Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Myth and Legends of Survivors => Topic started by: IlyaBorisovich on October 21, 2004, 06:13:41 PM

Title: AA and FS
Post by: IlyaBorisovich on October 21, 2004, 06:13:41 PM
All right, I can't think of which of the threads under the "Anastasia" topic this would fit under, so I gave it its own.  

My question is addressed to all those who believe without doubt that Anna Anderson was Franziska Schanzkowska.  I understand why you would believe she was not Anastasia, but what is so impossible about the notion that Anna Anderson was not Franziska either?  To me, there are enough inconsistancies between Anna and Franziska to allow this possibility.  Why must she be one or the other?  Denying that Anna was not Franziska does not imply that she was Anastasia.  Please use this thread to elaborate and clarify this, if you please.  Your thoughts would be appreciated.

Ilya
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AnastasiaFan on October 21, 2004, 06:55:01 PM
Quote
All right, I can't think of which of the threads under the "Anastasia" topic this would fit under, so I gave it its own.  

My question is addressed to all those who believe without doubt that Anna Anderson was Franziska Schanzkowska.  I understand why you would believe she was not Anastasia, but what is so impossible about the notion that Anna Anderson was not Franziska either?  To me, there are enough inconsistancies between Anna and Franziska to allow this possibility.  Why must she be one or the other?  Denying that Anna was not Franziska does not imply that she was Anastasia.  Please use this thread to elaborate and clarify this, if you please.  Your thoughts would be appreciated.

Ilya


Hi Ilya! I don't know if I count in this since I am not one who is 100% convinced she was Franziska. I think it is likely she was Franziska, at least more likely than her being Anastasia. However I won't dismiss the chance she could have been another person. Honestly, I don't really care who the woman pulled from the Berlin canal was. She wasn't Anastasia, so that's all that really matters to me.  :)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on October 21, 2004, 06:59:01 PM
I agree.
I really do believe she was FS, but even if she wasn't she was not Anastasia.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on October 21, 2004, 09:22:21 PM
Ilya,  what are the inconsistencies  you've found?

I am keeping an open mind on all this.

For all I know Anna Anderson could have been planted by Stalin to muck up everything for the "real" Anastasia.  Or,  she was the real Anastasia and Stalin made sure there was no evidence left to make sure she couldn't prove in case in the German court.   Or,  she was a woman in mental trouble who ended up on a path which she didn't start but people begain to believe and in time she ended up believing.

Since the intestines could have been tampered with through the years or in it's transportation for the DNA,  I am hesitate to take this evidence as the sole proof which points to AA being FS.

By the way,  who was the first person to claim she was FS and not Anastasia?

AGRBear.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: rskkiya on October 21, 2004, 10:04:59 PM
Quote
Ilya,  what are the inconsistencies  you've found?


For all I know Anna Anderson could have been planted by Stalin to muck up everything for the "real" Anastasia.  Or,  she was the real Anastasia and Stalin made sure there was no evidence left to make sure she couldn't prove in case in the German court.   Or,  she was a woman in mental trouble who ended up on a path which she didn't start but people begain to believe and in time she ended up believing.

Since the intestines could have been tampered with through the years or in it's transportation for the DNA,  I am hesitate to take this evidence as the sole proof which points to AA being FS.
AGRBear.


agrbear
   I must take exception with the whole "the intestines were tampered with" theory. The records at the hospital have been scrutinized and crosschecked and any conspiracy to replace 'intestinal material' seems far fetched in the extream. The notion that Stalin planted A.A. seems equally illogical and a bit 'coldwar'--nevertheless, these are all possiblilities but not all probabilities.

LOL
R
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on October 21, 2004, 10:18:41 PM
The other thread had a lot of detail on how efficient Martha Jefferson hospital is, how things are only labeled with code numbers and not names, it was NOT tampered with.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: IlyaBorisovich on October 22, 2004, 03:37:15 AM
I do appreciate your thoughts, but please don't bring up the AA/AN conspiracy!  For the intents and purposes of this thread, let's assume that Anna Anderson was, without question, NOT Anastasia, just for the sake of argument.  That being said, if you are still 100% convinced that AA was FS, would you please explain here why you so believe?  That was the reason I started this thread in the first place.  Thanks.

Ilya
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: rskkiya on October 22, 2004, 10:20:25 AM
Ok
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on October 22, 2004, 10:48:53 AM
Okay.

How about this:   FS spoke Polish and Anastasia didn't.....

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: IlyaBorisovich on October 22, 2004, 10:56:14 AM
Quote
Okay.

How about this:   FS spoke Polish and Anastasia didn't.....

AGRBear


I'm a bit confused as to exactly what this has to do with Anna Anderson.  According to Greg, AA was only purported to speak Polish by one person, someone who knew her in Virginia near the end of her life.  We've already assumed for the sake of my question that AA is NOT Anastasia, so I don't really even understand the point you're trying to make.  Please clarify.  Thanks.

Ilya
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on October 22, 2004, 02:53:18 PM
Ilya wrote: "I understand why you would believe she was not Anastasia, but what is so impossible about the notion that Anna Anderson was not Franziska either?  To me, there are enough inconsistancies between Anna and Franziska to allow this possibility.  Why must she be one or the other?"

I hadn't read your question carefully enough.

I think the answer to your question has interestingly turned up on another thread.

Franziska may have been murdered by a Georg K. Grossmann, therefore,  Anna Anderson could not have been FS.  If not FS and not GD Anastasia,  then who could she have been?


Excellent question.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: IlyaBorisovich on October 22, 2004, 04:03:05 PM
AGRBear,

If you'd post the link to that thread, I'd be much obliged.

Ilya
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on October 22, 2004, 04:27:22 PM
The thread can be found on the following URL:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1093733573;start=50#50

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on October 24, 2004, 12:04:26 PM
My reasons for believing AA was FS:

1. AA's story does not make sense. She was allegedly rescued by a soldier and driven bleeding badly and without medication in a cart for hundreds of miles? Even the name she used for the soldier is suspicious- Alexander Tchiakovsky, come on. To a non Russian trying to invent a Russian name quickly, Alexander would be a common name, and Tchiakovsky being a famous name because of the composer was handy to say the least and known even to the lowliest of people. Interesting there is no record of this "Alexander Tchiakovsky' among the Bolsheviks he allegedly worked for, or the place he supposedly settled and lived 2 years with AA.

AA never even thought to claim to be a Russian GD until it was suggested by a fellow patient, then she later changed the one she claimed to be! Maybe she found out later it was Anastasia that was claimed to be missing (or, if the Russian scientists are right and it's Marie who's missing the whole thing is out the window!)

2. There is a lot we don't know about AA before 1920, but we do know she had a child. Whatever else happened, whatever injuries she may have gotten, it was very likely that it was a traumatic experience that scarred her physically and emotionally for life. In those days, times were harsh and there is a lot that could have happened to a person besides being the victim of a Russian firing squad. Likely the true story of AA's past my never be known. I don't believe FS was murdered. This has come out only recently, the name used in the source is not even exactly the same, and if there were anything to the story surely it would have come up in 40 years of court cases and investigations. Seems like a handy little way to get FS out of the way for those who continue to push AA being AN, IMO.

3.To say that AA was AN would be to call the  hospital, scientists and doctors involved in the DNA testing liars, frauds and con artists. I don't believe that. I don't think in 1994 it made any difference who she turned out to be, though it would have been more exciting for her to be AN and maybe even the scientists were hoping for that result too when they did the test. But AA was proven to be 100% NOT a relative of Alexandra's family, and very likely to be related to FS's family. That is the end of the story for most people.

4. To say that AA was AN is to call Ernie of Hesse, Xenia and Olga of Russia, and other family members heartless liars turning away their tragic lost niece after the brutal murder of her family. I cannot believe they'd do that. If the real AN had showed up I am sure they would have been overjoyed and welcomed her. The tragedy of losing the entire IF was so hard on those they loved, and I can image how much more it must have hurt to constantly deal with pretenders and fakes grinding salt into their pain, and giving false glimmers of hope for survival that were later dashed as the grief set in again. I pity those family members so much. WHY would they deny a real AN? Money? That phantom money that's been rumored but never proven? That phantom money that after all these years still doesn't exist? While Olga and Xenia did get a settlement of Nicky's money, it couldn't have been much. Olga lived basically a poor woman farmer and died in a one bedroom apt. over a Toronto barber shop. Xenia lived in Englad mostly on the charity of her English cousins who felt the guilt of denying the promise of asylum to Nicky, Alix and the kids. No way would the family have rejected a real AN, they were HURT and angered by the insensitivity imposters were causing their already devastated family. So, that explains the royals to me.

5. To say that AA was FS is to call FS's siblings liars. Well, let's look at this. They did seem to claim her, especially one sister, then after much deliberation denied her. Felix Schanskowska was even quoted as saying "If she is my sister, I won't be held responsible for her will I?" This tells me they DID beleive she was their sister but refused to acknowledge it because they feared:

*having to take on responsibility of a mentally ill sister unable to support herself
*perhaps being held responsible financially for all the dust she'd stirred up, the court costs, etc.
*having to deal with her anger and destroying her chance at a good life as Anastasia.

So it is my opinion that they denied her both to cover their own selves from having to be responsible for her, and at the same time leaving her to what was a better life as "Anastasia"- even if she could never prove it, the celebrity it brought was currency she could live on. I also saw another quote from her brother once saying something like that, she wanted to be Anastasia, we left her with what she wanted. That explains the Schaskowska family to me.

6. The memories- now I get blasted every time I say this, and I think that's perhaps because some who want to keep this as a mystery don't like it mentioned. But there were several people in the Russian Emigre community abroad who could have supplied her with the info and memories both intentionally or accidently. I don't know or won't list all the names I suspect, but it is a very likely source.  I will go on and mention the Botkins too. They did have intimate knowledge of the family, and Gleb was an artist and a journalist, and this did make an excellent story. Even if he were not the first to supply her memories, I do think he was in on it, IMO. When I first thought of this a few years ago I kicked myself for not seeing this obvious connection sooner. So that explains the memories to me.

The languages? I don't think there is any definite list of when she spoke each one, and there are conflicting reports mostly from only one vague source on what she did or did not speak in some cases so I don't see that as enough evidence one way or the other.

7. The face- when I was a believer, I could see the resemblance of AA and AN. But now, recently taking this interest back up after a hiatus, looking at them again with a fresh perspective, I don't see Anastasia in AA at all and wonder how I ever did, it must have been wishful thinking. I also see how many times AA makes an effort to hold her mouth like Anastasia to conceal a much wider mouth and fuller lips than AN had. Looking at the pic of FS, it was like, oh my, I was such a fool all those years. The eyes are wider set, the mouth wider, lips fuller, chin and cheekbones different. I see a totally different woman. So that explains the pictures to me.

I will add to this later as I think of more things. I really feel that being so accused of being against AA that I explain myself. I did believe in her for years, and I am a person who believes in strange things. I do not even rule out Anastasia's escaping, the body is missing. It is very unlikely considering the brutality of the crime and the injuries even a survivor would have had, but I can't say for sure until the body is found. Maybe Anastasia was out there, living as an anonymous peasant girl. That's what I would do if I thought the Bolsheviks were hunting me down, the last thing I'd do is expose  myself in public! So while I can't say for 100% certain (probably 90% though) that Anastasia died the night of July 16, 1918 in Ekaterinburg, I do say with at least 99.9% certainty she was NOT AA/FS/Anastasia Manahan.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Elisabeth on October 25, 2004, 07:00:14 AM
Annie, that's a very good summary of the case for Anna Anderson being Franziska Schanzkowska.

On the contentious issue of Anna Anderson's languages: I've always thought her unwillingness to speak Russian was extremely suspicious. She claimed that she didn't like to speak Russian because "it was the last language we heard in that [the Ipatiev] house." But Russian was not just the language of the Bolsheviks, it was Anastasia Nikolaevna's native tongue, and the language of those who loved her: her father, her nursemaids (like Alexandra Tegleva), and much of her extended family. Remember, the imperial children always spoke Russian with their father. I would think she would naturally associate Russian with her family, not with the revolutionaries who imprisoned and later killed them.

My husband, who is a native Russian speaker, has listened to Anna Anderson speak in English in various documentaries I've shown him, and he says her accent is definitely not Russian. He says it sounds to him like a Polish accent of some kind. He also tells me that AA's foreign accent was no doubt one of the reasons why the Russian forensic experts were so irate at the idea that she could have been Anastasia. Russians in general would not take kindly to any suggestion that a woman with a Polish-sounding accent was once a Russian grand duchess. It's a matter of ethnic pride (and the long-standing animosity between Russians and Poles).

I try to keep an open mind where Anna Anderson is concerned, because there are aspects of her case that continue to trouble me, but on this point everyone can forgive me if I don't want to argue with my husband!

Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: pushkina on October 25, 2004, 07:47:47 AM
if i remember correctly, FS didn't speak polish but spoke kaschubian instead.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Elisabeth on October 25, 2004, 07:51:45 AM
Same region, similar accent. My husband said AA's accent sounded "like some kind of" Polish accent. It didn't sound like she came from Warsaw, in other words.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: ISteinke on October 25, 2004, 07:56:20 AM
Here's a thought-
     One of the favorite vacation spots of the Imperial Family was Spala, in Poland, where they spent time every year. Is it not possible that Anastasia could have picked up Polish, not necessarily through formal training, but simply through interaction with people whom she met and visited with? This wouldn't be an important fact, or something that anyone would have reported. It would simply be a triviality.
    Point being: Maybe Anastasia Romanov did, in fact, speak the Polish language [to some degree], and nobody wrote about it.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Elisabeth on October 25, 2004, 08:12:20 AM
ISteinke, it's my understanding that Russians can understand Polish and vice versa, so they can communicate with each other in a rough manner, even if they don't actually speak each other's languages.

Pushkina is right, as I recall Franziska did speak Kashubian. According to Massie, she was descended from the Polish nobility. Since she was born in Pozen, Prussia, on the border with Poland, it's more than likely that she knew Polish and perhaps even a smattering of German as well.

People in these border areas of Eastern Europe (which were continually passed back and forth between different countries) tended to know more than one language. For example, in the 1920s many so-called "Polish" Jews were actually more comfortable speaking Russian than Polish because they had grown up in previously Russian-occupied territories (see M. Wolff's account in the book "The Other Russia").  
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on October 25, 2004, 09:37:30 AM
Thanks for your input, Elisabeth, your husband would know a Russian accent if he heard it! Felix Y. pulled the 4 languages on her, and he could tell right off she was not the daughter of the Tsar (oh yeah that's right he was lying and trying to kill her ::) )

I doubt seriously Anastasia would have picked up any Polish from the Spala visits. They were only in contact with their own family and entourage. I would also think that the children might even have a bit of a British or French accent instead of or in addition to a Russian one?
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: IlyaBorisovich on October 25, 2004, 10:44:12 AM
Annie,

In reading your post of yesterday, I understand that you're convinced that AA was not Anastasia.  In your point 5, you argue against AA being FS.  The whole point of this thread was to find out exactly why people are so convinced that AA could only be FS, since she cannot be Anastasia.  I and several others have proposed that AA was neither AN or FS.  Do you now share this opinion?  Your previous post seemed to suggest that you believe AA to be neither AN or FS. ???

Ilya
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on October 25, 2004, 10:48:00 AM
No, I mean I do believe AA was FS. I did say I did not rule out the unlikely possibilty the real Anastasia escaped, since the body is missing, but even IF she did, I still don't think AA was her, I think AA was FS.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: IlyaBorisovich on October 25, 2004, 10:54:08 AM
OK, granted we've assumed for the sake of argument that AA could absolutely NOT have been Anastasia.  The issue, then, is why Anna Anderson could not have been anyone but FS.  Why do you believe that AA was FS.  I guess that's been my question all along.

Ilya
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on October 25, 2004, 11:05:33 AM
I guess there is a chance she might have been neither AN or FS, but personally I think she was FS.

What I meant about my #2 point was that while we don't know much about her before 1920 we can't prove it one way or the other and never will be able to, but there is enough there (including the DNA) to make me be fairly sure she was FS.

I really believe if there was anything earthshattering to discover it would have come out in 4 decades of court cases and investigations while most of the involved parties were still alive, especially in the 20's and 30's because after WW2 stuff got destroyed or lost. I also believe the real secret of FS was either lost or destroyed during the turmoil in and after WW1, and because she was of modest means some things may never have existed in the first place. It is very likely she was hurt during the time before 1920 and there are no records because they were lost or she was treated as an unknown somewhere and there never was a record. I do believe something horrible happened to Fraulein Unknown, but I don't think it was in the basement in Ekaterinburg. A lot of bad things happened to a lot of people back then. Maybe she took her terrible story with her to eternity. Maybe she never remembered it. Maybe it was replaced by the stories of AN. I honestly don't believe AA was a liar or a bad person, I think she truly was convinced she was AN, at least most of the time. But she wasn't.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Michelle on October 25, 2004, 11:06:11 AM
Quote
My reasons for believing AA was FS:

4. To say that AA was AN is to call Ernie of Hesse, Xenia and Olga of Russia, and other family members heartless liars turning away their tragic lost niece after the brutal murder of her family. I cannot believe they'd do that. If the real AN had showed up I am sure they would have been overjoyed and welcomed her. The tragedy of losing the entire IF was so hard on those they loved, and I can image how much more it must have hurt to constantly deal with pretenders and fakes grinding salt into their pain, and giving false glimmers of hope for survival that were later dashed as the grief set in again. I pity those family members so much. WHY would they deny a real AN? Money? That phantom money that's been rumored but never proven? That phantom money that after all these years still doesn't exist? While Olga and Xenia did get a settlement of Nicky's money, it couldn't have been much. Olga lived basically a poor woman farmer and died in a one bedroom apt. over a Toronto barber shop. Xenia lived in Englad mostly on the charity of her English cousins who felt the guilt of denying the promise of asylum to Nicky, Alix and the kids. No way would the family have rejected a real AN, they were HURT and angered by the insensitivity imposters were causing their already devastated family. So, that explains the royals to me.
.


Annie, the answer you gave to the 'question' of the royals is actually evident that AA really could have been AN.  BECAUSE the royals were all hurting so much inside because of the numerous imposters, they would NATUALLY not want to see AA because they were sick and tired of dealing with the pain conjured up in these circumstances.  I mean as I recall, hardly any of the royals went to see her.  The ones who did (except for Olga A. who had to admit later on in her life that she just couldn't be sure) were convinced that she was genuine.  They wouldn't give her a chance by even seeing her (the ones you're talking about) which is hardly a reason to say that they rejected her as Anastasia since they never wanted anything to do with her in the first place!!!!  The royals just figured she was another imposter when they FIRST HEARD OF HER, and with imposter after imposter, they had automatically just made up their minds that she was probably another one.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on October 25, 2004, 11:08:16 AM
Several of them did see her, and surely with all the publicity and press on her they all saw her pictures. No one is going to sit there and ignore someone who could possibly be your long lost niece. I think they DID see her, and having known her a lot better than we do, knew she was a fake from the start. I remember a letter FA posted awhile back Olga had written to someone. I don't believe Olga ever said 'she couldn't be sure.' Olga was close to the girls, she would have known, and she didn't accept AA.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on October 25, 2004, 11:16:21 AM
Here is the collage of AA pics with the only known verified photo of FS in the center, posted by Lisa in the long thread:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v393/lyzotchka/1.jpg)

Compare to Anastasia's small mouth and thin lips and much more oval face and rounded chin

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

Anastasia looks more like me than she did AA!
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: ISteinke on October 25, 2004, 11:34:59 AM
I find this whole thread to be incredibly amusing. Actually I find all of the Anna Anderson threads on this forum to be incredibly amusing. Here is why...

Nearly all of the posts on these threads are written in by people who absolutely do not believe that Anna Anderson was Grand Duchess Anastasia, and yet the posts are adding up, now, to dozens and dozens of pages. Are you aware that over 14,000 people have now read these posts? If all of you really believe that Anna Anderson was a total impostor, then prove it by stopping. If there were no case in her favor you would find nothing to argue about.

The point is [and I really, sincerely want to know], why do all of you care to continue bickering about an impostor. Annie is right. If she really wasn't the Grand Duchess, all of this is a stupid waste of time.

If Anna Anderson was not Grand Duchess Anastasia, if there was nothing to her claim, then why are there 8000 pages of bound testimony from her court case?

Did Eugenia Smith have enough evidence to keep a courtroom busy for 30 years?

Did Marga Boodts have enough evidence to keep a courtroom busy for 30 years?

I am also not only torqued that all of you continue what yourselves claim is pointless discussion. Y'all also answer every piece of evidence in AA's favor with explanations of "why it cannot be true," rather than honestly addressing the questions raised.

As far as Franziska is concerned- Y'all claim that no-one worth listening to ever identified Anna Anderson as Anastasia. Actually an impressive host of people did. Grand Duke Andrew [who saw her every day during the war] recognized her. Tatiana Botkin recognized her. Lili Dehn recognized her. Felix Dassel recognized her. Even Shura [That's right- Mrs. Gilliard] recognized her. Are you aware that Shura NEVER recanted her original recognition?

Yet, did anyone [apart from bribery] ever positively identify her as Franzsika?

Come on, now. Franziska dissapeared in 1920. By the time her family came to identify AA a number of years later, she could not possibly have changed enough for them not to recognize her, and yet they didn't.

If she was really Franziska, why didn't they welcome her with loving arms? You see, the answer is that they all knew Franziska far better than any of us, and they knew from the start that she was a fake. They had watched her grow up.

I'll make a challenge to all of the anti-Anna people on this forum [and the other AA forum]. If you really believe that Anna Anderson was a total impostor, back up your beliefs by withdrawing from this forum, and thus bringing the whole foolishness to an end.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on October 25, 2004, 11:43:22 AM
Quote
If all of you really believe that Anna Anderson was a total impostor, then prove it by stopping. If there were no case in her favor you would find nothing to argue about.


Same could be said for the pro AA side as well!

Quote
The point is [and I really, sincerely want to know], why do all of you care to continue bickering about an impostor. Annie is right. If she really wasn't the Grand Duchess, all of this is a stupid waste of time.


I never said it was a stupid waste of time. It may be, but I'm guilty as anyone!

Quote
If Anna Anderson was not Grand Duchess Anastasia, if there was nothing to her claim, then why are there 8000 pages of bound testimony from her court case?


A court case which never proved her identity.



Quote
Yet, did anyone [apart from bribery] ever positively identify her as Franzsika?


Heh, I could also say anyone who took AA's side also did it for bribery. I think some people were emotional or confused, and while Shura never recanted, she never said it anymore either, and her husband, the tutor, fought AA until the day he died! Andrew was not a good source. He hardly knew Anastasia and probably couldn't have picked her out of a crowd before the revolution. Remember, the IF disliked the Vladimirovichi and saw them rarely. Felix Yussoupov denied her on sight. The Botkins? It is my opinion the Botkins knew it wasn't her and egged it on for a reason. Before anyone jumps on me for saying this about them, consider that no matter which side you take on this you are calling someone a liar!

Quote
Come on, now. Franziska dissapeared in 1920. By the time her family came to identify AA a number of years later, she could not possibly have changed enough for them not to recognize her, and yet they didn't.

If she was really Franziska, why didn't they welcome her with loving arms? You see, the answer is that they all knew Franziska far better than any of us, and they knew from the start that she was a fake. They had watched her grow up.




I already explained why I feel they didn't. They did at first, but were afraid of being held responisible for the mess she'd caused, and her support for the rest of her life, and decided to leave her to what she wanted, "Anastasia." There are even quotes that back this up.


Quote
I'll make a challenge to all of the anti-Anna people on this forum [and the other AA forum]. If you really believe that Anna Anderson was a total impostor, back up your beliefs by withdrawing from this forum, and thus bringing the whole foolishness to an end.


Sure, you want us all to shut up so you can be the only side trying to convince people who haven't made up their minds. If you're so sure, YOU leave the forum!
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Forum Admin on October 25, 2004, 11:56:08 AM
Please keep 2 distinct and important facts apart.
1. AA was NOT Anastasia. the conclusive mtDNA tests show that. The rest of any argument is MOOT. Not really open to discussion anymore, other than by conspiracy theorists (a major conspiracy being the only possible way left to keep that hope alive).
2. Was AA FS, which IS the subject of the thread. NOW this is a topic still very much open to discussion. But, just because AA may NOT have been FS, does not lend any support to her having been Anastasia...
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Michelle on October 25, 2004, 12:02:41 PM
Annie, I honestly don't know why you feel the need to be so touchy on this subject. :-/  The reason why pro and anti sides keep coming to these threads is because the discussion is just plain fascinating.  And your last post just proved ISteinke's point that the people who recognized AA just weren't good enough.  And that court case DIDN'T DISPROVE her as Anastasia either!!!!!!They couldn't decide, and that really tells you about how compelling it must've been in that courtroom to believe either side.  Which other royal who declaimed her actually saw her besides Olga A.?  I believe that what Olga said regarding her uncertainty is in Peter Kurth's masterpiece The Riddle of Anna Anderson.  The pictures posted showing AA and FS just don't show me a resemblance.  Sorry.  And you seem to be the one who desperately wants everyone to shut up.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: ISteinke on October 25, 2004, 12:42:58 PM
With all due respect (sincerely) to the forum administrator, I have a question I would like to ask. Two posts ago the forum administrator made two statements.

One of his statements said that Anna Anderson was proved not to be the Grand Duchess Anastasia through the DNA tests.

The second statement said that the question of her identity with Franziska Schanskowsa was still a very open question.

It was the same DNA test results, the ones that excluded her as being Anastasia, that identified her as FS. So, how can you use these tests to say that she was not Grand Duchess Anastasia, and then say that the question of her identity with FS is still open?
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on October 25, 2004, 01:04:06 PM
Quote
Annie, I honestly don't know why you feel the need to be so touchy on this subject. :-/  


You seem rather 'touchy' yourself, and are in on it just as much as I am!

Quote
 And you seem to be the one who desperately wants everyone to shut up.


I never said I wanted everyone to shut up, I was only saying 'right back atcha' to the guy who asked all who oppose AA's claim to shut up and leave the forum. Please reread my post!
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on October 25, 2004, 01:07:26 PM
Quote
It was the same DNA test results, the ones that excluded her as being Anastasia, that identified her as FS. So, how can you use these tests to say that she was not Grand Duchess Anastasia, and then say that the question of her identity with FS is still open?


I am not speaking for FA, of course he will answer for himself, but I can tell you the difference- there were 2 seperate tests- the one with AA and Prince Phillip, which proved her to be 100% unrelated, and the one with FS's great nephew which showed it was likely but not certain she was related to that family. So, there is definite proof she was NOT ANASTASIA but there is still some room to question whether or not she was FS (though it is my opinion she was FS)

This is a story from my newspaper 10 years ago when the tests were done

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1994/vp941006/10060504.htm

Here are the DNA cluster tests showing how she matched nothing with Prince Phillip (Alexandra's great nephew) but a lot with Carl Maucher, FS's great nephew

www.dnai.org/bioserver/clustalw_anna_and_carl.html
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Forum Admin on October 25, 2004, 01:49:00 PM
Annie got the basic facts correct.
The mtDNA test showed with a 99.99 % certainty that AA was excluded from relationship to the Queen Victoria line. ie: she could in no way be a great grand-daughter to Victoria. The match was completely incorrect.

