Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Myth and Legends of Survivors => Topic started by: AGRBear on August 08, 2004, 03:48:29 PM

Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on August 08, 2004, 03:48:29 PM
Quote
On p. 321 Summers and Mangold in their book File On The Tsar mentioned an eye witness Natalya Mutnykha, a nurse, who claimed she had seen ex-Empress Alexandra and four daughters, in Perm in the basement where Berezin's rooms were.  

And they said:  "This formal testimony, along with that of other witnesses, says categorically that all the Romanov women were held prisoner by the Bolsheviks in Perm late in the summer of 1918 and on into the autumn."

Does anyone have any new evidence that this testimony is false?

AGRBear

Quote
On p. 328 Summers and Mangold in their book File On The Tsar go on to say: "Mutnykh's testimony is vastly strengthened by the discovery that her brother, Vladimir Mutnykh, was indeed, as she claimed, secretary to the Ural Soviets."  And Vladimir was more than this, he was personal aide to Beloborodov, who was the chairman of the Ural Soviets and a man who had been a part of the events which occurred in the Ipatiev House.

AGRBear

If we had to take a case to court to prove one or all of the family of Nicholas II escaped or was a claimant, we'd have to depend on testimony of those involved.  So,  here goes.  I am starting with sister of the secretary of the Ural Soviet, Natalya Mutnykh, who claimed she had seen members of Nicholas II's family after the 16th of July 1918 in Perm, Siberia, Russia.

AGRBear

Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: bookworm on August 08, 2004, 03:52:59 PM
I remember reading a book based on that testimony that came out in the 1970s. I don't have a copy of the book any longer, but I do remember there being something about a large amount of hair in four different hair colors being left behind at this house in Perm, as though the hair had been kept for a disguise or to use as hair pieces. There was also testimony from various residents of the town about the four young women and the empress being seen.

I always thought there must have been some basis for this story. Maybe the Bolsheviks worked up an elaborate hoax to confuse people about the ultimate fate of the Romanovs? What else is buried in the Archives at the Kremlin?
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on August 08, 2004, 06:17:24 PM
I think the hair was left in the Ipatiev House.  There are two thoughts on this hair.
(1)  It may have been hair saved by the daughters of Nicholas II when they had their heads shaved when they had measles back in March of 1917....  In a year, their hair would not have grown very long.  
(2) The daughters of Nicholas II's hair may have been shorn in preparation of a rescue.  If I remember correctly, Nicholas II had shaved off part of his own facial hair  a few days earlier [16 July 1918]......

I'm sure others will remember better than I about the hair.

AGRBear
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Annie on August 08, 2004, 09:22:19 PM
Yes, the hair was from when they saved it after they got shaved bald because of measles in 1917. The story in that book of them cutting their hair for a disguise is typical of the way people can assume and make a big deal out of something that had a reasonable explaination if it was looked into.
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Greg_King on August 09, 2004, 06:18:12 AM
Quote


If we had to take a case to court to prove one or all of the family of Nicholas II escaped or was a claimant, we'd have to depend on testimony of those involved.  So,  here goes.  I am starting with sister of the secretary of the Ural Soviet, Natalya Mutnykh, who claimed she had seen members of Nicholas II's family after the 16th of July 1918 in Perm, Siberia, Russia.

AGRBear

Edit #1:  It appears that bookworm started a thread on Heinrich Kleinenzetl who's testimony tells us he saw Anatasia after 16 July 1918 .  See: http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1091980231


The problem with all of these various Perm "witnesses" is that none of them had seen the Imperial Family before, unless one counts postcards.  We're talking about rumors; about "recognitions" by the light of a single candle as someone walked quickly past.  Kirtsa, who investigated these reports, seems to have indeed fallen victim to a Bolshevik plot-in this instance I think the evidence (and there are hundreds of pages on this in Sokolov's dossiers) clearly indicates that the Perm stories originated with a group of Perm Bolsheviks, after Beloborodov had been in the city when he fled Ekaterinburg and briefed them on the "official" story, in an attempt to conceal the executions of the Empress and her daughters.  These various stories promoting the idea that the women survived and had been moved en masse to Perm served to bolster the official announcements regarding the fate of the women.  Having reviewed the originals and the annotated reports, there is not one single story that stands up to close examination.

Greg King
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on August 09, 2004, 11:18:55 AM
Quote

(1) The problem with all of these various Perm "witnesses" is that none of them had seen the Imperial Family before, unless one counts postcards.  (2) We're talking about rumors; (3) about "recognitions" by the light of a single candle as someone walked quickly past. (4)  Kirtsa, who investigated these reports, seems to have indeed fallen victim to a Bolshevik plot-in this instance I think (5) the evidence (and there are hundreds of pages on this in Sokolov's dossiers) clearly indicates that the Perm stories originated with a group of Perm Bolsheviks, after (6)  Beloborodov had been in the city when he fled Ekaterinburg and briefed them on the "official" story, in an attempt to conceal the executions of the Empress and her daughters.  (7) These various stories promoting the idea that the women survived and had been moved en masse to Perm served to bolster the official announcements regarding the fate of the women.  Having reviewed the originals and the annotated reports, there is not one single story that stands up to close examination.

Greg King


(1)  Although I have never seen the Royal Family,  I would be able to reconize Nicholas II and the others because of who they were, the Royal Family, which is  highly reconized, even after all of these years,  due to more than postcards.....  Just because these people lived in the Urals doesn't mean they weren't aware of the Royal Family and what they looked liked.
(2)  Rumors?  It appears this is a testimony.
(3) Candel light-  dim light was part of their lives and I'm not sure this is worth mentioning accept to those of us who live by electric lights...
(4) Kirsta had fallen victim to a Bolshevik plot.....   How does one pick the right one, Bolshevik plots,  to believe?
(5) "...and there are hundreds of pages on this in Sokolov's dossiers..." -   Sokolov is the one who planted a dog's body and apparently wanted the world to believe the Soviets had executed not just Nicholas II but everyone, even the children.   So,  he had his own agenda.
(6) Beloborodov -  I'll have to read what you and others have written about him before I can comment....  
(7) "These various stories promoting the idea that the women survived and had been moved en masse to Perm served to bolster the official announcements regarding the fate of the women.  Having reviewed the originals and the annotated reports, there is not one single story that stands up to close examination." -  Two bodies are missing from a grave which has been disturbed more times than we probably will ever know.  Since I'm not as involved as you are Greg in all of this evidence, some hundred pages,  I still view the testimony of  Natalya Mutnykh as important.  Unless of course, the information in the File on the Tsar is incorrect.  She was there.  Her brother was part of the events.  As for moving the members of the family to Perm in one group,  I don't know if this is true.  Just like  I don't know what happen in the Ipatiev House on the night of 16 /17 July 1918.  We don't have all the puzzle pieces.  And, to make it more difficult, the Soviets and others have dumped into my puzzle the pieces that do not belong.  So, keep an open mind.  Don't fall into the trap of closing doors because that is exactly what others have done and that's why it's almost impossible to find the puzzle pieces belonging to the truth of what happen.

Like I have said before.  The Soviets were experts in covering up events they didn't want others to know.

AGRBear

Edition #1
Quote
More questions for King and Wilson:

In the 1934 report of Yurovsky mentions having read Sokolov's report.  This is what he said:

"About two months ago, I was looking through the book by Sokolov, the preliminary investigator of the extremely important cases under Kolchak, when I saw a photo of those stacked ties."

Are there any real differences between his first report, before he read Sokolov's report,  when compared to the 1934 report?

Is there an English translation of the first which we could find and read?

AGRBear


Why would Yurovsky need to read Sokolov's report before giving his 1934 report?

Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Greg_King on August 10, 2004, 04:01:03 AM
Had to snip for length

Quote


(1)  Although I have never seen the Royal Family,  I would be able to reconize Nicholas II.
(2)  Rumors?  It appears this is a testimony.
(3) Candel light-  dim light was part of their lives and I'm not sure this is worth mentioning accept to those of us who live by electric lights...
(4) Kirsta had fallen victim to a Bolshevik plot.....   How does one pick the right one, Bolshevik plots,  to believe?
(5) "...and there are hundreds of pages on this in Sokolov's dossiers..." -   Sokolov is the one who planted a dog's body and apparently wanted the world to believe the Soviets had executed not just Nicholas II but everyone, even the children.   So,  he had his own agenda.  /quote]

Answers, in order:

1.  You and I could recognize members of the family, but we're living in age of mass media, with access to hundreds of photographs.  The majority of people in the Urals would have seen a few postcards and that's it, especially amongst the Bolsheviks.
2. As opposed to rumors (and there were plenty) perhaps I'll describe this testimony as an assertion-it is not, by virtue of merely being testimony, reliable.
3.  Candlelight is important in this context as it is how these alleged "Imperial women" were glimpsed briefly-it certainly impacts the probability of correct identification.
4.  Kirsta began investigating deliberate Bolshevik rumors that the whole family had been moved from Ekaterinburg; he collected testimony about Nicholas being taken off in chains on a train to Perm.  And he followed this by eagerly believing anything that seemed to confirm these stories.  What you need to understand is that the Bolsheviks were deliberately spreading false information, and much of it was that invstigated by Kirsta that suggested the women were saved.  You have only to think of the source here-te sister of a high-ranking Bolshevik-to understand the dynamics behind the tale-why else would she be out talking about what was obviously a lie?  Everything we read, and all the examinations and testimonies in the dossiers, back this up-most of it unpublished.
5.  Why do you assert that Sokolov planted the dog?  On what evidence?  I think the dog was planted, but by others, in an attempt to either bolster the White Army case, or divert attention from the actual grave.  On what do you base the claim that it was Sokolov who planted it?

