Anna Anderson's claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Another slant on the DNA-analysis:


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.

The bodies, including the and male and female remains from the 2007 grave, have been tested not only with the mtDNA of the Victorian line, but with the nuclear DNA of the parents, and they do match as being their biological children.

We won't know for sure until the final results are published by the scientists, but it is possible they DO now have the nuclear DNA of AN.

In addition to that, it's a little known fact that the DoE's was not the first of the Victorian line to be sequenced. From another board:

The first Victorian mtDNA to be sequenced was not the Duke of Edinburgh's, it was Princess Katherine of Yugoslavia's (Mrs. De Silva). The sample was taken in London and sent to Brown University where it was sequenced and compared to a purported offspring of Grand Duchess Tatiana Nicholievna. There was no match.

The DOE's mtDNA was sequenced ahead of AA's. Regardless, to no one's surprise, the DOE's mtDNA exactly matched that of Princess Katherine's and neither matched AA's.

I have direct knowledge of the allegations against Her Majesty and that they are false...A few years back, it was alleged by someone on this board that the British Royal Family fabricated the Victorian mtDNA sequence from the Duke of Edinburgh in order to falsely disprove Anna Anderson's identification as Anastasia. What neither the Royal Family nor the poster knew was that the Victorian mtDNA sequence was first extracted at Brown University in the US. The sample came from Princess Katherine of Yugoslavia, a maternal line descendant of QV, as is Philip. Their results, because the tests were done privately, were never published. However, Katherine's and Philip's mtDNA exactly matched, disproving that there was any fabrication by the RF or anyone else involved with the identification of the (original) Ekaterinburg remains.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

The bodies, including the and male and female remains from the 2007 grave, have been tested not only with the mtDNA of the Victorian line, but with the nuclear DNA of the parents, and they do match as being their biological children.

We won't know for sure until the final results are published by the scientists, but it is possible they DO now have the nuclear DNA of AN.

Of course it is possible. It is possible as well that they didn't find Ananstasia's body because it is buried somewhere else (she surely is dead by now whereever she lived and when she died).

So let's wait and see.

In addition to that, it's a little known fact that the DoE's was not the first of the Victorian line to be sequenced.

That was not my point. My point was that recent research, as claimed by a website PhD Elspeth found reliable enough to provide a link to, has shown that mtDNA is not always inherited over the maternal line. So if Anastasia by chance was one with an inheritance of a remix between paternal and maternal mtDNA, her mtDNA would not be the same as that of others of the Victorian line.

I agreed that it's said that it's a rare occurance. But it's not a Zero possibility. And I agree that the fact that other descendants of Victoria share the same mtDNA could be an argument against Victoria's line having a somewhat higher probability of gene mutations, even though Victoria herself had one. Though I think the database is much too small as mutations are rare events in any case so two tests with three DNA-samples don't help that much.

[Elspeth]

So, Jo, you're finding a few cases of millions-to-one chances of things. I think we're all agreed that 99.9999% isn't 100%; just about all good scientific results are presented with error limits to give some information about the precision and accuracy of the results. But this still strikes me as the same argument you were using the other day about scientific fraud -a rather unusual occurrence happens in some completely different context, and therefore we should be suspicious of these results over here. If this standard was applied across the sciences, nothing would ever get done. I mean, it's fairly clear from what you're saying that your position about the DNA data isn't provisional acceptance but provisional rejection; my personal feeling is that these results are better than that, given the people who were involved in producing them.

I don't know about Peter Gill's credentials, but it isn't an exaggeration to say that Mark Stoneking is a world leader in mtDNA research. I assume he's aware of some of these quirks of mtDNA mutation and inheritance. If new information had come in since 1994 which had invalidated his results, I very much doubt that other researchers (such as the Knight group at Stanford) would have been shy about mentioning it. As of this February when he responded to my e-mail, he was standing by his results, and I doubt that he's unaware of the developments in this area of research.

