Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Myth and Legends of Survivors => Topic started by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 12:47:05 AM

Title: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 12:47:05 AM
Ok, here's the deal:

1.   Dna evidence is not being considered for this thread.

2.  For the purposes of this thread, whether you agree in real life or not, the premise is that FS was not AA.  

3.  Let's review the evidence, pro and con.  HOWEVER.........

     - you must provide the sources for your claimed facts.
     - heresay evidence ("I heard she was a slut, it's a rumor, but...") is not allowed.
     - Sworn statements have more reliability than newspaper interviews.
     - the best posts will contain reasons for opinions and claims.  Not just gut feelings.

And of course, the newly-re-established rules of behavior apply.  FA will monitor, I presume, and personal insults and harassment, including harassment about the nature of this thread, will not be permitted.

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: lexi4 on August 04, 2005, 12:50:12 AM
Finelly,
Great topic! I will pull out my books and start to look for evidence to post. This could be a really interesting discussion.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 12:54:14 AM
Fact:  Gertrude, FS' sister, swore under oath that her sister had no scars, marks, or other distinguishing features on her body.  The affidavit was signed in Hamburg in 1953.

Fact:  In a sworn statement, FS' landlady stated that FS had no scars, moles, or distinguishing marks.

According to FS' medical records after the grenade explosion, FS had no scarring or injuries from the event.  Below is a post from Penny Wilson on another thread:

But about the grenade accident in the AEG Farben:  Franziska worked in some capacity on the production line.  Something she did caused a live grenade to fall to the ground where it detonated and killed one man.  She was understandably distraught, and was taken immediately to the factory's own hospital.  She was examined for physical injury, and was found to have none; she was detained for psychological observation because of the shock she had experienced.  All this was noted by the doctors in her records at that hospital.  The hospital is still in existence, and as it stands some distance from the city of Berlin (as did the factory), it survived WWII.

A few years ago, a researcher of my acquaintance accessed those hospital records for the first time.  There's nothing sinister or suspicious about the fact that they have been unaccessed for so long -- from WWII until the fall of the Iron Curtain, the hospital existed in East German territory and its records were unavailable.  Probably, many people forgot that this hospital had once serviced AEG Farben.  But this researcher-friend was thorough in his business, and he  was able, through proper channels, to get copies of these records.  I've seen them myself, and they state exactly what I have said above.  Take it or leave it, believe it or not.  Whatever.  It doesn't alter the truth of the records.

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: lexi4 on August 04, 2005, 01:42:39 AM
According to Peter Kurth, www.peterkurth.com
Gertrude said that FS has  ""no distinguishing bodily marks," in particular, scars, moles, or the congenital malformation of the feet—hallux valgus—that was seen in both Anna Anderson and Anastasia. She was never wounded in the grenade-factory explosion and wasn’t hospitalized until later.'
We know that AA had a scar along the side of her head, a shattered jaw, and a star shaped wound on her foot.
This scar stuff is very interesting. Who did AA get those scars and when? Family members said FS didn't have any scars like that. Kurth said she was not wounded in the factory explosion and this again confirmed by medical records that Penny has.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Annie on August 04, 2005, 06:32:09 AM
I don't see how anyone would know if a person had any scars or body marks if they had not seen them naked, or at least scantily clothed. But consider that in those days, women did not go about in shorts, halters or even short sleeves the way they do now. So really all anyone would see would be her hands and face.

And since doubt of evidence always comes into the other threads, think about the fact that the sister may have not WANTED anyone to believe it was her sister, so therefore 'threw off the trial'. Also, there is honest human error and just plain being mistaken to consider. People sometimes remember things wrong when they thought they were right. (like the old tub story I used to tell where 5 people saw a house and each one remembered the tub a different color and all swore they were right.)
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 10:05:54 AM
Sorry, opinion and conjecture do not meet the legal standard!  

Gotta have evidence and cite sources.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: etonexile on August 04, 2005, 10:09:17 AM
DNA evidence should always be considered...we can't un-know what we know....It's all the ear-measuring,foot sizes,hairlines and other pseudo-science that keeps alive the myth of AA as AN.....
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 10:13:46 AM
Well, this is the opposite of Annie's thread, in which the premise is that FS was AA.  In both threads, we didn't discuss the dna issue.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: etonexile on August 04, 2005, 10:14:58 AM
But you both should have.....
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 10:16:04 AM
<shrug>  
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Annie on August 04, 2005, 10:19:08 AM
Quote
DNA evidence should always be considered...we can't un-know what we know....It's all the ear-measuring,foot sizes,hairlines and other pseudo-science that keeps alive the myth of AA as AN.....


True, all that stuff is contradicted back and forth by various people. Some say this, some say that. Again I will bring up the story of the fans who all met the rock star yet all reported him as a different height, anywhere from 5'2" to 5'8" though all were standing right by him and all believed themselves to be correct. They'd actually fight over it, like we do here over AA!

As was discussed several months ago, the shoes and clothes really don't hold much either. They may not have been hers, come on, why would a woman who ran a boarding house keep one person's stuff for 18 years? Did she have that much room? Anyone would have tossed it or given it away years ago. There is also the possibility it wasn't hers at all, like the story I told about loaning the baby clothes to a friend, and she sent me back the wrong ones claiming they were mine but they were not. She honestly believed she was right, but it wasn't my stuff. Also, FS could have had charity clothes and shoes that did not fit, times were hard.

So really, all the he said she said stuff like that cancels itself out since none of it can be proven. I'm not saying anyone lied (though they may have) but human error, and distortion of memory in the mind's eye are very common among even the best of people. Since we don't know and will never know since all those people are dead and the shoes are in the trash, we can't prove anything that way.


Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Annie on August 04, 2005, 10:21:29 AM
Quote
But you both should have.....


I never said I didn't want to use it, I do believe in using it, but so many people here have so many conspiracy theories about switches and contamination and whatever I was trying to find another way to discount AA's claim.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 10:25:30 AM
Sorry, opinion and conjecture do not meet the legal standard!  

Gotta have evidence and cite sources.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 10:31:49 AM
Fact:  FS wore a size 39 shoe.  AA wore a size 36 shoe.  (interview of Gertrude in 1927)

Fact:  FS had dark, almost black hair.  AA had light, sandy-red hair.  (interview of Gertrude in 1927, interview of WIngender family in 1927)

Fact:  FS was big-boned and stocky, sturdily-built.  AA was tiny and frail.  (interviews of Gertrude, Wingender family in 1927. Also, sworn statement of Gertrude, 1953)

Fritz Shuricht was a private investigator who conducted the above interviews in Hamburg.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Mgmstl on August 04, 2005, 10:35:06 AM
We also need to cite the Grossman theory here, I will start working on that in a few hours.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 10:35:51 AM
Thanks, Michael!
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Annie on August 04, 2005, 10:51:30 AM
Quote
Fact:  FS wore a size 39 shoe.  AA wore a size 36 shoe.  (interview of Gertrude in 1927)

Fact:  FS had dark, almost black hair.  AA had light, sandy-red hair.  (interview of Gertrude in 1927, interview of WIngender family in 1927)

Fact:  FS was big-boned and stocky, sturdily-built.  AA was tiny and frail.  (interviews of Gertrude, Wingender family in 1927. Also, sworn statement of Gertrude, 1953)




None of these are 'facts' but comments that may or may not be accurate or correct. These things can be listed as 'exhibit' or potential evidence, but calling them FACTS is taking too great a liberty (and I am trying hard to not post the REAL 'fact' which you don't want in your thread)
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 10:53:03 AM
Given the legal standard which is being followed, it is appropriate to call the above posted items "facts", since they are substantiated by sources and citations.

