Author Topic: Richard Schweitzer, Husband of Marina Botkin: General Q & A  (Read 78629 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Richard Schweitzer, Husband of Marina Botkin: General Q & A
« on: October 10, 2007, 01:41:33 AM »
Question # 1

In "The Romanovs The Final Chapter" (1995) written by Robert Massie it is stated at p 243:

... "Schweitzer explained ... "We now feel that there had to be some form of manipulation or substitution. Specifically, that means that somehow, somebody got in and switched or substituted tissue at Martha Jefferson Hospital."

1a. Do you Sir, still maintain this published opinion?

1b. If so, on what evidence is your opinion based?

Thank you,

Margarita
« Last Edit: May 26, 2009, 12:37:29 AM by Alixz »


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline Richard_Schweitzer

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 161
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Richard Schweitzer, Husband of Marina Botkin: General Q & A
« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2007, 03:46:05 PM »
I should really go back and read carefully the full context in which Bob Massie wrote.

But -

1. a. Yes, that is my best conjecture. Admmitedly, it is conjecture. Is it rational? I think so. I realize there may be other ways in which the tissue ( as a histological specimen) was "compromised."

1,b.  Two factors known at the time of the report were: (1) That the hospital found it advisable upon the publicity of the litigation to incur expense (of which their legal counsel, Matt Murray, complained to me) to provide for real security for the specimen, beyond that previously available, indicating previous security was not absolute. (2) The observation by the Adminstrator, that while the public entry to the room of storage was secured by locks and security procedures, at the other end of the room was a doorway through which people came and went while he was there observing.

Although an explanation of "unfamiliarity" with cataloguing (if I remember correctly) has been given, there apparently was a time when the specimen could not be immediately located.

The pathological records slide identication and later comparison, were not of the type, so far as I have been able to learn, that would apply to mtDNA characteristics.

While the anecdotal data are probably confirmable, the relationship of Karl Maucher with the sister of  FS has never been scienticifcally established.

There is a gap in the birth and baptismal records which omits those of FS in the region in which she was born. I went to Europe to investigate that and found it to be so. However, continuing investigation has produced a record from the central record s system of Poland indicating that FS may have indeed had the same maternal antecedent as the purported (reputed) sister of FS who was the reputed maternal aunt of  of Karl Maucher. At that point, I had to suspend my work for Marina's care.

If it does ultimately develop that the mother of FS was not the mother of Karl Maucher's reputed aunt we have another set of issues. In my investigation, assisted by a translator, I followed the "history" and decline of the father of the reputed aunt of Karl Maucher, and his reputaion of philandering, and marriages. The possibility of FS being a child of an "outside liasion," and being brought into his household for care may merit further investigation. As of now there is no documentation to support that, and the central records, if drawn from accurate sources, would negate that.

It may develop that science at the time of the comparisons will be, or has been, superseded. I have never challenged the scientific results,; read Nature, gentics. I have challenged the lack of understanding that the comparisons to the Maucher mtDNA produced probability of relationship, not an identification. Having learned more about the origins of the FS family (Frisian) as Kashuban - which I think my work brought forward, the comparison populations may have been limited, but I do not challenge the validity of their use at the time.

There may be more I should add, but that's it for now

Offline Richard_Schweitzer

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 161
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Richard Schweitzer, Husband of Marina Botkin: General Q & A
« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2007, 03:53:30 PM »
Incidentally, I am not trying to use any of my views for advocacy for the decisons of others, but they are what they are in what shapes my ongoing concerns and actions.

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: Richard Schweitzer, Husband of Marina Botkin: General Q & A
« Reply #3 on: October 11, 2007, 09:11:11 PM »
Thank you for your response to Question # 1.

Margarita


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

ferrymansdaughter

  • Guest
Re: Richard Schweitzer, Husband of Marina Botkin: General Q & A
« Reply #4 on: October 12, 2007, 06:49:42 AM »
Thank you for that detailed reply Mr Schweitzer. 

Offline Richard_Schweitzer

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 161
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Richard Schweitzer, Husband of Marina Botkin: General Q & A
« Reply #5 on: October 12, 2007, 05:21:19 PM »

I was asked elsewhere for comment:

While it is probably early days for even conjecture, let alone leaps to conclusions about recent "discoveries" of "additional" remains in the area of Ekaterinburg, when more is known, and known with greater certainty from unassailabe scientific work (thank heaven for Anthony Falsetti), hopefully, attention will be given to whether these are truly "additional" or missing segments or other remains, or, possibly, not provably connected in any way.

