Anna Anderson's claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia

[BorisRom]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Can you show us other cases where hallux valgux was a preferred method of identification over DNA testing?

Researchers on identification have paid attention to this extremely rare medical statistics of CONGENITAL HV only one year ago (in 2007), therefore similar precedent yet was not. Case AA/ANR can become precedent.
Boris

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by BorisRom

Researchers on identification have paid attention to this extremely rare medical statistics of CONGENITAL HV only one year ago (in 2007), therefore similar precedent yet was not. Case AA/ANR can become precedent.
Boris

Thanks for explaining Boris.

Well since it took DNA two decades to establish itself before being admitted in courts, I'm afraid it may be awhile before congenital HV findings have the same reputation for reliability for determining identity as current DNA tests enjoy. It may happen though but from the look of it, not very soon.

[lexi4]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Thanks for explaining Boris.

Well since it took DNA two decades to establish itself before being admitted in courts, I'm afraid it may be awhile before congenital HV findings have the same reputation for reliability for determining identity as current DNA tests enjoy. It may happen though but from the look of it, not very soon.

I agree. I think DNA trumps HV in the identification process.
Boris, my understanding it that all HV cases are gentic.

[COUNTESS]

Originally Posted by BorisRom

The scientific medical statistics in this case is in 3000 times of more reliability (authentic), than DNA-researches and much more preferable in sense of possibility of mistakes and falsification.
"Clearly and nicely"?

Just trying to be nice. Sometimes I am snippy. Lots of discussion sometimes borders on the bizarre and this was a cogent reply, and very "clear and concise".

[lexi4]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

Just trying to be nice. Sometimes I am snippy. Lots of discussion sometimes borders on the bizarre and this was a cogent reply, and very "clear and concise".

Countess, I have found that sometimes life borders on the bizarre.
Lexi

[COUNTESS]

Quite true. I didn't want to use the word nutty.

[plkbvt]

Originally Posted by england

It said on ABC that the bodies were those of Tsaravitch Alexei and Grand Duchess Anastasia. I feel it is good that the whole family can be reunited again. But what does this say about people like Anna Anderson? How could so many people have been wrong? A few years ago I read Anna Anderson's autobigraphy...quite interesting.

Two things: what makes you think that AA's supporters were "wrong." Only the 1994 DNA tests, when that science was in its infancy. Much has changed.

Second, AA did not write her own "autobiography." It was ghosted at the request of her attorneys. She did not cooperate with it in any respect, and gained not a dime from its publication. pk

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by plkbvt

Two things: what makes you think that AA's supporters were "wrong." Only the 1994 DNA tests, when that science was in its infancy. Much has changed.

As has already been explained: it doesn't matter because once you mismatch on one sequence it's enough to disqualify you. So even if they did the more modern 23 point tests, it would make no difference. She mismatched 5 of 13, so if you do 23, she'll only mismatch more (and remember ONE was all it takes to not be Anastasia) This is why all the experts agree there is no need to retest.

It should also be noted that the tests were done in not only one but four different labs (three with the intestines, one with the hair sample) and all gave the same results. If there had been any mistake by anyone, all four would not have turned out the same. The new bones found last summer will be sent to other labs after they are finished in Russia, so hopefully the more labs test them in more countries, the less doubt there will be. (this since some people have mentioned they don't trust Russia)

[plkbvt]

Originally Posted by lexi4

For the DNA tests on the bodies found in Koptyaki Forest, DNA from Prince Phillip was used. His mother, Princess Alice of Greece, was the daughter of Alexandra's oldest sister, Victoria. Both Alexandra and Victoria shared the same mtDNA. Testing for Nicholas proved to be more complicated. His nearest living relative was his sister Olga's son. He believed the bones found to be a hoax engineered by the KGB and refused to cooperate with the testing. Consequently, the lab cloned the DNA of Nicholas using the PCR process but this too proved problematic. In the end, the body of Nicholas's brother, Grand Duke George Alexandrovich, was exhumed and a match obtained.
So, the DNA used for Nicolas and Alexandra was that of Prince Phillip and Grand Duke George.
Lexi

