Anna Anderson's claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia

[bruser]

I believe it is 99.9% proof.If a person in a city of one million people committed a murder that leaves one thousand suspects.BUT i could be quite wrong, that info can easily be found on the net.

[Menarue]

In this case we are in a different position. This case is a different to that, we know who murdered the Grand Duchesses and now their bodies have been found and identified by dna so AA can´t be the dead Grand Duchess even though she, for whatever reason wanted to be her. The people around her making claims were obviously either tricked, or trying to make money out of her, including authors of books.

[ChatNoir]

All? really? I don't see anyone who had a personal relationship with her accept her except your Botkins who, well, you know what I think.

Really? What about Lili Dehn, Alexis Volkov, Grand Duke Andrew, aunt Olga, Pierre Gilliard etc etc.

[quote]Well there you go, that's not exactly widespread, and most people would never see them.[/quote[

That was in 1920. And I assume the only people who saw them, were those who were missing a relative or friend, like the Schankowskis, for example. The papers did not get hold of the story until after Clara Peuthert's tale of a Grand Duchess at Dalldorf.

She's talking about AA, not AN.

Of course she is. And in spite of those unforgettable eyes, not a single one of FS's siblings could remember the color of FS's eyes.

I was talking about Poland in the 20's so this has nothing do to with the story!

No, you were talking Germany in the 20's. And no matter how you try to spin your story, the fact is that NOBODY ever came forward to say: That's Franzisca, I remember her face.
When the photo of FS hit the Nachtausgabe, three nurses from an asylum in Herrenprotsch near Posen, came forward and said that FS had been their patient in the asylum for 5 years.

As a matter of fact if I had it I'd pay a million to bury your stupid AA story into the ground!

Oh, I am sure you would, it seems to threaten you a lot. But the problem is, it is not my story. It is the story of AA told by those who were there when it happened.

The difference is, Olga, Ernie and Irene were innocent.

And what crime were the Botkins guilty of?

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Menarue

In this case we are in a different position. This case is a different to that, we know who murdered the Grand Duchesses and now their bodies have been found and identified by dna so AA can´t be the dead Grand Duchess even though she, for whatever reason wanted to be her. The people around her making claims were obviously either tricked, or trying to make money out of her, including authors of books.

Maybe you could post a link to those DNA results?

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

Really? What about Lili Dehn, Alexis Volkov, Grand Duke Andrew, aunt Olga, Pierre Gilliard etc etc.

And how did I know you were going to say the same thing, and always use Olga and Gilliard even though they denied her, how tiring. We've been through this dozens of times! Andrew did not know her enough to be a judge of her and accepted AA before he ever met her. Lili was elderly and tricked by lines from her own book, and Volkov said the people around her were suspect and made exucses for her wrong answers.

That was in 1920. And I assume the only people who saw them, were those who were missing a relative or friend, like the Schankowskis, for example. The papers did not get hold of the story until after Clara Peuthert's tale of a Grand Duchess at Dalldorf.

Well there you go then! The claims of being 'plastered all over the far corners of the republic' were greatly exaggerated, just as I suspected.

Of course she is. And in spite of those unforgettable eyes, not a single one of FS's siblings could remember the color of FS's eyes.

ONE person who didn't even know the real AN said this. It shoots you in the foot, because the real AN was not known for her 'unforgettable eyes.' Of course AA's stuck out, bulging and glaring over the sheets she was hiding under![quote

No, you were talking Germany in the 20's. And no matter how you try to spin your story, the fact is that NOBODY ever came forward to say: That's Franzisca, I remember her face.

Polish territory taken over by Germany and near the border. This still means your stoyr has nothing to do with the situation. I have already explained the reasons nobody came forward, and now I have a new one! You admit the pics were only in police stations!

When the photo of FS hit the Nachtausgabe, three nurses from an asylum in Herrenprotsch near Posen, came forward and said that FS had been their patient in the asylum for 5 years.

So where is the proof? There is none, because FS was wherever AA was.

Oh, I am sure you would, it seems to threaten you a lot. But the problem is, it is not my story. It is the story of AA told by those who were there when it happened.

