Anna Anderson's claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia

[Anna was Franziska]

No, the Berlin police department didn't admit they believed AA was FS. The police department continued to believe FS was murdered by Grossmann. There was one lone policeman whom people claim signed some document but the document either vanished like so many things have or never exsisted. And this was when, the 1940s? If you have a copy of this document, I and others would like to see it.

No it was, as dated, 1927. I got it from, of all people, Chat. He sent it to me in a PM on AP last year. Ask him to verify it. I also saw the same thing and the name of the man who signed it posted on the KW forum by Kurth (or Chat,I forgot) with added negative remarks about the man.

There is really nothing strange about it at all. Berlin was, due to underfunding and political turmoil in March 1920, without the time, resources or interest to investigate one more missing person case among a pile of other problems let the case fall thru the cracks in the crucial early days of the investigation, but Ernie's detective, with all the time and resources he needed toward just that one case, was able to easily uncover who AA really was. Also don't forget this has been backed up by DNA testing.

As for the newspapers, which you've claimed earlier that the Romanov's attorney was bias and claimed she was GD Anastasia, I guess this wasn't entirely true, because you've just given us an example that some claimed she was FS. This shoots down what the Romanov's lawyer's claimed.

AGRBear

No, the newspapers in the 1920's were trying to expose her, the stories Berenberg-Gossler told of taking AA's side were 1955-1967. All different people and circumstances by then.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

I don't know what this man may or may not have contributed to the book since I haven't read it all, however, all I have posted here are signed statements by Von Kliest, Clara P, Sophie B. and Irene H. and are not free prose or commentary by the authors.

 

[ChatNoir]

From Harriet Rathlef-Keilmann's book:

In the winter of 1925-26, a Russian emigrant, the former public prosecutor Savich, applied to Professor Rudnev, and offered him his services in clearing up the question of the patient's identity, since he, as a jurist, would be better able to arrange the material. He informed Professor Rudnev that he was convinced that the patient was the Grand Duchess, and that he wished to do all he could to help her.

Fortunately, I gave Mr. Savich only a portion of my notes, which he promised to return to me in three days.

Only after five weeks did I get my notes back again. Every place in these notes where the evidence showed that the patient could be none other than the Grand Duchess Anastasia had been struck out. A group portrait including the Grand Duchess, which had been enclosed with the manuscript, was missing.
Shortly after this, Mr. Savich announced that he was going to deliver a public lecture on "The False Anastasia." He actually did this in Paris as well as in Berlin.
In his lectures, he made statements which were absolutely false. For example, he stated that Mrs. Chaikovski was the wife of a Lettish criminal, a member of the Moscow Cheka. At the conclusion of his performances, he gave himself the lie when he remarked incidentally: "Of course, this version does not prove anything, as I have just been informed from Riga that friends of this criminal do not know the lady."
He did not, however, consider it necessary to make any addition to the report of his lecture which appeared the next day in the Berlin papers.

 

[ChatNoir]

I don't know what this man may or may not have contributed to the book since I haven't read it all, however, all I have posted here are signed statements by Von Kliest, Clara P, Sophie B. and Irene H. and are not free prose or commentary by the authors.

And the originals of these statements have all been burned. One can only wonder why!

 

[ChatNoir]

More like conflicting reports. But considering he was fake anyway, there is no right date.

Who was fake?

No wonder since it didn't happen.

Remember, the medical report stated that AA had born a child. No reports has ever stated that FS had a child or a miscarriage.

It's published in the book. Maybe Berenberg-Gossler had a copy in his memoirs.

By the time Berenberg-Gossler was introduced to the case, the original was long since burned.

Then explain why it changed so many times?

The only ones who changed it, seem to have been Gilliard and Savich.

Chat- psst- the trip NEVER HAPPENED.

And how do you know that?

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Who was fake?

AA

Remember, the medical report stated that AA had born a child. No reports has ever stated that FS had a child or a miscarriage.

So what? In those days it was such a disgrace to have an out of wedlock baby girls hid it all the time. It's not like now where they announce it proudly in the newspaper. But even today there are girls who still hide it, lie and toss their baby in the trash. FS could have had a miscarriage, abortion, stillbirth, or abandoned her baby on a doorstep or even the trash. It means nothing that there's no record of a illegitimate pregnancy in WWI era Berlin. Families were too ashamed to admit it and would lie, hide or even claim a 'bastard' to save humiliation. You forget what a shame it was in those days.

