Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Myth and Legends of Survivors => Topic started by: Annie on July 23, 2005, 07:39:49 PM

Title: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 23, 2005, 07:39:49 PM
Franziska Schanskowska WAS Anna Anderson, and she was not Anastasia.

There is no longer any reasonable doubt about that. But there are still mysteries I want answered. Here they are:

1. Did Franziska willingly play along, or did she really have amnesia and not know who she was? Did she want to rid herself of her old life so badly she became someone else?

Also, if she really did believe she was Anastasia, at what point did this happen? Was it from the beginning, or did she play along so long she came to believe it in her old age because she was mentally unstable?

2. Did her supporters really believe her, or were they only hoping, or hoping for money?

3. Who coached her, taught her languages, and fed her memories? And of the memories, how many were intentionally fed, or just incidental relayed in conversation?

4. What went on between her and her siblings when they met? Surely they knew it was her, and covered for her. But did she know it was them and beg them not to expose her?

5. Who was behind the whole lawsuit thing, and why?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 23, 2005, 08:22:12 PM
Annie: >>Franziska Schanskowska WAS Anna Anderson, and she was not Anastasia<<

For those who are not sure if Anna Anderson was FS, there are many other threads which discuss this subject.  Please, respect Annie's thread and no "red herrings" need to place here or anywhere.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 23, 2005, 08:37:24 PM
Quote
Franziska Schanskowska WAS Anna Anderson, and she was not Anastasia.

There is no longer any reasonable doubt about that. But there are still mysteries I want answered. Here they are:

1. Did Franziska willingly play along, or did she really have amnesia and not know who she was? Did she want to rid herself of her old life so badly she became someone else?

Also, if she really did believe she was Anastasia, at what point did this happen? Was it from the beginning, or did she play along so long she came to believe it in her old age because she was mentally unstable?

2. Did her supporters really believe her, or were they only hoping, or hoping for money?

3. Who coached her, taught her languages, and fed her memories? And of the memories, how many were intentionally fed, or just incidental relayed in conversation?

4. What went on between her and her siblings when they met? Surely they knew it was her, and covered for her. But did she know it was them and beg them not to expose her?

5. Who was behind the whole lawsuit thing, and why?



I would address these points issue by issue but we have been through this entire thing before.  Were you not blaming Gleb Botkin for a great deal of the issues regarding who coached her, etc.  ?  If I am wrong then I am apologize in advance, but I seem to remember that we proved through testimony given at the trials that AA could speak & understand Russian in a manner considered to be fluent by the staff of Dalldorf Asylum.
This was LONG BEFORE she met Gleb Botkin.  If this was an intricately constructed charade as you illude to, then that theory falls apart.

Also regardless of your feelings regarding the sibling of FS the siblings actually did not recognize her as their sister officially THROUGH ANY LEGAL OR NOTARIZED source.  Meaning second hand family information cannot be used as source.  Not one of them ever officially recognized her as their sibling.  

You are also forgetting that she only met Felix in 1927 in Wasserleonburg, near Castle Seeon, when she was staying with the Duke of Leuchtenberg.  He is the ONLY SIBLING who met privately with her.  There is no recorded transcript of their conversation.   In 1938 11 years later due to the interference of the new head of the Russian Emigre Office in Berlin (who was a very close friend of Grand Duke Vladimir) the siblings were ALL FORCED to meet in Hannover, they did not meet individually or alone, they met in the police station or some civil building, in a room, with the POLICE PRESENT.
None of them recognized except Gertrude made two outbursts about her being her sister, these outbursts were looked on in amazement by the other siblings who stated in the meeting this woman was obviously NOT their sister.  No signed statement either way was ever made by the siblings.

Of course some of those involved had to be in it for money, the legendary millions supposedly left by Nicholas as dowaries for his 4 daughters.

Gleb Botkin played a large part in the later trials and investigations.  She was also bankrolled by those sympathetic to her.

Annie, I must reiterate, and I am NOT attacking you, that you ASSUME a great deal with your statements and disregard the known facts of the events about which you write.     FS may be AA to you, and that is fine, but many of us want a look at all of the evidence, in a truthful open manner, before we close the book on this long involved and tragic story.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 23, 2005, 08:55:20 PM
It seems to me that while we can have threads questioning the relationship of Gertrude and FS, and comparing AA's nose to AN's nose, etc, all of which may infer that we are not certain who FS was, who AA was, and whether AN survived.....

It is ENTIRELY appropriate to devote a thread to FS being AA and addressing the questions Annie did.

Assuming, FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT ONLY, that Annie is correct, how ARE those questions answered?

I can only speculate, but here are my thoughts:

First, I have a hard time believing that AA/FS entered into a scheme to masquerade as AN.  I do not know when FS "became" AN, but I'm willing to bet that somewhere within a few years, she truly believed, on many levels, that she was.  If she had a fragile personality, it would have been a relatively simple thing for FS/AA to truly incorporate the myth within herself.  I wish there was more available about her - hospital records, etc, that we could read and analyze.

Second, I also have a hard time believing that anyone schemed with her.  People risked their reputations, their friendships, their family lives, their money because they believed in her.  There doesn't seem to be, from what I have read, any indication that people were after the alleged money.  Even if they were, surely they would have lost interest when it took so long to access the $.  Please do not hesitate to correct me if I'm wrong and there are facts out there indicating a lust for $ by others.

Third, that whole "memory feeding thing..."  I do believe that there were tons of gossip magazines available that would have given her tidbits of info.  And emigres, also, whose stories she could have heard.  I'm willing to bet that she could subtly glean info from people who knew the imperial family -- it's actually pretty easy to do, if you listen carefully and think fast.  But how did she know about Gleb's animals?  Or the soldier with the pockets?  That sort of thing?  Oh, and I read somewhere, but can't find it, that Prince Sigismund's questions were obvious and that it would have been easy for anyone to answer them....

Languages....if you are good at languages, they are pretty easy to pick up.  FS did not come from a poor peasant family, but a farming family that had access to schools.  She probably learned at least one foreign language there.  I speak 5 languages myself, and understand several more  -  it's just a knack, and honestly, if I was thrown in the middle of Romania, I could probably get by fine, or Denmark, Norway (I'm a native Swede) or Belgium.  

I cannot for the life of me understand the family issue.  It would be interesting to have actual transcripts of the conversations, rather than reports from third parties.  I'd love to know what she and Felix talked about on their first meeting.  I would love to know more about the family in general, and am hoping that Penny and Greg will uncover more info.  



Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 23, 2005, 09:19:09 PM
Quote
Annie: >>Franziska Schanskowska WAS Anna Anderson, and she was not Anastasia<<

For those who are not sure if Anna Anderson was FS, there are many other threads which discuss this subject.  Please, respect Annie's thread and no "red herrings" need to place here.

AGRBear


Thank you bear ((hugs)) for all the good it did, thanks for trying. And I will respectfully stay out of your 'red herring' threads!

Michael, this thread is for those of us who do believe AA was FS and are wondering about the background WHY'S, not her identity.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 23, 2005, 09:22:13 PM
/....or for those who are willing to explore the why's, even if we aren't positive about the FS being AA being not AN.......:)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 23, 2005, 09:23:10 PM
So, Annie, what are your thoughts?  Any speculations?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 24, 2005, 07:12:07 AM
Quote
So, Annie, what are your thoughts?  Any speculations?



Not really, or I wouldn't be asking others;)

But as far as GUESSES here goes:

1. Did Franziska willingly play along, or did she really have amnesia and not know who she was? Did she want to rid herself of her old life so badly she became someone else?

I think when she jumped in the canal that night in 1920, she did not want to live anymore. She killed herself off that night. She wanted nothing to do with her life, and so when she survived, she refused to admit to her identity. She did not want them to find out who she was, her past, or tell her family. Of course, amnesia, even temporary, is possible considering her mental state.

I also wonder what really happened to her baby, and how this played into her wanting to kill herself.

Also, if she really did believe she was Anastasia, at what point did this happen? Was it from the beginning, or did she play along so long she came to believe it in her old age because she was mentally unstable?

I think she did play along for years, and as she became elderly and more unstable, she honestly believed she was Anastasia. By the time she married John Manahan in 1968,  she signed a paper swearing she was Anastasia. I think she believed that.

2. Did her supporters really believe her, or were they only hoping, or hoping for money?

This I am very torn on. Could be a little of both. I know I used to believe her because I wanted to. But now that I know because of the DNA it isn't her, I look back on the pictures and wonder how I ever could have even considered it. I do think wishful thinking and love for a  mystery play into it.

3. Who coached her, taught her languages, and fed her memories? And of the memories, how many were intentionally fed, or just incidental relayed in conversation?

I'm not going to name names, but I will say I think it was more than one person. Gleb Botkin was not the first, no, who was, I don't know. This is one of the biggest mysteries of all.

On the languages: she may have had a rudementary knowledge of several languages, being in central Europe during wartime. But when Felix Y. met her in 1927, he asked her questions in English, French, German and Russian, and she only answered in German. German was the language most common to Franziska, but least common to Anastasia. The family spoke Russian, and English, and she learned French from Gilliard. and it was the official language of the court. They learned German too, but it was the least used of the languages since their German relations (Kaiser, Ernie, Ella, etc.) spoke and wrote to them in English.

Anna Anderson's English sounded rough and heavily accented with German and/or Polish accents until her end (I have seen videos of her talking) Anastasia's English would have been much better, and accented like a British person, since that's how Alexandra talked. The Tsar also spoke English with a British accent.

Point is, AA was mainly a German speaker and learned other languages later.


4. What went on between her and her siblings when they met? Surely they knew it was her, and covered for her. But did she know it was them and beg them not to expose her?

They recognized her on sight, then denied her. Gertrude was most insistant. But in the end they would not expose her. My theory is that she first denied knowing them, but when they pushed it, she admitted it and begged them not to expose her. No good could have come from this for any of them. There would have been expenses to pay, and legal trouble for filing a false claim. Then they'd have to drag a miserable, mentally unstable sister home kicking and screaming, hating them for blowing her story. Worst of all, they'd have had to support her financially since she was unable herself. This is more reason than any for siblings to deny her. (personal experience here) No one wants anything to do with a sibling who is trouble and is going to cost them money. So for her own good, and theirs, they, as Felix S. later said "left her to her "career" as Anastasia." As "Anastasia, she would always have supporters and be taken care of with living expenses. That's why Felix S. made the joke 'sausages long ago'- if he really believed that, he wouldn't have joked about it.  

5. Who was behind the whole lawsuit thing, and why?

I would not even begin to guess names, but I do think it was bigger than we will ever know, and well covered up. Whether or not you believe she was FS (though it's been proven she was unless you buy the mysterious identical cousin or tampering conspiracy theories) we know she wasn't Anastasia. So her claim was false.

My personal guess is that some person or more likely a group of people saw this pathetic creature calling herself Anastasia and decided to use it to their advantage. Whomever this was must have had connections, and some knowledge of the Russian Imperial court.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 24, 2005, 09:29:42 AM
Quote

Thank you bear ((hugs)) for all the good it did, thanks for trying. And I will respectfully stay out of your 'red herring' threads!

Michael, this thread is for those of us who do believe AA was FS and are wondering about the background WHY'S, not her identity.



You do know what & where you can file that request.
After all you did to put your two cents worth in on all of the other threads, I will be right here to add mine. :),
just like you did, but of course in a polite manner.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 24, 2005, 09:59:50 AM
Annie:  >>when Felix Y. met her in 1927, he asked her questions in English, French, German and Russian, and she only answered in German. German was the language most common to Franziska, but least common to Anastasia.<<

If she answered him in German than she understood English, French and Russian.

By the way, remember, the German AA used was "high German" not "low German" which FS's family spoke.  And, yes, there is a big difference.

I find it difficult to name anyone without proof that they helped AA with any intentions for personal gain.  

AGRBear

PS  Please,  do not think if  some of us disagree on various points that we are attacking Annie or anyone else personally.

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 24, 2005, 10:38:13 AM
I just don't want this to be turned into yet another thread questioning her identity. In this thread, that is not a question, only how the whole story unfolded.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 24, 2005, 12:24:05 PM
Hey, folks, this thread is about FS BEING AA, not questioning it.  In other words, the issues Annie wants to discuss are based on the assumption (whether you like it or not) that FS is AA.  

THis is NOT the place to debate whether FS was AA.  It is to take the assumption and go with it, for the sake of an excellent exploration and discussion.

Annie - I agree with what you said about languages.  Although I am not necessarily fluent in many languages, I can follow along with the basic conversations.  If asked questions, my tendency is to answer in English.  

Then, when I am exposed to the language more and more, I will start to answer in the language, start to participate in the language, leaving English behind more and more.

Sounds like what FS might have been doing.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 24, 2005, 01:16:07 PM
Quote
Hey, folks, this thread is about FS BEING AA, not questioning it.  In other words, the issues Annie wants to discuss are based on the assumption (whether you like it or not) that FS is AA.  

THis is NOT the place to debate whether FS was AA.  It is to take the assumption and go with it, for the sake of an excellent exploration and discussion.

Annie - I agree with what you said about languages.  Although I am not necessarily fluent in many languages, I can follow along with the basic conversations.  If asked questions, my tendency is to answer in English.  

Then, when I am exposed to the language more and more, I will start to answer in the language, start to participate in the language, leaving English behind more and more.

Sounds like what FS might have been doing.



Annie and others did not respect our wishes on the other threads, so why should they be accorded what we were not allowed to have??   I have no intention of disrupting the flow of ideas, or the discussion (which by the way was constantly done to us),so I disagree with you Finelly,  but Finelly when she  or someone states something that isn't fact or states it is fact regarding the meetings and statements of the Shanzkowsky siblings or the language issue, I am going to be there to point it out the obvious errors.

The point remains about the siblings and the errors in her statements regarding the surviving siblings of FS.
Not one of them ever officially recognized her as their sister.  There were only TWO meetings, one with Felix in 1927, where at first he said she was his sister, than he recanted and said no she was not, and the 1938 group meeting in Hannover, which despite Gertrude's outbursts which led to nothing, and their official reaction to Gertrude's outbursts (the other siblings) is something on the level of why is she doing this, this woman is obviously not our sister.  Read the accounts in Kurth's book.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 24, 2005, 01:26:45 PM
Everyone should take a good look at her supporters, and when they joined in the crusade to have her declared Anastasia.  I think the timing is of great importance here.

Of course the goal was financial, the legend of the accounts of N & A 's daughters in the millions of rubles existing out there would have been their goal, and if AA was declared AN by the courts then she would be heiress to all of those millions.  The goal was never anything else but financial.  They formed a corporation, GRANDANOR, to handle their gains once they succeeded.

It is bizzarre but if they picked someone to be AN, then they picked a bad candidate.  Going back to the Dalldorf staff who testified that she spoke & understood Russian in a fluent type of manner then the idea of her being coached does not work, as she would have had to been taught Russian.  Gleb or the others were not in the picture at that time.   Also monarchist magazines could not have had as much detail as she would need.

So Annie who besides Gleb are your suspects???
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: lexi4 on July 24, 2005, 04:31:17 PM
Quote
Everyone should take a good look at her supporters, and when they joined in the crusade to have her declared Anastasia.  I think the timing is of great importance here.

Of course the goal was financial, the legend of the accounts of N & A 's daughters in the millions of rubles existing out there would have been their goal, and if AA was declared AN by the courts then she would be heiress to all of those millions.  The goal was never anything else but financial.  They formed a corporation, GRANDANOR, to handle their gains once they succeeded.

It is bizzarre but if they picked someone to be AN, then they picked a bad candidate.  Going back to the Dalldorf staff who testified that she spoke & understood Russian in a fluent type of manner then the idea of her being coached does not work, as she would have had to been taught Russian.  Gleb or the others were not in the picture at that time.   Also monarchist magazines could not have had as much detail as she would need.

So Annie who besides Gleb are your suspects???


Good points. I would like to see a list of her supporters. I would be willing to put it together, if Annie agrees that is is related to this topic. If not, I am willing to put a list together on a new thread. Annie?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 24, 2005, 07:04:35 PM
Part of the reason many people just didn't believe that AA was FS was because FS was a "peasant and factory worker" and no way could such a person have acted like a noble person.

Well, first of all, FS was not a peasant.  Her family was not poor and owned a fair amount of land.  She didn't live out in the country, isolated from gentry, but rather had plenty of access to people of different classes.  To behave in a genteel manner is not reserved for the upper classes, and I have no doubt that many "peasants" could and did come across in a cultured way.  The comments by Xenia and others about her demeanor simply reveal the imperial snobbery that existed at the time.

As for being a "factory worker", she didn't work at the factory for very long.  During WWI, many emigres had to resort to manual or industrial labor, and I daresay there were many people of upper classes working around her.  (I wonder if anyone has investigated that aspect of her life at all?)  She could have learned a lot at that time in her life about how the "other people" act.

AA/FS had plenty of opportunity to conceal any behavioral errors with her illnesses and depression.  She didn't have to talk if she didn't want to (or couldn't, for whatever reasons).  She didn't have to get out of bed if she was ill (or couldn't behave appropriately).  She could run off and cry or have a tantrum if she sensed she was trapped or about to be caught. In other words, she didn't have to act the part consistently, 24/7.  

And by being bedridden or unable to cope, she had plenty of opportunity to watch her visitors and learn about both them and their expectations of a GD.  

Now, what I find very interesting is that her tubercular arm caused her to often go into a feverish spell where she would become delirious.  This happened while she was staying with HR and also at the sanitarium when she was attended by doctors.  Either they were very naive, or she managed, despite not being clear in her mind, to not let go of the role she was playing, not reveal her true self.  Was this because she truly believed it by then, or because she was so strongly on guard that even delirium would not cause her to lose control totally?

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on July 24, 2005, 08:35:28 PM
One of the issues here addressed was that AA/FS's family came to her and after conversation, decided to let her go with her "new career".

This makes me wonder about human nature. You go to see a sister that may or may not have been killed by a serial killer.....and you deny her? Because your life is so dismal she is better off?

You talk to her and she is claiming to be a grand duchess and you leave her there?

You don't look into your sister's eyes and see a woman who is ill and needs you like she has never needed you before? You worry someone may come after money they may never recover? What money?

Even the most hard hearted of us would try to help someone we grew up with get help?

Or not.

Whoever AA was, no one wanted to claim her. An that was the true tragedy.

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 24, 2005, 09:01:29 PM
Quote
One of the issues here addressed was that AA/FS's family came to her and after conversation, decided to let her go with her "new career".

This makes me wonder about human nature. You go to see a sister that may or may not have been killed by a serial killer.....and you deny her? Because your life is so dismal she is better off?

You talk to her and she is claiming to be a grand duchess and you leave her there?

You don't look into your sister's eyes and see a woman who is ill and needs you like she has never needed you before? You worry someone may come after money they may never recover? What money?

Even the most hard hearted of us would try to help someone we grew up with get help?

Or not.

Whoever AA was, no one wanted to claim her. An that was the true tragedy.




Um, may I raise my hand here? I speak from PERSONAL  experience as someone whose siblings TOTALLY and COMPLETELY turned their backs on me at my time of deepest pain and trouble. I am not the only person I know who has had this problem. It happens. Money or your sister, it's going to be money.

But in AA's case, it was to her advantage not to be exposed. She could have gotten in trouble for the false claim, so they did her a big favor too. Besides, it was obvious by that point she did not WANT to be Franziska anymore.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 24, 2005, 09:10:32 PM
What if........the family didn't disavow her because of money.  What if .......they really didn't recognize her?

How many years after her disappearance did AA meet up with Felix?  And after that how many years before she met him and the others again?

During that period of time, she:  lost a lot of weight (look at the first hospital photos - she's healthy looking - look at other ones, she's very thin), had some teeth pulled, suffered thru tuberculosis of the bone (the pain alone will change features), gotten older, and adopted a new personality.

To be sure, the initial presentation will be similar (so Felix recognized her).  But spend some time looking at her, and ....does she really look like his sister?  Now add the fact that she shows absolutely no sign of recognizing him.....that's strange, makes him wonder....and speaks a different language....even weirder....and carries herself differently.

Might have happened that way.

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on July 24, 2005, 09:18:55 PM
Annie,

I quess we are looking at it both from personal experience. Yes, money is a great divider. I am an orphan with an older sister. No way would I deny her! Although she is 6 yrs older and I never got to know her when we were growing up. I knew what she looked liked, I heard her voice.

Was there tons of money to be gotten from FS's family? Probably not. Would a woman mentally ill be held accountable for her actions if her family had come forward. Probably not.

Think about it...the sister has been in mental hospitals and thinks she is a grand duchess...now I want to take her home...let's call it even.

Susie
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 24, 2005, 10:01:17 PM
Felix is alleged to have told people that his sister got "a good deal" out of her impersonation.

However, the only source we have for such a statement is his niece, who apparently asked for money in order to be interviewed......

I wonder if, at the times Felix met AA, she really anticipated ever having money.  She doesn't appear to have advocated for herself very well, leaving the arguments and lawsuits to others, and only grudgingly participated.

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 24, 2005, 10:02:26 PM
Another thing about the money.  According to Marina Schweitzer and others, AA got a lot of money, in the form of small postal orders, from people over the years when she lived in that small village in Bavaria.  

She didn't cash most of them.  What she did cash, she apparently spent on dog food.  Hardly the sign of someone after $$$$.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 24, 2005, 10:24:31 PM
Quote
Felix is alleged to have told people that his sister got "a good deal" out of her impersonation.

However, the only source we have for such a statement is his niece, who apparently asked for money in order to be interviewed......

I wonder if, at the times Felix met AA, she really anticipated ever having money.  She doesn't appear to have advocated for herself very well, leaving the arguments and lawsuits to others, and only grudgingly participated.




Very good point on the niece Finelly.  She REFUSED to be interviewed without compensation.  

The fact remains, that we can use speculative statements such as that of the niece, we must use them carefully, and not take them too seriously.  The siblings themselves NEVER said singly or as a group in sworn testimony or an affadavit that this was their sister.  

Felix signed an affadavit that this was NOT his sister.
Why would he do that if he was so worried about being responsible for her actions if she were declared a fraud.

As for the other siblings the only time ANY of them saw AA was during the 1938 forced meeting in Hannover. Over 20 years had passed since they had seen her.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: lexi4 on July 24, 2005, 10:31:32 PM
Here's a theory on the family. Maybe they did recognize her, but figured it was "tough love" time. That there was nothing they could do for her but walk away and let her sort this out. Maybe her mental state was such that when she met with them they couldn't get through to her so they decided it best just to walk away. Kind of sad. But if it was obvious to her siblings than nothing they could say would convince her she was FS, is she seemed totally dilusional, then what other choice could the make but to leave her as they found her. Knowing that at least this way she would be taken care of and get the medical attention she needed. Maybe they hoped that one day, she would figure it out and come home, who knows?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 24, 2005, 10:38:00 PM
Quote
Here's a theory on the family. Maybe they did recognize her, but figured it was "tough love" time.


I see no difference between that and turning their backs on her to avoid responsibility. They legally disavowed her. That means they REALLY didn't want to deal with her. They didn't want to pay for her, and they didn't want her to have to pay.

But again this thread is hopeless as long as the specter of her still being Anastasia or someone else keeps coming up. I really REALLY wanted to discuss this from a point of view that she IS Franziska Schanskowska. There are zillions of other 'who is she' and 'maybe whatever' threads. If this is going to turn into another debate over her identity, FA might as well close it now, I'm not interested.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 24, 2005, 10:42:04 PM
I'm confused, Annie.  What am I missing?  The last 5 responses haven't said anything about FS being AN.

I thought this was going well.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: lexi4 on July 24, 2005, 10:48:00 PM
I agree Finelly.
Annie, I was merely posting a theory for discussion and did not mean to upset you with the theory I presented. I did post from the point of view that AA was FS. Apparently I touched a nerve, which I did not mean to do.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 25, 2005, 09:34:28 AM
Quote
I agree Finelly.
Annie, I was merely posting a theory for discussion and did not mean to upset you with the theory I presented. I did post from the point of view that AA was FS. Apparently I touched a nerve, which I did not mean to do.



No you didn't, it was something else, sorry. Anyway it is going well. Thanks to those discussing this.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on July 25, 2005, 09:48:38 AM
Quote

I think when she jumped in the canal that night in 1920, she did not want to live anymore. She killed herself off that night. She wanted nothing to do with her life, and so when she survived, she refused to admit to her identity. She did not want them to find out who she was, her past, or tell her family. Of course, amnesia, even temporary, is possible considering her mental state.

I also wonder what really happened to her baby, and how this played into her wanting to kill herself.
 

   An open question to anyone with up to date information...
   I have read that the doctors in the asylum did note that AA was not a virgin - is this evidence out of date? Did they confirm(or was it even medically posible at that time to confirm) if she had had a baby?

Not to put too fine a point on it -- but a woman can be  a 'non-virgin' without having produced children...
The whole "baby story" might be another elaborate invention!

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answeredW
Post by: AGRBear on July 25, 2005, 10:57:47 AM
While you were caring for your friend, we discussed the pregant AA situation.  Evidently doctors can tell if a girl/womanwas pregant.  However, I think I was left unsure about the months needed for a doctor to see these signs.  Probably longer than two one half months and into the third the uterus changes.  Right?  Wrong?  She could have naturally aborted the child after this time or carried it to full term.  Since AA said she had a child,  can we assume it went full term?  No.  

Some of us thought the child might have been her lovers whom she lost in the war.  And the lost of both child and lover may have been more than she could indure.

I am not sure how many times she was committed before the explosion at the factory.

Nor have I seen any ref. to how long she had worked at the factory.

Anyone recall where this discussion was?

There is so much we don't know.

Having gone back and listened to AA's voice on one of the tapes,  I can not tell her accent or if she had one.  Her words, "How shall I tell you...."  isn't the kind of sentence a  German would speak in English if German was their first language.  I remember the first time I heard her say this and it took me back because I've always thought she was FS.

There was something else.   Can't remember.  I'll have to go back and read the posts again.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on July 25, 2005, 11:09:04 AM
Thanks for the update!

Ok
So if AA did actually have a child or loose it by way of miscarriage/early childhood disease/ malnutrition/abandonment - in addition to the loss of her fiance... this trauma may well explain an emotional desire to 'reinvent' herself or to 'become' a lost and mysterious princess figure.

The mind is remarkable in its ability to reinvent, create or forget anything too painful to be understood in a factual sense. While it's possible that the whole thing was a tissue of lies from start to end, I am more and more convinced that on some level AA did actually think that she was who she claimed to be.

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on July 25, 2005, 11:19:31 AM
Quote

So if AA did actually have a child or loose it by way of miscarriage/early childhood disease/ malnutrition/abandonment - in addition to the loss of her fiance... this trauma may well explain an emotional desire to 'reinvent' herself or to 'become' a lost and mysterious princess figure.



Except -- there's absolutely no breath of evidence to suggest that FS was ever pregnant or lost a child to miscarriage.  

Rampant speculation does not help us come to any conclusions, and, to the contrary, is a terrible way of practising history.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on July 25, 2005, 02:30:54 PM
Quote
Except -- there's absolutely no breath of evidence to suggest that FS was ever pregnant or lost a child to miscarriage.  

Rampant speculation does not help us come to any conclusions, and, to the contrary, is a terrible way of practising history.


I was not speculating - I was under the impression that AA was understood by her own admission to have had a child... I was also trying to update my perhaps out of date information - regarding whether any of the asylum doctors could have KNOWN that she had had a child.
   AA claimed that she had a child- but she might have been deluded/ mistaken or symply a liar...
Is questioning the evidence of this claim now "bad history"?
I did understand that -for this discussion- AA was FS.

Ohhh
this is another AA/FS issue Penny - isn't it...  :-X  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 25, 2005, 04:28:45 PM
Quote

I was not speculating - I was under the impression that AA was understood by her own admission to have had a child... I was also trying to update my perhaps out of date information - regarding whether any of the asylum doctors could have KNOWN that she had had a child.
    AA claimed that she had a child- but she might have been deluded/ mistaken or symply a liar...
Is questioning the evidence of this claim now "bad history"?
I did understand that -for this discussion- AA was FS.

Ohhh
this is another AA/FS issue Penny - isn't it...  :-X  


Exactly, rskkiya!Since it was confirmed AA had a child and AA was FS, therefore FS had a child. This is NOT another was she FS thread. Here, (as in reality) she was.

Why was there no evidence of FS's child before she was AA? It's not hard to  figure it out. In those days, single motherhood or illegitimate babies were a 'scandal' or a 'disgrace' to the entire family. Naturally it was kept hush hush. This was COMMON up until the latter 20th century! If she had the baby and abandoned it, dumped it, or put it up for adoption, she would not want anyone to know, especially not her family. She also could have had a miscarriage or even abortion at 4 months along or more and it would still show as a scar on the interior of her uterus like a full term baby's umbilical cord would leave. (I know this because in her old age my grandmother was examined and told by a dr. she never met before she'd had 5 children- she had 4 babies, and lost the last one at 4 months falling down the stairs)

So there is a lot that could have happened to that baby, and she would not tell anyone, and we will never know. She likely never would have admitted to it if the asylum didn't discover it, then she had to have a cover story (about the Romanian orphanage)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on July 25, 2005, 05:28:37 PM
Sorry, you're both speculating.  

1.We cannot possibly know how AA or FS would have acted had either of them had an illegitimate child.  Home-made anecdotes regarding our own relatives shed zero light on this situation.

2.We can be virtually certain that the woman known as AA had a child: Her cervix was examined by a doctor as part of a physical, and it was determined that she had given birth at least once -- and this was something she confirmed herself.

3.AA did not consider her child illegitimate, for she believed that she went through a ceremony of marriage with Alexander Tschaikowsky.  There is some reason to suspect that the ceremony -- as described by her -- was an ordinary mass rather than a marriage, but this is only speculation also.

4.The Romanian orphanage is not a cover story.  There is quite a bit of evidence to support AA's assertion that she gave her child up for adoption; someone did a bit of research into the matter during the trial -- I believe it was Dominique Aucleres, though I could be wrong here.

5.There is absolutely no evidence -- NO evidence AT ALL -- to suggest that FS was ever pregnant.  Her family denied it; her family saw her shortly before her disappearance, and had seen her on a fairly regular basis since she moved from Borowy Las to Berlin -- and remember that her own sister Gertrude lived with her for some of that time in Berlin.  Remember also that she was in and out of various hospitals and asylums, and under fairly regular, if not constant, doctors care.  From the time she left her parents' home to the time of her disappearance, she was never "unattended" by either family or medical personnel for more than a few weeks at a time.  All of this is easily established by the evidence accepted at the German trial.

6. However, for the sake of argument, lets give FS a mythical child:  In this case we would have to say that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that FS's hypothetical baby died in miscarriage, early childhood disease, trauma, whatever.  The only contact we can be sure she had with any man was with her fiance -- and we don't know that there was sexual contact at all.  She met him in 1915; he died in 1916 -- she is well accounted for during this time.

Sorry, but this speculation over FS's hypothetical child, and the disregarding of known facts about AA's child is certainly bad history -- you do it because it allows you to conflate the two women into one -- but the matter of the child is one piece of evidence that keeps them apart as separate individuals in my opinion.

And rsskiya -- you keep telling people how to behave around here, yet you keep loading your posts with snide comments towards those you don't like.  Just stop it.  You're not fooling anyone.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 25, 2005, 05:57:38 PM
Sigh, if there's anything 'mythical' here it's that ridiculous escape story with the nonexistant Alexander Tchiakovsky, and the entire Romanian escape thing. A bloody girl 2000 miles in a horse cart, sure. Please, this is not a thread trying to prove AA's claim. It's about FS and what was behind her becoming "Anastasia"  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on July 25, 2005, 06:04:01 PM
Quote



So there is a lot that could have happened to that baby, and she would not tell anyone, and we will never know. She likely never would have admitted to it if the asylum didn't discover it, then she had to have a cover story (about the Romanian orphanage)


Exactly. I think it's often taken for granted here that everything about history is recorded, or even recorded correctly, and it's sitting there on a dusty shelf waiting for us to discover it. What if she lost the baby before she even realized she was pregnant? What if she was taken to a different doctor and the records were lost or never kept? There's quite a few logical possibilities here. ..
Speculation is perfectly fine in this area, because theory is all we'll most likely have in the end.  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on July 25, 2005, 06:12:33 PM
Quote

Exactly. I think it's often taken for granted here that everything about history is recorded, or even recorded correctly, and it's sitting there on a dusty shelf waiting for us to discover it.


Let's not generalize about a specific: In this case, all this ground has already been covered by court researchers, investigative journalists and professional historians.  Certain facts have been established, and they cannot be ignored in favor of advancing a "pet theory" -- which is often mere speculation anyway.

Quote
What if she lost the baby before she even realized she was pregnant?


Then it's a non-issue.  She didn't know about it, and we don't know about it.  It's non-supposable.

Quote
What if she was taken to a different doctor and the records were lost or never kept? There's quite a few logical possibilities here...


Not really, in the face of established fact.  But go ahead anyway, since this is clearly not an academic exercise.

Quote
Speculation is perfectly fine in this area, because theory is all we'll most likely have in the end.  


Actually, it's not perfectly fine -- but you'll find that out when you come to write your article/film your documentary.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on July 25, 2005, 06:19:12 PM
Quote

Then it's a non-issue.  She didn't know about it, and we don't know about it.  It's non-supposable.



Actually, depending on when she lost the baby, it would still show up as a scar on the inside of the uterus. Hence, the inspiration for her wild story.  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on July 25, 2005, 06:35:22 PM
Quote

Actually, depending on when she lost the baby, it would still show up as a scar on the inside of the uterus. Hence, the inspiration for her wild story.  


There is no evidence that she "lost the baby."  None.  There is, however, substantial evidence that the baby was born -- albeit probably prematurely -- on a certain date in a certain place, and there are further documentary indications that the child was, indeed, placed with an orphanage according to the story.  Which isn't so "wild" after all...
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 25, 2005, 07:09:48 PM
Quote

There is no evidence that she "lost the baby."  None.  There is, however, substantial evidence that the baby was born -- albeit probably prematurely -- on a certain date in a certain place, and there are further documentary indications that the child was, indeed, placed with an orphanage according to the story.  Which isn't so "wild" after all...


It was not America in the 21st century. It was Germany, wartime and post wartime. Even today, people have kids and ditch them in trashcans. She might have had a miscarriage and didn't want to go to the dr. because she didn't want anyone to know. While there is no proof on paper, there is no evidence otherwise. We know AA had a child. We know FS was AA. Therefore FS had a child. It's like Star Wars, Darth Vader denies being Anakin Skywalker, yet he is still the father of Anakin Skywalker's son. Yes, Darth Vader is fiction. And so are all the stories of AA being Anastasia. And no one is more ficticious than Alexander Tchiakovsky. Talk about absolutely no proof! A dead, lost or abandoned baby is a lot easier to explain away as not having any official evidence than a grown man!

It seems the plot to deny FS had a baby is only a wild ploy by those who still cling to the preposterous, ficticious theory that she might still be Anastasia and are trying to make the two women look different to perpetuate that doubt.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 25, 2005, 07:40:27 PM
Quote

There is no evidence that she "lost the baby."  None.  There is, however, substantial evidence that the baby was born -- albeit probably prematurely -- on a certain date in a certain place, and there are further documentary indications that the child was, indeed, placed with an orphanage according to the story.  Which isn't so "wild" after all...


Since this thread tells us that we are supose to believe AA was FS, I do believe it was AA who stated that she had a child.  But, now, some of you are suggesting  AA was lying or delusional due to her mental state because it doesn't fit into the timeline of FS who's medical records do not tell us she had a child???

Penny,  are you telling us that there are documents found in the German court records about a child being born?  This wasn't  just something she thought up when the doctors discovered she wasn't a "Miss" but a  "Mrs. Unknown".

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on July 25, 2005, 07:45:29 PM
Quote
While there is no proof on paper, there is no evidence otherwise....


Oh, come on !!  This is no way to approach history -- and if you don't know this, you should.

I think I'm going to put on my "professional" historian hat and have nothing else to do with this thread.  It's past belief.

Quote
We know AA had a child. We know FS was AA. Therefore FS had a child. It's like Star Wars, Darth Vader denies being Anakin Skywalker, yet he is still the father of Anakin Skywalker's son. Yes, Darth Vader is fiction. And so are all the stories of AA being Anastasia. And no one is more ficticious than Alexander Tchiakovsky. Talk about absolutely no proof! A dead, lost or abandoned baby is a lot easier to explain away as not having any official evidence than a grown man!


Wow.  There's just nothing to be said to this.  Darth Vader?    AA being Anastasia?  Who's arguing that?

But AA was real, and Alexander Tchaikowsky was real enough.  It seems possible that he died in an Eastern European prison in the 1930s.  This is why I like research better than speculation -- you can find things out.

Quote
It seems the plot to deny FS had a baby is only a wild ploy by those who still cling to the preposterous, ficticious theory that she might still be Anastasia and are trying to make the two women look different to perpetuate that doubt.


Bull.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: etonexile on July 25, 2005, 07:46:59 PM
I'd like to know more about the Miss/Mrs. issue...but as a gentleman....I must remain in the dark.... ::)


Was pony riding involved in any way...?...or is this just some nonsence of my elder sister....? ???
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on July 25, 2005, 07:55:53 PM
Quote

Penny,  are you telling us that there are documents found in the German court records about a child being born?


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.

Quote
This wasn't  just something she thought up when the doctors discovered she wasn't a "Miss" but a  "Mrs. Unknown".


It was never my impression that this was the case.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 25, 2005, 08:23:45 PM
There is no evidence Alexander Tchiakovsky ever existed. He was made up along with the escape story. Also, if you believe or assert that Alexander T. is real, then you must believe AA's story, which says that she was rescued by him and is ANASTASIA!! And she's not!! So it's all fictional!!

We can never get to the bottom of how FS acted out this charade if we can't get rid of the old AN speculation! And don't deny you think she was AN or you would not still be pushing the Alexander T. and orphanage stories, which were part of her Anastasia story!!


Back to the baby, there is every reason to believe we will NEVER know the truth because there either never were any official records, or they were destroyed during the bombing of WWII. But one thing is not a mystery, and that is that AA was FS and not AN. So let's get back to discussing if FS really thought she was AN or just playing along and how she did it.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 25, 2005, 08:27:48 PM
Quote



Bull.


Then please explain WHY you came into a thread about FS being AA and started bringing up the old AA/AN crap and trying to leave doubt as to her identity?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on July 25, 2005, 08:32:24 PM
Quote
There is no evidence Alexander Tchiakovsky ever existed.


You're wrong.

But I see your mind is closed, so I won't bother.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on July 25, 2005, 08:35:37 PM
Quote
Then please explain WHY you came into a thread about FS being AA and started bringing up the old AA/AN crap and trying to leave doubt as to her identity?


I didn't bring up the AA=AN "crap."  I asserted a couple of reasons why I still see AA and FS as separate people.  

And just as you loudly demand your right to bring your opinions into other threads not intended for them, I will bring mine here -- especially when they intrude facts into fantasy.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 25, 2005, 08:52:19 PM
Quote

... [ in part]...
1.We cannot possibly know how AA or FS would have acted had either of them had an illegitimate child.  Home-made anecdotes regarding our own relatives shed zero light on this situation.
.


I am sure if every poster wrote an anecdote on someone they knew who was unwed and pregnant. we  would be given a huge variety of stories.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 25, 2005, 08:57:17 PM
Quote
...[in part]...
2.We can be virtually certain that the woman known as AA had a child: Her cervix was examined by a doctor as part of a physical, and it was determined that she had given birth at least once -- and this was something she confirmed herself.
.


This is why the records are changed from AA being called Miss Unknown to Mrs. Unknown.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 25, 2005, 09:16:07 PM
Quote

...[in part]...
3.AA did not consider her child illegitimate, for she believed that she went through a ceremony of marriage with Alexander Tschaikowsky.  There is some reason to suspect that the ceremony -- as described by her -- was an ordinary mass rather than a marriage, but this is only speculation also.


If AA was FS then it appears a child may be part of her story.  According to Penny their is evidence in the German Court records which tells us Alexander Tschaikowsky was a real person whom AA thought she had wedded.  And if there was a child born about Dec. 1918 to Jan. 1919 then AA/FS had ended up in Budapest and she had done so without her family ever knowing  or if they knew they never mentioned it  to anyone outside the family or to the court.  Any way, a child was growing in her belly by early June 1918.    So, June, July, Aug., Sept, Oct. , Nov. Dec. 1918 where was AA/FS?    Since AA/FS wasn't chubby,  someone would have noticed,  I think by Sept. 1918.  

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered[quote author
Post by: AGRBear on July 25, 2005, 09:18:51 PM
Quote
... [ in part]....
4.The Romanian orphanage is not a cover story.  There is quite a bit of evidence to support AA's assertion that she gave her child up for adoption; someone did a bit of research into the matter during the trial -- I believe it was Dominique Aucleres, though I could be wrong here.



Is this evidence, also, in the German Court records?  Or is there independent researcher/researchers who have found evidence?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 25, 2005, 09:24:05 PM
Quote
..[in part]...

....In those days, single motherhood or illegitimate babies were a 'scandal' or a 'disgrace' to the entire family. Naturally it was kept hush hush. This was COMMON up until the latter 20th century! If she had the baby and abandoned it, dumped it, or put it up for adoption, she would not want anyone to know, especially not her family. She also could have had a miscarriage or even abortion at 4 months along or more and it would still show as a scar on the interior of her uterus like a full term baby's umbilical cord would leave. (I know this because in her old age my grandmother was examined and told by a dr. she never met before she'd had 5 children- she had 4 babies, and lost the last one at 4 months falling down the stairs)

So there is a lot that could have happened to that baby, and she would not tell anyone, and we will never know. She likely never would have admitted to it if the asylum didn't discover it, then she had to have a cover story (about the Romanian orphanage)


Evidently, it might be true that AA/FS had a child in Rumania.  Maybe, there was family there and her mother sent her to Budapest to have the child of her lover Alexander Tschaikovsky.

People did traveled, war or no war.

Apparently,  FS's mother, who had remarried, had sent her to Berlin in the first place because she didn't want her daughter around her new husband.

Do we know the name of the man FS's mother married?

There are many theories we could mull around.   

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Margarita Markovna on July 25, 2005, 09:40:00 PM
Quote
And just as you loudly demand your right to bring your opinions into other threads not intended for them, I will bring mine here -- especially when they intrude facts into fantasy.
 
 
 


Quote
After all you did to put your two cents worth in on all of the other threads, I will be right here to add mine.



Come on guys, we're above this, and it's very hard to read and try to figure out what one thinks when so many posts are dripping with hostility.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 25, 2005, 09:40:07 PM
Quote

...[in part]...

...there is every reason to believe we will NEVER know the truth because there either never were any official records, or they were destroyed during the bombing of WWII.
...


According to Penny, it appears someone may have found records which might fit AA/FS's story.  

I've not gone into the records at Budapest so I don't know how they read so the details are foreign to me.  However, from some of the Rumanian records dealing with Germans who settled in the area,  they have every child listed and who the parents were and who the grandparents were and this continues back to the first settlers in the village and with them they mention parents and the city/town/village of origin.  They state if a child's parents were married or not married.  There are records of every  tombstone in the local cemetary.

Church records are addition information and give date of baptism which is usually done within  few days after birth, there is with this the list of god parents as well as all those who were part of the ceremony.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered[quote author
Post by: AGRBear on July 25, 2005, 10:07:45 PM
Quote
Thanks for the update!

Ok
So if AA did actually have a child or loose it by way of miscarriage/early childhood disease/ malnutrition/abandonment - in addition to the loss of her fiance... this trauma may well explain an emotional desire to 'reinvent' herself or to 'become' a lost and mysterious princess figure.

The mind is remarkable in its ability to reinvent, create or forget anything too painful to be understood in a factual sense. While it's possible that the whole thing was a tissue of lies from start to end, I am more and more convinced that on some level AA did actually think that she was who she claimed to be.

 


The brain sometimes shuts down to protect the victim of a trama but usually the memory of the trama returns and haunts the individual the rest of their lives.

Blows to the head will cause memory lost which may never return, or so I've been led to believe.

Mental illness is so complex and so individual that no one can know the answers, just as we may never know AA's "dark memories".

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on July 25, 2005, 10:09:45 PM
Quote

Come on guys, we're above this, and it's very hard to read and try to figure out what one thinks when so many posts are dripping with hostility.


OK.  I won't post any more on this thread.  I won't intrude my thoughts and opinions where they aren't welcome.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered[quote author
Post by: Annie on July 25, 2005, 10:15:19 PM
Quote

The brain sometimes shuts down to protect the victim of a trama but usually the memory of the trama returns and haunts the individual the rest of their lives.

Blows to the head will cause memory lost which may never return, or so I've been led to believe.

Mental illness is so complex and so individual that no one can know the answers, just as we may never know AA's "dark memories".

AGRBear



I was thinking something like that, she was so traumatized by things that happened she really blocked them out and replaced them with something else?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 25, 2005, 10:20:23 PM
Ok, let me see what answers I can provide here.

As the mother of four living children and the survivor of 6 miscarriages, I can tell you this:  Doctors can ascertain whether a woman has given birth.  NOT whether she has ever been pregnant. This has to do with the cervix and the pelvic bones.  It may also be evident in stretch marks.  A miscarriage of a few months (up to probaby 4, 4 1/2, maybe even 6 months) would not show up on an exam.  It has to be a close to term baby, due to the size issue.

A 6 month or older pregnancy shows.  You cannot hide it in that era's type of clothing.  Therefore, FS's pregnancy would have shown to her family.

If FS became pregnant by her fiance, it would have had to have been in 1915 or 1916.  During that time, she saw her family often, and they didn't appear to notice anything.  After he died, if she was pregnant and gave birth, it is a reasonable assumption that she wouldn't have hidden the fact, because HIS family would certainly have been interested in an heir.  Not to mention the baby would have been a remembrence of the fiance.

It was NOT so shameful in those times to have an illegitimate child during war time.  Especially in parts of Eastern Europe.  Particularly among the lower ranks of the social sphere.
However, it could have been shameful to FS.

When the drs examined AA, they said that she had given birth at some time.  They did NOT specify that it was recently.  You can tell very clearly from vaginal and cervical bruising if a woman has given birth in the lat 8 months.  The drs did not notice this, so any baby born to AA must have been at least 8 months before she jumped in the river.

Thus, assuming for the sake of argument only, that FS and AA are one, the birth would have had to have occurred a minimum of 8 months before she ran away from the house.  

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Margarita Markovna on July 25, 2005, 10:31:14 PM
While we're talking about the baby, I recall someone saying that AN would hav had to have been pregnant at the Ipatiev House. Wouldn't Alexandra or Nicholas or someone have written about it if one of their daughters was pregnant?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: lexi4 on July 25, 2005, 10:38:52 PM
Quote

OK.  I won't post any more on this thread.  I won't intrude my thoughts and opinions where they aren't welcome.

Penny,
I don't think anyone was saying that your thoughts and opinions are unwelcome, just that when it gets personal it is hard to follow the jest of the thread. I think your contributions to the thread are very welcome and hope that you would continue to post. You have added a lot.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: RealAnastasia on July 25, 2005, 10:40:38 PM
Dear Penny:

                       I must said this to you: I understand you are upset for the snide comments of certain people . But your attitude is childish. You made it twice: someone upset you, and then you don't post any more...I suppose you are realizing that those people are trying to get you out the Forums again. They are trying to make  you run away...And so do you will run away just for they want you to?

                         Very few people here wanted me out of the Forums. Why? I can said it, for I'm not a Romanov researcher (I'm an historian but not a Romanov's one). I 'm an Anna Anderson supporter, I has my very serious doubts about the AA tissues samples who were tested and matched the FS family ones. So, I was qualified as a dreamer, an "Easter-Bunny" believer and they even said I couldn't possibily be an Historian. They claimed they didn't understand my English (I know it is bad enough, but no ununderstables), and such. They wanted me going away. And I ever thought to do it for I was upset sad, and depressed. But after a while I said to myself: Why must I obey them? I will remain here to fight my own views. I will not give out!

  If you remain here, posting, disturbing some quiet minds with new ideas and thoughts, and discoveries , and simply ignoring cynical posts, you'll doing an outstanding work. They will MUST read your post, but you are not obliged to answer theirs if they are offensive.

  Dear Penny, I said this to you as an historian friend from Argentina. When I noticed that Annie and you were starting to argue again, I worried for I imagine you going away again. You are very sensitive (me too, you are not alone!  :-[ ;D) ) but you must'n be caught in their schemes.

   You are not a serious historian if you goes upset for someone saying: "...Since it is proved that AA was FS and not AN...The DNA said it..." etc and this is the only thing they are able to said . You have much more info than them, you are working with documents, you knows many things that other people doesn't know. So...What's the matter? Let them speak. If they are convinced about AA being FS and they doesn't have any questions about the whole case, I repeat: What's the matter? Good for them! If I was you, I wouldn't care about them...

                   I hope I will see you being around here in the next days. Please, don't  go away. We haven't Peter Kurth any more here; Greg King wrote he is a Palace Member any more too...Dr. Schweitzer went away too. Will you let all the people who is saying that AA was Fs without any doubt have the last word? It's childish....Remain with us and teach them what history is!

                     RealAnastasia.

P.S: Oh...And not all documents are recorded in papers. Good modern historians knows that oral sources are history too.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 25, 2005, 10:42:26 PM
I remember someone mentioning that one of the GD was getting "chubby".  

Our family the other day was talking about my granddaughter's mother was getting "chubby" which refers to the state just before the "baby belly"  which is the revealing point during pregnancy.

Course, different women carry their children differently, some show early and some show very late about seven months.

So, from what is being tossed about here,  sounds like the doctors knew AA "HAD" a child born after 7 1/2 [pushing to the edge of possibilities] months to full term.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Margarita Markovna on July 25, 2005, 10:43:32 PM
I agree with you. I wasn't tryingto be snide, however I see my comment was taken as snide. I agree with Lexi. Again, I'm not trying to be snide or "kick her off the thread" and I sent her a pm telling her so.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Margarita Markovna on July 25, 2005, 10:45:01 PM
PS. I love how AGRBear keeps posting through all of our posts to each other.  ;D As if we're not glaring at each other (jk)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 25, 2005, 10:46:09 PM
Quote
Dear Penny:

                        I must said this to you: I understand you are upset for the snide comments of certain people . But your attitude is childish. You made it twice: someone upset you, and then you don't post any more...I suppose you are realizing that those people are trying to get you out the Forums again. They are trying to make  you run away...And so do you will run away just for they want you to?

                        .


A perfect example of 'getting personal' destroying a thread. And don't worry, Penny isn't going anywhere. She's 'left' tons of times but always comes back. No one is trying to run anyone anywhere. However, this is not the thread to bring up the AA is AN stuff, there are plenty of others for that.

As can be seen from what Michael said to me, and what Margarita posted, and this, that perhaps, sadly, we can no longer discuss anything to do with AA because of the deep rooted personal feelings between members and track record of all of us. Even if we came back as alters, we'd still be able to tell. So it may be useless to try anymore :(

It is sad for those who read these threads for information that this happens.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 25, 2005, 10:46:17 PM
Yes.

Now, could a GD have gotten pregnant?  Sure, if one were raped.

Would anyone have known?  I doubt that any GD would have known what the signs of pregnancy were - that would have been something taught before marriage.   Would anyone have realized that a menstrual cycle was off?  Possibly, but we don't know if they had regular cycles or not, or whether they were too preoccupied to pay attention to it, or whether they would have attributed it to stress.....

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on July 25, 2005, 10:55:29 PM
Quote

But your attitude is childish...


It's actually not at all childish.  I'm trying to be polite and accomodate people.  I thought I was offering quite a bit of concrete information in my posts.  However, when another poster tells me that I am somehow offending, I will stop what I am doing.  Annie has already made me aware that my posts are not welcome in her thread.  And so, taking both messages to heart, I have stopped posting in this thread out of a desire to help keep the peace.

As for being sensitive -- you bet I am.  I live this stuff every day in my research.  I take it seriously.  Add that to the fact that both Greg and myself have been professionally defamed here over the last week or so, and yes, there is a heightened level of sensitivity.  Another reason for me to withdraw from this thread.

Perhaps later, when I have more time, I will start a thread of my own for my own ideas and opinions.  Until then, I won't have anything further to offer in this thread, and that should mean that there will be no fighting, right?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 25, 2005, 10:59:31 PM
What's childish is the way you get in a huff whenever someone disagrees with you and stomp off with your 'I'm taking my toys and going home' attitude. It's also not nice to get so hateful to people (like me and Jayromee) who do not share your views. This was a thread about FS pulling off her big charade, not AA's identity. I stated that from the beginning. There are many other threads for that.

Please, if possible, (and it's probably not) let's get back to the topic before FA shuts this down? Remember his ZERO TOLERANCE for personal stuff policy.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 25, 2005, 11:08:05 PM
Nobody holds title to a thread.

Penny - you have done more research than any of us.  Is there documentary evidence we are not considering?  That has been previously published, I mean, since I wouldn't want you to reveal things that are going to be new in a book of yours.

Also, how about some thoughts about:

1.  Whether any of the GDs could have become pregnant - I realize they COULD have, but is there any evidence?  I reread the F of the Rs this weekend, but perhaps I missed something.

2.   Any research that's been done in to FS's life prior to the date of AA's emergence from the canal.  Do we have actual documentation of anything?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 25, 2005, 11:08:23 PM
It is a well known fact than when women are imprisioned or together for a period of time and at close quarters, their monthy cycle came at the same time.

In those days, everyone knew when those days of the month had arrived.  

Remember there wasn't any boxes with sanitary napkins or tampons but  there were rags which had to be washed and hung to dry.  In tight quarters, these times were when  "men walked lightly".

If one of the women was pregnant,  I'm sure this could be held as a secret up to a point.  Giving birth, however, would be something else and I doubt could have been kept secret.  


AGRBear

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 25, 2005, 11:10:08 PM
I think there were "feminine hygiene items" in the imperial rooms in the Ipatiev house.  Not so sure there were only rags used in those days.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 25, 2005, 11:17:47 PM
Quote
Nobody holds title to a thread.


But I have never been on a message board yet that didn't have the mods get upset with threads that go OFF TOPIC. On another board I'm on, they are locked immediately if they waver from the original topic. The mods here have repremanded us all for that too.

Quote
2.   Any research that's been done in to FS's life prior to the date of AA's emergence from the canal.  Do we have actual documentation of anything?


I would like to see some legitimate evidence, not just what one person says that goes against everything else ever written.

Finelly, thanks for your pregnancy observations. I'm sorry about your babies.

What I said about my grandmother was that she had lost a baby at 4 months and it showed up as  a scar on her uterus like a full term baby. As far as having given birth recently, that is interesting, and does fit the timeline.  I guess we will never know what happened to FS's baby, but I'm sure it is a sad story.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 25, 2005, 11:22:21 PM
I don't know the history of such items.

I am not sure anything had been invented by 1918.....  

Also, they were in Siberia so I'm not sure if more modern items were available.  Or, if they could afford these items... if they were. Money was getting tight once they reached Ekaterinburg,  I believe.

But back to someone being pregnant.  Could have happen, I suppose.  But did it happen?  No one mentioned this occuring.
Would they if it had?  Proabably not.  Did it happen?  No idea.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 25, 2005, 11:22:38 PM
On other boards I am on, including one where I am a mod, threads are rarely locked.  But posts are routinely erased and posters routinely blocked when they are inappropriate.

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on July 25, 2005, 11:22:54 PM
Quote
Penny - you have done more research than any of us.  Is there documentary evidence we are not considering?


Yes.

Quote
That has been previously published, I mean...


Yes.  I'd start with PK's book and his bibliography.

Quote
1.  Whether any of the GDs could have become pregnant - I realize they COULD have, but is there any evidence?  I reread the F of the Rs this weekend, but perhaps I missed something.


1.There's the barest possiblity of rape on board the Rus, depending on what you believe.

2.Marie had a friendship/relationship with a guard.  She, Anastasia and Tatiana frequently went to the basement rooms to gossip and drink tea with the guards -- they also took their photo albums and showed them around.  They were clearly comfortable there, and another relationship seems at least a possibility.

However -- intriguing as this may be, this line of inquiry ignores the agreement on this board that AA does not equal AN.

Quote
2.   Any research that's been done in to FS's life prior to the date of AA's emergence from the canal.  Do we have actual documentation of anything?


I have a copy of the 1928 Court Investigator's Report in which he traveled to Borowy Las, interviewed her family, teachers and friends, and recorded sundry other impressions and items of interest for the German Court at the start of the trial.

There are sundry other pieces of testimony in the court transcript from friends and acquaintances FS made in Berlin. I have this transcript also.

Both are in German, and I have thought about posting them in translation, but I've been quite busy with my new book, and haven't  had time.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 25, 2005, 11:24:45 PM
If a GD was raped, I am truly sorry to hear that.

However, none of it matters in terms of FS and her baby, since FS was AA and not AN. This has nothing to do with whether Anastasia was pregnant since AA was not Anastasia Romanov.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on July 25, 2005, 11:25:56 PM
Quote
I would like to see some legitimate evidence, not just what one person says that goes against everything else ever written.


This is representative of an attitude here that prevents me from posting items in my possession, especially translations that I do myself.  There are those here who are predisposed to doubt me and my evidence, so why should I waste my time?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 25, 2005, 11:26:32 PM
I'm going to re-read Kurth's book and take a look at his bibliography.

Thanks, Penny.  And once again I note that you think your choice of which book to focus on right now is more important than what I think.................<martyred sigh>
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 25, 2005, 11:29:21 PM
Quote

This is representative of an attitude here that prevents me from posting items in my possession, especially translations that I do myself.  There are those here who are predisposed to doubt me and my evidence, so why should I waste my time?



If you want to start a new thread about AA being AN, Alexander T. and OTMA getting raped, you are free to start one. But this is OT here.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: lexi4 on July 25, 2005, 11:33:05 PM
Quote

This is representative of an attitude here that prevents me from posting items in my possession, especially translations that I do myself.  There are those here who are predisposed to doubt me and my evidence, so why should I waste my time?


Penny,
For the majority of posters here, myself included, you would not be wasting your time. For a select few, too bad. Most of us are here to learn and explore new ideas. You have done a lot of research and most of us respect that. Perhaps some of us, like myself, should be more vocal so you could see that your posts, your information and you are most welcome and wanted here.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 25, 2005, 11:34:20 PM
Agreed.  Start a new thread, Penny!  You go, girl!
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 25, 2005, 11:34:27 PM
Annie, you may be right that FS and AA are the same person, however, the information Penny is giving us is interesting.  Sometimes we do get off the topic and this appears to have occured here.  But, then, again, is it off topic.  I guess it just depends what a person believes.

FS = AA
or
AA = ??

AA = GD Anastasia

Undesided....

No opinion.....

Each of us fit in one of those slots so all of us need to step back and see what data we're reading, digest it and then comment on that data and not on what a person may or may not believe.

AGRBear



Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 25, 2005, 11:37:21 PM
Fair enough, Bear.

But I haven't seen Penny say that she thinks AA is AN.  If I were forced to opine as to her opinion, I'd say she probably thinks AA is not AN, and isn't sure about whether FS is AA.

Which is where I am, so maybe I'm projecting.  But for the purpose of this particular thread, I'm going with th idea that FS is AA.  Just to have a good discussion.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: lexi4 on July 25, 2005, 11:39:13 PM
 ???
I don't know who anybody is anymore????
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 25, 2005, 11:41:13 PM
Nothing is as simple as it seems.
And history can rarely be written out on a chart.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on July 25, 2005, 11:52:42 PM
Quote

Penny,
..... Perhaps some of us, like myself, should be more vocal so you could see that your posts, your information and you are most welcome and wanted here.


This is a very nice thought, Lexi, and is certainly appreciated -- but it really isn't necessary.  I think I want what everyone else here wants -- the freedom to post without being called names or having snide comments directed my way.  

I don't have the answers to this mystery, anymore than anyone here does -- I'm just a bit more familiar with the details and the terrain.  And it IS a huge topic, so there's loads of stuff to talk about together.

But as you're interested, I'll try my best to get some stuff up here in the next couple of days...
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 25, 2005, 11:55:38 PM
If AA was FS and not GD Anastasia, where does it take us???

Quote
Franziska Schanskowska WAS Anna Anderson, and she was not Anastasia.

There is no longer any reasonable doubt about that. But there are still mysteries I want answered. Here they are:

1. Did Franziska willingly play along, or did she really have amnesia and not know who she was? Did she want to rid herself of her old life so badly she became someone else?

Also, if she really did believe she was Anastasia, at what point did this happen? Was it from the beginning, or did she play along so long she came to believe it in her old age because she was mentally unstable?

2. Did her supporters really believe her, or were they only hoping, or hoping for money?

3. Who coached her, taught her languages, and fed her memories? And of the memories, how many were intentionally fed, or just incidental relayed in conversation?

4. What went on between her and her siblings when they met? Surely they knew it was her, and covered for her. But did she know it was them and beg them not to expose her?

5. Who was behind the whole lawsuit thing, and why?


Annie: >>1. Did Franziska willingly play along, or did she really have amnesia and not know who she was? Did she want to rid herself of her old life so badly she became someone else?

Also, if she really did believe she was Anastasia, at what point did this happen? Was it from the beginning, or did she play along so long she came to believe it in her old age because she was mentally unstable? <<

Bear Ans.: Amnesia is possible because with all of her wounds it appears she suffered something horrific.  Broken jaw, a wound which caused a deep grove along side her head, and other wounds which she claimed was from bayonets.

If she didn't have amnesia and took the role knowing she wasn't GD Anastasia,  then she may have played along and let whatever happen happen.

We just do not know.

Annie: >>2. Did her supporters really believe her, or were they only hoping, or hoping for money?<<
Bear Ans:  Unless we face evidence to prove they didn't, then I think we need to assume they believed her.

Annie: >>3. Who coached her, taught her languages, and fed her memories? And of the memories, how many were intentionally fed, or just incidental relayed in conversation?<<
Bear Ans:  Not sure you want to go in this direction because this would have to be based on a "conspiracy" and that would open a huge can of worms ;D

Annie:>>4. What went on between her and her siblings when they met? Surely they knew it was her, and covered for her. But did she know it was them and beg them not to expose her? <<
Bear Ans: The only silbing she spoke privately with was Felix.  And, they had just a short time while they walked to talk.  Felix said she was not his sister.   And, from what I understand,  he/they were told they would not have to pay any of her bills if they said AA was their sister FS.  As to the sauage remark,  I think it proves Felix thought his sister was killed by Grossmann who sold parts of his victims as "horse meat" from a cart in Berlin.

Annie:  >>5. Who was behind the whole lawsuit thing, and why?<<  
Bear Ans:  When the court declared the Romanov IF family as legally dead,  the lawyers of AA had to issue an appeal which lead to the court trial.  We talked about this on another thread and I had pulled all that out and gave the source.  

It is because of this trial that FS was mentioned but at no time did the German courts say AA was FS.  However, all the evidence Penny mention are connected with the AA and GD Anastasia so I'm not sure how you can eliminate this data from the AA/FS thread we have here.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 25, 2005, 11:55:44 PM
Woo hoo!  <doing happy dance>
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: lexi4 on July 25, 2005, 11:56:27 PM
Thank you Penny. You are the professional I thought you to be. I am very interested. And I am very glad that you will post. We will all benefit from it. And by the way, I think it is lousy that you are too busy writing a book to post here. What about us????? <Heavy sigh> (just teasing lest anyone else misunderstands)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 26, 2005, 12:00:54 AM
Annie:>>4. What went on between her and her siblings when they met? Surely they knew it was her, and covered for her. But did she know it was them and beg them not to expose her? <<
Bear Ans: The only silbing she spoke privately with was Felix.  And, they had just a short time while they walked to talk.


I thought that Felix and AA spoke for several hours.....am I wrong?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 26, 2005, 12:07:35 AM
I don't recall the amount of time.  Your memory is better than mine,  I'm sure.

It seem to me, one, or two or three hours is still a short time if they hadn't seen each other in a long time and may realize they may never see each other, again.

This is assuming FS was AA speaking to her favorite sibling.

If FS and AA were not the same person, then,  I suppose one or two hours would have been a long time to have between strangers.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 26, 2005, 12:09:49 AM
Couple hours is very long between strangers.  In fact, I would think it would be virtually impossible.

I'll check PK's book and post about it tomorrow, to clarify.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: lexi4 on July 26, 2005, 12:10:07 AM
I think it was a couple of hours, but they were alone and I guess no one knows what they talked about.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 26, 2005, 06:39:13 AM
I heard it was hours, one person once posted 7 hours but I have no documentation. I find it hard to believe anyone could talk to a stranger that long. Something really interesting must have gone on between Franziska and her siblings, and I would love to know what it was. But to this day, her family doesn't like to discuss any of it.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 26, 2005, 06:45:31 AM
Quote


Annie:>>4. What went on between her and her siblings when they met? Surely they knew it was her, and covered for her. But did she know it was them and beg them not to expose her? <<


Bear Ans: The only silbing she spoke privately with was Felix.  And, they had just a short time while they walked to talk.  Felix said she was not his sister.   And, from what I understand,  he/they were told they would not have to pay any of her bills if they said AA was their sister FS.  As to the sauage remark,  I think it proves Felix thought his sister was killed by Grossmann who sold parts of his victims as "horse meat" from a cart in Berlin.

Annie>> No, I think the 'sausages long ago' comment proves he did NOT believe that was true, he was kind of joking. If he did think it was true, he wouldn't say that. I have a sibling I cannot stand and don't talk to, but I would still never joke about him being eaten!

And on the subject of paying the bills, I've never seen any proof they'd be free of that, and even if you say that, they don't have proof. However, it has been written that Felix said "If she is my sister, I don't have to be responsible for her, do I?" Which proves he WAS worried about the burden claiming her would cause. I have also heard that even to this day, the family does not like to discuss AA in fear of somehow being held STILL responsible for her escapades!




bear>>It is because of this trial that FS was mentioned but at no time did the German courts say AA was FS.  However, all the evidence Penny mention are connected with the AA and GD Anastasia so I'm not sure how you can eliminate this data from the AA/FS thread we have here.

AGRBear

Annie>>No time did they ever say she was AN or anyone else, either. It was left unsolved. Until the DNA proved that she was not AN, and was 99.9% FS.


Also, Bear, I am really surprised you keep bringing the identity thing back up since you were the first to ask others not to do that in this thread.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 26, 2005, 06:50:19 AM
Quote
Annie: >>Franziska Schanskowska WAS Anna Anderson, and she was not Anastasia<<

For those who are not sure if Anna Anderson was FS, there are many other threads which discuss this subject.  Please, respect Annie's thread and no "red herrings" need to place here or anywhere.

AGRBear


This is your post, bear, from early in the thread. Too bad the 'red herrings' not only showed up, but that you helped add them. :(

I guess I'll never get my questions answered. Sigh.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Forum Admin on July 26, 2005, 09:07:09 AM
*Sigh*
I guess I'm going to start to set the alarm clock for the wee hours of my mornings to ride herd in here. I'd rather not have to get up at 2am to keep people civil to each other.

Is this clear?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on July 26, 2005, 09:35:04 AM
If we agree that for the sake of this singular discussion AA was FS and if we accept AA's claim that she had a child -by way of one of her protector/guards- are we able to determine whether this claim is viable, or if it is a delusion, lie or hoax?

No dna to trace... no evidence even of the 'guard'...
No surviving records of Orphanages/Foundling Homes...
Ideas?
 
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on July 26, 2005, 10:23:42 AM
Quote
Franziska Schanskowska WAS Anna Anderson, and she was not Anastasia.

There is no longer any reasonable doubt about that. But there are still mysteries I want answered. Here they are:

1. Did Franziska willingly play along, or did she really have amnesia and not know who she was? Did she want to rid herself of her old life so badly she became someone else?

Also, if she really did believe she was Anastasia, at what point did this happen? Was it from the beginning, or did she play along so long she came to believe it in her old age because she was mentally unstable?

2. Did her supporters really believe her, or were they only hoping, or hoping for money?

3. Who coached her, taught her languages, and fed her memories? And of the memories, how many were intentionally fed, or just incidental relayed in conversation?

4. What went on between her and her siblings when they met? Surely they knew it was her, and covered for her. But did she know it was them and beg them not to expose her?

5. Who was behind the whole lawsuit thing, and why?


Ok
As these are the topics here, and IF we are stymied regarding the baby story -we could examine some of the other issues ...
Was Aa really a con artist?
  I don't think so. I think she was a lost, lonely and very easily manipulated person, but I do think that she thought she was AN. Even IF the real AN has magically actually escaped and appeared in glory in Berlin one day to declare her exciled state to her worshipful emigree subjects - AA would have denied her and fought her for the title!
   I do think that in extream old age AA was no longer able to keep her 'story' straight but that may well have happened even if she had lived all along as AA  -WWI civilian survivor and suicidal factory worker. The fact that she told grotesque fantasies of torture in the Ipatiev house and elaborate additional side stories for the family surely didn't help make her claims appear  more believable.
   I really don't know anything new regarding the trial, and I am persuaded that she learned languages poorly more or less by trial and error...If anyone taught her basic Russian/English/French  I do not think it was part of some "master plan" to fool anyone.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 26, 2005, 10:37:07 AM
Quote


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.




