Author Topic: AA, Timeline for  (Read 23038 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: AA, Timeline for
« Reply #45 on: October 19, 2005, 12:41:43 PM »
I have been told by FA that I'm not allowed to make speculations of "contamination" or "swtich".  So, all I am doing is placing here in these posts the "Timeline" and highlighting points I find interesting.

I will have to rely on comments from you, Louis-Charles,  and other posters  as to what you may conclude as we proceed through this Timeline.

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

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Louis_Charles

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1498
    • View Profile
Re: AA, Timeline for
« Reply #46 on: October 19, 2005, 03:51:49 PM »
 ;D

Thanks, Bear.

That was a nice, circuitous way of answering my question, and I understand.

By the way, my name is not Louis Charles. It is Simon, and please feel free to call me by that.

Simon
"Simon --- Classy AND Compassionate!"
   
"The road to enlightenment is long and difficult, so take snacks and a magazine."

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: AA, Timeline for
« Reply #47 on: October 19, 2005, 04:00:51 PM »
Simon,

Glad you understand my position.

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
Re: AA, Timeline for
« Reply #48 on: October 20, 2005, 07:56:09 PM »
4 Nov 1993- Crawford filed her petition
One can read in more detail a version of Crawford's claim on p. 205.  The highlights were:
a) Marina Schweitzer's petition was not valid because she was not related to Anastasia Anderson
b) using the tissue sample to discover the true identity of Anastasia Manahan would be usedful and cannot be achieved in the manner requested by Schweitzer.  p. 205 a quote:  >>...the Russian Nobility Association heaped further calumny on Dr. Gill:  his laboratory was said to represent "second-best scientific testing", and his samples were said to have been possibly "contaminated."<<  Attached to these remarks  about the possibly "contaminated" were affidavits from (1) Prince Alexis Scherbatow and (2) Dr. William Maples who praised Dr. King at UC Berkeley and her ability to preform  DNA test.

10 Nov 1993 -  Ellen Kailing-Romanov, a German citizen, petitioned to intervene.  She claimed to be the daughter of GD Anastasia

16 Nov 1993 - Richard Schweitzer told the court that he would not oppose tests by Dr. King at Berkeley  p. 208  >>...he would only oppose testing exclusively by Dr.  King. <<

Out of court the various sides talked.

7 Dec 1993 -
(1) Judge Swett allowed both  the Russian Nobility Assoc., and Mrs. Kailing-Romanov to inervene in the suit.


(2) Dr. Mary-Clarie King wrote and notarized an affidavit comtradicting what Dr. Maples had said about Dr. Gill's competence.  

Dr. King wrote:  p. 210:
>>I have been working for the past seven months on the identification of the skeletal remains of the nine individuals believed to include Tsar Nicholas II and the members of his family," she said, "I have also received blood and tissue samples from descendants of Tsar Nicholas and his wife, Alexandra." <<  

date? Dec 1993
Judge Swett told the three parties to  p. 213:
>>..meet, confer, and resolve among themselves the questions of how and where the tissue should be tested.  If the quantity of tissue was sufficient,  he instructed that parallel tests be done by Dr. Gill and Dr. King.<<

10 Jan 1994
Place of the meeting between parties would take place in Charlottesville office of Page William's, the hospital lawyer's, office.  Those present were:
1) Richard Schweitzer who reprsented his wife Marina
2) Page Williams who represented the Martha Jefferson Hosptial
3) Matthew Murray the other attorney who respresented Martha Jeff. Hosp.
4) Dr. Willi Koerte  replaced Lindsey Crawford  and represented the RNA

21 Jan 1994 - Ulrich von Gienanth whom AA had named as one of her four executors signed a "declaration" that he accepted the role of executor of AA.  If his status was accpeted by the court,  his power of executor would supersede Scheitzer nd all others. p. 217

One year and five months later,  Dr. Gill and Dr. King have not received the samples of intestines.

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
Re: AA, Timeline for
« Reply #49 on: October 24, 2005, 04:06:43 PM »
22 Jan 1994- Another court appearance occured.  Present were Richard Schweizer, Matthew Murray, Linsey Crawford and Page Williams.  Judge Swett asked if all parties were in an agreement.  

"No."

Case was dismissed due to the entry of von Gienanth as executor of AA's estate which included her sample of intestines.

Swett said a new lawsuite could be tissued.

Legal manuvers were made.  Judge Swett had to review, clarify, modify his nonsuit order.  A law was found which stated that von Gienanth would have to appear in person... The old man was too old and couldn't fly and was eliminated.... from the case.

