DNA and the law

[AGRBear]

I think there is a misunderstanding occurring.

The thread is about DNA/mtDNA in the courts.

It is my understanding from all the lawyers with whom I've had conversations that in the case of proving AA was FS that they would, along with the DNA/mtDNA need to provide the jurists with additional evidence. Why? Because the lawyers, who's job it is to prove AA was not FS, would present a very strong case and would probably accomplished the task of placing doubts about the DNA/mtDNA.

I merely took out of the speculations that anyone at the hosptial, Dr. Gill, Ginther and other scientists were involved in any kind of wrong doing. Instead, I was dealing with the time period between 1976 up to the time the samples of the intestines identified as being AA's became part of a court case when people, who were outside of the hosptial and labs had motives, opportuntities and money to support unlawful acts.

This is all that I'm trying to convey.

I am not here to try and convince you that AA was FS. I am merely trying to explain that emotions, logic and your own beliefs doesn't fly very far in a court of law when you dealing with 11 people and the 12th being Bear on the jury.

There really isn't much more I can post, unless, you really do want to go back through all the evidence for all those concern. But not here. This would need it's own thread.

AGRBear

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Michael HR

I thought the mtDNA from Carl Maucher was a match to that from Anna Anderson and would suggest that Anna Anderson was a member of his family. If she was there is I assume only one member she could have been.

The way you wrote your answer suggests that even if there is a mtDNA between AA and Maucher match this would not necessarily mean that the two test subjects are related to each other and if that were true then the match between Empress Alexandra and the children to Prince Philip might mean that they were not related?

Why would a macth between AA and Carl Maucher not mean they are related as this relationship with mtDNA seems to be the whole basis of the ID of Anderson and of course the Imperial Family with thier mtDNA?

Michael

mtDNA isn't the same as a genetic fingerprint; it isn't unique to a particular individual. There are different mtDNA patterns, some more common than others, so it somewhat depends on how common the sequence is as to how certain you can be that you're dealing with actual relations. This is what the Gill paper said about the mtDNA pattern from the Anna Anderson samples and from the Carl Maucher sample:

"To assess the strength of the evidence we compared the DNA profile from the Maucher and putative Anna Anderson sampels with over 300 Caucasian sequences in published and unpublished databases. We did not find a match, which suggests that the DNA sequence is rare. Assuming that the databases we have used are representative of European Causasians, the chance of finding matching DNA profiles if Carl Maucher and Anna Anderson are unrelated through the maternal line is less than one in 300."

That doesn't rule out the possibility of a coincidental match, but it makes it unlikely. However, the fact that the Anderson samples didn't match the Prince Philip sample means that she isn't related to Prince Philip through the maternal line, which she would have been had she really been Anastasia.

[BorisRom]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Well, it doesn't matter how many or few people have congenital hallux valgus, does it, if the two ladies concerned had it to different degrees. All the statistics in the world aren't going to help you if the two individual cases aren't the same. Severe hallux valgus isn't necessarily the same for two people. <...>

Elspeth,
Reliability of DNA-test=1:N is meaning, that DNA-tests of N persons will show, that one of them is a relative of test-person. It is properties of work with the limited databank of DNA (the databank does not include DNA of all people on the Earth). How much I know, in 1990 reliability of DNA-tests was no more 1:6000. It means, for example, that if in 1990th years the genetics would compare my DNA to DNA of 6 000 000 Portugueses (for example) - in this case 1000 Portugueses would appear as my relatives. I think, that any Portuguese is not my relative actually (unfortunately ).
On the other hand, if I had 6000 relatives (for example) - in this case DNA-tests (in 1990th years) would show, that one of them is not my relative (in spite of the fact that he is my relative).

Now we shall consider medical statistics of C-HV (we shall assume for simplicity of comparison it=1: 18 million). AA said, that she is ANR. Both had C-HV. Only one of 18 million women could say it. DNA-tests (with reliability 1:6000) would apply it (AA=ANR) to 3 thousand women (from these 18 million)!!!
The medical statistics of a heavy case of HV (1:13000) would show, that only one of 13 thousand women could apply to be ANR, while DNA-tests (with reliability 1:6000) could apply it to two women (from these 13 000).