That same test showed a PROBABILITY of her being FS, but to a less certain degree. Most key indicators matched FS relatives, but several others did not. So the question remains open. As I said, the two are NOT mutually exclusive.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on October 25, 2004, 02:28:55 PM
Quote

I am not speaking for FA, of course he will answer for himself, but I can tell you the difference- there were 2 seperate tests- the one with AA and Prince Phillip, which proved her to be 100% unrelated, and the one with FS's great nephew which showed it was likely but not certain she was related to that family. So, there is definite proof she was NOT ANASTASIA but there is still some room to question whether or not she was FS (though it is my opinion she was FS)

This is a story from my newspaper 10 years ago when the tests were done

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1994/vp941006/10060504.htm

Here are the DNA cluster tests showing how she matched nothing with Prince Phillip (Alexandra's great nephew) but a lot with Carl Maucher, FS's great nephew

www.dnai.org/bioserver/clustalw_anna_and_carl.html


I just read the news article and was interested in this line:

>> But in 1921 while she was still a patient at the mental hospital, according to staff, she saw a magazine with the headline ``Did Anastasia Survive the Massacre?''<<

Why in 1921 was their an article asking:  "Did Anastasia Survive the Massacre?"  Was there someone else making the claim at that time or was there something else that would have created this other article?

AGRBear

Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on October 25, 2004, 02:37:02 PM
Quote



Why in 1921 was their an article asking:  "Did Anastasia Survive the Massacre?"  Was there someone else making the claim at that time or was there something else that would have created this other article?

AGRBear



I never heard that either, I thought the story was that someone showed her a picture of the family and thought she was Tatiana ???

But back to FS, the story quoted scientists of saying there was only a 1 in 300 chance AA was NOT FS so I still stick to my feeling that she was. (the story also mentions the death of her finace and the injury at the munitions factory that I have always heard and read about)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: IlyaBorisovich on October 25, 2004, 03:52:53 PM
After trying to sort through all the twists and turns this thread has taken, I think there's plenty of reasonable doubt as to the claim that AA was FS.

We have a number of striking differences between AA and FS, including a difference in height, shoe size, and lack of body scarring in the case of FS.  We have the possibility that FS was not maternally related to Gertrude Schanzkowska, which would bring the DNA results into question.  We also have a fesible explaination of what really may have happened to Franziska Schanzkowska, not to mention that her mother never accepted AA as her daughter.  The only thing we don't have is any possible answer to the question, if Anna Anderson was not Franziska Schanzkowska, then who was she?

Ilya
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: stepan on October 25, 2004, 04:59:44 PM
I think the bahaviour of the Schanzkovski family is highy suspicious. At least two of the siblings recognized her,Felix and Gertrud even if they at the end of the day refused to sign a statement that they had. Gertrude said to AA: You are my sister,I know it! I read about a letter sent to Gertrude by the lawyer of Barbara of Mecklenburg who was the formal opposer of AA in the trials. 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?  I think this is interesting even if it doesen´t prove anything.  I think it´s fascinating that Greg and Penny have found the missing medical records of FS. I hope they will write more in detail about all this:How they found these records and possible more information on FS and her family. It adds to the mystery. I think it´s probable that AA was FS because of the DNA result and other evidence and  there has never been any serious alternative suggestion who she might have been. But I´d like to have an open mind about.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on October 25, 2004, 07:03:45 PM
Quote
After trying to sort through all the twists and turns this thread has taken, I think there's plenty of reasonable doubt as to the claim that AA was FS.

We have a number of striking differences between AA and FS, including a difference in height, shoe size, and lack of body scarring in the case of FS.  We have the possibility that FS was not maternally related to Gertrude Schanzkowska, which would bring the DNA results into question.  We also have a fesible explaination of what really may have happened to Franziska Schanzkowska, not to mention that her mother never accepted AA as her daughter.  Ilya


First, when did the mother see her? I thought the parents were passed away before the meeting happened and it was just the siblings? I do not put much stock into the height and shoe size thing either. I'd be willing to bet my siblings, my best friends and my kids would all guess a different shoe size for me if asked. Height? That varies too. For example, on a site devoted to my favorite singing star, his height has been reported as anywhere from 5'2" to 5'8" all from different people who met him, stood next to him getting his autograph, even getting photograped with him. They'd say "I'm 5'5" and he was shorter than me!" Then another girl would say "I'm 5'5" and he was taller than me in my heels!" so apparently all people judge things differently, and where each person was standing matters too. Also, having been hurt and having TB of the bones she may have shrunk a bit. I seriously question the suddenly newfound medical records, strange they never were around for all these court cases, back when the trail was a lot warmer. There is no telling what could have happened to her in the time she was missing, treated under an assumed name or anonymously, records lost, misplaced, it is no definite proof. The sudden 'murder' theory is vague and suspicious too. It looks to me as if someone is working very hard to get FS out of the picture or explain her away to continue to push the AA =AN agenda.

Quote
originally posted by stepan

"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".



Very interesting, thank you for posting this. I thought so.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: IlyaBorisovich on October 26, 2004, 03:33:25 AM
Annie,

Have you read ANY of my previous posts, or any of the Forum Administrator on this thread?  If you'll read closely, you'll discover that I have repeatedly stated that for the sake of argument, that ANNA ANDERSON WAS ABSOLOUTELY NOT ANASTASIA.  The FA posted that this is an entirely different issue.  If the subtle difference in the concepts eludes you, then I guess we can give this up right now.  It's an exasperating waste of time when some people just don't get it.

I guess I'm part of the Penny Wilson/Helen/and now Ilya conspiracy.  Congratulations.  You may take your place on the winners stand with JonC.  How clever of you to uncover my working in cohorts with people from thousands of miles away, that I've only "known" for six months.  Have you looked into this JFK matter?  Having now proven this conspiracy, they may need your help there.  I also understand Hillary Clinton is looking for good sleuths to uncover new vast, right-wing conspiracies for her Presidential campaign.  I fear for all mankind.

Ilya

BTW, I personally do not believe that Anna Anderson was Anastasia, nor do I believe she was Franziska, but hey, never let the facts cloud a good conspiracy.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on October 26, 2004, 07:40:51 AM
I do feel I have mostly kept to the FS/AA topic though it is hard to seperate AN from it since that's what it was about. If I have anything else to say on AN I will put it in the other thread.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on October 26, 2004, 10:12:00 AM
Ilya:  >>... for the sake of argument, that ANNA ANDERSON WAS ABSOLOUTELY NOT ANASTASIA.<<

For those who think Anna Anderson was Anastasia,  this thead isn't a place to prove she was.  This is just a debate about Anna Anderson being FS.   No one has to believe one way or the other and they stilll can believe Anna was Anastasia while they debate showing how Anna Anderson wasn't FS and why..

So, what have we learned so far?


1.  FS was from a family that had once been nobel but either lost their money or were what I call "the poor cousins"
2.  FS was a child of her father's second marriage who was married before and had children by his first marriage
3.  There was an explosion in the factory  where FS worked
      a.   It appears she was not wounded and had no scaring from
             it according to Wilson and King's latest annoucement
       b.  Some reports state that FS was wounded and did suffer
             scaring from this explosion
4.  The Berlin police was told that FS was missing
         a.  It was possible that FS was taken by the serial killer
               Georg Grossmann.  Do not know the date the report
                was mad.
          b.   Berlin police told FS family on 13 Aug 1920 that FS was
                murdered by Grossmann

I'll let others list the "did the family" or "did the family not" admit Anna Anderson was their daughter/ sister.

I do not have information on the trial that took place in Germany.
If I remember correctly,  there was evidence given in trying to prove Anna was FS.  Anyone know what it was and what the defense said to deny this?

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: rskkiya on October 26, 2004, 10:32:37 AM
Ok Here is a very quick question...
Could anyone here offer me a good book (please not another thread topic) discussing the FS/AA paradox --I have to admit that I had not been aware of the whole theory that Anna A was or was not Fransiska S. So sorry I took this as understood.
Paka
Rskkiya
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Michelle on October 26, 2004, 10:52:10 AM
Regarding those pictures up there (maybe Annie posted them? Sorry, can't remember :-[), I had my mom look at them last night, and she said that all five of the pictures looked like totally separate women, as I must say that I agree.  There do seem to be a lot of pics out there where AA is a bit of a chameleon, seeming to have drastically different pictures of herself.  Like the one in the upper right hand corner as opposed to the one in the upper left hand corner, or lower right hand corner.  She just looks so different.  Not to mention how different each picture looks from FS.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Elisabeth on October 26, 2004, 10:53:04 AM
Earlier in the thread, Annie posted a photograph of Franziska side by side with photos of Anna Anderson. To me, FS and AA look like one and the same person. The shape of the face, eyes, nose, lips, the placing of the features - all the same, instantly recognizable. The eyes are especially striking. I realize that comparing photographs is not the most objective way of making an identification, since we are all subject to unconscious influences (such as knowledge of DNA test results). Nevertheless, I am wondering: is this the only photograph of Franziska Schanzkowska in existence? Is there not even a school photograph of her as a child?

Related to this: if I were a researcher, I would be investigating school records in Pozen, or wherever it is that Franziska lived as a child. Not only might you come across school photographs (the class pictures so common at the turn of the century), but you might also discover which languages Franziska was studying. If she was still living in the place she was born, i.e., Pozen in Prussia, then she may have been required to learn German because all her classes might have been conducted in that language. The issue of what languages FS and AA had in common is very relevant.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on October 26, 2004, 12:09:23 PM
Good idea, Elisabeth. As far as I know the pic in the middle of that post is the only picture verified to have been of FS, but I can't believe there aren't more. The last time this subject came up, it was mentioned that her family was poor and probably didn't have cameras, but as you mention schools took pictures, someone else she knew, a friend, a cousin, may have a picture. For years I thought there were no pictures of my father as a child because he grew up poor in the depression with 12 siblings, but later I found out an aunt had a picture of him, and there were schoolhouse pictures owned by ex teachers and other students. I'm sorry to say that while your ideas are brilliant, no one is going to go that route, because unfortunately at this time it seems the only people who are actively researching and have the means and access to research are so hell bent on destroying the FS story and trying to prove AA to be AN that they would not bother to check into things that may hurt their case. I hope someone objective who only wants the real truth will do this, though. Surely if a relative of FS was found for DNA testing other family members could be found who might have childhood pictures of her. I really feel a childhood picture of FS looking like AA and not AN would at last be the final straw for this worn out old fairy tale.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: IlyaBorisovich on October 26, 2004, 03:09:11 PM
For the last time,

This thread is about the possibility that Anna Anderson was someone other than Franziska Schanzkowska!!!  The notion that people are trying to demolish the Franziska Schanzkowska story to prove that Anna Anderson was Anastasia Nicholaievna is ludicrous!!!  You earlier posted that you would post your Anastasia Nicholaievna theories on another thread.  PLEASE TAKE YOUR CONSPIRACY/AGENDA DRIVEL ELSEWHERE!  I ask the Forum Administrator to lock this thread, as you've corrupted its original purpose beyond repair.

Ilya
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on October 26, 2004, 03:41:26 PM
I still got it wrong.  Sorry.  :-/

This was not a debate about Anna Anderson being FS.

This was a debate about Anna Anderson being someone else entirely.....

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Penny_Wilson on October 26, 2004, 03:45:30 PM
Quote
I'm sorry to say that while your ideas are brilliant, no one is going to go that route, because unfortunately at this time it seems the only people who are actively researching and have the means and access to research are so hell bent on destroying the FS story and trying to prove AA to be AN that they would not bother to check into things that may hurt their case.


Annie, you are way beyond belief.  You are insufferably insulting to Greg and I, and you assume that you know far too much about what research is and has been done on Franziska Schanzkowska.  And what makes it all so laughable is that you apparently do not read ANYTHING on this board that is in opposition to that which you would like to be the truth.

Elisabeth, Greg and I have been to Pozen and other locations both Polish and German associated with FS.  They are not inaccessible; it only takes a historian or two with an interest in doing field work.  We have, through our own research efforts, been in contact with (a) members of the Schanzkowski family, (b) archives governmental, judicial and personal concerning FS and (c) have amassed a large-ish collection of documents and photographs concerning FS.

This research has been conducted by us, at our own expense in order to form a portion of our nascent project investigating the phenomenon of claimants/pretenders in various historical situations.  

We will not be discussing the entirety of our research here; not unreasonably, we'll  be saving that for the book.  But it isn't necessary to go beyond what is already known of the Franziska Schanzkowska story to reasonably show that she could not have been Fraulein Unbekannt.  IB has done an admirable job of attempting to lead a discussion on just this topic, and I understand fully his frustration at the end, because a very few of you people keep repeating as gospel truth items of gossip that have alreedy been proven false.  This is what YOU do in order to avoid hurting YOUR case.

What I don't understand is how your minds are so closed.  And how the points you try to make become so personally hurtful so fast.  I don't get this -- all I can put it down to is the well-known fact that is it easy to be nasty and rude to strangers on the internet.  I'm sure you guys aren't this ugly in your "real" lives, and I can't imagine what Greg and I have done to attract your ire here.  But that's life on the internet I guess!

Now, I would like to continue discussing the FS/FU/AM case -- but I'll start another thread.  I hope we can manage to keep it civil...  :-*
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: IlyaBorisovich on October 26, 2004, 04:01:00 PM
AGRBear,

I'm sorry, that was directed at Annie, not at you.

Penny,

Thanks for saying that more eloquently than I chose to.

Ilya
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on October 26, 2004, 05:35:02 PM
Penny, I do hope you will continue to find all you can on FS and her family. You, as well as Kurth, have openly stated your belief that AA was AN, Greg has not said either way as far as I know.  I will stay out of your new thread, you already know I feel AA was FS so there's no need for me to speculate and fight over that.

Ilya, again, I do feel that I have mainly stayed on topic with FS and AA, however, it is impossible to separate AN from the issue totally. But I will not post in this thread again.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: IlyaBorisovich on October 26, 2004, 05:54:09 PM
It's only impossible to separate Franziska Schanzkowska from Anna Anderson in your mind.  I think that when all is said and done, Anna Anderson will wind up having less to do with Franziska Schanzkowska than with Anastasia Nicholaievna.  Note that this is not saying that Anna Anderson WAS Anastasia.

Ilya
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on October 26, 2004, 05:57:24 PM
No, I said it was impossible to separate AA/FS from AN because everything about AA/FS comes back to AN. I can't separate FS and AA because I believe they are the same person.

Oops I posted again. But I will avoid the other thread.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Elisabeth on October 28, 2004, 04:58:43 AM
Sorry, I have not figured out how to do internal quotes. Penny Wilson wrote:

"Elisabeth, Greg and I have been to Pozen and other locations both Polish and German associated with FS.  They are not inaccessible; it only takes a historian or two with an interest in doing field work.  We have, through our own research efforts, been in contact with (a) members of the Schanzkowski family, (b) archives governmental, judicial and personal concerning FS and (c) have amassed a large-ish collection of documents and photographs concerning FS.
 
"This research has been conducted by us, at our own expense in order to form a portion of our nascent project investigating the phenomenon of claimants/pretenders in various historical situations.  
 
"We will not be discussing the entirety of our research here; not unreasonably, we'll  be saving that for the book.  But it isn't necessary to go beyond what is already known of the Franziska Schanzkowska story to reasonably show that she could not have been Fraulein Unbekannt.  IB has done an admirable job of attempting to lead a discussion on just this topic, and I understand fully his frustration at the end, because a very few of you people keep repeating as gospel truth items of gossip that have alreedy been proven false.  This is what YOU do in order to avoid hurting YOUR case.
 
"What I don't understand is how your minds are so closed.  And how the points you try to make become so personally hurtful so fast.  I don't get this -- all I can put it down to is the well-known fact that is it easy to be nasty and rude to strangers on the internet.  I'm sure you guys aren't this ugly in your "real" lives, and I can't imagine what Greg and I have done to attract your ire here.  But that's life on the internet I guess!"

My Reply:

I'm sorry if I offended anyone with my observations about FS and AA. I thought forums were places to converse, which doesn't mean that everyone has to agree on every point all the time. If I play devil's advocate sometimes, this is because I like to hear every point of view and to approach a problem from every possible angle. I thought this was part of keeping an open mind, but perhaps it just leads to being misunderstood by both sides. Nevertheless, I adhere to Karl Popper's dictum, that in order for a theory to be scientifically valid, you must be able to disprove it.

Moreover, I certainly didn't mean to insult you or Greg by suggesting that someone look at Schanzkowska's school records. (For one thing, I had no idea that you and Greg were even researching Schanzkowska as a separate line of historical inquiry!) I was merely saying that this is what I would do, that is, if I had the money to pursue my own research interests, not to mention, a working knowledge of German (I have neither!). If you and Greg are currently working on a book about the whole AA and FS controversy, then I look forward eagerly to its publication. I love a good historical mystery, and you and Greg are two of my favorite authors. FOTR is my Romanov bible, along with Massie's classic, "Nicholas and Alexandra."

So please accept my apology if I did offend you, because such was not my intention and it upsets me to think that I might have done so.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Penny_Wilson on October 28, 2004, 08:54:33 AM
Dear Elisabeth,

My bad!  I ought to have placed a line or some other divider between my specific reply to you and my general sort of reply to the people who can't discuss this issue without resorting to low and insulting behavior.  You have certainly never lowered yourself on this group!  :D

Please insert imaginary line after "large-ish collection of documents and photographs concerning FS."

Sorry!  8)

Penny
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: jeremygaleaz on October 29, 2004, 03:01:53 PM
Hi

For me, it's not that it's not impossible she was not FS. As you pointed out, there are inconsitencies in that identification.
 
But, as to why she must be one or the other...in truth, this is like a math question. Either her identity is right or wrong, there's no room for subjectivity. She was SOMEBODY , and there's been no  logical explanation for who else she might have been.

She was one of the most famous women in the world for more than 50 years. And, in that amount of time, what other family stepped foreward to claim her as (maybe) being one of their own?  

But, it's worth remembering that AA herself started the whole Polish Labourer connection mystery. She said  from the beginning, that she was of a family that was Polish, Catholic, and "scions of the old Polish nobility"-except  by marriage, and not by blood. And, if she wasn't AN, why should the Polish identity be dismissed so easily? Why couldn't her relation be by blood, and not by marriage after all?

And the story, which started with her (and no record of the Tchaikowsky brothers or family has ever been found) is probably what caused the Grand Duke of Hesse's agent to begin looking in that direction....

(But I think the whole AA identification as FS started out as  just one of history's greatest luck guesses. And, it's just Human nature to doubt  guesses, esepecially guesses that MAY be true.)

peace
Jeremy
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: BaronessSophie on November 06, 2004, 07:24:37 PM
This is truly one of the greatest mysteries ever! Even if she was not Anna A. what did happen to her? And Alexei? Will we ever know?
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: rskkiya on November 06, 2004, 08:57:59 PM
Quote
Penny, You, as well as Kurth, have openly stated your belief that AA was AN, Greg has not said either way as far as I know.  


[glb]WHAT? [/glb]

I thought that we had already gone over all of this regarding the mDNA! Is there still some debate??

rskkiya
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 07, 2004, 08:11:08 AM
Quote

[glb]WHAT? [/glb]

I thought that we had already gone over all of this regarding the mDNA! Is there still some debate??

rskkiya


Apparently there is, but not from me, except to debate those who still debate it ;)

Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: IlyaBorisovich on November 07, 2004, 09:00:22 AM
Helen posted this in the other thread about FS:

Quote

FA, you are correct, if AA's mtDNA showed a mismatch with the Victorian DNA then it is conclusive evidence that AA could not have been a Victorian descendant, i.e. Anastasia (unless they suspect conspiracy). But even if AA's mtDNA exactly matched Victorian DNA or FS's relatives, that would not conclusively prove that she was AN or FS. The fact that her result was inconclusive for FS's relative(I didn't know that, I thought it was conclusive) tells us that she probably wasn't FS.  :-/


This is what I've been trying to assert all along, that AA was not FS.  Annie, you're fond of referencing the DNA results when you reply to people who doubt that AA was FS (and therefore believe she was AN, since it's either one way or the other), so what do you make of this?  From Helen's posts on other threads it's very clear that when it comes to DNA she knows what she's talking about.  Will anything ever convince you that AA was someone other than FS?

Ilya
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Forum Admin on November 07, 2004, 09:43:32 AM
Ilya et al.
You misunderstand the mtDNA results. The results were not "conclusive" that AA was FS, but they were 'probable' to a certainty of more likely than not (offhand, and I may be wrong, but the chance of an AA-FS familial match was something like 75% or so). It was NOT CONCLUSIVE TO EXCLUDE AN AA-FS RELATIONSHIP, quite the opposite, so please, do not use the mtDNA test to say she wasn't...
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Robert_Hall on November 07, 2004, 09:46:49 AM
Ilya, not everyone follows that chain of thought i.e. if AA is not FS therefore she is AN.
I for one believe she is NOT AN, but may very well not be FS either. I do not care who she was if she was not the Grand Duchess, that looks to remain a big mystery and is most likely irrelevant in the scheme of things anyway.
Best,
Robert
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: rskkiya on November 07, 2004, 10:03:45 AM
Help
   Are Penny W. and Mr. Kurth still under the impression that Miss Unknown was in fact Anastasia Nicholevna?

Come on now!
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 07, 2004, 10:36:46 AM
Quote
Help
    Are Penny W.l and Mr. Kurth still under the impression that Miss Unknown was in fact Anastasia Nicholevna?

Come on now!


Sure looks that way :-X
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 07, 2004, 10:38:10 AM
Again, the DNA results

http://www.dnai.org/bioserver/clustalw_anna_and_carl.html

I read one report that said the odds were there was a 299 out of 300 chance that AA was FS.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Forum Admin on November 07, 2004, 11:07:52 AM
The original Gill, Melton et al report ( "Nature Genetics", Vol. 9, January 1995, pp. 9-10) concluded that the odds of AA being related to Carl Maucher were 300 to 1 in favor, and 99.9% certain that AA was in no way related to Prince Philip.
 
According to Dr. Melton, these results are exactly as reliable today as they were in 1995, and nothing in mtDNA science has emerged to change them.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: IlyaBorisovich on November 07, 2004, 12:03:56 PM
Quote
Ilya, not everyone follows that chain of thought i.e. if AA is not FS therefore she is AN.
I for one believe she is NOT AN, but may very well not be FS either. I do not care who she was if she was not the Grand Duchess, that looks to remain a big mystery and is most likely irrelevant in the scheme of things anyway.
Best,
Robert


Robert,

I was implying that Annie seems to believe that because AA was not AN than she could only be FS.  I did not mean to imply that everyone else thought that as well.  I should have been clearer on that point.  I, for one, believe AA was someone other than FS.

Ilya
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Robert_Hall on November 07, 2004, 12:12:24 PM
Thank you, Ilya. Your opinion seems to be the modern consensus. I am willing to watch that debate, from the sidelines.
Cheers,
Robert
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 07, 2004, 12:14:39 PM
Quote

Robert,

I was implying that Annie seems to believe that because AA was not AN than she could only be FS.
Ilya


No, I don't think she could ONLY be FS, but it's likely enough that she was I don't see any reason to search for her 'real' identity any more than we need to search for the 'real' killer in the OJ Simpson case ;)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Robert_Hall on November 07, 2004, 01:40:52 PM
In any case, I agree with you !
Cheers,
Robert
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: BobAtchison on November 07, 2004, 03:07:58 PM
I remember when Peter Kurth's great book first came out - I was working for Apple at the time and rushed over to the closest bookstore the morning of the day they received their first copies  I stood in the aisle and started reading, after around 20 minutes i moved over to an arm chair in the store.  Next thing I knew it was dark outside.

I had read the book from front to back, I couldn't put it down.  It was not only the content by the way it was written.  Peter's writing is smooth and inviting.  As we all know he is a great writer!

In any case I remember driving home after reading his book with tears in my eyes thinking and hoping - "could she have really survived?"

Well, I hope Peter will take his talents back to a Russian subject again - it has been too long since Tsar!

Bob
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Michelle on November 08, 2004, 11:37:33 AM
Quote
Help
    Are Penny W. and Mr. Kurth still under the impression that Miss Unknown was in fact Anastasia Nicholevna?

Come on now!


Well, Penny I think would know more than pretty much any of us considering she and Greg have researched the subject for years. ;)  
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: LisaDavidson on November 08, 2004, 03:11:42 PM
While I agree that Penny Wilson is knowledgable about the Romanovs, that doesn't mean that hers is the only opinion that matters. In fact, I am certain that Penny, Greg, and Peter, while being perhaps "pro Anna Anderson" would agree that others have different opinions than they do - and that their opinions matter, too.

Bob and I have studied this case for over 30 years each and we both feel that AA was not Anastasia. Others of you may have not studied as long as we have, but you are all still entitled to an opinion, as far as we are concerned. (I think this Board is evidence that we and Rob believe your opinions also matter!).
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 08, 2004, 04:42:23 PM
While I have not been to Russia or had access to any secret files, I too have studied everything I could find on the IF and AA for 30 years. I started in 1974, that's exacty 30.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: LisaDavidson on November 08, 2004, 06:16:44 PM
Glad to hear you've been at it so long! I think informed opinions are always welcome with intelligent discussion, and it is my hope they will always be welcomed here.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 08, 2004, 07:45:46 PM
Quote
Ilya et al.
You misunderstand the mtDNA results. The results were not "conclusive" that AA was FS, but they were 'probable' to a certainty of more likely than not (offhand, and I may be wrong, but the chance of an AA-FS familial match was something like 75% or so). It was NOT CONCLUSIVE TO EXCLUDE AN AA-FS RELATIONSHIP, quite the opposite, so please, do not use the mtDNA test to say she wasn't...


FA, I think I also misunderstood what you meant by the term "inconclusive", because it is usually used in a different way: to mean that it was not a match but not a mismatch either, more of a contamination-type result, so this is what I thought you meant. So if AA's mtDNA indeed matched the nephew's, this would mean that she may be FS, but we cannot say it with 100% certaintly and I guess this is what you probably meant by "inconclusive".

So, if AA's mtDNA did not match Philip's then we can say with 100% certainty that AA was not a QV descendant, hence could not be Anastasia. And we know that there couldn't have been contamination because they used two different samples in two separate labs and got two identical results. But if she did match the nephew - then we can say that she could have been FS. I would have to read the paper, but if you say that the statistics were 300 to 1,  this probably means, taken along with some other evidence, that most likely she was FS.

But also keep in mind that with DNA tests it is a lot easier to prove that she was not Anastasia than that she was FS!

