Anna Anderson's claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia

[BorisRom]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Boris, I admit I remain skeptical of your assertions about the foot disorder. I think if this foot order is to be universally considered as valid an identifier as DNA, it would have to be taken as seriously as such as evidence in normal everyday court cases which have nothing to do with Anastasia or Anna Anderson. Can you give any other cases outside of Anna Anderson where this foot conditions have proven the identity of someone? You say it only started to be taken seriously in 2007 but what caused it to be taken seriously as an identifier for people? Was there a landmark case that it solved? Usually new technologies like DNA don't gain credibility until they can have been proven to solve tough cases.
What other cases has the identification of this foot condition solved?

Ysbel,
How much I remember, some (tens?) of cases when identifications of DNA have been rejected in courts for the different reasons are known. Recently I gave the reference that researches of DNA of 1990th years are not accepting for consideration in courts now. Hence, physical features of anatomy should be taken into consideration now (until new tests of DNA with higher reliability are lead). In this case it can be feet. In other case it can be absence of a trace of impact of the Japanese sabre on a skull (case of Nicholas II).
Regards
Boris

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ysbel

So Anna, let me see if I understand what you are saying.

You say that the DNA was extracted from the intestines of Anna Anderson, broken down, sequenced, and analyzed in the lab before the tissue from Carl Maucher ever entered the lab?

Yes.

Do we have exact dates as to when the Anna Anderson sample was taken and sequences and the exact dates as to when the Carl Maucher sample was taken and sequenced?

I don't have them, but Dr. Melton, who told how it worked, surely knew, and I have no reason not to believe her.

I go back to my original question, what are the chances that an original tissue sample from Charlottesville VA matching a sample from a German a half a world away? That is simply unbelievable.

Yes, it is. Unfortunately, what some have suggested, is that it wasn't a random lucky match, but that the tissue from a member of Schanzkowksa's family was intentionally switched for Anna Anderson's sample. It has even been suggested that the Queen herself was behind this. Others have left their villainous switchers as the anonymous 'those to whom money would be no issue' (still implying royal involvement- also note Kurth's post from yesterday which questioned the validity of Prince Phillip's sample, and you know who he's married to! ) Dr. Melton's explaination should logically put and end to such speculation.

I have always wondered where those who believe in the conspiracy switch theory think the sample came from? Who cut open a member of the Schanzkowska family and removed just the same exact part of intestine AA had removed? The entire idea is preposterous.

[BorisRom]

Originally Posted by lilytornado

Okay, feet. My uncle has a deformation on his foot, but his sister\my mother didn't know about it until my sister was born with the same thing, and he was telling her that he had the same thing.
And then, how do we even know that Anna Anderson was born with the conditon (congenital) and that it didn't develop later in life? And if it is just heavy Hallux Valgus , well, appearently a lot of people have that especially, if they wear constantly wrong shoes, etc. So what is the proof that Anna Anderson's hallux valgus were congenital, (or Anastasia's for that matter)?

Lily,
Please, read my post 136 (2-13-2008).
Boris

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

I don't have them, but Dr. Melton, who told how it worked, surely knew, and I have no reason not to believe her.
.

Did Dr. Melton test the samples? If so she should have a record of when they were obtained and tested.

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Yes, it is. Unfortunately, what some have suggested, is that it wasn't a random lucky match, but that the tissue from a member of Schanzkowksa's family was intentionally switched for Anna Anderson's sample. It has even been suggested that the Queen herself was behind this.

Or why not Prince Philip? There is already a sizable number of people who are firmly convinced he is behind the murder of Diana.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by BorisRom

2. ....The DNA tests performed in 1994 are no longer completely valid.
2.1) The nuclearDNA tests performed are no longer valid. 20-point STR method is now in use. The 6-point STR method used back in the day is no longer valid or in use.

As I have already explained, this makes no difference, since all it takes is one mismatch to exclude her, and she's already got five.

mtDNA is no longer even used in court cases. It can be contaminated by simply touching a sample or breathing on it. One scientist estimated that 50% of samples that are not supposed to give results do.

