Anna Anderson's claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by OlgaNikolaievna

Where do you get this information, it is not true.

Remember, AA was rescued from the Landwehr Kanal on February 17, 1920, which also happened to be Felix Schankowski's birthday. FS's "Abmeldung" with the Berlin Police was dated March 9, 1920. Felix told Völler that he received a birthday card from Franziska 8 to 12 days after his birthday, where she excused her tardiness with having had lots of work to do.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

Remember, AA was rescued from the Landwehr Kanal on February 17, 1920, which also happened to be Felix Schankowski's birthday. FS's "Abmeldung" with the Berlin Police was dated March 9, 1920. Felix told Völler that he received a birthday card from Franziska 8 to 12 days after his birthday, where she excused her tardiness with having had lots of work to do.

Chat please don't try to mislead anyone. There is NO evidence they were ever accounted for at the same time. She wasn't reported missing immediately because she lived in a boarding house, and they didn't know for sure she was gone or if she just left, and maybe didn't even check or care. It wasn't 2008 where everyone was in close contact by cell phone and email every day and we freak out if someone doesn't answer. This was a poor girl from a poor family in impoverished postwar Germany. It's likely they didn't even have phones and didn't communicate very often. This was typical for the 'olden days.' And you keep moving the goalposts on that card every time you mention it. There is NO proof of FS being seen or heard from during the time she was AA in the asylum.

Thanks to those who appreciated the DNA posts, I tried.

It should be all over but the shouting now

ITAR-TASS

This news report proves that there were two bodies, they were male and female, and they were the biological children of Nicholas and Alexandra (both mtDNA and nuclear testing was done) The names of the scientists and labs are mentioned. They also make clear that these are not other bodies from the Stalin purges or recent murder victims, but the royal children. What else do we need? (the final science reports are coming in a month)

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Chat please don't try to mislead anyone. There is NO evidence they were ever accounted for at the same time. She wasn't reported missing immediately because she lived in a boarding house, and they didn't know for sure she was gone or if she just left, and maybe didn't even check or care. It wasn't 2008 where everyone was in close contact by cell phone and email every day and we freak out if someone doesn't answer. This was a poor girl from a poor family in impoverished postwar Germany. It's likely they didn't even have phones and didn't communicate very often. This was typical for the 'olden days.' And you keep moving the goalposts on that card every time you mention it. There is NO proof of FS being seen or heard from during the time she was AA in the asylum.

She did NOT live in a boarding house, she lived privately with the Wingender's in the dank slums of North Berlin. And all you do, is speculate, nothing more, nothing less. And I am NOT moving the goal posts of the card, I am quoting Dr. Völler's report. And he was there, remember?
As for proof of FS being seen after March 20, we have affidavit from Bruno Grandzitski who met FS in Poland, and the three nurses from an asylum near Posen who testified that FS had been a patient there for 5 years.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

She did NOT live in a boarding house, she lived privately with the Wingender's in the dank slums of North Berlin.

She was boarding with them, that is how her residence there is usually described. She lived many miles away from her family.

And I am NOT moving the goal posts of the card, I am quoting Dr. Völler's report.

I've never heard you use that name again, you usually quote the brother. You have changed the dates. We have no proof this card even existed, and we have no idea of the postmark or how long it took to arrive.

As for proof of FS being seen after March 20, we have affidavit from Bruno Grandzitski who met FS in Poland,

One comment by one unknown person, come on. This is either an error, a case of mistaken identity or just another trick by AA supporters to wish FS away for the trial. NO proof.

and the three nurses from an asylum near Posen who testified that FS had been a patient there for 5 years.

That was many years after 1920, and they were obviously mistaken or lying. This was never proven, or even validated.

<Removed uncalled for name calling towards another member and reference to another board/board wars. ~ GT>

But does any of it matter now that we have real DNA results on the new bodies? Whether or not you accept the AA DNA tests, it is irrelevant when ALL the bodies are accounted for, proving no one escaped, and therefore no claimant was real!

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

I was not accusing the scientists of any wrong-doing. I was just trying to evaluate the possibilities and one possibility is that the scientists reached non-satisfying results and decided to do something about it. They in all probability didn't do it but they could have done so, they had a motive and thus I won't reject the possibility outright. You from your personal point of view have a different view and that's ok, but as I pointed out, scientific fraud is something which happens more often than one likes to think and there is no 100% change that it didn't happen here. I personally believe that in a high-profile case like that, the scientists have to live with it and normally cope with it in a cool and professional way. It's not an initial suspicion in a juridical sense, it's just a possibility.