Offline BobAtchison

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 896
    • View Profile
    • The Alexander Palace
Re: Richard Schweitzer, Husband of Marina Botkin: General Q & A
« Reply #6 on: October 14, 2007, 11:26:08 AM »
Richard:

You have placed "discoveries" and "additional" in quotes - is it your intent to cast doubt on the latest finds in Yekaterinburg?

Attacks that been launched on the Yekaterinburg team and Avdonin personally.  Are you a supporter of the newest conspiracy claims that are are being voiced by AA's supporters?

Bob

Offline Richard_Schweitzer

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 161
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Richard Schweitzer, Husband of Marina Botkin: General Q & A
« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2007, 11:45:47 AM »
Bob,

I am not into "casting" anything. You, of all people should know that from what we have done, totally openly. I was asked to comment, I gave my view, not to advocate, not to shape other's opinions.

I put words in quotes, as I did, to differentiate my use of them as identifying the subject of discussion as presented in the words of the request given me; rather than classifying those events mentioned as constituting what the dictionary defines to those terms to mean.


Offline BobAtchison

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 896
    • View Profile
    • The Alexander Palace
Re: Richard Schweitzer, Husband of Marina Botkin: General Q & A
« Reply #8 on: October 14, 2007, 11:52:21 AM »
Richard:

Do you have an opinion on the recent discoveries in Yekaterinburg?

Do you still believe Anna Anderson was Anastasia Romanov?

If your answer is yes, have you ever had any doubts?

Bob

Offline Richard_Schweitzer

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 161
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Richard Schweitzer, Husband of Marina Botkin: General Q & A
« Reply #9 on: October 14, 2007, 12:19:37 PM »
Bob,

You ask, and I reply (my replies not not seem to be taken as "answers'):

Do you have an opinion on the recent discoveries in Yekaterinburg?

1.  I have not followed the reports about the events in the oblast closely enough to have an opiniion.
     It seems too early, in terms of available verified facts to begin forming opinions, at least what I would consider a true opinion rather than just a reaction.

2. Many questions occur to me from what I little I have read, and the answers will likely be forthcoming over time.
 

Do you still believe Anna Anderson was Anastasia Romanov?

  Yes, as the woman I knew by that name.

If your answer is yes, have you ever had any doubts?

Yes, back more than 50 years ago when I was first sending money to help support her as a friend of Marina's father, Gleb; by "doubts," I mean uncertainty, not skepticism.

Are those answers, or just replies?

Offline Richard_Schweitzer

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 161
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Richard Schweitzer, Husband of Marina Botkin: General Q & A
« Reply #10 on: October 14, 2007, 12:50:50 PM »
Bob,

I have not read what role, if any,  Avdonin has had in the more recent events reported from the S Oblast. I know there has never been any comment from me about any such connection, even in private conversations or messages.

I suppose you know he came with his wife  to visit Marina in the U.S. and was pretty sure he knew how to find remains of persons not identified from his original findings.
As I understood, from Peter Sarandinak, who also visited Marina and me on a few occassions, Avdonin's views motivated the continuing searches by Peter and his associates, conducted with archeological discipline so far as I am aware.

An anecdote: Avdonin's wife teaches English.  As Avdonin was talking to Marina in Russian, his wife was translating, although Marina had been  responding, though infrequently in Russian, when Avdonin turned and spoke to his wife, who went silent, so I could no longer follow the conversation. When I asked Marina why that happened, she told me: "He told her, be quiet, can't you see she perfectly well understands what I am saying."

I have no information about the nature ( archeological procedures) of any other searches, though I have read some reports of extreme "disturbances"  (bulldozers, etc) to the search areas.

Offline BobAtchison

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 896
    • View Profile
    • The Alexander Palace
Re: Richard Schweitzer, Husband of Marina Botkin: General Q & A
« Reply #11 on: October 14, 2007, 02:18:03 PM »
Richard:

Did you have no doubts about Anna Anderson being Anastasia when the test results were announced?

Also, If things were reversed and if the results had confirmed Anna Anderson was Anastasia then I am sure you would be defending the DNA results.  In that situation if we had been claiming samples had been tampered with you would be defending the process and saying how ridiculous our claims sounded.

In the end this has to be based on facts and science - Anna Anderson's claims have been completely refuted.  There is no chance that the findings will be overturned.

