA testing.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: dmitri on August 02, 2007, 09:55:31 PM
well DNA is considered reliable
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Annie on August 02, 2007, 10:17:04 PM
AA's DNA was tested and verified by not just one but four different labs, all getting the same results. Not only the intestines, but the hair all got the same results. AA is 100% not AN and is FS to a 99.9% accuracy. If there had been any errors they would have shown up in one of those tests. They all matched up, there is no question.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: dmitri on August 02, 2007, 11:10:35 PM
yes there really is nothing more to be said ... perhaps the thread should be locked off now
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: ferrymansdaughter on August 03, 2007, 07:11:08 AM
yes there really is nothing more to be said ... perhaps the thread should be locked off now

Are you suggesting a lockdown AGAIN?  Dmitri, you are not this website's official censor!  Funny how you want to lock down threads that question your thinking .....
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Forum Admin on August 03, 2007, 09:14:20 AM
Look,

You guys are getting off track in too many directions. I'm not going to lock the thread because I think the discussion to help people learn about the use of DNA evidence is valuable. That said, that is the subject of this thread, NOT Anna Freekin Manahan or piano playing. I have deleted recent off topic posts and remind users to take that discussion to an appropriate thread.

Thanks.
FA
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: lexi4 on August 03, 2007, 03:53:56 PM
I would like to point out that I have never expressed an opinion on Anna Anderson/Anastasia except pehaps to say that I couldn't care less.  My interest in DNA comes purely from a desire to shoot down those people for whom DNA seems to have become an automatic arbiter of guilt or innocence in criminal cases.

For all I know this doesn't happen in the USA but in the UK there is an increasing tendency to say "Well, they've got DNA" as if there should be no need for a trial, it's automatic, case closed, guilty.

And then you get the cases where there is absolutely no DNA evidence at all and, in spite of its so apparent God-like status, people are still found guilty.

All I'm trying to do is bring back (in the UK) basic rules of evidence and honest scepticism.  It's your obsession with Anna Anderson that has brought us this far - this thread started with a query about the science of bricks and I don't think anyone has answered the original questions.

Perhaps you'd care to go back and read?

Or perhaps not.

Phil Tomaselli

I can appreciate that Phil. FA, I also appreciate your efforts to keep this discussion to topic as I think it is important.
I don't think DNA can be considered automatic. It some instances, it may prove that a suspect was at the scene or with the victim at some point, but it doesn't "put a gun in a suspects hand."
In the U.S., the most noted example is OJ Simpson. (I hate bringing him up.) His Nicole's DNA was found on a pair of bloody sock in OJ's bedroom. That alone, was not sufficient to obtain a conviction.
I would agree that DNA is evidence and I do see that there are those who think the verdict is in when they here there is DNA evidence. I think (at least in the U.S.) television contributes to that attitude.
Lexi
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: PrincessSophie on August 11, 2007, 06:39:06 AM
Katya is completely correct. You could do a million tests on the DNA all coming up with the result that Anna Anderson was not Grand Duchess Anastasia and the unusual ones who still think the dead Grand Duchess Anastasia walked out and survived would still not believe. One wonders what drugs they are taking to hallucinate so badly? You only have to look at photos of Anna Anderson in the 1920s to see she had absolutely no close resemblance at all to the late Grand Duchess. Princess Irene of Prussia, Alexandra's sister could see absolutely no similarity. No wonder she was terribly upset. After all the poor woman lost 2 sisters and her brother-in-law plus four nieces and a nephew. Anderson's eyes were completely different as are other facial features. Eyes cannot be damaged so much that they change shape. It is all so obvious that Anna Anderson was a total fraud.

I want those drugs too, Dmitri!  I don't believe that AA was AN.  AN died with her family.  BUT I will say that one changes bet ween the ages of 17 and 27.   I know I got cuter!  Many things about the face change over time but apparently not the ears.  I need to see these photos and the Peter Kurth one provided doesn't work.  Is there another?
 
The other thing I will say - and I admit it is left field but - people see what they want to see.  If you tell someone "here is my brother" and, unbeknownst to them, you are both adopted, people will look for similarities where there are none!  Some similarities may be explained by similar mannerisms but still ...
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: PrincessSophie on August 11, 2007, 07:53:02 AM
no no no. I read that paragraph and he's talking about studies of pictures being done twice and those delivered absolute "certainty" that she was Anastasia. All the various DNA tests have always showed she was in all probability to be Shanzkowska.

Still, of all the pretenders I've seen (Anna Anderson, Magdalen Veres & Eugenia Smith), Anna looks closest.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Alixz on August 11, 2007, 09:11:15 AM
Princess Sophie,

You are absolutely right about the adoption theory.  When we moved into our house four years ago, our next door neighbors came over to say "hi' and welcome us to the neighborhood.

They brought their two sons.  After they left, both my mother and I said that the boys looked much more like their father than their mother.  About a month later, their mom told me that both boys were adopted from South American orphanages!

So it is just a fluke that the boys look like their adopted father.  But if their mom had never told me, I wouldn't have known the difference.

On the other side of the coin, though, my husband's family is thoroughly Italian.  My husband is first generation American.  Yet, one of my husband's cousins who married another Italian, has a red haired daughter.  And I mean copper red!  If I had not seen her mother when she was pregnant or been around at the time of the girl's birth, I would swear that she was adopted.  She looks like neither parent.   ;)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Forum Admin on August 11, 2007, 09:46:23 AM
no no no. I read that paragraph and he's talking about studies of pictures being done twice and those delivered absolute "certainty" that she was Anastasia. All the various DNA tests have always showed she was in all probability to be Shanzkowska.

Still, of all the pretenders I've seen (Anna Anderson, Magdalen Veres & Eugenia Smith), Anna looks closest.

Xenia's son Vassily often told family and friends "Anna Anderson was a fake, but she was the best of all the fakes". All the surviving family members who Bob has often spoken to told him this. Including his godson.

 ;)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: dmitri on August 11, 2007, 10:05:48 AM
Anna Anderson looked absolutely nothing like Grand Duchess Anastasia. Have a look at the photos again and you will see the shape of the face, lips and eyes are nothing alike at all.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Lemur on August 11, 2007, 10:31:55 AM
She doesn't look a thing like Anastasia. If I had to choose a claimant who most resembled her, I'd have to go with "Alex of Denmark" Grandma Josephine. Granny Alina resembles Maria as well. AA does not look a thing like Anastasia.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Lemur on August 11, 2007, 10:36:44 AM
It's true people can look nothing like their family, this is why it's pointless to do family resemblance comparisons with Anderson and the Romanovs or with Franziska's siblings.