Now, facts may contradict other facts.  But this place is where we are putting facts that distinguish FS from AA.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: etonexile on August 04, 2005, 10:53:05 AM
Quote
Fact:  FS wore a size 39 shoe.  AA wore a size 36 shoe.  (interview of Gertrude in 1927)

Fact:  FS had dark, almost black hair.  AA had light, sandy-red hair.  (interview of Gertrude in 1927, interview of WIngender family in 1927)

Fact:  FS was big-boned and stocky, sturdily-built.  AA was tiny and frail.  (interviews of Gertrude, Wingender family in 1927. Also, sworn statement of Gertrude, 1953)

Fritz Shuricht was a private investigator who conducted the above interviews in Hamburg.


Wrong shoe sizes(My Mummy crams her feet into smaller shoes to seem to have smaller feet),hair colouring(Again,Mummy is a NATURAL blonde....just ask her hairdresser),old age aside...the DNA of AA was a match for the S family....Why was that?
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 10:53:43 AM
Sorry, opinion and conjecture do not meet the legal standard!  

Gotta have evidence and cite sources.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: etonexile on August 04, 2005, 10:56:52 AM
None of that "Thinking-Outside-The-Box" malarky then...?
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Annie on August 04, 2005, 10:57:05 AM
All the he said she said descriptions are contradicted by others, so none are of any value. This stuff is all SUBJECTIVE- just opinion, cannot be proven. Even if a person swore to the statement it doesn't mean they weren't lying or just plain mistaken or remembering wrong. Human error is a huge factor here,  like I said about the tub and the rock star. People remember things differently and all think they are right. Not everyone is.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 10:57:29 AM
Nope.  This is for substantiated facts, with sources cited.  
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Annie on August 04, 2005, 10:59:15 AM
Also to support the weakness of this 'evidence', it did not help her court case, she did not win.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Mgmstl on August 04, 2005, 11:22:55 AM
Quote
All the he said she said descriptions are contradicted by others, so none are of any value. This stuff is all SUBJECTIVE- just opinion, cannot be proven. Even if a person swore to the statement it doesn't mean they weren't lying or just plain mistaken or remembering wrong. Human error is a huge factor here,  like I said about the tub and the rock star. People remember things differently and all think they are right. Not everyone is.




Yes but you seem to revel in he said she said heresay, while, ignoring affadavits, sworn testimony, actual evidence.  I just realized in looking back, I don't think you have ever quoted a source in the year or so that I have been on this forum, that is truly amazing.    

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Annie on August 04, 2005, 11:55:37 AM
Quote



Yes but you seem to revel in he said she said heresay, while, ignoring affadavits, sworn testimony, actual evidence.



Like I said, you can wipe your hands on those 'affadavits'. We have a family who was trying to get out of claiming a troublesome sister, for her own good as well as theirs. We have people who barely knew her giving flawed (not necessarily intentionally) info MANY years after seeing her last. Just because someone put it on paper doesn't mean it's true. Again, HUMAN ERROR and inaccurate memory play a big part.
 

Quote
I just realized in looking back, I don't think you have ever quoted a source in the year or so that I have been on this forum, that is truly amazing.    



I know I have, even if it was from another person's post. But I continually quote the scientific evidence, though you choose to ignore it.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 12:05:46 PM
Michael and Annie - could you keep your arguments off this particular thread, please?  Either take it to pms, or to the other thread.

I really would like to see this thread focus SOLELY on the topic and the presumptions set forth in the first post.

Thanks!
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: AGRBear on August 04, 2005, 03:08:36 PM
This quote talks about photographs and shows Wingender may not have been as honest a witness and some of you'd like to believe:

Quote
During the court trial of 1958-61 the photographs of Wingender were presented.  

Wingender said that the one photo was of Franziska

Wingender said one was of Schanzkowska in the summer of 1922 and then there was one of herself in 1920.  Both were wearing the same dress.

The experts discovered that the one photographs which was FS  had been altered and buttons had been added and that the two dresses were not the same.  The photo of Wingender had also been altered and someone in the photo had been removed.

These photos were important because it was how Wingender was proving she had seen FS in 1922 during the time frame when AA's time is not accountable.

Wingender than refused to swear a oath that she was speaking the truth about FS.  She refused to return to court.

I'll have to dig around for the information on the changes made to FS's photo of her standing with an apron near some trees.
AGRBear


I don't recall what book I found this.  I'll have to find it but will express the source as soon as I remember.


AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: AGRBear on August 04, 2005, 03:30:58 PM
Events occuring during trial of AA's continued:

>>Wollmann would not let up.  He had located a copy of  Die Woche,  the Berlin magazine in which, said Doris, she had first recognized Franziska Schanzkovksa in a phograph of Anastasia.

"In this photograph?" Wollmann asked.

"Yes."

"And it was seeing this picture which allowed you to conclude that the invalid at Castle Seeon...was your Polish girl?"

"Yes."

"I suppose the fifteen hundred marks weren't going to be paid unless you made an identification."

Correct. As soon as the identification was made."

Wollmann handed the magazine to the judges.  The photograph of Anastasia's face, they saw, was little more than a smudge of ink...."

"Why," said Judge Baethge, "from that you could recognize anybody or notbody."

Doris got the point.  Dominque Aucleres observed that she had gone "as white as the wall."

"I'm sick!" she cried,  "I've got the flu!"<<

After these outburst Wollmann demanded Doris Wingender go through the process of giveing her oath to swear what she had said was true.

>>While they were arguing Doris Wingender slipped from the room.  She never came back.  And ... <<

Here it is pps 348-9  ANASTASIA, THE RIDDLE OF ANNA ANDERSON by Peter Kurth.


AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 03:35:06 PM
Right.  She was completely discredited at the trial.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: AGRBear on August 04, 2005, 03:58:51 PM
p. 305 ANASTASIA, THE RIDDLE OF ANNA ANDERSON by Peter Kurth:

>>"Do you mean there are no photographic exhibits that might permit us to identify the plaintiff with Franziska Schanzkowska?"  Werkmeister asked finally, shaking his head.  But there were.  Doris Wigender brought two pictures out of her bag now.  One depicted herself in 1920, wearing, she said, the famous blue suit she had given to Franziska in the summer of 1922, when Anastasia was missing fro the home of Baron von Kleist.  The ssecond picture showed Anastasia later on in the Tiergarten.  "You are going to see the same suit in this photograph," said Doris triumphantly, hnding the photographs to the judge.

Wekmeister looed at the pictures in silence.  Then he looked back at Doris and said with a frown, "But something has been erased on this picture of you."

Yes, said Doris, that was true.  In thhe original photograph a man had been standing at her should:  "I had his face removed because at the time certain wicked people wer accusing me of having loose morals."<<

p. 306

The conversation then covers the dress down to it's buttons.

The judges made a decision to have experts to check the two photographs.

While the experts checked the photographs over on p. 307,  the witness Bruno Grandsitzki was called and talked about his meeting with Franziska at Danzig in July of 1920....

Still looking for the page where it tells us what experts thought about  Doris'  two photographs....

Ahh, here it is p. 308:

>>.. October 1958, the police experts a Hamburg-Altona delievered their repot on Doris Wingender's pictures.  The clothing in the two potographs, the police informed, was not only not identical, but on one of the suits  "the buttons and the belt have been drawn in after the fact."

Source they used was #79 Police report of Oct 1, 1958. Hamburg.

AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 04, 2005, 05:07:38 PM
Quote

We have a family who was trying to get out of claiming a troublesome sister, for her own good as well as theirs....


No, no, no and NO!  We don't have this at all!  This is nothing but your personal conjecture!  PLEASE don't start presenting it as proven fact -- this will "mislead" students reading this thread as much as anything you have named.

