Anna Anderson's claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia

[BorisRom]

Originally Posted by lexi4

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

Lexi, the term «congenital HV» was thought up not by me. It is for a long time the known scientific medical term. I quote below from article (of 1928) to which referred ChatNoir (on former K&W-forum). You can see there photos congenital HV of newborn baby too.
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov

Ann Surg. 1928 October; 88(4): 798–800.
Copyright notice
CONGENITAL BILATERAL HALLUX VALGUS
Edward P. Heller:

He describes very rare case of Hallus Valgus:
CONGENITAL BILATERAL HALLUX VALGUS (CB HV). He has written:
“Mouchet in 1919 reported a case of CB HV and this is the only one CB HV case in the literature so far as I can determind…”
And just, CB HV is just the case of Anna Anderson and GD Anastasia!

The full text of p.1 (p.798 of Ann Surg. 1928 October; 88(4)):
[www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov]
“CONGENITAL BILATERAL HALLUX VALGUS
MY PURPOSE in reporting this case is three-fold-first, to call attention to a common deformity which is almost never seen in infancy, the case reported being both congenital and bilateral; second, to present illustrations, inasmuch as cases in the literature to which I have access are not illustrated, but are
merely given as case reports, while none of the standard textbooks, to my knowledge, have illustrated presentations of the anomaly; third, to reopen the old discussion as to the etiology, since the infant here reported has never worn shoes, has never borne weight, and if deformed through "accidental
cramping in utero" (Clarke'1), the position necessarily assumed by the fetus offers abundant opportunity for speculation.
CASE REFORT.-M. S., age seven weeks, was brought to the Orthopedic Clinic of the Kansas City GeneralHospital by her mother, with the information that the great toe of each foot had been everted since birth, and did not seem to be returning to normal position. There had been no illness or injury and the child was normal in other respects. A bilateral hallux valgus, as illustrated, was present. No similar deformity existed in the immediate family.
Mouchet in I9I9 reported a case of bilateral, congenital, hallux valgus, and this is the only bilateral case in the literature so far as I can determine. In talking with several local orthopedic surgeons of wide experience I have elicited the frank statement that none has seen such a case. This fact alone
would stamp the case as rare. <…>”

-Mouchet, A.: Hallux Valgus. Congenlital Bilateral. Bull. Soc. de Pediat. de Paris, vol. xvii, P. 298, I9I9.

[www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov]

[BorisRom]

Even if to assume (only a hypothesis!), that AA and ANR had not congenital HV it is very difficult to deny, that they had the heavy form of HV (“the third degree of HV”). According to statistics (of the Central scientific research institute of traumatology and orthopedy of Ministry of Health) it is 1 case on 6600 young women. Taking into account, that both of them had heavy deformation on the right foot, it gives probability of AA=ANR 13200:1. It is more in what two times are higher than reliability of DNA-tests (in 1994-1997).

[OlgaNikolaievna]

I don't see the feet as being of any real significance here. A lot of people have the same foot disorder. This doesn't make them related. On the other hand, the DNA can accurately prove which family a person is or is not related to as it did in the case of Anna Anderson.

[BorisRom]

We should estimate any scientific method of identification on its reliability. Irrespective of how the method of comparative tests of DNA looks "beautifully and cleverly", its reliability did not exceed 1:6000 (in 1990th years). Besides, this method can yield wrong results because of cross pollution, let alone possible falsifications.
The scientific medical statistics is free off the lacks of DNA-tests, and reliability of scientific medical statistics (of C-HV) in 3000 times exceeds reliability of tests of DNA.
Boris

[BorisRom]

Originally Posted by OlgaNikolaievna

I don't see the feet as being of any real significance here. A lot of people have the same foot disorder. This doesn't make them related. On the other hand, the DNA can accurately prove which family a person is or is not related to as it did in the case of Anna Anderson.