Anything that isn't impossible is always a possibility. However, what you're doing here is planting seeds of doubt and implying - without any actual evidence that I can see - that it might be a good thing for people to remember that scientific fraud happens and that while you aren't saying that these people committed fraud, it's good to remember that scientific fraud happens, and no you aren't accusing them of anything, but please remember that scientific fraud happens, and we don't actually know what really went on, but REMEMBER THAT SCIENTIFIC FRAUD HAPPENS!!!! but please don't get the impression that I'm suggesting anything (only, you know, scientific fraud does happen...)

No risk, no high-profile career. And again: I don't accuse the scientists of anything.

Not directly, no. In every other possible way, yes. I don't think any of us have missed the implications and suggestions.

But with the result of "No" in the question of identity and the fact that no other samples would be forthcoming, the result is much more convenient considering the circumstances than a "Yes". That's a fact. I don't know why you want to read an accusation into this fact.

Because I don't see anywhere in your post where you've genuinely acknowledged that there's a significant possibility that they could be honest scientists doing an honest job and getting an honest result. And I don't exactly see why that conclusion isn't every bit as likely as all this innuendo about isn't it convenient that they got the results they did....

And why you seem to take exception at the mere mentioning that scientific mistakes exist.

Quoting from my post: "Yes, there are some dishonest people in the sciences just like everywhere else."

But I'm not thinking that. But I put into my very own consideration of the case as a whole the fact that there is no 100% security that the results in fact were what they said they were.

You just got through saying that it wasn't a black and white world. There's no 100% security of anything. Does that mean it's necessarily wrong?

As I said: as a trained lawyer I'm simply not willing to see a case with so many questions simply in black & white. And apart from your personal experience of your husband who as you said had some of his results challenged I don't see why you should do that either.

Because the challenges haven't been scientific. They've been very much like the sort of character assassination you're engaging in, although a lot less subtle.

Of course I see the DNA-results as very important, but my personal view on them is that they don't completely outweight all other arguments of the other side. Why do you have a problem with that?

I don't have a problem with your assessment of the relative worth of the DNA results and other sorts of results. I have a problem with your assessment of the competence and honesty of the scientists. You don't seem to have taken into account the dire consequences for the scientists if they really had committed the sort of fraud you're subtly suggesting and had been found out. Why would a particular outcome to this investigation have been so vital to them that they would have been prepared to put their careers at risk?

As I said: I didn't try to discredit the scientists.

Your previous post is full of attempts to discredit them, from your "let's imagine" scenario where scientists with ambiguous results publish something unsupported by the results to please their clients and make their lives easier, to the little Hwang Woo-Suk name-dropping incident. I'm not the only person who's picked up on the fact that your post was an exercise in subtle and not so subtle suggestions that it might not be a good idea to put too much trust in the integrity of these scientists.

Does any judge who askes for two expertises in a disputed case challenge the scientists or is it only that he wants to make sure to get reliable information? But somehow I take exception at your view that the closer view I tried to take on the DNA-results is based in my wishful thinking of being able to discredit them.

Then maybe you should have left Hwang Woo-Suk out of it.

And I have still more questions: why did they take the DNA of the duke of Edinburgh and not the DNA of a female relation?

What difference did it make? As long as he was maternally related, that's all they needed. Maybe Peter Gill knows him. Maybe it was a matter of wanting DNA from a high-profile person to avoid suggestions that it wasn't really from the person they said it was from. Maybe he offered because he was interested in the investigation.

I would have thought that the duke with the somehow nasty rumours based on his former daughter-in-laws sexual conduct would do anything but spreading his DNA around to commercial labs as it can't be impossible to obtain samples of his grandson who's serving actively as officer....

Anybody could get hold of a DNA sample of his by bribing a cleaner or valet to give them a few hairs. It's probably already been done. But your point in asking this particular question is what, exactly?

Yes, it tells me something. But as I simply don't know how the results could have been challenged successfully when there are no more samples of Anna Anderson around and all those concerned were aware of that fact, I don't see this as 100% convincing.

Well, there seems to have been this blood sample from 1951, although it didn't give very good results. And I don't think anyone is asking for this to be 100% convincing; however, you've been consistently giving the impression that you don't simply find it less than 100% convincing, you find it unconvincing.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

She was boarding with them, that is how her residence there is usually described. She lived many miles away from her family.

Boarding with a private family does not turn a residence into a boarding house.

I've never heard you use that name again, you usually quote the brother. You have changed the dates. We have no proof this card even existed, and we have no idea of the postmark or how long it took to arrive.

