Anna Anderson's claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

I simply think that all the evidence should be weighed like in any other case. It's as simple as that.

As I have been trying to explain to you for a long time, all evidence is not of equal weight! Sorry but your commentary and he said/she saids from decades ago are NOT of the same status as DNA testing. Even today, as I've frequently mentioned, people who were imprisoned by a judge and jury due to eyewitness testimony and lineup point-outs have been freed and cleared once the DNA evidence came in. Some of these guys were in jail for decades, yet once the DNA proves they were not the person who committed the crime, they are let go- REGARDLESS of all the commentary, he said/she said, and sworn testimony of people who were there placing him at the scene- even the testimony of the victim! Why? Because the court knows, by logical deduction, and common sense, that once the DNA says "NO" the people who said 'yes' were either lying or mistaken! This is what I've been saying about the AA case too, none of your old evidence matters now, it's useless and proven wrong, and is NOT of the same value to be 'weighed' against the DNA! You want this to be like 'any other case', you want 'facts', you want 'the real story', well, there you are.

[ChatNoir]

Of course, never mind all the physical traits, her handwriting, her scars, her sustained damages etc etc. Never mind all those who recognized her and spent enough time with her to be able to realize if she was an impostor or not. Never mind all the things she knew from the IF's lives that never made it to books before she told them. Never mind the Romanovs and the Hesses who took her so seriously that they wanted her locked up and out of the way. And, of course, never mind all the testimony in court.

[Menarue]

So it all ends up in "blah blah blah" versus "DNA".

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

Of course, never mind all the physical traits, her handwriting, her scars, her sustained damages etc etc. Never mind all those who recognized her and spent enough time with her to be able to realize if she was an impostor or not. Never mind all the things she knew from the IF's lives that never made it to books before she told them. Never mind the Romanovs and the Hesses who took her so seriously that they wanted her locked up and out of the way. And, of course, never mind all the testimony in court.

Exactly. Never mind all that. That's what I was explaining. Those men freed by DNA testing had all been convicted by "all that testimony in court" and all that stuff that people who were there said, even those who swore he was the personwho did the crime based on looks, voice, etc. When the DNA tests showed he was NOT the person at the scene, none of that mattered any more. The judge and courts didn't say, hey, what about what all those people said, they were so sure,they knew that all the other stuff was either mistaken identity, or even lies- the DNA said NO and that was the end of it, all the other junk was tossed right out the window like yesterday's garbage.

[ChatNoir]

The end of it? I don't think so.......
Coming to think of it: I never got an answer to my questions!

[AGRBear]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

As I have been trying to explain to you for a long time, all evidence is not of equal weight! Sorry but your commentary and he said/she saids from decades ago are NOT of the same status as DNA testing. Even today, as I've frequently mentioned, people who were imprisoned by a judge and jury due to eyewitness testimony and lineup point-outs have been freed and cleared once the DNA evidence came in. Some of these guys were in jail for decades, yet once the DNA proves they were not the person who committed the crime, they are let go- REGARDLESS of all the commentary, he said/she said, and sworn testimony of people who were there placing him at the scene- even the testimony of the victim! Why? Because the court knows, by logical deduction, and common sense, that once the DNA says "NO" the people who said 'yes' were either lying or mistaken! This is what I've been saying about the AA case too, none of your old evidence matters now, it's useless and proven wrong, and is NOT of the same value to be 'weighed' against the DNA! You want this to be like 'any other case', you want 'facts', you want 'the real story', well, there you are.

Each court case has to produce it's own evidence. You can't just slide pass the rest of the evidence because you think it could be done.


In the case of AA vs the Romanovs or whomever, who would hire the lawyers to prove once and for all AA is not GD Anastasia, the jurists would need to be provided with the evidence that ALL four grand duchesses remains were found. This means that the lawyers would need to show the markers of the DNA/mtDNA of four individual females that were found in either the mass grave in Pig's Meadow and the latest two pits discovered in July of 2007. As far as I know, the DNA provided to the various labs has NOT provided the markers needed to prove FOUR female remains have been found. This means that it cannot be ruled out that the female bones found in the two pits were not taken from the mass grave and planted by someone [I'm not pointing any finger at those who discovered the two pits], who had a motive, the means and the ability. This evidence was one of the first set of things needed for proof of four grand duchesses mentioned in the National Geographic Special which was just shown not long ago.