Helen
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: rskkiya on November 08, 2004, 08:50:40 PM
Ok help please ...
As far as I can see-- having read and reread the topics about mDNA --it appears clear to me that Anna A was not Anastasia ---(if she was or was not Fransiska may be another issue)--- My confusion lies with this point -- Why is Penny Wilson still claiming that she could be Anastasia Nicholevna?
Penny's posts sure seem to be saying this -- or perhaps I'm getting dyslesic?

rskkiya
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 09, 2004, 06:53:27 AM
Quote
My confusion lies with this point -- Why is Penny Wilson still claiming that she could be Anastasia Nicholevna?
Penny's posts sure seem to be saying this -- or perhaps I'm getting dyslesic?

rskkiya



rskkiya,

I think, and Penny please correct me if I am wrong if you are reading this, that Penny feels that there is a problem with the AA DNA results, therefore it may still be up for discussion. I have somewhat looked into these DNA results and so far have not seen any obvious problematic issues with them, everything seems consistent, at least with the mtDNA part. Unless there are compelling reasons to believe that both AA samples were substituted - which would come down to a very elaborate conspiracy - and I am reluctant to accept that...  But that's my take on this.  
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 09, 2004, 07:28:22 AM
It's not only the DNA testing (which, as FA has pointed out, is no less accurate or reliable than it was 10 years ago). She is also always giving reasons why she thinks it's very possible "Fraulein Unknown" was Anastasia. She is also totally convinced she was not FS, and has even gone to the point of saying FS was murdered by a mysterious serial killer! Then, suddenly, after all these years and bombings in Europe, complete medical records appear for this poor peasant girl that never surfaced in 40 years of investigation and litigation! These records now refute all previously accepted facts that FS was injured in a factory explosion. I would seriously doubt their authenticity now, I mean, if CBS had faked Bush documents, it can happen! So, let's see, they say she wasn't injured and then she was killed by a serial killer, how handy to get her out of the way, eh? (note: I'm not claiming Penny faked the documents, but someone may have. People have a way of telling people what they want to hear sometimes)

Also, for someone who is supposed to be doing so much research it is most suspicious she would totally ignore such a damning piece of evidence as the letter written to FS's sister by her lawyer, here it is quoted in a post by Stefan earlier in the thread:

At least two of the siblings recognized her,Felix and Gertrud even if they at the end of the day refused to sign a statement that they had. Gertrude said to AA: You are my sister,I know it! I read about a letter sent to Gertrude by the lawyer of Barbara of Mecklenburg who was the formal opposer of AA in the trials. 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?

This proves what I have suspected, that they DID recognize her but denied her in order not to ruin her 'career' and to avoid taking responsibility for her. It seems they suffered for years in fear that they would be caught in their lie and sent to jail, and this guy is alleviating her fears, saying it had been so long she was now safe. But this is hard evidence it was likely AA was indeed FS.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 09, 2004, 07:44:56 AM
Quote
It's not only the DNA testing (which, as FA has pointed out, is no less accurate or reliable than it was 10 years ago). She is also always giving reasons why she thinks it's very possible "Fraulein Unknown" was Anastasia. She is also totally convinced she was not FS, and has even gone to the point of saying FS was murdered by a mysterious serial killer!


Oh yes, I know there are a number various arguments that are presented in this case, but what it really comes down to is that if the DNA tests are correct, then all other arguments are irrelevant, a moot point.

So, if Penny accepted the DNA tests as accurate then logically she would have her answer right there and wouldn't use any additional arguments. So this is why I think that Penny must feel that the DNA tests are not correct, and this is why the other arguments come into play. Penny, would you say this is a fair assessment on my part? I don't want to misrepresent you.

Helen
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Penny_Wilson on November 09, 2004, 08:21:48 AM
I wish you'd all stop talking about me as though I am not here.  That's just shady. 8)

I have not been shy in stating my opinions on this board, but I am not inclined to repeat them again, as it seems that what I write is seldom read completely and understood -- witness Annie's crap post above.  

You, Annie, see what you want to in my opinions, and you lie about them and misrepresent them to the point of having say that you don't REALLY think that I am falsifying historical documents.  That's just insulting and it makes me incredibly angry.  And it makes me think that, contrary to your statement elsewhere yesterday, you don't really understand the meaning of "libel."

You also don't know item one about the tenor of our research.  We certainly aren't "ignoring" ANY piece of information -- how DARE you?  Who DO you think you are to make such assertions? Do you think that Greg and I are newbies at research?  Do you think that we don't know about document provenance and chains of custody? Do you think that we are incapable of assessing "new" information ourselves?  Or do we need to clear our findings through the filter of your comfort zone?

I think, at this point, that as my opinions and continuing research really seems to be rocking your world, that I will bow out of this forum.

And one last thing -- if you have read as much about the Anastasia case as you claim over the last thirty years, then Georg Grossman would not be a "mysterious serial killer" to you.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 09, 2004, 08:24:58 AM
Quote
I wish you'd all stop talking about me as though I am not here.


Penny, I didn't think I was doing that, this is why I wrote the last line in my last post. I wasn't even sure if you were reading this thread, since you didn't reply to rsskya's comment yesterday, but I'm glad to see that you are, this way you can now add your own comments and we don't have to speculate about what you think  :).

Helen
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Forum Admin on November 09, 2004, 08:31:02 AM
Helen A.
Yes, I apologize that I was perhaps "unclear" in my choice of words. What I meant, which you correctly surmised is this:

1. There is no doubt that AAs mtDNA did not match Prince Philip, and therefor, beyond reasonable doubt to a high degree of certainty (99.9+%), ie:conclusively, could not have been Anastasia Nicholaievna.

and, but a separate issue:

2. There is a "probability" of 300 to 1 that AA was FS, however this is not neccessarily beyond some reasonable doubt to a high degree of certainty, and thus "not conclusive", but is "Highly Likely".

Now, as for reliability of the testing, I direct any serious question to Dr Terry Melton, who performed the original testing, and is today a world expert in the field. I will gladly provide the contact information privately to any serious party. Suffice it to say here, there is NO scientifically accepted question about the reliability. It remains accurate and dispositive of the question, to all who are recognized experts.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 09, 2004, 08:42:49 AM
Quote
I wish you'd all stop talking about me as though I am not here.  That's just shady. 8)

I have not been shy in stating my opinions on this board, but I am not inclined to repeat them again, as it seems that what I write is seldom read completely and understood -- witness Annie's crap post above.  

You, Annie, see what you want to in my opinions, and you lie about them and misrepresent them to the point of having say that you don't REALLY think that I am falsifying historical documents.  That's just insulting and it makes me incredibly angry.  And it makes me think that, contrary to your statement elsewhere yesterday, you don't really understand the meaning of "libel."

And one other thing -- if you have read as much about the Anastasia case as you claim over the last thirty years, then Georg Grossman would not be a "mysterious serial killer" to you.


I don't mean to talk as if you aren't here, of course you are, but I don't see any reason to direct it right at you if it's not your post. I don't see my posts being any more 'crap' than a lot of others I have seen. I have never misquoted you or said anything about you that wasn't with an added 'I think' or 'it looks like'- I have never put words in your mouth. And I am not damaging your character, you DO seem to believe AA to be AN and are going to drastic lengths to prove it, are you not? That's not a lie! Or is threatening to sue me one more way to get me to shut up? As long as one opinion is stated, others should be too. Now would you please address the content of the letter of Gertrude S.'s lawyer?
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 09, 2004, 08:50:04 AM
Quote
... has even gone to the point of saying FS was murdered by a mysterious serial killer!

What??  ??? Sorry, it's true I don't read through all the posts on this subject, so I never heard about this one.

In any case, as I see it, none of this really has to do with "the price of tea in China". I think it all still comes down to whether we believe the DNA evidence or not. Once we make that decision, we can either close the case, or move on to other evidence.  
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Forum Admin on November 09, 2004, 08:59:04 AM
OK,
ALL Y'ALL SIMMER DOWN! (have I been in Texas too long? oy...)
First, no more personal accusations, please....keep to the FACTS...
and
PLEASE separate two distinct issues: AA being AN and AA being FS. The exclusion of one has nothing to do with the other. Greg put the poing very well in his posting in another thread....
I won't lock the thread, but will ask those recent posters feeling a bit personally assaulted to chill out until tomorrow on the subject, fair?
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on November 09, 2004, 10:12:01 AM
Some of us read only certain threads and so we might not understand fully what's being said here about DNA or Georg Grossmann  [two "n"].

I doubt many know about Grossmann since he was a German serial killer in Germany during WWI and noted only in certain books about "murderers" which most  people don't have in their library.

Grossmann case was known as the "Bread and Butter Brides".  No one knows how many  women [mostly ladies of the evening] he killed then butchered into chunks of meat and sold on his cart to the starving people in Berlin.

When FS became a "missing person",  it was thought that she had fallen vitcim to Grossmann.

It has been my thought that if FS  had been a victim of Grossmann, and, had suffered wounds before escape,  they would have been similar to those if one had been a victim of a bayonet thrust as the Gr. Duchesses in the Impatieve House.  Also, the horror of having been an intended victim,  may have caused her mental stress..... She might have felt the urge to jump into the canal and end it all....  When she ended up in the asylum,  and someone said she looked like Tataina   then Anastasia..... Hey,  why not, she probably thought or didn't think but just exsisted....  And then she went along for a ride that lasted a life time.....

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: rskkiya on November 09, 2004, 12:50:22 PM
Quote
I wish you'd all stop talking about me as though I am not here.  That's just shady. 8)

I have not been shy in stating my opinions on this board, but I am not inclined to repeat them again, as it seems that what I write is seldom read completely and understood -- witness Annie's crap post above.  
You also don't know item one about the tenor of our research.  We certainly aren't "ignoring" ANY piece of information -- how DARE you?  Who DO you think you are to make such assertions? Do you think that Greg and I are newbies at research?  Do you think that we don't know about document provenance and chains of custody? Do you think that we are incapable of assessing "new" information ourselves?  Or do we need to clear our findings through the filter of your comfort zone?
I think, at this point, that as my opinions and continuing research really seems to be rocking your world, that I will bow out of this forum.
And one last thing -- if you have read as much about the Anastasia case as you claim over the last thirty years, then Georg Grossman would not be a "mysterious serial killer" to you.


Penny
     I (rskkiya) was the person asking about the identity posts --please don't blame Annie because I somehow misread your statements...
    The tone of your most recents comments and responses to those here who are merely curious about information, has rather stunned me... I now must seriously "reevaluate" everything that I have read of yours.

deeply troubled
rskkiya


Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Penny_Wilson on November 09, 2004, 01:31:16 PM
Quote

The tone of your most recents comments and responses to those here who are merely curious about information, has rather stunned me... I now must seriously "reevaluate" everything that I have read of yours.


Why?  Because I finally reached the end of my patience with being misrepresented and accused of things I've never actually said?  Oh well... :-/

ONCE MORE WITH FEELING:  As Greg stated yesterday in a post, our research in this case is focused on Franziska Schanzkowska.  I do NOT believe that Fraulein Unbekannt was Franziska Schanzkowska.  I think that Fraulein Unbekannt was someone else -- and that someone MAY have been GD Anastasia.  I have said before that I do not think that there will ever be conclusive proof one way or the other; but until better answers are found, I consider her still "on the table," and a fit and proper topic for discussion.  

I have the same reservations about the 1994 DNA tests that Greg has expressed in his post.  These reservations, coupled with the non-forensic evidence of the case, leads me to keep my mind open on the Anastasia question. If this means that any of you guys want to put me against the wall with Peter Kurth, then so be it.  I consider him fine and worthy company.   But I can't for the life of me see what the problem is with an open mind -- and I don't see why an open mind in this particular case calls for a "re-evaluation" of everything else I've ever written.  Seems an extreme response to me...
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 09, 2004, 01:44:34 PM
"Open mind" is an overused term, especially on political forums. There is a difference between that and sensibility. All the evidence points to AA NOT being AN. You (Penny, who is here!) say that she was NOT FS and could be AN, well, the facts really do make it look like that's the other way around, she was NOT AN but could be FS and probably is. Until there is any valid reliable source to overturn the mtDNA testing, (as well as all the other questionable AA stuff) I consider the case, and my mind, closed. (I am not saying there is no chance AN escaped, her body is missing, but I do rule out the AA theory.)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 09, 2004, 01:45:27 PM
Quote

Penny
      I (rskkiya) was the person asking about the identity posts --please don't blame Annie


Thanks  :D
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Penny_Wilson on November 09, 2004, 01:59:50 PM
Quote
"Open mind" is an overused term, especially on political forums.


I don't know what this means here, as this is not a political forum.

Quote
There is a difference between that and sensibility.


Ah.  Well.  I'm glad we got the personal insult out of the way quickly.


Quote
All the evidence points to AA NOT being AN. You (Penny, who is here!) say that she was NOT FS and could be AN, well, the facts really do make it look like that's the other way around, she was NOT AN but could be FS and probably is. Until there is any valid reliable source to overturn the mtDNA testing, (as well as all the other questionable AA stuff) I consider the case, and my mind, closed. (I am not saying there is no chance AN escaped, her body is missing, but I do rule out the AA theory.)


But YOU, Annie, are not the final arbiter of what people may or may not choose to explore and research and conclude themselves.  YOU don't get to choose what I am allowed to think.  And one of the things I think is that Fraulein Unbekannt was in no way Franziska Schanzkowska.  The DNA -- that you hold in such high esteem -- does not support this conclusion irrefutably.

And reserving to myself the right of independent thought, I am open to further research on the Anastasia question.  I think it is still a valid avenue of research -- and again, as I have asked before, what difference does it make if I pursue this in my own time and at my own expense?  WHY does it get so far under your skin?  I mean, I am sure that you are a perfectly nice person, Annie, but you have really dragged me around like a piece of filth with your misrepresentations and accusations of various items of perfidy (I remember that I am supposed to be leading astray impressionable minds like Michelle's, and then this morning's foray into the territory of document forgery).  What about this case gets to you like this?  Why do you care if I research this or believe that?  Why does it effect you if Michelle thinks whatever she wants to think?  This isn't life and death stuff, this isn't worth being "deeply disturbed" over (as rsskiya closed her post).  This is simply an avenue of research which might or might not pan out...

I just don't get it, and I find it immensely frustrating that honest discussion is being impeded by all this garbage.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Forum Admin on November 09, 2004, 02:29:02 PM
Annie,
You will simply have to accept the reality, that at least here in OUR forum, well reasoned people have the RIGHT to a difference of opinion. You are quite free to disagree with Penny all you wish about the substance of the discussion, but, you must also at the end of the day, allow her to have her opinion and politely "agree to disagree". Please.

Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 09, 2004, 02:57:16 PM
Sorry, but what makes anyone think I am denying Penny any right to research and post? She can do experiments on squirrel nests for all I care. I'm doing exactly what she says she is doing- expressing a different opinion on the subject. Why should any one person have to shut up and go away and let the other post what they want? I agree she has a right to post it, just as I have a right to post. If I have to respect her opinion, she should respect mine too and I certainly don't see that happening. I see a woman who seems to be trying to discourage me from posting my opinion because it disagrees with hers. I believe we both have a right and no one should stop.

Okay, this is to Penny, as a person- I am not trying to stop you from posting your opinions, but I also feel that as long as you do, I should be free to post mine as well.  It really looks to me like you want me to allow you your opinion by shutting up and not expressing opposing viewpoints. I don't think that's fair. And I do think we have both been too hard on each other.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: LisaDavidson on November 09, 2004, 03:09:38 PM
I believe the question being posed here is:

Penny or Greg, can you please explain why you seem to believe that the mtDNA testing excluding AA as a Victorian descendant is/are (choose your own verb) flawed/inconclusive/invalid. The reason for this question is that many of us believe the mtDNA testing did  exclude her.

I am now ducking underneath a palm tree for cover. I mean no disrespect to anyone or their work. I am a peace loving suburban wife and mother who dabbles in Russian history rather extensively, but don't want to be part of anyone's body count.

Peace out.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 09, 2004, 05:25:45 PM
Quote
Penny or Greg, can you please explain why you seem to believe that the mtDNA testing excluding AA as a Victorian descendant is/are (choose your own verb) flawed/inconclusive/invalid. The reason for this question is that many of us believe the mtDNA testing did  exclude her.



Greg already did post some of his specific concerns about the DNA results recently on another thread, I will paste them at the end. These are the same concerns that Penny has, according to what she just said. From what I understand, they feel that the results were less than accurate due to continuous changes in DNA testing, and that perhaps ten years from now the results we have today will no longer be accepted as valid, so they feel that we must keep an open mind and take other evidence into consideration.  This discussion is causing a lot of discord, much more than it's worth IMHO. I would like to examine these specific concerns about the DNA results and see what I can come up with. Fortunately, as far as DNA goes, there is a way to come up with definitive conclusions, unlike with most of the other evidence we have, this is why it is such a good tool for this.  

I think that I am correct in assuming that we all would like to know the truth about this and not just get the answers that we want to hear to support our own theories? Hopefully we can come up with facts that we can finally all agree on. Personally, it makes no difference to me at all which way the wind blows: whether AA is AN or FS or someone else completely, it's all the same to me, I just would like to figure out the facts.  

I think that the mtDNA already showed us the answer. Some people who are intelligent and certainly have the ability to evaluate evidence  are questioning it, and I would like to examine whether these questions are valid and whether they can be substantiated or not. As I said before, from what I have seen so far about AA's DNA evidence and from what I know about mtDNA in general, it all looks consistent, and there don't seem to be any problems with the results. But I would like to take a second look and hopefully we can put this to rest, or at least agree to disagree like someone said before, in a civil manner. This is just really not worth it!

Here are Greg's concerns:

As I have posted elsewhere here, two-thirds of the DNA case against AA being Anastasia has now been shown to be either unreliable or less than compelling.  One plank remains-the mtDNA exclusion between the putative AA sample and the putative mtDNA Hessian profile.  As long as this remains unchallenged, history's verdict is that AA was not Anastasia, and I accept that verdict.  But I also try to keep an open mind, especially important in this case.  With the STR testing on the putative AA sample shown to be unreliable, and the fact that mtDNA is much less exclusive than believed 10 years ago, I would not be willing to bet my life that another 10-20 years of similar changes and advances in the still evolving science of DNA may not likewise bring serious challenges to this.  Simple logic dictates that if, in 10 years, the science has evolved to the point of discarding one third of the DNA case against AA, and to understanding that another third is less exclusive than was believed, it would probably be unwise to believe that nothing else involved in the process may change.  This latter point is perhaps best expressed by using the original 1994 FSS calculations of probability that AA was FS: 300 to 1 (i.e., the odds of a random match between the putative AA mtDNA profile and the Karl Maucher mtDNA profile was 1 person in 300).  After ten years of evolution in the science, and the increase in databases, however, we know now that that figure would actually be 100 to 4-much wider odds-as mtDNA is known to be far less exclusive than believed 10 years ago.  This is the gist of what Helen posted in another thread about mtDNA's inability to positively identify anyone.
That is not to say, again, that I do not accept the Hessian mtDNA exclusion, nor do I believe in or promote any conspiracy theory.  In this case, I just believe it is best to be cautious; history teaches that answers unravel slowly, and what may be believed to be the truth for decades can later be shown up as false (a perfect example is the belief, for 70 years, that the bodies of the Imperial Family were chopped up and dissolved in acid and that nothing remained to be found.  This was gospel, and yet we now know it to have been an erroneous assumption).  

Greg King
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: LisaDavidson on November 10, 2004, 12:23:47 AM
If I understand these concerns about the mtDNA correctly, it seems they are saying that many more people share the same mtDNA than was previously thought. And if this is so, the danger with identifications is with false positives, and not false negatives. IOW, it could explain AA being identified as FS. However, working in the opposite direction, it would have little impact on the exclusion of AA as a Victorian descendant. If that is so,  I don't understand the concerns because they are arguing against her being ANR.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Greg_King on November 10, 2004, 08:16:10 AM
Quote
If I understand these concerns about the mtDNA correctly, it seems they are saying that many more people share the same mtDNA than was previously thought. And if this is so, the danger with identifications is with false positives, and not false negatives. IOW, it could explain AA being identified as FS. However, working in the opposite direction, it would have little impact on the exclusion of AA as a Victorian descendant. If that is so,  I don't understand the concerns because they are arguing against her being ANR.


Lisa-please see my fuller post on this (from which Helen derived the quote).  My position is simply laid out.  I don't challenge the Hessian mtDNA exclusion of AA as AN; I am, however, aware that 10 years have brought serious changes and challenges to the other two portions of the DNA case against AA and, as I say, I am not at all convinced to the point of absolute certainty that the third plank in the DNA case-the only one that remains today without change or challenge-may not in time also likewise be subjected to changes or modifications/revisions that would make it, too, obsolete or less than compelling.  This is why I don't take a position-because I am aware that changes can occur over time.  Perhaps in my lifetime nothing will change, and in that case, I accept the verdict, but I am extremely cautious in regarding the issue entirely at an end.  But, as I also said elsewhere, I'm far more interested in continuing exploration of FS, which is an area I feel rather confident about.  The work done by Penny and myself as well as others has left me with a very strong conviction, based on hard fact, that AA was almost certainly not FS, and that is a more important area to explore than attempting to argue the AA case, where the few known facts are often ignored in favor of personal opinion, or simply dismissed by those unwilling and unable to accept them.

Greg King
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 10, 2004, 08:40:11 AM
Quote

  The work done by Penny and myself as well as others has left me with a very strong conviction, based on hard fact, that AA was almost certainly not FS,


But the work done by everyone else seems to support that she was. Why are your 'hard facts' any better than anyone else's, and where were they during 40 years of trials?

Quote
and that is a more important area to explore than attempting to argue the AA case, where the few known facts are often ignored in favor of personal opinion, or simply dismissed by those unwilling and unable to accept them.

Greg King


This goes both ways. While you may say some of us do this, it appears sometimes maybe you and Penny do as well, such as ignoring the letter to FS's sister Gertrude from a lawyer which clearly states and admits Gertrude knew AA to be FS and lied about it and had worried about being in trouble for years. Can you discount that in your 'hard facts?' Just a question, don't get mad at me, if you're going to investigate you have to check everything out, right?
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 10, 2004, 09:08:17 AM
Quote
If I understand these concerns about the mtDNA correctly, it seems they are saying that many more people share the same mtDNA than was previously thought. And if this is so, the danger with identifications is with false positives, and not false negatives. IOW, it could explain AA being identified as FS. However, working in the opposite direction, it would have little impact on the exclusion of AA as a Victorian descendant. If that is so,  I don't understand the concerns because they are arguing against her being ANR.


Lisa,

What you are saying about "false positives and not false negatives" is correct, this is what I meant when I said that it is a lot  easier to prove "who someone is not" rather than "who someone is". In other words, even if a particular DNA strand matches at some number of points, it is possible that if you keep checking additional areas, eventually one or more may not match. The more areas you compare and that match exactly, the more certain you can be (this is where these percentages come from) about someone's identity.  But this is also why they cannot say with 99.9% (there is no such thing as 100%) certainty who someone is (unless they do the whole genome accurately which is practically impossible at this time). And with mtDNA, they can never say with 99.9 certainty who someone is because of it's non-exclusivity. But, if even one area of the mtDNA strand is tested and it doesn't match (this is providing you are using appropriate precautionary measures and controls to ensure that your DNA is not contaminated) then you don't even have to go any farther, a mismatch in one area definitely means the DNA doesn't match, no matter how many more areas you compare. But they usually will test a few areas just to make sure. The first mismatch is a mismatch, period. So it's not really a matter of DNA testing not being accurate, it is very accurate(with the appropriate controls of course) it's just a matter of how much of it they compare. So what happened in AA's case, if I remember correctly, is that there were several mismatches of her mtDNA to Prince Philip's mtDNA, and this is why they were able to say with 99.9% ( I think it was that) certainty that she could not have been a QV descendant - therefore could not be AN.  I have to point out, that in science there is no such thing as 100% anything, so 99.9% is the best you are going to ever get, in case if there are doubts about that - that is pretty conclusive. As far as I know, false negatives (false mismatches) do not exist, of course you can have contamination of DNA or enzymes can make mistakes, but there are precautions that the researchers use to make sure this is not the case, and this is why controls are used. I want to doublecheck this just in case about the false negatives, but I am pretty sure about that. So I think what Greg is saying is that he is trying to look into the fact that AA has not been proven to be FS, which is true- she hasn't been as far as DNA goes, even though it has been shown that she could be.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Forum Admin on November 10, 2004, 10:30:35 AM
For Helen A. et al.
Did a bit of reading myself last night, courtesy of a friend of Bob's who is VERY deeply involved in the Ekaterinburg work, Peter Sarandinaki of the SEARCH Foundation, which continues work about finding and identifying the remains of the IF. Peter has recently had minor surgery, and when felling better, has agreed to be our first INTERVIEW! Look for it soon!.

The change in mtDNA in the last ten years (in plain English) is this. When the mtDNA was done, it was assumed to be VERY stable, with mutations occurring perhaps only once in 100 generations, as there were only several hundred "lines" known. There are now over 2000 "lines" of mtDNA known, and the mutation rate is indeed faster than once thought. It seems that mutations now occur once in 20-40 generations, some say even in 10.

What this means for the AA-FS match is this: the common maternal ancestor between AA and Carl Maucher "MAY" have been more distant than originally thought, so the "Likelihood" is less than the one in 300.

The exclusion of AA from the Prince Philip line remains complete and without question.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 10, 2004, 11:02:56 AM
Quote
For Helen A. et al.
Did a bit of reading myself last night, courtesy of a friend of Bob's who is VERY deeply involved in the Ekaterinburg work, Peter Sarandinaki of the SEARCH Foundation, which continues work about finding and identifying the remains of the IF. Peter has recently had minor surgery, and when felling better, has agreed to be our first INTERVIEW! Look for it soon!.


Sounds interesting, thanks!



Quote
What this means for the AA-FS match is this: the common maternal ancestor between AA and Carl Maucher "MAY" have been more distant than originally thought, so the "Likelihood" is less than the one in 300.



But that still means they did have a common maternal ancestor, right? I would still say it's more likely she was FS than some random person who may have been a distant cousin 4 or 5 generations back, and it shows it was very likely that if they were related that FS and Gertrude were indeed whole sisters.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 10, 2004, 11:12:55 AM
Quote
What this means for the AA-FS match is this: the common maternal ancestor between AA and Carl Maucher "MAY" have been more distant than originally thought, so the "Likelihood" is less than the one in 300.

The exclusion of AA from the Prince Philip line remains complete and without question.


Thanks, FA. So this means that basically what I said in my last post is still correct. The uncertainty here is only with AA-FS identification but not with the AA/AN identification. Please let us know when the interview with Peter is posted, I would be interested to read it.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 10, 2004, 11:38:18 AM
Quote


But that still means they did have a common maternal ancestor, right? I would still say it's more likely she was FS than some random person who may have been a distant cousin 4 or 5 generations back, and it shows it was very likely that if they were related that FS and Gertrude were indeed whole sisters.

