Anna Anderson's claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia

[Elspeth]

Still putative.

I've been saying for a while that talking to the Anna Anderson apologists is like dealing with creationists, and I see that quote-mining is another similarity.

I didn't say "BTW, that would be samples. Plural." I said "BTW, that would be samples. Plural. Samples from different sources. Samples with the same DNA pattern." As Dr Gill himself said, the fact that samples from different sources gave the same DNA pattern is a very strong indication that the samples were from the same person. So to dismiss them as still being as unconvincing as they were before the analysis is to either misunderstand the significance of the result or to deliberately reject it despite its strength.

My question to you is: Why do you want me to believe something that a court of law would not accept as evidence?

You know, throughout this discussion, you've been awfully fond of stating things as hard fact that aren't. They both had congenital hallux valgus, except that there's no actual data about angles to show that they had the same extent of hallux valgus and the only basis for Anna Anderson's condition being called congenital is apparently some comment by a doctor treating her for TB. They both had the same identical hair colour except that well maybe one was a bit lighter than the other but then hair does change colour with age. They both had the same eye colour except that the description is both subjective and vague. They were the same height except that some people say they weren't. The DNA results won't stand up in court, except that there hasn't been a trial since 1994 so we don't know that. These are assertions, not statements of fact.

And as far as court cases are concerned, there was a court case a few decades ago which found against Anna Anderson, and that apparently hasn't made any difference to you. So I don't see why legal standards are so much more important to you than scientific standards in a scientific matter.

To answer your question about why I want you to believe something: I don't care what you believe, I just don't like the way the Anna Anderson apologists are engaged in trashing very impressive scientific results and casting aspersions on the integrity and competence of the scientists. The Ginther study was pointed out as one where the chains of custody were secure; those chains of custody included the one involving the sample from Sofia of Hanover. Her DNA matched that of Prince Philip. That, by itself, confirms that the sample from Prince Philip actually was from him (or at least from a female-line relative of Sofia and hence of Tsarina Alexandra). The chain of custody of the Prince Philip sample thus becomes irrelevant. The identity has been confirmed by the match with another sample, for which the chain of custody is as certain as you can get, so we're told. Yet you and especially Peter Kurth are still banging on about the chain of custody of the Prince Philip sample - and in his case resorting to a flat-out falsehood in the process with that comment about plucking hairs - as though it somehow invalidated the results. The results for the Prince Philip sample have been confirmed by the match with the Princess Sofia sample. End of.

Equally, with the two samples from Anna Anderson, which Drs Gill and Stoneking correctly refer to as "said to have come from" since they received them indirectly, the fact that specimens of one sample were tested in two labs and the second sample was tested in a third lab and they all had the same sequence is scientifically a very, very strong result. Even more so since Dr Ginther said just three years ago that although the techniques were very new, the results of Drs Gill and Stoneking were believable. From the knowlege base about mtDNA testing in 2005 he still thinks those results are scientifically sound.

From Dr Ginther's letter, the Maucher samples were only tested in one of the labs, not all three, so contamination of the Anderson samples with DNA from Karl Maucher would have shown up immediately because the three Anderson samples wouldn't have matched (assuming the genuine Anna Anderson samples had been different from the Karl Maucher sample). That's even assuming the Maucher sample was in the lab at the time the Anderson samples were being tested, and I believe it was stated by one of the scientists that they weren't.

Since the three samples gave the same results, they weren't dealing with the contamination problem that Dr Ginther faced with his sample, where different results were obtained in just about every attempt at sequencing, so again this shows that the DNA in the samples was from just one person. Dr Ginther obtained results from his sample that were not scientifically meaningful, as he said himself. He knows the difference between believable results and nonbelievable ones; he was honest and didn't try and pass his results off as being what they weren't, and he's the person who said that the work of Gill, Stoneking, Sullivan, et al was believable. I'm having a hard time understanding why the Anna-was-Anastasia people think Dr Ginther was on their side - in fact his letter was a nail in the coffin of the notion that the Gill-Stoneking results weren't significant.

The only way these results could be explained, apart from that the two samples were from the same person (and the notion that they were from the same person who wasn't Anna Anderson is exceedingly unlikely), is massive and deliberate fraud on the part of all the scientists involved. Career-ending fraud if it ever got out. Fraud for which the benefits, whatever they were, don't seem to outweigh the risks. And yet the objections to the results, with this chain-of-custody business and with the "scientists are no more ethical than the rest of us, I mean look at Hwang Woo-Suk and Jan-Hendrik Schon and don't get me started about Ernst Haeckel and Piltdown Man," are basically just a suggestion that there might have been some underhanded monkey business going on.

