Discussion-101 Reasons AA Not GD Anastasia

[AGRBear]

If you truly accepted the DNA results, you would not even bother with shoes, height, languages, or anything else. The fact that this discussion continues despite the fact that most of the people here claim to accept the DNA proves that they really must not, or they'd just accept the results and move on. There are still things to be discussed, like how FS did it and who helped her, but quoting all the 'sources' in the world makes no difference at all against the DNA IF you TRULY accept it. And for those who don't, let's see your 'sources' that it was tampered with. If there aren't any, you really don't have anything to go on, the DNA stands AA was not AN and was 99.9% surely FS.

I thought the reason some of you recreated this thread was because it was agreed that the DNA was part of the evidence.  So,  why, Annie, are you ruining this thread for those who believe as you do that the DNA is fact?  

As I have said before,  if I hire a lawyer,  I would want him to have done his homework which includes every source which provides information such as testimonies which supports the DNA evidence.  Why?  Because any lawyer worth his/her salt knows that there is always the possibility that the DNA might be supressed by the judge who has every legal right to do so if certain laws apply.  And, if this happen, the opposition will have done their homework and won this part of the case even before it entered the court for a jury trial.

On this thread, the creator has voiced that the evidence includes the DNA, so the judge, in this case, is going to allow the DNA evidence into the court for the jury to hear.

If the  opposition, again, has done their homework and has brought in evidence  which sheds doubt on the DNA and so the jury is hearing about the shoes sizes, the languages, etc. etc. which Peter Kurth and others have voiced in his books and testimony in AA's appeal which resulted in the longest court trial in Germany, then my lawyer, who has done his/her homework,   will show each piece of evidence is not to be viewed as valid in the eyes of the jury.

So, now, the ball is back in the hands of my lawyer who needs  assisants like Annie, Helen, Jay-Ro-Mee and others who truly believe AA was not GD Anastasia to help find sources which will help prove AA asnt GD Anastasia.

Please present evidence with the source of the information to this thread so my lawyer can be well versed on this subject and in turn use it in court to help our case.

It should be known that the  my lawyer will not accept evidence without proper sources.

Since I have hired a very good lawyer, he/she knows that   evidence, no matter how important it is,  can not and will not be accepted as evidence because    evidence without sources  is useless in a court of law and the judge will be legally obligated not to admit into the trial such evidence.

Of course, there will be cross examination of the evidence provided.

The judge will demand no further outburst or they will be subjected to a stern fine and maybe a over night or even a weekend visit to the local jail so ordered by a very irratated judge.  No "out of jail" cards will be issued nor can your freedom be bought for $50 so you are freed on your next turn   .

AGRBear

[etonexile]

Erm...I'm no lawyer or judge...but as an interested lay-person....I'd have to feel that the independant testing of 4....that would be ..."4"... independant testing labs....which were NOT set up just for this case....labs which do the dull,drudge work of DNA testing...day-in...day-out....must surely trump,in a legal sense,the shifting vagueries of shoe size,hair line,ear pattern,and the tentatively recalled interviews of recently exiled people...but thats just me...in the real world....

[Annie]

I thought the reason some of you recreated this thread was because it was agreed that the DNA was part of the evidence.  So,  why, Annie, are you ruining this thread for those who believe as you do that the DNA is fact?  

As Merrique stated when she started this thread:

However fanciful talk of contaminated dna tests is not allowed unless there is concrete proof proving any of those supposed theories.

While you may not specifically mention switched intestines, if there is implied doubt that the tests were correct to the point where you are still questioning the possibility she may still have been AN after them is the same thing- if you are still questioning, and relying on other sources like the shoes, then you must not be convinced the DNA was accurate, or you wouldn't do that!

SO until evidence there is any reason to question the DNA can be presented, it must stand.

I see you have started a seperate intestines thread, that is good!

[AGRBear]

I've just created a thread about the intestines of AA being switched.

