RA...please don't think any of our exchanges are on a personal level...You have been around long enough to feel like "family"...but please consider the very clear and concise questions of the FA. I should also wish you to consider your Dr. friend...How did you approach this person?...Was he/she a very busy person with their own projects who took a moment to quickly read over some vague material?...
I do not think it is personal. This is that makes me a little upset. If it was personal, I could ignore your post and go ahead. Of course I consider the FA questions and I understand his point of view. I know that there were four different test in four different labs. I know all the factual evidence of AA being FS.
I cannot answer the FA questions. Not yet. But this is not meaning I could be worng or right. I will give you an example:
A person is discovered dead, and the police doesn't know if this person dead by suicide, natural causes or murder. One of the detectives involved in the case, concluded that it was a suicide, but other guessed that this person was really murdered. Well...Anyone would start by asking to the detective who believes in the murder thoery who the murder was. The first question would be: "How did you realize that it was a murder?". And then, the detective would answer which are his reasons to suppose it was a murder. Only later, he'll try to find what reasons the murder had to kill this person. And then, yes he may start to guess WHO had those reasons to kill this person. Even like this, there are murders never solved. I'm in the first moment of my case, in the "Why did you suppose that it was a switch?". Of course, if I may travel and do proper research in the Charlottesville area, interview more people and go look for original documents, I will be able to answer all the FA questions. And not only for the sake of this thread, but for I'm very interested myself, and perhaps I end writing a book about the whole case.
Currently, the only thing I can do is said that I know. (Sorry, but the "animal example" is very useful to me.
). If I'm seeing an elephant , I couldn't deny myself and said I'm seeing a lion. As the little children story: I'm seeing the King naked, even if all people keep saying how beatiful clothes he had. I do not know why the king is naked, I do not know who persuade him to go around naked. But the king is naked.
However, I agree to leave this subject off, if you really like it. There are other issues equally interesting in the board. However, I still asking to myself what's the use to admit AA's threads here, since the matter is officially "closed". It is clear that DNA said she was FS, and the people who still believe she was who she claimed to be, can't for the moment , prove it. Until we wait for this case to be solved (sorry but I think it isn't solved), we may let AA's threads off and discuss other "Survivors" , inestead. If not, when I read a thread about AA I can't help myself to join the discussion and said what you know I will said. :-/ And since the AA-FS supporters have nothing new to add, nor AA-AN supporters it's a little nonsense to continue to argue.
As for my friend, I already explained who he is, and how I knew him, but if you can read the whole thing again, here it is: Dr. Carlos Kuz IS my friend. He is an athropologic expert and a forensic senior. He is mycolleague at the University where both of us are working currently. There, I teach History. There, he teachs Anthropology. He also works for the Police to identify missing people or criminals wanted by the justice. He was in the team who identify 10.000 missing persons murdered in the Militar Dictature of 1976-1983. There, he knew a Geneticist expert, Dr. Belisario Otamendi. I get intetersted Kuz first, showing the mixed up photos of AA-FS and AN. After he identified AA to AN he was freezed when I said to him that DNA had said otherwise. So, he proposed me to go see a friend of him, this Otamendi I didn't know already. I know his name as a geneticist, but not him personnally and never thought to know him at any time. Kuz bring me to see Otamendi and we spoke of possibilities of switch in DNA testing. Later, I gave him to read the Massie's book chapters I quoted above and I meet him again a month later. Then we discuss the case again and I interviewed him about it. This day I gave him the electronic adress of this site, the one with the John Godl article and the Peter Kurth one. We meet again a month later and I interviewed him a second time. (I have the record tapes as I have the ones with Kuz interview ) . And that's all...Since then, I never meet him again. He is not my personal friend. Of course, he is man with a lot of work, but Kuz (not me) get him interested in the case. He said me that any time I need his help, I could see him. After him I interviewed a psychologic expert (Graciela Lucci) who is my mother's personal friend; a psychiatrist Eduardo Bischoff; a graphologist , Enrique Mosquera; an actor , Guillermo Marín; a photograph expert , Pompeo D'Azzierno; a doctor , Alejandro Pavlovsky a Polish resident , Mrs. Stanislawa Kuchansky and a Russian resident Mrs. Rosa Petrov.
Of course this is not enough to state anything, but it is a start. Now, I must try to contact with other geneticists, other anthropologic experts , Doctors, psychiatrist, etc...
Hope I've answered what you wanted to know.
Warm Wishes.
RealAnastasia.