I realize it may not be a satisfactory answer, but we read thousands of documents, most of which never made it into "The Fate of the Romanovs," and thus I am reasonably sure that the Perm stories were nothing more than deliberate Bolshevik distortion.

Greg King
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on August 10, 2004, 10:26:10 AM
Photographs:

When a person looks at the old photographs of school rooms, you will find the photo poster of Nicholas II.

I assume this was true in Ekaterinburg.

Although each home didn't have magazines, those which exsisted were passed from home to home.  And,  in those days magazines were not thrown away but had a long long life span.  Since the Royal Family was important,  nearly all had photographs in them.  Not unlike today,  the young girls loved photographs of the daughters of Nicholas II.....  These same magazines were used for more than just romantic teenage girls,  the seamtresses used them to copy the dress, hat, etc. style of the Romanovs.

The reason I remember this  is because I once asked my grandmother, who was an excellent seamtress who use to sew officers uniforms,  about how out of fashion the clothes must have been in a far away village in Bessarabia.  She shook her head and said,   oh, no, not so,  they used magazines to copy the styles worn by women in St. Petersberg, Paris, London and New York.

Like most people,  I always visualize Russia as being so backward because of all the photographs preserved with women with scarfs, long aprons, long skirts, full bouces and sturdy shoes.  

My grandmother was born in the 1880s.

So,  I suspect this was true in a larger town like Ekaterinburg.

Soviet Plots:

As for Soviet plots,  I think when 1 or all members of the Romanov family escaped on the 16th of July,  they had to spread rumors as you suggested.  So, how does one chose which one is reliable and which one is not?  I don't think you can.  What I think should be done is present everything.  Perhaps,  when all is said and done, that is what you, Greg, and Penny will end up doing.  And, believe me,  we greatly appreicate all your efforts, time and answering all our questions.

AGRBear
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on August 11, 2004, 11:19:46 PM
I had to look up who Alexander Kirsta was and I had forgotten about him and how he was invovled in the investigation.

According to File On the Tsar p. 326 Summers and Mangold tell us that it was Kirsta, the Head of Military Control on 8 March 1919 and on 2 April 1919 takes the testimony of the nurse Mutnykh.   He backed this statement five others who were (1) Ivan Girschfeld, a German, (2) Sibiryev, local postal clerk, (3) Yegeniya Sokolova; (4) Glafyra Malysleva, who had a napkin from the royal family's "stuff",  (5) name unknown, listed as a patient from a local invalid hospital....

Mutnykh's story tells us, also,   she was not alone when she saw Alexandra and three of her daughters.  With her was Anna Kostina, the secretary to  Grigory Zinoviev.  [Note: she said three daughters, not four.]

This testimony,  let me note, again, wasn't until March and then again in April of 1919.  This was some seven and eight months after July 1918.  

Was side tracked on Mutnykh's story.

Back to Kirsta.

On page 323,  Summers and Mangold tell us that Kirsta was part of General Gaida investigation which was not part of Sokolov's.  Gaida was a member of the Ugolovny Rozysk  [CID = Criminal Investigation Division].....  Gaida didn't trust the Whites who quickly declared the Royal Family as being executed and were probably the source who were spreading the "rumors" about the daughters and Tsarina having been raped, etc. etc..   Gaida's collection did not include the White Army investigators collection.

If the Perm witnesses were part of some kind of conspiracy,  I wouldn't know.  Greg indicates this may have been the case.  But,  Gaida wasn't new at investigations.  And,  if you ask my opinion, until I'm given good reason to change my mind,  I think Gaida's data might  be more accurate than the Reds or the Whites about what happen to the Royal Family and the others.

Greg,  what do you have on Gaida and why is his data, in your opinion,  considered as being not as accurate as other investigators?

AGRBear




Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Annie on August 12, 2004, 08:16:13 AM
Quote
(by AGRbear) The reason I remember this  is because I once asked my grandmother, who was an excellent seamtress who use to sew officers uniforms,  about how out of fashion the clothes must have been in a far away village in Bessarabia.  She shook her head and said,   oh, no, not so,  they used magazines to copy the styles worn by women in St. Petersberg, Paris, London and New York.


I don't doubt that was true in your Grandmother's town but it might not have been happening everywhere. In "Left Behind" Sophie Buxhoevedon mentions that once while fleeing in Siberia they were questioned because they had "the St. Petersburg 'look' " which was apparently not common in that area.

Quote
(by Greg King)1.  You and I could recognize members of the family, but we're living in age of mass media, with access to hundreds of photographs.  The majority of people in the Urals would have seen a few postcards and that's it, especially amongst the Bolsheviks.


Excellent point a lot of people never take into consideration.
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Forum Admin on August 12, 2004, 10:48:30 AM
Just happened to be re-reading Tatiana Metternich's autobiography "Five Passports in a Shifting Europe" (a wonderful book I highly recommend) last night and she says this about arriving in Paris after the Revolution:
"An undefined line curiously separated those from Petersburg from the Muscovites, although they were the most part related...The Moscow children hooted with derision at our smocked dresses, over-polite manners and what they called our "accent": "Anglichani!" they jeered. (pg26)

I think the point of this is if there was such a noticeable difference just between Petersburg and Moscow, imagine how they would have stuck out in Ekaterinburg. Also, there was a huge difference in accent of spoken Russian between Petersburg aristocracy and common Russian peasants...I have heard that accent, and even not able to understand one word in ten, you can tell it is different (and beautiful)
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on August 12, 2004, 10:52:47 AM
It wasn't a town my grandmother lived  it was a very small village way down south by the Black Sea.... whereas Ekaterinburg was a city where newspapers, magazines etc. were touching a lot of people.  And,  the earlier newspapers carried a lot of photographs of the Royal Family before the Revolution.....  I bet there were souveiner postcards showing the Royal Family and the Impatiev House....    Maybe someone reading this can tell us accurately what was availabe in Ekaterinburg and what the mood of the people toward the Romanovs before WW I.

AGRBear
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on August 28, 2004, 05:41:18 PM
On another thread, Greg, myself and others are talking about the testimony of Dr Utkin who said he treated Anastasia in Perm after 16 July 1918.

I had said:
Quote
On another thread, Heinrich Kleibenzetl, who claimed he saw Anatasia alive after 16 / 17 July 1918, has been discussed.  There were others mentioned in File of the Tsar by Summers and Mangold.

p. 335-6
Testimony of Dr. Pavel Uvanovich Utkin, page 44:

"In Sept 1918 I lived in Perm.... about 5-6 o'clock in the evening, an orderly came to me from the Cheka and said:  "Doctor, go at once to Malkov,"  who was chairman of the CHEKA." "They took me to the adjoining room.... In this room a woman was lying on a couch.  I realized they had called me to a sick person."  Goes on to say what she looked like and her state.  "At this time, as was obvious, the sick woman was in an unconscious state." "A little while after I began my examination the sick woman regained consciousness... I asked her:  "Who are you?"  p. 337.  "In a trembling voice, but quite distinctly, she answered me word for word--as follows:  "'I am the emperor's daughter Anastasia."  It's true he had never seen Anastasia but was shown a photograph and believed it was.  Dr. Utkin does claim the girl was above average height.  Everyone tells us she was not but shorter than the other girls [below average]  but I'm not sure anyone knows how tall she was by July of 1918....

Dr. Utkin's testimony was given 10 Feb 1919 and collected by Kirsta who was under Gen. Gaida, the Czech who appointed himself as investigator of the fate of the Royal Family and the others on the night of 16 / 17 July 1918.... It was his White Forces that had taken Ekaterinburrg.

King's and Wilson's  reasons why they don't seem to be interested in Kirsta's investigation is:  they think the Perm data had been invented by the CHEKA.  However,  I don't think this is true.  I think it was possible some or all of the royal females were in Perm after the night of 16 July 1918.

AGRBear


Note:  I should have not have said they were not interested, because they were, of course,  I should have said, they they were no longer as interested after their research....

The discussion is over on the thread about survivors:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1074956237;start=250#250

AGRBear
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on October 28, 2004, 11:52:02 AM
Because of my thread about what Anastasia would have inherited,  I was asked to read THE LOST FORTUNE OF THE TSARS by William Clarke.  Last night,  while looking for something about Tsarina Alexandra's property in Hesse I can across this story about another rescue I don't recall reading in any other book.  I do recall something about the guards at the Impatiev House getting excited about an airplane flying over......  Let's call it

A Rescue By Aeroplane

On pps 85-86:

There is mention of  Col. Richard Meinertzhagen, who had been in the Foreign Office and in the British Intelligence and who had a diary.  In this diary he wrote about a "plot to rescue the whole family and the apparent rescue of at least one of the grand duchesses by aeroplane"

Yep,  that is what it said:  "the apparent rescue of at least one of the grand duchesses by aeroplane".

The book then gives Meinertzhagen's entry of 18 Aug 1918 which describes the rescue of one of Nicholas II's daughters and his visit with George V at Buckingham Palace.

p. 86:

"July 1... One child was literally thrown into the plane at Ekaterinburg, much bruised, and brought to Braitain where she still is.  But I am sure if her idenity were known she would be tracked down and murdered as the heir of the Russian throne.  What bestial swine the Russians are, murdering little girls becuse they are the daughters of the Tsar."

Could this be true?

July 1 doesn't seem right.  Not when we read the diares of the Impatiev House....  

