Anna Anderson's claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by AnastasiaEvidence

I believe she's saying except the fact that the DNA is correct and AA is FS. DNA say it was 99.9% possible FS was AA. It does have something to do with excepting reality. Nobody is preaching. Were just here to explain why AA wasn't Anastasia. Chat, you are giving me speculations, and rumors. NOT, PROVEN FACTS! You still haven't prove to me Anastasia knew Russian or French. These are RUMORS. There's a difference between 'rumors' and facts.

And there is a difference between rumors and testimonies in the Hamburg court, as is the case with the nurses from Dalldorf. And remember, even Gilliard had to admit in the court that AA had indeed spoken Russian to Shura. Even Olga admitted that AA clearly understood Russian. And the Priest at Seeon stated that AA performed her orthodox rites in Russian. And after the Easter dinner, AA thanked the Duchess of Leuchtenberg in fluent Russian. And the writer Urvantsov confirmed in writing that AA had spoken to him "in the purest Russian." Do you need more?
And can you please explain to me how FS turned out to have the same ears? The same face, according to experts? The same bilateral congenital Hallux Valgus? The same handwriting, accorcing to experts? Spoke the same languages, according to witnesses? And how could she be unconditionally recognized by former friends and members of the IF? How could she tell things from the IF life that not even people like Volkov knew? How could she identify people from photos that nobody outside the court circle would know? How could she tell details from Tobolsk and Ekaterinburg when there were no books around to disclose the information? How could she be of the same height, have the same gait, the same laughter, the same eyecolor, the same scars as AN? Where did FS learn how to play the piano, embroider, play tennis, paint and draw? Where did she learn all about etiquette? As the Duke of Leuchtenberg said: She never broke one of the unwritten rules of our class.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by AnastasiaEvidence

I believe she's saying except the fact that the DNA is correct and AA is FS. DNA say it was 99.9% possible FS was AA. It does have something to do with excepting reality. Nobody is preaching. Were just here to explain why AA wasn't Anastasia. Chat, you are giving me speculations, and rumors. NOT, PROVEN FACTS!

Right! It's just hearsay somebody wrote down and is now trying to pass as fact. A lot of people said a lot of things, they're not all 'facts.'

You still haven't prove to me Anastasia knew Russian or French. These are RUMORS. There's a difference between 'rumors' and facts. This wasn't actually confimed! Speculation doesn't help anything. Such as: nurses heard AA speaking French, and the doctor heard her speak Russian, and she didn't want to speak Russian because of a number of reasons....etc. Why didn't see go to Anastasia's family members and prove she knew Russian and French? It wasn't proven in court.

True, she never proved it in court, or even in public. Those who met her said she couldn't speak anything but German. The only accounts we have of AA speaking anything other than German comes from supporters. She never proved it by speaking or writing it publically, because she couldn't.

Thanks for trying to counteract his inaccuracies, AE.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Right! It's just hearsay somebody wrote down and is now trying to pass as fact. A lot of people said a lot of things, they're not all 'facts.'

I think you have a problem with seeing the difference between "hearsay" and statements and legal testimony.

True, she never proved it in court, or even in public. Those who met her said she couldn't speak anything but German. The only accounts we have of AA speaking anything other than German comes from supporters. She never proved it by speaking or writing it publically, because she couldn't.

Thanks for trying to counteract his inaccuracies, AE.

I have just included statements from some of "those who met her" and given their names. Now you do the same, please. And why do you discredit everything her "supporters" say and believe everybody against her without backing up your explanations? And why are you calling my postings "inaccuracies"? Were you there at the time? If not, please explain.

[GlitteringTiaras]

Once again it seems to be getting a tad heated in this debate. Shimmer down, people, and pretend you are lawyers trying a case. In other words, please be civil to each other. If you are trying to sway a jury (hence the readers who have no opinion) your arguments would be stronger minus the snarky jabs. Present your evidence, argue, counterargue, and refrain from being disrespectful. It is that simple.

Thank you.

GT
Russian Mod

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

AA = FS not AN

There's no need to go importing smilies when we have our own perfectly serviceable ones, you know...

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by AnastasiaEvidence

Oh, I understand that aspect, Anna. I agree, it isn't right to mislead people into believing AA is A, especially if he doesn't have proof. Not, too many people will believe BlackCat's anyway. Herefuses to except the DNA. That's one fact he can never prove wrong- DNA.

It could be proved wrong, if someone were to make a formal accusation of fraud against the scientists, and be able to prove from seeing their lab notebooks that they'd falsified, massaged, or overinterpreted their data. I'd certainly be ready to discount all or part of the DNA data the moment I read a retraction of that paper by the journal, even if the retraction didn't extend to admitting that the data had been falsified. However, in the absence of something like that, I don't think it's too much to ask that the scientists be given at least some benefit of the doubt.

