Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Myth and Legends of Survivors => Topic started by: AGRBear on May 03, 2005, 10:23:24 AM

Title: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on May 03, 2005, 10:23:24 AM
What do we know about AA which would give us a timeline?  I am not referring to her stories which link her to being GD Anastasia.

This thread is just for AA and not to be conected to FS's timeline.

>>9:00 PM, 18 Feb 1920
    The person who is to be known as Anna Anderson jumped off the Bendler Bridge into the Landwehr Canal, in Berlin.  She was pulled out of the water by Police Serg. Hallman and taken to Elizabeth Hospial in Lutzowstrasse

Can we discover anything about AA in various records which would tell us anything about AA before 18 Feb 1920?

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on May 03, 2005, 10:57:05 AM
Quote
ANASTASIA, THE LOST PRINCESS by James B. Lovell p. 75:

30 March 1920 at Dalldorf Asylum

"...she underwent her first physical examination for which a record exists.  Her weight was recorded at one hundred ten pounds and her height at five-feet two-inches."

AGRBear


Her body, Lovell continued to tell us on p. 75: "was covered wih scars and lacerations.  A prolonged examination reveal that she was not a virgin."

p. 75
17 June 1920 AA was fingerprinted and photographed.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on May 06, 2005, 01:04:22 PM
AA claimed she had a child.  A boy who was carried to full term.  The child she said was born in Budapest and then sent away to a orphanage.

Since it's proven through DNA that she wasn't GD Anastasia and there is no need to try and have the child born in Rumania, then when would she have had the child?

Had to have been nine months before she jumped into the canal or earlier?

Let's say the child was born in April or May of 1919.  AA could have been suffering from "the baby blues" or deep depression from giving birth or having given the baby away.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on May 16, 2005, 06:04:37 PM
It seems no one can tell us very much about AA before she jumped into the canal.

She was young.
She seemed depresssed.
She had scars.
The doctors called her Mrs. Unknown instead of Miss Unknown.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: Annie on May 17, 2005, 03:38:01 PM
I have a bear-esque theory for you, bear. How about this: what if FS's baby was actually a girl, and her family adopted her?This sometimes did happen to cover up for illegitimate babies in the old days.  What if this was Margarithe, Karl Maucher's mother? That way, the DNA would have matched even if Gertrude was only a half sister (though I still don't believe the half sister theory myself)

How old was Margarithe? Could she possibly be the right age to have been FS's missing child?
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: Denise on May 17, 2005, 03:40:33 PM
Quote
I have a bear-esque theory for you, bear. How about this: what if FS's baby was actually a girl, and her family adopted her?This sometimes did happen to cover up for illegitimate babies in the old days.  What if this was Margarithe, Karl Maucher's mother? That way, the DNA would have matched even if Gertrude was only a half sister (though I still don't believe the half sister theory myself)

How old was Margarithe? Could she possibly be the right age to have been FS's missing child?


OOOOOO!!  I like this theory.  I wonder if it would be possible.  Annie, I hate to say it, but I'm impressed!  ;) This is WAY out of the box....

Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: Annie on May 17, 2005, 03:44:25 PM
Quote

OOOOOO!!  I like this theory.  I wonder if it would be possible.  Annie, I hate to say it, but I'm impressed!  ;) This is WAY out of the box....



Thanks! :) I was hoping bear would think so too. This would also explain the secrecy around the family and the maternal relative thing. It could be, IF this was true, that they knew it but still wanted to keep it private, so they only told the scientists.
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on May 17, 2005, 04:02:24 PM
It's a very good "out of the box"  theory. But how do we discuss it here when this thread is about AA and not FS.  Shall we take it over to FS Timeline and see if we can fit this theory into FS's  life?  

Is that okay with all of you?

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: Annie on May 17, 2005, 04:04:17 PM
Repost it wherever you want, bear.
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on May 17, 2005, 04:11:20 PM
Thanks Annie:

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?action=display;board=anastasia;num=1114717030;start=0#23
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on May 18, 2005, 10:30:17 AM
Since there appears to be some confusion about AA's various meeting with FS family members,  so, I hunted around and found this one of Michael's.  I couldn't pull out the quote because it's locked down.  I highlighted the date:

Michael:  >>On May 9, 1927  AA was taken for a meeting with Felix Schanzkowska the brother of Francisca.  
 
The meeting took place at an in Wasserburg some few miles nw of Seeon.  Felix S. was sitting the beer garden with Dr. Voller, while Harriet von Rathlef wisely kept out of sight.  As she walked toward his table, AA asked the Duke, "Which one of the gentlemen is it?"  
 
Felix stared at her.  
 
Who is that lady, asked Dr Voller,  "That is my sister Francisca ." replied Felix.   All eyes turned to Anastasia,  
"Well, stammered the Duke, thoroughly amazed, "go and talk with your brother."   Dr Voller had already prepared an affadavit for Felix to sign, stating that this was indeed his sister Franciska S., and that he recognized her beyond any doubt.  Frau Rathlef was crushed, she handed the document to Felix, when she suddenly heard him say " No, I won't do it.  She isn't my sister."    
 
"She isn't your sister?" asked Frau Rathlef stunned by this about face.  
 
"No, said Felix again, adding that he would not sign a false declaration that might land him in jail."  
 
Dr Voller drew up another affadavit that Felix did not hesitate to sigh it"  
 
" There does exist a strong resemblance between her and my sister.  The resemblance is strong when you look from the front, but not when you look from the side.....Frau Tschaikovsky's speech...as well as the general expression of her manner is totally different from that of my sister, Franziska.... At today's consultation I spoke repeatedly with Frau Tshaikovsky.  There can be no doubt that she did not have the slightest idea who I was.  You could clearly see that she did no know me.  I went toward her and she gave me her hand and talked to me with perfect unconcern.  She showed no sign either of astonishment or of the slightest fear.  She behaved rather as one behaves towards a third pary to whom one is just being introduced."  
 
Then Harriet Rathlef went over the check list:  There were scars and birthmarks,  "My sister Franzsiska had no scars or birthmarks";  Teeth;  My sister Franziska had a full set of teeth. "  Languages; "My sister Franziska spoke a little polish and good german."  Feet;   "My sister Franziska had no deformities of the feet."  Here Felix took off his shoes and "with sort of a vanity", declared that Franziska has "pretty" feet, "just like mine."  
 
That is in Riddle of Anna Anderson  pgs 173-174....  
 
Michael

IP Logged

Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: Annie on May 18, 2005, 10:42:32 AM
This sounds like a summary of events covering a longer period of time. It completely leaves out any meeting between the siblings, which I have seen mentioned elsewhere. I want another source. It is not unlikely that the author, being an avid supporter, left that part out, as many people  will do to make their own case look stronger.
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on May 18, 2005, 10:52:07 AM
Hannover on July 9, 1938.

