DNA and the law

[Anna was Franziska]

Well thanks to bear I have now wasted my afternoon where I was supposed to be doing more important things rereading Massie's book. If anyone is really interested, it contains many chapters and lengthy amounts of information on the intestine and the battle for it. The intestine was never moved until Gill came for it. Both Penny Jenkins of the hospital and Gill told how the intestine samples were stored in two differenet places with code numbers corresponding to the name. Later, Schweitzer, declaring that there was no way AA wasn't AN and no way she was FS, stated emphatically that there had to have bene 'manipulation and substitution.' He alleged that Ms. Jenkins, who controlled the samples, may have left papers lying on her desk when someone from the other camp was talking to her. Honestly, this is just grasping at straws. Even in the early 90's all that was most likely on computers. Another factor against a switch is that with so many people and groups trying to get control of the sample, some who believed AA and some who didn't, so many lawyers and special interests, it's very unlikely anyone would have switched it even if they could have. No one yet knew what the results would be, and really it didn't seem like anyone was too sure and from the time it was announced AN's skeleton was not in the grave. So why would anyone switch if they didn't know how the results would come out? I'm sure both sides really wanted to find out for sure.

Of course IMO the biggest case against any switch is, what would it have been switched with? Go find a member of the FS family, cut him open, find just exactly the same identical part of intestine AA had removed among many long yards, then sew him back up, and then go break into the lab, hack the hospital computers, get the numbers, change them to what you swapped with, then run? Even James Bond couldn't pull that off!

The entire idea of a switch is only a desperate, unrealistic grab by AA supporters who don't want to give up (and no, sorry, I don't believe anyone who doesn't believe she was AN but wonders if she was FS would care about this- why in the world would anyone swap it with a member of the FS family (kidnap him cut him open etc) if she weren't AN but some mysterious anonymous long lost FS cousin?)

It's time to GET REAL! NOW I've got more important things to do!

If anyone is that interested, please do read the later chapters of Massie's "Romanovs the Final Chapter" the whole intestine story is in there, dozens of pages long and I can't type them all.

[AGRBear]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

... [in part]...The intestine was never moved until Gill came for it. Both Penny Jenkins of the hospital and Gill told how the intestine samples were stored in two differenet places with code numbers corresponding to the name. ....

You are telling me that the original sample was NEVER moved. Are you talking about after it was moved from the lab after it was concluded it wasn't cancerous? Are you talking about when it was moved to be stored? Where were they stored? In the basement? The hospital turned into a teaching hospital and I'm sure things were moved and probably reorganized. Did these samples get moved, again, then? Did they go to storage outside the hospital or was everything still stored in the hospital? The hospital was in the middle of being renovated again in 1993. We're told that the "original" sample was then touched, sliced according to AWF:

>>....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.<<

It is unclear to me how Dr. Thomas Dudley fits into all of this. I don't know who "we" is. He was the "assistant pathologist" to whom? The hospital's chief of pathology or Dr. Gill's.

If he was part of the court order and the samples taken for testing in Dr. Gill's lab and in Dr. King's lab at UC, then this is a separate issue. What I'm trying to understand as a jurist listening to two excellent team of lawyers about chain of custody and that is the only subject at this point. I assume once the court got involved, the chain of custody can be proven due to official seals demanded in this kind of case.

Team "A", who presented their case first, has convinced me that the chain of custody was broken. They's done a darn good job. Now, I'm listening to 'team "B"", whom AWF friends have hired, who's giving me information/evidence/etc. to convince me that the chain of custody was not broken and that the sample of AA's was never switched/contaminated or whatever means someone would have taken to change the results BEFORE the scientists became invovled.

Let me rephrase: Between 1979 and 1993, before Dr. Dudley and others became involved, was the chain of custody broken?

This is fact #1:
>> Both Penny Jenkins of the hospital and Gill told how the intestine samples were stored in two differenet places with code numbers corresponding to the name.<<

I assume we're just talking about the "slide" and the original "5 inches" saved in paraffin as being the the "two samples" up to 1993.

The hair is a different issue.