And many men were in prison based on eyewitness testimony and 'stories of those who knew' but when the DNA came in it freed them and none of that mattered anymore. Same here.

And what crime were the Botkins guilty of?

You know what I think.

Maybe you could post a link to those DNA results?

I've posted you numerous links and stories and quotes, they haven't satisfied you yet and none ever will. Why bother?

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by bruser

I believe it is 99.9% proof.If a person in a city of one million people committed a murder that leaves one thousand suspects.BUT i could be quite wrong, that info can easily be found on the net.

I'm not quite sure I know what you are getting at. The 99.9% is that AA is FS, because DNA can never prove who you are, only who you are not- she was a 100% exclusion from being Anastasia, or related to the royal family. That is certain.

[Menarue]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

Maybe you could post a link to those DNA results?

Chat I am not interested in the "link" game. I really believe after all your posts that if AA told you face to face that she had fooled you, you would ask her for a "link".
It is very exasperating as you know very well in your heart of hearts that you have been fooled, that is if you ever really believed in this person, and now I understand that you are very reluctant to admit being duped.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

And how did I know you were going to say the same thing, and always use Olga and Gilliard even though they denied her, how tiring.

Yes, they finally denied her, without ever seeing her again, changing their story as they went along. Very, very convincing.

Andrew did not know her enough to be a judge of her and accepted AA before he ever met her.

He knew her well enough to recognize her. And in addition to looking like Anastasia, she also had a striking family resemblance to the Romanovs.

Lili was elderly and tricked by lines from her own book,

And how do you know that? Lili Dehn spent a whole week with AA and said: She never made a mistake.

and Volkov said the people around her were suspect and made exucses for her wrong answers.

Where is that quote from?
Before his death, he confided to his friend Dr. Serge Ostrogorsky that the interview with the invalid had moved him deeply, that he had been crying and had kissed her hand, which certainly he would never have done if someone other than Grand Duchess Anastasia had been standing before him.
Volkov started crying and told Ostrogorsky, "It is true, I believe that she is the Grand Duchess, but how can the Grand Duchess speak no Russian?"

Well there you go then! The claims of being 'plastered all over the far corners of the republic' were greatly exaggerated, just as I suspected.

No, they were not exaggerated. From Peter Kurth: Her pictures and prints were sent out to Stuttgart, Brunswick, Hamburg, Munich, Dresden - to all the corners of the Weimar Republic. (Fritz Schuricht's protocol of conversations with "Kommisar X," April 19, 1927, EHF.)

ONE person who didn't even know the real AN said this. It shoots you in the foot, because the real AN was not known for her 'unforgettable eyes.' Of course AA's stuck out, bulging and glaring over the sheets she was hiding under!

I don't think she was hiding under a sheet at the tea party with Frau Müller-Mittler.
From Tatiana Botkin: When I first saw her face close up, and especially her eyes, so blue and so full of light, I immediately recognized the Grand Duchess Anastasia Nicolaievna.
From Gleb Botkin: But above all there were her eyes - those luminous, blue, truly bewitching eyes - unforgettable and unmistakable - which to me only two people in the whole world had possessed - Emperor Nicholas II of Russia and his youngest daughter, Grand Duchess Anastasia.
From Mathilde Kschessinska: I am still certain it is she. When she looked at me with those eyes....It was the exact same look. It was the Emperor's look. And anyone who saw the Emperor's eyes will never forget them.

I have already explained the reasons nobody came forward, and now I have a new one! You admit the pics were only in police stations!

You haven't explained a single thing, just put a spin on it. The first photos only went to police stations. Later, her pictures were featured in magazines and newspapers for everyone to see, as far away as New York. But NOBODY came forward to identify her as Franzisca. NOBODY!

You know what I think.

Yes, I think we all know that, but unfortunately, it doesn't matter.

I've posted you numerous links and stories and quotes, they haven't satisfied you yet and none ever will. Why bother?

You are correct. Why bother spinning the story when I catch you at every turn.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Menarue

Chat I am not interested in the "link" game. I really believe after all your posts that if AA told you face to face that she had fooled you, you would ask her for a "link".