No, I have not changed the dates. This is the information that Felix gave to Dr. Völler. He also said that the postcard was postmarked Berlin, and that probably his sister had it in her possession. (Dr. Völler's report.)

One comment by one unknown person, come on. This is either an error, a case of mistaken identity or just another trick by AA supporters to wish FS away for the trial. NO proof.

One comment was actually testimony in front of AA's lawyers.

That was many years after 1920, and they were obviously mistaken or lying. This was never proven, or even validated.

Three nurses who had recently run across the published photograph of FS had written Wollman to say that FS had been a patient under their care in the asylum at Herrenprotsch, near Breslau, form 1929 to 1934. (Sorry, Posen is incorrect, I was at work without my library!) No one knew her identity, and she had been known as "Anastasia."

<Removed uncalled for name calling towards another member and reference to another board/board wars. ~ GT>

But does any of it matter now that we have real DNA results on the new bodies? Whether or not you accept the AA DNA tests, it is irrelevant when ALL the bodies are accounted for, proving no one escaped, and therefore no claimant was real!

Pardon me, but I don't remember seeing any DNA results on the "new bodies".

[ChatNoir]

A thing that I have always wondered about, is that after the photos of AA circulated throught the press all over the world, nobody ever came forward to identify her as FS. No friends, co-workers, doctors, nurses, teachers, family, in short, nobody.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Anything that isn't impossible is always a possibility. However, what you're doing here is planting seeds of doubt and implying - without any actual evidence that I can see - that it might be a good thing for people to remember that scientific fraud happens and that while you aren't saying that these people committed fraud, it's good to remember that scientific fraud happens, and no you aren't accusing them of anything, but please remember that scientific fraud happens, and we don't actually know what really went on, but REMEMBER THAT SCIENTIFIC FRAUD HAPPENS!!!! but please don't get the impression that I'm suggesting anything (only, you know, scientific fraud does happen...)

Elspeth, please stop this. I don't know why you need to bring your own private conviction that I'm trying to "plant seeds of doubt" here again and again when it was your posting challenging my moral integrity that has made me feel compelled to reply to clarify my actual position.

All I say is that for me science and scientifical results are not sacrosanct. We've had too many cases lately when it turned out that scientifically published results were not able to stand closer scrutiny, for whatever reasons. So for me considering the many, many more open questions in this story and the fact that the scientists themselves imply only a high plausibility, but not 100% security all lead to my personal opinion that I'm not convinced their results are necessarily the truth and nothing but the truth. I don't think the scientists faked anything in order to commit fraud but there is not a 100% security that they didn't considering the circumstances and human nature as it is. Maybe you are willing to stand in with your life for these results, but I'm not and all I did was explaining why this is so.

But: what you do is taking one argument (and I still find that a valid argument among many others) and use it as a weapon against me personally, implying that because I'm personally not convinced of the results in general, I try to slander scientists. This is a very unfair and hurtful approach to another poster's opinion and one I feel is especially painful and distressing as it comes from a member with an official controlling function within this forum.

So - and now you've got what you aimed at all along with your very personal attacks: I won't write about that topic anymore, so you can go on enjoying this thread with your secure knowledge that as DNA has solved the riddle once and for all, there is no need for discussion anymore. I call that censorship of the ugliest kind! Good morning from Germany.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

No, I have not changed the dates. This is the information that Felix gave to Dr. Völler. He also said that the postcard was postmarked Berlin, and that probably his sister had it in her possession. (Dr. Völler's report.)

Does it matter the official name for her living circumstances? The point is, she wasn't reported missing immediately. Even if the brother got the letter, can you prove when it was mailed? Personally I have thought (and this is just my theory, not trying to tout it as fact) that she mailed the card before she jumped into the canal, planning for it to come after she was dead to guilt trip him for something. We don't know the whole story of why FS/AA tried to kill herself.)

One comment was actually testimony in front of AA's lawyers.

Yes, AA's lawyers, who were desperate to come up with anything to wish away FS and give doubt, AA's lawyers who were working for a woman who was a fake, and had to concoct a fake story (not necessarily accusing lawyers of fraud, just AA and some of her supporters) AA supporters like to accuse her opponents of doing dishonest things for money, but it's more likely that some of her backers did, since they believed a big payoff would be coming later if she won.

Three nurses who had recently run across the published photograph of FS had written Wollman to say that FS had been a patient under their care in the asylum at Herrenprotsch, near Breslau, form 1929 to 1934. (Sorry, Posen is incorrect, I was at work without my library!) No one knew her identity, and she had been known as "Anastasia."

