Anna Anderson's claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia

[lexi4]

Lexi -- this is quite correct, but as I never get tired of saying, no *legal* review has ever been passed on this. Who was there when a hair of Prince Philip's was plucked? Who oversaw this procedure? Answer: Nobody. I swear to you, none of this would hold up for two minutes in a court of law -- it would be tossed out on its ear. Especially when you figure that the Hesse/Mountbattens were always AA's most vociferous opponents. Any court of law would demand that these tests be repeated -- only now there are no samples to use, the bones of the i.f. being interred in Russia is a more or less "inviolate" state (they're not about to open those tombs again!) and all of the putative "AA" samples being in great dispute as to origin and "chain of custody." No -- never in a courtroom would any of this hold up, which is why the survivors have not brought it to court for an official judicial ruling. They KNOW that they would have to go back to the very beginning. pk

Peter,
Didn't any one keep samples of the DNA taken from the Imperial Family? Preserve it in some way? Is that even possible?
Lexi

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Lexi -- this is quite correct, but as I never get tired of saying, no *legal* review has ever been passed on this. Who was there when a hair of Prince Philip's was plucked? Who oversaw this procedure? Answer: Nobody.

What are you implying? That there was some intentional wrongdoing?

Especially when you figure that the Hesse/Mountbattens were always AA's most vociferous opponents.

What does this have to do with it? Are you saying that there was a setup to discredit Anderson because they didn't like her? That's quite a strong allegation without the slightest drop of evidence.

Any court of law would demand that these tests be repeated -- only now there are no samples to use, the bones of the i.f. being interred in Russia is a more or less "inviolate" state (they're not about to open those tombs again!) and all of the putative "AA" samples being in great dispute as to origin and "chain of custody." No -- never in a courtroom would any of this hold up, which is why the survivors have not brought it to court for an official judicial ruling. They KNOW that they would have to go back to the very beginning. pk

The 'chain of custody' is well docuented, even on video in the NOVA special. You can clearly see Dr. Gill take the sample in the hospital, and take it to the airport with Marina Schweitzer present. So are you alleging the sample was swapped out after it left Virginia?

The reason this has never gone to court is because all of the scientists involved have given sufficient proof that the tests were valid. If anyone disagrees, the burden of proof would be on them, and I doubt they would get very far in court with such a vague challenge.

 

[ysbel]

Only the 1994 DNA tests, when that science was in its infancy. Much has changed.

In 1994, DNA testing was not in its infancy. Several criminal cases had been decided on basis of DNA testing by then and the criminal courts were the last to accept its validity. This was the same year that DNA testing was done on the evidence of OJ Simpson's wife's murder and only one year before 1995 at the OJ Simpson trial where DNA evidence played such a prominent role. The DNA evidence was so strong that the defense team had to mount a defense that the DNA was deliberately planted by a rogue racist cop (Mark Fuhrman) in order to be believed. The OJ Simpson defense team did not rely on the argument that DNA testing was in its infancy and therefore unreliable in order to clear their client because it would not have been a believable argument.

 

[lexi4]

In 1994, DNA testing was not in its infancy. Several criminal cases had been decided on basis of DNA testing by then and the criminal courts were the last to accept its validity. This was the same year that DNA testing was done on the evidence of OJ Simpson's wife's murder and only one year before 1995 at the OJ Simpson trial where DNA evidence played such a prominent role. The DNA evidence was so strong that the defense team had to mount a defense that the DNA was deliberately planted by a rogue racist cop (Mark Fuhrman) in order to be believed. The OJ Simpson defense team did not rely on the argument that DNA testing was in its infancy and therefore unreliable in order to clear their client because it would not have been a believable argument.

What the defense team did was place reasonable doubt into the minds of the jurors who failed to grasp the significance of the DNA. The questioned custody, the condition of the blood etc. But I don't think the verdict the jury reach was influenced by factors that had nothing to do with DNA.
The point is, the defense team created reasonable doubt. Do you think the same could be done in the case of Anna Anderson?