No Schanzkowsky, past or present, has EVER said that they were trying to "get out of claiming a troublesome sister."  This is a fact.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Annie on August 04, 2005, 05:23:27 PM
Quote

No, no, no and NO!  We don't have this at all!  This is nothing but your personal conjecture!  PLEASE don't start presenting it as proven fact -- this will "mislead" students reading this thread as much as anything you have named.

No Schanzkowsky, past or present, has EVER said that they were trying to "get out of claiming a troublesome sister."  This is a fact.


Of course they're not going to SAY it! There is no proof of that because naturally they would not keep a record of it. We don't really know, it seems very likely to me, it makes perfect sense. As I have stated before, they had very valid reasons to avoid claiming her, it would only have been more pain and trouble for her and all of them. She didn't want to be claimed! Even you say they do not like to talk about the AA story. Well, why? If she was really no connection to them why would they care? It's because the whole episode is so embarrassing and hurtful to them, it would seem.

While we're investigating and speculating all over the place around here, we can't ruel out that the possibility exists, and is much more reasonable than an intestine switch, or even AA's alleged 2,800 mile cart journey.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 05:43:40 PM
Annie, I am going to ask you once again to put any posts that do not have substantiation, i.e. a source/cite, on another thread.

THIS thread is about evidence, actual evidence, and is confined only to that.  Please don't disrupt what is a very good thread so far.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: lexi4 on August 04, 2005, 08:03:02 PM
From Robert Massie "The Romanovs The Final Chapter" page 180

Here is the second meeting of the Schanz. family with AA.
"...in 1938, the claimant had a final confrontation with the Schanzkowski family. A decree from the Nazi regime in Berlin summoned her to a room where four Schanz., two brothers and two sisters, were waiting. She walked back and forth while teh Schanz. started at her and spoke in low voices. Finally, one brother announced, 'No this lady looks too different.' The meeting seemed at an end when suddenly Gertrude Schan hammered fer fists on the table and shouted 'You are my sister. You are my sister. I know it! You must recognize me!' The policeman stared at Mrs Tschaikovsky, and calmly, she stared back. 'What am I supposed to say?' she asked. The two brothers and the other sister were embarrassed and tried to quiet Gertrude, who shouted louder, 'Admit it! Admit it!' A few minutes later, everyone went home."

More. This from Peter Kurth www.peterkurth.com

Elsewhere, we read that Anna Anderson knew nothing about the Romanov family that couldn’t be found in newspapers, magazines and books—thus obliging Franziska Schanzkowska to make a huge, ongoing study of popular literature in two or three languages she didn’t know:  between 1916 and 1920, while Franziska supposedly lay "bedridden at the Wingenders’", no intimate account of the tsar’s family had been published in Berlin. Even the famous “Sokolov report,” detailing the murder of the Russian imperial family at Ekaterinburg, never appeared in a German edition before 1936, when it was used—as it was always meant to be used—to incite anti-Communism and, by extension, anti-Semitism (So begann der Bolschewismus! was the German title of Sokolov’s book).
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 06, 2005, 04:32:39 PM
(Same rules than the other similar threads: "101 Reasons AA was FS", "101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia"- No discussions here, nor arguments. Only facts...And of course, GIVE THE SOURCE of every points, if you can)

1- The only photography portraying FS clearly was retouched (Peter Kurth, Dominique Auclères, Jimmy Blair Lovell. This was cofirmed by experts in one of the AA trials in Germany)

2-Doris Wingender, the lady who recognized AA as FS, had always a little notebook with her, where she had written down all she remembered about Franziska. She never spoke about her without reading from this notebook, as if she didn't know very well the matter (Harriet Rathlef- Peter Kurth)

3- AA was different hands than FS. AA had slender, beatifully kept hands; FS had short, rough hands. (Peter Kurth; Jimmy Blair Lovell, Harriet Rathlef)

4- AA had different feets than FS. AA had ugly feet, with huge bunions and hallux valgus deformity. FS had beatiful feets. Any deformities in them. AA had different shoe number than FS. It's not only that (for some woman wore small sized shoes to fake perfect feets) AA was big feets. FS little feets (Same sources than above)

5- If we read Felix Schanzkovsky statement, his sister spoke "good German" and "a little Polish" . AA spoke a bad, broken German and if she could speak only "a little Polish", this would have been useles to her to understand Russian (Same sources than above)

6- FS suffered an accident in the grenade factory where she worked, but she didn't have any scar after it. Only her nerves broke severely. AA was plenty of scars, especially in the head. (Same sources than above)

To be continued!  ;)

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 06, 2005, 07:43:07 PM
7-AA was very tiny, finelly- boned woman of barely 5 feet 2 inches in height. Franziska was "sturdy", "big-boned", coarse and grubby  (Remember tha  the weight may change and a fat woman would become a thin one. But bones doesn't change. There is many people very thin but big-boned (Peter Kurth-Harriet Von Rathlef)

8-FS hair was "dark, almost black"- AA's one was light chestnut (or dark blonde) with a red sheen (It couldn't be that she "painted her hair", for anyone saw her doing so in Dalldorf, nor in the Stillachaus. You know that if you doesn't tan your hair for some time, the rots would appear , darker, in the top of the head) Besides, hair could get darker with age, but not lighter. (Same source than above)

9- AA could play the piano- FS was not able to play any instrument.

10-FS was remembered, by a teacher, as "more limited than intelligent" AA was certainly very intelligent. She always could get almost all that she wanted. (Peter Kurth)

11-FS was SIX TIMES of her life in psychiatric hospitals IN BERLIN . This was BEFORE 1920...However, when AA was summoned to Dalldorf in 1920, after trying to kill herself drowning in the Landwehr Canal, and was named "Miss Unknown" , and her photos were shown in all psychiatric and sanatoriums in Berlin and Germany, NOBODY identified her as FS. (Peter Kurth-Dominique Auclères-Jimmy Blair Lovell)

12-AA appeared in Berlín in February 1920-FS was reported disappeared by the Wingenders in March of the same year (Decaux, Peter Kurth, Dominique Auclères. Harriet von Rathlef)

13- After the death of her "fiancé", FS became "promiscuous" , as Doris Wingender stated- AA seemed indiferent to sex or love relationships with men (Same source than above)

14-In the 1958-1961 AA trial, judges shown a whole set of photos with many persons in it, asking Doris Wingender if she could identify FS in them. Doris "recognized FS in all of them...excent in the ONLY one where Franziska would appear" (Dominique Auclères-Peter Kurth- Jimmy Blair Lovell)

15- In the 1958-1961 trials in Germany, Doris Wingender watched the only photo where FS was present, and pointed that she was wearing the same blue suit she had given to FS in the 1922 summer. But the judge Werkmeister looked the photo in silence and said: "But something has been erased on this picture of you". Sometime later , the experts found out that the buttons in the belt has been "added" later, drawing them over it. (Auclères-Kurth-Lovell)

16- A witness, Bruno Grandsitzki, meet Franziska at Danzig in July 1920, at the time when AA was already in Dalldorf. (Peter Kurth-Dominique Auclères)

RealAnastasia.

More to come soon!

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 06, 2005, 09:24:01 PM
17- It was said that Ernest of Hesse payed the Detective Knopf, clearly to relate FS story to AA. (Peter Kurth-Blair Lovell-Auclères-von Rathlef)

18-The people who claimed her to be FS, lied about too many points of FS story. If it was true,What was the use to lie? (Retouching photos-addind things in a photo drawing them over it.)

19-Doris Wingender was payed by the Scherl Press right to recognize AA as FS. She would have fifteen hundred marks AFTER she recgnize her . Why was the need to pay anyone if AA was indeed FS? Doris Wingender admited, in a conversation with Dr. Wilhelm Völler, Von Rathlef's attorney, over a dinner in the Regina Palast, that she had a contract with the "Nachtausgabe", a German popular paper. (von Rathelf; Auclères; Peter Kurth)

RealAnastasia

More to come!