Here is a statement from the New York Supreme court proving the mtDNA methods used in the AA case ARE valid and admissable in court. This was handed down in 2000 and has never been overturned:

From People vs. Klinger:

The court finds that the credible evidence adduced at the hearing
established that mtDTA analysis and interpretations are generally
accepted as reliable in the scientific community and that the
procedures followed in this case establish a foundation for admission
of such evidence. The evidence has sufficiently established that the
analyses and interpretations of mtDNA has gained general acceptance in
the community of scientists that work in this field. The existence of
contamination and heteroplasmy do not affect the reliability of the
scientific procedure and these issues, which are subj ect to
cross-examination at the time of trial, do not invalidate the
procedures of mtDNA testing.

Although both Dr. Budowle and Dr. Melton testified that mtDNA can not
be the unique identifier that nuclear DNA can achieve, this conclusion,
however, does not invalidate the accuracy of the procedure and whether
it is acceptable in the relevant scientific community.

This court finds that many of the procedures used in analyzing mtDNA
are the same as those used in analyzing nuclear DNA. Further, the
statistical methods used by the technician in creating the upper
bounds of the confidence interval are basic statistical methods that
have been found generally accepted in the relevant scientific
community.

Moreover, mtDNA procedures have been subject to peer review and Dr.
Budowle testified that he knew of no peer review articles that state
that the aforesaid process and statistical methods were not
scientifically reliable. In addition, Dr. Melton testified that the
whole process has been subject to peer review and that she is unaware
of any peer review articles in disagreement with the methods used by
her lab with respect to analysis, interpretation and use of the
statistical formulas.

Once again, Dr. Melton said that NO SCIENTIST has ever questioned in
writing the accuracy of her results or methods in any of her work,
which expressly includes her work EXCLUDING AA as Anastasia. So if the
AA mtDNA analysis is so flawed and unreliable, WHY havent any
scientists stated so in writing??

"She (Dr. Melton) testified that her lab exclusively performs mtDNA
analysis. One high profile analysis that she was involved with was the
claim of Anna Anderson that she was the remaining living child of the
Romanov family. By the use of mtDNA, it was determined that she was
NOT (my emphasis here) the Grand Duchess Anastasia. ...

Dr. Melton testified that she is unaware of any peer review articles
in disagreement with the method used by her lab with respect to the
analysis and interpretation of mtDNA. She testified that there is no
process for mtDNA analysis that is not generally accepted as a valid
scientific procedure. The whole process has been subject to peer
review. Further, the statistical formula for mtDNA is generally
accepted by the scientific community. Dr. Melton testified that there
were no peer review articles stating that this statistical formula or
method was not a reliable interpretation of the mtDNA database. She
also testified that the counting method, the confidence interval
approach and the likelihood calculation are each equally valid."

While mtDNA analysis can not necessarily prove who a single individual
may be, (it cannot go beyond 99.9%, which is the probability AA is FS)
it CAN prove who they can NOT be......reliably so by
excluding them from the possibility of blood relation in the maternal
line. There is NO QUESTION that Anna Anderson was NOT Grand
Duchess Anastasia Nicholaiovna because her mtDNA was EXCLUDED from
relationship thru the maternal line. The fundemantal issue here
remains that mtDNA analysis has proved reliably that AA could not have
been GD Anastasia.

