Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Myth and Legends of Survivors => Topic started by: Dandywell on December 18, 2004, 11:21:47 AM

Title: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on December 18, 2004, 11:21:47 AM
It seems impossible to come to any good conclusions about the fate of the Romanov family, whether anyone at all survived, partly because so much time has passed, and partly because  of the lies that could have been created to keep the Tsar and his family off of the throne for good. I feel like I'm grabbing at straws whenever I come upon any conclusion, and partly wonder if I just want to live in Lala land, thinking that some of the IF could have survived. All I know, it seems, is that this could have happened, that there is a possibility...Why are so many entranced by the tragic story of the Last Tsar of Russia? Is there some kind of hope in humanity by believeing that they weren't cruelly murdered, some dillusional belief that everything turned out all right? Not trying to dash anyones opinions, but I'm trying to logically think this out. Who can we trust to tell the true story? I don't think we can trust anyone who claimed to be a survivor 100%, because so much has been published about the Romanovs, anyone can pretend to be one of the missing children, and there are so many crazy, depressed, psychotic people out there, it isn't unreasonable to disregard such claims. Until I see the truth with my own eyes, DNA test, scour the "burial site", squash all survivor claims, and am content with my conclusions (which will most likely never happen) I'm just grabbing at straws along with everyone else. Thoughts? ;)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on December 18, 2004, 11:40:33 AM
I don't see any reason why anything would still be coverered up at this point. Everyone from back then is dead, Communism even fell in Russia. There is no secret fortune. So why would anyone cover up any survivors now? I don't believe there were any, but until we find evidence of the 2 missing bodies we will always wonder about them. But I don't believe any of the claimants were for real, and if anyone did survive I think they'd have lived in obscurity, not flaunting themselves all over trying to get attention. And after 30 years I have seen and read more than enough on AA to totally discount her claim. I would be interested in any NEW theories, not AA, not Summers and Mangold, but new things we didn't know before, and not just ideas, but real proof. Other than that, we can only look back with love and sadness at these people and how they ended up.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on December 18, 2004, 11:46:00 AM
I don't know why they might want to keep it covered up, if they have. I'm not them. But I think they should tell us the truth, if they know it. Somebody has to know.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on December 18, 2004, 12:17:48 PM
I think they already have, that the IF were killed the night of July 16, 1918. :(  For whatever reason some choose not to believe that but I see no reason not to other than I just don't want it to be true. At the time they lied about it because they didn't want anyone to know they'd killed the entire family. The NY Times even reported only the Tsar was killed. But now we know better. It's very sad, but that's what happened. In all this time there is no evidence anything else happened, and everyone from back then is dead now.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on December 18, 2004, 01:13:32 PM
I guess you'll have to explain what you mean by 'evidence'. The fact that two bodies have not been found is evidence. Why wouldn't they be with their family? Where are they? That the bolshevik lied in the first place is evidence. Could they not lie again? That the Romanovs were not "buried" in the intented place is evidence. Were the Bolsheviks lax in their attention in getting rid of the bodies? Evidence that there is a flaw in the story, something we have not been told, or evidence to prompt questions as to whether we have been told the truth.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on December 18, 2004, 01:45:50 PM
Quote
I guess you'll have to explain what you mean by 'evidence'. The fact that two bodies have not been found is evidence. Why wouldn't they be with their family? Where are they? That the bolshevik lied in the first place is evidence. Could they not lie again? That the Romanovs were not "buried" in the intented place is evidence. Were the Bolsheviks lax in their attention in getting rid of the bodies? Evidence that there is a flaw in the story, something we have not been told, or evidence to prompt questions as to whether we have been told the truth.


It would seem likely that if the Bolsheviks wanted to continue to lie about this case, they would have stuck with their original lie: that Nicholas was killed but not the rest of the family. You have to remember that the Yurovsky note that tells us about what happened to the two missing bodies wasn't meant for anyone to see, and only came to light recently  - when there was no longer any reason for anyone to lie about this case. Some people of course continue to believe that the Yurovsky note was a forgery, but unless it is proven a forgery we have to assume that it is authentic and that the two bodies were burned separately as stated in the note.

Of course the note could also mean that two bodies were lost somehow other than in the way it was described, but remember, this note was written before anyone knew that the bodies would be discovered and investigated, so why would bring this up at all if you want to cover something up?

Very often in life the most simple things, and not the most complicated, are the "right" explanations... In this case, it seems likely that the most simple answer - that is that they indeed tried to burn two bodies, hence separating them from the rest, seems to be what really happened, unless there is some compelling evidence (not just speculation) to tell us otherwise, which frankly I don't see as being the case.

Perhaps the question of the two missing bodies can finally be put to rest if the two children's remains are discovered by the team currently searching for them in Ekaterinburg...  I hope so, although based on the "Romanov remains" record I doubt it will be, even if these remains are found :-/.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on December 18, 2004, 06:33:18 PM
Quote
Until I see the truth with my own eyes, DNA test, scour the "burial site", squash all survivor claims, and am content with my conclusions (which will most likely never happen) I'm just grabbing at straws along with everyone else.  ;)



I stand by what I have said before^^^I wasn't looking a solution. I was looking for a theory, because I know I'm probably never going to know the definate truth, no matter how many people here think they know it, and can perhaps try to persuade everyone else. Not trying to be limited in thought, or downright stubborn. Has anyone thought that maybe the Bolsheviks aren't even sure of what has happened to the bodies? I mean, why would they want to destroy those two bodies in particular? They might have lost them and didn't want to admit their horrendous mistake. I mean, come on, they were in a truck, for crying out loud. Anything could have happened. Maybe the bodies rolled out, and one of the Whites found them, and gave them a proper burial. It's far-fetched, but isn't impossible.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on December 18, 2004, 06:45:15 PM
Nobody knows the complete truth except for those who were there, but who are no longer in a position to ever tell. We can only go by the most realistic and sensible theories based on some physical evidence and some eyewitness accounts, while filling in the gaps and putting all the pieces of the puzzle together, much like a detective who is investigating a homocide....
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on December 18, 2004, 06:48:18 PM
Quote


Has anyone thought that maybe the Bolsheviks aren't even sure of what has happened to the bodies? I mean, why would they want to destroy those two bodies in particular? They might have lost them and didn't want to admit their horrendous mistake.  


If you re-read my first post carefully, you will see that I also adressed that possiblity...  :)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on December 18, 2004, 06:59:27 PM
Sorry, :-[ Sometimes I skip over words, and I skipped over 'lost', and thought 'gotten rid of'. My mistake.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on December 18, 2004, 07:00:42 PM
Quote
Nobody knows the complete truth except for those who were there, but who are no longer in a position to ever tell. We can only go by the most realistic and sensible theories based on some physical evidence and some eyewitness accounts, while filling in the gaps and putting all the pieces of the puzzle together, much like a detective who is investigating a homocide....


This I agree with, for the most part.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on December 18, 2004, 07:10:56 PM
Quote
Sorry, :-[ Sometimes I skip over words, and I skipped over 'lost', and thought 'gotten rid of'. My mistake.
No problem.

This is why I said before that the best thing would be if they found some sort of remains of the missing children, at least then we would have some physical evidence to go by. It would be easy enough to identify these remains via DNA tests (at least for those of us who will accept the results  ;)) which will tell us for sure what happened to the children, i.e. that they died along with the rest of the family but were buried somewhere else. If the remains are never found, then it becomes tougher, but still doesn't mean these children survived. Chances are, they didn't. It is not completely impossible that they did, but very unlikely, considering the circumstances we know of. Just like with any other murder victims, if there is no body, it is hard to figure out exactly what happened, although realistic (and less realistic) conjectures can be made...  
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on December 18, 2004, 07:25:52 PM
From what we've seen here, even DNA tests will never convince some.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on December 18, 2004, 07:35:46 PM
Quote
From what we've seen here, even DNA tests will never convince some.


Yes, that's right, this is why I said "It would be easy enough to identify these remains via DNA tests (at least for those of us who will accept the results". I don't really care whether anyone else accepts them that much, as long as I have the answers that I know to be accurate...
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Merrique on December 18, 2004, 07:54:08 PM
If the remains of the two missing bodies are ever found and DNA testing is done that proves they belong to the missing children,that will be all I need to hear on the matter.I don't see any reason or feel any need not to accept the results of dna testing.To me,it's the only concrete proof I need.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on December 18, 2004, 08:53:47 PM
I would accept DNA testing, unless it was really sketchy, like  only tested by the Russian government, then the bodies mysteriously destroyed, but that's not likely to happen. ;) But the problem is, there are no bodies that we know of.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Olga on December 19, 2004, 06:50:16 AM
Quote
I would accept DNA testing, unless it was really sketchy, like  only tested by the Russian government, then the bodies mysteriously desroyed, but that's not likely to happen. ;)


Yes, because the powers that be in Russia have SO much to lose from M/A Nikolaevna and Alexei Nikolaevich being found.

Get out of the Cold War, Dandywell.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on December 19, 2004, 07:19:31 AM
I think Russia would LOVE to have them found now. Of course it would dig up the old wounds of the past, but it would also give a lot of attention to Russia in the press, there would be a new burial and lots of stories. This would generate interest in Russia and encourage tourism. At this time, it would only be an interesting and fascinating solving of a mystery. There is nothing political involved now.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on December 19, 2004, 08:54:09 AM
Quote

Yes, because the powers that be in Russia have SO much to lose from M/A Nikolaevna and Alexei Nikolaevich being found.

Get out of the Cold War, Dandywell.



Note the 'that's not likely to happen' and the wink.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Alexa on December 19, 2004, 09:05:25 AM
Quote
I guess you'll have to explain what you mean by 'evidence'. The fact that two bodies have not been found is evidence. Why wouldn't they be with their family? Where are they? That the bolshevik lied in the first place is evidence. Could they not lie again? That the Romanovs were not "buried" in the intented place is evidence. Were the Bolsheviks lax in their attention in getting rid of the bodies? Evidence that there is a flaw in the story, something we have not been told, or evidence to prompt questions as to whether we have been told the truth.


There's speculation, and there's evidence.  The evidence (i.e. the letter written by Yurovsky) points to the fact that the entire family and their entourage were killed that night.  The missing bodies leads to speculation that this might not be accurate.  Wondering if the letter or the other documents that state the events of the night are in fact true is speculation.  

It's good to speculate, and I'm glad you posted this.  Good historians, imho, spculate all the time, and this can help uncover good pieces of information (it can also put one on the wrong track and months or years of researching a theory that's just not right).  At the same time, one needs to look at the evidence and put the pieces together to figure out what the most logical account is.  So far, the evidence points to the IF dying that night, but I love hearing theories of how they could have survived.

Alexa
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Ming on December 21, 2004, 10:25:59 PM
All of this reminds me of a gal I once knew who was a great cook, but whenever someone asked for one of her recipes, she'd give it gladly...except she would deliberatly leave one or more of the ingredients and/or directions out, so whoever tried making that one dish would never get it to be as good as hers.

What I'm saying is that I think we should assume the Bolsheviks...and many other governments, including our own, at times...do NOT tell us everything that we would like to know about something, although I'm sure that's what they want us to believe.  

No, I'm not really a cynic or a skeptic; I'm just trying to live in the reality that exists.  Governments DO lie; governments DO cover up things; governments DO not tell us everything that's happening.  I used to work for the army, and, believe me, there are some things we should be HAPPY we don't know!

Anyway, the fact is that something happened to the Romanov family that last tragic night.  Not knowing the exact truth bugs the heck out of some of us, but there it is; and the mystery itself is interesting to contemplate.

Love to hear all the ideas and theories!  What an interesting board this is. Thank you, one and all, and have a joyous Christmas season.

Ming
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Alexa on December 22, 2004, 08:33:54 AM
Great analogy Ming.  I think in most cases (if not all) with history, no matter how much information is available, we never get the whole truth.  I think the Romanovs are, and always will be, one of those cases.

Alexa
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on December 23, 2004, 10:36:03 AM
For those who absolutely believe the IF was executed on the night of the 16/17 July 1918,  the title of this thread "Grabbing at Straws" is acceptable wording and I find that amusing.  For those who think something else may have happen that night and the CHEKA, Soviets and Lenin then Stalin have covered up the truth, the title of this thread gives an open door to other theories.  This is marvelous.  

Thanks Danywell.

Let me give the "non-believers" a real treat for Christmas in a "speculation"  which they will have fun tearing apart like a children tearing off the wrappings of their first presents.

The "speculation":  On the night of 16 July,  as promised by the Germans, a group of rescuers appeared on the grounds of the Impatiev House.  There wasn't much of a struggle because it had been pay day and on pay day the booze flows freely from the servents to Yurovsky.....  The escape of all the prisioners was accomplished.   When  Yurovsky was set free, perhaps from ropes or a closet or maybe the room in which the IF had been held,  all h-ll broke lose.  The angry Yurovsky and the CHEKA had to come up with a story that was to cover up the escape ....  Instead of the IF and others being executed in the basement,  Yurovsky had executed "five Latvians" guards.   He then threaten all who knew about the escape that he would not think twice about killing them if they dare utter the truth.  Then,  he added, if a person was so stupid and did tell, after he killed the person who uttered the truth,  then he'd find his family and kill them, too.  A truck was ordered and the five bodies were placed on the truck. [ Later, these five bodies were found by the Four Brothers Mine by the White Intvestagators who were helped by the mysterious White officer known as Shermetevsky....]  Meanwhile, Yurovsky, who's blood pressure must have gone sky high and his bad heart must have pounded hard in his chest,  ordered some of the guards, who knew what happen, to search for the missing Romanovs and the others.....

The Romanovs and their resucers were hunted down.  How far they may have gotten is unknown.  When they were captured is not known.

Bones of nine bodies would be found in a grave in Pig's meadow....

The White Army takes Ekaterinburg and in 1918 and one of  the first investigators  Capt. Malinovsky concluded :  "As  the results of my work on this case I became convinced that the imperial family was alive.  It appeared to me that the Bolsheviks had shot someone in the room in order to simulate the murder of the imperisl family, had taken them away in the night along the Koptyaki road, also, with the purpose of simulating a murder....  That is how I thought, and it also seemed to me that everything I had observed during the investigation was a simulation of murder."

This was written by a man who was actually there.  And,  he never changed his mind about what he saw.

Is this grabbing at staws?

Happy Holidays!

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on December 23, 2004, 12:15:07 PM
[quote author=AGRBear
This was written by a man who was actually there.  And,  he never changed his mind about what he saw.

Is this grabbing at staws?

Happy Holidays!

AGRBear[/quote]

Can you prove he was there? (Out of curiosity, not to start anything)
;)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on December 23, 2004, 12:37:36 PM
The gov't DID lie and cover-up. They claimed only the Tsar was killed and for awhile the world believed it. What they were hiding was the fact that the entire family was dead, not the opposite!!
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Forum Admin on December 23, 2004, 12:40:59 PM
Problem 1. There were no women guards, so how did so many female bodies end up in the grave?

Problem 2. the females are all related to each other.

Problem 3. The bones of one of the males is related to GD George, Nicholas' brother.

Problem 4. The blood found in the basement of the Ipatiev House was matched to the Imperial Family by Sokolov's investigation. Small fragments of the IF jewelery and possessions were also found by Sokolov.

I'll go on with more later, but am sure this is a good start.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on December 23, 2004, 12:51:51 PM
We're grabbing at straws. What are you doing? Trying to prove something? It's like Abraham said, if they can't see it now, not even the dead rising from the grave will change their minds.

'Oh no, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'
Then Abraham said, 'If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.'"


(I'm being hypocritical today.)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: rskkiya on December 23, 2004, 02:40:08 PM
Quote
Problem 1. There were no women guards, so how did so many female bodies end up in the grave?

Problem 2. the females are all related to each other.

Problem 3. The bones of one of the males is related to GD George, Nicholas' brother.

Problem 4. The blood found in the basement of the Ipatiev House was matched to the Imperial Family by Sokolov's investigation. Small fragments of the IF jewelery and possessions were also found by Sokolov in the basement as well as the blood.

I'll go on with more later, but am sure this is a good start.


FA This is exactly what I have tried to suggest to Agrbear as problematic for some time...Maybe she'll listen to you...(The "latvian guards" all tarted up in dresses and some smattering of jewelry is quite an amusing image!)
LOL
rskkiya
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Georgiy on December 23, 2004, 02:47:26 PM
Dear AGRBear,
Is this part of what Herr XXXX told you?
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on December 23, 2004, 03:18:57 PM
Quote

Problem 1. There were no women guards, so how did so many female bodies end up in the grave?

Problem 2. the females are all related to each other.

Problem 3. The bones of one of the males is related to GD George, Nicholas' brother.

Problem 4. The blood found in the basement of the Ipatiev House was matched to the Imperial Family by Sokolov's investigation. Small fragments of the IF jewelery and possessions were also found by Sokolov.

I'll go on with more later, but am sure this is a good start.


Promblem 1.  I never speculated the five guards were women.  They were not.  They were Letts who had been part of the guard of the Impatiev House.  Their bodies were not found in Pig's Meadow.  Their bodies were found near the Four Brothers Mine just after the Whites took Ekaterinburg.

Promblem 2. , 3, and 4.   I did not suggest the bodies found in the grave in Pig's Meadow were not Nicholas II and the other eight.  Why would I?  Evdience, as we know it,  give us proof they were whom the Russians and the Americans assume they are.  There is still the  absence of two bodies, Alexei and one of the daughters whose idenity is still in question .

4. continued:  The blood found in the Impatiev House matched the Romanov's??  I'm not sure at that time people understood there were different blood types and certainly not DNA, so,  I'm not sure what you meant by this.  Please, explain farther.

Please,  go back and read my posting, again.  I think you may just jumped to the wrong conclusions or I didn't explain myself clearly enough.  If this is the case,  I hope to make my "speculation" better understood.

AGRBear

P.S.  Capt. Malinovsky of the White's Officer's Commission was one of the first investigators present in Ekaterinburg.  If anyone has anything more about him,  I'd be greatly interested.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on December 23, 2004, 03:50:41 PM
I think Admin. Forum meant his reply to be over on this thread and it was:

Quote
More problems:
There are no reports of any missing "guards" at the time. In fact, most of them seem to be accounted for. It seems rather strange that no one seemed to notice a dozen GUARDS missing, but so many people all knew the IF was missing, no??


There were five Letts executed and left by the Four Brother's Mine.  Penny Wilson and I discussed this fact on another thread some time ago.

 At the moment I don't recall what books I've seen this information nor do I recall the thread where it was discussed and where I did quote one of the sources.  I'll get back to you on this with the sources when I find them.

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on December 23, 2004, 04:11:23 PM
So you think the family did escape, only to be captured again, killed, and buried in Pigs Meadow. The bodies at the Four Mines were some guards who Yurovsky had used to make it looked like he had killed the Romanovs, when, in fact, they had escaped. Did I get it right? So you think they are dead, but not the way we think they died. Right?
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on December 23, 2004, 04:14:06 PM
This is "speculation" only.

And,  it appears you have understood what I was trying to say and that's good.  

Thanks.

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on December 23, 2004, 04:19:06 PM
Okay. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't confused. :) But, was the komedant originally going to kill the family? And if he was, why was he drunk? And why did he kill them if he wasn't going to? Were there orders? Just trying to make sure yor theory isn't faulty.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: rskkiya on December 23, 2004, 07:07:59 PM
What is the point of even mentioning the "supposed deaths" of the "Latvian guards? Why would the magical "german forces" even make such a production of  "killing" them? Now we have even more "magical bodies" to account for!?
  What sort of bait and switch is this?
  Stop teasing and just make your case clear!

Agrbear -- I am utterly disappointed and rather discussed with all this nonesense! >:(

rskkiya
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on December 23, 2004, 10:59:35 PM
I'm sorry, but that is quite funny! ;D^^^
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on December 24, 2004, 09:53:19 AM
I really don't see any reason for the story they were killed the next day and brought back to the same spot. It doesn't make any sense, and honestly, even if it were true it would not be interesting or earth shaking.It's boring and I don't believe it anyway. Oh well.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Merrique on December 25, 2004, 11:02:37 AM
All of this sounds like utter nonsense to me.Why don't you just spill your story of what Herr XXXX told you when you were 5 Agrbear.Or is this gameplaying fun for you?I know I for one am sick of it.If you have some valid information to share then by all means share it.Otherwise enough is enough already.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on December 25, 2004, 11:32:14 PM
Quote
What is the point of even mentioning the "supposed deaths" of the "Latvian guards? Why would the magical "german forces" even make such a production of  "killing" them? Now we have even more "magical bodies" to account for!?
   What sort of bait and switch is this?
   Stop teasing and just make your case clear!

Agrbear -- I am utterly disappointed and rather discussed with all this nonesense! >:(

rskkiya


....Rskkyia: The "magical 'German forces'" ?

Answer:   It seems Rskkiya has forgotten what she's read on other threads about the Germans rescuing Romanovs.  Since she's forgotten,  let me freshen her memory.  The Germans made a habit of rescuing the Romanovs even when they didn't like being rescued by the Germans.  

Facts: It was around the 4th of July 1918 that the Germans told high White Army generals that around the 16th of July there would be news coming out of the Urals that Nicholas II was executed.  However,  the news about Nicholas II's execution, the Germans said,  would not be true....
---
Rskkyia:...."magical bodies"?

Answer:   It seems Rskkiya has forgotten this conversation about the five bodies found by the White investigators by the Four Brother's Mine.  
----
....Rskkyia:" Why would the magical "german forces" even make such a production of  "killing" them?"  

Answer:  Who did the "German forces" kill?  I had mentioned that the Germans suggested the knowledge of a rescue plot to save Nicholas II and the others. I speculated that it was Yurovsky and his men who executed the five Letts in the basement of the Impatiev House ..... instead of Nicholas II and the others...

___
....Rskkyia:  "What is the point of even mentioning the "supposed deaths" of the "Latvian guards?"

Answer:  This was a speculation on my part:  The Letts were executed to cover up a rescue.....

----
...Rskkyia:  "bait" ?
Answer:  This is a speculation.  I  do not know why you called my speculation "bait".  Please explain.
----

....Rskkyia:  "teasing"?
Answer:  I repeat, this is speculation.   I do not know why you called my speculation "teasing"  Please explain.

----

Quote

FA This is exactly what I have tried to suggest to Agrbear as problematic for some time...Maybe she'll listen to you...(The "latvian guards" all tarted up in dresses and some smattering of jewelry is quite an amusing image!)
LOL
rskkiya


May I ask how you came up with this about the five dead Letts?  Were some of the bodies of the  Letts  dressed up in the Romanov clothes?  

AGRBear

Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on December 26, 2004, 12:04:15 AM
Quote
I really don't see any reason for the story they were killed the next day and brought back to the same spot. It doesn't make any sense, and honestly, even if it were true it would not be interesting or earth shaking.It's boring and I don't believe it anyway. Oh well.


Discovering the truth, even if it isn't "earth shaking",  is always important.

AGRBear



Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on December 26, 2004, 01:11:25 AM
Quote
All of this sounds like utter nonsense to me.Why don't you just spill your story of what Herr XXXX told you when you were 5 Agrbear.Or is this gameplaying fun for you?I know I for one am sick of it.If you have some valid information to share then by all means share it.Otherwise enough is enough already.


Can you tell me why you believe my speculation as "nonsense"?
I based my speculations because of  Capt. Malinovsky's  testimony.  Malinovsky was a professional investigator  who was one of the first investigators at the Impatiev house  in July 1918.  He wrote:  
 "As  the results of my work on this case I became convinced that the imperial family was alive.  It appeared to me that the Bolsheviks had shot someone in the room in order to simulate the murder of the imperisl family, had taken them away in the night along the Koptyaki road, also, with the purpose of simulating a murder....  That is how I thought, and it also seemed to me that everything I had observed during the investigation was a simulation of murder."

 
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Merrique on December 26, 2004, 07:21:18 AM
Right.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on December 26, 2004, 08:33:24 AM
WHY would they want to simulate a murder they were telling everyone did not take place? They were reporting only the Tsar was killed. That's what they wanted most people to believe. That's the biggest problem I have with these theories on this, the faked and staged stuff being speculated on is very much against what the Bolsheviks were trying to achieve- making people believe that the family was safe and only N had been shot. So it doesn't make sense for them to stage a murder scene :P therefore it is all unrealistic and pointless.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on December 26, 2004, 10:34:59 AM
Quote
WHY would they want to simulate a murder they were telling everyone did not take place? They were reporting only the Tsar was killed. That's what they wanted most people to believe. That's the biggest problem I have with these theories on this, the faked and staged stuff being speculated on is very much against what the Bolsheviks were trying to achieve- making people believe that the family was safe and only N had been shot. So it doesn't make sense for them to stage a murder scene :P therefore it is all unrealistic and pointless.


Good points, Annie.

So,  let me think about this for a few moments.

They  [I assume you mean the CHEKA, Ural Soviets and Moscow Soviets] were reporting they had just executed Nicholas II.  Most of us understand this fact is very true. 

SPECULATIONS:

My speculation can only push forth other speculations to answer Annie's questions.

With the entire family missing,  the Ekaterinburg CHEKA had to simulate the deaths of the entire family.  They had no choice at that time, night of 16/17 July 1918....

After making it appear that the entire family was executed,  I assume in Moscow the head of the CHEKA and Lenin gave the order that the world be told that just Nicholas II was executed.

In  many books,  there are mention reasons why Lenin and Trotsky didn't want the world to know that Nicholas II's wife and children were executed.  One of the important reasons may have been:  At that same time  Trotsky was secretly using the Nicholas II's family  as  "items for trade" for guns and bullets which the Bolsheviks desperately needed.  

If Moscow announced the deaths of the very people they had offered in trade,  the gun deal would fail.  

Meanwhile,  trains were being searched for missing IF family members.  A fact many  witnesses have reported.

Meanwhile, Yurovsky and others were collecting various items they had left at the Four Brother's mine and since they couldn't return some of the items to the Impatiev House,  clothes were burnt.... The bodies of the five Letts were  hidden in the woods....  

There was a lot of events occuring in and around Ekaterinburg with the White Army approaching.   At that point,  The Whites were growing stronger and  defeating the Red Army.   Reilly and his band of merry men were bringing in huge shipments of guns by ship from the USA's Remington gun factory....

Remember,  my speculation does not have nine out of the eleven escape the Bolshviks.  The nine must have hunted them down because nine bodies [in part] did end up in a grave in Pig's Meadow.

No one, however,  has explained why so man bones, which should have been found, were missing in the grave in Pig's Meadow.  This indicates,  to me and others, some of the bodies may have been buried else where and then buried, again, with the others, later, in Pig's Meadow.

There is evidence the Pig's Meadow grave has been open three, four,  maybe as many as five times before the bones were completely removed.....

AGRBear

PS  Please take a look at the thread about sightings of IF family members after 16 July 1918:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1091994509

PSS  Greg Wilson and I had a coversation about the various telegrams which can be found:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=revolution;action=display;num=1097423232;start=0#0

PSS See some interesting information on Lenin's Letts which is mentioned by Penny Wilson on the following URL:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?action=display;board=anastasia;num=1074956237;start=300#312
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: rskkiya on December 26, 2004, 11:43:10 AM
Agrbear

  Who exactly were the "Five Letts" that you love to discusss? Names Please? Most of the Guards at Exaterinburge seem to have either died in the Civil War or gone on with their lives...so who exactly are you looking for?
  It seems to me that your arguement is a bit too fanciful to be taken seriously..."Suppose" appears to be your favourite word --Suppose/suppose/suppose...
  It's just as plausible that the "extra bodies" were in fact, taken abord an Alien Spacecraft!
Yes that's it -- the Aliens, working secretly with the German Secret Forces and a crack team of Yeti Mountaineers....yesss!
LOLLOLLOL

try again :-/
rskkiya
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on December 26, 2004, 12:02:46 PM
Quote
Agrbear

   Who exactly were the "Five Letts" that you love to discusss? Names Please? Most of the Guards at Exaterinburge seem to have either died in the Civil War or gone on with their lives...so who exactly are you looking for?
   It seems to me that your arguement is a bit too fanciful to be taken seriously..."Suppose" appears to be your favourite word --Suppose/suppose/suppose...
   It's just as plausible that the "extra bodies" were in fact, taken abord an Alien Spacecraft!
Yes that's it -- the Aliens, working secretly with the German Secret Forces and a crack team of Yeti Mountaineers....yesss!
LOLLOLLOL

try again :-/
rskkiya


If you wish to  believe that's what happen to the bodies, who am I agrue. ::)   However, I presume, the Whites gave them a proper buriel.  And,   I doubt very much that the five dead men's families thought it was LOLLOLLOL when  they were told that they [fathers, brothers, grandsons...] would not  be going home.

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Forum Admin on December 26, 2004, 12:25:56 PM
The major flaw I find in AGR's "speculations" for the mere exercise of speculating, is the MOUNTAIN of documented evidence that we have showing how paranoid the Ural Soviet was about any rescue or escape of the IF.  Given this state of mind, we know they would have been most vigilant about anything which would have lead to their escape.

