Author Topic: Heinrich Kleibenzetl - His Testimony at Anna Anderson's Trial  (Read 56532 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: Heinrich Kleibenzetl - His Testimony at Anna Anderson's Trial
« Reply #90 on: January 09, 2005, 11:04:38 AM »
Course,  there is always one thorn in the bush and that is I.

I contend that there is a possibility that one or all escaped and that the execution was staged by Yurovsky and his guards.


I don't recall what the reaction of Kleibenzetl's testimony was in AA's trial.  Maybe, someone else does and remembers the source and page.

AGRBear
« Last Edit: May 26, 2009, 03:02:11 PM by Alixz »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4756
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: Heinrich Kleibenzetl - His Testimony at Anna Anderson's Trial
« Reply #91 on: January 09, 2005, 01:33:22 PM »
As I have also said, as long as 2 bodies remain missing we can never be totally sure, as unlikely as it seems, that 2 escaped. I do not believe any more than 2 escaped since the other bodies have been indentified. I would like to hear stories and theories involving possibilities OTHER than AA-FS. I reallly feel that has been beaten to death and proven that she (or they if you must) was not AN. When someone posts other things, such as the Granny Alina story, I will give it consideration. I would be just as happy as anyone else if it could be proven a member of the IF got away. It would be the most exciting thing in the world. I don't think it's realistic, but if there is any new info I will listen and not criticize (unless the same old AA things come up again, I can no longer take that seriously)

To those who complain that I say the same things over and over and should shut up- as long as I hear the same stories over and over, the intestines were switched, half sister, etc. repeated again and again I will also be a thorn and repeat my rebuttals again and again.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Annie »

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Heinrich Kleibenzetl - His Testimony at Anna Anderson's Trial
« Reply #92 on: January 09, 2005, 04:48:08 PM »
This thread is about Heinrich Kleibenzetl and the theories/speculations/deniels of an escape, probably, should be over on the other threads....

I presumed Kurth or Kleir would have more about Kleibenzetl since they focus on AA.
ANASTASIA, THE RIDDLE OF ANNA ANDERSON  by Peter Kurth pps 338-40

Apparently, Kleibenzetl was asked to draw a map of the Impatiev grounds and what he drew was 'flabbergasting".....  Tempers flared in the court room.  The lawyer for the opposition, Bernberg-Gossler,  called Kleinbenzetl a "little Austro-Marxist"....

The book does not mention anything more about Kleibenzetl's testimony....

On that day, the judge suspended the trial till autumn.

He was not mention in Kleir's book.

Did Kleibenzetl attempt to sell his story or make any efforts to make profit through his story?

Quote
...[in part]....
The case of Kleibenzetl is an interesting one...

....one man's allegations does not a case make; coupled with other evidence and testimony about Anastasia's alleged escape from a multitude of uninvolved witnesses, a search by the Bolsheviks, and things like Princess Elena Petrovna being asked to determine if one girl was Anastasia, however, it contributes to a circumstantial case.  But that's all it is, with no firm evidence.

That said, though, it's important to note that had the Bolsheviks been using the episode as a public charade, they certainly weren't terribly successful in their efforts; nor does Kleibenzetl's story work under this scenario since the people from whom he rented rooms were not Bolsheviks at all-and thus their tale-and his-could not form part of a conspiracy.  The other fact that mitigates against this is that Kleibenzetl kept his silence until the 1950s when the Anastasia trials were underway-which surely would not have been the point had this been some sort of pre-arranged incident to drum up talk.

But with or without the case of Anastasia Manahan, there's clear evidence that Anastasia left the murder room alive that night and had to be beaten into silence by a drunken Ermakov.  Whether this killed her or she then went on to disappear/escape remains the unknown factor.

Greg King


After all the evidence that Greg has seen he still can say: ...Anastasia left the murder room alive that night...."