Did it occur on July 16 and  not July 1..... ?  Now, this would give us a great deal of thought,  wouldn't it?

People have tried to show that Meinertzhagenmight have "some tendency to fantasise" and people crowd around that thought, or so it seems.

A Michael Occleshaw folllowed up on this story and thought the GD rescue may have been GD Tatiana and that was was indeen flown out of Ekaterinburg to Vladivostock by stages then taken by boat to England.  In fact,  he thought she might be buried ina grave in Lydd in Kent".  

You read  the few pages and you can gain your own opinion about this  "rescue".

AGRBear
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Michelle on October 28, 2004, 12:04:51 PM
AGR--

Are there any photos of the woman buried in Kent?  Most fascinating I gotta tell ya! :D
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on October 28, 2004, 12:59:32 PM
First I read about this rescue or some grave in Kent....

I have no answers,  just more questions...

I assume,  someone has checked all of this, so,  someone else will have to give us more.

AGRBear

PS:

No photos of her in THE LOST FORTUNE OF THE TSARS
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Candice on October 28, 2004, 01:51:54 PM
I read it too.  I also read it in 'The Romanov Conspiracies' by Michael Occleshaw, pg. 160 chapter 17. There is a photo of the claimant and also her grave.

In my opinion the photo isn't a very clear one.  To me she doesn't really look like Tatiana but more like an older version of Maria.  It would be interesting to know what you think.

Candice
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on October 28, 2004, 01:57:07 PM
I think someone mentioned this book to me on another thread.

I don't have it:  The Romanov Conspiracies' by Michael Occleshaw.

Thanks for the information.

AGRBear

PS  Same Tatiana?
Quote
To add to your claimant bibliography:
NO RESTING PLACE FOR A ROMANOV, [the Kent Tatiana] Sue Edwards, 1998. Privately printed, isbn 0 9529292 1X
And
THE CONSPIRATOR WHO SAVED THE ROMANOVS by Gary Null, 1971 no isbn [claims they all survived, esp. pushes the Goleniewsi story].
Cheers,
Robert
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Alice on November 02, 2004, 09:44:15 PM
I'd like to know what happened to the locks of hair. It could prove valuable for DNA testing. It could be tested against the sets of remains for the three Grand Duchesses to determine which Grand Duchess is missing.

(Since we have accounts of the colour of each girl's hair)
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on December 07, 2004, 10:16:08 AM
More on the hair which I wrote on another thread:

Quote
The hair they were talking about wasn't the hair that was cut when they had the measles.  That hair was different and used to wear as buns etc..  The hair they talked about was hair that showed someone/all had trimmed their hair...  I think in one area used by Nicholas II it showed he may have trimmed /shaved off his beard...  or mustache,  I forget which.... I'll have to go take a look.

Anyone remember the page on the hair?  I can't seem to find the page...

So,  what else were they inaccurately  telling us which the communists have disproven?

I'm not trying to spare with you.  I just like to know the points you have and let's go point by point so I can see the errors in my judgement/ or just wasn't aware of new evidence....

AGRBear

PS  Found it on page 67 and 68 of Summers and Mangold's book THE FILE ON THE TSARS:

"In the bathroom...short pieces of hair cuttings."

"...In the vestibule....more strands of hair...."

"...a box with cut hair of four different colours...."  I assume, the hair Annie talks about was in the box, and, is mentioned, also.

As for Nicholas II's clippings,  not in this book.  Anyone know where I might have picked up that information.  My memory is void on the source at this time.
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on January 18, 2005, 10:20:34 AM
Hasn't anyone wondered why Mutnykh's tells us in her testimony that she saw only three daughters and not four?


Mutnykh's story tells us, also,   she was not alone when she saw Alexandra and three of her daughters.  With her was Anna Kostina, the secretary to  Grigory Zinoviev.  [Note: she said three daughters, not four.]

 AGRBear
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Candice on January 27, 2005, 01:07:56 PM
Reply #20: AGRBear, in which book is Mutnykh's testimony of seeing three daughters with Alexandra.  I would like to look that up.

Candice


Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Georgiy on January 27, 2005, 02:13:26 PM
I think it's probably in File on the Tsar.
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Candice on January 27, 2005, 02:30:08 PM
Thank you Georgiy, I have a copy.
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on January 27, 2005, 05:48:26 PM
Scroll up and you'll see earlier post #8 with pages and other data.

AGRBear
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Candice on January 28, 2005, 04:04:41 PM
When Dr. Utkin last saw Anastasia the description of his patient was that she had dark eyes and brown hair. Although certain people remember that the "real" Anastasia, as a child, had "Grey-blue eyes" and "brown hair," children's eyes sometimes do change colour as they grow up.  
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Elisabeth on January 28, 2005, 05:01:51 PM
Identifying hair and eye color is a very subjective process, especially when dealing with black and white photographs... Anastasia Nikolaevna, from every account I've read, had dark reddish-blonde hair and very blue eyes. In her photographs, however, she appears darker than her sisters (except for Tatiana) with... brown hair and dark eyes!

As far as I am concerned, Dr. Utkin probably made up his "treatment" of "Grand Duchess Anastasia" out of information that was supplied to him from the Bolsheviks. Undoubtedly he was given a photograph of the real Anastasia and told to come up with a story based on some general outline, while being sure to describe her from her appearance in the photo. "Dark eyes, brown hair," is what most people would come up with when asked to describe a black and white photograph of the young Anastasia Nikolaevna.
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Annie on January 28, 2005, 08:30:39 PM
Quote
children's eyes sometimes do change colour as they grow up.  


Not really, babies are always born with blue eyes but they change for good by at least age 18 months. My little girl had blue until she was about 5 months, then the first brown specks came in, but it took them over a year to turn totally brown. My boy's eyes were dark blue but turned lighter blue. But once they turn they don't ever change again, maybe some elderly folks' eyes fade, but childrens' eyes don't change from say age 5 to 16, what you have at 2 is what you get. (this does not mean that eyes can't look different colors in light or darkness or with different color clothing, just that they don't really change.)
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Alexa on January 29, 2005, 01:54:23 PM
Quote

Not really, babies are always born with blue eyes but they change for good by at least age 18 months. My little girl had blue until she was about 5 months, then the first brown specks came in, but it took them over a year to turn totally brown. My boy's eyes were dark blue but turned lighter blue. But once they turn they don't ever change again, maybe some elderly folks' eyes fade, but childrens' eyes don't change from say age 5 to 16, what you have at 2 is what you get. (this does not mean that eyes can't look different colors in light or darkness or with different color clothing, just that they don't really change.)


My eyes actually changed from brown to hazel sometime during childhood.  I can't remember exactly when, but I remember looking in the mirror one day and noticing specks of green in the brown.  By the time I was 17, they had finished chaning.  Funny, thouhg, cuz all my official documents have me down as having brown eyes, when in fact they're not.  Anyway, eyes can change color in childhood, but I'm not sure how often this happens.  
Alexa
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Candice on January 30, 2005, 09:51:21 AM
Alexa, I agree. My children's had clear blue eyes but one was 9 when her eyes changed to hazel and my other child's eyes changed to green at the age of 14.  Children's eyes definitely do change. Hair colouring also changes.

I have noticed that Tatiana's eyes in some black and white photos show a clear light grey colour.

It could be that Anastasia's eye colour changed too and Dr. Utkin was correct in his description.

Elisabeth, where did you read that the Bolsheviks sent Dr. Utkin the description on Anastasia N.  In 'The File on the Tsar' pgs. 338 and 9.. Dr. Utkin is communicating with his patient when treating her and calling her by her name.

Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on January 30, 2005, 02:09:42 PM
Quote
Identifying hair and eye color is a very subjective process, especially when dealing with black and white photographs... Anastasia Nikolaevna, from every account I've read, had dark reddish-blonde hair and very blue eyes. In her photographs, however, she appears darker than her sisters (except for Tatiana) with... brown hair and dark eyes!

As far as I am concerned, Dr. Utkin probably made up his "treatment" of "Grand Duchess Anastasia" out of information that was supplied to him from the Bolsheviks. Undoubtedly he was given a photograph of the real Anastasia and told to come up with a story based on some general outline, while being sure to describe her from her appearance in the photo. "Dark eyes, brown hair," is what most people would come up with when asked to describe a black and white photograph of the young Anastasia Nikolaevna.


Color of eyes:
 What a great topic.  I remember reading my grandfather's naturalization papers and it said he had brown eyes, I thought WHAT,  the man I remembered had my color eyes which is hazel.  So,  I got on the phone.  I called ten of my grandfather's children.  I asked them what color eyes did their father have.  Everyone remembered his eyes being their own color eyes and this varied from brown to blue.  So,  I sat and thought about this.  Yes, this can be true.  Hazel eyes can change  due to the reflection of a color that a person is wearing.  So,  to prove the point they were hazel,  I took my scanner and enlarge some very old photographs and some photographs which were taken just before he passed away.  I was right,  his eyes changed with the color he was wearing.   Hazel eyes can appear brown to green to blue.

Dr.  Utkin  :  Elisabeth: >>As far as I am concerned, Dr. Utkin probably made up his "treatment" of "Grand Duchess Anastasia<<

 Then, again, he may have been telling the truth.  And, according to the court records, the lawyers who were on the opposite side of AA, went off into a tangent.... Farther questions were not asked of Dr. Utkin. And somehow the attention was drawn to fingerprints being found on an old book of GD Anastasia and if these fingerprints could be left off and be compared to AA's.....  It was said they may end up destroying the evidence and the book.... The judge closed for the day and for the next few months.  End of Dr. Utkin's statement.  And,  I'm not sure if there was any real cross examination on what Dr. Utkin said.  

