The Gill Paper: Establishing the Identity of Anna Anderson Manahan

[ysbel]

Discussion:
Establishing the Identity of Anna Anderson Manahan

Mark Stoneking, Terry Melton, Julian Nott, Peter Gill, Colin Kimpton, Rosemary Aliston-Greiner, Kevin Sullivan

Nat Genet 9:9-10, 1995.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please review the following Community Rules and Member FAQs before posting:

• Insulting comments about other posters and royals are not permitted. Criticism is acceptable; insults and flames are not. We expect our members to treat each other with respect.
• Whenever possible, opinions should be based on factual information obtained from reputable sources and should be backed up by references to those sources. The moderators reserve the right to delete posts containing the more fanciful types of gossip and speculation, whether they originate in gossip magazines and websites or are simply fabricated.
• Discussion of other forums and websites should be limited to royal-related content. We do not allow criticism of other forums or continuation of disagreements that started elsewhere.

• I received a message from a moderator saying that my post had been removed because it contained speculation. We don't know the royals and we get all our information second hand, so isn't it all speculation?
  
  Our rule about speculation is intended to prevent tabloid-type flights of fancy which often slip into outright fantasy and sometimes even libel. While we realise that much of the information posted in the threads is based on reports in the media which we can't verify, we expect posters to base their statements on published reports rather than on wishful thinking or unsubstantiated hearsay. The forum moderators have the final say about whether posts are unacceptably speculative. Disagreements with moderator decisions must take place via private message, not by arguing in the threads and certainly not by reposting deleted material.

• Are really old photos copyrighted? If the copyright belongs to the photographer, and the photographer died 50 years ago, do I still need permission to post the photo? Surely copyright protection doesn't last for ever.
  
  Copyright protection usually extends several decades beyond the lifetime of the photographer or author. However, photos and articles dating from the beginning of the First World War and earlier should no longer be subject to copyright restrictions and may be posted without permission.

• If an article is copyrighted, does that mean I can't post even one or two sentences of it without having to get permission?
  
  Under the fair-use provision of the US copyright law, small amounts of articles may be posted for the purpose of discussion without having to obtain permission from the copyright holder. As a rule of thumb, we're allowing no more than 20% of the text of an article (but not photos) to be posted, along with a link to the original. Ideally, only a very small amount of the article should be posted: just enough to give an idea of the topic of the article, which may then be read on the original website. When posting material from copyrighted articles, it's always better to post less than more.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRF staff recently were able to view the Gill report which is a peer-reviewed report written by the scientists that conducted the mtDNA tests done on tissue samples of Anna Anderson Manahan to test her claims that she was the Grand Duchess Anastasia. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the Gill report.

Readers who would like to read the report for themselves should follow this link. The report is available and costs $18 to subscribers of nature.com

Because the contents of this report are not so easily accessible to the general public as other literature, we decided to provide for our readers a short summary of the main points in the report.

Be warned however, that as laymen, we cannot vouch for the accuracy of the report. We can only read the report as layman and provide a summary of the main points in the article for benefit of our readers who may not have read the report. We can note however that the presence of the findings in a peer-reviewed scientific journal does add a generally accepted level of reliability in the report's findings however the fact that a paper has been peer-reviewed and printed in a journal does not guarantee that the report is 100% accurate.

Of course being layman, there may be errors in our summary. Again, this summary is only provided as a courtesy to our readers and should not be taken as evidence in and of itself. Only the original report can do that.

If any member finds errors in this summary, please inform one of the Russian moderators and we will review and revise.

If you have access to the original report, you may quote up to 20% of the original report here at TRF. Because this is a copyrighted work, do not quote more than 20% of the report.

If you would like to refute part or all of the Gill report, it would be helpful to the layperson if you compare apples to apples and cite another peer-reviewed scientific report as your evidence. It would also be helpful if you provide a link and a synopsis of the report as we are doing here for the Gill report.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establishing the Identity of Anna Anderson Manahan

Mark Stoneking, Terry Melton, Julian Nott, Peter Gill, Colin Kimpton, Rosemary Aliston-Greiner, Kevin Sullivan

Nat Genet 9:9-10, 1995.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary provided by Russian moderators for the benefit of the TRF community. This summary is only made for the benefit of our readers who may not be able to see the original report and we make no claims with this summary other than the fact that this report appears to fulfill the standard for scientific literature in that it is published in a peer-reviewed scientific publication.

