Quote: "One simply cannot that he is wrong without first backing it up. The ball is in the court of anyone that means to prove that the Heir and his siter survived."
I didn't imply it...I stated it outright. If you read the above posts you will see that I have no dispute with any theory of the FA. My problem comes with his use of "flawed logic", eg: comparing the childrens missing bodies to those missing from 911 and broad, uncited caselaw to further his arguement as fact.
I agree with the fact that people have been convicted of murder without a body being found. These instances are extremely rare (ask any prosecuter how hard it is to get a conviction). I would like to see one cited case in which the evidence resembles this incident! A case where there was absolutely no penalty for those who committed the crime. A case where those involved had everything to loose by telling the truth if two children had escaped. A case which involved government at it's highest level. If someone wants to compare this to any other murder case...go ahead...for me other previous caselaw doesn't have alot of bearing on this incident. Granted one can make the assumption that a person missing for a certain number of years is presumed dead (insurance ect). I'm not prepared to make that assumption because there are still too many loose ends that have not been tied up.
Some of the loose ends are as follows:
1. There was another post on this board which stated that the assassins bragged about the murders years later, and that they wore it as a "badge of honor". Of course they would! Let's see...in one hand, hero's of their party or getting the "bumbling bonehead award" of the century for allowing the heir and his sister to escape? Let's see...in one hand get favorable treatment and possibly a good position in the new government, or the other is face public embarrassment and wrath of your superiors? These men had alot of reason to lie.
2. The men who carried out the murders were not methodical and meticulous. They were sloppy and lazy from the start. The evidence of this shows up quite clearly in the way they disposed of the bodies. The men dumped the bodies in a well...pulled them out again...tried to burn two and when that didn't work...buried the rest in a common grave and yet took the time and effort to cart off the two burnt bodies and bury them in an undisclosed location? Hmmm...if they were in that much of a hurry with the White Army on the doorstep they would have dug a pit right there and burried the bodies of the two children. Why not try and burn the Tsar's body? Why not try to hide his in a secret location?
3. Why does the Russian Orthodox dispute the claim that all the family died? Is this just wishful thinking or was it someone close to the Orthodox Church who sheltered the two children? If they knew for certain that two children survived, and then for years listened to lies about it, they would be very sceptical concerning any dna findings.
4. The muderers explained in enough detail to locate the main grave. Where was the information and detail to locate the grave of Alexei and his sister?
5. Most important is the fact that two skeletons have yet to be found whose dna matches those of Alexei and his sister.
I'm not here to judge anyone's theory; just to question the evidence or lack thereof.
In regards to books and publications, if you wish to follow their reasoning, and it makes sense to you then great.
