Anna Anderson's claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

I don't really think that you can say that FOTR is the source of this, see reference to TsDOOSO at the end of my posts.

Here is something another person posted on another message board:

I Think that the passage from King and Wilson 141-142 jumps to certain conclusions that I believe to be insufficiently supported by the evidence at hand. First of all, the Baroness was confined to the same cabins on the Rus as the Grand Duchesses - I doubt she would have been able to wander away from them speak to Rodionov without their knowledge - or at least suspicions- and if they were aware of her "betrayal", they would probably have told their mother, who would no doubt have been disgusted by Isa's behaviour and would not have anxiously asked Dr. Derevenko about her safety and the doctor recounts she did.

Most importantly, King and Wilson's account of the events does not match with the actions of the family's guards at the time. If Isa really did tell them exactly where the jewels were, it would have followed that they would have confiscated these jewels instead of waiting until the chaos of the murder on the night of the 17th, by which time the jewels might have been moved from their original hiding places.

Furthermore, if Isa had been so concerned with her own safety over that of the family - I doubt she would have joined them on the Rus in the first place. She would have instead pocketed Soloviev's money (if that is indeed what she did - that is also inconclusive) and deserted the cause before the journey to Ekaterinburg

This is simply my interpretation based on what evidence I have read. I believe there is a great deal about the last months of the Imperial family's lives that cannot be determined from the availible evidence and the conditions of Isa's release is one of them. I do not believe that King and Wilson's presentation of speculative conlusions in the form of facts helps our understanding of the Romanovs'situation in 1918. Speculation and theory should be clearly identified as such and not presented as the unquestionable truth.

The entire thing doesn't add up for all these reasons. The silliest thing imo is as this person said that if they knew they'd have confiscated the jewels and sold them! Much has been made of the bullets bouncing off the girls' bodices because of the jewels, why were they so surprised of they knew? They didn't know until they were undressing the bodies! It's all so self defeating!

That may be possible, but she certainly was not FS.

Why? Because she was such a 'high class lady of breeding' she ended up looking like a bum, smelling like a port a john, acting like an imbecile, living in filth and becoming the joke of the town?

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

And when did she meet with AA?

She could probably tell from the pictures alone. It was because of her own experiences that Elena, who had made the trek out of Russia herself, knew AA's escape story was ridiculous and impossible.

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

Princess Eleana, Grand Duchess Ioann Konstanovich, also went free. Probably, but who knows, because her father was King of Serbia. But she was in prison several places and in Ekaterinburg, was in the cell with Countess Hendrikova and Mll. Schneider and they were removed and shot. She eventually made it to Sweden after being imprisoned for many months. She was the only member of the Imperial Family to fall into the hands of the Ural Soviets and survive. When Anna Anderson was attracting publicity in the 1950's, she felt she had to put her story on record. She said AA was not AN and she felt it was her duty to say so. She never accused Bux of anything.

Here's a first hand account, she was there and talked to people who had been with the family, so she would know!

How come no one wonders why those two others were taken out and shot and Eleana was not? Did she 'betray the family' too?

[COUNTESS]

No, she was devoted to the family. The other stuff is nonsense. Elena did not think Anderson's photos looked anything like AN. She spoke up, because she hated the charade. Now, Chat will say Elena never met AA and he is right, but AA never met AN, so they are even.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Here is something another person posted on another message board:

I Think that the passage from King and Wilson 141-142 jumps to certain conclusions that I believe to be insufficiently supported by the evidence at hand. First of all, the Baroness was confined to the same cabins on the Rus as the Grand Duchesses - I doubt she would have been able to wander away from them speak to Rodionov without their knowledge - or at least suspicions- and if they were aware of her "betrayal", they would probably have told their mother, who would no doubt have been disgusted by Isa's behaviour and would not have anxiously asked Dr. Derevenko about her safety and the doctor recounts she did.

Most importantly, King and Wilson's account of the events does not match with the actions of the family's guards at the time. If Isa really did tell them exactly where the jewels were, it would have followed that they would have confiscated these jewels instead of waiting until the chaos of the murder on the night of the 17th, by which time the jewels might have been moved from their original hiding places.