 

[Anna was Franziska]

What the defense team did was place reasonable doubt into the minds of the jurors who failed to grasp the significance of the DNA.

What the defense really aimed to do was to prey on the mistrust and dislike of the LAPD so soon after the Rodney King case and the 1992 riots. Had the jury truly been of OJ's "peers", other rich people from Brentwood, the results may have been different.

The point is, the defense team created reasonable doubt. Do you think the same could be done in the case of Anna Anderson?

I really don't think so, because there is absolutely no evidence, not even a scapegoat like Fuhrman, in the AA case. No one has been able to give any names or situations in which they believe it was switched, they just claim it must have been since they dislike the results (AA being FS) It takes a great deal more than this to counteract the DNA tests done in four different labs.

While Anderson's supporters may claim there is a 'mountain of evidence' on her side, when you take each piece of it apart and examine the details around it and question its sources and reality, the 'mountain' really falls like a house of cards, especially in comparison to DNA. Most of what is claimed to be 'fact' really isn't nearly as solid or dependable as claimed. Also, the photos (clear face forward and unshadowed) really do show glaring differences in the two faces, where AA looks much more like FS. So no, overall, I do not think there is reasonable doubt. AA would lose in court now, if her case would even be brought back in, which is extremely unlikely to occur.

 

[Russophile]

No, I don't take the photos into account. Before anybody says I'm an AA supporter, I am not. I don't know that she was or wasn't and that's the thrill of the mystery. Using photographs, to me, just doesn't prove anything. And I don't think they should have been used at all.

 

[ysbel]

The significant thing about the OJ Simpson trial is that the defense could not point to the unreliability of DNA tests in general to counterattack the prosecution but rather had to resort to a rogue cop to convince the jury to disregard the evidence. And this was a jury that was very favorably disposed to the defense's case so one would expect that any realistic defense that could have pointed to the unreliability of DNA testing in general at the time would have been most welcomed by this jury.

So DNA evidence was not new and unproven when Anna Anderson's DNA was tested.

Well I don't think it hurts to test the DNA again as I believe is being done. I also don't think that Harry is James Hewitt's son but if releasing DNA tests will put the rumours to rest then I think its worthwhile to do so again.

My personal opinion is that if there is DNA then why use photographs? In the absence of DNA, then yes photographs have been used as evidence of identity but the DNA is much more reliable.

 

[lexi4]

The significant thing about the OJ Simpson trial is that the defense could not point to the unreliability of DNA tests in general to counterattack the prosecution but rather had to resort to a rogue cop to convince the jury to disregard the evidence. And this was a jury that was very favorably disposed to the defense's case so one would expect that any realistic defense that could have pointed to the unreliability of DNA testing in general at the time would have been most welcomed by this jury.

So DNA evidence was not new and unproven when Anna Anderson's DNA was tested.

Well I don't think it hurts to test the DNA again as I believe is being done. I also don't think that Harry is James Hewitt's son but if releasing DNA tests will put the rumours to rest then I think its worthwhile to do so again.

My personal opinion is that if there is DNA then why use photographs? In the absence of DNA, then yes photographs have been used as evidence of identity but the DNA is much more reliable.

The photographs were used prior to DNA testing. I could never see the resemblance in the photographs. I think there are several reasons this still remains a mystery for some. For example, how did Anna Anderson know all the things she knew about the Imperial Family? I also think that people are skeptical, especially in the United States. I'm not saying that is bad, being skeptical is healthy. Here's an example, when the tests were done on the bodies found in the forest, the Americans said Anastasia was missing while the Russians said it was Maria. (I may have that backwards.) Then there were questions regarding the chain of custody from Anna's tissue sample at Martha Jefferson Hospital. Another question, how could Anna have pulled it off for so many years? There will always be questions...among them, was there a rogue cop in this case.
Lexi

 

[ysbel]

I think there are several reasons this still remains a mystery for some. For example, how did Anna Anderson know all the things she knew about the Imperial Family?

how could Anna have pulled it off for so many years?