As for the DNA/mtDNA from the lost but found intestine samples which match Karl Maucher, I've gone into great length to explain the problems with the "chain-of-custody" battle that would occur.

I can assure you that for every expert that the Romanov group hires, the opposition will have hired experts that are just as good. In the end, it's up to 12 people on the jury.

AGRBear

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by AGRBear

Each court case has to produce it's own evidence. You can't just slide pass the rest of the evidence because you think it could be done.

No Bear, it's not what I think, it's reality. It goes for all cases.

In the case of AA vs the Romanovs or whomever, who would hire the lawyers to prove once and for all AA is not GD Anastasia, the jurists would need to be provided with the evidence that ALL four grand duchesses remains were found. This means that the lawyers would need to show the markers of the DNA/mtDNA of four individual females that were found in either the mass grave in Pig's Meadow and the latest two pits discovered in July of 2007. As far as I know, the DNA provided to the various labs has NOT provided the markers needed to prove FOUR female remains have been found.

Three were in the mass grave, one in the burn pit. That's enough for all the scientists and officials involved. No one ever asked for four separate DNA profiles to be done except for you and a few others on this board. The officials and scientists just said you can't tell which girl was which, but it doesn't matter since they have all four.

This means that it cannot be ruled out that the female bones found in the two pits were not taken from the mass grave and planted by someone [I'm not pointing any finger at those who discovered the two pits], who had a motive, the means and the ability.

I can't believe you're still touting this theory! You saw the National Geographic story too- it clearly showed the two bodies were burned FIRST, and when they realized they didn't have time to burn everyone, they dumped the rest into the mass grave. For a piece from the mass grave to end up in the burn pit, which was already covered up, someone would have to have taken a piece out of the mass grave, burned it, and buried it in the burn pit. There is NO ONE who would have had the 'means, motive and ability'- remember, the sun was coming up and they were in a hurry. Also remember, DNA testing would not be invented for another 70 years, meaning there was no way anyone would have planted it for that reason, because they never heard of it. This has got to be the biggest stretch I have ever heard, and has no factual basis or even any reason to consider it, and historical evidence against it. There is nothing here but bear's desire to find a way for the fourth girl not to be found, because she likes the mystery.

This evidence was one of the first set of things needed for proof of four grand duchesses mentioned in the National Geographic Special which was just shown not long ago.

Watch that show again, and you'll see the scientists are confident they have all five children.

As for the DNA/mtDNA from the lost but found intestine samples which match Karl Maucher, I've gone into great length to explain the problems with the "chain-of-custody" battle that would occur.

There was no 'lost and found intestine.' They were looking under the wrong name (Anderson) and when they looked under the right name it was found. It was there all along. There's also no issue with Karl Maucher, other than in your imagination. Remember, the hair and the intestine matched- how could that have happened if they weren't from the same person?

I can assure you that for every expert that the Romanov group hires, the opposition will have hired experts that are just as good. In the end, it's up to 12 people on the jury.

AGRBear

Unless you and Chat are on that jury, there wouldn't be any problems.

[ChatNoir]

There was no 'lost and found intestine.' They were looking under the wrong name (Anderson) and when they looked under the right name it was found.

Sorry, they were looking under Anderson OR Manahan. Still no result the first time.

[Anna was Franziska]

That's not right, Chat. They looked under "Anna Anderson", and then "Mrs. Jack Manahan." They didn't find anything until they used the name "Anastasia Manahan", which is what the records were listed under all along. Jack was her husband's nickname, his real name was John, and he was not the patient. There was officially no "Jack Manahan" or his "Mrs". Searches don't offer you selections of others of the same last name, it has to be exact, or they'd be giving out the info of other people. It did not come up until the right name was used. (source Klier and Mingay)

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

That's not right, Chat. They looked under "Anna Anderson", and then "Mrs. Jack Manahan."

