Anna Anderson's claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

And none of these ladies ever met FS or AA. And you are talking hearsay!

Obviously they had heard the situation being discussed at home growing up. Don't you know a lot about old family members that way? I do.

Indeed. But AA was not FS, so her pleading was in vain.

Yes she was.

The good Dmitri has also made some other statements about AA that do not measure up.

Of course you don't believe people who 'discredit' AA.

You are suspicious of everybody that speaks in AA's favor.

Funny I was just saying....(see above)

AA was found mentally sane by all her doctors.

Sane people don't get sent to as many sanatoria/asylums that she did.

Do you remember the three nurses who testified that FS had been a patient in the asylum where they worked, for 5 years?

Clearly, they were mistaken, at the least. There are no records. If they saw FS in an asylum, it was AA because they are the same person.

Still no proof of AA being FS.

In your realm of fantasy only.

I don't think so, seeing that she was not wounded.

You do not know this, cannot prove his, and have no idea where the grenade rolled. Massie said she 'dropped' it meaning it landed by her feet.

If there had been enough evidence, we would have had a legal ruling long time ago.

It's commonly accepted in the mediaa, historic and scientific communities. Who would pay to take it court? Nobody cares, because they already know.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Obviously they had heard the situation being discussed at home growing up. Don't you know a lot about old family members that way? I do.

I am sure you do. And remember, miss Ellerik always wanted money for her "memories". Just like miss Wingender.

Of course you don't believe people who 'discredit' AA.

I just check their credentials. Nothing wrong in that.

Sane people don't get sent to as many sanatoria/asylums that she did.

Well, the first time they had no idea what to do with her, the second time she was committed by bribed doctors, and the third time they did not want her. Think about it.

Clearly, they were mistaken, at the least. There are no records. If they saw FS in an asylum, it was AA because they are the same person.

Well, they recognized her from the photo in the paper. The FS photo, I mean. And they did not "see" her, they were her caretakers. For 5 years.

You do not know this, cannot prove his, and have no idea where the grenade rolled. Massie said she 'dropped' it meaning it landed by her feet.

If that grenade exploded by her feet, we would not have had FS with us for much longer.

It's commonly accepted in the mediaa, historic and scientific communities. Who would pay to take it court? Nobody cares, because they already know.

So why are you fighting so hard if you really are all that convinced? Seems to me that you need validation.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

Well, the first time they had no idea what to do with her, the second time she was committed by bribed doctors, and the third time they did not want her. Think about it.

There still has to be a reason a person is put in that many times. She was still worried about it when she was old which is why Manahan kidnapped her.

Well, they recognized her from the photo in the paper. The FS photo, I mean. And they did not "see" her, they were her caretakers. For 5 years.

It was the drawing in profile that doesn't look like her. They were mistaken.

If that grenade exploded by her feet, we would not have had FS with us for much longer.

Well you've been trying to get rid of her..

So why are you fighting so hard if you really are all that convinced? Seems to me that you need validation.

I need to convince YOU!

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

There still has to be a reason a person is put in that many times. She was still worried about it when she was old which is why Manahan kidnapped her.

No, no, no. She was not found mentally ill, only not able to care for herself. And she was put in two asylums during her lifetime, the first one because she would not talk, the other one because the doctors were bribed. Got it?

It was the drawing in profile that doesn't look like her. They were mistaken.

I am talking the photo of Franziska Schanzkowska, the one that has never been authenticated, but which was brought by Martin Knopf as evidence.

Well you've been trying to get rid of her..

Not at all, I think she brings a little spice to the story..

need to convince YOU!

Why on earth is that so important?

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

No, no, no. She was not found mentally ill, only not able to care for herself. And she was put in two asylums during her lifetime, the first one because she would not talk, the other one because the doctors were bribed. Got it?