Thus, DNA-tests with reliability less than medical statistics of congenital HV (or at least of heavy HV) cannot be considered more preferable -
at least in such complex case as history of AA-ANR.
...At least in such complex case as history of AA-ANR...
.

[Elspeth]

Reliability of DNA-test=1:N is meaning, that DNA-tests of N persons will show, that one of them is a relative of test-person. It is properties of work with the limited databank of DNA (the databank does not include DNA of all people on the Earth). How much I know, in 1990 reliability of DNA-tests was no more 1:6000. It means, for example, that if in 1990th years the genetics would compare my DNA to DNA of 6 000 000 Portugueses (for example) - in this case 1000 Portugueses would appear as my relatives. I think, that any Portuguese is not my relative actually (unfortunately ).

Where are you getting these numbers?

And why are you even worrying about them? If mtDNA samples from two people don't match, they don't match. Statistics are irrelevant.

[BorisRom]

Elspeth.
Numbers of reliability of DNA-tests = 1:6000 (in 1990th years) is the most high that I saw - “1:6000” is in “FOTR” (by Greg King and Penny Wilson, - page 757 in Russian edition).

[AGRBear]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

mtDNA isn't the same as a genetic fingerprint; it isn't unique to a particular individual. There are different mtDNA patterns, some more common than others, so it somewhat depends on how common the sequence is as to how certain you can be that you're dealing with actual relations.

...[in part]....

I thought the combination of the DNA and the mtDNA did give us the genetic fingerprint and that is why they believe the male and female remains in the two pits found a year ago July are siblings and children of Nich. II and Alexandra. And that the markers would be nearly the same but not exactly so they will [so I'm told but have not yet seen the results of this] be able to prove there are four grand duchesses and not just three.

These same markers were used to compare Prince Philip's, the remains believed to be three grand duchesses, Alexandra and Nich. II's, plus the blood tests of Carl Maucher's. Marg.'s and the intestine samples which many believe were AA's. Other tests included hair, blood samples found on slides, syringes, etc..

Just using the sample of the intestines, Dr. Gill and Dr. Ginther agree that the intestines believed to be AA's show a close match with Carl Maucher's. It is likely that they are related when using the intestine and hair samples. This relationship could mean Carl can be the nephew or a relative. Meaning AA and Gertrude, Carl's grandmother, could be sisters or first cousins or second cousins up to 25th cousin. OR, the match could be just a coincidence.

In Dr. Gill's data base at that time had only 300 samples of Caucasian Europeans. Does not mention Russian samples. Since then, I'm sure these numbers have changed.

I always get itchy around numbers [stats] because the conclusions by individuals/groups usually depend upon who they are and why the numbers are gathered. (Living in Cailfornia and seeing all kinds of number floating around by the Dem. and the Rep. Parties during political campaigns, I could provide you with great examples of what oppositions like our Dem. and Rep. can do with their numbers.)

Added to this is the problem that no one has found the birth certificate and or baptismal record of Gertrude, nee S., Ellrich's with the other records of FS, Felix and the other siblings. So, we're not even sure that FS and Gertrude had the same mother and/or father.

According to Richard Schweitzer, a copy of a birth certificate was sent to him but it is without any kind of official seal. Nor do we know who found this information and where it was registered. Therefore, doubt circles this copy and cannot be presented, at this time, with any kind of official backing. I assume he's looking into this farther for verification of some kind. When I was looking, I found about 15 females around Posen with the same name [spelled a variety of ways] but none had the names of the parents of FS.

AGRBear

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by BorisRom

Elspeth.
Numbers of reliability of DNA-tests = 1:6000 (in 1990th years) is the most high that I saw - “1:6000” is in “FOTR” (by Greg King and Penny Wilson, - page 757 in Russian edition).

Do you mean the quote (from page 445 of the English edition that I'm looking at):

"The sequences derived through this method [DNA splicing] matched that provided by the duke of Edinburgh, itself considered rare in the early years of genetic research when the testing was conducted: statistical estimation placed the likelihood of finding the same genetic profile at 1 in every 6,000 European Caucasians."

Because that isn't talking about the reliability of the test in the sense of whether the test is giving a meaningful match, it's talking about the likelihood that an mtDNA match indicates actual relatedness.

