Author Topic: Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918  (Read 30797 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
Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
« on: August 08, 2004, 03:48:29 PM »
Quote
On p. 321 Summers and Mangold in their book File On The Tsar mentioned an eye witness Natalya Mutnykha, a nurse, who claimed she had seen ex-Empress Alexandra and four daughters, in Perm in the basement where Berezin's rooms were.  

And they said:  "This formal testimony, along with that of other witnesses, says categorically that all the Romanov women were held prisoner by the Bolsheviks in Perm late in the summer of 1918 and on into the autumn."

Does anyone have any new evidence that this testimony is false?

AGRBear

Quote
On p. 328 Summers and Mangold in their book File On The Tsar go on to say: "Mutnykh's testimony is vastly strengthened by the discovery that her brother, Vladimir Mutnykh, was indeed, as she claimed, secretary to the Ural Soviets."  And Vladimir was more than this, he was personal aide to Beloborodov, who was the chairman of the Ural Soviets and a man who had been a part of the events which occurred in the Ipatiev House.

AGRBear

If we had to take a case to court to prove one or all of the family of Nicholas II escaped or was a claimant, we'd have to depend on testimony of those involved.  So,  here goes.  I am starting with sister of the secretary of the Ural Soviet, Natalya Mutnykh, who claimed she had seen members of Nicholas II's family after the 16th of July 1918 in Perm, Siberia, Russia.

AGRBear

« Last Edit: June 10, 2009, 04:05:17 PM by Alixz »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

bookworm

  • Guest
Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
« Reply #1 on: August 08, 2004, 03:52:59 PM »
I remember reading a book based on that testimony that came out in the 1970s. I don't have a copy of the book any longer, but I do remember there being something about a large amount of hair in four different hair colors being left behind at this house in Perm, as though the hair had been kept for a disguise or to use as hair pieces. There was also testimony from various residents of the town about the four young women and the empress being seen.

I always thought there must have been some basis for this story. Maybe the Bolsheviks worked up an elaborate hoax to confuse people about the ultimate fate of the Romanovs? What else is buried in the Archives at the Kremlin?

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
« Reply #2 on: August 08, 2004, 06:17:24 PM »
I think the hair was left in the Ipatiev House.  There are two thoughts on this hair.
(1)  It may have been hair saved by the daughters of Nicholas II when they had their heads shaved when they had measles back in March of 1917....  In a year, their hair would not have grown very long.  
(2) The daughters of Nicholas II's hair may have been shorn in preparation of a rescue.  If I remember correctly, Nicholas II had shaved off part of his own facial hair  a few days earlier [16 July 1918]......

I'm sure others will remember better than I about the hair.

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

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
« Reply #3 on: August 08, 2004, 09:22:19 PM »
Yes, the hair was from when they saved it after they got shaved bald because of measles in 1917. The story in that book of them cutting their hair for a disguise is typical of the way people can assume and make a big deal out of something that had a reasonable explaination if it was looked into.

Offline Greg_King

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 588
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
    • Atlantis Magazine
Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
« Reply #4 on: August 09, 2004, 06:18:12 AM »
Quote


If we had to take a case to court to prove one or all of the family of Nicholas II escaped or was a claimant, we'd have to depend on testimony of those involved.  So,  here goes.  I am starting with sister of the secretary of the Ural Soviet, Natalya Mutnykh, who claimed she had seen members of Nicholas II's family after the 16th of July 1918 in Perm, Siberia, Russia.

AGRBear

Edit #1:  It appears that bookworm started a thread on Heinrich Kleinenzetl who's testimony tells us he saw Anatasia after 16 July 1918 .  See: http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1091980231


The problem with all of these various Perm "witnesses" is that none of them had seen the Imperial Family before, unless one counts postcards.  We're talking about rumors; about "recognitions" by the light of a single candle as someone walked quickly past.  Kirtsa, who investigated these reports, seems to have indeed fallen victim to a Bolshevik plot-in this instance I think the evidence (and there are hundreds of pages on this in Sokolov's dossiers) clearly indicates that the Perm stories originated with a group of Perm Bolsheviks, after Beloborodov had been in the city when he fled Ekaterinburg and briefed them on the "official" story, in an attempt to conceal the executions of the Empress and her daughters.  These various stories promoting the idea that the women survived and had been moved en masse to Perm served to bolster the official announcements regarding the fate of the women.  Having reviewed the originals and the annotated reports, there is not one single story that stands up to close examination.