Exactly Penny, this incident on the steamer Rus or something happened in the Iaptiev House.    I am inclined to believe that if anything happened it happened to them on the Rus.  

However you know what feathers you are going to ruffle with the statement about consensual sex ;) ;)  ,
I do believe that something happened on the Rus that evening.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on July 26, 2005, 10:47:26 AM
Quote

 I am persuaded that she learned languages poorly more or less by trial and error...If anyone taught her basic Russian/English/French  I do not think it was part of some "master plan" to fool anyone.


Well, demonstration of language ability can be a bit of a parlor trick really. I've seen this happen alot.

It all depends on how l the conversation went, and how gullible the person is who wants to "believe".... (which would explain why the evidence is conflicting...she spoke or understood  Russian/she didn't speak or understand Russian,etc.)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on July 26, 2005, 10:52:14 AM
Quote


Exactly Penny, this incident on the steamer Rus or something happened in the Iaptiev House.    I am inclined to believe that if anything happened it happened to them on the Rus.  

However you know what feathers you are going to ruffle with the statement about consensual sex ;) ;)  ,
I do believe that something happened on the Rus that evening.

MG/Penny
I think that you might want to create a new post for Who slept with the Grand Duchesses if you want to pursue that topic...

This one was about AA and her claims ...Or did it change? Again? I don't think that AA was ever actually a passenger on the Rus...
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on July 26, 2005, 10:53:11 AM
Quote

Well, demonstration of language ability can be a bit of a parlor trick really. I've seen this happen alot.

It all depends on how l the conversation went, and how gullible the person is who wants to "believe".... (which would explain why the evidence is conflicting...she spoke or understood  Russian/she didn't speak or understand Russian,etc.)

Good point!


Title: Re:  Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 26, 2005, 10:53:12 AM
Quote
I'm going to re-read Kurth's book and take a look at his bibliography.

Thanks, Penny.  And once again I note that you think your choice of which book to focus on right now is more important than what I think.................<martyred sigh>



Finelly, I have PK's book in its original printing done in the early 80's, when I came to the board, I started re reading the bibliography, and truly the source material this man used and had access to is amazing.  When you consider the documentation, and the affadavits, and the trial transcripts, it is all very well done.

I have referred back to those notes in that book time and again, which in detail desribe the meeting with Felix and then the one with the rest of the siblings.

It also gives great detail on AA and her stay at Dalldorf, those affadavits are illuminating.  Especially from Erna Bucholz & Thea Malinowsky, about AA's Russian knowledge and her linguistic capabilities.

When you read it and compare it with what little we actually know about FS except what Felix shared through affadavits, then you begin to think, this can't be the same person.

It is really a must read for this case  IMO.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on July 26, 2005, 10:59:25 AM
Quote
Franziska Schanskowska WAS Anna Anderson, and she was not Anastasia.

There is no longer any reasonable doubt about that. But there are still mysteries I want answered. Here they are:

1. Did Franziska willingly play along, or did she really have amnesia and not know who she was? Did she want to rid herself of her old life so badly she became someone else?

Also, if she really did believe she was Anastasia, at what point did this happen? Was it from the beginning, or did she play along so long she came to believe it in her old age because she was mentally unstable?

2. Did her supporters really believe her, or were they only hoping, or hoping for money?

3. Who coached her, taught her languages, and fed her memories? And of the memories, how many were intentionally fed, or just incidental relayed in conversation?

4. What went on between her and her siblings when they met? Surely they knew it was her, and covered for her. But did she know it was them and beg them not to expose her?

5. Who was behind the whole lawsuit thing, and why?

Sorry MG
I thought that the topic of whether AA was FS was another thread...
utterly lost now...
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 26, 2005, 11:00:07 AM
Quote
MG/Penny
I think that you might want to create a new post for Who slept with the Grand Duchesses if you want to pursue that topic...

This one was about AA and her claims ...Or did it change? Again? I don't think that AA was ever actually a passenger on the Rus...



Rskkiya you know where I will be filing your suggestion.... ::) ::)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: etonexile on July 26, 2005, 11:02:31 AM
...life is often an illusion.... ::)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on July 26, 2005, 11:07:04 AM
 8)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on July 26, 2005, 11:08:57 AM
Regarding whether or not AA was "coached" ...hmm...
I don't know...Any ideas?
8)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered[quote author
Post by: AGRBear on July 26, 2005, 11:13:43 AM

Annie: >>And on the subject of paying the bills, I've never seen any proof they'd be free of that, and even if you say that, they don't have proof. However, it has been written that Felix said "If she is my sister, I don't have to be responsible for her, do I?" Which proves he WAS worried about the burden claiming her would cause. I have also heard that even to this day, the family does not like to discuss AA in fear of somehow being held STILL responsible for her escapades!<<

Bear Ans:  "If" [ that is a big IF], "she is my sister...."  Felix asked.  And this seems like a good question and so does someone have the answer,  which I thought was "no" but evidently we need the source.
Thanks.

----

AGRBear

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Forum Admin on July 26, 2005, 11:15:46 AM
Suspect "rape" on the Rus all you want, the biggest problem you have though is that Volkov, WHO WAS THERE ON BOARD AT THE TIME, said it didn't happen.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered[quote author
Post by: rskkiya on July 26, 2005, 11:17:39 AM
Quote
Annie: >>And on the subject of paying the bills, I've never seen any proof they'd be free of that, and even if you say that, they don't have proof. However, it has been written that Felix said "If she is my sister, I don't have to be responsible for her, do I?" Which proves he WAS worried about the burden claiming her would cause. I have also heard that even to this day, the family does not like to discuss AA in fear of somehow being held STILL responsible for her escapades!<<

Bear Ans:  "If" [ that is a big IF], "she is my sister...."  Felix asked.  And this seems like a good question and so does someone have the answer,  which I thought was "no" but evidently we need the source.
Thanks.

----

AGRBear


The issue of who could be held responsible for the possibly slanderous/libelous claims of AA is significant to me...as I think it may have been to Felix...
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 26, 2005, 11:24:40 AM
Quote
Suspect "rape" on the Rus all you want, the biggest problem you have though is that Volkov, WHO WAS THERE ON BOARD AT THE TIME, said it didn't happen.



Why would Volkov or any one in the Tsar's suite, admit that the Tsar's daughters, now martyr's were defiled?  Was he in the cabin where the incidents happened ?   I firmly believe something akin to rape if not rape happened on board the Rus.  Mr Gibbes who was on board the Rus that evening thought differently
also, he described the events and the screams that were seared in his memory for the rest of his life.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 26, 2005, 11:27:21 AM
Quote
I heard it was hours, one person once posted 7 hours but I have no documentation. I find it hard to believe anyone could talk to a stranger that long. Something really interesting must have gone on between Franziska and her siblings, and I would love to know what it was. But to this day, her family doesn't like to discuss any of it.


Peter Kurth's ANASASIA, THE RIDDLE OF ANNA ANDERSON p. 173 does not mention the length of time AA and Felix walked and talked.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 26, 2005, 11:27:39 AM
Quote
Sorry MG
I thought that the topic of whether AA was FS was another thread...
utterly lost now...



What???????????
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on July 26, 2005, 11:29:46 AM
If Felix was worried that he would possibly be help liable for anything that his 'sister' did or said - it's a valid reason to claim that that lady is NOT 'my lost sister'...
Or am I being too sinister in my understanding of this?  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 26, 2005, 11:44:38 AM
Quote


Why would Volkov or any one in the Tsar's suite, admit that the Tsar's daughters, now martyr's were defiled?  Was he in the cabin where the incidents happened ?   I firmly believe something akin to rape if not rape happened on board the Rus.  Mr Gibbes who was on board the Rus that evening thought differently
also, he described the events and the screams that were seared in his memory for the rest of his life.



I don't have Gibbes book, however, I do have Frances Welch's THE ROMANOVS & MR GIBBES on. p. 71:

>>...the next day from Tobolsk to Ekaterinburg began with an unsettled night on a steamer.  Alexis was padlocked into his cabin.... the girls were not allowed to lock their doors.  It was claimed later by a friend of one of the Bolsehvik guards that the girls were molested during the night.  There were even claims that the guards raped them."

It is not uncommon for  men, who are trying to act macho,  guarding pretty girls to claim they had raped them, this, however, may be nothing more than men trying to act big and important to their comrades, however, according to Michael's post,  it appears that Gibbes heard "screams that seared his brain" for the rest of his life.  That to me tells me something was happening.

If one of the girls did get pregnant if they were raped,  it could well have been Anastasia who is the only one whom is mentioned as getting "chubby" while everyone else is getting far too thin.

Now, the trouble with this conversation is,  Annie wasn't linking AA/FS to GD Anastasia.

And, it seemed Forun Admin. wanted us to get back on topic.  I tried. However,  since the possible rape is  being discussed I thought I'd add my two cents.

Sorry Annie for adding to this wrong topic for this thread.


AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 26, 2005, 11:47:47 AM
Quote

Peter Kurth/s ANASASIA, THE RIDDLE OF ANNA ANDERSON p. 173 does not mention the length of time AA and Felix walked and talked.

AGRBear



I thought we went over this on another thread, clearly no time frame was mentioned for the first meeting, especially 7 hours, and if it was mentioned we asked you Annie IF I am remembering correctly to name the source.  No one has done so.   Again not trying to impugn your integrity, this is another speculative idea, and it is no way to approach history IMO.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered[quote author
Post by: Mgmstl on July 26, 2005, 11:50:42 AM
Quote
The issue of who could be held responsible for the possibly slanderous/libelous claims of AA is significant to me...as I think it may have been to Felix...



Rskkiya, at the time of the first meeting in 1927 Felix Schanzkowska was clearly fearful of being held liable for her support and for fraud if she was found to be his sister, and he did not recognize her, he was also fearful of having to pay for her support in that case.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 26, 2005, 11:53:30 AM
Rskkiya, I appreciate your suggestion for all the good it did:( I do hope the rape of OTMA wild flying rumors will start their own thread. It has certainly taken this one way off track.

As I said before, IF a GD was raped (which I don't believe) then that is sad. However, it makes no difference in the story of AA's baby, since AA was FS and not AN!!!!
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered[quote author
Post by: rskkiya on July 26, 2005, 11:53:47 AM
Quote

Rskkiya, at the time of the first meeting in 1927 Felix Schanzkowska was clearly fearful of being held liable for her support and for fraud if she was found to be his sister, and he did not recognize her, he was also fearful of having to pay for her support in that case.


Why would he have to support her - if he stated she was not his sister?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on July 26, 2005, 11:58:54 AM
Quote
Rskkiya, I appreciate your suggestion for all the good it did:( I do hope the rape of OTMA wild flying rumors will start their own thread. It has certainly taken this one way off track.

As I said before, IF a GD was raped (which I don't believe) then that is sad. However, it makes no difference in the story of AA's baby, since AA was FS and not AN!!!!



Annie started this topic on a question unrelated to "The GD's and their Sexual Misadventures"...
AND I do think that we OUGHT to follow her topic thru'...
Those who want other topics (GD's on the Rus/FS was NOT AA/AA was also on the Rus) ought to visit or create their own threads...Of course they can stay here if they want...
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 26, 2005, 12:02:40 PM
 Klier and Mingay THE QUEST FOR ANASTASIA p. 106 write:
>>In May 1927....The Duke said Anna did not recognize Felix, while his son was adamant tha she did.  Another version of events claims that Felix did identify Anna as his sister and initially said so.  But later, according to this report, the two of them walked around the garden, and when they returned Felix s unwilling to sign an affidavit...

The document he did sign held these words: 'There does exist a strong resemblance between her and my sister.' 'The resemblance is strong when you look from the front, but not when you look from the side.. Frau Tschaikovsky's speech as well as her general manner of expression is totally different from that of my sister Franziska.'  And this is what he signed.

So the walk was around the garden once then back or they walked around and around then back....

The conversations around their meeting appears to be as difficult to know as how long Felix and AA talked.

There was no mention in this section about Felix asking about AA's bills.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered[quote author
Post by: rskkiya on July 26, 2005, 12:04:24 PM
Quote


Rskkiya, at the time of the first meeting in 1927 Felix Schanzkowska was clearly fearful of being held liable for her support and for fraud if she was found to be his sister, and he did not recognize her, he was also fearful of having to pay for her support in that case.

This is a good point but again I must ask...
Why would Felix have to support her if he agreed that she was NOT his sister...
I can understand his fears regarding 'fraud" if he did admit it was his sister.
Or am I misunderstanding your comment altogether ...
Agr is this evidence also not up to date?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Margarita Markovna on July 26, 2005, 12:16:59 PM
Quote

A perfect example of 'getting personal' destroying a thread. And don't worry, Penny isn't going anywhere. She's 'left' tons of times but always comes back. No one is trying to run anyone anywhere. However, this is not the thread to bring up the AA is AN stuff, there are plenty of others for that.

As can be seen from what Michael said to me, and what Margarita posted, and this, that perhaps, sadly, we can no longer discuss anything to do with AA because of the deep rooted personal feelings between members and track record of all of us. Even if we came back as alters, we'd still be able to tell. So it may be useless to try anymore :(

It is sad for those who read these threads for information that this happens.



I don't know if you were talking about my first post in this thread, but really all I was trying to do was read this thread and it was quite hard with the remarks. I wasn't trying to single anyone out. Since I shouldn't have even tried to read it in the first place, this is my last post in this thread.

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on July 26, 2005, 12:21:13 PM
TOPIC?
I thought this was still all about Annie's questions?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered[quote author
Post by: Mgmstl on July 26, 2005, 12:40:53 PM
Quote
This is a good point but again I must ask...
 Why would Felix have to support her if he agreed that she was NOT his sister...
I can understand his fears regarding 'fraud" if he did admit it was his sister.
Or am I misunderstanding your comment altogether ...
Agr is this evidence also not up to date?



If a court found that this was indeed FS, then he may be liable for her support, regardless of if he said this was not his sister.   If the judiciary had rendered a judgement stating that this was his sister, he of course would be able to appeal it, but in the meantime the decision would be binding.   His worry seemed to me to be that he would be stuck with her regardless of who she was, and be responsible or liable for her.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered[quote author
Post by: rskkiya on July 26, 2005, 12:44:54 PM
Quote


If a court found that this was indeed FS, then he may be liable for her support, regardless of if he said this was not his sister.   If the judiciary had rendered a judgement stating that this was his sister, he of course would be able to appeal it, but in the meantime the decision would be binding.  


Ok
If she said he is not my brother and he said she is not my sister then would a case really be pending?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered[quote author
Post by: Mgmstl on July 26, 2005, 12:49:32 PM
Quote
Ok
 If she said he is not my brother and he said she is not my sister then would a case really be pending?


Not filed by him or her, but by the government, and those she may have potentially defrauded, any third party could have filed one, and he could have been forced into supporting or caring for her.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on July 26, 2005, 12:56:42 PM
Was such a case ever threatened or was Felix simply trying to be 'proactive' ?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 26, 2005, 12:58:43 PM
Quote
Was such a case ever threatened or was Felix simply trying to be 'proactive' ?



Rskkiya,

I am sure it was more of a case of "worst case scenario" for Felix, being a miner, he probably didn't have a great deal of money, and wanted to protect himself and his family.  You could say very well that he was being proactive.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on July 26, 2005, 01:00:30 PM
Well put!

Wow!
It seems that we two can chat in a pleasant and insiteful manner!


Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 26, 2005, 01:00:46 PM
Quote


I don't know if you were talking about my first post in this thread, but really all I was trying to do was read this thread and it was quite hard with the remarks. I wasn't trying to single anyone out. Since I shouldn't have even tried to read it in the first place, this is my last post in this thread.




Margarita, don't go away or be ran off by anyone.  You are free to post your opinion here and on other threads.

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on July 26, 2005, 01:06:03 PM
I cannot find any provocative post here by MM so it may simply have been a mistake on Annie's part .

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on July 26, 2005, 01:08:39 PM
Wait
For this discussion FS WAS AA OK?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 26, 2005, 01:17:09 PM
Quote
Well put!

Wow!
It seems that we two can chat in a pleasant and insiteful manner!





I am sure that we can also.   I don't think that anyone is trying to purposely derail or disrupt this thread.  The answers to the question that Annie asks may only form after a great deal of debate.   Penny, Bear, Finelly, you, & I and other should be able to put in our opinions without this personal vendetta crap that seems to permeate this thread.   The only thing I can see is that the discussion may not take the turn that the originator of the thread may like.  If she brings up AA being pregnant or suffering a miscarriage, then a full discussion of that issue may evolve, and that includes all possibilities/scenarios, and that does include the night on the Rus as one of those scenarios.

I hope that Penny and others will come back to give their opinions.  We cannot do this with just one point of view, and Penny has been generous in sharing her information with us, valuable information.  We cannot do without her input, or yours, or mine.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 26, 2005, 01:28:01 PM
Been digging in my books.  Which  book [and page. please] tells us that Felix asked about being stuck with AA's bills?  

AGRBear

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 26, 2005, 01:31:32 PM
Quote
Been digging in my books.  Which  book [and page. please] tells us that Felix asked about being stuck with AA's bills?  

AGRBear




I believe that Kurth mentions it in ROAA as a concern of Felix.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 26, 2005, 01:48:58 PM
Looking on the pages on Felix from index and the bill question is not in Peter Kurth ANASTASIA, THE RIDDLE OF ANNA ANDERSON nor is it in Lovell's ANASTASIA THE LOST PRINCESS but then Felix isn't mention in the index so it might be where I haven't looked.  Do not see it in Klier and Mingay's THE QUEST FOR ANASTASIA.   Okay,  it's got to be somewhere?  But where?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 26, 2005, 02:30:03 PM
Quote
I cannot find any provocative post here by MM so it may simply have been a mistake on Annie's part .



MM did not do anything wrong, she did notice the animosity in this thread and she was right!!

The biggest mistake I made was starting this thread,thinking we could have a rational discussion with no old hard feelings, or that the old rehash of AA's identity would not ruin it. :(

Quote
rskkiya wrote:

TOPIC?
I thought this was still all about Annie's questions?


Sigh. I was hoping.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on July 26, 2005, 02:35:02 PM
Quote
I am sure that we can also.   I don't think that anyone is trying to purposely derail or disrupt this thread.  The answers to the question that Annie asks may only form after a great deal of debate.   Penny, Bear, Finelly, you, & I and other should be able to put in our opinions without this personal vendetta crap that seems to permeate this thread.   The only thing I can see is that the discussion may not take the turn that the originator of the thread may like.  If she brings up AA being pregnant or suffering a miscarriage, then a full discussion of that issue may evolve, and that includes all possibilities/scenarios, and that does include the night on the Rus as one of those scenarios.

I hope that Penny and others will come back to give their opinions.  We cannot do this with just one point of view, and Penny has been generous in sharing her information with us, valuable information.  We cannot do without her input, or yours, or mine.


I think that you are being unfair to Annie, who set up this discussion regarding her questions on AA not on AF or anything related to the GDs on the Rus...

This Topic had started off as a collection of questions about the claims made by AA -such as her "child" ....
Did AA actually have a child? Was it a Hoax? A Delusion?

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Malenkaya on July 26, 2005, 03:19:12 PM
Quote

This Topic had started off as a collection of questions about the claims made by AA -such as her "child" ....
Did AA actually have a child? Was it a Hoax? A Delusion?



I think that since the doctors concluded after examining her that she had a child, I think she probably did.  How much of the story of the baby is made up, I don't know.  What I mean by that is that she claims the baby's father died and she put the baby in the orphanage.  If FS was pregnant by her former fiance who died in the war, that part could be true. She just adjusted the facts (turning him into the rescuer Alexander) to fit in with her claims of being Anastasia.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on July 26, 2005, 04:05:34 PM
Quote

I think that since the doctors concluded after examining her that she had a child, I think she probably did.  How much of the story of the baby is made up, I don't know.  What I mean by that is that she claims the baby's father died and she put the baby in the orphanage.  If FS was pregnant by her former fiance who died in the war, that part could be true. She just adjusted the facts (turning him into the rescuer Alexander) to fit in with her claims of being Anastasia.

This is a very good possibility!
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 26, 2005, 04:19:48 PM
Annie,

I'm trying hard to keep within your limits.  

Since you believe absolutely that AA and FS are the same then we have to match what we know about AA and FS and pull them into one person.  For example, the baby, which the doctors at Dalldorf believed she had.

The child could have been the man she was going to marry, like Malenkiya suggested.  This means she would have had the child in 1916 to 1917.  We can not know when because we do not know the last time they saw each other so we can count 1 to 9 or 1 to 8.....

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on July 26, 2005, 04:27:47 PM
Agr
We know that AA claimed to have had a child - Did she actually have one is still a bit uncertain...We have read that she was no virgin from records in the asylum-  but that does not actually prove that she bore a child...

So it's an open question  -as of yet- I don't think anyone has found any orphanage records/foundling homes/funerals/or hospital records of a miscarriage ( if she went to a hospital) if this even occured!
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered[quote author
Post by: AGRBear on July 26, 2005, 04:42:51 PM
Quote
Ok, let me see what answers I can provide here.

As the mother of four living children and the survivor of 6 miscarriages, I can tell you this:  Doctors can ascertain whether a woman has given birth.  NOT whether she has ever been pregnant. This has to do with the cervix and the pelvic bones.  It may also be evident in stretch marks.  A miscarriage of a few months (up to probaby 4, 4 1/2, maybe even 6 months) would not show up on an exam.  It has to be a close to term baby, due to the size issue.

A 6 month or older pregnancy shows.  You cannot hide it in that era's type of clothing.  Therefore, FS's pregnancy would have shown to her family.

If FS became pregnant by her fiance, it would have had to have been in 1915 or 1916.  During that time, she saw her family often, and they didn't appear to notice anything.  After he died, if she was pregnant and gave birth, it is a reasonable assumption that she wouldn't have hidden the fact, because HIS family would certainly have been interested in an heir.  Not to mention the baby would have been a remembrence of the fiance.

It was NOT so shameful in those times to have an illegitimate child during war time.  Especially in parts of Eastern Europe.  Particularly among the lower ranks of the social sphere.
However, it could have been shameful to FS.

When the drs examined AA, they said that she had given birth at some time.  They did NOT specify that it was recently.  You can tell very clearly from vaginal and cervical bruising if a woman has given birth in the lat 8 months.  The drs did not notice this, so any baby born to AA must have been at least 8 months before she jumped in the river.

Thus, assuming for the sake of argument only, that FS and AA are one, the birth would have had to have occurred a minimum of 8 months before she ran away from the house.  



Since I don't know the answers which can prove or disprove if AA actually had a child which survived,  I'll just go by what the doctors said and they thought she did have a child and that AA said, yes, she had given birth.

AGRBear  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on July 26, 2005, 04:44:45 PM
Thank you very much!
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 26, 2005, 04:48:09 PM
If AA had a child by her boyfriend, is there a period of time she could have had a child without anyone in her family knowing?  According to Penny, no one in FS's family was aware of  a child.

Quote

...[in part]...


5.There is absolutely no evidence -- NO evidence AT ALL -- to suggest that FS was ever pregnant.  Her family denied it; her family saw her shortly before her disappearance, and had seen her on a fairly regular basis since she moved from Borowy Las to Berlin -- and remember that her own sister Gertrude lived with her for some of that time in Berlin.  Remember also that she was in and out of various hospitals and asylums, and under fairly regular, if not constant, doctors care.  From the time she left her parents' home to the time of her disappearance, she was never "unattended" by either family or medical personnel for more than a few weeks at a time.  All of this is easily established by the evidence accepted at the German trial.

6. However, for the sake of argument, lets give FS a mythical child:  In this case we would have to say that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that FS's hypothetical baby died in miscarriage, early childhood disease, trauma, whatever.  The only contact we can be sure she had with any man was with her fiance -- and we don't know that there was sexual contact at all.  She met him in 1915; he died in 1916 -- she is well accounted for during this time.

.....


Again, we're caught in the the "no records" box.  This could mean it didn't happen or she had the child where no one has researched.  Or she did have a child in Budapest  but why there?  Why under the name Mrs. Alexander Tschaikowsky, if these are AA's records which Penny mentioned?  Anyone know the name of her boyfirend who died in the war.  Or, maybe, this was a new boyfriend.... who also ended up getting killed.  That would have meant more trama.

Maybe, the biggest question should be: If AA was unstable,  could she have pulled off  giving birth to a child without anyone knowing?



AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 26, 2005, 05:17:22 PM
Thanks again rskkiya!

Could she have had a baby, or a pregnancy and her family not know? Yes. She was living far from home, most likely too poor to travel back and forth, and times were hard. She was also most likely embarrassed or afraid to tell them too.

Another wild theory is that she had the baby, her family adopted it (as often happened to cover up 'strays' in the old days) and that baby was Karl Maucher's mother, making the DNA test an even better match;)

But we know FS had a child, because she was AA, and AA had a child, and they were the same person.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: etonexile on July 26, 2005, 05:28:30 PM
(AA Was Not AN...But WAS FS)....My book to follow.....
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 26, 2005, 05:39:49 PM
Quote
Thanks again rskkiya!

Could she have had a baby, or a pregnancy and her family not know? Yes. She was living far from home, most likely too poor to travel back and forth, and times were hard. She was also most likely embarrassed or afraid to tell them too.

Another wild theory is that she had the baby, her family adopted it (as often happened to cover up 'strays' in the old days) and that baby was Karl Maucher's mother, making the DNA test an even better match;)

But we know FS had a child, because she was AA, and AA had a child, and they were the same person.


Yes, illegitmate children do occur in families.  And during the war, there were many born out of wedlock.  

I guess the line the guys used,  "I may die and never have loved," worked then just as it does now.  ;D

Remember, according to Penny, it appears that FS was contantly in touch with her family and Gertrude lived with her for a time....

AGRBear

PS  Now and then check the thread on FS's Timeline: http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1114717030;start=0#0
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: etonexile on July 26, 2005, 05:44:23 PM
Quote

Yes, illegitmate children do occur in families.  And during the war, there were many born out of wedlock.  

I guess the line the guys used,  "I may die and never have loved," worked then just as it does now.  ;D

Remember, according to Penny, it appears that FS was contantly in touch with her family and Gertrude lived with her for a time....

AGRBear


FS seems ever more sad,mad,and sweet...let's hope she had at least one night of romance.....
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 26, 2005, 05:58:57 PM
Maybe, like Penny's posts suggest,  AA thought she was married so maybe, she and her boyfriend ran off and were married in Budapest and she returned to Berlin only to discover they were going to have a honeymoon child...

If she went back to Budapest to have the child, maybe, this might indicate his family lived there, only, they didn't give her the support she needed, and, she had to give the child into adoption or maybe they did support her and it was his family who adopted the child.

We can go in all kinds of directions with our theories.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 26, 2005, 06:07:13 PM
No, the Budapest story is fake. Just like Alexander Tchiakovsky. It's not even a factor because it's not reality.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 26, 2005, 07:15:49 PM
According to some people there was  a real person by the name of Alexander Tschaikowsky.

This is not an unsual name.  And,  I think the origin is Russian and not Polish.

And,  I think there was a brother and a photograph....

I suppose you're going to want a source.  Gonna have to put on my thinking cap.  When I remember,  I'll post it here.

This story about Tschaikowskys was told by AA to Baron Kleist in June of 1922.

I have no evidence to link a Alexander Tschaikowsky to AA.

Penny may know more than we do on this subject:

Quote
... [ in part]....

4.The Romanian orphanage is not a cover story.  There is quite a bit of evidence to support AA's assertion that she gave her child up for adoption; someone did a bit of research into the matter during the trial -- I believe it was Dominique Aucleres, though I could be wrong here.
...


Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 26, 2005, 07:32:12 PM
Of course it's not an unusual name, it's very atypical and sounds exactly  like something a person would make up when asked the name of a Russian. Alexander is a very common Russian name, and Tchiakovsky being a famous Russian composer is a name that would quickly come to someone's mind when trying to invent a character. It is all too silly and obvious to me that "Alexander Tchiakovsky" was to AA the same as Jan Brady's "George Glass"- an imaginary boyfriend invented on the spot with the easiest name possible at the time.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: RealAnastasia on July 26, 2005, 07:39:25 PM
I don't know how people starts always new threads about AA,FS and AN. The story is always the same and I'm already tired to read it.

Some stubborns would said:

-"There is nothing to discuss about. since we all know for sure that AA was FS. There is the DNA matter, you know"  ::)

Other stubborns would said:

-"There is nothing to discuss about; still we know that AA was not AN but she could not possibily be FS, either. Only I 'm curious to know who this lady was".

And other stubborns (myself) would said:

-"There is nothing to discuss about, since we know that AA was AN, only that her tissues were contaminated and it's only for that they didn't match those of the family"

We can't remain like this. It's childish and even boring. I'm a passionate of this case, and even if I have my own ideas about it, I like to discuss it all the same. But discuss doesn't mean to kill those that doesn't share ours ideas. I can't said, or even think, that Annie is a credule for they believes blindly that the tissues could not have been contaminated and that all people who supposes it have conspirative minds. I can't said , not even think that those who searchs who else , other than FS or An could AA have been are also blind... for WHY on heck the whole story of FS would have been invented, then?...(Sorry, my English is awful here. I know) And I can't said that AA being AN believers are fairy-tales or Bunny-Easter believers, idiots living in a fantasy world ...people who doesn't accept reality and such.

Why about ideas, my dear friends? What about explaining what we think that way or another and -over all things- WHY? I like very much to know the "WHYs"; all the "Whys" we can have. This is the only way to enlarge our thoughts and increase our knowledges...and of course, if we knows each other thoughts, perhaps we may be able, in a future, to change our own mind too.

I'm a little stubborn (I had to admit it)  :-[ ;D , but I also like to challenge my own knowledges and beliefs. I always liked to made a little intellectual exercise: why about trying to thing as the people who things exactly the opposite than me, to try to understand them, and maybe change my mind if I find their arguments acceptables? I did it in AA case's. I assumed more than once that AA was FS, and much more after the DNA results. But after a while, all the unanswered questions aroused again in my head and the AA being FS whole idea -in despite the DNA results- didin't match for me. Then I tried to "fit her" as being anyone else, another woman...Same result. I know it's only me. Other people would find acceptable the DNA results and wouldn't study the case furthermore; others, would try to find how AA really was, if not FS.

However, I dn't understand people who said: "AA was FS. The matter is settled for me"...But they keep creating threads or participating in discussions about AA. If the matter is settled for them...Why they liked to do this, and continue to argue with other people who doesn't think the matter is settled?

I enjoy discussing different theories, but I'm not interested in make fun on other people, laugh at them, call them names, and treat them as fools, insanes, demented people and such.

I like this place, and I use to said that here, I have a second family, a very good "virtual friends". I will not let that different opinions would distroy my thoughts and feelings about The Alexander Palace Site and Forums.

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 26, 2005, 07:46:15 PM
Quote
Of course it's not an unusual name, it's very atypical and sounds exactly  like something a person would make up when asked the name of a Russian. Alexander is a very common Russian name, and Tchiakovsky being a famous Russian composer is a name that would quickly come to someone's mind when trying to invent a character. It is all too silly and obvious to me that "Alexander Tchiakovsky" was to AA the same as Jan Brady's "George Glass"- an imaginary boyfriend invented on the spot with the easiest name possible at the time.



This 63 year old did not reconize the names, Jan Brady, you mention, Annie. Sorry.  

Is there a reason you find the possibilitty that AA/FS had a child in Budapest by a man named Alexander Tschaikovsky as being  impossible?  Maybe, she did.  This doesn't make AA into  GD Anastasia.  

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Margarita Markovna on July 26, 2005, 08:11:19 PM
This 14 year old doesn't recognize the names Annie mentioned either. ;D
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on July 26, 2005, 09:14:37 PM
"George Glass" was the name of an imaginary boyfriend that Jan Brady made up in The Brady Bunch movie.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Margarita Markovna on July 26, 2005, 09:35:55 PM
Ooooooooooh I see thank you Ms. Wilson.

(Which one is Jan?)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on July 26, 2005, 10:22:11 PM
The middle daughter, who was jealous of the eldest -- famed for saying: "It's always Marcia, Marcia, Marcia!!"
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on July 26, 2005, 10:23:33 PM
Quote
This is not an unsual name.  And,  I think the origin is Russian and not Polish.


This story about Tschaikowskys was told by AA to Baron Kleist in June of 1922.



According to John Klier the name is actually of Polish orgin, but has become associated with Russia over time.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: lexi4 on July 26, 2005, 10:56:55 PM
As to the language:
From The File on the Tsate; Summers & Mangold. pp 202-203

"In July 1922 she collapsed choking and with pains in the lung, and was treated with digitalis three times daily, as well as morphia. The doctor's reporter noted...'In her sleep she talks Russian with good pronunciation: mostly unessential things.'"

As to the pregnancy same book same page:
"When she came to she found herself with the family of a soldier who had realized she was still alive, and rescued her at the last minute from Bolshevik clutches. According to Baron Kleist, the grand duchess then travelled with the soldier's family by road to Roumania, and then made her own way to Berlin. In another conversation, said the Baron, the mystery girl added to the story. She named the soldier Alexander Tschaikowsky, and said she had a child by him, a son, conceived during the trek out of Russia. Tschaikowsky had been killed in a street fight in Bucharest, and her child had been placed in an orphanage."

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 26, 2005, 11:06:12 PM
Why, thanks, Penny! Sorry, I thought The Brady Bunch was a part of pop culture everyone knew. Jan's imaginary boyfriend was originally a TV episode in the 70's, and the movie much later made a joke of it.

Jan  was jealous Marcia had boyfriends and she didn't, so she claimed to have one. When asked the  name of this boyfriend, she had to come up with one fast. George was the first name she thought of, then stared around the room, and seeing a glass of water, said "GLASS" George Glass! That's what I presumed perhaps AA did, used a common Russian name, and the name of a famous Russian composer that readily came to mind.

What I mean about him being fake is, I think her entire story is fake, and doesn't make sense. But this is not the thread for that.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Richard_Schweitzer on July 26, 2005, 11:08:20 PM
What an amazing bunch of conjectures.

Let me remind all what the scientists actually said - the mtDNA data and comparisons to a 300 person data base (no Kashubans?) "support the hypothesisthat" the subject tissue came from FS.

Despite my own prejudice, let's keep in mind that the factual determination is an hypothesis.

And I don't know that Penny should put her efforts into
the kinds of issues raised in BBs like this, but, I do expect her to publish ultimately what she has derived - for reasons she well knows.

Of secondary interest: Kurth has recovered the rights to his book, and may in time do more. Anyone who can, who is interested in the facts that would make up this thread should read Dominique Aucleres book - she also produced an unpublished MS, referenced by Kurth, which I have seen.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 26, 2005, 11:21:51 PM
Quote
What an amazing bunch of conjectures.

Let me remind all what the scientists actually said - the mtDNA data and comparisons to a 300 person data base (no Kashubans?) "support the hypothesisthat" the subject tissue came from FS.

Despite my own prejudice, let's keep in mind that the factual determination is an hypothesis.

And I don't know that Penny should put her efforts into
 the kinds of issues raised in BBs like this, but, I do expect her to publish ultimately what she has derived - for reasons she well knows.

Of secondary interest: Kurth has recovered the rights to his book, and may in time do more. Anyone who can, who is interested in the facts that would make up this thread should read Dominique Aucleres book - she also produced an unpublished MS, referenced by Kurth, which I have seen.



I for one appreciate the input of people such as yourself and Penny & Greg, I only wish Peter Kurth would come back.   I am interested in this case no matter how it turns out.    

I can't tell you Mr. Schweitzer how much most of us do appreciate the time and comments of people such as yourself, Penny, Greg, Peter Kurth, and the benefit of your knowledge & research.  

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: lexi4 on July 26, 2005, 11:37:28 PM
I second what Michael said.  :)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on July 26, 2005, 11:43:13 PM
Quote
What an amazing bunch of conjectures.

Let me remind all what the scientists actually said - the mtDNA data and comparisons to a 300 person data base (no Kashubans?) "support the hypothesisthat" the subject tissue came from FS.



Helen has already gone over this issue before quite well,
it's on page 3 of the Report Removed thread. There is no such thing as "Kashuban" DNA anymore than there is "Polish" or "Russian" DNA. Her DNA was compared to a cross section of  native born Europeans, and that's where the statistics of 99.9 likelyhood of AA=FS  comes from  (and 100% match to Karl Maucher) And the rest is explained in the DNA thread.  

Quote
What an amazing bunch of conjectures.
Despite my own prejudice, let's keep in mind that the factual determination is an hypothesis.



I'm sure many people here appreciate your posts, and if  you believe AA is AN, that's fine. But that isn't what this thread is about, and Annie has said here before that she  would very much like to keep this on topic. Thank you.  



Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 26, 2005, 11:52:40 PM
Quote


Helen has already gone over this issue before quite well,
it's on page 3 of the Report Removed thread. There is no such thing as "Kashuban" DNA anymore than there is "Polish" or "Russian" DNA. Her DNA was compared to a cross section of  native born Europeans, and that's where the statistics of 99.9 likelyhood of AA=FS  comes from  (and 100% match to Karl Maucher) And the rest is explained in the DNA thread.  



If you believe AA is AN, that's fine. But that isn't what this thread is about, and Annie has said here before that she  would very much like to keep this on topic. Thank you.  


]


Annie doesn't control the thread, neither do you.  After all of the threads you two have disrupted/derailed this is a total double standard.  I personally think you need to apologize to Mr Schweitzer.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on July 27, 2005, 12:00:10 AM
Quote

Annie doesn't control the thread, neither do you.  After all of the threads you two have disrupted/derailed this is a total double standard.  I personally think you need to apologize to Mr Schweitzer.


And I personally think you need to re-read my post and stop trying to start arguments where there are none.  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 27, 2005, 12:05:19 AM
Quote

And I personally think you need to re-read my post and stop trying to start arguments where there are none.  



No one is starting an argument, just stating something that has become quite obvious today.  No one but the FA or a moderator controls the threads.  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: lexi4 on July 27, 2005, 12:08:02 AM
Quote


Helen has already gone over this issue before quite well,
it's on page 3 of the Report Removed thread. There is no such thing as "Kashuban" DNA anymore than there is "Polish" or "Russian" DNA. Her DNA was compared to a cross section of  native born Europeans, and that's where the statistics of 99.9 likelyhood of AA=FS  comes from  (and 100% match to Karl Maucher) And the rest is explained in the DNA thread.  




Could someone, perhaps Helen herself, actually tell me what her credential are with regards to DNA?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on July 27, 2005, 12:10:26 AM
Quote
Could someone, perhaps Helen herself, actually tell me what her credential are with regards to DNA?


She's a scientist, but I believe she's on her way to Russia right now. If you PM her, I'm sure she'd be happy to reply when she gets back.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on July 27, 2005, 12:14:00 AM
Quote


No one is starting an argument, just stating something that has become quite obvious today.  No one but the FA or a moderator controls the threads.  


Oh, goodnight Michael.. pleasant dreams  :-* :-*...
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 27, 2005, 12:35:12 AM
The topic of this thread is the questions Annie raised.

Maybe the other, more tangential issues could be discussed on the "survivor theories" thread?

Helen is a scientist?  What kind?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 27, 2005, 12:40:04 AM
Quote

Oh, goodnight Michael.. pleasant dreams  :-* :-*...



Isn't it strange I seem to remember you saying you were NEVER coming back to these threads.  Isn't it sad that good things don't always last forever... :-X
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 27, 2005, 12:41:38 AM
Quote
The topic of this thread is the questions Annie raised.

Maybe the other, more tangential issues could be discussed on the "survivor theories" thread?

Helen is a scientist?  What kind?


Yes but Finelly the discussion of the questions she has asked takes many different roads, it just always doesn't end in the answers that she wants them to. All of these issues tie together.  I don't see any of them that are not appropriate to the questions she raised.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 27, 2005, 12:55:29 AM
Well, bringing in the dna stuff is not really relevant to the stated topic.

Even if we question the FS/AA relationship, or the dna results, or simply aren't absolutely certain that AA was FS, the discussion on this thread should be based on the assumption, for argument purposes, that AA was FS, because that is what Annie was doing when she started the thread.

And don't give me stuff about how she and others have abused the privilege in other threads.  Two wrongs, yada yada.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 27, 2005, 01:02:36 AM
Quote
Franziska Schanskowska WAS Anna Anderson, and she was not Anastasia.

There is no longer any reasonable doubt about that. But there are still mysteries I want answered. Here they are:

1. Did Franziska willingly play along, or did she really have amnesia and not know who she was? Did she want to rid herself of her old life so badly she became someone else?

Also, if she really did believe she was Anastasia, at what point did this happen? Was it from the beginning, or did she play along so long she came to believe it in her old age because she was mentally unstable?

2. Did her supporters really believe her, or were they only hoping, or hoping for money?

3. Who coached her, taught her languages, and fed her memories? And of the memories, how many were intentionally fed, or just incidental relayed in conversation?

4. What went on between her and her siblings when they met? Surely they knew it was her, and covered for her. But did she know it was them and beg them not to expose her?

5. Who was behind the whole lawsuit thing, and why?



Ok here are my answers to your questions from the perspective of IF she was FS, and no one else:

1.  In the beginning she was all alone, no one claimed her, no one knew her.  Once her supposed identity got out into the emigre community in Berlin, then she became more infamous.  Perhaps at that time is when she concocted this plan.

2. I think some of her supporters were deluded enough to believe her, but most were after financial gains.  Why else form a corporation.  At that time until the onset of WW II in Europe there were still many people who felt that there were millions waiting out there for Nicholas's daughter (s) that survived.  There were people who had bankrolled her and obviously expected a return on their investment, not that they shouldn't.   The expectation of this fortune for people who had lost almost everything must have been like the mythical pot of gold.

3.  This is where you have got a problem.  From the beginning in the Dalldorf asylum there were those who said she fluently understood & conversed in Russian. I believe those affadavits.  These people had no reason to lie, and no interest in the affair or its outcome.  She had to be taught things AFTER her meeting with Felix.
That seems to be the point where she started gaining more notariety.  If she was going to be around the family and meet people they would have to teach her, much like the play & movie with Ingrid Bergman.

4.  The meeting(s) with the siblings are already well documented on other threads.  Just another FYI the one with Felix didn't last six hours.   They talked in the beer garden at the inn at Wasserburg.  Felix wanted to go back to his job & family he felt it was a waste of time. The ONLY undocumented part of the meeting is his conversation with FS.  Unless we are missing something within the notes, I am sure they wouldn't have let them be alone for a long period of time.   If a plan was conceived between her & Felix that is the ONLY time it could have been done.   At the 1938 meeting in Hannover none of the sibling recognized her, and in fact Felix didn't recognize her either, outside of Gertrude's outbursts, the group of them said the woman obviously was not their sister.   So there can be no group conspiracy here.  Unless there is conversation or correspondence between her & the siblings that is unknown.

5. The lawsuit was her, Gleb Botkin, Fallows, I believe.
It was to establish her identity, so she could be made heir to whatever money was left.  The account at the Mendehlsson Bank had to be divided between OA, XA and the various Hesse's that were left. IF she were declared AN than the whole account would have been hers.   On the other side Ernie and company fought vehemently against her & her establishing any type of rights or identity.  Which was why they AA, and others in her group, filed the lawsuit, to prevent the proceeds of the account from being distributed without her, otherwise if it was done so then AN was legally left out of the division of the monies.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 27, 2005, 01:11:29 AM
Quote
Well, bringing in the dna stuff is not really relevant to the stated topic.

Even if we question the FS/AA relationship, or the dna results, or simply aren't absolutely certain that AA was FS, the discussion on this thread should be based on the assumption, for argument purposes, that AA was FS, because that is what Annie was doing when she started the thread.

And don't give me stuff about how she and others have abused the privilege in other threads.  Two wrongs, yada yada.



First Finelly I will say & post what I like on topic, don't like it, take it to pm. I didn't bring the DNA in to begin with on this thread.

We are discussing history, research, alternative theories.  Just because the creator of a thread wants the discussion to go one way doesn't meant it will, or that it has to.

There are many different answers to her questions, and she is the one who constantly brings up the DNA issue or in this case the issue of the "pregnancy".  So it is fair game.  I just answered her questions, with the premise that AA is FS.   Let's see you give it a try.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on July 27, 2005, 01:50:35 AM
Quote

And I don't know that Penny should put her efforts into
 the kinds of issues raised in BBs like this...


Well, I don't think it's all that much effort, weighed against the importance of keeping factual information and the human experience of Anastasia Manahan to the forefront.  There is a huge amount of misinformation that gets posted here -- not always maliciously, sometimes simply through repetition -- and I think it's a good idea to combat that.

Quote
...but, I do expect her to publish ultimately what she has derived - for reasons she well knows.


Oh, I will!  I never lose sight of this, and regardless of whatever else is going on, the AM project is constantly percolating.  It might well be the most meaningful work I ever do.

Quote
Of secondary interest: Kurth has recovered the rights to his book, and may in time do more. Anyone who can, who is interested in the facts that would make up this thread should read Dominique Aucleres book - she also produced an unpublished MS, referenced by Kurth, which I have seen.


I am glad to hear that Peter was successful! -- And I second the recommendation of Aucleres' work.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 27, 2005, 09:12:21 AM
Quote

Annie doesn't control the thread, neither do you.  After all of the threads you two have disrupted/derailed this is a total double standard.  I personally think you need to apologize to Mr Schweitzer.


Sigh, as I said before on all other boards I'm on, threads are quickly locked, deleted or merged with others when they go off topic as this one has. What in the world is the point of having a thread on a cartain topic when they are immediately hijacked and taken elsewhere, and the hijackers don't ever just go start a thread but arrogantly and rudely keep proclaiming 'you don't own this thread.' WHY not go start another one for another topic? All these threads become confusing and useless the way they go OT!
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 27, 2005, 09:52:22 AM
Quote

Well, I don't think it's all that much effort, weighed against the importance of keeping factual information and the human experience of Anastasia Manahan to the forefront.  There is a huge amount of misinformation that gets posted here -- not always maliciously, sometimes simply through repetition -- and I think it's a good idea to combat that.


Oh, I will!  I never lose sight of this, and regardless of whatever else is going on, the AM project is constantly percolating.  It might well be the most meaningful work I ever do.


I am glad to hear that Peter was successful! -- And I second the recommendation of Aucleres' work.



When did Aucleres publish her work?  Is it available in English?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 27, 2005, 09:53:41 AM
Quote

Sigh, as I said before on all other boards I'm on, threads are quickly locked, deleted or merged with others when they go off topic as this one has. What in the world is the point of having a thread on a cartain topic when they are immediately hijacked and taken elsewhere, and the hijackers don't ever just go start a thread but arrogantly and rudely keep proclaiming 'you don't own this thread.' WHY not go start another one for another topic? All these threads become confusing and useless the way they go OT!



It's all personal with you isn't it?  I answered your five questions.  Stop playing for martyr of the year, it doesn't work with me.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Val289 on July 27, 2005, 10:00:41 AM
Quote


I for one appreciate the input of people such as yourself and Penny & Greg, I only wish Peter Kurth would come back.   I am interested in this case no matter how it turns out.    

I can't tell you Mr. Schweitzer how much most of us do appreciate the time and comments of people such as yourself, Penny, Greg, Peter Kurth, and the benefit of your knowledge & research.  




For the record I'd like to second that too!  Although I rarely post here (quite frankly, I'm afraid to!), I read these discussions all the time, and I sincerely appreciate the efforts of these researchers, historians, and other posters here (Michael_G, Lexi, Bear, etc...) who take the time to present factual information :)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 27, 2005, 10:04:15 AM
Michael,Lexi, and bear are not historians, only people interested in the subject as I am. Do you only appreciate the contributions of those you agree with?

Do you also appreciate the contributions of Helen_A and DaveK, who presented thorogh scientific evidence explaining the DNA and exactly why AA is FS and not AN? Their work never gets enough credit, and is sadly ignored.

This forum is sinking fast, if the fantasy of AA=AN is living on just because it's what some people want to hear or think, even though it's absolutely without a doubt not the truth.


Speaking of 'afraid to post' I have spoken to several intelligent, knowledgable people who could really set the record straight here but won't post because they don't want to be attacked by AA supporters. What a LOSS it is to the historical community and everyone reading this forum for info that this ridiculous myth is allowed to perpetuate because 'the squeaky wheel gets the grease."
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Val289 on July 27, 2005, 10:14:49 AM
Quote
Michael,Lexi, and bear are not historians, only people interested in the subject as I am. Do you only appreciate the contributions of those you agree with?

Do you also appreciate the contributions of Helen_A and DaveK, who presented thorogh scientific evidence explaining the DNA and exactly why AA is FS and not AN? Their work never gets enough credit, and is sadly ignored.

This forum is sinking fast, if the fantasy of AA=AN is living on just because it's what some people want to hear or think, even though it's absolutely without a doubt not the truth.


Speaking of 'afraid to post' I have spoken to several intelligent, knowledgable people who could really set the record straight here but won't post because they don't want to be attacked by AA supporters. What a LOSS it is to the historical community and everyone reading this forum for info that this ridiculous myth is allowed to perpetuate because 'the squeaky wheel gets the grease."



Yes Annie I certainly realize that Bear, Lexi, etc are NOT historians, which is why I referred to them as "other posters here" - sorry if I was not clear enough there.  I certainly don't just appreciate the comments of those I agree with.  I was trying to avoid listing everybody whose comments I found interesting, as that list would be quite long ;)  Helen really knows her stuff, and I do appreciate her comments as well - and have never ignored her work.    I sincerely appreciate everybody who contributes their information, work, or scientific analysis, to this forum in a professional manner.  Hope this makes things clear :)   There are a good many people here (regardless of what they believe) who are probably afraid to post here, because they feel attacked by others who just don't agree with them...... which I really find sad.  Thanks to all of those who aren't afraid to post :)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 27, 2005, 10:28:39 AM
Quote
Michael,Lexi, and bear are not historians, only people interested in the subject as I am. Do you only appreciate the contributions of those you agree with?

Do you also appreciate the contributions of Helen_A and DaveK, who presented thorogh scientific evidence explaining the DNA and exactly why AA is FS and not AN? Their work never gets enough credit, and is sadly ignored.

This forum is sinking fast, if the fantasy of AA=AN is living on just because it's what some people want to hear or think, even though it's absolutely without a doubt not the truth.


Speaking of 'afraid to post' I have spoken to several intelligent, knowledgable people who could really set the record straight here but won't post because they don't want to be attacked by AA supporters. What a LOSS it is to the historical community and everyone reading this forum for info that this ridiculous myth is allowed to perpetuate because 'the squeaky wheel gets the grease."



No one ever stated that Helen's contributions were not of value.  However again you undervalue our contribution, and then lump us all in as AA supporters.
What utter nonsense, but what else should one expect from you?  

You never post fact nor use a source.  You continually speak of a six hour meeting between the Schanzkwosky siblings and AA that never existed.  You never post a source, and you have ridiculed all existing sources that anyone has posted.  

I answered your five questions objectively with evidence from the source material I have, assuming that AA is FS.   If you want a serious discussion on your questions then respond to the answers I have given at length in the previous post, and stop indulging in the personal sniping attacks that you are infamous for, and acting like a martyr.  

Respond to my answers please. Show that you are interested in an objective discussion of the subject matter you introduced.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on July 27, 2005, 10:29:06 AM
Quote

What a LOSS it is to the historical community and everyone reading this forum for info that this ridiculous myth is allowed to perpetuate because 'the squeaky wheel gets the grease."


Exactly..

But you can't  let the words of a certain poster who is a   lonely middle aged  guy who has no girlfriend/boyfriend ,  lives at home alone with his mother, and generally lives an empty unahppy life  get to you.  . Such people are only worth our laughs :D or our pity, :-/  depending on their attitude...and are never taken as seriously as they take themselves! ;)  ;D
.

 
I think Bear did the right thing (and I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with bear) when she simply kept right on posting on topic.   
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 27, 2005, 10:37:37 AM
This is interesting.  I don't know what anyone's credentials are here.  What are Helen A and Dave K's qualifications exactly?

I'll tell you my background:  I'm an attorney and a special education teacher.  I have been reading about and studying European Royalty since I was knee high to a grasshopper.  I have three tall bookshelves filled floor to ceiling with books on the topic.  

I have no particular expertise other than that I read a lot.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 27, 2005, 10:47:19 AM
Quote
This is interesting.  I don't know what anyone's credentials are here.  What are Helen A and Dave K's qualifications exactly?

I'll tell you my background:  I'm an attorney and a special education teacher.  I have been reading about and studying European Royalty since I was knee high to a grasshopper.  I have three tall bookshelves filled floor to ceiling with books on the topic.  

I have no particular expertise other than that I read a lot.



I have a degree in history, have taught history, and written several research/reference guides in local history, and three family history books.

I have studied European Royalty, since a teenager also,
and have used it as a base for understanding my own complicated family history.  

I don't think one has to have credentials or a degree to intelligently discuss this subject, unlike those recently discharged from the playpen.

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 27, 2005, 10:52:44 AM

I've asked for sources on the various "hearsay" stuff being presented here.  One example was where did anyone get the information that the walk in the garden lasted half hour to six hours.  I have my sources and none mention any lenth of time.  Is there a book that does?  If so, please, name it and the page.

AGRBear

PS
Jay-Ro-Mee  agrees with me.   Do you hear  my CAL Bear band...  I like it when the tubas run around and end the script as they bow to the students  ;D

But it's not nice to toss oranges into my tubas   >:(  so please, no more personal attacks.  

As for my personal background and my degrees,  I don't care to make this public,  however, I think,  what should be important,  are the facts we can present and the sources we provide which allowes other posters to go to those sources so they can read the same data and make up their own minds.  A good historical dectective can be 12 or 95 if they can find the evidence and present the facts which in these threads would have sources to back up what was/is found.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 27, 2005, 11:01:01 AM
Quote

I've asked for sources on the various "hearsay" stuff being presented here.  One example was where did anyone get the information that the walk in the garden lasted half hour to six hours.  I have my sources and none mention any lenth of time.  Is there a book that does?  If so, please, name it and the page.

AGRBear

PS
Jay-Ro-Mee  agrees with me.   Do you hear  my CAL Bear band...  I like it when the tubas run around and end the script as they bow to the students  ;D



Bear,

Perhaps Penny has some other source that can is more specificl about the time frame of that meeting.  I know that the notes in Kurth's book are not specific on the length of time.  

I am beginning to think that there is no actual source on this and heresay is just what it is, and it needs to be removed from the discussion unless it can be proved.

Can you imagine a six hour meeting in a beer garden??
They would all be blitzed by that time.  The meetings are very well documented.  Unless a source comes up that we don't have access to, let's write it off to heresay.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on July 27, 2005, 11:02:00 AM
Quote


PS
Jay-Ro-Mee  agrees with me.   Do you hear  my CAL Bear band...  I like it when the tubas run around and end the script as they bow to the students  ;D


110% :)

I guess it's sometimes best to expect the unexpected! ??? :) ;)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered[quote author
Post by: AGRBear on July 27, 2005, 11:18:32 AM
Quote

... [ in part]...


3.  This is where you have got a problem.  From the beginning in the Dalldorf asylum there were those who said she fluently understood & conversed in Russian. I believe those affadavits.  These people had no reason to lie, and no interest in the affair or its outcome.  She had to be taught things AFTER her meeting with Felix.
That seems to be the point where she started gaining more notariety.  If she was going to be around the family and meet people they would have to teach her, much like the play & movie with Ingrid Bergman.
....


Yes, yes, I know,  I had this in the post above and then I didn't comment on it.

This is another example of "hearsay" and  testimonies.  Evidently, the nurses at Dalldorf knew and spoke Russian and did so with AA.

Her brother Felix said FS did not know Russian.

It is tossed about that AA/FS  could have learned Russian.   Yes, some people are very good and picking up languages but when?   From some of her girl friends?  At work at the factory or farm?  In one of the asylums where she spent a lot of time from 1916 to 1919.....???
And, if she had picked it up, could she had been fluent enough to have spoken it to these nurses in 1920?   Again, this is one of those questions I don't have the answer as to when she learned the language.  However, what we do know is:  AA spoke Russian.

Added to this:

Quote
...[in part]...

As to the language:
From The File on the Tsate; Summers & Mangold. pp 202-203

"In July 1922 she collapsed choking and with pains in the lung, and was treated with digitalis three times daily, as well as morphia. The doctor's reporter noted...'In her sleep she talks Russian with good pronunciation: mostly unessential things.'"
...


So,  there are sources telling us that AA did speak Russian.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 27, 2005, 11:19:02 AM
Quote

Exactly..

 But you can't  let the words of a certain poster who is a   lonely middle aged  guy who has no girlfriend/boyfriend ,  lives at home alone with his mother, and generally lives an empty unahppy life  get to you.  . Such people are only worth our laughs :D or our pity, :-/  depending on their attitude...and are never taken as seriously as they take themselves! ;)  ;D
.

  
I think Bear did the right thing (and I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with bear) when she simply kept right on posting on topic.   



If you have a problem Jeremy, take it to PM, and I will be more than willing to address your concerns.  Otherwise this crap out of you doesn't deserve a response.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 27, 2005, 11:35:57 AM
What Felix and AA said to each other in their first meeting in an Inn in Wassserburg in May of 1927 is heresay.  No one really knows what was said by anyone.  Present were Duke of
Leuchtenberg, Dr. Voeller and Harriet von Rathlef.  What we do know is the affidavit Felix signed and it reads as follows:

There does exist a strong resemblance between her and my sister.  The resemblance is strong when you look from the front, but not when you look from the side... Frau Tschaikovsky's speech ...as well as her general manner of expression is totally different from that of my sister, Franziska...At today's consulation, I spoike repeatedly with Frau Tschaikovsky.  Ther can be no doubt that she did not have the slightest idea who I was.  You could clearly see that she did not know me.  I went toward her and she gave me her hand and talked to me with perfect unconcern.  She showed no sign either of astonishment or of the slighest fear.  She behaved rather as one behaves toward a third party to whom one is just being introduced."

p. 173-4  ANASTASIA, THE RIDDE OF ANNA ANDERSON by Peter Kurth.

Then Kurth goes on to tell us about Harriet von Rathlef's checklist to which Felix stated:
birthmarks:
Felix replied:  "My sister Franziska had no scars and birthmarks."
teeth:
Felix replied:  "...had a full set of teeth."
lanuages:
"....spoke a ittle Polish and good German."
feet:
"....had no deformities of the feet."


--------   -----------------------    -----------------------

"....spoke a little Polish and good German".

This is in a signed statement by Felix.

And, yes, this has been discussed on other threads.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on July 27, 2005, 11:42:58 AM
People...Hello!
OK....
There are many topics at this Site, and THIS TOPiC  is  A DISCUSSION OF CERTAIN NAGGING QUESTIONS POSTED BY ANNIE! ;D OK!
   If anyone  has forgotten those "QUESTIONS" they are posted on page one...People who don't want to discuss them or want to talk about subjects like DNA/A.N./Weather/Politics/Music - might want to start another topic! ;)  
  Great work on the baby issue - now do we have any other ideas about anything else?
  I am not up to speed on The Trial other than I have read that it was the longest in Modern German History.
  Please lets remember to not ridicule each other (I am actually rather childishly proud of the fact that yesterday MG and I were able to have an insiteful and non abusive discussion) -so if I - the evil socialist Rskkiya can behave anyone can!

rskkiya
teacher/historian/scholar/bad dresser/frump  
[do you want my "vitae?"] ;D
PS HELEN A is in Russia just now ...lucky thing!
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 27, 2005, 11:46:32 AM
Quote
People...Hello!
OK....
There are many topics at this Site, and THIS TOPiC  is  A DISCUSSION OF CERTAIN NAGGING QUESTIONS POSTED BY ANNIE! ;D OK!
    If anyone  has forgotten those "QUESTIONS" they are posted on page one...People who don't want to discuss them or want to talk about subjects like DNA/A.N./Weather/Politics/Music - might want to start another topic! ;)  
   Great work on the baby issue - now do we have any other ideas about anything else?
   I am not up to speed on The Trial other than I have read that it was the longest in Modern German History.
   Please lets remember to not ridicule each other (I am actually rather childishly proud of the fact that yesterday MG and I were able to have an insiteful and non abusive discussion) -so if I - the evil socialist Rskkiya can behave anyone can!

rskkiya
teacher/historian/scholar/bad dresser/frump  
[do you want my "vitae?"] ;D



Rskkiya, check back on the thread, last night I answered her 5 nagging questions at length, and have no response from her.

I appreciate the discussion we had yesterday Rskkiya.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on July 27, 2005, 11:47:46 AM
JayRoMee

Actually I am a lady and not that overweight!
LOL!
rs
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on July 27, 2005, 11:52:44 AM
MG thanks
Any other people with insites or ideas?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 27, 2005, 11:56:51 AM
Reasons For The Lawsuit:

According to what I have read, and I may not have been clear about it last night when I posted, the lawsuit was begun to prevent the remaining funds of N & A's that were left in the Mendehlsson Bank from being distributed among what the law considered the legitimate or actual heirs of Nicholas & Alexandra:

Xenia Alexandrovna,  Olga Alexandrovna, Irene of Prussia, Ernie of Hesse,  Victoria Milford Haven,  Natasha & George Brassova.  

AA's defenders wanted either the account distributed solely to her, or to share in the proceeds, however in order to do that, she had to be declared the daughter of N & A.   The only way that she could do it is through the courts, as when the order to distribute the funds
came through her name was not on it.  This either instigated the lawsuit or increased the intensity of her devoted followers to have her declared as one of the heirs.

So she had to prove herself as the daughter of N & A.
She had no identity or legal proof of who she claimed she was.   My only question is WHY wait for the distribution of this bank account, when the jewels of the Empress Marie & the division of her estate at Hvidore would have gotten them much more money.  

This suit dragged on for years, interrupted by WW II, and then continued in one form or the other until the 1960's.  Making it the longest running court case in the history of Germany.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 27, 2005, 11:57:44 AM
I was working on:

3. Who coached her, taught her languages, and fed her memories? And of the memories, how many were intentionally fed, or just incidental relayed in conversation?

I've commented a couple of times and so has Michael.

So,  it appears some of us are on TOPIC  so dig back through the oranges being thrown toward my tubas and other off topics, and you'll find other comments on topic as well.

And, yes, it was great to see r and MG have a discussion  :)

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on July 27, 2005, 12:02:49 PM
ORANGES?
Agr go get the honey...
We can make marmelade for tea!
LOL!
Thanks for your work on this by the way!

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on July 27, 2005, 12:17:53 PM
Quote
This is interesting.  I don't know what anyone's credentials are here.  What are Helen A and Dave K's qualifications exactly?


Me: Two degrees from the University of California:
BA in History
BA in Language (German and Russian)

Minor Degree in Italian

Certificates from Italian language schools:
Istituto Venezia, Venice, Italy
Scuola Machiavelli, Florence, Italy

I'm not certain, though, that academic qualifications necessarily trump native intelligence, grit and determination.  The best historical author I know completed only a few years of University, and left without a degree -- he had his first book contract instead, and has never looked back.

And Marvin Lyons told me that the finest historical biography he has ever read was written by an Iowa housewife, who spent a couple of hours on it every night at the kitchen table after the kids were in bed and the housework done.  This must have been before the internet, because she conducted all her interviews and research via the mail.

There are skills that a university education can't give you.

As far as DaveK goes, I think he mentions in one of his posts that he isn't an expert, but rather is an enthusiastic sort of "arm chair" scientist -- which doesn't at all mean that he doesn't have a firm grasp on that which he posted.

Helen, to the best of my knowledge, has not thus far mentioned her qualifications -- if they matter, and I guess that's for her to decide.  
Title: e: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on July 27, 2005, 12:25:36 PM
Quote


Helen, to the best of my knowledge, has not thus far mentioned her qualifications -- if they matter, and I guess that's for her to decide.  


Helen Azar is in Russia at the moment  -I suppose she'll be back in september...
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on July 27, 2005, 12:39:21 PM
So sorry but I must dash ...
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Richard_Schweitzer on July 27, 2005, 02:00:59 PM
Perhaps I misunderstood what people were concerned with here.

However, if one takes statement"X" as the fact, then all other questions and their answers must conform to that "fact."

If one take "X" as an Assumption, different rules would apply.

Lastly, I generally contact individuals with a direct Email messages, rather than these displays of back and forth for the benefit of - WHAT -??  Why can that not be done?

As to Aucleres book: I don't think it has been translated from French although she gave Marina Botkin (neice of her friend Tatiana Botkin), my spouse, permission (and encouragement to do so at a meeting in Paris back in 1972) The other MS has not been translated or offered to my knowledge, and I think Mme. Aucleres' son has died.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on July 27, 2005, 02:20:07 PM
Quote
.

There is no longer any reasonable doubt about that. But there are still mysteries I want answered. Here they are:

1. Did Franziska willingly play along, or did she really have amnesia and not know who she was? Did she want to rid herself of her old life so badly she became someone else?

Also, if she really did believe she was Anastasia, at what point did this happen? Was it from the beginning, or did she play along so long she came to believe it in her old age because she was mentally unstable?

2. Did her supporters really believe her, or were they only hoping, or hoping for money?

3. Who coached her, taught her languages, and fed her memories? And of the memories, how many were intentionally fed, or just incidental relayed in conversation?

4. What went on between her and her siblings when they met? Surely they knew it was her, and covered for her. But did she know it was them and beg them not to expose her?

5. Who was behind the whole lawsuit thing, and why?


Mr. S,
Thank you for your imput - however there are many topics on DNA pro/con..etc. at this site.... sooooo...

Let's try to stay on this topic here PLEASE!
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on July 27, 2005, 02:24:44 PM
Quote
However, if one takes statement"X" as the fact, then all other questions and their answers must conform to that "fact."

If one take "X" as an Assumption, different rules would apply.


Exactly.  In some of Annie's questions, the stated "facts" would seem to compel certain answers from respondents -- answers that I find to be completely articificial, ignoring as they do, recognized and established actual facts.

This is certainly a problem on this forum, where we have in place one generally "agreed" upon fact: That Anastasia Manahan was not Grand Duchess Anastasia.  This artificially limits discussion because -- after all -- the big pink elephant in the living room is the lurking specter of the possibility -- however small or large each of us believes that to be -- that she actually was  Anastasia after all.  

And as this is the mystery that brought us all here in the first place, not to talk about it seems.... odd.

Perhaps I'll try answering Annie's questions taking the "facts" as assumptions...
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Forum Admin on July 27, 2005, 03:57:48 PM
Quote

This is certainly a problem on this forum, where we have in place one generally "agreed" upon fact: That Anastasia Manahan was not Grand Duchess Anastasia.  This artificially limits discussion because -- after all -- the big pink elephant in the living room is the lurking specter of the possibility -- however small or large each of us believes that to be -- that she actually was  Anastasia after all.  

And as this is the mystery that brought us all here in the first place, not to talk about it seems.... odd.



Penny,

The major reason that both Bob and I take a hard line that That Anastasia Manahan was not Grand Duchess Anastasia is simply because all of the scientific peer review journals state this to be a "fact" and not an "assumption". Dr. Melton has herself confirmed to me that this is a "fact" and nothing has yet been done do disprove their testing scientifically.  I still stand behind my statement that if anyone can provide me with scientific peer reviewed evidence to contradict this "fact" I will eagerly post it on the forum and website.  So far, no one, including you, has done so.  I, on the other hand, have placed in other threads the results of my own research which continues to show that as recently as earlier this year, the scientific community still holds the mtDNA testing to be the benchmark standard and continues to cite as fact that Anastasia Manahan was excluded from being related to Alexandra Feodorovna.

Therefore, given the large number of students of all ages who come here, and their teachers and professors who rely upon US to make sure that the information here is provided as accurately as possible, we are obliged to uphold the main body of research until it can be shown otherwise.

No one is restricting your ability to discuss the "Assumption" that Anastasia Manahan was GD Anastasia Nicholaievna. Quite the opposite, as there are many threads yet still today discussing the "mystery" of the story.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 27, 2005, 04:23:51 PM
The reason I am interested in people's backgrounds or credentials is because  we are being asked to accept the firm assertions of people about the case in question without knowing what their background is.  Apparently DaveK is an "armchair scientist" and that is, I think, more credible than, say, an assertion from me, who, as I have posted, has absolutely no scientific background whatsoever.  But it is less credible than, say, a post from Peter Gill would be.   In addition, Penny's degrees and her published works make what she knows and says about what she knows more credible to me than, say, my own reseach, which has been done primarily in English in this countryand without access to court records and other documents in other countries and languages.  

I'm interested in knowing what Helen's degrees and experience are in because it is being demanded that we accept her as something of an expert on the dna question.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 27, 2005, 04:25:35 PM
Sources are incredibly important on this thread and other survivor threads.  Anyone can throw out a "fact", but unless we can know where it came from and perhaps the context of the "fact", how are we to know what to make of it?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 27, 2005, 04:43:26 PM
 I think what occured here is the way Annie phrase her opening post that AA WAS FS.  And, some of us are not sure at this time that AA was FS. To add to the mix: Desipte the efforts of keeping  the question if AA was GD Anastasia out of the discussio, it has, evidently, eliminated those who think it is possible that AA was GD Anastasia.  So, when a "declared fact" is issued there are posters who from their point of vew do not find the "declared fact" as fact.  If this is the case,  then it seems reasonable to discuss the "declared fact" and give sources. And, this is why we have "havoc" and lock downs.

