Anna Anderson's claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia

[ferrymansdaughter]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

My guess is that the first version was invented with Clara in the asylum, it advanced further at the Von Kliest's and the final version was perfected by professional writer Rathlef for her newspaper series, .

Harriet Von Rathlef was not a professional writer but in fact trained as a sculptor in Germany. She may have written some children's books but I believe she was an illustrator of books, not a writer. However, she was known primarily as a sculptor and artist. Her surviving works are on view in some art galleries.


I suggest you try the attached links for more info about Mrs Rathlef and her work.

http://www.meaus.com/harriet-siderowna-keilmann.htm
http://www.lostart.de/recherche/global.php3?lang=german&search=Rathlef-Keilmann&submit=Suche

[ferrymansdaughter]

Duplicate posting by mistake

[ferrymansdaughter]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

It has? Please provide the details.


You will find in FOTR that Yurovsky was up in arms over the jewels "that cause so many problems."

.

Not if she hasn't read it

[ferrymansdaughter]

[quote=Anna was Franziska;796648]
This is why, like the lady who found the dirty, skinny dog, thought it might have been hers in bad shape, but after more time and further consideration it turned out not to be the dog, and not to be AN.


quote]

if I had a pound for every time you tell this story I would be rich.

[ferrymansdaughter]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

"She told me she had been raped" Gerda Von Kliest said bluntly (source 26 Aucleres) There had already been whispers of 'innocent flirtations' behind the palisades at the Ipatiev house in Ekaterinburg and how the Russian Monarchists began to pay closer attention to them (source 27: "this was no more than a rumor"- is that all it takes to get qualified as a footnoted source? Wow!) .

You said that in Kurth's book it said that AA had spoken of having "sexual relations" with the guards. I was asking you to show us where it said that (since it does not). That is not at all the same thing at all as AA saying she had been raped. There is a very big difference

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

1. To make impossible, as by action taken in advance; prevent.

does this mean that Kurth is not denying this may have happened?

.

I do know what preclude means, thank you.
.[/quote]

[ferrymansdaughter]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Of course I read it, several times, you forget I'm an ex supporter. .

they say there's nothing like a convert ....

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

I have read quite a bit on the case since 1974 when I first started getting interested in this case, but I'm sorry that my head does not keep a constant internet file of every single word ever read and what page it was on. Yes I have read the books I quote, Massie many times, Klier and Mingay only once as it was an interlibrary loan, most recently Welch's book, the only ones I haven't read are those like La Fausse Anastasie which are in a foreign language or too obscure to find, and I have relied on friends and other people's posts for certain quotes. Most of us don't have a library sitting around ready or the time to dig through a book of hundreds of pages for one quote to appease someone's haughty insinuations.

You know perfectly well why I am asking if you have read these books - and so do other people. There is a precedent for you discussing books, criticising their content (and indeed their authors) at great length and over a long period of time when you haven't in fact even read the book in question.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ferrymansdaughter

they say there's nothing like a convert ....

It's because I can see through it all now and know the answers that I try to help others.

You know perfectly well why I am asking if you have read these books - and so do other people. There is a precedent for you discussing books, criticising their content (and indeed their authors) at great length and over a long period of time when you haven't in fact even read the book in question.

Yes I knew perfectly well what you were getting at and I didn't appreciate it or find it necessary to drag into this discussion. As I said before, I am NOT bringing the FOTR mess over here, if that's what you're trying to stir up, but I tell you if it did happen, the mods who run this place would not let it go on the way it did on the other site! All the personal insults and harsh comments would be deleted and the members in trouble. (BTW, another thing that will get your post edited or deleted here is references to a fight on another forum, or 'board wars.') As I said about posting the page numbers, why do it if you don't want the person to consider the particular passage, so you evidently must not think the person has to read the entire book to be able to comment or pass view on certain singled out parts. If I read the parts being discussed and scrutinized, and others' evaluation of them, I have just as much right to comment on them as anyone else would on anything posted anywhere.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ferrymansdaughter

You said that in Kurth's book it said that AA had spoken of having "sexual relations" with the guards. I was asking you to show us where it said that (since it does not). That is not at all the same thing at all as AA saying she had been raped. There is a very big difference

Don't rape, and pregnancy, come from sexual relations? Who else could have raped her in captivity? I gave you what you asked for. (of course we all know that there is no way AA was raped by guards since she wasn't AN and wasn't in Siberia)

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ferrymansdaughter

if I had a pound for every time you tell this story I would be rich.

If I had a nickel for everytime AA supporters post exactly the same quotes and lists, I'd buy Microsoft.

[Anna was Franziska]

Thanks for posting, Chat, I hadn't seen that before. It's easy to see why the courts were so confused and why the trial lasted for decades. However, since we now know that AA wasn't AN, what are the explanations for his comments? There is one, though we can't prove what it was, we can guess. One guess- and I do admit that's all it is- is that he was somehow involved in the charade and lying to help her. This is not out of the question, it does happen. There are doctors who have lied to help cases, for instance, in 'whiplash' suits and other 'personal injury' cases, doctors have been caught lying, falsifying records and showing X rays that belong to other people to help their clients, for a cut of the payoff if they win. Another possibility is she tricked him with what she had already learned from others.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Thanks for posting, Chat, I hadn't seen that before. It's easy to see why the courts were so confused and why the trial lasted for decades. However, since we now know that AA wasn't AN, what are the explanations for his comments? There is one, though we can't prove what it was, we can guess. One guess- and I do admit that's all it is- is that he was somehow involved in the charade and lying to help her. This is not out of the question, it does happen. There are doctors who have lied to help cases, for instance, in 'whiplash' suits and other 'personal injury' cases, doctors have been caught lying, falsifying records and showing X rays that belong to other people to help their clients, for a cut of the payoff if they win. Another possibility is she tricked him with what she had already learned from others.

