DNA and the law

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Is that the closest he got to Anastasia? I mean, he wasn't treating her as a doctor and saw her feet or anything like that, right? When he saw Anna Anderson's feet, he wasn't doing a first-hand comparison by the sound of it, if the nearest he got to Anastasia was being pelted by paper balls from a balcony while walking past.

As I said, I have never heard any confirmation of him treating the Grand Duchess Anastasia, only the statement from Bella Cohen who interviewed Shura and Olga. And probably talked to Dr. Rudnev while visiting AA at the Mommsen clinic. (I just went back and re-read the article, and Bella Cohen states that Dr. Rudnev himself told her that he was called in to see Anastasia in 1914 and treat her foot.)

[ferrymansdaughter]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Now that numbers and odds are the issue, it's time to drag out Davek's estimations based on all those of European origins and see just how likely it is AA was FS.

What are the chances that Anna Anderson was Franziska Schanskowksa based on DNA?

By DaveK

As I have already pointed out to you before, you dragged this off another board and don't seem to know who "Dave K" really is. Therefore please stop quoting him as an authority on DNA. If he doesn't have the necessary scientific background then it is only his opinion which counts for no more than anyone else's - including mine or yours - and he should not be quoted as "an expert".

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ferrymansdaughter

As I have already pointed out to you before, you dragged this off another board and don't seem to know who "Dave K" really is. Therefore please stop quoting him as an authority on DNA. If he doesn't have the necessary scientific background then it is only his opinion which counts for no more than anyone else's - including mine or yours - and he should not be quoted as "an expert".

If he had come up with numbers that claim she was AN, I bet you wouldn't take issue with him or questions his 'expertise.' We cannot blame a guy for not wanting to reveal his real name or workplace on a public forum but this does not mean he doesn't know what he's doing. Apparently all the scientists who HAVE given their names and labs aren't good enough to impress you, either, so does it really matter? As long as anyone says AA is not AN, you will never accept what they say, regardless of credentials.

Originally Posted by BorisRom

I do not think, that «that's all». I think, that you should apologize to all participants of this forum and you should apologize to Englishmen especially. Your views revolt me.

Perhaps due to a language barrier, you still do not understand. I DO NOT think anyone had an affair, this is not my 'revolting view', I was simply asking YOU if that's what you thought since you questioned his 'origins'. So it's YOU who owes the apology for alleging he had 'unknown origins!' (whatever it is you meant by that, and perhaps you should have been more specific)


While you're apologizing, how about apologizing to the scientists involved in all the DNA tests whose honesty, integrity and competance you question with your outrageous theories, as well as those who gave the samples for comparison.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

only the statement from Bella Cohen who interviewed Shura and Olga.

So, we have ONE person's word of some possible yet questionable second and third hand stories. That's not very strong evidence.

And probably talked to Dr. Rudnev

Probably? Is that all? Can't you see how weak all this 'he said she said he talked to her she interviewed him she gave this statement saying this person said that' is? Even if they did talk to Dr. Rudnev, he was a supporter, so that taints the validity as well. Really, the vast majority of your AA 'proof' is based on such hearsay and loose information (whether or not it also became 'testimony'). They are really a house of cards that fall in the slightest wind. The probability of inaccuracies and even lies is very strong. Talk about a bad chain of custody, it reminds me of the game of gossip! Hardly anyone is going to believe such stories over DNA.

[AGRBear]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

...9in part]...

However, this CRS mtDNA is an exception. Almost all other mtDNA type is rare, usually less than 1%. For example, I checked Tsarina’s mtDNA type 16111T/16357C. There was 0 in database of 8902 caucasians. Tsar’s mtDNA was also rare, 0 out of 8902. And Anna Anderson’s mtDNA had 1 in 8902 (1 found in Iceland study). therefore the random match probability is 1/8902 = 0.01%: about 30 times rarer than the original Peter Gill’s estimate (1/300).

....

Here is an excellent example as to how Tsar's rare DNA /mtDNA and coincidence can jump out and strike:

Bryan Sykes, who wrote THE SEVEN DAUGHTERS OF EVE and a professor of genetics at the Insitute of Molecular Medicine and Oxford U., who became involoved in all of this, discovered that he and Nicholas II have a ancestor in common. [Read his chapter THE TSAR AND I, when you get a chance.] p. 76:

>>Though I like the odd vodka, I have never considered myself a Romanov, but I couldn't help noticing that my own DNA sequence matched that of Tsar Nicholas II.<<

Thus far, I haven't seen any data on Kashubians, which we know FS was a part.

If AA wasn't FS then they, too, may be distant cousins.

As far as daveK's identity is concern. He doesn't need to tell us who he/she is. However, I don't think we can use him/her as an expert. The rest of us are smart enough to read what he/she has written and find out for ourselves if his data is accurate or not.

I'm known only as AGRBear and have no intentions of revealing who I am. There is no need. When I post, I try to back up my thoughts, speculations, and/or facts with sources. It's enough that AGRBear receives threats via PMs and e-mails, which is close enough for me and my loved ones, and I don't need these "nut cases" in my personal life.