[COUNTESS]

I, certainly, agree with Elspeth. The scientists have never been approached in an untoward manner. Look, there are many people who resemble other people and, yet, are not related. I have seen people whom I could swear were the "sister, brother" of someone they didn't even know. Yes, her foot anomalies could appear in someone else, too. Some say she was, others say she wasn't, many who say she was stood to gain, if she was. Others, not so. Books have been written, so those who wanted to sell the fact that she was made money on that fact. In the end, as Elspeth, most wisely pointed out, is that no one has come and proved anything against the "real" scientific evidence.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

I, certainly, agree with Elspeth. The scientists have never been approached in an untoward manner. Look, there are many people who resemble other people and, yet, are not related.

Yes, I am sure there are. I am myself the spitting image of Caesar Romero. (At least, that's what I have been told on several occasions.) But identical ears? Aren't ears like fingerprints, every one is different?

I have seen people whom I could swear were the "sister, brother" of someone they didn't even know.

And so have I. But how could the Botkins spend so much time with her and not be on to her if she was FS? And Xenia Leeds, wouldn't she know after 6 months that she was housing an impostor?

Yes, her foot anomalies could appear in someone else, too.

Yes, they definitely could, but bilateral congenital Hallux Valgus is very rare. And impostors don't get THAT lucky.

Some say she was, others say she wasn't, many who say she was stood to gain, if she was.

Name some names here, please.

Others, not so. Books have been written, so those who wanted to sell the fact that she was made money on that fact. In the end, as Elspeth, most wisely pointed out, is that no one has come and proved anything against the "real" scientific evidence.

And what good is "real" evidence if it cannot solve the problem?

[Elspeth]

It's good in that it provides part of the solution. If you have a case where two people look alike but their DNA is different, then they aren't the same person even if the DNA evidence doesn't explain why they look alike.

You've said a few times that experts have said the two of them had identical faces, yet Anna was Franziska has come up with the name of an expert who apparently said otherwise. Is the "identical ears" business going to be the same? Are there any specialists on ear shape who have said anything about whether Anna Anderson had identical ears to either Anastasia or Franziska?

[COUNTESS]

As they only had pitures of Anastasia's ears, who could make a real comparison. She was killed in 1918, when she was young and her "ears" had not matured and the pictures from 1918 are not exactly the quality we have today. Even then, you are comparing photos to real ears. Nonsense.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

It's good in that it provides part of the solution. If you have a case where two people look alike but their DNA is different, then they aren't the same person even if the DNA evidence doesn't explain why they look alike.

Yes, looking alike can easily be explained. But the same deformities, the same hair color, the same scars, the same gait, the same "squirrel-like" laughter, the heap of memories, the knowledge of the rooms in the palaces, the same ears, the recognition of faces from photos, the languages spoken......It's just too much.

You've said a few times that experts have said the two of them had identical faces, yet Anna was Franziska has come up with the name of an expert who apparently said otherwise. Is the "identical ears" business going to be the same? Are there any specialists on ear shape who have said anything about whether Anna Anderson had identical ears to either Anastasia or Franziska?

The expert who said otherwise, used 1 (unverified) photo of FS, and 1 photo of AA, the only one (according to Felix Schanzkowski) where AA shows a resemblance to FS. The photos are taken from slightly different angles, and the comparison is made on a computer where manipulation is quite easy. What is your opinion of a test like this?
AA's ears were found to be identical to AN's ears in 17 tissue formations and curvatures by Dr. Mauritz Furtmayr in 1977. 12 were necessesary for identification by German law. The experiment has since been repeated with more modern methods, and the results are the same. Franziska's ears cannot be seen in the published photo.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

As they only had pitures of Anastasia's ears, who could make a real comparison. She was killed in 1918, when she was young and her "ears" had not matured and the pictures from 1918 are not exactly the quality we have today. Even then, you are comparing photos to real ears. Nonsense.

Ears do not change. They may get a little "floppy" as the years go by, but the basic form does not change.

Here is an interesting web site:

College of Engineering : Signatures : Candid Cameras

If you have looked at the web site I just gave you, there is an interesting snippet about recognition of gait.
Grand Duke Alexander's grandson was once brought to AA's house in Unterlengenhart by, I think, Ian Lilburn. AA knew nothing about the visit, but when she saw the guest from afar, she ran into the house and shut the door. From there, she shouted: That can only be a descendant of Grand Duke Alexander, I recognize his "ocean-like" walk.
Interesting, ain't it!

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

There's no need to go importing smilies when we have our own perfectly serviceable ones, you know...

Thank you, that's great, even better than mine! I hadn't seen him before!

[ChatNoir]

They shoot horses, don't they?

(sorry, it's getting late, and I just couldn't help myself.)

[Elspeth]

Yep, and then they beat them...

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Yep, and then they beat them...

Fiddlesticks. The horse is not dead, it's just hiding from you all!

A tidbit from Harriet Rathlef Keilmann's book:

During the conversation, Baron Osten-Sacken asked permission to smoke, drew a cigarette-holder out, and lit a cigarette. I was standing at the patient's bedside, and noticed that she suddenly became much agitated. I could not understand the reason for this, and, as she apparently recovered her composure, I attached no importance to the indicent. Shortly after, Baron Osten-Sacken took his leave, and I prepared the patient for sleep. When it had grown dark in the room, she called me up to her bedside, and, in extreme agitation, asked: "For God's sake, tell me where the Baron got his pipe from?"

