Anna Anderson's claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia

[Elspeth]

I don't think there's anything wrong with the Ellerick sample because it matches both the Maucher sample and the two Anna Anderson samples reported in the Gill/Stoneking paper. The thing it doesn't match is the Anna Anderson sample from the slide, and Dr Ginther concluded that that sample was too contaminated for the results to be useful.

Looking at the letter again, it appears that Dr Ginther analysed the sample from Margarete Ellerick; I was getting confused with some of the third-person reporting.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

And are lawyers exempt from scrutiny?

You are just picking on him because he worked against AA. Most people accept such interviews at face value and don't try to inflict 'he's lying' arguments into it. The man worked on the case for 12 years, he has a lot of info and experience.

I think if he is telling the truth, it should be fairly easy to confirm.

How, without his personal papers? Of course you're not going to find any backup in pro AA books now are you?

The protocols at Dalldorf will tell you more. And I do think most Europeans can tell the difference between Russian, Polish, German and English.

Have you talked to all Europeans? I seriously doubt this. It's only your speculation and assumption based on what suits you and what you choose to believe, no proof at all.

You are always complaining about me giving you names and references. Well, that is the proof I have. Please refute it if you are able to.

Most of the names you give are people we never even heard of, and even if you have a name and a date, that is no proof what they said was accurate.

When I gave you the name of Sarscha Gregorian, you just answered: I don't believe it. What else can I do?

Who is this person, what is their background, what is their connection to the case? This is just an off the cuff comment, not extensive research.

First, what I have posted here, is not hearsay, but personal statements, affidavits or sworn testimony. Second, I am not throwing any stones at "this lawyer", all I want, is a confirmation of his allegations.

You told me most of the testimony wasn't 'sworn.' Also, just because something is said in court doesn't make it true. In every court case at least half the 'testimony' turns out to be lies or errors, because the person is either guilty or they're not.

It leaves us with eternal uncertainty, which is why we have these discussions.

You do your very best to maintain this level of doubt to keep your own hope alive as well as trying to confuse others from accepting reality.(and spamming the threads with large numbers of mind twisting, unnecessary posts to push the things you don't want seen out of view)

All viewpoints have to be challenged. And it seems fair game to you when you challenge mine.

This is no little comment by one person who saw AA once and barely remembered the details. This is a lawyer who worked diligently on the details of the case for twelve years. He had extensive files. He knew things even YOU don't know. So, are you calling him a liar, saying he made everything up because he didn't like AA?

This is really, really stupid, and I'm not even going to argue with you anymore.

[Anna was Franziska]

Oh, okay, thank you. Then it's not as confusing as I thought, and in the end, makes no difference at all to the results of the Gill paper.

[grevinnan]

Bryan Sykes in his book about DNA and genetics "The Seven Daughters of Eve" has a short section about Anna Anderson. Well worth reading if you are interested in the issue.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

You are just picking on him because he worked against AA. Most people accept such interviews at face value and don't try to inflict 'he's lying' arguments into it. The man worked on the case for 12 years, he has a lot of info and experience.

Pardon me for not accepting his interview at face value, but I am not saying he is a liar. What I did, was to post opposing views from people who studied AA over a long time and their conclusions. If that makes BG look less credible, so be it.

How, without his personal papers? Of course you're not going to find any backup in pro AA books now are you?

If any papers pulled their journalists off the case, I think we have the right to find out which ones.

Have you talked to all Europeans? I seriously doubt this. It's only your speculation and assumption based on what suits you and what you choose to believe, no proof at all.

Most Europeans speak two or more languages and are much more proficient in this department than most Americans. As for Erna Bucholz, who testified to AA's use of Russian, she used to be a language teacher in Russia and therefore knew both Russian and German very well.

Most of the names you give are people we never even heard of, and even if you have a name and a date, that is no proof what they said was accurate.

The reason you have not heard about these people, is because you have not studied this case very well. There are lots of books out there to read if you want to learn some more.