The only ones who changed it, seem to have been Gilliard and Savich.

No they didn't write those statements, I know you'd like to have people believe they did since the others are allegedly 'burned' and you know it can't be proven, but come on all those people were still alive at that time and would have said something had their statements been falsified. Mediocre try but no cigar.

And how do you know that?

Because AA was not AN! (and the Easter Bunny was your parents)

I wonder why Kurth chose to leave all of those statements out of his book? They are rather damaging to AA's case, especially Sophie's and Irene's. Rathlef eliminated the 'chased by thugs' storyline, the 'face apparatus' and other things that made the story seem even more far fetched than it turned out to be, and tried to make her seem more pathetic and sympathetic for better public acceptance. Since Kurth had Rathlef's notes, he must have decided to go along with her version because it suited the AA side better. This is really how it looks to me, Rathlef made the final version to be sold to the public and the courts, and Kurth is standing behind her in that. Perhaps someone who wasn't as much of a supporter would have included other things.

I was even more sure of this after reading this newsgroup posting from April 2000:

..
you are standing on my shoulders, and I on Dominique Aucleres',
and she by authority and intimate association with Tatiana Botkin, whose
brother was Gleb Botkin, whose daughter, Marina Botkin Schweitzer, has
given her blessing to your work.
All but Marina, Gleb, and Tatiana stand also on the shoulders one
valiant woman, Harriet von Rathlef-Keilmann, a Jew in Berlin, who helped
a suffering stranger find her feet in the world, and all by herself,
against giant and malevolent forces, kept our friend alive and in loving
company until the professionals, at her most urgent appeal, realized
that they had to step in and get rid of the stink. To Frau von Rathlef,
more even than to "Alexander Tchaikovsky," whoever he was, Anastasia
owed her life.

I am Harriet von Rathlef's director successor, in possession of her
original notes. ...By my judgment, which is impeccable on this
topic, the DNA tests are down already to 40.9 or even 6.5 or
873 or March 3 instead of June 8. It's the difference between a
Galitzin and a Golitsyn, and percentages, of course, have no relation to
life.

I'd advise the librarians and genealogists and pop-self-promoters to
come up with a new idea pretty quick. The test tube is now leaking
stink, which, to our minor irritation, and in the hands of a
professional, will be gone before you can think. We have always known
how easy it is to expose frauds and impostors. We are the experts on
that.

Henceforth, only the persons above named as heirs and successors, along
with Brien Horan, Ian Lilburn, and you through our constant charge, will
be permitted to call themselves authorities on "Anna Anderson," along
with such persons as otherwise designate. ....




Fondly,

Peter Kurth

 

[Russophile]

That doesn't sound like my Peter. I am going to ask him.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

If he chooses to post and answer I'm sure we'd all be interested in his comments.

As I've posted before, I am not accusing anyone of being a terrible person for not including things damaging to their case. No good lawyer would do that. I am only saying that is possibly why he didn't use them. It seems to me, after seeing only a one sided view of AA's story over the years that most of the people who write about it are supporters and naturally would choose their words based on what looked best for her.

 

[AGRBear]

..9in part]...
One thing I am very curious about is who were the mysterious people who kept following her around supposed to be....?

The moment Capt. Schwabe believe it was possible that AA was a grand duchess he and his organization ordered immediate guards to protect AA at Dalldorf.

I guess you forgot about this AWF, because we have talked about this many times.

If you remember, the danger of her being one of the grand duchesses threaten more than one group of people. Do I need to name them?

AGRBear

 

[ChatNoir]

So what? In those days it was such a disgrace to have an out of wedlock baby girls hid it all the time. It's not like now where they announce it proudly in the newspaper. But even today there are girls who still hide it, lie and toss their baby in the trash. FS could have had a miscarriage, abortion, stillbirth, or abandoned her baby on a doorstep or even the trash. It means nothing that there's no record of a illegitimate pregnancy in WWI era Berlin. Families were too ashamed to admit it and would lie, hide or even claim a 'bastard' to save humiliation. You forget what a shame it was in those days.

The main point here is, you don't have a shred of evidence to back it up.
From Gleb Botkin's book:
Some or those efforts, however, in spite of their sordidness, bordered on the comical. For instance, Detective Knopf had attempted to persuade the relatives of Francisca, that she had had a child or a miscarriage. But those relatives, who until then, had appeared willing, for a price, to testify to almost anything, emphatically refused to defame the missing Francisca's character. M. Gilliard then promptly declared that Anastasia had invented the story of having given birth to a son, and that the doctors must always have known it, for why otherwise had she been registered in the Dalldorf asylum as Miss Unknown instead of Mrs. Unknown!

