Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Myth and Legends of Survivors => Topic started by: Katya04 on August 09, 2004, 08:07:04 AM

Title: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Katya04 on August 09, 2004, 08:07:04 AM
Please explain your reasons for this. Is it that you think the tests were faked and lied? Who would do that and why? Do you think they were not conclusive? I can understand DNA tests might not be totally accurate but when they do match up with a person (nephew) it is hard for me to accept they would be fouled and be a perfect match for another person who was the relative of a person a lot of people said Anna really was? Do some of you say this out of compassion and support for Peter Kurth because this means so much to him? I would really like to read straightforward reasons why this isn't over after the DNA tests. Please state your case, I am listening!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: bookworm on August 09, 2004, 08:54:46 AM
I'm not a scientist, so I honestly can't tell how accurate the DNA tests were or were not. As a layman, I found Massie's explanations regarding the forensic examination of the bones found at the grave site in Siberia and the mitochondrial DNA testing conducted on the bones very convincing. They matched mitochondrial DNA from the bones with Prince Philip, the grandson of Alexandra's sister Victoria. They also matched Nicholas's mitochondrial DNA with maternal line relatives.

Massie also was quite convincing regarding the DNA testing conducted on two separate samples attributed to Anna Anderson and the great-nephew of Franziska Schanzkowska.

But on his Web site, Peter Kurth also raises a relevant objection. He said two sources indicate the great-nephew was descended from a HALF-SISTER of Franziska Schanzkowska. Franziska and the sister had different mothers. If this is true, the mitochondrial DNA would not match, unless the two mothers of the sisters were sisters or maternally related cousins themselves. Mitochondrial DNA is passed down from mother to child. I think more research is definitely indicated on the Schanzkowski family to clear up that anomaly.

Kurth also argues that DNA testing has progressed in the past decade and scientists now use different, more extensive testing to determine paternity because of discoveries they have made regarding DNA inheritance. Kurth also cites a couple of papers on the site indicating, as far as I can tell, that the DNA from a relic identified as belonging to Alexandra's sister Grand Duchess Elizabeth doesn't match the DNA attributed to the Tsar's family. Another paper appears to question whether the British scientists who did the workup on the Tsar's family did a lot of estimation on the DNA sequences because they were working with such ancient DNA.

Whether any of those arguments are justified, I have no idea. I'm not a scientist. As a layman reading those articles, they do make me question the results somewhat. I'd like someone who really does understand DNA testing to go over the results again and explain it in layman's terms. Of course we all know that DNA testing in a laboratory is subject to human error and sabotage. That is probably extremely unlikely here, but it's another factor to take into account.

I also look at the other evidence in favor of Anna Anderson that Kurth cited on his book and on the Web site and I continue to be impressed. There are similarities in photos of Anna Anderson and Anastasia; stories about some friends and relatives recognizing her based on her memories or her mannerisms or her looks and personality. Kurth also does an effective job of refuting some of the arguments made against Anna Anderson.  Add the fact that Anastasia's body was apparently missing from the grave and there is some evidence that a Grand Duchess survived the murders and I still have questions.

That's the best argument I can give you. I don't know, but I'd like to know more.

.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Abby on August 09, 2004, 10:32:52 AM
Bookworm, you brought up some good points, and the major reasons why I think anyone would doubt the DNA results. When a group puts forth a study (like the Annals of Human Biology report which conducted the test of GD Ella's finger against the remains of Alexandra in the pit) which has evidence so damning like that, you have to consider it. I don't know if it is true or the extent of their tests, but if Ella's finger DNA did not match Alexandra's DNA, then what does that say? I don't know. The Anna Anderson test results seem to be more accurate because the scientists were all honest, hardworking professionals who had nothing to gain or lose by tampering with the evidence. Every step of their actions are documented in books like "The Final Chapter" and "The Fate of the Romanovs" so it is all very convincing to me. But then when contradictory reports begin to surface it leaves me in a cloud of doubt as well. In a case such as the Romanovs' death, I as a reader only can beleive what I read and hear other people say and then make my own conclusions. No one really knows all the answers concerning the DNA tests except those who won't talk about it!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: RobMoshein on August 09, 2004, 10:33:23 AM
This bears repeating here,

There are two distinct issues here, which must remain separate.  With all due respect to Peter, who we respect highly, we disagree on this point.  The mtDNA tests are still quite valid today.  The only change in the manner of the test today is that a machine performs the analysis which was done by hand in the AA case.  That analysis showed two results, which have no bearing on each other.  The first result was that AA could in no way be maternally related to Alexandra Feodrovna, 100%.  The second result, which IS open to discussion was that AA MIGHT have been related to FS, with some degree of confidence, but it is not conclusive.  
The key issue here is that one has nothing to do with the other. Whoever AA may really have been, she could NOT be related to Alexandra Feodrovna. You must not lose sight of this fact in the discussion.

Now, another factor is the difference between mtDNA testing, and sequenced and amplified nuclear DNA testing.  mtDNA testing is no different today than it was then, ask ANY forensic DNA scientist.  We do have major strides made in DNA amplification and analysis in the last ten years, so the Gill work has been called into question. Im not enough of a scientist to say one way or the other, and keep hoping that someone who IS familiar and WITHOUT a personal agenda will drop in and give us all some insight.

These different issues must be kept separate in order for a genuine discussion of this question.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Kim on August 09, 2004, 11:16:01 AM
Quote
When a group puts forth a study (like the Annals of Human Biology report which conducted the test of GD Ella's finger against the remains of Alexandra in the pit) which has evidence so damning like that, you have to consider it. I don't know if it is true or the extent of their tests, but if Ella's finger DNA did not match Alexandra's DNA, then what does that say? I don't know.


Could it be:

*The finger was Sister Varvara's, not Ella's?
*The remains from the pit were Demidova's, not Alexandra's?
*someone is mistaken?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Kim on August 09, 2004, 11:26:15 AM
Or  :o

Ella was switched at birth with a handmaiden's child? ;)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: bookworm on August 09, 2004, 02:02:42 PM
Quote

Could it be:

*The finger was Sister Varvara's, not Ella's?
*The remains from the pit were Demidova's, not Alexandra's?
*someone is mistaken?


I think the most obvious explanation is that the relic attributed to Ella belonged to someone else. But apparently the scientists had difficulty with the DNA testing because the sample was so ancient. It would really be interesting if some scientist would post here and explain all of this to us, wouldn't it?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Abby on August 09, 2004, 02:27:59 PM
CALLING ALL SCIENTISTS!!!
lol

did they really mistake someone else's finger for Ella's?? How could they do such a dumb thing? well that would explain a lot, then.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 09, 2004, 04:46:19 PM
Abby,

I don't know that much about the "Ella's finger" story, and I was wondering if anyone knows how they figured out in the first place that the finger belonged to Ella and not to any number of others who ended up dead in that pit? Was the finger attached to her body when it ws found or was it loose? If it was loose, was it just a guess or did they have some compelling reasons to think it was hers? Maybe someone decided that it was Ella's and it was just taken for granted for all these years that it was, and treated as a relic after she was canonized. If this is the case then they had no business automatically assuming that it belonged to her and using it as scientific evidence.... Or maybe they tested it to see if it belonged to Ella in the first place by  comparing it's DNA to the known DNA of their maternally-descended relative? Can anyone shed some light?  Thanks!
Helen

"did they really mistake someone else's finger for Ella's?? How could they do such a dumb thing? well that would explain a lot, then." [/quote Abby]
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Greg_King on August 10, 2004, 03:23:48 AM
For me, at least, it isn't a questioning of disbelieving the DNA but rather understanding the evolution of the science.  Nor do I see this position as necessarily one that casts me as an Anna Anderson "supporter;" rather, I try to keep an open mind and explore the possibilities and the unanswered questions.

One needn’t believe in conspiracies or ascribe incompetence to those who conducted the testing to have doubts about their continued validity.  Two distinct methods of DNA testing were used to show support for the hypotheses that Anastasia Manahan or Anna Anderson 1) Could not have been a child of Nicholas and Alexandra; 2) Did not match the mtDNA Hessian profile derived by Gill and used to match four of the female Ekaterinburg remains to the profile derived from HRH The Duke of Edinburgh; and 3) Matched the mtDNA profile of Karl Maucher, lending support to the hypothesis that she was Schanzkowska.

Both nuclear and mitochondrial (mtDNA) testing was done.  Nuclear testing is preferred as it renders better results and is considered more accurate, while mtDNA is less discriminating.  Nuclear DNA tests showed that AA could not possibly have been a daughter of N and A, yet changes in the science make the 1994 verdict obsolete.  Gill used a 6-point Short Tandem Repeat (STR) analysis of the nuclear DNA to arrive at these results.  Within four years of these tests, 10 point STR testing was being done, and when results of 10 point STR testing were compared with 6 point STR tests, the 6 point analysis was shown conclusively to give both false positive and negative results-in other words, conclusions based on 6 point STR tests were proved faulty.  In 1999, the testing had gone from the 6 point STR tests of 1993-94 and the 10 point STR tests of 1998 to 12 point STR tests, the accuracy of which further undermined 6 point STR test results.  Gill admitted this in a statement released in 2000, adding that FSS had changed from the old 6 point STR method to the 10 point STR method in 1999.  In 2000, the STR tests were up to a 14 point system; in 2001, it was 16 points, and by 2002, the industry standard worldwide in STR testing was 20 point STR tests.  Scientific studies have repeatedly shown that 6 point STR tests are unreliable and result in false matches and exclusions.  The 6 point STR nuclear DNA tests that showed Anastasia Manahan could not have been a daughter of N and A, therefore, are now meaningless.

The mtDNA match to the Maucher profile is also now known to be less reliable than everyone believed.  In 1994, mtDNA matches were believed to prove identity, and to be unique to related individuals.  Last year, an extensive UK study showed that out of a random 100 persons, four completely unrelated subjects shared exactly the same mtDNA profiles; extrapolate that here, on a board with 400 members: of the 400 of us posting here, 40 of us-unrelated to each other-would have identical mtDNA profiles, thus "proving" that we're related.  The odds of a random mtDNA match between the Manahan sample and the Maucher profile are indeed considerable given the size of the world’s population and the numbers involved.  I suspect, based on the continuing evolution of the science, that future studies will show mtDNA profiles to be even common than this.

My reservations about regarding the 1994 DNA tests as absolutely conclusive in the matter of Anastasia Manahan, therefore, rest on the advances of science.  Two of the three planks in the DNA case against her have now been shown to be either unreliable or less than compelling in a mere ten years.  Her exclusion from the Hessian mtDNA profile remains, and while the methods used to obtain the exclusion remain in practice, given the above changes I hesitate to presume that they, too, won’t be challenged as the science evolves; already in the last 2 years there have been two substantial challenges to the DNA testing done on the Ekaterinburg remains, and I suppose there will be more in the future that may or may not be valid.  This makes it theoretically possible-given the facts above about the first two DNA planks in the case-that ultimately in another generation none of the DNA identifications/exclusions in the Anderson case will matter-and the case will fall back to where it always rested before the DNA-to examination of physical traits, memories, recognitions, etc.

It seems to me, whether one wishes to believe in Anna Anderson or not (and I don't wish either way, incidentally), it’s best to keep an open mind and at least examine the facts as known now in the DNA case against Anastasia Manahan-as three separate issues-rather than repeatedly refer to ten year old tests that, taken as a whole, have lost two-thirds of their validity.

Greg King
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: bookworm on August 10, 2004, 08:37:14 AM
Thank you, Mr. King. That answers a lot of questions I had.

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on August 10, 2004, 09:44:49 AM
I don't know if anyone with the money is interested but I would love to see a redo of these tests today to finally put these doubts to rest.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 10, 2004, 10:18:00 AM
I'll second that  :)

Quote
I don't know if anyone with the money is interested but I would love to see a redo of these tests today to finally put these doubts to rest.

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: bookworm on August 10, 2004, 10:32:11 AM
One wonders if they have enough samples to do a re-test even if they wanted to. Were the samples from Anna Anderson even saved?

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Katya04 on August 10, 2004, 12:57:29 PM
Even if new tests were done I bet there would still be calls of inaccuracy and fraud, whatever :-X I guess some ppl just want to believe it so much nothing is going to change their minds anyway.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on August 10, 2004, 02:29:48 PM
But you know, look on the bright side guys, that's what makes these discussions so interesting, this difference of opinions and beliefs. Imagine if everyone just agreed on everything? What a boring forum discussion that would be!  ;D

Quote

And some people want to disbelieve it so much that nothing will change their minds either!  :D

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: kaatje on August 10, 2004, 03:58:07 PM
I've always somewhat suspected the veracity of the results of the DNA testing, particularly when it comes to MtDNA.  If my belief is correct and I haven't really read up on this recently, it is passed down the maternal line only.

Therefore the question which most plagues me is this, what is there to stop somebody from simply using the DNA of a related person to prove the identity of somebody else, if  all testing is/has been kept out of the public eye until they have the results? And of course vice versa to deny the identity of someone, using someone elses DNA  :o This is kind of following on from Greg's thoughts in this sense, i.e many non related people share the same MtDNA.

It strikes me that were someone to want this (and I'm not talking about Joe public here), it would be quite visable thing to do given the secrecy involved.  Scientific testing is after all seen by the public to be the last word on the subject, therefore any result would (and is!) of course seen as an end to the debate, is it not.

After all not all bad (or indeed annoying) publicity is good publicity  :)

Katie

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on August 10, 2004, 04:00:09 PM
Quote

And some people want to disbelieve it so much that nothing will change their minds either!  :D


I can't speak for anyone else, but as for me, I WANT to believe, so much! Like I said earlier, to think Anastasia really escaped, lived to old age, and ended up in my home state caring for cats would be so exciting, so happy, so good, so 'cool.' I would love to believe it, and I did for years. But I really don't think it's possible anymore. :(  

After the DNA tests came in, I was disappointed but not surprised. I had so hoped it would be her. But I don't think the tests are that fallible, if so, my nephew should be able to give up paying child support on a daughter he claimed was not his but the tests proved was his. The courts believe that DNA testing (done in 1998 ) proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is the father. So if DNA testing is to be in question, that opens a whole new can of worms in paternity cases as well as criminal trial evidence! Why, we'd have people all over the place decrying, 'that's not really my kid!' or 'I wasn't really at that crime scene! The DNA test is not reliable!' Is this the ONLY case it's not true? I just can't accept that.

It was sad, it was pit of the stomach painful and heart tugging, but I had to give up the Anna thing and put it to bed. I know not everyone is ready to do that, but there still remains a mystery to be solved and I'd rather investigate other possibilities, because until the body shows up I will never be convinced she didn't get away ;)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Janet_W. on August 10, 2004, 05:37:34 PM
When I first started reading about the mystery of Anastasia, I very much wanted to believe that she had survived. As I continued to read, I kept fluctuating between "Yes, she is alive," and "No, she couldn't possibly be."  For many years I was right on the fence.

Then the DNA tests came back. Although--from what I saw on the documentary--Gleb Botkin's granddaughter was completely and sincerely shocked by the revelations, I chose to believe in the DNA results.

I remembered reading an article, at the time of the 1971 film, in which one of the OTMA actresses said of the mystery, "What does it matter if she did survive? She'd be so old!"--and I wanted to scream, "What difference does that make? Nazi war criminals should be brought to trial, no matter how old they are, and likewise missing persons who turn out to be 'found' should be celebrated and recognized, no matter what their age!" And I still believe that.

However, I also wonder if any of us who have feelings for OTMAA should really want one of those children to have spent decades being ridiculed and subjected to all sorts of abuse, all the time realizing that she (or he) alone survives, and knowing that siblings and parents died most horribly, and that she (or he) has been left to live a nightmare?

Although I could never wish death on them, I think for them to have died together might have been best. Say, for example, that Olga did marry Prince Carol, and the others died. What sort of peace would Olga have had? Carol, as we know, was a dud of a husband. So what sort of consolation would it have been to have existed in an unhappy marriage, knowing that the bodies of your family lay festering in an unmarked grave?

As long as the remains of Alexei and one of his sisters remain missing, there always be some doubt as to how many Romanovs died that night. And I will not say "impossible!" that one of the family members might have survived. But given the overall situation, it does seem a stretch.

In the meantime, I feel sorrow for Anna Anderson. I believe that she did think she was Anastasia. Whether she was or not, of course, is what so many of us continue to question and debate. But either way, hers was a tragic and largely unfulfilled life, and I could not wish that on a child of Nicholas and Alexandra . . . nor anyone else's child.

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: BattleAngel on August 10, 2004, 05:57:28 PM
Oh THANK YOU!
I've been so hoping that we could have a civilized discussion about this matter and my hat is off to the people here who are discussing it...and agreeing OR DISagreeing in a decent manner.

I have always doubteed the DNA tests standing as "revealed word of God." Life ALWAYS throws curve balls as any adult can tell you and so I mentioned this on another thread and was schocked at the sarcastic, and unnecessarily belittling tone of one of the responses.

I guess it's true some people have a lot tied up in DISbelieving anything the least bit idealistic.

"Gee, I won't be seen as a hard nosed intellectually superior skeptic if I disagree politely about another point of view"
seems to be the idea at work.

Well, maybe not but you will be seen as...POLITE or, er...WELL BROUGHT UP...Don't those count for anything?

So I humbly tip my hat to EVERYONE on this particular thread :)

You guys know how to discuss an issue that people may NEVER agree on and not let it turn you into animals.

As they say on pop music boards...

"You ROCK!!!!!" :D :D :D
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Katya04 on August 12, 2004, 04:29:39 PM
Quote
if DNA testing is to be in question, that opens a whole new can of worms in paternity cases as well as criminal trial evidence! Why, we'd have people all over the place decrying, 'that's not really my kid!' or 'I wasn't really at that crime scene!


That is true, if DNA tests are still in doubt and not the last word then a lot of other cases are in trouble now!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Forum Admin on August 12, 2004, 09:12:16 PM
This is also where the difference between mtDNA (which still remains reliable) and nuclear DNA must be kept distinct. mtDNA still can prove maternal relationships very accurately or not.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: LisaDavidson on August 12, 2004, 10:35:56 PM
And, regardless of what one may "believe", the mtDNA of Prince Philip, Katherine de Silva and others - the "Hessian" or "Victorian" mtDNA matches exactly between living donors. This mtDNA exactly matches that found in the Koptyaki Forest remains and thought to be Alexandra and three of her daughters. It doesn't match the mtDNA of the finger thought to be Ella's and recently tested, nor does it match several samples of Anna Anderson.

I am of the opinion that there could be hundreds of tests run  - until no more samples remain - and still there would be people who did not "believe" them. And some people on the OJ jury didn't "believe" his DNA was found during the investigation of his ex-wife's murder.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on August 13, 2004, 08:53:54 AM
Quote
I am of the opinion that there could be hundreds of tests run  - until no more samples remain - and still there would be people who did not "believe" them. And some people on the OJ jury didn't "believe" his DNA was found during the investigation of his ex-wife's murder.


Sigh, alas, this is true. :-/ :-X
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: bookworm857158367 on August 15, 2004, 10:56:45 AM
I may well be mistaken, but isn't mitochondrial DNA less rare than some people believed initially. I remember reading a book that came out a few years ago -- "The Seven Tribes of Eve" or some such that says there are seven main groups of mitochondrial DNA for Europeans. The mitochondrial DNA for Alix and her daughters was of a type that is relatively common in Germany, according to this book.

In any case, the mitochondrial DNA is interesting because it helps scientists and anthropologists trace the migration of different population groups to different areas. It gives us a new insight into history before there are written records.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on August 15, 2004, 11:21:10 AM
Only 7 groups? ??? Hey my mt line is traced back to Switzerland in the early 1700's. I have all the names and everything. Maybe I am of the same tribe as Alix ;) but anyway it still didn't match AA's sample :-/
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: kaatje on August 15, 2004, 12:12:15 PM
I think the book your thinking of was called 'The seven daughters of Eve' it states that everyone not just those in Europe desended from just seven women.

At the time of publication the author I think offered a service for people to have their mtDNA tested, to find out from which 'daughter' they belonged to.

Not just how reliable his theory was as I believe there was a lot of debate about what the author proposed, many scientists ridiculing his argument and so on.

Katie
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Kim on August 17, 2004, 08:25:45 AM
Quote

There are many, many cases under re-examination, fortunately.  Please see:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/


I've been reading a series of articles in my local paper about bad results in DNA testing, but it claims human error and local contamination are to blame rather than the science or the methods used. It states that the science is very accurate, it's the people involved who sometimes mess things for these legal cases.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: kaatje on August 17, 2004, 03:15:46 PM
Can't go into intricate details here because this is all from my memory.  The main criticsm aimed at Brian Sykes, the author of 'The seven daughters of Eve' to do with this book was the way in which he interspersed fact with fiction.

In fictionally describing the personalities of the seven daughters, many felt he had overdone it, crossing the bounderies of science into theory (while not making this clear), I suppose.  This though does not detract from Brian Sykes as a person, I should point out, as I've never meet him and I cannot really comment on that.  All I know is that when the book was published (in UK) many felt uncomfortable with what he was saying from a scientific point of view, not to mention what can only be said of his orginal marketing/publicity, this book afforded, which grabbed at lot of peoples including mines attention.


Katie

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on August 21, 2004, 06:58:07 PM
Hello,

I am new here but I have had a long time interest in this subject.

I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am someone who gets caught up in history's mysteries.

I have been reading many of your excellent topics.

Many of you question the validity of the DNA results .

I have been around for awhile and sadly, I believe all evil has a root in big money.

Many of you question motive...why would anyone publish false DNA results?

What about all that money that was in US and Europe? In the hands of bankers who played with it for decades?In my lifetime, I have seen a slowly narrowing of wealth in banking and insurance that narrows down to a select few.

I have read the books about the money or lack there of belonging to the czar. But why would anyone in the banking industry want a definitive answer to any of our questions? It just wouldn't be good for business!

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Peter Kurth on August 22, 2004, 09:54:16 AM
Quote

But on his Web site, Peter Kurth also raises a relevant objection. He said two sources indicate the great-nephew was descended from a HALF-SISTER of Franziska Schanzkowska. Franziska and the sister had different mothers. If this is true, the mitochondrial DNA would not match, unless the two mothers of the sisters were sisters or maternally related cousins themselves. Mitochondrial DNA is passed down from mother to child. I think more research is definitely indicated on the Schanzkowski family to clear up that anomaly.



I agree that more research is needed, but want it to be clear that I haven't myself made the claim that Franziska and Gertrud Schanzkowska were half-sisters.  This information comes from a note on my "Anastasia" website:  "[In their 1995 book, "The Quest for Anastasia"] Klier and Mingay also report (223) that Franziska Schanzkowska and her brother Felix had a different mother than the other Schanzkowski siblings:  `Her father married twice, and she was a child of the second marriage and close to her brother Felix.  The first family were very religious and straitlaced, while Franziska and Felix were more open-minded.'  This story was repeated on a now-defunct website, an attack on Anna Anderson snidely titled `Franziska':  `At some point in the distant past her family had been minor Polish nobility, but whatever glories and privileges that had entailed were long gone.  Her father was said to have been an alcoholic, and at any rate died when she was still young.  The child of a second marriage, Franziska and her full brother Felix were remembered as being free-spirited, less driven by religion than their half sisters.' Again, no source is given for this claim.  Neither Klier and Mingay nor `Franziska’s' anonymous author seem to notice that, if this is true, the mitochondrial DNA obtained from a descendant of Gertrude Schanzkowska would not and could not match Franziska’s, since this DNA is passed only through the female line and they did not have the same mother."

PK
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on August 22, 2004, 07:31:19 PM
Quote
Hello,

I am new here but I have had a long time interest in this subject.

I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am someone who gets caught up in history's mysteries.

I have been reading many of your excellent topics.

Many of you question the validity of the DNA results .

I have been around for awhile and sadly, I believe all evil has a root in big money.

Many of you question motive...why would anyone publish false DNA results?

What about all that money that was in US and Europe? In the hands of bankers who played with it for decades?In my lifetime, I have seen a slowly narrowing of wealth in banking and insurance that narrows down to a select few.

I have read the books about the money or lack there of belonging to the czar. But why would anyone in the banking industry want a definitive answer to any of our questions? It just wouldn't be good for business!



But when you get into the money issue, the theories can easily go both ways. The Anna=Anastasia camp claim it was all rigged to deny her the money, and the Anna=not Anastasia people can claim everyone on her side lied and were in secret cahoots for a share of the money if she should win. So these wild guesses can go on forever. I still want proof there actually is money, though if no evidence is found I'm sure someone will only say someone is covering it up!

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Greg_King on August 23, 2004, 02:38:24 AM
Quote

But when you get into the money issue, the theories can easily go both ways. The Anna=Anastasia camp claim it was all rigged to deny her the money, and the Anna=not Anastasia people can claim everyone on her side lied and were in secret cahoots for a share of the money if she should win. So these wild guesses can go on forever. I still want proof there actually is money, though if no evidence is found I'm sure someone will only say someone is covering it up!



In this case, the money issue, any way you cut it, goes in favor of Anna Anderson.  Whether there was money there in UK banks or elsewhere is irrelevant, because that belief reflects not only what Nicholas and Alexandra themselves believed, and what Alix told Lili Dehn, but what others believed-Grand Duchess Xenia Alexandrovna actually hired two lawyers, Sir Harold Brooks and Fanny Holtzmann, to conduct a lengthy search for her brother's UK bank deposits.  So if AA claimed there was money and there really was none, as most recent scholarship has suggested, her claim is nothing more than a reflection of what Nicholas, Alexandra, Xenia, and others in the family thought to be true.  And if there was money, again, it simply shows knowledge of this.  Failure to discover the money doesn't in this case reflect on her claim, because that claim echoed what the Romanovs themselves believed to be true.  The existence of the money is irrelevant to the issue.

Greg King
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: pushkina on September 07, 2004, 11:51:55 PM
i read that the reason AN had her hair cut into bangs/fringe was to hide a scar on her forehead.

does anyone know how big was this scar that had to be hidden?  does anyone know if it really was that obvious? or unsightly?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on September 09, 2004, 11:43:51 AM
I guess none of us have seen this either because of the bangs;) It's interesting to note that AA must not have had a horrible scar on her forehead because she most often wore her hair swept back or combed over instead of in bangs;)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: pushkina on September 09, 2004, 11:35:42 PM
does anyone know if AA had a forehead scar?

i know the scars on my face that my mother found unsightly when i was a child, i don't even notice as an adult.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: aislinn_24 on October 20, 2004, 11:43:42 PM
 friends, confidants of this websites' forums,
   i have my doubts to whether who  AA really is or whether GDA really survived but thinkabout do you think if AA wasnt Anastasia  she'd keep  telling everybody she was until the day she died. IF AA really was a con-artist wouldnt she give up somewhere inbetween? in my opinion i think the ones who tested the Dna rigged something. but then i ask myself why would they rigg the test ,stalin dead, all who was after the romanovs were long gone. so why lie about the DNA results. but then i think that maybe they had a mix up or something. because things like that do happen. look at Murray show.  Maybe she did survive, maybe Anna Anderson was the Grand Duchess Anastasia. remember she did have to change her name,  stalin every one who were against them wanted them dead. so she faked crazy for a while, lost, upset. of course devasted, she lost every one she loved. but then she finally confessed. but why confess, because she knew she was not crazy , or con-artist. she wanted to be with her remaining family- distant relatives you say.  well that is my opinion. that the Grand Duchess Anastasia did survive and was Anna Anderson.
                                                         Aislinn 24
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Forum Admin on October 21, 2004, 09:26:37 AM
Hi,
If you go to this thread, you will read that on October 15, Science published letters from Dr. Gill and the US Armed Forces Lab setting out exactly why the DNA testing is in fact valid, and why the only "serious" challenge from Dr. Knight is in fact totally flawed and invalid.

The main and to me most important part is the sequencing of the Ekaterinburg remains by Dr. Gill was done PRIOR to approaching Prince Philip for a sample. This is critical, because it shows Gill had NO POSSIBLE way to know how to "fake" or rig the results. He got the results first. THEN the sample, which matched to a degree shown to be so improbable as to be impossible, AND it shows a familial relation between the remains as well.

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=family;action=display;num=1095550330;start=379#379
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on October 25, 2004, 03:26:59 PM
Gosh, gee whiz and o-my-golly,  how does one go about explaining something that goes against the stream of evidence when I haven't any evidence to the contrary.