In the end, no matter in what direction truth takes us, we'll all end up in the "truth box" and that is what is most important, I think.

AGRBear  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on July 27, 2005, 04:46:12 PM
Quote

Therefore, given the large number of students of all ages who come here, and their teachers and professors who rely upon US to make sure that the information here is provided as accurately as possible, we are obliged to uphold the main body of research until it can be shown otherwise.


Yet there are other "facts" that are posted here almost daily that can be proved wrong absolutely -- but they are allowed to stand. I'll explain myself:

For many years many people believed that Anastasia Manahan was Grand Duchess Anastasia -- and these people were not insane.  Their belief was based on  concrete pieces of evidence that cannot be denied to this day -- but these pieces of evidence are subjected to the most arrant mischaracterization and the wildest interpretations on this very site that is so devoted to presenting the truth.  

The truth is that yes, there is the matter of the DNA -- which thus far appears unshakeable -- but there are also other items of evidence that are equally true and worthy, though they run counter to the DNA.  What must be done for them to be equally honored here?  I realize that some of them are inexplicable for those who accept that Anastasia Manahan was definitely Franziska Schanzkowska -- for instance, the fact that AM spoke and understood Russian -- but still, there they are, facts in themselves.

It's exceedingly annoying to have to spend my limited time here in shoring up facts that ought to be accepted -- frex again the matter of AM speaking Russian:  if we accept her speaking Russian as a fact here, it does not equate to accepting that AM was Anastasia.  It only equates to accepting that some things are inexplicable right now -- and thus better discussions are fostered, and we stay away from nonsensical debates concerning -- for instance -- whether or not Princess Xenia was capable of recognizing her native tongue.  This sort of response seems to me to be as ridiculous as -- well -- attacking the integrity of the DNA scientists.

Quote
No one is restricting your ability to discuss the "Assumption" that Anastasia Manahan was GD Anastasia Nicholaievna. Quite the opposite, as there are many threads yet still today discussing the "mystery" of the story.


Really?  I'd like to think that this is possible.  I'd really, really like to start and participate in some discussions that lead carefully into this territory -- but will we be allowed to go there by our fellow posters?  Annie was allowed to dictate what could and couldn't appear in her thread -- can we do the same in others with official sanction?  And can we expect a certain amount of protection against the sort of deeply personal attack that was launched by Jeremy against (presumably) MichaelG this morning?  "Zero tolerance" certainly hasn't worked in that case -- but does "zero tolerance" have to equal locking a thread?  Can't it be a period of "time out" for a poster?  That might be a better teacher of acceptable behavior than a locked thread...


Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 27, 2005, 04:51:27 PM
Penny wrote:  And can we expect a certain amount of protection against the sort of deeply personal attack that was launched by Jeremy against (presumably) MichaelG this morning?  "Zero tolerance" certainly hasn't worked in that case -- but does "zero tolerance" have to equal locking a thread?  Can't it be a period of "time out" for a poster?  That might be a better teacher of acceptable behavior than a locked thread...



I am in complete agreement.  And I am requesting some mod action at this point.  Locking threads punishes everyone.  Blocking a poster for a period of time, and/or monitoring and censoring posts, will accomplish the same goal, but better.  A good place to start is on this thread.

There are Terms of Service rules that everyone should be following.  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on July 27, 2005, 04:57:13 PM
Penny and Finelly,

Bravo!!!

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 27, 2005, 04:59:46 PM
Quote

Yet there are other "facts" that are posted here almost daily that can be proved wrong absolutely -- but they are allowed to stand. I'll explain myself:

For many years many people believed that Anastasia Manahan was Grand Duchess Anastasia -- and these people were not insane.  Their belief was based on  concrete pieces of evidence that cannot be denied to this day -- but these pieces of evidence are subjected to the most arrant mischaracterization and the wildest interpretations on this very site that is so devoted to presenting the truth.  

The truth is that yes, there is the matter of the DNA -- which thus far appears unshakeable -- but there are also other items of evidence that are equally true and worthy, though they run counter to the DNA.  What must be done for them to be equally honored here?  I realize that some of them are inexplicable for those who accept that Anastasia Manahan was definitely Franziska Schanzkowska -- for instance, the fact that AM spoke and understood Russian -- but still, there they are, facts in themselves.

It's exceedingly annoying to have to spend my limited time here in shoring up facts that ought to be accepted -- frex again the matter of AM speaking Russian:  if we accept her speaking Russian as a fact here, it does not equate to accepting that AM was FS.  It only equates to accepting that some things are inexplicable right now -- and thus better discussions are fostered, and we stay away from nonsensical debates concerning -- for instance -- whether or not Princess Xenia was capable of recognizing her native tongue.  This sort of response seems to me to be as ridiculous as -- well -- attacking the integrity of the DNA scientists.


Really?  I'd like to think that this is possible.  I'd really, really like to start and participate in some discussions that lead carefully into this territory -- but will we be allowed to go there by our fellow posters?  Annie was allowed to dictate what could and couldn't appear in her thread -- can we do the same in others with official sanction?  And can we expect a certain amount of protection against the sort of deeply personal attack that was launched by Jeremy against (presumably) MichaelG this morning?  "Zero tolerance" certainly hasn't worked in that case -- but does "zero tolerance" have to equal locking a thread?  Can't it be a period of "time out" for a poster?  That might be a better teacher of acceptable behavior than a locked thread...


"I agree." said the wooly brain Bear who is said to believe in fairy tales, little green men and lots of other things which were meant to be hurtful.  But Bears have thick fur and skin and I plod on and on.....  Oh look! My CAL Bear band with shields over my tubas  are marching around and around Penny.  And, all of you should know how CAL prides itself in "free speech" and equal protection for all posters.
;D

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Val289 on July 27, 2005, 05:08:43 PM
Quote

 And can we expect a certain amount of protection against the sort of deeply personal attack that was launched by Jeremy against (presumably) MichaelG this morning?  "Zero tolerance" certainly hasn't worked in that case -- but does "zero tolerance" have to equal locking a thread?  Can't it be a period of "time out" for a poster?  That might be a better teacher of acceptable behavior than a locked thread...





I think Penny has brought up an excellent point, too.  Locking a thread does punish everyone, but I can see why that method would have to be used from time to time.  Is there a way that FA can issue a "time out" period for an offender, instead of issuing a general warning/locking a thread?  Perhaps this certain disucussion board does not have that capability?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Forum Admin on July 27, 2005, 05:51:55 PM
I concur that Penny raises a valid point. Yes, anyone wishing to declare certain reasonable "parameters" at the creation of a thread are entitled to have their parameters respected. (Please no "UFO abduction" or similar parameters, ok? ;D)

With that said, I will not lock these threads if certain disruptive posters are asked to comply and continue. Bob agrees that a "time out" punishment, of a limited time of no access to post in the forum, is fair and reasonable.

SO, for example, Penny if you wish to create a "reasons OTHER than DNA that AA may have been AN" thread....feel free. However, I believe that it is entirely reasonable for "facts" tossed about alleged to be true to be substaniated with legitimate sources, other than "I said so". So, carry on. I anyone has any other issues, concerns or questions, feel free to let me know. UCLA Bruins are equally devoted to freedom of expression and equal protection.

FA
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Ssyentz on July 27, 2005, 05:59:01 PM
Abhoring imposed censorship, I'd like to go to the most useful suggestion made frequently here and on other threads:  IGNORE!

I have the right to censor my own eyes!  Should I see the identity of a poster who seems to have lost objective perception for the time being, I simply scroll down!  Since I do believe that all of us have worthy ideas, I always go back later and check.  Using this technique, I can focus on the topic and not get jostled or sidetracked in the heat of the moment.

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 27, 2005, 06:07:33 PM
Quote
Reasons For The Lawsuit:

According to what I have read, and I may not have been clear about it last night when I posted, the lawsuit was begun to prevent the remaining funds of N & A's that were left in the Mendehlsson Bank from being distributed among what the law considered the legitimate or actual heirs of Nicholas & Alexandra:

Xenia Alexandrovna,  Olga Alexandrovna, Irene of Prussia, Ernie of Hesse,  Victoria Milford Haven,  Natasha & George Brassova.  

AA's defenders wanted either the account distributed solely to her, or to share in the proceeds, however in order to do that, she had to be declared the daughter of N & A.   The only way that she could do it is through the courts, as when the order to distribute the funds
came through her name was not on it.  This either instigated the lawsuit or increased the intensity of her devoted followers to have her declared as one of the heirs.

So she had to prove herself as the daughter of N & A.
She had no identity or legal proof of who she claimed she was.   My only question is WHY wait for the distribution of this bank account, when the jewels of the Empress Marie & the division of her estate at Hvidore would have gotten them much more money.  

This suit dragged on for years, interrupted by WW II, and then continued in one form or the other until the 1960's.  Making it the longest running court case in the history of Germany.


You have some interesting information, Michael G..

So these people are IF's direct heirs:

Xenia Alexandrovna,  Olga Alexandrovna, Irene of Prussia, Ernie of Hesse,  Victoria Milford Haven,  Natasha & George Brassova

AGRBear

Personel Note:  I hope when I reach old age that I have a son like you who takes care of me in my worst of times not just the best of times.   Prayers  to you and your mother.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 27, 2005, 06:14:22 PM
Quote
Reasons For The Lawsuit:

According to what I have read, and I may not have been clear about it last night when I posted, the lawsuit was begun to prevent the remaining funds of N & A's that were left in the Mendehlsson Bank from being distributed among what the law considered the legitimate or actual heirs of Nicholas & Alexandra:

Xenia Alexandrovna,  Olga Alexandrovna, Irene of Prussia, Ernie of Hesse,  Victoria Milford Haven,  Natasha & George Brassova.  

AA's defenders wanted either the account distributed solely to her, or to share in the proceeds, however in order to do that, she had to be declared the daughter of N & A.   The only way that she could do it is through the courts, as when the order to distribute the funds
came through her name was not on it.  This either instigated the lawsuit or increased the intensity of her devoted followers to have her declared as one of the heirs.

So she had to prove herself as the daughter of N & A.
She had no identity or legal proof of who she claimed she was.   My only question is WHY wait for the distribution of this bank account, when the jewels of the Empress Marie & the division of her estate at Hvidore would have gotten them much more money.  

This suit dragged on for years, interrupted by WW II, and then continued in one form or the other until the 1960's.  Making it the longest running court case in the history of Germany.



I want to amend this post just a bit, I received some information from Richard Schweitzer today, and I want to thank him for sharing this.   Gleb Botkin signed a document that he would in no way benefit from the monies collected in the lawsuit or from Grandanor, and the reason that Grandanor was set up was to protect any of AA's assets or future assets in the instance she died or was killed.  So that takes financial gain out of the motives at least for Gleb.  Mr. Schweitzer also stated to me that the corporation was formed by Fallows.  So where does that leave us????

My opinion is that her supporters, did believe her, and believe that she was AN, and they did all they could to make sure that she was recognized.  However they did not have DNA testing available at that time as we know, so their knowledge level was much different than ours is today.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 27, 2005, 06:21:58 PM
Quote

You have some interesting information, Michael G..

So these people are IF's direct heirs:

Xenia Alexandrovna,  Olga Alexandrovna, Irene of Prussia, Ernie of Hesse,  Victoria Milford Haven,  Natasha & George Brassova

AGRBear

Personel Note:  I hope when I reach old age that I have a son like you who takes care of me in my worst of times not just the best of times.   Prayers  to you and your mother.



Thanks Bear, things are going much better than they were last year, we seem to be over the hump, at this time last year I was worried about burying her.  We have excellent doctors, and a good hospital here in St. Louis, Barnes Jewish, connected with Washington U School Of Medicine.

I don't know why I didn't think of the issue of the estate of Marie Feodorvna before.  I cannot for the life of me understand why she didn't stop distribution or settlement.   Very interesting.

Yes Bear, those would be the legal heirs of the IF abroad.  Meaning that when they were executed leaving no direct heirs, it is divided equally amongst their siblings and if those siblings aren't alive (Michael R.)
then his heir, George Brassov would get his father's share of the proceeds.  

Evidently the Mendelssohn Bank account was the only left in the the name of N & A that they could find.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 27, 2005, 06:50:37 PM
Quote


I want to amend this post just a bit, I received some information from Richard Schweitzer today, and I want to thank him for sharing this.   Gleb Botkin signed a document that he would in no way benefit from the monies collected in the lawsuit or from Grandanor, and the reason that Grandanor was set up was to protect any of AA's assets or future assets in the instance she died or was killed.  So that takes financial gain out of the motives at least for Gleb.  Mr. Schweitzer also stated to me that the corporation was formed by Fallows.  So where does that leave us????

My opinion is that her supporters, did believe her, and believe that she was AN, and they did all they could to make sure that she was recognized.  However they did not have DNA testing available at that time as we know, so their knowledge level was much different than ours is today.


They may not have had DNA but many had personal contact with AA and all we have are words on pages and photographs.  Some truly believe her.  Some wanted to used her for their own greed.  Others didn't believe her.  I think the two threads I just started on this subject are proving to be very interesting.

I'll have to give her credit.  If she wasn't GD Anastasia or FS,  she certainly is a mystery who's life was before us for a long long time and when it ended,  her story didn't end.  It continues.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Ssyentz on July 27, 2005, 06:58:21 PM
Quote

When they were executed leaving no direct heirs, it is divided equally amongst their siblings and if those siblings aren't alive (Michael R.)then his heir, George Brassov would get his father's share of the proceeds.  
quote]

Michael, does that mean  Alix' siblings also...VMH, Irene....?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 27, 2005, 07:25:18 PM
Quote
When they were executed leaving no direct heirs, it is divided equally amongst their siblings and if those siblings aren't alive (Michael R.)then his heir, George Brassov would get his father's share of the proceeds.  
quote]

Michael, does that mean  Alix' siblings also...VMH, Irene....?


Yes see my earlier post, the joint of heirs of N & A would be their siblings, and Michael's son, George, so that would include  VMH, Irene of Prussia, & Ernie
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Ssyentz on July 27, 2005, 07:32:37 PM
That's what I thought...thanks for clarifying!
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 27, 2005, 07:37:17 PM
There is a thread about:  If GD Anastasia had lived what would she have inherited.

Some interesting answers as well as comments.

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1098804752;start=75#82

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 27, 2005, 08:28:58 PM
Although I am truly bummed that I can't start a thread about my newest theory (Anastasia and Alexei were abducted by aliens), I applaud Bob and FA's decision.

My impression about the Corporation was that certain members (Annie whatsit) might have counted on getting reimbursed for expenses incurred taking care of AA, but not that anyone was looking to get rich off of her.  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 27, 2005, 08:40:58 PM
Quote
Although I am truly bummed that I can't start a thread about my newest theory (Anastasia and Alexei were abducted by aliens), I applaud Bob and FA's decision.

My impression about the Corporation was that certain members (Annie whatsit) might have counted on getting reimbursed for expenses incurred taking care of AA, but not that anyone was looking to get rich off of her.  



My impression was that they were trying to make money off of her also, however in the case of Gleb Botkin, I was wrong.  I also didn't realize that the coprporation was actually formed to protect her from
predators, lawsuits, etc...and in case she was killed would protect her interests, as I am sure she lived under some form of death threat for years.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: RealAnastasia on July 27, 2005, 08:58:56 PM
Yes: some people wanted (in my opinion) make money on her. Not Gleb Botkin, nor his sister Tatiana Botkina. They were both, not only AA supporters but the better friends she ever had in her whole life.

But I have HUGE doubts about the true intentions of these people:

- The Von Kleist.

- Schwabe.

- Grüneberg.

-The Leutchenbergs.

-Annie Burr Jennings

 I have no doubts that Harriet Von Rathlef wanted REALLY to help Anna and believed her strongly, as well as Prince Frederick Von Saxe-Altenbourg, Dominique Auclères, Xenia Leeds and   Andrei Vladimirovitch Romanov and (of course), Jack Manahan. Nevertheless, I'm still doubting about the women who took care of her in Unterlengenhardt. Any thoughts about them?  ???

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: RealAnastasia on July 27, 2005, 09:07:23 PM
Quote

Me: Two degrees from the University of California:
BA in History
BA in Language (German and Russian)

Minor Degree in Italian

Certificates from Italian language schools:
Istituto Venezia, Venice, Italy
Scuola Machiavelli, Florence, Italy

I'm not certain, though, that academic qualifications necessarily trump native intelligence, grit and determination.  The best historical author I know completed only a few years of University, and left without a degree -- he had his first book contract instead, and has never looked back.

And Marvin Lyons told me that the finest historical biography he has ever read was written by an Iowa housewife, who spent a couple of hours on it every night at the kitchen table after the kids were in bed and the housework done.  This must have been before the internet, because she conducted all her interviews and research via the mail.

There are skills that a university education can't give you.

As far as DaveK goes, I think he mentions in one of his posts that he isn't an expert, but rather is an enthusiastic sort of "arm chair" scientist -- which doesn't at all mean that he doesn't have a firm grasp on that which he posted.

Helen, to the best of my knowledge, has not thus far mentioned her qualifications -- if they matter, and I guess that's for her to decide.  


Good point, Penny! You made a VERY good point! Some people seems to think that University brings necesarily, intelligence and historical skills. I knew some Academical Historians that aren't anything but good teachers, and other people without History degrees, who published interesting history books and are now, respected professionals.

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 27, 2005, 09:10:44 PM
Quote



Therefore, given the large number of students of all ages who come here, and their teachers and professors who rely upon US to make sure that the information here is provided as accurately as possible, we are obliged to uphold the main body of research until it can be shown otherwise.


This is why it makes me sad when the myths and red herrings take over the forum until no one will set the record straight (at least not without being shouted down) This is a historical, education board, and I would hate to see kids just getting interested in this to fall for all the fairy stories when we have the facts now. When I was a 12 year old starting out, I believed in AA, but that was 1974 and we didn't have all the facts  we do now. I also WANTED to believe it. But now, it's just as wrong and outrageous as saying the world is flat. It is a complete disservice to kids, or adults, just getting interested to waste their time or trick them into believing something that isn't real (especially if it's for a personal agenda, which would make it even worse)


Quote
No one is restricting your ability to discuss the "Assumption" that Anastasia Manahan was GD Anastasia Nicholaievna. Quite the opposite, as there are many threads yet still today discussing the "mystery" of the story.



That's right, there are plenty of AA/AN threads here to discuss that. It would be so nice just for once to have a sensible, rational discussion on FS without the fantasies and myths of AA being AN ruining it. When I started this thread, I named it THE BIGGEST QUESTIONS I WANT ANSWERED because I feel there are still questions to explore concerning FS(AA) and her longstanding claim. One of these is HOW she did it. WHO she was is no longer an issue, and I desperately wanted to discuss it from THAT vantage point. I guess it's not going to happen. What a shame so much time and words will be wasted on things that aren't real that we will miss out on things we might have found out.

I know some have posted on topic here, but by far the OT has messed it up. When I have time to sort through the mess I will try to answer those posts. And if it's my thread and I can't deal with it, image how someone just stopping by must feel!
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 27, 2005, 09:16:46 PM
I hope that when people stop by to visit, they will see that historians and educators, as well as intelligent, articulate people who share common interests enjoy discussing what they know, questioning what they know, questioning what others have said, searching for new information and ideas, reformatting ideas and issues, and generally having a good time posting.

:D
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 27, 2005, 09:37:27 PM
Quote
I hope that when people stop by to visit, they will see that historians and educators, as well as intelligent, articulate people who share common interests enjoy discussing what they know, questioning what they know, questioning what others have said, searching for new information and ideas, reformatting ideas and issues, and generally having a good time posting.

 :D



and let's just hope that everyone who posts does so honestly because they want to, and want to help each other, and aren't just trying to respark interest in AA to sell books. :(  To deny the truth in order to make something more interesting and fun is a disservice to everyone, including history, and the memories of the IF and even FS herself. Let's hope that those who have the time and freedom to go searching for info really do show us accurately, and without biased or agenda, the TRUTH.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 27, 2005, 09:39:42 PM
Be very, very careful, there........the new policy WILL be enforced.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: lexi4 on July 27, 2005, 09:39:42 PM
Quote


No one ever stated that Helen's contributions were not of value.  However again you undervalue our contribution, and then lump us all in as AA supporters.
What utter nonsense, but what else should one expect from you?  

You never post fact nor use a source.  You continually speak of a six hour meeting between the Schanzkwosky siblings and AA that never existed.  You never post a source, and you have ridiculed all existing sources that anyone has posted.  

I answered your five questions objectively with evidence from the source material I have, assuming that AA is FS.   If you want a serious discussion on your questions then respond to the answers I have given at length in the previous post, and stop indulging in the personal sniping attacks that you are infamous for, and acting like a martyr.  

Respond to my answers please. Show that you are interested in an objective discussion of the subject matter you introduced.


Michael is right here Annie,
You have painted me as an AA supporter without knowing whether I support AA or whether I don't. Just for your information, I do not believe that AA was AN. I think the DNA confirms that. So please, watch your sweepinggeneralizations, they may not be accurate
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 27, 2005, 09:43:39 PM
Quote

Michael is right here Annie,
You have painted me as an AA supporter without knowing whether I support AA or whether I don't. Just for your information, I do not believe that AA was AN. I think the DNA confirms that. So please, watch your sweepinggeneralizations, they may not be accurate



I never said you were an AA supporter. I did mention AA supporters as a group but I don't recall ever mentioning your name. I am confused though, since you came here looking for answers, then said that you believed AA was not AN but FS, but you still play around with bear like you are on her side, so I wonder. But I still never listed your name as a supporter.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: lexi4 on July 27, 2005, 09:46:51 PM
Quote


I never said you were an AA supporter. I did mention AA supporters as a group but I don't recall ever mentioning your name. I am confused though, since you came here looking for answers, then said that you believed AA was not AN but FS, but you still play around with bear like you are on her side, so I wonder. But I still never listed your name as a supporter.


You are correct, you did not state that.  A apolozie for my knee jerk reaction. I quit smoking three days ago and have been a little touchy. As to the rest of your post, what you refer to as your confusion, I have no idea what you are talking about. I didn't know we were choosing sides or even what sides you are referring to here. If this is important to you, as it appears to be, I welcome you to pm me instead of taking up space on your thread.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Margarita Markovna on July 27, 2005, 09:50:36 PM
I would just like to say congrats for giving up smoking. :)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 27, 2005, 09:55:27 PM
Quote


I know some have posted on topic here, but by far the OT has messed it up. When I have time to sort through the mess I will try to answer those posts. And if it's my thread and I can't deal with it, image how someone just stopping by must feel!



It shouldn't matter which way you want the discussion to go, & WHO you want to post here.  The fact that it veered off topic is something that happens on this board, there are a great many topics here with OT discussion on it and it doesn't seem to deter people from posting, we are just gently reminded to go back on topic.  This thread is no different.

I answered your questions from the perspective that FS is AA.  I didn't see anyone posting on  AA is AN, until after you brought up the pregnancy issue.  

I don't think we're frightening off young students as you seem to continually suggest.  I feel that for the most part the discourse on this thread is healthy until it starts getting personal when certain people don't get their way.  As I told a poster by PM today, DON'T let what you read frighten you away, post your opinion, ask your question, that is the only way we find answers to the questions.  Regardless of what those answers are, you have to realize you have no control over who is posted here, and what turn the conversation takes.

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 27, 2005, 10:00:05 PM
Quote
Michael,Lexi, and bear are not historians, only people interested in the subject as I am. Do you only appreciate the contributions of those you agree with?

Do you also appreciate the contributions of Helen_A and DaveK, who presented thorogh scientific evidence explaining the DNA and exactly why AA is FS and not AN? Their work never gets enough credit, and is sadly ignored.

This forum is sinking fast, if the fantasy of AA=AN is living on just because it's what some people want to hear or think, even though it's absolutely without a doubt not the truth.


Speaking of 'afraid to post' I have spoken to several intelligent, knowledgable people who could really set the record straight here but won't post because they don't want to be attacked by AA supporters. What a LOSS it is to the historical community and everyone reading this forum for info that this ridiculous myth is allowed to perpetuate because 'the squeaky wheel gets the grease."


Lexi, here is Annie's post referring to us as AA supporters.  On the DNA thread she made a comment that when she came back "it was though the AA is AN camp had taken over the boards"...
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 27, 2005, 10:01:53 PM
Just for the record, I don't HAVE a side on this issue.  I'm still collecting info.

But I DO know whom I respect and whom I don't.  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 27, 2005, 10:08:02 PM
Quote


and let's just hope that everyone who posts does so honestly because they want to, and want to help each other, and aren't just trying to respark interest in AA to sell books. :(  To deny the truth in order to make something more interesting and fun is a disservice to everyone, including history, and the memories of the IF and even FS herself. Let's hope that those who have the time and freedom to go searching for info really do show us accurately, and without biased or agenda, the TRUTH.



What utter nonsense.  Please stop the personal attacks and veiled references to published authors that visit and post on these threads.  How disengenuous.

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 27, 2005, 10:23:22 PM
Yep.  KNOCK IT OFF.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: lexi4 on July 27, 2005, 10:31:04 PM
Gee, I am beginning to wonder who will survive the survivor thread. ;)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 27, 2005, 10:34:45 PM
Quote
Gee, I am beginning to wonder who will survive the survivor thread. ;)


Yes it does make you wonder.  I think it will be Bear!!
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: lexi4 on July 27, 2005, 10:36:54 PM
My money is on Bear and Teddy.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 27, 2005, 10:40:36 PM
Quote
My money is on Bear and Teddy.


Whoops be careful Lexi we are OT..... ::) ::)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 27, 2005, 10:43:35 PM
What is an OT and how do I get one?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 27, 2005, 10:46:16 PM
Quote
What is an OT and how do I get one?



OT is off topic....I don't know where you can obtain it, but I do know you can do it ;D ;D
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 28, 2005, 12:47:38 AM
REalAnastasia said:  But I have HUGE doubts about the true intentions of these people:

- The Von Kleist.

- Schwabe.

- Grüneberg.

-The Leutchenbergs.

-Annie Burr Jennings


Well, Annie Burr Jennings certainly didn't need any money from AA.  She had more than she could spend as it was.  She was, however, into the prestige that having AA as a guest brought her, and possibly was interested in future connections as well.

The Leutchenbergs?  From what I have read, the family was divided about AA in terms of whether they liked her or not, but they were united in believing she was AN.   I can't see what they would have gotten out of the relationship other than a sense of having fulfilled a family obligation, which is what the Duke said at one point.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 28, 2005, 06:59:29 AM
Quote


What utter nonsense.  Please stop the personal attacks and veiled references to published authors that visit and post on these threads.  How disengenuous.



It's not as disengenuous as intentionally misleading people:(  That's what bothers me so much, it's not that I'm being mean to anyone, I'm feeling sorry for lots of others who are perhaps too innocent and trusting being led blindly into a brick wall :(  If somebody wants to believe AA was AN I guess it's no more harm than believing in Santa Claus. However, I don't think it's a good thing when people who come here honestly looking for answers are perhaps sent down the wrong pathways instead of being show their way to the light.



Translation: I'm having a VERY hard time believing any intelligent, well read researcher actually believes AA might have been AN these days, and I would hate to think the myth was being kept alive, and people were being encouraged, for reasons other than finding the truth. Okay if you don't get it by now that's as far as I can go. I've veiled it as much as I can. On to the next subject.

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 28, 2005, 07:03:53 AM
Quote
REalAnastasia said:  But I have HUGE doubts about the true intentions of these people:
 
- The Von Kleist.
 
- Schwabe.
 
- Grüneberg.
 
-The Leutchenbergs.
 
-Annie Burr Jennings


Well, Annie Burr Jennings certainly didn't need any money from AA.  She had more than she could spend as it was.


Since when did that ever stop anyone? It certainly doesn't stop the oil men, from the sheiks of Araby to Bush and his pals, from gouging us to death at the pumps. Some people have money but are still greedy and want more. For them there is no such thing as 'more than they could spend.' They want it ALL.

Anyway, yes, I do doubt the motives of all of her supporters. That's one of the biggest things I want to know, is did these people use a helpless, mentally unstable woman for their own (attempted) financial gain? I just have a very hard time believing they really cared about her interests first, or that they even totally believed her. It was a very opportunistic move and if they used her, or encouraged her, that's sad.

Again, I have become much too cynical in my old age.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 28, 2005, 07:30:36 AM
Quote

It's not as disengenuous as intentionally misleading people:(  That's what bothers me so much, it's not that I'm being mean to anyone, I'm feeling sorry for lots of others who are perhaps too innocent and trusting being led blindly into a brick wall :(  If somebody wants to believe AA was AN I guess it's no more harm than believing in Santa Claus. However, I don't think it's a good thing when people who come here honestly looking for answers are perhaps sent down the wrong pathways instead of being show their way to the light.



Translation: I'm having a VERY hard time believing any intelligent, well read researcher actually believes AA might have been AN these days, and I would hate to think the myth was being kept alive, and people were being encouraged, for reasons other than finding the truth. Okay if you don't get it by now that's as far as I can go. I've veiled it as much as I can. On to the next subject.



What you mean is that you started this thread, in order to start the same argument over & over again, that is the translation.  When you are interested in responding to my answers, then I am willing to listen.  Thisi is not a game about which camp or side you or on, as you seem to refer to.  IMO that is utterly ridiculous.  I don't recall declaring I was in a camp or on side, I have said my opinion is still open.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 28, 2005, 08:49:35 AM
Quote

Since when did that ever stop anyone? It certainly doesn't stop the oil men, from the sheiks of Araby to Bush and his pals, from gouging us to death at the pumps. Some people have money but are still greedy and want more. For them there is no such thing as 'more than they could spend.' They want it ALL.

Anyway, yes, I do doubt the motives of all of her supporters. That's one of the biggest things I want to know, is did these people use a helpless, mentally unstable woman for their own (attempted) financial gain? I just have a very hard time believing they really cared about her interests first, or that they even totally believed her. It was a very opportunistic move and if they used her, or encouraged her, that's sad.

Again, I have become much too cynical in my old age.


Gleb signed a document that he had no interest or  financial gain from the lawsuits.

The Leuchtenbergs had money & property in germany

Annie Burr Jennings was wealthy

As was Princess Xenia.


Don't know about the others..  While I agree with you about greed of the wealthy in this time frame as we are getting raped at the gas pump, these people didn't seem  to need or be interested in profiting from her lawsuit, while I am sure there are others that are others that did or want to profit by it.

Some of them sincerely believed her, but remember Annie there was no DNA or science back then that could have proven them to be incorrect or doubted in their beliefs.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 28, 2005, 08:51:24 AM
Quote

What you mean is that you started this thread, in order to start the same argument over & over again, that is the translation.


NO NO NO NO NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

That was the LAST thing I wanted! Unfortunately, it happened, once you and a few others brought other issues into it.

 
Quote
When you are interested in responding to my answers, then I am willing to listen.


Oh sure, you say that now, having been one of the main perpetrators of the thread going sour. So you FINALLY answered some of my questions after many rude and unnecessary and off topic posts, now you are mad I didn't answer that one post? I answered your one on the supporters and their intentions, I will get to the other one.

Quote
 Thisi is not a game about which camp or side you or on, as you seem to refer to.  IMO that is utterly ridiculous.  I don't recall declaring I was in a camp or on side, I have said my opinion is still open.


It is plainly obvious which side you are on by the things you post and how you treat the people who have certain views. You are vicious to me and Jeremy, combatitve with Helen, yet you coddle those who agree with you. It doesn't take a rocket scientist, or a DNA specialist, to see that.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 28, 2005, 09:07:30 AM
Quote

NO NO NO NO NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

That was the LAST thing I wanted! Unfortunately, it happened, once you and a few others brought other issues into it.

 

Oh sure, you say that now, having been one of the main perpetrators of the thread going sour. So you FINALLY answered some of my questions after many rude and unnecessary and off topic posts, now you are mad I didn't answer that one post? I answered your one on the supporters and their intentions, I will get to the other one.


It is plainly obvious which side you are on by the things you post and how you treat the people who have certain views. You are vicious to me and Jeremy, combatitve with Helen, yet you coddle those who agree with you. It doesn't take a rocket scientist, or a DNA specialist, to see that.



I have never given Helen anything but the utmost respect.   As far as you & Jeremy go, well you get what you dish out.  

By the way this is OT, so please respond to my answers.  This is the sixth request for a response, yet you still are crying about "your thread"  etc.... Again I sincerely doubt you had any interest at all in an open honest discussion of your questions.


You are such a martyr Annie....
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 28, 2005, 09:27:20 AM
Quote

It is plainly obvious which side you are on by the things you post and how you treat the people who have certain views. You are vicious to me and Jeremy, combatitve with Helen, yet you coddle those who agree with you. It doesn't take a rocket scientist, or a DNA specialist, to see that.



If this isn't a case of saying one thing and doing another.  Annie I have never once stated which "side" I am on, or what I believe, I have stated from the beginning I am for open honest discussion on this mystery.   This is another one of your imaginary feuds which completely fuels the ongoing animosity on this thread.   Speaking of vicious, perhaps you Jeremy need to head to the vet for some rabies vaccinations, before you start accusing others of attacking, because I see only the two of you instigating it, which is nothing new.

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Forum Admin on July 28, 2005, 09:36:11 AM
Annie,
I must admit, the snide reference to someone's motives was not really called for. Please, try to not attack the poster, just stick to the posting itself.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 28, 2005, 10:07:45 AM
Quote
Annie,
I must admit, the snide reference to someone's motives was not really called for. Please, try to not attack the poster, just stick to the posting itself.


I know, but it really upsets me to see people being misled for the wrong reasons. And Michael has been just as snide as me. I would't blame you if you canned us both. I will go back to only posting and answering posts and hope he will do the same.

(http://www.boomspeed.com/kittylove/azzangel.gif)

This forum section is very nerve wracking, maybe I should just go post some pictures instead :)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Forum Admin on July 28, 2005, 10:14:54 AM
Annie, yes, you aren't alone, I missed Michael's "nails on the cross" reference. Michael...warning 1 for you as well. and for everyone's information, there will not be a THIRD warning.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 28, 2005, 10:29:45 AM
Quote
Annie, yes, you aren't alone, I missed Michael's "nails on the cross" reference. Michael...warning 1 for you as well. and for everyone's information, there will not be a THIRD warning.



Modified the post & removed the offending statement.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Forum Admin on July 28, 2005, 10:32:27 AM
Thank you.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: CuriousOne on July 28, 2005, 10:55:18 AM
Quote

Translation: I'm having a VERY hard time believing any intelligent, well read researcher actually believes AA might have been AN these days, and I would hate to think the myth was being kept alive, and people were being encouraged, for reasons other than finding the truth. Okay if you don't get it by now that's as far as I can go. I've veiled it as much as I can. On to the next subject.



I think this is what Bear was trying to tell us that we need not tell people who believe differently that they are wrong because we don't think that AA was Anastasia, the daughter of Nicholas II.  Let the facts be shown with sources and like Annie, who once believed, they may discover that it  highly unlikely that AA was Anastasia.  And the reason I say "highly unlikely" is because there is the slight chance of a conspiracy.   And I did say "slight chance" because I have always had this nagging feeling that the KGB under Stalin were very good at covering up the truth about many things.  Unfortunately, my "nagging feelings" can't be placed in evidence nor can I give you and Bear  a source or a page number.

Tolerance.  Respect to other posters.  Learn how to discuss without bickering.  And, maybe, I'll bring back Dr. Ginther's report and start a thread so we can discuss it properly.

I'm watching.

C1
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 28, 2005, 11:20:46 AM
Thanks, Curious One!  IT's important to remember that even if we have a hard time believing something, or believing that anyone could believe something, we don't need to be rude or get personal.

There are plenty of things I have a hard time believing, things that tons of people in the world accept.  Doesn't make me insult them on message boards!  And all you have to do is go over to the Imperial History forum about Orthodox Beliefs and see that I was the only Jew posting there, a Jew who cmpletely rejects Jesus, yet you didn't see a single person bashing me about it, or criticizing me.  And I wasn't about to insult anyone's beliefs, either.  Made for a GREAT discussion in which we shared a lot of info back and forth!

I'm spending some time thinking about AA's belief system - when did she truly and completely come to believe that she was AN?  I am going back to re-read the Kurth book's sections on the first 10 years to see what I can find.  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 28, 2005, 11:36:53 AM
Quote
Thanks, Curious One!  IT's important to remember that even if we have a hard time believing something, or believing that anyone could believe something, we don't need to be rude or get personal.


It's gotten very personal both ways, the AA supporters have been very vicious at times.

I have seen this on other boards too, people getting very cruel and personal over the dumbest things, like which is the worst album by a band, or even details in the life of a FICTIONAL character!



Quote
I'm spending some time thinking about AA's belief system - when did she truly and completely come to believe that she was AN?


THIS is what I was really looking for when I started this thread.

Quote
 I am going back to re-read the Kurth book's sections on the first 10 years to see what I can find.  


You'll not find that answer there, since he was and still is a believer she was AN and his book is written to reflect that.

The true answer was only in her mind, and we may never know. But I would like to.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on July 28, 2005, 11:41:31 AM
I was going to post my vitae 'to justify my comments here' (it's now appears sad but needed so that one might be taken seriously) -- my Doctoral Degree in Medieval History and Masters Degrees in  Medieval Languages/Medieval Arts - but it dawned on me that these really don't have much to do with the subject at hand....
It's getting nasty and petty here again.
Many posters here -including but not limited to- myself (bad habits die hard) Penny, MG and Annie ALL cannot seem to let past bitter remarks go...This is an absolutely understandable situation but still rather sad for all parties because it was getting interesting here.

I'm taking a break.

rskkiya



Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 28, 2005, 11:45:54 AM
Quote
I was going to post my vitae 'to justify my comments here' (it's now appears sad but needed so that one might be taken seriously) -- my Doctoral Degree in Medieval History and Masters Degrees in  Medieval Languages/Medieval Arts - but it dawned on me that these really don't have much to do with the subject at hand....
It's getting nasty and petty here again.
Many posters here -including but not limited to- myself (bad habits die hard) Penny, MG and Annie ALL cannot seem to let past bitter remarks go...This is an absolutely understandable situation but still rather sad for all parties because it was getting interesting here.

I'm taking a break.

rskkiya



 



Rskkiya,

It can get back to being interesting, we were having a good discussion.

I have stated before I am not looking for any outcome in this at all.  That the chips fall where they may.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 28, 2005, 11:57:45 AM
Will you find the answer in Kurth's book?  Annie doesn't think so.  Where can we find the answer as to when AA started to believe she was Anastasia?  We can't because she was the only one who knew the answer, if indeed she was FS.

If AA was FS and mentaly ill,  would she have had the energy and the capability of learning  High German, French, English and Russian?  Who was it who entered a name similar to hers in the diary of Grossmann so it appeared she had been murdered?  When and where did she learn the attitudes and manners needed to fool the royals who supported her?  When did she learn about all the little secrets which she needed to fool people?  Did she let someone break her jaw, knock out some teeth and be wounded to show she had suffered wounds by the guards at the Ipatiev House? What about the scar of some mole having been taken off  to match Anastasia's.  Plus a scar on her finger from a carriage door which should NOT have been there because that accident belonged to another sister? Did she buy the wrong size shoes so she'd end up with bunions so her feet would look like Anastasia's?  And, with all of this occuring,  when did she have a baby? Between what asylum visit?  And, how did she keep it from her family whom Penny says she often visited?  And, when she jumped into the canal did she wait for the right time knowing a policeman would see her and fish her out of the canal?  (Bear taking a breath).  Oh, and don't forget the birthday card she remembered to send Felix.....  With AA being FS I'm having a hard time with lumping all of this into a new timeline with AA and FS as the same person.  Since I am trying to stay on topic, help me understand, when did she start to think she was Anastasia?  Was it when the nurses thought she looked like one of the Grand Duchesses and she saw their photographs in the magazines and this grew like a snow ball  as other people thought she was and she started to believe them or was she from the beginning a con artists trying to wiggle into the life of a Grand Duchess???    

Looking at all the stuff she had to do from broken jaw to knowing all those languages,  I'd say con artists.... No, she was just a poor mentaly ill soul caught up in a tiny little lie wrapped in a tiny snow ball that rolled along and became this huge snow ball which captured her for the rest of her life.  Con artist?  Snow Ball?  Trying to make up my mind.   Snow Ball?  Con artist?  I just do not know.  Everytime I look at the list of things she had to have known, I swing back to "con artist" because all those things couldn't have just been coincidences.....   Could it???

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 28, 2005, 12:02:47 PM
Quote
Many posters here -including but not limited to- myself (bad habits die hard) Penny, MG and Annie ALL cannot seem to let past bitter remarks go...This is an absolutely understandable situation but still rather sad for all parties because it was getting interesting here.

I'm taking a break.

rskkiya



 


I understand and agree. Unlike some others here, rskkiya, you and I DO admit we are part of this, but do not hide from telling others they are too. It seems there are some who will only accept they THEY and their buddies are completely innocent, and anyone who disagrees is the bad guy. I need another break too but I fear nothing will have changed by the time I get back. Please hurry back rskkiya.
Title: <<
Post by: AGRBear on July 28, 2005, 12:05:13 PM
Annie,  please,  can we get back to your topic!!
>>Here they are:
 
1. Did Franziska willingly play along, or did she really have amnesia and not know who she was? Did she want to rid herself of her old life so badly she became someone else?
 
Also, if she really did believe she was Anastasia, at what point did this happen? Was it from the beginning, or did she play along so long she came to believe it in her old age because she was mentally unstable?  
 
2. Did her supporters really believe her, or were they only hoping, or hoping for money?
 
3. Who coached her, taught her languages, and fed her memories? And of the memories, how many were intentionally fed, or just incidental relayed in conversation?
 
4. What went on between her and her siblings when they met? Surely they knew it was her, and covered for her. But did she know it was them and beg them not to expose her?  
 
5. Who was behind the whole lawsuit thing, and why? <<

I was just referring to:
>>3. Who coached her, taught her languages, and fed her memories? And of the memories, how many were intentionally fed, or just incidental relayed in conversation?<<

It you don't have any thoughts on 3. then how about Michael's thoughts and facts on the lawsuit???

Quote

Gleb signed a document that he had no interest or  financial gain from the lawsuits.

The Leuchtenbergs had money & property in germany

Annie Burr Jennings was wealthy

As was Princess Xenia.


Don't know about the others..  While I agree with you about greed of the wealthy in this time frame as we are getting raped at the gas pump, these people didn't seem  to need or be interested in profiting from her lawsuit, while I am sure there are others that are others that did or want to profit by it.

Some of them sincerely believed her, but remember Annie there was no DNA or science back then that could have proven them to be incorrect or doubted in their beliefs.


it seems Gleb Botkin, whom you thought was feeding her information might be guilty of greed, wasn't after money.  So, can we atleast but this accusation to rest, unless, you think there was something else and have some kind of source to back up your theory.

AGRBear
Title: Re: <<
Post by: rskkiya on July 28, 2005, 12:55:07 PM
Quote
 
 
2. Did her supporters really believe her, or were they only hoping, or hoping for money?
 
3. Who coached her, taught her languages, and fed her memories? And of the memories, how many were intentionally fed, or just incidental relayed in conversation?
 
AGRBear


Ok
   I think that the great majority of her supporters did believe her ..some may have imagined wealth or rewards if she (or when she) ever returned to power however I think most of her fans just liked the romance of the 'survivor notion.

  I don't think that anyone ever conciously taught her languages. She seemes to have learned German and Polish as a child (living in Poland that seems logical) and as far as picking up bits of French/English over the years its not too difficult. After all her command of English was initially germanic in the non grammatical structure of her sentences.

  The memories were it seems always of vague things -
"We played the fools with paper balls" ... Nice, vague and inconsistant memories which could be nursed and encouraged just like "Clever Hans". AA also read a great deal and as we all know the Romanovs were popular figures in the world media -a bit like pop stars!

I don't think Gleb was out for cash - but he did seem to have gone out of his way at times to 'bother' or 'burn' others ...(Too bad he never got to post here) ;)

rs

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 28, 2005, 01:42:19 PM
I disagree that looking for info in Kurth's book is untenable by virtue of the fact that he had a bias toward AA being AN.  ALL writers have a bias.  That is, they write from a certain perspective.  If we are to avoid all writers on the topic with a bias, then we will have very little to go with.

The key for any good student of history is to question the purpose behind a piece of writing while considering the relative value of what is stated.  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Forum Admin on July 28, 2005, 02:12:35 PM
Elfwine,
Consider yourself warned. The "Da Vinci Code" is an admitted work of fiction based loosely on fact.  Peter Kurth's book is not deliberate fiction. Peter spent more time and effort on researching AA than probably anyone else on the planet, and his book, while reflecting his belief that AA was AN, was published as a non fiction account of his research. While you are certainly entitled to your personal opinion of the accuracy of the book given subsequent events, your comment is inapproriate. Please apologize to Mr. Kurth.


FA
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 28, 2005, 02:14:28 PM
Quote
I disagree that looking for info in Kurth's book is untenable by virtue of the fact that he had a bias toward AA being AN.  ALL writers have a bias.  That is, they write from a certain perspective.  If we are to avoid all writers on the topic with a bias, then we will have very little to go with.

The key for any good student of history is to question the purpose behind a piece of writing while considering the relative value of what is stated.  



Kurth's bibliography and his access to & use of previously unusale source material was a first, and I reccomend solely on that alone.

Never have I been able to get the information out of books written previously to his, that I gained from his use of these sources.

The truth is at the time the original manuscript was written, there was no DNA and he still believed that she was AN.   That may have changed since the original publishing of ROAA, and the subsequent printings and the introduction of DNA and DNA evidence into this case.
What his opinions are now, I cannot say.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: elfwine on July 28, 2005, 02:17:11 PM
I thought his text to be much more of a romantic construct than a serious historical work. I cannot accept it as historical but I will apologise if only to keep the peace.

elf

Title: Re: <<
Post by: Mgmstl on July 28, 2005, 02:18:55 PM
Quote

Ok
    I think that the great majority of her supporters did believe her ..some may have imagined wealth or rewards if she (or when she) ever returned to power however I think most of her fans just liked the romance of the 'survivor notion.

   I don't think that anyone ever conciously taught her languages. She seemes to have learned German and Polish as a child (living in Poland that seems logical) and as far as picking up bits of French/English over the years its not too difficult. After all her command of English was initially germanic in the non grammatical structure of her sentences.

   The memories were it seems always of vague things -
"We played the fools with paper balls" ... Nice, vague and inconsistant memories which could be nursed and encouraged just like "Clever Hans". AA also read a great deal and as we all know the Romanovs were popular figures in the world media -a bit like pop stars!

I don't think Gleb was out for cash - but he did seem to have gone out of his way at times to 'bother' or 'burn' others ...(Too bad he never got to post here) ;)

rs



Rskkiya,

Below is what Richard Schweitzer sent to me regarding Gleb Botkin.  Again it shows we assume a great deal about what we don't know, and in this case I mean me too.  My apologies to Mr Botkins family for any inference of any previous post I had made.

Gleb Botkin executed a disclaimer filed in Germany by which he disclaimed for himself and his successors in interest any entitlements to any benefits from A or her Testaments or Estate. You can contact M P. remy in Munich to confirm the existence of that document.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 28, 2005, 02:24:12 PM
Quote
I thought his text to be much more of a romantic construct than a serious historical work. I cannot accept it as historical but I will apologise if only to keep the peace.

elf



Elfwine,

I cannot understand where you are coming from with this.  Surely this is a work of history, great detail was used, and as I said earlier the source material is amazing.   You also should remember that Kurth knew this woman first hand, something many of us did not.
He had access to so much material, and much like "Fate Of The Romanovs" is a book which I refer to for reference a great deal.

You also must remember at the time it was written in the early 1980's DNA  testing wasn't developed or in use.  So outside of any conjecture on his part on her identity, this was a historical work.
Title: Re: <<
Post by: rskkiya on July 28, 2005, 02:31:19 PM
Quote

Rskkiya,



Gleb Botkin executed a disclaimer filed in Germany by which he disclaimed for himself and his successors in interest any entitlements to any benefits from A or her Testaments or Estate. You can contact M P. remy in Munich to confirm the existence of that document.

sorry
I dont think that he (Gleb) was a con - I do think that he believed her - other people might have imagined 'favouratism' in a reestablished court - but I didn't think that Gleb was one of them...
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 28, 2005, 03:18:43 PM
Since AA knew Russian before she was at Dalldorf, then we can't blame anyone who met her later as having help her learning the language.  Since we know she knew only low German and some Polish before she went to Berlin then she learned it between pre WWI and 1920.  Right?

And when did she learn English?
It was before her residence at Oyster Bay.  When was this?  About 1928???


Quote
Xenia Georgievna continued:

Again, from PK:

For the duration of her residence at Oyster Bay Anastasia spoke almost entirely in English.  Princess Xenia never heard a German word out of her... Anastasia's English accent was "good," Xenia said, although grammatically she was "a bit rusty.  That is, English phrases failed her now and then."  But there were never any gaps in communication.  "The family was so polylingual," Xenia's daughter recalled, "that, when speaking among themselves, they chose a word simply for its precision, from one of several languages, including Russian... My mother deliberately substituted Russian words in the crux of a sentence to see if Anastasia would follow what was said.  She always did."  Sometimes, too, without thinking about it, Anastasia herself still "burst into Russian."  Xenia had bought her two parakeets as a gift from the West Indies.  Anastasia was thrilled with the birds and often let them play outside their cage.  "Look," she cried in Russian one day, "They are dancing on the windowsill!"  She walked through the garden with Margharita Derfelden, talking about the flowers and "calling them by their quaint Russian names."  And then once, while Xenia stood unnoticed in her doorway, she heard Anastasia speak to her birds for several minutes entirely in Russian -- "and perfectly acceptable Russian from the point of view of St. Petersburg society." (page 217)


Did someone give evidence that she spoke English before this?

I am trying to button down the basic facts.

AGRBear

PS  Forgot to mention that when AA spoke German in Dalldorf and later, she was no longer speaking Low German, which FS's family spoke,  but "proper" High German.  So, she was busy learning languages between 1916and 1920.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 28, 2005, 03:25:16 PM
I looked at the back of the book I have title ANASTASIA, THE RIDDLE OF ANNA ANDERSON by Peter Kurth and there are over 40 pages of notes.  That is a lot for most books.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 28, 2005, 06:43:14 PM
Quote
I disagree that looking for info in Kurth's book is untenable by virtue of the fact that he had a bias toward AA being AN.  ALL writers have a bias.  That is, they write from a certain perspective.  If we are to avoid all writers on the topic with a bias, then we will have very little to go with.
  


Most people are biased and let it show through if they like it or not.

But I cannot consider Kurth's book a source on what you were looking for, when she started believing she was Anastasia, because that's not going to be in there for 2 reasons: One, he's not going to say that because he believes her, and two, it's nowhere we know of, because we don't know. We can only speculate.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 28, 2005, 07:13:37 PM
Well, there's your error, Annie.  One need not look in Kurth's book for statements by HIM that she, at any time, started to believe she was AN.  One simply needs to read his narrative account, replete with cites and sources, of her first 10 years, and see if one can figure out a point where it seemed to come more naturally to her, or she calmed down and settled into the role a bit, etc.

I doubt that it was a sudden thing, but more a gradual phase.  

As for when she is documented as speaking English, I believe that it was during the ship voyage to the US that she began to speak, and was fluent pretty quickly, because she didn't speak any other languages during the trip.  This is according to the nurse who accompanied her.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 28, 2005, 07:36:06 PM
Quote
Well, there's your error, Annie.  One need not look in Kurth's book for statements by HIM that she, at any time, started to believe she was AN.  One simply needs to read his narrative account, replete with cites and sources, of her first 10 years, and see if one can figure out a point where it seemed to come more naturally to her, or she calmed down and settled into the role a bit, etc.

I doubt that it was a sudden thing, but more a gradual phase.  

As for when she is documented as speaking English, I believe that it was during the ship voyage to the US that she began to speak, and was fluent pretty quickly, because she didn't speak any other languages during the trip.  This is according to the nurse who accompanied her.



Excellent points Finelly.  These sources and cites are so important in the investigation on this woman and her motives, and in trying to put together what happened & when.  However there are those who obviously refuse to consider Kurth's book and the sources therein credible.  These sources are one of the only ways we are going to have to look back at the woman and tell who she was, and what thoughts she expressed to people around her, in trying to reconstruct her life and the events, regardless of your perspective on the AA/AN/FS issue, these are some of the only unbiased sources that we have available.  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Richard_Schweitzer on July 28, 2005, 10:53:36 PM
How about we have a little fun with you folks talking about languages, etc.

When the U.K documentary about Gill's work was being done, Julian Nott, the producer, obtained a goodly number of private videos of A (allow me, please) in various conversations. He had a voice and linguistics expert study A's speach. The expert told him, that oddly, her English contained a Yorkshire "cast." (I think that was the term.)
Now, how could that be? Who would have exposed such a person to Yorkshire intonations - certainly not Gibbs, the tutor from Yorkshire? If you want to verify that, you might find Mr. Nott at Peninsula Films.

Separately. When A came to this country for the first time, she was accompanied by a woman who had been the Nanny for the children of August Richard (who incidentally originated the name "Anna Anderson" when he had her registered at the Garden City Hotel), who told them that she and A got along by speaking French. I am sorry I did not take the opportunity to get an affidavit from Mrs. Rufus King (nee Richard), when her husband suggested it.

And, incidentally, A did make a Notarized Testament, which was filed in Kreis Calv, Bad Liebenzell at her death. Read that and see how it fits these "questions," particularly as to motive.

As noted before, the conjectures here are amazing.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 28, 2005, 11:02:46 PM
Quote
How about we have a little fun with you folks talking about languages, etc.

When the U.K documentary about Gill's work was being done, Julian Nott, the producer, obtained a goodly number of private videos of A (allow me, please) in various conversations. He had a voice and linguistics expert study A's speach. The expert told him, that oddly, her English contained a Yorkshire "cast." (I think that was the term.)
Now, how could that be? Who would have exposed such a person to Yorkshire intonations - certainly not Gibbs, the tutor from Yorkshire? If you want to verify that, you might find Mr. Nott at Peninsula Films.

Separately. When A came to this country for the first time, she was accompanied by a woman who had been the Nanny for the children of August Richard (who incidentally originated the name "Anna Anderson" when he had her registered at the Garden City Hotel), who told them that she and A got along by speaking French. I am sorry I did not take the opportunity to get an affidavit from Mrs. Rufus King (nee Richard), when her husband suggested it.

And, incidentally, A did make a Notarized Testament, which was filed in Kreis Calv, Bad Liebenzell at her death. Read that and see how it fits these "questions," particularly as to motive.

As noted before, the conjectures here are amazing.



Well Mr Schweitzer, we don't have all the materials available to us that we would like, our conjectures may be off of the mark, but it is at least energizing a discussion of A, and trying to figure out more about her & her life.

Is this Notarized Testament at Bad Liebenzell public record and available ?

I have heard that Yorkshire was detected in her voice, which I have always found puzzling.  All of these pieces of the puzzle don't seem to fit well do they?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: lexi4 on July 28, 2005, 11:19:25 PM
I don't even know what this Notarized Testament at Bad Liebenzell is. Who was Bad Liebenzell? I would very much like to see this, how can it be obtained?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 29, 2005, 12:06:55 AM
Mr Schweitzer, with all due respect, your statement about the amazing conjectures here is divisive and does not assist in furthering the topic of this thread.  This thread is about FS being AA, and those of us participating are either people who genuinely believe that, like Annie, or who are assuming that fact for the sake of argument only, like me.

As a fellow attorney, I am absolutely sure that you are familiar with the concept of going along with a theory and assessing the facts that may support it.  As you know, this does not require that you form absolute opinions - one must merely be willing to make objective observations and attempt to fit the facts to the theory.  

If you are unable to participate in this thread with the given assumption, perhaps you would like to participate in the "Survivor Theories" thread, which I started for the very purpose of discussing a NUMBER of different theories.  

However, if you do choose to participate, please be advised that most of us do not have access to the documents of which you are familiar and about which you have posted on various threads.  Therefore, it would be courteous of you to provide summaries of those documents, or scanned copies of same when you post.  

Finally, a couple of your last posts have been difficult for several us to understand.  Responses have been posted asking for clarification, and I do hope you will see fit to do so.

Thank you in advance.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on July 29, 2005, 12:22:51 AM
Quote
I don't even know what this Notarized Testament at Bad Liebenzell is. Who was Bad Liebenzell? I would very much like to see this, how can it be obtained?


Bad Liebenzell is a town in the Black Forest in Germany, near to where Anastasia Manahan lived when she was there.

I think you could probably write or email their court and ask how to obtain a copy.  It's probably in the public domain and just a couple of dollars to copy.  As far as I know, I don't have a copy myself -- though I'd be happy to translate if someone got one...

I also think that Mr Schweitzer might be encouraging a little research initiative here -- some of the mental knots we tie ourselves up in would be really unnecessary if we had the documents to hand.  And I suppose going round and round and round DOES engender arguments as well as wilder and wilder speculation after a while!

Just think of that Iowa housewife and all the work she did in just a little time every day at her kitchen table!  ;D

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 29, 2005, 12:25:17 AM
Penny wrote:  Just think of that Iowa housewife and all the work she did in just a little time every day at her kitchen table!    

Yah, I'll bet $1 million she'd have gotten her book about the Pretenders to the printer by now.  <g>
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on July 29, 2005, 01:02:49 AM
Quote

Yah, I'll bet $1 million she'd have gotten her book about the Pretenders to the printer by now.  <g>


Hey!!!    :o  

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 29, 2005, 06:41:33 AM
I know this is OT and in my own thread, but I must address the issue of AA speaking English. I have heard her on videotape, and her English was heavily accented, I can't tell if it's German or Polish, but it doesn't sound like very refined or good English. It was functional, but as far as any chance she was AN which of course she was not, this is only another clue. Anastasia grew up speaking English as well as Russian, true Gibbes was her teacher and you can say he was from whatever English region someone heard a trace of in her accent, but remember her first and main influence would have been her parents! Alexandra spoke English as a first language, and very proper British like the British royals. Nicholas was fluent in English and was said to have had such a proper, perfect British accent when he spoke it that on trips to England he was often mistaken for his lookalike cousin King George V. The family spoke various laungages, and a mix. Of course French was the court language, and she learned with Gilliard. The children learned German but it was least used of the languages since their German relations Ella, Kaiser, Ernie, etc. spoke and wrote to them in English. The REAL Anastasia would have spoken much better English, and right away, and with a British accent, not the one we hear her using. Of course AA was not AN so this is all immaterial, just had say this in case someone was buying that taint Yorkshire accent thing.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 29, 2005, 07:55:13 AM
Quote
I know this is OT and in my own thread, but I must address the issue of AA speaking English. I have heard her on videotape, and her English was heavily accented, I can't tell if it's German or Polish, but it doesn't sound like very refined or good English. It was functional, but as far as any chance she was AN which of course she was not, this is only another clue. Anastasia grew up speaking English as well as Russian, true Gibbes was her teacher and you can say he was from whatever English region someone heard a trace of in her accent, but remember her first and main influence would have been her parents! Alexandra spoke English as a first language, and very proper British like the British royals. Nicholas was fluent in English and was said to have had such a proper, perfect British accent when he spoke it that on trips to England he was often mistaken for his lookalike cousin King George V. The family spoke various laungages, and a mix. Of course French was the court language, and she learned with Gilliard. The children learned German but it was least used of the languages since their German relations Ella, Kaiser, Ernie, etc. spoke and wrote to them in English. The REAL Anastasia would have spoken much better English, and right away, and with a British accent, not the one we hear her using. Of course AA was not AN so this is all immaterial, just had say this in case someone was buying that taint Yorkshire accent thing.



Oh jeez............all the man was stating was the fact that a linguistics expert noticed a Yorkshire intonation or so in her speech pattern, and no one can account for where it came from.   All of these items are pieces of the puzzle regardless of whether anyone thinks she is AN or not.

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 29, 2005, 10:05:50 AM
Quote

Bad Liebenzell is a town in the Black Forest in Germany, near to where Anastasia Manahan lived when she was there.

I think you could probably write or email their court and ask how to obtain a copy.  It's probably in the public domain and just a couple of dollars to copy.  As far as I know, I don't have a copy myself -- though I'd be happy to translate if someone got one...

I also think that Mr Schweitzer might be encouraging a little research initiative here -- some of the mental knots we tie ourselves up in would be really unnecessary if we had the documents to hand.  And I suppose going round and round and round DOES engender arguments as well as wilder and wilder speculation after a while!

Just think of that Iowa housewife and all the work she did in just a little time every day at her kitchen table!  ;D




I agree completely about your statement regarding what Mr Schweitzer is trying to promote.  Well perhaps it is time we did some actual research of our own.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 29, 2005, 10:31:56 AM
Quote


Oh jeez............all the man was stating was the fact that a linguistics expert noticed a Yorkshire intonation or so in her speech pattern, and no one can account for where it came from.   All of these items are pieces of the puzzle regardless of whether anyone thinks she is AN or not.



Come on, you know the only reason  that was mentioned was to insinuate that she got it from Gibbes who was from Yorkshire. I have even seen that written in so many words.

I don't know why I bother to post, MG you are going to jump on eveything I say.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 29, 2005, 10:52:29 AM
Alexandra's governess/nurse was Orchie, who was also from Yorkshire.  She was the english-speaker who had the most contact with Alice's kids, after Alice died.

Even if you grow up speaking English, you tend to adopt the accents of the people you are with the most.  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: etonexile on July 29, 2005, 10:54:58 AM
As we now know from the DNA tests...on must conclude that AA was a very "quick study" in languages and demeanor...she could no doubt have scanned the sides for a film role...a "cold read"....and delivered a quality audition...
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 29, 2005, 10:55:04 AM
Re: Doing our own research.

It is one thing to suggest that we consult books that are generally available.  It is quite another to try to get us to do research in Europe.  Even if I had the desire to send off to Germany for records and ask Penny to translate, that would take weeks.  Similarly, most of us cannot afford to buy books that are cited if they are rare and cost more than $20.

Wouldn't it be better for those who have the documents in question to share them?  And instead of hinting that there are facts out there that we could discover if we did our own research, why not tell us what they are!!!!!  Think how much more enjoyable this would be if that were so!
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on July 29, 2005, 11:12:08 AM
Quote
Alexandra's governess/nurse was Orchie, who was also from Yorkshire.  She was the english-speaker who had the most contact with Alice's kids, after Alice died.

Even if you grow up speaking English, you tend to adopt the accents of the people you are with the most.  

Oh gaaawwwwd---
Are we back to the "maybe she was AN" tangent
again?
I despair....
Now I really am taking a break, and as I will traveling abroad - it MIGHT be for months!

lots of luck.
rskkiya

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 29, 2005, 11:13:42 AM
Quote

Come on, you know the only reason  that was mentioned was to insinuate that she got it from Gibbes who was from Yorkshire. I have even seen that written in so many words.

I don't know why I bother to post, MG you are going to jump on eveything I say.



Annie, I don't know what Mr Schweitzer's motives were in posting that, (and I believe we have discussed this issue regarding the Yorkshire intonation previously in one of the "locked" threads in this Survivor group), and you obviously don't either.

Annie if you dealt in fact versus your opinion & total assumption and used sources occasionally to back up your argument, I wouldn't have half the problem I do have with your posts.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 29, 2005, 11:18:17 AM
Quote
Oh gaaawwwwd---
Are we back to the "maybe she was AN" tangent
again?
I despair....
Now I really am taking a break, and as I will traveling abroad - it MIGHT be for months!

lots of luck.
rskkiya



I don't think we were ever back to the is she AN tangent, but you can't discuss AA without AN.  It is bound to come up.  


Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on July 29, 2005, 11:25:00 AM
MG/PENNY/ANNIE etc.
   An idea ...The next time that anyone posts something that you wish to respond to - try to not take it as Penny's "rant' or Annie's 'lies' or MG's 'slander' or even rskkiya's 'propaganda' ;) Instead try to just answer it --or even better -- imagine that it's a post from your best friend that you disagree with...
Civility will pour over everyone like rain!


rskkiya
self rightious as ever  ;D
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 29, 2005, 11:26:08 AM
No, I wasn't back on that tangent.  This thread is about FS being AA and the questions Annie raised.  I may or may not believe it, but for the purposes of this thread, I accept that foundation.

But I think it's important, as we address individual facts about where and how FS/AA learned things, we look at them from both sides.   NOT to prove that AA was AN, but to weed out arguments that can be interpreted several reasonable ways.

For example:  English language.  AN learned from her mother and Mr. Gibbes, both of whom had some trace of Yorkshire accent.  Now, were Orchie and Mr. Gibbes the ONLY employees of nobility/royalty with Yorkshire accents?  Nope.  There were tons and tons of servants, maids, nannies, etc from the Yorkshire area employed by relatives of Victoria R all over the world.  

For example:  Mannerisms.  Is growing up in the Imperial Family the only way AA would have learned how to very naturally extend her hand to people?  No.  I could probably do it myself.  

For example:  Did people support AA and join her corporation in order to become wealthy themselves when her ship came in?  Sounds reasonable, but once you look at Gleb's history, and the fact that Annie Jenkins was inspired more by the glamour of having a GD as a friend than by any need to make more $, it doesn't make much sense.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on July 29, 2005, 11:28:38 AM
Ok Finelly good point ...
I am not a linguistics expert and I cannot perceive anything of a 'Yorkshire cast' in AA's speech- but what do I know?
Did she (AA) meet anyone who may have subtley communicated an accent to her in the early days? Can we ever know?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on July 29, 2005, 11:39:28 AM
Quote
For example:  Did people support AA and join her corporation in order to become wealthy themselves when her ship came in?  Sounds reasonable, but once you look at Gleb's history, and the fact that Annie Jenkins was inspired more by the glamour of having a GD as a friend than by any need to make more $, it doesn't make much sense.

Good !
While I do think that some people may have imagined a glorious  restored court with AA in Russia - I do rather doubt that they actually schemed for political or financial power...It's the glamour that drew people - the idea of a survivor GD.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 29, 2005, 12:20:14 PM
I forgot to write down the times to where I need to be this afternoon, so, poped over here to see how things were going and I see most of you are still having a difficult time with the AA indentity  thingy.

FOR THIS THREAD:

Time Frame -  Time Frame-  Time Frame  ALL IMPORTANT!!!

Anyone talking about AA is talking about a woman who jumped into the Berlin canal in Feb. 1920.

If Richard S. wants to call Anna Anderson (AA), the lady we know after her jump into the canal as Grand Duchess Anastasia (A) what is wrong with that?  That is what he believes.  When he is talking about A after the jump in the canal he is referring to AA.  That seems simple.  So to Richard S  AA is A.  

If Annie talks about AA after her jump into the canal she means AA = FS.

When some of the rest of us talk about AA after her jump into the canal we just call her AA.

There is no need to continue to make demands of who thinks what.

But the time frame needs to be after Feb. 1920 in references to AA, or, this thread will continue to get bogged down.

Now,  I've got to go find something that makes me look thin, though I doubt anything I have will make me look 110 again for my old High School buddies.  Yep,  going to my 40th High School Reunion.

Seems like only yesterday I was in that old school .....  I remember when I was given the part of Anna Anderson [Igrid Bergman]  in dramma class.  That's when I discovered my first introduction to the movie script of the movie called  Anastasia  which had been out about a year.  I think that was .... 1955 or 1956......

So have fun people,  and, try not to make Admin. Forum give any more warnings.

AGRBear


Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 29, 2005, 03:39:29 PM
Quote
MG/PENNY/ANNIE etc.
    An idea ...The next time that anyone posts something that you wish to respond to - try to not take it as Penny's "rant' or Annie's 'lies' or MG's 'slander' or even rskkiya's 'propaganda' ;) Instead try to just answer it --or even better -- imagine that it's a post from your best friend that you disagree with...
Civility will pour over everyone like rain!


rskkiya
self rightious as ever  ;D



Rskkiya,

At the risk of sounding a bit incredulous, I wasn't angry when responding to her post, I just feel that at some point backing up your argument or statement with fact
or source, it would make the statement or argument more valid.

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 29, 2005, 05:56:47 PM
Quote
MG/PENNY/ANNIE etc.
    An idea ...The next time that anyone posts something that you wish to respond to - try to not take it as Penny's "rant' or Annie's 'lies' or MG's 'slander' or even rskkiya's 'propaganda' ;) Instead try to just answer it --or even better -- imagine that it's a post from your best friend that you disagree with...
Civility will pour over everyone like rain!


rskkiya
self rightious as ever  ;D


You are absolutely right, of course. However, I think it is hopeless and that our own attitudes toward each other are going to spoil everything even if we try. But we can keep trying.

And yes it is very distressing to see that the AA is AN stuff does seem to be back with people taking it seriously. I feel I have gone back to the stone age after experiencing the internet and cable TV. It's very frustrating, I thought we were all beyond that, at least.

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on July 29, 2005, 06:01:02 PM
Annie,

You posed some interesting questions. You must have opinions on these issues.

Please share them! This is what your thread needs at this point. Tell us how you would answer these questions you posted.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 29, 2005, 06:29:45 PM
Quote
Annie,

You posed some interesting questions. You must have opinions on these issues.