AGRBear

[Anna was Franziska]

Bear the entire story is written in great detail in several chapters of Massie's book. Please read it for all your answers. There's nothing else I can say, if you won't believe Massie, hospital staff and scientists, you'll never believe me (and I don't think you want to)

[AGRBear]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Bear the entire story is written in great detail in several chapters of Massie's book. Please read it for all your answers. There's nothing else I can say, if you won't believe Massie, hospital staff and scientists, you'll never believe me (and I don't think you want to)

This has nothing whats-so-ever to do with believing or disbelieving anyone on the hosptial staff. This is merely asking for information/evidence/etc.. I don't understand why you keep thinking I'm calling anyone on the staff as being guilty of something. A sample of intestines from AA wasn't important once the doctor said it wasn't cancerous. Atleast, not until 1993. Actually we'll have to move the date back to 1992. This is the timeline I've established first on AP then, again, over on my forum RomanovsRussia. All of this has to do with just the CHAIN OF CUSTODY:

RomanovsRussia :: Login

[quote author=1 post_id=37 date=1149269435]Let's explore the timeline between the surgery of AA in Aug of 1979 to the delivery of the intestine sample to Dr. Gill on 29 June 1994.


20 Aug 1979 - AA was rushed to Martha Jefferson Hospital where Dr. Richard Shrum operated on her small intestine obstruction which prove to have turned gangrene. Massie tells us the details on p. 194-5 THE ROMANOVS, THE FINAL CHAPTER:

>>The procedure of sending the tissue to the pathology lab was sent 5 inches of intestines. This tissue was divided into five one-inch segments which were bathed in a issue preservative called formalin, sealed inside a block of paraffin wax one inch square and half an inch deep, and placed in a small blue and white box on a shelf filled with other similar boxes containing tissue specimens.<<

12 Feb 1984 - Anna Anderson Manahan died. Her body was cremated the same day.

July 1992 - Dr. William Maples stated that he believed Anastasia was the missing Grand Duchess and not Maria whom the Russians claimed was missing

22 Sept 1992 Syd Mandelaum writes to several major laboratories looking for genetic samples of AA's to test at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory or at Harvard Medical School because he was writing a book on DNA and wanted to add it's usage to forenic in regards to AA. The one letter went to Martha Jefferson Hospital where AA had surgery.

p. 195 Massie tells us the answer Mandelaum receive to his inquiry:

>>...Martha Jefferson Hospital, replied to Mandelbaun that "we have nothing here that could be useful to you."

Klier and Mingay give us more information on this request p. 203
>>...At the time the hospital was in a chaotic administrative state due to a major refurbishment, and although officals conducted a cursory search of their files, they did not find any recoreds under either of those names. Hospital officals claim they did not intentionally mislead Mandelbaum. Indeed there was no tissue sample stored in the hospital under either name proposed by Mandelbaum.<< The names he had given were Anna Anderson or Mrs. Jack Manahan.

22 Nov 1992 Mary DeWitt, p. 196, >>a student of forensic pathology of the University of Texas<< asked the hospiital for some tissue because she'd like to study it for a paper. They reply from Penny Jenkins was: >>"No, I can't help you."<< Mary DeWitt did not give up. She contacted Lovell asking for his help. Lovell received a letter from John Manahan's cousin Fred Manahan who granted Lovell authority to dispose of the tissue.

Dec 1992, two days after Mary DeWitt's first letter - Dr. Willi Korte conatacted Jenkins. Her story was different to Korte. She told him that they did have compartitive samples of AA.
p. 206 of Kleir and Mingay:
>>Korte's...phone calls galvanized the hospital's acting director of medical records, Penny Jenkins, to take a more detailed look at the hospital's patient database. She made a through search of the viles and the pathology departemtn's vaults and found that, indeed, a tissue sample from Anderson was held there, albeit under the name of Anatasia Manahan.<< This was found Dec 1992 one month after his first phone call.

Dec. 1992 - Thomas Kline with the law firm Andrews and Kurth contacted Jenkins. Jenkins told him they had samples.