I am sorry for you that your friend was not who she said she was.  I am sorry you were hoodwinked by Anna Anderson/FS.  It happens, we are often misled by others we trust.  You were not alone - many fell prey to this con.  You were one of Anna Anderson/FS's victims.  Eventually I hope you will see the truth.

Bob

Offline Richard_Schweitzer

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 161
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Richard Schweitzer, Husband of Marina Botkin: General Q & A
« Reply #12 on: October 14, 2007, 02:56:20 PM »
Bob,   You ask:

"Did you have no doubts about Anna Anderson being Anastasia when the test results were announced?"

No

Also, If things were reversed and if the results had confirmed Anna Anderson was Anastasia then I am sure you would be defending the DNA results.

Q: On what would you base that assumption?

I have never attacked the "DNA results" nor the scientific work that produced them.  When asked why I continue with my views, I have responded that the other evidence indicates to me the possible existence of factors that may have affected those results.


In that situation if we had been claiming samples had been tampered with you would be defending the process and saying how ridiculous our claims sounded.

Q: and that assumption?

You still haven't answered whether that prior categroization  is your judgement of me.  But, I thank you for your pity.


Offline Helen_Azar

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 7472
  • Coming up Fall 2015: Tatiana's diaries and letters
    • View Profile
    • War-time diaries of Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna Romanov
Re: Richard Schweitzer, Husband of Marina Botkin: General Q & A
« Reply #13 on: October 14, 2007, 03:07:15 PM »
Mr Schweitzer, I understand that you do not  believe that the intestine segment tested really belonged to Mrs Manahan, i.e. it was planted. Do you therefore have some realistic/convincing  theories to share with us as to how this may have occured... For example:

1. Whose intestine segment did the conspirators use to substitute for the tissue sample which was supposed to belong to Mrs Manahan?
   
    a. did the intestine segment belong to a recently deceased Maucher/Schanzkowski family member*?
    b. was the intestine segment excized from a living donor from the Maucher/Schanzkowski family?
    c. was a long deceased Maucher/Schanzkowski family member exhumed for this purpose?
    d. was any Maucher/Schanzkowski family member involved in the conspiracy (it seems they would almost have to be in order to get the sample, especially if b. was true)?

2. What is your proposed theory as to how the switch was performed by the conspirators at the hospital?
   
    a. assuming that it would have to be done after it got to Dr Gill's lab since he was not involved in this conspiracy (or was he?)
    b. if the switch was done after the sample was transferred to Dr Gill's lab, then was a member of Dr Gill's staff possibly involved in the conspiracy, but not Dr Gill himself?
    c. did someone else (an outsider) gain access to Dr Gill's lab after the sample was transferred there and make the switch (substituting the sealed sample with an identical fake)?

Thank you in advance for sharing your theories with us, perhaps we will be convinced when we hear them.

* It would have to come from a Maucher/Schanzkowski family member in order to ensure the match to Karl Maucher - since that was the entire point of this conspiracy.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2007, 03:11:07 PM by Helen_A »

Offline BobAtchison

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 896
    • View Profile
    • The Alexander Palace
Re: Richard Schweitzer, Husband of Marina Botkin: General Q & A
« Reply #14 on: October 14, 2007, 03:35:08 PM »
Richard:

If you had no doubts about Anna Anderson/FS's identity even when the DNA results were announced then - as I have said - no scientific evidence, no truth will ever persuade you otherwise. Your personal involvement/experience with Anna Anderson/FS overrules anything and everything...

I have had doubts over the years.  When I first read The File on the Tsar - and later Kurth's book - I hoped Anna Anderson was Anastasia and that she had survived.  Until the remains were found and the DNA results I was 75% she died (the reality) and 25% she survived (my hope).  Since The File on the Czar and Kurth's Anastasia the scientific and historic proof that we all wanted has emerged.  We know for a fact Anastasia perished along with her entire family.  All of the claimants were hoaxes.  Many people were taken in by one or more of them.  Some people devoted a significant part of their lives to support Anna Anderson/FS.  It is sad that she used so many people in her attempt to steal Anastasia's identity and use it for her own benefit.

I cannot have any sympathy for Anna Anderson/FS - I think she always knew exactly what she was doing and was totally indifferent to what her con did to her victims.  It that sense I see her as a sociopath.  She used anyone and everyone.  As I wrote earlier, I am very sorry you continue to be the victim of her fraud.

Bob