Author Topic: Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3  (Read 38348 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ferrymansdaughter

  • Guest
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #240 on: August 03, 2007, 07:11:08 AM »
yes there really is nothing more to be said ... perhaps the thread should be locked off now

Are you suggesting a lockdown AGAIN?  Dmitri, you are not this website's official censor!  Funny how you want to lock down threads that question your thinking .....

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 #241 on: August 03, 2007, 09:14:20 AM »
Look,

You guys are getting off track in too many directions. I'm not going to lock the thread because I think the discussion to help people learn about the use of DNA evidence is valuable. That said, that is the subject of this thread, NOT Anna Freekin Manahan or piano playing. I have deleted recent off topic posts and remind users to take that discussion to an appropriate thread.

Thanks.
FA

Offline lexi4

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
  • don't take yourself too seriously
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #242 on: August 03, 2007, 03:53:56 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

I can appreciate that Phil. FA, I also appreciate your efforts to keep this discussion to topic as I think it is important.
I don't think DNA can be considered automatic. It some instances, it may prove that a suspect was at the scene or with the victim at some point, but it doesn't "put a gun in a suspects hand."
In the U.S., the most noted example is OJ Simpson. (I hate bringing him up.) His Nicole's DNA was found on a pair of bloody sock in OJ's bedroom. That alone, was not sufficient to obtain a conviction.
I would agree that DNA is evidence and I do see that there are those who think the verdict is in when they here there is DNA evidence. I think (at least in the U.S.) television contributes to that attitude.
Lexi
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 PrincessSophie

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #243 on: August 11, 2007, 06:39:06 AM »
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.

I want those drugs too, Dmitri!  I don't believe that AA was AN.  AN died with her family.  BUT I will say that one changes bet ween the ages of 17 and 27.   I know I got cuter!  Many things about the face change over time but apparently not the ears.  I need to see these photos and the Peter Kurth one provided doesn't work.  Is there another?
 
The other thing I will say - and I admit it is left field but - people see what they want to see.  If you tell someone "here is my brother" and, unbeknownst to them, you are both adopted, people will look for similarities where there are none!  Some similarities may be explained by similar mannerisms but still ...

Offline PrincessSophie

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #244 on: August 11, 2007, 07:53:02 AM »
no no no. I read that paragraph and he's talking about studies of pictures being done twice and those delivered absolute "certainty" that she was Anastasia. All the various DNA tests have always showed she was in all probability to be Shanzkowska.

Still, of all the pretenders I've seen (Anna Anderson, Magdalen Veres & Eugenia Smith), Anna looks closest.

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #245 on: August 11, 2007, 09:11:15 AM »
Princess Sophie,

You are absolutely right about the adoption theory.  When we moved into our house four years ago, our next door neighbors came over to say "hi' and welcome us to the neighborhood.

They brought their two sons.  After they left, both my mother and I said that the boys looked much more like their father than their mother.  About a month later, their mom told me that both boys were adopted from South American orphanages!

So it is just a fluke that the boys look like their adopted father.  But if their mom had never told me, I wouldn't have known the difference.

On the other side of the coin, though, my husband's family is thoroughly Italian.  My husband is first generation American.  Yet, one of my husband's cousins who married another Italian, has a red haired daughter.  And I mean copper red!  If I had not seen her mother when she was pregnant or been around at the time of the girl's birth, I would swear that she was adopted.  She looks like neither parent.   ;)

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 #246 on: August 11, 2007, 09:46:23 AM »
no no no. I read that paragraph and he's talking about studies of pictures being done twice and those delivered absolute "certainty" that she was Anastasia. All the various DNA tests have always showed she was in all probability to be Shanzkowska.

Still, of all the pretenders I've seen (Anna Anderson, Magdalen Veres & Eugenia Smith), Anna looks closest.

Xenia's son Vassily often told family and friends "Anna Anderson was a fake, but she was the best of all the fakes". All the surviving family members who Bob has often spoken to told him this. Including his godson.

