Re: Franziska -An Interesting Story on Her own - A Timeline of Her Life #1

[helenazar]

Bear, I wasn't disputing any of this at all, but I think we were talking about different things. I was talking about general criteria for certain things, while Penny was talking about individual responsibilites or capabilities (I think    )

Helen

[Abby]

Just to give an example of "real life" proof vs "science" proof. You run into a good friend on the street. The person looks like your friend, talks like your friend, walks like your friend, etc. You of course can be sure that this is your friend. You have your so called "proof" in your "real life" mind. But "scientifically" you don't have the proof of this, scientifically there is a chance that this person may not be this friend after all. Scientifically, you have to see it this way: "there is some very small chance that this friend may have an identical twin who was separated at birth and that no one knows about, so this person could be that long lost twin". Very unlikely of course, but still a very minute possibility that cannot be discounted. Of course it's ridiculous to think this way in real life, but in science you have to, and this is why you can never say that you are 100% sure about anything. This is just to explain what I meant above...  

This reminds me of those Visa check card commercials where the celebrity forgets his I.D. and they won't accept his card because he doesn't have proof that it is him! (Even though it is, of course, because the cashier sees him in the flesh!)

[helenazar]

This reminds me of those Visa check card commercials where the celebrity forgets his I.D. and they won't accept his card because he doesn't have proof that it is him! (Even though it is, of course, because the cashier sees him in the flesh!)

Well, Abby, it is even worse than that, because at least in the Visa commercial if he presents his ID they would believe him. In science, you would still think that there is some chance that this person is not who they say they are and that  a. the documents may be really good forgeries done by this evil twin or his allies or  b. the documents may have been stolen by this evil twin. or c. anything else that is even remotely possible.

So basically, scientifically speaking, you can never prove anyone's identity 100%, no matter who they are because there can always be some outlandish explanation as to how you may not be you. This is the difference between scientific "proof" (which really doesn't exist) and "regular" proof as we all know it...

But we are getting too philosophical here and completely away from the topic, which is "Franziska's Baby?".

[helenazar]

I wasn't being confrontational.  I was expressing a different opinion, based on my experience as a published historian.

Sorry.  I won't do it again.

I think it was just miscommunication because I probably didn't make clear enough what I was trying to say, while expressing an opinion as a published scientist.

[AGRBear]

Back to time frames and baby  being born:

Franziska actually traveled home to visit, and had been home at Christmas time 1919.  

Ian Lilburn told me that during the trial, the issue of a pregnancy did arise, and Doris Wingender was asked if FS had been pregnant while in the Wingender household.  Her response was what he called "middle-class outrage" at the idea that she and her mother and sister would have housed a fallen woman in their residence.  According to the German court system, testimony is freely given, and a witness is only asked to swear an oath if the panel of judges think he or she is lying, or if the piece of evidence is particularly vital to one side or the other.  Doris Wingender was not asked to take an oath until 1963.  At that time, even though the court "really didn't take the Schanzkowska business very much to heart" (Ian Lilburn in Peter), Judge Petersen was asked to administer the oath to Doris by Attorney Wollmann.  "She's either going to perjure herself, and I'm going to prove it, or she's going to have to retract."  Wollmann led her through the whole Schanzkowska story, then demanded that the judges administer the oath. Doris resisted strenuously, claiming that she had the flu and needed to have her pulse taken.  There was arguing back and forth between Wollmann and the judges whether the oath-taking could wait until she was feeling better, and during this time, Doris slipped out of the courtroom and never came back.  

So all of the Wingender testimony is unsworn, including the "middle-class outrage" over the suggestion of FS' pregnancy.  However, given Franziska's known schedule, including doctors' visits and time in asylums, there is no period of time unaccounted for that is longer than six or eight weeks or so between 1916 and her disappearance in early 1920.

FS was born in Dec 1896 so she could have had a child as early as fifteen or sixteen.  That would have been what about 1912/1913.

We have a time frame between 1912/13 to ... 1915...

After the birth of a child, some women suffer terrible depression....  Perhaps the reason which takes her into first asylum.....

Althought not a sworm statement Wingender said she didn't know about FS being pregnant.

She visisted her family for Xmas in 1919.

She was in and out of aslyums 1916 to 1920 and no time frame allowes her being pregnant at that time, Penny tells us.

Is this right?

AGRBear

[Laura Mabee]

If Doris Wingender was paid to give a statement during AA's trial, isn't there a big chance, she was paid to say "the right thing". What I mean is, was she paid to say what would go well in the court? I've found that  through history money influences everything.  

[helenazar]

If Doris Wingender was paid to give a statement during AA's trial, isn't there a big chance, she was paid to say "the right thing". What I mean is, was she paid to say what would go well in the court?

 Yes, of course. But I don't think there is any way to prove or disprove her testimony at this point, we can only discount it if we feel she was not a credible witness... But then again, half of those who gave testimonies in this case, on both sides, don't seem to be too credible. We just have to decide if we want to accept their testimonies or throw some out completely. There is no way to confirm many of them...

[Annie]

I don't think we will ever be able to prove FS didn't have a baby. There are too many possibilities.

As I said with my Grandma, even a miscarriage as early as 4 months can give you the same scar on the inside of the uterus (that shows up in an exam) a full term baby does.

She could also have thrown the baby in the trash   as desperate girls still do sometimes today, and then denied it ever existed.

She could have hidden from her family and friends while she was big and pregnant, then gave the baby to an orphanage (like AA said she did) and never mentioned it to anyone. The baby could have been born dead and she didn't tell anyone.

Also, her family and friends (at the time) could have known about it but kept her secret, (remember an 'out of wedlock' child was considered a shameful thing back then) and now they're dead and can't tell us.

So technically unless it was recorded at a medical office or a records builiding we cannot find evidence, and considering all the things that may have occured (especially during the turmoil of the WWI years) we'll never have proof. While you can prove someone did have a child, it's impossible to prove they didn't unless they are still alive to be examined.

[Laura Mabee]

Is Doris Wingender considard a credible source then? In my eyes I would say no, but then again, I don't know as much about the Romanovs and all things related as much as everyone else does  :-/

[helenazar]

Is Doris Wingender considard a credible source then?

 Not if it can be proven that she accepted money for her testimony...

[Annie]

I'm not saying Doris W. wasn't credible, only that she didn't know every single detail of FS's life. She could have had a baby before she met her, (as bear said she could have had the baby very young, even a 12 year old can get pregnant) or hid it from her. Also she may have covered it up because it was a 'disgrace' back then. There are too many possibilities.

[Annie]

 Not if it can be proven that she accepted money for her testimony...

Oh my    I didn't know that was a possibility. I have suspected that of quite a few of those who testified.

[helenazar]

Last night I read the article you and Belochka wrote for Atlantis -- and I think it's excellent!  Just what is needed, I think, to explain exactly where this thing stands right now, at the crossroads of history and science...    

Thank you! We will make some sort of a posting about it on the forum soon, to let everyone know about this article in the upcoming Atlantis issue.

Sorry for the digression, now back to the "FS baby".  

[Annie]

There are as many possibilities as there are people with ideas.  The trick is to figure out which is most likely, based on the evidence that we have.  No member of FS's family or village community, including her confrontational sister Gertrude or her childhood best friend Martha, claimed that she had ever had a child.  

There again, there is the very likely possibility that:

a) they didn't know or b) they were lying to save her rep (as an illegit kid was such a humiliation to the entire family back then)

Sometimes the absence of evidence is evidence in itself.

No, because you never know what's been hidden.