Anna Anderson's claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

The only supporters in her will, were the Botkins. And Gleb Botkin immediately made arrangements for any money coming his way to go to the American Red Cross. As usual, your speculations are just that. Speculations.

Will? What about if she scored big while she was still alive? What about Grandanor? Wills can be changed, money laundered. I don't believe every single supporter was a liar in it for money, but I also don't believe they were all saintly innocents who only wanted to help her get rich and want nothing for themselves. If you're going to 'speculate' that Olga A. and Gilliard were 'paid off' to deny her, you'll also have to accept that some people may have been 'paid off' to support her or give favorable comments.What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[ChatNoir]

A snippet from Gleb Botkin's book:

How pleasant, for instance, my conversation with the lamentable Felix Youssoupov would have sounded to an outsider. "You alone of all the people connected with the case of Mrs. Tschaikovsky," he was assuring me, "stand above all suspicion, are, in virtue of your name and reputation, immune to all accusations of being motivated by ulterior considerations."
But on the same day the good Felix wrote a letter to the sister of the late Empress, the Dowager Marchioness of Milford Haven, begging her, in case I were to visit her, not to believe a single word of mine. My own opinion of Felix the bravest editor would never have dared to print.

[Anna was Franziska]

So, what about those chances that the 1950 blood sample and the 1891 rag were exposed to contamination, unlike the intestine which was sterile and sealed in parafin wax?

[magnik]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

That is only a rumor, but even if it were true it still doesn't mean he believed in AA, only that he wanted money (which also casts doubt on other 'testimonies' of those who 'accepted' her?) There was a lot of money allegedly at stake, and if it all panned out, she could well set up those who helped her get there. I am NOT alleging this or naming names, only suggesting the possibility- after all AA supporters so often use 'paid off' and 'greedy' as an excuse for why those who denied her to 'turn their backs', when in reality, the lure of easy money may well have been on the other side (at least in some cases)

So we can say the same about the other side, don't you think? I mean, that Romanoff family paid to their supporters because they doesn't want to divide an inheritance.

Conclusion: It's all about the money...

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Will? What about if she scored big while she was still alive?

Yes, what about it?

What about Grandanor?

Grandanor was to pay Edward Fallows for his work, and the rest to pay AA and the original investors. Not a dime for the Botkins.

Wills can be changed, money laundered. I don't believe every single supporter was a liar in it for money, but I also don't believe they were all saintly innocents who only wanted to help her get rich and want nothing for themselves. If you're going to 'speculate' that Olga A. and Gilliard were 'paid off' to deny her, you'll also have to accept that some people may have been 'paid off' to support her or give favorable comments.What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

I have never speculated that Olga and Gilliard were paid off, that is your own speculation. All we know, is that Gilliard passed himself off as The Representative of the House of Hesse, and there are indications that Grand Duke Ernest paid him for his work. And why not, he paid handsome amounts to the Nachausgabe and Martin Knopf.

[Menarue]

Originally Posted by Warren

It's reasonable to accept that Prince Michael would have a better inside knowledge of Romanov family attitudes to Anna Anderson than most people, but if you prefer to dismiss out of hand what he has to say that's your choice.

Exactly. Thank you Anna was Franzisca, those two articles are very interesting and give a clear account of the case from people who really knew.
After the DNA results I didn´t have to be convinced but this has just been an extra confirmation, the icing on the cake.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by magnik

So we can say the same about the other side, don't you think? I mean, that Romanoff family paid to their supporters because they doesn't want to divide an inheritance.

Conclusion: It's all about the money...

From Botkin's book:

"Oh, you know perfectly well what I am talking about!" Xenia began to shout. "What right did you have to tie up the money in the Bank of England?"

"How did you dare to do it? And what position am I in now? How can I convince the Grand Duchesses Xenia and Olga that I had nothing to do with the tying up of the money?"

"Just a moment, Your Highness," I interrupted her. "What money are you talking about? I have heard it stated repeatedly, and you yourself said only a few minutes ago, that according to Grand Duchess Xenia there is no money in the Bank of England. Such being the case, what did my legal notice accomplish but tie up a lot of fresh air?"

"But there is no money in the Bank of England," I repeated. "Still further, may I enquire how did you happen to learn that I have served a legal notice on the Bank of England? To begin with, nobody, not even Grand Duchess Xenia, could have learned about it except on July 17th, and hen only if on that date she attempted to gain possession of Anastasia's fortune."

(Gleb Botkin did not himself serve the notice, it was done trough Edward Fallows and lawyers in England.)

[AGRBear]

Dr. Von Berenberg-Gossler was the lawyer hired by the Romanovs.

He wasn't going to hurt his case involving AA at any time (then or later).