Please share them! This is what your thread needs at this point. Tell us how you would answer these questions you posted.



Yes, Annie, enlighten us to your train of thought, your answers, we ALL await them anxiously & to clairfy for
everyone, there is no sarcasm in this statement.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 29, 2005, 06:47:32 PM
I already did, earlier in the thread, but it got buried. I said they were GUESSES in big letters remember that post?

Some things I do not have any clue on, so I asked you guys. But one thing I do rule out is any possibility of AA being AN! So anything to do with greedy relatives trying to deny her, or how she learned what language, or even if she was raped or not, have nothing to do with the story of FS and how she managed to pull her charade for so long.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 29, 2005, 06:49:50 PM
Well everyone who keeps asking me to respond, I did, way back on the first page but nobody noticed and it got buried and forgotten. Here it is again!

Quote


Not really, or I wouldn't be asking others;)

But as far as GUESSES here goes:

1. Did Franziska willingly play along, or did she really have amnesia and not know who she was? Did she want to rid herself of her old life so badly she became someone else?

I think when she jumped in the canal that night in 1920, she did not want to live anymore. She killed herself off that night. She wanted nothing to do with her life, and so when she survived, she refused to admit to her identity. She did not want them to find out who she was, her past, or tell her family. Of course, amnesia, even temporary, is possible considering her mental state.

I also wonder what really happened to her baby, and how this played into her wanting to kill herself.
 
Also, if she really did believe she was Anastasia, at what point did this happen? Was it from the beginning, or did she play along so long she came to believe it in her old age because she was mentally unstable?

I think she did play along for years, and as she became elderly and more unstable, she honestly believed she was Anastasia. By the time she married John Manahan in 1968,  she signed a paper swearing she was Anastasia. I think she believed that.
 
2. Did her supporters really believe her, or were they only hoping, or hoping for money?

This I am very torn on. Could be a little of both. I know I used to believe her because I wanted to. But now that I know because of the DNA it isn't her, I look back on the pictures and wonder how I ever could have even considered it. I do think wishful thinking and love for a  mystery play into it.
 
3. Who coached her, taught her languages, and fed her memories? And of the memories, how many were intentionally fed, or just incidental relayed in conversation?

I'm not going to name names, but I will say I think it was more than one person. Gleb Botkin was not the first, no, who was, I don't know. This is one of the biggest mysteries of all.

On the languages: she may have had a rudementary knowledge of several languages, being in central Europe during wartime. But when Felix Y. met her in 1927, he asked her questions in English, French, German and Russian, and she only answered in German. German was the language most common to Franziska, but least common to Anastasia. The family spoke Russian, and English, and she learned French from Gilliard. and it was the official language of the court. They learned German too, but it was the least used of the languages since their German relations (Kaiser, Ernie, Ella, etc.) spoke and wrote to them in English.

Anna Anderson's English sounded rough and heavily accented with German and/or Polish accents until her end (I have seen videos of her talking) Anastasia's English would have been much better, and accented like a British person, since that's how Alexandra talked. The Tsar also spoke English with a British accent.

Point is, AA was mainly a German speaker and learned other languages later.


 4. What went on between her and her siblings when they met? Surely they knew it was her, and covered for her. But did she know it was them and beg them not to expose her?

They recognized her on sight, then denied her. Gertrude was most insistant. But in the end they would not expose her. My theory is that she first denied knowing them, but when they pushed it, she admitted it and begged them not to expose her. No good could have come from this for any of them. There would have been expenses to pay, and legal trouble for filing a false claim. Then they'd have to drag a miserable, mentally unstable sister home kicking and screaming, hating them for blowing her story. Worst of all, they'd have had to support her financially since she was unable herself. This is more reason than any for siblings to deny her. (personal experience here) No one wants anything to do with a sibling who is trouble and is going to cost them money. So for her own good, and theirs, they, as Felix S. later said "left her to her "career" as Anastasia." As "Anastasia, she would always have supporters and be taken care of with living expenses. That's why Felix S. made the joke 'sausages long ago'- if he really believed that, he wouldn't have joked about it.  
 
5. Who was behind the whole lawsuit thing, and why?

I would not even begin to guess names, but I do think it was bigger than we will ever know, and well covered up. Whether or not you believe she was FS (though it's been proven she was unless you buy the mysterious identical cousin or tampering conspiracy theories) we know she wasn't Anastasia. So her claim was false.
 
My personal guess is that some person or more likely a group of people saw this pathetic creature calling herself Anastasia and decided to use it to their advantage. Whomever this was must have had connections, and some knowledge of the Russian Imperial court.

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 29, 2005, 06:57:51 PM
You know, if I was part of a cabal that was scheming to present someone as a long-lost survivor Grand Duchess, I would shy away from someone like AA.  

She was really mentally unbalanced, and physically ill, to boot.  She asked to be called Mrs.. Anderson, or Anna, instead of Your Imperial Highness.  She balked at meeting certain people who would have been tremendously helpful to the cause.  She was obstinate about testifying at her own trials.  She spent all of her money on pet food.  She alienated some of her biggest supporters with temper tantrums.  She saw conspiracy theories everywhere.  

And then there's the interesting fact that she had fights with a series of people with whom she stayed and who were advocating for her.   She dropped them.  If I was in a cabal where someone did that to me, I'd spill the beans and start announcing that she was an imposter and showing how she did it.   But none of them did.........

I'm of the opinion that she was alone in her role.  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on July 29, 2005, 07:25:58 PM
Sorry Annie...I quess it did get buried in all the hoopla.

I think the lawsuit question was answered . And the supporter question was at least clarified.

I do believe that the people who believed in her really believed. And of course there were others way more superfical who she probably amounted to a celebrity pet.

But let us consider the point Finelly is making. That for many years she lived like a hermit with no fame or finery.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 29, 2005, 07:32:13 PM
Quote
You know, if I was part of a cabal that was scheming to present someone as a long-lost survivor Grand Duchess, I would shy away from someone like AA.  

She was really mentally unbalanced, and physically ill, to boot.


All the easier to manipulate and use, my dear!



Quote
 She balked at meeting certain people who would have been tremendously helpful to the cause.


She balked at meeting people who would have helped ANASTASIA'S cause, but knowing she wasn't Anastasia, she didn't want them around to expose her. When she met some people, she hid her face in a hanky (If forget who)

Quote
she was obstinate about testifying at her own trials.


Pehaps afraid of perjury charges?


 
Quote
she spent all of her money on pet food.  


Shows what a truly kindhearted individual she really was.

Quote
She alienated some of her biggest supporters with temper tantrums.  She saw conspiracy theories everywhere.  


Too bad she never made it to this message board, she'd have fit right in with us!

Quote
And then there's the interesting fact that she had fights with a series of people with whom she stayed and who were advocating for her.   She dropped them.  If I was in a cabal where someone did that to me, I'd spill the beans and start announcing that she was an imposter and showing how she did it.   But none of them did.........


If they were involved, they were just as guilty. Exposing her would mean exposing themselves!

Quote
I'm of the opinion that she was alone in her role.  


Imposssible. She couldn't have, mentally, intellectually, or financially, even if she wanted to.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 29, 2005, 07:36:32 PM
Quote
Sorry Annie...I quess it did get buried in all the hoopla.


It sure did!



Quote
for many years she lived like a hermit with no fame or finery.


All the more reason for me to believe it was her backers who were after the money and they were using her.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 29, 2005, 08:01:35 PM
Backers who were after her money while she lived like a hermit would have taken the hundreds of checks she received over the years, which amounted to several thousands of dollars.  Nobody did.  After she moved out, the money was used to pay her meagre bills and then given back to her.

Annie, here's a question for you:  Whom do you believe was actually part of this conspiracy?  Who benefitted financially from her?  It's not enough to have a feeling about it.  What evidence do you have, or at the very least, what people do you think were actually involved and upon what do you base that opinion?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: RealAnastasia on July 29, 2005, 08:05:15 PM
Dear Friends of this excellent board:

                                                            I wouldn't call AA your Imperial Highness. But I'm all the right to think bad things about some Romanovs, and guess they have very selfish reasons to reject not only AA as AN, but all other claimants . They always stated that all Nicholas and Alexandra's children have dead the night of 16-17 July 1918, so you wouldn't expect they would go and said: " Oh! What touched we are! We found our little one! We love you, dear Anastasia!"  ;D

                                                            I may suppose and accept ONLY for the sake of this thread that AA was FS and try to answer Annie's questions (However I couldn't do it, for I couldn't find any good answers to them. THis is the reason for I wasn't posting here in two days) but I will not assume in real life, that "it is no way for AA to have be another person than FS. She couldn't be AN in any way". Well; I think otherwise. I'm a fool for thinking there was a "problem" with the DNA test, but I think it.

                                                                  Your questions are very interesting and you are sincere, Annie. Nevertheless, I can't answer them.  Well, not satisfactorily, at least.  ;) But I'll try all the same:

- I think she had amnesia. Her way of speaking was typical from a person who suffered a shock that would bring her to an amnesia. She started to believe that she was Anastasia when someone show a magazine with the Imperial Family in its cover. In Kurth's book, I read that a nurse claimed she show the magazine to AA for the first time, but Kurth stated that AA saw it at first in the middle of the night, and seemed very depressed and upset. Perhaps she didn't know who she was, and then she started to suppose she was AN. At first, she was not sure, and she started to convince herself of it only little by little. Besides, other people said all time to her that she was AN, or at least one of the Tsar daughters escaped from Ekaterinburg.

2- Some of her supporters believed her, but others just wanted to make money saying that AA was AN. Of course, they must also believe that the fortune of the Tsar was genuine, for the wanted a part of it.

3- I don't know...She spoke in Russian with Dalldorf nurses. So they must have teach her Russian...oh...And English, for she spoked English in her dreams and under morphine effects. They also must have teach her German, for AA german was bad enough to have been her first language. But there is a problem: she already spoke German when she was rescued from Landwher Canal. And the German she spoke was totally different than the one spoke by the Schanzkowskys.

  We may analize now, who fed her with "childhood memories". And this is really hard to imagine. Not the nurses at Dalldorf, that's for sure. As far as I know they only knew the Romanovs reading magazines, and they didn't publish too many details about their private lifes. Clara Peuthert? Maybe it was her...Don't forget she worked as a seamstress or laundress in Moscow, and that some people claimed that she could have been a German Spy there. It makes sense to me. I'm sure that books didn't feed Anna with memories, for those books were not as the ones we know today. The details about Romanov's private lifes are very few. You may read the Virubova's books and you'll understand. Anna remembered who was sitting in front of who in a party...and it is not in any book. Captain Von Schwabe could not know details about Romanovs lifes, other than reading books for he had not friends in high imperial circles. The same for the von Kleist.And poor Harriet Von Rathlef, believed so deeply and sincerily in Anna that she couldn't have done such a thing: besides, she wasn't interested in Romanovs girls before finding AA in her way. The Danish Ambassador Herhluf Zahle could certainly have fed her , but do you think he did it? He was working for the Danish Royal Family...Tatiana Botkina? No; not her. She was sincere in her beliefs, and she surfaced in the late twenties in Anna's life.  The same for her brother. Anna was already telling about her "childhood memories" long before the Botkins came to see her. Besides, all people who knew Anna and believed her (except for Xenia Leeds and Grand Duke Andrew, and ´perhaps the Leutchenbergs) were not related in any way to the Romanovs , and were not able to know private things about them. This question is the hardest to answer, Annie. And I can't explain the point other than accepting that AA was really a Communist Spy or something like this.

4-I don't know, neither. The meetings are all well documented. No way to imagine she spoke with her "siblings" before them. If they decided to reject her "sister", they do it without saying her a word, Maybe they didn't like her a bit, or didn't know to take charge of her. And as Gertrude really wanted to take care of FS she shout out that she really was FS (Admit it! Admit it!) I don't have another satisfactory answer for this.

5- Maybe the Jennings? But for they would have to believe that the Tsar fortune was genuine.

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 29, 2005, 08:36:32 PM
Quote

It sure did!




All the more reason for me to believe it was her backers who were after the money and they were using her.



Ok, now that you have said you believe her backers were after her money.  Who in specific do you mean?
It can't be Gleb, as according to Mr Schweitzer, Gleb, took himself out of the picture financially with a legal and binding document.   I am just curious.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 29, 2005, 08:39:01 PM
Quote
You know, if I was part of a cabal that was scheming to present someone as a long-lost survivor Grand Duchess, I would shy away from someone like AA.  

She was really mentally unbalanced, and physically ill, to boot.  She asked to be called Mrs.. Anderson, or Anna, instead of Your Imperial Highness.  She balked at meeting certain people who would have been tremendously helpful to the cause.  She was obstinate about testifying at her own trials.  She spent all of her money on pet food.  She alienated some of her biggest supporters with temper tantrums.  She saw conspiracy theories everywhere.  

And then there's the interesting fact that she had fights with a series of people with whom she stayed and who were advocating for her.   She dropped them.  If I was in a cabal where someone did that to me, I'd spill the beans and start announcing that she was an imposter and showing how she did it.   But none of them did.........

I'm of the opinion that she was alone in her role.  



I agree with you Finelly.  I think she acted alone IF we are addressing the issues from Annies point of view.
It only makes sense.

It takes more than one to have a conspiracy, and usually someone talks.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 29, 2005, 08:49:02 PM
I'm really interested in seeing other people's responses on RealAnastasia's new thread.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 29, 2005, 09:14:14 PM
I meant  Margarita's new thread.

<sheesh!>
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: IlyaBorisovich on July 30, 2005, 06:25:09 AM
Quote

Sigh, as I said before on all other boards I'm on, threads are quickly locked, deleted or merged with others when they go off topic as this one has. What in the world is the point of having a thread on a cartain topic when they are immediately hijacked and taken elsewhere, and the hijackers don't ever just go start a thread but arrogantly and rudely keep proclaiming 'you don't own this thread.' WHY not go start another one for another topic? All these threads become confusing and useless the way they go OT!


I sympathize completely.  Please take the time to read this thread, http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1098396821;start= , and then take your choice of two proverbs:  "Sauce for the goose," or "What goes around comes around."  Now that the shoe is on the other foot, I hope you appreciate the frustration I went through, again and again, with the above thread.  See how upsetting it is?

Cheers!
Ilya
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 30, 2005, 08:10:54 AM
Quote
Annie, here's a question for you:  Whom do you believe was actually part of this conspiracy?  Who benefitted financially from her?  It's not enough to have a feeling about it.  What evidence do you have, or at the very least, what people do you think were actually involved and upon what do you base that opinion?



I do not know, that's why I posted the question. I was looking for honest speculation on this, not more AA-AN business! I have no idea or I wouldn't have asked. But obviously it was someone, and it was well covered up and still is. I thought the conspiracy theorists would like this! But no it all goes back to poor Anastasia being denied her inheritance by greedy relatives which is of course NOT TRUE, oh well.

There is no mystery as to AA's identity. There IS a huge mystery as to the details surrounding her claim, case and charade. That's what I want to find out. But most likely those involved took their secrets to their graves. There was too much to lose. But there is no question that she had the help of several people, financially, and feeding her info. How do I know this? SHE WASN'T ANASTASIA!! Therefore, she HAD to have help. Who, or why, or how, I don't know, but I'd like to find out.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 30, 2005, 08:16:42 AM
By clinging to the old AA question which has been answered, we are depriving ourselves of exploring other questions, such as the ones in my last post, and what really happened to the two missing bodies? This could be such an interesting discussion and we might actually find out something NEW and exciting if we ditch the old ragged tales of AA being AN and move on to the unanswered questions

I also would like to get more into the complex character who was FS. While so many of you want to write her off as sausages, or deny her her best acting job by saying it wasn't her but her mysterious identical cousin or communist spy who pulled off the charade, this interesting character is wasting away here, denied her true destiny. We owe it to FS to get to the bottom of this. I'm sure the TRUE story of the life of Franziska Schaskowska, 1896-1984, buried in a grave under the name Anastasia Manahan, is a story much more interesting than the myths you are concocting. I want to know more about Franziska.

There is a quote I read once that Franziska told someone she didn't want to die in a one horse town, she wanted to die a famous actress.

And so she did.

So in that way, she got what she really wanted, which is more than the Romanovs, or most of us, will ever get.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 30, 2005, 08:38:18 AM
Quote
By clinging to the old AA question which has been answered, we are depriving ourselves of exploring other questions, such as the ones in my last post, and what really happened to the two missing bodies? This could be such an interesting discussion and we might actually find out something NEW and exciting if we ditch the old ragged tales of AA being AN and move on to the unanswered questions


No one but one person whose posts I have read leans to the solution that AA was AN.  I certainly don't believe that.   Which btw is another of the misnomers you perpetuate.

Quote
I also would like to get more into the complex character who was FS. While so many of you want to write her off as sausages, or deny her her best acting job by saying it wasn't her but her mysterious identical cousin or communist spy who pulled off the charade, this interesting character is wasting away here, denied her true destiny. We owe it to FS to get to the bottom of this. I'm sure the TRUE story of the life of Franziska Schaskowska, 1896-1984, buried in a grave under the name Anastasia Manahan, is a story much more interesting than the myths you are concocting. I want to know more about Franziska.  


While I admire this idea, what do you really think exists about Franziska Schanzkowska, that has not been found,  before her embarkation on this journey to become someone else?  We have one faded photograph, relatives whose memories faded as the years go by, and no real idea of who this girl was.

Quote
There is a quote I read once that Franziska told someone she didn't want to die in a one horse town, she wanted to die a famous actress. And so she did.
So in that way, she got what she really wanted, which is more than the Romanovs, or most of us, will ever get


Can you tell us where you read that?  While not attacking you Annie, I am trying to point out that you are giving us a quote, as a source, you are directly attributing that quote to AA, BUT, you are not giving us the source of the quote, which is leaves it highly questionable or considered subjective until that source is verified.  

Again I don't disagree with that if she was FS this was one of the greatest and longest running frauds ever
perpatrated in our history, but proving it as such is going to be difficult, because frankly I believe she worked alone.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Forum Admin on July 30, 2005, 09:02:15 AM
Now that the thread has come back to Annie's question, I will give you my personal (not "official") opinion about AA.  I do not think that it was a genuine "conspiracy" involving plans, schemes etc.  I think a psychologically disturbed young woman, who had some unknown trauma(s) in here life ended up deluding herself she was AN.  At the very same time, the Russian emigre community was itself in a state of "post traumatic stress" themselves. Their former lavish life was gone, and they were clinging to bits of debris floating in the icy atlantic after their Titanic had gone down (metaphor here).

At first, they saw exactly what they hoped and projected onto her, and she cleverly picked up clues. Ever watch that psychic guy on tv? "I see someone with the letter S in their name....." Sally? Sarah, Susan? YES my great aunt SARAH!...." Don't forget, it was quite common in central Europe at the time for most people to speak two, three or four languages at least partly.

As the time went by, others began to "champion" her.  They honestly believed her story, so naively pressed it forward.  I am certain there were many private conversations with her like "Dont you remember the time when xyz happened?" and private details would be innocently fed to her.  She believed her invented story, and began to imitate and parrot the aristocrats around her. By the time decades had elapsed, Anna Anderson had been created. By events and the well meaning intervention of people around her and her innate abililty to become what she wanted to be.  I think her obvious poor mental state at the end shows clearly much of what I believe happened.

my 2 cents.
FA
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 30, 2005, 11:45:12 AM
Quote
By clinging to the old AA question which has been answered, we are depriving ourselves of exploring other questions, such as the ones in my last post, and what really happened to the two missing bodies? This could be such an interesting discussion and we might actually find out something NEW and exciting if we ditch the old ragged tales of AA being AN and move on to the unanswered questions


Annie I have to respond to this not in an antagonistic manner, but to point out to you that we have ALWAYS been exploring other options in regards to different theories.   We answered your question but it is obvious now that you didn't want any of "us" responding to it, or you are only interested in the opinions of like minded individuals who share only your perspective. I have always been open to exploring ALL of the options in regards to this mystery.

Quote
I also would like to get more into the complex character who was FS. While so many of you want to write her off as sausages, or deny her her best acting job by saying it wasn't her but her mysterious identical cousin or communist spy who pulled off the charade, this interesting character is wasting away here, denied her true destiny. We owe it to FS to get to the bottom of this. I'm sure the TRUE story of the life of Franziska Schaskowska, 1896-1984, buried in a grave under the name Anastasia Manahan, is a story much more interesting than the myths you are concocting. I want to know more about Franziska.  


Annie, this is how the animosity on this thread gets to the boiling point, re-read this paragraph.  Everyone is wrong but you, everyone else is somehow a bit less than you are for exploring other theories.   However REGARDLESS, of what you think of the Grossman theory, or any of the other theories that have been explored on the survivor thread.  Thats what history is, an exploration or a study of these theories, once and for all these theories ALL need to be looked at and studied
and dissected, and evidenced gathered, and solutions came to.   Is your theory the only right one?  Is your theory the only sound one??  NO on both counts.  I am sure somewhere between ALL of the theories lies the truth,  we are never going to be able to find out WHO FS really was or thought, because there is no definite information available on her, if the Schanzkowska family has it, then they aren't letting go of it.  If she confided her truths to anyone, they have never revealed it.  
You accuse me and others of sabotaging "your"  thread.  Excuse me, I came her with no other idea but to discuss, not to antagonzie you, but as I stated earlier you didn't want us on here.  Clearly as we found out from other threads, you can't control the discussion, and the flow of the topic, however why can't you admit that we have had a decent discussion on this thread without too many outbursts, and look at it in a positive light, because I see nothing wrong with what has happened on this thread.  It's not as bad as some of the ones we have had.  The discussion has been interesting on several levels and productive, and I for one have enjoyed it.


Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 30, 2005, 03:46:17 PM
Michael, you clearly have such an attitude toward me, and such a chip on your shoulder, all rational discussion with you is impossible.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on July 30, 2005, 06:29:50 PM
Quote
 I do not think that it was a genuine "conspiracy" involving plans, schemes etc.  I think a psychologically disturbed young woman, who had some unknown trauma(s) in here life ended up deluding herself she was AN.  At the very same time, the Russian emigre community was itself in a state of "post traumatic stress" themselves. Their former lavish life was gone, and they were clinging to bits of debris floating in the icy atlantic after their Titanic had gone down (metaphor here).

At first, they saw exactly what they hoped and projected onto her, and she cleverly picked up clues. Ever watch that psychic guy on tv? "I see someone with the letter S in their name....." Sally? Sarah, Susan? YES my great aunt SARAH!...." Don't forget, it was quite common in central Europe at the time for most people to speak two, three or four languages at least partly.

As the time went by, others began to "champion" her.  They honestly believed her story, so naively pressed it forward.  I am certain there were many private conversations with her like "Dont you remember the time when xyz happened?" and private details would be innocently fed to her.  She believed her invented story, and began to imitate and parrot the aristocrats around her. By the time decades had elapsed, Anna Anderson had been created. By events and the well meaning intervention of people around her and her innate abililty to become what she wanted to be.  I think her obvious poor mental state at the end shows clearly much of what I believe happened.
FA

I must agree with the FA on this completely ...
A deeply disturbed woman was embraced by aspects of a deeply disturbed exiled community. Not everyone was taken in of course, but lots of people wanted to believe - thus there was a 'following'.  IF there was a conspiracy attached to AA, then I think it was the imaginary conspiracy invented in the slightly demented brain of the elderly Mr. Manahan near the end of their lives together.

rs

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on July 30, 2005, 06:43:31 PM
Quote
Annie, this is how the animosity on this thread gets to the boiling point, re-read this paragraph.  Everyone is wrong but you, everyone else is somehow a bit less than you are for exploring other theories.   However REGARDLESS, of what you think of the Grossman theory, or any of the other theories that have been explored on the survivor thread.  Thats what history is, an exploration or a study of these theories, once and for all these theories ALL need to be looked at and studied
and dissected, and evidenced gathered, and solutions came to.   Is your theory the only right one?  Is your theory the only sound one??  NO on both counts.  I am sure somewhere between ALL of the theories lies the truth,  we are never going to be able to find out WHO FS really was or thought, because there is no definite information available on her, if the Schanzkowska family has it, then they aren't letting go of it.  If she confided her truths to anyone, they have never revealed it.  
You accuse me and others of sabotaging "your"  thread.  Excuse me, I came her with no other idea but to discuss, not to antagonzie you, but as I stated earlier you didn't want us on here.  Clearly as we found out from other threads, you can't control the discussion, and the flow of the topic, however why can't you admit that we have had a decent discussion on this thread without too many outbursts, and look at it in a positive light, because I see nothing wrong with what has happened on this thread.  It's not as bad as some of the ones we have had.  The discussion has been interesting on several levels and productive, and I for one have enjoyed it.


WHAT?
   No one is sabotaging anything -- I was under the impression that the discussion was going well. Did I miss something big? MG I do not understand this at all... are you reading 'secret posts' from Annie? I ask this because I just don't understand this constant sabotage/manipulation issue...
   YES Annie asked certain specific questions - and I do not think that she had 'fixed answers' or 'results' that she was trying to 'produce'. However she wanted the thread to not wander onto the AA - AN question/Grosmann Theory and the DNA question -as we have other threads on those topics - Is that what you mean by sabotage?

rs  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 30, 2005, 08:59:10 PM
It's one thing to require that a thread address an issue based on certain parameters.

It is quite another to constantly be insulting and deriding others and their ideas.

But a lot of people seem to think that engaging with others in a negative way is the way to handle all dialogue.  And, of course, when that is one's preferred method of relating to others, it shows in the words one chooses and the responses one gives to others.

We cannot control you.  Only you can shape your own behavior.  And if you choose to relate to people primarily in a negative way, why then, you reap what you sow.  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 30, 2005, 09:37:34 PM
Quote
Michael, you clearly have such an attitude toward me, and such a chip on your shoulder, all rational discussion with you is impossible.



How do you respond to crap like this except consider the source.... ::) ::)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 30, 2005, 09:41:42 PM
Quote

WHAT?
    No one is sabotaging anything -- I was under the impression that the discussion was going well. Did I miss something big? MG I do not understand this at all... are you reading 'secret posts' from Annie? I ask this because I just don't understand this constant sabotage/manipulation issue...
    YES Annie asked certain specific questions - and I do not think that she had 'fixed answers' or 'results' that she was trying to 'produce'. However she wanted the thread to not wander onto the AA - AN question/Grosmann Theory and the DNA question -as we have other threads on those topics - Is that what you mean by sabotage?

rs  


Rskkiya, I thought the discussion was going fine also, and was rather satisfied with it, however she did not want us at ALL on "her thread"

We had a good discussion, it can continue, but we need to realize that the discussion can go any way depending on what points are brought up, AND, what sources are used.  I am particular about the use of source material lately.  People are fond of quoting AA memories without a book, reference, source, etc.

Let's keep the discussion going, if Annie wants to be part of it FINE, if not FINE.  It is her choice.  Now back to the topic.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 30, 2005, 10:19:58 PM
Quote


How do you respond to crap like this except consider the source.... ::) ::)



You just proved me right.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 30, 2005, 10:20:56 PM
Quote

WHAT?
    No one is sabotaging anything -- I was under the impression that the discussion was going well. Did I miss something big? MG I do not understand this at all... are you reading 'secret posts' from Annie? I ask this because I just don't understand this constant sabotage/manipulation issue...
    YES Annie asked certain specific questions - and I do not think that she had 'fixed answers' or 'results' that she was trying to 'produce'. However she wanted the thread to not wander onto the AA - AN question/Grosmann Theory and the DNA question -as we have other threads on those topics - Is that what you mean by sabotage?

rs  


Thank you, I'm so glad someone else can see the sabotage is only in his mind.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 30, 2005, 11:53:32 PM
Annie - KNOCK IT OFF.  

NOW.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 31, 2005, 12:29:09 AM
Quote
I must agree with the FA on this completely ...
A deeply disturbed woman was embraced by aspects of a deeply disturbed exiled community. Not everyone was taken in of course, but lots of people wanted to believe - thus there was a 'following'.  IF there was a conspiracy attached to AA, then I think it was the imaginary conspiracy invented in the slightly demented brain of the elderly Mr. Manahan near the end of their lives together.

rs




Rskkiya,

I agree that if this person perpetrated this fraud then they had to be mentally ill.  I also don't think she confided in any one person, thereby risking discovery.
She probably had to be calculating at that point, not taking any one person into her confidence, becoming this persona, allowing the character of this dead Grand Duchess to envelop her...

I think there are certain celebrities past & present who believed the lies, and the press, and somewhere in the journey of their life & career, their own persona became secondary to their celebrity persona.  I have read about several actresses, Joan Crawford for one who became for the public that image she cultivated.  There are others, so I am wondering if this sort of behavior was what happened to our A.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: etonexile on July 31, 2005, 09:22:00 AM
Well said opinions FA....worth at least a dollar.... ;)
Title: Re:  Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 31, 2005, 09:50:15 AM
Quote
Annie - KNOCK IT OFF.  

NOW.



And he gets to say whatever he wants, is that it? Takes 2 to tango. I don't, and never have, said I was innocent, only that he is guilty too! He has been very rude, antagonistic, and literally picks on EVERYTHING I say. Can't you see that? Or do you not want to? He's already got a Mommy, he doesn't need you to coddle him. If he's going to act up he's going to be responsible for his own actions. The way he behaves in response to anything I say makes it impossible to have any serious, rational  discussion. I have developed an aversion to coming here having to see his snide, snotty, personal attacks on my posts. I am SERIOUSLY taking a break. You guys have fun with your fairy tales.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: etonexile on July 31, 2005, 10:00:46 AM
Annie...Michael....Handbags At Dawn...It's the only way now....sigh.... ::)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Forum Admin on July 31, 2005, 10:19:52 AM
Michael AND Annie...warning 2 to you BOTH. Stop the public bickering and sniping back and forth.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 31, 2005, 12:26:38 PM
Quote
What if........the family didn't disavow her because of money.  What if .......they really didn't recognize her?

How many years after her disappearance did AA meet up with Felix?  And after that how many years before she met him and the others again?

During that period of time, she:  lost a lot of weight (look at the first hospital photos - she's healthy looking - look at other ones, she's very thin), had some teeth pulled, suffered thru tuberculosis of the bone (the pain alone will change features), gotten older, and adopted a new personality.

To be sure, the initial presentation will be similar (so Felix recognized her).  But spend some time looking at her, and ....does she really look like his sister?  Now add the fact that she shows absolutely no sign of recognizing him.....that's strange, makes him wonder....and speaks a different language....even weirder....and carries herself differently.

Might have happened that way.



Finelly, just re read this.  This is an interesting post, can you elaborate a bit further how you came to this idea?

Do you really think this is possible???
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 31, 2005, 12:44:54 PM
Yes, I actually think it is possible, and here is why.

Our memories of each other are based not only on appearance, but body language, shared recollections, mannerisms, and mutual recognition.  If my aunt, who weighs probably 280, lost 130 lbs, I would still recognize her, even though she would look radically different, because of the look in her eyes, the way she talks, and the things she would say to me, having recognized ME.  If I look at pictures of my older daughter at age 11, and now at age 18, there's a slight resemblence, but honestly, if I didn't know her, I might not recognize her.

So.......AA, when she jumped in the canal, weighed a fair amount.  The photo shows a plumpish, rounded face, and one can assume the body was the same.  At that point, if she was FS, she probably knew she was FS.

How many years later did she meet up with Felix?  Several, as I recall.  During that time, she lost a ton of weight, due to tuberculosis and other ailments.  Her hairstyle changed.  She lost teeth, which made her profile different and her mouth different, and possibly her speech.

During that time, she started hanging out with well-educated people (nurses, gentry, Harriet) and adopted their mannerisms, their ways of speech, their styles.  Her body language changed if only by virtue of the lost weight (we all carry ourselves differently when thin as opposed to fatter), the injury/ailment to her arm.  She spoke a different language - even if it was German, it wasn't her childhood German.

This would not be enough to confuse Felix, IF she recognized HIM. Or acted like she did.  But if she also, at this point, refused to acknowledge that she was FS, there'd be no flash of recognition in her eyes, no similar smile, no conversations that would indicate to Felix that she was his sister.  She acted like a total STRANGER.  AND, she looked different.  Similar, as Felix said, but not the same.  I think he said that face to face,she looked similar, but not from the side or profile.

This would account for his failure to recognize her as his sister, and also for Gertrude's confusion.  Gertrude, who shared a room with her sister and probably knew more or remembered more about her sister, might have been less likely to mistake the issue.  And her anger and outburst would have been an attempt to overcome that barrier of AA's refusal to recognize HER so that she could see thru the new role her sister was playing.

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 31, 2005, 05:40:33 PM
ca 25 Dec 1919 FS was with her family for Christmas and I assume Flix was part of this celebration.

9 May 1927 AA met with Felix S. the first time.

Quote
Since there appears to be some confusion about AA's various meeting with FS family members,  so, I hunted around and found this one of Michael's.  I couldn't pull out the quote because it's locked down.  I highlighted the date:

Michael:  >>On May 9, 1927  AA was taken for a meeting with Felix Schanzkowska the brother of Francisca.  
 
The meeting took place at an in Wasserburg some few miles nw of Seeon.  Felix S. was sitting the beer garden with Dr. Voller, while Harriet von Rathlef wisely kept out of sight.  As she walked toward his table, AA asked the Duke, "Which one of the gentlemen is it?"  
 
Felix stared at her.  
 
Who is that lady, asked Dr Voller,  "That is my sister Francisca ." replied Felix.   All eyes turned to Anastasia,  
"Well, stammered the Duke, thoroughly amazed, "go and talk with your brother."   Dr Voller had already prepared an affadavit for Felix to sign, stating that this was indeed his sister Franciska S., and that he recognized her beyond any doubt.  Frau Rathlef was crushed, she handed the document to Felix, when she suddenly heard him say " No, I won't do it.  She isn't my sister."    
 
"She isn't your sister?" asked Frau Rathlef stunned by this about face.  
 
"No, said Felix again, adding that he would not sign a false declaration that might land him in jail."  
 
Dr Voller drew up another affadavit that Felix did not hesitate to sigh it"  
 
" There does exist a strong resemblance between her and my sister.  The resemblance is strong when you look from the front, but not when you look from the side.....Frau Tschaikovsky's speech...as well as the general expression of her manner is totally different from that of my sister, Franziska.... At today's consultation I spoke repeatedly with Frau Tshaikovsky.  There can be no doubt that she did not have the slightest idea who I was.  You could clearly see that she did no know me.  I went toward her and she gave me her hand and talked to me with perfect unconcern.  She showed no sign either of astonishment or of the slightest fear.  She behaved rather as one behaves towards a third pary to whom one is just being introduced."  
 
Then Harriet Rathlef went over the check list:  There were scars and birthmarks,  "My sister Franzsiska had no scars or birthmarks";  Teeth;  My sister Franziska had a full set of teeth. "  Languages; "My sister Franziska spoke a little polish and good german."  Feet;   "My sister Franziska had no deformities of the feet."  Here Felix took off his shoes and "with sort of a vanity", declared that Franziska has "pretty" feet, "just like mine."  
 
That is in Riddle of Anna Anderson  pgs 173-174....  
 
Michael

 IP Logged



AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on July 31, 2005, 05:53:36 PM
9 July 1938 AA met with Felix and his siblings.

Quote
There are two meetings mentioned in ROAA, and none after 1938.  Checking again Gertrude is definitely NOT at the first meeting, and in the second meeting she is listed as being in the same room with Felix, the police, AA, Valerian, Frau Madsack, Gleb Botkin, Fallows, and Marie Juliana.

Just a clarification regarding some very obvious purposeful errors on the meeting at Wasserburg at the beer gardeon of the inn near Castle Seeon, at which the Duke of Leuchtenberg, Harriet von Rathlef, Dr. Voller,  A.A. & Felix were present.  There is no mention of Gertrude.    This meeting took place on 9 May 1927
(See ROAA by Peter Kurth pgs 173-174)

The second meeting took place in Hannover on July 9, 1938.  At this meeting were: Marie Juliana, Valerian, Felix & Gertrude,  AA,  Fallows, Frau Madsack & Gleb Botkin, at the Police Headquarters, this meeting took place through the orders of the Government, and the manipulation of the new head of the Russian Emigre Office in Berlin.

At this meeting at Police HQ, in a room reserved for convicts and their families, AA, smartly attired in a new wool suit, walked up and down the wall, while the siblings observed her chattering amongst themselves in low German.  Shaking their heads and look "exceedingly doubtful".  Finally Valerian spoke: "No, this lady looks too different.:

And did all the brothers and sister agree?

They did.  Not only did AA not look a thing like Franziska said Felix, but she didn't even look like the same woman he had met near Seeon eleven years before.  Could they go home now?

AA made ready to leave.  The suddenly Gertrude started shouting, banging her fists on the table and turning red in the face,  "You are my sister!" she cried, grabbing AA by the shoulders and shaking her.  "You are my sister, I know it! You must recognize me!"

The police were looking at Anastasia as though she had been caught picking pockets: "Well what have you got to say?"

"What am I supposed to say?" said AA

"How many brothers and sister do you have?"

"Four." she replied

"Well here we are four!" Said Valerian

"This is crazy" said AA

"Where were you born?"

"In Russia."

The answer took everyone by suprise. "In Russia?" Valerian asked, shaking his head, "In RUSSIA?" Now Valerian, Felix and Marie Juliana turned back to Gertrude, this was crazy indeed; you coul tell that the lady was not Franziska.  But  the more the family protested the louder Gertrude got' "Admit it - Admit it",
until AA pale with fury turned and walked from the room.

NO ONE, including Gertude agreed to sign anything that day.

There is no mention that either meeting lasted 7 hours, and that Gertrude was present at the first meeting, and or that they spoke with her alone.  If we are going to start making blanket statements covering facts, lets get them correct or list the source they came from please.

Also the official records of her height & weight are from the police reports & from her medical records at Dalldorf.

This will keep issues & arguments that are unnecessary from happening on this thread.

Neither section on the two meetings mention the amount of time the meeting lasted.  Just from reading the first meeting seems more informal and friendly and could have lasted longer.  


AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 31, 2005, 06:40:50 PM
At today's consultation I spoke repeatedly with Frau Tshaikovsky.  There can be no doubt that she did not have the slightest idea who I was.  You could clearly see that she did no know me.  I went toward her and she gave me her hand and talked to me with perfect unconcern.  She showed no sign either of astonishment or of the slightest fear.  She behaved rather as one behaves towards a third pary to whom one is just being introduced."  

So at least a part of his failure to identify AA as his sister was that she didn't show any sign of recognizing HIM......
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 31, 2005, 06:58:04 PM

Could it be that perhaps she pretended not to recognize him because she didn't want to admit to who she really was? If she was pretending, she certainly wasn't going to run up and admit to being his sister, or welcome him with open arms. I think she was faking to avoid being found out. Or possibly she did have amnesia, but I'm going with my first theory.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 31, 2005, 07:04:35 PM
That was my point, Annie.

MAYBE it wasn't that Felix and the rest of the S family were in on some conspiracy, or weren't willing to assume financial responsibility.  MAYBE the family wasn't nefarious at all.

MAYBE AA simply didn't give them what they needed in order to be able to recognize her.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on July 31, 2005, 07:12:57 PM
Quote
That was my point, Annie.

MAYBE it wasn't that Felix and the rest of the S family were in on some conspiracy, or weren't willing to assume financial responsibility.  MAYBE the family wasn't nefarious at all.

MAYBE AA simply didn't give them what they needed in order to be able to recognize her.



But the difference is, I DO believe they DID recognize her too, but didn't admit it to cover for her, possibly because she asked them to.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Ssyentz on July 31, 2005, 07:33:54 PM
That's an interesting concept, Annie.  Do you think there could be any record of her corresponding with them to  set that up?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on July 31, 2005, 09:35:26 PM
Annie - do you base this belief on any specific facts, or is it just a gut feeling?  (no insult intended, as I think gut feelings are valuable, just curious if there is any evidence to support the idea)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 31, 2005, 10:18:26 PM
Quote
Annie - do you base this belief on any specific facts, or is it just a gut feeling?  (no insult intended, as I think gut feelings are valuable, just curious if there is any evidence to support the idea)


Finelly there is no actual evidence that exists at this time to give us insight to the actual feelings of the Schanzkowska family.   The only one to talk to the press was a niece of Felix's who had to be PAID for her information, which was all subjective.

Evidently according to Penny Wilson, this is a very PRIVATE family who does not enjoy the press or giving interviews.  If they have anything to share they have not done so at this point.  They evidently guard their privacy carefully.

Much of the niece's evidence was subjective from what I remember, sort of conversations she had with Felix, or a letter that she wrote him, but nothing directly from HIM or a SIBLING (Valerian, Marie Juliana, Gertrude) that this was their sister and they were complicit in hiding her identity from the press & public.

The second meeting of the siblings that bear brought to this thread that I detailed from the Kurth book was the last known meeting of the siblings as a group, and one of the purposes of this meeting was to determine if the Schanzkowska siblings were complicit, and they could have been brought up on charges.  The meeting was a FORCED meeting by the Nazi Govt. at the behest of the Russian Emigre office in Berlin who was a close friend of Grand Duke Vladimir.  As of this point no public statement of the siblings had been made to show that this was their sister and that they knew or participated in the cover up if she was.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on July 31, 2005, 10:21:02 PM
Quote
That's an interesting concept, Annie.  Do you think there could be any record of her corresponding with them to  set that up?



As I stated in the previous post part of the purpose of the second meeting was to determine compicity if any by the Schanzkowska siblings, they had to be FORCED to come to the meeting in Hannover.  I am sure if the Third Reich had any evidence whatsoever that AA was corresponding with the Schanzkowska siblings it would have come out at that time.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 01, 2005, 12:15:37 AM
Thanks, Michael.  I knew about those facts.  I was just curious about whether Annie either knew something different or had a different interpretation of the facts.  Sometimes, one person can shed an entirely new light on things we already take for granted.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 01, 2005, 09:44:20 AM
Quote
That's an interesting concept, Annie.  Do you think there could be any record of her corresponding with them to  set that up?


Of course not! When you're discussing private stuff like that you don't exactly have a stenographer sitting there! That is the problem with this whole case, if some people are going to demand hard written evidence of everything, it's never going to end, because in many situations it does not and never will exist. We have to put two and two together and use common sense to figure out what most likely happened. Or keep guessing. In all the questions I listed I want answers to, there isn't going to be a record of it, because it's stuff that you don't want spread around. When you gossip with your friends, do you leave a paper trail?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 01, 2005, 09:52:34 AM
Quote
Annie - do you base this belief on any specific facts, or is it just a gut feeling?  (no insult intended, as I think gut feelings are valuable, just curious if there is any evidence to support the idea)



My facts that ultimately back me up are the proven scientific fact that AA was 100% not AN and 99.9% proven to be FS. Because of this, I know that someone had to have lied, either her, or the family, or both. She WAS their sister, so SOMETHING had to go on to make them deny it after they recognized her at first.

You have to consider, she didn't want to be exposed, so of course she's going to pretend not to know them. They said it was her at first, but finally started coming up with reasons to avoid it without looking like liars after they decided not to claim her. There were statements made later, but it does me no good to quote them until I can find the official documentation because no one will believe me. I know I have found most of it posted right here, in these long threads.

So basically, I know how it ends- she's not Anastasia. She was their sister. For the rest, I put two and two together as to what likely happened. What really happened, we will never have proof, one way or the other, because it's not the kind of thing you sit there and record and store as a document. When you discuss private stuff with your family, you don't run a tape recorderer or have a stenographer sitting there, right? So I just figured it out. That's the most logical and reasonable explaination. It actually made me go 'OOOOOHHHH!!' after years of wondering and believing in AA.

To me the only other option is what Olga said in my signature here.:(
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 01, 2005, 10:14:49 AM
Quote

Of course not! When you're discussing private stuff like that you don't exactly have a stenographer sitting there! That is the problem with this whole case, if some people are going to demand hard written evidence of everything, it's never going to end, because in many situations it does not and never will exist. We have to put two and two together and use common sense to figure out what most likely happened. Or keep guessing. In all the questions I listed I want answers to, there isn't going to be a record of it, because it's stuff that you don't want spread around. When you gossip with your friends, do you leave a paper trail?


That's funny one of the first things ANY genealogy manual or book states is to take notes or have a tape recorder present during interviews of older relatives, that is what I did, and we discussed MANY subjects.
I have often referred back to those notes and interviews during my subsequent research.

In fact on a hot august day in 1984 I have a discussion on tape with my great great aunt, regarding her father in law (my great great grandfather), in which we discuss the fact his mother lived out of wedlock with a man, had a son by him, years later that man and the son were both murdered.   So yes, people DO discuss this type of material with researchers.  Otherwise there would be no books written about this case we are discussing.

If you list questions for which you know there is no recorded answer, or reasonable answer or solution, then isn't that defeating the purpose of any discussion, to find those answers?

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 01, 2005, 10:25:34 AM
Quote


My facts that ultimately back me up are the proven scientific fact that AA was 100% not AN and 99.9% proven to be FS. Because of this, I know that someone had to have lied, either her, or the family, or both. She WAS their sister, so SOMETHING had to go on to make them deny it after they recognized her at first.

You have to consider, she didn't want to be exposed, so of course she's going to pretend not to know them. They said it was her at first, but finally started coming up with reasons to avoid it without looking like liars after they decided not to claim her. There were statements made later, but it does me no good to quote them until I can find the official documentation because no one will believe me. I know I have found most of it posted right here, in these long threads.

So basically, I know how it ends- she's not Anastasia. She was their sister. For the rest, I put two and two together as to what likely happened. What really happened, we will never have proof, one way or the other, because it's not the kind of thing you sit there and record and store as a document. When you discuss private stuff with your family, you don't run a tape recorderer or have a stenographer sitting there, right? So I just figured it out. That's the most logical and reasonable explaination. It actually made me go 'OOOOOHHHH!!' after years of wondering and believing in AA.

To me the only other option is what Olga said in my signature here.:(



Annie, again I am not attacking you or sniping, or antagonizing you.  

First when you state that "they recognized her at first", at the end of the first paragraph.  Let's be clear again, and if you want a discussion it is pefectly reasonable for those involved in the discussion, to ask you to keep the facts straight.  "They" (referring to the Schanzkowska siblings) NEVER recognized her at first.  Only Felix was at the first meeting.   He at first indicated he thought it was his sister, but at the end of the meeting decided it wasn't.

The was the second and LAST meeting or contact AA had with the Schanzkowska siblings was in 1938 at the forced meeting by the Hitler govt. at Hannover, held in the police station, at which "they" did NOT recognize her.  Gertrude's outbursts had her siblings staring at her as none of them recognized her, and in fact Felix didn't think she looked like the woman he met at Wasserburg in 1927.

When you find actual documentation of any later statements, not just a magazine article, or a newspaper article, but actual documentation of statements made by Felix, Marie Juliana, Gertrude or Valerian stating this was their sister  (not second hand information from a niece who got paid for it either), then I will be happy to apologize to you and admit you were right & I was wrong.

Perhaps Mr. Schweitzer was right in encouraging us to do more research on our own.  I know it is frustrating but perhaps as a group we could go together and see what we can find.  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 01, 2005, 10:59:07 AM
Annie's Quote:
>>"My telling the truth does not help in the least, because the public simply wants to believe the mystery."
-- Olga Alexandrovna on claimants.<<

As I finished your quote,  the immediate image which poped in my head was the little old woman with a hat turning to the camera and saying:  "How can I tell you who I am?"  It was Anna Anderson responding to a question during an interview.

So, which of the two, Olga or Anna Anderson were telling us the truth in what they have said?

Olga?  Anna? Neither?  Or both?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: etonexile on August 01, 2005, 11:13:00 AM
...both....
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 01, 2005, 11:15:06 AM
Quote
Annie's Quote:
>>"My telling the truth does not help in the least, because the public simply wants to believe the mystery."
-- Olga Alexandrovna on claimants.<<

As I finished your quote,  the immediate image which poped in my head was the little old woman with a hat turning to the camera and saying:  "How can I tell you who I am?"  It was Anna Anderson responding to a question during an interview.

So, which of the two, Olga or Anna Anderson were telling us the truth in what they have said?

Olga?  Anna? Neither?  Or both?

AGRBear


(sigh) Well, we know Anna Anderson  wasn't Anastasia... ::)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: pentetorri on August 01, 2005, 11:28:17 AM
We cannot say in all truth Anna Anderson was not Anastasia, with 100% certainty. The samples used  for the DNA test would not be used in a court of law, at least in the States. So, how can we pass judgement on a person' life and identity. She knew too much in an era where media and information of the Romanov were NOT so spread to the minute detail as it is today. On top of that you add the anatomical similarities and the acknowledgement of some people that knew Anastasia. Besides, no remains of Anastasia found
At the very least I would leave a big interrogation mark on AA life and identity
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Forum Admin on August 01, 2005, 11:31:58 AM
Actually, the AA samples and testing would be admissible in a court of law. Dr. Melton who did some of them is in fact recognized by the US Courts as a specific expert on mtDNA and DNA testing.  Dr. Melton herself has stated that AA was not AN, 100%.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: pentetorri on August 01, 2005, 11:40:24 AM
I disagree the expert can be recognized by US courts but it does not mean that the sample has any value to a US Court. Any lawyer could make those samples unacceptable before a US court proving that they came from a facility after AA death and not taken directly from her at the time of the test.

Many things could happen to a sample stored in a Hospital long after the death of AA.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 01, 2005, 11:45:02 AM
Quote
I disagree the expert can be recognized by US courts but it does not mean that the sample has any value to a US Court. Any lawyer could make those samples unacceptable before a US court proving that they came from a facility after AA death and not taken directly from her at the time of the test.

Many things could happen to a sample stored in a Hospital long after the death of AA.


Interesting point, are there any precedents to back up your argument?  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 01, 2005, 11:52:56 AM
Quote

(sigh) Well, we know Anna Anderson  wasn't Anastasia... ::)


Yes, you do believe Anna Anderson wasn't Anastasia, however, you were directing your answer to my question which was about what Anna and Olga said,  so,  I'm not sure I understand your answer.  Sorry.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 01, 2005, 12:01:48 PM
The finding, testing and DNA results if the intestines is a very explosive subject for many posters here on this forum.  So, please,  answer pentetorri's post without the usual high emotions.  

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: pentetorri on August 01, 2005, 12:04:16 PM
Quote

Interesting point, are there any precedents to back up your argument?  


There are many cases across the States were proof was not admissible because it was contaminated, or the source or the environment was not reliable. I will give you an example, not that good but illuminating enough, with the OJ Simpson where much of the evidence from the crime scene was not used because the lawyers proved that it was contaminated either by the officers or the lab.

I am not saying that AA was Anastasia, but her life seen as a whole gives a reasonable doubt that she could be Anastasia.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 01, 2005, 12:08:24 PM
Quote

There are many cases across the States were proof was not admissible because it was contaminated, or the source or the environment was not reliable. I will give you an example, not that good but illuminating enough, with the OJ Simpson where much of the evidence from the crime scene was not used because the lawyers proved that it was contaminated either by the officers or the lab.

I am not saying that AA was Anastasia, but her life seen as a whole give a reasonable doubt that she could be Anastasia.



Excellent points Pentetorri, and I should have thought of this example, I just couldn't remember any recent ones.   You are right.   The protocol that the hospital used would have to be extremely rigid and documented if someone wanted to contest the validity of the sample.
I know there are other examples of this.

Again for those who will "freak out" thinking this is some sort of plan to say AA is AN, it is not.  It is just discussion of a legal issue.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: pentetorri on August 01, 2005, 12:20:34 PM
Thank you Michael G. It is my philosophy in life not to accept anything as the ultimate truth.  Where people are involved there is always a margin for error, and certainly, I would not dare to use a sample with so many possibilities of contamination as the definite proof of any person's identity, being AA or John Smith.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 01, 2005, 12:24:54 PM
Interesting comments on the dna, but let me remind everyone that the PREMIS OF THIS PARTICULAR THREAD is that AA was not AN and that AA was, in fact, FS.  So we are working under that assumption, for the sake of this thread.

I need to see again that description of the first meeting with Felix and AA as to how long they talked privately.  I do not think it was for very long, and I think people were watching them.  If it was a 15 minute chat, then I am very very doubtful that Felix actually recognized her and that she convinced him to shut up.  The body language in that conversation would have been extremely indicative of an argument or at least someone trying to get someone else to do or say something.

I think I'm going to stick with my initial assumption that Felix actually did not recognize AA, not because she wasn't actually his sister, but because she had undergone too many physical changes and refused to recognize HIM.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 01, 2005, 12:30:53 PM
Quote
Interesting comments on the dna, but let me remind everyone that the PREMIS OF THIS PARTICULAR THREAD is that AA was not AN and that AA was, in fact, FS.  So we are working under that assumption, for the sake of this thread.

I need to see again that description of the first meeting with Felix and AA as to how long they talked privately.  I do not think it was for very long, and I think people were watching them.  If it was a 15 minute chat, then I am very very doubtful that Felix actually recognized her and that she convinced him to shut up.  The body language in that conversation would have been extremely indicative of an argument or at least someone trying to get someone else to do or say something.

I think I'm going to stick with my initial assumption that Felix actually did not recognize AA, not because she wasn't actually his sister, but because she had undergone too many physical changes and refused to recognize HIM.



Finelly, the Kurth book gives no detail as to the amount of time each meeting took.  That is one of the problems I have because I also wonder how much time they spent talking.

Perhaps we should ask Penny if she has any indication in her research material the length of time the first meeting took, and the time of Felix's conversation with AA.  I don't think there was ever a 6 hour meeting or conversation between Felix & AA.  I don't think that
Dr. Voeller, the Duke Of Leuchtenberg & Von Rathlef would have left them alone that long of a period of time.

What you say is very very possible.  That he did not recognize AA and she refused to recognize him.

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: pentetorri on August 01, 2005, 12:38:38 PM
Quote
Interesting comments on the dna, but let me remind everyone that the PREMIS OF THIS PARTICULAR THREAD is that AA was not AN and that AA was, in fact, FS.  So we are working under that assumption, for the sake of this thread.

I need to see again that description of the first meeting with Felix and AA as to how long they talked privately.  I do not think it was for very long, and I think people were watching them.  If it was a 15 minute chat, then I am very very doubtful that Felix actually recognized her and that she convinced him to shut up.  The body language in that conversation would have been extremely indicative of an argument or at least someone trying to get someone else to do or say something.

I think I'm going to stick with my initial assumption that Felix actually did not recognize AA, not because she wasn't actually his sister, but because she had undergone too many physical changes and refused to recognize HIM.


If a have to recognize my sister no matter how many changes, and in AA we are talking minor changes remember no LA plastic surgeons at that time, I would only need a minute. When people die in tragic accidents where people are hardly recognizable the next of kin are called, and most of the time they recognize their relatives for small details. Who does not remember a brother, a sister, a parent for the way they talk, laugh, smile, look at you. Come on, it is common sense.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 01, 2005, 12:42:12 PM
True, true.

HOWEVER.......one of the things Felix reported was that she did not recognize HIM, and that statement was made in his description of why he thought she wasn't FS.

Imagine if you met up with an old friend who did NOT speak the same, did NOT give the same laugh, and had a different body language.  Plus who had lost about 50 lbs and a bunch of teeth.  

SO much of our ability to recognize old friends is based on their recognition of us, that connection we make when we meet their eyes, the shared memories that are hinted at just in a smile or a laugh.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: pentetorri on August 01, 2005, 12:54:57 PM
Quote
True, true.

HOWEVER.......one of the things Felix reported was that she did not recognize HIM, and that statement was made in his description of why he thought she wasn't FS.

Imagine if you met up with an old friend who did NOT speak the same, did NOT give the same laugh, and had a different body language.  Plus who had lost about 50 lbs and a bunch of teeth.  

SO much of our ability to recognize old friends is based on their recognition of us, that connection we make when we meet their eyes, the shared memories that are hinted at just in a smile or a laugh.


Well, this Felix was really a piece of work: She is not my sister because she did not recognize me!!!!!!! What kind of statement is that. You have a line up of people and you need to id a thief that stole from you, and you see him but say he is not the thief because he THE THIEF did not recognize me.

An old friend is very much different to a sibling with whom you share not only your earliest memories but genes. Blood is much thicker.
But returning to the friend see Rock Hudson before and after AIDS pictures and you know is Rock Hudson, and it is just a picture. The same with actors in different body language and weight, and make -up in different movies, no matter what, you know is Sofia Loren or Brad Pitt.  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 01, 2005, 12:59:06 PM
Well.......

what if you had been told (and seen news coverage of) that Rock Hudson had been killed several years earlier by a guy named Grossman, who killed famous actors and sold their flesh on the street as meat?

Then, when you saw Rock ravaged by AIDS, would you still have said "oh, there's Rock", or would you have said "wow, that guy is a dead ringer for Rock, only thinner"?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 01, 2005, 01:00:46 PM
PS everyone -

Notice how Pentetorri and I have different opinions and are arguing about it?  Notice how he/she hasn't called me stupid or maligned my intelligence in any way?  

This is the way to have a dialogue with differing ideas and conclusions.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: pentetorri on August 01, 2005, 01:08:48 PM
Quote
Well.......

what if you had been told (and seen news coverage of) that Rock Hudson had been killed several years earlier by a guy named Grossman, who killed famous actors and sold their flesh on the street as meat?

Then, when you saw Rock ravaged by AIDS, would you still have said "oh, there's Rock", or would you have said "wow, that guy is a dead ringer for Rock, only thinner"?


You make a point there. But, in this case Felix was supposed to id her sister Franziska not Anastasia. And , only when you have a body fully id you have a certainty the person is dead. Returning to Hudson, if his body had been found I would say he is a dead ringer if not I would say that is Rock Hudson and he did not die as people said.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 01, 2005, 01:11:54 PM
Good point, although back then they didn't have dna evidence, and if Rock's body had been turned into hamburger meat and sold on the street, there wouldn't have been much to identify.

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: pentetorri on August 01, 2005, 01:20:57 PM
Quote
Good point, although back then they didn't have dna evidence, and if Rock's body had been turned into hamburger meat and sold on the street, there wouldn't have been much to identify.



Precisely, no body then there is always the chance that the person survived. So. if years later you see a dead ringer you could assume is that person.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 01, 2005, 01:27:32 PM
Since I just attended my 40th High School Reunion,  I can tell you that if a person has gained 200 pounds or has lost too much weight due to suffering from cancer, or has lost his or her hair or been in an accident which changed their face AND has forgotten whom I am,  it didn't stop me from reconizing my old friends.  And, these last five to ten years is when my classmates have changed the most.
 
I especially took notice this time since this has been entering our posts so often this last year.
 
I may not have instantly reconized those who were at the union for the first time,  but it took less than two minutes to usually have pulled in enough information to realize who they were.
 
What did I first pull in as information?  The brain is a wonderful tool so with each person the gathering of information was different because it depended upon how similar they were to what they looked like the last time I had seen them.  If it was not a quick reconition  then, of course,  with each person this reconition had to stretched toward  all kinds of things which allowed me to  realize who the person was.  For example: One gal who arrived from behind me  just had to say a few words and so it was her voice which I connected and  I knew instantly who she was....
 
The flury of information was on warp drive and it was amazing all the data that rushed through my brain with so many people.
 
I was fortunate as a kid to have grown up in a small town with a graduating class  which was small enough that I knew 85%.   I'm not sure the percentage of those I've known before eight grade but it is high.  The reason I mention this is because the longer I've known a classmate the quicker it was to reconize them with acceptions, of course.
 
My brain is still working on the reconition even, now,  though it is no longer necessary since I probably will not see any of these people, for the next five years or more.
 
I  am, now,  even more convinced that if Felix didn't see his sister FS for five years or more that he should have reconized her, if it's true that they were close.
 
Finelly,  I'm sure you'd know your daughter even if her looks had been altered.
 
This post is not about Felix admiting or not admiting anything, I just thought I'd  share my personal experience while it is still fresh in my mind.
 
And, I proabably should  say that if is true, everyone's memory is different.  
 
AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: lexi4 on August 01, 2005, 01:36:18 PM
I have been out of town and missed quite a lot.
As to the identity thing, here is my experience. I have an older half brother. Long story short, I did not see him from the time I was about 4 until I was 16. Over the years, I kind of forgot about him. He wasn't part of my life so out of sight out of mind. I don't  have any idea when I first remembered when he existed,and I don't remember not being aware of his existance....but the first time I saw him again I was 16 and we  were at our grandfather's funeral. Had my Aunt not told me who he was and taken me over to see him, he would have been just another nameless face. Once she told me, I knew. I started remembering things. There is proably know way he would have recognized me. I was afterall, around four when he last saw me. So although it sounds romantic to say you would recognize a sibling no matter what, I have my doubts.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: pentetorri on August 01, 2005, 01:40:56 PM
Quote
Since I just attended my 40th High School Reunion,  I can tell you that if a person has gained 200 pounds or has lost too much weight due to suffering from cancer, or has lost his or her hair or been in an accident which changed their face AND has forgotten whom I am,  it didn't stop me from reconizing my old friends.  And, these last five to ten years is when my classmates have changed the most.
 
I especially took notice this time since this has been entering our posts so often this last year.
 
I may not have instantly reconized those who were at the union for the first time,  but it took less than two minutes to usually have pulled in enough information to realize who they were.
 
What did I first pull in as information?  The brain is a wonderful tool so with each person the gathering of information was different because it depended upon how similar they were to what they looked like the last time I had seen them.  If it was not a quick reconition  then, of course,  with each person this reconition had to stretched toward  all kinds of things which allowed me to  realize who the person was.  For example: One gal who arrived from behind me  just had to say a few words and so it was her voice which I connected and  I knew instantly who she was....
 
The flury of information was on warp drive and it was amazing all the data that rushed through my brain with so many people.
 
I was fortunate as a kid to have grown up in a small town with a graduating class  which was small enough that I knew 85%.   I'm not sure the percentage of those I've known before eight grade but it is high.  The reason I mention this is because the longer I've known a classmate the quicker it was to reconize them with acceptions, of course.
 
My brain is still working on the reconition even, now,  though it is no longer necessary since I probably will not see any of these people, for the next five years or more.
 
I  am, now,  even more convinced that if Felix didn't see his sister FS for five years or more that he should have reconized her, if it's true that they were close.
 
Finelly,  I'm sure you'd know your daughter even if her looks had been altered.
 
This post is not about Felix admiting or not admiting anything, I just thought I'd  share my personal experience while it is still fresh in my mind.
 
And, I proabably should  say that if is true, everyone's memory is different.  
 
AGRBear


That's an excellent example that illustrates that in this case nothing is definite and we should keep a very open mind. Of course, for us it is just a matter of historical interest but for AA was a life issue so we must respect that and be very careful when examining the facts. The best method is to apply it to one's life as you just did and we get a whole different view of the situation.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: pentetorri on August 01, 2005, 01:49:35 PM
Quote
I have been out of town and missed quite a lot.
As to the identity thing, here is my experience. I have an older half brother. Long story short, I did not see him from the time I was about 4 until I was 16. Over the years, I kind of forgot about him. He wasn't part of my life so out of sight out of mind. I don't  have any idea when I first remembered when he existed,and I don't remember not being aware of his existance....but the first time I saw him again I was 16 and we  were at our grandfather's funeral. Had my Aunt not told me who he was and taken me over to see him, he would have been just another nameless face. Once she told me, I knew. I started remembering things. There is proably know way he would have recognized me. I was afterall, around four when he last saw me. So although it sounds romantic to say you would recognize a sibling no matter what, I have my doubts.


Sorry but I think your experience does not apply to this case. You were four when you last saw your sibling, these people were supposed to have grown together. The situation, a funeral, is totally different to the encounter of Felix and AA where he knew he was supposedly meeting her sister. Once you were told he was your brother you started remebering eventhough you were 4 at the time of the memories. Imagine a grown adult knowing he has to id a sister he knew since childhood, with a lot of memories .
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 01, 2005, 02:08:53 PM
Quote

You make a point there. But, in this case Felix was supposed to id her sister Franziska not Anastasia. And , only when you have a body fully id you have a certainty the person is dead. Returning to Hudson, if his body had been found I would say he is a dead ringer if not I would say that is Rock Hudson and he did not die as people said.


I personally think Felix did NOT recognize her, when he was asked to come to the 1927 meeting, the family had already gotten accustomed to the idea that FS had been made into hamburger by Grossman, he & FS were very close it seems from what has been written and said, I think if recognized her he would have signed an affadavit saying so.  I don't think or feel there was an attempt by the family to collude or conceal with her, nor any attempt by them in complicity in this matter.


Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 01, 2005, 02:48:35 PM
Since Greg King rarely posts anymore,  I stumbled over his post while looking for the Schankowsky letter by a niece talking about AA.  So,  I thought I'd bring it back to our attention because he talks about old evidence being exchanged for new and .... Well, you read it and get from it what you will.

Original is in a locked thread called "So Who Was She Then" post #60:

Jeremy-
 
I'm not quite sure why anyone would care what my opinion is on the issue one way or the other, nor can I really see what it has to do with anything.  In these various threads, I have tried only to correct mis-statements, opinion masquerading as fact, and factual errors as related to the issue of AA.  That said, I am not sure what difference of opinion you refer to.  But, for the record, my position is this: As I have posted elsewhere here, two-thirds of the DNA case against AA being Anastasia has now been shown to be either unreliable or less than compelling.  One plank remains-the mtDNA exclusion between the putative AA sample and the putative mtDNA Hessian profile.  As long as this remains unchallenged, history's verdict is that AA was not Anastasia, and I accept that verdict.  But I also try to keep an open mind, especially important in this case.  With the STR testing on the putative AA sample shown to be unreliable, and the fact that mtDNA is much less exclusive than believed 10 years ago, I would not be willing to bet my life that another 10-20 years of similar changes and advances in the still evolving science of DNA may not likewise bring serious challenges to this.  Simple logic dictates that if, in 10 years, the science has evolved to the point of discarding one third of the DNA case against AA, and to understanding that another third is less exclusive than was believed, it would probably be unwise to believe that nothing else involved in the process may change.  This latter point is perhaps best expressed by using the original 1994 FSS calculations of probability that AA was FS: 300 to 1 (i.e., the odds of a random match between the putative AA mtDNA profile and the Karl Maucher mtDNA profile was 1 person in 300).  After ten years of evolution in the science, and the increase in databases, however, we know now that that figure would actually be 100 to 4-much wider odds-as mtDNA is known to be far less exclusive than believed 10 years ago.  This is the gist of what Helen posted in another thread about mtDNA's inability to positively identify anyone.
 
That is not to say, again, that I do not accept the Hessian mtDNA exclusion, nor do I believe in or promote any conspiracy theory.  In this case, I just believe it is best to be cautious; history teaches that answers unravel slowly, and what may be believed to be the truth for decades can later be shown up as false (a perfect example is the belief, for 70 years, that the bodies of the Imperial Family were chopped up and dissolved in acid and that nothing remained to be found.  This was gospel, and yet we now know it to have been an erroneous assumption).  I'm far less interested in the whole "Was AA Anastasia" question than I am in exploring the life of Franziska Schanzkowska; all of the research Penny and myself, as well as several others, have undertaken in this arena have revealed such a wealth of information and contradictions that I can say my position is that AA was almost certainly not FS.  And it is this question-who was AA really-that I think is far more interesting than simply re-hashing the AA/Anastasia case.
 
Greg King

IP Logged

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1098820478;start=50#50

PS:  I must say, I really miss Greg and Penny's knowledge into all of this "stuff".

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 01, 2005, 04:50:56 PM
Quote
Since I just attended my 40th High School Reunion,  I can tell you that if a person has gained 200 pounds or has lost too much weight due to suffering from cancer, or has lost his or her hair or been in an accident which changed their face AND has forgotten whom I am,  it didn't stop me from reconizing my old friends.  And, these last five to ten years is when my classmates have changed the most.
 
 
AGRBear


It is now time for my 25th reunion, and I agree, I have recognized classmates I hadn't seen since our teen years no matter how much they changed. One guy who used to have bushy red hair and freckles is now totally bald and bearded, another girl I knew as a skinny brunette is now an overweight blonde, but it's STILL THEM.

However, sometimes people don't WANT to be recognized. For example, I once ran into a snooty girl I knew in school in a store when I was looking far from my best. When she approached me and asked me if it was me, I said no.

My belief is AA didn't admit to knowing her siblings because she did not want to be exposed and stop being "Anastasia." She could possibly have had amnesia, but I personally feel it was intentional that she avoided them.

I also believe the family DID recognize her, but after they found out she didn't want to be exposed, or just plain did not want to deal with the baggage and expense admitting to her would bring, they did themselves, and her, a favor by getting out of it in the most  graceful and believeable of ways.

Some very strange things must have happened, for to this day the Schanskowska family does not want to discuss it. If she really was no kin to them, why would they even care?

Again, it's all common sense, and being able to give up on the fun of the 'mystery.'
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 01, 2005, 04:59:06 PM
Quote

That's funny one of the first things ANY genealogy manual or book states is to take notes or have a tape recorder present during interviews of older relatives, that is what I did, and we discussed MANY subjects.
I have often referred back to those notes and interviews during my subsequent research.