Quote
There are two meetings mentioned in ROAA, and none after 1938.  Checking again Gertrude is definitely NOT at the first meeting, and in the second meeting she is listed as being in the same room with Felix, the police, AA, Valerian, Frau Madsack, Gleb Botkin, Fallows, and Marie Juliana.

Just a clarification regarding some very obvious purposeful errors on the meeting at Wasserburg at the beer gardeon of the inn near Castle Seeon, at which the Duke of Leuchtenberg, Harriet von Rathlef, Dr. Voller,  A.A. & Felix were present.  There is no mention of Gertrude.    This meeting took place on 9 May 1927
(See ROAA by Peter Kurth pgs 173-174)

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.

At this meeting at Police HQ, in a room reserved for convicts and their families, AA, smartly attired in a new wool suit, walked up and down the wall, while the siblings observed her chattering amongst themselves in low German.  Shaking their heads and look "exceedingly doubtful".  Finally Valerian spoke: "No, this lady looks too different.:

And did all the brothers and sister agree?

They did.  Not only did AA not look a thing like Franziska said Felix, but she didn't even look like the same woman he had met near Seeon eleven years before.  Could they go home now?

AA made ready to leave.  The suddenly Gertrude started shouting, banging her fists on the table and turning red in the face,  "You are my sister!" she cried, grabbing AA by the shoulders and shaking her.  "You are my sister, I know it! You must recognize me!"

The police were looking at Anastasia as though she had been caught picking pockets: "Well what have you got to say?"

"What am I supposed to say?" said AA

"How many brothers and sister do you have?"

"Four." she replied

"Well here we are four!" Said Valerian

"This is crazy" said AA

"Where were you born?"

"In Russia."

The answer took everyone by suprise. "In Russia?" Valerian asked, shaking his head, "In RUSSIA?" Now Valerian, Felix and Marie Juliana turned back to Gertrude, this was crazy indeed; you coul tell that the lady was not Franziska.  But  the more the family protested the louder Gertrude got' "Admit it - Admit it",
until AA pale with fury turned and walked from the room.

NO ONE, including Gertude agreed to sign anything that day.

There is no mention that either meeting lasted 7 hours, and that Gertrude was present at the first meeting, and or that they spoke with her alone.  If we are going to start making blanket statements covering facts, lets get them correct or list the source they came from please.

Also the official records of her height & weight are from the police reports & from her medical records at Dalldorf.

This will keep issues & arguments that are unnecessary from happening on this thread.

Neither section on the two meetings mention the amount of time the meeting lasted.  Just from reading the first meeting seems more informal and friendly and could have lasted longer.  

Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on May 18, 2005, 04:13:31 PM
>>9:00 PM, 18 Feb 1920
     The person who is to be known as Anna Anderson jumped off the Bendler Bridge into the Landwehr Canal, in Berlin.  She was pulled out of the water by Police Serg. Hallman and taken to Elizabeth Hospial in Lutzowstrasse  

>>End of March 1920 AA was sent to Dalldorf Asylum

>>Doctors exaimination on 30 March 1920 recorded her weight at 110 pounds and her height at just under five feet two...

>>17 June 1920 AA was fingerprinted and photographed.  These photographs were sent from Berlin out to   Stuttgart, Brunswick, Hamurg, Munich, Dresden... (Weimar Republic).  Places in Berlin, which probably included FS asylum where she spent some time more than once, were checked throughly....  Family members of those who had lost a dau., wife... were brought to see AA...  This included the family of a Maria Wacowiak in Posen....

>>autumn of 1921 AA announced she as the GD Anastasia and talked about the jewels sewn in her clothes

>>Claire Peuthert was committed to Dalldorf at the end of 1921

>>6 March 1922 Claire Peuthert tells Capt. Nicholas von Schwabe about AA, whom she said looked like GD Tatiana.... was at Dalldorf

>> 7 March 1922 Capt. Scwabe phoned his friend Franz Jaenicke and they agreeed to go to Dalldorf on Wed. , 9th of March....  Claire P. showed up at Capt. Schwabe's apartment

>> 9 March 1922  The first known contact of Capt Scwabe at Dalldorf, Ward B.  With him was Jaenicke.

>> 9 March, Wed.,  1922 the Supreme Monarchist Council heard about AA and so the word quickly spread through the whole emigre colony in Berlin....  The SMC sent guards to Dalldorf, people spoke with the doctors at Dalldorf, and people were sent to speak to the police....

>> 10 March 1922 Capt Scwabe brought to AA in Dalldorf Zinaida Tolstoy and her daughter, and, also, there was a Capt. Andreievsky

>>12 March, Sat., 1922  Baroness Buxoeveden arrived at Dalldorf to see AA with Zinaida Tolstoy.  It was the Baroness who pulled AA out of bed and declared that AA was too short to be Tatiana...  The Baroness left with little to say accept that AA resembled the GD Tatiana then went off to declare AA was not GD Tatiana as it had been thought ....

>>____ March 1922 Later, AA declared she had never said she was Tatina, which was apparently true,  AA had said she was Anastasia and everyone realized the mistake Buxoevenden had made and Capt. Schwabe continued to help AA.   The mistake had been created by Claire P.

>> 27 July 1925:  "Shura did NOT meet AA until July 27, 1925.  She met with AA along with Ambassador Zahle, Pierre Gilliard.  So there was a full 5 almost 5 1/2 years after Feb 1920 that she met with Shura or Gilliard, " Michael wrote.

>>On May 9, 1927  AA was taken for a meeting with Felix Schanzkowska the brother of Francisca.

>>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: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on May 18, 2005, 04:24:35 PM
>>autumn of 1921 AA announced she as the GD Anastasia and talked about the jewels sewn in her clothes

This information is found on p. 12 of Kurth's ANASTASIA, THE RIDDLE OF ANNA ANDERSON:

"It was then, in the autumn of 1921, that Fraulein Unbekannt declared outright that she was Her Imperial Highness the Grand Duchess Anastasia Nicolaievna.  In the conversation that followed, as nurse Malinovsky remembers it, she was 'very upset indeed'.  She spoke of her sisers and the jewels they had sewn into their clothes in Siberia, of the last night in Ekaterinburg, when 'a lady-in-waiting ran about with a cushion in her hands, hiding her face behind it and screaming,' and  'the leader of the the murderers of the Tsar, [who] went straight up to her father with his pistol..... mocking him with it and shooting at him'."

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on May 18, 2005, 05:32:57 PM
Quote


Shura did NOT meet AA until July 27, 1925.  She met with AA along with Ambassador Zahle, Pierre Gilliard.
So there was a full 5 almost 5 1/2 years after Feb 1920 that she met with Shura or Gilliard.


"Shura" Alexandra, nee Tegleva, Gilliard had been GD Anastasia's nursemaid since infancy.  She was the wife of Peter [Pierre] Gilliard, the Granduchess' tutor.
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: Annie on May 18, 2005, 08:05:53 PM
Who is this Capt. Schwabe? Did he have any connection to the Russian or German royals?
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on May 21, 2005, 07:05:08 PM
"...Captain Nicholas Adolfovich von Schwabe, " wrote Kurth p. 12 in his book ANASTASIA, THE RIDDEL OF ANNA ANDERSON, "... had been a staff captain of the personal guard detachment of the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna."