Lexi -- this is quite correct, but as I never get tired of saying, no *legal* review has ever been passed on this. Who was there when a hair of Prince Philip's was plucked? Who oversaw this procedure? Answer: Nobody. I swear to you, none of this would hold up for two minutes in a court of law -- it would be tossed out on its ear. Especially when you figure that the Hesse/Mountbattens were always AA's most vociferous opponents. Any court of law would demand that these tests be repeated -- only now there are no samples to use, the bones of the i.f. being interred in Russia is a more or less "inviolate" state (they're not about to open those tombs again!) and all of the putative "AA" samples being in great dispute as to origin and "chain of custody." No -- never in a courtroom would any of this hold up, which is why the survivors have not brought it to court for an official judicial ruling. They KNOW that they would have to go back to the very beginning. pk

[plkbvt]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Oh I agree and understand. I was treated appallingly by the local parish priest because of my sexuality. It took me 4 years to find a gay friendly Catholic Church but even that has meant tiny little steps and I spent 4 years totally rejecting the Church because it rejected me so I'm a kindred spirit with AA on that front.

Thank you for this, BeatrixFan -- I wish more people understood.

When you use the handle "BeatrixFan" are you speaking of Her Majesty of the Netherlands? pk

[lexi4]

Originally Posted by plkbvt

Lexi -- this is quite correct, but as I never get tired of saying, no *legal* review has ever been passed on this. Who was there when a hair of Prince Philip's was plucked? Who oversaw this procedure? Answer: Nobody. I swear to you, none of this would hold up for two minutes in a court of law -- it would be tossed out on its ear. Especially when you figure that the Hesse/Mountbattens were always AA's most vociferous opponents. Any court of law would demand that these tests be repeated -- only now there are no samples to use, the bones of the i.f. being interred in Russia is a more or less "inviolate" state (they're not about to open those tombs again!) and all of the putative "AA" samples being in great dispute as to origin and "chain of custody." No -- never in a courtroom would any of this hold up, which is why the survivors have not brought it to court for an official judicial ruling. They KNOW that they would have to go back to the very beginning. pk

Peter,
Didn't any one keep samples of the DNA taken from the Imperial Family? Preserve it in some way? Is that even possible?
Lexi

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by plkbvt

Lexi -- this is quite correct, but as I never get tired of saying, no *legal* review has ever been passed on this. Who was there when a hair of Prince Philip's was plucked? Who oversaw this procedure? Answer: Nobody.

What are you implying? That there was some intentional wrongdoing?

Especially when you figure that the Hesse/Mountbattens were always AA's most vociferous opponents.

What does this have to do with it? Are you saying that there was a setup to discredit Anderson because they didn't like her? That's quite a strong allegation without the slightest drop of evidence.

Any court of law would demand that these tests be repeated -- only now there are no samples to use, the bones of the i.f. being interred in Russia is a more or less "inviolate" state (they're not about to open those tombs again!) and all of the putative "AA" samples being in great dispute as to origin and "chain of custody." No -- never in a courtroom would any of this hold up, which is why the survivors have not brought it to court for an official judicial ruling. They KNOW that they would have to go back to the very beginning. pk

The 'chain of custody' is well docuented, even on video in the NOVA special. You can clearly see Dr. Gill take the sample in the hospital, and take it to the airport with Marina Schweitzer present. So are you alleging the sample was swapped out after it left Virginia?

The reason this has never gone to court is because all of the scientists involved have given sufficient proof that the tests were valid. If anyone disagrees, the burden of proof would be on them, and I doubt they would get very far in court with such a vague challenge.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by plkbvt

Only the 1994 DNA tests, when that science was in its infancy. Much has changed.