No they didn't write those statements, I know you'd like to have people believe they did since the others are allegedly 'burned' and you know it can't be proven, but come on all those people were still alive at that time and would have said something had their statements been falsified. Mediocre try but no cigar.

And how do you know that they did not embellish those statements? I have given you examples of their characters already. As for von Kleist and Clara, I don't think any of them was proficient enough in French to read what they allegedly had written. I doubt any of them ever saw the book, it was not exactly a bestseller, you know.

Because AA was not AN! (and the Easter Bunny was your parents)

And you can legally prove it, I am sure.

I wonder why Kurth chose to leave all of those statements out of his book?

As far as I can see, Kurth used only verifiable sources in his book.

They are rather damaging to AA's case, especially Sophie's and Irene's.

Kurth's book include both Irene and Sophie's statements.

Since Kurth had Rathlef's notes, he must have decided to go along with her version because it suited the AA side better. This is really how it looks to me, Rathlef made the final versionm to be sold to the public and the courts, and Kurth is standing behind her in that. Perhaps someone who wasn't as much of a supporter would have included other things.

I cannot answer for Kurth, but I know that Rathlef opens her book with a copy of the letter from inspector Grünberg where he describes the flight from Russia. AA later repeated the same story to Harriet v. Rathlef.

 

[AGRBear]

I believe Clara P. was, also, a patient at Dalldorf.

When trying to discover more about her, on AP we were told that Clara was often times a "snitch" for the local police. Now, why would anyone plant Clara in this asylum at this time? And, have you ever wondered why Clara declared AA was GD Tatiana instead of GD Anastasia? I believe the term Chat would use is that Clara part in all of this becomes "curiouser and curiouser".

AGRBear

 

[ChatNoir]

If he chooses to post and answer I'm sure we'd all be interested in his comments.

As I've posted before, I am not accusing anyone of being a terrible person for not including things damaging to their case. No good lawyer would do that. I am only saying that is possibly why he didn't use them. It seems to me, after seeing only a one sided view of AA's story over the years that most of the people who write about it are supporters and naturally would choose their words based on what looked best for her.

I think you mentioned a list of things earlier, and if you go back and check my answer, you will find that all the things you said were not in Kurth's book, are indeed there.

 

[Russophile]

If he chooses to post and answer I'm sure we'd all be interested in his comments.

As I've posted before, I am not accusing anyone of being a terrible person for not including things damaging to their case. No good lawyer would do that. I am only saying that is possibly why he didn't use them. It seems to me, after seeing only a one sided view of AA's story over the years that most of the people who write about it are supporters and naturally would choose their words based on what looked best for her.

No, I'm not accusing you of anything like that. When I read that excerpt, it just didn't sound like something Peter would write. It sounded "off"--not like his normal writing. So I want to ask him about it.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

The main point here is, you don't have a shred of evidence to back it up.

Give me 'one shred of REAL evidence' that AA ever had a baby in Romania!

From Gleb Botkin's book:

That introduction always makes me ready for some fiction!

emphatically refused to defame the missing Francisca's character

THIS is why I mentioned the shame on the family first. It was such a disgrace, they wouldn't admit to it at all or any costs. It sounds silly now, but that's how people were back then. Also, it must be seriously considered that FS's family was not aware of her illegitimate pregnancy, since she would have been, as some girls are still today, too embarrassed or afraid to tell them. So again, having no proof of FS's baby means NOTHING. She had an exam that proved she'd been pregnant so we know she had.

And how do you know that they did not embellish those statements? I have given you examples of their characters already. As for von Kleist and Clara, I don't think any of them was proficient enough in French to read what they allegedly had written. I doubt any of them ever saw the book, it was not exactly a bestseller, you know.

All by Clara knew French. I don't think they'd have let their remarks be put in a book unless they saw it and approve it first, in whatever language. You are assuming they never saw the book. In addition to this, there are probably other sources of these things, like Berenberg-Gossler's collections. Massie partially quoted Irene and Sophie, and we know he used BG's papers.

As far as I can see, Kurth used only verifiable sources in his book.