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Kransnoeselo on August 06, 2005, 09:25:21 PM
17.  According to her family, Franziska had never been pregnant, while  it was determined by a German physician that AA had indeed given birth to a child.

18.  Franziska did not know English or Russian-two languages which Anna spoke during the first part of the 1920's. AA spoke Russian like a "native" and in a manner which would have been perfectly acceptable to the Imperial circles.  (Franziska primary language was German.  She spoke "some" Polish. Polish is not similar to Russian- they use two completely different alphabets- Russian uses Cyrillic but Polish uses the same alphabet as English, French and Spanish.)

19.  Franziska was taller than the Windgender sisters-but AA was shorter than both of them.

20.  AA had remarkable blue eyes-  even those who denounced her-Pierre Gillard, Olga Alexandrovna, etc commented on her eyes unique shade of blue.  Not one of the relatives or aquaintances of Franziska could recall the color of her eyes.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 07, 2005, 02:39:34 PM
23- It seems that Martin Knopf, the detective who discovered Franziska's story, said that he would tell his participation in the fraud to anyone who would paid him 5.OOO $ (von Rathlef; Jimmy Blair Lovell)

24-AA was very short; FS was very tall. More tall than her own siblings. (Peter Kurth; Von Rathlef)

25-When Doris Wingender was founding lying in her deposition to the judges, she suddenly felt sick, became very pale, and started to stutter: " I have the flu!". (Peter Kurth; Dominique Auclères)

More to come!

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 07, 2005, 03:13:26 PM
26- The Second trial in Germany, concluded that the judges couldn't said if AA was AN or not, but that she wasn't FS for sure (Peter Kurth, Dominique Auclères; James Blair Lovell)

27- Whe she was under anesthesia, or in delire, AA never spoke about her "Schanzkovsky" past, nor called out any of her siblings or speak about her work in a grenade factory (Personal observation)

RealAnastasia.
More to come!
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: etonexile on August 07, 2005, 03:26:36 PM
And the DNA of AA just happened to be a match for that of known S family members....and you can completely ignore this coincidence?
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Ssyentz on August 07, 2005, 10:05:48 PM
One can be an "S" without being "FS."
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 07, 2005, 10:44:30 PM
Yeah. But this is not a thread to discuss the reasons; only to quote them. Of course she may be "S" Without being "FS". That's certain.

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Ssyentz on August 07, 2005, 11:07:51 PM
Exactly!
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Finelly on August 07, 2005, 11:58:22 PM
My daughters, my mother, my sons, my great grandmother, her 6 children, all share the same dna.

Which one of us is named Paul?
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 08, 2005, 02:41:14 AM
Quote
One can be an "S" without being "FS."


Yes, of course one can be an "S" without being an "FS", but the whole point here is that the chances of this happening in this particular situation are statistically less then 99.9%. This is what I and others have been trying to explain all along, but it seems not to come across for some reason. Talk to a statistician about this case, and you will then understand  :).
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: etonexile on August 08, 2005, 10:00:48 AM
Yes...F is the S family member who went missing....I can't imagine that there were too many S family members of her description missing at the same time....
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 09, 2005, 06:10:00 AM
You see, the whole point is that AA's mtDNA turned out to be consistent with her being the person that she was suspected of being for a very long time. The chances of this happening randomly, as you claim, are basically none. That's the main point of all this.

Your argument that AA could have been an "S" but not necessarily "FS" could only be valid if they had no idea who AA was to begin with, then the DNA test was done and she matched a random family of which she was then suspected to be the member of, i.e. the S family.  If this were the case, any statistician would agree: yes, AA could have been any maternally descended member of this family.

But no, this is not what happened. AA was for many years suspected (and accused) of being one "Fransicska Schankowska" (sp?), initially as per the private investigator hired to find out who she was, and also others, including initially her sister.

Only after many years, the DNA test was done to confirm whether she could indeed have been this person and the DNA did confirm that she had the "right" DNA. Again, statistically, the chances of this happening randomly are, for all intents and purposes, nil. Thus, we can very safely conclude that AA could not have been anyone else but FS, not even any other random member of that family.

No matter what anyone says, the science and the statistics speak a lot louder than the testimonies of eyewitnesses,  - as is always the case (and that's all we have really for the contradicting evidence: things were reported to be this way or that - she was reported to have black hair, or size 8 shoe, or whatever).

This is why I am not even sure why AA's identity is still being seriously challenged...  ??? Challenging something like this is indeed like challenging that the earth is still flat just because you can't see that it is round and can't understand the proof that it is round...  Prove to a 2 year child that the earth is round, if the child does not even understand the concept of gravity for instance - to him the earth has to be flat, no matter what you say. You can't prove this to him, until this child grows up and gains the ability to think in abstract terms. Unfortunately, there seem to be a lot of adults out there who still can't seem to be able to think in those terms either...

What you guys should be discussing is how can all the discrepencies that apparently contradict the science be explained, not the fact that these discrepencies render the science wrong. And in fact, I am more than sure that there are perfectly logical explanations for these discrepencies, because the science in this case is absolutely not wrong, no matter how you look at it.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: etonexile on August 09, 2005, 09:45:22 AM
Yes...it would make an interesting thread...why AA seemed to match AN in various ways,knowing as we do today that she wasn't Anastasia,and was most likely FS.
A very strange story.....
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Annie on August 09, 2005, 09:50:29 AM
Thank you Helen! I was hoping you'd come back and explain it to the new people since you are an expert.

People who say she was an S but not FS, who? Did she have a mysterious identical cousin who went missing exactly the same time as FS, and in the same place, isn't that more than a stretch?
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: AGRBear on August 09, 2005, 10:57:04 AM
This is not a thread about discussions .  It is about writing a list of alll the reasons the posters believe or find evidence of  AA not being FS.

The creator of this thread wrote how she wanted this thread to be conducted.  

Those of you who have a difficult time allowing this kind of thread  PLEASE,  we understand, however, repect the original posters directions.

For those of you who do not underrstand, PM me and I'll try to explain it, again, so you can understand how simple this task is.

If you have difficulty with a particular post or would like to know more about a post,  then, start your own thread.  Respect this thread and  you'll find others will repect yours when you create one.

Thank you.

Respectfully,

AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Mgmstl on August 09, 2005, 12:55:04 PM
Quote
Annie, I am going to ask you once again to put any posts that do not have substantiation, i.e. a source/cite, on another thread.

THIS thread is about evidence, actual evidence, and is confined only to that.  Please don't disrupt what is a very good thread so far.



Still trying to gather more Grossman data.  For our review.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: lexi4 on August 09, 2005, 01:35:40 PM
Great Michael. I will look forward to that.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 09, 2005, 09:10:19 PM
28- Doris Wingender identified AA as FS watching an AA pic in a German newspaper. But there was a big trouble with this photo. I'll quote Peter Kurth account of the Germany Trial (Second Instance-1964-1967) here: "...Wollmann would not let up. He had located a copy of 'Die Woche', the Berlin magazine in which, said Doris, she had first recognized Franziska Schanzkovska in a photograph of Anastasia.

-'...In this photograph?-Wollmann asked.

-'Yes'.

-'And it was on seeing THIS picture that you went off to the 'Nachtausgabe'?'

-'Yes. I don't feel well.

-'And it was   THIS picture which allowed you to conclude that the invalid at the Castle Seeon...was your Polish girl?'

-'Yes'

-' I suppose the fifteen hundred marks wewrn't going to be paid unless you made an identification'

-'Correct. As soon as the identification was made'

Wallmann handed the magazine to the Judges. The photograph of Anastasia's face, they saw was little more than a smudge of ink-a white blob with two black circles for eyes and another were the mouth was supposed to be.

-'Why - said Judge Bäthge-' from that you could recognize anydody or nobody'.