In 1994, DNA testing was not in its infancy. Several criminal cases had been decided on basis of DNA testing by then and the criminal courts were the last to accept its validity. This was the same year that DNA testing was done on the evidence of OJ Simpson's wife's murder and only one year before 1995 at the OJ Simpson trial where DNA evidence played such a prominent role. The DNA evidence was so strong that the defense team had to mount a defense that the DNA was deliberately planted by a rogue racist cop (Mark Fuhrman) in order to be believed. The OJ Simpson defense team did not rely on the argument that DNA testing was in its infancy and therefore unreliable in order to clear their client because it would not have been a believable argument.

[lexi4]

Originally Posted by ysbel

In 1994, DNA testing was not in its infancy. Several criminal cases had been decided on basis of DNA testing by then and the criminal courts were the last to accept its validity. This was the same year that DNA testing was done on the evidence of OJ Simpson's wife's murder and only one year before 1995 at the OJ Simpson trial where DNA evidence played such a prominent role. The DNA evidence was so strong that the defense team had to mount a defense that the DNA was deliberately planted by a rogue racist cop (Mark Fuhrman) in order to be believed. The OJ Simpson defense team did not rely on the argument that DNA testing was in its infancy and therefore unreliable in order to clear their client because it would not have been a believable argument.

What the defense team did was place reasonable doubt into the minds of the jurors who failed to grasp the significance of the DNA. The questioned custody, the condition of the blood etc. But I don't think the verdict the jury reach was influenced by factors that had nothing to do with DNA.
The point is, the defense team created reasonable doubt. Do you think the same could be done in the case of Anna Anderson?

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by lexi4

What the defense team did was place reasonable doubt into the minds of the jurors who failed to grasp the significance of the DNA.

What the defense really aimed to do was to prey on the mistrust and dislike of the LAPD so soon after the Rodney King case and the 1992 riots. Had the jury truly been of OJ's "peers", other rich people from Brentwood, the results may have been different.

The point is, the defense team created reasonable doubt. Do you think the same could be done in the case of Anna Anderson?

I really don't think so, because there is absolutely no evidence, not even a scapegoat like Fuhrman, in the AA case. No one has been able to give any names or situations in which they believe it was switched, they just claim it must have been since they dislike the results (AA being FS) It takes a great deal more than this to counteract the DNA tests done in four different labs.

While Anderson's supporters may claim there is a 'mountain of evidence' on her side, when you take each piece of it apart and examine the details around it and question its sources and reality, the 'mountain' really falls like a house of cards, especially in comparison to DNA. Most of what is claimed to be 'fact' really isn't nearly as solid or dependable as claimed. Also, the photos (clear face forward and unshadowed) really do show glaring differences in the two faces, where AA looks much more like FS. So no, overall, I do not think there is reasonable doubt. AA would lose in court now, if her case would even be brought back in, which is extremely unlikely to occur.

[Russophile]

No, I don't take the photos into account. Before anybody says I'm an AA supporter, I am not. I don't know that she was or wasn't and that's the thrill of the mystery. Using photographs, to me, just doesn't prove anything. And I don't think they should have been used at all.

[ysbel]

The significant thing about the OJ Simpson trial is that the defense could not point to the unreliability of DNA tests in general to counterattack the prosecution but rather had to resort to a rogue cop to convince the jury to disregard the evidence. And this was a jury that was very favorably disposed to the defense's case so one would expect that any realistic defense that could have pointed to the unreliability of DNA testing in general at the time would have been most welcomed by this jury.

So DNA evidence was not new and unproven when Anna Anderson's DNA was tested.

Well I don't think it hurts to test the DNA again as I believe is being done. I also don't think that Harry is James Hewitt's son but if releasing DNA tests will put the rumours to rest then I think its worthwhile to do so again.

My personal opinion is that if there is DNA then why use photographs? In the absence of DNA, then yes photographs have been used as evidence of identity but the DNA is much more reliable.

[lexi4]

Originally Posted by ysbel