Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him

[CuriousOne]

I picked up the telephone this morning to make another attempt to contact Dr. Ginther and as I was about to dial the number I thought,  I should have written down the questions I had in my head the other day, so I put the phone down and started a list.  Then I went off to take a shower and as I turned on the water I thought, why not ask you, the other people in this chat room, for questions because  I'm sure your DNA questions would be better than mine just as  I'm sure Penny might have a few I haven't thought up to this point in time.  So, here I am, starting a thread about:
                         
What should I ask Dr. Ginther?

C1

[AGRBear]

When looking for information,  I had to read a few pages of Massie's THE ROMANOVS, THE FINAL CHAPTER.

In it,  Massie tells us that Remy was looking for possible samples that would produce DNA p. 234:

Remy found a Professor Stefan Sadkuhler, who is is said, examined AA on 6 June 1951.  He had drawn blood to see if AA was a carrier of hemophila...  Sadkuhler gave Remy the slide which Remy broke in half.  He sent one piece to Professor Herrmann and the other to Dr. Ginther.  Apparently Herrmann was able to get some DNA and sent it to Ginther.  And this is what Massie wrote and I quote:
"Ginther found that this DNA did not match the Hessian profile (that is, the doner of the blood was not related to Empress Alexandra), nor did it match the Schanzkowski profile as dervied from Margareth Ellerick."  Then Massie talks about possible contamination, etc. etc..

Margareth Ellerick was FS's niece.

Why hasn't this information been brought up as evidence?

AGRBear

1) Massie tells us that it was Dr. Ginther who who said the slide may have been contaminated.  Did Massie talk to Ginther?  If Dr. Ginther thought it was contaminated, why did he think it was?
2) Did the DNA of Margareth match Gertrude's mtDNA and did it match AA's mtDNA?
3) Is there an offical report which our DNA people could read Dr. Ginther's findings on the tests he did which pretains to AA?

AGRBear

PS Going to bring posts over here so other posters can get an understanding of what C1 is trying to understand and then ask questions of Dr. Ginther.

[AGRBear]

Ok.  From what I am reading in this book, the Ellerik blood sample didn't match the slide of blood as the slide was contaminated--the blood sample was from 1951, and had been smeared on an open slide, no cover slip.  

Remy was never given access to the tissue sample DNA in order to compare it to the Ellerik sample.  However, even though Remy had been the one to find the sample at Martha Jefferson Hospital, it was Gill the Schweitzers commisioned to test the sample for DNA, not Remy's doctor's.  

I am assuming that the Ellerik tissue was not compared to the KM and AA tissue Gill had because it was done by a different lab.  Remy had Ginther and Herrmann do the testing on the slide, and Ginther was the one who had the Ellerik sample.  


Anything else Bear?  

[AGRBear]

Bear, you assume too much. I can't possibly have all the answers in this case, I just have all the answers I need.  

Nor can I have all the answers and that is why I keep asking questions after ALL these years because nothing about FS and AA is ever just all black or white.

And, of course, as I've come to expect these days, there is always another viewpoint:

According to Remy, who invited Greg and I to spend two days in his film and personal archives in July 2000, Massie is incorrect in this assertion.  Remy further stated that he was never interviewed by, or even contacted by, Massie in the course of his research, nor, to the best of his knowledge, was Dr. Sandkuhler.

Dr. Sandkuhler was still alive and had a small medical practice in the summer of 2000.  Greg and I saw his blood-slide archives, and they are not as Massie described.

This is my experience, take it or leave it (not you personally, Denise, but anyone reading this thread, pro or anti.  I have no intention of being embroiled in any more of the personal bs that goes on in this forum, but I am throwing this out there for you all to make what you will of it).

This information seems quite important to my pondering on the slide and the DNA testing:

Penny: >>Remy further stated that he was never interviewed by, or even contacted by, Massie in the course of his research, nor, to the best of his knowledge, was Dr. Sandkuhler.<<

AGRBear

[AGRBear]

on Apr 25th, 2005, 12:15pm, Helen_Azar wrote: 
Denise, if this slide was kept without a cover slip for all those years, or even for a short period of time, it would have been contaminated, even if we knew for sure that it was AA's blood to begin with. After all the discussions that involved all the thorough questioning of the intestine sample - which was foolproof, why are some people so ready to accept the results from this very questionable slide?
------
 
Penny Wilson's Ans: Because the possibility exists that this slide is equally as "foolproof" as the intestine sample; the German team believed it to be even moreso.  And the reality of Dr Sandkuhler's archive differs from the scenario provided by Massie.    
 ---------

This is from a locked down tread so I can't pull these posts over here as quotes.  