Oh I hardly think anyone had to bribe anyone to put her away after this rampage:
From Massie's "Romanovs: The Final Chapter", page 182, paperback:

Early in 1929, she moved in with Annie B. Jennings, a wealthy Park Avenue spinster eager to have the daughter of the Tsar under her roof. For 18 months, the onetime Fraulein Unbekannat was the toast of NYC society, a fixture at dinner parties, luncheons, tea dances and operas. The the pattern of destructive behavior reasserted itself. She complained about her room and her food. She developed tantrums. She attacked servants with sticks and ran back and forth across the roof naked. She threw things out the window. She stood in an aisle of a dept. store and told the crowd how badly Miss Jennings was treating her. Finally, Judge Peter Schmuck of the NY Surpreme Court signed an order, and two men knocked down her locked door and carried her off to a mental hospital. She remained in Four Winds Sanatorium in Katonah, NY, for over a year.

I am talking the photo of Franziska Schanzkowska, the one that has never been authenticated, but which was brought by Martin Knopf as evidence.

Everyone says this is the pic circulated in the papers

http://www.freewebs.com/anastasiafranziska/AA1935.jpg

Anyway we know that report was completely wrong, there was no proof, no one ever saw the person, and the real FS was AA.

Why on earth is that so important?

I take it back, I don't want to convince you, I never will, because you live in a different realm of reality. Even if you did stop believing in her I doubt you'd ever have the guts to admit you were wrong. It's important to tell the other side so you won't trick anyone into believing in AA. Someone has to be the voice of reason.
Why is it so important to YOU? Why are you always here?

[ChatNoir]

A little snippet from Harriet Rathlef Keilmann's book:

One day, when the invalid was getting better, the doctors said I could take her to the dentist. I had her missing teeth replaced, and also bougth her clothes which suited her and were more appropriate to her age. She then looked many years younger.
When I took her to the Mary Hospital, she constantly implored me to tell no one who she was. Professor Berg, however, showed the hospital doctors the police commissoner's letter (Grünberg), so that they knew who it was who passed under the name of Anastasia Chaikovski. This resulted in an incident which throws so significant a light on the attitude of the patient that I must certainly relate it. Four days after her admission, I took her to the operation theatre to have her dressings changed, I waited in an outside rom. Suddenly, the patient emerged in a state of great excitement, laid her head on my shoulder, and tearfully asked me: "What does the doctor know?" At first, I did not realize what had happened, tried to pacify her, and asked the doctor for an explanation. He showed me a form on which it was the practice to insert particulars of the patient's family. It was already partly filled up and, according to his story, she had answered his question regarding her family without raising any objection, probably in an almost automated manner. Her father's name was Nikolai Romanov, and she herself was born on 17 June, 1901 (German calendar). Her mother's name was Alexandra of Hesse, and her sisters and brother were called Olga, Tatiana, Marie and Alexei: they were all dead. Only when the doctor asked whether any of her grandparents were still alive did she hesitate, and refuse to reply. Thereupon, the doctor remarked: "Why don't you tell me? I have to write it down. Anyhow, there is the Empress Dagmar! Now you must give me your address so that I can fill up the form properly." The patient then looked at him in a despairing manner, and ran out of the room in tears.
For a long time, she was greatly disturbed to think that people at the hospital knew all about her. She was desperate about it, and wept bitterly. When I comforted her, and assured her that nothing could happen to her, she asked me what she really ought to have replied. She had, at the time, never suspected that the doctor, being a German, would know all these names so well.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Oh I hardly think anyone had to bribe anyone to put her away after this rampage:
From Massie's "Romanovs: The Final Chapter", page 182, paperback:
Early in 1929, she moved in with Annie B. Jennings, a wealthy Park Avenue spinster eager to have the daughter of the Tsar under her roof. For 18 months, the onetime Fraulein Unbekannat was the toast of NYC society, a fixture at dinner parties, luncheons, tea dances and operas. The the pattern of destructive behavior reasserted itself. She complained about her room and her food. She developed tantrums. She attacked servants with sticks and ran back and forth across the roof naked. She threw things out the window. She stood in an aisle of a dept. store and told the crowd how badly Miss Jennings was treating her. Finally, Judge Peter Schmuck of the NY Surpreme Court signed an order, and two men knocked down her locked door and carried her off to a mental hospital. She remained in Four Winds Sanatorium in Katonah, NY, for over a year.