Of course he's going to carry his public view to extreme. He was trying to win his case. So, it stands within reason that he would tell us AA resembled "... a house maid, but not at all of royal blood, she had an unattractive peasant like face and reminded me of a charwoman (menial cleaning lady)." Surly you don't think he'd say otherwise because if he did that would have hurt his case?

AGRBear

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Menarue

Exactly. Thank you Anna was Franzisca, those two articles are very interesting and give a clear account of the case from people who really knew.
After the DNA results I didn´t have to be convinced but this has just been an extra confirmation, the icing on the cake.

Several members of my family or representatives went to see Anna Anderson during the early days and dismissed her claims,

Yes, a few members of the family did see her: Olga, who told her that "you are no longer alone, and we shall not abandon you."
Grand Duke Andrew, who wrote to Olga that "There is for me no doubt, she is Anastasia"
Xenia Leeds, who never wavered in her belief that she was Anastasia
Aunt Irene, who rejected her and later stated that "I could not have made a mistake". And then, pacing the floor, wringing her hands, she exclaimed in real anguish, "She is similar, she is similar, but what does that mean if it is not she?"
As for representatives, Alexei Volkov came to see her. His parting words to Harriet von Rathlef Keilmann were: Think of the position I am in! If I now say that it is she, and others later claim the reverse, where would I be then?

[AGRBear]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Well, I'm not entirely sure myself, but the biggest thing here is that the DNA sequence of the blood sample said to have come from Anna Anderson in Germany in 1951 doesn't match the sequence of the intestine and hair samples in the USA.

The two American samples (intestine and hair) matched the samples from Karl Maucher and Margarete Ellerick; the German blood sample didn't. This means that the German and American samples weren't from the same person, or that one or other of them was contaminated. Since the two American samples were the same as each other, the greater likelihood is that the German sample is the one that has the problem.

Neither the American nor the German samples matched the sample from Prince Philip or the sample from Princess Sofia. Dr Ginther says the Philip and Sofia samples matched each other, but the sequences they give for the Sofia one look wrong (the nucleotides of the reference sequence aren't correct).

They tried to sequence samples from needles and other items but the DNA was too degraded to be useful. This means that they didn't have an independent sample to check the blood sample against. So although the chain of custody of the blood sample looks pretty good, there is the possibility, which Dr Ginther acknowledges, that it was contaminated. There's also the possibility that it wasn't from Anna Anderson in the first place, although I don't know how strong a possibility that is. For the American samples, they had the independent confirmation because the intestine sample and the hair sample, from different sources and sequenced in different labs, gave the same results.

It seems that Dr Ginther didn't publish his work. My guess is that the lack of independent confirmation, coupled with finding a different sequence from the ones obtained by the Gill and Stoneking groups, means that he couldn't be sure his results were correct.

You are assuming a great deal about why Ginther didn't publish his work. And, in case you missed it, he was the one who under Dr. King, ran the same kind of testing as Dr. Gill. He was quite sure of his results and I'm not sure how you acquired the idea that he was not.

Please head over to my forum and read exactly what Dr. Ginther wrote to my friend Curious One, who allowed me to copy his e-mail to her.

AGRBear

PS: RomanovsRussia :: Login

[Anna was Franziska]

Chat, I could easily refute all of what you just wrote with opposing quotes, but I'm not going to play this quote matching, round in circles game with you any more. Here as over at AP, and my forum, every thread related to AA loses its particular purpose and becomes muddled with the same old rhetoric of the 'was she or wasn't she' back and forth arguments we've all seen before. Please allow this thread to remain about the interviews only. There is much information in them to discuss, free of all the same old same old. If you want to rehash please take it back to the AA's claim to be AN thread.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Chat, I could easily refute all of what you just wrote with opposing quotes, but I'm not going to play this quote matching, round in circles game with you any more. Here as over at AP, and my forum, every thread related to AA loses its particular purpose and becomes muddled with the same old rhetoric of the 'was she or wasn't she' back and forth arguments we've all seen before. Please allow this thread to remain about the interviews only. There is much information in them to discuss, free of all the same old same old. If you want to rehash please take it back to the AA's claim to be AN thread.

It may lose it's particular purpose for you, but not for me.
And you have not backed up Mr. Berenberg-Gosslers statements. A slew of unfounded allegations do not make any valuable contributions for me.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

It may lose it's particular purpose for you, but not for me.
And you have not backed up Mr. Berenberg-Gosslers statements. A slew of unfounded allegations do not make any valuable contributions for me.

It's not up to me to 'back them up' if you choose not to believe them. The man worked on the AA case for 12 long years, he was very knowledgeable and had extensive resources. I don't have to make any excuses for him. Hopefully one day his entire memoirs will be published and we'll get a gold mine of AA opposition information that will explain even more how FS pulled off her charade.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

It's not up to me to 'back them up' if you choose not to believe them.

