Author Topic: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3  (Read 38110 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« on: August 02, 2005, 12:07:44 AM »
Quote
Post by Michael G.:

« Reply #402 on: Today at 6:22pm »
 Quote  Modify

on Today at 5:07pm, Annie wrote:

>>This has been discussed many times. No it couldn't. This was Martha Jefferson hospital, and unlike UVA med center which was found to have had an accidental baby switch a few years back, has an INFALLIBLE record of accuracy. First, there are no names on the samples, only code numbers, and these correspond to a name in the records accessed only by a few people. No one can just walk in off the street and switch things, they wouldn't even know what was what. And there is security! So unless you are among those who believe Queen Elizabeth paid for the switch, that's out of the question.<<

 
Michael G.'s Ans:  Are you saying there is no possibility of human error
With a hospital, no matter how highly regarded it is,
there is every chance for error, and a mistake in the protocols, etc.
------
 
Quote from Annie:

>>Also, consider that it was the Schweitzers who requested the sample, not some evil anti-AA person. They honestly wanted to know and believed they'd get a positive answer. << 

 
Michael G Answ.: Evil anti-AA person Oh come now Annie, not a person here has said they are anti-AA.  We are just interested in investigating all areas of this mystery.
While the Schweitzer's might not have gotten the answer they want out of the test, they however deserve answers about the reliablity & accuracy & probability of that test.
-----
 
Quote from Annie:
>>And last of all, even IF it was switched, with WHO? Someone would have had to find a member of the Schanskowska family, cut them open and remove exactly the same portion of intestine AA had removed, and sneak it in! That's even less realistic than an invasion from Mars, come on.<<

 
Michael Answ: I can recall no one saying it was actually switched, Pentetorri brought up a possiblity that it could actually be excluded as evidence in a US Court of Law.
-------
 
Quote from Annie:

Michael Answ: And on OJ's DNA evidence being tampered with, the jury did believe it, but that does not mean it was true. The jurors were mostly from neighborhoods that distrusted the LAPD due to the 92 riots and were much more likely than anyone else to accept the tampering theory which was never really proven, only used as a defense.

 
Michael Answ: Let me state that while he "may" have not been innocent of the crimes committed, the LAPD were no better than criminals themselves by contaminating and possibly manufacturing evidence.  If they stoop to this level then they are no better than the criminals they are trying to convict.   They also have STRICT protocols in how evidence was to be gathered, stored, preserved, and documented, they didn't follow the guidelines, which was why the evidence was suspect.  

-----
 
 


End
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Finelly

  • Guest
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #1 on: August 02, 2005, 12:11:22 AM »
It's true.  No hospital is infallible and it is reasonable to question whether the hospital that kept AA's intestinal tissue might have erred.

That is step one of a theory that the tissue was the wrong tissue.  But, as Annie has pointed out, the distance between step one and step two is chasmic.

There is NO evidence that anyone switched the tissue.  There is NO evidence that anyone went and obtained tissue containing the S family's mitochondrial dna.  There is NO evidence that anyone with access to both the intestinal tissue and the S family's mitochondrial dna could have exchanged the stuff.

I don't think ANYONE has ventured a claim that a deliberate switch was made.  I cannot even fathom the odds that a negligent switch was made using the S family's mitochondrial dna.

Finelly

  • Guest
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2005, 12:12:05 AM »
(having said the above, I am still not convinced that AA was FS, though I will assume it for the sake of argument only on Annie's thread.)

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #3 on: August 02, 2005, 12:23:06 AM »
Quote
When did Anna M have her surgery?


THE QUEST FOR ANASTASIA by Klier and Mingay p. 205:

"In 1979, when she had been admitted to the Martha Jefferson Hospital in Charlottesville for the operation to remove a gagrenos bowel obstruction and part of her small bowel, samples of her tissue were retained and sent to the hospital laboratory.  In common with other US institutions, the hospital routinely keeps pathology samples from patients to use for comparative study and in case of future lawsuites ...."

Hmmm.  Were AA's intestines ever used for comparative studies?

Farther down the same page.

"Frustratingly for Mandelbaum, his first request to the hospital in connection with the tissue samples held there did not succeed.  He had written in early 1993 to ask for informtion on samples of a faormer patient -- Anna Anderson or Mrs. Jack Manahan.  At the time the hospital was in a chaotic administrave state due to a major refurbishment, and although officals conducted a cursory serch of their files, they did not find any records under either of those names.  Hospital officials claim did not intentionally mislead Mandebaum.  Indeed there was no sample stored in the hospital under either name proposed by Mandelbaum."

I guess it was discovered later that Anna was listed as Anastasia Manahan and the samples were found....

AGRBear
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Finelly

  • Guest
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #4 on: August 02, 2005, 12:35:44 AM »
Better question is:  were any tissue samples kept at the hospital which had the same mitochondrial dna as the S family?

(what are the odds?)

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #5 on: August 02, 2005, 12:42:05 AM »
Quote
Better question is:  were any tissue samples kept at the hospital which had the same mitochondrial dna as the S family?

