101 Reasons AA was GD Anastasia

[Eddie_uk]

The statements I have read that AN did not know German are patently false and such statements were spread by Pierre Gilliard himself.  .

Pierre Gilliard spreading false storys?? Oh please!!! What on earth next??

Ive heard of Grand Duke Ernie and Grand Duchess Olga lying to defraud their neice (along with similar disrespectful & outrageous slurs) but WHY Pierre Gilliard?? Please explain what possible reason he had to deny AA was AN!!

[Kransnoeselo]

Hey

Let me clarify my statement that Monsieur Gilliard made false statements with regards to the AA case. This is no supossition-this is a well documented fact.  In his book La Fausse Anastasie he made several statements which were later proven false. (Such as his statement that there was not a Malachite room in one of the palaces as AA stated-which in fact there was.  Or his statement that there was not a samovar at the army headquarters at Stavka/Mogilev as AA stated-which is was later proven there was)  The one statement that he made that I am making reference to is that AN did not know German. *Please see my ealier post with the quote from the book File On the Tsar-which quoted German court documents which were from M. Gilliard own papers which showed the time tables for the Ducheses German lessons in Tobolsk.

 I am NOT trying to infer that M. Gilliard believed AA to be AN.  I am thoroughly convinced that he did not believe AA's claim. Wether he simply forgot about the German lessons or not is another matter altogether but he did (wether knowingly or unknowingly) promulgate the myth that the Duchesses never studied German.  This is well documented; again please refer to M. Gilliard's own book La Fausse Anastasie as well as The File on the Tsar, and Anastasia The Riddle of Anna Anderson.

Tim

[Annie]

I really do feel that Gilliard has been misquoted by AA supporters over the years, such as the hairdo quote. There is no way he's going to accuse AA of copying AN's hairstyle in Tobolsk when AA's hair was very long and twisted up in a bun, and AN had been shaved totally bald after the March revolution due to measles and her hair was short for the rest of her life. Gilliard himself took the bald pics of the GDs so he knew better. It would be to the advantage of AA supporters to discredit him, since he was one of the main opponents and had known AN so well. Poor Ernie was dead and Olga continued to be accused of lying all her life. What happens to the guy in the movie who 'knew too much?' He's rubbed out, right? Well, if you can't rub someone out physically, the next best thing is to set out to destroy their credibility so no one will believe anything they say. I've seen this happen in real life, sadly.

IF he DID make proven false statements in his own book, there are two possibilities- one, he just plain remembered wrong, as I suspect was the case in many of the 'hesaidshesaid' pro AA comments about shoes, height, etc. It happens to the best of people. Also, it is possible, I suppose, that he said things to help boost the case against her that weren't true, though he knew she really wasn't AN, he wanted to add more to his side. This is not good, as it hurts your case in the long run. It's like the LAPD in the OJ case, they knew he did it, but in trying to make sure he was found guilty, they shot themselves in the foot and left suspicion that helped get him off. But that doesn't mean OJ is innocent,and AA was certainly not AN.

[AGRBear]

I really do feel that Gilliard has been misquoted by AA supporters over the years, such as the hairdo quote. There is no way he's going to accuse AA of copying AN's hairstyle in Tobolsk when AA's hair was very long and twisted up in a bun, and AN had been shaved totally bald after the March revolution due to measles and her hair was short for the rest of her life. Gilliard himself took the bald pics of the GDs so he knew better. It would be to the advantage of AA supporters to discredit him, since he was one of the main opponents and had known AN so well. Poor Ernie was dead and Olga continued to be accused of lying all her life. What happens to the guy in the movie who 'knew too much?' He's rubbed out, right? Well, if you can't rub someone out physically, the next best thing is to set out to destroy their credibility so no one will believe anything they say. I've seen this happen in real life, sadly.

IF he DID make proven false statements in his own book, there are two possibilities- one, he just plain remembered wrong, as I suspect was the case in many of the 'hesaidshesaid' pro AA comments about shoes, height, etc. It happens to the best of people. Also, it is possible, I suppose, that he said things to help boost the case against her that weren't true, though he knew she really wasn't AN, he wanted to add more to his side. This is not good, as it hurts your case in the long run. It's like the LAPD in the OJ case, they knew he did it, but in trying to make sure he was found guilty, they shot themselves in the foot and left suspicion that helped get him off. But that doesn't mean OJ is innocent,and AA was certainly not AN.

