One thing I find odd

[lexi4]

...she was a very beautiful woman with a strong resemblance to GD Tatiana. .This claimant's son's mtDNA did not match either of the Victorian descendants', so I thought that would be the end of the case. However, the son told me that he now believes he was not his mother's natural son!

So are you saying that this claimant claimed to be GD Tatiana? If the son knew that he wasn't her natural son, why did he bother having his mtDNA tested in the first place, and only fessed up that he "wasn't her natural son" after it didn't match? Sounds quite murky to me...

I think it's called grasping at straws, m'dear. Let me try to be clearer so you will be able to agree with me, or at least, be able to see my point.

I was contacted by the claimant's family, who had already obtained the Victorian DNA sample. I told them they should be tested. (The claimant was desceased by the time I was contacted.). I suggested they test the woman's children who were living at the time instead of exhuming the claimant. The son's mtDNA did not match that of the maternal line of Queen Victoria. IOW, we could exclude this man as being related in the maternal line to Empress Alexandra, Princess Alice, or Queen Victoria (and any of their matrilineal ancestors). The test clearly showed the claim was false. Nothing was murky, I was done.

Then (and only then), the son said, he was not his mother's natural son.

If I recall correctly, are there not other living relatives who have not yet been tested?

After all, this particular claimant's likeness to Tatiana is nothing short of remarkable!!  Not to mention the very curious personal connections this claimant is said to have had to both Eugenia Smith's publisher, Robert Speller, and to Anna Anderson's biggest promoter, Gleb Botkin.

And yes, it is entirely possible for Tatiana to be the missing daughter.  If the American forensic team has correctly identified Body 5  as Marie and the Russian forensic team has correctly identified Body 6 as Anastasia, then the missing Grand Duchess is Tatiana.

jk

I agree with you here Jkendrick. I too have seen photos and the resemblance in remarkable.

[lexi4]

I found this interesting. This is from the book Sisu by Oskari Tokor.
"The trip back was made moer rapidly - but I almost lost my youngest son. Late in the night, beyond Perm, the train was stopped at some wayside station and surrounded by Red militia. They searched the train with great thoroughness. The passengers learned that they expected to find the Czarevitch Alexei, the Czar's 13-year-old son, who had escaped from Jekaterinburg!
"My son was sharing a compartment with our imterpreter. As soon as the militia saw the boy the pounced on him. He was the same age, and the same height, and - they declared - he looked the same as teh Czarevithch. The interpreter tried to assure them tha the boy was Finnish and did not even speak  a word of Russian, but no one would believe him. Finally the interpreter remembered that the Czarevitch was said to be lame, and he came up with his last trump. My son was marched up and down the corridor, and everyone watched closely to see if he limped. When the militia were convinced he walked straight on his own two feet, they let him go.
"Every compartment, every corner, of the train was searched, and the pillows and mattresses so thoroughly bayonetted that not a mouse could have remained alive in them. Perhaps the son of Czar Nicholas II succeeded in escaping. Perhaps he remained somewhere among the living when his family was executed behind the tall plank fence surrounding the villa in Jekaterinburg."

pp. 176-177.

This Lexi4's discovery is interesting to me, because it's not about the false claimant, which I got tired of. But it's about Red Army (is it same thing as Red militia?). There is no reason Red Army orchestrated to "set up" this laborious searching, just to deceive someone. If they wanted to deceive someone, they could have easily issued the statement that "We have Alexei, he is alive". The more I read this, the more I am convinced that this is true. But I will wait until Lexi4 can post the copy of this page on AP site. This is an important evidence.

But this account has no information regarding the date. When did this happen?

Thank you very much for your kind remarks. The book is very difficult to find. I was lucky. The book is not about the IF, although they are mentioned. It is Oskari Tokoi's autobiography. I apologize for not responding sooner. Somehow, I missed your posts. I believe the train incident happened late in July, 1918.

[OTMA-fan]

Just because a person is a politician doesn't mean their word is of any more value than anyone else's. In fact, IMO, I regard a politician's word with LESS credibility, considering how they will lie or kiss anyone's butt or change sides in a heartbeat to get what they want.

Annie, you are using the "Straw Man" tactics. I never said all politicians tell a truth. I said that the source of this particular account is authentic enough to be taken seriously for further argument, compared to other obscure resource such as a notorious claimant or a book written by unknown author. Just like you think Yurovsky's account is authentic, I find Tokor's account is authentic. 

[lexi4]

I think that the only thing that the quote from the book substantiates, is that the train was searched. He does not say that Alexei survived or offer any proof of that, merely mentions the possiblity. As the book is his autobiography, this is but a small part of the book.
He does not mention it again. However, I do think that it is another example of how some believed that there were survivors and actively searched for them.

[OTMA-fan]

Alexei had haemophilia and was able to survive fourteen years though... IF he wasn't wounded during the attack is there a reason why he wouldnt survive any longer? I am not familiar with that disease enough to know survivor statistics. But after fourteen years it sounds plausible that he would be familiar enough with his body and his illness to be more cautious and aware of his symptoms to avoid activities that would cause him further harm . . . .

 

This desperate desire to believe that some member(s) of that family survived is really quite remarkable.  The extent to which people will reach to the outer limits of improbability to support bizarre "what if" scenarios is much more about the emotional needs of the believers than about the good of the victims.

Anna Anderson -- the only claimant who garnered any serious support -- was publically repudiated by Anastasia's closest surviving relatives.  She was courted by opportunists and charlatans throughout her life.  She lived a half-crazed old age amid filth and stray cats.

Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna -- who died in poverty over a hair salon in Toronto -- once said that she never let herself cry, because were she once to start she would never be able to stop.

Why is it so very, very important to grasp at straws to convince oneself that any of the imperial family survived?  What good does it do them or their memory?  What good does it do you?

Tsarfan,
You are using the "Poisoning the Well" maneuver here.
Person A says X.
Persons B attacks the motive/character of person A (A is conspiracy theorist etc), instead of refuting the X.

Do not shift the subject to issues with other claimant. That's not discussed here.
We are talking about the Sisu account, which Lexi4 posted first. 
If you want to join the topic, you have to discuss on what ground you conclude the PM of Finland lied about the train incident.
For example, if you could prove that Tokor didn't have a son, I would conclude that he concocted the whole account.

Without any DNA or forensic evidence (in fact DNA supports Alexei's survival), history is about "who said what". When two authentic individuals say contradictory thing, it's incumbent upon us to analyze the discrepancy, is it not?   

[OTMA-fan]

Thank you, Tsarfan! I agree 100%.

OTMA-fan, you are right- Alexei not surviving is not a historical fact.  I didn't say it was. 

However, if we are thinking logically, and not with our 'conspiracy theory' hats on, we have to admit to ourselves that the likelihood of Alexei surviving is slim to none.

Facts:
1. Alexei had haemophilia.  I don't believe a word of Mr Kendrick's little theory that Alexei didn't have haemophilia.
2. Alexei nearly died from the bleeding stemming from small bumps several times.

Things we cannot be 100% sure of because we weren't there, but can be pretty certain about due to what evidence we have:
1. Alexei was in the basement of the Ipatiev house during the shooting.
2. Alexei got shot several times, including at least once through the head.

Therefore, using these four pieces of information, two true, two most likely to be true, we can conclude BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that Alexei would not have survived the execution.  If banging his knee caused him to nearly die, I really fail to see how he could have been shot and somehow managed to magically pull through, especially with the medical assistance available back in 1918.

You people, I am convinced, live with your heads in the clouds. Your constant attempts to deny the deaths of the IF fly completely in the face of pretty much all the evidence available to us.

Rachel
xx

Ra-Ra,
You are shifting the subject too.
My central question is how to reconcile two contradictory testimonies. Without DNA/forensic evidence, all we have is witness' testimony. When we find a new testimony, we have to consider in a whole new perspective. To you, it's "BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT", but to me, this Sisu account is creating a "reasonable doubt". If I were a jury, I would say "not guilty".
Please provide an argument as to why the PM of Finland had to lie in his book.

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

I'm perplexed as to why just because someone held a post of responsibility, they are automatically assumed to be trustworthy.

The logic in this belief comes from....

Rachel
xx

[lexi4]

I'm perplexed as to why just because someone held a post of responsibility, they are automatically assumed to be trustworthy.

The logic in this belief comes from....

Rachel
xx

Look, all he said was that the train was searched. It is an autobiography, written as a reflection of his life. He DID NOT say that Alexei survived, he did not claim any knowledge etc. He said perhaps...as if musing. He made no cliams other than to share his experiences of a train ride in July of 1918.
I think some are missing the forest for the trees.

[Annie]

Just like you think Yurovsky's account is authentic, I find Tokor's account is authentic. 

I guess everyone is going to believe what they choose to believe because it suits their needs. Whatever. Still looks like grasping at straws to me. We have no idea if one man's word is even true or accurate.

[OTMA-fan]

Just like you think Yurovsky's account is authentic, I find Tokor's account is authentic. 

I guess everyone is going to believe what they choose to believe because it suits their needs. Whatever. Still looks like grasping at straws to me. We have no idea if one man's word is even true or accurate.

Annie, even if Alexei was indeed dead and the Red Army made a "fake search", that would be interesting to me to know why they did that.
Even if the search never happened, but the ex-PM of Finland concocted the story, that would be interesting to me to know why he did that.
And if Tokor's account was correct, and the Red Army was really looking for him, that would be really really interesting.
I have no clue why you are so negative about my attitude.

See, our difference here, I am just interested in this historical puzzle, while  you are interested in discrediting other's view based on your agenda.

[Annie]

I have no 'agenda' but that word makes me quite sure you are not really a newbie.

I have heard all the old stories and they were fun for awhile but the fact is they all died and we're only wasting time with all these silly games. We just need to find the bodies and put a stop to all this endless speculation.

I'm really quite sick of it all. If you get off on it that much knock yourself out!

