Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Final Chapter => Topic started by: AGRBear on January 23, 2005, 07:38:39 PM

Title: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: AGRBear on January 23, 2005, 07:38:39 PM
Memory, of all the powers of the mind, is the most fragile and can be easily broken into shards that reflect different images than the original.

So, that said,  let's dig into the memories of Yurovsky and others given to us in testimony about  the night of 16 /17 July 1918 and the buriels of the eleven.  And the buriel of the two other bodies not yet found must be talked about, also.

Lacher's last words about the event  were:  "I served the Bolsheviks well.  I keep my silence."*  He spoke these words in Anna Anderson's trial in the 1960s.

Even in 1960, when the world knew Nicholas II and the others were dead,  he continued his silence.  Why?  Was there still something the world didn't know?

Over and over I have speculated that something happen that night in the Impatiev House which we still do not know.  Something that Lacher, who at the age of 80, continued to be proud of the fact he had not revealed.

Speculation can range from one extreme [all were rescued], to the buriel place -- not yet known at that time-- to the missing of two bodies to  a mere embarsement of how poorly they had carried out the executions.

There is no need to try and convince me that we are suppose to believe everything told to us by Yurovsky, CHEKA, Soviet Urals, Moscow Soviets, communists, GPU or KGB.  This isn't why this thread has been created.

So let me start.

I was just reading PAVEL MEDVEDEV'S TESTIMONY given  21-22 Feb 1919 found pps. 346-351 in  Steinberg and Khrustalev's book THE FALL OF THE ROMANOVS.  He voiced several things of interest.  One being that he was assigned to clean up and when he and the others were done about 3 o'clock in the morning, Yurovsky went to his office and Medvedev went  home....   According to King and Wilson, evidence told them that Yurovsky and Lacher were on the truck as it left the Impatiev grounds at 3 o'clock  p. 314.

----
NOTES:

* p. 516 King and Wilson's book THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS

-----

If most of you think this is a wasted effort,  I assume the thread will just fade away.

If you have questions like I do,  let's see what we discover and talk about it.

Why did Lacher say he went home instead of joining the others on the trip to the mines in those early morning hours?

AGRBear

PS  Questions and anwers about the grave are found over on this thread:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=lastdays;action=display;num=1106871065
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: HerrKaiser on January 24, 2005, 03:34:10 PM
I for one do not think such speculations are a waste of time. Rather, it is in line with the type of thinking in the physical sciences wherein reasonable theories and questions can be adopted and proven or not.

To me, as stated earlier, the massive amount of emotion, hysteria, confusion, etc when a slaughter is conducted overwhelms the participants, and each person involved will have a different take. Add to that the credibility of the main characters...violent revolutionary killers, etc....people of whom there is no particular reason to take them at their words. some of their testimonies bear out with science, but that doesn't mean the rest is factual in my opinion.

Consider the massive amount of continuing research, new questions, and new conclusions arising from Custer's Last Stand and the Battle of the Alamo. New views are interesting.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Elisabeth on January 24, 2005, 03:52:22 PM
Quote
I was just reading PAVEL MEDVEDEV'S TESTIMONY given  21-22 Feb 1919 found pps. 346-351 in  Steinberg and Khrustalev's book THE FALL OF THE ROMANOVS.  He voiced several things of interest.  One being that he was assigned to clean up and when he and the others were done about 3 o'clock in the morning, Yurovsky went to his office and Medvedev went  home....   According to King and Wilson, evidence told them that Yurovsky and Lacher were on the truck as it left the Impatiev grounds at 3 o'clock  p. 314.

----
NOTES:

* p. 516 King and Wilson's book THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS

-----

If most of you think this is a wasted effort,  I assume the thread will just fade away.

If you have questions like I do,  let's see what we discover and talk about it.

Why did Lacher say he went home instead of joining the others on the trip to the mines in those early morning hours?

AGRBear


I think Lacher probably had a lot to hide, AGRBear. As for the discrepancy in testimony between Yurovsky and Medvedev - Medvedev saying Yurovsky was at the house at 3 a.m., Yurovsky saying he was going to the Four Brothers - as we know in fact he was - remember that there had recently been a switch to daylight savings time under the Soviets. The clock had been moved forward two hours. So this kind of confusion over the time is actually quite common in the testimonies of the various witnesses.  
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Abby on January 24, 2005, 04:01:44 PM
Yeah, some of the books I read have said the murder took place at midnight and some say 2 am..
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Georgiy on January 24, 2005, 04:05:38 PM
That could be because of the confusion over daylight savings which had just been introduced...
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on January 24, 2005, 06:47:13 PM
The time differences is interesting.  Thanks,  I had forgotten about the daylight savings time....

There is, also,  differences regarding Yurovsky's and Lacher's statement about who went where.... after the clean-up.  Yurvosky said Lacher was with  him and the others who took the truck to the mine.  Lacher's stated that he didn't go to the mine, he went "home to his detachment".

To me,  that is a HUGE contradition.  Seems like to me Lacher would remember going to the mine.

Here is what he said:  " ...Liukhanov...was the chauffeur.  Pyotr Yermakov and the other member of the Extraordinary Commission climbed into the truck and took the corpses away.  I do not know what direction they went or what they did with the corpses.  We washed off the blood in the room and the courtyard and put everything in order.  By 3 o'clock in the morning it was all over, and Yurovsky went to his office, and I went home to the detachment."  p. 350  THE FALL OF THE ROMANOVS by Stenberg and Krustalev.

He is telling us that he, Lacher, AND, Yurovsky were not on the truck when it left.  

This statement was in Feb. of 1919, just seven months after the event.  I'd say it must have been very fresh in his memory.
AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Abby on January 24, 2005, 07:49:17 PM
If Yurovsky said that Lacher went with him to the mine and Lacher said he didn't, I think it was probably Yurovsky who mistook him for someone else.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on January 27, 2005, 09:26:53 AM
Lacher, also, said that the truck left without him and Yurovsky who went to his office ???

Yurovsky tells us he was on the truck and most people use his testimony for the evidence of what occured from that point forward with the bodies of the eleven.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: LisaDavidson on January 27, 2005, 11:24:59 PM
Quote
The time differences is interesting.  Thanks,  I had forgotten about the daylight savings time....

There is, also,  differences regarding Yurovsky's and Lacher's statement about who went where.... after the clean-up.  Yurvosky said Lacher was with  him and the others who took the truck to the mine.  Lacher's stated that he didn't go to the mine, he went "home to his detachment".

To me,  that is a HUGE contradition.  Seems like to me Lacher would remember going to the mine.

Here is what he said:  " ...Liukhanov...was the chauffeur.  Pyotr Yermakov and the other member of the Extraordinary Commission climbed into the truck and took the corpses away.  I do not know what direction they went or what they did with the corpses.  We washed off the blood in the room and the courtyard and put everything in order.  By 3 o'clock in the morning it was all over, and Yurovsky went to his office, and I went home to the detachment."  p. 350  THE FALL OF THE ROMANOVS by Stenberg and Krustalev.

He is telling us that he, Lacher, AND, Yurovsky were not on the truck when it left.  

This statement was in Feb. of 1919, just seven months after the event.  I'd say it must have been very fresh in his memory.
AGRBear


King and Wilson note that Lacher's testimonies over the years were often contradictory. Charitably, we can say he was not a reliable witness. More objectively, he frequently lied. For example at one of AA's trials, he claimed to have not been part of the execution squad, when multiple sources place him there.

As to "going home to his detachment", there are a couple of problems with this statement. First off, "home" at the time was the Ipatiev House! Going home? Makes no sense.  He took part in the murder in the Ipatiev House, then went home to the Ipatieiv House? "His detachment"? He was a prisoner of war! He was part of a detachment, if you want to call it that - a group of factory workers who were assigned to "guard" the Imperial Family.

Lacher clearly knew about the murders, having participated in them. Lacher clearly knew that two bodies were missing - it was on this point that he "served the Bolsheviks well".
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on January 28, 2005, 01:31:37 PM
Was his contradictions due to his being captured by the Whites  in July or was it Aug. of  1918 which means this testimony was given before he could match notes with Yurovsky who gave his first statement years later?  Yurovsky gave his second statement in 1934 and this is the one most commonly used?  Why?  Is this because the second statement fills in many of the missing pieces which the first statement didn't?  I don't know.  I've never seen his first statement.  Anyone know where I can find a copy of his first statement which has been translated into English?

As for the "going home", I don't know  where it was.

Anyway,    according to his first testimony, he tells us he and Yurovsky were not on the truck when it left at 3 o'clock....  And, we're suppose to believe Yurovsky and not Lacher because Lacher "lied" and Yurovsky did not lie....

So,  who else told us that Lacher was on the truck other than Yurovsky?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Elisabeth on January 28, 2005, 01:46:26 PM
Yurovsky's first statement, the 1920 Yurovsky Note, is given in full in English in Mark Steinberg and Vladimir M. Khrustalev's The Fall of the Romanovs, pp. 351-356. As far as I can tell from my readings of various sources, historians use it interchangeably with the 1934 Note.

Additionally, there is a letter to the Museum of the Revolution that Yurovsky wrote in 1928, when handing over the revolvers he and Nikulin had used to kill the tsar and members of his family. This Note is reproduced in Radzinsky's The Last Tsar, p. 373. (The 1928 Note and the handover of the guns were obviously intended to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the murders.)

Yurovsky obviously didn't go to pains to "match" these various statements with those of other participants and witnesses, as evidenced by the many small discrepancies between his testimonies and those of his "colleagues" in murder. He obviously assumed his word, as the leader of the detachment that killed the imperial family, would always be the last word.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on January 28, 2005, 02:04:48 PM
To make it easier for people, let me give the URL that the 1 Feb. 1934 statement of Yurovsky can be found:

http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/yurovmurder.html

Thanks Elisabeth for the data on Yurovsky's first statement.
Quote
.... [in part]...
Yurovsky's first statement, the 1920 Yurovsky Note, is given in full in English in Mark Steinberg and Vladimir M. Khrustalev's The Fall of the Romanovs, pp. 351-356. As far as I can tell from my readings of various sources, historians use it interchangeably with the 1934 Note.
....


I have this book.  And, there is is.  Well, I'll be darn.  Again, thanks.

Then Elisabeth voiced:
Quote
....[in part]....
Yurovsky obviously didn't go to pains to "match" these various statements with those of other participants and witnesses, as evidenced by the many small discrepancies between his testimonies and those of his "colleagues" in murder. He obviously assumed his word, as the leader of the detachment that killed the imperial family, would always be the last word.


But he did care or else why would he have been looking through Sokolov's book.   This is what he tells us in his 1934 testimony:

Yurovsky:  "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."

Does anyone know what photo  Yurovsky is referring?

Who is digging?  Is he talking about the Whites or someone later?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Elisabeth on January 28, 2005, 02:29:00 PM
Quote

Then Elisabeth voiced:

But he did care or else why would he have been looking through Sokolov's book.   This is what he tells us in his 1934 testimony:

Yurovsky:  "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."

Does anyone know what photo  Yurovsky is referring?

AGRBear


The photo is given in Sokolov's full, published report. Caption: "Mostik, habrosannyi bol'shevikami na koptiakovskoi doroge, gde zastrial gruzovoi avtomobil', dostavivshii trupy tsarskoi sem'i k rudinky." It's also reproduced in the abridged Russian text of that report (which I own). It's photo No. 76, for those who have a scanner and might want to share the image with us...

As for Yurovsky, of course he was curious about Sokolov's report. All murderers are curious about police investigations into their crimes. I imagine he read the report with great excitement, ultimately very happy to discover that he'd outfoxed the best investigator the Whites could produce.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on January 28, 2005, 02:35:16 PM
Thanks, again, Elisabeth.  

When reading Yurovsky 1920 statement he talks about the "commandant" giving orders.  It is suggested he was telling the story as if he was a third person and calls himself "commandant".
Why would he do such a thing?  

Oooooh NO.  Don't tell me, I now, have to ask:  Was there someone else, someone of a higher rank, who was giving Yurovsky orders that night in the Impatiev House ???

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Elisabeth on January 28, 2005, 02:44:17 PM
Quote
Thanks, again, Elisabeth.  

When reading Yurovsky 1920 statement he talks about the "commandant" giving orders.  It is suggested he was telling the story as if he was a third person and calls himself "commandant".
Why would he do such a thing?  

Oooooh NO.  Don't tell me, I now, have to ask:  Was there someone else, someone of a higher rank, who was giving Yurovsky orders that night in the Impatiev House ???

AGRBear


That's not plausible, Bear. Self-important, arrogant people often start referring to themselves in the third person. It's like the royal "we" as in "We are not amused." The public persona is like an entity that takes on its own life. For example, Dan Rather, Mr. Vanity himself, began referring to himself in the third person right around the time he started up with the "What's the frequency, Kenneth?" business...
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on January 28, 2005, 03:46:25 PM
A good guess with a good example.

But how do we know he was speaking in "third person"?

In the 1934 testimony he spoke in "first person".  So, did his self importance wear off?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Elisabeth on January 28, 2005, 04:40:48 PM
Quote
A good guess with a good example.

But how do we know he was speaking in "third person"?

In the 1934 testimony he spoke in "first person".  So, did his self importance wear off?

AGRBear


Bear, we're really splitting hairs, here. (Are you by any chance a deconstructionist?!? Just kidding.) In the 1920 testimony Yurovsky does speak mainly in the third person but he also frequently resorts to "we" instead of "they." He's not consistent. In the 1928 Note as well as the 1934 Note he also employs the first person singular.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Greg_King on January 29, 2005, 12:37:27 AM
There are FOUR Yurovsky statements in existence:

1. The famous 1920 "Note," written at the request of Mikhail Pokrovsky.
2.  Yurovsky's unpublished memoirs, written in 1922.
3.  Yurovsky's brief statement (3 pages) on the execution, written in 1928 when he gave his gun to the Museum of the October Revolution in Moscow.
4.  Yurovsky's 1934 talk on the execution, given at the Ipatiev House (this version is a transcription of Yurovsky's notes).

Numbers 1 and 4 have been published in English, No. 1 in its entirety, No. 2 in a slightly truncated form, eliminating his introduction and ending remarks.  Radzinsky published a few sentences of No. 3, otherwise it has not been published in its entirety in any language as far as I know.  It mainly repeats, at much shorter length, the contents of No. 1, with the notable exception that in No. 3 Yurovsky specifically made reference to the difficulty in killing the Tsesarevich.  No. 2 has never been published in its entirety in any language as far as I know.  In "The Fate of the Romanovs" we drew on all four, but focused on No. 2, as it is the longest most detailed, and most comprehensive of all of his accounts, and the only one that discusses not only the executions, but also Yurovsky's childhoood and youth, and his experience as Commandant of the Ipatiev House in the 12 days leading up to the execution.

Greg King
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on January 29, 2005, 11:09:26 AM
Many thanks Greg.

In the unpublished memiors,  did Yurovsky mention Lacher's name?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Elisabeth on January 29, 2005, 04:33:06 PM
Quote
There are FOUR Yurovsky statements in existence:

1. The famous 1920 "Note," written at the request of Mikhail Pokrovsky.
2.  Yurovsky's unpublished memoirs, written in 1922.
3.  Yurovsky's brief statement (3 pages) on the execution, written in 1928 when he gave his gun to the Museum of the October Revolution in Moscow.
4.  Yurovsky's 1934 talk on the execution, given at the Ipatiev House (this version is a transcription of Yurovsky's notes).

Numbers 1 and 4 have been published in English, No. 1 in its entirety, No. 2 in a slightly truncated form, eliminating his introduction and ending remarks.  Radzinsky published a few sentences of No. 3, otherwise it has not been published in its entirety in any language as far as I know.  It mainly repeats, at much shorter length, the contents of No. 1, with the notable exception that in No. 3 Yurovsky specifically made reference to the difficulty in killing the Tsesarevich.  No. 2 has never been published in its entirety in any language as far as I know.  In "The Fate of the Romanovs" we drew on all four, but focused on No. 2, as it is the longest most detailed, and most comprehensive of all of his accounts, and the only one that discusses not only the executions, but also Yurovsky's childhoood and youth, and his experience as Commandant of the Ipatiev House in the 12 days leading up to the execution.

Greg King


I apologize, I only listed 3 Notes because those are the only ones I have ever seen reproduced in books available to the general reader, either in English or in Russian. But now I find myself wondering, why, if the 1922 Note is so much more detailed than the others, have not historians reproduced it in full in their accounts of the Ekaterinburg murders? Specifically, I don't understand why Steinberg and Khrustalev didn't include it in Fall of the Romanovs, or for that matter, why Veniamin Alekseev didn't include it in his collection of primary sources. Why are so many of these sources still unavailable to the general public?
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Greg_King on January 29, 2005, 05:50:03 PM
Quote

I apologize, I only listed 3 Notes because those are the only ones I have ever seen reproduced in books available to the general reader, either in English or in Russian. But now I find myself wondering, why, if the 1922 Note is so much more detailed than the others, have not historians reproduced it in full in their accounts of the Ekaterinburg murders? Specifically, I don't understand why Steinberg and Khrustalev didn't include it in Fall of the Romanovs, or for that matter, why Veniamin Alekseev didn't include it in his collection of primary sources. Why are so many of these sources still unavailable to the general public?
 


Possibly because it was never given over to the Soviet Government, and remained in the family until the early 1980s.  When it was handed over, it went not to GARF, but to the Presidential Archives, which are more difficult for people to access.  We were lucky because Penny got a complete copy from the late Dimitri Volkogonov a decade ago, after he himself copied it from the archves.

Greg King
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Mgmstl on January 30, 2005, 11:38:26 AM
I don't want to assume anything, since there has been such a great deal of new information such as that in FOTR.  

Did anyone in the government in Moscow ever suspect that Yurovsky may have lost or misplaced two of the bodies of the IF?
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Robert_Hall on January 30, 2005, 11:57:51 AM
I try to avoid this whole subject, but that was an excellent question: indeed, was there ever ANY acknowlegement by Moscow of the missing bodies ? If so, it would probably have been quite secret and the talents of Penny & Greg would be the ones to find it.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on January 30, 2005, 12:19:32 PM
Quote

Bear, we're really splitting hairs, here. (Are you by any chance a deconstructionist?!? Just kidding.) In the 1920 testimony Yurovsky does speak mainly in the third person but he also frequently resorts to "we" instead of "they." He's not consistent. In the 1928 Note as well as the 1934 Note he also employs the first person singular.


This only adds to my point.  The testimony doesn't read like Yurovsky was speaking in third person.  He does say "we" and he does say "commandant".  So,  I would say he was consistant.  So, maybe, the question where I make a s-t-r-e-tch may not have been that big of a stretch.  Was there someone else running the execution who we only know as "commandant"?

And,  I'm with Robert,  I'd love to see what kind of evidence we might learn about in the next few years because of people like Penny and Greg.  ;D

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: LisaDavidson on January 30, 2005, 06:00:28 PM
Bear, there was no one else "running the execution". Yurovsky refers to himself quite clearly as "The Commendant" as you can read in the context of his writing. If you read the statements carefully, you will see what I mean.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on January 30, 2005, 06:23:20 PM
Yurovsky tells us about what transpired with the orders and the walking of the R-ovs [Romanovs].  Then he tells us:

"The R-ovs suspected nothing.  The comm. went to get them personally, alone...."

He continues with the word "comm." who was in charge.

When he gets to the hour of 3 o'clock he incerts:

"Around 3 o'clock in the morning, we departed..."

Then he tells us after they had met the 25 men and discovered no one knew where the mine was:

"It was growing light.  The comm. sent men on horseback to find the place."

And, so it goes.

In the 1934 it was all Yurovsky who ordered this, ordered that, etc. etc. etc. .

So,  if I read the 1920 report first, and without prior knowledge of being told  Yurovsky was just being inconsistent,  how would I know?  Far as I can see the "we" is including Yurovsky and "comm."  is someone else.

Oh,  and by the way, he does mention the detached finger which was found later  at the Four Brothers Mine by the Whites.

I am not just debating to be able to see my  posts on line.  I really am curious to why Yurovsky spoke in third person, IF [big if] that is indeed what he did

I've read it about four times and I'm not sure one way or the other.  What do the rest of you think?

AGRBer
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on February 10, 2005, 10:14:01 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
 


Then Yurovsky tells us where he buried the two bodies:

FALL OF THE ROMANOVS by Steinbuerg and Khrustalev p. 356 in 1920 report:
"We wanted to burn A. and A.F., but by mistake the lady-in-waiting was burnt with A. instead.  We then immediately buried the remains under the fire and lit the fire again, which completely covered up traces of the digging.  Meanwhile, we dug a common grave for the rest."

Sounds as if this grave was near the mass  grave.

In his 1934 statement:
p. 364-5 FALL OF THE ROMANOVS by Steinbuerg and Khrustalev:

"I have to say that we were all so devilishly exhausted that we didn't want to dig new grave, but, as always happens in these cases, two or three began doing it and then others joined in.  We immediately lit fires, and while the grave was being readied, we burned two corpses:  Aleksei and, apparently, Demidova, instead of Alexandra Fyodorovna, as we had intended.  We dug a pit by the spot where they were burned, piled in the bones, evened it over, lit another big fire, and covered all traces with ashes.  Before putting the rest of the corpses in the pit...."

If this is true, my haven't their bodies been found.  He tells us they are right near the mass grave. 

People have dug all around looking, and, yet, the bones have not been discovered to this date, Feb. 2005.....

Why haven't they been discovered?

Is Yurovsky feeding us more "red herrings"?

Did anyone else's testimony leave us any clues?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on February 10, 2005, 04:12:33 PM
Gen. Gajda, who hadn't liked the White's investigation of what happen on the night of 16/17 July 1918 in the Impatiev House, appointed A. Kirsta, who worked officially at the investigation from January to April 1919.

Kirsta collected testimony stating that Alexandra and four daughters were taken to Perm....and had not been executed the night of 16/17 July 1918 in the Impatiev House.  

Quote
The Czechs under Gen. Rudolph Gajda, who was part of Kolchak's armies,  entered Ekaterinburg first.

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

It was under Gajda that an independent investigation of what happen to Nicholas II and the others begain.  Alexander Kirsta was the one who's collection of testimonies is overlooked  by Sokolov.

June 1919 Whites Commander-in-Chief in the Urals Gajda was relieved of duty and departed for the East.

Diterkhs replaced Gajda.

  Even though Dieterkh's ban Kirsta's continued work, we know Kirsta continued to collect evidence.   His dossier wasn't discovered until 1975...

AGRBear


Since we know the bodies Nicholas II and the others, accept two of NicholasII's children, were found in a mass grave, then we know if they escaped that night that they did end up being executed later....

Does this mean we can toss out all of Yurovsky's statement about the execution on the night of 16/17 July 1918???

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Abby on February 10, 2005, 05:29:29 PM
I think that something did happen in the Ipatiev house that night because of the damage done to the basement room. It could have been staged,  but I don't think the Bolsheviks would have put that much effort into staging a murder. Who would they have shot in place of the IF then if they were covering up for the murder of the IF? Nameless soldiers?
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Denise on February 13, 2005, 09:27:34 AM
Quote
I think that something did happen in the Ipatiev house that night because of the damage done to the basement room. It could have been staged,  but I don't think the Bolsheviks would have put that much effort into staging a murder. Who would they have shot in place of the IF then if they were covering up for the murder of the IF? Nameless soldiers?


Most of the damage in the basement wall photos was from the Whites ripping the wall apart to find bullets.  Was there other damage you are referring to?
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 13, 2005, 10:51:09 AM
Quote
Was there other damage you are referring to?

I think Abby may have been referring to the bullet holes in the walls and the floor, and, I think, they did find some remnants of blood there (?). Not sure what else they found there, as I believe that Yurovsky's team did try to cover up what happened there initially....
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Abby on February 13, 2005, 11:04:48 AM
Oops, I haven't been following up on this thread. Yes, Helen, that's what I meant, the original bullet holes, which are counted in "Fate of the Romanovs" as being significantly less than some books have counted...I forget exactly the number. And Sokolov's report says that they found some blood that was not cleaned up, and there were bayonet scratches and dents on the floors.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on April 03, 2005, 10:46:11 AM
Quote
This was a member of the Cheka, G.I. Sukhorukov, who was assigned to go help dispose of the corpses of the Royal Family the next morning. On April 3, 1928 his memoir:... "It was necessary to begin digging up the corpses (after the attempt to burn them the previous night)...the first thing we came across was the leg of the last Nicholas.  He was removed successfully, and then all the others. To be precise, it can be said that everybody was naked, except for the heir, who had on a sailor shirt but no trousers."


Where can we find more of Sukhorukov's testimony of 3 April 1928.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Elisabeth on April 03, 2005, 02:48:29 PM
Bear, if you're really serious about researching this topic, you need to read Veniamin Alekseyev's book, The Final Act of the Tragedy. There you will find Sukhorukov's 1928 recollections of the exhumation of the imperial family from the Ganina mineshaft and their second burial in Pig's Meadow, along with the recollections of participants in the murders and those of other witnesses. It's a book consisting entirely of primary sources, an invaluable aid in reconstructing the events of July 16-19, 1918.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on April 04, 2005, 10:58:21 AM
I do have a copy promised me when my friend gets time to copy it for me, however, there are many posters who, like I, do not have a copy.

For those of us who do not have this data, could you enlighten us, please?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Elisabeth on April 04, 2005, 03:27:38 PM
Unfortunately, I only have the Russian edition of Alekseyev's book, and I don't particularly feel like translating Sukhorukov's testimony into English, especially since it's already been discussed at some length in "The Missing Bodies" thread. I guess you'll just have to wait until you get the book, Bear, unless someone else wants to oblige.

What's most interesting to me about Sukhorukov's recollections is that he names 22 men, not including himself, who were present for the exhumation of the imperial family and their servants from the mineshaft at the Four Brothers during the early morning hours of July 18. That's a lot of witnesses to the fact that all 11 bodies were still present a full 24 hours after the murders. No bodies were missing; Sukhorukov not only describes Alexei's body but also specifically names Alexei and his youngest sister Anastasia as the victims who were burned and buried together separately from the others in Pig's Meadow on the following morning, July 19, 1918.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on April 04, 2005, 04:19:51 PM
Sukhorukov's name isn't in any of my  books accept one.  He's mentioned in King and Wilson's THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS p. 464 and I quote:  "....he made other claims, unsupported by the evidence, that undermine his crediblity and ultimately cast doubt on his veracity as a witness."

Why do you think his testimony should be held as supported evidence of what happen?

Does the book tell us when he became a part of the "group" which dealt with the bodies of the IF?

AGRBear

PS:  Found this by Elisabeth:
Quote
Sukhorukov was the witness who claimed in his 1928 reminiscences (in honor of the 10th Anniversary of the murders) that Alexei and Anastasia were the victims who were burned and then buried separately from the others. He was not one of the killers at the Ipatiev House, but apparently was one of those men called in to help dispose of the bodies on July 19, 1918. His testimony is available in Veniamin Alekseev's The Destruction of the Imperial Family, or as I believe it's been translated into English, The Last Act of the Tragedy.  
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 04, 2005, 04:46:25 PM
Sukhorukov's statement (NOT my translation):

April 3, 1928
…Having been in Kusvinsky works for several days, we received orders to go to Ekaterinburg … From the remainder of our battalion about thirty-five men were selected for a detachment with the Ural Regional Cheka, where I was also enlisted.  Several days later, on July 18-19, about twelve men (including me) were selected and told, “Comrades! A secret of state importance is entrusted to you.  You must die with it. If somebody does not justify our confidence, woe to him!”  Fyodor Lukiyanov (if I do not confuse the surname), the Ural Regional Cheka Chairman said, “Today we must go to bury Nicholas Romanov’s family.  They have been shot.”  At night we drove to the Verkh-Isetsky works in carriages.  I do not remember exactly how many people were there, but I do remember many of them. 1. Yurovsky, the town commissar. 2. Our commissar Pavlushin. Gorin and Rodzinsky from the Cheka; I do not remember the surname of a Magyar in a grey suit which he later burned with sulphuric acid; Yermakov. From the Red Guards were my countrymen Fyodor Tyagunov who was killed on the Deniken Front; Aleks. Bozhenov, Nikolai Vladimirovich Pospelov, his brother Ivan (they seem to be in Perm now), Nikolai Samoilov (he studies to become a Red professor in Moscow), Mikhail Veselkov (he works at the Sverdlovsk GPU).  All of them were workers from Lysva.  An Estonian Kyut was subsequently a commander of a machine-gun platoon in my detachment and was taken prisoner by Kolchak along with the machine-gun unit.  Kilzin, also an Estonian, was also commander of a machine-gun section in my detachment, and he was killed serving at Novopainsk in the Okhansky district.  Dimitry Ponomarov, a Lysva worker, and Guryev – both were also taken prisoner.  Workers from Verkhne-Turinsk were Petrov, Alek. Ryabkov – Ryabkov’s sister is working in the Regional Workers Peasants Inspection now, it seems. (Probably she has her husband’s surname now).  Yasha, I forgot his surname. Ryabkova and I know him.

In the morning, we arrived at the mines where the corpses were. Near the mine there were ashes without fire.  The boys began to root in the ground assuming the Tsar’s clothes had been burned there.  Some found a lot.  For example, Pospelov found two big diamonds set in platinum.  Sunegin found a diamond ring, and so on.

The time went by.  The work was urgent.  It was necessary to begin digging up the corpses.  Mounted and unmounted patrols were set up everywhere and the work began.  Vladimir Sunegin was the first who went down with a rope in his hand.  At first, we began to extract the firewood, whole logs.  Then the work got tedious, and we decided to take the corpses out directly.  I came down to help Sunegin and the first thing we came across was a leg of the last Nicholas.  He was removed successfully, and then all the others.  To be precise, it can be said that everybody was naked, except for the heir, who had on a sailor shirt but no trousers.  After the removal, the bodies were put near the mines and covered with tents.  We began to discuss what to do with them.  At first, we decided to dig a pit right on the road, do the burial and level the ground again.  But the soil turned out to be stony, and the job was abandoned.  We decided to wait for the cars, and drive the cargo to the Verkh-Isetsky pond.

In the evening the trucks came.  The corpses were loaded onto carts.  We transferred them from the carts into the trucks again and left.  Not far was something like a bridge made of ties, and the last truck to pass over got stuck.  All our efforts (to move the truck) were unsuccessful.  We decided to remove the ties, dig the pit, put the corpses into it, pour sulphuric acid over [the bodies], fill in the pit and replace the ties.  All was done in such a way that if the White Guards found the corpses, they could not guess from the number that it was the royal family.  We decided to burn two corpses on the fire and did so.  For our “sacrificial altar” we got the last heir.  The second body was the youngest daughter Anastasia.  After the corpses were burned, we scattered the ashes, dug a pit in the centre, shoveled in all the unburned remainders, made a fire again on the same spot and finished the work.

We arrived in Ekaterinburg on the second day, tired and angry.  That night I left as commander of an escort to accompany to the Perm Cheka Elena, daughter of the Serbian King and wife of one of the Grand Dukes.  With her was the Serbian Mission, Colonel Medichee, his lackey and about twenty representatives of the Sverdlovsk bourgeoisie.  I delivered all of that illustrious gathering successfully.  Having arrived in Perm, I got the newspaper Uralskii Rabochii (it seems to be from July 22) and read about the execution of Nicholas II and his family…

Sukhorukov.
DCSOSR Fond 41, Op. 1, Doc. 149, L 215, 219-221.  Russian Original.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on April 04, 2005, 04:54:59 PM
Thanks Penny.

According to Greg King and Penny Wilson:  "Although Sukhorukov was undoubtedly at the Four Brothers mine on the morning of July 18, and assisted in the initial work, he was almost certainly dismissed, as one of Ermakov's friends, on Yurovsky's arrival, only to return later that night, after the exhumation was completed."  pps. 464-5.  "In the end, only Yurovsky  and perhaps Sukhorukov witnesssed what took place in Pig's Meadow on the morning of July 19."

Since it was impossible to burn the two bodies to ashes of any kind with the kind of wood fire they had used, neither of these men [Sukhorukov or Yurovsky] are telling us what really happen, therefore, I don't think they were  telling the truth in this part of their testimonies.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Elisabeth on April 04, 2005, 05:49:35 PM
Quote
Thanks Penny.

According to Greg King and Penny Wilson:  "Although Sukhorukov was undoubtedly at the Four Brothers mine on the morning of July 18, and assisted in the initial work, he was almost certainly dismissed, as one of Ermakov's friends, on Yurovsky's arrival, only to return later that night, after the exhumation was completed."  pps. 464-5.  "In the end, only Yurovsky  and perhaps Sukhorukov witnesssed what took place in Pig's Meadow on the morning of July 19."

Since it was impossible to burn the two bodies to ashes, neither of these men [Sukhorukov or Yurovsky] are telling us what really happen, therefore, they were not telling the truth in this part of their testimonies.



AGRBear


Bear, we've been over this again and again on the "Missing Bodies" thread. You're muddling the evidence.

Yurovsky never claimed that they buried "ashes" in the second grave. Where are you getting this? He wrote in his 1920 Note that they burned two corpses and then buried the "remains" (REMAINS, not ashes) "under the fire and lit the fire again" to cover up traces of the digging.  In his 1934 Note Yurovsky wrote that what was left after burning the two bodies were "bones," which were then buried. Nowhere does he claim that the bodies were successfully cremated.

Sukhorukov says the same thing. The human remains from the fire were buried beneath the fire and another fire was lit to cover up traces of the digging.

As for King and Wilson's conclusion that Sukhorukov was dismissed by Yurovsky before the exhumation was completed on July 18 - there's a major problem with that, insofar as at least one other witness supports Sukhorukov's description of the corpses laid out on the grass that morning. The FA mentioned this on the "Missing Bodies" thread (I forget where - but at least one other witness confirmed Sukhorukov's claim that Alexei's body was clad in a sailor's shirt). There are other indications, too, that Sukhorukov was present for the duration of events from July 18-19.

Please read Alekseyev's book before you start making these mistaken conclusions.






Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on April 04, 2005, 05:59:55 PM
Sukhorukov testimony: "...After the corpses were burned, we scattered the ashes, dug a pit in the centre, shoveled in all the unburned remainders..."

When a body is burned, the skin is charred and just the fat is melted away.  There would be no ashes only bodies with blacken crust around muscle, tissue and bone.   And, it would take more than "shoveling in" because the bodies would still be intact and they'd have to be picked up and placed in a grave.  A task no human would forget, at least in my opinion.

I'll have to go back and read what Yurovsky wrote.  Be back.

Yurovsky's 1920 testimony: "We wanted to burn A. and A.F., but by mistake the lady-in-waiting Demidova was burnt with A. instead.  We then immediatly buried the remains under the fire and lit the fire, again."

Yurovsky 1934:  ""We dug a pit by the spot where they were burned, piled in the bones...." in a grave.

Yurovky did not mention "ashes" either time.

Elisabeth is right but not completely.   I think I am right that neither men could have "shoveled in the bodies" nor "piled in the bones" of Alexei and Anastasia/Maria.

Yurovsky first statement of just saying "remains" would probably be more accurate, if that is what occured.

I forget who it was or on what thread it was, but there was a very good explantion of how a body burns  and  that the temperature has to be quite high, which is more than a simple wood fire  would have been made in so few short hours, therefore it would have been impossible  to have burn more than the skin and fatty tissue layer of the body.

There was no mention of acid being used, so, these bodies would probably be more intact than those of the mass grave even though they were burned according to these two men.

AGRBear

PS  See my post #26 which I should have read first before mentioning "ashes" being uttered by Yurovsky  8)
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on April 04, 2005, 06:50:50 PM
Quote
...[in part]...