And that's what I'm objecting to. These results are scientifically sound. Even if they wouldn't hold up in a court of law - and we don't actually know that, it's just another assertion of yours that they wouldn't - they're very strong scientifically. And since they were, when all is said and done, scientific tests, they deserve to be judged by their own standards. A clever lawyer can plant seeds of doubt about anything, especially in the current climate where the American public has been fed a steady diet of anti-science propaganda from the religious and political right for the last 20 or 30 years. So for me, that's a lot less relevant than the scientific worth of the scientific results. As I said before, I don't especially care if the legal standards mean more to you than the scientific ones. I just don't like the implication of incompetence, dishonesty, or both on the part of the scientists, especially since there's no evidence for it.

Since you asked.

 

[ferrymansdaughter]

I have suffered from prosopagnosia all my life, you don´t need to have any accident (except may birth) to suffer from that. Then if you really didn´t know the people it would be a good excuse wouldn´t it?

Actually I was thinking more specifically of some of the others - memory loss, decrease of interest in sex (AA expressed no interest at all yet FS was supposed to be promiscuous), aggressive behaviour

 

[ferrymansdaughter]

Yes, a lot of that sounds just like AA/FS who suffered head injuries during the grenade explosion at the factory where she worked.

As I said ...

Also re the head injuries - and by the way for those of you on the "other side" as it were, I know that the fact she had head injuries does not actually prove she was AA..​

​

 

[Marengo]

Not to be a prude, but perhaps we can leave AA/FS's supposed (lack of) sexlife out of the discussion, it isn't a very edifying topic IMO and will mostly be based on speculations.

 

[Menarue]

Marengo I hope you aren´t referring to prosopagnosia, I just don´t recognize people......LOL.

 

[ferrymansdaughter]

Everyone says this is the pic circulated in the papers

Who is "everyone"?

 

[ferrymansdaughter]

Not to be a prude, but perhaps we can leave AA/FS's supposed (lack of) sexlife out of the discussion, it isn't a very edifying topic IMO and will mostly be based on speculations.

Don't worry I wasn't planning to take it any further - just pointing out it was one of the symptoms ...

 

[ChatNoir]

I've been saying for a while that talking to the Anna Anderson apologists is like dealing with creationists, and I see that quote-mining is another similarity.

I am not implicating incompetence, dishonesty or both. I am only pointing out that the chain of custody is shady. I know that AA was defeated in court, but she was also not found to be FS. The case is still open, and until we have a legal ruling, this discussion will continue. I know very well that all the evidence I can provide is circumstantial, maybe except for that of Moritz Furtmayr, whose PIK system was validated by the German courts.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

I am not implicating incompetence, dishonesty or both. I am only pointing out that the chain of custody is shady.

Isn't 'shady' the same thing as 'dishonest'?

I know that AA was defeated in court, but she was also not found to be FS. The case is still open, and until we have a legal ruling, this discussion will continue.

It may continue on these forums, but it doesn't continue in real life because there is now an answer.

I know very well that all the evidence I can provide is circumstantial, maybe except for that of Moritz Furtmayr, whose PIK system was validated by the German courts.

His 'system' may be validated but his work leaves something to be desired:

The often cited study by Moritz Furtmayr used a photograph of Maria (rather than Anastasia) when comparring it with photographs of AA's right ear. He also mistakenly believed that AA's original "mug" shot had been reversed and thus the photograph did not depict her right ear but her left (Apparently to explain why her right ear did not match the right ear of Anastasia) Yet if you look at the mug shot and look at how her hair is parted you can tell that it is not a mirror image since she always parted her hair in the same manner in the early 1920's. Also when comparing that photograph of Anna's ear with others one can see that it is in fact her right ear and not her left. Apparently the reason the ear did not match is simply because it is not the same ear.

And if you want to know what evidence is or is not accepted by courts, DNA overrules everything else. Even ears. There is also legal precedence that the type of DNA testing done on AA DOES hold up in court:

Mitochondrial DNA

In 2000, the New York Supreme Court ruled in "People vs. Klinger" that the DNA testing used in the AA case WAS admissible and acceptable in court and overrules all other evidence. THIS RULING HAS NEVER BEEN OVERTURNED.

So here you are, Chat, all you have is a vague hope that the DNA isn't correct because you 'think' it 'might' have been swapped out but have absolutely no proof or even weak leads on how this may have occurred. So basically this leaves you with nothing but your own personal hope for AA to be AN and desire to hold onto a dream, but that's not going to hold up against anything else.