Annie, basically what this tells us is that it is much more likely that AA was maternally related to FS's nephew than to Prince Philip, but still doesn't prove that she was FS, only that we can't exclude her from being FS. That's all.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Forum Admin on November 10, 2004, 11:44:44 AM
Helen A.
Nope, you're getting confused again.
It PROVES AA was NOT related to Prince Philip. Period.
also
It shows that AA had a common maternal ancestor to Carl Maucher, with a stronger chance that they were more closely related than more distantly related, showing it more likely she was FS, but not without some doubt.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: rskkiya on November 10, 2004, 11:47:27 AM
Thanks FA
That was the impression that I had gotten, nevertheless its nice to see it confirmed.

rskkiya
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 10, 2004, 12:29:18 PM
Quote
Helen A.
Nope, you're getting confused again.
It PROVES AA was NOT related to Prince Philip. Period.
also
It shows that AA had a common maternal ancestor to Carl Maucher, with a stronger chance that they were more closely related than more distantly related, showing it more likely she was FS, but not without some doubt.


I am not confused, I only inadvertently used confusing terms to say it when I said "much more likely than... " , of course that doesn't mean that she still could have been related to Prince Philip.  Sorry about that. I understand very well that AA could not have been related to Prince Philip based on those results. I was trying to say it in a simpler way but instead it came out in a more confusing way. And why do you say I am confused again? When was I confused about this before?
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on November 10, 2004, 01:27:19 PM
Quote
... in part....

It shows that AA had a common maternal ancestor to Carl Maucher, with a stronger chance that they were more closely related than more distantly related, showing it more likely she was FS, but not without some doubt.


Okay,  on the thread about DNA,  I thought it was proven that AA was FS.

Over on this thead, there appears to be a doubt.

All of you are dealing with the same evidence,  the DNA.

So either AA is FS or she isn't?  [99.9% sure]

Either she is connected by DNA to her brother or she isn't.

And,  the doubt is due to what?  The match isn't close enough, if not than why not?

How much doubt is there?  Is it 1 to 10 or 1 to a million?

Quote
...in part....

What this means for the AA-FS match is this: the common maternal ancestor between AA and Carl Maucher "MAY" have been more distant than originally thought, so the "Likelihood" is less than the one in 300.


Less than 1 to 300.  So,  what does that mean?  AA was a cousin?


Please help this old bear  understand.

Thanks.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 10, 2004, 01:41:09 PM
Bear,

If you read my earlier post on this page, I tried to explain why that is the case, although I am really not very good at explaining this without confusing people. Basically, you cannot prove someone's identity with DNA, you can only disprove it. That doesn't mean that you can't reasonably infer who someone may be, you just can't prove it.  In science, you can't really use the term "proof" you can only say things like "it is consistent with" or "it is likely that.." or "it is unlikely that.."  and then back it up with statistics.  This is what confuses most people - the semantics, because when you say it that way it seems like you are not really sure about the results, whereas you pretty much are sure- you just can't say it that way. It is sort of like "you may get hit by lightning sitting in your living room watching tv", but it is very unlikely or "the sun is highly likely to rise in the morning" - but you can't really prove it will. It sounds kind of weird, but this is how it is.
So, in this case, it appears likely that AA was FS based on the DNA evidence, but it has not been proven to be the case. But, it has been demonstrated by DNA evidence that AA could not have been AN.

I hope that helped, I wish I was better at explaining these things. This is why I could never be a teacher!  ;)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on November 10, 2004, 01:52:21 PM
So,  the DNA has proven AA is not related to Anastasia because she's not linked to Prince Philip.

Therefore, the DNA has proven AA is probably FS or her cousin since the chances are 1 to 300.

Am I close is understanding all this?

However, Wilson, does not think AA is FS because certain evidence [when not using the DNA] is making it unlikely that AA was FS.

Am I understanding Wilson's point of view?

Whereas,  Annie and others consider the DNA as enough evidence to to prove she does belong to the FS family.

So,  where do we go from here?

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Denise on November 10, 2004, 01:53:23 PM
The way I understand the doubt in the FS case is that the number of pairs that matched between the AA mtDNA and the FS nephew was shown to be a small number.  Researchers are finding that there is a certain number of people who will match pairs and be distantly related through the maternal line.  The more pairs that match, the greater the likelihood of closer degree of relatedness.  

I hope that makes sense.  I understand the reasoning, but have a hard time explaining it.  Bottom line is that although AA may be related to FS family, it may not be as close a relationship as previously thought.

Denise
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on November 10, 2004, 01:56:43 PM
So,  how far can this "range" reach?

Cousins?  First?  Second?  Fourth?

A common ancestor?  How many generations back?

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 10, 2004, 02:07:16 PM
Quote
So,  the DNA has proven AA is not related to Anastasia because she's not linked to Prince Philip.

Therefore, the DNA has proven AA is probably FS or her cousin since the chances are 1 to 300.

Am I close is understanding all this?

However, Wilson, does not think AA is FS because certain evidence [when not using the DNA] is making it unlikely that AA was FS.

Am I understanding Wilson's point of view?

Whereas,  Annie and others consider the DNA as enough evidence to to prove she does belong to the FS family.

So,  where do we go from here?

AGRBear


I am not exactly sure if you can say it has been "proven" that AA was not AN, I am still kind of uncomfortable using that term, but for all intents and purposes yes, DNA evidence has shown that AA cannot be AN.

But the FS part has nothing to do with this. The FS part has to do with the fact that DNA evidence showed that AA could be FS, she was not excluded from being FS, but it cannot be proven that she is FS. This is a completely separate issue. It is probable that she was FS based on the DNA evidence, but it is not certain. So based on this, they want to look at other evidence. If other evidence can show that is very unlikely that she was FS, than we can be more sure that she wasn't. If other evidence is not that strong, then she probably was.  

I can't really think of a good example for this, for some reason the only one that pops into my mind is this: Jimmy Hoffa has dissapeared and it is "possible" that he was abducted by aliens but it is "unlikely". How possible is it? Not very, but it is still possible. Not a good example, but maybe kind of makes its point.


Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 10, 2004, 02:31:15 PM
Quote
So,  how far can this "range" reach?

Cousins?  First?  Second?  Fourth?

A common ancestor?  How many generations back?

AGRBear


I believe the relationship can be as close as siblings or as distant as, say, fifth or sixth cousins or farther. It just depends on the rate of mutation, it has to be calculated, but certainly not by me! I believe that AA's mtDNA matched SF's nephew exactly, didn't it? That would mean that she could have been his sister, his aunt, his mother or she could have been a third cousin, or she could have been even farther removed on the maternal line to a point where they wouldn't be considered to be related, but yet share the mtDNA. You can't really tell without some heavy math calculations, you can only tell that the mtDNA matched. If it didn't match then we could say that she couldn't have been FS, but since that wasn't the case and it did match, then she could be FS.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Forum Admin on November 10, 2004, 02:50:41 PM
First, Helen A. I didn't mean YOU specifically were getting confused, per se, just things were getting confused again...my apologies as YOU are the most clear on the subject of all...So I myself am equally culpable, and also for saying "one in 300" which is incorrect as well. (was in a hurry to get out the door, hard to believe, but yes, I dont' spend 24/7 in the Forum...

AGR. mtDNA is not as specific a science as nuclear DNA. It can say for sure that someone is not related to someone else. It can also say someone IS or MAY be related, but can't prove who they are specifically.

In the case of AA and FS, the original probablilty of a close maternal relationship was 300 to 1 in favor based on the exact mtDNA match of AA and Carl Maucher. Given the mutation rate may be faster than thought, the current probablilty in favor of AA being FS is now 25 to 1 in favor instead of the original 300 to 1 because the mutations occur in every 10 generations or so.

Penny and Greg believe that 25 to 1 in favor, when taken along with other evidence, is low enough probablilty to think AA was NOT FS. (If I'm wrong Greg or Penny, my apologies, but this is what I think you are saying).

Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 10, 2004, 07:44:43 PM
Quote

Penny and Greg believe that 25 to 1 in favor, when taken along with other evidence, is low enough probablilty to think AA was NOT FS. (If I'm wrong Greg or Penny, my apologies, but this is what I think you are saying).



I have seen Penny posted definite statements that she was NOT FS and they both seem to believe she was more likely Anastasia than FS. I'm sure they'll correct me if I'm wrong.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 10, 2004, 08:35:43 PM
Quote
... current probablilty in favor of AA being FS is now 25 to 1 in favor instead of the original 300 to 1 because the mutations occur in every 10 generations or so.



I suppose I can see why someone would want to look at additional evidence if the probability is only 25 to 1, but it still means chances are 25 times higher that she is than she is not. But on the other hand, if there actually is compelling additional evidence, then perhaps she isn't FS. This would take a whole huge investigation to try to figure out which evidence is accurate and which is not, and I guess this is what Penny and Greg are doing.  
But saying that she may not have been FS and saying that she was Anastasia are two separate and mutually exclusive things. While I could conceivably accept the former - with good evidence to support it, I don't think I can accept the latter based on what I know about mtDNA....
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Louise on November 10, 2004, 09:08:38 PM
Rskkyia, that comment regarding Penny was unwarranted and uncalled for.

Actually I find it quite rude. Penny has been more than patient in her dealing on the board and most importantly on this particular thread.

Louise
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 10, 2004, 09:15:49 PM
Come on you guys, do we have to rehash that whole thing again? It's really unpleasant for everyone involved to keep talking about it, lets just  hopefully continue this discussion in a civil manner...
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 10, 2004, 09:18:21 PM
Quote
Rskkyia, that comment regarding Penny was unwarranted and uncalled for.

Actually I find it quite rude. Penny has been more than patient in her dealing on the board and most importantly on this particular thread.

Louise


No, it wasn't. She's exactly right. She has not shown much courtesy or respect for opposing opinions, even childishly calling one of my posts 'crap.' Just because she is a published author doesn't make her any better than the rest of us as people.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Louise on November 10, 2004, 09:25:43 PM
I have been patiently sitting on the sidelines biting my tongue not wanting to interfer with many posts that have been rude and surly and therefore would lower my usual standard of patience and manners. However, there comes a time when I have to speak and that time is now.

The comments recently made regarding Penny and her contribution to this thread is uncalled for and unwarranted.

It is my belief that she has shown poise and  grace under fire, and has in my opinion attempted to answer each and ever question asked of her. Some of those questions asked a gazillion times. She has shown more restraint than I would have given you, had you been as insulting to me as you have of her.

I care not a wit about DNA, or whether AA is FS or AA. I don't know enough about DNA (or care to) to post any of my thoughts, and I don't really care if AA was FS or AN. That is not my point.

Now I don't know what compels the rudeness on the board, but I truly wish it would cease the bitter and insulting tone to those who you disagree with.

This is a public board, and one that is viewed by not only children and teenagers, but by people who enjoy history and the Romanovs. If I was a young person learning about history, some of the snarly posts would scare me off.

Louise
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 10, 2004, 09:32:46 PM
Of course, we all see things our own way. I have talked to others who would not agree with you. The main thing is, we all should respect each other, even if we don't like what someone is saying, we are all real people with feelings behind these monitors.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Louise on November 10, 2004, 09:37:13 PM
And that is my point. Disagree all you want. Communicate your ideas and your opinions, but for the love of sanity, be polite and reasonably mannered.

I work with children with developmental disabilties that show more maturity than that has been shown here lately.

Louise
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 10, 2004, 10:06:27 PM
Something weird is going on again I can't get to the last page with all the latest postings unless I make a posting myself. FA, can you fix this problem, it keeps happening every time a new page is added....
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Michelle on November 11, 2004, 01:24:52 AM
Louise--

Finally a voice of reason! :)  Bravo!

In the words of the so eloquent rskkiya, back to topic! ;D(this isn't a personal attack, r).
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: BaronessSophie on November 11, 2004, 08:10:15 AM
I have a question concerning this topic. Why would anybody want or need to prove that Anna was not Francisca unless they are trying to prove that she was Anastasia? We already know that she wasn't Anastasia, but does it matter if she was Fransisca or not? I can't understand why somebody would go to so much trouble to prove she wasn't Franscisca unless they think she is Anastasia?
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: rskkiya on November 11, 2004, 08:56:11 AM
    Actually - I don't know who Anna A. was- my first thought has been that she was Fransiska S.-  some people here doubt that likelyhood... (I don't like conspiricy theories, so I have strong doubts about the whole "Soviet Spy/Stooge/ FS replacemant for victim of a serial killer" scenario!)
   I'm simply curious and rather surprised at the general amount of venom this topic has engendered. I am completely convinced beyond any shadow of a doubt that she was NOT Ananstasia Nicholevna.

rskkiya
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 11, 2004, 10:03:03 AM
Quote
I have a question concerning this topic. Why would anybody want or need to prove that Anna was not Francisca unless they are trying to prove that she was Anastasia? We already know that she wasn't Anastasia, but does it matter if she was Fransisca or not? I can't understand why somebody would go to so much trouble to prove she wasn't Franscisca unless they think she is Anastasia?


What I can think of as an answer to your question is this: obviously this woman, whoever she was, (and I am convinced she was not Anastasia too) is kind of interesting in her own right. I mean, look at the loyal supporters she gathered around herself for decades! There were so many Anastasia claimants at that time, all over the world, and yet she is the one who remains the most prominent one, to a point where, even after the DNA tests were performed and showed she could not have been, some people are still convinced that she was. And of course there are still some questions as to how she knew a lot of the information, and some other things that came together to support her claim or at least couldn't disprove it. So all this may be interesting to explore and may deserve some attention, at least. I am sure there are answers to all these questions, but whether we will ever know them or not, I don't know. Not everyone of course will be interested to find out who she was or anything else about her (if she wasn't FS that is), but some people may be... If nothing else, it' may be interesting to read about.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 11, 2004, 10:14:23 AM
Quote
   Actually - I don't know who Anna A. was- my first thought has been that she was Fransiska S.-  some people here doubt that likelyhood... (I don't like conspiricy theories, so I have strong doubts about the whole "Soviet Spy/Stooge/ FS replacemant for victim of a serial killer" scenario!)
    I'm simply curious and rather surprised at the general amount of venom this topic has engendered. I am completely convinced beyond any shadow of a doubt that she was NOT Ananstasia Nicholevna.

rskkiya


Yes, passions certainly rise when it comes to this particular topic, and I still haven't been able to figure out the reason for that. I mean, people seem to take this issue more to heart than what kind of a president we end up with, which logically should be more of a concern to everyone  ;)
If I were a psychologist (and I am not) I would be considering doing a study which observes the participants of these AA discussions  ;D  Just kidding....
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on November 11, 2004, 10:32:24 AM
Who was the first person who brought out evidence which indicated  Anna Anderson was Franziska Schanzkowska and not GD Anatasia?

And what year was this evidence / accusation given?

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Forum Admin on November 11, 2004, 10:39:42 AM
WHY must I have to step in about these personal attacks? PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE confine them to email or private messages, interpersonal problems dont HAVE to be posted in the public areas do they??

Annie, just a thought for you about Penny. YOU are one person, having a "direct one on one" discussion, in a sense, with her. HOWEVER, Penny has had this same discussion somewhere between 1,000 and 1 trillion times BEFORE with other people who said the exact same things you do...SHE is a person as well, who has a full time job and family, AND does her research and writing AND finds time to participate here...Maybe, just maybe, she could be a bit frustrated at finding that what precious time she has to be in the Forum is spent "re-hashing" the same issues over and over again?

Now, mind, I'm not defending Penny's tone nor choice of words used, but I am trying to UNDERSTAND her feelings, and just hope you might do the same, as much as I hope and honestly believe Penny tries to do for you.

Now, I think the question of "Since Anna Anderson IS NOT Anastasia Nicholaievna, WHO was she? and IF she isn't FS, then WHO WAS FS?" is a historically valid point of interest to many, including Greg and Penny. Heck, we are over 30,000 postings now (ps WAY TO GO YOU GUYS! ;D) if you AREN'T interested in this question, there MUST be other threads you will prefer...

Please, stick to topic in the public areas only. I don't want to lock this thread since SOME are trying to keep on point despite the distraction...

Y'all don't have to like each other, so how about considering US and our work instead before firing off a post?
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 11, 2004, 11:21:44 AM
No, FA, I don't think it's because she's fed up the whole thing is being rehashed, because every time I have fought with her it's been over another new piece of questionable evidence. Don't mind me, I won't be posting anymore. Maybe once I write a book my opinion and feelings will matter.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AnastasiaFan on November 11, 2004, 11:45:54 AM
Quote
No, FA, I don't think it's because she's fed up the whole thing is being rehashed, because every time I have fought with her it's been over another new piece of questionable evidence. Don't mind me, I won't be posting anymore. Maybe once I write a book my opinion and feelings will matter.


Look, I don't really care to get involved. I haven't really been to this thread lately because I don't spend as much time on the Anastasia section, mainly because I believe in science and I don't think she was the Grand Duchess, so I don't care to really "visit" here that often. However, coming here this morning, I am aware some kind of fight has erupted. Post are removed, people are upset, and on and on. It doesn't involve me so all I'm going to say is this: Annie whatever is going on, I don't think you should stop posting. If you wish to stop this particular "fight" or whatever, that's fine. However, I know a lot of people enjoy your post on the other sections of this site and I don't think you should leave it completely. That's all I have to say.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Val289 on November 11, 2004, 11:58:05 AM
Quote

 Annie whatever is going on, I don't think you should stop posting. If you wish to stop this particular "fight" or whatever, that's fine. However, I know a lot of people enjoy your post on the other sections of this site and I don't think you should leave it completely. That's all I have to say.



Well said AnastasiaFan, I agree.  I know that I enjoy reading Annie's posts too :)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: ISteinke on November 11, 2004, 02:34:37 PM
Annie-
  KEEP POSTING! We all like you. It isn't like the world is going to end because you have a different viewpoint on Anastasia. I mean, she's dead, and the whole discussion is ultimately pointless, except as a fun diversion. So stay on the forum and just enjoy it.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AnastasiaFan on November 11, 2004, 02:46:13 PM
Quote
Annie-
   KEEP POSTING! We all like you. It isn't like the world is going to end because you have a different viewpoint on Anastasia. I mean, she's dead, and the whole discussion is ultimately pointless, except as a fun diversion. So stay on the forum and just enjoy it.


I talked to Annie outside of the forum, and I think I convinced her to come back! :)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on November 11, 2004, 03:47:21 PM
THE QUEST FOR ANASTASIA by John Klier and Helen Mingay p. 105 talks about the "opponets of Anna's" and that the first allegation she was Franziska Schanzkowska was made by a private detective Martin Knopf, who had been hired by the Duke of Hesse.

Best I can figure out,  this was about 1926.

The book states this occured while she was staying in Duke George of Leuchtenberg's Castle Seeon in Upper Bavaria...

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on November 11, 2004, 03:56:48 PM
The book goes on to say on p. 106 that Felix Schanzkowska's, the brother of FS, was sent to identify AA while she was at Leuchtenberg's castle.  If he reconized her or not,  is unknown as far as I'm concern, however, he did sign a document which voiced:  "There does exsist a strong ressemblance between her and my sister....Frau Tschaikovsky's speech as well as her general manner of expression is totally different from that of my sister Franziska."

According to this book,  Felix said she had no deformites of the feet, had no scars or birthmarks, had a full set of teeth and spoke 'little Polish and good German".

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on November 11, 2004, 04:24:59 PM

pps 223-5
Franziska Schanzkowska b. 16 Dec 1896 Bororwihlas/ Kashubia [old Polish Province], Prussua
Felix Schanzkowski - brother
----
Same father diferent mother....  [first wife of father's]
Gertrude Schanzkowska - sister
Maria Schanzkowska - sister
Valerian Schanzkowski - brother
-----
Walraut Schanzkowski - niece
Margarete Ellerik - niece, daughter of Gertrude's
----
Carl Maucher - grandson of one of the half sisters of FS



-----
If the DNA goes through the maternal line, how can the blood of Carl Maucher be used when he is not of the same maternal line as FS and her brother Felix?

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: rskkiya on November 11, 2004, 04:32:08 PM
Agrbear
Yes, that book is the source that I am familiar with about AA/FS and I have also read that he supposedly said later he didn't want to stop his sister from persuing her new life...nice and ambiguous  ehh! ;)

Annie do come back! We need real live toads in our imaginary gardens! (Not saying you're "a toad" dear Annie! Thats just an old saying of my grandmother's about not getting too wrapped up in illusion!)

rskkiya
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on November 11, 2004, 04:41:05 PM
Quote
Agrbear
Yes, that book is the source that I am familiar with about AA/FS and I have also read that he supposedly said later he didn't want to stop his sister from persuing her new life...

rskkiya


Someone said someone said he said this....  Hearsay??? from the old grapevine.....................
AGRBear

 
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: rskkiya on November 11, 2004, 05:10:03 PM
agrbear!

Yes!
It is heresay ...but so much of all of this discussion seems to be about heresay/half remembered stories/ tales and anecdotes...
What were her feet like ?
Who remembered this event?
Who just guessed correctly?

rskkiya 8)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on November 11, 2004, 05:56:36 PM
p. 224 QUEST FOR ANASTASIA:

"The last the Schanzkowskis heard of their sister was a birthday card she sent to her brother Felix in Februrary 1920.

17 Feb 1920 AA was pulled out of the Berlin canal.

The family talks about FS having a boyfriend but nothing about her having a child.

Schanzkowski family  reported her missing mid-March....  according to Wilson's account

Berlin police stated FS had been murdered on 13 Aug 1920 p. 244 Encyclopedia of Murder , Wilson and Pitman.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: rskkiya on November 11, 2004, 08:54:24 PM
Quote
p. 224 QUEST FOR ANASTASIA:

Berlin police stated FS had been murdered on 13 Aug 1920 p. 244 Encyclopedia of Murder , Wilson and Pitman.

AGRBear



HMMMM! I will want to look at this information!
thanks  agrbear!

rskkiya
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 11, 2004, 09:53:42 PM
Quote
Berlin police stated FS had been murdered on 13 Aug 1920 p. 244 Encyclopedia of Murder , Wilson and Pitman.

AGRBear


Yes, that is very interesting! Did the police have her body? Or else how did they decide she was murdered?

Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on November 11, 2004, 10:51:52 PM
Grossmann kept a diary and wrote a name in it that was similar to FS's name but not spelled accurately.

Grossmann didn't keep his bodies,  he sold the meat from a cart to Berliners who were starving....

The only body they found was his last which was a year later, Aug. 1921 when he was arrested in his apartment near the railway station.

Grossmann never went to trial, he hung himself in his cell.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Olga on November 12, 2004, 06:56:39 AM
What about the bones?
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 12, 2004, 07:17:11 AM
Thanks to those of you who offered kind words and support  both here and in private. Those who don't like me, well, sorry, you're not rid of me just yet.

Quote
Grossmann kept a diary and wrote a name in it that was similar to FS's name but not spelled accurately.


That has got to be the biggest stretch of this whole story. That's really not much to go on, it means nothing, it's not the right name and to think, hey, he must have meant this but spelled it wrong, oh come on.


Quote
Grossmann didn't keep his bodies,  he sold the meat from a cart to Berliners who were starving....



AGRBear


Gross. :(

Since there is no body, there is no proof. If they wrote her off as murdered it must have been an assumption since she was missing and their had been a murderer, but it remains only a theory. I also want to know where this info was during all the AA trials and investigations. There is zero evidence, only assumption.



Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: rskkiya on November 12, 2004, 08:37:14 AM
Quote
LOL (Monty Python) If we took the bones out it wouldn't be crunchy then would it! LOL ;D

Good point  -- without a body and with only with a misspelled name -- we don't have all that much evidence... Hmmm...

Agrb mentioned that he hung himself --- no trial.
Did this man confess anything?
Did he stalk his victims and learn all about them?
He seems to have been quite mad -- is his word reliable?

Very intriguing stuff.
rskkiya

Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: rskkiya on November 12, 2004, 08:43:58 AM
Help I having difficulty with my system...
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Forum Admin on November 12, 2004, 09:07:12 AM
 The problem is not your system, it seems to be a software glitch on our end that only affects this thread. Been working on this all morning, as I finally could see the problem, but nothing fixes it. Sorry gang...just going to have to "work with it" in this thread...I"ll keep trying, but am out of ideas.
FA
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Forum Admin on November 12, 2004, 09:08:27 AM
Hi,
The original thread was getting weird on us, so I had to lock it and start a new one to continue.
Carry on!
FA
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: rskkiya on November 12, 2004, 09:16:03 AM
OK... :-/

HMMMM.

      Well -I was trying to reply to suggestions that there had been a gentleman who was responsible for the death of FS (?)?  Mr. Godlmann? Grossman? A serial killer and part time Sweeny Todd with a promissing  career in meat pies ... but we still seem at a log jam about any evidence -- re did he really kill her (FS) or was she simply missing at this time ...We have no confession...So that may be a problem.

always making trouble
rskkiya
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 12, 2004, 09:26:39 AM
I agree, it isn't much to go on, no body, no evidence, only a name that isn't even right.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 12, 2004, 10:32:35 AM
I still would like to know why the police would declare someone murdered if there was no body? They don't even do that these days, when they actually can get forensic evidence, let alone in the 1920's.

Helen
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Forum Admin on November 12, 2004, 10:35:12 AM
Jimmy Hoffa wasn't murdered???
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 12, 2004, 10:38:26 AM
Did the police definitely decide he was? I don't know too much about him. But all we can say about Jimmy with certainty is that he dissapeared without a trace... Or perhaps he was abducted by aliens?  ;)

H
Quote
Jimmy Hoffa wasn't murdered???

Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Alexa on November 12, 2004, 11:10:05 AM
Quote
I still would like to know why the police would declare someone murdered if there was no body? They don't even do that these days, when they actually can get forensic evidence, let alone in the 1920's.

Helen


Actually, the police declare people dead/murdered even if the body hasn't been found.  Take a look at Kenneth and Sante Kimes.  They murdered a wealthy old woman in NYC.  Her body has yet to be found, and both Kimes's were convicted of her murder.  It was only after the conviction that Kenneth confessed to the murder and said the body was dumped in Jersey.  In a court of law, you don't need a body to prove guilt/convict, although it helps so much that prosecutors hardly take such a case to court.

Alexa
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 12, 2004, 11:21:25 AM
Quote

Actually, the police declare people dead/murdered even if the body hasn't been found.  Take a look at Kenneth and Sante Kimes.  They murdered a wealthy old woman in NYC.  Her body has yet to be found, and both Kimes's were convicted of her murder.  It was only after the conviction that Kenneth confessed to the murder and said the body was dumped in Jersey.  In a court of law, you don't need a body to prove guilt/convict, although it helps so much that prosecutors hardly take such a case to court.

