Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC

[Janet Ashton]

King and Wilson please! :-) With two authors, both should share blame or credit.....and I think the general idea is that people draw their own conclusions; perhaps that's what so many of the critics on here (and I don't mean you) couldn't stomach.

But Janet, I am giving Wilson credit by attributing the more sensational elements of the book to King!  I'd much rather throw him under the bus.

Ouch! I almost freaked out at this, but then I realised you were probably winding me up...:-) !

Seriously, based on his previous output, I don't think anyone has any basis for accusing Greg of being responsible for what they deem "sensationalism". Rather, he has tended to go the oposite way, and to try to take the melodrama out of subjects but looking at them sanely. Viz: his book on the Duchess of Windsor, a very calm counterpoint to Charles Higham's nonsense.

In my experience, as an aside, when people talk of "senstaionalism", particularly on royal forums, they often mean that the author touched on subjects they themselves deem off-limits, e.g. the person's sex life, which is usually a very necessary part of a serious biography. This is not the case with authors such as Higham, of course, who publishes improbable pieces of gossip (was the Duchess a hermaphrodite etc) to shock and titillate his audience rather than to enlighten on the events or person he describes. That to me is the essential difference.

[JStorey]

Ouch! I almost freaked out at this, but then I realised you were probably winding me up...:-) !

Yes, of course!  The gender bias has always bothered me and here I fell into it myself.  What could I do but make a joke?    Anyhow all good points...

[clockworkgirl21]

I hope this is the thread for my question!

I was wondering if there was much light in the room during the murder. Does anyone know if lights were turned on inside the room, turned on outside and shown in, etc? I always imagined it would have been really dark, which now that I think about it, I don't know if the victims being able to see would have made it any worse or not!

But now I think there had to be a good amount of light, since Ermakov and Yurovsky went in to kill with bayonets as well as pistols.

[Sarushka]

I believe there was one ceiling fixture in the center of the room at the time of the murder. (It may have been just a bare bulb.)

[blessOTMA]

I believe it was just a bare bulb and one of the reasons there were two rounds of killings
with time between them , was due in part to  the poor visibility cause by the smoke of  first volley of gun fire (...along with the fumes)
I believe the lighting was considerably dimmer than is usually portrayed in film. By the time of the fruitless bayoneting, the air/smoke  would have cleared somewhat , making for better vision. Then there were mostly single shots, finishing people off, not the huge, smoke creating  firing quad barrage that happened at first .

[Pavel Mikhailovitch]

Ok, with 20 pages so far that bit was 'difficult ' to read and follow.

Anyway, a few more things to consider. One of these points is being 'transferred' from the section on 'You know you're obsessed.. pt 2' (http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php?topic=14240.450) as this is morbid and that section is for fun stuff.

First:

In any investigation, nothing is FACT. Everything is actually an opinion that happens to have enough supporting evidence (often of other, equally opinionated people) to make it 'excessively believeable' to the point where only a major change in information may show it incorrect. Further, all investigators have 'preferences' to particular data and how it is weighted. Much of this occurs because of greater familiarity with some sources but not others, or some data may be presented in better format. As we can all appreciate I hope, small what ifs can in time be presented as fact and that enters people's assumptions. It must also be said that humans hate uncertainty and we all have to believe something as undebateable.This is even true even in the supposed certainty of science. If any of you have had the nightmare of being in an academic research group you will discover that far from being a quiet, systematic bunch of good old fellows with pipes and courdiroy jackets debating in a civilised fashion, they are often a bunch of overgrown children throwing tantrums and making the House of Commons look decent. Why do I say this? I'm a Research Chemist - it's my job to ruin previous ideas . Yes, everything is OK now - I returned to my studies in time.

I am witness to feuds that last decades. One (without giving too much away) has been going on for 40 years. Two professors at the same university who once collaborated on a project while students and disagreed on what approach they will use. They haven't spoken since and if you are seen drinking with one, the other will cold-shoulder you for a fortnight. Even worse, they were both right, but were approaching different end sof the same subject. Hopeless!

Its true in Law too: Truth is constructed where probabilities outweigh rational thought:

a) The accused admitted to having a 20-year vendetta against the victim.
b) The accused owned a revolver identical to the one most likely used. He has conveniently thrown it away however during a spring clean.
c) The body was found buried in the accused's back garden.
d) The accused can give no verifiable account of his whereabouts or predicament and claims he was 40 miles away at the time. No-one else can be found to corroborate this.
e) The accused was seen just after the victim's dissapearance to be burning items of clothing in nearby woods.

