Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Myth and Legends of Survivors => Topic started by: RealAnastasia on August 20, 2005, 08:15:44 PM

Title: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 20, 2005, 08:15:44 PM
Yesterday I was thinking in my own experience with AA case and I imagined a new "homework" for all people interested in the same matter here.

I consulted with some experts (being an historian  , I know some people who, not being historians themselves, are related to my profession, for example anthropologues, Geneticist, forensic especialists, etc) the AA affair, doing the same work that it was done when AA's trials started in Germany. I showed them photos and information about it to themselves to judge the whole situation. I make myself sure that they never knew the case, not has seen a single AN, FS, AA photo. Of course, all scientist read or know about Anastasia and the final results that said she was really FS, but not all of them know the matter deeply. They doesn't know the insights of the case since it started in the 20's. So, I only show the facts to them. The facts (as they are presented in the "101 reasons threads") and the photos...And of course when they have their own conclusions, I'm ready to tell them: "Well; you analyzed the "Anna Anderson-Anastasia's case and DNA proved that she was Franziska Schanzkovska". They get totally amazed and can't believe it. I have now most of them reading about the fact, purchasing books and searching in the net!  ;D

My idea is that most of us here could do the same and then share the results we got. Of course, the idea it's not to show the photos posted in his site by Peter Kurth. At least, not in the order he post them. You must present all the photos mixed up, and put the FS one among them. You must allow him to said that AA was FS, or that FS was...AN(yes; one of my friends mistook FS as if she was AN ;D). You must also show to them, those photos where AA seems very different from AN: those first AA photos where she has full lips and puffy cheeks. And over all things: DON'T INFLUENCE the experts. Let them choose their own conclusions. Other good things to do is  answer him/her things absolutely againts yours opinions in the matter. That would challenge what you knows and it's a very good intellectual excercise. Do as if you are doubting about the case. Never show to him/her that you have your own ideas.

Good Luck!  ;)
RealAnastasia.

P.S: Of course, if you are an AA supporter you must not show to the experts all the pics you believes would demonstrate that AA was AN. If, inestead, you are convinced that AA was FS, don't show to them all the photos in which AA was similar to her. Be honest! Mix up the photos. It's the only way to do a good work.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 21, 2005, 08:53:35 AM
I would say, by this time, with the DNA results being so well known, it would be impossible to find a credible scientist or expert who did not already know the answer, and would not even bother with it. But try if you want.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: CuriousOne on August 21, 2005, 12:43:55 PM
Rule number #1 for any good criminal attorney is to know all the facts, including the DNA, so they don't get a "surprise" which can blow a case wide open in the middle of a trial.  Good example is the O.J. Case where the attorney asked O.J. to pull on the   glove.

C!
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: etonexile on August 21, 2005, 12:58:10 PM
Were any other than hard core O.J. supporters fooled by a damp glove(Blood...dew?)...Johnny earned his fee on that piece of theatre....I can barely get into my garden gloves on a good day....But then...America isn't interested in the truth....just image.... 8)
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: CuriousOne on August 21, 2005, 01:41:51 PM
Quote
Were any other than hard core O.J. supporters fooled by a damp glove(Blood...dew?)...Johnny earned his fee on that piece of theatre....I can barely get into my garden gloves on a good day....But then...America isn't interested in the truth....just image.... 8)


I think this is a very negitive attitude on our system which works  quite well most of the time. Most people forget that all the media garbage most of us saw on television was not seen or heard by the jury of 12 who obviously were unamious in the feelings that there was a "reasonable doubt".  Now,  you can jump up and down and shout all you want but  remember this,  O.J. was also taken into a civil suit which didn't results in the favor of O.J.   So,  there are different kinds of justices which occur.  Maybe, not the kind that placed O.J. behind bars for life, but I don't see his image jumping over suitcases in an airport in a organge juice commerical  or tons of people going over to his house to have a beer.   Our justice system may have some ruff spots and some guilty people to get off but think of all the innocent people who weren't place in prision because all of us are innocent until proven guilty.  And, it's true, sometimes the rich do have the advantage, but this is true in just about everything in life,  because they can get the "best" attorneys but I think you are under estimating the abilities of all the DA staff all around the USA because the DAs and the assistant DAs I've known, including my own husband,  were/are darn good attorneys from some of the best Law Schools have provided us.

C1
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 21, 2005, 05:53:48 PM
Evidently, people doesn't want to know the truth. They are convinced that they already know it. Well. Keep your attitude if you like. You'll be happy.

And no; the experts WOULD NOT know the DNA results. You are not judging a law case. You are not presenting the fact to an attorney, but to an anthropologue or a forensic doctor. So they MUST NOT know the results. His conclusions would be biased. You must act as the DNA doesn't exist, in order to view if all the facts you know would contradict it or not. This is the point here, ladies and gentlement. Doing this, I had amazing results and the experts are now studying the case very thouroughly. They are really interested. And be sure that our conversations about AA are not over the lines of "Yes, she was; no, she wasn't", but much more analytic. They are learning things...and me too. I never thought that I knew all about this. As the painter Goya said "I'm still learning". We are learning all our lives.

I will not post the results I got here (well; I betrayed myself, for I posted one of my conversations with professor Kuz in an "101 reasons thread"...but I spoke with 10 experts. ;D) I realized that I will got the same answers I get all days when I start to read the post. And I'm tired of it. I'm tired about people saying me that I couldn't doubt about DNA results; I'm tired to be called names; I'm tired to hear that we may doubt of things "in Argentina" for , apparently we are not a serious country (Oh...This troublemaker South America, you know!) even if our scientifics are working all world around, and called from the USA'S, France, England, Spain, etc ; I'm tired to read the "which are your credentials?"  question when we disagree with some ideas; I'm tired to have some people here doubting about my skills as historian...So; I will not discuss AA case any more. Not with you. If somebody wants to discuss the matter with me, they may email me privately (my mail is not hide. All people knows who I am) or send me a PM here. I will not quit the forum, but no more "important threads" to me. If most of you thinks that the "Last Chapter of the Romanovs" is already written, I don't understand why you keep discussing the matter, and don't let those "stupid threads" to us, "stupid guilible people".

In all cases, you won. I quit this thread. I will spend my time here discussing "Which of the girls are the most beatiful?" or "Was Olga a blonde or a light brown haired girl?"...And in this case, people would said I'm idiot to start "fool threads"  :-[ . But I have no choice. My temper is generally good and cheerful, but when I got angry, I'm angry in the real sense of the word. You got me angry. I wanted to share with you the interesting results I had...but the only answer I got is "Why all this if you know already the DNA results?"

So. Keep the DNA stuck in your minds and forget my stupid "latinamerican" propositions. Be happy. I always read that people who doesn't analyze things would be always happy. I never think it was true until some weeks ago, when I became member of this forum.

Warm wishes and good luck.
RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Merrique on August 21, 2005, 06:29:51 PM
I don't think I have seen anyone call you names or insult Argentina or insult your Latin American propositions.I'm sure that what you have suggested is a very worthwhile thing to do,and if it makes you happy why would you care what others think about it?

But honestly the DNA has proven that AA was not AN and that AA was more than likely FS.Yes I know there was other evidence before the DNA that was pointing to what you believe.But to those of us that believe the DNA all that other stuff is pretty much meaningless now.

I for one find it hard to grasp why anyone has any doubts and continues to believe that AA was AN when the DNA proved 100% that Anna Anderson could not have been Anastasia Nikolaevna.Until someone can prove that these results were wrong I'm afraid they still stand and speak for themself.We do know the truth now thanks to DNA,that's all there is to it.

But like I said if this exercise is something that interests you and makes you happy then continue with it.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 21, 2005, 06:37:44 PM
Quote
Were any other than hard core O.J. supporters fooled by a damp glove(Blood...dew?)...Johnny earned his fee on that piece of theatre....I can barely get into my garden gloves on a good day....But then...America isn't interested in the truth....just image.... 8)


If OJ had been a poor man he would be in jail today. His lawyers earned their pay, the jurors were prejudiced against the cops already because of the 92 riots, and money talks, as well as the race card and Furman, that helped. I have no doubt OJ did it, or at least paid the guy who did. There are no other 'real killers' or suspects after more than 10 years just as we also have no other suspects by name as to who AA might have been. She was FS.

I also hope that anyone who seriously wants to ask a genuine scientist about this will be thick skinned enough not be become offended and get their opinions insulted, because any specialist will likely be holding back laughter. This is not an insult but a warning as to what you may be setting yourself up for. Scientists are not ones for wild theories or extreme guesses.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 21, 2005, 08:59:28 PM
Real Anastasia:  >>And of course when they have their own conclusions, I'm ready to tell them: "Well; you analyzed the "Anna Anderson-Anastasia's case and DNA proved that she was Franziska Schanzkovska". They get totally amazed and can't believe it. I have now most of them reading about the fact, purchasing books and searching in the net!<<

Hmmmm,  this sounds a lot like me when I sugggest people have locked themselves into their comfy box and haven't noticed that there is evidence out here that seems to contradict the DNA.   Insead of saying,   "Hey, you are right,"  they just laugh and settle deeper in their comfy box.  Instead,  they should jump up and say,  "Hey,  you are right.  Let's dig around and see why this is because all the evidence should lead us to the same conclusion.  So, how can we help?"   But  NNNNnnnnooooooo, they don't even want to exaimine what you and others may have found.  But that's okay.  Don't worry about them.   Just keep on looking and let us know what you find and if we can help.  

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 21, 2005, 09:31:32 PM
I promised to myself not to post in this thread any more, but you were very kind to me, and more than kind: (a thing that is very important to me) LOGICAL. So, I feel my duty to said "thank you", for you really understand what I was trying to said. I'm not saying: You'll find that AA was AN and not FS, or worse than this, you MUST accept that the DNA was wrong and AA was AN. I'm only suggesting that you forget all you know about the matter (even the DNA) and analyze the facts as if you never has read a single word about AA or FS. And if you submit the info you have to an expert or several experts in an objective way, you'll experience a truly work of historical research. I wanted to do a comparison between your research and my own, for  I like to analyze things and challenge myself beyond my convictions. But I think it would be impossible, for the word "objectivity" seems to be unknown to some people.

Do you know what I think about AA story: but in the "101 reasons threads", I had no problem to post "reasons" contradicting my opinions. You'll find a great deal of them proving that AA was not AN and some others proving that AA was FS (For this one, I'm getting a difficult time, for beyond the DNA, the similarity of a photo and the recognition of Doris Wingender I have few info, so help me to found more reasons). It's the only way to reach the truth, and the only way to have some intellectual honestity. If we cheat with ourselves,we are very far from the path of the truth.

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 21, 2005, 09:53:43 PM
Quote

Hmmmm,  this sounds a lot like me when I sugggest people have locked themselves into their comfy box and haven't noticed that there is evidence out here that seems to contradict the DNA.   Insead of saying,   "Hey, you are right,"  they just laugh and settle deeper in their comfy box.  Instead,  they should jump up and say,  "Hey,  you are right.  Let's dig around and see why this is because all the evidence should lead us to the same conclusion.  So, how can we help?"   AGRBear


I have already done that, and found nothing to contradict the dna. There is nothing that cannot be easily explained away in some way. I have been through it all. Even without the DNA, it still looks to me like she was FS.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: lexi4 on August 21, 2005, 10:46:10 PM
Wow C1. You said that really well!
Quote

I think this is a very negitive attitude on our system which works  quite well most of the time. Most people forget that all the media garbage most of us saw on television was not seen or heard by the jury of 12 who obviously were unamious in the feelings that there was a "reasonable doubt".  Now,  you can jump up and down and shout all you want but  remember this,  O.J. was also taken into a civil suit which didn't results in the favor of O.J.   So,  there are different kinds of justices which occur.  Maybe, not the kind that placed O.J. behind bars for life, but I don't see his image jumping over suitcases in an airport in a organge juice commerical  or tons of people going over to his house to have a beer.   Our justice system may have some ruff spots and some guilty people to get off but think of all the innocent people who weren't place in prision because all of us are innocent until proven guilty.  And, it's true, sometimes the rich do have the advantage, but this is true in just about everything in life,  because they can get the "best" attorneys but I think you are under estimating the abilities of all the DA staff all around the USA because the DAs and the assistant DAs I've known, including my own husband,  were/are darn good attorneys from some of the best Law Schools have provided us.

C1

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 22, 2005, 06:58:54 AM
Quote

I have already done that, and found nothing to contradict the dna. There is nothing that cannot be easily explained away in some way. I have been through it all. Even without the DNA, it still looks to me like she was FS.


These contradictions which you claim "easily explained away"  AA as being GD Anastasia need to be posted with a SOURCE but more often than not they are not and are  just repeats of facts as you remember them.  

Memory has a way of gleaning out information it doesn't want to accept or doesn't find interesting or finds no reason to remember thus forgetting some of the other data posters might like to know.

This is true with most everyone including myself because that's just the way the brain works because it can't remember everything despite what some people think they can hold in their "memory box"   So,  I find it best to find the source, post it and let others find it, read it and then have a good discussion.

And, please,  those of you who don't have time, don't have the good fortune of owning all these books or are too lazy to look for the source, ask for help.  Many of us are more than willing, when we can find the time, to help with sources.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 22, 2005, 08:34:08 AM
Bear, my 'source' is my own common sense and things I have looked into and figured out, and that is much more valid to me than quoting File on the Tsar over and over again. No matter how many times it's posted, it still isn't going to come true, or mean darn thing in the reality that AA was FS and not AN, and that the family was never in Perm, it was all rumors created to hide what really happened. The ironic thing is so many people use that story to say they were hiding them being alive, but really, they were hiding them being DEAD because at the time they didn't want anyone to know they had killed the whole family.

I would get into what I mean by my position,but I have already posted it time and time again and it does no good. And for someone who is hung up on sources, you always ignore the most important "SOURCE" of all, the DNA!

I am very flustered over this. If I want fairy tales, the Brothers Grimm movie is coming out next week.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 22, 2005, 10:19:52 AM
Quote

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

.... I feel my duty to said "thank you", for you really understand what I was trying to said. I'm not saying: You'll find that AA was AN and not FS, or worse than this, you MUST accept that the DNA was wrong and AA was AN. I'm only suggesting that you forget all you know about the matter (even the DNA) and analyze the facts as if you never has read a single word about AA or FS.
RealAnastasia.

....


Some of you may not like to go back to the very beginning and start all over but this is what the better detectives do when a great deal of evidence does NOT lead them to the same conclusion.

If you do not wish to partiticpate because you have felt you have accomplished a satisfactory answer why the a lot of the evidence doesn't match the DNA test,  so be it.  Real Anastasia isn't demanding that you do.  This thread, however, is an excercise she'd like to do with those who are interested.

As to comment on the up and coming movie Brothers Grimm,  I do hope to see it and laugh my head off ......  sooooo, if you see beaar's head rolling by, please,  send me an e-mail and tell me where you saw it so I may find it when I need it, again....   ;D

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: etonexile on August 22, 2005, 10:24:51 AM
Do most people accept finger print evidence?....It was highly suspect in the late 19th century.....
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 22, 2005, 12:01:34 PM
There were fingerprints of GD Anastasia on a lesson book which AA's lawyers asked to be taken and matched to AA's but this was refused because at that time it would have meant the destruction of  the lesson book.   I'm not sure where this book is, now, but, today,  it would not be necessary to destroy the lesson book and it could be compared to AA's fingerprints which are still avaliable.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 22, 2005, 03:06:28 PM
I don't see anything that contradicts the DNA at all. There were so many he said she said comments, and contradictory things that confused people, and there was no way to prove them other than one person's word over the other (talking about shoes, height, etc.) So with the DNA, we found out who was right and who wasn't. There is no more mystery there. But there still is a fascinating story about how this woman pulled this off, and who helped her. Once we can finally put the identity issue to bed I hope that can finally be explored.

Have fun at the movie, I will do the same :D
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Rachael89 on August 22, 2005, 04:25:38 PM
Hi Annie

I was just wondering if you could explain how if AA was FS how did she speak Russian in her sleep in her years at Dalldorf asylum, if she was a Polish peasant who only knew German and a little Polish?

It would be interesting to hear an explanation.

Rachael
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Malenkaya on August 22, 2005, 05:00:54 PM
And how is it when Anna Anderson met with Felix Dassel she knew about "the man with the pockets"?  Even if she was fed information by people 'in the know' who is going to be thorough enough to make sure AA know this nickname that Anastasia gave to a random soldier wounded during the war?

That's one I would really like a reasonable answer for.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 22, 2005, 05:03:28 PM
Quote
And how is it when Anna Anderson met with Felix Dassel she knew about "the man with the pockets"?  Even if she was fed information by people 'in the know' who is going to be thorough enough to come up with a nickname that Anastasia gave to a random soldier wounded during the war?

That's one I would really like a reasonable answer for.


I really suspect one of the Botkin kids on this one, or even someone who had met her early on such as Sophie B. or Lili Dehn. It may have been intentionally fed, or just mentioned or asked incidently and she pickedup on it. But SOMEBODY told her, maybe even Dashel himself, it may have been set up. While there is no proof these things happened there is also no proof it didn't happen. And since we know from DNA she wasn't Anastasia, the only mystery is WHO did it, when, and why. That's the kind of thing I'd like to find out.


Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Malenkaya on August 22, 2005, 05:06:17 PM
Annie -

Thanks for the quick reply.  I respect that you have come to accept the DNA, despite being an AA supporter in the past.  I hope you can explore some new avenues and get some answers to the questions you are now seeking.

For those of us still exploring, what do you think about  Rachael's question?
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 22, 2005, 05:17:52 PM
Quote
Annie -

Thanks for the quick reply.  I respect that you have come to accept the DNA, despite being an AA supporter in the past.  I hope you can explore some new avenues and get some answers to the questions you are now seeking.

For those of us still exploring, what do you think about  Rachael's question?


I have explored it all, I have been seeking for 31 years.  I used to be an AA supporter when I was younger, and was very upset to learn of the DNA results at the time. My initial reaction was, oh that can't be true, but the more I researched, the more I found out it WAS! Then I went back and examined all the other stuff, and for the first time I was able to finally see what really had likely happened,. and it all added up. Much of what I know now I learned from this forum, but it all means the same thing- AA=FS.

I have seen it all, and it all makes sense to me now.  She was not AN, she doesn't even look like her. I can't believe I was ever so blinded by wishful thinking to think she did. There is an explaination for everything, except HOW she and her supporters pulled off this charade, and if she did it on purpose or was so mentally ill she believed it herself. If she was, was she used by others in hopes of money? These are the remaining questions I want explored, and wasting time on 'was she AN' is only stopping us from finding the real answers beneath.

I'm not even ruling out the unlikely prospect that someone escaped. But if they did, it was not AA. Hanging onto this myth only stops us from hunting deeper for other ideas.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Val289 on August 22, 2005, 06:28:10 PM
Quote

I really suspect one of the Botkin kids on this one, or even someone who had met her early on such as Sophie B. or Lili Dehn..................



I don't think it could have been Lili Dehn - as AA met with Felix Dassel in Sept. 1927, she didn't even meet with Lili until the early 1950s.  My source for this is Peter Kurth's Riddle of AA.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 22, 2005, 07:15:14 PM
Dear Bear:

                    You said things exactly like I would said them if my English was good enough. You understand very well the excercise I proposed here...But please! I'm not a "he" but a "she"! Well; at least until scientist will find I'm really a man and I'm faking my own gender! ;D

RealAnastasia
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 22, 2005, 07:36:14 PM
I don't think it's fair to name people and not have some kind of source to back up and accusation then ease off the accusation by saying that you have no proof.  


Quote

I really suspect one of the Botkin kids on this one, or even someone who had met her early on such as Sophie B. or Lili Dehn. It may have been intentionally fed, or just mentioned or asked incidently and she pickedup on it. But SOMEBODY told her, maybe even Dashel himself, it may have been set up. While there is no proof these things happened there is also no proof it didn't happen. And since we know from DNA she wasn't Anastasia, the only mystery is WHO did it, when, and why. That's the kind of thing I'd like to find out.


Please,  Annie,  do you have any idea when Botkin kids met AA for the first time?   Haven't you been reading the posts on the Timeline which shows many the people you think either purposely or accidently fed her information did NOT enter her life until later.  

Quote


I don't think it could have been Lili Dehn - as AA met with Felix Dassel in Sept. 1927, she didn't even meet with Lili until the early 1950s.  My source for this is Peter Kurth's Riddle of AA.


So,  if it's true AA wasn't GD Anastasia, then, yes, I agree, she was fed information.   Who, if not the people Annie has suggested,  was with her in her early days who could have known all of the following:

Quote
And how is it when Anna Anderson met with Felix Dassel she knew about "the man with the pockets"?  Even if she was fed information by people 'in the know' who is going to be thorough enough to make sure AA know this nickname that Anastasia gave to a random soldier wounded during the war?

That's one I would really like a reasonable answer for.


How did AA know about the story that a German intelligence officer saw GD Anastasia in a cart and that she was taken to the grounds of the Germany embassy in Bucherest.  This man testified to this fact in AA's trial?

How did AA know about GD Ernst of Hesse's secret to Russia during WWI?

As for the languages AA knew and FS did not know, there is an entire thread about what FS didn't know before WW I when she went to Berlin and what AA knew.

AGRBear

PS  Sorry Real Anastasia.  I don't know why I keep referring to you as a "he".  I'll go back and correct.

 
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 22, 2005, 08:34:28 PM
This is on the thread about the Differences between AA and FS.  Please note the languages.   There you will find the sources about each of the following:

Quote
Differences between AA and FS are:  
-------   
I. Photographs:  
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  
   
Shoes sizes still doesn't accomplish any agreement even though at the trial  there  shown 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 proper Russian, High 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  
 
X.  
FS - Was reported  missing in 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  
  ------
 
Help me add to the list of differences, if you can and please give the source.
 
For those of you who'd like to make a list of similarities, please do go to the thread  AA and FS Similarities.  
   
AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 22, 2005, 09:36:11 PM
Yeah yeah yeah, blah blah blah, like I said all that shoe and language and height stuff means NOTHING because it is all contradictory from one report to the next, and it is subjective as to each person's humanly fallible memory or even intentional lies.That is NO PROOF, especially not compared to the DNA.

It's like somebody in a court case saying, well, I thought I saw Joe at Burger King in a blue shirt at 10PM, and somebody else goes, no, he was at hardee's in a red shirt at 9:59 so that can't be him! But the DNA proves Joe was at the murder scene at 10:01, so those people were either mistaken or lying. It does not hold up like scientific evidence.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 22, 2005, 09:43:27 PM
Quote
I don't think it's fair to name people and not have some kind of source to back up and accusation then ease off the accusation by saying that you have no proof.  


As I said, your 'source' doesn't really 'back anything up' if it's only one person's recorded quote or guess and we can't prove it's true! Just because someone said it and it was written down does NOT make it proof!

And again, you IGNORE the PROOF and DOCUMENTATION of valid scientific evidence, so don't talk to me about 'sources' as long as you fail to acknowledge that!



Quote
Please,  Annie,  do you have any idea when Botkin kids met AA for the first time?   Haven't you been reading the posts on the Timeline which shows many the people you think either purposely or accidently fed her information did NOT enter her life until later.  


Do YOU really know? How do you know they didn't correspond by letter or telephone before their actual meeting? SOMEBODY told her that stuff, she was not AN!!


Quote
So,  if it's true AA wasn't GD Anastasia, then, yes, I agree, she was fed information.   Who, if not the people Annie has suggested,  was with her in her early days who could have known all of the following:


I don't know, but somebody did, and that is what we need to find out. That is the interesting mystery now, not her identity, that is solved. But we still need to find out who did this, when, how and why!


Quote
How did AA know about the story that a German intelligence officer saw GD Anastasia in a cart and that she was taken to the grounds of the Germany embassy in Bucherest.  This man testified to this fact in AA's trial?


And I can say I saw Tom Cruise eliminating on the Washington Monument, does that make it true? She was NEVER on the grounds of the German embassy in Bucharest! There was no 2800 cart ride in the mud lasting 18 months through long winter weather with a bloodied girl oh PLEASE this did not happen, wake up!


Quote
How did AA know about GD Ernst of Hesse's secret to Russia during WWI?


NO PROOF other than ONE person's presumed comment that this even happened. It may be totally made up.

Quote
As for the languages AA knew and FS did not know, there is an entire thread about what FS didn't know before WW I when she went to Berlin and what AA knew.


And again, it's all speculation, contradictory, and he said she said nonsense we cannot prove.

Sorry Real Anastasia the thread is gone off on a tangent, so did mine, it seems they ALL do on this forum!
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: lexi4 on August 22, 2005, 10:16:49 PM
Quote
Dear Bear:

                     You said things exactly like I would said them if my English was good enough. You understand very well the excercise I proposed here...But please! I'm not a "he" but a "she"! Well; at least until scientist will find I'm really a man and I'm faking my own gender! ;D

RealAnastasia

RealAnastasia, You have a wonderful sense of humor!
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 22, 2005, 11:53:57 PM
Quote

...[in part]...

... She was NEVER on the grounds of the German embassy in Bucharest! There was no 2800 cart ride in the mud lasting 18 months through long winter weather with a bloodied girl oh PLEASE this did not happen, wake up!

NO PROOF other than ONE person's presumed comment that this even happened. It may be totally made up.

...


Please,  stop trying to convince me the trip AA claimed she took from Ekaterinburg to Bucherest could not occur in the time given in AA's story.  Why?  Over on the thread Anna Anderson's Story  I've explained that I have all kinds of letters of those who traveled this distance by GRs [German-Russians] who fled Russia into Rumania and went on to Germany about this same time.  I even gave a map.

Quote
Since most of you know my AGRBear means American-German-Russian-Bear,  I know a great deal about the journey between Germany and Russia.  I have found diaries, read books and heard family stories about how the Germans migr. to all corners of Russia from the late 1700s into about the 1850s.  Since  some of my ancestors walked from Alsace [north of Strassburg] to Russia to Odessa then on to Kherson over to  Tiflis in the Caucasus then to Palestine in the early 1800s, I can honestly say, yes, such a trip is possible.

In several of my books there are daily accounts of several people who traveled from Germany to Russia.  Some traveled  by land and the others  was from Ulm on boat on the Danube River into Russia and by wagon to Odessa area.

Here is a photographs of people traveling during the WWI in Russia:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/refugees2.jpg)

I think chintz22 has the correct idea on the math but I'll have to dig out some of my books, study the dates and then reverse them.

As you can see by the photo there was no need for GD Anastasia to be hidden once the Tschaikovskys mingled with the masses.  Papers could be found on those who  died along the way or were stolen.  If that didn't work, money touched hands.

I believe she menioned a cart to Bucherest, Rumania but I don't recall her mentioning any sort of method of travel to Berlin.  I suspsect it was by train.

AGRBear



It does not help your discussion to misinform other posters about this part of AA's story of escape.

If AA was not G D Anastasia, then AA's story may be made up but she wasn't a dummy and knew it could be done.

Added to this is the fact that a German officer claims he saw GD Anastasia in a cart in Sept. who was headed to the grounds of the German embassy in Bucherest, Rumania.

The German courts found him and he testified in AA's trial.

How did AA know about this officer's story to be able to incorporate it into her own story of escape?

AND,  whom did this German officer see in the cart?  Was it GD Anastasia?  If the young woman was not GD Anastasia,  why was he, an officer in the German intelligence,  told the young woman was GD Anasasia?

I'd like to know what all the testimony was that surrounded this officer's testimony.  Just as I'd like to  know what lead the court to this officer....

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 23, 2005, 12:26:36 AM
Quote

...[in part]...
And again, you IGNORE the PROOF and DOCUMENTATION of valid scientific evidence, so don't talk to me about 'sources' as long as you fail to acknowledge that!

....


Why do you continue to say I am ignoring the DNA/mtDNA tests?

Up to this time, I have NOT made any such statement.  In fact, you have no idea what I have concluded through my 58 years of reseach.  

What I have said is:  The evidence, with or without the DNA, should tell us that AA was not GD Anastasia.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Rachael89 on August 23, 2005, 05:44:33 AM
Annie

If you don't mind me asking please will you answer my original question? What's your theory?

Rachael

P.S. Sorry if I've diverted your thread from it's original purpose RealAnastasia! I think it's a good idea, to see who people with no previous knowledge of Anna Anderson and see who they pick out who they think looks simalar out of AN, FS and AA. I'll try it out later!
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 23, 2005, 09:49:02 AM
Quote
Annie

If you don't mind me asking please will you answer my original question? What's your theory?

Rachael



What was it again?
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 23, 2005, 09:55:45 AM
Quote

Please,  stop trying to convince me the trip AA claimed she took from Ekaterinburg to Bucherest could not occur in the time given in AA's story.  Why?  Over on the thread Anna Anderson's Story  I've explained that I have all kinds of letters of those who traveled this distance by GRs [German-Russians] who fled Russia into Rumania and went on to Germany about this same time.  I even gave a map.

Added to this is the fact that a German officer claims he saw GD Anastasia in a cart in Sept. who was headed to the grounds of the German embassy in Bucherest, Rumania.





There is a BIG diffference between military moving along that way, and ONE guy pulling one critically wounded girl without even a horse, through mud, back roads, all kinds of weather, no medical care, no food, supplies, etc. If someone saw someone on the grounds of the embassy, they were either lying or mistaken, it was NOT Anastasia! And it certainly wasn't AA, since she doesn't even look enough like AN to be readily recognized by someone who only barely knew what AN looked like! Remember, no internet, no TV, they did not have the access to pictures we have today. It's all so ridiculous.



Quote
It does not help your discussion to misinform other posters about this part of AA's story of escape.


Encouraging anyone to believe in such outlandish unreality is really misinforming posters!

Quote
If AA was not G D Anastasia, then AA's story may be made up but she wasn't a dummy and knew it could be done.


Her story was ridiculous, and no I don't think she researched it, she just came up with it because she needed an excuse.


Quote
The German courts found him and he testified in AA's trial.

How did AA know about this officer's story to be able to incorporate it into her own story of escape?

AND,  whom did this German officer see in the cart?  Was it GD Anastasia?  If the young woman was not GD Anastasia,  why was he, an officer in the German intelligence,  told the young woman was GD Anasasia?



AGRBear


This seems like a plant to me, either told to say that, or thought he could captialize. Think about it, how would he even know what she looked like, much less recognize her bloody in a cart, and AA doesn't even look enough like her to make somebody go 'oh look there's AN!" If the suggestion is made, some will see it because they are thinking of it, or they want to, but nobody would just say it was her out of the clear blue sky.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: etonexile on August 23, 2005, 10:12:26 AM
In light of what we know now...that AA was NOT AN...!!!!!("NOT")!!!!!...that means ..."is a negative"....Are we on the same level of understanding....?...Erm....maybe not....

"AA was NOT AN...and most likely WAS FS"......(Gad....I need to have this tatooed on my forehead)....All the amazing stories of bloodied women in carts in the middle of no-where being recognized by German officers who'd likely never met her....are pure bunk...Harlequin Romances aside....

I now know how telephone soliciters make their millions.... ::)
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Rachael89 on August 23, 2005, 10:17:19 AM
Hi Annie

I was just wondering what your theory was as to how if AA was FS how could she speak Russian and English when under sedation (souce: Kurth). If FS was only known to speak Geramn and a little Polish?

Thanks

Rachael
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 23, 2005, 11:44:04 AM
Quote

...[in part]....

There is a BIG diffference between military moving along that way, and ONE guy pulling one critically wounded girl without even a horse, through mud, back roads, all kinds of weather, no medical care, no food, supplies, etc. If someone saw someone on the grounds of the embassy, they were either lying or mistaken, it was NOT Anastasia! And it certainly wasn't AA, since she doesn't even look enough like AN to be readily recognized by someone who only barely knew what AN looked like! Remember, no internet, no TV, they did not have the access to pictures we have today. It's all so ridiculous.

Encouraging anyone to believe in such outlandish unreality is really misinforming posters!


 Her story was ridiculous, and no I don't think she researched it, she just came up with it because she needed an excuse.

....


The photo above are Russians treking in waves and taken in that time period.

I am not encouraging anyone to believe what wasn't possible because people did move great distances at that time, including many members of my own family.  Therefore, her story of escape wasn't ridiculous and was possible.

AA, if we assume she was not GD Anastasia, might not have been part of this kind of trek but I'm sure she heard of many stories of people who had accomplished this trek.

So, please, Annie,  stop telling people that such as trip was not possible,  IT WAS POSSIBLE.

It is amazing what people can do when life makes such demands.

AGRBear



 

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 23, 2005, 11:50:30 AM
Quote
...[in part]...

This seems like a plant to me, either told to say that, or thought he could captialize. Think about it, how would he even know what she looked like, much less recognize her bloody in a cart, and AA doesn't even look enough like her to make somebody go 'oh look there's AN!" If the suggestion is made, some will see it because they are thinking of it, or they want to, but nobody would just say it was her out of the clear blue sky.


A plant?  By whom?  A friend of AA's?  CHEKA?  Nazi officials?  

You don't even know anything about this Lt. Colonel Hassenstein of the German intelligence  nor have you read the trial transcript so please tell me how you came to this opinion.

Nor do you know what or who he knew?

The two stories may well be independent of the other.  And, AA may well have heard about it and took it into her own story.  So who was the person who knew about Hassenstein's story and then told AA?

These are the kinds of questions we need to ask if we're to discover everything we need to know about AA and her claim to be GD Anastasia.



AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 23, 2005, 12:03:07 PM
Quote

...[in part]...

 AA doesn't even look enough like her to make somebody go 'oh look there's AN!" If the suggestion is made, some will see it because they are thinking of it, or they want to, but nobody would just say it was her out of the clear blue sky.


Annie, you have told us many times that you once believed AA as GD Anastasia.  During that period in your life,  you must have thought AA did look like GD Anastasia.   So,  why wouldn't people back in 1918 or people, now, think as you once did?  

And,  I think it's a good question.  Why would Lt. Colonel Hassenstein think the woman in the cart was GD Anastasia.  Could it have been something he had been told by his superiors in the German Intelligence who were at that time in the Ukraine?

AGRBear

PS  I'd, also, like to hear your answer to Rachel's post.

Quote
Hi Annie

I was just wondering what your theory was as to how if AA was FS how could she speak Russian and English when under sedation (souce: Kurth). If FS was only known to speak Geramn and a little Polish?

Thanks

Rachael


Oh, and don't forget,  FS didn't speak High German which AA spoke from the very time she was pulled out of the canal.  
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 23, 2005, 12:56:47 PM
Quote

Annie, you have told us many times that you once believed AA as GD Anastasia.  During that period in your life,  you must have thought AA did look like GD Anastasia.   So,  why wouldn't people back in 1918 or people, now, think as you once did?  

  


Like I said, blinded by wishful thinking. I wanted it to be her SO bad, as some of you likely do. But now I look back and compare the features, and there really is no comparsion! Also, in the past I had not considered that the emergence of AA was less than 2 years after Ekaterinburg, An would not have changed much. The lips and mouth are completely too big and thick on AA, and the bone structure is all wrong. She looks more like Tatiana, that's why when I found out that was who she was originally said to be, I was like, oooooh, that makes sense, then she switched because of the height. It got dumber and dumber as I re examined everything, and I could see how the whole charade could come about. But I still want to know who and how helped her pull this off, and was she in on it or insane?
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 23, 2005, 12:58:41 PM
Quote
Hi Annie

I was just wondering what your theory was as to how if AA was FS how could she speak Russian and English when under sedation (souce: Kurth). If FS was only known to speak Geramn and a little Polish?

Thanks

Rachael


The languages don't hold a lot of beans for me, because all the reports are contradictory and he said she said, this guy says she didn't speak this, that woman said she did, well, we will never know for sure, so it's no kind of proof or evidence to use. I say this for BOTH sides! I also question the person who was against AA who said she spoke Polish in church. NONE of the language stuff is valid to me because there are too  many confliciting reports on both sides, and there is NO way to prove it.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 23, 2005, 01:03:26 PM
Quote
In light of what we know now...that AA was NOT AN...!!!!!("NOT")!!!!!...that means ..."is a negative"....Are we on the same level of understanding....?...Erm....maybe not....

"AA was NOT AN...and most likely WAS FS"......(Gad....I need to have this tatooed on my forehead)....All the amazing stories of bloodied women in carts in the middle of no-where being recognized by German officers who'd likely never met her....are pure bunk...Harlequin Romances aside....

I now know how telephone soliciters make their millions.... ::)


Well, yeah, that saves me a lot of trying to explain.

And for those who still buy the cart story as possible, remember this wasn't an equipped army traveling together on open roads with supplies, this was a half dead girl with no food or medical care on back roads with no supplies, through a year and a half of mostly hard winter. It is RIDICULOUS! No surgery, no way to stop the blood, and most of all INFECTION, no antibiotics, no anticeptics, no stitches, no food, no shelter, being jostled constantly, it's completely in the realm of scifi. And her supposed to have been pregnant and the baby ended up living, oh come on!
I would believe the Enterprise would land in my yard before I would buy that! Also when I used to believe in her I did not know the details and length of the trip and the conditions. I was more a romatic than a historian.

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Rachael89 on August 23, 2005, 01:15:27 PM
Annie

If you don't mind me saying AA never once claimed to be Tatiana people just assumed she was Tatiana.

This is a very common mistake that has a simple explanation.


Best

Rachael
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 23, 2005, 02:20:04 PM
Quote
Annie

If you don't mind me saying AA never once claimed to be Tatiana people just assumed she was Tatiana.

This is a very common mistake that has a simple explanation.


Best

Rachael


She never claimed to be ANYBODY until a fellow patient, showing her a magazine photo of Tatiana, told her she thought that must be her. Since she either didn't remember or didn't admit her real identity, the lady was guessing. The lady was interested in the Romanovs and had several magazines with their pictures under her bed.

Once this got out, people came to see this mysterious girl with amnesia who had been pulled from the canal, and who resembled a GD of Russia who had been killed. Baroness Sophie Buxhoevedon, a close friend of Alexandra's, said the moment she came in the room 'she's too short to be Tatiana.' This is TRUE, it happened.

At that point, her supporters claim she was given a piece of paper with the names of OTMA on it and crossed out all but Anastasia. However, it is an important detail to note that Anastasia was the ONLY one who shared her height, so if she knew the heights (and remember the other patient was  Romanov fan) of course she would choose her!

I do wonder what would have become of Fransizka had the other patient not had the Romanov pictures and given her the idea. She may have died in obscurity, not the famous woman she is today as AA. Think about that, the only reason her claim ever started was because an insane woman showed her a picture! She never had any 'memories' or anything else before that. Doesn't that make you think?
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 23, 2005, 02:54:33 PM
Quote

She never claimed to be ANYBODY until a fellow patient, showing her a magazine photo of Tatiana, told her she thought that must be her. Since she either didn't remember or didn't admit her real identity, the lady was guessing. The lady was interested in the Romanovs and had several magazines with their pictures under her bed.

Once this got out, people came to see this mysterious girl with amnesia who had been pulled from the canal, and who resembled a GD of Russia who had been killed. Baroness Sophie Buxhoevedon, a close friend of Alexandra's, said the moment she came in the room 'she's too short to be Tatiana.' This is TRUE, it happened.

At that point, her supporters claim she was given a piece of paper with the names of OTMA on it and crossed out all but Anastasia. However, it is an important detail to note that Anastasia was the ONLY one who shared her height, so if she knew the heights (and remember the other patient was  Romanov fan) of course she would choose her!



You are a terribly shabby historian, Annie.  You've taken bits and pieces of different events and have cobbled them together here in a fashion designed to support your pet theory.  Your post above is value-less.  I would encourage others to actually read Peter Kurth's book, which lays out the series of events as they actually happened -- the end impression is other than the one Annie gives.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 23, 2005, 03:05:21 PM
I gathered my info from his book as well as others, his is not the only opinion available.

I would like to see some proof she had any 'memories' or ANY mention of, or even interest in, the Romanovs BEFORE the patient showed her the picture. That's what started it all.

She was in an asylum recovering from a suicide attempt. A woman of questionable sanity with a thing for the Romanovs shows her pictures. Hmmmmm.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 23, 2005, 03:11:59 PM
Quote
I gathered my info from his book as well as others, his is not the only opinion available.


Then cite the sources.

Let's start here:

...until a fellow patient, showing her a magazine photo of Tatiana, told her she thought that must be her...

What is(are) the precise source(s) for this statement?
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 23, 2005, 03:18:57 PM
Quote

Well, yeah, that saves me a lot of trying to explain.

And for those who still buy the cart story as possible, remember this wasn't an equipped army traveling together on open roads with supplies, this was a half dead girl with no food or medical care on back roads with no supplies, through a year and a half of mostly hard winter. It is RIDICULOUS! No surgery, no way to stop the blood, and most of all INFECTION, no antibiotics, no anticeptics, no stitches, no food, no shelter, being jostled constantly, it's completely in the realm of scifi. And her supposed to have been pregnant and the baby ended up living, oh come on!
I would believe the Enterprise would land in my yard before I would buy that! Also when I used to believe in her I did not know the details and length of the trip and the conditions. I was more a romatic than a historian.



I have explained to you that the trip from Ekaterinburg to Bucherest was possible.  I have explained that I have letters, diaries and personal stories of my own family who traveled this same distances and, ended up in various parts of Germany in this time frame and survived.  

Can you alteast admit this trek by a healthy person was possible???

If you can't,  then you do not understand the human spirits need to survive.

If GD Anastasia was not rescued  or was rescued,  you should, also,   admit that you can't possibly know what condition she was after the night of 16th of July 1918.  For example, take a look at the bullet holes in the skeleton of #5 which is said to be GD Maria's.  There is only one and that is through the leg.  Demidova has only one bullet hole and that is the same height as GD Maria's.  Your thoughts about GD Anastasia laying all boodly and full of bullets and gaping bayonet wounds in a cart  may not be even be close to the truth.
Quote
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/RomanovBullets.jpg)

Chart of the bullet holes found in the bones.

This is being discussed over on another thread but I thought while I had it copied,  I'd place it here, too.

AGRBear
.....



If GD Anastasia was wounded,  she still could have survived.  Have you ever read war stories about the  WWI stories or Civil War??? ??? ???  it is amazing how men survived terrible terrible wounds and grew old and enjoyed their grandchildren.


AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 23, 2005, 06:31:20 PM
Quote

Then cite the sources.

Let's start here:

...until a fellow patient, showing her a magazine photo of Tatiana, told her she thought that must be her...

What is(are) the precise source(s) for this statement?


Let's see YOUR source there was ANY evidence she thought or said ANYTHING about ANY Romanov before this woman showed her the picture and gave her the idea!

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 23, 2005, 07:15:17 PM

Quote

Then cite the sources.

Let's start here:

...until a fellow patient, showing her a magazine photo of Tatiana, told her she thought that must be her...

What is(are) the precise source(s) for this statement?



Quote

Let's see YOUR source there was ANY evidence she thought or said ANYTHING about ANY Romanov before this woman showed her the picture and gave her the idea!



Huh??? ??? ??? ???
Annie, it's your statement not Penny's.  Therefore the burden of proof has been placed on you.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on August 23, 2005, 07:17:50 PM
Quote

Well, yeah, that saves me a lot of trying to explain.

And for those who still buy the cart story as possible, remember this wasn't an equipped army traveling together on open roads with supplies, this was a half dead girl with no food or medical care on back roads with no supplies, through a year and a half of mostly hard winter. It is RIDICULOUS! No surgery, no way to stop the blood, and most of all INFECTION, no antibiotics, no anticeptics, no stitches, no food, no shelter, being jostled constantly, it's completely in the realm of scifi. And her supposed to have been pregnant and the baby ended up living, oh come on!
I would believe the Enterprise would land in my yard before I would buy that! Also when I used to believe in her I did not know the details and length of the trip and the conditions. I was more a romatic than a historian.



Annie,

Do you know if at that time before helicopters to pick up the wounded, did traveling armies leave their wounded behind or take those unfortunates with them?

How well equipped were they?
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 23, 2005, 07:20:39 PM
Quote

Huh??? ??? ??? ???
Annie, it's your statement not Penny's.  Therefore the burden of proof has been placed on you.

AGRBear


You all are the ones who harp on and on about sources, so let's see it!

Easy way to get out of it, this is really a stickler, isn't it ;D
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 23, 2005, 07:21:56 PM
Quote

Annie,

Do you know if at that time before helicopters to pick up the wounded, did traveling armies leave their wounded behind or take those unfortunates with them?

How  well equipt were they?


I am talking about a very extreme worst case scenario here.

Human bodies bleed to death very fast, and die of infection, even with treatment in the pre penicillin days.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 23, 2005, 07:31:28 PM
Well; Annie is right in one point. AA had a magazine about the imperial family , not under her bed , but under her mattres, that is pretty similar . This is the actual info, that I took from his book:

"...And she bore such a striking ressemblance to the Russian imperial family. So, at least, the nurses thought when they compared her features to photographs of the imperial family printed in a cheap illustrated magazine. There were many of these publications lying about the asylum in the library and on the tables, some of them dating from as far back as 1914 and others, more recent recounting the sensationals news of the murder of the Tsar and his family at Ekaterinburg. One photograph of the Tsar's four daughters had inmediately caught the nurses attention. They had looked at it very carefully , they had discussed it together, and finally they had decided to force the issue: they brought the magazine to Fraülein Unbekannt..."

But the fact that she never claimed to be ANYBODY before someone said to her that she ressembles a Romanov is not true. Here it is the info quoted by Peter Kurth. She spoke to another nurse BEFORE Thea Malinovksy showed her  the photography, and, if it is true that she didn't CLAIM that she was Anastasia, she made the matter quite obvious to the nurse when she pointed at Anastasia's photo. Here is the info:

"...Nurse Walz believed that this was the first time Farülein Unbekannt had seen the photographs of the imperial family, but according to another reprot it was not. Thea Malinovsky, a night nurse who had only recently taken up her post, remembered the evening Fraülein Unbekannt had approached her at the desk. The incident took her completely by surprise:

'...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 mattres. On the cover was a photograph of the Russian imperial family. She put the magazine down in front of me and asked if I was not struck by something in the picture. I looked closely at the photograph but didn't know what she was driving out. However, as I looked longer it occurred to me that Fraülein Unbekannt bore a distinct ressemblance to the youngest of the Tsar's daughters. But I pretended that I couldn't see anything in particular, whereupon she pointed to the young girl and asked if I still didn't notice anything. I said no. She asked "Then, you don't see any ressemblance between the two of us?" Now, I had to admit that I did indeed see a ressemblance. Suddenly, she got very upset. I asked her if was she. She turned away, not wanting to let out any more. I told her that she shouldn't have come this far unless she was prepared to tell me the rest..."

This was in Peter Kurth book, pages 11 and 12.

So, perhaps she saw many magazines with Romanov photos in them, but she seemed particulary found of this one, where the imperial girls where portrayed.  And the incident with the nurses happened in the Autumn   1921, so you'll see she never said she was Tatiana. The nurses themselves identified her as Anastasia. Only Clara Peuthert said she was Tatiana, and repeated her conviction to all the monarchist she knew in Berlin, startin by the Captain Von Schwabe...

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 23, 2005, 07:46:15 PM
Thanks for posting all that! But it still appears that she did not mention it until she had the pictures of the family and got the idea.

It really seems as if she was a sad, lonely, pathetic creature who hated her indentity and desperately wanted a new one in which she'd be loved.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 23, 2005, 07:49:51 PM
And if we are speaking about AA trip from Russia to Bucarest and then to Germany, I may answer this with my conversation with other "expert". This way, it was not a scientist, but a poor woman who escaped from Soviet Russia, and then from Nazi Germany toward France right in the middle of the WWII. Her name is Maria Gulyassy, and she has hungarian roots. She was living accidentally in Russia, and as you know, it was not allowed to Soviet citizens to emigrate as if they wanted to. So, she must escape. She was very ill, and very near to gave birth to her second child, Iky. So, she made her trip lying in a Russian charriot, exactly like AA claimed. She also went to Rumania, but she doesn't even enter in Bucarest. She and her husband avoided cities and to crowded populations. They crossed the frontier BY FEET, left the charriot behind. They begged for food in country cabins and made the rest of the trip by horse, charriot and by feet. They went all along Germany, hiding in countrymen houses, woods etc. It was winter. Finally, Maria could gave birth, near the frontier with Free France. She must continue her trip with her baby daughter in her arms. She said me that she was over the point to have gangrena in them. They were stiff to hold permanently Iky. Besides, sometimes the baby would cry and and they could have been discoveres. Her elder daughter, named Maria too, walked near her parents, and her legs ached terribily. She was scorbutic and with her skin covered by a strange exantema. When they finally arrived to France, they were exhausted, and they must go to the hospital.

A trip much more long than AA one, as you can see. And besides, I know other similar stories (Argentina is an inmigration country as the States). When I was a little girl I could hear some similar stories about people escaping from Bolshevik Russia or the WWI in other points of Europe. My own Greatgrandpa was a soldier in the WWI, in France, and told me very sad stories of people escaping their countries. And they were MUCH more terrifying than AA's one. Of course, this not means that AA was saying the truth, but her story could have easily happened.

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 23, 2005, 07:53:47 PM
Were these people bleeding profusely from numerous bullet and bayonet wounds?

There is a difference between plain escaping and escaping in the condition and situation she was in. Sophie B. and Gilliard and Gibbes had a long and interesting adventure escaping across Siberia during the civil war in times when you never knew who was your friend or what side who was on. But they were not mortally wounded! One young teacher with them became ill with fever and died along the way.

The story could not 'easily' have happened. If it did happen, it was very difficult. But it didn't,  so it doesn't matter.

Again, if we can't put this ridiculous fantasy to bed, we will never discover the answers to what really did happen.

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on August 23, 2005, 08:01:06 PM
Quote

I am talking about a very extreme worst case scenario here.

Human bodies bleed to death very fast, and die of infection, even with treatment in the pre penicillin days.


Annie,
I'm just looking for a good conversation and using only sources from my own experience.

Bear asked us to look at the wounds in the mass grave. What if AN had broken bones and clean exit wounds that didn't hit anything major? People back the weren't entirely clueless. My grandmother before the 1950's and before penicillin knew that moldy bread could starve off infection. Doctors in rural areas were few and people would go into the woods for their remedies. My "Bobci" lived to be 98 and she often told me that a young strong body was hard to kill.


Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on August 23, 2005, 08:04:42 PM
And this point is furthered by the horrific scene in that cellar...they were not an easy kill.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 23, 2005, 08:09:23 PM
Quote
And this point is furthered by the horrific scene in that cellar...they were not an easy kill.


No, and that was sad. But they did not stop until everyone was dead.

From reports I read a long time ago, Anastasia woke up and screamed and was vicously bayonetted to death, even through the face. She did not escape, no one did. I have often wished I could have a time machine to go get them out before they were shot. But that is just as ridiculous as AA's escape story, or any possibility she was AN.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 23, 2005, 08:19:53 PM
Annie these are your words:
>> ...until a fellow patient, showing her a magazine photo of Tatiana, told her she thought that must be her... <<

If I had your source/ sources I might find the following:

When did this happen?

Who was the fellow patient?

The magazine's name and maybe even when it was published.

Who said she looked like Tatiana?

Plesae, Annie, tell us your source/sources so I can learn what you've learned.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 23, 2005, 08:30:04 PM
Quote

Annie,
I'm just looking for a good conversation and using only sources from my own experience.

Bear asked us to look at the wounds in the mass grave. What if AN had broken bones and clean exit wounds that didn't hit anything major? People back the weren't entirely clueless. My grandmother before the 1950's and before penicillin knew that moldy bread could starve off infection. Doctors in rural areas were few and people would go into the woods for their remedies. My "Bobci" lived to be 98 and she often told me that a young strong body was hard to kill.




I do believe all the Grand Duchesses worked in the hospital which held the wounded from the war.  They saw arms and legs cut off.  They saw all that gory stuff, AND,  they saw how to treat the wounded.  

I don't exactly remember what GD Anastasia/ GD Marie did, maybe, someone can enlighten us on this part of the lives as nurses aides .... or were they more like candy stripers?

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 23, 2005, 09:29:17 PM
BEAR! Real Anastasia posted all that was written on the subject. If anyone can prove to me she had her claim before seeing the magazine pics, go for it.

The cart escape story is so dumb I am not going to talk about it anymore. Gunshots and bayonets through the face are not 'boo boos'. Besides, we know from science she was not AN for sure, so it's a waste of time to even speculate on that anymore!

I really do feel so sorry for FS, some terrible things must have happened to her to make her want to kill herself, and then to deny her own identity and not want her family to know. She is an interesting story in herself, and her saga could be so much more interesting if we could just ditch the fairy tale land Anastasia junk and move on to what really happened, how she did it, and who helped, and what was behind it all.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 23, 2005, 11:17:21 PM
The patient who said that AA looked like Tatiana was Clara Petthert anf the magazine was the "Berliner Ilustrierted". It was in Peter Kurth 's book and also in Harriet Von Rathlef one's and Dominique Auclère's one.

And of course, many of the people I knew where wounded and bleeding when they started their way to the West. They survived by miracle. But of course, Annie. It's my word againts yours. So my opinion is not very important. I know I'm saying the truth, but...

You may believe or not believe. I'm sure I'm not laying.  :(

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 23, 2005, 11:28:27 PM
Quote
And of course, many of the people I knew where wounded and bleeding when they started their way to the West. They survived by miracle. But of course, Annie. It's my word againts yours. So my opinion is not very important. I know I'm saying the truth, but...

You may believe or not believe. I'm sure I'm not laying.  :(

RealAnastasia.



Someone's opinion is never  a lie!
It can, however, be incorrect, if it has been proven to be. AA was proven not to be AN. There is no way at all to prove the AA cart story. You can't say you are telling the truth, because you were not there, there is no evidence or proof of it, so you can't say! This doesn't mean you are a liar, but it really isn't right to say you know the truth when you do not and cannot prove it.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 23, 2005, 11:39:48 PM
Annie. You are right. But the poeple who told me about their escape from Communist and Nazis WERE NOT LYING. And it's not their opinion but their REAL experiences. When they told me this to me, they are not thinking about Anna Anderson.  They told me about their escape for they are my family friends and wanted to tell us what their experienced in Europe . They never knew a word about AA, and they are not interested a BIT in AA being AA. THis is the reason I thought their experiences would be interesting for this forums..

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 24, 2005, 07:09:45 AM
Quote
Annie. You are right. But the poeple who told me about their escape from Communist and Nazis WERE NOT LYING. And it's not their opinion but their REAL experiences. When they told me this to me, they are not thinking about Anna Anderson.  They told me about their escape for they are my family friends and wanted to tell us what their experienced in Europe . They never knew a word about AA, and they are not interested a BIT in AA being AA. THis is the reason I thought their experiences would be interesting for this forums..

RealAnastasia.


Oh, that's what you mean. Well, of course those stories are true, but they are another person's stories, and they have nothing to do with AA. That was a different situation and there is a very good chance that her whole story was made up. Maybe she got the idea from listening to somebody else? So it does not prove that she did it, and that does not make you or the other people a liar. I'm afraid though, AA may just have been a liar ;)
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: etonexile on August 24, 2005, 08:50:07 AM
Annie... You are saying what I've been saying ad nauseum....DNA <<"PROVES">> that AA was not AN and was most likely FS....The whole cart journey is absurd...as you've said....bullet wounds,bayoneting,and the butt of a rife in the face were not "boo-boos"....But do you think some will let this stop their romantic fantacies.....dream on...... ::)
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 24, 2005, 09:29:45 AM
Horay,  it appears  there may be some light before dawn.
Quote

Oh, that's what you mean. Well, of course those stories are true, but they are another person's stories, and they have nothing to do with AA. That was a different situation and there is a very good chance that her whole story was made up. Maybe she got the idea from listening to somebody else? So it does not prove that she did it, and that does not make you or the other people a liar. I'm afraid though, AA may just have been a liar ;)



Yes,  the cart story could have happen.  And, it did which is my point.  Others achieve this trek in many of our families in 1917-1920s and later, 1940s.  One of my cousins was eight months pregnant with two little girls in tow....  It was awful but othere did make it as far as Bucherest, then went on to Germany, and, that is another story.

If AA was not GD Anastasia and not FS,   maybe, she, too, had experienced some kind of terrible experience in the hands of the Bolsheviks and was injured.  It is a fact that AA had a fractured jaw, a grove from some kind of wound down the side of her face and I think a bayonet shaped scar on one of her feet....

A blow to the head with this kind of force and real trauma may have actually occured to her.....  She may have indeed been placed in a cart by her family or friends and suffered a long tedious and painfully ride from somewhere to somewhere out of Russia or some war zone.....  

If it was AA in the cart which Lt. Colonel Hassenstein saw in Sept. in the Ukraine,  perhaps AA was from some nobleman's family had had been educated .....

I do believe Massie said the Schankowsky family were from an old Polish nobleman's family.  Maybe FS's mother's family was, also.  Part of that same maternal  family may have still been living in Russia....  They could have been the distant rich cousins of FS's mother's family.....  And FS's mother's family were the poor cousins, the "country bumpkins" who's father drank too much....  

When certain groups migrate they usually migrate in groups.  That's how many of my family members did when migrating to Russia in the early 1800s.  And probably what the Schankowskys with FS's mother's family to the area in Posen.

This kind of senario would  make more sense then trying to fit FSs foot in AA's shoe .... Or was is it the other way around.  I forget who had the larger foot.

Stranger things have happen in real life.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 24, 2005, 09:39:30 AM
Shoe sizes:

II.  Shoe sizes    
FS wore shoes that were three sizes larger than AA    
 AA wore shoes that were three sizes smaller than FS

Evidence given at AA's trial.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: etonexile on August 24, 2005, 09:52:01 AM
My Mummy wore hand-me-down shoes from her sisters which were larger than her size....Granny M. said she'd soon grow into them....frugal Granny....

When Mummy married Papa....she could afford any shoes she liked...bespoke....and she jammed her feet into smaller sizes through..."vanity"....and my mother is not AN..... ::)
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 24, 2005, 09:57:54 AM
Quote
My Mummy wore hand-me-down shoes from her sisters which were larger than her size....Granny M. said she'd soon grow into them....frugal Granny....

When Mummy married Papa....she could afford any shoes she liked...bespoke....and she jammed her feet into smaller sizes through..."vanity"....and my mother is not AN..... ::)



Also- she was poor, times were hard, they were charity shoes the wrong size like Pollyanna used to get in the mission barrel- or possibly, the shoes presented as evidence were not hers at all but someone else's. It had been 18 years since she vanished, I find it very hard to swallow that a poor boarding house owner would keep shoes that long, and remember who they belonged to! They may have honestly gotten mixed up with someone else's stuff, like my friend who sent me back the wrong baby clothes.

People get things wrong- it happens all the time- this is not evidence to  challenge the DNA!
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 24, 2005, 09:59:51 AM
Quote
Annie... You are saying what I've been saying ad nauseum....DNA <<"PROVES">> that AA was not AN and was most likely FS....The whole cart journey is absurd...as you've said....bullet wounds,bayoneting,and the butt of a rife in the face were not "boo-boos"....But do you think some will let this stop their romantic fantacies.....dream on...... ::)


Yes, thank you, and PLEASE don't stop! It appears you and I are the last 2 voices of reason who still have the guts to post and challenge this absurdity before it influences others to believe it. Keep it up!
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 24, 2005, 10:00:00 AM
From what i understand, the Schankowsky family were not poor peasasnts and unable to afford shoes.  If this is the case,  I doubt you'll find many females who will wear larger sized shoes if they have smaller feet.

It appears that FS had the larger foot and AA's were three times smaller.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 24, 2005, 10:03:35 AM
Quote
From what i understand, the Schankowsky family were not poor peasasnts and unable to afford shoes.  If this is the case,  I doubt you'll find many females who will wear larger sized shoes if they have smaller feet.


But this was wartime.postwar har times. My mother's family was not poor either but suffered from shoe rationing during WW2. Also, she wasn't living with, or for all we know even speaking to her family at the time, she was a worker having a hard time making ends meet on her own.

Quote
It appears that FS had the larger foot and AA's were three times smaller.

AGRBear


You cannot even prove that the shoes even belonged to her, as me and etonexile have pointed out, a lot of things could have happened.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 24, 2005, 10:06:36 AM
To all RATIONAL people here, I have a question:

What is more likely to be wrong due to mistakes, a pair of shoes, or the DNA testing? Some of you are so convinced the DNA could have been switched, as unlikely as that is, yet you refuse to even consider shoes may have been switched, or mistakenly thought to belong to the wrong person? What's wrong here?
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 24, 2005, 10:06:42 AM
Quote
Shoe sizes:

II.  Shoe sizes    
FS wore shoes that were three sizes larger than AA    
 AA wore shoes that were three sizes smaller than FS

Evidence given at AA's trial.

AGRBear



Have you ever tried to put on a shoe that is three times smaller?

Won't work.

Just as we know it didn't work for the wicked step sisters in he story of Cinderalla  ;D

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: etonexile on August 24, 2005, 10:13:31 AM
Even the so-called "rich peasants" from what I've heard from various sources...including my own family....were not foolish and wasteful....they wanted better than "good-value" for their money.....Shoes that would last more than 6 months on a growing kids feet were the norm...and FS came frome this world....
It's just a personal thing....but shopping as a lad with my Granny M. and my Mummy was a "trip"....the Mummer would let me buy whatever was trendy and fit perfectly....and Gran would be holding up some dull oxfords that I could grow into....and she was by most reconning a rich woman....sheeesh
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 24, 2005, 10:19:46 AM
FS was an adult when she left her mother's house, so,  I doubt she was wearing shoes three times too large for her feet.  And, remember, war had started at that time.  This was pre-war.  Also,    she was the older sister and not the younger...  And shoes too large do not cause the kind of bunions AA had.