Greg King

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
« Reply #5 on: August 09, 2004, 11:18:55 AM »
Quote

(1) The problem with all of these various Perm "witnesses" is that none of them had seen the Imperial Family before, unless one counts postcards.  (2) We're talking about rumors; (3) about "recognitions" by the light of a single candle as someone walked quickly past. (4)  Kirtsa, who investigated these reports, seems to have indeed fallen victim to a Bolshevik plot-in this instance I think (5) the evidence (and there are hundreds of pages on this in Sokolov's dossiers) clearly indicates that the Perm stories originated with a group of Perm Bolsheviks, after (6)  Beloborodov had been in the city when he fled Ekaterinburg and briefed them on the "official" story, in an attempt to conceal the executions of the Empress and her daughters.  (7) These various stories promoting the idea that the women survived and had been moved en masse to Perm served to bolster the official announcements regarding the fate of the women.  Having reviewed the originals and the annotated reports, there is not one single story that stands up to close examination.

Greg King


(1)  Although I have never seen the Royal Family,  I would be able to reconize Nicholas II and the others because of who they were, the Royal Family, which is  highly reconized, even after all of these years,  due to more than postcards.....  Just because these people lived in the Urals doesn't mean they weren't aware of the Royal Family and what they looked liked.
(2)  Rumors?  It appears this is a testimony.
(3) Candel light-  dim light was part of their lives and I'm not sure this is worth mentioning accept to those of us who live by electric lights...
(4) Kirsta had fallen victim to a Bolshevik plot.....   How does one pick the right one, Bolshevik plots,  to believe?
(5) "...and there are hundreds of pages on this in Sokolov's dossiers..." -   Sokolov is the one who planted a dog's body and apparently wanted the world to believe the Soviets had executed not just Nicholas II but everyone, even the children.   So,  he had his own agenda.
(6) Beloborodov -  I'll have to read what you and others have written about him before I can comment....  
(7) "These various stories promoting the idea that the women survived and had been moved en masse to Perm served to bolster the official announcements regarding the fate of the women.  Having reviewed the originals and the annotated reports, there is not one single story that stands up to close examination." -  Two bodies are missing from a grave which has been disturbed more times than we probably will ever know.  Since I'm not as involved as you are Greg in all of this evidence, some hundred pages,  I still view the testimony of  Natalya Mutnykh as important.  Unless of course, the information in the File on the Tsar is incorrect.  She was there.  Her brother was part of the events.  As for moving the members of the family to Perm in one group,  I don't know if this is true.  Just like  I don't know what happen in the Ipatiev House on the night of 16 /17 July 1918.  We don't have all the puzzle pieces.  And, to make it more difficult, the Soviets and others have dumped into my puzzle the pieces that do not belong.  So, keep an open mind.  Don't fall into the trap of closing doors because that is exactly what others have done and that's why it's almost impossible to find the puzzle pieces belonging to the truth of what happen.

Like I have said before.  The Soviets were experts in covering up events they didn't want others to know.

AGRBear

Edition #1
Quote
More questions for King and Wilson:

In the 1934 report of Yurovsky mentions having read Sokolov's report.  This is what he said:

"About two months ago, I was looking through the book by Sokolov, the preliminary investigator of the extremely important cases under Kolchak, when I saw a photo of those stacked ties."

Are there any real differences between his first report, before he read Sokolov's report,  when compared to the 1934 report?

Is there an English translation of the first which we could find and read?

AGRBear


Why would Yurovsky need to read Sokolov's report before giving his 1934 report?