Oh come on, Chat, if this were true, why wasn't it investigated, or maybe it was and proven bogus? There's no way that was FS, because she was AA.

A thing that I have always wondered about, is that after the photos of AA circulated throught the press all over the world, nobody ever came forward to identify her as FS. No friends, co-workers, doctors, nurses, teachers, family, in short, nobody.

The biggest self defeating thing about this is- Did you ever also consider why no one spoke up to say "HEY LOOK IT'S GRAND DUCHESS ANASTASIA!!" After all Anastasia was a lot more famous!

The reason was because she wasn't Anastasia, and FS wasn't famous,(and didn't stick out enough in anyone's mind) and the picture circulated wasn't a good one and didn't look much like her so no one could be sure. Also consider the times, there was no mass media, it's not like she was all over the TV and internet. Probably only a fraction of the population saw the pictures in papers or police stations and among those, many didn't pay attention, or didn't connect her with a little known factory worker they may have seen before.

Pardon me, but I don't remember seeing any DNA results on the "new bodies".

I meant the newly found bodies ITAR-TASS

[ferrymansdaughter]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Thanks to those who appreciated the DNA posts, I tried.

Once again - who is the DNA expert that you quoted?

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

ITAR-TASS

This news report proves that there were two bodies, they were male and female, and they were the biological children of Nicholas and Alexandra (both mtDNA and nuclear testing was done)

Actually it does not say that they were "biological children of Nicholas and Alexandra ".

What it actually says is;

1. the bodies "might belong to Crown Prince Alexy and his sister, Grand Duchess Maria" - MIGHT, not DO

2. that the scientists examined two sets of remains "examined remains, which presumably belong to Emperor Nicholas II and Empress Alexandra Fyodorovna, and bone fragments from the grave unearthed in 2007" - i

3. "found male and female DNA and made mitochondrial and nuclear DNA tests"

4. "Dr. Mironenko is supervising a historical examination. His team is made up of leading historians and archivists. This far, the examination shows that the remains belong to the Russian royal family,” - the "examination" does not mean the DNA, it refers to study by archivists etc.

They do not give the actual test results, nor does it say they are definitely the children. Maybe they are, maybe they are not but this Tass report - apart from the attention-grabbing headline - does not confirm that they have yet been positively identified

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

All I say is that for me science and scientifical results are not sacrosanct. We've had too many cases lately when it turned out that scientifically published results were not able to stand closer scrutiny, for whatever reasons. So for me considering the many, many more open questions in this story and the fact that the scientists themselves imply only a high plausibility, but not 100% security all lead to my personal opinion that I'm not convinced their results are necessarily the truth and nothing but the truth. I don't think the scientists faked anything in order to commit fraud but there is not a 100% security that they didn't considering the circumstances and human nature as it is. Maybe you are willing to stand in with your life for these results, but I'm not and all I did was explaining why this is so.

As I have already said, I know scientists sometimes get things wrong and it occasionally happens deliberately.

But: what you do is taking one argument (and I still find that a valid argument among many others) and use it as a weapon against me personally, implying that because I'm personally not convinced of the results in general, I try to slander scientists. This is a very unfair and hurtful approach to another poster's opinion and one I feel is especially painful and distressing as it comes from a member with an official controlling function within this forum.

Had you been more inclined to acknowledge the possibility that the scientists were ethical people reporting actual results, I would have been less inclined to conclude that you were trying to imply that they weren't. From the point of view of someone trained in the sciences and with some experience dealing with reports of scientific studies, I'm not seeing anything in this particular paper that would raise red flags about misconduct or overinterpretation of results, with the possible exception of the fact that they were using a very new technique on elderly samples. The techniques they were using, including the techniques to prevent contamination (a major problem in PCR analyses) seem to be pretty standard. Doesn't mean there wasn't some collusion going on, but from what we're able to see, there's no evidence for it. Which means that the possibility that they were mistaken, overinterpreting, or downright fraudulent should be presented in the context of the possibility that they weren't. Which, as far as I can see, your post didn't do, and which is the source of my problem with it.

To address your last point - when I'm acting as a member of the moderation team, you'll see my posts in bold type. All the rest of the time, I'm just another poster.

So - and now you've got what you aimed at all along with your very personal attacks: I won't write about that topic anymore, so you can go on enjoying this thread with your secure knowledge that as DNA has solved the riddle once and for all, there is no need for discussion anymore. I call that censorship of the ugliest kind! Good morning from Germany.

For someone complaining about personal attacks, the only thing I can say about this is "pot, kettle, black."