And, if she was forced to wear shoes 3 times larger, you can almost place a bet and win, that the first thing she bought were new shoes which fit or may have been slightly too small [one size but not three times too small] which is all was needed to cause the other kind of bunions but not the kind that AA and GR Anastasia had.

Quote
Shoe sizes:

II.  Shoe sizes    
FS wore shoes that were three sizes larger than AA    
 AA wore shoes that were three sizes smaller than FS

Evidence given at AA's trial.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 24, 2005, 10:22:36 AM
You still cannot prove for sure those old shoes even belonged to her!!!

It had been EIGHTEEN YEARS. People come and go. They could easily have belonged to another boarder and she got mixed up, like my friend did when she sent me back someone else's baby clothes by mistake, or, she could have even been lying to help AA's claim!

Shoes are much easier to mix up than DNA, and it is absurd to accept these shoes as gospel truth while claiming the DNA was switched or tampered with.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 24, 2005, 10:26:23 AM
Quote


Also- she was poor, times were hard, they were charity shoes the wrong size like Pollyanna used to get in the mission barrel- or possibly, the shoes presented as evidence were not hers at all but someone else's.



Present your sources for each piece of information in this statement, Annie.  And remember -- your family's experiences are not evidence.  
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 24, 2005, 10:27:12 AM
Quote
To all RATIONAL people here...


Stuff this, Annie.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 24, 2005, 10:29:56 AM
Quote

You all are the ones who harp on and on about sources...


Yeah -- because sources are history.  What happened to your family and acquaintances and some "rock star" -- aren't.  Nor are the things that you make up in your head out of a dash of this story and a pinch of that one.

Quote
Easy way to get out of it, this is really a stickler, isn't it ;D


Everything I say here can be sourced -- and even my opinions have back-up.  How about you?
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 24, 2005, 10:34:42 AM
 

Why would they keep them?  Well, as you've said in an earlier post,  in war times,  nothing was thrown away.  

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: etonexile on August 24, 2005, 10:36:59 AM
Will any of us know where the 18 year old shoes were from or what size AA favoured?....NO....this is all just a waltz with illusion....



We all know that AA was not AN and was most likely FS from DNA evidence which most of the World accepts....well....most of us know.......
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 24, 2005, 10:38:26 AM
Quote
BEAR! Real Anastasia posted all that was written on the subject.


No, she didn't.  There is quite a bit more on this subject -- but you'd have to read to know that.  And I suspect you don't like to do that.

Quote
If anyone can prove to me she had her claim before seeing the magazine pics, go for it.


This was not your point, and you know it.  Stop moving the goal-posts when you are disproved.  Admit that you were wrong:  She never made a claim to be Tatiana.  It was always Anastasia -- Anastasia was the Grand Duchess singled out for Thea Malinowsky, and was the Grand Duchess whom the other nurses thought was Fraulein Unbekannt, and was the Grand Duchess whose name Fraulein U let stand from the list given her.  Never Tatiana.  "Tatiana" was a mistake made by Clara Peuthert.  This has been shown now, so please withdraw this oft-repeated fallacy of yours and don't mention it again.  After all, as you say  frequently -- we are interested in finding the truth here, and not in misleading "students."

Quote
Gunshots and bayonets through the face are not 'boo boos'....


The body of Fraulein Unbekannt bore witness to violence, yes -- but there was no bayonet "through the face."  Please withdraw this lie and don't repeat it again.

Quote
I really do feel so sorry for FS, some terrible things must have happened to her to make her want to kill herself, and then to deny her own identity and not want her family to know. She is an interesting story in herself, and her saga could be so much more interesting if we could just ditch the fairy tale land Anastasia junk and move on to what really happened, how she did it, and who helped, and what was behind it all.


Feel free to take your own research in any direction you choose.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: etonexile on August 24, 2005, 10:41:47 AM
AA was not AN and was most likely FS....due to DNA evidence....but the battle rages on.....
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 24, 2005, 10:42:47 AM
Quote
Will any of us know where the 18 year old shoes were from or what size AA favoured?....NO....


On the contrary -- YES, we do have this information.  It's in the court trial transcripts.  Go and read them.

Quote
this is all just a waltz with illusion....


And what's your contribution here?  Watching this "waltz"?  How odd.

Quote
We all know that AA ... was most likely FS from DNA evidence which most of the World accepts....well....most of us know.......


Actually, this is what we DON'T know.  DNA did NOT prove that Anastasia Manahan was Franziska Schanzkowska.  Remember that.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 24, 2005, 10:46:27 AM
Quote
AA was not AN and was most likely FS....due to DNA evidence....


Nope, sorry. You're wrong.  The DNA evidence does NOT prove that Anastasia Manahan was Franziska Schanzkowska.

Quote
but the battle rages on.....


Me, I'm not fighting the "battle" over Anastasia Manahan's identity.  I'm fighting the battle against the misinformation that Annie is permitted to scatter-gun across these boards.  Someone has to watch out for the students.   8)

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 24, 2005, 10:51:29 AM
Why do most of you believe that FS shoe size and AA's shoe size are not important?

Why do most of you believe that a wounded person could not have traveled from Ekaterinburg to Bucherest?

Why do a handful of people believe that Summers and Mangold fabricated their facts?

Why do some of you believe Penny's and Greg's information in their book when it suits your purpose but not when she or he present statements  that there is possible new evidence and explain to us that they can not divulge their sources at this time?

Sources are so very important when trying to keep everything in order which gives us a better perspective of actual events but we can't demand it because we are impatient but have to go with the flow and realize from whom we are receiving the information.

All of us have made errors along the way but let's not compound those errors by repeating them over and over and over.

Quote

Nope, sorry. You're wrong.  The DNA evidence does NOT prove that Anastasia Manahan was Franziska Schanzkowska.


Me, I'm not fighting the "battle" over Anastasia Manahan's identity.  I'm fighting the battle against the misinformation that Annie is permitted to scatter-gun across these boards.  Someone has to watch out for the students.   8)



I agree.

AGRBear



Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: etonexile on August 24, 2005, 10:57:32 AM
Quote

Nope, sorry. You're wrong.  The DNA evidence does NOT prove that Anastasia Manahan was Franziska Schanzkowska.


Me, I'm not fighting the "battle" over Anastasia Manahan's identity.  I'm fighting the battle against the misinformation that Annie is permitted to scatter-gun across these boards.  Someone has to watch out for the students.   8)



Ms. Wilson...I said that AA was...."most likely" FS through DNA evidence....I did not say that she was....I know you would never wish to have your credibility challenged by a misquote....
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: etonexile on August 24, 2005, 11:03:37 AM
Quote
Why do most of you believe that FS shoe size and AA's shoe size are not important?

Why do most of you believe that a wounded person could not have traveled from Ekaterinburg to Bucherest?

Why do a handful of people believe that Summers and Mangold fabricated their facts?

Why do some of you believe Penny's and Greg's information in their book when it suits your purpose but not when she or he present statements  that there is possible new evidence and explain to us that they can not divulge their sources at this time?

Sources are so very important when trying to keep everything in order which gives us a better perspective of actual events but we can't demand it because we are impatient but have to go with the flow and realize from whom we are receiving the information.

All of us have made errors along the way but let's not compound those errors by repeating them over and over and over.


I agree.

AGRBear



 


Why?...Why?...Because the DNA evidence proves that AA was NOT AN and was "most likely"* FS....This leaves shoe sizes,hair lines,ears,and rides in carts in the relm of fantasy and imagination....


...*Please read carefully...
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 24, 2005, 11:17:40 AM
Quote

Ms. Wilson...I said that AA was...."most likely" FS through DNA evidence....I did not say that she was....I know you would never wish to have your credibility challenged by a misquote....


Then if you agree that the DNA evidence does not PROVE that Anastasia Manahan was Franziska Schanzkowska, I fail to see what your objection to our discussion can possibly be.

Kindly allow us the freedom to discuss the minutiae of the case without being constantly subjected to your ridicule.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 24, 2005, 11:19:24 AM
Quote
AA was not AN and was most likely FS....due to DNA evidence....but the battle rages on.....


AA was not GD Anastasia is a statement in itself.  Not everyone is as positive as you about this.

AA was most likely FS...due to DNA evidence.  DNA/mtDNA can not prove AA was FS.  The test can tell us if she is not FS.  Up to this time,  DNA/mtDNA cannot be presented into evidence like fingerprints.  It may well do so in the future, but, not at this time.    The "most likely" is created by "assumptions"  by those who demand strict scientific links of facts.  But none of them can prove that Gertrude S. and FS had the same mother or even the same father due to the tiny little so-called unimportant fact that no known birth or bap. certificate tells us who Gertrude's parents were.  At this time, I don't think there are many who are disclaiming the fact presented by Dr. Gill that when viewing the mtDNA that Gertrude and AA did have a common maternal ancestor.  However, there are.  And, I'll let the DNA scientists figure out the real numbers.  Meanwhile, the other evidence such as shoe size and other things should all point in the same direction of the DNA.  If  it does not then farther investigation should be done.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: etonexile on August 24, 2005, 11:26:27 AM
Could you...would you...PLEASE....list other females related to AA/FS who we might be confusing with this one woman?....I know it's not your "job"....but someone...anyone....who might have gone missing at the time that FS/AA did would be dead useful.....just one female of her general age and appearence...please....just ONE.....
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 24, 2005, 11:45:21 AM
Yes, there some females  who were reported missing and these cases were under investigation at this same time.  The Berlin police, at their own expense, brought in several family members who were looking for their loved ones, to Berlin to see AA.  None of them thought she was the member of the family who was missing.

The descriptions must have been close, why else would the Berlin police bring these people to see AA.

If any were relatives under the maternal line which fall under the mtDNA of 1 to 25 generations having a common ancestor,  I don't know.

I do not have their names.

This evidence was mentioned in one of my books,  now,  I just have to remember which one.  I did mention this on another thread and had posted the source..... But which one?  If it's locked down it will not come up in "search".....  Anyone remember.... I'm drawing a blank in my wooly brain.

Oh,  I do believe one of them was from Posen, also.  Reason I remembered this is because I thought, wow, this proves the police sent AA's photo and details as far as Posen when they were looking for possible relatives.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 24, 2005, 01:16:59 PM
While out roaming for my post,  I found this which relates to my questions about AA, Lt. Colonel Hassensstein, GD Anastasia and the cottage on the groups of the German embassy in Bucherest.

Quote
Court investigators, private detectives of various kinds, and police officers pretty much covered all the ground in Berlin.

I know that at one point, there was a pair of Englishmen who were researching the Bucharest angle -- something to do with the adoption of AM's son.  I don't remember the details, if I ever knew them at all, so I can't comment much further, except to say that they seemed to think they were making progress -- though as nothing further has been heard, who knows?

The only thing I know personally is that my roommate right after college -- Ruxi -- was from Bucharest and went back there every Christmas and summer to visit her mother and grandmother.  She took a picture of the house on Svintzi Voyezevodi -- the one right by the old German Embassy gardens where AM said she stayed -- and her grandmother confirmed that the street fighting in and around that part of the city was dreadful in 1918/1919 -- her father (Ruxi's great-grandfather) had had something to do with it on one side or another.

And that's all I know about Bucharest!  ;D
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 24, 2005, 03:31:14 PM
Quote

This was not your point, and you know it.  Stop moving the goal-posts when you are disproved.  Admit that you were wrong:  She never made a claim to be Tatiana.  It was always Anastasia --


AFTER she got the idea from the patient's magazine, and after she was pronounced too short to be Tatiana! There was NO mention of anything Romanov related before that. That's how she got the idea to pretend to be Anastasia.

Quote
The body of Fraulein Unbekannt bore witness to violence, yes -- but there was no bayonet "through the face."  Please withdraw this lie and don't repeat it again.





I don't have to withdrawl it, because I wasn't talking about AA, I was talking about AN, who DID get a bayonet through the face and DID die in Ekaternburg.

I am not commenting on what injuries AA had or did not have on her cart ride, because it never happened, and is completely ficticious.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 24, 2005, 03:32:50 PM
Quote


Actually, this is what we DON'T know.  DNA did NOT prove that Anastasia Manahan was Franziska Schanzkowska.  Remember that.


But it did say she was 99.9% sure to be related to Franziska's sister's son.

Remember that.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 24, 2005, 03:35:52 PM
Quote
Why do most of you believe that FS shoe size and AA's shoe size are not important?


I'm saying we do not know and cannot prove those were actually her shoes, and an 18 year old pair of shoes that may not even have been hers hold NO value over DNA.

Quote
Why do most of you believe that a wounded person could not have traveled from Ekaterinburg to Bucherest?


Make that mortally, extensively wounded. We know what injuries the REAL Anastasia suffered due to reports from Bolsheviks.

Quote
Why do a handful of people believe that Summers and Mangold fabricated their facts?


Not fabricated, misinterpreted, and assumptions made in the wrong direction.



Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 24, 2005, 04:21:14 PM
Bear Q: Why do most of you believe that FS shoe size and AA's shoe size are not important?

 
Annie's Ans: I'm saying we do not know and cannot prove those were actually her shoes, and an 18 year old pair of shoes that may not even have been hers hold NO value over DNA.

Bear's Ans:  The shoes were placed in evidence at her trial.  So,  you'll have to take it up with AA's opposition as to why they couldn't prove AA and FS wore the same shoe size.
 
------


Bear Q: Why do most of you believe that a wounded person could not have traveled from Ekaterinburg to Bucherest?

 Annie's Ans:  Make that mortally, extensively wounded. We know what injuries the REAL Anastasia suffered due to reports from Bolsheviks.

Bear's Ans:  We do not have the missing skeleton of  GD Anasatsia, therefore,  we do not know if she was killed.  If she was killed, we can't know her injuries due to the lack of forsensic evdience because there are no skeletal remains to study.  Without knowing these things,  we can not know if any guard struck GD Anastasia in the face or that she was shot or bayoneted.  We just don't know.  Therefore, claiming GD Anastasia was struck in the fact cannot be verified.   If she survived,  we cannot possibly know what wounds she suffered or if she suffered any at all.

Can you give me the source/sources which tell us the name of the shooter who claimed to have hit GD Anastasia in the face,  I don't recall which shooter claimed this in their testimony?


----  
 
Bear Q: Why do a handful of people believe that Summers and Mangold fabricated their facts?

Annie's Ans:  Not fabricated, misinterpreted, and assumptions made in the wrong direction.

BearAns:  Their book was written back in 1976 and the mass grave had not been discovered.  One of the things they did say, they didn't believe AA was GD Anastasia.  Would you like to hear the reason.  No.  Well,  I'll tell you anyway.  Most of their doubts was because of her escape story.

When we have discussed this on other threads, you have failed to give me any quotes from the book to show what facts were "misinterpeted"   just as you have failed to present any of their "assumptions" you found disfavorable.

 
-----

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 24, 2005, 04:30:07 PM
Quote
 

Bear's Ans:  The shoes were placed in evidence at her trial.  So,  you'll have to take it up with AA's opposition as to why they couldn't prove AA and FS wore the same shoe size.


Obviously, it swayed or convinced no one. We can't prove they were hers, or that the glove was OJ's.
Quote
BearAns:  Their book was written back in 1976 and the mass grave had not been discovered.  One of the things they did say, they didn't believe AA was GD Anastasia.  Would you like to hear the reason.  No.  Well,  I'll tell you anyway.  Most of their doubts was because of her escape story.


I know, I was a high school freshman and an avid Romanov fan when it came out and I was very excited. Even back then, I did not believe them. It is because the grave wasn't found yet that makes most of their assumptions and ideas useless now.

I know they didn't believe in AA, they touted other claimants, that entire Polish family pictured in their book.

Quote
When we have discussed this on other threads, you have failed to give me any quotes from the book to show what facts were "misinterpeted"   or where they made "assumptions" you found disfavorable.


Yes I have, such as the hair assumptions I brought up (them elaborating on OTMA cutting off their hair as a disguise, when we know their hair was gone from the time they had the measles! And also my comments about Perm, how they were basing their evidence on rumors spread by the Bolsheviks to make people think the family had not been killed. FA himself has posted this!

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 24, 2005, 04:38:15 PM
Quote

AFTER she got the idea from the patient's magazine, and after she was pronounced too short to be Tatiana! There was NO mention of anything Romanov related before that. That's how she got the idea to pretend to be Anastasia.


Nope.  Wrong.  Go back and read the source material.

Quote
I don't have to withdrawl it, because I wasn't talking about AA, I was talking about AN, who DID get a bayonet through the face and DID die in Ekaternburg.


In Ekaterinburg, we do not have a body corresponding to the forensic parameters of Grand Duchess Anastasia.  Not having a body, we cannot say at all what happened to her -- especially nothing as specific as a "bayonet through the face."

By the way -- what eyewitness claimed that she was stabbed through the face?

Quote
I am not commenting on what injuries AA had or did not have on her cart ride, because it never happened, and is completely ficticious.


In your opinion.  Many such journeys by cart took place at the time Fraulein Unbekannt claimed.  Hers could well have been one of them.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 24, 2005, 04:39:24 PM
Quote

But it did say she was 99.9% sure to be related to Franziska's sister's son.

Remember that.


This was not my point.  My point was -- clearly -- that there is room for reasonable doubt that Fraulein U was Franziska Schanzkowska.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 24, 2005, 04:41:54 PM
Quote

I'm saying we do not know and cannot prove those were actually her shoes, and an 18 year old pair of shoes that may not even have been hers hold NO value over DNA.


Franziska's mother knew what size shoes her daughter had.  Is her testimony to be disbelieved?

And we know what size shoes Fraulein Unbekannt wore because there she was -- wearing them.

The two sizes were not the same.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 24, 2005, 04:44:13 PM
Quote

...[in part]...
Yes I have, such as the hair assumptions I brought up (them elaborating on OTMA cutting off their hair as a disguise, when we know their hair was gone from the time they had the measles! And also my comments about Perm, how they were basing their evidence on rumors spread by the Bolsheviks to make people think the family had not been killed. FA himself has posted this!



I stand corrected if that was you who brought up the cutting of the hair as a disguise.  However,  they were not just referring just to the hair pieces, which had been made up of the hair that was made from the hair cut from the girls when they cut their hair after having the measles, found in a box.  There were other strands of hair.  For some reason you, again....  [what is the word Penny used, oh yes].... cobbled facts togather at your convience.

Now, I have two posts to find.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 24, 2005, 05:17:26 PM
Goof grief, the "search" isn't working for me at all today.

So, let me go find my book.

Starting with p. 67.

They talk about what the first White investigators found in the Ipatiev House when they entered it.

>>In the bathroom were dirty pillow slips....in the left-hand corner, on the linoleum,<< [that is the floor's surface]. >>near the water pipes, short pieces of hair cuttings.<<

p. 68
>>The lavatory was a mess<< >>And curiously, even more hair--this time a box with cut hair of four different colours.  Chemodurov later identified the hair as coming from the four grand duchess.<<

I do recall someting about disquises but I do not remember if it was Summers and Mangold who mention that members of the family may have altered their looks so they would look different during an escape it or I read it in another book.

Hmmmmmm,  can't seem to remember.

Something about Nicholas II having shaved his beard differently and maybe the girls had shorten their hair.....    Like I said earlier my wooly brain is failing me today.

The Grand Duchess hair had been growing since March of 1917, they weren't still bearing those shaved heads  by July of 1918.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: etonexile on August 24, 2005, 05:46:48 PM
The DNA evidence which won't go away.....and all manner of hairlines,ear photos,some-body saw someone in a cart during a a general war rout...total confusion.....




...and the DNA....that terrible...."E-vil" DNA....It won't go away....It's the same DNA testing which shows some sad little teenage boy that he was the "MAN" who made a golden,"God-Sent" baby that he should...MUST....acknowlege as his own child....the same DNA that lets an innocent off death row after 15-20 years of hellish existence.....it's...."DNA".....it's....the sad,sorrowful last chapter in the lives of the family of Nicholas and Alexandra......
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 24, 2005, 06:27:05 PM
Quote
The DNA evidence which won't go away.....and all manner of hairlines,ear photos,some-body saw someone in a cart during a a general war rout...total confusion.....




...and the DNA....that terrible...."E-vil" DNA....It won't go away....It's the same DNA testing which shows some sad little teenage boy that he was the "MAN" who made a golden,"God-Sent" baby that he should...MUST....acknowlege as his own child....the same DNA that lets an innocent off death row after 15-20 years of hellish existence.....it's...."DNA".....it's....the sad,sorrowful last chapter in the lives of the family of Nicholas and Alexandra......


If the DNA is the answer to all things about the mysterious case of AA, and, it is an absolute,  then why doesn't most the evidence add to this proof?  How does it explain away three shoe sizes?
If AA was FS, did she have her feet shorten while she was learning High German, French and English?  Or was it while she was learning which side the plate her forks would be and what the usage of each fork was?  Gosh, I hope she didn't have foot surgery while she was carrying a child!  I very much doubt any of the asylums offered this kind of foot surgery to their inmates.  Oh, I know, it must have been while she was recovering from a broken jaw and the other old wounds.... Whenever all this happen it was diffently before she jumped into the canal in Berlin.

II.  Shoe sizes    
FS wore shoes that were three sizes larger than AA      
 AA wore shoes that were three sizes smaller than FS
 
Evidence given at AA's trial.

Quote

Franziska's mother knew what size shoes her daughter had.  Is her testimony to be disbelieved?

And we know what size shoes Fraulein Unbekannt wore because there she was -- wearing them.

The two sizes were not the same.



AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: etonexile on August 24, 2005, 06:39:57 PM
AGRBear...the Bear....I've come to very much honour and feel affection for you...you aren't just some fly-by-night- crank....you have done your home work....

Bear....DNA is soul-less...mindless...un-emotional....2+2=4....It's that teenage boy who is now the father of a new life...it's...a GD...in some pit....far from the warmth of Tzarkoeselo....far away from the warm,buttered bread of tea....far away from happy readings around the sitting room fire....far.....away....




far away....
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 24, 2005, 06:55:14 PM
You are right,  I have done my homework.  And, thank you for the nice words.  I truly am happy our discussion is going along smoothly.   And, you've ask a lot of very good questions.  And, I for one am glad that DNA testing has lead to othe release of  inocent men  from jail just as it has put guilty men into jail.  I'm glad that the men who claim they aren't the father's of a child, now, have to pay their share to raise that child.  All of that is great!  

But you see, I don't care if AA is FS so I'm not working on emotion.  I'm trying to do exactly what a good researcher should do and that is to find the facts which should add up just like 1 + 1 = 2.

My point is, and it should be all of yours, why doesn't DNA [1] + shoe size [1] = 2.  Instead it equals 3.  [ ;D my attempt at a little humor since there are three size difference in the shoes].

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 24, 2005, 06:56:47 PM
On the hair, remember that they were bald in June 1917, hair grows about 6-7 inches per year, that does not allow for hair long enough to cut to change appearance. Besides, Sophie B. mentioned in her book the girls kept their hair bobbed while in captivity because they couldn't take care of it under such conditions. So the hair thing, especially the giggling of the girls while they did it, was all their assumptions. And I'm sure they didn't mean an inch or two of hair, they wrongly assumed the girls still had waist length tresses.

On the shoes, it's just, so dumb. The shoes may not have even been hers. People may guess wrong. I doubt any of my family members could accurately tell you my shoe size, and if I had been gone 18 years, even less so. Also, if my theory on the family and her wanting to deny her true identity, naturally they would mix things up a little. I still say all the friggin shoe crap and language conflicting reports and high and low what have you are really nothing compared to the DNA proof. Evidently, they were also not much to the courts at the time, who failed to verify her claim!

Again, what a shame so much time is wasted on this when we still have questions to be answered about FS and the 2 missing bodies.

AND AGAIN I ASK, IF INTESTINES CAN BE SWITCHED WHY NOT SHOES?? Because this one suits you, that's why! But it's not enough. What a relief only about 5 people in the world are still clinging to this, sadly, they are all here, and we can't move on to the real issues.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 24, 2005, 07:01:13 PM
Quote
I don't care if AA is FS so I'm not working on emotion.  I'm trying to do exactly what a good researcher does and that is to find the facts which should add up just like 1 + 1 = 2.


After reading your posts for over a year now, I find that very hard to believe. If you really wanted 'the truth' you'd bury this garbage and seek answers to real issues like the 2 missing bodies, and who helped FS with her claim.

Quote
My point is, and it should be all of yours, why doesn't DNA [1] + shoe size [1] = 2.  Instead it equals 3.  [ ;D my attempt at a little humor since there are three size difference in the shoes].

AGRBear


My point is, again, we don't even know if this is true. The shoes may have been mixed up or mistakingly thought to be hers. They are just SHOES! DNA is what  a body is made of, and tells who you are or not related to. A stupid pair of shoes that have been in the trash for 60 odd years, and we never knew the true origins of, just don't count. My head is spinning this is so lame.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 24, 2005, 07:15:15 PM
Quote

..[in part]...

On the hair, remember that they were bald in June 1917, hair grows about 6-7 inches per year, that does not allow for hair long enough to cut to change appearance. Besides, Sophie B. mentioned in her book the girls kept their hair bobbed while in captivity because they couldn't take care of it under such conditions. So the hair thing, especially the giggling of the girls while they did it, was all their assumptions. And I'm sure they didn't mean an inch or two of hair, they wrongly assumed the girls still had waist length tresses.

....


When Summers and Mangold wrote in their book about strands of cut hair being found on the floor,  how did you come to the conclusion that Summers and Mangold  thought the GDs had long hair?

Quote

After reading your posts for over a year now, I find that very hard to believe. If you really wanted 'the truth' you'd bury this garbage and seek answers to real issues like the 2 missing bodies, and who helped FS with her claim.

....


Evidence is not garbage.  If it is, then we'd have  to throw away and bury the DNA tests with the rest of the evidence.  I really don't think that is what you meant.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 24, 2005, 07:32:28 PM
Dear Bear:

                    You made an excellent point in one of your post above: We are supposed not to analyze this subject  emotionnally. I would like that Annie and Etonexile could understand that nobody here "wants! that AA was AN or that AA was not FS. The whole matter is indifferent in our daily life, and I can live without AA being AN. Nobody promised a part of the huge fortune of the Tsar, hidden in Englands Banks to me if I proclame myself "AA's champion" (read this with deep irony, please!  ;D). If I'm convinced of a thing is for I analyze COLDLY the facts I know about the case, and not for I want desperately to have an "X" results on my research. This is nonsense. And if tomorrow I find new evidence that leads me to conclude that I was totally wrong, no problem. That's history. I'm not Anastasia, nor claims to be anybody related to the Romanovs so...Anna Anderson's identity only matters for me in a professional way. I 'm not in love with her!  ;D

  RealAnastasia. (not a stubborn, but an analitic)
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 25, 2005, 09:39:37 AM
Quote

...[in part]....

My point is, again, we don't even know if this is true. The shoes may have been mixed up or mistakingly thought to be hers. They are just SHOES! DNA is what  a body is made of, and tells who you are or not related to. A stupid pair of shoes that have been in the trash for 60 odd years, and we never knew the true origins of, just don't count. My head is spinning this is so lame.


A mother  knows the size of her daughter's shoes, unless the family isn't close but it appears FS's family was close.  And they had all been together at Christmas Time in 1919 just 2 months earlier.  And, all the court had to do was walk over to AA, ask for her shoe, look inside, read the label, or,  they had one of those old fashion foot measurments  that the shoe shops used in those days and took actual measurements in the court.  


As you will find out,  feet don't get smaller as you get older.  They flatten and get longer so if you're using the 60 years then AA's feet were even shorter in 1920.

I suppose the reason you think shoe size and other evidence is "lame" is because it doesn't  endorse the DNA like it should.  Well, therein lies the mystery, doesn't it?  

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 25, 2005, 09:40:40 AM
Quote

When Summers and Mangold wrote in their book about strands of cut hair being found on the floor,  how did you come to the conclusion that Summers and Mangold  thought the GDs had long hair?



AGRBear


Why would cutting off one inch of hair be a big deal or a dramatic change in appearance to disguise yourself? I don't think they even knew they had lost their hair to the measles.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 25, 2005, 09:54:53 AM
Quote

Why would cutting off one inch of hair be a big deal or a dramatic change in appearance to disguise yourself? I don't think they even knew they had lost their hair to the measles.


Did Summers and Mangold say who's hair it was they found on the floor?   Did they even mention the length of the hair as being "one inch"?  

Not being able to find the page in THE FILE ON THE TSAR which talks about  disguises  is driving me bananas, so, if someone can help Annie and I ,  I'd appreciate being able to read what exactly was written.

Annie, at the moment all I have is what I wrote earlier in my post.

Quote
Goof grief, the "search" isn't working for me at all today.

So, let me go find my book.

Starting with p. 67.

They talk about what the first White investigators found in the Ipatiev House when they entered it.

>>In the bathroom were dirty pillow slips....in the left-hand corner, on the linoleum,<< [that is the floor's surface]. >>near the water pipes, short pieces of hair cuttings.<<

p. 68
>>The lavatory was a mess<< >>And curiously, even more hair--this time a box with cut hair of four different colours.  Chemodurov later identified the hair as coming from the four grand duchess.<<

I do recall someting about disquises but I do not remember if it was Summers and Mangold who mention that members of the family may have altered their looks so they would look different during an escape it or I read it in another book.

Hmmmmmm,  can't seem to remember.

Something about Nicholas II having shaved his beard differently and maybe the girls had shorten their hair.....    Like I said earlier my wooly brain is failing me today.

The Grand Duchess hair had been growing since March of 1917, they weren't still bearing those shaved heads  by July of 1918.

AGRBear


>>Chemodurov later identified the hair as coming from the four grand duchess.<<
 
Perhaps Chemodurov's report voiced more about the hair pieces and he might even have mention their bout with the measles in March 1917.  I don't know.  Anyone out there know?

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 25, 2005, 10:29:28 AM
If the lengths of hair in the box were identified as the Grand Duchesses', and there were shorter snips discovered in the room in a state of disarray, might it not be that the long hair was kept after it was cut in 1917? And accompanied the family into captivity? After all, there is presumably no way to know when the hair in the box was cut.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 25, 2005, 10:46:29 AM
Quote
If the lengths of hair in the box were identified as the Grand Duchesses', and there were shorter snips discovered in the room in a state of disarray, might it not be that the long hair was kept after it was cut in 1917? And accompanied the family into captivity? After all, there is presumably no way to know when the hair in the box was cut.


This is exactly what I think happened. S and M found out about the boxes of saved long hair from the measles, and made up their own story about them cutting it to disguise themselves. In the book, I don't have it in front of me, they go into imagined detail that the girls are giggling while cutting off each others' hair, and that Alexandra 'refused to change her style'- this is another thing that makes me think they were going by the boxes, as no cut hair was found for Alexandra! Also, they could have gotten the 2 mixed up, assuming the 'hair clippings' were the same thing as the boxes of hair. I don't think they even knew about OTMA losing their hair to the measles. It wasn't even mentioned in Nicholas and Alexandra. So being writers with creative imaginations, they made themselves a story that did not happen, just as with the Perm stories.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 25, 2005, 10:48:47 AM
It is thought that the hair in the box was the hair of the grand duchesses which was cut in March of 1917 then made into hair pieces which they wore, later, to make their hair look longer.

The pieces of hair on the bathroom floor are different and seems to have been hair left as if someone had their hair cut.

I am still turning pages looking for the disguise statements and still haven't found them in THE FILE ON THE TSAR.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 25, 2005, 10:55:43 AM
Meanwhile I found this:
Quote
>>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 folowed, 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


And then on p. 239 Summers and Mangold wrote:

>>In 1974, when we were with her in Virginia,  she suddenly exlaimed:  "There was no massacre there..but I cannot tell the rest."<<

The first statement seems to go with the flow and what testimonies of the shooters tell us and she told us in 1921 hen in 1974 she tells us that no massacre occured.  Was the old woman just tired of all the questions and did she think because she said there was not massacre that all those people [Summers, Mangold and whomever] would just get up and leave?  According to Prince Frederick of Saxe Altenburg,  she had told him in the 1960 p. 239: >>"Events in Ekaterinburg were quite different from wht they say.  But if I say that, they think I'm mad".

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 25, 2005, 11:16:22 AM
It's an interesting statement. It could mean that events in Ekaterinburg were indeed different than all of the documentation and forensic evidence seems to suggest. It could mean that she was changing her escape story, i.e. doing away with Alexander Tchaikovsky (Summers and Mangold seemed to think she was supporting the Perm story, but of course the grave hadn't been discovered in 1976, or 1960 for that matter.) If you accepted it at face value, it would also allow Anastasia Manahan the freedom to make up whatever she wanted with impunity, which is what seems to be happening with Lovell and her endorsement of the "fifth daughter."

As far as I know, she never amplified it, so it remains enigmatic. As does the lady herself, of course.
Title: [quote author=AGRBear link=board=anastasia;num=112
Post by: AGRBear on August 25, 2005, 11:24:38 AM
Quote

This is exactly what I think happened. S and M found out about the boxes of saved long hair from the measles, and made up their own story about them cutting it to disguise themselves. In the book, I don't have it in front of me, they go into imagined detail that the girls are giggling while cutting off each others' hair, and that Alexandra 'refused to change her style'- this is another thing that makes me think they were going by the boxes, as no cut hair was found for Alexandra! Also, they could have gotten the 2 mixed up, assuming the 'hair clippings' were the same thing as the boxes of hair. I don't think they even knew about OTMA losing their hair to the measles. It wasn't even mentioned in Nicholas and Alexandra. So being writers with creative imaginations, they made themselves a story that did not happen, just as with the Perm stories.


Quote
Goof grief, the "search" isn't working for me at all today.

So, let me go find my book.

Starting with p. 67.

They talk about what the first White investigators found in the Ipatiev House when they entered it.

>>In the bathroom were dirty pillow slips....in the left-hand corner, on the linoleum,<< [that is the floor's surface]. >>near the water pipes, short pieces of hair cuttings.<<

p. 68
>>The lavatory was a mess<< >>And curiously, even more hair--this time a box with cut hair of four different colours.  Chemodurov later identified the hair as coming from the four grand duchess.<<

I do recall someting about disquises but I do not remember if it was Summers and Mangold who mention that members of the family may have altered their looks so they would look different during an escape it or I read it in another book.

Hmmmmmm,  can't seem to remember.

Something about Nicholas II having shaved his beard differently and maybe the girls had shorten their hair.....    Like I said earlier my wooly brain is failing me today.

The Grand Duchess hair had been growing since March of 1917, they weren't still bearing those shaved heads  by July of 1918.

AGRBear




Here it is on p. 318 but let me turn back to page 317 first and quote:

>>On the basis of all we have learned, we now make our final hypothesis, reconstructing that vital first fortnight of July 1918, sixteen days that sealed the fate of the Tsar Nicholas.

In late June, while talks with the Germans were going on both at Moscow and perhaps a Ekaterinburg we know that Commissar Goloshchokin was called from Ekaterinburg to Moscow for consultations.  We know he had talks with Chairman Sverdlov of the Central Executive Committee.... When Goloshchokin boarded the train back to Ekaterinburg we can reckon that he carried confirmation of Lenin's exising orders....<<

And so it goes.  

Page 318:
>>..And so on and about 16 July, it happened.  Nicholas was shot, and probably his son Alexei too, becuse he was the male heir.  But Alexandra and her four daughters were transferred from Ekateringurg--alive.<<

>>...there are tell-tale clues, some of which we have come across already, and now fall into place.  There were sound reasons for moving the family in some form of disguise, because it would have been inviting recognition to let the family travel in their stylish, tailored clothes.  In any case, we have seen, the Bolsheviks may have needed their usual clothing to set the decoy murder scene at the Four Brothers, where indeed most of their clothes were found.  The valet, Chemodurov, said the family were "obliged to put on soldiers' uniforms and had been taken away".  Then there are the different coloured hair-cuttings found in the house--identified positively as belonging to the grand duchesses:  haircuts all round would hae been one obvious step in disquishing the girls.  It the idea sounds farfetched it is worthy recalling that the British high commissioner Sir Charles Eliot, accepted the principle of disquise when he wrote in his report:  "It seems probable that the imperial family were disguised before thier removal."

pps 318-319

>>Two other clues suggest that, before the deision was taken to kill the tsar and perhaps his son, preparations were also made to remove them in diguise.  There was the evidence of the visiting priest, who noticed on 14 July that the tsar seemed "have cut round his beard".  And there is the report by Colonel Rodzyanko, not mentioned by Sokolov, that part of the tsar's beard and been found hidden in a chimney at the Ipatiev House.<<

>>The young guard, Philip Proskuryakov, told how Sednev, the teenaged kitchen-boy in the Ipatiev House, was transferred by Commissar Yurovsky to the guardhouse across the street on the day before the Imperial family vanished.  "He slept on my bed and I spoke to him... At the time he complained that Yurovsky ahd taken away his clothes".  Now what possible reason could Yurovsky have had for a kitchenboy's clohes....?<<
 

It appeared to them that there was enough evidence which showed it was possible that Alexandra and the four grand duchesses might not have been killed on the night of 16/17 July 1918 in the Ipatiev House.

Later in the book, Summers and Mangold  go into the evidence which they found which never before had been known about this case.

And,  interestingly, when you look at the grave of Pig's Meadow, the bodies on top of the others are Alexandra and three of her daughters.

They go into the evidence which shows that Anastasia escaped.

It is Anastasia's body which is missing from the mass grave.

Of course,  Summers and Mangold couldn't be 100 % correct  in their hypothesis, they are, afterall human.  And, you may not agree with any of their hypothesises.   However, I find the evidence stands alone and should be viewed as it is.

I had forgotten about the Tsar's beard and exactly what Summers and Mangold wrote.

Now, the rest of you can find it, read it, and offer your opinions.

Thanks Annie for pushing these facts so I had to find them and reread what the authors wrote.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 25, 2005, 11:36:42 AM
Discussions have been occuring on other threads.

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

Diagram of the position of the skeletons in the mass grave.

You can see how one body was placed on top of another....

I colorzied the bones, however, I'm not sure if I put the correct colors on the right bones.  

If you see anything I need to change or add colors to the bones not yet colorized, please,  let me know.  

On the leg bone of #3 is something that looks like part of a skull.  Does that belong to #8??

1. Anna S. Demidova
2. Dr. Botkin
3. GD Olga
4.  Nicholas II
5. GD Marie/Anastasia
6. GD Tatiana
7. Empress Alexandra
8. Ivan Kharitonov
9. Alexsi Trupp

I promised I'd do this on one of these threads but forgotten which one so I placed it here.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 25, 2005, 11:39:25 AM
Quote
Starting on p. 403 Penny and Greg tell us about the postion of the bodies in the grave.
 
Penny had earlier written about this in one of her posts.  I can't find it and it may have been one of posts she omited.
 
Anyway,  let's start with the body that they think was the first one placed in the grave.
 
Using the colorized diagram above.
 
I. #4 Nicholas II was thought to have been placed first.  Depth was 107 to 119 centimeters below the surface
II.  #9 Trupp was 100 to 120 centimeters  below the surface
III. #8 Kharitonov was 99 to 113 centimeters below the surface
IV.  #2 Botkin was 90 to 100 centimeters below the surface
V., VI, & VII. #3, #5, & #6 the three GD Duchess  were the same depth of 92 to  100 centimeters below the surface.
VIII. Demidova was at 90 centimeters
IX.  Alexandra was 79 to 96 centimeters
 
 
 
AGRBear


The last bodies placed in the mass grave were the three Grand Duchess,  Demidova and Alexandra.

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 26, 2005, 11:32:47 AM
Quote

Nope.  Wrong.  Go back and read the source material.


In Ekaterinburg, we do not have a body corresponding to the forensic parameters of Grand Duchess Anastasia.  Not having a body, we cannot say at all what happened to her -- especially nothing as specific as a "bayonet through the face."

By the way -- what eyewitness claimed that she was stabbed through the face?


In your opinion.  Many such journeys by cart took place at the time Fraulein Unbekannt claimed.  Hers could well have been one of them.


Annie, to you recall your source where someone has given testimony about GD Anastasia being "bayoneted through the face"?

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 26, 2005, 10:12:30 PM
Quote

Annie, to you recall your source where someone has given testimony about GD Anastasia being "bayoneted through the face"?

AGRBear


It was in a book I read, a testimony of a Bolshevik. No, I don't remember the book but somebody must have it. It said she was bayonetted through the face because she screamed. It also said that later they said they couldn't find the head, or the body, with the bayonet thrust in the face. Even if her body did go missing, with a bayonet through the face, she certainly wasn't alive though!
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: lexi4 on August 27, 2005, 12:47:38 AM
Annie,
Do you just enjoy arguing with Bear?
Just curious.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 27, 2005, 07:48:20 AM
Quote
Annie,
Do you just enjoy arguing with Bear?
Just curious.


No, actually, it is very nerve wracking and upsets me very much. But I just can't let some of the ideas and statements stand in case someone might believe them if nobody else posts the other side. Maybe I shouldn't care, but I do.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 27, 2005, 10:52:16 AM
Quote

No, actually, it is very nerve wracking and upsets me very much. But I just can't let some of the ideas and statements stand in case someone might believe them if nobody else posts the other side. Maybe I shouldn't care, but I do.


Please Annie,  do not allow my questions to upset you.  

This is suppose to be a discussion not an arguement.

The so-called ideas are "theories" and the statements are "opinions" and the evidence I used have SOURCES to which everyone reading these post can go to, read for themselves, and make up thier own opinions.

Nor is this a contest between myself and Annie.

Even after a year or more, Annie has no idea what my conclusions are.  The answer is on the side of each of my posts:  "The road to truth is the best one to travel."

I'm, also,  trying to provide  ALL the evidence, which she and many other posters do NOT   always  remember quite as acturally as they believe they do.

Good example Annie and my own posts about  the "hair".  [See above]

Not wanting to give any misinformation,  I brought  in most of the information to this thread.    I didn't omit certain words or sentences which I, if I were really a giver of misinformtion,  may not have found to my liking if I was trying to prove a certain point of view.

A good researcher and historian who is not biase presents all that is known because, as I've said,  history is like a huge picture puzzel and can't be completed if there are puzzle pieces missing.

I hope I showed to other posters, how often times memories fail.  Annie recalled some parts and I recalled some parts and usually laying inbetween was what was written in the book.  Our minds usually grasp what we want to remember at the time and that is what we repeat later.   So,  that is why I and others ask for SOURCES.

So our latest discussion is:  Annie  obviously recalls reading somewhere that a bayonet was thrust through the face of Anastasia.  I don't.  So,  I've asked  her for the source.  She doesn't recall.  That means I can't go find it,  read it for myself so I can read what she recalls reading.  Therefore,  I can not discover the name of the author, therefore,  I cannot judge if the evidence is written by the anti-Anastasia group or pro-Anastasia group,  the CHEKA, the communist, a German,  a British....  To me,  it makes a huge difference as to how I weigh the evidence  as to who said what and to whom and when and where.

So,  can someone else recall what Annie remembers and the SOURCE

Thanks.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 27, 2005, 01:54:58 PM
As I have said, a 'source' means NOTHING if it cannot be proven! I put no stock in a quote just because someone said it and someone wrote it in a book on a certain page. I could write a book and do the same and my idea could be totally wrong too! Just because something is quoted from X book on z page does not mean it's any more true or false than the stuff I remember from memory. And unlike many of you, I don't have the money to buy up all these books and have them lying around. Most of what I saw was in library books I no longer have around, some are long gone from the library I first got them from.

And again, if you want a SOURCE so bad, why do you deny the final and conclusive evidence of the DNA? You can't say, well, that's  cool but I still have questions, because if you understood it and believed it, there would be no more questions, nothing else would matter, you'd just realize all the shoes and silly quotes were simply mistaken.

It seems your 'road to truth' is not that at all, but a long and winding path into a twisting forest of confusion that never ends. You passed the road to the highway (DNA) and refused to take it. If you choose to run yourself on a wild goose chase, that is your choice, but please do not take others along to get lost too.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: lexi4 on August 27, 2005, 02:03:53 PM
I don't see how we can verify that AN was stabbed in the face without a body. That would be the only way to know for sure. Just my opinion.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on August 27, 2005, 02:05:32 PM
Quote
Hi Annie

I was just wondering if you could explain how if AA was FS how did she speak Russian in her sleep in her years at Dalldorf asylum, if she was a Polish peasant who only knew German and a little Polish?

It would be interesting to hear an explanation.

Rachael


Rachel,

I feel that no one survived that massacre, however, I don't firmly believe that AA was FS, and to correct a misstatement here, BUT,  Bertha Walz ( See Peter Kurth's ROAA) deposes that AA not only understood Russian she spoke it, very fluently.  Thea Malinowsky another nurse at Dalldorf deposed to the same data I think.   So it was not only talking Russian in her sleep it was the ability to understand and converse in Russian with the staff at Dalldorf who knew Russian, and I believe that there were doctors that also made these statements.  So there is no way IMO that a Polish farm girl who spoke good German and a little Polish, could be this person.  This is one the reasons that I am not satisfied that  AA was FS.  If I were on a jury judging this case regardless of the DNA, clearly I would be voting against her being FS too many unanswered questions.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on August 27, 2005, 02:08:14 PM
Quote
I don't see how we can verify that AN was stabbed in the face without a body. That would be the only way to know for sure. Just my opinion.


Agreed upon Lexi, the experts believe that AN's body was not among those in the grave, so how would we know whether AN suffered a bayonet wound to the face?   As usual certain people find it convenient to make statements as fact without giving a source to back up those statements.    ::) ::)
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on August 27, 2005, 02:14:49 PM
Quote
As I have said, a 'source' means NOTHING if it cannot be proven! I put no stock in a quote just because someone said it and someone wrote it in a book on a certain page. I could write a book and do the same and my idea could be totally wrong too! Just because something is quoted from X book on z page does not mean it's any more true or false than the stuff I remember from memory. And unlike many of you, I don't have the money to buy up all these books and have them lying around. Most of what I saw was in library books I no longer have around, some are long gone from the library I first got them from.

And again, if you want a SOURCE so bad, why do you deny the final and conclusive evidence of the DNA? You can't say, well, that's  cool but I still have questions, because if you understood it and believed it, there would be no more questions, nothing else would matter, you'd just realize all the shoes and silly quotes were simply mistaken.

It seems your 'road to truth' is not that at all, but a long and winding path into a twisting forest of confusion that never ends. You passed the road to the highway (DNA) and refused to take it. If you choose to run yourself on a wild goose chase, that is your choice, but please do not take others along to get lost too.


No Annie, you keep making statements, and refuse to back them up with actual source material, and then accuse everyone else who doesn't agree with you of twisting the truth, etc.  If you have been at this for 31 years as you state, then you have collected some books in that process, and those books can be used as source material.

You make statements about a "6 hour meeting" with no actual source material to back you up, now AN is stabbed in the face, and you just can't recall WHERE you read this at, I feel this is just another case of you using innuendo to validate your point of view.

As far as the DNA evidence is concerned, and again, we have stated NUMEROUS times, it's not that we don't believe the DNA evidence, it is that WE CHOOSE to make our own decision until ALL of the evidence is in.
For me it doesn't matter what ends up happening as long as all of the questions get answered, for you it is the opposite, it just matters that you are right.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Rachael89 on August 27, 2005, 03:03:34 PM
Thanks for the reply, Michael! I too beleive that it is impossible for AA to be FS because nothing to support that theory adds up there are always more questions to ask. FS is described as a Polish peasant and there is no way she could stay in charecter constantly without her performance being dropped at some point.

Thankyou for the more detailed facts about AA's ability to converse in Russian!

Best

Rachael
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: stepan on August 27, 2005, 04:05:22 PM
Quote

Annie, to you recall your source where someone has given testimony about GD Anastasia being "bayoneted through the face"?

AGRBear


I have read the same thing as Annie  about a bayonet being driven through Anastasia´s face.  I read it a long time ago but it seems this source isen´t trustorthy at all.  The source is Piotr Voikov who was commissar for supplies in the Ural Soviet and later soviet ambassador in Poland where he was shot by a Russian monarchist,Boris Koverda in 1927.  He wrote a tale of the execution and maintained he was present there and even said that it was he who gave the coup de grace to Nicholas. The actual passage about the bayonet thrust says  "At that moment Ermakov exclaimed: The tsarina´s maid Anna Demidova and the youngest daughter Anastasia,are still breathing. Two of the letts from the cheka ran forward to finish off Anna Demidova and the youngest daughter Anastasia.One of the Letts drove a bayonet through Anastasa´s face"
Voikovs account is very different from Yurovsky´s. For instance he said that all the bodies were burnt.  Yurovsky´s version wasen´t available before about 1989 so there was no way to know what actually happened. And in the end it´s what we choose to believe. I don´t know if Voikov was present in the execution room. G´He seems to have been fantasising a lot just like Ermakov who gave an interview to an American Journalist,Halliburton in the 1930´s.  I read about the Voikov story in Viktor Alexandrov´s "The end of the Romanovs" published in the early 60´s.  There was no reason to  doubt it back then but as we know a lot more today about various versions  it´s easier to judge what is trustworthy and not.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 27, 2005, 07:29:03 PM
Well; actually there is some info about  Anastasia being bayonetted through the face. But not exactly with the "knife" or blade of it; it was with the butt. There is in James Blair Lovell's book. Peter Kurth also wrote something about her face being smashed with a bayonette or rifle butt. This is the statement of AA claim supporters, for they said that she had her jaw wounded by the butt of a bayonette or a rifle. This was their explanation for AA lower part of the face being different from Anastasia's one.

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: lexi4 on August 27, 2005, 07:33:04 PM
Stepan,
Thank you for the post and the sources. It is most interesting. I don't know much about Piotr Voikov or the book you mention. But now I can check it all out.
I still maintain, that unless there is a body, we cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that AN was stabbed in the face or, if she was, the extent of the injury.  Does anyone else know more about the book Stepan mentions or about the credibility of it?
Thanks again Stepan.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 27, 2005, 09:27:46 PM
Quote
As usual certain people find it convenient to make statements as fact without giving a source to back up those statements.    ::) ::)


And suppose I went to the library, found the book, and quoted it here to you word for word including the page number and the publishing company? You'd still say 'there is no proof without a body.'

Which is actually true!

Which is what I've been trying to say all along about sources! Just because someone said it and it was recorded does not necessarily make it valid.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: lexi4 on August 27, 2005, 10:17:28 PM
Quote

And suppose I went to the library, found the book, and quoted it here to you word for word including the page number and the publishing company? You'd still say 'there is no proof without a body.'

Which is actually true!

Which is what I've been trying to say all along about sources! Just because someone said it and it was recorded does not necessarily make it valid.


Annie, to me it isn't about "just because someone said it and it was recorded does not necessarily make it valid." It is about being able to read it for myself. To read what comes before and after the quoted source. To be able to look at any cites the book might contain. I don't think that is too much to ask of anyone. I appreciate it when, as Stephen did, someone tells us where to find the information. Sometimes I've even learned of books I have not had the opportunity to read. I have added to my library because someone listed a source.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on August 28, 2005, 07:24:39 AM
Quote

Annie, to me it isn't about "just because someone said it and it was recorded does not necessarily make it valid." It is about being able to read it for myself. To read what comes before and after the quoted source. To be able to look at any cites the book might contain. I don't think that is too much to ask of anyone. I appreciate it when, as Stephen did, someone tells us where to find the information. Sometimes I've even learned of books I have not had the opportunity to read. I have added to my library because someone listed a source.


100% correct Lexi.  This entire concept seems foreign to Annie, and must be unable to understand WHY this is so important.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 28, 2005, 07:48:48 AM
 Thank you Stepan for posting that info. You always have great information to share with us, please come here more often.

To Michael, Lexi and Bear, does this mean if I am only quoting from memory you may suspect I am a 'liar' or got the info wrong somehow? WELL! That's EXACTLY what I've been trying to get through to you about all these 'affadavits' and 'transcripts' you keep quoting! In 1938, all anyone could say about FS was just remember the best they could, which could very well be flawed, or even lie. So, if their old memories are valid, why not mine? I'm saying, there is a VERY HIGH chance that those people were honestly mistaken, or that their memories were not completely accurate after all that time. If you say it about me and books I read years ago, how can you accept their 'memories' without question? After all, they came from the same place, someone's head, many years later!

This is a concept I have been trying to get through to you, that this or that person's personal memory of small details of a person they hardly knew is not a valid source, no matter how many books you quote it in. And if theirs is, why can't you accept mine? I guess it's because theirs back up what you want to believe, and mine don't? After all this time, with all the people dead and all the shoes thrown away, there is no way to ever prove or disprove who was right or wrong in these quotes. That's why we need the hardcore proof of the DNA to tell us who was mistaken and who wasn't.

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on August 28, 2005, 08:53:03 AM
Quote
Thank you Stepan for posting that info. You always have great information to share with us, please come here more often.

To Michael, Lexi and Bear, does this mean if I am only quoting from memory you may suspect I am a 'liar' or got the info wrong somehow? WELL! That's EXACTLY what I've been trying to get through to you about all these 'affadavits' and 'transcripts' you keep quoting! In 1938, all anyone could say about FS was just remember the best they could, which could very well be flawed, or even lie. So, if their old memories are valid, why not mine? I'm saying, there is a VERY HIGH chance that those people were honestly mistaken, or that their memories were not completely accurate after all that time. If you say it about me and books I read years ago, how can you accept their 'memories' without question? After all, they came from the same place, someone's head, many years later!

This is a concept I have been trying to get through to you, that this or that person's personal memory of small details of a person they hardly knew is not a valid source, no matter how many books you quote it in. And if theirs is, why can't you accept mine? I guess it's because theirs back up what you want to believe, and mine don't? After all this time, with all the people dead and all the shoes thrown away, there is no way to ever prove or disprove who was right or wrong in these quotes. That's why we need the hardcore proof of the DNA to tell us who was mistaken and who wasn't.



SOURCES MATTER , Annie. That is  the bottom line, and YOU CHOOSE not to use them, continually.  The affadavits, & depositions do matter, as for some of us the matter is not closed or solved, capiche?????  

However you choose to keep disseminating information, such as the 6 hour meeting, and other issues which are tantamount to spreading the falsehoods you accuse others of by not accepting or believing in the DNA.  We are going to call you on it each & every time.  

Annie if I or Lexi, or Bear, or Stepan, or IM one can find their source in a book, then you can too, it's just that simple.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 28, 2005, 10:18:22 AM
Quote

[bAnnie if I or Lexi, or Bear, or Stepan, or IM one can find their source in a book, then you can too, it's just that simple.


No, I can't. As I said, I have been reading stuff for 31 years. Some stuff I saw in a book way back in the 70's, and the library is out of town and has long since gotten rid of the book. I have read so much I can't even tell you what came out of what book. But when I mention something, someone usually has seen it and has an idea of what I mean, like Stepan did. Then we get into things I saw posted on this forum but can no longer find since all the threads end up on the same topic and I have no idea where to look (case of the 7 hour meeting)

I still say, my memory of things I read years ago is just as valid as some shoes somebody saw 18 years ago. I don't give a rat's behind how many books you quote on those things, it will never make it real to me, because it's all just a quote from someone that cannot be proven- like you say what I say is!

Question;

Now that Stepan has posted the 'source' of the bayonet in the face, do you  believe it, or disregard it anyway? If you do disregard it, and accept those old shoe stories, etc. on fs, I must believe you are being selective as to what you consider valid.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 28, 2005, 10:47:21 AM
Quote
 This is one the reasons that I am not satisfied that  AA was FS.  If I were on a jury judging this case regardless of the DNA, clearly I would be voting against her being FS too many unanswered questions.


There are no more unanswered questions. Some people were simply mistaken, or lying, when they said the things you are holding to. The DNA proved that. They were all just conflicting reports, this person said she spoke this, this person said no it was that, this lady goes, she was this height, that guy says no it was that height, none of it can be proven as it was all based on old memories and word of mouth. The DNA told us who was right and who was wrong. There is no more mystery as to her identity. Other mysteries do remain, like how the charade was carried out, and what happened to the two missing bodies. Those of you who love discussion so much could be very productive in looking into that instead of beating this poor dead horse.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 28, 2005, 10:50:46 AM
Quote

...[in pat]...

Question;

Now that Stepan has posted the 'source' of the bayonet in the face, do you  believe it, or disregard it anyway? If you do disregard it, and accept those old shoe stories, etc. on fs, I must believe you are being selective as to what you consider valid.


The point we are trying to make, Annie and others, it isn't our, which includes Annie's,  opinions that are in question, it is the need of SOURCES  so we, who find the need,  can go to the sourse/sources, read it and then make our own conclusions.  Failing to give us a source is denying everyone that opportunity.

And,  as I've said earlier,  if Annie and others don't have the books, or a libarary close at hand or just can't remember where you've read something, then just ask.  One of our generous poster, like stephen,  will help find it and post it.  So, really, there is NO excuses, unless the source can not be given at this time since we do have authors who have contracts, etc. who can't give out information before the book/ aritlce is printed.

If I have time,  I'll reread what's been posted and answer Annie's question later this morning.  Meanwhile, others may already have an answer for you.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on August 28, 2005, 11:09:53 AM
Quote

There are no more unanswered questions. Some people were simply mistaken, or lying, when they said the things you are holding to. The DNA proved that. They were all just conflicting reports, this person said she spoke this, this person said no it was that, this lady goes, she was this height, that guy says no it was that height, none of it can be proven as it was all based on old memories and word of mouth. The DNA told us who was right and who was wrong. There is no more mystery as to her identity. Other mysteries do remain, like how the charade was carried out, and what happened to the two missing bodies. Those of you who love discussion so much could be very productive in looking into that instead of beating this poor dead horse.



For YOU there are no more unanswered questions.  For myself and others there are.  You seem to love to quote things from book or memory as long as they selectively back up your point of view.  That is just typical, and what we have come to expect from you.

We thank Stepan for taking the time to quote the source material, it is just a shame you couldn't have been as forthcoming.  I have been reading on this subject just about as long as YOU have my dear, yet I seem to be able to look up material, so does Lexi, Bear, and others.  
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: lexi4 on August 28, 2005, 12:02:21 PM
Quote
Thank you Stepan for posting that info. You always have great information to share with us, please come here more often.

To Michael, Lexi and Bear, does this mean if I am only quoting from memory you may suspect I am a 'liar' or got the info wrong somehow? WELL! That's EXACTLY what I've been trying to get through to you about all these 'affadavits' and 'transcripts' you keep quoting! In 1938, all anyone could say about FS was just remember the best they could, which could very well be flawed, or even lie. So, if their old memories are valid, why not mine? I'm saying, there is a VERY HIGH chance that those people were honestly mistaken, or that their memories were not completely accurate after all that time. If you say it about me and books I read years ago, how can you accept their 'memories' without question? After all, they came from the same place, someone's head, many years later!

This is a concept I have been trying to get through to you, that this or that person's personal memory of small details of a person they hardly knew is not a valid source, no matter how many books you quote it in. And if theirs is, why can't you accept mine? I guess it's because theirs back up what you want to believe, and mine don't? After all this time, with all the people dead and all the shoes thrown away, there is no way to ever prove or disprove who was right or wrong in these quotes. That's why we need the hardcore proof of the DNA to tell us who was mistaken and who wasn't.



No Annie, you missed the point. It does not mean you are a liar. It means we can't go read the information for ourselves. We have no way to examine the content. It means we do not know the author and have no way to determine his/her crediabilty. If the author is say Lovell, for some it might not carry the weight is would if the author was ummm Massie. You say you want to help people learn and that is why you post her, but by not sharing your sources, you are not helping anyone learn. Students reading these posts would need to be able to verify what they read here for any work or research they might do. A poster's recollection would be meaningless for a student. This has nothing to do with backing up what someone wants to believe. This is about integrity. The affidavits etc., accurate or not, are verifiable. Like me, you have no academic standing and anything you or I think we read or post without sources is abosutely meaningless. This is not about you Annie. Quit making this personal.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 28, 2005, 01:27:03 PM
There is something to be said for both sides in this exchange. It is true that a source for information should be provided, whenever possible. But a source can be impeached by any number of factors. Blatant self-interest, lack of presence at the event described, or sheer unwillingness to accept it on the part of the readers/hearers. There have been a number of these on this thread. It is true that there is no body for Anastasia or Alexei, and therefore there can be no definitive answer to the question as to how specifically they died. But suppose her skull turns up, and yes, she was bayoneted through the face? Does that mean that an impeachable source got something correct?

The "facts" of this matter will not be known until there is hard forensic evidence, and under that criterion, they may never be completely known. If the only "evidence" that will ever be accepted  is the remains of Anastasia, then none of the questions can be answered. On the other hand, there is a certain allowance that should be made for common sense.

You argued that the journey across Russia by cart that AA and Tchaikowsky took was possible, Bear, because your personal family history includes migration during the chaos of post-war periods. You also maintained that the shoe evidence should be considered correct because her family would know basic questions like that.

Well . . . I am the father of a 23 year old son whom I love very much, and whose clothing I paid for during the 22 years he lived with us. I have no idea what size shoe he wears, and the idea that I could identify any of them in a law court . . .