Spring 1993 Mary DeWitt's lawyer contacted Martha Jefferson Hospital, again....

The agreement between DeWitt and Lovel disintergrated and Lovell refused to be part of DeWitt's research. Evidently DeWitt's husband was an investigator but there is no mention if he had been hired by anyone or if he was acting on his own or if she was just doing this on her own.

Jan 1993 - Thomas Kline contacted Fred Manahan who referred him to Lovell.

16 April 1993- Kline wrote to Lovell formally asking for help in obtaining access to AA's tissue for DNA testing to be done by the Forensic Insitute in Munich.

18 March 1993 -Kline wrote Lovell again and explained what he thought of Korte and suggested Dr. Mary-Claire King [UC Berkeley] if he did not wish to use Munich with whom Dr. Gill was a part.

date? Lovel contacted Richard Schweitzer for advice.

Meanwhile, Penny Jenkins who had been contacted by these people and attorneys, started to ask the hospital attorneys what needed to done. The hospital attorneys dealt with Richard Schwitzer who is a lawyer and use to post here on this forum.

[continued]

For the rest see my forum.

AGRBear

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by AGRBear

This has nothing whats-so-ever to do with believing or disbelieving anyone on the hosptial staff. This is merely asking for information/evidence/etc.. I don't understand why you keep thinking I'm calling anyone on the staff as being guilty of something.

Come on, bear, you're obviously thinking something happened and somebody is guilty of something or extremely inept, or you wouldnt keep this up. They have given you the 'information' and you either refuse to accept it or read your own what ifs into it. You will not just believe that nothing happened and the sample really was AA's and she did not match AN but did match FS.

A sample of intestines from AA wasn't important once the doctor said it wasn't cancerous. At least, not until 1993.

In Massie's book, I don't have time to find the page now but I read it yesterday, they said they kept every sample regardless of the condition or sickness because in case the same thing happened again it would help with treatment.

[Elspeth]

I assume we're just talking about the "slide" and the original "5 inches" saved in paraffin as being the the "two samples" up to 1993.

The hair is a different issue.

AGRBear

No it isn't. The results of the hair sample confirm the results of the intestine sample unless you want to invoke a massive coincidence or a widespread conspiracy. Why do you think they used two independent samples?

[AGRBear]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Two samples. The intestine and the hair.



The intestine sample was stored at the hospital for years. Presumably any sample stored at a hospital could be tampered with during that time since it wouldn't have been guarded by lawyers and their security experts for that entire time.

... [in part]....

The first point I'm trying to discuss is the "intestine sample". And, you do agree that "...any sample stores at a hospital could be tampered with during that time...."

Why? As you said, "... since it wouldn't have been guarded by lawyers and their security".

I agree.

AGRBear

[AGRBear]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

...[in part]...

In Massie's book, I don't have time to find the page now but I read it yesterday, they said they kept every sample regardless of the condition or sickness because in case the same thing happened again it would help with treatment.

Here is what Kleir and Mingay said in THE QUEST FOR ANASTASIA p. 205:

>>In common with other US institutions, the hospitals routinely keeps pathology samples from patients to use for comparative study and in case of future lawsuits over medical malpractice. Five one-inch biopies of Anna's tissue were preserved by the pathologist and stored for their hospital records and research.<<

This line leaps out at me and they are:
>>"tissue were preserved..for their hospital...research.<<

Since Martha Jefferson Hospitial was a teaching facility, was AA's biopies ever used for that purpose by any teacher or student for research?

AGRBear

[Elspeth]

This has nothing whats-so-ever to do with believing or disbelieving anyone on the hosptial staff. This is merely asking for information/evidence/etc.. I don't understand why you keep thinking I'm calling anyone on the staff as being guilty of something. A sample of intestines from AA wasn't important once the doctor said it wasn't cancerous. Atleast, not until 1993. Actually we'll have to move the date back to 1992. This is the timeline I've established first on AP then, again, over on my forum RomanovsRussia. All of this has to do with just the CHAIN OF CUSTODY:

But what's so special about the chain of custody if not to confirm that the sample is genuine? You're talking as though the chain of custody itself is the whole point of the exercise. It isn't. It's just one of the ways in which the identity of the sample can be confirmed.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by AGRBear

The first point I'm trying to discuss is the "intestine sample". And, you do agree that "...any sample stores at a hospital could be tampered with during that time...."

