The Remains Identified as Alexei and Maria. Story Closed.

[TimM]

Wasn't Yurovsky also in a rush?  The Whites were getting closer and closer, after all.

[Kalafrana]

Will need to check exact dates, but the Czech Legion reached Ekaterinburg no more than a week later.

Ann

[Vanya Ivanova]

Another aspect of this that still doesn't add up is the height and maturity of the remains buried as GD Anastasia.

Yurovsky took over at the Ipatiev house less than two weeks before the murders and he describes the youngest GD as being 'small and plump' unlike her sisters who are described as 'tall'. This is good evidence that at the time of her death GD Anastasia was indeed still much shorter than her sisters especially GDs Tatiana and Maria and had not had a growth spurt like her brother. A height of 5'7 and the bone and teeth maturity of the body labelled as GD Anastasia is however consistent with the known age and height of GD Maria and indeed the American scientists did place GD Maria in the main grave.

Yurovsky's note specifically states that 'his' mix up was between the remains of the two mature female victims ( the Empress and her lady in waiting Anna Stepanova). This is the only major detail upon which the 'note' has been shown to be wrong. As previously stated Yurovsky has to have examined the remaining bodies in order to determine that the Empress had not been burnt with her son and that despite a gunshot wound to the head and damage suffered at the Four Brothers mine ( being submerged/ grenades thrown in ) the remains of the Empress were still recognisable to him. The remains of poor Anna Demidova did not have any gunshot wounds to the head or show any signs of post mortem grenade damage. Therefore Demidova's body would most likely have been easier to identify than her mistress's at this stage.

All the forensics seem to show that GD Anastasia was burnt with the Tsarevich not GD Maria, IMO. Due to her small size, of all the female victims, GD Anastasia's are the least likely set of remains to have been mistaken for the Empress or Anna Demidova, regardless of post mortem damage or changes even by persons who had not known the family and suite in life. GD Maria could however more plausibly have been mistaken in those conditions for her mother or Demidova but the only problem with that is the 'forensics' dont support it IMO.

It may appear ghoulish to pour over these gruesome details but this confusion has meant that the younger two GD's have not been afforded a correct burial and so in that sense there is still IMO opinion a point and purpose in trying to determine what happended in this regard.

This discrepancy and that of the Russian forensics team wanting to place GD Maria and not Anastasia in the second grave despite very compelling evidence to the contrary leads me to believe there may still be information that has yet to come to light.

[Forum Admin]

This "conspiracy" theory thing again? The Russians have believed since day 1 that Maria was the "missing" one.  Bob Atchison went to Ekaterinburg and saw the skulls himself, literally, first hand.  Bob is a trained portrait painter, who studied under Chuck Close at Cornish, and he says that he instantly saw the skull shape was Anastasia and not Maria. 

To be blunt, it matters not one whit which GD was in the first grave and which in the second. Why? Because, we know for 100% certain that BOTH sets of remains found ARE one of the Grand Duchesses. Why in the world should it matter to you that "Anastasia" has not had a "proper burial" yet but "Maria" has, versus the other way around?  Ridiculous.

There is NO secret Russian "information" or mystery.  Bob has had first hand discussions with all of these players.  All one needs to know is that Alexei and one of his sisters have been found, and THEIR remains need to join the rest of their family as soon as possible. Period.

The rest of this, and I don't mean this as disrespectfully as it may sound, is mental diarrhea.  There is nothing to be gained from this discussion of "mixing up" bodies, etc. We have them ALL now, proven and accounted for. Period. Leave these poor souls to rest in peace.

[Kalafrana]

I agree.

For those who are religious, the dead are 'known unto God' whatever the name they may be buried under. But Alexei and the final Grand Duchess (whichever one she is) deserve a proper burial with the rest.

Our current discussion, interesting though it is, is academic.

My second priority (and this is entirely a personal one), is that there should be a proper memorial and commemoration service for those members of the household (Nagorny, Vassili Dolgoruky and others), who stayed with the Imperial Family and were killed separately from them. They died for their loyalty, and most, if not all, have unknown graves. Similarly, a memorial to Grand Duke Mikhail and Mr Johnson, whose remains have never been found.

Just a thought, could Bob (and perhaps others) explore the possibility of the APTF organising a memorial plaque at the Alexander Palace (in my view, an appropriate site)?

Ann

[Vanya Ivanova]

I have evidently being lacking in eloquence as a conspiracy theory is certainly not what I meant nor was I suggesting for one second that anyone is still missing, that is indeed ridiculous and simply not something I have asserted at any point -ever.

Its just Maples and the American scientists made very plausible arguments that in their official opinion after having thoroughly examined the remains, that those buried as GD Anastasia were too mature to be her. These are facts not something I've just pulled out of thin air, it just happens to conflict with your opinion.

You are a little too ready to dismiss someone of Maples stature in my opinion. Its seems that you have developed such a proprietorial attitude towards the last Tsar and his family '' we have them all now'' as opposed to just ''they are all accounted for'' that you seemingly feel that you have a monopoly on the truth in this regard. Word to the wise-you don't own them or their memory.