 

[ChatNoir]

Isn't 'shady' the same thing as 'dishonest'?

Maybe in your interpretation.

It may continue on these forums, but it doesn't continue in real life because there is now an answer.

I am very well content with the forum, thank you.

His 'system' may be validated but his work leaves something to be desired:

The often cited study by Moritz Furtmayr used a photograph of Maria (rather than Anastasia) when comparring it with photographs of AA's right ear. He also mistakenly believed that AA's original "mug" shot had been reversed and thus the photograph did not depict her right ear but her left (Apparently to explain why her right ear did not match the right ear of Anastasia) Yet if you look at the mug shot and look at how her hair is parted you can tell that it is not a mirror image since she always parted her hair in the same manner in the early 1920's. Also when comparing that photograph of Anna's ear with others one can see that it is in fact her right ear and not her left. Apparently the reason the ear did not match is simply because it is not the same ear.

From Peter Kurth:
In February word came from Munich that Dr. Moritz Furtmayr, one of West Germany's most prominent forensic experts, had concluded on the basis of selected photographs that " the current Mrs. Manahan" and the daughter of the Tsar were one and the same person. This was no mere repetition of the earlier studies at Hamburg. Furtmayr had already satisfied himself of Anastasia's authenticity several years before, when he submitted her pictures to a system of identification he had devised himself and which, at least in criminal cases. had been accepted as positive proof by the courts. His method - known as "P.I.K" - employed a comparison of "the cardinal points of the skull, [which,] once formed, retain the same relation with each other until death." Working with graphs and grids, Furtmayr demonstrated that every human face produces a clear and distinct "headprint" when lines are drawn to connect the bones, and he added that in his hundreds of studies he had never seen two of these "headprints" match unless the subjects were identical. With "P.I.K" Furtmayr had been able to identify the victims of fires, gunshot blasts to the face, and other calamities, and now he took his study of Anastasia one step farther. From the very beginning the anthropological experts had been confounded by Anastasia's controversial right ear, which appeared in several twists and curves not to correspond with photographs of the Tsar's daughter. FIfgy years after the first negative comparison ordererd by the court of Darmstadt Furtmayr found out why: The Darmstadt experts, and all of the others after them, had been working with a photograph taken of Anastasia at the Dalldorf Asylum, the negative of which had been reversed when the picture was printed. Thus her left ear had been compared to the Grand Duchess's right ear. In reality, said Furtmayr when he had set things right, the ears were "identical in 17 anatomical points and tissue formations, five more than the dozen points normally acepted by West German courts go establish a person's identity."

And if you want to know what evidence is or is not accepted by courts, DNA overrules everything else. Even ears. There is also legal precedence that the type of DNA testing done on AA DOES hold up in court:

Mitochondrial DNA

In 2000, the New York Supreme Court ruled in "People vs. Klinger" that the DNA testing used in the AA case WAS admissible and acceptable in court and overrules all other evidence. THIS RULING HAS NEVER BEEN OVERTURNED.

Please elaborate.

So here you are, Chat, all you have is a vague hope that the DNA isn't correct because you 'think' it 'might' have been swapped out but have absolutely no proof or even weak leads on how this may have occurred. So basically this leaves you with nothing but your own personal hope for AA to be AN and desire to hold onto a dream, but that's not going to hold up against anything else.

This may come as a shock to you, but the outcome is of no importance to me. I just enjoy the discussion.

 

[AGRBear]

Over one the AP, one of the two authors of FATE OF THE ROMANOVS, Penny Wilson gave us all kinds of information about a lot of things which surrounded AA. One of the goodies she produced for us was a copy of the photo which was in the newspapers which Wingender claimed she immediately knew was FS. Well, just like the description which ChatNoir has quoted that was given by the judge, the photo was nothing but a blob in the newspapers. So, the photo shown here, is NOT what readers of the newspaper saw.

Please AWF there is no need to keep twisting the facts to prove AA was not GD Anastasia. Your over zealous behavior muddies the waters. Your claim about this photo looking like this in the newspaper is just one example. It did not. It was a blob.

>>blob |bläb|
noun
a drop of a thick liquid or other viscous substance : blobs of paint.<<


As far as Bear is concern, AWF's over zealous campaign against AA is really counter productive for those of us who don't believed AA was GD Anastasia, especially when AWF makes claims that events were different than they were, like this newspaper blob. All of us, those who believe AA wasn't GD Anastasia and those who believe AA was GD Anastasia, need to correct her errors.