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Does it matter the official name for her living circumstances? The point is, she wasn't reported missing immediately. Even if the brother got the letter, can you prove when it was mailed? Personally I have thought (and this is just my theory, not trying to tout it as fact) that she mailed the card before she jumped into the canal, planning for it to come after she was dead to guilt trip him for something. We don't know the whole story of why FS/AA tried to kill herself.)

Yes, her living circumstances do matter a great deal. According to Mrs. Wingender (see Hamburg testimony) she watched over FS like a mother. Even 9 years later she remembered how she was dressed that night she disappeared. (!)
Your post is again pure speculation.

Yes, AA's lawyers, who were desperate to come up with anything to wish away FS and give doubt, AA's lawyers who were working for a woman who was a fake, and had to concoct a fake story (not necessarily accusing lawyers of fraud, just AA and some of her supporters) AA supporters like to accuse her opponents of doing dishonest things for money, but it's more likely that some of her backers did, since they believed a big payoff would be coming later if she won.

And WHO was waiting for this big payoff? You better have some names ready.

Oh come on, Chat, if this were true, why wasn't it investigated, or maybe it was and proven bogus? There's no way that was FS, because she was AA.

Like the false photots of FS, this was also passed over in complete silence by the Hamburg judges.

The biggest self defeating thing about this is- Did you ever also consider why no one spoke up to say "HEY LOOK IT'S GRAND DUCHESS ANASTASIA!!" After all Anastasia was a lot more famous!

Yes, but she had no schoolmates, very few friends, and very few people saw her from the outbreak of WWI. The IF lived a very secluded life.

The reason was because she wasn't Anastasia, and FS wasn't famous,(and didn't stick out enough in anyone's mind) and the picture circulated wasn't a good one and didn't look much like her so no one could be sure. Also consider the times, there was no mass media, it's not like she was all over the TV and internet. Probably only a fraction of the population saw the pictures in papers or police stations and among those, many didn't pay attention, or didn't connect her with a little known factory worker they may have seen before.

So FS did not stick out in anyone's mind? Well, AA sure did. She must have changed a lot. And the picture of her was still good enough to alert the nurses in the hospital.

I meant the newly found bodies ITAR-TASS

That still remains to be seen.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

Yes, her living circumstances do matter a great deal. According to Mrs. Wingender (see Hamburg testimony) she watched over FS like a mother. Even 9 years later she remembered how she was dressed that night she disappeared. (!)

1. Then why didn't they report her missing?

2. They did identify AA as being FS.

"The Romanovs: The Final Chapter" Robert K. Massie, pages 178-179 softback:

Doris Wingender said that Franziska had been a lodger in her mother's home until her disappearance in March 1920. Over two years later, during the summer of 1922, Doris reported, Franziska had suddenly returned and said that she had been living with a number of Russian monarchist families "who apparently mistook her for someone else." Franziska had stayed for three days, Doris continued, and while she was there, the two women had exchanged clothing: Franziska took from Doris a dark blue suit....she handed over a mauve dress, some monogrammed underwear, and a camel's hair coat. Then, once again, Franzkisa vanished.

To verify the story ,the newspaper hired a detective, Martin Knopf, who took the clothing Franziska had left behind at the Wingenders' to one of the Russian emigre households where Fraulein U. had stayed in 1922. Baron and Baroness von Kleist recognized it. "I bought the camel's hair myself." said the baron, "That's the underwear I monogrammed myself" cried the baroness. For the benefit of the newspapers, the "Riddle of Anastasia" was solved.

page 180, account of a writer for the paper:

... Mrs. Tchiakovsky (AA) faced with charges of assuming a false identity, had no choice. According to a writer for the Berlin Nachtausgabe, who was present with Martin Knopf, this is what happened:

The witness, Fr. Doris Wingender, enters the room. Franziska Schanzkowska lies on the divan, her face half covered with a blanket. The witness has barely said 'good day' before FS jerks up and cries in a heavily accented voice "That THING must get out!" The sudden agitation, the wild rage in her voice, the horror in her eyes, leave no doubt, she has recognized Wingender.

Wingender stands as if turned to stone. She has immediately recognized the lady on the divan as FS. That is the same face she saw day after day for four years. That is the same voice, the same nervous trick with the handkerchief, that is the same Franziska Schanzkowksa.

And WHO was waiting for this big payoff? You better have some names ready.

Obviously, AA and her supporters. Who leaves a paper trail of fraud? You're never going to uncover a diary reading 'today I helped AA commit fraud, today I fed AA memories.' But we know, since AA was not AN, that these things happened.