There is no doubt she had a nervous breakdown. From Peter Kurth: (Where Massie gets his info from)
Anastasia had not yet been examined by a psychiatrist, nor would she be until she was carted off to the sanatorium at Katonah. The doctors Wilton Lloyd-Smith had engaged to sign the commitment papers were ready, all the same, to attest to her "untidiness," her "extreme suspicion," and her "delusions of persecution." It cost the Jenningses over one thousand dollars. "Dr. K...called me up," Lloyd-Smith wrote Walter Jennings afterward, "and asked me if I considered $500 for himself, $500 for Dr. Z... and $250 for Dr. W.. as a excessive charge for their services...I told him that I considered this perfectly reasonable. In view of the importance to you and to Miss Jennings in having their names on the commitment papers, and in view of the notoriety of the case when it is discovered, the charges are extremely modest.
On July 24, 1930, Anastasia was adjudged insane - "dangerous to herself and others." That night, while Lloyd-Smith stood by, a nurse and two orderlies broke down the door of her room. They found her cowering in the bathroom, dragged her to her feet, and took her away.

A year after, at Ilten in Germany, the doctors had been taking notes. "The lack of any symptoms of insanity," wrote Dr. Hans Willige, "was proved so conclusively during the very first examination that we were already able to tell Frau Tschaikovsky on the second day that she was not insane and not in need of treatment in an institution. Dr. Willige told her that she was free to go.

Everyone says this is the pic circulated in the papers

That pic is a drawing of AA and has nothing to do with FS.

Anyway we know that report was completely wrong, there was no proof, no one ever saw the person, and the real FS was AA.

Yes, three nurses testified in Hamburg that FS had been under their care for 5 years.

I take it back, I don't want to convince you, I never will, because you live in a different realm of reality. Even if you did stop believing in her I doubt you'd ever have the guts to admit you were wrong. It's important to tell the other side so you won't trick anyone into believing in AA. Someone has to be the voice of reason.

I am trying to tell the other side.....

Why is it so important to YOU? Why are you always here?

I am just giving information and questioning yours.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

As Dr. Gill said: The putative sample from AA.

Oh, please.

BTW, that would be samples. Plural. Samples from different sources. Samples with the same DNA pattern.

Oh, and here's what he has to say about the likelihood of the source:

"In conclusion, two different samples (hair and intestine) said to have come from Anna Anderson have been independently collected and analysed by three different laboratories. Because our results are in agreement, this strongly suggests that the samples came from the same individual (Anna Anderson herself); the contention that the samples came from another (unknown) individual seems highly unlikely."

So he's using the word "putative" because the samples came to him and his colleagues indirectly; however, his analysis and that of Mark Stoneking show that the samples match each other, which is a very strong result, scientifically speaking. So why are you using it to imply that he really isn't all that certain about who the samples are from?

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Oh, please.

BTW, that would be samples. Plural.

Still putative.

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Oh, please.

BTW, that would be samples. Plural. Samples from different sources. Samples with the same DNA pattern.

Oh, and here's what he has to say about the likelihood of the source:

"In conclusion, two different samples (hair and intestine) said to have come from Anna Anderson have been independently collected and analysed by three different laboratories. Because our results are in agreement, this strongly suggests that the samples came from the same individual (Anna Anderson herself); the contention that the samples came from another (unknown) individual seems highly unlikely."

So he's using the word "putative" because the samples came to him and his colleagues indirectly; however, his analysis and that of Mark Stoneking show that the samples match each other, which is a very strong result, scientifically speaking. So why are you using it to imply that he really isn't all that certain about who the samples are from?

My question to you is: Why do you want me to believe something that a court of law would not accept as evidence?

[Menarue]

Chat you don´t have to believe anything, obviously you do believe so there is nothing to do about this but to believe that Anna Anderson poor deluded creature was the Grand Duchess Anastasia, or Tatiana (as she originally thought) is asking far too much of me.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

Still putative.

I've been saying for a while that talking to the Anna Anderson apologists is like dealing with creationists, and I see that quote-mining is another similarity.