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on May 25, 2005, 11:52:35 AM
There needs to be a time set which tell us when the following injuries occured:

Locked down old thread  Anna Anderson and Anastasia in which Greg King posted.  Since the thread is locked down, go to page 6...
 
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1075191962;start=125
 
Greg King's post #132:

...[in part]...
 
>>I suggest you check Peter's book on this issue-Anastasia Manahan had extensive previous facial injuries when first examined in 1920, including the right side of her mouth and right jaw having been subjected to repeated blows that knocked teeth out and actually fractured or broke bones-this is why in the first photos of her she always was faced to the left, and even hid the right side of her jaw.  These were injuries estimated as having been a few years old by the doctors who examined her, and had obviously healed somewhat, but the effect remained-even as an old lady she still spoke with a handkerchief held up to the right side of her mouth.   
 
Greg King<<
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: Finelly on July 20, 2005, 10:25:07 PM
Interesting theory, about FS' alleged baby.  Did we ever find out if any of the children of siblings were born sometime in the right time period?

And were x-rays of AA's head and/or jaw ever taken?  I'm curious to see if there were residual signs of head injury.

Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on July 25, 2005, 10:28:26 PM
Here is some additional information from Penny on AA's child:

Quote

There is no evidence that she "lost the baby."  None.  There is, however, substantial evidence that the baby was born -- albeit probably prematurely -- on a certain date in a certain place, and there are further documentary indications that the child was, indeed, placed with an orphanage according to the story.  Which isn't so "wild" after all...


Quote

Yes.  She was quite adamant about the child's birth, and claimed a date in -- I think -- December 1918/January 1919 for the birth.  This is in the court records, along with her statement concerning the possible death of Alexander Tschaikowsky -- which AA claimed happened in a street-fight, but which can't be verified independently.

This date of birth, of course, places conception in the early months of 1918 -- unthinkable for people when the theory was that she was Anastasia, because that would mean one of two things:  That rape had happened in Tobolsk, on board the Rus, in the Ipatiev house, or all three; or Anastasia had had consensual sex while in captivity, presumably with a guard.  Either way, when she -- AA-as-Anastasia -- left the Ipatiev House in mid-July 1918, she was pregnant.


It was never my impression that this was the case.

Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on August 25, 2005, 10:39:59 AM
Adding this to the Timeline to show evidence that AA said she as GD Anastasia  before she met Claire or Capt. Schwabe or those who followed:

Quote

...[in part]...

...The night-shift nurse Thea Malinowsky was the first to see a resemblance to GD A in the fall of 1921.  In her own words:

"After she had been sitting with me for about half an hour, she said that she wanted to show me something.  She went to her bed and pulled a Berliner Illustrierte out from under her mattress.  On the cover was a photo of the Russian imperial Family.  She put the magazine down in front of me and asked if I was not struck by something in that picture.  I looked closely at the photograph, but didn't know what she was driving at.  However, as I looked longer, it occurred to me that Fraulein Unbekannt bore a distinct resemblence to the youngest of the Tsar's daughters...." (Testimony of 17 December 1958 )

At the same time, other nurses in the ward, including Erna Bucholz (who spoke Russian with her) and Bertha Walz, reading the same magazines that were laying around the dayroom, saw a resemblance to Anastasia.  They confronted Fraulein Unbekannt with their suspicions, and she admitted that this was she.

So -- this all happened in the autumn of 1921.  Clara Peuthert, the above-referenced "mentally ill woman," was not admitted to Dalldorf Hospital until the very end of 1921, and so was not in residence when the revelation was made by Fraulein Unbekannt.

...

Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on September 06, 2005, 06:12:17 PM
Quote

...[in part]....

There is no-one who knows the exact sequence of events leading up to the initial claim: All we know is the following:

1.From the time Fraulein U entered the Dalldorf Asylum on 30 March 1920, all observers agreed that she was terrified of anyone finding out who she was.  She gave at least one nurse the strong impression that she was scared of being recognized and returned to the Soviet Union, where she would be killed.

2.For almost two years, she lived at Dalldorf, refusing to give her name, and saying that being in an asylum was "safest" for her.  

3.She spent much of her free time in the small library at Dalldorf, reading the books and magazines there, most of them brought in by the nurses.  This is where copies of the Illustrierte Zeitung were kept.

4.In the autumn of 1921, she was approached by several nurses who had been impressed with her distinctive behavior and surpassing knowledge of the ins and outs of life in certain "upper classes."  They recognized her in a photo of Anastasia.  She refused to answer them.

5.At around the same time, she approached the nurse Thea Malinowsky, with whom she had established a late-night friendship.  She showed Nurse Malinowsky a copy of the Illustrierte Zeitung and asked if she recognized anyone there.  The nurse recognized Anastasia as Fraulein Unbekannt, and she then admitted her identity as Anastasia.

6.Clara Peuthert was admitted to Dalldorf at the end of 1921, and so -- although she became involved in the case and initially made the mistake of announcing Fraulein U's identity as Tatiana -- the Anastasia claim was made before her arrival and events were already in train.  Tatiana was never mentioned by either Fraulein U or the nurses as a possible identity.

These are the facts, Annie, and you should be arguing whether or not it is possible that Fraulein U garnered her knowledge of Imperial habits and behavior from the "small library" at Dalldorf rather than from some "mentally ill woman" whom you can't name because she didn't exist!

Now that I've done your work for you, let's hear the best you've got, this time dealing with the facts.


...

Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: bigbi on October 14, 2005, 01:49:03 AM
Quote
AA claimed she had a child.  A boy who was carried to full term.  The child she said was born in Budapest and then sent away to a orphanage.

Since it's proven through DNA that she wasn't GD Anastasia and there is no need to try and have the child born in Rumania, then when would she have had the child?

Had to have been nine months before she jumped into the canal or earlier?

Let's say the child was born in April or May of 1919.  AA could have been suffering from "the baby blues" or deep depression from giving birth or having given the baby away.

AGRBear

um.. Do you realize that if you indeed believe that the DNA proved beyond a shadow of a doubt she was not Anastasia, then you would also have to believe that she is indeed Franzika.
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: Malenkaya on October 14, 2005, 11:19:06 AM
Quote
um.. Do you realize that if you indeed believe that the DNA proved beyond a shadow of a doubt she was not Anastasia, then you would also have to believe that she is indeed Franzika.


Not really.  The DNA used was Mitochondrial DNA, which only traces the relationship from mother to child.  Unlikely though it may be, all the DNA can prove is that AA and FS come from the same female desendants.  It cannot prove that AA was FS.
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on October 14, 2005, 11:29:14 AM
Although I never thought AA was GD Anastasia, I had thought that AA was FS.   And,  to tell the truth,  I never gave it much thought.    Through this pass year,  as I've been going through the various pieces of evidence,  and I find more  and more differences between AA and FS than AA has with GD Anastasia.  So,  I ask myself,  how could that be?

