AA and Anastasia- why or why not

[Annie]

Let's try a NEW twist on this! In this thread, how about we only state in one post why we do or do not believe AA was AN. No discussion. No replying to anyone else's post. No fighting or counterpoints. Just state your case and move along. I don't mean to boss anyone around and if you don't want to participate, your will is as free as Eve's in the Garden of Eden. I just thought this might help us all understand each other better.

[Alice]

Are sarcastic smilies allowed?

Anyway.

- The lobe of AA's ear is much thicker than that of AN's. (I don't believe this is subjective. Why? Get a ruler and measure the lobes on your screen. The ruler doesn't lie).

- Full lips. Hooded eyes. Anastasia had neither.

- Part in the hair is identical for both FS and AA.

- DNA. Argue all you like. It's fact. AA was not AN. The DNA says so. Don't blame me, blame the DNA.

- The fact that it would've been almost impossible to survive the execution.

- The fact that AA spoke with a Polish accent.

[Denise]

I believe AA was not Anastasia.  Why?

1.  DNA evidence says she was not a descendent of Queen Victoria, therefore not a daughter of Alexandra Feodorovna.

2.  Sheer physical appearance.  Although there are many photos of AA on Peter Kurth's site that show a superficial resemblance to AN, these are deliberately placed next to photos of AN with a similar expression.  I do not see any resemblance in regular photos of AA that do not have the proximity to photos of AN.

3.  Physical resemblance to FS.  Although it is not 100% that AA is FS, I see more resemblance of AA to the known photo of FS than I do to pictures of AN.  The eyes, mouth, hair etc seem like the same person.

4.  The so-called "ear" evidence is bogus.  How many times in modern forensic science do you see "ear matching" brought in to proove a missing persons case or a murder?  NOT!  The scientific community relies on DNA evidence as it is proven to be a reliable benchmark to pinpoint who someone may be, or at least who they are not.  

Denise

[Michelle]

I think Anna Anderson and Anastasia were the same person.

1. Total physical resemblance

2. Trivial as well as strange little memories only Anastasia could've known.

3. Handwriting analysis

4. The ears are identical.

5. Spoke Russian in her sleep.

6. Numerous individuals who knew Anastasia recognized her.

[Forum Admin]

A. Objective reasons:
mtDNA done blindly in separate labs in different places confirm that AA can not be related maternally to Alexandra Feodrovna, to a certainty of virtually 100% (a chance of less than one in a million).

B.Subjective reasons:
The sheer improbability that anyone in the basement could have survived the injuries for any length of time, especially days or weeks,  given the state of medicine, difficulty of obtaining any medical care or supplies food or adequate shelter, and the extreme difficulty of hiding a grand duchess from Bolshevik spies/informers.

The fact that the closest Romanov family members TO A ONE all called her a fake. Prince Vasilli, Xenia's son called her the "best of the fakes". Xenia herself wrote a private letter saying how hurt she and her mother were that anyone would accuse them of denying AA for selfish reasons IF she really were AN.

The rest of the "evidence" facial recognition, languages etc, are simply TOO speculative and subjective to be substantial and evidentiary.

My personal 2c. (or 2d for the Brits.)

[lilavanderhorn]

Ok, I'll play

I am against the idea that AA was AN because:

1) Even without the DNA, no one has to tell me they are not the same person.  I see a slight resemblence to Tatiana in some of AA's pictures, but that is it.  

2) I find it very hard to believe that GD Olga would deny this woman if she really was her niece.  

[Lanie]

Not - DNA, I see no physical resemblance at all (especially in the nose and mouth, that clinches it for me appearance-wise), misidentifying things (I forget who was saying this but it was something about misidentifying rooms, etc).  But the DNA has proven she is not a descendant of Queen Victoria and thus could not be Anastasia.  And like FA said--how does one think Anastasia COULD survive such carnage?  I don't think anyone could have gotten out of that house, much less that room where they were all ruthlessly murdered.

[Evanescence]

I have my own opinion and it sways back and forth. Sometimes I can't help but back up AA I just want to I guess. But currently (I can change my mind too...) I believe that Anna Anderson was Anastasia.

[Annie]

Might as well add mine for the record.

Reasons why I don't believe in AA anymore:

She did not make a claim until someone at the asylum gave her the idea with a book

She first claimed to be Tatiana

Her story of escape is unbelievable and cannot be proven or verified. There is no evidence Alexander Tchiakovsky ever existed, and it sounds like a conveniently invented name (common first name, famous last name)

It is very unlikely anyone survived the brutal massacre, and if they did, could not possibly have lasted for long, traveling miles in a cart, with no medical attention. If they didn't bleed to death they'd succumb to infection later. It's what, almost 1,000 miles from Ekaterinburg to Romania? How many weeks is that by cart in the mud, hiding from populated areas? It's not realistic.


