Anna Anderson's claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia

[ChatNoir]

Oh, I just cannot help myself now .....

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h4...iacollage2.jpg

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

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

What we are doing here, is not exactly scientific. To determine whether there is any real likeness between two faces, you will need a much, much larger amount of photos. And even then it is not an exact science. What gets me more than the face, is the identical ears and the bilateral congenital hallux valgus, a very rare affliction. No impostor gets that lucky!

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

What we are doing here, is not exactly scientific. To determine whether there is any real likeness between two faces, you will need a much, much larger amount of photos. And even then it is not an exact science. What gets me more than the face, is the identical ears and the bilateral congenital hallux valgus, a very rare affliction. No impostor gets that lucky!

I wasn't suggesting that the photos provided were conclusive one way or the other. I was pointing out that your inclusion of "face" in the list of things that were known to be identical was an overstatement since there are many people - such as the person who's challenging your statement now - who don't agree with it. Especially when we're getting into the realms of whether their faces would have been identical if it hadn't been for all these various injuries and traumas. Seems as though the bald claim that "their faces were identical" is an overstatement.

[Anna was Franziska]

Chat, your boa pics are a perfect example of how AA and her supporters used convenient angles and props to hide parts of her face that looked least like AN. They're 'Glamour shots', the real person looks much different (and I don't even see AN in the glamour shots!) Your shadowy pics with the bitten lips certainly aren't scientific either, but in a clear picture, the differences in the features and bone structure are painfully obvious.

If you do want scientific examination, here's Geoffrey Oxlee's facial comparisons where he used a computer to conclude AA and FS were one in the same:

Geoffrey Oxlee is a British expert in imagery analysis and human identification. His work has been used in court cases where he has been called as an expert witness, and he was awarded for his work with British Military Intelligence.
Kalagate - The U.K.'s leading expert imagery interpretation bureau - Experts in Facial Mapping and Imagery Enhancement
In 1994, Oxlee used the picture of Franziska and a picture of Anna Anderson and fused them together using his proven successful computer techniques. Oxlee's experiment was shown in real time video on the PBS NOVA episode "Anastasia: Dead or Alive." His results, much more efficient and high tech than any facial comparisons done in the past, showed everything in both faces he was looking for matched exactly and that Franziska and Anderson were one in the same. Here are the pictures he used to compare:



And here is his experiment and its results:

http://www.freewebs.com/anastasiafranziska/fuse1.jpg
http://www.freewebs.com/anastasiafranziska/fuse3.jpg
http://www.freewebs.com/anastasiafranziska/fuse5.jpg
http://www.freewebs.com/anastasiafranziska/fuse7.jpg
http://www.freewebs.com/anastasiafranziska/fuse8.jpg

Oxlee explaining his conclusions about the perfect matches between the size of features, shape of face, and identical amount of space between the eyes, and other features. He was convinced Anderson was Schanzkowska.

He may have also used other pictures that were not shown on TV, I do not know for sure.


And if you want more scientific proof, well, there's always the DNA!

[ChatNoir]

Now the question is: Are these men related?

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

IF the samples came from AA.

To repeat - there are two samples, the intestinal sample from the hospital and the hair that (if I'm understanding correctly) was found in a book belonging to Anna Anderson. The intestinal sample was tested in two labs, the hair sample was tested in a third. They gave identical results, meaning that they were from the same person.

If the two samples were independently identified before testing as coming from Anna Anderson and the tests showed that they came from the same person, why this persistent doubt?

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.

And no experts have said that their faces are anything other than identical?

[ChatNoir]

Annie, as I have told you countless times before, a comparison between only two photos, taken from a slightly different angle, mean nothing.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

I wasn't suggesting that the photos provided were conclusive one way or the other. I was pointing out that your inclusion of "face" in the list of things that were known to be identical was an overstatement since there are many people - such as the person who's challenging your statement now - who don't agree with it. Especially when we're getting into the realms of whether their faces would have been identical if it hadn't been for all these various injuries and traumas. Seems as though the bald claim that "their faces were identical" is an overstatement.

Well, this is what the scientists say who did the tests.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

To repeat - there are two samples, the intestinal sample from the hospital and the hair that (if I'm understanding correctly) was found in a book belonging to Anna Anderson. The intestinal sample was tested in two labs, the hair sample was tested in a third. They gave identical results, meaning that they were from the same person.

If the two samples were independently identified before testing as coming from Anna Anderson and the tests showed that they came from the same person, why this persistent doubt?



And no experts have said that their faces are anything other than identical?

Isn't this fun Elspeth?
And you can see, each side is equally armored albeit in different ways. . .

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

To repeat - there are two samples, the intestinal sample from the hospital and the hair that (if I'm understanding correctly) was found in a book belonging to Anna Anderson. The intestinal sample was tested in two labs, the hair sample was tested in a third. They gave identical results, meaning that they were from the same person.

If the two samples were independently identified before testing as coming from Anna Anderson and the tests showed that they came from the same person, why this persistent doubt?



And no experts have said that their faces are anything other than identical?

If there is no doubt, why has a legal decision not been made long time ago?

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

And no experts have said that their faces are anything other than identical?

See my post on Oxlee. The most modern techniques used by this expert proved the 'identical' faces were those of AA and FS.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

If there is no doubt, why has a legal decision not been made long time ago?

Simple. Because no one has yet taken it to court. Few people realize that it was the Scweitzers, the daughter and son in law of Gleb Botkin, who hunted down the intestine sample and paid to have the DNA testing done. Naturally, they were disappointed with the results. Perhaps if they had gotten a more favorable conclusion they may have taken it to court to have her identity proven. Apparently, the DNA results are good enough for those on the 'other' side and they see no need to take it to court. You, Chat, are more than welcome to take this to court on your own time and expense. If you decide to do so, let us know the results.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Russophile

Isn't this fun Elspeth?
And you can see, each side is equally armored albeit in different ways. . .