But is that proof? Or just coincidence? And how many have had their necks stretched incorrectly?

[Pavel Mikhailovitch]

Four Brothers (FBMS) Discrepancy

My first real interest in N&A (a slight encounter when I was 8 - a story in itself) was as a teenager (see my signature at the bottom - aged 14, 10 months) and I approached the executions themselves - an historic interest, nothing more: I presumed I'd read a bit, find it interesting and then move on as I had on other areas. Never really being interested in survivor tales (of which I was aware) I found certain oddities in the four brothers site however that I noted.

It's the dog. That dog is, according to Sokoloff, the last item to be pulled out of the mine. It's been there for 11 months and is still recognisable by M. Gilliard? Ummmm...... A year later (by now fully engrossed in it all - pictures of the girls, etc.) I read similar comments made by Summers and Mangold (File On The Tsar anyone read?)*. Although I accepted swiftly the DNA test (released just before I began) on the original set of remains (and had even less time for survivor tales), it 'concerned me'. I began the proposition: What if the bodies were never at the site?.

* Tip for good academia: Never discredit or refuse a source simply because it seems silly.

I will simply present some 'notes' on this for your perusal:

I: Human beings - in times of 'worry' search for absolutes to calm them down even if they hate the absolute they adopt. It allows them to 'close the book' and move on. Was Gilliard suffering this?
II: Of the other items found, they could have come from any set of people. The most telling was the emerald cross and SIX corset sets. But were any other affluent families disposed of at that time (with 6 females included)? People were dissapearing left, right and centre in Yekaterinburg.

Three hypotheses can spring from this:
I: This is the fragments of the imperial family. Even if identification is 'poor' or 'emotionally driven' it may still be true. (My own conclusion).
II: This is the site of another disposal and Sokoloff was mistaken. (See further on though)
III: Sokoloff or another party had arranged it.

Seems far fetched, but who could have benfitted?

I: The Bolsheviks: To spread confusion about the next-in line. They change their story more times than I change my socks. Were they worried no-one would believe them this time? Did they instead bury the corpses straight at the 'final' site (or in another site, then remove and rebury) and later when 'admitting' their story simply 'piggy back' - use the FBMS story (a believable end) as it was convenient?
II: Kyril Vladimirovitch (KV) or an associate/supporter (with or without his knowledge.): KV was next-in line (assuming Michael Alexandrovitch was also dead) and highly ambitious. Several months pass before Sokoloff is appointed. A judge (forgotten his name) is first up and he says that they are probably alive. He is suddenly dismissed and Sokoloff appointed. The cellar room is then re investigated and additional blood splashes suddenly found! Were the original investigations simply incompetent? (Hence why the judge was dismissed?) In the concluding notes of the investigations the corset stays are refered to, but in the 'log book' of the site no entry of them being fished out of the mine is present. Is this simply an omission? This is not to say KV/an associate killed the family, but if they are declared dead that would give him plenty of time to consolidate his position. Once declared dead any 'real' survivor could easily be shut away. (In the 'hopeless coup' of 1916 he'd planned to shut the Empress in a monastery.)

Discuss!

[Pavel Mikhailovitch]

The Unarmoured Grand-Duchess

(This was the moved part). Please see (http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php?topic=14240.450), page 31 for more.

So was Maria wearing a jewel-laden corset?

* In one of Yurovsky's reports (the old can't make up their minds again) it identifies only Olga, Tatiana and Anastasia.
* Some accounts of the night give Maria as having died quickly.
* Whether she did or didn't - did they use bayonets on all the females just to be sure? (In effect they were stabbing an already dead body). This may explain why some accounts say all four were bayonnetted.
* Alternatively, Maria was not wearing an 'armoured' corset, but still survived. A pistol/revolver round even if fired point blank to the chest will not necessarily kill and Maria was a strong lass. This also would explain the 'All four bayonetted' situation but only 3 corsets.

That should keep us all busy a while!

[Sarushka]

* Some accounts of the night give Maria as having died quickly.

Which ones?