About DNA-tests of 1990s: Two reference (citations) from other forum:
http://agrbear.hyperboards.com/index.php?action=view_board&board_id=31&start=1
1. You might find this site interesting. It is very simplified, but it gave me a better understanding of the DNA testing procedures. One thing is clear, the type of testing done in the 90s on the IF, is not perfect and is easily contaminated.

http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html

2. ....The DNA tests performed in 1994 are no longer completely valid.
2.1) The nuclearDNA tests performed are no longer valid. 20-point STR method is now in use. The 6-point STR method used back in the day is no longer valid or in use.
2.2) mtDNA is no longer even used in court cases. It can be contaminated by simply touching a sample or breathing on it. One scientist estimated that 50% of samples that are not supposed to give results do.
2.3) The mtDNA match with Maucher is not so special. 40 of a random 1,000 people share the same mtDNA sequence.

3. Tarnish On The 'Gold Standard': Recent Problems In Forensic DNA Testing
(National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers):

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/698c98dd101a846085256eb400500c01/6285f6867724e1e685257124006f9177?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,forensic,forensics,evidence

[Anna was Franziska]

Here is an explaination from a friend of mine who met Dr. Terry Melton, who worked on the DNA case:

I have spoken to Dr. Teri Melton of Mitotyping Technologies, who did the original Anna Manahan/Carl Maucher testing. There is no doubt, in her mind, or anyone of the other scientists that the original sample could NOT have been "corrupted" and as far as they are all concerned, in her exact words "there is no need to re test the samples as you will get the exact same results".

The reason the samples could not have been corrupted is simple. The Anna Manahan sample was tested first and sequenced BEFORE the Carl Maucher sample was even taken or sequenced. As a result, nobody could have possible known the Maucher sequence OR contaminated the Anna Manahan sample with Maucher mtDNA. The fact that the Anna Manahan sample was a 99.5% likelihood MATCH to the Carl Maucher DNA is of itself proof to the scientific community that the testing was accurate. You see, simply put, if the sample was "corrupted" there couldn't have been any sequence stable enough to sequence; "if" the sample was "tainted" by outside DNA it would have never matched the Maucher sample to such a high degree of certainty (unless one of the scientists handling the sample was themselves a very close cousin to Maucher (they weren't) and the fact that FOUR different labs all got the exact same results rules out the possibility of corruption, contamination or scientific error.

The science is simple and clear. Anyone who thinks the Anna Manahan testing was corrupted or contaminated simply just doesn't grasp the simple science of it all.

[BorisRom]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Here is an explaination from a friend of mine who met Dr. Terry Melton, who worked on the DNA case:

I have spoken to Dr. Teri Melton of Mitotyping Technologies, who did the original Anna Manahan/Carl Maucher testing. There is no doubt, in her mind, or anyone of the other scientists that the original sample could NOT have been "corrupted" and as far as they are all concerned, in her exact words "there is no need to re test the samples as you will get the exact same results".

The reason the samples could not have been corrupted is simple. The Anna Manahan sample was tested first and sequenced BEFORE the Carl Maucher sample was even taken or sequenced. As a result, nobody could have possible known the Maucher sequence OR contaminated the Anna Manahan sample with Maucher mtDNA. The fact that the Anna Manahan sample was a 99.5% likelihood MATCH to the Carl Maucher DNA is of itself proof to the scientific community that the testing was accurate. You see, simply put, if the sample was "corrupted" there couldn't have been any sequence stable enough to sequence; "if" the sample was "tainted" by outside DNA it would have never matched the Maucher sample to such a high degree of certainty (unless one of the scientists handling the sample was themselves a very close cousin to Maucher (they weren't) and the fact that FOUR different labs all got the exact same results rules out the possibility of corruption, contamination or scientific error.

The science is simple and clear. Anyone who thinks the Anna Manahan testing was corrupted or contaminated simply just doesn't grasp the simple science of it all.

