Anna Anderson: The Final Frontier

[Lemur]

What reason would Yurovsky have had to ever lie? He set out to murder them all and he most certainly was very thorough. The evidence is there. None of them escaped at all.

I have always wondered why anyone would say he lied. Why? The Yurovsky is a liar rumors must have come from claimant supporters.

[Annie]

And among all those emigrees, which one of them knew the story about AN wearing her father's longjohns under her bathrobe in a play that the children performed in Tobolsk? A fact that was revealed when a draft lifted up the back of her robe and showed her sturdy legs in the Tsar's long underwear. AA told this story many, many years before her English tutor mentioned it in his book in 1975.

Curious and curiouser.

Kind regards
ChatNoir

I was just reading "The Last Days of the Romanovs", a book published in 1920. In the testimonies of both Gibbes and Gilliard, there is mention of plays that were put on in Tobolsk. Gilliard also mentions the 'medicines' and hiding the jewels. This was 1920, before AA came to be known to the world in 1922. So the info WAS out there already.

Curiouser and curiouser, the more I read, the more holes I see in AA's story. Just had to point that one out before I forgot.

[Tania+]

hmmmm, lol, i ain't nowhow done ever done heard words like Curiouser and curioser, must be one of them new types of words from one of them fancy languages, but to be fair i all essence of the issues below, I do not believe Gillard to be a betrayer, period. I would like to see scholarly referance to this, with absolute proof.

Tatiana+

[Annie]

hmmmm, lol, i ain't nowhow done ever done heard words like Curiouser and curioser, must be one of them new types of words from one of them fancy languages,

Actually it's a famous catch phrase from "Alice in Wonderland."

http://www.ruthannzaroff.com/wonderland/curiouser.htm

 But my reference to it was because that is the way our dear Chat Noir likes to end his posts when he's alluding to something 'strange' about the AA case, so I was kind of putting it back the other way to AA supporters.

but to be fair i all essence of the issues below, I do not believe Gillard to be a betrayer, period. I would like to see scholarly referance to this, with absolute proof.

I never said Gilliard was a betrayer, you misunderstood. I only mentioned the fact that he was one of the people who knew about the sewn in jewels, meaning the sources of information were available to AA in the early 20's and she didn't have any privy 'inside info only Anastasia would know' as AA supporters like to  claim.

Hope this clears things up.

[pandora]

hmmmm, lol, i ain't nowhow done ever done heard words like Curiouser and curioser, must be one of them new types of words from one of them fancy languages,

Actually it's a famous catch phrase from "Alice in Wonderland."

Love "Alice in Wonderland"! best catch phrase, imo

[EmmyLee]

Gilliard also mentions the 'medicines' and hiding the jewels. This was 1920, before AA came to be known to the world in 1922. So the info WAS out there already.

Ah ha! I wonder why none of us came across this earlier?

[Annie]

Gilliard also mentions the 'medicines' and hiding the jewels. This was 1920, before AA came to be known to the world in 1922. So the info WAS out there already.

Ah ha! I wonder why none of us came across this earlier?

I think the big problem is that most of the people who wrote about AA wrote in her favor, and ignored or neglected to report little things like that which would hurt her case. Most people who have reported her story did so as some compelling mystery and they wanted you to believe in her. At the 1950s trials, Dr. Berenberg-Gossler, the anti-AA attorney, even said that at the press conferences, the media was only interested in the pro AA side because it was more exciting and most editors of papers and magazines told their reporters to leave before the other side could tell their story, leading to only one side being spread around. Now, you have basically two types, the ones who still defend AA and the ones who don't believe in her but think the notion is so silly it's not worth arguing over. Unfortunately, that attitude only allows more people to be misled by the AA supporters, because though we here on AP are knowledgeable on it all, most of the general public are not. They may have only a casual interest and only know basic info. You'd be surprised how many otherwise smart people don't know any better. This is why I made my website, to explain away all the silly myths the AA supporters still sell like snake oil.

[StevenL]

This is why I made my website, to explain away all the silly myths the AA supporters still sell like snake oil.