5 March 1994- New hearing and Judge Swett ruling rejected Andrew & Kurths and said that if Marina Schweitzer wanted to terminate this case she had a right to do so.  Also Mary Claire-King's affidavit (written 7 Dec 1993) was entered into the case.  If Andrews and Kurth wish to continue they needed to gain and injunction and must so file.

15 March 1994 - Injunction by Andrew and Kurth was filed.   Andrews and Kurth wanted a "a parallel testing of the tissue samples at two qualified laboriatories" p. 220.

16 March 1994 - Ed Deets, a friend of Richard Schweitzer,  was sworn in as personal representative and administrator of Anastasia Manahan's estate in Virigina.

30 March 1994- Another hearing in Judge Swett's courtroom.  Present were Matthew murray, Page Williams, Alexis Scherbatow, Marina and Richard Schweitzer, ed Deets, Penny Jenkins, Julian Nott, Ron Answen, Massie, Dr. Korte and Dr. Adrian Ivinson.  This was about the injunction.

11 May 1994 -  FInal court hearing took place.  Case was dismissed.

19 May 1994 - Swett gave Andrews & Kurth 30 days to file an appeal.  No appeal waas filed,  Case was over.

19 June 1994 - Peter Gill arrived in Charlottesville to collect a sample of Anastasia Manahan's tissue.

p. 225 Massie tells us the details:
>>Gill had lunch that day with the Schweitzers and then went to the hspital to collect the tissue.  He was greeeter there by Ed Deets, Matthew Murray, Penny Jenkins, and Dr. Hunt Macmillian, director of the hospital pathology laboratory.  While the layers and nonscientists watche from the back of the room and a documentary filem crew recorded everything that happened, the process got under way.  Macmillan, Gill and Betty Eppard, a resgiestered histology technician who actually cut the tissue, appeared ... The five blocks of paraffin containing the embedded tissue...were produced, and the same procedure was repeated five times:  Macmillan handed Gill a tissue block and identified it.  Gill sterilized it and handed it to Eppard...." <<

And so it went.  The tissue was placed in sterilized vials which were tamper proof....

Gill did not take the sample that day.

29 June 1994- Ten days after the slicing of the sample,  Peter Gill collected the tissue in Charlottesville.

So, it  took from 20 Aug 1992 to 29 June 1994, which was just short of two months of being two years,  before Peter Gill was taking the tissue sample to his lab.

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
Re: AA, Timeline for
« Reply #50 on: October 24, 2005, 04:11:40 PM »
When did Mary-Claire King recieve her samples?

I don't have any dates from Massie.

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
Re: AA, Timeline for
« Reply #51 on: January 16, 2006, 12:38:02 PM »
>>Finally, on February 28, 1967, the Court of Apeals announced it decision.<<  >>...the death of Grand Duchess Anastasia at Ekaterinburg cannot be accepted as conclusively historical fact..."<<

So, the German courts as late as 1967 concluded that the death of GD Anastasia was not proven.

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 etonexile

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1231
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: AA, Timeline for
« Reply #52 on: January 16, 2006, 05:14:46 PM »
Quote
>>Finally, on February 28, 1967, the Court of Apeals announced it decision.<<  >>...the death of Grand Duchess Anastasia at Ekaterinburg cannot be accepted as conclusively historical fact..."<<

So, the German courts as late as 1967 concluded that the death of GD Anastasia was not proven.

AGRBear


And a court said O.J. was innocent of murder....shrugs

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: AA, Timeline for
« Reply #53 on: January 17, 2006, 04:29:29 PM »
I don't believe any of the people who were on the jury for O.J.'s trial were judges in AA's appeals or court trial.


Did any German court reverse this decision?

I don't believe the USA govt. has ever stated that the IF were murdered on the 16.17 July 1918.

Of course,  this doesn't mean AA was GD Anastasia, but it does keep doors open for a real claimant if any should ever be produced through a descendant.

And, no,  I don't know of anyone who is.