« 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

Offline Greg_King

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 588
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
    • Atlantis Magazine
Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2004, 04:01:03 AM »
Had to snip for length

Quote


(1)  Although I have never seen the Royal Family,  I would be able to reconize Nicholas II.
(2)  Rumors?  It appears this is a testimony.
(3) Candel light-  dim light was part of their lives and I'm not sure this is worth mentioning accept to those of us who live by electric lights...
(4) Kirsta had fallen victim to a Bolshevik plot.....   How does one pick the right one, Bolshevik plots,  to believe?
(5) "...and there are hundreds of pages on this in Sokolov's dossiers..." -   Sokolov is the one who planted a dog's body and apparently wanted the world to believe the Soviets had executed not just Nicholas II but everyone, even the children.   So,  he had his own agenda.  /quote]

Answers, in order:

1.  You and I could recognize members of the family, but we're living in age of mass media, with access to hundreds of photographs.  The majority of people in the Urals would have seen a few postcards and that's it, especially amongst the Bolsheviks.
2. As opposed to rumors (and there were plenty) perhaps I'll describe this testimony as an assertion-it is not, by virtue of merely being testimony, reliable.
3.  Candlelight is important in this context as it is how these alleged "Imperial women" were glimpsed briefly-it certainly impacts the probability of correct identification.
4.  Kirsta began investigating deliberate Bolshevik rumors that the whole family had been moved from Ekaterinburg; he collected testimony about Nicholas being taken off in chains on a train to Perm.  And he followed this by eagerly believing anything that seemed to confirm these stories.  What you need to understand is that the Bolsheviks were deliberately spreading false information, and much of it was that invstigated by Kirsta that suggested the women were saved.  You have only to think of the source here-te sister of a high-ranking Bolshevik-to understand the dynamics behind the tale-why else would she be out talking about what was obviously a lie?  Everything we read, and all the examinations and testimonies in the dossiers, back this up-most of it unpublished.
5.  Why do you assert that Sokolov planted the dog?  On what evidence?  I think the dog was planted, but by others, in an attempt to either bolster the White Army case, or divert attention from the actual grave.  On what do you base the claim that it was Sokolov who planted it?

I realize it may not be a satisfactory answer, but we read thousands of documents, most of which never made it into "The Fate of the Romanovs," and thus I am reasonably sure that the Perm stories were nothing more than deliberate Bolshevik distortion.

Greg King

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
« Reply #7 on: August 10, 2004, 10:26:10 AM »
Photographs:

When a person looks at the old photographs of school rooms, you will find the photo poster of Nicholas II.

I assume this was true in Ekaterinburg.

Although each home didn't have magazines, those which exsisted were passed from home to home.  And,  in those days magazines were not thrown away but had a long long life span.  Since the Royal Family was important,  nearly all had photographs in them.  Not unlike today,  the young girls loved photographs of the daughters of Nicholas II.....  These same magazines were used for more than just romantic teenage girls,  the seamtresses used them to copy the dress, hat, etc. style of the Romanovs.

The reason I remember this  is because I once asked my grandmother, who was an excellent seamtress who use to sew officers uniforms,  about how out of fashion the clothes must have been in a far away village in Bessarabia.  She shook her head and said,   oh, no, not so,  they used magazines to copy the styles worn by women in St. Petersberg, Paris, London and New York.

Like most people,  I always visualize Russia as being so backward because of all the photographs preserved with women with scarfs, long aprons, long skirts, full bouces and sturdy shoes.  

My grandmother was born in the 1880s.

So,  I suspect this was true in a larger town like Ekaterinburg.

Soviet Plots:

As for Soviet plots,  I think when 1 or all members of the Romanov family escaped on the 16th of July,  they had to spread rumors as you suggested.  So, how does one chose which one is reliable and which one is not?  I don't think you can.  What I think should be done is present everything.  Perhaps,  when all is said and done, that is what you, Greg, and Penny will end up doing.  And, believe me,  we greatly appreicate all your efforts, time and answering all our questions.

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

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
« Reply #8 on: August 11, 2004, 11:19:46 PM »
I had to look up who Alexander Kirsta was and I had forgotten about him and how he was invovled in the investigation.