I believe that for the other paper they wrote (the one about the mass grave which they say contains the skeletons of the Tsar, the Tsarina, and three of their children, the mtDNA matches were exact (at the loci that were tested, at any rate). The actual wording from that paper is as follows:

"Both DNA strands of both hypervariable mtDNA regions were sequenced for all samples, with the exception of skeleton 9 (a probable servant)...No sequence differences were observed between duplicate samples from the same individual...The quality of the sequence was generally comparable to that produced from the fresh blood samples...Pairwise comparisons from the nine bone samples indicated that six different sequences were present in the group which varied on average by six nucleotides and identical sequences were generated from the putative Tasrina and three children...HRH Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, is a grand-nephew of unbroken maternal descent from Tsarina Alexandra. He prvided a sample of blood for comparison purposes which enabled us to confirm the sibling status of the children adnd the identification of the mother; all of the mtDNA sequences were the same."

From Table 2 of that paper, the mtDNA results look like this:

CTCCCCACCTTT ATTA*** (reference sequence)
TTCCCCACCTTC ATTG..C (female child 1)
TTCCCCACCTTC AT-G..C (female child 2)
TTCCCCACCTTC ATTG..C (female child 3)
TTCCCCACCTTC ATTG..C (adult female, putative Tsarina)
TTCCCCACCTTC ATTG..C (Prince Philip)

The dash for female child 2 indicates no nucleotide assignment; the stars show where nucleotides were used that weren't in the Anderson reference sequence (where "Anderson" has nothing to do with Anna Anderson but is a quite different Anderson); the red letters show where the listed sequences differ from the reference sequence, and in each case these differences are the same across all samples.

In this analysis, the result for the skeleton identified as being the Tsar was as follows, along with sequences for a couple of female-line relations of the Tsar:

CCYCCCATTTTC GTTG..C (adult male, putative Tsar)
CCTCCCATTTTC GTTG..C (Gt Gt grandson of Louise of Hesse-Cassel)
CCTCCCATTTTC GTTG..C (Gt Gt Gt granddaughter of Louise)

Again in each case they match, except for the Y in the Tsar's sequence, which is a C/T heteroplasmy - even so, the T is the same nucleotide as in the other two sequences.

From comparing the two papers, I'm seeing the following:

At position 16111 the nucleotides are as follows:

Putative Tsar - C
Putative Tsarina - T
Prince Philip - T
Anna Anderson intestine - T
Anna Anderson hair - T

At position 16126:

Putative Tsar - T
Putative Tsarina - T
Prince Philip - T
Anna Anderson intestine - C
Anna Anderson hair - C

At position 16266:

Putative Tsar - no data
Putative Tsarina - no data
Prince Philip - C
Anna Anderson intestine - T
Anna Anderson hair - T

At position 16294:

Putative Tsar - T
Putative Tsarina - C
Prince Philip - C
Anna Anderson intestine - T
Anna Anderson hair - T

At position 16304:

Putative Tsar - T
Putative Tsarina - T
Prince Philip - T
Anna Anderson intestine - C
Anna Anderson hair - C

At position 16357:

Putative Tsar - T
Putative Tsarina - C
Prince Philip - C
Anna Anderson intestine - T
Anna Anderson hair - T

So the Anna Anderson samples match the Prince Philip sample in one position out of six, the putative Tsarina sample in one position out of five, the putative Tsar sample in two positions out of five, and neither the Tsar nor the Tsarina in two positions out of five. I don't know what sort of result you were expecting if Anna Anderson was Anastasia and if Anastasia had inherited mtDNA from both parents. Do you think the above data show the sort of pattern that would lead to this conclusion?

[Anna was Franziska]

One more question for Jo- on the 'other side', why do you think that the AA intestine and AA hair match each other perfectly, and that they both matched Carl Maucher? Could it be that the intestines really were hers, the hair really was hers, and that Maucher really was her relative? What are the odds that is not the case?

Also, what do you think would have happend if any one of those three had been 'botched' in the lab? As Dr, Melton told me:

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.

[Russophile]

Being devil's advocate here, which multiple labs?

