Sorry FA....
We're kind of stuck, at least with respect to FOTR's claims re Yurovsky's religion, until someone finds a way to locate the 1922 note.
I know Janet will rack me for this (sorry in advance!) but I was skimming the book's latter chapters last night and came upon frequent passages alluding to Anastasia's possible survival. (Of course they also wrote that absence of body did not equal proof of life). They seemed to come down pretty hard on anyone concluding Marie's was actually the missing body, clearly favoring expert opinions that it was Anastasia's. Where do the experts stand now?
Thanks, Jenn
After all this discussion, it does appear there is enough evidence we can firmly establish that the AA agenda really was a part of FOTR, and there was groundwork being laid for the then-planned AA book. As I've said before, if this has changed, that's fine, but it would be nice to have them 'come clean' about it.
>>...they also wrote that absence of body did not equal proof of life...<<
Annie,
Did you miss this part?
This is part of their conclusion after going through with us in their book, theories, other information, etc..
Since I do not know where this particular discussion took place in their book, I can't give you what else was said. Puppylove, do
you recall the page where this was?
I assume the reason they "came down hard" on the idea that the body in the mass grave is GD Maria's and not GD Anastasia is base on Dr. Maples conclusion after he saw the bones himself in Russia. He and his associate believed (pass tense since Maples has since died) the bones of the youngest skeletal remains in the mass grave showed they were too mature to be that of GD Anastasia. Since he made his living as a forensic scientist and was considered one of our best, I'd place his conclusion as an excellent source.
AGRBear
Bear, I need to read the chapter more carefully, the salient points are somewhat scattered and I don't want to jump to conclusions I can't support.
However, this is the passage that jumped out at me (p.470, paperback):
"Were these wounds enough to kill Marie and Anastasia? Marie certainly died that night....The evidence, as it stands, does not support any such conclusion about the possible deaths of either Grand Duchess Anastasia or Tsesarevich Alexei....How, we must ask ourselves, do we know the precise moment when, or if...Anastasia and Alexei died? Survival of the executions at the Ipatiev House does not provide evidence of rescue, nor are two missing bodies irrefutable proof of continued life. In the end, however, the complete absence of any trace of their remains means that the deaths of Anastasia and Alexei that night are only a theory of history."
The point of my original post was this: the authors, in this passage at least, were confident Marie died and Anastasia was missing. Yet I've read, probably here on this forum, the recently found remains are most likely Marie's. So where do the experts stand now? If these are Marie's remains, how do King and Wilson explain it?