I didn't say "BTW, that would be samples. Plural." I said "BTW, that would be samples. Plural. Samples from different sources. Samples with the same DNA pattern." As Dr Gill himself said, the fact that samples from different sources gave the same DNA pattern is a very strong indication that the samples were from the same person. So to dismiss them as still being as unconvincing as they were before the analysis is to either misunderstand the significance of the result or to deliberately reject it despite its strength.

My question to you is: Why do you want me to believe something that a court of law would not accept as evidence?

You know, throughout this discussion, you've been awfully fond of stating things as hard fact that aren't. They both had congenital hallux valgus, except that there's no actual data about angles to show that they had the same extent of hallux valgus and the only basis for Anna Anderson's condition being called congenital is apparently some comment by a doctor treating her for TB. They both had the same identical hair colour except that well maybe one was a bit lighter than the other but then hair does change colour with age. They both had the same eye colour except that the description is both subjective and vague. They were the same height except that some people say they weren't. The DNA results won't stand up in court, except that there hasn't been a trial since 1994 so we don't know that. These are assertions, not statements of fact.

And as far as court cases are concerned, there was a court case a few decades ago which found against Anna Anderson, and that apparently hasn't made any difference to you. So I don't see why legal standards are so much more important to you than scientific standards in a scientific matter.

To answer your question about why I want you to believe something: I don't care what you believe, I just don't like the way the Anna Anderson apologists are engaged in trashing very impressive scientific results and casting aspersions on the integrity and competence of the scientists. The Ginther study was pointed out as one where the chains of custody were secure; those chains of custody included the one involving the sample from Sofia of Hanover. Her DNA matched that of Prince Philip. That, by itself, confirms that the sample from Prince Philip actually was from him (or at least from a female-line relative of Sofia and hence of Tsarina Alexandra). The chain of custody of the Prince Philip sample thus becomes irrelevant. The identity has been confirmed by the match with another sample, for which the chain of custody is as certain as you can get, so we're told. Yet you and especially Peter Kurth are still banging on about the chain of custody of the Prince Philip sample - and in his case resorting to a flat-out falsehood in the process with that comment about plucking hairs - as though it somehow invalidated the results. The results for the Prince Philip sample have been confirmed by the match with the Princess Sofia sample. End of.

Equally, with the two samples from Anna Anderson, which Drs Gill and Stoneking correctly refer to as "said to have come from" since they received them indirectly, the fact that specimens of one sample were tested in two labs and the second sample was tested in a third lab and they all had the same sequence is scientifically a very, very strong result. Even more so since Dr Ginther said just three years ago that although the techniques were very new, the results of Drs Gill and Stoneking were believable. From the knowlege base about mtDNA testing in 2005 he still thinks those results are scientifically sound.

From Dr Ginther's letter, the Maucher samples were only tested in one of the labs, not all three, so contamination of the Anderson samples with DNA from Karl Maucher would have shown up immediately because the three Anderson samples wouldn't have matched (assuming the genuine Anna Anderson samples had been different from the Karl Maucher sample). That's even assuming the Maucher sample was in the lab at the time the Anderson samples were being tested, and I believe it was stated by one of the scientists that they weren't.

Since the three samples gave the same results, they weren't dealing with the contamination problem that Dr Ginther faced with his sample, where different results were obtained in just about every attempt at sequencing, so again this shows that the DNA in the samples was from just one person. Dr Ginther obtained results from his sample that were not scientifically meaningful, as he said himself. He knows the difference between believable results and nonbelievable ones; he was honest and didn't try and pass his results off as being what they weren't, and he's the person who said that the work of Gill, Stoneking, Sullivan, et al was believable. I'm having a hard time understanding why the Anna-was-Anastasia people think Dr Ginther was on their side - in fact his letter was a nail in the coffin of the notion that the Gill-Stoneking results weren't significant.

The only way these results could be explained, apart from that the two samples were from the same person (and the notion that they were from the same person who wasn't Anna Anderson is exceedingly unlikely), is massive and deliberate fraud on the part of all the scientists involved. Career-ending fraud if it ever got out. Fraud for which the benefits, whatever they were, don't seem to outweigh the risks. And yet the objections to the results, with this chain-of-custody business and with the "scientists are no more ethical than the rest of us, I mean look at Hwang Woo-Suk and Jan-Hendrik Schon and don't get me started about Ernst Haeckel and Piltdown Man," are basically just a suggestion that there might have been some underhanded monkey business going on.

