Anna Anderson's claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Menarue

Me too, but the DNA for me in irrefutable.

DNA as a means to prove something is really, really irrefutable today. But - and That's a Big But that doesn't mean that in each and any case the magic word "DNA" solves the question. It's only under certain, mostly clinical circumstances that DNA gives absolutely reliable results but in this case there are many, many questions open when you look closely at the results. It's simply not as easy as saying: this child is/isn't his father's child, which is the case we're used to when confronted with DNA. It's much more complicated and so much more open to doubt and/or interpretation.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Marengo

Thus far two independant DNA tests show that Anna Anderson's DNA matched that of the Schanzkowski family (and not of Romanov relatives like the DoE). The Anna Anderson supporters do not have anything approaching that scientific evidence other than insinuations of big black conspiracies IMO... To almost everybody this issue has been properly resolved, as most people do believe Anna Anderson's claim was false. Now we can continue argue in circles about this matter, and I am sure we will (with many interesting information/discussions as a result) but the case has been properly resolved for a vast majority of historians, relatives and former supporters even.

Marengo, you know the Sickert-case made up by author Patricia Cornwell and how convincing that was, when in fact the DNA was not at all convincing? It's the same here!

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

AFAIK there is no concludent proof that the DNA in question really belonged to Anna Anderson.

In science there's very rarely conclusive proof of anything. However, we're dealing with two DNA samples from two independent sources, tested in at least two labs by experts in the fields of DNA testing and forensics. They gave the same results. That suggests that both samples were from the same person. The odds that they were from the same person but not from Anna Anderson are extremely low - unless there was some serious tampering and colluding going on.

When DNA-testing became a possibility, Anna Anderson was already dead and her body had been cremated. The samples used were found and transported to the lab under such circumstances that they could have been tampered with, so though scientifically the tests were surely okay, the results are not necessarily proof against Anna Anderson.

The intestinal sample from the hospital was tested in two labs, one in England and one in the USA. The hair sample from a book which was claimed to have belonged to her was tested in yet a third lab, this one in the USA. All three samples gave the same result. It would require some very determined tampering in at least two and possibly three places, or the great-grandmother of all coincidences, for these results to not be genuine.

[BeatrixFan]

The thing is, surely the USSR would want to and be capable of the tampering you speak of Elsie?

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by lexi4

I think what Chat has questioned is the chain of custody. He would have to answer that for himself, though. The questions come because when the hospital was first asked for the samples, they said they didn't have them. Then later, they had them. That calls into question the chain of custody.

But why is that relevant if you're confident that the samples weren't switched?

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

Lexi got it right. Because of the questionable chain of custody of the samples from where the DNA came, the DNA results would not be allowed as evidence in court.

Which expert lawyer has actually stated this?

I mean, most scientific results could be picked apart by determined lawyers, but that doesn't mean that they're scientifically worthless. It's just that scientific and legal processes and standards are different. By which I don't mean that legal standards are higher.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Russophile

But what if the DNA is wrong?
And it could be. After all, we have people making movies that 911 was a cover up by the US government and we did it ourselves and that there was no Taliban. Does that sound far-fetched? It does to me, but there are people out there who believe that whole-heartedly. I have a brother who believes that. There is nothing I can say to dissuade him. So I let him ramble. And though I don't believe him, he does have his points because he does his homework and I respect his opinion for that. It is the same with this case.

How could it be?

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

In science there's very rarely conclusive proof of anything.

DNA cannot prove who a person is, but can prove who they are not. This is why AA is excluded from being AN 100%, yet her ID as FS is only 99.9%. There are 100% exclusions but not in proof, for anyone. This means 'technically' there is always a .00.01% chance it's wrong, but that's not much. It's interesting to me that those guys on the news and on 'baby daddy' shows who get even less than 99%- some as low as 96% match- never complain it's not totally proven, or that somebody in a lab swapped him out with another perspective father, even if it means he'll be paying child support for 18 years. The margin of error is not very high, and what's left isn't much to hold onto. The more we understand how these tests are handled and done, the more we realize what valid proof they really are.

I wrote to Dr. Terry Melton, who was involved in the testing, and she was kind enough to respond to my questions concerning error, swap, and conspiracy theory. Here is her answer:

As in all fascinating historical mysteries, conspiracy theories will abound. I can address only the lab process.

My response to you is the same that I give to everyone who questions the legitimacy of the Anderson results:

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

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

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

I hope this helps.

Best wishes,
Terry Melton

Dr. Melton still works for Mitotyping Technology Labs

Mitotyping Technologies, LLC | Company

Here is their answer to chain of custody concerns

Mitotyping Technologies, LLC | Company

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

Yes, I must admit, the DNA evidence is very, very strong. But how can two different people have the same ears, the same congenital bilateral hallux valgus, the same hair color, the same eye color, the same height, the same laughter, the same gait, the same scars, the same face, the same temperament, the same interests, the same mannerisms, in short, be identical and still be two different people? And then be recognized as the Grand Duchess by many people to boot? And have a wealth of information about the IF and their life in Russia?
I don't think we'll ever see an acceptable solution.

If the DNA is different, they're different people. They have to be.

Some of your confident statements are not as undisputed as you seem to believe. Many people don't agree that they had the same face, just for starters, and some of these other more qualitative features also seem to be in dispute.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

How could it be?