Which brings me back to the point I was making before. Since these tests aren't genetic fingerprints, a match doesn't imply a unique identity. That's well known, and the authors of the Gill paper have said as much. However, a mismatch rules out relatedness through the female line. That's why the authors of that paper were so much more certain that Anna Anderson wasn't Anastasia than they were prepared to claim that she was Franziska Schankowska.

The 1 in 6000 stuff refers to matches, not mismatches.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by AGRBear

I thought the combination of the DNA and the mtDNA did give us the genetic fingerprint and that is why they believe the male and female remains in the two pits found a year ago July are siblings and children of Nich. II and Alexandra. And that the markers would be nearly the same but not exactly so they will [so I'm told but have not yet seen the results of this] be able to prove there are four grand duchesses and not just three.

No, they don't give a genetic fingerprint. A genetic fingerprint would use so many markers that the likelihood of a perfect match being coincidental would be essentially zero. As far as I know, and I'm sure you know I'm not an expert, you wouldn't use mtDNA in a genetic fingerprint, just nuclear DNA. The point of a genetic fingerprint is to take DNA samples from two sources (such as a murder suspect and the crime scene) and compare them to see if they're from the same person. It can also be used to establish paternity if the DNA pattern of the alleged father matches enough of the DNA sequences of the child, making allowances for the fact that the child will have inherited half his DNA from his other parent.

In this case you don't have DNA from the two people concerned, or DNA from a parent or a sibling, you're just dealing with great nephews and second cousins or whatever. The DNA itself was pretty badly degraded and I don't even know if there would have been enough of it for a full fingerprint analysis.

These same markers were used to compare Prince Philip's, the remains believed to be three grand duchesses, Alexandra and Nich. II's, plus the blood tests of Carl Maucher's. Marg.'s and the intestine samples which many believe were AA's. Other tests included hair, blood samples found on slides, syringes, etc..

If I remember right, they were only using five or six markers, which is fairly standard in this sort of test. I think a full nuclear DNA fingerprint analysis uses something like 20. It's been a while since I read about this in any great detail so I could be misremembering.

Just using the sample of the intestines, Dr. Gill and Dr. Ginther agree that the intestines believed to be AA's show a close match with Carl Maucher's. It is likely that they are related when using the intestine and hair samples. This relationship could mean Carl can be the nephew or a relative. Meaning AA and Gertrude, Carl's grandmother, could be sisters or first cousins or second cousins up to 25th cousin. OR, the match could be just a coincidence.

Yep.

In Dr. Gill's data base at that time had only 300 samples of Caucasian Europeans. Does not mention Russian samples. Since then, I'm sure these numbers have changed.

They may well have. At this point my guide would be the fact that Dr Ginther said three years ago that the Gill results were generally believable; he didn't say that they were probably invalidated by larger databases of reference samples.

I always get itchy around numbers [stats] because the conclusions by individuals/groups usually depend upon who they are and why the numbers are gathered. (Living in Cailfornia and seeing all kinds of number floating around by the Dem. and the Rep. Parties during political campaigns, I could provide you with great examples of what oppositions like our Dem. and Rep. can do with their numbers.)

Indeed, and this is why you'll never see me claiming that the match with the Maucher sample indicates anything more than a high likelihood of relatedness, which is a lot different from a certainty.

However, the fact remains of the mismatch between the Anderson sample and Prince Philip's sample. In the face of a mismatch, statistics are irrelevant. If they don't match, they don't match. The rate of mutation of mtDNA through the generations is too low for people of such similar generations as Anna Anderson and Prince Philip to be related through the maternal line in the face of that sort of mismatch.

[BorisRom]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Do you mean the quote (from page 445 of the English edition that I'm looking at): "The sequences derived through this method [DNA splicing] matched that provided by the duke of Edinburgh, itself considered rare in the early years of genetic research when the testing was conducted: statistical estimation placed the likelihood of finding the same genetic profile at 1 in every 6,000 European Caucasians."

Elspeth,
yes, you are right:
the likelihood that an mtDNA match indicates actual (valid) relatedness is 6,000:1 (in 1990-th years). Thus: one mistake on 6,000 tests.
Hence, 3,000 women from every 18 millions could say they was ANR (actual relatedness) through DNA-tests in 1990-th years – if all 18 millions would test on DNA (mtDNA mutch).
Now let me consider medical statistics of C-HV (we shall assume for simplicity of comparison it=1: 18 million). AA said, that she is ANR. Both had C-HV. Only one of 18 million women could say it. DNA-tests (with reliability 1:6,000) would apply it (AA=ANR) to 3 thousand women (from these 18 million)!!!
The medical statistics of a heavy case of HV (1:13,000) would show, that only one of 13 thousand women could apply to be ANR, while DNA-tests (with reliability 1:6,000) could apply it to two women (from these 13,000).