Oh, yeah, almost forgot that other nagging small detail. the minutes of the large meeting of the Ural Soviet where they resolved to murder the IF the next day...Which they sent on to Mosow...
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Robert_Hall on December 26, 2004, 01:01:54 PM
I suppose that the vast amount of documentedevidence thattrail all actions from Tobolsk to Ekaterinberg to the Cellar to grave, exhumation and dna tests is all one multi-generational conspiracy ?
On  British tv recently, there was an odd programme on just that- the "mostenduring conspiracies" or something like that.  I did not waytch all of it- Channel 5 you know, but I did not see evn a tiny mention of the Romanovs. Diana, Elvis, JfK, Moon landing and even the British royals being reptiles ! [a new one to me] but not even an Anastaia.
Talk about grabbing straws...
Cheers,
Robert
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Merrique on December 26, 2004, 01:27:51 PM
Let me see now.We have faked murders of the IF,switched samples that aren't AA"s,and holding the remaining IF as trading chips for guns and such.Seems like someone has a very active imagination or they have lost their mind and live in fanstasy land.

Oh I know what happened to the IF,the character Ramses came to life out of Anne Rice's book The Mummy and gave all the IF a magic potion so now they are all immortal,and they live across the street from me.It's real I tell you,I have seen them.I invited them over to have some yummy mexican dishes my husband makes.My 13 yr old daughter is in fact right now turning all of OTMA into goth punks like herself,and Alexei is watching cartoon network.Nicky and Alix are just fascinated by this lovely computer thingy.

Hehehe see this is about as true as these "supposed" theories. ::)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: rskkiya on December 26, 2004, 02:38:30 PM
Merrique....COOOOL! 8)
  Why don't you and the girls (OTMA) all come over to my place - we can watch "The Return of the King" extended DVD set and drink capuchinoes while Alexie playes Yu GEE OHH cards with my nephew...LOL  :D

Agrbear == I again must agree this the FA's solid evidences vs the amusing suppositions that you have presented us with. Better luck next time!
Happy Holidays all!
rskkiya
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Merrique on December 26, 2004, 02:59:16 PM
Rskkiya,darling that sounds great! ;D
All the girls said they would love to come over as long as they can bring their lovely arm socks(new teen thing that my daughter got them into) and we can watch Princess Diaries 2.
We must watch Return of the King entended DVD first,it's great.Alexei wants to bring over some beyblades(my stepson got him hooked on those).
Oh and I'll bring over some fudge I made,I gots peanut butter and chocolate.

I think our new theories sounds as good as Agrbear's.
Whatcha think? 8)

Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on December 26, 2004, 08:19:19 PM
BE NICE! I'm sorry if you don't agree with certain people posting here, but I ask you to disagree in a polite way. Not being nice has never gotten anyone anywhere, except dead, depressed, or in some other, similar unpleasant situtation. (This is NOT a threat, by the way :)) Anyway, what did you expect from the title? This should be an open-minded, accepting discussion about different peoples views on what could have happened that fateful night. As Thomas Edison said, instead of failing to make a lightbulb 2,000+ times, he learned 2,000+ ways not to make a lightbulb (National Treasure ;)). Each step brings us closer!Never give up! Never surrender!(some other movie ;))
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dashkova on December 26, 2004, 09:30:47 PM
Why is the presence of five dead "Letts" in a mine shaft in the Urals a surprise? ANY mine shaft, including the "4 brothers."  This information means LESS than nothing.

Anybody who knows any Russian history at all knows that the Urals have been body disposal grounds for *centuries* up to and including the present day.

Somebody really, really likes McNeal's theory.  This line of speculation is practically lifted from her book and other recent research.
I wonder why that is?
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on December 26, 2004, 11:15:10 PM
Quote
Why is the presence of five dead "Letts" in a mine shaft in the Urals a surprise? ANY mine shaft, including the "4 brothers."  This information means LESS than nothing.

Anybody who knows any Russian history at all knows that the Urals have been body disposal grounds for *centuries* up to and including the present day.

Somebody really, really likes McNeal's theory.  This line of speculation is practically lifted from her book and other recent research.
I wonder why that is?


Sorry to disapoint you,  the facts about the five Letts were in the 1918 report of Assistant Prosecutor Magnitsky, who was one of the first White investigators [Nametkin was first....]  to the Four Brother's Mine after the Red Army left Ekaterinburg.....

AGRBear

PS  Correction was about Magnitsky who was not the first investigator.  Magnitsky arrived on 30 July 1918 and was in charge of the evidence pulled out of the Four Brother's Mine....
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dashkova on December 26, 2004, 11:19:59 PM
Quote

Sorry to disapoint you,  the facts about the five Letts were in the 1918 report of Assistant Prosecutor Magnitsky, who was the first man to the Four Brother's Mine after the Red Army left Ekaterinburg.....

AGRBear


LOL...yeah, and it's McNeal and company who have tried to make it more than it was, which was less than nothing meaningful.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on December 27, 2004, 10:47:32 AM
I am not aware of the report being in Shay McNeal's book.  If you are, could you post the page number for us, please.

Thanks

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on December 27, 2004, 11:18:45 AM
Quote
Rskkiya,darling that sounds great! ;D
All the girls said they would love to come over as long as they can bring their lovely arm socks(new teen thing that my daughter got them into) and we can watch Princess Diaries 2.
We must watch Return of the King entended DVD first,it's great.


Those are the same 2 movies  my kids got! I'm sure Alexei will love Return of the King as he can also be a king returning to the throne after many years. Of course the girls love princess diaries and can tell what it's like to be a real princess! We'll be right over!
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on December 27, 2004, 11:39:06 AM
Quote
....[in part]
.....Why is the presence of five dead "Letts" in a mine shaft in the Urals a surprise? ANY mine shaft, including the "4 brothers."  This information means LESS than nothing.

Anybody who knows any Russian history at all knows that the Urals have been body disposal grounds for *centuries* up to and including the present day.
...


Since,  I'm sure they were aware of the same tales as many of you are,  then,  there must have been very good reasons back in July and Aug. of 1918 why both investigators placed in their reports the presents of  these 5 dead Letts found near the Four Brother's Mine.

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: rskkiya on December 27, 2004, 12:09:02 PM
Agrbear
A Modest Proposal!
   Rather than continue to tease or hint, why don't you simply tell us your theory (ie: Herr X 's story ) so that we can examine it logically. If it makes historical sence - then spendid, and if not, then it was simply a charming tale told to a child...
   This tendency of yours to throw out bits and pieces is really rather insulting and a waste of time - Do you realize that many people here who may once have been intrigued by your claims, have now started to consider this whole thing to be a bit of a joke?

 rskkiya
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on December 27, 2004, 12:11:47 PM
Quote
.... [numbers were added by AGRBear] ....Okay. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't confused. :) (1) But, was the komedant originally going to kill the family? (2) And if he was, why was he drunk? (3) And why did he kill them if he wasn't going to? (4) Were there orders? Just trying to make sure yor theory isn't faulty.


(1) It appears to me that Yurovsky, who was a good friend of Lenin's,  had agreed to execute Nicholas II to prevent the Whites from having him in their hands, if this became the only solution...
(2) Thinking about killing someone, especially the ex-Tsar, may have caused Yurovsky to feel the need to build up his nerve with vodka.... And, it was pay day, a day known for everyone spending their money on booze... which was drunk till they were drunk...
(3) The plans were probably to just have Nicholas II executed, however, if all escaped,  this left Yurovsky and the CHEKA no choice but to kill all of them when found....
(4) There were members of the CHEKA and the Ural Soviets who could have verbaly received orders from Lenin or even Stalin who was feeling his new found powers about that time... Several  had been in Moscow in July and returned to Ekaterinburg before the 16th....

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: rskkiya on December 27, 2004, 12:11:47 PM
Quote
BE NICE!  quote]

Dandywell

I think that we are all being quite civil here.

rskkiya
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: rskkiya on December 27, 2004, 12:13:14 PM
Quote
Agrbear
A Modest Proposal!
    Rather than continue to tease or hint, why don't you simply tell us your theory (ie: Herr X 's story ) so that we can examine it logically. If it makes historical sence - then spendid, and if not, then it was simply a charming tale told to a child...
    This tendency of yours to throw out bits and pieces is really rather insulting and a waste of time - Do you realize that many people here who may once have been intrigued by your claims, have now started to consider this whole thing to be a bit of a joke?

  rskkiya


Please consider this suggestion!

rskkiya
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dashkova on December 27, 2004, 12:22:32 PM
Quote
I am not aware of the report being in Shay McNeal's book.  If you are, could you post the page number for us, please.

Thanks

AGRBear


I gave my copy away about two years ago.  My library has it, but it's closed this week and frankly I can't waste time that way.  But yes, she did deal with this topic and from my understanding (which came from the author herself) she continues to research.  I know that Summers and Mangold also gave the "Letts" a mention, but you really need to bear in mind that the reason those bodies were included in reports were simply because they were searching the shaft for the IF and happened upon these bodies. That does *not* in any way indicate that the bodies were somehow connected with the disappearance/death of the IF.  Yes, some of their clothing and personal items were burnt at the site, but if that was done in an attempt to convince potential investigators of murder (which seems to be the case) then those who were "planting" the burnt clothes, perhaps some bodies *were* put there (but WHY five?) but that only serves to complete the picture that the Ural Soviet was making a concerted attempt to deflect attention from the *actual* burial site, and not to cover up an "escape."

And no matter *where* investigators were digging around in the area in question, plenty of bodies would have turned up.  Since they were clearing out that particular mine shaft, well, those were the bodies they came across.  Their presence -- in light of the area's high concentration of bodies over the centuries -- is of little note.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on December 27, 2004, 12:26:47 PM
Quote
Agrbear
A Modest Proposal!
    Rather than continue to tease or hint, why don't you simply tell us your theory (ie: Herr X 's story ) so that we can examine it logically. If it makes historical sence - then spendid, and if not, then it was simply a charming tale told to a child...
    This tendency of yours to throw out bits and pieces is really rather insulting and a waste of time - Do you realize that many people here who may once have been intrigued by your claims, have now started to consider this whole thing to be a bit of a joke?

  rskkiya


Please see the dozen other threads where you've asked this question and reread my answers.  I will not repeat the answers, again.  

Quote
In 1947-8, I was told two of  Nicholas II's children escaped the execution of the communists, so, it did not surprise me when I read  in the newspapers the report which stated two of Nicholas II's childen were missing from the shallow grave revealed to the public in the 1990s.
AGRBear


AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: rskkiya on December 27, 2004, 12:29:29 PM
Agrbear
I am waiting for an apology.

rskkiya
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on December 27, 2004, 12:32:38 PM
Quote

I gave my copy away about two years ago.  My library has it, but it's closed this week and frankly I can't waste time that way.  But yes, she did deal with this topic and from my understanding (which came from the author herself) she continues to research.  I know that Summers and Mangold also gave the "Letts" a mention, but you really need to bear in mind that the reason those bodies were included in reports were simply because they were searching the shaft for the IF and happened upon these bodies. That does *not* in any way indicate that the bodies were somehow connected with the disappearance/death of the IF.  Yes, some of their clothing and personal items were burnt at the site, but if that was done in an attempt to convince potential investigators of murder (which seems to be the case) then those who were "planting" the burnt clothes, perhaps some bodies *were* put there (but WHY five?) but that only serves to complete the picture that the Ural Soviet was making a concerted attempt to deflect attention from the *actual* burial site, and not to cover up an "escape."

And no matter *where* investigators were digging around in the area in question, plenty of bodies would have turned up.  Since they were clearing out that particular mine shaft, well, those were the bodies they came across.  Their presence -- in light of the area's high concentration of bodies over the centuries -- is of little note.


Thank you Dashkova for this good reply to help me think through this speculation.

 I'll get back with my reply when I have time.  Meanwhile, maybe others would like to add to Dashkova's reply with some of their own speculations or good responses like Dashkova's last posting.

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Forum Admin on December 27, 2004, 12:55:20 PM
Sokolov pg 236:
July 27, 1918 peasants Papine and Michael Alferov went to the mine. No Lett bodies mentioned in their depositions made that same day about what they saw.
July 28, 1918, they went back with six more peasants: Babinof,  Paul Alferov, Jacob Alferov, and Nicholas and Alexander Logunov. Still no "lett bodies" mentioned in their extensive searches
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on December 27, 2004, 01:34:43 PM
Quote
Sokolov pg 236:
July 27, 1918 peasants Papine and Michael Alferov went to the mine. No Lett bodies mentioned in their depositions made that same day about what they saw.
July 28, 1918, they went back with six more peasants: Babinof,  Paul Alferov, Jacob Alferov, and Nicholas and Alexander Logunov. Still no "lett bodies" mentioned in their extensive searches


Thank you Forum Admin. for asking this question about Sokolov's report lacking the information about the five dead Letts.  I do not know the answer. I can speculate, if you're interested.

AGRBear

Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Forum Admin on December 27, 2004, 01:46:07 PM
Thanks, but I prefer evidence to speculations. And, its not "Sokolov's" report not having the information, it is the depostions given to the Whites 2 days after capturing Ekaterinburg that don't contain the information.
Drop a line when you have evidence.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on December 27, 2004, 02:10:09 PM
I do not know why the men you've mention did not give any information on the five dead Letts.

The facts about the five Letts were in the 1918 report of Assistant Prosecutor Magnitsky, who was the first man to the Four Brother's Mine after the Red Army left Ekaterinburg.....  

I assume he passed this information to Capt. Malinovsky who must have looked into this information.

The White Army takes Ekaterinburg and in 1918 one the first investigator  Capt. Malinovsky concluded :  "As  the results of my work on this case I became convinced that the imperial family was alive.  It appeared to me that the Bolsheviks had shot someone in the room in order to simulate the murder of the imperisl family, had taken them away in the night along the Koptyaki road, also, with the purpose of simulating a murder....  That is how I thought, and it also seemed to me that everything I had observed during the investigation was a simulation of murder."

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Forum Admin on December 27, 2004, 02:54:19 PM
AGR,
Not sure where you got your information, but it is not exactly correct.
The Whites took Ekaterinburg on July 25, 1918.
See above for what occurred July 27-28.
July 30 Judge Nametkin went to the mine with Dr. Derevenko, the Valet Tchemodurov and a lot of White officers who conducted a huge and thorough search of the area.
Vice-Prosecutor Magnitski from the Ekaterinburg tribunal did not show up until later the day of July 30 until after the search of the area and then the mine itself was opened and emptied in his presence. He was no where nearly "the first person" at the mine after the Whites took over.

2 men were there first on the 27th, then went back with 6 more the next day.
Also there on the 28th was the woodsman Vassili Riednikov sent by the military authorities of Verkh-Isset as a result of the declarations made to them by Papine and Alferov the day before (which don't include any dead Letts). Riednikov was accompanied by: Bozhov, Zudikine, Zubritski and Tyetyenev all of whom searched the area very carefully. Still no dead Letts in his report either.

I make a count of 16 at least, not including the unspecified White officers who all searched the area BEFORE Magnitski showed up.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Merrique on December 27, 2004, 04:00:12 PM
Psssst Annie,we also got the new Harry Potter movie.The kids just love it.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on December 27, 2004, 05:48:46 PM
Quote
AGR,
Not sure where you got your information, but it is not exactly correct.
The Whites took Ekaterinburg on July 25, 1918.
See above for what occurred July 27-28.
July 30 Judge Nametkin went to the mine with Dr. Derevenko, the Valet Tchemodurov and a lot of White officers who conducted a huge and thorough search of the area.
Vice-Prosecutor Magnitski from the Ekaterinburg tribunal did not show up until later the day of July 30 until after the search of the area and then the mine itself was opened and emptied in his presence. He was no where nearly "the first person" at the mine after the Whites took over.

2 men were there first on the 27th, then went back with 6 more the next day.
Also there on the 28th was the woodsman Vassili Riednikov sent by the military authorities of Verkh-Isset as a result of the declarations made to them by Papine and Alferov the day before (which don't include any dead Letts). Riednikov was accompanied by: Bozhov, Zudikine, Zubritski and Tyetyenev all of whom searched the area very carefully. Still no dead Letts in his report either.

I make a count of 16 at least, not including the unspecified White officers who all searched the area BEFORE Magnitski showed up.


Vice-Prosecutor Magnitski from the Ekaterinburg tribunal did  show up on July 30  and it was then the mine itself was opened and emptied in his presence.

I mispoke when I said Magnitski was the first, he was one of the first officals taking part in the investigation.

And, yes, Magnitski was a day later than Nametkin, who was of the Civilian Court and deputy of the local Prosecution.

Did Magnitski, who was Vice-Prosecutor,  hold authority over the Civilian Court and Deputy Nametkin's superior?  By the way which was Nametkin, a Deputy or a Judge?  Or is this the same? Or did his titles change....?  Sorry,  I'm not familiar with the Russian courts.

Magnitski gathered evidence from more than just 16 men whom Admin. Forum mentions.  And, he made his report which he gave to his superior.  This report held in it the findings of 5 dead Letts.

Is there evidence that he lied or invented evidence?

When did Malinovsky appear?  I thought he was part of Nametkin's investigation team....   Is there evidence that he lied or invented evidence?


AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: rskkiya on December 27, 2004, 09:44:14 PM
Quote
Psssst Annie,we also got the new Harry Potter movie.The kids just love it.


Annie and Merique, Hello!
  Well - you two ought to bring NAOTMAA and the dvds over to my place ...We can order Chinese take-away!Between films, we can discuss the whole silly "letts" question, and as NAOTMAA are now immortals, they are sure to have all the good gossip on this topic!  ;D ;D ;D

LOL
rskkiya
{Not a Harry Potter Fan, but that's OK!  ;)}
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Alice on December 28, 2004, 04:24:55 AM
Quote

Annie and Merique, Hello!
   Well - you two ought to bring NAOTMAA and the dvds over to my place ...We can order Chinese take-away!Between films, we can discuss the whole silly "letts" question, and as NAOTMAA are now immortals, they are sure to have all the good gossip on this topic!  ;D ;D ;D

LOL
rskkiya
{Not a Harry Potter Fan, but that's OK!  ;)}


Count me in, this sounds fun!  :D

The kids in my English class watched Harry the other day . . . they love it also. It's amazing how quickly pencils can become "wands".  ::)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on December 28, 2004, 08:22:55 AM
Quote
Psssst Annie,we also got the new Harry Potter movie.The kids just love it.


Us too!  :D I love your avatar and comment ;)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Forum Admin on December 28, 2004, 10:36:00 AM
Nametkin was a civil court judge. Magnitski was a vice-prosecutor, who's position was "higher ranking" than Nametkin, but he had no authority over him. They each conducted their own independant investigations at the same time.

I have gone thru Sokolov three times, and can find no reference to a "Capt. Malinovsky" being associated with the investigation anywhere at any time, much less his being convinced that anyone escaped.

Sokolov DID go to Berlin to confirm the German insistance, the moment they heard that Nicholas II had been shot, that all members of the Romanov family who were Princesses of German blood be kept safe and would be given safe passage to Germany. Sokolov was convinced that they Bolsheviks lied about their murders to avoid bad relations with Germany at that moment.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on December 28, 2004, 11:17:49 AM
Quote
Sokolov DID go to Berlin to confirm the German insistance, the moment they heard that Nicholas II had been shot, that all members of the Romanov family who were Princesses of German blood be kept safe and would be given safe passage to Germany. Sokolov was convinced that they Bolsheviks lied about their murders to avoid bad relations with Germany at that moment.



Oooh that's something I never thought about! They did have something to worry about there with the 'princesses of German blood' and being related to the Kaiser, and the war still going on, andn trying to stay on the good side of Germany and out of trouble. I bet they did have to duck and cover that real fast. They were careful not to execute foreign nationals, they let Pierre Gilliard and Gibbs go, and according to Sophie Buxhoevedon she was let go because they thought she was Swedish because of her name though she was Russian. So that is another factor why they were lying and covering up. Also think about this: when they were not able to produce live princesses for 'safe transport to Germany' they may have even MADE UP THE ESCAPE STORIES THEMSELVES to cover what the had done and that may even be where it all came from!?
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Forum Admin on December 28, 2004, 12:07:05 PM
Exactly. a Mr. Ritzler, member of Count Mirbach's mission showed Sokolov the following documents from the German Govt. files:
1. From the German Mission in Moscow to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, on July 19, 1918:
"Must we repeat our most catagorical official protests on the subject of the safe-guarding of the Empress, as she is a German Princess? To extend these protests as to the Tsarevich would probably be dangerous as the monarchists would be inclined to bring them to the forefront."

2. From the German Mission in Moscow to the  Minister of Foreign Affairs, July 20, 1916:
Yesterday, I told Radeck and Vorovski the the whole world would most severely judge the execution of the Tsar and the Imperial Ambassador wants them to be on guard most catagorically against any such attempt they might continue to commit. Vorovski replied that the Tsar had been shot, by Czechoslovakians who were not under this control. Radek expressed the opinion personally that if we showed some particular interest in the women in the Imperial Family of German blood, we should perhaps give them free passage to leave Russia. Perhaps they might suceed in delivering the Empress and Tsarevich as compensation in the question of the batallion, in the name of humanity." (the Germans wanted a batallion to enter Moscow, the Bolsheviks refused, this was an attempt at bargaining with them.)
3. Mininster of Foreign Affairs to the German Charge d'Affairs in Moscow, July 20:
"Agreed to the protests in favor of the Imperial Family. Busche"

4. German Mission to Moscow to Minister of Foreign Affairs, July 23:
"I have taken all necessary steps in favor of the Tsarina and Princesses of German Blood (ital in original), by insisting about the impression created in public opinion by the murder of the Tsar.  Tchicherin listened to these protests in silence. Ritzler"

Don't forget, the Bolsheviks already KNEW the whole family was dead by this point.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on December 28, 2004, 12:34:47 PM
Ooohhh! Thanks, that is bombshell for me and explains a lot. There you go!

Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on December 28, 2004, 02:02:25 PM
So this solves the 'sightings', the 'looking for the missing GD' stories, all that stuff, it was only planted by the Bolsheviks. At first they announced only N had been killed, but when they were unable to produce the live A and OTMA they had to come up with something else and that was it. How long was it that they finally admitted it, or did they ever, officially?

One more thing, in the memoirs of one of the assassins of Ella and the others at the pit, he actually wrote that they returned to the town, rang the bell and announced that the prisoners had been taken away by unknown persons! That proves they used things like that to cover up their deadly deeds.

I'm sure there were townspeople who believed that and thought they were still alive. In fact that did happen, their families heard the rumors, even sightings, and believed them alive for a time, and how hard that false hope was on them. I'm sure there was a lot of that, but only the Anastasia part has lived on through the claimant stories.

So as far as 'grabbing at straws' and 'open minded' goes, I feel I leave the door open UNTIL I get enough information to satisfy my questions. On this issue, I now have.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on December 28, 2004, 07:55:33 PM
Quote
.... [in part].....

I have gone thru Sokolov three times, and can find no reference to a "Capt. Malinovsky" being associated with the investigation anywhere at any time, much less his being convinced that anyone escaped.



I do not know for certain why Sokolov left out of his report the various reports about the five dead Letts.

Magnitsky's wasn't  just a local farmer playing investigator.  Magnitsky was important.

The first time I recall seeing Magnitsky's  name,  I think,  was in Noble Frankland's IMPERIAL TRAGEDY, NICHOLAS II, LAST OF THE TSARS.

He was not mentioned in King and Wilson's book, which surprises me and I wonder why because Magnitsky was the one in charge when the first mine was opened and emptied on 30 July 1918.  And, this was an important event.

On p. 166 in Mangold and Summers book THE FILE ON THE TSAR talked about the five dead Letts :  "...a fact unforgivabley omitted by Sokolov but saved from oblivion by the report made at the time," by Assistant Prosecutor Magnitsky....

I've not found the pages in Shay McNeals book about 5 Letts' bodies found near the Four Brothers Mine.....

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on December 28, 2004, 08:31:18 PM
Quote
...[in part]....

I have gone thru Sokolov three times, and can find no reference to a "Capt. Malinovsky" being associated with the investigation anywhere at any time, much less his being convinced that anyone escaped.
...


Another omission of Sokolov.  John Klier mentions him in THE QUEST FOR ANASTASIA p.66:  "Nametkin tired to refuse the appointment, but early on the morning of 30 July a group of young army officers rousted him out of bed and demanded that he go with them to the Four Brothers site.  When he continujed to object, one of the garrison staff officers, Dmitry Malinovsky, told him bluntly that there were 12 armed soldiers who demanded his presence."

With Malinovsky, his 12 soliders was Nametkin, Dr. Vladimir Derevenko, Terenty Chemodurov...."

Capt. Malinovsky is mentioned on pages 67, 69, 168 and 273 in THE FILE ON THE TSAR by Mangold and Summers.

So, it does appear that Malinovsky might have had some insight into the various findings about the events of the night of 16/ 17 July 1918 in the Impatiev House ....

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on December 28, 2004, 08:50:10 PM
Quote
[... in part...]
2. From the German Mission in Moscow to the  Minister of Foreign Affairs, July 20, 1916:
Yesterday, I told Radeck and Vorovski the the whole world would most severely judge the execution of the Tsar and the Imperial Ambassador wants them to be on guard most catagorically against any such attempt they might continue to commit. Vorovski replied that the Tsar had been shot, by Czechoslovakians who were not under this control. Radek expressed the opinion personally that if we showed some particular interest in the women in the Imperial Family of German blood, we should perhaps give them free passage to leave Russia. Perhaps they might suceed in delivering the Empress and Tsarevich as compensation in the question of the batallion, in the name of humanity." (the Germans wanted a batallion to enter Moscow, the Bolsheviks refused, this was an attempt at bargaining with them.)
....


It is interesting that Radek is mention.  He was one of the key figures in "secret" gun sales occuring between Russia and Krupp Co., the largest gun and weapon manufacturers in Germany.

It was Sidney Reilly who was hoping to overthrow Lenin and Stalin with the help of the German"batallion".

At this same time,  Reilly and Lockhardt were carrying huge sums of money bribing Letts to work for the anti-Bolshevik movement  which was under the enfluence of the SIS [British Secret Service].  

Lenin's body guards were Letts.

A number of Letts were said to have been guards at the Impatiev House....

I think it interesting that the CHEKA in EKaterinburg blamed the Letts by annoucing the shooters under Yurovsky had been Letts.

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on December 28, 2004, 09:20:15 PM
On 17 July 1918....two Russian monarachists in exile visited Middleton Edwards in the British Consul in Geneva.  They brief him on a German plot to save Nicholas II.  Edwards memorandum to his superior in Berene is a document worth mentioning at this point of our conversation, I think.

Nicholas II may have been refusing to be saved by the Germans, so, the Germans were  going to go in and "kidnap" him and his family even if they were not willing to be rescued by Germans.

Mirbach as mention in 1. of Admin. Forum,  had been part of this plot and was assinated....  6 July... This was the day after the German Count  Alvensleben mentioned the plot to General Dolgorukov.

p. 286 THE FILE ON THE TSAR:  Alvensleben "...warned...between 16 July and the 20th rumors would be spread about the news of the death of the tsar..."

AGRBear

Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Forum Admin on December 28, 2004, 09:28:02 PM
I'm sorry, but I simply don't get exactly what you mean by all this. Could you be specific?  What source materials are cited to support your claims? so far, you cite later reserach without period citations.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on December 28, 2004, 10:56:07 PM
I'm sorry.  Been a very very long day .... :-/  Since the last book I used for ref. is under my elbow,  I'll use THE FILE ON THE TSAR.  If you'd like others sources, since you may not like this particular source,  I can dig out other books later.  


p. 282: On 17 July 1918....two Russian monarachists in exile visited Middleton Edwards in the British Consul in Geneva.  They brief him on a German plot to save Nicholas II.  Edwards memorandum to his superior in Berene is a document worth mentioning at this point of our conversation, I think.

p. 288: Nicholas II may have been refusing to be saved by the Germans, so, the Germans were  going to go in and "kidnap" him and his family even if they were not willing to be rescued by Germans.

p. 285-287 Mirbach as mention in 1. of Admin. Forum,  had been part of this plot and was assinated....  6 July... This was the day after the German Count  Alvensleben mentioned the plot to General Dolgorukov.  

p. 286 THE FILE ON THE TSAR:  Alvensleben "...warned...between 16 July and the 20th rumors would be spread about the news of the death of the tsar..."

The above information  about Reilly are from a varity of books which includes the lastest one by a friend of mine who's a prof at the U of Idaho,  Richard B. Spence, titled TRUST NO ONE, THE SECRET WORLD OF SIDNEY REILLY.   Describes the Letts  and Reilly's plot on p. 217 and on other pages the various sales of guns to the Whites....  etc. etc. etc..

It's time to pack up my honey jars and head to the far end of the house, so,  will talk some more tomorrow.

Night.

AGRBear

PS  Forgot to mention Manchestor's excellent book on the Krupps.   The exact name of the book,at the moment, escapes me.  He talks about Radek in detail and why the deals had to be secret.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on December 29, 2004, 02:53:12 PM
Been taking time to find where all the threads have been moved and while rereading some,  I found his post:

Quote
I know of 4-5 or more disparate rescue plans from fall 1917 to the murders.  We included some of this information in "Fate of the Romanovs" but some other information had to be cut for the sake of space.  There were maybe 4 plots during the Ekaterinburg period alone-two of which may have been connected or the same; one of the difficulties is sorting out who was working with whom.

In Tobolsk there was Soloviev, working with Serge Markov, and another attempt by aristocrats, mentioned in the memoirs of a Russian princess.