Summary

• Anna Anderson Manahan is the woman who claimed to be Grand Duchess Anastasia, daughter of Nicholas II, Tsar of Russia and Tsarina Alexandra Feodorovna (born Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine).
• She had an operation in 1979 at the Martha Jefferson hospital where part of her intestines were removed and kept in formaldehyde.
• Two DNA samples were taken from Anna Anderson Manahan; one from her intestines from the operation; the other from her hair donated by Susan Burkhart with the assistance of Syd Mandelbaum and Peter Kurth. The samples were badly degraded. mtDNA testing was used.
  Note: mtDNA tests the DNA that is a shorter sequence than regular DNA and is more abundant in the body. The DNA is only inherited from the mother; therefore its important to only compare DNA from persons who might be related from the maternal line.
• The Forensic Science Service (FSS) and the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) carried out independent tests on Anna Anderson's tissue samples from the hospital in different locations. In addition, the Department of Anthopology of the Pennsylvania State University independently analyzed Anderson's hair samples.
• The two samples (hair and intestine) were a 100% match with each other. (lab's conclusion: they both came from the same person and therefore it is a very high probability that they both came from Anna Anderson Manahan)
• The two samples were a 100% match with Karl Maucher's sample...Karl Maucher was a great nephew of the factory worker Franziska Schanzkowska and related to Franziska through the maternal line (important for mtDNA analysis). (lab conclusion-Karl Maucher and Anna Anderson were related through the maternal line)
  Note: A German detective had come up with evidence in the 1920s about Franziska's disappearance and had first hypothesized that Anna was Franziska. Until this test, there was no independent scientific evidence that Anna and Franziska were the same person.
• The DNA profiles from Anna Anderson and Carl Maucher were checked against a database of DNA sequences from over 300 European Caucasian individuals. Assuming that the databases used are representative of European Caucasians, the chance of finding matching DNA profiles if Carl Maucher and Anna Anderson are unrelated through the maternal line is less than one in 300. (Lab conclusion: Suggests but doesn't prove that Anna Anderson and Franziska Schwanzkowska are the same person)
• The two samples have a 16.7% match with Prince Philip's DNA (1 of 6) and an 83% mismatch with Prince Philip's DNA -
  Note: Prince Philip, duke of Edinburgh, is through his mother, Princess Alice of Battenberg, the grandson of Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine, Grand Duchess Anastasia's maternal aunt and sister of Anastasia's mother, the Tsarina. Prince Philip is related to Anastasia through the maternal line (important for mtDNA analysis) and he is Anastasia's first cousin twice removed.(lab conclusion-Prince Philip and Anna Anderson are not maternally related. In addition the samples were not able to be associated with any maternal relative of the Tsarina, Anastasia's mother, or any maternal relative of Prince Philip. It is known that Prince Philip and Anastasia are maternally related therefore it can be ascertained that Anna was not Anastasia).

[Elspeth]

Information about the lead authors:

Mark Stoneking
Mark Stoneking - CV
Mark Stoneking - Publications

Terry Melton
President/CEO Terry Melton

Peter Gill
Biology

Colin Kimpton
Colin Kimpton

Kevin Sullivan
Response to the Romanov case=
Evidence Interpretation

Some resources to explain DNA testing:

NOVA Online | Neanderthals on Trial | Tracing Ancestry with MtDNA
Mitochondria 2
DNA Forensics
Mitochondrial DNA Analysis at the FBI Laboratory by Isenberg and Moore (Forensic Science Communications, July 1999)

[Elspeth]

I contacted Dr Stoneking, the lead author of one of the studies, to get his comments about the accusations being made against the reliablity of their methods and results. This was his response:

"Terry Melton and I carried out mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis of
hairs that were purported to be those of Anna Anderson. We found
that the mtDNA sequence from the hair did not match the mtDNA
sequence of a known maternal relative of Anastasia and hence the
hairs could not have come from Anastasia. At the same time, and
completely independently, Peter Gill and his associates carried out
mtDNA analysis of a tissue biopsy specimen purported to be from Anna
Anderson. The mtDNA sequence that they obtained also did not match
that of the known maternal relative of Anastasia, so they also
concluded that the tissue specimen could not have come from
Anastasia. Now, one could of course argue that the hairs and the
tissue specimen did not come from Anna Anderson, but the mtDNA
sequence from the hairs matched the mtDNA sequence from the tissue
specimen, indicating that they most likely came from the same
person. Moreover, as Peter Gill demonstrated, the mtDNA sequence
from the hairs and the tissue specimen also matched the mtDNA
sequence of a maternal relative of Franzisca Schanzkowska. These DNA
tests therefore indicate that Anna Anderson was not Anastasia, and
most likely she was Franzisca Schanzkowska. I would further add that
these sorts of DNA tests are considered highly reliable and are used
routinely in the forensic DNA community."