Furthermore, if Isa had been so concerned with her own safety over that of the family - I doubt she would have joined them on the Rus in the first place. She would have instead pocketed Soloviev's money (if that is indeed what she did - that is also inconclusive) and deserted the cause before the journey to Ekaterinburg

This is simply my interpretation based on what evidence I have read. I believe there is a great deal about the last months of the Imperial family's lives that cannot be determined from the availible evidence and the conditions of Isa's release is one of them. I do not believe that King and Wilson's presentation of speculative conlusions in the form of facts helps our understanding of the Romanovs'situation in 1918. Speculation and theory should be clearly identified as such and not presented as the unquestionable truth.

And, as the poster says, it is simply my interpretation. Nothing more, nothing less. And King and Wilson do not speculate, they quote Bykov.

The entire thing doesn't add up for all these reasons. The silliest thing imo is as this person said that if they knew they'd have confiscated the jewels and sold them! Much has been made of the bullets bouncing off the girls' bodices because of the jewels, why were they so surprised of they knew? They didn't know until they were undressing the bodies! It's all so self defeating!

In his 1922 memoirs, Yurovsky wrote of "the damn valuables and jewels we knew they had concealed in their clothes when they arrived , which caused troubles to no end." (Yakov Yurovsky, unpublished memoirs, 1922, in Archicves of the President of the Russian Federation (APRF), f. 3, op. 58, d.280.) Do you still find it self defeating?

Why? Because she was such a 'high class lady of breeding' she ended up looking like a bum, smelling like a port a john, acting like an imbecile, living in filth and becoming the joke of the town?

Obviously, you need to catch up on your reading.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

No, she was devoted to the family. The other stuff is nonsense. Elena did not think Anderson's photos looked anything like AN. She spoke up, because she hated the charade. Now, Chat will say Elena never met AA and he is right, but AA never met AN, so they are even.

No, AA never met AN. That's for sure. And neither did Elena. Pity.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

She could probably tell from the pictures alone. It was because of her own experiences that Elena, who had made the trek out of Russia herself, knew AA's escape story was ridiculous and impossible.

What pictures?

Here's a first hand account, she was there and talked to people who had been with the family, so she would know!

Yes, she talked to people who had been with the family. But Gleb and Tatiana Botkin was WITH the family. Why don't you trust them?

How come no one wonders why those two others were taken out and shot and Eleana was not? Did she 'betray the family' too?

I think Countess just stated that her father was the king of Serbia.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

Yes, she talked to people who had been with the family. But Gleb and Tatiana Botkin was WITH the family. Why don't you trust them?

Because they were so active in her claim, and he was a writer, and it all looks so perfect that he was at least partially behind it all.

I think Countess just stated that her father was the king of Serbia.

She stated that she had been in prison with Hendrikova and Schneider before they were shot, and they never said anything about any 'betrayal.'

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Because they were so active in her claim, and he was a writer, and it all looks so perfect that he was at least partially behind it all.

They were active in her claim because they firmly believed her to be AN. But all this nonsense of "being behind it all" is just what it is. Pure, unadulterated nonsense. Gleb Botkin did not meet AA until May, 1927, long after the notoriety of her claim had made headlines all over.

She stated that she had been in prison with Hendrikova and Schneider before they were shot, and they never said anything about any 'betrayal.'

And who would have told them?

[tian]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

When AA described the little swastika mascot on the Tsarina's car, Gilliard published a photo of same car with a big swastika drawn in on the door to show the public that nobody could miss it.

There are pictures of Emperor's car with swastika hood ornament in Larisa Yermilova's book Last Tsar.

More information of imperial cars : The Imperial Garage - alt.talk.royalty | Google Groups

[ferrymansdaughter]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Why? Because she was such a 'high class lady of breeding' she ended up looking like a bum, smelling like a port a john, acting like an imbecile, living in filth and becoming the joke of the town?

I think this comment is completely unnecessary. We know you think she was FS, there is no need to be so nasty. She had a breakdown and therefore whoever she was deserves our sympathy. If she was FS - her fiance was killed and then according to you, she saw a man blown up in front of her, you'd be a bit nutty too. Incidentally It's not just poor people who end up as bag ladies or tramps.

[ferrymansdaughter]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

.

But technically, she didn't know German. As we've discussed before it's very possible for a person to have German lessons and not know it, I know several people in that category. Olga A. said 'German was never used in the family.' This means, even if it had been studied some it was not used and therefore not really known...

Well, I hate to be pedantic here but technically, she DID know German since she had lessons several times a week for some years (I believe the schoolbooks examined during the trial started in 1913) . Maybe she wasn't a fluent speaker - but neither was AA.

As for the rest of your diatribe - iread it again, it doesn't make sense.

[PrinceOfCanada]

Here's what I don't understand.

Prior to all the DNA stuff (and even after), people insisted that Anna Anderson was GD Anastasia.

Then the DNA came to light.

Now some people are insisting that she was Franziska something or other.

Why is there this desperate need to believe that Anna Anderson was anyone other than... Anna Anderson?

[OlgaNikolaievna]

Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada

Here's what I don't understand.

Prior to all the DNA stuff (and even after), people insisted that Anna Anderson was GD Anastasia.

Then the DNA came to light.

Now some people are insisting that she was Franziska something or other.

Why is there this desperate need to believe that Anna Anderson was anyone other than... Anna Anderson?

Because there is no such person as Anna Anderson. It was only a name made up for Miss Unknown from the asylums in Berlin who claimed to be Anastasia to use when she came to America. There was no real Anna Anderson so it's only right to want to know who this anonymous person was who was using this name and saying she was a grand duchess. The reason people say she was Franziska is because Franziska is the person detectives in the 1920's said the Miss Unknown really was and now the DNA has shown us this was true. In reading the accusations against Baroness Sophie Buxohevedon it's not surprising Anna Anderson and her supporters wanted to try to discredit her denouncement of Anna. Her statements against Anna being either Tatiana or Anastasia are very damaging. She remembered the girls so well she was able to describe in detail the formation of their teeth, fingers and nails. Being a person who knew the girls that closely and saying with no reservations at all that the Miss Unknown was not one of the girls looks very bad for the claimant and her supporting cast. Therefore Sophie must become an untrustworthy liar. I do not believe she was.

[Elspeth]

The DNA has strongly indicated that Anna was Franziska, but it hasn`t shown it unequivocally. The DNA evidence that Anna wasn`t Anastasia is much stronger than the DNA evidence that Anna was Franziska.

[Michael HR]

Forgive if I am wrong but did not the DNA show a match to a Nephew of AF thus suggesting that AF was of that family? If the match was positive it shows that AF/AA shared the same maternal line as the Polish Nephew.

You are also right in saying that the DNA did not match at all the maternal line of the Empress via the blood/DNA of Prince Philip, also of the same maternal line.

Therefore AA was not AN.

Therefore AA was AF

Michael

Originally Posted by Elspeth

The DNA has strongly indicated that Anna was Franziska, but it hasn`t shown it unequivocally. The DNA evidence that Anna wasn`t Anastasia is much stronger than the DNA evidence that Anna was Franziska.

[Elspeth]

It did show a match, but it was an mtDNA analysis, not a genetic fingerprint. So it wasn`t a unique match, it was a match to a member of a group. The authors estimate that there`s a 1 in 300 chance that this match didn`t indicate a familial relationship, but that`s not an insignificant chance although certainly not a high one.

As far as the match with DNA from relatives of the Tsarina, there were mismatches, and that`s exceedingly unlikely if the subject really was related to the Tsarina herself.

This means that the likelihood that Anna Anderson wasn`t Anastasia is much greater than the likelihood that she was Franziska Schankowska, although the latter is also fairly likely on the basis of the DNA analysis. Without some major interference with the samples - the same interference in two or three independent cases - it`s virtually certain from the DNA that Anna wasn`t Anastasia. Because of the nature of mtDNA analysis, from the DNA it`s highly likely that she was Franziska Schankowska but it`s not virtually certain by any means.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

it`s virtually certain from the DNA that Anna wasn`t Anastasia. Because of the nature of mtDNA analysis, from the DNA it`s highly likely that she was Franziska Schankowska but it`s not virtually certain by any means.

