Author Topic: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3  (Read 37859 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline dmitri

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2018
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #225 on: June 19, 2007, 12:03:02 PM »
Katya is completely correct. You could do a million tests on the DNA all coming up with the result that Anna Anderson was not Grand Duchess Anastasia and the unusual ones who still think the dead Grand Duchess Anastasia walked out and survived would still not believe. One wonders what drugs they are taking to hallucinate so badly? You only have to look at photos of Anna Anderson in the 1920s to see she had absolutely no close resemblance at all to the late Grand Duchess. Princess Irene of Prussia, Alexandra's sister could see absolutely no similarity. No wonder she was terribly upset. After all the poor woman lost 2 sisters and her brother-in-law plus four nieces and a nephew. Anderson's eyes were completely different as are other facial features. Eyes cannot be damaged so much that they change shape. It is all so obvious that Anna Anderson was a total fraud.

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #226 on: June 19, 2007, 05:31:07 PM »
You only have to look at photos of Anna Anderson in the 1920s to see she had absolutely no close resemblance at all to the late Grand Duchess.  Anderson's eyes were completely different as are other facial features. Eyes cannot be damaged so much that they change shape. It is all so obvious that Anna Anderson was a total fraud.

I remember a poster used to suggest that AA's lips were so much thicker than AN's because of a rifle butt to the face :P I've never heard of swollen lips being permanent!  ::) They also try to say her injuries changed her face. I always say if AN's face were injured, it would look like a messed up version of HER face, not a totally diffferent person's face!

You are right, the pics from the early 20's- the ones before she started biting her lips and posing in ways to intentionally match up with pics of AN (which is all Kurth's website shows you!) looked NOTHING like AN! It's a joke, really. The woman in the pics, the original pics before she started pretending, bear absolutely no match with AN at all! First, she looks too old, the eyes way too large, hairline wrong, nose too bulbous, lips much too thick, and bone structure all wrong. I can post pics, but I know we've been through all that. I still have them if anyone hasn't seen them.

Olishka~ Pincess

  • Guest
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #227 on: June 22, 2007, 08:42:36 AM »
You only have to look at photos of Anna Anderson in the 1920s to see she had absolutely no close resemblance at all to the late Grand Duchess.  Anderson's eyes were completely different as are other facial features. Eyes cannot be damaged so much that they change shape. It is all so obvious that Anna Anderson was a total fraud.

I remember a poster used to suggest that AA's lips were so much thicker than AN's because of a rifle butt to the face :P I've never heard of swollen lips being permanent!  ::) They also try to say her injuries changed her face. I always say if AN's face were injured, it would look like a messed up version of HER face, not a totally diffferent person's face!

You are right, the pics from the early 20's- the ones before she started biting her lips and posing in ways to intentionally match up with pics of AN (which is all Kurth's website shows you!) looked NOTHING like AN! It's a joke, really. The woman in the pics, the original pics before she started pretending, bear absolutely no match with AN at all! First, she looks too old, the eyes way too large, hairline wrong, nose too bulbous, lips much too thick, and bone structure all wrong. I can post pics, but I know we've been through all that. I still have them if anyone hasn't seen them.

I do not think Anna Anderson look anything like Anastasia I agree with you Annie. The nose, eyes and lips, face and the hairline look different plus since Anderson did not know all the langauges Anastasia she is not her. http://www.peterkurth.com/ROMANOV%20BONES.htm that website has so many comparrisons between Anderson and Anastasia. Once you see the pictures being compared you will think that ANderson is not Anastasia. Photos of Anastasia between 1910-1916 and Anderson in the 1920's you can defantly see that is not Anastasia. ;)

Offline Phil_tomaselli

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #228 on: August 02, 2007, 01:03:31 AM »
As a comment on the infallibility of DNA testing check out this interesting story:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6925640.stm

My point, as ever, is that DNA is EVIDENCE not fact and subject to interpretation same as every other piece of evidence.

Phil Tomaselli

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #229 on: August 02, 2007, 07:05:00 AM »
Good point (although AA could read sheet music).
... [ in part]....

What is your source which tells us that AA could  read sheet music?

AGRBear
The website by Peter Kurth. "[Anna Anderson could] play the piano with or without sheet music."

I have known illiterate hillbillies who could do the same. This doesn't make anyone noble.

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #230 on: August 02, 2007, 07:09:14 AM »
As a comment on the infallibility of DNA testing check out this interesting story:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6925640.stm

My point, as ever, is that DNA is EVIDENCE not fact and subject to interpretation same as every other piece of evidence.