And that's what I'm objecting to. These results are scientifically sound. Even if they wouldn't hold up in a court of law - and we don't actually know that, it's just another assertion of yours that they wouldn't - they're very strong scientifically. And since they were, when all is said and done, scientific tests, they deserve to be judged by their own standards. A clever lawyer can plant seeds of doubt about anything, especially in the current climate where the American public has been fed a steady diet of anti-science propaganda from the religious and political right for the last 20 or 30 years. So for me, that's a lot less relevant than the scientific worth of the scientific results. As I said before, I don't especially care if the legal standards mean more to you than the scientific ones. I just don't like the implication of incompetence, dishonesty, or both on the part of the scientists, especially since there's no evidence for it.

Since you asked.

[ferrymansdaughter]

Originally Posted by Menarue

I have suffered from prosopagnosia all my life, you don´t need to have any accident (except may birth) to suffer from that. Then if you really didn´t know the people it would be a good excuse wouldn´t it?

Actually I was thinking more specifically of some of the others - memory loss, decrease of interest in sex (AA expressed no interest at all yet FS was supposed to be promiscuous), aggressive behaviour

[ferrymansdaughter]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Yes, a lot of that sounds just like AA/FS who suffered head injuries during the grenade explosion at the factory where she worked.

As I said ...

Originally Posted by ferrymansdaughter

Also re the head injuries - and by the way for those of you on the "other side" as it were, I know that the fact she had head injuries does not actually prove she was AA..

[Marengo]

Not to be a prude, but perhaps we can leave AA/FS's supposed (lack of) sexlife out of the discussion, it isn't a very edifying topic IMO and will mostly be based on speculations.

[Menarue]

Marengo I hope you aren´t referring to prosopagnosia, I just don´t recognize people......LOL.

[ferrymansdaughter]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Everyone says this is the pic circulated in the papers

Who is "everyone"?

[ferrymansdaughter]

Originally Posted by Marengo

Not to be a prude, but perhaps we can leave AA/FS's supposed (lack of) sexlife out of the discussion, it isn't a very edifying topic IMO and will mostly be based on speculations.

Don't worry I wasn't planning to take it any further - just pointing out it was one of the symptoms ...

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

I've been saying for a while that talking to the Anna Anderson apologists is like dealing with creationists, and I see that quote-mining is another similarity.

I am not implicating incompetence, dishonesty or both. I am only pointing out that the chain of custody is shady. I know that AA was defeated in court, but she was also not found to be FS. The case is still open, and until we have a legal ruling, this discussion will continue. I know very well that all the evidence I can provide is circumstantial, maybe except for that of Moritz Furtmayr, whose PIK system was validated by the German courts.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

I am not implicating incompetence, dishonesty or both. I am only pointing out that the chain of custody is shady.

Isn't 'shady' the same thing as 'dishonest'?

I know that AA was defeated in court, but she was also not found to be FS. The case is still open, and until we have a legal ruling, this discussion will continue.

It may continue on these forums, but it doesn't continue in real life because there is now an answer.

I know very well that all the evidence I can provide is circumstantial, maybe except for that of Moritz Furtmayr, whose PIK system was validated by the German courts.

His 'system' may be validated but his work leaves something to be desired:

The often cited study by Moritz Furtmayr used a photograph of Maria (rather than Anastasia) when comparring it with photographs of AA's right ear. He also mistakenly believed that AA's original "mug" shot had been reversed and thus the photograph did not depict her right ear but her left (Apparently to explain why her right ear did not match the right ear of Anastasia) Yet if you look at the mug shot and look at how her hair is parted you can tell that it is not a mirror image since she always parted her hair in the same manner in the early 1920's. Also when comparing that photograph of Anna's ear with others one can see that it is in fact her right ear and not her left. Apparently the reason the ear did not match is simply because it is not the same ear.

