Author Topic: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.  (Read 26780 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Finelly

  • Guest
Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
« Reply #45 on: August 07, 2005, 11:58:22 PM »
My daughters, my mother, my sons, my great grandmother, her 6 children, all share the same dna.

Which one of us is named Paul?

Offline Helen_Azar

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 7472
  • Coming up Fall 2015: Tatiana's diaries and letters
    • View Profile
    • War-time diaries of Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna Romanov
Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
« Reply #46 on: August 08, 2005, 02:41:14 AM »
Quote
One can be an "S" without being "FS."


Yes, of course one can be an "S" without being an "FS", but the whole point here is that the chances of this happening in this particular situation are statistically less then 99.9%. This is what I and others have been trying to explain all along, but it seems not to come across for some reason. Talk to a statistician about this case, and you will then understand  :).

Offline etonexile

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1231
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
« Reply #47 on: August 08, 2005, 10:00:48 AM »
Yes...F is the S family member who went missing....I can't imagine that there were too many S family members of her description missing at the same time....

Offline Helen_Azar

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 7472
  • Coming up Fall 2015: Tatiana's diaries and letters
    • View Profile
    • War-time diaries of Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna Romanov
Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
« Reply #48 on: August 09, 2005, 06:10:00 AM »
You see, the whole point is that AA's mtDNA turned out to be consistent with her being the person that she was suspected of being for a very long time. The chances of this happening randomly, as you claim, are basically none. That's the main point of all this.

Your argument that AA could have been an "S" but not necessarily "FS" could only be valid if they had no idea who AA was to begin with, then the DNA test was done and she matched a random family of which she was then suspected to be the member of, i.e. the S family.  If this were the case, any statistician would agree: yes, AA could have been any maternally descended member of this family.

But no, this is not what happened. AA was for many years suspected (and accused) of being one "Fransicska Schankowska" (sp?), initially as per the private investigator hired to find out who she was, and also others, including initially her sister.

Only after many years, the DNA test was done to confirm whether she could indeed have been this person and the DNA did confirm that she had the "right" DNA. Again, statistically, the chances of this happening randomly are, for all intents and purposes, nil. Thus, we can very safely conclude that AA could not have been anyone else but FS, not even any other random member of that family.

No matter what anyone says, the science and the statistics speak a lot louder than the testimonies of eyewitnesses,  - as is always the case (and that's all we have really for the contradicting evidence: things were reported to be this way or that - she was reported to have black hair, or size 8 shoe, or whatever).

This is why I am not even sure why AA's identity is still being seriously challenged...  ??? Challenging something like this is indeed like challenging that the earth is still flat just because you can't see that it is round and can't understand the proof that it is round...  Prove to a 2 year child that the earth is round, if the child does not even understand the concept of gravity for instance - to him the earth has to be flat, no matter what you say. You can't prove this to him, until this child grows up and gains the ability to think in abstract terms. Unfortunately, there seem to be a lot of adults out there who still can't seem to be able to think in those terms either...

What you guys should be discussing is how can all the discrepencies that apparently contradict the science be explained, not the fact that these discrepencies render the science wrong. And in fact, I am more than sure that there are perfectly logical explanations for these discrepencies, because the science in this case is absolutely not wrong, no matter how you look at it.

Offline etonexile

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1231
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
« Reply #49 on: August 09, 2005, 09:45:22 AM »
Yes...it would make an interesting thread...why AA seemed to match AN in various ways,knowing as we do today that she wasn't Anastasia,and was most likely FS.
A very strange story.....

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4756
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
« Reply #50 on: August 09, 2005, 09:50:29 AM »
Thank you Helen! I was hoping you'd come back and explain it to the new people since you are an expert.

People who say she was an S but not FS, who? Did she have a mysterious identical cousin who went missing exactly the same time as FS, and in the same place, isn't that more than a stretch?

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
« Reply #51 on: August 09, 2005, 10:57:04 AM »
This is not a thread about discussions .  It is about writing a list of alll the reasons the posters believe or find evidence of  AA not being FS.

The creator of this thread wrote how she wanted this thread to be conducted.  

Those of you who have a difficult time allowing this kind of thread  PLEASE,  we understand, however, repect the original posters directions.

For those of you who do not underrstand, PM me and I'll try to explain it, again, so you can understand how simple this task is.

