To be fair to Ms. Wingender, it was said that a part of the money was compensation for time off work, when she had to meet with individuals concerning Anna. I think anyone in her position would have asked for expenses to be covered, too. The rest of the money was extra for her time and the information, which is where the controversy begins, as some frown upon it, and feel any information on her part should have been voluntary.
To verify the story ,the newspaper hired a detective, Martin Knopf, who took the clothing Franziska had left behind at the Wingenders' to one of the Russian emigre households where Fraulein U. had stayed in 1922. Baron and Baroness von Kleist recognized it. "I bought the camel's hair myself." said the baron, "That's the underwear I monogrammed myself" cried the baroness. For the benefit of the newspapers, the "Riddle of Anastasia" was solved.
According to a sworn affidavit by the Baroness von Kleist from 1929, she denied the written account of the story written in the
Nachtausgabe. However, I never understood why the reporter full-out lied and printed a false story. Allegations of being paid off by Grand Duke Ernest aside, surely someone at that paper would have spilled his guts if something was amiss concerning this story. Moreover, why did neither the Baron nor Baroness von Kleist sue the paper, or threaten to sue it (or the reporter) if they felt the article was defamatory, or slanderous to Anna, as well as to their own personal beliefs concerning her identity? Why not demand a retraction of the story, or even go to another paper and insist the story printed by the
Nachtausgabe was completely false? Better yet, why not notarize a sworn affidavit two years earlier and have it published by a rival paper? Now that would give the public something to talk about!
... Mrs. Tchiakovsky (AA) faced with charges of assuming a false identity, had no choice. According to a writer for the Berlin Nachtausgabe, who was present with Martin Knopf, this is what happened:
The witness, Fr. Doris Wingender, enters the room. Franziska Schanzkowska lies on the divan, her face half covered with a blanket. The witness has barely said 'good day' before FS jerks up and cries in a heavily accented voice "That THING must get out!" The sudden agitation, the wild rage in her voice, the horror in her eyes, leave no doubt, she has recognized Wingender.
Wingender stands as if turned to stone. She has immediately recognized the lady on the divan as FS. That is the same face she saw day after day for four years. That is the same voice, the same nervous trick with the handkerchief, that is the same Franziska Schanzkowksa.[/i]
We had the reporter, Martin Knopf, Doris Wingender, Anna, and who else was present? If this account is also believed to have been falsified, what did Anna’s supports claim actually happened? I am curious to know both sides.