Like the false photots of FS, this was also passed over in complete silence by the Hamburg judges.

In 1965, after nearly 30 years of trials, her case ended with no conclusion one way or the other, officially. However, in 1965 a triumvirate of judges did declare that 'her identification as FS was imminently likely." Cleary, no one in the courts ever believed AA and FS were accounted for at the same time, because didn't happen.

Yes, but she had no schoolmates, very few friends, and very few people saw her from the outbreak of WWI. The IF lived a very secluded life.

YES! This is why it was so easy for AA to fool people, so few people who survived knew the real Anastasia well, (and those who did denied AA.} This played right into the hands of AA and her charade. It was easier for her to pass herself off to a bunch of homesick emigres (or American socialites who wouldn't have known AN from Greta Garbo) as a generic Grand Duchess as opposed to ANASTASIA in particular. Think about some of the alleged 'endorsements'- 'she had Nicky's eyes'...'she waved good bye like the Empress..'she carried herself like a true lady of breeding..' that kind of thing. Had AN gone to school and not been so secluded, there would have been many valuable witnesses and the case wouldn't have gone so far.

That still remains to be seen.

What's it going to take?

So FS did not stick out in anyone's mind? Well, AA sure did. She must have changed a lot.

She wasn't well know. The pic didn't look much like her.

[NotAPretender]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

A thing that I have always wondered about, is that after the photos of AA circulated throught the press all over the world, nobody ever came forward to identify her as FS. No friends, co-workers, doctors, nurses, teachers, family, in short, nobody.

And then let's look at this statement (referring to the IF:)

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

Yes, but she had no schoolmates, very few friends, and very few people saw her from the outbreak of WWI. The IF lived a very secluded life.

Somehow, the family/friends of the insignificant FS was supposed to be poring over newspapers for a picture of their loved one to ID her, whereas the family/friends of the well-photographed and highly significant Grand Duchess were not noticed because the IF lived a "very secluded life."

This is just getting really strange. And it makes no sense at all.

Besides which...that photo was hideously retouched. It's so badly altered that it could be anybody, and anybody's mother would not have been able to ID her from that pic.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

...implying that because I'm personally not convinced of the results in general, I try to slander scientists. This is a very unfair and hurtful approach to another poster's opinion and one I feel is especially painful and distressing ....

I won't write about that topic anymore, so you can go on enjoying this thread with your secure knowledge that as DNA has solved the riddle once and for all, there is no need for discussion anymore. I call that censorship of the ugliest kind!

I wanted to address this, and of course if I'm out of line a mod can delete this post.

When something has been proven wrong, it's no longer an opinion, it's an incorrect piece of information. If the proof it is wrong is challenged, (DNA) then there needs to be hard evidence or at least some kind of legitimate lead for the allegations, but I don't see this happening. Everyone I have seen on this board and others who deny the DNA accuracy seem to only be doing it because they don't want the AA/AN mystery to end for whatever reason, therefore they don't want to believe it's over and the answer is not the one they had hoped for. That is all there is, no proof or valid information as to why it's wrong is ever offered, just that it must be wrong, because AA just had to be AN.

This, sadly, leaves the realm of reality and enters the world of some sort of fan fiction. I don't know if any or all of you have ever heard of it, but there's a very large community of fan writers out there who are unhappy with the way a show or movie ended, and rewrite it, or write a different ending. Many fans love to read this and to write it and share it. However, it's all fantasy and for fun, and most often involving fictional characters (such as "Star Wars" or "Lost.") However, the story of the Romanovs, AA and FS are not a movie, they were real people, and making up hypothetical different endings for them passed off as possible truth is a disservice to history, as well as science. So if people want to make up ficitional alternate endings as to what 'might' have happened, or what they would prefer had happened, and share them with friends that way, that's okay as long as everyone is aware it's ficticious. But presenting these theories as supposedly realistic possible alternatives to the actual ending (Romanovs all died, DNA proved AA was not AN) isn't right, especially when the speculation makes harsh accusations of fraud with absolutely no factual basis against real people and labs involved. This is where it crosses the line and becomes no longer harmless.

On another message board I go to, the admin put an end to such commentary this way- either present proof of your accusations against the Queen, scientists, labs, etc., or stop it. This did stop it, and yes, some did whine about 'censorship', but it was the right thing for the board to do. It's not right to drag the names and professional reputations of real people and businesses through the mud just because you don't like their results. I hope everyone can see what I'm trying to say here. The burden of proof is not on the labs, it's on those who challenge the results, and if they can't prove them wrong, they're not wrong and the accusations need to stop.