When I asked questions about "contamination",  the answers received seem to indicate this is nearly impossible. When I created a thread about the possibility of a "switch",  it was eliminated.   This makes me uneasy since I didn't think my questions were silly or illogical or a waste of anyone's time.

At this time,  you are recieving this same kind  of posts from Forum Admin.  I had received over on the contamintion thread.

So,  trying to understand how it is possible that the DNA/mtDNA has not been contaminated or switch, while at the same time, trying to understand how it was possible that  AA was not FS, I've had to dig deep into books and I've asked a lot of questions on all of these posts.  So, what I've done in this process is   take a closer look at the  99.99999 %  statements.     Yes,  it appears AA and FS are  related 99.999 % but not necessarily are they the same person.  The link can be  through the material line.   The DNA/mtDNA cannot prove who a persons is,  at this time, so,   we can speculate that  AA and FS were not the same person.  This means we can  spectulate that AA might not have been FS.   Could they have been  sisters?  Yes,  but that doesn't appear to be the case from those who have studied the family of FS's.  However, we really don't know if  FS's mother was married before marrying Anton S.   so  they might have been half sisters.   This, again, is unknown.   So, how far can we look for relationship that still fits in the 99.999 %?  If there was no mutations it could mean that AA and FS could have been first cousins.   If not first cousins, then could they have been second cousins?  Yes.  Could they have been fourth cousins?  Yes.  This range could reach as high as being thirty-fifth cousins.  [See NDA threads].

According to daveK,  who worked on stats,  he said that in and around Berlin there could have been 200 woman or the same age as AA with the same DNA/mtDNA.

I'm not quite understanding the "rarity" since it doesn't seem to fit the family line of FS's family living in the Posen area.

This is how it is possible that everyone is right about the DNA/mtDNA and that AA  wasn't FS.

I just do not know the answers,  so,  I'm keeping an open mind.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: Forum Admin on October 14, 2005, 11:38:13 AM
Bear
I eliminated the thread as I told you because you were asking the SAME questions over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, getting the same answers that A SWITCH WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO THE LIKELIHOOD OF LESS THAN ONE IN A BILLION. To waste time discussing ONE IN A BILLION POSSIBLITIES is the same as arguing about Extraterrestrials abducting Alexei, period. Get over it.
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on October 14, 2005, 12:03:43 PM
The "switch" has nothing to do with the Timeline of AA.    I will make no farther comments on this thread, since this disagreement between myself and others should not cause a elimination or lock down of this thread.

When looking closely at the Timeline,  can you explain if AA was FS,  when it was when FF received her broken jaw, her wounds which had healed by Feb. of 1920 and had a child?

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: Phil_tomaselli on October 14, 2005, 03:07:07 PM
At the risk of attracting a severe wigging from Forum Admin, and stressing the point that I have absolutely no interest in the AA = FS (or not) argument, I do not think one can place odds on the likelyhood or not of a switch if sufficient motive exists for someone to do it.

Clever people with enough motivation can achieve just about anything.  Just look at Lenin taking over the revolution in 1917.  What odds would have been given on that?  On the other hand I can't think of any real motive for anyone to make the kind of convoluted switches necessary and am mainly just exercising what is left of my brain.
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: Forum Admin on October 14, 2005, 03:48:53 PM
Phil,
THIS is the exact thrust of WHY the "switch" is almost impossible. The people who discovered the AA sample in Martha Jefferson wanted to PROVE SHE WAS AN! No one HAD/HAS a motive to make the switch to a putative FS match.  PLUS, please don't forget the crucial points that NO ONE could have KNOWN the sample could even be used for such proof before 1994, thus NO SWITCH would/could have happened before 1994 AND the AA dna was sequenced before the Maucher sample was even obtained!

NO identifiable person has been EVER even BEEN SUGGESTED who HAS/HAD a motive to go THROUGH the hoops of a switch in the first place. THAT is why I shut this discussion down every time it creeps back up. IF you can't show SOMEONE who has the motive then this exercise is simply another "well what if..." pointless exercise. NAME NAMES or give it a rest.
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on October 14, 2005, 06:21:30 PM
If AA was FS,  when did AA suffer her wounds like her broken jaw without anyone in her family knowing.  Not even the Wengender's talked about this.   And,  her silbings didn't notice  when she visited them Dec. of 1919.    

If AA wass FS, when did she carry a child for nine months?  AA told us she had a child.  The doctors at Dalldorf said she had a child. Since FS was in and out of asylums,  surly this would have been on one of the charts.  Far as I know,  this was not.   Were there nine months between FS's stays in an asylum to have had a child?  I don't think there was.    Maybe,  FS was pregnant by the man she had hoped to marry.   Gertrude never mentioned this and she would have known since she was living with her sister in those early days.

So far,  no one seems to have an answer to these questions.  Why?   Take a look at FS's Timeline.   If FS was AA then the two timelines have to be the same.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: casketkitten on October 14, 2005, 06:29:17 PM
I am going to chime back in here. I am sorry if I forget where on the forums I read these things but can someone please, nicely...no need to chew mine or anyone's head off here, confirm to me:

when the interested parties first went looking for the sample, the hospital could not find it. Is that correct?

Later, the sample was located after it was discovered that the patient's first name had been put in as "Anastasia" not "Anna". Is that true or did I imagine that one?

AND, when the sample was at last located, there was, in addition to the sample its self, almost everything that had been used in this 1979 procedure, all nicely bagged and labeled. True or am I having a menopause moment?

I just want to get clear on these details, if you all could please chime in and let me know if I am right or wrong on this.
Thanks.  
Title: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on October 14, 2005, 06:55:41 PM
Let's explore the timeline between the surgery of AA in Aug of 1979 to the delivery of the intestine sample to Dr. Gill on 29 June 1994.


20 Aug 1979 -  AA was rushed to Martha Jefferson Hospital where Dr. Richard Shrum operated on her small intestine obstruction which prove to have turned gangrene.  Massie tells us the details on p. 194-5 THE ROMANOVS, THE FINAL CHAPTER:  

>>The procedure of sending the tissue to the pathology lab was sent 5 inches of intestines.  This tissue was divided into five one-inch segments which were bathed in a issue preservative called formalin, sealed inside a block of paraffin wax one inch square and half an inch deep, and placed in a small blue and white box on a shelf filled with other similar boxes containing tissue specimens.<<

12 Feb 1984   - Anna Anderson Manahan died.  Her body was cremated the same day.

July 1992 - Dr. William Maples stated that he believed Anastasia was the missing  Grand Duchess and not Maria whom the Russians claimed was missing

22 Sept 1992 Syd Mandelaum writes to several major laboratories looking for genetic samples of AA's to test at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory or at Harvard Medical School  because he was writing a book on DNA and wanted to add it's usage to forenic in regards to AA.  The one letter went to Martha Jefferson Hospital where AA had surgery.

p. 195 Massie tells us the answer Mandelaum receive to his inquiry:

>>...Martha Jefferson Hospital, replied to Mandelbaun that "we have nothing here that could be useful to you."