Hold on. There is a huge difference between this and what I said. OF COURSE you are going to take notes when asking old relatives questions. I do genealogy too you know (though I have been stymied by some who want old secrets to stay buried with the dead)

What I'm talking about is gossipy, sneaky, conniving stuff you don't want anyone to know, you aren't going to keep a record of that, and hope nobody hears it! If she and her siblings were coming up with a way to lie out of her identity, they're hardly going to invite the press in to take notes.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 01, 2005, 05:07:17 PM
Quote
Many things could happen to a sample stored in a Hospital long after the death of AA.



This has been discussed many times. No it couldn't. This was Martha Jefferson hospital, and unlike UVA med center which was found to have had an accidental baby switch a few years back, has an INFALLIBLE record of accuracy. First, there are no names on the samples, only code numbers, and these correspond to a name in the records accessed only by a few people. No one can just walk in off the street and switch things, they wouldn't even know what was what. And there is security! So unless you are among those who believe Queen Elizabeth paid for the switch, that's out of the question.

Also, consider that it was the Schweitzers who requested the sample, not some evil anti-AA person. They honestly wanted to know and believed they'd get a positive answer.

And last of all, even IF it was switched, with WHO? Someone would have had to find a member of the Schanskowska family, cut them open and remove exactly the same portion of intestine AA had removed, and sneak it in! That's even less realistic than an invasion from Mars, come on.

And on OJ's DNA evidence being tampered with, the jury did believe it, but that does not mean it was true. The jurors were mostly from neighborhoods that distrusted the LAPD due to the 92 riots and were much more likely than anyone else to accept the tampering theory which was never really proven, only used as a defense.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 01, 2005, 05:13:42 PM
Just started a new thread about AA's intestines specimens and questions that may surround them.

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1122930143

I think number 5. is interesting.

5. Who was behind the whole lawsuit thing, and why?

So let's  talked about good old uncle Ernie of Hesse?  Why would he fight AA tooth and nail and why didn't  he ever even attempted to meet her ???
AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 01, 2005, 05:37:47 PM
Quote

Hold on. There is a huge difference between this and what I said. OF COURSE you are going to take notes when asking old relatives questions. I do genealogy too you know (though I have been stymied by some who want old secrets to stay buried with the dead)

What I'm talking about is gossipy, sneaky, conniving stuff you don't want anyone to know, you aren't going to keep a record of that, and hope nobody hears it! If she and her siblings were coming up with a way to lie out of her identity, they're hardly going to invite the press in to take notes.


Annie, read the second part of my post, instead of cherrypicking at what fits your point of view:

In fact on a hot august day in 1984 I have a discussion on tape with my great great aunt, regarding her father in law (my great great grandfather), in which we discuss the fact his mother lived out of wedlock with a man, had a son by him, years later that man and the son were both murdered.   So yes, people DO discuss this type of material with researchers.  Otherwise there would be no books written about this case we are discussing.

I am sorry Annie, I totally disagree with this part of your asessment or argument.  Many, many, many people talk to reporters, columnists, and relatives doing research in family history.  I can honestly say that if they were complicit, one of them would have talked.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 01, 2005, 05:52:34 PM
Quote
Just started a new thread about AA's intestines specimens and questions that may surround them.

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1122930143

I think number 5. is interesting.

5. Who was behind the whole lawsuit thing, and why?

So let's  talked about good old uncle Ernie of Hesse?  Why would he fight AA tooth and nail and why didn't  he ever even attempted to meet her ???
AGRBear



The last point seems very interesting to me. I always wondered about it. Why didn't he meet AA? How could you recognize someone if you doesn't see him or her? A really good point. Other thing that always bothered me it's that the Romanovs fight so hard against this woman. If she was not AN, they mustn't have bothered even to pay any atention to her. Other claimants where easily dismissed. And there were no trials . The more "serious" pretender I even know besides AA was Eugenia Smith, who was a "Life's" "made up Grand Duchess". And she never undertakes any trial to prove her identity, for she was never recognized for anybody...except the other "made up Tsarevitch" Michel Goleniewsky". But any other pretender than AA have a supporter circle. Why?

We may discuss -even if I know you will not answer my post  ;) - the "dear uncle Ernie's" issue. Thank you, Bear. You always make excellent points. We are "pushed" to think, and to forget our prejudices because your very interesting posts. Go ahead, girlie!  

To Pentetorri: I agree with you about the "recognition" thing. We had a case, here in Argentina, of a crazy woman who was in the "Moyano" psychiatric institut and people didn't know who she was. They fixed her photo in newspapers and magazines and all, and her family surfaced. The woman was missing ten years from her home. Of course, when her family appeared they recognized her in no time (all of them). The woman didn't recognize them, for she was plainly crazy, but it was no doubt, it was her. They couldn't bring her to home for her mental problems were too deep to do so. But they recognize her even when they saw her, even by far distance. I would recognize my brother (I have no sister) anywere, after no matter what amount of time...
And for the corpses recognition I would share this little info with you: you may even recognize a corpse after years of being buried for the simple shape of her/his skull. A friend of mine must bring her mother and aunt to another cemetery and he must recognize them to do it: they opened the coffins and he recognize at first glance who her mother was, and who her aunt was.  

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 01, 2005, 06:07:55 PM
Quote

 

So let's  talked about good old uncle Ernie of Hesse?  Why would he fight AA tooth and nail and why didn't  he ever even attempted to meet her ???
AGRBear


He could probably tell from a photo alone it wasn't her. He was close to the family and surely had lots of photos too (they were a camera bug family) I could tell you straight up if a photo was my niece or not. He was hurt by the deaths of his sisters, nieces and nephew and did not want to dignify any claimant with a response.

A big thing that hasn't been brought up is that she looked too old. AN would have only been 181/2 at the time AA was discovered, this woman looked clearly older. FS was 5 whole years older than AN, and having been sick and injured aged her even more than that.

Another interesting thing that hasn't come up lately is that AA never originally claimed to be a GD until a fellow patient told her she looked like Tatiana- she does look more like Tatiana than Anastasia! She only changed GD
's once someone visited (I think Sophie B.)and proclaimed her too short for Tatiana! When I heard that, it was just another nail in the coffin of my former naive belief in AA.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Forum Admin on August 01, 2005, 06:15:43 PM
I spoke earlier today (on an unrelated matter) with the head of a large and well respected DNA lab, that does DNA sequencing.  The man, a well respected biologist in the field, was kind enough to answer some questions about the AA testing for me.  Basically, he said this: The testing done on the AA samples is 100% accurate. Nothing today is at all different than then. The only difference is the work is done by special machine, instead of by hand. (This dittos what Dr. Melton said). There is virtually no possiblility that the AA sample was "contaminated". We then discussed the theories put forward about contamination, switching samples, conspiracy etc. He laughed. He said "You can never prove to someone something that never happened. These people want to believe it so they ignore everything else.  The statistical probablilty that anything like that happened is so small that it amounts to zero. These people just really don't understand how the samples are stored, handled or tested..." small pause..."You know, I believe that in England there still is a Flat Earth society that rejects the notion that the earth is round."

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 01, 2005, 06:18:23 PM
Quote

He could probably tell from a photo alone it wasn't her. He was close to the family and surely had lots of photos too (they were a camera bug family) I could tell you straight up if a photo was my niece or not. He was hurt by the deaths of his sisters, nieces and nephew and did not want to dignify any claimant with a response.

A big thing that hasn't been brought up is that she looked too old. AN would have only been 181/2 at the time AA was discovered, this woman looked clearly older. FS was 5 whole years older than AN, and having been sick and injured aged her even more than that.

Another interesting thing that hasn't come up lately is that AA never originally claimed to be a GD until a fellow patient told her she looked like Tatiana- she does look more like Tatiana than Anastasia! She only changed GD
's once someone visited (I think Sophie B.)and proclaimed her too short for Tatiana! When I heard that, it was just another nail in the coffin of my former naive belief in AA.


Jumping gee-hoe-so-fat,  Annie, I don't think AA ever said she was GD Tatiana.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 01, 2005, 06:21:06 PM
Quote
I spoke earlier today (on an unrelated matter) with the head of a large and well respected DNA lab, that does DNA sequencing.  The man, a well respected biologist in the field, was kind enough to answer some questions about the AA testing for me.  Basically, he said this: The testing done on the AA samples is 100% accurate. Nothing today is at all different than then. The only difference is the work is done by special machine, instead of by hand. (This dittos what Dr. Melton said). There is virtually no possiblility that the AA sample was "contaminated". We then discussed the theories put forward about contamination, switching samples, conspiracy etc. He laughed. He said "You can never prove to someone something that never happened. These people want to believe it so they ignore everything else.  The statistical probablilty that anything like that happened is so small that it amounts to zero. These people just really don't understand how the samples are stored, handled or tested..." small pause..."You know, I believe that in England there still is a Flat Earth society that rejects the notion that the earth is round."




So, some people still believe there is a "Flat Earth Society".  What has that have to do ......

[big sigh]

Never mind.  Let's take this subject over to the new thread!!!!

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 01, 2005, 06:22:37 PM
Quote


This has been discussed many times. No it couldn't. This was Martha Jefferson hospital, and unlike UVA med center which was found to have had an accidental baby switch a few years back, has an INFALLIBLE record of accuracy. First, there are no names on the samples, only code numbers, and these correspond to a name in the records accessed only by a few people. No one can just walk in off the street and switch things, they wouldn't even know what was what. And there is security! So unless you are among those who believe Queen Elizabeth paid for the switch, that's out of the question.


Are you saying there is no possibility of human error???
With a hospital, no matter how highly regarded it is,
there is every chance for error, and a mistake in the protocols, etc.

Quote
Also, consider that it was the Schweitzers who requested the sample, not some evil anti-AA person. They honestly wanted to know and believed they'd get a positive answer.  


Evil anti-AA person??? Oh come now Annie, not a person here has said they are anti-AA.  We are just interested in investigating all areas of this mystery.
While the Schweitzer's might not have gotten the answer they want out of the test, they however deserve answers about the reliablity & accuracy & probability of that test.  

Quote
And last of all, even IF it was switched, with WHO? Someone would have had to find a member of the Schanskowska family, cut them open and remove exactly the same portion of intestine AA had removed, and sneak it in! That's even less realistic than an invasion from Mars, come on.


I can recall no one saying it was actually switched, Pentetorri brought up a possiblity that it could actually be excluded as evidence in a US Court of Law.

Quote
And on OJ's DNA evidence being tampered with, the jury did believe it, but that does not mean it was true. The jurors were mostly from neighborhoods that distrusted the LAPD due to the 92 riots and were much more likely than anyone else to accept the tampering theory which was never really proven, only used as a defense.


Let me state that while he "may" have not been innocent of the crimes committed, the LAPD were no better than criminals themselves by contaminating and possibly manufacturing evidence.  If they stoop to this level then they are no better than the criminals they are trying to convict.   They also have STRICT protocols in how evidence was to be gathered, stored, preserved, and documented, they didn't follow the guidelines, which was why the evidence was suspect.

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 01, 2005, 06:45:36 PM
Quote

Are you saying there is no possibility of human error???
With a hospital, no matter how highly regarded it is,
there is every chance for error, and a mistake in the protocols, etc.


How can you explain that the tissue not only didn't match the Hessian line, but that it DID match the Schanskowskas? If it just plain DIDN'T match the Hesse line, I might still be holding out hope myself. But the fact that it also matched the Schanskowskas is way too big of a stretch to buy into any mistakes. As I said in the other post, HOW could it be switched, or even mistaken, unless someone found a Schanskowska family member, cut out exactly the same portion of intestine AA had removed and sneak it back in? The odds against that are astronomically bad, to put it kindly!





Quote
I can recall no one saying it was actually switched,


Not in THIS thread, but you've been here long enough to know that has been said countless times here!

Quote
Let me state that while he "may" have not been innocent of the crimes committed, the LAPD were no better than criminals themselves by contaminating and possibly manufacturing evidence.  If they stoop to this level then they are no better than the criminals they are trying to convict.   They also have STRICT protocols in how evidence was to be gathered, stored, preserved, and documented, they didn't follow the guidelines, which was why the evidence was suspect.



I do agree their ineptitude helped cost them the case. However, I still believe OJ did it.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 01, 2005, 06:48:44 PM
Quote

Jumping gee-hoe-so-fat,  Annie, I don't think AA ever said she was GD Tatiana.

AGRBear



Yes. The patient orginally showed her the book and said that's you, showing her Tatiana. She later changed because of the height thing. She may not have actually SAID she was Tatiana, but she did not deny it. I hope Lanie shows up, she has all the details on this. It's true.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 01, 2005, 06:57:31 PM
Since this thread is getting long and because there is a new thread about the intestine specimens, please go to:

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1122930143;start=0#2

Michael and Annie, you'll have to copy your posts and take them to new thread, that is, if you to want to ..... ;D
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 01, 2005, 07:06:00 PM
Quote
I spoke earlier today (on an unrelated matter) with the head of a large and well respected DNA lab, that does DNA sequencing.  The man, a well respected biologist in the field, was kind enough to answer some questions about the AA testing for me.  Basically, he said this: The testing done on the AA samples is 100% accurate. Nothing today is at all different than then. The only difference is the work is done by special machine, instead of by hand. (This dittos what Dr. Melton said). There is virtually no possiblility that the AA sample was "contaminated". We then discussed the theories put forward about contamination, switching samples, conspiracy etc. He laughed. He said "You can never prove to someone something that never happened. These people want to believe it so they ignore everything else.  The statistical probablilty that anything like that happened is so small that it amounts to zero. These people just really don't understand how the samples are stored, handled or tested..."


Bringing this to the next page so no one will miss it. Very important info.

Quote
"You know, I believe that in England there still is a Flat Earth society that rejects the notion that the earth is round."



This is hilariously ironic to me right now, because I was just arguing with my 18 year old son because he was making fun of me for arguing over AA. He told me it's ridiculous, it's been proven and don't waste my time on it, that if a few people want to believe it....(censored to avoid offending any believers) Then he also brought up the Flat Earth Society, in so many words! So it was really funny to come back here and see it was also brought up on the forum!
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 01, 2005, 07:14:31 PM
Quote


Yes. The patient orginally showed her the book and said that's you, showing her Tatiana. She later changed because of the height thing. She may not have actually SAID she was Tatiana, but she did not deny it. I hope Lanie shows up, she has all the details on this. It's true.


So you remember something about someone showing AA a book [maybe, a magazine] with the IF in it and showing her a picture of Tatiana and this person thought that is who she looked like.

Did AA say, yes, that is I, Tatiana,  to this person?

And, yes, Buxhoveden did say AA was too short to be Tatiana after she drug her out from under her covers.  But, had AA told Buxhoveden that she was Tatiana?

Do we know when [date] AA first said that she was one of the Grand Duchesses and when did she specify which Grand Duchess she was???

Why don't we go back and find the sources and see what our books tells us on these subjects.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 01, 2005, 07:36:48 PM
Quote
"You know, I believe that in England there still is a Flat Earth society that rejects the notion that the earth is round."


Gosh, Rob... I thought we weren't going to toss around insults any more -- yet here you are, doing it yourself...  It seems so unproductive to repeat this unnecessary comment from someone who doesn't even post here.

>:(
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on August 01, 2005, 08:04:11 PM
No hospital run by humans can ever be infallible. Way to broad a statement. I would think hospitals wouldn't want that burden placed on them.

When I had my son, good thing I took a good look at that red screaming  individual who looked just like my father in law.

They put me in a room and brought me the sweetest little girl you could ever dream of to breast feed. When I argued that I had had a boy, they argued back that the numbers on my wrist band and this baby's wrist band matched....so this was my baby.

Three hours later walking from nursery, to administration,to anyone that would listen to me, I found my screaming red faced boy.

The numbers didn't match. Thank goodness he looks just like his father! I didn't even think to sue the hospital...under the radar.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 01, 2005, 08:05:43 PM
Well; this is what Kurth said about the "Tatiana or Anastasia?" matter:

"...Then; as one of the nurses recalled: "...She asked me very exitedly whether she really bore such a great ressemblance to one of the Tsar's daughter as depicted in the illustrated magazine, and then added "Because then, the photograph could be my ruin. " I confirmed the ressemblance, but said that Fraülein Unbekannt looked older than the lady in the picture, whereupon, she said, yes, that was because the missing teeth...Then she asked me: "How old do you think I am?" And when I answered, probably in her later twenties, Fraülein began to laugh and said: "...No; not so old..."
  The nurse seized the moment of distraction. Taking up the copy of the "Berliner Illustrierte Zeitung", she pointed to the girl Fraülein Unbekannt ressembled so much and asked: "...Well; what's is the lady's name?"
  Fraülein Unbekannt answered without a moment's hesitation: "Anastasia"..."

  That's from Peter Kurth book "Anastasia- The Riddle of Anna Anderson" (page 15)

  The whole mistake about Anna being "Tatiana" was made by the weird Clara Peuthert . Read page 13-14

"...Clara too, had seen the photographs of the Russian imperial family in the newspapers. One edition of the popular "Berliner Illustrierte Zeitung", in particular carried a cover story: ".The Truth about the Murder of the Tsar". There , beneath a portrait of the Grand Duchesses, Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia, Clara Peuthert confronted the rumor that had swept Siberia in 1918 and wich now, in Europe stubbornly refused to die: "...Is One of the Tsar's Daughters Alive?" It wasn't long before Clara jumped to conclusions. As one account has it, she ran to Fraülein Unbekannt's bed , thrust the magazine in her face and cried on the top of her lungs: "...I Know you! You are Grand Duchess Tatiana!.."
 "Tatiana", in this version , neither confirmed nor denied the charge, but began to cry and covered her face with her blanket. .."

  Then, it seems that AA said she was AN long before Zinaida Tolstoy and Sophia Buxhoeveden came to Dalldorf to see her. Clara was convinced AA was TN, and she began to spread those news among the Russian Emigrées. The first one who knew it by Clara's account was Captain von Schwabe. But AA said to the nurses, that she was AN not TN. When she must speak with Sophia Buxhoeveden and this lady said: "She's to tall to be Tatiana", AA said to her friends " I never said I was Tatiana" (This is atested in Kurth book, in Dominique Auclères one, in Harriet Rathlef book and in all books about AA you may find. Only in the books written by AA opponents, you must read "At first, she claimed to be Tatiana, but when it didn't work, she changed her claim to Anastasia..." (The exact phrase quoted here is in André Castelot's book : "Drames et Tragédies de l'Histoire - De l'Histoire et des Histoires 2" chapter: "Le mystère de la Grande Duchesse Anastasia", but you may find soething similar in Pierre Gilliard's book: "La Fausse Anastasie") In any cases, AA opponents gave ANY documental source, nor even an oral history one.

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 01, 2005, 08:13:21 PM
It seems that in the early days of this case, the recovered Grand Duchess was named as both Anastasia and Tatiana.

The word that she was Tatiana penetrated the upper level of society, and I remember that one of the early visitors (Zena Tolstoy?) came thinking she was Tatiana, and announced -- on seeing the length of the person on the bed -- that she was "too short" to be Tatiana.

On another occasion, Princess Martha of Sweden drove to hospital to see the patient.  She had known the Grand Duchesses in childhood, and is in several well-known photographs with them; she was closest in age to Maria and Anastasia.  On arriving at the hospital, she saw the patient strolling outside and exclaimed that this woman was not Tatiana, but was rather most definitely Anastasia.  

Princess Martha's escort was surprised, because no-one had thought to clarify to the Princess that it was Anastasia that they were trying to identify, and that no claim had ever been made that she was Tatiana.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 01, 2005, 08:25:01 PM
Quote
This is a very volital subject and there is no need to call people who disagree as people who would believe in the Earth is Flat stuff.  I personally take offense.




FA did not insult anyone. There is a parallel there, it simply means there are people who do not accept scientific evidence as proof. It's a fact. You cannot be insulted by that if you are not insulted by your own beliefs.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 01, 2005, 08:29:52 PM
>>The whole mistake about Anna being "Tatiana" was made by the weird Clara Peuthert<<  wrote Real Anastasia.

Clara had gone to Capt Schwabe.... Gosh,  I've written all this on another post.  Anyway,  Clara had convinced Schwabe that AA was Tatiana and the error continued to haunt her then as it still does.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 01, 2005, 09:11:59 PM
Quote
It seems that in the early days of this case, the recovered Grand Duchess was named as both Anastasia and Tatiana.

The word that she was Tatiana penetrated the upper level of society, and I remember that one of the early visitors (Zena Tolstoy?) came thinking she was Tatiana, and announced -- on seeing the length of the person on the bed -- that she was "too short" to be Tatiana.

On another occasion, Princess Martha of Sweden drove to hospital to see the patient.  She had known the Grand Duchesses in childhood, and is in several well-known photographs with them; she was closest in age to Maria and Anastasia.  On arriving at the hospital, she saw the patient strolling outside and exclaimed that this woman was not Tatiana, but was rather most definitely Anastasia.  

Princess Martha's escort was surprised, because no-one had thought to clarify to the Princess that it was Anastasia that they were trying to identify, and that no claim had ever been made that she was Tatiana.


Hi, Penny:

                      I forgot to tell about the incident with Princess Martha of Sweden, thank you to recall it here. And yes, Zinaida Tolstaya came ready to recognize Tatiana, for Clara Peuthert had said Miss Unbekannt was her. But it was Sophia Buxhoeveden who claimed that she was "too short to be Tatiana". She approached to AA's bed and called: "Tashenka!". But the patient didn't move and covered her face with her blankets. After this, she tryed to show a "Mama's photo" and an Icon for "Tashenka" to see. As AA didn't seem to want to discover her face, Buxhoeveden, forced her to uncover her entire body and to stand up. There, she noticed her "being too short to be Tatiana". At first, Mrs. Tolstaya believed she was Tatiana, but the patient NEVER made such a claim. The only name that came out of her mouth about her supposed identity was "Anastasia". (My sources are Peter Kurth, Dominique Auclères, Harriet Von Rathlef, Tatiana Botkina-Melnik, Pierre Gilliard, Alain Decaux and André Castelot)

Dear Bear: I'm sorry. I didn't notice you had already written about the "Anastasia-Tatiana" case. I had A LOT of mail to answer and I entered in this thread just AFTER your message. So I didn't read it. Sorry again...

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 01, 2005, 09:25:00 PM
No need to worry about me.  I'm just happy people are into these questions and answers  :)

AGRBear

PS  Appears that Annie has started a new thread about AA being called Tatiana:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1122941530
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 02, 2005, 12:35:31 AM
Quote
True, true.

HOWEVER.......one of the things Felix reported was that she did not recognize HIM, and that statement was made in his description of why he thought she wasn't FS.


And that's one of the things that's so suspicious about his denial, SHE "did not" recognize HIM. Unless people honestly feel she should've walked up to him and said: "Yes, that's my brother Felix. I'm not really Anastasia, and we can all go home now." She was putting on an act.

It would be nice if things happened that way, but they don't.  

Quote
Imagine if you met up with an old friend who did NOT speak the same, did NOT give the same laugh, and had a different body language.  Plus who had lost about 50 lbs and a bunch of teeth.


Well, if they were laughing and talking the "low "German "High" German issue must not have been a big deal. No recorded reference to them having communication problems. And they both attended school in an area were "High" German  was being taught, and as FS had a history of trying to distance herself by assuming upper class manners, her speaking "High" German should come as no surprise.

But, the teeth are another interesting issue. Harriet Von Rathleff knew very well that AA had had her teeth removed in the asylum. So, why would she draw up a document for Felix to sign stating that one of the reasons AA couldn't be his sister was that his sister had a "full set of teeth." But AA had had teeth removed in the asylum after the date of FS's dissapearance, making the "full set of teeth" point totally moot.

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 02, 2005, 12:39:35 AM
"But, the teeth are another interesting issue. Harriet Von Rathleff knew very well that AA had had her teeth removed in the asylum. So, why would she drop up a document for Felix to sign stating that one of the reasons AA couldn't be his sister was that his sister had a "full set of teeth." But AA had had teeth removed in the asylum after the date of FS's dissapearance, making the "full set of teeth" point totally moot. "

Odd, that.  Imagine if I had chemotherapy and lost all of my hair.  And my best friend from the 7th grade came to visit me at the hospital and signed an affidavit saying "nope, that can't be her.  My best friend had long brown hair."

Or, even better.  I had lasik surgery 2 years ago and no longer need thick glasses.  Could my best friend say "nope, not her.  She wore thick glasses."

Excellent point.......what WAS Harriet doing with that?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 02, 2005, 12:43:18 AM
Quote

There is a quote I read once that Franziska told someone she didn't want to die in a one horse town, she wanted to die a famous actress.

And so she did.



This quote actually comes from Waltraud, FS's neice,  and can be found in "Romanovs:The Final Chapter."

It's from an interview Waltraud gave at the time of the DNA tests in which she spoke about AA/FS, etc.  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 02, 2005, 12:51:47 AM
Quote
Odd, that.  Imagine if I had chemotherapy and lost all of my hair.  And my best friend from the 7th grade came to visit me at the hospital and signed an affidavit saying "nope, that can't be her.  My best friend had long brown hair."?


And imagine if the person who gave the affidavit to your best friend from the 7th grade to sign was someone who knew very well that you had had chemotherapy?  


Quote
Excellent point.......what WAS Harriet doing with that?


You know, the more I study Harriet, and her excellent timing (always on hand to cover when AA got something wrong.And there was the "book deal"...) the more I'm convinced that she was AA's first  manager...
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 02, 2005, 12:52:08 AM
Is this the same neice who a) never knew her aunt and b) demanded money for interviews?  Because if so, she's been discredited.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 02, 2005, 01:05:55 AM
Quote
Is this the same neice who a) never knew her aunt and b) demanded money for interviews?  Because if so, she's been discredited.


She's never claimed to have known her Aunt. She's repeating stories told to her by her father, as well as presenting family letters relating to AA and documents.
True, she does like to be paid (handsomely, from what I understand!) But, being paid to talk about what you know is not a sign of dishonesty. She's just a smart businesswoman.


 And what's more is her story is backed by the Webbs and  the Elleriks.
What's funny to me  is that Herr Webb first suggested his cousin Karl Maucher  for the mtDNA tests. And I've often wondered why he himself did not volunteer. Afraid of needles?

But Margarita, Gertrude's daughter, who (I believe) had written to her uncle as a young woman urging him to recognize FS because of what it could do for the family, was living with Karl at the time of the tests. And she refused to give a blood sample because she was afraid for being held liable for "Franciska's activities" (Yes, she did refer to AA as Franciska)

So, in those years, what changed her mind to think that recognition would not be such a good idea?       


P.S.
And unless  the DNA tests/ statistics showing the rarity of the mtDNA sequence ofthe Schankowsky family  are found to be invalid (which looks highly unlikely) then Waltraud's testimony hasn't been disscredited....


Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 02, 2005, 01:11:57 AM
Thanks for the background info!

I'd like to hear from Penny at this point about any info she's uncovered about the neice and anyone else who made these types of statements about AA.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: pentetorri on August 02, 2005, 04:48:05 AM
Quote


This has been discussed many times. No it couldn't. This was Martha Jefferson hospital, and unlike UVA med center which was found to have had an accidental baby switch a few years back, has an INFALLIBLE record of accuracy. First, there are no names on the samples, only code numbers, and these correspond to a name in the records accessed only by a few people. No one can just walk in off the street and switch things, they wouldn't even know what was what. And there is security! So unless you are among those who believe Queen Elizabeth paid for the switch, that's out of the question.

Also, consider that it was the Schweitzers who requested the sample, not some evil anti-AA person. They honestly wanted to know and believed they'd get a positive answer.

And last of all, even IF it was switched, with WHO? Someone would have had to find a member of the Schanskowska family, cut them open and remove exactly the same portion of intestine AA had removed, and sneak it in! That's even less realistic than an invasion from Mars, come on.

And on OJ's DNA evidence being tampered with, the jury did believe it, but that does not mean it was true. The jurors were mostly from neighborhoods that distrusted the LAPD due to the 92 riots and were much more likely than anyone else to accept the tampering theory which was never really proven, only used as a defense.


I was tempted not to answer you but I find unbelievable in the 21st century a person can use the word INFALLIBLE when dealing with human beings. Not even the Pope dares to use that argument anymore. So, when one has to prove something it is enough to say the system is infallible. How convenient!!!

I am not a conspiracy supporter and no , I don't think QEII did it, neither that the samples were switched. It is very nice of you to put down my opinion by trying to make me appear as a fool.

My only point was that those samples would not be accepted by a court of law in the US, any lawyer would make them unacceptable. And, if you can not legally prove the identity of a person, THEN, all the rest it's just talk.

So to sum it up we must accept the samples because the Hospital system is INFALLIBLE, no margin of error there, no contamination, bullet proof security,etc. I guess they could teach a whole lot to the governments around the world!!!! We found utopia, perfect and infallible people.

And just a footnote, because part of the jury in the OJ Simpson case was black and latino was he released?, and not a chance that the police was careless in dealing with the evidence? God forbids,  they (LAPD) surely  enter in the category of infallible!!!!

The more I read some posts and opinions I realize and understand much of AA life (whoever she was) and reactions, sometimes people are very close minded and do not accept nothing but their truth, going so far as to declare infallibility.


Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: pentetorri on August 02, 2005, 05:20:04 AM
Quote
I spoke earlier today (on an unrelated matter) with the head of a large and well respected DNA lab, that does DNA sequencing.  The man, a well respected biologist in the field, was kind enough to answer some questions about the AA testing for me.  Basically, he said this: The testing done on the AA samples is 100% accurate. Nothing today is at all different than then. The only difference is the work is done by special machine, instead of by hand. (This dittos what Dr. Melton said). There is virtually no possiblility that the AA sample was "contaminated". We then discussed the theories put forward about contamination, switching samples, conspiracy etc. He laughed. He said "You can never prove to someone something that never happened. These people want to believe it so they ignore everything else.  The statistical probablilty that anything like that happened is so small that it amounts to zero. These people just really don't understand how the samples are stored, handled or tested..." small pause..."You know, I believe that in England there still is a Flat Earth society that rejects the notion that the earth is round."



Again, I disagree. These experts can be right about the tests being 100% ??? accurate ( although any good scientist will tell you there is no 100% accuracy in any test) but that does not mean the samples were not contaminated. I am not saying that happened, but there is always the chance. I could cite tens of cases were samples were contaminated willingly and unwillingly eventhough they came from labs and hospitals with a very secure protocol for storage.

You can find an expert to avail any kind of position, and not because they lie, but because nothing is a 100% accurate or perfect.
Being that arrogant about comparing a reasonable doubt to a Flat Earth Society tells me a lot about your expert, I guess he enters into the category already mentioned in a previous post of INFALLIBILITY.

Thanks God, we have a legal system not perfect but full of common sense where you can clarify these matters with an open mind free of infallible statements.

Still, I am amazed the degree of passion people have regarding AA and it helps to explain some decisions she made in her life regarding the subject of her recognition. People for some reason become intollerant and try to prove their point by making you appear as a fool and ignorant, a very  easy way to dismiss anybody'opinion, but not at all intelligent.

I know the earth is not flat, but I also know Anastasia's body has not been found so as much as this can bother some people the subject is opened to different reasonable theories
and scenarios, except for those of you that may think themselves or their arguments infallible.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 02, 2005, 07:43:28 AM
Quote

I was tempted not to answer you but I find unbelievable in the 21st century a person can use the word INFALLIBLE when dealing with human beings.



Even if they may have made a mistake at some point, it did not occur with AA's case, since they matched the Schanskowska family. I would like an explaination as to how you can explain that, the only ways I can see that happening are, a) she was Franziska, or b) someone kidnapped a Schankowska family member, cut them open and removed exactly the same piece of intestine AA had removed, then switched it, which is not only a conspiracy theory, it's ridiculously impossible. If there is another option I'd love to hear it!
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 02, 2005, 07:46:29 AM
Quote

This quote actually comes from Waltraud, FS's neice,  and can be found in "Romanovs:The Final Chapter."

It's from an interview Waltraud gave at the time of the DNA tests in which she spoke about AA/FS, etc.  


Thanks!
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 02, 2005, 08:28:00 AM
Quote

And that's one of the things that's so suspicious about his denial, SHE "did not" recognize HIM. Unless people honestly feel she should've walked up to him and said: "Yes, that's my brother Felix. I'm not really Anastasia, and we can all go home now." She was putting on an act.

It would be nice if things happened that way, but they don't.  


Exactly. Of course. It makes perfect sense.




Quote
But, the teeth are another interesting issue. Harriet Von Rathleff knew very well that AA had had her teeth removed in the asylum. So, why would she draw up a document for Felix to sign stating that one of the reasons AA couldn't be his sister was that his sister had a "full set of teeth." But AA had had teeth removed in the asylum after the date of FS's dissapearance, making the "full set of teeth" point totally moot.
 


Yeah, it only takes about an hour to pull out a  person's teeth. Just because she used to have teeth doesn't mean she still does. Same as others have said about a person having different hair, this is no proof.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 02, 2005, 08:32:26 AM
Quote

She's never claimed to have known her Aunt. She's repeating stories told to her by her father, as well as presenting family letters relating to AA and documents.


True, I could write books or movie scripts based on detailed family stories and legends about people who died before I was born. Stuff does get handed down, people do listen.

Quote
True, she does like to be paid (handsomely, from what I understand!) But, being paid to talk about what you know is not a sign of dishonesty. She's just a smart businesswoman.


That's right, it doesn't mean she's lying. She has something people want, and she wants to be paid for her services. I see no difference between this and someone putting all their info into a book and selling it. Either way the person is making money so you can find out the info. Perhaps she should write a book, I'm sure it would be interesting.


Quote
 And what's more is her story is backed by the Webbs and  the Elleriks.
What's funny to me  is that Herr Webb first suggested his cousin Karl Maucher  for the mtDNA tests. And I've often wondered why he himself did not volunteer. Afraid of needles?

But Margarita, Gertrude's daughter, who (I believe) had written to her uncle as a young woman urging him to recognize FS because of what it could do for the family, was living with Karl at the time of the tests. And she refused to give a blood sample because she was afraid for being held liable for "Franciska's activities" (Yes, she did refer to AA as Franciska)

So, in those years, what changed her mind to think that recognition would not be such a good idea?       
 

P.S.
And unless  the DNA tests/ statistics showing the rarity of the mtDNA sequence ofthe Schankowsky family  are found to be invalid (which looks highly unlikely) then Waltraud's testimony hasn't been disscredited....
 
 


Thanks Jeremy, I was hoping you'd post some useful info. We needed some balancing info here desperately! Please keep it coming!


Jeremy, you are the chosen one, you truly bring balance to the force! ;) :D
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: pentetorri on August 02, 2005, 09:05:14 AM
Quote


Even if they may have made a mistake at some point, it did not occur with AA's case, since they matched the Schanskowska family. I would like an explaination as to how you can explain that, the only ways I can see that happening are, a) she was Franziska, or b) someone kidnapped a Schankowska family member, cut them open and removed exactly the same piece of intestine AA had removed, then switched it, which is not only a conspiracy theory, it's ridiculously impossible. If there is another option I'd love to hear it!


Again, my point is that the samples could have been contaminated, and most certainly they will not be used in an identity case before a court of law. Once something is contaminated is useless even if it proved she was Franziska or Marie Antoinette. For a forum discussion those tests could be used as a valid proof for her identity endlessly but in the real world not. That is my point. Based on that and the whole AA story I leave an open window, narrow as it may be, about a possibility of being Anastasia.

So, why do I have to explain why it matched Franziska at all? In the same way, being possibly contaminated I could ask Why did it not matched Anastasia? It is pointless.
See the case of the Turin Shroud first it was a medieval false, now it was discovered the samples were contaminated and new tests show it could be 1st century AD. Now the experts are re-thinking the whole thing and asking for new tests, so much for 100% accuracy. We can not try to explain the AA case just by some samples , you have to consider her whole life. An I will repeat it always when people are involved mistakes are made, called  it conspiracy, carelessness or idiocy, it is human nature.

I could ask you thousands of quetions of "whys" about AA
life and some strong coincidences with Anastasia , if we want to call them like that, and you would not find an answer. The best way is to keep investigating like P. Wilson and King about Franziska and her family and try to keep an open window for doubt.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Forum Admin on August 02, 2005, 09:35:45 AM
Penetorri,
are you an attorney? have you done any real research into the admissibility of forensic DNA evidence? I am (tho now retired from practice), and I have.

First, laboratory samples handled in accordance with established protocols from a hospital with proper credentials and certification (which Martha Jefferson Hospital is and has) are PRESUMED as a matter of LAW to be reliable unless genuine contamination can be proved by evidence. There is no evidence to give rise to even a possible doubt of contamination beyond mere speculation. Further, any attorney with a brain would introduce the fact that that it matched FS exactly as further direct evidence that there was no contamination UNLESS and until you can show by direct evidence that either 1. a direct maternal descendant of FS actually was physically present in the hospital AND actually HANDLED the sample or 2. You have direct physical evidence that someone A. intentionally switched the sample, with B. an exactly corresponding piece of tissue C. FROM a direct maternal descendant of FS D. who had reason and motive to do so and E. actually had the knowledge and expertise to fabricate the sample and F. had actual opportunity to gain entrance into the pathology storage facility at Martha Jefferson Hosptial to make the switch.

Second, Dr. Melton is recognized by the Courts in the US as an expert in the field of forensic DNA testing. She conducted the testing herself and can and would testify under oath that the test results were in fact 100% accurate, and reliable.
Trust me when I tell you that this IS admissible in the courts of both the US and UK and would in fact be accepted by the courts as such.

If you feel you have genuine evidence to refute this beyond mere speculation then I welcome seeing it.  Legally speaking, the burden of proof to DISPROVE the reliability of evidence presumed by law as reliable is upon the party wishing to challenge the reliability.  Which is in fact the case here.

Penny, I am sorry if you feel that the statement by someone far more schooled and experienced in DNA sequencing and analysis than either you or I, or frankly anyone else posting here, which says essentially that "Science has proven that test so reliable that to question IT is like questioning whether the earth is round" to be insulting.  I for one simply accepted it as the statement of the opinion by an expert in the field about the question.  I offer my apology if anyone here finds the expert's opinion insulting to their beliefs.

FA
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 02, 2005, 09:47:31 AM
Quote

She's never claimed to have known her Aunt. She's repeating stories told to her by her father, as well as presenting family letters relating to AA and documents.
True, she does like to be paid (handsomely, from what I understand!) But, being paid to talk about what you know is not a sign of dishonesty. She's just a smart businesswoman.


  And what's more is her story is backed by the Webbs and  the Elleriks.
What's funny to me  is that Herr Webb first suggested his cousin Karl Maucher  for the mtDNA tests. And I've often wondered why he himself did not volunteer. Afraid of needles?

But Margarita, Gertrude's daughter, who (I believe) had written to her uncle as a young woman urging him to recognize FS because of what it could do for the family, was living with Karl at the time of the tests. And she refused to give a blood sample because she was afraid for being held liable for "Franciska's activities" (Yes, she did refer to AA as Franciska)

So, in those years, what changed her mind to think that recognition would not be such a good idea?       
 

P.S.
And unless  the DNA tests/ statistics showing the rarity of the mtDNA sequence ofthe Schankowsky family  are found to be invalid (which looks highly unlikely) then Waltraud's testimony hasn't been disscredited....
 
 


This is the same woman who:

a) Refused to be interviewed without being compensated.

b) puts forth an entire truckload of subjective evidence which you & Annie claim to be against, and there is absolutely NO DOCUMENTATION OR PROOF to back up her claims whatsoever.  Except he said this, or he said that.

In other words, unlike an affadavit or any kind of testimony:  "IT'S ALL HERESAY"
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 02, 2005, 09:51:36 AM
Quote

This quote actually comes from Waltraud, FS's neice,  and can be found in "Romanovs:The Final Chapter."

It's from an interview Waltraud gave at the time of the DNA tests in which she spoke about AA/FS, etc.  



Is this the interview she was paid for?  The same woman that was worried about being liable for the care of AA???

How can a woman give substantial credible evidence and statements about a person, she has never met in her life, again this is all heresay evidence.

Why don't you get her interview or statement and put it on line here, along with the source for the statement,
so we can go over it.  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 02, 2005, 09:58:03 AM
Quote
 "IT'S ALL HERESAY"


Well it was her own family so that is a lot more than any of us or even an author presuming! She did hear it first hand! So if she has her statements notarized you'll believe her?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 02, 2005, 10:00:19 AM
Quote

Well it was her own family so that is a lot more than any of us or even an author presuming! She did hear it first hand!


Annie, we are speaking of legal evidence, not second hand family tales of your Aunt Fanny, that we all have.
So she can tell tales of a Aunt she has never known or the family hadn't known or seen since 1919?  All second hand & all heresay.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 02, 2005, 10:00:23 AM
Quote



How can a woman give substantial credible evidence and statements about a person, she has never met in her life, again this is all heresay evidence.

 


Again, a family member knows a lot more than someone just guessing or researching. None of us have ever met AA either but that doesn't stop you from presuming to know things. She was a lot closer than us.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 02, 2005, 10:02:38 AM
Quote

Annie, we are speaking of legal evidence, not second hand family tales of your Aunt Fanny, that we all have.
So she can tell tales of a Aunt she has never known or the family hadn't known or seen since 1919?  All second hand & all heresay.


Like I said and you erased, if she had it notarized would you believe her? And 'legally' recorded statements don't mean everything either, since some people in the trial lied.

And on the subject of Finelly's comment on the Shroud of Turin, that was carbon dating, not DNA, very different.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: pentetorri on August 02, 2005, 10:02:56 AM
Quote
Penetorri,
are you an attorney? have you done any real research into the admissibility of forensic DNA evidence? I am (tho now retired from practice), and I have.

First, laboratory samples handled in accordance with established protocols from a hospital with proper credentials and certification (which Martha Jefferson Hospital is and has) are PRESUMED as a matter of LAW to be reliable unless genuine contamination can be proved by evidence. There is no evidence to give rise to even a possible doubt of contamination beyond mere speculation. Further, any attorney with a brain would introduce the fact that that it matched FS exactly as further direct evidence that there was no contamination UNLESS and until you can show by direct evidence that either 1. a direct maternal descendant of FS actually was physically present in the hospital AND actually HANDLED the sample or 2. You have direct physical evidence that someone A. intentionally switched the sample, with B. an exactly corresponding piece of tissue C. FROM a direct maternal descendant of FS D. who had reason and motive to do so and E. actually had the knowledge and expertise to fabricate the sample and F. had actual opportunity to gain entrance into the pathology storage facility at Martha Jefferson Hosptial to make the switch.

Second, Dr. Melton is recognized by the Courts in the US as an expert in the field of forensic DNA testing. She conducted the testing herself and can and would testify under oath that the test results were in fact 100% accurate, and reliable.
Trust me when I tell you that this IS admissible in the courts of both the US and UK and would in fact be accepted by the courts as such.

If you feel you have genuine evidence to refute this beyond mere speculation then I welcome seeing it.  Legally speaking, the burden of proof to DISPROVE the reliability of evidence presumed by law as reliable is upon the party wishing to challenge the reliability.  Which is in fact the case here.

Penny, I am sorry if you feel that the statement by someone far more schooled and experienced in DNA sequencing and analysis than either you or I, or frankly anyone else posting here, which says essentially that "Science has proven that test so reliable that to question IT is like questioning whether the earth is round" to be insulting.  I for one simply accepted it as the statement of the opinion by an expert in the field about the question.  I offer my apology if anyone here finds the expert's opinion insulting to their beliefs.

FA



I am sorry that my opinion is so threatening to some people. I don't need to prove or disprove to you anything. As I understand this a forum to discuss and express freely one's opinion respectfully. If I feel and know that the evidence could be challenged before a court of law i should be able to express it and not to be challenged to prove my credentials. Are you serious? This is a forum, we will not change anything, at the very best this a hobby. The persons truly involved in this matter should be the ones interested in challenging or not the evidence, not us. We are here to exchange ideas , opinions but believe this is not a court of law.

And as for the attorney thing it is the same with the experts i could find other, not retired, attorneys who would challenge those samples and prove the chance of contamination. But, i think you know this is a Forum and as long I don't insult or make fun of anybody I should be able to express my opinion,and  certainly I won't tell them that they are flat earth believers.

Finally, how do you know who is behind all the different  posts, how do you know they are not "experts" in different fields? No, I think you confuse the ideas and think too much inside the box, but well if that makes you happy good for you.

But, please leave the other humble, ignorant not certainly "experts" people express their opinion freely, dear FA
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 02, 2005, 10:03:01 AM
Quote

Again, a family member knows a lot more than someone just guessing or researching. None of us have ever met AA either but that doesn't stop you from presuming to know things. She was a lot closer than us.


Absolutely ridiculous, out of the realm of possibility that "she was closer" as you suggest.  Peter Kurth actually KNEW the claimant, so in that respect he was closer, and knew more that Waltrud did.  Absolutely ridiculous.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 02, 2005, 10:04:52 AM
Quote

Like I said and you erased, if she had it notarized would you believe her? And 'legally' recorded statements don't mean everything either, since some people in the trial lied.

And on the subject of Finelly's comment on the Shroud of Turin, that was carbon dating, not DNA, very different.



Sure people lied, like Olga Alexandrovna & Pierre Gilliard....
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 02, 2005, 10:10:34 AM
Quote

Well it was her own family so that is a lot more than any of us or even an author presuming! She did hear it first hand! So if she has her statements notarized you'll believe her?


Annie, you are obviously under the mistaken belief that because a person makes a notarized statement that makes it evidence.   To give evidence in a case and make a statement that is considered evidence they actually have to be a part of that case in a first hand manner.

When she gets on the stand and keeps saying "My uncle Felix told me, or wrote me by letter", then that is 2nd hand heresay testimony that is inadmissable.

I would not believe her because she was not an actual part of the case, she wasn't there when the events happened, so all she can give is a 2nd hand perspective that is rather prejiduced.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 02, 2005, 10:12:52 AM
Quote

Well it was her own family so that is a lot more than any of us or even an author presuming! She did hear it first hand! So if she has her statements notarized you'll believe her?



She may have heard it from a source such as Felix but when she repeats it, it is second hand, in other words
"gossip"  or "heresay".  It becomes tainted at that point.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Forum Admin on August 02, 2005, 10:13:22 AM
Quote


I am sorry that my opinion is so threatening to some people. I don't need to prove or disprove to you anything. As I understand this a forum to discuss and express freely one's opinion respectfully. If I feel and know that the evidence could be challenged before a court of law i should be able to express it and not to be challenged to prove my credentials. Are you serious? This is a forum, we will not change anything, at the very best this a hobby. The persons truly involved in this matter should be the ones interested in challenging or not the evidence, not us. We are here to exchange ideas , opinions but believe this is not a court of law.

And as for the attorney thing it is the same with the experts i could find other, not retired, attorneys who would challenge those samples and prove the chance of contamination. But, i think you know this is a Forum and as long I don't insult or make fun of anybody I should be able to express my opinion,and  certainly I won't tell them that they are flat earth believers.

Finally, how do you know who is behind all the different  posts, how do you know they are not "experts" in different fields? No, I think you confuse the ideas and think too much inside the box, but well if that makes you happy good for you.

But, please leave the other humble, ignorant not certainly "experts" people express their opinion freely, dear FA


This is not exactly a place for dilettante to spout whatever they feel, and then get "upset" or "threatened" when challenged by cold hard fact and genuine evidence.  We have literally thousands of people, from grade school thru post graduate level researchers who come to THIS forum looking for genuine answers and fact.  I believe that everyone has a duty to challenge unsupported myth spinning with the real world facts.  You certainly are free to "believe" what you will. However, I will never apologize for presenting the genuine facts to challenge anyones belief.  You are certainly free to remain "humbly ignorant" if you so choose, but we are first and foremost a repository of the truth and facts for those who come to this forum and genuinely wish to become EDUCATED.

FA
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 02, 2005, 10:15:49 AM
Quote

Penny, I am sorry if you feel that the statement by someone far more schooled and experienced in DNA sequencing and analysis than either you or I, or frankly anyone else posting here, which says essentially that "Science has proven that test so reliable that to question IT is like questioning whether the earth is round" to be insulting.  I for one simply accepted it as the statement of the opinion by an expert in the field about the question.  I offer my apology if anyone here finds the expert's opinion insulting to their beliefs.

FA


The unnamed expert's opinion on the subject matter insults my "beliefs" not at all.  

The unnamed expert's implied "belief" concerning my mental acuity, as exemplified by his "flat earth" statement, is both insulting and impertinent, and has no place here.  Your subtle re-stating of your initial post does not cover up the implied insult at all.

I'm quite surprised that you saw fit to needle us by repeating this worthless statement here Rob, given that we have all agreed that personal statements are out of bounds on this board.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 02, 2005, 10:19:40 AM
Quote

Absolutely ridiculous, out of the realm of possibility that "she was closer" as you suggest.  Peter Kurth actually KNEW the claimant, so in that respect he was closer, and knew more that Waltrud did.  Absolutely ridiculous.



If we're going to play that game, well.... Gleb and Tatiana Botkin were reasonably acquainted with Anastasia -- and both knew Anastasia Manahan -- and both firmly believed that the Anastasias were one and the same woman.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: pentetorri on August 02, 2005, 10:28:52 AM
Quote

This is not exactly a place for dilettante to spout whatever they feel, and then get "upset" or "threatened" when challenged by cold hard fact and genuine evidence.  We have literally thousands of people, from grade school thru post graduate level researchers who come to THIS forum looking for genuine answers and fact.  I believe that everyone has a duty to challenge unsupported myth spinning with the real world facts.  You certainly are free to "believe" what you will. However, I will never apologize for presenting the genuine facts to challenge anyones belief.  You are certainly free to remain "humbly ignorant" if you so choose, but we are first and foremost a repository of the truth and facts for those who come to this forum and genuinely wish to become EDUCATED.

FA


Dear FA you reply is typical of a person who does not accept different opinions or ideas. I certainly don't need your apology because your reply shows me enough of who you are and really don't care. If you consider yourself a repository of truth, well, that tells me a lot. We are all dilettante on these subjects, with the exception of the professional historians and writers. And for the humble and ignorant I must tell you there is one lovely thing called "irony", and it is very useful sometimes with some people and I think you did not get it.

Take it easy, being a REPOSITORY OF TRUTH is really a titanic job, good luck!
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Forum Admin on August 02, 2005, 10:33:55 AM
Quote

The unnamed expert's opinion on the subject matter insults my "beliefs" not at all.  

The unnamed expert's implied "belief" concerning my mental acuity, as exemplified by his "flat earth" statement, is both insulting and impertinent, and has no place here.  Your subtle re-stating of your initial post does not cover up the implied insult at all.

I'm quite surprised that you saw fit to needle us by repeating this worthless statement here Rob, given that we have all agreed that personal statements are out of bounds on this board.


Penny,
Dwight DuBois MD, the President and CEO of Centron Central Laboratories is the gentleman in question. Here are his accredidations:
CAP (College of American Pathologists) — Accredited with Distinction - LAP Number 6704501
CLIA (Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act) - ID#45D907734
New York State Department of Health - PFI 7425, Code 844097A3
State of Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, Division of Managed Care and Health Quality - License#L800016898, Certificate#36021
Maryland Department of Health & Mental Hygiene - #970
Pennsylvania Department of Health - #028151
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) - PHS Permit 2002-09-003
United States Veterinary Permit for Importation and Transportation of Controlled Materials and Organisms and Vectors (USDA, APHIS, VS) - #50320
DuBois , D.B., C.R. WalkerPeach, M.M. Winkler, and B.L. Pasloske. "Standards for PCR Assays" pp. 197-209 in PCR Applications: Protocols for Functional Genomics, M.A. Innis, D.H. Gelfand, and J.J. Sninsky, eds., Academic Press, San Diego (1999).
D.B. DuBois and M. Gaulden. Increased Sensitivity and Widened Dynamic Range of the Standard COBAS Amplicor HCV Monitor Assay. EASL Annual Meeting, Prague, April 18-23, 2001.

Trust me when I tell you that YOUR name never once came up in the discussion, in fact, I deliberately kept my questions to the general notion of "those people who challenge the testing" and not more specific than that. This comment was made about "those who challenge the testing" as a general group.  It is STILL his opinion on the subject, which I believe is his opinion and not necessarily mine or the official one of the Forum.

I am sorry if you somehow felt it directed personally at you. Such was not the case. I believe you know that I honestly would never personally attack you or any other individual.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 02, 2005, 10:36:55 AM
What Pentetorri has posted so far on the legalities of the case jibes entirely with what I have learned.  My brother is a qualified attorney in California, but received his legal education at Aberystwyth, Oxford and Gray's Inn in Britain.  Thus, my family circle includes innumerable friends and acquaintances in the legal field, and, networking on both sides of the Atlantic, the legal experts -- one of them being an extremely "high-up" judge in the American Federal Court system -- I'll ask him via email if I can name him, though I imagine it might take some time to hear back --  with which I have spoken, have all stated that challenging the admissability of the piece of intestine would be a cornerstone of the case.  

There are several opinions on how to proceed:  One would prefer to challenge the purity of the chain of custody at the Martha Jefferson histology archive; another would want to challenge the various samples as contaminated; yet a third would jump right in with a very specific conspiracy theory -- and on and on.  

I don't know how successful any of these challenges might be, obviously -- but not one single barrister or attorney said that they would automatically accept these samples -- be they intestine or bone or blood -- as inviolate.  It would certainly make a court's life a lot easier if these samples "are PRESUMED as a matter of LAW to be reliable" -- but the meat of this statement is the following phrase: "... unless genuine contamination can be proved by evidence."  Precisely.  And this is what any competent attorney -- on either side of the Atlantic -- would do in representing Anastasia Manahan.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 02, 2005, 10:37:02 AM
Quote


If we're going to play that game, well.... Gleb and Tatiana Botkin were reasonably acquainted with Anastasia -- and both knew Anastasia Manahan -- and both firmly believed that the Anastasias were one and the same woman.


I agree Penny, and I am not saying I support that belief that she was AN, this is something Annie & her cohort(s) keep inferring, about those who do not believe what they do.  What I do believe is that in order to completely investigate this matter and let the chips fall where they may, we need to exclude this crap of using gossip & innuendo & 2nd hand heresay as evidence.

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 02, 2005, 10:37:32 AM
Quote


If we're going to play that game, well.... Gleb and Tatiana Botkin were reasonably acquainted with Anastasia -- and both knew Anastasia Manahan -- and both firmly believed that the Anastasias were one and the same woman.



If some of you are going to question the neice, then why can't I question the supporters? We can question the motives of all involved until the cows come home. We will never know, all we have is scientific proof to end the mystery. If that's not enough, well, again, see my sig....
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 02, 2005, 10:42:15 AM
Quote


If some of you are going to question the neice, then why can't I question the supporters? We can question the motives of all involved until the cows come home. We will never know, all we have is scientific proof to end the mystery. If that's not enough, well, again, see my sig....



Because Annie,  Gleb & Tatiana Botkin, WERE THERE, they knew & met both Anastasia and the claimant, they are first hand sources, whereas with Waltrud you are using a source that did not personally KNOW  AA or AN, and is relying on 2nd hand information, that is information that was given to her by another party, to back up her statements versus, someone who was actually present & had first hand knowledge of the people and the events, they are called a "witness" in case you have forgotten.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 02, 2005, 10:43:12 AM
Quote


Sure people lied, like Olga Alexandrovna & Pierre Gilliard....



Excuse me?? You have absolutely no basis for this other than your own personal opinions. I could just as easily list people I believe are liars but you'd have a fit. Oh, and on the subject of people who actually KNEW the claimant, Olga and Gilliard actually KNEW ANASTASIA, if that means anything, or is it only selective?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 02, 2005, 10:45:49 AM
Quote


You have absoletely no basis for this other than your own personal opinions. I could just as easily list people I believe are liars but you'd have a fit.



Annie we have been all over this before, and the statements made to the court by these two people in the 1950's were highly suspect and contrary to previous statements they had made.  I don't indulge in this tit for tat crap Annie, as you revel in.  Use fact or source material to back up your statements.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 02, 2005, 10:46:37 AM
Quote


Because Annie,  Gleb & Tatiana Botkin, WERE THERE, they knew & met both Anastasia and the claimant, they are first hand sources, whereas with Waltrud you are using a source that did not personally KNOW  AA or AN, and is relying on 2nd hand information, that is information that was given to her by another party, to back up her statements versus, someone who was actually present & had first hand knowledge of the people and the events, they are called a "witness" in case you have forgotten.


Again, it all comes back to selective acceptance and who you want to believe. I question their real belief and motives the same way you do Olga A. and Gilliard. There is only one way to find out who was right, and that is the DNA tests. AA is FS, not AN. So now we know who was telling the truth (I'm not saying the supporters were surely lying, they could have been simply mistaken, or wishful thinking, either way, they were incorrect.)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 02, 2005, 10:49:07 AM
Quote


Excuse me?? You have absolutely no basis for this other than your own personal opinions. I could just as easily list people I believe are liars but you'd have a fit. Oh, and on the subject of people who actually KNEW the claimant, Olga and Gilliard actually KNEW ANASTASIA, if that means anything, or is it only selective?


Again you are barking (is that the correct term?? ::) ::) )
up the wrong tree.  NEVER did I state that Olga and Gilliard were not first hand sources, and that their statements shoud be excluded, that is YOUR misinterpretation of my statement, and your reaction to ME & not reading what I state.  Of course their statements should have been included, regardless of the difference between their original comments in 1925 and their testimony in the 1950's.  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 02, 2005, 10:52:17 AM
Quote


Excuse me?? You have absolutely no basis for this other than your own personal opinions. I could just as easily list people I believe are liars but you'd have a fit. Oh, and on the subject of people who actually KNEW the claimant, Olga and Gilliard actually KNEW ANASTASIA, if that means anything, or is it only selective?


And I'm still looking for a photograph of Tatiana and Gleb Botkin with Anastasia. And thus far, there aren't any.

However, there are many photographs taken over the years  of AN with her Aunt Olga.

It's a bit like taking the word of the neighbor down the street over a close family member who knew the subject quite well.


Title: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Forum Admin on August 02, 2005, 10:55:02 AM
DNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results are sufficiently reliable for forensic use. State v. Moore,(42) following State v. Lyons, 124 Or.App. 598, 863 P.2d 1303, 1309 (1993).

3. DNA restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis (RFLP) is "generally not open to serious attack and ... is widely admitted in various state and federal courts and jurisdictions. 'The threshold [test] for admissibility [of DNA evidence] should require only a preliminary showing of reliability of the particular data to be offered, i.e., some indication of how the laboratory work was done and what analysis and assumptions underlie the probability calculations." (Citations omitted). State v. Moore.(43) See also, State v. Weeks,(44) where DNA evidence was used to show that the defendant was 154,000 times more likely than the random man to be the father of the rape victim's baby. The Supreme Court upheld the admission of both the test results and the statistical analysis evidence which quantified the probability of the DNA match. "We are satisfied that while the foundation laid by the State for the combined statistical analysis evidence might have been more detailed, there was no showing that such evidence was inaccurate, inherently unbelievable, unduly prejudicial or inflammatory. The combined statistical evidence was, in fact, consistent with and merely corroborative of other scientific, circumstantial and direct evidence in this case."

See also:Forensic DNA analysis and the United States Government.
Shapiro ED, Reifler S.
New York Law School, New York City, USA.

All three branches of the United States Government are, directly or indirectly, promoting the use and judicial acceptance of forensic DNA analysis. In addition, the establishment of a US national DNA databank has been authorized. The US Congress has passed the 'DNA Identification Act of 1994', which provides, inter alia, funding to the states for developing and/or improving forensic laboratories capable of conducting DNA analysis, and also creates a framework for federal supervision of forensic DNA technology. Specifically, the Executive Branch, through the Department of Justice and particularly its Federal Bureau of Investigation, has been directed to develop standards and practices in order to speed the admissibility of forensic DNA analysis as scientifically acceptable evidence in US courts. Finally, the federal judiciary has been ordered by the US Supreme Court to abandon or modify the 70-year-old Frye standard, which the Federal courts previously used to determine whether scientific evidence is deemed admissible, a move that will directly impact the judicial acceptance of forensic DNA analysis in all federal courts and undoubtedly will affect the admissibility of DNA evidence in many American state courts.

The generally accepted standard you need to challenge: . Is there a theory, generally accepted in the scientific community, that supports the conclusion that DNA
forensic testing can produce reliable results?
II. Are there current techniques that are capable of producing reliable results in DNA identification and that are
generally accepted in the scientific community?
III. In this particular case, did the testing laboratory perform generally accepted scientific techniques without
error in the performance or interpretation of the tests?
Ex parte Perry v. State, 586 So.2d 242, 250 (Ala.1991).
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 02, 2005, 10:56:05 AM
Quote

Again, it all comes back to selective acceptance and who you want to believe. I question their real belief and motives the same way you do Olga A. and Gilliard.


Again WRONG!!!!!!!!   I don't want to or not want to believe ANY certain person, as you seem to infer.  It doesn't matter what I think of what they said, it is a matter of their testimony & deposition as a witness in
reference to the events in the case.

Quote
There is only one way to find out who was right, and that is the DNA tests. AA is FS, not AN. So now we know who was telling the truth (I'm not saying the supporters were surely lying, they could have been simply mistaken, or wishful thinking, either way, they were incorrect.)


No there is not only "one way", perhaps to you there is, but that is road I don't want to travel on at all.  If that is the case then why are you here & posting as the matter should be settled for you.   For me as a student of history it is a mattery of not letting the entire case go uninvestigated because for a few entirely prejiduced people DNA settles the matter for them.  As I have stated in the past, and continue to state today, I am in no way in the anti DNA camp, I just want these questions answered so the case can be put to rest.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 02, 2005, 10:59:15 AM
Quote

And I'm still looking for a photograph of Tatiana and Gleb Botkin with Anastasia. And there aren't any.


Correction:  There aren't any that you have found.  But have you contacted Gleb's and Tatiana's families?  Private and "unimportant" families tend not to have widely available photo albums.

Quote
However, there are many photographs of AN with her Aunt Olga.


This proves nothing more than that the Romanovs were players on the world stage and that their photographs -- perhaps because of their tragic end -- are widely sought-after and therefore available.  The Botkins and Melniks -- not so much.

Quote
It's a bit like taking the word of the neighbor done the street over a close family member who knew the subject quite well.


Not at all a good comparison.


[/quote]
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 02, 2005, 11:01:19 AM
Quote

And I'm still looking for a photograph of Tatiana and Gleb Botkin with Anastasia. And thus far, there aren't any.

However, there are many photographs taken over the years  of AN with her Aunt Olga.

It's a bit like taking the word of the neighbor down the street over a close family member who knew the subject quite well.

 


Check Kurth's book for a photo of Tatiana Botkin with the claimant, I believe it may be in a carriage.

Secondly, Waltrud did NOT "know the claimant well", as you suggest, she did not know her at all.  As for Felix, he actually hadn't seen his sister since 1919, so how can he claim to know someone who hasn't been proved
yet to be his sister???   Even by the date of the 1927 meeting he didn't "know" her, and less so by the 1938
meeting, and given the fact that Waltrud NEVER met her, how can it be said the she knew her at all???
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 02, 2005, 11:01:54 AM
Quote

Excuse me?? You have absolutely no basis for this other than your own personal opinions. I could just as easily list people I believe are liars but you'd have a fit. Oh, and on the subject of people who actually KNEW the claimant, Olga and Gilliard actually KNEW ANASTASIA, if that means anything, or is it only selective?


Pierre Gilliard certainly lied about Fraulein Unbekannt's ability to speak Russian.  He was then forced to admit the truth in court.  Either Greg or I posted this part of the trial transcript elsewhere in this forum.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 02, 2005, 11:05:51 AM
Quote

Check Kurth's book for a photo of Tatiana Botkin with the claimant, I believe it may be in a carriage.


That's a picture of Tatiana with ANNA ANDERSON not ANASTASIA which was the point I was bringing up!


Quote

Secondly, Waltrud did NOT "know the claimant well", as you suggest


Re read my post.

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: pentetorri on August 02, 2005, 11:08:17 AM
Quote
What Pentetorri has posted so far on the legalities of the case jibes entirely with what I have learned.  My brother is a qualified attorney in California, but received his legal education at Aberystwyth, Oxford and Gray's Inn in Britain.  Thus, my family circle includes innumerable friends and acquaintances in the legal field, and, networking on both sides of the Atlantic, the legal experts -- one of them being an extremely "high-up" judge in the American Federal Court system -- I'll ask him via email if I can name him, though I imagine it might take some time to hear back --  with which I have spoken, have all stated that challenging the admissability of the piece of intestine would be a cornerstone of the case.  

There are several opinions on how to proceed:  One would prefer to challenge the purity of the chain of custody at the Martha Jefferson histology archive; another would want to challenge the various samples as contaminated; yet a third would jump right in with a very specific conspiracy theory -- and on and on.  

I don't know how successful any of these challenges might be, obviously -- but not one single barrister or attorney said that they would automatically accept these samples -- be they intestine or bone or blood -- as inviolate.  It would certainly make a court's life a lot easier if these samples "are PRESUMED as a matter of LAW to be reliable" -- but the meat of this statement is the following phrase: "... unless genuine contamination can be proved by evidence."  Precisely.  And this is what any competent attorney -- on either side of the Atlantic -- would do in representing Anastasia Manahan.


Thank you Penny, I find your reasoning excellent and you really got my point.

There is some interesting information on the Martha Jefferson Hospital in the thread AA's Intestines provided by AGR Bear. If it was my take I would challenge the Martha Jefferson's archive , especially the way it was handled at that time,protocols and the fact there was some remodeling and fairly easy access at that time. A good attorney will have much flaws to find. Of course, this is the realm of speculation only.
A legal mind does that challenge the proof if not what are lawyers for?

To think that the whole Franziska being AA nowadays is based on these tests and people are so ready to accept that ignoring masses of historical info on both characters is apalling.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 02, 2005, 11:08:37 AM
Quote

That's a picture of Tatiana with ANNA ANDERSON not ANASTASIA which was the point I was bringing up!



Re read my post.



I did re-read your post, and I stick to my statement, also I was suggesting that there are photos of the
claimant and the Botkins, and I am not sure if any exist of the IF with the Botkin children.


Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 02, 2005, 11:10:51 AM
Quote

I see no difference between this and someone putting all their info into a book and selling it....


Just to set the record straight on this (since Annie keeps coming back to people "making money on books") neither I nor Greg nor any other "royal" author/biographer I know -- with perhaps one exception -- make anything like a "living" from our books.  We both have jobs that pay the mortgage and other monthly expenses.  In my personal case, I have a husband with a good job in oceanography/environmental science -- but I pay my research expenses by bartending.  Greg and I are not rich, nor will our books ever make us so.  Writing is a vocation in which we sometimes manage to break even.

I hope you will all bear this in mind when you see remarks about "making money on books."
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Forum Admin on August 02, 2005, 11:12:13 AM
Quote

Thank you Penny, I find your reasoning excellent and you really got my point.

There is some interesting information on the Martha Jefferson Hospital in the thread AA's Intestines provided by AGR Bear. If it was my take I would challenge the Martha Jefferson's archive , especially the way it was handled at that time,protocols and the fact there was some remodeling and fairly easy access at that time. A good attorney will have much flaws to find. Of course, this is the realm of speculation only.
A legal mind does that challenge the proof if not what are lawyers for?

To think that the whole Franziska being AA nowadays is based on these tests and people are so ready to accept that ignoring masses of historical info on both characters is apalling.

You STILL have to explain HOW the contamination resulted in an EXACT match to FS. There are only TWO possible explanations for that, see above. THAT is the hurdle you must overcome. You can allege all the "possibilities" you want, but the fact remains that the testing produced an exact match.  Your burden of proof is to overcome that.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 02, 2005, 11:13:09 AM
Quote

Correction:  There aren't any that you have found.


Our posts must have crossed. I edited before yours popped up.



 
Quote
This proves nothing more than that the Romanovs were players on the world stage and that their photographs -- perhaps because of their tragic end -- are widely sought-after and therefore available.  The Botkins and Melniks -- not so much.


Actually it proves quite a bit, as Olga knew AN very well over the years. From what I've been able to gather thus far, she certainly would've liked AA to have been her neice. But she knew it wasn't her. And now the whole world knows.  


Quote
Not at all a good comparison.

 


It's a fine comparison, unless you'd take the word of the cafeteria lunch lady over a close relative? I'm not saying they lied , they may very well have believed, but their belief was mistaken.

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 02, 2005, 11:14:31 AM
Quote

Thank you Penny, I find your reasoning excellent and you really got my point.

There is some interesting information on the Martha Jefferson Hospital in the thread AA's Intestines provided by AGR Bear. If it was my take I would challenge the Martha Jefferson's archive , especially the way it was handled at that time,protocols and the fact there was some remodeling and fairly easy access at that time. A good attorney will have much flaws to find. Of course, this is the realm of speculation only.
A legal mind does that challenge the proof if not what are lawyers for?

To think that the whole Franziska being AA nowadays is based on these tests and people are so ready to accept that ignoring masses of historical info on both characters is apalling.