Who is this person, what is their background, what is their connection to the case? This is just an off the cuff comment, not extensive research.

Sarsha Gregorian is a witness that Harriet von Rathlef Keilmann tracked down in Rumania. He worked at a monastery near Jassy, and helped AA and her party cross the Dniestr on December 5, 1918. In May of 1919, he was sent 5000 lei by messenger as thanks for his help. The payment seems to co-incide with Alexander Tchaikowsky's sale of AA's rope of pearls.

You told me most of the testimony wasn't 'sworn.'

I never told you any such thing.

Also, just because something is said in court doesn't make it true. In every court case at least half the 'testimony' turns out to be lies or errors, because the person is either guilty or they're not.

And it is up to you to prove it wrong.

You do your very best to maintain this level of doubt to keep your own hope alive as well as trying to confuse others from accepting reality.(and spamming the threads with large numbers of mind twisting, unnecessary posts to push the things you don't want seen out of view)

I don't think my posts are very mind twisting, they are only information from the people who were present at the time.

This is no little comment by one person who saw AA once and barely remembered the details.

What do you mean? I never saw AA.

This is a lawyer who worked diligently on the details of the case for twelve years. He had extensive files. He knew things even YOU don't know. So, are you calling him a liar, saying he made everything up because he didn't like AA?

I am simply challenging his statements like you are challenging everyone else's.

This is really, really stupid, and I'm not even going to argue with you anymore.

That's your choice.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

Pardon me for not accepting his interview at face value, but I am not saying he is a liar. What I did, was to post opposing views from people who studied AA over a long time and their conclusions. If that makes BG look less credible, so be it.

Don't forget he did extensive work on her case for 12 years, I doubt anyone could have known more.

If any papers pulled their journalists off the case, I think we have the right to find out which ones.

You said you like comments from people who were there. He was there, he saw it happen. What good would names of 1950's German papers do, no one would be able to check it out anyway.

Most Europeans speak two or more languages and are much more proficient in this department than most Americans. As for Erna Bucholz, who testified to AA's use of Russian, she used to be a language teacher in Russia and therefore knew both Russian and German very well.

Again one example and your assumptions/speculations.

The reason you have not heard about these people, is because you have not studied this case very well. There are lots of books out there to read if you want to learn some more.

What, like the fanfiction by Botkin and Rathlef? No thanks. I want the truth, and real information, I hope to someday be able to read Berenberg-Gossler's work.

Sarsha Gregorian is a witness that Harriet von Rathlef Keilmann tracked down in Rumania. He worked at a monastery near Jassy, and helped AA and her party cross the Dniestr on December 5, 1918. In May of 1919, he was sent 5000 lei by messenger as thanks for his help. The payment seems to co-incide with Alexander Tchaikowsky's sale of AA's rope of pearls.

More fiction from Rathlef. AA was never in Rumania, therefore, this 'witness' was not telling the truth, and this is useless. THE CART STORY NEVER HAPPENED...AN was dead..FS was in Berlin working...it's f-a-k-e.

I never told you any such thing.

Yes you did, you even told me a name for it that they have in Germany for a person not taking the oath. You told me most of the people didn't swear.

And it is up to you to prove it wrong.

No, it's up to YOU to disprove reality.

I don't think my posts are very mind twisting, they are only information from the people who were present at the time.

Were Berenberg-Gossler other people I quote 'there at the present time?' Do you believe them? No you only believe ones who liked AA.

What do you mean? I never saw AA.

I'm talking about some of the no name names you quote you use as 'testimony.'

I am simply challenging his statements like you are challenging everyone else's.

You are calling him a liar. Chat I know that no one is ever going to drag you out of the realm you live in, but please don't keep trying to convince people who honestly want information and know the truth, because it won't come from you, if you continue to believe the AA myth.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Don't forget he did extensive work on her case for 12 years, I doubt anyone could have known more.

What about the lawyers on the other side? Edward Fallows, Kurt Vermehren, von Stachelberg etc. Were they all in the dark?