Isn't it (at 100% exclusion) totally certain that AA was not AN, and virtually certain (at 99.9%) that she was FS? (since DNA proving who you are is never going to be 100%, only in cases of who you aren't) The likelihood she is anyone else other than FS is very, very small. (as posted in DaveK's detailed analysis) Combined with the fact that FS was the 'main suspect' other than AN all along, and that the pictures look just like FS, and that FS vanished from the same city in the same time frame, it's close to mathematically impossible she was anyone else.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Isn't it (at 100% exclusion) totally certain that AA was not AN, and virtually certain (at 99.9%) that she was FS? (since DNA proving who you are is never going to be 100%, only in cases of who you aren't) The likelihood she is anyone else other than FS is very, very small. (as posted in DaveK's detailed analysis) Combined with the fact that FS was the 'main suspect' other than AN all along, and that the pictures look just like FS, and that FS vanished from the same city in the same time frame, it's close to mathematically impossible she was anyone else.

The odds of Anna Anderson not being Franziska Schankowska were given in the Gill-Stoneking paper as 1 in 300, if I remember right (I'm away from home this week so I can't check). I'm told by someone a lot better at arithmetic than I am that that translates to 99.67%, not 99.99%. Gill and Stoneking weren't prepared to say that Anna Anderson was definitely Franziska Schankowska on the basis of the DNA evidence although they seemed to be confident that she wasn't Anastasia.

Whether other evidence in addition to the DNA evidence makes the Franziska Schankowska identification more likely is another matter. The original point was whether the DNA tests showed definitively that Anna Anderson was Franziska Schankowska, and they don't. They indicate a strong likelihood, but that's not quite the same.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

The odds of Anna Anderson not being Franziska Schankowska were given in the Gill-Stoneking paper as 1 in 300, if I remember right (I'm away from home this week so I can't check). I'm told by someone a lot better at arithmetic than I am that that translates to 99.67%, not 99.99%.

That was their estimate at the time but since then, as more DNA patterns among Europeans have been discovered, and the use of the Bayesian method, it turns out FS's DNA was more unique than originally thought, so now the odds are at least 1/5000 and possibly as high as 1/100,000. Here is DaveK's revision based on his own research using the original results and newer methods, and other factors:

Gill explained his 1/300 odds in his paper in 1995.

However, that data was outdated, and didn't incorporate the Bayesian method. It's not only mtDNA. How many people do you think there were a girl who looked like Anna Anderson, almost same age, same hair/eye color, who disappeared in a same time when AA appeared in the same region!! You have to take that into account by Bayesian inference (the court of law requires forensic scientists to use Bayesian). Here is my calculation. Come to think of it, I will also post the population genetics paper I cited in this calculation.

Question 2) Is the random match probability of AA’s DNA really 1/300?

Some AA proponents assert that AA’s specific mtDNA type is very common type, therefore a match between AA and FS is just by accident. However, this argument is fundamentally flawed. If so, why don’t they just show the data of someone who has same mtDNA? There are more than dozens populaiton genetics papers that you can check very easily. They can’t, because their claim is not true.

Before showing the evidence, I have to point out that the probability 1/300 reported in Peter Gill’s study in 1995 was outdated. Gill “guessed” the number from statistical average because he didn’t find AA’s mtDNA type in database available in 1995. Therefore, any unknown mtDNA in 1995 was estimated as “1/300” temporally, even if its actual probability is 1/5000 or 1/100,000 (!).

To get more accurate estimate, I checked all mtDNA (HVI) database available to me that contained 8,902 sequences of European Caucasian including US Caucasian, British, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Polish, Russian, Hungarian, Austrian, Dutch, Norwegian, Swedish, Ashkenazic Jewish, Belgian, Icelandic, Austrian, Bulgarian, Portuguese and so on. I also checked African and Asian population just in case. Most convenient sources are major human genetics journals such as Annals of Human Genetics and American Journal of Human Genetics (especially Annals of Human Genetics vol 67 (2003), p281 was helpful). Also computerized database were used, such as NCBI GenBank, European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), and US Department of Justice FBI CODIS database.

