Richard Schweitzer, Husband of Marina Botkin: General Q & A

Since  Richard is traveling,  as I am,  it seems his attention cannot be devoted to this forum at this time.


And,  it is his right as to which  questions he'd  like to answer.   


Either this is acceptable to FA and Rob or it's not.  This is their decision since this is their forum.

Meanwhile,  as I've said,  I am finding the  questions being answered  interesting.  And,  I thank Richard for taking the time out of his busy schedule in answering them.

AGRBear

Helen, I think when one examines which questions Schweitzer clearly refuses to answer, GIVES us the answer.  Remember the sin of omission is equal to the sin of commission.

Yes I've noticed that too. It seems that by avoiding or circumventing a certain question it looks like it's because the answer is yes (such as in did AA request cremation) Politicians do it all the time. I don't even bother to watch debates anymore. It's useless and you'll never get the truth from any of them.

Since  Richard is traveling,  as I am,  it seems his attention cannot be devoted to this forum at this time.

Yes, indeed. I guess this is why he is making those long biographical posts to answer selective questions.

Either this is acceptable to FA and Rob or it's not.  This is their decision since this is their forum.

BTW, FA and Rob are the same person.

Richard, Is there any way that you might be able to post some old family photos?  All I have ever seen of Mr. Botkin are very young and very old....no family pictures.  I would love to see he and Nadine and the kids.

How did you meet Marina and where?  Were you personally overwhelmed by the "Russian" aspect of their lives or was it easy for you to adjust to the family?  I am really interested in the family kind of questions and appreciate what you did write in the above post.  Did Marina and her siblings speak Russian?  And if so, did she teach your own children to speak Russian too? 

Thnk you for taking the time to answer us, I really appreciate it.

Arleen

Alright. the first part of the project here was completed an hour ago, and I will put in some time this evening.

I will first deal with # 204 which says it has been posted 6 times. Then I may make a consolidated response to several others, after reading them carefully.

Richard, Is there any way that you might be able to post some old family photos?  All I have ever seen of Mr. Botkin are very young and very old....no family pictures.  I would love to see he and Nadine and the kids.

How did you meet Marina and where?  Were you personally overwhelmed by the "Russian" aspect of their lives or was it easy for you to adjust to the family?  I am really interested in the family kind of questions and appreciate what you did write in the above post.  Did Marina and her siblings speak Russian?  And if so, did she teach your own children to speak Russian too? 

Thnk you for taking the time to answer us, I really appreciate it.

Arleen

Mr. Schweitzer,

I like Arleen would love to see some family pictures if you would and could be kind enough to post.

You have captured my interest.  As may of the old time members will tell you about me , I am not very deep. " If does not deal with hats, frocks, shoes, handbags or jewels, Tampabay will not be interested", is an accurate statement about me and also a direct quote.

I thank you in advance for your contributions to this thread and and the AP Forum at large.


Sincerely.

TampaBay

[I certainly accept the fact that people do think she knew herself not to be Anastasia (and of course there were occasions that she said that she was Anastasia, pace testimony that I have read on this very forum),]

To #204:
I certainly accept the fact that people do think she knew herself not to be Anastasia (and of course there were occasions that she said that she was Anastasia, pace testimony that I have read on this very forum),

That is a statement (a premise) not a question. But, how many of those so sure today, have had any actual dealings with the person? It is largely, if not entirely, conjecture as to what was going through her mind.

But she wasn't Anasatsia.

Again, not a question.; a premise. I believe she was Anastasia.

That leaves only two possible options.
1. She intentionally perpetrated the deception, as she knew her own identity and that she was not Anastasia.  or
2. She was so mentally unstable and delusional that she was unable to perceive reality and she genuinely believed she WAS ANR.

Again, not question: a premise.

But, some information may be in order about the option 2.  Following Jack's abduction of her in defiance of the authorities, after they were found, she was taken to Blue Ridge Sanatarium, and there examined over several days by the psychiatrists, amongst other physicians,  who knowing of our intent to get her out of public care, assured us she was not "mentally unstable," or "delusional" (not the terms they used, staying in the bounds of confidentiality) and would be willing to provide us statements to use with the judge assigned the matter.

There is no third choice.

Again, a premise, not a question.

So, Dick, since you knew her so well, which one is it? She intentionally perpetrated a deception because she was mentally stable enough to know her own identity, or she was so mentally diseased and delusional she genuinely believed herself to be ANR.