The DNA test are probably acurate for what they had to test, the blood of Prince Philip and the intestines.

The intestines aparently are closer in DNA to the S. family than it will ever be to the royal family.

As I have mentioned on another thread,  and don't everyone bounce on me at once,  but I'm not sure the intestines tested were that of Anna Anderson's.

Yes,  I know the hospital where the intestines were kept is highly regarded.  No,  I don't think the doctors or nurses cared about making a switch or cared one way or another.

My first problem is the "transportation" between labs.  I think someone had stated that the intestines had not been properly transported and if it had then there would be no support of  doubt that someone may have tampered with the evidence in route from one lab to the other.

So,  that is doubt #1.

Doubt #2 is my own.  I don't think the hospital staff  was particularly interested in the intestines and didn't keep the sample under police survilance all the years they were there.  Tampering could have occured at any time and no one would have noticed if done by professionals,  if there was a conspiracy.

Was there a need of a conspiracy?  I suppose that was possible......  Anything more about this subject of conspiracy would need it's own thread.

With two huge doubts in my mind about the intestine samples,  I could not,  if I was sitting on a jury,  say that I could believe beyong a shadow of a doubt that the intestines tested were Anna Anderson's.

Is this being rediculously picky picky?

I'll let others answer.

Meanwhile,  I'm still on the fense.

By the way,  wasn't there anything connected to Anna Anderson in her later years from which DNA could have been tested?  Yes, I know she was cremated.  But something simple like hair folicles from a hair brush or something???

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on October 25, 2004, 03:38:29 PM
While I am completely against any 'intestine switch' theory (the samples were not even labeled with names, only codes that were available to only a very few individuals) assuming there is one billionth of a chance it's true, (which I doubt)  I must ask WHERE in the world would someone have gotten a piece of intestine from a member of the Schanskowska family, how did they cut it out of the person, then happen to be among the team of doctors and scientists transporting it to the other lab, and, finally, WHY would anyone do that, what would be the possible payoff?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: IlyaBorisovich on October 25, 2004, 03:43:13 PM
If you have a problem with the chain of custody and transportation of the intestine sample, how would you ever be convinced that a hair from an old brush actually belonged to Anna Anderson?  It would raise more objections that the intestine did.

Ilya
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Forum Admin on October 25, 2004, 05:06:39 PM
The only major problem with the "intestine sample" switch is this:
yes, during years perhaps the sample in the Path lab was not under Police security, BUT, someone would have HAD to have KNOWN that "someday" science would have evolved to the point where such DNA testing would be developed and presciently forseen the NEED to find a S. family member, taken the sample and then clandenstinely, in league with someone inside at the Hospital, SWITCHED the real AA sample against the long unforseen day when the long forgotten sample "MIGHT" be of use. WHY would someone switch a sample in the unknown worry that the sample MIGHT someday be needed?? Remember, forensic science had no idea about DNA sequencing until just a few years before the 1994 tests were done, and by then, the AA sample had  been forgotten...
THIS is the picky picky angels dancing on a pinhead point I don't understand about the 'conspiracy' theory...
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on October 25, 2004, 05:22:42 PM
Hey,  if I knew the answers,  I'd write myself a book  ;D

Anyway,  what do we know?  The intestines were probably FS's or someones from S. family.   We do not know for certain the intestines were Anna Anderson's just like we would not know if we did have hair that the hair from the brush was Anna Anderson's.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 25, 2004, 11:23:13 PM
Yes, AGRBear, but it would have taken a vast and highly improbable conspiracy to plant DNA in a brush found after AA's death and the pathology sample held in the hospital lab, make it likely to seem both came from Mrs, Manahan, and make them match, exactly, which they in fact, did.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Guinastasia on October 26, 2004, 01:12:52 PM
Quote
friends, confidants of this websites' forums,
    i have my doubts to whether who  AA really is or whether GDA really survived but thinkabout do you think if AA wasnt Anastasia  she'd keep  telling everybody she was until the day she died. IF AA really was a con-artist wouldnt she give up somewhere inbetween?



Or a third option-she was mentally ill and suffering from delusions of grandeur, and truly believed she WAS Anastasia.  

It wasn't that far-fetched-Franziska was working in a munitions factory during the war, when she learned that her fiance was killed at the front.  Shortly thereafter, she had an accident when she let a grenade slip at the factory-a man was killed right in front of her and she had head injuries due to shrapnel.  Afterwards, they said she suffered brain damage or whatever.  And then that Franziska started suffering mental illness.

If Anna Anderson was NOT Franziska-then what happened to the latter?  

I think that poor Anna thought she really was the Grand Duchess-everything about her behavior screamed mentall ill-she had persecution complexes, came up with huge stories about nonsense, she was paranoid, and she was an animal hoarder.  Poor woman wasn't a con artist, or the real deal, she was simply sick and needed help.  But everyone who claimed to be on her side simply was more interested in proving her claim than actually doing what was in her best interest.

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on October 26, 2004, 01:17:58 PM
Quote


Or a third option-she was mentally ill and suffering from delusions of grandeur, and truly believed she WAS Anastasia.  

It wasn't that far-fetched-Franziska was working in a munitions factory during the war, when she learned that her fiance was killed at the front.  Shortly thereafter, she had an accident when she let a grenade slip at the factory-a man was killed right in front of her and she had head injuries due to shrapnel.  Afterwards, they said she suffered brain damage or whatever.  And then that Franziska started suffering mental illness.

If Anna Anderson was NOT Franziska-then what happened to the latter?  

I think that poor Anna thought she really was the Grand Duchess-everything about her behavior screamed mentall ill-she had persecution complexes, came up with huge stories about nonsense, she was paranoid, and she was an animal hoarder.  Poor woman wasn't a con artist, or the real deal, she was simply sick and needed help.  But everyone who claimed to be on her side simply was more interested in proving her claim than actually doing what was in her best interest.



Thank you for that perspective. I have always felt that she was delusional, at least at some point, and believed she was AN. Though I get accused of being mean and against AA, I really feel for her very much and do not believe she was a bad person, a liar, or a con artist. Some close to her may have been, and as I said before, if so they were taking advantage of a sick woman and that was a bad thing to do. But I hold no bad feelings for AA/FS/Anastasia Manahan at all. I think I would have liked her.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 07, 2004, 03:07:45 PM
Quote

I've been reading a series of articles in my local paper about bad results in DNA testing, but it claims human error and local contamination are to blame rather than the science or the methods used. It states that the science is very accurate, it's the people involved who sometimes mess things for these legal cases.


Kim, this is absolutely correct!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 07, 2004, 03:42:28 PM
Quote


Or a third option-she was mentally ill and suffering from delusions of grandeur, and truly believed she WAS Anastasia.  

It wasn't that far-fetched-Franziska was working in a munitions factory during the war, when she learned that her fiance was killed at the front.  Shortly thereafter, she had an accident when she let a grenade slip at the factory-a man was killed right in front of her and she had head injuries due to shrapnel.  Afterwards, they said she suffered brain damage or whatever.  And then that Franziska started suffering mental illness.

If Anna Anderson was NOT Franziska-then what happened to the latter?  

I think that poor Anna thought she really was the Grand Duchess-everything about her behavior screamed mentall ill-she had persecution complexes, came up with huge stories about nonsense, she was paranoid, and she was an animal hoarder.  Poor woman wasn't a con artist, or the real deal, she was simply sick and needed help.  But everyone who claimed to be on her side simply was more interested in proving her claim than actually doing what was in her best interest.



Guinastasia,

I believe your assessment is most likely the most correct one, as everything reasonably points to this. I have had a similar opinion for a long time now and everything I learned about this case, including the DNA evidence,  demonstrates (at least to me) that this was probably the case. Whether AA was FS or not, she definitely believed that she was Anastasia and was not really out to con or swindle anyone, nor to get her hands on any money.
There are so many examples of this type of thing in history, some were better candidates than others, but AA's is not by any means a unique case. Certain circumstances came together for her to make her case more prominent than some of the others, but in the end it must all come down to scientific evidence - and it did. DNA doesn't lie, it is the most accurate type of evidence we currently have, and I just don't believe that people involved in this case were so powerful and clever as to be able to pull off a highly sophisticated conspiracy such as this one would have to have been.

It's too bad Anna Anderson didn't leave behind a child (at least that we know of), whose mtDNA can now be tested. Or did she? I remember reading that when she was examined at the mental hospital, the doctors declared that she had given birth at least once. Where is this child now, I wonder, if he or she is alive? But, IMO, even if this child is found and tested, this probably wouldn't convince people either, judging by the arguments brought forth in this case.  It may then be claimed that they have the wrong child perhaps... This is all kind of hopeless...  :(
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Michelle on November 08, 2004, 11:26:03 AM
I think the child died early on--i.e. only after a year or so.  I thought I read it in Kurth's book, but I can't be sure. ???
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on November 08, 2004, 12:27:29 PM
Quote
I think the child died early on--i.e. only after a year or so.  I thought I read it in Kurth's book, but I can't be sure. ???



I thought Anna Anderson gave no information about the child which was enough to trace the child's whereabouts.  So,  how could anyone know if the child died early or is still living?

Do we even know if it was a girl or a boy?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on November 08, 2004, 12:39:28 PM
I was confused on this too. In the movie "The Mystery of Anna" she said she had a boy, named Alexei, who was sickly and died. However, I have seen no evidence of this in any books, only that she gave the child to an orphanage (I do think she said it was a boy) It must be the movie that caused the confusion, I know it did for me.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: stepan on November 08, 2004, 04:02:25 PM
No trace of the Tshaikowski family or of any child was ever found despite search made in Rumania during the years after Anna Anderson appeared. That´s not to say they diden´t exist  but we have only Anna Anderson´s words for it. I think they never existed but who can be sure about anything here.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on November 08, 2004, 04:32:00 PM
Quote
No trace of the Tshaikowski family or of any child was ever found despite search made in Rumania during the years after Anna Anderson appeared. That´s not to say they diden´t exist  but we have only Anna Anderson´s words for it. I think they never existed but who can be sure about anything here.


I think they never existed. To me it's almost hilarious how trite and made up the name is. If you were asked the name of a Russian soldier, Alexander would be a common first name, and last name? Uhhh, grab out of the sky here- that famous composer Tchiakovsky would be a name even foreigners knew. It's like Jan Brady naming her imaginary boyfriend 'George...(looks at glass of water on counter) Glass! That's it, George Glass'

This cheesy made up name and no record of him among the Bolsheviks he allegedly worked for or anywhere else only makes the AA story less believeable.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 08, 2004, 05:42:24 PM
But you know, no matter who AA was, evidently she had at least one child - according to her doctors anyway, I wonder what happened to it? Most likely it died, I suppose...
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Greg_King on November 09, 2004, 03:35:18 AM
Quote

I think they never existed. To me it's almost hilarious how trite and made up the name is. If you were asked the name of a Russian soldier, Alexander would be a common first name, and last name? Uhhh, grab out of the sky here- that famous composer Tchiakovsky would be a name even foreigners knew. It's like Jan Brady naming her imaginary boyfriend 'George...(looks at glass of water on counter) Glass! That's it, George Glass'

This cheesy made up name and no record of him among the Bolsheviks he allegedly worked for or anywhere else only makes the AA story less believeable.


I'm not quite sure why the obvious point about this story seems elusive, but maybe I can offer a thought that might help clarify: AA was told that the names of her rescuers was Tchaikovsky, according to what she said.  Without arguing about the ins and outs of the entire AA business, or making any judgment as to her claim, it seems rather obvious, at least to me, that were one to go looking for likely candidates, one would not look for someone named Tchaikovsky.  If AA is to be believed (for the sake of argument on this issue), she was simply told their surname.  That does not mean that this was indeed their name-we know there were no such guards at the Ipatiev House.  It seems reasonable that they might have given her false names.  On the other hand, it is also possible (under this scenario of assuming her story to be true for the sake of argument) that AA simply made up names to protect them.  Looking for literal Tchaikovskys among the Ipatiev House soldiers misses the point, and simply dismissing the story because no one of that name served with the Special Detachment is an example of assuming only literal interpretation to be accurate.  The entire "story" of the "rescue" is fraught with numerous difficulties that call it into question, but if it is to be dismissed it should be on factual grounds rather than an unwillingness to look beyond the obvious.

Greg King
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on November 09, 2004, 05:47:40 AM
The obvious being that they didn't exist and the entire 'escape' story is ridiculous and cannot be verified with any facts.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on November 09, 2004, 10:26:14 AM
How many different names did Lenin have during his revolutionary  career?  How many names did Kudrin have?  How many names did Yurovsky have?

If there was a Tchaikovsky and iif  the Soviets didn't want any record of him,  that was an easy task.  The CHEKA were good at erasing people and their past in 1918 and they even became better at this task under the GPU and even better, later, as they took the initals KGB.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on November 09, 2004, 12:25:38 PM
But it wasn't just in Russia there was no record, it was in Romania, where they (allegedly) settled. There was no record of him or his brother or AA or the baby or the jewels that were (allegedly) sold. This points to the very real possibilty that the Tchiakovsky brothers never existed and the entire story of the escape is fictional. Isn't it strange there is no evidence of their reality anywhere?

There WAS, however, a child born to AA, and that story does remain a mystery.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on November 09, 2004, 12:34:06 PM
Quote
But it wasn't just in Russia there was no record, it was in Romania, where they (allegedly) settled. There was no record of him or his brother or AA or the baby or the jewels that were (allegedly) sold. This points to the very real possibilty that the Tchiakovsky brothers never existed and the entire story of the escape is fictional. Isn't it strange there is no evidence of their reality anywhere?

There WAS, however, a child born to AA, and that story does remain a mystery.


Looking at maps is a tricky business.  There are parts of Romania that weren't Romania after WW I..... And,  there were parts of Russia which were part of Romania for short periods of time and then were returned to Russia.

If I remember the life of Tchiakovsky,  he was supported by Tecks who owned a suger factory in one of these areas which was handed back and forth between Russia and Rumania.

As for the sale of jewels,  I doubt they were sold on an open market and a paper trail was left....

AGRBear

PS  All said:  If there was a Tchiakovsky..... because I sure don't know.....
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Evanescence on November 17, 2004, 03:07:33 PM
Quote
I think that poor Anna thought she really was the Grand Duchess-everything about her behavior screamed mentall ill-she had persecution complexes, came up with huge stories about nonsense, she was paranoid, and she was an animal hoarder.  Poor woman wasn't a con artist, or the real deal, she was simply sick and needed help.  But everyone who claimed to be on her side simply was more interested in proving her claim than actually doing what was in her best interest.


Actually many who have met her said they didn't see anything insane about her. Even Gertrude noted that the personalities were way different and AA was much more polite. Also she loved animals she had many cats and dogs and they were with her until her death.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 17, 2004, 03:35:29 PM
Quote

Actually many who have met her said they didn't see anything insane about her. Even Gertrude noted that the personalities were way different and AA was much more polite. Also she loved animals she had many cats and dogs and they were with her until her death.


I have worked with mentally ill people, and I can tell you, sometimes it is very difficult to tell that they are mentally ill, unless one is trained or has been around mental illness a lot. I mean, being mentally ill doesn't not mean bouncing off walls in a straight jacket, this is a myth. Many many mentally ill people "pass" for years, with no one really suspecting that they are ill, they usually think this person is just "eccentric". It's only after the illness has sufficiently progressed, which takes many years, to manifest itself and to make itself very obvious, is when people start to question the person's behavior, and suspecting an illness - that takes a while! Many signs about AA point to a fact that she may have been mentally ill, i.e. possibly paranoid schitzophrenic or delusional, or both. Again, that doesn't mean that it would have been that obvious to those around her, except maybe in her particular delusion of being AN. This is pretty common from what I understand, someone with a delusion similar to that, but acting perfectly normal with everything else. I am not a psychiatrist, so I will not make any diagnosis here, but I will just say that I would not be surprised if this were the case, as AA's behavior and personality seem to manifest symptoms of what I mentioned above. But we're all just speculatiing here, obviously there is no way to find out now...
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 17, 2004, 03:44:36 PM
Quote
On the early topic regarding the identity of AA's "inlaws"

IMO they bare more then a passing resemblence to the Schankowsky family....the names are similar...and there is that comment about both being "scions of the old polish nobility"....

What does everyone else think?


If AA was indeed FS, then it is possible of course that this is where her story originated, unbeknownst even to her own consciousness. All delusions take root in some form of reality, no matter how far removed from it...
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Evanescence on November 17, 2004, 07:53:52 PM
Quote

I have worked with mentally ill people, and I can tell you, sometimes it is very difficult to tell that they are mentally ill, unless one is trained or has been around mental illness a lot. I mean, being mentally ill doesn't not mean bouncing off walls in a straight jacket, this is a myth. Many many mentally ill people "pass" for years, with no one really suspecting that they are ill, they usually think this person is just "eccentric". It's only after the illness has sufficiently progressed, which takes many years, to manifest itself and to make itself very obvious, is when people start to question the person's behavior, and suspecting an illness - that takes a while! Many signs about AA point to a fact that she may have been mentally ill, i.e. possibly paranoid schitzophrenic or delusional, or both. Again, that doesn't mean that it would have been that obvious to those around her, except maybe in her particular delusion of being AN. This is pretty common from what I understand, someone with a delusion similar to that, but acting perfectly normal with everything else. I am not a psychiatrist, so I will not make any diagnosis here, but I will just say that I would not be surprised if this were the case, as AA's behavior and personality seem to manifest symptoms of what I mentioned above. But we're all just speculatiing here, obviously there is no way to find out now...


I think that in her early years from the 20's-40's she was mentally ill and maybe she somehow grew out of it? (I know that was lame, but I didn't have another word for it) Is it possible that she was cured when she grew older?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 17, 2004, 08:01:39 PM
Quote

I think that in her early years from the 20's-40's she was mentally ill and maybe she somehow grew out of it? (I know that was lame, but I didn't have another word for it) Is it possible that she was cured when she grew older?


Unfortunately mental illness doesn't spontenuously go away. Nowadays it can be treated with medication, depending on the diagnosis, some people do very well - until they get off the meds that is. Back then, they didn't have the kind of medication they have now, so unfortunately people who were mentally ill were either kept in mental hospitals,  given electroshock treatments or some other treatments that weren't very effective and quite barberic, or just kept in a "padded room" so to speak, or just allowed to roam around and do their thing. No, she could not have "grown out" of it if she had schitzophrenia, she would only have gotten worse with time :(
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on November 18, 2004, 06:19:49 AM
You're right, Helen, and also as one ages, more problems such as dementia and senility come along. Even if a person wasn't mentally ill young, some get these, so if someone did have problems to begin with it's more likely they will develop those too. I believe by old age, if not sooner, she honestly believed in her mind she was Anastasia.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Dana on November 18, 2004, 06:21:40 AM
After a visit in November 2004, in an almost deserted church, I can confirm what you said about the imperial tombs.
Dana
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on November 24, 2004, 07:21:58 AM
After feeling frustrated and exasperated over and over again that people still claim all the 'anti' AA people only say DNA over and over no matter how many times I list my other reasons, I figured maybe my posts were being ignored or overlooked, so I am putting this in a new thread for open and honest point and counterpoint debate. Every time I list this and ask for answers, all I get is 'all you people say is DNA' even though I left DNA off the list! I realize that those who choose for whatever reason to still believe AA was AN will never believe the DNA, they will say it was rigged or switched or something, so let's do what some have asked for, reasons OTHER than DNA. One poster has claimed everything but the DNA points to her being Anastasia, but I strongly disagree. Here, once again, are my reasons:

 
She did not make a claim until someone at the asylum gave her the idea with a book  
 
She first claimed to be Tatiana  
 
Her story of escape is unbelievable and cannot be proven or verified. There is no evidence Alexander Tchiakovsky ever existed, and it sounds like a conveniently invented name (common first name, famous last name)  
 
It is very unlikely anyone survived the brutal massacre, and if they did, could not possibly have lasted for long, traveling miles in a cart, with no medical attention. If they didn't bleed to death they'd succumb to infection later. It's what, almost 1,000 miles from Ekaterinburg to Romania? How many weeks is that by cart in the mud, hiding from populated areas? It's not realistic.  
 
 
She doesn't look like Anastasia- fuller lips, wider mouth, wider set eyes, different shaped chin  
 
Any of her 'memories' could be explained as being told to her, intentionally or inadvertently, by Russian emigres'  
 
Even with these 'memories' much of what she said was inaccurate  
 
The Romanov and Hesse families rejected her, and I don't believe they'd have been so cold if she were genuine  
 
The Schanskowska family first accepted, then denied her, and later there is evidence they did so to avoid responsibility for a troublesome sister and as not to spoil her 'career' as 'Anastasia'  
 
Many other acquaitences of the family rejected her as false. When she met some, she hid part of her face or stayed behind a screen so they couldn't get a good look.  
 
with all the rumors of money and vast fortunes (which later proved false) there was the potential for 'gold digging' and 'supporters'  backing her in hopes of a huge payoff if she could win  
 
There are too many different stories and conflicting reports of things like her height, scars, what languages she spoke, and when she spoke them. Most of these stories are from only one source, often unnamed or unverified, and many contradict each other.  
 
With all the claims about the ear, I don't see an exact match, and don't see how one can possibly be made from an old black and white photo. It is impossible to get the full detail from that. And if this evidence is so compelling why did the court not rule her Anastasia?

And then there are the pictures:

FS is in the middle, the others are AA.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/aafs.jpg)

Anastasia's face was a completely different shape, especially her chin and the setting of her eyes. Even if FS's mouth has been tampered with as some claim, the basic bone structure of the face is the same as AA's, as are the much wider mouth and fuller lips as compared to Anastasia:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/amouth.jpg)

and, no, I don't believe being hit in the face with rifle butts will change your bone structure. If her facial bones were broken, her face would look like a damaged version of Anastasia's face, not a completely different person.

As I have also said, I used to believe in AA, but I don't anymore, and now I really wonder how I ever could. I must have just wanted it so badly. But sadly it isn't true.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: JM on November 24, 2004, 07:37:38 AM
Quote
She did not make a claim until someone at the asylum gave her the idea with a book
 
Everything happend after that. I suppose you could use that against her but IMO it doesn't really hold up. The real Anastasia could have had the same thing happen to her.
Quote
She first claimed to be Tatiana
 
She never claimed to be Tatiana.
Quote
Her story of escape is unbelievable and cannot be proven or verified. There is no evidence Alexander Tchiakovsky ever existed, and it sounds like a conveniently invented name (common first name, famous last name)
 
Alot of thing are unbelieveable, but they still manage to occur. Besides, that's an opinion. We can believe the second part of your statement, if we want to assume, of course. ;)
Quote
It is very unlikely anyone survived the brutal massacre, and if they did, could not possibly have lasted for long, traveling miles in a cart, with no medical attention. If they didn't bleed to death they'd succumb to infection later. It's what, almost 1,000 miles from Ekaterinburg to Romania? How many weeks is that by cart in the mud, hiding from populated areas? It's not realistic.
 
Once again -- opinion.
Quote
She doesn't look like Anastasia- fuller lips, wider mouth, wider set eyes, different shaped chin
 
. . . opinion.
Quote
Any of her 'memories' could be explained as being told to her, intentionally or inadvertently, by Russian emigres'  

They could be explained eh? Well, explain them!
Quote
Even with these 'memories' much of what she said was inaccurate
 
Like what?
Quote
The Romanov and Hesse families rejected her, and I don't believe they'd have been so cold if she were genuine  

Not all, not all.
Quote
The Schanskowska family first accepted, then denied her, and later there is evidence they did so to avoid responsibility for a troublesome sister and as not to spoil her 'career' as 'Anastasia'  

It sounds as if those people were/are mighty confused.
Quote
Many other acquaitences of the family rejected her as false. When she met some, she hid part of her face or stayed behind a screen so they couldn't get a good look.  

How do you know it was so that they wouldn't get a good look? As "realistic" as that sounds, it remains speculation.
Quote
with all the rumors of money and vast fortunes (which later proved false) there was the potential for 'gold digging' and 'supporters'  backing her in hopes of a huge payoff if she could win  

I'll give you that!
Quote
There are too many different stories and conflicting reports of things like her height, scars, what languages she spoke, and when she spoke them. Most of these stories are from only one source, often unnamed or unverified, and many contradict each other.
 
I'd love to see these "contradictions." And yet, your entire point doesn't really prove anything except that there were alot of stories -- both for and against I should add.
Quote
With all the claims about the ear, I don't see an exact match, and don't see how one can possibly be made from an old black and white photo. It is impossible to get the full detail from that. And if this evidence is so compelling why did the court not rule her Anastasia?

The experts managed to do it. I hate to say this, but you're not an expert -- none of us are.
Quote
As I have also said, I used to believe in AA, but I don't anymore, and now I really wonder how I ever could. I must have just wanted it so badly. But sadly it isn't true.

You certaintly have said that! I never wanted to believe that she was A, and I don't believe that AA was A.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on November 24, 2004, 08:02:21 AM
I don't think it's an opinion that a person could not survive such injuries without treatment that long in an old cart, it's reality of the human body.

But, if you're only going to answer 'opinion' to everything, even seeing things in the face that just plain aren't there, well then this is never going to end. I could put my own pic up here and say I look like Anastasia. I have pics of me as a kid that look more like her than any of AA. I'm sure you could put a dog up here and in someone's 'opinion' it would look like the Tsar. Some people see the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich and pay a million dollars for it. If that's the only answer, no hard evidence, then there is really nothing to discuss. Go ahead and believe it if it makes you happy, and Santa and the Tooth Fairy too.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Louise on November 24, 2004, 08:07:05 AM
They only paid 28 K for the sandwich.

Louise
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on November 24, 2004, 08:13:15 AM
Quote
They only paid 28 K for the sandwich.

Louise


LOL thanks, I thought it got higher bids. I'm glad they got such a bargain!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: ISteinke on November 24, 2004, 08:47:54 AM
OK-
    I want to rationally respond to Annie's post, point by point.
    First of all, Anna Anderson, in her previous existance as Fraulein Unbekaant, never made claims on her own behalf. In fact, from reports made when she first entered Dalldorf Asylum, she was hysterical, and nearly mute. Because of her physical appearance rumors spread around Berlin that one of the Grand Ducchesses was alive and living at Dalldorf. People in the emigre community came to see her, and the conclusion spread that she was Tatiana.

    Secondly, she never claimed to be Tatiana. As mentioned above it was the emigre community who identified her as such.

    She was first identified as Anastasia not by herself, but by Princess Martha of Sweden, before anyone else had even considered the idea. When it was rumored that one of the Grand Duchesses was alive, the King of Denmark asked Herluf Zahle to look into the case. Princess Martha asked if she might be able to see her. Ambassador Zahle replied that she was shy, and didn't like to be gawked at. However, he told her, there was a certain time, every day, when she [AA] appeared on a balcony. They would drive by at that time.

    When Zahle and Princess Martha drove by she exclaimed [as if it was the most obvious, second-nature thing in the world], "That's not Tatiana. That's Anastasia." The nature of the remark was to effect of, "These silly stupid people! Yes! That is one of the Grand Duchesses, but I knew them, and I know which one that she is. It isn't Tatiana. It's Anastasia."

    As far as her story of escape is concerned- The adress that she gave in old Bucharest was the same address as the Imperial German Embassy. Doesn't it seem strange that Franziska Schanskowska knew the adress of the Imperial German Embassy, and claimed to have stayed there? I think there are alot of things that we don't know about the escape from Russia. Think about it. She was seriously ill, probably in and out of consciousness, in shock from the murder of her family. There was probably a much more plausible story, but she was unable to tell about it. Also, why do you suppose that the family and military staff of Kaiser Wilhelm were so unhesitant about accepting her?

    Of course the story of the cross-country trek in a cart is stupid. However, that probably isn't what happened anyway.

    In addition the idea that there had to be evidence of an individual named Alexander Tsaikovsky existing, in backward, primitive Russia, nearly 100 years ago. How many Russians named AT do you think lived and died without ever having had written records of their lives?

    Plus, just because his name is common doesn't mean he doesn't exist. If I have an American friend named John Smith, should I tell him that any information about his existance is invalid, based on his name?

    As far as her lips, mouth, eyes, and chin- You didn't know Anastasia. You've only seen pictures. Lili Dehn did know Anastasia. Lili Dehn certainly believed these to be the same lips, mouth, eyes, and chin.