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1126716312

I fiqured that since I'm always being told that I believe in a switch, which is untrue, that I might as well be the one to start the new topic and get the blame for something I did do.


AGRBear

[AGRBear]

...[in part]...

...if you are still questioning, and relying on other sources like the shoes, then you must not be convinced the DNA was accurate, or you wouldn't do that!

...

This is incorrect.

There are some of us who do not question the DNA as being evidence, but wonder why all the other evidence such as shoes, etc. etc. do not seem to validate the DNA evidence and we are trying to understand why it does not.   And, if it does not, then why not???

AGRBear

[AGRBear]

Annie's quote:

If you accepted the DNA as a source, nothing else would matter, it was all mistakes and human error. Also as I said if I quote Massie or John Godl or anyone else who disagrees about AA all you all do is disregard it as 'lies' and 'wrong' so what's the use? You only want ot hear "File on the Tsar" and "Riddle of Anastasia" over and over.

Godl: http://www.serfes.org/royal/annaanderson.htm

>>Few of Anna Anderson's supporters were more cunning, knowledgeable or influential than Gleb Botkin; nephew of Serge Botkin and son of the Imperial Family's personal physician Dr Eugene Botkin who perished with his royal patients in the Ipatiev House in 1918.

Gleb Botkin had an intimate knowledge of palace life, having spent much of his youth near the Imperial Family. As such it's impossible he was deceived by Anderson, he must have known she was a fraud and used her for his own aims. Botkin was one of many sources of obscure information Anderson would recount as "memories" to astound friend and foe alike. Beside abundant Russian émigrés another source were dissolute members of the German aristocracy, most having lost their wealth and power with the fall of the Kaiser.<<

I have the book LOST TALES by Gleb Botkin which Marina, nee Botkin,  and  Richard Schweitzer, her husband published so the rest of the world could enjoy Marina's father's stories.

It was these stories which Marina wrote about her father's watercolors and stories on p. XIV which:  >>...constituted one of the few diversions for the Imperial family under the stark conditions of thie confinement.<<

It was Gleb Botkin's father, Dr. Eugene Bothkin, who suffered the same fate of Nicholas II and the others on the night of 16/17 July 1918 in the Ipatiev House.

The last time Gleb saw his father and the Imperial Family was in Tobolsk because Gleb and his sister were refused permission to follow the Imperial Family and Dr. Botkin to Ekaterinburg.

Gleb had personal contact with the Imperial Family.  He and the children had a special contact.  It would not be unreasonable to understand that Gleb would have known certain things that only he and G D Anastasia would have known.  Some of this knowledge must certainly had been about these marvelous stories to which he had drawn watercolors.

Now,  I know very little else about Gleb Botkin and his relationship with Anna Anderson, whom he believed was GD Anastasia.  So, I really should not be in any kind of debate regarding Gleb Botkin or Anna Anderson.  However, it seems I've jumped right into the middle of this discussion.  It has not been because I personally believe Anna Anderson was GD Anastasia,  I must admit.  Why have I?  I don't like false accusations being directed toward Gleb Botkin or anyone else and that seems to be exactly what John Godl has done.

There is a difference between accusations accompanied with inaccurate facts and presenting theories such as  wondering if a  person had unknowingly revealed bites and pieces of information which a "con artist" can use.  

How is it different?  Annie had a theory, she looked for sources, found Godl's article which seem to agree with her theory and she presented it to us.  There is nothing wrong with Annie thinking Godl's information is accurate.  Then,  Michael presented facts straight from Marina, nee Botkin, Schweitzer's husband, Richard, who wrote:

>>Gleb Botkin on: Jul 27th, 2005, 1:32pm  
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------
Gleb Botkin executed a disclaimer filed in Germany by which he disclaimed for himself and his successors in interest any entitlements to any benefits from A or her Testaments or Estate. You can contact M P. remy in Munich to confirm the existence of that document.  
 