As I've often said, I don't care where the truth takes me, I'm just enjoying the journey.

AGRBear

 

[AGRBear]

...[in part]...
A few splinters? The man next to her was pulverized to pieces! She'd have gotten much more than splinters!

The AEG doctor's report tells us that FS did not receive any serious wounds.

Gertrude, nee S., Ellrich tells us herself that FS suffered just from headaches.

I would think she probably suffered a great deal of guilt and mental anguish. Afterall, she is the one who dropped the grenade which killed a man.

As for the man being "pulverized to pieces", I don't really think you know this is true. Obviously he suffered a fatal blow from the grenade FS dropped.

Also, FS was NOT working alone in this area. There were other workers around her and the man who died. I've never read or heard there was a report that anyone else was injured accept the man.

Your great imagination doesn't always ring true, AWF. And, it certainly doesn't provide us with additional facts from others. So, let's stick to what we know or don't know.

AGRBear

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

Furtmayr demonstrated that every human face produces a clear and distinct "headprint" when lines are drawn to connect the bones, and he added that in his hundreds of studies he had never seen two of these "headprints" match unless the subjects were identical.

A few hundred is not statistically significant given the vast range of human phenotypes.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

The AEG doctor's report tells us that FS did not receive any serious wounds.

Where is this report, bear? Can you show us proof? A link? An article? The only 'source' of this alleged report is ONE person's post on another message board. The report was not and has not been seen anywhere, and until it does, how do we even know it exists? Don't you think if it did, AA's lawyers would have found it and used it? Yet, all these decades after the trial is over and the trail is cold, after Berlin has been bombed badly in 2 WW's, you expect us to believe a report suddenly surfaces that no one ever found before? You are very critical of me and my posts, so I must ask that you please stop stating this as a fact until you can prove it. Until then, it's no more than a rumor and unsubstantiated claim.

I would think she probably suffered a great deal of guilt and mental anguish. Afterall, she is the one who dropped the grenade which killed a man.

She may have, but we can only speculate.

As for the man being "pulverized to pieces", I don't really think you know this is true. Obviously he suffered a fatal blow from the grenade FS dropped.

Robert K. Massie describes what we know of Franziska on page 249 of his book "The Romanovs: The Final Chapter"

In 1914, shortly before the outbreak of the First World War, Franziska, at age eighteen, left the Polish provinces for Berlin. She worked as a waitress, met a young man, and became engaged. Before she could marry, her fiance was called up for military service. Franziska began working in a munitions factory. In 1916, the young man was killed on the western front. Soon afterward, Franziska let a grenade slip from her hands on the assembly line. It exploded nearby, inflicting splinter wounds on her head and other parts of her body and eviscerating a foreman, who died before her eyes.

e·vis·cer·ate play_w2("E0255800") (

-v

s

-r

t

)v. e·vis·cer·at·ed, e·vis·cer·at·ing, e·vis·cer·ates
v.tr.1. To remove the entrails of; disembowel.
2. To take away a vital or essential part of: a compromise that eviscerated the proposed bill.
3. Medicine a. To remove the contents of (an organ).
b. To remove an organ, such as an eye, from (a patient).


v.intr. Medicine To protrude through a wound or surgical incision.

Also, FS was NOT working alone in this area. There were other workers around her and the man who died.

While we may assume so we really don't know for sure.

I've never read or heard there was a report that anyone else was injured accept the man.

FS was hurt. See above.

Your great imagination doesn't always ring true, AWF. And, it certainly doesn't provide us with additional facts from others. So, let's stick to what we know or don't know.

Your great imagination doesn't always ring true, AGR. And, it certainly doesn't provide us with additional facts from others. So, let's stick to what we know or don't know.

 

[AGRBear]

When Massie wrote his book, this is what he was told happen. Since then, new evidence was found by King and Wilson, who wrote the book FATE OF THE ROMANOVS.

NEW EVIDENCE.

Since I have no reason to doubt what they've told us on Alexander Palace, their own forum and on other forums, about this evidence, I will accept it. You can either accept it or not. This is your choice.

AGRBear

 

[Anna was Franziska]

So, the photo shown here, is NOT what readers of the newspaper saw.

Over on AP, FA posted the picture I posted, and said it was the one circulated in the newspapers of "Miss Unknown". It came from the collection of W.H. Hearst and only recently resurfaced.

As far as Bear is concern, AWF's over zealous campaign against AA is really counter productive for those of us who don't believed AA was GD Anastasia, especially when AWF makes claims that events were different than they were, like this newspaper blob. All of us, those who believe AA wasn't GD Anastasia and those who believe AA was GD Anastasia, need to correct her errors.