As for King and Wilson's conclusion that Sukhorukov was dismissed by Yurovsky before the exhumation was completed on July 18 - there's a major problem with that, insofar as at least one other witness supports Sukhorukov's description of the corpses laid out on the grass that morning. The FA mentioned this on the "Missing Bodies" thread (I forget where - but at least one other witness confirmed Sukhorukov's claim that Alexei's body was clad in a sailor's shirt). There are other indications, too, that Sukhorukov was present for the duration of events from July 18-19.

Please read Alekseyev's book before you start making these mistaken conclusions.
 


Yep, sometimes we make mistakes but hopefully we correct our errors and continue.

And, yes, we discussed some of this on another thread, however, this thread is just about testimonies.

Who were these other eye witnesses who talked about Alexei and how the bodies were position on the grass?

Somewhere I remember that Yurovsky sent all Ermakov's men away.  I'll go find that....

If I had Alekseyev's book,  I'd gladly  read it, but I don't have it nor do I think many do AND I don't think many will since it's impossible to find and or buy.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on April 04, 2005, 07:23:41 PM
Yurovsky - 1934:  "The people that Yermakov had gathered weren't at all right for this sort of job, and there were so many of them, too.  I decided that the people had to gotten rid of."  The following words stated where he sent Yermakov's men.

Yurovsky - Night of 17 July 1920:  "The comm. immediately decided to dismiss the whole group, leaving on guard a few men on horseback and five from the detachement.  The rest dispersed.  The detachement began to undress and burn the corpses."  This was at the Four Brother's Mine and not in Pig's Meadow.

None of  nine skeletons found in the mass grave showed signs of having been subjected to burning.

It sounds as if Yurovsky kept his men and rid the area of Yermakov/ Ermakov's men in 1934 and in 1920 kept 5 men of the detachement  and a few men on horseback so were these Ermakov's men.

And, again, the nine skeletons were not burned at the Four Brothers Mine nor in Pig's Meadow.  And, no, he didn't mention ashes at the Four Brother's mind, either.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Elisabeth on April 04, 2005, 07:56:50 PM
Sukhorukov wasn't one of Ermakov's men, Bear. He was called in with other men from the Kusvinsky factory shortly after midnight on July 18, 1918 - not the 17th, the 18th. We're talking about a totally different group of men who exhumed the bodies from the mineshaft on the morning of the 18th. Most of Ermakov's men were long gone by then.

Whether or not Sukhorukov was present when all of the bodies had been pulled out of the mineshaft and/or when the second burial in Pig's Meadow occurred are debatable points, according to King and Wilson. I simply disagree with their conclusion that he was not present because I don't see any inconsistencies in his testimony that would rule him out as a reliable eyewitness. In fact he repeats exactly what Yurovsky said on a number of points and even gets the identities of the burned bodies correct.

As for the ashes controversy, any bonfire you build is going to produce some ashes. What did you build the bonfire with? Wood? Isn't it going to burn and produce ashes? Burnt skin turns to ash, too. There would certainly be more than enough material to "shovel" into a pit. For that matter, I sincerely doubt they wanted to touch the burned bodies with their own hands.

Yurovsky's testimony is by and large very consistent. True, there are slight discrepancies between his 1920 and 1934 statements. In some places he makes obvious mistakes (as in the 1920 statement when he says "the detachment began to undress and burn the corpses" when from the context you can see that what he clearly meant to say was that "the detachment began to undress the corpses and burn the clothing"). But this is typical of any eyewitness statement and does not detract from the overall truth of that statement.

If you are really interested in working out an accurate timeline of events, then I suggest you do what I did: take both Yurovsky's statements and work out the timelines for each on separate sheets of paper. Then write out the entire timeline given in Greg and Penny's book - which is taken from all the witness statements and is astonishingly detailed (you will have pages and pages of notes - the amount of research they did still astounds me). Compare this timeline with Yurovsky's timelines. See how closely everything fits. Amazing!
Title: Sukhorukov
Post by: AGRBear on April 05, 2005, 03:41:55 PM
I don't have time today to go into the various time lines of Yurovsky, Ermakov and this Sukhorukov.

Since Sukhorukov is a new twist for me then I'll have to adjust my thoughts and think about these timelines all over, again.

My first problem about Sukhorukov would be, is he mentioned by anyone being there other than himself?

AGRBear

Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on April 05, 2005, 03:54:38 PM
Perhaps, Elisabeth, I wasn't explaining myself about the ashes very well.  I was in a hurry yesterday.

The ashes from the wood were there, of course, and they could have been shoveled into the grave, however, not the two bodies.  Yes, the skin would have burned, the fatty tissue would have melted, leaving a coat of charred 'yuk" [my technical term) but a body that was still intact, a whole body.  The muscles, tendons and bones would have been still one complete charred person.  And, so, the two bodies could not have been shoveled into the grave.   And this is what Sukhuroko testified.  Nor were there just bones left to pile into the grave. This is what Yurovsky testified.  And remember Alexei was about 5' 7" tall and Marie/Anastasia were over 5' tall.  So, these bodies would need to be picked up as whole charred bodies and placed into the grave.

I realize that testimony changes from person to person.  I, also, realize that no two people remember events the same.

If what they tell us is true,  these bodies were buried near  the mass grave.  And, they were not just ashes and bites and pieces of charred remains but entire bodies with complete skeletons. Nor was there mention of acid being poured over them.

Okay, perhaps they didn't want to go into the details and just skimmed over the "yukky"  truth of what happen, that might well be.  But, I don't know.  All I have before me are  testimonies and what words they did say.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Elisabeth on April 05, 2005, 04:27:15 PM
Bear, this is more than "yukky," it's absolutely disgusting. I don't think anyone in their right mind was going to use their bare hands to lift the burnt corpses of Alexei and Anastasia and gently place them into the grave. No, they would have used their shovels or whatever else was handy and pushed and prodded and rolled the bodies into the grave. Ugh! Do you know how disgusting it is to handle a corpse - of any living creature, much less a human being, much less a burnt and disfigured human being? Get a grip!

I think you're reading far too much into some very straightforward, no-nonsense statements. Use your common sense. There are no discrepancies here, only bald statements of fact.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on April 05, 2005, 04:55:19 PM
Greg wrote a little about the burning and the timeline:
Quote
... [ in part]...
But the bigger issue of the impossibility of even doing any major harm to two bodies-let alone one-in 60-90 minutes (and 90 minutes is the extreme length of time they had even giving them the benefit of the doubt) is something that scientifically is impossible-there just wouldn't have been any major or significant destruction, just some disfiguration, so they would have been left with two fully recognizable corpses, fully articulated, that would simply have had the external epidermal layer charred.  It's impossible that there would have been more damage than that-so investigators would have been seeking nearly complete corpses, not parts of remains or disarticulated corpses.  And that's where the story about the bodies falls down, in my opinion.

Greg King


This is making my tummy churn....

So, let's change the subject.  How about discussing this:  "Would there be a reason the CHEKA would lie about what happen with the two bodies?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on April 05, 2005, 05:58:33 PM
The following appears to be farther evidence about the CHEKA, including Sukhorukov, who could have had reasons to have a "cover-up" story of what happen to the two missing bodies.

Quote

..[in part]...

...You mention a lack of motive, but I see plenty of motive.  First, let's start with the assumption (whether right or wrong, for the sake of argument here) that two bodies were indeed missing when they got to the Koptyaki Forest.  We know Yurovsky sent almost everyone gathered there away from the scene on the pretext of the jewels hidden in clothing.  It is I think equally possible he sent them away because he wanted to narrow the field of witnesses to only those men on whom he could rely.  So, under this hypothesis, whom does Yurovsky lie to?  Not to the few trusted men still there, and we know both he and Ermakov spent the morning of 17 July before a special emergency meeting of the Ural Regional Soviet's Presidium, essentially getting raked over the coals for something-Isai Rodzinsky hints that this was because of "what had happened."  But what had happened?  The murders?  Everyone knew those were coming.  So it had to be something else, something that happened during the murders or immediately after.  I suspect that these uncomfortable interviews concerned the two missing bodies.  Yurovsky doesn't lie to these men-Beloborodov, Goloshchokin, etc.-after all, they're all in this together, with their collective necks hanging out in the wind from having killed everyone aganst Moscow's orders.  He HAS to trust these guys.  But when it comes to Moscow, that's another issue.  He has every reason to lie to Moscow if through his bungling or lack of order two bodies went missing.  What seems to have happened, as far as I'm concerned, is that a few of the principals involved-Ermakov, Yurovsky, Nikulin, Rodzinsky, Sukhorukov, Kudrin-all of these guys have a pow-wow and it's agreed that Moscow can't know they bungled, so they agree to a cover story-that they burnt the missing bodies.  Only this "accepted version" gets considerably tangled as different people tell different versions, from how many were burnt to where and when; all of them only got 1 basic thing in agreement-that bodies were burned.  Which is why I tend to think it's a hasty cover story to protect themselves from Moscow.

Yurovsky certainly wouldn't admit this in his 1920 Note, which he only wrote at the direction of Soviet historian Michael Pokrovsky, and which he knew would be seen by those in power.  So he sticks to the cover story.  Same with his 1934 talk.  But in 1922, when he writes his private memoirs, which he keeps in his family and remain a secret until his son Alexander hands them over to the Soviet Government in the early 1970s, he slips up and says he only tried to burn a single body.  I don't think you can put that down to him being unconcerned about details or the number of victims-having read his 1922 memoir in its entirety, it is very detailed.  Moscow knew how many people had actually been shot-he couldn't add or subtract victims-his mistake was just that, whereas in his 1922 memoir he was quite clear about attempting to burn only one body.

It's possible, though completely unproved, that the grave was opened in 1927-28, but if so, why would Stalin simply remove the two sets of remains buried separately and not obliterate the others?  That doesn't make sense-especially as he already had Yurovsky's 1920 Note which conveniently explained away the two missing bodies should anyone ever look.  All the Soviet government had to do was to produce it and say, "Here's why they're missing!"  Simply removing two, while leaving the other nine, seems illogical.

I suspect, though it's simply a hypothesis, that someone who knew what happened talked-and this started the ball rolling as it were in 1927-28.  After this, the people who would have known either start dropping like flies, being arrested, or suddenly get special government pensions or write absurd memoirs claiming all manner of inaccuracies.

Admittedly, there's no absolute proof that a second grave didn't exist, but nor is there a shred of evidence to support the idea that it did outside of the few memoirs, which contradict each other and make claims unsupported by science.  Given the weight of the evidence, that's why I suspect Yusovsky lied and that Anastasia and Alexei were missing.  And as I have said elsewhere, their absence doesn't equal survival, but without their remains it does mean that their deaths on that the night of 16-17 July, 1918, remain only a theory.

Greg King
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: griffin on April 05, 2005, 10:35:22 PM
Quote
What's most interesting to me about Sukhorukov's recollections is that he names 22 men, not including himself, who were present for the exhumation of the imperial family and their servants from the mineshaft at the Four Brothers during the early morning hours of July 18. That's a lot of witnesses to the fact that all 11 bodies were still present a full 24 hours after the murders. No bodies were missing; Sukhorukov not only describes Alexei's body but also specifically names Alexei and his youngest sister Anastasia as the victims who were burned and buried together separately from the others in Pig's Meadow on the following morning, July 19, 1918.


Does anybody have any of the 22 witnesses names?
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on April 06, 2005, 10:43:22 AM
Some of the names are in Sukhorukov's testimony given to us by Penny:
Quote
Sukhorukov's statement (NOT my translation):

April 3, 1928
…Having been in Kusvinsky works for several days, we received orders to go to Ekaterinburg … From the remainder of our battalion about thirty-five men were selected for a detachment with the Ural Regional Cheka, where I was also enlisted.  Several days later, on July 18-19, about twelve men (including me) were selected and told, “Comrades! A secret of state importance is entrusted to you.  You must die with it. If somebody does not justify our confidence, woe to him!”  Fyodor Lukiyanov (if I do not confuse the surname), the Ural Regional Cheka Chairman said, “Today we must go to bury Nicholas Romanov’s family.  They have been shot.”  At night we drove to the Verkh-Isetsky works in carriages.  I do not remember exactly how many people were there, but I do remember many of them. 1. Yurovsky, the town commissar. 2. Our commissar Pavlushin. Gorin and Rodzinsky from the Cheka; I do not remember the surname of a Magyar in a grey suit which he later burned with sulphuric acid; Yermakov. From the Red Guards were my countrymen Fyodor Tyagunov who was killed on the Deniken Front; Aleks. Bozhenov, Nikolai Vladimirovich Pospelov, his brother Ivan (they seem to be in Perm now), Nikolai Samoilov (he studies to become a Red professor in Moscow), Mikhail Veselkov (he works at the Sverdlovsk GPU).  All of them were workers from Lysva.  An Estonian Kyut was subsequently a commander of a machine-gun platoon in my detachment and was taken prisoner by Kolchak along with the machine-gun unit.  Kilzin, also an Estonian, was also commander of a machine-gun section in my detachment, and he was killed serving at Novopainsk in the Okhansky district.  Dimitry Ponomarov, a Lysva worker, and Guryev – both were also taken prisoner.  Workers from Verkhne-Turinsk were Petrov, Alek. Ryabkov – Ryabkov’s sister is working in the Regional Workers Peasants Inspection now, it seems. (Probably she has her husband’s surname now).  Yasha, I forgot his surname. Ryabkova and I know him.

In the morning, we arrived at the mines where the corpses were. Near the mine there were ashes without fire.  The boys began to root in the ground assuming the Tsar’s clothes had been burned there.  Some found a lot.  For example, Pospelov found two big diamonds set in platinum.  Sunegin found a diamond ring, and so on.

The time went by.  The work was urgent.  It was necessary to begin digging up the corpses.  Mounted and unmounted patrols were set up everywhere and the work began.  Vladimir Sunegin was the first who went down with a rope in his hand.  At first, we began to extract the firewood, whole logs.  Then the work got tedious, and we decided to take the corpses out directly.  I came down to help Sunegin and the first thing we came across was a leg of the last Nicholas.  He was removed successfully, and then all the others.  To be precise, it can be said that everybody was naked, except for the heir, who had on a sailor shirt but no trousers.  After the removal, the bodies were put near the mines and covered with tents.  We began to discuss what to do with them.  At first, we decided to dig a pit right on the road, do the burial and level the ground again.  But the soil turned out to be stony, and the job was abandoned.  We decided to wait for the cars, and drive the cargo to the Verkh-Isetsky pond.

In the evening the trucks came.  The corpses were loaded onto carts.  We transferred them from the carts into the trucks again and left.  Not far was something like a bridge made of ties, and the last truck to pass over got stuck.  All our efforts (to move the truck) were unsuccessful.  We decided to remove the ties, dig the pit, put the corpses into it, pour sulphuric acid over [the bodies], fill in the pit and replace the ties.  All was done in such a way that if the White Guards found the corpses, they could not guess from the number that it was the royal family.  We decided to burn two corpses on the fire and did so.  For our “sacrificial altar” we got the last heir.  The second body was the youngest daughter Anastasia.  After the corpses were burned, we scattered the ashes, dug a pit in the centre, shoveled in all the unburned remainders, made a fire again on the same spot and finished the work.

We arrived in Ekaterinburg on the second day, tired and angry.  That night I left as commander of an escort to accompany to the Perm Cheka Elena, daughter of the Serbian King and wife of one of the Grand Dukes.  With her was the Serbian Mission, Colonel Medichee, his lackey and about twenty representatives of the Sverdlovsk bourgeoisie.  I delivered all of that illustrious gathering successfully.  Having arrived in Perm, I got the newspaper Uralskii Rabochii (it seems to be from July 22) and read about the execution of Nicholas II and his family…

Sukhorukov.
DCSOSR Fond 41, Op. 1, Doc. 149, L 215, 219-221.  Russian Original.


According to Sukorukov the list is:
>> I do not remember exactly how many people were there, but I do remember many of them. 1. Yurovsky, the town commissar. 2. Our commissar Pavlushin. Gorin and Rodzinsky from the Cheka; I do not remember the surname of a Magyar in a grey suit which he later burned with sulphuric acid; Yermakov. From the Red Guards were my countrymen Fyodor Tyagunov who was killed on the Deniken Front; Aleks. Bozhenov, Nikolai Vladimirovich Pospelov, his brother Ivan (they seem to be in Perm now), Nikolai Samoilov (he studies to become a Red professor in Moscow), Mikhail Veselkov (he works at the Sverdlovsk GPU).  All of them were workers from Lysva.  An Estonian Kyut was subsequently a commander of a machine-gun platoon in my detachment and was taken prisoner by Kolchak along with the machine-gun unit.  Kilzin, also an Estonian, was also commander of a machine-gun section in my detachment, and he was killed serving at Novopainsk in the Okhansky district.  Dimitry Ponomarov, a Lysva worker, and Guryev – both were also taken prisoner.  Workers from Verkhne-Turinsk were Petrov, Alek. Ryabkov – Ryabkov’s sister is working in the Regional Workers Peasants Inspection now, it seems. (Probably she has her husband’s surname now).  Yasha, I forgot his surname. Ryabkova and I know him.<<

There would also be Yurovsky and the fellows he kept with him after he sent Ermakov's men away.

I don't know if the number is 25.  I think I posted somewhere some of the men who were with Yurovsky in Pig's Meadow, so, I'll go find it and post it.

I'm not even sure this Sukhorukov was there himself because I've not seen anyone mention him in their testimony.  That is why I ask if anyone else had ever mentioned him and if so was it before April 1928???

Far as I know, he may have conveniently poped up for the CHEKA in April of 1928.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Forum Admin on April 06, 2005, 10:59:22 AM
His exact words on that subject:
I do not remember exactly how many people where there but I do remember many of them.  1. Yurovsky, the town commisar. 2. Our commissar Pavlushin. Gorin and Rodzinsky from the Cheka.  I do not remember the surname of a Magyar in a grey suit which he later burned with sulphuric acid; Yermikov. From the Red Guards were my countrymen Fyodor Tyagunov, who was killed on the Deniken front.  Aleks. Bozhenov, Nikolai Vladimirovich Pospelov, his brother Ivan.  Nikolai Samilov (he studies to become a Red professor in Moscow..) Mikhail Veselkov (He works at the Sverdlovsk GPU).  All of them were the workers from Lysva.  An Estonian Kyut was subsequently a commander of a machine gun platoon in my detachment and was taken prisoner by Kolchak along with the unit.  Kilzin, also an Estonian, was also commander of a machine gun section in my detachment, he was killed serving at Novopainsk in the Okhansky district.  Dmitry Ponomaryov, a Lysva worker and Guryev - both were also taken prisoners.  Workers from Verkhne-Turinsk were Petrov, Alek. Ryabkov, Ryabkov's sister is working in the Regional Workers Peasants Inspection now it seems (she probably has her husband's surname now), Yasha, I forget his surname. Ryabkova and I know him."

Sukharov's memoirs, April 3, 1928
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on April 06, 2005, 11:11:57 AM
17 July 1918:
Right after the men discovered the gems and the jewels were collected and  BEFORE Yurovsky left for town, he said in his 1920's testimony:  "The comm. immediately decided to dismiss the whole group, leaving on guard a few men on horseback and five from the detachment.  The rest dispersesd."

Found on page 354 of  Steinberg an Khrustalev's book THE FALL OF THE ROMANOVS.

Yurovsky left the guard "around 10 to 11 o'clock in the morning" of 17 July....

Bodies were still at the Four Brother's Mine.


Anyway, Yurovsky returned to town around 8 in the evening of the 17th and left for the mine around 12:30 AM in the wee hours of the 18th...

18 July 1918 

Yurovsky mentioned what they did once they returned then the "dawn came" p. 355.

According to Sukhorukov he was not at the Mine at the time but at the Kusvinsky Works with about 35 other men who had been selected b the Ural Regional CHEKA.  His report tells us about 18 to 19 July....

"In the morning, we arrived at the mines where the corpses were."

Are we to assume Sukhorukov, those with him, and carts made it to the mines but not the vehicles after dawn?

Yurovsky mentions  carts which were going to be used because the "vehicles could not make it to the place of temporary burial".

Note the word "vehicles" is pural.  Meaning more than one.


AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on April 06, 2005, 11:46:43 AM
According to Pavel Medvedev, he had remained in Ekaterinburg.  Testimony  21-22 Feb 1919.  But then, he said that Yurovsky had, also, remained in the Impatiev House after the truck with the bodies left. [His testimony is found, also, in THE FALL OF THE ROMANOVS].

Who else gives us an eye witness testimony about this point in time, early morning of the 18th,  so we can get another view of how many men were at the mine on the morning of the 18th?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: lexi4 on April 06, 2005, 08:18:11 PM
Quote
According to Pavel Medvedev, he had remained in Ekaterinburg.  Testimony  21-22 Feb 1919.  But then, he said that Yurovsky had, also, remained in the Impatiev House after the truck with the bodies left. [His testimony is found, also, in THE FALL OF THE ROMANOVS].

Who else gives us an eye witness testimony about this point in time, early morning of the 18th,  so we can get another view of how many men were at the mine on the morning of the 18th?

AGRBear


Good question AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Elisabeth on April 07, 2005, 04:21:04 PM
Bear, why does everyone else have to do your work for you? To answer your question, all you have to do is consult King and Wilson's book, FOTR, and you will see that Yurovsky also mentions the arrival of the men from the Kusvinsky factory: "some twenty men, of whom I knew only two or three. Once again, the entire operation threatened to be ruined by the intrusion of other people." Then you check the footnote, and you see that this quote comes from Yurovsky's unpublished 1922 memoir (quote, p. 326, footnote, APRF, p. 596, FOTR).

What is so hard about this? Why can't you research this yourself instead of continually asking others to do so AND all the while implying that the sources aren't really there?

Or is the point that you don't trust Yurovsky about anything and you consider him an unreliable witness? You think that, as you've stated elsewhere, the servants and 5 Chekists (??) were executed in the place of the imperial family and all of Yurovsky's statements are just very elaborate lies? (As are the statements of all the other witnesses?) Because I really think you're going to some other, very distant place with all this - somewhere that more properly belongs in the "Survivors" thread than it does here, in the "Final Chapter" one.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on April 08, 2005, 11:49:06 AM
Unlike Elisabeth and a few others who have locked in their brain everything that was ever written about the IF,  some of us view this as a hobby and do not remember every detail.  Therefore, it is greatly appreciated when others, like  Elisabeth, do remember and help us through our research.

Time and time, again, I'm accused of having some kind of motive for seeking out answers.  And, time and time, again, I explain that I'm just looking for the truth.  In some of the research it does seem that truth is some "distant place" where we haven't a key.

And, yes, you are right Elisabeth, I dont trust Yurovsky or any of the murderers of Nicholas II and the others to tell us the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

So, thank you for the added information.  I do appreciate, since I do not have a copy of Yurovsky unpublished testimony...  

As for the five dead Letts found near the Four Brother's mine, it was not my speculation that these five were the people executed that night in the Impatiev House on the night of the 16th/17th of July.  It was the suggestion of one of the very early investigators who believed the execution was staged.  And, he was there in July of 1918, not I.  So, why shouldn't I ask what he was asking? [The five dead Letts should be and I think was discussed over on the Survior thread.  But which one, I don't recall at this moment.]


AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: hikaru on April 08, 2005, 11:56:11 AM
I do not know if it was mentioned or not, but Yurovsky did not write the text by himself.
The text was written by the hand of the famous Stalin's historians Pokrovsky.
Of course, Yurovsky participated in this.
But it sounds like a theme with variations.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on April 08, 2005, 01:00:40 PM
Quote
I do not know if it was mentioned or not, but Yurovsky did not write the text by himself.
The text was written by the hand of the famous Stalin's historians Pokrovsky.
Of course, Yurovsky participated in this.
But it sounds like a theme with variations.


Ahh yes, the ever inspiring theme with variation created by Stalin's "boys".

I wonder if I dare  speculate about Stalin's part in the entire affair.  In fact, I think, it makes one think that it might have been Stalin and not Lenin who was part of the skeme to execute Nicholas II.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: hikaru on April 08, 2005, 01:13:16 PM
NO, I do not think so.
Just the papers of Yurovsky were written at Stalin's time when attitude to the execution have changed and became a  secret matter. So, nobody knows what  is it true or not. But it should be  some true in this written story, I suppose. Pokrovsky did not make it himself, he based on the story which Yurovsky said to him.
(Till the middle of 20 - years in Ekaterinburg they printed
a post -cards with the Ipatiev House when the IF of the Last Tsary was murdered , a lot of books about IF and their last days were printed too, but then everything is disappeared . The last "open event" was the Meeting of Memories of Yurovsky at Ekaterinburg with young people.
Yurovsky understood the situation and said that maybe this is the last time when he could stood and said the story before the public).
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Elisabeth on April 08, 2005, 01:18:06 PM
Hikaru, when did the Meeting of Memories in Ekaterinburg take place? (Was this in connection with the tenth anniversary of the murders in 1928?) I don't remember reading about this event, do you have more information about it?
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on April 08, 2005, 01:56:08 PM
Quote
NO, I do not think so.
Just the papers of Yurovsky were written at Stalin's time when attitude to the execution have changed and became a  secret matter. So, nobody knows what  is it true or not. But it should be  some true in this written story, I suppose. Pokrovsky did not make it himself, he based on the story which Yurovsky said to him.
(Till the middle of 20 - years in Ekaterinburg they printed
a post -cards with the Ipatiev House when the IF of the Last Tsary was murdered , a lot of books about IF and their last days were printed too, but then everything is disappeared . The last "open event" was the Meeting of Memories of Yurovsky at Ekaterinburg with young people.
Yurovsky understood the situation and said that maybe this is the last time when he could stood and said the story before the public).


Like Elisabeth, I'd like to know more.

Thanks.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: hikaru on April 09, 2005, 07:29:51 AM
Meeting of Memories, was hold at Ekaterinburg on 2nd February 1934. This meeting was arranged by Association of Old Bolshevicks (Obschestvo starykh bolyshevikov) . Yurovsky was one of its members.(I think he came from Moscow specially to participate in it).
Oficially this meeting was called as Conference of Old Bolshevicks ( Soveschanie Starykh Bolyshevikov).
The stenogramme of this meeting you could fine in the book of Bouranov, Khrustalyov - Romanovs, the destroy of the Dinasty (Romanovy, Unichtozhenie Dinastii), Moscow 2000 .
(Ih Russian variation of book it is written that it is the same book which was published in Germany in 1993-1994).
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: hikaru on April 10, 2005, 02:05:59 AM
But according to Radzinsky, the conference of Old Bolsheviks took place in 1924 ( not 1934).
At the same time , Yurovsky had a lecture in Ipatiev House about that night before yong Bolshevik, who was in rather high posts.

WHo is right?
I do not know. We can not see the stenogramme so we have to find the opinion of the third person .
Mr. Khrustalev seems very reliable source, because he was working at GARF all the time. But it could be a printing mistake.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Elisabeth on April 10, 2005, 09:33:51 AM
Thanks for all the information, Hikaru, you're always so helpful!  :)
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on April 13, 2005, 04:02:43 PM
Didn't someone say that 1934 was ten years after their first meeting?  Something about a "tenth annivsary" celebration, I think.....   1934 wouldn't have been ten years after the actual execution in 1918.

When Sukurkov said:
>>…Having been in Kusvinsky works for several days, we received orders to go to Ekaterinburg …  <<  

Does this mean they were workers from Kusvinsky or that this is where they were placed to wait until needed?"

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Elisabeth on April 18, 2005, 02:09:22 PM
No, Bear, 1928 was the 10th anniversary of the murders, as you know very well. This was when Sukhorukov recorded his testimony for posterity.

As to whether or not Sukhorukov was a "real" Kusvinsky worker or simply "placed" there (biding his time for what exactly? since you don't believe the murders in Ekaterinburg happened), may I ask: What difference does it make? What possible bearing could it have on his testimony?

I wish you'd show as much skepticism towards the "Perm story" as you do towards Yurovsky, Sukhorukov, Medvedev, and all the other numerous witnesses to the Ekaterinburg murders.

Because the main witnesses for the "Perm story" are also linked to the Ural Bolsheviks. Indeed, the most "credible" witness (according to Gaida) of the "Perm story," i.e., the story that the imperial women survived Ekaterinburg, was Natalia Mutnykh, who just happened to be the sister of the secretary of the Ural Regional Soviet. Gosh, I wonder who was feeding her information? Two other so-called witnesses, Glafira Malysheva and her mother, were also related to a Perm communist. So if you are going to be consistent and discredit all "Bolshevik"-linked information, you have to discredit their testimony, too ... which leaves a huge hole in the "Perm story," as even you must admit.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on April 19, 2005, 10:47:38 AM
Since her testimony was given after the Bolsheviks announced Alexandra and the girls had been executed with Nicholas II, AND, the Whites had issued the statement that they believed Nicholas II and the others had been executed the same night, why would this woman and five others  continue what you consider a lie/fabrication?

The reason I'm asking questions about Perm is because everyone seems to jump over them as if they do not exist.  And, I'd like to ponder on this subject.  This thread allowes me and others to ponder.

If Marie/Anastasia and Alexei escaped, which is possible since their bodies are no where to be found and until they are found, then we can look around for other answers, why not study the Perm story in more depth inside of just pushing it away?

The investigators who found these witnesses were actually there.  They spoke to these witnesses.  Their conclusion was different then Sokolov.  These investigators thought the execution of the entire family was staged.

Sokolov didn't place these testimonies in his own report.  Why?
I'll have to speculate and have thus far come up with three possibilities:
(1) Sokolov didn't find these testimonies credible
(2) Sokolov had pressure from certain General that it was important to let the world believe the Bolsheviks were cruel evil men who killed innocent women and children, which included the children of Nicholas II
(3) Due to the length of the manuscript, Sokolov needed to eliminate pages and this is what he cut
(4) Sokolov did have the testimonies in his report but died before they were given to the publisher and the person in charge of these reports, Orlov, made the decision to eliminate these testimonies

In any case, it was Summers and Mangold who in 1976 wrote about these missing reports.

Talking about these omissions isn't what some of you would like to do.  That's okay.  Some of you aren't even a little curious about any of this.  That's okay.

Bring in the logo of the head banging against the wall.  That's okay.

I prefer just having a conversation which bring out all information on the Perm story.  

AGRBear

PS  As to the dates,  I think .... No, I'll have to back and reread ....  Something about 1924 and 1934 when some meetings took place....
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on April 26, 2005, 01:06:38 PM
Some question about the US Colt 45 which Yurovsky claims he used to shoot Nicholas II.

THE PLOTS TO RESCUE THE TSAR by Shay McNeal  p. 164

She talks about the Colt 45 which  is said by the Bolsheviks to have been the weapon which killed Nicholas II.

"It's serial number was 71905.  In tracking down the weapon, I obtained additional information the Colt Company historian Kathleen Holt.  If the serial number 71905 were followed by a letter, then the gun would have been part of a Colt shipment to Russia, possibly through France.  But if there was no letter following the serial number, then the history of Yurovsky's gun wold be quite different.  Colt's archives indicate that the gun model 1911 serial number 71905 (without any letter tagged on at the end) was manufactures in 1914 and was sold to the United States government.  It was delivered to the Ordnance Officer at Fort Thomas, Kentucky on 30 April 1914, one of 150 weapons received.  The 45s were issued to officers, military police and pilots only.

"Thus the self-proclaimed leader of the assassins, at least according to the serial number Radzinsky gave, was using an American army issue gun.  Yet America was not supposed to have a military presence in Russia in July 1918.  The US finally sent troops to Siberia approxiamately six weeks later under the command of General William Graves.  If the serial number Radzinsky quotes is right, then how did the Colt 45 from Kentucky end up in the hands of Yurovsky?"

How did a gun that supposedly arrived with the Americans six weeks after the execution of Nicholas II get to Ekaternburg and be labeled as the murder weapon six weeks earlier?

I think this is a good question to ask by McNeal or anyone else who's interested in the US Colt 45 which was said to have murdered Nicholas II.

AGRBear

PS for more information on Americans Who Fought Bolshviks see:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=revolution;action=display;num=1112900912
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on April 28, 2005, 11:45:37 AM
Robert Massie's  THE ROMANOVS, THE FINAL CHAPTER p. 20:

"In 1920, Yakob Yurovsky gave the Soviet historian Michael Pokrovsky a detailed account of what he had done in Ekaterinburg in July of 1918 "so people would know".  In 1927, he presented his two revolvers, the Colt and the Mauser, to the Museum of the Revolution on Red Square."

I assume this is the same Colt mentioned by McNeal.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on May 02, 2005, 07:37:08 PM
I find it interesting that it was Ermakov who as  standing on the railway ties  which were laid over the mass grave and getting this photo taken and not Yurovsky:

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

According to Ermakov, he was the one who shot and killed Nicholas II, not Yurovsky.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on May 03, 2005, 09:27:54 AM
The following photograph is a Mauser, the one which Ermakov claimed he used to kill Nicholas II.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/Colt45.jpg)

Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: LisaDavidson on May 03, 2005, 02:12:20 PM
Quote
I find it interesting that it was Ermakov who as  standing on the railway ties  which were laid over the mass grave and getting this photo taken and not Yurovsky:

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

According to Ermakov, he was the one who shot and killed Nicholas II, not Yurovsky.

AGRBear


Have you read Fate of the Romanovs? It is likely that most of the squad fired at Nicholas, as he was the hated symbol of autocracy. The truth is, no one will ever know who fired the fatal shot.

Ermakov was a drunk and a braggart, so I am totally unimpressed by this claim, as should you be!
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on May 03, 2005, 03:28:31 PM
I have read the FATE OF THE ROMANOVS by King and Wilson.

"Impressed" isn't a word I used when talking about either men, Ermakov or Yurovsky, who  claimed to have executed Nicholas II.

From what I've read,  it seems Ermakov was called a "braggart" and a man who drank too much.

The Soviet's seem to look differently upon Ermakov than Yurovsky.  Apparently,  Ermakov, not Yurovsky, was given a  "special pension" p. 429 THE LAST TSAR by Edward Radzinsky.

As to who actually killed Nicholas II, I suppose that most of the guns were first aimed at Nicholas II.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: etonexile on May 03, 2005, 06:46:53 PM
Gad...the things in which one takes...pride.... :(
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: LisaDavidson on May 03, 2005, 07:37:45 PM
Quote
I have read the FATE OF THE ROMANOVS by King and Wilson.

"Impressed" isn't a word I used when talking about either men, Ermakov or Yurovsky, who  claimed to have executed Nicholas II.

From what I've read,  it seems Ermakov was called a "braggart" and a man who drank too much.

The Soviet's seem to look differently upon Ermakov than Yurovsky.  Apparently,  Ermakov, not Yurovsky, was given a  "special pension" p. 429 THE LAST TSAR by Edward Radzinsky.

As to who actually killed Nicholas II, I suppose that most of the guns were first aimed at Nicholas II.

AGRBear


One important reason for that difference is that Yurovsky died at a relatively young age, while Ermakov died some years later. I believe Yurovsky only lived 20 years after the murders.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on May 04, 2005, 09:51:29 AM
Remember, Yurovsky was older b. in 1878 so for him, twenty years later, 1938 he was sixty and dying of cancer as well as having suffered from a bad heart before 1918.

Ermakov was born in 1884 and did live to be quite old and d. in 1952 so perhaps the communists could afford a better pension by then...