If you cannot accept the DNA evidence, okay, I guess.  But it is puzzling to me.  I have asked every doctor I know which would carry more weight in identification, the circumstantial evidence that AA was AN, or the DNA evidence that places her firmly in the Schanzkowska lineage. Without exception, they answer "DNA". So if you are going to disregard this evidence, why? The thread dealing with the possibility of tampering seems to have thoroughly quashed the idea that it happened. So while Annie may be strident in asking you to accept it, I do think that there has to be meaningful reasons given for not. And if she is a Schanzkowska, why wouldn't she be Franziska? Were there others of the family that went missing during the period right before Fraulein Unbekannt's appearance?

And please, please, please, give the idea that a Polish peasant could not have been a good actor a rest. It makes no sense from the point of view of theatre, and smacks of snobbery. And my impression of the Schanzkowskas from Kurth, Mangold and Summers, King and Wilson and Lovell, is that if anything, they were what we in the States would call lower middle class. Franziska was educated, after all, and she worked in a factory, eventually living in one of the great European capitals.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 28, 2005, 02:05:22 PM
Quote
The "facts" of this matter will not be known until there is hard forensic evidence, and under that criterion, they may never be completely known. If the only "evidence" that will ever be accepted  is the remains of Anastasia, then none of the questions can be answered. On the other hand, there is a certain allowance that should be made for common sense.

.


This is exactly what I have been trying to say. Thank you for putting it so eloquently.

Also, because all of the participants are now dead and took their secrets to their graves, and all the shoes are in the trash, the trail is cold, and there is nothing else we can do but run around in circles chasing our tails quoting the same books and wondering 'maybe this or that.' There will NEVER be an answer to the subjective stuff, and if that is what some of you are waiting for, you will take that to your graves as well. I mean that if you live another 100 years. We will NEVER know the real answers to what these people were thinking,if they lied, or if they were mistaken, or if the shoes were really hers. All we have as proof is the DNA, and if that's not good enough for you, nothing ever will be.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: lexi4 on August 28, 2005, 02:28:07 PM
Louis Charles,
About show size. I have a 21-year-old son and yes I can tell you his shoe size and recognize his shoes it court. My husband, on the other can could not. Get my point? I bet Bear could to the same. Your experience, nor mine is universal.

As for sources, I will continue to insist that they are posted. It helps me and I know it helps others. Some of these threads are fashioned not to include DNA. It does not mean we disregard the evidence. I do not believe that AA was AN.  But we enjoy discussing the loose ends. That is our privledge. If it is a problem for other posters then don't bother with those sites. It is certainly ok for us to post topics on discussions that do not include DNA. If not, the FA would remove it from the forum. So to all here, please do not continue to disrupt our discussions.
Annie, if you don't like what you read here, move on. But please allow us to have our discussions in peace. Start your own threads. On this one we are asking for sources. We have offered to look up or assist others if they can't find a source. To other posters, my suggestion is, if sources aren't given, we can ignore the post...not responde.
Respectfully,
lexi4
P.S. One more thing, WE KNOW ABOUT THE DNA! Now,  can we please get back to the topic. FYI, I am learning a lot from Bear's posts. Many of those diagrams I have not seen. Because she shared them and the books, I can get the books if I want to. See how this works???
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 28, 2005, 02:42:26 PM
Yes, Lexi, I do see how this works.

Perhaps I can ask another question sans reference to DNA. What evidence has come to light in the past twenty or thirty years that contradicts the verdicts of the German courts in regards to AA's claim?



Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 28, 2005, 02:59:42 PM
Quote
Louis Charles,
About show size. I have a 21-year-old son and yes I can tell you his shoe size and recognize his shoes it court. My husband, on the other can could not. Get my point? I bet Bear could to the same. Your experience, nor mine is universal.


Yes, I get the point. It is exactly mine. I have no reason to accept the Schanzkowska testimony regarding shoes because it isn't mine. You do, because it is yours. As a basis for discussion, it isn't very satisfactory.

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on August 28, 2005, 03:35:02 PM
Quote

This is exactly what I have been trying to say. Thank you for putting it so eloquently.

Also, because all of the participants are now dead and took their secrets to their graves, and all the shoes are in the trash, the trail is cold, and there is nothing else we can do but run around in circles chasing our tails quoting the same books and wondering 'maybe this or that.' There will NEVER be an answer to the subjective stuff, and if that is what some of you are waiting for, you will take that to your graves as well. I mean that if you live another 100 years. We will NEVER know the real answers to what these people were thinking,if they lied, or if they were mistaken, or if the shoes were really hers. All we have as proof is the DNA, and if that's not good enough for you, nothing ever will be.



You know Annie I thought I would NEVER know many of the things I know now abouy my family had I not INVESTIGATED the family, dealt with the SUBJECTIVE evidence, and was able to solve the mysteries that I have been able to solve.  By affadavit, deposition, available source material.  

I don't care about the DNA, this is not about the DNA it is about the subjective evidence, gathering, categorizing, analyzing, and coming to a conclusion from the evidence and subesequent findings, and being ABLE TO MAKE UP MY OWN MIND, without the interference of someone who doesn't want anyone to go any further with any investigation, because the issue is solved for them.

So the issue is closed for you, get closure, move on. Let those of us who are interested in the other issues discuss and help solve them, because it is obviously just a waste of your time & energy, and just to set your mind at ease, it doesn't matter how the investigation turns out, all that matters is that WE have done our best for history & posterity to investigate the facts and that whether she is or is not FS is immaterial.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Tania+ on August 28, 2005, 04:57:33 PM
As I sit here reading all the posts to date on this, I'm flooded at once with something my father said. He lived through the early years of the revolution, was in an early white cadet prison, escaped a firing squad. He never knew in the end, nor could he bury family, or have any closure at all.
He said many years later, reading the only info he and countless others were offered of the outcome of the revolution, and the murder of TIH, the following: 'one can't believe anything from the mouth of those who have done such evil. One would have to live through such things, and still, one could not verify 'their truths' [the murders and leaders of the revolution].
Remember it was Lenin who said in the beginning he had nothing to do with the murder of the TIH, and years later, it was found out that direct orders had come from him to murder them.

Even when my dad arrived here in this country, [as many who escaped globally], he said : 'you simply could not trust anyone'. How then could these thugs, share truth of their stories fully; or with the whites afterward, and or later with Stalin. Only partial truths have been substantiated to date. I don't believe all the story has been shared in full to date.

I keep reading all the various discussion groups on the above many issues, and still today, we remain far from the real evidence of what truely transpired. I'm sorry, I can't offer more of an openess, because it is based on what my dad, and so many others who fled from the revolution, and many, many years after the soviet union. For me the word 'trust' is everything.
When validating truth, its imparative, everything to be associated with it, leave a person with a feeling that betrayal, or distrust does not remain.
In the above, it leads me to believe that the accounts of those that night of the murder and burial, are betrayal of the worst kind, in offering facts to lay the full outcome of history to rest on the Imperial Family.

I'm not saying that various books, and testimonies have not been followed up by all of you. But again, by the communists, too many things were altered, and whose to say that much of the evidence offered, or written, was not altered?

Thanks for allowing me to speak my thoughts.

Tania
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Rachael89 on August 28, 2005, 05:09:52 PM
Thankyou for sharing your father's experiences with us Tania. It was fascinating to read that your dad lived through the revoulution and his viewpoints on it.

Best

Rachael
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 28, 2005, 06:50:04 PM
Your letter touched me very deeply, indeed. What can I said after all your interesting info? I think that nobody can really tell how Russian Revolution was, but the people who experienced it. I read lots of books about Russian Revolution, but none of them can depict it so vivdly than the people who suffered it themselves.

There is certain people who are trying to "humanize" the murderers (the murderers of the Imperial Family and those other murderers that we'll never know, for they murdered anonimous people. Corpses whithout names for us, but important people just for being human beings). And I can't accept to "humanize" people who did such awful things, even if it was in the name of some ideal. There is no better ideal for me than respect the life , and over all things , the lives of young innocent people.

Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia and Alexei were shoot by the marxist-logical: they were no guilty of the Tsar "crimes", they were no criminals "against Russian people". They were murdered only for being born in a "wrong" social class. This is not justice.

I read a lot about "Russian people revenge". Well; revenge is not justice, is just that: "revenge". And in the name of the "revenge" too many people died. Noble people, yes...along with commoners. Russian Revolution was a tragedy. A real tragedy.

I share your father's opinion, Tania: too many lies. Too many lies running for more than 70 years. Too many lies even nowadays. Maybe this sounds a little pessimist, but sometimes I think that we'll never really know what happened to the IF this cruel night. There was a massacre, that's for sure. But details and survivors (if there were some or one or no survivors at all) can remain unknown for us for other 70 years...Or forever.  :'(

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Candice on August 28, 2005, 07:02:43 PM
How true Tania.  Information and facts must have been distorted in order to keep the IF from being hunted down and murdered along with some of their relatives.  I do believe that most of the information was just a frabrication of events driven by the Bolsheviks in 1918 and continue to misinform researchers and historians today. However, I believe that there are people today with information that has been passed on to them that could possibly solve this mystery.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on August 28, 2005, 08:08:24 PM
Quote
As I sit here reading all the posts to date on this, I'm flooded at once with something my father said. He lived through the early years of the revolution, was in an early white cadet prison, escaped a firing squad. He never knew in the end, nor could he bury family, or have any closure at all.
He said many years later, reading the only info he and countless others were offered of the outcome of the revolution, and the murder of TIH, the following: 'one can't believe anything from the mouth of those who have done such evil. One would have to live through such things, and still, one could not verify 'their truths' [the murders and leaders of the revolution].
Remember it was Lenin who said in the beginning he had nothing to do with the murder of the TIH, and years later, it was found out that direct orders had come from him to murder them.

Even when my dad arrived here in this country, [as many who escaped globally], he said : 'you simply could not trust anyone'. How then could these thugs, share truth of their stories fully; or with the whites afterward, and or later with Stalin. Only partial truths have been substantiated to date. I don't believe all the story has been shared in full to date.

I keep reading all the various discussion groups on the above many issues, and still today, we remain far from the real evidence of what truely transpired. I'm sorry, I can't offer more of an openess, because it is based on what my dad, and so many others who fled from the revolution, and many, many years after the soviet union. For me the word 'trust' is everything.
When validating truth, its imparative, everything to be associated with it, leave a person with a feeling that betrayal, or distrust does not remain.
In the above, it leads me to believe that the accounts of those that night of the murder and burial, are betrayal of the worst kind, in offering facts to lay the full outcome of history to rest on the Imperial Family.

I'm not saying that various books, and testimonies have not been followed up by all of you. But again, by the communists, too many things were altered, and whose to say that much of the evidence offered, or written, was not altered?

Thanks for allowing me to speak my thoughts.

Tania


I have been interviewing not the people who escaped but those children who are still of sound mind who came after. And they reflect your words.


Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 28, 2005, 08:34:52 PM
Candice, I must say, while I don't agree with you, your ideas and views are very interesting and refreshing after all the dead horse beating and tail chasing of AA/FS. I would love to hear more of your interesting theories, different ideas are more fun to read about. There still are 2 bodies missing, and we need to know what happened to them!
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on August 28, 2005, 09:44:46 PM
Quote
Candice, I must say, while I don't agree with you, your ideas and views are very interesting and refreshing after all the dead horse beating and tail chasing of AA/FS. I would love to hear more of your interesting theories, different ideas are more fun to read about. There still are 2 bodies missing, and we need to know what happened to them!



Might have to use some of that unreliable, & fallible source material & subjective evidence to find those bodies.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 29, 2005, 08:20:42 AM
Quote


Might have to use some of that unreliable, & fallible source material & subjective evidence to find those bodies.


And you can use some of your subjective, he said she said, unverifyable word of mouth reportst to do the same.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 29, 2005, 08:21:20 AM
Actually, Anastasia and Alexei were Jedi, and when they died, their bodies vanished and will never be found.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on August 29, 2005, 10:20:37 AM
Quote

And you can use some of your subjective, he said she said, unverifyable word of mouth reportst to do the same.



Yes some of the subjective evidence or sources such as the letters from Yurovsky and other participants in the massacre (which you so willingly write off as "he said she said" reports in your reply) can be used to form a theory.  How do you think theories are used and invesitgated in research??


Unfortunately since you know or care little about providing source material, for people to be able to use the material to make up their own minds.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Tania+ on August 29, 2005, 10:29:27 AM
Re: What about...?

Thank you, of you who responded to my recent statement. Whom may i ask to start in particular a new thread if it has not already been started?

In particular, I should like to start a thread about the children of those whom were directly, indirectly affected by the russian revolution.  

Inquiring Mind: I noticed your commentary:

"I have been interviewing not the people who escaped but those children who are still of sound mind that came after. And they reflect your words".

I think this part in particular, whether the children of the nobility, or children from across Russia who were forced to go through the revolution, I'd like to have their feeling shared. I know some stories, but I'm sure there are countless millions yet to be shared.

Perhaps in their first person sharing, it may bring home to the many not only in Russia, but where indeed where ever freedom dwells, to tell of the immense sacrifices paid, then, and towards the work now in unifying, and bringing peace to a nation still slowly coming to terms with it all.  

You must understand, many children never were allowed to grieve properly. Children and parents were divided by the government, indeed killed if they were not for the communist regime. Some have grown over the years, stone cold, w/o reflection, in order so they could survive. The same went for their parents.

Now all the more, since Russia has had many countries, becoming independent, I'm sure there are many children whom need to share their deepest thoughts, and emotions.

Russia is like our body. Overall, it may look well enough, but the wounds that cannot be seen by the naked eye, still need extreme tending to. Slowly the people are waking up, and making the choice to honestly look at the vast encompassing issues that brought about the revolution and most sadly the long saga of the gulags, and long term aftermath of it all. Now it really is up to the children, and their children's children. That's the least we can offer, is to support them in finding all the facts, and to share all truths, especially in history books.

My goodness, in western countries, there’s been more written about WWII, and The Holocaust, then the Russian Revolution, and what transpired to over 70 million peoples. Yet its ok to put out a 'cartoon of Anastasia', and use that to sell history of a country that has a time frame of six different time zones? We owe children of the world a bit more than that in terms of integrity.

Look how long it’s taken to fix Russia's old beautiful stately buildings... and that's nice for show, but for sure, they singularly and collectively as a country need to address, and tell the real truths, in detail, not only for now, but for future generations of children.

Thanks for allowing me to share my thoughts.

Tania
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 29, 2005, 10:41:29 AM
Quote
Re: What about...?

Thank you, of you who responded to my recent statement. Whom may i ask to start in particular a new thread if it has not already been started?
 
In particular, I should like to start a thread about the children of those whom were directly, indirectly affected by the russian revolution.  
 
Inquiring Mind: I noticed your commentary:
 
"I have been interviewing not the people who escaped but those children who are still of sound mind that came after. And they reflect your words".
 
I think this part in particular, whether the children of the nobility, or children from across Russia who were forced to go through the revolution, I'd like to have their feeling shared. I know some stories, but I'm sure there are countless millions yet to be shared.
 
Perhaps in their first person sharing, it may bring home to the many not only in Russia, but where indeed where ever freedom dwells, to tell of the immense sacrifices paid, then, and towards the work now in unifying, and bringing peace to a nation still slowly coming to terms with it all.  
 
You must understand, many children never were allowed to grieve properly. Children and parents were divided by the government, indeed killed if they were not for the communist regime. Some have grown over the years, stone cold, w/o reflection, in order so they could survive. The same went for their parents.
 
Now all the more, since Russia has had many countries, becoming independent, I'm sure there are many children whom need to share their deepest thoughts, and emotions.
 
Russia is like our body. Overall, it may look well enough, but the wounds that cannot be seen by the naked eye, still need extreme tending to. Slowly the people are waking up, and making the choice to honestly look at the vast encompassing issues that brought about the revolution and most sadly the long saga of the gulags, and long term aftermath of it all. Now it really is up to the children, and their children's children. That's the least we can offer, is to support them in finding all the facts, and to share all truths, especially in history books.
 
My goodness, in western countries, there’s been more written about WWII, and The Holocaust, then the Russian Revolution, and what transpired to over 70 million peoples. Yet its ok to put out a 'cartoon of Anastasia', and use that to sell history of a country that has a time frame of six different time zones? We owe children of the world a bit more than that in terms of integrity.
 
Look how long it’s taken to fix Russia's old beautiful stately buildings... and that's nice for show, but for sure, they singularly and collectively as a country need to address, and tell the real truths, in detail, not only for now, but for future generations of children.
 
Thanks for allowing me to share my thoughts.
 
Tania


Tania, your ideas are beautiful, and are wasted on this thread. Please look around the forum, there are lots of other categories to bring your important messages up.

There is even a discussion of the bad Anastasia cartoon in the film section. I agree, it's not 'fun' to distort history!
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 29, 2005, 10:44:56 AM
Quote


Yes some of the subjective evidence or sources such as the letters from Yurovsky and other participants in the massacre (which you so willingly write off as "he said she said" reports in your reply) can be used to form a theory.  How do you think theories are used and invesitgated in research??


Then it's all the same, and there will never be an answer. I really do believe though that you pick and choose what you consider valid or a lie depending on what you want to believe. I did not want to believe the DNA, but I do. And there comes a time when all the old info in the world is never going to help because it's never going to change, and we just have to draw the best conclusion.


Quote
Unfortunately since you know or care little about providing source material, for people to be able to use the material to make up their own minds.


Thankfully, most people's minds are already made up, and for the most realistic and common sense solution. Go ahead, keep bugging me about not finding all those books when I have already told you I do not have the time, money or resources to track them all down. And you and bear can keep posting the same old rehashed he said she said that is never going to get you anywhere but chasing your own tail.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 29, 2005, 11:40:20 AM
Quote

Tania, your ideas are beautiful, and are wasted on this thread. Please look around the forum, there are lots of other categories to bring your important messages up.

There is even a discussion of the bad Anastasia cartoon in the film section. I agree, it's not 'fun' to distort history!


Tania's voice and voices like hers are not wasted here on this thread or anywhere else.  To me, they are like haunting whispers  coming out of the darkness and their whispers should be heard by all.

The truth is the only thing that can set the Russians free.

AGRBear
[American- German-Russian Bear]




Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on August 29, 2005, 11:58:56 AM
Tania,

Maybe you can ask the FA where the appropriate place to start your new thread would be.

I would read it with much interest.

IM
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 29, 2005, 12:02:08 PM
I suggest under Russian History > Russian Revolution:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=revolution

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: etonexile on August 29, 2005, 12:50:36 PM
This thread seems strange and swirling....I'm vaguely certain that most folk accept that the IF died in a smallish,squalid cellar in Ekaterinburg....And that "NO ONE "was kindly saved by suddenly consientious killers.....And carted hither-and-thither in a filthy cart while bleeding profusely....Hey....It could happen...

erm....yes....
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 29, 2005, 01:19:25 PM
etonexile,

You are swirling around the various subjects but you've missed a few important points.

Annie claimed that a person could not have traveled in a cart from Ekaterinburg to Bucherest within the months AA's voiced had occured.  Remember,  AA was claiming to be GD Anastasia being rescued.  I explained  that the trip was possible.  I, also, explained that I had relatives who traveled similar roads to escape the Bolsheviks and ended up in Germany, like, AA claimed she had.  Because of my own families stories,  I am quite aware it was possible.   As for AA being GD Anasasia,  this was not part of the discussion about the trek.

Having a person ill or wounded and pregnant survivng such a trip,  this possibility was also possible because people did.

Then, the conversation was about the injuries GD Anastasia suffered.  We do not know what injuries GD Anastasia actually were,  since there is no trace of her skeletal remains from which we can gather forensic evidence of what occured to her.

Yes,  we have testimonies of Yurovsky who was in charge of the IF family execution.  Now,  the question about the ability of Yurovsky and other Bolshviks being able to tell the truth is another subject all together.  

Tania's post are similar to what my family voice and I tend to believe Tania's and my family members  since they were there, Russia, under the siege of the Bolshviki,  and,  experenced what I hope the rest of us never have to endure.  

AGRBear

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 29, 2005, 03:37:37 PM
Quote

Tania's voice and voices like hers are not wasted here on this thread or anywhere else.  To me, they are like haunting whispers  coming out of the darkness and their whispers should be heard by all.

The truth is the only thing that can set the Russians free.

AGRBear
[American- German-Russian Bear]






What I mean by 'wasted' is that it's too strong of a message to get lost the mess of yet another runaround AA thread. While her post is welcome anywhere, I was hoping she could ALSO post it in other parts of the forum where more people, and different people, will get a chance to read it. And it really is off topic here too since it has nothing to do with survivor rumors and I hate to see it get lost here when not many members come here and the discussion always ends up running away and her post will get lost.  I hope everyone on the forum will get to see it.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on August 29, 2005, 04:20:29 PM
Tania,

I think your posts are wonderful and I hope you continue to share them with us here, too!

IM
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Tania+ on August 29, 2005, 05:05:13 PM
I'm entirely thankful for your kindnesses to reflect a bit about my posting. Surely there are, and have been more than sufficient postings, barified by facts in books, periodicals, etc., by those whom vividly made account of their own trials by fire, or by loved ones who carry on to share their stories.

My small contribution, is only that. It is to be supportive in that we do not side-step for humanities sake, and for the prospering of 'truth'. It is important we remain in all that has transpired, to never forget the memory for all the millions of human hearts whom perished, and for future generations. We must not lose site of what genuinely makes a person reputable. Most importantly, what makes freedom a lasting hope for all who cherish liberty. If we fail in our duty to just communicate that in words, then we have in effect forfeited all connects to cherishing and keeping any freedoms. Many have gone through the fire and died. It is up to us the living to not be fearful to speak out, and be heard!

'if' my posts help the human spirit, than I have offered some good. My intent is not to create distress, nor to feed intensity of feelings.

Yes, I have to agree, in retrospect, my words are only a whisper, but when the Russian peoples, and their children, finally can own their history, with all truths shared, then there will be a roar!

Kindly feel free to share my posts wherever you wish, but don't forget to share so many others here. For the founder of this site, he founded, and continues to share a website, that speaks volumes of the past, presently, and will last far after we have left this earth.

I think we might have a folder just for him, to offer our sincere thanks. I thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts.

Tania


Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 29, 2005, 06:53:59 PM
Quote

...[in part]....

Yes, I have to agree, in retrospect, my words are only a whisper, but when the Russian peoples, and their children, finally can own their history, with all truths shared, then there will be a roar!

.....

Tania


 


May all the whispers of truth grow and grow into a defeafing roar.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 29, 2005, 08:19:05 PM
I'm sad that someone could have been harsh to you, Tania. For me, your post is very interesting and I find it extremely useful.

I'm hoping that   Bear's words could be a reality. Maybe someday, we'll know the truth. My heart and my prayers are with you, and with Russia. Hope that my dear Russia (I do not know exactly why I love this country so much) could be finally aware of her past and history.

Warmly.
RealAnastasia.  
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on August 29, 2005, 09:02:58 PM
I know why we love Russia,,it was our mortal enemy for all my growing up years,,,remember anyone the nuke and your teacher telling you to hide under your desk? LOL

An then we started to see how huge and diverse Russia was and how strangled it became.

We all need to look at what happened to any people so we never make that same mistake again.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Tania+ on August 29, 2005, 10:38:42 PM
My dear fellow posters, for anyone to have taken notice of anything I've written is surprising. I'm not at all hurt by anything being stated, save if only untruths are stated as truths. Think that's a normal reaction of anyone who wants truth balanced.

I've grown to love Russia, as much as I love the United States. But I'm very proud of my parent's heritage, and the parts their families played in history. For so many years, on my father's side, I had to keep silent. That's the hardest to do. When your kept silent, that then remains a very dark day indeed. I know a little in some small minute detail, what it must have been for millions throughout Russia, never to verbilize their thoughts, or to one another, and take down the flag they so dearly loved, and pay aligence to another for well over 80 years.

Yes, I can also remember, running to make it under my desk in time, when the school siren went off to warn of supposed nuclear attacks. I can remember the building of deep down cellar chambers to keep you away from the ground atmosphere, etc. For children of our time, it was a terrifying experience.

In terms of loss of life in Russia, that was not including those whose only crime it was, to worship. Coutless lives went through the worst of the worst. For me, that's why God is all the more important for me, my family.

While I'm haunted by the whispers that so many were unable to verbalize, I think of the many who till their very last moments, chose to face their uncertainty, with determined conviction, that their deaths will not have been in vain. It's a main reason I continue to share my thoughts, and make sure the story of the russian revolution does not go unforgotten.

Some years ago, when I was up and around, volunteering for the UN store, I chanced to meet a very tall gentlemen and his wife. They were aged. They were very well informed of the russian revolution, having lived through a change of forced opporession of the early years of the revolution of five varying political parties. We become friends.

Now I really had not received the names or knew of the people who were there the night of the IH murder. But as I continued to read this last month thread on the night of the murders, I came across this thread and I almost fell off my chair. Their last name, was one of the same last names of one of the killers of their IH. [I wanted to go back almost immediately in time and ask if they were relatives, etc.] But i understand in Russia, there are many whom have the same last names. Still it really has rivited me to have come so close to a person, whose name was so close as that person, and I wonder, 'what about...?

The more I read, the more I learn, as I hope others will continue to do.

As Inquiring Mind said,
'We all need to look at what happened to any people so we never make that same mistake again'

This is not just my world, but a world that belongs to all of us. Let's make sure we keep up our part of keeping a safe world, so all our children can and will live in peace, and harmony.

Tania
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: lexi4 on August 30, 2005, 12:11:04 AM
Tania,
I am rivoted by your words.
I remember growing up with "Duck and Cover."  That never made sense to me. I could never see how that little desk was going to protect me from a bomb.
I grew up during the Cold War. That is what sparked my interest in Russia. I was always taught that anything that came from Russia was propoganda. Even as a child, I felt we were probably guilty of the same...dissemnationg propoganda. I started reading all I could about Russia.
I love your insights and what your write. Please continue I am learning so much from your posts.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on August 30, 2005, 01:45:31 AM
Quote
Tania,
I am rivoted by your words.
I remember growing up with "Duck and Cover."  That never made sense to me. I could never see how that little desk was going to protect me from a bomb.
I grew up during the Cold War. That is what sparked my interest in Russia. I was always taught that anything that came from Russia was propoganda. Even as a child, I felt we were probably guilty of the same...dissemnationg propoganda. I started reading all I could about Russia.
I love your insights and what your write. Please continue I am learning so much from your posts.



Look at the propaganda we are given today, it is absolutely ridiculous.   Since WW II our leaders have the power to destroy the world, and that hasn't changed.  We as people need to realize that we have to say NEVER AGAIN, to nuclear proliferation, and to useless, senseless war, having lived through Vietnam, I thought we would never see this again.  

However Tania, even though we have the freedom of expression, and the right to protest and to voice our dissatisfaction, that there aren't thugs in our government, we just have stop being complacent in this nation and be vigilant about what happens.

As to the night of the massacre of the IF to me the actual massacre itself is obvious, it is pain and clear the disposal of the bodies and the eventual burial and the two missing bodies contain a great deal of investigating, which was done thoroghly with the publication of "The Fate Of The Romanovs."

You know Tania, revolution in any nation can be a terrible thing. The regional wounds from our Civil War between north and south are still not healed, and many stories deserve to be told.  However the situation in Russia at the time was BAD, and Nicholas ruled as a repressive autocrat in modern times, and as we have said in other threads, brought much of what happened to himself on himself, just my opinion.

I thought I would never live to see the change in eastern Europe and Russia that we see now.  Many of the stories of man's inhumanity to man deserves telling,
the brutality of the communists, our internment of Japanese Americans, racial injustice in the free world, Sudan, Rawanda, it's all too inhuman for words.

Title: WRe: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 30, 2005, 07:08:13 AM
Tania, please copy and paste your message and post it in other places on the forum. There are many people interested in Russia who come to this forum but avoid the 'survivor' threads because they often become silly and break into fights. Also, many, many members don't ever read these threads because they are so sure there weren't any survivors they don't waste their time. There are many more people who need to see that and I hope you will take it to them. Check out the other forums here, there are many where it would be seen by a wider audience.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on August 30, 2005, 07:58:55 AM
I believe many board members check these threads regularly. ;) They may not admit it. I know some who are reluctant to post here although they have much to contribute.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 30, 2005, 10:23:58 AM
According to Prince Frederick of Saxe Altenburg,  she had told him in the 1960 p. 239: >>"Events in Ekaterinburg were quite different from what they say.  But if I say that, they think I'm mad".  

Although few people are no longer paying attention to what Anna Anderson said or did,  I am just discovering her, since I had never thought she was G D Anastasia but some factory girl who was slightly insane, who jumped into a canal, was fished out and then allowed life to direct her into being a claimant.

But, now, after all these years,  as Annie and others are asking:  "How did AA know so much unless she was GD Anastasia"? that it has occured to me that she knew more than what any of the Romanov's would have known.  She knew what the CHEKA knew.  For exampled,  she knew about   Yurovsky's report which talked about one of  the "little pillows" carried as they IF and the others walked down into the basement."

Quote
>>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


The word is "cushion" can, also,  translated, to the word "pillow".

It is the sameness in the words which strike out at me, now, which I've found in  Yurovsky - 1920 testimony: "..the rest carried little pillows and other small things with them."  

Who had  coached AA, if she was not, GD Anastasia, before she jumped into the canal in Feb 1920???

And, I think, Tania is right, perhaps some of you should not place so much weight on the words of the Bolsheviks about what happen that night or other nights and to others involved in a "Counter Revolution".

AGRBear
Title: Re: WRe: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on August 30, 2005, 10:25:40 AM
Quote
. There are many people interested in Russia who come to this forum but avoid the 'survivor' threads because they often become silly and break into fights. .



I wonder why??????????????  Any one else....
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 30, 2005, 10:45:48 AM
Those who can make you believe absurdities
can make you commit atrocities


                                          — Voltaire  :)

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 30, 2005, 10:53:32 AM
Quote
Those who can make you believe absurdities
can make you commit atrocities


                                           — Voltaire  :)



Ahhhh yes, Voltaire.  He was quite good with the words, wasn't he.?

I wonder, however, if you are referring to my posts, which are asking for the truth,  or  are you referring to all of the fabricated lies of the Bolshevik's, CHEKA's, communists' and the KGB's???

AGRBear
Title: Re: WRe: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 30, 2005, 11:37:21 AM
Quote


I wonder why??????????????  Any one else....



Aw, how many smilies before it becomes cute, and how many more before it becomes true? Everyone knows you are also guilty! No one can fight alone! You consider my presence in a thread disruptive because I post things you do not want to see, and make comments, usually rude and with many childish smilies. You call that not instigating? Get off your high horse, you are just as guilty of fighting as I am. I could give you other names that cause fights, including one who was involved in several knockdowns when I wasn't even on for days, but I won't because it would be getting personal. But you are ridiculous to throw off that I am the only person here who ever fights. And even if I were, I couldn't fight alone. So search yourself, mister smilie.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 30, 2005, 11:43:13 AM
Who had  coached AA, if she was not, GD Anastasia, before she jumped into the canal in Feb 1920???

Annie, should  I turn back the pages to look for your post which asked the same question?

AGRBear

Title: Re: WRe: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on August 30, 2005, 11:44:52 AM
Quote


Aw, how many smilies before it becomes cute, and how many more before it becomes true? Everyone knows you are also guilty! No one can fight alone!



Get over yourself Annie, the rest of us already have. You know you wear the crown in the guilt & fighting department..... ;D ;D ;D, and that was LONG before I came into the picture.

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on August 30, 2005, 11:46:36 AM
Quote
Who had  coached AA, if she was not, GD Anastasia, before she jumped into the canal in Feb 1920???

Annie, should  I turn back the pages to look for your post which asked the same question?

AGRBear



She wasn't coached because she didn't know anything about the IF until she saw the magazine. It all came later. If you are talking about the languages, we don't have concrete proof of any of that, and even so, it was not unusual for people in central Europe at that time to know bits and pieces of many languages, especially in wartime with so many people moving around. However she was not fluent in Russian or good at English as AN would have been, and never was in her life. It's not even worth talking about. She wasn't AN any more than I am.
Title: Re: WRe: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on August 30, 2005, 11:49:34 AM
Quote


Aw, how many smilies before it becomes cute, and how many more before it becomes true? Everyone knows you are also guilty! No one can fight alone! You consider my presence in a thread disruptive because I post things you do not want to see, and make comments, usually rude and with many childish smilies. You call that not instigating? Get off your high horse, you are just as guilty of fighting as I am. I could give you other names that cause fights, including one who was involved in several knockdowns when I wasn't even on for days, but I won't because it would be getting personal. But you are ridiculous to throw off that I am the only person here who ever fights. And even if I were, I couldn't fight alone. So search yourself, mister smilie.


You who refuse to provide a source??? You who provide half-truth and innuendo as fact???   I consider you disruptive in the survivor threads, but a threat, that is a laughable.  You really imagine yourself to be some kind of sojourner of truth here don't you?  I am just dying laughing here, and Annie just an FYI, I really don't care WHAT anyone else thinks.  Now after laughing thanks to material provided by the source lady, back to topic.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on August 30, 2005, 11:52:49 AM
Quote

She wasn't coached because she didn't know anything about the IF until she saw the magazine. It all came later. If you are talking about the languages, we don't have concrete proof of any of that, and even so, it was not unusual for people in central Europe at that time to know bits and pieces of many languages, especially in wartime with so many people moving around. However she was not fluent in Russian or good at English as AN would have been, and never was in her life. It's not even worth talking about. She wasn't AN any more than I am.


Yes Bear, you must remember that AA learned ALL of her information from a FEW MAGAZINES at Dalldorf... ::) ::)By any stretch of the imagination that is far fetched.

Again she ignores the testimony of Bertha Walz, Thea Malinowsky and the doctors and staff at Dalldorf that said she could speak and understand Russian, and again she selectively uses information and statements that only back up her case & her view, as usual.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 30, 2005, 11:56:28 AM
Quote

...[in part]...

 There is no more mystery as to her identity. Other mysteries do remain, like how the charade was carried out, and what happened to the two missing bodies....


How was the "charade" carried out if AA wasn't G D Anastasia?

I suggested that she had information before she jumped into the Berlin canal.    

We've gone over, around and through the data on what languages AA, if she was FS,  knew before she jumped into the Berlin canal, so,  I used something different, the example of the "pillow" and compared it to a CHEKA's testimony written in 1920 about the same time AA used this same information in her claims to being GD Anastasia.

Anyone else have  thoughts on this similarity???

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Rachael89 on August 30, 2005, 11:56:46 AM
Hi Annie

Sorry if you don't mind I'll just make a correction, ever since Anna Anderson arrived in America her sole language was English (Source: Kurth.) I'm sorry if this is not completely true because I don't have the book to hand but I'm preety certain.

With regards to not getting involved, I don't post that often because I'm afraid I will say the wrong thing and people will interpret what I say the wrong way upsetting them. So I understand people's reluctance to join certain threads with more heated discussions.

Best

Rachael :)
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 30, 2005, 12:17:57 PM
Quote

..[in part]...
With regards to not getting involved, I don't post that often because I'm afraid I will say the wrong thing and people will interpret what I say the wrong way upsetting them. So I understand people's reluctance to join certain threads with more heated discussions.

Best

Rachael :)



Some of the OTHER posters do get a little TOO passionate,  so, let me apologize for THEIR behavior.

Me?

Couldn't be.

I have?

Oh....

I have.

Sorry.

Bear  8)

PS   The above was not meant to sound flipant. It was my attempt at humor, again.  Rachel, we do have a problem in seeing each other view points.  I wish I knew how to make things different.  But,  I don't.  :-[ .
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Rachael89 on August 30, 2005, 01:03:58 PM
Oh no don't worry Bear I have no problem with anyone on this thread, everyone is very nice. Thankyou for apologising, there's no need to!

Rachael
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 30, 2005, 01:16:52 PM
So, back to topic, I hope.

THE LAST TSAR:
On p. 382 Edward Radzinsky  writes:

>>Yurosvsky:  "Nic[olas] was carrying Alexei in is arms, the rest were carrying small pillows and various little items."<<

AGRBEAR
Title: Re: WRe: What about...?
Post by: Forum Admin on August 30, 2005, 01:51:02 PM
Quote


Get over yourself Annie, the rest of us already have. You know you wear the crown in the guilt & fighting department..... ;D ;D ;D, and that was LONG before I came into the picture.


Michael G. UNCALLED FOR PERSONAL ATTACK!  You have been warned.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 30, 2005, 04:15:16 PM
I am reposting something I put on another thread, because I think it says something about how Anna Andersen pulled this off. I also think that she had two full years at Dalldorf prior to the identification as Anastasia becoming a cause celebre. During that time she was exposed to stories about the assassination, according to Kurth's account of her reading illustrated magazines about the Imperial Family. The broad outlines of the shootings in the Ipatiev House were known by 1922, thanks to Sokolov's work after the Whites recaptured the town. My best guess, and it is a guess, is that the description of Demidova carrying a pillow was in one of the magazines. I searched Kurth, but there is no account of which specific magazines were at the asylum, just that there were several, and that Fraulein Unbekannt was familiar with them and their content.

The previous post:
on Aug 16th, 2005, 6:21pm, AGRBear wrote:

And,  if AA was FS,  where would she have learned about such things  Movies?  Photographs?  Watching others around her once she was elbow to elbow with the upper class and so was  just being a copy cat?  



Yes.  

Let me give you an example drawn from personal experience. Last winter I played Niels Bohr, a physicist, in an Equity production of a play called Copenhagen at the Charlotte Repertory Theatre. He is a real person, obviously, and the play deals with his conversation with a German physicist named Werner Heisenberg during World War II. The dialogue occasionally gets very technical. At one point in the play I had to explain the workings of nuclear fission.

I know as much about nuclear physics as I do about Sanskrit, which is to say nothing at all. But by the time the show ran, I sounded like a brilliant physicist, and was able to convincingly portray Bohr. One performance took place in front of 400 scientists from the Research Triangle in North Carolina, as well as academics from various colleges and universities. After the performance there was a talkback directed at the cast and six actual scientists. We, the three members of the cast, had to constantly remind the audience members that we knew nothing about the workings of the atomic bomb at a level that would be informative. And yet we were mobbed by them afterward, with more than one telling us how utterly convincing we were as scientists.

Forgive the digression, but this is what actors do. We are sponges for information, and background, and observation, and so, yes, if AA was a person with a natural talent for this, then she was indeed soaking up what she needed to perform from all of the sources you listed. Indeed, if she was very good, she was soaking it up from people like Olga Alexandrovna while she was in the middle of a meeting with her.

The description of FS as a great reader, and someone who was imaginative as a child? Bingo.  
« Last Edit: Aug 18th, 2005, 6:52am by Louis_Charles »

I emphasize again, the fact that Anna Andersen may have been a Polish peasant by birth does not rule out the possibility of her being a naturally talented actor. And of course if she wasn't Schanzkowska, then her background is wide open. Either way, the ability to tell a compelling story about the night of assassination would not necessarily be restricted to an actual survivor.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on August 30, 2005, 04:30:37 PM
What are your thoughts, Bear, on the theory you brought up that someone fed AA info before she jumped into the canal?
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on August 30, 2005, 05:16:59 PM
Quote
Hi Annie

Sorry if you don't mind I'll just make a correction, ever since Anna Anderson arrived in America her sole language was English (Source: Kurth.) I'm sorry if this is not completely true because I don't have the book to hand but I'm preety certain.

With regards to not getting involved, I don't post that often because I'm afraid I will say the wrong thing and people will interpret what I say the wrong way upsetting them. So I understand people's reluctance to join certain threads with more heated discussions.

Best

Rachael :)



Rachael don't hesitate, just jump right in, regardless of what you have to say you are always welcome to say it.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 30, 2005, 08:47:41 PM
Quote

Yes Bear, you must remember that AA learned ALL of her information from a FEW MAGAZINES at Dalldorf... ::) ::)By any stretch of the imagination that is far fetched.

Again she ignores the testimony of Bertha Walz, Thea Malinowsky and the doctors and staff at Dalldorf that said she could speak and understand Russian, and again she selectively uses information and statements that only back up her case & her view, as usual.


I'm interested to know WHICH WAS the countent of these few magazines. They must be possible to check them somewhere.  I have some old 1900-1930 Argentine magazines, for it's possible here to purchase them in old book-shops or library's. I'm wondering if some German poster here may have these magazine in order to see it's content.

I have some old Argentinian magazines from 1918-19 and 20 and even before, about the Imperial Family life and supposed death and the photos are great...but the info very little. For example, when they tell the events in Ipatiev house, they are totally wrong ( Some of them tell an absurd story about the Tsar being called apart by Yurovsky and saying that he would be shot along with Alexis, but that the girls and the Tsaritsa would be left safe and going to Perm; some other magazines said that the IF was killed one by one being all of them NAKED  :o, and idiot things like these) I'm wondering if the German magazines were like this...Of course the details about the IF lifes in the magazines from before 1918 are few and not always accurate...So... ???

RealAnastasia.  
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on August 30, 2005, 10:00:36 PM
Quote

I'm interested to know WHICH WAS the countent of these few magazines. They must be possible to check them somewhere.  I have some old 1900-1930 Argentine magazines, for it's possible here to purchase them in old book-shops or library's. I'm wondering if some German poster here may have these magazine in order to see it's content.

I have some old Argentinian magazines from 1918-19 and 20 and even before, about the Imperial Family life and supposed death and the photos are great...but the info very little. For example, when they tell the events in Ipatiev house, they are totally wrong ( Some of them tell an absurd story about the Tsar being called apart by Yurovsky and saying that he would be shot along with Alexis, but that the girls and the Tsaritsa would be left safe and going to Perm; some other magazines said that the IF was killed one by one being all of them NAKED  :o, and idiot things like these) I'm wondering if the German magazines were like this...Of course the details about the IF lifes in the magazines from before 1918 are few and not always accurate...So... ???

RealAnastasia.  


These magazines, and their contents of course would be considered highly speculative at any rate, and probably would be considered the tabloids of todays news media.  Which is why I seriously doubt that any pertinent or accurate details could have been obtained from them, even though we constantly have someone
who claims this is how AA learned ALL about the imperial family through these magazines.  


Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on August 30, 2005, 10:06:35 PM
Quote

These magazines, and their contents of course would be considered highly speculative at any rate, and probably would be considered the tabloids of todays news media.  Which is why I seriously doubt that any pertinent or accurate details could have been obtained from them, even though we constantly have someone
who claims this is how AA learned ALL about the imperial family through these magazines.  




I have been searching for any magazine from this time in any language..I have feelers out everywhere.

I haven't had any luck yet but never say never..but paper burns easily.

Everytime I get contacted....and they know what I am looking for...it something not worth purchasing.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on August 31, 2005, 10:58:41 AM
Quote

I have been searching for any magazine from this time in any language..I have feelers out everywhere.

I haven't had any luck yet but never say never..but paper burns easily.

Everytime I get contacted....and they know what I am looking for...it something not worth purchasing.



IM,

This is my point, these magazine couldn't have held vital data that would "train" a false claimant, look at the valid information only brought recently by Greg & Penny in FOTR,  look at the information brought out by Kurth & Radzinsky, information that had been previously unavailable or locked away in Russia.  

The point is that the claimant whoever she was, had to be trained by someone at some point to be considered halfway credible, and I don't believed she learned anything from the tabloid magazines that were in circulation at that time.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 31, 2005, 11:38:11 AM
It's interesting. When I read the Kurth accounts of Anna Andersen in the early to mid-20s, about the time of the Olga Alexandrovna visit, I don't see someone who is in possession of the "whole" story, but someone who seems to be feeling her way along, tentatively trying it out on people. p. 11, 1983 edition:
"There were many of these publications lying about the asylum in the library and on the tables, some of them dating from as far back as 1914, and others, more recent, recounting the sensational news of the murder of the Tsar and his family at Ekaterinburg. One photograph of the Tsar's four daughters had immediately caught the nurses' attention. They had looked at it very carefully, they had discussed it together, and finally they decided to force the issue: they brought the magazine to Fraulein Unbekannt.  . . . .[the nurses point to one of the four daughters as the one rumored to have survived, Andersen corrects the speaker] and "said no, not the one [Nurse Walz] had pointed out, but another of the Tsar's daughters had remained alive."
Which one? Nurse Walz wanted to know, but Fraulein Unbekannt had said enough. "The following day she was completely prostrate and depressed."

This is followed by an account of the deposition of nurse Thea Malinowsky, who remembered that prior to this meeting with the nurses, Anna Andersen had kept a copy of the Berliner Illustrierte under her mattress, brought it to her while Malinowsky was on night duty, and asked Malinowsky if she did not see a marked resemblance between herself (Andersen) and Anastasia?

In an edition of the Berliner Illustrierte Zeitung there was a cover story entitled "The Truth About the Murder of the Tsar".  A picture of Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia was captioned "Did One of the Daughters Survive?" Kurth, p. 13-14.

The context in Kurth makes it clear whether it was only a caption or a full-blown article, but I should think that there will still be copies of this particular magazine in German archives.

Six weeks after Clara Peuthert left Dalldorf Andersen correctly identified Anastasia in a picture, but Kurth makes it clear that it was the same picture she had previously seen, and that the Grand Duchesses were named in the caption.  .  . .

And so on. The Kurth book, which is of course sympathetic to Andersen's claim, still depicts a woman that is dealing out the Story in fragments. And if she had suffered what Andersen claimed she had, then of course that might be understandable. But it is also possible that she was absorbing information from sources that allowed her to improvise her way through encounters with people like Schwabe, for instance.  I am not sure it required "coaching" if Andersen was a naturally talented actor with sufficient intelligence.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on August 31, 2005, 12:01:50 PM
Quote
It's interesting. When I read the Kurth accounts of Anna Andersen in the early to mid-20s, about the time of the Olga Alexandrovna visit, I don't see someone who is in possession of the "whole" story, but someone who seems to be feeling her way along, tentatively trying it out on people. p. 11, 1983 edition:
"There were many of these publications lying about the asylum in the library and on the tables, some of them dating from as far back as 1914, and others, more recent, recounting the sensational news of the murder of the Tsar and his family at Ekaterinburg. One photograph of the Tsar's four daughters had immediately caught the nurses' attention. They had looked at it very carefully, they had discussed it together, and finally they decided to force the issue: they brought the magazine to Fraulein Unbekannt.  . . . .[the nurses point to one of the four daughters as the one rumored to have survived, Andersen corrects the speaker] and "said no, not the one [Nurse Walz] had pointed out, but another of the Tsar's daughters had remained alive."
Which one? Nurse Walz wanted to know, but Fraulein Unbekannt had said enough. "The following day she was completely prostrate and depressed."

This is followed by an account of the deposition of nurse Thea Malinowsky, who remembered that prior to this meeting with the nurses, Anna Andersen had kept a copy of the Berliner Illustrierte under her mattress, brought it to her while Malinowsky was on night duty, and asked Malinowsky if she did not see a marked resemblance between herself (Andersen) and Anastasia?

In an edition of the Berliner Illustrierte Zeitung there was a cover story entitled "The Truth About the Murder of the Tsar".  A picture of Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia was captioned "Did One of the Daughters Survive?" Kurth, p. 13-14.

The context in Kurth makes it clear whether it was only a caption or a full-blown article, but I should think that there will still be copies of this particular magazine in German archives.

Six weeks after Clara Peuthert left Dalldorf Andersen correctly identified Anastasia in a picture, but Kurth makes it clear that it was the same picture she had previously seen, and that the Grand Duchesses were named in the caption.  .  . .

And so on. The Kurth book, which is of course sympathetic to Andersen's claim, still depicts a woman that is dealing out the Story in fragments. And if she had suffered what Andersen claimed she had, then of course that might be understandable. But it is also possible that she was absorbing information from sources that allowed her to improvise her way through encounters with people like Schwabe, for instance.  I am not sure it required "coaching" if Andersen was a naturally talented actor with sufficient intelligence.



But for those magazines to contain information of a substantive nature is highly doubtful, while she may have kept them around for the photos, they surely couldn't have been a reliable source.

Of course as we know from the time of the execution, that the rumors that ONE of the daughters survived and it seemed that the rumor was always pointing to Anastasia being the one who survived.  I think that the title of the article is one thing but I would imagine that the actual substantive content of the article could give little for AA to go on to build her claim.  

While we know & agree she was not AN, to get the information that she had, and to be recognized by as many as she was, then there had to be coaching from some one or some source.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 31, 2005, 12:27:42 PM
I think we'lll have to agree to disagree about the need for coaching. As I said, I was pleased to see the actual name of one of the magazines, so perhaps a German poster can access it.

As for the coaching, in the early days at Dalldorf, who would have been in a position to do this without being noticed by the nurses? Kurth is clear that she attracted their attention reasonably early on, both because of the mystery associated with her lack of identity, and her manners. If she had been regularly visited, wouldn't that also have attracted their attention?

Again, I get the impression that any coherency of narrative for Andersen was imposed by others over time. Added to that is the sheer number of pretenders over the years; check the list building on another thread about how pretenders claimed to have escaped Ekaterinburg. Even with the assumption that all of these people are lying, i.e. they were not Olga, Alexei, Tatiana, Maria or Anastasia, all of them were believed by various people. Isn't it Margda Boodts who was supported by a relative of the real Olga? Because she satisfied his questions? My point is that it may not have been as hard as we think to be a claimant. Andersen was the best, because she also had the luck to have no back story, and she was adept at the skills required to sustain the impersonation. Indeed, she may have wound up unable to remember the "real" person behind the Andersen identity. In which case we are dealing with a case of dissassociation so profound it merits examination as a medical example.

Is it only the quality of her impersonation that convinces you she must have been coached, Michael? Or is there something else that indicates it?
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on August 31, 2005, 02:37:58 PM
The British Library has a collection of Berliner Illustrierte Zeitung from 1914-1944. Unfortunately they are not available online.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on August 31, 2005, 04:29:07 PM
Quote
I think we'lll have to agree to disagree about the need for coaching. As I said, I was pleased to see the actual name of one of the magazines, so perhaps a German poster can access it.

As for the coaching, in the early days at Dalldorf, who would have been in a position to do this without being noticed by the nurses? Kurth is clear that she attracted their attention reasonably early on, both because of the mystery associated with her lack of identity, and her manners. If she had been regularly visited, wouldn't that also have attracted their attention?

Again, I get the impression that any coherency of narrative for Andersen was imposed by others over time. Added to that is the sheer number of pretenders over the years; check the list building on another thread about how pretenders claimed to have escaped Ekaterinburg. Even with the assumption that all of these people are lying, i.e. they were not Olga, Alexei, Tatiana, Maria or Anastasia, all of them were believed by various people. Isn't it Margda Boodts who was supported by a relative of the real Olga? Because she satisfied his questions? My point is that it may not have been as hard as we think to be a claimant. Andersen was the best, because she also had the luck to have no back story, and she was adept at the skills required to sustain the impersonation. Indeed, she may have wound up unable to remember the "real" person behind the Andersen identity. In which case we are dealing with a case of dissassociation so profound it merits examination as a medical example.

Is it only the quality of her impersonation that convinces you she must have been coached, Michael? Or is there something else that indicates it?



Simon,

Somewhere, somehow, she had to receive coaching at some point, whether or not that was AFTER Dalldorf I cannot tell.

I think she is the one claimant whose story stands out from all the rest, while we know she is not AN, she is the one who people speak of when talking of the claimants, not the others.  

I am not sure if I can pin point what stands out to me about her "performance" that indicates coaching. I just don't think that tabloid magazines would have had the substance within their pages to provide her with enough credible evidence that she could pass as  AN.

This is another of the enduring mysteries that some who troll here feel we should let go of because the DNA argument.  These mysteries are part of what needs to be investigated.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: CuriousOne on August 31, 2005, 05:25:55 PM
Quote
It's interesting. When I read the Kurth accounts of Anna Andersen in the early to mid-20s, about the time of the Olga Alexandrovna visit, I don't see someone who is in possession of the "whole" story, but someone who seems to be feeling her way along, tentatively trying it out on people.  


According to what Bear wrote,  Anna Anderson-Manahan talked about the "little pillows" to the nurse very early in her stay at Dalldorf. I doubt the magazine articles mentioned anything about "little pillows" being carried by the women as they walked toward their death. In 1920,  I doubt many people, accept the eleven, executioners and maybe a few others, knew about "little pillows".   So, if this is true, then how would Anna have known about the "little pillows"?   Anna could have been the best actress in the world while she was alive but having first hand knowledge of events is exactly why she survived as a claimant and why we're still mesmerized by this mystery which shrouds her long after she's dead.

C1


Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Candice on August 31, 2005, 05:29:17 PM
Annie, re your reply #162.  Thank you.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Candice on August 31, 2005, 05:56:10 PM
Yes, there are still 2 bodies missing.  There is also the body of their aunt Princess Elizabeth (the Nun) that we cannot account for.   What if,  Princess Elizabeth took the children to a safe country posing as the children's mother using new identities under the protection of the  church.  

I wish forensic scientists could confirm that Princes Elizabeth's body is definitely resting in Jerusalem and that her DNA confirms that.

My source has a recording of an old lady that claims that when she was a little girl she used to sit listening to stories of an IF's escape to freedom. The story was told to her around 1919. She's in a nursing home in the USA and as far as I know is still alive.

AA could have got her information from any source.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: stepan on August 31, 2005, 06:03:55 PM
Quote
The British Library has a collection of Berliner Illustrierte Zeitung from 1914-1944. Unfortunately they are not available online.


According to Klier and Mingay AA read a copy of Berliner Illustrierte Zeitung of 23 October 1921, which carried a story claiming that GD Anastasia had escaped the Ekaterinburg massacre.  It would not be too difficult  to trace it from German archives. I don´t know what other magazines she could have read. But there was certainly a library at the hospital where she ould have got general historical information although not any particular about the imperial family and the murder as not much was published at the time.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 31, 2005, 06:55:16 PM
Quote

According to Klier and Mingay AA read a copy of Berliner Illustrierte Zeitung of 23 October 1921, which carried a story claiming that GD Anastasia had escaped the Ekaterinburg massacre.  It would not be too difficult  to trace it from German archives. I don´t know what other magazines she could have read. But there was certainly a library at the hospital where she ould have got general historical information although not any particular about the imperial family and the murder as not much was published at the time.


Surly some researcher on the Romanovs or AA  has taken a look at these magazines, like the one mentioned!

Wonder if someone had already caught on to the story of the mysterious woman in Dalldorf and thought to write an article about a possible escape or was it about another claimant.  If it was about another person, I wonder who it was.

If there was, already a claimant, then why would AA take upon herself to be Anastasia, too?

So many question and no answers. [Sigh].

23 Oct 1921 = autumn.   What was AA doing in the autumn of 1921?

Timeline for AA:
>>autumn of 1921 AA announced she was the GD Anastasia and talked about the jewels sewn in her clothes<<

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

AA knew about the "little pillows" and the "jewels sewn in her clothes" in autumn of 1921.  How did she know?  Someone told her.  Who?  Who knew about the "little pillows" and the "jewels sewn in her clothes"?  Yurovsky, the shooters, those who helped bury the bodies,  CHEKA, Ural Soviets, Moscow Soviets.... Proabably some Bolshevik family members and a few friends, maybe a drinking partner or two....   Investigators of the Whites and others who had swarmed into the area of Ekaterinburg... High officals in Ekaterinburg.... Romanov agents.... High ranking officers in the White Army....  German agents,   British agents,  American agents, Japanese agents, [all] who passed it to their contacts who were part of the military intelligence of these various countries.....  Anyone else?

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: LyliaM on August 31, 2005, 07:28:40 PM
Returning for a moment, if I may, to the issue of AA having been coached: some of  the details referenced in the Peter Kurth book that I find the most striking and difficult to explain away involve those portions of "the story" that, unless I'm mistaken (which I very well may be), did not become public knowledge until Radzinsky, etc. reviewed and wrote about the Yurovsky note and other testimony from executioners, which was many decades after AA was pulled from the canal.  For example, was the fact that the Grand Duchesses had all sewn jewels into their clothing (causing bullets to bounce around the room and making the executioners unable to bayonet them to death) public knowledge prior to the early 1990s?
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: LyliaM on August 31, 2005, 07:43:47 PM
Sorry, Bear -- I just noted that you observed the identical point in the post above mine!  D'oh!

I recognize and accept that the DNA shows that AA was not Anastasia.  But the level of complexity here simply beggars the imagination, and leads one around in seemingly endless and frustrating circles.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on August 31, 2005, 07:49:08 PM
LyliaM,  

No need to be sorry,  because you couldn't possible know what I was writing while you were writing.  

Glad to see we're thinking along the same line.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 31, 2005, 09:06:50 PM
I have some of these magazines; I mean this kind of magazines in Spanish and in French. Some of their articles, notabily those about international issues where copied from European and American Magazines. Many of them have articles titled "The Truth  about the Tsar Fate" or something over the lines of it. Of course they accounts are totally false, with high fantasy in its contents. None of them mentioned the "little pillows", nor "cushions" and claimed absurd things, like that only Nicholas and Alexei were shot and that the girls and her mother had escaped to somewhere, whithout saying exactly WHERE. I didn't read even about the Perm stories. Some of these magazines stated that "all the family seems to have been killed", but no more than this. The "how they were killed" explanation was a fantasy. The info is not a bit similar to the Yurovsky's accounts of the events. They also speaks about a missing Grand Duchess, but never said her name.

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 31, 2005, 11:01:36 PM
Quote

According to what Bear wrote,  Anna Anderson-Manahan talked about the "little pillows" to the nurse very early in her stay at Dalldorf. I doubt the magazine articles mentioned anything about "little pillows" being carried by the women as they walked toward their death. In 1920,  I doubt many people, accept the eleven, executioners and maybe a few others, knew about "little pillows".   So, if this is true, then how would Anna have known about the "little pillows"?   Anna could have been the best actress in the world while she was alive but having first hand knowledge of events is exactly why she survived as a claimant and why we're still mesmerized by this mystery which shrouds her long after she's dead.

C1





According to Summers and Mangold's The File on the Tsar, the description of Demidova carrying a pillow into the basement of the Ipatiev House was given by an eyewitness to a White investigator by October 1918. The information was extant; it remains to be proven that Andersen could have seen it in a magazine. I would want to see as many articles about the execution as we can that were printed in German magazines before the autumn of 1921 before ruling out the possibility Andersen saw this detail in print.

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: lexi4 on September 01, 2005, 12:12:00 AM
I would love to see those magazinest too Louis_Charles.
I tend to think there musth have been coaching involved because of some of the details she had regarding the IF. For example, how could she have possibly known about Mr. Pockets? I doubt that as written in a magazine. It may not be that there was one specific person coaching her. But rather that she gleaned information from the various people who came to see her and used it later in her life. It may be that her supporters unknowingly coached her. Or there is the possibility that she was intentionally coached.
The idea of dissassociation had not occured to me. But it makes sense.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on September 01, 2005, 07:50:32 AM
Dear Lexi,

As to how she managed this, I still believe what I posted earlier on this thread --- she was a talented actor who did indeed glean the information, as you say.

Simon
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 01, 2005, 11:16:38 AM
I can understand how a person can glean information from people even when they don't know they are providing the information to a person like AA,  if she wasn't GD Anastasia, who needed to continue her charade.  Every stories became links to other stories until their is a whole picture which forms.  I do this kind of source gathering when I work on my own family history.  

And, yes,  she must have been a good actress, but was that enough in the early days?  Probably for several of the nurses, yes, but what about the doctors, I doubt it.   Did any of them ever think she was GD Anastasia?  

AA certainly said something which caused Schwabe to believed her story....  It is this information which she held that I find difficult for her to have known unless she had been "coached".

From the very beginning she seem to know information such as the "little pillows" and the jewels sewn in the clothes.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: LyliaM on September 01, 2005, 11:26:54 AM
The difficulty I have in believing that she was "coached" lies in the fact that she would have needed both (1) somebody who was present at/close to somebody present at the murders of the IF, and (2) somebody who was close to the IF in the performance of their daily duties (including stuff like meeting the Man with the Pockets) to provide her with the information she indicated that she knew.  It's quite unlikely at best.  The other point is that (as various doctors and others consistently observed) she was a physical and mental wreck -- body covered with lacerations, broken jaw, bullet mark behind her ear -- and extremely depressed and despondent.  Again, I cannot grasp how a human being in such a state could summon the powers of persuasion, cunning, memorization, and derring-do to impersonate another human being.  Such an undertaking would require extraordinary calculation and intelligence and tenacity, not qualities possessed by AA based upon her behavior!

I swear to God, this whole thing drives me nuts!  Why I'm so fascinated by it, I can't say.  But it has interested (and truly disturbed) me for well over 20 years now.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: etonexile on September 01, 2005, 11:36:43 AM
Well...as we now know through DNA testing...AA was NOT AN...then it all falls back on coaching or being a "quick study" who picked up on info from anyone and everyone she came across...What else had she to do with her time?....And who else would she have wanted to be...Napoleon Bonaparte?
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: LyliaM on September 01, 2005, 11:44:46 AM
Maybe she was clairvoyant!  Or a pod person!  ;)

I accept the validity of the DNA results and don't ascribe to any type of conspiracy theory. But, this is the thing: every time I go back and look at the Kurth book and other accounts that delve into the specific details of the whole AA affair, I again become consumed with wondering how in God's name this woman could have known what she knew, convinced the people that she did, etc. etc. etc.  It truly is extraordinary, and there is obviously much more to her "back story" than we will probably ever know.  As others have noted, there are many quite valid unanswered questions here, and I remain intrigued and very puzzled despite the DNA results.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on September 01, 2005, 11:54:10 AM
I agree. But having said that --- the impression I get from the Kurth book is of a woman carried along by events. Bear asks how she could have convinced Schwabe, but my impression is that Schwabe went to Dalldorf in hopes that it would be true. Anna's favorite method of dealing with people like Isa Buxhoeveden, for example, was a stubborn silence, and I didn't get the sense that she was all that forthcoming in the early days of The Story. For a long time her reticence was counted as an argument for her identity as Anastasia. It somehow made her more believable that other people fought the battles for her, people like von Rathlef, Aucleres, the Botkins.