Bear, your personal opinion of me is not important here. I could go on quite a bit about the 'over zealous' and rather odd posts and behavior of you, Chat, and a few others, but I don't because such personal jabs, and especially grudges carried over from other forums, are not welcome here.

As I've often said, I don't care where the truth takes me, I'm just enjoying the journey.

AGRBear

You and Chat may both say this, but reality is that the truth has been found, and the journey is over. What you're doing is denying the truth, and still searching for a version which you prefer, or coming up with alternate endings that sound more interesting. That is not a journey to the truth, it's a wild goose chase.

She, Chat, myself and others are here to give facts, sources which are important for everyone to realize that just because you don't believe the reports, testimonies and other facts doesn't make them go away.

AGRBear

I also post quotes and details, most with sources or pages, but your 'side' rejects them and/or finds a reason not to accept them.

It's also notable what qualifies as 'facts'. If a person posts a quote from a book, some may call it a 'fact'. However, just because something is said, written down, and later published in a book does NOT automatically qualify it as a 'fact.' If you accept that everything quoted by Chat is a 'fact' then you must also accept the things I quote as a 'fact.' This is impossible, since they are coming from two different views, opposite sides of the case, and contradict. Everything cannot be a 'fact.' What we have are PIECES OF EVIDENCE for consideration. All these quotes by this or that person do NOT qualify as 'facts.' It may be a 'fact' they said it, but that doesn't make what they said a 'fact.' That is the difference.

As Elspeth posted earlier to Chat:

You know, throughout this discussion, you've been awfully fond of stating things as hard fact that aren't.

They exist and that is what makes AA such an interesting character study.

They may be, but this doesn't qualify them as 'facts.'

When Massie wrote his book, this is what he was told happen. Since then, new evidence was found by King and Wilson, who wrote the book FATE OF THE ROMANOVS.

NEW EVIDENCE.

Since I have no reason to doubt what they've told us on Alexander Palace, their own forum and on other forums, about this evidence, I will accept it. You can either accept it or not. This is your choice.

AGRBear

Until it can be produced and proven, validated and shown as existing, it's no more than a post on a message board and an unsubstantiated rumor.

What if I told you I had found 'new evidence' would you believe me without proof? Of course not.Unless it's proven, it should not be stated as a fact in our list of verified evidence.

 

[AGRBear]

Massie: >>It exploded nearby, inflicting splinter wounds on her head and other parts of her body and eviscerating a foreman, who died before her eyes.<<

I had forgotten that Massie had told us that the foreman was "eviscertated".

Thanks for the source and the page.

AGRBear

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Please elaborate.

I have posted it before, and it's on my site. I'll take it over to the DNA thread where it belongs.

 

[AGRBear]

Over on AP, FA posted the picture I posted, and said it was the one circulated in the newspapers of "Miss Unknown". It came from the collection of W.H. Hearst and only recently resurfaced.

As I have explained, this photo as you see it was not how it looked in the newspaper in Germany. It was a blob. Surly, you are not calling the judge a lier?

Bear, your personal opinion of me is not important here. I could go on quite a bit about the 'over zealous' and rather odd posts and behavior of you, Chat, and a few others, but I don't because such personal jabs, and especially grudges carried over from other forums, are not welcome here.

Your not going to make personal jabs. Was this before or after my "odd posts and behavior" was noted by you?

You and Chat may both say this, but reality is that the truth has been found, and the journey is over. What you're doing is denying the truth, and still searching for a version which you prefer, or coming up with alternate endings that sound more interesting. That is not a journey to the truth, it's a wild goose chase.

Since both you and I believe AA was not GD Anastasia, why are you telling everyone I have an alternate ending???

This just doesn't make sense. Please rephrase.

I also post quotes and details, most with sources or pages, but your 'side' rejects them and/or finds a reason not to accept them.

It's also notable what qualifies as 'facts'. If a person posts a quote from a book, some may call it a 'fact'. However, just because something is said, written down, and later published in a book does NOT automatically qualify it as a 'fact.' If you accept that everything quoted by Chat is a 'fact' then you must also accept the things I quote as a 'fact.' This is impossible, since they are coming from two different views, opposite sides of the case, and contradict. Everything cannot be a 'fact.' What we have are PIECES OF EVIDENCE for consideration. All these quotes by this or that person do NOT qualify as 'facts.' It may be a 'fact' they said it, but that doesn't make what they said a 'fact.' That is the difference.

As Elspeth posted earlier to Chat:


They may be, but this doesn't qualify them as 'facts.'