Klier and Mingay give us more information on this request p. 203
>>...At the time the hospital was in a chaotic administrative state due to a major refurbishment, and although officals conducted a cursory search of their files, they did not find any recoreds under  either of those names.  Hospital officals claim they did not intentionally mislead Mandelbaum.  Indeen there was no tissue sample stored in the hospital under either name proposed by Mandelbaum.<<  The names he had given were Anna Anderson or Mrs. Jack Manahan.

22 Nov 1992 Mary DeWitt,  p. 196, >>a student of forensic pathology of the University of Texas<< asked the hospiital for some tissue because she'd like to stuy it for a paper.   They reply from Penny Jenkins was: >>"No, I can't help you."<<  Mary DeWitt did not give up.  She contacted Lovell asking for his help.  Lovel received a letter from John Manahan's cousin Fred Lowvel who granted Lovel authority to dispose of the tissue.

 Dec 1992, two days after Mary DeWitt's first letter  - Dr. Willi Korte conatacted Jenkins.  Her story was different to Korte.  She told him that they did have compartitive samples of AA.  
p. 206 of Kleir and Mingay:
>>Korte's...phone calls galvanized the hospital's acting director of medical records, Penny Jenkins, to take a more detailed look at the hospital's patient database. She made a through search of the viles and the pathology departemtn's vaults  and found that, indeed, a tissue sample from Anderson was held there, albeit under the name of Anatasia Manahan.<<  This was found Dec 1992one month after his first phone call.

Dec. 1992 - Thomas Kline with the law firm Andrews and Kurth contacted Jenkins.  Jenkins told him they had samples.

Sping 1993 Mary DeWitt's lawyer contacted Martha Jefferson Hospital, again....

The agreement between DeWitt and Lovel disintergrated and Lovel refused to be part of DeWitt's research.  Evidently DeWitt's husband was an investigator but there is no mention if he had been hired by anyone or if he was acting on his own or if  she was just doing this on her own.

Jan 1993 - Thomas Kline contacted Fred Manahan who referred him to Lovel.

16 April 1993- Kline wrote to Lovell formally asking for help in obtaining access to AA's tissue for DNA testing to be done by the Forensic Insitute in Munich.

18 March 1993 -Kline wrote Lovel again and explained what he thought of Korte and suggested Dr. Mary-Claire King [UC Berkeley] if he did not wish to use Munich with whom Dr. Gill was a part.

date? Lovel contacted Richard Schweitzer for advice.

Meanwhile, Penny Jenkins who had been contacted by these people and attorneys,  started to ask the hospital attorneys what needed to done.   The hospital attorneys dealt with Richard  Schwitzer who is a lawyer and use to post here on this forum.

May to Sept 1993 -
(1) Agreement was made to use a litigator Matthey Murray.
(2)  Richard  Schweitzer approached Dr. Gill after he was told the Armed Forces Institue of Pathology in Maryland could not agree to the terms of the test of the DNA.  And filed his wife's petition 30 Sept 1993 because of who she was and her contact with AA and being a citizen of Virgina which was required

1 Nov 1993 Circuit Court Judge Jay T. Swett dealt with this case


I will continue with this timeline as I have time.

So, what timeline do we have so far with just the discovery of the sample to the first court appearance: 20 Aug 1992 to 1 Nov. 1993 which is more than a year.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 15, 2005, 12:00:44 AM
I believe it is correct to refer to Richard Schweitzer as Mr. Schweitzer rather than Dr. Schweitzer.
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: Mgmstl on October 15, 2005, 10:12:48 AM
Quote
I am going to chime back in here. I am sorry if I forget where on the forums I read these things but can someone please, nicely...no need to chew mine or anyone's head off here, confirm to me:

when the interested parties first went looking for the sample, the hospital could not find it. Is that correct?

Later, the sample was located after it was discovered that the patient's first name had been put in as "Anastasia" not "Anna". Is that true or did I imagine that one?

AND, when the sample was at last located, there was, in addition to the sample its self, almost everything that had been used in this 1979 procedure, all nicely bagged and labeled. True or am I having a menopause moment?

I just want to get clear on these details, if you all could please chime in and let me know if I am right or wrong on this.
Thanks.  



Can anyone verify these events, as I am too having a some sort of junior senior moment???
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on October 15, 2005, 10:33:49 AM
Quote
I believe it is correct to refer to Richard Schweitzer as Mr. Schweitzer rather than Dr. Schweitzer.


Here in the US, if a person gains  a doctor of law  or juris doctorite degree,  he/ she  can be call Dr. ____.  I do not know where Richard Schweitzer recieved his law degree.   If received in Germany, I think the lawyers are called Dr. ____.    Here in the US, unless a person is a teacher and not practing law,  they usually do not use the title Dr. _____.  I think I'm remembering all this right.  Anyway,   I think I was copying the name Dr. Schweitzer out of one of my books.  I will change to Mr. Schweitzer or Richard Schweitzer unless he requests otherwise.

Michael,  take a look at my above post under date of 22 Spet 1992.

I remember more details somewhere else which I've quote but, now, I can't find it.  Anyone know where else this information is found?

AGRBear



Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: Helen_Azar on October 15, 2005, 11:21:59 AM
Quote

I was copying the name Dr. Schweitzer out of one of my books.  I will change to Mr. Schweitzer or Richard Schweitzer unless he requests otherwise.



I think you are confusing Richard S with Dr Albert Schweitzer - BIG difference!
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on October 15, 2005, 08:00:17 PM
Quote

I think you are confusing Richard S with Dr Albert Schweitzer - BIG difference!


FA:  Please remove since it is offensive to Richard Schweitzer and unnessary since I explained my error and corrections were already made.  Also, remove this post, too, please.

Thank you

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: rskkiya on October 15, 2005, 08:59:56 PM
Quote

FS:  Please remove since it is offensive to Richard Schweitzer and unnessary since I explained my error and corrections were already made.  Also, remove this post, too, please.

Thank you

AGRBear

SORRY?
What is 'offensive'? Dr Albert Schweitzer was a great man. So, how could any possible confusion with Mr Richard Schweitzer be perceived as OFFENSIVE?

Agr, so you made an error --well -- at least you corrected it.

rs
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on October 15, 2005, 09:53:31 PM
I called Richard Schweitzer,  Dr. Richard Schweitzer instead of Mr. Richard Schweitzer.  

Since I gave the name "Richard" and did not say Albert,  why did Helen say I was confused and then went one step farther and compaired Richard with Albert Schweitzer?

And, why am I still having this conversation???  