I highlighted these words in Annie's post:

>>Also, it is possible, I suppose, that he said things to help boost the case against her that weren't true, though he knew she really wasn't AN, he wanted to add more to his side. This is not good, as it hurts your case in the long run.<<

I agree.

To make matters worst,  not only did Gilliard seem to be boosting his case,  he, also, destroyed evidence.  And, he admitted having done so to the Judges in AA's court trial.


AGRBear

[Eddie_uk]

I agree with Annies point too,  thats if Gilliard did say things to boost his case.

I know it's not right, if that is the case, but I ask myself why would he of done that? He had nothing to gain by identifying AA if she really had been AN.

I think Gilliad was just so certain AA was definitely not AN he wanted to "embelish" his belief, or proof if you like, a bit more.
I can't think of any other reason. He knew she was not AA and just threw in a bit extra (which was not necessarily the truth) for good measure!! If that makes sense!!

[Annie]

I agree with Annies point too,  thats if Gilliard did say things to boost his case.

I know it's not right, if that is the case, but I ask myself why would he of done that? He had nothing to gain by identifying AA if she really had been AN.

I think Gilliad was just so certain AA was definitely not AN he wanted to "embelish" his belief, or proof if you like, a bit more.
I can't think of any other reason. He knew she was not AA and just threw in a bit extra (which was not necessarily the truth) for good measure!! If that makes sense!!

It does make sense, that's what I was getting at with the OJ analogy. I think he was guilty and the LAPD knew it, but when the allegations of tampering and planted evidence came out (and some of it may be true, to bolster the case) it made it look like he was innocent and framed, which of course he was not. That could be what Gilliard did, add a few things he thought would make things look worse for AA that he tried to cement it, but when (IF, I'm not sure) he was caught in lies, the AA supporters only used it as 'evidence' he was untrustworthy and 'framing' her. This is most unfortunate, because I honestly believe he was devastated by the loss of his pupils and hurt by the claimants. He fought AA until he died in 1962 at age 83, long after his alleged 'payroll boss' Ernie and his family died in 1937.

[Tania+]

[size=9]Destroying evidence is not right, be it for any case, for any reason in those years, or to date. This was actually documented by the courts that Monsieur Gillard destroyed evidence ?

Was Gillard ever questioned Bear, of why he destroyed the evidence ? In later years did he state anything about this Bear ?

Thanks, and thanks for your stepping forward to be of assist for me. Your very kind, and a special person. I thank you for your generosity of heart, and your depth of sensitivity.

God Bless Bear !

Tatiana[/size]

I really do feel that Gilliard has been misquoted by AA supporters over the years, such as the hairdo quote. There is no way he's going to accuse AA of copying AN's hairstyle in Tobolsk when AA's hair was very long and twisted up in a bun, and AN had been shaved totally bald after the March revolution due to measles and her hair was short for the rest of her life. Gilliard himself took the bald pics of the GDs so he knew better. It would be to the advantage of AA supporters to discredit him, since he was one of the main opponents and had known AN so well. Poor Ernie was dead and Olga continued to be accused of lying all her life. What happens to the guy in the movie who 'knew too much?' He's rubbed out, right? Well, if you can't rub someone out physically, the next best thing is to set out to destroy their credibility so no one will believe anything they say. I've seen this happen in real life, sadly.

IF he DID make proven false statements in his own book, there are two possibilities- one, he just plain remembered wrong, as I suspect was the case in many of the 'hesaidshesaid' pro AA comments about shoes, height, etc. It happens to the best of people. Also, it is possible, I suppose, that he said things to help boost the case against her that weren't true, though he knew she really wasn't AN, he wanted to add more to his side. This is not good, as it hurts your case in the long run. It's like the LAPD in the OJ case, they knew he did it, but in trying to make sure he was found guilty, they shot themselves in the foot and left suspicion that helped get him off. But that doesn't mean OJ is innocent,and AA was certainly not AN.

I highlighted these words in Annie's post:

>>Also, it is possible, I suppose, that he said things to help boost the case against her that weren't true, though he knew she really wasn't AN, he wanted to add more to his side. This is not good, as it hurts your case in the long run.<<

I agree.