Schweitzer   <<

This legal disclaimer  was ignored by Annie who continues to attack Gleb Botkin.  Why?  Because she feels strongly that there was someone coaching AA and she believes it was Gleb after reading John Godl's article as well as other information.

My guess is that through the years,  AA and others,  placed a lot of weight on Gleb Botkin's acceptance of AA as GD Anastasia and they, too, believed AA was GD Anastasia before the DNA tests.

Gleb Botkin knew GD Anastasia and he tells us that he believed AA was GD Anastasia.  

How well had he known GD Anastasia?  He visited GD Anastasia and the Imperial Family while they were prisioners in Tobolsk.  He drew watercolors over which he and the IF shared until the IF and Gleb's father was sent to Ekaterinburg.

One can only imagine what kind of personal stories Gleb knew about the Imperial Family which absolutely no one else would have known.

I would assume that Gleb and AA must have talked about these stories and it appears that he found nothing she said which gave him the realization that he thought AA was a fake.

It seems to me,  Gleb's opinion is high on the  "pecking order" of people  presented as eye witnesses of actual events with the Imperial Family as well as Anna Anderson.

As far as I can see,  no one has  presented evidence that Gleb Botkin was aware that Anna Anderson was not GD Anastasia and that he was part of some kind of conspiracy to have any personal gains.  


If  AA was not GD Anastasia,  as it appears the DNA tests indicate, this does not mean Gleb was trying to pull the wool over our eyes or feed us false information.

If  AA was not GD Anastasia, then AA,   fooled Gleb.

But who would have known those little things only children would have shared because she must have because it seems apparent that she did fool Gleb Botkin?

AA, if she was not GD Anastasia,  fooled many people and I think there was more than just her being a good actress or just her being able to collect  information.  Like Annie and others,  I think it's possible she was coached by someone who knew things which  allowed her to  fool Gleb Botkin and others.  I have no idea who it was or why.

I can understand why people might think Gleb might have unknowingly given AA information.

Just as I can understand why Annie might have thought  Gleb made money by being near Annie.....  But he did not.  Richard Schweitzer  has told us about Gleb disclaimer.  

Annie, it seems, even, now, after  you are aware that he had signed a disclaimer which tells us that he had signed papers which prevented Gleb from gaining anything personally,  this doesn't seem to change your mind because you continue to think Gleb coached AA.  Okay.  I can accept  your logic and distrust.  But,  please, please, don't get so upset when I and others don't agree with you.  

Why do I disagree.  Up to this point,  I don't see any evidence which shows Gleb was part of any conspiracy which provided information to AA before she jumped into the canal in Feb. 1920 .

I believe Gleb didn't meet AA.....  Wait let me go find something that tells me ......  Here it is p. 89  THE QUEST FOR ANASTASIA by Klier and Mingay:

>>One of her most devoted and loyal champions was Gleb Botkin, son of Dr. Evgeny Botkin, the Imperial Family's personal physician ....   He first met Anna in 1927 at Castle Seeon, where she was staying with the family of the Duke of Leuchtenberg....<<

1927 was seven years after  AA claimed she was GD Anastasia.


AGRBear

As for Massie,  I respect his works and I use him often as my source.

AGRBear

[Annie]

This is incorrect.

There are some of us who do not question the DNA as being evidence, but wonder why all the other evidence such as shoes, etc. etc. do not seem to validate the DNA evidence and we are trying to understand why it does not.   And, if it does not, then why not???

AGRBear

The reason it does not is simple common sense: some people who gave that 'evidence' were simply mistaken, remembered wrong (like I said about the tub story and the friend sending me the wrong baby clothes back) or maybe even lied. Since we know she wasn't AN, we know that those things were wrong. There still is a mystery, HOW FS did it and who helped her, and that would be very interesting to investigate once we can finally put the old identity mess to bed. However, I really don't feel any of you would ever be satisfied, and some things will NEVER be known because they weren't recorded as a 'source' and the people involved are all dead now.

