Impartiality Witness:who?

[ordino]

I said several times at this forum that I believe in AA´s story. With all my consideration and respect for ADN´s results.
So, How many people who deny the exintence of AA like AN are really impartiality.
How many of these people who deny the existence of AA like AN are really honest in their oppinions.
How many of these people who deny the existnece of AA like AN are really saying the thrue
Ordino

[Laura Mabee]

Hi Ordino  
I suppose in a way, the message can be seen in two ways. I think that you could put a twist on your message, and ask:

"So, How many people who accept the existence of AA like AN are really impartiality.
How many of these people who accept the existence of AA like AN are really honest in their opinions.
How many of these people who accept the existence of AA like AN are really saying the thrue(?)" - A assume "truth"?

I think this board has enough drama on it to begin with, I can only see this post just sparking arguments. I think to cast people who believe/don't believe as "not honest" "impartial" in their beliefs, or not saying the truth sounds rather accusatory. Probably not the best way to start a healthy debate.

I may not be a frequent poster on these boards, but I do believe that there are enough threads on here to answer the questions one may have. Take a peak around, maybe you'll find some information on what you're looking for.

[ordino]

Yes Laura is "truth"
Sorry, but I don,t think there is drama  in this board.
We are talking about the life, people and oppinions.
And my question - and I have said this after I am so sorry for  my bad gramatic in this beautiful and international language- is like I said
How many people who deny  ( take it easy I will spell it for you) d - e - n - y  and etc like my first message
I understand that you don´t believe in AA, great!,  It´s magnific, congratulations, but please just answer my question, don´t be bully with me, please.
Thanks. Ordino

[Annie]

Nobody denies her existence. Of course AA existed. She was a real person. But she was FS not AN.

[Laura Mabee]

Sorry, but I don,t think there is drama  in this board.
We are talking about the life, people and oppinions.

Yes, Opinions, and this my friend is where you can find some drama.  

And my question is like I said
How many people who deny  ( take it easy I will spell it for you) d - e - n - y  and etc

I appreciate you spelling deny for me. I will be sure not to mistake it in the future.

but please just answer my question, don´t be bully with me, please

I didn't feel I was bullying you Ordino, and I apologize if you got that impression. I was just trying to let you see the flip side of the question. I am sure you will get your answers from many people on the board.  

[ordino]

Well maybe I wrote  my message  with mistakes so, again, my question is:
are the witnesses that say AA  is not AN impartiality, honest and did they say the truth?, for instance: Gilliard
Thanks.
Ordino

[Annie]

I believe Gilliard knew that AA was not AN because he knew the real AN. He may have done some stupid things that hurt his credibility, but like I said it was like the LAPD and the OJ case, they messed up, but he was guilty, just as AA was not AN.

Impartial? Everyone is going to accuse the person they don't like, of course, so it does no good for me to mention who I think was lying. But we do know who was wrong, because we have the DNA tests to prove that AA was not really AN.

[Rachael89]

Sorry, but I don,t think there is drama  in this board.
quote]

No drama, on the survivor board? Seriously with the action that goes on in this place the Survivor forum could hit Broadway  !

Rachael

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

All of those questions are pretty impossible to answer, because all of the people who gave evidence against AA are now dead, I presume.

You could of course say the same about the people who DID testify that AA was AN; were they telling the truth? Were they impartial? Were they being truly honest?

Well, we know now from the DNA that AA WAS NOT AN.  So all of the people who testified against her must have been, by default, telling the truth, and all of the people who testified for her, must have been, by default, lying.

However, whether they had the intention to do so is something that is impossible for us to determine.  Did the people who testified against AA honestly believe in their heart of hearts she wasn't AN? We'll never know.  Did the people who testified for AA honestly believe in their heart of hearts she WAS AN? Again, we'll never know.

We can presume people's beliefs and motives for their beliefs, but after they are dead and gone, and if they have left no papers behind them to shed light, we can never come to a categorical answer.  All we can do is speculate.  And if we are speculating, then it is our job to give equal weight to both sides of the argument, and come to our own conclusions.

If you have come to the conclusion that AA is AN, then great for you.  But others have come to the opposite, and just because we say we believe that AA was not AN, then it doesn't mean we are lying, just because we don't agree with you. Your truth is not everyone's truth.  I don't believe AA was AN because of the DNA and also because of the overwhelming circumstantial evidence that disproves her claim.  Just because I don't agree with you, it doesn't mean I am denying the 'truth' to myself.  It means I believe that AA was not AN.  And, in all likelihood, that was the same mindset as the people who testified against AA; they believed she wasn't AN, and so that's what they said.  They could have been lying, but we'll never know that, so it would be unfair and illogical to presume that they were, just because they don't agree with you, Ordino.

Rachel
xx

[ordino]

Hey Ra-Ra-Rasputin of course I agree with you, ftp://They could have been lying, but we'll never know that, so it would be unfair and illogical to presume that they were, just because they don't agree with you, Ordino. Im not talking about "unfair" and"illogical" I respect with all my heart to these people, please don´t  change my words, and let the ADN in a corner for a while, just for a while. For me and for the people who don´t know the witnesses so well ( sorry I am in a hurry!! my family is the door! they are gone!), please, names, details, no dna, people. Thanks.Ordino

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

No worries, Ordino.  I obviously misunderstood what you were saying.

You can find a pretty comprehensive list and description of the testimonies of those who stood as witnesses at both the trial and the appeal in Peter Kurth's 'The Riddle of Anna Anderson', which I have finally finished reading.  There is an entire chapter dedicated to each trial.

Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to go through and provide the entire source material for those without the book, but if someone else has some time on their hands, that's where you can find the information if you would like to post it.

Rachel
xx

[Annie]

[/ftp] Im not talking about "unfair" and"illogical" I respect with all my heart to these people, please don´t  change my words, and let the ADN in a corner for a while, just for a while. For me and for the people who don´t know the witnesses so well ( sorry I am in a hurry!! my family is the door! they are gone!), please, names, details, no dna, people. Thanks.Ordino

There are MANY threads here that deal with what you are asking. I even had a thread once called 'reasons OTHER than DNA'

It may be fun to read, as long as you know, that in the end, the answer is always going to be the same, because AA really wasn't AN.

[ordino]

Annie sorry but my question is not about ADN. It´s about the witness who said that AA was not AN,  I started with Gilliard. Why we believe in what he said.
And Ra-Ra-Rasputin thank you very much for the information about the book of Peter K., of course I will read it, but not now because I ´m reading a great book, that is "The Fall of the Romanovs" by Mark D. Steinberg and Vladimir M. Khurustalëv, by the way Ra-Ra-Rasputin, why don´t you like the reporters Summers and Mangold?, the authors Steinberg and Khrustalëv quoted them (their book "The file...), I think you did not answer my question about why a reporter cannot write a book about history. Really I like these authors.
Thanks. Ordino

[ChatNoir]

I have also heard that it was Volkov who crushed Anastasia's finger, but cannot find the source. Can anybody shed more light on this?

Kind regards,
Chat Noir

[ChatNoir]

No, there is nothing in "I, Anastasia" about Volkov slamming the door on Anastasia's finger. I'll keep looking.

Kind regards.
Chat Noir