But in light of the DNA evidence, which seems to conclusively prove that Andersen was not a Romanov, it looks different. Perhaps she was simply soaking up what she needed through careful listening.

The impressive thing about Anna Andersen, to me, is not that she maintained the assumed identity. As I posted on another thread, there are several historical examples of pretenders that have managed that, the most prominent being Naundorf. What is impressive to me is that she sustained it during period of extreme stress and illness. I really do think we are dealing with an identity that came to seem more real to her than whatever her true one actually was.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: LyliaM on September 01, 2005, 12:14:31 PM
Ah, but with Isa Buxhoeveden there could have been a (valid) contempt underlying the stubborn silence, no?  As FOTR states, Buxhoeveden in fact betrayed the family quite spectacularly, by absconding with funds intended for their rescue, and buying her own freedom by betraying the families' concealment of the jewels in their clothing.  (Though whether this betrayal could have been known to the IF during their captivity I don't know.)

I do, on the other hand, agree that there's a compelling argument to be made  that she was carried along by events and shaped her identity  accordingly.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: LyliaM on September 01, 2005, 12:30:05 PM
To my surprise, I just checked out references to Buxhoeveden in the Kurth book and note that, on pp. 57-8, AA declared that Isa's refusal to acknowledge her was motivated by a guilty conscience, since the IF indeed knew that they had been betrayed by her and spoke of it while in prison.

So SOMEBODY did  know about the duplicitous Baroness' behavior in 1918.  It would seem that AA's homework was quite thorough.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: lexi4 on September 01, 2005, 02:11:46 PM
Louis_Charles,
Good assessment of Kurth's book.
We know why was NOT AN. DNA tells us that. What still nags at me is how she knew the things she knew. Much could have been gleaned by talking with others, magazines etc. But some of the things she knew, I don't see how she could have know. Dare I ask this (without getting clobbered  ;) but I have wondered about the crediability of those Kurth quotes so extensively. Could they have mis-remembered? Did they want her to be AN so badly that they innocently provided her with information when they met her and like a game of sharades, give her hints? I haven't read kurth's book in a while, but wasn't much of the information provided by only a few sources based on memory?
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: LyliaM on September 01, 2005, 03:47:59 PM
Hey, Lexi -- Perfectly fair and legitimate question to ask.  I'm not an historian (though I have extensive knowledge of legal research techniques) so I'd have to defer to some of the other experts here as to Kurth's sources and techniques.  However, having just re-read the book (after 20 years, and after shrugging my shoulders and saying "well, that's that" after the DNA evidence came out), I can say that the sources are numerous and highly credible, and in many cases were providing sworn testimony.  "Anastasia" seems to me to be an extremely thorough piece of research.  That said, I'm sure people may have questions regarding individual sources or pieces of testimony.  
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 01, 2005, 03:57:38 PM
Learning information after she left Dalldorf  may be more easily explained such as people gave her information without realizing,  but  my question is directed to her first  utterences such as the "little pillow" and the jewels sewn in the clothes.

Up to this point, as far as we know, her only contact while in Dalldorf was nurses, doctors and other patients.

I know next to nothing about the people with whom she was in contact at the Elisabeth Hospital in the Luetzowstrasse during her first 6 weeks after being rescued from the Berlin canal.About the only thing Kurth says is:

p. 4

>>....any sign that he had been listening, "I have asked for nothing,"  she said"

She said it in German, hr words precise but muffled, in  "a completely foreign accent."<<

In Kurth's note 7:

>>Redern notes:  According to the Bonhoeffer A. spoke "an affected Southern German, apparently Franconian in origin, possily Alemannic."  but the note is added that "...she was at pains to conceal her dialect."  No other report mentions a German accent of any kind.<<

Lovell doesn't write much about Elisabeth hospital either.

Did anyone else tell us anything more?

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on September 01, 2005, 08:43:14 PM
If you wants to be a good historian it's clear to me that you must read all books you can about the case you are researching (and of course, if you are prefessional, you must go to check primary sources...that's mean "documents") . Books in favor of the case, and books against it. I read a lot of stuff againts Anna Anderson claim (I could purchase the very complete "La Fausse Anastasie" by Pierre Gilliard among others, and also the excellent articles by Alain Decaux and André Castelot), and much less championning her as Peter Kurth's one, Dominique Auclères one, Harriet Rathlef's one, Von Nida's one and...James Blair Lovell's one, which I can't considere as historical and hardly as a source. I don't have acces to documents here, but I tried to do my own research with the data I know. I explained in other thread what I'd done with AA photos mixed up with FS ones and AN ones, but since many people got angry with me, I decided not to write any more about my interviews with other scholars and experts. I spoke with DNA experts, forensics, anthropologs, photography experts, graphologues, people from the Police Identification Departement, psychologues and psychiatrist, experts in ballistic, doctors and even an actress. All of them arrived to the same conclusion than me.You know already which is my opinion in this matter, so I will not repeat it. And since I'm afraid to be banned (Finelly was banned some time ago for saying things qualified as "false"), so I'd rather keep all this info for me. All people interested in knowing it may wrote PM to me or email me directly, for my mail is not hide. I want to share all I know, but I don't want to be banned from here. I like here, even if people would sometimes tease me or said that I'm an "Easter-Bunny believer".  ;D For me, AA was not (most likely) FS and I didn't have any confiance in the DNA tests that was performed in the "putative" AA's intestine tissues...I don't have confiance in the authenticity of these tissues. Am I conspirative? No; but I'm not a little girl. I read carefully the Robert K. Massie "The Romanovs; The last Chapter" and all the chapter about DNA testing (Massie is againts AA; he was since his first book)   and now I have even less confiance in the way the test was done. All the experts I speak with, said me that when DNA is againts one or two anthropological and other identity test performed before the DNA proof, it's all right, but when this test deny ALL the other identithy test, the thing becomes suspiscious. All the other test (graphologic test, anthropological test, photo tests, ears test - you know; the test performed in AA ears, when they were identified with those of Anastasia and the scientist didn't know which were AA ears- and P.I.K test) said she was AN. Only DNA denied scientifically this possibility, and more than this...Identified her with Franziska Schanzkovska the woman that all AA opponents wanted she would be since the late 1920's . If you may remember, all AA enemies were upset with scientifics proofs in the 20-30 and 40's for all of them would said that AA was AN. Once, Ernest of Hesse send samples of AA and AN writing to a graphologue whithout saying to whom they belonged and the expert concluded that the samples were written for the same person. The Grand Duke got upset and destroyed the proofs. So; the DNA is contradicting all this. This is my problem with it. You may object that this method is more accurate than the others, but generally the other methods identified people whithout problem in the past, and Police still uses them ALONG with the DNA. If all the anthropological proofs said that a person is who she claims she is and only ONE of these proofs said she is not...Mmmmh. I can't buy it.

            And besides: If AA enemies knew for sure that she was FS (and now science "proved conclusively" that she was really her) why must they to retouch a photo? Why lied they so often ? ( Read the Gilliard book and you'll see) Why Doris Wingender got so nervous and got "the flu" when she was obviously caught lying? Why couldn't she identify possitively FS in the only photo of her, and "recognized" her in all the photos where she was not present?

              These things have nothing to do with DNA. And yes; I still believing the same than before. I'm not a romantic but quite the opposite. I'm only analyzing the things I know.


                        RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: lexi4 on September 01, 2005, 09:53:53 PM
Quote
Hey, Lexi -- Perfectly fair and legitimate question to ask.  I'm not an historian (though I have extensive knowledge of legal research techniques) so I'd have to defer to some of the other experts here as to Kurth's sources and techniques.  However, having just re-read the book (after 20 years, and after shrugging my shoulders and saying "well, that's that" after the DNA evidence came out), I can say that the sources are numerous and highly credible, and in many cases were providing sworn testimony.  "Anastasia" seems to me to be an extremely thorough piece of research.  That said, I'm sure people may have questions regarding individual sources or pieces of testimony.  


Lylia, Thank you. I am posting from out of town and don't have my book with me.  It is a mystery, how she could have known so much.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on September 01, 2005, 10:04:30 PM
We all actors in our professional lives. But  then we get to rush home to our family and friends.

We very often have no scripted lines wriiten by a brilliant author, no direction, no lighting, no backdrop. No receptive audience.

And we don't have rehersals. And we don't have to pick a part and play it day in and day out for a lifetime.

Poor Annie ...she had to to do it all alone.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on September 01, 2005, 10:37:37 PM
You are right. Inquiring_Mind. We are all actors in our daily life. But - I study this in philosophy!  ;D - we actually play more than one character along the day long, not just one through 60' years! If she really did it, she was the more wonderful actress that I'll never know in the whole Humanity History!  :o

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on September 01, 2005, 10:47:46 PM
Finelly was banned?
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Ortino on September 01, 2005, 10:53:15 PM
Quote
Finelly was banned?


 I second the question. She was?
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: lexi4 on September 01, 2005, 11:15:45 PM
Quote

  I second the question. She was?


If I may ask, what brought this up? What does it have to do with the topic.

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on September 01, 2005, 11:16:04 PM
This is what PM's are all about!!!
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: etonexile on September 02, 2005, 03:34:53 AM
Are we all on the same track....do we all agree...due to impartial DNA testing that AA was not AN...and most likely was FS?....Then...it's interesting and fun to speculate how AA could fool so many for so long..... ;)
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 02, 2005, 06:51:18 AM
Quote
You are right. Inquiring_Mind. We are all actors in our daily life. But - I study this in philosophy!  ;D - we actually play more than one character along the day long, not just one through 60' years! If she really did it, she was the more wonderful actress that I'll never know in the whole Humanity History!  :o

RealAnastasia.


Well, one of her nephews said that she had always said she didn't want to be buried in a one horse town, she wanted to die a famous actress. And so she did. So in that way FS got what she wanted more than the Romanovs did, or any of us ever will!

And think about this, too- why didn't she ever give up her claim? One, it would have been too humiliating. Oh, no, look at  me, I've been lying all along, I'm not really Anastasia! Who's going to do that? Did any of the other claimants? I think Eugenie Smith did, but only after she was legally threatened for claiming she was AN as she wrote her book in the first person. Also consider she was very likely mentally ill, and may have even come to believe in her old age that she really was AN. In addition to the humilation, there may have been legal repercussions of filing a false claim.


Also, while AA never officially gave up her claim, she wasn't exactly acting the part of a princess as she lived in squalor among all those dogs and cats and their mess and metal cans until the city of Charlottesville cited her and John for the eyesore! So, she never admitted she wasn't AN, but she also never constantly played out the part and pretended to carry on as royalty, either.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 02, 2005, 06:53:31 AM
Quote
Then...it's interesting and fun to speculate how AA could fool so many for so long..... ;)


It would be, and to explore who and what was behind it, IF we can ever get over the old 'is she AN' stuff that always takes over and holds back any discussion of this. NO she WASN'T! It's time to get over that, give up the fantasy, wake up from the fun little dream world and move on to find the real facts behind the case. I guess that is never going to happen on this board, sadly.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on September 02, 2005, 07:44:36 AM
Quote
And since I'm afraid to be banned (Finelly was banned some time ago for saying things qualified as "false"), so I'd rather keep all this info for me. All people interested in knowing it may wrote PM to me or email me directly, for my mail is not hide.


This is from RealAnastasia's post above. The statement was made in a public thread, not in a private message, which is why I questioned it here.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 02, 2005, 08:06:48 AM
Quote

Well, one of her nephews said that she had always said she didn't want to be buried in a one horse town, she wanted to die a famous actress. And so she did. So in that way FS got what she wanted more than the Romanovs did, or any of us ever will!




Pure speculation AGAIN!!  As usual.  Let us also remember that this "nephew" never KNEW OR MET the claimant, this is second or third hand information from an unverified source.  Another one of the "stories" like the 6 hour meeting.  Let's go back to demanding sourced being used again PLEASE, before we descend back on to the merry go round with ALL of these speculative statements.

The fact is the "nephew" or was it "niece" that you are speaking of may or may not have gotten this statement second or third hand.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 02, 2005, 08:08:31 AM
Quote

It would be, and to explore who and what was behind it, IF we can ever get over the old 'is she AN' stuff that always takes over and holds back any discussion of this. NO she WASN'T! It's time to get over that, give up the fantasy, wake up from the fun little dream world and move on to find the real facts behind the case. I guess that is never going to happen on this board, sadly.


Very few if anyone at all beleives AA was AN, so what is your point?   If you want facts used Annie, then please start by using source material.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 02, 2005, 08:13:48 AM
Quote


Pure speculation AGAIN!!  As usual.  Let us also remember that this "nephew" never KNEW OR MET the claimant, this is second or third hand information from an unverified source.  Another one of the "stories" like the 6 hour meeting.  Let's go back to demanding sourced being used again PLEASE, before we descend back on to the merry go round with ALL of these speculative statements.

The fact is the "nephew" or was it "niece" that you are speaking of may or may not have gotten this statement second or third hand.


First, the 'source' is Massie's book 'The End of the Romanovs', I don't have it in front of me.

Second, what difference does KNEW OR MET make??? I have seen you state many times that you are into genealogy and family research. Me too, so I know that most if not all of what you find out comes from handed down family tales from someone else who knew or met, or knew the grandma who knew or met, the person the story is about. Same thing in the Schanskowska family! If everything must be discounted if you never personally KNEW OR MET the person, then everything on this forum is invalid, because all the info, and the sacred 'sources' are all from someone else and not us, and we never KNEW OR MET any of these people!


Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 02, 2005, 08:15:27 AM
Quote

Lylia, Thank you. I am posting from out of town and don't have my book with me.  It is a mystery, how she could have known so much.


Excellent points Lexi, it is amazing how, a polish farm girl with a rudimentary education, know or learn or retain so much information.

I still think a complete investigation of those people associated with her in those early years may give us a clue as to her coach.  

I agree with Louis Charles, that it does seem AA was more timid and less forthcoming in her meetings with Olga & Irene, then she was in later encounters.  I think that she still may have been in the early stages of acquiring intimate information on her subject.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 02, 2005, 08:27:44 AM
Quote

First, the 'source' is Massie's book 'The End of the Romanovs', I don't have it in front of me.

Second, what difference does KNEW OR MET make??? I have seen you state many times that you are into genealogy and family research. Me too, so I know that most if not all of what you find out comes from handed down family tales from someone else who knew or met, or knew the grandma who knew or met, the person the story is about. Same thing in the Schanskowska family! If everything must be discounted if you never personally KNEW OR MET the person, then everything on this forum is invalid, because all the info, and the sacred 'sources' are all from someone else and not us, and we never KNEW OR MET any of these people!

 



As usual no sources, no credibility.   Annie it matters a great deal who or she met & knew.  You keep bringing these disputed facts up such as that, twisting the information and not using source material, I & others are going to call you on it every time, it's that simple.


How can you sit there and use a quote from a conversation that may or may not have happened, that cannot be verified, and from a man that never met or knew this woman.  I could care less about your reasoning for using it.  
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 02, 2005, 08:34:34 AM
Using the example of family history,  one has to be careful as to who tells you what about dear old cousin Joe.  His cousin Mary has called him a drunk and a womanizer who gambled all of his father's money away.  But when you talk to his cousin Harry, that isn't exactly right.  To start with,  Mary believes if anyone has just one beerthat he/she  is an alcholic.  Secondly, cousn Joe was married twice.  His first wife had been an alcholic whom he had divorsed.  And Harry's father's money which Mary thought was huge were nothing but debts.

Ahhhh, yes,  there are many sides to the old coin.

I'll see if I can find Annie's "Memory" in Massie which I believe was something FS's niece said.  So,  I'll be back.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on September 02, 2005, 08:42:28 AM
From Massie's THE ROMANOVS, THE FINAL CHAPTER, 1995 ed., p. 249:

"My Auntie Franziska was the cleverest of the four children," said Waltraud Schanzkowska, a resident of Hamburg. "She didn't want to be buried in a little one-horse town. She wanted to come out into the world, to become an actress --- something special."

There is no source for this quote that I can discover, and there is no statement as to whether the niece knew Franziska personally. On the other hand, it is made by a member of the Schanzkowska family only one generation removed from Franziska, and I think that should give it some credibility as a statement about her --- whether FS was AA or not. Andersen may not have been Schanzkowska, in other words, without invalidating it as a statement about Franziska.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 02, 2005, 08:50:12 AM
Thanks Louis!

I still say, if you discount everything someone says if they didn't meet a person, might as well throw away all your genealogy work since you never met any of your ancestors, and might as well toss most books, since the majority of authors never met the sujects they write about and only use second or third hand quotes that may or may not be true. Also no need to even talk on this forum since none of us ever met any of them either! Of course, it is always a problem when people become selective over what to accept and disegard based on whether or not they want to believe it, and what side they are on! Some of you will go to the greatest lengths to discredit me or anyone or anything supporting AA=FS, even the DNA scientitst, yet swear by one old lady with a pair of shoes that may not have even belonged to FS. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on September 02, 2005, 08:51:52 AM
Quote
Using the example of family history,  one has to be careful as to who tells you what about dear old cousin Joe.  His cousin Mary has called him a drunk and a womanizer who gambled all of his father's money away.  But when you talk to his cousin Harry, that isn't exactly right.  To start with,  Mary believes if anyone has just one beer is an alcholic.  Secondly, cousn Joe was married twice.  His first wife had been an alcholic whom he had divorsed.  And Harry's father's money which Mary thought was huge were nothing but debts.
.

This kind of argument is unanswerable because it is so personal. My own experience as an actor indicates that Anna Andersen could have easily pulled off the impersonation given sufficient talent and time to learn the part --- and she had the time, as Massie points out in his last words about her. "Sixty years to grow into it." But if you don't have theatrical  experience, you probably are less inclined to accept my argument. It is the same with the argument that was advanced about Andersen's trip across Russia as a refugee --- if people have family members that made the trip (unwounded family members, mind you), then she could have done it. But for everyone who survived such a trip, common sense tells us that there were people that did not. So there it is.

There is no evidence that Waltraud Schanzkowska made these statements about Franziska in bad faith, is there? Massie is not annotated.




Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 02, 2005, 09:24:22 AM

Being a good actress  still does not explain how AA knew about the "little pillows" and the jewels sewn in the clothes in 1920.

AGRBear

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on September 02, 2005, 09:30:25 AM
Very true. But as I mentioned above, the fact that Demidova had carried a pillow was known by October, 1918, according to testimony mentioned in Summers & Mangold's The File on the Tsar. There is evidence that Andersen was exposed to material with some descriptions of the Imperial Family's execution (I looked at copies of the Berliner Illustrierte Zeitung online, btw, and from cursory inspection it doesn't appear to be a "tabloid" like the American National Enquirer), so it is possible that one of these magazines had that detail.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 02, 2005, 09:37:38 AM
Quote
... [ in part]...

This kind of argument is unanswerable because it is so personal. My own experience as an actor indicates that Anna Andersen could have easily pulled off the impersonation given sufficient talent and time to learn the part --- and she had the time, as Massie points out in his last words about her. "Sixty years to grow into it."

...


If AA was FS,  she left home when she was eighteen which was just before the war broke in 1914.  So,  from that point forward,  she would have had to have thought of bettering herself by going to school, learning lanuages [High German, French, English and Russian] and everything she needed to know about the Romanovs.  But why?  The Romanov's were still in power.  The Romanovs were not prisioners until March 1917 and they were not reported to have been executed only Nicholas II in July of 1918 was said to have been exectued.   There were only rumors that Nicholas II and ten others were executed....  Offical word about their deaths came much later....  Meanwhile, FS had lost her love, was in an out of asylums,  suffered the mental anguish of having dropped a grenade that blew up a fellow worker in a factor, was back in an asylum... ended up claiming she couldn't work,  worked on a farm, ended up in Wingander's boarding house......and vanishes in MARCH 1920, a few weeks after [Feb 1920] AA had jumped into the canal.

Months later,  AA is telling a nurse about the "little pillows" and the jewels sewn into clothes....  AND, she has old scars of wounds suffered such as a badly set but healed broken jaw, a grove down the side of her head, etc. etc.

We're not talking about 60 years here.

I think we have a huge piece of this puzzle missing.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 02, 2005, 09:41:25 AM
Quote
Thanks Louis!

I still say, if you discount everything someone says if they didn't meet a person, might as well throw away all your genealogy work since you never met any of your ancestors, and might as well toss most books, since the majority of authors never met the sujects they write about and only use second or third hand quotes that may or may not be true. Also no need to even talk on this forum since none of us ever met any of them either! Of course, it is always a problem when people become selective over what to accept and disegard based on whether or not they want to believe it, and what side they are on! Some of you will go to the greatest lengths to discredit me or anyone or anything supporting AA=FS, even the DNA scientitst, yet swear by one old lady with a pair of shoes that may not have even belonged to FS. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.



Gee, Annie YOU SAID, it was a "nephew".
Get your sources straight.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 02, 2005, 09:48:09 AM
Quote
From Massie's THE ROMANOVS, THE FINAL CHAPTER, 1995 ed., p. 249:

"My Auntie Franziska was the cleverest of the four children," said Waltraud Schanzkowska, a resident of Hamburg. "She didn't want to be buried in a little one-horse town. She wanted to come out into the world, to become an actress --- something special."

There is no source for this quote that I can discover, and there is no statement as to whether the niece knew Franziska personally. On the other hand, it is made by a member of the Schanzkowska family only one generation removed from Franziska, and I think that should give it some credibility as a statement about her --- whether FS was AA or not. Andersen may not have been Schanzkowska, in other words, without invalidating it as a statement about Franziska.



Simon, the only ONE meeting of the Schanzkowska siblings, was in 1937 in Hannover.  No nieces or nephews attended according to the records.

Waltrud NEVER knew Francizska, she may have heard ABOUT her, but personally NEVER KNEW.  

I feel that the only statements that should be given ANY credibility at this point are those who knew the claimant FIRST HAND, and or were involved in the AA case FIRST HAND.   There are too many WILLING unvervifiable 2nd hand sources such as this floating around that need to be put aside and not used, just my opinion.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 02, 2005, 10:01:47 AM
Louis _ Charles: >>My best guess, and it is a guess, is that the description of Demidova carrying a pillow was in one of the magazines.<<

Quote
Very true. But as I mentioned above, the fact that Demidova had carried a pillow was known by October, 1918, according to testimony mentioned in Summers & Mangold's The File on the Tsar. There is evidence that Andersen was exposed to material with some descriptions of the Imperial Family's execution (I looked at copies of the Berliner Illustrierte Zeitung online, btw, and from cursory inspection it doesn't appear to be a "tabloid" like the American National Enquirer), so it is possible that one of these magazines had that detail.


How would a magazine writer  in Germany know about Demidova carrying a pillow as she walked to her death before the magazine's publication in Oct. 1920???

How would AA, who jumped into a Berlin canal in Feb. of 1920, know in 1921 about Demidova carrying a pillow???

Quote
>>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


Far as we know,  only Yurovsky, the shooters, plus a those they had told,  and other high Soviet officals who had seen Yurovsky testimony, which was not released to the public,  knew about the "little pillows".

Yurovsky's 1920 testimony:

Quote
The comm. [commandant] went to get them personaly, alone, and led them dowsairs to the room below.  Nich was carrying A. [Aleksei] in his arms; the rest carried little pillows and other small things with them. ...<<


AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: LyliaM on September 02, 2005, 10:38:11 AM
I share the questions expressed by Bear.  I am also wondering how AA could have known about Baroness Buxhoeveden's betrayal of the IP while they were in captivity.  

I do grasp the points Louis Charles makes about people who are gifted as actors.  People can be far more convincing, given the correct talents and observational gifts and knowlege, than you would ever believe possible.  

But this does NOT explain the specific pieces of information that AA knew and spoke about, i.e. the little pillow carried by Demidova; the jewels the Grand Duchesses sewed into their clothing; and Baroness Buxhoeveden's absconding with funds intended for the IP's rescue and telling the Bolsheviks about the jewels in the clothing.  I am willing to accept that these facts could have been published in periodicals of the day, but I think it unlikely.  
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 02, 2005, 10:40:24 AM
I just remembered I have a copy of Pavel Medvedev's testimony given to the Whites on 21-22 Feb 1919.   I looked to see if he mentioned the "little pillows" in is testimony.

>>The maid had a pillow in her hands.  The daughters brought little pillows with them also.  One of the little pillows was put on the seat of Her Majesty's chair, the other on the heir's seat.<<

So,  the Whites, also,  knew about the pillows after 22 Feb 1919.

All of this was collected by Sokolov who's papers were taken away by the Whites and he had to collect what was left  and he and his papers finally ended up in Germany .....

And,  I find this point mention on p. 179-80  of Mangold and Summers book THE FILE ON THE TSAR:

>>That year Investigator Sokolov visited Berlin, where he stayed at the house of Colonel Freiberg.  One night his flat was raided by an armed band of Russian and German Communists, a raid so well mounted that one of the thieves left at the front door, posing as a policeman, while the robbery was taking place.  When the raiders left they took a set of Sokolov's papers with them.  A subsequet German police enquiry concluded that the files had been taken, via Prague, to Moscow.<<

>>  It was later that same year, 1921, that Bykov first published a version of the murder story, as a short contribution to a revolutionary pamphlet.  He gave scant details....<<

Still doesn't tell us who told AA any information about the execution which included the "little pillows", accept the information had reached Berlin in 1921.

Was Pavel Medvedev's testimony in those papers???

I have never been able to get a copy of Sokolov's book,  is Medvedev's testimony in the book?

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on September 02, 2005, 10:55:54 AM
Bear:

Okay, in no particular order:

(1) Anna Andersen did have sixty years to grow into her role as Anastasia Nikolaevna, from the beginning at Dalldorf until she died in Virginia.  At no point in my post did I postulate that AA was Franziska Schanzkowska.
(2) Look at the Kurth book. AA is clearly shown as "developing" her claim incrementally. Everyone agrees that her memory was faulty, including AA, who is frequently quoted as bemoaning the fact that she cannot remember things. It also is very clear that AA liked movies, by the way. The only occasions she left her cabin on the Berengaria, it was to attend shipboard films (Kurth says three times). On the first evening she was in America, she and Gleb Botkin slipped out from the Jennings home and went to the movies. So there is at least some evidence that AA was fond of imaginative recreation.
(3) A magazine writer in Germany would know about Demidova carrying a pillow if he/she had done investigative journalism. There had been descriptions of the shootings given to White investigators prior to 1920. As I mentioned in my post, serious research needs to be done concerning the depiction of the assassination in the Berliner Illustrierte Zeitung and any other contemporary source material which AA might have seen. This would include prior to the suicide attempt, since we do not really know how long AA had planned to claim the identity.

Michael,

(4) I understand that Waltraud might not have known FS personally. But she is only one generation removed, and her impression of her aunt could, and probably was, be garnered from FS's sisters and brothers, who did know her. My post clearly states that while Waltraud's statement may say nothing about AA, it does not mean it is incorrect about FS. Franziska Schanzkowska could have possessed all of the characteristics her niece describes, and still not have become Anna Andersen.

Finally, as to the insistence that testimony be accepted only from those who knew either Anastasia, Franziska or Anna first hand:

Okay. Olga Alexandrovna, Pierre Gilliard and Yurovski all knew Anastasia first-hand, and refused to accept AA's claim. Olga and Gilliard also knew AA first-hand. Yurovski's refusal to accept Andersen is implicit in his assertion that all of the Family were killed. Gleb and Tatiana Botkin all knew AN & AA first-hand and accepted Andersen. None of these people knew Franziska Schanzkowska, assuming that FS and AA were two different people.

I have carefully refrained from mentioning DNA on this thread, and I am not going to get into it now, but if people are unwilling to accept it as a corroborative regarding AA's identity, then we are left balancing out the impressions of her given by those that had known Anastasia well. By definition, Olga and Gilliard knew AN better than Felix Dassel. Or Schwabe.  Yurovski is an eyewitness to the murders. But Bolsheviki are ipso facto liars, so his statements are to be treated with suspicion? But the bodies are where he said they would be. And he didn't act alone, there were several others present that night. The "secret" of the Romanov assassination was public knowledge within weeks of the shootings.

So AA could have learned details at any point from, say, the end of 1918, until 1920. And there is no reason to assume that she was drawn to the story of the missing Grand Duchess only after she came to Dalldorf. Assume for a moment that AA was FS, just for the sake of argument. As Bear has pointed out, she had a busy life during the war. As Waltraud and other Schanzkowsi pointed out, Franziska liked to read. A busy life does not necessarily rule out time spent reading --- we are all good examples of that! So if Franziska was interested in royalty, read about it (and a quick look around these threads indicates that this is not an unpopular hobby), then she could have known information about the Imperial Family long before the suicide attempt.

And if AA wasn't FS, she could have as well.

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on September 02, 2005, 10:59:45 AM
Quote


According to Summers and Mangold's The File on the Tsar, the description of Demidova carrying a pillow into the basement of the Ipatiev House was given by an eyewitness to a White investigator by October 1918. The information was extant; it remains to be proven that Andersen could have seen it in a magazine. I would want to see as many articles about the execution as we can that were printed in German magazines before the autumn of 1921 before ruling out the possibility Andersen saw this detail in print.



I posted this several days ago.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 02, 2005, 11:09:13 AM
I didn't go back far enough.  Thanks.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 02, 2005, 11:15:02 AM
Quote
Bear:

Okay, in no particular order:

(1) Anna Andersen did have sixty years to grow into her role as Anastasia Nikolaevna, from the beginning at Dalldorf until she died in Virginia.  At no point in my post did I postulate that AA was Franziska Schanzkowska.



I don't believe I indicated you thought AA was FS.  If I did,  I stand corrected.


And, yes, if AA was not GD Anastasia,  she did have 60 years to grow into her role as the G D Anastasia.

I was just pulling the first  year [1920-1921] out of the 60 years and what she knew and wondered how she knew it.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 02, 2005, 11:20:52 AM
Quote
Bear:

(2) Look at the Kurth book. AA is clearly shown as "developing" her claim incrementally. Everyone agrees that her memory was faulty, including AA, who is frequently quoted as bemoaning the fact that she cannot remember things. It also is very clear that AA liked movies, by the way. The only occasions she left her cabin on the Berengaria, it was to attend shipboard films (Kurth says three times). On the first evening she was in America, she and Gleb Botkin slipped out from the Jennings home and went to the movies. So there is at least some evidence that AA was fond of imaginative recreation.


I already voiced that if AA was not G D Anastasia, that she had the need to collect information and did so.

My question is not about the last 59 years,  I'm directing my thoughts about the first year and if she was coached before she jumped into the Berlin canal in Feb. of 1920.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 02, 2005, 11:24:18 AM
Quote
Bear:


(3) A magazine writer in Germany would know about Demidova carrying a pillow if he/she had done investigative journalism. There had been descriptions of the shootings given to [i}White[/i] investigators prior to 1920. As I mentioned in my post, serious research needs to be done concerning the depiction of the assassination in the [i}Berliner Illustrierte Zeitung{/i} and any other contemporary source material which AA might have seen. This would include prior to the suicide attempt, since we do not really know how long AA had planned to claim the identity.


I can not really comment any farther about the magazine article since we do not know what it said.  Sure,  we can speculate.  I think it's safe to say that most of us would like to know what was written in that magazine and who wrote the article.

It's true,  we have no idea how long AA planned to be GD Anastasia, just as we do not know the reason why she claimed she was GD Anastasia.  Again, anyone can speculate but we don't really know either answer.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 02, 2005, 11:38:40 AM
Quote
Bear:

...Bear has pointed out, she had a busy life during the war. As Waltraud and other Schanzkowsi pointed out, Franziska liked to read. A busy life does not necessarily rule out time spent reading --- we are all good examples of that! So if Franziska was interested in royalty, read about it (and a quick look around these threads indicates that this is not an unpopular hobby), then she could have known information about the Imperial Family long before the suicide attempt.

And if AA wasn't FS, she could have as well.



If AA wasn't FS then we haven't any clues of her life before she jumped into the Berlin canal accept what is discusssed over on AA's Timeline .  And, she could have been a distant cousin of FS's who had been injured severely, had carried a child,  could speak Russian, High German, French and English and had knowlege how a depressed person should act, how a royal should act and had knowledge of the personal lives of the IF before she jumped into the canal.  And,  because she was a good actress, managed to keep this charade alive for 60 years.

If AA was FS then we know more about her background and that she would have had to have learned a great deal about a lot of royal Russian stuff, including languages between 1914 and Feb 1920  before she jumped into the Berlin canal.  And, this doesn't even include her injuries like a broken jaw which had healed by the time the doctors saw her in Feb. 1920.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on September 02, 2005, 11:51:14 AM
Quote
If AA was FS then we know more about her background and that she would have had to have learned a great deal about a lot of royal Russian stuff, including languages between 1914 and Feb 1920  before she jumped into the Berlin canal.  And, this doesn't even include her injuries like a broken jaw which had healed by the time the doctors saw her in Feb. 1920.


If she was FS, AA did learn these things --- or perhaps knew some of them before 1914. Jaws can be broken by a variety of means, of course.

I can see why people have problems with the identification of FS and AA. It would be easier if the DNA evidence wasn't on the table. But there it is, and it has been demonstrated that it could not have been contaminated on another thread. The odds against the mythical "Schanzkowska female who is not Franziska" must be astronomical.

I understand Real Anastasia's support of AA as AN, but for it to hold, I think you have to be prepared to impeach the DNA evidence, which no one seems able to do, but above and beyond that, the failure of key people who had known the real AN well relatively recent to Dalldorf to recognize Andersen. Lili Dehn didn't meet her until the 1950s; Mathilde Kchessinskaya could never have been intime with the Imperial Family, and most --- not all, but most --- of those who identified AA as AN had known the real Grand Duchess for brief periods of time.

::grins:: We need to get busy and find those magazines!
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Rachael89 on September 02, 2005, 12:02:30 PM
Louis Charles I thought that Tatiana and Gleb Botkin knew OTMAA since childhood and that at least Gleb went into the first part of captivity with them, drawing them "Funny animals" to keep them amused that AA mentioned to him convincing him?

Is this true, I think it's mentioned in Kurth's book but I seem to have lost it!

Rachael
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 02, 2005, 12:10:17 PM
Quote

If she was FS, AA did learn these things --- or perhaps knew some of them before 1914. Jaws can be broken by a variety of means, of course.

I can see why people have problems with the identification of FS and AA. It would be easier if the DNA evidence wasn't on the table. But there it is, and it has been demonstrated that it could not have been contaminated on another thread. The odds against the mythical "Schanzkowska female who is not Franziska" must be astronomical.

I understand Real Anastasia's support of AA as AN, but for it to hold, I think you have to be prepared to impeach the DNA evidence, which no one seems able to do, but above and beyond that, the failure of key people who had known the real AN well relatively recent to Dalldorf to recognize Andersen. Lili Dehn didn't meet her until the 1950s; Mathilde Kchessinskaya could never have been intime with the Imperial Family, and most --- not all, but most --- of those who identified AA as AN had known the real Grand Duchess for brief periods of time.

::grins:: We need to get busy and find those magazines!


Remember,  AA had seen her family during Christmas of 1919 and no one had noticed a broken jaw which AA had a habit of hiding with her hankerchief or hand.

The theory of AA not being FS is not astrnomical nor impossible.  Since DNA is not meant for this thread,  I will only say:  There is no reason to impeach the DNA because I'm sure once we have the missing  pieces to this mysterious puzzle everything will fall into it's rightful place.

Adding to this mix,  the Berlin police believed FS was murdered by Grossmann.  

I and others have talked about Mathilde Kchessinskaya and the others who thought AA was or was not GD Anastasia on other threads.  Kchessinskaya's testimony on French tv showed she had more insight than the anti-GD Anastasia group has admitted and through this interview we learn why she thought  AA was GD Anastasia.  her reasons were more than her blue eyes which reminded her of Nich. II's eyes.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 02, 2005, 01:10:04 PM
Quote


According to Summers and Mangold's The File on the Tsar, the description of Demidova carrying a pillow into the basement of the Ipatiev House was given by an eyewitness to a White investigator by October 1918. The information was extant; it remains to be proven that Andersen could have seen it in a magazine. I would want to see as many articles about the execution as we can that were printed in German magazines before the autumn of 1921 before ruling out the possibility Andersen saw this detail in print.




If Pavel Medvedev's testimony had given to the Whites on 21-22 Feb 1919.   the story about  the "little pillows" in is testimony,   who was the person who gave them information about the "little pillows" by Oct. of 1918???


AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on September 02, 2005, 01:11:44 PM
Again, I did not say that Mathilde Kchessinskaya's testimony had no value. I said that it ranked lower than someone like Grand Duchess Olga's on the pecking scale, simply because Mathilde could not have known Anastasia as well.

Same position regarding "Schankowska Woman Who is Not Franziska That Might Have Been Anna Andersen". We may indeed discover that this family had two girls of roughly the same age and physical appearance that went missing in Berlin in 1920. As family secrets go, this would be a doozy, but it is possible.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on September 02, 2005, 01:14:19 PM
Quote
Pavel Medvedev's testimony given to the Whites on 21-22 Feb 1919.   I looked to see if he mentioned the "little pillows" in is testimony.  So, who was the person who gave them information about the "little pillows" by Oct. of 1918


Sorry, Bear, I'm in my office and away from my books. I will post as soon as I get home, but if you have Summers and Mangold handy, the information is in The File on the Tsar. The source was an Alexander Somebody who was interrogated by a White investigator other than Sokolov by October, 1918.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 02, 2005, 01:26:29 PM
Quote
Again, I did not say that Mathilde Kchessinskaya's testimony had no value. I said that it ranked lower than someone like Grand Duchess Olga's on the pecking scale, simply because Mathilde could not have known Anastasia as well.

Same position regarding "Schankowska Woman Who is Not Franziska That Might Have Been Anna Andersen". We may indeed discover that this family had two girls of roughly the same age and physical appearance that went missing in Berlin in 1920. As family secrets go, this would be a doozy, but it is possible.


Again, I was not referring to your opinion to Kchessinskay's testimony, I was directing my post toward others who have used her testimony as being a weak link.  

What is occuring here, Louis_Charles,  is a two layered conversation.  I'm trying to answer your questions while at the same time reminding those with whom this coversation has occured  certain points.

Kchessinskay's interview has several points of interest.  Let me see if I remember this right.  I believe it was her son who had told the host of the tv show in France that his mother did not believe AA was GD Anatasia but his mother, even at the age which I believe was in the early 90s, had a mind of her own.  She told the host that .....  I'm not going to continue this.  Let me go find the thread and what I wrote which I'm sure has the source with it.

Remember, this was war time and a lot of  people missing so the odd would have been higher when speaking of distant cousins having been reported/ or not reported as missing.  Just take in consideration he huge number of refugees  of  Russians (there were about 500,000) which had poured into Germany  by 1920, the odds were even higher, so,  yes, two women who looked the same, who were carrying the same mtDNA were possibly missing at the same time.  Some of those 500,000  were many many many cousins of my own family who would have carried our mtDNA in 1920.   One of our posters mentioned there were about 200 possibilities in and around Berlin in 1920 who not only may have looked similar but would have had the same mtDNA as AA and Gertrude S..  See the DNA thread.  And, as I've said,  the Berlin police had brought in several family members, at their own expense, to see if they knew Mrs. Unknown.  They did not claim AA.  On one of these thread,  I've even mention one or two of the names  of these families, one of which was from Posen.

AGRBear  
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 02, 2005, 02:02:31 PM
I'll see if I can find it, Louis-Charles.

Meanwhile,  I found the Mathilde Kschessinska's discussion:

Quote
While looking for something else,  I, again, stumbled over something interesting, so, I looked around and didn't find a thread where it could be placed, so, not being afraid to start list threads,  I'm starting this one.  And this one is about people who believed Anna Anderson was Gd Anastasia before the DNA tests.

As we start,  I'd like to see names, when they saw AA and what made them deside AA was the GD Anastasia.  Please, give a source [book and page] and if you know the dates.

So,  I'll start off with Mathilde Kschessinska's testimony which occured in front of the French camerias during an interview in 1967 and what wasn't seen through the camera's eyes was taped to give us additional information.

FILE ON THE TSAR p. 223-4  is where Summers and Mangold tell us:
>>...When interviews about "Anastasia".... she was 95 years old but restill remarkbly alet and coherent.  Her son Vladimir was present at the interview , and had supervised all the arrangements.. He had even prepared a written statement for is mother to deliver... But Mathilde.. decided not to stick to the script, and when the key question ws asked, a very different answer emerged:

Proteau:  "Princess, in 1928, in Paris you met the woman who in those days was called the "Mystery Woman of Berlin'. "
Kschessinska: "I did see her -- once."
Proteau: "And what did you think of her?"
Kschessinka: "That it was she."

"..it was folllowed by a moment of stunned silence, and then there was an angry interruption from her son:  "Niet, niet, cut!  You just cut!" The cameras stopped turning, but two tape machines continued to record what folllowed... The old lady remained unabashed, and continued to talk for another half hour, expressing full confidence that the claimant really was Anastasia."

Oh,  I can hear the groans from the DNAers, but, remember this isn't a thread to prove AA was GD Anastasia, this is merely to show who believed she was before DNA testing.

AGRBear



Quote
I'm sorry Robert, I don't understand the question.

Are you asking how do I know M. K.  said she believed AA was GD Anastasia?  It was on camera and on tape in a television studio in France.  Does it make a difference if the woman was 20 or 95?  Of course it can.  Some people lose their memory at my age while others like my grandmother, who died at 96, had a better memory than I ever had.  I suppose you'd have to see/hear the interview to make up your own mind.  I, personally, have not seen nor heard it.

AGRBear




Quote

Another source Bear: Massie "the Romanovs: The Final Chapter." p. 175

"In the years following Grand Duchess Olga's rejection, only two Romanovs declared in the claimants favor. One was Grand Duke Andrew, Nicholas II's first cousin, who had seen the young Anastasia occassionally at family lunches. Troubled by Mrs. tschaikovsky's claime, he received Empress Marie's permssin to take charge of the investigation. In January 1928, he spent two days with the claimant. After first meeting with her, he cried happily 'I have seen Nicky's daughter! I have seen Nicky's daughter!' Later, he wrote to Grand Duchess Olga, 'I have observed her carefully at close quarters, and tothe best of my conscience I must acknowledge that Anastasia Tschaikovsky is none other than my niece the Grand Duchess Anastasia Nicholaevna. For me there is definitely no doubt: it is Anastasia.'"
"On this same occasion, Grand Duke Andrew's wife, the former prima ballerina Mathilde Kschessinska, also met the claimant. In 1967, after Andrew's death, his ninety-five-year-old widow, who three quarters of a century before had been the youthful Nicholas II's mistress, was asked about the claimant. 'I am certain it was she,' Madame Kschessinska replied. 'When she looked at me, you understand, with those eyes, that was it. It was the emperor...it was the emperor's looke. Anyone who saw the emperor's eyes will never forget them.


AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on September 02, 2005, 02:16:54 PM
Okay, I was aware of everything that you posted about Mathilde's testimony already. I was actually hoping that there was information I have missed, i.e. did she have any other reasons other than a memory of Nicholas II's eyes? This interview dates from 1970, which means that the last time she would have looked in his eyes was roughly 1894.

I also went back and skimmed the DNA thread, and it is clear that the statement that there were 200 women in the Berlin area with the mtDNA Schanzkowska carried was followed by the same poster's point that only (1) one of them disappeared at the same time AA surfaced, and only (1) of them that disappeared bore striking resemblance to AA. I understand that you do not accept the identification with Franziska Schanzkowska, but it should be pointed out that the person from whom you draw your numbers did.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 02, 2005, 02:29:49 PM
Quote
Okay, I was aware of everything that you posted about Mathilde's testimony already. I was actually hoping that there was information I have missed, i.e. did she have any other reasons other than a memory of Nicholas II's eyes? This interview dates from 1970, which means that the last time she would have looked in his eyes was roughly 1894.

I also went back and skimmed the DNA thread, and it is clear that the statement that there were 200 women in the Berlin area with the mtDNA Schanzkowska carried was followed by the same poster's point that only (1) one of them disappeared at the same time AA surfaced, and only (1) of them that disappeared bore striking resemblance to AA. I understand that you do not accept the identification with Franziska Schanzkowska, but it should be pointed out that the person from whom you draw your numbers did.


I have never seen the interview which lasted more than a half hour and the eyes were only part of the conversation.  If anyone has,  I'd loved to know what else M. K.  said.

It is not true that only one person who resembled AA was missing.  I've explained there was more than one missing.  

daveK did estimate there were about 200 females who were about her age in and around Berlin in 1920. All I did was take a few step backwards when it was discussed about the possibility of AA not being FS.  And Helen, who is our expert person on this subject, agreed that if they were not the same person, then we would have to take one step backward and that they might have been cousins.  How many generatiions back?  1 to 25.  maybe it was up as high as 35....  I'll have to check.  Anyway 15 or 25 That takes in a lot of cousins running around and who know where they all had lived before Feb. 1920.  I bet a few even looked like AA.   And, if you read farther,  daveK talked a great deal about clocks and coincidences which might well be the case with AA and FS.

AGRBear


Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on September 02, 2005, 02:30:54 PM
I do not seem to support AA's claim. I DO it. All of you discussed if the info about pillows or cushions could have be known by a Polish common girl or nor, and how I can demonstrate that DNA is wrong.  I can answer to your last question: all things in this world may be faked, dear people. Be aware of that. An expert in DNA said this to me. DNA if well done is almost -he didn't said 100%- all times certain. But you may fake the results (anyone is with you in the laboratory watching what you are doing) or change the tissues when they are going to be tested or something like that. We had had a couple of cases where the DNA was simply made up. I told already about them in other threads (The impresario Yabran, who faked to be death in order to escape the justice, for he had murdered a journalist. His corpse had the face distroyed, for people said that he wanted to suicide shooting at his face with a rifly. The DNA said that this corpse was Yabran himself...But some months later, researchers found out that the dNA proof was entirely faked. However, the man is , by now out of the country, and since he passed a plastic surgery in his face, nobody can recognize him...In the little village where journalist said he "suicided" there is an old man with white hair missing. Yabran had white hair... :-/  ) But being the DNA well made or not anyone tryed to explain to me WHY all other recognition test proved that AA was AN, and only the DNA did not.

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on September 02, 2005, 02:37:32 PM
Quote
But being the DNA well made or not anyone tryed to explain to me WHY all other recognition test proved that AA was AN, and only the DNA did not.


I am responding because this is an oversimplification of the Andersen case. All other recognition tests did not prove that she was the Grand Duchess. If they had, we would not be on this lovely website posting to each other. And she would have been recognized as Anastasia during her lifetime. It is interesting that without taking DNA evidence into account, AA was not recognized as Anastasia by any legal entity that ever heard the case. The DNA is NOT the only thing that has caused people to doubt her identity as Anastasia Nikolaevna.

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on September 02, 2005, 02:40:19 PM
Quote
daveK did estimate there were about 200 females who were about her age in and around Berlin in 1920. All I need was take a few step backwards when it was discussed about the possibility of AA not being FS.  And Helen, who is our expert person on this subject, agreed that if they were not the same person, then we would have to take one step backward and that they might have been cousins.  How many generatiions back?  1 to 25.  maybe it was up as high as 35....  I'll have to check.  Anyway 15 or 25 That takes in a lot of cousins running around and who know where they all had lived before Feb. 1920.  I bet a few even looked like AA.   And, if you read farther,  daveK talked a great deal about clocks and coincidences which might well be the case with AA and FS.
.

I did read further, and I am aware of your position. You can certainly maintain it, but you are doing so in the face of opposition from the people posting about the DNA. However, this is a pointless discussion (the DNA) on this thread, so I join you in recommending that those interested look at the DNA thread for themselves.

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 02, 2005, 03:10:46 PM
I, again, say, I am not in opposition of the DNA,  I just think that we don't have all the facts and once we discover some of the missing puzzle pieces, everything will fall into all the right places.

And,  yes,  I, again, stress people take a look at both the threads on DNA, even though it shows my ignorance on the subject.

I do need to correct the numbers on the generations of 1 to 25 or 1 to 35.

Quote

It's not 10-25 generations.
One nucleotide changes very rarely.
It's 6000 years for 800bp region (HVI+II).  
12,000 years for 400 bp region (HVI only).

From Gill Paper.
Gill P, Ivanov PL, Kimpton C, Piercy R, Benson N, Tully G, Evett I, Hagelberg E, Sullivan K.   Identification of the remains of the Romanov family by DNA analysis.  
Nature Genetics. 1994 Feb;6(2):130-5.

...[see daveK's quote for image...]


Sorry for inserting the DNA but I was in error and this explains it better than I ever could.

I just found the Oct 1918 stuff on p. 122, so, I'll be back.  

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on September 02, 2005, 03:24:03 PM
Quote
Louis Charles I thought that Tatiana and Gleb Botkin knew OTMAA since childhood and that at least Gleb went into the first part of captivity with them, drawing them "Funny animals" to keep them amused that AA mentioned to him convincing him?

Is this true, I think it's mentioned in Kurth's book but I seem to have lost it!

Rachael


Dear Rachael,

Sorry, I lost your post in the flurry that has taken place all afternoon. And yes, Gleb and Tatiana did know Anastasia during childhood. It comes down to who made the mistake? Those who knew  Andersen as Anastasia, or those who failed to recognize her as such. Gleb and Tatiana Botkin were familiar with the Grand Duchess, but so were her aunt Olga and her tutor Gilliard. This is the nub of the recognition problem when you take the DNA out of it. As I said above, I think you then have to weigh the credentials of the parties involved.

Simon
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 02, 2005, 03:25:02 PM
p. 122 FILE ON THE TSAR by Mangold and Summers.

In Oct of 1918 Judge Sergeyev, the investigator before Sokolov, was asking an ex-guard of the Ipatiev House Mikhail Letemin questions:

>>Letemin had an alibi for the night of 16 July, but said he had been told of the murders when he came on duty next monring.  His informant was Andrei Strekotin, who claimed he and seen the family led into the basement and shot while he was on guard.... Letemin said he had queried the story, point out that there ought to be a large number of bullet holes in the room, which there were not, Strekotin replied:  "Why so many?  The tsarina's maid hid behind a pillow, and lots of bullets went into the pillow."

So the Whites knew about a "pillow" held by the maid, presumbly Demidova, by Oct of 1918.

Hmmmmm,  looking for data about the pillow and it end up just throwing up another question such as Letemin wondering about the number of bullets  holes which he thought should have stuck the walls and he's told a "pillow" prevented the number of bullets from striking the wall.

A "pillow" stopped bullets???

I think Wilson and King said there were a huge number of bullets fired at the eleven victims.

Now,  I'm going to have to go and look that up.....

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on September 02, 2005, 03:26:57 PM
 :) Thanks for finding the exact citation, Bear.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: lexi4 on September 02, 2005, 03:29:39 PM
Quote
Okay, I was aware of everything that you posted about Mathilde's testimony already. I was actually hoping that there was information I have missed, i.e. did she have any other reasons other than a memory of Nicholas II's eyes? This interview dates from 1970, which means that the last time she would have looked in his eyes was roughly 1894.

I also went back and skimmed the DNA thread, and it is clear that the statement that there were 200 women in the Berlin area with the mtDNA Schanzkowska carried was followed by the same poster's point that only (1) one of them disappeared at the same time AA surfaced, and only (1) of them that disappeared bore striking resemblance to AA. I understand that you do not accept the identification with Franziska Schanzkowska, but it should be pointed out that the person from whom you draw your numbers did.


Louis_Charles,
I have never read anything that indicated Mathilde had any other reason to believe AA was AN other than eye color which is at best flimsy evidence. If it can even be considered evidence.
I am beginning to understand what you are saying about actors. although I have no personal experience from which to draw in this area. I will say this, she could have won and Academy Award for that performance.
Like others, I still have many questions about how she knew some of the things she knew. She did grow into her role. The more media attention she got, the more information was published. I would suspect she learned much from Botkins children, although I don't think they necessarily "coached her." But I am sure events, etc came up during thier conversations, in which case it would be easy to fake and go along while learning information.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on September 02, 2005, 03:32:22 PM
Yes; the test proved it. I'm in my job now, so I can't post the sources, but as soon as I'm reach my home I do it. These test said that "it's impossible that AA could be other person than she claims to be". It's in Peter Kurth's book and Dominique Auclères's one. But I wouldn't accept these conclusions if they were only there (You must know how AA biased Peter Kurth and Dominique Auclères were...and Peter Kurth still is. Dominique is dead now) You may check the Germany Trials to read the experts conclusions. They all said that AA could not be other than AN- if Penny Wilson is around here, perhaps she could help me, since she can speak German- Even Robert K. Massie in "The Romanovs; The Last Chapter" said something about AA being "so lucky" that all the identification test would said that she was who she claimed to be. And Lord Mountbatten was amazed when he knows what P.I.K test said in 1977 (It concluded that AA was conclusively AN.Post some accurate source saying otherwise and I will apologize directly to you . Lord Mountbatten shout out: "How may an impostor being so luckyly?"

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on September 02, 2005, 03:46:13 PM
It is interesting that without taking DNA evidence into account, AA was not recognized as Anastasia by any legal entity that ever heard the case.[


This demonstrates that all recognition tests did not conclusively prove Anna Andersen's identity. I assume that you accept the evidence of people that had actually know the Grand Duchess as an identity test. Ear and penmanship identifications were not deemed sufficient by the Hamburg court to identify Andersen conclusively.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Rachael89 on September 02, 2005, 04:06:36 PM
Quote

Dear Rachael,

Sorry, I lost your post in the flurry that has taken place all afternoon. And yes, Gleb and Tatiana did know Anastasia during childhood. It comes down to who made the mistake? Those who knew  Andersen as Anastasia, or those who failed to recognize her as such. Gleb and Tatiana Botkin were familiar with the Grand Duchess, but so were her aunt Olga and her tutor Gilliard. This is the nub of the recognition problem when you take the DNA out of it. As I said above, I think you then have to weigh the credentials of the parties involved.

Simon


Thanyou very much for your reply Simon. I know the importance of finding out the particulars about a certain source. If someone is strongly for AA and give evidence their evidence will probably be biased just the same as evidence from people who are stongly opposed to her. It is also important to check the date and origion of the source, this is very important in cases like her nephew claiming she always wanted to be an actress when he never met her, this of course means his input is not as valuable as the testimony of someone who knew FS well throughout their life.

I'm sorry if I'm being over-simplistic but after learning about studying sources at school I realise that the origion of the source as just as important as the information it contains!

Best

Rachael
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 02, 2005, 04:21:09 PM
p. 177 ANASTASIA, THE RIDDLE OF ANNA ANDERSON by Kurth:

In regards to AA's appeal to the lower courts decision, German Supreme Court decision on 17 Feb 1970 was:

>>technically, [the AA case], was not closed.  The judgment held that Anastasia's claim must be regarded as "no liquet" -- "neither established nor refuted", unsatisfactory to both parties.<<

This also menat that she was free to >>change her name legally to "Anatasia Nicolaieva Romanov"<< and >>Judge Pegedarm wanted it undertstood that his ruling constututed no reflection on Anastasia's true identiy:  "We have not decided that the plantiff is not Grand Duchess Anastasia, but only that the Hamubrg court made its decision without legal mistakes and without procedural errors."<<

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 02, 2005, 05:46:21 PM
Quote

Dear Rachael,

Sorry, I lost your post in the flurry that has taken place all afternoon. And yes, Gleb and Tatiana did know Anastasia during childhood. It comes down to who made the mistake? Those who knew  Andersen as Anastasia, or those who failed to recognize her as such. Gleb and Tatiana Botkin were familiar with the Grand Duchess, but so were her aunt Olga and her tutor Gilliard. This is the nub of the recognition problem when you take the DNA out of it. As I said above, I think you then have to weigh the credentials of the parties involved.

Simon


I have been much criticized for saying this, but I don't see how the possibility of Gleb being part of her act can be ruled out. To me it makes perfect sense. He was there enough to know some things, so it is not impossible he fed her info (though I do not believe he was the first or only one to do so) Consider too that he was a writer/journalist, and this was a good story. So it is possible, more possible than switched intestines, that he was like the "Dmitri"  character in the cartoon, using her as an "Anastasia" for some kind of payoff. You know, you be Anastasia,I'll help you with your memories, we split the difference? ;)

Reasons I strongly suspect him:

1. He did have somewhat intimate knowledge of the family's life and details that would make good 'memories' possibly even the 'man with the pockets'

2. He was very creative and imaginative, a writer as well as an artist, as we see in the books of drawings he made with the royal children. It would take a mind like that to come up with and carry out such a plan, kind of like writing a movie.

3. Her claim, and fame, really took off and accelerated big time after she took up with him. Coinidence? I think not.

It all adds up, the writer in search of a story with memories of life with the Imperial kids that come in handy, and a lonely mentally ill woman who either doesn't remember her identity or is trying desperately to ditch it and replace it with a better one.

Apparently I am not alone in my suspicions:

http://www.serfes.org/royal/annaanderson.htm

scroll down to the second story, here is an exerpt

Few of Anna Anderson's supporters were more cunning, knowledgeable or influential than Gleb Botkin; nephew of Serge Botkin and son of the Imperial Family's personal physician Dr Eugene Botkin who perished with his royal patients in the Ipatiev House in 1918.

Gleb Botkin had an intimate knowledge of palace life, having spent much of his youth near the Imperial Family. As such it's impossible he was deceived by Anderson, he must have known she was a fraud and used her for his own aims. Botkin was one of many sources of obscure information Anderson would recount as "memories" to astound friend and foe alike. Beside abundant Russian émigrés another source were dissolute members of the German aristocracy, most having lost their wealth and power with the fall of the Kaiser.

Gleb Botkin was a novelist and illustrator by profession and used his talents to almost triumphant effect, writing numerous articles and a book on the validity of Anderson's claims. He also created the prevailing myth the Grand Duchesses Xenia and Olga (sisters of Nicholas II) tried to bribe Anderson to renounce her claim with the offer of a house anywhere in the world and a generous annuity, an impossibility considering their precarious financial situations.




Before anyone trashes me for insulting his character, please note that I am only speculating, and it's no worse than those who accuse the Queen or scientists of intestine switching, or Olga A. and Gillaird of lying!

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on September 02, 2005, 06:03:08 PM
Quote

I have been much criticized for saying this, but I don't see how the possibility of Gleb being part of her act can be ruled out. To me it makes perfect sense. He was there enough to know some things, so it is not impossible he fed her info (though I do not believe he was the first or only one to do so) Consider too that he was a writer/journalist, and this was a good story. So it is possible, more possible than switched intestines, that he was like the "Dmitri"  character in the cartoon, using her as an "Anastasia" for some kind of payoff. You know, you be Anastasia,I'll help you with your memories, we split the difference? ;)

Reasons I strongly suspect him:

1. He did have somewhat intimate knowledge of the family's life and details that would make good 'memories' possibly even the 'man with the pockets'

2. He was very creative and imaginative, a writer as well as an artist, as we see in the books of drawings he made with the royal children. It would take a mind like that to come up with and carry out such a plan, kind of like writing a movie.

3. Her claim, and fame, really took off and accelerated big time after she took up with him. Coinidence? I think not.

It all adds up, the writer in search of a story with memories of life with the Imperial kids that come in handy, and a lonely mentally ill woman who either doesn't remember her identity or is trying desperately to ditch it and replace it with a better one.

Apparently I am not alone in my suspicions:

http://www.serfes.org/royal/annaanderson.htm

scroll down to the second story, here is an exerpt

Few of Anna Anderson's supporters were more cunning, knowledgeable or influential than Gleb Botkin; nephew of Serge Botkin and son of the Imperial Family's personal physician Dr Eugene Botkin who perished with his royal patients in the Ipatiev House in 1918.

Gleb Botkin had an intimate knowledge of palace life, having spent much of his youth near the Imperial Family. As such it's impossible he was deceived by Anderson, he must have known she was a fraud and used her for his own aims. Botkin was one of many sources of obscure information Anderson would recount as "memories" to astound friend and foe alike. Beside abundant Russian émigrés another source were dissolute members of the German aristocracy, most having lost their wealth and power with the fall of the Kaiser.

Gleb Botkin was a novelist and illustrator by profession and used his talents to almost triumphant effect, writing numerous articles and a book on the validity of Anderson's claims. He also created the prevailing myth the Grand Duchesses Xenia and Olga (sisters of Nicholas II) tried to bribe Anderson to renounce her claim with the offer of a house anywhere in the world and a generous annuity, an impossibility considering their precarious financial situations.




Before anyone trashes me for insulting his character, please note that I am only speculating, and it's no worse than those who accuse the Queen or scientists of intestine switching, or Olga A. and Gillaird of lying!



Part of the online article by John Godl...