And it may surprise you to know, that all I am after, is the true story. Whoever AA was, there is no reason to make up things in order to fit the square pegs into the round holes. And since you are the one who are stating that the DNA is proof that the last children have been found, I would expect you to be able to back up that statement.

It is very exasperating as you know very well in your heart of hearts that you have been fooled, that is if you ever really believed in this person, and now I understand that you are very reluctant to admit being duped.

And in which post did I state that ANNA ANDERSON WAS ANASTASIA?

[Menarue]

You didn´t? Then good for you!

[Anna was Franziska]

Chat this has become ridiculous. You do not 'catch me at every turn' you keep saying the same old meaningless garbage over and over and I am not going to keep reposting all the same responses I've given you before, because everyone else here finds it tiring and circular. If you really want to know, go back and look at the previous pages of this thread, or look at my site, I have compiled most of what I've found there. Either you honestly don't remember these things I've posted before, (such as telling you the Volkov quote came from Klier and MIngay, as I do every single time I post it and you deny ever having seen it before) due to mental blockage or memory loss or you are playing a silly game with me to annoy me and get me to keep on posting the same things again so you can always say you don't believe them and then in a couple days ask the same questions like you never saw them. Do you have Alzheimer's, or are you playing games, or have you honestly blocked out all anti-AA info from your mind in your delusional fantasy? I am sorry, but it's one of the three, and I am not going to coddle you any more by playing fetch. I've answered it all before and all the proof is in this thread, and elsewhere online. If you really don't remember the large numbers of news stories on the last two kids being found, and the National Geographic special with the DNA results, nothing I can say or post will ever mean a thing to you, and neither will the final scientific report. None of the other DNA tests mean a thing to you, the Gill papers, even Melton's own personal letters. You simply choose to believe in an imposter who didn't even look like AN because you want to. And the old man I've been taking care of at work is convinced it's 1978 and he's looking for his Ford truck at the Scottsville service station, getting angry I can't see what he sees, but it's not really there- just like AA is not AN. You have proven with all your posts that you do believe in AA and defend her to the end. If you only wanted 'the real story' you'd accept the real story- that they DNA proved her a fake and the mystery is over.

[ChatNoir]

Of course it has become ridiculous. You are desperately trying to change the story by posting answers like: I don't believe it, it didn't happen, she/he was old and tricked, he/she did not know her well enough and so on and so on. And don't tell me that I choose to believe in an impostor and so on. I simply find the story interesting, but I have not invested my life in it by building websites and running a division on MySpace just to force my views down everybody's throats. Look at Tsarskoe, he and I hold different views, but when he is on the attack, he has something to back it up with. Go Thou and do likewise!
As for the Volkov quote, Klier and Mingay were not present, and they do not disclose when and where Volkov is supposed to have said so. "The people present" were Harriet Rathlef-Keilmann and Herluf Zahle. And how could Volkov say that "they finished her answers or gave excuses for her wrong answers" when AA answered in German, a language that Volkov did not speak? And how could Frau Rathlef Keilmann finish any answers, she knew nothing about Anastasia, persons at the court and the IF.

[Anna was Franziska]

Chat like I said you have either lost your memory or are trying to annoy me. I have given you load and loads of quotes, links, and other evidence. It will never be good enough for you. Nothing will ever convince you, you'll just say the person who said it is a liar. We'll never know for sure who told her what and you'll never find it on a page in Kurth's book, but it happened, because science and history have proven her to not to be Anastasia, and that's the truth. I have PLENTY of 'backup' on the 2 missing kids being found, but I am too stubborn to post it, because I know that's what you want me to do. You're not going to play with me or manipulate me anymore. Go google it. But of course, you don't want to, you want me to play games with you, and I am not going do do that.

[AnastasiaEvidence]

We have been talking about the same subject and gave you the same exact information that was true about AA. Annie has gave you so much information on websites and other forums about AA and Anastasia. Annie also gave you information on AA, and the 2 recently found remains of Alexei and Anastasia,on three other forums.I don't believe you want to even accept the truth, you choose to ignore the facts. You rather believe in AA's fraud story, instead of reality and facts. I just think ChatNoir's asking the same questions again just to annoy us. What a waste of time.