    As far as her memories- No Russian emigre could have told her to splash perfume on Shura, or to break out in uncontrollable grief when Zinaida Tolstoy played an obscure, unpublished song on the piano. No Russian emigre could have told her the correct answers to Felix Dassel's mistakes [at the Castle of the Duke of Leuchtenberg]. How many people knew the exact nature of the gifts that she had given to an obscure army officer at Christmas, 1916?

    As far as inaccuracies- What she said was not inaccurate. There was an article published in National Geographic [and other magazines in Europe] shortly after the end of the Russian Civil War, titled First Pictures Out of Soviet Russia.
In this article were pictures of each of the private rooms in the Alexander Palace. A nurse at Dalldorf Asylum cut away the captions from the pictures, then cut the pictures out and rearranged them. Then she took them to AA. AA blushed and became upset, and even embarassed. Her response was, "That's my father's bathroom!" She went on to identify every last one of those pictures in minute detail, exactly as they were in the magazine, without flaws in memory.

The Romanov and Hesse families did not universally reject her. The Hesse's are a better bet on this one, but the Romanovs- well,

Of all the pre-revolutionary generation of Romanovs, only Olga, Andrei, Xenia, Nina, and Vera Konstantinovna ever met her. As far as the others are concerned- How can you make a judgement call on the identity of someone you have never met? The testimony of people who never met is completely invalid. Now, let's look at the testimony of those who did meet her

Olga- first recognized her and then later publicly recanted, after going back to the home of her mother- Is known to have referred to AA in private, throughout her life, as "my niece."

Andrei- accepted her unconditionally

Xenia- Accepted her unconditionally

Vera K.- said that she was the same nasty little girl that she always was.

Nina- said that she may not have been Anastasia, but was definitely a high-born lady

As for the Hesses- they lived way off in Germany and nearly never saw Anastasia. They did not know her. Also, she revealed a potentially damaging political fact. Is it outside the bounds of human nature to reject a relative if it is damaging to your own selfish ends to do otherwise?

Also, if you really look at the nature of relationships between the Romanovs, they ARE an exceptionally cold and heartless and disfunctional family. [Silent in seven languages] Just the facts concerning their pre-revolutionary behaviour [towards one another] should prove this.

"Father, why don't we go see Uncle Nikita?"
"Why? I already know him." [Quoted from Robert Massie- Romanovs the Final Chapter]

Well, this is getting long. I will respond to the rest of your points in a later e-mail, in a couple of hours.  ISteinke
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on November 24, 2004, 08:50:27 AM

Quote
 
 
She never claimed to be Tatiana.


Yes, she did.
 
 
Quote
. . . opinion.
They could be explained eh? Well, explain them!


Easy. She met and spoke with a lot of people who had fled Russia. Some of them asked her questions, or if she remembered this or that, and she likely used that on the next person to make them think she remembered it herself. I also believe some people (like the Botkins) actually fed her memories in order to help her case. There has been nothing she said that she couldn't have gotten from some Russian emigre'.
 
Quote
Like what?


Like the interior of the Alexander Palace, which rooms were where, and what color things were.


Quote
It sounds as if those people were/are mighty confused.
quote]

They weren't confused at all. They were debating whether or not to claim her. If they did, think of this- they would have been responsible for her and possibly all the court costs she had incurred. By admitting she was a fake, she'd have had been in trouble for filing a false claim which carries jail time. Then, they'd have to support a mentally ill sister the rest of her life, a sister who would hate them for spoiling her chances. There are quotes by her brother Felix that 'if she is my sister, I won't have to be responsible for her, will I?' and later, that they left her to what she wanted, her life as "Anastasia." But perhaps the most damning piece of evidence that they knew she was Franziska was this letter written to Gertrude in 1959 by her lawyer. It is documented, lawyer's name, date and all:

The lawyer Hans-Herman Krampff wrote to Mrs Gertrude Ellerik the 11 April 1959: "The research made in the meantime has resulted that at the confrotation with Mrs Anderson in 1938 you were not the only one who recognized her as your sister Franziska. Your brothers and sisters also did but abstained to say so in order not to make obstacles of the career of their sister. Afterwards your sister Maria has died and your brother Valerian lives in Poland. So it´s only you and your brother Felix left who can be heard at the trial in Hamburg. I would like to inform you that you have nothing to fear if you told the truth now since the time of a criminal act has expired". From the French journalist Dominique Auclère´s book. Anastasia qui etes-vous?

Quote
How do you know it was so that they wouldn't get a good look? As "realistic" as that sounds, it remains speculation.


Why else would someone cover their face?
 
Quote
love to see these "contradictions." And yet, your entire point doesn't really prove anything except that there were alot of stories -- both for and against I should add.


Yes there were, and that is why none of them are of any value. Some say she was this or that height, some say she spoke or did not speak this or that language, or spoke it sooner than later, or wore this or that size shoe. Because these contradict each other and none are proven, NONE of it is of value to validly back up EITHER side.


Quote
experts managed to do it. I hate to say this, but you're not an expert -- none of us are.


Then why were the 'real' experts unable to prove it, but real experts did prove it with the DNA nobody wants to believe.

Quote
I never wanted to believe that she was A, and I don't believe that AA was A.


Then why do you fight for her so strongly?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Angie_H on November 24, 2004, 08:57:27 AM
Quote
She never claimed to be Tatiana.

One of the other patients identified her as Tatiana and AA did not dispute them, she went along with them. She only said she was Anastasia when someone (I forget who) who knew the family and saw her and said she was too short to be Tatiana
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on November 24, 2004, 08:59:53 AM
ISteinke, I have to go and it may be several days before I can anwer your long post but I will. But I don't put much stock in those recognizations considering many more denied her, and there are reports on Olga's true feelings that totally contradict yours that you continue to ignore, such as the one about their first meeting. I never heard anything about her calling her 'my niece' and if she did it was likely a sarcastic joke. I hope FA can post what he has on this if he has time.

Also, didn't Xenia deny her after the family denounced her and she lost the first court case? They were hardly lifelong buddies. You say the Hessians never saw her? Andrei saw her far less. N and A HATED the Vladimirovichi and saw them rarely. If, as you stated once Andrei came to the palace during the war to discuss military things, I hardly think he spent his time there visiting with OTMA for fun, so no, I do NOT consider him to be a good source at all. You say Shura recognized her, but it may only have been momentary wishful thinking. Her husband Gilliard, the live in tutor who knew them very well, fought AA until his dying day. So did Olga and Felix Y. I believe they did this because the pretenders were making a joke of a tragedy to people they knew and loved dearly. More later.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Angie_H on November 24, 2004, 09:16:36 AM
I asked this in another thread:
Why was Dmitri not asked to identify her? He was a Romanov that was close to the family and would have known her a whole lot better than Andrei
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on November 24, 2004, 09:24:58 AM
I agree, Dmitri would have known, and so would Anna V. I think the reasons they were never asked is because they WOULD know and the truth would hurt her case ;)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 24, 2004, 09:34:00 AM
ISteinke, I am glad you're still around and following these AA threads. I was wondering why you weren't responding to some very valid points made on the thread you posted (Dealing Fearlessly with reality) and instead jump from thread to thread replying only to posts that suit you?

You made some statements on the other thread that were counter-argued but you never responded to the counter arguments. Why do you only respond to selective posts? Come on, you have to be able to defend your statements elsewhere too. I understand that arguing this case without the scientific evidence is more to your liking, but there were some other valid points made too, that you haven't responded to.

It's funny, people say they want proof about AA, then when they get proof via DNA they say that they can't accept it because it is only one thing among many... Then other things are brought up as proof, that isn't really proof because it is completely subjective evidence, and the argument starts all over.

If this weren't so sad, it would be quite comical.  ;)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on November 24, 2004, 09:45:59 AM
Quote
ISteinke, I am glad you're still around and following these AA threads. I was wondering why you weren't responding to some very valid points made on the thread you posted (Dealing Fearlessly with reality) and instead jump from thread to thread replying only to posts that suit you?

 You made some statements on the other thread that were counter-argued but you never responded to the counter arguments. Why do you only respond to selective posts? Come on, you have to be able to defend your statements elsewhere too. I understand that arguing this case without the scientific evidence is more to your liking, but there were some other valid points made too, that you haven't responded to.

It's funny, people say they want proof about AA, then when they get proof via DNA they say that they can't accept it because it is only one thing among many... Then other things are brought up as proof, that isn't really proof because it is completely subjective evidence, and the argument starts all over.

If this weren't so sad, it would be quite comical.  ;)


I totally agree.  

Your last line sums it up well.  
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Forum Admin on November 24, 2004, 11:54:24 AM
Quote
    Because of her physical appearance rumors spread around Berlin that one of the Grand Ducchesses was alive and living at Dalldorf. People in the emigre community came to see her, and the conclusion spread that she was Tatiana.

     Secondly, she never claimed to be Tatiana. As mentioned above it was the emigre community who identified her as such.

This just proves my point that people saw in AA what they WANTED to see. How can this lend any weight to AA being AN? How can it be credible when so many people already had decided what they wanted to see?
Quote
    She was first identified as Anastasia not by herself, but by Princess Martha of Sweden, before anyone else had even considered the idea. When it was rumored that one of the Grand Duchesses was alive, the King of Denmark asked Herluf Zahle to look into the case. Princess Martha asked if she might be able to see her. Ambassador Zahle replied that she was shy, and didn't like to be gawked at. However, he told her, there was a certain time, every day, when she [AA] appeared on a balcony. They would drive by at that time.

     When Zahle and Princess Martha drove by she exclaimed [as if it was the most obvious, second-nature thing in the world], "That's not Tatiana. That's Anastasia." The nature of the remark was to effect of, "These silly stupid people! Yes! That is one of the Grand Duchesses, but I knew them, and I know which one that she is. It isn't Tatiana. It's Anastasia."

see my above comment. ibid.

 
Quote
 Olga- first recognized her and then later publicly recanted, after going back to the home of her mother- Is known to have referred to AA in private, throughout her life, as "my niece."
 
Andrei- accepted her unconditionally
 
Xenia- Accepted her unconditionally

This statement is wholly incorrect. Quite the opposite!
February, 15th 1928, Hvidore
 
Dear Miss B***,
 
Thank you for your nice letter.  
 
Indeed, you understand like us the absurdity of this story! More and more, I see that this story is all about blackmail and money. Let’s say I’m mistaken.
 
But how can you believe that her maid, Ms Gilliard, who knows her since she was 6 weeks (and Mr Gilliard, who was as well with the beloved family until the moment they were separated in June 1918 could be mistaken?)
It’s ridiculous as well to say that the grand mother and I don’t want to have her close to us.  
 
What a shame to talk like that.
 
I say openly that my cousin André must have some vile motives to side against us…
Uncle from Hesse is also serene with the fact that the person is not our niece. He has proofs, as you may have seen or read in “L’Illustration” where the photos of the ears were, now it’s a known fact that the ears never change. (small snip)We send you our best wishes.  
 
Greetings from Mother, Xenia, Emilia Jr, Cecilia and Gustav.
 
I kiss you heartily, dear Miss B****!
 
Olga" original letter from GD Olga in French here: http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1075191962;start=371#371

Quote
As for the Hesses- they lived way off in Germany and nearly never saw Anastasia. They did not know her. Also, she revealed a potentially damaging political fact. Is it outside the bounds of human nature to reject a relative if it is damaging to your own selfish ends to do otherwise?

Again, wholly incorrect. Ernst-Ludwig and family were VERY regular visitors with the IF before WWI. The IF also went to Darmstadt and stayed for quite a long while. Alexei referred to his cousins as the "nyemetsky". Also, WHAT selfish ends could there have been? What would the 'real Anastasia' have inherited? virtually nothing, if you go read the long thread on this topic.
Quote
Also, if you really look at the nature of relationships between the Romanovs, they ARE an exceptionally cold and heartless and disfunctional family. [Silent in seven languages] Just the facts concerning their pre-revolutionary behaviour [towards one another] should prove this.
  ISteinke
Exactly how many real Romanovs have you met? We have met them and found them quite the opposite.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: JM on November 24, 2004, 12:33:13 PM
Quote
I don't think it's an opinion that a person could not survive such injuries without treatment that long in an old cart, it's reality of the human body.

No matter how likely it may seem, it remains an opinion.
Quote
But, if you're only going to answer 'opinion' to everything, even seeing things in the face that just plain aren't there, well then this is never going to end. I could put my own pic up here and say I look like Anastasia. I have pics of me as a kid that look more like her than any of AA. I'm sure you could put a dog up here and in someone's 'opinion' it would look like the Tsar. Some people see the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich and pay a million dollars for it. If that's the only answer, no hard evidence, then there is really nothing to discuss. Go ahead and believe it if it makes you happy, and Santa and the Tooth Fairy too.

I don't believe it, and if I did, I can't see it making me any happier. I hate to be repetitive, but it's your opinion that there is no likeness between the two. And I tend to agree with you.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: JM on November 24, 2004, 12:35:04 PM
Quote
One of the other patients identified her as Tatiana and AA did not dispute them, she went along with them. She only said she was Anastasia when someone (I forget who) who knew the family and saw her and said she was too short to be Tatiana

Okay, find the quote where AA says: "I hereby claim to be the Grand Duchess Tatiana." Go ahead and look. I'm waiting. . .
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: JM on November 24, 2004, 12:36:59 PM
Quote
Then why do you fight for her so strongly?

I don't fight for her. I fight against you guys because it's amusing.  There is a difference. :)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 24, 2004, 12:39:56 PM
Quote
No matter how likely it may seem, it remains an opinion.


And this is why, boys and girls (and forgive me if I sound like a broken record), but this is why we need objective and definitive evidence like DNA: because everything else comes down to an opinion not real evidence. I know in this thread we are not allowed to mention the "D" word but it is impossible not to in this case. Sorry!  ;D
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: JM on November 24, 2004, 12:41:04 PM
Quote

And this is why, boys and girls (and forgive me if I sound like a broken record), but this is why we need objective and definitive evidence like DNA. I know in this thread we are not allowed to mention the "D" word but it is impossible not to in this case. Sorry!  ;D

Exactly!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on November 24, 2004, 12:42:14 PM
Quote
I don't fight for her. I fight against you guys because it's amusing.  There is a difference. :)


Nothing is more 'amusing' than most of the AA supporters' reasonings and conspiracy theories. If you really enjoy being amused, you should switch sides!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 24, 2004, 01:01:45 PM
Sometimes playing the "devil's advocate" will make a much better point than anything else. ;)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Michelle on November 24, 2004, 09:51:19 PM
Quote

Nothing is more 'amusing' than most of the AA supporters' reasonings and conspiracy theories. If you really enjoy being amused, you should switch sides!


Actually, there's absolutely nothing more amusing than "hearing" the AA detractors scrambling in their seats when convincing evidence is brought up, and then getting mad dismissing supporters as "tooth fairy and Santa Claus believers." ;)  ::)  But perhaps we should stay on topic.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on November 24, 2004, 09:59:06 PM
As soon as I see any convincing evidence brought up, I'll start scrambling! But I don't see any.  :-/

Here's a new pic comparison I made showing the difference in the nose, chin and lip shapes of AN and AA.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/anaa.jpg)

I'll make more as my slow computer allows. I know there is 'opinion' but really a shape is a shape.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: rskkiya on November 24, 2004, 10:44:57 PM

Regarding the most recently posted photos-sorry, but in my poor opinion, these two photos look nothing alike (two causcasian 20th century females).....
   Please Annie and Michelle lets all remember to maintain a civil and friendly tone in this discussion...(it's starting to sound just a bit overheated in here!)


rskkiya

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Laura Mabee on November 24, 2004, 11:03:40 PM
Alright, I've been debating if I should join this debate or not. And I suppose since this is my kinda thread (ie. no DNA) I'll post.
I made this a while back when I was going to get in this debate, it's a picture of AA and AN's ears... It had what I saw when I looked at the ears. I noticed that AA's ear a part of it seemed to go the wrong direction then AN's ear. Above my little example pictures is a un-touched picture... Do people see what I see?

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v288/n_sane_peace/FatalForums/image025.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v288/n_sane_peace/FatalForums/ear.jpg)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Laura Mabee on November 24, 2004, 11:17:04 PM
I also had another thought. Anastasia always had bangs because of a scar she had on her forhead. AA didn't have bangs when she was found. Now you could counter attack that with "AN shaved her head" But in the last picture of AN, she had enough hair there to make bangs again. And then you could counter attack that with "after the murder AA shaved her head since all the dry blood build up" But from 1918 to 1921, I think she would have had time to grow them back.

Ok, that aside, if she decided that she was going for a new look without the bangs, then, where is the scar on her forehead? I've seen countless pictures of her bare forhead and there isn't one there.

Also, AA's hair seems too thin to be AN's hair, whose hair seemed to have some body to it.

Just some thoughts... :-/
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Michelle on November 24, 2004, 11:19:57 PM
About the "thicker lobes" mantra that's repeated to discredit AA's ears, I have a bit of an explanation.  I admit I see a thicker lobe on AA than on AN.  But the rest of the ear is identical.  Re the lobe: AA's picture looks like it was taken as she was a rather aged woman in maybe her fifties or sixties (I recognize the style of hair sticking out from her head in the picture which is how she wore it once she started getting old).  Once someone gets old, that person's body parts aren't all going to be perky and tight and young looking.  They'll begin to sag due to gravity, or fat deposits.  Just think of your sagging butt and how much you complain about how everything sags and droops (I know my mom does).  Due to the large gap in years between the photo of AN (a teenager) and the photo of AA (an old lady), the lobes could've very possibly started sagging along with everything else that sags or gets thicker/fatter when you're old.  But other than that thought, I see no difference in the two ears pictured. The shape is the same and the design is the same.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Laura Mabee on November 25, 2004, 12:06:40 AM
Quote
About the "thicker lobes" mantra that's repeated to discredit AA's ears, I have a bit of an explanation.  I admit I see a thicker lobe on AA than on AN.  But the rest of the ear is identical.  Re the lobe: AA's picture looks like it was taken as she was a rather aged woman in maybe her fifties or sixties (I recognize the style of hair sticking out from her head in the picture which is how she wore it once she started getting old).  Once someone gets old, that person's body parts aren't all going to be perky and tight and young looking.  They'll begin to sag due to gravity, or fat deposits.  Just think of your sagging butt and how much you complain about how everything sags and droops (I know my mom does).  Due to the large gap in years between the photo of AN (a teenager) and the photo of AA (an old lady), the lobes could've very possibly started sagging along with everything else that sags or gets thicker/fatter when you're old.  But other than that thought, I see no difference in the two ears pictured. The shape is the same and the design is the same.



Yes, the lobe is thicker and your explaination makes sence, what my question is, a part of AN's ear seem to go to the right, (my arrow shows it) whereas, AA's ear seems to go straight up (look at arrow)

???
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on November 25, 2004, 07:48:27 AM
Quote
Alright, I've been debating if I should join this debate or not. And I suppose since this is my kinda thread (ie. no DNA) I'll post.
 I made this a while back when I was going to get in this debate, it's a picture of AA and AN's ears... It had what I saw when I looked at the ears. I noticed that AA's ear a part of it seemed to go the wrong direction then AN's ear. Above my little example pictures is a un-touched picture... Do people see what I see?

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v288/n_sane_peace/FatalForums/image025.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v288/n_sane_peace/FatalForums/ear.jpg)


Another thing I see is that the hole in AN's seems to be deeper, and there is an extra fold that AA doesn't have down near the lobe.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 25, 2004, 08:33:47 AM
To me they just look like ears, not different, not alike, but just a regular pair of ears. This is why evidence like this is not admitted into courts, because you can make arguments like Michelle just made. This is not valid evidence if you want to make a positive identity of someone...
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on November 25, 2004, 09:06:07 AM
Especially when it's only from an old black and white picture where the lighting and angle, as well as the condition of the photo, could change the way things appear. It's not reliable, and I guess that's why it never won her the case.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Czarevna Colleen on January 17, 2005, 05:23:49 PM
 ???This is an interesting thread.  However, there are some things that I need to express, that have been before, but I feel that it should be said again:

Anna Anderson, whoever she was, did not claim to be Tatiana.  It was Clara Peuthart, a fellow inmate at the Dalldorf Asylum in Berlin who, while looking at a magazine with pictures of the Romanovs, became convinced that Anna was Tatiana.  Anderson did not at any time confirm this, and she said she was Anastasia after being questioned.  I find it a little strange that FS's family denied that she was Franciska and now it has "supposedly" been proven that she was.  While many of you have suggested that she could have been trained by someone in her knowledge of the IF, she knew way too much about the family that was available to the public at the time.  Why did Glebb and Tatiana Botkin, Princess Xenia, and others, believe her to be Anastasia?  Would they have been taken in by an imposter?  There are some many unanswered questions.  I hope one day we will know the answers. :-/
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Alice on January 19, 2005, 07:22:12 AM
Quote
About the "thicker lobes" mantra that's repeated to discredit AA's ears, I have a bit of an explanation.  I admit I see a thicker lobe on AA than on AN.  But the rest of the ear is identical.  Re the lobe: AA's picture looks like it was taken as she was a rather aged woman in maybe her fifties or sixties (I recognize the style of hair sticking out from her head in the picture which is how she wore it once she started getting old).  Once someone gets old, that person's body parts aren't all going to be perky and tight and young looking.  They'll begin to sag due to gravity, or fat deposits.  Just think of your sagging butt and how much you complain about how everything sags and droops (I know my mom does).  Due to the large gap in years between the photo of AN (a teenager) and the photo of AA (an old lady), the lobes could've very possibly started sagging along with everything else that sags or gets thicker/fatter when you're old.  But other than that thought, I see no difference in the two ears pictured. The shape is the same and the design is the same.


So you're actually admitting that the ears aren't the same? Can I have that signed and dated, please?  :D(LOL JK). If they're not the same, we don't need to discuss them, because the original argument for the ears was that AA's and AN's were the same (as, apparently, was "proved" in court).

The only thing the ears have in common (at least, to me) is that they're both ears.

Quote
Why did Glebb and Tatiana Botkin, Princess Xenia, and others, believe her to be Anastasia?


Why did Olga Alexandrovna, Pierre Gilliard, Charles Gibbes and others (who were around AN more than the three people you mentioned), say she was an imposter?

Quote
While many of you have suggested that she could have been trained by someone in her knowledge of the IF, she knew way too much about the family that was available to the public at the time.


But she also made many mistakes. For example, she said that Charles Sydney Gibbes had a limp, and he confirmed that he did not. There are also quotes from Olga Alexandrovna about the "garbled" stories AA knew.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 19, 2005, 07:51:39 AM
Quote

There are also quotes from Olga Alexandrovna about the "garbled" stories AA knew.


From "The Last Grand Duchess" by Ian Vorres, where Anastasia's aunt, GD Olga Alexandrovna, describes her initial meeting with AA:  
 
p. 174  
 
When Olga entered the room, the woman lying on a bed asked a nurse: “Ist das die Tante?”[Is this the Aunt?]  “That”, confessed Olga, “at once took me aback. A moment later I remembered that the young woman having spent five years in Germany, would naturally have learnt the language, but then I heard that when she was rescued from that canal in 1920, she spoke nothing but German – when she spoke at all- which was not often.  I readily admit that a ghastly horror experienced in one’s youth can work havoc with one’s memory but I have never heard of any ghastly experience endowing anyone with a knowledge they had not had before it happened. My nieces knew no German at all. Mrs Anderson did not seem to understand a word of Russian or English, the two languages all the four sisters had spoken since babyhood. French came a little later, but German was never spoken in the family”.

P. 175  
 
The Grand Duchess [Olga Alexandrovna] remarked that the interviews were made all the more difficult by Mrs Anderson’s attitude. She would not answer some of the questions, and looked angry when those questions were repeated. Some Romanov photographs were shown to her, and there was not a flicker of recognition in her eyes. The Grand Duchess had brought a small icon of St Nicholas, the patron saint of the imperial family. Mrs Anderson looked at it so indifferently that it was obvious the icon said nothing to her.  

P. 176  
 
Olga Alexandrovna: “…That child was as dear to me as if she were my own daughter. As soon as I sat down by that bed in the Mommsen Nursing Home, I knew I was looking at a stranger… I had left Denmark with something of a hope in my heart. I left Berlin with all hope extinguished. "  
 
“…The mistakes she made could not be all attributed to lapses of memory. For instance, she had a scar on one of her fingers and she kept telling everybody that it had been crushed because of a footman shutting the door of a landau too quickly. And at once I remembered the incident. It was Marie, her elder sister, who got her hand hurt rather badly, and it did not happen in a carriage but on board the imperial train. Obviously someone, having heard something of the incident, had passed a garbled version of it to Mrs Anderson.  
 
“Then again I heard that a party in Berlin, when she was offered some vodka, Mrs Anderson said : ‘How nice! It does remind me of the days at Tsarskoe Selo!” Vodka certainly would not have brought any such reminder to my niece… My nieces never touched either wine or spirits – and indeed how could they at their age?…”  


Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Michelle on January 19, 2005, 10:22:10 AM
Quote

So you're actually admitting that the ears aren't the same? Can I have that signed and dated, please?  :D(LOL JK). If they're not the same, we don't need to discuss them, because the original argument for the ears was that AA's and AN's were the same (as, apparently, was "proved" in court).

The only thing the ears have in common (at least, to me) is that they're both ears.


Why are you so anxious for me to say that the ears aren't the same?  And no, I wasn't trying to create that impression.  I was just talking about that particular picture.  I've seen other pictures where the lobe wasn't as thick.  AA was younger in that one and all the effects of aging hadn't done their job yet.

And who is JK? ???
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 19, 2005, 10:23:35 AM
Quote

And who is JK? ???
 Michelle, I think she means "Just Kidding" but I could be wrong  ;).
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Michelle on January 19, 2005, 10:23:37 AM
It also appears to be that the picture of AA was taken at a much closer distance than the one of AN.  So that could make the lobe appear larger and thicker.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on January 19, 2005, 11:53:17 AM
Quote

Anna Anderson, whoever she was, did not claim to be Tatiana.  It was Clara Peuthart, a fellow inmate at the Dalldorf Asylum in Berlin who, while looking at a magazine with pictures of the Romanovs, became convinced that Anna was Tatiana.  Anderson did not at any time confirm this, and she said she was Anastasia after being questioned.


No, actually she did go along with the Tatiana storyline when people came to see her until one emigre' pronounced her 'too short to be Tatiana' Then someone gave her a list of all of OTMA's names and she crossed them all off but Anastasia.

Quote
 I find it a little strange that FS's family denied that she was Franciska and now it has "supposedly" been proven that she was.


That one is solved for me since hearing comments from her brother like 'if she is my sister, I don't have to be responsible for  her, do I?' and a letter written to her sister Gertrude by her lawyer in the 50's telling her she no longer had to worry about going to jail for lying in court that AA wasn't her sister, the statutes of limitations had run out. The reason they denied her was because they did not want to claim responsibilty for a sister who had no money and was probably a bit mentally ill. Had they claimed her, they'd have been held responsible for her care the rest of her life and probably even the legal fees of her false claim. Gertrude originally yelled out 'you're my sister you know you are!' but denied it too after a conference with the other 3 siblings. Her brother Felix stated later, 'she wanted to be Anastasia, we left her to what she wanted.' Her family members had also stated much later they didn't want to spoil her 'career.' Think about it, why expose her as a fraud and leave her, and possibly the family, open for legal fees and repercussions, and drag a sad and angry sister home to live in poverty when she could have had a more interesting life living off somebody or another as "Anastasia?" That's what happened, it all makes sense to me now (BTW I am an ex-AA suppporter)


Quote
 While many of you have suggested that she could have been trained by someone in her knowledge of the IF, she knew way too much about the family that was available to the public at the time.  Why did Glebb and Tatiana Botkin, Princess Xenia, and others, believe her to be Anastasia?  Would they have been taken in by an imposter?  There are some many unanswered questions.  I hope one day we will know the answers. :-/


It didn't have to be 'the public.' Many of the emigres' had direct contact with the IF and also would have known. Gleb and Tatiana Botkin, children of the family doctor, spent time in the palace with the children and were with them until they left Tobolsk. It is my theory, and I've seen others say it too, that Gleb knew she wasn't really AN but helped her with the memories to the mutual benefit of them both should she win ($$) After all, consider that he was a writer, a journalist, and this made an excellent story ;)

As far as her cousin Xenia, she was fooled at first but I believe later recanted, if not officially, she certainly distanced herself from AA after awhile and they never spoke again. I started a thread about this once, could YOU recognize a cousin you had only seen a few times in childhood, years later, after having not seen her for years? I don't believe I could, and as a matter of fact I have NOT recognized cousins I knew as children once they were adults at family reunions until someone told me who they were. AN and Xenia played together a few times as very young girls, but remember they lived out of the country a lot and were not all that close to the IF, especially after the war started and travel and parties became scarce. Also consider that the war years were AN's growing up years, the time she'd have changed the most from a child to a young adult, and looking very different. So it's understandable a cousin who hadn't seen her in years could have been intially mistaken.