[Forum Admin]

We don't "own" them. You miss the point. YOUR DISCUSSION IS MOOT. POINTLESS and of no use. ALL GRAND DUCHESSES ARE ACCOUNTED FOR. Anastasia and Maria both. The world will NEVER EVER EVER know which bones belong to which girl. How DARE you take such a position. Have YOU spoken personally with both Maples and Avdonin? I doubt it. BOB ATCHISON HAS.  Have YOU discussed the testing results with Teri Melton? I have.

There is no legitimate reason to go on and on trying to decide something for YOURSELF that is both impossible and pointless.

[Kalafrana]

Vanya

I cannot speak for anyone else here, but I think we are generally agreed that there is a degree of conflicting evidence. Maria and Anastasia were close enough in age for there to be room for doubt over which was which on the basis of the teeth.

I do take Maples' train of logic seriously, though my entirely personal and gut feeling is that I would prefer the fourth Grand Duchess to be Maria. This is for the entirely unscientific and unhistoric reason is that by the time the results from the first grave were published I was utterly fed up with the Anna Anderson saga and AA's deluded supporters and would have preferred to have had any possible loose threads in relation to Anastasia's undoubted death in 1918 tied up.

Ann

[Vanya Ivanova]

Forum Admin -

While you may not agree with certain theories, we should not allow sentimentality to restrict exploring research and theories that may have some validity.  This site should be able to accommodate debate on such ideas without the need to say that another contributors views are "POINTLESS" - debate will get us closer to the truth, whereas replacing close argument with comments that do not explore the theory certainly do not.  Offensive, abusive or intentionally misleading content should rightly be tackled and removed where appropriate but otherwise a moderate and polite tone is essential - I certainly do not feel my comments were offensive or abusive and I would therefore have appreciated a more polite response.  I would have been happy to debate the content and validity of this and related research, which you name-dropped but did not use to make any specific point.

I am happy to explore ideas and I am certainly clear that there are weaknesses to the theory that I mention but running through the research, and debating the points of contention may well be useful, and certainly should be a process that can be conducted in a polite manner.  I have enjoyed exploring research and ideas, always with respect for the lives and suffering of the Imperial family, and it is unfortunate that the tone of your communications have led me to feel uncomfortable about entering into further discussion on this site.

Vanya
 

[Forum Admin]

I apologize for my tone. You are correct it was not appropriate.  However, we have been following this for fifteen plus years now, and been involved in getting to the truth of it all. I have had to deal with a plethora of crazies, conspiracy theorists and dogmatic lunatics.

The point really is this: The world recognized forensic scientists have all come to the same, unanimous conclusion: It will be forever impossible to determine which set of bones was Anastasia and which was Maria, unless at some future time, somewhere, somehow a DNA sample from a conclusively known source identifiable to one or the other is found. then and only then, can it be determined with any certainty.

The rest is mere speculation and will lead nowhere, why? because the Forensic EXPERTS have all stated that due to the growth of both girls, it can never be said which was which without DNA.

[TimM]

I hope you stay, Thea.  I've found your insights interesting.

[Forum Admin]

The Report's exact words:

Taken together, all of the results and conclusions agree with the hypothesis that the samples recovered from grave two are the missing children of Tsar Nicholas II and Tsarina Alexandra. It should be mentioned that a well publicized debate [2] over which daughter, Maria (according to Russian experts) or Anastasia (according to US experts), has been recovered from the second grave cannot be settled based upon the DNA results reported here. In the absence of a DNA reference from each sister, we can only conclusively identify Alexei – the only son of Nicholas and Alexandra.

Coble MD, Loreille OM, Wadhams MJ, Edson SM, Maynard K, et al. (2009) Mystery Solved: The Identification of the Two Missing Romanov Children Using DNA Analysis. PLoS ONE 4(3): e4838. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004838 Published March 2009.

[Kalafrana]

That sounds an eminently fair - and clear - summary. We can obviously discuss the way the different arguments operate, and likelihoods, but that is as far as we can go, and ultimately the important thing is that they are now all accounted for.

And known unto God (who will be quite able to cope with someone being buried under the wrong name). Doesn't Massie suggest that Nicholas's coffin actually contains some of Alexei Trupp's remains in addition to his own?

Ann

[aleksandr pavlovich]

                                                                                                                                                                                                          Doesn't Massie suggest that Nicholas's coffin actually contains some of Alexei Trupp's remains in addition to his own?

Ann

  I have seen this statement before, but I haven't gone back to find its attribution.  I  have no difficulty accepting the potential of this at face value, since  we have already mentioned the undoubted co-mingling of the very smaller bones/fragments.  
  In the final analysis, I certainly accept the "all are accounted for" principle in regards to the individuals.      Regards,   AP.

[RomaFan96]

We know that at this stage most of those involved in the burial had not had contact with the victims when they were alive. However Yurovsky certainly had and his 'note' or notes, place him at the scene when two of the victims were separated for burning. As I stated the length of the hair would have been obvious to Yurovsky and so this mis identification between the two elder ladies and one of the GD's is not IMO very believable from him. My belief is that he wasn't there when this happended and was trying to cover up that fact.

Very, very interesting point about the hair. It wouln't be surprising if Yurovsky lied about the burial details in his notes. The two accounts he wrote offer very different details of what transpired on the 16-19 of July.