In Ekaterinburg, there was one, perhaps two, organizations composed of sympathetic officers.  They may also have been working with an organization based in the Ukraine of which I'm aware.  It's difficult to know if any of these were the organization that managed to make contact with the prisoners-at least one of them did, because Avdayev discovered this fact while searching provisions brought by the nuns of the Novotikhvinsky Convent-a chance discovery, as we discussed, that allowed the Ural Cheka to formulate the famous "officer" letters as bait to set the prisoners up.  Avdayev's own memoirs confirm that the first letter he discovered-which must have been genuine-set off the plot; only the four forgeries are known, but there must have been other letters, as is clear from the sequence of events.  As late as the beginning of the second week of July, people were arriving in Ekaterinburg under this or that instruction, and don't forget that Grand Duke Ernst Ludwig was also involved in a some scheme at the same time-of which little is known though we're looking into this for the biography on him.

Greg King


"....don't forget that Grand Duke Ernst Ludwig was also involved in a some scheme at the same time-of which little is known though we're looking into this for the biography on him."  Greg King.


AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Forum Admin on December 30, 2004, 10:17:40 AM
To me, all of what AGR has posted only HURTS the "escape" theory rather than help it. It confirms, most rightly, the paranoia the Ural Soviet had about the risk of escape, as clearly Moscow knew of the German desires...it wasn't exactly some well kept "secret" plot. It only shows that the Ural Soviet was very on top of PREVENTING any such escape, and would have been most careful about that.

Please, show me hard EVIDENCE that an "escape" occurred. Where are the telegrams back to Berlin/London, etc, advising of a SUCCESSFUL escape? Where is the SINGLE testimony of anyone credbile who PARTICIPATED in any "successful escape"....All I see are lots of "plots" some bogus, some for real..but no evidence that any of them went into action.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Forum Admin on December 30, 2004, 10:44:25 AM
Now for some light shed on Sidney Reilly. "Sidney Reilly: code name st1"
Andrew Cook, 2002. ISBN 0 7524 2555 2

April 1918. Reilly asks London for 1million pounds (!) cash as bribes to overthrow the Bolsheviks. DENIED.
May 7, he arrives in Moscow, WITHOUT permission or knowledge of London, and claims to be a Minister representing Lloyd-George. See's Bonch Bruevich.  Kremlin then calls Robert Lockhart to come see them. Lockhart incredulous that he never heard of "Relli".  Boyce, head of SIS in Moscow confirms to Lockhart only that Reilly is a new agent but that Boyce knew nothing about Reilly's actions. Reilly lies to Boyce saying only that he had been in the area of the Kremlin at the time.
Reilly sees that overthrow of Bolsheviks may be possible and hoping to cash in for himself, goes against orders and without knowledge or approval of London or SIS disappears underground.  Lockhart makes some advances in May/June, but knows nothing about Reilly, who wants a full coup d'etat.
Reilly attends the 5th Congress of Soviets in Moscow July 4.

THATS IT. He approached the Latvian Chekists. but nothing came of it.
London did not give him money for bribes until mid August, long after the IF was dead. London NEVER had a full on plot to overthrow the Bolsheviks until after Nicholas was shot.

Read all about it at pps 136-148
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on December 30, 2004, 11:18:27 AM
Quote
Now for some light shed on Sidney Reilly. "Sidney Reilly: code name st1"
Andrew Cook, 2002. ISBN 0 7524 2555 2

April 1918. Reilly asks London for 1million pounds (!) cash as bribes to overthrow the Bolsheviks. DENIED.
May 7, he arrives in Moscow, WITHOUT permission or knowledge of London, and claims to be a Minister representing Lloyd-George. See's Bonch Bruevich.  Kremlin then calls Robert Lockhart to come see them. Lockhart incredulous that he never heard of "Relli".  Boyce, head of SIS in Moscow confirms to Lockhart only that Reilly is a new agent but that Boyce knew nothing about Reilly's actions. Reilly lies to Boyce saying only that he had been in the area of the Kremlin at the time.
Reilly sees that overthrow of Bolsheviks may be possible and hoping to cash in for himself, goes against orders and without knowledge or approval of London or SIS disappears underground.  Lockhart makes some advances in May/June, but knows nothing about Reilly, who wants a full coup d'etat.
Reilly attends the 5th Congress of Soviets in Moscow July 4.

THATS IT. He approached the Latvian Chekists. but nothing came of it.
London did not give him money for bribes until mid August, long after the IF was dead. London NEVER had a full on plot to overthrow the Bolsheviks until after Nicholas was shot.

Read all about it at pps 136-148


Reilly's story is quite well known and there are number of books written about him plus his biography.  One was written by Lockhardt, whom your source claims did not know Reilly,  which is titled Reilly, Ace of Spies.  PBS has produced a series of nine episodes from this book.   Evidently,  your source was not aware that Reilly and Lockhardt worked side by side in Russia  for the SIS.  

The book by   Richard B. Spence, titled TRUST NO ONE, THE SECRET WORLD OF SIDNEY REILLY. was just recently published and a great deal of new evidence is, now, available.

I stand on what I've stated about Reilly's various missions which I've mentioned.

AGRBear


Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Forum Admin on December 30, 2004, 11:23:45 AM
Reilly's story is full of alot of myths particularly alot of what is in "Reilly Ace of Spies". What I said was NOT that "Lockhart did not know Reilly". What I said, was, Lockhart didn't know Reilly until much LATER, after Nicholas had been shot. Reilly and Lockhart did work together on the project, but not until after August 1918. By that time, Nicholas was dead so Reilly and Lockhart couldn't have been part of any "escape" plot.

Thanks tho for introducing this topic, as the book I cited above is considered the most authoritative on the subject, and is really a most interesting read shedding light into Sidney Reilly's exploits.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: BobAtchison on December 30, 2004, 11:25:19 AM
Surprizingly there was also something afoot with Americans in Siberia.  Isabel Hapgood, (famous Russian language linguist and author), who knew Nicholas and Alexandra personally, was in Siberia with other Americans when the family was imprisoned in Tobolsk and Yekaterinburg.  I read some unpublished letters of hers about how they were trying to find a way to save the family, but it obviously failed.  This has never been reported anywhere I know of.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on December 30, 2004, 11:49:07 AM
Quote
Reilly's story is full of alot of myths particularly alot of what is in "Reilly Ace of Spies". What I said was NOT that "Lockhart did not know Reilly". What I said, was, Lockhart didn't know Reilly until much LATER, after Nicholas had been shot. Reilly and Lockhart did work together on the project, but not until after August 1918. By that time, Nicholas was dead so Reilly and Lockhart couldn't have been part of any "escape" plot.

Thanks tho for introducing this topic, as the book I cited above is considered the most authoritative on the subject, and is really a most interesting read shedding light into Sidney Reilly's exploits.


I have not suggested Reilly was part of a plot to rescue Nicholas II.  I am sure he was not.  He was supporting  someone else and was doing so with the backing of the SIS.  At the moment,  I can't remember the fellow's name....  He was not a Romanov.  I did mention that it was too bad that the SIS didn't give Reilly this task.

Since I know the author, Robert Spence, is respected and knows his subject matter,  which in this book was Reilly,  I'd tend to go with the latest evidence and documents discovered.

I don't have his book nor other books at hand at this time.  Therefore,  at this time, I can not comment on when Reilly and Lockhardt met officially or unoffically.

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on December 30, 2004, 12:02:36 PM
Quote
Surprizingly there was also something afoot with Americans in Siberia.  Isabel Hapgood, (famous Russian language linguist and author), who knew Nicholas and Alexandra personally, was in Siberia with other Americans when the family was imprisoned in Tobolsk and Yekaterinburg.  I read some unpublished letters of hers about how they were trying to find a way to save the family, but it obviously failed.  This has never been reported anywhere I know of.


Your post is  very interesting.

Wonder how many other plots to rescue Nicholas II there were.


AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Forum Admin on December 30, 2004, 01:08:42 PM
Wait,
Now Im REALLY confused. If you don't claim that Sidney Reilly was part of the plot to overthrow the Bolsheviks and/or rescue the IF, the WHY are you bringing them up as evidence to support your theory of escape of some members of the IF?
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on December 30, 2004, 01:26:59 PM
Quote
Wait,
Now Im REALLY confused. If you don't claim that Sidney Reilly was part of the plot to overthrow the Bolsheviks and/or rescue the IF, the WHY are you bringing them up as evidence to support your theory of escape of some members of the IF?


I think it was Rskkiya who mentioned Reilly.... Somewhere along the thead,  I mentioned that it was too bad that  the SIS didn't send Reilly to rescue IF....  

I think it's called  "getting side tracked"   ;D

I do not know why you thought I was speculating that Reilly was part of a plot to rescue Nicholas II.  

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Forum Admin on December 30, 2004, 02:15:38 PM
Quote
I'm sorry.  Been a very very long day .... :-/  Since the last book I used for ref. is under my elbow,  I'll use THE FILE ON THE TSAR.  If you'd like others sources, since you may not like this particular source,  I can dig out other books later.  


p. 282: On 17 July 1918....two Russian monarachists in exile visited Middleton Edwards in the British Consul in Geneva.  They brief him on a German plot to save Nicholas II.  Edwards memorandum to his superior in Berene is a document worth mentioning at this point of our conversation, I think.

p. 288: Nicholas II may have been refusing to be saved by the Germans, so, the Germans were  going to go in and "kidnap" him and his family even if they were not willing to be rescued by Germans.

p. 285-287 Mirbach as mention in 1. of Admin. Forum,  had been part of this plot and was assinated....  6 July... This was the day after the German Count  Alvensleben mentioned the plot to General Dolgorukov.  

p. 286 THE FILE ON THE TSAR:  Alvensleben "...warned...between 16 July and the 20th rumors would be spread about the news of the death of the tsar..."

The above information  about Reilly are from a varity of books which includes the lastest one by a friend of mine who's a prof at the U of Idaho,  Richard B. Spence, titled TRUST NO ONE, THE SECRET WORLD OF SIDNEY REILLY.   Describes the Letts  and Reilly's plot on p. 217 and on other pages the various sales of guns to the Whites....  etc. etc. etc..

It's time to pack up my honey jars and head to the far end of the house, so,  will talk some more tomorrow.

Night.

AGRBear

PS  Forgot to mention Manchestor's excellent book on the Krupps.   The exact name of the book,at the moment, escapes me.  He talks about Radek in detail and why the deals had to be secret.


This whole post looked like you were claiming Reilly's involvement in the plot to save Nicholas. If such was not the case, then My Sincere Apologies.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: rskkiya on December 30, 2004, 04:42:06 PM
FA /Agrebear/ et al

 I have NEVER suggested AT ANY TIME that Reilly was IN ANY WAY involved with ANY attempt to save NAOTMAA!! I simply tried to explain to Angbear that I knew who Sidney Reilly was!  >:(

   Although Reilly may well have had White sympathies--as so much of his life was innuendo, myth and legend, making a lot of assumtions about what he might have done is rather pointless...

Gee, what if he could fly and had X-ray vision! OOOOHHHH!

rskkiya
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: BobAtchison on December 30, 2004, 04:58:53 PM
Reilly is an amazing man - quite the chameleon.  I never understood why he stood by Savinkov so long.  This last new book Rob mentioned is really good - it details exactly what happened to Reilly when he was lured back to Russia by "The Trust" and his fate at the hands of the CHEKA.

BTW "Reilly, Ace of Spies" is a GREAT and entertaining series, however I was disappointed that they make a few 'changes' - perhaps to enhance the drama - that was not necessary in my opinion.  Sam Neill was perfect for the role.

Bob
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws [quote author=AGRBear link
Post by: AGRBear on December 30, 2004, 05:44:35 PM
Savinkov.   [A name I just couldn't remember.]
Quote
Reilly is an amazing man - quite the chameleon.  I never understood why he stood by Savinkov so long.  This last new book Rob mentioned is really good - it details exactly what happened to Reilly when he was lured back to Russia by "The Trust" and his fate at the hands of the CHEKA.

BTW "Reilly, Ace of Spies" is a GREAT and entertaining series, however I was disappointed that they make a few 'changes' - perhaps to enhance the drama - that was not necessary in my opinion.  Sam Neill was perfect for the role.

Bob
 

Bob: I agree about Spence's book and the series on Reilly.

Quote

This whole post looked like you were claiming Reilly's involvement in the plot to save Nicholas. If such was not the case, then My Sincere Apologies.



I can see, now,  how Admin. Forum linked plot of rescue of Nicholas II and plot of Reilly's to killl Lenin from that particular post.  I didn't make a clear enough distintion.  It is I who need to apologize.  

I did say I had a long long day .....

My ref. was back to another post:

Quote
... [in part]....

It is interesting that Radek is mention.  He was one of the key figures in "secret" gun sales occuring between Russia and Krupp Co., the largest gun and weapon manufacturers in Germany.

It was Sidney Reilly who was hoping to overthrow Lenin and Stalin with the help of the German"batallion". 
.....

Lenin's body guards were Letts....

AGRBear


Reilly, as an SIS agent, was giving money to the Letts so they would cross over to the White Army side.  He was, also, promising the Letts "free passage home" for their services to the Whites....

Lenin's personal body guard were Letts and Reilly hoped to lure the  Letts  into a plot of assination of Lenin.  At that point in time he was pushing Savinkov as the new leader of Russia.

As far as I know,  Reilly was NOT sent by the SIS to rescue Nicholas II in July 1918.

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: BobAtchison on December 30, 2004, 05:57:03 PM
AGRBEAR - it's been a LONG year!  Let's hope 2005 is a blessing for all of us!
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on January 03, 2005, 01:29:23 PM
Quote
I don't know why they might want to keep it covered up, if they have. I'm not them. But I think they should tell us the truth, if they know it. Somebody has to know.


Who are 'them?' Do you have any suspects or hard evidence, or are you only guessing there even IS a 'them' much less having any idea who 'they' might be ???
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on January 03, 2005, 05:11:55 PM
 Them...the people who wouldn't want us to know, if there are such people. I wouldn't know exactly who. There is no complicated, crazy theory in that statement, only a thought: Someone has to know the truth. Obviously, at some point, the truth in this case was covered up, mixed up, added to, etc. People have said so many things that are contradictory, have we ever been told the truth?  
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on January 03, 2005, 06:27:51 PM
Quote
Them...the people who wouldn't want us to know, if there are such people. I wouldn't know exactly who.


That's what I mean, if you have no idea who might do such a thing, how do you even know 'they' even exist? I don't think there is anyone doing this.



Quote
Someone has to know the truth. Obviously, at some point, the truth in this case was covered up, mixed up, added to, etc. People have said so many things that are contradictory, have we ever been told the truth?  


Probably not, but that doesn't change the basic sad fact, that the family was killed  :'(
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Michelle on January 03, 2005, 08:31:26 PM
Annie I think you just contradicted yourself here.  First you refute Dandywell by saying that no one is covering up the truth (which I disagree with), but then say that we were never told the whole truth.  So in essence, we've never been told the whole truth, which leads one only to the logical assumption that some of the truth is being covered up.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on January 03, 2005, 11:33:31 PM
Quote
Annie I think you just contradicted yourself here.  First you refute Dandywell by saying that no one is covering up the truth (which I disagree with), but then say that we were never told the whole truth.  So in essence, we've never been told the whole truth, which leads one only to the logical assumption that some of the truth is being covered up.



No, I didn't. I admit different people told different stories and we may never know exactly which one is right, but the fact remains is the entire family died that night. The biggest lie was the one they told that the family was still alive when they were really dead, not the other way around!
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Michelle on January 04, 2005, 10:20:29 AM
Well, whatever.  It sure looked like you contradicted yourself (to me anyway).  And it is not a FACT that they ALL died that night.  Lack of evidence for two of the people calls big questions to the assertion that they were ALL killed.  So that is merely your opinion.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on January 04, 2005, 10:23:36 AM
While 2 bodies do remain missing and I'd love to hold out hope, there doesn't seem to be any valid evidence anyone escaped the massacre (except the stories planted by the Bolsheviks to pretend they didn't kill the entire family and not anger the Germans)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 04, 2005, 12:29:37 PM
The CHEKA, the Ural Soviets, Lenin, Stalin, GPU, KGB have had their freedom in inserting "red herrings" as well as destroying evidence since 1918.  It's only been a short time,  that  Russians and "outsiders"  can start to sort through what evidence might be found which proves or disproves the events of the IF.

This thread is about "speculations" under the title "Grabbing at Straws" of what may or may not have happen to the IF on the night of 16 / 17  July 1918.  Why?  Because all the CEHKA, the Ural Soviets, Lenin, Stalin, GPU and KGB have accidnetly left  bites and pieces of this huge puzzel which may prove what they tell us occured may not have occured on that night or in that place or even for the reasons they proclaimed....

AGRBear

Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Olga on January 04, 2005, 08:22:06 PM
Ho hum. Michelle and AGRBear, you're searching for answers and clues that don't exist.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on January 04, 2005, 08:30:58 PM
And, yet again, a reminder of the title is needed.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Michelle on January 05, 2005, 08:31:03 AM
Quote
Ho hum. Michelle and AGRBear, you're searching for answers and clues that don't exist.


We're not the only ones. ;)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 05, 2005, 10:34:03 AM
Quote
While 2 bodies do remain missing and I'd love to hold out hope, there doesn't seem to be any valid evidence anyone escaped the massacre (except the stories planted by the Bolsheviks to pretend they didn't kill the entire family and not anger the Germans)


Just because I am looking for evidence that one or all escaped on the night of 16/17 July 1918 is not because I have some kind of agenda which needs Anastasia/Marie or Alexei to have escaped and lived into adults in some disclosed place.

So, please, don't place all of us, who question what occured that night, into the same "box".  I am just after the truth.  So far,  I'm convinced that a lot of events occured that night and I think I am begining to agree with one of the early intvestigators,  I think there was a "mock" execution.....

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: patrick_delaney on January 05, 2005, 11:01:30 AM
In an attempt to clarify some of the questions posed by in this thread,  I offer the following:

1. Shay McNeal's, The Secret Plot to Save the Tsar, refers to Captain Malinovsky on page 159.  Here he is identified as head of Nemetkin's bodyguard.  Nemetkin was the first to be appointed to investigate and was rather quickly replaced by Ivan Sergevev.  

2. McNeal also refers to Malinovsky on page 161.  She refers to a report that was cited in The File on the Tsar.  Apparently Malinovsky stated that the murders in the Ipatiev House, in his opinion, were simulated.  McNeal argues that Sokolov could have been an unwitting dupe.  Consequently, it is fair to entertainment the notion that Sokolov could have left out the Malinovsky comments by oversight or intent.

3. As to the Letts.  Also in McNeal's book - she refers to the Letts on page 125.  She reports that witnesses said that Yurovsky brought "hand-picked" Letts when he took over the command of the Ipatiev House.  Later, on pages 148 and 149, she refers to Letts when citing the mention of Letts that appear in a mysterious report that was turned over to American Intelligence by Major Homer Slaughter.  Slaughter had been on duty in the Ekaterinburg area as a liason to the Czechs.

Hope this helps.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: patrick_delaney on January 05, 2005, 12:54:49 PM
I have posted this on another thread but feel that it should also be in this  thread as it deals with Reilly and possible rescues:  

One must beware of "reliable sources" who state that any historical event or source is without merit.  Researching historical events is an ever-evolving endeavor.  In my opinion, one can not entertain the thought that the final chapter has been written on any subject.

As to the challenges lodged by a "reliable source" regarding Rescuing the Czar.  This source pops up anytime a discussion of Rescuing the Czar appears.  Statements like - "my father-in-law printed the book' etc. and "it is only fiction..." etc. are shameless assertions that ultimately must be viewed as emotional outbursts unsupported by the weight of primary documentation as to the book's validity either way - fact or fiction.  Can anyone profess that every family member always acts in a transparent fashion when speaking of their actions involving third parties?   I think not especially decades later.

In other words - accepting this "reliable source" as the ultimate authority on this book would be tantamount to acceptance of a very lazy historical analysis.  I sincerely hope all of you will be careful and weigh this work on the facts as best we know them at the present.  By the way, as many of you may already know, the entire text is now on line as part of the Gutenberg Project.

Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: BobAtchison on January 05, 2005, 01:56:03 PM
How many historical facts can we throw away simply for the sake of a nice debate?

Hitler did not die in the bunker.

Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had they had a family.

The subject of the Mona Lisa is really Leonardo.

The Roman emperor Nero never existed and was invented by two Roman historians.

The Sphnix is really 7-10,000 years old.

There really were aliens disected iby government officials in Roswell

One could go on and on...

You can't just throw away dozens of eye witness accounts to the events of the murder of the family as all 'liars' and fabrications just because you don't like what they say.

Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 05, 2005, 02:00:38 PM
Quote
How many historical facts can we throw away simply for the sake of a nice debate?

Hitler did not die in the bunker.

Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had they had a family.

The subject of the Mona Lisa is really Leonardo.

The Roman emperor Nero never existed and was invented by two Roman historians.

The Sphnix is really 7-10,000 years old.

There really were aliens disected iby government officials in Roswell

One could go on and on...

You can't just throw away dozens of eye witness accounts to the events of the murder of the family as all 'liars' and fabrications just because you don't like what they say.



Bob.  I  thought we were talking about the IF and their last days???

I know you get frustrated by our speculations,  but, please,  get yourself a cup of coffee, take a deeeeeeep breath.....

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 05, 2005, 02:02:11 PM
Quote
Hitler did not die in the bunker.

Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had they had a family.

The subject of the Mona Lisa is really Leonardo.

The Roman emperor Nero never existed and was invented by two Roman historians.

The Sphnix is really 7-10,000 years old.

There really were aliens disected iby government officials in Roswell


You mean none of this is true?  ???   ;)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Lanie on January 05, 2005, 02:04:04 PM
Quote
How many historical facts can we throw away simply for the sake of a nice debate?

Hitler did not die in the bunker.

Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had they had a family.

The subject of the Mona Lisa is really Leonardo.

The Roman emperor Nero never existed and was invented by two Roman historians.

The Sphnix is really 7-10,000 years old.

There really were aliens disected iby government officials in Roswell


But Bob, you forgot the BEST one!  The Romanovs did not die in Ekaterinburg or anywhere else but were spirited away on a magic carpet! ;)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Janet_W. on January 05, 2005, 02:07:46 PM
Disillusionment piled upon disillusionment.  :'(



;)


P.S. A magic carpet?! Cool!  :D
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 05, 2005, 02:14:38 PM
Quote

The Romanovs did not die in Ekaterinburg or anywhere else but were spirited away on a magic carpet! ;)
And all this while simultaneously fighting the UFO's  :o
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Forum Admin on January 05, 2005, 02:33:10 PM
I think my position on the issue is well known by now, but this thread IS dedicated to a hypothetical discussion of  what "might" have happened. So, I guess, leave them to their discussion is all I say, so long as they concur it is just speculation.
Thanks
FA
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 05, 2005, 02:58:17 PM
What part of Patrick's post do you deny and pose as being "UFOs"?  [Sentence was corrected.]

Quote
In an attempt to clarify some of the questions posed by in this thread,  I offer the following:

1. Shay McNeal's, The Secret Plot to Save the Tsar, refers to Captain Malinovsky on page 159.  Here he is identified as head of Nemetkin's bodyguard.  Nemetkin was the first to be appointed to investigate and was rather quickly replaced by Ivan Sergevev.  

2. McNeal also refers to Malinovsky on page 161.  She refers to a report that was cited in The File on the Tsar.  Apparently Malinovsky stated that the murders in the Ipatiev House, in his opinion, were simulated.  McNeal argues that Sokolov could have been an unwitting dupe.  Consequently, it is fair to entertainment the notion that Sokolov could have left out the Malinovsky comments by oversight or intent.

3. As to the Letts.  Also in McNeal's book - she refers to the Letts on page 125.  She reports that witnesses said that Yurovsky brought "hand-picked" Letts when he took over the command of the Ipatiev House.  Later, on pages 148 and 149, she refers to Letts when citing the mention of Letts that appear in a mysterious report that was turned over to American Intelligence by Major Homer Slaughter.  Slaughter had been on duty in the Ekaterinburg area as a liason to the Czechs.

Hope this helps.


1.  There was a Malinovsky.
2.  It is not the first time I've heard that Sokolov investigation may have been tainted.  [I do not know if Sokolov was aware of what transpired.]    And,  I can tell you one of them who tainted the investigation was Gen. M. K. Diterickhs [Dieterichs], who felt it was best to tell the public that the Bolsheviks brutally killed not just Nicholas II but his family and the others in "cold blood".  This kind of tale caused the Whites to hate the Bolsheviks even more and this created a new and important reason to fight even harder against the Bolsheviks "butchers".
3.  Yurovsky called his guards "Letts" even though, according to King and Wilson,  not all the guards who were said to have taken part in the exection were Letts.  [I think they are listed and talked about on the thread "Shooters".....

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=lastdays;action=display;num=1102980524

I had mentioned the five dead Letts found by the Four Brother's mine which Magnitsky, the Asst. Prosecuter, mentioned in his report.  Despite his rank was highter than Nametkin, and, that he, Magnitsky, was in charge of the Four Brother's Mine from the day [30 July 1918] the mine was starting to be emptied,  carries no visible weight with some poster.

This  evidence does not fall under "fairy tales" nor "UFOs".

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 05, 2005, 03:08:25 PM
Quote
What part of Patrick's post do you deny as being "UFOs"?


Bear, we were all just having a little fun, it had nothing to do with Patrick's post. But FA is right, and we should zip it up  :-X  :D
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 05, 2005, 03:20:42 PM
My English was not very good in that post ,  :-/ :-/,  I should have said:
What part of Patrick's post do you deny and pose as being "UFOs"?

I wil correct.

I forgot my humor over on another thread.   ;D

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 05, 2005, 03:24:04 PM
Quote
What part of Patrick's post do you deny as being "UFOs"?
AGRBear


Freudian slip perhaps?  ;)   :-X
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 05, 2005, 03:33:54 PM
Ahhh yes,  Freud.

Wonder what he'd say about.....

Well, never mind....

Back to our subject and "grabbing at straws".

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on January 05, 2005, 04:24:04 PM
I think we should start up a new theory. I've just started the book "The Final Chapter", and noticed a large inconsistency between what Yurovsky's report to the soviet government on the Romanov's execution and the diposition of their bodies says, and the bodies Abromav and his team identified. Yurovsky said that He tried to burn Alexis and Alexandra, but mistook Demidova for the Tsarina. First off, why burn these two? Why not the Tsar? Second, how was the Tsarina confused with her lady-in-waiting? It goes on to say that the rest were buried in a common grave, separate from the other two. This leads me to believe that Yurovsky knew two of the bodies were missing, and that he was trying to cover up in case anyone ever found the bodies. Perhaps he didn't expect the bodies would be identifiable, and just named two, but then why name Alexei, who is still missing, and the Tsarina, who, by then, could have closely resembled the rest of the girls with the disfiguration they had undergone. The bodies in the grave, though, were identified as everyone but Alexei and one daughter, meaning that either someone lied, or Demidova, confused with the Tsarina, was excavated and then put with the rest of the bodies. If the bodies had been confused in the first place, how were they then recognized, after Demidova had been burned? I know this information might already be discredited, but, hey, I'm new.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 05, 2005, 05:05:07 PM
OH, OH!  Dandywell has caught the " doubting fever"  :-/

Quick, Dr. Helen and Dr. Annie,  he needs a good stiff antibiotic.

AGRBear  ;D

PS  Good questions, I thought, but [sigh]  I've been suffering from "doubting fever" for 49 of my 62 years.

PSS [6 Jan. 05]   I have been corrected.  Dandywell is a female and using "he" as a pronouce in the above sentence was incorrect.  
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on January 05, 2005, 05:07:25 PM
I'm very gullible, and because of this, I doubt everything. :)
[size=10]*except God[/size]
Oh, and I'm a she
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Abby on January 05, 2005, 10:20:27 PM
Quote
I think we should start up a new theory. I've just started the book "The Final Chapter", and noticed a large inconsistency between what Yurovsky's report to the soviet government on the Romanov's execution and the diposition of their bodies says, and the bodies Abromav and his team identified. Yurovsky said that He tried to burn Alexis and Alexandra, but mistook Demidova for the Tsarina. First off, why burn these two? Why not the Tsar? Second, how was the Tsarina confused with her lady-in-waiting? It goes on to say that the rest were buried in a common grave, separate from the other two. This leads me to believe that Yurovsky knew two of the bodies were missing, and that he was trying to cover up in case anyone ever found the bodies. Perhaps he didn't expect the bodies would be identifiable, and just named two, but then why name Alexei, who is still missing, and the Tsarina, who, by then, could have closely resembled the rest of the girls with the disfiguration they had undergone. The bodies in the grave, though, were identified as everyone but Alexei and one daughter, meaning that either someone lied, or Demidova, confused with the Tsarina, was excavated and then put with the rest of the bodies. If the bodies had been confused in the first place, how were they then recognized, after Demidova had been burned? I know this information might already be discredited, but, hey, I'm new.



I remember reading in Yurovsky's words that they chose to burn Alexei because he was the smallest and I forget about why they said they wanted to burn the body of Alexandra. However, he said he mixed it up and burned Demidova instead. Massie pointed out (or at least I think it was him) that bodies would be bloated and stripped of clothing and it might be easy for the men -- especially if they were drunk -- to think  AD was AF.
Yes, maybe Yurovsky WAS trying to cover up for the two missing bodies, and that is why he said he burned two. Perhaps at that point he was not really sure which female was missing, but that it was a female. By saying they burned Demidova, who was similar to the Grand Duchess in physical appearance -- he could have said later on that he actually burned a G.D. instead of Demidova. Later on when the grave was found, Demidova was discovered.
So it leads us back to our original question...
did he really burn two of the bodies, or was he just saying so to cover up that fact that the two bodies were missing?
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 06, 2005, 11:30:39 AM
Yurovsky's second testimony [1934] can be found on the following URL:
http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/yurovmurder.html

These words of his really bother me:  " ...About two months ago, I was looking through the book by Sokolov, the preliminary investigator of the extremely important cases under Kolchak..."