This response of his shows that there were two independent tests going on: he and Terry Melton were analysing the hair from Anna Anderson, and Peter Gill and his colleagues were analysing the tissue sample. The fact that the results of independent tests were in agreement reinforces the likelihood that the results are reliable; that's fairly standard scientific practice. Also, he makes a distinction between who she was and who she wasn't - he says categorically that she was not Anastasia, but he says there's a high likelihood that she was Franzisca Schankowska, not that she definitely was. mtDNA testing isn't as specific as nuclear DNA testing; it can indicate family relationships, but it can't conclusively identify a person.

[ysbel]

Dr. Terry Melton corresponded with me and Anna was Franziska about the test and here were her comments.

Multiple labs got the same results on different tissues (hair/intestinal tissues) at different times. Independent testing such as this is best practice in forensic testing, especially when the results are going to be scrutinized at the level of this case. It is highly unlikely that the same results would be obtained in different labs if the work was shoddy. More likely, the labs would have gotten different results that made no sense compared to each other.

The science that was used is basic, and the methods, while becoming more sensitive and streamlined since the time of the original tests, were and are designed to get at the most basic building blocks of human identity: the DNA sequence. The DNA sequence cannot change when the methods change. There is no more elemental level of inspection.

Conspiracy theories don't worry me. The weight of well-conceived and time-tested protocols carried out by laboratories with impeccable credentials and nothing to gain from either answer are behind all the results, which have been published in scientific, peer-reviewed literature.

In addition Dr. Melton responded to my questions about the possibility of the Maucher and Anderson's samples contaminating each other and about the 1 in 300 probability figure that was derived for Maucher and Anderson being related.

I do not know anything about the Karl Maucher sample. I was not involved with it. However I do know that the Anderson samples and Maucher sample were not tested simultaneously. True cross-contamination (that is, the Maucher sample contaminated the Anderson sample or vice versa, erasing the authentic type in one or the other) is extremely rare: it would require that the samples be tested at the same time on the same lab bench, that one of the types did not show up as a mixture with the other, etc. This did not happen. As you said, the Anderson samples were done first, by different labs getting the same results. This is a very compelling outcome.

As to the frequency estimates, the profile that is shared by Anderson and Maucher is fairly rare in Europeans. This requires us to keep in mind that for mitochondrial DNA the frequency estimates of various types never approach the rarity of nuclear DNA profiles (for example, numbers like 1 in a billion or less). What the estimate is saying is that, on average, you would expect 1 in 300 unrelated Europeans to have this type, while 299 individuals (chosen randomly) would not. The operative phrase is "on average" as you could choose the second person with the type right away, or not until, for example, 1000 people had been chosen. But, on average, about 1 in 300 individuals would have it. Therefore this is quite helpful because we know that it is not a type that occurs particularly frequently.

One would have to then ask: what is the chance that after we have the Anderson profile established, we just happen to find a type in Maucher that is the same? A priori, any randomly chosen person would not be expected to have that type but in 1 out of 300 picks (on average). This certainly points to (suggests) Maucher as having a possible maternal connection, since he was a candidate and not randomly chosen.

[ChatNoir]

As Peter Gill said: If one accepts this tissue sample as coming from Anna Anderson, it is almost impossible that she was Anastasia.

And that is the problem: Until there is absolutely no doubt that the tissue actually came from Anna Anderson, there can be no legal decision that she was NOT Anastasia.

[lexi4]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

As Peter Gill said: If one accepts this tissue sample as coming from Anna Anderson, it is almost impossible that she was Anastasia.

And that is the problem: Until there is absolutely no doubt that the tissue actually came from Anna Anderson, there can be no legal decision that she was NOT Anastasia.