Do you remember the Florida baby switch story a few years ago? Two girls were accidently switched at birth and no one knew it until one of the girls became ill and had to undergo testing to see which family member was a match for her. The family was shocked to find she didn't match the family. When the other baby girl from the hospital was tested it turned out she was their child. The 'father' of that girl was devastated. His wife had died, and he thought the girl looked just like his wife and had the mannerisms of her family. So it goes to show people can see what they want to see and this could be a reason some people think Andersen looks like Anastasia when she really doesn't.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Olishka~ Pincess on August 11, 2007, 11:25:03 AM
The point is Anastasia looks nothing like AA she is not her. People that think so, should take a look at the comparrison photos again and look realy hard.Either that or they just simply rufuse and choose to believe whatever they want or thy can not see that well. Because I do not see one thing about AA that looks like A. Granny Alina does not look ike Maria her face is a little more chubby and I believe at the time of the murder Maria was not fat she was more slender. Granny Alina was rather fat than slender.

To MY knowledge, there has NEVER been a "positive" DNA test showing AA was AN. What "test" does the book refer to which was "later repeated"?

Yes . I think the authur Peter Kurth want to make it seem like AA is A. ALready when the DNA tests proved that she was not.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Annie on August 11, 2007, 12:38:04 PM

  BUT I will say that one changes bet ween the ages of 17 and 27.   I know I got cuter!  Many things about the face change over time but apparently not the ears.  I need to see these photos and the Peter Kurth one provided doesn't work.  Is there another?
 


A person's face and features do not naturally change between 17 and 27. If there is a significant weight gain or loss it might appear different, and any added wrinkles might give a little different look (though not that early!) but the face itself does not change especially not the shape of the features.

The ears, however, DO change! I read an article on this once. They grow more cartilage as time goes on and this is why old men seem to have such huge ears. A young person's ears are soft and flexible, but the more they age the harder the ear becomes, and it does grow wherever the cartilage expands.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: PrincessSophie on August 11, 2007, 08:39:40 PM
Ah, the truth!  So hard to tell! 8)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: dmitri on August 11, 2007, 09:12:52 PM
Well in the case of AA it was so very easy to tell. She was such a fake, fraud, whatever you like to call someone who deliberately sets out to deceive. What a pathetic creature she was. 
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: PrincessSophie on August 11, 2007, 09:41:04 PM
Well in the case of AA it was so very easy to tell. She was such a fake, fraud, whatever you like to call someone who deliberately sets out to deceive. What a pathetic creature she was. 

And you can't libel the dead! 

I wonder how you can be so sure of her motivations.  If she was mentally ill, as some claim, then perhaps she was unaware that she was not Anastasia.  And, in any case, no one believed her.  If she was a fraud and people believed her that would have been completely different.   AN's family are a different matter.  They have the right to be as outraged and bitter as you appear to be. 
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Annie on August 11, 2007, 09:59:08 PM
Well in the case of AA it was so very easy to tell. She was such a fake, fraud, whatever you like to call someone who deliberately sets out to deceive. What a pathetic creature she was. 

And you can't libel the dead! 

I wonder how you can be so sure of her motivations.  If she was mentally ill, as some claim, then perhaps she was unaware that she was not Anastasia.  And, in any case, no one believed her.  If she was a fraud and people believed her that would have been completely different.   AN's family are a different matter.  They have the right to be as outraged and bitter as you appear to be. 

AN's family do have a right to be outraged that they were framed as liars who denied her for money when it was only because they really knew it wasn't her. The way Botkin libeled Xenia, Olga and others in his books would be grounds for a lawsuit today, should have been back then. Even to this day AA supporters accuse the royal family of rigging the DNA tests which is also slanderous against all the scientists. But say one bad thing about Botkin or AA and watch them go into a rage.

AA was not a very nice person in the earlier days, turning on her supporters, strangling Annie Jenning's parrot, and making up malicious accusations against those who denied her (Bux a traitor, Ernie a spy, Yussoupov tried to murder her, Mountbatten poisoned Harriet Rathlef, Olga and Ernie greedly liars, etc.) IMO if she did believe she was AN it wasn't until she was very old and senile. She knew exactly what she was doing back when she hid her head under the sheets and refused to meet with people who could expose her, like Xenia's sons. The more I read of the details of her claim, the more convinced I am it was a cold calculating plot to get money, and while she went along with it, she was used, because she was too stupid to figure anything out for herself. Whatever they told her to do, she went along with it. It really was a scam and a snake oil sale, and there is nothing to be proud of, and certainly nothing to pity AA for. I feel more sorry for her victims, even the entire German court system, and anyone else used and misused along the way.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Olishka~ Pincess on August 11, 2007, 10:16:42 PM
Well in the case of AA it was so very easy to tell. She was such a fake, fraud, whatever you like to call someone who deliberately sets out to deceive. What a pathetic creature she was. 

And you can't libel the dead! 

I wonder how you can be so sure of her motivations.  If she was mentally ill, as some claim, then perhaps she was unaware that she was not Anastasia.  And, in any case, no one believed her.  If she was a fraud and people believed her that would have been completely different.   AN's family are a different matter.  They have the right to be as outraged and bitter as you appear to be. 

AN's family do have a right to be outraged that they were framed as liars who denied her for money when it was only because they really knew it wasn't her. The way Botkin libeled Xenia, Olga and others in his books would be grounds for a lawsuit today, should have been back then. Even to this day AA supporters accuse the royal family of rigging the DNA tests which is also slanderous against all the scientists. But say one bad thing about Botkin or AA and watch them go into a rage.