I don't really think these facts should be considered reliable evidence at all and in the presence of DNA evidence Anna's knowledge and the fact that so many believed her for so long really should not carry any weight as to whether or not she was Anastasia.

Im my opinion even if true, they are non-factors as to deciding her identity.

There will always be questions...

But if they are not reasonable questions, Lexi, they really shouldn't be considered.

 

[lexi4]

I don't really think these facts should be considered reliable evidence at all and in the presence of DNA evidence Anna's knowledge and the fact that so many believed her for so long really should not carry any weight as to whether or not she was Anastasia.

Im my opinion even if true, they are non-factors as to deciding her identity.



But if they are not reasonable questions, Lexi, they really shouldn't be considered.

Agreed.
I was just offering my views as to why this remains a mystery for some.

 

[BorisRom]

I agree. I think DNA trumps HV in the identification process.
Boris, my understanding it that all HV cases are gentic.

Lexi, the term «congenital HV» was thought up not by me. It is for a long time the known scientific medical term. I quote below from article (of 1928) to which referred ChatNoir (on former K&W-forum). You can see there photos congenital HV of newborn baby too.
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov

Ann Surg. 1928 October; 88(4): 798–800.
Copyright notice
CONGENITAL BILATERAL HALLUX VALGUS
Edward P. Heller:

He describes very rare case of Hallus Valgus:
CONGENITAL BILATERAL HALLUX VALGUS (CB HV). He has written:
“Mouchet in 1919 reported a case of CB HV and this is the only one CB HV case in the literature so far as I can determind…”
And just, CB HV is just the case of Anna Anderson and GD Anastasia!

The full text of p.1 (p.798 of Ann Surg. 1928 October; 88(4)):
[www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov]
“CONGENITAL BILATERAL HALLUX VALGUS
MY PURPOSE in reporting this case is three-fold-first, to call attention to a common deformity which is almost never seen in infancy, the case reported being both congenital and bilateral; second, to present illustrations, inasmuch as cases in the literature to which I have access are not illustrated, but are
merely given as case reports, while none of the standard textbooks, to my knowledge, have illustrated presentations of the anomaly; third, to reopen the old discussion as to the etiology, since the infant here reported has never worn shoes, has never borne weight, and if deformed through "accidental
cramping in utero" (Clarke'1), the position necessarily assumed by the fetus offers abundant opportunity for speculation.
CASE REFORT.-M. S., age seven weeks, was brought to the Orthopedic Clinic of the Kansas City GeneralHospital by her mother, with the information that the great toe of each foot had been everted since birth, and did not seem to be returning to normal position. There had been no illness or injury and the child was normal in other respects. A bilateral hallux valgus, as illustrated, was present. No similar deformity existed in the immediate family.
Mouchet in I9I9 reported a case of bilateral, congenital, hallux valgus, and this is the only bilateral case in the literature so far as I can determine. In talking with several local orthopedic surgeons of wide experience I have elicited the frank statement that none has seen such a case. This fact alone
would stamp the case as rare. <…>”

-Mouchet, A.: Hallux Valgus. Congenlital Bilateral. Bull. Soc. de Pediat. de Paris, vol. xvii, P. 298, I9I9.

[www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov]

 

[BorisRom]

Cinderella...

Even if to assume (only a hypothesis!), that AA and ANR had not congenital HV it is very difficult to deny, that they had the heavy form of HV (“the third degree of HV”). According to statistics (of the Central scientific research institute of traumatology and orthopedy of Ministry of Health) it is 1 case on 6600 young women. Taking into account, that both of them had heavy deformation on the right foot, it gives probability of AA=ANR 13200:1. It is more in what two times are higher than reliability of DNA-tests (in 1994-1997).