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on May 04, 2005, 09:55:54 AM
In Russian Revolution, thread Soviet life we were talking about pensions in today's world of a Russian.  This is the ages I was given:

Quote
55 for women
60 for men
(average duration of life  is 54-55 , so a lot of men die before the retirement)  )


I don't know what it was in 1938 or 1952.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on May 09, 2005, 07:03:00 PM
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/Colt451914.jpg)

This is a Colt 45 made in 1914.

It is not the one Yurovsky used, however.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: lexi4 on May 09, 2005, 11:48:07 PM
Quote
Bear, why does everyone else have to do your work for you? To answer your question,

What is so hard about this? Why can't you research this yourself instead of continually asking others to do so AND all the while implying that the sources aren't really there?

Or is the point that you don't trust Yurovsky about anything and you consider him an unreliable witness? You think that, as you've stated elsewhere, the servants and 5 Chekists (??) were executed in the place of the imperial family and all of Yurovsky's statements are just very elaborate lies? (As are the statements of all the other witnesses?) Because I really think you're going to some other, very distant place with all this - somewhere that more properly belongs in the "Survivors" thread than it does here, in the "Final Chapter" one.

I have to defend Bear here. I think Bear does great research. Every time I post a question, or anyone for that matter, Bear is one of the first people to jump on and share whatever information she has or has found. I have found Bear to be very helpful. I ask a lot of questions and would hate to think I was going to get attacked every time I did. We are all here to learn and share information, aren't we?
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on May 11, 2005, 01:50:34 PM
Unlike many people,  I don't care in what direction the truth causes me to take.

Sometimes, the road to truth can be a very lonely road to travel.

Other times, the road of truth can be crowded....

In the end, it takes us willingly or unwillingly to the same place.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: matushka on May 16, 2005, 05:37:42 PM
I am sorry, I do not know where can I post what I want to say: I think that forum administrator will feel free to deplace it, if necessary.
Last days, I was reading with great interest about the question of survivors and other similar questions. I learn a lot, having never well study these questions. As often write rssyka, I would like to place my modest 2 kopeck; I hope it was not written anywhere.
Some of us search the thruth on these questions. Other wish OTMA was not shot. Every has his own version; some of us are not ready to accept the "official" version. But - as far as I read -  no one use something interesting for our research: the canonization of the entire family. You will say: mystical things have nothing to do here. But I am not about mystic. When the Church began the story of canonization, she study ALL the question, large and long; they study all the multiples problems of the personnality of the family, political and religious questions. I have no doubt they was thinking also about all the survivance's stories. It would have been impossible to canonize them, if someone was not killed in the Ipatiev house. It is not a secret, that a lot of Church rulers are very close to the KGB, stay very close to him. Some of them have very high rank in this institution. Is that good or not, it is out of topic. I am quite sure, that these Church'rulers, in this very delicate and important question asked about the truth. They have right to receive an answer. Perhaps they have also access to secret documents; perhaps not. But receive a clear answer, they can. See what we have: the Church canonize the entire family, recognizing the death of all of them. But the Church did not recognize these bodies, despite of all the expertises. I think there are good reasons.
It was just my supposition. I ask some friend, who know the system not to bad, who worked for the Patriarcate. He supported my supposition. So. The canonization of the Imperial Family is for me an historical and mystical answer to the "survivor"'s question... I add: if some of them, for example the women (Perm's story) had escaped, the Church would have canonize only Nicolas, giving for that some good theological reasons. Or would no one canonize.
So, I hope I shok none of you with this simple, modest, in the first glance stupid contribution. I apologize for my english.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on May 22, 2005, 04:06:02 PM
Matushka, I don't have any answers for you.  I think  you have brought up some interesting questions.

I think there is a religious thread somewhere and I will look around and see if there is.  If I do find one, I will place the URL in this post and perhaps quote your post and place it there to see if we can find some answers.

Thank you Matushka for being interested in this subject.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on May 22, 2005, 04:06:51 PM
Quote
I found this article. Hope I am posting it in the right place.

Nicholas and Alexandra

Unpublished Romanov Documents are in LC's Law Library

By ANDREI PLIGUZOV and ABBY SMITH

Following is the first of three articles on the Law Library's collection of documents and photographs relating to the assassination of the Russian imperial family. Parts two and three will be published in future issues of the LC Information Bulletin.

The Library of Congress has long served the nation as its "library of last resort," where people can locate copies of rare or hard-to-find research materials. But it has also served as what one might call the "repository of last resort."

Valuable collections from around the globe that have faced censorship, physical degradation or extinction for political, religious or other reasons have made their way here, either intentionally or by accident. In particular, the Law Library, dedicated to the preservation and access of international legal materials, has acquired some of its finest and rarest Russian holdings because donors have deposited documents there to ensure physical safety and free accessibility. This is precisely how the Law Library acquired its unique copy of the Sokolov Commission documents, investigative case files from the first inquiry into the murder of the Romanov family in 1918, begun just weeks after their assassination in Ekaterinburg, Russia. George Tellberg, a former professor of law at the University of Saratov, deposited the documents at the Library in 1953.

The story of the execution of the czar's family in the early hours of the morning of July 17, 1918, is now known in all its bloody details. Recent genetic tests, based on skeletal remains excavated from a pit in the Ural Mountains, where the bodies were dumped, have yielded irrefutable evidence of the death of the family, along with several retainers. Only the remains of Tsarevich Alexis and one of the younger daughters (either Maria or Anastasia) have not been found. Their bodies are believed to have been incinerated. Genetic testing has also proved that Anna Anderson, who long claimed to be Anastasia, had no genetic relationship to the imperial family.

This recent investigation into the murders has been fully supported by the current Russian government, which has even floated, or at least encouraged, rumors that the imperial remains will be interred in the official resting place of the Romanov dynasty in St. Petersburg.

Ironically, the present investigation is driven by exactly the same motives as Sokolov's inquiry -- to find out what actually happened; to prove beyond a doubt that all members of the imperial family were killed (and, therefore, forestall any claims by pretenders like Anderson); and to discredit the Bolsheviks and their methods.

As we now know, the imperial family was killed because the city where they were being held by the Red Army was soon to be overrun by the anticommunists. In the midst of the chaos of civil war, the Bolshevik leaders, thousands of miles away in the Kremlin, deemed it expedient to kill the Romanovs rather than risk their capture during evacuation to a safer place.

Within days of their death, Adm. Alexander Kolchak's "white" army marched into Ekaterinburg and, by July 30, he ordered an investigation into the murders. The gross ineptness of the original investigators, Aleksei Nemetkin and Ivan Sergeev, soon led Kolchak to have all the forensic materials remanded to his personal custody. On Feb. 6, 1919, he handed the case over to Nikolai Sokolov, Investigating Magistrate for Cases of Special Importance of the Omsk Tribunal. During the criminal investigation, Sokolov examined all available witnesses connected with the imperial family during their exile. He gathered photographs, deposed servants, doctors and tutors to the children, guards, soldiers and local eyewitnesses.

The findings of the Sokolov Commission, comprising eight volumes and dozens of photographs, became important state documents for Kolchak's Siberian government and were carefully preserved through the chaos of war, the disorderly retreat to Eastern Siberia and the army's dispersal in the Far East. Sokolov himself transported a set of documents through Vladivostok to Paris, where he prepared a book about the fate of the Romanovs (published posthumously in 1925). Seven of the original eight volumes that belonged to Sokolov are now at Harvard University.

The Law Library has materials that had been in the personal possession of Kolchak's justice minister, George Tellberg. Not unlike today, when authors are rushing to print with books based on the findings of the latest investigation, the early 1920s also saw a rash of books about the then-mysterious fate of the imperial family. Tellberg was among the first into print. In 1920 he published The Last Days of the Romanovs, based on files he had borrowed from Kolchak and his officers. Tellberg held on to the materials and in 1954 donated them to the Law Library, along with a large collection of materials relating to the Siberian government and the last years of Romanov rule.

The collection includes material never published in its original form. While some eyewitness testimony appeared in a German edition of the Sokolov Commission papers in 1987 (in Russian), the evidence that did not relate directly to the assassination was omitted, such as the deposition of Sidney Gibbes, the English tutor to the imperial family from 1908 until the family's avacuation from Tobolsk to Ekaterinburg in spring 1918. Gibbes lived in the royal household, and his account provides new insights into the character of the emperor and individual members of the family, including the children. The oldest, Olga, "was fair, direct, honest and open ... but could be easily irritated and her manners were a little brusque." Tatiana "was reserved, haughty, not open, but the most responsible." Maria loved their place of exile in Tobolsk, and she told Gibbes "she would happily stay there forever." Anastasia "was a real comedian, and she made everyone laugh. But she herself never laughed, just her eyes twinkled." And Alexis was clever, though not fond of reading, and had odd fancies, such as collecting old nails, saying "they may be useful."

While abroad, refugees from Russia such as Tellberg and Sokolov published their accounts of the murder of the Romanovs. In their homeland, the Soviet government refused to divulge any information about the fate of Nicholas and his family. This vacuum of official information was soon filled with numerous popular tales of the miraculous survival of one or more of the children. Several young women declared themselves to be Anastasia, and a telegraph operator in Siberia who was barely literate, certainly knew no foreign languages and was wholly ignorant of the intricacies of court etiquette (which would have been second nature to a Romanov), stubbornly insisted that he was the Tsarevich Alexis.

Today, thanks to unfettered access to all of Sokolov's materials, we have little trouble separating fact from fiction. But there is one pressing question: Who ordered the murders? Lenin's close adviser Yakov Sverdlov? Lenin himself?

There is no written evidence, because in 1918, just as today, such an order would have been given by telephone or face to face behind closed doors. Just as Tellberg understood how important it is for posterity that all documentary evidence about the Romanov deaths be preserved, so the men who ordered the execution understood that that which is not recorded cannot be preserved.

And so history must remain silent.

Andrei Pliguzov is a senior research fellow at the Russian Academy of Sciences who is doing archival research in the Law Library. Abby Smith is assistant to the associate librarian for Library Services and holds a doctorate in Russian history from Harvard University.




I thought this might find some interest to other posters who might not have seen this on another thread.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: lexi4 on May 22, 2005, 05:36:35 PM
Thank you bear, I am one of those posters. Do you know if the report has been translated into English? The one at the LC
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: La_Mashka on May 25, 2005, 10:26:43 AM
That is a very interesting article.


As for what happened to the 2 missing bodies, like you said Bear, as long as they are missing, we can ALL speculate and come up with different explanations.

What I also find intriguing is that most "survivors" claim to be either Aleksei or Anastasia.... funny how those 2 bodies are the ones missing...
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on May 25, 2005, 04:56:23 PM
I came across this. I wish I could visit and look at these documents. It looks as though it has things I have only read about second hand.

http://oasis.harvard.edu:10080/oasis/deliver/deepLink?_collection=oasis&uniqueId=hou01456
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: La_Mashka on May 26, 2005, 10:00:44 AM
Oh wow!!!!    :o

Thats a lot of documents....  


thanks for the very interesting link!!!
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on May 27, 2005, 10:51:03 AM
Quote
I came across this. I wish I could visit and look at these documents. It looks as though it has things I have only read about second hand.

http://oasis.harvard.edu:10080/oasis/deliver/deepLink?_collection=oasis&uniqueId=hou01456



Here is just an example of what is on the Harvard List:
>>Documents concerning the investigation into the death of Nicholas II: Guide.

fMS Russ 35

Documents concerning the investigation into the death of Nicholas II: Guide.
Houghton Library, Harvard College Library



Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138

© 2003 The President and Fellows of Harvard College


Descriptive Summary

Repository: Houghton Library, Harvard College Library, Harvard University
Location: f
Call No.: MS Russ 35
Creator: .
Title: Documents concerning the investigation into the death of Nicholas II,
Date(s): 1918-1920.
Quantity: 7 v. (1 linear ft.)
Abstract: Documents compiled for the investigation into the deaths of Russian Czar Nicholas II and his family.

Administrative Information

Acquisition Information: *64M-250
Gift of Bayard L. Kilgour, Jr.; received: 1966.


Arrangement

Organized into the following series by volume:

*      Volume I
*      Volume II
*      Volume III.
*      Volume IV
*      Volume V
*      Volume VI
*      Volume VII



Scope and Content

Contains documents compiled for the investigation into the deaths of Czar Nicholas II and his family. Records include testimonies, orders, and other court papers, in addition to correspondence, reports, and photographs. Much of the material pertains to the examination of articles used as material evidence in the investigation which was conducted by N.A. Sokolov, Coroner of the Court. Photographs (with negatives) are of the royal family and the house and area in Ekaterinburg where they were killed. Also includes some correspondence in English concerning the disposition of the belongings of Nicholas and his family.


Container List



*      Series: Volume I
Written: "inquiry."
The Coroner of Court of Special Affairs N. Sokolov.
Conformable to the original.
Coroner of Court N. Sokolov (signed).

*      (1) Order of the Prosecuting Attorney of the Ekaterinburg District Court, No. 131, July 30, 1918, to Namietkin, Coroner of Justice of Special Affairs to begin investigations; including the testimony of Fedor Nikitin Gorshkov p. 1-3


*      (2) Official opening of the preliminary investigations by the Coroner of Justice of Special Affairs, July 30, 1918 p. 4


*      (3) Report of the Coroner of Justice on the examination of the mines, July 17-30, 1918 p. 5


*      (4) List of objects received from the military authorities p. 6


*      (5) Testimony of Evdokia Timoffevna Lobanov, August 1, 1918 p. 7-8


*      (6) Correspondence regarding the delivery of the diamond to Malinovsky Capitain of the Bodyguard p. 9


*      (7) Testimonies of Andrey Andreevitch Sheremetevsky, Mikhail Dmitriev Alferov, and Mikhail Ivanov Babinov, August 3, 1918 p. 10-12


*      (8 ) Order of the Prosecuting Attorney of the Ekaterinburg District Court, No. 195, August 10, 1918, to Namietkin, Coroner of Justice of Special Affairs to transfer investigations to Sergeev, Member of this Court p. 13


*      (9) Examination of Ipatiev's house by Namietkin, Coroner of Justice of Special Affairs, August 2-8, 1918 p. 14-24


*      (10) Prescript of the Ekaterinburg District Court, July 30 - August 12, 1918, to Namietkin, Coroner of Justice of Special Affairs to transfer the investigation to Sergeev, Member of the Court p. 25


*      (11) Decision of Namietkin, Coroner of Justice of Special Affairs, August 13, 1918, to transfer this affair to Sergeev, Member of the Court for further preliminary investigation p. 26


*      (12) The envelope that contained the diamond received by Namietkin, Coroner of Justice of Special Affairs from Malinovsky, Capitain of the Bodyguard p. 27-28


*      (13) Report of the examination of the diamond by Namietkin, Coroner of Justice of Special Affairs, September 8, 1918 p. 29


*      (14) Report of Malinovsky, Capitain of the Bodyguard to Namietkin, Coroner of Justice of Special Affairs of the transferance of pieces of pearls to Yartzev, Capitain of the Bodyguard p. 30


*      (15) Order of the Chief of Staff of the Ural Special Corps, No. 21001, September 7, 1918, to Malinovsky - to give the diamond to Namietkin, Coroner of Justice of Special Affairs p. 31


*      (16) Order of the Chief of Staff of the Ural Special Corps, No. 21002, September 7, 1918, to the commandant of the station of Cheliabinsk, to aid Namietkin, Coroner of Justice, in every way possible p. 32


*      (17) The same document p. 33


*      (18 ) Prescript of the President of the Ekaterinburg District Court, No. 45, July 26-August 8, 1918, to Namietkin, Coroner of Justice of Special Affairs, ordering his release from the investigations p. 34


*      (19) Report of the examination of Ipatiev's house by Sergeev, Member of the Court, August 11-14, 1918 p. 35-41


*      (20) Order of Sergeev, Member of the Court, August 18, 1918, to remove certain sections from the wall and floor of a room in Ipatiev's house p. 42


*      (21) Report of same date of the removal sections from the floor of the room p. 43


*      (22) Correspondence regarding the finding of objects that had belonged to the Royal Family in the possession of Fedossia Illarionovna Balmisheva and their confiscation p. 44-47


*      (23) Testimony of Terenty Ivanovitch Chemodurov, August 15-16, 1918 p. 48-53


*      (24) Report of Kholmanskikh, sub-inspector, to Sergeev, Member of the Court p. 54


*      (25) Report of Sergeev, Member of the Court, regarding the removal of sections from the wall of the room in Ipatiev's house, August 20-21, 1918 p. 55


*      (26) Report of the Prosecuting Attorney of the Ekaterinburg District Court, No. 263, August 20, 1918, to Sergeev, Member of the Court with material evidence: man's finger, two pieces of epidermis, an earing, artificial teeth, pieces of a hand-bomb, a necktie holder, bones of a bird, pieces of a small glass bottle (vinaigrette), an iron piece in the form of a horse-shoe from the heel of a man's boot, buttons, and an iron shovel p. 57


*      (27) Correspondence that had accompanied documents which were found in the office of the Uralsk District Soviet p. 58-59


*      (28 ) Correspondence regarding the finding of objects that had belonged to the Royal Family in the possession of Peter Illarionov Lilov, and in the building which was occupied by the Uralsk District Soviet p. 60-64


*      (29) Report of the Prosecuting Attorney of the Ekaterinburg District Court, No.283, September 3, 1918, to Sergeev, Member of the Court with a copy of the testimony of doctor Nikolay Arsenievitch Sakovitch p. 65-69


*      (30) Report of the examination of documents of the Uralsk District Soviet by Sergeev, Member of the Court, September 5, 1918 p. 70-71


*      (31) Acknowledgement of these documents as material evidence p. 32

.........
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on May 27, 2005, 11:37:39 AM
*      (32) Request of Professor Dill to Sergeev, Member of the Court, for permission to study the material of the investigation for historical research purposes p. 72


*      (33) Refusal of Professor Dill's request by Sergeev, Member of the Court, September 6, 1918 p. 73-74


*      (34) Testimonies of Peter Illarionov Lilov, Nazar Kharitonov Novosselov and Fedossia Illarionovna Balmishev made to the Ekaterinburg criminal militia p. 75-78


*      (35) Report of the finding objects that had belonged to the Royal Family in the building of the Volzhsko-Kamsky Bank, September 4, 1918 p. 79-80


*      (36) Testimony of Peter Andreevitch Jilliard made to Sergeev, Member of the Court, September 12, 1918 p. 81-86


*      (37) Report of the examination and value of the diamond made in the presence of Mr. Jilliard and Mr. Gibbs, September 14, 1918 p. 87


*      (38 ) Report of the official sealing of objects that had belonged to the Royal Family, found in the building of the Volzhsko-Kamsky Bank, September 11-24, 1918 p. 88


*      (39) Report of the Ekaterinburg criminal militia to Sergeev, Member of the Court, No. 2039, October 13, 1916, including testimonies p. 89-141


*      (40) List of the documents made by Professor Dill found in the building of the Volzhsko-Kamsky Bank p. 142-143


*      (41) Protests of Kazem-Bek, President of the Ekaterinburg District Court, Iordansky, Proseciting Attorney of the same Court and Sergeev, Member of the Court against the occupation of Ipatiev's house by General Haida, October 8, 1918 p. 144


*      (42) Testimony of Father Ioann Vladimirovitch Storozhev, October 8-10, 1918 p. 145-150


*      (43) The decision of Sergeev, Member of the Court, October 16, 1918, to wothdraw from this investigation the documents involving Fedossia Illarionovna Balmisheva, Peter Illarionov Lilov and Nazar Kiprianov Novosselov for having had in their possession objects that had belonged to the Royal Family p. 151


*      (44) Testimony of Mikhail Ivanov Letemin, October 18-19, 1918 p. 152-155


*      (45) Decision of October 20, 1918, to withdraw from this investigation the documents relative to the finding of objects that had belonged to the Royal Family in the possession of Mikhail Ivanov Letemin, on the grounds article 314 crim. law proceedure p. 156


*      (46) Testimony of Nikolay Yakovlevitch Sedov, November 28-29, 1918 p. 157-158


*      (47) Correspondence with the Ekaterinburg Criminal Police Department p. 159


*      (48 ) Testimony of Alexey Andreevitch Volkov, October 23, 1918 p. 160-161


*      (49) Report of the Prosecuting Attorney of the Ekaterinburg District Court, October, 21, 1918, No. 313, with correspondence regarding the discovery of objects that had belonged to the Royal Family in the possession of Fedossia Illarionovna Balmisheva p. 162-165


*      (50) Report of the Prosecuting Attorney of the Ekaterinburg District Court, September 24, 1918, No. 294, to the Chief of the Ekaterinburg Criminal Police Department, including a letter written by Grigory Nikolaevitch Kotegov p. 166-167


*      (51) Inquiries made by the Ekaterinburg Criminal Militia p. 168-173


*      (52) Report of the examination of the diary of Crown Prince Alexey Nikolaevitch by Sergeev, Member of the Court, October 24, 1918 p. 174-175


*      (53) Report of the opening of the graves and the examination of the dead bodies of unknown men in the city of Ekaterinburg with the conclusions of a physician, November 1, 1918 p. 176-177


*      (54) Inquiries made by the Ekaterinburg Criminal Militia p. 178-188


*      (55) Inquiries of the same militia made by order of Sergeev, Member of the Court, No. 33, November 5, 1918 p. 189-193


*      (56) Testimonies of Maria Grigorievna Starodumova and Vassa Ossipovna Driagina, November 11, 1918 p. 194-195


*      (57) Testimony of Maria Danilovna Medvedeva, November 9-10, 1918 p. 196-197


*      (58 ) Decision of Sergeev, Member of the Court, to release Medvedeva from arrest, November 11, 1918 p. 198-199

Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on May 27, 2005, 11:39:38 AM
Testimonies of:

*      (59) November 13, 1918 - Prokopy Vladimirovitch Kukhtenkov p. 200-201


*      (60) November 14, 1918 - Peter Porfirov Bogoyavlensky p. 202


*      (61) November 18, 1918 - Semen Vassiliev Novikov p. 203-204

Testimonies of:

*      (80) January 15, 1919,- Nikolay Nikolaevitch Magnitzky p. 264-265


*      (81) January 16, 1919,- Kensorin Sergeevitch Arkhipov p. 266-266


*      (82) January 16, 1919,- Samson Illitch Matikov p. 266-267



*      (83) Report about the removal of a piece of board, covered with blood, from the floor in the room of Ipatiev's house, January 25, 1919 p. 268


*      (84) Letter of the Consul of Great Britain, No. 24/19, January 25, 1919, to Sergeev, Member of the Court, accompanying objects belonging to Anna Stepanovna Demidov p. 269


*      (85) Order of M.K.Diterikhs, General-Lieutenant, January 23, 1919, to Sergeev, Member of the Court to transfer the investigation and all material evidence to General Diterikhs p. 270


*      (86) Decision of Sergeev, Member of the Court, January 25, 1919, to transfer the entire investigation and all material evidence to General-Lieutenant Diterikhs p. 271


*      (87) List of the countersign of the affair by Sergeev, Member of the Court p. 272


*      (88 ) Report of the Chief of the Ekaterinburg Post Office, No. 374, January 20, 1919 to Sergeev, Member of the Court, with telegramms and with a list of employees of the Ekaterinburg Post Office p. 273





*      (62) November 18, 1918 - Anna Stepanovna Kostoussova p. 204-206


*      (63) November 21, 1918 - Natalia Nikolaevna Kotova p. 206-207


*      (64) November 22, 1918 - Elena Ossipovna Tziberle p. 207


*      (65) November 26, 1918 - Alexander Vassilievitch Samoilov, Fedor Ivanovitch Ivanov p. 208-209


*      (66) November 27, 1918 - Olga Pavlovna Diemina, Afanassy Kirillovitch Elkin p. 210-211


*      (67) November 28, 1918 - Galina Semenovna Ostchepkova p. 211


*      (68 ) November 30, 1918 - Nikolay Nikolaevitch Ipatiev p. 212-213



*      (69) Report of the examination of documents of the "Soviet Government": the order of requisition of Ipatiev's house, and a list of the objects left in the house p. 214-216


*      (70) Sergeev's decision of the month of November (a date is not shown) to consider these documents as material evidence p. 217


*      Testimonies of:

*      (71) December 5, 1918, - Mikhail Vladimirovitch 5omashevsky p. 218-220


*      (72) December 6, 1918 - Grigory Tikhonovitch Agafonov p. 220-221


*      (73) December 6, 1918 - Kapitolina Alexandrovna Agafonova p. 222-223



*      (74) Sergeev's order No. 49, November 26, 1918, to Mr. Alexeev, agent of the Criminal Police Department and inquiries made by the latter p. 224-238


*      (75) Sergeev's order of the December 3, 1918, No. 53 to the same Mr. Alexeev and inquiries made by the latter p. 239-242


*      (76) Report of the Prosecuting Attorney of the Ekaterinburg District Court, No. 73, January 4, 1919 with a copy of a telegramm to General Pepelyaev p. 243-244


*      (77) The report of the Prosecuting Attorney of the Ekaterinburg District Court to Sergeev, Member of the Court with a copy of the report of Magnitzky, Assistant to the Prosecuting Attorney, No. 76, January 4, 1919 p. 245-248


*      (78 ) Report of the Prosecuting Attorney of the Ekaterinburg District Court, No. 1, December 31, 1918 to Sergeev, Member of the Court with the report of Ostroumov, Assistant to the Prosecuting Attorney including a clipping from some bolshevic newspaper of the article "The removal of the former Tsar from the city of Tobolsk to the city of Ekaterinburg"; a letter of Yankel Khaimov Yurovsky to Kensorin Sergeevitch Arkhipov; testimonies of Valerian Mikhailovitc Litkin and Anatoly Ivanovitch Belogradsky; the order of the Prosecuting Attorney, December 28, 1918, (no No.) to make a search of the house of Kensorin Sergeevitch Arkhipov and to examine his letters and books p. 249-258


*      (79) Order of Sergeev, Member of the Court, No. 96, January 13, 1918 (?), to the Chief of the Ekaterinburg Criminal Police Department to make inquiries and collect testimonies p. 259-263

Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on May 27, 2005, 11:51:08 AM
Series: Volume II
Coroner of the Court of Special Affairs N. Sokolov.
Conformable to the original.
Coroner of the Court of Special Affairs N. Sokolov. (signed)

*      (1) Prescript of the Minister of Justice, No. 25 a/12437, February 7, 1919, to N.A.Sokolov, Coroner of the Court of Special Affairs, to begin preliminary investigations p. 1


*      (2) Decision of N.A.Sokolov, Coroner of the Court of Special Affairs, to begin preliminary investigations p. 2


*      (3) Report of Sokolov, Coroner of the Court, February 7, 1919, confirming the receiving of the first volume of original investigation from the General-Lieutenant M.K.Diterikhs p. 3-4


*      (4) Act of February 8, 1919, concerning the destruction of the cord of the first volume p. 5


*      (5) Report of the General-Lieutenant M.K.Diterikhs, February 9, 1919, to Sokolov, Coroner of the Court of Special Affairs, including material evidence and a list of material evidence which was made by Sergeev, Member of the Ekaterinburg District Court p. 6-9


*      (6) Examination of material evidence, by the Coroner of Court, according to the lists No. 6, 11, 12, 15, 4 and 5 - made by Sergeev, Member of the Court p. 10-14


*      (7) Photographying of material evidence, February 10, 1919 p. 15


*      (8) Receipt of the photographer G.V.Divish p. 16


*      (9) Examination of material evidence with the assistance of the physician G.I.Egorov, February 10, 1919 p. 17


*      (10) Examination of material evidence with the assistance of the physician G.I.Egorov, February 10, 1919 p. 18


*      (11) Examination of material evidence with the assistance of the jewellers K.A.Tsadrikov and Ya.O.Kyairish, February 10, 1919 p. 19-20


*      (12) Examination of material evidence with the assistance of the tailor A.E.Leontiev, February 10, 1919 p. 21


*      (13) Examination of material evidence with the assistance of the shoemaker T.K.Rosental, February 10, 1919 p. 22


*      (14) Report of the photographer Divish, February 10, 1919, including negatives p. 23


*      (15) Complete examination of artificial teeth an a shovel, February 11, 1919 p. 24-25


*      (16) Examination of material evidence with the assistance of the technician of artillery V.I.Lindstrem, February 11, 1919 p. 26


*      (17) Decision - to return material evidence to General-Lieutenant M.K.Diterikhs for safe-keeping p. 27-28


*      (18) Report to the Coroner of the Vladivostok District Court concerning the order No. 42 p. 29


*      (19) Report of the General-Lieutenant M.K.Diterikhs, February 11, 1919, including documents p. 30


*      (20) The documents: information concerning the family of the pastor Plumberg; testimony of the Lieutenant Tolstoukhov; testimony of the General-Major Tomashevsky; inquiry of Pavel Ivanovitch Loginov made by Belotserkovsky, the Chief of the Ekaterinburg Military Control; report of Belotserkovsky, No. 38631, January 25, 1919, to the General-Lieutenant M.K.Diterikhs p. 31-36


*      (21) Examination of material evidence received from General-Lieutenant M.K.Diterikhs including a list made by Sergeev, Member of the Court, February 12, 1919 p. 38


*      (22) Decision of Coroner of the Court to transfer them to General-Lieutenant M.K.Diterikhs p. 39


*      (23) Photographying of material evidence, February 12, 1919 p. 40


*      (24) Act of packing and sealing of material evidence to return for safe-keeping to General-Lieutenant M.K.Diterikhs p. 41


*      (25) Receipt of the General-Lieutenant M.K.Diterikhs, February 12, 1919, aknowledging the receiving of material evidence p. 42


*      (26) Report of the photographer Divish, February 12, 1919, including negatives p. 43


*      (27) Photographying of the portrait of the Tsarina Alexandra Theodorovna, February 12, 1919 p. 44


*      (28) Examination of material evidence received from General-Lieutenant M.K.Diterikhs according to the list No. 4 made by Sergeev, Member of the Court p. 45-49


*      (29) Examination of pieces of wood taken by Sergeev, Member of the Court, from the room of Ipatiev's house, February 17-18, 1919 p. 50-56


*      (30) Photographying of material evidence, February 19, 1919 p. 57-58


*      (31) Examination of material evidence with the assistance of the optician K.S.Lugovkin, February 20, 1919 p. 59


*      (32) Examination of material evidence with the assistance of the jewellers K.A.Tsardikov and Ya.O.Kyairish, February 20, 1919 p. 60


*      (33) Examination of material evidence with the assistance of the shoemaker T.K.Rosental, February 20, 1919 p. 61


*      (34) Examination of material evidence with the assistance of the tailor A.E.Leontiev and of the merchants A.A.Khabarov and U.V.Makhan, February 20, 1919 p. 62-64


*      (35) Report of the photographer Divish including negatives and prints, February 21, 1919 p. 65


*      (36) Decision of February 22, 1919 to make scientific research of material evidence p. 66


*      (37) Order No. 44, February 22, 1919, to send material evidence to the Medical Department of Akmolinsk District Administration p. 67


*      (38) Act of receiving of material evidence by G.I.Egorov, Chief of the Medical Department, February 22, 1919 p. 68


*      (39) Photographying of material evidence, February 22, 1919 p. 69


*      (40) Report of the photographer Divish including negatives and prints, February 23, 1919 p. 70


*      (41) Examination, February 23, 1919, of material evidence received from General-Lieutenant M.K.Diterikhs according to the list No. 15 made by Sergeev, Member of the Court p. 71-77


*      (42) List of clerks of the Ekaterinburg Post Office who have served in Staffs of red army p. 78


*      (43) Report, February 24, 1919, to Colonel Zlobin, the Chief of Intelligence Service at the Staff of Commander in Chief, including coded telegramms p. 79


*      (44) Report of G.I.Egorov, Chief of the Medical Department, No. 2330, February 24, 1919 p. 80


*      (45) Act of the removal of bullets from material evidence, February 24, 1919 p. 81


*      (46) Examination, February 24, 1919, of material evidence received from General-Lieutenant M.K.Diterikhs according to the list No. 15 made by Sergeev, Member of the Court p. 82-83


*      (47) Photographying of material evidence, February 25, 1919 p. 84


*      (48) Examination of material evidence with the assistance of General-Major N.V.Kopansky, February 26, 1919 p. 85-89


*      (49) The same examination, February 27, 1919 p. 90


*      (50) Examination, February 27, 1919, of material evidence received from General-Lieutenant M.K.Diterikhs according to the list No. 15 made by Sergeev, Member of the Court p. 91-95


*      (51) Photographying of material evidence, February 28, 1919 p. 96


*      (52) Report, February 28, 1919, to A.N.Kulkov, Chie of the Code Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, including coded telegramms p. 97


*      (53) Report of the photographer Divish, March 1, 1919, including negatives and prints p. 98


*      (54) Examination of fibres of wool with the assistance of P.A.Jilliard, March 5, 1919 p. 99


*      (55) Testimony of P.A.Jilliard, 5-6, 1919 p. 100-110


*      (56) Photographying of material evidence, March 5, 1919 p. 111


*      (57) Photographying of material evidence, March 6, 1919 p. 112


*      (58) Examination, March 9, 1919, of material evidence received from General-Lieutenant M.K.Diterikhs according to the list No. 15 made by Sergeev, Member of the Court p. 113-121


*      (59) Examination, March 12, 1919, of material evidence received from General-Lieutenant M.K.Diterikhs according to the list No. 15 made by Sergeev, Member of the Court p. 122-124


*      (60) Examination, March 13, 1919, of material evidence received from General-Lieutenant M.K.Diterikhs according to the list No. 15 made by Sergeev, Member of the Court p. 125-128


*      (61) Report, March 14, 1919, of the receiving from Sergeev, Member of the Court, of the following documents: p. 129


*      (62) Cover of the affair p. 130


*      (63) Copy of the order of General-Lieutenant Diterikhs No. 119, January 23, 1919 to Sergeev, Member of the Court p. 131


*      (64) Report, No. 2039, January 25, 1919, of the Chief of the Ekaterinburg Criminal Police Department to Sergeev, Member of the Court, including inquiries p. 132-137


*      (65) Report, No. 369, January 26, 1919, of the Chief of the Ekaterinburg Post Office to Sergeev, Member of the Court, including telegramms p. 138


*      (66) Examination of these telegramms by Sergeev, Member of the Court, January 28, 1919 p. 139


*      (67) His decision, January 28, 1919, to consider these telegramms as material evidence p. 140


*      (68) Testimony of Nikolay Filitzianovitch Dubovik, January 28, 1919 p. 140


*      (69) Testimony of P.I.Loginov, January 29, 1919 p. 141-144


*      (70) Inquiries made by Alexeev, agent of Criminal Police Department p. 145-153


*      (71) Examination of material evidence by Sergeev, Member of the Court, February 4, 1919 p. 154-155


*      (72) Inquiries made by Alexeev, agent of Criminal Police Department p. 156-157


*      (73) Testimony of Alexander Andreevitch Sheremetevsky, February 8, 1919 p. 158-159


*      (74) Order No. 104, January 28, 1919 of Sergeev, Member of the Court, to Alexeev, agent of Criminal Police Department, to make inquiries; and inquiries made by the latter p. 160-166


*      (75) Report of the Prosecuting Attorney of the Omsk District Court No. 19, February 4, 1919 to Sergeev, Member of the Court, concerning the transference of his order No. 101 to Shreder, Coroner of the Court p. 167


*      (76) Two telegramms of Alexeev, agent of Criminal Police Department, concerning the arrest of Pavel Spiridonovitch Medvedev p. 168-169

Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on May 27, 2005, 11:52:41 AM
Testimonies of:

*      (77) February 11, 1919 - Iossif Nikititch Melnikov p. 170-172


*      February 18, 1919 - Alexandra Mikhailovna Piankov p. 172-173



*      (78) Prescript, No. 28 a/2623, February 7, 1919, of the Minister of Justice to Sergeev, Member of the Court, concerning the transference of this investigation to N.A.Sokolov, Coroner of the Court of Special Affairs p. 174


*      (79) Report of the Prosecuting Attorney of the Ekaterinburg District Court No. 1516, February 20, 1919 including inquiries p. 175-177


*      (80) Report of Alexeev, agent of Criminal Police Department, of the arrest of Pavel Spiridonovitch Medvedev, February 11, 1919 p. 178


*      (81) Inquiry of Medvedev made by the same agent, February 12, 1919 p. 179-183


*      Inquiry of Lidia Semenovna Gussev made by Alexeev:

*      (82) February 13, 1919 p. 184


*      (83) February 14, 1919 p. 185-186



*      (84) His decision to imprison of Gussev, February 14, 1919 p. 187


*      (85) Decision of Sergeev, Member of the Court, to call before the court. Pavel Spiridonovitch Medvedev, February 20, 1919 p. 188-189


*      (86) Testimony of Pavel Spiridonovitch Medvedev, February 21-22, 1919 p. 190-195


*      (87) Decision of Sergeev, Member of the Court, to imprison of Medvedev, February 22, 1919 p. 195


*      (88) Testimonies of Fekla Alexeevna Dedukhin and Praskovia Ivanovna Morozov, February 24, 1919 p. 196-197


*      (89) Prescript No. 597, February 24, 1919 of President of the Ekaterinburg District Court to Sergeev, Member of the Court, concerning the release of the latter from investigation p. 198


*      (90) Correspondence concerning the payment of experts p. 199-201


*      (91) Decision of Alexeev, agent of Criminal Police Department, to arrest Ph.P.Proskuriakov p. 202


*      (92) Inquiry of Proskuriakov made by this agent, February 26, 1919 p. 203-206


*      (93) Correspondence concerning examination of material evidence p. 207


*      (94) Testimony of Anna Nazarovna Shveikin, February 26, 1919 p. 208


*      (95) Correspondence concerning the search of G.N.Kotegov p. 209


*      (96) Report of the Prosecuting Attorney of the Tobolsk District Court No. 7, February 24, 1919 to Sergeev, Member of the Court, including correspondence p. 210-212


*      (97) Correspondence concerning the search of kommissar Golostchekin p. 213-218


Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on May 27, 2005, 11:55:17 AM
Series: Volume III
Coroner of Justice N. Sokolov.
Conformable to the Original.
Coroner of Justice of Special Affairs N. Sokolov (signed).

