Anastasia's Supporter Among the Forum Members

[annaanderson]

2. Finger #2 was tested and found not to match the mtDNA sample provided by HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, as would any finger found from Alexandra's siblings. What this test proved is that Finger #2 could not have come from a child of Alice of Hesse (born HRH Princess Alice of Great Britain, et al). Which means Finger #2 was not Ella's.

Yet that is exactly why some state that the tissue and hair were not Anna's.

[Louis_Charles]

No, it isn't. The finger's provenance was not certain, and there were plenty of opportunities for either inadvertant contamination or an honest mistake, i.e. Ella's companion in death's body was shipped with Ella's after they were removed from the pit.

This is not the case for the Andersen tissue sample. The Forum Admn. has given you sufficient explanation as to why contamination at Martha Jefferson was not possible. The staff at Martha Jefferson was consulted, and the protocols of how the sample was handled were explained. Richard Schweitzer, who is presumably more interested in this matter than any of us, has been unable to impeach the evidence. To state that the "switch" could have taken place is flying in the face of forensic and scientific evidence. I know that people do it --- a quick glance at the threads will tell you that --- but as to why they do it in this particular case, I honestly have no clue. It seems to me that the answers are as varied as the people involved. There is a romantic appeal to the idea of a survivor, I suppose. There is the pleasure one might take in seeing experts confounded. I can think of several other reasons. But I have to say, it seems odd to me that in this one case, people are stubbornly unwilling to accept scientific proof that Andersen was not a Romanov.

[Forum Admin]

I will repeat the quote I posted earlier in another thread, from a discussion I had with the head of the largest DNA testing lab in Central Texas (Cenetron Diagnostics) on this very subject.

He said to me "Obviously those people who question that DNA testing (the AA/FS tests) just don't understand the underlying science. Anyone who does, understands why it is reliable and accurate. If they question that, they just don't understand."

(HIS opinion...not mine necessarily)

[annaanderson]

This is not the case for the Andersen tissue sample. The Forum Admn. has given you sufficient explanation as to why contamination at Martha Jefferson was not possible. The staff at Martha Jefferson was consulted, and the protocols of how the sample was handled were explained. .

I don't see how this would even matter if certain members of the staff were in on it.

[Louis_Charles]

I'm sorry, but not surprised, that you don't see it. Please remember that this speculation is libelous unless you can prove it, and of course you can't.

Regards,

Simon

[Forum Admin]

I'm sorry, but not surprised, that you don't see it. Please remember that this speculation is libelous unless you can prove it, and of course you can't.

Regards,

Simon

Simon,

Just about here in the discussion, as every time we get here, I am reminded of a local Texas expression: Don't try to teach a pig to sing. It will just frustrate you and annoy the pig. AA doesn't want to learn to sing...

[RealAnastasia]

The only thing it's clear for me, is that we can't said it was a switch or even that we "suspect" it was. And the only way to FA and others here to accept that we have this theory is to point a name as a guilty of the switch, a think that you KNOWS WE CAN'T DO EVEN IF WE WOULD KNOW WHO THIS CULPRIT WAS.  

I will not repeat what I stated some post above, but I'll say again that speculation about a switch could be made even if we doesn't  know who did it. To exige us to point a culprit is absurd. If we does it we must start legal procedures toward this persons (or persons) or expect that he or she or they made it toward us accusing us of difamation. We are here to discuss HISTORY MATTERS, not to go deal at a trial.

The people who accepts DNA results as valids read the same books and articles than the few ones who are still supporting Anna's claim read. The first group takes their own conclusions from these books and articles; the second one does the same. We are not personally involved in all this. We are not judges, nor detectives, but HISTORIANS (at least in my case) or simply people interested in the Romanovs. Historians can sometimes find culprits (or supposed culprits), but not always. It's not their mission.

I will explain a little more this. It is almost 99% certain now that the Emperor Nero didn't burned Rome as most historians said in the past.  It is almost demonstrate that he didn't. However, a thing remains unclear: who REALLY burned Rome? There are lots of theories but none of them is officially accepted. Nevertheless, the fact that it is not certain who the culprit of the burning of the city was, don't mean that Nero did it himself.  We can said the same speaking about "Jack The Ripper": the women found dead at London streets were murdered. The fact that we didn't know who did it to them, doesn't avoit that you accept this.

FA can lock this thread to if he wants, since I'm "fantazising" again. I'm aware that we can't speak about a switch. All right. We wouldn't. But I want you to know that I'll keep thinking it was a switch, even if I can't said it here any more. As Saint-Just said in French Revolution: "...You can kill me; but you cannot kill my ideas". Of course, you will not kill me  , but you can said "This subject is not permited any more for it is pure fantasy and you can't demonstrate who was the switcher". And then, since I'm polite, I'll not speak about it any more.  HERE. But you cannot avoid me to post my theory in other Forums or to keep it by myself...or to write a book about the matter.