Alexa


But I wonder then how they decided that she was murdered by this particular serial killer? Was it just because she fit the profile of his victims, or was there another reason? Was it because something that sounded like her name was noted, and the fact that she dissapeared while these murders were going on so they decided that she must have been murdered by him? There has to be at least some direct evidence that she was murdered by him... isn't there? Otherwise everyone who dissapears for whatever reason has to be assumed to be murdered?
P.S. Why is it that bodies are always dumped in Jersey?  ;)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on November 12, 2004, 11:44:27 AM
I assume, we'll have to hear  from King or Wilson more about the Berlin police reports from which they are finding evidence.  I assume there was a trial so this isn't just something that has suddenly appeared.  It's been known about since 1920s.

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

p. 243-4

"GROSSMANN, Georg Karl

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

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

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

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

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 12, 2004, 11:53:54 AM
Quote
Did the police definitely decide he was? I don't know too much about him. But all we can say about Jimmy with certainty is that he dissapeared without a trace... Or perhaps he was abducted by aliens?  ;)

H


I heard he was ground in a meat grinder and poured into the concrete that became an end zone at Giants Stadium.

There are almost as many theories and myths on him as there are on Anastasia.

I'm surprised no one has claimed to be him.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Alexa on November 12, 2004, 12:50:10 PM
Quote

But I wonder then how they decided that she was murdered by this particular serial killer? Was it just because she fit the profile of his victims, or was there another reason? Was it because something that sounded like her name was noted, and the fact that she dissapeared while these murders were going on so they decided that she must have been murdered by him? There has to be at least some direct evidence that she was murdered by him... isn't there? Otherwise everyone who dissapears for whatever reason has to be assumed to be murdered?


I'm very curious about this as well.  I'd love to see the police report -- could be interesting stuff.  I also wonder how the police investigation would match up to today, i.e. if the findings would still be valid, or if some modern day sleuth did some digging around they would come up with new and/or important information not known back in 1920.

Quote
P.S. Why is it that bodies are always dumped in Jersey?  ;)


As a New York snob, I could give you my theory, but I'd probably offend the Jersyites on the board. ;)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on November 12, 2004, 12:51:54 PM
Just the fact that Grossmann made a living selling human parts in Berlin shows what terrible occurances were happening at the time AA jumped into the canal.

I pulled this over from the old thread because I thought it important to know who had connected the dotes between AA and FA at that time:

THE QUEST FOR ANASTASIA by John Klier and Helen Mingay p. 105 talks about the "opponets of Anna's" and that the first allegation she was Franziska Schanzkowska was made by a private detective Martin Knopf, who had been hired by the Duke of Hesse.
 
Best I can figure out,  this was about 1926.
 
The book states this occured while she was staying in Duke George of Leuchtenberg's Castle Seeon in Upper Bavaria...
 
AGRBear

PS  The Berlin police were very good at this time and would continue to be until the Nazi Party took contol.  From what I understand,  they were one of the first to use fingerprints as evidence.  I've a great book about this time period in a box somewhere.  
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 12, 2004, 09:44:24 PM
Quote
 From what I understand,  they were one of the first to use fingerprints as evidence.   


Speaking of fingerprints, I am wondering if they ever tried getting AA's prints during the court case and trying to compare them to FS's? I know they may not necessarily have had FS's fingerprints on file, in fact they probably didn't, but was there a way to get them somehow from an item her family may have had, or from a place where they most certainly would have still been found? It's kind of a long shot, but theoretically this could have been possible. Although maybe by the time this case came to court, a number of years had passed and most likely FS's fingeprints would not have survived.... Just a thought,...
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 13, 2004, 05:05:34 PM
Somebody would just claim the results were tampered with, or the old fingerprints had altered with time, etc.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: rskkiya on November 13, 2004, 06:02:44 PM
Annie  

While I believe that it is possible to have ones fingerprints removed...I don''t think that they alter with age...Or do they?

We don't have a lot of medical evidence from Tzarist  era Russia - the Imperial dental records all disapeared and with the number of Royal doctors wandering about one would have guessed that some medical records would have survived...any clues?

rskkiya
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 13, 2004, 06:05:07 PM
Quote
Annie  

While I believe that it is possible to have ones fingerprints removed...I don''t think that they alter with age...Or do they?


I don't think so, I'm just saying, somebody would surely pull that one to explain why she couldn't be FS or something, you know how it is.

Quote
We don't have a lot of medical evidence from Tzarist  era Russia - the Imperial dental records all disapeared and with the number of Royal doctors wandering about one would have guessed that some medical records would have survived...any clues?

rskkiya


Sure don't, and I'm not sure I'd trust anything that suddenly surfaced now after all these years.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 13, 2004, 09:04:06 PM
Quote

I heard he was ground in a meat grinder and poured into the concrete that became an end zone at Giants Stadium.



Meat grinder- how disgusting! And of course he ended up on NJ too  ::)  ;)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 13, 2004, 09:12:09 PM
Quote
Somebody would just claim the results were tampered with, or the old fingerprints had altered with time, etc.


You're probably right: DNA is much more accurate and powerful evidence than fingerprints and people still don't believe it, so surely the fingerprints would be questioned. But maybe if both the DNA and the fingerprints ended up matching, then would this be a more convincing evidence? I mean what else would it take?  ???
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 14, 2004, 09:22:21 AM
Quote

Meat grinder- how disgusting! And of course he ended up on NJ too  ::)  ;)



LOL! Always Jersey!

There is a small rural county near me that for years was furious because people who murdered someone in the nearby big metropolitan area always dumped the bodies in the canals in their county, and that the high profile murder trials were a burden to their small time country budget. People should be dumped in the same jurisdiction they were murdeded in to be fair to the system they said. It would be better of course if no one was murdered at all;)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 14, 2004, 09:25:44 AM
Quote

You're probably right: DNA is much more accurate and powerful evidence than fingerprints and people still don't believe it, so surely the fingerprints would be questioned. But maybe if both the DNA and the fingerprints ended up matching, then would this be a more convincing evidence? I mean what else would it take?  ???


Sadly I don't think anything will ever be enough  ::) You could have both and some would still swear they were rigged, though who would do that and why at this point is far beyond me. I bet even if the missing bodies were found, identified and buried there would still be people yelling foul. It will never end. It's really sad that Anastasia and AA can't rest in peace:(
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Robert_Hall on November 14, 2004, 09:41:42 AM
I agree wholeheartedly, Annie.  To me, the question really should be "what drives some people to continue to beat a long dead horse"?
Best,
Robert
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Sunny on November 14, 2004, 09:52:17 AM
Annie, you are so right: " I bet even if the missing bodies were found, identified and buried there would still be people yelling foul."

Sunny
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 14, 2004, 11:04:21 AM
Well, I guess that this means that as far as some people are concerned, logic and common sense and scientific evidence can never prevail, and all things can be seen in terms of conspiracies. If operating under such mentality, we may still believe to this day that the earth is flat and all scientific evidence shown against that is just a conspiracy.  I am pretty sure that there are people out there who believe this. So if this is the case, then using science to prove or disprove anything is useless as far as some people are concerned, because no matter what, there can always be theories put forth that will put a certain amount of doubt on even the most airtight scientific evidence.
Isn't this sort of the case with evolution vs creation theory? When you are looking at things from a certain angle, there is absolutely nothing that can be shown to you as proof against what you believe in.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: BobAtchison on November 14, 2004, 11:25:47 AM
I would like to ask us all to 'speak' to one another in the forum with greater respect.  The reason I am mentioning this is because I think this debate is causing friction between us that is unwarranted and destructive.  We are friends and 'colleagues' in our interest in Russian history, palaces and the Romanovs.  Sometimes we need to hold back in our debates out of respect for one another.  Please don't forget about the 95% we agree on when a forum thread gets focused on a contentious topic.

Can we take a time-out here and give all the participants in this debate a 'virtual hug" - we aren't enemies now are we!  I know that must sound sappy, but think about how much we share and how we are all friends here.

Bob
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Forum Admin on November 14, 2004, 11:42:27 AM
Bob wrote that, because several long time regular posters, who are also very long time and respected friends of Bob,  wrote us this morning, to tell us that they are leaving the forum due to the ongoing personal attacks, sniping, and rudeness which does not stop.

I can not tell you how sick in my heart it made me to read that email first thing this morning as it my personal goal that EVERYONE who wants to participate here should feel free to do so...This is now MY failure to provide them that opportunity.

I am personally beyond disappointed that civilised behavior seems to be beyond reach for some of our users.

FA
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 14, 2004, 11:54:38 AM
I really don't feel any of us in this thread have attacked anyone personally, we simply expressed our own opinions about the general philosophy, regardless of who believes it. A few days ago I was also close to leaving the forum because I felt personally attacked. It goes both ways. I don't see how one side can think that they have a right to say what they want and get mad if anyone disagrees. Are we just supposed to sit here and let them have their way like spoiled children?
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Louise on November 14, 2004, 08:14:13 PM
FA and Bob. That is disgustingly sad that people have been made to feel that way. There are some fine people on this board and I appreciate the time and effort they put here. The scholars and historians are very much appreicated by many of us, and it pains me that they are not impressed by some of the comments and snide remarks. I don't feel like that they are acting like spoiled children. I think they have said enough is enough of the rudeness and I can't blame them.

I hope you can use your good sense and talk them into coming back. I would hate to lose their input and knowledge. The board would be the loser in the long run.  There is so much more to learn and understand about the Romanovs and I truly enjoy my time here and the education I have recieved.

Please don't think of it as a failure on your part. You have been more than kind and lenient, and have allowed more than enough leeway. Too bad you can't enact a Strike Three Law. Three warnings and your out. We do that on a board I am associated with and it works like a charm.

Anyway, FA and Bob, please talk to the people that are upset and let them know that I for one appreciate their contributions.

Louise

Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 14, 2004, 08:49:33 PM
I am truly sorry to hear that this situation has deteriorated to a point where some members decided to leave the forum. I hope that nothing I have said has contributed to this, as I only expressed my opinions and shared my knowledge and never meant to personally attack anyone. I noticed in the past that once in a while people do go too far and I have myself occasionally felt uncomfortable about where things were heading, but usually things had somehow worked themselves out.  

Bob and Rob, do you mean that something was said on this particular thread in the last two days, since the "AA and FS Part II" was posted? Or are you talking about the original AA/FS thread? Bob, you made your posting about this right after mine, so I am wondering if you are referring to something I said? I just re-read this thread from the beginning (Nov 12th) and I don't see anything offensive here, but perhaps I am just being insensitive. Please let me know so that at least I know what to be careful with in the future.

I really hope that they reconsider about leaving and we can all try to be more careful about what we say in the future.
Helen
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 15, 2004, 05:59:51 AM
Quote
Bob and Rob, do you mean that something was said on this particular thread in the last two days, since the "AA and FS Part II" was posted? Or are you talking about the original AA/FS thread? Bob, you made your posting about this right after mine, so I am wondering if you are referring to something I said? I just re-read this thread from the beginning (Nov 12th) and I don't see anything offensive here, but perhaps I am just being insensitive. Please let me know so that at least I know what to be careful with in the future.


 Helen


This is what I want to know. I agree Helen, we have been very careful with this new thread. While not backing off on our basic opinions, we are not personally insulting anyone. I have reread this thread over and over and I can't see that. If it was things that happened in the old AA/FS thread, or the 'regret' thread which got fairly nasty, why be angry now? I honestly thought we had all worked through this and come out on the other side for the better.

Louise, I don't see how you can call me rude when all I was doing is expressing my firm belief that AA was not AN, which is all you did in a post recently when someone jumped on you for being snippy.

The whole basic thing is, there are people who believe that their opinions should go unchallenged, while they should be free to express and disagree with whatever they want. I don't mean any name in particular, it's not just people, it's an attitude and I have seen it on other message boards. If opinions must be respected they all must be respected, not only the ones you want to hear or choose to believe.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: rskkiya on November 15, 2004, 08:43:18 AM
Well...Lets get back on topic-- Was AA in fact FS? I am still looking for information, at the moment I am pretty convinced that  they were most likely the same person - but I am open to any new evidence!


PS As I am unaware of just "who" is leaving... I cannot make any comments regarding "hurt feelings" and "spoilt children" - please  everyone...could we all just let this go?
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Forum Admin on November 15, 2004, 09:19:43 AM
Just to briefly respond, and then y'all can get back to the topic. It was not one specific thing in particular in this thread or in any other specific thread. It was the same thing happening over and over in various threads, and from what I understand, rather a lot of unpleasant private emails, but I do not know specific individuals nor details. These people are adults, they've seen this stuff elsewhere, and their just no longer have the time nor patience to waste on it.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: rskkiya on November 15, 2004, 09:25:36 AM
Thanks FA

Do we have any more information about Herr Grossman - the "Sweeny Todd" of Berlin?

rskkiya

PS If nasty private messages are the issue-- then we all could complain -- I personally tend to remove the really obscene ones and then just ban the sender from ones private mail list...
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on November 15, 2004, 09:44:53 AM
I assume we will have to wait for more information from Wilson and King on the subject of Grossmann and FS being a possible victim.

The Germans were very good in keeping records, so, I suspect,  if any of the records on the trial have survived the wars, then those two will find them.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 15, 2004, 01:50:55 PM
Quote

The Germans were very good in keeping records, so, I suspect,  if any of the records on the trial have survived the wars, then those two will find them.

AGRBear


What trial do you mean? Grossman's? I thought he never had one, since he hung himself in his cell?

Also, if any 'good' records by the 'good' Berlin police had existed, surely they'd have surfaced in all those years of AA's trials, especially the 1938 one which was before things were bombed. For that reason I find it hard to believe anything would suddenly surface now.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Forum Admin on November 15, 2004, 03:32:52 PM
Quote
Indeed finger prints could be argued to be just as good as mtdna! I think we've made the whole mtdna argument needlessly complicated on this forum.
FA, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought mtDNA tests could show who someone is maternally related to and who someone is not maternally related to. It can't prove WHO you are (For example, the heart of Louis Xvii was found to belong to a child who was "maternally related to the house of Hapsburg". That, combined with historical evidence lead to the conclusion that the child was indeed the lost dauphin. )  
 

Nope, you got it correct. The only mtDNA "proof" we have is that AA was not related to the Hesse line. What I usually say about mtDNA testing is that it can't prove who you ARE, but it can prove who you AREN'T.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 15, 2004, 03:58:57 PM
Quote
Indeed finger prints could be argued to be just as good as mtdna! Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought mtDNA tests could show who someone is maternally related to and who someone is not maternally related to. It can't prove WHO you are (For example, the heart of Louis Xvii was found to belong to a child who was "maternally related to the house of Hapsburg". That, combined with historical evidence lead to the conclusion that the child was indeed the lost dauphin. )  
While mtDNA may be unique to families, finger prints are unique to individuals. This would be objective evidence, anything else uncovered would be subjective.

Jeremy  
 


Jeremy, actually DNA is considered to be even more accurate evidence than fingerprints, or rather even more objective. I believe that with fingerprints there is some percentage of error as well, not sure how high though. But for the purposes of this particular identification, mtDNA plus fingerprint evidence would have worked really well. BTW, did anyone ever dispute the Louis XVII DNA results, as it has been in the AA case? MtDNA is used all the time to identify historical remains,  and the results are always accepted as legitimate. I think that the Romanov-related cases are the only historical DNA based identification cases where mtDNA evidence has been challenged this much...
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 15, 2004, 09:38:54 PM
Jeremy, do you think it's possible that they may still have FS's fingerprints on file at some of these hospitals? If they have them somewhere, then it would have been relatively simple to find out whether AA was in fact FS. And if anyone can get their hands on them now, then it should give us the answer, because I am pretty sure that they have AA's fingerprints on file in the US since she became naturalized here. It would be interesting to follow up on this!

Yes,  I would like to know about the Louis XVII case, thanks. I didn't know it was disputed too. What was the problem there? Did it also have to do with some claimants? I know that there were a few for him too. Yes, please translate when you can as I don't speak a word of French. Thanks!  :)

P.S. Jeremy, I understand what you mean about fingerprints being unique to an individual, of course this is true, but DNA is also unique to an individual - very unique. The confusion here comes from the fact that there are two different types of DNA: nuclear and mitochondrial. Nuclear is the one that's very unique to each person, and that's how someone's identity can actually be proven, in theory. But because many people don't really understand how this works, fingerprints seem like a better option, since everyone understands how identification via fingerprints works.  But nuclear DNA is theoretically a lot more accurate as an identification tool, if the technique is done accurately and thoroughly. But I don't want to go any more into this since it will only confuse the issue more!  :)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 15, 2004, 10:59:09 PM
I would be very interested too. Can you please post the entire story in the dauphin thread?
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Denise on November 16, 2004, 10:44:40 AM
On the subject of fingerprints, is it known that AA are on file somewhere?  It would be most interesting to have the ability to compare those to FS, if by the rare chance, FS's fingerprints are still on file in Germany.

Denise
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 16, 2004, 11:15:02 AM
Quote
On the subject of fingerprints, is it known that AA are on file somewhere?  It would be most interesting to have the ability to compare those to FS, if by the rare chance, FS's fingerprints are still on file in Germany.

Denise


I am assuming that AA's fingerprints would have to be on file with INS, since she became a naturalized citizen or at least got her green card. In any case, I believe anyone who comes into this country legally gets their fingerprints taken at some point, although I am not sure if this was the case back when AA entered the US. I would think yes...  
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Denise on November 16, 2004, 12:35:20 PM
Quote

I am assuming that AA's fingerprints would have to be on file with INS, since she became a naturalized citizen or at least got her green card. In any case, I believe anyone who comes into this country legally gets their fingerprints taken at some point, although I am not sure if this was the case back when AA entered the US. I would think yes...  


Thanks, never even thought of the fact that she immigrated to this country!!  Thanks.  I can tell it is a Monday.....

Denise
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 16, 2004, 12:49:13 PM
Quote

Thanks, never even thought of the fact that she immigrated to this country!!  Thanks.  I can tell it is a Monday.....

Denise


Actually it's even worse than you thought: today is a Tuesday!  ;D ;)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Denise on November 16, 2004, 12:51:48 PM
 :o

Can you tell I need to get out more?  :)  Life with a 15 month old and an almost 3 yr old is starting to get to me.  

My Romanov research is my big link to the real world....
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 16, 2004, 12:58:36 PM
Quote
:o

Can you tell I need to get out more?  :)  Life with a 15 month old and an almost 3 yr old is starting to get to me.  
.


I imagine that will do it every time!  :)  

But, yes have a look at various claimant threads, you will be amazed at what you find!  :o
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Denise on November 16, 2004, 01:36:08 PM
I have been, thanks Helen.  There are a few which really intrigue me, and a few that make me think "what were these people thinking" when I see their web sites.  The one I would like to find more on is Granny Alina.  

But truly, this whole FS/AA thing is pretty interesting too.  Even if AA is NOT FS, I want to know what happened to FS then, and I would like to therefore see if her connection to AA could be resolved, if the mtDNA is to be believed.

I'll be interested in seeing what Greg and Penny have to say about this in their next book.

D
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 16, 2004, 01:52:17 PM
Quote

The one I would like to find more on is Granny Alina.  

I'll be interested in seeing what Greg and Penny have to say about this in their next book.

D


I didn't hear about Granny Alina, who is she? Maybe you can just direct me to the site?

I agree, it would be interesting to see Penny's and Greg's research on the subject of FS.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Denise on November 16, 2004, 02:14:29 PM
She is a South African woman who claimed to be Grand Duchess Marie Nicholaievna.  I see a slight resemblance.  And with the dispute over whether the body of Marie or Anastasia has been found, it seems a bit plausible.

Here is the link to the discussion here on the claimant's board:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=loonies;action=display;num=1099301063

Very interesting stuff.  There are a couple of links to sites about here on the thread above.  

Denise

Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 16, 2004, 02:24:30 PM
Thanks, Denise. I just looked on the site and saw her picture. She just looks like a random lady and her story sounds like a random claimant story...
Ok, back to the topic.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: IlyaBorisovich on November 16, 2004, 04:03:11 PM
Quote

I didn't hear about Granny Alina, who is she? Maybe you can just direct me to the site?

I agree, it would be interesting to see Penny's and Greg's research on the subject of FS.


Helen,

The Granny Alina thread is listed on the "Imperial Claimants" board.

Ilya
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 17, 2004, 11:32:02 AM
Jeremy, let us know if you find out anything interesting!
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Evanescence on November 26, 2004, 08:33:11 PM
mtDNA isn't very reliable as you might think. DNA samples were taken from 100 random people and 4 totally unrelated people had matching DNA. But that doesn't mean that the DNA test are frauds, nuclear testing was also done and it also showed that AA wasn't AN. Also the mtDNA was most likely true anyway.

                                                            -Sarah
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 27, 2004, 08:00:58 AM
Quote
It's just that we are ALL related somewhere along the line...that's we're alot of confusion over mtdna comes in too...


Well, apparently not to Prince Phillip ;)

Quote
BUt, does anyone know if there is already an English translation of FS's Gertrude's tesimony in the AA trials? I was going to try to send away for a copy as I believe it's in the public record, then translate it into English, and see if the FA would be willing to post some of the highlights. But, I would rather not go that LONG route if possible...


It doesn't matter what she said, because it was proven later she lied when she denied her sister. See the lawyer letter I posted on the other thread.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Denise on November 27, 2004, 08:30:08 AM
Does anyone know exactly how many children were in the Schanskowska family?  I know FS had 2 brothers and 2 sisters, but is it written anywhere which children were from which mother?  I know Felix and Franziska were the same mom, but I have read that Gertrude was in fact FS's younger sister.  Are the birthdates of these people available anywhere??

Denise
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 27, 2004, 09:11:06 AM
Also, along these smae lines, I know that it has been said that Carl M.'s mother and FS were only half sisters from different mothers, but were their mothers related somehow, maybe first or second or third cousins? Does anyone know?
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Abby on November 27, 2004, 01:56:46 PM
Wheew, this sounds like a very confusing geneology! The FS story deserves it's own separate novel!!
(is that what Penny Wilson and Greg King said they were working on?)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 27, 2004, 07:06:16 PM
I've said this many times and I will again. There is NO real evidence they were not whole sisters, this was only speculation by ONE author. I am sure they must have been whole sisters, or the scientists searching for a maternal relative would not have been so foolish as to waste time on the wrong person, don't you think?
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 27, 2004, 07:09:55 PM
Quote
I've said this many times and I will again. There is NO real evidence they were not whole sisters, this was only speculation by ONE author. I am sure they must have been whole sisters, or the scientists searching for a maternal relative would not have been so foolish as to waste time on the wrong person, don't you think?


It does sound awfully unlikely that the scientists would go through all that trouble and then not even make sure that they have the right person's DNA for reference... Where did this author get this idea of them not being maternally related then? It must have come from somewhere.  ???
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 27, 2004, 07:17:18 PM
It probably came out of his head, trying to discount the FS theory so she can be AN. I would love to see the REAL Schanskowska family tree, and I believe the reason we haven't is because it does not suit the AA case and it's her supporters who are doing the research.

You know what, I am about to give up. This is driving me nuts. I feel I have made a very good case here on this forum and everyone still keeps throwing the same lame things back up. I guess some people just want to believe it. Okay, I confess. It was me, I switched the intestines, and the Queen made me do it. I am the daughter of the child Grand Duke Mikhail had after he escaped to America and lived as a milkman in rural Iowa, and he was determined that no one would ever believe AA because she was trying to beat him out of the $23,000.000.000.01 in a Swiss bank account!  :P
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 27, 2004, 07:22:37 PM
Quote
It probably came out of his head, trying to discount the FS theory so she can be AN. I would love to see the REAL Schanskowska family tree, and I believe the reason we haven't is because it does not suit the AA case and it's her supporters who are doing the research.

You know what, I am about to give up. This is driving me nuts. I feel I have made a very good case here on this forum and everyone still keeps throwing the same lame things back up. I guess some people just want to believe it. Okay, I confess. It was me, I switched the intestines, and the Queen made me do it. I am the daughter of the child Grand Duke Mikhail had after he escaped to America and lived as a milkman in rural Iowa, and he was determined that no one would ever believe AA because she was trying to beat him out of the $23,000.000.000.01 in a Swiss bank account!  :P

;D Oh come on Annie, don't give up. The reason people ask the same questions is because no one can read everything that has been written about AA on these threads! To be able to do that you would have to have a). a really fast computer and internet connection b). no family c). no job and d). no other responsibilities but to sit and read the forum.  ;D


Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 27, 2004, 07:26:56 PM
But it's mostly the same people and I know they have been in all the same threads as me. It's ironic I get accused of continuing the post the same things over and over yet people act like they've never seen my posts. I am as tired of it as anyone.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 27, 2004, 07:30:41 PM
Quote
But it's mostly the same people and I know they have been in all the same threads as me. It's ironic I get accused of continuing the post the same things over and over yet people act like they've never seen my posts. I am as tired of it as anyone.

Yep, I've seen that happen too, and a few people come to mind immediately ;) Maybe they feel that if they post the same thing on a different thread, no one will notice and someone will finally buy into it.  ;)

In the meantime, keep a Word file on your Desktop of "most frequently asked questions" and "copy and paste"  whenever the need arises ;)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Denise on November 27, 2004, 07:34:31 PM
Quote
You know what, I am about to give up. This is driving me nuts. I feel I have made a very good case here on this forum and everyone still keeps throwing the same lame things back up. I guess some people just want to believe it. Okay, I confess. It was me, I switched the intestines, and the Queen made me do it. I am the daughter of the child Grand Duke Mikhail had after he escaped to America and lived as a milkman in rural Iowa, and he was determined that no one would ever believe AA because she was trying to beat him out of the $23,000.000.000.01 in a Swiss bank account!  :P


I knew we'd get the confession out of you eventually, Annie!!  ;)  ;D  ;)


Quote
It probably came out of his head, trying to discount the FS theory so she can be AN. I would love to see the REAL Schanskowska family tree, and I believe the reason we haven't is because it does not suit the AA case and it's her supporters who are doing the research.


I agree that this probably came out of somebody's bum.  It should be obvious that even were the FS DNA results invalidated (fat chance!!)  there are still the mtDNA results showing AA was not related to Queen Victoria.  

It is enough to make you pull out hair.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Michelle on November 27, 2004, 08:13:32 PM
Quote
It probably came out of his head, trying to discount the FS theory so she can be AN. I would love to see the REAL Schanskowska family tree, and I believe the reason we haven't is because it does not suit the AA case and it's her supporters who are doing the research.

You know what, I am about to give up. This is driving me nuts. I feel I have made a very good case here on this forum and everyone still keeps throwing the same lame things back up. I guess some people just want to believe it. Okay, I confess. It was me, I switched the intestines, and the Queen made me do it. I am the daughter of the child Grand Duke Mikhail had after he escaped to America and lived as a milkman in rural Iowa, and he was determined that no one would ever believe AA because she was trying to beat him out of the $23,000.000.000.01 in a Swiss bank account!  :P


UMMMMMM.......that kind of came out of nowhere.  ::)

Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 27, 2004, 08:17:27 PM
Quote

However, even if they were half sisters, it doesn't disprove the FS identity. A researcher would then have to find out if there mothers were somehow maternally related...at it wasn't uncommon for widowers back then to marry their dead wives sisters or cousins...  
 