This is what all AA supporters like to say, but really, most of what is in his book is just a bunch of hearsay and commentary with page numbers. We really can't prove who did or said what or if any of the things the people relay are accurate, mistakes, lies, etc.

Really, there is no need for us to go on discrediting each other's sources. Everything everyone said is just that, and can't be proven. The only hardcore proof we do have is the DNA.

Kurth's book include both Irene and Sophie's statements.

Small portions, with added comments to cast doubt on their value.

I cannot answer for Kurth, but I know that Rathlef opens her book with a copy of the letter from inspector Grünberg where he describes the flight from Russia. AA later repeated the same story to Harriet v. Rathlef.

So you're saying Grunberg is responsible for the final version of the escape story?

 

[AGRBear]

5 Dec. 1918 is an interesting date.

If indeed AA had a child in Dec. then do we know where she was nine months earlier? And with whom? This would have been May or April of 1918.

Surly AA could count back nine months and would have realized that GD Anastasia couldn't have become pregnant before 17 July 1918 so why would she have ever told anyone the date 5 Dec. 1918? All they had was her word about the child's birth.

The doctors' report tells us that they believe AA had a child and after this examination they changed the Miss to Mrs on her papers.

Who to believe? Since AA was claiming to be GD Anastasia, then one would think she'd have counted nine months or more after 17 July 1918 and had the child born in Rumania after April or May of 1919.

Slip of the tongue? I don't think she did because this date was extremely important to AA, who was claiming to be GD Anastasia.

AGRBear

 

[Anna was Franziska]

I think you mentioned a list of things earlier, and if you go back and check my answer, you will find that all the things you said were not in Kurth's book, are indeed there.

The face apparatus? The chased by thugs and thrown in the canal story? There was a pushed story, but not the same one told in Clara's letter.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

5 Dec. 1918 is an interesting date.

If indeed AA had a child in Dec. then do we know where she was nine months earlier? And with whom? This would have been May or April of 1918.

Surly AA could count back nine months and would have realized that GD Anastasia couldn't have become pregnant before 17 July 1918 so why would she have ever told anyone the date 5 Dec. 1918? All they had was her word about the child's birth.

As you know, bear, much as been speculated on this, but I'm not getting into the alleged 'rape on the Rus' theory. There is something in Kurth's book, don't have the page, where she claims to have had relations with the guards. (it was the line 'hot like others of his class')

There is an outside chance that that is the actual birthdate of FS's baby and that's why she said it. But really I think somebody made it up not thinking of the timeline first, just as they didn't consider how long a trip by cart would have taken under the conditions they described. A lot longer than the dates given by the inventors of the story!

The doctors' report tells us that they believe AA had a child and after this examination they changed the Miss to Mrs on her papers.

Yet there is no proof of AA or FS having a birth, but this doesn't mean anything for those days.

Who to believe?

AGRBear

We know AA wasn't in Russia or Romania, so that rules a lot out.

 

[ChatNoir]

Give me 'one shred of REAL evidence' that AA ever had a baby in Romania!

The medical reports show her as having had a baby.

That introduction always makes me ready for some fiction!

And why do you think he is lying? You should be prepared to back up that statement.

THIS is why I mentioned the shame on the family first. It was such a disgrace, they wouldn't admit to it at all or any costs. It sounds silly now, but that's how people were back then. Also, it must be seriously considered that FS's family was not aware of her illegitimate pregnancy, since she would have been, as some girls are still today, too embarrassed or afraid to tell them. So again, having no proof of FS's baby means NOTHING. She had an exam that proved she'd been pregnant so we know she had.

Wrong. FS had a medical exam at the AEG, and there was no word about her ever having been pregnant. And the Wingenders offered no evidence to the fact. You have no legs to stand on here.
(But in spite of the shame, you still wanted AA to go to the queen of Rumania in her "condition".)

All by Clara knew French. I don't think they'd have let their remarks be put in a book unless they saw it and approve it first, in whatever language.

I don't think the Messr. Gilliard and Savitch let anybody approve anything.

You are assuming they never saw the book. In addition to this, there are probably other sources of these things, like Berenberg-Gossler's collections. Massie partially quoted Irene and Sophie, and we know he used BG's papers.

