Dr.Ginther- Questions To Ask Him

[Finelly]

So..........is there anyone else out there like me who believes that the DNA evidence is incontrovertible, yet finds Kurth's book so compelling that they find themselves still wondering, despite the fact that the wonderings are illogical?

I almost threw away Kurth's book after the DNA came out, but didn't.  Still had no desire to ever read it again, but I picked it up the other night and got into it again.  And there I was, saying to myself "well.....?.....no......well???............no.........." until I finally fell asleep and dreamed of Oompa Loompas.

[Inquiring_Mind]

I read everything over yet again.

Dr Ginther was not given anything but the slide according to what Bear posted. He was given samples from Margarite.

Dr Ginter said the results from the blood were probably contaminated.

So AA was FS.

[lexi4]

Exactly, Lexi, these were just the results from a questionable blood sample which was inconsistent with anything else we have. A serious scientist would dismiss these results immediately because of all the inconsistencies with the control. Dr Ginther did his job, he sequenced what he had and compared it to some other sequences. It was not part of his job to make decisions as to what the results really mean since he did not have the original control sequence, i.e. from the intestine...

I am sure that you have noticed that we are just basically just going around in circles with this. People who are trying to prove that AA was not FS are coming up with all this to try to plant doubt on the original results. They even went as far as to try to push the absurd theory that AA was a chimera - I would call that "grasping at straws".  Gill's original results are still accepted as valid in the science world, more than ten years later, and they showed that AA had to be FS with a very high certainty, something like over 99%, based on her DNA profile. For people who don't know the science well, a little confusion like we have here is all it takes to start doubting the results. For people who do understand the science well, it is pretty obvious that the slide was contaminated. Samples get contaminated all the time in labs, and it is very easy to tell when they are because you end up with an inconsistent or inconclusive results - and that's what we have here and this is how we know. This is not anything unusual or sinister or mysterious... And that's all there is to this.    

Thank you again Helen. I have another question, who is Dr. Ginther anyway? And exactly what was his involvement?

[Finelly]

This absurd theory that AA was a "chimera".....can someone elaborate?  Not the lion-headed fire breathing monster of Greek myth, I take it.....but a figment of the imagination?  Hers?  Ours?  What exactly IS this theory?

[jeremygaleaz]

So..........is there anyone else out there like me who believes that the DNA evidence is incontrovertible, yet finds Kurth's book so compelling that they find themselves still wondering, despite the fact that the wonderings are illogical?

I almost threw away Kurth's book after the DNA came out, but didn't.  Still had no desire to ever read it again, but I picked it up the other night and got into it again.  And there I was, saying to myself "well.....?.....no......well???............no.........." until I finally fell asleep and dreamed of Oompa Loompas.

What the heck is Oompa Loompas?

 

[Finelly]

Little creatures who help run the Chocolate Factory.

(Willie Wonka and the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory book...)

[Mgmstl]

So..........is there anyone else out there like me who believes that the DNA evidence is incontrovertible, yet finds Kurth's book so compelling that they find themselves still wondering, despite the fact that the wonderings are illogical?

I almost threw away Kurth's book after the DNA came out, but didn't.  Still had no desire to ever read it again, but I picked it up the other night and got into it again.  And there I was, saying to myself "well.....?.....no......well???............no.........." until I finally fell asleep and dreamed of Oompa Loompas.

For me it is NOT only Kurth's book, while it is compelling, the differences between AA & FS are what has made me so curious about this case.  

I am not a DNA expert by an stretch of the means nor do I pretend to be, IMO the circumstantial evidence needs to be investigated and if it turns out that she is FS, then oh well I was wrong, but I want my reasonable doubt quashed.

[jeremygaleaz]

Little creatures who help run the Chocolate Factory.

(Willie Wonka and the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory book...)

Gotcha! I seem to recall those creatures now...

Anyway, in answer to your other question about Kurth's book...
There really isn't a case in which subjective evidence does not point in a different direction than scientific DNA testing. (Another example, Shay Mcneal was still able to write about the "rescue" of the tsar and his family, based on subjective evidence, while not understanding the DNA .)

It's just that Kurth misinterpreted the evidence that he was looking at (Alot of it is based on human memory, which can be very inacurate, he said/she said, style gossip, etc.)

Such misunderstandings  happen  all the time.  

[Mgmstl]

There really isn't a case in which subjective evidence does not point in a different direction than scientific DNA testing.

Why not be specific and tell us with your vast investigative experience in historical research what cases you are referring to?    

Kurth met the woman, knew the woman, and wrote this book in the 1980's BEFORE the DNA experiments were done.  My copy is a first run print I believe in 1982. He was looking at the evidence available at the time.

Kurth used trial transcripts, notes, affadavits, and did as accurate a job as possible with the evidence available.
He did not indulge in speculative journalism as did the writers of  File On The Tsar.   Kurth put forward a VERY CONVINCING case, based on the testimony of actual persons involved, and did interview those surviving at the time.  

As far as how he amended his later copy, I cannot be for certain, but why not try to be a bit honest for once.

[lexi4]

So..........is there anyone else out there like me who believes that the DNA evidence is incontrovertible, yet finds Kurth's book so compelling that they find themselves still wondering, despite the fact that the wonderings are illogical?

I almost threw away Kurth's book after the DNA came out, but didn't.  Still had no desire to ever read it again, but I picked it up the other night and got into it again.  And there I was, saying to myself "well.....?.....no......well???............no.........." until I finally fell asleep and dreamed of Oompa Loompas.