[Elspeth]

According to the paper in Nature Genetics, The Forensic Science Service in England (Peter Gill's lab) and the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Rockville, MD, tested different samples taken from the small bowel specimen from the Martha Jefferson Hospital. The hair samples were tested at Pennsylvania State University (Mark Stoneking and Terry Melton's place of work at the time).

[Menarue]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

According to the paper in Nature Genetics, The Forensic Science Service in England (Peter Gill's lab) and the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Rockville, MD, tested different samples taken from the small bowel specimen from the Martha Jefferson Hospital. The hair samples were tested at Pennsylvania State University (Mark Stoneking and Terry Melton's place of work at the time).

Elspeth I wonder if anyone will try and argue with that!

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Do you think the above data show the sort of pattern that would lead to this conclusion?

In the meantime I have spoken to a genetics expert here in Germany (at least he claims he is one and was offered to me as a contact by people I believe know where to refer me to) and he said that while he did not want to go into too much details and while he of course supports his collegues' findings when they published a paper he had to say that genetics when you put it fdown on individual DNA never ceases to amaze him for the tricks nature is able to play on "rules". So his advice in the Anna Anderson-case (and he laughed out laud when I said about which case I wanted to talk!) was to either "believe" in science absolutely (and he meant that as to take scientific results without a grain of salt) or to evaluate the other circumstances of the case as much as the DNA-results, especially if these results are stand-alone results.

And that was all I ever tried: I never tried to prove that AA was Anastasia Romanov. I only believe that in case so complicated, with so many contradictory "facts" one should stay open to both sides. There is IMHO no final proof for that question.

And all I want is that people discussing that case accept that there is at least a small, small shadow of a doubt. I think the way a lot of people make a belief out of fighting for their position is wrong, intolerant and hurtful to others who had first-hand experience with Ms. Anderson. (I don't see how the other party, the supporters, are hurting anyone as it was an active decision to declare AA an imposter. So they surely are able to live with that decision). And for what gain does this happen today? There is no gain in this mystery. That's the real stupid aspect. It doesn't touch anybody's life anymore, Anna Anderson, Franziska Schanzkowski and Anastasia Romanov are most probably dead and nothing is known about any offspring. Still it's as missionary as a religion. That's crazy. Stupid. Negative.

Elspeth wishes for a more positive way to look at scientific results. That's not how I'm thinking I'm afraid. Maybe it's because I'm a German. We had to learn how helpful "science" and "genetics" were for the Nazis to achieve their inhuman goals, how "scientifically" founded their findings about the Jewish and other "underling" were at a first glance. How science was used to achive goals that were based in completely other motives. In 2001 a book was published at a very reknown German publishing house which got favorite reviews all around: "Deutsche Medizin im 3. Reich - German medicine science in the third Reich" by Ernst Klee, S. Fischer Verlag, Frankfurt. In it the author portrays scientists who actively helped and even encouraged the Nazis in their politics because they were thus given the chance to experiment with real people. A book to give you sleepless nights. Especially as nothing happened to most of these scientists after the war. For anyone who likes to read more: Research | Library | Bibliography
No a nice read, though.

Finding out so much and on learning that leading German scientists who worked in war technology research like Wernher von Braun were immediately after the capitulation of Nazi-Germany brought to the US and given good positions even though they had actively employed their own concentration camp with enslaved people to build their prototypes in the wartime in Peenemuende and later in Dora, I have to agree that I probably have a somewhat cynical view at science, scientists and the people employing them even though I'm married myself to one and we have lots of friends in the research profession.

Further reading: Operation Paperclip - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wernher von Braun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hubertus Strughold - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kurt Blome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ; Walter Schreiber - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So yes, I simply don't believe in science blindly and try to think for myself about potential motives first before accepting even scientifical verdicts.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

One more question for Jo- on the 'other side', why do you think that the AA intestine and AA hair match each other perfectly, and that they both matched Carl Maucher? Could it be that the intestines really were hers, the hair really was hers, and that Maucher really was her relative? What are the odds that is not the case?