Franziska (FS) had height more than Аnna Аnderson, FS carried footwear for three sizes more (!), FS never gave birth (!!) also FS had no deformations of feet (no Hallux Valgus) (!!!) and etc.

DNA-testing are made by people. People can be mistaken:
For example, Japanese and German DNA-testing of Ekaterinburg remains (of 1990th) deny the results of Russian DNA-testing of the same remains. Who is right? - in this case it is «a question of belief» (or of political predilections). There are many other examples of mistakes at carrying out of DNA-testing.
Once again:
Franziska (FS) had height more than Аnna Аnderson, FS carried footwear for three sizes more (!), FS never gave birth (!!) also FS had no deformations of feet (no Hallux Valgus) (!!!) and etc.
If I see an elephant, and scientists speak me, that this elephant has DNA of a hens, I shall think nevertheless, that it is the elephant
The book of Peter Kurth (“ Anastasia. The Riddle of Anna Anderson ”) is absolutely necessary to be read by those people which want to know the truth about this history. It is objective and very informative book. The book is written by fine style also.
Moreover, I think, it is impossible to discuss seriously this theme without preliminary studying of this book.
Boris

[Russophile]

Unfortunately, Boris, there are a lot of organizations and people out there who disagree with Peter's book, no matter he knew the people involved personally and did a LOT of research on it, basically, I think he's the FOREMOST EXPERT on Anna Anderson Manahan.

[BorisRom]

Originally Posted by Russophile

Unfortunately, Boris, there are a lot of organizations and people out there who disagree with Peter's book, no matter he knew the people involved personally and did a LOT of research on it, basically, I think he's the FOREMOST EXPERT on Anna Anderson Manahan.

Yes, Russo.
You are right.
Boris

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by BorisRom

Franziska (FS) had height more than Аnna Аnderson,

This is not proven. The only statements are from her former boarding house ladies and a coworker who hadn't seen her in years. So they estimated wrong. It happens. There are no official records of FS's height, no proof.

FS carried footwear for three sizes more (!),

Again, all just word of mouth years after the fact. There is no proof.

FS never gave birth (!!)

We do not know this as a fact. In those days, girls often hid their illegitimate pregnancies out of shame and embarrassment. Anything could have happened to that baby. Incidently, there is also no record of AA's alleged baby in Romania. It's all just a story.

also FS had no deformations of feet (no Hallux Valgus) (!!!) and etc.

There are no medical records that prove this, again, only comments from others who may have been mistaken, lying, or not knowing of the condition.

People can be mistaken:

Yes, they most certainly can- like in estimating height, recalling shoe size, and knowing or not knowing about scars and foot conditions.

For example, Japanese and German DNA-testing of Ekaterinburg remains (of 1990th) deny the results of Russian DNA-testing of the same remains. Who is right? - in this case it is «a question of belief» (or of political predilections). There are many other examples of mistakes at carrying out of DNA-testing.

If there was a mistake, it was made by the Japanese. All they had was a bloody rag kept from Nicholas's 1891 trip where he was attacked by a Samuri sword weilding maniac in the street. Talk about contamination, the minute another person touched the rag, all bets were off. The intestine sample, however, was kept in parafin wax and sealed in sterile plastic.

The book of Peter Kurth (“ Anastasia. The Riddle of Anna Anderson ”) is absolutely necessary to be read by those people which want to know the truth about this history. It is objective and very informative book. The book is written by fine style also.

Moreover, I think, it is impossible to discuss seriously this theme without preliminary studying of this book.

I read that book many years ago, and several times. However, it was written before the DNA tests and we now have new infomation that proves she wasn't really Anastasia. Also, there are other sides to all the stories told and some of them are not mentioned in the book. I could list several examples of quotes from those who disbelieved Anderson that were not included. But overall, science trumps everything, and DNA wins.