Good morning from Germany.

Being in Germany, you are at an advantage over most of us! You have access to most of the files from the AA case over the years, the trial, the newspapers, all of it. You should go to Berlin and Darmstadt and see just what they have on the AA case and FS, and maybe you'll discover for yourself that she was FS after all and be able to let go of the sensationalistic version of the story. If you do research on your own, please let us know what you find.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by NotAPretender

This is just getting really strange. And it makes no sense at all.

Exactly. Berlin had over a half million Russian emigres' in those days, and the royal family's pictures were very well known to them. Also, they'd have had more access to newspapers and magazines than FS's poor relations and coworkers. That's why I said his statement was so self defeating to his cause, nobody was saying 'hey look there's Anastasia'!

Besides which...that photo was hideously retouched. It's so badly altered that it could be anybody, and anybody's mother would not have been able to ID her from that pic.

That's true, it makes me wonder why that one was chosen. Maybe she didn't want to be found!

FS obviously didn't want to be found, at least not as FS. This is why she was silent in the asylum and never gave her name or asked for any friends or family the first 2 years she was there. Then she lucked into getting a new life as a 'Grand Duchess'!

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

1. Then why didn't they report her missing?

They DID report her missing. On March 9th, 1920

2. They did identify AA as being FS.

Yes, for the nice sum of 1,500 DM.

"The Romanovs: The Final Chapter" Robert K. Massie, pages 178-179 softback:

Doris Wingender said that Franziska had been a lodger in her mother's home until her disappearance in March 1920.

Correct, her disappearance was in March, AA was found in February.

Over two years later, during the summer of 1922, Doris reported, Franziska had suddenly returned and said that she had been living with a number of Russian monarchist families "who apparently mistook her for someone else." Franziska had stayed for three days, Doris continued, and while she was there, the two women had exchanged clothing: Franziska took from Doris a dark blue suit....she handed over a mauve dress, some monogrammed underwear, and a camel's hair coat. Then, once again, Franzkisa vanished.

To verify the story ,the newspaper hired a detective, Martin Knopf, who took the clothing Franziska had left behind at the Wingenders' to one of the Russian emigre households where Fraulein U. had stayed in 1922. Baron and Baroness von Kleist recognized it. "I bought the camel's hair myself." said the baron, "That's the underwear I monogrammed myself" cried the baroness. For the benefit of the newspapers, the "Riddle of Anastasia" was solved.

Yes, FS stayed for three days IN SPRING according to Doris Wingender, who told this to Mrs. Grabisch. AA disappeared from the Kleist's in August and stayed at Clara Peuthert's. Something Mrs. Kleist was aware of, and she sent the police to Clara's in order to get AA back, but Clara denied that she was there. The police assumed she was lying, but did not search the house, and Clara later testified to the fact that AA had indeed been staying there. Martin Knopf (who was not hired by the newspaper, but by Grand Duke Ernest) told Doris Wingender that the FS encounter had to have been in August, so they compromised and said "summer". According to Knopf, the Kleists identified the clothing that presumably came from AA, and then this very important proof conveniently disappeared. Doris Wingender produced a photo in court showing her in a suit later worn by AA in another photo. Upon examination, the suits turned out to be only not identical, but one had belt and buttons drawn in after the fact in order to heighten the resemblance.

page 180, account of a writer for the paper:

... Mrs. Tchiakovsky (AA) faced with charges of assuming a false identity, had no choice. According to a writer for the Berlin Nachtausgabe, who was present with Martin Knopf, this is what happened:

The witness, Fr. Doris Wingender, enters the room. Franziska Schanzkowska lies on the divan, her face half covered with a blanket. The witness has barely said 'good day' before FS jerks up and cries in a heavily accented voice "That THING must get out!" The sudden agitation, the wild rage in her voice, the horror in her eyes, leave no doubt, she has recognized Wingender.

Wingender stands as if turned to stone. She has immediately recognized the lady on the divan as FS. That is the same face she saw day after day for four years. That is the same voice, the same nervous trick with the handkerchief, that is the same Franziska Schanzkowksa.

National Enquirer journalism, anyone? The Duke of Leuchtenberg, who was present as a witness, has a different story to tell. First of all, he had prepared AA for a meeting with old friends. When Doris Wingender entered the room, AA did not recognize her, and said politely in her hapless German: Please, that must go out. Doris just stood there, not saying a word, not a single: Hi, Franzisca, remember me? AA repeated her words, and Doris turned on her heels and left the room. "It was very clear to me that the two ladies had never met before", said the Duke. A greeting from the Schanzkowsky family delivered by Lucke was received in total bewilderment.