Until it can be produced and proven, validated and shown as existing, it's no more than a post on a message board and an unsubstantiated rumor.

What if I told you I had found 'new evidence' would you believe me without proof? Of course not.Unless it's proven, it should not be stated as a fact in our list of verified evidence.

Since I have no idea who you are, and, I do know how highly reguarded King and Wilson are regarded on their knowledge of the Romanovs, I think I'll take them at their word until proven otherwise. The fact is: What they've stated. They've said they have seen the doctor's report. And, this is what I've always said. I would suggest that you read their book before making these kinds of statements.

AGRBear

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Bear: a post on a message board is not proof. You have told me time and time again that something must be backed up by a valid and proven source. You have not done this.

You may be trying to get me to say I don't believe it because of who said it. I wouldn't accept it no matter who said it, if they refuse to produce a copy and become indignant when asked for further proof. I want to see it, and have it validated by more people. You seem very critical and suspicious of the DNA testing being done in Russia now, and seem to doubt what many experts and officials have told us about the remains, yet you accept one person's word on a message board? Is this selective?

In my post where I try to explain the difference between 'facts' and 'evidence for consideration' refers to ALL the quotes given by this or that person over the years in the AA case and has nothing to do with the one alleged report. That is not even evidence for consideration, since it has not been proven to exist.

Also, Bear: I have been very careful not to mention names or drag messes from other boards over here. It seems to me from a few of the posts here that you and another person are determined to bait me into saying something against you-know-who so the whole mess can be dragged over here, and all your cronies can join in and start bashing me. NONE of this has anything to do with our discussion here and is not necessary to even mention, that is, unless you're hoping for trouble. Please, let's stick to AA and leave all the personal feelings and past history between us, and others, out of it.

 

[ChatNoir]

Funny that FS's family are totally discarded by AWF as witnesses when it comes to FS being wounded. As far as I know, FS's mother, sister and brother all stated that FS received no injuries in the explosion. Felix even signed a statement confirming this. And even if Berenberg Gossler had found the medical report from the A.E.G., I doubt it would have done him any good in Hamburg.

 

[AGRBear]

... [ in part]....

Your great imagination doesn't always ring true, AGR. And, it certainly doesn't provide us with additional facts from others. So, let's stick to what we know or don't know.

It's true, one's imagination doesn't always ring true. Just as our imaginations do not provide additional faces.

I'm glad you agree, "Let us stick to what we know or don't know."

We know that Wingender was caught in a lie. Yes or no?
Yes.

>>'facts' and 'evidence for consideration'<<

Fact.

AGRBear

Funny that FS's family are totally discarded by AWF as witnesses when it comes to FS being wounded. As far as I know, FS's mother, sister and brother all stated that FS received no injuries in the explosion. Felix even signed a statement confirming this. And even if Berenberg Gossler had found the medical report from the A.E.G., I doubt it would have done him any good in Hamburg.

Felix did sign an affidavits saying FS did not have any scars.
True or false?

True.

>>'facts' and 'evidence for consideration'<<

Fact signed by Felix S, AND, 'evidence for consideration" since a brother couldn't know all.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Funny that FS's family are totally discarded by AWF as witnesses when it comes to FS being wounded. As far as I know, FS's mother, sister and brother all stated that FS received no injuries in the explosion. Felix even signed a statement confirming this.

Here is my position on the injuries:

We have a report, recorded in BG's papers and Massie's book (as well as a website about history, and other books I cannot find to verify right now) that FS was indeed injured by pieces of the grenade when it exploded at the factory.

We know that AA's body was covered with a lot of strangely shaped scars. Some people will want to believe this is from "Ekaterinburg", but DNA has proven AA not to be AN, and to be most likely FS. Since AA = FS and FS had these scars, it is more than reasonable to presume that FS was injured in the explosion.

Why would her family say otherwise? Why would they deny her at all? Scared? Worried what might become of her if she were labeled a fraud? Concerned how this might affect the rest of the family? Embarrassed? Some of you may disregard this but in older generations shame on the family, even through the rep of one member, was a disgrace and unbearable humiliation in those days and people would do their best to avoid it at all costs, even if they had to hide things or lie. It's also possible that they really didn't know since they hadn't been around her much since she moved to Berlin. She may have even been estranged from them. We don't know.

But we DO know AA was not AN and was 99.9% FS, therefore, looking at it from that angle is more realistic than assuming she got the scars from the Ipatiev house, and trying to make excuses to explain away FS having any injuries in order to support her not being AA because AA had them.