If you have difficulty with a particular post or would like to know more about a post,  then, start your own thread.  Respect this thread and  you'll find others will repect yours when you create one.

Thank you.

Respectfully,

AGRBear
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Mgmstl

  • Guest
Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
« Reply #52 on: August 09, 2005, 12:55:04 PM »
Quote
Annie, I am going to ask you once again to put any posts that do not have substantiation, i.e. a source/cite, on another thread.

THIS thread is about evidence, actual evidence, and is confined only to that.  Please don't disrupt what is a very good thread so far.



Still trying to gather more Grossman data.  For our review.

Offline lexi4

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
  • don't take yourself too seriously
    • View Profile
Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
« Reply #53 on: August 09, 2005, 01:35:40 PM »
Great Michael. I will look forward to that.
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely, in a pretty and well preserved body; but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, "Wow ---- What a ride!!!"

Offline RealAnastasia

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1890
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
« Reply #54 on: August 09, 2005, 09:10:19 PM »
28- Doris Wingender identified AA as FS watching an AA pic in a German newspaper. But there was a big trouble with this photo. I'll quote Peter Kurth account of the Germany Trial (Second Instance-1964-1967) here: "...Wollmann would not let up. He had located a copy of 'Die Woche', the Berlin magazine in which, said Doris, she had first recognized Franziska Schanzkovska in a photograph of Anastasia.

-'...In this photograph?-Wollmann asked.

-'Yes'.

-'And it was on seeing THIS picture that you went off to the 'Nachtausgabe'?'

-'Yes. I don't feel well.

-'And it was   THIS picture which allowed you to conclude that the invalid at the Castle Seeon...was your Polish girl?'

-'Yes'

-' I suppose the fifteen hundred marks wewrn't going to be paid unless you made an identification'

-'Correct. As soon as the identification was made'

Wallmann handed the magazine to the Judges. The photograph of Anastasia's face, they saw was little more than a smudge of ink-a white blob with two black circles for eyes and another were the mouth was supposed to be.

-'Why - said Judge Bäthge-' from that you could recognize anydody or nobody'.

Doris got to the point . Dominique Auclères observed that she had gone as white as the wall.

-'I'm sick!- she cried -'I've got the flu!"..." (Peter Kurth-Dominique Auclères)

More to come!

RealAnastasia.

jeremygaleaz

  • Guest
Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
« Reply #55 on: August 09, 2005, 10:27:02 PM »
Quote
Right.  She was completely discredited at the trial.


To the best of my knowledge, she is the main source for the height issue (FS being taller than AA). So why is that aspect of her testimony being held onto here with nothing to back it up?(Unless I've totally missed something and her "height statements" are backed up by another source?)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by jeremygaleaz »

Offline Helen_Azar

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 7472
  • Coming up Fall 2015: Tatiana's diaries and letters
    • View Profile
    • War-time diaries of Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna Romanov
Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
« Reply #56 on: August 10, 2005, 02:51:45 AM »
Quote
This is not a thread about discussions .  It is about writing a list of alll the reasons the posters believe or find evidence of  AA not being FS.

The creator of this thread wrote how she wanted this thread to be conducted.  

Those of you who have a difficult time allowing this kind of thread  PLEASE,  we understand, however, repect the original posters directions.

For those of you who do not underrstand, PM me and I'll try to explain it, again, so you can understand how simple this task is.

If you have difficulty with a particular post or would like to know more about a post,  then, start your own thread.  Respect this thread and  you'll find others will repect yours when you create one.

Thank you.

Respectfully,

AGRBear



So basically you are commanding us not to have a discussion thread but to just militaristically post various statements?

But last I checked, this was still a discussion forum, which means people can discuss things, back and forth. "Discuss" means you exchange facts, ideas and opinions, and present challenges to other people's statements. If you still don't understand what this term means, PM me, and I will explain to you in more detail.

It seems to me that we are becoming a bit dictatorial here, no? We are no longer permitted to have discussions - the kinds of discussions this forum was originally intended for - but have to just post things and everyone has to just read what is posted and move on...  ? Very strange. Perhaps FA can clarify for us what we can and can't do on this discussion forum?

P.S. AGR, I am strongly convinced that you would have loved living under the Soviet regime and working in the Gulag perhaps! :o
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by helenazar »

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
« Reply #57 on: August 10, 2005, 09:26:32 AM »
If you have difficulty with a particular post or would like to know more about a post,  then, start your own thread.  Respect this thread and  you'll find others will repect yours when you create one.