So, after all this, the only 'unanswered questions' for me are, where are the 2 missing bodies, and was AA/FS faking or did she really believe she was AN? I believe she did, at least in later years, come to believe she was Anastasia.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Michelle on January 19, 2005, 12:09:35 PM
Quote
 Michelle, I think she means "Just Kidding" but I could be wrong  ;).


Oh okay. :)  Just making sure there was no inside joke going on there. ;)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: rskkiya on January 19, 2005, 01:43:32 PM
Michelle makes a good point regarding ear shape, however we only had pictures to examine -  and even then - these are old, grainy pictures which were not  taken from the exact same angle ... All sorts of misinterpritations are possible.

Michelle, you ought to look at the PBS Nova program "Anastasia Dead or Alive." If you have not seen it already this documentary goes into this particular issue in great detail!

rskkiya
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: santacruzbabe421 on January 19, 2005, 06:09:19 PM
im not quite sure whether AA was AN or not..theres reason she could b but alot of those reason r merely considence or luck on her part..idk theres several things though confuse me...mayb someone could give insight or an answer seeing as i'm no expert juss merely a person who wants more information...

narcotics: in late june of 1922 AA was in and out of the hospitals due to different medical problems the kliest's family physicion Dr. T. A. Shciler treated her on these different occasions.. he said "in her sleep she speaks Russian with good pronuncation mostly unessential thiings. She calls out distintly, "Veronica" <- veronica was the name of AT supposed sister...while sleeping does one have any control over their language and wut they say...also she refused to tell the story of "what happened" but when put under narcotics the story came out..when one's under drugs such as those you cant really lie can you?? and ur certinaly not in any condition to use ur imagination to elaborate on things that didnt happen? (cited from Peter Kurth's book ANASTASIA: THE RIDDLE OF ANNA ANDERSON)

another question is an acount of the imperial family's murder Yakov Yurovsky stated in his account written in 1934 that the women had survived the shooting..they would not die of bayonet wounds and they finally shot all of them in the head..wouldn't some1 that was there know if this was true or not??

DNA..penny wrote on another board something about DNA i got the gist of it n' juss maing sure i'm correct..the DNA of the empress didnt match the rest of her family??? i very well could b wrong could some1 correct me...

and one more point was the Soklov Report..the stories of perm?? in 1918 a girl was brought to princess helena petrocna of russia's cell and asked if she was anastaisia by the bolsheviks...she answered no but y would the bolsheviks ask if they were certain she was dead.. and siberian witnesses report that houses were searched and trains were stopped to look for the grand duchesses.. S.L wienstein the chief of moscow's foriegn commisariat for leningrad told a dr. bock that one of the women had esaped??


the possiblity that she espaped is not probable but it is possible and due to the lack of skeleton and testimonies (which could b juss rumor but still...) says that althoguhtAA might not have been AN that doesnt mean she didnt survive
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 19, 2005, 07:51:47 PM
Quote
Michelle, you ought to look at the PBS Nova program "Anastasia Dead or Alive." If you have not seen it already this documentary goes into this particular issue in great detail!

rskkiya
 I made a post about this show on one of these threads since I have it on VHS and recently watched it again, but I can't remember where now.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Alice on January 20, 2005, 07:17:27 AM
Quote

Why are you so anxious for me to say that the ears aren't the same?  And no, I wasn't trying to create that impression.  I was just talking about that particular picture.  I've seen other pictures where the lobe wasn't as thick.  AA was younger in that one and all the effects of aging hadn't done their job yet.

And who is JK? ???


Yep, that was a JK for Just Kidding. Not anxious! Just kidding!  :)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on January 20, 2005, 07:56:46 AM
Quote
DNA..penny wrote on another board something about DNA i got the gist of it n' juss maing sure i'm correct..the DNA of the empress didnt match the rest of her family??? i very well could b wrong could some1 correct me...


No, I've never heard that, the DNA of the Empress DID match the daughters, and all matched Prince Phillip, grandson of Alexandra's sister. Nicholas had different DNA since his mitochondrial DNA came from his mother, the Dowager Empress Marie (mtDNA is always passed on by the mother's family) He was tested with the body of his brother George who died before the revolution and it WAS a match.

Quote
and one more point was the Soklov Report..the stories of perm?? in 1918 a girl was brought to princess helena petrocna of russia's cell and asked if she was anastaisia by the bolsheviks...she answered no but y would the bolsheviks ask if they were certain she was dead.. and siberian witnesses report that houses were searched and trains were stopped to look for the grand duchesses.. S.L wienstein the chief of moscow's foriegn commisariat for leningrad told a dr. bock that one of the women had esaped??


This has been discussed at length here, and I am very tired of the "Perm" stories. There were rumors spread by the Bolsheviks that only Nicholas had been killed, after they found out that the Germans (whom they'd just signed a peace treaty with before WW1 was over so Russia could get out of it) had wanted all the 'princesses of German blood' delivered SAFELY to them. (Alexandra and the girls) So, naturally, they were denying having killed them and made up stories about them being running around missing. In fact, news reports around the world first just said that only the Tsar had been shot and the others were moved to a safe location! The Bolsheviks didn't want anyone to know they'd killed the entire family! That's the worst part of this, they lied about it to make people think the family was alive when in fact they were dead, yet later, people use these stories to claim that they were hiding them being alive and saying they were dead, NO! That's the very opposite of what was going on! And they did lie, the killers of Ella and others at the pit admitted to going back to town, ringing a bell and declaring the prisoners had been 'taken away by unknown persons!' See, they didn't want anyone to know they'd killed them and that's what they were hiding, not the other way around! The original 'survivor' rumors came from the Bolsheviks themselves!!


Quote
the possiblity that she espaped is not probable but it is possible and due to the lack of skeleton and testimonies (which could b juss rumor but still...) says that althoguhtAA might not have been AN that doesnt mean she didnt survive



This I agree with. Unlikely as it is, we cannot rule out her survival until her body is found, and it may never be. But I do believe there is enough evidence to rule out her being AA. While she was not AA, it doesn't mean there couldn't be another story out there. I would think if she did escape, she'd have hidden and lived in obscurity, not blabbing it all over the world making a scene like the claimants did. So while I do totally rule out the AA story (after having been a past believer!) I don't rule out other possibilities, and I'm willing to listen if anyone has any viable theories OTHER THAN AA!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on January 20, 2005, 10:38:08 AM
Quote
... [in part]...

This has been discussed at length here, and I am very tired of the "Perm" stories. There were rumors spread by the Bolsheviks that only Nicholas had been killed, after they found out that the Germans (whom they'd just signed a peace treaty with before WW1 was over so Russia could get out of it) had wanted all the 'princesses of German blood' delivered SAFELY to them. (Alexandra and the girls) So, naturally, they were denying having killed them and made up stories about them being running around missing. In fact, news reports around the world first just said that only the Tsar had been shot and the others were moved to a safe location! The Bolsheviks didn't want anyone to know they'd killed the entire family! That's the worst part of this, they lied about it to make people think the family was alive when in fact they were dead, yet later, people use these stories to claim that they were hiding them being alive and saying they were dead, NO! That's the very opposite of what was going on! And they did lie, the killers of Ella and others at the pit admitted to going back to town, ringing a bell and declaring the prisoners had been 'taken away by unknown persons!' See, they didn't want anyone to know they'd killed them and that's what they were hiding, not the other way around! The original 'survivor' rumors came from the Bolsheviks themselves!!
....


I find it very very difficult to sort out the "red herring" from the truths of what happen in the Impatiev House on that eventful night.

Placing a blanket  over all the evidence  of testimonies which doesn't conform to the CHEKA's reports given  to investigators who were trying to discover the truth is not something I can agree to do.  Be it about soliders searching trains or the Perm data.

I have mentioned by doubts on other threads and will not repeat it here.

So, for those reading these posts,  this is something you should not just set aside but read it and make your own opinions.

Annie is quite clear on her thoughts.  I respect her opinion.  I can understand her frustrations.

This old bear often times gets just as frustrated with those who are swallowing so many many hooks baited with the "red herrings" [lies, propoganda and part truths of the Bolsheviks, communists, CHEKA, GPU and KGB] and even the sinker....  

I'll go find where my data about Perm and be found and place it here .....

AGRBear  

PS:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1091994509
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: rskkiya on January 20, 2005, 10:41:36 AM
This is just beating the same old skeletonized horse!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on January 20, 2005, 10:45:54 AM
Yep  ;D

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on January 20, 2005, 10:55:42 AM
Quote
Hasn't anyone wondered why Mutnykh's tells us in her testimony that she saw only three daughters and not four?


Mutnykh's story tells us, also,   she was not alone when she saw Alexandra and three of her daughters.  With her was Anna Kostina, the secretary to  Grigory Zinoviev.  [Note: she said three daughters, not four.]

 AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on January 20, 2005, 11:50:14 AM
Quote
This is just beating the same old skeletonized horse!


True, and also, what is the point of all the Perm speculation anyway? While I do not believe it at all, suppose they did take them to Perm and kill them a few days later than N. Is that a big deal? What difference would it make? They're still dead, and dumped in the same hole anyway. The bodies of Alix and 3 daughters have been positively identified as coming from the same site as N, so it's all really pointless.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on January 20, 2005, 12:54:51 PM
Quote

True, and also, what is the point of all the Perm speculation anyway? While I do not believe it at all, suppose they did take them to Perm and kill them a few days later than N. Is that a big deal? What difference would it make? They're still dead, and dumped in the same hole anyway. The bodies of Alix and 3 daughters have been positively identified as coming from the same site as N, so it's all really pointless.


Finding the truth of what happens doesn't mean we are to jump across a river of untruths to get to the truth that nine were buried in Pig's Meadow.

Sometimes, before we get to the other side of the river, we have to travel other roads less traveled.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: santacruzbabe421 on January 20, 2005, 03:54:19 PM
thanks for clearing up the DNA thing for me annie i didnt get it @ first but ya now it makes sense

i'm reading peter kurths book ANASTASIA for a school project and come up w/ questions as i go along...

disregarding the perm story in the Soklov file there was also more than a dozen witnesses, no names were given, that said that entire trains were stopped and houses were searched by bolshevik soldiers looking for one of the romanov women and warnings were sent out to whoever might be housing one, juss out of courisity y would i they go through that trouble if they knew for certian the whole IF had been killed?

amd while reading chapters (end of) 4 thru (beginning of) 5 AA talked was talking with frau von Rathlef and during a discussion about the duke ernest of hesse AA said that she had seen him during the war. rathlef was shocked because the duke had been fighting the war against the family (if i read correctly) AA said that he came secretly to make peace or to make us leave the country alexandra supposedly discussed this w/ her thus y she had the knowledge but no1 else outside the familys inner circle knew of this..well fast forward to 1925 when the duke was asked about this visit he outright denied it and became angry... however... people close to him and to the IF and that had insight ont he situation stated that he DID in fact visit the IF and found it strange that it was a 'secret' because they all knew about it...but an outsider would certainly not..

Quote
Sometimes, before we get to the other side of the river, we have to travel other roads less traveled.

^ well said
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on January 20, 2005, 04:42:22 PM
Quote
disregarding the perm story in the Soklov file there was also more than a dozen witnesses, no names were given, that said that entire trains were stopped and houses were searched by bolshevik soldiers looking for one of the romanov women and warnings were sent out to whoever might be housing one, juss out of courisity y would i they go through that trouble if they knew for certian the whole IF had been killed?


First, they were trying to start rumors that they were alive because they didn't want anyone to know they had been killed. I learned this here on this forum myself (and I have been researching for 30 years) Once I found that out, then I realized how all the stories of people thinking they were covering up them being alive didn't make sense because the fact is they were trying to cover up the fact that they were dead!

Also, a lot of those reports are hearsay and undocumented, we don't even have proof all of that really even happened.

Quote
amd while reading chapters (end of) 4 thru (beginning of) 5 AA talked was talking with frau von Rathlef and during a discussion about the duke ernest of hesse AA said that she had seen him during the war. rathlef was shocked because the duke had been fighting the war against the family (if i read correctly) AA said that he came secretly to make peace or to make us leave the country alexandra supposedly discussed this w/ her thus y she had the knowledge but no1 else outside the familys inner circle knew of this..well fast forward to 1925 when the duke was asked about this visit he outright denied it and became angry... however... people close to him and to the IF and that had insight ont he situation stated that he DID in fact visit the IF and found it strange that it was a 'secret' because they all knew about it...but an outsider would certainly not..


The Ernie trip to Russia story is unproven to this day.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on January 20, 2005, 06:15:29 PM
Quote

First, they were trying to start rumors that they were alive because they didn't want anyone to know they had been killed. I learned this here on this forum myself (and I have been researching for 30 years) Once I found that out, then I realized how all the stories of people thinking they were covering up them being alive didn't make sense because the fact is they were trying to cover up the fact that they were dead!

Also, a lot of those reports are hearsay and undocumented, we don't even have proof all of that really even happened.


The Ernie trip to Russia story is unproven to this day.


The people who gave testimony were reliable sources.

One was man from the Red Cross,  I've forgotten his name, who talked about his train being stopped.

As for Ernst visit to Russia.  See p. 219 of Mangold and Summers:
"...In 1966 the Kaiser's stepson, Prince Ferdinand of Schoenaich Carolath, also testified that the Kaiser had told him about the visit, and had said he himself authorized the grand duke's attempt to establish a separate peace with Russia."  To add to this.  Dimintry Galitzin "...testified on oath in 1965 that he had actually seen the Grand Duke of Hess at Tsarskoe Selo palace in 1916."  This page and the following pages talked about others who knew.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on January 20, 2005, 08:46:16 PM
How did the Kaiser get a stepson? Dona didn't have any other kids before marrying him! ??? Oh yeah he got remarried after she died, but that was long after the war, this guy wasn't around the Kaiser back during WWI, he's no authority. And really, please quote somebody besides Summers and Mangold, their book has long lost credibility and does not help boost your claims to quote them (sorry)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Alice on January 21, 2005, 04:04:53 AM
Quote
Michelle makes a good point regarding ear shape, however we only had pictures to examine -  and even then - these are old, grainy pictures which were not  taken from the exact same angle ... All sorts of misinterpritations are possible.

Michelle, you ought to look at the PBS Nova program "Anastasia Dead or Alive." If you have not seen it already this documentary goes into this particular issue in great detail!

rskkiya


Yes, the fact that we only have grainy B & W photographs taken from different angles and at different times in the lives of each woman, could work for or against the "AA was AN" case. If someone says the ears are different (me, for example) someone else can argue that the ears are the same, but that the differences are because of the different angles, different ages of the women in question, or because the photographs are poor quality and black and white. The reverse is also true (if someone argues the ears are the same, someone else can argue they are different).

Not sure if that made sense, nevermind.  :D Point is, we cannot properly evaluate the similarities or differences of the ears, because we don't have AA and AN's ears (and I'm not sure FA would want us discussing severed ears on here anyway . . .)  :D
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on January 21, 2005, 09:12:58 AM
Quote
How did the Kaiser get a stepson? Dona didn't have any other kids before marrying him! ??? Oh yeah he got remarried after she died, but that was long after the war, this guy wasn't around the Kaiser back during WWI, he's no authority. And really, please quote somebody besides Summers and Mangold, their book has long lost credibility and does not help boost your claims to quote them (sorry)


"...this guy wasn't around the Kaiser...."  I assume the Kaiser was still talking, eating, sleeping when the Kaiser married his mother.  Since, I don't know this "guy" and you don't know this "guy", then you and I don't know personally what he said.  You'll have to ask someone who does know about him and his character.   Since we have been assured by those who have worked with Summers and Mangold that they were honest with their research, then, why can't I use them as a source?

What about: Dimintry Galitzin "...testified on oath in 1965 that he had actually seen the Grand Duke of Hess at Tsarskoe Selo palace in 1916."    Is he, also, someone we should not take seriously, even though he "testified on oath"?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on January 21, 2005, 09:34:58 AM
I don't see that one vague source as very credible, and even if it were true, it is still not enough to make me start wondering again about AA. That case is closed for me (after MANY years of research, this was no quick decision!)

You are of course free to quote Summers and Mangold until the cows come home, or the internet disappears, but nothing you quote of them will ever mean anything to me. I'm not saying they weren't honest in their research, I'm saying it's not 1976 anymore and the book no longer holds credibility among the realistic. Much of what they wrote was unfounded hearsay and rumors, or possibly lies and tall tales by others along the line (not calling them liars, they must have really believed it) Other parts were pure assumption (like the finding of the hair meant they cut their hair as a disguise when they escaped, when really they had saved their hair in boxes when they shaved their heads and the authors jumped to conclusions!) Still more of what they wrote has since been proven false or unrealistic by what we have since discovered, especially after the fall of Communism.

I was into that book when I was  a freshman in high school back in 1976, but after all these years, I can see how silly and pointless it all has become because we know better. Sorry, but to me, quoting "The File on the Tsar" in 2005 is like teaching technology to schoolkids today based on the 1939 World's Fair. It may have been exciting at the time, but time has proven it largely wrong and useless. So quote them if you will, but if that's the only source you can dig up, it does not help your case  :(

No offense to you personally, but I find that book such a joke now I actually pick it up at the library (but don't chcek it out) and look through it for things to make fun of since most of its theories are now so ridiculous (though some always were) My 18 year old son and I have gotten good laughs out of it, though now he's so tired of hearing about it he won't even give it the time of day. The pics of the Polish 'claimants' are hysterical they're so unlike them, I can't believe my high school history teacher ever took them seriously even at that time (I didn't even then, AA and Eugenie Smith were the only claimants I ever considered being real.) Several other books I was so enthralled with as a teenager now seem so bad I'm embarrassed for ever even considering them. But it was fun for awhile.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on January 21, 2005, 10:12:31 AM
Sometimes, a joke is funny to some but not funny to others. :-[

Of course, the information about Anna Anderson and other claimants are out of date.  All Mangold and Summers had was the  information at the time.  However, how does that mean all the evidence they talk about is out of date?

Using an example:   Do you mean this did not happen?   Dimintry Galitzin "...testified on oath in 1965 that he had actually seen the Grand Duke of Hess at Tsarskoe Selo palace in 1916."    Is he, also, someone we should not take seriously, even though he "testified on oath"?

Testimony is testimony.  It doesn't change from the time it was given to the present.  So,  I'm not sure what you are trying to tell me.  Was Galitzin lying?  Do you have proof of this?

I've been doing research for more than 49 years and before this I heard a lot of stories about the Romanovs in my youth.   So, you're claim to be knowledgeable doesn't steer me away from my views and opinions when you give such generalized statements.

Give me something that shows these two facts I've given were incorrect, or lies, or fabrications.  Then,  I can see it from your view, weigh the new facts and reply with other facts until we find the truth.


AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Dashkova on January 21, 2005, 10:39:31 AM
Summers and Mangold were definitely spot on about the dog in the mine shaft.  *Some* of the other aspects of their research I believe are still valid, though most is not.

And actually, they spent very little time in FOTT discussing AA.  I was always left with the impression that they probably did not believe her claim, but were willing to listen.

I also first read that book in 1976 and still have a ragged copy.  A few years back I went through it with a fine-toothed comb and some of their research still holds up, with their best coup being Jemmy's "provenance"
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on January 21, 2005, 11:04:00 AM
Some of us are talking about the "Dogs" over on this URL:

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=lastdays;action=display;num=1102980672;start=125#125

Here are a few words Summers and Mangold wrote about Anna Anderson p. 237:  "...the testimony about the escape did not convince the German judges and nor does it convince us."

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Elisabeth on January 21, 2005, 11:04:54 AM
I agree with Dashkova that FOTT should not be dismissed entirely out of hand. The sections in which Summers and Mangold review the forensic evidence with experts are still fascinating to read and full of valuable information.

Actually we have an entire discussion going on right now about Sokolov's "discovery" of Jemmy in The Final Chapter/The Missing Bodies thread: see the link AGR Bear gives above.

Of course, you have to read the rest of the book with the understanding that most of it's been disproven. But even the stuff about the "secret train to Perm" is interesting for the light it sheds on the Bolsheviks' continuing efforts to deceive the Whites about the ultimate fate of the imperial women.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on January 21, 2005, 11:38:44 AM
Sorry Bear :( I was just hoping you could come up with some other source :-/

While not every single thing in the book is bull, to me there is enough wrong in it to disrupt the credibility of it as a whole. I'm sure something is right, but not most of it. It's like when you find out someone you know personally is a liar, everything they say is not a lie, but don't you question it all?

I know they weren't big on AA, I just added her for the topic in general. S and M seem to believe the Polish claimaints they pictured in their book.

If they are still alive, I would be interested in hearing what they have to say today, and how they would rewrite their book.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on January 21, 2005, 12:27:49 PM
Annie, King, Wilson, Anyone... does the following still stand as correct or fabrications?

Quote

The people who gave testimony were reliable sources.

One was man from the Red Cross,  I've forgotten his name, who talked about his train being stopped.

As for Ernst visit to Russia.  See p. 219 of Mangold and Summers:
"...In 1966 the Kaiser's stepson, Prince Ferdinand of Schoenaich Carolath, also testified that the Kaiser had told him about the visit, and had said he himself authorized the grand duke's attempt to establish a separate peace with Russia."  To add to this.  Dimintry Galitzin "...testified on oath in 1965 that he had actually seen the Grand Duke of Hess at Tsarskoe Selo palace in 1916."  This page and the following pages talked about others who knew.

AGRBear


??? ???

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 21, 2005, 04:26:43 PM
Goula, you made a great point. I am always trying to say that eyewitnesses are very unreliable, not because they are all liars but because human mind "plays tricks". Even those who think they are telling the truth, are usually only telling what they think is the truth. I think I even posted on one of the thrads something about the film "Rashomon" that deals with four different people telling the same story in different ways and swearing by it, because this is how each of them saw it!  But all four stories were totally different...
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on January 21, 2005, 05:00:26 PM
I can almost picture the scene in my head:  The old man was a small child, looking up at an unshaven man on a tall horse-- Napoleon's horses were tall-- and, it was snowing.... The snow dusted his unshaven face and chest.   The man he saw was probably Napoleon.  

Old age doesn't damage the brain for it remembers yesterday better than today.  And, it remembers an event in childhood even better.  Especially if it was an event like seeing Napoleon.

Thanks Goula.  Loved the story.

So, this story proves that you have to ask a lot of questions to discover the truth.

AGRBear

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: rskkiya on January 21, 2005, 09:04:09 PM
Quote



My point is that memory is not necessarily fact.  Evidence given under oath is not necessarily "true".  Time, especially the passage of close to half a century tends to change recollections.


Very well stated!
Agrbear, you do realize that people do sometimes lie even under oath!

rskkiya
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on January 22, 2005, 08:23:02 AM
Quote

Very well stated!
Agrbear, you do realize that people do sometimes lie even under oath!

rskkiya


True, like the Schanskowska family who denied their sister to avoid responsibility for her and not to spoil her 'career' as Anastasia (as was later said, and a lawyer even wrote to Gertrude to tell her the time had run out on the time she could be prosecuted for it)

I really don't hold that one vague story (Kaiser's stepson) to much in this case, especially since even if it were true it does not change the fact that AA has been proven not to be AN anyway.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on January 22, 2005, 10:39:01 AM
Dimintry Galitzin "...testified on oath in 1965 that he had actually seen the Grand Duke of Hesse at Tsarskoe Selo palace in 1916."

The Kaiser's step son, also, gave testimony.

Some of you can continue to tell me that these testimonies were lies but you've yet told me what evidence you have that would convince me that they were.

There are obvious reasons why such a mission would have been secret.

Do some of you think that Ernst wanted his trip to be well known so years later there would be tons of people giving evidence?  

Is there a reason this trip of Ernst's  bothers so many of you and you have to reject it?

Help me understand, because at this moment,  I don't know why you reject these two testimonies.

AGRBear



Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 22, 2005, 02:48:21 PM
Quote
Dimintry Galitzin "...testified on oath in 1965 that he had actually seen the Grand Duke of Hesse at Tsarskoe Selo palace in 1916."

The Kaiser's step son, also, gave testimony.

Some of you can continue to tell me that these testimonies were lies but you've yet told me what evidence you have that would convince me that they were.

There are obvious reasons why such a mission would have been secret.

Do some of you think that Ernst wanted his trip to be well known so years later there would be tons of people giving evidence?  

Is there a reason this trip of Ernst's  bothers so many of you and you have to reject it?

Help me understand, because at this moment,  I don't know why you reject these two testimonies.

AGRBear

 But Bear, what is your point? Is it to say that AA still may have been AN because of these testimonies? Whatever the status of these testimonies was, we already know it is impossible for AA to have been AN...
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on January 22, 2005, 04:50:13 PM
Quote
 But Bear, what is your point? Is it to say that AA still may have been AN because of these testimonies? Whatever the status of these testimonies was, we already know it is impossible for AA to have been AN...


Soooooo, this is what you're objecting, the fact that AA, whom you believe wasn't GD Anastasia,  talked about Ernst visiting Russia.  

My gosh,  just because AA knew doesn't make her GD Anastasia nor does it mean I am using this as evidence to prove AA was GD Anastasia.

If this is the only reason you are rejecting these two testimonies,  I am greatly disapointed  :-[ .

No matter how many times I voice my position,  some of you continue to think I'm supporting AA.  At this time,  I have not found any evidence which I see support's AA's story.  I am just after the truth.

So,  that said,  I will assume, at this time, there isn't any evidence which refutes the testimonies of the two men.

Since we're on the subject,  was there one particular person giving AA -- assuming she wasn't GD Anastasia-- information which would make her a more believeable claimant?  Or was she just a clever person who gathered information whenever and whereever she could without many people even realizing she was  doing so?

AGRBear

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on January 22, 2005, 05:00:50 PM
Well like I said it's all vague and there's no proof, but even if it was true, that ONE thing is not going to overrule the fact that the DNA proved she wasn't her, she looks NOTHING like her, and all the other stuff I don't feel like listing again. AA was NOT AN. New theory please (and I would be VERY interested and fair in hearing NEW theories not related to tired, worn out, AA stories!!)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on January 22, 2005, 05:07:45 PM
This thread has omited the DNA as evidence and is looking for other evidence to prove AA could have been GD Anastasia.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Denise on January 22, 2005, 05:22:16 PM
Quote

Since we're on the subject,  was there one particular person giving AA -- assuming she wasn't GD Anastasia-- information which would make her a more believeable claimant?  Or was she just a clever person who gathered information whenever and whereever she could without many people even realizing she was  doing so?



Bear, this is exactly the question I have.   Most of us are in agreement here that AA was not AN, and some question whether AA was FS.  That is a separate issue, however.  

Given that AA knew certain things, or was purported to by her supporters, who was the likely source of her information?  

The biggest mysteries regarding AA at this point are 1.  who was she? and 2. Where did she get her "insider information?"

Denise
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 22, 2005, 06:13:06 PM
Quote

Soooooo, this is what you're objecting, the fact that AA, whom you believe wasn't GD Anastasia,  talked about Ernst visiting Russia.  

My gosh,  just because AA knew doesn't make her GD Anastasia nor does it mean I am using this as evidence to prove AA was GD Anastasia.

Bear, I wasn't dismissing these testimonies, I was just trying to clarify what you were trying to get at by bringing them up, that's all. Hence my question to you was "what is your point?". I meant that literally. After all, this thread is about "Reasons Other Than DNA to Prove or Disprove That AA was AN" and not just a general one about "Ernie's Visit to Russia During WWI". So I justifiably assumed that this was the reason you kept bringing this up...
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on January 22, 2005, 06:25:50 PM
Quote
This thread has omited the DNA as evidence and is looking for other evidence to prove AA could have been GD Anastasia.
 