AGRBear

[BorisRom]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

<...>The hallux valgus is a case in point. Early in these discussions, we were hearing that it WAS congenital. Solid fact, absolutely no doubt. Next thing is that we find that the author of a book claims that a doctor who wasn't a specialist in foot conditions had said it must be (in fact his report said "apparently congenital" which leaves a lot of room for doubt). <...>

Elspeth,
With due respect,
And earlier and now, I think, that AA and ANR had congenital HV. It has three certificates: of the case record of AA in hospital in Daldorf, of the surgeon doctor Rudnev and of ShuraTegleva (the nurse of ANR). However, some time ago I began to speak about «heavy HV», because many opponents (of AA) at this forum stated categorical disagreement with my opinion. I have proved (I hope), what even only «heavy HV» in aggregate with other likelihood estimations shows probability of that AA was ANR = not less than 910 millions:1.
Certainly, it is possible to joke of this theme (there is a lie, there is a bald lie and there is a statistics). However, no jokes change this probability.
Let me to paraphrase this joke:
There is the lie «AA was not ANR» , there is the bald lie «AA was FS» and there is the statistics (likelihood estimation) AA=ANR
What of these is a true? :)
Boris
P.S. In any case I should recognize, that your criticism of my proofs is partly fair and completely objective.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

So, we have ONE person's word of some possible yet questionable second and third hand stories. That's not very strong evidence.



Probably? Is that all? Can't you see how weak all this 'he said she said he talked to her she interviewed him she gave this statement saying this person said that' is? Even if they did talk to Dr. Rudnev, he was a supporter, so that taints the validity as well. Really, the vast majority of your AA 'proof' is based on such hearsay and loose information (whether or not it also became 'testimony'). They are really a house of cards that fall in the slightest wind. The probability of inaccuracies and even lies is very strong. Talk about a bad chain of custody, it reminds me of the game of gossip! Hardly anyone is going to believe such stories over DNA.

As I was saying, I have no other sources to confirm this, and it is very possible that Ms. Cohen was wrong here.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

As I said, I have never heard any confirmation of him treating the Grand Duchess Anastasia, only the statement from Bella Cohen who interviewed Shura and Olga. And probably talked to Dr. Rudnev while visiting AA at the Mommsen clinic. (I just went back and re-read the article, and Bella Cohen states that Dr. Rudnev himself told her that he was called in to see Anastasia in 1914 and treat her foot.)

Apologies if you've already said this but I'm getting deeply confused here. Where is this article you're referring to?

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Apologies if you've already said this but I'm getting deeply confused here. Where is this article you're referring to?

The article was written by Bella Cohen and appeared in The New York Times in 1927. You can all buy it from their archives for very little money.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by BorisRom

Elspeth,
With due respect,
And earlier and now, I think, that AA and ANR had congenital HV. It has three certificates: of the case record of AA in hospital in Daldorf, of the surgeon doctor Rudnev and of ShuraTegleva (the nurse of ANR). However, some time ago I began to speak about «heavy HV», because many opponents (of AA) at this forum stated categorical disagreement with my opinion. I have proved (I hope), what even only «heavy HV» in aggregate with other likelihood estimations shows probability of that AA was ANR = not less than 910 millions:1.

I completely disagree with those statistics. All the aspects that you're claiming are certain are in fact under dispute. If all of them were certain, and if it were shown that the DNA samples had been exchanged, that would be one thing. But as it stands at the moment, the DNA results seem to be firmer than just about any of these others, which are all anecdotal and far flimsier than you're making out. You can't discount the DNA results unless you can show that the DNA samples weren't from Anna Anderson. And by "show" I do mean show, not just handwave away as "must have been tampered with."

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by BorisRom
Elspeth,
With due respect,
And earlier and now, I think, that AA and ANR had congenital HV. It has three certificates: of the case record of AA in hospital in Daldorf, of the surgeon doctor Rudnev and of ShuraTegleva (the nurse of ANR).

The Hallux Valgus has more than three "certificates".
Dr. Theodor Eitel: "The big toe on the right foot is in a conditon of pronounced abduction (Hallus Valgus.)"
Harriet von Rathlef Keilmann: "Thenar eminence of both feet, particularly the right foot."
And here is part of a report from Professor Rudnev which does not tell the same story as Bella Cohen's article:
"In the right foot I found a serious deformity; this was of a hereditary nature, and such that the big toe was bent right in towards the middle and formed a ball.
I had previously heard from the doctors attending Her Royal Highness the Grand Duchess Anastasia about the shape and change in the right foot."
Does not sound like the garden variety bunions that people get from wearing tight shoes.

[Elspeth]

How did he know that the bunion in Anna Anderson was hereditary? I've been looking on all sorts of websites (I'm drawing the line at spending large amounts of money on a book on foot disorders), and nowhere have I found a statement that severe hallux valgus and congenital hallux valgus are the same thing. The word of one doctor who wasn't a specialist in foot diseases really doesn't carry a lot of weight.

[Elspeth]

I don't think any of us KNOW enough about hallux valgus to be sure of how seriously it should be taken as evidence of anything. I'm just seeing a bunch of assumptions and assertions based on common sense being presented as hard fact - and somehow being considered to be so factual that they outrank the DNA evidence in reliability. I realise that Anna Anderson supporters don't wish to accept the DNA evidence, but this is a mighty flimsy basis on which to reject it.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

I don't think any of us KNOW enough about hallux valgus to be sure of how seriously it should be taken as evidence of anything. I'm just seeing a bunch of assumptions and assertions based on common sense being presented as hard fact - and somehow being considered to be so factual that they outrank the DNA evidence in reliability. I realise that Anna Anderson supporters don't wish to accept the DNA evidence, but this is a mighty flimsy basis on which to reject it.

The fact is: Both AA and AN had pronounced Hallux Valgus. Amazing how lucky an impostor can get.

[Elspeth]

Well, she wouldn't be much use as an impostor if she didn't have similar physical characteristics.

[BorisRom]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Well, she wouldn't be much use as an impostor if she didn't have similar physical characteristics.

Elspeth,
Whether you can tell also:

We would be assured, that AA=ANR, if not negative results of DNA-tests.