The newest myth arising from "Andersonville" implies the scientists are hapless dupes of some conspirators who re-buried stolen fragments of the same skeletons found years ago. They say this is why there were so few fragments present in the newer grave. I'd almost wonder how they explain that some fragments belong to a young male with the Hesse DNA profile, while nothing at all was found of Alexei in the earlier burial site, but anything they'd have to say would undoubtedly involve further totally unsubstantiated allegations of plots and conspiracies.

[Annie]

This is why I made my website, to explain away all the silly myths the AA supporters still sell like snake oil.

The newest myth arising from "Andersonville" implies the scientists are hapless dupes of some conspirators who re-buried stolen fragments of the same skeletons found years ago. They say this is why there were so few fragments present in the newer grave. I'd almost wonder how they explain that some fragments belong to a young male with the Hesse DNA profile, while nothing at all was found of Alexei in the earlier burial site, but anything they'd have to say would undoubtedly involve further totally unsubstantiated allegations of plots and conspiracies.

Oh yes, that's sad but true, thanks for posting (always good to see somebody besides me telling the story!) Don't they realize that the reason there are so few bones in this grave compared with the other ones is because, unlike the ones in the original grave, these were BURNED? (just as the Bolsheviks said they were?!)

But of course, all Russians are liars you can't trust :rolleyes: and all scientists must be either paid off or very stupid (how did they ever get their degrees and jobs, maybe they were falsified by the Russians who plotted this years ago :rolleyes: ) Do they really think they're so stupid they don't know the difference between a newly found burned fragment and a leftover piece snuck in from the old grave?! Their reasoning is unfathomable and unrealistic to put it kindly. It's enough to drive a sane person over the edge just thinking about it.

[AGRBear]

SPECULATION:

Maybe Gilliard was the "betrayer" and was the one who helped AA gain her information and once she knew what he knew told him to take a hike and that is why he became one of her worst enemies.

Annie is always blaming Botkin, who was off in the USA and was no where near AA in those early days of her claiming she was GD Anastasia,   BUT,  Gilliard was right there and near her and who would have been better to teach the languages to AA than a tutor who taught the Romanov children?

I believe it was Gilliard who destroyed evidence and had to admit to this fact in AA's trial when the judge asked that he provide it to the court.

 AGRBear

[Annie]

SPECULATION:

Maybe Gilliard was the "betrayer" and was the one who helped AA gain her information and once she knew what he knew told him to take a hike and that is why he became one of her worst enemies.

Annie is always blaming Botkin, who was off in the USA and was no where near AA in those early days of her claiming she was GD Anastasia,   BUT,  Gilliard was right there and near her and who would have been better to teach the languages to AA than a tutor who taught the Romanov children?

I believe it was Gilliard who destroyed evidence and had to admit to this fact in AA's trial when the judge asked that he provide it to the court.

 AGRBear

You know bear, I have even considered that possibility myself, that MAYBE Gilliard was originally going to be in on her charade before they fell out and became enemies (maybe his conscience bothered him?) IF this happened, it would explain how she got some of her inside info, though there were other opportunities and books too. I always say I don't think Botkin was the first or only, but I do think he was in on it. IMO it's actually LESS of an insult to think that he was a cunning, creative mastermind than some dimwit who couldn't tell the real AN and got duped. I really can't accept that last option, because I believe anyone who knew the real AN even as well as he and his sister did would not be fooled, at least not for very long. He kept it up for decades, and IMO probably became as looney as she was in the end.

It would be SO interesting to investigate and find out who helped her, when, how and why, but sadly every time we've tried to discuss this the conversation always turns back to 'maybe she really was AN', a fight breaks out, thread locked, same old story with no results. Of course it would all be speculation, because I'm sure anyone involved in any kind of fraud destroyed their evidence and took their secrets to their graves so how can we find 'proof'? The only proof we have is, AA was not AN, so how did AA do it and who helped her?

[AGRBear]

Solokov was just as bad as Gilliard.  He omitted a lot evidence found by the investigators who were on the case long before he arrived.  And Gen. Dietrickhs (I always spell his name wrong, sorry folks) was worst.  It was probably under his orders that poor old Jemmy was killed and his little body was placed in the bottom of the mine just a few weeks before the Whites pulled out of Ekaterinburg.

AGRBear

[Helen_Azar]

hmmmm, lol, i ain't nowhow done ever done heard words like Curiouser and curioser, must be one of them new types of words from one of them fancy languages...