Also, what do you think would have happend if any one of those three had been 'botched' in the lab?

If you read what you and I wrote before you'll find the answers to all that.

[ferrymansdaughter]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

<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.)

Who said I am "devalueing" his results? I am asking who he was. Please don't tell me that it isn't right to question his results when he is anonymous. For all I know "DaveK" could be anyone. If you wish to quote someone as an authority on any subject, then you should tell us who they are . If you don't know his real name, then say so.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

... Nazis to achieve their inhuman goals, how "scientifically" founded their findings about the Jewish and other "underling" were at a first glance. How science was used to achive goals that were based in completely other motives... war technology research like Wernher von Braun ... employed their own concentration camp with enslaved people to build their prototypes in the wartime in Peenemuende and later in Dora.

Surely you can see the difference between research done by scientists actively promoting the Nazi ideology and research done by scientists in universities and elsewhere (not concentration camps) with no totalitarian state agenda imposed upon them?

The argument that Nazi research can bring into question the results of the 1991 analysis (and maybe the current investigation) is drawing a very long bow indeed.

[Menarue]

In a way all this controversy is making me smile, I remember another forum about something completely different and it started to get a bit heated.
One of the posters said something that I can´t help finding amusing. He said that if anyone thought that the forum was starting to get personal they ought to have belonged to the dog fanciers forum he had belonged to before, he said THERE they really got savage......I wonder if there is much controversy on the Ornamental fish fanciers forum.....
Please don´t misunderstand what I am saying, I feel very strongly about finding out the truth about the IF family but I really feel that we already know most of it and can rule out someone, who ín my humble opinion was an outright impostor (whether she meant to be or not) AA.

[ChatNoir]

I just wonder, how do identical ears and identical bilateral congenital Hallus Valgus stack up against DNA from a putative sample? At least, we know that the feet and ears were at least attached to her body.

[Warren]

I guess you could also question the roundness of the earth since the horizon appears flat.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ferrymansdaughter

Who said I am "devalueing" his results? I am asking who he was. Please don't tell me that it isn't right to question his results when he is anonymous. For all I know "DaveK" could be anyone. If you wish to quote someone as an authority on any subject, then you should tell us who they are . If you don't know his real name, then say so.

His name was Dave and his last initial was K. That's more of a real name than "Ferrymansdaughter" or "Anna was Franziska." If he chose not to reveal his entire identity and his place of employment on a message board and set himself up for possible harassment, who can blame him? This doesn't devalue what he said or figured out. I haven't seen anyone disprove it.

If you all would be interested and the mods don't think it would clog up the forum, I'd like to post some legal precedence cases that proves the testing done on AA HAS held up in court. (technically, anything can be called 'putative' and anyone could allege a switch, but proving it is something else)

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Warren

I guess you could also question the roundness of the earth since the horizon appears flat.

Not as long as the shadows grow longer the further north you get.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Warren

Surely you can see the difference between research done by scientists actively promoting the Nazi ideology and research done by scientists in universities and elsewhere (not concentration camps) with no totalitarian state agenda imposed upon them?

I was trying to be polite and mentioned examples from my own country.

You will be able to find other examples from other countries as well when it comes to genetical or medical research, and not only cases where scientists decided to ignore the laws imposed on them by democratic states in order to be able to conduct their research. It happens all around the world, thankfully not on a daily basis but it happens. Science and moral are not automatically linked, just as being a human being and being a moral being is not automatically linked. If it was that way, we'd live in a much better place.

Maybe one should read this article carefully: From BMJ 1994;308(6924):283 (29 January) - BMJ being the British Medical Journal. I hope this is a source which qualifies as "serious":
The scandal of poor medical research -- Altman 308 (6924): 283 -- BMJ

"The scandal of poor medical research

We need less research, better research, and research done for the right reasons.