AGRBear
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Alexa on January 31, 2005, 09:00:35 AM
Quote

...his eyes changed with the color he was wearing.   Hazel eyes can appear brown to green to blue....



In my case, it's how bad the hangover is. ::) Or how tired I am.  In both of those cases, my eyes are very, very green.

I agree it's very easy to be misled by hazel eyes.  My mom, untill a few years ago, always thought my eyes were brown.  I had to make her look at my eyes up close to convince her they weren't.

Alexa
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 31, 2005, 09:12:14 AM
I think it's relatively easy to mistake hazel eyes for brown, but I don't see how anyone could mistake brown eyes for blue.  ???
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on January 31, 2005, 10:11:34 AM
Some hazel eyes already have flecks of golden brown and when we wear brown,  the hazel reflects the brown.  When we wear blue, the hazel reflects the blue.  When we wear green, the hazel relfects the green.  This just is the way they are.

AGRBear
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Alexa on January 31, 2005, 01:12:55 PM
Quote
I think it's relatively easy to mistake hazel eyes for brown, but I don't see how anyone could mistake brown eyes for blue.  ???


My dad's eyes are hazle, but can look blue, albeit a light blue, maybe even a gray.  Mistaking brown for blue...yes, that's a trickier.  Then again, eye color is just so tricky, and one of the last traits people tend to remember about a person.

Alexa
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on February 01, 2005, 11:12:57 AM
Same goes with the color of hair.  Dark blonde hair can be called brown hair but blondes prefer their hair to be called "dark blonde".  

AGRBear
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Candice on February 01, 2005, 11:20:27 AM
From members comments on eye colour it seems possible that Dr. Utkin's description could have been correct and Anastasia's eye colour may have changed to Hazel. Does anyone have proof of any one person describing Anastasia as having Grey-Blue eyes in 1917/18.
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on February 04, 2005, 03:04:49 PM
Greg King said:

>>Kirsta began investigating deliberate Bolshevik rumors that the whole family had been moved from Ekaterinburg; he collected testimony about Nicholas being taken off in chains on a train to Perm.  And he followed this by eagerly believing anything that seemed to confirm these stories.<<

How is this any different than other investigators who think they are following the correct path of discovery?    

I tend to think stating, " ...eagerly believeing anything..." is open to debate unless he wrote these words in his reports.


Greg King added: >>  What you need to understand is that the Bolsheviks were deliberately spreading false information, and much of it was that invstigated by Kirsta that suggested the women were saved.  You have only to think of the source here-te sister of a high-ranking Bolshevik-to understand the dynamics behind the tale-why else would she be out talking about what was obviously a lie?  Everything we read, and all the examinations and testimonies in the dossiers, back this up-most of it unpublished.<<

No, Greg, what you need to understand, it was the  the Bolsheviks who were capable of destroying and fabricating evidence about what really happened.  And,  they are very very good at spin.  They take what's close to the truth and then "spin" which was the  Bolsheviks had wanted people to believe they didn't kill Alexandra, her daughters and Alexei so they spread some rumors..... Was it closer to the truth and had they held some of the IF in Perm?  Had  some of them had been rescued, then recaptured?  Did the Bolsheviks have to "ReSpin"? Yes.  At some point in time between July 1917 and 1920/1  the nine bodies were in the grave in Pig's Meadow....   But there were two still missing. Children of Nicholas II's.  Anastasia/Marie and Alexei.  The missing two children left someone, who, by then,  was  down the creek without a paddle and had to get his boat back  upstream....    Well, never mind, some Bolsheviks said, because no one will find the bodies and even if they did,  no one could tell who they were so what's-the-difference.... And, certainly, no one would believe Alexei survived...  He was a sick boy....  Years later.  There appeared some curious people.... the process of DNA and the counting of bones....  Guess what?  It is certain, now, there are two missing children of Nicholas II's.

So, someone isn't telling the truth. And, I point my finger at the men who claimed they killed the eleven in the Impatiev House on the night of 16/17 July 1918.

AGRBear
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Elisabeth on February 04, 2005, 04:56:13 PM
Quote
When Dr. Utkin last saw Anastasia the description of his patient was that she had dark eyes and brown hair. Although certain people remember that the "real" Anastasia, as a child, had "Grey-blue eyes" and "brown hair," children's eyes sometimes do change colour as they grow up.  


Well, if that's the case, and somehow Anastasia Nikolaevna's eyes turned from grey-blue to brown in the space of a year or two, then it's time to dismiss most of the eyewitnesses who identified Anna Anderson as Anastasia. Because many of them identified AA as AN partly on the basis of her blue eyes, which supposedly so resembled the tsar's.

On the other hand - to be fair! - depending on the light, even very blue eyes can appear so dark as to be brown - if they have a large enough pupil. It has nothing to do with any actual changing of eye color - it's simply a question of the size of the pupil - and a trick of the light.

Still, to be honest, I have to admit that I found Dr. Utkin's description of his examination of "Anastasia Nikolaevna" rather disgusting. It was more than vaguely salacious, with a prurient undertone I found deeply distasteful. Our Dr. Utkin (Dr. Duck, in Russian!) sounds like the kind of good citizen who would totally invent this sort of encounter with a famous person. The sexy "Anastasia Nikolaevna" he describes bears little or no resemblance to the "tolstaya" ("fat") Anastasia Nikolaevna of the Ipatiev House.



Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Candice on February 04, 2005, 08:19:47 PM
Yes, eye colour is important. This may be a reason why no one recognised the real Anastasia. The authorities themselves assumed that she had grey-blue eyes. I notice in photos that Anastasia looks thinner than Maria, especially during their imprisonment.
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 04, 2005, 08:28:28 PM
Quote

On the other hand - to be fair! - depending on the light, even very blue eyes can appear so dark as to be brown - if they have a large enough pupil. It has nothing to do with any actual changing of eye color - it's simply a question of the size of the pupil...


Generally, pupil dilation is caused by illicit drugs!  ;)
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on February 04, 2005, 08:49:53 PM
I presume there wasn't any 150 watt lightbulb in the room and eyes dialate due to darkness [in this case, it was probably dim light]  in order to bring in more light to see.

Dr. Utkin was questioned for six hours by Anastasia lawyer/ lawyers.  Nothing he said was contradicted by the opposite side accept a outburst of words which went on for a time about how Dr. Utkin's testimony was rubbish.  If it was rubbish, then why didn't the oposite side cross examine Dr. Utkin?  They didn't do it on this day nor did they ask for him to return to continue examination of his statement.  Therefore, what he said stands as it is.

AGRBear
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Alice on February 05, 2005, 04:26:10 AM
Quote
I think it's relatively easy to mistake hazel eyes for brown, but I don't see how anyone could mistake brown eyes for blue.  ???


Maybe she had "David Bowie" eyes? (One blue, one brown).

:D
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Michelle on February 05, 2005, 07:16:07 PM
Quote
Still, to be honest, I have to admit that I found Dr. Utkin's description of his examination of "Anastasia Nikolaevna" rather disgusting. It was more than vaguely salacious, with a prurient undertone I found deeply distasteful. Our Dr. Utkin (Dr. Duck, in Russian!) sounds like the kind of good citizen who would totally invent this sort of encounter with a famous person. The sexy "Anastasia Nikolaevna" he describes bears little or no resemblance to the "tolstaya" ("fat") Anastasia Nikolaevna of the Ipatiev House.


Utkin thought Anastasia was sexy? ???
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Annie on February 05, 2005, 07:54:02 PM
Quote

Maybe she had "David Bowie" eyes? (One blue, one brown).

 :D


Unfortunately that's not genetic or natural. One eye has a paralyzed pupil because of a childhood injury. When he was in sixth grade he got into a fight and one of his eyes was poked out. They thought he would go blind in it. He didn't, but it was damaged and changed appearance.

BTW I like your avatar, I was rooting for her at the Olympics. She has the same name as a famous pre-Revolutionary ballerina.
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 05, 2005, 08:05:12 PM
I used to know someone who had one brown eye, and the other eye was half brown and half blue... And that was congenital. I read that Grand Duchess Ella had something like this too.
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Annie on February 05, 2005, 08:07:45 PM
I've seen cats with one yellow eye, one blue, and dogs with one blue, one brown.
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 05, 2005, 08:12:39 PM
Quote
I've seen cats with one yellow eye, one blue, and dogs with one blue, one brown.

When an individual has different amounts of melanin in each of their irises, their eyes are different colors. Heterochromia iridium is  relatively rare in humans but common in some animals, such as horses, cats, and certain species of dogs. A variation on the condition is heterochromia iridis, in which an individual has a variety of colors within one iris.

Heterochromia iridium is thought to result from an alteration to one of the genes that controls eye color. This can be an inherited trait, although trauma and certain medications may result in increased or decreased pigmentation in one of the irises. Certain medical syndromes, such as Waardenburg syndrome, may also cause someone to have two different colored eyes.



Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Annie on February 05, 2005, 08:29:21 PM
Quote
When an individual has different amounts of melanin in each of their irises, their eyes are different colors. Heterochromia iridium is  relatively rare in humans but common in some animals, such as horses, cats, and certain species of dogs. A variation on the condition is heterochromia iridis, in which an individual has a variety of colors within one iris.


Interesting, you are a wealth of knowledge! Thanks!