 

[OlgaNikolaievna]

I don't see the feet as being of any real significance here. A lot of people have the same foot disorder. This doesn't make them related. On the other hand, the DNA can accurately prove which family a person is or is not related to as it did in the case of Anna Anderson.

 

[BorisRom]

We should estimate any scientific method of identification on its reliability. Irrespective of how the method of comparative tests of DNA looks "beautifully and cleverly", its reliability did not exceed 1:6000 (in 1990th years). Besides, this method can yield wrong results because of cross pollution, let alone possible falsifications.
The scientific medical statistics is free off the lacks of DNA-tests, and reliability of scientific medical statistics (of C-HV) in 3000 times exceeds reliability of tests of DNA.
Boris

 

[BorisRom]

I don't see the feet as being of any real significance here. A lot of people have the same foot disorder. This doesn't make them related. On the other hand, the DNA can accurately prove which family a person is or is not related to as it did in the case of Anna Anderson.

About DNA-tests of 1990s: Two reference (citations) from other forum:
http://agrbear.hyperboards.com/index.php?action=view_board&board_id=31&start=1
1. You might find this site interesting. It is very simplified, but it gave me a better understanding of the DNA testing procedures. One thing is clear, the type of testing done in the 90s on the IF, is not perfect and is easily contaminated.

http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html

2. ....The DNA tests performed in 1994 are no longer completely valid.
2.1) The nuclearDNA tests performed are no longer valid. 20-point STR method is now in use. The 6-point STR method used back in the day is no longer valid or in use.
2.2) mtDNA is no longer even used in court cases. It can be contaminated by simply touching a sample or breathing on it. One scientist estimated that 50% of samples that are not supposed to give results do.
2.3) The mtDNA match with Maucher is not so special. 40 of a random 1,000 people share the same mtDNA sequence.

3. Tarnish On The 'Gold Standard': Recent Problems In Forensic DNA Testing
(National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers):

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/698c98dd101a846085256eb400500c01/6285f6867724e1e685257124006f9177?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,forensic,forensics,evidence

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Here is an explaination from a friend of mine who met Dr. Terry Melton, who worked on the DNA case:

I have spoken to Dr. Teri Melton of Mitotyping Technologies, who did the original Anna Manahan/Carl Maucher testing. There is no doubt, in her mind, or anyone of the other scientists that the original sample could NOT have been "corrupted" and as far as they are all concerned, in her exact words "there is no need to re test the samples as you will get the exact same results".

The reason the samples could not have been corrupted is simple. The Anna Manahan sample was tested first and sequenced BEFORE the Carl Maucher sample was even taken or sequenced. As a result, nobody could have possible known the Maucher sequence OR contaminated the Anna Manahan sample with Maucher mtDNA. The fact that the Anna Manahan sample was a 99.5% likelihood MATCH to the Carl Maucher DNA is of itself proof to the scientific community that the testing was accurate. You see, simply put, if the sample was "corrupted" there couldn't have been any sequence stable enough to sequence; "if" the sample was "tainted" by outside DNA it would have never matched the Maucher sample to such a high degree of certainty (unless one of the scientists handling the sample was themselves a very close cousin to Maucher (they weren't) and the fact that FOUR different labs all got the exact same results rules out the possibility of corruption, contamination or scientific error.

The science is simple and clear. Anyone who thinks the Anna Manahan testing was corrupted or contaminated simply just doesn't grasp the simple science of it all.

 

[BorisRom]

Here is an explaination from a friend of mine who met Dr. Terry Melton, who worked on the DNA case:

I have spoken to Dr. Teri Melton of Mitotyping Technologies, who did the original Anna Manahan/Carl Maucher testing. There is no doubt, in her mind, or anyone of the other scientists that the original sample could NOT have been "corrupted" and as far as they are all concerned, in her exact words "there is no need to re test the samples as you will get the exact same results".