That has always been the question. Many of us have seen the Gill report, talked to the authors (they aren't that inaccessible) etc. But since Martha Jefferson hospital originally said they had no sample form Anna Anderson and later produced that sample, there has always been questions. This really isn't about the accuracy of the DNA tests as much as it is the issue of the tissue sample.
Lexi

[AGRBear]

I have always assumed that Drs. Gill, Ginther and the others accurately tested the samples they received. After saying this, I will admit that am not convinced that AA was FS.

If AA was not FS, I think there is a logical explanation as to why AA mtDNA seems to match Karl Maucher's. One can use the 1 in 300 mark or the term "coincidence".

The reason I think AA might not be FS is commonly known, however for those who do not know, I'll repeat some of the points:
....1. In testimony in AA's trial, the Wingenders recall that FS was taller than both of them. They were five three, if I remember correctly. I've heard two figures of height established for FS. One was five feet four and five feet six inches tall. Both heights are more than two and a half inches taller than AA.

When I copied a photo of AA and FS and drew from the points of their chins, waists they did not match when I made them both the same height. I did this on my site.

Another time, on AP, I drew from AA and FS faces various points, eyes, ears, nose and chin and they did not match.

The doctors at Daldorf reported that AA was just under five feet 2 inches tall.

....2. The injuries reports by the doctors at Daldorf tell us that the injuries and scars were old and not recent. She had a grove on the side of her head, marks on her fingers and foot which some believed were scars from a bayonet. Apparently it was believed that AA had suffered a broken jaw which was healed.

If AA was part of some kind of conspiracy and someone had caused the scaring, it would have occured after July of 1918 since no one knew before then that the Russian Royal Family would be executed and atleast a year before AA jumped into the canal in Feb 1920.

Some believe the scaring came from the grenade explosion in the AEG factory which killed FS's foreman. According to the reports by the AEG doctors, FS had not suffered any injuries. I believe Gertrude mentioned that FS suffered a headache...

FS was working not far from her mother's house in a bottle factory and was able to visit her family for Christmas of Dec. 1919. No one noticed that she looked different. Surly one of them would have noticed she had had a broken jaw. She then went to work in aspargus fields.

It is reported that the nurses noticed AA's hands when she came to them. They tell us that AA's hands were clean, soft and without calcuses.

....3. As far as we know, FS was never pregnant. The doctors and Daldorf reported that AA had given birth and then changed her name on their records from a "Miss" to a "Mrs" Unknown.

....4. According to Grossmann's trial in Aug of 1921, he was convicted of having killed three (the court did not chose to state many others had been his victim) women, one of which was FS whom they believed killed FS on 13 Aug 1920. Grossmann evidently had a diary in which he wrote the names of some of his victims. Because he was German, he wrote the name as it sounded to him and did not spell FS's last name correctly.

His arrest was three weeks later.

The Berlin papers carried a great many articles about Grossmann, a serial killer, who was believed to have murdered 50 women.

One of the last three women was thought to be FS so her name was in the papers.

At this same time, over at Daldorf, AA had been held since Feb. of 1920.

Which leads me to my next point.

....5. AA jumped into the Berlin canal at nine o'clock in the evening on 17 Feb 1920. The Wingender reported several weeks later, I think it was about 9 March 1920 that AA had failed to return to her room.

Yes, it's true that a Hessian policeman wrote a note on a report in the 1940s, I believe, that it was proven that AA was FS but there was no evidence of proof attached. So, no one has any idea why the policeman wrote AA was FS.

....6. There is, also, the questions about birthday card which FS sent to her brother Felix. She wrote in it that she was sorry that she was sending it late. His birthday is the 17th of Feb.. The German mail was delivered within one day within the boundaries of Weimer Republic, as Germany was know at that time. I found a whole article on how efficient the Germans were with their mail even when there was problems after WW I. There were very few days where mail was delayed but it is reported the mail was delivered in two days. Mail was delivered within Berlin on the same day, Felix received his birthday card a week later.

....7. From what I understand, FS did not suffer from any kind of foot deformity as did AA and GD Anastasia. The reason we know this is because Felix told us that he and FS had pretty feet and as siblings often time do, they compared their feet, and, he seem positive of this fact.

....8. No one recalls the color of FS's eyes. But no one forgot the color the AA's eyes.

....9. When looking at FS's body in the one photo which is said to be FS, she seems in be older than AA. Plus, she seem to have a fuller figure, especially her breasts.

....10. The comparison of languages is far to complex and needs it's own thread, if there isn't one already.