The reason why I investigated different regions separately was to see “population structure” due to ethnic subgroup, but prevalence of Tara clan was 10 +/- 2% in all countries in Europe, which indicates there is no siginificant structure (also see Science Vol 254 p1735). I’ll discuss this issue in Question 3.

TABLE 4 (Some examples of European mtDNA (HVI) studies)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
French (total = 109)
9 person has the most common type: CRS (no mutation)
Almost all other 93 person has a unique mtDNA (does not share mtDNA each other).
No one has AA’s mtDNA (16126C, 16266T, 16294T, 16304C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Autstrian (total = 101)
9 person has the most common type: CRS (no mutation)
Almost all other 80 person has a unique mtDNA (does not share mtDNA each other).
No one has AA’s mtDNA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
British (total = 100)
12 person has the most common type: CRS (no mutation)
No one has AA’s mtDNA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russians and Ukrainians (total = 201)
22 person has the most common type: CRS (no mutation)
No one has AA’s mtDNA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Polish (total = 436)
67 person has the most common type: CRS (no mutation)
No one has AA’s mtDNA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
US Caucasians total = 323
61 person has the most common type: CRS (no mutation)
No one has AA’s mtDNA


In all regions, by far the most common mtDNA haplotype (HVI) is CRS (Cambridge Reference sequence). About 10% of population in any country (except US) has this sequence (almost same prevalence as AB blood type), i.e. about 65 million European has an exactly same mtDNA sequence (at HVI). There is no known reason why this specific type is so prevalent. It seems just stochastic genetic drift event. A friend of mine jokes this mtDNA type is related to “beauty phenotype” expressed in their daughters, but I don’t think it’s true. (By the way, this CRS sequence itself from a British woman whose identity kept secret for some reason since 1981. A rumor goes that it was a researcher’s wife’s mtDNA.)

However, this CRS mtDNA is an exception. Almost all other mtDNA type is rare, usually less than 1%. For example, I checked Tsarina’s mtDNA type 16111T/16357C. There was 0 in database of 8902 caucasians. Tsar’s mtDNA was also rare, 0 out of 8902. And Anna Anderson’s mtDNA had 1 in 8902 (1 found in Iceland study). therefore the random match probability is 1/8902 = 0.01%: about 30 times rarer than the original Peter Gill’s estimate (1/300).

So, can I conclude from this DNA evidence alone? Not so fast. I think many people confuse DNA’s random match probability, likelihood ratio, with Posterior Odds. To discuss if AA is FS, we have to discuss posterior odds.

Bayesian inference is the logical/mathematical framework to interpret the combined probability of independent event. Forensic science in both US and UK are always interepreted in a logical sturucture of Bayesian inference. In the court, forensic exprert are instructed by judge to testify only regarding to “DNA random match probability” or “likelihood ratio”, but what really concern jury is the posterior odds. Here I try to be a jury rather than a DNA expert.

O (posterior) = O (prior) * DNA likelihood ratio

Roughly speaking, if two person’s sex, age, physical feature including height, hair color, face feature, prior odds are 1:10. Considering FS has been missing at almost exactly same time at same geological area as AA appeared, even conservative odds brings this to 1:100. DNA random probability is a simply inverse of likelihood ratio in this case, so my calculation shows:

O (posterior) = 1/100 x 1/9000 = 1/900,000 (that is to say, probability that AA is FS is 99.9999%)

As “reasonable doubt” is generally considered O(posterior)(threshold)
=1/10,000, it is reasonable to accept hypothesis that “AA is FS”.

Therefore, with overwhelming evidential support and lack of alternative scenario, I support the hypothesis that AA= FS.

[Elspeth]

I was reporting what Dr Gill himself had said. With years of scientific training behind me, I'm a lot more confident about an assertion of 1 in 300 in a peer-reviwed paper than in an assertion of 1 in 10,000 in what looks like more of an opinion piece. The 99.67% likelihood is still impressively high, as Dr Gill said; it just isn't iron-clad certain, especially as a stand-alone data point.