I think that if you post them, you should be able to back them up with more proof. At least, that's how I feel about my own posts.

The man worked on the AA case for 12 long years, he was very knowledgeable and had extensive resources. I don't have to make any excuses for him. Hopefully one day his entire memoirs will be published and we'll get a gold mine of AA opposition information that will explain even more how FS pulled off her charade.

Let's not forget that he was well paid to work for the opposition. And I understand very well that his job was to discredit AA and try to make her look like an impostor. I don't blame him for that at all. But I feel that his allegations have to be challenged, like you all challenge mine. It's only fair game.

[Elspeth]

I did read exactly what he wrote, as you should be able to see from the fact that I copied excerpts from it in my previous post.

I know he did the same sorts of tests as Dr Gill, as you can also see from my previous post. However, he took a blood sample claimed to be from Anna Anderson, sequenced the DNA, and came up with a different result from Gill and Stoneking. His attempt to confirm his result by testing an independent sample failed. Therefore he has no way of knowing, as he said himself, whether his different result was due to contamination of the blood sample. Hence my statement about not being confident of his result.

This comment, assuming it was from him, is incorrect if he's talking about the Gill and Stoneking results as well as his own:

ASIDE: The sequence of Margarete Ellerick was clear, and also did not match any of the various "Anna Anderson sequences" that were done. This data is believable.

The sequence from Margarete Ellerick exactly matched the sequences obtained for the Anna Anderson samples by Drs Gill and Stoneking. However, if he's just talking about the different analyses he did on the blood sample and the attempted analyses of the needles and other items, it's probably true that there wasn't a match.

He said: "Assuming that the mtDNA isolated from the slide was authentic DNA from Anna Anderson, and not a contamination (an important assumption,) the data suggests that Anna Anderson is not related to the Schanzkowska family."

Please note the wording "an important assumption" and "suggests" rather than "confirms."

He goes on to talk about DNA isolated from a needle case. He said he did the isolation and that someone from Mary King's lab did the sequencing, which, incidentally, isn't the same as saying that he was working in Mary King's lab. His next comment was, "The isolation was very difficult and I would not put great faith in the results." He said, and this is significant, "The sequence obtained differed from the Cambridge sequence in the region 16252-16355 at 16266 (C->T), and 16311 (T->C). This is not identical to either of the above sequences." So his attempt at independent confirmation of the results from the slide, by sequencing an unrelated sample in a different lab, led to the result that the two samples claimed to be from Anna Anderson had different sequences. He mentioned contamination of the blood sample as a possible reason for the difference between its sequence and that of the sequence obtained by Gill and Stoneking, and he said about the needle case sample that he wouldn't put great faith in the results.

He also did as a good scientist would do in a case like this, and sent part of the blood sample to another lab for independent analysis. That lab (in Germany) isolated mtDNA samples and sent them back to him for sequencing. In his own words, "The data was not pretty: Without going into detail, the PCR samples produced 9 different sequences. None of the sequences were identical to those of Sofia of Hanover or Magarette Ellevik. The only possible conclusion is that the results from these PCR experiments are not very meaningful and did nothing to clarify the status of Anna Anderson."

He also talked about some other items from which he attempted, and failed, to get samples.


His summation was: "ASIDE: As to your question about what I think happened. Clearly the Anna Anderson slide did not contain enough high quality DNA from the original donor to produce consistent results. The sequences obtained varied from one PCR experiment to the next, and thus cannot even be attributed to Anna Anderson or any other single individual. I would presume that the slide was both contaminated and contained little, if any, of the original donor DNA. Any data from that slide is, in my opinion, not believable."

This is talking about the original slide, not the three items mentioned above, since he said he couldn't get any results from them. The samples from the slide gave different results in different analyses, and he couldn't get enough DNA from the other sources to run independent analyses so he could compare the results.


So to sum up, the only times he said that something was believable are the following.

1. I would generally believe the work of Mark Stoneking (Penn State), Mark Wilson (FBI),, Mitch Holland (US Army), Peter Gill and Kevin Sullivan (Forensic Sci. Service, UK),
(these are the authors of the Gill paper who analysed the intestine and hair samples)

2. I never sequenced Prince Philip, and that was done by Dr. Peter Gill. Instead, I sequenced Sofia, also a maternal relative of Alexandra. The sequences of Sofia and Philip matched. As will be shown below, the none of the various "Anna Anderson sequences" isolated matched Sofia’s sequence. This data is believable.

3. The sequence of Margarete Ellerick was clear, and also did not match any of the various "Anna Anderson sequences" that were done. This data is believable.