If it was never Anna Anderson Manahan's to begin with.
That's what I want to find out.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

If the DNA is different, they're different people. They have to be.

Some of your confident statements are not as undisputed as you seem to believe. Many people don't agree that they had the same face, just for starters, and some of these other more qualitative features also seem to be in dispute.

I don't hold much by the face either. If AA=AN, then there would have been a lot of trauma done to the body, face, etc. due to the execution that night.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by Russophile

I don't hold much by the face either. If AA=AN, then there would have been a lot of trauma done to the body, face, etc. due to the execution that night.

Exactly, and that would have resulted in a damaged version of Anastasia's face, not a completely different person's features.

The full lips, flat chin and bone structure of AA particularly match FS and differ greatly from AN. AA even possesses FS's hair part and eyebrows that fade at the part. Their noses are full and rounded at the end, their eyes large. Anastasia's eyes are smaller and closer set, her nose longer and thinner, her chin longer and more rounded, her lips much smaller and shaped differently.

L-R: Anastasia, Anna Anderson, Franziska

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

The thing is, surely the USSR would want to and be capable of the tampering you speak of Elsie?

But why would they want to do it so badly that they'd insert themselves in the process where a sample travels from one part of the USA to another part?

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Russophile

If it was never Anna Anderson Manahan's to begin with.
That's what I want to find out.

However, that would have to mean that both the intestinal sample and the hair sample (a) were not Anna Anderson's and (b) came from the same person, but someone different from Anna Anderson.

To me it seems considerably more likely that they were from Anna Anderson, because the alternative is frankly bizarre. It would, as I said before, be the great-grandmother of all coincidences or you have some real James Bond-type tampering going on.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

If the DNA is different, they're different people. They have to be.

IF the samples came from AA.

Some of your confident statements are not as undisputed as you seem to believe. Many people don't agree that they had the same face, just for starters, and some of these other more qualitative features also seem to be in dispute.

Oh, I know very, very well how disputed they are, and rightfully so. But when it comes to her face, we have the results of professors Eyckhart and Klenke who did a comparison of hundreds of photos, and came to the result that AA and AN's faces were identical. Then there is Otto Reche who had AA photographed from the same angles and in the same light as older photos of AN, and he also came out in her favour. And finally there was Mauritz Furtmayr who, with his PIK system made a "face print" of AA and AN, and they were identical. He also stated that their ears were identical on 17 points of tissue and curvatures. 12 were needed for identification in the German court at the time. There must be a limit to how lucky an impostor can be in this department.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

However, that would have to mean that both the intestinal sample and the hair sample (a) were not Anna Anderson's and (b) came from the same person, but someone different from Anna Anderson.

To me it seems considerably more likely that they were from Anna Anderson, because the alternative is frankly bizarre. It would, as I said before, be the great-grandmother of all coincidences or you have some real James Bond-type tampering going on.

There is no reasonable way it could have occured. What would they have swapped it with? Where would they get the same exact piece of intestine that was removed from AA, and how would it match the FS family?


Romanticism and fantasy are fun, but they belong in movies and not superimposed into reality, science and history where they don't belong.



Here is the response given by Dr. Melton to another person who wrote to her, explaining why the entire switch theory doesn't hold up.



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 99.9% 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.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Exactly, and that would have resulted in a damaged version of Anastasia's face, not a completely different person's features.

Completely different? I don't think so.



http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h4...a1916-1976.jpg

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h4...astasia2-1.jpg

I do apologize for the bad condition of the photos.

[Anna was Franziska]

Chat, most of the pictures used to prove their 'likeness' are dark, shadowy, and taken from favorable angles, therefore smoke and mirrors. In some of them, AA is pulling in her lips to make them appear smaller like AN's. Close examination of their front forward faces shows the differences.

Look at the picture on the left, of AA at the height of her claim and fame, compared to the mugshot taken right after she jumped into the canal, before she started pretending to be AN. Some makeover, huh?

http://www.freewebs.com/anastasiafranziska/lipbyte.jpg



These two pictures show the very drastic differences in the faces and features of AN and AA(AA pic taken before her active claim)


AA's lips being sucked in (left) AA's actual lips (both center) AN's lips (right)



Lips and chin of AN(left) compared with AA (right)




AA's lips compared to those of FS's niece, Waltraud, and her brother, Felix

[Elspeth]

Well, I think we've just established that the "same face" claim isn't exactly conclusive.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Chat, most of the pictures used to prove their 'likeness' are dark, shadowy, and taken from favorable angles, therefore smoke and mirrors. In some of them, AA is pulling in her lips to make them appear smaller like AN's. Close examination of their front forward faces shows the differences.

Look at the picture on the left, of AA at the height of her claim and fame, compared to the mugshot taken right after she jumped into the canal, before she started pretending to be AN.

The funny thing, Annie, is that you opponents try to explain away the likeness that you clearly see. John Goodl went so far as speculating that she had a plastic operation. When the poor woman was hauled out of the canal, she had a scar that went through her upper lip, her face was puffy, and a later X-ray showed fracture on the upper and lower jaws. What she allegedly went through, probably changed her features a bit. I cannot help think of Gilliard who stated that Volkov came to see him some time after his brush with death, and Gilliard did not recognize him.

One more photo for good measure.

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h4.../Anastasia.jpg