Unfortunately for you and your way of thinking, this is only one of several medical reports on AA. They all come to the same conclusion: It is impossible that she could be an impostor, she had no mental deficiencies, she was a lady from the higher classes, her experiences were real and she spoke English under sedation. Dr. Eitel at the Stillachhaus goes one step further and says at the end of his somewhat longer report: "Our own observations, together with the statements of Professor Rudnev and the meeting at this place with Mrs. Melnik, all force us to the conclusion that Mrs. Chaikovski is, in fact, Her Highness the Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna."

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

If I had a nickel for everytime AA supporters post exactly the same quotes and lists, I'd buy Microsoft.

Yes, I agree with you there. But the problem is, that list and those quotes will never change since they are the real things. And they will not change until you find other lists and quotes to dismiss them. Just saying "I don't believe it" will not change anything.

[ferrymansdaughter]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

Unfortunately for you and your way of thinking, this is only one of several medical reports on AA. They all come to the same conclusion: It is impossible that she could be an impostor, she had no mental deficiencies, she was a lady from the higher classes, her experiences were real and she spoke English under sedation. Dr. Eitel at the Stillachhaus goes one step further and says at the end of his somewhat longer report: "Our own observations. together with the statements of Prfessor Rudnev and the meeting at this place with Mrs. Melnik, all force us to the conclusion that Mrs. Chaikovski is, in fact, Her Highness the Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna."

Well Chat, no doubt AnnaWasFranciszka will say they were all crooks!

[ferrymansdaughter]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Don't rape, and pregnancy, come from sexual relations? Who else could have raped her in captivity? I gave you what you asked for. (of course we all know that there is no way AA was raped by guards since she wasn't AN and wasn't in Siberia)

"sexual relations" implies consent, as you well know.

[Menarue]

I have no doubt that Chat (hi there!) believes implicitly that Anna Anderson was the Grand Duchess but do you Ferrymansdaughter believe that? Despite the DNA, the finding of the IF remains?

[ferrymansdaughter]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Yes I knew perfectly well what you were getting at and I didn't appreciate it or find it necessary to drag into this discussion. .

I'm sure you didn't,

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

As I said before, I am NOT bringing the FOTR mess over here, if that's what you're trying to stir up, but I tell you if it did happen, the mods who run this place would not let it go on the way it did on the other site! All the personal insults and harsh comments would be deleted and the members in trouble. (BTW, another thing that will get your post edited or deleted here is references to a fight on another forum, or 'board wars.') I have just as much right to comment on them as anyone else would on anything posted anywhere.

I am not "trying to stir up" the FOTR mess . This is not about "fights on another forum", nor am I making any personal insults, but stating facts. I am simply trying to ascertain whether or not your comments and opinions are actually based on having read the sources. I don't care that you and I have differing viewpoints on this issue nor do I care if you have actually read all the books since I certainly haven't read everything on this subject. I simply want to know what you have read since If you haven't read the whole book you could be taking the quotes completely out of context. I am quite happy to explain my position to the Moderators and I am very happy to know that they are much better at their job than on some other sites.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

Yes, I agree with you there. But the problem is, that list and those quotes will never change since they are the real things. And they will not change until you find other lists and quotes to dismiss them. Just saying "I don't believe it" will not change anything.

But Chat, it all changed with the DNA results. Now because of those, and now the findings of the last two missing children, we know for sure there were no survivors. This means AA wasn't AN. So saying that you still want to consider the old lists and quotes as evidence alongside the DNA just isn't realistic.

Look at some of those recent stories where men have been freed from prison after many years when DNA testing proved a different person committed the crime. This has become almost common. In every one of those mens' trials that originally convicted them, there were people swearing they saw them at the crime scene, even picking them out of a lineup, a witness may say they know it was him, and this at one time convinced a jury and a judge and put him in jail. But once the DNA tests come in, they know for sure that it wasn't him who did the crime, and that all the other testimony sworn, signed, whatever, had to be wrong, or lies, or honest mistakes, because the DNA proved he wasn't really there no matter what those witnesses thought they saw. Many of these cases involve rape, and the woman who was raped was so certain she had found her attacker that she testified on the witness stand, but, it turned out she was wrong. See, the deal is, DNA OVERRULES ALL OTHER EVIDENCE! Once we have DNA results, all the other evidence no longer matters. You may not like it but that's how it works.

You may also try to claim that the DNA was switched or wrong. Funny thing is, I have never seen any of those criminals who did match who got the other man off the hook, or any of the 'baby daddies' who get stuck with 18 years of child support to a woman they can't stand ever try to doubt the DNA, and it affects their lives directly. So why is it so important to you that AA be AN that you would resort to such an extreme position?

[ferrymansdaughter]

Quote: