One thing I find odd

[Tania]

imho, since we already have a few, if not more, 'pushing' for responses, I think it should be explored...and since it an open question for many, I think it would be 'odd' not to have it discussed. It's great to hear both sides from any as many who feel they need to discuss this. If Ra-Ra had stated that she wanted only one perspective on the issue, it should have been stated, and not changed by one person in mid-stream...

Tatiana+

[J_Kendrick]

. . . 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?

jk

Quoted directly from Dr. Peter Gill's published mitochondrial DNA report: "Identification of the remains of the Romanov family by DNA analysis", Drs. Peter Gill, Pavel Ivanov, et al.  Nature Genetics, Volume 6, February 1994, page 131....

"If the remains are those of the Romanovs then the STR and sex test data indicate that one of the princesses and Tsarevich Alexei were missing from the grave.  This would support some historical accounts which indicate that two bodies were either burned of buried separately.  Alternatively, two individuals may have survived the murders."

So.... You were saying.... ?

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

Mr Kendrick, why do you keep stating the obvious as if it were ground shattering news?

Yes, we know two people MAY have survived as there are two bodies missing from the grave.  We are, at present, discussing the likelihood of this possibillity.

When it comes down to it, this possibility is so incredibly slim as to be highly unlikely.  There are several reasons that have been discussed over and over on this board as to why this is the case.

At the moment, there is nothing concrete to prove 100% that Alexei and one of his sisters died in the massacre.  We all know this and nobody can deny it. 

However, the rules of logic would suggest, from all the information we have about the brutality of the execution, not to mention Alexei's haemophilia, that two people somehow surviving would be nigh on impossible.

Trains were reportedly searched for missing members of the IF- as Tsarfan said, this could be for any number of reasons OTHER than that they really were looking for missing members of the IF.

A truck got stuck in the mud during which Edvard Radzinsky, a playwright by profession, let's add, has started the theory that two most probably dead children could have fallen off the truck or been rescued from the truck at that time and therefore survived.  This could be true, but it's also highly likely that it isn't.

Anastasia also apparently was taken to a house opposite the Ipatiev house in the early hours of the morning after the massacre and reportedly nursed back to health.

Anastasia also, if we believe Anna Anderson, sat on the back of a cart on her way to Romania and had a baby along the way.

So many stories...we can't possibly believe them all, can we?

You know what I think? Yurovsky said he and his soldiers killed the IF.  He said where they would be buried, and he also said that two bodies would be missing because he burned them. 

And you know what? What Yurovksy said was true; the IF were buried where he said, and two bodies were missing, like he said.

So, if we're going to believe anyone, why not Yurovsky? At least we have evidence that backs up his claim.  Concrete evidence.  We don't have that for anyone else.

Rachel
xx

[Tsarfan]

"If the remains are those of the Romanovs then the STR and sex test data indicate that one of the princesses and Tsarevich Alexei were missing from the grave.  This would support some historical accounts which indicate that two bodies were either burned of buried separately.  Alternatively, two individuals may have survived the murders."

So.... You were saying.... ?

The claim was made that DNA testing supported Alexei's survival . . . not the possibility of his survival, but his actual survival.  In fact, Gill's report proved only that Alexei was missing from the grave.  Gill acknowledged his findings could equally well support the reports that two bodies were burned or buried separately.  Yet OTMA-fan conveniently omits that, and you boldface only the survival possibility. 

Also, at the time this report was written, only Y-STR testing was available.  This would indicate whether any two males were related paternally, but it would not indicate who the males were.  (X-STR testing, which tests for paternal relationships between a male and a female, has only become available since 1994.)  All the DNA tests proved was that there were not two paternally-related Romanov males in the mass grave.  It took a physical examination of the skeletal remains to determine that the one male Romanov in the grave was an adult male instead of an adolescent.

So, tell me again how DNA testing proved Alexei's survival?  All DNA testing did was create the conditions for elimination that allowed forensic evidence to be dispositive.  And I freely admitted that forensic evidence proved Alexei was not in the mass grave.

Yurovsky was under orders to kill the entire imperial family.  He put them in a small room and opened a hail of gunfire on them.  When the gunfire failed to kill everyone, time and effort was taken to bludgeon and stab those still showing signs of life in order to be sure all the victims were dead.  One of those victims was a frail, lame boy who bled profusely at relatively minor injuries.  And that boy was the heir to a throne which the Bolsheviks were murderoulsy determined not to see rise over them again.

Eyewitness accounts say they all died.  Everything known about the motives of those ordering and those executing the massacre indicates an intent to kill them all.  The execution squad was formed almost at the last minute to be sure that potentially-sympathetic guards would not falter in their resolve or have an opportunity to attempt an omission or rescue.  Reports were made of attempts to burn some of the bodies and of a disorganized burial attempt in multiple locations decades before any grave was shown to have bodies missing.

Giving various possible interpretations of evidence, why would anyone favor only those interpretations which keep that small boy alive?

This is not indicative of trying to find the truth.  It's indicative of trying to keep a desperately-desired hope alive.

[Tsarfan]

I've been thinking about the above post, which I know splits a few hairs.  So I should explain why I think this is important.  This site is visited by many newcomers, either to Russian history or to this particular topic, and by people who are just beginning their study of history.

To make a statement such as "the DNA supports Alexei's survival" looks on the surface to be an assertion of a fact that is proven with weighty scientific evidence such as DNA.  Many people will take such a remark at face value and inevitably begin to restate it in the retelling.  Very quickly the message that gets into circulation is that a Russian history website contains information that "DNA proves that Alexei survived."

When referring to scientific evidence -- especially evidence that sounds so compelling to lay ears as do DNA findings -- those references should accurately reflect what the evidence does and does not show.  Standing alone, this DNA evidence showed nothing about Alexei.  It merely showed there were not two paternally-related male Romanovs in that grave.  Other evidence was required to determine Alexei was not in the grave.  And even that evidence proved only that for some reason he was not buried with his family.  It says nothing about what that reason might be.

[OTMA-fan]

Tsarfan, I will discuss this issue later, to refute some of your argument. Just so you know I am not ignoring your response. Today is Monday, and I have to go to work today.

[Lemur]

It is even possible that wild animals may have dragged off and devoured the bodies if they fell off the truck!

I am no fan of Yurovsky, but honestly, would anyone doubt his word about the burned bodies when everything else he told us has turned out to be true? The only reason must be that some people are desperate to believe the claimants.

[Louis_Charles]

I do think that people should distinguish between suppression of freedom of speech, and "pushing for" responses (whatever those may be, or that phrase may mean). Rachel is right: the possibility of the boy surviving shots in the basement is slim to none. This does not mean that he couldn't have been alive when the shooting was finished (although even that strikes me as unlikely --- surely after Nicholas, Alexei was the one person the shooters would have wanted dead for sure); as King and Wilson have made a case, it is possible that several people may have been alive at the end of the shootings. As they also say, this does not mean that they survived for any significant amount of time.

But this isn't really the issue on this thread, is it? The issue is now whether the boy was in the room at all --- there is no other explanation that allows for the survival of a hemophiliac other than that he wasn't there. If you think that entertaining these suggestions is freedom of speech, have at it. But in the end, there is an invincible resistance to logic manifested by people like JKendrick. And while it is fine for him to maintain his positions, don't try and pass it off as some kind of heroic stance against the oppression of the majority, i.e. those of us who accept the forensic evidence that he is dead. The lack of a body in the grave does not argue for survival. It argues for the lack of his body in the grave.

[Bev]

Well said, LC.

[Belochka]

I do think that people should distinguish between suppression of freedom of speech, and "pushing for" responses (whatever those may be, or that phrase may mean). Rachel is right: the possibility of the boy surviving shots in the basement is slim to none. ...

... If you think that entertaining these suggestions is freedom of speech, have at it. But in the end, there is an invincible resistance to logic manifested by people like JKendrick. And while it is fine for him to maintain his positions, don't try and pass it off as some kind of heroic stance against the oppression of the majority, i.e. those of us who accept the forensic evidence that he is dead. The lack of a body in the grave does not argue for survival. It argues for the lack of his body in the grave.

Well stated Louis_Charles!

The assassins had a task to complete. If one of the victims happened to breath for a longer period than those around them, it is erroneous to suggest that this scenario lends itself to survivability. Forensically speaking one can only state that the time of death was not the same for all persons in that room.

I agree with the statement that the absence of finding a body to date does not argue for the remote possibility of survival.

Margarita

[J_Kendrick]

If you think that entertaining these suggestions is freedom of speech, have at it. But in the end, there is an invincible resistance to logic manifested by people like JKendrick. And while it is fine for him to maintain his positions, don't try and pass it off as some kind of heroic stance against the oppression of the majority, i.e. those of us who accept the forensic evidence that he is dead. The lack of a body in the grave does not argue for survival. It argues for the lack of his body in the grave.

First, you speak of logic.  Then you speak of "those of us who accept the forensic evidence that he is dead."

There is NO forensic evidence of Alexei's death at Ipatiev!!   

This is as simple as the logic can get.

No Bones equals No Evidence!

Everything else is purely supposition, and nothing more.

Once again, I will use a current day example that everyone can understand.

It had recently been reported that Osama Bin Laden had died of typhoid... but... Before that same story can be said to be true, Osama Bin Laden's mortal remains must first be recovered and positively identified.

Until that same proof of his physical remains has actually been found and positively identified, the claims of Bin Laden's death must be presumed to be false.  There is far too much at stake to assume otherwise.  Every possibile fate imaginable must still continue to be investigated, until that day finally comes when Osama Bin Laden is actually found and positively identified.

The same is true of the missing Romanovs.  Until that same proof of their actual physical remains has been found and positively identified, the claims of their deaths at Ipatiev cannot be assumed to be true.  Every possibility imaginable must still continue to be investigated, including the possiblity of their survival -- no matter how loudly you may protest against it --  until that day finally comes when those same missing bodies have actually been found and positively identified.

jk

[Annie]

No one ever found Michael Romanov's body either. Do you claim that means he could be alive too?

[Louis_Charles]

If you think that entertaining these suggestions is freedom of speech, have at it. But in the end, there is an invincible resistance to logic manifested by people like JKendrick. And while it is fine for him to maintain his positions, don't try and pass it off as some kind of heroic stance against the oppression of the majority, i.e. those of us who accept the forensic evidence that he is dead. The lack of a body in the grave does not argue for survival. It argues for the lack of his body in the grave.

First, you speak of logic.  Then you speak of "those of us who accept the forensic evidence that he is dead."

There is NO forensic evidence of Alexei's death at Ipatiev!!   

This is as simple as the logic can get.

No Bones equals No Evidence!

Everything else is purely supposition, and nothing more.

Once again, I will use a current day example that everyone can understand.

It had recently been reported that Osama Bin Laden had died of typhoid... but... Before that same story can be said to be true, Osama Bin Laden's mortal remains must first be recovered and positively identified.

Until that same proof of his physical remains has actually been found and positively identified, the claims of Bin Laden's death must be presumed to be false.  There is far too much at stake to assume otherwise.  Every possibile fate imaginable must still continue to be investigated, until that day finally comes when Osama Bin Laden is actually found and positively identified.

The same is true of the missing Romanovs.  Until that same proof of their actual physical remains has been found and positively identified, the claims of their deaths at Ipatiev cannot be assumed to be true.  Every possibility imaginable must still continue to be investigated, including the possiblity of their survival -- no matter how loudly you may protest against it --  until that day finally comes when those same missing bodies have actually been found and positively identified.

jk

You certainly have a narrow definition of forensic evidence. There is ample testimony that the boy was in the room and that he was shot. If you care to dispute it, go for the gold, but you are going to have to impeach an awful lot of eyewitnesses. On the other hand, there is a respectable tradition for this kind of argument. I think it started with "Unless I can put my hands into the wounds I shall not believe . . ."  Of course, that one didn't exactly go the way Thomas wanted it, either.

I did not protest "loudly" against anything, so knock that sort of thing right off. I only pointed out that your positions are flying in the face of a preponderance of evidence. If you could have heard me, you would have marvelled at my dulcet tones.  If you read my post a bit more carefully, I said that you were entitled to your beliefs. But surely you, JKendrick,  recognize that even as  you are performing your iconoclastic push-ups and then sitting up to say "Whee! Have you ever seen anyone as insightful and outside-the-accepted-norms as me in the way I look at history?" that your positions are, um . . . is 'marginal' acceptable? As in, very few people hold them --- indeed you are the only one I have ever heard seriously try to maintain that Alexei (1) survived and (2) didn't have hemophilia. So there it is.

Am I incorrect in concluding that you do not accept that Alexei was in the cellar? I am curious.

Simon, known to God as "Louis_Charles"

[Belochka]

There is NO forensic evidence of Alexei's death at Ipatiev!!   

No Bones equals No Evidence!

Everything else is purely supposition, and nothing more.

jk

Let us view it this way, John. There is more than adequate convincing accumulated evidence available, based on depositions submitted by the guards, and such like, that would lead a reasonable mind to draw a safe conclusion, that Alexei died with his entire Family in the Ipatiev house.

There is no single document that points to another conclusion, only your highly improbable speculive verbalizations. You had the obligation to provide the burden of proof but you failed to establish that to any degree of satisfaction. The preponderance of evidence falls against you.

Why not admit that you made a gross error of judgement?

Margarita

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

At the risk of sounding like a 12 year old American cheerleader, I'm going to say, 'You go, Simon!'.

The problem I have with people like Mr Kendrick, Chat_Noir, etc, is that they refuse to consider all evidence they don't agree with.

All the emphasis is placed on the missing bodies and what that may mean.  Well, why don't we focus on the evidence that explains why they are missing? Why was Yurovsky lying when he said he burned the two bodies and buried the remains elsewhere? Why can't this be the truth? 'Yurovsky was a lying murderer' isn't good enough- what reason, what EVIDENCE do you have, that this testimony wasn't true? Just because the bodies haven't been found yet, it doesn't mean they won't be. 

As Annie rightly brought up, Michael Romanov's body was never found.  But no one disputes his death.  Why are people so worried about the missing bodies of Alexei and one of his sisters, but not about Michael's? Why is Michael considered to be safely dead, but the other two not?

You can't pick and choose in history.  You can't have one rule for one situation and another for others.

Rachel
xx