* Whether she did or didn't - did they use bayonets on all the females just to be sure? (In effect they were stabbing an already dead body). This may explain why some accounts say all four were bayonnetted.

Again, which ones?

[AGRBear]

from >>Ballistics question<<:

No, but rifle butts & bayonets will do the job in a pinch. 

There was extensive damage to the facial bones, remember, consistent with blows from rifle butts. Granted, we can't know how much of that damage was inflicted post-mortem. And, since we have no soft tissue to examine, it's equally impossible to know the extent of the damage inflicted by bayonets, even without the puzzle of diamond corset/armor...

If you look at the list of guns handed out by Yurovsky to the other executioners,  there are no rifles involved.

 

...[in part]...


Yourvsky's account:

p. 634 LIFELONG PASSION

>>Yurovsky  On the morning of the 16th....
Twleve revolvers were prepared, and it was decided who would shoot at whom.  Conrade Filipp [Goloschekin] informed me that a lorry would come at midnight, that the newcomers were to be admitted on giving the password, and the bodies handed over to them, to be taken away for burial."<<

....

ARBear

THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS by King and Wilson p. 297:
>>...He ordered Medvedev to collect the revolvers from al of the guards on exterior duty.  When Medvedev returned, he placed the assembled collection on the desk in the commandant's office, leaving Yurovsky to sort through the arssenal with which the crime would be committed.  Fourteen guns were used that night.  There were six pistoles: a .28-caliber** (6.43 mm) Browning; a .32-caliber (7.63* mm) Browning; two .45-caliber (11.43) American Colts; and two .32-caliber (7.63 mm) Mausers; and eight revolvers:  a .42-caliber (10.66 mm) Smith and Wesson; four .30 - caliber (7.62 mm) Nagants; and three .35-caliber (9mm) Nagants.  The most powerful weapons were the two [p. 298] Maussers, with a velocity of 1,400 feet per second.  Of the fourteen guns, nine--all of the Nagants, and the Colts --used gunpower to fire their bullets, causing a discharge of smoke and caustic fumes.  Among them, they held a total of 103 shots.<<


AGRBear

PS
*& **Error in typing corrected:
 

...[in part]...

Dear Mrs. Bear,

Using the information that you posted above, I started to research the technical specifications of the fireams that you listed. I did however find some inaccuracies in this list which may simply be explained by mistyping. For example:

.28 caliber (6.43 mm) Browning- Browning did not make a .28 cal. but rather a .25 cal. pistol.

.32-caliber (7.73 mm) Browning- Metric conversion of a .32 cal. cartridge is 7.63 mm rather than 7.73 mm.
....

David

The bayonet used by Ermakov was said to have been "detached".

There are two threads which talk just about the bayonet/bayonets used.

The smashing of faces used by rifles wasn't done until just before the nine bodies were placed into the mass grave in Pig's Meadow.  These are the kind of blows Maples mentioned to several skulls like Marie's.  I forget the number at the moment.

AGRBear

There is a section just about the bayonet used.

AGRBear

[TimM]

Yurosky is said to have personally shot Tatiana through the head.

Bloody butchers, I hope they're frying in hell, the whole lot of them.

[Pavel Mikhailovitch]

Hello kiddies.

Apologies for my enforced absence and the time taken to return this post. Summer conference season is fast approaching and to cap it I've got a nasty big pile of exams to mark. Excuse me if I rant now.

Dear students - a few bits of advice. There's 268 of you on this course. There are only 2 academics - me and the boss. Do the sums yourself but if your maths isn't up to it, then A) you shouldn't be on this course B) I'll have to do it for you. Your paper takes 3 hours to sit and you all sit it at once. It takes 1.5-2 hours to mark it. Multiply this by 268. 15% of the papers are then handed to another lecturer. We've got the big pile for inorganic 1st year studies and they've got 15% of ours. There are 413 students on their course. 15% of this is 61.95, but we have actually been handed 64. This is to double check that exams are marked consistently. 268 plus 64 is 332 multiplied by 1.5 or 2 meaning that it takes between 498 and 664 hours between the two of us. There are about 12-14 available hours per day to mark them, taking out only life's necessities. Taking the lowest bound of 498 hours, divide by 2 lecturers, and then by 14 hours per day means it takes 17.8 days to mark them even if we did nothing else. The university has given us 19 days.