AA was not a very nice person in the earlier days, turning on her supporters, strangling Annie Jenning's parrot, and making up malicious accusations against those who denied her (Bux a traitor, Ernie a spy, Yussoupov tried to murder her, Mountbatten poisoned Harriet Rathlef, Olga and Ernie greedly liars, etc.) IMO if she did believe she was AN it wasn't until she was very old and senile. She knew exactly what she was doing back when she hid her head under the sheets and refused to meet with people who could expose her, like Xenia's sons. The more I read of the details of her claim, the more convinced I am it was a cold calculating plot to get money, and while she went along with it, she was used, because she was too stupid to figure anything out for herself. Whatever they told her to do, she went along with it. It really was a scam and a snake oil sale, and there is nothing to be proud of, and certainly nothing to pity AA for. I feel more sorry for her victims, even the entire German court system, and anyone else used and misused along the way.
AA is a crazy woman she had mental health problems knowing that many did not believe that she was Anastasia becuase of her phsyco and mental ways and for the fact she did not resemble A. Her whole thing was to get money off of Anastasia.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Annie on August 11, 2007, 10:23:17 PM

AA is a crazy woman she had mental health problems knowing that many did not believe that she was Anastasia becuase of her phsyco and mental ways and for the fact she did not resemble A. Her whole thing was to get money off of Anastasia.

Yes and it's so sad that the real Anastasia is remembered as being this crazy lady and it's not true. She deserves to be remembered for herself. This is another reason it's bad to make out like AA is AN. It's unfair to AN's memory.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: PrincessSophie on August 11, 2007, 10:31:54 PM
Well in the case of AA it was so very easy to tell. She was such a fake, fraud, whatever you like to call someone who deliberately sets out to deceive. What a pathetic creature she was. 

And you can't libel the dead! 

I wonder how you can be so sure of her motivations.  If she was mentally ill, as some claim, then perhaps she was unaware that she was not Anastasia.  And, in any case, no one believed her.  If she was a fraud and people believed her that would have been completely different.   AN's family are a different matter.  They have the right to be as outraged and bitter as you appear to be. 

AN's family do have a right to be outraged that they were framed as liars who denied her for money when it was only because they really knew it wasn't her. The way Botkin libeled Xenia, Olga and others in his books would be grounds for a lawsuit today, should have been back then. Even to this day AA supporters accuse the royal family of rigging the DNA tests which is also slanderous against all the scientists. But say one bad thing about Botkin or AA and watch them go into a rage.

AA was not a very nice person in the earlier days, turning on her supporters, strangling Annie Jenning's parrot, and making up malicious accusations against those who denied her (Bux a traitor, Ernie a spy, Yussoupov tried to murder her, Mountbatten poisoned Harriet Rathlef, Olga and Ernie greedly liars, etc.) IMO if she did believe she was AN it wasn't until she was very old and senile. She knew exactly what she was doing back when she hid her head under the sheets and refused to meet with people who could expose her, like Xenia's sons. The more I read of the details of her claim, the more convinced I am it was a cold calculating plot to get money, and while she went along with it, she was used, because she was too stupid to figure anything out for herself. Whatever they told her to do, she went along with it. It really was a scam and a snake oil sale, and there is nothing to be proud of, and certainly nothing to pity AA for. I feel more sorry for her victims, even the entire German court system, and anyone else used and misused along the way.

I agree with you Annie.  The grief AN's family went through (and is still going through) is unfathomable and inexcusable - particularly if it was, as you say, a deliberate act.  And I don't doubt your statements that it was.

Thanks for filling in some details for me.  It is much appreciated! :) :) :)

Sophie
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Olishka~ Pincess on August 11, 2007, 10:46:59 PM

AA is a crazy woman she had mental health problems knowing that many did not believe that she was Anastasia becuase of her phsyco and mental ways and for the fact she did not resemble A. Her whole thing was to get money off of Anastasia.

Yes and it's so sad that the real Anastasia is remembered as being this crazy lady and it's not true. She deserves to be remembered for herself. This is another reason it's bad to make out like AA is AN. It's unfair to AN's memory.
I agree with you Annie! It is a pity that Anastasia has to be remembered as a crazy woman all becuase of AA. She realy messed up Anastasia's reputation I am sure Anastasia would want revenge on AA if she was living during the time. The point is that AA should never ever be remembered as Anastasia. I know people want to believe that the real Anastasia is crazy and has an metal health problem but that is simply a lie. Another person should no be blamed under someone else's problems and troubles it is just wrong! >:( Realy it is making Anastasia's life look realy bad.  I realy think AA made a fool out of Anastasia. She sure got the pleasure of doing that.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: ferrymansdaughter on August 13, 2007, 04:09:03 AM


AA was not a very nice person in the earlier days, turning on her supporters, strangling Annie Jenning's parrot,

Annie,

As I have said before, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion about this case, but please  get your facts right. She did not strangle Annie Jenning's parrot. She accidentally killed (stepped on) one of her own parakeets!

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Annie on August 13, 2007, 06:10:27 AM


AA was not a very nice person in the earlier days, turning on her supporters, strangling Annie Jenning's parrot,

Annie,

As I have said before, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion about this case, but please  get your facts right. She did not strangle Annie Jenning's parrot. She accidentally killed (stepped on) one of her own parakeets!



I read that only recently in a book, I will find and quote it as soon as I have time. The step on story was something different, and how can one step on a parrot, they can fly?! How do you know either of the stories are 'facts'? Nothing but relayed rubble through several people over time. Maybe accurate, maybe not. You hold too strongly to 'facts' that may not be.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Alixz on August 13, 2007, 07:11:07 AM
As I have said many times before, I always had a hard time believing that AA was AN because of  AA's slovenly ways and rude and disturbing behavior.  It just didn't seem right to me that someone who was brought up to be a grand duchess would descend to that kind of level no matter what she had been though.  I can't even imagine how bad the situation in Ipatiev House was and I hope that I never have to know for sure.

But, I guess the question that remains for me is, which came first?  FS deciding to become someone she wasn't, or someone who knew AN deciding that FS was a good candidate for the job?  Its kind of the "chicken or egg" theory.

And why or all whys did FS decide to throw herself into a canal?  I think that is the ultimate question that needs to be answered because if she hadn't thrown herself into that canal and then been put into an asylum, she wouldn't have been in a position for anyone to "discover" her and begin to spread the tales that followed.

Unless throwing herself into the canal was a "first step" in a whole chain of events.  But then that presupposes that someone with imperial knowledge had already found FS and convinced her to begin the whole charade by jumping in.  That sounds too complicated.


Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: dmitri on August 13, 2007, 09:03:27 AM
It's really all very simple. FS = AA - DNA proven and beyond doubt anymore, acquired "imperial knowledge" AFTER throwing herself in the canal. She was exposed to magazines about royalty in the hospital and information from others. My own late Grandmother told me about magzines from Germany, sent before and after world war one, that her own family sent her from Berlin which had stacks of photos and information on various Royal and Imperial families and in substantial detail.  She even kept some and showed them to me. You hardly had to be an "insider" to gain such information. There is nothing at all mysterious about any of it. People who knew the imperial residences as only imperial and royal highnesses can, are on record stating quite categorically that much of AA's information about imperial residences was quite inaccurate. This is hardly surprising given that her knowledge came from magazines and servant class people associated with the imperial court. She was not a Romanov and never ever was. Grand Duchess Anastasia clearly was murdered with the rest of her family in Ekaterinburg in the Ipatiev House. There is no room for the slightest doubt on the matter. All the rest is the stuff that lies and distortion are all about. You don't have to be terribly bright to work it out.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Annie on August 13, 2007, 09:22:53 AM

But, I guess the question that remains for me is, which came first?  FS deciding to become someone she wasn't, or someone who knew AN deciding that FS was a good candidate for the job?  Its kind of the "chicken or egg" theory.

And why or all whys did FS decide to throw herself into a canal?  I think that is the ultimate question that needs to be answered because if she hadn't thrown herself into that canal and then been put into an asylum, she wouldn't have been in a position for anyone to "discover" her and begin to spread the tales that followed.


Unless throwing herself into the canal was a "first step" in a whole chain of events.  But then that presupposes that someone with imperial knowledge had already found FS and convinced her to begin the whole charade by jumping in.  That sounds too complicated.


This is what I have been trying to explore for years, but every time you start asking these questions, the AA supporters pop back in trying to convince you she wasn't FS and the whole AA/AN/FS mess takes over another thread. These questions are the only mystery left, that and who helped and what were their motives and how they did it. Personally I believe she never had any idea to pretend to be a GD until Clara showed her the magazine (and thanks Dmitri for the info on the German mags!) She was after all there for 2 years before the claim started (and no I don't count that alleged secret comment that allegedly happened in 1921, the nurse herself said 1922 then later said it was a 'mistake') As far as her being a good 'candidate', no I don't think anyone would have chosen her out of a lineup of actresses, but she was in the right situation at the right time. She was claiming to be AN, and there were people who then got the idea that they could make a lot of money off of it and decided to groom her for the role. Even the books in her favor, Kurth's and Lovell's, tell that she wasn't really interested in her own claim, it was others pushing it for her and starting the court case, she was just going along with it. I don't  think anyone was out there looking for an "Anastasia" as they were in the cartoon, I think they got the idea after hearing about her claim and realizing how they could use her that way.

Whatever made the real Franziska jump into the canal, be it the loss of her child, fiancee', a line of crappy jobs with no future, and/or other factors, I'm sure it must have been very sad. I really believe FS wanted to die, and  so  she did- when she got to the asylum she never admitted to her identity and had apparently stopped being herself. Then when she saw the chance to live again as "Anastasia" she jumped at the chance. IMO she committed metaphorical suicide and took on the identity of a dead person which she never gave up.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Olishka~ Pincess on August 13, 2007, 09:37:45 AM

But, I guess the question that remains for me is, which came first?  FS deciding to become someone she wasn't, or someone who knew AN deciding that FS was a good candidate for the job?  Its kind of the "chicken or egg" theory.

And why or all whys did FS decide to throw herself into a canal?  I think that is the ultimate question that needs to be answered because if she hadn't thrown herself into that canal and then been put into an asylum, she wouldn't have been in a position for anyone to "discover" her and begin to spread the tales that followed.


Unless throwing herself into the canal was a "first step" in a whole chain of events.  But then that presupposes that someone with imperial knowledge had already found FS and convinced her to begin the whole charade by jumping in.  That sounds too complicated.


This is what I have been trying to explore for years, but every time you start asking these questions, the AA supporters pop back in trying to convince you she wasn't FS and the whole AA/AN/FS mess takes over another thread. These questions are the only mystery left, that and who helped and what were their motives and how they did it. Personally I believe she never had any idea to pretend to be a GD until Clara showed her the magazine (and thanks Dmitri for the info on the German mags!) She was after all there for 2 years before the claim started (and no I don't count that alleged secret comment that allegedly happened in 1921, the nurse herself said 1922 then later said it was a 'mistake') As far as her being a good 'candidate', no I don't think anyone would have chosen her out of a lineup of actresses, but she was in the right situation at the right time. She was claiming to be AN, and there were people who then got the idea that they could make a lot of money off of it and decided to groom her for the role. Even the books in her favor, Kurth's and Lovell's, tell that she wasn't really interested in her own claim, it was others pushing it for her and starting the court case, she was just going along with it. I don't  think anyone was out there looking for an "Anastasia" as they were in the cartoon, I think they got the idea after hearing about her claim and realizing how they could use her that way.

Whatever made the real Franziska jump into the canal, be it the loss of her child, fiancee', a line of crappy jobs with no future, and/or other factors, I'm sure it must have been very sad. I really believe FS wanted to die, and  so  she did- when she got to the asylum she never admitted to her identity and had apparently stopped being herself. Then when she saw the chance to live again as "Anastasia" she jumped at the chance. IMO she committed metaphorical suicide and took on the identity of a dead person which she never gave up.

She is realy insane. I mean she is so pathetic and worthless AA no wonder she commited suiside she was mentally challenged and retarded and physical crazy that is why she tried to kill herself by trying to drown in the water in Germany around in 1920 the police saved her. She realy messed up Anastasia's reputation a whole lot. It is very sad she made a complete fool out of Anastasia. I mean she just messed up alot of things. There was defantly nothing special or good about AA the only thing that is of her is her crazy crap, stupid nonsense and lies she did she diserves not to go to heaven for all the lies she made up. She has a very insane mentality.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Lemur on August 13, 2007, 10:29:40 AM
She is realy insane. I mean she is so pathetic and worthless AA no wonder she commited suiside she was mentally challenged and retarded and physical crazy that is why she tried to kill herself by trying to drown in the water in Germany around in 1920 the police saved her. She realy messed up Anastasia's reputation a whole lot. It is very sad she made a complete fool out of Anastasia. I mean she just messed up alot of things. There was defantly nothing special or good about AA the only thing that is of her is her crazy crap, stupid nonsense and lies she did she diserves not to go to heaven for all the lies she made up. She has a very insane mentality.