Did you imagine that people banned from here are now thinking differently than when they were regular posters here? Of course, not. And I suppose they think  more deeply than before that they were not wrong. Nothing better to a person to be more sure and even stubborn about one idea than to said her or him that she  can't think like this any more. I was not so obsedded about "Anastasia's Case" before starting to post here and be treated a s a "fairy-tale-teller" or as an irrational creature. And the more I read about the case, the more convinced I become!   Besides, other regular posters here, have they own site in the net, with their own Forums, so the fact of couldn't speak about a switch, Anna Anderson being AN or any other "survivor theory" doesn't matter for them. They can discuss the issue all the same. And this is not only for serious claimants. We are speaking about ridicoulous ones too. For example, I doesn't believe that María Marti was Maria, nor that Magdalena Veres was Anastasia...However, their relatives hold both sites in the net and you may email their owners and discuss the matter freely with them. If someone can't speak here (being right or not) they will speak away, believe me. The better way to go is to let persons to said what they wants even if they said the earth is not round. The only problem will be to the person who said it. She or he, will be ridiculized by her or his own words. If me, as AA supporter am showing to be a liar, a day-dreamer, a ridicoulous, an irrational, a stubborn etc, etc... people will know . Let me be ridiculized by myself. If I speak about a switch and there wasn't one, the only one who is doing harm to herself is...me. Nobody would take me seriously. I'm only a woman who is giving her opinion, not a judge. And I'm only repeating what Dr. Schweitzer said first. So, you must ask him directly to point out who was the culprit of the "compromising" tissues.

RealAnastasia.

[Louis_Charles]

Dear RA,

As usual you make an impassioned plea, and I respect the motivations behind it. If anyone's free speech was being abused I would even go to the barricades with you. But really ---  I haven't seen anyone banned from the board because they believed that Anna Andersen was Anastasia. I have seen people reprimanded or suspended because they were insulting in their postings, which is a different matter entirely.

Martha Jefferson Hospital is not Nero's Rome. It is a going concern in the city of Charlottesville in the state of Virginia, attached to a very important University. Historians can malign Nero or Richard III as much as they want, free from fear of legal action, but it is not a threat to point out that if someone impugns the security/safety/procedures of a modern hospital, such hospital will send a threat of legal action his/her way in short order. Think of MJH as the Ford Motor Company. If you want to say publicly that Ford makes unsafe cars, you had better be able to produce evidence that it does, or Ford will shortly own your house (maybe not yours; I have no idea what the situation is if this occurs outside the United States, but they would certainly get mine).  If you want to say that Martha Jefferson Hospital is unprofessional and post it on this board,  then yes, you need to produce evidence. All I was pointing out to Annaandersen is that such a statement without evidence is libel. I am not crushing his right to say anything. I am merely pointing out that ideas and statements have consequences.

Everytime ---- every time --- someone disputes the idea that Anna Andersen was Anastasia Nikolaevna, he or she is treated to statements about how h/she has no respect for the search for truth, the rights of free speech, the integrity of Argentina's scientific community, thinking outside the box, graphology, phrenology, psychology --- and Lord knows what else. I am sorry when the discussion turns rude (I don't mind when it has teasing, but that's just me), but if the definition of rudeness is that people dispute, well, what exactly is the point of these threads? I have learned a lot from them, I have actually learned a lot from you, and I am not prepared to be hit over the head like this.

Regards,

Simon

[Forum Admin]

RA
You can scream like a stuck pig all you want (pun intended). However you are quite right that we are indeed here to discuss HISTORY, facts NOT speculation. EVIDENCE NOT SUPPOSITION. REALITY NOT THEORY. THIS is the reason why you are required to show proof of what you claim, not just what you WISH to believe. and yes, you WISH to believe your theory despite the utter LACK of genuine evidence, which you have been repeatedly asked to provide, yet fail utterly to produce. You can only claim "well they are so good at their job they left NO evidence". Well guess what THAT IS NOT HISTORY.THAT is you speculation and NOT fact. FACT is provable by extrinisic evidence.  You wish to discuss history, I applaud that wish, however, HISTORY is based on extrinsic evidence and provable fact. THEORY is just theory...nothing more, ever.

I fail utterly to understand WHY you and AA get so upset when asked to actually PROVE your claims by showing evidence. ANY genuine, serious historian NEVER gets upset when asked to support their claims with the underlying evidence. Rather they welcome the opportunity.

Frankly, the only logical position, to me is, quoting Shakespeare "Methinks she doth protest too much"...

If you don't like your "speculations" challenged, fine. go elsewhere to peddle fairytales. HERE we demand, expect and require GENUINE EVIDENCE. THAT is our commitment to real historical research. IF you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.