However this is not including that during the double check, if any mistakes are found, or the standard of marking starts slipping* the whole pile has to be done again.

* Probably due to the lecturer's suicidal tendances that start setting in after the 150th paper. A contributor to this problem comes when, after having marked several hundred they have all got the same question(s) WRONG! You then wonder if you only dreamed giving that lecture. The 'existantial conundrum' presented is very intruiging and worthy of an academic's time and thoughts suitable of a deep-seated philosophy that would rival Voltaire. All us academics love such conundrums of how we can clearly have a memory for an event that apparently didn't happen after all. But we don't have the time.

Then this has to be reconciled. This is where the marks from the double checking group are compared to the marks for the original group. Major discrepancies have to be sorted. Multiply the time for this by 2 as they reconcile our exams and we reconcile theirs.

You lot get 3 weeks of inebriacy to look forward to at the end of term. (Assuming you haven't already spent most of university so far in just such a state and so have no money left.)

Then, that finished, we have to prepare the summer conferences. You lot get 3 1/2 months off in summer, of which half of you do next to nothing while others work in various jobs. Us on the other hand..........


(And on and on.....)

[Pavel Mikhailovitch]

Anyway. I can of course find time for some things.

Happy Birthday Tanya!

Did you think I'd forget? OK it's now the 12th in the UK, but loads of you are from america so I'll run by Los angeles time - it'll still be the 11th. I didn't get home until 9:30pm (see comments on exam marking, above) so i have an excuse. If in Petrograd time, I missed it ages ago!

I also found time to read FOTR. I went mad just before it was released. Interesting. Found a mistake in the intoduction (and questions galore throughout). K&W say that the Julian and Gregorian Calendars are out by 14 days in the 21s Century. Unfortunately it's still 13 days:

The Gregorian Calendar celebrates leap years every four years except for centenary years when they occur every 400 years. (1700, 1800, 1900 were not leap years; 2000 was; 2100, 2200, 2300 will not be; 2400 will.)

The Julian Caledar has leap years every 4 years irrespective of the centenary marks. So the Julian calendar has a Feb 29th where the Gregorian doesn't for 3 out of 4 centuries and the alignment has to be adjusted. Since 2000 was a leap year in both calendars, there is no adjustment in this year and the discrepancy remains 13 days, not 14.

The rest I need to chew on a while longer.

Anyway, Maria's death (In response to  Sarushka )

I had to surrupticiously get loads of stuff from my parent's attic (where it has been residing for a decade). This involved making lots of excuses about what boxes I needed.

Piles of notes - not in any meaningful order I'm afraid and alot still missing - stuff I didn't even remember I had.

OK - of accounts which list 3 'long' deaths and one short. Of what I can find, only one (post exhumation) book states who this was, Massie's publication in 1995 in which it was identified as Olga who died directly from a round to the head at the start. The rest simply say '3' survivors, although they then take 'random guesses' on who. The main focus of then publications was on identity of the bones.

I know I've seen one supposing Maria - I can see the page in my mind's eye, but can't find it. I've made a few pages of scribbles on a notepad that I've found however and these relate to this. I also added my own parts. In part summary part quoting my own stuff:

A ) Presuming that body number 3 is Olga, she did not possibly die swiftly as the bullet wound is near vertical (Modern note: I have a clear picture). Either her head was very low down or she was crouching/sat on the floor and someone shot her from above. But Massie's statement of Olga being shot through the head seems 'unlikely'. (Modern: then lots of extra notes stuffed in margins at funny angles: )

* Or, she was shot again later to check she was dead. (bit written at bottom of page with big arrow pointing to this bit) Why bother? Weren't they trying to have little blood? (another bit over page with arrows over) Shots fired to break acid pots. Hit some of the bodies? Could apply to any of the wounds - all bodies need this consideration!

* Or it's an exit wound.

* Or its just a hole.

* Shot through nose? - it's missing.

* Jaw bone smashed - rifle butt? (Modern note: did not consider being shot through mouth!)

[Pavel Mikhailovitch]

I was forming different options and scenarios for further eliminations.

B ) Body 6: Yanks=Tat, Ruskies=Anast (1995 note)

Skull a total mess - on a tray in lots of little chunks. Crushed by truck? Or smacked to bits with rifle? (My mental state was all over the place at this time - my attempts to be 'neutral and dispassionate' often ended up in being blunt. I made these notes in between gazing longingly at photos. My most common one to gaze at was the one of them under house arrest of OTAA sitting by the shed when digging the vegetable garden - page 234 of Family Albums. She looks like she's about to cry.)