You said you like comments from people who were there. He was there, he saw it happen. What good would names of 1950's German papers do, no one would be able to check it out anyway.

Yes he was there, and he worked for the opposition. And he saw AA for a few minutes while hiding behind a stove, while her doctors studied her for months. I think I would go with the doctor's opinion any day.

Again one example and your assumptions/speculations.

You mean it is speculative to assume that a language teacher knows languages? Surely you jest.

What, like the fanfiction by Botkin and Rathlef? No thanks. I want the truth, and real information, I hope to someday be able to read Berenberg-Gossler's work.

So you automatically know whom to trust just from looking at what side they were on. Why didn't I think of that.

More fiction from Rathlef. AA was never in Rumania, therefore, this 'witness' was not telling the truth, and this is useless. THE CART STORY NEVER HAPPENED...AN was dead..FS was in Berlin working...it's f-a-k-e.

And that is only your opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes you did, you even told me a name for it that they have in Germany for a person not taking the oath. You told me most of the people didn't swear.

I think you have me confused with Peter Kurth.

Were Berenberg-Gossler other people I quote 'there at the present time?' Do you believe them? No you only believe ones who liked AA.

As I said, you are free to prove them wrong.

You are calling him a liar.

Please point to the post where I say that Berenberg Gossler is a liar.

Chat I know that no one is ever going to drag you out of the realm you live in, but please don't keep trying to convince people who honestly want information and know the truth, because it won't come from you, if you continue to believe the AA myth.

I am not trying to convince anybody, I am just presenting support for a view that anybody is free to reject.

[Anna was Franziska]

Anyone want to discuss the contents of these interviews?

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

What about the lawyers on the other side? Edward Fallows, Kurt Vermehren, von Stachelberg etc. Were they all in the dark?

We all know what they did and think. I wanted to present an opposing view. It would also be interesting to read their old papers.

Yes he was there, and he worked for the opposition. And he saw AA for a few minutes while hiding behind a stove,

Most of the people you quote had very limited contact. You always use the excuse that a person never met AA, well he did. If she'd had the guts to face him, he'd have known more, but being a fraud, she was afraid of being caught. Don't you think a REAL AN would have wanted to prove herself on the witness stand in front of everyone instead of hiding and letting others plead her case? Another sign she was a fake.

while her doctors studied her for months. I think I would go with the doctor's opinion any day.

Okay, then what about Dr. Gill and Dr. Melton?

You mean it is speculative to assume that a language teacher knows languages? Surely you jest.

You really can't prove what languages any of those people knew or what AA was speaking.

So you automatically know whom to trust just from looking at what side they were on. Why didn't I think of that.

But the difference is, Chat, we know AA wasn't AN so we kNOW the story was fake! There's no more speculating!

As I said, you are free to prove them wrong.

They've been proven wrong by the DNA.

Please point to the post where I say that Berenberg Gossler is a liar.

You don't believe a word he said and bother me to 'prove' it. If you don't think he's a liar, then he's telling the truth, and we don't have an issue.

I am not trying to convince anybody, I am just presenting support for a view that anybody is free to reject.

I am going back to my statement of not arguing with you anymore over AA until you can disprove the DNA. No, it's not 'just one piece of evidence' it's the one that disproves all the rest.

Anyone want to discuss the contents of these interviews?

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

We all know what they did and think. I wanted to present an opposing view. It would also be interesting to read their old papers.

I think it is commendable that you present an opposing view, but do not expect it to go unchallenged.

Most of the people you quote had very limited contact.

The only one with limited contact, was Nina Chavchavadze. The others knew her for months and years.

You always use the excuse that a person never met AA, well he did. If she'd had the guts to face him, he'd have known more, but being a fraud, she was afraid of being caught. Don't you think a REAL AN would have wanted to prove herself on the witness stand in front of everyone instead of hiding and letting others plead her case? Another sign she was a fake.

On the contrary, it shows her as a royal, elevated over such trivial things as a lawsuit.