*      Examination of material evidence by N.A.Sokolov, Coroner of Justice of Special Affairs of the Omsk District Court:

*      (1) March 14, 1919 p. 1-2


*      (2) March 15, 1919 p. 3-6



*      (3) Inquiries made by Alexeev, agent of Criminal Police Department p. 7-11


*      Examination of material evidence:

*      (4) March 16-18, 1919 p. 12-23


*      (5) March 20-22, 1919 p. 24-28


*      (6) March 23-24, 1919 p. 29-31



*      (7) Report No. 45, March 19, 1919 to Major-General Domontovitch, Chief of the Siberian Army, with the request to arrest the persons indicated in this report p. 32-34


*      (8) Decision of Sokolov, Coroner of Justice of Special Affairs, March 24, 1919 to make the new examination of material evidence p. 35


*      Examination of material evidence:

*      (9) March 24, 1919 p. 36


*      (10) March 24, 1919 p. 37-40


*      (11) March 25, 1919 p. 41-44



*      (12) Correspondence with the Ekaterinburg Military Board of Control p. 45-49


*      (13) Correspondence with the Ekaterinburg Military Board of Control p. 50-58


*      (14) Report of Chief of the Ekaterinburg County Jail, No. 1088, March 29, 1919 including the death certificate of Pavel Spiridonovitch Medvedev p. 59-60


*      (15) Correspondence with Major-General Domontovitch relative to order No. 45, March 19 (1919) p. 61-65


*      (16) Report of investigation No. 50, March 25, 1919, to the Prosecuting Attorney of the Omsk Court of Justice p. 66


*      (17) Decision of April 1, 1919 to call Filipp Poliektovitch Proscuryakov before the Court p. 67-68


*      (18) Testimony of Fp.Proskuryakov of April 1-3, 1919 p. 69-82


*      (19) Decision of April 3, 1919 to imprison of Proskuryakov p. 83


*      (20) Report of Commandant of Sisertsky District, No. 747, March 24, 1919 about the arrest of Viktor Lugovoy p. 84


*      (21) Order No. 54, April 2, 1919 to the Commandant of the city of Ekaterinburg to arrest Viktor Lugovoy p. 85


*      (22) Correspondence with the Ekaterinburg Military Control about the members of the Uralsk District Soviet p. 86-87


*      (23) Correspondence with Militia Department about the inquiry of physician Sakovitch p. 88-90


*      (24) Correspondence about the arrest of Viktor Lugovoy p. 91-94


*      (25) Order of April 4, 1919 by telegraph to the Commandant of the city of Tiumen about the arrest of Viktor Lugovoy p. 95


*      (26) Correspondence with Military Control about the Bolshevics involved in this affair p. 96-97


*      (27) Testimonies of Semen Georgievitch Loginov, Anton Yakovlevitch Valek, Samuil Moisseevitch Buzdes, and Maria Oskarovna Aveide, April 4, 1919 p. 98-104


*      (28) Order No. 55, April 4, 1919 to the Chief of Ekaterinburg Military Control to arrest the bolshevic Ilmer p. 105


*      (29) Testimony of Evgeny Stepanovitch Kobilinsky p. 106-136


*      (30) Correspondence p. 137-143


*      (31) The execution of order No. 43, February 11, 1919 p. 144-152


*      (32) Inquiry of Alexey Anatolievitch Yakimov made by Alexeev, agent of the Criminal Police Department, April 2, 1919 p. 153-155


*      (33) Decision of April 2, 1919 to imprison of Yakimov p. 156


*      (34) Correspondence p. 157-159


*      (35) Testimony of Alexander Petrovitch Puido, April 13, 1919 p. 160-161


*      (36) Correspondence p. 162-173


*      (37) Inquiries made by Alexeev, agent of Criminal Police Department p. 174-177


*      (38) Correspondence p. 178-182


*      Examination of material evidence:

*      (39) April 14, 1919 p. 183


*      (40) April 15, 1919 p. 184-185



*      (41) Correspondence p. 186-189


*      (42) Examination of Ipatiev's house with drawings and photographs, April 15-25, 1919 p. 190-228


Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on May 27, 2005, 11:57:36 AM
Series: Volume IV
The Coroner of Court of Special Affairs.
Conformable to the original.
The Coroner of Court of Special Affairs. N. Sokolov. (Signed)

*      (1) Correspondence relative to the search for Alexey Komendantov p. 1-2


*      (2) Report No. 64 to the Minister of War with the request to arrest kommissar Yakovlev p. 3


*      (3) Correspondence relative to the payment of experts p. 4-5


*      (4) Testimony of Vassily Nikolaevitch Nikolsky, April 19-22, 1919 p. 6-15


*      (5) Report of the Chief of General Staff of the Siberian Army, No. 491, April 9, 1919, including inquiries made by Kirsta, the Assistant to the Chief of Military Control of the First Middle-Siberian Corps p. 16-65


*      (6) Report of Duzya, agent of the Ekaterinburg Criminal Police Department p. 66


*      (7) Testimony of Vitold Mechislavovitch Rimashevsky p. 67-68


*      (8) Testimony of Ivan Fedorovitch Molotkov, April 26, 1919 p. 69-73


*      (9) Examination of inscriptions on the veranda of Ipatiev's house by the expert R.L.Shovari, April 26, 1919 p. 74


*      (10) Examination of documents which were found in the garden of Ipatiev's house, April 26, 1919 p. 75


*      (11) Examination of one of the above-mentioned documents by Shovari, April 26, 1919 p. 76


*      (12) Correspondence concerning the red soldiers who guarded Ipatiev's house p. 77-78


*      (13) Reports: To the Minister of War with the demand to arrest Yakovlev, No. 72, April 27, 1919; to the General-Lieutenant M.K.Diterokhs with the request to take care of Ipatiev's house, No. 73, April 27, 1919; to the Chief of the Ekaterinburg Military Control with the demand to arrest Strezhnev p. 79


*      Testimonies of:

*      (14) April 29, 1919 - Peter Alexeevitch Leonov p. 80-87


*      (15) April 30, 1919 - Alexander Alexeevitch Leonov p. 88-89



*      (16) Correspondence concerning the arrest of the red soldiers who guarded Ipatiev's house p. 90-98


*      (17) Decision of May 6, 1919 to summon Anatoly Alexandrovitch Yakimov before the court p. 99-100


*      (18) Testimony of Anatoly Alexandrovitch Yakimov, May 7-11, 1919 p. 101-123


*      (19) Decision of May 11, 1919 to send the convict to jail p. 124


*      (20) Report, No.78, May 9, 1919, to the Chief of Militia of the 8-th district of the Ekaterinburg County including the list of men-guards at Ipatiev's house p. 125


*      (21) Report of the Prosecuting Attorney of the Ekaterinburg District Court, No. 62, May 19, 1919, including an article from the newspaper "Russian Army" p. 126-127


*      (22) Inquiries made by Alexeev, agent of Criminal Police Department p. 128-130


*      (23) Statement from the photographer Vvedensky p. 131


*      (24) Inquiries made by Alexeev, agent of Criminal Police Department p. 132-135


*      (25) Inquiries made by Sretensky, agent of Criminal Police Department p. 136-139


*      (26) Examination of material evidence, May 16, 1919 p. 140


*      (27) Testimony of Fedor Ivanovitch Molotkov, May 17, 1919 p. 141-142


*      (28) Inquiries made by Sretensky, agent of Criminal Police Department p. 143-146


*      (29) Decision of May 18, 1919 to question again the witness, Kapitolina Alexandrovna Agafonov p. 147


*      (30) Her testimony, May 19, 1919 p. 148


*      Report of General-Lieutenant M.K.Diterikhs, May 19, 1919, including:

*      (31) List of objects that had belonged to the Royal Family p. 149-150


*      (32) Material evidence p. 151


*      (33) Note-books of: Countess Gendrikoff, Grand Duchess Anastassia Nikolaevna, Tsar and Tsarina, butler Volkov p. 152


*      (34) The document of Sergeev, Member of the Court, January 23, 1919 and his report of the destruction of inscriptions in the room of Ipatiev's house p. 153-154


*      (35) Icons with inscriptions of Grigory Rasputin and objects taken from Ipatiev's house according to the document of January 23, 1919 including a list of these objects p. 155-156


*      (36) Examination of icons and the note-book of Volkov p. 157


*      (37) Examination of objects taken from the room of Ipatiev's house according to the document of January 23, 1919 p. 158-159



*      (38) Report of General-Lieutenant M.K.Diterikhs including the photographs of the Royal Family p. 160-165


*      (39) Examination of the note-book of the Tsar and the Tsarina, May 19, 1919 p. 166


*      (40) Examination of the English inscription on this note-book with the assistance of the translater Miss E.G.Molostov, May 19, 1919 p. 167


*      (41) Report of General M.K.Diterikhs including the photographs of the Royal Family p. 168


*      Examination of May 19, 1919 of the note-books of:

*      (42) The Countess A.V.Gendrikoff p. 169-176


*      (43) Grand Duchess Anastassia Nikolaevna p. 178-181



*      (44) Report, No. 100, June 2, 1919, to the Minister for the Home Department with the demand to question the physician Sakovitch p. 182


*      (45) Report, No. 59, March 25, 1919, to the Prosecuting Attorney of the Omsk Court of Justice with the request to make inquiries (American Mission) p. 183-185


*      (46) Inquiries made by Alexeev, agent of Criminal Police Department p. 186-187


*      (47) Inquiries made by Sretensky, agent of Criminal Police Department p. 188-190


*      (48) Report of the Chief of Political Relations at the Staff of Chief Commander with correspondence, No. 157, April 30, 1919 p. 191-192


*      (49) Report of Lieutenant Molostov, June 4, 1919 with documents about kommissar Yakovlev p. 193-196


*      (50) Inquiries made by Alexeev, agent of Criminal Police Department p. 197-204


*      (51) Report of the Chief of Intelligence Service of the General Staff with information relative to soldier Chirukhin, No. 2767, June 6, 1919 p. 205


*      (52) Delivery of photographs of the Royal Family by P.A.Jilliard to the investigation, June 16, 1919 p. 206


*      (53) Report of the agent Sretensky, June 16, 1919 including photographs of persons involved in this affair p. 207


Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on May 27, 2005, 12:00:08 PM
Series: Volume V
Coroner of the Court of Special Affairs N. Sokolov.
Conformable to the original.
Coroner of the Court of Special Affairs. N. Sokolov. (Signed)

*      (1) Report of the Prosecuting Attorney of the Omsk Court of Justice, No. 49, June 10, 1919, including correspondence and the results of research work of material evidence p. 1-31


*      (2) Examination of the mine and adjacent locality, May 23, 1919, including drawings and photographs p. 32-61


*      Testimonies of:

*      (3) June 9, 1919, - Andrey Andreevitch Sheremetevsky p. 62-69


*      (4) June 10, 1919, - Nikolay Mikhailovitch Shveikin, Nikolay Vassilievitch Papin p. 70-75


*      (5) June 13, 1919, - Alexander Andreevitch Sheremetevsky p. 76-78



*      (6) Report of the General-Lieutenant Diterikhs, June 14, 1919, including an envelope and the letter of Tikhomirov, Assitance to Prosecuting Attorney p. 79-80


*      Testimonies of:

*      (7) June 14-15, 1919, - Pavel Ivanovitch Utkin p. 81-85


*      (8) June 17 1919, - Georgy Vladimirovitch Yartzev, Dmitry Apollonovitch Malinovsky p. 86-90


*      (9) June 18 1919, - Dmitry Apollonovitch Malinovsky p. 91-97


*      (10) June 19 1919, - Nikolay Ivanivitch Simbirtzev p. 98


*      (11) June 21 1919, - Mikhail Alexandrovitch Volokitin p. 99-100



*      (12) Examination of objects which were found in the mine and adjacent locality, June 19-22, 1919 p. 101-115


*      (13) Report of discovering the dead body of the dog "Jimmy", June 25, 1919, including the photograph which was shown to Maria Gustavovna Tutelberg p. 116-117


*      (14) Examination of dead body of "Jimmy" with the assistance of the physician N.Ya.Bardukov, June 25, 1919 p. 118


*      (15) Correspondence concerning the arrest of Alexander Semenovitch Strezhnev p. 119-122


*      (16) Examination of documents of Strezhnev, June 26, 1919 p. 123


*      (17) Decision concerning these documents p. 124


*      (18) Information of Militia concerning the death of the physician Sakovitch, No. 3025, June 25, 1919 p. 125


*      (19) Correspondence concerning the Bohemian Mashtalirg p. 126-128


*      (20) Informations of Alexandra Alexandrovna Teglev, Elozaveta Nikolaevna Ersberg and Sidney Ivanovitch Gibbs concerning the dead dog "Jimmy" p. 129


*      (21) Dissection of the dead body of "Jimmy" by the physician N.Ya.Bardukov and his opinion, June 27, 1919 p. 130


*      Testimonies of:

*      (22) June 27, 1919, - Sidney Ivanovith Gibbs p. 131


*      (23) June 27, 1919, - Natalia Pavlovna Zikov p. 132


*      (24) June 27, 1919, - Mikhail Dmitrievitch Alferov, Mikhail Ignatievitch Babinov, Pavel Filaretovitch Alferov, and Peter Alexeevitch Zubritzky p. 133-140


*      (25) June 28, 1919 - Gavriil Egorovitch Alferov, Vera Fedorovna Zvorigin, Mikhail Vassilievitch Babinov, Fedor Palladievitch Zvorigin, and Stepan Ivanovitch Babinov p. 141-144



*      (26) Report of the Chief of Military Control of the city of Perm, No. 8529, June 25, 1919, including the case of Vera Nikolaevna Krasnoukhov-Lukoyanov p. 145


*      (27) Examination of this case, June 29, 1919 p. 146-148


*      (28) Decision concerning this case p. 149


*      (29) Testomony of Nikolay Stepanovitch Zikov, June 29, 1919 p. 150


*      (30) Information concerning Alexey Nikititch Komendantov p. 151


*      Testimonies of:

*      (31) July 1, 1919, - Sidney Ivanovitch Gibbs p. 152-159


*      (32) July 2, 1919, - Vera Nikolaevna Karnaukhov p. 160-162



*      (33) Decision of July 2, 1919 to release Alexander Semenovitch Strezhnev from the arrest p. 163


*      (34) His testimony, July 2, 1919 p. 164


*      (35) Correspondence concerning Alexey Nikititch Komendantov p. 165


*      Testimonies of:

*      (36) July 5-6, 1919, - Alexandra Alexandrovna Teglev p. 166-176


*      (37) July 6, 1919, - Elizaveta Nikolaevna Ersberg p. 177-184



*      (38) Inquiries made by Sretensky, agent of Criminal Police Department p. 185-186


*      (39) Report of the Colonel Belotserkovsky, July 6, 1919, including the drawing and the remains of printed declaration of the assasination of the Tsar p. 187-188


*      (40) Correspondence and inquiries of bolshevics, made by Military Control p. 189-192


*      (41) Correspondence concerning the bolshevic Kallistrat Solomennikov p. 193-196


*      (42) Examination of his documents, July 7, 1919 p. 197-198


*      (43) Decision concerning these documents p. 199


*      (44) Correspondence concerning the brooch which was found in the possession of Borissov p. 200-205


*      (45) Order of the attachment to this affair a copy of newspaper "Sovremennaya Perm" - "Contemporary Perm" p. 206-207


Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on May 27, 2005, 12:02:36 PM
Series: Volume VI
Coroner of the Court N. Sokolov.
Conformable to the original.
The Coroner of Court of Special Affairs N. Sokolov. (Signed)

*      Testimonies:

*      (1) October 2, 1919 - Vassily Vladimirovitch Golitzin p. 1-2


*      (2) October 3-5 1919 - Peter Yakovlovitch Shamarin p. 3-18



*      (3) Decision, October 7, 1919, on the grounds of article 314 of criminal law procedure to make a separate investigation of the assasination of Grand Duce Mikhail Alexandrovitch p. 19-20


*      (4) Examination of material evidence, October 8, 1919 p. 21-22


*      (5) Photograph of material evidence, October 8, 1919 p. 23


*      Examination of material evidence:

*      (6) October 9-12, 1919 - photographs p. 24-52


*      (7) October 15 1919 - photographs p. 53-54



*      (8) Report relative to the photographing of work done within the mine, October 16, 1919 p. 55-59


*      (9) Report of the photographing of material evidence, October 18, 1919 p. 60-61


*      (10) Report of the admission of copy No. 59 of the newspaper, "Oriental Courier" p. 62-63


*      (11) Report of the photographing of material evidence, October 19, 1919 p. 64


*      (12) Examination of this material evidence, October 20, 1919 p. 65-76


*      (13) Report of the photographing of material evidence, October 22, 1919 p. 77


*      (14) Examination of these photographs, October 22, 1919 p. 78-81


*      (15) Report of the photographing of material evidence, October 23, 1919 p. 82


*      (16) Examination of these photographs, October 23-24, 1919 p. 83-89


*      (17) Correspondence p. 90


*      Examination of material evidence:

*      (18) October 25, 1919 p. 91-92


*      (19) October 26 1919 p. 93-95



*      (20) Report of the photographing of material evidence, October 26, 1919 p. 96


*      (21) Examination of these photographs, October 27, 1919 p. 97-101


*      (22) Examination of photographs, October 27, 1919 p. 102-104


*      (23) Examination of photographs, October 28 1919 p. 105-109


*      (24) Examination of photographs, October 29 1919 p. 110


*      (25) Examination of photographs, October 29-30 1919 p. 111-117


*      (26) Examination of photographs, November 1, 1919 p. 118-121


*      (27) Correspondence p. 122


*      (28) Inquiries made by the Intelligence Service of the General Staff of the Commander in chief p. 123-159


*      (29) Examination of material evidence received from the Intelligence Service, November 2, 1919 p. 160-161


*      (30) Inquiries made by the Intelligence Service of the General Staff of the Commander in chief p. 163-167


*      (31) Examination of material evidence received from the Intelligence Service, November 3, 1919 p. 168


*      (32) Report of the Chief of Intelligence Service, No. 260814, October 13, 1919, including the correspondence concerning Parfeny Titovitch Samokhvalov p. 169-170


*      (33) Correspondence p. 171-173


*      (34) Report of the Chief of Military Administration of the Eastern Front, No. 68-23, October 22, 1919 including the inquiry of the impostor Alexey Putzyato p. 174-229


Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on May 27, 2005, 12:05:05 PM
Series: Volume VII

*      Testimony of Ele-Meyer Khaimov Yurovsky (brother of the murderer of the Tsar), November 5, 1919.


*      Testomony of Leya-Dveira Moshkova Yurovsky (sister-in-law of the murderer of the Tsar), November 5, 1919.


*      Testimony of Leiba Khaimov Yurovsky (brother of the murderer of the Tsar), November 5, 1919.


*      Testimony of Khaya Moshkova Friedman, November 5, 1919.


*      Testimony of Akulina Nikolaevna Ropot, November 5, 1919.


*      Testimony of Yuzef Yuzefovitch Bautz, November 5, 1919.


*      Decision of Sokolov, Coroner of the Court, to release from arrest the above-mentioned persons, November 5, 1919.


*      Examination of the letters of the last Tsarina Alexandra Pheodorovna to the Countess Anastassia Vassilievna Gendrikoff, November 6, 1919.


*      Examination of two pieces of green glass, November 10, 1919.


*      Examination of material evidence, November 11, 1919.


*      Examination of material evidence, November 12-13, 1919.


*      Examination of documents which were delivered by the Chief of Military Administration of the Eastern Front. November 19, 1919.


*      Testimony of Parfeny Titovitch Samokhvalov, November 20-21, 1919.


*      Testimony of Alexey Fedoroviych Putzyato, who claimed to be the Crown Prince Alexey Nikolaevitch, November 20-21, 1919.


*      Testimony of Yakov Ivanovitch Zyablitzky, November 20-21, 1919.


*      Testimony of Agafia Emelianovna Abramenko, November 20-21, 1919.


*      Report of the Chief of the Byisk Post Office, September, 17, 1919, including copies of telegramms about Putzyato, clerk of the Kosh-Agatch Post Office, who claimed to be the Crown Prince Alexey Nikolaevitch.


*      Photographs of Putzyato taken by Sokolov, Coroner of the Court, in the jail of the city of Chita, November 21, 1919.


*      Testimony of Roman Mikhailovitch Nachtman concerning the destiny of Grand Duce Mikhail Alexandrovitch, December 11, 1919.


*      Testimony of Evgeny Khristoforovitch Kristofo, December 15, 1919.


*      Examination of documents, December 17, 1919.


*      Death certificate of Anatoly Alexandrovitch Yakimov.


*      Examination of material evidence (pieces of emerald, pearls, pieces of gold, silver etc.) by Sokolov, Coroner of the Court, with the assistance of experts Mr.Timtchenko and Mr.Verevkin, December, 18, 1919.


*      Correspondence about Boris Nikolaevitch Soloviev, Second-Lieutenant of the Infantry and son-in-law of Grigory Rasputin-Novikh.


*      Testimony of Evgeny Kuzmitch Loginov, October 24, 1919.


*      Testimony of Konstantin Semenovitch Melnik, November 2, 1919.


*      Inquiry of B.N.Soloviev made by Second-Lieutenant Liven, Vladivostok, December 9, 1919.


*      Testimony of Matrena (Maria) Grigorievna Soloviev, (daughter of Grigory Rasputin-Novikh and wife of B.N.Soloviev), December, 1919.


*      Visit of "MARIA MIKHAILOVNA", lover of Ataman Semenov, to Sokolov, Coroner of the Court, December 27, 1919.


*      Release of Matrena (Maria) Grigorievna Soloviev from arrest, December 28, 1919.


*      Testimony of Boris Nikolaevitch Soloviev, December 29, 1919.


*      Examination of documents taken from the apartment of Soloviev, Verkhneudinsk, January 2, 1920.


*      Order of Ataman Semenov, January 3, 1920, to release Soloviev from arrest.


*      Testimony of Ivan Matveevitch Sretensky, January 21, 1920.


*      Testimony of Count Boris Mikhailovitch Kapnist, February 21, 1920.




Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on May 27, 2005, 12:09:19 PM
I was going to place just a few of the Vol.  but  each part was just as interesting as the next and pretty soon I had all this section copied.  ;D

AGRBear

PS  8)  Note that these are scattered throughout my posts.  They are not found in the Harvard data.  When I wanted to change them in my posts,  I made the posts tooooooo long so I left them so please excuse this error in my posts.  Thanks.

PSS:  The above was copied from this URL:
http://oasis.harvard.edu:10080/oasis/deliver/deepLink?_collection=oasis&uniqueId=hou01456
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on May 27, 2005, 12:27:56 PM
Sokolov himself transported a set of documents through Vladivostok to Paris, where he prepared a book about the fate of the Romanovs (published posthumously in 1925). Seven of the original eight volumes that belonged to Sokolov are now at Harvard University.



The above was copied from the article original posted by Lexi4.

So one of the volumes is missing.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on May 30, 2005, 10:03:07 AM
It appears that Sokolov didn't always have his papers under his control:

Quote
Just a few extra notes on the journey of "the box":  Miles Lampson  recieved the "relic" box from Gen. Diterikhs who had taken it by force from Sokolov.  Miles Lampson in turn handed it over to the American consul-general in Siberia.  The American took it to Harbin.  There Sokolov "caught up with it" and took it to England and to King Georg.
 
It is heresay, but Mlies Lampson told a friend that King Georg didn't seem to know what to do with the "relic" box and asked Lampson to do something with the  "relic" box and remove it from his presents.
 
Miles Lampson's son-in-law, Lord Eliot  said Lampson did take it home for a time and thought the box did not contain Romanov remains but that of one of the imperial servants and thus may explain the lack of interest of King Georg.
 
Miles Lampson became Lord Killearn.
 
Miles Lampson was the "charge' d'affaires in Siberia" whatever that means and in another book I have he had the  position as "British High Commissioner of Siberia" in April of 1918....
  
AGRBear
 
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on May 30, 2005, 10:06:12 AM
Additional information about the "box":
Quote
I just found Penny's post...I am sorry to be taking up so much space on this board with an old response and I will remove it if necessary, but I couldn't link to just one post, so I guess I will just copy it here:

When Sokolov finished packing it, the box contained:
 
*42 pieces of bone not identified as human
*the severed finger (often described as Alexandra's, but more likely to be a man's -- a colleague identified it as Dr Botkin's)
*Dr Botkin's false teeth
*two small slices of skin
*thirteen "drops of blood" taken from the Ipatiev House and saved in vials (probably scrapings of dried blood)
*several more vials of "greasy earth" which Sokolov thought might contain melted human fat, though this idea is a matter of contention, because the "greasy earth" was gathered at the Four Brothers while the alleged cremations took place miles away
*various pieces of charred clothing, broken buttons, destroyed jewelry and other small artifacts, like those believed to have been the occupants of Alexei's pockets (coins, silver paper, etc)
 
In 1998, Metropolitan Vitaly of ROCOR announced that all the contents of the box were in the walls of St Job the Sufferer in BRUSSELS -- this is in direct contrast to the word of Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich who declared in 1971 that the human remains were taken from the box some short time after the box came into his possession in 1931.  He was silent on the final resting place of the human remains, as is his daughter Maria -- and rather understandably so -- but it is most likely that they were buried privately in St Genevieve de Bois as is sometimes suggested.
 
Continuing in 1971, GD Vladimir said that the remaining items in the box were lodged in a bank vault in Paris, where Nazi occupiers broke into them in the 40s, on a search for Imperial treasure.  Nothing appears to have been stolen, however, for when the box and its contents were turned over to the Church of St Job the Sufferer after the War, it looks like everything that Sokolov placed in the box was accounted for -- the Church took photographs of every item in the box and made a careful inventory list before placing them in a larger box and sealing them in the wall of the Church during its construction.  MP Remy, a German film producer (and all-round fabulous man  ) pulled off a stellar piece of research in contacting the Church and requesting that they open their files for him to see the listing and the photographs.  Surprisingly, they complied with this, allowed him to make some copies, and confirmed that there were no human remains within the wall of the Church.  This makes absolute sense, since it is not Orthodox practice to treat human remains in this manner.  Greg and I have seen with our own eyes Remy's copies of this information.  So what is walled up in the BRUSSELS Church are the following items: icons, buttons, hooks-and-eyes, burned pieces of cloth and some pieces of glass vials.
 
As for DNA testing the human remains, there might not be much point in trying:  The fat may or may not be human -- remember that this an area heavily trafficked by forestry workers, soldiers and peasant farmers and fishermen, all of whom frequently built campfires -- and its doubtful that it is the Romanovs' if it is because it was retrieved miles away from the alleged burning site.  The blood scrapings came from the house, and could therefore belong to any one of the victims, and not necessarily the missing children.  The two pieces of skin are a possibility, but only experts might know what sort of state of decomposition they might be in after eighty-five years.  And remember the matter of contamination -- this might in and of itself render the skin unusable in terms of DNA matching.
 
As for the 42 pieces of bone:  The could never be identified as human, and I think that they might represent either Ortino's body or the chicken dinners that were brought out to the guards at the mine -- or some combination of both.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: BobAtchison on May 30, 2005, 05:28:38 PM
Actually, some things from the vault were taken.  Hitler took personal possesion of the original Sokolov dossier, which Stalin then took into his personal files, where it remained in the files of the Soviet Ruler up until Yeltsin.

Bob
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on June 01, 2005, 10:50:56 AM
Quote
Actually, some things from the vault were taken.  Hitler took personal possesion of the original Sokolov dossier, which Stalin then took into his personal files, where it remained in the files of the Soviet Ruler up until Yeltsin.

Bob


So, AA wasn't telling us a lie,  Hitler was interested in the fate of Nicholas II, therefore, AA was of interest to Hitler.  

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Robert_Hall on June 01, 2005, 11:03:17 AM
Hitler was interested in Frederick the Great and Napoleon as well.  I suppose that will be another great conspiracy chase then ?
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: etonexile on June 01, 2005, 11:27:54 AM
... ::)...
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on June 01, 2005, 11:57:56 AM
Apparently, the two of you are unaware that AA met with Hitler who was interested in AA.  And, it was under Hitler's orders that the  police prove or disprove AA's case and it was they who brought AA and FS's family togather in 1938.

From the AA Timeline thread: >>9 July 1938:  The second meeting took place in Hannover on July 9, 1938.  At this meeting were: Marie Juliana, Valerian, Felix & Gertrude,  AA,  Fallows, Frau Madsack & Gleb Botkin, at the Police Headquarters, this meeting took place through the orders of the Government, and the manipulation of the new head of the Russian Emigre Office in Berlin  <<

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: etonexile on June 01, 2005, 12:24:55 PM
Quote
Apparently, the two of you are unaware that AA met with Hitler who was interested in AA.  And, it was under Hitler's orders that the  police prove or disprove AA's case and it was they who brought AA and FS's family togather in 1938.

From the AA Timeline thread: >>9 July 1938:  The second meeting took place in Hannover on July 9, 1938.  At this meeting were: Marie Juliana, Valerian, Felix & Gertrude,  AA,  Fallows, Frau Madsack & Gleb Botkin, at the Police Headquarters, this meeting took place through the orders of the Government, and the manipulation of the new head of the Russian Emigre Office in Berlin  <<

AGRBear


If Hitler met with AA...his spying information was about on a par with the Bush administration as to Iraq...you know...the AA who's DNA didn't match any known member of the former Czarist family...but did amazingly match known members of the family of FS....that AA...
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on June 01, 2005, 03:08:46 PM
You keep talking about what we know today.  Hitler and the German court went on all the various facts before DNA was a glimmer in any scientists eye.

Go over and check the AA and FS similarities thread and see what you can come up with to convince me and others that AA was FS without the DNA.

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1115914933

AGRBear

PS  As for Bush,  he did what he thought best at the time and he, as we all do, hope that peace and democracy takes hold in the Middle East.  
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on June 12, 2005, 01:22:10 PM
Check the Harvard collection at:
http://oasis.harvard.edu:10080/oasis/deliver/deepLink?_collection=oasis&uniqueId=hou01456

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on June 12, 2005, 06:02:24 PM
I am hoping the Harvard collection has been translated. Notice the errors as an example the name of the dog.

I hope this is because of the translation to English.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Lanie on June 12, 2005, 06:08:45 PM
Quote
I am hoping the Harvard collection has been translated. Notice the errors as an example the name of the dog.

I hope this is because of the translation to English.


The dog's name was either Jemmy or Jimmy; I don't know for sure.  Different souces say Jemmy, different sources say Jimmy.  So.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on June 12, 2005, 07:12:23 PM
Quote

The dog's name was either Jemmy or Jimmy; I don't know for sure.  Different souces say Jemmy, different sources say Jimmy.  So.


So I guess Harvard believes the dog's name was Jimmy.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on June 13, 2005, 05:20:37 PM
>Anastasia
1. Anastasia's first dog, Jemmy -  Japanese Chin:http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/imperialpets2.html
2. Anastasia King Charles Spaniel was also called Jemmy or Jimmy:http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/imperialpets2.html

I have seen the dog's name both ways:  "Jimmy" and "Jemmy".

Does it make a difference to the name if  the dog was a male or female?  

AGRBear

PS  See IF pet thread:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=family;action=display;num=1112378316;start=0#24
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: RealAnastasia on June 13, 2005, 08:27:57 PM
Quote
You keep talking about what we know today.  Hitler and the German court went on all the various facts before DNA was a glimmer in any scientists eye.

Go over and check the AA and FS similarities thread and see what you can come up with to convince me and others that AA was FS without the DNA.

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1115914933

AGRBear

Hi, AGRBear:

                      Well; I went to the thread about FS and AA similarities, and you are right. This alone wouldn't convince me that AA was a Polish factory worker. But science has spoke. We have the DNA results. My problem is that we only have the DNA to said AA was FS, and all the other evidence deny it. It's only for that that I'm not convinced about this proof.

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on June 13, 2005, 08:56:30 PM
I know this probably would be more fitting somewhere on another thread. But they do get mixed in together.

I keep hearing about the Polish factory worker...I come from a long line of Polish factory workers. ( I am not offended)

I can state that my ancestors weren't complete idiots....darn, they owned property, took care of their families and wanted their children to have a better life.

But none of us knew a penny's worth about a life royal or could fake it.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on June 13, 2005, 08:57:51 PM
Thought I'd bring this little tid-bit over to this thread so I can find it, again, later:

Quote
Ferro's book p. 259:

"...the first magistrate, Sergeyev, who was enrusted with the investigation by the public prosecutor, was removed ..by General Dietertichs, .... "

Sergeyev was interviewed by Herman Bernstein of the NEW YORK TRIBUNE and the article appeared 5 Sept 1920:

"I do not believe that all the ... people, the Tsar, his family and those with them were shot there.  It is my belief that the Empress, the Tsarevich and the Grand Duchesses were not shot in that house.  I believe, however, the the Tsar, Professor Botkin, the family physicians, two lackeys and the maid, Demidova, were shot in the Ipatiev House."

Sergeyev was shot and killed 23 Jan 1919.

I think when looking at the skeletons in the mass grave, that the people Sergeyev mentions are the ones found under the bones of Alexandra and the Grand Duchesses.  