Why? As you said, "... since it wouldn't have been guarded by lawyers and their security".

I agree.

AGRBear

Which is why the researchers were checking that sample against an independent one. The hair sample. The one you're claiming isn't relevant.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by AGRBear

It is not acceptable in court if the chain of custody was broken, which I believe it might have been.

In a real court of law here in the USA, if it is proven that the chain of custody can not be proven then everything which surrounds the samples of the intestine will not be admitted into evidence during the case.

AGRBear

Could you provide some backup for this assertion? Such as guidelines from the American Bar Association or soemthing.

[AGRBear]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Could you provide some backup for this assertion? Such as guidelines from the American Bar Association or soemthing.

All you need to do is GOOGLE "legal chain of custody" and you'll find a number of sites that will explain what it means, what's accepted in court and what is not, including tests of DNA.

I'll quote the second one I found for those of you who are interested:

>> Legal
Chain of custody
Results of our formal DNA tests are guaranteed to be admissible any U.S. court of law due to the verified "chain of custody" and because the lab is AABB accredited. The chain of custody refers to the various chain of "hands" that the individual sample passes through. A legal chain of custody requires the samples to be collected in the presence of a third neutral party at a lab or hospital facility where all parties are photographed to verify their identity. <<


>>Home (self collection)
Chain of custody
Results from self collected DNA tests are normally not admissible in a court of law due to the lack of the "chain of custody". The chain of custody refers to the various chain of "hands" that the individual sample passes through. A legal chain of custody requires the samples to be collected in the presence of a third neutral party at a lab or hospital facility where all parties are photographed to verify their identity. If you need a court admissible test after completing a home test, we will apply the purchase price of your test to your court admissible test (see details).

You can still provide the results of a self collected DNA test to your attorney or Judge and they may accept the results if the outcome of the test is not being disputed. The results of a self collected test or a test without a valid chain of custody will have the following similar disclaimer (varies from lab to lab). "Paternity screening test results cannot be used in a court of law"<<

AGRBear

[Elspeth]

Yes, but these standards deal with collection of fresh samples for DNA testing, they don't address old DNA. There have been court cases where old DNA samples have been instrumental in overturning convictions, and these samples can't have had the sort of chain-of-custody standards that are set out for brand-new samples. The fact that such samples have been used in court cases means that these chain-of-custody standards, with a pair of eyes on the sample at every moment from collection to reporting of the results, aren't required in all cases.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Yes, but these standards deal with collection of fresh samples for DNA testing, they don't address old DNA. There have been court cases where old DNA samples have been instrumental in overturning convictions, and these samples can't have had the sort of chain-of-custody standards that are set out for brand-new samples. The fact that such samples have been used in court cases means that these chain-of-custody standards, with a pair of eyes on the sample at every moment from collection to reporting of the results, aren't required in all cases.

All those cases where people are getting their convictions overturned are based on stuff that's been stored for years. Where and how was it stored? File cabinet? Shelf in a storage room? Technically using the AA supporters' version of "MAYBE" something MIGHT have happened in storage, you could say that about anything and therefore none of it would be useful. Since, obviously, the courts don't look at it that way, there is no issue here. If something is stored under a certain name, and there's no proof or even reason to believe it may not be the original, then it is until proven otherwise. If it can't be, it stands. Same for the intestine.

Anyway Bear, now that all the bodies are identified AA hardly matters; we know she wasn't AN because AN was dead so why even pursue this?

[AGRBear]

If the chain-of-custody is established and the sample has been under court supervision, such as placed into the police storage area, then I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be used in a court years later.

In the case of AA's sample, it wasn't held in any kind of security at the hospital or later in storage.

The actual chain-of-custody started when the court became part of the case in 1992 and from that point one can establish exactly where it was in 1992, when they finally found it, until now.

