Claimants of Grand Duchess Marie Nikolaevna

[Forum Admin]

Caleb,
once again you just dont do your research. It has been explained over and over that there is a very good chance that the finger came from Sister Varvara, Ella's companion, who's body was in the mine with hers. They were both dressed identically and it could have been a simple switch of identification. Second, there is no stable chain of possession of the finger, which was kept in a small box and trotted out hundreds of times and handled by hundreds of strangers.

Really, your genuine lack of understanding HOW dna testing works and the science underneath it is appalling...

[calebGmoney]

Did you actually know that skeleton that was found was very short? That couldn't be Maria, Maria was wasn't short she was tall, she was maybe even tall as Tatiana.
So, I think we most conclude that Anastasia is indeed among the dead, on that night.

No. The bodies were all too tall to be Anastasia.

[calebGmoney]

Caleb,
once again you just dont do your research. It has been explained over and over that there is a very good chance that the finger came from Sister Varvara, Ella's companion, who's body was in the mine with hers. They were both dressed identically and it could have been a simple switch of identification. Second, there is no stable chain of possession of the finger, which was kept in a small box and trotted out hundreds of times and handled by hundreds of strangers.

Really, your genuine lack of understanding HOW dna testing works and the science underneath it is appalling...

Sorry Forum Admin, but plainly, you do not know whose body the finger came from. Nor does thinking that the finger could have come from Elizabeth have anything to do with understanding DNA testing. All I stated was that I could not be 100% certain of the bone's authenticity, I never declared they were not, yet that didn't stop all of you from attacking me.

[Forum Admin]

Sorry Forum Admin, but plainly, you do not know whose body the finger came from. Nor does thinking that the finger could have come from Elizabeth have anything to do with understanding DNA testing. All I stated was that I could not be 100% certain of the bone's authenticity, I never declared they were not, yet that didn't stop all of you from attacking me.

Lord you aren't even capable of critical thinking?? First you say "You still can't explain why you think Ella's finger was not her's, despite that fact that it obviously was."...Now, Look at your one statement "plainly, you do not knw whose body the finger came from." EXACTLY THE POINT. NO ONE knows who's body the finger came from.  THAT nullifies the use of the finger for dna testing completely as it is not a reliable source.  SO stop citing the testing the finger dna as evidence of ANYTHING.

[Robby]

No. The bodies were all too tall to be Anastasia.

My information was the skeleton was short.

And, indeed Holly, Thank for Forum Administrator!

[calebGmoney]

Lord you aren't even capable of critical thinking?? First you say "You still can't explain why you think Ella's finger was not her's, despite that fact that it obviously was."...Now, Look at your one statement "plainly, you do not knw whose body the finger came from." EXACTLY THE POINT. NO ONE knows who's body the finger came from.  THAT nullifies the use of the finger for dna testing completely as it is not a reliable source.  SO stop citing the testing the finger dna as evidence of ANYTHING.

I think this is very rude and all I did was make a suggestion that it was probably Ella's finger. I did not deserve to be attacked.

[Forum Admin]

How utterly disingenuous and irresposilbe of you Caleb to go shouting to high heaven "that the finger IS that of GD Ella" over and over and insisting on how vaild the testing is as a result, then when called to task, you retreat to a pathetic "I suggested it probably was..." Sorry pal, but in here you're held accountable.

Further Caleb, there is no "new" evidence about the reliability of the mtDNA testing being questioned. As I wrote elsewhere you are taking a four year old statment by Greg out of context. It is not new, and the reliablilty of the DNA testing is NOT questioned.

THE SUBJECT THAT THE DNA TESTS ARE NOT RELIABLE IS CLOSED UNTIL/UNLESS A PEER REVIEW SCIENTIFIC PAPER IN SUPPORT OF THE UNRELIABLITY OF SUCH TESTING ACCOMPANIES THE STATEMENT. Clear?

[calebGmoney]

My information was the skeleton was short.

Yes, but this information is clearly not true, and even if it was, I don't think it matches Dr. William Maple's conclusion of the vertebrae.

[Tsarina_Liz]

Yes, but this information is clearly not true, and even if it was, I don't think it matches Dr. William Maple's conclusion of the vertebrae.