I'll need to color the bones in my sketch.

I think Penny had told us once the order but I don't recall where or if it is still in any thread after she had eliminated so many of her posts that one time.

AGRBear


Book is NICHOLAS II, THE LAST OF THE TSARS by Marc Ferero.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: RealAnastasia on June 13, 2005, 09:33:29 PM
I wouldn't mean to criticize polish factory workers. I only wrote "polish factory worker" for FS was one, and I didn't want go on repeating "FS" all along the thread. My english is not good. People get too offended nowadays when we call people for the name they are. I wrote "polish factory worker", but I didn't meal polish factory workers are stupid people, or rough people, etc. I only said I didn't beliene Anna was really FS.

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on June 13, 2005, 09:49:08 PM
Quote
I wouldn't mean to criticize polish factory workers. I only wrote "polish factory worker" for FS was one, and I didn't want go on repeating "FS" all along the thread. My english is not good. People get too offended nowadays when we call people for the name they are. I wrote "polish factory worker", but I didn't meal polish factory workers are stupid people, or rough people, etc. I only said I didn't beliene Anna was really FS.

RealAnastasia.


I am not offended as I said above. It's okay. No apology needed or wanted.

I just want to equalize the term "Polish factory worker".

Not a person unable to care for themselves or their families  yet not a person born with a silver spoon in their mouths knowing about the lives of royalty.






Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on June 14, 2005, 11:11:26 AM
The royality are raised from the moment they are born to be royal and do things like a royal, to sound like a royal, to act like a royal, to know things royal.

Simple things such siting and eating  at a royal table can quickly separate the royal from the non-royal.  

How a royal treats a personal servent as to a servent who cleans the fireplace....

The lanuage is another quick way of separating royal from non-royal.  There are certain phrases which are in fashion or out of fashion very quickly....

Even the silly little things like what does a royal do with their hands....  during various events of the day....

What to wear in the morning or afternoon, or mid-afternoon, for dinner.....  Even at bedtime...

How to drink from a cup or what one does with a cup.....

Sure, various royal people carry things to extreme or don't act royal at all but we are talking about a child of Alexandra who made sure her children knew what was royal.....

Gee, how did we get on this subject on this thread....  ???

A factory worker, no matter Polish, German, French,  would have to be groomed for a long time to pull off being a royal,  I think.  Because,  such royal stuff needs to be natural, without thought and just flow like water from a faucet.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: etonexile on June 14, 2005, 12:43:57 PM
Quote
The royality are raised from the moment they are born to be royal and do things like a royal, to sound like a royal, to act like a royal, to know things royal.

Simple things such siting and eating  at a royal table can quickly separate the royal from the non-royal.  

How a royal treats a personal servent as to a servent who cleans the fireplace....

The lanuage is another quick way of separating royal from non-royal.  There are certain phrases which are in fashion or out of fashion very quickly....

Even the silly little things like what does a royal do with their hands....  during various events of the day....

What to wear in the morning or afternoon, or mid-afternoon, for dinner.....  Even at bedtime...

How to drink from a cup or what one does with a cup.....

Sure, various royal people carry things to extreme or don't act royal at all but we are talking about a child of Alexandra who made sure her children knew what was royal.....

Gee, how did we get on this subject on this thread....  ???

A factory worker, no matter Polish, German, French,  would have to be groomed for a long time to pull off being a royal,  I think.  Because,  such royal stuff needs to be natural, without thought and just flow like water from a faucet.

AGRBear


...and yet....FS/AA was able to pull off this royalty "trick"...from what we know....Anyone can learn anything....if they are highly motivated....and surround themselves with the right...useful...people....FS/AA was very highly motivated from what we know of her....she had NOTHING else in her sad little life except this AN charade....NOTHING....
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on June 14, 2005, 07:14:50 PM
Do you think she did this "pulling off" all on her own or do you think she had help?  If you think she had help, whom do you think helped her?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: etonexile on June 15, 2005, 09:47:26 AM
Quote
Do you think she did this "pulling off" all on her own or do you think she had help?  If you think she had help, whom do you think helped her?

AGRBear


I've spent more than a few years in the world of film and theatre....I think FS/AA was what's known as a "quick study"...she picked up what she wanted and needed from where ever and whoever...and again...I don't think she was a sly and cunning con-artist...I think she was mad...and more than likely believed she was someone of impotance....One can be insane...and intelligent...
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on June 15, 2005, 11:11:10 AM
As time passed,  I can see  this occuring but what about those early days and years.....?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: etonexile on June 15, 2005, 05:19:36 PM
There again the quick study...she would have been like a sponge....pulling in attitudes from plays,films,people of different social strati she might meet....everywhere and anywhere...Remember...she actually "BELIEVED" she was this GD...AN....at least I don't think she was putting people on.....
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on June 30, 2005, 10:29:27 AM
Over on another thread the question was asked about where one could find the source/sources about Ermakov being drunk on the night of 16 /17 July 1918.

I found the following:

Quote
I think Pavel Medvedev was the first of the group of executioners who was interviewed by the Whites from 21-22 Feb. 1919.  He stated he wasn't part of the shooting because he had been sent out of the room.  

He doesn't  mention Ermakov [Yermakov] being drunk.

However, there is mention that his wife Marina gave testimony of 9-10 Nov 1918 and told the Whites that her husband had been one of the shooters.  Her testimony is in the Houghron Lirary, Harvard U. in the Sokolov Archies, vol 1, doc. 97.  I have never seen her testimony and do not know if she mention Ermakov.

Does Yurovsky mention Ermakov as being drunk?  I have his 1920 testimony.....  He doesn't mention Ermakov being drunk, only that he had failed in bringing "the car" on time:

>>...The car's late arrival caused the commandant to doubt Ye-v's [Yermakov's] thoroughness, and the comm. decided to stay with the whole operation to the end.<< p. 353  THE FALL OF THE ROMANOVS by Steinberg and Khrustalev.

What about Yurovsky's second testimony on 1 Feb 1934?
Just said p. 362 that  >>...Flipp {Goloschekin] summoned Yermakov, severely reprimannded him, and sent him to dig up the corpses.<<

No menntion of Ermakov being drunk in Yurovsky's second testimony.

King and Wilson's book THE FATE OF THE ROMANOV tells us:
p. 301 >>Yurovsky later related what had transpired...An arguement ensued carried on by a noticably inebriated Ermakov, before Lynukharrow could finally get the keys away from him and proceed to the Ipatiev House."<<  

They tell us the source was Yurovsky, unpublished memoris, 1922.

According to   Edward Radzinsky  Ermakov wrote a autobiography.  Radzinsky's chapter called "My Guest" and tells us p. 401-3  "...I understand he was there but" he chuckled--"he was drunk!" and 414-15  "While Ermakov was passed out, they must have heard.... those moans from under the tarpaulin."

p. 317 >>...Yurovsky turned to Ermakov and asked if he had brought all of the necessary equipment to dig a proper grave.  Still drunk, Ermakov could only mumble apologetically..."

p. 321  >>Yurovsky and Ermakov continued their futile search.  Drunk and confused, Ermakov "could not find the spot" and Yurovsky "weary and angry" returned to the clearing...."

Still looking but it's late and if I can, tomorrow, will see what else I can find.

AGRBear




[to be continued]

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on June 30, 2005, 06:32:54 PM
Bear,

In "Dead Men Do Tell Tales" it says when the archives of Moscow's Museum of the October Revolution were finally opened in the late 1980's there were signed eyewitness reports by Yurovsky and Ermakov plus a 1964 tape recording by Nikulin.

In this book, Maples compared Ermakov , a drunken liar, to Nikulin who was a sober, cold blooded young killer at the time of the assassinations. ( His words)

Although Nikulin made the tape, he refused to discuss details saying.."There is no need to savor it. Let it remain with us. Let it depart with us.".

Asked about the tale of "Anastasia" he said " They all perished".
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on July 01, 2005, 11:07:09 AM
Does Maples present any sources about Ermakov being drunk that night, or, do we just have Yurovsky's unpublished words for it?

Gosh, this is an interesting question.

Is it possible that Yurovsky  wanted Ermakov's character to be tainted because Ermakov's story was different  or because Ermakov claimed to be the one who shot Nicholas II?

Do we really know if  Ermakov was an alcoholic before the exection? Do we really known if he was even after the execution? 

I'm off to find some more books which might have something more about Ermakov and his state of soberness or drunkeness that eventful night.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on July 01, 2005, 11:22:02 AM
Dug out Massie's THE ROMANOVS, THE FINAL CHAPTER pps. 20-21.

A NY jouralist Richard Halliburton inteviewed Ermkaov in 1935.  The reporter thought Ermkaov was dying of throat cancer and  believed Ermakov was finally telling the truth.  

Ermakov to jouralist to NY newspaper:  "We built a funeral pyre of cut logs big enough to hold the bodies two deep.  We poured five tins of gasoline over the corpses... set logs afire... I stood by to see that not one fingernail or fragment of bone remained unconsumed..... I put the tins of ashes in the wagon...ordered the driver to take me back toward the high road.... I pitched the ashes into the air--and the wind caught them like dust and carried them out across the woods...."

Evidently Ermakov was faking his near death experience and  lived another seventeen years and often spoke about the execution and how he was the one who shot and killed Nicholas II with his Mauser.

Nothing about Ermakov and booze.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on July 01, 2005, 11:43:49 AM
Back to THE FALL OF THE ROMANOVS by Steinberg and Khrustalev who spelled Ermakov's name Yermakov tell us on p. 393:
>>Yermakov, Pyotr Zakarovich (1884-1952).  Former factory clerk...Bolsevik involved in terrorist acts an "expropriations" in 1905.  Close to Filipp Goloschekin....After the October Revolution became the Upper Isetsk mlitary commissar and took and active role in suppresssing counterrevolution.  Served in the militis (police) during the 1920s.  A director of prision insitutions of the Ural region beginnning in 1927...."

No mention of drunkeness in this book either.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on July 01, 2005, 01:38:30 PM
I'm at work and the book is at home...I will look later about the source.

I know that Maples discounted most of  Ermakov's testimony though. He was looking at it from a forensic view.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on July 01, 2005, 03:03:33 PM
Thanks Inquiring Mind,  I  am curious to know Maples source/sources.

Back to what I can find.  Next book:

p. 244-5  Nicholas II, Twilight of the Empire by  Lieven:

"In the 1930s Ermakov was frequently turned out to describe the murders, which he did in graphic detail, to summer camps of Pioneers, the Soveit equivalent of scouts and guids.  Presented with flowers, he was held up as a eroic model for Russian youth."

Talks about some of his men who were witing for them in the woods had been drinking but no mention of Ermakov being drunk.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on July 01, 2005, 03:57:17 PM
Wilson and King's book FATE OF THE ROMANOVS P. 20 tells us that Ermakov left three accounts....

p. 25
"A few of those who have left accounts do indeed fit the emigre portrait of the drunken,  barbaric Bolshsevik, most notable Peter Ermakov."

p. 302

On the eventful nght, and King and Wilson tells us what Yurovsky said:  

>>Only Ermkov "rambling drunkenly and armed to the teeth...<<

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on July 01, 2005, 04:23:32 PM
Maples takes the info from Hallibuton's interview of Ermakov and then compares it to the "Yurovsky note" . He does this to compare these testimonies to the forensic evidence.

He uses Edvard Radzinsky's "The Last Tsar" for his source of info on the Yurovsky note.  Maples says Ermakov was apparently drunk throughout the assassinations....but I have "The Last Tsar" and I haven't been able to find that statement or who said it.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on July 01, 2005, 04:50:06 PM
Radzinsky determined that Ermakov was drunk from a statement of an undisclosed guest...I'm not sure if I am suppose to know who this man that  visited him was but he is described as living in Sverdlovsk at the time of the murders and knowing Ermakov....he told Radzinsky that the testimonies were different and conflicting because Ermakov was there but drunk.

Radzinsky also received letters. In one a Mstislav Afanasiev tells him that everyone was drunk. This is heresay though.

So a mystery man told Radzinsky that Ermakov was drunk. This made a light bulb go off in Radzinsky's head and helped expain the wholes in Ermakov's statements.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on July 01, 2005, 07:32:04 PM
As far as we know,  Yurovsky talks about Ermakov being drunk,  and an uknown "guest"  in Radzinsky's book, and,  _____ .  Hmmmmm.   King and Wilson must have found more than just one person saying this about Ermakov..... because they are the ones who go into more detail about Ermakov.

From what you tell us, Maples was more interested in the bones and forensic stuff.....  

Penny?

Greg?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Finelly on July 02, 2005, 03:29:01 PM
It would not be far-fetched to posit that in order to shoot an entire family, gather up the bodies, clean up, dismember bodies, transport the bodies, throw them in a big whole, pull them out, set them on fire, and bury them (not necessarily in that order) one would need alcohol.

It's pretty gruesome work.  Whether they were drunk when they did the shooting, or got drunk afterwards, I would imagine that their recollections would be distorted long afterwards.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: hikaru on July 15, 2005, 06:42:58 AM
The real name of Yurovsky was Yankely Haimovich Yurovsky He dead at the Kremlin Hospital at 1938 being
interrogated ( which saved him from from the Stalin 's repressions).
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: hikaru on July 15, 2005, 06:44:28 AM
Maybe somewhere there is a file of his last interrogation.
(I took this data from  a book of academician Mr. Plotnikov " The truth of History . The destruction of the Imperial Romanov Family"
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: lexi4 on July 16, 2005, 12:32:05 AM
Does anyone knoe if Veniamin Alekseyev's book is available anywhere and if it has been translated to English? I have searched everywhere and cannot find it.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: lexi4 on July 16, 2005, 03:53:38 PM
Questions about the Yurovsky testimony.

In 1934 he said: "Although I warned them through Botkin that they didn't need to bring anything with them, they nevertheless gatherd up various little things - pillows, littel bag and so forth - an I believe, a little dog."
*taken from "The Secret Plot to Save the Tsar" page 194

There is no mention of a dog in his 1920 report.

In The File on the Tsar, Summer and Mangold (p. 161) say that during the Sokolov investigation the body of Tatiana's dog Jemmy was found in the bottom of the mine. They also say that Sokolov pulished a photo showing the dog. They also say that none of the guards tesimonty (including Yurovsky's) include a reference to a dog in the murder room.

I have no idea what this means, if anything. But the topic is questions about the testimonies. So why is there no mention of a dog until after Sokolov's report is published that they dog was found?

I am not asking for opinions and speculation, rather documentation/information about this detail?

(good thing I have the cricket bat, Extonexile)
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Finelly on July 16, 2005, 04:59:35 PM
BTW, there were two dogs.  One was Jemmy, the one found in the mine shaft.  The other stayed at the house and was adopted by a diplomat and taken to England.....
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: lexi4 on July 16, 2005, 05:03:22 PM
That is correct. I forget to mention the second dog
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on August 07, 2005, 10:06:29 AM
Here is some testimony Phil is presenting to us on another thread:

Quote
Digging around some old files I've come across a British Military Intelligence report from c1920 which includes a Report to the Minister of Justice by the Procureur of the High Court of Kazan (M Mireluboff) dated 12th December 1918 which includes details of the preliminary inquiry into the murder of the late Emperor and his family.  This includes an declaration by one  Theodore Nikiforov Kutuzoff dated July 17th 1918 gathered by Assistant Procurator Kutuzoff regarding the murder of the family, information about the burials provided by peasants at Koptyakov, descriptions of the room in Ipatiev Dom, including room size and numbers of cavities in the wall,  statements by Gilliard & Tchemaduroff, details of the seizure of various articles belonging to the family from a forner soldier named Ketemitin, and a statment from one Kutenkoff about overhearing members of the burial party say "at first they were buried at two spots outside Ekaterinberg but afterwards carried away and buried at different spots".

Is this report common knowledge?  If so I'll forget it, otherwise I'll take the time to transcribe it in sections for the site.  This may take some time as it runs to 8 pages of typescript.

Phil Tomaselli  


Quote
Yes it is curious that it should go missing, though files do get mislaid at Kew occasionally.  I've had a couple disappear over the last few years, though thankfully I can prove that someone else has had this file out since I last did so.  Usually, I suspect, one file gets accidentally placed inside another and, eventually, it'll turn up when the other file is next looked at.

Anyway, here is section 2 of the report (my artificial division) dealing with initial enquiries at the mineshaft.  It follows on immediately from first extract:

On July 16th or 18th the peasants of the village of Koptyakov, in the Upper Tssetskaya Canton, within 18 versts from Ekaterinburg, noticed some movements of detachments of Red Army soldiers in the forest siuated near the village, while nobody was allowed to approach that locality.  Being however inquisitive to know what the soldiers of the Red Army had been doing there, Andrew Scheremetevsky, Michael Aleroff, and other peasants of the said village went there after the soldiers had left the forest and followed the way trodden by the Red soldiers, which brought them to the waste shafts.

There, within a few steps from one of the shafts, they met an improvised hillock on which were found the remnants of a pile.  On digging it up the said peasants found a cross with green stones in it; four busks of corsets, buckles of braces, buttons, knobs, and four beads.  When one of the peasants let himself down on a rope into the shaft, he noticed that on the watery surface there were floating about  a stick, bark, boards, fresh acerose leaves and an iron shovel.

Near the pile they noticed a birch tree bearing on its bark the inscription: "T A Fessenko, Mining Technologist, July 11th 1918."  When the Examining Magistrate afterwards made a detailed inspection of the place, they found, near the same shaft, called "Tssetsky Mine", amidst burnt sticks and coal, a burnt lady&#8217;s bag, while with 64 feet from the shaft there were found burnt rags, lace, and some sparkling fragments.

Moreover, Captain Pometkovsky, who was presnt at the inspection, found a much soiled stone of a watery colour of considerable size with a flat centre in a white setting with very minute spangles, which on subsequent inspection by an expert jeweller turned out to be a diamond of very great value (worth at least 10,000).  Not far from the same place there were also found two small fragments of emerald and pearl, as well as a torn piece of stuff with a strong smell of paraffin.  Lastly, on the very edge of a wide shaft there was found in the clay a small fragment of a rifle barrelled hand-bomb, while descending into the shaft there were discovered traces of the explosion of a hand-bomb.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on August 08, 2005, 11:33:26 AM
(coninued)
Quote
...[in part]......

Here is the next part of the report:

Later on, during the period from August 2nd to 8th the Examining Magistrate made an inspection of the house of Ipatieff at Ekaterinburg, where the Emperor Nicholas and his family had been placed under a strict watch.

Among other things this inspection showed that the entrance door to one of the rooms had been torn off from the hinges by some instrument.  The door itself, splintered by bayonets, was found at the entrance to the house.

In view of the special importance of the case, pursuant to note 2 of the Article on the Statute of Judicial Institutions and on the recommendation of the Acting Procurateur, the District Court ordered on August 7th to charge the with with case a judge of that Court, I A Sergeyeff, who accordingly carried out the subsequent inquiry proceedings.

During August 11th tu 14 th an inspection was made of the ground floor premises of Ipatieff's house, where only one room calls for special attention, namely the one in which the shooting took place.  The most careful inspection of the same did not enable one to ascertain who precisely had been shot in that room, though it is undoubtedly clear that several persons have been shot there.

The room is 7 arsheens and 8 vershops (about 17 ½ feet) long, and 6 arsheens and 4 vershops (14 ½ feet) wide.  On one of the walls, opposite the entrance, there are 16 cavities situate at various distances from the floor.  Similar cavities were found on the left side of a portion of the floor of that room, such cavities being situate precisely at the spot where clear traces of blood washed away and rubbed over with sand are noticeable on the floor.

By order of Judge Sergeyeff portions of the wood and floor where apertures had been found were cut out in the shape of squares, when the examination revealed that those apertures presented channels for revolver bullets.  Some of these channels were filled with curdled and congealed blood.  From the position of the revolver apertures in the wall of the room one may conclude that the persons shot were on their knees.

Next section, to follow tomorrow I hope, deals with Tchemaduroff's testimony.  Sorry to have to do it like this but I do have a normal life to lead as well......

Phil T


 
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 08, 2005, 09:29:35 PM
This is an interesting point: there were TWO dogs who died in the Ipatiev house: Jemmy and Ortino. We know this for the White investigators found Jemmy's corpse in the mine. He wasn't rotten. Ortino's corpse didn't appear, but some of the little bones found for the Whites must have been his. I read in FOTR that Ortino was "Impaled" by one of the Yurovsky's men. Goloshockin even said: "A dog's death for a dog"...

It's very strange that Penny and Greg doesn't mention Jemmy's death. In Robert K. Massie "Nicholas and Alexandra" and "Romanov; Last Chapter", this author wrote about Anastasia bringing Jemmy in her arms...

Other interesting point in the murderer witnesses, is the fact that the girls were shot in the head, one by one. They said that after the shots, all they head exploded in cerebral tissue and blood. But then, is not possible that two of them (some accounts said three) sat in their path to the truck, screaming...Not with such brain damage. Yurovsky claimed that Ermakov shot Maria in the head to "finish her off", but she was one of the girls who "waked up to scream" before being put in the truck. So...What happened? Someone is plainly lying here...

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Elisabeth on August 09, 2005, 01:01:00 AM
Quote
This is an interesting point: there were TWO dogs who died in the Ipatiev house: Jemmy and Ortino. We know this for the White investigators found Jemmy's corpse in the mine. He wasn't rotten. Ortino's corpse didn't appear, but some of the little bones found for the Whites must have been his. I read in FOTR that Ortino was "Impaled" by one of the Yurovsky's men. Goloshockin even said: "A dog's death for a dog"...


Actually we don't know for a fact that two dogs were killed by the Bolsheviks. Kudrin states in his memoir that only Ortino was killed. More significantly, not a single one of the killers says that there was a dog present in the murder room. As Summers and Mangold demonstrated in FOTT, it's very probable that the Whites themselves planted Jemmy's corpse at the Four Brothers mineshaft months after the murder, because they wanted there to be some definitive proof that the IF had been killed, in the absence of their bodies.

It's true that Yurovsky mentions Jemmy's corpse in his 1934 Note, but even then it's only to say that when removing the bodies of the IF and servants from the mineshaft, in preparation for the second burial, he and his men left various traces of evidence behind by mistake, including "apparently the body of a dog." Note the "apparently." It's significant because the only way Yurovsky could have known that Jemmy was "left behind" in the mineshaft was if he had actually read Sokolov's report. Obviously he hadn't read it in 1920 or 1928, when he wrote his first Notes, because he doesn't mention Jemmy in either one, but by 1934 he had read the report, and added details from it to his latest Note. This was in the interests of being thorough, and not from any attempt to deceive.

Quote
It's very strange that Penny and Greg doesn't mention Jemmy's death.


Not so strange, because as has been firmly established, Jemmy was not present in the murder room. I think King and Wilson also just didn't have the space in which to discuss the FOTT theory that Jemmy's corpse was planted by the Whites. At best, this would only have been a footnote anyway.

Quote
Other interesting point in the murderer witnesses, is the fact that the girls were shot in the head, one by one. They said that after the shots, all they head exploded in cerebral tissue and blood. But then, is not possible that two of them (some accounts said three) sat in their path to the truck, screaming...Not with such brain damage. Yurovsky claimed that Ermakov shot Maria in the head to "finish her off", but she was one of the girls who "waked up to scream" before being put in the truck. So...What happened? Someone is plainly lying here...

RealAnastasia.


King and Wilson don't say that Maria was shot in the head. They say she was attacked with bayonets and suffered only one bullet wound, to her leg. It's quite possible that Maria was one of the girls who woke up and screamed when the murderers were carrying her out to the truck. It's also possible it was Anastasia, since some of the witness accounts state that she was the daughter who sat up, screamed, and was then stabbed to death. One of the girls also made some kind of gurgling sounds in her throat, and in fact that could have been any of the daughters, because even head shots do not necessarily kill one instantly - as Dr. Maples said in one interview, people don't die the way you expect them to when you shoot them, they convulse, they slip in and out of consciousness.  
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on August 09, 2005, 07:13:38 PM
The dog is not mention by Yurovsky in his first testimony in 1920.

Testimony of Yurovsky given in 1 Feb 1934:

"The reasons for the chaos--that is, disorderly and confused shooting--became clear later.  Although I warned them though Botkin  that they didn't need to bring anything with them, they nevertheless gathered up various little things-- pillows, little bags, and so forth--and I believe, a little dog."

Why Yurovsky mentions the dog in his second testimony is not known to us.  We can speculate.  He had read Sokolov's report  [what report is unknown to us, many assume there is only one..] shortly before Yurovsky gave his  second report so maybe his memory was "improved" because of this read.

The dog Jemmy as found at the mine by the Whites just before they left Ekaterinburg nearly a year later.

The third dog was found running around Ekaterinburg and later ended up in England.

I'll go find the diagrams of the entries of the bullets and bring them here when I can.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 09, 2005, 08:12:04 PM
So, Bear...Who is lying there? I read in FOTR that Ortino was "impaled" and put into the truck backside along with the other corpses.

As for Maria, Yurovsky states this : "The bayonet could not pierce her bodice" She was- Yurovsky wrote- "finished off" with a shot to the head. (FOTR. page 311)

Now; I'll quote what he said about Anastasia's death: she was "screaming and fighiting (with Ermakov) - Yurovsky wrote- she fell only after Ermakov put his gun to her head and pulled the trigger..."

Well; I checked the fact to see if I was wrong and I was not. If we must believe Yurovsky, the "Big Pair" and the "Little Pair" were both "finished off" with bullets in their skulls...Now; we have the skull of the one of the two younger girls, and there is no shot in her head. So, evidently, Yurovsky lied for some reason unknown for us. In my opinion (but, yes...I don't know all the facts there), there is no reason for such a lie.

As for Ortino, here it is the quote from FOTR: "...In the  courtyard, Kudrin saw Goloshchokin, who warned him that he had been walking in the Voznesensky Square and clrearly heard the shots and screams form the basement. As they passed the secondary staircase, the two men saw Ortino, Tatiana's bulldog, whimpering at the top. The dog rushed down the staircase in search of his mistress. A nearby soldier grabbed a bayonet, impaled the wuivering body, then heaved it into the rear of the Fiat. '...A dog's death to dogs!...' Goloshchokin commented..."

No account of Jemmy's death in this book. Of course I read others where the Spaniel it's mentioned. (Robert. K. Massie; Radzhinsky, "The last Empress" by Greg King). As far as I know, his little body was indeed found by the White investigators. Ortino's corpse WAS NOT found. Some investigators said that, perhaps some of the little bones they found could have been those of Ortino, mixed up with those of a chicken eaten by the men who buried the IF and it retainers burial...

Some ideas here?

RealAnastasia.

Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Elisabeth on August 10, 2005, 01:01:51 AM
Quote
So, Bear...Who is lying there? I read in FOTR that Ortino was "impaled" and put into the truck backside along with the other corpses.

As for Maria, Yurovsky states this : "The bayonet could not pierce her bodice" She was- Yurovsky wrote- "finished off" with a shot to the head. (FOTR. page 311)

Now; I'll quote what he said about Anastasia's death: she was "screaming and fighiting (with Ermakov) - Yurovsky wrote- she fell only after Ermakov put his gun to her head and pulled the trigger..."

Well; I checked the fact to see if I was wrong and I was not. If we must believe Yurovsky, the "Big Pair" and the "Little Pair" were both "finished off" with bullets in their skulls...Now; we have the skull of the one of the two younger girls, and there is no shot in her head. So, evidently, Yurovsky lied for some reason unknown for us. In my opinion (but, yes...I don't know all the facts there), there is no reason for such a lie.


Yurovsky wasn't lying! If there's any inconsistency it's my own, in my previous post, because I'm on vacation and don't have my books at hand, so I was writing from memory. In actual fact we can't say with any certainty that Maria wasn't shot in the head. She could very well have been shot in the head - her skull was the most damaged of all the IF's, so damaged that any trace of a bullet wound (for example, to the face) could have been lost.

But RealAnastasia, are you sure you are quoting Yurovsky here and not some of the other killers? Did you check the Notes at the end of FOTR to verify that all of these quotes really were taken from Yurovsky's testimony and not from that of other witnesses such as Strekotin and Kudrin? Because the account of the murders that King and Wilson give in FOTR is based on a multiplicity of witness statements, not Yurovsky's alone.

Quote
As for Ortino, here it is the quote from FOTR: "...In the  courtyard, Kudrin saw Goloshchokin, who warned him that he had been walking in the Voznesensky Square and clrearly heard the shots and screams form the basement. As they passed the secondary staircase, the two men saw Ortino, Tatiana's bulldog, whimpering at the top. The dog rushed down the staircase in search of his mistress. A nearby soldier grabbed a bayonet, impaled the wuivering body, then heaved it into the rear of the Fiat. '...A dog's death to dogs!...' Goloshchokin commented..."

No account of Jemmy's death in this book. Of course I read others where the Spaniel it's mentioned. (Robert. K. Massie; Radzhinsky, "The last Empress" by Greg King). As far as I know, his little body was indeed found by the White investigators. Ortino's corpse WAS NOT found. Some investigators said that, perhaps some of the little bones they found could have been those of Ortino, mixed up with those of a chicken eaten by the men who buried the IF and it retainers burial...

Some ideas here?

RealAnastasia.


An account of Ortino's killing is given in Kudrin's testimony. It's more than likely that some of the animal bones found at the Four Brothers mineshaft were those of Ortino. If there's no account of Jemmy's killing it could very well be because Yurovsky played no part in it. Moreover, look at it this way, if you have the bodies of eleven human beings to dispose of, how concerned are you going to be about the fate of one or two dogs?

Please could I ask, why are you and AGR Bear so convinced that Yurovsky's testimony was based on lies and deception? Why do you think he was lying when his statements agree so much with those of the other witnesses and indeed, with the forensic evidence itself? So far in your lengthy examination of Yurovsky you have yet to unearth a single major inconsistency. Are either of you at least willing to consider the possibility that Yurovsky was telling the truth?
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on August 10, 2005, 11:22:04 AM
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/RomanovBullets.jpg)

Here is the chart from THE QEUST FOR ANASTASIA by Klier and Mingay.

It shows the paths of the bullet holes found in the skeletons.
1. Anna Demidova
2. Evgeny Botkin  
3. GD Olga Nikolaevna
4. Nicholas II
5. GD Maria or GD  Anastasia Nikolaevna
6.  GD Tatina Nikolaevna
7. Alexandra Fedorovna [NOTE: She is missing on the diagram?]
8. Ivan Kharitonov
9. Aleksei Trupp
       

AGRBear

PS  #7 Alexandra is missing from the chart.  PSS According to THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS  p. 308  "..bullet slamed into the left side of her,"  [Alexandra's],  "skull"
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on August 10, 2005, 11:30:29 AM
One of three which I posted in Questions about the mass grave in Pig's Meadow:

Quote
The parts in black are the bones missing according to Kleir and Mingay:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/skeleton123.jpg)

They are listed as:

1. Anna Demidova    2. Evgeny Botkin  3. GD Olga Nikolaevna


AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on August 16, 2005, 11:11:58 AM
Here are two photographs which would be similar to the truck said to have carried 11 bodies toward the Four Brother's Mine before it became stuck.  It also carried three men in the cab and several others hanging on outside.....:

Quote
2 Fiats

1. 1916
(http://www.armyvehicles.dk/images/fiat1916.jpg)

2. Undated

(http://www.autogallery.org.ru/k/fa/fiat_GebhardFlatz.jpg )


Penny sent us a photo of the Fiat and I'll go find it.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on August 16, 2005, 11:16:48 AM
Penny sent us this photo of a Fiat truck:

(http://img201.exs.cx/img201/7839/fiat5xw.jpg)

AGRBear

As you can see this fiat didn't have running boards so I'm not sure where the fellows who were on the outside were riding.  Surly they didn't ride on top of the bodies???  And there are no sides slates or cover....

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on August 16, 2005, 11:30:12 AM
What does Yurovsky tell us in 1934 testimony:
>>). Yermakov drove us somewhere at the Verkh-Isetsky Works. I was never at that place and did not know it. At about two-three versts (or maybe more) from the Verkh-Isetsky Works, a whole escort of people on horseback or in carriages met us. I asked Yermakov who these people were, why they were there. He answered that he had assembled those people. I still do not know why there were so many. I heard only shouts "We thought they would come here alive, but it turns out they are dead." Also, it seems about three-four versts farther our truck got stuck between two trees. There where we stopped several of Yermakov's people were stretching out girls' blouses. We discovered again that there were valuables and they were taking them. I ordered that men be posted to keep anyone from coming near the truck.

The truck was stuck and could not move. I asked Yermakov, "Is it still far to the chosen place?" He said "Not far, beyond railroad beds." And there behind the trees was a marsh. Bogs were everywhere. I wondered "Why had he herded in so many people and horses. If only there had been carts instead of carriages." But there was nothing we could do. We had to unload to lighten the truck, but that did not help. Then I ordered them to load the carriages, because it was already light and we did not have time to wait any longer.<<

 

I'm  off to find the data which tells us how many men were riding inside and outside the truck's cab.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on August 16, 2005, 11:54:23 AM
Pavel Medvedev's testinony in Feb 1919:
>>...The people I brought first busied thmselves with loading the corpses of the dead onto a truck hat had been brought up to  the front entrance.  The corpses were brought out on stretches made of sheets wrapped around harness beams taken from sleights in the  counrtyard.  The corpses piled into the tuck were covered wit part of soldier's blanets taken from the small storage room..... Liukhanov, a worker from the Zlokazov factory, was the chauffeur.  Pyotr Yermakov<< [Ermankov]>>and the other memberber of the Extrodinary Commission climbed into the truck and took the corpses away.  I do not know what direction they went...  Yurovsky went to his office, and I went home to the detachment.<<

Paul Medvedev does not have himself nor Yurovsky on the truck when it left the Ipatiev House....
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on August 16, 2005, 12:12:04 PM
In Yurovsky's  1920 testimony he tells us:

>>...truck did not arrive at 12 o'clock; it came only a half past one.<<

>>Everyone was asleep when the car came.<<

>>The car's late arrival caused the commandant to doubt Yev's [Yermakov's]<< [Ermakov's]>>thoroughness, and the comm. decided to stay with the whole operation to the end.

Around 3 o'clock in the monring, we departed for the place that Ye-v was to have prepared... First it was assumed that they [the corpses] would be brought by car and then, beginning at a certain point, on horseback, since the car could go no further.  The place selected was an abandone mine.  After driving a little more than 3 miles passt the Upper Isetsk factory, we bumped into a whole encampment--about 25 people-- on horseback... <<  


There is no mention of a truck or car getting stuck up to this point.

He continues:
>>They began to load the corpses into the light carts, but wagons were needed.<<

He doesn't tell us the corpses were placed back onto the truck.

>>It was growing light.  The comm. sent men on horseback  to find the place..... The car had gotten stuck beatween two trees, so it was abandon, and, after the corpses were covered with blankets, the carts moved in single file.  We drove..."<<

The car was stuck so what was it they "drove"?  The carts???  The truck???  

>>...We drove about 11 miles from Yekaterinburg and stopped a mile from the village of Koptiaki, this was around 6 or 7 o'clock in the morning.  In the forest, an abandoned prospector's mine about eight feet deep was gound..... The comm. ordered the corpses undressed and a fire built.....<<

Later that morning, after 10 or 11, >>....the comm. went to report to the Ural [Regionl  Soveit] Executive Comittee....<<   Afterwards the  >>...comm. left for that spot but did not arrive immediately because his car broke down.  He [eventualy] reached the mines on foot...<<

There is, again, mentioned "the truck" and  "a car with Cheka secruity officers" and some men on horseback"...