[AGRBear]

Penny's post: >>
...[in part]...
 
My further point is that it might therefore be inappropriate to continue the foolishness of accusing either the American or the German forensics teams of subterfuge or "substitution" or "contamination."  Both could be right in their results.
 
Another point is that in Anastasia Manahan, we may be looking at a person far more interesting than we -- those of us who are interested in her beyond her "connection" to Anastasia and Franziska -- already thought.
 .......<<

« Last Edit: Apr 26th, 2005, 10:53am by Penny_Wilson »

[AGRBear]

C1 posted information on her first conversation with Dr. Ginther:

>>When I first talked to Dr. Ginther, he immediately closed down and said that before he'd make a comment that he'd have to review his notes.  I left with him my e-mail but he has not responded to this date.  I assume since he's in the middle of some pretty exciting breast cancer research, he's forgotten or just has not had time. Like Bear said, he was part of the testing on the bones of Nicholas II from Pig's Meadow.  However, he was not in charge.  His superior at the time was Mary-Claire King at UC. Remy tried to get a sample, which there was plenty, from the intestines but this was refused. He couldn't understand why he couldn't.  That is why he sought other samples and how he came upon Professor Stefan Saandkuhler, a former hematologist from Heidelberg University, who had exaimined Anna Anderson on June 6, 1951. Unlike what Massie indicates,  Saandkuhler was meticulous, as expected of all the HU profs,  with his slides which he felt were important in his studies.  By the way, my family has been connected with this U. since the 1500s and it's reputation is high in their research of any kind.
 
 Massie tells us  >> " the blood on the side did not match, as Ginther put it,  "any of the characters of interest" , he wondered about the integrity and origin of the slide. "It was and open slide.  It could have been contaminated.  It didn't even have a cover slip on it. Somebody had just smeared blood which dried," he said.
Did Massie contact Ginther?  Did Ginther actually say this in the way Massie has us believe?  Since Massie had said he had contacted Remy, and he had not [Penny told us this], I was wondering, as I was reading, if Massie had contacted Ginther and if so what had he actually said.  Those few words on such an important matter bothered me.  Especially since Ginther's tests shows no match between Margarethe Ellrich, the sister of Karl Maucher, the one who's mtDNA would perfectly match her mother's, Gertrude's,  mtDNA.
 
So after reading what Bear had said,  I having dug out the Massie book, because I hadn't recalled this test by Ginther and at the time didn't know anything about DNA,  it struck me,   I live a hop skip and a jump from UC, so, why not contact Dr. Ginther and speak to him personally and get the results of his findings directly from him.  I did speak to him for about four minutes.
 
Hopefully, I will be able to contact Dr. Ginther, again, and get some answers about the Ellrich test and anything else that may pretain to this testing and what exactly were  his remarks about contamination.
 
Wish I had more to tell you this bright lovely California sunny Monday morning, but I don't.
 
And, yes, Bear, who is an old friend of mine,  is pushing me so I won't forget.
 
C1  



« Last Edit: May 16th, 2005, 11:56am by CuriousOne »

[AGRBear]

Penny posted:

on May 16th, 2005, 5:30pm, AGRBear wrote:
Curious One is hoping to contact Dr. Ginther, again, about those test results.  She talked to him a short while a couple of weeks ago and said he needed to look at his notes before making any remarks about the tests with Ellrick.

 Penny's Replied:
I'll be very interested to read what Dr Ginther says. I have heard a multitude of rumors about the results of the tests he ran, but I would rather hear from him -- as I did from Remy -- his version of events, without adding to the stew.
 -----
on May 16th, 2005, 5:30pm, AGRBear wrote:
To be fair with Massie, as some of us know, sometimes a editor crosses stuff out and the author doesn't catch it until after a book is published and those crossed out words needed to in that sentence or paragraph but it's not and so it's there in it's state of "can't change it now" and there the error lies ..... lays.... stays.
 AGRBear

Penny replied: 
Agreed.  Especially in the case of this book, which, as I've said, I think was rushed to publication in order to capitalize on the publicity surrounding the recently-released DNA test results.
------

[Arianwen]

So I'm going to break my vow of silence on AA/FS on the boards... Just to suggest a few questions in addition to those by Bear, though.