You'll get no argument from me. From Massie's "Romanovs: The Final Chapter", page 182 paperback:

Early in 1929, she moved in with Annie B. Jennings, a wealthy Park Avenue spinster eager to have the daughter of the Tsar under her roof. For 18 months, the onetime Fraulein Unbekannat was the toast of NYC society, a fixture at dinner parties, luncheons, tea dances and operas. The nthe pattern of destructive behavior reasserted itself. She complained about her room and her food. She developed tantrums. She attacked servants with sticks and ran back and forth across the roof naked. She threw things out the window. She stood in an aisle of a dept. store and told the crowd how badly Miss Jennings was treating her. Finally, Judge Peter Schmuck of the NY Surpreme Court signed an order, and two men knocked down her locked door and carried her off to a mental hospital. She remained in Four Winds Sanatorium in Katonah, NY, for over a year.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Olishka~ Pincess on August 13, 2007, 10:36:15 AM
She is realy insane. I mean she is so pathetic and worthless AA no wonder she commited suiside she was mentally challenged and retarded and physical crazy that is why she tried to kill herself by trying to drown in the water in Germany around in 1920 the police saved her. She realy messed up Anastasia's reputation a whole lot. It is very sad she made a complete fool out of Anastasia. I mean she just messed up alot of things. There was defantly nothing special or good about AA the only thing that is of her is her crazy crap, stupid nonsense and lies she did she diserves not to go to heaven for all the lies she made up. She has a very insane mentality.

You'll get no argument from me. From Massie's "Romanovs: The Final Chapter", page 182 paperback:

She complained about her room and her food. She developed tantrums. She attacked servants with sticks and ran back and forth across the roof naked. She threw things out the window. She stood in an aisle of a dept. store and told the crowd how badly Miss Jennings was treating her. Finally, Judge Peter Schmuck of the NY Surpreme Court signed an order, and two men knocked down her locked door and carried her off to a mental hospital. She remained in Four Winds Sanatorium in Katonah, NY, for over a year.
Yes, I sure will not have an argument from you. Once again thanks for you information Lumar very helpful! ;) That right there proves how crazy she is. I have three things to say for her Ungrateful, rude and hatful. I mean she is a maniac going on thre roof naked and attacking people it just shows how she do not have manners or respect.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Temperance on August 13, 2007, 10:55:45 AM
I agree with Annie. She did take on the identity of a dead person. What I don't understand is why so many people believed her for so long. One glance at Anna Anderson and any sane person can see she doesn't even begin to resemble Anastasia.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Lemur on August 13, 2007, 11:41:00 AM
"That's not possible and here's why"

This is the explaination of Penny Jenkins, who was responsible for Martha Jefferson Hospital's medical records, including blood and tissue samples. Massie, The Romanovs the Final Chapter, page 245 softcover:

When asked of the possibility of 'substitution' of the tissue at the hospital, here was her reply:

"We have two separate backups. In 1979 when Dr. Shrum did surgery on Mrs. Manahan, we took slides of the tissue, in addition to preserving in paraffin the larger blocks of the excised tissue. Taking slides when doing surgery is routine, you take it, you look at it, and say, there is cancer, or it's not cancer, or it's an infection or whatever. We preserve these slides in one place and the paraffin wax in a totally different place.

"Furthermore, when we moved the tissue from storage back to the hospital in early 1993, Dr, Thomas Dudley, the assistant pathologist, cut some new slides from one of the blocks. We compared these new slides cut in 1993 with those slides cut in 1979 and they were identical. If someone had swapped them in storage during the last couple of years, they would not have matched. And the chance that anybody was able to get to both locations and switch both slides without access to specimen numbers is impossible."
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Alixz on August 13, 2007, 12:50:02 PM
Annie,

I knew someone else out there had to be wondering that as well.

I hate to see others label FS the way they do.  The woman was mentally unwell and that is not a crime.  I don't think that she ruined AN's reputation at all, because no one who truly counted in the imperial family believed that she was their lost relative, so no damage was done there.

Those who supported her claim obviously didn't think that her behavior was out of line, or they wouldn't have supported her.  And I also believe, that when she began to act violently towards her "protectors" they realized their error in believing her to be AN and did the best they could to separate themselves from her and her claims, even if that meant putting her into an asylum.

When she became an embarrassment, they didn't announce publicly that AN was "crazy"  they said that the woman whom they had been protecting was "crazy" and she lost their support and her credibility.

I don't know why I want to know what motivated FS to jump into the canal, but I do.  I feel very sorry for her.  A good many people would like to be able to start over and make their life different. 

There is even a new TV show coming this fall in the US about just that subject. Its called Samantha, who?.  From the preview, I think it is going to be worse than terrible because it is a comedy and that might mean that she is the faking amnesia.  But true amnesia is no laughing matter. (Not that I believe FS had amnesia, I just believe that by the time she died she had lived for so long as "Anastasia" that she had come to believe the myth herself.)

FS was a troubled woman.  She was supported by those who were also troubled by their experiences either during the Russian Revolution or there after.  The murders in Yekaterinburg were so unthinkable that I am not surprised that so many wanted to believe that at least one person survived and that some, like the Dowager Empress, just refused to believe in the murders at all.

We think we know from reading about Yekaterinburg and the other executions what it was like to live through the "hell" that was Russia in 1918, but somehow, I doubt we have the smallest clue.  Somehow, the Romanovs watched the whole thing from the inside as it happened and many of them still didn't have a clue when it came time to pack up and get out in a hurry.

We also think we know what motivated FS to do what she did and what motivated those who supported her claims.  The truth is that we will never know more than the fact that she was not AN.  But as a human being FS deserves some degree of compassion in the broad spectrum of human suffering and misery.

Remember, she never brought the claims of her identity up herself.  She never filed a law suit of her own behalf and she lived in abject poverty and anonymity in Germany for a long time before she ended up in the US and married to Jack Manahan.

Compassion for FS - not the usual posting here on the AP.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Annie on August 13, 2007, 01:35:03 PM
Annie,

I knew someone else out there had to be wondering that as well.

I hate to see others label FS the way they do.  The woman was mentally unwell and that is not a crime.  I don't think that she ruined AN's reputation at all, because no one who truly counted in the imperial family believed that she was their lost relative, so no damage was done there.

I think harm has been done, because too many people today, especially those who know the basic story through pop culture but not the historical facts, do tend to think of AA and AN as one in the same. There is no separation between the young girl who was murdered and the old woman in Charlottesville. If you don't believe me check out the 'Anastasia webring' of homemade sites, or google Anastasia. You would be surprised or appalled as I am, that it's passed off as a given that AA was AN. Not only is this wrong technically, I feel it robs the real AN of her own memory and is a form of 'identity theft.' It's so sad a girl had to get brutally murdered at 17 and only 'live on' as a weird old lady who wasn't really her. I am glad for this site's "My Name is Anastasia" for setting the record straight, sadly, it's in the vast minority.