The reason the samples could not have been corrupted is simple. The Anna Manahan sample was tested first and sequenced BEFORE the Carl Maucher sample was even taken or sequenced. As a result, nobody could have possible known the Maucher sequence OR contaminated the Anna Manahan sample with Maucher mtDNA. The fact that the Anna Manahan sample was a 99.5% likelihood MATCH to the Carl Maucher DNA is of itself proof to the scientific community that the testing was accurate. You see, simply put, if the sample was "corrupted" there couldn't have been any sequence stable enough to sequence; "if" the sample was "tainted" by outside DNA it would have never matched the Maucher sample to such a high degree of certainty (unless one of the scientists handling the sample was themselves a very close cousin to Maucher (they weren't) and the fact that FOUR different labs all got the exact same results rules out the possibility of corruption, contamination or scientific error.

The science is simple and clear. Anyone who thinks the Anna Manahan testing was corrupted or contaminated simply just doesn't grasp the simple science of it all.

Franziska (FS) had height more than Аnna Аnderson, FS carried footwear for three sizes more (!), FS never gave birth (!!) also FS had no deformations of feet (no Hallux Valgus) (!!!) and etc.

DNA-testing are made by people. People can be mistaken:
For example, Japanese and German DNA-testing of Ekaterinburg remains (of 1990th) deny the results of Russian DNA-testing of the same remains. Who is right? - in this case it is «a question of belief» (or of political predilections). There are many other examples of mistakes at carrying out of DNA-testing.
Once again:
Franziska (FS) had height more than Аnna Аnderson, FS carried footwear for three sizes more (!), FS never gave birth (!!) also FS had no deformations of feet (no Hallux Valgus) (!!!) and etc.
If I see an elephant, and scientists speak me, that this elephant has DNA of a hens, I shall think nevertheless, that it is the elephant
The book of Peter Kurth (“ Anastasia. The Riddle of Anna Anderson ”) is absolutely necessary to be read by those people which want to know the truth about this history. It is objective and very informative book. The book is written by fine style also.
Moreover, I think, it is impossible to discuss seriously this theme without preliminary studying of this book.
Boris

 

[Russophile]

Unfortunately, Boris, there are a lot of organizations and people out there who disagree with Peter's book, no matter he knew the people involved personally and did a LOT of research on it, basically, I think he's the FOREMOST EXPERT on Anna Anderson Manahan.

 

[BorisRom]

Unfortunately, Boris, there are a lot of organizations and people out there who disagree with Peter's book, no matter he knew the people involved personally and did a LOT of research on it, basically, I think he's the FOREMOST EXPERT on Anna Anderson Manahan.

Yes, Russo.
You are right.
Boris

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Franziska (FS) had height more than Аnna Аnderson,

This is not proven. The only statements are from her former boarding house ladies and a coworker who hadn't seen her in years. So they estimated wrong. It happens. There are no official records of FS's height, no proof.

FS carried footwear for three sizes more (!),

Again, all just word of mouth years after the fact. There is no proof.

FS never gave birth (!!)

We do not know this as a fact. In those days, girls often hid their illegitimate pregnancies out of shame and embarrassment. Anything could have happened to that baby. Incidently, there is also no record of AA's alleged baby in Romania. It's all just a story.

also FS had no deformations of feet (no Hallux Valgus) (!!!) and etc.

There are no medical records that prove this, again, only comments from others who may have been mistaken, lying, or not knowing of the condition.

People can be mistaken:

Yes, they most certainly can- like in estimating height, recalling shoe size, and knowing or not knowing about scars and foot conditions.

For example, Japanese and German DNA-testing of Ekaterinburg remains (of 1990th) deny the results of Russian DNA-testing of the same remains. Who is right? - in this case it is «a question of belief» (or of political predilections). There are many other examples of mistakes at carrying out of DNA-testing.