The moment you question the validity of ANY small iota of the DNA tests, they all put they wagons in a circle, it is too funny in some cases, but these questions need answering.   I personally have a great many questions regarding the test, the protocols, the technology, the advancement of the technology, and in possibly change in results regardless of affirmation or denial of results, an entire group of question, and anytime you bring one of them up, it is like you are questioning the existance of a God.....
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: pentetorri on August 02, 2005, 11:17:37 AM
Quote
You STILL have to explain HOW the contamination resulted in an EXACT match to FS. There are only TWO possible explanations for that, see above. THAT is the hurdle you must overcome. You can allege all the "possibilities" you want, but the fact remains that the testing produced an exact match.  Your burden of proof is to overcome that.


I am sorry but I disagree I don't have to prove why the match with the Franziska relatives.  What I would need to prove is that there was contamination. If proven the samples would not be acceptable neither any tests made to them.  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 02, 2005, 11:20:06 AM
I believed in Anna Andersen for the majority of my adult life. And she still fascinates me, but not as Anastasia. Unless someone is prepared to demonstrate how the DNA samples at the UVa hospital and in the hair samples from Chapel Hill could be switched for matches to FS, then the DNA evidence trumps recollections. Not just Gleb's and Tatiana's --- it trumps Olga Alexandrovna in 1925 (although I don't think she ever firmly identified Andersen, merely described an emotional reaction. Precisely. If we, at a distance of decades,  wanted to to be true, how much more so her favourite aunt?) The DNA evidence offers demonstrable scientific proof that Andersen was not related to Alexandra. What reason could there be for damaging her claim by presenting it? The honour of the British Royal Family is already sufficiently impugned by the revelation that George V insisted upon abandoning the IF to the Bolsheviks. Does anyone seriously care if Grand Duke Ernest was in Russia during World War I? Is there any unclaimed money?

This is simply a non-issue. Even if a defence of Andersen is motivated by sentiment, she did not "die without a name." She was Anastasia Manahan.

Please understand that I am not suggesting that AN was killed at Ekaterinburg. There is a strong possibility, even a probability, that she was. But they have not produced sufficient forensic evidence (i.e. a body) to make the assertion that she died absolute.

But she did not survive as Anna Andersen.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: pentetorri on August 02, 2005, 11:20:21 AM
Quote

The moment you question the validity of ANY small iota of the DNA tests, they all put they wagons in a circle, it is too funny in some cases, but these questions need answering.   I personally have a great many questions regarding the test, the protocols, the technology, the advancement of the technology, and in possibly change in results regardless of affirmation or denial of results, an entire group of question, and anytime you bring one of them up, it is like you are questioning the existance of a God.....


EXACTLY, now you know how Galileo Galilei felt before the Inquisition.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Forum Admin on August 02, 2005, 11:24:34 AM
Actually, yes you do. You see, the presumption is that the test ITSELF is valid, regardless of the "contamination". You see, the match to itself FS IS accurate and 100% without question. The only genuine issue here is that somehow the mtDNA that DOES match FS got into the AA sample. The test itself is reliable and valid, even today.  What you don't understand is that there is ZERO argument that the mtDNA was properly sequenced and compared to the FS sample and matched. Your "contamination" argument might be valid if the AA sample produced a non match totally. The problem is that a sample was properly sequenced and compared and found to MATCH FS. Your arguments can't overcome the validity of the test itself, only challenge the handling of the sample that WHEN TESTED exactly matched FS.  The test is not at issue, the sample TESTED is the point.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 02, 2005, 11:26:49 AM
Quote

It's a fine comparison, unless you'd take the word of the cafeteria lunch lady over a close relative?

 


I hope you're not suggesting that Tatiana Botkin was the equivalent of a cafeteria lunch lady?  That would certain cast her experience with the Imperial family in a much more trivial light than was the case.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 02, 2005, 11:27:48 AM
The test is not at issue, the sample TESTED is the point.
     

Exactly
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: pentetorri on August 02, 2005, 11:33:00 AM
Quote
Actually, yes you do. You see, the presumption is that the test ITSELF is valid, regardless of the "contamination". You see, the match to itself FS IS accurate and 100% without question. The only genuine issue here is that somehow the mtDNA that DOES match FS got into the AA sample. The test itself is reliable and valid, even today.  What you don't understand is that there is ZERO argument that the mtDNA was properly sequenced and compared to the FS sample and matched. Your "contamination" argument might be valid if the AA sample produced a non match totally. The problem is that a sample was properly sequenced and compared and found to MATCH FS. Your arguments can't overcome the validity of the test itself, only challenge the handling of the sample that WHEN TESTED exactly matched FS.  The test is not at issue, the sample TESTED is the point.


NO, if you have a sample contaminated it has no VALUE even if this sample  produced any kind of matching. A proof, sample or whatever evidence that has been tampered or contaminated is worthless as evidence in any court of law in the world, at least western world.

That is abc of evidence.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 02, 2005, 11:38:42 AM
Quote

EXACTLY, now you know how Galileo Galilei felt before the Inquisition.


Interesting you should choose him to identify with, since he was being persecuted for his scientific proof and evidence as opposed to myths people chose to believe instead. So it's the DNA people who are more like Galileo, at least on this forum.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 02, 2005, 11:39:33 AM
Quote

I hope you're not suggesting that Tatiana Botkin was the equivalent of a cafeteria lunch lady?  That would certain cast her experience with the Imperial family in a much more trivial light than was the case.


What I'm suggesting  by my statement is that Tatiana's  experience within the inner circle of the Imperial family was not nearly as relevant and important as Olga's was in terms of making a positive ID.

.
And, might I add that several court members, who dismissed AA, also did not recognize the Botkin children because the two had hardly been at court, even as late as 1917.    
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Forum Admin on August 02, 2005, 11:41:46 AM
Not in this case. You obviously don't understand the testing protocols. The TEST itself is valid. In order to demonstrate contamination you MUST show how the result of a specific match was obtained in light of your ALLEGED contamination. Not only must you ALLEGE the contamination, you must SHOW that the contamination actually RESULTED in a bad test. In this case, the result showed a match to FS, which raises the PRESUMPTION of an accurate sample. You still have that hurdle to overcome.

A test that resulted in a match to FS can ONLY have been contaminated by DNA that came from a relative to FS.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 02, 2005, 11:41:59 AM
Quote

I did re-read your post, and I stick to my statement,


Quote
Secondly, Waltrud did NOT "know the claimant well", as you suggest,



Quote
She's never claimed to have known her Aunt.


Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 02, 2005, 11:43:29 AM
Quote
I believed in Anna Andersen for the majority of my adult life. And she still fascinates me, but not as Anastasia. Unless someone is prepared to demonstrate how the DNA samples at the UVa hospital and in the hair samples from Chapel Hill could be switched for matches to FS, then the DNA evidence trumps recollections.


This is certainly the crux of the issue.  Some people, however, are not willing to allow science to trump the human experience of Anastasia Manahan and those who knew her and the Grand Duchess.

I think myself that we have not heard the end of this case -- my book with Greg will be our last word on it before moving on to other interests -- but I predict that this mystery will probably outlast us all, because at this point,  I don't think that any one, final answer will be found that can satisfy everyone.

Quote
The DNA evidence offers demonstrable scientific proof that Andersen was not related to Alexandra. What reason could there be for damaging her claim by presenting it? The honour of the British Royal Family is already sufficiently impugned by the revelation that George V insisted upon abandoning the IF to the Bolsheviks.


This is not my opinion, but I have heard it said -- for the sake of Windsor conspiracy theorists -- that of course the DNA evidence came out as it did -- what would be the point of raking it all up again to embarrass the current family -- and the memory of their relative Lord Mountbatten -- when Anastasia Manahan and all closely concerned are dead?

Again -- this is not my opinion, and I offer no analysis of it, but you did ask... ;)

Quote
Does anyone seriously care if Grand Duke Ernest was in Russia during World War I?


Surprisingly, yes, there are those who would care quite deeply if Ernst-Ludwig made the trip to Russia in 1916.

Quote
Is there any unclaimed money?


To my knowledge -- which isn't deep on this issue --  no.

Quote
This is simply a non-issue. Even if a defence of Andersen is motivated by sentiment, she did not "die without a name." She was Anastasia Manahan.


Precisely.  This was inarguably her name and no-one could deprive her of it.

Quote
Please understand that I am not suggesting that AN was killed at Ekaterinburg. There is a strong possibility, even a probability, that she was. But they have not produced sufficient forensic evidence (i.e. a body) to make the assertion that she died absolute.


I'll have to answer this later on Margarita's thread about personal opinions -- but I've got to run now and get a few things done...
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: pentetorri on August 02, 2005, 11:45:13 AM
Quote

Interesting you should choose him to identify with, since he was being persecuted for his scientific proof and evidence as opposed to myths people chose to believe instead. So it's the DNA people who are more like Galileo, at least on this forum.


NO , I am afraid you are wrong. Galileo opposed to the Establishment of the time, the cultural,political and religious authorities of the time, what you would call "the experts" so much loved by some in this forum.

He chose to battle against people who did not like other people'ideas or opinions. Curiously, these people he fought consider themselves INFALLIBLE, like, let's say the DNA people?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Forum Admin on August 02, 2005, 11:49:00 AM
I repeat: A mtDNA test that actually matched FS can only have been contaminated BY DNA from a maternal relative to FS. Random contamination by "mishandling" can not produce that result. It is totally impossible scientifically for some random DNA to "magically" match FS.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: pentetorri on August 02, 2005, 11:50:56 AM
Quote
Not in this case. You obviously don't understand the testing protocols. The TEST itself is valid. In order to demonstrate contamination you MUST show how the result of a specific match was obtained in light of your ALLEGED contamination. Not only must you ALLEGE the contamination, you must SHOW that the contamination actually RESULTED in a bad test. In this case, the result showed a match to FS, which raises the PRESUMPTION of an accurate sample. You still have that hurdle to overcome.

A test that resulted in a match to FS can ONLY have been contaminated by DNA that came from a relative to FS.


I think we are going nowhere with this. What you need to grasp here is that an evidence that can be proven tampered or contaminated has no VALUE. What use can you give to tests of something considered tampered or of not value?  Certainly, with a sample contaminated you could not prove or disprove AA identity before any court of law.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 02, 2005, 11:52:40 AM
Quote

What I'm suggesting  by my statement is that Tatiana's  experience within the inner circle of the Imperial family was not nearly as relevant and important as Olga's was in terms of making a positive ID.


(Just one more before I go...)

TB's experience within the "inner circle" of the IF was never  great -- but her experience with the children, especially the two elder daughters, was greater than most outside of the family itself.  

Obviously, Olga Alexandrovna spent more time with her nieces -- but Olga's testimony is not without its difficulties.  We've been over these difficulties before at great length, but to name a few quickly:

1.The initial swithering and/or mixed messages that she sent following her initial meeting with Fraulein Unbekannt.  

2.The tradition that Olga was loathe to upset her mother by disagreeing with her publicly.

3.The part of the story that has the Romanovs withdrawing from Fraulein U as soon as she mentioned the existence of money.

Quote
And, might I add that several court members, who dismissed AA, also did not recognize the Botkin children because the two had hardly been at court, even as late as 1917.    


I would guess that many members of the Court, Household and Suite never met Tatiana and Gleb or even saw them up close -- but that's irrelevant here.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Forum Admin on August 02, 2005, 11:55:49 AM
Quote

I think we are going nowhere with this. What you need to grasp here is that an evidence that can be proven tampered or contaminated has no VALUE. What use can you give to tests of something considered tampered or of not value?  Certainly, with a sample contaminated you could not prove or disprove AA identity before any court of law.


What YOU fail to grasp is this: evidence that actually MATCHED someone they were specifically testing IS NOT CONTAMINATED. QED. Period.

This is your hurdle to overcome with allegations of contamination.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 02, 2005, 11:57:05 AM
Penny,

Thanks for answering. I am surprised that people still think Louis Mountbatten's reputation could be further damaged, after the revelations about Edwina's private life and the nasty business with the Duchess of Windsor. And he was still a teenager when the family was executed; surely no one could blame him for George V's actions.

You have hit the nail on the head. If Anna Andersen is to be accepted as Anastasia on the basis of ear identification, or identification by Tatiana Botkin, Lili Dehn, etc., then there has to be a cogent, demonstrable explanation of the DNA evidence. Her mannerisms are irrelevant. I would propose that virtually any member of this forum could carry themselves off as a Grand Duke or Duchess given sufficient time to get used to the role.

I watched an old history channel special on Wallis Windsor the other night. Philip Ziegler, Edward VIII's biographer, sat there and reeled off character assassination after character assassination of the Duchess of Windsor. Some of it was factual, but some of it was demonstrably wrong, as in it has been contradicted many times by people who knew her or worked for her. I have only recently come to this forum (and love it!), but I was struck by similarities. I suppose no one, including me, is exempt from emotional attachment to certain people and things in history. But I do think that it is important to explain why we may hold the positions we do.

I look forward to your book about Anastasia Manahan. In the early '70s I lived near her in Charlottesville, and met her once. I would love to see a new book dealing with the accumulated evidence and theories of the post-Kurth biography period.

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: pentetorri on August 02, 2005, 12:02:30 PM
Quote

What YOU fail to grasp is this: evidence that actually MATCHED someone they were specifically testing IS NOT CONTAMINATED. QED. Period.

This is your hurdle to overcome with allegations of contamination.


EVIDENCE proven contaminated or tampered is INADMISSABLE to a court of law. Consequently, the tests made to them are no existent for the court due to the simple fact that the evidence is inadmissable. It is not considered nor discussed in the case. Simpler than that .....
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 02, 2005, 12:05:56 PM

Quote
TB's experience within the "inner circle" of the IF was never  great --


Thank you!


Quote

 but her experience with the children, especially the two elder daughters, was greater than most outside of the family itself.  


Well several maids of honor would beg to differ with that statement were they still with us. And consider that several of the maids of honor were around the same age as the Grand Duchesses, the last one (I believe) dying in 1990 just shy of the age of 92.  


Quote

Obviously, Olga Alexandrovna spent more time with her nieces --


Thanks again!


Quote

 but Olga's testimony is not without its difficulties.


As is AA's.....


Quote

 We've been over these difficulties before at great length, but to name a few quickly:

1.The initial swithering and/or mixed messages that she sent following her initial meeting with Fraulein Unbekannt.  

2.The tradition that Olga was loathe to upset her mother by disagreeing with her publicly.

3.The part of the story that has the Romanovs withdrawing from Fraulein U as soon as she mentioned the existence of money.


1. Personal feelings. They get in the way of logic and reason all the time.
2. Tradition , nothing more.
3. Well, "money" talk would scare most people off.  


Quote
I would guess that many members of the Court, Household and Suite never met Tatiana and Gleb or even saw them up close -- but that's irrelevant here.


No it's very relevant, as the court and household were often very close to the Grand Duchesses. And the fact that AA often got the layout of the Alexander Palace wrong, and the Botkin children didn't seem to notice [/i]this  like members  of the court did... Well, that says quite a bit.    


Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 02, 2005, 12:08:48 PM
Quote

EVIDENCE proven contaminated or tampered is INADMISSABLE to a court of law. Consequently, the tests made to them are no existent for the court due to the simple fact that the evidence is inadmissable. It is not considered nor discussed in the case. Simpler than that .....


Key word: proven. So, prove it was contaminated. No one here is stopping you. Bring it back and show us the evidence.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 02, 2005, 12:16:13 PM
OMG.  I sleep late and wake up to find several PAGES of discussion that I missed out on, including several posts from Penny (who.grrrrrr...has not responded to my message to her about a back copy of Atlantis..........<smack>)

I'll just add in a few thoughts without rambling too much:

1.  I am an attorney who no longer practices.  No statement by the neice is admissable in court.  

2.  The dna evidence appears incontrovertible.  Without evidence of tampering, one can assume it is admissable in court.  And provides a HUGE emphasis on the side of AA being FS.  HOWEVER.....it does not prove that AA is FS.  And no judge will allow the jury to be instructed that it does.  Nor will any expert witness who wishes to preserve his/her reputation testify that it does.

3.  The behavior and statements of the GD Olga would be admitted into evidence for the purpose of showing state of mind, but not proof for or against AA.

4.  Dna evidence is NOT the only evidence permitted to establish identity.  If this case were being tried in court, all of the mannerisms, behaviors, and statements made by AA would be admissable and have value.  

I'll add more as I think of it.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Forum Admin on August 02, 2005, 12:21:36 PM
Exactly my point. The FACT that the test resulted in a MATCH to what they were looking for in the first place is considered PROOF that it was reliable. Please feel free to prove by evidence that the test was invalid by reason of contamination.

Do remember the reason WHY the DNA in the OJ Simpson case was "reasonably questioned" as being "contaminated".  The defense team admitted that the DNA result WAS a match to OJ, BUT the investigators had been in OJ's house before and "could" have "contaminated" the sample WITH OJs own DNA inadvertantly. It was not that there was "outright" contamination, but rather, it was possible to have accidentally gotten OJs DNA into the sample. So, PLEASE, demonstrate HOW FS's familial DNA "contaminated" the sample to produce a match.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Forum Admin on August 02, 2005, 12:24:09 PM
Quote
2.  The dna evidence appears incontrovertible.  Without evidence of tampering, one can assume it is admissable in court.  And provides a HUGE emphasis on the side of AA being FS.  HOWEVER.....it does not prove that AA is FS.  And no judge will allow the jury to be instructed that it does.  Nor will any expert witness who wishes to preserve his/her reputation testify that it does.


I do concur with this statement. However, I believe the court would instruct a jury that AA could not have possibly been related to AN, no matter who she was. Which is the most important issue, IMO. Dr. Melton would gladly make this testimony herself if asked.

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: pentetorri on August 02, 2005, 12:27:47 PM
Quote
OMG.  I sleep late and wake up to find several PAGES of discussion that I missed out on, including several posts from Penny (who.grrrrrr...has not responded to my message to her about a back copy of Atlantis..........<smack>)

I'll just add in a few thoughts without rambling too much:

1.  I am an attorney who no longer practices.  No statement by the neice is admissable in court.  

2.  The dna evidence appears incontrovertible.  Without evidence of tampering, one can assume it is admissable in court.  And provides a HUGE emphasis on the side of AA being FS.  HOWEVER.....it does not prove that AA is FS.  And no judge will allow the jury to be instructed that it does.  Nor will any expert witness who wishes to preserve his/her reputation testify that it does.

3.  The behavior and statements of the GD Olga would be admitted into evidence for the purpose of showing state of mind, but not proof for or against AA.

4.  Dna evidence is NOT the only evidence permitted to establish identity.  If this case were being tried in court, all of the mannerisms, behaviors, and statements made by AA would be admissable and have value.  

I'll add more as I think of it.



Thanks for your info. Very helpful and reasonable. A good lawyer on AA'side would try to prove tampering with the DNA and make that evidence inadmissable.

Finally some reasonable and helpful legal info.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: lexi4 on August 02, 2005, 12:30:47 PM
Jay-ro-me and FA are right on this one. We can argue about whether the tissue sample was contaminate until the cows come home. It won't get us anywhere as all it offers is speculation. I'm ready for some evidence. So far, I have seen nothing in these posts about DNA contamination that offers any evidence. That makes it hearsay, which is difinitely now allowed in a court of law.
pentetorri, do you have any tangible evidence that the tissue was contaminated???? If so, I'd like to see that.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 02, 2005, 12:32:14 PM
Gosh, looks like I showed up a little late for the flury of opinions rushing around this thread.

I had hopes that we'd take the test of the intestines over to a new thread but it looks like once the snow ball started to roll it's going down hill and getting larger and larger and it's not about to stop...............oooooo00000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Here is something an attorney [and by the way if all of you need to know the attorneys I've known well,  how about .... never mind, that's name dropping] would love to present to a jury:

Quote
AA's intestines specimens and questions that may surround them.


THE QUEST FOR ANASTASIA by John Klier and Mingay wrote on p. 225 about Martha Jefferson Hospital in Charlottesville where the specimens of AA was stored, found and later sent out to be tested for DNA / mtDNA:

"Was tampering possible?  The Martha Jefferson Hospital in Charlottesville has been storing specimens from patients since 1978, when it opened a pathology department.  The basement department was relatively easy to enter, according to visitors.  When the Manahan biopsy became the subject of such intense interest, the hospital authorites moved it to a safer place for storage, suggesting some concern by the hospital managment that the existing site was not secure."


At this point in the thread this is not about the matching of mtDNA with samples from Karl Maucher or Marg. Ellerick.    This is just about the possibility of someone  [matters not who] could have tampered with this evidence which is so important in proving AA was not GD Anatasia.

Let me add:  This is not a thread which has any purpose of condeming the hospital, it's staff, it's doctors or anyone responsible for the safe keeping of the specimen.  From reliable sources, I understand the hospital has an excellent reputation.

So let the discussion begin.

AGRBear


Quote

THE QUEST FOR ANASTASIA by Klier and Mingay p. 205:

"In 1979, when she had been admitted to the Martha Jefferson Hospital in Charlottesville for the operation to remove a gagrenos bowel obstruction and part of her small bowel, samples of her tissue were retained and sent to the hospital laboratory.  In common with other US institutions, the hospital routinely keeps pathology samples from patients to use for comparative study and in case of future lawsuites ...."

Hmmm.  Were AA's intestines ever used for comparative studies?

Farther down the same page.

"Frustratingly for Mandelbaum, his first request to the hospital in connection with the tissue samples held there did not succeed.  He had written in early 1993 to ask for informtion on samples of a faormer patient -- Anna Anderson or Mrs. Jack Manahan.  At the time the hospital was in a chaotic administrative state due to a major refurbishment, and although officals conducted a curtosy search of their files, they did not find any records under either of those names.  Hospital officials claim did not intentionally mislead Mandebaum.  Indeed there was no sample stored in the hospital under either name proposed by Mandelbaum."

I guess it was discovered later that Anna was listed as Anastasia Manahan and the samples were found....

AGRBear


It's not so much that the samples couldn't be found, it's the fact that once the hospital understood the importance of the samples that they moved them to a more secure area which jumps out at me.

Remember,  all you need to do is plant doubt in a jury's mind and all the DNA testimony goes out the window.

So, you can talk all you want about DNA being accepted in court.  You can list the DNA experts creditials that may be as long as my arm but it doesn't matter if you place doubt in the minds of the jury.

Let me. also,  tell you that flat lander remark didn't go over very well in this house full of des. of Vikings   >:(

Welcome pentetorri to our forum and I agree with a lot of what you've said.  I'm glad to see  Penny back here talking and adding great information, too.  AND  I'm glad people are starting to stress the need for sources.  Michael, always enjoy your sources and quote them as much as I can and will continue to do so.

Now,  I'm going to have to go back and read all of the posts placed here since yesterday.

Be  back with my 2 cents when I can.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: pentetorri on August 02, 2005, 12:32:53 PM
Quote
Exactly my point. The FACT that the test resulted in a MATCH to what they were looking for in the first place is considered PROOF that it was reliable. Please feel free to prove by evidence that the test was invalid by reason of contamination.

Do remember the reason WHY the DNA in the OJ Simpson case was "reasonably questioned" as being "contaminated".  The defense team admitted that the DNA result WAS a match to OJ, BUT the investigators had been in OJ's house before and "could" have "contaminated" the sample WITH OJs own DNA inadvertantly. It was not that there was "outright" contamination, but rather, it was possible to have accidentally gotten OJs DNA into the sample. So, PLEASE, demonstrate HOW FS's familial DNA "contaminated" the sample to produce a match.


That is not EXACTLY YOUR POINT . Finelly is giving very good and sound info. He is leaving the window opened that if you prove tampering the evidence is inadmissable. Also, that those tests do not prove AA is FS.

Please, don't change things to your convenience
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 02, 2005, 12:35:44 PM
Ok, I think we are all beating the same dead horse here.  Or at least, the horse is in a coma.

NOBODY, as far as I can see, who is a researcher into this case, is saying that AA was AN at this point.  NOBODY is actually, actively pursuing ANY evidence of tissue tampering, because as of now, there is absolutely NO evidence in that direction.  Only a possibility, which is not the same as a solid lead.  Or even a not-so-solid lead.

The ONLY thing some people are researching is whether AA really wa FS, which is NOT the topic of this thread!
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Forum Admin on August 02, 2005, 12:39:27 PM
Even Finelly will agree that while AA may "not have been" FS herself, there is no question whatsoever that she was a close maternal relative to FS. The probability she WAS FS according to the researchers is 98% that she was. The probability that AA was RELATED somehow to FS is 100%.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: pentetorri on August 02, 2005, 12:40:39 PM
Quote
Gosh, looks like I showed up a little late for the flury of opinions rushing around this thread.

I had hopes that we'd take the test of the intestines over to a new thread but it looks like once the snow ball started to roll it's going down hill and getting larger and larger and it's not about to stop...............oooooo00000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Here is something an attorney [and by the way if all of you need to know the attorney's I've known well,  how about .... never mind, that's name dropping] would love to present to a jury:


It's not so much that the samples couldn't be found, it's the fact that once the hospital understood the importance of the samples that they moved them to a more secure area which jumps out at me.

Remember,  all you need to do is plant doubt in a jury's mind and all the DNA testimony goes out the window.

So, you can talk all you want about DNA being accepted in court.  You can list the DNA experts creditials that may be as long as my arm but it doesn't matter if you place doubt in the minds of the jury.

Let me. also,  tell you that flat lander remark didn't go over very well in this house full of des. of Vikings   >:(

Welcome pentetorri to our forum and I agree with a lot of what you've said.  I'm glad to see Michael and Penny back here talking and adding great information, too.  AND  I'm glad people are starting to stress the need for sources.

Now,  I'm going to have to go back and read all of the posts placed here since yesterday.

Be  back with my 2 cents when I can.

AGRBear


Thank you AGRBear. More common sense is greatly welcome and you have lots of it. You are right all this talk is useless once you show the jury that tampering is possible.  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: pentetorri on August 02, 2005, 12:46:42 PM
Quote
Even Finelly will agree that while AA may "not have been" FS herself, there is no question whatsoever that she was a close maternal relative to FS. The probability she WAS FS according to the researchers is 98% that she was. The probability that AA was RELATED somehow to FS is 100%.


Again, you are changing things at least for what he wrote in his post he did not say that. And, again in science, at least good science, there is no 100% certainty.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Forum Admin on August 02, 2005, 12:47:17 PM
NO NO NO. You STILL have to show how your alleged contamination got the result they were TESTING for in the first place. The ONLY way the result would have been a maternal match to the FS family is IF the DNA tested was FROM that family. PERIOD end of story. QED. READ MY LIPS: Nothing ELSE is physically possible. Random "contamination" can NOT have produced this result. PERIOD.

The ONLY suspicion of alleged contamination can arise IF you can show HOW the FS family DNA would up in the sample. PERIOD. End of discussion.

I will not permit deliberate disinformation to be repeated as fact.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: pentetorri on August 02, 2005, 12:53:04 PM
Quote
Jay-ro-me and FA are right on this one. We can argue about whether the tissue sample was contaminate until the cows come home. It won't get us anywhere as all it offers is speculation. I'm ready for some evidence. So far, I have seen nothing in these posts about DNA contamination that offers any evidence. That makes it hearsay, which is difinitely now allowed in a court of law.
pentetorri, do you have any tangible evidence that the tissue was contaminated???? If so, I'd like to see that.


What I have been saying is that the samples of MJ Hospital could be proven tampered before a court of law by any good lawyer considering all the info, that i am not going to repeat again, once declared inadmissable all those tests are worthless. So, my opinion was not to pass judgement on AA so easily based on tests made to evidence that could, in my opinion, be challenged.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: lexi4 on August 02, 2005, 12:58:00 PM
Quote

What I have been saying is that the samples of MJ Hospital could be proven tampered before a court of law by any good lawyer considering all the info, that i am not going to repeat again, once declared inadmissable all those tests are worthless. So, my opinion was not to pass judgement on AA so easily based on tests made to evidence that could, in my opinion, be challenged.


I understand that. What I am saying is that all of this speculation is worthless. I have read your posts, you offer NO evidence that proves any lawyer could get the tests declared inadmissiable.
FA, I do appreciate that you are not going to let disinformation circulate on the threads. After all, many students etc. come here for information. To allow distortion of facts would do them a disservice. Thank you.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: pentetorri on August 02, 2005, 01:02:10 PM
Quote
NO NO NO. You STILL have to show how your alleged contamination got the result they were TESTING for in the first place. The ONLY way the result would have been a maternal match to the FS family is IF the DNA tested was FROM that family. PERIOD end of story. QED. READ MY LIPS: Nothing ELSE is physically possible. Random "contamination" can NOT have produced this result. PERIOD.

The ONLY suspicion of alleged contamination can arise IF you can show HOW the FS family DNA would up in the sample. PERIOD. End of discussion.

I will not permit deliberate disinformation to be repeated as fact.


You are going too far, control yourself. You are a moderator not God, what you call deliberate disinformation is just a diverse opinion of yours. I have my opinion you have yours. I think you are wrong, very wrong and you think that by repeating yourself and being agressive your point will stand.

Once proven tampering on the evidence nothing else has to be proved. Evidence would not be considered neither the tests. Even, a non attorney applying common sense will understand it.

I hope you become more tollerant of  people's opinion.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 02, 2005, 01:07:20 PM
Quote
Even Finelly will agree that while AA may "not have been" FS herself, there is no question whatsoever that she was a close maternal relative to FS. The probability she WAS FS according to the researchers is 98% that she was. The probability that AA was RELATED somehow to FS is 100%.


Ahhhhhhh,  how can I answer this without sounding like a broken record???  I guess I can not.

If the samples of the intestines were not contaimined then we take the next step.   Does the DNA/ mtDNA match Gertrude S. whom many believe was the sister of FS to show that it is possible that AA and FS were the same person?  We do not have Gertrude's DNA so the experts went to Gertrude's grandson Karl Maucher and one of her daughters Marg. Ellrick.  According to the tests, there is a match with the mtDNA with Karl Maucher, Marg. Ellrick and the "intestines" which are said to be AA's.

I think most of us can agree to this to this point.

So,  we look around and say, well, if AA was FS then all the evidence should tell us this is so and all of us close our box and feel nice and comfortable.  But we can't because there seems to be a problem with the evidence being listed.   When comparing AA and FS it seems we are talking about two different people.  OH DEAR!  Trouble in River City.  How can that be?  We turn toward the DNA/ mtDNA and ask:   How can that be?  Well,  it's possible that the DNA/ mtDNA can be a 99.9999999% match between the three AA, Karl Maucher and Marg. Ellerik?   How is it possible?  And here is where the DNAers try to harpoon those who continue to ask questions because they don't want to stretch the area of possibilities.  It seems that this mtDNA can be the same between first cousins in the same maternal line.  It seems that this mtDNA can be te same between second cousins in the same maternal line.  Then it was discovered that Gertrude, whom everyone thought was the sister of FS may not have been a full sister but may have been the issue of Anton S.'s first wife.  It was, also, discovered, that Gertrude's birth and baptismal certificates are not found in any locations where  FS, Felix and the other siblings were found.   OH DEAR!  It appears one of us may have run over to Europe and hid these important documents or we had some space....  Never mind.  I won't repeat the rediculous accusations slung our way because we,   well,  I suppose me more than anyone else, find it important to have proof that Gertrude was the child of the same mother as FS.  Because to me,  if Gertrude and FS were not the daughters of the same mother then the mtDNA proves only one thing and that is Gertrude and AA are related under the theory of mutation which covers 1 to 25 generations.  It can not prove that Gertrude is related [full sister or cousin] to FS, therefore, if this can not be proven then we can't prove AA is FS.

Yes,  we can assume AA was FS.

People can assume I'm Rodgers or Shay McNeal, again, or a wooly brain bear,  but that doesn't mean I am.  In fact, if anyone is interested,  I'm just a wooly brain bear  who likes facts, sources, reliable witnesses and most of all "TRUTH".

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 02, 2005, 01:07:38 PM
FYI - i just looked down my shirt, and I am definately a woman......

But FA is right.  There is no doubt in my mind, absent any manipulation/interference with the tissue samples (and again, no evidence has been presented, as far as I know) that AA is somehow related to FS.  

Now, whether that relationship is direct, or several generations apart, or somewhere in between is unknown.  But again, THAT IS NOT THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD!

For the purposes of this thread, I am prepared to agree that AA is FS.  For the purposes of this thread.  Because that is the way Annie started the topic.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Forum Admin on August 02, 2005, 01:07:45 PM
Quote

What I have been saying is that the samples of MJ Hospital could be proven tampered before a court of law by any good lawyer considering all the info, that i am not going to repeat again, once declared inadmissable all those tests are worthless. So, my opinion was not to pass judgement on AA so easily based on tests made to evidence that could, in my opinion, be challenged.


The problem you face with this statement is simply this: You may raise all the speculation, opportunity for possible contamination till the cows come home. In order to HAVE the tests ruled inadmissable by reason of contamination, you must ACTUALLY demonstrate a likelihood of contamination by a preponderance of the evidence. The existence of the test results actually matching someone they were testing for MUST  and WOULD be introduced as evidence that the sample was not contaminated.  The Court would not willy nilly disregard this fact simply because you raise a possiblity of contamination.  I am certain that an expert witness in the form of a Forensic Pathologist specialising in such testing would testify that the result itself PROVES the sample can not have been contaminated.  You can't just raise "suspicions" willy nilly by saying "it could have happened" You MUST provide specific evidence to actually support your suspicions. I still am waiting to see it.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 02, 2005, 01:08:55 PM
Actually, Bear, I'm assuming that you are possibly Olga.  Or Tatiana.  But only because I know you aren't Penny or Shay.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: pentetorri on August 02, 2005, 01:10:21 PM
Quote

I understand that. What I am saying is that all of this speculation is worthless. I have read your posts, you offer NO evidence that proves any lawyer could get the tests declared inadmissiable.
FA, I do appreciate that you are not going to let disinformation circulate on the threads. After all, many students etc. come here for information. To allow distortion of facts would do them a disservice. Thank you.


What do you think most of the post in these forums are but speculation, opinion, ideas ? My opinion is very clear a lawyer on AA's side , doing the proper research. could challenge the samples and make the evidence inadmissable. it would be her right, if she was alive or for her inheritors. What is so wrng about that?

It is very dangerous to think that a diverse opinion is distortion or disinformation. In my dictionary that is called censorship. Also, give more credit to the intelligence of the students.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 02, 2005, 01:15:43 PM
"My opinion is very clear a lawyer on AA's side , doing the proper research. could challenge the samples and make the evidence inadmissable. it would be her right, if she was alive or for her inheritors. What is so wrng about that? "

You are absolutely correct.  I don't think anyone disagrees.  THe problem here is that we don't have any evidence with which to challenge the samples other than the fact that it is possible that the samples were interfered with.  Possibility doesn't fly in court without some sort of evidence to back it up.

So far, Richard Schweitzer, Penny, Greg, and others who are most familiar with the situation are not showing us any such evidence, and I have to believe that if some existed, we'd know about it.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Forum Admin on August 02, 2005, 01:20:06 PM
Finelly:
THANK YOU!
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: pentetorri on August 02, 2005, 01:24:46 PM
Quote

The problem you face with this statement is simply this: You may raise all the speculation, opportunity for possible contamination till the cows come home. In order to HAVE the tests ruled inadmissable by reason of contamination, you must ACTUALLY demonstrate a likelihood of contamination by a preponderance of the evidence. The existence of the test results actually matching someone they were testing for MUST  and WOULD be introduced as evidence that the sample was not contaminated.  The Court would not willy nilly disregard this fact simply because you raise a possiblity of contamination.  I am certain that an expert witness in the form of a Forensic Pathologist specialising in such testing would testify that the result itself PROVES the sample can not have been contaminated.  You can't just raise "suspicions" willy nilly by saying "it could have happened" You MUST provide specific evidence to actually support your suspicions. I still am waiting to see it.


That is the work the lawyer for AA's inheritor will have to do. That is the reason for the legal system, you prove your case. And, in my opinion there are sufficient grounds to challenge that evidence as tampered or contaminated. It is not enough to say that because of the results the evidence was not ampered.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 02, 2005, 01:25:34 PM
Okay,  let me give everyone a new example.  Let's say I was choosen to be one of the 12 to be on the jury.  Do you think that the evidence I've seen would make me think there is the possibility that the the test of the intestines was contaminated???

And, remember, it ..... Oh, you've already desided.  That was quick.  Just as quick as my decision.  

Anyway, remember it takes 12 in a jury to make a decision.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: pentetorri on August 02, 2005, 01:30:10 PM
Quote
"My opinion is very clear a lawyer on AA's side , doing the proper research. could challenge the samples and make the evidence inadmissable. it would be her right, if she was alive or for her inheritors. What is so wrng about that? "

You are absolutely correct.  I don't think anyone disagrees.  THe problem here is that we don't have any evidence with which to challenge the samples other than the fact that it is possible that the samples were interfered with.  Possibility doesn't fly in court without some sort of evidence to back it up.

So far, Richard Schweitzer, Penny, Greg, and others who are most familiar with the situation are not showing us any such evidence, and I have to believe that if some existed, we'd know about it.


I think the problem is MONEY. Lawyers cost a lot of money. To take this case to court would be very costly, research is very costly. An the end result is not attractive money wise, it is just a battle for identity and in these time that kind of crusades are hard to find.

I thank you for your correctness and reasonable statements.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: pentetorri on August 02, 2005, 01:38:12 PM
Quote
Okay,  let me give everyone a new example.  Let's say I was choosen to be one of the 12 to be on the jury.  Do you think that the evidence I've seen would make me think there is the possibility that the the test of the intestines was contaminated???

And, remember, it ..... Oh, you've already desided.  That was quick.  Just as quick as my decision.  

Anyway, remember it takes 12 in a jury to make a decision.

AGRBear


VERY GOOD POINT
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 02, 2005, 01:41:28 PM
Quote
Actually, Bear, I'm assuming that you are possibly Olga.  Or Tatiana.  But only because I know you aren't Penny or Shay.


Hey,  you've forgotten, or, maybe you didn't know,  I played Igrid Bergen's part, Anastasia's, in High School.  Does that mean....?  How much for one of those DNA tests?   Watch out here comes the next claimant   ::)  

Bear was trying to be funny.  Please,  I know I'm not Anastasia. How do I know?  I'm only 63 years old.  Well, I could be her child....  No, that doesn't work out either.  Darn!  Forget the tests.  Don't like doctors anyway.  So I'm saved from that tramatic expereince.

I'm off to do some work around bear territory.  My roses are in need of attention....  Then there are the two dogs.... Can't forget the cats...  What do I do about the field mice that are moving into the neighborhood?  

Oh yea, topic.  Which one??? ??  ???  ??

Be good while I'm gone.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 02, 2005, 01:45:54 PM
Quote
"My opinion is very clear a lawyer on AA's side , doing the proper research. could challenge the samples and make the evidence inadmissable. it would be her right, if she was alive or for her inheritors. What is so wrng about that? "

You are absolutely correct.  I don't think anyone disagrees.  THe problem here is that we don't have any evidence with which to challenge the samples other than the fact that it is possible that the samples were interfered with.  Possibility doesn't fly in court without some sort of evidence to back it up.

So far, Richard Schweitzer, Penny, Greg, and others who are most familiar with the situation are not showing us any such evidence, and I have to believe that if some existed, we'd know about it.


Finelly or Pentetorri,

At what point would or could a challenge be made on contamination, possible contamination, would all of this been precluded by an investigation of the protocols at the MJ Hospital?  

I agree that if some evidence existed to the contrary in this case we would know about it.   How could the challenge be made by a her attorney, would they just state I challenge this test?  Or would a barrage of new tests have to be performed showing differnt results?

Not being an attorney, can some one give us a reasonably short summation of how this could or would happen. :)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 02, 2005, 01:48:45 PM
Hark, I hear another  voice of reason.

My roses can wait another hour.....  All ears.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: lexi4 on August 02, 2005, 01:50:23 PM
Finelly,
Please help us out here. I know you will give an objective, factual answer. (Besides, you know what will happen if you don't) 8)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 02, 2005, 01:50:29 PM
Quote

What I'm suggesting  by my statement is that Tatiana's  experience within the inner circle of the Imperial family was not nearly as relevant and important as Olga's was in terms of making a positive ID.

.
And, might I add that several court members, who dismissed AA, also did not recognize the Botkin children because the two had hardly been at court, even as late as 1917.    



Yes and Olga was involved in nursing work during the war, which may have made her last meeting of AN either 1916 or 1917.  

Tatiana & Gleb Botkin would be considered as first hand sources as would Olga.  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Forum Admin on August 02, 2005, 02:15:44 PM
An attorney for the estate of AA (since she's dead) would file a Motion objecting to the admission of the DNA evidence on the grounds that the sample had been contaminated.  In that motion, specific evidence would have to be introduced and authenticated by affidavit supporting the allegations of contamination. These would have to be very specific, like exact opportunity for the sample to be mishandled and by whom, evidence to show the sample was accidentally switched or mislabelled, or some specific violation of the established rules as set forth by the Forensic Pathology board.  

The Prosecution would then answer this Motion. By introducing evidence that the sample had been properly handled, showing the protocols of the Hospital lab, and testimony from an expert who would review the testing and handling of the sample and then give their opinion as to whether is would be likely that contamination had in fact occurrred.

The Judge, NOT a jury would then make this determination as a matter of law, and either grant or deny the Motion.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: lexi4 on August 02, 2005, 03:07:19 PM
Thank you FA!
I don't see anyone challenging this legally right now. So that should tell us something. Also, Pentetori, you mentioned censorship.  I am all for the First Amendment, but this is not a public board. It up to the FA, and rightfully so, to determine what can and can't be posted. And I have not know the FA to censor anyone, just to make sure the facts are straight.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 02, 2005, 04:10:29 PM
Quote
An attorney for the estate of AA (since she's dead) would file a Motion objecting to the admission of the DNA evidence on the grounds that the sample had been contaminated.  In that motion, specific evidence would have to be introduced and authenticated by affidavit supporting the allegations of contamination. These would have to be very specific, like exact opportunity for the sample to be mishandled and by whom, evidence to show the sample was accidentally switched or mislabelled, or some specific violation of the established rules as set forth by the Forensic Pathology board.  

The Prosecution would then answer this Motion. By introducing evidence that the sample had been properly handled, showing the protocols of the Hospital lab, and testimony from an expert who would review the testing and handling of the sample and then give their opinion as to whether is would be likely that contamination had in fact occurrred.

The Judge, NOT a jury would then make this determination as a matter of law, and either grant or deny the Motion.


I myself do realize that the decision or ruling whether the sample is admissable or not is made by a judge.

I appreciate your taking the time to answer the question, regardless of where any of us stands on the issue of identity one thing is for certain that all aspects of this case are important in coming to a solution.

I look forward to Greg & Penny's book the Pretenders.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Forum Admin on August 02, 2005, 04:23:38 PM
Michael, my pleasure to answer your legitimate question. As has been said, I am not wanting to censor anyone at all. I am all for presenting the legitmate facts in the matter and your question was a very good one to ask at this point in the discussion as certain procedural issues were being ignored by some people in making their points.

FA
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 02, 2005, 04:26:09 PM
Quote

Just to set the record straight on this (since Annie keeps coming back to people "making money on books") neither I nor Greg nor any other "royal" author/biographer I know -- with perhaps one exception -- make anything like a "living" from our books.  We both have jobs that pay the mortgage and other monthly expenses.  In my personal case, I have a husband with a good job in oceanography/environmental science -- but I pay my research expenses by bartending.  Greg and I are not rich, nor will our books ever make us so.  Writing is a vocation in which we sometimes manage to break even.

I hope you will all bear this in mind when you see remarks about "making money on books."



Penny, I and others want to thank you for your continued participation in this forum.  Clearly there is a person (s) who continually levels this aspersion against yourself & Greg, which I think is beneath contempt.  

I can't praise FOTR enough and the documentation, and the explanation it brought to those of us who seek answers in this case.   There are those who constantly rail against the differing facts in this case, and their position remains that DNA makes everything else moot.

Well I disagree with that statement, and so do others, we want to find out WHY, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE & HOW.
It may very well turn out that she if FS, and if that is so I can handle it, because I have no vested interest in her being one person or the other.  

We all know that the case can be confusing at times, and it is more than amazing that some of us think of the same questions, and situations, and want to know more, I feel a kin to most of the posters here with one or two notable exceptions, who aren't interested in history, just promoting their own point of view, as they feel they have something to lose if it doesn't come out their way.

Thanks for staying around and being part of the group and posting, and I don't feel that there are that many of us that post here that don't appreciate your continued participation, & input.  As far as publishing books and making money, well people have a misguided view that every book that is published sells well and makes one a J.K. Rowling.  It's just not the case here, we all know that, and thanks again.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 02, 2005, 04:33:25 PM
Quote
Michael, my pleasure to answer your legitimate question. As has been said, I am not wanting to censor anyone at all. I am all for presenting the legitmate facts in the matter and your question was a very good one to ask at this point in the discussion as certain procedural issues were being ignored by some people in making their points.

FA


FA,

You are welcome.  While having some idea of the legal & judicial proceess, not just from TV, I wanted to know what the procedures were.  I can't tell you how much I  appreciate someone answering.

I don't think you are a censor, and I do understand that things can get out of hand and rather emotional here on this thread.  

Whether or not I beleive she is or is not FS is immaterial, what is material is the investigation and all of the unanswered questions.  I appreciate the manner in which you allow us to carry on our discussions, regardless of difference of opinion.

Michael
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: etonexile on August 02, 2005, 06:06:08 PM
Quote
An attorney for the estate of AA (since she's dead) would file a Motion objecting to the admission of the DNA evidence on the grounds that the sample had been contaminated.  In that motion, specific evidence would have to be introduced and authenticated by affidavit supporting the allegations of contamination. These would have to be very specific, like exact opportunity for the sample to be mishandled and by whom, evidence to show the sample was accidentally switched or mislabelled, or some specific violation of the established rules as set forth by the Forensic Pathology board.  

The Prosecution would then answer this Motion. By introducing evidence that the sample had been properly handled, showing the protocols of the Hospital lab, and testimony from an expert who would review the testing and handling of the sample and then give their opinion as to whether is would be likely that contamination had in fact occurrred.

The Judge, NOT a jury would then make this determination as a matter of law, and either grant or deny the Motion.


OMG...finally...a nice,clean statement of facts....
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: lexi4 on August 02, 2005, 07:17:19 PM
It is impossble to prove a negative. So let's say all the jurors but me are in agreement that the evidence was contaminatad. Prove to me that it was. Before the big attack: This is hypothetical, I not stating what I believe or don't believe. Finelly, go for it. Or better yet, since this is Annie's thread, I will start a new one dealing with this issue.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 02, 2005, 08:45:44 PM
Sounds good.  I'll go find it and see what I can dig up.

The URL is:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1123024872

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: rskkiya on August 02, 2005, 08:55:25 PM
Several pages ago The FA made a very valid point regarding the Flat Earth Society -- basicly stating that people will often cling to ideas no matter how irrational they may appear - indeed all efforts to point this out seem to only strengthen their faith!
  Hence here people try to mention the subtleties of DNA evidence which will offend some while thrilling others -- a critical statement from one poster or comments such as the phrase  'heresay' may inspire another poster to feel personnally insulted, persecuted and to claim the moral high ground ... and another flame war begins - and again we forget what we were originally trying to  discuss...

You are all most likely good hearted people - but to be honest - I really cannot stand this sort of thing any longer. This is all too silly.

Perhaps we all ought to turn off our PCs and take a nice refreshing walk!

rskkiya
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 02, 2005, 09:02:00 PM
Quote
Several pages ago The FA made a very valid point regarding the Flat Earth Society -- basicly stating that people will often cling to ideas no matter how irrational they may appear - indeed all efforts to point this out seem to only strengthen their faith!
   Hence here people try to mention the subtleties of DNA evidence which will offend some while thrilling others -- a critical statement from one poster or comments such as the phrase  'heresay' may inspire another poster to feel personnally insulted, persecuted and to claim the moral high ground ... and another flame war begins - and again we forget what we were originally trying to  discuss...


FA's posts have been very informative and to the point. I fear anyone who still does not accept the facts does not want to, and never will, because they don't want to and  they will only hate those who try to teach them. As much as I feel I must continue to try to show people the light, it's impossible if they don't want to see it because they feel more comfortable in the dark where anything is possible! Again, my sig....some people just WANT to believe it, and NOTHING is EVER going to satisfy them.

Quote
You are all most likely good hearted people - but to be honest - I really cannot stand this sort of thing any longer. This is all too silly.

Perhaps we all ought to turn off our PCs and take a nice refreshing walk!

rskkiya


It is a nice breezy, starry night.

And perhaps on my walk, I will be abducted by aliens. I hope so!
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 02, 2005, 09:21:06 PM
Quote
Several pages ago The FA made a very valid point regarding the Flat Earth Society -- basicly stating that people will often cling to ideas no matter how irrational they may appear - indeed all efforts to point this out seem to only strengthen their faith!
   Hence here people try to mention the subtleties of DNA evidence which will offend some while thrilling others -- a critical statement from one poster or comments such as the phrase  'heresay' may inspire another poster to feel personnally insulted, persecuted and to claim the moral high ground ... and another flame war begins - and again we forget what we were originally trying to  discuss...

You are all most likely good hearted people - but to be honest - I really cannot stand this sort of thing any longer. This is all too silly.

Perhaps we all ought to turn off our PCs and take a nice refreshing walk!

rskkiya



Rskkiya,

I for one am interested in answering all or as many questions as possible in order to solve the mystery or come to a reasonable solution, whatever that solution may be.

I spoke with two cousins of mine who are attorneys, and definitely within the realm of evidence, Felix's niece's deposition or statement would not be admitted as evidence, as she had no actual first hand contact with the claimant or knowledge of her personally.  It could also be considered as heresay.

While not trying to inflame or persecute, I wish there was some standard by which the evidence would be considered.  I have asked these people to present the niece's statement in full so we can go over it, no response.  Do you understand or comprehend my frustration ? It is not just DNA, there are many other factors to consider.  Some people make continuous statements about 6 hour meetings that never happened, and family correspondence that no one has seen or have been provided copies of.   No source material has been used.  It is just too frustrating for word IMO.  

Some of the DNA people need to back away from the assumption they are mistakenly stating all over the place the we believe AA is AN.  I for one don't.  I know that most of the posters here don't.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 02, 2005, 09:21:56 PM
Forum Admin. has apologized to posters who were offended by the "flat lander" remark.  It's done.  It's over.  It's old news.

If you are interested in what will guide us to the light,  sources with names of books, articles, pages would be nice.

I don't think I find the question about DNA in the following questions:

Quote
Franziska Schanskowska WAS Anna Anderson, and she was not Anastasia.

There is no longer any reasonable doubt about that. But there are still mysteries I want answered. Here they are:

1. Did Franziska willingly play along, or did she really have amnesia and not know who she was? Did she want to rid herself of her old life so badly she became someone else?

Also, if she really did believe she was Anastasia, at what point did this happen? Was it from the beginning, or did she play along so long she came to believe it in her old age because she was mentally unstable?

2. Did her supporters really believe her, or were they only hoping, or hoping for money?

3. Who coached her, taught her languages, and fed her memories? And of the memories, how many were intentionally fed, or just incidental relayed in conversation?

4. What went on between her and her siblings when they met? Surely they knew it was her, and covered for her. But did she know it was them and beg them not to expose her?

5. Who was behind the whole lawsuit thing, and why?




AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 02, 2005, 09:25:35 PM
What fun!  I used to be a lawyer.  Now I teach emotionally disturbed teens.  I get to use ALL of my skills here!  <giggle>

Ok.  Let's say I'm a lawyer hired to disprove the dna evidence.  I would charge a HUGE retainer, by the way.  Just so you know.

My first comment would be that there is no legal case about AA being anyone in the U.S.  And it may be a tad late in Germany to file a new appeal. Without an actual open legal case, there's no reason to file a motion.  

But let's assume that there was a legal case going on, or that had been recently ruled on.  You might ask me to file a motion to preclude the dna evidence.  As an officer of the court, I would need actual evidence of contamination or manipuation in order to file the motion.  Not a possibility based on generalities.  Actual, in this particular case, evidence.  

So probably the first thing I'd have to do is start an investigation.  I would have to examine negligent and deliberate possibilities.  Who had the motive to do it on purpose?  Would they have had the opportunity?  How secure was the hospital's storage facility?  Was the tissue or any tissue stored near it ever removed?  

I'd investigate not only whether the tissue itself was contaminated in the hospital, but what happened to it the entire way from the hospital to the testing facilities.  In Dr. Gill's place, could ANYONE have broken in and tampered with samples?  Is there any evidence that anyone did?  (now there I might be able to get away with a possibility rather than actual evidence of tampering, quite frankly, given the motive issue and the number of Romanovs who might not have wanted AA proven to be AN.)

Only once the investigation was completed and IF there was some sort of evidence that would make an actual question of fact that there was tampering would I consent to file the motion.

My personal note:  If I was going to investigate, I'd check the Gill facility and access to it before I'd go to the hospital itself.  Why?  Because regardess of whether AA is AN, the dna results show a similarity to the FS dna, and the FS data was more accessible from England than the US.  ALL of the dna samples ended up with Gill, while only ONE dna sample was ever at the Virginia hospital.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 02, 2005, 09:26:28 PM
I'm back from my walk, no aliens, shucks. I did find my cat though!

Bear, thanks for bringing the original topic of the thread back up, I would still like answers to those questions though I doubt we ever will. I think we all have to accept that some things will never be answered, because people took their secrets to their graves, and left no paper trail to find no matter HOW much research we do. So if we're waiting for definite answers to all the subjective stuff, I'm afraid it's not going to happen.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 02, 2005, 09:29:18 PM
Well, I enjoy the walk more than the destination. In fact, half the time I don't really care where it ends up!  The path is just so interesting!
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on August 02, 2005, 09:34:14 PM
Quote

  



My personal note:  If I was going to investigate, I'd check the Gill facility and access to it before I'd go to the hospital itself.  Why?  Because regardess of whether AA is AN, the dna results show a similarity to the FS dna, and the FS data was more accessible from England than the US.  ALL of the dna samples ended up with Gill, while only ONE dna sample was ever at the Virginia hospital.


Could you please expand on this? I find it very interesting.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 02, 2005, 09:36:39 PM
Quote
Well, I enjoy the walk more than the destination. In fact, half the time I don't really care where it ends up!  The path is just so interesting!



Exactly!!!!
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 02, 2005, 09:44:58 PM
Sure thing, Inquiring Mind.

Fact:  The hospital in Virginia housed the actual intestinal tissue of AA.  It did not contain any of the other tissue/samples that were tested in this case. (Prince Phillip's blood, Gertrude's blood, etc)

Fact:  The place Dr. Gill worked eventually had all of the samples that were tested.  AA's intestinal tissue, Gertrude's blood, the Romanov bones, etc.

Now, the issue with AA is that we have two dna results.  First, the result of her dna compared to the Romanov dna.  The result is that she is not a Romanov.  Second, the result of her dna compared to the Schw family.  The result is that she shares mitochondrial dna with them.

If AA's tissue was merely contaminated, it wouldn't have shown both results.  Just not likely or really even possible.

But, if AA's tissue was somehow mixed with or contaminated with the Schw family tissue, why then we'd have something like th results we got.  She was not a Romanov.  She was related to the Schw family.

(Let me also say that if the tissue was NOT contaminated, we'd also have the above result.  She tested as not a Romanov, and as a matriarchal relative of the Schw family)

The mix/contamination with the Schw family tissue could not have happened at the Virginia hospital.  (Unless someone went in and did it deliberately, and would they have had the access/opportunity?)

Where could it have happened?  Why, at the facility where ALL of the dna samples were located, of course.  Gill's facility.

Now, I am not about to argue that this is what happened.  I have absolutely no indication that it did.  What I am saying is that IF I were someone investigating this issue, that's where I'd start.

So don't beat me up here.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 02, 2005, 09:52:24 PM
Everthing was tranferred to Gill's lab before it was tested elsewhere, including the samples that were sent to Claire King at UC.....  ???

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: lexi4 on August 02, 2005, 09:57:05 PM
Finelly,
"So don't beat me up here."
You spoil all the fun.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 02, 2005, 09:57:24 PM
Finelly:  >>The mix/contamination with the Schw family tissue could not have happened at the Virginia hospital.  (Unless someone went in and did it deliberately, and would they have had the access/opportunity?<<

Like I posted earlier,  the specimen was placed in a more secure place after they discovered their was an interest in the specimen.  Which I assume means that it was not as secure as it should have been...

In fact, when it was first asked about,  no one could find the records.

And,  the hospital was going through serious changes at that time.

So, the answer is, yes, if someone wanted to get to the specimen it was possible.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 02, 2005, 10:01:38 PM
Finelly:  >>Now, the issue with AA is that we have two dna results.  First, the result of her dna compared to the Romanov dna.  The result is that she is not a Romanov.  Second, the result of her dna compared to the Schw family.  The result is that she shares mitochondrial dna with them<<

If I may make just a little correction.  The DNA was compared to Gertrude's grandson Karl Maucher and her daughter Marg. Ellerik and it did not invovled any silbing with whom we have records which show they were the children of Anton. S. and his second wife.  Therefore, AA shared mtDNA only with Gertrude and whomever her mother was at that maternal lineage.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 02, 2005, 10:11:09 PM
Finely:  >>If AA's tissue was merely contaminated, it wouldn't have shown both results.  Just not likely or really even possible. <<


I assume we need to relate to the glass slide which Dr. Ginther was given which seems to have been contaminated.   This contamination seems to be because it was around, among, touching other glass slides with other blood samples.  

See the thread Questions To Ask Dr. Ginter.

Is there a way to contiminate a specimen so completely that all the DNA which had been present would have been eliminated and only the contaminated DNA would be present???

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: lexi4 on August 02, 2005, 10:53:21 PM
Could these posts be moved to the contamination thread?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 02, 2005, 11:45:41 PM
As much as I feel I must continue to try to show people the light, it's impossible if they don't want to see it because they feel more comfortable in the dark where anything is possible!

There are two kinds of light -- the glow that illumines, and the glare that obscures.  
James Thurber 1894-1961, American Humorist, Illustrator  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 03, 2005, 06:23:14 AM
Quote
As much as I feel I must continue to try to show people the light, it's impossible if they don't want to see it because they feel more comfortable in the dark where anything is possible!

There are two kinds of light -- the glow that illumines, and the glare that obscures.  
 James Thurber 1894-1961, American Humorist, Illustrator  


In dealing with difficult relatives, I have used the terms 'selective amnesia' and 'selective deafness.' Apparently this is a case of 'selective blindness.' I hope you do not do such disservices to your disturbed teen students. Reality sucks, but it must be accepted.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 03, 2005, 08:51:02 AM
"If I may make just a little correction.  The DNA was compared to Gertrude's grandson Karl Maucher and her daughter Marg. Ellerik and it did not invovled any silbing with whom we have records which show they were the children of Anton. S. and his second wife.  Therefore, AA shared mtDNA only with Gertrude and whomever her mother was at that maternal lineage. "

You're right, AGRBear.  I forgot about that, possibly because we all spent so long debating who Gertrude was in relation to FS!  The name just stuck in my mind!
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 03, 2005, 09:24:31 AM
For the record as this came up before, only descendants of FS's sisters would be a match. The brothers shared the same mtDNA with FS, but their children would have the mtDNA of their wives. The mtDNA is only carried in the solid female to female line, like a surname is only carried male to male. While Karl Maucher is a male, is the son of Gertrude's daughter, making him have the same mtDNA. However, if Karl has kids, they won't have the same mtDNA.

The same with Prince Phillip. He has the same mtDNA as Alexandra, since he's the son of Alice, who was the daughter of Alix's sister, Victoria. However, the children of Prince Phillip and Queen Elizabeth II will not share mtDNA with Alexandra, they will have the mtDNA of the female line of the Queen Mum.

Carrying it further, of all the royal grandchildren, only Zara, daughter of Princess Anne, has the Queen and Queen Mum's mtDNA. Princes William and Harry have Di's mtDNA, and Beatrice and Eugenie have Fergie's. That's how it goes.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 03, 2005, 09:34:17 AM
Quote

In dealing with difficult relatives, I have used the terms 'selective amnesia' and 'selective deafness.' Apparently this is a case of 'selective blindness.' I hope you do not do such disservices to your disturbed teen students. Reality sucks, but it must be accepted.



You know you really need to stop with the personal attacks...
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 03, 2005, 09:37:58 AM
Quote
"If I may make just a little correction.  The DNA was compared to Gertrude's grandson Karl Maucher and her daughter Marg. Ellerik and it did not invovled any silbing with whom we have records which show they were the children of Anton. S. and his second wife.  Therefore, AA shared mtDNA only with Gertrude and whomever her mother was at that maternal lineage. "

You're right, AGRBear.  I forgot about that, possibly because we all spent so long debating who Gertrude was in relation to FS!  The name just stuck in my mind!


Finelly,

At this point we ASSUME Gertrude & Franziska share the same mother.  All of the birth records of the children of Anton & his wife are in a certain church and that includes the birth of Franziska.  However Gertrude's is missing, they have not been able to locate the birth record.

They are most likely sisters, BUT, we have never been able to come to a conclusion because of the lack of a birth record for the child called Gertrude.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 03, 2005, 09:39:10 AM
Quote


You know you really need to stop with the personal attacks...



I'm not attacking a person, but a general philosophy, an idea, a viewpoint.

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 03, 2005, 09:44:17 AM
Quote


I'm not attacking a person, but a general philosophy, an idea, a viewpoint.


That's not a attacking a philosophy that's a personal attack.

Stop with the remarks about Finelly doing a disservice to her students.  That is below the belt, and uncalled for.  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 03, 2005, 09:53:35 AM
Quote
 Therefore, AA shared mtDNA only with Gertrude and whomever her mother was at that maternal lineage.

AGRBear


You're jumping to  conclusions. We have no idea if AA  shared mtDNA "only " with the descendents of Getrude, as her sequence was not compared to any other sibling.   I don't believe Maria Juliana left any female descendents.


Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 03, 2005, 10:06:25 AM
Quote

You're jumping to  conclusions. We have no idea if AA  shared mtDNA "only " with the descendents of Getrude, as her sequence was not compared to any other sibling.   I don't believe Maria Juliana left any female descendents.




True, we will never know if the others matched unless we dig them up.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 03, 2005, 10:09:12 AM
Quote

You're jumping to  conclusions. We have no idea if AA  shared mtDNA "only " with the descendents of Getrude, as her sequence was not compared to any other sibling.   I don't believe Maria Juliana left any female descendents.




From Annie:
Quote
For the record as this came up before, only descendants of FS's sisters would be a match. The brothers shared the same mtDNA with FS, but their children would have the mtDNA of their wives. The mtDNA is only carried in the solid female to female line, like a surname is only carried male to male. While Karl Maucher is a male, is the son of Gertrude's daughter, making him have the same mtDNA. However, if Karl has kids, they won't have the same mtDNA.  




So if Marie Juliana did not leave any direct female descendants, and as Annie states that MTDNA is shared from only the direct female to female line, how can this be done?  Since Gertrude's descendant Karl Maucher is through the female to female line, wouldn't Marie-Juliana's be the only other MtDNA match?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 03, 2005, 10:24:00 AM
The brothers would have matched her, just not their kids.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 03, 2005, 10:25:59 AM
Quote

From Annie:



So if Marie Juliana did not leave any direct female descendants, and as Annie states that MTDNA is shared from only the direct female to female line, how can this be done?  Since Gertrude's descendant Karl Maucher is through the female to female line, wouldn't Marie-Juliana's be the only other MtDNA match?


They could dig up the remains of  Felix, Valerian, Marie Juliana, or the other siblings who died young and test them. But I really can't see any valid reason for that to happen.

Or they could see if Marianna, FS's mother, has any female relatives who left descendents and see if they are willing to volunteer.
But, as Marianna's relatives were found to not be a very prolific race( hence the rarity of the mtDNA sequence and the 99.9 odds that AA=FS ) chances o f that are slim too.    
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 03, 2005, 10:44:03 AM
Quote

They could dig up the remains of  Felix, Valerian, Marie Juliana, or the other siblings who died young and test them. But I really can't see any valid reason for that to happen.

Or they could see if Marianna, FS's mother, has any female relatives who left descendents and see if they are willing to volunteer.
But, as Marianna's relatives were found to not be a very prolific race( hence the rarity of the mtDNA sequence and the 99.9 odds that AA=FS ) chances o f that are slim too.    


That's right, I don't see anyone really going so far as to dig them up just to prove to about  4 people on this message board that Gertrude and FS were whole sisters. The family obviously knows they are, or Maucher would not have been chosen for the test. I don't want to sound rude again but I really don't think it's even a valid issue, and I hardly think anyone is going to go to all the pain, grief, mess and expense of digging up dead people to prove something that doesn't need to be proven. (and even if they were dug up, tested, and matched FS, the switch stories are never going to go away anyway)

I also wonder if some people are really seeking 'the truth' or the answer they personally want to hear? It seems that way, as hard evidence keeps getting disregarded for the most outrageous reasons. We do have our answer, AA was FS, but some refuse to accept that, and never will, because it's not the answer they were hoping for.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 03, 2005, 12:22:29 PM
Quote


I also wonder if some people are really seeking 'the truth' or the answer they personally want to hear? It seems that way, as hard evidence keeps getting disregarded for the most outrageous reasons. We do have our answer, AA was FS, but some refuse to accept that, and never will, because it's not the answer they were hoping for.


That statement is disengenuous to say the least. It has nothing to do with the answer that "I or we" hope for.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 03, 2005, 12:41:08 PM
I'm not prepared to assume that Gertrude was FS's sister.  Not yet.  I'm waiting for those who have been researching that area and the family to report back.  

Ordinarily, I guess I'd make that assumption, but the non-dna differences between FS and AA are so many that I think it's worth waiting.

Michael - when a person is not capable or willing to enter into positive interactions, the best and most appropriate response is to refuse to respond to the negative.  Let's let FA deal with it.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Forum Admin on August 03, 2005, 01:15:02 PM
Quote

In dealing with difficult relatives, I have used the terms 'selective amnesia' and 'selective deafness.' Apparently this is a case of 'selective blindness.' I hope you do not do such disservices to your disturbed teen students. Reality sucks, but it must be accepted.


Annie: warning #2. Uncalled for.  Am I clear?

FA
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Richard_Schweitzer on August 03, 2005, 01:21:54 PM
I would like to suggest annadded question (related to  a post elsewhere on this site);

How did this person, deemed to be FS, come to speak English with a Yorkshire "cast," as was determined from expert examinations of private video and tape recordings?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 03, 2005, 01:29:59 PM
RE: the english/yorkshire accent.

Although the Yorkshire cast utilized by AA in speaking English (and I guess FS,too, if one is accepting the premise of htis thread) is an important factor in the entire litany of facts relating AA to AN, it alone is really not a difficult one to contest.

SO many emigres had English maids, nannies, etc .  Mostly from Yorkshire.  If anyone spent time with them listening to them, it would be easy to pick up the accent.  IF that person was good at languages and sounds.

For example, I can speak Swedish with a Skane accent if I spend more than 2 days down in the south of Sweden, and I am a northern girl.  And I can easily adopt a southern accent in English if I spend time in Georgia.  For me, half the time, I'm not even aware that it is happening.  Which is why I, a European Jew, speak Hebrew with a Yemenite accent!
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 03, 2005, 01:46:36 PM
Hmm. My previous post has disappeared from the thread. I'm a newbie. Is this a common occurence?

As far as the Yorkshire accent is concerned, I'm an actor and theatre director by profession, and I can second Finelly's description as to how accents can be acquired. That being said, wasn't Alexandra's nanny from Hesse-Darmstadt, a Mrs. Orchard, brought to Tsarskoe Selo to look after the girls in their childhood? Does anyone know what part of England she was from? For that matter, does anyone have any information as to what Alexandra's spoken English sounded like?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 03, 2005, 02:02:26 PM
Okay, I am a newbie and a dork, since I misplaced my own posting. It was actually on another thread. Sorry.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Forum Admin on August 03, 2005, 02:55:43 PM
I myself remember coming home after living in London for four months, and  thinking my friends were all teasing me when they said "Stop that English accent!" I had no conscious idea that I had in fact started to pick up the accent. Also, after spending a summer in Paris with friends who had moved there, I went back to school and my French teacher remarked on how much my French accent had improved. So yes, accents are easily picked up by some people.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 03, 2005, 03:54:06 PM
So AA spoke English with a Yorkshire acent,  Low and High German with the proper dialects, French, and proper Russian.  So, even if she was a quick with learning languages,  when and from whom did she gain all this  between the time she left home shortly before WWI and jumping into the Berlin canal Feb. 1920???

AGRBear

PS Louis,   don't worry, we all get confused from time to time, especially this wooly brain old bear.  And, welcome to the group.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 03, 2005, 03:59:37 PM
<sigh>  AGRBear, this is where Penny and Greg's not-yet-published research will really come in handy.

<tap tap tap>  Maybe if we threaten them?  Bribe them?  Grovel and snivel a lot?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 03, 2005, 04:04:23 PM
An excellent question. Is there an accurate record of FS' movements during the war?