1) Does Dr Ginther have an opinion regarding the Karl Maucher match to the intestine sample as opposed to his lack of match with Margarethe Ellerick and the blood sample?

2) How clear a profile was Dr Ginther able to create from the DNA extracted by Dr Herrmann? How long a sequence was he able to obtain?

3) What percentage would Dr Ginther give the likelihood, from his test, that AA was NOT related to Margarethe Ellerick? (If the Maucher test was a 99.9% probability that AA was a maternal relative of Maucher, what would the percentage of the opposite result be?)

4) To Dr Ginther's knowledge, has the Ellerick sample been tested to match the Maucher sample?

5) If we assume neither the blood nor the intestine sample were contaminated or switched, does Dr Ginther have any idea how the tests came up with contradictory results?

6) What is Dr Ginther's opinion on the DNA material extracted by Dr Herrmann? Legitimate, fabricated, etc?

7) Has Dr Ginther read the book by Massie? If so, would he say that Massie has accurately summed up the results of his test in pp 233-234?

What is Dr Ginther's opinion of how well the blood sample was preserved? Was the slide well-kept from exposure and contamination? Was it an open slide? Etc...

9) Does Dr Ginther believe Gertrude to have been the full-blooded sister of Franziska? Does he have proof of this?

That's really all I can think of right now, so if anything else occurs to me, I'll be sure to add them. CuriousOne, thanks for making the effort to get in touch with Dr Ginther and get our questions answered!

Regards,
Arianwen

[helenazar]

I just wanted to clarify a few things about Arienwen's questions.

1) Does Dr Ginther have an opinion regarding the Karl Maucher match to the intestine sample as opposed to his lack of match with Margarethe Ellerick and the blood sample?

I was just wondering where you got the information about ME's mtDNA not matching Karl Maucher's? It was not really discussed one way or another - the only thing we know for sure is that it did not match the mtDNA from the blood on the slide. Beyond that nothing else was not discussed as it pertained to KM. I believe that it did, otherwise we would have heard about it not matching (is ME Karl Muacher's maternal aunt?) . If you have information that no one else does about the lack of match there, please let us know.

2) How clear a profile was Dr Ginther able to create from the DNA extracted by Dr Herrmann?

Can you elaborate a little what you mean by 'how clear a profile'?

3) What percentage would Dr Ginther give the likelihood, from his test, that AA was NOT related to Margarethe Ellerick? (If the Maucher test was a 99.9% probability that AA was a maternal relative of Maucher, what would the percentage of the opposite result be?)

I am afraid that this question doesn't make that much sense, unless I am misunderstading it. The DNA sequence either matches or it does not match. If it matches, you can say it is with 99.9% certainty, or whatever. If it doesn't match - it doesn't match. You really can't say with what percent certainty it doesn't match - it just doesn't work that way.  

5) If we assume neither the blood nor the intestine sample were contaminated or switched, does Dr Ginther have any idea how the tests came up with contradictory results?

One of these samples had to be switched or contaminated - and we already agreed that it could not have been the intestine.

[Arianwen]

I just wanted to clarify a few things about Arienwen's questions.

AriAnwen, actually... Sorry, just trying to inject some good humour into this.

I was just wondering where you got the information about ME's mtDNA not matching Karl Maucher's? It was not really discussed one way or another - the only thing we know for sure is that it did not match the mtDNA from the blood on the slide. Beyond that nothing else was not discussed as it pertained to KM. I believe that it did, otherwise we would have heard about it not matching (is ME Karl Muacher's maternal aunt?) . If you have information that no one else does about the lack of match there, please let us know.

I never once suggested that the Maucher and Ellerick mtDNA didn't match. If you re-read my original post, you'll even find that was one of my questions, if to Dr Ginther's knowledge, the Maucher and Ellerick profiles had ever been compared and matched/mismatched (question #4, to be specific). In my question, I said only that Maucher matched the intestine sample, and Ellerick did NOT match the blood sample, asking for Dr Ginther's opinion on that subject. From the genealogical info posted on other threads, Ellerick was Maucher's maternal aunt, though I've yet to do much genealogical research on my own.

Can you elaborate a little what you mean by 'how clear a profile'?