AGRBear

PS  Does anyone have the translated copy of his first testimony?
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Abby on January 06, 2005, 11:37:08 AM
Bear, does it bother you because you think the Sokolov report may have influenced Yurovsky's testimony?
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 06, 2005, 11:51:42 AM
Why would he need to read anyone else's report?

AGRBear

Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on January 06, 2005, 04:43:57 PM
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. It was mentioned that the ties had been laid there to let a truck pass. So, having dug up the entire area, they did not think to look under the ties

I think he was commenting on how good his burial plan was. Gloating a bit. Not necessarily referring to someone else's work because it influenced him. But there was an inconsistancy:

Alexei remained sitting petrified. I killed him
( :'()
I have read that Alexei was on the floor, trying to shield himself from the bullets as he reached for his father's shirt when Yurovsky shot him.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on January 06, 2005, 04:50:11 PM
Has anyone thought that perhaps the men involved with the murders were disillusioned about the deaths because of the gruesomeness that was involved? You know, that they went crazy, and made up stories because they were crazy. Maybe we've never gotten the complete truth because they went crazy. Or something like that.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on January 06, 2005, 06:10:01 PM
Quote
Wasn't Alexi taller then the Tsar in July of 1918?


Apparently so. (Searched the forum)
Does this have anything to do with...anything?
(Not that it's not interesting)
He was 5'8'' by my "sources".
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on January 06, 2005, 06:57:28 PM
Quote
Has anyone thought that perhaps the men involved with the murders were disillusioned about the deaths because of the gruesomeness that was involved? You know, that they went crazy, and made up stories because they were crazy. Maybe we've never gotten the complete truth because they went crazy. Or something like that.


I have thought that too, or that they told so many lies they forgot what they told to who, or that in time they came to believe something that wasn't really true. They also could have been so spooked or traumatized (though that might be unlikely considering who they were) that they got confused in their own minds after many nightmares and mental reruns.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on January 07, 2005, 05:47:30 PM
She might have meant smaller as in weight. Although the girls should have weighed less in ordinary situations, Alexei was quite sick, and possibly the "smallest" by that time.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Abby on January 07, 2005, 07:58:29 PM
Right, I think he may have meant smallest in weight. And I don't remember where I read it, but it was definitley in one of Yurovsky's testimonies.

Regarding what Dandywell said earlier about the 'delusions of granduer' of the murderers of the IF, I absolutley agree and think that this was a main reason while the stories of the murderers vary from person to person somewhat!
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 07, 2005, 08:05:14 PM
Quote
Regarding what Dandywell said earlier about the 'delusions of granduer' of the murderers of the IF, I absolutley agree and think that this was a main reason while the stories of the murderers vary from person to person somewhat!


I think each one of the particiants wanted to maximize, perhaps subconsciously, his own role in the scenario, to make himself seem more important, hence a different story from each. They may have actually saw things the way they told them. It's like that classic film RASHOMON (http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/r/rashomon.html). There were four people describing one event and coming up with four different stories. It works this way  most of the time when more than say, two people are involved in something, so the story with IF's murder is by no means unique in this sense. This is why I don't think the discrepancies are because they are covering anything up, they are just human nature.. Frankly, I would be surprised if they all came up with an identical story.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 07, 2005, 08:09:13 PM
RASHOMON:

The story told by Rashomon is both surprisingly simple and deceptively complex. The central tale, which tells of the rape of a woman and the murder of a man, possibly by a bandit, is presented entirely in flashbacks from the perspectives of four narrators.
In each of the four versions of the story, the characters are the same, as are many of the details. But much is different, as well. In the first account, that of the bandit, the criminal accepts culpability for the murder but refutes the charge of rape, saying that it was an act of mutual consent. The woman's story affirms that the bandit attacked her, but indicates that she may have been the murderess. The dead man's tale (told through a medium) claims rape and suicide. The only "impartial" witness, the woodcutter, weaves a story that intertwines elements of the other three, leaving the viewer wondering if he truly saw anything at all.

Many people watch Rashomon with the intent of piecing together a picture of what really occurred. However, the accounts are so divergent that such an approach seems doomed to futility. Rashomon isn't about determining a chronology of what happened in the woods. It's not about culpability or innocence. Instead, it focuses on something far more profound and thought-provoking: the inability of any one man to know the truth, no matter how clearly he thinks he sees things. Perspective distorts reality and makes the absolute truth unknowable.

All of the narrators in Rashomon tell compelling and believable stories, but, for a variety of reasons, each of them must be deemed unreliable. It's impossible to determine to what degree their versions are fabrications, and how many discrepancies are the result of legitimate differences in points-of-view. It's said that four witnesses to an accident will all offer different accounts of the same event, but there are things in Rashomon (namely, that each of the three participants names himself or herself as the murderer) that cannot be explained away on this basis. And the impressions of the "impartial" observer further muddy the waters, because, despite his protestations that he doesn't lie, we trust his tale the least.

In the end, we are left recognizing only one thing: that there is no such thing as an objective truth. It is a grail to be sought after, but which will never be found, only approximated. Kurosawa's most brilliant move in Rashomon is never to reveal what really happened. We are left to make our own deductions...
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on January 07, 2005, 08:45:48 PM
Yes, truth can be distorted, and in this case, it is obvious from inconsistancies that there has been distortion. But in the case you described, there was an agreement: There was "contact" (rape or  mutual consent) and death (murder or suicide). In the Romanov case, the stories told are so far from each other that basic facts are not really even established. Was there murder? Was it all a conspiracy? It's all different with royalty, because people will go to extreme lengths, either in covering up the truth, or trying to find it out.( And some people are just downright crazy.) Now, I believe that it is very unlikely that the IF survived that night, but some people will never be convinced. People will point out minor flaws (I confess!) and make a big fuss, when it could be people's own distorted views, not some big government conspiracy, that caused it. People are very unreliable, anyways. Eyewitnesses in court aren't even very reliable, and can be easily convinced of something that never happened. Or so I've heard.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 07, 2005, 08:54:29 PM
Well, there were a lot more people involved, first- and second- and third- hand and so on, who were telling and retelling the IF story. A lot more than four people, weren't there. Each had his own version, the next one had his own and so on. It was like a cascade of misinformation. The more "witnesses" involved, the more time passes - the more distorted it gets. Hence, of course this story ended up being a lot more distorted than the one in Rashomon...
Yes, eyewitnesses are notorious for being extremely unreliable in court. We need to try to go as much by physical evidence as possible, but even that can be unreliable, although much more so than people... But no matter what, the real answers will never be accepted unanimously, even if we already have them...
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: patrick_delaney on January 07, 2005, 09:14:16 PM
At the risk of intruding, it seems like there is very little room for anyone in this forum who doesn't march to the sound of a single drummer.  Dandywell poses reasonable questions but it appears that she is struck with a fever that is akin to smallpox for not buyin hook, line and sinker the traditional history of the night of July 17, 1918.

Is this forum - except for AGRBear and a few others really so recalcitrant?

Thanks,

Patrick
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on January 07, 2005, 09:30:50 PM
I prefer the expression grooving to your own funk. ;) J/K. That sounds kind of weird, actually. But, no matter how many people try to get some of the board members to be open-minded (or at least respectful) it doesn't always happen. So we have this ridiculus back and forth:
Person #1: The ligers came and rescued the family and killed Yurovsky, then an animagus transformed into his shape and make up the murder story!
Persons 2-10: That's ridiculous! Look at the facts!
Person #11: Be nice!
Person #12: I didn't do anything!
Person #13: Hey, we're open-minded!
Person #13: No, you're stupid!
etc, etc.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 07, 2005, 09:45:21 PM
I believe there is a difference between being closed minded and having the ability to examine factual evidence, filter out evidence that is not realistic to come up with logical conclusions, instead of grabbing at proverbial straws.  :)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 07, 2005, 09:54:53 PM
Quote


 By saying they burned Demidova, who was similar to the Grand Duchess in physical appearance -- he could have said later on that he actually burned a G.D. instead of Demidova.

Actually, I remember reading somewhere that Demidova was very tall, that she was even taller than the Empress who was quite tall. Anastasia was not tall, even if she grew a couple of inches during captivity she would have still been a good four/five inches shorter than Demidova, which is significant. Would they not have noticed this fact?
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on January 07, 2005, 09:56:58 PM
Quote
I believe there is a difference between being closed minded and having the ability to examine factual evidence, filter out evidence that is not realistic to come up with logical conclusions, instead of grabbing at proverbial straws.  :)


Well, can you prove that the evidence is 'factual'? Can we at least be respectful? I mean, what if someone has really got something here, a valid concern, and we toss it in the garbarge along with the liger theory. Logical conclusions are not always right.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 07, 2005, 10:11:21 PM
Quote

Can we at least be respectful?
Dandywell, would you please point out to me where I was disrespectful to you or anyone else? I am confused.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on January 08, 2005, 09:30:46 AM
I wasn't specifically talking about you, but certain other members that haven't posted on this topic in awhile, in response to Patrick's post.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 08, 2005, 09:38:16 AM
Then why lump everyone together as "rude"? That's not very nice.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on January 08, 2005, 09:47:52 AM
Quote
But, no matter how many people try to get some of the board members to be open-minded (or at least respectful) it doesn't always happen. So we have this ridiculus back and forth [/i] etc, etc.


Now, this is my original post in response to Patricks. Do you consider this 'lumping everyone together as rude'?
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 08, 2005, 10:24:11 AM
Quote

Now, this is my original post in response to Patricks. Do you consider this 'lumping everyone together as rude'?

I wasn't talking about this post, I was talking about another one you made. Anyway, this discussion is getting silly now and is not going to get anywhere, so how about we drop it and go back to the real topic?  :)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on January 08, 2005, 10:37:29 AM
Sure. :)
If the report by Yurovsky was true (or at least as true as a distorted mind can make) then has anyone looked for where he supposedly buried Alexei and Demidova/ Anastasia/ Marie? I mean, even if they're bones have disintigrated(can't spell), their teeth would most likely still be intact. And, apparently, they were buried near the other grave, so wouldn't someone have looked?
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 08, 2005, 10:49:18 AM
Quote
...so wouldn't someone have looked?


I believe that many have looked in the past, unsuccessfully. But I think that there is at least one expedition out there right now looking for the remains of the missing two children!
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: patrick_delaney on January 08, 2005, 11:27:15 AM

I truly do not want to get away from “grasping at straws” but I must clarify the “rude” concept as I see it. It was not my intention to "lump everyone together as rude".  I simply am left with the distinct impression that any serious questioning - in an intellectually honest fashion - that goes against the overriding tone that rings throughout the board seems to be generally unwelcome. There appears to be a tone that signals - all is known about the disappearance of the Romanovs. This tone also signals - that all is known about the night of July 17, 1918 and the events at the Ipatiev House.  

Any query that does not embrass the tone seems to be met with some degree of scorn.  Why not counter the assertions with a list of citations and sources in the various books and material they have consulted to form their opinions.  I don't feel that it is enough to throw out an article or a book or two - that agree in context - and as a result stake such a definitive position.

The "doubters" must feel that they are speaking to the Catholic Church on the subject of Galileo. It was only recently that the Church's position changed vis-a-vis Galileo.  Please be patient - I am not saying there is a body of science that is as definite a position as the postion that the earth is not flat. But, I am saying that the DNA question regarding the Romanovs is being probed by highly respectable scientists. And their results demonstrate that there is some question regarding the initial DNA conducted on the remains found in the Koptiaki forest.  This does not have to indicate compliance with conspiracy theories. It should indicate that they too are making a sincere effort to understand an important event in 20th century history. In any event, the Russian Orthodox Church - at no small price to their organization - is willing to look into the matter.  In the Russia of late, their position could become problematic.  If other rather bright individuals and organizations are willing to question and probe why are some on this board unwilling to be as open?

Respectfully,

Patrick
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 08, 2005, 11:58:44 AM
Quote
I am saying that the DNA question regarding the Romanovs is being probed by highly respectable scientists. And their results demonstrate that there is some question regarding the initial DNA conducted on the remains found in the Koptiaki forest.  


Patrick, I think I know what you are referring to and I can tell you that of course these assertions are never  dismissed without proper evaluation. If you look through all the related threads (I think that would be under "The Final Chapter" topic), you will see that many of these issues have already been discussed to death, so perhaps the response you are seeing is exasparation as well as "beating a dead horse" or "here we go again" feeling. Believe me, anything that sounds remotely logical or realistic, most people here do give credence to. It's only when upon closer examination these assertions don't stand up to scrutiny is when they are dismissed by most. I can assure you that we have looked into many of these assertions by these respectable scientists you mention, and I can assure you that they have not stood up to closer scrutiny and don't have any basis. This is not really the appropriate thread for it, but if you want to know why I say this, you can PM me and I can tell you more....

Helen
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: patrick_delaney on January 08, 2005, 09:46:44 PM
Helen,

Will do.

P.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on January 08, 2005, 10:57:52 PM
Patrick, your height point was a good one, but I doubt they measued the corpses. My question is, why would they want to burn the Tsarina?
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on January 08, 2005, 11:01:04 PM
Wait, Patrick did mention Demidova being taller, right? Or am I confused?
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 08, 2005, 11:03:53 PM
Quote
Wait, Patrick did mention Demidova being taller, right? Or am I confused?


Nope, that was me, I mentioned it  ;D. My point was that Demidova was a lot taller than Anastasia so it would have been difficult to mix those two bodies up. It would have been easier to mistake Demidova for the Empress though... But since we know that most likely Anastasia's body is the one that's missing, then it's strange that they thought it was Demidova that they were burning....
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 09, 2005, 12:10:22 PM
The mix up of bodies ???

When Yurovsky, the crowd of men, and the bodies reached the Four Brothers Mine it was after dawn.

The bodies were placed on the ground.

What state would these bodies have been by this time?

Reconizeable?  Yes.

According to what I'm reading in THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS by King and Wilson,  they knew who each individual was at this point in time.

Yurovsky sent all but five men away.

It was the five men, including Yurovsky, who did the stripping, collection of the jewels, and burning of the clothes.

The bodies were thrown/placed into the mine as corpses who were still whole bodies  p. 323.....

There was the black water at the bottom of the shaft....

Bodies stacked higher than was expected..... and the water they had hoped would cover the bodies did not....

Yurovsky claimed grenades were tossed down into the hold....

Someone else,  I've forgotten at the moment which of the five,  claimed no grenades were tossed because they didn't want anyone to hear any explosions which might attract attention....

What do the skeletons tell us, now?

Was it possible that the bones shows that some of the nine bodies were torn apart by grenades?

Yurovsky returned to the mines and had the bodies pulled up and out....

Group of men were needed for this work.

On p. 326 Kudrin who heard from Rodzinsky:  "...the water in the shaft ha been so deep and so cold that the bodies 'looked as if they were alive...."

Did any testimony talk about any of the bodies having been dismembered?

If this is true, the bodies were still reconizable,  then when did their appearances change so a mix up could have occured?

A second buriel occured but was interrupted by a man who had been watching from the woods.  Ermankov claimed the man was his friend.

The bodies were taken out of this grave, drug aside and covered while Yurovsky went back to Ekaterinburg.

Yurovsky returned to the second buriel spot with his next plan of buriel...

I suspect the bodies were changing.....  Were they still reconizable at this point?

It was 4PM when the truck broke down and they were next to Pig's Meadow....

But had the bodies changed?  When they set fire to Alexei it was said that the .... Let me find it.... p. 330,  "According to Kudrin, the bodies,  'which were frozen, smoked and hissed..."

If the bodies were still frozen,  still reconizeable, one would think, since Yurovsky knew  each of the eleven dead people,  he'd know who was who...

But Yurovsky and the others  didn't know the difference between  Alexandra, her lady-in-waiting and Anastasia/Marie who's body was missing from the grave in Pig's Meadow.

I have a simple question:  Why didn't they know?

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Robert_Hall on January 09, 2005, 01:11:00 PM
They were drunk.
It was not a pretty sight to stare at.
They didn't care.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 09, 2005, 01:17:24 PM
"They":  Who were they?
When?
    On the way to the Four Brother's Mine?
    At the mine?
    Second buriel?
    Third buriel?

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on January 09, 2005, 05:55:08 PM
Maybe the bodies were still recognizable, but were the faces? I read that they had been smashed by rifle butts.
And my BIG question: WHY THE TSARINA?
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 09, 2005, 06:06:50 PM
I can only speculate.

The Leninites had blamed Alexandra for just about everything and then some.

The cartoons of her and wild eyed and evil Rasputin were the most commonly used in newspapers... Pictures are often worth a thousand proganda words....

Also, they believed she was a German through and through and  had been sending all of Russia's secrets to the German Kaiser...

Even the aristocracts didn't like her because she had "shut down" their "fun" such as the many balls which Nicholas II's mother had kept in their glory....  She seem to shun all the things important to the idle rich....  Their children were not acceptable, or so it seem, to play with the IF children....

Nothing has been said about how she reacted to the guards.  Maybe,  there was some personal hatred mixed in with politics.

As for their faces: On p. 326 Kudrin who heard from Rodzinsky:  "...the water in the shaft ha been so deep and so cold that the bodies 'looked as if they were alive...."   He goes on to say "...faces of the soverign, the girls, and the women even had rosy cheeks."

Doesn't sound like the faces were smashed.


AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: patrick_delaney on January 09, 2005, 07:13:45 PM
Dear Dandywell and GRBear,
You are both posing good questions.  Yurovsky's testimonials - both the first one and the one offered to the old communists in 1934 - were filled with contradictions.  It is thought provoking that it changed so much - infact the second time it is in line with Sokolov ( that was made easy since a copy of Sokolov's report was stolen from his apartment before it was published.  The thief's name was Borodin and it found its way back to Russia).

And what about Bykov's account - he was one of the leaders of the local Soviet in Ekaterinburg and the first to publish in length about the events in the Ipatiev House on the night of July 17th.  He was supposed to be the official hsitorian and interestingly his account stood until the Yurovsky Note was found .  Bykov says there were  only four executioners.  Seems he should have known since he was close to the members of the Ekaterinburg Soviet in which he served.   I think McNeal's book does the best job of comparing the contradictions and absurdities of the various accounts - there is even a chapter called something like that.  If you don't have her book - check her Amazon listing - it's  in a searchable format so you can see her citations.  Oh and what happened about the trial in Perm?

Patrick
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on January 09, 2005, 10:27:19 PM
I think all false information should be BURNED!!! >:(
(Why is there this smiley? :-* Has anyone ever used it?)

Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Forum Admin on January 10, 2005, 09:25:07 AM
Don't forget that Yurovski did requisition a large quantity of strong acid and bring it out. This is without question, as the requisition records existed and many witnesses tell the same story.

They very well indeed probably disfigured at the VERY least the faces of the bodies with acid, don't forget they were VERY concerned that even IF the bodies were found they should not be recognized for who they were.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 10, 2005, 10:35:18 AM
According to the eye witnesses via King and Wilson p. 330, it was after the attempted burning and about 4:30 PM the remains of the two were buried... A hour later about 5:30 when the mass grave was dug THEN the faces were smashed with rifle butts, doused with acid and THEN placed into the mass grave.  More acid... earth, brush, stones then railroad ties were placed on top of the bodies...

If this is true, then the faces had not been smashed until after the burning of the two bodies....  Then how was the mistake made?

Sounds like the grave of the two should be right next to the mass grave....

None has been found near the mass grave nor anywhere near?

Testimonies of the CHEKA and guards had a few "fabricated lies" ???

AGRBear

PS  Here is what the 1934 version of Yurovsky was:
"The pit was dug near the fire. The bones were buried, the land was leveled. A big fire was made again and all the traces were covered with ashes. Before putting the other corpses into the pit we poured sulpheric acid over them. The pit was filled up and covered with the ties. The empty truck drove over the ties several times and rolled them flat. "

PSS
Quote
... in part.....

.... Yurovsky's testimonials - both the first one and the one offered to the old communists in 1934 - were filled with contradictions.  It is thought provoking that it changed so much - infact the second time it is in line with Sokolov ( that was made easy since a copy of Sokolov's report was stolen from his apartment before it was published.  The thief's name was Borodin and it found its way back to Russia).

....Patrick


Is this why Yurovsky read Sokolov's account before giving his second testimony in 1934?
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: patrick_delaney on January 10, 2005, 11:49:53 AM
Appears to be the case.  If you study the two accounts closely you will see that the differences can not be dismissed as mere failure of memory etc.

Patrick
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on January 10, 2005, 12:50:45 PM
Wouldn't the bodies be bloated? Hadn't many been killed by shots to the face or head? Were't some bayoneted? Among the frenzy of that night, who knows what all happened to the bodies. Plus the extra days, and you've got some unrecognizable people.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 10, 2005, 12:54:37 PM
I have also read two differing accounts of this: one that said that the bodies were extremely well preserved in the icy water of the mineshaft, even after a few days, and an opposing one that claimed that the bodies would have been bloated and decomposed and virtually unrecognizable after a couple of days hence easy to mix up. We have no definite answer here....
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Robert_Hall on January 10, 2005, 01:01:09 PM
My point exactly [made earlier]. Dead bodies do not wait for cosmetic recognition.  In addition to the violence inflicted on them, the biological process of decomposition was well at work.  To be frank, dealing with these would be sickening, especially with the addition of a lot of alcohol consumption.  I seriously doubt that anyone was paying much attention to details.  In that state, servant & master look alike. Actually, it may be even difficult to tell male & female apart.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 10, 2005, 02:15:23 PM
Quote
My point exactly [made earlier]. Dead bodies do not wait for cosmetic recognition.  In addition to the violence inflicted on them, the biological process of decomposition was well at work.  To be frank, dealing with these would be sickening, especially with the addition of a lot of alcohol consumption.  I seriously doubt that anyone was paying much attention to details.  In that state, servant & master look alike. Actually, it may be even difficult to tell male & female apart.


You are right, dead bodies do not wait to decompose.  But, when placed in "frozen" water and the bodies were "still frozen" when delivered to Pig's Meadow,  then decomposition wasn't swift and the bodies were still "rosey cheeked" then I think they were reconizable to Yurovsky even if he had some beers while in  Ekaterinburg.

The smashing of the faces did not occur until just before they were placed in the "mass grave".  

This was after the selection of the "two" which they claimed they burned....

Robert: Do you think the five men Yurovsky chose to bury the nine at Pig's Meadow  were still drunk...?

And, yes, it's true,  we do not know what shape the bodies were when  they were buried in Pig's Meadow on the 17th,  18th, or 19th.... July 1918 or ??? [as late as 1922....].

Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Robert_Hall on January 10, 2005, 02:28:13 PM
"rosy cheeks" would be clotted blood close to surface skin, part of putrefication and  it is unlikely that the cadavers  froze  so much as to hamper  the process.
Yes, I believe they continued drinking- without stop. It was most likely the only way they could carry out the grisly tasks. In such a stupor they were dealing with just so much rubbish to be disposed of.  And, as we are all aware, rubbish disposal can be a careless task.
In any case, I have said far more than I care to on this subject.  "Grabbing at straws" sums up my position.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on January 10, 2005, 03:28:50 PM
Quote


The smashing of the faces did not occur until just before they were placed in the "mass grave".  




Their faces could have been destroyed already, with GUNS, as I said earlier, and the frenzy to kill all of them, which included : rifle butts, bayonets, and drunken men. I don't think the murder was so clean that they had to destroy the faces later. (Even though they did pour sulfuric acid on them.)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 10, 2005, 04:08:34 PM
It is noted by the guards involved that they had to use the butts of their rifles to smash the faces just before they were buried in the mass grave.

-----

For those of you who think  a rescue of one or all on the night of 16/17 July 1918 was not possible,  let me show you a map which shows the presents of the Whites in June of 1918 who were in and around Ekaterinburg.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/5X7.jpg)

Someone, the Germans did indicate this date as part of their plot or someone else  who is not yet known to us,  may have rescued Nicholas II, his family and the others on the night of 16/17 July 1918 and then attempted an escape....

What do we know:  We know nine of the eleven were to fall victims to the Bolsheviks but we do not know when or where.

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on January 10, 2005, 04:23:09 PM
Okay, Bear, first you use Yurovsky's reports to back up that the family was recognizable, now you're saying you don't know when or where they were killed. Is this because you were also using the inconsistancy of the bodies being mixed up to support that they indeed escaped? If so, then why would Yurovsky say that he mixed up the bodies in the first place? Perhaps this happened after they found nine out of eleven and killed them, on another day?
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 10, 2005, 04:32:37 PM
Quote
Okay, Bear, first you use Yurovsky's reports to back up that the family was recognizable, now you're saying you don't know when or where they were killed. Is this because you were also using the inconsistancy of the bodies being mixed up to support that they indeed escaped? If so, then why would Yurovsky say that he mixed up the bodies in the first place? Perhaps this happened after they found nine out of eleven and killed them, on another day?


I used Yurovsky and other reports about the first, second and third buriels, and the burning of the two bodies...

And, yes,  the mix up was because they couldn't tell who the dead were.... therefore, something else occured, and it probably was NOT on the 17th of July...  And,  yes,  I assume the nine were captured and killed at a different place and time then the offical reports tell us.

Pig's Meadow was probably the "fourth" buriel place for some of the nine.

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on January 10, 2005, 05:38:28 PM
Does anyone know where I could find the testimonies of all the people involved in the murder? (Or at least those who had testimonies.)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Abby on January 10, 2005, 08:29:24 PM
Reading 'Fate of the Romanovs" will offer up testimonies of those that participated, or was at least present at the Ipatiev house during the murders. 'The Last Tsar' by Radzinsky has Yurovsky and Paul Medvedev's accounts.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Forum Admin on January 10, 2005, 08:35:02 PM
Alekseyev's "Last Act of A Tragedy" is an excellent, though hard to find, compilation of all the testimony.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Forum Admin on January 10, 2005, 08:56:10 PM
Oh, and AGR, using the scale on your map, the Czechs in June were still at least 100 miles away from Ekaterinburg...so not really all that close, and the map doesn't give any indication of who were with the Czechs holding the railroad line.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Roman_Candle on January 11, 2005, 12:02:39 AM
Quote
Oh, and AGR, using the scale on your map, the Czechs in June were still at least 100 miles away from Ekaterinburg...so not really all that close, and the map doesn't give any indication of who were with the Czechs holding the railroad line.
[/sub]

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it looks like the 2nd Czech Div at the elbow is on the outskirts of Ekaterinburg...or is my "cartography" eyes out?
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Phil_tomaselli on January 11, 2005, 01:11:19 AM
According to British Consul Thomas Preston "The boom of the Czech's artillery, which was hourly getting nearer to us, told us that the day of relief was approaching".  This is on the night of 16/17 July 1918 i.e. Czechs were only a few miles away.  Preston was already in touch with the Czechs by clandestine means.

Phil Tomaselli
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Forum Admin on January 11, 2005, 08:46:29 AM
Roman Candle, read the legend of the map more closely. That "elbow" is the front in AUGUST  not June.  The June front is only along the rail line.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 11, 2005, 08:52:46 AM
And, the map shows positions in June.

I don't have a map of 16 July but they were very close, not a hundred miles away.

Gunfire on the "line" could be heard hourly within the city by this time.

White officers were already entering the city and taking up places to live.  

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on January 11, 2005, 12:52:31 PM
If the IF was saved, then how were they captured again, and what happened to the people involved in the failed attempt?
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on January 11, 2005, 01:01:08 PM
I think it was even mentioned in their diaries that the Whites were about 8 days away, but I've never heard anything about Czechs. I don't believe any escape/recapture/then kill theories, and really, what is the point unless you really want to try to prove that Summers and Mangold were not completely wrong (which I think they were)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Candice on January 11, 2005, 01:26:45 PM
I think the whole murder senario was carried out to disguise the truth -  the escape of the children from Tobolsk.  

Why would Yurovsky with his men go to so much trouble as to disfigure the already dead bodies?  In my opinion he would only do this to disguise the true identity of the victims.

Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on January 11, 2005, 01:32:35 PM
Quote
I think the whole murder senario was carried out to disguise the truth -  the escape of the children from Tobolsk.  


But remember, they didn't want anyone to know they were killed, they lied about them being ALIVE, not dead, they didn't want to fake their deaths, they tried to lie out of it after they killed them!

Quote
Why would Yurovsky with his men go to so much trouble as to disfigure the already dead bodies?  In my opinion he would only do this to disguise the true identity of the victims.



Yes, it was, because, again, they DIDN'T want anyone to know they killed them and were lying about it!
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Candice on January 11, 2005, 02:16:01 PM
Yes, they did disguise the fact that the children had escaped and had to use substitutes.  Then after they had succesfully done that they had no chose but to get rid of the evidence.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Forum Admin on January 11, 2005, 02:33:18 PM
Candice,
PLEASE stop making blatent unsupported allegations like this. We know that "substitute" children were not used because the DNA from the gravesite all shows a family relationship. You simply must back up your allegations.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Georgiy on January 11, 2005, 02:54:57 PM
Besides which, Maria went with her parents to Ekaterinburg, and the other children and her corresponded with each other.