Phil Tomaselli

This was not tested by four labs as AA's was. It also wasn't originally tested on both familes as AA's was. Because AA's was tested not only to see if she was related to see if she was related to QV,(no)  but also to see if she was related to the Schanskowska family.(yes) In all that, something would have been unclear if there were anything wrong, but after all those tests, it was the same. I hope you don't think this one article tosses out the AA case, or any of the thousands of criminal cases and paternity cases decided by DNA, because it doesn't mean anything more than what's in that one story, and we don't even know all the details.

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #231 on: August 02, 2007, 07:21:31 AM »

My point, as ever, is that DNA is EVIDENCE not fact and subject to interpretation same as every other piece of evidence.

Phil Tomaselli

DNA is a molecule, and that is a fact!

While DNA profiles provide the investigator specific information that can be used as evidence.

Margarita
  ;)


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline dmitri

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2018
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #232 on: August 02, 2007, 10:06:53 AM »
I never believed Anna Anderson. Reading her so-called biography, 'I, Anastasia', written by others and not herself, made it all very clear indeed. It was so obvious and laughable.

Offline Phil_tomaselli

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #233 on: August 02, 2007, 04:05:12 PM »
I would like to point out that I have never expressed an opinion on Anna Anderson/Anastasia except pehaps to say that I couldn't care less.  My interest in DNA comes purely from a desire to shoot down those people for whom DNA seems to have become an automatic arbiter of guilt or innocence in criminal cases.

For all I know this doesn't happen in the USA but in the UK there is an increasing tendency to say "Well, they've got DNA" as if there should be no need for a trial, it's automatic, case closed, guilty.

And then you get the cases where there is absolutely no DNA evidence at all and, in spite of its so apparent God-like status, people are still found guilty.

All I'm trying to do is bring back (in the UK) basic rules of evidence and honest scepticism.  It's your obsession with Anna Anderson that has brought us this far - this thread started with a query about the science of bricks and I don't think anyone has answered the original questions.

Perhaps you'd care to go back and read?

Or perhaps not.

Phil Tomaselli

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 #234 on: August 02, 2007, 04:24:24 PM »
Phil.

I think we need to be a little clear about the use and meaning of nuclear DNA evidence.  mtDNA testing is of limited use in criminal cases.  mtDNA can only prove to EXCLUDE the defendant from a match with the evidentiary sample, it can't be used to prove guilt.  So, the better tests are nuclear DNA. The testing itself is 100% accurate. DNA found at the crime scene is sequenced and a profile is created.  That profile is compared to the same profile of an accused person, and it matches or it doesn't. Period. If it matches exactly it becomes very compelling evidence of guilt.  It is virtually impossible to "accidentally" create a perfect DNA match, more particularly when the defendent was arrested on non-DNA evidentiary grounds.

The problem becomes this:  Defense counsel has a tough row to how when there is an exact 100% match of DNA evidence at the crime scene with the defendent.  The meaning of such a match is one unarguable point. The defendent was AT the crime scene.  There is simply no other possible explanation as people's personal DNA "fingerprint" is unique.  This is why nonDNA evidence is often overlooked. 

So, one must look at the quality of the sample, very degraged DNA leads to a lesser degree of reliability.  Very fresh DNA yields virtually flawless results. 

NOW, some people attempt to argue the chain of custody of the DNA evidentiary sample, in order to show contamination.  Now the problem here is, IF the match is 100%, defense must still demonstrate HOW the sample could have been contaminated by Defendent's DNA. 

The one place where I think I concur with you is the prevalent use in the UK of DNA databases, and the only evidence linking the accused to the crime is the DNA, and the police have no other evidence to tie the defendent to the crime.

I believe (from my days as an articled clerk in a London solicitor's firm) that the UK has the same basic guaranteed right to a trial before conviction of a crime.  I can't believe that the UK would EVER abrogate someone's right to a trial and opportunity to challenge the evidence produced in Court.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2007, 04:27:09 PM by Forum Admin »

Offline dmitri

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2018
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #235 on: August 02, 2007, 05:07:13 PM »
I doubt whether anybody will ever know the truth about what the Botkins believed.

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 #236 on: August 02, 2007, 09:08:00 PM »
dmitri

No offense, but this thread is not about what the Botkins may or may not have believed, nor is it about any discussion of Anna Manahan. It is only about the reliability of DNA testing.

Offline dmitri

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2018
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #237 on: August 02, 2007, 09:55:31 PM »
well DNA is considered reliable

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #238 on: August 02, 2007, 10:17:04 PM »
AA's DNA was tested and verified by not just one but four different labs, all getting the same results. Not only the intestines, but the hair all got the same results. AA is 100% not AN and is FS to a 99.9% accuracy. If there had been any errors they would have shown up in one of those tests. They all matched up, there is no question.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2007, 10:18:47 PM by Annie »

Offline dmitri

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2018
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #239 on: August 02, 2007, 11:10:35 PM »
yes there really is nothing more to be said ... perhaps the thread should be locked off now