 ;)

Offline dmitri

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2018
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #247 on: August 11, 2007, 10:05:48 AM »
Anna Anderson looked absolutely nothing like Grand Duchess Anastasia. Have a look at the photos again and you will see the shape of the face, lips and eyes are nothing alike at all.

Offline Lemur

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 268
  • reach for the top!
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #248 on: August 11, 2007, 10:31:55 AM »
She doesn't look a thing like Anastasia. If I had to choose a claimant who most resembled her, I'd have to go with "Alex of Denmark" Grandma Josephine. Granny Alina resembles Maria as well. AA does not look a thing like Anastasia.

Offline Lemur

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 268
  • reach for the top!
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #249 on: August 11, 2007, 10:36:44 AM »
It's true people can look nothing like their family, this is why it's pointless to do family resemblance comparisons with Anderson and the Romanovs or with Franziska's siblings.

Do you remember the Florida baby switch story a few years ago? Two girls were accidently switched at birth and no one knew it until one of the girls became ill and had to undergo testing to see which family member was a match for her. The family was shocked to find she didn't match the family. When the other baby girl from the hospital was tested it turned out she was their child. The 'father' of that girl was devastated. His wife had died, and he thought the girl looked just like his wife and had the mannerisms of her family. So it goes to show people can see what they want to see and this could be a reason some people think Andersen looks like Anastasia when she really doesn't.

Olishka~ Pincess

  • Guest
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #250 on: August 11, 2007, 11:25:03 AM »
The point is Anastasia looks nothing like AA she is not her. People that think so, should take a look at the comparrison photos again and look realy hard.Either that or they just simply rufuse and choose to believe whatever they want or thy can not see that well. Because I do not see one thing about AA that looks like A. Granny Alina does not look ike Maria her face is a little more chubby and I believe at the time of the murder Maria was not fat she was more slender. Granny Alina was rather fat than slender.

To MY knowledge, there has NEVER been a "positive" DNA test showing AA was AN. What "test" does the book refer to which was "later repeated"?

Yes . I think the authur Peter Kurth want to make it seem like AA is A. ALready when the DNA tests proved that she was not.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2007, 11:29:39 AM by Elizabeth~Princess »

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #251 on: August 11, 2007, 12:38:04 PM »

  BUT I will say that one changes bet ween the ages of 17 and 27.   I know I got cuter!  Many things about the face change over time but apparently not the ears.  I need to see these photos and the Peter Kurth one provided doesn't work.  Is there another?
 


A person's face and features do not naturally change between 17 and 27. If there is a significant weight gain or loss it might appear different, and any added wrinkles might give a little different look (though not that early!) but the face itself does not change especially not the shape of the features.

The ears, however, DO change! I read an article on this once. They grow more cartilage as time goes on and this is why old men seem to have such huge ears. A young person's ears are soft and flexible, but the more they age the harder the ear becomes, and it does grow wherever the cartilage expands.

Offline PrincessSophie

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #252 on: August 11, 2007, 08:39:40 PM »
Ah, the truth!  So hard to tell! 8)

Offline dmitri

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2018
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #253 on: August 11, 2007, 09:12:52 PM »
Well in the case of AA it was so very easy to tell. She was such a fake, fraud, whatever you like to call someone who deliberately sets out to deceive. What a pathetic creature she was. 

Offline PrincessSophie

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson - Physical Evidence and DNA #3
« Reply #254 on: August 11, 2007, 09:41:04 PM »
Well in the case of AA it was so very easy to tell. She was such a fake, fraud, whatever you like to call someone who deliberately sets out to deceive. What a pathetic creature she was. 

And you can't libel the dead! 

I wonder how you can be so sure of her motivations.  If she was mentally ill, as some claim, then perhaps she was unaware that she was not Anastasia.  And, in any case, no one believed her.  If she was a fraud and people believed her that would have been completely different.   AN's family are a different matter.  They have the right to be as outraged and bitter as you appear to be.