Depending upon her intelligence, assuming that AA was FS, and not AN, it seems possible to me that she could have amassed this kind of linguistic proficiency within a short period of time, say five years. Many Europeans are polyglot when it comes to languages. FS was described by members of her own family as intelligent. And if AA was FS, then the language question is minor compared to the sheer amount of information about the Family itself that she was able to absorb over the few years after she was pulled from the canal.Of course, if AA wasn't FS, then the entire question is wide open.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 03, 2005, 04:16:49 PM
What litttle we know about FS  before Feb. 1920 is in a Timeline Thread:

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1114717030;start=0#0

There is, also, one for AA after she jumped into the canal.

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1115133804

I kept them separate for different reasons.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 03, 2005, 04:28:34 PM
Thanks for sending me to the post, Bear. It was fascinating. I am at work right now and don't have access to my own Romanov books. I found selected things in the Massie quote on the thread to be very interesting in light of some of the things that we have been talking about today on this thread.

"Who was Franziska Schanzkowska, the woman who for over sixty years had claimed to be Grand Duchess Anastasia? She was born in 1896 in the Prussian province of Posen, adjacent to the border with Poland, which was then a part of the Russian Empire. Two hundreds years before, her family had belonged to lesser Polish nobility, but by the end of the nineteenth century, the family were farmworkers. Franziska's father, an impoverished alcoholic, died when his children were young. In the village where she grew up, Franziska always was different and solitary. She did not make friends, and she tried especially to distance herself from her sisters by assuming what they considered an affected, upper-class manner. At harvesttime, when the entire village was out in the fields bringing in hay, Franziska would be found lying in a cart reading books on history.
  " 'My Auntie Franziska was the cleverest of the four children,' " said Waltraud Schanzkowska, a resident of Hamburg. " 'She didn't want to be be buried in a little one-horse town. She wanted to come out into the world, to become an actress -- something special.' " In 1914, shortly before the outbreak of the First World War, Franziska, at age eighteen, left the Polish provinces for Berlin. She worked as a waitress, met a young man, and became engaged. Before she could marry, her fiance was called up for military service. Franziska began working in a munitions factory. In 1916, the young man was killed on the western front. Soon afterward, Franziska let a grenade slip from her hands on the assembly line. It exploded nearby, inflicting splinter wounds on her head and other parts of her body and eviscerating a foreman, who died before her eyes. She was sent to a sanitarium, where her physical injuries healed but the shock remained. Franziska was declared "not cured, but not dangerous," and discharged. She was taken in, almost as a charity case, by Frau Wingender, who gave her a room of her own, Incapable of working long periods, Franziska was in and out of sanatoria; in between, she remained bedridden at the Wingender's apartment, complaining of headaches, swallowing pills, and reading history books from the local library. In February 1920, her favorite brother, Felix, received a last message from her. On February 17, 1920, she disappeared."


This profile can be used to answer some of the questions about Anna Andersen's language abilities, assuming that she and Franziska are the same woman, as Massie obviously does. She had spent several years in Germany. She lived formative years near the border with the Russian Empire. She had expressed early ambitions to become an actress, in other words to be someone proficient in assuming other identities. As I said earlier, I do think it likely that AA was FS. This quote from Massie provides quotes from Schanzkowska family members that tend to buttress that position, imo.


Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 03, 2005, 05:37:00 PM
Quote
I would like to suggest annadded question (related to  a post elsewhere on this site);

How did this person, deemed to be FS, come to speak English with a Yorkshire "cast," as was determined from expert examinations of private video and tape recordings?


I have heard tapes and videos of her speaking and I don't hear anything English in her accent at all. If it's in there, it's buried deep, and the real Anastasia's would not have been, having a mother who spoke mostly English and a father who spoke it with a British accent. I guess Franziska picked up her English from someone along the way, but it wasn't from Nicholas or Alexandra or even Gibbes, as she never met them.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 03, 2005, 05:39:23 PM
Quote
"Who was Franziska Schanzkowska, the woman who for over sixty years had claimed to be Grand Duchess Anastasia? She was born in 1896 in the Prussian province of Posen, adjacent to the border with Poland, which was then a part of the Russian Empire. Two hundreds years before, her family had belonged to lesser Polish nobility, but by the end of the nineteenth century, the family were farmworkers. Franziska's father, an impoverished alcoholic, died when his children were young. In the village where she grew up, Franziska always was different and solitary. She did not make friends, and she tried especially to distance herself from her sisters by assuming what they considered an affected, upper-class manner. At harvesttime, when the entire village was out in the fields bringing in hay, Franziska would be found lying in a cart reading books on history.
   " 'My Auntie Franziska was the cleverest of the four children,' " said Waltraud Schanzkowska, a resident of Hamburg. " 'She didn't want to be be buried in a little one-horse town. She wanted to come out into the world, to become an actress -- something special.' " In 1914, shortly before the outbreak of the First World War, Franziska, at age eighteen, left the Polish provinces for Berlin. She worked as a waitress, met a young man, and became engaged. Before she could marry, her fiance was called up for military service. Franziska began working in a munitions factory. In 1916, the young man was killed on the western front. Soon afterward, Franziska let a grenade slip from her hands on the assembly line. It exploded nearby, inflicting splinter wounds on her head and other parts of her body and eviscerating a foreman, who died before her eyes. She was sent to a sanitarium, where her physical injuries healed but the shock remained. Franziska was declared "not cured, but not dangerous," and discharged. She was taken in, almost as a charity case, by Frau Wingender, who gave her a room of her own, Incapable of working long periods, Franziska was in and out of sanatoria; in between, she remained bedridden at the Wingender's apartment, complaining of headaches, swallowing pills, and reading history books from the local library. In February 1920, her favorite brother, Felix, received a last message from her. On February 17, 1920, she disappeared."


This profile can be used to answer some of the questions about Anna Andersen's language abilities, assuming that she and Franziska are the same woman, as Massie obviously does. She had spent several years in Germany. She lived formative years near the border with the Russian Empire. She had expressed early ambitions to become an actress, in other words to be someone proficient in assuming other identities. As I said earlier, I do think it likely that AA was FS. This quote from Massie provides quotes from Schanzkowska family members that tend to buttress that position, imo.
 
 


Thank you so much, it's about time we had the input of Massie, or quotes from someone other than AA supporters. It would be great if Massie would come here and post, is that possible?

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 03, 2005, 05:41:00 PM
Ah, but Louis Charles, Frau Wingeder's statements re: FS have long-since been completely discredited.  

As for the accent, I read somewhere (but darned if I can remember the cite or source) that two lingualists studied audio tapes of AA and concluded, without any opposition from other experts, that her English had strong traces of a Yorkshire accent.

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 03, 2005, 05:51:23 PM
Quote
Ah, but Louis Charles, Frau Wingeder's statements re: FS have long-since been completely discredited.  

As for the accent, I read somewhere (but darned if I can remember the cite or source) that two lingualists studied audio tapes of AA and concluded, without any opposition from other experts, that her English had strong traces of a Yorkshire accent.



Can anyone post a snippet to a sound bite? Someone must really be grabbing at straws to hear any English in her accent. As an American, I can barely understand her, she does not pronounce her words in very English ways. Even if it is buried in there somewhere, it still proves absolutely nothing about her identity, as she could have learned her English from literally anyone.

But the person I hear on that tape does not at all sound like someone raised by fluent British English speaking parents.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 03, 2005, 05:54:40 PM
I think it was Kurth who constantly used tapes during his intervew which we've not heard, there are stretches of film tape which was never used,  and,  I'm sure other recordings of her voice.   So,  what little we've heard her say in the two tv PBS specials, may not give us enough to make any kinds of opinion.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 03, 2005, 05:57:15 PM
Finelly,

I think you are right about Frau W., but have the testimonies of the Schanzkowska family members been impeached?

Simon a/k/a Louis Charles
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 03, 2005, 06:00:48 PM
Oh, and I almost forgot. In my youth I met Anna Manahan, and had a brief conversation with her. But I also (rudely) eavesdropped upon her ensuing conversation with her husband. To my mind, she had no trace of an English accent. But she also sounded educated, if I can sound snobbish for a moment. I am of the firm opinion that, whoever she was, Anna Manahan did believe in her proclaimed identity as Anastasia Nikolaevna.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 03, 2005, 06:02:04 PM
Quote
Thanks for sending me to the post, Bear. It was fascinating. I am at work right now and don't have access to my own Romanov books. I found selected things in the Massie quote on the thread to be very interesting in light of some of the things that we have been talking about today on this thread.

"Who was Franziska Schanzkowska, the woman who for over sixty years had claimed to be Grand Duchess Anastasia? She was born in 1896 in the Prussian province of Posen, adjacent to the border with Poland, which was then a part of the Russian Empire. Two hundreds years before, her family had belonged to lesser Polish nobility, but by the end of the nineteenth century, the family were farmworkers. Franziska's father, an impoverished alcoholic, died when his children were young. In the village where she grew up, Franziska always was different and solitary. She did not make friends, and she tried especially to distance herself from her sisters by assuming what they considered an affected, upper-class manner. At harvesttime, when the entire village was out in the fields bringing in hay, Franziska would be found lying in a cart reading books on history.
   " 'My Auntie Franziska was the cleverest of the four children,' " said Waltraud Schanzkowska, a resident of Hamburg. " 'She didn't want to be be buried in a little one-horse town. She wanted to come out into the world, to become an actress -- something special.' " In 1914, shortly before the outbreak of the First World War, Franziska, at age eighteen, left the Polish provinces for Berlin. She worked as a waitress, met a young man, and became engaged. Before she could marry, her fiance was called up for military service. Franziska began working in a munitions factory. In 1916, the young man was killed on the western front. Soon afterward, Franziska let a grenade slip from her hands on the assembly line. It exploded nearby, inflicting splinter wounds on her head and other parts of her body and eviscerating a foreman, who died before her eyes. She was sent to a sanitarium, where her physical injuries healed but the shock remained. Franziska was declared "not cured, but not dangerous," and discharged. She was taken in, almost as a charity case, by Frau Wingender, who gave her a room of her own, Incapable of working long periods, Franziska was in and out of sanatoria; in between, she remained bedridden at the Wingender's apartment, complaining of headaches, swallowing pills, and reading history books from the local library. In February 1920, her favorite brother, Felix, received a last message from her. On February 17, 1920, she disappeared."


This profile can be used to answer some of the questions about Anna Andersen's language abilities, assuming that she and Franziska are the same woman, as Massie obviously does. She had spent several years in Germany. She lived formative years near the border with the Russian Empire. She had expressed early ambitions to become an actress, in other words to be someone proficient in assuming other identities. As I said earlier, I do think it likely that AA was FS. This quote from Massie provides quotes from Schanzkowska family members that tend to buttress that position, imo.
 


Point One
I"m not sure how much of the other posts you've read, Louis, but if it's not on that thread, then there is a discussion somewhere about the wounds FS was said to have suffered from the dropped grenade.  Evidently, the medical records were found and it is stated that FS suffered no physical wounds from that accident even though a co-worker was killed by the blast.  Evdiently Massie had assumed  she had suffered wounds or was repeating information he had thought was accurate at the time.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 03, 2005, 06:09:43 PM
Louis-Charles -

There really isn't any "testimony" of a variety of Schw family members.  There's the neice, who not only never met her aunt, but demands money to be interviewed and whose statements have been rebuffed by other family members.

There's the affidavit and a couple of statements by Felix, FS' brother.  There's a third-party description of Gertrude, FS' sister, demanding that AA acknowledge that she is FS, but Getrude refused to sign an affidavit saying that AA was FS.

As far as I know, Penny Wilson and Greg King, the authors of The Fate of the Romanovs, have been doing some pretty extensive research into the S family history and FS in particular, but they are a long way from publishing their results.  The tantalizing hints we get are that there is some evidence that AA was not FS.

As for what we laypeople hear on tape, I'd trust actual experts rather than my own ears.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 03, 2005, 06:40:59 PM
Knowledge of Languages  
FS - knew German and Katchoubian.  Did not know Russian or English when she left the family for Berlin shortly before WWI.

Katcoubian was FS's first language, not German, not Polish, not English, not French and not Russian.

The German she spoke was Low German and not High German before she left for Berlin.

I am not sure the origins of Katchobian.  
AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 03, 2005, 06:56:16 PM
Massie: >>In February 1920, her favorite brother, Felix, received a last message from her. On February 17, 1920, she disappeared." <<

This is, also, not quite accurate, either.

Felix did receive a birthday wish from FS for his birthday on the 17th of Feb., however, FS was not reported missing until March of 1920 by the Wingenders.  It is not known the date when the Wingenders last saw FS.  And, all we can do is speculate to this date.   If they saw FS in March then AA could not have been AA since AA was in care of the state once she jumped into the canal in Feb. .

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 03, 2005, 07:02:49 PM
Quote
Ah, but Louis Charles, Frau Wingeder's statements re: FS have long-since been completely discredited.  

As for the accent, I read somewhere (but darned if I can remember the cite or source) that two lingualists studied audio tapes of AA and concluded, without any opposition from other experts, that her English had strong traces of a Yorkshire accent.



As Annie will UNDOUBTEDLY remember sometime in the last year we had a lengthy disucssion about Doris Wingender, and agreed that her testimony was dubious to say the least.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 03, 2005, 07:06:55 PM
Quote

Can anyone post a snippet to a sound bite? Someone must really be grabbing at straws to hear any English in her accent. As an American, I can barely understand her, she does not pronounce her words in very English ways. Even if it is buried in there somewhere, it still proves absolutely nothing about her identity, as she could have learned her English from literally anyone.

But the person I hear on that tape does not at all sound like someone raised by fluent British English speaking parents.


Let's remember the words of the linguist, before this get's stretched out of proportion here, that there were intonations of a Yorkshire accent.  Now that is totally different than someone being raised by English speaking parents.  

I have a somewhat southern pattern to my speech, but yet I was raised here in Missouri, and in the northern section of the state.  While I don't have legitimate southern accent to my speech, there are people who have commented on my accent or drawl.   It could be a natural pattern within her speech.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 03, 2005, 07:12:03 PM
Quote
Finelly,

I think you are right about Frau W., but have the testimonies of the Schanzkowska family members been impeached?

Simon a/k/a Louis Charles


There are no testimonies of the Schanzkowska family as Finelly has stated.   The only person to ever sign an affadavit was Felix.  Felix stated that AA was not his sister.  This was at the first meeting in 1927 at Wasserburg.

The second meeting at the police station in Hannover, produced absolutely NO affadavits from the siblings or statements other than the outbursts of Gertrude during the meeting.  Felix even thought she didn't look like the woman he had met 11 years earlier.  

No Schanzkowska sibling, Valerian, Felix, Gertrude or Marie Juliana EVER made a statement saying that this was their sister.   The niece as Finelly stated has absolutely NO first hand knowledge, and requires payment to talk to those who interview her.  So any testimony or statement by her, regarding FS, whom she actually NEVER knew, is considered heresay and not relevant.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on August 03, 2005, 07:18:10 PM
A big question I want answered.

FS was hospitalized for trauma and released. yet a short time later nobody recognized her after the canal incident.

The police were called in and they took pictures.

I would hope that if they investigated an attempted suicide of a woman either unable or unwilling to claim her identity, they would have checked to see if she had been treated before.

Was there any testimony from the trials that she was recognized by a doctor or nurse or fellow patient?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 03, 2005, 07:20:37 PM
Quote
Oh, and I almost forgot. In my youth I met Anna Manahan, and had a brief conversation with her. But I also (rudely) eavesdropped upon her ensuing conversation with her husband. To my mind, she had no trace of an English accent. But she also sounded educated, if I can sound snobbish for a moment. I am of the firm opinion that, whoever she was, Anna Manahan did believe in her proclaimed identity as Anastasia Nikolaevna.


Hey, everyone, don't skip over Louis remark.  He met AA and heard her talk.  He's an eye witness.  

When did you meet AA?

And, what do you mean by an English accent?  American English? British English with a Yorkshire accent?

How long were you with or near her?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 03, 2005, 07:26:43 PM
Quote
A big question I want answered.

FS was hospitalized for trauma and released. yet a short time later nobody recognized her after the canal incident.

The police were called in and they took pictures.

I would hope that if they investigated an attempted suicide of a woman either unable or unwilling to claim her identity, they would have checked to see if she had been treated before.

Was there any testimony from the trials that she was recognized by a doctor or nurse or fellow patient?


Not only was AA photographed, the Berlin police also sent photographs to other police stations, and, they brought in various family members to see AA in hopes she had belonged to them but no one reconized her.  If I remember correctly,  one of the missing was, also, from Posen, so, it appears they did send a photograph there.....  So,  up to that point in time, I presume,  FS was not yet reported missing or someone  thought there was no resemblance to the missing FS and didn't contact the S. family.....  Or something ???  I am not sure if I remember but I think I remember someone saying that photographs were sent to the various asylums as being part of the police's usual standards when looking for a missing person.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 03, 2005, 07:54:59 PM
Quote
I think it was Kurth who constantly used tapes during his intervew which we've not heard, there are stretches of film tape which was never used,  and,  I'm sure other recordings of her voice.   So,  what little we've heard her say in the two tv PBS specials, may not give us enough to make any kinds of opinion.

AGRBear


Kurth taped some of his interviews, and besides you have her speaking before the TV cameras in some documentaries. One of them, with Kurth himself interviewing her. There also are the old Alexis Milukov tapes. He interviewed Anna during years and years, in Unterlengenhardt and in Charlottesville. She recorded Anna having long, and quite uninteresting conversations with him, Gleb and ohn Manahan. In the early tapes, she conversed with Milukov vividly , and you may hear Annemarie Mutius, Miss Tomasius and Monica Miltitz voices pointing things in some of them. It was in those tapes that AA told all her life as Anastasia to Milukov with lots of weird and random stuff in it. In two or three of those tapes, she spoke about the "fifth daughter's story" and some senile randomsabout the whole family escaping in a train and having doubles to replace them all.  :o

Jimmy Blair Lovell, who always claimed not to be an "Anastasia's cultist", and who was the more fanatic "Anastasia's cultist" I even read, purchased the whole tape collection to Milukov. Most of the info he had about Anastasia's "childhood" comes from those sources (he quote them thorougly all along the book), and then you must understand why he wrote like he wrote.  :-/) I think that poor Jimmy Blair Lovell had great personal problems. What a pity...

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 03, 2005, 08:34:52 PM
Quote

Evidently, the medical records were found and it is stated that FS suffered no physical wounds from that accident even though a co-worker was killed by the blast.  Evdiently Massie had assumed  she had suffered wounds or was repeating information he had thought was accurate at the time.

AGRBear



I would have to have a LOT of evidence to discount what Massie says. This alleged 'new' evidence and 'new' medical records are very suspect to me. Come on, if they weren't found back when the active participants were alive and the trial was really in high gear, why should we think they'd suddenly show up now, more than 50 years after Berlin was bombed and much info was lost? The injury in the factory story has been in a lot of books and has lots of basis, this 'new' info is only  posted on this board. I will need quite a lot of proof to change my mind, and I doubt it exists. AA had scars all over her from that explosion, and the explosion is partly why she was mentally upset. Sorry, but it is my feeling that this 'new' info that she was allegedly, suddenly, after all these years, not injured in the grenade factory is only an attempt to try to leave a question mark about all the scars and shrapnel in her body to try to hold out the mystery and hope that she was AN and they were from the cellar in Ekaterinburg! Well, I haven't bought the Brooklyn Bridge yet.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 03, 2005, 08:44:55 PM
Quote

I hope you're not suggesting that Tatiana Botkin was the equivalent of a cafeteria lunch lady?  That would certain cast her experience with the Imperial family in a much more trivial light than was the case.



We must recall that was Tatiana Botkin herself who wrote (you may read it in Kurth's book) that she wasn't an intimate friend with the Imperial Family. She stated that she didn't went very often to see the girls, but she also said that she knew OTMA very well. Tatiana was a very honest person, and she didn't certainly wants to support a fraud. Botkin's family was very loyal to the IF (Remember Doctor Evgeny Botkin broken his own matrimony because his loyalty to the Tsar ), and so were Tatiana and Gleb. You may read in Penny and Greg's book that Tatiana shout out to Yakovlev -I think it was him, but I must go to the book and verify the fact- that she was ready to go and being shot along with the Romanov family.

For me, Tatiana could have  recognized any of the OTMA's if she wanted to.

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 03, 2005, 09:17:33 PM
I would have to have a LOT of evidence to discount what Massie says.

Quantity or quality?

How about the sworn testimony of Gertrude, in Hamburg in the year 1953?  She stated positively that her sister F had no distinguishing marks or scars whatsoever.  She was not actually wounded in the grenade explosion.  Her hospitalization for trauma occurred much later.

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 03, 2005, 10:00:23 PM
Quote
I would have to have a LOT of evidence to discount what Massie says.

Quantity or quality?

How about the sworn testimony of Gertrude, in Hamburg in the year 1953?  She stated positively that her sister F had no distinguishing marks or scars whatsoever.  She was not actually wounded in the grenade explosion.  Her hospitalization for trauma occurred much later.



And when was the last time she saw her sister? Like we were saying about the full set of teeth, it's insignficant because just because a person didn't see something before doesn't mean it didn't happen. A person's appearance can change, it only takes one day to get your teeth pulled, change your hair or even get hurt and gain scars. Just because she didn't see any at their last meeting didn't mean they didn't exist. And I could not tell you the scars on my siblings' bodies, even though none of them have gone missing. This is not quality at all, it means nothing.


Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 03, 2005, 10:04:47 PM
She last saw her, according to her statement, AFTER the grenade incident.

I would think that this is sufficient evidence to refute Massie's statements.  I checked Massie's book and there's no reference cited to support his statements about the grenade accident.  He is simply repeating one of the original newspaper articles written by gossip columnists.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 03, 2005, 10:20:52 PM
Quote
She last saw her, according to her statement, AFTER the grenade incident.

I would think that this is sufficient evidence to refute Massie's statements.  I checked Massie's book and there's no reference cited to support his statements about the grenade accident.  He is simply repeating one of the original newspaper articles written by gossip columnists.



Exactly, Finelly.  That is the main problem I have with Massie's book.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 03, 2005, 10:24:29 PM
Quote
She last saw her, according to her statement, AFTER the grenade incident.


I've never seen anything proving when she saw her last, and because the family was likely lying trying anything they could do to get out of claiming her, I don't really take this as pristine evidence either. And even IF she was telling the truth and IF she saw her after the explosion, I don't hardly think she'd have taken off all her clothes and said 'look sister count all my scars!' when they met!

Quote
I would think that this is sufficient evidence to refute Massie's statements.  I checked Massie's book and there's no reference cited to support his statements about the grenade accident.  He is simply repeating one of the original newspaper articles written by gossip columnists.


I consider this an insult to Massie. He is among the best and most respected Romanov historians, and the person least likely to use gossip as evidence. Besides, his was not the only book I saw that in.

I have no reason to doubt the age old grenade explosion story, but regardless of how AA got those scars, it wasn't from a cellar in Ekaterinburg!

Someone even suggested once she got them escaping from the killer Grossman! I'd accept that more than that she was shot by Bolsheviks!
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 03, 2005, 10:31:22 PM
Since this hasn't been posted in this thread and so much discussion is going on we need the pics again:

AA on left, FS middle, Anastasia right.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/AAFS2.jpg)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/amouth.jpg)

Anastasia on left, AA or right. Notice the completely different lip and chin shape, mouth size.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/anaa.jpg)

FS in middle, others are AA
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/aafs.jpg)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 03, 2005, 10:32:37 PM
Massie is an excellent writer and a terrific researcher.  When he wrote his book, he relied on a lot of documents, including the old newspaper articles about FS.  There's no insult in that.  Nor is there any insult in someone else having gone back to review other documents Massie didn't pursue.  Massie had a strong belief that FS and AA were the same person  and he chose to accept the newspaper stories rather than the sworn statement of Gertrude.   Having completely accepted the dna evidence, he had no inclination to doubt what he had always believed about AA.  What's wrong wiht that?

Now, it is of note that Klingay, et al, the authors of The Quest for Anastasia, did NOT include the stuff about the grenade factory injuries in their book.  A quite glaring omission, given that they did discuss FS' life.  Perhaps they, too, had already read Gertrude's statement?  Or knew that the original newspaper articles exaggerated?

Now, if a person is constantly demanding that we accept her idea of what the truth is based on the established facts, should we consider doing so when that same person rejects alternative facts that constitute sworn testimony?  After all, it's the word of a tabloid reporter who was paid, PAID to slur AA's identity vs. a family member who swore under oath.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 03, 2005, 10:39:02 PM
Massie did not believe in AA YEARS before the DNA tests! Even in Nicholas and Alexandra, written in 1967 (my copy dates to 1974) he called Anna Anderson's claim a 'pathetic attempt' to prove herself the GD, and it is from that book that I got the quote in my signature.

It's also not fair to write off Massie as not credible for being against her if you completeley accept every tidbit by Kurth and Wilson, well known to be AA believers. So it's just selective on who likes what who wrote. However, the science does back up Massie.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 03, 2005, 10:41:52 PM
Quote
Louis-Charles -

There really isn't any "testimony" of a variety of Schw family members.  There's the neice, who not only never met her aunt, but demands money to be interviewed and whose statements have been rebuffed by other family members.


Who told you that her statements have been rebuffed by other family members? The other family members look to both Margarita and Waltraud as the keepers of the family stories. Source for this statement?


Quote
As for what we laypeople hear on tape, I'd trust actual experts rather than my own ears.


The problem with the linquistic experts in this case is that it all relies on human judgement. Several linguistic experts I've played a tape of AA's voice for, which I'll be using for my own work,  don't hear a Yorkshire  accent at all.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 03, 2005, 10:44:41 PM
I do not completely accept anything that anyone wrote.  If you scan my posts, you'll see that I am prepared to accept, for the sake of the thread you started, that AA was FS.  It seems entirely reasonable to me.  

I also am willing to consider other theories.  And to take a look at each known statement, recorded piece of info, record, document, and book from a variety of perspectives.  I enjoy the process, as I've repeatedly said.

People who do not enjoy the process have numerous other forums on this board, and threads on this forum, to write on.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 03, 2005, 10:49:35 PM
Quote
People who do not enjoy the process have numerous other forums on this board, and threads on this forum, to write on.


As I said, I have enjoyed the process for over 30 years. I've been through it all. However, it is at an end, we have an answer. I consider it an insult to all the scientists and specialists to doubt and question their work and to bring up hints of being negligent, or even worse, paid off or lying intentionally. It's also an insult to people who try to tell you the answer that you tell us we are wrong and you don't believe us because it's more fun to keep playing. I cannot stand to see reality twisted this way. It is a disservice to everyone who reads this forum. I have been asked to shut up and go away many times before, but is that fair? Why is it YOU get to have things your way and I have to shut up? If you have a right, so do I, so do we all.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 03, 2005, 10:51:42 PM
Quote
I would have to have a LOT of evidence to discount what Massie says.


How about the sworn testimony of Gertrude, in Hamburg in the year 1953?  She stated positively that her sister F had no distinguishing marks or scars whatsoever.  She was not actually wounded in the grenade explosion.  Her hospitalization for trauma occurred much later.



And in that same sworn testimony she also stated that she "did not regard her sister as insane", but FS was declared insane, on September 19,1916.
So you can't put to much weight on her testimony that  she did not "remember" that her sister had no distinquishing marks or scars .



 
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 03, 2005, 11:14:06 PM
Annie - I don't think your opinions are wrong.  I don't think they are necessarily right, either.  I like TALKING about this case.

Constantly criticizing people who want to continue a conversation just because you're tired of it is like beating your head against a brick wall!  Let us talk!  

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 03, 2005, 11:16:19 PM
Quote

Kurth and Wilson, well known to be AA believers...


Please don't put words in my mouth, Annie.  Whatever rights you claim to have in posting here, you don't have the right to misrepresent me.

But about the grenade accident in the AEG Farben:  Franziska worked in some capacity on the production line.  Something she did caused a live grenade to fall to the ground where it detonated and killed one man.  She was understandably distraught, and was taken immediately to the factory's own hospital.  She was examined for physical injury, and was found to have none; she was detained for psychological observation because of the shock she had experienced.  All this was noted by the doctors in her records at that hospital.  The hospital is still in existence, and as it stands some distance from the city of Berlin (as did the factory), it survived WWII.

A few years ago, a researcher of my acquaintance accessed those hospital records for the first time.  There's nothing sinister or suspicious about the fact that they have been unaccessed for so long -- from WWII until the fall of the Iron Curtain, the hospital existed in East German territory and its records were unavailable.  Probably, many people forgot that this hospital had once serviced AEG Farben.  But this researcher-friend was thorough in his business, and he  was able, through proper channels, to get copies of these records.  I've seen them myself, and they state exactly what I have said above.  Take it or leave it, believe it or not.  Whatever.  It doesn't alter the truth of the records.

I am not sure if the German Court probed Franziska's history closely enough to request any of these records -- as I've said elsewhere, the case was called to establish -- or not -- Fraulein Unbekannt's identity as Grand Duchess Anastasia.  There was no brief to establish an alternative identity.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 03, 2005, 11:19:12 PM
Penny - was FS declared insane?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 03, 2005, 11:21:14 PM
Quote

The problem with the linquistic experts in this case is that it all relies on human judgement. Several linguistic experts I've played a tape of AA's voice for, which I'll be using for my own work,  don't hear a Yorkshire  accent at all.


I don't think the linguistic experts are wrong:  I hear Yorkshire in her voice in certain words and phrases -- and as my grandfather was a Yorkshireman, I'm used to it.  I'm also sensitive to accents, being something of a polyglot myself.  

I also have more tapes of AA speaking than most people, as we were given the Miliukov tapes by Peter Kurth.  Perhaps these are better representations of her voice.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 03, 2005, 11:24:44 PM
Quote
Penny - was FS declared insane?



She was, in 1916.  The death of her fiance, plus the accident at her work must have caused some sort of psychological break.  Up until that point, she hadn't been especially unusual.  I am hoping to be able to get a better grasp on the nature of her mental illness -- the fact that she was sometimes out of the asylums indicates that it may not have been a "terminal" condition -- perhaps a nervous breakdown or recurrent depression, though of course as of yet, I have no solid evidence, just an opinion.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 03, 2005, 11:28:03 PM
Thanks, Penny!  Now, if you'd just answer my pms.......

If you don't, I'm gonna sick my Siamese on ya.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 03, 2005, 11:29:22 PM
Quote

I don't think the linguistic experts are wrong:  I hear Yorkshire in her voice in certain words and phrases -- and as my grandfather was a Yorkshireman, I'm used to it.  I'm also sensitive to accents, being something of a polyglot myself.  

I also have more tapes of AA speaking than most people, as we were given the Miliukov tapes by Peter Kurth.  Perhaps these are better representations of her voice.


Which experts are you talking about,mine or yours? It's human judgement which is why it's not solid evidence.

I've also lived in Yorkshire as a child, several life long family friends are from that area, and none of the ones that I"ve played the tape of her voice to can hear any type of Yorkshire accent.  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 03, 2005, 11:32:55 PM
The experts in question were linguists.  Trained in that sort of thing.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 03, 2005, 11:33:04 PM
Quote

I am not sure if the German Court probed Franziska's history closely enough to request any of these records -- as I've said elsewhere, the case was called to establish -- or not -- Fraulein Unbekannt's identity as Grand Duchess Anastasia.  There was no brief to establish an alternative identity.


The problem here though is that whether or not she received the scars at the factory has nothing to do with her identity. It was only presented as a theory as to how she received those scars. Another theory brought foreward by a doctor and others was  that the scars may have been "self inflicted" which I myself am inclined to believe....
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: lexi4 on August 03, 2005, 11:33:33 PM
Penny, ahhhh a voice of reason. Now, if we could read that pretenders book we would all know a lot more, wouldn't we.   ;D
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 03, 2005, 11:35:29 PM
Quote

Which experts are you talking about,mine or yours?


I'm talking about the experts who have given their opinon that this is so -- the same ones whom Mr Schweitzer referenced.

If you think that linguistics is not a science, and is more of a matter of "human judgment," then you shouldn't consult with them.

And I would not expect you to hear Yorkshire in her voice, as you are closed to any item of evidence in her favor.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 03, 2005, 11:37:05 PM
Quote
The experts in question were linguists.  Trained in that sort of thing.


Well, no one is arguing that. I'm just saying mine are saying one thing, hers are saying another. There's human judgement involved here involving personal feelings (does the person listening to the tape want AA to be AN? And does the person listening to the tape that AN may have had a trace of a Yorkshire accent in her English? If so, then h/she may very well "hear" an accent.)

I'm just saying that some people are going to hear something of a Yorkshire accent, other people are not.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: lexi4 on August 03, 2005, 11:37:32 PM
WTG Penny
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 03, 2005, 11:41:24 PM
The issue of where the scars came from is now the topic because it has been asserted that:

1.  This is how she got the scars that resemble AA's scars and/or AN's markings.

2. Bob Massie was asserted to be infallible re: the FS story and I pointed out that Gertrude's sworn statement contradicted what he said, which was considered an insult to Bob Massie and absolutely not reliable given that the entire family was afraid to accept responsibility for FS (An allegation for whic h there is no evidence whatsoever, btw)

3.  The entire issue of where FS was before 1920 is part of this thread.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 03, 2005, 11:41:53 PM
Quote

I'm talking about the experts who have given their opinon that this is so -- the same ones whom Mr Schweitzer referenced.


Key word: opinion

And the experts I've consulted say something completely different.


Quote


If you think that linguistics is not a science, and is more of a matter of "human judgment," then you shouldn't consult with them.


I consult with them to prove a point. And I have. Some people will hear something, others won't. It isn't solid evidence at all.  


Quote

And I would not expect you to hear Yorkshire in her voice, as you are closed to any item of evidence in her favor.


How is such  evidence in her "favor" unless we're trying to tie in that she may have been AN?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 03, 2005, 11:42:59 PM
Quote

The problem here though is that whether or not she received the scars at the factory has nothing to do with her identity. It was only presented as a theory as to how she received those scars. Another theory brought foreward by a doctor and others was  that the scars may have been "self inflicted" which I myself am inclined to believe....



Really???  A "self-inflicted" trench along the side of her head for several inches?  A trench into which one could fit one's finger?  What on earth instrument did she use to "inflict" that on herself?  And did she batter herself in the face in order to shatter one side of jaw at the same time?  Or on another occasion?  And the star-shaped through-and-through stab-wound on her foot?  Where did she get the unusually-shaped blade -- often identified as a WWI Russian bayonet -- to "inflict" that wound on herself?

And as this must have happened after her hospitalization in 1916, when did it happen?  Certainly not while she lived with the Wingenders, for Doris and her sister recalled no such distinguishing marks.  And certainly not before Christmas 1919, which was spent at home with her family -- the family who said she had no noticeable scars or marks.  So sometime between 25 December 1919 and 20 February 1920?

Yet the doctors that saw her at that time said her wounds and scars were all old and healed....

It just doesn't jibe, and is one reason why I do not accept that Anastasia Manahan was "really" Franziska Schanzkowska.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 03, 2005, 11:43:46 PM
Jay - can you let us know the names of the linguists you have consulted about this?  That would be really helpful!

Thanks.!
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 03, 2005, 11:44:56 PM
Quote

Key word: opinion

And the experts I've consulted say something completely different.


Of course they do.

Quote
I consult with them to prove a point. And I have. Some people will hear something, others won't. It isn't solid evidence at all.  


You know little about linguistics, then.

Quote
How is such  evidence in her "favor" unless we're trying to tie in that she may have been AN?


Well, we are discussing Anastasia Manahan's claims, aren't we?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 03, 2005, 11:46:25 PM
Quote
The issue of where the scars came from is now the topic because it has been asserted that:

1.  This is how she got the scars that resemble AA's scars and/or AN's markings.

2. Bob Massie was asserted to be infallible re: the FS story and I pointed out that Gertrude's sworn statement contradicted what he said, which was considered an insult to Bob Massie and absolutely not reliable given that the entire family was afraid to accept responsibility for FS (An allegation for whic h there is no evidence whatsoever, btw)

3.  The entire issue of where FS was before 1920 is part of this thread.


The point I was bringing up is that the issue of where she got the scars doesn't leave a question mark on her identity. Some people theorized in court that she got it from the grenade explosion...other people felt the scars were self inflicted, etc.

But, if I misunderstood, I apologize.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 03, 2005, 11:50:06 PM
I would have to have a LOT of evidence to discount what Massie says. This alleged 'new' evidence and 'new' medical records are very suspect to me. Come on, if they weren't found back when the active participants were alive and the trial was really in high gear, why should we think they'd suddenly show up now, more than 50 years after Berlin was bombed and much info was lost? The injury in the factory story has been in a lot of books and has lots of basis, this 'new' info is only  posted on this board. I will need quite a lot of proof to change my mind, and I doubt it exists. AA had scars all over her from that explosion, and the explosion is partly why she was mentally upset. Sorry, but it is my feeling that this 'new' info that she was allegedly, suddenly, after all these years, not injured in the grenade factory is only an attempt to try to leave a question mark about all the scars and shrapnel in her body to try to hold out the mystery and hope that she was AN and they were from the cellar in Ekaterinburg! Well, I haven't bought the Brooklyn Bridge yet.

That was Annie's post that sort of got the scars and the medical records thing going.......
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: lexi4 on August 03, 2005, 11:52:31 PM
Jay,
Would you mind posting a list of your linguistics experts? Thank you.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 03, 2005, 11:56:32 PM
Quote


Really???  A "self-inflicted" trench along the side of her head for several inches?  A trench into which one could fit one's finger?  What on earth instrument did she use to "inflict" that on herself?  And did she batter herself in the face in order to shatter one side of jaw at the same time?  Or on another occasion?  And the star-shaped through-and-through stab-wound on her foot?  Where did she get the unusually-shaped blade -- often identified as a WWI Russian bayonet -- to "inflict" that wound on herself?

And as this must have happened after her hospitalization in 1916, when did it happen?  Certainly not while she lived with the Wingenders, for Doris and her sister recalled no such distinguishing marks.  And certainly not before Christmas 1919, which was spent at home with her family -- the family who said she had no noticeable scars or marks.  So sometime between 25 December 1919 and 20 February 1920?

Yet the doctors that saw her at that time said her wounds and scars were all old and healed....

It just doesn't jibe, and is one reason why I do not accept that Anastasia Manahan was "really" Franziska Schanzkowska.


It's very difficult to tell the age of scars. It's quess work, and isn't a science either.

Other theories that have been foreward over the years....TB scarring (which comes from GD Olga's testimony) a boyfriend/fiance/ customer beat her quite badly on several occasions (a bit of gossip I picked up. There were rumors that she was at one time quite loose. But rumors which may or may not be true. )

But the issue of where and how she got the scars has no bearing on the question of her identity. There may simply be some record that your not seeing.

So, there are a number of possibilities here.  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 03, 2005, 11:59:06 PM
Well, apparently Annie has gone to bed, and she was the one who was asserting that Massie's book is the truth, and that the new medical records are made up, so we don't have to keep discussing the origins of the scars, I guess.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 04, 2005, 12:02:03 AM
Quote
Jay,
Would you mind posting a list of your linguistics experts? Thank you.


Sure, if I can get the one from Northern England to come unto the forum I think it be great. I still have these age progression photographs of all 4 girls and Alexei sitting in front of me, and I haven't decided which ones to post.

But, when I see a remark like "WTG Penny", (unless I'm misunderstanding? ) it does make me a bit uncomfortable and loath to print because I'm actually trying to avoid arguments. And I know if I do get these people to post it will boil down to a war of my group says one thing, her group says another..".  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 04, 2005, 12:04:19 AM
Quote

It's very difficult to tell the age of scars. It's quess work, and isn't a science either.  


It actually isn't difficult to determine the approximate age of a wound as deep as the one behind her ear.  A doctor examining her in February 1920 would know if it was freshly healed or an old scar.  The formation of keloid tissue is one manner of determining this.  Jaw breaks less than two months old are also fairly obvious.

Quote
... a boyfriend/fiance/ customer beat her quite badly on several occasions (a bit of gossip I picked up. There were rumors that she was at one time quite loose. But rumors which may or may not be true. )


This is an old rumor for which there is no documentary or testimentary basis.

Quote
But the issue of where and how she got the scars has no bearing on the question of her identity. There may simply be some record that your not seeing.


Well, until this "record" shows up, I'll continue forming my conclusions on the records that I have.  It's the only way to go...


Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 12:04:40 AM
Jay - I think the "WTG PEnny" was in response to Penny zapping someone for once again mischaracterizing her as a believer that AA was AN.  Not in response to anything related to your post.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 04, 2005, 12:05:55 AM
Quote
And I know if I do get these people to post it will boil down to a war of my group says one thing, her group says another..".  


That's not a "war."  It's a debate.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: lexi4 on August 04, 2005, 12:06:02 AM
I respectfully disagree about your point on the scars Jay. They do matter.
There is no record of FS having those scars. We know AA had those scars. So in my mind that is something that can't be explained away. How did AA get the scars? Considering the extent of the scars, it is hard for me to believe they were self inflicted. So who was AA?
Also, did you see my request for the list of your experts?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 04, 2005, 12:15:30 AM
Quote

It actually isn't difficult to determine the approximate age of a wound as deep as the one behind her ear.  A doctor examining her in February 1920 would know if it was freshly healed or an old scar.  The formation of keloid tissue is one manner of determining this.  Jaw breaks less than two months old are also fairly obvious.


Depends, and again has no bearing on the question of her identity. What does it matter if she was beat up fairly recently or not in regards to the question of her identity? That really is the issue here.  


Quote
This is an old rumor for which there is no documentary or testimentary basis.


Well, we do know that she was never married, and when she arrived at the hospital she was no longer a virgin. So something outside of marriage had to happen.

And just because it's rumor, does not  mean it's not true. But, I'm adverse to printing rumors and gossip as fact, so I will store it with my other notes in case I come across something more solid that backs it up.    


Quote
Well, until this "record" shows up, I'll continue forming my conclusions on the records that I have.  It's the only way to go...


That's fine as long as personal feelings aren't injected into work. But I think it's often taken for granted that everything about history is recorded, or recorded correctly. The answer may not be sitting on a shelf somewhere, waiting to be found.  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 04, 2005, 12:18:11 AM
Alright, I'm out for the night.  I'm on call for the morning bar* tomorrow, but if I don't have to go in, I'll be back for more....


*Which means I'll be making about three martinis during the lunch rush... Give me the Saturday night zombie and jaeger-bomb crowd any time.  Oh wait -- I get them too!
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 12:19:09 AM
Fact:  FS was not scarred or injured in the grenade accident at the factory.

Fact:  FS lived with her sister Gertrude during WWI.  Gertrude has sworn under oath that her sister had no scars, marks, or other distinguishing bodily charateristics.

Fact:  The Winegards also testified that there were no distinguishing scars or marks.

Fact:  FS lived with the Winegards (probably not the correct name, but it's late at night here) until March 1920.

Fact:  When AA arrived at the assylum, she had old, healed scars (no redness, no evidence of recent injury) and healed fractures (more than several months old).
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 04, 2005, 12:26:02 AM
Quote
I respectfully disagree about your point on the scars Jay. They do matter.
 There is no record of FS having those scars. We know AA had those scars. So in my mind that is something that can't be explained away. How did AA get the scars? Considering the extent of the scars, it is hard for me to believe they were self inflicted. So who was AA?
Also, did you see my request for the list of your experts?


In terms of the question of her identity? Not really. Is there documentation relating to every scar on your body? How did it get there? How long has it been there?
For all we know the scars could be from the blows from a boyfriend given  before she jumped into the canal.

As for the "lacerations all over her body " ( under her clothes, which is what the doctor was referring to, my apologies) the truth of the matter is, does anyone realize what one gunshot wound or stabwound to the chest does to a person? Let alone 10? 20? Especially in an era where people died from infection in hospitals at a very high rate. To be fair, I fail to see how those wounds can be anything other than self inflicted.      
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 04, 2005, 12:27:08 AM
Quote

Well, we do know that she was never married, and when she arrived at the hospital she was no longer a virgin. So something outside of marriage had to happen.


Perhaps being a boy, you aren't aware of this, but all loss of virginity means is that the hymen is broken -- and there are many ways to break this delicate thing other than sexual intercourse.  Riding a horse could do it -- climbing trees or any other kind of vigorous activity could also do it.

She did have a war-time fiance, and obviously things like propriety assume different levels of importance at that sort of time -- so it is possible that she slept with him.  But there aren't any other men acknowledged in her life -- either by friends or by family.  Check Doris Wingender's statement in the German Court archive -- I think she says something about the standards of behavior that her mother expected in her house.

Quote
And just because it'a rumor, does mean it's not true. But, I'm adverse to printing rumors and gossip as fact, so I will store it with my other notes in case I come across something more solid that backs it up.  


We agree on this, at any rate.  

Quote
But I think it's often taken for granted that everything about history is recorded, or recorded correctly. The answer may not be sitting on a shelf somewhere, waiting to be found.  


I don't take this for granted -- but I also accept that there are some things that we will never know.  I'd rather err on the side of caution, stick close to the documentary and testimentary evidence, and not speculate too far.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 04, 2005, 12:28:11 AM
Quote
Also, did you see my request for the list of your experts?


I did, and like I said, I'll see what I can do with the guy from Northern England.
BUt, after the "WTG Penny" comments, as well as the fact that your accepting her experts on the basis of faith alone, it does make me uncomfortable.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 04, 2005, 12:34:47 AM
Quote

Perhaps being a boy, you aren't aware of this, but all loss of virginity means is that the hymen is broken -- and there are many ways to break this delicate thing other than sexual intercourse.  Riding a horse could do it -- climbing trees or any other kind of vigorous activity could also do it.


No, I'm aware of that. But I'm also aware that, when the doctor noticed that she was "no longer a virgin", he asked her "where her  fiance was"...and the response was quite violent, according to PK's book.

And, as you said, she did   have a war time fiance , who died on the western front.

Also, if we are to go by the doctor's statements regarding her pregnancy, then suggesting that her hymen may have been broken by a childhood accident really doesn't work now does it?  

Unless you're suggesting she got pregnant by a horse or tree branch....


Quote
I don't take this for granted -- but I also accept that there are some things that we will never know.  I'd rather err on the side of caution, stick close to the documentary and testimentary evidence, and not speculate too far.


No, I don't speculate to far either. But Historians can often only go by a balance of probabilities as to what most likely happened.   Alison Weir does this to great effect in "The Princes in the Tower."
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: lexi4 on August 04, 2005, 12:35:45 AM
My apologies Jay, making you uncomfortable was not my intent. I was merely asking because I assumed that it was something you read and I could read it too. A book or something...Again, my apologies.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 04, 2005, 12:38:56 AM
Quote

That's not a "war."  It's a debate.


We'll compromise: War of the Words.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 12:40:05 AM
I'm gonna start a new thread about who was AA if not FS.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 04, 2005, 12:44:16 AM
Quote
I'm gonna start a new thread about who was AA if not FS.


It's already been done. Lasted for months, and got nowhere.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 04, 2005, 12:45:50 AM
Quote

...as well as the fact that your accepting her experts on the basis of faith alone, it does make me uncomfortable.


Just one more thought:  These experts aren't "mine."  They are already on record with their professional opinion of this situation elsewhere.

And as for the relative "usefulness" of linguists and their professional conclusions, I would point anyone interested at the story of the capture of Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper/Wearside Jack.  In 1981, using a tape of the Ripper's voice, linguists were able to pin-point his origin within a very tight geographical area of Castletown in Sunderland -- a matter of a few streets, I believe.  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 12:48:43 AM
The new thread is started.

The topic may have been discussed before, but we now have the FA monitoring board behavior on this forum.  :)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 04, 2005, 12:59:41 AM
Quote

Just one more thought:  These experts aren't "mine."  They are already on record with their professional opinion of this situation elsewhere.

And as for the relative "usefulness" of linguists and their professional conclusions, I would point anyone interested at the story of the capture of Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper/Wearside Jack.  In 1981, using a tape of the Ripper's voice, linguists were able to pin-point his origin within a very tight geographical area of Castletown in Sunderland -- a matter of a few streets, I believe.  


I'm not saying that in the sense that they belong to us, only that they are backing up what we're saying. Thus it will boil down to a game of whose experts are better? The ones I consulted, or you? It'll just go back and forth and back and forth, the way it always does...

And, I'm not saying linquists aren't''useful", but for every success in the field, there are several failures.

It's all like standing in front of your class and telling your dream to a bunch of Psychology students in college:

"I was standing on the school bus, okay, and the bus hit a bump in the road, okay, and I was holding 12 balls...and the balls all fell out of my hand...and went crashing to the floor of the bus"...

student 1 may say:
"Okay, the balls represent the 12 apostles, and dropping the balls represents your loss of faith in the Catholic church, and your not sure where to turn..."

student 2 may say:
"Okay, the balls represent the 12 months out of the year, and you're concerned about how quickly time is flying by, hence why you dropped them, and graduation is soon and you are  still not sure what to do with your life...."

Etc.

It's human judgement here. And one must always ask, does the person listening to the tape want AA to be AN? Do they know that the real AN may have had a bit of a  Yorkshire accent  in her voice? Then they very well may "hear" a bit of Yorkshire.    
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 01:02:44 AM
I'll try to dig up where I read about the two linguists in England who were hired to evaluate AA's voice, Jay.

In the meantime, name your two linguistic experts and we can compare!
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 04, 2005, 06:43:00 AM
Quote
Fact:  FS was not scarred or injured in the grenade accident at the factory.


It's rather presumptuous to consider that a 'fact' when we actually have no concrete proof.

And if you want facts, don't forget this one:

Fact: DNA Tests prove 99.9% that AA was related to the Schanskowska family and was 100% not related to Alexandra.





Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 04, 2005, 06:46:43 AM
Quote

As for the "lacerations all over her body " the truth of the matter is, does anyone realize what one gunshot wound or stabwound to the chest does to a person? Let alone 10? 20? Especially in an era where people died from infection in hospitals at a very high rate.


So image the extreme unlikeliness of a person surviving such injuries on a 2,800 mile cart ride on bumpy back roads in the mud with no medical attention.

Yes, it's 2,800 miles from Ekaterinburg to Bucharest. That would take almost a week in a car. By cart, covering only a few miles a day, on back roads, hiding from the reds, image how long it would take! We're talking about over a year here. The escape story simply isn't realistic.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 04, 2005, 06:50:51 AM
Quote


Other theories that have been foreward over the years....TB scarring (which comes from GD Olga's testimony) a boyfriend/fiance/ customer beat her quite badly on several occasions (a bit of gossip I picked up. There were rumors that she was at one time quite loose. But rumors which may or may not be true. )

But the issue of where and how she got the scars has no bearing on the question of her identity. There may simply be some record that your not seeing.

So, there are a number of possibilities here.  


And then there's the one where she was being murdered and escaped from Grossman!
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 04, 2005, 06:58:41 AM
Quote

Sure, if I can get the one from Northern England to come unto the forum I think it be great. I still have these age progression photographs of all 4 girls and Alexei sitting in front of me, and I haven't decided which ones to post.

But, when I see a remark like "WTG Penny", (unless I'm misunderstanding? ) it does make me a bit uncomfortable and loath to print because I'm actually trying to avoid arguments. And I know if I do get these people to post it will boil down to a war of my group says one thing, her group says another..".  


Quote
on Today at 12:33am, lexi4 wrote:

Penny, ahhhh a voice of reason. Now, if we could read that pretenders book we would all know a lot more, wouldn't we.    
 

WTG Penny  




Ahh, I see what you were talking about Jayromee. We seem to have a 'clique' going, and the blatant bias is hopeless to overcome.  The real 'voice of reason' is being silenced on this forum because some very good and informed people simply don't want to get into a fight.

Jeremy, please post what you have, even if there will be those who don't want to see it. I'm sure a lot of others would be interested. I look forward to your info.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 04, 2005, 09:12:44 AM
Quote
My apologies Jay, making you uncomfortable was not my intent. I was merely asking because I assumed that it was something you read and I could read it too. A book or something...Again, my apologies.



There are no need for apologies in my opinion Lexi, you are about the 150th poster that has asked him about his "experts", along with the continuous requests for the complete statement of Waltrud (the "niece" who was paid for her statements) which we have never gotten.  We should continue to ask for these items until they are provided in some form.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 04, 2005, 09:17:56 AM
Quote

So image the extreme unlikeliness of a person surviving such injuries on a 2,800 mile cart ride on bumpy back roads in the mud with no medical attention.

Yes, it's 2,800 miles from Ekaterinburg to Bucharest. That would take almost a week in a car. By cart, covering only a few miles a day, on back roads, hiding from the reds, image how long it would take! We're talking about over a year here. The escape story simply isn't realistic.



Why do you keep assuming that they are coming from the perspective that AA is AN????  I don't think that anyone here actually believes that.   I don't think anyone could have survived the massacre of that evening, without immediate medical attention, of course it's possible but not probable.

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 04, 2005, 09:20:29 AM
Quote
I respectfully disagree about your point on the scars Jay. They do matter.
 There is no record of FS having those scars. We know AA had those scars. So in my mind that is something that can't be explained away. How did AA get the scars? Considering the extent of the scars, it is hard for me to believe they were self inflicted. So who was AA?
Also, did you see my request for the list of your experts?


Didn't both Felix & Gertrude state that their sister had no scars???  In Felix's 1927 affadavit, and then in Gertrude's 1953 testimony?    


Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 04, 2005, 09:20:46 AM
Quote
Jay - I think the "WTG PEnny" was in response to Penny zapping someone for once again mischaracterizing her as a believer that AA was AN.  Not in response to anything related to your post.



And I assume I am that someone! It's as obvious by her postings what she believes, as it is with mine. No need to deny it. And Penny has 'zapped' quite a few people quite a few times around here, but I guess she's excused since you like her and not me. A "WTG" is very blatant support for her, so there is no denying the bias. This IS personal, I don't know why I am the only person who gets accused of bringing that into it, almost everyone does it.

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 04, 2005, 09:27:37 AM
Quote


Why do you keep assuming that they are coming from the perspective that AA is AN????  I don't think that anyone here actually believes that.  



When I have time I will go back and find all the quotes made by several people here that support my comments, many of them recently. It's why rskkiya got fed up, remember? Even if it's not said in so many words, when people post that they think Olga A. and Ernie H. lied for financial reasons, that means the person HAS to believe AA was AN, because NO claimant, FS or anyone else, could have taken the money, only a real AN. Also, the Alexander T. story and escape details have been brought up again recently. And why would anyone fight so hard to deny FS had scars unless they were trying to leave open the option AA got them from the massacre in Ekaterinburg? It was even posted here once or twice that the mark in her foot matched a bayonet only used by Bolsheviks in that region and at that time. It doesn't take a rocket scientist, or a DNA scientist, to see which way these directions are taking us- right back to AN. For awhile, it was the old she's not AN but she wasn't FS either argument, but even in those I could see that some of you DID still hold the AN belief, and was surprised recently to see it come back up without any denial (until now) Many posts in this thread alone show that.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 04, 2005, 09:29:47 AM
Quote


There are no need for apologies in my opinion Lexi, you are about the 150th poster that has asked him about his "experts", along with the continuous requests for the complete statement of Waltrud (the "niece" who was paid for her statements) which we have never gotten.  We should continue to ask for these items until they are provided in some form.


150 posters have asked for my experts? If only it were true, I'd be flattered.

To late for you. She's already apologized and I've accepted. (So now we're putting quotes around the word neice, as if to question her relationship to FS? This is really getting to be silly)  

In the meantime, go off and do some research of your own. And I don't mean just checking out books from the local library, or taking what some people say on faith alone. ....Dig through microfilm, contact descendants of court members,emigrees. Go to Germany, and get the court testimony, etc..
 
I've already spent quite a bit of money on my work, and I will discuss it all when I see fit. I do not seek or care to have the approval of anyone on this board.
Understand?  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 04, 2005, 09:33:05 AM
Quote


When I have time I will go back and find all the quotes made by several people here that support my comments, many of them recently. It's why rskkiya got fed up, remember? Even if it's not said in so many words, when people post that they think Olga A. and Ernie H. lied for financial reasons, that means the person HAS to believe AA was AN, because NO claimant, FS or anyone else, could have taken the money, only a real AN. Also, the Alexander T. story and escape details have been brought up again recently. And why would anyone fight so hard to deny FS had scars unless they were trying to leave open the option AA got them from the massacre in Ekaterinburg? It was even posted here once or twice that the mark in her foot matched a bayonet only used by Bolsheviks in that region and at that time. It doesn't take a rocket scientist, or a DNA scientist, to see which way these directions are taking us- right back to AN. For awhile, it was the old she's not AN but she wasn't FS either argument, but even in those I could see that some of you DID still hold the AN belief, and was surprised recently to see it come back up without any denial (until now) Many posts in this thread alone show that.


You can go back and get all of the quotes you want that you think suport this view, however, I know that I don't believe AA is AN,  Penny doesn't, and outside of a couple of people I can think of that no longer post here, no one actually has said that.

In fact we have said quite the opposite.  Just because a person brings up the Ekaterinburg massacre doesn't make them an AA is AN supporter.  I just want to make sure the discussion doesn't veer too far in that direction.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 04, 2005, 09:38:10 AM
Quote

150 posters have asked for my experts? If only it were true, I'd be flattered.

To late for you. She's already apologized and I've accepted. (So now we're putting quotes around the word neice, as if to question her relationship to FS? This is really getting to be silly)  

In the meantime, go off and do some research of your own. And I don't mean just checking out books from the local library, or taking what some people say on faith alone. ....Dig through microfilm, contact descendants of court members,emigrees. Go to Germany, and get the court testimony, etc..
  
I've already spent quite a bit of money on my work, and I will discuss it all when I see fit. I do not seek or care to have the approval of anyone on this board.
 Understand?  


What other answer would you expect from someone that doesn't have the sources they claim they have.
Penny is generous with her research and shares, it is obvious to me that you don't have the material you claim that you have.


150 people may be a bit of an exaggeration, but there have been numerous requests made of you to supply these in some form, yet you have never complied in a positive way to any of these requests.  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 04, 2005, 09:43:58 AM
Quote

What other answer would you expect from someone that doesn't have the sources they claim they have.
Penny is generous with her research and shares, it is obvious to me that you don't have the material you claim that you have.


150 people may be a bit of an exaggeration, but there have been numerous requests made of you to supply these in some form, yet you have never complied in a positive way to any of these requests.



Trying to start a personal attack this early in the morning? Not going to work. Have a nice day. ;)

And may I suggest you start doing your own research work rather than always expecting someone else  do it for you? And I mean beyond the local library.  


Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 04, 2005, 09:51:45 AM
Quote

Trying to start a personal attack this early in the morning? Not going to work. Have a nice day. ;)

And may I suggest you start doing your own research work rather than always expecting someone else to do it, myself or Penny, to do it for you? And I mean beyond the local library.  

 


Personal attack, you flatter yourself little boy  ::) ::)

I now definitely doubt you have or have done ANY research on this subject.  I am not the only person who requests information from Penny or Mr. Schweitzer or Greg for that matter on this forum.  I have no need to go to the library, I OWN my books.  

If you make the statement , like any good author or researcher you should be able to make your claim or assertion and back it up with VALID source material.  Yet you don't. This is a failing which I have noticed, and it seems to be more than coincidental issue, it happens every time.  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 10:03:17 AM
We now have "actual proof" that FS was not physically injured in the grenade incident, so that matter is settled.  Annie, if you missed it, Penny posted her research results on the matter.

As for a clique, I do not know of a single person on this board who thinks that AA was AN.  Not Penny, not Lexi, not me, not Michael, not....well, anyone.

But I do know that that accusation gets thrown around pretty consistently, which is really bizarre.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: etonexile on August 04, 2005, 10:06:10 AM
As the DNA of AA did not match AN...but did match known members of the FS family....I...once again....say that AA was F....however she became scared....
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 10:09:09 AM
Eton  - scared, or scarred?

EIther way, it's entirely possible!  No argument from me there!
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: etonexile on August 04, 2005, 10:17:45 AM
Quote
Eton  - scared, or scarred?

EIther way, it's entirely possible!  No argument from me there!


T-heezer....so much for my spelling.... ;)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 04, 2005, 10:19:43 AM
Quote

Personal attack, you flatter yourself little boy  ::) ::)

I now definitely doubt you have or have done ANY research on this subject.  I am not the only person who requests information from Penny or Mr. Schweitzer or Greg for that matter on this forum.  I have no need to go to the library, I OWN my books.  

If you make the statement , like any good author or researcher you should be able to make your claim or assertion and back it up with VALID source material.  Yet you don't. This is a failing which I have noticed, and it seems to be more than coincidental issue, it happens every time.  
 


Of course it's a personal attack.

So, you own the already published books rather than check them out from the local library. My bad. (Not that checking out books from the library, or buying them from the bookstore isn't a good place to start....)

As for the rest, you, and anyone else,  are free to believe what you like. Have a nice day.  ;)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 04, 2005, 10:22:23 AM
Quote

As for a clique, I do not know of a single person on this board who thinks that AA was AN.  Not Penny, not Lexi, not me, not Michael, not....well, anyone.



I wouldn't be so sure of that. What people write and what they think are often two different things....
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 10:24:30 AM
Well, it's true.  What we write and what we think are often different.

But let's veer away from bordering on accusing people of lying.  The topic of this thread is the subject, I believe. :)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 04, 2005, 10:31:01 AM
Quote

Of course it's a personal attack.

So, you own the already published books rather than check them out from the local library. My bad. (Not that checking out books from the library, or buying them from the bookstore isn't a good place to start....)

As for the rest, you, and anyone else,  are free to believe what you like. Have a nice day.  ;)



No it is NOT a personal attack.  All I, or anyone else is asking you to do is to BACK UP what you continually state with VALID source material in this debate. So it
can be examined for this forum.

That you refuse to do it, shows that you obviously cannot do it.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 04, 2005, 10:32:35 AM
Quote

Hey, everyone, don't skip over Louis remark.  He met AA and heard her talk.  He's an eye witness.  

When did you meet AA?

And, what do you mean by an English accent?  American English? British English with a Yorkshire accent?

How long were you with or near her?

AGRBear



I lived in Charlottesville from 1971-1974 (I was a History major at the University of Virginia). Anna and Jack Manahan were well-known figures in the community; they frequently dined at the country club, and in various restaurants on the Corner, the main street at the time.

The central area of the University is the Thomas Jefferson designed Rotuna and side pavilions that are grouped around an area known as the Lawn. There was a concert given in spring of either '72 or '73 (sorry to be fuzzy, but I don't really remember which after thirty-odd --- very odd! --- years.)  I had known her by sight, of course, since I had been fascinated with her story long before I arrived at the University, and she was pointed out to me by a fellow History major.
She was sitting on the Lawn in a folding chair, wearing a hat and coat (I thought that was odd because it was already warm), and holding either a napkin or a handkerchief up to her face. Her husband was with her, and when he was talking to someone, I walked up with an idea of introducing myself. Before I could say more than a few words she told me to go away. So I flopped down near enough to hear her and Jack for a few minutes. I forget what they were talking about, but I dimly recall her wanting him to get something from the car.
I don't recall her exact words, and I am not a linguistic expert. At the time, I also wanted to believe that she was the Grand Duchess, so I readily admit that my recollection may be colored by that. But she didn't sound English to me at all, more of a sort of central European non-descript accent that might be considered MGM non-specific, considering some of the 1940s movies I have seen. She did sound educated, even refined. Definitely imperious. After a few minutes I think she realized that I was sitting there listening, and she glared at me. I took the hint and decamped.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 04, 2005, 10:40:21 AM
Quote

You can go back and get all of the quotes you want that you think suport this view, however, I know that I don't believe AA is AN,  Penny doesn't, and outside of a couple of people I can think of that no longer post here, no one actually has said that.


This is all I can find right now, it was in a locked thread so it couldn't be deleted by her the way many of her posts have been:

Quote
on Jul 12th, 2004, 11:33pm, Penny_Wilson wrote:

One thing I can tell you absolutely and positively is that Gleb Botkin was no con-man.  He truly and strongly believed in Anastasia Manahan, and he never wavered in this belief.  
 
If she was Anastasia -- and I myself believe it likely that she was -- then Gleb and his sister Tatiana were her two truest friends.


link to the actual  page featuring this post:

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1075191962;start=75

I have seen nothing in her postings or her attitude to discount her former belief. She has become quite upset with people who argue against any alleged evidence supporting the possibility, so, sorry, I do not believe she doesn't believe AA was AN anymore than I could convince you I DO believe it! Our posts, our words, our actions speak for themselves.

As for you and a few others, the very way you become so indignant and defensive over the DNA and other topics concerning AA being FS show there must be a reason for this. If you really didn't believe it, or didn't care, why bother? If you only wanted 'the truth' you'd accept the DNA as I have, though until then I somewhat believed her, or at least was hoping it was her. But I admit it, I am on no crusade to argue with it. It speaks for itself.

My nephew didn't want to believe the DNA test that proved he was the father of a child he didn't think was his and didn't want to support either, but he does, and he pays. I have never seen anyone, no matter how upset or how crazed, stand up on Maury or Montell or one of those 'who's your baby's daddy' revelation shows start screaming the DNA was wrong, contaminated, or the other guy she slept with snuck in and switched it. It's there! 99.9% accurate, just like AA being FS! I've even seen guys only get a 96% and still not fight it! What is it with not believing these results?? Some of you say you do, but you still have questions. I have questions too, but they are NOT about her identity anymore! And if you truly believed the DNA results, and understood the science behind them, there is no way you could question AA's identity.


Quote
In fact we have said quite the opposite.  Just because a person brings up the Ekaterinburg massacre doesn't make them an AA is AN supporter.  I just want to make sure the discussion doesn't veer too far in that direction.


Then WHY is it ALWAYS AA that gets discussed to death? Like I said, I want to discuss other possibilties, and the missing bodies. She may have lived and been someone else, and you'll be missing that tale wasting time on this one! So if you don't believe AA was AN, why not discuss what else happened to the missing bodies? Oh, and the girl is not necessarily Anastasia, she could also be Marie or Tatiana according to other experts!
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 10:44:34 AM
Annie:  Why is it that AA gets discussed to death?  Your own thread is about AA.

I'm really sorry that you are not able to understand our interest in continuing the discussions about the mystery of FS, AA, et al.  We have explained on several occasions that the conclusion is not as interesting to us as the process of examining and re-examining facts, looking at new evidence, and generally engaging in an intelligent dialogue with people who share a common interest.

The discussion is continually disrupted at this point by complaints about the topic, which is hardly productive and serves no purpose for either side.   Please stop.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 04, 2005, 10:48:39 AM
Quote
Annie:  Why is it that AA gets discussed to death?  Your own thread is about AA.


It was not about her identity, but how FRANSIZKA SCHANSKOWSKA pulled off her charade. The rest of you brought the old identity stuff back into it. I would love to discuss that topic free of questions about her identity which have already been answered. In your own words "please stop" And if you feel you don't have to stop, that you are free to express any view you choose in any thread, then how can you deny me the same right?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 04, 2005, 10:51:08 AM
WOW!   My mouse paw has a cramp after reading all this great new information which is, now, getting bogged down and back to stuff we promised we wouldn't do.  So ENOUGH.  All of your points are well taken by everyone.  

BACK TO TOPIC.

Both Penny and Jer-o-mee have different opinions on the subject matter of Yorkshire accent or no Yorkshire accent.  Nothing they say to each other is going to change their minds.  I for one am not an expert, haven't heard enough of AA's voice to know one way or the other.  So,  I'll let the experts go the rounds for right, now.

Penny has presented facts as she has seen them about the reports of the accident at the factory.  And, I accept these facts.
No one else needs to accept them.  That is up to each person. However,  as to Massie's book and your quotes,  I'm sure if he had the energy or the insentive to write another book, and if he has what Penny has found, he'd correct this part of FS's story because I think he is an honest and truthful author.  And, he'd add the source.  

I'm going to go get a pot of honey and tea, and, go back and read all this great new stuff.

Were you people up ALL NIGHT.....???

AGRBear

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: lexi4 on August 04, 2005, 10:53:05 AM
Louis,
Thank you for sharing your story. Too bad you had to move away from the table.  ;)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 04, 2005, 10:53:55 AM
Bear, while on the subject of accents don't forget Louis_Charles who met her personally and said he heard no trace of an English accent.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 04, 2005, 10:59:19 AM
Assuming that AA was not AN, how did she pull it off?

(1) She was disturbed enough to completely believe in what she was saying.
(2) She was smart enough to let other people further the cause. Most people agree that the identity question was pushed throughout Andersen's life by others on her behalf. She was quoted as saying that it didn't matter what she said, people would believe or not. But this gives her the cachet of appearing "above" the controversy.
(3) People wanted to believe in her, and this is not to be discounted as a factor. They each had their own reasons, and not all of them were ignoble (as in they wanted some presumably hidden money she might inherit if it could be proved). Many of the people that supported her were honorable. Of course, that doesn't mean that she was the Grand Duchess. I think it would be interesting to probe why people want to believe in survivors. The Anastasia case isn't unique; there have been pretenders throughout history. I am thinking here of Naundorf's claim to be Louis XVII, but he is only one among many.
(4) Finally, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that she was whom she claimed to be, even if she wasn't. Andersen knew things that Anastasia would have known, she bore physical similarities to Anastasia that remain amazing, and until the advent of the DNA evidence, I think she made a plausible case for Anastasia's survival.

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 04, 2005, 10:59:26 AM
I do believe I was the one who quoted him  and reposted his post so it would not get lost.

