Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - sokolova

Pages: [1]

*They may have tried to "stroke" the evidence, but that doesn't mean that they weren't correct about her identity. It's sort of like what the police do with thteir suspects: they know someone is guilty, they just make it look like they are if it doesn't already ;)

Hi Helen.
I don't really agree that it's okay for the police (or anyone) to plant evidence to secure convictions providing they 'know'  the person is guilty. I think that's how innocent people can end up in jail. Intuition isn't a valid substitute for evidence!  ;)

And then of course to say  'oh well they probably knew it was her and that was why they invented the evidence'  kind of begs the obvious question - if they didn't have any evidence how did they know it was her?

The way I  see it there is a big anomaly here. If AA really was  FS then why did the people identifying her need to fabricate the evidence? Why not just find her family and let them id her? End of story.

But if it wasn't her, then what about the DNA?

**I must point out here that AA's mtDNA did not just "resemble" FS's relative, it was identical to his.

Yes I know, that's exactly my point. The chance of it being a coincidence are so small. But this doesn't fit with the earlier evidence of a fit-up.  On the one hand the obviously planted early evidence for AA being FS, and on the other the much later DNA evidence that shows she really was her.

Yes, these two choices is what we are left with. But this is why, despite all the alleged evidence against the fact that AA was FS, in light of these two points, it is difficult to accept the fact that she was not.

Yes it's difficult to accept she wasn't FS, but equally difficult - given the evidence - to accept she was! That's the puzzle! :-/



Calm down rskkiya! I'm sorry I confused you. But don't reach for the indignant bold button just yet!  ;)

I don't mean the DNA evidence was doctored.
I mean there's obvious evidence that the original identification of AA as FS (back around seventy years ago)  was  - at the very least - helped along with some dubious practices and was quite likely made up. And this seems to sit oddly  with the DNA evidence, which (as we all know)  suggests the identification is real.

As I said - every one of the three potential explanations for this anomaly seems so unlikely...

If AA was FS, then why is the non-DNA evidence for it so murky and so seemingly contrived and dubious? Why the evidence of tampering, both with witnesses and physical evidence?  You don't need to tamper with evidence if you have the right girl, so why would they have done the tampering if AA really was FS?

See, it doesn't jive.

But...if AA wasn't FS then why is there any DNA match at all when the odds are said to be  at least 300-1 against  it happening by chance? Could this really happen by simple coincidence? Does that make any sense?

Again, it doesn't jive.

But the third possibility - that the DNA was doctored  ??? :o well that seems just as far-fetched, or even more so.

Okay all three explanations seem impossible - but one of them must be true. Or is there something I am missing which ties it all up?

BTW - I am not trying to claim AA was AN. I am totally agnostic about all of that, I am just quite troubled by the obvious inconsistencies in the evidence at this point and hope other people are too. Something isn't adding up. I have no idea why  right now, does anyone else?

peace, calm and ever-open, searching minds to all!


I suppose I could be wrong - but as I remember it  (I saw the program), the  perfect match was not with AA and FS but with AA and AN! ???

Something is wrong here. Either my memory or someone's reporting. I have the program on video, so I will watch it again tonight and report the results.

This is all so fascinating to me!


The Myth and Legends of Survivors / Re: So who WAS she, then?
« on: April 09, 2005, 03:05:10 PM »
I'm new here and don't know anything about the politics or the personal clashes, so I can only hope I'm not breaking taboos or whatever, but I think there is a major problem with the FS/AA situation that has been a bit overlooked. I've started a new thread about it which may have been the wrong thing to do!!??, and so I am reposting my thoughts here to try and do it right.

It seems to me that the problem is  - if AA wasn't FS why does her DNA apparently show she was?

Can we dismiss it as coincidence? How likely is it that a daughter of a palace official or anyone else would just happen to end up having  the same DNA as the Polish factory worker who is picked out at random to be her alter ego?

Odds of at least 300-1 against aren't good.

Either AA was FS, or someone has messed with the DNA results. Speaking simply in terms of probability these seem to be the only two really plausible possibilities.

At least so it seems to me, though I admit I could be missing something. If I am please tell me as I am more interested in finding out than being 'right' or winning any fight!

[glb]   Sokolova

If the DNA evidence had shown that AA was unrelated to both FS and AN then I think I'd go with the 'mundane' hypothesis - but the fact that the DNA evidence seems to show AA  WAS related to FS raises the whole question to a new level.

I'd like to ask everyone to bear with this newbie and think about it for a minute: .....

Everyone agrees that identifying AA as FS was probably  done for  propaganda; that pics were doctored and that AA was more or less 'set up'. Yet,  now, more that fifty years later the DNA comes along and supports this identification.

This means 1 of 3 things:

  • 1. That the people who tried to discredit AA by claiming she was FS were amazingly lucky and by chance she really WAS this obscure girl they just plucked out of the air.


    2. That they were really lucky in a different way and AA's DNA just concidentally (with at best a 1 in 300 chance)
    resembles FS.


    3. The DNA tets were set up too

It has to be one of these three, doesn't it? And when you think about it none of them are mundane. They all require either huge  (almost unbelievable) coincidences or actual real deception.

So, doesn't the whole thing about the DNA  versus the non-physical evidence actually raise more (many more) baffling questions?


 Hi, I'm a new poster.
I'm interested in the story about the Grand Duchesses and the Tsarina being sent to Perm  that was (allegedly) told by AA in later life.

It's interesting because - according to the book 'The File on the Tsar' - there were many contemporary stories  from Perm itself that people had seen the Grand Duchesses imprisoned there.
Is this just a coincidence, or did AA know about these stories - OR is it possibly corroboration that she might have been telling the truth? :o

Pages: [1]