[Anna was Franziska]

PEOPLE v. KLINGER
713 N.Y.S.2d 823
N.Y.Co.Ct., 2000
Sept. 5, 2000
Judge Brown
PEOPLE v. MICHAEL KLINGER and RAYMOND KLINGER QDS:76703137—The
following constitutes the opinion, decision and order of the court.
***
By previous order of the Honorable Paul E. Kowtna, this court
conducted a Frye hearing on June 6, 2000 and June 13, 2000, to
determine the admissibility of mitochondrial DNA evidence at the trial
of the above-captioned Indictment.
At the hearing, the court heard testimony from two witnesses, Bruce
Budowle, Ph.D., a Senior Scientist with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and Terry Melton, PhD., President of Mitotyping
Technologies, LLC.
The court finds that Dr, Budowle and Dr. Melton were credible
witnesses.
The court makes the following conclusions of law:
The Court of Appeals has held that "[t]he long recognized rule of Frye
v. United States, 293 F. 1013, is that expert testimony based on
scientific principles or procedures is admissible but only after a
principle or procedure has 'gained general acceptance' in its
specified
field". In Frye (supra at 1014) the court stated:
"Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line
between the
experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Somewhere
in
this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be
recognized,
and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony
deduced
from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing
from
which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have
gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs"
(emphasis supplied)." (People v. Wesley, 83 NY2d 417).
"This Court has noted that the particular procedure need not be
'unanimously indorsed' by the scientific community but must be
'generally acceptable as reliable' (see People v. Middleton, 54 NY2d
42, 49). Thus the issue here concerns the acceptance by the relevant
scientific community of the reliability of DNA evidence." (People v.
Wesley, supra at 423).
"Once Frye has been satisfied, the question is 'whether the accepted
techniques were employed by the experts in this case" (People v.
Wesley, supra, citing People v. Middleton, 54 NY2d at 50). The focus
moves from the general reliability of the procedures followed to
generate the evidence proffered and whether they establish a
foundation for the reception of the evidence at trial. The trial court
determines, as a preliminary matter of law, whether an adequate
foundation for the admissibility of this particular evidence has been
established." (People v. Wesley, supra at 429).
The first witness was Dr. Bruce Budowle. Dr. Budowle has been employed
by the FBI for 17 years and has been a Senior Scientist for the past
one and a half to two years. He has a Ph.D. in genetics and a
Bachelor's Degree in biology, Dr. Budowle is a member of numerous
professional organizations including the American Academy of Forensic
Sciences and the International Society of Forensic Genetics. He has
published approximately 200-250 articles or materials relating to DNA
analysis, nine of those articles regarding mitochondrial DNA
(hereinafter "mtDNA"), The majority of these articles were subject to
peer review. Dr. Budowle has presented his research and findings to
the
International Symposium of Human Identification on nine separate
occasions. He explained that a symposium is a way to bring the
scientific community together so theycan exchange ideas. He also
serves on numerous journal and editorial boards both in this country
and abroad. Dr. Budowle has received numerous honors and awards
including the Forensic Scientist of the Year Award. He teaches a
course on mtDNA typing for the FBI and for Forensic Institute, which
is for national and international students. Dr. Budowle
has been qualified on numerous occasions as an expert witness in
molecular biology, genetics, population genetics, statistics and
forensic science in state, local and federal courts. He stated that he
has testified in more than half of the states in this country. Dr,
Budowle has also been qualified as an expert on mtDNA in New York,
Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Maryland and California.
As early as 1989, Dr. Budowle co-wrote a chapter of a book describing
mtDNA as a possible genetic tool. In October of 1993, he co-wrote one
of the first guidelines for the use of mtDNA sequencing in forensic
science. In 1995, he co-wrote a peer review journal
describing the procedure that was developed at the FBI for the
extraction, amplification and sequencing of mtDNA from human hair
shafts, Also, in 1995, a peer review article was co-written by him on
the validation of the aforesaid procedures for their application to
case work. An article was also co-written by Dr. Budowle, which was
published in 1997, that described a phenomenon observed in mtDNA
called heteroplasmy. Dr. Budowle also co-wrote a peer review article
for publication where a mtDNA study was done with crab
lice. He determined that this study was a valuable way of looking at
the DNA environment to determine whether its analysis produces a
reliable result. In 1999, he co-wrote a peer review journal article
describing some of the population data from a portion of the data
bases that demonstrates, by inference, the rarity of the mtDNA type
among unrelated individuals. Finally, Dr. Budowle is on the DNA
Commission of the International Society for Forensic Genetics. He was
one of 13 members of the DNA Commission who published an
editorial which contained guidelines for typing mtDNA.
***
MtDNA is much heartier than nuclear DNA. For example, old bones and
teeth that have been exposed to the environment may still have
sufficient quantity for mtDNA typing where nuclear DNA typing would
fail to give a result, There are, however, differences between the two
types of DNA. First, in nuclear DNA, you inherit half from your mother
and half from your father. In mtDNA, you inherit all of it from
your mother. Second, instead of being billions of letters long, the
mtDNA strand is 16,569 letters long. Further, mtDNA is circular rather
than linear. Dr. Budowle opined that the circular strands may actually
protect the mtDNA from being degraded.
***
the counting method is used to predict how common a particular
profile is in mtDNA. Next, the technician can go further by
calculating a confidence level based upon a statistical formula
established early in the twentieth century. The lab, in essence, would
calculate a confidence interval around the estimated frequency based
on the size of the database. This formula is based upon bell-shaped
distribution theories that have been in existence since the
mid-eighteenth century. A confidence level, based upon a statistical
analysis, creates an upper bound to the benefit of the accused, and
then provides that they have confidence that the frequency is no
higher than this amount, Dr. Budowle is not aware of any peer review article
that disagrees with this method of calculation.