What should we think about a doctor who uses the wrong treatment, either wilfully or through ignorance, or who uses the right treatment wrongly (such as by giving the wrong dose of a drug)? Most people would agree that such behaviour was unprofessional, arguably unethical, and certainly unacceptable.
What, then, should we think about researchers who use the wrong techniques (either wilfully or in ignorance), use the right techniques wrongly, misinterpret their results, report their results selectively, cite the literature selectively, and draw unjustified conclusions? We should be appalled. Yet numerous studies of the medical literature, in both general and specialist journals, have shown that all of the above phenomena are common.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 This is surely a scandal.
When I tell friends outside medicine that many papers published in medical journals are misleading because of methodological weaknesses they are rightly shocked. Huge sums of money are spent annually on research that is seriously flawed through the use of inappropriate designs, unrepresentative samples, small samples, incorrect methods of analysis, and faulty interpretation. Errors are so varied that a whole book on the topic,7 valuable as it is, is not comprehensive; in any case, many of those who make the errors are unlikely to read it."

If you'd care to follow the link, you'll see that the author D G Altman, a reknown scientist, gives various published sources for his statements. Some posters here make it sound as if such errors are very, very rare and that it's absurd or offending to even think about such a possibility. But Altman states:

"The effects of the pressure to publish may be seen most clearly in the increase in scientific fraud,10 much of which is relatively minor and is likely to escape detection. There is nothing new about the message of data or of data torture, as it has recently been called11 - Charles Babbage described its different forms as long ago as 1830.12 The temptation to behave dishonestly is surely far greater now, when all too often the main reason for a piece of research seems to be to lengthen a researcher's curriculum vitae. Bailar suggested that there may be greater danger to the public welfare from statistical dishonesty than from almost any other form of dishonesty.13 Evaluation of the scientific quality of research papers often falls to statisticians. Responsible medical journals invest considerable effort in getting papers refereed by statisticians; however, few papers are rejected solely on statistical grounds.14 Unfortunately, many journals use little or no statistical refereeing - bad papers are easy to publish."

Maybe you are able to accept now that it's not just Jo of Palatine's scientist husband and some of her contacts who believe that there are motives around to write in order to publish papers with questionable results? That a high-profile topic, which would do more than just lengthen the author's CV, may give an even higher motivation. That a case where results cannot be checked independantly afterwards for lack of samples would make it easier.

All that is written and thought of by me in general about the question of errors in scientific publishing, not as a judgment of the paper discussed here but as background knowledge that should be taken into account on evaluating the question if one DNA-analysis outweighs other facts that were reported by convincing sources including pictures like the rare occurance of a foot deformation which both AN and AA shared.

My point is simple: I don't discard the question if AN became AA on the base of that DNA-results alone. Others may do that. Okay. But still I'm convinced that I have the right to put background information from reliable sources into my reasoning, that I have a right to write about these reasonings in a thread called "Questions of Identity" and that I have a right to defend myself from accusations that I'm a dealer in "sly innuendos". I wonder what Prof. Altman is then?

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

I just wonder, how do identical ears and identical bilateral congenital Hallus Valgus stack up against DNA from a putative sample? At least, we know that the feet and ears were at least attached to her body.

Since we have nothing but photos to go on, as far as the ears and the hallux valgus are concerned, I don't see why this is so valuable. Do you know the exact angle of Anastasia's hallux valgus? So far all I've seen is some vague reference to "severe." As for the ears, this is sounding like the "identical face" claim you were making - some experts believe they're identical and some apparently don't. Again, we only have photos, and not very high-resolution ones at that. So I don't think it's in any way appropriate to try and tout these particular avenues of investigation as being more valuable than DNA testing.

In post 401 you referred to Anna Anderson and Anastasia having the same hair colour. Another poster (post 314) has said that someone claimed they didn't have the same hair colour. So these definitive statements from you that this was identical and that was identical seem to be being challenged at every turn, suggesting that there's a fair bit of wiggle room in the "they were identical" statements.