[ChatNoir]

I think this thread is called "Anna Anderson's claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia." Not "I can't stand anyone who goes against my opinion and confuse me with the same old story."
Get back on track, ladies!

[bruser]

I can only recommend that everyone go to the wikipedia encyclopaedia on the web there you will find the pros and cons of dna and eveyone can make up there mind about a method that can have some rare faults.

[Elspeth]

Actually if you really want to find out about DNA testing, a book on the subject will be a better resource than a Wikipedia article. However, having established that like everything else, DNA testing isn't totally perfect, what does that mean as far as this particular case is concerned?

[Menarue]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

And it may surprise you to know, that all I am after, is the true story. Whoever AA was, there is no reason to make up things in order to fit the square pegs into the round holes. And since you are the one who are stating that the DNA is proof that the last children have been found, I would expect you to be able to back up that statement.



And in which post did I state that ANNA ANDERSON WAS ANASTASIA?

Chat if you never said this then I would appreciate it if you would set out clearly what your position is on this subject that we are discussing? Do you have doubts? Are you suspicious of AA´s glib answers? Why are you having doubts at this point? Is it the dna evidence that is getting to you at last? Up until this post I took you for an AA fanatic, but if I am wrong please set me straight.

[Anna was Franziska]

Again, here are the explainations and reasons for why the DNA tests in the AA case are NOT wrong, including a personal response from Dr. Terry Melton, who did some of the tests:

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Couldn't the sample have gotten switched or mixed up at the hospital?

This is the explaination of Penny Jenkins, who was responsible for Martha Jefferson Hospital's medical records, including blood and tissue samples. When asked of the possibility of 'substitution' of the tissue at the hospital, here was her reply:

"We have two separate backups. In 1979 when Dr. Shrum did surgery on Mrs. Manahan, we took slides of the tissue, in addition to preserving in paraffin the larger blocks of the excised tissue. Taking slides when doing surgery is routine, you take it, you look at it, and say, there is cancer, or it's not cancer, or it's an infection or whatever. We preserve these slides in one place and the paraffin wax in a totally different place.

"Furthermore, when we moved the tissue from storage back to the hospital in early 1993, Dr, Thomas Dudley, the assistant pathologist, cut some new slides from one of the blocks. We compared these new slides cut in 1993 with those slides cut in 1979 and they were identical. If someone had swapped them in storage during the last couple of years, they would not have matched. And the chance that anybody was able to get to both locations and switch both slides without access to specimen numbers is impossible."
(source: Massie, "The Romanovs: The Final Chapter")

What about how the hospital first claimed they had nothing in her name, then found it later. Isn't that suspicious?

No, the reason the hospital didn't find it right away was mainly because the person who originally asked for the sample gave the names "Anna Anderson" and "Mrs. Jack Manahan", but the sample was filed under the name "Anastasia Manahan" (her husband's real name was John, Jack was only a nickname, and it was under her name, not his, so this is why the computer searches originally gave no matches.)
(source: Klier and Mingay, "Quest for Anastasia")

But couldn't there have been some mistake? Aren't there some recent reports of errors in some tests?

In the days when the AA testing was done, there were only a few people who knew how to do it. They were the pioneers, and specialists who were very good at their work. The main scientists involved are still working today and have very highly regarded reputations in the scientific and legal communities. These days, there are a lot more DNA labs out there, and there are thousands of people working in them, some who are not as expert as they should be. There are even commercials inviting you to go to lab x downtown and get a DNA sample done of a hundred dollars. You can even have your dog's DNA tested via mail order. With all these new labs, some with questionable employees and procedures, there may be a mistake once in awhile. BUT the thing to consider and realize in the AA case is that, in addition to the high level of expertise and integrity of those involved, the tests were done in FOUR different labs- three for the intestines, one for the hair. All labs reached the same exact result. If one had 'goofed', one would not match the others. If they all goofed, none would match. It's impossible that they would all make the same random error. The tests were accurate, and the scientists involved will be the first to tell you there is no need to test them again, you will get the same result. If you have the money and the time and want to try to challenge it in court, go for it, but you will lose.