If there was a mistake, it was made by the Japanese. All they had was a bloody rag kept from Nicholas's 1891 trip where he was attacked by a Samuri sword weilding maniac in the street. Talk about contamination, the minute another person touched the rag, all bets were off. The intestine sample, however, was kept in parafin wax and sealed in sterile plastic.

The book of Peter Kurth (“ Anastasia. The Riddle of Anna Anderson ”) is absolutely necessary to be read by those people which want to know the truth about this history. It is objective and very informative book. The book is written by fine style also.

Moreover, I think, it is impossible to discuss seriously this theme without preliminary studying of this book.

I read that book many years ago, and several times. However, it was written before the DNA tests and we now have new infomation that proves she wasn't really Anastasia. Also, there are other sides to all the stories told and some of them are not mentioned in the book. I could list several examples of quotes from those who disbelieved Anderson that were not included. But overall, science trumps everything, and DNA wins.

 

[BorisRom]

Don't worry, be happy.

“Anna was Franziska”,
I see here (in your post) a standard manner of some opponents АА to deny absolutely everything, what denies their point of view, including obvious and documentary confirmed (even in courts under the oath!) facts. For a long time it is known that to enter discussion with supporters of this main nonsense (FS=AA) is absolutely useless (non-structurally).
Don’t worry about Anna Manahan, be happy with FS …

Don't worry, be happy.
In every life we have some trouble
But when you worry you make it double
Don't worry, be happy.
Don't worry, be happy now.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

I see here (in your post) a standard manner of some opponents АА to deny absolutely everything, what denies their point of view, including obvious and documentary confirmed (even in courts under the oath!) facts.

Do you believe everything everyone says, under oath or not, is a 'fact?' What about those who testified 'under oath' against her, was what they said a 'fact?' Here's the difference: it may be a 'fact' that someone said something on a certain day, however, this does not guarantee that what they said was indeed a 'fact.' It may be wrong, an honest mistake due to human error or inaccurate memory, or yes, even a lie. No, everything a person said that is listed as 'testimony' does not necessarily make it a 'fact.' We have many quotes from people on both sides. They all can't be right! This is why the DNA is so important, because it proved to us which 'side' was right.

For a long time it is known that to enter discussion with supporters of this main nonsense (FS=AA) is absolutely useless (non-structurally).

Nonsense? I don't know how kindly I can say it, but actually the position that she was NOT FS is the real nonsense, because she was (sorry)

 

[BorisRom]

Do you believe everything everyone says, under oath or not, is a 'fact?' What about those who testified 'under oath' against her, was what they said a 'fact?' Here's the difference: it may be a 'fact' that someone said something on a certain day, however, this does not guarantee that what they said was indeed a 'fact.' It may be wrong, an honest mistake due to human error or inaccurate memory, or yes, even a lie. No, everything a person said that is listed as 'testimony' does not necessarily make it a 'fact.' We have many quotes from people on both sides. They all can't be right! This is why the DNA is so important, because it proved to us which 'side' was right.

Nonsense? I don't know how kindly I can say it, but actually the position that she was NOT FS is the real nonsense, because she was (sorry)

Question «Whether Anna Manahan was Anastasia Romanova?» is remaining opened ones till now and demands additional researches, including - perhaps - new comparative tests of DNA if it is possible. However, thus, reliability of new tests of DNA should be not below the reliability of medical statistics of congenital HV. Until it is not made, data of medical statistics of HV denies data of DNA (of 1990-th).

However, I do not see any sense to discuss an nonsence on a theme «Anna was Franziska».
Please, find (at least) one reference that FS had congenital HV (or simple heavy HV, at least) if you wish to continue discussion on this theme.
Boris

 

[lilytornado]

Well, for me the DNA is the most convincing, but since everybody is talking about the similarities in appearance....
I found this pretty convincing:
Anna Anderson: Exposed! | The Fact, Fiction and Fantasy surrounding the myth of "Anastasia"

 

[ysbel]

Boris,

I admit I remain skeptical of your assertions about the foot disorder. I think if this foot order is to be universally considered as valid an identifier as DNA, it would have to be taken as seriously as such as evidence in normal everyday court cases which have nothing to do with Anastasia or Anna Anderson.