MtDNA research began at the FBI in 1992 and testing commenced in 1996.
Numerous procedures and protocols were developed that were subject to
peer review. Moreover, validation studies for mtDNA have been
published and subject to peer review.

Apparently, there have been no peer review articles that disagree with
the FBI validation ...

[Anna was Franziska]

Dr. Terry Melton has been working with mtDNA since 1991. She has a
Ph.D. from Penn State University in genetics. She has performed
hundreds of DNA analyses and thousands of PCR amplifications. She
testified that her lab exclusively performs mtDNA analysis. One
high profile analysis that she was involved with was the claim of Anna
Anderson that she was the remaining living child of the Romanov
family. By the use of mtDNA, it was determined that she was not the
Grand Duchess Anastasia.

The Court cited the AA case here as support for Dr. Melton's
credentials as an expert in mtDNA analysis. Please note that there is
no reference to any question of the accuracy of the results of the
test. In fact, the accuracy of the AA test is overtly IMPLIED because
the Court cites it as part of the basis for believing her expertise in
mtDNA work and IN FACT RELIES ON THIS CASE to demonstrate her
expertise.

In plain English, what this says is that NO SCIENTISTS have published
ANYTHING to date which has questioned the accuracy of her work,
INCLUDING the mtDNA analysis of AA, excluding her as GD Anastasia. I
have seen lots of claims made here of the "innacuracy" of the AA mtDNA
testing, but for some reason, NO ONE can actually
cite any published scientific reference to back up their claims.

Dr. Melton testified that, in her opinion, the underlying principles
of mtDNA, the principles of mtDNA analysis and the statistical methods
as applied to mtDNA are generally accepted as reliable in the
scientific community.

mtDNA analysis IS regarded as reliable and
accepted by the scientific community.

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

Anastasia, Nyet.
Authors: Glausiusz, Josie
Source: Discover; Jan1995, Vol. 16 Issue 1, p99, 1/2p, 2bw
Document Type: Article
Subject Terms: ANDERSON, Anna
IMPOSTORS & imposture
ANASTASIA Nikolaevna, Grand Duchess, daughter of Nicholas II, Emperor of Russia
NICHOLAS II, Emperor of Russia, 1868-1918

Abstract:
Reveals that Anna Anderson, the woman who claimed to be Grand Duchess Anastasia, daughter of Russian Czar Nicholas II and Empress Alexandra who were executed in 1918, was a fraud. Medical evidence refuting the woman's claim; True identity of the impostor.