Quote
Heterochromia iridium is thought to result from an alteration to one of the genes that controls eye color. This can be an inherited trait, although trauma and certain medications may result in increased or decreased pigmentation in one of the irises. Certain medical syndromes, such as Waardenburg syndrome, may also cause someone to have two different colored eyes.





So in Bowie's case, the trauma caused more pigmentation to come into one eye?
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 05, 2005, 08:40:35 PM
Quote

Interesting, you are a wealth of knowledge! Thanks!
So in Bowie's case, the trauma caused more pigmentation to come into one eye?


I looked it up  ;). Yes, I guess in Bowie's case it was the trauma thay caused either more or less pigmentation, but it doesn't have to be from trauma. As long as the pigmentation is different in some way, the result is the same.
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Alice on February 05, 2005, 10:43:46 PM
Quote

Unfortunately that's not genetic or natural. One eye has a paralyzed pupil because of a childhood injury. When he was in sixth grade he got into a fight and one of his eyes was poked out. They thought he would go blind in it. He didn't, but it was damaged and changed appearance.

BTW I like your avatar, I was rooting for her at the Olympics. She has the same name as a famous pre-Revolutionary ballerina.


Oh, I didn't realise that's why (with Bowie's eyes).

As for Anna, I know about the name, that's why I put her up! I'm a gymnastics fan (was lucky enough to meet the Russian and Ukrainian teams in Sydney . . . all very nice people!)
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Annie on February 06, 2005, 08:55:22 AM
Quote


As for Anna, I know about the name, that's why I put her up! I'm a gymnastics fan (was lucky enough to meet the Russian and Ukrainian teams in Sydney . . . all very nice people!)


I thought you probably did ;) Good connection, ballet and gymnastics, 100 years later! She's so sweet too, I felt so bad for her when she cried for coming in 4th in the all around. I would rather have had her than Khorkina get a medal. You were very lucky to meet both teams! :D
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Denise on February 06, 2005, 06:24:16 PM
I am curious.  Is Dr Utkins statement available anywhere?  I was thinking of the earlier comment about his portrayal of a "sexy" Anastasia... Something doesn't sound right, so I would like to read it myself.

Denise
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Abby on February 06, 2005, 10:20:51 PM
Hm....good question Denise. I haven't yet seen the Utkin story on the internet, the only place I read it was in "File on the Tsar". I can't remember whether or not it was in Shea McNeal's book.
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Denise on February 06, 2005, 10:25:38 PM
Drat!!  I haven't read either of those, and I don't particularly want to buy them.  Maybe I'll check the library, but I don't think they had them either.  I live in a fairly small town.  :(
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on February 07, 2005, 11:49:07 AM
Abby, it's not in the Shay McNeal's book.

Maybe he's mention in Kurth's books.

THE RIDDLE OF ANNA ANDERSON p. 44

THE QUEST FOR ANASTASIA  by John Klier p. 70

Mangold and Summers  THE FILE ON THE TSAR pps. 335-41 and 344


AGRBear
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Abby on February 07, 2005, 01:45:10 PM
Thanks for confirming that, AGR Bear. I am pretty sure that the only book I read it in was 'FOTT'.

The only other place I could think of where it could be mentioned was in one of Guy Richard's books: "Hunt for the Tsar" and "Rescue of the Romanovs".

I am really sorry to keep throwing out titles like this when I have no access to my books to check!  :-[ Forgive me! It has been a while.
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Denise on February 07, 2005, 01:56:32 PM
Double Drat.  Is the File In the Tsar a worthwhile purchase, or is much of the info outdated at this point?

Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Robert_Hall on February 07, 2005, 02:31:54 PM
Since so many people cite it as reference, you might as well get it to be aware of what it presents. It is not a bad read, but yes, it is outdated.
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Denise on February 07, 2005, 02:34:44 PM
Ok, Robert, thanks.  Off to Abebooks I go!!
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Abby on February 07, 2005, 04:10:09 PM
Yes, I think it is definitley worth the investment. While much of the information in the book has been discredited and new evidence has surfaced, the book was groundbreaking in its time and presented some of the more interesting theories of the IF's escape. We know that they didn't escape, but the rumours and odd cirumstances surrounding their last days at the Ipatiev House kept me riveted to the book.
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Denise on February 07, 2005, 04:12:43 PM
Thanks Abby.  I do like to read the more "quirky" theories, even if they are untrue.  And I have read on this board that there are still things in the book that hold up even today.  I am not one to throw the whole book away because part has been discredited.  Peter Kurth's book is still a phenomenal detailing of AA, even though we know her to not be Anastasia.
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on February 08, 2005, 05:04:17 PM
Here is another example of Summers and Mangold pps. 345-6:

They were talking about some of the IF family being in Perm.  Early in this thread I mentioned Mutnykh and her testimony to the Whites:
"...According to Mutnykha the family were moved 'to a convent under more strict arrest' after the escape attempt.  They were held there, still in Perm, until the end of November 1918.

In her earlier statement,  she said she had not seen four daughters, only three.

Mutnykha:  " When they [the Bolsheviks] begain to evacuate the larger instititutions from Perm, about three weeks before the occupation of Perm by the Siberian forces, the imperial family was taken to Perm II station, and from there to Glazov.  They were all placed in a village near Red Army barracks, less than 10-13 miles from Glazov; they were accompanied and guarded there by Alexander Sivkov, Rafael Malyshev and Georgy Tomachev, and soldiers.  From the vilage near Glazov they were taken toward Kazan by these same three men."

Another witness Yevgeniya Sokolova tells us almost the same story.  She also tells that there were only three daughters.

It is not understood why the route was taken from Perm to Glazov then to Kazan.  I speculate it had something to do with the trains not moving one way or the other at the time of moving the prisioners.

If this was one of those Bolshevik spins,  why would these women say there were only three daughters and not four?

AGRBear
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Annie on February 08, 2005, 10:18:16 PM
Denise, please do not waste your money on "The File on the Tsar" unless you find it in the dolllar bin. It IS very outdated and most of it is embarrassing or even laughable now. Even when it was new in 1976 when I was a freshman in high school I thought a lot of it was ridiculous but after all this time it's much worse, since communism fell, we have the bodies, we know none of the claimants were real, etc. Yes people continue to quote it, but it is not a realistic or viable source of credibile info. While surely there must be something in it that isn't inaccurate, you can find it in other books. You could get it at your library and test it out, all my local branches carry a dog eared old copy. You can get a good laugh out of the 'claimants' in there (not AA)
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Denise on February 08, 2005, 10:26:21 PM
That is exactly how I plan to find it Annie.  Either that or the 1.49 special at a used book store!!  I know it is outdated, but I feel like I need to "rubber neck" this book because I hear how bad it it.....
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Mgmstl on February 08, 2005, 11:10:32 PM
Yes Summers & Mangold's book is more than dated. Most of what was written in there has since been disproven of course with the DNA tests, and fall of the USSR....

Actually it's not even worth buying for 1.95 8)
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on February 09, 2005, 10:10:42 AM
Quote
Denise, please do not waste your money on "The File on the Tsar" unless you find it in the dolllar bin. It IS very outdated and most of it is embarrassing or even laughable now. Even when it was new in 1976 when I was a freshman in high school I thought a lot of it was ridiculous but after all this time it's much worse, since communism fell, we have the bodies, we know none of the claimants were real, etc. Yes people continue to quote it, but it is not a realistic or viable source of credibile info. While surely there must be something in it that isn't inaccurate, you can find it in other books. You could get it at your library and test it out, all my local branches carry a dog eared old copy. You can get a good laugh out of the 'claimants' in there (not AA)


I do not understand the continued slander on the book File On the Tsar by Summers and Mangold.  There has been a woman who worked for them on this forum who claims they did their homework and should be regarded as honest informants.

The statements I've been using have not been disproven.

The earlier investigators seem more interested in trying to find the truth than some of the Whites investigators who came later.  How many of you know that it was desided bt the Whites Gen. Diterikhs under Kolchak that it was best just to declare the family dead, including the children, in order to inflame their soldiers into fighting with a new vengance?

Summers and Mangold's evidence was from actual testimony gathered at that time.  This testimony that seems to be jumped over and forgotten by those who don't want to know all the facts just like the Whites did not want to known when the assigned Sokolev, who just doesn't even mention testimony like those above.

Summrs and Mangold even go as far as saying that don't believe  AA was GD Anastasia.

Since you've accused them of being "embarrassing or even laughable", give me an example.

Of course some of the information is outdated.  They did write the book in 1976

AGRBear
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on February 09, 2005, 10:44:57 AM
Quote
Oh Dear Oh Dear

I am sorry.   Tom Mangold and Anthony Summers are two highly respected, successful and serious British journalists.  

For over thirty years their contribution to major British newspapers and public service broadcasting - the BBC's current affairs flagship programme, Panorama to name but one - has been of the very highest standard.   As a former BBC employee, I know how highly their work was regarded both within the organisation and beyond.

Their book 'File on the Tsar' was groundbreaking in its day... Soviet days when to uncover just about anything to do with the last Imperial Family in Russia was well nigh impossible.

With the passage of time, the opening of archives and history being rewritten before our eyes, it is only too easy to be critical with hindsight.

tsaria
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on February 09, 2005, 11:28:19 AM
Back to the subject of testimony:

Quote
Here is another example of Summers and Mangold pps. 345-6:

They were talking about some of the IF family being in Perm.  Early in this thread I mentioned Mutnykh and her testimony to the Whites:
"...According to Mutnykha the family were moved 'to a convent under more strict arrest' after the escape attempt.  They were held there, still in Perm, until the end of Novber 1918.