If AWF doesn't wish to discuss this subject any farther, that's fine. But, I do and so do others who are interested in presenting accurate information.

AGRBear

[qui mal y pense]

Why does no one mention the DNA sample allegedly given by the DOE? The royal family has been accused of masterminding far more sinister things, why not absolve themselves of AA?

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by qui mal y pense

Why does no one mention the DNA sample allegedly given by the DOE? The royal family has been accused of masterminding far more sinister things, why not absolve themselves of AA?

Oh, they have, plenty of times! Blaming the Queen is a big conspiracy theory, but why? Why would she care especailly now and why waste money on it? The whole idea she paid millions to mastermind many aspects of a fraud that all had to match up is ridiculous. Besides, LOOK at her! AA doesn't look a thing like AN and does look like FS. AND- the new DNA tests on the bones found in 2007 prove they are the two missing children so no one got away! (though there are those who also accuse the Russians of being in on it with the queen) Think now, why would it be worth it to them, and really, wouldn't a story of an escaped princess be more exciting and sellable than a dead one? The sad fact is no one escaped.

One more thing- the sample given by Prince Phillip- it was blood, btw, and doctors were there, it wasn't a random hair sample mailed in as some seem to think-was not the first of the Victorian line to be sequenced. Earlier, a sample was taken from Sophie of Hanover to disprove a Tatiana claimant. Sophie's sample matched Philip's, and Sophie's was known before anyone ever went looking for AA's intestines.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by qui mal y pense

Why does no one mention the DNA sample allegedly given by the DOE? The royal family has been accused of masterminding far more sinister things, why not absolve themselves of AA?

That sample has been confirmed because it gave an mtDNA match with a sample from another maternal-line relative of Tsarina Alexandra, and this other sample is supposed to have a reliable chain of custody. There are allegations that the sample given by Prince Philip doesn't have a reliable chain of custody, but I'm not sure what they're based on (apart from the erroneous claim that hair rather than blood was used). Nevertheless, the confirmation by the match with the other sample means that the chain-of-custody concerns are basically irrelevant.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by AGRBear

If the chain-of-custody is established and the sample has been under court supervision, such as placed into the police storage area, then I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be used in a court years later.

Not all samples used in convictions or appeals have been held under those conditions. Sometimes you come across reports of samples being taken from items owned by the victim or the accused that didn't come to light for quite a while after the incident. In these cases, you need independent confirmation of the source of the sample otherwise you can't be sure that there wasn't tampering or some other problem.

In the case of AA's sample, it wasn't held in any kind of security at the hospital or later in storage.

Which is why the scientists were using the other sample too (the hair sample). Scientifically as well as legally, without the second sample they wouldn't be able to get beyond "putative" or "alleged," regardless of what the matches and mismatches were with the reference samples (the ones from Prince Philip and Karl Maucher). The match between the DNA from the hair sample and the intestine sample shows an exceedingly high likelihood that the two were from the same person.

Therefore, an attorney claiming that Anna Anderson was Grand Duchess Anastasia needs to do more than allege that there was a problem with the chain of custody of the intestine sample. He needs to explain why the chain-of-custody issue casts doubt on the origin of the sample (I assume the options would be accidental mislabelling, deliberate tampering, or massive contamination with DNA from one person). He then also needs to explain why a switched or contaminated sample would be giving a match with the hair sample.

The alternatives (and correct me if I'm missing something) are that the hair sample was also deliberately switched or tampered with, in order to make sure that the DNA from a Maucher relative was present in both samples, that the hair sample was from a different person than the intestine sample but they coincidentally had the same mtDNA pattern, or that the hair sample was genuinely from the same person as the DNA sample but that this person wasn't Anna Anderson.

The first alternative, involving deliberate switching of both the hair and the intestine samples, would have required someone to do the switch in different places, since the hair sample wasn't obtained from a source associated with the hospital and was anapysed at a different lab from the ones where the intestine sample was analysed.

The second alternative would require evidence about the likelihood that two samples alleged to have been from person A were actually from persons B and C yet gave the same mtDNA pattern.