From the outset money was the principal objective, and Gleb Botkin became increasingly obsessed with tracing and claiming tsarist assets. When paranoid legitimate claimants would beat them he urged legal action be taken to have Anderson recognized Nicholas II's heir.

To fund the extremely expensive treasure hunt their legal advisor Edward Fallows created an investment company called The Grandanor Corporation, investors being promised a relative percentage of any millions she eventually inherited. Fallows himself stood to collect $400.000, then 10% of all other assets inherited for his troubles Squabbling and litigation dragged out over a considerable part of the century, straddled World War II and outlived Botkin and Fallows.


Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 02, 2005, 06:18:22 PM
Annie, just an FYI, your theory on Gleb's motivation is like leaking bucket full of holes.  According to Richard Schweitzer, Gleb signed away an rights in the beginning, at the founding of Grandanor, and stood to inherit nothing.  If you don't believe me then you & your disciple can ask Mr. Schweitzer.  I believe from what Mr Schweitzer wrote to me the document is on file in Germany, and the US, possibly in Denmark.

I had the same theory on this as you promote, however it doesn't wash with the information provided by Mr. Schweitzer.    Sorry. ;D ;D
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on September 02, 2005, 09:55:33 PM
I'm here, finally in my home, so I may check the info in Robert K. Massie's book:

Here i go :

"...One body of evidence, largely ignored in the early years of the Anna Anderson case, came to the fore in the German court trials of the 1950 and 60's. It was the testimony of medicine and science, and to the surprising degree, it supported Anna Anderson's claim. In the early years after the claimant's appareance, doctors- most of them psychologist-had tended to believe her story (...)

...During the Hamburg trials, the court decided to obtain physicall evidence, based on science. It appointed two distinguished expert  witnesses: Dr. Otto Reche, an international anthropologist and criminologist who had founded the Society of German Anthropologists and Dr. Minna Becker, a graphologist who had assisted in the authentication of Anne Frank's diary. These doctors and scientific experts were seeking neither money nor fame; they were professionally examining a litigant. Reche collected more than hundred photographs of Grand Duchess Anastasia's, and then photographed Anna Anderson at the same angles and under the same lighting conditions. He compared the two faces, millimeter by millimeter and concluded that "...such coincidences between two human faces is not possible unless they are the same person or identical twins. Mrs. Anderson is NO ONE ELSE THAN GRAND DUCHESS ANASTASIA". Becker compared more than hundred samples of Grand Duchess Anastasia's handwriting "I have never before seen two set of handwriting bearing all these concordant signs which belonged to two different people" she concluded- "There can be NO MISTAKE. After thirty -four years as a sworn expert for the German courts, I am ready to state on my OATH and on my HONOR that Mrs. Anderson and Grand Duchess ANASTASIA ARE IDENTICAL"(...)

During her lifetime, Anna Anderson enjoyed another scientific victory, gained in 1977 by DR. Moritz Furtmayr, a prominent German forensic expert. Furtmayr had devised a system of mapping the human skull with grids and graphs to produce what he called "head print" no two of which were alike in human beings. Using this "P.I.K Method" which had been accepted in criminal cases by German courts, Furtmayr proved that the anatomical points and tissue formations of Anna Anderson's right ear corresponded with Grand Duchess Anastasia's right era in seventeen points, five more than the twelve required by German courts to establish identity..."

So; what I have said was right. Experts concluded not only that she wasn't FS but that she was AN. I was not lying.

But I know that writing this is just a waste of time. You'll write (as I read above) "...This only proofs that all the experts were wrong.." Yes; and only DNA was right, isn't it?  >:(

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on September 02, 2005, 10:21:11 PM
Quote
So; what I have said was right. Experts concluded not only that she wasn't FS but that she was AN. I was not lying.
 
But I know that writing this is just a waste of time. You'll write (as I read above) "...This only proofs that all the experts were wrong.." Yes; and only DNA was right, isn't it?  Angry


If your post refers to me, RealAnastasia, I did not say that you were lying. I said that there were recognition tests that AA did not pass. There is a difference. She did pass some, obviously, but she was not universally accepted as the Grand Duchess even before the DNA evidence --- to which I have deliberately not referred --- was introduced into the argument. And if she wasn't Anastasia, then yes, the experts were wrong. That does not make them malicious liars, for heaven's sake.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 02, 2005, 11:41:48 PM
First, let me thank Annie for giving her source who was John Godl.  We ALL appreciate your effort.

Quote
Annie, just an FYI, your theory on Gleb's motivation is like leaking bucket full of holes.  According to Richard Schweitzer, Gleb signed away an rights in the beginning, at the founding of Grandanor, and stood to inherit nothing.  If you don't believe me then you & your disciple can ask Mr. Schweitzer.  I believe from what Mr Schweitzer wrote to me the document is on file in Germany, and the US, possibly in Denmark.
 
I had the same theory on this as you promote, however it doesn't wash with the information provided by Mr. Schweitzer.    Sorry. ;D ;D


Let me add that it is too bad that Richard Schweitzer rarely posts anymore.   I'd like to hear what else he'd have to say about John Godl's accusations.

AGRBear

 


Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: lexi4 on September 02, 2005, 11:55:39 PM
Is there any information written that tells us how much time the Botkin children actually spent with the children?  I ask because Alexandra kept her children so isolated, it is hard for me to imagine that the Botkin children had very much contact or any kind of close relationship. But I don't know. Does anyone else?
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on September 03, 2005, 08:26:26 AM
Annie,

according to the law office that opposed the AA case in court, Gleb Botkin did, indeed, stand to make money through the Grandanor corporation. While he wouldn't take a slice of AA's inheritance, should the venture have proved to be sucessful he stood to make money just the same.

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on September 03, 2005, 08:30:45 AM
Quote
It is interesting that without taking DNA evidence into account, AA was not recognized as Anastasia by any legal entity that ever heard the case.[

This demonstrates that all recognition tests did not conclusively prove Anna Andersen's identity. I assume that you accept the evidence of people that had actually know the Grand Duchess as an identity test. Ear and penmanship identifications were not deemed sufficient by the Hamburg court to identify Andersen conclusively.


That's very true. And we all so have much more modern tests, done via computer, that provide a 88% feature match between AN and the claimant who died in 1971.
I wonder how it would've affected the court's descision if they had two "matching" claimants back then  8)

It just shows how reliable these identification tests can be in the end.

 
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 03, 2005, 09:31:26 AM
Quote
Annie,

according to the law office that opposed the AA case in court, Gleb Botkin did, indeed, stand to make money through the Grandanor corporation. While he wouldn't take a slice of AA's inheritance, should the venture have proved to be sucessful he stood to make money just the same.





This is directly from the PM sent to me by Mr Schweitzer, when I made reference to the financial issue being a motive of Glebs.

Gleb Botkin on: Jul 27th, 2005, 1:32pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gleb Botkin executed a disclaimer filed in Germany by which he disclaimed for himself and his successors in interest any entitlements to any benefits from A or her Testaments or Estate. You can contact M P. remy in Munich to confirm the existence of that document.

Schweitzer  

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 03, 2005, 09:51:03 AM
Quote
It is interesting that without taking DNA evidence into account, AA was not recognized as Anastasia by any legal entity that ever heard the case.[

This demonstrates that all recognition tests did not conclusively prove Anna Andersen's identity. I assume that you accept the evidence of people that had actually know the Grand Duchess as an identity test. Ear and penmanship identifications were not deemed sufficient by the Hamburg court to identify Andersen conclusively.


Well since the objective of AA was to prove that she was AN, wouldn't they have to start from the view of the court that AN was dead or presumed dead in the massacre at Ekaterinburg??

The burden of proof would lie with the defense and what evidence they had.  However I cannot see that their evidence was all that compelling, since many of the major family members, i.e., aunts & uncles, were against her.


Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 03, 2005, 10:02:53 AM
Quote
.

This kind of argument is unanswerable because it is so personal. My own experience as an actor indicates that Anna Andersen could have easily pulled off the impersonation given sufficient talent and time to learn the part --- and she had the time, as Massie points out in his last words about her. "Sixty years to grow into it." But if you don't have theatrical  experience, you probably are less inclined to accept my argument. It is the same with the argument that was advanced about Andersen's trip across Russia as a refugee --- if people have family members that made the trip (unwounded family members, mind you), then she could have done it. But for everyone who survived such a trip, common sense tells us that there were people that did not. So there it is.

There is no evidence that Waltraud Schanzkowska made these statements about Franziska in bad faith, is there? Massie is not annotated.







While I think of course she had to be an actress & a good one to carry off this charade.  I do think that this role or whatever we shall call it was not an intuitive one where the skill of an actress would carry them through. She had to be convincing and have evidence, however with Irene & Olga it seems she didn't.  

Her training could not have been only through the tabloid magazines of the time, as many of the facts were not known until the last 10-15 years, about the massacre, the lost bodies, etc.  

On to Waltrud, we have discussed this many times on these threads before, and that these statements from the Schanzkowska children bear little or no weight as they did not KNOW this woman.  In  fact I believe outside of the meeting at Hannover in 1937, NONE of the siblings ever made a PUBLIC or NOTARIZED declaration to a court or deposed that this was indeed their sister.   Waltrud's statement would have been the type of heresay that would be excluded.  Also either she or Marguerite Ellrick or both were paid for their statements by magazines.   So like Doris Wingender's statements I regard both of them quite skeptically.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 03, 2005, 10:10:46 AM
.

Quote
p. 177 ANASTASIA, THE RIDDLE OF ANNA ANDERSON by Kurth:

In regards to AA's appeal to the lower courts decision, German Supreme Court decision on 17 Feb 1970 was:

>>technically, [the AA case], was not closed.  The judgment held that Anastasia's claim must be regarded as "no liquet" -- "neither established nor refuted", unsatisfactory to both parties.<<

This also menat that she was free to >>change her name legally to "Anatasia Nicolaieva Romanov"<< and >>Judge Pegedarm wanted it undertstood that his ruling constututed no reflection on Anastasia's true identiy:  "We have not decided that the plantiff is not Grand Duchess Anastasia, but only that the Hamubrg court made its decision without legal mistakes and without procedural errors."<<

AGRBear


Since AA's case is still technically open, does this mean that legally the fate of GD Anastasia is still an open question as well?

I think,  Germany was the only country which has dealt in the courts with declaring the deaths of Nicholas II and his family because of family members going after their assets.  I don't believe countries, like the USA, have ever declared Nicholas II and the others legally dead, even, now, with everyone but Alexei's and Anastasia's/Maria's bones the only ones missing.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 03, 2005, 10:23:30 AM
Quote
.


Since AA's case is still technically open, does this mean that legally the fate of GD Anastasia is still an open question as well?

I think,  Germany was the only country which has dealt in the courts with declaring the deaths of Nicholas II and his family because of family members going after their assets.  I don't believe countries, like the USA, have ever declared Nicholas II and the others legally dead, even, now, with everyone but Alexei's and Anastasia's/Maria's bones the only ones missing.

AGRBear



Bear,

I believe Germany was chosen because it was the ONLY nation to have locatable assets of Nicholas & Alexnadra, the funds in the Mendelssohn Bank.  The defendant in the case was the granddaughter of Irene,  Barbara the Grand Duchess of Mecklenburg Schwerin.  

When this account was located in the 1930's by law the heirs were listed as: Xenia, Olga, VMH, Irene, Ernie, and it considered the children of Nicholas & Alexandra as dead.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 03, 2005, 10:25:27 AM
Quote
Annie,

according to the law office that opposed the AA case in court, Gleb Botkin did, indeed, stand to make money through the Grandanor corporation. While he wouldn't take a slice of AA's inheritance, should the venture have proved to be sucessful he stood to make money just the same.



Thanks, I thought so. There's always a way to get around it, there's other ways to divert the money to him.

For example, I have a friend who, because of a recent bankruptcy, would have to surrender her inheritance to the bankruptcy court, but one of her relatives is going to claim her share and divvy up with her later;)

I think the reason some people dislike having the Gleb theory brought up is that it's too good a solution, it makes too many of the mysteries clear up, and they don't like that.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 03, 2005, 10:48:31 AM
It is difficult to fight against rumors, even when the facts are presented, in this case the fact that Gleb had legally signed away his rights to money he could have earned by knowing AA, when we have the kind of comments like John Godl's,
http://www.serfes.org/royal/annaanderson.htm ,
who wrote:
 >>Few of Anna Anderson's supporters were more cunning, knowledgeable or influential than Gleb Botkin; nephew of Serge Botkin and son of the Imperial Family's personal physician Dr Eugene Botkin who perished with his royal patients in the Ipatiev House in 1918.<<

Unless someone has facts that tell us that Gleb collected any money to which he had legally agreed he would not,  then, please,  it is very unkind, in fact, I think rather cruel  to continue such accusations.

AGRBear

 
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 03, 2005, 11:28:39 AM
Quote

Thanks, I thought so. There's always a way to get around it, there's other ways to divert the money to him.

For example, I have a friend who, because of a recent bankruptcy, would have to surrender her inheritance to the bankruptcy court, but one of her relatives is going to claim her share and divvy up with her later;)

I think the reason some people dislike having the Gleb theory brought up is that it's too good a solution, it makes too many of the mysteries clear up, and they don't like that.


And you worry about people trashing you???? Come on, you just inferred several pretty serious charges about the man.  Mr. Schweitzer makes a valid issue when he states that IF AA were to have been recognized Gleb was not to have any profit from the proceeds.

As far as Gleb coaching her, I don't think anyone has denied that, but for you and your disciple to make these type of aspersions, well I guess it is just par for the course for these threads.

Gleb coaching her, and being involved in her case I have no problem with, and yes it is a good solution, however but for you to state that he was doing it for money, when Mr Schweitzer has told us otherwise, puts holes in your theory.   Please show Mr. Schweitzer some respect Annie.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 03, 2005, 11:32:23 AM
Quote
Unless someone has facts that tell us that Gleb collected any money to which he had legally agreed he would not,  then, please,  it is very unkind, in fact, I think rather cruel  to continue such accusations.

AGRBear

  


If it were under the table, there'd be no facts now would there? And since AA did not win any money, we will never know how it would have been distributed.

And as far as being 'cruel' as I said in the other post it is no different than accusing the scientists or royals of intestine switching or coverups! The worst 'cruelty' presented here IMO is the accusation that Ernie H. or Olga A. would have lied and denied their beloved niece for money. Here they were heartbroken over the tragic deaths, and someone uses that to try to boost a claim. That was so hurtful. So unless you can present proof of an intestine switch, a coverup, or anyone lying, it's best to never mention it again,huh?

But no, you only want to write off and get rid of the theories you don't want to hear. If Gleb was involved, that takes away quite a bit of the 'how did she know' stuff and maybe you don't like that. If he really was involved in the charade and his presence is too convenient to explain away too many things, it's easy to evoke pity for him to try to stop the investigation, but as I mentioned, you have no pity on any of the others that fall victim to conspiracy theories of this board. So it can't go both ways, either we stop the 'cruel' accusastions against EVERYONE or allow the speculation on everyone. And bear if you really want the 'road to truth' you should not dismiss this theory so lightly, it's a good one.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Candice on September 03, 2005, 12:16:21 PM
The inforamtion could have been given to her by a member of staff that she must have know or may be a friend of a member.  People do talk. As for the jewels sewn into the seams and hems of clothes, many years ago, that method was used when expediting packages abroad.


Quote
Being a good actress  still does not explain how AA knew about the "little pillows" and the jewels sewn in the clothes in 1920.

AGRBear


Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on September 03, 2005, 01:00:26 PM
Quote
Her training could not have been only through the tabloid magazines of the time, as many of the facts were not known until the last 10-15 years, about the massacre, the lost bodies, etc.  


Dear Michael,

You may be right, although as I said before, my impression of the Berliner Illustrierte Zeitung from the few examples I found online was not that of a tabloid in the sense of it being a sensational rag; and in my research I cannot find any other magazine names listed as being at Dallforf, which is frustrating.

But the facts about the assassination, some of them, were out there, as the material also demonstrates. While it may not have been in print, Medvedev's statement was available by 1919, and perhaps others (still researching). And I don't think she did get her informatin only through the "tabloid magazines of the time.' I think she absorbed it from those around her, and while I don't impugn Gleb's motives (nor do I pass out at the idea that they might have been a bit more complicated than simple faith in Andersen), I do think that it is possible that he, and others like him, inadvertently gave the claimant information.

The only way a mysterious coach makes sense to me is if he/she worked with Andersen before she went into the canal. Her visitors at Dalldorf were monitored, and her manner attracted more attention from the nurses than other patients, according to Kurth. The "coach' would make more sense if Anna had pursued the identification systematically, and with purpose, i.e. the goal of inheriting what monies still existed in Tsarist accounts. But she didn't. She was as unpleasant as possible to people that might have helped her, and never seems to have evinced much interest in the supposed fortune. If there was a coach, he or she must have been very frustrated by his pupil!

Simon
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 03, 2005, 01:47:56 PM
Quote
It is difficult to fight against rumors, even when the facts are presented, in this case the fact that Gleb had legally signed away his rights to money he could have earned by knowing AA, when we have the kind of comments like John Godl's,
http://www.serfes.org/royal/annaanderson.htm ,
who wrote:
 >>Few of Anna Anderson's supporters were more cunning, knowledgeable or influential than Gleb Botkin; nephew of Serge Botkin and son of the Imperial Family's personal physician Dr Eugene Botkin who perished with his royal patients in the Ipatiev House in 1918.<<

Unless someone has facts that tell us that Gleb collected any money to which he had legally agreed he would not,  then, please,  it is very unkind, in fact, I think rather cruel  to continue such accusations.

AGRBear

  


Agreed completely Bear, and Mr. Schweitzer has said that there is a disclaimer executed by Gleb, stating that he would not collect or inherit on any monies from Grandanor.    Let's insult him & accuse him of underhanded motives, but let's not accuse the venerated royals of any financial motive.

We know there was no money, and the longer Gleb, & Zahle  & the others went along they must have come to the realization that there was little or no money left, otherwise Xenia & Olga wouldn't have been living as they did.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 03, 2005, 01:49:05 PM
Sokolov collected most of the testimonies and was in control of most of the investigation, so,  I'm not sure how much of the testimony of the various witnesses actually was released to the public by him until his book as published after his death.  I'll have to go check but gotta run.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on September 03, 2005, 07:40:03 PM
I can not simply accept that Gleb was a "cunning man" wanting to make money on AA claims. Besides the excellent document that Dr. Schweitzer shared with us , document that demonstrates totally that he WOULDN'T HAVE A PENNY from AA's inheritance, he was not this kind of man. All people who knew him could assert the opposite. He fighted courageously in Anna's side, and supported her even when she was not gentle to him, and he offered to this woman all that he had in order to help her.

Gleb Botkin was the better friend AA even had, and even had his health deteriorate for the energy he put in the case.

No; I may accept that the Kleist,  Miss Annie Burr Jennings, the Grünebergs or the ladies who lived with AA wanted to make money on her...BUT NOT GLEB BOTKIN. He and his sister Tatiana were sincere, you may easily notice that.

The more sad in all this, is that a religious man, as Father Serfes (I always had a lot of respect for religious men) had written an awful thing like this about Gleb Botkin. Father Serfes could not accept AA claim, believe the DNA proof  and all . Each man or woman is free to believe or accept what he or she wants to. But we must be careful -very careful- when we are speaking about other persons.

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 03, 2005, 10:14:02 PM
Quote

Dear Michael,

You may be right, although as I said before, my impression of the Berliner Illustrierte Zeitung from the few examples I found online was not that of a tabloid in the sense of it being a sensational rag; and in my research I cannot find any other magazine names listed as being at Dallforf, which is frustrating.

But the facts about the assassination, some of them, were out there, as the material also demonstrates. While it may not have been in print, Medvedev's statement was available by 1919, and perhaps others (still researching). And I don't think she did get her informatin only through the "tabloid magazines of the time.' I think she absorbed it from those around her, and while I don't impugn Gleb's motives (nor do I pass out at the idea that they might have been a bit more complicated than simple faith in Andersen), I do think that it is possible that he, and others like him, inadvertently gave the claimant information.

The only way a mysterious coach makes sense to me is if he/she worked with Andersen before she went into the canal. Her visitors at Dalldorf were monitored, and her manner attracted more attention from the nurses than other patients, according to Kurth. The "coach' would make more sense if Anna had pursued the identification systematically, and with purpose, i.e. the goal of inheriting what monies still existed in Tsarist accounts. But she didn't. She was as unpleasant as possible to people that might have helped her, and never seems to have evinced much interest in the supposed fortune. If there was a coach, he or she must have been very frustrated by his pupil!

Simon



Simon,

I don't think the magazines were the main source for her.  Would Medevdev's letter or account be that well known in Germany, and actually what facts had made it to light at that time, do you know?

I think as AA went on in time, she became more unpleasant to deal with, more eccentric, more diffcult to handle.  IF she did have a coach then I would say they were probably at their wits end most of the time.

I like you don't believe a coach could have been a major part of her life at Dalldorf without being seen or commented on.  Perhaps like any con artist she relied on luck or skill, or learned how to lead people on to give her the answers she sought.   I also don't impugn Gleb's motives as do the source lady, and her disciple.
It seems that she didn't keep friends around her long enough to have a coach.  

While I am still not convinced she was FS, and until I read more of the new evidence gathered by Greg & Penny in the Pretenders book, I will hold my opinion open and make up my mind when the evidence is available.  

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 03, 2005, 10:16:10 PM
Quote
Sokolov collected most of the testimonies and was in control of most of the investigation, so,  I'm not sure how much of the testimony of the various witnesses actually was released to the public by him until his book as published after his death.  I'll have to go check but gotta run.

AGRBear



What testimonies Bear??  We have to remember that this is information that would have been available from 1920 until 1922.  Do we know what was public knowledge at that point??
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 03, 2005, 11:46:17 PM
 I have the book LOST TALES by Gleb Botkin which Marina, nee Botkin,  and  Richard Schweitzer, her husband published so the rest of the world could enjoy Marina's father's stories.

It was these stories which Marina wrote about her father's watercolors and stories on p. XIV which:  >>...constituted one of the few diversions for the Imperial family under the stark conditions of thie confinement.<<

It was Gleb Botkin's father, Dr. Eugene Bothkin, who suffered the same fate of Nicholas II and the others on the night of 16/17 July 1918 in the Ipatiev House.

The last time Gleb saw his father and the Imperial Family was in Tobolsk because Gleb and his sister were refused permission to follow the Imperial Family and Dr. Botkin to Ekaterinburg.

Gleb had personal contact with the Imperial Family.  He and the children had a special contact.  It would not be unreasonable to understand that Gleb would have known certain things that only he and G D Anastasia would have known.  Some of this knowledge must certainly had been about these marvelous stories to which he had drawn watercolors.

Now,  I know very little else about Gleb Botkin and his relationship with Anna Anderson, whom he believed was GD Anastasia.  So, I really should not be in any kind of debate regarding Gleb Botkin or Anna Anderson.  However, it seems I've jumped right into the middle of this discussion.  It has not been because I personally believe Anna Anderson was GD Anastasia,  I must admit.  Why have I?  I don't like false accusations being directed toward Gleb Botkin or anyone else and that seems to be exactly what John Godl has done.

There is a difference between accusations accompanied with inaccurate facts and presenting theories such as  wondering if a  person had unknowingly revealed bites and pieces of information which a "con artist" can use.  

How is it different?  Annie had a theory, she looked for sources, found Godl's article which seem to agree with her theory and she presented it to us.  There is nothing wrong with Annie thinking Godl's information is accurate.  Then,  Michael presented facts straight from Marina, nee Botkin, Schweitzer's husband, Richard, who wrote:

>>Gleb Botkin on: Jul 27th, 2005, 1:32pm  
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------
Gleb Botkin executed a disclaimer filed in Germany by which he disclaimed for himself and his successors in interest any entitlements to any benefits from A or her Testaments or Estate. You can contact M P. remy in Munich to confirm the existence of that document.  
 
Schweitzer   <<

This legal disclaimer  was ignored by Annie who continues to attack Gleb Botkin.  Why?  Because she feels strongly that there was someone coaching AA and she believes it was Gleb after reading John Godl's article as well as other information.

My guess is that through the years,  AA and others,  placed a lot of weight on Gleb Botkin's acceptance of AA as GD Anastasia and they, too, believed AA was GD Anastasia before the DNA tests.

Gleb Botkin knew GD Anastasia and he tells us that he believed AA was GD Anastasia.  

How well had he known GD Anastasia?  He visited GD Anastasia and the Imperial Family while they were prisioners in Tobolsk.  He drew watercolors over which he and the IF shared until the IF and Gleb's father was sent to Ekaterinburg.

One can only imagine what kind of personal stories Gleb knew about the Imperial Family which absolutely no one else would have known.

I would assume that Gleb and AA must have talked about these stories and it appears that he found nothing she said which gave him the realization that he thought AA was a fake.

It seems to me,  Gleb's opinion is high on the  "pecking order" of people  presented as eye witnesses of actual events with the Imperial Family as well as Anna Anderson.

As far as I can see,  no one has  presented evidence that Gleb Botkin was aware that Anna Anderson was not GD Anastasia and that he was part of some kind of conspiracy to have any personal gains.  


If  AA was not GD Anastasia,  as it appears the DNA tests indicate, this does not mean Gleb was trying to pull the wool over our eyes or feed us false information.

If  AA was not GD Anastasia, then AA,   fooled Gleb.

But who would have known those little things only children would have shared because she must have because it seems apparent that she did fool Gleb Botkin?

AA, if she was not GD Anastasia,  fooled many people and I think there was more than just her being a good actress or just her being able to collect  information.  Like Annie and others,  I think it's possible she was coached by someone who knew things which  allowed her to  fool Gleb Botkin and others.  I have no idea who it was or why.

I can understand why people might think Gleb might have unknowingly given AA information.

Just as I can understand why Annie might have thought  Gleb made money by being near Annie.....  But he did not.  Richard Schweitzer  has told us about Gleb disclaimer.  

Annie, it seems, even, now, after  you are aware that he had signed a disclaimer which tells us that he had signed papers which prevented Gleb from gaining anything personally,  this doesn't seem to change your mind because you continue to think Gleb coached AA.  Okay.  I can accept  your logic and distrust.  But,  please, please, don't get so upset when I and others don't agree with you.  

Why do I disagree.  Up to this point,  I don't see any evidence which shows Gleb was part of any conspiracy which provided information to AA before she jumped into the canal in Feb. 1920 .

I believe Gleb didn't meet AA.....  Wait let me go find something that tells me ......  Here it is p. 89  THE QUEST FOR ANASTASIA by Klier and Mingay:

>>One of her most devoted and loyal champions was Gleb Botkin, son of Dr. Evgeny Botkin, the Imperial Family's personal physician ....   He first met Anna in 1927 at Castle Seeon, where she was staying with the family of the Duke of Leuchtenberg....<<

1927 was seven years after  AA claimed she was GD Anastasia.


AGRBear

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: etonexile on September 04, 2005, 09:15:12 AM
As one who doesn't believe in the powers of fortune tellers...but has been quite amused at how they can get one to tell them information...and make it seem in subtle ways that THEY had thought of the facts with their "powers"...I rather feel that AA worked in much the same way....People rarely take the trouble to prove a negative...Those who visited her were more than likely expecting to see the GD...a symbol of hope from a pit of death...which many had just barely escaped themseves.....
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 04, 2005, 09:52:50 AM
Quote
Is there any information written that tells us how much time the Botkin children actually spent with the children?  I ask because Alexandra kept her children so isolated, it is hard for me to imagine that the Botkin children had very much contact or any kind of close relationship. But I don't know. Does anyone else?


Again, using THE QUEST FOR ANASSTASIA by Klier and Mingay to anwer lexi4's question with a little more information:

p. 90
>>The witness of the two Botkin children was crucial in furthering Anna's cause, as they had personally known the Imperical Family as children.  They lived in Tsarskoe Selo from 1908 to 1914 with their father Dr. Evgeny Botkin, and saw the Tsar and his family at close quarters, although the children did not mix personally.  During holidays in the Crimea the Botkins did have direct contact...especially with the younger children, Maria, Anastasia and Alexei, who were their playmates.<<

Now, jumping over to the book LOST TALES  by Gleb Botkin with several introductions.  The Forward was by Greg King who wrote:
p. U

>>....Gleb had a talent for art, and his sketches and stories had entertained and amused the Imperial children for several years.<<

p. UI
>>...Gleb came to know the hearts and souls behind these public images....<<

>>...Botkin did not abandoned the Romanovs after the February Revolution.  He ramained attached to the family....<<  His children Tatiana and Gleb remained with him.

Marina, nee Botkin, Schhweitzer wrote:
p. XIII

>>In the early fall of 1917, Gleb...joined his father and sister in Tobolsk where the Imperial family was being held prisioner.  In spite of the shortage of art suppiles..Gleb continued to create his stories and drawings.<<

>>...They were simply a means of communications among young friends.<<

Evidently, Gleb and Tatiana were not able to visit the Imperial Family in Ekaterinburg but their father was there in the Ipatiev House....

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 04, 2005, 10:39:47 AM
Quote


What testimonies Bear??  We have to remember that this is information that would have been available from 1920 until 1922.  Do we know what was public knowledge at that point??


The various White investigators were collecting all this information.  One of these testimomies was Pavel Medvedev on 21-22 februrary 1919.  


Yes, today, in books and in various Universtities we can find these testimonies, however, who knew about them when AA jumped into the canal in Berlin in Feb. 1920?

Obviously, the persons who took the testimony, the one who wrote it down knew of them.  Where did these pages of papers with the testimony go next?  Were they copied and sent to the Supreme Commander to read?  Or, where they just collected and placed on the desk of the investigator in charge.  

In this case,  the investigator in charge was not Sokolov it was  Judge Sergeyev, whom it is said conducted several interogations, but no one has found more than one testimony.....  [p. 126 Summers and Mangold THE FILE ON THE TSAR].

From what I understand,  many of these testimonies were not discovered for years and years after the execution. For example,  I'm not sure when testimonies, like Yurovsky's, were made public.

It's fine saying that writers for magazines discovered the story about the execution but  what were their sources?  

I don't even know what was written in the magazine articles or newspapers articles.  [I think on one of these threads and sometime ago,  there was mention of several articles but I don't recall which thread.]

Once someone did have this information,  it had to be taken to wherever AA, if she was not GD Anastasia,  was before she jumped into the canal and give her some of this information.  Because, she did know things like "the little pillows" and the jewels sewn in the clothes.

And, then there was more information needed to give AA, if she was not GD Anastasia,  as her charade continued,  also, her story would have to be noticed by the Russian emigre....

AA had to have enough information which grabbed at nurses, doctors,  Capt. Schwabe and those who followed...

All of this information about the execution couldn't come from people who were not in Ekaterinburg,  is what I'm trying to convey.   And, this information then had to traveled in person, by telegram or carrier/agent to Berlin to an asylum known to us as Dalldorf by Feb. 1920.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: LisaDavidson on September 04, 2005, 12:33:27 PM
Quote

That's very true. And we all so have much more modern tests, done via computer, that provide a 88% feature match between AN and the claimant who died in 1971.
I wonder how it would've affected the court's descision if they had two "matching" claimants back then  8)

It just shows how reliable these identification tests can be in the end.

  


Jay - which claimant died in 1971?
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: LisaDavidson on September 04, 2005, 12:47:16 PM
Quote

If it were under the table, there'd be no facts now would there? And since AA did not win any money, we will never know how it would have been distributed.

And as far as being 'cruel' as I said in the other post it is no different than accusing the scientists or royals of intestine switching or coverups! The worst 'cruelty' presented here IMO is the accusation that Ernie H. or Olga A. would have lied and denied their beloved niece for money. Here they were heartbroken over the tragic deaths, and someone uses that to try to boost a claim. That was so hurtful. So unless you can present proof of an intestine switch, a coverup, or anyone lying, it's best to never mention it again,huh?

But no, you only want to write off and get rid of the theories you don't want to hear. If Gleb was involved, that takes away quite a bit of the 'how did she know' stuff and maybe you don't like that. If he really was involved in the charade and his presence is too convenient to explain away too many things, it's easy to evoke pity for him to try to stop the investigation, but as I mentioned, you have no pity on any of the others that fall victim to conspiracy theories of this board. So it can't go both ways, either we stop the 'cruel' accusastions against EVERYONE or allow the speculation on everyone. And bear if you really want the 'road to truth' you should not dismiss this theory so lightly, it's a good one.


I completely agree that it is cruel in the extreme to accuse Ernst of Hesse and GD Olga of having a financial motive for denying AA as being their niece when they were obviously grieving for ANR. I don't understand why the same compassion is not extended to the Botkin family when their father/grandfather was murdered with the IF and they were/are obviously grieving his loss, too.

Their grief, in fact, is a more credible explanation to me than the greed motive. If your father was murdered like this, wouldn't you have liked for it to be for some purpose, perhaps that an innocent young girl could have lived? I think this better explains the recognition of AA by Tatiana Melnik and Gleb Botkin than any greed they may have had.

I do think we need to concern ourselves with not only having compassion for those we are commenting about, but also to be responsible about what we say. Hurling accusations about is certainly not terribly responsible.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on September 04, 2005, 12:48:54 PM
Quote
AA had to have enough information which grabbed at nurses, doctors,  Capt. Schwabe and those who followed...
 
All of this information about the execution couldn't come from people who were not in Ekaterinburg,  is what I'm trying to convey.   And, this information then had to traveled in person, by telegram or carrier/agent to Berlin to an asylum known to us as Dalldorf by Feb. 1920.


According to Kurth and other sources, there was a large Russian emigre population in Berlin in 1920, so you have an automatic base of people interested in a potential imperial survivor. So I don't think it would have taken all that much to get Schwabe's attention. The claim itself was probably enough. There were rumors in the air that one of the children had survived almost from the beginning, and even Kurth describes Andersen as looking at a picture with a speculative caption along the lines of "Did One of the Tsar's Daughters Survive"?

As for people that were in Ekaterinburg --- well, Gilliard was in Ekaterinburg, and he was in the west by this time. Sophie Buxhoeveden was there. Gibbes was there. None of these people had reason to be particularly secretive about the Family, and by Kurth's account the emigre community in Berlin hummed along on gossip.

And while there were nurses who went along with Andersen's claims while she was at Dalldorf, I haven't uncovered the name of a doctor at the asylum who did.

There were people claiming to be every member of the Imperial Family from shortly after the execution. No one ever seems to have claimed to be Botkin, Demidova, Kharitonov, Trupp, Nagorny, Tatischev. Dolgoruky, Brian Johnson, Ivan Sednyev or any of the others associated with the imperials who also perished. I think that is very suggestive as to why Andersen's claim was taken seriously. She asserted that she had been one of four beautiful sisters foully cut down by brutes --- even today Penny Wilson and Greg King created a minor furor by suggesting that the Romanovs were not mistreated at the Ipatiev House until the actual execution --- and she spoke to people who could not have known the real Anastasia well. But the story she told is so inherently melodramatic and full of appeal --- who doesn't want to believe in survival? --- that she convinced them. But none of the people that recognized her had known the real girl well, and most of those that did opposed her claim.

With the exception of Gleb and Tatiana Botkin. I think their recognitions are the most problematic for those of us who feel she was not Anastasia. More research into the structure of the Grandanor Corporation is in order, but remember, that still leaves Tatiana Botkin.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 04, 2005, 02:08:07 PM
Quote

I completely agree that it is cruel in the extreme to accuse Ernst of Hesse and GD Olga of having a financial motive for denying AA as being their niece when they were obviously grieving for ANR. I don't understand why the same compassion is not extended to the Botkin family when their father/grandfather was murdered with the IF and they were/are obviously grieving his loss, too.




Just an FYI the only person that did not claim their share of the Medelssohn Bank monies was Xenia.
I think there is plenty of motive to go around on both sides, especially financial, and Ernie did have his reputation to worry about.  

After all Ernie was the one who hired the private detective, when it was told him that the last time his niece remembered seeing him was "In the war, at our home." (Im Kreige, bei uns zu Hause.)  Those words were to damn her forever in the eyes & mind of GD Ernst Ludwig.

I think all of these people had motives, and clearly a financial motive was one that was in the minds of those who lost all they had during the revolution.  

While Gleb did sign a disclaimer I will agree that it wouldn't stop him from profitting in other ways, but these are all issues that should be looked at carefully before dismissing any discussion of it.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 04, 2005, 02:22:07 PM
I found this interesting:

Quote
A death certificate is absolutely necessary in most countries to settle a person's estate and resolve any outside issues. I imagine this is true in Russia, even though up until recently there was little respect for a person's private property. What Maria Vladimirovna is seeking is that, and perhaps more - an official recognition of the murders as either a criminal act or an official act of a legitimate government. We should not forget that the Orthodox Church buried the remains of the family without mentioning their names - an Orwellian act of non-personhood if I ever saw one! Her requests are small steps in the right direction, and she has pursued this for many years, as I understand it.


Are the Romanovs, after all of these years, going to request a legal document which states that Nicholas II and his family died on 16/17 July 1918???

Apparently, the answer is yes.  

What would be the reasons after all this time?  Legal?  Personal?  Both?  I assume both.  

What would this legal document do to claims which are still not closed, like that of Anna Anderson's?


Quote
.


Since AA's case is still technically open, does this mean that legally the fate of GD Anastasia is still an open question as well?

I think,  Germany was the only country which has dealt in the courts with declaring the deaths of Nicholas II and his family because of family members going after their assets.  I don't believe countries, like the USA, have ever declared Nicholas II and the others legally dead, even, now, with everyone but Alexei's and Anastasia's/Maria's bones the only ones missing.

AGRBear


So, if the govt. of Ukraine presents a death certificate for all the Imperial Family, even for the two who are missing,   would this mean that if someone comes along after this declaration, that they couldn't appeal and present their DNA and mtDNA  as evidence?

 Are their other questions we should be asking???


AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 04, 2005, 02:23:37 PM
Quote

According to Kurth and other sources, there was a large Russian emigre population in Berlin in 1920, so you have an automatic base of people interested in a potential imperial survivor. So I don't think it would have taken all that much to get Schwabe's attention. The claim itself was probably enough. There were rumors in the air that one of the children had survived almost from the beginning, and even Kurth describes Andersen as looking at a picture with a speculative caption along the lines of "Did One of the Tsar's Daughters Survive"?

As for people that were in Ekaterinburg --- well, Gilliard was in Ekaterinburg, and he was in the west by this time. Sophie Buxhoeveden was there. Gibbes was there. None of these people had reason to be particularly secretive about the Family, and by Kurth's account the emigre community in Berlin hummed along on gossip.

And while there were nurses who went along with Andersen's claims while she was at Dalldorf, I haven't uncovered the name of a doctor at the asylum who did.

There were people claiming to be every member of the Imperial Family from shortly after the execution. No one ever seems to have claimed to be Botkin, Demidova, Kharitonov, Trupp, Nagorny, Tatischev. Dolgoruky, Brian Johnson, Ivan Sednyev or any of the others associated with the imperials who also perished. I think that is very suggestive as to why Andersen's claim was taken seriously. She asserted that she had been one of four beautiful sisters foully cut down by brutes --- even today Penny Wilson and Greg King created a minor furor by suggesting that the Romanovs were not mistreated at the Ipatiev House until the actual execution --- and she spoke to people who could not have known the real Anastasia well. But the story she told is so inherently melodramatic and full of appeal --- who doesn't want to believe in survival? --- that she convinced them. But none of the people that recognized her had known the real girl well, and most of those that did opposed her claim.

With the exception of Gleb and Tatiana Botkin. I think their recognitions are the most problematic for those of us who feel she was not Anastasia. More research into the structure of the Grandanor Corporation is in order, but remember, that still leaves Tatiana Botkin.




Most of us here agree she was not Anastasia.  As for those who have a problem with FOTR, & Wilson & King's research, let me state for the record that I appreciated the attempt to deal with the subject matter fairly and decently, and letting us the reader take a look at what went on in the Ipatiev House and after during captivity.

As for Gleb Botkin's role in Grandanor, if Mr. Schweitzer states that a disclaimer of inheritance was signed by Gleb, then that rules him out from profiting financially IF AA was ever recognized.

Perhaps there are many things that we will never know, even after ALL of the research is completed and the documents uncovered, but at least we have some good researcheres and authors like King & Wilson who are giving it their best shot.  

Perhaps we will never understand, living in the advanced age of technology that we do, as to how convincing she was to some and not to others.  However I think that Ernie's involvement in discrediting her, and his detective's reports need to be looked at and examined thoroughly, IF there is a rat somewhere, in this entire investigation, it is there that I smell it, to quote a phrase.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on September 04, 2005, 03:12:15 PM
At the risk of ingniting things all over again, which I do not wish to do, I think it is safe to say that the Andersen case is "closed" now. The Hamburg ruling took place before DNA evidence was allowed, and I should think the DNA evidence would cause her claim to be dismissed if it was mounted in a legal forum.

Although, I have to say that if I was a supporter, I would challenge Helen Vladimorovna's attempt to have them all declared legally dead by filing a countersuit in Russian court.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: etonexile on September 04, 2005, 03:23:32 PM
Few rats of any consequence....I recall being a young chap in public school....reading some magazine article while bored one day....pics of AA and AN...Thinking to self...."These people look nothing the same...white-yes...female-yes....but that's about it....Surely folk meeting AA in the flesh must have barely contained a "snort" of amusment...if not disgust...and hopefully tempered with pity.....

Why can't Tom Cruise just vanish?....He and I both are male with dark hair.....It could work.....
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on September 04, 2005, 03:29:46 PM
Dear Etonexile,

Ah, but you would have to sustain his crazy persona --- think you're up to it? Even he seems tired of it occasionally!

Simon :)
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: etonexile on September 04, 2005, 03:39:42 PM
Quote
Dear Etonexile,

Ah, but you would have to sustain his crazy persona --- think you're up to it? Even he seems tired of it occasionally!

Simon :)


Ah,Yes....Garbo makes more sense alla time..... ;)
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 04, 2005, 03:48:21 PM
Quote

According to Kurth and other sources, there was a large Russian emigre population in Berlin in 1920, so you have an automatic base of people interested in a potential imperial survivor. So I don't think it would have taken all that much to get Schwabe's attention. The claim itself was probably enough. There were rumors in the air that one of the children had survived almost from the beginning, and even Kurth describes Andersen as looking at a picture with a speculative caption along the lines of "Did One of the Tsar's Daughters Survive"?
....


How many of you know that after Schwabe met with AA that he gained support to post guards at Dalldorf to protect AA, so,  she said something that really impressed him.

Quote


...As for people that were in Ekaterinburg --- well, Gilliard was in Ekaterinburg, and he was in the west by this time. Sophie Buxhoeveden was there. Gibbes was there. None of these people had reason to be particularly secretive about the Family, and by Kurth's account the emigre community in Berlin hummed along on gossip.
....


Gillard, Buxhoeveden and Gibbes were not at the execution.  They did not know about the "little pillows".... etc..  being carried down into the basement.  Did they learn about the pillows later?  If so, then from whom did they learn this fact?

So, let's take this step by step.

It was Gillard who walked with the early investigators through the Ipatiev House.

How much information do you think he would have given to AA?  None? Or,    hd he  told others who then told someone else who told someone else until it reached AA.  

Gillard's first impression: >>At the time I left the house I could not believe that the imperial famly had really perished.  There were such a small munber of bullet holes in the room which I had inspected, that I thought it impossible for everybody to have been executed."

Quote found on p. 149 of Summers and Mangold's book THE FILE ON THE TSARS.

His first impression changed when he spoke later:
>>"...he walls and floors showed numerous traces of bullets and blows with bayonets.  A first galnce showed that an odious crime had been perpetrated there, and that several people had been killed..."

p. 176
In the trial of AA's he admitted in court in 1958  that he had deliberately destroyed relevant documents.  

Gillard died in 1962.

He was not an AA supporter and according to Summers and Mangold p 176:
>>...one of the most vociferous supporters of the massacre story.<<

I don't know where Gillard was after he left Ekaterinburg or even when he left Ekaterinburg.  Whereever he was,   I assume his letters about what he saw in the basement and heard during the investigation reached the Romanovs where they were and it filtered into Berlin.

But did he know about "the little pillows"?  Did he know about the jewels sewn into the clothes?

In 1921 Gillard and Sokolov  were all living in the same hotel.

While in Paris, Sokolov tracked down anyone and everyone to gain an interview.

Gibbes.
I have the book THE HOUSE OF SPECIAL PURPOSE  taken from the papers of  Charles Sydney Gibbes by J.C. Trewin.

So where was Gibbes between July of 1918 to 1921?

Gibbes had, also, gone to Ekaterinburg to help the investigators.

It was Gibbes who had reconized Joy that had been taken out of the mine p. 129.

p. 130:

>>Many jewels lay upon Sokolov's tarpaulin in a mass of shining garments....Alexandra Tgleva, the children's former nurse, explained to Sokolov how it<< [the hidding of the jewels by Alexandra and her daughters[ >> was done.  They put the jewels in wadding, covered it with two brassieres of heavy linen, and then sewed these togather ad covered them with wadding on both sides.<<  Gibbes goes into more details which reach to p. 131.

>>Sokolov went on to question half-a-dozen witnesses at length.  Colonel Kobylinsky... He mentioned Pavel Medvedev<<

This book was written in 1975.

Was the mention of this evidence actually from Gibbes or was this all added by the author Trewin because of information he had collected.

So, let's see if we can find the time Gibbes actually left Ekaterinburg.

He left Sokolov with "the relic box" in Jan. of 1920 which he gave to Lampson.

So, Gibbes could have learned about the "little pillows".... 

After delays p. 137 they [Lampson and Gibbes] went on to Peking then Gibbes went on to Harbin where he was still in 1922....  p. 140.  later, Gibbes would entered the Russian Orthodox priesthood....

Let me add that Harbin was the center of  p. 139 >>Tsarsit activity in Manchuria;  it would remain so during the geneations after October rising in 1917.  Gibbes had been strongly attracted to it...<<

Quote


...And while there were nurses who went along with Andersen's claims while she was at Dalldorf, I haven't uncovered the name of a doctor at the asylum who did.

...


I'm sure there are records of the names of the doctors.  I don't know if any ever testified in AA's trial or were every interviewed and quoted in any magazine articles, newspapers or books.

Quote

...There were people claiming to be every member of the Imperial Family from shortly after the execution. No one ever seems to have claimed to be Botkin, Demidova, Kharitonov, Trupp, Nagorny, Tatischev. Dolgoruky, Brian Johnson, Ivan Sednyev or any of the others associated with the imperials who also perished. I think that is very suggestive as to why Andersen's claim was taken seriously. She asserted that she had been one of four beautiful sisters foully cut down by brutes --- even today Penny Wilson and Greg King created a minor furor by suggesting that the Romanovs were not mistreated at the Ipatiev House until the actual execution --- and she spoke to people who could not have known the real Anastasia well. But the story she told is so inherently melodramatic and full of appeal --- who doesn't want to believe in survival? --- that she convinced them. But none of the people that recognized her had known the real girl well, and most of those that did opposed her claim.

...


From what I understand,  in various part of Russia as well as in other countries there were people who claimed they were the others you mentioned above.

Some stories are documented, while others still linguer with only those they touched....

Quote
...With the exception of Gleb and Tatiana Botkin. I think their recognitions are the most problematic for those of us who feel she was not Anastasia. More research into the structure of the Grandanor Corporation is in order, but remember, that still leaves Tatiana Botkin.


Is there any evidence against either Gleb or Tatiana or is this just speculation based on some other theory???


AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: etonexile on September 04, 2005, 04:02:32 PM
Visitor...."Your Imperial Highness...surely your family thought to take some of your jewels with you"?
AA...."Yes...we took jewels with us"
Visitor...."But where might you have hidden jewelry...In clothing....in personal items....such as small pillows"?
AA..."Yes...we hid the jewels in our clothing...and in 'small pillows'...."

Do we see how it might have been done...?...No....I doubt it....
Title: Re: About...what
Post by: AGRBear on September 04, 2005, 04:12:06 PM
Quote
Visitor...."Your Imperial Highness...surely your family thought to take some of your jewels with you"?
AA...."Yes...we took jewels with us"
Visitor...."But where might you have hidden jewelry...In clothing....in personal items....such as small pillows"?
AA..."Yes...we hid the jewels in our clothing...and in 'small pillows'...."

Do we see how it might have been done...?...No....I doubt it....



And this was said when, where and to whom?

And,  why have you given us this example???

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Candice on September 04, 2005, 04:13:37 PM
The Orthodox church must know what happened to the IF children. Why would Gibbs enter the Orthodox priesthood?  I do hope that they don't give in to Maria Vladimirovna's demands.  The church must not agree to declare them all dead, especially with two of them still missing.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 04, 2005, 04:19:09 PM
Here is the source about the death certificate:

http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=276

A quote from the article:

>>For that not withstanding, Romanova is happy to get the finally issued official death certificates for the members the Imperial Family, as that has put an end to the disputes about people who claimed to be descendants of Tsar Nicholas II.

AGRBear
Title: Re: About...what
Post by: etonexile on September 04, 2005, 04:22:56 PM
Quote


And this was said when, where and to whom?

And,  why have you given us this example???

AGRBear


My posting was totally hypothetical....to make folk ...think....
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on September 04, 2005, 04:35:00 PM
Bear:

Please read my posts more carefully. I did not speculate that Gleb and Tatiana were conspirators against Anna Andersen. I said that because they had indeed known Anastasia Nikolaevna, and Tatiana Botkin was not involved with the Grandanor, that her testimony in particular must be weighed seriously by those who oppose Andersen's claim. If Schweitzer is correct when he says that Gleb would not have benefitted from Grandanor, that makes Gleb a more credible witness as well.

Quote
Some stories are documented, while others still linguer with only those they touched....

Please post one source outlining the career of someone claiming to be one of the retainers. I have been following this story more or less carefully since 1966, and if there have been phantom Botkins et. al., I have never heard of them. And I would be careful about the poetry of stories "lingering" with those they touch. You constantly demand evidence for things that contradict you, Bear, and I think you do so properly. Don't introduce poetry into the discussion at this point.

As for the doctors, given the material gathered by Kurth, including the names of the attendant nurses at Dalldorf, do you think it feasible that if a doctor had believed in her, he would have omitted it from the record?

I listed Gibbes, Gilliard and Buxhoeveden as people that had been in Ekaterinburg. I should have been more clear. In your posts, you frequently dismiss the testimony of the guards and / or Yurovsky, as tainted by the fact that they were Bolsheviks. You do not accept eyewitness accounts. My point is that there were accounts of the assassination circulating reasonably soon after the family was shot, and there were people in and around Ekaterinburg that could have heard them who weren't Bolsheviks. The executions were not such a big secret. In Yurovky's testimony he speaks of several peasants who watched the guards moving the bodies around the day after the shootings. The guards had families, to whom they spoke --- or else how did some of them explain the sudden windfall of loot that was re-confiscated from them sometime after the shootings (cf. the appendices in THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS)?

And I think Schwabe believed in Anna Andersen, for whatever reason. I have not impugned his sincerity. So why wouldn't he want guards posted around Dalldorf?

Simon


Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 04, 2005, 04:43:37 PM
For those of you who missed my post where I first mentioned the "little pillows":

Quote
>>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


This is not a hypothecial, this was testimony in AA's trial.

She knew about the pillows and he jewels sewn in garmens as early as autumn 1921 long before she met Gleb Botkin and others who thought AA as GD Anastasia.

AGRBear
Title: Re: About...what
Post by: AGRBear on September 04, 2005, 04:52:15 PM
Quote

...[in part]...
With the exception of Gleb and Tatiana Botkin. I think their recognitions are the most problematic for those of us who feel she was not Anastasia. More research into the structure of the Grandanor Corporation is in order, but remember, that still leaves Tatiana Botkin.


Quote

...[in part]...

Bear:

Please read my posts more carefully. I did not speculate that Gleb and Tatiana were conspirators against Anna Andersen. I said that because they had indeed known Anastasia Nikolaevna, and Tatiana Botkin was not involved with the Grandanor, that her testimony in particular must be weighed seriously by those who oppose Andersen's claim. If Schweitzer is correct when he says that Gleb would not have benefitted from Grandanor, that makes Gleb a more credible witness as well.

...



It appeared to me that you were interested in more research about the Grandanor Corp. and to Gleb Botkin's interests, and, adding to this, perhaps research into Tatiana's interest as well.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on September 04, 2005, 04:55:57 PM
Indeed I am. That doesn't mean that research would discredit them. I knew Gleb was involved with Grandanor, was aware of the fact that he disassociated himself from any share in her eventual inheritance (any legal share; it doesn't impugn him to consider that a victorious Anna Andersen might have been both grateful and generous). Tatiana, who also knew AN, seems even more disinterested than her brother, which makes her a more credible witness.
Title: [quote author=Louis_Charles link=board=anastasia;n
Post by: AGRBear on September 04, 2005, 05:17:31 PM
Quote

..[in pat]...

Please post one source outlining the career of someone claiming to be one of the retainers. I have been following this story more or less carefully since 1966, and if there have been phantom Botkins et. al., I have never heard of them. And I would be careful about the poetry of stories "lingering" with those they touch. You constantly demand evidence for things that contradict you, Bear, and I think you do so properly. Don't introduce poetry into the discussion at this point.

Simon


Someone else mentioned on another thread that there were several documentations of people who had pretended to have been  the servents who died with Nicholas II.

Someone will have to help me out on finding this post and source.

Quote
As for the doctors, given the material gathered by Kurth, including the names of the attendant nurses at Dalldorf, do you think it feasible that if a doctor had believed in her, he would have omitted it from the record?
...


I don't have any information about Kurth's knowledge about doctors.  He has mentioned nurses.

Quote

...I listed Gibbes, Gilliard and Buxhoeveden as people that had been in Ekaterinburg. I should have been more clear. In your posts, you frequently dismiss the testimony of the guards and / or Yurovsky, as tainted by the fact that they were Bolsheviks. You do not accept eyewitness accounts. My point is that there were accounts of the assassination circulating reasonably soon after the family was shot, and there were people in and around Ekaterinburg that could have heard them who weren't Bolsheviks. The executions were not such a big secret. In Yurovky's testimony he speaks of several peasants who watched the guards moving the bodies around the day after the shootings. The guards had families, to whom they spoke --- or else how did some of them explain the sudden windfall of loot that was re-confiscated from them sometime after the shootings (cf. the appendices in THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS)?

...


I'd like to find all the evidence since we know that Yurovsky and the other shooters didn't always tell us the truth.

There are many reasons shooters and families would have similar stories, even if they were not telling the truth.  I can give your stories about people who didn't keep silent, who did tell the truth despite the demands of a CHEKA, a GPU,  a KGB  and their stories would make the hair on the back or your neck quiver.

Quote

...And I think Schwabe believed in Anna Andersen, for whatever reason. I have not impugned his sincerity. So why wouldn't he want guards posted around Dalldorf?

Simon



My question was:  What did AA know which she obviously told Schwabe that turned him into a believer?

For those who do not know who Schwabe was p. 80  in Lovell's ANASTASIA, THE LOST PRINCESS:

>>..Captain Nicholas Schwabe, a former member of the Dowager Czarina's personal guard, who lived in Berlin...<<

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Georgiy on September 04, 2005, 05:20:16 PM
Quote
The Orthodox church must know what happened to the IF children. Why would Gibbs enter the Orthodox priesthood?  I do hope that they don't give in to Maria Vladimirovna's demands.  The church must not agree to declare them all dead, especially with two of them still missing.


The Church does know what happened to the children. they were all martyred by the Bolsheviks on July 17 1918. The Church has declared them Passion-bearing Saints. To be a Saint, one must have died. To be a Passion Bearer or martyr generally one has died in a rather nasty manner. By having proclaimed them Saints, the Church indeed says they all are dead, and that they all died in Ekaterinburg. End of story.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 04, 2005, 05:33:48 PM
Quote
Is there any evidence against either Gleb or Tatiana or is this just speculation based on some other theory???


AGRBear


Is there any evidence against Olga Alexandrovna or is this just speculation based on some other theory???

Is there any evidence against Pierre Gilliard or is this just speculation based on some other theory???

Is there any evidence against Ernst of Hesse or is this just speculation based on some other theory???

Is there any evidence against Martha Jefferson Hospital  or is this just speculation based on some other theory???

Is there any evidence against the DNA scientists or is this just speculation based on some other theory???

Is there any evidence against the CHEKA or is this just speculation based on some other theory???

Gee bear, guess you only 'think outside the box' when it's convenient to you, otherwise you close that box slam shut! You easily dismiss all suspicion of Gleb, yet you continue to question others.

And it makes no difference he signed away the rights, of course he'd have to as not to appear a gold digger, or 'in on' the scam. That doesn't mean money couldn't have been diverted or handed out later. I know regular people personally who have done things like this, it is no stretch. Because AA never got any money, we will never know what would have happened.
Title: Re: About...what
Post by: AGRBear on September 04, 2005, 06:17:13 PM
Quote

Is there any evidence against Olga Alexandrovna or is this just speculation based on some other theory???


Not sure what you are asking since I don't recall talking about Olga...

Quote

Is there any evidence against Pierre Gilliard or is this just speculation based on some other theory???


I wasn't the one who mention Gilliard but was answering a post and gave information about his timeline and with whom he was in contact....

Quote

Is there any evidence against Ernst of Hesse or is this just speculation based on some other theory???


Again,  I didn't bring up Ernst of Hesse on this thread, however, I have wondered how he made up his mind about AA without having ever met her and so I have read with interest when someone writes about him and his part in the AA investigation and trial.

Quote

Is there any evidence against Martha Jefferson Hospital  or is this just speculation based on some other theory???


All my question about Martha Jefferson Hospital were general questions about how the hospital handled the specimen of AA's from the time it was taken out of her body,  what occured afterwards,  who handled it,  etc. etc. etc.  and how the specimen was delivered to Dr. Gill and others....  I have never claimed anyone at the hospital who took part in any of these procedures were incompenent or part of a conspiriacy.  So,  I'm not sure what you read into my posts  or what you think I've said.

Quote

Is there any evidence against the DNA scientists or is this just speculation based on some other theory???


I am beginning to wish I had a penny for every time I've had to say that at this time I have NO reason not to believe the DNA tests.

Quote

Gee bear, guess you only 'think outside the box' when it's convenient to you, otherwise you close that box slam shut! You easily dismiss all suspicion of Gleb, yet you continue to question others.


I took a lot of my time looking up sources which I mentioned in some pretty long posts today.  I wasn't just looking for evidence for those who believe AA was GD Anastasia.  So,  please,  when you have time,  return to my posts and read carefully.

Quote

And it makes no difference he signed away the rights, of course he'd have to as not to appear a gold digger, or 'in on' the scam. That doesn't mean money couldn't have been diverted or handed out later. I know regular people personally who have done things like this, it is no stretch. Because AA never got any money, we will never know what would have happened.


I have already commented on your opinion and I'll go back and repost it but I'm not sure you really care.  I'm not sure you have been reading my posts from beginning to end, Annie,  but you should.  I said you had a perfect right to have your opinion and your theories and your speculations.  AND,  I asked you not to get so  upset if I happen to disagree with you.  

I also pointed out that my interest at this time are in AA's first few years while in Dalldorf and that she didn't come in contact with Gleb Botkin until 1927 and I gave sources.

AGRBear





Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 04, 2005, 06:37:58 PM
I have been reading your posts, bear, and it seems like you easily accept  any explaination for anti-AA theories, yet those that hurt AA's case, even the DNA, you continue to question and dig deeper. It is clear which side you support. If you really wanted to question everything fairly, when someone brings up the topic of Gleb, you could at least consider other possibilities instead of just going, oh no he woudn't do that. You don't give that benefit to anyone else, you always keep assuming any wild thing that could have happened. WHy not do that for him too?

As for him not meeting her until 1927:

1. I said all along he was not the first or the only one to help. Also he could have contacted her other ways besides a personal meeting before then.

2. Sure is strange she was virtually unknown worldwide until she took up with him that year and her name and claim and fame skyrocketed.This is no coincidence.

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 04, 2005, 06:59:58 PM
Quote
... [in part]...
As for him not meeting her until 1927:

1. I said all along he was not the first or the only one to help. Also he could have contacted her other ways besides a personal meeting before then.

2. Sure is strange she was virtually unknown worldwide until she took up with him that year and her name and claim and fame skyrocketed.This is no coincidence.



Far as I know,  I don't see any evidence that Gleb Botkin had any contact with AA before 1927.

AA's fame started the moment the Tsarist loyalist group placed guards at Dalldorf and the stream of important visitors started to enter this asylum to meet and see AA.

I have no idea how  much Gleb  contributed in raising the public awareness of AA.  Please, give me a source, so when I have time,  I'll go to it and quote it for you, Annie.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on September 04, 2005, 09:24:16 PM
Another info about AA knowledges before she meet Gleb.

When she told about the massacre, she stated that she "was standing behind Tatiana" (Peter Kurth, Harriet Von Rathlef, Von Nida, Dominique Auclères) before the shooting started. Well...In "FOTR", you may read a testimony of one of Yurovsky's men saying that "Anastasia was standing behind Tatiana"...Did Gilliard know about this? How Anna Anderson knew?

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 04, 2005, 09:40:15 PM
Quote

Far as I know,  I don't see any evidence that Gleb Botkin had any contact with AA before 1927.