Obviously someone never heard of Alice in Wonderland... Shame, it's a good book... Quite a classic...

I have even considered that possibility myself, that MAYBE Gilliard was originally going to be in on her charade before they fell out and became enemies (maybe his conscience bothered him?) IF this happened, it would explain how she got some of her inside info...

It could very well have been Gilliard, or someone else. Any way you look at it, someone had to fill her in. Does it really matter that much who did? Fact is, someone definitely did... End of story.

[AGRBear]

I was just reading "The Last Days of the Romanovs", a book published in 1920. In the testimonies of both Gibbes and Gilliard, there is mention of plays that were put on in Tobolsk. Gilliard also mentions the 'medicines' and hiding the jewels. This was 1920, before AA came to be known to the world in 1922. So the info WAS out there already.

..[in part]...

I have a copy of Wilton's book and it was not written in German but published here in the USA.  If AA was FS, who could NOT read or write English, then she needed to have someone else read it for her then translate to her the contents of  THE LAST DAYS of THE ROMANOVS.

The book does not mention that it was published in any other language.

I believe by the time the book was selling in the stores,  AA had already told the nurse at Dalldorf that she was GD Anastasia.

Since AA was not visited by "outsiders" until 1922,  her source had to have been someone she met before Feb. of 1920.

To add to this,  if AA had read the book without any assissants, then this proves she knew English well enough to read a 428 page book.

It's late.   If I have time tomorrow I'll look for the exact quotes Annie mentioned about the "jewelry" sewn in the under garments and the plays, unless Annie would be so kind to do so for us.  If not,  could you tell me the page numbers.

Thanks.

AGRBear

[Annie]

I have a copy of Wilton's book and it was not written in German but published here in the USA.  If AA was FS, who could NOT read or write English, then she needed to have someone else read it for her then translate to her the contents of  THE LAST DAYS of THE ROMANOVS.

The book does not mention that it was published in any other language.

Anyone who knew the Romanovs knew several languages, and could have told her.

I believe by the time the book was selling in the stores,  AA had already told the nurse at Dalldorf that she was GD Anastasia.

No the book was out in 1920. The nurse story cannot be taken as hard fact because there really is no proof other than ONE person's word that it ever even happened. When she talked to the paper, she said it happened in 1922, then later tried to back and say it was supposed to be 1921 but the paper got it wrong. This was just her excuse when she realized she needed to predate the open AN claim. I put no value in the nurse story so it's really not even a  factor. AA never got the idea to be a GD until Clara P. showed her that pic in 1922, and it was Tatiana.

Since AA was not visited by "outsiders" until 1922,  her source had to have been someone she met before Feb. of 1920.

No, anyone she knew after she started talking about it would work, because she didn't talk until she had information.

To add to this,  if AA had read the book without any assissants, then this proves she knew English well enough to read a 428 page book.

So she may not have read it but got the info from a supporter. What we were going on here was not only that the book was out there but that Gilliard himself knew the info and could possibly have told her.

It's late.   If I have time tomorrow I'll look for the exact quotes Annie mentioned about the "jewelry" sewn in the under garments and the plays, unless Annie would be so kind to do so for us.  If not,  could you tell me the page numbers.

Thanks.

AGRBear

Yawn. I'm very tired and it's 3 hours later for me than it is you, and I sure don't feel like looking for it but I know if I don't dig it out right now you'll accuse me of being 'fact free', lying, making up, etc., so here you go:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=YxIEAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22last+days+of+the+romanovs%22+wilton&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=BMFaH5UE9U&sig=3KGBlrxbGlfIR01Q5lWMBIPIJIE#PPA30,M1

Page 30

Chapter Examination of Gilliard

I can't copy and paste since it's pdf so here:



I can't find Gibbes right now and I don't remember if it was in his examination or some other part of the book. I can look later when I have time, in the meantime the link is there for anyone else who wants to look. I am not in school, I'm not at work, and I don't have a deadline for my assignment.

edit forgot about the plays will look later, again it's right there in the link for anyone else to search Gilliard's and Gibbe's chapters are very early in the book

and while I certainly do not have time to dig through them, it's very possible Bux's books mention it as well, since she had to have known about it too.