AGRBear


Well actually I meant reasons for OR against it using reasons other than DNA. I have already made my list on the first page.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Alice on January 22, 2005, 10:51:37 PM
Quote
Since we're on the subject,  was there one particular person giving AA -- assuming she wasn't GD Anastasia-- information which would make her a more believeable claimant?  Or was she just a clever person who gathered information whenever and whereever she could without many people even realizing she was  doing so?
 


This is interesting, because as far as I know, AA made alot of mistakes with the "things she knew". It makes me think that whoever gave her her information, was distant enough from IF to make mistakes with information, but close enough to know enough details to make AA convincing.

I believe this person may've been Gleb Botkin, but of course I have no proof whatsoever of this.

Distant enough?

- No photos (at least, not that I've seen) of Gleb with any of the IF, and specifically, none of him with Anastasia.

Close enough?

- His father , who was imprisoned with IF.

This is vague, but I remember reading a quote from Gleb that was something like, " . . . she was the daughter of my Emperor." (I can't remember where, or what this was in relation to). But the statement itself stands out in my mind, as marking Gleb as the sort of person to get caught up in the whole "Russian Grand Duchess Survival Fairytale" (associating Anastasia with her title, and not just as a person).
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on January 23, 2005, 08:44:08 AM
Alice, I also suspect Gleb (and have posted it before as I'm sure you have all seen) To me it makes perfect sense and I'm surprised I didn't think of it sooner. He was around them, like you say close but not extra close. In the intro to the book with his drawings in it, it mentions he was friends with Anastasia, Marie and Alexei and they had this fantasy world of the animals together. Gleb and his sister, who also 'accepted' AA, were in contact with the IF right up until they were taken to Ekaterinburg, so I can't believe he didn't know more than your average person about the family. Adding to this that he was a WRITER, a job that requires selling interesting stories, and as we can see from his animal fantasy land he had an excellent and vivid imagination, only adds to the likelihood to me that he probably did plant the memories and use AA for both publicity and a possible payoff if she could prove to be who she was (much like the con men in the "Anastasia" cartoon) It's also very interesting that some of those determined to prove that AA was AN become very defensive, even vicious when this is suggested makes me think they don't want this mentioned because it hurts their case.  ;)  But to me, now, it all adds up.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 23, 2005, 09:09:54 AM
Quote

...AA made alot of mistakes with the "things she knew".


I don't know if Gleb was the culprit or not, but I from what I understand, yes, AA did make a lot of serious mistakes, like the one where she explained a scar on her finger by saying that it was accidentally jammed in a carriage door by a footman, except that it wasn't Anastasia's finger that was hurt but Maria's.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Elisabeth on January 23, 2005, 09:11:33 AM
Annie, if what you say is true (and it seems only too plausible to me), then what do you think were Gleb's motives in officially recognizing Anna Anderson as Anastasia and promoting her cause? Do you think he really wanted to believe that AA was AN, or was he after monetary gain (the lost fortune of the tsars)? And how did he string his sister Tatiana along? She recognized AA as AN, too, but she seems to have been a person of genuine integrity, from everything I've read.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on January 23, 2005, 09:22:16 AM
Quote
Annie, if what you say is true (and it seems only too plausible to me), then what do you think were Gleb's motives in officially recognizing Anna Anderson as Anastasia and promoting her cause? Do you think he really wanted to believe that AA was AN, or was he after monetary gain (the lost fortune of the tsars)? And how did he string his sister Tatiana along? She recognized AA as AN, too, but she seems to have been a person of genuine integrity, from everything I've read.


Well, first, even people of 'genuine integrity' can have a greedy, secretive side when it comes to money (personal bad experience with my own family) We will never know enough about them just from what we read, because not everything is known or told. Of course they'd be portrayed in only the best light  ;) It is also possible that they did come to believe it, as I am convinced AA herself did. Also, it's not something people go around talking about. It's a secret. Apparently even his daughter, who ordered the DNA tests, was convinced her Dad believed in Anastasia. Even if they are guilty, that doesn't make them evil and sinister people otherwise so I don't see why it's such an isult, really. But it's just too suspicious and adds up too well for me to discount it just on the basis that some people think they wouldn't do that. Maybe they would.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 23, 2005, 09:22:54 AM
Quote
Do you think he really wanted to believe that AA was AN, or was he after monetary gain (the lost fortune of the tsars)?
 

I think if Gleb really did do this, than it would be the former, not the latter, since there didn't seem to be all that much to gain financially from this venture. Perhaps it may have been the idea that he was her "savior" that appealed to him. Perhaps it may all have been quite unintentional, as in "leading the witness" type of thing: "Come on, Anastasia, don't you remember, this and this happened..." Other people around AA may have done it this way too, and not even realized it... So AA may have picked up bits and pieces of information that stayed in her subconscious and came out at appropriate times... If Gleb did have a part in "feeding" AA information, he may too have done it subconsiously, without any malice or obvious alterior motives per say... I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt, since this is a serious accusation against someone - fraud, and he can't defend himself since he is dead. The same could also apply to his sister Tatiana... But we'll never know for sure what really happened...  
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on January 23, 2005, 09:32:18 AM
Quote
 

. Perhaps it may all have been quite unintentional, as in "leading the witness" type of thing: "Come on, Anastasia, don't you remember, this and this happened..." Other people around AA may have done it this way too, and not even realized it... So AA may have picked up bits and pieces of information that stayed in her subconscious and came out at appropriate times... If Gleb did have a part in "feeding" AA information, he may too have done it subconsiously, without any malice or obvious alterior motives per say... I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt, since this is a serious accusation against someone - fraud, and he can't defend himself since he is dead. The same could also apply to his sister Tatiana... But we'll never know for sure what really happened...  


This all is very possible too, but no matter what we know that SOMEONE SOMEHOW fed her info since we know she was not really Anastasia. It DID happen, how, we will never know.

I do not mean to accuse Gleb of 'fraud' yes he is dead and can't defend himself, but also because he's dead he can't be prosecuted for it. I'm saying 'could be', not an open accusation, we will never know. But on the other hand  I don't think it's something we can rule out the possibilty of in our search to solve the mystery. :(

In addition, I don't see why it's such a terrible thing to question if perhaps this occured, after all, this forum is full of accusations and insinutations of potential 'fraud' on everyone from Yurovsky to Queen Elizabeth, wondering is part of the discussion.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 23, 2005, 10:23:35 AM
Quote

 I'm saying 'could be', not an open accusation, we will never know. But on the other hand  I don't think it's something we can rule out the possibilty of in our search to solve the mystery. :(



We can't rule anything out as a possibility. Anything is possible when it comes to humans!    :o
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Alice on January 24, 2005, 06:57:02 AM
Quote

We can't rule anything out as a possibility. Anything is possible when it comes to humans!    :o

Indeed, Helen! And that's why this case is so fascinating!  :)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Czarevna Colleen on February 24, 2005, 06:41:19 PM
Hmmmm . . . . . . . . Possibilities, possibilities.  I'm not sure what gain Gleb expected to receive (if any) and I don't see why he would support a woman who claimed to be his childhood friend if he knew she was a fraud.  And his sister . . . .  And AA specifically said, after she refused to cooperate with Baroness Buxhoeveden when she came to see AN at the asylum to identify her (interpret that as you will),  "I did NOT say I was Tatiana."  She never confirmed Clara's claim of being Tatiana, in fact, she burst into tears when Clara exclaimed, "I know you!  You are the Grand Duchess Tatiana!!!"  Just some info, food for thought, if you will.
;) :D ;D 8)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Penny_Wilson on February 24, 2005, 07:29:24 PM
Before accusing Gleb Botkin, you need to account for the almost six years that Fraulein Unbekannt existed before he came into the picture.  Much of her story was apparent before this, as was her ability with languages, and her comportment.  There is not one piece of evidence to suggest that Gleb (or Tatiana) was in touch with Fraulein U before 1927.

So explain, please.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on February 24, 2005, 10:09:11 PM
As I have posted many times before in these threads, I don't think Gleb was the first or the only person to 'help' but he was obviously a big part of the picture. Sure he didn't officially meet her until 1927, but her case, fame and suit escalated full blast after she met him. Coincidence? I don't think so.

The languages? Also as I've posted before, I do not use that as 'evidence' for EITHER side, since there are too many differerent stories and conflicting reports of what she spoke and when, most of them undocumented, or second or third hand comments. From the nurse in Berlin to the person in church in Charlottesville, it's all too 'she said he said she thinks' for me.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 25, 2005, 07:48:58 AM
What this comes down to is the fact that SOMEONE had to feed AA the information, no matter how you look at it. Whether consciously or subconsciously, this had to be the case. Obviously it wasn't Gleb in the early years at least, but someone had to do it, because she could not have known it herself because she was not Anastasia...  Maybe she was a psychic  ;)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Mgmstl on February 25, 2005, 11:15:05 AM
Perhaps what we need to look at is more UNBIASED testimony, again, the nurses at Dalldorf stated she spoke other languages in her sleep.  She also spoke &
understood Russian.

Her adamant refusal to speak in Russian after a certain point in time I will admit, is puzzling, however, we have to look at all sides, not just what suits us.

The woman who was AA spoke ENGLISH also, and was very fluent in it.  We seem to be overlooking these facts.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 25, 2005, 11:32:59 AM
Yes, all this maybe true, but it doesn't change the fact that someone, somehow had to provide this information to her. We just don't know how or who, but we know that it had to be done, otherwise how would she had known it? Unless we believe that AA really was Anastasia, which we know was not the case.  Or that AA was "reincarnated" as Anastasia at the time of AN's death, like in that book "The Anastasia Syndrome...  These would be the only other possibilities. But since I personally don't believe that this happened, then I have to believe that someone gave her this information... Don't you think that makes sense?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on February 25, 2005, 11:41:36 AM
How can we know anything if AA wasn't FS???

If she remains Mrs. Unknown,   then we know absolutely nothing about her until she jumped into the canal.

AGRBear

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 25, 2005, 11:47:36 AM
Quote
How can we know anything if AA wasn't FS???

If she remains Mrs. Unknown,   then we know absolutely nothing about her until she jumped into the canal.

AGRBear



But Bear, we are not talking about AA being, or not being, FS here. We are talking about her being or not being AN - "Reasons other than DNA". The information I was referring to was the information that she knew as "Anastasia". FS is not even being discussed here... or shouldn't be at least.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on February 25, 2005, 12:08:15 PM
Oh, I forgot.

If AA was GD Anastasia then why is Gibbs* being blamed for having fed her information?

A confused bear.

AGRBear

*My error, should have written Gleb.
 
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 25, 2005, 12:11:43 PM
Quote
Oh, I forgot.

If AA was GD Anastasia then why is Gibbs being blamed for having fed her information?

A confused bear.

AGRBear
  


Yeah, it's very easy to get confused on these AA threads! After a while they all become clones of each other  ;D.

Anyway, did someone blame Gibbs for feeding AA the info? I know that Gleb, Dr Botkin's son was blamed, but I didn't see Gibbs being blamed too.

A confused Helen  ???
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on February 25, 2005, 12:19:10 PM
Gleb.

I stand corrected.


AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Mgmstl on February 25, 2005, 01:02:06 PM
OK IMO, we have to start from the beginning.  Remember, the nurses at Dalldorf, the first people who had no other motive or involvement in the case, stated in oath or affadavit or statement, that she was interested in all things Russian,  she spoke Russian,  she spoke several languages in her sleep.  She spoke Russian like a native, and the difference between the descriptions of AA & FS should be notes.  She was also interested in all things Russian according to these nurses & doctors.  This is almost 6-7 years, possibly 8 before Gleb Botkin became involved.

Gleb seems to be a sticking point for some people. What I think should be considered is that Gleb did have an agenda and was agressive in his promotion of AA, and he may have fed her data after the fact.  However her knowledge and her interest in Russia & Russian events & Russian military were there from her first months at Dalldorf.  

This should be clear to everyone at this point, UNLESS there is a source that visits her that we know nothing about.   So who then was the source of AA's information before 1926-28?  I am certain that Gleb was not.

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 25, 2005, 01:05:09 PM
This is what I was saying too, we can't assume that it was Gleb, or anyone else in particular, for that matter. We may never know who it was. The only thing that we know for sure is that it had to be someone who did give her the info. That's the only thing we can deduce from all this.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 25, 2005, 01:09:16 PM
Quote
 However her knowledge and her interest in Russia & Russian events & Russian military were there from her first months at Dalldorf.  


It is probable that this interest was there before she ever got to Dalldorf, hence her fixation on the IF and Anastasia. A lot of her knowledge may have come from that interest - just like most of us here on this forum are Russian history junkies and know some of the most uncanny facts!  ;) Except that none of us imagine ourselves to be members of the IF... Well, most of us don't anyway  ;).
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on February 25, 2005, 03:25:54 PM
In the asylum were magazines that had stories about the Romanovs.  [I'll go find the source and be back with it.]

Has anyone ever seen these magazines?

I assume the interest of royality was even higher than it is, now.  So, a lot of articles must have been written.

Has everyone ruled out that AA actually may have been a maid or daughter of a maid in one of the residences of IF?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 25, 2005, 03:39:53 PM
Quote
In the asylum were magazines that had stories about the Romanovs.  [I'll go find the source and be back with it.]
Has anyone ever seen these magazines?


I remember reading that AA first got agitated when she saw a picture of the IF in a magazine, either on the cover or the story inside. All you have to do is figure out which magazine ran a story on the IF in 1920 that had a big picture of them  ;). If it was something like Time magazine, maybe you could obtain a copy. Of course it could have been some obscure German one.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on February 25, 2005, 03:45:39 PM
When looking for one thing, I find something else.  

Anastasia, The Riddle of Anna Anderson by Kurth p. 6:

"After another two months...the doctors at Dalldorf summoned the Berlin police...."

"Her picture and prints were sent out to Stuttgart, Brunswick, Hamburg, Munich, Dresden-- to all the corners of the Western Republic..."

"The records of all the Berlin's hospitals and madhouses were dutifully checked....."

p. 7
"...she was asked...if she were another Maria, surnamed Wachowiak, who had disappeared recently from the cityy of Posen."

The Berlin police did take her fingerprints,  did they collected the  fingerprints of people in asylums and so had FS's already in the system.  If they had, then their prints didn't match and that's evidence outside of DNA.

And who is this Maria Wachowiak?   From Posen....

Forgotten what I was looking for in the first place.  Oh yes, the magazines.... Still looking.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 25, 2005, 03:52:53 PM
Quote
So we have two points of fact.  The Berlin police did take her fingerprints and that this seemed to be something they did, therefore, did they collected the  fingerprints of people in asylums.    Had anyone taken fingerprints of FS when she was in and out of asylums.


Good detective work, Bear. I wonder if the fingerprints survived. Would they be in her chart? Maybe it was only common practice to take fingerprints of unknown individuals, not everyone. In which case they would not have FS's...

Quote
And who is this Maria Wachowiak?   From Posen....


Good question, who was she? So they did suspect that AA may have been Polish after all...  

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: sparrow on February 25, 2005, 03:57:11 PM
I read these forum comments daily.  I would like to understand why people choose to pick and choose the facts, as they stand.  I will, just for the sake of some point of some very important descrepancies.   One,1919 AA had a baby, one boy, she gave up,  In bucharest.  FS lived with Doris in 1919 and was never pregnant.  By her families own admissions.    Between 1916-1920 FS had been in/out six times, of the asylums.   The only one to ever claim AA was FS, was, Doris.  No other family/friends came forward to say she was FS  Not from that time, nor forward into AA s life.    No matter how many times AA"s was compared to Anastasia's EAR  the result was always the same. in her favor.   why was Fs Not once compared( ear analysis}. The result would not have Played out in the Favor of FS.  The Information AA gave concerning the cellar was far too accurate, some claimed she learned it from the Sokolov Reports.  They were not made public until 1936.  AA spoke fluent english, by their own admissions{the family},FS did not speak the languages that AA spoke in 1920. Nor play the Piano, nor know the names of flowers in Russian.   FS was not ever diagnosed with TB during her visits to the asylums.  AA was.  AA and FS had completely different characteristics.  Both in Personality and in physical appearances.   AA was considered and exact match, in height, hair color, eye color, foot deformation.  Gertrude  said about FS "no distinushing bodily marks.  IN particular, no scars, moles, orf foot deformation.  these are iportant bodily marks.  AA  had incredible fine soft hands. destintive personality, scarred by many lacerations.   AA was recognised by some, on her distinctive blue eyes alone.   FS"s own family could not even tell the color of her eyes.    i have been told that my penmanship is terrible, so if you can bear to read this please just concentrate on the questions.  Quote"whoever she is, she is no Polish Peasant, she is a lady of good society and it not true that she cannot speak Russian" Princess NIna of Russia.  FS spoke no Russian.   AA Was register by the Berlin Police,as the "die unbedannte Russin" The unknown Russian Woman.  Nurses documented her speaking Russian "like a Native" at the same time FS was Not able to speak it.    well? one last point, please,  i would care very much to discuss these points in the most curteous manner,  thank you.        sparrow
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on February 25, 2005, 03:58:26 PM
Kurth's book continued over on p. 11.  "And she bore such a striking resemblance 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 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 murses' attention.  They had looked at it very carefully, they had discussed it together, and fainnly they had decided to force the issue:  they brought the magazine to Fraulein Unbekannt"

p. 11-12: Nurse Thea Malinovsky said AA had shown her the photo before this and wanted to know if she looked like one of the Romanov daughters in the magazine.

AGRBear

PS Let me repeat this line in case you were skimming and didn't really read:  ""The records of all the Berlin's hospitals and madhouses were dutifully checked....."
 
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 25, 2005, 04:09:55 PM
Quote
 ""The records of all the Berlin's hospitals and madhouses were dutifully checked....."  


Maybe they didn't cross check with FS's chart because they thought she was already dead - killed by Georg Grossmann!  ;)  They usually put away the chrats of patients who are dead in a different location. Perhaps this is why it took a private detective to make the connection between AA and FS - everyone else may not have bothered to check because they thought she was already dead.

Anyway, lets not get off track here again, this thread is not about AA being FS or not...
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on February 25, 2005, 04:18:52 PM
Annie wrote in her first post: >>... [ in part]...I realize that those who choose for whatever reason to still believe AA was AN will never believe the DNA, they will say it was rigged or switched or something, so let's do what some have asked for, reasons OTHER than DNA...<<

I just mentioned fingerprints were taken of AA.  From what I understand there were fingerprints of GD Anastasia on a book which in the 1960s during the trial the police refused to match because it would have meant they would have had to destroy the book.  Today,  these same prints can be easily taken and matched/or not match AA's which are in the records of the Berlin police.

And, this is what evidence I believe Annie asked us to find.

Sparrow, Michael  and others tell us their sources tell us that AA could speak fluent Russian.  

Penny tells us that FS didn't have the scars which AA had.

(to be continued next post)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on February 25, 2005, 04:25:00 PM
Quote

Maybe they didn't cross check with FS's chart because they thought she was already dead - killed by Georg Grossmann!  ;)  They usually put away the chrats of patients who are dead in a different location. Perhaps this is why it took a private detective to make the connection between AA and FS - everyone else may not have bothered to check because they thought she was already dead.

Anyway, lets not get off track here again, this thread is not about AA being FS or not...


Since it was GD Ernst of Hesse's detective Knopf who made this link between AA and FS, why didn't he find FS's fingerprints in the "dead" file?  Must have been there.  Unless they were and he didn't bother to show them because it wasn't in his best interest.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 25, 2005, 05:02:36 PM
Quote

Since it was GD Ernst of Hesse's detective Knopf who made this link between AA and FS, why didn't he find FS's fingerprints in the "dead" file?  Must have been there.  Unless they were and he didn't bother to show them because it wasn't in his best interest.


As I mentioned before, I can't imagine that they would take fingerprints of every mental patient, I bet they only did it with AA because she was unknown and they were trying to find out her identity. Why else would they need her fingerprints? I don't think FS's file would have had any fingerprints as I doubt that it was common practice for patients whose identity was known to get their finger prints taken... After all, it was the police who took them, not the hospital itself, and the police only did it because they had AA's "unknown person" case...
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 25, 2005, 05:05:14 PM
Bear, I think if we want to continue discussing this in this fashion, we should take this discussion over to "AA/FS" or "Who was she?" or something to that effect. Here we are just supposed to talk about AA/AN evidence, other than DNA.  :)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on February 25, 2005, 05:14:04 PM
 AA's fingerprints could have been / or could not have been matched with GD Anastasia found on one of her books.

Why hasn't this been done with the modern tech. we have today?

I'm not sure why you want to push this over to the AA and FS thread.  Course, it could be asked there as well.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 25, 2005, 05:37:58 PM
Quote
Why hasn't this been done with the modern tech. we have today?
 


Because they now have DNA which is a lot more accurate than fingerprints. What would be the point of doing the fingerprints if DNA already showed that she was not Anastasia? I know we are not supposed to bring up DNA here, but you asked why!  ;)

Quote
I'm not sure why you want to push this over to the AA and FS thread.  Course, it could be asked there as well.
 


Because this thread is specifically about reasons why you think AA was or was not AN (besides DNA), and has nothing to do with whether she was or was not FS. Two separate issues... There are plenty of other threads where FS can be discussed.




Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Penny_Wilson on February 25, 2005, 05:50:39 PM
Quote

Good detective work, Bear. I wonder if the fingerprints survived.



Fraulein Unbekannt's original fingerprint cards are still in her Berlin Police File -- or they were when Greg and I saw it in July 2000.  We have copies of everything in the file, including the fingerprint cards.

From what I understand re Anastasia's school exercise books:  These books came up for sale sometime during the 50s (I think).  Ian Lilburn bought them for the express purpose of locating Anastasia's fingerprints -- it was hoped that they  -- or at least one -- would be found in an inkblot on one of the pages.  But Anastasia was a very neat little scholar, because there was no blot to be found.  Today, maybe a police lab could raise some ancient prints from the pages, and at least tell us if any match Fraulein U's.  But Ian doesn't have the books any more; the German court system hung onto them, and it seems that they might be in a closed archive in Bensheim.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Denise on February 25, 2005, 05:55:22 PM
Quote

From what I understand re Anastasia's school exercise books:  These books came up for sale sometime during the 50s (I think).  Ian Lilburn bought them for the express purpose of locating Anastasia's fingerprints -- it was hoped that they  -- or at least one -- would be found in an inkblot on one of the pages.  But Anastasia was a very neat little scholar, because there was no blot to be found.  Today, maybe a police lab could raise some ancient prints from the pages, and at least tell us if any match Fraulein U's.  But Ian doesn't have the books any more; the German court system hung onto them, and it seems that they might be in a closed archive in Bensheim.


How interesting. The things I learn on this board.  I have also been wondering about the fingerprints.  Are FS on file anywhere, since she was in and out of hospitals?  There would be another way to compare to FU.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 25, 2005, 06:00:11 PM
Quote

Are FS on file anywhere, since she was in and out of hospitals?  There would be another way to compare to FU.


This is what the Bear and I have been discussing earlier (see above). It doesn't seem that FS's fingerprints are in existance because they probably didn't take them (they had no reason to). I could be wrong about that though, maybe Penny knows?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 25, 2005, 06:46:12 PM
In addition, if you really want AA's fingerprints, there would probably be a way to get them in the US - since she came in as an immigrant and had to get fingerprinted by the INS. But there would really be no use for them unless we could get our hands on FS's - if they exist! Or if there was another candidate for AA's identity whose fingerprints we have on file as well. But there doesn't seem to be another candidate so at this point there is no reason to even get her fingerprints...
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on February 25, 2005, 07:16:54 PM
It appears we have AA's on file in Berlin and a copy in Penny and Greg's pocession.

Now, what we need is  GD Anastasia's.

I wonder what would happen if AA's and GD Anastasia's fingerprints were a match.  How many of us would believe the DNA and how many of us would lean toward the fingerprints.
Who knows, we might have that event ahead of us.  Of course, there is always a few of us who'd just keep on plugging away looking for the truth of it all and find a reason how this cold occur.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Denise on February 27, 2005, 12:05:45 PM
OK, as I had a post removed from the DNA thread as it was not pertaining specifically to the topic at hand, I thought I would start a thread addressing the issues that I see as keeping some of us from concluding decisively that the DNA closes the door on the AA=FS argument.

1.  As AA jumped into the canal in 1920, we are separated from her actions by 85 years, therefore have no truly objective info available.
2.  Because Germany was involved in massive destruction in WWII, many records relating to FS and AA may be lost, and therefore unavailable to researchers today.
3.  Many eyewitness accounts from those who met AA/FU may be influenced by a person's desire to see that a "survivor" existed from Ekaterinburg.  Therefore, some actions or statements by AA may have been deemed proof by those witnessing them because they wanted to believe she was AA not because she was.  
4.  Similarly, there are those who wished it that AA would be seen as FS for a number of reasons.  Therefore, there testimony may also be suspect.
5.  Dna being a misunderstood science, very confusing to some, may not be seen as being as reliable as "eyewitness" testimony, however biased that might be.
6.  The Schanzkowska family is now fairly reticent on the topic of FS.  We should not interpret letters between family members as "evidence" unless we know the context and tone that was intended, as we are not privy to the family dynamics.  Also, information from current members of the family may not be forthcoming as talk of FS may be deemed "ancient history" and they may not want to discuss a matter that would relate poorly on them.  
7.  Because of the large scale publicity of the AA trial, many pro and con testimnies were put forward by those with agendas.  Info which failed to conform to the "AA as AN" or "AA as FS" categories may have been suppressed.  
8.  The differing physical descriptions between FS and AA.  Among these are height, shoe size and proof of pregnancy.  


These are items which need to addressed before many see AA as KM's auntie.  PLease refrain from citing the DNA as we explore the discrepencies inherent in the AA FS case.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on February 27, 2005, 12:52:02 PM
NOTE 5:02 PM:  Although this lists talks about DNA and the similarities between AA and GD Anastasia, we're suppose to stick to the subject of discripencies between AA & FS.  My error.  So, please don't add to my error on this thread.  There are other threads these subject are being discussed.  Sorry Denise.

My original post read:
-----

Evanescence wrote the following on another thread which was locked down just after this was written.  So, I thought this might be a good list to present, again.


Evanescence wrote:
----

>>Well, there's a lot of info supporting and thwarting the case of Anna Anderson. In history, you need to look at both sides or your view might not be correct. I personally shift back and forth in my belief (I seriously have nothing better to do...)  
 
Evidence
 
-Anna Anderson reminded Maria Rasputin of the Red Cross nurse outfit incident and convinced her.
-Anna reminded Gleb Botkin's son about the "funny animals"
-Anna's face, scars, feet, features, ears (specially) resembled that of the Grand Duchess.
-Anna also had the same foot deformity as Anastasia, hallux vulgus.
-Anna recognized people that the genuine Anastasia knew by their voice.
-Anna knew about the peace mission her uncle went on (yes, it was true).
-Also later on it was discovered that the DNA test was not taken %100 correctly.
-There is strong evidence supporting that the DNA test was rigged, by the people who wanted to discredit Anna.
-Anna's ears looked exactly like Anastasia's. No matter what photographs or methods were used the result was the same. The ears were identical.
-(This probably falls under the features point, oh well) Anna had the same mesmerizing eyes, and identical auburnish hair color. (Is auburnish a real word if not it is now!!! )
-Anna's handwriting was very similar to that of the Grand Duchess.
-According to interviews of some of the executioners, it was declared that Anastasia had survived.
-There is a chance that only the Tsar, Tsarina, and Tsarevitch were killed and the daughters imprisoned somewhere else after their parents' deaths and Anastasia ran away and survived.
 
Evidence thwarting Anna
 
-Anna read magazines about the royal family.
-Anna had accurate details about the family's bank account (it is highly unlikely that Anastasia would have had this information).
-Anna was "proven" that she wasn't Anastasia through DNA (though after an thorough investigation problems about the test were uncovered).
 
Anna was probably NOT Franziska. Because
 
-Franziska's hands were rough while Anna's were soft and well kept.
-Anna could speak many languages that Franziska could not. This was confirmed by Franziska's family.
-Forensic experts found many differences between the two faces.
-Franziska's teeth were like "black stumps".
-Franziska did not have hallux vulgus while Anna and Anastasia did.
-Franziska's siblings met Anna and said she was too polite to be their sister.
-Franziska disappeared in the May of 1920 while Anna was found in February.
-Also if Franziska was admitted to Berlin hospitals and sanatoriums six times by 1920 why did no one recognize Anna?
 