Okay, then what about Dr. Gill and Dr. Melton?

I don't think they ever met AA.

You really can't prove what languages any of those people knew or what AA was speaking.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I think I can.

But the difference is, Chat, we know AA wasn't AN so we kNOW the story was fake! There's no more speculating!
They've been proven wrong by the DNA.

Good, show me a copy of the ruling.

You don't believe a word he said and bother me to 'prove' it. If you don't think he's a liar, then he's telling the truth, and we don't have an issue.

He gave his impression of AA. Others gave theirs. Based upon the limited time he saw AA and the thorough examination she was given by the doctors, I trust them more.

I am going back to my statement of not arguing with you anymore over AA until you can disprove the DNA.

I am not in the business of disproving anything. I just like to present as many facets as possible of this very interesting case.

[OlgaNikolaievna]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

i <i>No one living today involved in opposing Anna Anderson is better qualified to discuss the case then Dr. Gunther Von Berenberg-Gossler, attorney appointed in 1955 to oppose Anderson's claims on behalf of the Swedish and British royal families with the financial backing of Lord Mountbatten.

I never knew the Swedish royals were involved. Which ones, and what is the connection?

Dr. Von Berenberg-Gossler comes from an aristocratic family and having moved in the highest echelons of society since childhood he was more than qualified to sniff out an impostor, and is amazed by published claims Anna Anderson was considered a lady or had a regal aura. My impression of her at the time, judging by her mannerisms, usage of language, etc, was she resembled a house maid, but not at all of royal blood, she had an unattractive peasant like face and reminded me of a charwoman (menial cleaning lady).

Very interesting to see since that has always been my impression of her. She looked and sounded a very rough woman with poor taste and low standards. Her clothes were mismatched and looked like she had dragged them from the trash. She lived with dozens of dogs and cats in a very filthy house and drove around in a ragged car full of dogs and mess. Had she not lucked into getting to play the role of "Anastasia" I could easily see her end up as a homeless woman in NYC who pushes shopping carts full of black bags, rags and things she has dug from garbage cans.

[Anna was Franziska]

Sorry to start another thread, but because all AA threads, both here and elsewhere, always end up as the same basic yes-no argument and same old statements from the same old suspects, I thought it might help to have some different topic specific threads where only the information contained in the thread was the topic to be discussed and all other things can be taken to the generic 'AA's claim' thread.

The reason I'm posting this is because there is information in it not seen or documented in other AA books. The reasons, I assume, are that it was never translated from French and some people never knew its contents, and also that a lot of it is rather damaging to AA's case which means that supporters would not want to use it any more than an opposing lawyer would present evidence incriminating their client. This was translated by an online friend and fellow ex-AA supporter, Tim Welch. (I now have his perrmission so I've added his name so he can get the credit he deserves for his hard work)
Please read on for some very interesting details you may not have known before:


Baroness Buxhoeveden's visit

The Baroness Buxhoeveden was without interruption in the service to the Russian Imperial family, as a maid of honor, from 1913 to 1918, but ever since 1904 she had long stays at the court. She therefore knew the Grand Duchesses since their childhood and had seen them daily for years. She rejoined the Imperial family in Siberia and was separated from them six weeks before the catastrophe.

Here is the narrative of her visit:

"March 12, I left for the hospital, accompanied by Mrs Tolstoii, my father the Baron Charles Buxhoeveden, the lieutenant Adriieevski and Mr. Schwabe (along with Ms. Peuthert.) Although it was very early, - it was 8 in the morning,- the director of the hospital seemed to have been warned of our visit, and a nurse took us into the women's common room where the patient was located. She was in bed close to the wall, she was turned facing against the window, in full sunlight. When she heard us enter the room, she hid herself under the cover to hide herself from our stares, and we were not able to get her to show us her face. The nurse and Mrs. Tolstoii told me that she always acted in this manner when someone wanted to she her, but the nurse added that the patient had a habit of acting in this manner with an older woman, Miss Peuthert, a former patient of the hospital and who apparently had the unknown one's confidence, and who was also present when I arrived.