[margherita]

Real A.  Q tal? I was born in Argentina too !!I can read fairly well ...in Spanish.I saw a post that you have old newspapers articles .Could you send them to me ?Please.My  e-mail is daisymae1955@yahoo.com.
Thank you!!!!!!  M

[annaanderson]

I'm sorry, but not surprised, that you don't see it. Please remember that this speculation is libelous unless you can prove it, and of course you can't.

Regards,

Simon

But you can't PROVE that there were Russian emigres feeding Anna information, yet you still believe it must be so.

[etonexile]

AA was NOT AN....that DNA thingy again...So where did she get her info?....think long and hard, Dear Ones.....

[Louis_Charles]

But you can't PROVE that there were Russian emigres feeding Anna information, yet you still believe it must be so.

This is exactly the value of the DNA evidence. It settles the question without regard to pesky things like conflicting memories (was it Maria whose finger was crushed in the accident, or Anastasia?) Obviously the DNA evidence is not convincing to you. But it is still incumbent upon you to demonstrate through evidence that staff members at Martha Jefferson colluded in the contamination of the evidence, and while I hate to sound like a broken record here, annaandersen, the FA and others have actually done their homework in this matter. They have provided ample HARD evidence that the sample could not have been contaminated at the hospital. The results of the DNA were verified FOUR times, and impartial experts have stated that there is no reason to dispute them.

Please believe me when I tell you that this is not simply thumbing my nose at your position. I met Anna Andersen in real life, I attended the University of Virginia, members of my family worked for Martha Jefferson at the time the intestinal sample was taken, and I have spent a very long time reading a LOT of information about the Andersen case.  As with several others on these threads, for at least part of my work I was inclined to accept her claims. The DNA evidence is too compelling, but you will remember that throughout her life, Anastasia Manahan's claim to be the Grand Duchess was disputed by men and women who had been in close personal contact with the real girl.  While she was able to win a "not proven" judgement in German courts regarding her identity, that does not mean that she was accepted as Anastasia. It means that there was a lot of forensic evidence that seemingly supported her claim (the Dassel testimony, some, though not all, of the graphology experts, etc.)

The DNA evidence has been in existence for over a decade, and could have been impeached at any time. Remember, these tests were performed at the behest of Andersen's supporters, not her enemies. I suspect it was to finally prove that they had been right (since Manahan was dead it could hardly help her), and it backfired.

We sometimes forget that others suffered aside from Manahan. Olga Alexandrovna, for example, endured a lifetime of strangers presenting themselves as her dead niece, and other family members were subjected to the events in Ekaterinburg being dredged up again and again.  Their motivations have been questioned, their familial loyalty mocked --- if you give Maria Feodorovna, Olga Alexandrovna and Ksenia Alexandrovna any credit at all as mothers, grandmothers, sisters and aunts, can't you see why this matter was painful for them until the day they died? The real Grand Duchess Anastasia may not have been a particularly brilliant ot lovable child, but she was loved by them, and to be confronted by pretender after pretender was surely difficult.

In any event, I doubt that you will be convinced by this argument, but I do caution you again about speculations regarding the hospital staff. Do some legwork, find out who handled the sample, and after investigative reporting of the kind that historians are expected to do, bring your findings to the board. I would look forward to reading them. But to postulate that there was a conspiracy without doing that is frivolous.

Regards,

Simon

[annaanderson]

This is exactly the value of the DNA evidence.

Yet the reason I assume the DNA was not of Anderson was because of her memories. You assume the memories were not authentic because of the DNA. There is no evidence to support either side, therefore you are in the same boat as I.

[helenazar]

Simon,

You do a great job explaining things logically, but I am afraid that your talent is wasted on these particular threads... There will always be a handful of people (for any subject similar to this one, in fact) who will not (or perhaps cannot) accept (or comrehend?) logic, and their ideas are based more on dogmatic beliefs than anything else. No matter what logical explanation, or even proof, is offered to them, they will believe what they want to believe (a good example is evolution, but we won't go there).

As I once said on another thread somewhere, if AA was still alive and came out and admitted publicly that she was in fact a Polish factory worker who tried to pull off (and almost succeeded) a gradiose scheme pretending to be a Russian grand duchess, and explained exactly how she did, who fed her info, etc., these people would claim that she is just confused, or else that she was forced to say this by some unknown conspirators. This is how strong the dogma phenomenon is...

These AA threads can go on forever, with identical arguments, and there definitely will people who will say that it is a conspiracy - no matter what. This is why I now choose to ignore certain posts and just correct blatantly wrong statements  - it saves a lot of useless typing  . P_Wadia was right, they are sort of internet trolls in a lot of ways, because they refuse to debate fairly and logically and just end up causing unneccesary strife among posters . Thankfully there are many other people here who are intellectually capable of understanding the difference between logic and dogma!