[Tania]

OTMAFan, I think the idea of this thread, is to express what one finds odd about whatever it is that is 'odd' on this thread.
That is what people are allowed to do is to state what they wish, nothing less. I think you have articulated what is of interest as well. Since there are no actual bodies to date, speculation will continue, and people will chose what they will, because that is just what people do, globally.

Remember again, though there are those whom post on these threads, there are countless thousands who have not shared their vote with anyone, and the vote at large has never been taken, and the bodies never found. So again, continue to offer your views freely, because there are some who may agree with you, and then some who will not. But, whatever is offered, or not, members and non members will draw their own conclusions, and come to what they wish to believe, as they do with everything in life.  As I recall on the other threads, people were almost crucified just for offering their thoughts on anything, and I hope that this will not again transpire. Thanks for sharing.

Tatiana+

[grandduchessella]

Just as an FYI for anyone interested:

The Finnish Center at Saima Park in Fitchburg, MA (USA) has a memorial to him since he lived many years (died in fact) in the US. A quay in Helsinki, Tokoinranta, is named after him as well:

http://www.saima-park.org/images/oskari_tokoi_2.jpg

During the war in 1918, he served on the red side and was  "kansanvaltuuskunnan elintarvikekomissaarina," commissioner of foodstuffs for the people of the democracy.  He served as an Officer -- British command "Finnish Legion" – from 1918 to 1920. 1944, Tokoi was pardoned by the Finnish government for his involvement in the side of the Reds during the revolutionary years, when they admitted how valuable his contributions were to the achievement of Finland’s independence from Russia.

This was written of his parliamentary time: "He was well liked by the other members of his party which resulted in him being elected speaker of the Eduskunta in 1913. In 1917 he was elected to head the Senate of Finland." This was a confusing time for Finland--wasn't it around this time they asked Prince Friedrich Karl of Hesse to be their King? What was the position of prime minister in such a chaotic period? There seems to have been a split amongst the parties, with leftist groups wanting to form a govt headed by Tokoi and not recognizing the government of Pehr Evind Svinhufvud. There were 4 Vice - Chairmen of the Economic Department of the Senate (they were the Prime Ministers, apparently in this system) in 1917. It made Tokoi the first Social Democratic prime-minister in the world.

"After the war he fled to Russia. Between 1919 and 1920, he worked as a political advisor for the Murmansk Legion which was organised by the British to fight the bolsheviks. Because of the war, Tokoi couldn't return to Finland and was forced to flee, first to England and Canada and later in 1921 to the United States. Here he became an editor at the newspaper "Raivaaja"."

There was also a bit of information about his daughter: "In that city, according to Rautkallio's findings, it was Tyyne Tokoi who according to Moscow's orders (i.e. Kuusinen) prepared the local communist Finns for liquidation. It was typical for many communists like Tyyne Tokoi that after she had completed her task in the liquidation process, she herself disappeared in the Siberian labor camps. "

Here are a couple pictures:

http://www.tsl.fi/tanner/kuva21iso.html

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Oskari_tokoi_drawing.gif

http://www.genealogia.fi/emi/art/article257h.jpg

http://museot.keski-pohjanmaa.fi/kannus/valokuvat/Oto1.jpg

[Tsarfan]

If you want to join the topic, you have to discuss on what ground you conclude the PM of Finland lied about the train incident.

I never said Tokoi lied.  I was challenging the view put forward that Yurovsky's account of the massacre -- that of a "murdering Bolshevik" -- should be dismissed simply because a Finnish politician said a train got searched for Alexei.

The train might well have been searched for any number of reasons:  it was part of a Bolshevik disinformation campaign; some army officers who were not in the information loop between Moscow and Ekaterinburg were dispatched because a local commander heard rumors that Alexei was on a train; they were searching for someone else and the story got muddled and more spectacular as it spread among the passengers.  Any of these or similar scenarios could explain why Tokoi observed what he reported without necessarily making a lie of Yurovsky's account.

And, by the way, this topic is considerably broader than the Tokoi account, so I must respectfully reject your order that I keep my posts so constrained.

[Tsarfan]

. . . in fact DNA supports Alexei's survival . . .

Uh, exactly what kind of DNA test could support Alexei's survival?  A DNA test might be able to prove that a body is or isn't the remains of someone . . . if a DNA sample of the person in question is available.  But there are no known samples of Alexei's DNA.  The DNA tests that were done on the remains were only probative of whether the bodies found in the mass grave were related to known relatives of the Romanovs.  The tests could not confirm specific identities.  The conclusion that Alexei's body is missing is based on forensic physical examination of the skeletal remains in the grave, not on DNA evidence.

I know some people really, really want Alexei to have survived.  They discount the report made by the murderers.  They ignore the extremely strong motivation the Bolsheviks would have had to be sure the heir to the throne was killed in their massacre.  They either argue he was not really a hemophiliac, or that all the bullets and bayonet thrusts missed him, or that he miraculously recovered from bullet or beating wounds despite his hemophilia.

But now to argue that DNA supports his survival is pushing it a bit, don't you think?