None of which had to do with the blood sample. And his opinion about the results from the blood sample were "Any data from that slide is, in my opinion, not believable."

As long as he acknowledges that his data aren't believable, I think you have your answer about why the work wasn't published. There was nothing he could say other than that he was working with a heavily contaminated sample which gave different results every time it was tested. No journal is going to touch that.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

I think that if you post them, you should be able to back them up with more proof.

This is ludicrous. It's an interview with a lawyer! He's giving his own personal experiences based on his extensive research. How on earth can anyone 'back that up' with anything, not having his papers?

At least, that's how I feel about my own posts.

Really?Then give me 'more proof' that anyone actually heard AA speaking a language in her sleep, or that they were qualified to judge said languages. Give me 'proof' to back up Rathlef's assertations that AA was a 'true lady of breeding in Russian society', etc. Give me 'more proof' anyone actually said any of the things you claim they said or that it wasn't lies, made up or falsified in AA's favor. While you're at it, give me 'more proof' anything relating to the alleged cart trip to Romania ever really happened.

Most of your posts are only lists or quotes or alleged opinions attributed to this or that person, unverifiable as even being true, and impossible, yes impossible to validate now. I would like to see 'more proof' of most of what you claim as 'facts' that are really no more than recorded hearsay. Think about that before you throw stones at this lawyer.

If it all boils down to nobody is going to believe what they don't like to hear, where does this leave us? The DNA? You don't like to hear that, either. As I said before, I never expected you to believe anything anyone against AA ever said, it was posted for informational purposes for other members to consider, since it's a viewpoint not often mentioned in the AA rhetoric.

[Anna was Franziska]

Where did the Margaret Ellerick sample come from? I had heard she refused to give one, and this is why Maucher was used.

[Elspeth]

The implication from the letter was that Dr Ginther had done the analysis of a sample from Margarete Ellerick, but there were no details about how he obtained it.

[Anna was Franziska]

I just read one of your earlier posts that said she was sequenced by 'someone else' but he didn't say who.

He also reported the sequencing of a sample from Margarette Ellerick by someone else and said that it didn't match the Anna Anderson sample. He then said the Margarette Ellerick sample was an exact match to the Karl Maucher sample. Since the Karl Maucher sample did match the Anna Anderson samples analysed by Gill and Stoneking, I think this is where the discrepancy lies, because at the moment you have A equals B equals C doesn't equal A. He does mention some actual data, though, so I'll pull out my copy of the Gill-Stoneking paper and see if the nucleotides match.

So if she matches Maucher and Maucher matches AA, how can she not also match AA, and how can she not be the same as her own son? (Unless there is something wrong with the Ellerick sequence) If you find out more on where it came from please let us know.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

This is ludicrous. It's an interview with a lawyer!

And are lawyers excempt from scrutiny?

He's giving his own personal experiences based on his extensive research. How on earth can anyone 'back that up' with anything, not having his papers?

I think if he is telling the truth, it should be fairly easy to confirm.

Really?Then give me 'more proof' that anyone actually heard AA speaking a language in her sleep, or that they were qualified to judge said languages.

The protocols at Dalldorf will tell you more. And I do think most Europeans can tell the difference between Russian, Polish, German and English.

Give me 'proof' to back up Rathlef's assertations that AA was a 'true lady of breeding in Russian society', etc.

I think I just did in my previous posts.

Give me 'more proof' anyone actually said any of the things you claim they said or that it wasn't lies, made up or falsified in AA's favor.

You are always complaining about me giving you names and references. Well, that is the proof I have. Please refute it if you are able to.

While you're at it, give me 'more proof' anything relating to the alleged cart trip to Romania ever really happened.

When I gave you the name of Sarscha Gregorian, you just answered: I don't believe it. What else can I do?

Most of your posts are only lists or quotes or alleged opinions attributed to this or that person, unverifiable as even being true, and impossible, yes impossible to validate now. I would like to see 'more proof' of most of what you claim as 'facts' that are really no more than recorded hearsay. Think about that before you throw stones at this lawyer.

First, what I have posted here, is not hearsay, but personal statements, affidavits or sworn testimony. Second, I am not throwing any stones at "this lawyer", all I want, is a confirmation of his allegations.

If it all boils down to nobody is going to believe what they don't like to hear, where does this leave us?

It leaves us with eternal uncertainty, which is why we have these discussions.

The DNA? You don't like to hear that, either. As I said before, I never expected you to believe anything anyone against AA ever said, it was posted for informational purposes for other members to consider, since it's a viewpoint not often mentioned in the AA rhetoric.

All viewpoints have to be challenged. And it seems fair game to you when you challenge mine.