Obviously, AA and her supporters. Who leaves a paper trail of fraud? You're never going to uncover a diary reading 'today I helped AA commit fraud, today I fed AA memories.' But we know, since AA was not AN, that these things happened.

And as usual, you can not deliver anything else than speculations.

In 1965, after nearly 30 years of trials, her case ended with no conclusion one way or the other, officially. However, in 1965 a triumvirate of judges did declare that 'her identification as FS was imminently likely." Cleary, no one in the courts ever believed AA and FS were accounted for at the same time, because didn't happen.

The verdict was that the client was defeated in her claim.

YES! This is why it was so easy for AA to fool people, so few people who survived knew the real Anastasia well, (and those who did denied AA.}

They did? Tell that to the Botkin siblings, Alexis Volkov, Shura, Lili Dehn, Xenia Leeds, Zinaida Tolstoy etc etc.

This played right into the hands of AA and her charade. It was easier for her to pass herself off to a bunch of homesick emigres (or American socialites who wouldn't have known AN from Greta Garbo) as a generic Grand Duchess as opposed to ANASTASIA in particular. Think about some of the alleged 'endorsements'- 'she had Nicky's eyes'...'she waved good bye like the Empress..'she carried herself like a true lady of breeding..' that kind of thing. Had AN gone to school and not been so secluded, there would have been many valuable witnesses and the case wouldn't have gone so far.

The problem here is: She never passed herself off to anybody, she always tried to keep her identity a secret.

She wasn't well know. The pic didn't look much like her.

Why do you keep hauling out that ridiculous drawing?

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Exactly. Berlin had over a half million Russian emigres' in those days, and the royal family's pictures were very well known to them. Also, they'd have had more access to newspapers and magazines than FS's poor relations and coworkers. That's why I said his statement was so self defeating to his cause, nobody was saying 'hey look there's Anastasia'!

Yes, the IF pictures were well known. Touched up, beautiful court pictures. The Romanov albums were at this time not available online.

The perfect Anastasia:



The non-retouched Anastasia and Anna Anderson:

That's true, it makes me wonder why that one was chosen. Maybe she didn't want to be found!

Chosen by whom?

FS obviously didn't want to be found, at least not as FS. This is why she was silent in the asylum and never gave her name or asked for any friends or family the first 2 years she was there. Then she lucked into getting a new life as a 'Grand Duchess'!

The problem is, she wasn't silent in the asylum, she confessed to the nurses that she was Anastasia.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

Yes, the IF pictures were well known. Touched up, beautiful court pictures. The Romanov albums were at this time not available online.

Chat, no matter what, nothing is going to change that small mouth and thin lips on AN to the wide mouth and large, fleshy Angelina Jolie lips AA had, or cut off the bottom of AN's long rounded chin to be like the short flat chin AA/FS had.

The problem is, she wasn't silent in the asylum, she confessed to the nurses that she was Anastasia.

Chat, I am not going through this with you again. There is one alleged statement by one person who couldn't even get the date right. I don't believe it ever happened. AA/FS never got the idea to pretend to be any Grand Duchess until the other mental patient said she looked like Tatiana. This is all well documented and discussed ad nauseum, let's not do another dog chasing his tail and clog this forum up, too.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Chat, no matter what, nothing is going to change that small mouth and thin lips on AN to the wide mouth and large, fleshy Angelina Jolie lips AA had, or cut off the bottom of AN's long rounded chin to be like the short flat chin AA/FS had.

As you can see in the pictures, her lips healed and the swelling went down. Their chins seem identical to me. And according to Professors Eyckstedt, Klenke, Reche and Furtmayr, their faces were identical. Not to mention Gleb Botkin and Tatiana Botkin who recognized her instantly.

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

Chat, I am not going through this with you again. There is one alleged statement by one person who couldn't even get the date right. I don't believe it ever happened. AA/FS never got the idea to pretend to be any Grand Duchess until the other mental patient said she looked like Tatiana. This is all well documented and discussed ad nauseum, let's not do another dog chasing his tail and clog this forum up, too.

Not alleged statement, but an affidavit in the court of Hamburg. And not only one, Dr. Chemnitz also testified to the same incident. And again: It was the Nachtausgabe who got the date wrong, therefore the letter from Thea Malinovsky to Kurt Pastenaci complaining about the mistake. And again, remember: In fall of 1922, AA was far away from Dalldorf, and it would have been impossible for Thea Malinovsky to get any information from her.