I understand what you are saying here. I think there is something inside all of us that would like for the IF to have survived. Kurth is very convincing, but then there is that pesky DNA thing.

[jeremygaleaz]

I understand what you are saying here. I think there is something inside all of us that would like for the IF to have survived. Kurth is very convincing, but then there is that pesky DNA thing.

That's just it. We WANT someone to survive this. Regardless of who murdered them, it's the same as the story of the Princes in the Tower, or the "Lost King" of France, the Dauphin Louis. We want them, especially children, to survive something like this. At least, that's my take on it.  

[Mgmstl]

I understand what you are saying here. I think there is something inside all of us that would like for the IF to have survived. Kurth is very convincing, but then there is that pesky DNA thing.

I have always thought it was a terrible fate for the children, however, I don't have as much problem with the parents being executed, they were the heads of government, they bore responsibility, but the children did not. while I don't believe she was AN,  I have a nagging doubt on whether or not she was FS.

I have no doubts though about the accuracy of the Bolshevik firing squads.

[Finelly]

Actually, I'm not one of those people who would want one of them to have survived.  I can't think of anything more horrible than for one of the kids to have lived after seeing everyone go down.

Well, anyway....it's a mystery...but a different kind of mystery than existed when Kurth published the book!

[helenazar]

This absurd theory that AA was a "chimera".....can someone elaborate?  Not the lion-headed fire breathing monster of Greek myth, I take it.....but a figment of the imagination?  Hers?  Ours?  What exactly IS this theory?

Hi Finelly,

This transpired before you got here, maybe about 4 months ago, on a thread which has been locked (justifiably so and none too soon) due to the usual nastiness that accompanied these AA/FS discussions when certain posters were present. The thread was called "So who was she then"(meaning "so if AA was not AN then who was she")...
On her desperate quest to prove that AA was not FS, Penny Wilson came up with a theory that AA must have been a chimera, which means, simply, someone who has two different DNA sequences that are inconsistent with each other. Penny Wilson obviously has very little understaning of molecular biology and DNA science and should have stayed away from theorizing on the subject, but when I tried to explain to her that her theory is not valid because even in the extremely unlikely event AA was indeed a chimera (which does exist), AA's mtDNA would still remain the same. PW then accused me of lying and of sabotaging her research, and generally slandered me simply because she did not like what I was saying since it put a lot of huge holes in her theories about AA.  

After she finally realized that the chimera theory did not have a leg to stand on, PW once again threw a fit and  threatened to leave the forum, as she had done many times in the past, and deleted her posts. In this case, I don't think anyone bought into the chimera theory, because it was too outlandish for even the people on this forum who buy almost any theory, no matter how bizarre!

If you are interested to read exacty what transpired when the chimera theory was discussed, you can probably find this thread among the old locked threads in this topic. It may have been "So who was she then, part II" because the first part was also locked... I can't remember now, nor do I want to remember, since I have no inclination of revisiting that whole incident, which was extremely unpleasant... But it is one of the reasons why I am very reluctant to take part in these discussions these days, even though I can contribute a lot to those who truly want to understand facts.

My point is, this just goes to show you the extreme lengths some people will go to in order to try to prove themselves correct in this AA/FS saga, even coming up with theories that don't come close to reality in anyone's wildest dreams. So please be careful of what you read here, even if it comes from someone who seems to be a credible source... Sad, but true.

[Mgmstl]

Hi Finelly,

This transpired before you got here, maybe about 4 months ago, on a thread which has been locked (justifiably so and none too soon) due to the usual nastiness that accompanied these AA/FS discussions when certain posters were present. The thread was called "So who was she then"(meaning "so if AA was not AN then who was she")...
On her desperate quest to prove that AA was not FS, Penny Wilson came up with a theory that AA must have been a chimera, which means, simply, someone who has two different DNA sequences that are inconsistent with each other. Penny Wilson obviously has very little understaning of molecular biology and DNA science and should have stayed away from theorizing on the subject, but when I tried to explain to her that her theory is not valid because even in the extremely unlikely event AA was indeed a chimera (which does exist), AA's mtDNA would still remain the same. PW then accused me of lying and of sabotaging her research, and generally slandered me simply because she did not like what I was saying since it put a lot of huge holes in her theories about AA.  

After she finally realized that the chimera theory did not have a leg to stand on, PW once again threw a fit and  threatened to leave the forum, as she had done many times in the past, and deleted her posts. In this case, I don't think anyone bought into the chimera theory, because it was too outlandish for even the people on this forum who buy almost any theory, no matter how bizarre!

If you are interested to read exacty what transpired when the chimera theory was discussed, you can probably find this thread among the old locked threads in this topic. It may have been "So who was she then, part II" because the first part was also locked... I can't remember now, nor do I want to remember, since I have no inclination of revisiting that whole incident, which was extremely unpleasant... But it is one of the reasons why I am very reluctant to take part in these discussions these days, even though I can contribute a lot to those who truly want to understand facts.

My point is, this just goes to show you the extreme lengths some people will go to in order to try to prove themselves correct in this AA/FS saga, even coming up with theories that don't come close to reality in anyone's wildest dreams. So please be careful of what you read here, even if it comes from someone who seems to be a credible source... Sad, but true.

You know Helen, Penny is not here to defend herself and I think some of these comments in you post are  totally uncalled for, regardless of your past dealings with Penny. I thought you were above this sort of thing, and in all fairness to Penny and her outstanding work on FOTR with Greg King (sorry) , all of the evidence needs to be looked at, not just the DNA side of it, can't we do it without the disparaging of character & motive.