She doesn't look like Anastasia- fuller lips, wider mouth, wider set eyes, different shaped chin

Any of her 'memories' could be explained as being told to her, intentionally or inadvertently, by Russian emigres'

Even with these 'memories' much of what she said was inaccurate

The Romanov and Hesse families rejected her, and I don't believe they'd have been so cold if she were genuine

The Schanskowska family first accepted, then denied her, and later there is evidence they did so to avoid responsibility for a troublesome sister and as not to spoil her 'career' as 'Anastasia'

Many other acquaitences of the family rejected her as false. When she met some, she hid part of her face or stayed behind a screen so they couldn't get a good look.

with all the rumors of money and vast fortunes (which later proved false) there was the potential for 'gold digging' and 'supporters'  backing her in hopes of a huge payoff if she could win


There are too many different stories and conflicting reports of things like her height, scars, what languages she spoke, and when she spoke them. Most of these stories are from only one source, often unnamed or unverified, and many contradict each other.


The DNA

[rskkiya]

Hello all

Sorry, but I have never seen any resemblance between photos of  AA and  of AN-- other than they were both caucasian females from the early 20th century.

rskkiya

[helenazar]

I do not believe that the woman who was known as Anna Anderson was Anastasia Romanov because:

1. First and foremost, it is the DNA evidence, the most objective evidence of all.

2. Secondly, since all the rest of the evidence is subjective in nature - it was cancelled out by the DNA results. Including evidence like the ear analysis - which is subjective too and has never been accepted as real scientific evidence, even though it may have been misleadingly presented to be so. The only reason they had to use things like ear analysis back then is because DNA technology was not yet available.
*Very important point: if this case had been tried in a legal hearing today, they would accept the DNA evidence and the case would be closed once the results failed to match.

3. There is a total lack of resemblance, but this is a very subjective thing, so it comes in last and shouldn't really count.

In reality, whether some of us like it or not, it does all come down to the DNA evidence - once the DNA fails to match there is no rational reason to go any farther...

[Merrique]

To me,science has come a long way.It has proven to me that AA was not AN.AA's DNA just didn't match the Hessen line.DNA has become extremely reliable,and we are learning more about it all the time.If it wasn't reliable then why is it used as evidence in court procedings?

Sure you can argue that there is a resmeblence between the 2 and their ears matched(which is something I honestly DON'T see) but how can you use these as fool proof evidence?Everyone has a different perception on these photographs comparing AA and AN.Some people see a resmblence,others do not.Your perceptions could be different then someone elses.You see what you want to see.
That said,how can you use these photo comparisons way back then to prove AA was AN?Since everyone has there own perceptions how could they use this evidence to agree AA was AN?I'm sure there was disagreements about this then as there are now here in our time and on this forum.Everyone sees what they want and believes what they want so how could this evidence be used to prove someone's identity when not everyone agrees with it?It's just not scientific to me.

The DNA evidence proved beyond a doubt to me that AA couldn't have been AN,and that's enough for me.There just hasn't been any scientific evidence to prove otherwise. :-/

[olga]

I don't normally post here, but might as well add my two kopeks.

I do not believe Anna Anderson was Anastasia Nikolaevna.

Why?

1. AA did not speak Russian, but Polish.
2. Olga Alexandrovna did not believe her.
3. Her sometimes hiding behind screens or covering her face when people came to meet her.

However, the one thing above all.

THE DNA EVIDENCE.

[LisaDavidson]

I do not believe that the woman who was known as Anna Anderson was Anastasia Romanov because:

1. First and foremost, it is the DNA evidence, the most objective evidence of all.

2. Secondly, since all the rest of the evidence is subjective in nature - it was cancelled out by the DNA results. Including evidence like the ear analysis - which is subjective too and has never been accepted as real scientific evidence, even though it may have been misleadingly presented to be so. The only reason they had to use things like ear analysis back then is because DNA technology was not yet available.
*Very important point: if this case had been tried in a legal hearing today, they would accept the DNA evidence and the case would be closed once the results failed to match.

3. There is a total lack of resemblance, but this is a very subjective thing, so it comes in last and shouldn't really count.

In reality, whether some of us like it or not, it does all come down to the DNA evidence - once the DNA fails to match there is no rational reason to go any farther...

To Helen A's very reasoned argument - with which I agree - I would add, because her family grieved for her. Everyone close to Anastasia did not recognize AA as ANR. There were some who purported to be close, and misrepresented their relationship. But, if you take Olga, Xenia, and all her cousins with the exception of Xenia G. (who was not close), her other aunts and uncles - all disbelieved her.

The above was entirely convincing to me until the DNA testing. After that, I don't see a rational argument for AA as ANR. I see no room for "belief" or "disbelief". The DNA tests are what they are.

[Evanescence]

Are sarcastic smilies allowed?

Anyway.

- The lobe of AA's ear is much thicker than that of AN's. (I don't believe this is subjective. Why? Get a ruler and measure the lobes on your screen. The ruler doesn't lie).

- Full lips. Hooded eyes. Anastasia had neither.

- Part in the hair is identical for both FS and AA.

- DNA. Argue all you like. It's fact. AA was not AN. The DNA says so. Don't blame me, blame the DNA.

- The fact that it would've been almost impossible to survive the execution.

- The fact that AA spoke with a Polish accent.

AA spoke with a Russian accent. And FS also didn't know how to speak the languages that AA did. Also ears can grow like humans. AA was much older than AN in those pics. Also a scientist quoted that there could've been survivors due to the jewels in the corsets, the fact that the executors were drunk etc. AA hair color was much lighter than FS. AA went through a lot the lips could've changed due to a fist in the face.