But then again she could've been
 
-Franziska's sibling said she did look like Anna.
-Franziska did resemble Anna a bit.  
 
Please visit this website which helped convince me a bit that Anna was Anastasia,http://www.geocities.com/kransnoeselo/Front.html  
 
Anyway, Anastasia was a delightful child and it was a terrible thing that happened in Ipatiev house during the night of July 17th of 1918. Also if Anna wasn't Anastasia, she is still a remarkable person herself. Both deserve recognition. Well, that took a long time to type...At least I have chocolate to guide my way!! MUAHAHAHAHA...I'm not weird, well not a lot...  

« Last Edit: Oct 12th, 2004, 5:07pm by Evanescence »
IP Logged>>

---

AGRBear

PS:
PLease refrain from citing the DNA as we explore the discrepencies inherent in the AA FS case.
PSS:  It's true, the above post does show all AA to FS and AA to GD Anastasia even though  we are just suppose to be talking about AA to FS.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Denise on February 27, 2005, 02:04:54 PM
Well, Bear, I appreciate you joining me here!!  While I do not believe that AA was AN, I am not yet convinced that she was FS.  THe list you have supplied us with from Evanescence, certainly shows enough discrepencies.  

Another thing that bothers me is sheer physicalities.  Despite the reported resemblance between FS based on eyewitnesses (mainly FS family and Doris Wingender) I have problems accepting these accounts.  Why?

1.  Doris was accepting money to expose AA as FS.
2.  The magazine photo Doris "recognized" AA as FS in showed a person so tiny that it could be anyone.
3.  The photos showing AA wearing the suit the Doris "gave FS/AA when she came to the house claiming that she was impersonating a grand duchess" proved to be touched up fakes.
4.  The only photo we have of FS has been touched up to look like AA.  What did this woman really look like?
5.  Despite the physical resemblance Felix noted in AA to his sister, he added that it was only from head on.  From the side and her demeanor she was not remotely like his sister.
6.  When the siblimgs met AA in 1938, Felix said that AA looked even less like FS and totally unlike the AA he met in 1927.  Would a family member change so much in that amopunt of time as to be unrecognizable?
7.  Gertrude, despite the immediate recognition (like Felix in 1927) did not sign anything or pursue the matter about AA being FS.  

If AA was FS, wouldn't there habe been other people who knew her coming forward?  Only those paid to recognize her did so, and did not come forward before the private investigator hired by Ernie was involved.  
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on February 27, 2005, 02:55:56 PM
Posts written about AA's claim to being Anastasia:

Quote

Well, not quite...Annie said she didn't claim to be "anyone until another patient gave her the idea first."  The structure of that sentence implies that AA only got the idea to claim identity based on what another person said, which is I think wrong.  You can call it semantics if you like, and I know Annie genuinely believes AA was not Anastasia (which is fine, since as far as I'm concerned exactly who AA was or was not is still an open question), but the suggestion is that she (AA) only got the idea after another patient raised the issue, which suggests deliberate fraud; in this case, whatever you think, I don't see any credible evidence of deliberate fraud.

Greg King


Quote

Maybe I'm not explaining this properly.  It's not that she didn't make the claim until after the other patient erroneously identified her as Tatiana-that's a given.  It's the wording-"until another patient gave her the idea first."  That clearly implies that AA only got the idea to claim to be Anastasia after having been influenced by the other patient; the way I read it, Clara Peuthart makes the erroneous claim that AA is Tatiana; AA then gets the idea to claim to be Anastasia.  And that's why I tried to point out that the wording is more reflective of opinion than of fact-the idea that AA would not have claimed to be Anastasia had not CP given her "the idea" first, which no one can say is a certain fact.  I hope that makes sense.

Greg King
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on February 27, 2005, 03:03:13 PM
Evidence about the scars on AA when compared to GD Anastasia and FS:

Quote

Dear Bear,

No, no evidence that we have seen -- from various doctors and institutions, from her mother, from her sister and brother -- says that she had any scars at all.  The family testimony falls under the "are there any distinguishing features" sort of question that relatives of missing persons are often asked.  The medical testimony comes mostly from admissions/initial examination paperwork.  Franziska Schanzkowska was a person who was documented quite well right up to within a week or two of her disappearance.  It is always possible that she had some sort of accident in that last week or two, but any resultant scarring would have been fresh and perhaps unhealed -- and could not have matched the scarring on Fraulein Unbekannt's body, which was "old" scarring.

There was rather an extensive Berlin Police investigation into FS's disappearance, at the end of which it was concluded that she had been a victim of Georg Grossman.  This investigation included much more evidence than Grossman's own diary -- often cited -- where a name similar to Schanzkowsky is recorded (from memory, I think it was rendered something like this: Czenkowski).  Before you ask, it is true that the Berlin Police Department's records were mostly destroyed in the second war, but certified copies of records were routinely sent to other interested entities, like private investigators, etc, and this is where we located Franziska's information.

I believe it most likely that poor Franziska was killed by Grossman.  In any case, I deeply, deeply doubt that she was connected to Fraulein Unbekannt in any way.  The evidence reads that FS was resurrected as a convenient decoy some time after her family had come to grips with her murder.  Her mother was very upset at this, never believed that Fraulein Unbekannt was Franziska, and resented her tragedy being used in this manner.  As she --and others -- have pointed out, Franziska was hardly unknown in the Berlin mental health community.

I'll see what I can dig up this afternoon on some of the other issues raised here...


My responce then and now:

Did anyone else notice that Wilson is telling us that Franziska S.  may have been murdered by Grossmann before 13 Aug 1920?

Did anyone else notice when Franziska S. disapearance had occured her family had said to the police that Franziska S. had no scaring that would be of any use for idenitification if her body was found?

Did anyone else notice that when the explosion occured in the factory, that Franziska had not been injured?

Why important?  Anna Anderson had old scars when she was in the asylum.

If we just take this evidence then Anna Anderson couldn't have been Franziska S. ....


AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on February 27, 2005, 03:31:17 PM
Helen wrote on another thread:  

>>Jeremy, from what I understand, FS is reported to have been a good 4 inches taller than AA (around 5'6" to AA's 5'2"). Now, this is just a shot in the dark, but can TB of the bones effect someone's height, like say, osteoporosis can? I know that AA was suffering from it for many years, could it have "shrunk" her height or changed her bone structure at all? I don't know anything about that and I know it sounds kind of dumb, but we've all heard of stranger things happening... <<

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: daveK on February 27, 2005, 04:35:56 PM
I was always curious about Anna Anderson's foreign accent. As far as I know and I heard from people, her English on BBC and  PBS program had Polish and/or German accent, but definitely NOT Russian. Is there anyone who speaks three languages German/Polish/Russian at native level in this AP site? And can they cofirm this??


Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 27, 2005, 05:23:18 PM
Quote
Evidence
 
-Anna Anderson reminded Maria Rasputin of the Red Cross nurse outfit incident and convinced her.
-Anna reminded Gleb Botkin's son about the "funny animals"
-Anna's face, scars, feet, features, ears (specially) resembled that of the Grand Duchess.
-Anna also had the same foot deformity as Anastasia, hallux vulgus.
-Anna recognized people that the genuine Anastasia knew by their voice.
-Anna knew about the peace mission her uncle went on (yes, it was true).
-Also later on it was discovered that the DNA test was not taken %100 correctly.
-Anna's ears looked exactly like Anastasia's. No matter what photographs or methods were used the result was the same. The ears were identical.
-(This probably falls under the features point, oh well) Anna had the same mesmerizing eyes, and identical auburnish hair color. (Is auburnish a real word if not it is now!!! )
-Anna's handwriting was very similar to that of the Grand Duchess.
-According to interviews of some of the executioners, it was declared that Anastasia had survived.
-There is a chance that only the Tsar, Tsarina, and Tsarevitch were killed and the daughters imprisoned somewhere else after their parents' deaths and Anastasia ran away and survived.


Bear,

Just to clarify, I think that this thread is about the disrepancies and/or similarities between AA and FS, not AA and AN, right? (Denise, please correct me if I am not reading it correctly). Or are we still discussing the possibility of AA being AN? I think it is valid to continue  discussing discrepencies between AA and FS, but IMO we need to give the AA=AN a rest already. Most people have accepted the fact that this is not the case, so I am not sure if there is any point in bringing all this up again...  ???

Quote
-There is strong evidence supporting that the DNA test was rigged, by the people who wanted to discredit Anna.


Please, please, let's not start with this again!  :-/  :-X
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 27, 2005, 05:27:41 PM
Quote
I was always curious about Anna Anderson's foreign accent. As far as I know and I heard from people, her English on BBC and  PBS program had Polish and/or German accent, but definitely NOT Russian. Is there anyone who speaks three languages German/Polish/Russian at native level in this AP site? And can they cofirm this??



On another thread, I was one of the people who said that I didn't think that AA's accent sounded like a Russian accent, which I am very familiar with. I am not sure what accent she had but it didn't sound (to me) like any Russian accent I ever heard. However, this is just personal perception and shouldn't be used as proof one way or another, even coming from people who speak all 3 languages.

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Denise on February 27, 2005, 05:46:56 PM
Quote

Bear,

Just to clarify, I think that this thread is about the disrepancies and/or similarities between AA and FS, not AA and AN, right? (Denise, please correct me if I am not reading it correctly).

Please, please, let's not start with this again!  :-/  :-X


I agree Helen.  My attention here is on Anna Andersan and Franziska Schanzkowska.  The only time bringing in AN would be relevant is in stating that FS was known not to have scars, as AA had scars consistent w/what AN might have had.

Please let's not bring in AN.  She has her own threads!  ;)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on February 27, 2005, 06:48:46 PM
The entire quote had all three which I found interesting.

I can go and take out AA to GD Anastasia section in  Evanescence's post if Denise would like me too.

It just so happen Evanescence did talk about DNA, I can go eliminate that, too, if  it is so wished.

I don't want this thread to get off on the wrong paw.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Denise on February 27, 2005, 06:54:02 PM
Quote
The entire quote had all three which I found interesting.

I can go and take out AA's section in  Evanescence's post if Denise would like me too.

AGRBear




Oh, heck no, Bear :)!!  If you think it might confuse newbies to our thread here, feel free.  But I think those of us who are used to the tenor of these threads will be ok.  It might keep us on our toes more.  ;D

D
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on February 27, 2005, 06:56:36 PM
I added a NOTE at the top of my post,  so hope that helps.

Sorry.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Denise on February 27, 2005, 07:17:07 PM
No apologies Bear!!  I am very flexible, I have to be--I'm a mommy!  8)

Back to topic:

So, other than the Dalldorf nurses, are there any other seemingly objective witnesses of FU?  I don't think they remained objective after the Anastasia frenzy started as they began to feed her frenzy by showing her magazines and keeping quiet about her delusion as she was finally talking to them.  

Also, what is the general concensus on the appearance of FS?  If the family couldn't remember her eye color, are they to be trusted on other details about her appearance?

I guess what I would like to do is create a baseline appearance for both FS and AA (FU) in order to begin the comparison.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 27, 2005, 07:18:26 PM
Quote
I added a NOTE at the top of my post,  so hope that helps.

Sorry.

AGRBear


Thanks, Bear.

I guess for me, the questions lie in the following discrepencies:

The issue of the pregnancy, if it can be shown from her medical charts that FS never gave birth;

The scars - if it can be shown that FS did not have them at her last medical check up and that AA's scars were at least more than a year old and not fresh ones;

The shoe size, if it can be proven that FS had a totally different shoe size than AA;

The height - if it can be shown (perhaps from the medical chart) that FS was indeed several inches taller than AA.

I cannot put too much weight on anyone's testimony, on either side, because it is way too common for people to either be mistaken, confused, or simply to lie. But medical or physical information does not lie, if it is taken from reliable sources such as medical charts, perhaps.

So, does anyone know if FS's medical charts state that she has never been pregnant (I think we once discussed this but never got a definite answer); if AA's chart says that her scars were at least a year old and not fresh ones; if the height of both AA and FS is recorded in their respective medical charts; and what or who was the source of FS's shoe size?

If any of these things just came from testimonies of the family or friends, I would take them with a grain of salt because apparently there was a lot of lying going on, not to mentione that her family and friends couldn't even get her eye color right which doesn't say much for their testimonies, unfortunately....

So this is how I see it.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Denise on February 27, 2005, 07:30:34 PM
Peter Kurth, "Riddle" page 5.  From the report of FU's  appearance given in the medical report at Dalldorf on March 30.1920:

...recorded her weight at 110 pounds, her height at just under five foot two.

...She seemed to be in agony while they looked at her body, and the doctors quickly saw why:  it was covered with scars ("many lacerations," the report said).  THey saw something else: she was no longer a virgin.  This seemed important in a girl of "about twenty," ......


Kurth goes on to describe how she apparently plucked hair away at her forehead to give a high brow line.  Also, when 8 teeth were removed she didn't mind and that a healthy tooth had also been removed, a nurse stated in order to alter her appearance.  She told the nurses she would not leave the asylum as she feared recognition and being transported back to the Soviet Union. pg 8
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Denise on February 27, 2005, 07:48:53 PM
Kurth pg 167, Franziska Schanzkowska, "stocky," "big boned," "filthy and grubby" Polish factory worker and former farm girl, with her "work-worn" hands and the "black stumps" that passed for her teeth."

This information is solely from the testimony of the Wingender sisters.  Not sure how objective this is.

There is no definitive hair color on record for FS--it was described anywhere from chestnut, to reddish, to blond to black.  

Per Rathlef, FS took a size 39 shoe, while AA took a 36.  

It is a jumble on accurate decriptions of FS.  
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 27, 2005, 07:49:37 PM
Quote
...recorded her weight at 110 pounds, her height at just under five foot two.

...She seemed to be in agony while they looked at her body, and the doctors quickly saw why:  it was covered with scars ("many lacerations," the report said).  THey saw something else: she was no longer a virgin.


All this info already appeared here and there, on other threads, but it doesn't really help us unless we have the same info from FS' medical chart to compare it to... I guess it doesn't say anywhere if the scars were fresh or more than a year old? If the scars were fresh, then FS's old medical charts, even if they say that she had no scars, would not mean much...  If we could get the same type of info from FS's medical chart to compare this to, that would become very convincing, but if it is not available and we only have to go by various "testimonies" - then none of this info is all that significant, IMO.

Quote
...she apparently plucked hair away at her forehead to give a high brow line.  Also, when 8 teeth were removed she didn't mind and that a healthy tooth had also been removed, a nurse stated in order to alter her appearance.  She told the nurses she would not leave the asylum as she feared recognition and being transported back to the Soviet Union. pg 8


This could be seen in several different ways. She may have wanted to (subconsciously or not) "eliminate" all physical aspects of her "old identity", if she was FS - or anyone else for that matter. Taking out the teeth would have altered her appearance drastically, especially from the side (as was reported by Felix). This could be why she didn't mind them pulling out the teeth, and plucked out the hair. It doesn't mean this was done deliberately, it could have been subconscious - to make her leaving her old identity behind more complete.
As for the "fear of being recognized and transported back to the Soviet Union", this sounds like it could be a manifestation of a paranoid disorder... Or it could have been a prelude of what was to come, if she knew she was going to "confess" to being Anastasia shortly.




Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 27, 2005, 07:52:11 PM
Quote
Kurth pg 167, Franziska Schanzkowska, "stocky," "big boned," "filthy and grubby" Polish factory worker and former farm girl, with her "work-worn" hands and the "black stumps" that passed for her teeth."

This information is solely from the testimony of the Wingender sisters.  Not sure how objective this is.

There is no definitive hair color on record for FS--it was described anywhere from chestnut, to reddish, to blond to black.  

Per Rathlef, FS took a size 39 shoe, while AA took a 36.  

It is a jumble on accurate decriptions of FS.  


This is exactly why I say we have to take any testimony like this with a grain of salt, if not disregard completely. Too contradictory, too vague, too confusing. They couldn't even get her hair or eye color right for petes sakes! Chestnut to blonde to red to black? What else is left?  ;)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Denise on February 27, 2005, 07:59:47 PM
Quote

This is exactly why I say we have to take any testimony like this with a grain of salt, if not disregard completely. Too contradictory, too vague, too confusing. They couldn't even get her hair or eye color right for petes sakes! Chestnut to blonde to red to black? What else is left?  ;)


Exactly.  All we have to go on is an old touched up photo of FS.  And hair color is difficult to discern in a B&W picture--look at the trouble to this day figuring out OTMA's true hair colors.

So Bear has the right of it.  We need a glance at the FS medical charts, at least to get height, weight scars etc.  To get a physical comparison to Fraulein Unbekannt at the time of her 1st medical exam, at least.  Weight can fluxuate, but not height in someone so young.

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 27, 2005, 08:16:25 PM
Quote
We need a glance at the FS medical charts, at least to get height, weight scars etc.  To get a physical comparison to Fraulein Unbekannt at the time of her 1st medical exam, at least.  Weight can fluxuate, but not height in someone so young.


Unfortunately, I am not sure if this info was available in FS's chart. I think Penny mentioned that it did say there were no scars, but that doesn't mean anything if AA's scars were fresh (more recent than the time of FS's last medical chart entry). Penny also mentioned that FS's medical exam didn't mention that she had ever been pregnant, but neither did it mention that she wasn't, so we can't just assume it - maybe they just didn't check for it in that particular exam... Unless it specifically stated that this patient was never pregnant or a virgin or something like that, we can't assume either way. So that seems to be a bit of dead end too. I don't know if her chart had her height, I don't think Penny mentioned that. And I don't think it gave her eye or hair color...
So we are sort of back to square one. No definitive medical evidence one way or the other to compare the two, all we have are "iffy" testimonies where no one can agree on anything, not only on the hair and eyes color, but also the teeth: Felix said FS had a set of nice white teeth, others were saying she had black stumps - big difference! Obviously someone is confused or lying. We don't know whom to believe so we can't use any of this testimony... So many inconsistencies and no appropriate medical info available. I hate to say it, but it just doesn't seem like any definitive conclusions can be made so far on this evidence (without the DNA).
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 27, 2005, 08:31:58 PM
More evidence (although not as good as medical) can come from timing. We had brushed upon this on another thread but never really figured it out. If it can be shown that FS was seen by someone after AA was found, or had turned up somewhere, that could be good evidence, although again it would have to be based on someone's testimony - not something that we should take as gospel truth. I am not sure if anyone ever came out to say that they ever actually physically saw FS again after AA was pulled out of the canal, or did they?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on February 27, 2005, 08:44:06 PM
Transplanting my post from the "Reasons OTHER than DNA" thread:

After feeling frustrated and exasperated over and over again that people still claim all the 'anti' AA people only say DNA over and over no matter how many times I list my other reasons, I figured maybe my posts were being ignored or overlooked, so I am putting this in a new thread for open and honest point and counterpoint debate. Every time I list this and ask for answers, all I get is 'all you people say is DNA' even though I left DNA off the list! I realize that those who choose for whatever reason to still believe AA was AN will never believe the DNA, they will say it was rigged or switched or something, so let's do what some have asked for, reasons OTHER than DNA. One poster has claimed everything but the DNA points to her being Anastasia, but I strongly disagree. Here, once again, are my reasons:

 
She did not make a claim until someone at the asylum gave her the idea with a book  
 
She first claimed to be Tatiana  
 
Her story of escape is unbelievable and cannot be proven or verified. There is no evidence Alexander Tchiakovsky ever existed, and it sounds like a conveniently invented name (common first name, famous last name)  
 
It is very unlikely anyone survived the brutal massacre, and if they did, could not possibly have lasted for long, traveling miles in a cart, with no medical attention. If they didn't bleed to death they'd succumb to infection later. It's what, almost 1,000 miles from Ekaterinburg to Romania? How many weeks is that by cart in the mud, hiding from populated areas? It's not realistic.  
 
 
She doesn't look like Anastasia- fuller lips, wider mouth, wider set eyes, different shaped chin  
 
Any of her 'memories' could be explained as being told to her, intentionally or inadvertently, by Russian emigres'  
 
Even with these 'memories' much of what she said was inaccurate  
 
The Romanov and Hesse families rejected her, and I don't believe they'd have been so cold if she were genuine  
 
The Schanskowska family first accepted, then denied her, and later there is evidence they did so to avoid responsibility for a troublesome sister and as not to spoil her 'career' as 'Anastasia'  
 
Many other acquaitences of the family rejected her as false. When she met some, she hid part of her face or stayed behind a screen so they couldn't get a good look.  
 
with all the rumors of money and vast fortunes (which later proved false) there was the potential for 'gold digging' and 'supporters'  backing her in hopes of a huge payoff if she could win  
 
There are too many different stories and conflicting reports of things like her height, scars, what languages she spoke, and when she spoke them. Most of these stories are from only one source, often unnamed or unverified, and many contradict each other.    
 
With all the claims about the ear, I don't see an exact match, and don't see how one can possibly be made from an old black and white photo. It is impossible to get the full detail from that. And if this evidence is so compelling why did the court not rule her Anastasia?

And then there are the pictures:

FS is in the middle, the others are AA.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/aafs.jpg)


Anastasia's face was a completely different shape, especially her chin and the setting of her eyes. AA and FS share the same natural hair part. Even if FS's mouth has been tampered with as some claim, the basic bone structure of the face is the same as AA's, as are the much wider mouth and fuller lips as compared to Anastasia:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/anaa.jpg)

and, no, I don't believe being hit in the face with rifle butts will change your bone structure. If her facial bones were broken, her face would look like a damaged version of Anastasia's face, not a completely different person.

As I have also said, I used to believe in AA, but I don't anymore, and now I really wonder how I ever could. I must have just wanted it so badly. But sadly it isn't true.



Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 27, 2005, 08:46:44 PM
Annie, this discussion is about AA and FS, we are no longer arguing about her being or not being AN!  
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on February 27, 2005, 08:54:27 PM
Sorry  :-[ But I'm not going to delete the post since a lot of it is still about FS and her family. Oh well now I'll have to go make another long winded list! :D

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 27, 2005, 09:03:11 PM
Quote
 All we have to go on is an old touched up photo of FS.  


This is slightly off topic, but I was wondering how did they used to touch up photos back then? Did they just physically change the photo itself with ink or something like that, or did they do it when publishing it in a magazine or newspaper? Also, does anyone know where this one and only FS photo came from? Did the relatives provide it? Does someone still have the original? I bet if the original survived, someone can now figure how much of it was changed and maybe bring back the original image.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Denise on February 27, 2005, 09:15:47 PM
Quote

This is slightly off topic, but I was wondering how did they used to touch up photos back then? Did they just physically change the photo itself with ink or something like that, or did they do it when publishing it in a magazine or newspaper? Also, does anyone know where this one and only FS photo came from? Did the relatives provide it? Does someone still have the original? I bet if the original survived, someone can now figure how much of it was changed and maybe bring back the original image.


I know they used some sort of a white substance to cover parts of the picture.  Perhaps on the negative?  I'll research this as I read it somewhere.  

Also, the gut I told you about, Brumo, who saw FS before she went to England saw her in July of 1920, which was while AA was in the asylum.  Of course, although the ship names did not show that FS was aboard or were unavailable, it does not mean that he was lying.  She could have changed her mind.  

Also, the fact that the name similar to hers was in Grossman's diary as killed was Aug 13, 1920 shows that she could not be FU as well.  

Unfortunately, here once again we are stuck with ambiguous details on FS.  She certainly is not easy to peg down.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on February 28, 2005, 06:22:22 AM
Quote
1.  As AA jumped into the canal in 1920, we are separated from her actions by 85 years, therefore have no truly objective info available.

2.  Because Germany was involved in massive destruction in WWII, many records relating to FS and AA may be lost, and therefore unavailable to researchers today.


Exactly because of these 2 things we will NEVER find absolute proof.

Quote
3.  Many eyewitness accounts from those who met AA/FU may be influenced by a person's desire to see that a "survivor" existed from Ekaterinburg.  Therefore, some actions or statements by AA may have been deemed proof by those witnessing them because they wanted to

7.  Because of the large scale publicity of the AA trial, many pro and con testimnies were put forward by those with agendas.  Info which failed to conform to the "AA as AN" or "AA as FS" categories may have been suppressed.


Oh yes, and I believe this happens, even today with researchers.
 
Quote
8.  The differing physical descriptions between FS and AA.  Among these are height, shoe size and proof of pregnancy.  




And ALL of this is so muddled, subjective, and contradictive to each other none of it can be used. As I said with the tub story and the singer's height and the kids not knowing their sibling's eye color stories, it's common human error for various people to say different things because they have not paid enough attention or remembered details wrong, this does NOT mean they were not the same person! Several different people can and do report varying details of things and none of them think they are wrong!  However I can see how the 'other side' loves to use these things as hope and a reason to drag this on forever.

Shoe size means absolutely nothing since people's feet change sizes (especially if they have developed the bunion condition!), they sometimes wear someone else's shoes that are the wrong size, especially if they are poor (I have done this, forcing my feet into my older sister's because hers were 'cooler' ) or people could simply have been mistaken. Other than that one sister I couldn't tell you my siblings' shoe sizes, or those of people who have been my best friends. I do not consider this a big thing at all!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: marina on February 28, 2005, 06:34:57 AM
For me it is very difficult to believe the results of DNA because there is a enormous difference between this purcentage(about 99,9%) and the possible purcentage of coincidence concerning all kind of similarities between AA and FS(for me 1%). Somebody already wrote these point of similarities:scars, languages(how a polish factor can speak english, russian, french and german? Strange ???), AA knew a lot of things about the imperial family, physicals similarities are evident,...
DNA test of AA have been done with a piece of intestine whose origin appears doubtful to me. But of course I understand people who do not agree with that, I can be wrong.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 28, 2005, 12:05:41 PM
I just found this FS photo which is supposedly the original version - before it was manipulated (next to it are the two "re-touched" versions):

(http://img153.exs.cx/img153/961/fsoriginal8wx.png)(http://img153.exs.cx/img153/1440/fstouchedup2kz.png)(http://img224.exs.cx/img224/2489/fsretouched4vm.png)
Un-retouched version of the photo^^

The first re-touched version doesn't look that different to me, only the features are more clear. It doesn't really look as much as it was re-touched as an attempt to make the photo more clear, this was probably the purpose for it. The second picture just looks like a bad artist's rendition, and is neither here nor there...

There are certain photos of AA, not all, that bear a striking resemblance to this FS photo (unre-touched). What do you think?

(http://img153.exs.cx/img153/961/fsoriginal8wx.png)(http://img153.exs.cx/img153/3800/aa31id.png)(http://img164.exs.cx/img164/791/aa38ep.png)

Fraziska Schankowzska (unre-touched photo)                      Anna Anderson                                                       Anna Anderson

To be honest, even based on these three photos alone , I would say that there is a really good chance that this is one and the same person - I mean the resemblance is really uncanny here!







Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Candice on February 28, 2005, 12:25:21 PM
Finding GD A's fingerprints would be good news.  Ofcourse they'd have to prove they belonged to GD Anastasia.  
DNA is complex and people are always questioning the results. For example my source's DNA matches that of Nicholas II, who has a unique DNA sequence but I've been told that there are probably many with the same DNA.

Fingerprints may be a way forward.  I also believe that handwriting might be another way forward. Has anyone ever analysed and compared AA/FS handwrtiting with that of GD Anastasia's?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Candice on February 28, 2005, 01:11:46 PM
Helen, these photos are amazing.  In my opinion they are anthropological evidence that FS and AA were indeed one and the same person.  

Candice
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Penny_Wilson on February 28, 2005, 01:23:09 PM
Just goes to show you how much photo-matching "evidence" means in the long run -- I think these three photos look like three different people.  For one thing, the jaw-line in the first photo looks much squarer than it does in the other two...
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Penny_Wilson on February 28, 2005, 01:26:50 PM
You need to update this list of nonsense.  Many of these assertions of yours simply are not true, and the others have been forced through the filter of your pet theory.

Quote
She did not make a claim until someone at the asylum gave her the idea with a book  
  
She first claimed to be Tatiana  
  
Her story of escape is unbelievable and cannot be proven or verified. There is no evidence Alexander Tchiakovsky ever existed, and it sounds like a conveniently invented name (common first name, famous last name)  
  
It is very unlikely anyone survived the brutal massacre, and if they did, could not possibly have lasted for long, traveling miles in a cart, with no medical attention. If they didn't bleed to death they'd succumb to infection later. It's what, almost 1,000 miles from Ekaterinburg to Romania? How many weeks is that by cart in the mud, hiding from populated areas? It's not realistic.  
  