To make matters worst,  not only did Gilliard seem to be boosting his case,  he, also, destroyed evidence.  And, he admitted having done so to the Judges in AA's court trial.


AGRBear

[ChatNoir]

[size=9]
Was Gillard ever questioned Bear, of why he destroyed the evidence ? In later years did he state anything about this Bear ?[/size]

The court asked Gilliard to produce the originals of certain photographs and handwriting specimens, and he had to admit that he had burned everything. The judge then told Gilliard before he was dismissed to look well in his archives and inform the tribunal of anything found. The court never heard another word from Gilliard. He suffered a car accident on the way back to Lausanne and never recovered from his injuries. Four years later, in 1962, he died.

Kind regards,
Chat Noir

[AGRBear]

THE FILE ON THE TSAR  p. 176:

>>Gillard survived until 1962, and remained on of the most vociferous supporters of the massacre story.  While testifying during the "Anastasia" case in 1958, he startled the juge by admitting that he had deliberately destroyed releavnt docutments.<<

AGRBear

[AGRBear]

I assume that Peter Kurth wrote something but not being familar with the Anastasia's books,  I have to follow the name Gilliard from page to page until I find the quote.

Meanwhile,  I ran across this interesting tid-bit about the German Court p. 297:

>>During a civil proceeding like Anastasia's  the judges are free to hear or not hear, as they please, any witness cited by the lawyers, and they may issue a ruling whenever they fell the accumjulation of evidence warrants it.<<

>>A witness may be asked to take the oath when his testimony is finished, if the judges regard the evidence as particularly imprtant or if they hope to catch a witness in perjury.  And so the oath takes on a special significance in German law.<<

A couple of pages over  p. 299 talks about Gilliard testimony and it appeared that he had thought his book was all that he needed.  Unforntately for him, the Judges wanted know directly from him what he knew.  He was warned of being asked to swear and oath.  

>>Judge Werkmeister refused to be sidetracked:  "A book is not evidence, M. Gillard."  But now the judges did turn their attention to the contents of  The Flase Anastasia.  The wanted to exaimine some of the original documentation-- above all, the excited letter Shura Gilliard had received in 1925 from Grand Duchess Olga, the letter that had first moved the Gillards to meet Anastasia in Berlin."

"I don't have it anymore."

Then what about the Gilliard's corespondence with the Duke of Leuchtenberg:   "Is it true that you failed to reply to three of his letters?"

"Yes...no.. I don't know anymore."

The correspondence with Harriet von Rathlef?

p. 300

"No, I have nothing."

With Grand Duke Andrew?

"I have not spoken to him since the Revolution!"

"In his voice," said Dominique Aucleres, "there was nothing but distain for this one Romanov who had dared to recognize 'the actress,' "But there wasn't much point in going on.

"Refresh your memory over the weekend," Judge Werkmeister snapped.  "I have more questions to ask you."<<

Farther don the page of 300 which talks about his testimony when he returned.

>>In the The False Anastasia, said the judge to Gillard, "you published certain photographs and handwriting specimens.  We would like to see the originals.  If you don't have them with you, the tribunal asks tht they be sent."

Gilliard fairly cried the words:  "I don't have them anymore!  They're burned!  I destroyed them.  I have nothing anymore."<<

AGRBear

[Annie]

Oh, I was not aware he was so elderly when this happened. At 79, having lived the stressful life he did, it is possible he burned them by mistake (I have a 79 year old aunt who recently, sadly threw away some very old family photos, but remembered and regretted it) It's also possible he said they were burned or gone because he was sick and tired of messing with the case, and thought if people thought they were gone, they'd leave him alone.

[AGRBear]

Oh, I was not aware he was so elderly when this happened. At 79, having lived the stressful life he did, it is possible he burned them by mistake (I have a 79 year old aunt who recently, sadly threw away some very old family photos, but remembered and regretted it) It's also possible he said they were burned or gone because he was sick and tired of messing with the case, and thought if people thought they were gone, they'd leave him alone.

I don't have the exact dates when Gilliard testified accept that Gilliard died four years later in 1962.  So that would have been  1958.  He was born in 1879. Yep, 79.  

Does anyone know if his mind was still sharp at 79 when he was in court?