AA's fame started the moment the Tsarist loyalist group placed guards at Dalldorf and the stream of important visitors started to enter this asylum to meet and see AA.

I have no idea how  much Gleb  contributed in raising the public awareness of AA.  Please, give me a source, so when I have time,  I'll go to it and quote it for you, Annie.

AGRBear



Bear,

Make her do her own work, I am sure she is more than quite capable of doing so.    She knows that Gleb had no contact with AA until 1927, that has been brought to her attention on these threads numerous times.  I guess it is like the 6 hour meeting, and the omnisicient nieces & nephews, as usual no source for her material & her opinion is based on half truth in most cases.

I am the one who brought up beloved Uncle Ernie and she can ask me the question.  The answer is that without having met her, once he was told about her answer of WHEN the last time she saw Uncle Ernie, In the war at our home (Im Kreige bei uns zu Hause), this answer threw his defenses up, the secret 1916 visit may be brought to light, and his position in post war Germany was no where near solid.  They had lost money in the war, and position.  Again this is Ernie's reason for doing so.   We have been through this time and again.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on September 04, 2005, 11:02:22 PM
 
Quote
Someone else mentioned on another thread that there were several documentations of people who had pretended to have been  the servents who died with Nicholas II.
 
Someone will have to help me out on finding this post and source


Bear,

I just read through the most obvious thread to find this information posted, the one about servants and retainers, and there was no post that suggested any of the murdered servants/retainers survived.

Quote
I don't have any information about Kurth's knowledge about doctors.  He has mentioned nurses.


My question was if you thought it was feasible that Kurth knew the names of doctors at Dalldorf that supported Andersen's claim and didn't mention them. You have volunteered opinions before based upon what you think is feasible.

Quote
I'd like to find all the evidence since we know that Yurovsky and the other shooters didn't always tell us the truth.


Which also means that they did sometimes tell us the truth. How do you rationally differentiate when you are dealing with the testimonies? Do you have a cut-off percentage beyond which their testimonies are untrue?

Quote
There are many reasons shooters and families would have similar stories, even if they were not telling the truth.  I can give your stories about people who didn't keep silent, who did tell the truth despite the demands of a CHEKA, a GPU,  a KGB  and their stories would make the hair on the back or your neck quiver.
 


What would the reasons be?
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: lexi4 on September 05, 2005, 12:03:46 AM
Ok to jump in here?

Kurth was a strong AA supporter. If he knew any doctors that supported her claim, I think that it is highly likely that he would have mentioned them by name or that the names would have come up during the trial.

Bear, you said: There are many reasons shooters and families would have similar stories, even if they were not telling the truth.  I can give your stories about people who didn't keep silent, who did tell the truth despite the demands of a CHEKA, a GPU,  a KGB  and their stories would make the hair on the back or your neck quiver.  

Does that mean you know of people who told these stories and have access to those people/accounts as sources? Who are these people? What are the stories? I would love to hear them.

Etonexlie,
I got your point. Glad you are here.  ;)
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 05, 2005, 02:09:40 AM
Quote


Bear,

I just read through the most obvious thread to find this information posted, the one about servants and retainers, and there was no post that suggested any of the murdered servants/retainers survived.


My question was if you thought it was feasible that Kurth knew the names of doctors at Dalldorf that supported Andersen's claim and didn't mention them. You have volunteered opinions before based upon what you think is feasible.


Which also means that they did sometimes tell us the truth. How do you rationally differentiate when you are dealing with the testimonies? Do you have a cut-off percentage beyond which their testimonies are untrue?
 

What would the reasons be?



There was one or two doctors mentioned in a post previously by Penny.  However I am not sure if it was one of the ones she later removed.

It seems that there was a doctor or doctors that also may have deposed.  Kurth I believe used the depositions, and much information from the Hamburg trial in ROAA as source material.  In the bibliography for the chapter on Dalldorf it mentions several nurses being Deposed by Dr. Bonhoeffer in 1927.  There was a Dr Reich who was interviewed but it seems he may have been from the earlier stay in the Elisabeth Hospital.

Checking through the sources it mentions no Dr. by name and I may be wrong in the above statement, perhaps it is just the nursing staff that they interviewed or deposed as they would have had more contact with the patient that the doctors.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 05, 2005, 09:32:19 AM
Some of you need to realize that we will NEVER find exactly what we are looking for in books and 'sources'. Most of what we really need to know was kept only in the memories of the people involved, and they are gone. If Gleb had a plan, if AA knew who she really was, would they go around writing it down, telling it to somebody? Of course not! There is never going to be a paper trial for the behind the scenes stuff they didn't want the public to know about.  All we can do on most of it is speculate, wonder and second guess. The only solid proof is the DNA.
Title: [quote author=Louis_Charles link=board=anastasia;n
Post by: AGRBear on September 05, 2005, 10:57:53 AM
Quote


Bear,

I just read through the most obvious thread to find this information posted, the one about servants and retainers, and there was no post that suggested any of the murdered servants/retainers survived.
 


I am not sure what you are indicating. Because you haven't found it doesn't mean it's not on one of the threads.  So,  keep on looking because you'll probably find it before I do.

Quote


....My question was if you thought it was feasible that Kurth knew the names of doctors at Dalldorf that supported Andersen's claim and didn't mention them. You have volunteered opinions before based upon what you think is feasible.
 


Since I'm not into the life of AA and the authors, like Kurth,  others here, like Michael, has and will  give you a better informed opinion than I.

Quote



...Which also means that they did sometimes tell us the truth. How do you rationally differentiate when you are dealing with the testimonies? Do you have a cut-off percentage beyond which their testimonies are untrue?
 

What would the reasons be?


Over on the thread about Questions about the testimonies of Yurovsky  and Others,  we  are discussing what we think might be the truth and what may not be.  

I've typed up the testimony of Yurovsky's which he gave in 1920 so we can compare it to his testimony given in 1934....  Join us and give us your opinion.

AGRBear


Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 05, 2005, 11:36:29 AM
Quote

...[in prt]...
Bear, you said: There are many reasons shooters and families would have similar stories, even if they were not telling the truth.  I can give your stories about people who didn't keep silent, who did tell the truth despite the demands of a CHEKA, a GPU,  a KGB  and their stories would make the hair on the back or your neck quiver.  
 ...


It was common knowledge that if a person was part of a secret which the CHEKA, GPU, KGB,  Reds, communists didn't want to be known to the public, they were made to swear to keep that secret on the grounds that if they told anyone, that terrible things would happen not only to the person who gave up the secret but also to his immediate family,  his cousins, uncles, aunts as well as friends.  Every now and then entire villages were found completely empty with food still cooking on the stoves, spilled milk from a turned over  bucket near a cow still tied up for milking....  

Figs and oher historicans often  call these kinds of elimination as "visits in the night" when one person or a whole family or even an entire village vanished in the night.

People would talk about the soldiers, the rumbling of the trucks and the shots fired or the sounds of people in box cars on railroads which took them away and they never returned.

Just take a look at Yurovsky's life after the execution.  He appeared to be keeping the Soviet's secrets but suddenly one day,  the police arrived and took away his daughter who was a high offical in the communist party and placed her into prision for a very long long time.

It's true,  Stalin purged every corner of Russia looking for possible enemies and, maybe, Yurovsky's daughter was just one of those victims and her arrest had nothing to do with Yurovsky's part of the execution. However, for me,  her arrest does make me stop, ponder and speculate...

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: etonexile on September 05, 2005, 11:52:32 AM
Alright....everyone raise their right hand and repeat the pledge..."I now know...through independant DNA testing...that AA was NOT AN...and most likely WAS FS..."

"HOWEVER" AA knew about jewels in clothing and 'little pillows'...she was NOT AN...it was a 'trick'...concious or other wise....Those who can't stretch their minds to such subtle complexities...are advised to avoid fortune tellers and time-share salesmen.....
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: LisaDavidson on September 05, 2005, 12:00:07 PM
Quote
I found this interesting:


Are the Romanovs, after all of these years, going to request a legal document which states that Nicholas II and his family died on 16/17 July 1918???

Apparently, the answer is yes.  

What would be the reasons after all this time?  Legal?  Personal?  Both?  I assume both.  

What would this legal document do to claims which are still not closed, like that of Anna Anderson's?



So, if the govt. of Ukraine presents a death certificate for all the Imperial Family, even for the two who are missing,   would this mean that if someone comes along after this declaration, that they couldn't appeal and present their DNA and mtDNA  as evidence?

 Are their other questions we should be asking???


AGRBear


Maria V. is not requesting death certificates in Ukraine, and I don't know the law there. But, if she did and they were granted, I would imagine there would be an appeals process for anyone who could prove the missing ones did not die in Ekaterinburg.

Maria V. has been working on getting the death certificates since the 1990's - this is nothing new. To my knowledge, they have still not been granted.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on September 05, 2005, 12:02:14 PM
Quote
It was common knowledge that if a person was part of a secret which the CHEKA, GPU, KGB,  Reds, communists didn't want to be known to the public, they were made to swear to keep that secret on the grounds that if they told anyone, that terrible things would happen not only to the person who gave up the secret but also to his immediate family,  his cousins, uncles, aunts as well as friends.  Every now and then entire villages were found completely empty with food still cooking on the stoves, spilled milk from a turned over  bucket near a cow still tied up for milking....  
 


Bear,

Fair is fair. You have insisted that Annie provide sources for her statements, but in these latter posts you frequently lapse into unsupported, melodramatic assertions which we are supposed to accept because they are "common knowledge"? If in fact the CHEKA members did swear secret oaths, how do you know about them?

Which in the end is my point, I suppose. There was a lot of chatter --- "common knowledge", if you will --- about the executions in the period 1918-1920. I did go over and read the thread about Yuroksky's testimonies, and I have to tell you honestly, I had some sympathy with Elizabeth as she struggled through the postings and counter-postings. You tend to focus on completely extraneous minutiae the moment an answer gets too close to contradicting your speculations. Now we are off on some tangent about whether pillows can stop bullets? If people were pointing guns at me I suspect I would instinctively hold up pieces of paper in self-defence. I'm sure Demidova wasn't thinking all that clearly --- nor were the people doing the shooting. You go off on a long jag about how there couldn't have been any ashes from the burning of the two bodies, so Yurovsky must have been lying, but of course there were ashes. He burned the bodies in a wooded, grassed area, didn't he?

You "speculate" about everything and anything to the point where it is exasperating. Did you really not know what I meant when I said that I had gone to the most likely thread for information about the possible survival of retainers said to have been murdered and found nothing there?

You seem like a nice person, and I am sure that this is an interesting hobby for you, so I wish you well in your quests.

Regards,

Simon

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 05, 2005, 12:22:21 PM
Quote

Bear,

Fair is fair. You have insisted that Annie provide sources for her statements, but in these latter posts you frequently lapse into unsupported, melodramatic assertions which we are supposed to accept because they are "common knowledge"? If in fact the CHEKA members did swear secret oaths, how do you know about them?

Which in the end is my point, I suppose. There was a lot of chatter --- "common knowledge", if you will --- about the executions in the period 1918-1920. I did go over and read the thread about Yuroksky's testimonies, and I have to tell you honestly, I had some sympathy with Elizabeth as she struggled through the postings and counter-postings. You tend to focus on completely extraneous minutiae the moment an answer gets too close to contradicting your speculations. Now we are off on some tangent about whether pillows can stop bullets? If people were pointing guns at me I suspect I would instinctively hold up pieces of paper in self-defence. I'm sure Demidova wasn't thinking all that clearly --- nor were the people doing the shooting. You go off on a long jag about how there couldn't have been any ashes from the burning of the two bodies, so Yurovsky must have been lying, but of course there were ashes. He burned the bodies in a wooded, grassed area, didn't he?

You "speculate" about everything and anything to the point where it is exasperating. Did you really not know what I meant when I said that I had gone to the most likely thread for information about the possible survival of retainers said to have been murdered and found nothing there?

You seem like a nice person, and I am sure that this is an interesting hobby for you, so I wish you well in your quests.

Regards,

Simon




Simon,

One of the main reasons we ask people to provide sources is her seeming lack of ability to do so for speculative information.   I cannot emphasize what a battle it has been over getting facts out there, sometimes SMALL fact, even minutae that has been distorted.

While I realize that "small pillows" and how AA knew about them is not important to the overall situation as we all know she was not AN.  Clearly both Radzinsky & King & Wilson, talk about small basement room, when the squad started firing, bullets bounced off the Grand Duchess's as though they were protected by some kind of shield, I believe even one of the executioners had to leave the room as he was overcome by the smoke from the guns.   Demidova was the only one I read about carrying a pillow.  

On pg 303 of FOTR it specifically ONLY refers to Anna Demidova carrying two pillows.  Evidently they did bring purses & trifles & pillows, but in specific, Yurovsky refers to Demidova and only Demidova carrying pillows, and TWO pillows to be exact.  No mention is made at this point of small pillows carried by the Grand Duchesses.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Rachael89 on September 05, 2005, 12:40:15 PM
No offense to Greg King and Penny Wilson, and I'm sure their book is wonderful and well researched but surely it's almost impossible for the people who were present in the cellar and went on to live  would be unable to remember such small details as what they were carrying ??? ? I would mean the evidence given both in FOTR and AA's statement about the pillows is unreliable. No human memory can ever be perfect.

Out of interest does anyone know if the information about the pillows and stuff in FOTR is directly from the testimony of the soldiers who shot them?

Best

Rachael
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 05, 2005, 12:48:11 PM
Quote
No offense to Greg King and Penny Wilson, and I'm sure their book is wonderful and well researched but surely it's almost impossible for the people who were present in the cellar and went on to live  would be unable to remember such small details as what they were carrying ??? ? I would mean the evidence given both in FOTR and AA's statement about the pillows is unreliable. No human memory can ever be perfect.

Out of interest does anyone know if the information about the pillows and stuff in FOTR is directly from the testimony of the soldiers who shot them?

Best

Rachael



Rachael,

Yes this came from the statement of Yurovsky the commandant of the house, and the head of the execution squad.  He SPECIFICALLY states that he asked them to bring NOTHING with them as they had to leave in a hurry.   That Demidova carried TWO pillows.

I think Yurovsky is very detail oriented in this respect in his statements, of course that doesn't go for what happened to the two missing corpses.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 05, 2005, 12:51:24 PM
Quote
A PEOPLE'S TRAGEDY, THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION, 1891-1924 by Orlando Figes p.  646  CHEKA:

"The ingenuity of the Cheka's torture metods were matched only by the Spanish Inquistion.  Each local Cheka had its own speciality."

For the gruesome detials read Figes.

p. 647:

"Executions were the final product of this machinery of terror.  Tens of thousands of summary executions were carried out in courtyards and cellars, or in deserted fields on the edge of towns..."  Whole prisions would be 'empties' by the Cheka before a town was abandoned to the Whites. At night the tities tried to sleelp to the sound of pople being shot."

One  night Lenin asked Dzerzhinsky, who was the head of the CHEKA, how many prisioners were in the jails in Moscow.  Dzerzhinsky reported back that there were 1,500.  That night, 1,500 prisioners were executed.  Later, Lenin would say his order had been misread.  Only he knows the truth of this.

p. 649:
"Under Lenin's regime--not Stalin's--the Cheka was to become a vast poltice state."  "Nobody will ever know the exact number of people represssed and killed by the Cheka in these years.  But it was certainly several hundred thousand..."

AGRBear



Title: Re: what about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 05, 2005, 01:06:47 PM
During the last few days I've written tons of stuff and with sources, so,  I'm not sure what Louis_Charles is referring on this thread or other threads.

Of course,  I will have to point out that his latest interruptations of my posts on other threads are a puzzle to me.  

Quote

...[in part]...

Now we are off on some tangent about whether pillows can stop bullets? If people were pointing guns at me I suspect I would instinctively hold up pieces of paper in self-defence. I'm sure Demidova wasn't thinking all that clearly --- nor were the people doing the shooting.
Regards,

Simon




Let me use the discussion about the "little pillows":  A couple of days ago,  I was trying to discover the earliest known evidence given to the Whites who would then have known about the "little pillow" and the jewels sewn in the clothes of the IF.  And, if it was possible for AA, if she was not GD Anastasia, to have known about a detail, like the "little pillows".

Here is one example which Louis_Charles reminded me as in Summers and Mangold's book THE FILE ON THE TSAR:

Quote
p. 122 FILE ON THE TSAR by Mangold and Summers.

In Oct of 1918 Judge Sergeyev, the investigator before Sokolov, was asking an ex-guard of the Ipatiev House Mikhail Letemin questions:

>>Letemin had an alibi for the night of 16 July, but said he had been told of the murders when he came on duty next monring.  His informant was Andrei Strekotin, who claimed he and seen the family led into the basement and shot while he was on guard.... Letemin said he had queried the story, point out that there ought to be a large number of bullet holes in the room, which there were not, Strekotin replied:  "Why so many?  The tsarina's maid hid behind a pillow, and lots of bullets went into the pillow."

So the Whites knew about a "pillow" held by the maid, presumbly Demidova, by Oct of 1918.

Hmmmmm,  looking for data about the pillow and it end up just throwing up another question such as Letemin wondering about the number of bullets  holes which he thought should have stuck the walls and he's told a "pillow" prevented the number of bullets from striking the wall.

A "pillow" stopped bullets???

I think Wilson and King said there were a huge number of bullets fired at the eleven victims.

Now,  I'm going to have to go and look that up.....

AGRBear


Holding up a pillow in self defense, does sound like something a person would do.  However,  I was questioning  about the large number of  bullets this one pillow was said to have stopped....  And, that the Whites had known about the "pillows" which could have reached as far as Berlin and to someone who may have coached AA before she jumped into the canal.

Rachel,  if you go back a few days,    my posts give examples of other people's testimonies which talk about the "pillows".

And, it's interesting how each person seem to make sure this part of the story is presented to the White investigators and later to the communist requesting new testimonies.

If anyone wishes to pull in evidence which contradicts these various testimonies,  please do.  I don't have all the books nor have I read all the records.  I'm not the expert on the Romanovs, so, any new information is welcomed by me, I assure you.

Like I said,   I really don't care what direction the truth takes me, it's the adventure which I enjoy.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Rachael89 on September 05, 2005, 01:13:11 PM
Thankyou for the reply Michael, after reading his testimony I've realised what a good memory he has, my fault is that I compare most people's memories to my own and my memories simalar to a sieve in many respects ;D!

As you say his testimony about the two missing bodies is not satisfactory it's impossible to burn two human bodies to ashes in the time they had. We need more answers!

Best

Rachael
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: lexi4 on September 05, 2005, 01:26:45 PM
I have read and re-read these posts several times. i agree with a lot of what Simon said. I have tried to participate, but the bottom line of all of this is that I don't even know what the topic is anymore. I mean are we really debating pillows? And does anyone know/understand what the topic of this thread is. It seems to me, and I might be wrong, that what we are discussing has little to do with the topic. I don't mean any of this in a mean way at all. So please, don't start jumping on me. I am just trying to sort this out.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 05, 2005, 01:32:46 PM
Over on the thread about question about the missing bodies,  it was explained by Greg's post, which I pulled over from another thread, that the heat of the fire which Yurovsky claimed they had built would not have turned two bodies into ashes.  There would have been left two charred bodies with still all the muscles, tendons and skeleton.  So,  what was placed in the grave of  Alexei and GD Anastasia/Maria were "remains" not just ashes.

I've brought into other threads both of Yurovsky's statements, 1920 and 1934, about this particular part which talks about the two bodies that are missing and their buriel.

If there is anything confusing you on the other threads ,  I think it would be too difficult to do it here,  so if there are more questions we can jump over to one of other threads....

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: pentetorri on September 05, 2005, 01:42:27 PM
Quote
Some of you need to realize that we will NEVER find exactly what we are looking for in books and 'sources'. Most of what we really need to know was kept only in the memories of the people involved, and they are gone. If Gleb had a plan, if AA knew who she really was, would they go around writing it down, telling it to somebody? Of course not! There is never going to be a paper trial for the behind the scenes stuff they didn't want the public to know about.  All we can do on most of it is speculate, wonder and second guess. The only solid proof is the DNA.


Wow!! With a single statement you manage to discard History as credible. History, for your information is based on contemporary testimonies, recollections and speculation based on old writings and texts. So it is fair enough in AA case to dig into all the writings about the subject. Remember the Surgeons'advice :Too much DNA can be dangerous to your health!
Title: [quote author=AGRBear link=board=anastasia;num=112
Post by: AGRBear on September 05, 2005, 01:42:52 PM
Quote

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

.... I feel my duty to said "thank you", for you really understand what I was trying to said. I'm not saying: You'll find that AA was AN and not FS, or worse than this, you MUST accept that the DNA was wrong and AA was AN. I'm only suggesting that you forget all you know about the matter (even the DNA) and analyze the facts as if you never has read a single word about AA or FS.
RealAnastasia.

....


Quote

Some of you may not like to go back to the very beginning and start all over but this is what the better detectives do when a great deal of evidence does NOT lead them to the same conclusion.

If you do not wish to partiticpate because you have felt you have accomplished a satisfactory answer why  a lot of the evidence doesn't match the DNA test,  so be it.  Real Anastasia isn't demanding that you do.  This thread, however, is an excercise she'd like to do with those who are interested.

As to comment on the up and coming movie Brothers Grimm,  I do hope to see it and laugh my head off ......  sooooo, if you see beaar's head rolling by, please,  send me an e-mail and tell me where you saw it so I may find it when I need it, again....   ;D

AGRBear


This is an exercise of going back before the DNA and taking a new look at the evidence given.

This covers a lot of informtion.

My thread within this thread is talking about if AA was coached before she jumped into the Berlin canal because she knew about things like the "little pillows".   And, if she was, then, who could have given her such information?   So,  I was digging through testimonies to see what the earliest testimony as given tha mentions the pillows and was it before Annie spoke about them to the nurses in Dalldorf.   Annie was speculating that it was Gleb Botkin who gave her information.  I've forgotten how we got on the subject of the ashes....

Anyway, this thread is taking a  NEW LOOK at old and new information without using the DNA test.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 05, 2005, 01:43:50 PM
Quote
I have read and re-read these posts several times. i agree with a lot of what Simon said. I have tried to participate, but the bottom line of all of this is that I don't even know what the topic is anymore. I mean are we really debating pillows? And does anyone know/understand what the topic of this thread is. It seems to me, and I might be wrong, that what we are discussing has little to do with the topic. I don't mean any of this in a mean way at all. So please, don't start jumping on me. I am just trying to sort this out.



Lexi,

Don't feel alone.  I cannot understand the significance of this Grand Duchesses carrying small pillows, when it is clear from what I have read in other accounts, that only Demidova was carrying pillows.  

Some of this minutae is just insignificant at this point, and then down the road a door may open where that little piece of information fits in, but I agree we have spent too long on pillows.  

I agree with Simon on another point, on an earlier post after some deep thought on my part, IF she had a coach while she was at Dalldorf, someone in those depositions would have mentioned something about it.
So I am thinking at this point there wasn't a coach until later, if at all.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 05, 2005, 01:46:30 PM
Quote

Wow!! With a single statement you manage to discard History as credible. History, for your information is based on contemporary testimonies, recollections and speculation based on old writings and texts. So it is fair enough in AA case to dig into all the writings about the subject. Remember the Surgeons'advice :Too much DNA can be dangerous to your health!



Excellent observation Pentetorri, and I couldn't agree more. LMAO!!!!!!!!!! I am dying laughing on this one!! ;D ;D ;D
Title: [quote author=Annie link=board=anastasia;num=11245
Post by: AGRBear on September 05, 2005, 01:58:19 PM
pentetori was commenting on Annie's post:

Quote
Some of you need to realize that we will NEVER find exactly what we are looking for in books and 'sources'. Most of what we really need to know was kept only in the memories of the people involved, and they are gone. If Gleb had a plan, if AA knew who she really was, would they go around writing it down, telling it to somebody? Of course not! There is never going to be a paper trial for the behind the scenes stuff they didn't want the public to know about.  All we can do on most of it is speculate, wonder and second guess. The only solid proof is the DNA.


Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: pentetorri on September 05, 2005, 02:05:38 PM
Quote


Excellent observation Pentetorri, and I couldn't agree more. LMAO!!!!!!!!!! I am dying laughing on this one!! ;D ;D ;D


Thanks Michael G. The whole thing is so funny at times, you find these people like Annie totally convinced that AA was not Anastasia because of that controversial DNA test, but they keep participating in the threads where other people believe or have reasonable doubts AA could be Anastasia and to make their point they go to extremes saying they are defending helpless students who consult this  forum and could get their whole careers ??? damage because of the "lies and misconceptions" about AA. In some other threads these people declare themselves INFALLIBLE and 110 % sure of this subject   ;D.

Because there is not real gain in all this I have come to believe that all these excitement to defend the truth , as they know it, comes from a serious and may be deadly intoxication due to TOO MUCH DNA.

You know a good laugh in these days is a MUST !!!


Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 05, 2005, 02:13:54 PM
If you do not wish to partiticpate because you have felt you have accomplished a satisfactory answer as to why  a lot of the evidence doesn't match the DNA test,  so be it.  Real Anastasia isn't demanding that you do.  This thread, however, is an excercise she'd like to do with those who are interested.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 05, 2005, 02:21:38 PM
Quote


Lexi,

Don't feel alone.  I cannot understand the significance of this Grand Duchesses carrying small pillows, when it is clear from what I have read in other accounts, that only Demidova was carrying pillows.  

Some of this minutae is just insignificant at this point, and then down the road a door may open where that little piece of information fits in, but I agree we have spent too long on pillows.  

I agree with Simon on another point, on an earlier post after some deep thought on my part, IF she had a coach while she was at Dalldorf, someone in those depositions would have mentioned something about it.
So I am thinking at this point there wasn't a coach until later, if at all.


If we have spent too long on "the little pillows" then tell me, who told AA about them before she jumped into the Berlin canal, because, it was she who told one of the nurses about them before Claire.... before Schwabe.... before Buxhoeveden....?

If I am suppose to believe everything Yurovsky tells us....:
Quote
So, back to topic, I hope.

THE LAST TSAR:
 On p. 382 Edward Radzinsky  writes:

>>Yurosvsky:  "Nic[olas] was carrying Alexei in is arms, the rest were carrying small pillows and various little items."<<

AGRBEAR


He told us there were pillows.

AA goes one step more,  AA tells what Demidov did with her pillow.

Quote
>>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


The only person who spoke about Demidov and her pillow was Letmin who heard it from Andrei Strekotin.

Quote
....[in part]...
p. 122 FILE ON THE TSAR by Mangold and Summers.

In Oct of 1918 Judge Sergeyev, the investigator before Sokolov, was asking an ex-guard of the Ipatiev House Mikhail Letemin questions:

>>Letemin had an alibi for the night of 16 July, but said he had been told of the murders when he came on duty next monring.  His informant was Andrei Strekotin, who claimed he and seen the family led into the basement and shot while he was on guard.... Letemin said he had queried the story, point out that there ought to be a large number of bullet holes in the room, which there were not, Strekotin replied:  "Why so many?  The tsarina's maid hid behind a pillow, and lots of bullets went into the pillow."

So the Whites knew about a "pillow" held by the maid, presumbly Demidova, by Oct of 1918.
.....

AGRBear


If AA wasn't GD Anastasia, if AA was FS,  where did she learn about the Demidov hiding her face with one of those pillows?

A simple question.

Answer: No one knows how AA knew some things that she knew.  

A simple answer.

So,  all we can do is speculate and then go back and look at the evidence again, and, again...  Detective work can be boring as well as providing some laughs as well as tears of  frustration.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on September 05, 2005, 06:23:46 PM
Quote
If you do not wish to partiticpate because you have felt you have accomplished a satisfactory answer as to why  a lot of the evidence doesn't match the DNA test,  so be it.  Real Anastasia isn't demanding that you do.  This thread, however, is an excercise she'd like to do with those who are interested.

AGRBear


Finally! Someone understood me! You are wonderful, Bear and you deserves a big pot of honey!  ;D

It's quite sad, but this thread ended being like all the AA-FS threads are...We are discussing reasons about AA being AN, FS or none of them, but OUR OWN reasons. We have plenty of threads in the "Survivors" and "Claiman" Forums discussing the same reasons over and over again. This thread was supposed to be different. It was an excersice to do with scientifics and forensic and anthropologues, etc who we could contact in some way, presenting the case without saying who was the person whose identity we are searching.

If someone wants to do this, the thread is already open. If not, is all right. We may discuss other things in other threads.

Bye, bye!
RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: lexi4 on September 05, 2005, 11:53:07 PM
Quote

Wow!! With a single statement you manage to discard History as credible. History, for your information is based on contemporary testimonies, recollections and speculation based on old writings and texts. So it is fair enough in AA case to dig into all the writings about the subject. Remember the Surgeons'advice :Too much DNA can be dangerous to your health!


Pentetorri,
You humor is welcome. I got a belly laugh from your posts. And laughter is wonderful. Thank you.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: pentetorri on September 06, 2005, 05:34:28 AM
Quote

Pentetorri,
You humor is welcome. I got a belly laugh from your posts. And laughter is wonderful. Thank you.

;) Very welcome
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: pentetorri on September 06, 2005, 05:53:06 AM
Quote

Finally! Someone understood me! You are wonderful, Bear and you deserves a big pot of honey!  ;D

It's quite sad, but this thread ended being like all the AA-FS threads are...We are discussing reasons about AA being AN, FS or none of them, but OUR OWN reasons. We have plenty of threads in the "Survivors" and "Claiman" Forums discussing the same reasons over and over again. This thread was supposed to be different. It was an excersice to do with scientifics and forensic and anthropologues, etc who we could contact in some way, presenting the case without saying who was the person whose identity we are searching.

If someone wants to do this, the thread is already open. If not, is all right. We may discuss other things in other threads.

Bye, bye!
RealAnastasia.


RealAnastasia keep the good work!! In these threads you are one of the few that with your reasoning and historical approach to the AA case really make some good points about the case. The more I read your posts the more I get convinced that there is much more to know about AA. Don't let yourself be bothered or angered by the Infallible clan, they have their dogma very well grounded and any threats are not welcome.
But on the other hand, you have participants that eventhough do not agree with you, think and reason outside the box and are not afraid to exchange ideas and facts.

The very existance of these threads show you the keen interest on AA case. Be sure, if she was such a fraud to be discarded so easily because of a very controversial test the threads would not exist at all.

Wish you the best.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 06, 2005, 08:26:04 AM
Quote

The very existance of these threads show you the keen interest on AA case. Be sure, if she was such a fraud to be discarded so easily because of a very controversial test the threads would not exist at all.


The fact that she was a fraud also makes it interesting. Wondering how she pulled off this charade so long and who helped her and why is the biggest mystery of all now, and a very intriguing one. Another reason people come to these threads is to try to explain the reasons she wasn't AN so people will stop wasting time on something that isn't true.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: pentetorri on September 06, 2005, 09:35:12 AM
Quote

The fact that she was a fraud also makes it interesting. Wondering how she pulled off this charade so long and who helped her and why is the biggest mystery of all now, and a very intriguing one. Another reason people come to these threads is to try to explain the reasons she wasn't AN so people will stop wasting time on something that isn't true.


By your own statement you are upgrading the "fraud" to mystery, very well. Frauds are generally easily to unmask and explain, see for example Alexis Bierdmeyer , but with AA is totally different.  DNA test aside, anyone find very hard to disprove she was not Anastasia facing mountains of testimonies and accounts made by her and others who recognized her. I won't go over the controversial DNA test because this is not the thread to deal with it.

But one thing is for sure people come to these threads because they find it plausible that AA was Anastasia and they are fascinated with the idea, very romantic, of a lost princess. If your statements were right the interest would have diminished or disappeared long ago, it is in human nature to dislike frauds and liars. To put it in marketing terms, they don't sell!!

I appreciate  ??? your altruistic desire to come to these threads to explain to us common folk the truth so "we won't waste time", but  I think we can figure it out by ourselves. Let us be ,for a while, content with the idea that we are capable enough and that we don't need a big brother (or sister  ;D) to enlighten us with their infallible wisdom.

P.S. By the way the guy on the left of your posts is really annoying , and to think that you don't want to waste time on this subject ........
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 06, 2005, 11:56:48 AM
Yes she was an amazing woman with an amazing story. She was not easily unmasked for 3 reasons:

She had someone, or some persons, behind her helping and encouraging her

She wanted it badly, and was too humiliated and afraid to confess, either that or she was mentally unstable and completely believed it.

People wanted to believe it! (and some still do)

My avatar is a tribute to the way these threads continue say the same things over and over but always hit a brick wall, and there will never be a solution.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Tania+ on September 06, 2005, 12:56:21 PM
Perhaps I should have asked earlier in this thread, but, when AA, [or HIHA] was in the hospital, and the nurse noted the resemblance to HIHA from the magazine, I'd like to know: did anyone get any background on that nurse? Is is known if any of the people at the hospital she was in, showed up later in AA's life?

It seems to me 'if' there was someone clueing AA in on things, it would be someone that would be long term from onset of when AA was 'found'. There had to be on if not two people involved. So I'm wondering if it were not people who were inter-connected within the frame work of medical, if not 'social connects'? I don't think that there would be any paper go-between connects on this.

Also, did i read it wrong, but when the servant with the pillow held it up to her face, when the shooting begun, that this pillow also deflected the bullets?

It seems strange that so much attention is placed also on this one pillow. Sorry, just my thoughts.

Tania
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 06, 2005, 01:02:54 PM
Quote
Perhaps I should have asked earlier in this thread, but, when AA, [or HIHA] was in the hospital, and the nurse noted the resemblance to HIHA from the magazine, I'd like to know: did anyone get any background on that nurse?


Nurse? It was not a nurse but a fellow patient, a mentally ill woman, who intially brought up a resemblance to Tatiana, not Anastasia. She had a load of Romanov picture magazines under her matress. This is where AA got the idea to pretend to be a GD.


Quote
Also, did i read it wrong, but when the servant with the pillow held it up to her face, when the shooting begun, that this pillow also deflected the bullets?

It seems strange that so much attention is placed also on this one pillow. Sorry, just my thoughts.

Tania


It does seem strange that so much is being made of 'little pillows' when the IF didn't call them that, they called called them 'medicines.'
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on September 06, 2005, 01:22:10 PM
Quote

Nurse? It was not a nurse but a fellow patient, a mentally ill woman, who intially brought up a resemblance to Tatiana, not Anastasia. She had a load of Romanov picture magazines under her matress. This is where AA got the idea to pretend to be a GD.


WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!!!!

Annie, PLEASE do some bread-and-butter reading on this subject!

The night-shift nurse Thea Malinowsky was one of 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.

So -- say what you will about the facts, Annie, but get them straight first.  After all, aren't you wanting to only present "the truth" to students reading this site?


Quote
It does seem strange that so much is being made of 'little pillows' when the IF didn't call them that, they called called them 'medicines.'


No, Annie, again you are totally wrong.  The IF called pillows "pillows."  It was jewelry and other valuables that they called "medicines."
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: pentetorri on September 06, 2005, 01:27:29 PM
Quote
Yes she was an amazing woman with an amazing story. She was not easily unmasked for 3 reasons:

She had someone, or some persons, behind her helping and encouraging her

She wanted it badly, and was too humiliated and afraid to confess, either that or she was mentally unstable and completely believed it.

People wanted to believe it! (and some still do)

My avatar is a tribute to the way these threads continue say the same things over and over but always hit a brick wall, and there will never be a solution.


Well, we have an upgrade from fraud, to mystery to AMAZING woman, very well. She was not unmasked because there were mountains of evidence and support to her case, as simple as that.  

I agree people continue to say the same things, yes, because they make sense, and they are true. You only have your controversial DNA.

Never say never, and as for the brick wall do not worry, even the strongest falls.

P.S. I think you can make good use of your abilities and avatar, a glorious tribute indeed to intransigency, in some other forums "to help people not to waste their time", let me see I can suggest Rosswell believers, Loch Ness Nessie and the best Elvis is alive and well... ;D
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 06, 2005, 03:44:32 PM
Quote

...[in part]...

...Also, did i read it wrong, but when the servant with the pillow held it up to her face, when the shooting begun, that this pillow also deflected the bullets?

It seems strange that so much attention is placed also on this one pillow. Sorry, just my thoughts.

Tania


Sorry, I do get on one track sometimes.  My latest is the "little pillow".  And, yes, when the one guard asked the other guard why were weren't very many bullet holes in the walls of the basement the other guard said it was because of the maid's pillow.  Now,  we don't know if he meant the bullets were deflected or caught in the pillow, but either way one views it,  it seems implausible, even if the pillow were filled with jewels, that all the bullets holes that the one guard thought should have been visible ended up elsewhere because of one pillow.

I origianlly was talking about this scene of Demidov and her pillow because AA knew about it and talked about it to the nurses in the autum n of 1921 before she met Claire, or Capt. Schwabe and those who followed him to the asylum or met her later after her release.  So, I was wondering, if AA was not GD Anastasia,  then someone must have coached her before she jumped into the Berlin canal.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 06, 2005, 03:56:47 PM
Quote

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!!!!

Annie, PLEASE do some bread-and-butter reading on this subject!


I am NOT WRONG! All this nurse stuff came AFTER she had the magazine that the patient showed her! That's what started it!

Quote
No, Annie, again you are totally wrong.  The IF called pillows "pillows."  It was jewelry and other valuables that they called "medicines."


Sure is funny, in Alix's diary, and her letters to Nicholas, they refer to pillows as 'cushions'. I have seen this in Alix's own handwriting, in English.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on September 06, 2005, 04:07:13 PM
Quote

I am NOT WRONG! All this nurse stuff came AFTER she had the magazine that the patient showed her! That's what started it!


You are wrong.  Do some reading for a change.  Your arguments may become stronger if you have actual facts behind your statements.

Quote
Sure is funny, in Alix's diary, and her letters to Nicholas, they refer to pillows as 'cushions'. I have seen this in Alix's own handwriting, in English.


Oh, quit with the disingenuous act -- and stop moving the goal-posts.  You said that the IF referred to pillows as "medicines."  You were wrong.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 06, 2005, 04:14:24 PM
Earlier I had  notice some of the same  testimony,  which was originally in Russian,  translated  into English by different people who sometimes called them pillows while others called them cushions.  I mentioned this earlier and explain it just depended upon the person who was doing the translation.

Yes, there is a slight difference between cushions and pillows but this did occur in translations and that's a fact and I can not change it because Alexandra called them "pillows".

Gosh,  and I thought everyone was tired of talking about "pillows"  8)  Since we are,  I do have another question:  Did the IF placed jewels into the pillows?

Oh,  I almost forgot to say,  "Penny, good to hear from you, again."

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: lexi4 on September 06, 2005, 04:23:43 PM
You know, the thing about banging one's head agaisnt a wall over and over again is that it hurts only the person doing the head banging. I would think by now Annie, you would have a serious headache.
One more thing, do you know what insanity is? It is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. I think I would stop banging my head. Just sayin.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on September 06, 2005, 04:27:56 PM
Quote

All this nurse stuff came AFTER she had the magazine that the patient showed her! That's what started it!


What is the name of this patient?

There is no-one who knows the exact circumstances under which Fraulein Unbekannt "came clean" and claimed to be Anastasia. All we know is this sequence of events:

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.

Edited to add: Hi Bear, Lexi and everyone!  I have a sort of a day off today, so I came here to answer  a lengthy list of ims that I have let pile up -- and had to jump in.  You know how it is....  8)
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on September 06, 2005, 04:32:11 PM
I have seen the survivor stories on these boards but can't find them either. However, in "The Last Tsar", a story is told of Demidova surviving until World War II, locked in a room by her stepbrother because of her ranting and crying.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 06, 2005, 05:02:17 PM
Quote
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.
 



You are changing the story. First, the patient pointed out her resemblance to Tatiana. She did not make a claim, but people came to see her. When Sophie B. pronounced her too short to be Tatiana, someone showed her a list of names and she x'd out all of them but Anastasia. I never heard any story of any nurse coming up going 'gee you sure look like Anastasia.' Come on. Anastasia was not that well known to the average person in central Europe who did not carry around a magazine. And she didn't even look enough like her to be recognized, with a completely different shaped mouth and chin, and looking so much older than the 18 AN would have been. Even Kurth's book states it started with the patient and the magazine!
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 06, 2005, 05:12:27 PM
Quote
P.S. I think you can make good use of your abilities and avatar, a glorious tribute indeed to intransigency, in some other forums "to help people not to waste their time", let me see I can suggest Rosswell believers, Loch Ness Nessie and the best Elvis is alive and well...  


Actually, AA is far less likely to be AN than any of these things is of being real. Rosswell really happened, stuff was seen, then changed to 'weather balloons' when word got too nosey. Area 51 DOES exist, and something is there. Whether it is aliens, or there was some kind of secret craft, ours or 'theirs', something happened there.

Nessie- there is actual video footage of this. Some kind of creature lives under that water. It is not out of the question some type of creature thought extinct was trapped in the Lochs and continued to breed and live on.

Elvis- nope, I don't believe he's alive any more than AN, but at least no one has done any DNA tests on any 'sightings' Elvis impersonators!

You see, I am not one to dismiss anything out of the ordinary, I think a lot of things are possible. But AA has been proven not to be AN, and she didn't even look like her, so it's not a mystery anymore.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: lexi4 on September 06, 2005, 05:28:20 PM
Annie,
Please check your facts and state your sources.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 06, 2005, 06:51:52 PM
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."

p. 11
Talks about nurse Thea Malinovsky and the scene Penny described.

On the same page is nurse Bertha Waltz who was part of the group of nurses who showed AA the picture in the magazine and pointed to the Grand Duchesses, the one the article said was still alive.

So,  this was after Malinovsky and AA had discussed the same picture to which she had pointed at GD Anastasia (NOT TATIANA] and asked if she thought there was any resemblance.

The name Tatiana doesn't appear until p. 13 when  Clara Peuthert, who was a patient, entered the asylum at the end of 1921.

Claire was not in the asylum until after AA announced she was GD Anastasia

Sorry, Annie.  Could you have seen this information about this other patient in another book?

AGRBear

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 06, 2005, 07:13:26 PM
Quote
I have seen the survivor stories on these boards but can't find them either. However, in "The Last Tsar", a story is told of Demidova surviving until World War II, locked in a room by her stepbrother because of her ranting and crying.


Thanks.  Hopefully one of us will run across the source where this is talked about, so,  we can make Louis_Charles happy.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on September 06, 2005, 08:08:35 PM
Quote

You are changing the story.


You are wrong. You are spreading disinformation.  Stop it.

Quote
First, the patient pointed out her resemblance to Tatiana.


Which patient?  What was her name?  When did she "point out" this resemblance?  

Quote
She did not make a claim,


She DID make a claim, but initially only by implication to the same nurses to whom she shortly confessed her story.

Quote
but people came to see her. When Sophie B. pronounced her too short to be Tatiana, someone showed her a list of names and she x'd out all of them but Anastasia.


This is so NOT the way things happened.  At all.

Quote
I never heard any story of any nurse coming up going 'gee you sure look like Anastasia.'


Then you never read as far as page 11 in Peter Kurth's book.

Quote
Come on. Anastasia was not that well known to the average person in central Europe who did not carry around a magazine.


Then how did "Franziska Schanzkowska" know all about her?  You are weakening your own argument in your attempts to get out of having to do any actual reading or research.

Quote
And she didn't even look enough like her to be recognized, with a completely different shaped mouth and chin, and looking so much older than the 18 AN would have been. Even Kurth's book states it started with the patient and the magazine!


Actually, it doesn't.  It started with Nurses Walz and Bucholz and the magazines, and ended with Nurse Malinowsky and the Illustrierte Zeitung.

And remember:  Fraulein Unbekannt was placed in a small ward for "quiet patients."  There were a total of fourteen patients here, none of whom, except for her, were "quiet" in any meaningful way.  This was an insane asylum, one which Anna Anderson later claimed "broke" her, after having to spend two years in the company of a dozen "spitting, jabbering, incontinent lunatics." (various information from Kurth, page 3)

So which of these patients was it, Annie?
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on September 06, 2005, 09:27:36 PM
Quote

RealAnastasia keep the good work!! In these threads you are one of the few that with your reasoning and historical approach to the AA case really make some good points about the case. The more I read your posts the more I get convinced that there is much more to know about AA. Don't let yourself be bothered or angered by the Infallible clan, they have their dogma very well grounded and any threats are not welcome.
But on the other hand, you have participants that eventhough do not agree with you, think and reason outside the box and are not afraid to exchange ideas and facts.

The very existance of these threads show you the keen interest on AA case. Be sure, if she was such a fraud to be discarded so easily because of a very controversial test the threads would not exist at all.

Wish you the best.



Thank you, Pentetorri! It's nice from you to have written such a kind message, and I'm happy you are posting again.

I must said that at first I used to go very upset with some poeple here; not for they didn't share my oppinions, but for they acted rough to me and other Palace Members. I didn't care if they were AA supporters or not, but I was very upset when they stated wrong things saying that they quote them from books and authors, and it wasn't right.
Now, I doesn't get angry any more. It's not useful, and I'm used to it, since I'm an historian and my profession is like this all time. Since the world is composed by human beings, they will act as human beings.  ;D

Of course, I keep researching and working in this case. A few little arguing will not make me abandone my interesting job!

RealAnastasia (Vanesa, for the friends!)  
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on September 06, 2005, 10:06:12 PM
Sorry, Annie, but Penny is right. Bear help me and posted the right info, quoting Peter Kurth. I was going to search the book when I saw her post.

Nevertheless, I would want to state CLEARLY the chronologie of the "ecognition" of AA, BY A NURSE, not by Clara Peuthert or another patient from Dalldorf.

Here I go:

Nurse Bucholz, who had lived in Russia spoke with AA about Russia and Russian matters. AA said matter-of-factly "I know all this" and spoke with her fluently in Russian. Nurse Bucholz claimed that she speak it without impediments and not faultly (Page 10) Summer of 1920


Nurse Bertha Waltz surprised Fräulein Unbekannt staring to a magazine and they chattered about a daughter of the Tsar   who escaped from Russia. (Page 11) Summer of 1920

AA showed to nurse Thea Malinovsky a "Berliner Illustrierte" magazine to see if she noticed some ressemblance between her and a daughter of the Tsar. Thea Malinovsky, after some hesitation said, yes. AA pointed to Anastasia. (Page 11 and 12) Summer of 1920

In Automn of 1921 AA declared that she was Anastasia And proposed Thea Malinovsky to run away with her to Africa, in order to join the French Foreign Legion as nurses. She was afraid of doctors, that she thought they were Bolsheviks and were conspirating against her. (Page 12)

Clara Peuthert was admitted in Dalldorf at the end of the 1921. It's not clear in the book but it seems that Clara recognized AA as Tatiana in 1922 or the end of 1921 (Page 14)

So, Annie...Why are you doing this? We are all free: I can think that AA was AN; you may think she was not and that she was FS. All is all right. But PLEASE. Don't spread information that is not true. If you believe that right are in your side , fight for truth saying the truth. And I'm saying this very sad, not angry.

RealAnastasia.

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 06, 2005, 10:15:16 PM
Quote
Sorry, Annie, but Penny is right. Bear help me and posted the right info, quoting Peter Kurth. I was going to search the book when I saw her post.


Nope, your 'chronology' only states she said she knew Russian, which is still debateable. It does NOT say anything about actually looking like/being a GD!


Quote
So, Annie...Why are you doing this? We are all free: I can think that AA was AN; you may think she was not and that she was FS. All is all right. But PLEASE. Don't spread information that is not true. If you believe that right are in your side , fight for truth saying the truth. And I'm saying this very sad, not angry.

RealAnastasia.



Like I told somebody else, you can 'think' anything you want but it's not an opinion anymore if it can be proven right or wrong.

Example:

Blue is prettier than green

OPINION that cannot be proven

Example:

New York is on the east coast.

No matter what somebody else 'thinks' this fact is not going to change.

Example:

It was proven by DNA evidence that AA was no relation to Alexandra.

THIS IS A FACT THAT IS NEVER GOING TO CHANGE NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU "THINK"

and no I do not think it is okay to let people go on thinking something that is silly and wrong.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: lexi4 on September 06, 2005, 10:32:58 PM
RealAnastasicia,
Correct me if I am wrong because you started this thread. I thought that the purpose of the thread was to discuss evidence other than the DNA. I thought that, if there were the case, the exercise might help someone like me understand all that composes the mystery and history of AA. Am I wrong here?
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on September 06, 2005, 10:54:39 PM
Quote

Thanks.  Hopefully one of us will run across the source where this is talked about, so,  we can make Louis_Charles happy.

AGRBear


I have read this thread, and I am quite happy, thanks. Back to your discussion.

Simon
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on September 06, 2005, 11:09:27 PM
This thread was to discuss evidence that you could find with the help of scientific friends or of your acquaitance. It would be nice to contact DNA experts, anthropologic experts, forensic experts, graphologist experts, psychologist, psychiatrist and doctors. The key of this excercise is trying to contact people who doesn't know a word about AA, FS or Grand Duchess Anastasia, and, if possible people who would never had seen a single pic of these ladies. If you go to Peter Kurth site to pick some of the AA photographs he had there, pay attention TO CUP them uf from those of AN and mix them thorougly. Peter did these "set of photos" to show the evident ressemblance between AA and AN. No; your expert must find all the ressemblances by himself, if there is one. You must take care of mixing all the FS photos you have, the more retouched versions and the less one (since we have no originals pics of her), and and also all the Schankowsky siblings pics, as well to some pics of OTMA.

When your expert said his conclusion -you must ask him to recognize three ladies- present the rest of the evidence taking care not to said AA, AN and such, but "X" and "Y", etc. And finally said what DNA said.

I did it, and I had the more amazing results. I already had my own opinion in the case, but after this excercise I added much more interesting stuff to the evidence and a great deal of ideas that actually, had escaped to me.

I'm lucky, since I work in the University, I have many fellows teachers who could help me, or contact me with experts in all the branches I mentioned above. I even spoke with an actress, a Polish resident and a guy who works in "intelligentsia".

Historians must share the info they found; they must not keep it for them. But all of you know what will happen if I post the new evidence here, so I repeat. People interested in known a little more about it, write me using PM sistem or sending me an e-mail directly. If I was quoting a book (and it is not the only book I have stating the matters I asserted in my last post, only the others are in French or in Sapnish and I would translate the content when I was copying the info, thing I'm not able to do) and they accused me of being spreading "wrong and silly information", imagine what would happen if I start to write what these experts said to me. No; I don't want trouble in the board; not for my cause.

Besides, even my most persuasive post would convince these people to change their minds, and I'm not interested to do so. They already have their ideas.


            RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: lexi4 on September 06, 2005, 11:21:42 PM
Thank you RealAnastascia,
I'd say we have gotten way off topic here.  :)
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 07, 2005, 06:54:04 PM
Quote

What is the name of this patient?

There is no-one who knows the exact circumstances under which Fraulein Unbekannt "came clean" and claimed to be Anastasia. All we know is this sequence of events:

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.

Edited to add: Hi Bear, Lexi and everyone!  I have a sort of a day off today, so I came here to answer  a lengthy list of ims that I have let pile up -- and had to jump in.  You know how it is....  8)


Great post Penny, we will never get her to deal with facts or sources, she absolutely refuses as except where it bolsters her argument.

Glad to see you back & posting a bit!!
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on September 07, 2005, 11:56:31 PM
Quote
Sorry, Annie, but Penny is right. Bear help me and posted the right info, quoting Peter Kurth. I was going to search the book when I saw her post.

Nevertheless, I would want to state CLEARLY the chronologie of the "ecognition" of AA, BY A NURSE, not by Clara Peuthert or another patient from Dalldorf.

Here I go:,  
Nurse Bucholz, who had lived in Russia spoke with AA about Russia and Russian matters. AA said matter-of-factly "I know all this" and spoke with her fluently in Russian. Nurse Bucholz claimed that she speak it without impediments and not faultly (Page 10) Summer of 1920


Nurse Bertha Waltz surprised Fräulein Unbekannt staring to a magazine and they chattered about a daughter of the Tsar   who escaped from Russia. (Page 11) Summer of 1920

AA showed to nurse Thea Malinovsky a "Berliner Illustrierte" magazine to see if she noticed some ressemblance between her and a daughter of the Tsar. Thea Malinovsky, after some hesitation said, yes. AA pointed to Anastasia. (Page 11 and 12) Summer of 1920

In Automn of 1921 AA declared that she was Anastasia And proposed Thea Malinovsky to run away with her to Africa, in order to join the French Foreign Legion as nurses. She was afraid of doctors, that she thought they were Bolsheviks and were conspirating against her. (Page 12)

Clara Peuthert was admitted in Dalldorf at the end of the 1921. It's not clear in the book but it seems that Clara recognized AA as Tatiana in 1922 or the end of 1921 (Page 14)

So, Annie...Why are you doing this? We are all free: I can think that AA was AN; you may think she was not and that she was FS. All is all right. But PLEASE. Don't spread information that is not true. If you believe that right are in your side , fight for truth saying the truth. And I'm saying this very sad, not angry.

RealAnastasia.



Dear Annie:

                      These are not made up things, nor made up ideas from my excitable brain. You may find all the facts (yes, they are facts and not "silly " and "wrong" info as you called them yesterday) in the pages 10 . 11 12 and 14  of Peter Kurth book. Only the first one tell about AA speaking Russian, and I quoted it to show how she was preparing people to possibily said that she came from Russia and who she claimed she was. The other facts goes in the same direction: she discussed with a nother nurse the possible escape of a daughter of the Tsar. After this AA showed a magazine to Thea Malinovsky and ask her if she didn't see any ressemblance between one of the daughters of the Tsar and her. Malinovsky said yes, and AA pointed Anastasia, but didn't said anything. After a while she said she was Anastasia and after a great deal of time , Clara Peuthert came to Dalldorf and said the "Tatiana " thing.

I took my info from Kurth book, but if you really wants to know that I'm not lying I'll quote it litterally from the book, even if I already did it for another thread and you read them not so long ago.

I hope that, after I'd done it (not today, too late and I must go to sleep!), you don't keep saying I'm spreading silly and wrong infos. Said it to Kurth, Auclères, Von Rathlef, Decaux, Castelot, King and Wilson . They are my sources among others...

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: pentetorri on September 08, 2005, 05:12:34 AM
I am aghast of seeing how these Infallible clan members have become so desperate and obsessed with this subject that they resort to lies and disinformation in order to make their point.

One thing is to doubt a controversial DNA test, and another is start lying and making false statements as Annie has been doing in this thread. She is disrupting the other participants trying to direct the subject of this thread to DNA which has nothing to do with the thread.

Either she has too much time in her hands to waste the time of others or she is in a serious problem.
Or as Lexi said too much banging...........against the wall ::).

I propose that out of respect for the others we should stick to the subject of the threads and if some of the members feel compulse by an extreme urge to bring up the DNA test take an aspirine and go to a re-hab program that just opened for people intoxicated, obsessed and subordinated by DNA, check you local listings for a center near you.........

And please let us continue enjoying different subjects without your unwelcome and disturbed behaviour....


Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Merrique on September 08, 2005, 06:49:53 AM
Quote
I am aghast of seeing how these Infallible clan members have become so desperate and obsessed with this subject that they resort to lies and disinformation in order to make their point.

One thing is to doubt a controversial DNA test, and another is start lying and making false statements as Annie has been doing in this thread. She is disrupting the other participants trying to direct the subject of this thread to DNA which has nothing to do with the thread.

Either she has too much time in her hands to waste the time of others or she is in a serious problem.
Or as Lexi said too much banging...........against the wall ::).

I propose that out of respect for the others we should stick to the subject of the threads and if some of the members feel compulse by an extreme urge to bring up the DNA test take an aspirine and go to a re-hab program that just opened for people intoxicated, obsessed and subordinated by DNA, check you local listings for a center near you.........

And please let us continue enjoying different subjects without your unwelcome and disturbed behaviour....




Some of your post was out of line,downright insulting and rude to other forum members who don't happen to believe that the dna was contaminated as you say it supposedly is.

Maybe your comment about going into a rehab clinic was meant as a joke,but it sure doesn't read that way.It is beyond rude.I think you should amend your post and remove that comment.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 08, 2005, 07:12:58 AM
Quote
I am aghast of seeing how these Infallible clan members have become so desperate and obsessed with this subject that they resort to lies and disinformation in order to make their point.

One thing is to doubt a controversial DNA test, and another is start lying and making false statements as Annie has been doing in this thread. She is disrupting the other participants trying to direct the subject of this thread to DNA which has nothing to do with the thread.

Either she has too much time in her hands to waste the time of others or she is in a serious problem.
Or as Lexi said too much banging...........against the wall ::).

I propose that out of respect for the others we should stick to the subject of the threads and if some of the members feel compulse by an extreme urge to bring up the DNA test take an aspirine and go to a re-hab program that just opened for people intoxicated, obsessed and subordinated by DNA, check you local listings for a center near you.........

And please let us continue enjoying different subjects without your unwelcome and disturbed behaviour....




Yes, this is OPENLY and BLATANLY PERSONALLY insulting. I am mentioned by name over and over again. As I said in another post, I am insulting not a PERSON but an ideology, a position. This is personal, against me. Sometimes I think the reason some people hate my posts is because I bring up things that make people think deeper into the 'how did she know' and silly shoe evidence, and maybe you don't like that? But the fact remains, and always will remain, she was proven not to be AN by DNA, so nothing else matters. Anything else were just mistakes, or 'lies and misinformation' as you like to say. The worst misinformation of all is to perpetuate a fairy tale that is not true and to mislead even one lurker about the true results.

And for those insisting on 'sources', until one shred of evidence can be brought up to prove that the DNA was tampered with or wrong, there really is no case here!
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Helen_Azar on September 08, 2005, 07:46:39 AM
Quote
I am aghast of seeing how these Infallible clan members have become so desperate and obsessed with this subject that they resort to lies and disinformation in order to make their point.

One thing is to doubt a controversial DNA test, and another is start lying and making false statements as Annie has been doing in this thread. She is disrupting the other participants trying to direct the subject of this thread to DNA which has nothing to do with the thread.

Either she has too much time in her hands to waste the time of others or she is in a serious problem.
Or as Lexi said too much banging...........against the wall ::).

I propose that out of respect for the others we should stick to the subject of the threads and if some of the members feel compulse by an extreme urge to bring up the DNA test take an aspirine and go to a re-hab program that just opened for people intoxicated, obsessed and subordinated by DNA, check you local listings for a center near you.........

And please let us continue enjoying different subjects without your unwelcome and disturbed behaviour....



You know pentetorri, you should really try to relax. No one is "obsessed and subordinated by DNA" here and if you understood even a fraction of what is being presented, I am sure you wouldn't make such statements.

If we are going to get techinical and point fingers about "misinformation", the biggest most blatant set of misiniformation I have seen on this forum to date was pushed for a very long time by the so-called "pro-AA  clan".

So try to control yourself and curb the personal insults, and if you can't do that, then perhaps you can take your own advice and check out those listings yourself.  
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: pentetorri on September 08, 2005, 09:04:57 AM
Annie, Helen and Merrique it is amazing the double standard you have with regards to the posts. I have read many of your posts, especially Annie's, and you exert a persecution to any member who dares contesting the DNA test. I have seen, Annie, how you have treated RealAnastasia and Rachael in many threads abusing and bullying them without mercy. Rachael just abandoned one thread because of your unkind and insulting posts. Most of you in many posts compare the members who support AA to loonies, people who believe in flat earth and many other remarks rejoicing in exposing them as ignorants.

SO now you have the nerve to come to me as cavalry to tell me I am insulting?
Annie you have made a career here chasing people out from threads, which sympathize with AA ,posting statements full of lies and mistakes, most recent ones the ones that Penny corrected you. I am not insulting anyone on the contrary I sometimes resort to irony to expose you as what you are a group of intollerable people who think they are above of anybody else.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 08, 2005, 09:20:57 AM
Quote
..[in part]...
Nurse? It was not a nurse but a fellow patient, a mentally ill woman, who intially brought up a resemblance to Tatiana, not Anastasia. She had a load of Romanov picture magazines under her matress. This is where AA got the idea to pretend to be a GD.

It does seem strange that so much is being made of 'little pillows' when the IF didn't call them that, they called called them 'medicines.'


This was not true.

Several people have explained to poster how this is not true.

Sources have been given.


Quote
...[in part]...
I am NOT WRONG! All this nurse stuff came AFTER she had the magazine that the patient showed her! That's what started it!


....


Again, this iis not true.

People have, again, taken the time, found books, copied out the information, and sited their information.

Penny, who's book we often use as our source gave us the following:

Quote

What is the name of this patient?

There is no-one who knows the exact circumstances under which Fraulein Unbekannt "came clean" and claimed to be Anastasia. All we know is this sequence of events:

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.

....


So what are we told:

Quote
...[in part]....
You know pentetorri, you should really try to relax. No one is "obsessed and subordinated by DNA" here and if you understood even a fraction of what is being presented, I am sure you wouldn't make such statements.

If we are going to get techinical and point fingers about "misinformation", the biggest most blatant set of misiniformation I have seen on this forum to date was pushed for a very long time by the so-called "pro-AA  clan".

... 


This is a blanket statement which refer to "misinformation".  This does not discuss one piece of evidence which some of us have mentioned.

Please,  if there is something which is "misinformation",  give us a hint of what it was.

Otherwise, get off this merry-go'round which you've created, once again, on a thread you are tryiing to spoil our flow of discussion.