Can you give any other cases outside of Anna Anderson where this foot conditions have proven the identity of someone? You say it only started to be taken seriously in 2007 but what caused it to be taken seriously as an identifier for people? Was there a landmark case that it solved? Usually new technologies like DNA don't gain credibility until they can have been proven to solve tough cases.

What other cases has the identification of this foot condition solved?

 

[BorisRom]

Well, for me the DNA is the most convincing, but since everybody is talking about the similarities in appearance....
I found this pretty convincing:
Anna Anderson: Exposed! | The Fact, Fiction and Fantasy surrounding the myth of "Anastasia"

Please, show me FS's feet, not a face.
I think, I can go to sleep now. You can find the mentions (of the brother of FS (of Felix)) about her beautiful feet, but you will not find any mention of deformation of her feet.
Feet, - not a face!

 

[ysbel]

The reason the samples could not have been corrupted is simple. The Anna Manahan sample was tested first and sequenced BEFORE the Carl Maucher sample was even taken or sequenced. As a result, nobody could have possible known the Maucher sequence OR contaminated the Anna Manahan sample with Maucher mtDNA.

So Anna, let me see if I understand what you are saying.

You say that the DNA was extracted from the intestines of Anna Anderson, broken down, sequenced, and analyzed in the lab before the tissue from Carl Maucher ever entered the lab?

The only way that the results could have been compromised to give a false positive match would be if Carl Maucher's tissue sample came in contact with Anna Anderson's sample in the lab before Anna Anderson's sample was tested and sequenced. If Carl Maucher's sample wasn't even in the lab until after Anna Anderson's sample was tested and sequence, his sample wasn't in the location where it could contaminate the lab results for her sample.

Do we have exact dates as to when the Anna Anderson sample was taken and sequences and the exact dates as to when the Carl Maucher sample was taken and sequenced?

Ever since I learned that her DNA had a high match with Carl Maucher, that seemed to decide the case for me. The chances against a false positive match with an unknown distant German a half a world away seemed totally implausible no matter the state of DNA technology (which still was reliable enough to decide court cases in 1994) . No matter if her intestines were dug up from a ditch, a 99.5% positive match with anyone should show a relationship with that person no matter the state and condition of bothAnna Anderson's DNA and Karl Maucher's DNA and what the chain of possession was. I go back to my original question, what are the chances that an original tissue sample from Charlottesville VA matching a sample from a German a half a world away? That is simply unbelievable.

 

[ysbel]

2.3) The mtDNA match with Maucher is not so special. 40 of a random 1,000 people share the same mtDNA sequence.

So you are saying that 4% of the population have a 99.5% chance of matching Karl Maucher's mtDNA or are you disputing Anna's claim that Karl Maucher's DNA matched Anna Anderson's DNA to the level of 99.5%?

 

[lilytornado]

Okay, feet. My uncle has a deformation on his foot, but his sister\my mother didn't know about it until my sister was born with the same thing, and he was telling her that he had the same thing.
And then, how do we even know that Anna Anderson was born with the conditon (congenital) and that it didn't develop later in life? And if it is just heavy Hallux Valgus , well, appearently a lot of people have that especially, if they wear constantly wrong shoes, etc. So what is the proof that Anna Anderson's hallux valgus were congenital, (or Anastasia's for that matter)?

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Yes the photographic comparisons are very convincing. AA looked like FS, not Anastasia.

The feet? How can we show you FS's feet when there are no pictures of her feet, so you cannot prove what they looked like? We will probably never know if there are any records on it, either. Do you really think feet are the most important thing? I don't, and I am sure the DNA scientists and any judge in the world would agree.