And if you want to know what evidence is or is not accepted by courts, DNA overrules everything else. Even ears. There is also legal precedence that the type of DNA testing done on AA DOES hold up in court:

Mitochondrial DNA

In 2000, the New York Supreme Court ruled in "People vs. Klinger" that the DNA testing used in the AA case WAS admissible and acceptable in court and overrules all other evidence. THIS RULING HAS NEVER BEEN OVERTURNED.

So here you are, Chat, all you have is a vague hope that the DNA isn't correct because you 'think' it 'might' have been swapped out but have absolutely no proof or even weak leads on how this may have occurred. So basically this leaves you with nothing but your own personal hope for AA to be AN and desire to hold onto a dream, but that's not going to hold up against anything else.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Isn't 'shady' the same thing as 'dishonest'?

Maybe in your interpretation.

It may continue on these forums, but it doesn't continue in real life because there is now an answer.

I am very well content with the forum, thank you.

His 'system' may be validated but his work leaves something to be desired:

The often cited study by Moritz Furtmayr used a photograph of Maria (rather than Anastasia) when comparring it with photographs of AA's right ear. He also mistakenly believed that AA's original "mug" shot had been reversed and thus the photograph did not depict her right ear but her left (Apparently to explain why her right ear did not match the right ear of Anastasia) Yet if you look at the mug shot and look at how her hair is parted you can tell that it is not a mirror image since she always parted her hair in the same manner in the early 1920's. Also when comparing that photograph of Anna's ear with others one can see that it is in fact her right ear and not her left. Apparently the reason the ear did not match is simply because it is not the same ear.

From Peter Kurth:
In February word came from Munich that Dr. Moritz Furtmayr, one of West Germany's most prominent forensic experts, had concluded on the basis of selected photographs that " the current Mrs. Manahan" and the daughter of the Tsar were one and the same person. This was no mere repetition of the earlier studies at Hamburg. Furtmayr had already satisfied himself of Anastasia's authenticity several years before, when he submitted her pictures to a system of identification he had devised himself and which, at least in criminal cases. had been accepted as positive proof by the courts. His method - known as "P.I.K" - employed a comparison of "the cardinal points of the skull, [which,] once formed, retain the same relation with each other until death." Working with graphs and grids, Furtmayr demonstrated that every human face produces a clear and distinct "headprint" when lines are drawn to connect the bones, and he added that in his hundreds of studies he had never seen two of these "headprints" match unless the subjects were identical. With "P.I.K" Furtmayr had been able to identify the victims of fires, gunshot blasts to the face, and other calamities, and now he took his study of Anastasia one step farther. From the very beginning the anthropological experts had been confounded by Anastasia's controversial right ear, which appeared in several twists and curves not to correspond with photographs of the Tsar's daughter. FIfgy years after the first negative comparison ordererd by the court of Darmstadt Furtmayr found out why: The Darmstadt experts, and all of the others after them, had been working with a photograph taken of Anastasia at the Dalldorf Asylum, the negative of which had been reversed when the picture was printed. Thus her left ear had been compared to the Grand Duchess's right ear. In reality, said Furtmayr when he had set things right, the ears were "identical in 17 anatomical points and tissue formations, five more than the dozen points normally acepted by West German courts go establish a person's identity."

And if you want to know what evidence is or is not accepted by courts, DNA overrules everything else. Even ears. There is also legal precedence that the type of DNA testing done on AA DOES hold up in court:

Mitochondrial DNA

In 2000, the New York Supreme Court ruled in "People vs. Klinger" that the DNA testing used in the AA case WAS admissible and acceptable in court and overrules all other evidence. THIS RULING HAS NEVER BEEN OVERTURNED.

Please elaborate.

So here you are, Chat, all you have is a vague hope that the DNA isn't correct because you 'think' it 'might' have been swapped out but have absolutely no proof or even weak leads on how this may have occurred. So basically this leaves you with nothing but your own personal hope for AA to be AN and desire to hold onto a dream, but that's not going to hold up against anything else.

This may come as a shock to you, but the outcome is of no importance to me. I just enjoy the discussion.