Doris got to the point . Dominique Auclères observed that she had gone as white as the wall.

-'I'm sick!- she cried -'I've got the flu!"..." (Peter Kurth-Dominique Auclères)

More to come!

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 09, 2005, 10:27:02 PM
Quote
Right.  She was completely discredited at the trial.


To the best of my knowledge, she is the main source for the height issue (FS being taller than AA). So why is that aspect of her testimony being held onto here with nothing to back it up?(Unless I've totally missed something and her "height statements" are backed up by another source?)
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 10, 2005, 02:51:45 AM
Quote
This is not a thread about discussions .  It is about writing a list of alll the reasons the posters believe or find evidence of  AA not being FS.

The creator of this thread wrote how she wanted this thread to be conducted.  

Those of you who have a difficult time allowing this kind of thread  PLEASE,  we understand, however, repect the original posters directions.

For those of you who do not underrstand, PM me and I'll try to explain it, again, so you can understand how simple this task is.

If you have difficulty with a particular post or would like to know more about a post,  then, start your own thread.  Respect this thread and  you'll find others will repect yours when you create one.

Thank you.

Respectfully,

AGRBear



So basically you are commanding us not to have a discussion thread but to just militaristically post various statements?

But last I checked, this was still a discussion forum, which means people can discuss things, back and forth. "Discuss" means you exchange facts, ideas and opinions, and present challenges to other people's statements. If you still don't understand what this term means, PM me, and I will explain to you in more detail.

It seems to me that we are becoming a bit dictatorial here, no? We are no longer permitted to have discussions - the kinds of discussions this forum was originally intended for - but have to just post things and everyone has to just read what is posted and move on...  ? Very strange. Perhaps FA can clarify for us what we can and can't do on this discussion forum?

P.S. AGR, I am strongly convinced that you would have loved living under the Soviet regime and working in the Gulag perhaps! :o
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: AGRBear on August 10, 2005, 09:26:32 AM
If you have difficulty with a particular post or would like to know more about a post,  then, start your own thread.  Respect this thread and  you'll find others will repect yours when you create one.

Example:  101 Reasons AA Not FS Dissussion
or
Example: 101 Reasons AA IS FS Disscussion

Yes, I and others realize this is difficult for some of you.

Quote

...[in part]...

... AGR, I am strongly convinced that you would have loved living under the Soviet regime and working in the Gulag perhaps! :o


I've ask FA to serve warning to Helen because of our new "zero tolerance" rule.

Since this is not my thread.  This is Penny's thread who stated:

>>(  The rules: no discussion here -- there are other threads for that ...) <<

 I will make no farther comment to posters who are lacking respect for  the topic of this thread and the rules presented by the creator which are VERY CLEAR.

29. is next.


Respectfully,
 
AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Annie on August 10, 2005, 03:19:17 PM
Quote
Since this is not my thread.  This is Penny's thread who stated:

>>(  The rules: no discussion here -- there are other threads for that ...) <<

 I will make no farther comment to posters who are lacking respect for  the topic of this thread and the rules presented by the creator which are VERY CLEAR.

29. is next.


Respectfully,
 
AGRBear


But I thought no one could own a thread? When it was 'my' thread, people would say 'no one owns a thread, last time I checked we could post what we want' So does that only go for people you agree with? How are the rules different now that someone you disagree with has broken the 'rules' of an 'owned' thread, I mean, especially since everyone misbehaved in 'my' thread and lectured me that they could do what they want? So is it hypocrisy?  Besides, Helen has been gone fora long time, and was not aware the 'rules' had changed, if you changed them!

Helen is an expert, and her advice is always welcome. She has done a lot to explain the difference between truth and theory, and how and why things cannot be as you may think. She is more than a valuable asset to our discussions.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Mgmstl on August 10, 2005, 04:16:50 PM
Quote


Still trying to gather more Grossman data.  For our review.


Here is some of the Grossman dossier I have been able to gather from other threads, and from the web.  There isn't a great deal out there yet.


Since  all I have is a 3/4 page mention of Grossmann from a book about murderers, Encyclopedia of Murder by Wilson and Pitman, I can't give you much more than I already have.

p. 243-4

"GROSSMANN, Georg Karl

"German mass-murderer, born in Neurueppin in 1863, who, like Denke, commited sudice before his execution."

"The case has many resemblances to the Denke murders.  In August 1921 the owner of a top-storey flat in Berlin near the Silesian railway terminus heard sounds of a sstruggle coming from the kitchen and called police. They found on Grossmann's kitchen bed (camp bed) the trussed-up carcass of a recently killed girl.....  He picked up girls with great regularity (in fact, he seldom spent a night alone).  He killed many of these sleeping partners and sold the bodies for meat, disposing the unsaleable parts in the river.  (The case becme known as the Die Braut auf der Stulle-- 'the bread and butter brides', since a companion for the night is known as a 'bride' in Germany.) At the time of his arrest, evidence was found which indicated that three women had been killed and dismembered in the past three weeks."

"...It is of interest that Grossmann was indirectly invovled in the famous 'Anastasia case....  At one point it was annouced that "Anastasia" was really an imposter named Franziska Schamzkovski, a Polish girl from Buetow in Pomerania.  Franziska's family were told their daughter had been murder by Grossmann on 13 August 1920; an entry in his diary on that date bore the name "Sasnovski".... "

"...The number of his victims will never be known, but they may well have exceeded Haarmann's total of fifty, since he was 'in business' throughout the war until 1921...."

AGRBear

>>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  

Re: FS and the Serial Killer Theory
« Reply #35 on: Feb 22nd, 2005, 12:15pm »  Quote  Modify  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*sigh*

There are copies of Grossmann's trial transcripts -- or the German version thereof -- extant in at least one town in Germany.  Berlin, as we all know, was hideously bombed by the Allies at the end of WWII, and many, many buildings were destroyed along with their contents.  One of these buildings stored Berlin police records and archives; however, then as now, there were people interested in the phenomenon of what came to be known as serial killing.  At least one of these people, a doctor of psychology, had copies of documents from Grossmann's trial -- and his descendants allowed Greg and I access.

German court procedure is a little different from that of the US.  Here, a killer might be responsible for ten or twelve murders, but will only be charged with one or two so that there are still live cases against him should anything go wrong with the prosecution.  Grossmann's trial was not like that.  He was charged with a list of murders, some of them identified only by the name he placed in his own diary.  The evidence given was short and sweet and fairly d**ning -- he was caught red-handed (literally) with the semi-dismembered body of a young woman in his "shop."  There was also the evidence of his own hand, in the form of his diary.  Evidence was given in several specific victim cases, but not in all of them.  In the list of victims he was accused and convicted of murdering was the name "(female) Saznovski."  

This was the individual whom the Berlin police believed was Franziska Schanzkowska.  In the course of their lengthy investigation, in which they identified victims known by only one name -- like Saznovski -- information included in missing persons reports were cross-matched with the victimology, including what Grossmann had written in his diary.  What was written about Saznovski was sufficient for the Berlin police -- a highly regarded professional body -- to conclude that Saznovski was Franziska.  They broke the news to the Schanzkowsky family, and they laid Franziska to rest until 1927 when the Berliner Nachtausgabe disinterred her.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Mgmstl on August 10, 2005, 04:18:56 PM
There was a great deal more on this subject on these threads at one point.  However one of the keys of the discussion was the timing of the disappearance of FS, the appearance of AA, and when the Schanzkowski Family was told by the Berlin Police that their daughter had been murdered by Grossman.

The family had accepted this fact until 1927 when they were approached by Von Rathlef & Voller for a meeting with the claimant.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Finelly on August 10, 2005, 04:19:26 PM
 They broke the news to the Schanzkowsky family, and they laid Franziska to rest until 1927 when the Berliner Nachtausgabe disinterred her.  