  
She doesn't look like Anastasia- fuller lips, wider mouth, wider set eyes, different shaped chin  
  
Any of her 'memories' could be explained as being told to her, intentionally or inadvertently, by Russian emigres'  
  
Even with these 'memories' much of what she said was inaccurate  
  
The Romanov and Hesse families rejected her, and I don't believe they'd have been so cold if she were genuine  
  
The Schanskowska family first accepted, then denied her, and later there is evidence they did so to avoid responsibility for a troublesome sister and as not to spoil her 'career' as 'Anastasia'  
  
Many other acquaitences of the family rejected her as false. When she met some, she hid part of her face or stayed behind a screen so they couldn't get a good look.  
  
with all the rumors of money and vast fortunes (which later proved false) there was the potential for 'gold digging' and 'supporters'  backing her in hopes of a huge payoff if she could win  
  
There are too many different stories and conflicting reports of things like her height, scars, what languages she spoke, and when she spoke them. Most of these stories are from only one source, often unnamed or unverified, and many contradict each other.    
  
With all the claims about the ear, I don't see an exact match, and don't see how one can possibly be made from an old black and white photo. It is impossible to get the full detail from that. And if this evidence is so compelling why did the court not rule her Anastasia?
 
And then there are the pictures:
 
FS is in the middle, the others are AA.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/aafs.jpg)
 
 
Anastasia's face was a completely different shape, especially her chin and the setting of her eyes. AA and FS share the same natural hair part. Even if FS's mouth has been tampered with as some claim, the basic bone structure of the face is the same as AA's, as are the much wider mouth and fuller lips as compared to Anastasia:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/anaa.jpg)
 
and, no, I don't believe being hit in the face with rifle butts will change your bone structure. If her facial bones were broken, her face would look like a damaged version of Anastasia's face, not a completely different person.
 
As I have also said, I used to believe in AA, but I don't anymore, and now I really wonder how I ever could. I must have just wanted it so badly. But sadly it isn't true.
 
 
 

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Denise on February 28, 2005, 01:37:43 PM
Quote
Just goes to show you how much photo-matching "evidence" means in the long run -- I think these three photos look like three different people.  For one thing, the jaw-line in the first photo looks much squarer than it does in the other two...


I agree with Penny here.  The two of AA do not look to be the same person to me.  Maybe sisters?  I see teeth in the 1st one, perhaps that is why it looks weird to me?  

And something about the eyes seems different between FS and the AA photos, as well as the jawline.  

These seem less similar to me than the ones where AA apparently is "posing" like AN.  
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Denise on February 28, 2005, 01:39:21 PM
Or maybe it is just that that the toothy AA picture shows a smiling, healthy woman.  AA always looks frail and sickly to me in most of her pictures.  When was the toothy picture taken Helen?  It isn't one I have seen before....
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: jolie on February 28, 2005, 01:41:19 PM
Denise, I agree.

They look exactly alike to me.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 28, 2005, 01:44:52 PM
Quote
Just goes to show you how much photo-matching "evidence" means in the long run -- I think these three photos look like three different people.


I agree, photos and most of the other evidence we have right now are kind of meanigless, but since this is supposed to be a thread that can't include scientific evidence, this is why I posted them. But everyone will see different things in these photos of course - just like some people saw a lot of resemblance between AA and Anastasia and others saw none whatsoever.

Quote
 For one thing, the jaw-line in the first photo looks much squarer than it does in the other two...


To be fair, in the first AA photo, she is smiling and has her head cocked up - so of course the jawline will look slightly different. In the second one, the angle is completely different, so of course the jawline looks different too. The FS photo itself is pretty fuzzy, so it's hard to tell the exact jawline, part of it may be the fuzziness. To me, they may look like the same person, to some others they may not, this is normal and to be expected. I am by no means trying to say that these photos should be used as definitive proof, it is just more evidence that at the very least AA and FS looked a lot alike. And it just reconfirms that we need to have more scientific evidence in order to really decide whether AA was FS or not. These photos will not prove or disprove anything, neither will various confusing and conflicting testimonies. Only concrete scientific or medical evidence can come close to doing that... But we can't use the former here and we don't have much of the latter.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 28, 2005, 01:45:35 PM
Quote
Or maybe it is just that that the toothy AA picture shows a smiling, healthy woman.  AA always looks frail and sickly to me in most of her pictures.  When was the toothy picture taken Helen?  It isn't one I have seen before....


All three photos come from Peter Kurth's site.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Candice on February 28, 2005, 01:46:40 PM
Anastasia has a long slender nose thin lips and smaller almond eyes. Her face is oval with refined and delicate beautiful features like her mother and the Romanov line. No riffle but can change that much.  AA/FS shows broader features. Her nose, mouth eyes are a large and round shaped. AA/FS has a round face with dimples on her cheek. I'm not saying AA is not pretty, she just has different facial characteristics to Anastasia.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on February 28, 2005, 01:46:54 PM
Quote
You need to update this list of nonsense.  Many of these assertions of yours simply are not true, and the others have been forced through the filter of your pet theory.




YOU accusing someone else of 'nonsense' and 'pet theories?' PLEASE don't get me started :-X :-X :-X
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on February 28, 2005, 01:49:58 PM
Helen, thanks for the pics! I was googling for a certain AA pic this morning when my mouse froze up and I had to reboot, I'll try again later. It's the image of FS, and even more so the one you just found!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on February 28, 2005, 01:59:14 PM
Quote
languages(how a polish factor can speak english, russian, french and german? Strange ???)


This is not exactly right. Intially she spoke only German, the others came later, and there is no real evidence other than hearsay about the Russian. There is nothing recorded of her speaking Russian, nothing written in Russian by her. It's only been pushed by her supporters, really, there's no real evidence. Honestly, because ALL the reports of what she spoke and when she spoke it are muddled, conflicting and largely undocumented but more hearsay from this or that unnamed or just one person, I don't take any of the language stuff as evidence for EITHER side. It's nothing but he said she said.

Quote
AA knew a lot of things about the imperial family,


This too is questionable. She got a lot wrong, and what she did 'know' could have been fed to her either intentionally or unintentionally by Russian emigres'- there was a large number of them in Europe in the post WWI days, and many of them went to see her.


Quote
physicals similarities are evident,...


Well, this I don't see. When I was a dreamy eyed teenager I did, but now I look and wonder what on earth I saw, it had to be wishful thinking. Check out Helen's pics in Denise's AA/FS thread and see how much more she looks like FS.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Mgmstl on February 28, 2005, 02:04:07 PM
This thread is supposed to be a discussion of the differences between AA & FS, NON DNA.

Remember there are no ACTUAL photos of FS from her family.  So what you are working from is a VERY touched up photo of AA.  Let's realize that before an argument gets started, and we get thrown off track by those with an agenda.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Denise on February 28, 2005, 02:06:28 PM
Quote
You need to update this list of nonsense.  Many of these assertions of yours simply are not true, and the others have been forced through the filter of your pet theory.




Quote


YOU accusing someone else of 'nonsense' and 'pet theories?' PLEASE don't get me started :-X :-X :-X



Please Annie AND Penny:  play nice.  I would like to keep this discussion civil and have a reasonable exchange of information with no name calling from anyone!  Thank you!!  :) :) :)

And besides, the Anastasia stuff is irrelevant to this discussion...
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Mgmstl on February 28, 2005, 02:17:46 PM
No that is not correct, she did NOT only speak German.
Read the testimony of the nurses at Dalldorf.  She spoke and understood Russian like a native.  She also spoke different languages in her sleep, and was fluent in English & German.

No one has heard of Russian Emigres visiting her BEFORE Clara Peuthert came into the asylum, and upon her release in 1922 started to try to rally support for AA.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 28, 2005, 02:20:45 PM
Quote
This thread is supposed to be a discussion of the differences between AA & FS, NON DNA.


Michael, I thought this is what I was doing here  ???  ???

Quote
Remember there are no ACTUAL photos of FS from her family.  So what you are working from is a VERY touched up photo of AA.  


So now you are saying that photos of AA are retouched? Or do you mean the one of FS? I pulled the unretouched FS photo, as well as both AA photos from Peter Kurth's site - I seriously doubt that he would be doing any retouching. No one seems to know where the FS photo originally came from, it may have come from her family. The other two were the retouched versions, but not the first one - that was my whole point. It's obvious that this first photo was untampered with... And as far as I know, Peter Kurth did not retouch the AA photos, why would you think that?

Anyway, I think I have to bug out of here, before another brawl starts. It doesn't seem that we can discuss this topic in a civil manner on any thread - ever, without attacks or accusations of having agendas. Which is very unfortunate.

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Mgmstl on February 28, 2005, 02:23:34 PM
Helen, MY apologies.  It wasn't you I was referring to. It's the same argument that seems to happen.  It was nothing you did nor the photos you posted. PLEASE don't be offended :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[

I am sorry if that is what you read into it.  I have just been lurking the past couple of days because of stomach flu, but feel better today.

Again I am sorry if I upset you.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Elisabeth on February 28, 2005, 02:25:27 PM
Anna Anderson did not have a Russian accent. Period. Ask any native Russian speaker to watch videos of Anna Anderson in action and s/he will tell you that the woman has a non-Russian accent that sounds Polish. This is one of the reasons why Russians are so incredibly offended by the mere suggestion that AA could have been a Russian grand duchess. I'm convinced it's one of the main reasons behind their continuing intransigence over the whole mass grave issue and which grand duchess is really missing. I don't think people realize quite how offensive Russians find it that anyone could ever imagine that AA, who sounds Polish, could have been AN. The Poles and Russians are traditional enemies.

But Annie and I have discussed the language issue exhaustively on another thread and we both concluded (as I recall) that FS, as a Kashubian, would have been multi-lingual - speaking Kashube, Polish, and probably German as well, since the part of Poland where she was born was made up of these ethnic groups and belonged to different empires in different periods. But Russian was presumably not one of her native tongues, and definitely not Anna Anderson's!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 28, 2005, 02:27:28 PM
Quote
Helen, MY apologies.  It wasn't you I was referring to. It's the same argument that seems to happen.  It was nothing you did nor the photos you posted. PLEASE don't be offended :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[

I am sorry if that is what you read into it.  I have just been lurking the past couple of days because of stomach flu, but feel better today.

Again I am sorry if I upset you.


It's ok Michael. I am just getting very nervous about the impending fight brewing (as we can all see coming) and maybe it would be best to just cut out from this thread as I really don't have the energy nor the inclination for more unpleasantness.

I hope you get better soon, Michael.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Malenkaya on February 28, 2005, 02:32:18 PM
Quote
I also believe that handwriting might be another way forward. Has anyone ever analysed and compared AA/FS handwrtiting with that of GD Anastasia's?


Yes, a handwriting analyst stated based on handwriting alone, that AA and AN had to be the same person.

From page 314 of "Ridde Of Anna Anderson"

The results had far exceeded anyone's expectations.  And there was more to come: when Minna Becker's graphological analysis arrived, it was no less categorical than Reche's had been.  "I have never seen this many identical traits," said Dr. Becker, "in two scripts that did not come from the same hand....Identity of traits, therefore, identity of person....Mrs. Anderson is no one else than Grand Duchess Anastasia."

If this is true, I think it's pretty amazing.  I mean, it's one thing to be able to learn and memorize details from someone's else's life to try to pass yourself off as that person.  To be able to write like someone else, to the point where a trained professional also buys into your scam, is pretty amazing.  

If AA was FS, she was the smartest, luckiest and most talented peasant who ever lived.  Which is why, I would guess, so many of us are still consumed by what we still see as a mystery, despite the DNA "evidence."
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Mgmstl on February 28, 2005, 02:35:12 PM
Elisabeth, I beg your pardon, BUT according to a nurse at Dalldorf,  "Riddle of Anna Anderson" pgs 10 & 11,

"The nurses at Dalldorf never doubted that FU was Russian.  It wasn't just her Eastern accent or the fact that she spoke foreign languages in her sleep. "She spoke perfect RUSSIAN, like a native," said Erna Bucholz, a former German teacher who had lived in Russia, "not like a foreigner who has learned Russian/"  Nurse Bucholz had been the first to take care of Fraulein Unbekannt at Dalldord and later she recalled an event that had taken place in the summer of  1920:

"During the nightshift, I had special opportunit to converse with er, as generall she could not sleep..... I told her one evening that I came from Russia, talked about the cathedral in Moscow (St. Basil's) and spoke about Russian matters in general.   She nodded and said she knew all this..... 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 completely conversant in the Russian language, Russian affairs and especially Russian military matters."

You and Annie can go pedal your agend to someone else. >:(
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Denise on February 28, 2005, 02:36:37 PM
Quote

It's ok Michael. I am just getting very nervous about the impending fight brewing (as we can all see coming) and maybe it would be best to just cut out from this thread as I really don't have the energy nor the inclination for more unpleasantness.

I hope you get better soon, Michael.


Helen, I hate to see you leave.  I am SO TIRED of people coming into these speculative, non scientific threads and getting all hard line in the "you guys are wrong" mode.  Honestly, does it hurt them to let us discuss these things?  If they do not like the discussion, they can choose to not read.  

After all, "there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Elisabeth on February 28, 2005, 02:38:24 PM
Anna Anderson wasn't such a good fake. What about the notorious "Dar'ling" letter? Rewatch the Nova episode about Anastasia and get back to me! Handwriting analysis is very subjective - it's not by any stretch of the imagination an exact science. AA was just a very lucky individual: the German police got the so-called definitive "points of identity" all wrong in her case, as well.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Elisabeth on February 28, 2005, 02:46:04 PM
Quote
Elisabeth, I beg your pardon, BUT according to a nurse at Dalldorf,  "Riddle of Anna Anderson" pgs 10 & 11,

"The nurses at Dalldorf never doubted that FU was Russian.  It wasn't just her Eastern accent or the fact that she spoke foreign languages in her sleep. "She spoke perfect RUSSIAN, like a native," said Erna Bucholz, a former German teacher who had lived in Russia, "not like a foreigner who has learned Russian/"  Nurse Bucholz had been the first to take care of Fraulein Unbekannt at Dalldord and later she recalled an event that had taken place in the summer of  1920:

"During the nightshift, I had special opportunit to converse with er, as generall she could not sleep..... I told her one evening that I came from Russia, talked about the cathedral in Moscow (St. Basil's) and spoke about Russian matters in general.   She nodded and said she knew all this..... 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 completely conversant in the Russian language, Russian affairs and especially Russian military matters."

You and Annie can go pedal your agend to someone else. >:(


I have no agenda. I used to think AA could be AN, too. Until the DNA tests AND even more importantly, my contact with real Russians. My own husband laughed outright when he heard an interview with AA on one of my videos. "She's not Russian," he said. "Her accent sounds Polish." AA was speaking ENGLISH at the time.

This nurse at Dalldorf - you don't even know what part of the Russian empire she came from. She could have been from the Baltic states or Russified Poland. We simply do not know. But I do know that every contemporary Moscow-St. Petersburg Russian I have met thinks AA's claims were completely bogus, based on her accent alone!


Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Denise on February 28, 2005, 02:55:57 PM
Elisabeth, it is possible that AA had a Russian accent and spoke good Russian without believing her to be Anasatasia.  Why is it that any time one refutes claims of those debunking AA, it is assumed that it must be because AA was Anastasia?  Not so.  
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: jolie on February 28, 2005, 02:56:13 PM
This thread has been really interesting so JUST IGNORE the disruptors and carry on........please!

(I'm reading along at home like so many others that probably don't post much)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Denise on February 28, 2005, 03:00:33 PM
Quote
This thread has been really interesting so JUST IGNORE the disruptors and carry on........please!

(I'm reading along at home like so many others that probably don't post much)


Thanks!!  I am very interested in exploring the possiblities of who AA was--whether that person turns out to be FS or someone else.  Just because there are a lot of ambiguous details in the case doesn't mean that it isn't interesting to kick around.  I get very upset when these threads get disrupted by the SAME arguments time and again.  We are all aware of those arguments, but are choosing, as AGRBear says, to think outside the box.

Now, since photos are a dead end, apparently, does anyone happen to know if there are any other available sources discussing FS besides Kurth, Massie and Klier & Mingay?  Those are the only three I have at present.  
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 28, 2005, 03:00:45 PM
I have to admit that, even though I don't think it should be used as definitive proof one way or another, when I first heard AA speak on TV, I thought the same thing - there is no way that this lady's accent is Russian. I am not an expert on accents, and I couldn't really tell what kind of an accent she had (I don't even want to speculate) but I have grown up around many Russian people with Russian accents. I posted a comment about this on another thread a few days ago - about her accent (and again I want to stress that I don't feel that this can be used as definitive evidence), but AA's accent does not sound like any Russian person I ever heard speaking - and I have heard many, including members of my own family.  

In reply to that post on the other thread, I think Penny said that some language/accent experts evaluated AA's accent and said that it was Russian. Very hard for me to believe that they would think that she had a Russian accent, but I guess there were some experts who thought so. I can't find which thread it was...
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Mgmstl on February 28, 2005, 03:01:45 PM
I am not concerned about what a present day Russian considers or thinks.  I am interested in the testimony, affadavits & oaths of those who were involved in the AA case.

I for one believed AA was AN UNTIL the DNA Tests.

Yes we don't know what part of Russia Erna Bucholz came from, personally her testimony is the most important, she was a person who knew AA or Fraulein Unbekannt, before she became this media persona.

She & the others at Dalldorf had unfettered access to the patient for almost 2 years.  She had no financial or material interest in the case and could be considered a prime or first line source, someone who was in contact with FU before, Clara, Harriet, Gleb, and all the others were involved, and the tons of Russian Emigres rushing in and out of this hopsital feeding her information according to Annie.  

Regardless of WHERE she comes from in Russia, here is a Russian native speaking to another person in Russian, and obviously trying to find out information about this person, and the patient speaks fluent, conversive Russian like a native, in the opinion of another Russian.

That is a very important fact.  That seems to get constantly brushed aside in this discussion, and I refuse to let it be again.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Mgmstl on February 28, 2005, 03:06:28 PM
Also remember the person you are hearing speak on TV had lived in Germany for 40 plus years, plus spent time in America.   While not trained in Russian dialects, I can certainly say that once people spend time in a certain area, their speech takes on the accent and pattern of the area.

For example a friend of mine who has a sharp eastern accent, moved to West VA.  within 3 mos he was speaking with a slight southern accent, within 6 months it was hard to tell him from a native.

So the Anna Anderson WE HEARD speak in the 1960's and 1970's MAY not have the same dialect, accent or speech pattern as she did in 1920.  Remember she spent most if not all of her time in Germany.  She would have a distinct lower German accent/tone to her speech.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Mgmstl on February 28, 2005, 03:08:50 PM
Denise & all, why don't we start again by listing the differences, the PHYSICAL differences in the descriptions of AA & FS... Then we can talk about other issues.

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Denise on February 28, 2005, 03:09:15 PM
Quote
I am not concerned about what a present day Russian considers or thinks.  I am interested in the testimony, affadavits & oaths of those who were involved in the AA case.

I for one believed AA was AN UNTIL the DNA Tests.

Yes we don't know what part of Russia Erna Bucholz came from, personally her testimony is the most important, she was a person who knew AA or Fraulein Unbekannt, before she became this media persona.

She & the others at Dalldorf had unfettered access to the patient for almost 2 years.  She had no financial or material interest in the case and could be considered a prime or first line source, someone who was in contact with FU before, Clara, Harriet, Gleb, and all the others were involved, and the tons of Russian Emigres rushing in and out of this hopsital feeding her information according to Annie.  

Regardless of WHERE she comes from in Russia, here is a Russian native speaking to another person in Russian, and obviously trying to find out information about this person, and the patient speaks fluent, conversive Russian like a native, in the opinion of another Russian.

That is a very important fact.  That seems to get constantly brushed aside in this discussion, and I refuse to let it be again.


Michael raises an important point.  Language changes over time.  The only linguistic testimony valid in this case is that of AA's contemporaries.  

Also, Russia is a huge country, with, I am sure, a disparity of accents.  The US is similar in this aspect.  Who is to say that AA's Russian accent was not that of a little known dialect?  Something which may no longer be in as common use today, or which has changed.  

Look at the difference in English over a hundred years--we went from the language of Chaucer to that of Shakespeare.  England was a small country influenced by a dozen language.  To this day you can travel 75 miles and here a new language dialect there, especially in the North.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 28, 2005, 03:10:32 PM
Was Erna Bucholz a Russian native, or did she just live in Russia for a time? Her name doesn't sound Russian, it sounds German... But then again, there were many Germans living in Russia.

Another thing about the Russian issue is the fact that GD Olga Alexandrovna, in her biography, specifically stated that when she met AA, she did not seem to speak Russian at all, and insisted on speaking German the whole time (which Anastasia supposedly knew very little of). According to Olga, AA even asked someone in German, "is this the aunt?" when Olga first came in to see her in the room... Sounds kind of odd, unless Olga was confused or was lying.  
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Denise on February 28, 2005, 03:12:53 PM
Quote
Denise & all, why don't we start again by listing the differences, the PHYSICAL differences in the descriptions of AA & FS... Then we can talk about other issues.



Works for me.  We started listing sources (above) for the descriptions.  I was able to ascertain height and weight for AA but there are no unbiased sources for FS.  

WE know that in March 1920 at her exam in Dalldorf AA was just under 5'2" and weighed about 110 pounds.  And that she had many scars and was not a virgin.  

Anyone have any info on FS?  The course, big boned, blackened tooth stumps info was from Doris Wingender, so am not sure how accurate it is.  It certainly does not match our only known photo of FS, does it?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Elisabeth on February 28, 2005, 03:13:43 PM
I think it's significant that this nurse had a German name: it probably indicates that she was from the Baltic states, not from the area of Russia proper.

Russians themselves are very attuned to differences in regional accents, as well as accents associated with social class and age. Long ago I had a very old Russian teacher who spoke the 19th, early 20th-century Russian of the Muscovite nobility: that of Tolstoy and his contemporaries. I guess it has since died out, but at the time everybody commented on how "beautiful" and "pure" it was. They said it was like hearing a voice from before the Revolution.

Likewise, Putin, despite his lower-class origins, is often praised by Russians for having very good, St. Petersburg Russian - "the first Russian leader since Nicholas II," one Russian told me, "actually to speak good Russian."

I think we should pay attention to the opinions of Russians when it comes to judging Russian accents - to do otherwise is to be a tad rude!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 28, 2005, 03:14:52 PM
Quote
Also remember the person you are hearing speak on TV had lived in Germany for 40 plus years, plus spent time in America.   While not trained in Russian dialects, I can certainly say that once people spend time in a certain area, their speech takes on the accent and pattern of the area.


Michael, the people I am talking about, with the Russian accents, also spent most of their life in America, about 40 years in fact. They still had pretty much the same Russian accents as the people I spoke to in Russia (and the Ukraine as well), who were able to speak English, there was maybe very slight difference, almost undetectable. AA did not sound like any of them at all or any other person whose native language was Russian, from many different parts of Russia that I had encountered. But again, we shouldn't really use that as conclusive evidence one way or another, so it doesn't matter.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: jolie on February 28, 2005, 03:15:33 PM
Accents are a wierd phenomenom.  We lived in TX for 11 years and didn't pick up any discernable accent.    The other odd thing:  My kids friends in TX had NO ACCENT but yet thier parents had STRONG THICK TX accents.    We could never figure that one out.   Usually, kids speak like the parents.  

One thing I've noticed:  when speaking with someone who has an accent, it's easy to talk like them in the moment.  When SPEAKING with my TX friends, I tend to talk like them.......especially a southern accent makes one want to drawl right along!!
btw, we are Yankee's with a strong northern accent.

am I making sense??  :)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Denise on February 28, 2005, 03:15:51 PM
Quote
According to Olga, AA even asked someone in German, "is this the aunt?" when Olga first came in to see her in the room... Sounds kind of odd, unless Olga was confused or was lying.  


Is it possible AA had spoken German as it was the language spoken most by the nurses?  If that is what she was exposed to daily, even AN would have picked up German through immersion.  I no longer think AA was AN, but I believe this is a plausible explanation.  After all, how long had AA been in the asylum and exposed to German on a regular basis before the arrival of Olga Alexandrovna?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Denise on February 28, 2005, 03:18:10 PM
Quote
One thing I've noticed:  when speaking with someone who has an accent, it's easy to talk like them in the moment.  When SPEAKING with my TX friends, I tend to talk like them.......especially a southern accent makes one want to drawl right along!!
btw, we are Yankee's with a strong northern accent.

am I making sense??  :)


I do the exact same thing.  I grew up down south and moved back to Michigan when I was 10.  I had a thick drawl.  I now talk like the yankee I am, but after talking to southerners for 15 minutes, I start hearing bits of that drawl coming back to my speech.  

So, yes, it is possible to pick up the language you are immersed in, as well as the accent of those around you.  
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 28, 2005, 03:26:52 PM
Quote


So, yes, it is possible to pick up the language you are immersed in, as well as the accent of those around you.  


Yes, it is true that AA had lived for many years around people who did not speak Russian and she did not use Russian for a long time. The people whom I have heard speaking all spoke Russian all along and were around other Russians the whole time. So yes, it is possible that AA's accent could have changed, I suppose.

But this is why I said that the accent doesn't really prove anything one way or another, since scenarios like this are possible...
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Mgmstl on February 28, 2005, 03:27:22 PM
I may not speak the English (American) that my grandfather spoke...It is all relative to time.  To say that language doesn't change is totally incorrect.  To say that we have to pay attention to what the Russians think about her accent or otherwise it would seem rude is somewhat ludicrous IMO.

We should be paying careful attention the details and affadavits of those people who knew her before the media feeding frenzy began, it is good chance to look at AA, in sort of pure light, if you get what I am saying, not in the light of biases thrown about by the different factions that have different agendas, in regards to the case.

That is why I am again stating that these affadavits are probably IMO, the most important.  

If a French native came up to me and I said I was fluent in French, then regardless of whether they came from Grenoble, Paris, Normandy, Marseille, we should be able to converse in French, that is IF I could speak French, if I couldn't then I would make monosyllabic responses, or make excuses for my faulty language skills.  Hopefully a Russian native would have the same ability to discern this regardless of the area of Russia, Moscow, Petersburg, Kiev, Minsk, Pinsk. that they came from.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 28, 2005, 03:32:37 PM
When were the affidavits given by the nurses? Was it at the time of the trial or were they given earlier and closer to 1920? If it was at the time of the trial, when a significant amount of time already passed since when they first encountered AA, then I am not so sure how unbiased anyone's testimony would be. Whether deliberately or subconsciously these people could have been influenced during all the time in between. What is the earliest testmimony we have, when was it?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Malenkaya on February 28, 2005, 03:40:25 PM
Quote
Anyone have any info on FS?  The course, big boned, blackened tooth stumps info was from Doris Wingender, so am not sure how accurate it is.  It certainly does not match our only known photo of FS, does it?


I don't think the only known photo of FS can answer that one way or another.  We can't see her teeth - Wingender could have said she had movie star perfect teeth, but you couldn't prove it by the photo.  As far as being big boned, I can't tell from a headshot either.  My best friend growing up was a tall, big boned girl.  But her school pictures, which were basically from the shoulders up (like the picture of FS) would not provide you with that information.

That's the problem with having just this one photograph - although we can see her face, it doesn't tell us about her overall size, condition of her teeth, how tall she may have been, etc.  It's better than nothing, but still not overwhelmingly useful either way, IMO.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Penny_Wilson on February 28, 2005, 04:40:57 PM
Quote

Please Annie AND Penny:  play nice.  I would like to keep this discussion civil and have a reasonable exchange of information with no name calling from anyone!  Thank you!!  :) :) :)



Denise, I am not playing here; I take my history seriously.  If you want to have a discussion of genuine evidence, then you must cut out the nonsense.  And please don't chastize me as though I were a child -- it's not your job.  I have not called Annie names -- you'll notice I have not responded to her baiting of me --  nor have I been unreasonable in my request that she update her list of "reasons" to conform to established facts.  

Of course, if you all would like me not to participate in this discussion, if you would prefer to give Annie free-rein to post untruths, then you just let me know and I will withdraw.  