On  the  events of the 18th Yurovsky tells us:  >>Because the carts were flimsy and falling apart, the comm. left for town to get motor vehicles (a truck and two motorcars, one for the Chekists).  The carts had broken down earlier and the vehicles were needed for transport to the deep mines, but in fact the vehicles could not make it to the place of temporary burial and that was why the carts still had to be used.  When the vehicles arrived, the carts were alreadly moving -- the vehicles met them a quarter of a mile closer to Koptiaki.  We could not begin the trip until 9 o'clock at night.  We crossed the railroad tracks and, a quarter of a mile later, we moved the corpses onto the truck.  We drove with difficulty, paving hazardous places with railway ties, but we still got stuck a few times.  Around 4:00 in the morning of the 19th, one of the vehicles got completly stuck.<<

Let's see, there was a car stuck between two trees and a car that broke down.

I'm losing track of the number of cars and  trucks used....

And,  I still haven't found the data on all who was on the first truck which left the Ipatiev House.....

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on August 16, 2005, 12:55:49 PM
Ahhhh, here it is on p. 316 of King and Wilson's book THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS:

>>THE FIAT TRUCK SWUNG out of the Ipatiev House gates and turned right ".....with the remains of the Romanovs", as Kudrin recalled.  Yurovsky, Ermkaov, and Lyukhanov were squeezed together in the cab; in the rear, armed with rifles and crouched in pools of blood, uncomfortabled closed to the mound of protruding arms and legs, were Soams, Lacher and Verhas.  Flimpsy wooded side rails along he bed of he truck shielded the heap of bodies, preventing them from rolling off...."

AGRBear

PS Kudrin = Mikhail Medvedev
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Tania+ on August 18, 2005, 10:50:19 PM
Sorry to ask, but I see spelling of Pyotr Zakharovich Yermakov is being spelled two ways. Is it with a 'y' or an 'e'? Was he one of the men who just happened to be around conscripted into the burying of the IF, or was he there from the beginning?

Also, was he also a GPU worker who worked with Mikhail Medvedov?

Lastly, what happend to these two men later in life?
Thanks for any input.

Tainia
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on August 19, 2005, 01:40:45 PM
Yes, Ermankov and Yermankov are the same person.  

There is some information about him around here with his photo...

Let me see if I can find it for you.

Quote
Peter Ermakov:
 
"Unlike Yurovsky, Ermakov positively relished his role in the Romanov murders."  wrote King and Wilson, p. 512 THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS.  
 
He had given his Mauser revolver to the Ekaterinburg museum and often took his friends to see the gun which he claimed he had used to  shoot and kill Nicholas II.
 
Evidently, it was Ermakov and not Yurovsky who made public appearances and voiced in detail what had occured in the basement of the Impatiev House on the night of 16/17  July 1918.
 
Unlike Yurovsky,  Ermakov was never censured but p. 513 "rewarded,  given promotions, better apartments and even additional pay."  Even his retirement pay was different.  He received a "personal pension".
 
Died 1952 and given full honors.
 
It appears to what I've read,  the Soviets view Ermakov with a "proud eye" more than they did Yurovsky.  What was the reason?  I thought Ermakov was the "drunkard" and the one who had been "unreliable"  
 
AGRBear



AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on August 21, 2005, 07:26:56 PM
Here is a web site about the skulls of the eleven.

http://www.tzar.orthodoxy.ru/ost/exp/photos.htm

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on August 25, 2005, 01:28:06 PM
In the next couple of days,  I'm going to type in the testimony of Yurovsky of 1920. Since this copy is found in THE FALL OF THE ROMANOVS, I assume, the words in the brackets are the authors Steinberg's and Khrustalev's:

>>On 16 July [1918], a telegram in previously agreed-upon language came from Perm containing the order to exerminate the R-ovs [Romanovs].  At first (in May), the intention was to bring Nicholas to trial, but this was prevented by the advancing Whites.  On the 16th at 6 o'clock in the evening, Filipp G-n [Goloshchekin] decreed that the order be carried out.  A car was to arrive at midnight to take away the corpses.  At 6 o'clock, the boy [Leonid Sednyov] was taken away, which were much upset the R-ovs and their people.  Doctor Botkin even came to ask why this was called for?  It was explained that the boy's uncle, who had been arrested, had escaped and then returned and wanted to see his nephew.  The boy was sent the next day to his birthplace (in Tula province, I think).  The truck did not arrive at 12 o'clock, it came only at half past one.  This delayed carrying out the order.  By the time everything was ready: 12 people with revolvers (inclucing 5 Latvians) were selected who were supposed to carry out the sentence; 2  the Latvians  refused to shoot at girls.

Everyone was asleep when the car came.  Botkin was woken up, and he woke up al the rest.  The explanation was as follows:  "The R-ov famly must be moved from upstairs to downstairs as all is not calm in town."  They dressed in half an hour.  A downstaris room was selected that had wall so plastered wood (to prevent [the bullets from] ricocheting); all the furniture was removed.  The detachment was at the ready in the next room.  The R-ovs suspected noting.  The comm. [commandant] went to get them personaly, alone, and led them downstairs to the room below.  Nich was carrying A. [Aleksei] in his arms; the rest carried little pillows and other small things with them.  Walking into the empty room, A.F. [Alexandra Fodorovna] asked:  "What, there isn't even a chair?  One isn't even allowed to sit down?"  The comm. ordered two chairs to be brought, Nich. seated A. on one, and A.F. sat down on the other.  The commandant ordered the rest to stand in a row.  

When they had taken their places, he called in  the detachment. When the detachment came in, the commandant told the R-ovs, in light of the fact that heir relatives in Europe wer continuing their agression against Soviet Russia, the Ural [Regional] Soviets] Executive Commitee had decreed that they were to be shot.  Nicholas turned his back to the detachement, his face toward his family, then as though collecting himself, turned to the commandant with the question: "What?  What?"  The comm. hurriedly repeated his statement and order the detachment to get ready.  The detachment had been given intructions earlier on whom to shoot and were ordered to aim directly for the heart to avoid a large amount of blood and to finish them off more quickly.  Nicholas, again, turning to the family, said nothing more, the others made a few incoherent exclamations this all last a few seconds.  Then the shooting started; [it] last for two or three mintues.  Nich. was killed on the spot by the comm. himself.  A. F. died immediately after that and the other R-ovs (altogather 12 people were shot [in fact 11 people were shot]): N., A.F., four daughters (Tatiana, Olga, Maria, and Anastasia), Doctor Botkin, the footman Trupp, the cook Tikhomirov [actually Kharitonov], another cook, and a lady-in-waiting whose last name the commandants has forgotten [actually, Alexandra's personal maid, Anna Demidova].  A., three of his sister, the lady-in-waiting, and Bothkin were still alive. They had to be shot again.   This surprised the comm. because they had aimed for the heart.  It was also surprising that the bullets from the pistols recocheted off something and jumped about the room like hail. When they tried to finish off one of the girls with bayonets, the bayonet could not pierce the corset.  Thanks to all of this, the entire procedure, including "verification" (feeling the pulses, etc.) took around 20 minutes.

>>Then they started carrying out the corpses and putting them into the car, which had been covered with heavy blankets so the blood wouldn't seep out.  At this point, the stealing began:  three reliable comrades had to be assigned to guard the corpses while the procedure continued (the corpses were brought out one by one).  All of the stolen goods were returned under the threat of execution (a gold watch, a cigarette case with diamonds, and so on).  The comm. was only assigned to carry out the sentence;  the removal of corpses and son on was comrade Yermakov's responsibility (a worker from the Upper Isetsk factory, a party comrade, ex-prisioner).  He was suppose to come with the car and be admitted by using  the agreed-upon password, "chimney sweep."  The car's late arrival caused the commandant to doubt Ye-v's [Yermakov's] thoroughness, and the comm. decided to stay with the whole operation at the end.<<

(to be continued below)
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on August 25, 2005, 01:28:40 PM
(continued)

Around 3 o'clock in the morning, we departed for the place tha Ye-v was to have prepared (beyond the Upper Isetsk factory).  First it was assumed that they [the corpses] would be brought by car and then, beginning at a certain point, on horseback, since the car could go no futher.  The place selected was an abandoned mine.  After driving a little more than 3 miles past the Upper Isetk factory, we bumped into a whole encampment -- about 25 people-- on horseback, in light, horse-drawn carts, etc.  There were workers (members of the soviet, of the Executive Committee, etc.) whom Ye-v had prepared.  The first thing they exclaimed was:  "Why didn't you bring them to us alive?!"  they thought the Romanovs' execution would be entrusted to them.  They began to load the corpses into the light carts, but wagons were needed.  This was very inconvenient.  They immediately began to clean out [the corpses'] pockets -- it was necessary to theaten them with being shot and to post sentries here as well.  Then it was discovered that Tatiana, Olga  and Anastasia were dressed in some kind of special corsets.  It was decided to strip the corses bare, but not here, only at the place of burial.  But it turned out that no one knew where the mine was that had been selected for this purpose.

It was growing light.  The comm. sent men on horseback to find the place, but no one found anything.  It turned out that nothing had been readied at all:  there were no shovels and so on.  The car had gotten stuck between two trees, so it was abandoned, and, after the coorpses were covered with blankets, the carts were moved in single file.  We drove about 11 miles from Yekaterinburg and stopped a mile from the village of Koptiaki; this was around 6 or 7 o'clock in the morning.  In the forest, an abandoned prospector's mine about eight feet deep was found (gold was once mined there).  The mine had a couple of feet of water.  The commn. ordered the corpses undressed and a fire built so that everthing could be burnt.  Men on horseback were posted everywhere to drive away all passersby.

When one of the girls was being undressed, it was noticed that the bullets had torn th corsset in places, and diamonds could be seen in the holes.  The eyes of those all around began burning brightly.  The comm. immediately decided to dismiss the whole group, leaving on guard a few men on horseback and five from the detachment.  The rest dispersed.  The detachement began to undress and burn the corpses.  A.F. was wearing a whole pearl belt made of several strands and sewn into cloth.  Around each girl's neck, it turned out, was a portrait of Rasputin with the text of his prayer sewn into the amulets.  The diamonds were instantly removed.  They (things made of diamonds, tht is) amounted to about eighteen pounds.  They were buried in the cellar of one of the little houses at the Alapaevsk factory;  in 1919 they were dug up and brought to Moscow.

After we put everything valuable into bags, the rest of what was found on the corses was burnt and the corpses themselves were lowered into the mine.  While this was going on, a few of the baluables (someone's brooch, Botkin's denturs) were dropped, and in the effort to cave in the mind with the help of hand granades, it was evident that the corpses were damaged and that certain parts were torn off some of them--that is how the commandant explains how the Whites (who discovered it) came to find a ripped-off finger and so forth at this spot.  But it was not planned to leav the R-ovs here--the mine had earlier been designated only a temporary burial spot.

Having completed the opersation and left the guard, around 10 to 11 o'clock in the morning (already 17 July), the comm. went to report to the Ural [Regional Soviet] Executive Committee, where he found Safarov and Beloborodov.  The comm. told them what had been found and expressed his regret that they had not allowed him to conduct a timely search of the R-ovs.  The comm. found out from Chutskaev (chairman of the Executive Committee of the city soviet) that a mile 6 along the Moscow highway there are very deep, abandoned mines suitable for burying the R-ovs.  The comm. left for that spot but did not arrive immediately because his car broke down.  He [eventually] reach the mines on foot and actually found three very deep mines filled with water, where he decided to surbmerge the corpses by tying rocks to them.  Guards were there who served as inconvient witnesses, so it was decided to send, together with the truck containing the corpses, a car with Cheka security officers, who would arrest everyone there under the pretext of a search.  To make his way back, the comm. appropriated a pair of horses that happened to come along.  Those who had been by chance detained [for being in the area] were sent on.  After setting out [for town] on horseback, together with another Chekist [member of the Cheka], to organize the whole matter, the comm. fell from his horse and badly hurt himself (afterward, the Chekist fell as well).  In case the plan with the mines didn't work, it was decided to burn the corpses or bury them in clay pits filled with water, after first disfiguring the corspes beyond recognition with sulfuric acid.<<

(continued below)
Title: When the vehicles arrived, the carts were already
Post by: AGRBear on August 25, 2005, 01:29:06 PM
(continued)

>>Finally, having returned to town around 8 o'clock in the evening on the 17th, everything necessary began to be gathered; the kerosene, the sulfuric acid.  Horse-drawn carts without drivers were taken from the prison.  It had been planned to leave a 11 o'clock at night, but the incident with the Chekist held things up, and we left for the mine, together with ropes to drag out the corpses and soon on, only around 12:30 on the night of the 17th to the 18th.  In order to isolate the mine  (the first prospector's mine) for the duration of the operation, it was announced to the village of Koptiaki that Czechs were hiding in the forest, tht the forest would be searched, and that on no account should anyone from the village go anywhere.  It was ordered to shoot on the spot anyone who happened to break into the cordoned--off area.

Meanwhile, dawn came (this was already the third day, the 18th).  The thought was to bury some of the corpses right then and there by the mine.  We began to dig a pit and almost finished digging it out.  But just then a peasant acquaintance of Yermakov's drove up, and it turned out he had been able to see the pit.  That effort had to be abandoned.  It was decided to take the corpses to the deep mines.  Because the carts were flimsy and falling apart, the comm. left for town to get motor vehicles (a truck and two motorcars, one for the Chekists).  The carts had broken down earlier and the vehicles were needed for transport to the deep mines, but in fact the vehicles could not make it to the place of temporary burial and that was why the carts still had to be used.  When the vehicles arrived, the carts were already moving--the vehicles met them a  quarter mile closer to Koptaiaki  .  We could not begin the trip until 9 o'clock at night.  We crossed the railroad tracks and, a quarter of a mile later, we moved the corpses onto the truck.  We drove with difficulty, paving the hazardous places with railway ties, but we still got stuck a few times.  Around 4:40 in the morning of the 19th, one of the vehicles got completely stuck.  Since we had not reached the mine, it was necessary to either bury or burn the corpses.  One conrade, whose last name the comm. has forgotten, promised to take the latter upon himself but left without carrying out his promise.

We wanted to burn A. [Aleksei] and A.F., but by mistake the lady-in-waiting [he maid Demidova] ws burnt with A. instead.  We then immediately buried the remains under the fire and lit the fire again, which comletely covered up traces of the digging.  Meanwhile, we dug a common grave for the rest.  A pit around 6 feet deep and 8 feet square was ready by around 7 o'clock in the morning.  We piled the corpses in the pit, poured sulfuric acid onto their faces and generally over their whole bodies to prevent them both from being recognized and from stinking as a results of decomposition (the pit was not deep).  Having thrown dirt and brushwood on top, we put down railroad ties and drove over them a few times--no traces of the pit wer left.  The secret was completely safe;  the Whites didn't find this burial place.

Koptiaki is 12 miles from Yekaterinburg.  The R.R. crosses mile 6 between Koptiaki and the Upper Isetsk factory to the northwest [of town].  The burial place is 700 feet closer to the U. Isetsk factory from te point of intersection.<<

Note: The authors stated that the Russian measurement in the document had been converted to U. S. Measurements.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on August 25, 2005, 01:29:30 PM
Yurovsky's 1934 testimony can be found at:
http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/yurovmurder.html

Quote
Thread on photographs of Yurovsky:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=lastdays;action=display;num=1116078071

The following has a brief personal history of Yurovsky:
http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/yurovski_bio.html

AGRBear



AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on August 25, 2005, 04:43:57 PM
Quote
I don't know if this is very much larger, but I did hi-light the most relevant areas. (The file on my computer is larger, but I think photobucket might have resized it -- any tips for getting around that?)
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y285/sarahelizabethii/CopyofYekaterinburgarea.jpg)

Yekaterinburg, the Four Brothers mine, and the pit are all marked in yellow. The dotted pink line is the road between Yekaterinburg and Koptiaki Village. Also on the map is the path leading from Koptiaki to the mines, where some peasants ran into Yurovsky's men in the wee hours of the morning, as well as the railroad crossings that caused the truck so much difficulty.
Title: We piled the corpses in the pit, poured sulfuric a
Post by: AGRBear on August 26, 2005, 03:50:53 PM
Many lines need to be looked at more closely.  

How many of you noticed this: >>We piled the corpses in the pit, poured sulfuric acid onto their faces and generally over their whole bodies to prevent them both from being recognized<<

He was talking about the nine bodies, the pit and railroad ties, wasn't he???


AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Ssyentz on August 28, 2005, 11:19:46 AM
This is the sentence to which you referred:

We piled the corpses in the pit, poured sulfuric acid onto their faces and generally over their whole bodies to prevent them both from being recognized and from stinking as a results of decomposition (the pit was not deep).

The "both" and the "and" are the two parts of a correlative conjunction.  In such a pair, the first of the group (in this case, "both") introduces and emphasizes the relation of the elements to be joined by the second.

Thus, the use of the correlative conjunction here is to emphasize the fact that sulphuric acid was used for two reasons:
                  1)  to prevent future recognition, and
                  2)  to prevent odor from decomposition.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: lexi4 on August 28, 2005, 01:19:16 PM
Quote
This is the sentence to which you referred:

We piled the corpses in the pit, poured sulfuric acid onto their faces and generally over their whole bodies to prevent them both from being recognized and from stinking as a results of decomposition (the pit was not deep).

The "both" and the "and" are the two parts of a correlative conjunction.  In such a pair, the first of the group (in this case, "both") introduces and emphasizes the relation of the elements to be joined by the second.

Thus, the use of the correlative conjunction here is to emphasize the fact that sulphuric acid was used for two reasons:
                   1)  to prevent future recognition, and
                   2)  to prevent odor from decomposition.


Yes, and your point???
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Ssyentz on August 28, 2005, 02:12:19 PM
My point:  to clarify the sentence in reference to AGRBear's comment.

The "both" is not in this case a pronoun used to refer to two of anything; it is a conjunction.


Bear's concern was about the term referring to two people when the context of the sentence was about the mass grave.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on August 28, 2005, 06:33:05 PM
Ahhhh, yes,  I see.

Thanks.

AGRBear

PS  Always read a sentence all the way through. 8)
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on August 28, 2005, 06:41:54 PM
Yurovsky 1920 (AGRBear removed the authors brackets):  

>>Then the shooting started; last for two or three mintues.  Nich. was killed on the spot by the comm. himself.  A. F. died immediately after that and the other R-ovs (altogather 12 people were shot): N., A.F., four daughters (Tatiana, Olga, Maria, and Anastasia), Doctor Botkin, the footman Trupp, the cook Tikhomirov, another cook, and a lady-in-waiting whose last name the commandants has forgotten.  A., three of his sister, the lady-in-waiting, and Bothkin were still alive.<<

My next question is directed at the number Yurovsky claimed were killed.  He tells us "12", not 11, not 9.

Do we have 3 missing bodies???

Or did Yurovsky have a memory failure?  Couldn't count?  Added someone who wasn't present?

What do some of you think?

AGRBear  
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: lexi4 on August 28, 2005, 06:43:04 PM
Thank you Ssyentz. I thought the meaning of the quote was obvious and understood both was a conjuction, but I missed the previous post. Thanks again.


Quote
My point:  to clarify the sentence in reference to AGRBear's comment.

The "both" is not in this case a pronoun used to refer to two of anything; it is a conjunction.


Bear's concern was about the term referring to two people when the context of the sentence was about the mass grave.

Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Ssyentz on August 28, 2005, 06:59:01 PM
Lexi,
There's a reason this silver-tressed old English teacher is known as the grammar queen!   Sometimes, it's so easy to misread something when we're reading so much.

Kinda verifies my raison d'etre when I get a chance to illustrate a situation where an understanding of grammar makes a difference!

I still learn new things every day.  The day I don't, I'm "outa" here!
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: lexi4 on August 28, 2005, 10:50:33 PM
Aha! I love English teachers. I love grammer. I remember diagramming sentences. I have written for newspapers for years. A few months ago my 8th grade grammar teacher called to tell my my grammer was perfecr. But I digress, back to topic.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: etonexile on August 29, 2005, 12:32:29 PM
Quote
Aha! I love English teachers. I love grammer. I remember diagramming sentences. I have written for newspapers for years. A few months ago my 8th grade grammar teacher called to tell my my grammer was perfecr. But I digress, back to topic.


The "National Association Of English Majors"* approves of this site...

...as seen on "Prarie Home Companion"...
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on August 29, 2005, 01:39:16 PM
Quote
Yurovsky 1920 (AGRBear removed the authors brackets):  

>>Then the shooting started; last for two or three mintues.  Nich. was killed on the spot by the comm. himself.  A. F. died immediately after that and the other R-ovs (altogather 12 people were shot): N., A.F., four daughters (Tatiana, Olga, Maria, and Anastasia), Doctor Botkin, the footman Trupp, the cook Tikhomirov, another cook, and a lady-in-waiting whose last name the commandants has forgotten.  A., three of his sister, the lady-in-waiting, and Bothkin were still alive.<<

My next question is directed at the number Yurovsky claimed were killed.  He tells us "12", not 11, not 9.

Do we have 3 missing bodies???

Or did Yurovsky have a memory failure?  Couldn't count?  Added someone who wasn't present?

What do some of you think?

AGRBear  

Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on August 29, 2005, 01:55:38 PM
This account seems to add another servant  to the list . These different testimonies would be so much more believable if certain basics like the number of people executed could be agreed upon.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on August 29, 2005, 07:48:23 PM
I think I read somewhere that someone had claimed there were 13 people killed, unfortunately,  I no longer remember the source.  For days I've been trying to recall but nothing is poping into my head so I'll need help in find that particular number being mention and the source.

At least Steinberg and Khrustalev in their book THE FALL OF THE ROMANOVS didn't just make a "correction", they just placed what they thought was correct "[in fact 11 people were shot]" into brackets.

In their notes they added:
>>4.  Yurovsky was inacurate here, there was no other cook.<<

Yurovsky mentioned the cook "Tikomirov" and in brackets the authors wrote that is wasn't Tikomirov but :  "[actually, Kharitonov].

Was there a "Tikomirov"?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on August 29, 2005, 08:17:23 PM
Bear,

One would believe if you were saddled with the execution of at least some innocents you could never forget how many people you killed one night, no matter how drunk you were alleged to be.

IM
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: lexi4 on August 29, 2005, 11:50:33 PM


Quote
Bear,

One would believe if you were saddled with the execution of at least some innocents you could never forget how many people you killed one night, no matter how drunk you were alleged to be.

IM

No kidding. That would be a detail I doubt anyone could forget. Bear, I also think I remember reading somewhere that he said there were 13. It sounds familar, but I can't remember where. I will do some searching to see what I can find.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on August 30, 2005, 01:01:46 PM
Thanks lexi 4.  

I was caught not reading a sentence and making a comment that made me look silly, yesterday.  Or was it the day before.... Anyway,  this morning,  I was closing up the book THE FALL OF THE ROMANOVS and I glanced back at Yurovsky' s statement of 1920.   Here is what Steinberg and Khrustalev wrote above the testimony:

>>Yakob Yurovsky's note on the execution of the imperial family and the concealment of the corpses, 1920.<<

There is no date other than 1920.  Does anyone know the rest of the date?

Was this actually just a  part of his testimony which was published or are these words from his unpublished testimony?

I had assumed it was from his published 1920 testimony but I may be wrong.

Anyone know???

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on August 30, 2005, 01:18:56 PM
Over on another thread we're discussing what AA knew and how she could have known certain things such as the "little pillows" carried by the women as they marched to the basement of the Ipatiev House.  So,  I started digging around to discover when this infomation became known.

Quote
So, back to topic, I hope.

THE LAST TSAR:
 On p. 382 Edward Radzinsky  writes:

>>Yurosvsky:  "Nic[olas] was carrying Alexei in is arms, the rest were carrying small pillows and various little items."<<

AGRBEAR


Same in the 1920 version in THE FALL OF THE ROMANOVS:

>>Nich. was carrying A. [Aleksei] in his arms; the rest carried little pillows and other small things with them.<<

1934 Yurovsky's testimony:
>>Although I warned them through Botkin that they didn't need to bring anything with them, they nevertheless gathered up various little things -- pillows, little  bags, and so forth--and, I believe, a little dog.<<

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on September 02, 2005, 03:43:49 PM
Speaking of pillows.....:

Quote
p. 122 FILE ON THE TSAR by Mangold and Summers.

In Oct of 1918 Judge Sergeyev, the investigator before Sokolov, was asking an ex-guard of the Ipatiev House Mikhail Letemin questions:

>>Letemin had an alibi for the night of 16 July, but said he had been told of the murders when he came on duty next monring.  His informant was Andrei Strekotin, who claimed he and seen the family led into the basement and shot while he was on guard.... Letemin said he had queried the story, point out that there ought to be a large number of bullet holes in the room, which there were not, Strekotin replied:  "Why so many?  The tsarina's maid hid behind a pillow, and lots of bullets went into the pillow."

So the Whites knew about a "pillow" held by the maid, presumbly Demidova, by Oct of 1918.

Hmmmmm,  looking for data about the pillow and it end up just throwing up another question such as Letemin wondering about the number of bullets  holes which he thought should have stuck the walls and he's told a "pillow" prevented the number of bullets from striking the wall.

A "pillow" stopped bullets???

I think Wilson and King said there were a huge number of bullets fired at the eleven victims.

Now,  I'm going to have to go and look that up.....

AGRBear


So far, this testimony is the  earliest one in which there is mention of a  pillow and it's being held by Demidova.

I find it difficult to believe many bullets were stopped by a pillow.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on September 06, 2005, 10:13:59 AM
What do we know about  Mikhail Letemin and Andrei Strekotin?
Mikhail Letemin
p. 122
>>..was seventeen when he signed from his job at the Syssert factory to join the Ipatiev House detachement.<<  >>..member of the Boleshvik Party<< and ....According to Sokolov, he had in the past, been tried on an unspecified morals charge...<<

p. 355
>>Sokolov may have genuinely believed that the Romanovs were alll dead.. There certainly was circumstanial evidence that the family had been killed...<< >>..His final, published result were heavily editied to the extent that he removed contradictory passaages in many of the statements made by the four captured Ipatiev House guards -- Medvedev, Yakimov, Letemin and Proskuryakov...<<


Andrei Strekotin
King and Wilson's book THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS p. 124:

>>One of the few guards to join the Special Detachment from political conviction was twenty-seven-year-old Andrei Strekotin, from the Syssert factory<<

Andrei  had a brother, Alexander, who was, also, a guard who watched the execution from the corridor [p. 299], and, it was said,  who wasn't as political as his brother Andrei.

Neither Andrei Stekotin nor Mikhail Lemtemin actually saw the execution.


AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on September 08, 2005, 11:13:27 AM
Penny talks about the eye witnesses and possible survivors:

Quote

"Survived" is a big and loaded word.   8)

Do I think that someone left the basement room alive? Well, based on my FOTR research, I believe that at least two and perhaps as many as four people left that room alive.  

Eyewitness testimony -- and I see no reason to doubt it -- tells us that two "girls" sat up and struggled to get away in the truck.  The candidates are: Marie and Demidova, whose skulls, unlike those of the other women, do not bear evidence of headshots.  I think it not unreasonable to assume that those others, who obviously sustained massive brain lacerations, died in that room or soon after, and were pretty unlikely to have been able to sit up and fight.

Another candidate for sitting up and struggling in the truck was Anastasia -- we simply have no idea what sort of wounds she sustained, so she must remain a possibility.

Alexei was not a "girl," but because we do not have his body, we cannot say conclusively that he died in the basement room.

So I believe that up to four people "survived" the basement:  Some combination or a totality of Alexei, Marie, Anastasia and Demidova.

Did any of them survive the night?  Well, I don't believe that Marie or Demidova did -- I accept that their bodies were found in that grave in the Stenbock-Ferner woods.

As for Anastasia and Alexei -- I don't know.  I am open to the possibility that either or both survived, though for how long, again, I don't know.  But survival isn't impossible -- stranger things have happened.

Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on September 14, 2005, 05:46:59 PM
Adolf Lepa  

THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS by King and Wilson pps.  249-250, 269 and 300:

>>Saturday, June 29...Ekaterinburg...Hotel Amerika..Room 3, asssembled around the orange, Empire-style table:  Beloborodov, Goloshchokin, Didkovsky, Safarov, Chukazev, Ermakov, Voikov, Yurovsky, Alexei Kabanov, Adolf Lepa, and, from Perm, Gabriel Myasnikov.<<

>>The "Lett" detachment waas commanded by Capatain Adolf Lepa, of Lithuanian extraction.  Uner him were two brothers, Michael and Alexei Kabanov, and....Soames...<<

>>...Yurovsky encountered difficulties, "When I called the roll...a few of the Letts said they not not feel able to shoot at the girls, and refused to do it.  I felt that it would be for the best to excluded these comrades from the execution..... One of those who refused to shoot....Adolf Lepa..the other was Andras Verhas...  Having been dismissed, Lepa and Verhas fled to the Popov House across Voznesensky Lane... spent the night, as Guard Michael Letemin recalled, complaining about the murders.<<

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on September 14, 2005, 05:48:04 PM
THE LAST TSAR, THE LIFE AND DEATH OF NICHOLAS IIby Edvard Radzinsky:

Filipp Proskuryakov

Gave testimony of what he did and saw on the night of 16/17 July 1918....

Igor Stolov - guard and sharpshooter [see index]

p. 365

These two guards had gotten drunk on the night of 16/17 July and had fallen asleep in the bathhouse.


>>At three in the morning Pavel Medvedev woke them.<<

>>Medvedev ordered the two guards to clean the room [basement of the Ipatiev House].<<

Both were told what happen while they had been asleep in the bathhouse.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: matushka on October 18, 2005, 03:15:16 PM
An other naive question, after my reading of Fate of the Romanov: why did the Soviet Governement arrest Rodzinsky and take him all his documents about the death of the IF, when others keep their memories or testimonies at home without problem? What kind of documents was that?
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on October 19, 2005, 02:06:14 PM
Do you recall the page  this was in his book THE LAST TSAR?  Or was this in his book but from something else you read?

ARBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: matushka on October 19, 2005, 02:13:20 PM
Dear Bear, in fact, I am not about Radzinsky, the famous russian writer, but about Rodzinsky, one of the murderers...
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on October 19, 2005, 02:23:40 PM
My mistake.  

Isai Rodzinsky (1891-1964) had been a acting member of the Ural Regional CHEKA in July of 1918.... p. 321  THE LAST TSAR by Edvard Radzinsky.

King and Wilson THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS
p. 20
>>Of the 105 guards, 17 statements or wrote memoirs, nd 5 secondhand statements were given by their parents, sisters or wives.  The memoirs of seven of those involved in the execution also drew on eyewitness experiences to touch briefly on life within the Ipatieve Houuse:  Peter Ermakov (who left three accounts), Peter Voikov, Isai Rodzinsky, Michael Kudrin, Alexei and Michael Kabanov, and Victory Netrebin.  Nine secondary witnesses also gave firsthand accounts of the scenes they witnessed at the Ipatiev House...."

p. 512:
>>Following the evacuation of Ekaterinburg in 1918,<< [Isai] >>Rodzinsky had served as secretary of the Caucasus Regional Executive Committee for a time, then found himself pursued over his participation in the Ekaterinburag murders by Stalin.  He was arrested in 1937, his partment was searched and all of his personal papers and documents related to the Romanovs were seized and, he was later told, "destroyed" by Soviet authorities.  Finally released in 1940, Rodzinsky was ominously warned that he "was subject to continued investigation."

I'm not sure what he had on the execution that would need to have been destroyed.

Stuff like this does make a person wonder as to what else Stalin order to be destroyed and who else was arrested and placed in jail or if  anyone suffered a worst fate.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on December 11, 2005, 05:49:44 PM
Quote
I think I read somewhere that someone had claimed there were 13 people killed, unfortunately,  I no longer remember the source.  For days I've been trying to recall but nothing is poping into my head so I'll need help in find that particular number being mention and the source.

At least Steinberg and Khrustalev in their book THE FALL OF THE ROMANOVS didn't just make a "correction", they just placed what they thought was correct "[in fact 11 people were shot]" into brackets.

In their notes they added:
>>4.  Yurovsky was inacurate here, there was no other cook.<<

Yurovsky mentioned the cook "Tikomirov" and in brackets the authors wrote that is wasn't Tikomirov but :  "[actually, Kharitonov].

Was there a "Tikomirov"?

AGRBear


Phil sent me the following report where I found the "13" mentioned but this was the first time I had read this report.  I'm not sure where I read it before this source.

In the "REPORT TO THE MINISTER OF JUSTIC by the Pocureur of the High Court of Kazan, British Public Records, WO 32/S721signed by N. Mirelutboff, 12 Dec 1918 tells us on p. 7 that  Kutenkoff  heard Lavatnykh and Partin tell Kostoussoff  there were 13 vicitms.

AGRBear
Title: [quote author=AGRBear link=board=anastasia;num=113
Post by: AGRBear on December 15, 2005, 11:50:50 AM
Over on another thread was the discussion about a bayonet/bayonets being used during the execution of Nicholas II and the others.  FA has asked me to bring the topic over to this thread.

Here is one of my posts:

Quote
Remember: Maples just tells us about only one bayonet mark on all the bones in his book.  In his more detailed report,  does he mention other bones with bayonet marks?

Is Maples report available for me to find and discover if other bones have bayonet marks?

Or, does someone already know the answer?

If there is only one bone, the sternum of Trupp/Nicholas II,  which shows the marks of a bayonet,  then why don't more bones show these same kind of marks if everyone is telling us there were others who suffered blows from Ermakov's bayonet?

AGRBear


I'll bring over some of the other posts as I have time.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on December 15, 2005, 11:53:18 AM
Quote
...[in part]...

... Alexandra's ribs also showed signs of damage from a possible bayonet blow. Your information always seems highly selective. You always leave out something important and telling.

It seems to me, from the forensic evidence, that Ermakov and/or others went around with their bayonets afterwards and "tested" the corpses to see if they were still in fact living bodies. Because otherwise there's no accounting for Alexandra's apparent wound(s); she's not described as being stabbed in any of the eyewitness accounts.

But this makes it even more unlikely that someone could have survived the murder room that night. If all the grand duchesses were finished off by head shots (there's no trace of a bullet wound in Maria's skull, but most of her skull is missing, so that means nothing), and then the Bolsheviks went around stabbing the corpses, "just to make sure," then the idea that Anastasia or her brother might have survived the carnage is absolutely unbelievable.  


Quote

Gladly, AGR Bear. It's not exactly hard to find. Check Robert K. Massie's The Romanovs: The Final Chapter, p. 62:

"The easiest body to identify - labeled by the Russians as Body No. 7 - was that of a middle-aged woman whose ribs showed possible signs of damage from bayonet thrusts. What immediately caught the eye and attention of Dr. Levine was the elaborate and beautiful dental work in this skull [...] Seeing this work, Levine and Maples pronounced this skull and these remains as belonging to the Empress Alexandra."


Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on December 15, 2005, 11:54:32 AM
Quote
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/skeleton789.jpg)

The following are:

7. Alexandra Fedorovna  8. Ivan Kharitonov   9.  Aleksei Trupp



From what I can tell from these diagrams,  there wasn't much of Alexanda's sternum or rib cage found.   Am I reading this incorrectly?  Is the diagram incorrect?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on December 15, 2005, 11:57:54 AM
Quote
Actually, there are three types of bayonets: spike bayonets, knife bayonets and sword bayonets.

The most common form of a bayonet until the early twentieth century was the spike bayonet. The knife bayonet is much more modern and can be found in use of the present day Russian AK 47 and the American M-16. The sword bayonet had a much shorter period of use, mainly from the Napoleonic Wars until the 1890's.