Irene's statement is in Kurth's book. With the following footnote:"
To say that there is some question about the extent of Irene's "firm conviction" that A was not her niece is an understatement. Lori von Oertzen, the lady-in-waiting who had accompanied Irene to Funkenmühle, later testified that Irene had practically begged AA to return with her to Hemmelmark, where, presumably, she hoped to resolve her doubts. (see testimony of Eleonore von Oertzen, September 16, 1958, Hamburg). Later on in the decade, Irene was deeply anxious to know what other family members thought about AA, she "might have made a mistake and that it probably (was) Anastasia (see letter of Grand Duke Andrew to Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna. February 10, 1955, Hamburg)

This is what all AA supporters like to say, but really, most of what is in his book is just a bunch of hearsay and commentary with page numbers.

Careful now, there is something called libel!

We really can't prove who did or said what or if any of the things the people relay are accurate, mistakes, lies, etc.

Kurth's book has footnotes to back up almost every little detail.

Really, there is no need for us to go on discrediting each other's sources.

Yes, there is indeed a need for that.

Everything everyone said is just that, and can't be proven. The only hardcore proof we do have is the DNA.

Which we know has made no legal difference in the case.

Small portions, with added comments to cast doubt on their value.

And what is wrong with seeing both sides of the coin?

So you're saying Grunberg is responsible for the final version of the escape story?

What I am saying, is that Grünberg's version and the later Rathlef Keilmann version are the same. Maybe apart from a few insignificant details.

 

[ChatNoir]

As you know, bear, much as been speculated on this, but I'm not getting into the alleged 'rape on the Rus' theory. There is something in Kurth's book, don't have the page, where she claims to have had relations with the guards. (it was the line 'hot like others of his class')

According to AA, there was no rape on the Rus, she just told that they could not lock their doors from the inside, and that it was "pure tyranny."
As for "hot like others of his class", she was referring to Alexander Chaikovsky.

There is an outside chance that that is the actual birthdate of FS's baby and that's why she said it. But really I think somebody made it up not thinking of the timeline first, just as they didn't consider how long a trip by cart would have taken under the conditions they described. A lot longer than the dates given by the inventors of the story!

You seem to forget that they had a horse.

Yet there is no proof of AA or FS having a birth, but this doesn't mean anything for those days.

Again: AA was proven to have had a child, FS was not.

We know AA wasn't in Russia or Romania, so that rules a lot out.

And how do you know that?

 

[ChatNoir]

The face apparatus? The chased by thugs and thrown in the canal story? There was a pushed story, but not the same one told in Clara's letter.

All these things are unsubstantiated allegations from Gilliard's book, for which he had no documented support. Burned, you know.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

All these things are unsubstantiated allegations from Gilliard's book, for which he had no documented support. Burned, you know.

Not made up for Gilliard's book, statements by other people. Clara's letter was sent to Irene, surely Barbara Mecklenberg and her lawyer BG had a copy.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

You seem to forget that they had a horse.

There are so many versions, sometimes there is a horse, sometimes there's not. Even with a horse, in an old cart, on muddy, unimproved roads, in some places no roads at all, (remember they had to avoid towns in fear of being seen!) large mountains and rivers to cross, and early, harsh Russian winter to deal with, nope, it would have taken them much longer if ever. And don't forget carrying a passenger bleeding to death with no medical care! The infection would have killed her if the wounds didn't. Where did they eat? There's so much they didn't fill in because it never happened. It's so unbelievable it's not even funny anymore. Maybe I'm just too logical, and if I go watch Star Wars I might believe they had hyperdrive.

Again: AA was proven to have had a child, FS was not.

But AA was FS! There is no more proof of the Romania baby than there is of what happened to FS's poor baby.

And how do you know that?

You don't want or need me to answer that. It's become silly. You know I completely believe with no doubt that AA was FS. The DNA, the pics, etc.

 

[ChatNoir]

Not made up for Gilliard's book, statements by other people. Clara's letter was sent to Irene, surely Barbara Mecklenberg and her lawyer BG had a copy.

Then find it!

 

[ChatNoir]

There are so many versions, sometimes there is a horse, sometimes there's not.

And where are these many versions?

Even with a horse, in an old cart, on muddy, unimproved roads, in some places no roads at all, (remember they had to avoid towns in fear of being seen!) large mountains and rivers to cross, and early, harsh Russian winter to deal with, nope, it would have taken them much longer if ever.

And what makes you an expert on this? Please explain.

And don't forget carrying a passenger bleeding to death with no medical care! The infection would have killed her if the wounds didn't.

The bodily wounds were apparently not so bad, remember, the corset with the jewels stopped the bullets. The wounds healed rather quickly, what really made her ill, was the constant pain in her head.