They had a body?  It was buried somewhere?  It was disinterred?

Can anyone say "DNA"?



Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Finelly on August 10, 2005, 06:17:42 PM
Helen!  You're back!

What are your science credentials?  I understand you're our resident dna expert......:)

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 10, 2005, 06:40:32 PM
29- The Detective Knopf, who "found" FS story, was working and payed by Grand Duke Ernest of Hesse. All the info the Detective found, made it way to Darmstadt before it reached the "Nachtausgabe". The Grand Duke was also paying some journalist in this newspaper. (Robert K. Massie-Harriet Von Rathlef-Dominique Auclères-Peter Kurth9

30- Gilliard was Gand Duke Ernest ally "...who -in Robert K. Massie's words) soon was sspending as much time in Darmstadt as he was in Lausanne. Somebody said that he was being PAID for the GRand Duke (Robert K. Massie-Rathlef-Peter Kurth)

RealAnastasia

More to Come!

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 11, 2005, 11:53:11 AM
Quote
Helen!  You're back!

What are your science credentials?  I understand you're our resident dna expert......:)



Actually, I am not back - I am still in Russia until the end of the month, but I check in once in a while  :D.

I am a biochemist, but by no means ever claimed to be a DNA expert - but all this stuff we have been talking about is extremely simple, basically any grad student in sciences can understand it. This is why I understand it well, and try to share what I know - because I see a lot of confusion as well as false info floating about these threads.  And I know that there are many people who actually would like to understand real facts!

Helen
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Forum Admin on August 11, 2005, 03:22:03 PM
Helen,
The Soviet/ Gulag comment was not called for. Please apologize to Bear. We are really cracking down on the personal sniping stuff.
Now, some comment is ok, but the basic tone of this thread is a "top 100 reasons" list, so keep comments brief, and best perhaps to post in other "Top 100" list thread the full comment and perhaps just say "See Reason #xx in Why she was FS...or wherevever.

Thanks
FA
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 11, 2005, 08:18:51 PM
Thank you, FA. You are right. My post are too long, you are right on that too! I'll try to write my answers more shortly!  ;D

RealAnastasia
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 12, 2005, 01:50:12 AM
AGRBear, thousands of apologies! I really didn't mean it because I know that you don't really want to work for the Gulag! I will cross that comment out in my post immediately.  :-*
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 12, 2005, 07:28:07 PM
31- Harriet Rathlef contacted, (with the help of her attorney, Herr Völler)  the Schanzkovska family to bring one of its members, Felix, to go see AA. Felix would recognize her or not. The "Nachtausgabe" , the paper who had discovered Franziska's story and claimed to be the one who "unmasked AA", avoided to contact the Schanzkovskys. They seemed not to want an interview with "The Sick Lady". (Harriet Von Rathlef- Peter Kurth)

32- Harriet Rathlef, nor Völler payed Felix Schanskovsky to come to see AA and recognize her as hir sister. The "Nauchtasgabe" payed to Doris Wingender when she "inmediatly recognize" AA as FS. (Harriet Von Rathlef; Peter Kurth)

33- Doris Wingender complained to Wilhelm Völler, who invited her to dinner in the Hotel Regina Palast, about the "Nachtausgabe" contract...They payed too badly. She was expecting much more than fifteen hundred marks. Then, Völler said to her that the contract could be easily broken. Doris agreed, and said that all papers in Germany were fighting to have her for them. And of course, they would paid much better (Harriet Von Rathlef- Peter Kurth)

34- Doris Wingender told Völler (she believed he was a journalist, not Mrs. Rathlef's attorney) that she "changed" some little things in her story for the people of the "Nachtausgabe" told her to do so. Doris said that she saw Franziska for the last time in May or June, but the paper stated that it was in August, so she must change the whole thing (Harriet Von Rathlef-Peter Kurth)

35-AA didn't pay any attention to "Schanzkovska affair". She was only angry when someone introduce Doris Wingender to her (as she was easily angry when she had any other visits...Remember Irene's one, whe AA was so harsh to her). After it she was more upset tothe poor Harriet Rathlef for writing her story in the newspapers, that to the Schankosvka whole matter. The Duke von Leuchtenberg tryed in vain to make her understand who serious "The Schankosvka Affair" was.(Peter Kurth)

More to come!

RealAnastasia.




Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 12, 2005, 08:47:22 PM
I suppose they mean to "desinterre" the story, not a body...And yes; if there is a body DNA must be performed. I'm only afraid that the results would said there is Grand Duchesse Anastasia's corpse!  ;)

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: AGRBear on August 14, 2005, 10:45:26 AM
Quote

..[in part]...
 
There are copies of Grossmann's trial transcripts -- or the German version thereof -- extant in at least one town in Germany.  Berlin, as we all know, was hideously bombed by the Allies at the end of WWII, and many, many buildings were destroyed along with their contents.  One of these buildings stored Berlin police records and archives; however, then as now, there were people interested in the phenomenon of what came to be known as serial killing.  At least one of these people, a doctor of psychology, had copies of documents from Grossmann's trial -- and his descendants allowed Greg and I access.
 
German court procedure is a little different from that of the US.  Here, a killer might be responsible for ten or twelve murders, but will only be charged with one or two so that there are still live cases against him should anything go wrong with the prosecution.  Grossmann's trial was not like that.  He was charged with a list of murders, some of them identified only by the name he placed in his own diary.  The evidence given was short and sweet and fairly d**ning -- he was caught red-handed (literally) with the semi-dismembered body of a young woman in his "shop."  There was also the evidence of his own hand, in the form of his diary.  Evidence was given in several specific victim cases, but not in all of them.  In the list of victims he was accused and convicted of murdering was the name "(female) Saznovski."  
 
This was the individual whom the Berlin police believed was Franziska Schanzkowska.  In the course of their lengthy investigation, in which they identified victims known by only one name -- like Saznovski -- information included in missing persons reports were cross-matched with the victimology, including what Grossmann had written in his diary.  What was written about Saznovski was sufficient for the Berlin police -- a highly regarded professional body -- to conclude that Saznovski was Franziska.  They broke the news to the Schanzkowsky family, and they laid Franziska to rest until 1927 when the Berliner Nachtausgabe disinterred her.


Reread Michael G.'s post about FS's body having been "disintered" in 1927.

Does this mean a body was removed from a grave or was her murder brought to the public by notice to disclose her death in the hands of Grossmann by the Berlin police?

No one has every mentioned a body having been found.  

Why would the police find the need to make a public notice seven years later?  

Here in the US I think it's seven years after a person's disapearance that  the person can be declared legaly dead for purpose of legal actions.  

Where did you find this tid-bit Michael G.?  Trial transcripts??

AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Mgmstl on August 14, 2005, 11:39:58 AM
Quote

Reread Michael G.'s post about FS's body having been "disintered" in 1927.

Does this mean a body was removed from a grave or was her murder brought to the public by notice to disclose her death in the hands of Grossmann by the Berlin police?

No one has every mentioned a body having been found.  

Why would the police find the need to make a public notice seven years later?  

Here in the US I think it's seven years after a person's disapearance that  the person can be declared legaly dead for purpose of legal actions.  

Where did you find this tid-bit Michael G.?  Trial transcripts??

AGRBear


WAIT A MINUTE HERE FOLKS!!!, let's not be so quick to jump to the gun on this statement.

This is from an old post of Penny's and by using disenterred, I think she is referring to her memory or her "spectre" not her body.  In previous threads I believe we established there was no body found.

Remember the body of FS wasn't found as Grossman ground his victims into sausage or hamburger and sold them to his neighbors.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: AGRBear on August 14, 2005, 12:07:26 PM
Michael G.,  thanks for clearification.  ;D

AGRBear

PS  There is a thread on Grossmann and FS:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1121632735;start=0#0
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Finelly on August 14, 2005, 01:02:30 PM
This is from an old post of Penny's and by using disenterred, I think she is referring to her memory or her "spectre" not her body.  In previous threads I believe we established there was no body found.