According to File On the Tsar p. 326 Summers and Mangold tell us that it was Kirsta, the Head of Military Control on 8 March 1919 and on 2 April 1919 takes the testimony of the nurse Mutnykh.   He backed this statement five others who were (1) Ivan Girschfeld, a German, (2) Sibiryev, local postal clerk, (3) Yegeniya Sokolova; (4) Glafyra Malysleva, who had a napkin from the royal family's "stuff",  (5) name unknown, listed as a patient from a local invalid hospital....

Mutnykh's story tells us, also,   she was not alone when she saw Alexandra and three of her daughters.  With her was Anna Kostina, the secretary to  Grigory Zinoviev.  [Note: she said three daughters, not four.]

This testimony,  let me note, again, wasn't until March and then again in April of 1919.  This was some seven and eight months after July 1918.  

Was side tracked on Mutnykh's story.

Back to Kirsta.

On page 323,  Summers and Mangold tell us that Kirsta was part of General Gaida investigation which was not part of Sokolov's.  Gaida was a member of the Ugolovny Rozysk  [CID = Criminal Investigation Division].....  Gaida didn't trust the Whites who quickly declared the Royal Family as being executed and were probably the source who were spreading the "rumors" about the daughters and Tsarina having been raped, etc. etc..   Gaida's collection did not include the White Army investigators collection.

If the Perm witnesses were part of some kind of conspiracy,  I wouldn't know.  Greg indicates this may have been the case.  But,  Gaida wasn't new at investigations.  And,  if you ask my opinion, until I'm given good reason to change my mind,  I think Gaida's data might  be more accurate than the Reds or the Whites about what happen to the Royal Family and the others.

Greg,  what do you have on Gaida and why is his data, in your opinion,  considered as being not as accurate as other investigators?

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

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2004, 08:16:13 AM »
Quote
(by AGRbear) The reason I remember this  is because I once asked my grandmother, who was an excellent seamtress who use to sew officers uniforms,  about how out of fashion the clothes must have been in a far away village in Bessarabia.  She shook her head and said,   oh, no, not so,  they used magazines to copy the styles worn by women in St. Petersberg, Paris, London and New York.


I don't doubt that was true in your Grandmother's town but it might not have been happening everywhere. In "Left Behind" Sophie Buxhoevedon mentions that once while fleeing in Siberia they were questioned because they had "the St. Petersburg 'look' " which was apparently not common in that area.

Quote
(by Greg King)1.  You and I could recognize members of the family, but we're living in age of mass media, with access to hundreds of photographs.  The majority of people in the Urals would have seen a few postcards and that's it, especially amongst the Bolsheviks.


Excellent point a lot of people never take into consideration.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Annie »

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4665
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2004, 10:48:30 AM »
Just happened to be re-reading Tatiana Metternich's autobiography "Five Passports in a Shifting Europe" (a wonderful book I highly recommend) last night and she says this about arriving in Paris after the Revolution:
"An undefined line curiously separated those from Petersburg from the Muscovites, although they were the most part related...The Moscow children hooted with derision at our smocked dresses, over-polite manners and what they called our "accent": "Anglichani!" they jeered. (pg26)

I think the point of this is if there was such a noticeable difference just between Petersburg and Moscow, imagine how they would have stuck out in Ekaterinburg. Also, there was a huge difference in accent of spoken Russian between Petersburg aristocracy and common Russian peasants...I have heard that accent, and even not able to understand one word in ten, you can tell it is different (and beautiful)

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
« Reply #11 on: August 12, 2004, 10:52:47 AM »
It wasn't a town my grandmother lived  it was a very small village way down south by the Black Sea.... whereas Ekaterinburg was a city where newspapers, magazines etc. were touching a lot of people.  And,  the earlier newspapers carried a lot of photographs of the Royal Family before the Revolution.....  I bet there were souveiner postcards showing the Royal Family and the Impatiev House....    Maybe someone reading this can tell us accurately what was availabe in Ekaterinburg and what the mood of the people toward the Romanovs before WW I.

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

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
« Reply #12 on: August 28, 2004, 05:41:18 PM »
On another thread, Greg, myself and others are talking about the testimony of Dr Utkin who said he treated Anastasia in Perm after 16 July 1918.