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 Lanie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1533
    • View Profile
Re: Heinrich Kleibenzetl - His Testimony at Anna Anderson's Trial
« Reply #93 on: January 09, 2005, 05:04:57 PM »
Quote
After all the evidence that Greg has seen he still can say: ...Anastasia left the murder room alive that night...."

AGRBear


Because of the fact that they took them outside and THEN had to beat the girl who sat up so she'd finally die. Therefore (if it was AN and not one of the other girls) Anastasia "left the murder room alive" only to be beaten outside after she apparently got up.  Heck of a lot more realistic than someone taking pity on one of the girls, rescuing them, riding off into the sunset...

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Heinrich Kleibenzetl - His Testimony at Anna Anderson's Trial
« Reply #94 on: January 09, 2005, 05:50:51 PM »
Okay,  we know what you think and we know what I think.

How does that explain away what Kleibenzetl was willing to testify so many years after that night?

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

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline dmitri

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2018
    • View Profile
Re: Heinrich Kleibenzetl - His Testimony at Anna Anderson's Trial
« Reply #95 on: June 19, 2007, 12:21:09 PM »
This whole Heinrich Kleibenzetl story remains so utterly unbelievable. It is all pure invention. It's amazing how people can continue to believe a woman who was dead got up and managed to make her way across the street, dead, and into a house where no medical care was available. I guess they were undertakers in that house or body snatchers. The only Romanovs who left the Ipatiev house were dead. It's really quite simple when you examine the evidence. None of the guards had the name Tschiakovsky either. The one thing that is true is that Anna Anderson was clearly demented and supported by fraudsters. No wonder she was in and out of mental hospitals so often.

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4756
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: Heinrich Kleibenzetl - His Testimony at Anna Anderson's Trial
« Reply #96 on: June 24, 2007, 11:59:59 AM »
No one would believe AN left the murder room alive that night other than someone intent on perpetuating the myth of AA. She was bayonetted through the face and died on the floor. The injuries described by this person don't even match up with what the Bolsheviks did to her. He says all her LOWER body is bloody but it was her face that was damaged. I don't believe any of those people, even the guards, really knew one GD from another by name, especially not bloody. Also his story DISCOUNTS the AA story, because AA claimed she was pregnant and anyone with such serious bleeding to their abdomen would not be able to continue to carry a baby, especially not after that long bumpy cart ride ::) We have here an example of how this or that tit and tat hearsay really can't be proven and means nothing.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Heinrich Kleibenzetl - His Testimony at Anna Anderson's Trial
« Reply #97 on: June 24, 2007, 07:52:09 PM »
No one would believe AN left the murder room alive that night other than someone intent on perpetuating the myth of AA. She was bayonetted through the face and died on the floor. The injuries described by this person don't even match up with what the Bolsheviks did to her. He says all her LOWER body is bloody but it was her face that was damaged. I don't believe any of those people, even the guards, really knew one GD from another by name, especially not bloody. Also his story DISCOUNTS the AA story, because AA claimed she was pregnant and anyone with such serious bleeding to their abdomen would not be able to continue to carry a baby, especially not after that long bumpy cart ride ::) We have here an example of how this or that tit and tat hearsay really can't be proven and means nothing.

As long as we do not have the remains of  GD  Anastasia, we do not know what wounds she suffered that night.  The Bolsheviks could have mixed up who was who during the executions.  Even, now, they tell us that it is GD Marie who is missing.

Bookworm, #1 post on this thread:
Quote
"I'll help you," said Kleinbetzl. He had gone upstairs ... where he recognized "one of the women" he had seen walking in the courtyard of the Ipatiev house. "The lower part of her body was covered with blood, her eyes were shut and she was pale as a sheet. We washed her chin, Frau Annouchka and me, then she groaned. The bones must have been broken ... Then she opened her eyes for a minute.

He doesn't tell us where the blood came from.  He does mention that he washed her chin and that she may have had some broken bones.  [The part  I know, which is very little of of the six hour testimony,  doesn't tell me more details.  Does he?.]