AGRBear
Title: Re:  What about...?
Post by: etonexile on September 08, 2005, 09:37:30 AM
Quote
Annie, Helen and Merrique it is amazing the double standard you have with regards to the posts. I have read many of your posts, especially Annie's, and you exert a persecution to any member who dares contesting the DNA test. I have seen, Annie, how you have treated RealAnastasia and Rachael in many threads abusing and bullying them without mercy. Rachael just abandoned one thread because of your unkind and insulting posts. Most of you in many posts compare the members who support AA to loonies, people who believe in flat earth and many other remarks rejoicing in exposing them as ignorants.

SO now you have the nerve to come to me as cavalry to tell me I am insulting?
Annie you have made a career here chasing people from threads which sympathize with AA posting statements full of lies and mistakes, most recent ones the ones that Penny corrected you. I am not insulting anyone on the contrary I sometimes resort to irony to expose you as what you are a group of intollerable people who think they are above of anybody else.


"AA was not AN and most likely was FS"....buy the t-shirt...I...and others have typed this fact endless times...a fact because 4 independant testing labs around the world have come to the same conclusion...labs which regularly free wrongly convicted prisoners and declare the legal fathers of children...
No bitterness or hard feelings...I personally don't care what folk choose to believe...but the FACTS are the FACTS.....
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 08, 2005, 09:50:55 AM
What I am trying to get you and others to realize,  this thread and others are going through various exercises without the use of DNA.

Respect the creators wishes and they will in turn respect yours when you create a thread.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on September 08, 2005, 10:15:54 AM
Here's a question:

If you are satisfied that the DNA tests of 1994 completely solved the "mystery" of Anastasia Manahan, then why on earth are you still so exercised over the issue?

I think that there are only one or two peeps here who believe publicly in Anastasia Manahan's claim to be Anastasia.   Everyone else -- myself included -- have stated acceptance of the DNA results insofar as this claim.  So, there are two items still at issue in all these threads:

1.For those of us who do not accept that AM was FS, it remains important/fascinating/interesting/whatever to explore alternate possibilities, both in terms of other identities and yes, occasionally, conspiracy theories.

2.Even accepting that AM could have been FS (not something that I believe, by the way), there is still much food for discussion when it comes to how she did it -- and in this case then, the discussion and re-discussion of all the other physical and testimonial evidence is valid.

Many of you have spoken as "internet experts" on DNA -- though I believe only Belochka is a professional working in the field currently (sorry if there's anyone else that I don't know).  Let me speak as an expert in my own field: history.  I am a trained and published historian, my credentials are known -- and I'm telling you from a professional point of view (and not a personal, emotional one) that both of the above items are completely valid for historical research, discussion and exploration.  Neither of them threaten the delicate minds of impressionable children/students.

Please, therefore, extend us the courtesy to continue our historical journey unmolested.  I think we all, at this point, have taken on board the "DNA issue" and can well do without the constantly cavilling Greek Chorus.

Thank you.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: LyliaM on September 08, 2005, 10:52:11 AM
Penny, thank you for your helpful and eminently rational post.  

I was quite excited to find these forums, and have found following this thread (which I declined to continue posting on some time ago, since I felt things had degenerated to the point where I'd be doing nothing more than opening myself up for endless, cookie-cutter responses consisting of literally nothing more than "why do you even BOTHER with this garbage," etc.) to be a most depressing experience.

RealAnastasia came up with an intriguing idea for a thread.  If people feel that  the idea and the theory behind it stink and are an utter waste of time, then why would they keep revisiting this thread ( and multiple times a day) only to keep stating that, gee, it's pathetic how some other misguided people love to waste their time?  I find it odd.   It benefits nobody.  Particularly when many of the posters who are  pursuing the subject matter are obviously highly educated, articulate academics and historians who have devoted many years to intensively researching these matters.

True intellectual discourse should be fascinating, thought-provoking, fun -- and yes, occasionally contentious.  But it should never be personal, hurtful, or destructive.   As Penny points out, there is much hard evidence here to discuss and debate.  I'd like to thank those individuals who have spent a great deal of time and energy checking and citing sources and presenting their findings (and hanging in there and continuing to post).  There's more to learn here.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 08, 2005, 06:03:51 PM
Quote
I am aghast of seeing how these Infallible clan members have become so desperate and obsessed with this subject that they resort to lies and disinformation in order to make their point.

One thing is to doubt a controversial DNA test, and another is start lying and making false statements as Annie has been doing in this thread. She is disrupting the other participants trying to direct the subject of this thread to DNA which has nothing to do with the thread.

Either she has too much time in her hands to waste the time of others or she is in a serious problem.
Or as Lexi said too much banging...........against the wall ::).

I propose that out of respect for the others we should stick to the subject of the threads and if some of the members feel compulse by an extreme urge to bring up the DNA test take an aspirine and go to a re-hab program that just opened for people intoxicated, obsessed and subordinated by DNA, check you local listings for a center near you.........

And please let us continue enjoying different subjects without your unwelcome and disturbed behaviour....





Pentetorri, I applaud your post. It's too funny, and I want to welcome you back from an absence in posting.

I say your post is most appropriate.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 08, 2005, 06:07:35 PM
Quote
Here's a question:

If you are satisfied that the DNA tests of 1994 completely solved the "mystery" of Anastasia Manahan, then why on earth are you still so exercised over the issue?

I think that there are only one or two peeps here who believe publicly in Anastasia Manahan's claim to be Anastasia.   Everyone else -- myself included -- have stated acceptance of the DNA results insofar as this claim.  So, there are two items still at issue in all these threads:

1.For those of us who do not accept that AM was FS, it remains important/fascinating/interesting/whatever to explore alternate possibilities, both in terms of other identities and yes, occasionally, conspiracy theories.

2.Even accepting that AM could have been FS (not something that I believe, by the way), there is still much food for discussion when it comes to how she did it -- and in this case then, the discussion and re-discussion of all the other physical and testimonial evidence is valid.

Many of you have spoken as "internet experts" on DNA -- though I believe only Belochka is a professional working in the field currently (sorry if there's anyone else that I don't know).  Let me speak as an expert in my own field: history.  I am a trained and published historian, my credentials are known -- and I'm telling you from a professional point of view (and not a personal, emotional one) that both of the above items are completely valid for historical research, discussion and exploration.  Neither of them threaten the delicate minds of impressionable children/students.

Please, therefore, extend us the courtesy to continue our historical journey unmolested.  I think we all, at this point, have taken on board the "DNA issue" and can well do without the constantly cavilling Greek Chorus.

Thank you.


Thank You Penny,  I agree 100%  most timely.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on September 08, 2005, 06:26:01 PM
Hi All!

Some time ago I noticed that the "path" to this section  of the board contained the word "loonie". I was initially insulted but then I had a good laugh.

Maybe people are just trying to save us :D

Laughing at myself not in need of being "saved",

IM
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on September 08, 2005, 07:52:17 PM
It's curious, but every time someone opens a thread to discuss evidence OTHER than DNA, things ends in a true nightmare. I think is better to stop this thread here, for we are not doing what I proposed in the first message of the page number one. Of course, nobody is forced to do what he/she didn't want, so we wont do discuss about this subject any more.

There is too much threads about AA to open another one. We may use the others to discuss her...All of them are identical. We ends the thing saying that DNA is conclusive, that we can't discuss the matter any more and that all people who thinks otherwise is a day-dreamer or a flat-earth believer...This is not even funny.

I can be crazy (I don't think so, but if you believe it, I'm crazy, after all), but I not deserve to be accused of being spreading "wrong and silly" information; I do not deserve to be bullied and considered a poor idiot who "wants to believe a fairy-tale". Some people would made fun of me, and after it, said it was not meanines, but "Brit Irony" or something over the lines of it. Did you think it is fair?

I tryed to ignore you (you know whom I am speaking about) not posting my guess or my opinions but quotes from books, but no way...For you, this is also imagination...DNA  could be a fact, but my quotes are also facts. Facts could be wrong...YOURS AND MINES. But not you, nor me are guilty IF they are so. Don't took it as a personal attack, for IT ISN'T. I believe in the facts I know and that lead me to arrive to my own conslusions; you have your owns and your conclusions too. So, that's fine. Don't attack each other. I never did. So why you still does it?

In the past, you attacked Peter Kurth, after him it was Greg King, after him, Penny and then Bear (even if she never payed attention to the fact...She is really great our old Bear!  :o) Michael, Rachel, me and now Pentetorri...We must be crazy, but we are not dangerous! Left us alone...Don't worry about our madness. At least, we may finish in Dalldorf, and we'll not arm anyone!

Warmly
RealAnastasia.

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on September 08, 2005, 08:40:05 PM
Let's get real here ..all of us loonies!

I am going to collect sites in the next couple of days...I have been really busy converting to new tech and doing 3 to 6 hours of training on line and phone,, day after day..

I had relatives that ended up in mental hospital(yes I am a loonie) because they were severly handicapped or just a mongoloid...in the 1920's this happened every day. These were horrible places..in Phila or in Germany no red cross...they were often naked.. sleeping on the floor. I have visited these places now that are basically abandoned...there is a drain in the middle of the floor...

Why was AA confined to a quiet ward????

Why was she so clean??? look at the pictures of her in that place. A beautiful white night gown?




When I am not so tired i will provide links that will show you what a mental hospital was like in the 1920's.

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: pentetorri on September 09, 2005, 09:57:39 AM
Thank you very much REALANASTASIA AND MICHAEL G. I always enjoy reading posts of both of you, and I always learn something new or at least a new angle to this intriguing subject. It is a pity that intelligent discussion is always interrupted by some members. People like Penny Wilson and RealAnastasia who are qualified historians and contribute so much to this forum have to spend many posts setting the record straight to deliberate wrong posts by people like Annie and Etonexile, to name a few. THAT is really a waste.

But I urge you not to quit, I propose anytime these disturbances happen to ignore them completely. When I was in college and had to study late at night there was a stray cat very annoying everynight outside my window, being an animal lover ,I could not do anything, but with time the noise became part of the background totally unimportant. I think  anytime these "cats" start ,we should just keep going and ignore them.

Pity I am not from that part of China where "cats" are a delicacy very much sought by gourmands....... ;D
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: etonexile on September 09, 2005, 10:32:51 AM
Quote
Thank you very much REALANASTASIA AND MICHAEL G. I always enjoy reading posts of both of you, and I always learn something new or at least a new angle to this intriguing subject. It is a pity that intelligent discussion is always interrupted by some members. People like Penny Wilson and RealAnastasia who are qualified historians and contribute so much to this forum have to spend many posts setting the record straight to deliberate wrong posts by people like Annie and Etonexile, to name a few. THAT is really a waste.

But I urge you not to quit, I propose anytime these disturbances happen to ignore them completely. When I was in college and had to study late at night there was a stray cat very annoying everynight outside my window, being an animal lover ,I could not do anything, but with time the noise became part of the background totally unimportant. I think  anytime these "cats" start ,we should just keep going and ignore them.

Pity I am not from that part of China where "cats" are a delicacy very much sought by gourmands....... ;D


As a cat lover...I'll try to forgive that crude "gourmand" statement...and if the "qualified historians" choose to ignore or marginalize THE major historical fact...the DNA testing by 4 independant labs...in favour of ears,hairlines,good German speech...good Russian speech,shoe sizes, et al...so be it....sigh.... ::)
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 09, 2005, 11:41:30 AM
Topic:

Quote
Sorry, Annie, but Penny is right. Bear help me and posted the right info, quoting Peter Kurth. I was going to search the book when I saw her post.

Nevertheless, I would want to state CLEARLY the chronologie of the "ecognition" of AA, BY A NURSE, not by Clara Peuthert or another patient from Dalldorf.

Here I go:

Nurse Bucholz, who had lived in Russia spoke with AA about Russia and Russian matters. AA said matter-of-factly "I know all this" and spoke with her fluently in Russian. Nurse Bucholz claimed that she speak it without impediments and not faultly (Page 10) Summer of 1920


Nurse Bertha Waltz surprised Fräulein Unbekannt staring to a magazine and they chattered about a daughter of the Tsar   who escaped from Russia. (Page 11) Summer of 1920

AA showed to nurse Thea Malinovsky a "Berliner Illustrierte" magazine to see if she noticed some ressemblance between her and a daughter of the Tsar. Thea Malinovsky, after some hesitation said, yes. AA pointed to Anastasia. (Page 11 and 12) Summer of 1920

In Automn of 1921 AA declared that she was Anastasia And proposed Thea Malinovsky to run away with her to Africa, in order to join the French Foreign Legion as nurses. She was afraid of doctors, that she thought they were Bolsheviks and were conspirating against her. (Page 12)

Clara Peuthert was admitted in Dalldorf at the end of the 1921. It's not clear in the book but it seems that Clara recognized AA as Tatiana in 1922 or the end of 1921 (Page 14)

So, Annie...Why are you doing this? We are all free: I can think that AA was AN; you may think she was not and that she was FS. All is all right. But PLEASE. Don't spread information that is not true. If you believe that right are in your side , fight for truth saying the truth. And I'm saying this very sad, not angry.

RealAnastasia.



I think Annie and others truly believe some of us are spreading misinformation and no matter how much we claim we are after the truth, they have desided that we are not to be trusted therefore our denials are unheeded.

Some of the evidence they cannot or will not accept.  Instead of presenting their own evidence which shows the contrary they just continue with what they believe and that is all we are going to receive.

It is true, a great percentage of this information has been talked about to great length on other threads, however, since all of this is so scattered, it is difficult to know where all of it is.  And, too, when these discussions took place, many of the posters, now, reading them, have their own questions.

I think each poster should be respected and that their questions be answered, even if it means going out of your way to repeat what you've written not once, not twice but maybe for the tenth time.  This is important.   And sometimes we get lazy and just state what we think is a fact and forget the source.

Sources are important because that gives everyone the opportunity to read what you've read.  And,  each person will be able to return and give their opinion on what they read or saw or experienced.

As far as I know, no one here is deliberately spreading false information or fabricating lies or trying to be an irritant.

Enough with the mockery and the snide remarks.

Be kind.  And it will be returned ten time ten.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: etonexile on September 09, 2005, 11:46:55 AM
Yes...all theories should be expressed...and treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.....






Alien abduction of the missing bodies?....It might be true...don't laugh at me.... >:(
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 09, 2005, 12:28:30 PM

This needs to  repeated for it seems some of you continue to lack respect and wish to continue to interrupt the flow of this topic:

Quote
Here's a question:

If you are satisfied that the DNA tests of 1994 completely solved the "mystery" of Anastasia Manahan, then why on earth are you still so exercised over the issue?

I think that there are only one or two peeps here who believe publicly in Anastasia Manahan's claim to be Anastasia.   Everyone else -- myself included -- have stated acceptance of the DNA results insofar as this claim.  So, there are two items still at issue in all these threads:

1.For those of us who do not accept that AM was FS, it remains important/fascinating/interesting/whatever to explore alternate possibilities, both in terms of other identities and yes, occasionally, conspiracy theories.

2.Even accepting that AM could have been FS (not something that I believe, by the way), there is still much food for discussion when it comes to how she did it -- and in this case then, the discussion and re-discussion of all the other physical and testimonial evidence is valid.

Many of you have spoken as "internet experts" on DNA -- though I believe only Belochka is a professional working in the field currently (sorry if there's anyone else that I don't know).  Let me speak as an expert in my own field: history.  I am a trained and published historian, my credentials are known -- and I'm telling you from a professional point of view (and not a personal, emotional one) that both of the above items are completely valid for historical research, discussion and exploration.  Neither of them threaten the delicate minds of impressionable children/students.

Please, therefore, extend us the courtesy to continue our historical journey unmolested.  I think we all, at this point, have taken on board the "DNA issue" and can well do without the constantly cavilling Greek Chorus.

Thank you.


I especially agree with Penny's last paragraph:


[size=18]Please, therefore, extend us the courtesy to continue our historical journey unmolested.  I think we all, at this point, have taken on board the "DNA issue" and can well do without the constantly cavilling Greek Chorus.[/size]

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: lexi4 on September 09, 2005, 04:08:02 PM
RealAnastasica makes a good point in her last post. If a topic about AA, AN, FS is opened to discuss the mysteries of these women excluding DNA what is the harm in that? Why do some feel it neccessary to highjack the thread and launch a DNA discussion? Just ignore it. And I am not buying that "just trying to set the records straight for students who post here arguement." I think the DNA is introduced in these threads by people who either have way too much time on their hand and/or just want to cause a stir.
Any student can read what the topic is and also this is a discusssion board. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that this a DISCUSSION BOARD. I accepted that AA was not AN long ago. But then, I never believed it before DNA. That does not mean that I don't enjoy the discussions that exlude DNA. I do. Because I enjoy the mystery. So here is my proposal. If there is a thread that
exludes DNA, stop banging your heads against the wall, and just ignore it.
And one more time I will say I ACCEPT THE DNA. I never believed AA was AN and I don't have a lot of "pro-AA" people bugging me about my beliefs. In fact NONE are. So if you see a thread that is not taking DNA into account, could you please just ignore it if you don't like it? Thank you.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: IlyaBorisovich on September 09, 2005, 06:19:55 PM
Hey, All,

Been sitting on the sidelines on this one for a long time, but I just had to jump in here with a quick observation.  I think what Annie really wants deep down, aside from acceptance and reassurance (really - just check out her profile sometime, particularly her AIM name), is to be made a moderator.  Think of it!  As the "Truth Police" she could roam the boards, ruthlessly searching out silly fairy tales and misinformation, all in the name of "the children," banning anyone who questions the infallibility of DNA evidence.  Personally, I think they should give it to her.  Anyone who can do serious research for over thiry years without writing anything down has powers and abilities far beyond those of us mere mortals, me included! ::) Dang my dependence on notes!

Now, excuse me whilst I try to get my tongue out of my cheek.

Peace,
Ilya
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 09, 2005, 06:25:32 PM
Quote

As a cat lover...I'll try to forgive that crude "gourmand" statement...and if the "qualified historians" choose to ignore or marginalize THE major historical fact...the DNA testing by 4 independant labs...in favour of ears,hairlines,good German speech...good Russian speech,shoe sizes, et al...so be it....sigh.... ::)


I'm quite sure my mention of owning and loving cats on another part of this board was the provocation for this post. After the deep personal insult that was allowed to stand yesterday from this Pen... whatever person, I am not surprised. They're just trying to upset me, so don't let it bother you.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: IlyaBorisovich on September 09, 2005, 06:30:32 PM
Quote

I'm quite sure my mention of owning and loving cats on another part of this board was the provocation for this post.


Crimanitly, Annie, is EVERYTHING on this board about you?  Meglomania (look it up) doesn't become you.

Ilya
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 09, 2005, 07:12:10 PM
Quote

Crimanitly, Annie, is EVERYTHING on this board about you?  Meglomania (look it up) doesn't become you.

Ilya


You really don't have a clue. There are certan individuals on this board who hate me personally for challenging the AA stuff. If you had read what Pen. said about me yesterday, you'd see the hatred and venom, and not be suprised. There is a history here, I have my reasons. NOTHING else is about me, but I can see when it is, I am not stupid.

The post is on the previous page, and is quoted by 2 others in case it was deleted by its author.

Hate me all you will, AA WAS NOT AN!!!!
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: IlyaBorisovich on September 09, 2005, 07:33:08 PM
Quote

You really don't have a clue. There are certan individuals on this board who hate me personally for challenging the AA stuff. If you had read what Pen. said about me yesterday, you'd see the hatred and venom, and not be suprised. There is a history here, I have my reasons. NOTHING else is about me, but I can see when it is, I am not stupid.

The post is on the previous page, and is quoted by 2 others in case it was deleted by its author.

Hate me all you will, AA WAS NOT AN!!!!



No one hates you.  They hate the things you do.  There's a marked difference.  There's nothing personal in it.  I've read through the thread and all I've noticed is a distaste for the way you try to steer threads invariably to the subject of DNA.  There are people who enjoy discussing the other evidence and resent the intrusion.  It matters not at all that it's YOU doing it, only that it's being done.  It's like trying to have a conversation at a party when some crashing boor barges in and loudly berates everyone for the subject of their conversation, then tries to take control of said conversation.  Some people just don't like being mocked for what they wish to discuss.  I don't think you do, either.

Honestly, I doubt the FA would allow a campaign of truly personal persecution, as you seem to believe is being carried out against you.  You need to understand that people who disagree with you and tell you so are not attacking you.  You say you have your reasons for believeing that everyone's out to get you, and I'm sure you do.  There are, however, things in life that are better left unexplored.  Why don't you put your faith in the FA to control the board and leave the nice people to their "silly fairy tales."

Paranoia becomes you even less than meglomania.

Ilya
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 09, 2005, 08:01:00 PM
I have seen people criticized for personal attacks for much less than that.

You really don't have a clue. I am here every day, and you drop by one night once in awhile and seem to know what is in everyone's mind and heart. You are wrong. And I'm sure if I said AA was AN you and your friends would not have a problem with anything I say. It's all getting so stupid how personal it is. I only criticize positions, not people. Unfortunately not everyone is that way.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: IlyaBorisovich on September 09, 2005, 08:29:45 PM
Quote
I have seen people criticized for personal attacks for much less than that.

You really don't have a clue. I am here every day, and you drop by one night once in awhile and seem to know what is in everyone's mind and heart. You are wrong. And I'm sure if I said AA was AN you and your friends would not have a problem with anything I say. It's all getting so stupid how personal it is. I only criticize positions, not people. Unfortunately not everyone is that way.


This post is telling in so many ways.  You say that I don't come around the boards very often (actually, I read them every day - I don't often post though), yet you refer to me and "my friends."  This isn't the first time you inferred that the people who resent your style of posting are somehow involved in some vast conspiracy behind your back (Oooh, echos of Hillary :-X).  You're no more omnisceint than I am.  We read the same posts and make different interpretations.  You can't say I'm wrong any more than I can say you're deluded.

Sadly, you're missing the point of what I've tried to say as gently and diplomaticly as I can.  People are going to continue to object to the things you do as long as you choose to continue doing them.  If you're completely unwilling to accept that you just might be partially responsible for all the negative vibes you seem to be getting, then there's no point in continuing.  I wish you well, but find myself puzzling as to what you're possibly getting out of this board.

Having said my piece, I return the board to its more capable posters.

Peace, all,
Ilya
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 09, 2005, 09:01:48 PM
Quote

You really don't have a clue. There are certan individuals on this board who hate me personally for challenging the AA stuff. If you had read what Pen. said about me yesterday, you'd see the hatred and venom, and not be suprised. There is a history here, I have my reasons. NOTHING else is about me, but I can see when it is, I am not stupid.

The post is on the previous page, and is quoted by 2 others in case it was deleted by its author.

Hate me all you will, AA WAS NOT AN!!!!



What Penny used in that statement to contradict all of the baseless wild tales you come up with and post on the board are facts.  You may not like them, you may not agree with them, but they are facts none the less.

While many of us agree that AA was NOT AN, and have stated so repeatedly, honestly & openly, and yet here in your message you misstate what we say again.

It's not that anyone actually HATES you, a fact you seem to revel in for some perverse reason, we may not like what you post & your attitude, but hate is an extreme emotion in this case, and yet you openly proclaim how much we hate you, when we don't.  It's really sad Annie, that some how as the other posters have figured out, you make it ALL about you.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on September 09, 2005, 09:44:09 PM
Dear Friends:

                        Please...Try to calm down! Why can't we discuss AA without starting a bloody war between us?

                         I agree 100% with the last two post of Bear and totally with the last Penny's one. I never thought that respect each other would be so hard for some people. I don't ask you to but the AA story and much less that AA was AN. That's my own conviction and not yours. I'm here not to discuss if I'm right or you are right, if I'm wrong or you are wrong...I tryed to discuss simply facts, the facts that we can find in books, primary documents or experts could help us to find. Of course, when we start to discuss them, our opinion would come out, but this is fine. If some of your ideas convince me, I may change mi mind. But we must discuss VERIFIED facts, not our own imagination. At least I try no to be too biased... ;)

                  If we want to know the truth behind the facts, we must be able to go out of our boxes and to OPEN our minds. In the "101 reasons" threads that Penny opened and I continued, I tryed, along with Bear, to find all the reasons for AA not being GD Anastasia and the oposite. It's no matter if I think that she was her or not. Opinion MUST NOT BE AN EVIDENCE in those threads. If we have intellectual honestity, we must be able to defend our ideas, but also have the courage to challenge them. Some people (I don't like to name them, for I'm not a Judge) didn't understand the exercise. If you think that AA was indeed FS, you can post reasons demonstrating the opposite, but thalt's not mean that you changes your mind and stop to think that AA was FS.  This is a common exercise in History career. You are not forced to change your mind, but you are forced to challenge your evidence...To analise it thorougly. If after doing this, you still thinking the same, that's fine.  If other people things otherwise than you, you must however, respect them. They have reasons to do so, and you must not dismiss them as silly and dreamer people. They have their reasons to think like this. Besides, even if convinced about a subject, the fact of investigate things could help you to understand them more deeply. For example: I always wondered why AA was different in her first photos at Dalldorf to herself some years later. Well; when I spoke with my anthropologue-Forensic  Senior fellow I got the answer, and I was amazed...It was so easy ! For him, the subject was obvious, but not for me who doesn't know about those things. When he explained me what happened I felt so ashamed...He made me feel as a toddler in a nursery.  :-[

                Is only for this that I proposed the exercise you can read in the first page of this thread. I'm not interested to change your minds in AA's being AN. But doing it would teach you a lot of interesting things. I keep convinced of my opinion in the matter, but this is not the important thing here. Speaking with anthropologues, Forensic seniors, psychologues, psychiatrist, DNA experts, graphologs, actors, doctors, criminalistic and ballistic experts, Russian and Polish people would open your mind in a way you'll never imagined.

                         I must said thank you to Anna Anderson, being her Anastasia, Franziska Schanzkowska or anyone else. She pushed me to do an excercise that made me grow and developpe as a person and have unforgetable experiences. I tryed to share those experiences with you. I failed..What a pity. :-/

     RealAnastasia.

P.S: Welcome back, IlyaBorisovich! Of course you are free to post here when you wants to do it! The fact that you don't post very often don't make you an ignorant! If you know that I was a lurker here for many, many months before becoming a member... :-[ ;D When I read some postings I have afraid to become a member, but after a while, I decided I must be part of this marvelous group of people. I also agree with your opinions.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 09, 2005, 10:48:34 PM
Quote


What Penny used in that statement to contradict all of the baseless wild tales


Now there's something appropriate for you, baseless wild tales and her name mentioned in the same sentence. (sure that's personal, but no more than it being said of me)

Quote
really sad Annie, that some how as the other posters have figured out, you make it ALL about you.



I don't feel this way, or see it at all. It is all your delusion. Nobody has said it but you and Penny. And I am not so stupid that I can't see when something is personal and when it's not, and other posters have also seen when it's personal and commented. Ever since Pen....'s comment, this thread has degenerated to discussion of posters personally instead of AA.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: lexi4 on September 09, 2005, 11:06:17 PM
Quote

This post is telling in so many ways.  You say that I don't come around the boards very often (actually, I read them every day - I don't often post though), yet you refer to me and "my friends."  This isn't the first time you inferred that the people who resent your style of posting are somehow involved in some vast conspiracy behind your back (Oooh, echos of Hillary :-X).  You're no more omnisceint than I am.  We read the same posts and make different interpretations.  You can't say I'm wrong any more than I can say you're deluded.

Sadly, you're missing the point of what I've tried to say as gently and diplomaticly as I can.  People are going to continue to object to the things you do as long as you choose to continue doing them.  If you're completely unwilling to accept that you just might be partially responsible for all the negative vibes you seem to be getting, then there's no point in continuing.  I wish you well, but find myself puzzling as to what you're possibly getting out of this board.

Having said my piece, I return the board to its more capable posters.

Peace, all,
Ilya


Well said.

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 10, 2005, 09:21:08 AM
Quote

Now there's something appropriate for you, baseless wild tales and her name mentioned in the same sentence. (sure that's personal, but no more than it being said of me)



As usual Annie, cherry picking the statements to make it fit YOUR version of the fact.  I believe after wild tales it should read in reference to you:  YOU come up with.

Quote
I don't feel this way, or see it at all. It is all your delusion. Nobody has said it but you and Penny. And I am not so stupid that I can't see when something is personal and when it's not, and other posters have also seen when it's personal and commented. Ever since Pen....'s comment, this thread has degenerated to discussion of posters personally instead of AA.



You said in a previous post that we hate you.  That's what you want is another personal attack so the thread can be shut down, and make it all about you.  Annie, Ilya Borosovich has said it, Lexi has said it, others have said it, not just myself & Penny,  now back to the thread.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on September 10, 2005, 09:42:34 AM
RA,

I am interested in what your Forensic contact said about the difference in the pictures of AA when she entered the hospital and later. I am also interested in your interview with the actor and all the others.

I don't have a large circle of people from different walks of life interacting with me in my daily life.

Please consider sharing them with us here.

IM
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on September 10, 2005, 10:13:02 AM
Quote

Jay - which claimant died in 1971?


Nadezhda Vladimirovna Ivanova-Vasilieva. I posted an article on her. It's the "The Princess from a Kazan Mental Ward" thread.  
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on September 10, 2005, 10:15:40 AM
Quote

Thanks, I thought so. There's always a way to get around it, there's other ways to divert the money to him.

For example, I have a friend who, because of a recent bankruptcy, would have to surrender her inheritance to the bankruptcy court, but one of her relatives is going to claim her share and divvy up with her later;)

I think the reason some people dislike having the Gleb theory brought up is that it's too good a solution, it makes too many of the mysteries clear up, and they don't like that.


Legal documents and corporation charters can be quite tricky. It's best to go over them with a magnifying glass whenever possible

I think your right. Though Gleb's relationship with AA may not have started out that way... but the Botkin children were not that close to AN to begin with.  
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 10, 2005, 10:57:56 AM
Since we keep getting caught up in the merry-go-'round,  certain points get lost or forgotten because it takes us so many pages just to turn over one piece of evidence.  And. we never quite explore these points fully.

I am not sure how many pages back this discussion started the discussion was avoided by the that particular merry-gp-'round,  but I and other discuss how much contact the Botkin children had with the Imperial children.

I'll bring it foreward when I find it and then you can back track and see.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 10, 2005, 11:30:32 AM
It started, again, back on page 12 and I see Jay-Ro-Mee took part in the conversation in which we discussed that the Botkin children did have contact.

Quote
I have the book LOST TALES by Gleb Botkin which Marina, nee Botkin,  and  Richard Schweitzer, her husband published so the rest of the world could enjoy Marina's father's stories.

It was these stories which Marina wrote about her father's watercolors and stories on p. XIV which:  >>...constituted one of the few diversions for the Imperial family under the stark conditions of thie confinement.<<

It was Gleb Botkin's father, Dr. Eugene Bothkin, who suffered the same fate of Nicholas II and the others on the night of 16/17 July 1918 in the Ipatiev House.

The last time Gleb saw his father and the Imperial Family was in Tobolsk because Gleb and his sister were refused permission to follow the Imperial Family and Dr. Botkin to Ekaterinburg.

Gleb had personal contact with the Imperial Family.  He and the children had a special contact.  It would not be unreasonable to understand that Gleb would have known certain things that only he and G D Anastasia would have known.  Some of this knowledge must certainly had been about these marvelous stories to which he had drawn watercolors.

Now,  I know very little else about Gleb Botkin and his relationship with Anna Anderson, whom he believed was GD Anastasia.  So, I really should not be in any kind of debate regarding Gleb Botkin or Anna Anderson.  However, it seems I've jumped right into the middle of this discussion.  It has not been because I personally believe Anna Anderson was GD Anastasia,  I must admit.  Why have I?  I don't like false accusations being directed toward Gleb Botkin or anyone else and that seems to be exactly what John Godl has done.

There is a difference between accusations accompanied with inaccurate facts and presenting theories such as  wondering if a  person had unknowingly revealed bites and pieces of information which a "con artist" can use.  

How is it different?  Annie had a theory, she looked for sources, found Godl's article which seem to agree with her theory and she presented it to us.  There is nothing wrong with Annie thinking Godl's information is accurate.  Then,  Michael presented facts straight from Marina, nee Botkin, Schweitzer's husband, Richard, who wrote:

>>Gleb Botkin on: Jul 27th, 2005, 1:32pm  
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------
Gleb Botkin executed a disclaimer filed in Germany by which he disclaimed for himself and his successors in interest any entitlements to any benefits from A or her Testaments or Estate. You can contact M P. remy in Munich to confirm the existence of that document.  
 
Schweitzer   <<

This legal disclaimer  was ignored by Annie who continues to attack Gleb Botkin.  Why?  Because she feels strongly that there was someone coaching AA and she believes it was Gleb after reading John Godl's article as well as other information.

My guess is that through the years,  AA and others,  placed a lot of weight on Gleb Botkin's acceptance of AA as GD Anastasia and they, too, believed AA was GD Anastasia before the DNA tests.

Gleb Botkin knew GD Anastasia and he tells us that he believed AA was GD Anastasia.  

How well had he known GD Anastasia?  He visited GD Anastasia and the Imperial Family while they were prisioners in Tobolsk.  He drew watercolors over which he and the IF shared until the IF and Gleb's father was sent to Ekaterinburg.

One can only imagine what kind of personal stories Gleb knew about the Imperial Family which absolutely no one else would have known.

I would assume that Gleb and AA must have talked about these stories and it appears that he found nothing she said which gave him the realization that he thought AA was a fake.

It seems to me,  Gleb's opinion is high on the  "pecking order" of people  presented as eye witnesses of actual events with the Imperial Family as well as Anna Anderson.

As far as I can see,  no one has  presented evidence that Gleb Botkin was aware that Anna Anderson was not GD Anastasia and that he was part of some kind of conspiracy to have any personal gains.  


If  AA was not GD Anastasia,  as it appears the DNA tests indicate, this does not mean Gleb was trying to pull the wool over our eyes or feed us false information.

If  AA was not GD Anastasia, then AA,   fooled Gleb.

But who would have known those little things only children would have shared because she must have because it seems apparent that she did fool Gleb Botkin?

AA, if she was not GD Anastasia,  fooled many people and I think there was more than just her being a good actress or just her being able to collect  information.  Like Annie and others,  I think it's possible she was coached by someone who knew things which  allowed her to  fool Gleb Botkin and others.  I have no idea who it was or why.

I can understand why people might think Gleb might have unknowingly given AA information.

Just as I can understand why Annie might have thought  Gleb made money by being near Annie.....  But he did not.  Richard Schweitzer  has told us about Gleb disclaimer.  

Annie, it seems, even, now, after  you are aware that he had signed a disclaimer which tells us that he had signed papers which prevented Gleb from gaining anything personally,  this doesn't seem to change your mind because you continue to think Gleb coached AA.  Okay.  I can accept  your logic and distrust.  But,  please, please, don't get so upset when I and others don't agree with you.  

Why do I disagree.  Up to this point,  I don't see any evidence which shows Gleb was part of any conspiracy which provided information to AA before she jumped into the canal in Feb. 1920 .

I believe Gleb didn't meet AA.....  Wait let me go find something that tells me ......  Here it is p. 89  THE QUEST FOR ANASTASIA by Klier and Mingay:

>>One of her most devoted and loyal champions was Gleb Botkin, son of Dr. Evgeny Botkin, the Imperial Family's personal physician ....   He first met Anna in 1927 at Castle Seeon, where she was staying with the family of the Duke of Leuchtenberg....<<

1927 was seven years after  AA claimed she was GD Anastasia.


AGRBear



If you don't care to read everything in this post, let me just point you at these words:

>> How well had he known GD Anastasia?  He visited GD Anastasia and the Imperial Family while they were prisioners in Tobolsk.  He drew watercolors over which he and the IF shared until the IF and Gleb's father was sent to Ekaterinburg.

One can only imagine what kind of personal stories Gleb knew about the Imperial Family which absolutely no one else would have known. <<



AGRBear

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on September 10, 2005, 01:57:37 PM
Quote

Let's see YOUR source there was ANY evidence she thought or said ANYTHING about ANY Romanov before this woman showed her the picture and gave her the idea!



Sounds like a valid question. Do you have any such source Penny? Or have you posted on another thread and I 've missed it?
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on September 10, 2005, 03:02:49 PM
Quote

Sounds like a valid question. Do you have any such source Penny? Or have you posted on another thread and I 've missed it?



How can I possibly answer this question until Annie provides:

a.the name of the patient whom she alleges convinced Fraulein Unbekannt that she was a Grand Duchess*

b.the approximate dates of Fraulein U's encounters with this patient

c.her documentary sources for the information

Until such information is forthcoming, I stand by my current professional opinion that it was an exchange between Fraulein U and the nurses at Dalldorf in the early autumn of 1921 that engendered the revelation of her claimed identity.  I think you must agree that -- at this time -- this is a reasonable response to your question.  I will be happy to amend this should Annie ever supply the required information.

*Remember that this patient cannot be Clara Peuthert, as she was not admitted to the hospital until the end of 1921.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 10, 2005, 07:14:37 PM
Quote


How can I possibly answer this question until Annie provides:

a.the name of the patient whom she alleges convinced Fraulein Unbekannt that she was a Grand Duchess*

b.the approximate dates of Fraulein U's encounters with this patient

c.her documentary sources for the information

Until such information is forthcoming, I stand by my current professional opinion that it was an exchange between Fraulein U and the nurses at Dalldorf in the early autumn of 1921 that engendered the revelation of her claimed identity.  I think you must agree that -- at this time -- this is a reasonable response to your question.  I will be happy to amend this should Annie ever supply the required information.

*Remember that this patient cannot be Clara Peuthert, as she was not admitted to the hospital until the end of 1921.



Penny neither Annie nor her  disciple can answer those questions.  
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on September 10, 2005, 08:31:25 PM
Quote
It started, again, back on page 12 and I see Jay-Ro-Mee took part in the conversation in which we discussed that the Botkin children did have contact.


If you don't care to read everything in this post, let me just point you at these words:

>> How well had he known GD Anastasia?  He visited GD Anastasia and the Imperial Family while they were prisioners in Tobolsk.  He drew watercolors over which he and the IF shared until the IF and Gleb's father was sent to Ekaterinburg.
 
One can only imagine what kind of personal stories Gleb knew about the Imperial Family which absolutely no one else would have known. <<



AGRBear



Let's talk about the rules of a debate...Bear sites evidence from books and also first hand testimony from real people.

The next step...either find contradictory sources from books or get testimony from a source who disagrees,

Now you don't have to agree,,,,

But let's say you want to add "SUBJECTIVE" debate.

Label it as such...I will give an example...although I don't subcribe to this "subjective" debate.

Gleb was so torn losing his father and his country that he wanted to see AA as AN.

Now I am not stating this as my opinion, I am saying that this would be "subjective" rebuttal with no facts to back it up.

But in a debate this would have to be labeled as "subjective" or "my opinion".

Or you would have to site sources . As Bear has!

We all have a our feelings and opinions,,,but we cannot expect anyone to agree with us without sources.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on September 10, 2005, 08:48:05 PM
And if you follow logic and it ends in smashing your head against a brick wall...maybe you need to take a step back.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on September 10, 2005, 09:55:59 PM
Quote
RA,

I am interested in what your Forensic contact said about the difference in the pictures of AA when she entered the hospital and later. I am also interested in your interview with the actor and all the others.

I don't have a large circle of people from different walks of life interacting with me in my daily life.

Please consider sharing them with us here.

IM


If people wants , I could post mi interview with Kuz, my anthropologue, Forensic Senior fellow right here. But ONLY if they wants to. I'm afraid to be killed by two or three people of the board whe they read what this man said to me. I have the interview recorded and translated it: I already send it to you, Inquirind_MInd, so you may said if this is "appropiate" for this forum. If this goes O.K, I post the other interviews. If not, don't worry: I'll send  them to you in the PM form.

As for why AA was different in her first photos at Dalldorf than after them, the answer is already in the Kuz interview: She was developping an eating disorder, a nutritional trouble. In the Dalldorf photos you may notice that AA had wider and full lips, fatty cheeks and popping eyes. I was always puzzled by this, for later, her lips were not so full, her eyes are different and also her cheeks. Well, my anthropologue fellow said that it was an eating disorder or something like this: her lips, eyes and cheeks were SWOLLEN with severe oedema. If you looks closely one of her photos, when she was walking outside her ward, you may notice that her eyes are also redden and almost closed. The cheeks uses to swollen severely in some anorexia or bulimia cases.

      Good Night.
      RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: lexi4 on September 10, 2005, 11:45:29 PM
Quote


How can I possibly answer this question until Annie provides:

a.the name of the patient whom she alleges convinced Fraulein Unbekannt that she was a Grand Duchess*

b.the approximate dates of Fraulein U's encounters with this patient

c.her documentary sources for the information

Until such information is forthcoming, I stand by my current professional opinion that it was an exchange between Fraulein U and the nurses at Dalldorf in the early autumn of 1921 that engendered the revelation of her claimed identity.  I think you must agree that -- at this time -- this is a reasonable response to your question.  I will be happy to amend this should Annie ever supply the required information.

*Remember that this patient cannot be Clara Peuthert, as she was not admitted to the hospital until the end of 1921.


Forget it Penny. Annie never posts her sources.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 12, 2005, 10:19:43 AM
Quote

Forget it Penny. Annie never posts her sources.


Sigh! I have told you all over and over, I do not have these books at my disposal the way most of you seem to. I have read a lot of stuff in 30 years and remember it, but can't place the exact book or page number. I don't think it matters, since even when you guys do post a 'source' it doesn't necessarily make it credible, just because someone said something and wrote it down doesn't mean it was true or accurate. But I hate being accused of not posting sources as if I'm making it up. If I was going to do that, I could come up with something much more interesting.

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on September 12, 2005, 10:32:17 AM
Quote

Sigh! I have told you all over and over, I do not have these books at my disposal the way most of you seem to. I have read a lot of stuff in 30 years and remember it, but can't place the exact book or page number. I don't think it matters, since even when you guys do post a 'source' it doesn't necessarily make it credible, just because someone said something and wrote it down doesn't mean it was true or accurate. But I hate being accused of not posting sources as if I'm making it up. If I was going to do that, I could come up with something much more interesting.




This is not good enough.

Do you remember a number of months ago, when I mentioned that I had some information on this case that I couldn't post, but that it pointed in a certain direction?  You told me then not to post anything that I couldn't clearly state and back up with sources.  I must ask you now to abide by the same principle: If you can't give sources for your statements, don't post them -- this is how "red herrings" are created.

Thanks in advance for doing this.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 12, 2005, 10:48:56 PM
Quote


This is not good enough.

Do you remember a number of months ago, when I mentioned that I had some information on this case that I couldn't post, but that it pointed in a certain direction?  You told me then not to post anything that I couldn't clearly state and back up with sources.  I must ask you now to abide by the same principle: If you can't give sources for your statements, don't post them -- this is how "red herrings" are created.

Thanks in advance for doing this.


Agreed Penny, and we ask the same of her.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: lexi4 on September 13, 2005, 03:18:25 PM
Quote

Sigh! I have told you all over and over, I do not have these books at my disposal the way most of you seem to. I have read a lot of stuff in 30 years and remember it, but can't place the exact book or page number. I don't think it matters, since even when you guys do post a 'source' it doesn't necessarily make it credible, just because someone said something and wrote it down doesn't mean it was true or accurate. But I hate being accused of not posting sources as if I'm making it up. If I was going to do that, I could come up with something much more interesting.




You've been told about 10,000 times that this is NOT about your credability, but providing us with information so we can read it and study it for ourselves. Annie, that is not too much to ask. If you can't do that, I for one, am going to ignore you headbanging little avatar will not respond to your posts. Anyone else care to join me in my ignore???
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on September 13, 2005, 10:27:04 PM
Quote


How can I possibly answer this question until Annie provides:

a.the name of the patient whom she alleges convinced Fraulein Unbekannt that she was a Grand Duchess*

b.the approximate dates of Fraulein U's encounters with this patient

c.her documentary sources for the information

Until such information is forthcoming, I stand by my current professional opinion that it was an exchange between Fraulein U and the nurses at Dalldorf in the early autumn of 1921 that engendered the revelation of her claimed identity.  I think you must agree that -- at this time -- this is a reasonable response to your question.  I will be happy to amend this should Annie ever supply the required information.

*Remember that this patient cannot be Clara Peuthert, as she was not admitted to the hospital until the end of 1921.


So, nurse or patient, she didn't decide to become AN until a resemblance was suggested to her, and she didn't enter the hospital with the intention of staging this whole charade.  
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on September 13, 2005, 10:46:29 PM
Quote

So, nurse or patient, she didn't decide to become AN until a resemblance was suggested to her, and she didn't enter the hospital with the intention of staging this whole charade.  


"Nurse or patient"?  The genesis of Fraulein U's story is quite important, so it is therefore equally important to establish to whom she spoke directly prior to any "revelations."  And it was to trained nurses, and not to any "mental patient."  Details remain vital to this story.

On the first meaningful part of your statement, we don't really know which conversation happened first: The one with Thea Malinowsky where Fraulein U ended up "confessing" her true identity; or the one with Nurse Walz and others approaching her with a magazine picture to ask about the resemblance.  

As for the second part of your sentence, well -- you really should re-read the first few pages of Peter Kurth's book.  It is very clear that Fraulein U was determined to conceal her identity at all costs, and was fearful of being recognized. I don't know if this was part of any planned "charade."
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 13, 2005, 10:49:16 PM
Quote

 It is very clear that Fraulein U was determined to conceal her identity at all costs, and was fearful of being recognized. I don't know if this was part of any planned "charade."


Of course she did. Franziska must have had some very bad things happen in her personal life, and didn't want to be found by anyone, not even her family. She had wanted to DIE, remember? The REAL mystery and interesting story here is what happened to this poor unfortunate woman to lead her to ditch her identity and pretend to be Anastasia, because that is exactly what happened.

AA was not AN

Source: DNA!!!!

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 13, 2005, 10:50:10 PM
Quote

So, nurse or patient, she didn't decide to become AN until a resemblance was suggested to her, and she didn't enter the hospital with the intention of staging this whole charade.  


Exactly. What does it even matter who, SOMEONE gave her the idea, and she faked it. She wasn't Anastasia.

Source: DNA
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on September 13, 2005, 10:58:20 PM
Quote

AA was not AN

Source: DNA!!!!



Yeah, but what are your sources for the assertions below?

Quote
Of course she did. Franziska must have had some very bad things happen in her personal life, and didn't want to be found by anyone, not even her family. She had wanted to DIE, remember? The REAL mystery and interesting story here is what happened to this poor unfortunate woman to lead her to ditch her identity and pretend to be Anastasia, because that is exactly what happened.

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 13, 2005, 11:01:05 PM
Quote

Yeah, but what are your sources for the assertions below?



Common sense: We know from the DNA that she was 99.9% FS. We know that she hid her identity. Therefore we can surmise that FS did not want her identity revealed. If she did she would have done so. She did not. So there you go.

Sorry I don't have a quote from some obscure person who only met her once 20 years before to 'validate' it, and even if I did, you'd just call them a liar, etc..
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on September 13, 2005, 11:01:27 PM
Quote
She wasn't Anastasia.

Source: DNA


Yeah, but what sources are you using to support your assertions below?

Quote
Exactly. What does it even matter who, SOMEONE gave her the idea, and she faked it.


PS  Of course it now doesn't "matter" who she spoke with -- you will never admit an error, will you?
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on September 13, 2005, 11:02:35 PM
Quote

Yeah, but what are your sources for the assertions below?



Well AA/FS DID throw herself into a canal...and last time I checked happy people don't do that....now would you like the various sources for the suicide attempt story?
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on September 13, 2005, 11:04:04 PM
Quote

Common sense:


Not a valid "source."  Please try again.

Quote

Sorry I don't have a quote from some obscure person who only met her once 20 years before to 'validate' it,


Now that's too bad.  Because such a person would be far more valid as a source than anyone's "common sense."

Quote
and even if I did, you'd just call them a liar, etc..


Try me.  Really.  Try just once giving me an actual source.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on September 13, 2005, 11:13:25 PM
Quote

Well AA/FS DID throw herself into a canal...and last time I checked happy people don't do that....now would you like the various sources for the suicide attempt story?



You do realize, don't you, that at first it was unclear just how Fraulein Unbekannt ended up in the canal?  The policeman who pulled her out thought that she had had an accident and was either pushed or had fallen.  She was sent to the hospital primarily because she refused to speak, and not because of any initial thought that she had attempted suicide.  

Source: Krug von Nidda, Police Bulletin.

However, she herself later admitted that she had been very despondent that evening, but she never remembered jumping.

Source: Frau von Rathlef's personal notebook.

So -- like every other story about "Anna Anderson," there are caveats.  Thus the requirement for citing sources.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: lexi4 on September 13, 2005, 11:18:03 PM
Quote

Ah, good!  The gang's all here.  I was wondering when Helen would be summoned.  Nice to know it takes -- what? -- three of you to handle me.


At least three Penny. But none have published a book as you and Greg have done with FOTR.
8)
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on September 13, 2005, 11:21:39 PM
Quote


You do realize, don't you, that at first it was unclear just how Fraulein Unbekannt ended up in the canal?  The policeman who pulled her out thought that she had had an accident and was either pushed or had fallen.  She was sent to the hospital primarily because she refused to speak, and not because of any initial thought that she had attempted suicide.  

Source: Krug von Nidda, Police Bulletin.

However, she herself later admitted that she had been very despondent that evening, but she never remembered jumping.

Source: Frau von Rathlef's personal notebook.

So -- like every other story about "Anna Anderson," there are caveats.  Thus the requirement for citing sources.


So, happy people who enjoy their lives  assume another person's identity for 60+ years? You're clutching at straws here Penny.
And, as for the suicide attempt, if AA admits it was the "dumbest thing she could have done" in a personal taped interview.... and she refuses to answer a police officer when he informs her that "suicide is a crime in Berlin"....from Peter Kurth's book....well that's a pretty good indication of what probably happened, wouldn't you say?...Probably not!
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on September 13, 2005, 11:29:14 PM
Quote

So, happy people who enjoy their lives  assume another person's identity for 60+ years? You're clutching at straws here Penny.


Not really.  I'm not contesting that this was a suicide attempt -- though I believe that it was an impulsive jump rather than a calculated plan.  And in laying out the contemporary "take" on the matter -- plus sources, of course -- I am merely trying to be as complete-ist with my information as possible.

Quote
And, as for the suicide attempt, if AA admits it was the "dumbest thing she could have done" and she refuses to answer a police officer when he informs her that "suicide is a crime in Berlin"....well that's a pretty good indication of what probably happened, wouldn't you say?


We don't have to guess at her mind-set or what "probably happened."  It's there in the evidence.  And the evidence is extensive.  Please see Dominiques Aucleres, Anastasia, qui etes vous?, Redern's notes, and the Bonhoeffer report.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: jeremygaleaz on September 13, 2005, 11:37:40 PM
Quote

Not really.  I'm not contesting that this was a suicide attempt -- though I believe that it was an impulsive jump rather than a calculated plan.  And in laying out the contemporary "take" on the matter -- plus sources, of course -- I am merely trying to be as complete-ist with my information as possible.


We don't have to guess at her mind-set or what "probably happened."  It's there in the evidence.  And the evidence is extensive.  Please see Dominiques Aucleres, Anastasia, qui etes vous?, Redern's notes, and the Bonhoeffer report.


"Impulsive jump" is quite different from being "pushed" or an "accidental fall" Penny. And the means by which a person choses to commit suicide do not have to be calculated. She may have simply been quite miserable when an opportunity to end it all presented itself to her (she saw the canal and thought..".that'll do!") attempted suicides like that happen all the time...

And may I suggest Peter Kurth's book for the quote from the Berlin Police officer...as well as going through the tapes AA made when interviewed about her life...( I think that that was where I first heard her speak of "jumping into the canal" as the "dumbest thing she ever did"...though I do believe it's published somewhere. I'll see if I can hunt down where I saw it published.

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Penny_Wilson on September 13, 2005, 11:53:00 PM
Quote

"Impulsive jump" is quite different from being "pushed" or an "accidental fall" Penny.


Sure it is.  "Impulsive jump" is what I think.  Being "pushed" or an "accidental fall" is what the Berlin police first thought.

Quote

And may I suggest Peter Kurth's book for the quote from the Berlin Police officer...


I've got better than Peter's book as a source.  I've got Peter.   ;D

Quote
as well as going through the tapes AA made when interviewed about her life...


I probably know these tapes better than you do -- Peter gave them to me. I have the full set in my office closet.

Quote
I'll see if I can hunt down where I saw it published.



You don't have to, thanks.  I know what she says on the tapes.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 14, 2005, 12:43:54 AM
Jay-Ro-Mee voiced a book as his source but not the actual quote:
Quote

"Impulsive jump" is quite different from being "pushed" or an "accidental fall" Penny. And the means by which a person choses to commit suicide do not have to be calculated. She may have simply been quite miserable when an opportunity to end it all presented itself to her (she saw the canal and thought..".that'll do!") attempted suicides like that happen all the time...

And may I suggest Peter Kurth's book for the quote from the Berlin Police officer...as well as going through the tapes AA made when interviewed about her life...( I think that that was where I first heard her speak of "jumping into the canal" as the "dumbest thing she ever did"...though I do believe it's published somewhere. I'll see if I can hunt down where I saw it published.



Then Penny used her source.

Quote

Sure it is.  "Impulsive jump" is what I think.  Being "pushed" or an "accidental fall" is what the Berlin police first thought.


I've got better than Peter's book as a source.  I've got Peter.   ;D


I probably know these tapes better than you do -- Peter gave them to me. I have the full set in my office closet.


You don't have to, thanks.  I know what she says on the tapes.


Aren't sources great!

Thanks Penny.

;D AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 14, 2005, 06:03:32 PM
For all we know,  AA may have known the habits of the policeman and waited for him to round the corner or as he approached off in the distance before she jumped....

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 14, 2005, 06:17:48 PM
I don't believe AA had a paper bag full of tomatoes in her hands when she leaped into the canal.  Source please.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Merrique on September 14, 2005, 06:31:46 PM
My god I was reading this thread and I could swear someone let my two youngest girls on here.They like picking and fighting at each other too,and they are only 9 and 7.

Published authors,scientists,historians,those passionate about the AA/FS/AN case and all the rest....you all need to step back,breathe and take a chill pill.

All of this backbiting,insulting,fighting and bullcrap(man I wish I could use stronger words here) needs to stop.
This forum is supposed to be a place of learning especially since schools use this site for teaching.We as ADULTS are not setting a very good example.
I don't think we need to teach children how to ridicule someone or insult them,they'll learn that on their own soon enough.

We are all supposed to be adults here.We should be able to discuss things in a civilized manner.Put your inner children back in the cage and behave yourselves.

If this post sounds condescending to some of you,well it's supposed to be.

I know some of you believe one way about this case,and some believe something else.You'd think after this many threads about the same subject and the same answers being passed back and forth you'd all realise it's pointless to argue about it anymore since neither side is going to change their minds.Discuss it as you will if that makes you happy but for the love of pete knock off the fighting already! >:( >:( >:(
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Sarushka on September 14, 2005, 08:20:38 PM
Quote
Some stuff is NEVER going to be found in a 'source' because so much was never written down in the first place, then the people died!


If this stuff was never written down, and then the people died, how did we hear about it in the first place?


My aim here isn't to be snotty. I don't know enough about this case to be able to take up sides. As far as the source debate goes, I'd like to say this:
For someone like me, who hasn't read up a whole lot on this facet of the Romanov literature, sources are important. There is so much rumor and contradiction out there, it's tough to know what to believe. I'm not accusing anybody of making stuff up -- I just want to know where the information comes from so I can look at it too, and draw my own conclusions.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: etonexile on September 14, 2005, 08:36:25 PM
DNA evidence kills all other evidence....but you must wade through all the hair lines,ear shapes,lips,shoe sizes,accents,...and a zillion twisting paths....Just to be fair....
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Sarushka on September 14, 2005, 10:27:11 PM
Quote
I'm talking about the things we DON'T know and will never know, such as who helped her with her charade, and why and how. Obviously, someone did. Of course, people don't go around talking about and writing down stuff like that, so we have no proof. Whatever really happened, these people took their secrets to their graves. All we have now is speculation.  But since we do have the DNA, we know she wasn't AN, so we must realistically conclude everything else was a mistake, a coincidence, or a lie.

I'll grant you that there's plenty we don't know. Was AA coached? I think it's an obvious possibility, but I don't think it's the only possibility, as you imply.

Quote
It is people like you who I post for. I am desperately afraid that people who don't know much history on this will be tricked and misled by those sensationalist types, those with an agenda, or those who are just playing around.

I appreciate the sentiment, but your approach to the matter leaves a bit to be desired. I'm just as willing to consider both opinions and facts, but I wish you'd state your opinions as such. I also wish I could get some information without having to wade through a shouting match.  :P

Quote
Please start with the DNA evidence thread at the top of the page.

You don't have to convince me on the DNA! My opinion is that AA was not AN. The question of whether or not AA was FS intrigues me, however.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: IlyaBorisovich on September 15, 2005, 03:31:01 AM
Quote
You don't have to convince me on the DNA! My opinion is that AA was not AN. The question of whether or not AA was FS intrigues me, however.


What you have to understand about Annie is that to her, anyone who doesn't believe AA was FS does so only because they believe she was AN.  Anyone who doubts AA=FS is part of the agenda-pushing "sensationalists" who only want to sell books, mislead innocent schoolchildren, or live in fairy tale worlds.  Welcome to the world of the conspirists.

Ilya
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: etonexile on September 15, 2005, 09:42:30 AM
Welllll...if one accepts that the DNA evidence shows that AA was not AN....and accepts this information....then shouldn't one accept the same DNA evidence which shows that AA was closely related to the S family....and from my knowlege...no other members of the S family were missing....except FS....
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Sarushka on September 15, 2005, 10:09:12 AM
That sounds perfectly logical, eton. But are ALL the members of the Schanzkowska family accounted for?

Here's why I ask:
I carry my great-grandmother's mtDNA. I know the whereabouts of all her descendants. However, I don't know if she had any female siblings who could have passed on the same mtDNA profile. So there's potentially 3 generations of people out there that I've never met, nor even heard of, who share my mtDNA. And they're not missing; I just don't know anything about them.

Now, I'll grant you, since we know FS went missing, the odds of AA being a Schanzkowska, but not Franziska, are pretty dang slim! (Unless the family as a whole also carries a genetic tendancy toward royal-pretending ;)) But I don't think the possibility can be completely written off.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 15, 2005, 12:34:21 PM
Remember it is not the mtDNA of the  Schanzkowska side, it is the maternal side [mother, if not mother then mother's cousins on the mothers side of the family] which links Gertrude's and AA's mtDNA.  

If AA was not FS then we do not have any DNA of FS.  

Apparently there is a relationship between AA and Gertrude S. .  The mtDNA tells us that they could have been as close as sister or cousins (first cousins or 35th cousin or more).

If AA was FS then the mtDNA  test by Dr. Gill   can link Gertrude as a possible sibling [same mothers] and if not siblings then most likely they were cousins (first to 35th or more] through the maternal side.

At this time DNA/mtDNA cannot tell us who a person is, maybe someday it will, but not at this time, so, it's not like fingerprints which each person carries as their own and no one elses matches.  DNA/mtDNA is best used when we want to know if someone is NOT related.

What do we know about FS's mother?  Not much.  Do we know who her parents were?  I've never seen their names.  This means we have no idea how large FS's maternal family was.  In those days,  families were often very large.  

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 15, 2005, 05:35:05 PM
Quote
Welllll...if one accepts that the DNA evidence shows that AA was not AN....and accepts this information....then shouldn't one accept the same DNA evidence which shows that AA was closely related to the S family....and from my knowlege...no other members of the S family were missing....except FS....


EE you don't make very good sense here, why not try FULL sentences to bring forth the your thoughts, instead of the disjointed & disonnected way in which you post.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 15, 2005, 07:11:28 PM
Quote
That sounds perfectly logical, eton. But are ALL the members of the Schanzkowska family accounted for?

Here's why I ask:
I carry my great-grandmother's mtDNA. I know the whereabouts of all her descendants. However, I don't know if she had any female siblings who could have passed on the same mtDNA profile. So there's potentially 3 generations of people out there that I've never met, nor even heard of, who share my mtDNA. And they're not missing; I just don't know anything about them.

Now, I'll grant you, since we know FS went missing, the odds of AA being a Schanzkowska, but not Franziska, are pretty dang slim! (Unless the family as a whole also carries a genetic tendancy toward royal-pretending ;)) But I don't think the possibility can be completely written off.


But what are the chances that another relative, looking exactly the same, and disappearing on the same day, being the same age and being in the same place? That's about as bad as the odds of any member of the family getting out of the cellar alive. In fact, I'd say I'd believe someone ran out of that cellar before I'd buy the mysterious identical long lost cousin theory.

Have you seen this? That's AA on the left, FS on the right.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/AAFS2.jpg)

The only real difference is the lighting and the head position, making the shadows on the nostrils and eyebrows different. It's the same person.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Sarushka on September 15, 2005, 07:12:49 PM
Quote
Remember it is not the mtDNA of the  Schanzkowska side, it is the maternal side [mother, if not mother then mother's cousins on the mothers side of the family] which links Gertrude's and AA's mtDNA.