Each of these types of weapons left different sorts of wounds but in the case of the bayonets used at House of Special Purpose, the bayonet of the 1891 Mosin-Nagant rifle was certain to have been in use. This long spike bayonet takes on angular cruciform shape meant to pierce vital organs. The angled cruciform blade is intended to leave a channel for the blood to escape so that the bayonet will be easier to withdraw from the victim. The victim however is not most likely to die from loss of blood with this style of bayonet but rather organ failure. Should the victim survive the attack, the puncture type wound is sure to kill by infection.

(http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/280/mosinbayo5cl.jpg)

1891 Mosin-Nagant Bayonet

David


Quote

Elfwine has brought up an interesting point about the unwieldyness of using long rifles with fixed bayonets in a cellar room. It is true that an execution in a closed space would be best done with a pistol but those of you who have studied Russian history should have come to the conclusion that planning and forethought in military matters did not come to Russians easily.

Other explainations for the use of rifles in a small space would include the use of the shorter model of the Mosin-Nagant known as the Cossak or Dragoon, which was issued to mounted troops. What I think is most likely, is that the bayonets on the full-sized Mosin-Nagants used at the House of Special Purpose had permanently fixed bayonets. As one may have noticed, the Russian Imperial Army did not issue scabbards for bayonets, so they were left attached to the rifles, at some point during World War I, to prevent the loss of bayonets by soldiers in the field, the bayonets were welded into place.

It is my belief that the executioners had the bayonets in place on their rifles at the start of the execution because that is manner in which this model of rifle was always kept.

David




Quote

My involvement in this entire thread is to supply technical advice. I do not believe that AA was in fact anyone other than a disturb Polish woman.

A triangular bayonet would seem to be an unlikely weapon. It would have been from a firearm that had been out of military use for 25 years or longer. It would have been a relic from the 1877-78 war with Turkey or some earlier conflict, It would not have fit onto the muzzle of the Mosin-Nagant. On top of this, the lenght of eight inches is unrealisticly short for a triangular bayonet.

Now to the issues of the shape of wound or scars that each shape of bayonet blade would leave:

Triangular bayonet:     ^

Cruciform Bayonet:      +

Star shaped Bayonet:  *

As far as I know star shaped bayonets were not used by the Russian Imperial Army. This is not a commonly used shape for a bayonet blade design.

David

Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on December 15, 2005, 12:04:46 PM
Quote
Evdience of this kind is, unfortunately "gory".

I can't imagine Ermakov having a long [it appears long in the photo] rifle bayonet stuck in his belt.  Is one of  the other two you mentioned, David,  probably the weapon Ermakov used? And if so, what is the shape of the blade?

Thanks.

Now,  I'm looking information on the  bullets placed in list of evidence  to see if any rifle bullets were, also, found and not just pistols/revolvers.

AGRBear



Some of the testimony found about the use of the bayonet during the execution will follow.

Quote
Book Two: THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS  by King and Wilson:

p. 302:
>>A collecion of pistols remained on the desk in Yurovsky's office.  Yurovsky was armed with his own Mauser, and a second gun, a Colt; Kudrin, too, had a Colt, as well as a Browning; Nikulin took the other Browning;  Paul Medvedev and four of the other men took the Russian Nagants, while the sixth man took the Smith & Wesson.  Ermakov had a Mauser, along with a Nagant.  Dagerously weighted down with four revolvers, Ermakov's belt sagged, the sight, as Kudrin recalled, so absurd that "we all had to smile at his armed appearance."<<


 p. 302:

>>Alexander Strekotin had gone to get a rifle from the large hall, directly beneath the dining room, when Medvedev appeard, a revolver in his hand.  "Why do you have that?" Strekotin asked.

"We're going to start shooting them soon," he answered, then quickly disappered."<<

Strekotin was not part of the shooting or so we're told.

Haven't found the mention of a rifle/rifles being prepared before the execution mentioned in these two books but I'm not finished reading, yet.

AGRBear

Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on December 15, 2005, 12:05:34 PM
Quote
Book Two: THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS  by King and Wilson p. 309:

>>Out of bullets, Yurovsky yelled to Ermakov, who turned back to the center of the room, pulling an eight-inch, triangular bayonet from his belt as he stumbled over the growing pile of arms and legs?<<

Bayonet was not attached to a rifle in Penny's interruptation of the murder of Nicholas II and the others.

The knife had not been mention as being part of his weapons which caused his belt earlier on p. 302.

Over on p. 311:

Ermakov continued to cause wounds with his bayonet and there is a description of him trying to kill Anasasia but the knife didn't penetrate her bodice.

Ermakov continued using the bayonet to kill.  His next victim was Alexandra....

I asume these bayonet wounds mentioned are from some forensic report which talks about the bones and the marks which were probably created by a knife/bayonet instead of bullets.  

Let me see,  it's marked "147" so let me go to the back of the book and see the source: Strekotin, 1934, TsDOOSO, f.221 op. 2, d. 849.

AGRBear

Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on December 15, 2005, 12:07:46 PM
Quote
From Sokolov, deposition of Philip Proskuryakov, one of the guards of the IF at the Ipatiev house:

"The evening of 16 July, Yurovski told Medvyedev that the Imperial Family would be shot during that night, and he ordered him to notify the workers and to hand out the revolvers to the sentries.  Medvyedev executed his orders, brought the revolvers to Yurovsky and announced to the detachment that the prisoners would be shot at 11 pm." ...

However, Anatoly Yakimov swore:
"Yurovsky and Nikuline walked in front.  Behind them came the Tsar, Tsarina and the girls, then Botkin, Demidova, Trupp and the cook Khartinov.  The Emperor himself carried his son in his arms.  Behind them were Medvyedev and the Letts, that is to say those ten men who lived on the ground floor and who had been brought in by Yurovsky and the Cheka.  Of them, two carried rifles..."

"Demidova tried to flee; she had been covered by a cushion.  Whether she had been wounded by a bullet or not I don't know.  Klestchev and Deryabin said that only she had been stabbed with bayonets.  Once all the victims had fallen to the ground they were checked by hand and several were finished off by gun shots or bayonet."

Medvyedev swore:
"On 16 July around 7 pm, Yurovsky ordered me to hand out the revolvers to all the sentries.  There were twelve in all, they were of the Nagan make.  So I gathered up the revolvers and brought them to Yurovsky in the commandant's room where I put them on the table. ...." "He ordered me to alert the sentries around 10pm not to be alarmed if they heard gun shots." ...

"The revolvers had already been handed out by Yurovsky to seven Letts; the two Czechs and his aide.  He kept one himself.  This made eleven. He gave me the order to take the twelfth.  Yurovsky also brought a Mauser revolver."

Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on December 15, 2005, 12:08:50 PM
Information on Filipp Proskuryakov and Igor Stolov.

Quote
THE LAST TSAR, THE LIFE AND DEATH OF NICHOLAS IIby Edvard Radzinsky:
 
Filipp Proskuryakov
 
Gave testimony of what he did and saw on the night of 16/17 July 1918....
 
Igor Stolov - guard and sharpshooter [see index]
 
p. 365
 
These two guards and gotten drunk on the night of 16/17 July and had fallen asleep in the bathhouse.
 
 
>>At three in the morning Pavel Medvedev woke them.<<
 
>>Medvedev ordered the two guards to clean the room [basement of the Ipatiev House].<<
 
Both were told what happen while they had been asleep in the bathhouse.
 
AGRBear


Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on December 15, 2005, 12:12:02 PM
Quote

Any military historian will tell you that there have been innumerable cases of spike bayonets being used like knives in close combat. It is possible, though the hand held spike bayonet is less effective minus the weight of the rifle. This could be the reason behind the extended time that was needed by the assassins to finish off the survivors. But had the assassins been required to dispatch the survivors by hand, I think that this fact would have been stated in the recollections of the Bolsheviks. Stabbing someone to death with a hand held spike bayonet is not a deed that would have easily been forgotten in the recollections of so many of the assassins.

David

Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on December 15, 2005, 12:13:18 PM


Quote
Book Three:  DEAD MEN DO TELL TALES by William Maples.

Bullets.  Looking for evidence which tells us rifles were used during the execution and not just revolvers:

p. 253

>>in all fourteen bullets were recovered from the grave, along with the remains of one hand grenade detonator.  All the bullets were 7.62, 7.63 or 7.65 mm, about the equivalet of .32 - caliber bullets.  The Russians told us they believed nine of the bullets came from Nagants, four came possibly from a Browning, and one from some other gun, possibly a Mauser."

Marks of  bayonet on bones of any of the nine vicitms found in the mass grave:

p. 254

>>...Another Body, No. 9, had a stab wound in the breastbone that could have been made by a bayonet.<<

#9 body was Trupp.

p. 258

>>...wound probably by a bayonet, through the breastbone from front to back, but I am convinced this particular breastbone does not belong to this set of remains.  For the rest, the robust size of the skeleton agrees well with the description we have of the footman, ....Trupp....<<

So,  if it is not Trupp's breastbone, who's breastbone was Maples looking at.  Over on p. 267 he tells us to whom he thought the breastbone belonged:

>>There is a very good possibility that the bones of the Tsar will be buried without their proper breastbone or arms!  My examination of the remains convinced me that the arms and the banoyet-stabbed breastbone of Body No. 9 in the burial pit, which has been identified as belonging to Trupp, the footman, are reall tose of Body No. 4, the Tsar.<<

So, the only bone which may have a mark of a bayonet,  is Tsar Nicholas II.

Since GD Anastasia/ Maria  and Alexei are missing and their remains have not been found to this date,  we cannot possible know what wounds were inflicted or if any wounds were received by using forensic science which was done on the nine who were found in the mass grave.

AGRBear


Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on December 15, 2005, 12:16:13 PM
Quote
Book Four:  THE ROMANOVS, THE FINAL CHAPTER by Robert Massie  p. 6:

>>Demidova survived the first fusillade.  Rather than reload, the executioners took rifles from the next room and pursued her with bayonets.<<

>>When she collapsed the enraged murderers pierced her body more than thirty times.<<

AGRBear

Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on December 15, 2005, 12:17:16 PM
Quote
Yurovsky's testimony of 1 Feb 1934:

>>They shot the daughters but did not kill them. Then Yermakov resorted to a bayonet, but that did not work either. Finally they killed them by shooting them in the head.<<

Yermakov = Ermakov

In this report it tells us that there should be marks of a bayonet on the bones of Nicholas II's daughters.

Yourvsky doesn't say tthat Ermakov had used a rifle with a bayonet attached.

AGRBear


Quote
Yurovsky's statement of 1920 to the Whites:

>>When they tried to finish off one of the girls with bayonets, the bayonet could not pierce the corset."

Yurovsky used the word "bayonets".

AGRBear


Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on December 15, 2005, 12:19:07 PM
Quote
Pavel Medvedev's testinony to the Whites was 21-22 Feb 1919.

Although he was present, he claimed he took no part in the shooting and was left the task of getting the blood cleaned up in the basement room before the truck departed.

>>I walked out into the courtyard enclosed by a tall fense, and I heard the sound of shots before I reached the street.  I immediiately returned to the house....<<


AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on December 15, 2005, 12:20:25 PM
I do not have access to the following source mentioned by King and Wilson in the FATE OF THE ROMANOVS:

Strekotin, 1934, TsDOOSO, f.221 op. 2, d. 849

Strekotin was not one of the shooters so how did he know what happen inside the basement room.  Was he by the door watching or was his information all second or third hand?

Wilson and King tell us Strekotin was there, however, he was not one of the shooters.   I mentioned  [Alexander] Strekotin in one of my earlier  post above:
Quote
Book Two: THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS  by King and Wilson:

p. 302:
>>A collecion of pistols remained on the desk in Yurovsky's office.  Yurovsky was armed with his own Mauser, and a second gun, a Colt; Kudrin, too, had a Colt, as well as a Browning; Nikulin took the other Browning;  Paul Medvedev and four of the other men took the Russian Nagants, while the sixth man took the Smith & Wesson.  Ermakov had a Mauser, along with a Nagant.  Dagerously weighted down with four revolvers, Ermakov's belt sagged, the sight, as Kudrin recalled, so absurd that "we all had to smile at his armed appearance."<<


 p. 302:

>>Alexander Strekotin had gone to get a rifle from the large hall, directly beneath the dining room, when Medvedev appeard, a revolver in his hand.  "Why do you have that?" Strekotin asked.

"We're going to start shooting them soon," he answered, then quickly disappered."<<

Strekotin was not part of the shooting or so we're told.

Haven't found the mention of a rifle/rifles being prepared before the execution mentioned in these two books but I'm not finished reading, yet.

AGRBear



Quote
Book Two: THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS  by King and Wilson p. 309:

>>Out of bullets, Yurovsky yelled to Ermakov, who turned back to the center of the room, pulling an eight-inch, triangular bayonet from his belt as he stumbled over the growing pile of arms and legs?<<

Bayonet was not attached to a rifle in Penny's interruptation of the murder of Nicholas II and the others.

The knife had not been mention as being part of his weapons which caused his belt earlier on p. 302.

Over on p. 311:

Ermakov continued to cause wounds with his bayonet and there is a description of him trying to kill Anasasia but the knife didn't penetrate her bodice.

Ermakov continued using the bayonet to kill.  His next victim was Alexandra....

I asume these bayonet wounds mentioned are from some forensic report which talks about the bones and the marks which were probably created by a knife/bayonet instead of bullets.  

Let me see,  it's marked "147" so let me go to the back of the book and see the source: Strekotin, 1934, TsDOOSO, f.221 op. 2, d. 849.

AGRBear


Alexander Strekotin's memoirs of 1934  p. 517 THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS by Wilson and King.

He had a brother Andrei who was a guard, also.

Still looking for a quote which tells us if Strekotin was watching from the door/ window/ ?? or was he just retelling the story as he was told?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on December 15, 2005, 12:21:23 PM
Quote
Here is what the CHEKA Kudrin, known also as Michael Medvedev,  p. 311 of THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS p. 311 tells:

>>...Kudrin recalled,  "something white moved in the corner." It was Anna Demidova, who had fallen... She tried to get to her feet, but Ermakov, bayonet held high, reached her..."

To avoid the vivid details,  lower on the page,  there is a description of Ermakov driving the bayonet through Nicholas II and pinning him to the floor.  But no name is attached to this.

AGRBear

Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on December 15, 2005, 12:22:22 PM
Quote
THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS by Wilson and King pps. 310 to 311,  Kabanov,  tells about a bayonet being used by Ermakov who tells us that two of the yougnest daughters were still alive.  Ermakov went back to them and with his bayonet  ended their lives.  The two youngests were Maria and Anastasia.

Who was Kabanov?

p. 20:

>>The memories of seven of those involved in the exection also drew on eyewitness experiences...Michael Kabanov..."<<

p. 299-300

King and Wilson tell us the there were two Kabanovs and  on their list as shooters of the eleven.

So Kabanov was telling us what he saw and unlike some of the others who were just repeating someone else's words.

AGRBear

Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on December 15, 2005, 12:23:30 PM
Quote
Remember: Maples just tells us about only one bayonet mark on all the bones in his book.  In his more detailed report,  does he mention other bones with bayonet marks?

Is Maples report available for me to find and discover if other bones have bayonet marks?

Or, does someone already know the answer?

If there is only one bone, the sternum of Trupp/Nicholas II,  which shows the marks of a bayonet,  then why don't more bones show these same kind of marks if everyone is telling us there were others who suffered blows from Ermakov's bayonet?

AGRBear

Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on December 15, 2005, 12:25:11 PM
Quote
The parts in black are the bones missing according to Kleir and Mingay:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/skeleton123.jpg)

They are listed as:

1. Anna Demidova    2. Evgeny Botkin  3. GD Olga Nikolaevna


AGRBear


For those interested in the bones which were missing, here is one set of diagrams.   This one has Demidova and her sternum and most of the rib bones are missing.
..[in part]...
AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on December 15, 2005, 12:29:58 PM
Quote
Thank you Elisabeth.

Quote

Gladly, AGR Bear. It's not exactly hard to find. Check Robert K. Massie's The Romanovs: The Final Chapter, p. 62:

"The easiest body to identify - labeled by the Russians as Body No. 7 - was that of a middle-aged woman whose ribs showed possible signs of damage from bayonet thrusts. What immediately caught the eye and attention of Dr. Levine was the elaborate and beautiful dental work in this skull [...] Seeing this work, Levine and Maples pronounced this skull and these remains as belonging to the Empress Alexandra."


I don't know if you noticed but I posted in #100  a diagram which shows Alexandra's skeletal remains which were found and noted by  Klier and Mingay.  It shows the rib cage area was gone.  Are they in error?  Or is  Massie who tells us that this same skeleton #7's ribs show possible signs of damage from bayonet thrusts?  Maybe both are right?  But how can that be?  

Let me go get the colorized diagram of the grave site and let's see if any of the ribs which belonged to Alexandra are found on that diagram.

I'll be right back.

Here it is.

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

Diagram of the position of the skeletons in the mass grave.

You can see how one body was placed on top of another....

I colorzied the bones, however, I'm not sure if I put the correct colors on the right bones.  

If you see anything I need to change or add colors to the bones not yet colorized, please,  let me know.  

On the leg bone of #3 is something that looks like part of a skull.  Does that belong to #8??

1. Anna S. Demidova
2. Dr. Botkin
3. GD Olga
4.  Nicholas II
5. GD Marie/Anastasia
6. GD Tatiana
7. Empress Alexandra
8. Ivan Kharitonov
9. Alexsi Trupp

I promised I'd do this on one of these threads but forgotten which one so I placed it here.

AGRBear


Perhaps some of Alexadnra's bones settled downward and mixed with Demidov's bones which we learn from testimony was struck with Ermakov's bayonet.  I presume each rib fragment would have to be tested to know which  ribs were Alexandra's and which rib bones were Demidov's.


AGRBear

Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on December 15, 2005, 12:38:24 PM
What am I trying to accomplish with all these copied posts?

I am adding this to the topic which is about testimonies of Yurovsky and others. This is directed at the execution and the use of a bayonet/bayonets, revolvers, and rifles with or without bayonets.

So,  thus far, does the forensic evidence  show us that the testimony of the executioners/eye witnesses is indeed accurate and that there are marks  of bullet holes, marks from a blade/blades of a bayonet/bayonets found on the various bones of the nine victims found in Pig's Meadow?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Louis_Charles on December 15, 2005, 02:55:03 PM
Yes.
Title: At that moment I shot him and killed him outright.
Post by: AGRBear on December 18, 2005, 05:27:32 PM
Of course,  there will be little differences in testimonies.  This is usally the case.  

So,  I have a couple of questions even though you and others might not.

Who's testimony tells us that Nicholas II was killed with a bayonet/bayonets.   I thought the first shot of Yurovsky revolver, the Colt .45, killed Nicholas II?  So, why would there be a need to bayonet a dead body?

Yurovsky's 1920s testimony:
>>Then the shooting started; [it] last for two or three mintues.  Nich. was killed on the spot by the comm. himself.<<

Yurovsky's 1934 testimony:
>>At that moment I shot him and killed him outright. He did not get time to face us to get an answer. At that moment disorganized, not orderly firing began.<<

There was no need to stab the dead ex-Tsar Nicholas II.

Dr. Maples thinks the sternum bone belonged to Nicholas II and not Trupp, and, that Nicholas II's  sternum showed marks of a bayonet.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Louis_Charles on December 18, 2005, 05:35:48 PM
Quote
Of course,  there will be little differences in testimonies.  This is usally the case.  

So,  I have a couple of questions even though you and others might not.

Who's testimony tells us that Nicholas II was killed with a bayonet/bayonets.   I thought the first shot of Yurovsky revolver, the Colt .45, killed Nicholas II?  So, why would there be a need to bayonet a dead body?  There was no need.

Dr. Maples thinks the sternum bone belonged to Nicholas II and not Trupp, and, that Nicholas II's  sternum showed marks of a bayonet.

AGRBear



Dear Bear,

In the accounts of the murders, the executioners are described as poking the bodies with bayonets to make sure people were dead. Most sources agree that in the first volley Nicholas was killed by multiple shots, as several of the executioners veered from their assigned targets in order to have the "honor" of killing the Tsar. On another thread there is a description of possible necrophiliac activity with the bodies of the women. Yurovsky shot Alexei in the head several times to finish him off.  And you use phrases like "there was no need to bayonet a dead body"?

The perspective from the Hundred Acre Wood is very interesting. Occasionally you are able to channel the feelings of the Imperial Family, and now you seem to be divining the intentions of the executioners.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on December 18, 2005, 07:38:01 PM
Quote
...[in part]...

The perspective from the Hundred Acre Wood is very interesting. Occasionally you are able to channel the feelings of the Imperial Family, and now you seem to be divining the intentions of the executioners.


I assure you, Louis Charles,  there was no channeling from the executioners to me.  I thought I'd better let you know, just in case you were still wondering.  ;)

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Louis_Charles on December 18, 2005, 10:27:17 PM
Not wondering at all, AGRBear, not wondering at all.  ;D
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on December 26, 2005, 01:51:11 PM
Quote
....[in part]....

Dear Bear,
....Occasionally you are able to channel the feelings of the Imperial Family, and now you seem to be divining the intentions of the executioners.


And here I thought you were giving me some credit for having extra special powers. ;)

Hope your family a marvelous holiday season.

AGRBear
Title: Re: The Weapons of the Executioners
Post by: AGRBear on January 10, 2006, 10:06:54 AM
A questions was asked on another thread about the guns used during the execution:

Quote
I'm looking for the list and will place it here when I find it.


THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS by King and Wilson p. 297:
>>...He ordered Medvedev to collect the revolvers from al of the guards on exterior duty.  When Medvedev returned, he placed the assembled collection on the desk in the commandant's office, leaving Yurovsky to sort through the arssenal with which the crime would be committed.  Fourteen guns were used that night.  There were six pistoles: a .28 caliber (6.43 mm) Browning; a .32-caliber (7.73 mm) Browning; two .45-caliber (11.43) American Colts; and two .32-caliber (7.63 mm) Mausers; and eight revolvers:  a .42-caliber (10.66 mm) Smith and Wesson; four .30 - caliber (7.62 mm) Nagants; and three .35-caliber (9mm) Nagants.  The most powerful weapons were the two [p. 298] Maussers, with a velocity of 1,400 feet per second.  Of the fourteen guns, nine--all of the Nagants, and the Colts --used gunpower to fire their bullets, causing a discharge of smoke and caustic fumes.  Among them, they held a total of 103 shots.<<


AGRBear

Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on March 16, 2006, 11:10:28 AM
Questions about Strekotin's testimony to Sokolov is being discussed on the thread "Missing Bodies":
Quote
With my copy THE SOKOLOV INVESTIGATION, translated and Commentary by John O'Conor,  I found something interesting:

p. 194:

>>"The same Strekotin incidently, told me that after the Tsar they killed the 'black' servant.  He was standing in the corner and, after they shot, sat down and died immediately."<<


Quote

I looked it up.

Fate of the Romanovs, pg 308:
"Kharitonov, standing against the northern wall, was hit with several bullets at once, the force so powerful, Yurovsky recalled, that he 'sat down and died'.104"

The source, given on page 593 of FOTR:
"104. Yurovsky, 1920 note, in GARF, f. 601, op. 2, d. 35; Taina tsarskikh ostankov, 108."

How is it that these two men use exactly the same phrase to describe completely different people?


AGRBear continued...
Quote
Yes, it is curious that they use te same wording.  Only Yurovsky recalls it being Kharitonov and Strekotin remembers the victim being black.  

Yurovsky did read Sokolov's report before he gave his own testimony. He tells us that he did.    Perhaps his mind grasped some of the wording of Strekotin's.  

Thank you, Louis_Charles [Simon],  I have recovered my "funny bone".  And,  I'm sorry  but I don't recall us talking about a black servant.  Do you recall where?  I'd like to track it down if we have and see what was said.  Thanks.

Lisa,  is there a list of all the servants who worked in and around the Ipatiev House in July of 1918?   I know there's a pretty good list of the guards.  Thanks.

AGRBear

Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on March 17, 2006, 01:46:42 PM
Quote


Quote

Strekotin was a Chekist guard who was on sentry duty manning a machine gun during the execution.  He was not a member of the execution squad, he was not in the murder room, and he had no direct observation of what happened in there.


Here is a an excerpt of a post put up by Phil Thomaselli on August 10 of last year:

"According to the evidence of Kutenkoff . . . the aforesaid [a group of men, including Ermakoff, who were meeting at a soviet club] were holding a mysterious consultation, when he, the witness, caught the following phrase : "There were 13 of them altogether, the thirteenth was the Doctor."  . . . .  One of the interlocutors ennumerated their names :  "Little Nicholas, saha (little Alexander), Tatyana, the Heir, Madam Vryubova" and some other names which he did not catch, whereas it was mentioned once more "the thirteenth is the Doctor".

The Procureur of the High Court of Kazan
M Miroluboff (signature)
The Secretary
Correct:  The Chief of the Third Section: Nicholayeff
December 12th 1918
No. 38  the city of Omsk


It looks as if the people who were spreading the word that 13 people were executed in the Ipatiev House were including Anna Vyrubova among that number.  Since we know for certain she was not among the victims, the whole report is obviously suspect.

Strekotin, if he in fact said anything about a black servant being killed, was not reporting something he had seen.  At best, he was reporting something he heard bruited about much later, which he repeated as fact.

The reports about the Romanov murders are a morass of conflicting claims, full of people reporting rumor as fact for all kinds of reasons and people reporting lies as truth for political reasons.

It strikes me as a very shaky proposition to take a stray claim of a black servant, corroborated nowhere else in the vastness of trivia to emerge from those murders, as a basis for jumping from two missing bodies to four.


Do you think Ermakov was pulling one of his little acts like he did for Halliburton so many years later?  Do you think he knew someone, the person who would make the report and give it to the Whites?

So,  there was Ermakov  with some other men discussing the 13 who he was claiming they executed. .  One of the thirteen was  said to have been Madam Vryubova.  This was wrong.  That whittles it down to 12.   Ermakov or someone in his group mentions the doctor was the 13th. The number 13 and the word "doctor" is repeated, it seems.   Were they talking abut Botkin?  I asume they were.  Dr. Derevenko was still alive and working with the Whites..... So, this still leaves us with 12......  Can we speculate the count of "12" as just being another one of Ermakov's fables?  I don't know.  

Who is "Little Nicholas"?  Nicholas II?

Who is "Sasha" (Little Alexander)?

We know who Tatyana is.

We know who the Heir is.

Madam Vyrubova  is also known.

Yep, more questions.

And,  this still leaves us  with explaining  Stekotin's  "black servant".

It is noticed that Strekotin's wording is similar to that of Yurovsky when he's talking about Kharitonov.   Can one assume they were both talking about the same person?

Quote
Wouldn't a "Black" be a "Black Russian" that refers to the region that person came from inside Russia?  Near Kiev?  Cossacks were called " Black Russians", IIRC.


Jollie talks about  "Black Russians".  I don't know anything about Kharitonov,  would he have fallen under this label?

Was Strekotin talking about the  "Black Russian" man servant Kharitonov when he gave testimony to Sokolov?


AGRBear    

Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: Louis_Charles on March 17, 2006, 03:56:44 PM
Quote
Prince Alexander Dolgoruky, Adjutant-General to the Emperor
Ilya Tatischev, Adjutant-General to the Emperor
Countess Anastasia Hendrikova, Personal Maid of Honor to the Empress
Mlle. Katherine Adolfovna Schneider, Court Lectrice
Elizabeth Ersberg, Maid in Waiting to the Grand Duchesses
Marie Tutelberg, Maid in Waiting to the Empress
Anna S. Demidova, Maid in Waiting to the Empress
Dr. Eugene Botkin, Physician to the Imperial Family
Pierre Gilliard, French Tutor
Alexandra Tegleva, Nurse
Terenty Chemodurov, Valet to the Emperor
Stephan Makarov, Chemodurov's Assistant
Victorina Nikolaieva, Ward of Countess Hendrikova
Pauline Mejanz, Hendrikova's Maid
Katia (no last name given), Maid to Mlle. Schneider
Masha (no last name given), Maid to Mlle. Schneider
Alexei Volkov, Groom of the Chambers to the Empress
Ivan Sednev, Groom of the Chambers to the Grand Duchesses
Michael Karpov, Footman to the Grand Duchesses
Sergei Ivanov, Personal Servant to Pierre Gilliard
Tioutin (no Christian name given), Personal Servant to Tatischev and Dolgoruky
Francis Yuravsky, Waiter
Klementy Nagorny, Sailor-Nurse to the Tsarevich
Alexei A. Trupp, Footman
Gregory Soloduhin, Footman
Ermolay (no Christian name given), Footman
Gusev (no Christian name given), Footman
Stupel (no Christian name given), Valet
Ivan Kharitonov, Cook
Kokishev (no Christian name given), Cook
Ivan Vereshagin, Cook
Serge Mikhailov, Assistant Cook
Francis Purkovsky, Assistant Cook
Tershin (no Christian name given), Assistant Cook
Leonid Sednev, Kitchen Boy
Alexei Dimitriev, Barber
Roikov (no Christian name given), Wine Steward
Alexander Kirpitchnikov, Clerk.

After the Imperial Family arrived in Tobolsk, they were also joined by:
Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden, Lady-in-Waiting to the Empress
Vladimir Derevenko, Physician to the Tsarevich
Sydney Gibbes, English Tutor
Klaudia Bittner, Music Teacher.
Madelein Zanotti, Personal Maid to the Empress

There were several others who arrived in Tobolsk, but didn't get in touch with the Family.

Anna Utkina, Maid
Anna Romanova, Maid

For what I know, there were also:

Rita Chitrovo Maid in Honor to the Empress
The wife and daughter of the Cook Kharitonov
Gleb and Tatiana Botkin (childeren of Dr. Botkin)
Kolja Derevenko (son of Dr. Derevenko)

And somewhere I also read:

Alexandrine Nikolaeva, Maid to Countess Hendrikova (or is the same person as Victorina Nikolaeva?)
Sergei Kostritsky (dentist
Anfisa (Maid to Sidney Gibbes)


A list of the people who went into captivity with the IF.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on March 17, 2006, 04:08:26 PM
Thanks for the list, Simon.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: paulamct on March 19, 2006, 08:26:44 PM
Does anyone know where I can find Yurovsky's account of the murders in Russian?
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Other
Post by: AGRBear on March 20, 2006, 09:46:24 AM
The following is the URL found here in the Alex. Pal. which gives the 1934 statement of Yurovsky:

http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/yurovmurder.html


1920 testimony of Yurovsky:

Quote
..... I'm going to type in the testimony of Yurovsky of 1920. Since this copy is found in THE FALL OF THE ROMANOVS, I assume, the words in the brackets are the authors Steinberg's and Khrustalev's:

>>On 16 July [1918], a telegram in previously agreed-upon language came from Perm containing the order to exerminate the R-ovs [Romanovs].  At first (in May), the intention was to bring Nicholas to trial, but this was prevented by the advancing Whites.  On the 16th at 6 o'clock in the evening, Filipp G-n [Goloshchekin] decreed that the order be carried out.  A car was to arrive at midnight to take away the corpses. <<



continued on this post and added posts.

AGRBear

Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: danielp98 on October 22, 2006, 06:07:26 AM
Hi,

I'm a Nostradamus interpreter and trying to establish if quatrain IV,64 do refers to the Romanovs muder in the house of Ipatiev. The quatrain is written bellow (it's my interprertation):

IV,64

Le deffaillant en habit de bourgeois,
Viendra le Roy tenter de son offense:
Quinze soldats la pluspart Vstagois,
Vie derniere & chef de sa cheuance

The transgressor in bourgeois garb,
He will come to probe(to submit him to a torment) the King with his offense:
Fifteen soldiers for the most part "ustagois",
Last life (or, the end of the Romanovs) and chief of his fortune(Yurovski and the jewels).


In the first and second verses  ND is probably talking about Lenin.

In the third verse we have the point that has made write to this forum asking for a help:

The term "Ustagois" was created by Nostradamus and comes from Latin "usta", with the following  declinations and meanings:

i) usta, from ustus, which means a red colloring substance (in portuguese we call it "burned ' cinabrio" and I do no know the corresponding word in English
ii) ustio, ustionis, which means burned  tissue,   cauterization
iii) ustor, ustoris, which means "what burns corpses"
iv) ustrina, ustrinae, which means the place where corpses are burned

The point is that in the third verse there are 15 soldiers cited. From various sources we have at the room the murder was commited  "Yorovski plus eleven men" (=12), "Yurovski plus ten men plus two at window glass witnessing" (=13), others say  fourteen men.

In my research I in general assume Nostradamnus is right, so we would have 15 men involved; at least  13 we could get from the witnesses (11 plus  2 at the window). There is a report stating that 14 weapons were used..

The point is, who were the  15 men?


If you could help me I'd be very thankful to you

Best regards

Daniel     


If this quatrain refers to the Romanovs' murder
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: lexi4 on October 22, 2006, 08:01:00 AM
Daniel,
From the way that reads, it could refer to others.
Also, the Romanov bodies were not burned, except for two, according to Yurovsky's statements. And those two bodies have never been found so we don't know conclusively that they were burned.
In his 1920 note, Yurovsky said the squad was composed of 10 shooters. Other statements of his do not indicate the number of shooters.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: Elisabeth on October 22, 2006, 12:42:31 PM
Daniel, it's a bit of a stretch, isn't it, identifying this quatrain with the fate of the last tsar and his family? I don't see what a transgressor in bourgeois garb has to do with Lenin specifically (surely the American revolutionaries were also in "bourgeois garb" of the day?), but you really wander into trouble with these fifteen soldiers. I suppose you could fiddle with the number of soldiers actually present at the execution of the IF (I think there were eleven) combined with the number of soldiers on duty outside (six? can you whittle it down to four somehow?) but that's the trouble, isn't it... you're really just trying to tailor the facts to fit your theory. That's not a good way to proceed in any historical enquiry - on the contrary, it's the way most guaranteed to lead you into error.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: lexi4 on October 22, 2006, 04:27:39 PM
Daniel, it's a bit of a stretch, isn't it, identifying this quatrain with the fate of the last tsar and his family? I don't see what a transgressor in bourgeois garb has to do with Lenin specifically (surely the American revolutionaries were also in "bourgeois garb" of the day?), but you really wander into trouble with these fifteen soldiers. I suppose you could fiddle with the number of soldiers actually present at the execution of the IF (I think there were eleven) combined with the number of soldiers on duty outside (six? can you whittle it down to four somehow?) but that's the trouble, isn't it... you're really just trying to tailor the facts to fit your theory. That's not a good way to proceed in any historical enquiry - on the contrary, it's the way most guaranteed to lead you into error.

Agreed. The text Daniel is using is to general to be specific. And it seems one word it made up so we really don't know for sure what it means.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: danielp98 on October 23, 2006, 09:01:35 AM
Elisabeth, lexi4

thank you very much for having answered my question and also for the comments you have made. First of all, there are some points I'd like to reply. In general, while I'm doing a research about a specific quatrain,  I make some preliminary assumptions and as long as the research goes on (generally) the initial ideas are changed according some reflections and new facts and this is the case of this quatrain.

But first I'd like that differently from many other interpreters, I use Nostramus predictions to guide the research; it's a point of view where I assume  (like a hypothesis) that Nostradamus is always correct and I try to prove that this is true according  the researches I do. Considering what you have told me, it's clear that this would never be assumed by you, but, please, just  consider it only as a different approach;  in my case, it's my duty to "prove" (as long it's possible) that things really occured like the quatrains describe. If I can collect  enough (or satisfactory) evidence in this direction I would not be, like you have said, "forcing the facts". I think that this is fair, being just another way to achieve what has really happened. 