I had said:
Quote
On another thread, Heinrich Kleibenzetl, who claimed he saw Anatasia alive after 16 / 17 July 1918, has been discussed.  There were others mentioned in File of the Tsar by Summers and Mangold.

p. 335-6
Testimony of Dr. Pavel Uvanovich Utkin, page 44:

"In Sept 1918 I lived in Perm.... about 5-6 o'clock in the evening, an orderly came to me from the Cheka and said:  "Doctor, go at once to Malkov,"  who was chairman of the CHEKA." "They took me to the adjoining room.... In this room a woman was lying on a couch.  I realized they had called me to a sick person."  Goes on to say what she looked like and her state.  "At this time, as was obvious, the sick woman was in an unconscious state." "A little while after I began my examination the sick woman regained consciousness... I asked her:  "Who are you?"  p. 337.  "In a trembling voice, but quite distinctly, she answered me word for word--as follows:  "'I am the emperor's daughter Anastasia."  It's true he had never seen Anastasia but was shown a photograph and believed it was.  Dr. Utkin does claim the girl was above average height.  Everyone tells us she was not but shorter than the other girls [below average]  but I'm not sure anyone knows how tall she was by July of 1918....

Dr. Utkin's testimony was given 10 Feb 1919 and collected by Kirsta who was under Gen. Gaida, the Czech who appointed himself as investigator of the fate of the Royal Family and the others on the night of 16 / 17 July 1918.... It was his White Forces that had taken Ekaterinburrg.

King's and Wilson's  reasons why they don't seem to be interested in Kirsta's investigation is:  they think the Perm data had been invented by the CHEKA.  However,  I don't think this is true.  I think it was possible some or all of the royal females were in Perm after the night of 16 July 1918.

AGRBear


Note:  I should have not have said they were not interested, because they were, of course,  I should have said, they they were no longer as interested after their research....

The discussion is over on the thread about survivors:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1074956237;start=250#250

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

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
« Reply #13 on: October 28, 2004, 11:52:02 AM »
Because of my thread about what Anastasia would have inherited,  I was asked to read THE LOST FORTUNE OF THE TSARS by William Clarke.  Last night,  while looking for something about Tsarina Alexandra's property in Hesse I can across this story about another rescue I don't recall reading in any other book.  I do recall something about the guards at the Impatiev House getting excited about an airplane flying over......  Let's call it

A Rescue By Aeroplane

On pps 85-86:

There is mention of  Col. Richard Meinertzhagen, who had been in the Foreign Office and in the British Intelligence and who had a diary.  In this diary he wrote about a "plot to rescue the whole family and the apparent rescue of at least one of the grand duchesses by aeroplane"

Yep,  that is what it said:  "the apparent rescue of at least one of the grand duchesses by aeroplane".

The book then gives Meinertzhagen's entry of 18 Aug 1918 which describes the rescue of one of Nicholas II's daughters and his visit with George V at Buckingham Palace.

p. 86:

"July 1... One child was literally thrown into the plane at Ekaterinburg, much bruised, and brought to Braitain where she still is.  But I am sure if her idenity were known she would be tracked down and murdered as the heir of the Russian throne.  What bestial swine the Russians are, murdering little girls becuse they are the daughters of the Tsar."

Could this be true?

July 1 doesn't seem right.  Not when we read the diares of the Impatiev House....  

Did it occur on July 16 and  not July 1..... ?  Now, this would give us a great deal of thought,  wouldn't it?

People have tried to show that Meinertzhagenmight have "some tendency to fantasise" and people crowd around that thought, or so it seems.

A Michael Occleshaw folllowed up on this story and thought the GD rescue may have been GD Tatiana and that was was indeen flown out of Ekaterinburg to Vladivostock by stages then taken by boat to England.  In fact,  he thought she might be buried ina grave in Lydd in Kent".  

You read  the few pages and you can gain your own opinion about this  "rescue".

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

Offline Michelle

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
  • No more school forever!  Well,except college.
    • View Profile
Testimony of Sightings After 16 July 1918
« Reply #14 on: October 28, 2004, 12:04:51 PM »
AGR--

Are there any photos of the woman buried in Kent?  Most fascinating I gotta tell ya! :D