....11. Size of feet was established during AA's court trial. FS's shoe size was several times larger than AA's shoe size. I kept forgetting who but I believe it was FS's family who supplied FS's shoes.

12. Felix signed a document which stated that AA was not his sister.

13. After the longest civil court trial in German history, no one proved that AA was FS because if they had, AA would not have been given permission to go back to court and restart the process of proving she was GD Anastasia.

---

As far as I'm concern, the evidence should prove AA was FS, but, it doesn't. Why doesn't the rest of the facts match? Maybe, AA wasn't FS.

And, let me repeat this, I don't think Drs Gill, Ginther and the others messed up in their DNA/mtDNA findings from the samples they received. Therefore, I have never challenged their findings.

So, at this time, I can't come to the conclusion that AA was FS, because the evidence just doesn't prove AA and FS are the same person. Maybe, this was one of those coincidences which produces a match or this was one of those times the first one out of 300 was a match with Karl Maucher. Remember, it happen to Sykes, who discovered he and Nicholas II had a common ancester.

AGRBear

[AGRBear]

ysbel wrote:

>> The two samples were a 100% match with Karl Maucher's sample...Karl Maucher was a great nephew of the factory worker Franziska Schanzkowska and related to Franziska through the maternal line (important for mtDNA analysis). (lab conclusion-Karl Maucher and Anna Anderson were related through the maternal line)<<

Although most posters assume that Karl Maucher was the great nephew of FS, there is the small problem of proving his grandmother, Gertrude, was the daughter of FS's parents because no one can find a birth certificate or a baptismal record which states she was the daugther of Anton S. and his second wife.

Even though Gertrude was raised as a sibling of FS, this does not mean she was.

Upon what do I base this SPECULATION? I have been doing my family genealogy since the 1970s. And, I couldn't even begin to tell you how many times I've discovered that a person who thought they were a child of the two adults who raised them were not their natural parents. The reason being before the 1930s the death rates were huge due to the lack of medical knowledge. Infants and young children were taken into families and many times no one ever bothered to tell the child they'd been adopted. Often times, if a person does find out, it's usually around the time of a death and the person is told that he/she will not inherit land or money because he/she isn't a sibling but an "outsider". (Greed can bring out the worst in people.) Sometimes, a person never finds out the truth.

DNA/mtDNA could have been established with other members of FS' family because all of the other children of Anton S. and his second wife have their births recorded. They, however, have refused, atleast that is what I understand, to be tested.

Until there is some kind of record found or testing of other siblings descendants, we'll never know if Gertrude was FS' sister. At this time, we can only assume that their common ancestor was FS's mother or FS' grandmother or her great grandmother or her 10th great grandmother....



AGRBear

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by AGRBear

I have always assumed that Drs. Gill, Ginther and the others accurately tested the samples they received. After saying this, I will admit that am not convinced that AA was FS.

If AA was not FS, I think there is a logical explanation as to why AA mtDNA seems to match Karl Maucher's. One can use the 1 in 300 mark or the term "coincidence".

The reason I think AA might not be FS is commonly known, however for those who do not know, I'll repeat some of the points:
....1. In testimony in AA's trial, the Wingenders recall that FS was taller than both of them. They were five three, if I remember correctly. I've heard two figures of height established for FS. One was five feet four and five feet six inches tall. Both heights are more than two and a half inches taller than AA.

The foreman at the AEG also remembered FS as being about 5'4" tall.

....2. The injuries reports by the doctors at Daldorf tell us that the injuries and scars were old and not recent. She had a grove on the side of her head, marks on her fingers and foot which some believed were scars from a bayonet. Apparently it was believed that AA had suffered a broken jaw which was healed.

According to Harriet Rathlef-Keilmann, X-rays showed fractures of both the upper and lower jaw.

FS was working not far from her mother's house in a bottle factory and was able to visit her family for Christmas of Dec. 1919. No one noticed that she looked different. Surly one of them would have noticed she had had a broken jaw. She then went to work in aspargus fields.

In the bottle-washing factory, FS sustained a cut under the nail of her RIGHT ring finger and carried a scar aftewords. Her finger was also a little stiff from the accident. AA had a cut at the root of her LEFT middle finger and suffered stiffness of same finger

....5. AA jumped into the Berlin canal at nine o'clock in the evening on 17 Feb 1920. The Wingender reported several weeks later, I think it was about 9 March 1920 that AA had failed to return to her room.