Maybe the 4 remaining children 'escaped' in between being taken off the train at Ekaterinburg and put into the cars to take them to Ipatiev House. Don't forget they were reliably seen by people who knew them intimately right up to that time. Unfortunately for all of them, there was no escape, no matter how much many people may wish there was.

By all means, show us proof of any alternative for the Romanov children other than death in Ekaterinburg.
(Sorry if this sounds rude, it is not meant as such.)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on January 11, 2005, 05:13:37 PM
Because of the DNA evidence, you would have to find a family of five people, three girls, a mother and father, who are related to Prince Phillip through the mother, and Xenia Sfiris and Duke James of Fife throught he father (Aldermaston findings), the bodies would have to be almost identical in skeletal structure to those of the Romanovs (Ambramov's superimposation method), and you would have to actually have suffiecient evidence to prove numerous world reknowned scientists wrong.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 11, 2005, 05:31:29 PM
Quote
Because of the DNA evidence, you would have to find a family of five people, three girls, a mother and father, who are related to Prince Phillip through the mother, and Xenia Sfiris and Duke James of Fife throught he father (Aldermaston findings), the bodies would have to be almost identical in skeletal structure to those of the Romanovs (Ambramov's superimposation method), and you would have to actually have suffiecient evidence to prove numerous world reknowned scientists wrong.


Yes, exactly. And don't forget the three girls would have to be the biological children of a close male relative of the Grand Duke George.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on January 11, 2005, 05:41:43 PM
True, because of all that proof I don't see how there could be any speculation about anyone other than Anastasia (or Marie) and Alexei escaping, all but those 2 are accounted for. If anyone doubts those DNA results I certainly hope they have better evidence than switched intestines and a conspiracy by the Queen :-/

And if anyone is going to speculate on claimants, we can rule out Anna Anderson Manahan since she's been proven not to be related to the other bodies found.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on January 11, 2005, 06:31:54 PM
You know what I don't like? How this forum is described as "Anastasia and the enduring myth of "survival" of members of the Imperial Family." I see this as very close-minded and slightly antagonistic.  ;)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Forum Admin on January 11, 2005, 10:36:53 PM
You know what I find interesting? Dandywell first writes:
Because of the DNA evidence, you would have to find a family of five people, three girls, a mother and father, who are related to Prince Phillip through the mother, and Xenia Sfiris and Duke James of Fife throught he father (Aldermaston findings), the bodies would have to be almost identical in skeletal structure to those of the Romanovs (Ambramov's superimposation method), and you would have to actually have suffiecient evidence to prove numerous world reknowned scientists wrong.

THEN says:You know what I don't like? How this forum is described as "Anastasia and the enduring myth of "survival" of members of the Imperial Family." I see this as very close-minded and slightly antagonistic.

So, which is it?
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on January 12, 2005, 07:28:17 AM
Both. I sympathize with those who do believe the IF escaped, but am unwilling to believe it myself. :)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 12, 2005, 03:32:44 PM
Quote
I think it was even mentioned in their diaries that the Whites were about 8 days away, but I've never heard anything about Czechs. I don't believe any escape/recapture/then kill theories, and really, what is the point unless you really want to try to prove that Summers and Mangold were not completely wrong (which I think they were)


The IF were said to have been murdered on the night of 16/17 July 1918...

The White Army  took contol of Ekaterinburg on the 25...  

The White officers and agents had already started to move in before the 16th....

War in those days were different than today... There is what I called the "respected lap-over time" as the one side leaves an important area to be replaced by another and the other side enters....  

Then there were the "towns people" who were trying to survive both armies....

Armies not only had soliders, they had  traveling with them their families,  mistresses, servents and all the people who surround each group such as blacksmiths, black marketeers, gamblers, ladies of the night....

Cannon and carriages and troops were in position as protection of Ekaterninburg by the 25th / 26th....

Investigation of evidence in the Impatiev House started almost immediately and people were given assignments...

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on January 12, 2005, 04:00:40 PM
I know all that about the Whites, what does that have to do with the Czechs or File on the Tsar being wrong?
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 12, 2005, 04:33:06 PM
Annie, I'm not clear about what you are asking.

Sorry.

ARGBear

Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on January 12, 2005, 04:35:18 PM
She asked about the Czechs, and you told her about the Whites. Most likely a simple mistake.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on January 12, 2005, 05:37:49 PM
That's okay:) I did know about the Whites, but that's it. I'm not much into the military movements and names of generals and that kind of thing. I admit I don't respond to a lot of posts talking about that because I really don't know, and as much as I talk I don't talk about things when I don't know what I'm talking about ;)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 12, 2005, 07:45:15 PM
The Reds were under the leadership of the Bolsheviks / communists.

The Whites were anti-Bolsheviks / anti-communists.

The Whites were all kinds of factions which included people who wanted to place Nicholas II or one of the Romanovs back on the throne to people who wanted a form of govt. like Englands or just someone who just didn't like the and believed Russia would be better rule by someone other than a Bolshevik/ communist.

The Czechs had been recruited by the tsarist govt. and were about 40,000 strong.  After the Soviets made a treaty with Germany,  these men were caught behind the lines and wanted to get back home so they were headed toward the Western Front.

These Czechs had a dispute with local Soviets and the fight against the locals grew into a fight against the Bolsheviks.  This  became nown as the Czech Uprising  [2 May 1918].

It has been a long time since I studied the Civil War of 1917-1921/2,  so I'd have to find some books to talk about the various generals in control and who was leading who...  We're already talking about it under Russian Revolution/ Whites and Reds so,  if you are interested,  head on over there ......

It can get very confusing.

And yes, Rskkiya,  there were the Greens,  but I'm not getting into their story on this thread.

So,  that is why I've mentioned  Whites whom I lumped togather with the Czechs in July of 1918 near and entering Ekaterinburg....

AGRBear


Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on January 13, 2005, 06:14:30 AM
Quote
The Reds were under the leadership of the Bolsheviks / communists.

The Whites were anti-Bolsheviks / anti-communists.

The Whites were all kinds of factions which included people who wanted to place Nicholas II or one of the Romanovs back on the throne to people who wanted a form of govt. like Englands or just someone who just didn't like the and believed Russia would be better rule by someone other than a Bolshevik/ communist.

The Czechs had been recruited by the tsarist govt. and were about 40,000 strong.  After the Soviets made a treaty with Germany,  these men were caught behind the lines and wanted to get back home so they were headed toward the Western Front.

These Czechs had a dispute with local Soviets and the fight against the locals grew into a fight against the Bolsheviks.  This  became nown as the Czech Uprising  [2 May 1918].

It has been a long time since I studied the Civil War of 1917-1921/2,  so I'd have to find some books to talk about the various generals in control and who was leading who...  We're already talking about it under Russian Revolution/ Whites and Reds so,  if you are interested,  head on over there ......

It can get very confusing.

And yes, Rskkiya,  there were the Greens,  but I'm not getting into their story on this thread.

So,  that is why I've mentioned  Whites whom I lumped togather with the Czechs in July of 1918 near and entering Ekaterinburg....

AGRBear




I knew all that but the Czechs. Gosh did you really think I didn't know the difference between Whites and Reds, I've known all that for ages, and about the Civil War, etc. The only things I don't know enough to comment on are the exact names of the Generals and who took what town on what day,(except Ekaterinburg) the technical military details. I am well aware of the basic story and history. Just had to clear that up, didn't want you or anyone else to think I was that lame!
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: rskkiya on January 13, 2005, 08:58:44 AM
Quote
Both. I sympathize with those who do believe the IF escaped, but am unwilling to believe it myself. :)


  Sorry Danywell but that comment makes no logical sence... Personally I don't think that encouraging people to turn to conspiracy and fantasy is really a "good thing" --HOWEVER, If there is any valid proof of escapes/survival stories I would welcome it and enjoy seeing and examining the evidence ... but so far I have found nothing but a lot of dreams and "what if's"  stories. A lot of Straws, if you will!

rskkiya
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Abby on January 13, 2005, 09:55:29 AM
I think her comment makes sense. I agree with her. I myself do not beleive that the Imperial Family escaped because I beleive that the bodies found in Koptyaki forest are of the Romanovs. However, there was evidence brought forth recently saying that those bodies are not of the IF : http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/eng/catalog/pages/7171.html
(this has been discussed on another thread) when DNA of GD Ella's finger was compared to the DNA of the skeleton supposed to be Alexandra. Because no one except the executioners and the souls of the family really knows what happened that night, I find contradictory evidence to be worth a look. And I will entertain any scenarios of escape stories because truth sometimes turns out to be stranger than fiction. Even though it's not probable, it's possible, and so far no one here has yet thrown out the idea that the family was abducted by aliens or ran away with the circus!
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Forum Admin on January 13, 2005, 10:06:24 AM
Actually, Abby, when the forum first started, there WAS a guy claiming alien abduction of the IF.
:o
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 13, 2005, 10:47:13 AM
Is that why all the UFO comments .....

Sorry Annie,  I didn't mean to sound like a grammer school teacher at your expense.

 My post about the Reds and Whites was, however, for those who didn't know the differences.

If you take a look at the map,  it shows who the generals were of the Czechs.

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Abby on January 13, 2005, 10:51:30 AM
Quote
Actually, Abby, when the forum first started, there WAS a guy claiming alien abduction of the IF.
 :o


Oh gee! In that case, I stand corrected. I'm sorry. I meant to say that everything I had heard so far was not so outrageous as that.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 13, 2005, 11:31:09 AM
Quote
If the IF was saved, then how were they captured again, and what happened to the people involved in the failed attempt?


The rescuers and nine of the eleven were hunted down.

It could have been Yurovsky's Letts  and / or  Lenin's Letts known as the "Flames" who found nine of the eleven.  When were they found?  I do not know. Where and when were they executed?  I do not know.

The absence of bones in the grave in Pig's Meadow tells me that this was not the first place some of the nine were buried.  King and Wilson mention the missing bones on p. 405.  And they quote the woman who helped remove the bones from the grave.
Koryakova told us, " '...bones are suposed to be in anatomical order. 'Some of this, she believed, had been caused by the cable and 1976 exhumation, but the majority of the damage 'looked very odd'."  The King and Wilson go on an talk about the number of bones which should have been found, number of bones that would be expected to have been missing, and, in this grave there were far too many missing.

It is unknown what happen to the "missing two".

Penny Wilson mentioned on another thread Lenin's special unit of Letts.  It on a discussion on the word "Lysva" written on the wall in the Impatiev House.  I'll have to find it and post it later under my "PS"

All speculation on my part, of course.

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on January 13, 2005, 11:57:09 AM
Quote
Is that why all the UFO comments .....


and the Queen switching the intestines, that was almost as bad :-/

Quote
Sorry Annie,  I didn't mean to sound like a grammer school teacher at your expense.

  My post about the Reds and Whites was, however, for those who didn't know the differences.

If you take a look at the map,  it shows who the generals were of the Czechs.

AGRBear


Okay it is a good lesson for those who might not know, I'm just in a more advanced class ;)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on January 13, 2005, 12:03:30 PM
Quote
Both. I sympathize with those who do believe the IF escaped, but am unwilling to believe it myself. :)


It's a bit dangerous, I think, to allow people's emotions and what they WANT to be true cloud the evidence. Most of us WANT to believe they got away, but we can't let our dreams and wild ideas come off as truth to people who might not know the difference. That's why some of these end up being joked on by some people. If you can't present a valid reason why you believe what you do, or some kind of evidence that refutes what we do know, it's best not to speculate too outrageously, IMO. Of course, all this is fun, and I do admit I spend most of my time on this forum here :-[
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 13, 2005, 12:36:01 PM
Quote

It's a bit dangerous, I think, to allow people's emotions and what they WANT to be true cloud the evidence. Most of us WANT to believe they got away, but we can't let our dreams and wild ideas come off as truth to people who might not know the difference. That's why some of these end up being joked on by some people. If you can't present a valid reason why you believe what you do, or some kind of evidence that refutes what we do know, it's best not to speculate too outrageously, IMO. Of course, all this is fun, and I do admit I spend most of my time on this forum here :-[


This is an good example of how the early investigators in 1918-1919 must have debated back and forth.  Only thing was, they weren't "grabbing at straws" but the real evidence just days after the Reds had left Ekaterinburg.  Wonder what Annie and I would have concluded had we been there  :).

So, back to the bones.  Why do you think there were so many bones missing?  Do you have a source that refutes Koryakova, an expert, who felt something was not right about the order of the bones?

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Georgiy on January 13, 2005, 02:20:19 PM
Quote
Actually, Abby, when the forum first started, there WAS a guy claiming alien abduction of the IF.


And there I was thinking it must have come from that Pravda article about the Soviet armies fighting UFOs :D
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on January 13, 2005, 03:37:06 PM
Quote

   Sorry Danywell but that comment makes no logical sence... Personally I don't think that encouraging people to turn to conspiracy and fantasy is really a "good thing" --HOWEVER, If there is any valid proof of escapes/survival stories I would welcome it and enjoy seeing and examining the evidence ... but so far I have found nothing but a lot of dreams and "what if's"  stories. A lot of Straws, if you will!

rskkiya


Sympathizing is not necessarily encourging. I don't tell people that what they're saying isn't plausible, either, until I fully understand what they are trying to say. AGRBear has had some good points, and although I doubt they are true, I am willing to be a little open-minded and see what she has to say. What did happen to those missing bones? We don't know. I consider this evidence.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 13, 2005, 06:29:49 PM
Careful Dandywell,  I can almost hear Rskkiya's foot tapping with impatience because you aren't discouraging me from having more "speculations" ;).

Back to the bones.  

If we can believe the bones as they were position, does it appear that Nicholas II may have been placed in the grave first?

If you go along with my speculation about and escape, being hunted, captured and then executed,  does this mean Nicholas II was the first of the eleven to have died/buried.  See p. 403 of FOTR for more detail on depths of bone and why they thought Nicholas II was the first body in the grave.

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on January 13, 2005, 09:45:33 PM
Quote
Careful Dandywell,  I can almost hear Rskkiya's foot tapping with impatience because you aren't discouraging me from having more "speculations" ;).

Back to the bones.  

If we can believe the bones as they were position, does it appear that Nicholas II may have been placed in the grave first?

If you go along with my speculation about and escape, being hunted, captured and then executed,  does this mean Nicholas II was the first of the eleven to have died/buried.  See p. 403 of FOTR for more detail on depths of bone and why they thought Nicholas II was the first body in the grave.

AGRBear

I read that Trupp (?) was underneath Nicholas in the grave, and that Trupp's skeleton was in the worst shape because he was in the sulfuric acid at the bottom of the pit, and that his and Nicholas's skeletons actually became partially fused together.
Jeremy- I have noticed that all things concerning survival are in quotation marks ("survival"). I think this is a bit one-sided, and should be removed if we are to have a politically correct discussion forum.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Forum Admin on January 13, 2005, 10:45:02 PM
the term "survival" is in quotation marks for a very simple reason. The VAST and overwhelming amount of genuine historical research and researchers all conclude that the IF was killed that night. The claims otherwise are at this point in a small minority, and until concrete verified evidence can be produced beyond mere speculation, at least in this forum, that term will be continued to be in quotes. If you don't like, start an alternative discussion site.

Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: rskkiya on January 14, 2005, 08:57:54 AM
Hello Dandywell and Agrbear,

I do wish that I could tell you what did happen to the missing bones,  but alas I don't know... although I am not at all persuaded that the execution was "faked" or that any of the IF excaped.

{I am shocked that someone else had mentioned an "Alien abduction" theory before me! LOL! I thought that I had fabricated that one out of whole cloth!}

rskkiya
(No foot tapping.... I am wearing soft shoes! ;D)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 14, 2005, 10:42:04 AM
Jumping back to the "Flames", a nickname for Lenin's special unit which is explained in the following post:
Quote

When Greg and I were researching FOTR, we experienced a most amazing piece of serendipity in connection with the LYSV inscription.

We were, of course, aware of the inscription, but we thought that it went a little beyond the scope of our book and a little too far into speculative, conspiracy-theorist territory -- especially as we could find no evidence AT ALL that any Romanov was in Lysva in the high summer of 1918.

Then one day, Greg had the History Channel on the television, and on came a documentary about the Siege of Sidney Street, a failed burglary attempt in London's East End in 1910.  The crime was carried out by a group of Latvians, all of whom belonged to a revolutionary organization called "Lysma," meaning "The Flame."

Subsequent investigation turned up evidence that showed Lysma was fairly closely tied to the exiled Russian revolutionaries in London -- even attending secret meetings with prominent Bolsheviks -- and, indeed, throughout many European cities.

Long story short, Lysma was still heavily active in 1918, especially in Russia, where the Latvian revolutionaries were busily out-fiercing many of the Bolsheviks.  Lenin himself was surrounded by a Latvian Guard, they being considered more dedicated and reliable in the revolutionary cause than most Russian regiments.

It may also be remembered that Yurovsky brought several Latvians and Baltic Letts  into the house with him, and these men used the murder room as a dormitory until the night of the murder.  It seemed most likely to Greg and I that this inscription was placed there by an off-duty Latvian guard, tagging the room with the name of his own revolutionary organization.  There were several other pieces of graffiti in the room -- and indeed, throughout the house --  not only this one and the Belshazzar one. The initial investigators believed that they were merely the off-duty artwork of bored guards.

I have a pretty decent photograph of the inscription that I will forward to the FA.  Perhaps he could post it so that you peeps could take a look...


So,  if they were there, did they arrive before or after the execution?  If after, what was their task?  To search and find the missing one, two or all?

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 14, 2005, 10:44:23 AM
Quote
Penny's photo:
(http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/forumimages/lysv.jpg)

Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on January 14, 2005, 03:33:43 PM
What's the big pic of?
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 14, 2005, 03:56:00 PM
On the wall in the Impatiev House were written various things, one of which was  _syl.

The blank could be a "v" or a "m"???

There is a question as to what it means.

Some think it is scribbled backwards and is a clue.

Up until Penny's thoughts  about what it might mean, which I posted above, others had thought it might be referring to Lysva where the country estate of Count Paul Benckendorff's

Evidently, Lysva is near Perm...

Did someone leave a message to let them know where they had taken one or all the Romanovs, if they did escape or were being taken by the CHEKA?

How did they get there, if it was indeed them?

With rescuers or the CHEKA?

Or did the CHEKA find one or all there and took them from there to Perm?

Some books, like Summers and Mangold, mention there was testimonies of eye witnesses who claimed they saw Alexandra and atleast three of the four girls being held by the CHEKA in Perm after 16 July 1918....

If the letter is a "m" then it might be spelling Lysma.... which means Flame, and, that was the name of Lenin's special unit of executioners.

Or, it could just have been someone initals....

Maybe, someone else has a better theory/ speculation.

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Valmont on January 14, 2005, 05:11:39 PM
Maybe it is to be read backwards... and Liz Taylor did it..
I am sure she wanted to write "LYs Tailor was here" with the intention of misspelling it, so no one could conect her with that act of vandalism, but she  had no time to finish it... Who knows..  She's everywhere.....My theory is no worse than yours...
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Forum Admin on January 14, 2005, 05:16:29 PM
Quote


There's a very simple flaw with a majority rules mentality -as well as majority rule democracy I might add- the majority of people could be wrong!  ;)

Prove the majority wrong and I will remove the quote marks.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 15, 2005, 11:05:47 AM
I've asked about the "missing bones" from the mass grave in Pig's Meadow.  And,  I'm seeking an answer from anyone who might know the answer.  It little matters to me if the answer comes from the majority or the minority.  I am searching for the truth.

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 15, 2005, 03:39:42 PM
Quote

If the letter is a "m" then it might be spelling Lysma.... which means Flame...



In what language?  ???
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Alice on January 15, 2005, 08:25:12 PM
Quote
On the wall in the Impatiev House were written various things, one of which was  _syl.

The blank could be a "v" or a "m"???

There is a question as to what it means.

Some think it is scribbled backwards and is a clue.

Up until Penny's thoughts  about what it might mean, which I posted above, others had thought it might be referring to Lysva where the country estate of Count Paul Benckendorff's

Evidently, Lysva is near Perm...

Did someone leave a message to let them know where they had taken one or all the Romanovs, if they did escape or were being taken by the CHEKA?

How did they get there, if it was indeed them?

With rescuers or the CHEKA?

Or did the CHEKA find one or all there and took them from there to Perm?

Some books, like Summers and Mangold, mention there was testimonies of eye witnesses who claimed they saw Alexandra and atleast three of the four girls being held by the CHEKA in Perm after 16 July 1918....

If the letter is a "m" then it might be spelling Lysma.... which means Flame, and, that was the name of Lenin's special unit of executioners.

Or, it could just have been someone initals....

Maybe, someone else has a better theory/ speculation.

AGRBear


It could mean anything. It may even have been there when Ipatiev lived in the house.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dashkova on January 15, 2005, 08:55:19 PM
Quote

It could mean anything. It may even have been there when Ipatiev lived in the house.


I agree with Alice. It is sometimes interesting to ponder the possibilities, but after all, yes, it could have been there from the time the house was constructed, or during the time the room was used for guard quarters.

And the suggestion that it was put there as some sort of vague hint as to where the Romanovs may have been taken not only is a little *too* Roanoke Islandish (mid-atlantic types here will know what I'm talking about, I hope) and why would such a message be left in a semi-basement room of all places?

This really crosses the line between reasonable speculation and the fantastical.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: rskkiya on January 16, 2005, 11:09:20 AM
I, as usual, agree with Dashkova ;D.
Also, I was under the impression that the "letters" can only be seen with a mirror - so if this was supposed to be a "message" - it seems a very silly way to deliver it!

rskkiya
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 16, 2005, 11:36:46 AM
Quote

It could mean anything. It may even have been there when Ipatiev lived in the house.


Penny's photo shows it exactly how she saw it.  See the huge photo above on this page.

Since Penny was talking about Letts, I assume it's a lanuage which the Letts spoke.

Now,  you're really getting me into the "I don't know area"  8)


AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on January 16, 2005, 11:50:01 AM
But didn't even Penny say that was written by a group of soldiers who had been living in the basement? Seems like the story goes they were a group exiled after the 1905 revolution, caused trouble in England in 1911, then went to Germany where they were shipped back during WWI and ended up taking up with the Bolsheviks there at that time. The writing was their group signature and meant nothing else. I can't find the post but I think I remember the story.

As for Roanoke Island, what do you think happened to those colonists? They did say leave a note where you were going and they carved Croatan. But the British never checked Croatan because they wanted to get back home before hurricane season so we will never know. And the Captain's daughter and granddaughter were among the missing too!
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on January 16, 2005, 12:49:20 PM
Yes, that is the most likely scenario, they took up with friendly natives and moved on. But where? The Lumbar Indians of the lower outer banks are the ones that were discovered in the late 1700's, some with blue eyes and reddish hair, variations of English names and speaking a language of broken English mixed with the native tribal language. They had to have come from somewhere, that is a possibility. Also, the scouting party who came ahead of the Jamestown party reported seeing a pale red haired maiden in the company of six young braves in along the James River. Could that be our Virginia Dare?

I used to think they were killed, but now I don't. Had they been killed by Indians or Spaniards, there surely would have been bodies or evidence of this.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Forum Admin on January 16, 2005, 05:49:03 PM
Umm, do I need to create a new section called "Colonial American History...nothing at all to do with Romanovs but people want to discuss it here anyway?"

;D

the "nameless" FA
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dashkova on January 16, 2005, 06:31:58 PM
Quote
Umm, do I need to create a new section called "Colonial American History...nothing at all to do with Romanovs but people want to discuss it here anyway?"

 ;D

the "nameless" FA


Sorry about that! I have deleted the posts in question (my own, at least).  It's just an interesting notion, this question of survival, and with AGRBear's suggestion that the writing on the Ipatiev house wall might have been some sort of "code" or message, is remarkably similar to the Croatoan carved on the trees on Roanoke.

Oh well, I've been studying and reading and talking about Romanovs for more than a quarter century and am kind of sick to death of them in certain ways, but there are lots of very interesting people here worth sticking around for.  And very interesting reading.

So sorry for the the digressions  :-[
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on January 16, 2005, 07:43:49 PM
Yeah, sorry, I was afraid we were too off topic but once somebody brought it up I had to comment since it's another interest of mine. In a way it's a loose connection, historical people surrounded by mystery at the end. You know maybe they are all on island somewhere like that one of Days of Our Lives, The Romanovs, the Dauphin, the colonists from Roanoke Island, Elvis, Jim Morrison, Jimmy Hoffa,  and the lost continent of Atlantis :P

Should I delete my post too?
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Forum Admin on January 16, 2005, 07:58:36 PM
Hi
Please don't ever feel you need to delete your postings. IF I thought them inappropriate, I will delete them myself. I just thougth a gentle reminder about remaining on topic was called for. Sorry if my sarcasm seemed heavy handed. Didn't mean it that way at all.
your "nameless"
FA
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 16, 2005, 07:59:05 PM
Quote
You know maybe they are all on island somewhere like that one of Days of Our Lives, The Romanovs, the Dauphin, the colonists from Roanoke Island, Elvis, Jim Morrison, Jimmy Hoffa,  and the lost continent of Atlantis :P
 
 You are forgetting Amelia Earhart  ;).

Speaking of whom, doesn't this picture of Amelia look like Tatiana? I always thought so...

(http://img111.exs.cx/img111/3500/amelia4lu.png)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v171/LanieD/tania1914.jpg)

Now we are really getting off topic! But FA, you don't need to start a new topic about Amelia Earhart (even though I wouldn't mind discussing her  ;))

Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on January 16, 2005, 08:11:11 PM
Oh yes, her too! She does look like Tatiana! Yes a missing persons/alive or dead thread would be interesting!

Nothing to be sorry for FA, you're exactly right. Sorry again!
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 17, 2005, 10:59:06 AM
My father-in-law was on the US Colorado that was out looking for Amelia and their web site and newsletters had a huge article about it a couple of years ago.  Saw photographs I've never seen before.  Very interesting.

Anyway, back to the subject of "grabbing at straws" in our Romanov mystery.

This may be a long straw but I'm going to suggest it just in case because it might  connect some dots on the subject of "LYSv", the Letts, possible escape, five dead Letts and cover-up....

Maybe, the rescue wasn't a rescue but a power play between the Moscow Soviets and the Ural Soviets.

Maybe, Lenin/Stalin/Trotsky  [one or all] took it upon themselves to order a group of Letts to go secretly to Ekaterinburg to kidnap Nicholas II, whom they wanted to place on trial.

The Moscow Soviets remembered  what had happen in their last attempt to spur Nicholas II away in the earlier "mysterious rescue attempt" by Yakovlev, this time, in July of 1918, it was to be top secret.

There could have been another reason why Moscow worked secretly.  Maybe, they had learned about the German rescue plot which was said to be occuring on or about the 16 th  of July.

If the attempt was to save the entired family, I assume, since they were in secret meetings to gain guns from Germany with the turn over of the family as a bargining chip, may have been, also, a factor at play....

The night of the 16/17 July 1918 in the Impatiev House may have been even more dramatic....

I think a cover up of the events would have proven even more likely if it had been some kind of power struggel over Nicholas II by  the Moscow Soviets vs the Ural Soviets.

We already know something was occuring since the high officals of the Ural Soviets  were visiting Moscow prior to the event.

If the five dead Letts from Moscow and had been part of Lenin's "execution team" and had been left to be found by a mine where it is said that the bodies of Nicholas II had been thrown,  what kind of message do you think that sent  Moscow, if this was the real scenario?

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on January 17, 2005, 02:01:03 PM
Quote
your "nameless"
FA

Did I miss something?
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Forum Admin on January 17, 2005, 02:17:43 PM
In another thread, Lisa D. jokingly referred to me as "a certain nameless FA"...Lisa and I are dear friends, I was just having an "inside joke" with her.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on January 20, 2005, 04:29:57 PM
Well, it looks like this topic is dying, but we've had some good straws!
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 21, 2005, 09:17:35 AM
Here's a straw for thought:

Maybe, Lenin/Stalin/Trotsky  [one or all] took it upon themselves to order a group of Letts to go secretly to Ekaterinburg to kidnap Nicholas II, whom they wanted to place on trial.

AGRBear

Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Phil_tomaselli on January 21, 2005, 10:14:04 AM
If Trotsky had done it and Stalin had found out surely it would have been used against him? And vice-versa.

I don't think this one is a runner unless some evidence can be produced.

Phil Tomaselli
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 21, 2005, 10:52:15 AM
I doubt the bodies of the "five dead Letts" found near the mine can be recovered, so, we will never know who they were, where they came from,  who sent them, or anything else.

So,  all we know is Assistant Prosecutor Magnitsky, who thought it worth mentioning these five dead Letts in his report, are to be forgotten, again.

Evidence?

Are there any reports indicating Yurovsky or Goloshchokin or Gen. Berzin or the other Berzin returned from Moscow in June and/or July  were accompied by five Letts?

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Alice on January 22, 2005, 09:05:51 PM
Quote
Here's a straw for thought:

Maybe, Lenin/Stalin/Trotsky  [one or all] took it upon themselves to order a group of Letts to go secretly to Ekaterinburg to kidnap Nicholas II, whom they wanted to place on trial.

AGRBear



So they kidnapped him, tried him in Moscow (all in secrecy, even though a public trial with all it's propaganda would've been beneficial to the Bolshevik's cause) then executed him, and took him back to Ekaterinburg and buried him in the forest?! Or are you saying that you think the remains found in Koptyaki are not those of Nicholas II?