[Elspeth]

Jo, I asked a simple question. In a previous post you threw out the possibility of mtDNA inheritance through the father. I gave a list of loci and their nucleotides for Anna Anderson, Prince Philip, and the putative Tsar and Tsarina and asked you if the nucleotides were consistent with paternal inheritance. Yet another long screed about scientific fraud and unscrupulous scientists is not an answer. Nor is a vague "my geneticist friend laughed at the idea," especially considering that these results were hardly the work of some two-bit postdoc at Podunk University but were the work of mtDNA experts.

Either those nucleotide assignments are consistent with paternal mtDNA inheritance or they aren't. If they aren't, then this particular objection of yours is irrelevant. My feeling (and it's just a feeling, since I'm by no means an expert) is that a case where three of five nucleotides don't match suggests that paternal mtDNA inheritance isn't a factor. But if your geneticist friend has more details about how this much mismatch between the sample from Anna Anderson and the samples from the putative Tsar and Tsarina could in fact indicate paternal mtDNA inheritance, please feel free to give us some details.

As for this continuing "scientists aren't perfect" stuff - I know they aren't, and I've been asking again and again what it has to do with this particular case. Yes, I know there were some highly questionable scientists during the Nazi era, as well as regular scientists doing unethical things for fear of their lives. Same thing was going on in the USSR while Trofim Lysenko was trying to do a King Canute on the topic of Darwinian evolution. And the BMJ article is correct in that the pressure to publish large numbers of papers has led to people publishing pretty worthless stuff simply to pad their publication statistics. However, I assume you aren't going to discount every scientific advance ever made because some scientists are dishonest. So I'm wondering why you're doing it in this case, when (as far as I know) there have been no allegations of misconduct against any of these scientists, except for the accusations in the Knight paper, which didn't involve the Anderson samples, and which seem to be more of a scientific disagreement than a whistle-blowing accusation of misconduct. You keep saying that there's no way to check the results obtained in this study. Most allegations of fraud are investigated by looking at lab notebooks and other places where results were written down; I assume that could be done in this case if someone wanted to challenge the results by laying a formal accusation of scientific misconduct against the researchers. As for not being able to replicate the results, it sounds from the Nat Genet paper that not all of the bowel sample was used in this study so there should still be some of the sample left, both in the labs of the scientists who did the study and in the hospital. Presumably Prince Philip could give another blood sample, and the latest techniques could be used to analyse both of them.

[Anna was Franziska]

Jo, speaking of Nazi scientists who had odd ideas and played by their own rules, did you ever consider some of them were the 'experts' in the AA trial? Otto Reche for example:

Otto Reche

This is a commentary by someone who did extensive research on Reche and his work. He was discredited by his own peers, the worst thing that can happen to a scientist's credibility:
(I must) point out the scientific fallacies upon which your claims and evidence are based. Otto Reche is a good example of this - here we have a nazi by choice and inclination, whose work was so bad that persons such as Robert Procter, Hermann Graml, Edith Zerbin- Rudin, Stephen Gould and Robert Leakey have discredited it. I explained why in more than one post, as I explained why anthromorphic photo comparison is a subjective science with a narrow degree of scientific certainty, no matter how many graphs, charts and measurements he might have had. It doesn't matter how many graphs and measurements he had, if the foundation has been taken away, does it? Advances in the science of mtdna recovery alone, has proven that his foundational base, his sampling of "long headed Europeans" is false. among other factors such as age, the His photographic "proof" is also false - photo comparison cannot account for the thickness of muscle, fat, skin or bone,among other factors such as age,mechanics of photography and printing and other variables involved in photographic comparison.

There were several of these Nazi anthropologists who were revered at the time, but now criticized. On the history channel they tell of a team of them who traveled to Tibet in the 1930's and 'proved' by facial life masks that the Tibetians were really descendants of aryan Germans from the Rhine Valley. This was one of Hitler's pet theories, however, it is now known to be false. So these Nazis were not as respectable, reliable and accurate as Anderson supporters will have you believe. Therefore, doubt is cast on their 'identification' of Anna Anderson being an 'identical twin' of Anastasia.

In 1961, German judges basically threw out Reche's facial identification of AA as AN, and declared her claim to be AN 'unfounded' and her identity as FS 'eminently likely'