101 Reasons AA was not FS.

Thanks, Michael!

Fact:  FS wore a size 39 shoe.  AA wore a size 36 shoe.  (interview of Gertrude in 1927)

Fact:  FS had dark, almost black hair.  AA had light, sandy-red hair.  (interview of Gertrude in 1927, interview of WIngender family in 1927)

Fact:  FS was big-boned and stocky, sturdily-built.  AA was tiny and frail.  (interviews of Gertrude, Wingender family in 1927. Also, sworn statement of Gertrude, 1953)

None of these are 'facts' but comments that may or may not be accurate or correct. These things can be listed as 'exhibit' or potential evidence, but calling them FACTS is taking too great a liberty (and I am trying hard to not post the REAL 'fact' which you don't want in your thread)

Given the legal standard which is being followed, it is appropriate to call the above posted items "facts", since they are substantiated by sources and citations.

Now, facts may contradict other facts.  But this place is where we are putting facts that distinguish FS from AA.

Fact:  FS wore a size 39 shoe.  AA wore a size 36 shoe.  (interview of Gertrude in 1927)

Fact:  FS had dark, almost black hair.  AA had light, sandy-red hair.  (interview of Gertrude in 1927, interview of WIngender family in 1927)

Fact:  FS was big-boned and stocky, sturdily-built.  AA was tiny and frail.  (interviews of Gertrude, Wingender family in 1927. Also, sworn statement of Gertrude, 1953)

Fritz Shuricht was a private investigator who conducted the above interviews in Hamburg.

Wrong shoe sizes(My Mummy crams her feet into smaller shoes to seem to have smaller feet),hair colouring(Again,Mummy is a NATURAL blonde....just ask her hairdresser),old age aside...the DNA of AA was a match for the S family....Why was that?

Sorry, opinion and conjecture do not meet the legal standard!  

Gotta have evidence and cite sources.

None of that "Thinking-Outside-The-Box" malarky then...?

All the he said she said descriptions are contradicted by others, so none are of any value. This stuff is all SUBJECTIVE- just opinion, cannot be proven. Even if a person swore to the statement it doesn't mean they weren't lying or just plain mistaken or remembering wrong. Human error is a huge factor here,  like I said about the tub and the rock star. People remember things differently and all think they are right. Not everyone is.

Nope.  This is for substantiated facts, with sources cited.  

Also to support the weakness of this 'evidence', it did not help her court case, she did not win.

All the he said she said descriptions are contradicted by others, so none are of any value. This stuff is all SUBJECTIVE- just opinion, cannot be proven. Even if a person swore to the statement it doesn't mean they weren't lying or just plain mistaken or remembering wrong. Human error is a huge factor here,  like I said about the tub and the rock star. People remember things differently and all think they are right. Not everyone is.

Yes but you seem to revel in he said she said heresay, while, ignoring affadavits, sworn testimony, actual evidence.  I just realized in looking back, I don't think you have ever quoted a source in the year or so that I have been on this forum, that is truly amazing.    

Yes but you seem to revel in he said she said heresay, while, ignoring affadavits, sworn testimony, actual evidence.

Like I said, you can wipe your hands on those 'affadavits'. We have a family who was trying to get out of claiming a troublesome sister, for her own good as well as theirs. We have people who barely knew her giving flawed (not necessarily intentionally) info MANY years after seeing her last. Just because someone put it on paper doesn't mean it's true. Again, HUMAN ERROR and inaccurate memory play a big part.
 

I just realized in looking back, I don't think you have ever quoted a source in the year or so that I have been on this forum, that is truly amazing.    

I know I have, even if it was from another person's post. But I continually quote the scientific evidence, though you choose to ignore it.

Michael and Annie - could you keep your arguments off this particular thread, please?  Either take it to pms, or to the other thread.

I really would like to see this thread focus SOLELY on the topic and the presumptions set forth in the first post.

Thanks!

This quote talks about photographs and shows Wingender may not have been as honest a witness and some of you'd like to believe:

During the court trial of 1958-61 the photographs of Wingender were presented.  

Wingender said that the one photo was of Franziska

Wingender said one was of Schanzkowska in the summer of 1922 and then there was one of herself in 1920.  Both were wearing the same dress.

The experts discovered that the one photographs which was FS  had been altered and buttons had been added and that the two dresses were not the same.  The photo of Wingender had also been altered and someone in the photo had been removed.

These photos were important because it was how Wingender was proving she had seen FS in 1922 during the time frame when AA's time is not accountable.

Wingender than refused to swear a oath that she was speaking the truth about FS.  She refused to return to court.

I'll have to dig around for the information on the changes made to FS's photo of her standing with an apron near some trees.
AGRBear

I don't recall what book I found this.  I'll have to find it but will express the source as soon as I remember.


AGRBear

Events occuring during trial of AA's continued:

>>Wollmann would not let up.  He had located a copy of  Die Woche,  the Berlin magazine in which, said Doris, she had first recognized Franziska Schanzkovksa in a phograph of Anastasia.

"In this photograph?" Wollmann asked.

"Yes."

"And it was seeing this picture which allowed you to conclude that the invalid at Castle Seeon...was your Polish girl?"

"Yes."

"I suppose the fifteen hundred marks weren't going to be paid unless you made an identification."

Correct. As soon as the identification was made."

Wollmann handed the magazine to the judges.  The photograph of Anastasia's face, they saw, was little more than a smudge of ink...."

"Why," said Judge Baethge, "from that you could recognize anybody or notbody."

Doris got the point.  Dominque Aucleres observed that she had gone "as white as the wall."

"I'm sick!" she cried,  "I've got the flu!"<<

After these outburst Wollmann demanded Doris Wingender go through the process of giveing her oath to swear what she had said was true.

>>While they were arguing Doris Wingender slipped from the room.  She never came back.  And ... <<

Here it is pps 348-9  ANASTASIA, THE RIDDLE OF ANNA ANDERSON by Peter Kurth.


AGRBear

Right.  She was completely discredited at the trial.