(what are the odds?)


Why would a family, the Schankowskys,  living in Europe have any tissue samples in Charlottesville?

Hmmmmm.  Some relative, a cousin, could have migrated into the area.

Anyone know if their were any families from the area of Posen??? who was a patient of Jefferson Hospital?  Or was a sample for study ever sent to this hospital for study?   This is a REAL stretch but WHAT IF   ::)

Is this another theory that's gone pass the dead end sign  8)

Probably not possible since we have to add to this the name linked to it was Anastasia Manahan.

Well, since  I'm way out here on the end of the plank and looking down at the waters filled with hungry sharks,  I might as well wonder,  was Manahan an unsual name in in or near Charlotesville?

Was there more than one  Anastasia Manahan in the area???

Yuk!  A skunk has just perfumes our downhill side.  Gotta go to the other end of the house.  Talk more tomorrow.....  

AGRBear
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Finelly

  • Guest
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #6 on: August 02, 2005, 12:53:33 AM »
Here's an idea.  I am sure that Richard Schweitzer has thought of the same questions we have.

If he doesn't have answers, then may we assume that we are past the dead end sign?

Offline etonexile

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1231
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #7 on: August 02, 2005, 09:46:32 AM »
It has been asked on another thread...What are the chances that someone was able to obtain just the matching part of the intestine of a close member of the S family...and then steal the original AA sample and substitute the bogus sample...?....I mean....COME ON NOW.... ::)

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4665
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #8 on: August 02, 2005, 09:52:27 AM »
 irst, laboratory samples handled in accordance with established protocols from a hospital with proper credentials and certification (which Martha Jefferson Hospital is and has) are PRESUMED as a matter of LAW to be reliable unless genuine contamination can be proved by evidence. There is no evidence to give rise to even a possible doubt of contamination beyond mere speculation. Further, any attorney with a brain would introduce the fact that that it matched FS exactly as further direct evidence that there was no contamination UNLESS and until you can show by direct evidence that either 1. a direct maternal descendant of FS actually was physically present in the hospital AND actually HANDLED the sample or 2. You have direct physical evidence that someone A. intentionally switched the sample, with B. an exactly corresponding piece of tissue C. FROM a direct maternal descendant of FS D. who had reason and motive to do so and E. actually had the knowledge and expertise to fabricate the sample and F. had actual opportunity to gain entrance into the pathology storage facility at Martha Jefferson Hosptial to make the switch.

Second, Dr. Melton is recognized by the Courts in the US as an expert in the field of forensic DNA testing. She conducted the testing herself and can and would testify under oath that the test results were in fact 100% accurate, and reliable.
Trust me when I tell you that this IS admissible in the courts of both the US and UK and would in fact be accepted by the courts as such.  

If you feel you have genuine evidence to refute this beyond mere speculation then I welcome seeing it.  Legally speaking, the burden of proof to DISPROVE the reliability of evidence presumed by law as reliable is upon the party wishing to challenge the reliability.  Which is in fact the case here.

I am sorry if you feel that the statement by someone far more schooled and experienced in DNA sequencing and analysis than either you or I, or frankly anyone else posting here, which says essentially that "Science has proven that test so reliable that to question IT is like questioning whether the earth is round" to be insulting.  I for one simply accepted it as the statement of the opinion by an expert in the field about the question.  I offer my apology if anyone here finds the expert's opinion insulting to their beliefs.

FA

Offline lexi4

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
  • don't take yourself too seriously
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #9 on: August 02, 2005, 01:04:29 PM »
Just curious, why to we have this same conversation going on on two threads???
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely, in a pretty and well preserved body; but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, "Wow ---- What a ride!!!"

Finelly

  • Guest
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #10 on: August 02, 2005, 01:09:43 PM »
Because.  <sheesh!>

Offline lexi4

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
  • don't take yourself too seriously
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #11 on: August 02, 2005, 01:13:17 PM »
Because why Finelly
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely, in a pretty and well preserved body; but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, "Wow ---- What a ride!!!"

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #12 on: August 02, 2005, 01:31:04 PM »
BECAUSE some silly bear thought we should give this topic it's own thread.

So back to the other thread.  No need to post here anymore.

THE END

"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline lexi4

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
  • don't take yourself too seriously
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #13 on: August 02, 2005, 01:42:58 PM »
Quote
BECAUSE some silly bear thought we should give this topic it's own thread.

So back to the other thread.  No need to post here anymore.

THE END


Would that be a wooly bear?  ;)
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely, in a pretty and well preserved body; but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, "Wow ---- What a ride!!!"

Offline lexi4

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
  • don't take yourself too seriously
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #14 on: August 02, 2005, 07:21:12 PM »
I am sitting on a jury that is to decided whether the tissue, used to test the DNA of AA was contaminated. All 11 jurors are convinced that it was in fact contaminated. I am the only hold out. So have at it, convince me I am wrong. Before I get based, I am not saying that this is my belief or opinion. This is just for discussion. Please present evidence.
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely, in a pretty and well preserved body; but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, "Wow ---- What a ride!!!"