Dr Ginther was initially unable to extract DNA from his half of the slide (it was cut in half, and the other half was sent to Dr Herrmann of Göttingen University). Dr Herrmann WAS able to extract DNA and sent the raw material to Dr Ginther, who then sequenced the DNA and obtained the profile. My question was were there gaps in the sequence, or was it complete? I'm not sure what kind of 'raw material' Dr Herrmann passed along or how the process of sequencing is carried out, which is part of my question. Perhaps I should have phrased this a bit more clearly, and I apologise if it wasn't clear enough.

I am afraid that this question doesn't make that much sense, unless I am misunderstading it. The DNA sequence either matches or it does not match. If it matches, you can say it is with 99.9% certainty, or whatever. If it doesn't match - it doesn't match. You really can't say with what percent certainty it doesn't match - it just doesn't work that way.  

Again pulling out my copy of Massie, my source for the above (pp 233-234 above), Dr Gill announced that his probability for the Ekaterinburg bones being the IF as 98.5%. 99.9% is the figure most often quoted for the intestine sample belonging to a maternal relative of Maucher. Factoring in margin of error, my question was what percentage would Dr Ginther give the likelihood that according to the blood sample, that the owner of the blood was NOT a maternal relative of Ellerick. As everyone keeps pointing out, science can tell us things with almost certainty, but never absolute certainty. There's always a percentage of certainty involved, and my question was what that percentage in this case would be. (Massie, pp 104-106)

One of these samples had to be switched or contaminated - and we already agreed that it could not have been the intestine.

As I was not a part of the discussion regarding the likelihood of contamination of the intestine sample, I can't be included in the 'we', though I'm certainly not a conspiracy theorist. There are too many variables in both cases, and until I have proof that either sample was switched and/or contaminated, I'm assuming that both samples are valid. However, an equal argument could be made for the impossibility of contamination of the blood sample, given some other sources of material that were found by others than me, so I don't feel I can post them here. Read through some of the other threads, in particular some that have been locked. Therefore, I phrased my question to assume that neither sample had been contaminated or switched. There ARE other factors, such as the way the test was done, whether a sequence had gaps that had to be filled in or not, etc, other than switching or contamination.

Further than this, I refuse to put on the forum, due to some recent bad experiences. As it is, to ask these questions was breaking my own vow of silence on this topic. If you want to discuss this more, please feel free to PM me.

Regards,
Arianwen

Note: All Massie pages cited above are from 'The Romanovs: The Final Chapter'

[AGRBear]

Massie went into the Schweitzer legal battle over the tissue of AA found in the Martha Jefferson Hospital in Charlottesville, Virigina.
They wanted to have it tested by Dr. Gill to discover if AA was GD Anastasia.

30 Sept 1993 - entered court

Another group, The Russian Nobility Association, didn't want just Dr. Gill to have rights to the tissue, they wanted the person, Dr. Mary-Claire-King of UC whom Dr. Mapes wanted as part of the testing of the remains of the IF bones found in the mass grave of Pig's Meadow.

Lawyers pulled back and forth....

Dr. King of UC wrote:  "I have been working for the past seven months on the identification of the skeletal remains of the the nine indiviauls believed to include Tsar Nicholas II and members of his family, " she said, "I have also received blood and tissue samples from descendants of Tsar Nicholas and his wife, Alexandra.  I am in te process of preparing a report on my findings.  I am familiar with DNA research into the remains from Ekaterinburg being conducted by Dr. Peter Gill.  If there is sufficient mtDNA bearing materinal, it would be ideal to have two qualified laaboratories carry out the mtDNA testing and compare the results.  I have spoken with Dr. Gill and ould like the opportunity to work collaborateively with him in the analysis of the samples."

There was the complication of another party entering the lawsuit.  A Mrs. Kailing-Romanov who claimed to be the daughter of GD Anastasia....  p. 210-11....  See if you want farther information on her.

21 Jan. 1994 Ulrich von Gienanth, who had been one of the four who had been one of AA's legal executors, was still acccetting this right and so he, now, entered the lawsuit....

Lawsuit dropped and von Gienanth was in temporarily in control of the hospital tissue 1 March 1994.

New lawsuit - 18 March 1994 by Russian Nobility Association, who challenged von Gienanth's rights.  They sought parallel testing of Dr. King's and Dr. Gill's.

Andrew and Kurth and been part of all these suits.  They seem to represent Dr. Willi Korte an investigator.  No one knew at this time that Maurice Remy was in the background and in charge.