Unlike you suggest,  and have so many times,  I and others have not taken sides.  We are just on a path looking for evidence.  And, we really don't care in what direction the evidence takes us.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 11:02:01 AM
Wow, Louis-Charles.  That was an excellent summary.  THanks!
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 04, 2005, 11:02:30 AM
Quote
I do believe I was the one who quoted him  and reposted his post so it would not get lost.


I remember, but it did get lost, so I brought it up again.

Quote
Unlike you suggest,  and have so many times,  I and others have not taken sides.  We are just on a path looking for evidence.  And, we really don't care in what direction the evidence takes us.

AGRBear


Sorry but I believe actions speak louder than words. If you really wanted the truth, you'd accept the reality of the DNA tests. If you wanted to explore all avenues, you'd also be discussing other claimants and other possibities of what became of the missing bodies. But no, it's always AA.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 11:05:20 AM
Annie - PLEASE, please stop.  This is disruption and harassment.  Please allow people to engage in a discussion without constantly bashing the fact that we want to have it.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 04, 2005, 11:05:28 AM
Quote
Louis,
Thank you for sharing your story. Too bad you had to move away from the table.  ;)


Lexi,

If I had known that thirty years later I would be posting on this board, I wouldn't have! ;D

My real name is Simon, btw. And while I did not hear an English accent, I am not a linguist, and if I am reading the post correctly, she was not identified as having a Yorkshire accent, merely a Yorkshire "cast" occasionally. I take that to mean that there were moments when her main accent, whatever it was, was inconsistent. I live in the south, but was born in New York. I say "y'all" like a pro, but no one would say I have a Southern accent.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 04, 2005, 11:08:53 AM
Quote
Assuming that AA was not AN, how did she pull it off?

(1) She was disturbed enough to completely believe in what she was saying.
(2) She was smart enough to let other people further the cause. Most people agree that the identity question was pushed throughout Andersen's life by others on her behalf. She was quoted as saying that it didn't matter what she said, people would believe or not. But this gives her the cachet of appearing "above" the controversy.
(3) People wanted to believe in her, and this is not to be discounted as a factor. They each had their own reasons, and not all of them were ignoble (as in they wanted some presumably hidden money she might inherit if it could be proved). Many of the people that supported her were honorable. Of course, that doesn't mean that she was the Grand Duchess. I think it would be interesting to probe why people want to believe in survivors. The Anastasia case isn't unique; there have been pretenders throughout history. I am thinking here of Naundorf's claim to be Louis XVII, but he is only one among many.


Interesting, thanks for posting your ideas. It's all possible, the only one I disagree with is the last part:


Quote
(4) Finally, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that she was whom she claimed to be, even if she wasn't. Andersen knew things that Anastasia would have known,


Really nothing that can't be explained away as having been told to her intentionally or incidently by a Russian emigre.

Quote
she bore physical similarities to Anastasia that remain amazing,


Well, no. I can't believe I ever used to think that, but looking back now I think I must have been blinded by wishful thinking. AA and AN have completely different chin shapes, bone structure, and AA's mouth is much larger with much thicker lips than AN. The only comparison you could possibly make is the eyes, but AA's are wider set and the brows and forehead are different.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/anaa.jpg)



Quote
and until the advent of the DNA evidence, I think she made a plausible case for Anastasia's survival.



Oh I don't. That 2.800 horse cart ride on muddy back roads while suffering life threatening injuries, plus the nonexistant Alexander Tchiakovsky, are ridicuously unbelieveable.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 04, 2005, 11:11:27 AM
Quote
Assuming that AA was not AN, how did she pull it off?

(1) She was disturbed enough to completely believe in what she was saying.
(2) She was smart enough to let other people further the cause. Most people agree that the identity question was pushed throughout Andersen's life by others on her behalf. She was quoted as saying that it didn't matter what she said, people would believe or not. But this gives her the cachet of appearing "above" the controversy.
(3) People wanted to believe in her, and this is not to be discounted as a factor. They each had their own reasons, and not all of them were ignoble (as in they wanted some presumably hidden money she might inherit if it could be proved). Many of the people that supported her were honorable. Of course, that doesn't mean that she was the Grand Duchess. I think it would be interesting to probe why people want to believe in survivors. The Anastasia case isn't unique; there have been pretenders throughout history. I am thinking here of Naundorf's claim to be Louis XVII, but he is only one among many.
(4) Finally, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that she was whom she claimed to be, even if she wasn't. Andersen knew things that Anastasia would have known, she bore physical similarities to Anastasia that remain amazing, and until the advent of the DNA evidence, I think she made a plausible case for Anastasia's survival.



Louis_Charles:>>(1) She was disturbed enough to completely believe in what she was saying.<<

Bear Ans:  We do not know this answer if she was not FS since we do not have any record of AA before she jumped into the canal.  If,  she was FS, then it appears she had some mental problems due to traumas.  And,  boy, this can get comlicated since I have personal experience with members of my own family and several friends who have suffered  traumas.  Each individual reacts to a trauma, such as the people who lost their loved ones on 9-11 or children who have died slowly from cancer.....  Unfortunately, the medical field on mental care is .....  Well, how can I say this without getting slaped with a lawsuit.  There is a lot to learn about the human mind that we do not understand.  As to AA,  in her later years, perhaps by the time you saw her,  she had already fallen into the age where her mind had accepted she was whom she wanted to be and that was GD Anastasia.  I truly hope she wasn't GD Anastasia because if she was then that would have been a real tragedy for "the little one".  But we're not suppose to go there on this thread where we are suppose to acccept that AA wasn't GD Anastasia.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 04, 2005, 11:13:12 AM
Quote
Annie - PLEASE, please stop.  This is disruption and harassment.  Please allow people to engage in a discussion without constantly bashing the fact that we want to have it.


So it's "harrassement" to argue the other side, and to question inconsistencies in a postion? I could say the same about you. So, you don't want to have anyone post who doesn't back up your beliefs? That's not what a discussion board is about. If you are referring to what bear and I just discussed, you could give me an answer, or an explaination to my questions instead of asking me to shut up and go away.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 04, 2005, 11:14:21 AM
Sorry for being so chatty today!

But I did have another response to Annie's question, "How did she pull it off?"

Andersen's claim to be Anastasia was evolutionary, i.e. it developed over time. There is a strong sense of evolving confidence during the '20s as she meets Olga Alexandrovna, and manages to beat back attacks from people like Gilliard. This is not to say that she proved her case, but that she saw that her supporters maintained their belief in her (von Rathlef, for example). And there were emotional triumphs such as Shura's disagreement with her husband about Andersen's identity.

As I have posted before, I think by the end of her life she enjoyed the role so much that she was capable of tweaking it with statements like "there was no massacre in Ekaterinburg" and confused ramblings about the missing "fifth" daughter in the Lovell book.

In short, the longer she claimed to be Anastasia, the better she got at it.

Title: e: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 04, 2005, 11:16:16 AM
Quote

Bear Ans:  We do not know this answer if she was not FS since we do not have any record of AA before she jumped into the canal.  If,  she was FS, then it appears she had some mental problems due to tramas. AGRBear


This is one thing I want to discover, what all happened to poor Franziska that led her to this? Was it the explosion, the loss of her fiancee and her baby? Did she have a run in with Grossman but escape? This is something I want to find out to complete the story of her and her claim. What drove her to it? I'm sure it was tragic.


Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: lexi4 on August 04, 2005, 11:17:41 AM
Quote

Lexi,

If I had known that thirty years later I would be posting on this board, I wouldn't have! ;D

My real name is Simon, btw. And while I did not hear an English accent, I am not a linguist, and if I am reading the post correctly, she was not identified as having a Yorkshire accent, merely a Yorkshire "cast" occasionally. I take that to mean that there were moments when her main accent, whatever it was, was inconsistent. I live in the south, but was born in New York. I say "y'all" like a pro, but no one would say I have a Southern accent.


Simon,
Hindsight is always 20-20 isn't it? Do you remember observing here mannerisms?
Accents are hard. When I visit relatives in the south and come home, everyone always teases me about picking up a southern accent. When I am south, they make fun of my "yankee" accent. I think we pick up accents and kind of blend in, depending on where we are. But I don't know that. I am not and expert at all.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 04, 2005, 11:24:08 AM
Quote

This is all I can find right now, it was in a locked thread so it couldn't be deleted by her the way many of her posts have been...


Sure, I deleted most of my posts at one point.  At that time, I wanted to leave the board, and not leave a trace of myself on it.  Some might find that understandable.

Quote
If she was Anastasia -- and I myself believe it likely that she was -- then Gleb and his sister Tatiana were her two truest friends.


This was written in July 2004. I note that you have seen fit to copy-and-paste nothing that I have written on the subject in the last year.  

Do you not understand that opinions evolve?

But let me say this: The only item of evidence that keeps me from the professional conclusion that Anastasia Manahan was Grand Duchess Anastasia is the DNA.  Until that evidence no longer stands, I have to accept it as history's verdict.  But that doesn't mean that I won't keep questioning it, because I do find the rest of the evidence so compelling -- and let me remind you without it being seen as any sort of "attack," that I have seen much more of this evidence than you have.

My personal conclusions have no place here, and are no-one's business but my own.  You can't even begin to know what they are.

Quote
She has become quite upset with people who argue against any alleged evidence supporting the possibility...


Actually, she becomes quite upset when people dismiss good, solid evidence because it runs counter to the DNA results.  There are conundrums in history, and the Anastasia Manahan story is one of them right now -- this is why her story gets "discussed to death."  And remember -- she has been believed by perfectly sane and very intelligent people -- including actual relatives and friends/acquaintances of Grand Duchess Anastasia -- for good reason:  There is ample evidence in her favor which cannot be ignored or speculated away if we are to be considered good historians.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 04, 2005, 11:26:52 AM
 Well, no. I can't believe I ever used to think that, but looking back now I think I must have been blinded by wishful thinking. AA and AN have completely different chin shapes, bone structure, and AA's mouth is much larger with much thicker lips than AN. The only comparison you could possibly make is the eyes, but AA's are wider set and the brows and forehead are different.

There is the hallux vulgus, there was a scar on her back where the real Anastasia Nikolaevna was supposed to have had a mole cauterized, there was the unusual color of her eyes, similar to Nicholas II, that was remarked upon by Mathilde Kch.  There was the forensic examination of her ears, and if I am not mistaken, there was a handwriting analysis that did not contradict her claim.

I do not think she was Anastasia. I think she was Franziska. But the DNA evidence provides Lexi's 20/20 hindsight! :) During her lifetime, many people that had known the real Anastasia supported her claim. Had there been no physical resemblance --- as in Eugenia Smith's case, for example --- she could not have lasted as long as she did.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 04, 2005, 11:38:20 AM
Quote
If you wanted to explore all avenues, you'd also be discussing other claimants and other possibities of what became of the missing bodies. But no, it's always AA.


That's because information on Anastasia Manahan is the thickest on the ground -- especially in English language books.

Once upon a time, I started a thread on the Olga of Lake Como, but it went nowhere and sank becuase there is very little information readily available about her --  and who here, with their families and daily commitments and "real" jobs has the time, money or energy to undertake a grass-roots research project to feed a thread on a discussion board?

There's nothing sinister about discussing Anastasia Manahan.  She's fascinating; there are a lot of stories about her to discuss; there are many English-language sources that make her accessible to all -- and even the Romanovs called her "the real imposter."
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 04, 2005, 11:49:09 AM
We do have one particular thread which Annie started about the AA story and if she was GD Anastasia and her escape story.

Here is one of my quotes:

Quote
Since most of you know my AGRBear means American-German-Russian-Bear,  I know a great deal about the journey between Germany and Russia.  I have found diaries, read books and heard family stories about how the Germans migr. to all corners of Russia from the late 1700s into about the 1850s.  Since  some of my ancestors walked from Alsace [north of Strassburg] to Russia to Odessa then on to Kherson over to  Tiflis in the Caucasus then to Palestine in the early 1800s, I can honestly say, yes, such a trip is possible.

In several of my books there are daily accounts of several people who traveled from Germany to Russia.  Some traveled  by land and the others  was from Ulm on boat on the Danube River into Russia and by wagon to Odessa area.

Here is a photographs of people traveling during the WWI in Russia:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/refugees2.jpg)

I think chintz22 has the correct idea on the math but I'll have to dig out some of my books, study the dates and then reverse them.

As you can see by the photo there was no need for GD Anastasia to be hidden once the Tschaikovskys mingled with the masses.  Papers could be found on those who  died along the way or were stolen.  If that didn't work, money touched hands.

I believe she menioned a cart to Bucherest, Rumania but I don't recall her mentioning any sort of method of travel to Berlin.  I suspsect it was by train.

AGRBear


Click on AGRBear wrote and it'll take you right to the thread.

I can add to this that a huge forced migration of GR's occured in 1940 when Russia demanded the GRs return to Germany and they traveled in the same way as they had a 100 years earlier by horse, cart, wagon, and walked.  I have access to many diaries, articles, letters which talk about this trek.

Was this trip possible for AA in a cart, yes, it was possible.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 04, 2005, 11:50:18 AM
Quote

Sure, I deleted most of my posts at one point.  At that time, I wanted to leave the board, and not leave a trace of myself on it.  Some might find that understandable.


I understand that, I have felt that way myself before! But I see we are both still here, despite all our promises of exit! We're just 2 mouthy old ladies and nobody's ever going to shut us up. In  a way I consider you my antithesis, we're alike, but opposite, whether that's a good thing for either of us I'm not sure!


Quote
Do you not understand that opinions evolve?


Yes, but it still seems you hold a belief she was AN and still constantly question her identity and try to find reasons to discount the FS theory even after the DNA. So it sure looks that way.

Yes, AA is fascinating and I want to know more about her. But not the identity question, that's been solved. I am still interested to know just how it all happened, who was involved, why, how, etc. ,well, see my first post in this thread.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 04, 2005, 12:00:59 PM
First the differences list:

Quote
Differences between AA and FS are:  
-------   
I. Photographs:  
Photograph comparisons won't make everyone happy as to their looking alike....    
   
II.  Shoe sizes  
FS wore shoes that were three sizes larger than AA    
 AA wore shoes that were three sizes smaller than FS  
   
Shoes sizes still doesn't accomplish any agreement even though at the trial  there  shown that there was three size difference.  
   
III. Pregnancy  
AA- Evidence of a pregnancy but no proof of when.  Claimed to have had a son.  
FS- No pregnancy known.    
   
IV. Scars.  
FS -  no unusual scars remembered by family; no scars inflicted in factory accident  
AA - scars which were claimed to have been inflicted by a bayonet;  small scar on finger claimed to have been from a door; scar from removal of a mole..... Some scar may have been caused by tb and surgery.  Penny mentioned that AA had a "grove" on the side of her head which may prove to be a injury of some kind had occured....  
   
IIV. Height  
FS is reported to have been 5'6", which is about 4 inches taller than AA - Helen was th source on this fact.  
AA was about 5'2"" tall  The source was a medical report fr Dalldorf Asylum  
   
IIIV.  Knowledge of Languages  
FS - knew German and Katchoubian.  Did not know Russian or English.  
AA - knew Russian, German, French and English  
   
IX.  Ears pierced  
FS - one retouched photo shows earrings and pierced ears but this may be in error  
AA - doesn't appear to have pierced ears  
#No one cares about pierced ears for either FS or AA  
 
X.  
FS - Was reported  missing in March 1920.  Her brother Felix received a birthday card from FS on 17 Feb 1920  
AA - 9:00 PM, 18 Feb 1920  The person who is to be known as Anna Anderson jumped off the Bendler Bridge into the Landwehr Canal, in Berlin.  She was pulled out of the water by Police Serg. Hallman and taken to Elizabeth Hospial in Lutzowstrasse  
  ------
 
Help me add to the list of differences, if you can and please give the source.
 
For those of you who'd like to make a list of similarities, please do go to the thread  AA and FS Similarities.  
   
AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 04, 2005, 12:03:30 PM
Quote
Was this trip possible for AA in a cart, yes, it was possible.
 
AGRBear


But was it possible for a critically injured, allegedly pregnant girl? No. If she didn't bleed to death she'd have died of infection.

Oh great, you bumped the thread. Well, good idea. I just wanted to get offline and go do something important but now I'll have to stay :-/
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 04, 2005, 12:03:41 PM
Differences and Similarities continued:
Quote
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/AAFSHeight.jpg)

I'll let you, the poster, tell me if you see any differences in this very general matching of two photographs between AA and FS.

AGRBear


This, to me, shows there is a resemblance between AA and FS.  

Quote
...[in part]...
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/FSAAComp6.jpg)

I think these two photos are about as similar as I'm going to be able to show.


...AGRBear.


Felix, FS's brother saw the similarities and stated this in his statement which he signed.  

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 04, 2005, 12:08:41 PM
Quote

I understand that, I have felt that way myself before! But I see we are both still here, despite all our promises of exit! We're just 2 mouthy old ladies and nobody's ever going to shut us up. In  a way I consider you my antithesis, we're alike, but opposite, whether that's a good thing for either of us I'm not sure!


I take issue with one thing here:  I'm 38, but I'm not old!!    8)

Quote
Yes, but it still seems you hold a belief she was AN and still constantly question her identity and try to find reasons to discount the FS theory even after the DNA. So it sure looks that way.


I do still constantly question Anastasia Manahan's "real" identity.  I do not accept that she was Franziska Schanzkowska; this is my "professional" opinion.  

Disproving that Anastasia Manahan was Franziska Schanzkowska does not necessarily equate to trying to prove that she was Grand Duchess Anastasia.  Thus far in the unravelling story, the DNA discounts that as a conclusion -- but I do not rule out the possibilty that at some point, something will be found in error in those tests.

Quote
Yes, AA is fascinating and I want to know more about her. But not the identity question, that's been solved.


Solved for you -- but not for me.  This is why I have been so far unable to answer the questions that you posed in the first post of this thread -- your premise is one that I can't accept.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 04, 2005, 12:12:23 PM
Quote

But was it possible for a critically injured, allegedly pregnant girl? No. If she didn't bleed to death she'd have died of infection.

Oh great, you bumped the thread. Well, good idea. I just wanted to get offline and go do something important but now I'll have to stay :-/


Since we have brought AA's story,  I thought I'd show people that this has been discussed and where they could find the discussion.

Did we want to discuss the story here?

Bumped what???

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 04, 2005, 12:15:57 PM
Penny,

Earlier in the discussion I stated that I do believe that AA was FS, mainly because of Occam's Razor. In your professional opinion, is there reason to suspect that the DNA samples were manipulated? Do you think that AA was a Schanzkowska, even if not Franziska?

I think quite highly of your work as a historian, and would appreciate your opinion.  And I also have to say that your work as a bartender is pretty impressive as well! So much for the Literary Life of Riley we all dream about! And trust me, from the vantage point of 52, 38 is young. Of course, my 76 year-old mother sneers at me when I complain about my advanced age.

Simon
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 04, 2005, 12:25:27 PM
Still catching up on last night's discussion so it appears I'm not with the flow today, but, I think some of this stuff I'm pulling into this thread is needed.

Some of you were talking about Wingender and her testimony.

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

Quote
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


If age counts, then all but one, whom I discovered is six months older than I,  better pay attention to this 63 year old bear  ;D
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 04, 2005, 12:33:02 PM
Quote
Penny,

Earlier in the discussion I stated that I do belive that AA was FS, mainly because of Occam's Razor. In your professional opinion, is there reason to suspect that the DNA samples were manipulated? Do you think that AA was a Schanzkowska, even if not Franziska?


For me, Occam's Razor works the other way:  It would be far easier to compromise the results of one set of tests -- the DNA -- than to manipulate all the other forensic and other evidence -- the ear identification, the handwriting identification, the distinctively blue eyes, the clothing sizes, the height and shoe sizes, the physical scarring, the inexplicable memories, recognition from friends and family members, etc, etc.

That said, I have to say that thus far I have nothing more than a few ideas about the DNA -- ideas that we have not yet investigated because we're working on another book -- but mere ideas nonetheless.  Nothing concrete, and no solid evidence that anything did go wrong.  

Quote
I think quite highly of your work as a historian, and would appreciate your opinion.  And I also have to say that your work as a bartender is pretty impressive as well! So much for the Literary Life of Riley we all dream about! And trust me, from the vantage point of 52, 38 is young. Of course, my 76 year-old mother sneers at me when I complain about my advanced age.

Simon


Thank you, Simon!  I'm glad you found something you liked about our book -- and I hope you like the next, too!

As for bartending:  It gets me out of the house and puts me in a highly social situation -- which stops me from being a hermit.  Plus, I meet all sort of neat people and end up having a lot of fun while I work -- and I think that that's the most best thing to be able to say about work!
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 04, 2005, 12:36:58 PM
For the record, I did not mean to insult Penny by calling her 'old'. It was a joke, I knew she was 38, and I am 43, which is older. I'm used to my other message boards (music and SciFi related) that are full of teens and college students who look at my age as 'old.'  :P
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 04, 2005, 12:38:12 PM
Thanks for replying so promptly, and while we disagree about Occam's Razor, I will look forward to the book!
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 04, 2005, 12:39:21 PM
::grins:: Annie, on the Internet we are all 25! It's my favorite aspect of it!
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 04, 2005, 12:49:19 PM
No No NO

All of you have misssed my point.  I am 63 and therefore you should respect ALL my posts more than anyone else, save one, whom I will not name for she must come forward and admit it
;D

Bear stomping off to get more honey and maybe a shower is in need.  Snif.  Snif-f.  Yep, a shower, too.   ::)

AGRBear

PS  Well, maybe not my  posts that have gone pass the "dead end" sign   ;)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: lexi4 on August 04, 2005, 09:21:59 PM
Quote
Franziska Schanskowska WAS Anna Anderson, and she was not Anastasia.

There is no longer any reasonable doubt about that. But there are still mysteries I want answered. Here they are:

1. Did Franziska willingly play along, or did she really have amnesia and not know who she was? Did she want to rid herself of her old life so badly she became someone else?

Also, if she really did believe she was Anastasia, at what point did this happen? Was it from the beginning, or did she play along so long she came to believe it in her old age because she was mentally unstable?

2. Did her supporters really believe her, or were they only hoping, or hoping for money?

3. Who coached her, taught her languages, and fed her memories? And of the memories, how many were intentionally fed, or just incidental relayed in conversation?

4. What went on between her and her siblings when they met? Surely they knew it was her, and covered for her. But did she know it was them and beg them not to expose her?

5. Who was behind the whole lawsuit thing, and why?


I thought I would repost annie's questions so I could keep them in mind as  I post. I am choosing one question and presenting what I have found. All documentation is provided.

From Robert Massie "The Romanovs The Final Chapter" page 180

The first meeting:
"To add corroboration, FS's brother Feliz came a few weeks later to identify the claimant. They met in a Bavarian beer garden. As soon as he saw her, Felix declared, 'That is my sister Franziska.' Mrs. Tschaikovsky walked over and began to talk to him. That night, Felix was handed an affiadavit (I know you don't like affadavits annie, but I am quoting Massie) identifying the claimant. He refused to sign. 'No, I won't do it,' he said. 'She isn't my sister."

There is not mention of how long the two spent together or how much time had passed from the time he first met with her until the affadavit was presented to him.

Here is the second meeting of the Schanz. family with AA.
"...in 1938, the claimant had a final confrontation with the Schanzkowski family. A decree from the Nazi regime in Berlin summoned her to a room where four Schanz., two brothers and two sisters, were waiting. She walked back and forth while teh Schanz. started at her and spoke in low voices. Finally, one brother announced, 'No this lady looks too different.' The meeting seemed at an end when suddenly Gertrude Schan hammered fer fists on the table and shouted 'You are my sister. You are my sister. I know it! You must recognize me!' The policeman stared at Mrs Tschaikovsky, and calmly, she stared back. 'What am I supposed to say?' she asked. The two brothers and the other sister were embarrassed and tried to quiet Gertrude, who shouted louder, 'Admit it! Admit it!' A few minutes later, everyone went home."

Again, no mention of how long they were together.

Summers & Mangold pp. 205

"At Castle Seeon, the claimant was confronted by Franziska's brother. At first he gave the impression that he recognized the claimant as his sister, but he refused to sign an affidavit to this effect. On the contrary, he suddenly admitted that any resemblance was purely superficial. His sister's teeth had been different; her feet had been larger and quite unlike those of the invalid, which had an obvious peculiarity of shape. Nor did the language and dialect tally with that of his family. The effort to fabricate an identity for the claimant had failed -- but it was to prove a lasting slur."  Summers & Mangold cited source p/. 378 Rathenau note -- Hamburg [Beiakte2K83 (Tsch) 45] Andrei correspondence with S. Botkin, President of White Russian Association in Berlin; Hoover Institution.

I could find no reference in Summers & Mangold as to how long the two spent together.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 09:29:22 PM
Sounds like during the initial meeting there was not 7 hours of conversation, or that would have been remarked on, and I've searched all of my books and articles and find no mention of such a long episode.  

And the second meeting, of course, was simply a confrontation, almost like a beauty pagent contestant passing in front of judges.  

It looks doubtful that AA had any time to collaborate with Felix about anything, or with her other siblings.  

Nothing here is changing my idea that Felix didn't recognize her because she didn't recognize him.  In other words, that absent a glimmer of recognition from her towards him, her features had changed too much over the years to be recognizeable.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 04, 2005, 10:06:45 PM
Quote

I thought I would repost annie's questions so I could keep them in mind as  I post. I am choosing one question and presenting what I have found. All documentation is provided.

From Robert Massie "The Romanovs The Final Chapter" page 180

The first meeting:
"To add corroboration, FS's brother Feliz came a few weeks later to identify the claimant. They met in a Bavarian beer garden. As soon as he saw her, Felix declared, 'That is my sister Franziska.' Mrs. Tschaikovsky walked over and began to talk to him. That night, Felix was handed an affiadavit (I know you don't like affadavits annie, but I am quoting Massie) identifying the claimant. He refused to sign. 'No, I won't do it,' he said. 'She isn't my sister."

There is not mention of how long the two spent together or how much time had passed from the time he first met with her until the affadavit was presented to him.
 
Here is the second meeting of the Schanz. family with AA.
"...in 1938, the claimant had a final confrontation with the Schanzkowski family. A decree from the Nazi regime in Berlin summoned her to a room where four Schanz., two brothers and two sisters, were waiting. She walked back and forth while teh Schanz. started at her and spoke in low voices. Finally, one brother announced, 'No this lady looks too different.' The meeting seemed at an end when suddenly Gertrude Schan hammered fer fists on the table and shouted 'You are my sister. You are my sister. I know it! You must recognize me!' The policeman stared at Mrs Tschaikovsky, and calmly, she stared back. 'What am I supposed to say?' she asked. The two brothers and the other sister were embarrassed and tried to quiet Gertrude, who shouted louder, 'Admit it! Admit it!' A few minutes later, everyone went home."

Again, no mention of how long they were together.

Summers & Mangold pp. 205

"At Castle Seeon, the claimant was confronted by Franziska's brother. At first he gave the impression that he recognized the claimant as his sister, but he refused to sign an affidavit to this effect. On the contrary, he suddenly admitted that any resemblance was purely superficial. His sister's teeth had been different; her feet had been larger and quite unlike those of the invalid, which had an obvious peculiarity of shape. Nor did the language and dialect tally with that of his family. The effort to fabricate an identity for the claimant had failed -- but it was to prove a lasting slur."  Summers & Mangold cited source p/. 378 Rathenau note -- Hamburg [Beiakte2K83 (Tsch) 45] Andrei correspondence with S. Botkin, President of White Russian Association in Berlin; Hoover Institution.

I could find no reference in Summers & Mangold as to how long the two spent together.


This is from an old post of mine regarding the FIRST meeting:

Since there appears to be some confusion about AA's various meeting with FS family members,  so, I hunted around and found this one of Michael's.  I couldn't pull out the quote because it's locked down.  I highlighted the date:

Michael:  >>On May 9, 1927  AA was taken for a meeting with Felix Schanzkowska the brother of Francisca.  
 
The meeting took place at an in Wasserburg some few miles nw of Seeon.  Felix S. was sitting the beer garden with Dr. Voller, while Harriet von Rathlef wisely kept out of sight.  As she walked toward his table, AA asked the Duke, "Which one of the gentlemen is it?"  
 
Felix stared at her.  
 
Who is that lady, asked Dr Voller,  "That is my sister Francisca ." replied Felix.   All eyes turned to Anastasia,    
"Well, stammered the Duke, thoroughly amazed, "go and talk with your brother."   Dr Voller had already prepared an affadavit for Felix to sign, stating that this was indeed his sister Franciska S., and that he recognized her beyond any doubt.  Frau Rathlef was crushed, she handed the document to Felix, when she suddenly heard him say " No, I won't do it.  She isn't my sister."    
 
"She isn't your sister?" asked Frau Rathlef stunned by this about face.    
 
"No, said Felix again, adding that he would not sign a false declaration that might land him in jail."  
 
Dr Voller drew up another affadavit that Felix did not hesitate to sigh it"  
 
" There does exist a strong resemblance between her and my sister.  The resemblance is strong when you look from the front, but not when you look from the side.....Frau Tschaikovsky's speech...as well as the general expression of her manner is totally different from that of my sister, Franziska.... At today's consultation I spoke repeatedly with Frau Tshaikovsky.  There can be no doubt that she did not have the slightest idea who I was.  You could clearly see that she did no know me.  I went toward her and she gave me her hand and talked to me with perfect unconcern.  She showed no sign either of astonishment or of the slightest fear.  She behaved rather as one behaves towards a third pary to whom one is just being introduced."  
 
Then Harriet Rathlef went over the check list:  There were scars and birthmarks,  "My sister Franzsiska had no scars or birthmarks";  Teeth;  My sister Franziska had a full set of teeth. "  Languages; "My sister Franziska spoke a little polish and good german."  Feet;   "My sister Franziska had no deformities of the feet."  Here Felix took off his shoes and "with sort of a vanity", declared that Franziska has "pretty" feet, "just like mine."  
 
That is in Riddle of Anna Anderson  pgs 173-174....  
 
Michael  

IP Logged

Note there is absolutely NO reference to time length in this meeting.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 04, 2005, 10:08:58 PM
This is from an earlier post of mine, regarding the second meeting from Kurth's, ROAA:


9 July 1938 AA met with Felix and his siblings.

on May 14th, 2005, 2:32pm, Michael G. wrote: There are two meetings mentioned in ROAA, and none after 1938.  Checking again Gertrude is definitely NOT at the first meeting, and in the second meeting she is listed as being in the same room with Felix, the police, AA, Valerian, Frau Madsack, Gleb Botkin, Fallows, and Marie Juliana.

Just a clarification regarding some very obvious purposeful errors on the meeting at Wasserburg at the beer gardeon of the inn near Castle Seeon, at which the Duke of Leuchtenberg, Harriet von Rathlef, Dr. Voller,  A.A. & Felix were present.  There is no mention of Gertrude.    This meeting took place on 9 May 1927
(See ROAA by Peter Kurth pgs 173-174)

The second meeting took place in Hannover on July 9, 1938.  At this meeting were: Marie Juliana, Valerian, Felix & Gertrude,  AA,  Fallows, Frau Madsack & Gleb Botkin, at the Police Headquarters, this meeting took place through the orders of the Government, and the manipulation of the new head of the Russian Emigre Office in Berlin.  

At this meeting at Police HQ, in a room reserved for convicts and their families, AA, smartly attired in a new wool suit, walked up and down the wall, while the siblings observed her chattering amongst themselves in low German.  Shaking their heads and look "exceedingly doubtful".  Finally Valerian spoke: "No, this lady looks too different.:

And did all the brothers and sister agree?

They did.  Not only did AA not look a thing like Franziska said Felix, but she didn't even look like the same woman he had met near Seeon eleven years before.  Could they go home now?

AA made ready to leave.  The suddenly Gertrude started shouting, banging her fists on the table and turning red in the face,  "You are my sister!" she cried, grabbing AA by the shoulders and shaking her.  "You are my sister, I know it! You must recognize me!"

The police were looking at Anastasia as though she had been caught picking pockets: "Well what have you got to say?"

"What am I supposed to say?" said AA

"How many brothers and sister do you have?"

"Four." she replied

"Well here we are four!" Said Valerian

"This is crazy" said AA

"Where were you born?"

"In Russia."

The answer took everyone by suprise. "In Russia?" Valerian asked, shaking his head, "In RUSSIA?" Now Valerian, Felix and Marie Juliana turned back to Gertrude, this was crazy indeed; you coul tell that the lady was not Franziska.  But  the more the family protested the louder Gertrude got' "Admit it - Admit it",
until AA pale with fury turned and walked from the room.

NO ONE, including Gertude agreed to sign anything that day. "

There is no mention that either meeting lasted 7 hours, and that Gertrude was present at the first meeting, and or that they spoke with her alone.  If we are going to start making blanket statements covering facts, lets get them correct or list the source they came from please.  

Also the official records of her height & weight are from the police reports & from her medical records at Dalldorf.

This will keep issues & arguments that are unnecessary from happening on this thread.

Neither section on the two meetings mention the amount of time the meeting lasted.  Just from reading the first meeting seems more informal and friendly and could have lasted longer.    


Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 04, 2005, 10:17:13 PM
THanks for the research, Michael.  It's important to go with what we know has been reported and not project.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 04, 2005, 10:29:32 PM
Quote
THanks for the research, Michael.  It's important to go with what we know has been reported and not project.


Exactly.  I want this repetition of a 7 hour meeting, and "sibling's" attending the first meeting stopped. Felix alone attended that meeting and that Felix had to be persuaded to do so.  From Peter Kurth, ROAA  pg 173:

"At Ammendorf  Frau Von Rathlef and her attorney, Dr. Voller, had at last tracked down Felix Schanzkowski, a miner, Franzsika's younger brother.  Although plainly uninterested and resentful of the attention, Felix had at last been persuaded to meet "AA" on the understanding that he would not be liable for her support if she turned out to be his sister."

I believe Penny had given us a remark made by Felix that he believed that she had been turned into hamburger/sausage, something on that line.  Sorry Penny can't remember it exactly.  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 04, 2005, 11:27:38 PM
Quote

Exactly.  I want this repetition of a 7 hour meeting, and "sibling's" attending the first meeting stopped. Felix alone attended that meeting and that Felix had to be persuaded to do so.  From Peter Kurth, ROAA  pg 173...


From what I recall, the day Gleb Botkin arrived at Schloss Seeon was the day AA went to meet Felix.  Gleb's first sight of her came as she crossed the entryway to the main door.  This was "in the afternoon."  She was driven about twelve or fifteen miles to an inn at Wasserburg, where she met Felix.  I don't know the road conditions in the area in 1927, but even today, the roads are secondary ones.  she returned to Seeon before dinner that evening.  I don't see how she could have met with him for "seven hours."

Quote
I believe Penny had given us a remark made by Felix that he believed that she had been turned into hamburger/sausage, something on that line.  Sorry Penny can't remember it exactly.  


Someone asked Felix about Franziska in connection with the AA mystery, and his response was, "Oh, my sister was sausages long ago."
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 05, 2005, 06:37:49 AM
Quote



Someone asked Felix about Franziska in connection with the AA mystery, and his response was, "Oh, my sister was sausages long ago."



This is one of the biggest reasons I believe the family DID know it was her and were  covering up. If they had really thought she was 'sausages' they wouldn't be joking about it!

All this dialogue posted where they say it's not her means nothing because I already am convinced they did know it was her and were only saying that stuff to avoid the trouble, possibly legal and financial, of claiming her. It would have been harder on her than on them! They did her a FAVOR by letting her off the hook! NO good could have come from claiming her for any of them. Of course I have no proof of this because it's not the kind of thing people are going to leave a paper trail about, but if you really think about it- and stop holding onto the hope AA wasn't FS and trying anything to prove that- you will see how much it all adds up. They didn't want to claim her, and were trying to make it look like legitimate reasons, even though stuff like the teeth was actually dumb because teeth can be pulled out.

As Jeremy posted on another thread, what was she supposed to do, say, 'hey guys, it's me, Franziska, let's all go home and be happy now!' Suuuurre. She denied her identity as Franziska and didn't want to be her anymore. She didn't want to be found out, and honestly, who'd want to be stuck with a mentally unstable sister with a load of baggage? Who would support her for the rest of her life? She'd hate them for ruining her claim. So they didn't claim her. But the family did later make comments about her being their 'sister' and 'aunt.' On the reasons AA is FS thread, someone posted that the family does now accept her as their long lost relative. However, it's obviously something they don't want to talk about. And that also adds up to the fact that AA was FS. If she was no connection, why would they care?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 05, 2005, 11:16:05 AM
Penny: >>Someone asked Felix about Franziska in connection with the AA mystery, and his response was, "Oh, my sister was sausages long ago." <<

This is the good old "dark" humor which I acquired from my Father.  It drives my hubby crazy.  So, yes, Felix would have said it since he thought his sister had been chopped up by the mass murderer Grossmann.

At the closing of the war in Berlin,  this dark humor took deep roots and was even given a name which is often menioned in books about the Weimar Republic history.  At the moment the label escapes me.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 05, 2005, 11:34:36 AM
AGR bear, I know what you mean.  It runs in my family, too.  VERY dark humor.  I think particularly when families go thru terrific trauma, humor is a way to survive the grief.  

My great uncle dropped dead of a stroke in my great grandmother's dental office.  She complained about how it was "bad for business".  

The sausages thing, which was a comment years later than the notification to the S family of the alleged murder by Grossman, is completely in keeping with that type of humor.  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: lexi4 on August 05, 2005, 01:05:46 PM
From Annie: But the family did later make comments about her being their 'sister' and 'aunt.' On the reasons AA is FS thread, someone posted that the family does now accept her as their long lost relative. However, it's obviously something they don't want to talk about. And that also adds up to the fact that AA was FS. If she was no connection, why would they care?  
« Last Edit: Today at 06:40 by Annie »  IP Logged

Annie,
This is very interesting. I am not familiar with that aspect, could you please refer me to your sources? I'd like to read about that.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 05, 2005, 04:16:47 PM
Quote
From Annie: But the family did later make comments about her being their 'sister' and 'aunt.' On the reasons AA is FS thread, someone posted that the family does now accept her as their long lost relative. However, it's obviously something they don't want to talk about. And that also adds up to the fact that AA was FS. If she was no connection, why would they care?  
« Last Edit: Today at 06:40 by Annie »  IP Logged

Annie,
This is very interesting. I am not familiar with that aspect, could you please refer me to your sources? I'd like to read about that.



I keep hearing about these various statements made by members of the Schanzkowski family, and I too am interested in reading them or the source material they came from.   Yet no on seems to be able to produce them.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 05, 2005, 07:01:32 PM
Quote


I keep hearing about these various statements made by members of the Schanzkowski family, and I too am interested in reading them or the source material they came from.   Yet no on seems to be able to produce them.


I don't have all these books, I can't afford them! But I do have an (almost) photographic memory for things I've read, and I know I read them here. Finding them in all these long threads is a task though,especially with a  slow computer. I don't know why you don't remember them if I do, I guess I was more interested so they stuck with me. I'm sure Jeremy and Stefan have the documentation, if they see this I hope they will post. I know a lot of what I read on them was posted by Stefan (or is it Stepan?) that were translations of things out of books that were only published in French, so there was a wealth of info that we didn't already have (and perhaps Europeans are not so hung up on AA as Americans are)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 05, 2005, 07:21:01 PM
Annie,

The icon is great!

Si
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 05, 2005, 07:35:44 PM
Quote
This is from an earlier post of mine, regarding the second meeting from Kurth's, ROAA:


9 July 1938 AA met with Felix and his siblings.
 
on May 14th, 2005, 2:32pm, Michael G. wrote: There are two meetings mentioned in ROAA, and none after 1938.  Checking again Gertrude is definitely NOT at the first meeting, and in the second meeting she is listed as being in the same room with Felix, the police, AA, Valerian, Frau Madsack, Gleb Botkin, Fallows, and Marie Juliana.
 
Just a clarification regarding some very obvious purposeful errors on the meeting at Wasserburg at the beer gardeon of the inn near Castle Seeon, at which the Duke of Leuchtenberg, Harriet von Rathlef, Dr. Voller,  A.A. & Felix were present.  There is no mention of Gertrude.    This meeting took place on 9 May 1927
(See ROAA by Peter Kurth pgs 173-174)
 
The second meeting took place in Hannover on July 9, 1938.  At this meeting were: Marie Juliana, Valerian, Felix & Gertrude,  AA,  Fallows, Frau Madsack & Gleb Botkin, at the Police Headquarters, this meeting took place through the orders of the Government, and the manipulation of the new head of the Russian Emigre Office in Berlin.  
 
At this meeting at Police HQ, in a room reserved for convicts and their families, AA, smartly attired in a new wool suit, walked up and down the wall, while the siblings observed her chattering amongst themselves in low German.  Shaking their heads and look "exceedingly doubtful".  Finally Valerian spoke: "No, this lady looks too different.:
 
And did all the brothers and sister agree?
 
They did.  Not only did AA not look a thing like Franziska said Felix, but she didn't even look like the same woman he had met near Seeon eleven years before.  Could they go home now?
 
AA made ready to leave.  The suddenly Gertrude started shouting, banging her fists on the table and turning red in the face,  "You are my sister!" she cried, grabbing AA by the shoulders and shaking her.  "You are my sister, I know it! You must recognize me!"
 
The police were looking at Anastasia as though she had been caught picking pockets: "Well what have you got to say?"
 
"What am I supposed to say?" said AA
 
"How many brothers and sister do you have?"
 
"Four." she replied
 
"Well here we are four!" Said Valerian
 
"This is crazy" said AA
 
"Where were you born?"
 
"In Russia."
 
The answer took everyone by suprise. "In Russia?" Valerian asked, shaking his head, "In RUSSIA?" Now Valerian, Felix and Marie Juliana turned back to Gertrude, this was crazy indeed; you coul tell that the lady was not Franziska.  But  the more the family protested the louder Gertrude got' "Admit it - Admit it",
until AA pale with fury turned and walked from the room.
 
NO ONE, including Gertude agreed to sign anything that day. "
 
There is no mention that either meeting lasted 7 hours, and that Gertrude was present at the first meeting, and or that they spoke with her alone.  If we are going to start making blanket statements covering facts, lets get them correct or list the source they came from please.  
 
Also the official records of her height & weight are from the police reports & from her medical records at Dalldorf.
 
This will keep issues & arguments that are unnecessary from happening on this thread.
 
Neither section on the two meetings mention the amount of time the meeting lasted.  Just from reading the first meeting seems more informal and friendly and could have lasted longer.    
 
 


The whole thing is crazy...If I goes to see a woman who could be my sister, the matter that she wouldn't recognize ME wouldn't stop me to recognize HER. Is it was indeed Franziska (a woman who was psychically weak) Felix Schanzkowsky could have thought she could have been crazy, and sometimes, crazy people forgot who they are, and doesn't recognize relatives or friends. In the other hand, Franziska could have been faking an identity, to make herself GD Anastasia and live an easy life without working, supported for very important people and being in fashionable society circles...A FS's niece said that her "aunty" liked to put on airs", so what could have been more natural than she could have been faking a new "important" identity?  If Felix wanted to recognize Franziska , he would have keep saying: "She is my sister".  That's all.

The other ridicoulous thing: the question about "How many siblings do you have?. GD Anastasia REALLY had four siblings (Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Alexei). If AA answered "four", it was the right thing, assuming she was faking her identity as AN. The Schanskovsky's comment "Well, here we are four" , wouldn't work. The Schanzkowskys were four. The Romanov children were also four.  So; this question doesn't help to solve her identity.

As for the question "Where were you born?" it's more idiot. If AA was faking to be a Russian GD, why she would have answered: in Poland? The fact she answered "In Russia" was natural. Why the Schankowskys seemed to be shocked hearing this? The comment "In Russia?" Makes no sense. If a see my sister, and I ask her where was she born and she would have answered "I'm born in Alaska", I wouldn't think she isn't her, just for she didn't said: "In Argentina". She would have been my sister whatever she said.

I think that the AA's phrase "this is crazy" depict very well the whole situation.

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: etonexile on August 06, 2005, 12:44:16 PM
I'm 8 actually...which is a good age to wear folded paper hats and brandish a wooden sword against garden pirates and dragons.....oh,and yammer on about DNA testing....with advice from Teddy.....
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 06, 2005, 04:06:21 PM
Quote
I'm 8 actually...which is a good age to wear folded paper hats and brandish a wooden sword against garden pirates and dragons.....oh,and yammer on about DNA testing....with advice from Teddy.....



You won't hear any argument from me regarding your statement EE... :o :o
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: RealAnastasia on August 06, 2005, 04:12:36 PM
Well, Etonexile. I will think that you really have 8 and are faking to be a pirat to afraid all of us. But we are all adults here, and we have no fear to a 8 years old. This is another thread were I will not answer any of your messages. Bye Bye and good luck.

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: lexi4 on August 06, 2005, 06:59:34 PM
Quote
From Annie: But the family did later make comments about her being their 'sister' and 'aunt.' On the reasons AA is FS thread, someone posted that the family does now accept her as their long lost relative. However, it's obviously something they don't want to talk about. And that also adds up to the fact that AA was FS. If she was no connection, why would they care?  
« Last Edit: Today at 06:40 by Annie »  IP Logged

Annie,
This is very interesting. I am not familiar with that aspect, could you please refer me to your sources? I'd like to read about that.



Annie,
Please tell me where you found this. I would really like to read more. Thanks.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 07, 2005, 01:00:03 PM
Quote

From what I recall, the day Gleb Botkin arrived at Schloss Seeon was the day AA went to meet Felix.  Gleb's first sight of her came as she crossed the entryway to the main door.  This was "in the afternoon."  She was driven about twelve or fifteen miles to an inn at Wasserburg, where she met Felix.  I don't know the road conditions in the area in 1927, but even today, the roads are secondary ones.  she returned to Seeon before dinner that evening.  I don't see how she could have met with him for "seven hours."


Someone asked Felix about Franziska in connection with the AA mystery, and his response was, "Oh, my sister was sausages long ago."


Penny, how do you know AA returned to Seeon before dinner that same evening?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: etonexile on August 07, 2005, 03:23:09 PM
Quote
Well, Etonexile. I will think that you really have 8 and are faking to be a pirat to afraid all of us. But we are all adults here, and we have no fear to a 8 years old. This is another thread were I will not answer any of your messages. Bye Bye and good luck.

RealAnastasia.


Teddy...I think RealAnastasia just responded to our message.

...ironic...
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 09, 2005, 11:30:21 PM
Quote

From what I recall, the day Gleb Botkin arrived at Schloss Seeon was the day AA went to meet Felix.  Gleb's first sight of her came as she crossed the entryway to the main door.  This was "in the afternoon."  She was driven about twelve or fifteen miles to an inn at Wasserburg, where she met Felix.  I don't know the road conditions in the area in 1927, but even today, the roads are secondary ones.  she returned to Seeon before dinner that evening.  I don't see how she could have met with him for "seven hours."



The estimate for a 6-7 hour meeting was originally posted by Denise, and can be found on pae 12 of the Schankowska family thread.

Well, if they left "in the afternoon", 12 to 15 miles would not have been that much to travel even on secondary roads in the 1920s... they would've covered it in about an hour. ... and Felix was asked to sign a paper "later that evening"...that still shows a rather lengthy visit, with FS and Felix chatting and walking around.

So, 1 hour alone together, 2,3,(which seems most likely)  6, or 7 anyway you look at it it's a rather long time for Felix  to be talking to an absolute stranger.
If he didn't recognize her, most likely he would have simply signed something on the spot, which he didn't do.


All this nitpicking about the exact length of time misses the point that the meeting  was a good length of time.  

And we have no way of knowing if the Duke told his staff to hold dinner till he got back.  


Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 10, 2005, 09:53:31 AM
Quote

The estimate for a 6-7 hour meeting was originally posted by Denise, and can be found on pae 12 of the Schankowska family thread.

Well, if they left "in the afternoon", 12 to 15 miles would not have been that much to travel even on secondary roads in the 1920s... they would've covered it in about an hour. ... and Felix was asked to sign a paper "later that evening"...that still shows a rather lengthy visit, with FS and Felix chatting and walking around.

So, 1 hour alone together, 2,3,(which seems most likely)  6, or 7 anyway you look at it it's a rather long time for Felix  to be talking to an absolute stranger.
If he didn't recognize her, most likely he would have simply signed something on the spot, which he didn't do.


 All this nitpicking about the exact length of time misses the point that the meeting  was a good length of time.  

And we have no way of knowing if the Duke told his staff to hold dinner till he got back.  





This is ridiculous, that is just Denise's interpretation of the time the meeting took.  Kurth's account of the meeting states that they left Castle Seeon in the AFTERNOON, and drove the 15-20 miles to Wasserburg.

The problem is not nitpicking Jeremy, it use of material and then turning it in what you want it to say, to back up your point of view no matter how inconsequential that point may be.   This is what Annie has done in this particular instance and which is why we ask her to back up her statement with source material.  There obviously is none.

Afternoon could have been anywhere from 12 pm to after 5.  So it could have been well into the evening by the time they returned home.  So without a source primary or secondary, Annie is relying on Denise's interpretation of time frame of the meeting, no offense meant Denise at all.

It gives Annie creedence to pass along her theory that a "conspiracy" of sorts was hatched between Felix & AA that day, which the both of you promote as fact. Is is  something for which there is absolutely no proof.     As there is no proof that the meeting lasted between 6-7 hours.  It is all just assumption.  Which is WHY we are asking for source material when making statements such as this.


Title: 9 May 1927
Post by: AGRBear on August 10, 2005, 10:16:02 AM
Quote
Well, the way I read it in Peter's account was that he spent a good 6-7 hours with her, talking, walking about.  It was a fairly long visit.  He did also say (as was mentioned earlier, I believe) that it was only when directly facing her did AA resemble his sister.  From the side was no resemblance.  But I believe you brough up the good point that after having teeth removes a profile would definately be different.  My own mother looked different after getting dentures.

And did AA get a partial, dentures or something after her teeth were pulled?  And why were they pulled?  Irrelevant, but I am curious.  The skeptics among us might say that her teeth were pulled to change the look of her jaw line to look more like AN.  But I was wondering if there were a medical reason....

Denise


This was the post.

I don't believe Denise has been posting lately on these particular threads so I don't think we'll find out where she read the "7 hour" ....

I have gone through all of my books and NONE mention "7 hours".

Penny mentioned what she thought and I asked her where she had gotten her information.

This is why sources are so important.

The time of year was 9 May 1927 so  darkness was when...?  And, does darkness of the day start the time period known as evening?  Or,  is it after "five".  As to the dinner time, well, that probably depends on people's habbits.  Around my house, dinner is around seven to eight.  When we were younger it was closer to eight or nine....   In the winter it was usually earlier.  Summer when it was hot and before air conditioning, could even be nine to ten....

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 10, 2005, 11:48:27 AM
Quote


This is ridiculous, that is just Denise's interpretation of the time the meeting took.  Kurth's account of the meeting states that they left Castle Seeon in the AFTERNOON, and drove the 15-20 miles to Wasserburg.

The problem is not nitpicking Jeremy, it use of material and then turning it in what you want it to say, to back up your point of view no matter how inconsequential that point may be.   This is what Annie has done in this particular instance and which is why we ask her to back up her statement with source material.  There obviously is none.

Afternoon could have been anywhere from 12 pm to after 5.  So it could have been well into the evening by the time they returned home.  So without a source primary or secondary, Annie is relying on Denise's interpretation of time frame of the meeting, no offense meant Denise at all.

It gives Annie creedence to pass along her theory that a "conspiracy" of sorts was hatched between Felix & AA that day, which the both of you promote as fact. Is is  something for which there is absolutely no proof.     As there is no proof that the meeting lasted between 6-7 hours.  It is all just assumption.  Which is WHY we are asking for source material when making statements such as this.




Actually it isn't ridiculous at all. And this is nitpicking.  Felix is described as signing a document "later that evening" shows that a significant length of time did elapse...  which is far cry from him signing a document instantly. And he only changes his mind after Harriet shows him the paper. It's a fairly safe assumption that the meeting between FS/AA and Felix lasted for at least an hour or more.  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 10, 2005, 01:02:22 PM
Quote

Actually it isn't ridiculous at all. And this is nitpicking.  Felix is described as signing a document "later that evening" shows that a significant length of time did elapse...  which is far cry from him signing a document instantly. And he only changes his mind after Harriet shows him the paper. It's a fairly safe assumption that the meeting between FS/AA and Felix lasted for at least an hour or more.  


It is ridiculous, and it is NOT nitpicking as you so casually write it off as.  To state that a meeting lasted a about a quarter of a day when in reality it didn't isn't nitpicking.  That he signed an affadavit later in the evening is no sign or indication of how long the meeting went on.   This meeting is significant in the fact that it produced the first contact between a member of the Schanzkowski family and their supposed sibling, and the fact that it ended with an affadavit denying that this was his sister is also significant.  To suggest that two strangers sat there for 6 hours and drank beer and listened to the oom pa pa in a German beer garten, or that Voller & Rathlef for FEAR of the outcome would have let the meeting go on that long without supervision or interference is unlikely.   I can see the meeting lasting an hour or so at the most.

To use this meeting as the base for a lifelong conspiracy between Felix & AA , which is what Annie has done, is not based in any factual way of what happened that day, as there is absolutely NO evidence to support this theory.

Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 10, 2005, 10:25:22 PM
Quote

It is ridiculous, and it is NOT nitpicking as you so casually write it off as.  To state that a meeting lasted a about a quarter of a day when in reality it didn't isn't nitpicking.  That he signed an affadavit later in the evening is no sign or indication of how long the meeting went on.   This meeting is significant in the fact that it produced the first contact between a member of the Schanzkowski family and their supposed sibling, and the fact that it ended with an affadavit denying that this was his sister is also significant.  To suggest that two strangers sat there for 6 hours and drank beer and listened to the oom pa pa in a German beer garten, or that Voller & Rathlef for FEAR of the outcome would have let the meeting go on that long without supervision or interference is unlikely.   I can see the meeting lasting an hour or so at the most.

To use this meeting as the base for a lifelong conspiracy between Felix & AA , which is what Annie has done, is not based in any factual way of what happened that day, as there is absolutely NO evidence to support this theory.



An hour? Between two complete strangers? No way.  

You're missing the big picture here again. The point is that a significant amount of time went by whether it  be an hour or more. It would hardly seem logical that two complete strangers would've walked and chatted for that length of time.

Well, as for evidence there is the DNA which makes Annie's theory perfectly logical on a balance of probabilities.  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 10, 2005, 10:45:00 PM
Quote

An hour? Between two complete strangers? No way.  

You're missing the big picture here again. The point is that a significant amount of time went by whether it  be an hour or more. It would hardly seem logical that two complete strangers would've walked and chatted for that length of time.

Well, as for evidence there is the DNA which makes Annie's theory perfectly logical on a balance of probabilities.  


I have had many genealogical interviews with cousins that were total strangers that lasted 2-3 hours.

You have missed the point entirely. We DON'T KNOW if a significant amount of time went by or not.  There is no mention of it.   DNA doesn't make a conspiracy between Felix & AA a possibility or probability.  It just makes it Annie's cockamamie theory, which you have chosen to back with her assumption & supposition.  Obviously there is no evidence to back this up or there would be some mention of  a rather lengthy meeting.  

The big picture is that just because the DNA is what it is, doesn't make a conspiracy theory proabably or possible for two people who met twice in 11 years, and at the second meeting Felix stated AA didn't resemble the same woman he met in 1927.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 10, 2005, 10:45:18 PM
Quote



Well, as for evidence there is the DNA which makes Annie's theory perfectly logical on a balance of probabilities.  


Thanks, that's what I mean. Since we KNOW she was FS, we can logically figure that they did know each other but did not acknowledge this because it would have been harder on them both that way.

It's a  lot more logical explaination than switched intestines!
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 10, 2005, 11:08:34 PM
It's a  lot more logical explaination than switched intestines!

<martyred sigh>  Oh, Annie.......it's obvious that you have not yet succumbed to my brainwashing attempts.  But truly, within 50 years, you WILL agree with me on all things, and vote Democratic, AND enjoy Barry Manilow music.........time.......I need time.....
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 10, 2005, 11:20:40 PM
Barry Manilow music??????

Dear sweet God.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 10, 2005, 11:22:35 PM
Quote

Thanks, that's what I mean. Since we KNOW she was FS, we can logically figure that they did know each other but did not acknowledge this because it would have been harder on them both that way.

It's a  lot more logical explanation than switched intestines!


Exactly. We know a significant length of time went by, we know these two people were related. (What I'd like to know is why she went over and began talking to Felix without any sort of protest what so ever when told to go "talk to your brother")

Sometimes you just have to use logic.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 10, 2005, 11:24:11 PM
Quote
Barry Manilow music??????

Dear sweet God.


Who is Barry Manilow? ???
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 10, 2005, 11:32:02 PM
In fairness, I should let Finelly answer, but trust me, you are better off not knowing! He's a kind of cheesy American singer, most popular in the 70s with songs like "Mandy" and "I Write the Songs".
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 10, 2005, 11:59:48 PM
I am going to hold my head up high and choose not to respond to your spurrious remarks about Barry Manilow.

The important part of my post is that I AM going to succeed in bending Annie's mind completely my way........
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 11, 2005, 12:40:51 AM
Quote

Exactly. We know a significant length of time went by, we know these two people were related. (What I'd like to know is why she went over and began talking to Felix without any sort of protest what so ever when told to go "talk to your brother")

Sometimes you just have to use logic.



Where does it state that a significant amount of time went by??  Again there is nothing to state or indicate what a significant amount of time is, nor how long the meeting itself lasted.  A significant amount of time may be 30 mins or 20 mins.  

If that is what you consider logic, or FACT then I can't wait to read your long awaited & discussed tome on the subject, must be mighty interesting, full of "logic"...
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 11, 2005, 12:50:24 AM
Quote
In fairness, I should let Finelly answer, but trust me, you are better off not knowing! He's a kind of cheesy American singer, most popular in the 70s with songs like "Mandy" and "I Write the Songs".



Actually there were a couple of 90's remixes that weren't bad or cheesy, but the original stuff is pap.
Manilow is quite an accomplished pianist, and did some great work with Nancy Wilson a few years ago on some
pieces of Richard Rodgers or Jerome Kern which was fantastic, but nothing NOTHING could save Copacabana, or Mandy.....Bleccccccccccccccccccccccckkkkkkkk
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 11, 2005, 01:23:21 AM
Quote


Where does it state that a significant amount of time went by??  Again there is nothing to state or indicate what a significant amount of time is, nor how long the meeting itself lasted.  A significant amount of time may be 30 mins or 20 mins.  

If that is what you consider logic, or FACT then I can't wait to read your long awaited & discussed tome on the subject, must be mighty interesting, full of "logic"...


Michael, you're not going to see it. So there really is no point in me explaining myself...again.....
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 11, 2005, 01:27:49 AM
Quote
In fairness, I should let Finelly answer, but trust me, you are better off not knowing! He's a kind of cheesy American singer, most popular in the 70s with songs like "Mandy" and "I Write the Songs".


When I played the street urchin Gavroche in "Les Miserables" there was a cast member who sang a song (over and over again till it drove everyone nuts >:( :o  ::)that went something like " at the co-co-co cabaner"...I think he said that song was by a Barry something or other. (I want to say Manilow here, but I'm not sure.)

I did not like that song !!! (Sorry Finelly :-X)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 11, 2005, 09:29:14 AM
Quote

Michael, you're not going to see it. So there really is no point in me explaining myself...again.....


See what ??  Something you obviously do not have, that's a laugh. ::) ::)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 11, 2005, 03:59:05 PM
I am going to hold my head up high and choose not to respond to your spurrious remarks about Barry Manilow.

The important part of my post is that I AM going to succeed in bending Annie's mind completely my way....


<helpfully> Sing "Time in New England", Finelly. She'll crack.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Merrique on August 11, 2005, 07:23:45 PM
My god you people are horrid! :o
I can't believe you'd all talk that way about dear sweet Barry.His songs were just smashing in the 70's.I can remember my mom and dad forcing us kids to listen to him. ;D Y'all just don't know what crap music is.

Actually I can think of one song of Barry's that wasn't that bad,I believe it is titled Some kind of friend.

Anywho I've strayed off topic.IMO I think that since the dna proved that AA was related to FS's family it seems more likely than not that AA was FS.Until I see evidence proving otherwise that's what I think.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Finelly on August 12, 2005, 01:00:11 AM
Merrique, because your attitude towards Barry Manilow is more appropriate than the others' here, I will overlook your obvious WRONGNESS with regard to AA/FS/AN.

I will simply attribute it to ignorance and proceed to work on brainwashing YOU when I am done with Annie.  
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: etonexile on August 12, 2005, 10:12:36 AM
You see Teddy...we aren't the only ones to "get-off-topic".... ::)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on August 12, 2005, 12:05:01 PM
Quote
I will simply attribute it to ignorance and proceed to work on brainwashing YOU when I am done with Annie.  


She continues to send me subliminal messages that AN was FS. I am trying to convince her that Tatiana was indeed FS, but I must hypnotize her Rasputin style first. Shhh;)

Yes, all these theories have pushed me right off my old rocker.  :P
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: stepan on August 12, 2005, 04:56:45 PM
Quote

The estimate for a 6-7 hour meeting was originally posted by Denise, and can be found on pae 12 of the Schankowska family thread.

Well, if they left "in the afternoon", 12 to 15 miles would not have been that much to travel even on secondary roads in the 1920s... they would've covered it in about an hour. ... and Felix was asked to sign a paper "later that evening"...that still shows a rather lengthy visit, with FS and Felix chatting and walking around.

So, 1 hour alone together, 2,3,(which seems most likely)  6, or 7 anyway you look at it it's a rather long time for Felix  to be talking to an absolute stranger.
If he didn't recognize her, most likely he would have simply signed something on the spot, which he didn't do.


 All this nitpicking about the exact length of time misses the point that the meeting  was a good length of time.  

And we have no way of knowing if the Duke told his staff to hold dinner till he got back.  



12-15  miles? NO!    Peter Kurth writes in his book that  "The meeting took place at an inn in Wasserburg,some few miles northwest of Seeon."  I think the distance isen´t longer than 2-4 miles. I don´t know where the idea of 12-15 miles comes from.  But it´s not correct.  He dosen´t mention how long the meeting took place.  Perhaps Rathleff-Keilmann does in her book.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on August 12, 2005, 11:36:16 PM
Quote
12-15  miles? NO!    Peter Kurth writes in his book that  "The meeting took place at an inn in Wasserburg,some few miles northwest of Seeon."  I think the distance isen´t longer than 2-4 miles. I don´t know where the idea of 12-15 miles comes from.  But it´s not correct.  He dosen´t mention how long the meeting took place.  Perhaps Rathleff-Keilmann does in her book.


I think the 12-15 mile estimate came from Penny. So, the meeting may even have been longer!

Good idea about checking the Rathleff-keilmann book. Do you have a copy?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 13, 2005, 01:21:03 AM
Quote

I think the 12-15 mile estimate came from Penny.


Greg and I drove it in the summer of 2000.  I don't know that the road necessarily followed the same route as in the late 20s, but it's my recollection that it was 12-15 miles.  Could have been ten miles -- but it was certainly about a 1/2 hour drive from Seeon.  Maybe a little longer.

Quote
Good idea about checking the Rathleff-keilmann book. Do you have a copy?


I do.  I'll check what it says...
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 13, 2005, 01:24:18 AM
Quote

An hour? Between two complete strangers? No way.  


At least once a weekend I talk to perfect strangers over the bar -- sometimes for an hour or more.  It's not impossible, especially when -- as in the case of FU and FS -- the two strangers have been left alone together for a specific purpose.


Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on August 13, 2005, 01:28:10 AM
Quote

Penny, how do you know AA returned to Seeon before dinner that same evening?

AGRBear


The source for this is Faith Lavington.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Mgmstl on August 13, 2005, 08:10:50 AM
Quote
12-15  miles? NO!    Peter Kurth writes in his book that  "The meeting took place at an inn in Wasserburg,some few miles northwest of Seeon."  I think the distance isen´t longer than 2-4 miles. I don´t know where the idea of 12-15 miles comes from.  But it´s not correct.  He dosen´t mention how long the meeting took place.  Perhaps Rathleff-Keilmann does in her book.



We are also not taking into account the fact that the roads from Seeon to Wasserburg may have been secondary roads, unpaved, and travel even in the 1920's was difficult when using these roads, also that cars didn't go as fast, etc.  We need to remember that sometimes the roads used today were not the same ones used then.  

We don't know what time they left Castle Seeon, except for the afternoon which could be anywhere from 1 to 5.
We also don't know at what time they arrived at Wasserburg, when the meeting began, and when FU/AA left the inn.  Did the Duke take her back, and Rathlef and Voller stay behind to get the affadavits taken care of or what?  Still there is no definite time frame of length of time specified for this meeting.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on August 13, 2005, 11:19:24 AM
Car road in 1920s????

We're talking about the rich and the upper class who had cars not the populace who used roads with wagons, carts, coaches and for foot travel.

We're not talking about cars that traveled 60 milies per hour...

Distances were different then and by the time Kurth wrote his book.  "a few miles" over a secondry [harden gravel] road made for cars after WW II is different because of the way a person thinks in the "time frame".

Being old enough to remember driving a modern [1940s] car / pickup truck over secondary roads isn't always an easy task due to "wash outs", fallen tree's,   "pot holes"....  

Is this area flat, hilly or in the mountains?

If  it was about ten miles  [Penny and Greg have traveled this road] and in an old hard tire 1920s car....   at about twenty to thrity miles per hour ....  Well,  everyone better add on to the time it took.

Headlights were not all the great so they probably headed home before dark.... unless the driver was familar with the area.  Or the  people involved were not worried about the ten miles over which they traveled.....

All kinds of variables about travel if you just stop and think and placed yourself into the time frame.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on September 10, 2005, 02:18:34 PM
Quote

Just one more thought:  These experts aren't "mine."  They are already on record with their professional opinion of this situation elsewhere.

And as for the relative "usefulness" of linguists and their professional conclusions, I would point anyone interested at the story of the capture of Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper/Wearside Jack.  In 1981, using a tape of the Ripper's voice, linguists were able to pin-point his origin within a very tight geographical area of Castletown in Sunderland -- a matter of a few streets, I believe.  


If this is case, and you feel linquistics is a concrete science...why don't use simply ask one of the linquists you know to trace the origin of AA via her accent? They should be able to do it...shouldn't they?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on September 10, 2005, 03:07:16 PM
Quote

If this is case, and you feel linquistics is a concrete science...why don't use simply ask one of the linquists you know to trace the origin of AA via her accent? They should be able to do it...shouldn't they?



It's actually "linGuistics" and "linGuists."  There's no "q."

And when the time comes for Greg and I to get to grips with this part of the investigation, we certainly will be in contact with the appropriate linguistic experts.  

Thank you for your on-going interest in our research.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Elocin on September 10, 2005, 10:48:15 PM
As a frequent lurker on this sometimes "negatively" charged discussion I am almost hesitant to jump in on the question of linguistic expertise and if it points to any conclusive ideas on AA's identity, but what the hay here it goes, I have already yelled  at DHL for losing the textbooks I needed for the class i am teaching this weekend what is getting yelled at by fellow passionate devotees of this board?  As a qualifier I am certainly not an expert, reading a linguistics 101 text ages ago doesn't qualify. Or does it? *evil grin*

As someone who frequently works with people of many, many different nationalities and/or cultural origins, I know I can certainly pick up distinct patterns of speech that my clients and students have learned from their English as a Second Language tutors.   I also know that certianly anyone can pick up speech patterns, I have certainly picked up some less than the Queen's own English patterns from some of my East Asian clients that haven't wrapped their tongues around the bastard language of Canadian English.

My point is that if English was AA's second or third or umpteenth language she would have likely picked up speech patterns and cadences that would be indicative of the origin of whatever her teacher's origin may have been.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: AGRBear on September 11, 2005, 09:51:14 AM
Welcome Elocin.

Yes, some do get a little passionate about what iis being posted and I, for one, am very glad you've jumped into the middle of it all.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: LisaDavidson on September 11, 2005, 10:27:26 AM
I think with 31 pages of posts, it is time to start a new topic. Please start new ones for any other big questions.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on September 13, 2005, 10:00:35 PM
Quote


It's actually "linGuistics" and "linGuists."  There's no "q."

And when the time comes for Greg and I to get to grips with this part of the investigation, we certainly will be in contact with the appropriate linguistic experts.  

Thank you for your on-going interest in our research.


I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.... ::)
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: jeremygaleaz on September 13, 2005, 10:02:23 PM
Quote
I think with 31 pages of posts, it is time to start a new topic. Please start new ones for any other big questions.


Sorry Lisa, I didn't notice this.
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Penny_Wilson on September 13, 2005, 10:50:51 PM
Quote

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.... ::)



So what's your point in making a post like this?
Title: Re: Biggest questions I want answered
Post by: Annie on September 14, 2005, 09:59:46 PM
Quote
My point is that if English was AA's second or third or umpteenth language she would have likely picked up speech patterns and cadences that would be indicative of the origin of whatever her teacher's origin may have been.


But remember that her main influences for English would be her parents, who spoke fluent English with a British accent. AA spoke English broken at best with a heavy non British accent.