If this is the case, then it wouldn't matter that Carl M.'s mother was not FS's full sister, all it ould matter is that they are maternally related: they would still have identical mtDNA.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 27, 2004, 08:29:49 PM
Quote

It surprises many people to find out that scientists have IQ's that are, let's just say,  about the same level (average to above average) as the people who post on this forum. Scientists and Doctors are just very disciplined and educated in their fields. They do error like we do.
 


Jeremy, actually it has nothing to do with the scientists' IQ's, but with scientific protocols. This is something that would have definitely been caught, if not by the researcher himself through the protocol, then by the peer reviewers... I find it very hard to believe that something like this would  have been overlooked, this was their CONTROL sample for this test, if they got that wrong it invalidates the whole thing! This is why I believe they would have made sure they got the right control sample, if nothing else.  

Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 27, 2004, 08:43:08 PM
Quote
But, it may very well have been overlooked! That's what's so funny about the whole thing....
 
Gertrude is the only one of the siblings that doesn't have a birth certificate, so how would they have made sure? Baptismal certificate, but it doesn't seem like that happened. Why?
They simply relied on family memory (subjective, right?), which faded with the passage of time and the family was not that close to begin with...

There's alot of rich humor here, and, though I love learning, all I can say is that a person  doesn't gain common sense reading a textbook all day ...  

  


But how would anyone else have found out about this then?

What I am going to do is try to get my hands on this paper, and see what is says...

Helen
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 27, 2004, 08:56:02 PM
I'll let you know if I find anything interesting  :)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: rskkiya on November 27, 2004, 09:53:09 PM
Quote

UMMMMMM.......that kind of came out of nowhere.  ::)



Michelle
    I disagree -- it a perfectly understandable remark... If you reread all of Annies recent posts then you will understand.

rskkiya
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Michelle on November 27, 2004, 10:19:18 PM
Oh I knew the truth about Annie would come out eventually.  ::)

Whatever, rskkiya.  In your words: topic please! ;)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: rskkiya on November 27, 2004, 10:21:02 PM
Please, lets be polite!


Besides... I am the real heir to all the hidden Romanov wealth...MWhahahahaaa! :-* :-*

LOL (just trying to lighten the tone here...) LOL

rs
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Michelle on November 27, 2004, 11:10:29 PM
Calm down, rskkiya.  I wasn't attacking you or anyone.  Aren't I allowed to say "Topic please?"  Since, you know, we are straying a little ways from the topic. ;)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Forum Admin on November 28, 2004, 10:52:15 AM
Helen,
Don't bother to look. I contacted Dr. Teri Melton in 2003 personally and ASKED about the reliability of the samples and testing. ALL of the scientists were convinced of the reliability of the intestine sample being from AA. They were NOT convinced about the hair (for obvious reasons) but tested it as a double blind in case it DID match, which it DID.

IF they had any reasonable doubt about provenance of the intestine sample they would NOT have used it for the test.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 28, 2004, 11:24:15 AM
Quote
Helen,
Don't bother to look. I contacted Dr. Teri Melton in 2003 personally and ASKED about the reliability of the samples and testing. ALL of the scientists were convinced of the reliability of the intestine sample being from AA. They were NOT convinced about the hair (for obvious reasons) but tested it as a double blind in case it DID match, which it DID.

IF they had any reasonable doubt about provenance of the intestine sample they would NOT have used it for the test.


I have no doubt about the legitimacy of the intestine, and I am sure that what you said about the control sampls is the case too. But it seems like people want to  continue questioning this for some reason. People seem to think that this is the first time these scientists are doing something like this and that it would be very easy for them to make a really stupid mistake. This is just very basic stuff that is being done in many forensic and molecular labs around the world and all those results are being accepted as legitimate. I don't understand why should the AA case be any different.  ???
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Forum Admin on November 28, 2004, 11:37:18 AM
I agree Helen, but I put it out there since some people STILL raise the question. It just seems to me that people don't understand the 'science' and  often 'fear' what they don't understand. That is why I just keep trying to gently and simply explain this stuff.

Oh, and from your other posting in another thread guess WHO DOES have the responsibilty to sit and read the entire forum every day yet HAS a life? ;D
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: rskkiya on November 28, 2004, 04:24:15 PM
Well put Jeremy!
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on November 28, 2004, 04:27:51 PM
I think this is the list of FS's family members.  I have not seen the name of FS's father being Oscar....  If someone has,  could they tell me where this can be found.

Thanks

AGRBear

------
Quest For Anastasia by John Kiler pps 223-5

Franziska Schanzkowska b. 16 Dec 1896 Bororwihlas/ Kashubia [old Polish Province], Prussia
Felix Schanzkowski - brother b.  ___ Feb. ___
----
Issue of same father with diferent mother, who was first wife of father's ???
Gertrude Schanzkowska - half sister
Maria Schanzkowska - half sister
Valerian Schanzkowski - half brother
-----
Walraut Schanzkowski - niece, dau. of Felix's ???
Margarete Ellerik - niece, daughter of half sister Gertrude's
----
Carl Maucher - grandson of the half sisters of FS Quest

Anyone have more data on FS's siblings?

----

PS  Scientists can only work with the facts they have.  If no one suggested Carl Maucher's mother and FS had a different mother then there was no reasons for them to place that into their calulations.

Someone can asked the people who did the DNA to discover if this was part of their calulations.

PSS  I am assuming the testing for DNA was done properly with the intestines and the hair

PSSS  Yes,  it was common for a widower with children to marry his brothers wife or wife's sister.....  A man needed someone to care for the children and life was less complicated if the widower and widow knew each other.....
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Olga on November 28, 2004, 06:58:40 PM
Quote
PSS  I am assuming the testing for DNA was done properly with the intestines and the hair


That's not what you've been saying, AGRBear.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 28, 2004, 07:15:46 PM
But again, that is only one author's speculation with no real evidence (on the FS sister case)

About the intestines, to switch them you'd have to have a piece, the same exact piece AA had removed, and where would this come from? You'd have to cut open another person and take it out and it would have to be exactly the same as AA's which no one saw so how in the world ??? Also, if you did cut open another person and take theirs out they'd have to have been a maternal relative of FS, and as much debate as there is over Carl, where was another one? It just plain does not make sense! *goes nuts*

and it's my birthday and I don't feel like it anyway.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Merrique on November 28, 2004, 07:21:59 PM
Happy Birthday Annie! :) :D {{hugs}}
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 28, 2004, 07:37:03 PM
Thanks, it's been a hard one, I appreciate it!
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 28, 2004, 07:52:03 PM
Quote

That's not what you've been saying, AGRBear.


Olga, the way I understand this, the Bear has been saying all along that the testing was done correctly but that the samples themselves were not the right samples, i.e. they were substituted with someone else's samples.

Helen
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Michelle on November 28, 2004, 07:52:53 PM
I certainly hope these AA threads haven't been the cause of you having a hard birthday. :-/  :(
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 28, 2004, 07:55:16 PM
Quote
I certainly hope these AA threads haven't been the cause of you having a hard birthday. :-/  :(


No, it was nothing to do with this site at all, but my own relatives! :-/
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 28, 2004, 07:57:01 PM
Quote
 

All I'm saying is that scientists do error like the rest of us, but each time the mistake is less and less, and that's how progress is made in the study of science.


Jeremy, I absolutely agree with this statement.
But what I am saying is that what they did with the AA samples was such a standard procedure, one that has been done over and over in many labs, and one that has an established protocol, so I would find it very hard to believe that they would make a mistake like that, especially someone like Peter Gill, who I think did the first round of tests(?). It would be one thing if it was some cutting edge work, then sure mistakes will be made until they get it right, but this wasn't...
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 28, 2004, 08:03:58 PM
Quote
But again, that is only one author's speculation with no real evidence (on the FS sister case)

About the intestines, to switch them you'd have to have a piece, the same exact piece AA had removed, and where would this come from? You'd have to cut open another person and take it out and it would have to be exactly the same as AA's which no one saw so how in the world ??? Also, if you did cut open another person and take theirs out they'd have to have been a maternal relative of FS, and as much debate as there is over Carl, where was another one? It just plain does not make sense! *goes nuts*

and it's my birthday and I don't feel like it anyway.


First of all, happy birthday, Annie.

Secondly, the Bear still has not explained to us how the intestine could have been switched at the hospital, short of it being a miracle, and until the Bear does that this continues to be a useless argument. In fact, I have to say, this is a completely absurd argument, and I don't really care if I get accused of a personal attack for saying this. I mean come on, you can't make a statement like this, show nothing that even comes close to a reasonable explanation of how it could have possibly occured and then expect people to take it seriously. I am sorry Bear, but this is just insane.

Best,

Helen
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 28, 2004, 08:13:13 PM
Quote

No, it was nothing to do with this site at all, but my own relatives! :-/


Annie, I sure hope it has nothing to do with the site and AA :o! I hope everything works out.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Forum Admin on November 28, 2004, 08:19:19 PM
First, Annie Happy Birthday! and many more and Happier Birthdays to come!

Second,
Yes scientists sometimes make mistakes, BUT in the AA case, please do not forget that two different labs did the exact same work and got the same exact results, so BOTH teams would have had to make the same mistake.

Secondly, dear Ms (yes a she)Bear has yet to address the specific WHO, HOW and WHY of her theorised intestinal and hair sample switching (having first of course run a mtDNA testing on Carl Maucher to make sure they would have the same results, and THEN gotten an INTESTINAL sample, AND conveniently known the exact storage protocol, labelling, sample numbering and preservation methods of the hospital the AA samples were in, so as to make the switch undetected)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 28, 2004, 08:30:57 PM
Quote

Yes scientists sometimes make mistakes, BUT in the AA case, please do not forget that two different labs did the exact same work and got the same exact results, so BOTH teams would have had to make the same mistake.



FA, I think the issue here is Carl M.'s maternal relationship (or possible lack of) to FS. I think we have established that no one at this moment is questioning the actual methods and results, but the fact the control sample (of Carl M.) may not have been appropriate because he may not be maternally related to FS, allegedly being the son of FS's paternal and not maternal half sister. Do you know how they established this relationship when they were looking to do the test?
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Forum Admin on November 28, 2004, 08:36:36 PM
It is my understanding that the very reason they selected Carl Maucher was BECAUSE they believed there WAS maternal relationship to FS. Why else would they have gone to him, unless, and perhaps I am wrong (I really dont know much about the FS family, as frankly I personally am not interested in the FS family tree: AA wasn't AN and beyond that, I don't care...but chacun a son gout) he was simply the closest living relative.
But then, WHY would anyone fake the results to point to FS family if AA really wasn't AN to begin with?
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 28, 2004, 08:46:36 PM
Quote
It is my understanding that the very reason they selected Carl Maucher was BECAUSE they believed there WAS maternal relationship to FS. .


I thought the same thing, but the Bear just posted something that claims that Carl was the son of FS's half sister on the father's side. I wonder where they got that information from... The Bear feels that if AA wasn't FS then this means that the AA intestine was switched.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Olga on November 29, 2004, 02:30:55 AM
S dnyem rozhdeniya, Annie! *Hugs and kisses*
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on November 29, 2004, 09:26:17 AM
Quote

FA, I think the issue here is Carl M.'s maternal relationship (or possible lack of) to FS. I think we have established that no one at this moment is questioning the actual methods and results, but the fact the control sample (of Carl M.) may not have been appropriate because he may not be maternally related to FS, allegedly being the son of FS's paternal and not maternal half sister. Do you know how they established this relationship when they were looking to do the test?


Thank you Helen.  Please,  reread Helen's words who, as usual, can make muddy waters clear.

I do not know from whom Kurth or any other authors who wrote about FS have gained information about FS's father having married twice.  Someone could ask him.  I know  he has answered other questions presented to him and has several times written on some of the threads on this forum.

Jeremy talks about a letter which may show Gertrude was a half sister:

Quote
...in part...
Excerpt of a letter from Gertrude's daughter( FS's supposed Half sister) to her uncle Felix (FS's supposed Full brother) written in 1959

She urges her uncle to recognize AA because

...."It's not everyone who can say he has a full-blooded sister whom powerful and important people have mistaken for decades as the daughter of the tsar!"....

Why would Gertude's daughter bring up the issue of  Felix being a  "full blooded"  sibling to FS unless her own mother wasn't? I'd like to hear theories on this ... And there's more evidence out there....

 


AGRBear

PS  Forgot to wish Annie a VERY HAPPY BIRTHDAY.  Remember, we can't choose our relatives but we can our friends, so, call a friend, and go out and have a GOOD day!
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 29, 2004, 11:31:59 AM
Thanks for the kind wishes :)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 29, 2004, 01:52:37 PM
Quote

Well bad relatives aside, I hope you had somewhat of a good day! Sorry I'm a day late in wishing you a happy birthday, but I didn't read this thread until just now.



Thanks!:)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 29, 2004, 01:55:51 PM
I have 2 thoughts to bring up on the 'full blooded sister' letter:

1. Perhaps it was worded differently in its original language? There are several slang terms in the US like 'red blooded' and 'full fledged' so maybe it was just an expression with no deep meaning?

Quote
...."It's not everyone who can say he has a full-blooded sister whom powerful and important people have mistaken for decades as the daughter of the tsar!"....  


2. Didn't anyone else notice that in that letter, it seems to be a fairly taken for granted fact that the Uncle and niece are discussing FS as if it is assumed as the truth that they knew she was AA? :o

I consider that to be yet another piece of evidence(along with the lawyer letter to Gertrude and some of Felix's comments) that the Schanskowska family knew AA was Franziska!
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: jolie on November 29, 2004, 02:11:19 PM
Happy B.Day, Annie!   Keep up your spunk and your spirited debate...I admire it!
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 29, 2004, 02:12:27 PM
Quote
Happy B.Day, Annie!   Keep up your spunk and your spirited debate...I admire it!


Thank you! :)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Elisabeth on November 29, 2004, 02:35:26 PM
Many happy returns on your birthday, Annie!!! I hope it's improving.

Earlier the FA made an excellent point I thought worthy of additional comment.

Quote
But then, WHY would anyone fake the results to point to FS family if AA really wasn't AN to begin with?


Indeed. Wouldn't it have been a whole lot simpler to fake results that pointed to someone completely unconnected to the FS/AN controversy? Someone whose little slice of intestine was already in the good old United States of A? Think about it: how on earth could these scientists have come up with a piece of intestine that just happened to prove a genetic link to FS's family? They would have had to go to Europe first, to cut up a Maucher family member on the sly!  
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Forum Admin on November 29, 2004, 02:45:11 PM
That is exactly my point, thanks for noticing. See, Dear Ms Bear keeps harping on the lack of maternal relation of Carl Maucher. There are only 3, count em 3 possibilities since the mtDNA match is exact.
1. Carl Maucher and AA WERE maternally related (probablilty 96%)
2. CM and AA were NOT maternally related but had matching mtDNA (4%)
3. Someone SWITCHED the "real" AA sample with one conventiently exactly matching Carl Maucher. So, the answer is WHY? and probability of this is ZERO unless and until substantial and concrete evidence of WHO did it, HOW they managed to do it, WHEN they actually did it and WHY they did it can be demonstrated beyond "well maybe".
AND don't forget, AA is STILL excluded from being AN UNLESS and until #3 can be proven.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 29, 2004, 03:51:40 PM
Quote
Many happy returns on your birthday, Annie!!! I hope it's improving.


Thanks!

Quote
Earlier the FA made an excellent point I thought worthy of additional comment.


Indeed. Wouldn't it have been a whole lot simpler to fake results that pointed to someone completely unconnected to the FS/AN controversy? Someone whose little slice of intestine was already in the good old United States of A? Think about it: how on earth could these scientists have come up with a piece of intestine that just happened to prove a genetic link to FS's family? They would have had to go to Europe first, to cut up a Maucher family member on the sly!  


Exactly, I said that in one of these threads too, where would they find a piece of intestine belonging to the right family, and know which part of the intestine it was to switch and how? ???

And good post FA!


I just found this online, it's something I never knew before, that decendants of GLEB BOTKIN were the ones who located the intestine and initiated the tests! They were big BELIEVERS in AA, and were apparently so sure the results would go in their favor they pursued this! So this to me casts even more doubt that there was a plot to switch them, the ones asking for the tests wanted a postive result for AA to be AN and not FS!

http://anomalyinfo.com/articles/sa00021a.shtml

In 1993, Gleb Botkin's daughter and her husband, Marina and Dick Schweitzer, located tissue samples taken from Anna Anderson during an operation in 1979; since Anderson had been cremated, the tissue sample was an important find that allowed for the possibility of testing her DNA relatedness to the Romanov skeletons.

In 1994, DNA was extracted from the possible Romanov skeletons and then compared with the DNA of known relatives of the missing royal family, which once and for all confirmed the identities of the skeletons as those of Czar Nicholas and most of his family. Shortly after the Romanov skeletons were confirmed, Gleb Botkin's daughter and her husband, Marina and Dick Schweitzer, hired Dr. Peter Gill and his associates -- the same team that tested the skeletons' DNA -- to run comparison tests of the Romanov family's DNA with three tissue samples known to have come from Anna Anderson. At the same time, Anna Anderson's DNA was further checked against the DNA of Carl Maucher, a great nephew of the missing Polish woman Franzisca Schanzkowska, to double-check the long standing theory that Anderson could be the missing Polish woman.

The results came back months later, in 1995. The DNA testing proved conclusively that Anna Anderson was not related to Romanov royal family in any way... therefore, she was not Anastasia. It was further found that both Anderson and Maucher shared a rare genetic trait,
and that when all corresponding matches in their DNA were considered, that there was only a one in three-hundred chance that the two people were not related.

Due to the nature of the DNA, in fact, the researchers could show that Maucher was likely a maternal relative of Anderson, which would certainly be true if Anderson was the missing Schanzkowska... thus, after her death, Anna Anderson's true identity was announced to likely be that of Schanzkowska by the genetic researchers.

The Schweitzers, who had requested the testing, simply did not believe the results that were reported to them, and other supporters of Anderson's claim reacted the same way; clearly, they had only requested the testing because they truely believed the results would be in their favor.

But true believers of Anderson's claim to be Anastasia are no longer put off by this physical evidence, and have continued to put forward circumstantial evidence to prove Anderson could not have been Schanzkowska. Unable to directly dispute the DNA evidence that Anderson and Anastasia are not related, supporters instead have attempted to bring the tissue, hair, and blood samples that the genetic researchers attributed to Anderson under question by disproving her identity as Schanzkowska, and thus attempting to add doubt to all the DNA results. Still others have simply claimed that there must be in existence an international conspiracy to specifically bury the "fact" that Anderson was Anastasia. These efforts, however, either reflect a lack of knowledge of the actual DNA study and the published results, or a knowing attempt to take adavntage of the general public's lack of this knowledge. And, as each year passes and the publication of the DNA results fades into the past, the claim is once again being pressed forward on web sites devoted to denouncing the evidence... so Anderson's claim has now become a matter of faith, not science.

This is, perhaps, appropriate; for, despite any evidence for or against Anderson's claim, there was one aspect of it that all had to agree on and that was instrumental in its extended existence despite controversy. No matter who she really was, there can be no doubt that Anna Anderson truely believed that she was Anastasia Romanov; which, if Anderson had originally been a suicidal Polish housewife, may have been far more a romantic fate than any memories of her actual past.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 29, 2004, 04:10:09 PM
Quote

Thanks!


Exactly, I said that in one of these threads too, where would they find a piece of intestine belonging to the right family, and know which part of the intestine it was to switch and how? ???

And good post FA!


I just found this online, it's something I never knew before, that decendants of GLEB BOTKIN were the ones who located the intestine and initiated the tests! They were big BELIEVERS in AA, and were apparently so sure the results would go in their favor they pursued this! So this to me casts even more doubt that there was a plot to switch them, the ones asking for the tests wanted a postive result for AA to be AN and not FS!

http://anomalyinfo.com/articles/sa00021a.shtml


Yes, excellent point about the intestine, where on earth would they get a piece of intestine from a Carl M. maternal relative that was preserved in just the right way and then were able to make a very swift switch? That is completely impossible, and we all know it.

Yes Annie, Marina Botkin Schweitzer (Gleb's daughter) and her husband were the ones who initiated the whole AA intestine testing. I believe, and I may be wrong, that they were able to legally obtain permission to get this intestine from the hospital, based on the premise that Marina's grandfather, Dr Botkin was one of the victims and identifying AA as AN was one way to find out what happend to him back in 1918. A little far fetched, but they were able to pull it off. I saw a documentary about this whole thing, a Nova episode , I think it was around 1995-96. They were interviewed about it as was Peter Kurth. If I remember correctly, both Marina and Peter Kurth said that they will accept the DNA results wholeheartedly(this was before they got them), this is how sure they were that AA was AN . Then the results were given to them right on camera (separately). They were both incredibly shocked, and at first accepted them, but said, well we accept that she was not AN, but we will never accept that she was FS. I remember pretty well that Peter Kurth said this. This is why I was surprised later to find out that he went back to his belief that she was AN, he really seemed to accept the DNA results on that show gracefully. I think I may still have this show on video tape somewhere, I will have to check. But this was the NOVA show on PBS.
So yes, at the time this was done, they were all willing to accept the results as final, in fact it was their idea to do the tests in the first place, and at the time they all believed in DNA. But because the results did not turn out the way they expected, they stopped believing in DNA. I will try to look for this show on tape in my house and watch it again, but I believe you can get it in the library or order it from PBS - Nova series, if anyone is interested in seeing it.  
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 29, 2004, 04:19:37 PM
Quote
How can you not be maternally related but  have matching mtDNA?



I'd enjoy hearing different opinions on this.

And, to clear up my earlier statements about DNA (I realize I wasn't clear in my posts) they really had nothing to do with the AA cases. The case I was making was not to argue DNA as a science, but when, in certain cases, it's presented as "evidence." (For example, there have been several police labs that have been investigated for falsifying DNA evidence in criminal cases, resulting in several DNA experts having been convicted for fraud. And, unfortunately, the poor and people without access to proper representation have suffered as a result of this false DNA evidence.)
But, this has nothing to do with the AA case...so, the fault for causing the confusion is mine....


You can have identical mtDNA and not be maternally related. At some point way back when, you were related, this is why. Going back maybe 10 generations or maybe even more. MtDNA is something that stays constant in many generations and when mutations happen they are minor and take a while to happen. Scientists speculate that mtDNA was not really an inherent part of mammals, but is some sort of a bacterial parasite that once upon a time lodged intself in our cells and liked it and stayed. This of course must have happened a very long time ago. The reason they think this is because mtDNA is not a strand like nuclear DNA is, but it is a circle like bacterial or other simple organism DNA. So in my opinion this is likely true. And this is why mtDNA is useless for any practical things, it really doesn't do anything but sit there and just gets passed on from generation to generation by females. But we finally found use for it in the 20-21 centuries!  ;)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 29, 2004, 04:22:17 PM
Thanks Jeremy!

Quote


 If I remember correctly, both Marina and Peter Kurth said that they will accept the DNA results wholeheartedly(this was before they got them), this is how sure they were that AA was AN . Then the results were given to them right on camera (separately). They were both incredibly shocked,


I know I saw her reaction on TV, I don't know if it was the show you're talking about, I think it may have been the nightly news. I remembered that but I never knew it was her who instigated the tests.

Quote
So yes, at the time this was done, they were all willing to accept the results as final, in fact it was their idea to do the tests in the first place, and at the time they all believed in DNA. But because the results did not turn out the way they expected, they stopped believing in DNA.


Right, like is described in the article I posted (this also goes for some of the people here I think, including Penny)

But true believers of Anderson's claim to be Anastasia are no longer put off by this physical evidence, and have continued to put forward circumstantial evidence to prove Anderson could not have been Schanzkowska. Unable to directly dispute the DNA evidence that Anderson and Anastasia are not related, supporters instead have attempted to bring the tissue, hair, and blood samples that the genetic researchers attributed to Anderson under question by disproving her identity as Schanzkowska, and thus attempting to add doubt to all the DNA results. Still others have simply claimed that there must be in existence an international conspiracy to specifically bury the "fact" that Anderson was Anastasia. These efforts, however, either reflect a lack of knowledge of the actual DNA study and the published results, or a knowing attempt to take adavntage of the general public's lack of this knowledge. And, as each year passes and the publication of the DNA results fades into the past, the claim is once again being pressed forward on web sites devoted to denouncing the evidence... so Anderson's claim has now become a matter of faith, not science


Quote
I will try to look for this show on tape in my house and watch it again, but I believe you can get it in the library or order it from PBS - Nova series, if anyone is interested in seeing it.  


I'm interested, let me know!

I'm really wanting to write a book myself now, might as well put all the time I put into this hobby to good use!
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 29, 2004, 04:30:57 PM
Quote
These efforts, however, either reflect a lack of knowledge of the actual DNA study and the published results, or a knowing attempt to take adavntage of the general public's lack of this knowledge.
.[/i]


Annie, this is exactly what I have been saying on these AA threads all long! I hate to see people fooled only because they lack understanding and knowledge about these things. It's not like I am especially confrontational - I really don't want to argue with anyone about this, but when people are so obviously, albeit maybe not deliberately misled because they just don't understand this fully, it  bothers me.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 29, 2004, 04:43:18 PM
Quote

Annie, this is exactly what I have been saying on these AA threads all long! I hate to see people fooled only because they lack understanding and knowledge about these things. It's not like I am especially confrontational - I really don't want to argue with anyone about this, but when people are so obviously, albeit maybe not deliberately misled because they just don't understand this fully, it  bothers me.


Me too! I also hate to see people who want to believe it so badly taken advantage of and used, especially by those with agendas. :( So these are the reasons I fight this so hard. Good to have you along!
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 29, 2004, 04:50:34 PM
Quote
You're welcome Annie!

Thanks for the reply to my post Helen, though I enjoy your replies, as I wrote, I would also enjoy opinions on the subject of the (potential) shallowness of DNA in small towns...

But, as for "were related", how can someone be related in the past tense? We're all related somewhere along the line, and that relationship doesn't go away, it's just either distant or close. (How many parents do you have? Grandparents? Great Grandparents? Sooner or later all those lines will cross if you go back the entire stretch of human existence...which is why you should never be impressed when someone claims a distant relationship to some famous person...sooner or later, we'd all be!  ) So, please feel free to IM me on the "were related" I'm interested in discussing that further.
I had heard that theory on the orgins of mtDNA, and Scientific speculation ...that's a point I often bring up, as with the "Big Bang", so much of science is based on faith and speculation...it just seems at times like the religious just put their faith in a different source....  