What kind of injuries did Gilliard suffer in the accident?

AGRBear

[Tania+]

[size=9]Dear Bear,

Reading the German Court Transcript is a Legal standing record, not changeable of what has transpired of a given court proceeding.[Transcripts of court records have same legal standing globally i believe

My question is this : Monsieur Gilliard was very well educated, and quite knowledgeable about right and wrong, most importantly telling the truth. He achieved status to that of being educator to the Tsar's children. There is no way that I can think he 'accidently' destroyed these papers that you so kindly listed for us. I don't think the Tsar, or the Tsarina would have employed anyone that would betray truth, and ask to be tutor to their children.

Monsieur Gilliard knew specifically these were original items, and their veracity so needed by the court. For some reason, Monsieur Gilliard deliberatly destroyed everything.

It may have been partially because of the emotional connect and all the issues to date, bearing down on Monsieur Gilliard, and his having to bear the responsibility of answering to the court directly. I would imagine that this was more than he could take on. But as well, I think there were other things that entered into this view, of which we will never know. Thank you for sharing of the information.

Tatiana+ [/size]

[size=9]

I assume that Peter Kurth wrote something but not being familar with the Anastasia's books,  I have to follow the name Gilliard from page to page until I find the quote.

Meanwhile,  I ran across this interesting tid-bit about the German Court p. 297:

>>During a civil proceeding like Anastasia's  the judges are free to hear or not hear, as they please, any witness cited by the lawyers, and they may issue a ruling whenever they fell the accumjulation of evidence warrants it.<<

>>A witness may be asked to take the oath when his testimony is finished, if the judges regard the evidence as particularly imprtant or if they hope to catch a witness in perjury.  And so the oath takes on a special significance in German law.<<

A couple of pages over  p. 299 talks about Gilliard testimony and it appeared that he had thought his book was all that he needed.  Unforntately for him, the Judges wanted know directly from him what he knew.  He was warned of being asked to swear and oath.  

>>Judge Werkmeister refused to be sidetracked:  "A book is not evidence, M. Gillard."  But now the judges did turn their attention to the contents of  The Flase Anastasia.  The wanted to exaimine some of the original documentation-- above all, the excited letter Shura Gilliard had received in 1925 from Grand Duchess Olga, the letter that had first moved the Gillards to meet Anastasia in Berlin."

"I don't have it anymore."

Then what about the Gilliard's corespondence with the Duke of Leuchtenberg:   "Is it true that you failed to reply to three of his letters?"

"Yes...no.. I don't know anymore."

The correspondence with Harriet von Rathlef?

p. 300

"No, I have nothing."

With Grand Duke Andrew?

"I have not spoken to him since the Revolution!"

"In his voice," said Dominique Aucleres, "there was nothing but distain for this one Romanov who had dared to recognize 'the actress,' "But there wasn't much point in going on.

"Refresh your memory over the weekend," Judge Werkmeister snapped.  "I have more questions to ask you."<<

Farther don the page of 300 which talks about his testimony when he returned.

>>In the The False Anastasia, said the judge to Gillard, "you published certain photographs and handwriting specimens.  We would like to see the originals.  If you don't have them with you, the tribunal asks tht they be sent."

Gilliard fairly cried the words:  "I don't have them anymore!  They're burned!  I destroyed them.  I have nothing anymore."<<

AGRBear

[/size][size=9][/size]

[ChatNoir]

Pierre Gilliard burned his papers after the Central District Court in Berlin ruled for the first time that all of Nicholas II's children were dead and that his collateral heirs were thus entitled to anything that remained of his property in Germany. This was in 1933, making Gilliard 53 years old. Hardly senile enough to burn papers in total bewilderment like Annie's aunt.

Kind regards,
Chat Noir

[ordino]

So, why Gilliard did it?
 Sorry, but I don´t understand your point (about Gilliard)
I always had thought that Gilliard for some strange  motive hated AA, in the same way I think that AA was AN.
So after to read all your message the question is, Is Gilliard a correct witness for  the cause of AA=AN, I answer, not, because he was eviently against the idea that AA was AN. The existence of the Malaquita room is a good point (like much others) for the supporters of AA. By the way, are there anybody who is supporter of AA?. Thanks for the oppinions. Ordino