(Later margin note): found a pic: has a small hole in back of skull.

(Then the name of my Biology master and retired army major, useful for all sorts of stuff and unlike many teachers just tells you what he knows and doesn't bu****it to look impressive. Then, in totally different handwriting - probably made later, my handwriting changes with my mood.)

* Exit wound usually worse than entry. shot through back of head and face 'vanishes?'. (Modern note: Oooh! These pages mind you have so many variations I'd written down every possibility - bound to get one right! I'm just reconstructing the variation requested.)

* 2nd phase death. If bullet from behind then it had to be. (2nd phase means after the initial salvoes)

(page of random rubbish)

C ) Body 5 : Русские=Татьяна Американцы=Мария (At this point I had a fit of writing in cyrillic to improve fluency of alphabet writing. And because i was getting obsessed. )

(Lots of random notes of no merit, but)

* Skeleton largely missing. Can't see any gunshot wounds. Mind you don't have right hand side of skull picture.


(Pages and pages go on, pursuing different alternatives. Then: )

Body 3 is Olga. Looks like her as well! (Highly scientific eh! )
Body 5 is either Tat (My usual shorthand for T.N.) or Anastasia
Body 6 is either Maria or Tat

Body 5 is 5' 7 1/2" and #6 is 5' 5 1/2 " Grand Duke nicholas was 6 foot 6. From photo of him next to N2 (the Tsar), estimate N2 at 5 foot 4 to 5 foot 6. (A 6-page mass of geometry is found in earlier pages, due to them not standing. Its the picture of them both sat on a bench.)

Tobolsk Roof Photo: Anastasia is at least 2-3 inches shorter than her dad.

Anastasia is missing and the other two could be either of the bodies.

Are the Ruskies trying to kill off the anastasia myth? (I considered that they has decided to announce A.N.'s death irrespective of evidence because someone saying "A.N. is missing" would surely get the conspiracy theorists out in force going "We Told You So!")

[Pavel Mikhailovitch]

Notes on idetifying #5 and #6:

Maria taller than Tat? Why not? Skull top is tapered, which better fits Maria. Olga and Tat have almost circular topped heads. ( See the photo of all 5 of them with their heads shaved hiding behind the curtain. Left to right is Olga, Tat, Nastya, Maria, Alexis. Nastya and Alexis might be swapped - it's difficult to tell but fourth is Maria.)

Inclined to believe Maples, 6 is Tatiana (dot of the 'i' was a heart ) and 5 is Maria.

Maria not shot in the head. Was she bayonetted? Beaten? Or died in first salvo? She didn't have armour on. Requires Olga not to be dead in first phase. Need to find out Massie's source for this fragment.

(Then I stumble on to other alternatives sending myself slowly mad. The pad of paper - 160 sheets of A4 lined - is full of jottings.)

This doesn't say anything beyond a possible variation - possible from the 1990s perpectives, that is, such as only 9 bodies et al.

Some accounts give only 3 'survivors' of the first phase from amonst the daughters. If so, who and why? Other oddities present themselves. They go to all that time to reduce the mess, then shoot people in the head anyway. If maria (assuming she is #5) then a lack of head wound may mean she was already dead (remember this was 15 years ago I was doing this).

Maria's Armour

Here's a note: All of the 'first party' to be moved are lacking in jewels (relatively, the empress does have a belt of pearls). All of the second party have jewels. In order for Maria to be stripped of her jewels, they would first have to open things up to give her some and then open it all up again to remove them from her.

The 'activity' of June 27th may be coincidence or may have caused the family not to give her anything if they were planning on sharing things. Alternatively, if Maria had no jewels anyway, then she may have been less inclined to caution!

If 'something' happened, and the guard felt her torso, he'd have felt the objects. 'Compromising situation' could mean anything but it would be more than a bit of chatting if it occurred. A bit of chatting would not exactly merit much of a mention - would it! A man's natural tendancy is to feel the female figure - below the breats and the waist/hips. He'd have felt them if they were already there and if she'd lost her jewels because of distrust, then she would have been wearing them at the time.