Example:  101 Reasons AA Not FS Dissussion
or
Example: 101 Reasons AA IS FS Disscussion

Yes, I and others realize this is difficult for some of you.

Quote

...[in part]...

... AGR, I am strongly convinced that you would have loved living under the Soviet regime and working in the Gulag perhaps! :o


I've ask FA to serve warning to Helen because of our new "zero tolerance" rule.

Since this is not my thread.  This is Penny's thread who stated:

>>(  The rules: no discussion here -- there are other threads for that ...) <<

 I will make no farther comment to posters who are lacking respect for  the topic of this thread and the rules presented by the creator which are VERY CLEAR.

29. is next.


Respectfully,
 
AGRBear
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4756
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
« Reply #58 on: August 10, 2005, 03:19:17 PM »
Quote
Since this is not my thread.  This is Penny's thread who stated:

>>(  The rules: no discussion here -- there are other threads for that ...) <<

 I will make no farther comment to posters who are lacking respect for  the topic of this thread and the rules presented by the creator which are VERY CLEAR.

29. is next.


Respectfully,
 
AGRBear


But I thought no one could own a thread? When it was 'my' thread, people would say 'no one owns a thread, last time I checked we could post what we want' So does that only go for people you agree with? How are the rules different now that someone you disagree with has broken the 'rules' of an 'owned' thread, I mean, especially since everyone misbehaved in 'my' thread and lectured me that they could do what they want? So is it hypocrisy?  Besides, Helen has been gone fora long time, and was not aware the 'rules' had changed, if you changed them!

Helen is an expert, and her advice is always welcome. She has done a lot to explain the difference between truth and theory, and how and why things cannot be as you may think. She is more than a valuable asset to our discussions.

Mgmstl

  • Guest
Re: 101 Reasons AA was not FS.
« Reply #59 on: August 10, 2005, 04:16:50 PM »
Quote


Still trying to gather more Grossman data.  For our review.


Here is some of the Grossman dossier I have been able to gather from other threads, and from the web.  There isn't a great deal out there yet.


Since  all I have is a 3/4 page mention of Grossmann from a book about murderers, Encyclopedia of Murder by Wilson and Pitman, I can't give you much more than I already have.

p. 243-4

"GROSSMANN, Georg Karl

"German mass-murderer, born in Neurueppin in 1863, who, like Denke, commited sudice before his execution."

"The case has many resemblances to the Denke murders.  In August 1921 the owner of a top-storey flat in Berlin near the Silesian railway terminus heard sounds of a sstruggle coming from the kitchen and called police. They found on Grossmann's kitchen bed (camp bed) the trussed-up carcass of a recently killed girl.....  He picked up girls with great regularity (in fact, he seldom spent a night alone).  He killed many of these sleeping partners and sold the bodies for meat, disposing the unsaleable parts in the river.  (The case becme known as the Die Braut auf der Stulle-- 'the bread and butter brides', since a companion for the night is known as a 'bride' in Germany.) At the time of his arrest, evidence was found which indicated that three women had been killed and dismembered in the past three weeks."

"...It is of interest that Grossmann was indirectly invovled in the famous 'Anastasia case....  At one point it was annouced that "Anastasia" was really an imposter named Franziska Schamzkovski, a Polish girl from Buetow in Pomerania.  Franziska's family were told their daughter had been murder by Grossmann on 13 August 1920; an entry in his diary on that date bore the name "Sasnovski".... "

"...The number of his victims will never be known, but they may well have exceeded Haarmann's total of fifty, since he was 'in business' throughout the war until 1921...."

AGRBear

>>9:00 PM, 18 Feb 1920  
    The person who is to be known as Anna Anderson jumped off the Bendler Bridge into the Landwehr Canal, in Berlin.  She was pulled out of the water by Police Serg. Hallman and taken to Elizabeth Hospial in Lutzowstrasse  

>>End of March 1920 AA was sent to Dalldorf Asylum

>>Doctors exaimination on 30 March 1920 recorded her weight at 110 pounds and her height at just under five feet two...

>>17 June 1920 AA was fingerprinted and photographed.  These photographs were sent from Berlin out to   Stuttgart, Brunswick, Hamurg, Munich, Dresden... (Weimar Republic).  Places in Berlin, which probably included FS asylum where she spent some time more than once, were checked throughly....  Family members of those who had lost a dau., wife... were brought to see AA...  This included the family of a Maria Wacowiak in Posen....

