"Interesting, but one of the obvious concerns is that a member of the "team of scholars" is actually a Romanov claimant, with a very specific agenda (he wants to be Tsar). " That is very interesting, Dashkova, I didn't know that! How did you find that information out?
I was very interested to find out what this was all about, and after reading his scientific paper, I wrote to Dr Knight, the guy who did this study, questioning his assertions very thoroughly. Below is the email I sent him... He did reply and I can post that later because I think this post will get truncated otherwise...
Helen
Dear Dr Knight,
Thank you very much for your reply and the paper attachment. I read it and have a few questions that I hope you will take the time to answer.
First, I would like to say that you have a valid point when you question the length of the mtDNA segments recovered by Peter Gill's lab. But might there be another explanation for this result besides the contamination theory? I realize that finding such large segments would be unusual with older DNA, but is it completely impossible? Is it not possible that Gill retrieved his samples from a desiccated portion of the remains where longer pieces of DNA might have survived? Perhaps Gill himself has a good explanation for this result and I was wondering if you spoke to him about this before you published your work? I will write to him as well and inquire about this.
The reason I am questioning the contamination theory is because, in my opinion it is extremely hard to believe that the contaminated DNA sequence would match the Duke of Edinburgh's mtDNA exactly, I just don't think this can happen from random contamination. Yes, mtDNA is not as precise as nuclear DNA, but chances are extremely slim that a "random someone" with the same mtDNA as Prince Philip accidentally contaminated these samples while handling them. So if contamination is the culprit here, the only logical explanation would be that the samples were deliberately contaminated with known "fresh" DNA that belonged to someone whose DNA sequence is identical to Prince Philip's. And if this was the case, wouldn't Peter Gill have realized that these results were not the ones you would expect to get with ancient DNA? Or do you suspect that Gill was aware of this and ignored it, or was actually a part of the deliberate contamination? These scenarios sound so far fetched, and this is why I think that there has to be another explanation than the one you offer.
The second point I wish to raise is that a major part of your argument against the Ekaterinburg bones is based on your finding that the DNA extracted from the finger, presumed to be Grand Duchess Elizabeth's, did not match the Gill DNA sequence. First, I was wondering if this finger was actually attached to the body that was presumed to belong to Elizabeth when it was recovered from the mineshaft, or was it just found next to it and was assumed to belong to the body? Also, which finger was it, was it from the left or the right hand, and was that consistent with the hands on the body? Is there any scientific proof that the finger belongs to the Grand Duchess Elizabeth? I know that various church members testified as to its authenticity but, while I respect the church members' beliefs, I would like to know if there is any scientific proof that this identification was genuine? Humans make mistakes all the time, as you are well aware. It seems that you are making the assumption that the initial identification and the subsequent chain of custody f Elizabeth's body was absolutely unquestionable, but I am not sure that this assumption is valid. I don't think I can accept the icon around the neck as sufficient proof of the body’s identification as Elizabeth. If the finger really belongs to the Grand Duchess, wouldn't the mtDNA extracted from this finger match that of Prince Philip? How do you explain the fact that it doesn't? You don’t refer to the Duke of Edinburgh’s mtDNA at all in your paper, why? In my opinion, it is one of the most relevant pieces of evidence here. Is it possible that the Grand Duchess’s body was misidentified initially and it really belongs to the other woman who died alongside the Grand Duchess, the convent novice Varvara Yakovleva? If this finger was not actually attached to the body when it was recovered, can another part of the body presumed to be Elizabeth’s be tested? Where are Varvara’s remains at present time and can they be tested, as they may actually be those of GD Elizabeth.
Lastly, I am sure that you are aware that DNA tests were also done on the bones that presumably belong to Nicholas II, and these results were compared to the DNA of the tsar's exhumed brother, Grand Duke George. The DNA sequences matched exactly, both sets even exhibited the same heteroplasmy. Are these results being questioned as well, or is the contention that Nicholas's remains are genuine but the rest of the bones in the Ekaterinburg grave belonged to random victims other than the former imperial family?
Dr Knight, your technical expertese in the lab is thorough and rigorous, but it seems that your paper has many selective omissions of any and all information that goes against your own theory about the Ekaterinburg bones. When these bones were identified as belonging to the Romanov family ten years ago, this judgment was not made solely upon Peter Gill's DNA evidence, although that was a big part of it. Many other things were taken into consideration including historical, anthropological, sociological and biological aspects. Arriving at a multi-disciplined, consistent scenario is the only way to approach something like this. I understand that your main concern here is with the molecular aspects, but even so, your own research has not provided sufficient scientific proof (or I should say disproof) from that angle, in fact, it invoked even more serious questions. If you have suitable explanations to my three main questions, I am prepared to accept your conclusions, but as it stands right now, I am more than a little skeptical.
In conclusion, I would like to ask what you think the next logical step in this research should be?
Thank you again for your time and I look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
Helen A