The "Abmeldung" from March 9. 1920 has never surfaced. The only thing we know for sure is that Frau Wingender "sometime in March" wrote to FS's family to tell them that FS had disappeared. The family contacted the Berlin Police, who did not have a missing report on her.

Yes, it's true that a Hessian policeman wrote a note on a report in the 1940s, I believe, that it was proven that AA was FS but there was no evidence of proof attached. So, no one has any idea why the policeman wrote AA was FS.

I believe that "identification" was dictated from Darmstadt much earlier.

....6. There is, also, the questions about birthday card which FS sent to her brother Felix. She wrote in it that she was sorry that she was sending it late. His birthday is the 17th of Feb.. The German mail was delivered within one day within the boundaries of Weimer Republic, as Germany was know at that time. I found a whole article on how efficient the Germans were with their mail even when there was problems after WW I. There were very few days where mail was delayed but it is reported the mail was delivered in two days. Mail was delivered within Berlin on the same day, Felix received his birthday card a week later.

According to Felix, the card was between 8 and 12 days late.

....11. Size of feet was established during AA's court trial. FS's shoe size was several times larger than AA's shoe size. I kept forgetting who but I believe it was FS's family who supplied FS's shoes.

No, there were no shoes involved. Harriet Rathlef-Keilmann sent a friend to talk with FS's family, and she thus found out that FS wore shoe size 39, while AA used size 36.

ChatNoir

[AGRBear]

Thanks Chat for revising my post.

I don't know why I never remember accurately the facts around the shoe size.

I thought the Hessian policeman's report was in the early 1940s. Do you remember when? 1930s? 1934, maybe?? And, you think it was a policeman in Darmstadt not Hesse. I thought the investigation started in Darmstadt and then everything, all the records and everything, was sent to Hesse. And it was the Hessian policeman, not the detective in Darmstadt, who was said to have reported that AA was FS. Gosh oh gee, do I have some fiction book stuff mixed up with facts. Sorry everyone. I'll blame it on having a senior moment or two or three.

AGRBear

PS Please see below Bear's rewrite.

PSS And Lucien will also correct this post: Darmstadt is in Hesse.

PSS I should have said the records were transferred from Berlin to Darmstadt/Hesse, which is, now, part (Landau=state) in Germany

[lucien]

Originally Posted by AGRBear

Thanks Chat for revising my post.

I don't know why I never remember accurately the facts around the shoe size.

I thought the Hessian policeman's report was in the early 1940s. Do you remember when? 1930s? 1934, maybe?? And, you think it was a policeman in Darmstadt not Hesse. I thought the investigation started in Darmstadt and then everything, all the records and everything, was sent to Hesse. And it was the Hessian policeman, not the detective in Darmstadt, who was said to have reported that AA was FS. Gosh oh gee, do I have some fiction book stuff mixed up with facts. Sorry everyone. I'll blame it on having a senior moment or two or three.

AGRBear

Darmstadt is in Hessen,AGR Bear senior.Always has been.

[AGRBear]

Originally Posted by lucien

Darmstadt is in Hessen,AGR Bear senior.

Of course Darmstadt is in Hesse. I knew that yesterday and last year and a long time before my senior moments today...

Bear's rewrite:

>> I thought the Hessian policeman's report was in the early 1940s. Do you remember when? 1930s? 1934... maybe?? Was it when AA's lawyer entered into the picture when all the records for AA were sent to Hesse? And, I'm pretty sure I'm right that it was the Hessen policeman, not the detective/detectives in Berlin, who was said to have reported that AA was FS.

And why the records were sent to Hesse is puzzeling since the Central District Court in Berlin was dealing with the petition of Countess Brassova and the other Romanovs. <<

I'd better sign off for today before I have another laspe.

AGRBear

[ChatNoir]

Hi Bear,
I am referring to Peter Kurth's book where he says that: "Harriet von Rathlef sent Fritz Schuricht down to police headquarters in the spring of 1927 and found that the police did indeed regard Anastasia's case as closed, but not because they knew any more about it than he did. On the contrary, their colleagues in Darmstadt had written to inform them that the "unmasking" was a fact."

The Darmstadt police explained that they had not established the identity of AA, that "fact" was announced by count Hardenberg who had the "proof" from detective Knopf, ostensibly working for the Nachtausgabe. Grand Duke Andrew later found out that Knopf was hired by Darmstadt and not the Nachtausgabe.

ChatNoir