Caleb,
 With the theory of the vertebrae (the fusion and the rings) what you must realize that a person does not automatically stop growing when they reach their 18th birthday.  There is unfortunately an age window so large it could contain both Anastasia and Marie.  While conclusions drawn from vertebrae analyzation are certainly helpful they cannot be totally reliable especially when the tests are trying to determine the difference between people of such close age as Marie and Anastasia were and in such a critial age period.  
 But, I must admit I only know the basics of this sort of testing/analyzation and not the specifics.  Any docs, anthropologists or archeologists on this board who know more about it?
- Liz

[calebGmoney]

Caleb,
  With the theory of the vertebrae (the fusion and the rings) what you must realize that a person does not automatically stop growing when they reach their 18th birthday.  There is unfortunately an age window so large it could contain both Anastasia and Marie.  While conclusions drawn from vertebrae analyzation are certainly helpful they cannot be totally reliable especially when the tests are trying to determine the difference between people of such close age as Marie and Anastasia were and in such a critial age period.  
  But, I must admit I only know the basics of this sort of testing/analyzation and not the specifics.  Any docs, anthropologists or archeologists on this board who know more about it?
 - Liz

According to Dr. William Maples, he has never seen a case where the vertebrae of a girl who has not reached the age of 18 did not show some immaturity in the vertebrae. He also stated that the skeletons of the other girls were all too tall to be Anastasia. When looking at photographs, you'll see that she was easily the shortest of the girls. Marie was actually pretty tall near the end. In my personal opinion, this is far more convincing than comparing photographs with skulls.

[Tsarina_Liz]

Yes.

Uh-huh.  Anyways.  Dr. Maples is one expert, just one, and no one truly interested in science ever stops at just listening to one person's 'testimony.'  It is impossible to put a human being into a timetable like Maples does.  He also has a limited range of experience (dead people, I believe) and I would like to see him collaborate with some actual physicians and other bone experts (Lord help me, I can't remember the correct words) before proclaiming to the world that at the age of 18 all growth stops and you can always go by the bones and therefore the skeleton in the grave is Anastasia.

Also, because there is no real photographic evidence there is nothing to support the idea that at the very end Anastasia was still the shortest.  She may have had a growth spurt while in captivity.  Seems like she was due one...  

[calebGmoney]

Uh-huh.  Anyways.  Dr. Maples is one expert, just one, and no one truly interested in science ever stops at just listening to one person's 'testimony.'  It is impossible to put a human being into a timetable like Maples does.  He also has a limited range of experience (dead people, I believe) and I would like to see him collaborate with some actual physicians and other bone experts (Lord help me, I can't remember the correct words) before proclaiming to the world that at the age of 18 all growth stops and you can always go by the bones and therefore the skeleton in the grave is Anastasia.

Also, because there is no real photographic evidence there is nothing to support the idea that at the very end Anastasia was still the shortest.  She may have had a growth spurt while in captivity.  Seems like she was due one...  

But yet the only one concluding that Marie is missing is Dr. Abramov.

[Robby]

I really believe Anastasia lies in her grave with her family, all the way from 17th of july 1918.

And I don't believe in Anna Anderson her story is very unbelievable (my opinion!).
It's just such a strange, almost fictional, story what she told, what should have happended that night.
I really think she was a liar, and if she did was Anastasia why did she never spoke Russian? (Answer because she couldn't, not because she didn't wanted to speak it)
Trash story of Anderson!

[Tsarina_Liz]

But yet the only one concluding that Marie is missing is Dr. Abramov.

So you have a head to head clash of scientists.  Now it comes down to thoroughly investigating each of their claims and getting information from other experts in the fields.  The arguments you need to begin with are largely presented here on various boards.  

I for one, having looked at both doctors have to discredit Maples simply because of his single mindedness when it comes to bone growth and rings.  He's created an absolute where there shouldn't be one.  

Now you have to come up with your own conclusion using critical thinking.  

[helenazar]

Dr. Maples is one expert, just one, and no one truly interested in science ever stops at just listening to one person's 'testimony.'  It is impossible to put a human being into a timetable like Maples does.  He also has a limited range of experience (dead people, I believe) and I would like to see him collaborate with some actual physicians and other bone experts (Lord help me, I can't remember the correct words) before proclaiming to the world that at the age of 18 all growth stops and you can always go by the bones and therefore the skeleton in the grave is Anastasia.
  

Dr Maples won't be collaborating with anyone any time soon, he died about 5 years ago... But I agree with your assessment T_Liz, when it comes to human biology, variations can be significant.

P.S. I can tell you for a fact that I grew at least two inches between the ages of 17 and 20!