And even if Berenberg Gossler had found the medical report from the A.E.G., I doubt it would have done him any good in Hamburg.

If the report existed, surely it would have been found by a lawyer from one of the two sides. They both tried very hard to prove their cases. Or, perhaps what BG had that told of the foreman being killed and FS being hurt IS that report. We don't know until his papers are published.

 

[Elspeth]

I am not implicating incompetence, dishonesty or both. I am only pointing out that the chain of custody is shady.

And I've pointed out that since the chains of custody in the Ginther study are supposed to be secure, the match with the Sofia sample makes the chain of custody of the Prince Philip sample irrelevant and the match between the Margarete Ellerick sample and the Karl Maucher sample makes the chain of custody of the Karl Maucher sample irrelevant.

As for the Anna Anderson samples, there are different chains of custody, which means that there'd have to have been a large-scale conspiracy by someone to intercept two or three different packages in transit or in the labs. It's hard to see how tampering with the samples in the labs could be put down to anything other than negligence (or worse) by the scientists. As for tampering in transit, again, the scientists were supposed to be dealing with samples that are very carefully handled and packaged to prevent contamination, so tampering should be evident and the scientists would be negligent if they didn't notice it. The alternative is collusion by the scientists to present false results. Either way, it's an accusation of incompetence or fraud.

I know that AA was defeated in court, but she was also not found to be FS. The case is still open, and until we have a legal ruling, this discussion will continue. I know very well that all the evidence I can provide is circumstantial, maybe except for that of Moritz Furtmayr, whose PIK system was validated by the German courts.

And as I said, the discussion will continue even after a legal ruling. The ruling in the Dover trial hasn't stopped the intelligent-design people, and a ruling in this trial won't stop whichever side loses.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Felix did sign an affidavits saying FS did not have any scars.
True or false?

True.

>>'facts' and 'evidence for consideration'<<

Fact signed by Felix S, AND, 'evidence for consideration" since a brother couldn't know all.

It's a fact he signed it, this does not automatically make what he said in it a fact. The fact that he signed it is evidence for consideration with everything else on both sides.

No a brother wouldn't know all, and probably had not seen his sister's bare arms and legs(or even feet) since they were children playing in the creek.

 

[ChatNoir]

It's a fact he signed it, this does not automatically make what he said in it a fact. The fact that he signed it is evidence for consideration with everything else on both sides.

No a brother wouldn't know all, and probably had not seen his sister's bare arms and legs(or even feet) since they were children playing in the creek.

But a mother would definitely know.

 

[ChatNoir]

And I've pointed out that since the chains of custody in the Ginther study are supposed to be secure, the match with the Sofia sample makes the chain of custody of the Prince Philip sample irrelevant and the match between the Margarete Ellerick sample and the Karl Maucher sample makes the chain of custody of the Karl Maucher sample irrelevant./

But can we be sure that Gertrude was the legitimate daughter of Mrs. Schanzkowdski since her birht certificate has never been found?

As for the Anna Anderson samples, there are different chains of custody, which means that there'd have to have been a large-scale conspiracy by someone to intercept two or three different packages in transit or in the labs. It's hard to see how tampering with the samples in the labs could be put down to anything other than negligence (or worse) by the scientists. As for tampering in transit, again, the scientists were supposed to be dealing with samples that are very carefully handled and packaged to prevent contamination, so tampering should be evident and the scientists would be negligent if they didn't notice it. The alternative is collusion by the scientists to present false results. Either way, it's an accusation of incompetence or fraud.

And the funny thing is, I agree with you in this. If it hadn't been for all the strange coincidences on the other side, I would have ended the story right there. But there is just much too much that tells a different story before the DNA. And I wish we could look at it all without getting into a snit.

And as I said, the discussion will continue even after a legal ruling. The ruling in the Dover trial hasn't stopped the intelligent-design people, and a ruling in this trial won't stop whichever side loses.

We will have to wait and see, won't we.

 

[ChatNoir]

Here is my position on the injuries:

We have a report, recorded in BG's papers and Massie's book (as well as a website about history, and other books I cannot find to verify right now) that FS was indeed injured by pieces of the grenade when it exploded at the factory.

No, we do not have a report, only an assumption that if AA was FS, she had to have gotten her scars from the A.E.G. factory.

We know that AA's body was covered with a lot of strangely shaped scars. Some people will want to believe this is from "Ekaterinburg", but DNA has proven AA not to be AN, and to be most likely FS. Since AA = FS and FS had these scars, it is more than reasonable to presume that FS was injured in the explosion.

And presume is what everybody has done so far.