It IS true that if you accepted the DNA, you would not question her identity any more! It can't go both ways! If you believe and accept it, then she wasn't AN, she was FS. If you're still going 'what about the shoes' then you don't believe the DNA.

And you talk about intestines being switched yet you refuse to even consider a pair of 18 year old shoes is a lot easier to switch, and most likely were not even really hers to begin with.

[AGRBear]

You are the one who mentioned Godl and I gave sources where I disagreed with Godl.

Do you have any farther comment about Godl and what he said?

We now know this is not true because the medical reports tell us that she was not injured in the explosion:
Godl: >>Her psychiatric problems may have been caused or exacerbated by the serious head injuries suffered in 1916 from a hand grenade explosion....<<

I did find this interesting:

Godl: >>With legal status and power sufficient for her supporters to raise the necessary funds to establish an Imperial Court and Government in exile, opening a politically disastrous can of worms Hitler almost certainly would have commandeered to divide Russia and intended installing as a subservient replacement to the Soviet Union when conquered.<<

Do you think this is why Hitler became interested in AA?

As for the intestines switch,  I became weary of the false accusations that I believed it was true, SOOOOOoooooooo,  I started a new thread to talk about the possibility of a switch.  Now, all the blame for the discussion can be placed on my old Bear head.
AGRBear

[RealAnastasia]

There is a little problem or misunderstanding here: we DOESN'T refuse to discuss DNA evidence. There are threads where we'll discuss OTHER reasons than it, for I think there are other reasons who deserves to be discussed as well.

I, personnally, think that there is so much evidence challenging the DNA results, that we must discuss this evidence. No more, nor less.

As for DNA we doesn't have but a question to discuss...Or we believe in a 100% that the resutls about AA being FS are certain (and then, no discussion possible) or we think something went wrong in those test. I'm one of these fairy-tale believers that thinks the possibility of the test being wrong or the tissues being switched. Don't blame it for this. I CAN'T avoid having my own opinion about things.

RealAnastasia.

[etonexile]

I hope ALL will understand that I believe in the DNA evidence that AA was NOT AN...and WAS most likely FS...BUT...I don't want to stop any chatter about the circumstantial evidence of hair lines,ear shapes,accents,and whatever seemed to make AA seem like a GD....OK?

[Annie]

I hope ALL will understand that I believe in the DNA evidence that AA was NOT AN...and WAS most likely FS...BUT...I don't want to stop any chatter about the circumstantial evidence of hair lines,ear shapes,accents,and whatever seemed to make AA seem like a GD....OK?

If you're talking hairlines, looking at pictures it is clear that AA and FS share a common hairline and part, AA and AN do not. sources: PICTURES!

On accents, AA had a very crude, rough accent which was certainly not one of society, and she spoke English badly and with a strange accent, this would be strange for a girl raised with a mother and father who spoke perfect English among themselves with British accents!

sources that N and A spoke English with a British accent, try any biography.

[RealAnastasia]

Oh, Etonexile! How interesting! I didn't know that you thinks that DNA proof was perfect and that your opinion is that AA was FS and not FS! And, perhaps you doesn't know that I'm one of these idiotic people who thinks the opposite! These conversations about AA always teach me interesting and new things! How impressive!

(yawn....Yawn...another yawn)

I'm not mean OK? It's my Argentinian irony, my imperial sense of humour.

Ok? OK? OK?

But the important here is that I'M RIGHT and all the other people is WRONG. I do not know why we keep discussing this stupidity if all the matter is perfectly settled. STOP ALL DISCUSSIONS ABOUT AA. THEY ARE NOT NECESSARY. DOESN'T THINK ANY MORE ABOUT ANYTHING, FOR THERE IS ONLY A WAY TO THINK?

OK? OK? OK?

RealAnastasia.