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on October 15, 2005, 09:59:03 PM
I believe this is what some of us were discussing:

22 Sept 1992 Syd Mandelaum writes to several major laboratories looking for genetic samples of AA's to test at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory or at Harvard Medical School  because he was writing a book on DNA and wanted to add it's usage to forenic in regards to AA.  The one letter went to Martha Jefferson Hospital where AA had surgery.
 
p. 195 Massie tells us the answer Mandelaum receive to his inquiry:
 
>>...Martha Jefferson Hospital, replied to Mandelbaun that "we have nothing here that could be useful to you."

A month later, the sample is found.



AGRBear
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: casketkitten on October 16, 2005, 07:53:35 PM
Thank you, AGRBear, for your timeline. I can see now where this would have broken down from the get-go as the original  searcher at the hospital was given only two names to play with. HOWEVER, I am surprised that the hospital did not have a system by where they could go under SS# or patient ID #. The hospital I worked at had such a system in place by that time that would allow for variable searches.

I am also surprised that the person searching the data base didn't do a general search under the last name of "Manahan" with first initial "A". Manahan is not that common of a name, it would not have taken that long as opposed to "Anderson" or the like.

I am still wondering if I read correctly that when the sample turned up, it came complete with a host of bagged evidence from the procedure. IF I have read this right, I must say that is MOST unusual for 1979...not even high profile homicides got that much back-up in the days before DNA.

Again,  my thanks. I am glad that you were allowed to post a reply. Seems a little stuffy in here don't you think?
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on October 19, 2005, 11:36:52 AM
Quote
Thank you, AGRBear, for your timeline. I can see now where this would have broken down from the get-go as the original  searcher at the hospital was given only two names to play with. HOWEVER, I am surprised that the hospital did not have a system by where they could go under SS# or patient ID #. The hospital I worked at had such a system in place by that time that would allow for variable searches.

I am also surprised that the person searching the data base didn't do a general search under the last name of "Manahan" with first initial "A". Manahan is not that common of a name, it would not have taken that long as opposed to "Anderson" or the like.

I am still wondering if I read correctly that when the sample turned up, it came complete with a host of bagged evidence from the procedure. IF I have read this right, I must say that is MOST unusual for 1979...not even high profile homicides got that much back-up in the days before DNA.

Again,  my thanks. I am glad that you were allowed to post a reply. Seems a little stuffy in here don't you think?


Yes, it does seem a person should be able to find the name "Manahan" and then notice "A"  or "Anna" or "Anastasia" may be one in the same and if not then ask the person, who is making the inquiry,  if  "Anna"  might be shorten version of  "Anastasia".

AGRBear
Title: RE: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on October 19, 2005, 11:53:38 AM
Timeline for the sample of intestines taken from AA:

So, what timeline do we have so far with just the discovery of the sample to the first court appearance:  20 Aug 1992 to 1 Nov. 1993 which is more than a year.

p. 202 of Massie's THE ROMANOVS, THE FINAL CHAPTER:

1 Nov 1993 Circuit Court Judge Jay T. Swett dealt with this case
The following people became involved during this time:
(1) Richard Schweitzer wo was representing is wife's petition
(2) Matthew Murray, the attorney for Martha Jefferson Hospital
(3) attorney (not named) from the Richmond Times
(4) Lindsey Crawford from the law firm of Andrews and Kurth under the New York Corp. known as the Russian Nobility Association

Since Crawford had not filed a peition the judge, after hearing why Crawford had not, gave her three days to file.

4 Nov 1993- Crawford filed her petition
One can read in more detail a version of Crawford's claim on p. 205.  The highlights were:
a) Marina Schweitzer's petition was not valid because she was not related to Anastasia Anderson
b) using the tissue sample to discover the true identity of Anastasia Manahan would be usedful and cannot be achieved in the manner requested by Schweitzer.  p. 205 a quote:  >>...the Russian Nobility Association heaped further calumny on Dr. Gill:  his laboratory was said to represent "second-best scientific testing", and his samples were said to have been possibly "contaminated."<<  Attached to these remarks  about the possibly "contaminated" were affidavits from (1) Prince Alexis Scherbatow and (2) Dr. William Maples who praised Dr. King at UC Berkeley and her ability to preform  DNA test.

The word "contaminated" was drawn into the petition by Crawford and not by Schweitzer who had requested Dr. Gill be the one to test the sample for DNA.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: Louis_Charles on October 19, 2005, 12:23:27 PM
Am I correct in assuming that the "year" you posit supports your intended inference that the sample was rigged?  In other words, during the year, someone at Martha Jefferson Hospital colluded with an unknown person for unknown reasons to plant evidence that AA was FS? And they did this with the assumption that AA's supporters would be the party to request DNA testing? Perhaps there is evidence that AA's supporters were prompted to make this request. It would explain their subsequent dismay with the results, if they had been assured that the DNA would support AA's identification as Anastasia.

Frankly, it seems more probable to me that AA was a cousin of FS, or one of the myriad other theories that have been advanced to explain away the DNA. How probable? Not at all, but that's me.

Simon
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on October 19, 2005, 12:41:43 PM
I have been told by FA that I'm not allowed to make speculations of "contamination" or "swtich".  So, all I am doing is placing here in these posts the "Timeline" and highlighting points I find interesting.

I will have to rely on comments from you, Louis-Charles,  and other posters  as to what you may conclude as we proceed through this Timeline.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: Louis_Charles on October 19, 2005, 03:51:49 PM
 ;D

Thanks, Bear.

That was a nice, circuitous way of answering my question, and I understand.

By the way, my name is not Louis Charles. It is Simon, and please feel free to call me by that.

Simon
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on October 19, 2005, 04:00:51 PM
Simon,

Glad you understand my position.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on October 20, 2005, 07:56:09 PM
4 Nov 1993- Crawford filed her petition
One can read in more detail a version of Crawford's claim on p. 205.  The highlights were:
a) Marina Schweitzer's petition was not valid because she was not related to Anastasia Anderson
b) using the tissue sample to discover the true identity of Anastasia Manahan would be usedful and cannot be achieved in the manner requested by Schweitzer.  p. 205 a quote:  >>...the Russian Nobility Association heaped further calumny on Dr. Gill:  his laboratory was said to represent "second-best scientific testing", and his samples were said to have been possibly "contaminated."<<  Attached to these remarks  about the possibly "contaminated" were affidavits from (1) Prince Alexis Scherbatow and (2) Dr. William Maples who praised Dr. King at UC Berkeley and her ability to preform  DNA test.

10 Nov 1993 -  Ellen Kailing-Romanov, a German citizen, petitioned to intervene.  She claimed to be the daughter of GD Anastasia

16 Nov 1993 - Richard Schweitzer told the court that he would not oppose tests by Dr. King at Berkeley  p. 208  >>...he would only oppose testing exclusively by Dr.  King. <<

Out of court the various sides talked.

7 Dec 1993 -
(1) Judge Swett allowed both  the Russian Nobility Assoc., and Mrs. Kailing-Romanov to inervene in the suit.