Where did they eat?

Where all the other refugees ate. These were not the only people fleeing Russia, you know.

There's so much they didn't fill in because it never happened. It's so unbelievable it's not even funny anymore. Maybe I'm just too logical, and if I go watch Star Wars I might believe they had hyperdrive.

Who accused you of being logical?

But AA was FS! There is no more proof of the Romania baby than there is of what happened to FS's poor baby.

Yes, there is the medical report. And FS's "poor baby" is nothing but a figment of your imagination.

You don't want or need me to answer that. It's become silly. You know I completely believe with no doubt that AA was FS. The DNA, the pics, etc.

And your belief is your business.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

And where are these many versions?

Ummm...haven't you been reading this thread? Also all over the internet, just about every time I google I see a new false version of the story.

Besides an abundance of "educational" and homemade sites, there's this:

Mysteries Article: Anna Anderson, a.k.a. Anna Tchaikovski... a.k.a. Anastasia?

I think even Kurth would disagree that she 'carried papers in the name of Anna Tchiakovsky'!

The bodily wounds were apparently not so bad, remember, the corset with the jewels stopped the bullets. The wounds healed rather quickly, what really made her ill, was the constant pain in her head.

This story is fake.

Where all the other refugees ate. These were not the only people fleeing Russia, you know.

Most people who flee are in fear for their lives, and being a Romanov was worst of all huh? Bux, Gilliard and Gibbes took 13 months to get out of Russia and they traveled in motorized vehicles. Those who still adhere to the cart story ignore the conditions one would encounter along the alleged path.

Yes, there is the medical report. And FS's "poor baby" is nothing but a figment of your imagination.

It's hard to read this and not laugh! The medical report was for AA and AA was FS which proves FS did have a baby! You want to talk about imaginary babies, look at the silly Romanian orphanage story! That baby is total fiction, so you really have no right to boast to others!

 

[ChatNoir]

Ummm...haven't you been reading this thread? Also all over the internet, just about every time I google I see a new false version of the story.

I stick to the more reliable sources. And googling does not seem to be the right way to find the right version......

Besides an abundance of "educational" and homemade sites, there's this:

Mysteries Article: Anna Anderson, a.k.a. Anna Tchaikovski... a.k.a. Anastasia?

I think even Kurth would disagree that she 'carried papers in the name of Anna Tchiakovsky'!

Educational and home made sometimes go hand in hand. I could think of an example.............

This story is fake.

And how do you know?

Most people who flee are in fear for their lives, and being a Romanov was worst of all huh? Bux, Gilliard and Gibbes took 13 months to get out of Russia and they traveled in motorized vehicles. Those who still adhere to the cart story ignore the conditions one would encounter along the alleged path.

These three were left alone by the Bolsheviks, and they were not exactly running.

It's hard to read this and not laugh! The medical report was for AA and AA was FS which proves FS did have a baby! You want to talk about imaginary babies, look at the silly Romanian orphanage story! That baby is total fiction, so you really have no right to boast to others!

Sorry, but the medical report is only one of many discrepencies between AA and FS. As for the baby in Romania, see the story of the man who came to see Clara Peuthert. According to him, the baby had been taken to an orphanage in Galati. The only fictional baby here, is the one you so badly want FS to have born.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Chat this has really gone far enough. I can't sit here and even pretend to entertain the notion that the silly cart story happened and the baby in Romania was real. Those tales are FICTION and should only be spoken of only in that context. I don't think I'm going to be able to answer your posts anymore and remain respectful to all posters as the rules here demand. I cannot have a serious discussion with someone who resides in a deluded fantasy and put myself on another realm of reality that doesn't exist, and I don't want to be rude.

 

[ChatNoir]

To put it kindly, this just plain isn't so. It's a reality that FS remained a factor all along and ended up being her true identity. Look at Berenberg Gossler, he was using FS years after Doris 'ran out the door.' You've tried that dog too many times, he won't fetch.

Let me refresh your memory. From Peter Kurth's book:

The (first) judgment came on May 15. "The claim is unfounded," read the verdict. "The plaintiff, Mrs. Anderson, is defeated." It was no consolation to hear that the counterclaim had also been defeated - the claim that Anastasia was actually the missing Franziska Schanzkowska.

The second judgment came on February 28, 1967.
The judge;s hands were shaking when he read the verdict: "The plaintiff is defeated in appeal..."