ISSN: 0274-7529

Persistent link to this record:
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.as...ite=srck5-live

ANASTASIA, NYET

Section: GENETICS - 1994

IN OCTOBER RESEARCHERS at the British Forensic Science Service announced that by reading the entrails of a woman dead for the past ten years they had solved one of the century's most enduring mysteries. Not only, they said, was Anna Anderson not the Grand Duchess Anastasia--daughter of Czar Nicholas II and his wife, Alexandra, who were executed in 1918--she was likely to have been one Franziska Schanzkowska, a German-Polish factory worker who had disappeared in 1920.

It was also in 1920, in Berlin, that the woman called Anna Anderson first appeared, in a mental hospital; she'd been placed there after being dragged from a canal, an unsuccessful suicide. She made her claim to be Anastasia two years later, and until her death in the United States in 1984, she never wavered.

Not until this past year, though, could her claim be unequivocally repudiated. Peter Gill and his colleagues extracted DNA from a section of Anderson's intestine that had been preserved at a Charlottesville, Virginia, hospital after she had undergone surgery there in 1979. They found her chromosomal [nuclear] DNA to be lacking in pivotal sequences identified last year in DNA extracted from the bones of the czar and czarina.

The researchers also looked at Anderson's mitochondrial DNA--genetic material passed unchanged from mother to child--and compared its sequences with those of a maternally descended great-nephew of Schanzkowska's. They were identical.

By Josie Glausiusz

-----------------
From Robert K. Massie's book "The Romanovs: The Final Chapter", here is the explaination of Penny Jenkins, employee of Martha Jefferson hospital, when asked if the sample could have been switched:

"We have two separate backups. In 1979 when Dr. Shrum did surgery on Mrs. Manahan, we took slides of the tissue, in addition to preserving in paraffin the larger blocks of the excised tissue. Taking slides when doing surgery is routine, you take it, you look at it, and say, there is cancer, or it's not cancer, or it's an infection or whatever. We preserve these slides in one place and the paraffin wax in a totally different place.

"Furthermore, when we moved the tissue from storage back to the hospital in early 1993, Dr, Thomas Dudley, the assistant pathologist, cut some new slides from one of the blocks. We compared these new slides cut in 1993 with those slides cut in 1979 and they were identical. If someone had swapped them in storage during the last couple of years, they would not have matched. And the chance that anybody was able to get to both locations and switch both slides without access to specimen numbers is impossible."

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

Here is the Gill paper from 1995, so called "AA paper".

Gill P, Kimpton C, Aliston-Greiner R, Sullivan K, Stoneking M, Melton T, Nott J, Barritt S, Roby R, Holland M, et al.
Establishing the identity of Anna Anderson Manahan.
Nature Genetics. 1995 Jan;9(1):9-10.

http://img156.exs.cx/img156/9286/aaarticle4pv.jpg

One year later, Nature Genetics declared the case closed. (AA = FS end of story)

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by BorisRom

2.3) The mtDNA match with Maucher is not so special. 40 of a random 1,000 people share the same mtDNA sequence.

Wrong. Here is a complete explaination by Dave K., who studied DNA:
It's not only mtDNA. How many people do you think there were who fit the description: a girl who looked like Anna Anderson, same age, same hair/eye color, who disappeared in a same time when AA appeared in the same region!! You have to take that into account by Bayesian inference (the court of law requires forensic scientists to use Bayesian). Here is a calculation. Come to think of it, I will also post the population genetics paper cited in this calculation.

Question: Is the random match probability of AA’s DNA really 1/300?

Some AA proponents assert that AA’s specific mtDNA type is very common type, therefore a match between AA and FS is just by accident. However, this argument is fundamentally flawed. If so, why don’t they just show the data of someone who has same mtDNA? There are more than dozens populaiton genetics papers that you can check very easily. They can’t, because their claim is not true.

Before showing the evidence, let's to point out that the probability 1/300 reported in Peter Gill’s study in 1995 was outdated. Gill “guessed” the number from statistical average because he didn’t find AA’s mtDNA type in database available in 1995. Therefore, any unknown mtDNA in 1995 was estimated as “1/300” temporally, even if its actual probability is 1/5000 or 1/100,000 (!).