Darn it!
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 14, 2005, 09:22:20 PM
Quote

WAIT A MINUTE HERE FOLKS!!!, let's not be so quick to jump to the gun on this statement.

This is from an old post of Penny's and by using disenterred, I think she is referring to her memory or her "spectre" not her body.  In previous threads I believe we established there was no body found.

Remember the body of FS wasn't found as Grossman ground his victims into sausage or hamburger and sold them to his neighbors.


My! What a subject dear Michael! So, there were "Hamburger à la Franziska Schanzkovska" and "Special factory Worker Sausages"? UGH!... :o He really sold the ground meat of his victims???

RealAnastasia- ;D
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Mgmstl on August 14, 2005, 10:22:29 PM
Quote

My! What a subject dear Michael! So, there were "Hamburger à la Franziska Schanzkovska" and "Special factory Worker Sausages"? UGH!... :o He really sold the ground meat of his victims???

RealAnastasia- ;D


Well my dear,  the Berlin Police Dept. one of the most advanced forensic departments of its time believed that FS was murdered by Grossman, and told the Schanzkowska family so.   Grossman, ground his subjects up into sausages....

Well at that time after war hyper inflation hit Berlin, and he may have been selling his meat cheap....His nickname was the Butcher of Berlin.  While he wasn't tried for the murder of FS, the Berlin police believed her among his victims.  

I think the whole subject is sick, but Grossman has been discussed before on the threads, and his supposed connection with FS/AA/
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on August 14, 2005, 10:28:42 PM
Grossman...I spent part of the day trying to link him with our present day slang "gross".

He still "grosses me out".
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 16, 2005, 09:29:04 PM
Of course I was kidding, Michael. I know you are serious about the subject. We had a similar case in the 1910's here in Argentina. A man ( his was a Syrian inmigrant) sold his victims meat to butchers. He also was discovered and send to jail. He commited suicide.

As for Grossman subject...Ugh. I imagine how Berlin people felt when they know they could have eat some "human sausages"...Sick and awful.  :-/

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: etonexile on August 16, 2005, 09:40:30 PM
Quote

Well my dear,  the Berlin Police Dept. one of the most advanced forensic departments of its time believed that FS was murdered by Grossman, and told the Schanzkowska family so.   Grossman, ground his subjects up into sausages....

Well at that time after war hyper inflation hit Berlin, and he may have been selling his meat cheap....His nickname was the Butcher of Berlin.  While he wasn't tried for the murder of FS, the Berlin police believed her among his victims.  

I think the whole subject is sick, but Grossman has been discussed before on the threads, and his supposed connection with FS/AA/


If Grossman killed and sold "FS/AA Weiners"....he missed a bit of intestine.... ::)
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Mgmstl on August 16, 2005, 10:14:59 PM
Quote

If Grossman killed and sold "FS/AA Weiners"....he missed a bit of intestine.... ::)



I will admit that is funny EE...score one for you 8) 8)
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Annie on August 16, 2005, 10:21:41 PM

There was never any real evidence she was killed, it was all circumstantial, missing girl, serial killer, likely scenario, but it wasn't. Think about this too, IF you wanted to disappear and hide and avoid your identity, having people think you died would be cool, huh? Remember there are people who fake their own deaths all the time.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Mgmstl on August 16, 2005, 11:14:20 PM
Quote
There was never any real evidence she was killed, it was all circumstantial, missing girl, serial killer, likely scenario, but it wasn't. Think about this too, IF you wanted to disappear and hide and avoid your identity, having people think you died would be cool, huh? Remember there are people who fake their own deaths all the time.


Annie this review is about sources on the case, NOT OPINIONS,  unless you have some source material to add to this thread, that you have previously been asked to, we don't really want opinions here.  Just facts regarding the different aspects of the case with verifiable source material.   There are plenty of threads for your opinion, use those please, thank you.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: lexi4 on August 16, 2005, 11:42:33 PM
I have a question. Once FS's family was told she was dead, is there any record of a funeral service or memorial service?
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: AGRBear on August 18, 2005, 10:49:59 AM
HERE is where we have our dissussion using the list 101 Reasons AA was not FS.

Quote

...[in part]....

1- The only photography portraying FS clearly was retouched (Peter Kurth, Dominique Auclères, Jimmy Blair Lovell. This was cofirmed by experts in one of the AA trials in Germany)

RealAnastasia.


AGRBear

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: AGRBear on August 19, 2005, 11:47:35 AM
I'm sorry,  I forgot there was a thread to "review evidence" already.  So,  I started 101 "discussions".

Bear's brain is 63 years 8)

AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 19, 2005, 07:17:19 PM
Your brain may be tired, but it's always plenty of good ideas! When I read your post, I feel pushed to THINK and consider things that I would have otherwise forgotten. Thank you to be there, posting Bear! And 63 years is a good age: you are not old, and , at the same time you have experience. Congratulations and 100 pots of golden, sweet honey for you!  ;)

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: AGRBear on August 20, 2005, 12:14:31 PM
Thanks for all that honey  :o

I shall enjoy each and everyone down to the last sticky sweet spot  ;D

AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 20, 2005, 07:47:49 PM
My principal problem with this issue is this one: who would want to retouch a photo if the ressemblance is authentic? Other people would said: but even if the photo is not retouched there is a ressemblance between AA and FS. Oh, yes. Certainly; there is a ressemblance. Everybody would notice it. But again: if there IS a ressemblance why do you retouch a photo? .We may start this discussion asking to ourselves this little question: WHY? All, AA believers and AA not believers accepted that the photo has been heavily retouched. If AA was really FS that would not have been necesary.

In some photographies, I don't look as I currently look, but an expert would said that is me. This is what experts said when they saw AA photos and AN's photos: this is the one and the same lady. But wait...all the experts are wrong. All in the world was wrong before DNA. All people identified before the 1990's where badly identified, I suppose... ???

Sources: Peter Kurth, Dominique Auclères, James Blair Lovell.

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Kransnoeselo on August 21, 2005, 07:58:20 PM
With regards to the Schankowskii family being told that their sister/daughter Franziska had been killed by Grossman was reinterated by Felix Schankowskii himself when after having dismissed AA as being his sister (During their initial visit) he was asked what he thought had happened to Franziska- His reply was that they must have made "sausages out of her long ago" referring to Grossman's habit of selling his victim's "meat" to local buchers.

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: etonexile on August 22, 2005, 10:36:14 AM
Great when siblings have a sence of humour.....
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: AGRBear on September 08, 2005, 10:43:43 AM
There are several theads which exclusively talk about the ONE known photograph of FS and all the others of AA which were taken to provide the German court which show similiarities between AA and GD Anastasia.

The two photographs which Doris Wingander provided were proved to have been tampered and were therefore not accepted as evidence.

Then to add to the mix,  we are not sure that the ONE known photograph of FS is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy.....

AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: AGRBear on September 08, 2005, 10:46:34 AM
There is, also, the subject about AA's knowledge of various languages.  One of which was Russian which the family of FS says she did not know.

Here is a sample of what one of the nurses, who before she was a nurse, taught German in Russia and knew Russian as well, testified:

Quote
..[in part]...
PETER Kurth's ANASTASIA, THE RIDDLE OF ANNA ANDERSON:
p. 10

>>...Nurse Bucholz and been the first to take care of Fraulein Unbekannt at Dalldorf...later she recalled an event had taken place...in the summer of 1920.<<

Let me incert here about whom  Erna Bucholz was.  She was a nurse but before the war she had taught German in Russia and knew how to speak Russian.  It was she who testified that AA could speak Russian:

>>...I asked her if she could speak Russian.  She answered, "Yes," whereupon We began to converse in Russian.  She did not speak it faultily.  Rather, she used whole, complete, connected sentences without any impediments... I absolutely got the impression that the patient was completly conversant in the Russian language, Russian affairs and especially Russian military matters."