Jeremy, I can PM you a little later tonight if you want to chat about this some more, or you can PM me, but right now I have to go somewhere in a little while. But I just want to say for now in reply to your "relatives" question, that I believe that mtDNA stays intact for about 10-12 generations before it mutates. I am not 100% sure about this number, but it should be close to that.
And yes, you are absolutely right, science is just a compilation of theories, but some have actually been "proven". Kind of like that the earth is round, not flat theory  :). It really depends on the type of field you are talking about. In the medical science there is still a lot of hit and miss type stuff, and there is a lot we don't know. With something like DNA it is a lot more clear cut, we know a lot and we have shown the theories to be correct and so far none have been disproven and all are consistent with what we know. So it's sort of like saying, 'I know for a fact that sun will rise in the morning', but it may not, but what are the chances of that? Of course the planet earth may get hit by an asteroid, so the sun won't rise per say, but again, you have to look at how likely or unlikely something is the way it is... I don't know how else to explain it...

Helen
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 29, 2004, 05:00:04 PM
Quote

Me too! I also hate to see people who want to believe it so badly taken advantage of and used, especially by those with agendas. :( So these are the reasons I fight this so hard. Good to have you along!


Annie, you know, I don't feel like this is an "us against them" type of thing, like some people here feel: "the anti- vs the pro-" all that is very silly. There are facts that I feel people should learn about, even if these facts are not something they would like to hear, they are still facts. I think most of us here would have liked it if AA's DNA had matched and if she were AN, but fact is it didn't and fact is she was not. Why do we need to fight about that? This is the way it is, and no one here caused it to be this way. If you want to know what the truth is (and by "you" of course I mean general "you", just learn everything there is to learn about how these tests work and how DNA works, and then you will be able to know the facts. Burying your head under sand like an ostrich is not going to change facts... No one is against anyone here, some people are just able to understand and accept the facts and others don't want to.  
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on November 29, 2004, 05:01:50 PM
Please, don't make the mistake that I believe AA was Anastasia.  Up until Penny Wilson's post,  I always thought it was probable  AA was FS  Until I see her evidence, I am  open to farther discussion.

Let's take a different avenue:  If FS was murdered by Grossmann,  does the DNA show us that "hair" and "intestines" if they were AA's meant that AA  was related to FS or could she just have been someone from that same area where distant relatives carried that particular code?

This may  have already been answered but, if you would, refreshen my memory, please.

Thanks.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Evanescence on November 29, 2004, 05:13:35 PM
The DNA wasn't absolutely sure that Anna was FS. Sure, it's okay it Anna was Anastasia but I don't see very strong evidence backing up the theory that Anna was FS. The DNA evidence stands totally alone. Also as I mentioned earlier mtDNA isn't 100% reliable.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Forum Admin on November 29, 2004, 05:14:48 PM
Helen,
The accepted number of generations of mtDNA staying intact before one mutation is 20. Newer studies show it "MIGHT" be as soon as 10-12.

Jeremy. What Helen was trying to say is that, yes, at some point WAY back we "were related" (to be very specific we "are" related but so FAR back as to essentially NOT be related.
The explanation is that in some family lines, the mtDNA does not mutate at all, and remains exactly the same for like 200 generations, so that out of every 100 people, 4 would have the same mtDNA, but for all intents and purposes have the same common maternal ancestor so far back in time that they are 'not related' biologically speaking (ie: their NUCLEAR DNA would have no common relations).

Annie,
I received a private email from Penny Wilson with respect to your comment that she "does not believe in DNA". Please do not speak for Penny, if you have a specific citation to something Penny wrote, please post that. Penny and you have not actually discussed what she DOES believe on the subject of the DNA, so please don't make assumptions about them.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 29, 2004, 05:14:52 PM
Quote

Annie, you know, I don't feel like this is an "us against them" type of thing, like some people here feel: "the anti- vs the pro-" all that is very silly. There are facts that I feel people should learn about, even if these facts are not something they would like to hear, they are still facts. I think most of us here would have liked it if AA's DNA had matched and if she were AN, but fact is it didn't and fact is she was not. Why do we need to fight about that? This is the way it is, and no one here caused it to be this way. If you want to know what the truth is (and by "you" of course I mean general "you", just learn everything there is to learn about how these tests work and how DNA works, and then you will be able to know the facts. Burying your head under sand like an ostrich is not going to change facts... No one is against anyone here, some people are just able to understand and accept the facts and others don't want to.  



Sorry, I didn't mean to use the word 'fight' in a literal sense, I should have said discuss, or be persistant or something else. I hate fights and hope no matter what we can all stay friends! :)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Forum Admin on November 29, 2004, 05:19:32 PM
Evanescence. Please submit the scientific peer review publications to support your tiresome claim that mtDNA is not reliable.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Evanescence on November 29, 2004, 05:28:13 PM
Quote
Evanescence. Please submit the scientific peer review publications to support your tiresome claim that mtDNA is not reliable.


K, well I'm not an expert on DNA but I did read that 100 random people had mtDNA extracted and tested and 4 unrelated people had matching DNA. I'm not saying mtDNA isn't reliable because 99% of the time it is and anyway nuclear testing was done too and it came up with the same results.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 29, 2004, 07:05:06 PM
Quote

K, well I'm not an expert on DNA but I did read that 100 random people had mtDNA extracted and tested and 4 unrelated people had matching DNA. I'm not saying mtDNA isn't reliable because 99% of the time it is and anyway nuclear testing was done too and it came up with the same results.


Sarah,

I think what people misunderstand is that although many people can share mtDNA, unlike nuclear DNA which is unique to each person, but it is still very reliable. For example, we can say for sure that if someone's mtDNA does not match another person, this means that these two people are not related through their mothers. We can say this for sure. However we can't say for sure that if it does match that these people are definitely related.
This is why we can tell for sure from the mtDNA results that AA could not have been AN, but we can't tell for sure that she was in fact FS. We can only say with about 96% certainty that she was related to FS (via Carl M. mtDNA result) So yes, it is definitely reliable.  
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 29, 2004, 07:17:36 PM
Quote
Let's take a different avenue:  If FS was murdered by Grossmann,  does the DNA show us that "hair" and "intestines" if they were AA's meant that AA  was related to FS or could she just have been someone from that same area where distant relatives carried that particular code?



Bear, according to these DNA results, there is about a 96% chance that AA was related to Carl Maucher and about a 4% chance that she was not. This is all that can be said as far as DNA results go...
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 29, 2004, 07:22:03 PM
Quote
Helen,
The accepted number of generations of mtDNA staying intact before one mutation is 20. Newer studies show it "MIGHT" be as soon as 10-12.


Thanks, that's what I was trying to remember, what the recent "verdict" was about that - we want to try to be as conservative as possible about this... I think this number is something that will fluctuate, depending on the specific genetic lines.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on November 30, 2004, 08:36:25 AM
But still, 10 or 20, Carl and Fransiska were only 2 generations apart so it doesn't matter.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 30, 2004, 10:46:01 PM
Quote
Something I wanted to talk about for a minute...

Does anyone have access to actual quotes from the scientists who participated in these tests?

I believe in "The Romanovs:The Final Chapter", Peter Gill may be quoted as saying the match between AA and Carl Maucher was 100 percent. (I'll go back and check) Yet other scientists seem to be saying the match was less then that, and , I also read a comment from someone who claimed that one test showed no relation to the Romanovs, and NO  relation to the Schankowskas.

Does anyone have quotes from these scientists handy?

]  


Jeremy, as far as I know, Peter Gill's sequence was an exact match to Carl M.'s. If there wasn't a match then this whole discussion about whether AA may be FS or not would be a moot point.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 30, 2004, 11:04:19 PM
Jeremy, this is from the letter to the editor of Nature Genetics, vol 9, Jan 1995 "Establishing the Identity of Anna Anderson Manahan":

(http://img64.exs.cx/img64/1355/AA.png)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on December 01, 2004, 06:25:10 AM
Interesting that article says Maucher was related to Schanskowska through THE DIRECT MATERNAL LINE! Once again, I cannot believe the scientists would have bothered going to so much trouble for someone who wasn't.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Forum Admin on December 01, 2004, 09:39:55 AM
Here is the actual sequence under discussion. You can see for yourself that the match between AA and Carl M is EXACT and that there are SIX places (highlighted in yellow) where the AA sequence does NOT match Prince Philip. Each "mis-match" is one mutation of the mtDNA, and represents anywhere from 10 to 20 generations of separation of the relationship maternally.

http://www.dnai.org/bioserver/clustalw_anna_and_carl.html

Also, AGAIN, I have personally discussed the AA/FS testing with Dr. Teri Melton who did the testing in one of the labs...and for like the fifth time in this discussion, I repeat that she is 100% confident in the accuracy of the testing and its results. She is 100% confident that AA was NOT related to Queen Victoria and that the results suggest a maternal relationship to Carl Maucher with a probability of 96%.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Michelle on December 01, 2004, 03:46:27 PM
No Jeremy!!!!  Don't leave!!!!  I don't want another member of the forum to leave!!!! :'( :'( :'(
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on December 01, 2004, 03:48:43 PM
I hope you do track down Carl Maucher, so we can finally put the 'half sister' rumor to rest. If you find him, I hope he will tell everything he can about his family and FS.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: stepan on December 01, 2004, 04:20:34 PM
I got the impression that Penny Wilson and Greg King have talked to members of the Schanzkowski family and got a lot of other information,photos etc after their reserach in Germany and Poland. I understand they are planning a book about Anna Anderson and other claimants. I am really curious about what they have found out about the family. They don´t believe that Anna Anderson was Franziska and this is a real sensation if it could be proved as a fact!
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on December 01, 2004, 04:27:56 PM
Quote
I hope you do track down Carl Maucher, so we can finally put the 'half sister' rumor to rest. If you find him, I hope he will tell everything he can about his family and FS.


I agree with Annie.

Sure would save me a lot of time because I'm starting to stutter 'cause I've repeated myself 5 times, or so Admin. Forun tells me.  Like Jeremy, I am not doubting the tests with the "hair" and "intestines" matching Maucher. I am not doubting that it doesn't match Prince Philip.   It's the FS / nephew or half nephew and maternal line part that I 's like to have cleared.

.....  Then,  we can talk about the "switch"  ;D....  [A little humor at the end....]

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Forum Admin on December 01, 2004, 05:34:07 PM
Sorry, but I am quite frustrated with the same questions being asked and answered over and over again.  The mtDNA sequences were posted before. Dr. Melton's comments have been posted before. If you want to ask her yourself, google her name and write or call her and she will tell you the same things she told me. but read below for the REAL point of this discussion:

Bear, I never said you doubted the dna. but the POINT is this...the mtDNA only shows a likelihood of 96% that there WAS a maternal relationship between FS and Carl Maucher. It will NEVER prove anything else...so questioning the mtDNA to prove or disprove the relationship between them is POINTLESS.

I will repeat myself again:
There are only 3, count em 3 possibilities since the mtDNA match is exact.
1. Carl Maucher and AA WERE maternally related (probablilty 96%)
2. CM and AA were NOT maternally related but had matching mtDNA (4%)
3. Someone SWITCHED the "real" AA sample with one conventiently exactly matching Carl Maucher. So, the answer is WHY? and probability of this is ZERO unless and until substantial and concrete evidence of WHO did it, HOW they managed to do it, WHEN they actually did it and WHY they did it can be demonstrated beyond "well maybe".
AND don't forget, AA is STILL excluded from being AN UNLESS and until #3 can be proven.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on December 01, 2004, 05:50:31 PM
Quote
But, to end the argument once and for all, I'm trying to track down Carl Maucher (I may have his address, there are several Carl Mauchers in Germany ) to see if he's interested in talking to us on this topic .... also, I'm ordering  microfilm to see if I can locate Gertude and Franciska's baptismal certificates...AND I'm willing to locate court testimony related to FS, translate it from German to English, and post it here for the enjoyment of the people who visit this forum...

 

Jeremy, that would be great! Thank you for doing this.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on December 01, 2004, 05:54:26 PM
Quote
I got the impression that Penny Wilson and Greg King have talked to members of the Schanzkowski family and got a lot of other information,photos etc after their reserach in Germany and Poland. I understand they are planning a book about Anna Anderson and other claimants. I am really curious about what they have found out about the family. They don´t believe that Anna Anderson was Franziska and this is a real sensation if it could be proved as a fact!


Forget that, YOU have brought new, interesting and important info to this forum! I have enjoyed your posts and the news you bring us, such as the lawyer letter and quotes from Olga. I bet there is a wealth of untapped sources written only in French due to the emigre community settling in France, and if you have access to these things you can bring us a lot of stories we haven't heard yet. Please, keep posting and bringing us more!
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: rskkiya on December 01, 2004, 07:42:23 PM
FA I agree
Perhaps you can just quote your  own very clear and insiteful posts everytime the same issue comes up ...(that is every other page ???) so as to free yourself a little typing! :D
Roundabouts are convenient but rather dull means of transportation...I'm off!

love
evil Rskkiya  ;D
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: stepan on December 02, 2004, 07:13:43 AM
Thanks Annie and AnastasiaFan for the nice words!
Yes there is a lot of information especially in German and French books. But I´m not a quick poster as English is not my first language(being Swedish)  but I enjoy reading everything here,you always learn something new from people who share the same interest in this fascinating subject! :)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on December 02, 2004, 10:06:10 AM
Quote
....in part....
Again, I'm not arguing the test results. I'm simply questioning the maternal heritage of Gertrude (and it is open to question.) , and I'd like to get direct quotes from the scientists themselves as the quotes most of us have are second hand...

But, to end the argument once and for all, I'm trying to track down Carl Maucher (I may have his address, there are several Carl Mauchers in Germany ) to see if he's interested in talking to us on this topic .... also, I'm ordering  microfilm to see if I can locate Gertude and Franciska's baptismal certificates...AND I'm willing to locate court testimony related to FS, translate it from German to English, and post it here for the enjoyment of the people who visit this forum...

I'm doing all of this in my spare time, even though it has nothing to do with my own Romanov research...
 


Most people don't know how time consuming this kind of work is.  
All of us are grateful, Jermey, for your work on this subject.  

Also, thank you all for helping me understand all the DNA....

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Val289 on December 02, 2004, 10:37:54 AM
Quote
But, to end the argument once and for all, I'm trying to track down Carl Maucher (I may have his address, there are several Carl Mauchers in Germany ) to see if he's interested in talking to us on this topic .... also, I'm ordering  microfilm to see if I can locate Gertude and Franciska's baptismal certificates...AND I'm willing to locate court testimony related to FS, translate it from German to English, and post it here for the enjoyment of the people who visit this forum...

I'm doing all of this in my spare time, even though it has nothing to do with my own Romanov research...

.    



Jeremy -  I am also very appreciative of the work that you're doing!  In tracing my own roots, I realize how frustrating and time consuming such a search is!   Please keep us updated, and again - Thank you!!

Val :)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on December 13, 2004, 11:40:06 AM
Yesterday, I came across a program that I recorded several years ago, a PBS Nova episode that I mentioned earlier on one on the AA threads (maybe even on this one). This was an episode that dealt with the Anna Anderson case and explained how they tested her sample, and also include interviews with Marina Botkin and Peter Kurth and Peter Gill.  I watched it again last night. It is a really good show to see, if anyone can get their hands on it - I think many public libraries that carry Nova episodes may have a copy.

The presened both sides of the case, the evidence for and against AA being AN and of her being or not being FS. According to the show, there were three tests that were done on the intestine (as opposed to two as I previously thought). One was done in Britain by Peter Gill, the other two were done by two separate labs in the US, including U Penn, apparently. All three got the same results. In the show they actually have footage of when the intestine was transferred from the hospital to Peter Gill, how they sealed the sample, etc.
What I also thought was interesting was that they showed how they did the ear comparison and how they also did facial comparisons between AA and FS using special computer software (I forgot that they did this latter). They also had an expert who talked about why he thought AA was a fraud. According to what he said, at some point early in the claim, when AA was not able to  speak English at all, she had written a letter to someone, and in the letter she used the term "darling", in English. But the way she wrote it was with an apostrophy so that it looked like this:"Dar'ling". They compared that to a published letter that Alexandra once wrote to someone, where she also used the word "darling", but where in the line above she had a comma. This comma was lower down than the rest of the line so that it ended up almost in the middle of her word "darling" so that it looked like she wrote "Dar'ling". The theory was that AA saw this letter previously and when writing her own letter she copied that word, complete with the inappropriate apostrophy in the middle of the word "darling", because 1. she didn't really know English and 2. was trying to make her writing style look like AF's. This expert gave some other examples.
On the other hand, others gave several examples of why they thought that AA had to be AN, like some distant members of the family who knew her. It was also very interesting to hear Peter Kurth's account of how he first became acquainted with AA, which was also in this show.

Also they showed Carl Maucher and even had footage of when they drew blood from him for the comparison test. They explained the concept of DNA very well and what the results meant. If anyone can get their hands on this show, I would highly recommend it for anyone interested in this case, as it does explain a lot of things.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on December 13, 2004, 01:52:05 PM
Thank you for the report, that sounds so interesting! When they showed Carl Maucher, did they say anything about him being maternally related?
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on December 13, 2004, 02:23:59 PM
Quote
Thank you for the report, that sounds so interesting! When they showed Carl Maucher, did they say anything about him being maternally related?

They said that this was FS's maternal nephew and explained how this would be relevant to the results...
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on December 13, 2004, 06:28:31 PM
Quote
I just received an email from a researcher who claims that Gertrude made the comment about being FS's half sister in her deposition during the AA trial. I've got to get a hold of her testimony to see whether that's true or not....  


Any luck locating Carl Maucher, Jeremy?
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on December 15, 2004, 06:44:48 AM
Quote
They said that this was FS's maternal nephew and explained how this would be relevant to the results...


That's what I was thinking, WHY would they even bother with someone who wasn't? I'm sure they checked it out before they wasted any time and money testing him.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on December 15, 2004, 11:53:18 AM
But he wasn't, if  Gertrude and FS had different mothers, who were not related to each other  [sisters, first cousins....].

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on December 15, 2004, 11:59:40 AM
But we don't know that he wasn't. I am more likely to believe he is, since the scientists and researchers said he was, and the DNA was a good match.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Forum Admin on December 15, 2004, 12:08:09 PM
whether or not Carl M. was maternally or paternally related is not really of as major a consequence as Agr seems to think. Why?
Because their mtDNA matched EXACTLY. Thus, they were at least related maternally at some point within the last ten-fifteen generations. Without question, there IS some relationship between AA (whoever she was) and the FS FAMILY even if she wasn't FS herself.
AND, don't forget, the likelihood that she WAS FS is 96%. So we are only even talking about a 4% probabilty otherwise.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on December 15, 2004, 12:11:55 PM
Quote
But he wasn't, if  Gertrude and FS had different mothers, who were not related to each other  [sisters, first cousins....].

AGRBear


We really don't know this for a fact - it has been speculated that they weren't full sisters, but until we can get factual information and not hearsay about that, we have to assume that they were full sisters - as I am sure that the scientists must have done at least some inquiries about that before they chose Carl Maucher for this test and none of the other relatives. Hopefully Jeremy can get hold of Carl Maucher who can hopefully shed some light on this one way or the other.

I also forgot to mention that in the documentary, they did a computerized comparison between several points on the faces of FS and AA, and they matched perfectly. They also did computerized comparison of the ears between AA and AN and they matched best out of five other people that they used as control. That was very interesting.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on December 15, 2004, 03:30:28 PM
Did they have any other pictures of FS besides the one we've seen?
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on December 15, 2004, 04:11:11 PM
Quote
Did they have any other pictures of FS besides the one we've seen?


I think that the one they used was the same one we always see, but they weren't exactly comparing the features, but more the distance between the features:  between the eyes and the nose and the nose and the mouth, and between the two eyes, etc. So even if the FS picture had been "doctored" it shouldn't have mattered because all the distances matched up. Then they superimposed the two pictures and they fused together exactly! There was no mistaking that the pictures were of the same person. I don't know why they didn't try to do the same with AA and AN pictures, just to see what would happen.  They also used the same technique for the ears of AA and AN and that matched too. But the face was a lot more convincing than the ears, at least to me...
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: stepan on December 15, 2004, 04:26:39 PM
According to authors Klier and Mingay in The Quest for Anastasia it was the filmmaker Julian Nott who arranged the bloodtest from Carl Maucher and then gave it to Peter Gill in Britain. Another filmmaker and TV producer in Germany Maurice Philip Remy was also involved in these tests and got a sample from Margarete Ellerik,the daughter of Gertrude Schanzkowska. Margarete Ellerik is the mother of Carl Maucher if I´m not mistaken. So apparently both Mother and son were tested by competeting filmmakers in 1994. They did television programs at the time on Anna Anderson which were shown in Britain and Germany.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Michelle on December 15, 2004, 08:29:49 PM
From what Helen's saying, I'm tending to think that this show was somewhat biased.  I mean, why wouldn't they have done that whole computer thing on AA and AN as well as FS?  They should've at least done it for the sake of curiosity to see what would've happened.  But they didn't.  To me that sounds rather suspicious.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on December 15, 2004, 08:48:53 PM
Quote
From what Helen's saying, I'm tending to think that this show was somewhat biased.  I mean, why wouldn't they have done that whole computer thing on AA and AN as well as FS?  They should've at least done it for the sake of curiosity to see what would've happened.  But they didn't.  To me that sounds rather suspicious.



Well, to be fair, this show was done with complete cooperation of the Botkins and Peter Kurth who are probably the biggest supporters of AA being AN. And the show did try to present a balanced view of the case by showing the ear comparison and making a point that it matched, maybe they figured that this was the equivalent of doing the facial comparison between AA and AN, I don't know...  And they also had interviewed  many AA supporters like the Botkins and Peter Kurth and one of the cousins whom AA lived with. So they seemed to give equal weight to both sides. But basically what everything came down to in the show, it wasn't the facial comparison or the ear comparison or the  testimonies, but the DNA results. Both sides agreed that they would accept the results of DNA, before the tests were done, no matter what they turned out to be. In fact, the Botkins were the ones who initiated the whole thing, from what I understand, by obtaining the intestine sample from the hospital. Everyone involved in the show seemed to accept the DNA results that AA wasn't AN, but they had a very hard time accepting that she was FS.
You guys should really try to get this show and watch it as it is very helpful in terms of clarifying a lot of things in this case. I bet they have a copy at the library.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Alexa on December 19, 2004, 04:17:48 PM
For what it's worth, I remember seeing this episode of Nova years ago when it was first broadcast, and have been looking for a copy to buy ever since.  It was very well done, and a good additition to anyone's video library.

Alexa
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: rskkiya on December 19, 2004, 05:14:27 PM
Hello Alexa

Contact PBS station WGBH in Boston --you can find the site on the internet -- and you can order Anastasia Dead or Alive on VHS for about twenty u.s. dollars. It's quite good, (as you know) but not yet on DVD.
love
rskkiya
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Alexa on December 19, 2004, 07:14:27 PM
Quote
Hello Alexa

Contact PBS station WGBH in Boston --you can find the site on the internet -- and you can order Anastasia Dead or Alive on VHS for about twenty u.s. dollars. It's quite good, (as you know) but not yet on DVD.
love
rskkiya


Thanks!  I had looked on the pbs site, but hadn't thought of going straight to WGBH.  Looks like I know what I'm getting myself for Christmas.  ;D

Alexa
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on December 19, 2004, 11:44:58 PM
Quote
whether or not Carl M. was maternally or paternally related is not really of as major a consequence as Agr seems to think. Why?
Because their mtDNA matched EXACTLY. Thus, they were at least related maternally at some point within the last ten-fifteen generations. Without question, there IS some relationship between AA (whoever she was) and the FS FAMILY even if she wasn't FS herself.
AND, don't forget, the likelihood that she WAS FS is 96%. So we are only even talking about a 4% probabilty otherwise.


Last 10  to 15 generations show Gertrude's grandson was related to the doner of the intestines and hair.  It does not show that the intestines and hair were Anna Anderson's.  It does not show that the intestines and hair were FS.  However, it does show the doner was related to Gertrude not FS.  This test follows the maternal line.  If Gertrude and FS had different mothers then the line was broken between the two via the two mothers.  I only mentioned on another post that  this would not matter if the mothers were sisters/cousins then the maternal line might work.....  I don't know of anyone who has shown proof the two mothers were related.  If so,  I missed this.  What was the source?

This is the reason why someone,  I've forgotten who, was trying to find Karl Maucher or someone who did the testing to see if this subject about the mothers was discussed.

And,  I think this conversation started when it was hinted that FS may have been murdered by Grossmann, therefore,   if this is true, then Anna Anderson couldn't have been FS.

If  FS was murdered, and, the donner of the intestines and hair was Anna Andersons and she wasn't FS,  then who was she?  She was someone who was related to Gertrude and her grandson.

What we don't know, then,  is:  Whom Anna Anderson really was.

I have assumed Anna Anderson was FS, but,  I'm, now,  open on this subject until more evidence is presented to clearify these uncertainies.

AGRBear

Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on December 20, 2004, 07:44:06 AM
I really don't see any more uncertainties left. The intestines in the hospital belonged to AA. They were secure. It was the daughter of Gleb Botkin, a huge AA supporter, who found the intestines and arranged the tests. So if it was going to be faked or rigged, wouldn't she have wanted to rig it in favor of the results NOT matching?

Also, consider where and how a replacement intestine would have to have been found. Someone would have had to search down a maternal relative of FS, cut them open and remove just the exact part of intestine that AA had removed. WHO would do this, and WHY, and HOW would they manage this and then sneak it back into the hospital? Or did they steal it and make the swap on the side of the road at gunpoint? This really is not realistic at all!

I put no stock at all in the murder rumor. The name wasn't even the same, and while at some point someone may have guessed or assumed since she was missing and a serial killer was in the same (huge) city she was murdered, but there was nothing official, and if she were legally dead there would have been no way FS could have been mentioned so much in the AA trials. Why would they bother to go get the family of a dead person? No, they thought there was a real chance she was FS. And as I've said before, the family did recognize her, but later denied her to avoid responsibilty for her problems, and support of her. There are letters of the Schanskowksa family mentioning this, and discussing her as if it was a taken for granted fact they all knew she was FS.

I won't even touch the half sister thing again, I don't think scientists would have bothered to test someone they hadn't proven was the right maternal line.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Olga on December 20, 2004, 07:59:21 AM
Quote
Also, consider where and how a replacement intestine would have to have been found. Someone would have had to search down a maternal relative of FS, cut them open and remove just the exact part of intestine that AA had removed. WHO would do this, and WHY, and HOW would they manage this and then sneak it back into the hospital? Or did they steal it and make the swap on the side of the road at gunpoint? This really is not realistic at all!


AGRBear, you think the tests were rigged. With all Annie has said above, how can that be possible?
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Forum Admin on December 20, 2004, 09:13:58 AM
AGR,
About the samples 'not' being AA, I remind you of my earlier posting. Before making such an assertion as being plausible, you must identify WHO had the motive to make the switch, who KNEW the sample was in the hospital, who knew exactly WHERE it was stored in the hospital, Who had the dna expertise to know they would have to make the switch, who KNEW someone related to FS somehow, who could have extracted the precise same samples from him, processed them to appear exactly as if done by the hospital, who had the opportunity to enter the hospital to make the switch, WHEN they made the switch...