As I was saying.

[Anna was Franziska]

As I explained, that's not her name, it was under Anastasia Manahan. Jack Manahan was a nickname and not a real person and he was not the patient, and they do not automatically give you everyone else of the same last name in a search, it would be giving out someone else's info. Even myspace makes you be specific to the exact name in a search.

[ChatNoir]

Correct, a sample was discovered under the name of Anastasia Manahan. But they were still searching for the same two names as before. See Klier and Mingay.

[Anna was Franziska]

I did. That's why I quoted them. It's just like I said, it only came up under the right name, as any other search.

What are you alleging, wrongdoing by the hospital? Lying? Hiding? You know, sometimes you seem to blame the hospital, other times the labs, or the mailman, other times, some mysterious unnamed 'bogeyman' out to discredit AA. Which one is it? Any of them as long as somehow AA can still be AN? Do you have any idea how outrageous and desperate that sounds? What is it, any or all? You have to pick something or admit it was notihng!

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

I did. That's why I quoted them. It's just like I said, it only came up under the right name, as any other search.

What are you alleging, wrongdoing by the hospital? Lying? Hiding? You know, sometimes you seem to blame the hospital, other times the labs, or the mailman, other times, some mysterious unnamed 'bogeyman' out to discredit AA. Which one is it? Any of them as long as somehow AA can still be AN? Do you have any idea how outrageous and desperate that sounds? What is it, any or all? You have to pick something or admit it was notihng!

Calm down! If you read Klier and Mingay, you will see that they found " a sample from Anderson, albeit under the name of Anastasia Manahan." And your accusations are getting rather ridiculous.

[Anna was Franziska]

If you read Klier and Mingay, you will see that they found " a sample from Anderson, albeit under the name of Anastasia Manahan."

Ummm...isn't that what I've been trying to tell you for several posts?

As I have stated, the sample was found under the name Anastasia Manahan. Nothing was found for "Anna Anderson" or "Mrs. Jack Manahan." Apparently you and Bear have issues with that, I don't. It has to be the right name.

And your accusations are getting rather ridiculous.

After 100 pages of this thread, and all your past posts and PMs everwhere else, I have certainly come by them honestly.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Ummm...isn't that what I've been trying to tell you for several posts?

Yes, but they were not LOOKING for Anastasia Manahan.

After 100 pages of this thread, and all your past posts and PMs everwhere else, I have certainly come by them honestly.

No, you have not. You accuse me of a lot of things I have not said, you accuse the Botkins of dirty deeds, you accuse Dassel of "being in on the charade" together with all her "supporters", you accuse Franzisca of having a child out of wedlock, you accuse famous historians of lying by panning books you haven't read, you accuse nurse Malinovsky of lying. And the list goes on. Your credibility is zero!

[AGRBear]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

No Bear, it's not what I think, it's reality. It goes for all cases.
....[in part]...

All cases???

My goodness, you make it sound like like our courts are saying: "All those who's DNA doesn't match, line up over there by the door that says "EXIT" and you shall be set free."

If life was only that easy!

Each case has it's complexities. Maybe, the person in jail's DNA doesn't match but it doesn't mean that person didn't take part in the crime. For example: A person who helps a person rape a child is guilty of a crime even though he/she didn't leave his/her DNA.

AGRBear

[Menarue]

Actually that is probably true in quite a few cases, the person gaoled didn´t do the actual crime but was just as guilty, then managed to get off because of this....
But in this case we know that the IRF was murdered, we have the murderers giving an account, we now have the bodies identified and in the right number and then we have someone who said she was one of those dead bodies, her dna is tested and they find she isn´t even related to the IRF but in the meantime a lot of people are hopeful that she will be accepted and a mythical fortune will be had. Then there are the people who, the longer this story is kept going, the more money they will make out of it,if by another film,or by another nov