But please know that I am back on the boards only because I was invited.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Denise on February 28, 2005, 05:01:52 PM
Quote

Denise, I am not playing here; I take my history seriously.  If you want to have a discussion of genuine evidence, then you must cut out the nonsense.  And please don't chastize me as though I were a child -- it's not your job.  I have not called Annie names -- you'll notice I have not responded to her baiting of me --  nor have I been unreasonable in my request that she update her list of "reasons" to conform to established facts.  

Of course, if you all would like me not to participate in this discussion, if you would prefer to give Annie free-rein to post untruths, then you just let me know and I will withdraw.  

But please know that I am back on the boards only because I was invited.


No, Penny, it was not my intent to chase you away :)!!  I am very glad to have you in this thread.  I was just hoping that you and Annie both could ignore one another.  We had already addressed the fact that Annie's list was inappropriate to this discussion, and she agreed.  

As I stated earlier, folks like Annie who have their minds made up on the AA FS case should try to be less nay-saying here.  We are trying to look at ALL the evidence, and hopefully see things that were missed because of the focus on the DNA results.

Currently, we are trying to discern if there is an objective description of FS around.  Penny, have you seen anything so far in your research, or are we pretty much in the dark here?  :)  

In any case, if someone has found a reference for FS outside the three books I have please come forward!  
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Penny_Wilson on February 28, 2005, 05:04:56 PM
Quote
When were the affidavits given by the nurses? Was it at the time of the trial or were they given earlier and closer to 1920?  


Both.  Evidence of this nature -- physical description, deportment, languages, etc -- was gathered in the first few weeks after Fraulein Unbekannt was pulled from the Landwehr.  When she wouldn't speak for herself, it was hoped that this information would help identify her.

Later on, during the trials, these nurses were brought into court to affirm their findings in 1920 and shortly thereafter.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Penny_Wilson on February 28, 2005, 05:12:53 PM
Quote
But Annie and I have discussed the language issue exhaustively on another thread and we both concluded (as I recall) that FS, as a Kashubian, would have been multi-lingual - speaking Kashube, Polish, and probably German as well, since the part of Poland where she was born was made up of these ethnic groups and belonged to different empires in different periods.


I think it's probably a better idea to consider what Felix Schanzkowsky had to say about his family's linguistic history.  He testified that Franziska "spoke a little Polish and good German," in addition to the Katchoubian dialect spoken in the Schanzkowsky house.  A tiny piece of evidence backing up his assertion that the family spoke "good German" is that three of the four remaining Schanzkowsky children -- Felix himself, Gertrude, and Maria Juliana -- followed Franziska to Germany in their adulthood.  This seems to suggest that they leaned towards the German side of their Polish heritage.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Penny_Wilson on February 28, 2005, 05:22:28 PM
Quote
Was Erna Bucholz a Russian native, or did she just live in Russia for a time? Her name doesn't sound Russian, it sounds German... But then again, there were many Germans living in Russia.


Erna was a Russian who had been a teacher of German when she lived there.  Once she moved to Germany after the revolution, I suppose there wasn't all that much call for German teachers, so she trained as a nurse.  She was the first nurse in charge of Fraulein Unbekannt's care.  This, verbatim, from her testimony:

"During the nightshift I had special opportunity to converse with her, as generally she could not sleep... I told her one evening that I came from Russia, talked about the Cathedral in Moscow [St. Basil's] and spoke about Russian matters in general... I asked her if she could speak Russian. She answered 'Yes,' whereupn we began to converse in Russian.  She did not speak it faultily.  Rather, she used whole, complete, connected sentences without any impediments..."

Perhaps we can infer from this statement that Erna Bucholz either came from, or lived in, Moscow.


Quote
Another thing about the Russian issue is the fact that GD Olga Alexandrovna, in her biography, specifically stated that when she met AA, she did not seem to speak Russian at all, and insisted on speaking German the whole time (which Anastasia supposedly knew very little of). According to Olga, AA even asked someone in German, "is this the aunt?" when Olga first came in to see her in the room... Sounds kind of odd, unless Olga was confused or was lying.  


I could suggest only that Fraulein U would only speak Russian to those whom she thought she could trust.  Erna Bucholz earned her trust; Olga Alexandrovna had not.

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on February 28, 2005, 05:29:54 PM
Quote






I could suggest only that Fraulein U would only speak Russian to those whom she thought she could trust.  Erna Bucholz earned her trust; Olga Alexandrovna had not.



Or perhaps Olga A. was the more accurate and honest of the two ;)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Penny_Wilson on February 28, 2005, 05:34:24 PM
Further on the subject of the nurses...

There were three of them specifically: Erna Bucholz, Thea Malinowsky and Bertha Walz.  

According to Bucholz and Malinowsky, the nurses had suspected the Fraulein U was a Grand Duchess even before the first visitor came from the Russian emigre community.  This is supported by Nurse Malinowsky's fiance, a doctor called Chemnitz: Thea had gone home one day and told him what she suspected, and then what Fraulein A had confessed to her.  He asked her what she expected to hear from an inmate at an asylum.

The magazine that the nurses and Fraulein U looked at has been variously identified, but Nurse Malinowsky was certain that it was an old copy of the Berliner Illustrierte Zeitung from before the War.

If anything, it was Thea Malinowsky who was a bit of a fan of the Russian Imperial Family.  She seemed to know a bit about them, and was the one who drew out of Fraulein Unbekannt the confession that she was Anastasia.  I am not certain what Nurse Malinowsky's background was, but there is one other mention of the name Malinowsky in this whole saga:  Lieutenant Dimitri Malinowsky was the soldier hiding in the Koptyaki village in July 1918, and who emerged after the Whites took the city of Ekaterinburg to help with the investigation into the family's disappearance.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Penny_Wilson on February 28, 2005, 05:46:26 PM
Quote

Currently, we are trying to discern if there is an objective description of FS around.  Penny, have you seen anything so far in your research, or are we pretty much in the dark here?  :)  



I have only seen the usual stuff.  I tend not to set too much store in the Wingender girls' description of FS.  I think they are a little too "penny-dreadful" to be taken seriously.

Ian Lilburn told me that during the trial, there was evidence entered concerning Franziska's dress and shoe sizes -- I forget from whom this came, though I have an idea it originated from the Wingenders who surrendered the clothing that FS left behind at their residence when she disappeared.  In both cases, the sizes were quite a bit bigger than the sizes Fraulein U wore --  a little enough matter in the case of dress sizes where weight can be gained or lost relatively easily, but shoe sizes are another thing.  One clue that I cannot shake is that Fraulein U wore shoes three sizes smaller than FS's shoes.  Feet can spread out in width with age and various ailments -- like the bunions -- but can they shrink three sizes in the space of a couple of weeks?

Ian also told me that there were several photographs of Franziska that he saw in the course of the trial.  The one that we all know is the one that Pierre Gilliard selected to illustrate his book, and it was the one -- in Ian's opinion -- that was the least clear in presenting its subject.  I don't know what happened to these other photographs of FS.  They might have simply belonged to Felix, with whom Ian spoke on several occasions.  If they were entered into evidence, they have never surfaced.

Ian was kind enough to let us take copies of some Schanzkowsky photos that he got at the trial -- they are the ones that the Nazis took of the family.  I will try and scan them for posting if anyone would like to see them -- but it will take me a couple of days.  I am very behind on tons of stuff!  ::)  
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 28, 2005, 05:58:59 PM
Quote
 One clue that I cannot shake is that Fraulein U wore shoes three sizes smaller than FS's shoes.  Feet can spread out in width with age and various ailments -- like the bunions -- but can they shrink three sizes in the space of a couple of weeks?
 


This certainly would be one of the more convincing pieces of evidence, the only problem is that it is possible that FS may have worn someone else's hand-me-down shoes that were too big for her feet, so we can't be sure that this was her actual shoe size, we can only be sure that this was the size shoes she owned.

Quote
Ian was kind enough to let us take copies of some Schanzkowsky photos that he got at the trial -- they are the ones that the Nazis took of the family.  I will try and scan them for posting if anyone would like to see them -- but it will take me a couple of days.  I am very behind on tons of stuff!  ::)  


Penny, do you mean more photos of FS, or just of her family? I'd like to see them, if you can scan and post them please. Thanks!


While I was surfing around today, I found something cute on the internet: it is a lesson plan evidently made by a teacher, to teach her class about the AA/AN/FS case and about bias in perception, on both sides!

They even listed all the pros and cons of AA, just like we did here  :).

Here it is: http://www.historyonthenet.com/Lessons/anastasia/anastasiamain.htm
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Penny_Wilson on February 28, 2005, 06:18:16 PM
Quote

This certainly would be one of the more convincing pieces of evidence, the only problem is that it is possible that FS may have worn someone else's hand-me-down shoes that were too big for her feet, so we can't be sure that this was her actual shoe size, we can only be sure that this was the size shoes she owned.


I think a stumbling block here is the idea -- and this isn't your idea Helen, it just seems to be the general perception -- that the Schanzkowskys were "dirt poor."  They weren't.  They farmed a piece of land quite successfully when the parents were married and together -- and later on the former Mrs S seems to have been quite "middle class."  I wouldn't say that they were wealthy, but certainly they could afford a few "extras" for their children -- I remember that M-J had dancing lessons of some sort -- so I imagine that there were properly fitting shoes.

Quote

Penny, do you mean more photos of FS, or just of her family? I'd like to see them, if you can scan and post them please. Thanks!


Just of the family, sorry!  There were a number of photos of all the Schanzkowskys that Ian saw, but he only got hold of the ones that the Nazis took.  Perhaps because these were not "family" photos, Felix let him have them.


Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on February 28, 2005, 08:03:28 PM
Denise, thanks for being fair and commenting on both. I never 'baited' anyone, I simply responded in disgust to a rude remark.

Quote

This certainly would be one of the more convincing pieces of evidence, the only problem is that it is possible that FS may have worn someone else's hand-me-down shoes that were too big for her feet, so we can't be sure that this was her actual shoe size,


Even if someone wasn't 'dirt poor' doesn't mean they wouldn't have had to use hand me down shoes. In the post war era things were bad in Europe (and in WWII there was rationing so maybe it was something like that). She also could have been destitute as a girl on her own even if the family wasn't and had to use someone else's hand me downs.


Quote
we can only be sure that this was the size shoes she owned.


I'm not even totally convinced of that :-/ If the intestines can be switched so can the shoes ;)

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: marina on March 01, 2005, 05:05:11 AM
 I think that a member of a royal family such as the romanov always has an accent even in its language known as native.Maybe I exaggerate but when a child learns Russian and at the same time 3 other languages, the reference marks must be vague.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on March 01, 2005, 05:35:19 AM
Quote
Maybe I exaggerate but when a child learns Russian and at the same time 3 other languages, the reference marks must be vague.


Good point, using so many languages they wouldn't have the same pure Russian accent as other Russian kids. Olga A. said they learned English and Russian as babies. Then as youngsters they began the French and German lessons. With all the foreign influences in their lives, it's no telling what they really sounded like.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: sparrow on March 01, 2005, 09:40:39 AM
Hi, i just wanted to mention the Baby.  1919 AA had A baby and said so,  in 1919 FS did not.   It would have been brought up somewhere.  I find this a very important discrepancy.  it takes forty weeks to have a child and in that time the body grows.  A baby born to FS would have been recorded, somewhere.  AA admitted to having a child in 1919 is that not relevent here.  i think so.  
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 01, 2005, 10:15:21 AM
Quote

Or perhaps Olga A. was the more accurate and honest of the two ;)


You must not impugn people just because they are not Grand Duchesses.  There is nothing at all to suggest that Nurse Bucholz lied, and she gained nothing from her testimony; in fact, there is much more evidence that the Romanov "side" had something to gain by denying Fraulein Unbekannt.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Denise on March 01, 2005, 10:37:34 AM
Quote
Hi, i just wanted to mention the Baby.  1919 AA had A baby and said so,  in 1919 FS did not.   It would have been brought up somewhere.  I find this a very important discrepancy.  it takes forty weeks to have a child and in that time the body grows.  A baby born to FS would have been recorded, somewhere.  AA admitted to having a child in 1919 is that not relevent here.  i think so.  


Sparrow, if you would like a more in depth discussion of the baby there is a whole thread further down.  

You are correct in that it is a VERY big difference between the two women.  Of course, it is possible that FS miscarried if she were pregnant.  
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: sparrow on March 01, 2005, 10:52:55 AM
I have just reviewed that thread. it was very intersting indeed.  I thank everyone for their information it helps to have a variety of ideas on the subject.  i think had FS had a Baby it would have been disclosed during the trials to validate that AA was FS in favor of the FS supporters.  Because it was not, i believe it to be a sore spot in the side of the FS supporters.  What Motive would the information about the child have been a positive benifit to AA?   When i tell you of myself, i might say for instance i have four children, and i am so and so.  etc.  and this would help you to know me better.  Was AA helping us to understand what had happened since she left Ipatiev?  as best as she could, including the issue of a out of wedlock child.  that is very vulnerable.   She was very open with this issue, even to the point of defending someone she knew to be involved with the murders.  i dont know, but i sure do love to come when i can to read all of the ideas and theories, especially when they remain civil.  I have found it to be a wonderful place to hear both sides of the issue.  I wish only one thing, i wish i knew the whole truth, i hate unfinished business.  lol  :P :o :o
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: rskkiya on March 01, 2005, 11:00:23 AM
Quote
I may not speak the English (American) that my grandfather spoke...It is all relative to time.  To say that language doesn't change is totally incorrect.  To say that we have to pay attention to what the Russians think about her accent or otherwise it would seem rude is somewhat ludicrous IMO.

We should be paying careful attention the details and affadavits of those people who knew her before the media feeding frenzy began, it is good chance to look at AA, in sort of pure light, if you get what I am saying, not in the light of biases thrown about by the different factions that have different agendas, in regards to the case.

That is why I am again stating that these affadavits are probably IMO, the most important.  

If a French native came up to me and I said I was fluent in French, then regardless of whether they came from Grenoble, Paris, Normandy, Marseille, we should be able to converse in French, that is IF I could speak French, if I couldn't then I would make monosyllabic responses, or make excuses for my faulty language skills.  Hopefully a Russian native would have the same ability to discern this regardless of the area of Russia, Moscow, Petersburg, Kiev, Minsk, Pinsk. that they came from.


A very good point --But alas in the case of Anastasia N. we have no recordings of her voice.
All we have is hearsay --"She" (FS? AA? AN?) sounded Russian/Polish/Exotic... to whom? What sort of environment are we examining here (my spouse laughs at the way that my accent can "change" when I am very tired or when I have been suddenly woken up)-- no doubt an accent may be misunderstood by someone unfamiliar with the language, or from the remarks muttered under anesthetics (sp) on an operating table...

just a thought
rskkiya
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 01, 2005, 11:39:27 AM
Wasn't there some sort of analysis conducted over AA's spoken English?  I think its conclusion was that her English had a degree -- how vague or how pronounced I have no idea -- of Yorkshire in it, which was interesting because Yorkshire was the boyhood home of Sidney Gibbes, the Imperial Children's English tutor.  Gibbes had acquired a more "acceptable" Oxbridge-ish veneer in his adult speech -- but it's an interesting little aside to the language issue, I think.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on March 01, 2005, 01:24:47 PM
Then there is always someone like myself who minics without realizing what I'm doing.  When I talk to someone with an accent, I end up returning the same accent in the conversation.  I remember the first time my husband heard me do this, he thought was was doing it on purpose.  I wasn't and I don't.  It just happens.

All brains are wired different.

Languages are so complex and, to add to this,  each individual hears then speaks it differently.

German wasn't  just one language, either in the late and early 1900s.  There are many dialects.  My parents' first language was  German  but they couldn't speak to each other because they didn't speak the same dialect, so, they spoke English in our home.

I know in Russia, when the GR clergy desided that "high[lander] German" was the proper German, there was a turmoil because the majority spoke "lowlander German" and "middlelander German".

I wonder which German dialect was taught the Romanov children.

AGRBear

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on March 01, 2005, 01:38:45 PM
Penny talks about shoe sizes in this quote:
Quote

I have only seen the usual stuff.  I tend not to set too much store in the Wingender girls' description of FS.  I think they are a little too "penny-dreadful" to be taken seriously.

Ian Lilburn told me that during the trial, there was evidence entered concerning Franziska's dress and shoe sizes -- I forget from whom this came, though I have an idea it originated from the Wingenders who surrendered the clothing that FS left behind at their residence when she disappeared.  In both cases, the sizes were quite a bit bigger than the sizes Fraulein U wore --  a little enough matter in the case of dress sizes where weight can be gained or lost relatively easily, but shoe sizes are another thing.  One clue that I cannot shake is that Fraulein U wore shoes three sizes smaller than FS's shoes.  Feet can spread out in width with age and various ailments -- like the bunions -- but can they shrink three sizes in the space of a couple of weeks?

Ian also told me that there were several photographs of Franziska that he saw in the course of the trial.  The one that we all know is the one that Pierre Gilliard selected to illustrate his book, and it was the one -- in Ian's opinion -- that was the least clear in presenting its subject.  I don't know what happened to these other photographs of FS.  They might have simply belonged to Felix, with whom Ian spoke on several occasions.  If they were entered into evidence, they have never surfaced.

Ian was kind enough to let us take copies of some Schanzkowsky photos that he got at the trial -- they are the ones that the Nazis took of the family.  I will try and scan them for posting if anyone would like to see them -- but it will take me a couple of days.  I am very behind on tons of stuff!  ::)  



The amount of money a family has  doesn't mean the person buying the shoes bought the right size.  My grandfather  wasn't poor and  could afford to buy shoes for his children, however,   one of my aunts, who never liked the size of her feet, always bought her shoes too small.  She ended up with  bunions which were more common then they are, now, because feet size doesn't seem as important these days as wearing size 2 when it should be size 12.  I doubt even my aunt could push her foot into a shoe three sizes to small.  Course, she still might be trying at the age of 86....

AGRBear

PS The one photo of AA certainly shows us a mouth full of teeth and not black stumps.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 01, 2005, 03:30:04 PM
Quote
The amount of money a family has  doesn't mean the person buying the shoes bought the right size.  My grandfather  wasn't poor and  could afford to buy shoes for his children, however,   one of my aunts, who never liked the size of her feet, always bought her shoes too small.  She ended up with  bunions which were more common then they are, now, because feet size doesn't seem as important these days as wearing size 2 when it should be size 12.  I doubt even my aunt could push her foot into a shoe three sizes to small.  Course, she still might be trying at the age of 86....



Yeah, but would someone buy shoes that were three sizes too large?  ;)

Quote

The one photo of AA certainly shows us a mouth full of teeth and not black stumps.


These must be dentures, Bear, since we know that many of AA's teeth were removed at the hospital. Maybe that's why she looks so different in this particular picture - in many of the others she may not have had her "teeth" in  ;)!



Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on March 01, 2005, 03:53:05 PM
Is the photo of AA with teeth dated?

Thanks

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 01, 2005, 03:56:46 PM
Quote
Is the photo of AA with teeth dated?

Thanks

AGRBear


I don't think so... I got it off PK's site, but I have also seen it somewhere else, unfortunately can't remember where... it was a while ago. I  just remember thinking when I first saw it how much it looked like the FS picture to me, I even thought that it was another picture of FS until I realized that it was supposed to be AA.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Denise on March 01, 2005, 04:03:12 PM
I just double checked PK's site--no date.  It is truly amazing how he has placed pictures of the Dowager Empress, Alexei, Anastasia and Tatiana next to photos of AA.  Just the right angle does give the illusion of family resemblance!!

But it did say that the FS photo was retouched for Gilliard's book (the 3rd one above).  The 2nd one was the cleaned up one used in the newspaper when AA was "exposed" as FS in 1927.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Denise on March 01, 2005, 04:06:17 PM
Quote
Wasn't there some sort of analysis conducted over AA's spoken English?  I think its conclusion was that her English had a degree -- how vague or how pronounced I have no idea -- of Yorkshire in it, which was interesting because Yorkshire was the boyhood home of Sidney Gibbes, the Imperial Children's English tutor.  Gibbes had acquired a more "acceptable" Oxbridge-ish veneer in his adult speech -- but it's an interesting little aside to the language issue, I think.


I read this too.  It was one of those amazing details that helped convince me that AA really was the lost Grand Duchess Anastasia.  

Of course, after seeing all the other evidence come out, my mind has since changed, but her case still makes AA one of the most interesting people of the 20th century, WHOEVER she was!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 01, 2005, 04:08:02 PM
Quote
 It is truly amazing how he has placed pictures of the Dowager Empress, Alexei, Anastasia and Tatiana next to photos of AA.  Just the right angle does give the illusion of family resemblance!!


Yes, isn't it amazing? This is why we really can't go by photos, or even descriptions for that matter: everyone sees such different things. It never ceases to amaze me how subjective perception is!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Denise on March 01, 2005, 04:17:34 PM
Quote

Yes, isn't it amazing? This is why we really can't go by photos, or even descriptions for that matter: everyone sees such different things. It never ceases to amaze me how subjective perception is!


Especially when you consider how grainy many of the old B&W photos are.  There are no crisp details (like the original FS pic above) so it is possible to see almost anything.  Also, many of the photos of AN have been blown up so much it is difficult to see her actual facial definition.  

I wonder if the other photos of FS are in the court transcripts or were returned to the family?  It would be nice to see an actual close up of the real woman.  The blurrinesds of the photo we have makes me think it is a detail of a larger picture which has been distorted through enlargement.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 01, 2005, 04:22:50 PM
Quote

Especially when you consider how grainy many of the old B&W photos are.  There are no crisp details (like the original FS pic above) so it is possible to see almost anything.  Also, many of the photos of AN have been blown up so much it is difficult to see her actual facial definition.  

I wonder if the other photos of FS are in the court transcripts or were returned to the family?  It would be nice to see an actual close up of the real woman.  The blurrinesds of the photo we have makes me think it is a detail of a larger picture which has been distorted through enlargement.


IMO, even if we had a very clear photo of FS and a very clear photo of AA, people would still see different things, as we witnessed with AA/AN photos, both of whom we had many photos. Some thought that AA looked exactly like AN, others thought she looked nothing like her, and many in between. It just comes down to the fact that we all have different perception... I really don't think having more photos would help.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on March 01, 2005, 08:31:00 PM
Quote
 I think its conclusion was that her English had a degree -- how vague or how pronounced I have no idea -- of Yorkshire in it, which was interesting because Yorkshire was the boyhood home of Sidney Gibbes, the Imperial Children's English tutor.  Gibbes had acquired a more "acceptable" Oxbridge-ish veneer in his adult speech -- but it's an interesting little aside to the language issue, I think.


The English the children spoke would not have been as much Gibbes' influence as their mother and the first British nanny, from whom they learned it first.

rsskiya wrote:
Quote
no doubt an accent may be misunderstood by someone unfamiliar with the language


That's part of what I think is behind most of the language comments, and why I don't put much stock in any of them.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 01, 2005, 09:34:08 PM
Quote

The English the children spoke would not have been as much Gibbes' influence as their mother and the first British nanny, from whom they learned it first.



Or perhaps the influence was strongest from Gibbes, from whom they learned it last.  We just have no way of knowing which would have been the case -- some people are linguistically influenced early, and others later.  For example, a friend of mine, of Mexican origin, grew up speaking the Spanish he heard in his house; he has since married a Puerto Rican woman, and he says his Spanish has changed quite a bit...
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on March 02, 2005, 06:05:27 AM
But your friend was probably around the wife more than the family. The kids were always around and talking to and still being influenced by Alexandra, I'm sure more than a teacher.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 02, 2005, 09:38:20 AM
Well, either way, obviously AA did not pick up her accent, whatever it was, from Sidney Gibbes since she was not even acquainted with the guy!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on March 02, 2005, 09:41:25 AM
Quote
Well, either way, obviously AA did not pick up her accent, whatever it was, from Sidney Gibbes since she was not even acquainted with the guy!


Very true, she wasn't Anastasia so she didn't have him for an English teacher!
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on March 02, 2005, 10:59:13 AM
So, the photographs are not conclusive.

What sources are there about the scars AA had?  And, yes, the story about the scar on GD Anastasia's finger has been repeated enough times and that the story belonged to another sister.... [Remember, we are not comparing AA with Anastasia].  Penny has told us that FS didn't have any scars which her family remembers, also, she received no scars from the explosion in the factory accident.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on March 02, 2005, 11:18:02 AM
Quote


Yeah, but would someone buy shoes that were three sizes too large?  ;)



Maybe, if she were a poor working girl on her own and that was all that was available, or that they were given to her and she made use of them.

But I am not convinced the shoes were even hers. We hear so much about switching the intestines, shoes are a whole lot easier to switch! Was there any proof they belonged to her other than the word of one person? We have no pics or anything else. And remember, the glove didn't fit OJ either   ;) ;)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on March 02, 2005, 12:10:32 PM
Quote

...[in part]...

Ian Lilburn told me that during the trial, there was evidence entered concerning Franziska's dress and shoe sizes -- I forget from whom this came, though I have an idea it originated from the Wingenders who surrendered the clothing that FS left behind at their residence when she disappeared.  In both cases, the sizes were quite a bit bigger than the sizes Fraulein U wore --  a little enough matter in the case of dress sizes where weight can be gained or lost relatively easily, but shoe sizes are another thing.  One clue that I cannot shake is that Fraulein U wore shoes three sizes smaller than FS's shoes.  Feet can spread out in width with age and various ailments -- like the bunions -- but can they shrink three sizes in the space of a couple of weeks?
...  


Shoe size:

FS wore shoes that were three sizes larger than AA

AA wore shoes that were three sizes smaller than FS

This was recorded in the trial, according to Penny.  Therefore, this can stand as evidence showing the difference between AA and FS.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on March 02, 2005, 12:18:43 PM
If AA wasn't GD Anastasia, where would she have picked up the Yorkshire accent?  

AGRBear

Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 02, 2005, 01:33:03 PM
Quote
If AA wasn't GD Anastasia, where would she have picked up the Yorkshire accent?  

AGRBear



Or -- more to the point -- if AA was FS, where would she have picked up the Yorkshire?

The only thing I can think of -- purely, purely speculative, of course -- is that FS DID travel to the UK, as Bruno Grandsitzki claimed she told him, and that during that time, she worked for a Northern family, or for a family with Northern servants, and picked up her English from there.

Seeking corroboration for this speculation would require searching passenger manifests from Germany/Poland to Britain and then back again in 1920.  Dominique Aucleres did search some of the manifests, for the ships with the name FS allegedly gave Grandsitzki, but found no record of her.  The search would obviously have to be expanded to include all shipping lines and their manifests -- if these things exist after all these years.

However, her departure for a new job in England begs the question of her disappearance from Berlin -- she left without telling the Wingenders?  -- without taking her clothes and other possessions with her? -- and would a girl with her mental-health background be welcomed by an employment agency?
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Annie on March 02, 2005, 01:40:43 PM
There is still no proof the clothes and shoes actually belonged to FS other than that person's word. I don't know why you rule out the clothing being switched if you believe it could have happened to the intestines. Also they could have been mistaken. I don't consider that hard evidence at all unless you can show me a pic of one of the dresses on her body. That's the problem with this case and why it will never end, everything is questionable! :-/
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 02, 2005, 02:54:19 PM
The only thing we know for sure is that the shoes FS owned were size 39 - we don't know for sure what size her feet really were. This is assuming that the shoes presented by Ms Wingender indeed belonged to FS - Ms Wingender did not prove all that honest and she may have been paid off to come up with FS's clothing items, just like she was paid off for her testimony.

So, IMO, we can't really use the shoes as conclusive evidence, just like we can't use the photos.
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 02, 2005, 03:01:58 PM
Besides, I don't think FS would have picked up the accent in only six months, before she returned to Berlin, jumped off the bridge, got admitted to a mental hospital and decided that she was a grand duchess.

I have to add also that to me, AA's English sounded so broken, I can't fathom how anyone could say that she had any kind of a British accent, Yorkshire or not! I am not an expert on British accents, but come on...  ::)
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: AGRBear on March 02, 2005, 03:11:35 PM
I. Photographs:
Photographs 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.....

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

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA
Post by: Elisabeth on March 02, 2005, 03:17:11 PM
Another discrepancy has occurred to me from reading this thread and other, related ones:

AA by all reports preferred to speak German but nevertheless spoke pretty bad, broken German - i.e., German was obviously not her native language.

Whereas FS, according to Penny Wilson in another thread ("Reasons other than DNA"), was closer to her German heritage than her Polish one and would presumably have had relatively good German.