Sorry guys I've been a bit lazy and have been writing things from memory... So I went back and reread FOTR last night... Many thoughts.
We've touched on a number of different topics: Tatitana's role, the demonized Ermakov, possibility of survival beyond room, etc. I'll address those most relevant to the original subject.
Interesting that even being deliberately distanced from the IF, some of the Letts refused to execute the women and children on principle.
In rereading I understood both the order of the killings and the sequence of events much better. I think the above principle protected the women and children far more so than the jewels sewn in the corsets. I believe the "jewels in the corsets=bullet-proof vest" to be more myth than fact; at the most the corsets may have inhibited bayoneting
after the initial rounds of shooting.
We know two of the Letts (Lepa, Verhas) were dismissed in the moments before the murder for unwillingness to shoot women and children. Therefore (though it seems obvious) we have proven the principle was present, even among the "Letts".
We know from Yurovsky and other's testimony that despite orders the Emperor was the initial target of all eleven shooters.
King and Wilson imply that Botkin, Kharitonov, and Trupp were shot next because of where they were standing relative to the Emperor. It seems to me they were shot next because they were all adult men.
The Empress, an object of intense hatred, was also shot in the initial volleys (by Ermakov, surprise, surprise).
At this point according both to testimony and logic, the shootings stopped due to mortal danger to the shooters themselves and heavy smoke. (In fact, a few were indeed injured by ricochet.) I would conclude that it is likely, in the initial volleys, that the Grand Duchesses, Alexei, and Miss Demidova - if injured at all - had been hit by stray bullets and were not the actual target of any shooter. Precisely because of this hesitation to shoot women and children, not because of corset protection.
So Yurovsky, Kudrin, Nikulin, Ermakov, and Kabanov reenter the room to "finish the operation."
There is no need to go into detail here, except to say it was here the corsets seemed to play a more significant role, not earlier.
Enter Ermakov. The language in which Ermakov is presented very much supports the idea that a horrific murder becomes more palatable to a morally-conscious audience when it is committed by a beast and not a human being. The "drunken, powerful, wild-eyed" Ermakov shoots at the women, stabs the Tsarevich, etc. while Yurovsky looks on in "horror"... Ermakov: "Drunk and crazed... slashing frenziedly... swinging out in delirium... stabbing viciously... continued to thrust repeatedly..." etc. etc. etc. In a nutshell: if it is really, really bad, Ermakov did it.
Meanwhile, the remaining original, "fraternizing" guards stationed outside look on in utter shock. They are vomiting; when they enter they shout accusations of "Murderers!" "Butchers!"; they flee their posts in disgust, etc.
The point is that from a standpoint of psychology and storytelling, the FOTR account is very appealing to a sympathetic audience (us). It allows us to hate Ermakov; to distance ourselves from him (he is not human), and at the same time to identify with the friendly, loyal guards outside, looking on in horror. By casting a tacit moral judgment on the terrible events of that evening, those events become - in a sense - more palatable. There can be no shade of gray; the characters that need to appeal to us are made more appealing, the ones we need to abhor are made more abhorrent.
I believe that this inevitable element of "storytelling bias" must be considered when it comes to discerning the actual facts. I think it is fair to say there were kernels of truth to Ermakov's behavior and state of mind (he didn't emerge from the ether, after all), but it is too convenient to pin it all on him, so to speak. Yurovsky in particular deserves none of the moral leeway King and Wilson seem so eager to give him.
Similarly, I think the sympathies of the guards outside are overstated. Again, kernels of truth that have blossomed over time into a flowery myth. It was certainly in their interest to decry the execution to a White army investigation, and their role as "us" - the sympathetic, horrified audience - is ultimately essential to the story. While there may have been some pangs of regret, particularly in retrospect, let us not forget these were Bolshevik soldiers in the heart of the Red Urals.