To get more accurate estimate, I checked all mtDNA (HVI) database available to me that contained 8,902 sequences of European Caucasian including US Caucasian, British, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Polish, Russian, Hungarian, Austrian, Dutch, Norwegian, Swedish, Ashkenazic Jewish, Belgian, Icelandic, Austrian, Bulgarian, Portuguese and so on. I also checked African and Asian population just in case. Most convenient sources are major human genetics journals such as Annals of Human Genetics and American Journal of Human Genetics (especially Annals of Human Genetics vol 67 (2003), p281 was helpful). Also computerized database were used, such as NCBI GenBank, European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), and US Department of Justice FBI CODIS database.

The reason why I investigated different regions separately was to see “population structure” due to ethnic subgroup, but prevalence of Tara clan was 10 +/- 2% in all countries in Europe, which indicates there is no siginificant structure (also see Science Vol 254 p1735). I’ll discuss this issue in Question 3.

TABLE 4 (Some examples of European mtDNA (HVI) studies)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
French (total = 109)
9 person has the most common type: CRS (no mutation)
Almost all other 93 person has a unique mtDNA (does not share mtDNA each other).
No one has AA’s mtDNA (16126C, 16266T, 16294T, 16304C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Autstrian (total = 101)
9 person has the most common type: CRS (no mutation)
Almost all other 80 person has a unique mtDNA (does not share mtDNA each other).
No one has AA’s mtDNA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
British (total = 100)
12 person has the most common type: CRS (no mutation)
No one has AA’s mtDNA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russians and Ukrainians (total = 201)
22 person has the most common type: CRS (no mutation)
No one has AA’s mtDNA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Polish (total = 436)
67 person has the most common type: CRS (no mutation)
No one has AA’s mtDNA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
US Caucasians total = 323
61 person has the most common type: CRS (no mutation)
No one has AA’s mtDNA


In all regions, by far the most common mtDNA haplotype (HVI) is CRS (Cambridge Reference sequence). About 10% of population in any country (except US) has this sequence (almost same prevalence as AB blood type), i.e. about 65 million European has an exactly same mtDNA sequence (at HVI). There is no known reason why this specific type is so prevalent. It seems just stochastic genetic drift event. A friend of mine jokes this mtDNA type is related to “beauty phenotype” expressed in their daughters, but I don’t think it’s true. (By the way, this CRS sequence itself from a British woman whose identity kept secret for some reason since 1981. A rumor goes that it was a researcher’s wife’s mtDNA.)

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

So, can I conclude from this DNA evidence alone? Not so fast. I think many people confuse DNA’s random match probability, likelihood ratio, with Posterior Odds. To discuss if AA is FS, we have to discuss posterior odds.

Bayesian inference is the logical/mathematical framework to interpret the combined probability of independent event. Forensic science in both US and UK are always interepreted in a logical sturucture of Bayesian inference. In the court, forensic exprert are instructed by judge to testify only regarding to “DNA random match probability” or “likelihood ratio”, but what really concern jury is the posterior odds. Here I try to be a jury rather than a DNA expert.

O (posterior) = O (prior) * DNA likelihood ratio

Roughly speaking, if two person’s sex, age, physical feature including height, hair color, face feature, prior odds are 1:10. Considering FS has been missing at almost exactly same time at same geological area as AA appeared, even conservative odds brings this to 1:100. DNA random probability is a simply inverse of likelihood ratio in this case, so my calculation shows:

O (posterior) = 1/100 x 1/9000 = 1/900,000 (that is to say, probability that AA is FS is 99.9999%)

As “reasonable doubt” is generally considered O(posterior)(threshold)
=1/10,000, it is reasonable to accept hypothesis that “AA is FS”.

Therefore, with overwhelming evidential support and lack of alternative scenario, I support the hypothesis that AA= FS.