(As it turned out, the cigarette-holder was a present to him from a friend who had purchased it at Alexander's in St. Petersburg. It was the original from which Alexander had manufactured a similar one for the Tsar.)

On hearing it she said: "Thank God; I was so upset that I could not sleep a wink because I thought it was Papa's pipe....If you only knew what a shock it gave me to see that pipe...

She was really something, that Franziska.....

[ferrymansdaughter]

Originally Posted by ferrymansdaughter

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

I hate to sound like a cracked record but would you please let us know who was the DNA expert you quoted? (Since you are so reliant on the DNA argument.)

Thank you.

[AnastasiaEvidence]

Thank you, that's great, even better than mine!

I hadn't seen him before! hahaha I like this one! The horse looks like it's dying to me! They are so mean!

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by AnastasiaEvidence

I hadn't seen him before! hahaha I like this one! The horse looks like it's dying to me! They are so mean!

<Removed an uncalled remark towards a fellow TRF member ~GT>

Ferrymans, Davek was a poster on AP who had knowledge in the field of DNA and tried his best to explain it in terms we could all understand. If you have no scientific proof to refute his findings, it isn't right to question or devalue his results (but then again, he'd be in good company with Gill, Melton, the Queen, etc.)

[Jo of Palatine]

Another slant on the DNA-analysis:

the scientists in their paper published that the MtDNA they got from the samples provided as samples from Anna Anderson was in 5 out of 6 points different from the DNA of prince Philip (information provided by the Russian Mods int he thread about the Gill-paper).

In the same thread a link is provided: NOVA Online | Neanderthals on Trial | Tracing Ancestry with MtDNA

From that source:

"There are many variables that can affect the mutation rate of mtDNA, including even the possibility that mtDNA is not always inherited strictly through maternal lines. In fact, recent studies show that paternal mtDNA can on rare occasions enter an egg during fertilization and alter the maternal mtDNA through recombination."

I agree that it says: on rare occasions. But as we don't have mtDNA of Grand Duchess Anastasia, the probability is not 0 that this happened and that Anastasia's mtDNA was not identical with that of her mother. So she could have had different mtDNA from her maternal relatives. Same for the DoE, though IIRC his DNA was cross-checked with that of a Hannoveran relative.

Of course the chance is probably not high and only a genetics specialist can say if the fact of the many intermarriages in a family could influence that chance and could lead to a greater or smaller probability of that happening.

But - a relative of mine has been sired without his parents having intercourse (both being Catholics and wanting to wait for their first time after the wedding...). When he was born, his mother's hymen had to be taken away first to allow the birth. Scientists say that such a "virgin's birth" happens in one of a million cases. Still: it happened. Following the reading and interpretation habits in this thread, I guess at least two members would tell me that of course he wasn't born or that he is not his father's son but the result of something else. He can't be, as there is a 99,9999 % chance that his mother never got pregnant at all. But he was sired and he is his father's son (proven through DNa-analysis because his father was as well one of the believers in the 100% rightfulness of a 99,9999 chance.) And no, he is not Jesus Christ reborn! At least not to my knowledge.

What I want to say with this example: even a 99,9999 probability is not 100%. So IMHO people should allow for the fact that stranger things have happened. Who for example would believe a story on the grounds of probability alone that there had been a lady in a very influencial position, whose gene have mutated by chance. This lady became the mother of a lot of children who carried genes that made their progeny ill. Seriously ill. And because the mother was so influential her and her children's progeny married other influential people so a whole class of influential people became carriers or sufferers of that disease. Sounds like a fantasy or pure fiction. But could it be the truth, even though it sounds unbelievable?

And before I get accused of not talking plaintext: Queen Victoria. Haemophilia. Where did it come from if not through genetic mutation?

Some questions I'm asking myself now: Could that mean that progeny of Victoria was prone to genetic mutations? Only a scientist can tell - or will be able to tell in the future. But from common sense I'd say there is a chance that it is inheritable. Maybe nature has its own concept of "saving" children's genes from parents who carry diseases by making spontanous mutations? I'm not into genetics at all, except from what I've read so far which isn't that much, but I've read quite some books about intermarriage in Royal families and the outcome of this. So IMHO there could be a coincidence, especially considering the fact that though lots of Wittelsbachs or their children were mentally ill or at least depressed/melancholic according to their biographers, their offspring of today is not affected anymore. Eg. the offspring of Gisela of Austria, princess of Bavaria, daughter of Elisabeth of Wittelsbach and her cousin Franz Joseph I.. An Archduchess whose brother was depressed and who married back into the Wittelsbach-family. Her branch of the Wittelbach is perfectly sane today.

Plus the science of genetics is not yet at the end of all questions - some have not even been researched...

But you on the fences: form your own opinion or be just amused...