Remember:  "Kleibenzetl told his friend, Anton Hornik, about what he had seen back in 1923, something that Mr. Hornik testified to under oath in Hamburg."

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

AGRBear
« Last Edit: June 24, 2007, 08:11:56 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4756
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: Heinrich Kleibenzetl - His Testimony at Anna Anderson's Trial
« Reply #98 on: June 24, 2007, 09:13:01 PM »



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.

ferrymansdaughter

  • Guest
Re: Heinrich Kleibenzetl - His Testimony at Anna Anderson's Trial
« Reply #99 on: June 25, 2007, 06:44:43 AM »
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.

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4756
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: Heinrich Kleibenzetl - His Testimony at Anna Anderson's Trial
« Reply #100 on: June 25, 2007, 07:32:22 AM »
She didn't even know the age of her own baby? Well I guess when you're lying, it's easy to get your story mixed up. FS was afraid that a medical exam would show the pregnancy, so she had to come up with a story to cover it. She got her times wrong, just as she miscalculated the long distance  and time that stupid cart ride would have taken! Probably what happened was she gave the date of late 1918 because it was the true date of FS/AA's baby, dead, alive, stillborn, premature, aborted or miscarried, and then maybe realized how it didn't jive with the injured AN story and tried to change it. The Baron was likely helping her invent her fake escape story from the beginning. So she was unable to give a definite date, but said in 1922 it was 'about 3.' A kid born in late 1918 would have been 'about 3.' But who really knows when there are so many lies and fraudulent claims, and insane people, involved.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Heinrich Kleibenzetl - His Testimony at Anna Anderson's Trial
« Reply #101 on: June 25, 2007, 09:48:59 AM »



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 remember the date of the child's birth, only that it had been in autumn of 1919. (Rathlef-Keilmann). <<

AGRBear
« Last Edit: June 25, 2007, 09:55:39 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: Heinrich Kleibenzetl - His Testimony at Anna Anderson's Trial
« Reply #102 on: June 25, 2007, 10:01:56 AM »
She didn't even know the age of her own baby? Well I guess when you're lying, it's easy to get your story mixed up. FS was afraid that a medical exam would show the pregnancy, so she had to come up with a story to cover it. She got her times wrong, just as she miscalculated the long distance  and time that stupid cart ride would have taken! Probably what happened was she gave the date of late 1918 because it was the true date of FS/AA's baby, dead, alive, stillborn, premature, aborted or miscarried, and then maybe realized how it didn't jive with the injured AN story and tried to change it. The Baron was likely helping her invent her fake escape story from the beginning. So she was unable to give a definite date, but said in 1922 it was 'about 3.' A kid born in late 1918 would have been 'about 3.' But who really knows when there are so many lies and fraudulent claims, and insane people, involved.

Aren't you going adrift here with your questions???  There are other threads which talk about a baby boy, medical exams, cart rides,  conspriacies, etc. etc. .  I thought this thread was about Kleibenzetl and his testimony which lasted 6 hours....

AGRBear
« Last Edit: June 25, 2007, 10:11:14 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: Heinrich Kleibenzetl - His Testimony at Anna Anderson's Trial
« Reply #103 on: June 30, 2007, 05:44:04 PM »
This man testified in the German court  in AA's trial, so,  people are discussing him and his testimony.   Of course there are more important subjects but this happens to be the topic of this particular thread.

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

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline dmitri

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2018
    • View Profile
Re: Heinrich Kleibenzetl - His Testimony at Anna Anderson's Trial
« Reply #104 on: July 09, 2007, 07:15:10 AM »
and people lie under oath all the time in courts ... this is just so much rubbish ... give it a rest AGRBear ... it is obvious you are an Anna Anderson supporter over many, many replies over many threads .. courts are duty bound to hear witnesses ... it does not mean they believe anything they say!