....AGRBear


Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: KayDee on September 15, 2005, 04:38:33 AM
in my opinion AA could not be FS for the very simple reason that the detective Martin Knopf who "discovered" that AA was really FS "turned up 2 years later offering to write an expose of his own earlier actvities if AA's lawyers would pay him $5000".
source-The File On The Tzar,note 26, pg 379.
(wish AA's lawyers had paid him and got out the truth!!!)
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Sarushka on September 15, 2005, 11:25:32 AM
Non-expert opinion! (for what it's worth)
[/color]I'll tell you, when I saw the photo of FS for the first time, I said to myself, "Whoa. That's Anna Anderson." I've always been able to pick out resemblences between AA and AN, but was never really sure they were a match. Seeing the FS photo was the frist time I had a nice solid gut reaction.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: AGRBear on September 15, 2005, 12:29:25 PM
Differences between AA and FS are:  
-------   
I. Photographs:  
NOTE:  Photograph comparisons won't make everyone happy as to their looking alike....    
   
II.  Shoe sizes  
FS wore shoes that were three sizes larger than AA    
 AA wore shoes that were three sizes smaller than FS  
   
NOTE: Shoes sizes still doesn't accomplish any agreement even though at the trial  there was proof which showed that there was three size difference.  
   
III. Pregnancy  
AA- Evidence of a pregnancy but no proof of when.  Claimed to have had a son.  
FS- No pregnancy known.    
   
IV. Scars.  
FS -  no unusual scars remembered by family; no scars inflicted in factory accident  
AA - scars which were claimed to have been inflicted by a bayonet;  small scar on finger claimed to have been from a door; scar from removal of a mole..... Some scar may have been caused by tb and surgery.  Penny mentioned that AA had a "grove" on the side of her head which may prove to be a injury of some kind had occured....  
   
IIV. Height  
FS is reported to have been 5'6", which is about 4 inches taller than AA - Helen was th source on this fact.  
AA was about 5'2"" tall  The source was a medical report fr Dalldorf Asylum  
   
IIIV.  Knowledge of Languages  
FS - knew Low German and Katchoubian.  Did not know Russian or English.  
AA - knew Russian, High and Low German, French and English  
   
IX.  Ears pierced  
FS - one retouched photo shows earrings and pierced ears but this may be in error  
AA - doesn't appear to have pierced ears  
#No one cares about pierced ears for either FS or AA since the ears can heal... 
 
X.  
FS - Was reported  missing  9 March 1920.  Her brother Felix received a birthday card from FS on 17 Feb 1920  
AA - 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  



AGRBear
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: etonexile on September 15, 2005, 07:17:36 PM
Is this the thread where I can't mention the conclusive DNA evidense that AA was not AN but was most likely FS?....Confusing.....
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: RealAnastasia on September 15, 2005, 07:41:27 PM
Saraelizabethii: the FS photo you are speaking about was HEAVILY retouched in order to make it to be almost identical to AA. I showed it to an expert anthropologue and forensic senior, and at first, he believed it was an AN photo...Since it was retouched to be similar to AA and AA was similar to AN, by transitive character, the pic is similar to AN! When he said it to me I must laugh ....After a while, he realized that the photo have been retouched. He noticed it since the FS face in them were too withe.

And don't forget that German judges in the last trial for AA's identity, said that the two pics that were presented by Doris Wingender were retouched (experts found it) and rejected them as evidence. Even parts of the woman clothes in the pic were drawn over it. The judge made a grin when he saw them.

We only have ONE pic of FS less retouched than the others where she is much less similar to AA than the other two. But even this one was retouched. We have not an original pic of her. That's the true...Nevertheless, even in the three retouched versions, the shape of AA and FS nose, eyes and mouth are different. Of course, if someone wanted to make us believe that AA was FS he or she must have pic someone at least very similar to her, not someone totally different. Some people when they saw AA for the first time, accorded that she was similar to FS, but they also said: It's only a slight ressemblance. She is not Fanziska.

RealAnastasia.

Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Sarushka on September 15, 2005, 07:46:26 PM
Oh, eton...

Must you always interject your well-known opinion on this issue into every AA/AN/FS thread that disagrees with you? And must you do always do it in a sarcastic or borderline-condescending way?

I agree with you on the AA/AN/FS issue, but I really don't like the way you choose to express yourself. :P Can't you cut us a break?
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Sarushka on September 15, 2005, 07:55:51 PM
RA --

I have seen the both the re-touched and the not-quite-so-retouched photos. I believe the less-retouched version was the one I saw first. I know this is totally subjective, and most people are never going to agree, but, in my opinion, there is a resemblance between FS and AA. In fact, I think the heavily retouched photo resembles AA less than the so-called original.

Thanks for the info, though. I don't think I was aware that there is no known unmanipulated photo of FS. And you're right, we sure can't use these photos as evidence. My initial gut reaction remains, but I'll hush up now.  ;)
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: etonexile on September 15, 2005, 07:59:19 PM
Quote
Oh, eton...

Must you always interject your well-known opinion on this issue into every AA/AN/FS thread that disagrees with you? And must you do always do it in a sarcastic or borderline-condescending way?

I agree with you on the AA/AN/FS issue, but I really don't like the way you choose to express yourself. :P Can't you cut us a break?


:-/...hangs head....ashamed....shall try to mend ways....

Tedders....you said you'd tell me in which threads to post....BAD teddy....
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Sarushka on September 15, 2005, 08:33:56 PM
Quote
...hangs head....ashamed....shall try to mend ways....
 
Tedders....you said you'd tell me in which threads to post....BAD teddy....

I'll admit it -- you got a giggle out of me.  ::)

I only wish I knew you well enough to know if you're serious! Well, I can hope...  ;)
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: amelia on September 17, 2005, 11:09:34 AM
I always wondered why Anna Virubova was not brought in the picture of AA. She was still alive and living in Finland, and why did not she see AA?  

I remember reading somewhere that Lily Dehn saw AA and concluded that she was GD Anastasia.

Amelia
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Annie on September 17, 2005, 02:30:00 PM
Quote
I always wondered why Anna Virubova was not brought in the picture of AA. She was still alive and living in Finland, and why did not she see AA?  


Amelia


Anna V. was too close to the family, having essentially lived with them since the year Anastasia was born. She'd have spotted her as a fraud outright. No wonder AA didn't want to see her.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 17, 2005, 03:00:14 PM
Probably the most interesting posed in this subject for AGES ! I agree with Annie, but also wonder if anyone from either side approaced her ? Anna V. that is.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: amelia on September 17, 2005, 03:13:05 PM
The only thing I think that prevented AA from seeing Virubova, or vice-versa is that Anna really became a recluse, she became a nun and did not want to see anybody.  She did write another book, but it is in Finish - I guess we will have to wait until it is translated.

Amelia
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Annie on September 19, 2005, 10:38:10 PM
Quote
The only thing I think that prevented AA from seeing Virubova, or vice-versa is that Anna really became a recluse, she became a nun and did not want to see anybody.  She did write another book, but it is in Finish - I guess we will have to wait until it is translated.

Amelia


Interesting. A nun would hardly be a candidate to be called 'liar' or 'money grabber' so if she denied AA they'd have no excuse. Again, no wonder AA didn't want to see her.
Title: Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 19, 2005, 11:37:21 PM
Yes Annie, but that was not the point of my question. Does anyone from either side of the argument know if she was ever even approached ? I personally think not for the reasons put forth.  It would seem  equally likely that  "someone" might have asked her to participate.