???
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on January 23, 2005, 08:51:26 AM
Quote

So they kidnapped him, tried him in Moscow (all in secrecy, even though a public trial with all it's propaganda would've been beneficial to the Bolshevik's cause) then executed him, and took him back to Ekaterinburg and buried him in the forest?!
 ???


Yes, this has always made no sense to me either, even with the Perm theories. If they were killed at a different time and a different place. WHY would they bother to trek all the way back to the same remote part of the forest ??? It was  a good hiding place for Ekaterinburg murders, but Russia is a HUGE country and surely there were closer hiding places had he/they been killed somewhere else (remember Misha was killed in Perm and his body never found so they must've had better hiding places there) Also, remember Nicholas's body was found second from the bottom, so how did everyone else get on top of him?  :P
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 23, 2005, 10:53:42 AM
Here is another "long straw".

Could the body of the uncrown Tsar Michael I body been placed in the grave in Pig's Meadow instead of Nicholas II's?

Wait,  let me pile my honey pots around me for protection.

 Okay, I'm ready for the replies on this one.
;D ;D ;D

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 23, 2005, 10:58:03 AM
Quote
Could the body of the uncrown Tsar Michael I body been placed in the grave in Pig's Meadow instead of Nicholas II's?

AGRBear


Not unless he fathered the three females whose remains were also found there.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Olga on January 23, 2005, 11:00:23 AM
First of all, it's Mikhail II.

Why would they take Mikhail Alexandrovich's body all the way from Perm to Yekaterinburg, dig out the other 10 or so bodies, chuck Mikhail Alexandrovich and then proceed to bury the rest of the bodies again? And where does Nikolai Alexandrovich feature in all of this?

You are trying, AGRBear. You can't just think of crackpot theories and expect them to be taken seriously.

Do you have any evidence for this one? Or are you just speculating?  >:(
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 23, 2005, 11:04:00 AM
Quote
Why would they take Mikhail Alexandrovich's body all the way from Perm to Yekaterinburg, dig out the other 10 or so bodies, chuck Mikhail Alexandrovich and then proceed to bury the rest of the bodies again? (
To make sure that 90 years later, when DNA tests are done on these remains, everyone is fooled into thinking that they are Nicholas's remains. Makes perfect sense  ;).
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 23, 2005, 11:35:56 AM
Quote
First of all, it's Mikhail II.

Why would they take Mikhail Alexandrovich's body all the way from Perm to Yekaterinburg, dig out the other 10 or so bodies, chuck Mikhail Alexandrovich and then proceed to bury the rest of the bodies again? And where does Nikolai Alexandrovich feature in all of this?

You are trying, AGRBear. You can't just think of crackpot theories and expect them to be taken seriously.

Do you have any evidence for this one? Or are you just speculating?  >:(


Okay,  I had to take a peek to see what was being tossed at my "long straw".

Darth Olga,  I think Michael became Michael I because he was the first Michael to be Emperor of All the Russias.  The first Michael was Tsar Michael I.   And, yes, it's true,  the brother of Nicholas II  would have also had the title Tsar.  Not sure how that words.  So, maybe technically he was Tsar Michael II   ???

From what I understand,  the body which is labeled Nicholas II and one of the servents were thought to have been placed in the grave first....  But, as far as I'm concern,  all we know is this is probable, but, we do not know the day this was done.

And, yes, it was possible to have brought Michael's body to Pig's Meadow from Perm.

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 23, 2005, 11:41:18 AM
Quote

Not unless he fathered the three females whose remains were also found there.


You mean the DNA shows the three female remains were Nicholas II's.

So Nicholas II's DNA was different than Michael I's?

I guess what I'm asking is:  If you had the two bodies side my side, could the DNA show us which was which?  And, which one fathered the three females in the grave?

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 23, 2005, 11:49:28 AM
Quote

So they kidnapped him, tried him in Moscow (all in secrecy, even though a public trial with all it's propaganda would've been beneficial to the Bolshevik's cause) then executed him, and took him back to Ekaterinburg and buried him in the forest?! Or are you saying that you think the remains found in Koptyaki are not those of Nicholas II?

 ???


I don't know the answer.

I thought maybe someone would have told me that Michael I was too tall or had one short leg or had a missing finger or something but  looks like that evidence hasn't been given, as yet. Unless this DNA proves the body was definately Nicholas II and not Michael I's.  Until then,   I'm headed back behind my pile of honey pots for protection.  Since it's Sunday,  I might make some toast spread it with honey, have a cup of hot chocolate and maybe take a nap....  

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 23, 2005, 12:08:00 PM
Quote

You mean the DNA shows the three female remains were Nicholas II's.



No, the DNA shows that the three female remains were the biological children of the remains believed to be NII and those believed to be Alexandra's.

Quote

So Nicholas II's DNA was different than Michael I's?



Of course it was different. And it was also different from Michael II's  ;).

Quote

If you had the two bodies side my side, could the DNA show us which was which?  
AGRBear


Only if we had each of their own confirmed DNAs to compare it to.

Quote

 And, which one fathered the three females in the grave?

 


Of course! What do you think paternity tests are all about?


Bear, I think you are completely confused about the fact that there are two types of DNA's: mitochondrial and nuclear. These tests were done with both. You may want to do some reading on the subject, because without you understanding the basic concepts it is really hard to explain all this.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 23, 2005, 02:25:33 PM
Confused.  Sometimes, I am.  :)

So, all of these tests were made.  
# Paternity:  the adult male [Nicholas II]  #4 [marked in grave] was the father of three of the females marked as #3, #5 & #6

#DNA shows us that #7 [Alexandra] is the mother of #3, #5 & #6

Because of the paternity tests, we know that #4 [Nicholoas II] could not have been his brother Michael since there are tests which prove this as being an impossibility....

We also know that the bones of Nicholas II and his brother Michael could not have been switched because tests show this is an impossibility,  therefore, the bones were not and could not be Michael's...

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 23, 2005, 02:29:04 PM
Quote

So, all of these tests were made.  
# Paternity:  the adult male [Nicholas II]  #4 [marked in grave] was the father of three of the females marked as #3, #5 & #6



Yes.

Quote
#DNA shows us that #7 [Alexandra] is the mother of #3, #5 & #6



Yes.

Quote

Because of the paternity tests, we know that #4 [Nicholoas II] could not have been his brother Michael since there are tests which prove this as being an impossibility....


Bingo.

Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 23, 2005, 02:39:54 PM
Does everyone understand, now, why people, who use the DNA testing believe:   Michael's, nor any other Romanov's,  body wasn't placed in the grave to fool anyone into thinking it was Nicholas II's?

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Alice on January 24, 2005, 07:01:19 AM
Quote
To make sure that 90 years later, when DNA tests are done on these remains, everyone is fooled into thinking that they are Nicholas's remains. Makes perfect sense  ;).


Oh, don't underestimate the Bolsheviks, Helen!  :D
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on January 24, 2005, 07:42:14 AM
What is the probability that the paternity tests could have been wrong? I would think that the Tsar and his brothers nuclear DNA would be very similar. Could there have been a mistake, especially since it was his brother, could it have been because they were so closely related?
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on January 24, 2005, 01:26:54 PM
Quote


We also know that the bones of Nicholas II and his brother Michael could not have been switched because tests show this is an impossibility,  the bones were not and could not be Michael's...

AGRBear


No way. Michael was 10 years younger than Nicholas and many inches taller, things that mean a lot in skeleton identification. Also, the facial reconstruction from the skull matches Nicholas's photos.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 24, 2005, 08:19:30 PM
Let me show you a photograph which you may not have seen of the uncrown Tsar Michael II, brother of Nicholas II.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/MichaelLastPhoto.jpg)  (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/NicholasIICompMich1.jpg)

Michael II's on left taken in April 1919
On right is Nicholas II

I find as siblings grow older,  sometimes you can see more of  their likeness as the hair and coloring changes, as well as the other changes of muscles and fat [or lack of it].

Here they are togather in the same time frame and they don't look similar, plus, you can see the height difference.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/MichaelNicII.jpg)


AGRBear

PS  I assume the Russian and the American  measure the bones then calulated the height which match that of  as Nicholas II's and not Michael's.  But then,  maybe, I assume to much.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: sparrow on January 24, 2005, 09:32:50 PM
there are many conspiricies and will be for years to come.  it is a way of this world.  Anna Anderson was only an imposter to those who had something to gain from her not being Anastasia.  what did she ever gain from her telling of the truth.  hatred, death threats, poverty.  what did she gain?  from all of this.  the answer lies in the truth.  she gained the truth.  the truth set her free from the lies they imposed upon her.  it is what kept her going.  no one can sucessfully live a lie if it does not benifit them.  they will falter.   can i prove it.  no.  have i faith in the truth   yes.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 24, 2005, 10:36:02 PM
Quote
what did she gain?  from all of this.  
 For one thing she got to be treated like royalty by many, and didn't have to work for the rest of her life... Hey, I could think of worse things ;)

Quote
 no one can sucessfully live a lie if it does not benifit them.  they will falter.  


You obviously have never been acquianted with any sociopaths...  ;)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 24, 2005, 10:41:49 PM
Quote
What is the probability that the paternity tests could have been wrong? I would think that the Tsar and his brothers nuclear DNA would be very similar. Could there have been a mistake, especially since it was his brother, could it have been because they were so closely related?


Dandywell, this is a good question. Siblings, unless they are identical twins, have different nuclear DNA sequences. But in order to positively identify someone, you need to have his own DNA sample to compare it to... Since we did not have NII's own sample of good quality, they couldn't do that test. I am not sure how a sibling's DNA would play out in paternity testing, my guess is that if the child does not belong to this person, there will be no match, but I don't know for sure about statistics. I will try to find out for you.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 24, 2005, 10:48:21 PM
One main thing I am confused about with this theory: what would be the point of them substituting Nicholas's body with Michael's? Wouldn't they have wanted to kill Nicholas, first and foremost, if not anyone else in the family? Why would they go through such elaborate measures to make sure they kept him alive but that no one knew they did? Even when they lied about the rest of the family not being executed,  if was never a question of N not being executed. They never even tried to lie about him, since he was the only one whom they would have been remotely justified in executing. So why would they execute the rest of the family and not him? It just makes no sense...  In any criminal court, the jury always wants to know the motive. What would have been the motive here?
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Mgmstl on January 24, 2005, 11:33:35 PM
Helen,

I apologize for being inquisitive, but WHAT is marmite?

This theory sounds a bit far fetched to me, would they have had the TIME to do this, and the ability to coordinate.  Along with the motive for this action, what could it possibly be other than confusion????

With the Whites advancing on Ekaterinburg, and the difference between the sizes of Nicholas & Michael.  Also wouldn't the forensic science of today be able to reconstruct Nicholas's face over the skull.  Wasn't there something about this during the AA investigation and trial about cardinal points on the skull as well as the ear that would remain the same throughout life, and identify the person.  Just a thought.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 25, 2005, 08:44:10 AM
Quote

WHAT is marmite?


It's sort of a brewers yeast spread popular on toast in Australia and the UK  :)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on January 25, 2005, 08:48:43 AM
Quote
Helen,


This theory sounds a bit far fetched to me, would they have had the TIME to do this, and the ability to coordinate.  Along with the motive for this action, what could it possibly be other than confusion????

With the Whites advancing on Ekaterinburg, and the difference between the sizes of Nicholas & Michael.  Also wouldn't the forensic science of today be able to reconstruct Nicholas's face over the skull.  Wasn't there something about this during the AA investigation and trial about cardinal points on the skull as well as the ear that would remain the same throughout life, and identify the person.  Just a thought.



It is far fetched. Yes there was a size difference of several inches, plus a 10 year age difference, and yes the skull HAS already been matched to pics of Nicholas's face scientifically.

I really don't know what is the purpose of continuing the doubt of the bodies in the pit other than just for pure entertainment value ???
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 25, 2005, 09:01:53 AM
Quote
...wouldn't the forensic science of today be able to reconstruct Nicholas's face over the skull.  Wasn't there something about this during the AA investigation and trial about cardinal points on the skull as well as the ear that would remain the same throughout life, and identify the person.  
 
They did photo comparisons of all the skulls, at least the ones they thought were the IF's. This was part of the reason they decided that one of the skulls was Anastasia and not Maria, I believe. But this type of evidence is not as strong as DNA, as far as identifying whom the remains belonged to in the first place. They had to use DNA to do that and then photo comparisons to confirm, and also to try to differentiate among the girls.  

Quote
Wasn't there something about this during the AA investigation and trial about cardinal points on the skull as well as the ear that would remain the same throughout life, and identify the person.  

The ear comparison was something different and separate from the Yekaterinburg remains identifications. They only did that with AA's and AN's ears, from pictures, before the remains were even found (and I think again after). Again, this type of evidence is not really considered scientific, it can just be used to possibly exclude, but not as conclusive evidence as to someone's identity, at least not in the age of DNA. DNA is the most accurate and conclusive way we have available to identify someone's remains.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Elisabeth on January 25, 2005, 09:02:38 AM
Quote
One main thing I am confused about with this theory: what would be the point of them substituting Nicholas's body with Michael's? Wouldn't they have wanted to kill Nicholas, first and foremost, if not anyone else in the family? Why would they go through such elaborate measures to make sure they kept him alive but that no one knew they did? Even when they lied about the rest of the family not being executed,  if was never a question of N not being executed. They never even tried to lie about him...


Exactly. In fact they publicly announced his execution in Ekaterinburg on July 20. If the Whites could have reasonably expected to recover any imperial body, it was Nicholas's. The Reds took such elaborate precautions to hide the body not because N was still alive, but because they wanted to prevent the Whites from making holy relics out of the remains.

But all this brings up an interesting question: have there been any attempts made to find Michael's grave? My impression is that no one ever really knew where he was buried, except for the actual killers perhaps, since the murder and burial took place in a woods, undercover of the night. Unless they took note of some special landmark - but there doesn't seem to be any indication of local rumors about the grave of the grand duke, as there were rumors about the tsar's grave.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Alice on January 25, 2005, 09:06:21 AM
Quote

It's sort of a brewers yeast spread popular on toast in Australia and the UK  :)


. . . and it's utterly revolting, if I may say so!  ;D

Now to contribute to the topic at hand - about the Nicholas-could-be-Michael debate we have happening here. Let's remember that the Bolsheviks did not want this grave to be found, and probably did not expect it to be found. They also didn't want the bodies in the grave to be recognisable or they wouldn't've bothered with the sulphuric acid, burning, and disfiguration of the faces of the bodies.

So with this in mind, it would, at least to me, seem rather pointless to put Michael in the grave with Nicholas II's family and retainers, and put Nicholas somewhere else. Why go to all the bother?

Even if the grave was found, there's only 9 people in there. So to argue that they put Michael in the grave, in place of Nicholas (who wasn't there, for whatever reason), so that if the grave was found, Nicholas could be accounted for, is silly, because two are still missing, and unaccounted for. If they're going to replace Nicholas, what about replacing Anastasia and Alexei, too? And surely they could've "replaced" Nicholas with any old peasant, so why Michael? You're not telling me the Bolsheviks foresaw the DNA tests?!

I'm not seeing the motive. If there is a motive, could someone please point it out to me?
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 25, 2005, 09:11:44 AM
Another thing I wanted to add was, do we really think that the Bolsheviks would have been so innovative as to know that 90 years later DNA technology would be invented and that we would be able to test the remains that way? So therefore they had to dump Nicholas's brother there, and not someone unrelated, so that we would get fooled by this because of the tests we do in the distant future? If they really wanted to substitute the bodies, why wouldn't they just use another dead guy who would have been easier to bring over there? Wouldn't they have tried to find a body that physically more closely resembled Nicholas, i.e. the same height, closer in age, etc. Would they really have understood anything about DNA testing that would be done in the  future? How would they know that, for instance, paternity tests would be done, therefore they must have a close relative in that grave?  Perhaps they had a time machine?

This whole thing is such an absurd notion, I can't even believe that we are discussing it!  :P
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 25, 2005, 09:15:39 AM
Quote
...surely they could've "replaced" Nicholas with any old peasant, so why Michael? You're not telling me the Bolsheviks foresaw the DNA tests?!
 


Alice, I just made my last posting and then read yours, I guess we are thinking along the same lines!

I personally think this whole theory is completely ridiculous, I am sorry if that upsets someone who thinks that it makes sense.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on January 25, 2005, 09:42:40 AM
I third the motion that the Nicholas/Michael switch idea is so absurd and without reason that it's not even worthy of discussion. Sorry to offend anyone, but really.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Abby on January 25, 2005, 10:34:05 AM
Quote

But all this brings up an interesting question: have there been any attempts made to find Michael's grave? My impression is that no one ever really knew where he was buried, except for the actual killers perhaps, since the murder and burial took place in a woods, undercover of the night. Unless they took note of some special landmark - but there doesn't seem to be any indication of local rumors about the grave of the grand duke, as there were rumors about the tsar's grave.


There probably have been attempts made to find the grave but they never have found it yet. All anyone knows is that he was shot in the woods outside Perm.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 25, 2005, 11:20:15 AM
Quote


Dandywell, this is a good question. Siblings, unless they are identical twins, have different nuclear DNA sequences. But in order to positively identify someone, you need to have his own DNA sample to compare it to... Since we did not have NII's own sample of good quality, they couldn't do that test. I am not sure how a sibling's DNA would play out in paternity testing, my guess is that if the child does not belong to this person, there will be no match, but I don't know for sure about statistics. I will try to find out for you.


I thought the question of using Michael's body in place of Nicholas II was settled by the DNA but, now, Helen is telling me that isn't true.

>>But in order to positively identify someone, you need to have his own DNA sample to compare it to... Since we did not have NII's own sample of good quality, they couldn't do that test<<

So,  we don't know if the bones are Nicholas II, however, we do know that the bones belong to a "relative" of  the brother George, who bones were, also, tested.

Since Michael is also a brother then this test could have just proven the bones were Michael's.

Now,  we need a motive for placing Michael's body in Pig's Meadow.

The annoucement that Nicholas II had escaped would have been quite a shot in the arm for the Whites,  don't you think.  So,  the Reds annouced they had shot him.

After Nicholas II was hunted down and executed  the second time,  the Reds certainly were not going to annouce to the world that they were sucessfull the second time, so this was placed in the  "never happen" pile.

Far fetched speculation,  yes.  But,  like I've said before, sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction.

So,  the height of the skeleton labeled as Nicholas II is important, and, that ends the debate if they matched the shorter brother.  
[Well....  That was silly to say in this group ;) ]

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Olga on January 25, 2005, 11:29:22 AM
Quote
The annoucement that Nicholas II had escaped would have been quite a shot in the arm for the Whites,  don't you think.  So,  the Reds annouced they had shot him.

When Nicholas II was hunted down and executed, the second time, so the latter -- if this was what really happen -- execution which was the deadly execution,  the Reds certainly were not going to annouce to the world that they were sucessfull the second time.


Your post doesn't make sense AGRBear.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 25, 2005, 11:32:50 AM
After reading my post,  the wording was not very clear.  I edited it.  Meanwhile Darth Olga found this, also, to be true.

If my editing still is confusing,  please let me know what needs to be made clearer?

Thanks

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on January 25, 2005, 12:49:11 PM
Quote



So,  we don't know if the bones are Nicholas II, however, we do know that the bones belong to a "relative" of  the brother George, who bones were, also, tested.

Since Michael is also a brother then this test could have just proven the bones were Michael's.

Now,  we need a motive for placing Michael's body in Pig's Meadow.

AGRBear


You're again ignoring:

Michael was 10 years younger and several inches taller than Nicholas, and these are things used to ID skeletons, and were even years before DNA! Nicholas's skeleton, near the bottom of the grave, had fused with that of Trupp. Trupp was very close to Nicholas in age and height and some say that you'd have to DNA test every bone to be sure which was N and which was T.

Nicholas's skull was matched scientifically with photographs of him. The body in the grave was Nicholas.


Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on January 25, 2005, 12:56:02 PM
I personally think that the remains are Nicholas's, but to add fuel to the fire...What if the body was Michael, and that was why he was never found...Perhaps they just thought, might as well put them all together. Not really intending to fool anyone...But now that means Nicholas was not among those buried in Pigs Meadow... perhaps the place where Michael was supposed to be buried was his grave. Just to make sure no one ever found him...elaborate, but they were dedicated. And the height difference...does anyone know how accurate the putting back of the bodies was? Were not numerous bones missing? And for the superimposation, I can not really explain.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 25, 2005, 01:06:21 PM
Quote

You're again ignoring:

Michael was 10 years younger and several inches taller than Nicholas, and these are things used to ID skeletons, and were even years before DNA! Nicholas's skeleton, near the bottom of the grave, had fused with that of Trupp. Trupp was very close to Nicholas in age and height and some say that you'd have to DNA test every bone to be sure which was N and which was T.

Nicholas's skull was matched scientifically with photographs of him. The body in the grave was Nicholas.




I haven't avoided the age issue nor the height nor the skull photograph matching stuff NOR the DNA testings.

In fact,  I thought I had it pretty clear in my mind that the bones were Nicholas II's...  I was going off looking for some new straw to talk about and when I returned I discovered some new questions to ask about the bones of Nicholas II.

I was kinda hoping we didn't have a debate about the skull matching stuff.  I don't have enough knowledge to know when I'm being shown the truth or being duped on the skull/photograph matching stuff.

I thought the DNA was absolute but I'm told it was not.  Since it's not,  then the "paternity" stuff is out the window or at least on hold.....

As to the height,  you are telling me that because the bones are fused with the servents,  it would take a huge amount of time and expense to prove which bones are whos -- Nicholas II or Trupp's--and only then could the height be determined.  So,  we don't even know this.

Hey,  I thought this question about Nicholas II's bones being Michael's was going to be easily answered.  I thought it was a question tested and this possibility was impossible.  Surprised me.  :o

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Phil_tomaselli on January 25, 2005, 02:09:22 PM
Sorry Bear but I can see no real reason at all why the Bolsheviks should have gone to the trouble of dumping Michael in the grave instead of a missing Nicholas.  The very concept of being able to test DNA was decades away, if they were worried about causing confusion then a suitable Bourgeois from Ekaterinberg who was about the same age & height would have sufficed.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Robert_Hall on January 25, 2005, 02:18:37 PM
Bear, really, I think your honey pot has finally fermented !
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 25, 2005, 02:20:01 PM
Quote

I thought the question of using Michael's body in place of Nicholas II was settled by the DNA but, now, Helen is telling me that isn't true.

No, I never said it wasn't true, I think you misunderstood... The only question I was going to check on was how a sibling's DNA would show up in a paternity test, I am pretty sure it would not show a false positive unless it is an identical twin, but just to be fair, since I don't know 100% since I am not a geneticist, so I was going to try to check on it. But we can be pretty sure that these were not Michael's remains.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on January 25, 2005, 04:16:36 PM
Quote



I was kinda hoping we didn't have a debate about the skull matching stuff.  I don't have enough knowledge to know when I'm being shown the truth or being duped on the skull/photograph matching stuff.


I'm no expert either, but there are pics. I can't find them now but I've seen them online, how his facial structure matches perfectly with the skull found.


Quote
As to the height,  you are telling me that because the bones are fused with the servents,  it would take a huge amount of time and expense to prove which bones are whos -- Nicholas II or Trupp's--and only then could the height be determined.  So,  we don't even know this.


AGRBear


I found that out here myself, can't recall the thread. But it still doesn't change anything since Trupp and Nicholas were the same age and height, within a year and an inch. Michael was much younger and much taller. From what I saw, the only bones in question were the small ones in the ribcage area, not the skull, arms or legs. So even if some of Trupp's bones lie buried with the Tsar's body, it doesn't change anything about the story, except perhaps the most dramatic irony of the saga of the revolution- the bones of the Tsar and those of his servant are now one.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 25, 2005, 06:26:00 PM
Quote
Sorry Bear but I can see no real reason at all why the Bolsheviks should have gone to the trouble of dumping Michael in the grave instead of a missing Nicholas.  The very concept of being able to test DNA was decades away, if they were worried about causing confusion then a suitable Bourgeois from Ekaterinberg who was about the same age & height would have sufficed.


All of this is under the speculation that Nicholas II had escaped.
If Nicholas II did escape then the CHEKA   needed a body so why not use Michael's?  He was dead.  Easy to deliever.  And, who would know the difference?  And, if someone did stumble over the grave, they'd be able to say the Tsar was buried in the grave, afterall,  Michael was the uncrown Tsar.  So,  the first two bodies in the grave were Michael's, not Nicholas II, and..? Well, we're told the body is Trupp's. Do we know if the other body is Trupp's or was could these bones belong to  someone else?

What about the body being Michael's secretary, Johnson, who was said to have died with Michael? What did Johnson look like?  Was he about Nicholas II's size or Michael's size?  English?  Russian?

So, four may be missing and not just two ???

AGRBear

PS the Crawfords' book MICHAEL AND NATASHA describe Johnson as shortish, a Russian with an English name....  Let me see if I can find a photo.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on January 25, 2005, 06:58:30 PM
There is a pic of Michael and Johnson on the "sexiest Romanov" thread in the IF section. The person posted it to say Michael looked handsome. He is bearded and wearing a hat, Johnson is beside him.

edit: found it, here-

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/Praskovia/Romanov/MichaelNicholasJohnsonPermApril1918.jpg
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 25, 2005, 07:09:24 PM
Thanks Annie.

Here it is:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/Praskovia/Romanov/MichaelNicholasJohnsonPermApril1918.jpg)

Uncrown Tsar Michael II and his secretary Nicholas Johnson

When comparing it with the photo of Michael II and Nicholas II, it appears Johnson was shorter than Nicholas II by two or three inches.

AGRBear

PS  Did any of the scientists estimate how tall the man, labeled as Nicholas II, was from their measurements of the bones?  Source if you have it, please.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Alice on January 26, 2005, 05:16:32 AM
Quote

All of this is under the speculation that Nicholas II had escaped.
If Nicholas II did escape then the CHEKA   needed a body so why not use Michael's?  He was dead.  Easy to deliever.  And, who would know the difference?  And, if someone did stumble over the grave, they'd be able to say the Tsar was buried in the grave, afterall,  Michael was the uncrown Tsar.  So,  the first two bodies in the grave were Michael's, not Nicholas II, and..? Well, we're told the body is Trupp's. Do we know if the other body is Trupp's or was could these bones belong to  someone else?

What about the body being Michael's secretary, Johnson, who was said to have died with Michael? What did Johnson look like?  Was he about Nicholas II's size or Michael's size?  English?  Russian?

So, four may be missing and not just two ???

AGRBear

PS the Crawfords' book MICHAEL AND NATASHA describe Johnson as shortish, a Russian with an English name....  Let me see if I can find a photo.


Oh my. But Bear, why would they use Michael? Why would they go to the trouble of transporting his body from Perm, to bury him in the grave (a grave which they didn't expect would be found, anyway)? Why not, as I said, bury any old peasant's body? Wouldn't that be easier?

To quote you, "Who would know the difference?" if they buried some peasant, in lieu of Nicholas II, especially when we consider the sulphuric acid and disfiguration of the corpses? Impossible. So burying Michael would be unnecessary.

As for Trupp, if I'm not mistaken, DNA tests would have been done on Trupp's relatives for a match.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 26, 2005, 08:02:58 AM
Quote

...if I'm not mistaken, DNA tests would have been done on Trupp's relatives for a match.
 
I don't think this was done, but I could be wrong... It' could be just never talked about...
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 26, 2005, 10:51:43 AM
Quote

Oh my. But Bear, why would they use Michael? Why would they go to the trouble of transporting his body from Perm, to bury him in the grave (a grave which they didn't expect would be found, anyway)? Why not, as I said, bury any old peasant's body? Wouldn't that be easier?

To quote you, "Who would know the difference?" if they buried some peasant, in lieu of Nicholas II, especially when we consider the sulphuric acid and disfiguration of the corpses? Impossible. So burying Michael would be unnecessary.

As for Trupp, if I'm not mistaken, DNA tests would have been done on Trupp's relatives for a match.


Since I really haven't given this much thought because I thought there was no question as to the identity of the bones labeled as Nicholas II,  let me really grasp at some straws.

[Hesitation]

Okay, here goes.

Since the CHEKA needed a buriel place for Michael and Johnson, what better place then with his brother, Nicholas II, and his family?  

When the two bodies from Perm arrived in Ekaterinburg woods,  I think someone was driving a car in one of the testimonies and could have had them in his car,  they had just two bodies but not all  thirteen, if there as an escape of four/eleven.

The bodies of Michael and Johnson were buried in Pig's Meadow.  And,  this would explain why these bones were old enough to start fusing and the other bones did not.   So, the other bodies came later.... Maybe, after the Reds retook Ekaterinburg.  And, the reburiel of the others would explain the unusal amount of bones missing in the grave in Pig's Meadow.... 

As for the skulls,  well,  there is admission that several of the skulls had been removed and replaced.

Course,  we don't have to speculate if there is proof that the bones were Nicholas II's, not Michael II's, and that the other bones were Trupp's and not Johnson's.

Until then,  I'll have to think about the above theory some more and see if I can even speculate a more accurate theory, unless someone has a better theory.

AGRBear

PS  Were the bones labeled Trupp  DNA matched with Trupp's family members?
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Dandywell on January 26, 2005, 03:20:14 PM
Quote

The bodies of Michael and Johnson were buried in Pig's Meadow.  And,  this would explain why these bones were old enough to start fusing and the other bones did not.  