In her earlier statement,  she said she had not seen four daughters, only three.

Mutnykha:  " When they [the Bolsheviks] begain to evacuate the larger instititutions from Perm, about three weeks before the occupation of Permy by the Siberian forces, the imperial family was taken to Perm II stateion, and from there to Glazov.  They were all placed in a village near Red Army barracks, les than 10-13 miles from Glazov; they were accompanied and guraded there by Alexander Sivkov, Rafael Malyshev and Georgy Tomachev, and soldiers.  From the vilage near Glazov they were taken toward Kazan by these same three men."

Another witness Yevgeniya Sokolova tells us almost the same story.  She also tells that there were only three daughters.

It is not understood why the route was taken from Perm to Glazov then to Kazan.  I speculate it had something to do with the trains not moving one way or the other at the time of moving the prisioners.

If this was one of those Bolshevik spins,  why would these women say there were only three daughters and not four?

AGRBear
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Annie on February 09, 2005, 12:09:36 PM
I really don't care how 'highly regarded' they are in their other work, it doesn't change that FOTT is now outdated and basically useless since most of its theories have been discounted.

Why is everything negative called 'slander' here? Gee in that case I've been 'slandered' many times! Look, we all have  a right to voice our opinions. People do that on Amazon.com all the time.

If you don't even want to pay 1.49, there is always the library (just don't let it go overdue) ;)
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on February 09, 2005, 12:30:10 PM
Annie,   I've asked you on this thread and I've asked others on other threads:   What testimonies, which I've used from Summers and Mangold, has  been discredited?

As for speculation,  they were not working with information we have today.  So,  I'm not sure what the point is in continuing that part of the discussion.

The word "slander" was probably too strong a word to use on my part.

You have every right to your opinion.

I just wish you and others would give me some examples so I can understand your attitudes of the book.  For example, tell me about the two testimonies I've just used.  Are they fabricated by Summers and Mangold to help sell their book?

AGRBear
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Candice on February 09, 2005, 03:52:36 PM
On pg. 272 of 'Nicholas II' The Last of the Tsar's. Marc Ferro describes how Anastasia escapes. "Transferred to Perm with her sisters, she escaped with one of her young captors. Caught, beaten and/or raped by the soldiers, and brought back, she was examined by Dr. Utkin.  Then she disappeared again, we do not know how. In any case, she was not at Perm railway station for the journey to Kiev, and after September her sisters did not know what had happened to her."  It does go on to say that because of her traumatic experience she couldn't face her family.  

I cannot believe that she would not have wanted the compassion of her Mother and sisters.  It is more likely that she believed the spin that her whole family had been killed.
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on February 09, 2005, 05:34:56 PM
I have that book around here somewhere.  I'll be darn.  Now, I'll have to go and see what else Ferro tells us.

Thanks Candice.

AGRBear
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on February 10, 2005, 02:05:58 PM
Marc Ferro's book was published in 1990.

At the back of the book he goes into some of the documents which Summers and Mangold had brought to his attention.

Evidently, there were some new documents he saw which Summers and Mangold did not see.

He talks about both.  And gives us parts of testimonies.

Since I was talking about Natalya Vasilevna Mutnykh, he actually gives her testimony given on 8 March 1919 pps. 263-4.  With her was Anya Kostina, Zinoviev's secretary.  Talks about Alexandra and the four girls being alive after 17 July 1918 and she had seen them herself:
"...they were tranfered from the town of Ekaterinburag to Perm, where they wre kept very secretly in a cellar in the Beryozin house... [Berzin's house].

"...former Alexandra Fyodorovna and her four daughters, who were in a terrible state but I recognized them only too well."

"...One of the girls escaped from the cellar in September, but was caught somehwere beyond the Kama and brought back, while the family were transported elsewhere...."

He also tells us p. 266 more about the other witness Yevgeniya Sokolova, who  tells us almost the same story as  Natalya Vasilevna Mutnykh .  She also tells that there were only three daughters and that they had left Perm by train and gave the date as 17 March 1919.


One of the stories is the one Candice talks about above.


AGRBear
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Candice on February 10, 2005, 03:07:49 PM
AGRBear, pleased that you found your copy.  The information in the book is very compelling.  The book reveals on page 286 "The most important witnesses disappear, executed or assassinated, always in mysterious circumsances.  We cannot make out who is dead and who has escaped death."  

Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on February 10, 2005, 03:08:27 PM
Quote
On pg. 272 of 'Nicholas II' The Last of the Tsar's. Marc Ferro describes how Anastasia escapes. "Transferred to Perm with her sisters, she escaped with one of her young captors. Caught, beaten and/or raped by the soldiers, and brought back, she was examined by Dr. Utkin.  Then she disappeared again, we do not know how. In any case, she was not at Perm railway station for the journey to Kiev, and after September her sisters did not know what had happened to her."  It does go on to say that because of her traumatic experience she couldn't face her family.  

I cannot believe that she would not have wanted the compassion of her Mother and sisters.  It is more likely that she believed the spin that her whole family had been killed.


There are three people who gave testimony about Alexandra and just three of the daughters having left Perm. One of the girls did not leave with the others.

Ferro tells us about one of the girl's escape from the testimony of Mutnykh on 8 March 1919:   "One of the girs escaped from this cellar in September, but was caught somehwere beyond the Kama and brought back, while the family were transported elsewhere..."

If this is true, then Alexandra and the 3 girls were not executed until after this time period testified by Mutnykh.

Ferro p. 264-5 talks about Dr. Utkin and gives his testimony of 10 Feb 1919.  He does not say he attended her in Ekaterinburg but in Perm.


AGRBear
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on February 10, 2005, 06:02:53 PM
I can not agree with Greg:

Quote

AGRBear:

Our reasons for discounting this testimony are numerous and based on solid evidence, not an erroneous view that we "don't seem to be interested" in the subject.  We read through 11 volumes of original Sokolov Dossiers, reports, additional materials in private collections and contemporary 1918-1922 reports of which we own original copies or original certified copies.  Having explored the issue of the Perm stories at great length during our research, and Gaida's reliability on a number of issues, as well as reports by his superiors on the subject, it became clear to us that the Perm stories were nothing more than Bolshevik propaganda, designed to serve two purposes: 1) Distract the White investigators; and 2) Allow rumors to flow unchecked for the benefit of Soviet relations with western governments, so as not to have to admit that the women and children had been executed.  Our position is therefore based on our research, not on presumed disinterest in the subject.

Greg King



I don't think they were rumors, I think, however, that the  the Bolsheviks put their own spin on these stories which they used to hide the fact that something else happen in the Impatiev House on the night of 16/17 July 1918.

AGRBear
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Denise on February 13, 2005, 09:43:03 AM
I believe they were Bolshevik rumors, based on the number of rumors spread after the execution of GD Michael and his secretary.  In the case of the Imperial family, there was an even greater need for the rumor mill, as the children and Alexandra were not supposed to be killed.  THerefore, it was a case of cover your bum....
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Mgmstl on February 13, 2005, 10:18:15 AM
Think about it Bear, the Lenin Govt. in Moscow had to worry how they appeared to the west in order to gain a legitimate footing internationally, so these well spread rumors gave them time, to do that.  It had to look like the central govt. didn't santion or allow the execution of AF & hger children.  

We have to really be honest here, and realize that no one could have survived that type of brutal mass shooting.
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Denise on February 13, 2005, 10:45:47 PM
Quote
Think about it Bear, the Lenin Govt. in Moscow had to worry how they appeared to the west in order to gain a legitimate footing internationally, so these well spread rumors gave them time, to do that.  It had to look like the central govt. didn't santion or allow the execution of AF & hger children.  



Thank you for saying that so eloquently.  Exactly my point.  


Quote
We have to really be honest here, and realize that no one could have survived that type of brutal mass shooting.


I don't know that too many people think there were survivors per se.  However, I do think it possible that if a seriously wounded Alexei or Anastasia was either "rescued" or fell from the truck that they may have died at a peasant's home and been buried there.  
Surviving the shooting and living to tell are two different things.....




Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AlexeiLVR on February 14, 2005, 01:40:25 AM
Ok I have a question! I've herd that AF and her children were not supposto be killed! But somewhere els I've herd that only Nicholas and Alexei were supposto be killed!

So my question is who were the ones who were supposto be killed? Nicholas and Alexei or just Nicholas?

And why were Alexandra and OTMAA killed if only Nicholas was supposto be?
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: jeremygaleaz on February 14, 2005, 05:11:04 PM
Perhaps the reason they decided to kill them all is that the Bolsheviks didn't want the whites to have any symbol to wrap around.
I know that female sucession wasn't permitted. But, perhaps they feared that in the mist of a Civil war, the whites/ monarchists  might rally around the Tsar's wife and/or  one of the daughters? (which, it seems, many of them did, regardless ofwhether she was the real thing or not!)  

But, what bothers me alot is Dr. Utkin's testimony that he "Anastasia" he treated used the terms "imperatora" and "gosudarya" (old Russian words for "emperor" and "ruler" or "sovereign") and not "Czar" like an average Russian Subject would say. "gosudarya" would've been used more in court circles.
Having a theory about someone's orgins is of course, it's not an exact science. Still, it leaves one wondering...    
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Denise on February 14, 2005, 05:49:22 PM
Quote

But, what bothers me alot is Dr. Utkin's testimony that he "Anastasia" he treated used the terms "imperatora" and "gosudarya" (old Russian words for "emperor" and "ruler" or "sovereign") and not "Czar" like an average Russian Subject would say. "gosudarya" would've been used more in court circles.
Having a theory about someone's orgins is of course, it's not an exact science. Still, it leaves one wondering...    