[Elspeth]

What makes you think the 1 in 6000 is referring to mistakes? It isn't the reliability of the test they're talking about, it's the probability, since an mtDNA profile isn't unique, that a match would be coincidental rather than indicating relatedness. The probability would alter depending on the rarity of the sequence in question.

[BorisRom]

Elspeth,
I mean a mistake that a match would be coincidental rather than indicating relatedness - namely it.
My example illustrates it (3000 coincidental on 18 million of DNA tests)

[Anna was Franziska]

Just for the record here, the DNA numbers presented in "FOTR" have been questioned by many DNA knowledgeable people on another board and have not been proven to be accurate. One of the authors has questioned the authenticity of the bones and supported the Knight paper.

http://peterkurth.com/RUSSIAN%20FORENSICS%20TEAM.htm

and here is the rebuttal explaination

http://www.facesofrussia.org/index.p...&id=3&Itemid=1

(for background informational purposes only)

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by BorisRom

Elspeth,
I mean a mistake that a match would be coincidental rather than indicating relatedness - namely it.
My example illustrates it (3000 coincidental on 18 million of DNA tests)

The chance that a match would not indicate relatedness varies depending on how common the particular mtDNA sequence is.

[BorisRom]

Elspeth,
Well. In what borders this chance varies? (depending on sort of mtDNA sequence):
1:100? 1:1,000? 1:6,000?
If I understand correctly, 1:6,000 was the best (highest) chance (in 1990-th years).
Do you know?

[Elspeth]

My understanding is that the mtDNA sequence of the sample from Prince Philip was considered fairly rare at the time the tests were done, and the 1-in-6000 number is the probability that the bones from the Ekaterinburg grave, whose mtDNA matched that of Prince Philip, did not come from relatives of Prince Philip. That actually means that there's a considerably higher probability of a relationship between those bones and Prince Philip than there is between Anna Anderson and Carl Maucher, since the probability of a coincidence in that case was just 1 in 300.

With more extensive databases of mtDNA samples from around the world, that figure might have been revised in one direction or the other in the meantime.

[BorisRom]

Elspeth,
I thank you for the answer.
So, the probability of a coincidence in case of AA and Carl Maucher was just 1 in 300.
On the other hand, we know, that AA (and ANR) had HV (heavy HV or even C-HV) and FS had no HV. We know also, that medical statistics of heavy HV is 1:6500 (and C-HV - 1:18,000,000).
My question:
why opponents of AA prefer results of DNA-tests (with probability of a coincidence 1:300) instead of medical statistics of HV (1:6500 at least)?
P.S. I live in the big multi-storey house where approximately 4500 person live too. Full inspection of all tenants of our house (on DNA) would give Carl Maucher 15 more "relatives" (4500\300=15). However, in our house any woman has no C-HV or even only heavy HV :)

AND
We know also, that АА and АNR had completely identical auricles (ear). You can read through in Wikipedia, that auricles (ear) give the same accuracy of identification, as well as prints of fingers.

ATTENTION NOW!
The statistics of accuracy of identification on prints of fingers ("False Accept Rate", "False Match Rate") is well-known, it is not less than 1 : 10 000.
http://www.morepc.ru/security/authentication/precise_biomatch.html (in Russian)

Thus, probability of that casual concurrence, that AA and ANRhad identical ears + heavy HV = 1 : (6500X10000) = 1 : 65 000 000!!!
Thus, a probability of that Anna Anderson was Anastasia Romanova is 65 million :1 !!!

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by BorisRom

Elspeth,
I thank you for the answer.
So, the probability of a coincidence in case of AA and Carl Maucher was just 1 in 300.
On the other hand, we know, that AA (and ANR) had HV (heavy HV or even C-HV) and FS had no HV. We know also, that medical statistics of heavy HV is 1:6500 (and C-HV - 1:18,000,000).
My question:
why opponents of AA prefer results of DNA-tests (with probability of a coincidence 1:300) instead of medical statistics of HV (1:6500 at least)?