No, I don't think it's fun at all. I really dislike seeing scientists and their work being trashed by conspiracy theorists who don't seem to bat an eyelid before announcing that the work was wrong, the scientists didn't know what they were doing, they were all in some vast plot to hide The Truth and other such claims. I don't like it when creationists do it, or when climate change deniers do it, and I don't like seeing it here.

I don't care one way or the other whether Anna Anderson was Grand Duchess Anastasia, Franziska Schankowska, or someone completely different. I really do take issue with some of these casual accusations of incompetence and/or fraud by some world-leading experts in DNA testing.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Simple. Because no one has yet taken it to court. Few people realize that it was the Scweitzers, the daughter and son in law of Gleb Botkin, who hunted down the intestine sample and paid to have the DNA testing done. Naturally, they were disappointed with the results. Perhaps if they had gotten a more favorable conclusion they may have taken it to court to have her identity proven. Apparently, the DNA results are good enough for those on the 'other' side and they see no need to take it to court. You, Chat, are more than welcome to take this to court on your own time and expense. If you decide to do so, let us know the results.

Every lawyer I have approached, has told me that the tainted chain of custody will make the DNA proof inadmissible. That's why I haven't tried yet.

[Anna was Franziska]

Chat, go back a few posts and read the link I posted about the chain of custody on the Mitotyping Technology site. Also remember the samples were taken right in front of the Scweitzers, this is on the NOVA special. If you say they were swapped out, please tell us how this happened. If you can't prove it, the hypothetical accusations mean nothing.

Here it is again

Mitotyping Technologies, LLC | Company

Elspeth, it's not only the scientists, I have also seen it said by AA supporters online that the British royals, particularly Her Majesty herself, were the ones behind the switch, funding it financially and masterminding the entire plot. Who actually did all the dirty work has never been even speculated on, presumably because it never happened, so there is no answer.

The biggest question remains, why would anyone even bother? A reason someone mentioned once was that because George V had rejected the family for asylum, he felt guilty over their deaths and somehow the rejection of AA by members of the family, particularly Lord Mountbatten who fought her in court with his own money for years, added to this 'embarrassment'. Therefore, the House of Windsor had to make sure the world never found out that AA was AN! Even if this were true, would it be worth the money and risk involved? It's also an insult to the scientists that they were either too stupid to know they'd been swapped out, or 'paid off' by the Queen to go along with the trickery.

Now with the find of the last two sets of remains in Ekaterinburg, the Russians are also a part of some grand plot to commit fraud and lie to the world. What could possibly matter now to the British royals, or the Russian government, that would make such deception and elaborate schemes necessary, even if they were true? There really is no reason. There is no money, no political position to gain, nothing to prove. Really, if there had been a survivor, it would have been more to their advantage to capitalize on that story, if attention and tourism was the goal. There's nothing left now but putting an end to a long and tragic episode in history.

[Russophile]

< ed Warren: irrelevancies >
I just don't think people can for sure say that it's a done deal. Didn't they say it was a done deal in 1919? Then they found the bodies in the Koptkei (sic) forest then they found out Yurovsky and Ermakov lied (Radzinski's book) How much more information is stashed there in Russia that we have no knowledge of that exists given the history and the nature of the Soviet Union after the revolution?

[Anna was Franziska]

But everything they said turned out to be basically true- the family was murdered and left in the area they said they were. Two bodies were burned separately, and now that site has been found too. What did they lie about?

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Chat, go back a few posts and read the link I posted about the chain of custody on the Mitotyping Technology site. Also remember the samples were taken right in front of the Scweitzers, this is on the NOVA special. If you say they were swapped out, please tell us how this happened. If you can't prove it, the hypothetical accusations mean nothing.

Yes, the slices were cut from the sample right in front of everybody. But who can prove that the sample really came from AA? Do that, and I shall take it to court in person.

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

But everything they said turned out to be basically true- the family was murdered and left in the area they said they were. Two bodies were burned separately, and now that site has been found too. What did they lie about?

I don't think we can say that the site has been found as of yet. So far, all they have are some bones that, as far as I know, have not been tied to the IF by DNA.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

Yes, the slices were cut from the sample right in front of everybody. But who can prove that the sample really came from AA? Do that, and I shall take it to court in person.

Take it to court for what reason?

If the sample didn't come from Anna Anderson, what is your explanation for why the DNA matched that of the hair sample which was found in a book she had owned, and which was analysed in a different laboratory?

[Menarue]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

Every lawyer I have approached, has told me that the tainted chain of custody will make the DNA proof inadmissible. That's why I haven't tried yet.

A polite question Chat. Why are you so keen to prove that AA was Anastasia, did you know her? Are you related to her? I really can´t understand someone even consulting a lawyer about it. DNA cannot be denied, a likeness? That is nothing. There is a family that published an unwittingly hilarious book about their right to the British throne and even in the book called their ancestor (supposedly an illegitimate son of Queen Victoria) Prince M. What did they base their story on, they had very little to go on as the child had been abandoned without identification at a convent step, well they based their story on a likeness to Queen Victoria, it was quite noticeable too.
In case you are wondering why I called the book hilarious, it was because the English translation of it was done à la Babelfish.
A daughter of mine was always being approached by people who thought they knew her because of another girl at University who looked so much like her that both sets of parents met both girls to see for themselves. Absolutely not even the slightest relationship between the families.
I would like to add that this daughter is a research scientist, (DNA).