Wasn't the fusing because they were on the bottom, in the sulfuric acid? Besides, the rest of the bodies had a good eighty years.... Not to jump on you, but to add my two cents, and try to see if this thing can go any farther.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Olga on January 26, 2005, 09:40:29 PM
Quote
Until then,  I'll have to think about the above theory some more and see if I can even speculate a more accurate theory, unless someone has a better theory.


Until you can make up a better fairy story? AGRBear, your theories have absolutely no basis in reality. If they needed a body, why not just shoot some random person, instead of transporting the corpse of Mikhail Alexandrovich all the way from Perm?
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on January 26, 2005, 10:03:55 PM
Quote
Wasn't the fusing because they were on the bottom, in the sulfuric acid? Besides, the rest of the bodies had a good eighty years.... Not to jump on you, but to add my two cents, and try to see if this thing can go any farther.


A good question Dandywell.

I'm going to have to go look at the drawing of how the bones were found.  But I think Trupp was under Nicholas II but Trupp wasn't the only one on the lower surface....  As for the bones fusing,  I haven't a clue why some would and some would not.

Gotta run.

AGRBear

PS  Started a new thread about the grave in Pig's Meadow:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=lastdays;action=display;num=1106871065
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Alice on January 27, 2005, 04:33:34 AM
Quote
 
I don't think this was done, but I could be wrong... It' could be just never talked about...


If this is indeed the case, then I'm surprised. Surely Trupp's relatives would want such tests done? I have posted on the retainers forum for answers to this question. Hopefully someone can tell us.

Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on February 02, 2005, 09:30:48 AM
Alice's thread on Retainers:

*corrected URL is: http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=friends;action=display;num=1106822218

Here is Penny Wilson's reply on the bodies and the order of which some were buried, also, some information about the skulls that had been removed earlier:

Quote

Three skulls were removed by Rybov & Co when they first opened the grave.  Although they replaced the skulls much later, they buried them encased in a box in an area just adjacent to the grave.  So these skulls were not actually in the grave when the diagram was made.

The ninth skull is that attributed to Kharitonov.  The grave wasn't of a uniform depth right across -- the "shallow end" was where Doctor Botkin's body (#2) was found.  The "deep end," on the opposite side of the grave, had three layers of bodies -- Kharitonov on the bottom (#8 ), Trupp on top of him (#9), and both Nicholas (#4) and Olga (#3) partially on top of him.

Because Kharitonov laid deepest in the grave, his remains were exposed to the most sulfuric acid, and thus they were mostly destroyed.  Only the "skull cap" part of his skull survived, and it can actually be seen in this diagram, in the triangular area formed by Skull #3 and the two long bones next to the number "8".


AGRBear

*  Alice sent me the correct URL.  Thanks.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on February 02, 2005, 09:52:03 AM
Here is Helen's reply on the DNA paternity testing of the bones labeled as Nicholas II's found in the grave in Pig's Meadow:

Quote
....[in part]
I should have said, "these paternity tests don't show the identity of the father (as in - he was Nicholas II or Michael II or Josef Stalin, etc.), they just show that whomever these remains belonged to, this person was the father of the three females found in the grave with him". In order to confirm the identity of this person, they had to compare his mtDNA to a relative. So, in the end the DNA showed that not only was he the father of the three females who were Queen Victoria's descendants, but also that he was a close relative of GD George.  So from these two things (and from many others from other disciplines) we were able to deduce that these remains must be Nicholas II because no one else could fit that criteria. Everything was very consistent. Unless Michael or another male sibling (it had to be a sibling because of the heteroplasmy) also had three female children who were the descendants of Queen Victoria, which we know is not the case. This is why we can be sure that the remains belonged to Nicholas and not Michael, and obviously not George, because we already know where George was...

 ....
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on February 02, 2005, 10:07:48 AM
 
Fate of the Romanovs by King and Wilson.... p. 330,  "According to Kudrin, the bodies,  'which were frozen, smoked and hissed..."
 
If the bodies were still frozen,  still reconizeable, one would think, since Yurovsky knew  each of the eleven dead people,  he'd know who was who...
 
But Yurovsky and the others  didn't know the difference between  Alexandra, her lady-in-waiting and Anastasia/Marie who's body was missing from the grave in Pig's Meadow.
 
I have a simple question:  

Since Yurovsky could tell who was who,  why is he lying?
 
AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on February 04, 2005, 02:09:34 PM
Maybe Yurovsky was running around [back and forth to Ekaterinburg and the buriel places]  and just left orders for things to be done and when he returned he discovered his orders were not carried out and by then, he could not tell who was who because the faces had been smashed with the rifle butts....  And, it was then, he discovered two bodies were missing.

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Alice on February 05, 2005, 04:30:28 AM
Quote
 
Fate of the Romanovs by King and Wilson.... p. 330,  "According to Kudrin, the bodies,  'which were frozen, smoked and hissed..."
 
If the bodies were still frozen,  still reconizeable, one would think, since Yurovsky knew  each of the eleven dead people,  he'd know who was who...
 
But Yurovsky and the others  didn't know the difference between  Alexandra, her lady-in-waiting and Anastasia/Marie who's body was missing from the grave in Pig's Meadow.
 
I have a simple question:  

Since Yurovsky could tell who was who,  why is he lying?
 
AGRBear
 


Bear, this is actually the thread on retainers, the one you have linked to is another (but thankyou all the same!):

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=friends;action=display;num=1106822218

Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on February 05, 2005, 10:57:49 AM
Oooooops.  My mistake.

I also corrected the URL above.

Thanks.

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Candice on February 06, 2005, 03:11:44 PM
Yurovsky had to know what happened to the two missing bodies.  I will never understand why soldiers had to butt their faces pour acid on them and destroy all evidence that would identify the IF.  When rumour had been spread that the IF family had been murdered by the cold blooded Bolsheviks.  The only possible explanation and reason that anyone would destroy evidence in such a manner is to hide the identity of their victims.  That is the only logical explanation.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Denise on February 06, 2005, 04:20:44 PM
Quote
The only possible explanation and reason that anyone would destroy evidence in such a manner is to hide the identity of their victims.  That is the only logical explanation.


Yes, but because if anyone found the graves they did NOT want it known that it was the IF.  They did not want the bodies becoming relics for the Whites to rally around.  I am not sure that we can assume all this was done to hide the identities merely to hide which corpse was which....

Denise
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: rskkiya on February 06, 2005, 04:26:24 PM
I have to agree with Denise.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on February 06, 2005, 04:42:24 PM
Yurovsky had two missing bodies.  Seems reason enough to have smashed the faces so no one would know who was missing. And, don't forget Yurovsky's statement  tells us the two missing are Alexei and a servent.

I'll go find that part and bring it here....

AGRBear

PS - Yurovsky's 1934 statement:  " A fire was made and while the graves where being prepared we burned two corpses: Alexei and Demidova."

PSS - Yurovsky's 1920 statement:  "We wanted to burn A. and  A. F. but by mistake the lady-in-waiting was burnt with A. instead."

PSSS - Now, how would he know there was a "mistake"?  Would he not have continued from 1918 to 1920 to 1934 believe the other body was and always would have been A.F.?  
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Denise on February 06, 2005, 04:51:21 PM
Quote
Yurovsky had two missing bodies.  Seems reason enough to have smashed the faces so no one would know who was missing. And, don't forget Yurovsky's statement  tells us the two missing are Alexei and a servent.

I'll go find that part and bring it here....

AGRBear

PS - Yurovsky's 1934 statement:  " A fire was made and while the graves where being prepared we burned two corpses: Alexei and Demidova."


Doesn't it depend on which of Yurovsky's statements which bodies were "burned".

Denise
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on February 06, 2005, 04:54:05 PM
Denise  I added both testimonies above in my PS sections while you were posting and I was changing...  Sorry.

I added: >>PSS - Yurovsky's 1920 statement:  "We wanted to burn A. and  A. F. but by mistake the lady-in-waiting was burnt with A. instead.<<

AGRBear

Source of 1920 statement: p. 365 THE FALL OF THE ROMANOVS by Steinberg and Khrustalev
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Denise on February 06, 2005, 05:05:54 PM
Thanks Bear.  I still am a bit dismissive of Yurovsky's accuracy, as AF and AD are not missing from the grave.  Have those remains ever shown signs of burning?  

Denise
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on February 06, 2005, 10:49:13 PM
I'm not near any of my books, tonight.

Someone out there will need to answer the question about bones showing signs of burning.

Let me repeat:  How would  Yurovsky know there was a "mistake"?    This doesn't make sense.  At the time he didn't think there was a mistake or it wouldn't have occured.  When did he realize the "mistake"?  That day?  Later?  How much later? And, how did the  "mistake" come to his attention?  And, even with the change, he still didn't get it right???

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Alice on February 07, 2005, 04:50:57 AM
I could be mistaken (I'm sure Penny, Greg, or someone else can confirm or deny this) but I don't believe that any of the remains found in Pig's Meadow showed signs of attempted cremation.

Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on February 07, 2005, 06:21:03 AM
I've heard they were chopped up and burned.

I've heard they were not.

I've heard there was a head missing after they were chopped up.

I've heard they had acid all over them.

I've heard some of the bodies were raped.

I've heard this or that person was burned.

I've heard this or that relic was found at the site.

And I've heard they were killed in Perm and dumped in the same hole.

You know what, there have been so many testimonies and books on this we will NEVER know what really happened, and just because someone's research is the most recent- or the oldest- doesn't mean that's the one that's correct. I guess all we can do is weigh what was actually found to the stories we've heard.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on February 07, 2005, 11:25:24 AM
Penny and Greg go into detail about the condition of the bones found in Pig's Meadow in the chapter 'AN UNKNOWN GRAVE FROM THE SOVIET PERIOD".

I didn't see any mention of damage from burning.

They talk about damage of smashing due to some blunt object, bullets and acid.....


Bones placed in "packing cases" then dumped on he floor on sheets each had a marker as to which case of bones belonged on which pile....

Bones were washed... p. 407

Numbered with white paint... p. 407

More than half of the bones that should have been found in Pig's Meadow grave are still missing.....

Still don't see mention of bones having been damaged by fire...

Did I miss the mention of it in their book?

What is the source/ sources  that the bones in the grave showed damage by fire?

AGRBear

PS Over on page 415 there is a list of the various kinds of damage.  So,  I should add damage by sharp edges and that of the bones being in the ground all those years....

Oh, and, let's not forget the taking of the skulls earlier and some other bones which were placed in a box and reburied.  Also, the cable which distrubed the grave....
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Denise on February 07, 2005, 11:38:23 AM
Quote

Still don't see mention of bones having been damaged by fire...

Did I miss the mention of it in their book?

What is the source/ sources  that the bones in the grave showed damage by fire?



That's my question too.  If Yurovsky says he burned AF or AD, did their bones show fire damage?  My logic is that if he was wrong on WHO was burned, perhaps there was no burning to begin with.  

Thanks for the quote from FOTR. I just got my copy, and am only up to Chapter 2...
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Forum Admin on February 07, 2005, 11:49:10 AM
However, Capt. Sarandinakis on his last visit to the site found the evidence of a huge bonfire in the 1918 layer which had not been discovered in earlier excavations.  True no remains were found in it, but there clearly WERE large bonfires as Yurovsky described.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Denise on February 07, 2005, 12:04:30 PM
Thanks Rob, I forgot that.  I am sure as the excavation techniques continue to advance, we will get answers.  I just hope it is during my lifetime...
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Mgmstl on February 07, 2005, 12:28:34 PM
I seem to remember that it takes intense heat to destroy bone, and I am not sure if they were capable of generating that type of heat with a bonfire.

Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Abby on February 07, 2005, 12:33:47 PM
I think they proved that bones could not have been destroyed to ash under the conditions that Yurovsky had to work with. You would've need a crematorium to generate higher temperature and a longer time period.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Denise on February 07, 2005, 12:36:31 PM
Exactly Abby.  That is why I wonder which bodies were "burned" (apparently one of the daughters and Alexei, as there has been no evidence of fire on the 9 bodies recovered) and where the remains are now.  We may never know--after all, GD Michael and his secretary have not been found yet either...
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Mgmstl on February 07, 2005, 01:08:22 PM
No cremation of bodies that is interesting to say the least.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 07, 2005, 01:15:33 PM
I can't remember now, but did Yurovksy claim in his note that they tried to burn more than two bodies, or was it just two? If they only tried to burn the two, then why would there be signs of cremation on others? Also, even if they had attempted to burn a couple of the others and didn't get too far, then no scorching would be seen on the bones anyway, because the fire wouldn't have had the chance to get to the bone...
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Abby on February 07, 2005, 01:22:34 PM
Good point, Helen. In Yurovsky's 1934 Note he says that they only burned two bodies, that of Alexei and Demidova. The rest were buried after being doused with sulfuric acid to disfigure the faces. So no, they should not bear signs of burning.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 07, 2005, 01:29:41 PM
Quote
Good point, Helen. In Yurovsky's 1934 Note he says that they only burned two bodies, that of Alexei and Demidova. The rest were buried after being doused with sulfuric acid to disfigure the faces. So no, they should not bear signs of burning.


So then what exactly is the problem here?  ;) :D  

Maybe, just maybe, Yurovsky did not lie. Maybe they actually did try to burn two bodies, realized it wasn't such a good idea and buried them somewhere nearby because they were already off the truck, and moved on with the rest of the bodies and buried them elsewhere, like he said.. After all, why would Yurovsky bother to go to such elaborate lengths to make up all this stuff in the note if he knew no one but a few people would ever read it (or at least that's what he thought)? There is a possibility that what he wrote in the note is what really did happen, isn't there?

Helen
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Abby on February 07, 2005, 01:42:54 PM
Quote

 There is a possibility that what he wrote in the note is what really did happen, isn't there?

Helen


LOL! I agree. The reason no one readily beleives every word he says is because he doesn't specifically say "Anastasia and Alexei were not buried with the others, they were buried at 'X location' " and they were never found.

So do you think he mistook Demidova for Anastasia?
(After having mistaken Demidova for the Empress?....boy Yurovsky was soo confused!)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 07, 2005, 01:57:54 PM
Quote

So do you think he mistook Demidova for Anastasia?
(After having mistaken Demidova for the Empress?....  
Yes, why not? It may have been dark, they may have been in a hurry to get going, the bodies may have been all bloody and unrecognizable, he may not have cared all that much, it could be a number of different reasons! If he was deliberately trying to mislead about the identities, then why not Alexei's too? He was more important than Anastasia, politically. Why lie about AN's body but not about his? And why would he say the Empress and Alexei initially, if he was trying to make sure that no one knows that anyone from the IF escaped? He should have then said Demidova and Trupp, for instance. I think it was all done in a big confusion, he was nervous, he was tired, he wanted to get it over with, he probably just didn't care all that much which two of the 11 bodies were burned, at this point they were just bodies. Very often the simplest explanations to mysteries are what happened, which I think may be the case here. I think we are looking way too deep into this...  
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Denise on February 07, 2005, 01:59:00 PM
Quote

So then what exactly is the problem here?  ;) :D  

Maybe, just maybe, Yurovsky did not lie. Maybe they actually did try to burn two bodies, realized it wasn't such a good idea and buried them somewhere nearby because they were already off the truck, and moved on with the rest of the bodies and buried them elsewhere, like he said.. After all, why would Yurovsky bother to go to such elaborate lengths to make up all this stuff in the note if he knew no one but a few people would ever read it (or at least that's what he thought)? There is a possibility that what he wrote in the note is what really did happen, isn't there?

Helen


This is the scenario I imagine to be the most likely. Hopefully the grave will be found soon and all the "survivor/claimant" stories can be put to rest....
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 07, 2005, 02:00:59 PM
Quote
Hopefully the grave will be found soon and all the "survivor/claimant" stories can be put to rest....


Yes, hopefully!   :)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Georgiy on February 07, 2005, 02:26:36 PM
Unfortunately though, even if the missing remains were found, IDed, DNAed and what have you, still people would say it is not them, it's a conspiracy, the Queen is hiding stuff, and Anastasia escaped.....
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Denise on February 07, 2005, 02:29:25 PM
Oh, yes, it was a plot.  Putin planted the bodies by dead of night at the Queen's instigation, then UFO's exchanged the DNA samples under cover of darkness so we would think that this is Alexei and Anastasia.  Who are really living in obscurity in Hoboken, NJ.

(Do you think I could sell this to the Weekly World News?)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Georgiy on February 07, 2005, 02:43:08 PM
Quote
(Do you think I could sell this to the Weekly World News?)

Absolutely.

It would sell more copy if they were living with Elvis though. ;)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Denise on February 07, 2005, 02:46:21 PM
And eating at the Kalamazoo Burger King!!

I remember when the Weekly World News ran that story about Elvis living in MI, as I grew up in MI.  They will say ANYTHING to sell a paper.  

And if all else fails, I think Pravda would buy it, judging by the recent stories on their site... ;)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 07, 2005, 02:48:07 PM
Quote
Unfortunately though, even if the missing remains were found, IDed, DNAed and what have you, still people would say it is not them, it's a conspiracy, the Queen is hiding stuff, and Anastasia escaped.....


Exactly  ::)

Quote
Alexei and Anastasia... really living in obscurity in Hoboken, NJ.
 


Now, why is it always NJ?  ;)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Georgiy on February 07, 2005, 02:53:50 PM
No offense, but maybe NJ is a wonderful place for conspiracy people to hide out and lead normal lives, eating at Kalamazoo Burgers. There's probably a village of 'survivors' in the backwoods of NJ - Elvis, Amelia/Tatiana, Anastasia, Hitler.....and I will prove it with reverse pictures of ears for comparison and testimony that they actually do speak Russian/German whatever, but only in their sleep.  :D
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Denise on February 07, 2005, 02:54:08 PM
Quote

Now, why is it always NJ?  ;)



Cause Hoboken is a silly name and fit the silly story I invented... ;D

Wouldn't want to insult any New Jersey natives on the board and besmirch their fair state! ::)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Denise on February 07, 2005, 02:55:05 PM
Quote
No offense, but maybe NJ is a wonderful place for conspiracy people to hide out and lead normal lives, eating at Kalamazoo Burgers. There's probably a village of 'survivors' in the backwoods of NJ - Elvis, Amelia/Tatiana, Anastasia, Hitler.....and I will prove it with reverse pictures of ears for comparison and testimony that they actually do speak Russian/German whatever, but only in their sleep.  :D


I like your style.  Maybe YOU need to take over journalistic duties from me!!  :)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Georgiy on February 07, 2005, 02:58:06 PM
I have to get my Amelia Earhart is Tatiana book out first! ;D

(See Amelia resembles Tatiana thread under Tatiana Nikolaevna....)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Denise on February 07, 2005, 03:00:01 PM
Quote
I have to get my Amelia Earhart is Tatiana book out first! ;D

(See Amelia resembles Tatiana thread under Tatiana Nikolaevna....)


Is that where it is? I have seen Helen mention it in regards to her avatar....
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 07, 2005, 03:06:02 PM
Quote

 Wouldn't want to insult any New Jersey natives on the board and besmirch their fair state! ::)


I live in NJ now, but I am no native  ;D.
BTW, what is a Kalamazoo burger, is it a native NJ delicacy?  ;) ;D
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Denise on February 07, 2005, 03:10:54 PM
Quote

BTW, what is a Kalamazoo burger, is it a native NJ delicacy?  ;) ;D



No, it was me being silly again (what are the odds?  :P).

When Georgiy mentioned that they were spending time with Elvis, it reminded me of the Weekly World News story --Elvis is Alive and Living in Michigan.  He was seen eating at the Kalamazoo burger King.  K-zoo (as Michiganders call it) is a town about 2 hours west of me....
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Georgiy on February 07, 2005, 03:16:19 PM
Everytime I've ever seen that rag (apologies to those who read it), there seems to be a new Elvis sighting (and he still seems to be dressed in those rather dreadful 1970s jumpsuits....)

I bought it one time for a laugh, and was amazed to discover the photo of one person on one page, a few pages later, slightly altered and bearded, and this time posing as 'scientist' so-and-so. It was so obviously the same person (and the same photo) i got a great deal of amusement out of it. Sad to say, there are probably people out there that think the stories in it are true. They probably discuss the latest sensation whilst eating at Kalamazoo Burger King (and keeping a corner of their eyes peeled for Elvis)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Denise on February 07, 2005, 03:21:10 PM
It is a rag, but I used to buy it during finals week every semester while in college and grad school.  It is a great stress reliever to laugh that much!!  Even took a few to the hospital when I had my first daughter to help laugh through labor.  

What I love about Weekly World News is how they show the same picture EVERY election of an alien shaking a candidate's hand.  SAME photo, new head on the politician.  Very silly, but most people expect that from them.  
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Georgiy on February 07, 2005, 03:27:34 PM
I think it's great they save money on photographers by recycling the same old pics! I guess with photoshop these days their pictures are a bit better? The last time I saw it, they were so obviously faked.....

Grabbing at Straws seems quite appropriate for a chat about that 'news'paper!
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Denise on February 07, 2005, 03:47:19 PM
Quote
Having had enough ridicule of my research, I'm retiring from this thread.


I 'm sorry you feel this way Penny, but our silliness was not aimed at anything you have said.  It was about the fact that if the other bodies are found and ID'd through DNA, there are still people who will refuse to believe it...

Your post was quite helpful, in fact, in detailing exactly what the status was with the bodies found in the grave...

Denise
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Georgiy on February 07, 2005, 03:53:30 PM
I agree with Denise. I had no idea that anything I had said would be mistaken to be criticism of your work, Penny. My comment about how people would still believe that the Romanovs survived even if you showed them evidence to the contrary until blue in the face veered off into a bit of light-hearted, off-topic banter, that's all.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Abby on February 07, 2005, 04:14:06 PM
Quote

Cause Hoboken is a silly name and fit the silly story I invented... ;D

 Wouldn't want to insult any New Jersey natives on the board and besmirch their fair state! ::)


LOL! I live close to NJ, my parents are from there and my whole family lives there- we spend more time there than in PA! But I think it's soo funny how all these legends and lore exist in NJ. Anybody subscribe to Weird NJ? I do... :D
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Denise on February 07, 2005, 04:23:37 PM
Quote

 Anybody subscribe to Weird NJ? I do... :D


Is it a website or newsletter?  I'd love to take a look....
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 07, 2005, 04:26:53 PM
Quote
Anybody subscribe to Weird NJ? I do... :D
I know exactly what you are talking about, Abby! It's sort like a newspaper... I don't subscribe, but I have seen it around, especially in New Hope  ;)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Denise on February 07, 2005, 04:29:11 PM
Quote
It's sort like a newspaper...


Oh!  :( :'( :(

I was thinking it might be a newsletter I could find online.  Ah, well.  I'll have to find a "weird Michigan."
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 07, 2005, 04:31:35 PM
Quote

Oh!  :( :'( :(

I was thinking it might be a newsletter I could find online.  Ah, well.  I'll have to find a "weird Michigan."


If I am thinking of the right thing, it is a newspaper, but maybe you can get it online!  :D
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Abby on February 07, 2005, 04:59:17 PM
http://www.weirdnj.com

;)

It's a newspaper/magazine thing. comes out 2 times a year -- May and October.

Sorry for being so O/T!!
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on February 07, 2005, 05:06:27 PM
I was gone and just arrived on this thread and was just getting into this great conversation when "wham-bang-boom" some of you became silly.

Penny probably just came back, too, but didn't go back enough PAGES but thought, she, again, was being rediculed.

There was some great points being discussed.  Now, it's lost way back somewhere, pass NJ and Kalamazzo burgers....

Grumble.  Grumble. Bumble.

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on February 07, 2005, 05:08:54 PM
This particular conversation started [kinda] with Annie:
Quote
I've heard they were chopped up and burned.

I've heard they were not.

I've heard there was a head missing after they were chopped up.

I've heard they had acid all over them.

I've heard some of the bodies were raped.

I've heard this or that person was burned.

I've heard this or that relic was found at the site.

And I've heard they were killed in Perm and dumped in the same hole.

You know what, there have been so many testimonies and books on this we will NEVER know what really happened, and just because someone's research is the most recent- or the oldest- doesn't mean that's the one that's correct. I guess all we can do is weigh what was actually found to the stories we've heard.


Then I said:
Quote
Penny and Greg go into detail about the condition of the bones found in Pig's Meadow in the chapter 'AN UNKNOWN GRAVE FROM THE SOVIET PERIOD".

I didn't see any mention of damage from burning.

They talk about damage of smashing due to some blunt object, bullets and acid.....


Bones placed in "packing cases" then dumped on he floor on sheets each had a marker as to which case of bones belonged on which pile....

Bones were washed... p. 407

Numbered with white paint... p. 407

More than half of the bones that should have been found in Pig's Meadow grave are still missing.....

Still don't see mention of bones having been damaged by fire...

Did I miss the mention of it in their book?

What is the source/ sources  that the bones in the grave showed damage by fire?

AGRBear

PS Over on page 415 there is a list of the various kinds of damage.  So,  I should add damage by sharp edges and that of the bones being in the ground all those years....

Oh, and, let's not forget the taking of the skulls earlier and some other bones which were placed in a box and reburied.  Also, the cable which distrubed the grave....


Then Penny said:

Quote

We can absolutely know quite a bit about what happened to the bodies from the physical forensic evidence. To answer your points:

1.The bones found in the grave showed no signs of chop marks.  Such bones as there were, were in reasonably articulated positions, with no suggestion of disarticulated limbs jumbled together.  Just look at the diagram that Bear has posted elsewhere.

The burned that occured was only the sort of burning (etching) that can be attributed to acid.  No evidence of charring from a fire was found on any of the bones.

2. There are two heads missing from the grave -- those of Alexei and Anastasia.  The rest of their bones are missing too.  In addition, only Kharitonov's skull-cap is extant, so I suppose you could say the lower part of his head is missing too.

3.They did have acid all over them -- see accounts of etched bones and earth so saturated in acid that it had a distinctive bluish tinge.

4.It's impossible to tell from the bones if any were raped.  Draw your own conclusions about the events on the Rus.

5. None of the nine bodies/skeletons in the grave was exposed to fire.  We don't have the remains of Alexei and Anastasia to be able to determine what happened to them.

6.There were many "relics" found at the site on the Koptyaki Road, both in 1918 and in recent years.  Several books list these relics consistently.

7.There is thus far no evidence extant of any murder except the one that occurred in the Ipatiev House basement.

The best way of determining what happened is through one's own research.  If you can't physically go to Ekaterinburg and other places to access original evidence and documents, then you're pretty much stuck with relying on what is in the published domain.


Back to subject, please.

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 07, 2005, 05:22:01 PM
Quote
I can't remember now, but did Yurovksy claim in his note that they tried to burn more than two bodies, or was it just two? If they only tried to burn the two, then why would there be signs of cremation on others? Also, even if they had attempted to burn a couple of the others and didn't get too far, then no scorching would be seen on the bones anyway, because the fire wouldn't have had the chance to get to the bone...

Quote

So then what exactly is the problem here?  ;) :D  

Maybe, just maybe, Yurovsky did not lie. Maybe they actually did try to burn two bodies, realized it wasn't such a good idea and buried them somewhere nearby because they were already off the truck, and moved on with the rest of the bodies and buried them elsewhere, like he said.. After all, why would Yurovsky bother to go to such elaborate lengths to make up all this stuff in the note if he knew no one but a few people would ever read it (or at least that's what he thought)? There is a possibility that what he wrote in the note is what really did happen, isn't there?

Helen


Quote
Yes, why not? It may have been dark, they may have been in a hurry to get going, the bodies may have been all bloody and unrecognizable, he may not have cared all that much, it could be a number of different reasons! If he was deliberately trying to mislead about the identities, then why not Alexei's too? He was more important than Anastasia, politically. Why lie about AN's body but not about his? And why would he say the Empress and Alexei initially, if he was trying to make sure that no one knows that anyone from the IF escaped? He should have then said Demidova and Trupp, for instance. I think it was all done in a big confusion, he was nervous, he was tired, he wanted to get it over with, he probably just didn't care all that much which two of the 11 bodies were burned, at this point they were just bodies. Very often the simplest explanations to mysteries are what happened, which I think may be the case here. I think we are looking way too deep into this...  

Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on February 07, 2005, 05:47:49 PM
Quote
I can't remember now, but did Yurovksy claim in his note that they tried to burn more than two bodies, or was it just two? If they only tried to burn the two, then why would there be signs of cremation on others? Also, even if they had attempted to burn a couple of the others and didn't get too far, then no scorching would be seen on the bones anyway, because the fire wouldn't have had the chance to get to the bone...


Yurovsky had one story for his 1920 testimony and another for his 1934 testimony.

In his testimony in 1920,  he said:  
"We wanted to burn A. and A.F. but by mistake the lady-in-waiting was burth with A. instead.:

1934 he said"
"....while grave was being readied, we burned two corpses: Aleksei and, apparently, Demidova, instead of Alexandra Fyodorovna, as we intended."

So, my next question is:  How and when did he know he had burned the wrong body?  

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Denise on February 07, 2005, 05:52:05 PM
Quote

Yurovsky had one story for his 1920 testimony and another for his 1934 testimony.

In his testimony in 1920,  he said:  
"We watned to burn A. and A.F. but by mistake the lady-in-waiting was burth with A. instead.:

1934 he said"
"....while grave was being readied, we burned two corpses: Aleksei and, apparently, Demidova, instead of Alexandra Fyodorovna, as we intended."

So, my next question is:  How and when did he know he had burned the wrong body?  