The unknown one spoke German with Miss Peuthert. Although she was permitted to get up, she prefered to stay in bed as long as possible. This is how I found her. She was in a night shirt and a white morning coat, her hair was pulled away from the forehead and pulled back, and was arranged simply. After asking my companions to move away from the bed a little, I tried to attract the young woman's attention as I caressed her hair and speaking to her in English while using the types of phrases I would have used while speaking with the Grand Duchesses, but I did not refer to her by any name other than 'Darling'. She did not reply and I saw that she did not understand a word of what I had said, for when she raised the cover after a certain period of time, and I saw her face, there was nothing in her eyes which showed she had recognized me. The eyes and forehead showed some resemblance to the Grand Duchess Tatiana Nicolaievna, resemblance that disappeared, nevertheless, as soon as her face was not covered. I had to remove the cover by force, and I saw that neither the nose, the mouth, nor the chin were formed like that of the Grand Duchess. The hair was lighter in color, some of her teeth were missing-and the remaining ones were not like those of the Grand Duchess, whose teeth were arranged like those of her Majesty the Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, that is to say that the superior teeth were slightly inclined inwards. The teeth of this young woman on the contrary were all right. Her hands were also completely different, the fingers were longer and the nails narrower. I wanted to measure her height, but she refused, and I found it impossible to get an exact measurement without force. We judged roughly that in any case, she was smaller than me, while the Grand Duchess Tatiana was more than ten centimeters taller than me. I have been able to verify this, thanks to the patient's official measurement at the time of her arrival at the hospital and that corresponded exactly with the one which was taken in my presence.

I tried to awaken the memory of the young woman by all the possible means; I showed to her an 'icon', with the date of the Romanov jubilee, that the emperor had given to some persons of the suite, after that a ring that had belonged to the empress; the latter had been given given to her in the presence of the Grand Duchess Tatiana. But none of these things seemed not to evoke in her the slightest recognition. She remained completely indifferent, she whispered some incomprehensible words into Ms. Peuthert's ear. Although I noted a certain similarity in the upper part of the face with the unknown -currently Mrs. Tschaikovski- with the Grand Duchess Tatiana, I am sure that she is not her. I later learned that the she supposes that she is the Grand Duchess Anastasia, but she does not physically resemble her in the least. She has none of the special characteristics that would allow any one who knew the Grand Duchess Anastasia well to identify her.

When Ms. Peuthert saw that the unknown one remained completely mute and did not show that she recognized me, she tried to attract her attention by whispering some words into her ear in German and showing photographs of the Imperial family to her. She pointed to the Empress, while saying: 'Tell me, isn't that mamma?' (Or similar words). In the end she put into her hands a copy of a Russian New Testament with ribbons of the Russian national colors. All these attempts failed, the patient remained mute and strove to hide her face with her cover or her hands. I must point out that the Grand Duchess Anastasia hardly knew any German words and that she pronounced them with a strong Russian accent."]

[Anna was Franziska]

May 30, 1922, the unknown one moved in to Baron Kleist's home. It was there where a lot of persons who had formerly had relations with the court came to see her; they brought her photographs and books concerning the Imperial family. Little by little the unknown one familiarized herself with the Russian language. Annie (this is what she was called by those who looked after her.) received medical care while staying with the Baron, she was suffering from tuberculosis of the bone and consumption. According to statements by Dr Graede to me who had cared for her during this time, stated that there were some lesions on the body of the patient, but they all had tuberculosis of the bone and not in any case could be caused by rifle butts or of a bayonet. Unfortunately, this doctor, who was completely objective, did not submit the patient to a gynecological examination, but she declared to him that she had a son and "that one could always recognize this child thanks to the linens he wears with Imperial crowns and a medallion." which she had left to him.

In the file of the Baron Kleist are located two important facts:


1. The 6th of August 1922, the sic