Quote
Those who supported her claim obviously didn't think that her behavior was out of line, or they wouldn't have supported her.  And I also believe, that when she began to act violently towards her "protectors" they realized their error in believing her to be AN and did the best they could to separate themselves from her and her claims, even if that meant putting her into an asylum.

When she became an embarrassment, they didn't announce publicly that AN was "crazy"  they said that the woman whom they had been protecting was "crazy" and she lost their support and her credibility.

I really think it was one of two things, either they stuck with her regardless because they were hoping for cash, or they totally believed she had become traumatized by Ekaterinburg. But I can't imagine anyone not thinking she was 'out of line.'

Quote
FS was a troubled woman.  She was supported by those who were also troubled by their experiences either during the Russian Revolution or there after.  The murders in Yekaterinburg were so unthinkable that I am not surprised that so many wanted to believe that at least one person survived and that some, like the Dowager Empress, just refused to believe in the murders at all.

That's what is so sad. She took advantage of those people with a lie. She never experienced it.

Quote

I don't know why I want to know what motivated FS to jump into the canal, but I do.  I feel very sorry for her.  A good many people would like to be able to start over and make their life different. 

We also think we know what motivated FS to do what she did and what motivated those who supported her claims.  The truth is that we will never know more than the fact that she was not AN.  But as a human being FS deserves some degree of compassion in the broad spectrum of human suffering and misery.

Remember, she never brought the claims of her identity up herself.  She never filed a law suit of her own behalf and she lived in abject poverty and anonymity in Germany for a long time before she ended up in the US and married to Jack Manahan.


 (Not that I believe FS had amnesia, I just believe that by the time she died she had lived for so long as "Anastasia" that she had come to believe the myth herself.)

Compassion for FS - not the usual posting here on the AP.

You know up until recently I'd have agreed with you. I always said she wasn't a bad person, and that she had been used and eventually went so off the deep end she believed her own lies. But the more I read and find out, the more I see what a vile person she could be (see Lemur's post) and the way she treated people was unacceptable. The more I research the more I become convinced she knew exactly what was going on for a lot longer than I had thought before.  So while I do think it was sad she tried to kill herself and she must have been miserable, no matter what happened to her as AA was better than FS's life, which was apparently so bad she wanted to die, so she was better off.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: dmitri on August 13, 2007, 05:26:24 PM
Yes she deserves no sympathy at all. She was vile and clearly quite demented and a pathological liar.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 13, 2007, 07:41:03 PM
I think that at least at some point, the deception on AA's part was deliberate and she knew that she was pretending to be AN. A good example of this is the so-called "Da'rling" letter... Back before she knew English very well, AA was writing a letter to someone and apparently copied some of the wording from one of Alexandra's letters, also copying down the word "dar'ling" including the apostrophe between the "r" and the "l", which turned out not to be an apostrophe after all, but a comma from the line above... That's a very deceptive thing to do, if you ask me...  I saw this in a documentary about AA (Nova?), not sure if it been documented in any book...
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Annie on August 13, 2007, 08:40:45 PM
I think that at least at some point, the deception on AA's part was deliberate and she knew that she was pretending to be AN. A good example of this is the so-called "Da'rling" letter... Back before she knew English very well, AA was writing a letter to someone and apparently copied some of the wording from one of Alexandra's letters, also copying down the word "dar'ling" including the apostrophe between the "r" and the "l", which turned out not to be an apostrophe after all, but a comma from the line above... That's a very deceptive thing to do, if you ask me...  I saw this in a documentary about AA (Nova?), not sure if it been documented in any book...

Funny you should mention that, because I just now this minute got done rewatching my DVD of the NOVA special! You're exactly right, they showed a picture of AA's letter and Alexandra's and pointed out what she did. It was Dr. Berenberg-Gossler, the anti AA attorney who used it as an example of how she was a 'confidence man' type of fraud and a quick learner. Even though I just got done watching it I don't remember if it was him or someone else who compared her story to 'Pygmaliion.' (as I always say "My Fair Lady")
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Annie on August 13, 2007, 08:43:44 PM
On the NOVA special, they showed on camera the Schweitzers in the same room when Gill took the samples. The samples were put into a sealed plastic bag that could only be used once. So, combined with the above explaination by the employee, I really don't see how there was any time to even attempt a switch, and there couldn't possibly have been a mixup. I don't know why there are so many 'chain of custody' questions by the AA crowd, it's all right there. The only thing they could even attempt to claim is the Queen paid off Dr. Gill theory which is of course ridiculous. Besides this, 2 other labs got exactly the same results.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: dmitri on August 14, 2007, 03:03:12 AM
It is well known there was no switch. The intensine sample was the correct one and came from Anna Anderson later known as Manahan. They did not match at all with any Romanov relative as they should have IF she had been the daughter of Alexandra Feodorovna. Of course she was a total fraud and it was proved for all time by DNA. She was of course related to Carl Maucher and was therefore Franziska Schankowska. Of course the lunatic fringe continue to say she was who she was not. They are like Anna Anderson overdue for a time in a mental asylum. 
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Olishka~ Pincess on August 14, 2007, 11:34:07 AM
While Anna Anderson was at Berlin in 1920 she claimed that she was seeking to find her aunt Irene and she refused to belive her but she was crying saying that she looked like Anastasia.

'Anderson's legal teams (like their opposition) were articulate and well organized. German Courts heard an almost endless procession of handwriting experts, historians and forensic scientists scrutinizing photographs and documents usually contradicting opposing depositions.

The fact she couldn't speak or read Russian, English or French at the time like all the tsar's daughters, was sufficient proof for former court tutor Pierre Gilliard she was an impostor, the fact she was unable to remember defining events of "her" life but could rattle off specific details of family bank accounts (including secret passwords) the real Anastasia would never have been told convinced even the most gullible.

Anderson's team tried to influence courts with hints of conspiracies, dubious evidence and expert testimony, pre-empting the O.J. Simpson style of legal deflection. That it would fail was inevitable, their last major legal defeat was in 1970, 50 years after Schanzkowska became Anastasia. By then most of her original supporters had given up and moved on with their lives, or died of old age waiting for a miracle.