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 ConstanceMarie

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 30
  • I long for the past, and dream of days with you
    • View Profile
Re: AA, Timeline for
« Reply #54 on: January 18, 2006, 02:13:13 PM »
The death of Anastasia or any member of the family could not be proven then because no bodies were found. Now we even still have 2 bodies nobody found, these being Anastasia and Alexei. If the bodies never get found you will never know for sure how and when they died. But this does not mean that Anna Anderson was Anastasia.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: AA, Timeline for[quote author=Louis_Charles li
« Reply #55 on: January 28, 2006, 10:36:38 AM »
I placed this here not to debate AA's mental state but for the time line of when Dr. Willige treated AA in 1931:

Quote
Dr. Willige treated Anna Andersen in 1931, and as you know from your reading, he was the last doctor who formally examined her for purposes of determining her mental health. She lived for over fifty years after that, so it is doubtful that his statements mattered much by the time she resided in Charlottesville, for example. He also distinguished between madness and psychopathic personality disturbance, of which there were signs even in 1931. (Kurth, 259-260). And while I think some weight must be given to the opinions of Willige, there have been enough advancements in the mental health field in terms of both diagnosis and treatment to make a 1931 estimation less than magisterial.

I post this here reluctantly, and will delete it and re-post on the new mental illness thread when everyone else does the same.

I have been unable to discover that any of the usual suspects --- Boodt, Goleniewski, Smith, etc. ---  recanted.

"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
Re: AA, Timeline for
« Reply #56 on: May 03, 2006, 10:00:32 AM »
For those of you not familar with various timelines which involved AA and the samples of the intestines,  I think this thread is important and will clearify some points, which includes the time it took for the hospital to find the sample of intestines to the point of times Dr. Gilles and King received the samples for their testing of DNA.

I do not believe AA was GD Anastasia. Nor do I believe we need to tangle up fact with misinformation to prove our case.

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
Re: AA, Timeline for
« Reply #57 on: June 25, 2007, 10:22:52 AM »
Let me know if there are any corrections to the, now, dated material presented in my Timeline for AA.

Thanks.

AGRBear
« Last Edit: June 25, 2007, 10:27:51 AM 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
Re: AA, Timeline for
« Reply #58 on: June 25, 2007, 10:24:33 AM »
Correction:




Baby?   AA never said she was pregnant on the night of 18 July 1918. 

AGRBear

Oh come on bear. It's been well rehashed and discussed to death that AA said she had a baby in late 1918, meaning IF she did and IF anyone presumes she was AN, she would have to have been to have delivered a viable baby in Dec. In fact bear I found this old post of yours:

Here is some additional information from Penny on AA's child:


Quote

Yes.  She was quite adamant about the child's birth, and claimed a date in -- I think -- December 1918/January 1919 for the birth.  This is in the court records, along with her statement concerning the possible death of Alexander Tschaikowsky -- which AA claimed happened in a street-fight, but which can't be verified independently.

This date of birth, of course, places conception in the early months of 1918 -- unthinkable for people when the theory was that she was Anastasia, because that would mean one of two things:  That rape had happened in Tobolsk, on board the Rus, in the Ipatiev house, or all three; or Anastasia had had consensual sex while in captivity, presumably with a guard.  Either way, when she -- AA-as-Anastasia -- left the Ipatiev House in mid-July 1918, she was pregnant.




So, do the records state she said she had the baby in 1918? Isn't this in the Kurth book as well? (don't have a copy handy)

Of course, none of this means a thing as far as AN is concerned because she wasn't AA, but it does matter as far as AA's fabricated story goes.

I no longer can following the quote because the data has been removed.  I believe it came from the thread about  what may have occured on the Russ.

I believe since Penny's  post,  it was established that it wasn't  AA who voiced the date of birth in Dec 1918 / Jan. 1919,  which would have made her conception around the time of the journey on the Russ to Ekaterinburg.

Some else - I think it was Baron Von Kleist  - said the baby was born in 1918 and AA got really annoyed at this and said she didn't know the exact date.  She just knew - in 1922 - that he would be "around 3 years old".  this makes him born 1919 sometime but doesn't give us any indication whether it was at the beginning, middle or end of that year.


I believe the following was  presented to back up this correction:

>>AA had her baby in the autumn of 1919, this is verified in Harriet Rathlef Keilmann's book. Baron von Kleist set the date as December 5, 1918, but that was in fact the date when AA crossed the Dniestr into Moldavia according to the witness Sarsha Gregorian, who in May was paid 30.000 lei as thank you for his help. When AA heard of Baron von Kleist's date, she cried about his "lies" and said she did not even the date of the child's birth, only that it had been in autumn of 1919. (Rathlef-Keilmann). <<

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!
Re: AA, Timeline for
« Reply #59 on: June 25, 2007, 10:50:31 AM »
So what we have here is a changed date, and/or conflicting reports? Not surprising, coming from liars and frauds trying to cover their tails/tales.