Personal letter from Dr. Terry Melton:

My response to you is the same that I give to everyone who questions the legitimacy of the Anderson results:

Multiple labs got the same results on different tissues (hair/intestinal tissues) at different times. Independent testing such as this is best practice in forensic testing, especially when the results are going to be scrutinized at the level of this case. It is highly unlikely that the same results would be obtained in different labs if the work was shoddy. More likely, the labs would have gotten different results that made no sense compared to each other.

The science that was used is basic, and the methods, while becoming more sensitive and streamlined since the time of the original tests, were and are designed to get at the most basic building blocks of human identity: the DNA sequence. The DNA sequence cannot change when the methods change. There is no more elemental level of inspection.

Conspiracy theories don't worry me. The weight of well-conceived and time-tested protocols carried out by laboratories with impeccable credentials and nothing to gain from either answer are behind all the results, which have been published in scientific, peer-reviewed literature.

I hope this helps.

Best wishes,
Terry Melton

So there you go. The samples couldn't have been switched or mixed up, and if there had been an error in any one of tests, they all wouldn't have matched. No switch, no mistakes. AA was not AN.

Here's another issue- to those who think there's something dishonest about Prince Phillip's blood being used to test the Victorian/Hessian line: He was not the first! Earlier, the blood of Princess Katherine of Yugoslavia was taken in London, and the Victorian DNA sequenced at Brown University. This was a private test involving a descendant of a Tatiana claimant. The DNA did not match the claimant's child, but the DNA of Princess Katherine DID match exactly that of Prince Phillip, proving there was no mistake or falsifications in the Victorian/Hessian line sequenced in the AA case.


Also: why the DNA tests done on AA's samples are NOT outdated and why it wouldn't make any difference to retest:


But aren't the 1994 tests now outdated? Don't they need to retest using the newer 23 point testing?

Not in the case of mtDNA, or the Anna Anderson tests. Perhaps this explaination will help.

For example (this is going to be extremely oversimplified, but ok for our purposes). Here are two sequences:


ACTGGGTAACGTAAGGTC
AGTAAGCCACTATACGCC


So we are comparing them to see if the two match. Normally you won't compare the entire sequence but just part of it...

So if we look at random loci (positions) then there is a chance we may get a false positive if we don't look at enough of them... Like this:

ACTGGGTAACGTAAGGTC
AGTAAGCCACTATACGCC


So even though these specific loci match, the sequence doesn't. Statistically speaking, the more loci you compare the more accurate the result will be, because in this case, if you did one more, there would be a mismatch and we would have our answer.

However, with mismatch, it's a different story once there is a mismatch, even of one base. So if you look at the same sequence but compare more loci and get one mismatch, it's a mismatch, period. There is no way you can a false mismatch... Like this:

ACTGGGTAACGTAAGGTC
AGTAAGCCACTATACGCC


And once there is a mismatch, even ONE mismatch, all bets are off.

To be clear. Whether one looks at 13 or 23 loci, ONE mismatch is an exclusion for mtDNA. The case of Anna Manahan had FIVE mismatches to the Victoria line of descent. There were NO mismatches for the Karl Maucher mtDNA. IF one examines 23 loci, the same five mis-matches will STILL be there. This is the reason that every single specialist in forensic mtDNA analysis says there is no reason to re test the Anna manahan samples.

Yes the entire genome is vast, BUT every single human being shares the exact same sequences over 99.5% of the genome. The actual amount of variation is rather small, and occurs in what is called "junk DNA". Only certain strings of junk DNA will match with close blood relations. HOWEVER, only two or three max. mis matches will exclude relationship 100% no doubt. THIS is why those claiming the mtDNA of Anna Anderson should be retested or is "unrealiable" are simply uninformed, misguided or deliberately avoiding the reality.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Menarue

Chat if you never said this then I would appreciate it if you would set out clearly what your position is on this subject that we are discussing?

My position is unimportant, it will change nothing, no matter what.

Do you have doubts? Are you suspicious of AA´s glib answers? Why are you having doubts at this point? Is it the dna evidence that is getting to you at last? Up until this post I took you for an AA fanatic, but if I am wrong please set me straight.

I simply think that all the evidence should be weighed like in any other case. It's as simple as that.