AS indicated by the above information, Option 2 is ruled out, but that does not mean option 1 is correct.
In my view the stated premises are wrong.

I am reasonably sure I have never claimed to "know" her, and certainly never that I "knew her so well." I believe in her identity, and I have stated why.

Oh wait, there IS a third option, She really WAS Grand Duchess ANR and the DNA was wrong.

Again a statement; a premise which is mis-stated (though, of course, one is free to do so)

The "DNA" was a physical result of scientific procedures that were state of the art at that time. But, it was clearly stated by those scientisits that the tests were of "putative" tissue. We have never cavilled with those procedures.

So, please, Dick, pick which option and let us know exactly.

None of the 3 options finally suggested are applicable.

I'm done. I'm locking the thread. I will no longer tolerate this bull***t.  No more game playing. We will no longer provide this forum as a place for Richard Schweitzer to propogandize his theories, much less call them "truth". They aren't.

Take your fairy tales elsewhere Schweitzer, you had a chance to actually answer questions, but you just won't. You are as much a FRAUD sir, as FS was masquerading under the name of Anna Manahan pretending to be the long deceased Anastasia Nicholaievna.  The reason you are a fraud is that the tissue sample was NOT "putative" according to you until you did not get the results you wanted.  YOU had no doubt as to whom the sample belonged, until, surprise, the answer wasn't the one you liked. Then suddenly, it becomes "putative". Go away you humbug, you hypocritical obfuscator. Come back when you have some genuine facts or evidence, and have the "cojones" to actually take a position and prove it.

Take your crap elsewhere, we will not be party to your deception any longer.

Schweizer wrote: The "DNA" was a physical result of scientific procedures that were state of the art at that time. But, it was clearly stated by those scientisits that the tests were of "putative" tissue. We have never cavilled with those procedures.  Thus, he obliquely states that the "tissue" was only "putative" as Anna Manahan's.  The option he thus suggests is that there was some doubt that the tissue was really hers.
It not being hers explains why the results showed no relation to the Victoria line of descent.  I did some digging:

Peter Gill,  13th INTERPOL Forensic Science Symposium, Lyon, France, October 16-19 2001:
MtDNA has proven invaluable in solving historical mysteries such as the fate of the Romanov family (Gill et al 1994) and testing the claim of Anna Anderson to be the Duchess Anastasia (Gill et al 1995).  Dr. Gill calls the results invaluable to solving the mystery.  He doensn't seem to mention any doubts in his mind about the results here...

]Mitochondrial Steve: paternal inheritance of mitochondria in humans
Lindell Bromham, Adam Eyre-Walker, Noel H. Smith and John Maynard Smith
Centre for the Study of Evolution, School of Biological Sciences, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, Sussex BN1 9QG, UK

mtDNA analysis has also been used to counter ongoing claims to the Romanov dynasty. In 1995, sequencing of mtDNA from Anna Anderson
Manahan showed that she could not have been Anastasia, daughter ofTsar Nicolas II, as she claimed [c].
References
c Stoneking, M. et al. (1995) Establishing the identity of Anna Anderson Manahan. Nat. Genet. 9, 9–10
Hmmm, they seem pretty sure that the results were good when they made these assertion here.

NATURE REVIEWS, GENETICS,  VOLUME 5
OCTOBER 2004
pgs 731 et seq

ENCODED EVIDENCE:DNA IN FORENSIC ANALYSIS
MarkA.Jobling and Peter Gill

The remains of one of the Tsar’s daughters,Anastasia,were absent from the grave,and controversy surrounded the
claim that she escaped execution and survived,under the identity of Anna Anderson.STR analysis of 20-year-old
paraffin wax embedded samples from Anderson was inconsistent with her being a daughter of the Tsar and Tsarina.
However,the mtDNA sequences matched those of Carl Maucher,a putative maternal relative of a woman named
Franzisca Schankowska.The mtDNA results were confirmed by an independent group from Penn State University,who
concurrently analysed hair shafts purported to have come from Anna Anderson
note131

131. Gill, P. et al. Establishing the identity of Anna Anderson Manahan. Nature Genet. 9, 9–10 (1995).

Nobody who did the tests seems to have the slightest doubts about the results that Anna Manahan was NOT ANR.  I don't see "putative" anywhere here other than the relationship between Maucher and FS...which nobody disputes.