I suspect Helen may be right about the futility of this, but once more into the breach.
No. The memories are not the same thing as the DNA. Watch:
"I remember that my father had blue eyes, blue eyes of a depth that was unmatched by any in Russia. I had three sisters. We called the one just older than I "Little Bow-wow" to tease her. My oldest sister Olga was gifted at the piano, but disliked practicing. And Aunt Olga was my favorite of Papa's sisters! Each week she would bring us into her home in St. Petersburg, and we would have a lovely tea --- much better than the ones that were served at home. Even Mama used to complain about those teas, saying everyone else's was so much better."
Ergo, I am Anastasia. Why not? I "remember" these things. There's going to be a small problem with my DNA, of course, but I should mention that I am an actor, and a good one. I could sell you on these being my memories, trust me. I've actually directed Marcelle Maurette's ANASTASIA twice, and will probably do so in the fall of 2006 (everyone on this board who wants to attend, let me know, free tickets!), and each time the actor playing the Andersen character was utterly convincing in the role. But there will be that pesky DNA thing again.
I don't mind --- in fact would welcome --- a discussion that involved actual answers to questions raised in my previous post. For example, how do you account for the mistakes that Andersen made in her answers to Gilliard? Why didn't Gibbes accept her claim? You keep using the forensic evidence prior to the DNA as though it was coherent and supported Andersen 100%. If it had, why wasn't she accepted by the German courts, who were involved in the case on-and-off for thirty-odd years? Or does this "conspiracy" that you postulate include not only Martha Jefferson Hospital, members of the Schanzkowska family, Prince Philip, the Cubans/Mafia/Martians on the grassy knoll, but the German legal system as well?
Regards,
Simon