On this one note, you sound alot like Candice demanding the Grand Duchesses all escaped. Before you repeat this fantasy proposition (yes, fantasy) I must insist you start supplying hard evidence to back it up.
Simply because something is somehow minutely in the realm of "possible" does not make it remotely 'PLAUSIBLE'.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on December 20, 2004, 11:48:31 PM
Since the theories are not my own,  I'm not sure why I'm the one who needs to present the answers to your questions, Admin. Forum..  It was Penny Wilson who was researching the possibility that FS was murdered,  not I.  It was Penny who suggested that if FS was murdered then she could not have been Anna Anderson.

I merely am reminding you and others that there are questions being asked by people like Wilson and King who are pouring through real documents which I shall never have the pleasure to ever read.

If you look at the last line of my post,  I mention that I've always thought Anna Anderson and FS were one in the same, however,  because of what Penny Wilson's "new found evdience" which we've not yet seen,  I'm keeping my mind open.

Did I mention "switch" in my last post?  Let me go back and take a look.... No,  I did not.

My opinon on a switch:  If a switch did take place,  I have no idea who did or why?  Therefore,  how could I know a motive?  I could make educated guesses but why would I?

As for the trial,  I've never read an English translation, therefore, I have no clue if the subject of FS and Grossmann was ever mentioned.  

Golly gee whiz,  I don't have any answers.  If I did,  I'd be the one writing the books.

And,  let me repeat what I've  said many times,  it doesn't matter to me if Anna Anderson was FS or her cousin 15 times removed.

As for Candice's opinions and everyone else's opinions,  I think they all should be respected and weighted carefully,  even if they are not of your own opinion.  

My suggestions on other threads about one or all of the IF  having  escaped on the night of the 16 / 17  July 1918 has nothing to do with this thread.  I believe this thead is about Anna Anderson and FS.  

AGRBear  

Quote

....I am not doubting the tests with the "hair" and "intestines" matching Maucher. I am not doubting that it doesn't match Prince Philip.   It's the FS / nephew or half nephew and maternal line part that I 's like to have cleared.

.....  Then,  we can talk about the "switch"  ;D....  [A little humor at the end....]

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Olga on December 21, 2004, 12:20:29 AM
AGRBear, it seems anything is plausible to you. You claim to have the real answers to the fate of the Romanovs. Can you not see that this can get frustrating?   >:(

Why don't you just put your theory out in the open so other people can digest it?
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: rskkiya on December 21, 2004, 09:32:06 AM
Not again...
  I have my doubts that there was ever a real "Herr X" and a 'secret told to a 5 year old Agrbear" at all!
  Agrebear has been asked on a number of occations to please share her experiences and to tell us what she knows- but each time she has avoided answering the guestion...
  I'm afraid that I no longer take anything that she has to say on this topic seriously.

rskkiya
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Forum Admin on December 21, 2004, 09:42:52 AM
AGR,
the only part of your statement I was referring to is your claim that the AA sample was switched to match the FS family.  I have spoken to Penny privately several times about her assertion that AA was not FS. There is some room for discussion on the subject, I agree, as she raides some unanswered questions there.
As I have said before many times, I frankly don't care WHO AA really was, as long as it isn't Anastasia Nicholaievna, as THAT question is answered conclusively, as far as I am concerned. Whether she WAS FS? Cela ne faire rien dire, IMHO.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Olga on December 21, 2004, 09:51:39 AM
Quote
I frankly don't care WHO AA really was, as long as it isn't Anastasia Nicholaievna, as THAT question is answered conclusively, as far as I am concerned.


I couldn't care less either. For me the only thing that matters is that Anna Anderson wasn't Anastasia Nikolaevna. Period.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on December 21, 2004, 11:06:56 AM
Quote
AGR,
..... [in  part] ...  I have spoken to Penny privately several times about her assertion that AA was not FS. There is some room for discussion on the subject, I agree, as she raises some unanswered questions there.


Yes, there appears to be room for discussion!

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Forum Admin on December 21, 2004, 11:13:39 AM
Quote

Yes, there appears to be room for discussion!

AGRBear


Just keep the discussion away from AA being AN, as one has nothing to do with the other. We KNOW she was NOT AN, no question.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Olga on December 21, 2004, 08:42:47 PM
AGRBEAR

ANSWER MY QUESTION. WHAT DO YOU KNOW?
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Ella on December 21, 2004, 08:44:52 PM
I thought I would join in this thread first, as I have read and been assured that whatsoever theories are proposed in this forum the suggestor will not be subjected to ridicule.

Hmmm.

We will see.

Have any of you ever heard of "Walk In's"? There is a school of thought out there that claims that whenever a soul is in distress (serious distress, the kind that makes someone want to commit suicide) that they send out signals of a sort. In order to prevent the body being destroyed, since (theoretically) there are so many souls that want in, negotiations (for lack of a better term) are undertaken while the person in question is asleep. The transfer of soul to different body can also occur (according to this particular teaching) if a person is murdered in a particularly horrible or distressing way. That description would certainly apply to AN.

Since, scientifically, it appears that the body that AA was in belonged to FS, maybe the soul did not. I'm just presenting an idea! Its true that AA is not recorded to have spoken Russian, but there are many instances where she is reported to have ben asked questions in Russian, and answered corectly in German.

Any true student of the paranormal knows that in homes where Polergeist actiivity is recorded, there is almost always a child, boy or girl, of puberty age. The common excepted scientific belief is that at some point there has been a traumatic experience in the lives of these teenagers which causes a part of their mind to split off which becomes the entity causing the disturbances. If this is a comonly held scientific belief, It may certainly be possible that the mind of a teenager that has been murdered in a horrible way, also who had witnessed the murder of her entire family and the only friends and servants that had accompanied them throughout their ordeal could....well, freak out after death and not go whereever it is souls go. What if she just jumped into another body? And what if that body was FS?

Now I guess I will wait for the backlash of this one.

Ella
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Olga on December 21, 2004, 08:55:44 PM
Quote
Its true that AA is not recorded to have spoken Russian, but there are many instances where she is reported to have ben asked questions in Russian, and answered corectly in German.


Hearsay.

Quote
The common excepted scientific belief is that at some point there has been a traumatic experience in the lives of these teenagers which causes a part of their mind to split off which becomes the entity causing the disturbances.


Would you like to show us your findings that support this?

Quote
well, freak out after death and not go whereever it is souls go. What if she just jumped into another body? And what if that body was FS?


Jumping to conclusions?

It seems hard for some people to accept that Anna Anderson was not Anastasia Nikolaevna.

Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Ella on December 21, 2004, 09:13:48 PM
Dear Olga,

Thank you for your comments. I did not mean to imply that I believe that AA was AN. Not physically, anyway. I really have no opinion either way as to if she was AN spiritually, either.

I was just throwing an idea out there. I thought it would be okay to do that, being as this is a discussion forum.

Ella
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: rskkiya on December 21, 2004, 09:48:30 PM
Ella
This might be something to discuss in the topic of Reincarnation and Past lives at this site.
rskkiya
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Ella on December 22, 2004, 12:28:04 AM
Dear Rskkiya,

Sorry, I am so new I didn't  know there was such a thread. But I agree with you, and will read on until I find it.

Aloha, Ella
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on December 22, 2004, 10:32:29 AM
Quote

Just keep the discussion away from AA being AN, as one has nothing to do with the other. We KNOW she was NOT AN, no question.


Since I've not suggested AA being AN,  this will be an easy task for me.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: rskkiya on December 22, 2004, 03:09:40 PM
Agrebear
PLEASE just answer Olga's question!

rskkiya
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Alice on December 22, 2004, 11:12:35 PM
Quote
well, freak out after death and not go whereever it is souls go. What if she just jumped into another body? And what if that body was FS?


This is where the theory delves into the paranormal (oh wait, we're already there!) because Anna Anderson could speak Polish and German, two languages that Anastasia Nicholaevna could not speak. So AN's soul could not have been in FS's body (I can't believe I just typed that sentence).
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on December 23, 2004, 06:24:56 AM
While I do believe in ghosts and 'weird things' and would never ridicule a theory involving them, I do not believe this was the case with AA because I don't think she was much like the real AN at all, and her 'memories' came from someone else (living, Russian emigres') While much is made of her being too regal to be a peasant, that could have been learned in the 20's-30's a la 'My Fair Lady', if she had any at all and it wasn't just seen that way by those who wanted to. All the video and audio I have seen of her as an older woman she was, to put it kindly, not the least bit regal or refined. The soul of AN is with her other family members the Holy Martyrs.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Georgiy on December 23, 2004, 01:56:10 PM
"The soul of AN is with her other family members the Holy Martyrs."
Well said, Annie!  
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on December 23, 2004, 04:10:15 PM
Where is the "reincarnation" thread?  With the changes,  I don't seem to be able to discover it's new home.  Even the "search" doesn't pull it up for me, today.

Thanks.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Martyn on December 27, 2004, 08:05:07 AM
Quote
Agrebear
PLEASE just answer Olga's question!

rskkiya


Encore une fois.  AGRBear, a response is required please.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on December 27, 2004, 10:51:49 AM
My first post was in April on the thread about how a person becomes interested in the Romanovs.

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=family;action=post;num=1076602118;quote=74;title=Post+reply;start=50

Way back in April,  I did answer Rskkiya's direct question and I quote:

Quote
In 1947-8, I was told two of  Nicholas II's children escaped the execution of the communists, so, it did not surprise me when I read  in the newspapers the report which stated two of Nicholas II's childen were missing from the shallow grave revealed to the public in the 1990s.
AGRBear


Perhaps,  you should ask  her and her friends why they continue to ask about my childhood story when they already know the answer. 

AGRBear

PS  I do hope I don't have to repeat this another dozen times,  because my story is probably boring the heck out of everyone.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: rskkiya on December 27, 2004, 12:24:44 PM
Agrbear
That's IT? Herr X told you that two kids survived and you have been hinting that you had some secret knowledge of the "fate" of the Romanovs because of this tragicly pointless fable?

I think that we all deserve an apology.

It will be a long time until I take anything that you say seriously again.

rskkiya >:(
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Martyn on December 27, 2004, 01:07:23 PM
Quote
Agrbear
That's IT? Herr X told you that two kids survived and you have been hinting that you had some secret knowledge of the "fate" of the Romanovs because of this tragicly pointless fable?

I think that we all deserve an apology.

It will be a long time until I take anything that you say seriously again.

rskkiya >:(


I can fully understand your indignation at this revelation!
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on December 27, 2004, 01:53:16 PM
Quote
.... [in part...] Agrbear
That's IT? Herr X told you that two kids survived and you have been hinting that you had some secret knowledge of the "fate" of the Romanovs because of this tragicly pointless fable?...

rskkiya >:(


I apologize for Rskkyia's built up of my childhood story to such heights.... AND, I take no credit for her creativity.

Maybe, someone can tell me why she does  this over and over and over, again, and, again.  If you do know please send the reply  in a personal message to me.

So, enough of my Mr. XXX, and, let's get back to the subject at hand:  AA and FS  (Part 2)....

Where were we?  Oh yes,  I and others were talking about FS's half sister, Gertrude, her grandson Maucher and the DNA's path through the maternal line since FS and Gertrude may not have had the same mother:

Quote
But he wasn't, if  Gertrude and FS had different mothers, who were not related to each other  [sisters, first cousins....].

AGRBear


Somewhere in the conversation Annie's posting was:
Quote

That's what I was thinking, WHY would they even bother with someone who wasn't? I'm sure they checked it out before they wasted any time and money testing him.


AGRBear
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on December 29, 2004, 10:10:38 AM
While looking up some data last night,  I found the mention of fingerprints of GD Anastasia's on school workbooks..... p. 340 ANASTASIA, THE RIDDLE OF ANNA ANDERSON by Peter Kurth.   At the time,  the German police didn't have a method of lefting these prints  [said, "without destroying the documents"]...  This was during AA's trial in Germany.... 1965

I bet with the methods they have, now,  someone could.

And,  perhaps there are prints of FS on file....

One would think prints of Anna Anderson's could, also, be found.

We had talked about fingerprints earlier but where?  Thought I'd bring it up again.  

I don't recall being aware that Kurth had been talking about GD Anastasia's prints.  Did he?

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on January 04, 2005, 04:15:16 PM
When looking for something else,  I noticed the photograph of Anna Anderson in the book by Guy Richards  THE HUNT FOR THE CZAR.  
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/AnnaAnderson1902.jpg)

Underneath was the words: "PLATE 34:  Another claimant to the Romanov fortune, Anna Anderson, circa 1902."

"cira 1902" ??  I didn't know there were any photographs of Anna Anderson/FS  before 1920s.  Maybe, it was mislabeled and should read 1922??  Or, is this an actual photo of AA/FS in 1902?

The GD Anastasia would have been about one ...??? in 1902.....

A confused bear.....

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Abby on January 04, 2005, 04:18:23 PM
That's weird. I had that book but I sold it on Ebay, and I certainly don't remember that picture being in there and saying 'Anna Anderson' underneath.
I don't think that is AA in that picture, and it certainly wasn't taken in 1902! If that is AA in 1902, then she was definitley not Anastasia, because she looks older than 1 year old in that picture  ;D...maybe they meant 1920?? It really doesn't look like Anna Anderson though  ???

AGRBear, is your copy of "Hunt for the Tsar" a paperback with a black cover and a painting of the family portrait from 1913 on the front? That's what my edition looked like, and I don't remember that pic being in there.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 04, 2005, 04:33:22 PM
Quote
When looking for something else,  I noticed the photograph of Anna Anderson in the book by Guy Richards  THE HUNT FOR THE CZAR.  
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/AnnaAnderson1902.jpg)

Underneath was the words: "PLATE 34:  Another claimant to the Romanov fortune, Anna Anderson, circa 1902."

"cira 1902" ??  I didn't know there were any photographs of Anna Anderson/FS  before 1920s.  Maybe, it was mislabeled and should read 1922??  Or, is this an actual photo of AA/FS in 1902?

A confused bear.....

AGRBear
 Bear, I just looked at my copy of the book and there it was.
I don't think this  photo is of Anna Anderson, at least it looks nothing like her. In any case, where would they get one from 1902 of her? I think the author may just be a very confused guy...
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 04, 2005, 04:41:54 PM
The same book also has this photo (Plate 22), identifying it as "The alleged Grand Duchesses Olga, Tatiana, Anastasia and Maria, according to Colonel Goleniewski, photographed in Poland, circa 1921.... "  Huh?  ???

[(http://img106.exs.cx/img106/2759/otma19219vq.png)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Lanie on January 04, 2005, 04:45:22 PM
Helen, that's SO FUNNY!  That photograph is in AN's albums, taken in 1917 at Tsarskoe Selo..
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 04, 2005, 04:53:07 PM
Quote
Helen, that's SO FUNNY!  That photograph is in AN's albums, taken in 1917 at Tsarskoe Selo..
  Hey, take that up with Guy Richards  ;)  ;D
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on January 04, 2005, 05:02:32 PM
I have a hard cover book, first edition, 1970.

AGRBear

PS  Perhaps the printer typist wasn't the best???

PSS  Same cover as Helen's book shown in her post.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 04, 2005, 05:03:50 PM
Quote
... is your copy of "Hunt for the Tsar" a paperback with a black cover and a painting of the family portrait from 1913 on the front? That's what my edition looked like, and I don't remember that pic being in there.


Abby,

This is what the cover of my book looks like, notice the family photo on the Tsar's forehead  ???... I admit, I never read this book, not even sure why I own it and where I got it from, but it looks so bizarre, I am almost tempted to read it now!  :o

(http://img115.exs.cx/img115/9403/huntforczar2ci.png)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on January 04, 2005, 05:12:20 PM
Looked under the list showing the plates but this page, also, states the year 1902.

Went in the book to see if there was a list of ownership of the photo and it's not mentioned under credit.

Anyone seen this photo in any other place?

When I first copied it this morning,  I thought her face was against a curtain.  But it may be another woman/girl's dress, perhaps a sleeve....

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 04, 2005, 05:15:53 PM
She actually kind of looks like a young Nadezhda Krupskaya  ;) Are we sure that this book is not some sort of a joke?

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/AnnaAnderson1902.jpg)(http://img18.exs.cx/img18/6581/nadya9ey.png)

Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Abby on January 04, 2005, 05:20:24 PM
dude, LOL. My book didn't have that picture that Helen posted, either! I got gipped! :P it was a paperback and had no pictures. I can't find a picture of what my copy looked like on the internet.
i also read 'rescuing the romanovs' by guy richards. the books  were very similar in content. very interestng but i didn't buy into his claims.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 04, 2005, 05:25:24 PM
Quote
very interestng but i didn't buy into his claims.
Hey, why not??  ;)  You did get gipped! At least you could have derived some entertainment from the photos... Do you think the girl in the picture (AA in 1902) looks like Krupskaya? I think it may be her  :o! Or maybe I am just losing my mind  :-/  ;D
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on January 04, 2005, 05:25:34 PM
Quote
... in part.... She actually kind of looks like a young Nadezhda Krupskaya  ;) Are we sure that this book is not some sort of a joke?



I don't see the same comparison as Helen.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 04, 2005, 05:28:24 PM
Quote

I don't see the same comparison as Helen.
 
AGRBear
I don't see it either, except for the same eyes, the same lips, the same nose and the same ears. Other than that, she looks nothing like her!  :P
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on January 04, 2005, 05:48:53 PM
Another one of the mysterious puzzel pieces.   :)

Anyone have an answer because I doubt it's Lenin's wife, then, again,  been wrong before....  

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 04, 2005, 05:52:26 PM
Quote
...I doubt it's Lenin's wife, then, again,  been wrong before....  
 
Wouldn't that be a hoot?  ;) ;D
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on January 04, 2005, 05:56:21 PM
Gosh, oh dear.... if it was Lenin's wife then we'd have to switch gears and drive onto "Conspiracy Lane".

 8)

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on January 04, 2005, 07:28:10 PM
Quote
That's weird. I had that book but I sold it on Ebay, and I certainly don't remember that picture being in there and saying 'Anna Anderson' underneath.
I don't think that is AA in that picture, and it certainly wasn't taken in 1902!
.


Franziska was born in 1896, so in 1902 she'd be six. That girl looks six to me.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on January 04, 2005, 07:30:02 PM
Quote
She actually kind of looks like a young Nadezhda Krupskaya  ;) Are we sure that this book is not some sort of a joke?

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/AnnaAnderson1902.jpg)(http://img18.exs.cx/img18/6581/nadya9ey.png)



Let's compare ears  ;)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 04, 2005, 07:32:40 PM
Nadezhda was born in 1869, I don't suppose there is any way I can convince anyone that this is just a very well preserved 33-year-old, can I?

;D
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on January 04, 2005, 07:33:35 PM
Quote
The same book also has this photo (Plate 22), identifying it as "The alleged Grand Duchesses Olga, Tatiana, Anastasia and Maria, according to Colonel Goleniewski, photographed in Poland, circa 1921.... "  Huh?  ???

[(http://img106.exs.cx/img106/2759/otma19219vq.png)


When I saw that years ago, I was fooled, but the last time I saw it I laughed and couldn't believe I ever fell for it. Lanie's right, (of course) that pic is 1917! I also saw a pic in another book that had a picture of the young OTMA in their white dresses and hats on their mother's balcony that claimed it was taken at the Ipatiev house a few days before the execution!  :P
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 04, 2005, 07:48:55 PM
I think I am going to write a book about Nadezhda Krupskaya and her claims ;).

Ok, I will stop now!  :-X
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 04, 2005, 07:51:07 PM
Quote

When I saw that years ago, I was fooled, but the last time I saw it I laughed and couldn't believe I ever fell for it. Lanie's right, (of course) that pic is 1917! I also saw a pic in another book that had a picture of the young OTMA in their white dresses and hats on their mother's balcony that claimed it was taken at the Ipatiev house a few days before the execution!  :P
   It seems that basically you can publish any picture and identify it as whatever you want.... In this bizarre book, the author mixes and matches the real with the imaginary.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Abby on January 05, 2005, 12:47:43 AM
Quote

Let's compare ears  ;)


LOL! Yes, let's compare ears of these 2 photos and see where it gets us! ;D
Wouldn't that be something...if there was a picture of a young F.S. in the book labled 'Anna Anderson' and no one ever thought to look there when all along there was another photo of F.S. other than the one we're all used to seeing (in Annie's avatar)?
Just speculation. Interesting coversation you sparked here, AGRBear! I wonder who that really is in the pic!
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 05, 2005, 08:26:02 AM
Quote


Wouldn't that be something...if there was a picture of a young F.S. in the book labled 'Anna Anderson' and no one ever thought to look there when all along there was another photo of F.S. other than the one we're all used to seeing (in Annie's avatar)?

 From what I have always heard, Annie's avatar picture is the only one in existence, as far as we know, of FS. The little girl in Guy Richard's book doesn't look like FS at all, but then again, it's only one picture so hard to judge. But I seriously doubt that it is a 1902 FS picture and noone has heard of it. The author may just have used some random picture of some kid for all we know... Maybe someone wants to take it upon themselves to contact Guy?  ;)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Michelle on January 05, 2005, 08:41:05 AM
Quote

Franziska was born in 1896, so in 1902 she'd be six. That girl looks six to me.


You think that girl looks six?! :o :o :o  Boy she matured to look like age 16 fast!!! ::)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Annie on January 05, 2005, 10:04:55 AM
Quote

You think that girl looks six?! :o :o :o  Boy she matured to look like age 16 fast!!! ::)


Look at this face, it's obviously a little girl of pre-puberty, I'd say less than 10. This is not a grown woman. It's a shame we don't have the entire pic to see the size of the body. But I always took this pic for a child. (Maybe Lenin's wife as a child, but a child ;) )

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/AnnaAnderson1902.jpg)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: stepan on January 05, 2005, 02:48:28 PM
Quote
  Hey, take that up with Guy Richards  ;)  ;D

As far as I know Guy Richards died several years ago. I always wondered about that picture where he got it from. I haven´t seen it anywhere else.
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 05, 2005, 04:32:06 PM
Quote
As far as I know Guy Richards died several years ago.
Oh well then we're doomed  :(  ;)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 05, 2005, 04:35:05 PM
Quote

Look at this face, it's obviously a little girl of pre-puberty, I'd say less than 10. This is not a grown woman. It's a shame we don't have the entire pic to see the size of the body. But I always took this pic for a child. (Maybe Lenin's wife as a child, but a child ;) )

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/AnnaAnderson1902.jpg)


Although this is definitely not a grown woman, it's difficult to tell how old she may be. To me, she could be anywhere from 6 to 16 years old. I really can't tell. I just know that she looks a lot like Lenin's wife. Maybe Lenin's and Krupskaya's secret daughter?  :o  Kidding.   ;D
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on January 05, 2005, 04:36:54 PM
Sorry to hear about Guy Richard's death.

I'm going to take a pot of honey over to my corner and  pout.

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 05, 2005, 04:37:50 PM
Quote
I'm going to take a pot of honey over to my corner and pout.

AGRBear
What's the matter , Bear?
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on January 05, 2005, 04:40:49 PM
I  "thunk"  someone would have seen this photo a long time ago and had the answer, but, no one does and, now, our source is unavailable.

AGRBear  :-[
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 05, 2005, 04:44:02 PM
Quote
I  "thunk"  someone would have seen this photo a long time ago and had the answer, but, no one does and, now, our source is unavailable.

AGRBear  :-[
 As unavailable as can be!  ;D
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Janet_W. on January 05, 2005, 04:57:34 PM
Considered channeling?  ::)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on January 05, 2005, 05:11:37 PM
I am too far from the Berlin channel AA jumped into.....

AGRBear ::)
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: Abby on January 05, 2005, 10:22:48 PM
LOLOL That was a funny play on words, Bear!

Maybe we can find someone who knew Guy Richards! We can all contact the publisher and track down any living relatives or colleagues!
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on February 23, 2005, 02:06:55 PM
Stephen wrote this over on another thread:
Quote
Klier and Mingay wrote that "The remaining Schanzkowskis are quite suspicious of investigators into the Anna Anderson case. Felix´s daughter has told reporters that her father talked about his sister Franziska with pride, saying she got away and made a new and successful life for herself as Anna Anderson. However, she does like to be paid for her reminiscenses. Margarete Ellerik,the daughter of Gertrude who tried to make Anna admit to being a Schanzkowska,generally refuses to have anything to do with investigators and is apparently afraid that the family will be prosecuted for Anna´s activities."
There is also a letter quoted in the French jounalist Dominique Auclere´s book Anastasia Qui etes-vous? from Margarete Ellerik to her uncle Felix : "So dear uncle.something new. It´s about your sister Franziska. They want to know a lot of things again. Dear uncle, you remember what you have said from the beginning,stick to this  and nothing else! Who could imagine this would come up again... So dear uncle. now you know what to do..."   Auclere wrote that she quoted from her memoty but that the original could be found in the archive of the tribunal or the lawyers.  I think that´s what probably happened. They knew she was Franziska but said somethong else in order not to ruin her "career".  They did what they thought was best for her and I think they have nothing to be ashamed of.But who can be 100 % sure of anything!  It´s  fascinating one way or another.


Was there a letter?

AGRBear
Title: Re: AA and FS
Post by: AGRBear on February 23, 2005, 05:08:01 PM
Here is Penny's reply:
Quote

Not really.  This is not a letter or testimony from FELIX stating that he had lied about recognizing Fraulein U in order not to upset his sister's "career."  This is a report of an alleged letter from Felix's niece to her uncle.  

I do not doubt Dominique Aucleres' claim that she saw this letter, though I have not found it myself among the piles of trial documents I have here.  It MAY be here, I just haven't read through to it yet.  However, as Aucleres remained a lifelong "supporter" of Anna Anderson, I believe she did not place a good deal of weight on this letter.  After all, it categorically does NOT state that they were supporting a fraud by Franziska.  This is what it says according to Aucleres' memory:

"So dear uncle.something new. It´s about your sister Franziska. They want to know a lot of things again. Dear uncle, you remember what you have said from the beginning,stick to this  and nothing else! Who could imagine this would come up again... So dear uncle. now you know what to do..."

Let's take it apart.  This part of the trial WAS about Felix's sister Franziska.  The tribunal DID want to know a lot of things.  Felix has told his family to stick to the one story and nothing else.  There is no mention that the story is a lie.  The story could well have been the truth that neither he nor Valerian nor Maria Julianna recognized Franziska in AA.  It sounds to me like Felix set down an "official" line for the family to take -- but nowhere is there mention that this line is a fraud.

If you ask me, it sounds like Margarete is advising her uncle to take his own advice and stick to the family's story.  It sounds to me like he was a little shaken to have all this come up again in his old age.

Nope, it's still not Felix -- or his family -- admitting to a fraud.