Obsure Virigina law was discovered to challenge ownership of tissue which states that anyone can petition for the rights of ownership of AA's tissue.  Ed Deets, a friend of Richard Schweitzer, agreed to be named as the person in charged of the tissue sample under this obsure law in this new lawsuit.

30 March 1994 all involved were back in Judge Swett's courtroom.

Final hearing 11 May 1994.  Judge Swett's dismissed this last case and this was filed on 19 May 1994.  Anyone who opposed had 30 days to appeal.

19 June 1994 Dr. Gill collected the tissue p. 226.

Ed Deets was in charge of the tissue.

Because Remy wasn't given the rights to AA's tissue, he went to find his own tissue, hair or blood sample.

Continued next post.

[AGRBear]

Maurice Remy continued to work to get AA's tissue into the hands of  Mary-Claire King at UC.

When Remy asked for the results of the Ekaterinuburg test from King but done came forth.

It was discovered that King had not done the testing but her someone else in King's lab.  The person was Dr. Ginther, who had extracted mtDNA fro the Ekaterinburg material.

Ed Deets, who was in control of the tissue, was contacted to see if he'd release some of AA's tissue to Dr. Ginther.

Meanwhile, Dr. Ginther, who didn't want to do anything without Dr. King's approval, waited until she approved of his testing and released the compartive samples.  Dr. King approved and released the samples.

Dr. Ginther discovered Dr. King had not turned all he samples over to him so he worked with what she gave him.

Dr. Ginther for the second time, derived mtDNA from the Hessian and the Romanov materials.  Hee, also, extracted mtDNA from Margaret Ellerick, the daughter of Gertrude S., who is thought to be FS's sister.

By July of 1994 Ginther did not have the AA tissue.

Remy went to find another source and he found Professor Stefan Sandkuhler, a former hematologist from Heidelberg University, who had exaimined Anna Anderson on 6 June 1951.

Sandkuhler had tested AA's blood for hemophia and therefore had AA's blood samples on glass slide.  It was this slide Remy broke in half.  He sent one half to Dr. Ginther and the other half to Prof. Bend Herrmann, a specialist in short tanden repeat (STR).  Hermann did get DNA from his half and sent his material to Ginther.

Ginther found p. 234 of Massie:  "..this DNA did not match the Hessian pofile... nor did it match the Schazkowska profile as derived from Margaret Ellerick."

There is mention of the slide as having been contaminated and that is why C1 is going directly to Dr. Ginther to understand what happen and if Massie's conclusion was accurate.

AGRBear

[Mgmstl]

Maurice Remy continued to work to get AA's tissue into the hands of  Mary-Claire King at UC.

When Remy asked for the results of the Ekaterinuburg test from King but done came forth.

It was discovered that King had not done the testing but her someone else in King's lab.  The person was Dr. Ginther, who had extracted mtDNA fro the Ekaterinburg material.

Ed Deets, who was in control of the tissue, was contacted to see if he'd release some of AA's tissue to Dr. Ginther.

Meanwhile, Dr. Ginther, who didn't want to do anything without Dr. King's approval, waited until she approved of his testing and released the compartive samples.  Dr. King approved and released the samples.

Dr. Ginther discovered Dr. King had not turned all he samples over to him so he worked with what she gave him.

Dr. Ginther for the second time, derived mtDNA from the Hessian and the Romanov materials.  Hee, also, extracted mtDNA from Margaret Ellerick, the daughter of Gertrude S., who is thought to be FS's sister.

By July of 1994 Ginther did not have the AA tissue.

Remy went to find another source and he found Professor Stefan Sandkuhler, a former hematologist from Heidelberg University, who had exaimined Anna Anderson on 6 June 1951.

Sandkuhler had tested AA's blood for hemophia and therefore had AA's blood samples on glass slide.  It was this slide Remy broke in half.  He sent one half to Dr. Ginther and the other half to Prof. Bend Herrmann, a specialist in short tanden repeat (STR).  Hermann did get DNA from his half and sent his material to Ginther.

Ginther found p. 234 of Massie:  "..this DNA did not match the Hessian pofile... nor did it match the Schazkowska profile as derived from Margaret Ellerick."

There is mention of the slide as having been contaminated and that is why C1 is going directly to Dr. Ginther to understand what happen and if Massie's conclusion was accurate.

AGRBear

Whatever became of these questions for Dr. Ginther???
Does anyone know???

[AGRBear]

Curious One has had some personal problems [aging parents] and will get back to us on  Dr. Ginther.

She apologizes for the delay.

AGRBear