Anna Anderson was FS = 99.9999%
Anna Anderson was Anastasia = 0.00000000 (add 80 of zero here)0001% *
FS was murdered by Grossmann = 0.00001%
FS was murdered by other murderers = 0.00002%
FS was killed by accident = 0.00002%
FS was living peacefully under other pseudonym = 0.00004%
FS was kidnapped by foreign intelligence agency such as KGB = 0.00001%
FS didn’t exist from beginning, she was a fiction by her family= 0.000001%

[ysbel]

This is a lot of information.

Thanks Boris and Anna for providing your expertise on this matter it is much appreciated.

Well since this is a lot of material to digest, I will have myself a supper and come back and look at this later.

Thanks again for your input.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Yes the photographic comparisons are very convincing. AA looked like FS, not Anastasia.

I think the photographs should be left out of it. Heck, with the proper lighting and makeup, I could look like Kirsten Dunst.
Wait a sec, I already do!

[BorisRom]

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

[ysbel]

Anna,

To protect the integrity of our site, can you quote the sources you use?

People vs. Klinger looks like the results of a court case and should be in the public domain but can you identifiy Dave K and make sure its OK to post his findings here?

Thanks.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Did Dr. Melton test the samples? If so she should have a record of when they were obtained and tested.

I am sure records were kept of all this, the verification of the samples, making sure Karl Maucher was indeed a maternal relative of FS, all the questions AA supporters ask. Though we may not always see all the details written down, I give the scientists credit for knowing what they were doing, and doing it right.

Or why not Prince Philip? There is already a sizable number of people who are firmly convinced he is behind the murder of Diana.

Hey, why not? Everyone else has been blamed

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Anna,

To protect the integrity of our site, can you quote the sources you use?

People vs. Klinger looks like the results of a court case and should be in the public domain but can you identifiy Dave K and make sure its OK to post his findings here?

Thanks.

DaveK's posts are on the DNA thread on the AP, and he offered them freely to everyone. I also used them on my website. Instead of posting the link or the entire thread, I tried to sift through the chitchat and find the important stuff.

Most of the other things I posted have links or background posted. If there is anything else, please ask me what is in question and I will try to find it. I certainly hope all the work I put on the last page won't be skipped over now that we're on a new page.

Here is a link to several books on the topic:

mtdna anderson gill - Google Book Search

here are some articles but some charge you

peter gill anna anderson - Google Scholar

here is an article on Peter Gill and his DNA work

http://www.le.ac.uk/genetics/maj4/Jo....Forensics.pdf

[plkbvt]

Yes, well ... there are many scientists who don't agree with Dr. Melton's professed "certainty." But it's not worth arguing about. pk

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

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

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

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

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

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by plkbvt

Yes, well ... there are many scientists who don't agree with Dr. Melton's professed "certainty." But it's not worth arguing about. pk

There is only one I've heard of, Alec Knight, and he has been proven wrong.

[plkbvt]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Do you believe everything everyone says, under oath or not, is a 'fact?'

No.

What about those who testified 'under oath' against her, was what they said a 'fact?'

No (or I should say "also no").

You don't know much about German legal procedure, obviously. Everybody testitifies automatically "an Eides Statt" -- meaning, that they are PREPARED to swear to it -- they swear to THAT, at first. Then, if the judges think the testimony is especially important, they might demand the formal oath -- but usually they don't. Most of the witnesses (for and against) in the AA case were let off without swearing to anything.

No, everything a person said that is listed as 'testimony' does not necessarily make it a 'fact.' We have many quotes from people on both sides. They all can't be right! This is why the DNA is so important, because it proved to us which 'side' was right.

No. It "proved" it to you. It did not "prove" it to anyone who actually knew her -- not one person. You can make of this what you like ... it doesn't matter anymore.
pk

[plkbvt]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

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

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

You are totally wrong here. It is demonstrated and it is also recorded in FS's first medical records -- never mind the testimony of everyone who knew her (which COULD fall into the vague-memory/wishful-thinking department -- but don't you start thinking that anti-AA testimony is more reliable than the "pro").