Exactly!!  It truly makes one wonder who AAA was, and where she got her info.  If she was FS, as the DNA seems to make certain, I wonder where she goy her knowledge of languages and also of certain court protocol, as Jeremy points out.  
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: jeremygaleaz on February 14, 2005, 05:59:49 PM
Quote

Exactly!!  It truly makes one wonder who AAA was, and where she got her info.  If she was FS, as the DNA seems to make certain, I wonder where she goy her knowledge of languages and also of certain court protocol, as Jeremy points out.  


Thanks Denise!

But AA never said this. These terms were used by the Perm "Anastasia" in FOTR. (AA seems to have used the terms "Kaiser" and "Czar" in describing her "father)
It makes me wonder if the Bolsheviks may have used the real AN in order to throw of the Whites...

questions...questions...questions....
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Candice on February 14, 2005, 06:09:10 PM
Still everyone talks about IF as all being killed.  Why don't we look at the rosy possibility that they did escape. Why don't we look to investigate that.

I think Anna A was taught protocol and languages. People can learn. She was a smart individual that thought she could get away with the impersonation.

We have many witnesses that saw the imperial family after the murder.  The Bolsheviks made the whole thing up.
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Denise on February 14, 2005, 06:21:11 PM
Quote

Thanks Denise!

But AA never said this. These terms were used by the Perm "Anastasia" in FOTR. (AA seems to have used the terms "Kaiser" and "Czar" in describing her "father)
It makes me wonder if the Bolsheviks may have used the real AN in order to throw of the Whites...

questions...questions...questions....


Sorry about the mixup.  But it still does make you wonder about the Perm Anastasia.  The Bolsheviks seemed so intent in finding AN in Perm, going so far as to use Princess Helena to ID a prospective AN.  Who was the girl you mention may be an unanswered mystery.  BUt as Anastasia's remains are still missing, we don't know.

How do you mean, the Bolsheviks used AN?    I'd like to hear your speculations on this!  :D
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Dashkova on February 14, 2005, 06:21:12 PM
Quote
Still everyone talks about IF as all being killed.  Why don't we look at the rosy possibility that they did escape. Why don't we look to investigate that.

I think Anna A was taught protocol and languages. People can learn. She was a smart individual that thought she could get away with the impersonation.

We have many witnesses that saw the imperial family after the murder.  The Bolsheviks made the whole thing up.


*Reeallly*? I bet you helped them orchestrate it too, huh?  You must have, how else could you make a declarative statement such as that?
Well, there are other reasons people make these types of remarks...

Many witnesses...hmmm...*many* witnesses. Do you mean after the "murders" literally (which would be accurate), or the "la la" version of "after"?
If the latter, do you have names (and I *don't* mean the doctor recently discussed nor the women who saw some "Romanovs " by "weak candlelight" in Perm, nor the ones who claimed to see "Anastasia" at the railroad siding).

Who else, among the "many witnesses" do you refer to?

Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Denise on February 14, 2005, 06:26:32 PM
Quote
Still everyone talks about IF as all being killed.  Why don't we look at the rosy possibility that they did escape. Why don't we look to investigate that.



Not to be mean, Candice, but the small matter of the DNA tests shows us that the IF did die in Ekaterinburg.  Investigating an escape of persons who we know to have died seems rather pointless.

Quote
I think Anna A was taught protocol and languages. People can learn. She was a smart individual that thought she could get away with the impersonation.



Who taught her all that and to what purpose?  As she wasn't AN, then are are you suggesting she was taught these things to impersonate the grand duchess?  Again, who would be the one behind this impersonation?

Quote

We have many witnesses that saw the imperial family after the murder.  The Bolsheviks made the whole thing up.


Yes, just as "witnesses" were reported to have seen Michael after he was killed.  The Bolsheviks needed to keep the illusion that Alexandra and the children were still alive as Moscow had not authorized their murders.  

And what exactly do you believe the Bolsheviks made up?




Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Dashkova on February 14, 2005, 06:44:03 PM
FOTR was rereleased with a few pages of new research, just a couple years ago (about the time the McNeal book came out).

Of course much is outdated.  Much of it is a "stretch."  

However (a big however), Summers and Mangold should always be commended for being willing to look at alternative outcomes.  Not only that, but their research regarding methods of burning human bodies (and how it's not so easy to do and that teeth are impossible to destroy by any known methods).  Plus, their work on the lack of decomposition of the dog that was found in the mine shaft is excellent.

I also quite like how they bother to discuss the investigators that preceded Sokolov.

There is nothing wrong with gleaning what is still good, what will probably always be good research.  I think most people interested in this subject, except for the very young, very uninformed, or very naive, and armed with a few caveats, can read FOTR and still obtain some good information.

It can usually be found in good second hand bookstores and of course, always available online, very cheaply.
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Denise on February 14, 2005, 06:52:50 PM
Quote
FOTR was rereleased with a few pages of new research, just a couple years ago (about the time the McNeal book came out).

Of course much is outdated.  Much of it is a "stretch."  

However (a big however), Summers and Mangold should always be commended for being willing to look at alternative outcomes.  Not only that, but their research regarding methods of burning human bodies (and how it's not so easy to do and that teeth are impossible to destroy by any known methods).  Plus, their work on the lack of decomposition of the dog that was found in the mine shaft is excellent.

I also quite like how they bother to discuss the investigators that preceded Sokolov.

There is nothing wrong with gleaning what is still good, what will probably always be good research.  I think most people interested in this subject, except for the very young, very uninformed, or very naive, and armed with a few caveats, can read FOTR and still obtain some good information.

It can usually be found in good second hand bookstores and of course, always available online, very cheaply.


Thanks Dashkova.  You are the first review I have read on this book that is objective and gives both sides.  I didn't know there was a revised edition....

I think I will look into this after all...
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: jeremygaleaz on February 15, 2005, 02:11:59 AM
Quote
FOTR was rereleased with a few pages of new research, just a couple years ago (about the time the McNeal book came out).

Just so the very young, very uninformed, and very naive don't get confused:

FOTR= Fate Of The Romanovs

FOTT= File On The Tsar

Always willing to help ;)
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Dashkova on February 15, 2005, 03:10:50 AM
Quote
FOTR was rereleased with a few pages of new research, just a couple years ago (about the time the McNeal book came out).

Just so the very young, very uninformed, and very naive don't get confused:

FOTR= Fate Of The Romanovs

FOTT= File On The Tsar

Always willing to help ;)


The very young need to learn quote attribution.

How nice that you have time to troll the boards and detect spelling errors.  
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Denise on February 15, 2005, 06:16:31 AM
Quote

Just so the very young, very uninformed, and very naive don't get confused:

FOTR= Fate Of The Romanovs

FOTT= File On The Tsar

Always willing to help ;)


Thanks!!  I should have caught that too....
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: jeremygaleaz on February 15, 2005, 03:20:38 PM
Quote

Thanks Denise!

But AA never said this. These terms were used by the Perm "Anastasia" in FOTR. (AA seems to have used the terms "Kaiser" and "Czar" in describing her "father)
It makes me wonder if the Bolsheviks may have used the real AN in order to throw of the Whites...

questions...questions...questions....


Good point Dashkova! The error is mine as well!
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on February 18, 2005, 07:23:36 PM
Quote
FOTR was rereleased with a few pages of new research, just a couple years ago (about the time the McNeal book came out).

Of course much is outdated.  Much of it is a "stretch."  

However (a big however), Summers and Mangold should always be commended for being willing to look at alternative outcomes.  Not only that, but their research regarding methods of burning human bodies (and how it's not so easy to do and that teeth are impossible to destroy by any known methods).  Plus, their work on the lack of decomposition of the dog that was found in the mine shaft is excellent.

I also quite like how they bother to discuss the investigators that preceded Sokolov.

There is nothing wrong with gleaning what is still good, what will probably always be good research.  I think most people interested in this subject, except for the very young, very uninformed, or very naive, and armed with a few caveats, can read FOTR and still obtain some good information.

It can usually be found in good second hand bookstores and of course, always available online, very cheaply.


The File On The Tsar by Mangold and Summers came out in 1976.

The Last Tsar by Radzinsky was published in 1992

The Fall of the Romanovs by Steinberg and Khrustakev was published in 1995.

The Plots To Rescue the Tsar by McNeal came out in 2001.

The Fate of the Romanovs by King and Wilson came out in 2003.

Each of these books and others which followed Mangold and Summers used them in their references.

Mangold and Summers  told us about information which Sokolov failed to tell us.  It seems earlier investigators took  testimonies which gave us a data that Alexandera and four of the girls had been taken to Perm and had not been killed as was reported by the CHEKA.  They even suggest AA might not be GD Anastasia.

Sokolov's investigation came after many other investigators.   Gen. Gajda did not  trust Sokolov and appointed his own investogators. Gajda was the first to enter the city of Ekatkerinburg.  Sokolov was appointed and under the direction of Gen.   Dietrichks who wanted the quick and easy answers.  In fact, one of Dietrichks men may have killed the dog Joy in late June and placed it in the mine to make it appear something did happen at the mines.  Why?  Because Dietrichks wanted to use the deaths of Nicholas II and his children as a rellying point for his troops.

McNeal's book seeks out information she found fasinating in the ficitional book Rescuing of the Tsar.  Although the rescue, if indeed there was a rescue,  could not have occured as was in this novel, McNeal does gives us more information about very real people and places and things who were working in the areas of Ekaterinburg and the eastern sections.  Also, she was able to find more information on some of the people mentioned in Summers and Mangold's book.