(2) Dr. Mary-Clarie King wrote and notarized an affidavit comtradicting what Dr. Maples had said about Dr. Gill's competence.  

Dr. King wrote:  p. 210:
>>I have been working for the past seven months on the identification of the skeletal remains of the nine individuals believed to include Tsar Nicholas II and the members of his family," she said, "I have also received blood and tissue samples from descendants of Tsar Nicholas and his wife, Alexandra." <<  

date? Dec 1993
Judge Swett told the three parties to  p. 213:
>>..meet, confer, and resolve among themselves the questions of how and where the tissue should be tested.  If the quantity of tissue was sufficient,  he instructed that parallel tests be done by Dr. Gill and Dr. King.<<

10 Jan 1994
Place of the meeting between parties would take place in Charlottesville office of Page William's, the hospital lawyer's, office.  Those present were:
1) Richard Schweitzer who reprsented his wife Marina
2) Page Williams who represented the Martha Jefferson Hosptial
3) Matthew Murray the other attorney who respresented Martha Jeff. Hosp.
4) Dr. Willi Koerte  replaced Lindsey Crawford  and represented the RNA

21 Jan 1994 - Ulrich von Gienanth whom AA had named as one of her four executors signed a "declaration" that he accepted the role of executor of AA.  If his status was accpeted by the court,  his power of executor would supersede Scheitzer nd all others. p. 217

One year and five months later,  Dr. Gill and Dr. King have not received the samples of intestines.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on October 24, 2005, 04:06:43 PM
22 Jan 1994- Another court appearance occured.  Present were Richard Schweizer, Matthew Murray, Linsey Crawford and Page Williams.  Judge Swett asked if all parties were in an agreement.  

"No."

Case was dismissed due to the entry of von Gienanth as executor of AA's estate which included her sample of intestines.

Swett said a new lawsuite could be tissued.

Legal manuvers were made.  Judge Swett had to review, clarify, modify his nonsuit order.  A law was found which stated that von Gienanth would have to appear in person... The old man was too old and couldn't fly and was eliminated.... from the case.

5 March 1994- New hearing and Judge Swett ruling rejected Andrew & Kurths and said that if Marina Schweitzer wanted to terminate this case she had a right to do so.  Also Mary Claire-King's affidavit (written 7 Dec 1993) was entered into the case.  If Andrews and Kurth wish to continue they needed to gain and injunction and must so file.

15 March 1994 - Injunction by Andrew and Kurth was filed.   Andrews and Kurth wanted a "a parallel testing of the tissue samples at two qualified laboriatories" p. 220.

16 March 1994 - Ed Deets, a friend of Richard Schweitzer,  was sworn in as personal representative and administrator of Anastasia Manahan's estate in Virigina.

30 March 1994- Another hearing in Judge Swett's courtroom.  Present were Matthew murray, Page Williams, Alexis Scherbatow, Marina and Richard Schweitzer, ed Deets, Penny Jenkins, Julian Nott, Ron Answen, Massie, Dr. Korte and Dr. Adrian Ivinson.  This was about the injunction.

11 May 1994 -  FInal court hearing took place.  Case was dismissed.

19 May 1994 - Swett gave Andrews & Kurth 30 days to file an appeal.  No appeal waas filed,  Case was over.

19 June 1994 - Peter Gill arrived in Charlottesville to collect a sample of Anastasia Manahan's tissue.

p. 225 Massie tells us the details:
>>Gill had lunch that day with the Schweitzers and then went to the hspital to collect the tissue.  He was greeeter there by Ed Deets, Matthew Murray, Penny Jenkins, and Dr. Hunt Macmillian, director of the hospital pathology laboratory.  While the layers and nonscientists watche from the back of the room and a documentary filem crew recorded everything that happened, the process got under way.  Macmillan, Gill and Betty Eppard, a resgiestered histology technician who actually cut the tissue, appeared ... The five blocks of paraffin containing the embedded tissue...were produced, and the same procedure was repeated five times:  Macmillan handed Gill a tissue block and identified it.  Gill sterilized it and handed it to Eppard...." <<

And so it went.  The tissue was placed in sterilized vials which were tamper proof....

Gill did not take the sample that day.

29 June 1994- Ten days after the slicing of the sample,  Peter Gill collected the tissue in Charlottesville.

So, it  took from 20 Aug 1992 to 29 June 1994, which was just short of two months of being two years,  before Peter Gill was taking the tissue sample to his lab.

AGRBear

Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on October 24, 2005, 04:11:40 PM
When did Mary-Claire King recieve her samples?

I don't have any dates from Massie.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on January 16, 2006, 12:38:02 PM
>>Finally, on February 28, 1967, the Court of Apeals announced it decision.<<  >>...the death of Grand Duchess Anastasia at Ekaterinburg cannot be accepted as conclusively historical fact..."<<

So, the German courts as late as 1967 concluded that the death of GD Anastasia was not proven.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: etonexile on January 16, 2006, 05:14:46 PM
Quote
>>Finally, on February 28, 1967, the Court of Apeals announced it decision.<<  >>...the death of Grand Duchess Anastasia at Ekaterinburg cannot be accepted as conclusively historical fact..."<<

So, the German courts as late as 1967 concluded that the death of GD Anastasia was not proven.

AGRBear


And a court said O.J. was innocent of murder....shrugs
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on January 17, 2006, 04:29:29 PM
I don't believe any of the people who were on the jury for O.J.'s trial were judges in AA's appeals or court trial.


Did any German court reverse this decision?

I don't believe the USA govt. has ever stated that the IF were murdered on the 16.17 July 1918.

Of course,  this doesn't mean AA was GD Anastasia, but it does keep doors open for a real claimant if any should ever be produced through a descendant.

And, no,  I don't know of anyone who is.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: ConstanceMarie on January 18, 2006, 02:13:13 PM
The death of Anastasia or any member of the family could not be proven then because no bodies were found. Now we even still have 2 bodies nobody found, these being Anastasia and Alexei. If the bodies never get found you will never know for sure how and when they died. But this does not mean that Anna Anderson was Anastasia.
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for[quote author=Louis_Charles li
Post by: AGRBear on January 28, 2006, 10:36:38 AM
I placed this here not to debate AA's mental state but for the time line of when Dr. Willige treated AA in 1931:

Quote
Dr. Willige treated Anna Andersen in 1931, and as you know from your reading, he was the last doctor who formally examined her for purposes of determining her mental health. She lived for over fifty years after that, so it is doubtful that his statements mattered much by the time she resided in Charlottesville, for example. He also distinguished between madness and psychopathic personality disturbance, of which there were signs even in 1931. (Kurth, 259-260). And while I think some weight must be given to the opinions of Willige, there have been enough advancements in the mental health field in terms of both diagnosis and treatment to make a 1931 estimation less than magisterial.

I post this here reluctantly, and will delete it and re-post on the new mental illness thread when everyone else does the same.

I have been unable to discover that any of the usual suspects --- Boodt, Goleniewski, Smith, etc. ---  recanted.

Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on May 03, 2006, 10:00:32 AM
For those of you not familar with various timelines which involved AA and the samples of the intestines,  I think this thread is important and will clearify some points, which includes the time it took for the hospital to find the sample of intestines to the point of times Dr. Gilles and King received the samples for their testing of DNA.

I do not believe AA was GD Anastasia. Nor do I believe we need to tangle up fact with misinformation to prove our case.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on June 25, 2007, 10:22:52 AM
Let me know if there are any corrections to the, now, dated material presented in my Timeline for AA.

Thanks.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on June 25, 2007, 10:24:33 AM
Correction:




Baby?   AA never said she was pregnant on the night of 18 July 1918. 

AGRBear

Oh come on bear. It's been well rehashed and discussed to death that AA said she had a baby in late 1918, meaning IF she did and IF anyone presumes she was AN, she would have to have been to have delivered a viable baby in Dec. In fact bear I found this old post of yours:

Here is some additional information from Penny on AA's child:


Quote

Yes.  She was quite adamant about the child's birth, and claimed a date in -- I think -- December 1918/January 1919 for the birth.  This is in the court records, along with her statement concerning the possible death of Alexander Tschaikowsky -- which AA claimed happened in a street-fight, but which can't be verified independently.

This date of birth, of course, places conception in the early months of 1918 -- unthinkable for people when the theory was that she was Anastasia, because that would mean one of two things:  That rape had happened in Tobolsk, on board the Rus, in the Ipatiev house, or all three; or Anastasia had had consensual sex while in captivity, presumably with a guard.  Either way, when she -- AA-as-Anastasia -- left the Ipatiev House in mid-July 1918, she was pregnant.




So, do the records state she said she had the baby in 1918? Isn't this in the Kurth book as well? (don't have a copy handy)

Of course, none of this means a thing as far as AN is concerned because she wasn't AA, but it does matter as far as AA's fabricated story goes.

I no longer can following the quote because the data has been removed.  I believe it came from the thread about  what may have occured on the Russ.

I believe since Penny's  post,  it was established that it wasn't  AA who voiced the date of birth in Dec 1918 / Jan. 1919,  which would have made her conception around the time of the journey on the Russ to Ekaterinburg.

Some else - I think it was Baron Von Kleist  - said the baby was born in 1918 and AA got really annoyed at this and said she didn't know the exact date.  She just knew - in 1922 - that he would be "around 3 years old".  this makes him born 1919 sometime but doesn't give us any indication whether it was at the beginning, middle or end of that year.


I believe the following was  presented to back up this correction:

>>AA had her baby in the autumn of 1919, this is verified in Harriet Rathlef Keilmann's book. Baron von Kleist set the date as December 5, 1918, but that was in fact the date when AA crossed the Dniestr into Moldavia according to the witness Sarsha Gregorian, who in May was paid 30.000 lei as thank you for his help. When AA heard of Baron von Kleist's date, she cried about his "lies" and said she did not even the date of the child's birth, only that it had been in autumn of 1919. (Rathlef-Keilmann). <<

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: Annie on June 25, 2007, 10:50:31 AM
So what we have here is a changed date, and/or conflicting reports? Not surprising, coming from liars and frauds trying to cover their tails/tales.
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on June 27, 2007, 09:06:18 PM
So what we have here is a changed date, and/or conflicting reports? Not surprising, coming from liars and frauds trying to cover their tails/tales.

???
To what and to whom are your directing your comments?

I presume you're not indicating that one of the posters was lying.    Just as   I assume you are speaking of AA and her story.

Many of us believe AA was not GD Anastasia,  therefore, we believe  her stories about  herself being the grand duchess are untrue.  However,  there is no reason for anyone to  place words in AA's mouth  if they came out of someone else's mouth.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: Annie on June 28, 2007, 09:22:59 AM
I'm talking about AA, Kliest, everyone involved in her fraudulent claim. AA never called him 'liar' for the date, only the name, Alexis. But I do also think it's funny how many posters, including you, used to stand behind that 'rape on the Rus' theory, and the date of Dec. 5, 1918, and now you just abandon it and say 'correction.' Okay so what is it? Whatever the facts really are, whether the child was born, premature, stillborn, miscarried or aborted, it was the child of FS, not AN. The date of AA's baby's birth can be conveniently switched around for whatever purpose it serves at the time, since it's just a fictional story anyway. It reminds me of the people who write alternate ending Star Wars fanfiction, no wait, I don't like that, let's change it! Let's say this person didn't die, they escaped! But wait, that story doesn't work, let's change it, yeah, that's better!
Title: Re: AA, Timeline for
Post by: AGRBear on June 29, 2007, 01:21:55 PM
I'm talking about AA, Kliest, everyone involved in her fraudulent claim. AA never called him 'liar' for the date, only the name, Alexis. But I do also think it's funny how many posters, including you, used to stand behind that 'rape on the Rus' theory, and the date of Dec. 5, 1918, and now you just abandon it and say 'correction.' Okay so what is it? Whatever the facts really are, whether the child was born, premature, stillborn, miscarried or aborted, it was the child of FS, not AN. The date of AA's baby's birth can be conveniently switched around for whatever purpose it serves at the time, since it's just a fictional story anyway. It reminds me of the people who write alternate ending Star Wars fanfiction, no wait, I don't like that, let's change it! Let's say this person didn't die, they escaped! But wait, that story doesn't work, let's change it, yeah, that's better!


Let us not confuse  AA giving birth to a child with that of  GD Anastasia life and the events on the Russ.    This is a thread about the "timeline for AA".

The only people who knew if AA had told anyone that she gave birth to a child on 5 Dec 1918 are the people who were invovled.  From what I understand,  AA  stuck to the story that  her pregnancy occured during her rescue  which would have occured after   the early morning hours of the 17th of July and along the trek to Bucharest.   People who gave testimony during AA's trail  claim  AA was not in  Rumania but still on the wrong side of the Russian border, therefore the birth could not have been in Bucharest  on the 5th of Dec but later....  At the moment,  I don't recall when AA claimed they reached Bucharest.

The date, 5 Dec 1918,  of birth of  AA's child came from von Kleist.   I have no idea if  he made it up or was told this information.   If I remember correctly,  I don't think he heard it directly from AA.

Now,  if you'd like to discuss AA's  time line,   I guess you'd have to count back 8 or 9 months from 5 Dec. 1918.   This would be  around April of 1918.    If you do not use this particular date then all you can give is a general time frame.

For those who believe that AA was GD Anastasia,  they believe conception,  if the date 5 Dec. 1918 is used,  would have been around April 1918.    Naturally, they'd turn  their attention to the events which were occuring in GD Anastasia's life.    One of the events was the trip on the Russ.  I believe several people wrote about  this trip.   Through Gibbs' son,  we learn that his father had told him about the grand duchesses "sceams"  which would haunt him to his death.

As for correcting the timeline for AA,   is there any reason I shouldn't.   I cannot think of any.   

AGRBear