The final session of "Anastasia's Monster Trial" held no surprises in store. The lawyer's briefs had long ago been read and the hearing was only a formality. On February 17, 1970, the appeal was rejected, but the case, tecnically, was not closed. The judgment held that Anastasia's claim must be regarded as "non liquet" - "neither established nor refuted."
Later judge Pagendarm advised Baron von Stackelberg privately that the Supreme Court could just as easily have ruled in Anastasia's favor - "but what good would it do?" Should she be dragged back to the beginning as she neared the age of seventy, to go through the whole ordeal of the trials again?

That may be what you see, but that's not who you're looking at.

I aint so sure......
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h47/hisvanoe/Anastasia.jpg

If she was lying, or mixed up, what does that mean? Nothing! It didn't happen, and if her shaky word is all we have that's not much! Come on and get real, as much attention as she got after her claim started with Clara do you really believe if she was AN she just sat there in an asylum all that time knowing who she was and allowing herself to be treated like a crazy peasant? Please, think through this.

Not her shaky word, her firm testimony together with the testimony of Dr. Chemnitz. As for AA, she was deadly afraid of being discovered and sent back to the Soviet Union. She felt safe in the asylum where nobody would look for her.

Yes they did. His name was Drescher. I have names and dates.
The Berlin police department eventually admitted they had decided to go along with Darmstadt's identification, and Heinz Drescher of Berlin Police Headquarters said that he had signed certain documents saying that identity has been established. "According to the material we have from the Haus-und-Vermoegensverwalten of the former Grand Duke of Hesse, and from various notices in the press, the alleged Grand Duchess Anastasia of Russia, is, in reality, Franziska Schanzkowska, born on 16.12.96 in Borowihlas, and this is supposedly proved definitively."

And when Shuhricht went to police headquarters, nobody wanted to take responsibility. It was all run from Darmstadt, who still could not get the Bavarian police to expel or arrest AA.

Gleb took her, there are pics of them arriving together. Leeds wasn't even at home. Leeds did not go asking for her, Gleb asked Leeds.

No, Gleb did not take her. She arrived in the company of Agnes Gallagher, and Gleb met them in New York.

 

[ChatNoir]

No it was, as dated, 1927. I got it from, of all people, Chat. He sent it to me in a PM on AP last year. Ask him to verify it. I also saw the same thing and the name of the man who signed it posted on the KW forum by Kurth (or Chat,I forgot) with added negative remarks about the man.

See previous post.

There is really nothing strange about it at all. Berlin was, due to underfunding and political turmoil in March 1920, without the time, resources or interest to investigate one more missing person case among a pile of other problems let the case fall thru the cracks in the crucial early days of the investigation, but Ernie's detective, with all the time and resources he needed toward just that one case, was able to easily uncover who AA really was. Also don't forget this has been backed up by DNA testing.

Your assumptions about the Berlin Police Department are exactly that!
And Knopf did not uncover a single thing, he was visited by Doris Wingender who wanted to know how much her information was worth. Then the two cooked up a story which has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese. What about the dates of AA's disappearance and FS's appearance that do not match? What about DW's "unmasking" at Seeon for which she was paid 1500 DM and clearly let it be known that she had never laid eyes on AA before? What about the "exchanged clothing" that nobody saw but Knopf and the Kleists? (And Mrs. Kleist signed a sworn affidavit, notarized June 17, 1929 in Berlin, to the fact that categorically denies the the Nachtausgabe account and adds that "all attempts" to convince her AA was not AN had been and would be in vain.) What about the doctored photos DW produced in court? What about her refusing to take the oath and then running away from court?

No, the newspapers in the 1920's were trying to expose her, the stories Berenberg-Gossler told of taking AA's side were 1955-1967. All different people and circumstances by then.

Berenberg Gossler was rather disappointed that the press was not behind him and as rabidly anti AA as it was in the 20's.

 

[ChatNoir]

Chat this has really gone far enough. I can't sit here and even pretend to entertain the notion that the silly cart story happened and the baby in Romania was real. Those tales are FICTION and should only be spoken of only in that context. I don't think I'm going to be able to answer your posts anymore and remain respectful to all posters as the rules here demand. I cannot have a serious discussion with someone who resides in a deluded fantasy and put myself on another realm of reality that doesn't exist, and I don't want to be rude.

Well, I can very easily continue without being rude. Maybe I have better sources......