>>autumn of 1921 AA announced she as the GD Anastasia and talked about the jewels sewn in her clothes

>>Claire Peuthert was committed to Dalldorf at the end of 1921

>>6 March 1922 Claire Peuthert tells Capt. Nicholas von Schwabe about AA, whom she said looked like GD Tatiana.... was at Dalldorf

>> 7 March 1922 Capt. Scwabe phoned his friend Franz Jaenicke and they agreeed to go to Dalldorf on Wed. , 9th of March....  Claire P. showed up at Capt. Schwabe's apartment

>> 9 March 1922  The first known contact of Capt Scwabe at Dalldorf, Ward B.  With him was Jaenicke.

>> 9 March, Wed.,  1922 the Supreme Monarchist Council heard about AA and so the word quickly spread through the whole emigre colony in Berlin....  The SMC sent guards to Dalldorf, people spoke with the doctors at Dalldorf, and people were sent to speak to the police....

>> 10 March 1922 Capt Scwabe brought to AA in Dalldorf Zinaida Tolstoy and her daughter, and, also, there was a Capt. Andreievsky

>>12 March, Sat., 1922  Baroness Buxoeveden arrived at Dalldorf to see AA with Zinaida Tolstoy.  It was the Baroness who pulled AA out of bed and declared that AA was too short to be Tatiana...  The Baroness left with little to say accept that AA resembled the GD Tatiana then went off to declare AA was not GD Tatiana as it had been thought ....  

>>____ March 1922 Later, AA declared she had never said she was Tatina, which was apparently true,  AA had said she was Anastasia and everyone realized the mistake Buxoevenden had made and Capt. Schwabe continued to help AA.   The mistake had been created by Claire P.

>> 27 July 1925:  "Shura did NOT meet AA until July 27, 1925.  She met with AA along with Ambassador Zahle, Pierre Gilliard.  So there was a full 5 almost 5 1/2 years after Feb 1920 that she met with Shura or Gilliard, " Michael wrote.

>>On May 9, 1927  AA was taken for a meeting with Felix Schanzkowska the brother of Francisca.  

>>9 July 1938:  The second meeting took place in Hannover on July 9, 1938.  At this meeting were: Marie Juliana, Valerian, Felix & Gertrude,  AA,  Fallows, Frau Madsack & Gleb Botkin, at the Police Headquarters, this meeting took place through the orders of the Government, and the manipulation of the new head of the Russian Emigre Office in Berlin  

Re: FS and the Serial Killer Theory
« Reply #35 on: Feb 22nd, 2005, 12:15pm »  Quote  Modify  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*sigh*

There are copies of Grossmann's trial transcripts -- or the German version thereof -- extant in at least one town in Germany.  Berlin, as we all know, was hideously bombed by the Allies at the end of WWII, and many, many buildings were destroyed along with their contents.  One of these buildings stored Berlin police records and archives; however, then as now, there were people interested in the phenomenon of what came to be known as serial killing.  At least one of these people, a doctor of psychology, had copies of documents from Grossmann's trial -- and his descendants allowed Greg and I access.

German court procedure is a little different from that of the US.  Here, a killer might be responsible for ten or twelve murders, but will only be charged with one or two so that there are still live cases against him should anything go wrong with the prosecution.  Grossmann's trial was not like that.  He was charged with a list of murders, some of them identified only by the name he placed in his own diary.  The evidence given was short and sweet and fairly d**ning -- he was caught red-handed (literally) with the semi-dismembered body of a young woman in his "shop."  There was also the evidence of his own hand, in the form of his diary.  Evidence was given in several specific victim cases, but not in all of them.  In the list of victims he was accused and convicted of murdering was the name "(female) Saznovski."  

This was the individual whom the Berlin police believed was Franziska Schanzkowska.  In the course of their lengthy investigation, in which they identified victims known by only one name -- like Saznovski -- information included in missing persons reports were cross-matched with the victimology, including what Grossmann had written in his diary.  What was written about Saznovski was sufficient for the Berlin police -- a highly regarded professional body -- to conclude that Saznovski was Franziska.  They broke the news to the Schanzkowsky family, and they laid Franziska to rest until 1927 when the Berliner Nachtausgabe disinterred her.