Before she became Anastasia, Franziska Schanzkowska was mentally unstable. Incarcerated in two mental hospitals before disappearing in 1920, tantrums and breakdowns were regular occurrences and her most devoted supporters considered her impossible to live with.

Her psychiatric problems may have been caused or exacerbated by the serious head injuries suffered in 1916 from a hand grenade explosion, scares and injuries supporters attributed to Bolshevik brutality. During a visit to the United States in 1930 she suffered a breakdown and was certified "dangerous to herself and others" and committed to a mental hospital, not the first or last such incarceration.

During the 1920's she was almost constantly in and out of one German hospital or another, mental or general. We can only speculate whether during any of these frequent spells away from prying eyes if Anderson underwent cosmetic surgery of some sort, to create or enhance features and flaws to match those of the real Anastasia.

Her being a lost Grand Duchess was, not surprisingly, suggested by another mental patient (Clara Peuthert) during her incarceration at the Dalldorf Asylum who suggested she was the Grand Duchess Tatiana. At first she accepted her identity, however the realisation she was considerably shorter was a factor in her switch to Anastasia.'

from an article. There was a photo that was taken of her when FS was 16? I wonder if that will show that Anastasia looked nothing like AA. I mean it says she was mentally stable before she became A.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Lemur on August 14, 2007, 11:38:14 AM
That's a great article, Elizabeth! Do you have a link? Who wrote it? Very interesting!

She wasn't 16 she was 20. The picture was taken in 1916 and FS was born in 1896. That is a common error about her age in the photo. People tend to give AA AN's age instead of FS's.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 14, 2007, 11:44:50 AM
There was a photo that was taken of her when FS was 16?

I believe this is the photo they are referring to, the only known photo of FS before she transformed into "Anna Anderson":

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/helenazar/FS-1.jpg)

She looks just about 20 years old...
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Olishka~ Pincess on August 14, 2007, 11:54:06 AM
There was a photo that was taken of her when FS was 16?

I believe this is the photo they are referring to, the only known photo of FS before she transformed into "Anna Anderson":

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/helenazar/FS-1.jpg)

She looks just about 20 years old...
thank you very much Helen anyway that is the picture she does not even look 20 too old to me i think she is in her mid 30's anyway i believe that is her as 20 the problem is she does not look young enough, anyway if she looked like that before she claimed to be Anastasia then she needs to look at herself again then too see how old looking she is compared to a much younger looking peron. There is no way she could have aged like that and then look like this in 1916 it does not make any sense at . LOOK THIS IS A PHOTO OF ANASTASIA IN 1916 so are you convinced that is the same person still, hopefully not? If you do then something is wrong either that or they just do not want to believe in the facts.

John Godl wrote it.
Thanks Lemar,The link it is:
http://www.serfes.org/royal/annaanderson.htm

THE REAL ANASTASIA IN 1916:
(http://worldroots.com/brigitte/gifs/romanov89.jpg)
see that is a total different person.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 14, 2007, 12:07:31 PM
...thank you very much Helen anyway that is the picture she does not even look 20 too old to me i think she is in her mid 30's anyway i believe that is her as 20 the problem is she does not look young enough...

The excuse always used was that she went through a lot (her family being murdered by the Bolsheviks and all) and this is why she looked so much older than she was... IMO, looking older was the least of her problems... it was a lot more difficult to explain why she didn't resemble Anastasia at all....
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Olishka~ Pincess on August 14, 2007, 12:43:37 PM
...thank you very much Helen anyway that is the picture she does not even look 20 too old to me i think she is in her mid 30's anyway i believe that is her as 20 the problem is she does not look young enough...

The excuse always used was that she went through a lot (her family being murdered by the Bolsheviks and all) and this is why she looked so much older than she was... IMO, looking older was the least of her problems... it was a lot more difficult to explain why she didn't resemble Anastasia at all....
I heard that excuse many times the AA suporters are using that excuse that she and her family went through many problems and she aged while her family was executed and she was injured and that altered her looks, their saying that I think is too make it seem and prove that she is Anastasia obviously they want to think so they can even support Anna Andersons claim when she is realy a false fraud to my opinion.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Annie on August 14, 2007, 01:26:02 PM
...thank you very much Helen anyway that is the picture she does not even look 20 too old to me i think she is in her mid 30's anyway i believe that is her as 20 the problem is she does not look young enough...

The excuse always used was that she went through a lot (her family being murdered by the Bolsheviks and all) and this is why she looked so much older than she was... IMO, looking older was the least of her problems... it was a lot more difficult to explain why she didn't resemble Anastasia at all....
I heard that excuse many times the AA suporters are using that excuse that she and her family went through many problems and she aged while her family was executed and she was injured and that altered her looks, their saying that I think is too make it seem and prove that she is Anastasia obviously they want to think so they can even support Anna Andersons claim when she is realy a false fraud to my opinion.

Oh yes they say a rifle butt to the face and a bayonet in the mouth changed her looks ::) That's about as realistic as the time when I was a kid and my poor kitten died when I was at school and my family replaced it but they couldn't find one the same color so they tried to tell me they took him to the vet and the medicine made his fur and eyes change colors ::) If it was just injuries it would look like a disfigured version of Anastasia's own face not a completely different person's face. They also use her bad experience in "Ekaterinburg" as an excuse for her insanity, instability and extreme behavior ::) But some people actually bought that excuse and felt sorry for her, and still do :-X

The dumbest thing is if anyone took a bayonet in the face they wouldn't have lived! Nobody in the execution squad was looking to just puncture your lip, they were out to run them through!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Olishka~ Pincess on August 14, 2007, 01:38:45 PM
...thank you very much Helen anyway that is the picture she does not even look 20 too old to me i think she is in her mid 30's anyway i believe that is her as 20 the problem is she does not look young enough...

The excuse always used was that she went through a lot (her family being murdered by the Bolsheviks and all) and this is why she looked so much older than she was... IMO, looking older was the least of her problems... it was a lot more difficult to explain why she didn't resemble Anastasia at all....
I heard that excuse many times the AA suporters are using that excuse that she and her family went through many problems and she aged while her family was executed and she was injured and that altered her looks, their saying that I think is too make it seem and prove that she is Anastasia obviously they want to think so they can even support Anna Andersons claim when she is realy a false fraud to my opinion.