AGRBear


Well, how do you mean?  As Penny pointed out, neith Demidova nor Alexandra had signs of burning from fire when they were found.  Do mean when did he realize he had burned one of the daughters in place of the empress and lady in waiting?  Ot that he had mistaken the two older women for one another?
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on February 07, 2005, 06:00:58 PM
It was not Alexandra and it was not Demidova but Yurovsky voiced an error had been made.  At what point in time was the error discovered?  

The reason I ask this is because Yurovsky knew what both women looked like.  According to other wittnesses the bodies had been well preserved and everyone could reconize each of the corpses.  So, how is it that a mistake was made?  And,  how could two older women's bodies be mistaken for a young body like Anastasia's/Maria's?  And,  how and when did he discover the error?  As they were smashing the faces with their rifle butts? And, even if they had discovered the error,  why would Yurovsky mention the error at all?

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Denise on February 07, 2005, 06:08:48 PM
Quote
It was not Alexandra and it was not Demidova but Yurovsky voiced an error had been made.  At what point in time was the error discovered?  

The reason I ask this is because Yurovsky knew what both women looked like.  According to other wittnesses the bodies had been well preserved and everyone could reconize each of the corpses.  So, how is it that a mistake was made?  And,  how could two older women's bodies be mistaken for a young body like Anastasia's/Maria's?  And,  how and when did he discover the error?  As they were smashing the faces with their rifle butts? And, even if they had discovered the error,  why would Yurovsky mention the error at all?

AGRBear


This is a good point.  One would think, with AA running around being GDA, he would say that it was Anastasia that was burned.  But instead he acknowledges that it was a mistake between 2 older women.  And in hindsight, how could he even realize the mistake was made?  If the grave was re-opened, the bodies would be badly decomposed and unrecognizable....
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on February 07, 2005, 06:27:30 PM
Here is a diagram of the bodies found in Pig's Meadow:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/bones5.jpg)

The nine people are:
1 Anna Demidova
2. Dr. Evgeny Botkin
3 GD Olga
4. ex-Tsar Nicholas II
5. GD Marie
6. GD Tatiana
7. ex-Empress Alexandra
8. Ivan Kharitonov
9. Alexei Trupp

Assume missing are GD Anatasia and GD Alexei.

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Denise on February 07, 2005, 06:28:33 PM
Yes, I have studied it when Penney posted it, plus it is in 2 or 3 of my books.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Mgmstl on February 07, 2005, 07:35:01 PM
Bear that is an intersting point, how could he not tell the difference between the two women????  It is obvious that burning the bodies would take much more heat than an outside bonfire could generate.  

I am also wondering about confusion at this point, within the ranks.  How could they have knowingly misplaced two of the bodies, and not fear a reprisal from Moscow when they found out.  

I also am wondering whether there was dissention in the ranks, with the White Army closing in, couldn't there have been a worry about being caught & executed for their part in the murder??  

There is something that I find fascinating here, WHY is it that Anastasia's body is missing, and in 1920 less then 1yr 1/2 later, an unknown woman pulled from a Berlin Canal CHOOSES the youngest daughter as the one whose name will go down in history as escaping the guns of the Cheka Squad.  Is it just chance, one out of four...Which one should I choose...Olga, Tatiana, Maria,
NO, I know Anastasia!! Yes I'll be Anastasia.... I just find it all too coincidental at some point, which makes me look at all aspects of this affair, with an open mind.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Denise on February 07, 2005, 07:42:01 PM
Quote
There is something that I find fascinating here, WHY is it that Anastasia's body is missing, and in 1920 less then 1yr 1/2 later, an unknown woman pulled from a Berlin Canal CHOOSES the youngest daughter as the one whose name will go down in history as escaping the guns of the Cheka Squad.  Is it just chance, one out of four...Which one should I choose...Olga, Tatiana, Maria,
NO, I know Anastasia!! Yes I'll be Anastasia.... I just find it all too coincidental at some point, which makes me look at all aspects of this affair, with an open mind.


Well, there were searches for a missing Grand Duchess, and in Perm they were rounding up Anastasia Romanovas to find the right one.  Is it possible that our Anna Anderson knew of this in some way, and hence picked the missing Grand Duchess that the Bolsheviks had been searching for....
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Mgmstl on February 07, 2005, 07:51:36 PM
I know that AA is NOT AN, I want to claify that after my last post.  DNA results rule that out.  But I find this fascinating.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Denise on February 07, 2005, 07:56:35 PM
Quote
I know that AA is NOT AN, I want to claify that after my last post.  DNA results rule that out.  But I find this fascinating.


I knew that Michael!  You and I have a similar philosophy on this case, I think.  I like to put the puzzle pieces in.  The DNA puts the majority of the puzzle together, but the rest of it is niggling at me until I can figure it out!
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Mgmstl on February 07, 2005, 08:28:26 PM
Thanks Penny, and glad you are back on this thread!!

After thinking it over, again it is very possible, I think all things are possible right now except the simplest explanation. ::)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 07, 2005, 08:57:28 PM
Quote
There is something that I find fascinating here, WHY is it that Anastasia's body is missing, and in 1920 less then 1yr 1/2 later, an unknown woman pulled from a Berlin Canal CHOOSES the youngest daughter as the one whose name will go down in history as escaping the guns of the Cheka Squad.  Is it just chance, one out of four...Which one should I choose...Olga, Tatiana, Maria,
NO, I know Anastasia!! Yes I'll be Anastasia.... I just find it all too coincidental at some point, which makes me look at all aspects of this affair, with an open mind.


Well, from what I understand, there were many various claimants running around after the murder, Olgas, Tatianas. Marias, Anastasias and Alexeis. AA just happened to be the most famous one, but by far not the only one. And you have to remember, many people still insist that it is Maria who is missing, not Anastasia...
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Denise on February 07, 2005, 09:01:29 PM
Quote

This is a major reason why I think we cannot discount the idea of AA being an "inside" plant, placed deliberately by someone with inside knowledge of what happened at Ekaterinburg.  Logically, from here, I would infer that the "plant" selected would not be a mentally disadvantaged individual.



Penny. in your opinion and from your research, are there ANY clues that indicate that this could be the case?  I know many have dismissed this type of speculation as outlandish, but I think it bears closer scrutiny.  I find it odd that NO ONE has ever come forward with prior knowledge of this woman, AA, other than the Schanzkowska family.  And that was never definitely ID'd through the family, just the DNA.  

Could FS have been a plant?  Would that tie all the knots in this puzzle?  I am struggling to try to make sense of all this conflicting information.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 07, 2005, 09:01:54 PM
Quote

This is a major reason why I think we cannot discount the idea of AA being an "inside" plant, placed deliberately by someone with inside knowledge of what happened at Ekaterinburg.  Logically, from here, I would infer that the "plant" selected would not be a mentally disadvantaged individual.


This is possible, as anything is, but for some reason I doubt it. If she was really planted, wouldn't they have made sure that she didn't make simple mistakes that she made? Yes, she seemed well prepared, but she still made many mistakes in her answers and stories... Also  I think they would have chosen someone who looked a little more like AN. Personally, I think it was just a coincidence.... but who knows.  
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on February 07, 2005, 10:22:32 PM
Also, how would she get the 'memories' of the pre revolution days? Someone from that life still had to feed them to her (since she wasn't Anastasia) I never saw any point in a 'plant'. The Soviets were never involved as far as I know. It makes more since she was plain old FS.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Mgmstl on February 07, 2005, 10:41:07 PM
I don't think anyone suggested Soviet involvement, besides at that point Lenin had too much going to worry about planting fake Romanov's all over the globe.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on February 08, 2005, 06:14:07 AM
Quote
I don't think anyone suggested Soviet involvement, besides at that point Lenin had too much going to worry about planting fake Romanov's all over the globe.


There has been much suggestion of this, maybe it was before you got here. Oh but you do know about the CHEKA plots. There have been accusations against the Soviets, KGB, etc. I don't believe any of it, but it's been suggested a lot just the same.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 08, 2005, 07:57:10 AM
Quote
I don't think anyone suggested Soviet involvement, besides at that point Lenin had too much going to worry about planting fake Romanov's all over the globe.


Michael, you are absolutely right, there would be no reason at all for the Soviets to do this, especially when they had so many other things to worry about that the Romanovs would probably be the last thing on their minds.
I still tend to feel that a much more simple explanation is that this woman who called herself Anna Anderson was simply delusional, and, as often is the case, convincing enough to fool many people around her. But this of course is just my own opinion based on a "gut feeling", if you will, and we can't stop anyone from developing all kinds of elaborate alternative theories, or even simply from speculating (as all of us often do here  ;) )...
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on February 08, 2005, 10:50:09 AM
Quote

Michael, you are absolutely right, there would be no reason at all for the Soviets to do this, especially when they had so many other things to worry about that the Romanovs would probably be the last thing on their minds.
I still tend to feel that a much more simple explanation is that this woman who called herself Anna Anderson was simply delusional, and, as often is the case, convincing enough to fool many people around her. But this of course is just my own opinion based on a "gut feeling", if you will, and we can't stop anyone from developing all kinds of elaborate alternative theories, or even simply from speculating (as all of us often do here  ;) )...


There were many reasons at this time to plant AA into the position of being GD Anastasia.  They are:
1.  At that time, the Bolsheviks thought there were huge sums of money in various banks  [England and Japan for two good examples], and they needed money for guns.  Despite what people say,  at that point in time,  the Whites were making progress.....
2.  They may still have been looking for the real GD Anastasia/Maria and Alexei.  The threat of either still being alive was huge.  Just their appearnce would have been something for the Whites to rally around and who knows if they had surfaced it might have changed the history of Russia.  Russia had been ruled by Tsarinas and had done quite well under Cath. "the Great" who's reign was known as the "Golden Years", only this time there would be a Duma who'd represent the people....

NOTE  Remember, we are talking about those times and what they knew, not what we know today.

3.  The Bolsheviks didn't want anyone to discover their secrets about what happened that night in the Ipatiev House....

4.   At that time,  the Bolsheviks were still trying to discover where certain important leders of the Whites were hiding and what better way then to plant someone like AA into a position where people talked freely about who was where and why and what was happening....

5.  Remember the T.R.U.S.T. ?  She could have been an agent.  For those who do not know what organization this was.  It was an   entire spy system which the CHEKA head Dzerzhinsky had used so well to penetrate even into the British SIS high grounds.

I don't think many of you realize the complexity of what was all happening in the early 1920s.

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Denise on February 08, 2005, 11:11:18 AM
You would think if there was conspiracy, though, someone somewhere in the last 85 years would have discovered a clue that AA was a plant!  There has been no hint, anywhere of this.  
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 08, 2005, 11:40:14 AM
Quote
You would think if there was conspiracy, though, someone somewhere in the last 85 years would have discovered a clue that AA was a plant!  There has been no hint, anywhere of this.  


Especially since the CHEKA or the KGB or the Soviet Union no longer exist and most records have been opened to the public. Unless we think that this is all an act, and they really do still exist  :o  8)  ;)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on February 08, 2005, 12:25:16 PM
Let me farther explain.

The T.R.U.S.T.  was a front organization that appeared to be a group which the WHITES and loyal Tsar people joined to fight the Bolshviks from "outside" and "inside" of Russia.  It was set up by the clever CHEKA head Felix Dzerzhinsky.  So, everything that was talked about in this organization,  the T.R.U.S.T.,  was sent back to Dzerzhinsky.

Let me make this part clear: The Russians, who were fighting the Bolseviks and joined this organization were not agents.  They believed in what the organziation claimed it was doing.  A lot of money went into various hands.  Trouble was, they didn't know it was the wrong hands, the CHEKA's.  Just like this people didn't realize the information, plots etc. etc. were also going to Dzerzhinsky.

If Dzerzhinsky arranged a plant like AA.  It would not have been a simple task but it could have been done.

Trouble was,  at the end of Lenin's life, Stalin was starting to pull strings in order to gain power.  He was like a bull in a china shop.  He didn't take great care of how he got through the shop he just knew he wanted to get to the other side where there was more and more power.

When Sidney Reilly discovered about the CHEKA's part in the T.R.U.S.T.,  no one wanted to believe Reilly.  So, to prove his point,   he returned to Russia for a private and very secret meeting of members of the T.R.U.S.T. near Moscow.  Well, Stalin had to make a decision.  Did he blow the entire CHEKA organization which had been so very sucessful to catch Reilly or did he let Reilly walk in and walk out?

Stalin chose to arrest Reilly.

Stalin then went as far as closing down every agent connected with the T.R.U.S.T.  and all agents were told to return home.  Then he ordered the execution of all these agents.

Could AA been one of those agents?  Yes, it's possible.  Could she return home?  No.  The news about what was happening to the other agents had spread like wildfire.  So,  she could not go home.

So, what would you have done had you been AA, a Bolshevik agent?  Keep up the act of being GD Anastasia?  Or go home to Russia and be shot?

All help would have vanished almost overnight.  AA was on her own.  No longer an agent but a woman trying to survive.

I think this is a very good speculation.  I have no proof of it.  But, to me,  it appears possible.

As time went on,  she was a woman caught in a world she liked and didn't want to give up....

In old age,  she probably believe she was GD Anastasia.

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Denise on February 08, 2005, 12:31:50 PM
Very interesting Bear!!  In that context, I suppose it COULD be possible.  BTW, where can I read more about TRUST?
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on February 08, 2005, 12:38:49 PM
Find any book on Sidney Reilly and it will explain not only the T.R..U.S.T.,  they also explain the part the British played in the political games occuring in Russia.  Lockhardt wrote a very good one.  He worked with Reilly in Russia as an agent.  Reilly wrote a biograpy.  

There are a few books which deny Reilly as as good as he was, but remember,  even the SIS called him Reilly, The ACE of SPIES.

The latest one is by Richard Spence and its called:

TRUST NO ONE, THE SECRET WORLD OF SIDNEY REILLY.

AGRBear

Forgot,  PBS had a nine part series called SIDNEY REILLY, THE ACE OF SPIES.  It is excellent!!
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Denise on February 08, 2005, 12:42:40 PM
Since you seem to have read EVERYTHING, Bear (I have a 3 yr old and 18 month old, so no time to read that much anymore) what would you recommend as the best one?  I'd like to go straight to a great source, as opposed to browsing a few.   :D
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on February 08, 2005, 12:43:40 PM
Quote
Very interesting Bear!!  In that context, I suppose it COULD be possible.  BTW, where can I read more about TRUST?



Hmmmms, let me see how this flies with everyone.  If it does,  I'll go write me a book  ;D

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on February 08, 2005, 12:47:36 PM
Quote
Since you seem to have read EVERYTHING, Bear (I have a 3 yr old and 18 month old, so no time to read that much anymore) what would you recommend as the best one?  I'd like to go straight to a great source, as opposed to browsing a few.   :D


As an introduction and with your children,  I'd go the television series.  It's something you can watch while rocking the kids or doing the dishes after they're in bed....

It was must a few months ago our local channel ran this series, again. Call them,  maybe you can get your station to run it for you.   I'm not sure the cost of the tapes.  Nine hours....  It's the last two hours that talk about the T.R.U.S.T.,  if I remember correctly.

Then I'd go to Lockhardts and then to Spence's.

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Denise on February 08, 2005, 12:51:24 PM
Thanks!!  I do get to read, but it is usually between 10:00 and 11:30 each night.  Of course, now this board eats up a few of those hours too... ;)
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Elisabeth on February 08, 2005, 01:18:58 PM
Quote
BTW, where can I read more about TRUST?


As I recall there's also a lot of information about the TRUST in the book Flight of the Romanovs - especially about a major Soviet effort to get at the GD Nikolai Nikolaevich, considered by many to be the head of the Romanov family even before the death of the Dowager Empress in 1928.  
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on February 08, 2005, 02:21:50 PM
Quote

There's nothing that I know that would indicate that AA was any sort of plant -- yet if she were, it's an explanation that might leave more knots tied up than left undone.

I do not believe she was anything other than sane -- Lord knows she had enough doctors around her to state their professional opinion otherwise.  She definitely was eccentric in her living habits -- see not only her last years in Virginia, but also her WWII years in the Black Forest -- but nothing really exists to show that she was anything other than rather highly strung.  I know she popped her cork and ran around outside naked and screaming when she stayed with Annie Burr Jennings -- but to put this event in context, there had been a blazing row over something, then someone, in the act of storming into AA's bedroom -- where her being naked is probably pretty normal -- stepped on one of AA's pet birds, killing it.  I'd have lost my junk if someone did that to one of my pets, and I believe I'm fairly normal --   ;)  -- so long story short, I don't really see her as delusional or mentally challenged.

So why would a sane person keep up a charade for so long?  One reason might be that the charade, dismal as it must have been at times,  was better than whatever she had before -- sort of an unofficial, ad hoc, self-imposed "witness protection program."

But she knew so much.  Although she DID get things wrong at times, it is undeniable that she also got things terribly right, too -- including her appearance.  Was it common knowledge in 1920 that GD Anastasia had had distinctively grey-blue eyes?  Not that I've seen.  Even more unlikely, was it common knowledge that GD Anastasia had hallux valgus?  Not that I've seen. Venturing into the realms of human experience, was it common knowledge that Shura Gilliard would soothe Anastasia's forehead with a perfume-infused handkerchief when she wasn't well?  Again -- not that I've seen.

So if she was NOT Anastasia, as we have agreed to agree here, and if she was NOT insane, as I believe -- then what are our options?

1. She was someone close enough to the Imperial Family to observe the details of their daily life -- or she was hand-picked and "trained" by someone who was.

2. She was planted for some unknown political purposes by someone -- perhaps the Bolsheviks, perhaps not -- but someone who knew details of what happened in Ekaterinburg, because she DID get a lot of those details correct also, including certain scars on her body.

In my analysis, each of these sort of limits the pool of suspects, because we would be looking for either a girl or a Svengali with "inside" knowledge of both.  Sort of like Konstantine Ukraintsev, only moreso.  Find that person, and I think you might well solve this thing.


I agree.

There is no evidence that AA was planted by the CHEKA but it's not improbable but possible.

Like I've said.  I never really been interested in AA, so,  I didn't know about the bird.

Isn't it interesting how perspective can change when the WHOLE story is told?

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Mgmstl on February 08, 2005, 11:17:27 PM
Penny, you are correct, she got enough things right that probably weren't common knowledge in 1920, including the photos of the IF in papers, they had to black & white or sepia back then.

Also, people seem to forget that Irene's son sent her a list of questions which she answered perfectly, admittedly after a couple of days.

Let's also not forget that Shura & Olga A. BOTH leaned towards her being AN in early conversations.

I see the Bolsheviks as less of a possibility as what would they have known about the daily life of the IF.
IF she was a plant, it had to be from someone who was on the inside, and knew these things and had a great deal of contact with her.  

I really don't believe she was insane either.  Just very high strung, and as the years went on this turned into eccentricity.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on February 09, 2005, 06:23:39 AM
Quote
Also, people seem to forget that Irene's son sent her a list of questions which she answered perfectly, admittedly after a couple of days.


This hasn't been forgotton, it's been discussed a lot. The boy hadn't seen his cousin in years and didn't know her all that well. The questions were not so much personal stuff but from what I heard 'things a daughter of the Tsar would have known'


Quote
Let's also not forget that Shura & Olga A. BOTH leaned towards her being AN in early conversations.


Someone PLEASE repost the quotes from Olga A. about how 'as soon as I saw her my heart sank'  Olga may have been hopeful, and giving it a chance, but it is well documented she knew from the first moment it wasn't her neice.


Quote
I really don't believe she was insane either.  Just very high strung, and as the years went on this turned into eccentricity.


That would work with her being FS too.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Annie on February 09, 2005, 06:28:11 AM
Quote

In my analysis, each of these sort of limits the pool of suspects, because we would be looking for either a girl or a Svengali with "inside" knowledge of both.  Sort of like Konstantine Ukraintsev, only moreso.  Find that person, and I think you might well solve this thing.


Yes, and FS and Gleb Botkin fit those roles well.

The girl, and the Svengali with inside knowledge.

How can this possibly be discounted? While he wasn't the first to give her memories, it wasn't until after he met up with her that her claim and her court case went into high gear worldwide.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Mgmstl on February 09, 2005, 09:01:32 PM
Annie, she did NOT meet Gleb Botkin until WELL AFTER 1920, it was more around 1928, that she was involved with Botkin.  At least that is what Kurths book tells us.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Denise on February 09, 2005, 09:09:26 PM
Michael, Annie admits he wouldn't have been the first to give her memories, but she is right that it was at Gleb's instigation that she was able to get high powered legal representation.  I wonder if he subconsciously aided her, without realizing the info he was supplying?  You know how you can talk about a shared past with someone, taking it for granted that they know what you are talking about?  If he really felt she was the real AN (which we know he did), he may have done this in conversation, just assuming she would know what he was referring to.....
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Mgmstl on February 09, 2005, 09:13:12 PM
Denise, I realize this, however Gleb didn't become involved until later, think about the people she encountered between 1920-1928, including Felix, the brother of FS.

What I am saying, is that Gleb didn't become a major player in this scandal until well after she had become known in Berlin.  I just want to keep the facts straight and clear in a timeline, so we don't get confused again.
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Denise on February 09, 2005, 09:38:56 PM
Right!!  Great idea, actually, as we have a lot of new faces on the board....
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on October 29, 2005, 11:52:03 AM
Quote
In summation to the whole of the thread in terms of survivors, I keep coming back to this one line you have mentioned in your sharing Alixz, time and time again.

I also come to the bottom line of what you have termed that it was as an experience, horribly barbarous. It certainly stops all mental processes, in just thinking that any human being would be forced to go through such an unthinkable action, let alone survive any of it. I think they started here with the IF, and it continued as an act of defiance, and continued sentence as murder incorporated.

It is as you Alixz, have set into the only words I can think that can if possible define such actions as,

"brutality and desperation.  One of the best examples of "man's inhumaity to man".

I wonder even more, why that "brutality and insane desperation" continues. What on earth, in any man's heart and mind is so important, as to beat with wanton brutality, kill indiscriminately without conscience, justify such abherant actions, and in finality, prop up any government to say it is in the 'people's name'.

I've seen and gone through my share of the upmost extremes of violence, consoled countless victims of extreme violence and torture, whom also have ended up in terrible disabling issues, mentally and physically.

If AA was a con artist, then she was just as awful as those whom pulled the trigger by shooting the IF. It is a terrible inhuman thing to pull on any family or to extended family members.

There is nothing on earth so important, as to kill, maim, destroy, invalidate, any human heart, at any age, only so despots can control and continue to hold human beings hostage.

Your quite right Alixz, the emotional scars will, and do remain, forever. Recovery from such brutal onslaughts, are rare if ever.

I can't even begin to comprehend the horror they must have gone through, against the desperation of those whom believed they were saving Russia, by killing left and right, or offering AA in the end as a survivor, to tell her story...

Nothing of it makes any sense, to those whom are debating why someone would survive such horrific issues, as AA says she did.

But for those whom were staging the most brutal revolution, and ongoing scenerios, it had to be a lasting impression. So, thru their warped thinking, and crazed thoughts, I think this is where they, the revolutionists thought they could pull off the most brazen thrust of all. Remember, they were very desperate people, and had to make sure, that their actions produced the most trying and purposefilled acts of fear, and upset, so their needs could dominate with no ending.

Tatiana


Quote
Hello Alixz,

In America, we have a saying, 'there is no honor among theives'. That statement stays true where ever theives thrive...

The Soviet's were very, very, very, desperate people. They had to make sure at all cost, that they were first. History has proven that fact in many things they did...

They were crafty, anything but moral, and truth was far from their thoughts, their actions, their hearts. One of their greatest accomplishments was stealing the trust of their own citizens, so you know right there, it was not a country of safe haven. Countless emigrees have attested to that fact.

In offering a sound start of a government, they had not checks and balances, so if the people themselves were not part of the actual process of governing, then you know right there, tryanny was the Soviets choice of rule.

If you go into the files of esponage, you will find many skilled person's the communist used as decoys, whom took on the role of acting illogically, and so forth. How many heartaches did the KGB cost families across the world? How many did they take down in their own country? What we in the west, or any place else, might think as illogical, was not to the Soviets. They used anything, and anyone to gain what they wanted. They killed wantonly, without reason, and sometimes for reasons we will never understand.

To those who killed millions, causing unrest short and long term to one life, or to many countries, it was one of their many added skills. Remember, many of these agents took pride in causing extreme pain, and suffering.

How do you think the KGB got their start ? How many bodies did they bury, that we will never know ? They were in 'practice' over a wide country, and had many victims. They used children to the elderly to spy. Using this woman, was not out of the ordinary for the Soviets.

I don't think my thoughts are outlandish. Not to take them into consideration, would be overlooking the fact that the Soviets, were more than capable of doing, and completing such fiendish actions.

Tatiana  [Tania]



Quote
Dear Helen_A,

I used the words 'take into consideration', I did not say they, the soviets, did in effect take her on as a spy. That is not getting delusional. But that is as you say, only, in your opinion. I suppose on your website at yahoo, you will now have others whom at present visit or on the AP website, will make further slight remarks at my being an reactionary, etc. Your all entitled to your opinions, and we are certainly entitled with ours.

I have had friends both in the fbi, and the cia, who told me stories that would make your hair curl. There were stories of course they could not tell me, but they told me, nothing is or was considered out of this world, when one was dealing with the soviets.

So, while we may never know the full story, everything should be taken into consideration, till facts prove absolute truth. It's why we have these threads, to sift through every possible thought, situation, etc. I'm not attacking anyone, nor throwing words to be affrontive to you or anyone. I'm simply offering another way of addressing the subject. Why the inuendo of my being delusional?...

I wish you well, and most of all, peace of mind.  ;)

Tatiana  


Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: AGRBear on October 29, 2005, 11:52:24 AM
First let me say,  I hope angry elf is alright and has no more than a few bruises.


Quote
I cannot except the possibility of AA acting as any sort of spy...IT'S ILLOGICAL!!!
Who would tell any sort of anti-soviet counter revolutionary secret to a mentally unstable woman who became notorious for highly irrational behaviour including incidents in which she raved in a public department store of one hosts abuse/wandered about naked on the rooves of houses/occasionally ran away from rooms that she had locked [escaping thru' a window- I guess] leaving her worried "court" behind...  to later be discovered wandering - dirty and dishevelled - living off berries found in the local woods??
The various elements of any Russian anti soviet government abroad do not seem to have taken her at all seriously.
    If she was a plant then it was a very silly plant indeed - more like a shrub...


elf :-X


If AA was a Soviet agent,  evidently,  they chose well since we're still discussing her even after all these years.

Don't you think that it's possible that a slightly crazy acting lady would be better for the part of GD Anastasia because it certainly was not expected that if anyone had suffered the lost of ten other people being killed around you would end up well balanced and show no effects.

Sorry Tania,  Helen's remarks were directed at my many "out of the box" speculaltions.  One of which I suggested that AA was incorporated into a German socialist revolutionary group who often frequented factorys where they knew disgruntled workers lived an breathed their hatred for the upper class "blood suckers".  If people knew their history, they would now that Berlin was a "hot bed" and frequently visited by everyone from Lenin to Felik Dzerzhinsky in those early years when they were forming a strong bond and establishing their agenda in Europe and Russia and hopefully the world.

I will return with URL's where this discussions has occured.

To me and by what I know and my own family has experienced,   it appears that Tania has a better grasp of reality about the Bolsheviki's true character who were not a nice sweet bunch of boys who's ambition were to be the modern "Robin Hoods" of Russia.

Felik Dzerzhinsky, the founder of the Soviet secret police, was very smart, crafty, and never dilusional about his power.  Unlike most of his underlings,  he  had been born in the Polish landed gentry and from a intelligentsia family.  From 1895 he was what we call a "professional" revolutionists.  He escaped his Siberian exile.  He knew Warsaw, St. Petersburg, Moscow and Siberian cities an towns and was placed in many of their prisions where he met his fellow revolutionaries who knew he was a rising "red" star.  He rose to power because he as good at that he did.  In fact, some think it was his brilliance that caused the Red Oct/Nov. Counter Revolution into a success for Lenin.  His success was because he attended everything down to the small details.  Dec. of 1917 he became chairman of the VECHEKA [Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage].  His agents stretched to every corner of Russia and into Europe and some think around the world.

If Dzerzhinsky thought GD Anastasia had escaped,  Dzerzhinsky would have been all over the problem like a wet blanket.  So,  please,  don't under estimate this man's abilities or his imagination.  And, don't think Tania's thought about AA being an agent as illogical and silly.

And,  if you think he didn't care about what was happening in the Romanov communities from Paris to China,  you are very wrong.  His special  organization known as the TRUST proves he was very much interested in all of their plans, plots and moves.

We don't have any evidence from the Russian archieves that tell us that AA was ever an agent so there is no proof.  However, there are hints that AA knew some top secret information which may have been given her by someone who fed her information.  I don't know enough about AA to be able to  pull out all of the information to prove the point that she knew secrets.  Perhaps others can.  But not here, of course.   The only one I've ever mentioned as the visit GD Anastasia's uncle Ernie's secret visit to Russia during WWI with a message from Kaiser Wilhelm II.

....[in part]...

AGRBear
Title: Re: "Grabbing at Straws"
Post by: Denise on October 29, 2005, 02:51:51 PM
Thanks for moving this over here.  I feel more confident discussing this in a "speculative" thread.

D (reading and waiting, as I mentioned before!  ;))