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

So is anything you say about Franziska -- "just a story." Medical records demonstrate that AA had once given birth; whereas the early (admittedlly, 1915-1916) are quite sure that FS had not. So when was this baby born? The S. family (who swore that they had seen her even weeks after AA's appearance in Berlin) INSISTED that this was not the case. So maybe she had it in secret? While living with the Wingenders in Berlin, who later presented themselves as SO attentive to her every move that they even "noticed" the hallux valgus on her feet -- something that the S. family, again, emphatically denied: "She had no deformities of the feet." So maybe FS slipped off to the asparagus farm at Friedrikenhof and dropped the baby like a toad ... we know from the managers of the place that she was "rather quiet" as a person (AA was NOT quiet) and that "she was at least 5'6". Now put that into your anti-A pipe and smoke it. DNA tests (conducted in very doubtful circumstances) do not trump the actual experience of real people. Tell that to Dr. Melton the next time you see her (my sister is a molecular/cellular biologist, with an expertise in genetics, and when she says to me, "Oh my God -- you can't imagine how often we get these things wrong!" -- I tend to believe her. Call it a family prejudice -- nothing will suit you, no matter what.) pk

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by plkbvt

Most of the witnesses (for and against) in the AA case were let off without swearing to anything.

This further deteriorates the value all of the commentary on both sides (especially compared to the DNA)

No. It "proved" it to you. It did not "prove" it to anyone who actually knew her -- not one person. You can make of this what you like ... it doesn't matter anymore.pk

It may not have proved it to you, but I am sure others who met her feel differently and some have said so.

Not to use up another post, here is something interesting and informative on the DNA and AA and the Romanovs:

Forensic DNA Typing: Biology ... - Google Book Search

pages 258-261

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by plkbvt

You are totally wrong here. It is demonstrated and it is also recorded in FS's first medical records

Where are these medical records? They have never been produced or published, I just keep hearing these rumors. Would you accept that from me? Of course not.

So is anything you say about Franziska -- "just a story." Medical records demonstrate that AA had once given birth; whereas the early (admittedlly, 1915-1916) are quite sure that FS had not.

First, what are you quoting from 1915? Second, her pregnancy probably came much later, most likely even closer to her suicide attempt in 1920. There are no records one way or the other, but since AA had given birth and AA was FS, FS had to have been pregnant. The baby could have been stillborn or abandoned, and it didn't even have to be full term to have left markings of a pregnancy. It could have been aborted or miscarried. We may never know, but this doesn't make the ficticious story of the baby in Romania any more real. The very logisitics of her entire escape story are unrealistic.

The S. family INSISTED that this was not the case.

Consider the time and place FS lived. This wasn't the US in the 21st century. An illegitimate pregnancy was a social stigma. It was the end of a girl's reputation, the end of her scoring a reputable husband, and a disgrace to the family. It is very likely the family never knew about the child, and possible they wouldn't have admitted it even if they did. (I have known such things to have been denied and hidden by my own older relatives)

(who swore that they had seen her even weeks after AA's appearance in Berlin)

Wow that's a new one, I never heard that one before.

we know from the managers of the place that she was "rather quiet" as a person (AA was NOT quiet) and that "she was at least 5'6".

Source please? I have checked into this, and they only guessed she was about 5'4", and were obviously wrong. People mis-estimate height all the time, especially after a long passage of time, and especially when it was someone they hardly knew and not for long. I know people who have guessed wrong only one day after meeting someone.

DNA tests do not trump the actual experience of real people.

I'm sorry, but it does, actually.

(conducted in very doubtful circumstances)

Could you please clarify your grounds for this accusation?

Tell that to Dr. Melton the next time you see her (my sister is a molecular/cellular biologist, with an expertise in genetics, and when she says to me, "Oh my God -- you can't imagine how often we get these things wrong!" -- I tend to believe her. Call it a family prejudice -- nothing will suit you, no matter what.) pk

Why didn't you get yours sister to do the DNA testing?