First of all, Nostradamus did not  say "Lenin in burgeiose garbs"; you won't find anything in this way  in the great majority of his centuries, so it's "our" job to identify what he was talking about and the the most we can do is to reason trying to show that "our" interpretation is correct. Going to the point you have pointed about Lenin, in other quatrains ND suggests (I mean the interpretations I've done)  that Lenin was greedy by the wealth of the Ortodox Church and also from the nobility. He commanded the actions toward the "100 Negroes of Shuia" and and the property values of the Church (Ortodox). So, syaing  that "Lenin was now in 'burgeiose garb'" is just saying that he now was greedy by the richness of those he hated and was spoiling . The  Letter to the Politburo (see the Library of Congress) is a clear example that he was greedy for money and properties. This is not a new scenario. Brezniev had a Rolys Royce car collection.

So, all that is to say that associating Lenin to this quatrian would not necessarily  be an action "to force facts into the quatrain". On the other hand, all that is predicted in a quatrain sums up to a set of events that are interrelated and in fact a better fit (in  my opinion now) would certainly be Yurovski.  The interpretation would be better read now as "Yurowski, the transgressor - he and his father both were - in burgeiose habits - from his biography, his family-  in spite of not being rich -  praised burgeiose values: the Romanov's Dinasty, the Church, family etc,  would come to prove the king (Nicolas and his family) with his offenses - the change of the prisonners routine in Ipatiev  in the last 12 days  and also his own judgement about the Romanovs, including his hate for them - and he would have joined to  15 men in the great majority "bodies burners" or "reds"( the other meaning of usta as a red painting substance;   burning  is not only done through fire; the term cauterization is one of the meanings for usta and  also means a chemichal burning   as the those made through acids, including sulphuric ones - and those of his group were chosen  because their special interest in executing prisonners -. The last verse seems to me very impressive, since some witnesses affirm that Yurovski ended his lecture saying to Nicholas "This is the end of your life" or something similar ("Vie derniere", or the the end of the life) and he was also the one that, for being the chief, was finally responsible by all the jewells with the Romanovs ("The chief of his fortune") and at the very end he was responsible for keeping the inventory of the Romanov's belonging alter in Mocow, after the massacre.

So, sorry if I haven't told you explicitly, but this is an ongoing research that assumes the perspectives I've traced to you and this interpretation may change as it goes on. In all that is said about Nostradamus, the acceptance of an interpretation is always a matter of personal convincement. All that I can do is to write my points of view; the acceptance  or rejection is entirely a personal subject.

But I've made this question because I thought you could help me - if there is any interest from you - to answer the question:

Suppose this quatrain refers to the theme I've explained, who would be the "15 men"? I've read in site(that I've lost the link) that Yurovski military unit had 50 men and that 35 had been dispatched to other missions and places. If this would be the case, could we  find their names in anyway? I wanted in fact some kind of documentation that could associate these "15 soldiers the greatest part 'ustagois'" and "close the quatrain", because to may taste and based in the way ND has predicted the facts that was really waht he has atecipated (subject of course to some changes based in fair r  reasoning)

Thank you very much for your help

Daniel

Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: Elisabeth on October 23, 2006, 04:02:02 PM
Daniel, you should look up Veniamin Alekseyev's book, The Last Act of the Tragedy for the names of the executioners.

Yurovsky didn't tell Nicholas that this was the end of his life, at least, he didn't use those exact words. What Yurovsky said was that the family's relatives had tried to save them and therefore they would be shot.

I still agree with Lexi that the quatrain is too general for you to draw any firm, much less specific conclusions. It could even refer to the French revolutionaries, the Jacobins, and the execution of Louis XVI. After all Robespierre wore "bourgeois garb" and the revolutionary cockade was red.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: lexi4 on October 23, 2006, 06:47:40 PM
Daniel, you should look up Veniamin Alekseyev's book, The Last Act of the Tragedy for the names of the executioners.

Yurovsky didn't tell Nicholas that this was the end of his life, at least, he didn't use those exact words. What Yurovsky said was that the family's relatives had tried to save them and therefore they would be shot.

I still agree with Lexi that the quatrain is too general for you to draw any firm, much less specific conclusions. It could even refer to the French revolutionaries, the Jacobins, and the execution of Louis XVI. After all Robespierre wore "bourgeois garb" and the revolutionary cockade was red.

Your are good Elisabeth.  :) I hadn't thought of the exectuion of Louis the XVI as another example.

Daniel,
I do appreciate what you are trying to accomplish and the research required to do so. But given the quote you gave us, it stills seems to general to pinpoint anything specific. Perhaps I am missing something. Any way you count it, you cannot come up with 15 executioners. That is one point that that is very specific in N's statement. I do not have the book Elisabeth cites or I would list the names for you. I might have such a list somewhere else and will look to see.
Lexi
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: AGRBear on October 24, 2006, 08:37:35 PM
There are several different lists of shooters.  Take a look at the thread Shooters of Nicholas II and the other Romanovs.  I bumped it up so you could find it.


AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: LisaDavidson on November 19, 2006, 12:54:21 PM
I have removed a post with Michael Buchanan-Smart's information cross posted from the "From Russia with Love" thread. This is OT unless there are specific questions about specific testimonies.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: AGRBear on November 26, 2006, 12:11:45 PM
Before the thread by Buchanan-Smart was eliminated,  we were having some discussion about Yurovsky's testimonies.

I believe there was mention of maps.  Old vs newer maps.

Does anyone have an old map with the railroad tracks that actually exsisted in July of 1918?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: AGRBear on February 02, 2007, 11:29:10 AM
Here is the text of the "missing" document as located in FO 371/3977A:



From: -               Col Blair, Vladivostock
To:-               War Office

                  Despatched: 15.45 9.2.19
                  Received 16.00 10.2.19

N.R.  1042  Feb 9th

         Following dated Feb 5th Received from General Knox


      It is shown by aditional evidence regarding the murder of the Imperial Family at Ekaterinburg that in the local Sovyet there are two parties, one wishing to save the family and the other headed by 5 Jews, of whom two Safarov and Vainen, determined on the murder, had accompanied Lenin on his journey across Germany.  The Central Sovyet at Moscow wished to send the family to Nesvij in ?West/WhiteRussia.  Between the 8th and 12th the Russian Guard on the house wasremoved, the pretext being that they had stolen 79,000 roubles.  A house guard of 13 men, viz. 3 Jews, Yurovski, Zaipoint and one other and 10 Letts replaced them,.  A criminal called Medvedyev who had been convicted in 1905 of a murder and arson and in 1911 of outraging a girl of five commanded the guard outside the house.  At 2 a.m. prompt the prisoners were awakened and toldto preparefor a journey.  An hour later they were called down to the lower room.  The sentence of theSovyet ending with the words “And so your life has come to and end” was read out by Yurovsky.  The Emperor said “I am ready”.  It is stated by an eyewitness who hassince died that theEmpressand her two elsest daughters made the sign of the cross.  The two younger Grand Duchesses fainted.  .  The man Mevyedev and the house guard carried out the massacre with revolvers.  In addition to the seven members of the Imperial family, in this room were murdered the Doctor Botkin, the cook, the valet and the maid.  The cook’s nephew, a boy of 14 was spared.  The bodies were thrown down the shaft of a coal mine.  Orders were sent to Apalaevsk the same morning to murder the party there and this was carried out by theRussians.

      Some eight tons of personal belongings of the family are being sent down to Vladivisotock.  Some of these things are of great national as well as material value.  On the body of the Grand Duchess Elizabeth for instance, was found the Holy Picture before which the Emperor prayed when about to abdicate.  This is stdded with precius stones and is valuedat several hundred thousand roubles.  Admiral K. said that if possible he would like them for greater security to be placed on board theKent.

02. Copies to :- M I 1a
MI1a copies to:-    CIGS
         DMI
         MIR & b & a
         MI6 b & L
         DMC
         MO5 a & b
         MOX
         FO
         DCIGS
         MI1 & a

 Please note that the MI6 noted as being copied in is not the MI6 we know today (which was then known as MI1c).

The file that accompanies this file, FO 371/3977B contains a (presumably much abridged) version of the Sokolov investigation given to the National Archive from "an official source" in 1958.  Interesting to see some of the photographs "in the flesh" as it were.

I must have looked at this years ago without appreciating the significance but nice to revisit.

Phil Tomaselli

Follow the thread to SURVIVAL:  Did Tatiana Survive?

You will find another interesting discussion occuring about the British and just one of the documents being found which relates to the Royal Family in Ekaterinburg and their execution.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: James1941 on February 02, 2007, 03:45:05 PM
Colonel Blair's message contains a glaring inaccuracy. The holy icon recovered from the Grand Duchess Elizabeth's body was not the one Nicholas II prayed to before he abdicated. It was an icon called 'The Not Made by Human Hands' icon of the Savior. It had been given to her by Tsar Alexander III upon her conversion to the Russian Orthodox Church. She had worn under her clothing ever since. This cast a question on his information.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: nena on April 26, 2007, 03:34:45 PM
Ok,I have question...I can hear,Yurovsky shot Alexei in the EAR? Which of testimoes says it?Some others just says that he shot tsarevich in the head.....So,which of testimones says that Yurovsky shot Alexei in the TEMPLE,or EAR?????? ???
Have anyone answer?PLEASE!
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: nena on April 30, 2007, 06:18:13 AM
one sentence confuse me:
He(Yurovsky) also claimed that Grigory Nikulin had emptied an entire clip of bullets firing at the girls and Alexei but they had no effect.
Which Yurovsky's statement says about that? Can anyone help me?
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: JASPER on May 16, 2007, 05:36:44 PM
An old Russian Proverb: 'He lies like an eyewitness'.

In my opinion, Yurovsky never lied - he had no reason to lie and nobody has ever proved he lied - as such, his testimonies can only be read as 'the truth'.

Most others were proved to be liars and their testimonies are therfore worthless - once one lie is discovered, can you believe anything that person says?
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: Belochka on May 16, 2007, 10:36:49 PM
In my opinion, Yurovsky never lied - he had no reason to lie and nobody has ever proved he lied - as such, his testimonies can only be read as 'the truth'.

The bolshevik Yurovsky lied about his origins, The assassin Yurovsky deceived Nikolai II. The so-called Yurovsky statements were not his own creations.

Grains of truth must not be confused with what consitutes the whole truth.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: JASPER on May 17, 2007, 08:40:40 AM
Hi, we are all entitled to our own opinions, but please tell me, within his testimonies - where are the lies, and what proof have you that they are lies? I shall be most interested in the response.
Thank you.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: Sarushka on May 17, 2007, 04:49:57 PM
Most others were proved to be liars and their testimonies are therfore worthless - once one lie is discovered, can you believe anything that person says?

One lie is all it takes before you throw away all testimony? I think that's over-zealous. One lie is enough to make me carefully scrutinize a person's testimony, but I'd want to establish a pattern of faslehood before I dismiss EVERYTHING. Very few people tell nothing but lies, even when they're deliberately concealing something -- you've got to admit some truth, or the whole story will be preposterous.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: JASPER on May 17, 2007, 06:58:50 PM
Hello Sarushka,

Mmm... Another Russian Proverb: 'A lie is best kept between two truths.'

You have point within reason, and yet regarding the testimonies, how can one differentiate between what is, and what is not a lie; thus, if one lie is found, the rest of the testimony may be all lies or all truth or a mix of both. Therefore, I found with my research, that if I could not find one proven lie, then I could believe that testimony. I hope that makes sense.

Regarding Belochka's observations, maybe I should have pointed out that I am referring ONLY to Yurovsky's 'Testimonies', as per this thread. It may well be that Yurovsky did tell lies - we all do to a degree - for example: I might feel bad with a cold or whatever, but if someone asks how I am, I say someithing like "Wonderful thank you." because nobody really wants to hear and know how lousy you might feel. (unless maybe to a Doctor, or you are dying, etc.)

Also, perhaps Yurovsky did deceive Nicholas by getting the family to the cellar - but that was part of his 'assignment' - duty if you like. He may also have lied about his origins but I have not seen proof of that. And I leave Belochka to reveal, if appropriate, why Yurovsky's Statements were 'not' his own creations. As far as I am concerned, they are, and many have used the information contained in them - Alexander Avdonin for example..

I do accept Belochka, your comment re 'Grains... whole truth', and yet the real truth is, none of us shall ever know what really happened at the execution that night and the next approximately 30 hours.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: Alice on May 18, 2007, 06:21:30 PM
I disagree with the notion that Yurovsky had no motive to lie - he most certainly DID have motive to lie, in my opinion, if the murder was botched and there were "problems". We know he lied about burning two of the bodies and "scattering the ashes", because as has been proven since, it would've been impossible to burn two bodies to ashes in that environment and timeframe.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: Bob_the_builder on May 18, 2007, 07:05:20 PM
There is evidence that alot of Yurovsky's testimony was true, as evidenced by the injuries on the bodies. Of course, sadly we can't verify where Alexei and Anastasia were shot because of the absent bodies. However, I think it's not true, the story of the "burned bodies". I mean, they could have been burned, but some large remains should still have been left, which are nowhere to be found in Koptayki Forest or anywhere near Pig's Meadow. I just wish I knew where they were!
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: JASPER on May 18, 2007, 07:18:40 PM
Hello Alice,
I have never read about as you say  '...burning two of the bodies and "scattering the ashes", '- can you please tell me when and where he is purported to have said that? Thank you.

We shall have to disagree over the 'murder / execution' aspect: were say Louis XVlth or Charles 1st executed or murdered?  
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: JASPER on May 18, 2007, 07:25:40 PM
Hello Bob the Builder,

I do not know the actual size of Koptyaki forest, but having been there, it must be over 1000 square miles - of which I doubt 99.999999% has been searched. Just because the 'large remains' have not been found does not necessarily mean that they are not there.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: Alice on May 18, 2007, 11:02:35 PM
Sorry Jasper, it seems I was hallucinating. I was sure I'd read that but I've checked Yurovsky's note and it doesn't say that, rather:

Quote
A fire was made and while the graves where being prepared we burned two corpses: Alexei and Demidova. 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.

Sorry, my bad.  :-X
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: Bob_the_builder on May 19, 2007, 12:58:28 AM
Hello Bob the Builder,

I do not know the actual size of Koptyaki forest, but having been there, it must be over 1000 square miles - of which I doubt 99.999999% has been searched. Just because the 'large remains' have not been found does not necessarily mean that they are not there.
Right you are Jasper, but Yurovsky claimed they were burned and buried near Pig's Meadow. And there have been extensive searches, even using a bulldozer, but it is so obvious that they are no where near Pig's Meadow. I really hope the "S.E.A.R.C.H." team can find them so all my nagging doubts can dissappear. Sadly, I've got a bad feeling they are never going to be found.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: JASPER on May 19, 2007, 06:43:41 AM
Hello Bob the Builder,

The remains of the two bodies may or may not be near Piglets Meadow, but why 'so obvious' - to whom is it so obvious? I am convinced they will be found, but maybe not by S.E.A.R.C.H -  this aspect has been covered before to a degree and I do not wish to 'ripple the waters' again so to speak, but SEARCH are quite aware that I believe their research and searches to be illogical, inadequate, incomplete and basically going nowhere, despite all their 'financial and specialist' support. It all depends 'where' the extensive searches are made. (They have in the past, 'rejected' my offer of assistance) However, with the sustained interest by people such as yourself, one day, this tragic enigma shall be resolved - maybe even by you?

As per Alice 'sorry' (acknowledged), attention to detail is paramount. I am still convinced that Yurovsky did not lie.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: Bob_the_builder on May 19, 2007, 07:47:11 PM
Hello Bob the Builder,

The remains of the two bodies may or may not be near Piglets Meadow, but why 'so obvious' - to whom is it so obvious? I am convinced they will be found, but maybe not by S.E.A.R.C.H -  this aspect has been covered before to a degree and I do not wish to 'ripple the waters' again so to speak, but SEARCH are quite aware that I believe their research and searches to be illogical, inadequate, incomplete and basically going nowhere, despite all their 'financial and specialist' support. It all depends 'where' the extensive searches are made. (They have in the past, 'rejected' my offer of assistance) However, with the sustained interest by people such as yourself, one day, this tragic enigma shall be resolved - maybe even by you?

As per Alice 'sorry' (acknowledged), attention to detail is paramount. I am still convinced that Yurovsky did not lie.

I guess the reason I say it is "obvious" is because the area of Pig's Meadow has been searched annually for years since 1991. It is now 2007.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: LisaDavidson on May 20, 2007, 10:59:11 PM
Hello Bob the Builder,

The remains of the two bodies may or may not be near Piglets Meadow, but why 'so obvious' - to whom is it so obvious? I am convinced they will be found, but maybe not by S.E.A.R.C.H -  this aspect has been covered before to a degree and I do not wish to 'ripple the waters' again so to speak, but SEARCH are quite aware that I believe their research and searches to be illogical, inadequate, incomplete and basically going nowhere, despite all their 'financial and specialist' support. It all depends 'where' the extensive searches are made. (They have in the past, 'rejected' my offer of assistance) However, with the sustained interest by people such as yourself, one day, this tragic enigma shall be resolved - maybe even by you?

As per Alice 'sorry' (acknowledged), attention to detail is paramount. I am still convinced that Yurovsky did not lie.

I guess the reason I say it is "obvious" is because the area of Pig's Meadow has been searched annually for years since 1991. It is now 2007.

Only the last sentence that is completely true. Yes, it is 2007. However,

1. The area around Pig's Meadow has not been searched annually since 1991. Not even close. That would mean 15 searches of that area alone if one began in 1992 and the last search was 2006. That has not happened.

2. SEARCH, the organization put together by Peter Saradanakis, has looked for the missing Romanov children on many occasions. However, this is very expensive and they don't go annually. They don't do their expeditions in just one area.

3. There have been excavations in areas other than Pigs Meadow, such as the 4 Brothers area.

So, there is nothing obvious at all about this except the fact that it appears that no searches since 1991 have resulted in a confirmed find of the missing bodies.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: Bob_the_builder on May 20, 2007, 11:08:19 PM
Hello Bob the Builder,

The remains of the two bodies may or may not be near Piglets Meadow, but why 'so obvious' - to whom is it so obvious? I am convinced they will be found, but maybe not by S.E.A.R.C.H -  this aspect has been covered before to a degree and I do not wish to 'ripple the waters' again so to speak, but SEARCH are quite aware that I believe their research and searches to be illogical, inadequate, incomplete and basically going nowhere, despite all their 'financial and specialist' support. It all depends 'where' the extensive searches are made. (They have in the past, 'rejected' my offer of assistance) However, with the sustained interest by people such as yourself, one day, this tragic enigma shall be resolved - maybe even by you?

As per Alice 'sorry' (acknowledged), attention to detail is paramount. I am still convinced that Yurovsky did not lie.

I guess the reason I say it is "obvious" is because the area of Pig's Meadow has been searched annually for years since 1991. It is now 2007.

Only the last sentence that is completely true. Yes, it is 2007. However,

1. The area around Pig's Meadow has not been searched annually since 1991. Not even close. That would mean 15 searches of that area alone if one began in 1992 and the last search was 2006. That has not happened.

2. SEARCH, the organization put together by Peter Saradanakis, has looked for the missing Romanov children on many occasions. However, this is very expensive and they don't go annually. They don't do their expeditions in just one area.

3. There have been excavations in areas other than Pigs Meadow, such as the 4 Brothers area.

So, there is nothing obvious at all about this except the fact that it appears that no searches since 1991 have resulted in a confirmed find of the missing bodies.
Thanks Lisa.  ;D Some documentary I watched said there were annual searches. So I guess it seems that indeed the two missing children could still be buried somewhere near Pig's meadow.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: AGRBear on May 31, 2007, 11:06:57 PM
Do we have any idea how many people have dug around Pig's Meadow looking for the missing eleven before the mass grave was found, or,  how many people have dug around Pig's Meadow after the remains of the nine were found?  I don't think we do.

From what I understand S.E.A.R.C.H. has not the only group of people looking.

It should, also, be noted:  Today,  there is a special search tool that discovered graves so it's no longer necessary to dig up an entire area.

I have never seen a document or a photo showing how much ground the Russian bulldozer dug up when they were looking for the missing bones that had not been found in their first excavation.   Both digs did not find the number of bones that the Russian or American scientists felt  should have been found  and, yes, they are well aware of how many years the bones were probably in the ground.

AGRBear



Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: Bob_the_builder on June 01, 2007, 01:43:11 AM
I've seen video footage of the bulldozer being used. The grounds around Pig's Meadow have been dug up like crazy. My gut feeling is Alexei and Anastasia simply aren't there.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: TheAce1918 on June 01, 2007, 07:07:14 PM
Martyr, I tried to send ye a message but it won't work.  ???
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: Bob_the_builder on June 02, 2007, 03:56:10 AM
Martyr, I tried to send ye a message but it won't work.  ???
Sorry, I have it set where I don't get private messages. But I'll switch it back and you can try again.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: Lemur on July 19, 2007, 11:48:35 AM
In Radzinsky's book "The Last Tsar" on p. 216-217, he mentions a friend of Ermakov's, a Chekist named Sukhorukov, who had affadavits proving that two bodies had been burned, and they mentioned the names of Alexei and Anastasia specifically. Is this considered valid and true? If so doesn't this solve the mysteries of why those two were not found?
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: LisaDavidson on July 20, 2007, 01:15:32 AM
In Radzinsky's book "The Last Tsar" on p. 216-217, he mentions a friend of Ermakov's, a Chekist named Sukhorukov, who had affadavits proving that two bodies had been burned, and they mentioned the names of Alexei and Anastasia specifically. Is this considered valid and true? If so doesn't this solve the mysteries of why those two were not found?

Oh, let's see, where do I begin? No, the mysteries are not solved by Sukhorukov's statement. That's the short answer.

A slightly longer answer: Gregory Sukhorukov was a member of the Ural Regional Cheka (secret police). In July 1918, he was assigned to two important details. One of them was to escort Princess Elena of Serbia, wife of the murdered Prince Ioann Konstantinovich, from Ekaterinburg to Perm. (From Perm, Elena eventually made her way out of Soviet Russia.)

Sukhorukov may or may not "have affidavidts proving that two bodies had been burned".  It is certain that Sukhorukov's most historically important assignment in July, 1918 was to be a member of the second detail, charged with the burial of the remains of the Imperial Family. He made a statement about both important details, and said statement is unique among the statements made by Bolsheviks about the murder of the Imperial Family.

However, his statement about his participation certainly doesn't prove two bodies were burned. It was his statement that he participated in this activity. But, without getting too gruesome, it was not technically feasible to burn bodies and have them turn to ash as they do in crematoriums. If the bodies were burned, the effect would have been to char the outer part of the bodies, but it would not have destoyed them.

There were a total of three details associated with the death of the Imperial Family. There was only one killing detail, and it was headed by Yurovsky. There were two burial details. The first was headed by the drunken Ermakov, and was comprised of workers from the Verkh Isetsk factory. This detail apparently botched the job, and while it is not explicitly stated anywhere I've found, the second detail was sent for as a result and assigned the task, and was comprised of Ural Regional Cheka from the Perm area - in other words, out of towners.

In reading all the accounts, Sukhorukov is unique in that he is the only one to correctly identify  the two bodies - Alexei and Anastasia - and also the only one to explain that they were buried separately from the Pig's Meadow grave in a deliberate attempt by the URC to mislead the Whites in the event the 9 bodies grave was located. Nowhere does Yurovsky ever explain why two bodies were burned - which is rather curious, because Yurovsky made numerous statements! Sukhorukov to my knowledge made only one, and it appears to be completely accurate.

Do we consider his statement to be "valid and true"? I consider his statement to be in agreement with available forensic evidence. Was he just a good guesser? I think rather that he was actually there all the time that the bodies were being toted around, while Yurovsky was in and out of town and Koptyaki Forest.

One more interesting thing about Sukhorukov: he was from Lysva, which is likely the name found written on the wall of the murder room in the Ipatiev House.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: dmitri on July 25, 2007, 07:32:23 AM
I wonder whether at the end of the day it really matters. The vast majority of historians believe that all of the Romanovs were brutally murdered. Certainly nobody with Romanov DNA has shown up to state anything otherwise. I don't believe anybody survived the appalling bloodshed in the Ipatiev House. These were brutal murderers who thought nothing of murdering women and a teenage boy. They had no compassion at all.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: Belochka on July 25, 2007, 07:52:52 AM
I wonder whether at the end of the day it really matters. The vast majority of historians believe that all of the Romanovs were brutally murdered. Certainly nobody with Romanov DNA has shown up to state anything otherwise. I don't believe anybody survived the appalling bloodshed in the Ipatiev House. These were brutal murderers who thought nothing of murdering women and a teenage boy. They had no compassion at all.

It is impossible to comprehend the mentallity of those brutal assassins who had the pleasure to return to their home. Murderers cannot show a modicum of compassion towards their victims.

Margarita
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: LisaDavidson on July 25, 2007, 07:20:37 PM
I wonder whether at the end of the day it really matters. The vast majority of historians believe that all of the Romanovs were brutally murdered. Certainly nobody with Romanov DNA has shown up to state anything otherwise. I don't believe anybody survived the appalling bloodshed in the Ipatiev House. These were brutal murderers who thought nothing of murdering women and a teenage boy. They had no compassion at all.

It is impossible to comprehend the mentallity of those brutal assassins who had the pleasure to return to their home. Murderers cannot show a modicum of compassion towards their victims.

Margarita

There is no doubt at all that these were very brutal murders. In fact, the lack of compassion was noted by the forensic investigator, Dr. William Maples, who has examined the remains of many murder victims. He commented on film that the brutality that is evident in the remains tells him that there could not possibly have been any survivors.

My main interest in Sukhorukov's statement is that he got a number of critical details correct that Yurovsky did not regarding the burials. This suggests to me that perhaps Sukhorukov was more closely involved with certain aspects of the burials than Yurovsky, who always sounds as if he did everything himself.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: JASPER on July 28, 2007, 08:14:20 AM
Passions running high?

Whilst I do not agree with what happened - 'Brutal murders'? As I have previously said, I believe this to have been an execution performed by an execution squad of soldiers doing their 'duty'. Were the pilots of the planes that dropped Napalm on Vietnamese children doing their duty in war, or were they Murders too? And there are many other 'Atrocities' that happen in wars as we all know. So, if everone who kills someone else in war, by whatever method, a murder? Come on, we all know that mankind is probably the crulest thing living on this planet!


Of interest, I too believe Sukhorukov was involved with the burning and burial of Anastasia and Alexei. On my last visit to Ekaterinburg, at three meetings with some of the most 'Prominent Authorities, Scientists. Historians and Archaeologists' involved, they also now believe many aspects of both Yurovsky and Sukhorukov, (I believe neither was a liar) and are pursuing the 'new' approach to the whereabouts of the Children's burial place. I know they shall succeed, but as I also now know, these things undertaken 'correctly', do take time.

 


Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: Alixz on July 29, 2007, 08:21:32 AM
Jasper,

You mention Viet Nam.  Then you must remember the Mei Lei Massacre?  Those soldiers were Americans and they were tried and convicted of murder.

Brutal murder way beyond the nature of "duty".

The murder of the Romanovs was brutal.  To line up a bunch of defenseless humans in a very small room with no means of protection or escape and then to bring in a dozen men armed with pistols, rifles and bayonets to kill then is not "humane euthanasia".

We treat our wounded animals better than Yurovsky and company treated the Romanovs.

The murder of the Romanovs is, of course, not the only vicious elimination of humans by other humans.  It followed other acts of violence of mankind against mankind, but it was a precursor to Stalin's purges and Hitler's "Final Solution".

But I have to ask:   When did you travel to Yekaterinburg and who are those  at three meetings with some of the most 'Prominent Authorities, Scientists. Historians and Archaeologists' involved, they also now believe many aspects of both Yurovsky and Sukhorukov, (I believe neither was a liar) and are pursuing the 'new' approach to the whereabouts of the Children's burial place.

Since you seem to be telling us that you have inside information, perhaps you might like to "share" your identity or at least the depth of your  involvement in the search.

I am not being argumentative here, I am interested.   ;)
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: JASPER on July 29, 2007, 05:19:10 PM
Alixz,
Ummm... difficult to answer your question - ongoing looonnnnggg story, but...

It is not a secret as many on this forum already know that following a great deal of research, I knew the whereabouts of the Children's grave in June 2004 on my first search day in Koptyaki forest. I, with my son and two friends went back in 2005 for further investigations / confirmation, and I (alone) have only just returned from my third visit - and was not arrested despite a certain 'Party' endeavouring to 'stop me at all costs' in the pursuance of what most people believe, as I do sincerly, the objective of returning the Children to their family in St. Petersburg. I do accept that I can be considered as a 'Black Digger' but my intentions are honourable to Russia and the Romanovs. I am no longer a 'Black Digger' and have given much information to the 'Authorities etc.', including some new evidence / almost conclusive proof, and we visited the 'Grave site' in the forest. I should add that the 'Director' complimented me on my deductions and evidence, even calling it 'Brilliant' as nobody had looked there before. (A similar comment was also said to me by Alexander Avdonin when I met him in 2004)

As such, I have been 'pardonned' for my past 'errors' by those 'Authorities etc.'. My 'Quest' has cost me personally many, many thousands of pounds - and I have suffered many, many mosquito bites! Although the 'final confirmation' of the Children is yet to be obtained by a full excavation, this cannot be done until the 'Authorities etc.' obtain their permission and funding - thus at least next year - most frustrating, but I am now abiding by the 'rules'.

I should add, that being there this year on my birthday for the 'Romanov Remembrance Services and Pilgrimage to Ganina Yama' was must humbling. (they executed at about 2.30 in the morning of July 17th - I born about 2.30 in the morning of July 17th)
The services in the Cathedral on the Blood and 'Celebrations' there were enchantingly moving. At Ganina Yama, the air was full of the fragrance from the White Lillies planted in the first pit - overpowering.

As I said at the beginning - difficult, and I can say little more at this stage - I hope you, and others understand. And, before the many who want to 'discredit' me as in the past, at least I am not just sitting on my backside in front of a computer, I am trying to do my best to 'close' this tragic event. I now have to be patient - please you also. Thankyou. 
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: Alixz on July 29, 2007, 06:00:52 PM
Jasper,

Thank you.  I remember.

But it is useful to remember, also, that not all of us are close enough or have the funds to do any investigating anywhere except "on our backsides in front of a computer".

Once before, I believe, there was mention of subtle hints and "boys' adventure stories".  I sincerely hope that none of us will go down that road again.

Good luck.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: mr_harrison75 on July 29, 2007, 06:09:56 PM
I can't wait to see the results of your search, Jasper!

Thank you for sharing these bits of infos with us!  :)
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: JASPER on July 30, 2007, 12:36:49 PM
Thank you Alixz for your support. My comment was not directly at you, but to those whose caused 'backside consternation' last time.

I will add that I am a pensioner and my savings almost depleted - but it was / is worth it, and in some way, I feel privileged. One consolation I have is the 'Authorities' have promised that my Son, Friends and I will be invited to St. Petersburg when the Children are finally reunited with their Family.

Also, thank you mr_harrisson75
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: Amanda_Misha on July 30, 2007, 08:32:41 PM
A question ???:
in the page of Internet Romanov Memorial there are a diagram of the assassins and its victims
http://www.romanov-memorial.com/victimsvsskadron.htm
my doubt is so that there are several assassins non identified?
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: dmitri on July 30, 2007, 11:14:28 PM
It really doesn't matter at all.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: LisaDavidson on July 31, 2007, 01:15:49 AM
A question ???:
in the page of Internet Romanov Memorial there are a diagram of the assassins and its victims
http://www.romanov-memorial.com/victimsvsskadron.htm
my doubt is so that there are several assassins non identified?

No, the assassins have all been identified. I'm sure it's on another thread.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: Belochka on July 31, 2007, 01:56:51 AM
It really doesn't matter at all.

I must disagree Dmitri. Although some of us may not wish to hear all their names, those cold blooded brutal assassins should be mentioned by name to ensure that history reveals what they did.

Margarita
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: LisaDavidson on July 31, 2007, 01:57:30 AM
Passions running high?

Whilst I do not agree with what happened - 'Brutal murders'? As I have previously said, I believe this to have been an execution performed by an execution squad of soldiers doing their 'duty'. Were the pilots of the planes that dropped Napalm on Vietnamese children doing their duty in war, or were they Murders too? And there are many other 'Atrocities' that happen in wars as we all know. So, if everone who kills someone else in war, by whatever method, a murder? Come on, we all know that mankind is probably the crulest thing living on this planet!


Of interest, I too believe Sukhorukov was involved with the burning and burial of Anastasia and Alexei. On my last visit to Ekaterinburg, at three meetings with some of the most 'Prominent Authorities, Scientists. Historians and Archaeologists' involved, they also now believe many aspects of both Yurovsky and Sukhorukov, (I believe neither was a liar) and are pursuing the 'new' approach to the whereabouts of the Children's burial place. I know they shall succeed, but as I also now know, these things undertaken 'correctly', do take time.

 




I am no expert on murder or forensics. I believe I identified the late Dr. William Maples as my source for characterizing the deaths of the Imperial Family as "brutal murders. Dr. Maples was highly regarded as an expert in both fields, so I defer to him and his expertise.

I don't doubt for a moment that the intentions with which Yurovsky planned to "liquidate" the IF were more along the lines of a military mission than a street gang operation. However, I don't think that this all lays out neatly along a good/bad type of continum with no wrinkles. Yurovsky was clearly enamored of the power of destroying the monarch, it is evident in all his statements. Does this make him brutal, does this make him a liar? Not necessarily.

Ermakov by all accounts was a brutal murderer and there was nothing "executioner" like about him. He clearly has lied about what he did - and he was drunk to boot on the night of the murders.

Yes, I do think it was a case of murder. The family was not armed, and the Bolsheviks took care to remove healthy young men from the house who might defend them. The family cooperated and made no attempt to escape custody. In such situations, the custodians must take responsibility for the care of those in custody. There was no trial, there were no accusations.

Instead the family was eliminated as though they were not human, as if they had no rights. To me, this theft of their lives was murder. That there were no murderous intentions on the part of many of those in the room makes it no less a murder.

As to military killings, the situations there are not always black and white, as with the death of the IF.      
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: dmitri on July 31, 2007, 03:39:02 AM
I agree. There can be no doubt that the Romanov family and their attendants were brutally murdered. Other words could be used too such as executed and so on.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: JASPER on July 31, 2007, 10:48:33 AM
I do agree Lisa, that Ermakov was a 'Nasty Piece' of whatever.

Whilst in Ekaterinburg, I took the opportunity to visit his garve, and his rather ornate Memorial Stone, was covered in urine, excrement, red paint, and someone had drawn a picture of a Pig on the front. The people today do not treat him as a hero of the revolution as they did when he was alive.

Although I have not seen it - in Moscow I understand, I gather that Yurovsky's grave is actually treated with some respect. I wonder if anyone who has seen it can impart some information please?
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: Holly on July 31, 2007, 03:27:02 PM
There is a picture of Ermakov's grave in the Rare Pictures thread. Someone had written something on it. I think it said 'murderer'.
Title: Re: Questions About Testimonies of Yurovsky, Others
Post by: nena on August 01, 2007, 07:25:02 PM
There is a picture of Ermakov's grave in the Rare Pictures thread. Someone had written something on it. I think it said 'murderer'.
Yes! I posted it, Tes, 'murderer' or 'ubica' on Russian and my language... ;)