Why would her family say otherwise? Why would they deny her at all? Scared? Worried what might become of her if she were labeled a fraud? Concerned how this might affect the rest of the family? Embarrassed? Some of you may disregard this but in older generations shame on the family, even through the rep of one member, was a disgrace and unbearable humiliation in those days and people would do their best to avoid it at all costs, even if they had to hide things or lie. It's also possible that they really didn't know since they hadn't been around her much since she moved to Berlin. She may have even been estranged from them. We don't know.

What we do know, is that FS's mother wrote to Felix: "If it is her, bring her home."

AN and was 99.9% FS, therefore, looking at it from that angle is more realistic than assuming she got the scars from the Ipatiev house, and trying to make excuses to explain away FS having any injuries in order to support her not being AA because AA had them.

So FS got damage to her scull, inner bleeding, fractures on the upper and lower jaw, a bayonet wound on her foot, a bullet wound behind her ear plus other wounds on her body. And she still did not go into the hospital till some time after. Amazing.

If the report existed, surely it would have been found by a lawyer from one of the two sides. They both tried very hard to prove their cases. Or, perhaps what BG had that told of the foreman being killed and FS being hurt IS that report. We don't know until his papers are published.

I think we do. I know someone who has read his papers, and they contain very little new.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

But a mother would definitely know.

Maybe not, if she hadn't been home in a long time, they wouldn't have lived so intimately. They may also have been estranged. I am also confused about this 'mother', I have heard her mother was very ill and dying of cancer when the AA mess broke, and I've also heard the mother was already dead and never asked. I've also heard (you do read a lot on these boards over 4 years) that the 'shoe' question was asked not to the real mother but the father's new wife he married after he left the family in 1910 (and he was dead and she had married somebody else) So who was it, and what is the real proof?

But can we be sure that Gertrude was the legitimate daughter of Mrs. Schanzkowdski since her birht certificate has never been found?

My Aunt Mae doesn't have a birth certificate, but she is no less a sister than any of the rest of my father's siblings. When she got old enough to draw social security, she had to go back to the town where she was born and get an elderly aunt to swear in front of a court clerk that she remembered when Mae was born. It was good enough for the US gov't. Families know who is and is not related to them, even without paperwork. It's another insult to the scientists involved to think they wouldn't have bothered to check out if a person was maternally related before using their mtDNA!

Some have even suggested Gertrude was illegitimate. Even if this is true, (which it likely isn't) it still wouldn't matter in the mtDNA because it's traced via the mother's line only, the father makes no difference. If she had been, as some have stretched, the love child of the father and his mistress, then the DNA wouldn't have matched, unless the mistress was the mother's sister or maternally related cousin. Then there is always the grasp that she Gertrude was adopted, but Margaret Ellerick was the long lost illegitimate baby of FS taken in by Gertrude! All this is useless speculation, there is no proof Maucher is not related to FS, and the scientists were sure of this and used him for a sample donor.

But there is just much too much that tells a different story before the DNA.

But Chat, it no longer means anything because the DNA proved her a pretender. Discussing it will never change that, and trying to use it to oppose the DNA is not realistic.

 

[ChatNoir]

Maybe not, if she hadn't been home in a long time, they wouldn't have lived so intimately.

She would still have remembered a toe that bent over in the middle and formed a bunion.

They may also have been estranged. I am also confused about this 'mother', I have heard her mother was very ill and dying of cancer when the AA mess broke, and I've also heard the mother was already dead and never asked.

Her real mother was dying of breast cancer when AA met Felix. The "opposition" tried to make it into tuberculosis in order to "connect" it with AA.

I've also heard (you do read a lot on these boards over 4 years) that the 'shoe' question was asked not to the real mother but the father's new wife he married after he left the family in 1910 (and he was dead and she had married somebody else) So who was it, and what is the real proof?

The shoe size was given by FS's mother to Frau Rathlef Keilmann's private detective.

Some have even suggested Gertrude was illegitimate. Even if this is true, (which it likely isn't) it still wouldn't matter in the mtDNA because it's traced via the mother's line only, the father makes no difference. If she had belonged, as some have stretched, the love child of the father and his mistress, then the DNA wouldn't have matched, unless the mistress was the mother's sister or maternally related cousin. All this is useless speculation, there is no proof Maucher is not related to FS, and the scientists were sure of this and used him for a sample donor.

We won't really know until her birth certificate is found.

But Chat, it no longer means anything because the DNA proved her a pretender. Discussing it will never change that, and trying to use it to oppose the DNA is not realistic.

Then why are you here?