Oh yes they say a rifle butt to the face and a bayonet in the mouth changed her looks ::) That's about as realistic as the time when I was a kid and my poor kitten died when I was at school and my family replaced it but they couldn't find one the same color so they tried to tell me they took him to the vet and the medicine made his fur and eyes change colors ::) If it was just injuries it would look like a disfigured version of Anastasia's own face not a completely different person's face. They also use her bad experience in "Ekaterinburg" as an excuse for her insanity, instability and extreme behavior ::) But some people actually bought that excuse and felt sorry for her, and still do :-X

The dumbest thing is if anyone took a bayonet in the face they wouldn't have lived! Nobody in the execution squad was looking to just puncture your lip, they were out to run them through!
I feel so sad your kitty cat died. :-[ They always use that excuse mostly likey becuase as you said they feel sorry for her and wanted to feel like it was a good thing to be a supporter for Anna Anderson that is what i also am thinking too. Honestly I think she had a very sad condition but she did other things that was terrible like pretend to obe someone else your not and lie. I realy do not have any sympathy for AA I realy think is is her own problem and fault I mean she tried to kill herself. I am trying to say it is sad about her mental illness then it is realy irratating about what she tried to do pretend to be someone else's identity.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: dmitri on August 14, 2007, 03:22:09 PM
Yes there are not ends that the supporters of AA would not go to in their efforts to lie and cheat a dead Grand Duchess of her identity. It really was all quite pathetic and any who fell for the fraud were as demented as she was. It would all be incredibly hilarious if such things had not happened. You would have to have absolutely no knowledge of the real Romanovs or their extended family to fall for the utter rubbish that has come out from the Anna Anderson camp. Their flaws and fibs are so large you can drive a fully laden semi-trailer through them.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Olishka~ Pincess on August 14, 2007, 03:38:28 PM
Yes there are not ends that the supporters of AA would not go to in their efforts to lie and cheat a dead Grand Duchess of her identity. It really was all quite pathetic and any who fell for the fraud were as demented as she was. It would all be incredibly hilarious if such things had not happened. You would have to have absolutely no knowledge of the real Romanovs or their extended family to fall for the utter rubbish that has come out from the Anna Anderson camp. Their flaws and fibs are so large you can drive a fully laden semi-trailer through them.
I agree with you Dmitri! It seems the AA supporters will never stop embracing that lie and excuse it is very annoying and pathetic, they realy don't have knowledge on the romanovs Olga, Tatiana and Maria and other family memebers. The only thing they seem to know is just about AA realy.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: dmitri on August 14, 2007, 03:44:47 PM
Yes that is what makes it all so hilariously pathetic. None of what they go on about is at all linked to the Romanovs. The whole story of her supposed escape from the Ipatiev House is just so unbelievably ridiculous you just have to laugh at it. There is absolutely no way the real Anastasia could have escaped at all. She was murdered in the cellar and that was what happened. Anybody who attempted to remove her alive would have also have been murdered. These were not nice guys, but ruthless and bloody murderers. They loathed the Romanovs and were jubilant to know they had killed them. 
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: dmitri on August 14, 2007, 03:48:21 PM
Well 'Pymalion' was written by the brilliant writer George Bernard Shaw. Anna Anderson pathetically claimed to have written her autobiography, "I, Anastasia". This was yet another lie in a string of lies as it wasn't even written by her. What a ridiculous fraud, liar and nutcase she was.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Olishka~ Pincess on August 14, 2007, 06:03:53 PM
Yes that is what makes it all so hilariously pathetic. None of what they go on about is at all linked to the Romanovs. The whole story of her supposed escape from the Ipatiev House is just so unbelievably ridiculous you just have to laugh at it. There is absolutely no way the real Anastasia could have escaped at all. She was murdered in the cellar and that was what happened. Anybody who attempted to remove her alive would have also have been murdered. These were not nice guys, but ruthless and bloody murderers. They loathed the Romanovs and were jubilant to know they had killed them. 
It is realy pitful they do not know their facts and they need to get it straight they need to obviously read more books based on the Romanovs. If they knew the romanovs as well as we do then they would have possibly agree that AA is not A. But sadly they do not know that much about the romanovs their just saying something just to be saying it. They haven't realy read much about the romanovs. Yes that is right, NO Anastasia could have escaped at all. It is just a made up lie that sounds rediculous!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: dmitri on August 14, 2007, 06:09:12 PM
Spot on!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Olishka~ Pincess on August 14, 2007, 08:42:47 PM
Oh yes they say a rifle butt to the face and a bayonet in the mouth changed her looks

Yes, that one was one of my favorites... A rifle butt in the face changed the shape and size of her lips and facial features  ::). But wait, maybe her "chimeric" DNA had something to do with it!   8)

 Maybe chimeras can switch their genes around to achieve the appearance of a different person!  :o   ;)
That may be possible you just never know! ;)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: LisaDavidson on August 15, 2007, 02:15:47 AM
This discussion is off topic. The topic is the intestines of Anna Anderson. Kindly return to topic.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: dmitri on August 15, 2007, 05:29:07 AM
Well some intestinal material was kept by pathology and was used after Anna Anderson's death and cremation for DNA testing. The results repeatedly showed that Anna Anderson was not a Romanov at all and also matched with Carl Maucha, a relative of Franziska Schankowska which proved Anna Anderson and Franziska Schankowska were one and the same person. The so-called mystery had been solved.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: Temperance on August 15, 2007, 08:12:32 AM
Wow, I never knew that Anna Anderson tried to copy Alexandra's wording! That does sound like she was trying to be deceptive and wasn't simply a demented woman who truly believed she was Anastasia!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: dmitri on August 15, 2007, 08:32:42 AM
Yes she simply wasn't too bright.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: AGRBear on August 16, 2007, 11:54:50 AM
Sorry,  placed  my reply to another post here accidently.  Have removed it.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: LisaDavidson on August 21, 2007, 06:22:10 PM
On topic alert number 47:

This topic is USA DNA testing. The topic is not your opinion of AA or whether or not she looked like ANR. Trust me, we have plenty of topics that deal with opinions and appearences. The topic is not Kurth's books, again, we have topics for this.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: dmitri on August 21, 2007, 11:55:03 PM
Lisa please have a look what the Forum Administrator wrote earlier in the thread.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
Post by: LisaDavidson on August 22, 2007, 12:44:43 AM
I did.

Of course I allow Rob considerable latitude. He would be the first to support the fact that my decisions are final as far as this thread is concerned.