The third alternative would require evidence about the likelihood that two samples alleged to have been from person A were actually from person B even though they were from quite different sources (a hospital specimen and some hairs in an envelope in a book belonging to person A).

There's another alternative, which is that the two samples really were from Anna Anderson. I think it would take a pretty poor advocate to not be able to convince a jury which of these scenarios was the most likely.

[AGRBear]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Not all samples used in convictions or appeals have been held under those conditions. Sometimes you come across reports of samples being taken from items owned by the victim or the accused that didn't come to light for quite a while after the incident. In these cases, you need independent confirmation of the source of the sample otherwise you can't be sure that there wasn't tampering or some other problem.



Which is why the scientists were using the other sample too (the hair sample). Scientifically as well as legally, without the second sample they wouldn't be able to get beyond "putative" or "alleged," regardless of what the matches and mismatches were with the reference samples (the ones from Prince Philip and Karl Maucher). The match between the DNA from the hair sample and the intestine sample shows an exceedingly high likelihood that the two were from the same person.

Therefore, an attorney claiming that Anna Anderson was Grand Duchess Anastasia needs to do more than allege that there was a problem with the chain of custody of the intestine sample. He needs to explain why the chain-of-custody issue casts doubt on the origin of the sample (I assume the options would be accidental mislabelling, deliberate tampering, or massive contamination with DNA from one person). He then also needs to explain why a switched or contaminated sample would be giving a match with the hair sample.

The alternatives (and correct me if I'm missing something) are that the hair sample was also deliberately switched or tampered with, in order to make sure that the DNA from a Maucher relative was present in both samples, that the hair sample was from a different person than the intestine sample but they coincidentally had the same mtDNA pattern, or that the hair sample was genuinely from the same person as the DNA sample but that this person wasn't Anna Anderson.

The first alternative, involving deliberate switching of both the hair and the intestine samples, would have required someone to do the switch in different places, since the hair sample wasn't obtained from a source associated with the hospital and was anapysed at a different lab from the ones where the intestine sample was analysed.

The second alternative would require evidence about the likelihood that two samples alleged to have been from person A were actually from persons B and C yet gave the same mtDNA pattern.

The third alternative would require evidence about the likelihood that two samples alleged to have been from person A were actually from person B even though they were from quite different sources (a hospital specimen and some hairs in an envelope in a book belonging to person A).

There's another alternative, which is that the two samples really were from Anna Anderson. I think it would take a pretty poor advocate to not be able to convince a jury which of these scenarios was the most likely.

Remember, in my hypotheses I already voiced that the lawyer on team A has convinced me that we cannot know that the sample of intestines were AA's, and, I've asked you and your lawyers on team B to convince me that the sample was AA's. I started with the concern of the chain of custody. You and others have jumped over this problem like it didn't exist. I'd call this a "leap of assumption".

As for the "hair in an envelope in a book belonging to person A", thus far this is all I know about it. I don't know your source. I don't know who "person A' is. I don't know if they placed the hair in the book and later found it. Or was this book found on some book shelf in a bookstore? How can I comment without knowing anything about it. Nor do I know about the tests? Who tested the hair? Source, please. And, from the little I'm grasping, it appears the chain of custody might be a problem.

As for lawyer on team B being good enough to convince me that there wasn't a reason, nor an opportunity nor enough money to tamper with the sample of the intestines, I assure you, in this hypotheses, the lawyer for team A did provide many very convincing reasons why people would have wanted the public to believe AA was FS and not GD Anastasia. Even today, as we write these post, there are political and personal reasons for people to want the door closed on this case, the brutal murders of the royal family, that has lasted 90 years.

All a lawyer on team A had to do is create doubt in the mind of the jurists and it's a real up hill battle for the opposition, lawyers on team B.

So, what evidence can you provide to convince those of us on the jury? Because what you've presented thus far has been presented rather arrogantly, almost as if I the other jurists are obliged to believe you and your team because you know about the DNA/mtDNA tests. Well, we can't get to the tests until you can prove the sample is AA's.

AGRBear