You're quite right -- I just don't know Franziska's mother's maiden name!  ;)
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Sarushka on September 15, 2005, 07:38:15 PM
Annie -- I certainly do see the resemblance. It was quite striking for me the first time I saw a photo of FS.

Quote
But what are the chances that another relative, looking exactly the same, and disappearing on the same day, being the same age and being in the same place? That's about as bad as the odds of any member of the family getting out of the cellar alive. In fact, I'd say I'd believe someone ran out of that cellar before I'd buy the mysterious identical long lost cousin theory.

I don't see any reason that the mysterious cousin would have to disappear on the same day or the same place as FS. Mysterious Cousin wouldn't have to be an absolute physical match to FS, either. Here's a scenario -- it's a ridiculous scenario, but stranger things have happened:
Let's say I disappear one day. Let's further say that not long after my disappearance, someone with a striking resemblance to me suddenly claims to be Princess Grace of Monaco. The pretender could be me, or it could be a descendant of my great-grandmother's sister. Let me also say again that I don't know a thing about my great-grandmother's siblings. I don't know of any contact between them and my immediate family since the 1920's, and I think they lived in Canada (I live in the US). Yet we'd both have the same mtDNA, wouldn't we?

Ok, ok, I know it's not really plausible, but it is possible. It would be an out-of-this world coincidence. I also know I'm starting to sound like a desperate defense lawyer grasping at straws, so I'm going to stop. I don't know enough about FS and the controversy surrounding her disappearance to be sure of anything, but I'll gladly admit that the Mysterious Cousin Theory is highly unlikely at best. I'm just tired of people's ideas getting shot down before they've been thought through.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 15, 2005, 08:54:22 PM
Quote
I'm just tired of people's ideas getting shot down before they've been thought through.


Oh, it's not. We've been through this at length, over and over. Maybe you didn't see it but it happened, a lot.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 15, 2005, 10:14:56 PM
Quote

But what are the chances that another relative, looking exactly the same, and disappearing on the same day, being the same age and being in the same place? That's about as bad as the odds of any member of the family getting out of the cellar alive. In fact, I'd say I'd believe someone ran out of that cellar before I'd buy the mysterious identical long lost cousin theory.

Have you seen this? That's AA on the left, FS on the right.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/AAFS2.jpg)

The only real difference is the lighting and the head position, making the shadows on the nostrils and eyebrows different. It's the same person.



The photos look nothing alike, one is SO FADED that you can barely make out the face, the eyebrows, and general shape, and BTW this is the ONLY KNOWN VERIFIABLE photo of Franziska.  

The photo that is "supposed" to be AA, clearly looks doctored to me, and in all reality looks absolutely NOTHING like the other photos of the claimant.  It is always interesting that the source lady can come up with photos when she WANTS to use them, but never a source or a word as to where those photos came from...

As usual more ramming of the DNA factor down the throat.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 16, 2005, 07:17:16 AM
Has anyone else ever considered it odd, I mean really strange, that the detective hired by beloved & non financially motivated (according to Annie ::) ::)), Uncle Ernie hired, had his investigation focus on a migrant Polish farm girl whom the Berlin Police Department had either considered or declared dead???

Why Franziska Schanzkowska, I mean his only REAL evidence was that of the Wingenders, and their credibility was at issue since day one, and their payment by Die Nachtausgabe.  One has to wonder, regardless of what the DNA Gestapo will say, and of course at that time DNA had nothing to do with the investigation, WHY focus your investigation upon a dead or supposedly dead migrant farm girl with no relevant history, education, or means of identifying her, except for one almost completely faded photograph?
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 16, 2005, 08:42:34 AM
Quote
Has anyone else ever considered it odd, I mean really strange, that the detective hired by beloved & non financially motivated (according to Annie ::) ::)), Uncle Ernie hired, had his investigation focus on a migrant Polish farm girl whom the Berlin Police Department had either considered or declared dead???




Has anyone ever found it strange that the detective turned out to be right? He was a good detective. Ernie wanted the claimants to stop not because they were real, but because they were fake, and they caused his family much pain.

The only reason she was called 'dead' was because she vanished in a time when the serial killer was active. It was all circumstantial. There was no body, no proof. If she was so 'dead' why did she become such a big part of the trial, relatives brought in, etc. So they made a wrong assumption, that's all. It happens. The wrong person gets thrown in jail sometimes too.

And those photos look a lot alike, only someone desperately against her being FS would bother to fight it.

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: etonexile on September 16, 2005, 09:58:59 AM
Those strange lips especially...similar....Might such odd lips have been why AA seemed to cover her mouth in latter years?
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 16, 2005, 10:08:44 AM
Quote
Those strange lips especially...similar....Might such odd lips have been why AA seemed to cover her mouth in latter years?


Yes, you are right. I noticed that too. She is often seen biting her lips. This is a way to hide the fact that her mouth was so much larger and her lips so much thicker than Anastasia's were.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/anaa.jpg)
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 16, 2005, 11:46:45 AM
Quote
I do see a difference when using these two photographs.

On the photo of AA I pulled over the eye and mouth of FS and made FS eye and lips  larger because  AA's photo is larger but I did not change AA's mouth or lips.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/FSAAComp4.jpg)
On the photo of FS I pulled over the eye and mouth of AA and made them slightly smaller to match the smaller photo of FS. I did not change the size of the lips and eye of FS.

Pleae notice that the head of AA is tilted down a little so the eye would be rounder then shown here had her head not been tilted.


Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 16, 2005, 11:50:57 AM
Quote
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/FSAAComp6.jpg)

I think these two photos are about as similar as I'm going to be able to show.

In my opinion, the lips, eyes and nose are different.  AA's eyes are wider and more rounded.  FS's eyes are narrower, more almond shape.  The mouths are different.  AA's lips are fuller.  FS's not as full and not as wide.  AA's nose is longer than FS's nose.

Best I can do with the poor grade of quality of FS's photo.

With a clearer photo and more time,  I could show more similarities or less similarities whichever the photos provide.

Like I always say, it doesn't matter to me if FS is AA but if AA isn't FS then I'd sure like to know who she was.

I'm going to look for the photo, now, and deal with the height.

AGRBear

PS:  See noses.  I think FS and Felix have a similar nose:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1115400048;start=0#0

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 16, 2005, 11:54:16 AM
Quote
Here is a very very  generalized [since I'm not doing this for  court] matching of FS and AA's general appearence from two photographs.

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

I tried to match them in size and in height [not thinking about the differences of 4 inches for this project].

AGRBear

Title: RE: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 16, 2005, 11:57:28 AM
Quote

But what are the chances that another relative, looking exactly the same, and disappearing on the same day, being the same age and being in the same place? That's about as bad as the odds of any member of the family getting out of the cellar alive. In fact, I'd say I'd believe someone ran out of that cellar before I'd buy the mysterious identical long lost cousin theory.

Have you seen this? That's AA on the left, FS on the right.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/AAFS2.jpg)

The only real difference is the lighting and the head position, making the shadows on the nostrils and eyebrows different. It's the same person.



Quote
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/AAFSAnnieFc2.jpg)

I've drawn some lines on the same exact photographs Annie has used.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 16, 2005, 12:05:26 PM
Quote

..[in part]..

But what are the chances that another relative, looking exactly the same, and disappearing on the same day, being the same age and being in the same place? That's about as bad as the odds of any member of the family getting out of the cellar alive. In fact, I'd say I'd believe someone ran out of that cellar before I'd buy the mysterious identical long lost cousin theory.
....


AA jumped into the canal in Feb. and FS was not reported missing until March.  

As far as we know,  AA wasn't allowed to leave the hospital or the asylum after she jumped.  So, who was it still returning to AA's room cared for/owned by [??] the Wingander's  until March???

AGRBear

PS  Thought I'd add date:
>>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

FS- Date reported missing:
9 March 1920:  "...Berlin police were duly informed by the Wingenders, on March 9, that she had 'left, leaving no address.'"
Source:  http://www.peterkurth.com/
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: lexi4 on September 17, 2005, 12:15:35 AM
Bear,
Thanks for the dates. Could I ask you for one more? When did the police notify FS's family that she had been murdered by Grossmann?
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 19, 2005, 03:50:58 PM
Quote
Bear,
Thanks for the dates. Could I ask you for one more? When did the police notify FS's family that she had been murdered by Grossmann?


Hmmmm, it  seems we have lost pages after 21 which included my answer about the dates which were very interesting and very revealing.

Before I go into the effort of finding the information, again, could Lisa or someone who is monitoring and has eliminated all the  posts from, 21-? on this thread let us know what is hapening???

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: LisaDavidson on September 19, 2005, 05:13:13 PM
Bear:

I'm sorry the date information was removed. I will see if they are retrievable.

As to the removed posts, I was unfortunately unable to Moderate a satisfactory conclusion to all of the inappropriate behavior exhibited during the weekend.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 19, 2005, 05:42:50 PM
Not to worry.  You've had enough problems to solve today.  I'll go find the information, again.

Take care and our thoughts are with you in your lost.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 19, 2005, 06:13:12 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  

FS- Date reported missing:  
9 March 1920:  "...Berlin police were duly informed by the Wingenders, on March 9, that she had 'left, leaving no address.'"  
Source:  http://www.peterkurth.com/

13 Aug 1920
>>It is of interrest that Grossmann was indirectly involved in the famous 'Anastasia' case-- the Grand Duchess Anastasia who was belieed by many to th the last surviving member of the Tsar's famly.  At one point it was announced that 'Anastasia' was really an impostor named Franziska Schamzkovski, a Polish girl from Buetow in Pomerania.  Franziska's family were told that their daughter had been murdered by Grossmann on 13 August 1920; and entry in his diary on the date fore the name of 'Sasnovski', Anastasia's [Anna Anderson's] enemies insisted that this was not true, that Franziska and Anastasia were the same person.<< pps. 243-4  Encyclopeida of Murder by Wilson and Pitman published in 1962 so this information didn't just pop up, it  has been known since 1921 in Aug. when Grossmann was found with one of is victims (>>..trussed-up carcass of a recently killed girl<<) and a diary in his flat in Berlin.

The Berlin police were not Keystone cops, they were the best there were in the world at that time.  They were the first to start files on fingerprints.  They took fingerprints of AA while she was at Dalldorf Asylum which they did with all the patience.  Germans love records and they were/are good at keeping records.  They, also, took  photographs of AA, one of which is on this thread, in the first month, I think it was,  and sent the photograph and the fingerprints to many places including Posen which is the main city in Pomerania.  The Berlin police discovered there were missing girls which fit AA's description.  The police brought a member of these families of the missing girls which fit AA's description and they met with AA.   I assume they sent the same fingerprints and photograph to the asylums in which FS had frequented before she disappeared to see if one of their patients were missing....  

As to the name' Sasnovski' found in Grossmann's diary.  Many laugh and say this isn't even close to FS's name.  I have shown with the use of the soundex which I used frequently in my genealogy research that Sasnovski is one of the spellings.  Also, remember, Grossmann was not Polish so he wrote the name down as he heard it.  

AA was in a hospital and then in an asylum and didn't go anywhere after the 18th of Feb. .

FS was NOT reported missing until the 9th of March?

It was because the Berlin police were not Keystone cops that they knew AA was not FS.  How?   Fingerprints?  Possibily.  Photographs? Possibily.  They had checked other city as well as their own records.

If AA's oposition could have proven AA was FS don't you think they would have?  Why couldn't they?  FS was murdered and could not have been AA.

There is the fact of no body of FS's  to bury.  So, ask yourself this:  How many girls were missing in 1920 who had a name similar to Schamzkovski?  None that we know about accept FS and it was her last name which was  written in Grossman's diary. And, it was to FS's family whom the police visited and told that their daughter had been murdered 13 Aug 1920 by Grossmann.

When the Winganders were questions,  it is proven that they lied under oath.  The one thing they could not change was the date they had reported FS missing.  Why?  Because the Berlin police kept excellent records.

AGRBear

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on September 19, 2005, 08:23:04 PM
Thank you for your interesting info and for the photos,   Bear.

But even if AA's and FS features are different, we must also repeat that all the FS's known pics are retouched. This fact, at least for me, speak for itself...Why people retouches a pic? Make your own mind in this subject.

Adding to this, I would want to recall that this thread was created in order to do our own research. But "research" is not post our own opinion here. I can said that AA was not similar to FS , but this is not useful.My opinion would be subjetive. For me, she is not FS. Annie's opinion would also be subjetive: she'll see AA very similar to FS. The exercise I proposed was to go to some anthropological , forensic and similar experts to said what they think about this case. So, you must post what OTHERS thinks about AA_FS_AN. You must still think that AA was FS, but the experience will you teach some important, interesting things and you'll grow as an human being. For me, besides the fact of AA being AN or anyone else, I learn a great deal of things interviewing people and discussing different interesting subjects.

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: lexi4 on September 19, 2005, 09:06:41 PM
Is it possible that they never found FS's body because Grossman chopped his victims into little pieces?
Also were FS's parents told on Aug. 13 that their daughter was murdered? Or was she murdered on Aug 13?
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 20, 2005, 10:48:25 AM
  Grossmann was not arrested until Aug. of 1921 and in his diary dated 13 Aug 1920 he had the name which we assume was FS's last name.

Yes, it is known that Grossmann sold his victim's meat  and one of the reasons Felix S. said that his sister had been "sausage"....  Don't recall his exact quote.  (No books around me this morning to find the source.)

Yes, Real Anastasina,  the photo of FS which I used is probably a copy of a copy of a copy.... and, it may have been retouched.  Over on the photo thread I asked the poster if anyone had ever seen the photo which they thought was the original.   I don't recall if anyone had the answer..... Penny may have.  I'll have to go check.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 20, 2005, 01:28:58 PM
Quote
 
Yes, Real Anastasina,  the photo of FS which I used is probably a copy of a copy of a copy.... and, it may have been retouched.  Over on the photo thread I asked the poster if anyone had ever seen the photo which they thought was the original.   I don't recall if anyone had the answer..... Penny may have.  I'll have to go check.

AGRBear


Retouched photo of FS (center)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/aafs.jpg)

unretouched version (right)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/AAFS2.jpg)


Title:  Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on September 20, 2005, 09:12:06 PM
Yes, Annie. I know what you are trying to said to me: these women are identical even if the photos are retouched. My answer is : yes...They are similar ...BECAUSE the pic was retouched. It was made in order to make AA similar to FS. And we have not a sinlge FS photo without retouching in it.

But even like this, my fellow anthropologist (you'll said he is a perfect fool) said to me that he noticed in a glance that the women in the less retouched photos was not the same than AA. He spoke about her nose, her eyes, her mouth, her chin and even her neck  ??? (I don't really notice this, for I see all the necks as being similar  ;D) being different. Go and see the less retouched pic of FS in Peter Kurth site, or try to find this pic in a book.

My anthropologist also noticed something odd in the other two retouched photos. I only said that they were retouched over the end of our conversation. But he guessed it first and noticed that the two other photos (the more retouched ones) had "something whitish in them" ...as if they were somehow retouched. No more, nor less. Later when we were together in the cafeteria, he said to me that even the hairdoss were different in the less retouched pic and the other two...

I must confess that I wanted to go out of my box, but the people to whom I consulted the case, didn't let me doing so... ;D.

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: rosebud on September 22, 2005, 03:37:44 PM
Hello,
I have always been wondering of AAs swollen face in the early pictures, but the explanation that RealAnastasia told she had read (nutritional problems) answers my question. It is quite obvious in fact, I have seen similar cases in real life. Just didnt relate things to each other. The resemblance between AA and AN is anyways remarkable (and have you noticed the humorous wit in ANs eyes which is seen in AAs look too).
I have always been a bit scared of the photo of FS, the person in the picture has such a nonhuman glance in her eyes. Maybe because of the retouching (she could be from outer space too) And the comparing of photos, wow, that is totally scary.
I have a problem with our blackandwhite past I fear.

Thank you anyway about this most interesting thread (I have to admit I enjoy aggressive debat to certain point)
It is nice that there is room for speculation; that there is things to wonder behind the holy truths of The Science.

and to my great amusement...somebody here writes using Barbara Cartlands tactic...very meny points between sentences...although the contents differ from hers...and dont you who writes this way take this as an insult...I think you are a male and therefore might not have read her books...and there is nothing wrong to write as you do...you just reminded me of my past reading habits :D

R





Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 22, 2005, 05:48:31 PM
Quote
There's an old post from Penny that I can't find. She talked about being unable to locate the photos of FS that had been used in court. I'm fairly sure she said they hadn't "surfaced." Also that "Ian" (I'm pretty sure that's Ian Lilburn) had said that the published photo of FS was the one that looked the least like her, based upon the other photos.


Follow the thread back to jaa's comments on photographs.  He talks about the camera, the angles, the white stuff used to retouch photographs on the older photos and ...  Well, just take a look if the retrouched photographs are of interest to you.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on September 23, 2005, 11:21:22 PM
Quote
Hello,
I have always been wondering of AAs swollen face in the early pictures, but the explanation that RealAnastasia told she had read (nutritional problems) answers my question. It is quite obvious in fact, I have seen similar cases in real life. Just didnt relate things to each other. The resemblance between AA and AN is anyways remarkable (and have you noticed the humorous wit in ANs eyes which is seen in AAs look too).
I have always been a bit scared of the photo of FS, the person in the picture has such a nonhuman glance in her eyes. Maybe because of the retouching (she could be from outer space too) And the comparing of photos, wow, that is totally scary.
I have a problem with our blackandwhite past I fear.

Thank you anyway about this most interesting thread (I have to admit I enjoy aggressive debat to certain point)
It is nice that there is room for speculation; that there is things to wonder behind the holy truths of The Science.

and to my great amusement...somebody here writes using Barbara Cartlands tactic...very meny points between sentences...although the contents differ from hers...and dont you who writes this way take this as an insult...I think you are a male and therefore might not have read her books...and there is nothing wrong to write as you do...you just reminded me of my past reading habits :D

R







I must agree with you in a 100%...But...Barbara Cartland? As far as I know she writes rosy romantic tales...Isn't it? What have this author to do with Anna Anderson and Anastasia? Sprry..Perhaps my post have something to do with my ignorance...I never read Barbara Cartland novels for I never read this kind of litterature.  :-[

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 24, 2005, 08:22:54 AM
Quote

I must agree with you in a 100%...But...Barbara Cartland? As far as I know she writes rosy romantic tales...Isn't it? What have this author to do with Anna Anderson and Anastasia? Sprry..Perhaps my post have something to do with my ignorance...I never read Barbara Cartland novels for I never read this kind of litterature.  :-[
RealAnastasia.


RA, you are not ignorant! Everyone reads different things, I have read tons of books but never any of Cartland's either. I'm sure you and I have read many things that other people haven't. No one is stupid! We are all exposed to different things, and have different interests!

Isn't Cartland Princess Diana's stepmother or something? I think I heard that somewhere once, I could be wrong, anyone know?
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Prince_Lieven on September 24, 2005, 08:24:32 AM
Cartland was the stepgrandmother of Diana, Princess of Wales.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 24, 2005, 06:15:23 PM
Quote
Cartland was the stepgrandmother of Diana, Princess of Wales.


Thank you :)

I like your avatar and quote, love Star Wars!
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Prince_Lieven on September 24, 2005, 06:34:56 PM
LOL - thanks. Fett rules.  8) ;D
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on September 24, 2005, 08:54:04 PM
Ah...Yes. Now, I know who Barbara Cartland is...I think that this lady was this one who loved to wear pink clothes and stuff...I'm right?

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: rosebud on September 25, 2005, 03:07:22 AM
My remark was totally irrelevant, sorry! I was just amused, because havent seen this kind of writing style used by anyone except Ms Cartland. Using
three dots in a row (I dont remember the word in english for that)in between lines. I have a feeling that the one I am referring to is not pleased, and I could have just shut my mouth. But I didnt mean it in a mean or hostile way, it just gives me a nice and warm flashback to my childhood when I read her books. Of course what is said by the two differs much; the referred one has a very clever mind (and I really enjoy his humour)! Barbara on the other hand, she had love in her mind all the time.

I like popular literature. Barbara Cartland, the pinkish lady, who wrote hundreds and hudreds of (totally similar) romantic stories which were placed in (upperclass) history, is not perhaps a literal master, but she popularized history for the grassroot. Which is always a nice thing to do. (My fantasy is to write cheap novels someday, not very ambitious I must say) The three dots -thing recurred in her work especially in the "lovemaking" situations, like
...his powerful arms...she was almost fainting inside his bearlike hug...her icy skin had a pinkish hew of excitement...

So thats it. Now I have to go back to compare the AA-AN-FS  -photographes once again. It is morning, so I dont have to try to get asleep very soon.

Hope didnt make anyone upset.

R
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 25, 2005, 08:33:08 AM
Quote
My remark was totally irrelevant, sorry! I was just amused, because havent seen this kind of writing style used by anyone except Ms Cartland.


This is funny, because it reminds me of something that happened on another message board. It was a forum for a famous musical group, and one day someone started posting there claiming to be a member of this band. He had the right name, and the admins gave him hnis own status- this was supposed to be the real guy. But one thing led to another and we began to get suspicious he was a fake. To make a very long story short, we became SURE he was a fake, and the only question that remained was who was doing the faking.

Then we noticed...the pattern of typing with those three dots... between everything...and ending every post with a particular green smilie. Who wrote like that? Aha, the answer was one of the girls on the staff. Sadly, they were behind the whole thing, and the three dots was instrumental in giving them away!
Quote
Hope didnt make anyone upset.

R


Nope, in fact, this is the most good natured discussion we have had here in ages, thank you  for changing the subject :)
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 25, 2005, 04:21:17 PM
Actually,  the three "..." means a sentence is started in the middle and the "...." means the sentence is not finished and the fourth "."  refers to the period which end the sentence not completed.

Instead of thinking it's one person's style,  it may indicate our ages and when we went through college English courses.

...often use it because I'm far too lazy to write everything....

;D  AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 26, 2005, 11:31:47 AM
Quote
Sorry, Annie, but Penny is right. Bear help me and posted the right info, quoting Peter Kurth. I was going to search the book when I saw her post.

Nevertheless, I would want to state CLEARLY the chronologie of the "ecognition" of AA, BY A NURSE, not by Clara Peuthert or another patient from Dalldorf.

Here I go:

Nurse Bucholz, who had lived in Russia spoke with AA about Russia and Russian matters. AA said matter-of-factly "I know all this" and spoke with her fluently in Russian. Nurse Bucholz claimed that she speak it without impediments and not faultly (Page 10) Summer of 1920


Nurse Bertha Waltz surprised Fräulein Unbekannt staring to a magazine and they chattered about a daughter of the Tsar   who escaped from Russia. (Page 11) Summer of 1920

AA showed to nurse Thea Malinovsky a "Berliner Illustrierte" magazine to see if she noticed some ressemblance between her and a daughter of the Tsar. Thea Malinovsky, after some hesitation said, yes. AA pointed to Anastasia. (Page 11 and 12) Summer of 1920

In Automn of 1921 AA declared that she was Anastasia And proposed Thea Malinovsky to run away with her to Africa, in order to join the French Foreign Legion as nurses. She was afraid of doctors, that she thought they were Bolsheviks and were conspirating against her. (Page 12)

Clara Peuthert was admitted in Dalldorf at the end of the 1921. It's not clear in the book but it seems that Clara recognized AA as Tatiana in 1922 or the end of 1921 (Page 14)

So, Annie...Why are you doing this? We are all free: I can think that AA was AN; you may think she was not and that she was FS. All is all right. But PLEASE. Don't spread information that is not true. If you believe that right are in your side , fight for truth saying the truth. And I'm saying this very sad, not angry.

RealAnastasia.



RA,

Just for the record, Nurse Erna Bucholz was one of the nurses that deposed that AA could speak and converse in Russian.  

I have always felt that the depositions of these nurses, the people who knew her or saw her in those early days, before the media feeding frenzy took over, are some of our best sources to glean an unbiased glimpse of this complex character.

It is ridiculous to me that this pro FS clan assumes that she was taught at Dalldorf &  learned what she knew from Dalldorf's meager library, and Clara Peuthert.  
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 26, 2005, 12:50:15 PM
 
Quote
...[in part]....

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/AAFS2.jpg)




Photo on left is AA.  Photo on right is FS.

The photos of FS  which has two white dotes in her hair are copies from the copy of a photographer who copied a copy of a photo of FS who mihgt have had lint on his glass slide.

I don't recall where Penny's post is where she told us this fact.

AGRBear

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on September 26, 2005, 07:33:22 PM
I guess where is now the set of AA-FS retouched photos that Doris Wingender show to the judges in AA German Trials. I always liked to have my own opinion in all subjects I'm studying. I wish I may some day see the photo of AA in the Zoo with the clothes retouched, with the buttons and belt clearly painted over the pic...Where are they?

I must confess that there is a thing that is bothering me since some time ago: Why all the "Anna Anderson's" books have so awful photos in them? It's almost impossible to  compare AA with FS or AN, by the way. We doesn't see her face and features clearly, and they are little pics, taken by far and, in general, showing a very poor quality. And this is in books against and pro-AA.  Blair Lovell book have very bad pics (and he confounded Maria with Anastasia); Peter Kurth's one too, and Gilliard's one is awful. To do my own comparison, I search AA, FS and AN photos by myself, in papers, other books not related to "Anastasia's mistery", and of course, in the net.

But, it isn't fair. The readers MUST see good photos. What do you think about this?

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: rosebud on September 27, 2005, 10:37:02 AM
I agree. I have seen only few "normal" pictures of AA, usually she is covering part of her face, which makes the photo a source only for imagination. I need a GOOD one! Right away!

I also have always wondered how it is possible that there is only one surviving photograph of FS. If she wasnt from such a poor origins. My ancestors (who where about the same age at the same time as FS)were really poor and lived in a forest far far away from the nearest city or even village, but there are more than one picture of each of them. What is the conspiracy behind it all? Or is there more pictures and I just have missed that interesting piece of information? Or was it a specifically Finnish tradition to pay for photos of yourself although there wasnt money even for food?

Could be that there is again a completely understandable explanation I have read but do not remember. In this thread even. I have read it though.

R
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: etonexile on September 27, 2005, 07:16:23 PM
Quote
I guess where is now the set of AA-FS retouched photos that Doris Wingender show to the judges in AA German Trials. I always liked to have my own opinion in all subjects I'm studying. I wish I may some day see the photo of AA in the Zoo with the clothes retouched, with the buttons and belt clearly painted over the pic...Where are they?

I must confess that there is a thing that is bothering me since some time ago: Why all the "Anna Anderson's" books have so awful photos in them? It's almost impossible to  compare AA with FS or AN, by the way. We doesn't see her face and features clearly, and they are little pics, taken by far and, in general, showing a very poor quality. And this is in books against and pro-AA.  Blair Lovell book have very bad pics (and he confounded Maria with Anastasia); Peter Kurth's one too, and Gilliard's one is awful. To do my own comparison, I search AA, FS and AN photos by myself, in papers, other books not related to "Anastasia's mistery", and of course, in the net.

But, it isn't fair. The readers MUST see good photos. What do you think about this?

RealAnastasia.


Would a clear,sharp,colour piccie change the DNA evidence?....AA was not AN...etc.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on September 27, 2005, 07:54:38 PM
And not only AA 's and FS photos are not clear in those books, but Anastasia's ones...I can't understand exactly why.  ???  

And yes...I...am... very...stubborn...so...I'll keep posting such condide and idiot messages...here...sorry... ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

RealAnastasia.  ;D
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Malenkaya on September 28, 2005, 12:01:23 PM
Quote

Would a clear,sharp,colour piccie change the DNA evidence?....AA was not AN...etc.



That's not the point.  The point is that we haven't got to see what people back then got to see.  Back before DNA evidence existed.  Lots of people who knew AN believed in AA.  They swore they were the same person, and in order for that to happen, they must have thought they looked alike.  We would just like some nice, up close photos of both in order to see why they thought this.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on September 28, 2005, 11:04:06 PM
You are wrong...I'm not speaking about some nice close up pics who would be similar . I'm speaking about anthropological science and forensic studies, that will never dissapear even after DNA.  DNA and athropology studies different things, as well as graphological science. History doesn't finish with archeology or numismatic, who are history helpers...Anthropology and graphology did important discoveries in AA-AN-FS identity and we can't dismiss them so easily. It's like saying that we don't believe in those sciences having their own status among the others.

I'm not speaking about circunstancial evidence, but in other sciences findings. The guy that said to me that AA could not be other than AN was an anthropological expert, not a good boy who only "thinks" that AA could have been AN. Anthropologic experts does comparison in facial features millimeter by millimeter, and my anthropological friend was not interested in AA or FS. He didn't know who they were. He only concluded saying coldly: "This woman (pointing AA ) is the same than this other (he pointed AN). He could not be this other one (he pointed FS)".

You are basically saying that genetics is more important than anthropology , or graphology, or forensic evidence....This is not serious at all.  Usually, genetics confirms what the other sciences said (For example, the soccer player Maradona had had a boy with a napolitan woman in Italy. He denied he was his son. Anthropological experts said he was his son. DNA confirmed it later) In AA case, DNA said that she was FS, a fact denied for all the anthropological , graphological and forensic test...without speaking about retouched photos. Why in heart you'll want to retouch a photo if you are sure that FS was AA?

Sorry. My English is just awful, but I hope you'll understand what I was trying to said... :-/

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: LyliaM on September 29, 2005, 08:28:13 AM
RA -- On the contrary,  I find your English quite impressive, given the complexity of the topics you are discussing!  (I'm pretty sure your English is far better than my Spanish. ;D)  Your post goes to the heart of what really troubles me in this matter.  It does not make sense, from a purely scientific point of view, that the photographic comparisons, handwriting analyses, comparisons of the ears, and other forensic studies (conducted by people who were/are known experts in their fields) would ALL be SO DIAMETRICALLY opposed to the DNA results.  I just viewed the Nova special from ten years ago entitled "Anastasia:  Dead or Alive?" and, while I was disappointed that they did not present all of the forensic evidence (which I can understand, given the one-hour time limitation and also the fact that the DNA results had just come in, so the producers had reached their conclusion anyway), it was quite obvious that the experts analyzing photographs of the ears of AA and AN had no explanation whatsoever for the uncanny correspondences between both the right and left ears.  They stated that it was "really significant."  And, as RA has pointed out, we can all see with our own eyes that the ears of AA and AN were, in fact, connected to their heads.  There's something extremely strange here and I am very bothered by it.  
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: etonexile on September 29, 2005, 08:29:31 AM
Yes...we understand what you are saying...but DNA trumps all the other sciences and pseudo-sciences...it is the closest thing we have to a genetic "fingerprint"..."smoking gun"...etc.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: LyliaM on September 29, 2005, 08:40:21 AM
Etonexile -- I'm certainly not a scientist, but I am good friends with a man who has a PhD in molecular biology and has worked on forensic matters and within the biotech field for years.  He maintains that the DNA does NOT automatically trump all other forensic evidence and that, in his experience, the DNA would be considered IN CONJUNCTION WITH the other forensic evidence if you were trying to determine an individual's identity.  This guy is a very smart and hard-headed individual with no investment whatsoever in the AA/AN matter (and he likes DNA!), but he flatly stated that it's scientifically incorrect to rely solely on DNA and that he would never do so in a case where all of the other forensics pointed in the another direction. (He also had some extremely interesting and juicy tidbits about cases he's seen where the DNA has come back totally screwed up for various reasons, but I can't go into details, much as I would like to, because he would never speak to me again!)
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 29, 2005, 06:00:53 PM
Quote
Yes...we understand what you are saying...but DNA trumps all the other sciences and pseudo-sciences...it is the closest thing we have to a genetic "fingerprint"..."smoking gun"...etc.



Get off the treadmill EE..
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 29, 2005, 06:08:15 PM
Quote
Etonexile -- I'm certainly not a scientist, but I am good friends with a man who has a PhD in molecular biology and has worked on forensic matters and within the biotech field for years.  He maintains that the DNA does NOT automatically trump all other forensic evidence and that, in his experience, the DNA would be considered IN CONJUNCTION WITH the other forensic evidence if you were trying to determine an individual's identity.  This guy is a very smart and hard-headed individual with no investment whatsoever in the AA/AN matter (and he likes DNA!), but he flatly stated that it's scientifically incorrect to rely solely on DNA and that he would never do so in a case where all of the other forensics pointed in the another direction. (He also had some extremely interesting and juicy tidbits about cases he's seen where the DNA has come back totally screwed up for various reasons, but I can't go into details, much as I would like to, because he would never speak to me again!)



Lylia,

Excellent post, great input, and to think all of these months we have been having the infallibility of DNA shoved daily down our throats, like White House press releases....
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 29, 2005, 06:37:15 PM
We also have trained scientists like Helen and DaveK here on this forum, and they tell a different story.

About the ears, it is interesting how those of you who discount the FS photo as 'old, faded and grainy' and therefore useless put so much significance in the ear research which was also done from an old, black and white grainy photo!

The DNA really does take priority over the other more fallible, more prone to human error things. Any court in the world would consider the DNA to be the last word.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Mgmstl on September 29, 2005, 07:17:47 PM
Quote
We also have trained scientists like Helen and DaveK here on this forum, and they tell a different story.

About the ears, it is interesting how those of you who discount the FS photo as 'old, faded and grainy' and therefore useless put so much significance in the ear research which was also done from an old, black and white grainy photo!

The DNA really does take priority over the other more fallible, more prone to human error things. Any court in the world would consider the DNA to be the last word.



Ho hum....more from the same treadmill.  Annie get it through your head DNA is NOT as infallible as you seem to think it is.   You need to stop marching with that bass drum banging it, because there are those of us out there who feel there is more to this than the DNA.

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: RealAnastasia on September 29, 2005, 07:19:20 PM
The problem is that more than one anthropological , forensic, graphological, etc, etc were performed in AA , all but one with the same results. The first graphologic test, in the late 20's, commanded by the Duke of Hesse (Uncle Ernie), that was performed by a graphologist that DIDN'T KNOW to whom the writing samples belonged to, conclude that AA's ones came from the same hand than AN's ones...

All the experts I consulted (even if Etonexile would laugh at hem I ASSURE you they are serious and responsible and people with high reputation in the scientific Argentinian community) said the same. My DNA expert repeated almost the same than the one that LyliaM consulted, and I had trouble with my forensic-anthropologist friend, for I insisted that AA was FS (not for I believe this but to challenge him) and he had concluded otherwise. When I pointed how similar AA was to FS, he exploded and accused me to being an idiot, a guilible creature, an stubborn (You see...Here, people said the same to me for not believing that AA was FS. Now, a friend get angry with me for saying the opposite. ..People is very complicated.  :-/ ). Of course, when I said proudly to him what DNA said, he was the first saying that this results would have been faked in some way. He is trained to recognize faces in a glance and he swears, even today that he knows already the DNA results, that AA was AN. When I said that "DNA could not be never faked and never is wrong" he simply  laughed at me and proposed me to go to see Dr. Otamendi, his colleague an DNA and geneticist expert. If someone is interested in his conclusions, PM me and I post the entire interview to you.

RealAnastasia.

P.S: As I said sometime ago, Professor Kuz get interested in Anastasia-Anna Anderson and Franziska Schanzkowska's stories...So, I have him surfing in the net reading all he can about the subject. He ordered the Peter Kurth's book and I gave him some others from my collection, against and in favor of AA's claim. I must confess that he was surfing in this site extensively, but he doesn't want to post here. He said to me shortly: "Some people there is a little wild and I wouldn't get in trouble." I don't agree with him. I like here, even if sometimes we fight a little.  ;D
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: LyliaM on September 29, 2005, 07:31:42 PM
This is a question  for all of you litigators out there who have extensive trial and evidentiary experience.  (I am a lawyer myself, but with a purely transactional background, and I'm ashamed to say that my law school evidence classes aren't terribly fresh in my mind ... and, in any event, evidentiary standards have doubtless evolved since 1988 when I graduated!)  Is it in fact the case that any court, anywhere, would unilaterally defer to DNA evidence, even if there were a significant body of diametrically-opposed forensic evidence in existence?  I don't in any way allege that the scientists who performed the DNA tests in this case didn't do an impeccable job, and I'm aware that the results from the AA intestine sample came back exactly the same from four different labs.  The thing that bugs me, and this has REALLY bugged me for reasons I can't fully articulate, is the fact that there is such significant forensic evidence from highly-qualified sources that would lead to the opposite conclusion.  It's not possible to reconcile the DNA with the other forensic tests, and I find it bothersome.  

And, for the record, the photos of Anastasia's ears used in the Nova special were no less grainy that those taken of AA's ears in 1956 or whenever it was.  (I haven't personally found that all photos taken prior to 1920 are grainy, unintelligible messes.)
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 29, 2005, 08:07:00 PM
We do not have at our disposal the acutal photographs.  I assume most were taken by professionals and therefore only became blury or grainy when not blown up properly or blown up too large because it as needed to do so for the tv programs.

We just have copies of copies of photo of FS and according to Greg King it is not known what the original photo looked like since we don't have one.

As to the various evidence given here and elsewhere,  I think the following is an interesting view:

"For decades to come, after the family," [Imperial Russian Family]," vanished, each time the Romanov name was uttered in some circles, participants would faithfully retell one of the versions that had been spun over the years by those who had ulterior motives.  Even now the search for the truth has been made more difficult because of the coutless obfuscations and half-truths.  The burden of proof from a legal perspective has certainly not been met and unforuntately, the bar has been lowered for the historical standard.".  pps. 217-218 from THE PLOTS TO RESCUE THE TSAR by Shay McNeal.

AGRBear






Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on September 29, 2005, 08:32:59 PM
Quote
As to the various evidence given here and elsewhere,  I think the following is an interesting view:

"For decades to come, after the family," [Imperial Russian Family]," vanished, each time the Romanov name was uttered in some circles, participants would faithfully retell one of the versions that had been spun over the years by those who had ulterior motives.  Even now the search for the truth has been made more difficult because of the coutless obfuscations and half-truths.  The burden of proof from a legal perspective has certainly not been met and unforuntately, the bar has been lowered for the historical standard.".  pps. 217-218 from THE PLOTS TO RESCUE THE TSAR by Shay McNeal.

AGRBear








Annouchka:

"For years the peasants have whispered amongst themselves of four beautiful sisters dressed in moonlight moving through the trees of the forest . . . four . . .but now I know there can be only three!"


ANASTASIA by Marcelle Maurette, Act II.

I mean, if we are going to introduce melodramatic language into the discussion, Shay McNeal isn't the only one who can write it . . .

Everytime the Romanov name was uttered there would be a Pavlovian reaction in certain circles? And Shay knows this because she was a fly on the wall taking notes?
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 29, 2005, 08:35:25 PM
Quote

Annouchka:

"For years the peasant have whispered of four beautiful sisters moving through the trees of the forest . . . four . . .but know I know there can be only three!


ANASTASIA by Marcelle Maurette, Act II.



I would like to think they are all still out there, waiting to be awakened after a hundred years, like Sleeping Beauty princesses. But alas, what I would like to think,  and reality, are not the same thing :'(
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: etonexile on September 30, 2005, 08:50:09 AM
Life on the treadmill...
If the DNA only pointed in one direction...that AA was not related to ANY(as in none,zero,zilch,nada) member of the IF...that should be enough for most sentient beings...but it points also in the direction that AA was most likely a member of the S family...as suspected....You couldn't write fiction this way and not get smirks....

And as to all who have "scientist friends" who don't accept DNA evidence...I doubt they represent all their fellows...I know scientists who believe in "Intelligent Design"...Like they can be taken seriously....
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: LyliaM on September 30, 2005, 09:13:37 AM
Many would counter that it's precisely the fact that the DNA results purportedly illustrate not only that AA was not only (1) NOT related to the IF, but that she was (2) ALSO most likely a Polish factory worker (one possessed of remarkable powers of clairvoyance, personal persuasion , and ties within the highest political circles of the day, who also somehow managed to study and memorize personal details of the Russian and European families' interrelationships, personal residences, and personal effects, and somehow lucked out by having AN's mole-removal scar, bunions, height,  eye color, hair color, multiple stab wounds -- oh yeah, and ears -- and convinced somebody to smash her face with a rifle but so that it would look like she had been endangered), that make the DNA test results appear a wee bit odd.  Etonexile, I find your assertion that "you couldn't write fiction this way and not get smirks" more applicable to the set of circumstances I've just described.

And, to clarify my scientist friend's position on this (to the extent that he has a position, which is questionable, since he is not at all interested in this matter), he does not question the validity of DNA.  What he said he would question, in THIS CASE, is the fact that the DNA is utterly at odds with all of the other forensic evidence.   My friend is one of 13 individuals worldwide who has an expertise in the area of bioinformatics, and his credentials are beyond reproach.  So I must object to any implication that he's some dimestore amateur just throwing his half-baked opinions out there for the hell of it.

Again, I am curious as to why people who think this entire matter is a waste of time would bother to visit this forum and post the same tired statements, over and over again.   The argument of saving generations of innocents from the scourge of disinformation doesn't hold water.  Many of the posters on these boards (if they're even still here, that is) are well-respected historians who  have been able to provide sources for all of their statements, so to the extent that they don't accept the DNA results as the final dispositive word in this matter, they're doing so with well-documented historical facts to back up their arguments.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on September 30, 2005, 09:27:52 AM
Dear Lylia,

You make excellent points. Does your friend have an opinion as to how the DNA evidence could not only have  been at odds with the anthropological evidence, but actually supported the identification as the woman Andersen was originally accused of being? This is not meant as a snappy comeback, by the way. I am really curious as to whether this could have happened without some kind of switch, i.e. is there any way of looking at the DNA evidence as in and of itself being wrong without human involvement to tamper with it?

Simon
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: LyliaM on September 30, 2005, 09:49:15 AM
Simon -- I will certainly ask him that.  I'm sure he will have some type of opinion, since he generally does!  He is not the sort of person to accept statements without credible scientific evidence to support them.

And yes, I do find the notion that the tissue sample could somehow have been switched (yes, I'm picturing QEII herself sneaking into a lab, cloaked in a black catsuit under cover of darkest night, to effect the switch) utterly preposterous, by the way. I just want an answer , and I recognize that I'm probably never going to get it.  (Masochism at its finest. )
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 30, 2005, 09:58:22 AM
Quote
Many would counter that it's precisely the fact that the DNA results purportedly illustrate not only that AA was not only (1) NOT related to the IF, but that she was (2) ALSO most likely a Polish factory worker (one possessed of remarkable powers of clairvoyance, personal persuasion , and ties within the highest political circles of the day, who also somehow managed to study and memorize personal details of the Russian and European families' interrelationships, personal residences, and personal effects,


She didn't know that much, and some things she got wrong. Other things could easily have been told to her by Russian emigres, there were very many in Europe in the 1920's! While I do think she was purposely 'fed' info by some, much of it could have been inadvertently told to her in stories, or leading questions, and she picked up on it. But she didn't see any of it first hand, she wasn't Anastasia. SOMEBODY had to tell her, and there are many who would have known.

Quote
and somehow lucked out by having AN's mole-removal scar, bunions, height,  eye color, hair color,


I don't know about a mole, but bunions are not uncommon, especially among people who spend a lot of time on their feet. Hair can be dyed. We only have black and white pics anyway. Many women are five foot two, eyes of blue- there's even a song about it.

Quote
multiple stab wounds --


Or is this from that grenade explosion at the munitions factory where FS worked? Oh sure, one person is now claiming this never happened, seems to be like a convenient way of getting rid of FS, like the Grossman stuff. It was known to have happened all those years ago, and is mentioned in several books, including Massie's. It would take quite a bit to convince me otherwise. But even if that wasn't the cause, she could have gotten it some other way, how about running from Grossman? However AA got those injuries, they did not take place in a cellar in Ekaterinburg, and survive a 2,800 muddy cart ride through rough terrain and all types of weather with no medical care.


Quote
oh yeah, and ears --


Grainy black and white photo.

Quote
and convinced somebody to smash her face with a rifle but so that it would look like she had been endangered),


If AN were smashed in the face with a rifle butt, her face would look like a damaged, messed up version of her own face, not a completely different woman's face.

Quote
that make the DNA test results appear a wee bit odd.  


DNA is solid proof, all the other stuff was always questionable, now we have the final answer of who was right and who was not.


Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 30, 2005, 10:03:15 AM
Quote

Annouchka:

"For years the peasants have whispered amongst themselves of four beautiful sisters dressed in moonlight moving through the trees of the forest . . . four . . .but now I know there can be only three!"


ANASTASIA by Marcelle Maurette, Act II.




And why would the play have to be changed?  According to the majority GD Anastasia died that night and was buried near the mass grave.  Are you telling me, now, that she wasn't killed that night?  

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: LyliaM on September 30, 2005, 10:05:46 AM
Annie -- Your post has left me speechless.  

I take everything I said back.  I had no idea there were such credible explanations for every point I raised!

Now hanging her head in shame at her ignorance,

LyliaM
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on September 30, 2005, 10:50:27 AM
Quote


And why would the play have to be changed?  According to the majority GD Anastasia died that night and was buried near the mass grave.  Are you telling me, now, that she wasn't killed that night?  

AGRBear



That's it exactly, Bear.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Louis_Charles on September 30, 2005, 10:53:23 AM
Do I detect irony in the room, Lylia?

And Bear, you have misunderstood my post. I was referring to the quality of the McNeal quote's writing style. Ironic, isn't it?

;)

Regards,

Simon
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 30, 2005, 10:55:36 AM
Quote

She didn't know that much, and some things she got wrong. Other things could easily have been told to her by Russian emigres, there were very many in Europe in the 1920's! While I do think she was purposely 'fed' info by some, much of it could have been inadvertently told to her in stories, or leading questions, and she picked up on it. But she didn't see any of it first hand, she wasn't Anastasia. SOMEBODY had to tell her, and there are many who would have known.


The secret story about Uncle Ernie is a good example of what AA knew and should not have known if she was FS.  This is why the anit-AA group constantly fight tooth and nail to prove it didn't happen.  

From where I stand,  I think Uncle Ernie did visit Russia in 1916 since Galtzine knew Uncle Ernie,  was present in the palace at the time and had no reason to lie when he gave his testimony in court in 1965.

Quote
I don't know about a mole, but bunions are not uncommon, especially among people who spend a lot of time on their feet. Hair can be dyed. We only have black and white pics anyway. Many women are five foot two, eyes of blue- there's even a song about it.



I do believe it was proven that GD Anastasia did have a mole in the same area and that she did have this bunion deformity.   As to the hair coloring.  Well,  Annie, is showing her lack of knowledge of hair coloring back in the 1920s.   Eye coloring is difficult because they change and people's memories are not very good.  I'm not sure that color photography was used before 1918 and I think the method of colorizing photographs were done with brush and paint.

Quote
Or is this from that grenade explosion at the munitions factory where FS worked?


No matter how many times Annie tells this rumor,  it is not a fact.  According to the medical reports of the doctors who treated FS after the explosion,  she did NOT suffer any physical wounds.

Quote
Oh sure, one person is now claiming this never happened, seems to be like a convenient way of getting rid of FS, like the Grossman stuff. It was known to have happened all those years ago, and is mentioned in several books, including Massie's. It would take quite a bit to convince me otherwise. But even if that wasn't the cause, she could have gotten it some other way, how about running from Grossman? However AA got those injuries, they did not take place in a cellar in Ekaterinburg, and survive a 2,800 muddy cart ride through rough terrain and all types of weather with no medical care.



According to the Berlin police, who have never reversed their conclusion,  FS was murdered by Grossmann on 13 Aug 1920.  A killing of convience?

AA, if she was not GD Anastasia,  could abd did suffered a blow to the face   However,  FS, as far as we know,  did not have such a injury before Dec. 25 of 1919 when she visited her family for Christmas.  This was an injury considered "old" by the doctors at both the hospital where she as first admitted and, again, later at Dalldorf.

If GD Anastasia survived the execution in Ekatherinburg,  we have no idea what here injuries were or even if she had any.  So,  the description of her laying half dead in a cart may not be accurate.  Remember,  this is the description AA gave and I believe most of you don't believe her story, anyway.  However,  as I have pointed out in great detail and even have given a map,  explain that such a journey was possible and was done so by many many others who escaped to Berlin.  Why do I know?  I have relatives who did.   And, yes,  one in particular was eight month's pregnant by the time she reached Berlin with three small children ages 1,2 and 3 1/2 and without her husband who had been taken forcefully into the German Army.
Quote
Grainy black and white photo.


Which photos?
Quote

If AN were smashed in the face with a rifle butt, her face would look like a damaged, messed up version of her own face, not a completely different woman's face.


If GD Anastasia suffered a blow to the face,  we do not know the damage because no one has found her skeleton to this point in time.  It's the one missing.  

Quote
DNA is solid proof, all the other stuff was always questionable, now we have the final answer of who was right and who was not.



The DNA and the other evidence should go hand-in-hand but they don't.  Why?  

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: IlyaBorisovich on September 30, 2005, 10:56:23 AM
Quote
Annie -- Your post has left me speechless.  

I take everything I said back.  I had no idea there were such credible explanations for every point I raised!

Now hanging her head in shame at her ignorance,

LyliaM

Lylia,

Please understand that the subtleties of such sarcasm escape Annie.  Perhaps you should 'fess up before she books the local firehall for her victory party.  Word to the wise, eh? ;)

Ilya
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 30, 2005, 10:56:39 AM
Quote

She didn't know that much, and some things she got wrong. Other things could easily have been told to her by Russian emigres, there were very many in Europe in the 1920's! While I do think she was purposely 'fed' info by some, much of it could have been inadvertently told to her in stories, or leading questions, and she picked up on it. But she didn't see any of it first hand, she wasn't Anastasia. SOMEBODY had to tell her, and there are many who would have known.


The secret story about Uncle Ernie is a good example of what AA knew and should not have known if she was FS.  This is why the anit-AA group constantly fight tooth and nail to prove it didn't happen.  

From where I stand,  I think Uncle Ernie did visit Russia in 1916 since Galtzine knew Uncle Ernie,  was present in the palace at the time and had no reason to lie when he gave his testimony in court in 1965.

Quote
I don't know about a mole, but bunions are not uncommon, especially among people who spend a lot of time on their feet. Hair can be dyed. We only have black and white pics anyway. Many women are five foot two, eyes of blue- there's even a song about it.



I do believe it was proven that GD Anastasia did have a mole in the same area and that she did have this bunion deformity.   As to the hair coloring.  Well,  Annie, is showing her lack of knowledge of hair coloring back in the 1920s.   Eye coloring is difficult because they change and people's memories are not very good.  I'm not sure that color photography was used before 1918 and I think the method of colorizing photographs were done with brush and paint.

Quote
Or is this from that grenade explosion at the munitions factory where FS worked?


No matter how many times Annie tells this rumor,  it is not a fact.  According to the medical reports of the doctors who treated FS after the explosion,  she did NOT suffer any physical wounds.

Quote
Oh sure, one person is now claiming this never happened, seems to be like a convenient way of getting rid of FS, like the Grossman stuff. It was known to have happened all those years ago, and is mentioned in several books, including Massie's. It would take quite a bit to convince me otherwise. But even if that wasn't the cause, she could have gotten it some other way, how about running from Grossman? However AA got those injuries, they did not take place in a cellar in Ekaterinburg, and survive a 2,800 muddy cart ride through rough terrain and all types of weather with no medical care.



According to the Berlin police, who have never reversed their conclusion,  FS was murdered by Grossmann on 13 Aug 1920.  A killing of convience?

AA, if she was not GD Anastasia,  could and did suffered a blow to the face   However,  FS, as far as we know,  did not have such a injury before Dec. 25 of 1919 when she visited her family for Christmas.  This was an injury considered "old" by the doctors at both the hospital where she as first admitted in Feb of 1920 and, again, later at Dalldorf in March 1920.

If GD Anastasia survived the execution in Ekatherinburg,  we have no idea what her injuries were or even if she had any.  So,  the description of her laying half dead in a cart may not be accurate.  Remember,  this is the description AA gave and I believe most of you don't believe her story, anyway.  However,  as I have pointed out in great detail and even have given a map,  explain that such a journey was possible and was done so by many many others who escaped to Berlin.  Why do I know?  I have relatives who did.   And, yes,  one in particular was eight month's pregnant by the time she reached Berlin with three small children ages 1,2 and 3 1/2 and without her husband who had been taken forcefully into the German Army.
Quote
Grainy black and white photo.


Which photos?
Quote

If AN were smashed in the face with a rifle butt, her face would look like a damaged, messed up version of her own face, not a completely different woman's face.


If GD Anastasia suffered a blow to the face,  we do not know the damage because no one has found her skeleton to this point in time.  It's the one missing.  

Quote
DNA is solid proof, all the other stuff was always questionable, now we have the final answer of who was right and who was not.



The DNA and the other evidence should go hand-in-hand but they don't.  Why?  

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 30, 2005, 11:08:08 AM
Hey everyone,  a question:  Are any of you having difficulty writing a post and/or getting the post to work?

I notice Ilya posted twice and so did mine.... I removed my second one as did Ilya.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 30, 2005, 11:49:20 AM
Quote

The secret story about Uncle Ernie is a good example of what AA knew and should not have known if she was FS.  This is why the anit-AA group constantly fight tooth and nail to prove it didn't happen.  

From where I stand,  I think Uncle Ernie did visit Russia in 1916 since Galtzine knew Uncle Ernie,  was present in the palace at the time and had no reason to lie when he gave his testimony in court in 1965.


The only reason anyone fights this is because there is no proof it is true. You seem to readily accept it on ONE man's testimony, one man who may be wrong, one man who was elderly and possibly not completely in possession of a perfect memory at the time, yet you deny the DNA which is much stronger.




Quote
No matter how many times Annie tells this rumor,  it is not a fact.  According to the medical reports of the doctors who treated FS after the explosion,  she did NOT suffer any physical wounds.


RUMOR??!! It was accepted fact for decades, and the only bit of evidence against it is from one person whose motives in the AA case I seriously question, so I will not accept her word alone. Think about it, wouldn't such things have been misplaced years ago, and if they weren't found for her trial, why now? Could it be the person who is claiming to find them is wrong, or her source was bogus? You state as fact that her info is right and I, and Robert K. Massie are wrong. It's clear you only believe what you choose to accept.

It has always been accepted she did get wounded, which is what set her toward the insanity she was declared to have soon after, and possibly eventually led to her suicide attempt in 1920. You CANNOT state as a fact that it didn't occur, when as it stands now, there is more evidence it did than did not!


Quote
According to the Berlin police, who have never reversed their conclusion,  FS was murdered by Grossmann on 13 Aug 1920.  A killing of convience?


Police dept's, even in America, are often anxious to close a case and write off a murder to a serial killer when there is no proof. There was no body, no 'forensic' evidence, all we have are a misspelled name and a guess that she was missing at the same time he was active. She would not have been a factor in the trial if she were so 'dead', it was clear by that time the police were mistaken.



Quote
If GD Anastasia suffered a blow to the face,  we do not know the damage because no one has found her skeleton to this point in time.  It's the one missing.


Russian scientists say it's Maria. Other claim it's Tatiana. There were also some reports by Bolsheviks that 2 bodies were cremated, so this could explain the missing bodies. Or she could have lived, and been someone other than AA. But AA wasn't AN! 



Quote
The DNA and the other evidence should go hand-in-hand but they don't.  Why?  

AGRBear


Because the people who said this or that were WRONG, or remembered WRONG, or lied, or were mistaken.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 30, 2005, 12:26:25 PM
Quote

The only reason anyone fights this is because there is no proof it is true. You seem to readily accept it on ONE man's testimony, one man who may be wrong, one man who was elderly and possibly not completely in possession of a perfect memory at the time, yet you deny the DNA which is much stronger.


There are certain events a person remembers no matter how old they become.  I suspect if the memory of Galitzin was poor, the opposition would have proven this.  Did they?  To add to Galitzin's testimony are others who spoke the Kaiser Wilhlem and the other to the Emp. of Austria.  Since I have no reason [none have been given here] to find Galitzin's testimony false then I'll lean toward the fact that Uncle Ernie did take a secret trip to Russia in 1916.


Quote
RUMOR??!! It was accepted fact for decades, and the only bit of evidence against it is from one person whose motives in the AA case I seriously question, so I will not accept her word alone. Think about it, wouldn't such things have been misplaced years ago, and if they weren't found for her trial, why now? Could it be the person who is claiming to find them is wrong, or her source was bogus? You state as fact that her info is right and I, and Robert K. Massie are wrong. It's clear you only believe what you choose to accept.


It has always been accepted she did get wounded, which is what set her toward the insanity she was declared to have soon after, and possibly eventually led to her suicide attempt in 1920. You CANNOT state as a fact that it didn't occur, when as it stands now, there is more evidence it did than did not!


Why do you think I am calling Massie a lier or a man who is fabricating evidence?  My goodness,  even authors can be caught up in a rumor/misinformtion when so many were so convincing in the telling.  

It wasn't until Penny and Greg were shown the medical files of FS found by a detective/researcher that they discovered  FS had no physical damage from the grenade.  Penny was generous with her information and, now,  we need to rewrite that part of AA's history.  The actual source will probably be mentioned in a book and you'll get to see a copy of the document I'm sure.
History is often in need of being rewritten when new and sound evidence is found.

Quote
Police dept's, even in America, are often anxious to close a case and write off a murder to a serial killer when there is no proof. There was no body, no 'forensic' evidence, all we have are a misspelled name and a guess that she was missing at the same time he was active. She would not have been a factor in the trial if she were so 'dead', it was clear by that time the police were mistaken.



Yes, police departments make mistakes.  However, it doesn't appear that anyone in Berlin has admitted to a mistake on the FS case.

And, yes, FS could have been one of Grossmann's victims who got away on 13 Aug 1920....

Once again, the spelling of the name by Grossmann is how FS's last name would have sounded to a German writing down a Polish name.   I am not aware of any other woman with the same sounding name has ever been mentioned as having been reported missing in Berlin.  Have you?


Quote
Russian scientists say it's Maria. Other claim it's Tatiana. There were also some reports by Bolsheviks that 2 bodies were cremated, so this could explain the missing bodies. Or she could have lived, and been someone other than AA. But AA wasn't AN! 


We know that the creamtion of 2 bodies with the amount of fuel Yurovsky claimed they used was impossible.  

And, yes, the missing Grand Duchess may have escaped and lived.

Because of the DNA tests,  we can assume that AA was NOT GD Anastasia/Maria/Tatiana/Olga.

Quote
Because the people who said this or that were WRONG, or remembered WRONG, or lied, or were mistaken.


There is a reason the DNA and the circumstanial evidence seem to differ but I haven't found the answer why this appears to be so.  Just saying people ..."were WRONG, or remembers WRONG, or lied, or were mistaken,"  isn't evidence, this is your opinion.   So, tell me,  who was wrong, who remembered wrong, who lied and who was mistaken.  Please,  remember your sources.

AGRBear

Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on September 30, 2005, 12:30:31 PM
bear, you are basing quite a bit on your own opinion too, and your selectiveness over who you do and do not believe. You will say things are facts that cannot be proven, and you will deny the DNA, which has. We have been through all this before. Maybe we should wait until we have some new real evidence, if any is forthcoming.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 30, 2005, 12:45:49 PM
We dont need to go over Uncle Ernie's trip.  Posters have made up their own opinions about this event or non-event.

Annie,  

You have told us over and over how you once believed AA as GD Anstasia.  I have never been that interested in AA so this is new ground for me to cover.  Would it be too difficult for you to answer "...who was wrong, who remembered wrong, who lied and who was mistaken...."?

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 30, 2005, 12:48:03 PM
I think this post as grown to a length that the posters with older computers are having a hard time pulling in 23 pages.  Maybe, someone should start a new thread.

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on September 30, 2005, 01:07:42 PM
Ask and ye shall receive  ;D

continued on the following thread:

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1128099327
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: etonexile on September 30, 2005, 06:49:32 PM
 



The DNA and the other evidence should go hand-in-hand but they don't.  Why?  

AGRBear[/quote]

Erm...because "the other evidence" is subject to human error...Do all of you remember events perfectly in your lives? AMAZING !!!!
Title: Re: Interesting Royalty Site
Post by: AGRBear on September 30, 2005, 07:39:58 PM
People with older computers can't pull in 23 pages very quickly so  a new thread was started this morning.

My answer is over on:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;acti on=display;num=1128099327

AGRBear
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: Annie on October 04, 2005, 07:37:07 AM
Quote

It wasn't until Penny and Greg were shown the medical files of FS found by a detective/researcher that they discovered  FS had no physical damage from the grenade.  Penny was generous with her information and, now,  we need to rewrite that part of AA's history.  The actual source will probably be mentioned in a book and you'll get to see a copy of the document I'm sure.


She may have been 'shown' it but I don't see it, don't believe it unconditionally, and would have to have it backed up by a more credible source before I believe it. Certainly is strange this shows up now, after it never did in the trial, now after all these years when something so old would have been lost, or destroyed in the bombings of WWII, it suddenly magically appears just when someone is trying to find a way to conveniently dispose of FS (probably so AA can still be AN)

bear, you do amaze me that you blindly accept anything you want to believe, no matter how vague, yet completely shut the door on other things you would rather disregard (like the DNA)


Quote
History is often in need of being rewritten when new and sound evidence is found.




You can rewrite it all you want, but if it's only fancy and fiction, it means nothing.
Title: Re: What about...?
Post by: AGRBear on October 04, 2005, 09:36:16 AM
[size=24]Continued on the following thread:

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1128099327
[/size][/size]