And, so, on and so on....

Each book about the subject has something of interest, so, read them all.

I'm not new in the search for truth.  I've been looking, reading and absorbing information for over a half century.   And, I can honestly say,  I still have my doubts about what happen to the eleven on the night of 16/17 July 1918 in the Impatiev House in Ekaterinburg.

Of course,  we know nine bodies ended up in a mass grave.  But we don't know when they ended up here because it seems too many bones are missing for this to have been their second buriel place.

And, no, we do not know where the missing two are.  In fact we're not sure if the missing female is Anastasia or Maria...

When will we know the answers to all these questions?  We may never know.

After 85 years and seven months, many of us still ponder over the fate of Nicholas II and the others.....  For it still is a mystery that needs an ending.

AGRBear


Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Mgmstl on February 18, 2005, 07:56:53 PM
Bear, we may never know the truth about what happened, but since last week there will not be an honest & open discussion of the subject matter, and I am sorry to say I really am no longer interested in participating in it.    

I do hope you are doing well after your surgery.
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on February 19, 2005, 10:51:20 AM
Quote
Bear, we may never know the truth about what happened, but since last week there will not be an honest & open discussion of the subject matter, and I am sorry to say I really am no longer interested in participating in it.    

I do hope you are doing well after your surgery.


Far as I'm concern, we still can have a "honest & open discussion of the subject matter".   People have tried to redicule me, call me names, claim I'm someone I'm not, but I'm still here.  And, as long as I'm here,  then you and others must realize that these disussion are open to honest discussion.    :).  

Unfortunately,  there are some posters who are "over zealous", some are "protectors of the old guard" and others just don't like to get out of their boxes.

Hang around for a little longer and help me keep my little theories on the right road to the truth.

And, thanks for your nice words.  I feel better and better each day.

AGRBear
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on February 19, 2005, 10:57:38 AM
Quote

Thanks Denise!

But AA never said this. These terms were used by the Perm "Anastasia" in FOTR. (AA seems to have used the terms "Kaiser" and "Czar" in describing her "father)
It makes me wonder if the Bolsheviks may have used the real AN in order to throw of the Whites...

questions...questions...questions....


Although my family lived in Russia for more than 100 years before my ancestors migr. to the USA,  we did not call Nicholas II Tsar, he was the Kaiser, which was German for Emperor.  

Since AA spoke German as her language of conversation, then it would have been acceptable to have her call Nicholas II as Kaiser.

Nicholas II was a Tsar but this was reference to just one area of Russia, he was also the Emperor of All the Russias.  I think Hall and I discussed this over under Russian roots.

AGRBear
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Annie on February 19, 2005, 10:46:02 PM
Quote

Although my family lived in Russia for more than 100 years before my ancestors migr. to the USA,  we did not call Nicholas II Tsar, he was the Kaiser, which was German for Emperor.  

Since AA spoke German as her language of conversation, then it would have been acceptable to have her call Nicholas II as Kaiser.

 Nicholas II was a Tsar but this was reference to just one area of Russia, he was also the Emperor of All the Russias.  I think Hall and I discussed this over under Russian roots.

AGRBear


But wouldn't Anastasia have called him Tsar, since that's what he was in her world?
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Robert_Hall on February 19, 2005, 10:54:39 PM
kaiser=tsar=cesar. Emperor =imperator.
I would think that the girl would refer to him as "papa" to intimates, but "the Emperor"  in the 3rd person to "outsiders". Much like Charles refers to his mother as "the Queen".
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on February 20, 2005, 11:48:51 AM
In different conversations with various friends, accquaintances, strangers,  I sure a person calls their father by various names.  in this case, if AA was the GD Anastasia, I assume she would have voiced different names to Tsar Nicholas II.  

Since the conversations of AA are "heresay" and repeated through many people,  I'm not sure how much weight we can have on this particular theme.

Perhaps if we had a quote taken from some source, we could view it better in it's intent/usage by AA.

AGRBear
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Daniel Briere on February 20, 2005, 04:37:43 PM
As I have the unedited testimonies of Dr. Utkin in their original Russian language, I would like to make these few remarks about the words used by him and his Perm mystery patient : in his first testimony (to Kirsta on Feb. 10, 1919) he wrote that he asked her who she was and that she had replied : « Ya doch’ Gosudarya Anastasiya »  (I am the Sovereign’s daughter, Anastasia). On the next day he wrote him about his patient « who called herself daughter of the Sovereign, Anastasia ».  Only in the lengthier testimony he later gave Sokolov on June 14, 1919 did he write she had answered him : « Ya doch’ Imperatora Anastasiya » (I am the Emperor’s daughter Anastasia), which he asked Sokolov to change on the next day before signing his deposition (my translation) : « Anastasia Nikolaevna didn’t say to me, as written :  I am the Emperor’s daughter Anastasia , but this instead : I am the Sovereign’s daughter Anastasia. These are the exact four words she spoke to me. »  So it isn’t the Perm woman who used the word Emperor which no one hardly ever used alone. The Emperor was generally refered to as « Gosudar Imperator » (Sovereign Emperor) in a very formal way. More informally, the Emperor and Empress were refered to as « Gosudar/Gosudarinya ». Indeed Anastasia would refer to her father as « papa » to intimates, but as « Gosudar » to « outsiders » as Robert would put it, but certainly not as the « Imperator ». Which doesn’t say much about the Perm woman, as most educated Russians would have done the same anyway, not only in Court circles. If she had indeed used the word Emperor alone - or Tsar for that matter –it would have been a good clue she was an impostor, but the opposite doesn’t prove anything. Dr. Utkin knew it, as did Judge Sokolov of course. And Dr. Utkin certainly knew that Sokolov would know too, so this may have prompted him to make a correction to his testimony.

Anyway he didn’t use the word Emperor in his earlier testimony to Kirsta and, interestingly enough, then never said his patient WAS Anastasia but only she that SHE had said so. Oddly enough, 4 months later by the time he met Sokolov, he spoke of her as Grand-Duchess Anastasia and seemed to be convinced she was indeed Anastasia (or at least said so). Why the sudden change of heart? I might add that he was shown 4 photos of Anastasia by Judge Sokolov : he failed to recognize one of her 1916 photo, on 2 other photos where Anastasia was with other people, he pointed to Tatiana; he only managed to identify her on the last photo. True it was 9 months after last seeing his patient…According to historian Nicolas Ross, who published his testimonies (« Gibel’ Tsarskoi Sem,i » Franfurt 1987), the physical description he gave Sokolov of his patient didn’t match Anastasia’s besides the fact she looked to be 18-19 years old (see Nicolas Ross, « La mort du dernier tsar; la fin d’un mystère? », Lausanne 2001).

Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on February 21, 2005, 10:55:26 AM
How fortunate for you to have found the testimony.

Thanks.


AGRBear

PS  I find it interesting that Sok. found the story interesting enough to have talked to Dr. Utkin.  I had thought Sok. didn't mention Kirsta's testimonies on Perm but set them aside.
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on April 12, 2005, 12:09:58 PM
Summers and Mangold p. 275-6:

In the chapter titled:  THE GERMAN CONNECTION they tell us:  "Years later, himself exiled at Dorn in Holland, he," [exKaiser Wilhelm II], " talked about the matter," [rescue plot by the Germans], "to the distinguished British soldier, General Wallscourt Waters."  "Following a long convertsation in 1935, the general considered the Kaiser's story sufficiently important to put into writing in a series of detailed notes.  The Kaiser then personally approved Waters's notes, so one can take them as aurhtorized account."

Does anyone know about a British General Wallcourt Waters' report???

Information is found on the following URL:

http://users.rcn.com/web-czar/survive1.htm

On this URL [above] was found the following:
>>In 1935, General Wallscourt Waters (former British military attache in St. Petersburg) and personal friend to both King George V and the then exiled Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, was granted an interview by the kaiser who authenticated the manuscripts for Waters. <<

Does anyone know the St. Petersburg Times reputation with the news?

http://users.rcn.com/web-czar/news1.htm

Thanks.

AGRBear
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on June 27, 2005, 11:58:51 AM
There is a thread that discusses members of the IF family in Perm after 17 July 1918:

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1113068456;start=0#0

AGRBear
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on October 26, 2005, 01:54:44 PM
As everyone can see,  we have discussed various sightings of the various members of the IF  [Imperial Family of Russia]  afer their reported execution of 16/17 July 1918.

AGRBear
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on November 03, 2005, 12:35:10 PM
There is another thread based on the Perm testimonies:

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1113068456;start=0#0
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: AGRBear on January 22, 2006, 04:04:15 PM
Perms is being discussed, again, so I thought I'd bump this up since this thread has some of the Perm testimony.

AGRBear
Title: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: ordino on April 11, 2006, 10:11:22 AM
In a posted by AGRbear says that the book "The File on the Tsar" is an edition of 1976, yes, but there is a new edition of 2002., with a good new chapter.
Thanks.
Ordino :)
Title: Re: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
Post by: Tiina on May 11, 2013, 01:57:57 PM
As a Russian teacher I have read a lot on
 the net about the pretenders, especially Ivonova-Vasilyeva. A lot has been written about her in Russian.
There were information on one Russian site that the girl who was examined by Dr. Utkin in Perm and who
claimed to be GD Anastasia, was actually Nadezhda Ivonova-Vasilyeva who managed to escape and tried to
get to China with duchess Urusova but they were arrested.