[BorisRom]

“Anna was Franziska”,
I see here (in your post) a standard manner of some opponents АА to deny absolutely everything, what denies their point of view, including obvious and documentary confirmed (even in courts under the oath!) facts. For a long time it is known that to enter discussion with supporters of this main nonsense (FS=AA) is absolutely useless (non-structurally).
Don’t worry about Anna Manahan, be happy with FS …

Don't worry, be happy.
In every life we have some trouble
But when you worry you make it double
Don't worry, be happy.
Don't worry, be happy now.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by BorisRom

I see here (in your post) a standard manner of some opponents АА to deny absolutely everything, what denies their point of view, including obvious and documentary confirmed (even in courts under the oath!) facts.

Do you believe everything everyone says, under oath or not, is a 'fact?' What about those who testified 'under oath' against her, was what they said a 'fact?' Here's the difference: it may be a 'fact' that someone said something on a certain day, however, this does not guarantee that what they said was indeed a 'fact.' It may be wrong, an honest mistake due to human error or inaccurate memory, or yes, even a lie. No, everything a person said that is listed as 'testimony' does not necessarily make it a 'fact.' We have many quotes from people on both sides. They all can't be right! This is why the DNA is so important, because it proved to us which 'side' was right.

For a long time it is known that to enter discussion with supporters of this main nonsense (FS=AA) is absolutely useless (non-structurally).

Nonsense? I don't know how kindly I can say it, but actually the position that she was NOT FS is the real nonsense, because she was (sorry)

[BorisRom]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Do you believe everything everyone says, under oath or not, is a 'fact?' What about those who testified 'under oath' against her, was what they said a 'fact?' Here's the difference: it may be a 'fact' that someone said something on a certain day, however, this does not guarantee that what they said was indeed a 'fact.' It may be wrong, an honest mistake due to human error or inaccurate memory, or yes, even a lie. No, everything a person said that is listed as 'testimony' does not necessarily make it a 'fact.' We have many quotes from people on both sides. They all can't be right! This is why the DNA is so important, because it proved to us which 'side' was right.

Nonsense? I don't know how kindly I can say it, but actually the position that she was NOT FS is the real nonsense, because she was (sorry)

Question «Whether Anna Manahan was Anastasia Romanova?» is remaining opened ones till now and demands additional researches, including - perhaps - new comparative tests of DNA if it is possible. However, thus, reliability of new tests of DNA should be not below the reliability of medical statistics of congenital HV. Until it is not made, data of medical statistics of HV denies data of DNA (of 1990-th).

However, I do not see any sense to discuss an nonsence on a theme «Anna was Franziska».
Please, find (at least) one reference that FS had congenital HV (or simple heavy HV, at least) if you wish to continue discussion on this theme.
Boris

[lilytornado]

Well, for me the DNA is the most convincing, but since everybody is talking about the similarities in appearance....
I found this pretty convincing:
Anna Anderson: Exposed! | The Fact, Fiction and Fantasy surrounding the myth of "Anastasia"

[ysbel]

Boris,

I admit I remain skeptical of your assertions about the foot disorder. I think if this foot order is to be universally considered as valid an identifier as DNA, it would have to be taken as seriously as such as evidence in normal everyday court cases which have nothing to do with Anastasia or Anna Anderson.

Can you give any other cases outside of Anna Anderson where this foot conditions have proven the identity of someone? You say it only started to be taken seriously in 2007 but what caused it to be taken seriously as an identifier for people? Was there a landmark case that it solved? Usually new technologies like DNA don't gain credibility until they can have been proven to solve tough cases.

What other cases has the identification of this foot condition solved?

[BorisRom]

Originally Posted by lilytornado

Well, for me the DNA is the most convincing, but since everybody is talking about the similarities in appearance....
I found this pretty convincing:
Anna Anderson: Exposed! | The Fact, Fiction and Fantasy surrounding the myth of "Anastasia"

Please, show me FS's feet, not a face.
I think, I can go to sleep now. You can find the mentions (of the brother of FS (of Felix)) about her beautiful feet, but you will not find any mention of deformation of her feet.
Feet, - not a face!