You're not comparing like with like. The 1-in-300 probability has to do with her relationship with Carl Maucher, not her identity as Anastasia. If the Anna Anderson samples really were from Anna Anderson, then her identity as Anastasia is ruled out by the mtDNA mismatch with Prince Philip. There are no probabilities, no statistics, nothing. Mismatches are mismatches, and this was a definite mismatch. Doesn't matter if they both had severe bunions. Anastasia was related to Prince Philip, Anna Anderson wasn't. End of. That certainty is 100%, which is a lot better than 1-in-6500 or whatever. THis is why people are paying so much attention to the DNA. A mismatch gives an unequivocal result.

Having established that Anna Anderson wasn't Anastasia, the Carl Maucher test was done to see if she might have been Franziska Schankowska. Had the mtDNA samples not matched, her identification as Franziska Schankowska would have been ruled out. However, they did match. Therefore there's a possibility - a pretty strong possibility - that she was related to Carl Maucher. There's a small possibility that she wasn't, because this was an mtDNA test, not a genetic fingerprint, and the sequence isn't exclusive to relatives of Carl Maucher.

If it's true that Anna Anderson had severe hallux valgus and Franziska Schankowska, as an adult, didn't have it at all, that would be a pretty strong indication that they weren't the same person. However, I've seen the statement that Franziska Schankowska had no hallux valgus disputed. And I don't know (and I suspect you don't know either) how relevant it is that Franziska didn't have bunions as a child (assuming that's true). We don't know the probability of severe hallux valgus in women born in the 19th century, as far as I'm aware (feel free to point to a source if you know of one).

P.S. I live in the big multi-storey house where approximately 4500 person live too. Full inspection of all tenants of our house (on DNA) would give Carl Maucher 15 more "relatives" (4500\300=15). However, in our house any woman has no C-HV or even only heavy HV :)

Have you checked all their feet?

AND
We know also, that АА and АNR had completely identical auricles (ear). You can read through in Wikipedia, that auricles (ear) give the same accuracy of identification, as well as prints of fingers.

No, we don't. There are apparently some experts saying they did and some saying they didn't. That's not good enough for a definitive statement of "they were completely identical." The quality of photos of Anastasia isn't all that good, and there seem to be experts on both sides of the fence regarding the ears, the facial features, the hair and eye colours, the height, and everything. The statement about the hallux valgus comes from a TB doctor, for heavens' sake.

In the meantime, you have a DNA sample which shows an mtDNA mismatch with Prince Philip. As I said before, if the Anna Anderson samples come from Anna Anderson and the Prince Philip samples come from Prince Philip, they aren't related through the maternal line. All your above stuff about ears, feet, etc, is not definitive. You're trying to make it sound definitive, but from my reading of these threads, it isn't.

ATTENTION NOW!

The statistics of accuracy of identification on prints of fingers ("False Accept Rate", "False Match Rate") is well-known, it is not less than 1 : 10 000.
http://www.morepc.ru/security/authentication/precise_biomatch.html (in Russian)

Thus, probability of that casual concurrence, that AA and ANRhad identical ears + heavy HV = 1 : (6500X10000) = 1 : 65 000 000!!!
Thus, a probability of that Anna Anderson was Anastasia Romanova is 65 million :1 !!!

Except for the small matter about the fact that not all experts agree the ears were identical, and the other small matter that if their degrees of hallux valgus were different, it doesn't matter if they both had severe hallux valgus or not. And we don't know that either. Nor do we actually know the probabilities of severe hallux valgus in women in the early 20th century. Anecdotal evidence about people's grannies on these threads suggests that it was quite a bit more common than it's been for the last few decades.

So, sure, if you want to you can turn "might" or "probably" into "did" and "definitely" and plug all sorts of numbers into all sorts of equations. But if you start out with incorrect initial conditions, you're going to end up with the wrong answer.

[BorisRom]

Elspeth,
First, I thank you for detailed comments.
Nevertheless, I have some questions.
1. You write: «If the Anna Anderson samples really were from Anna Anderson, then her identity as Anastasia is ruled out by the mtDNA mismatch with Prince Philip. There are no probabilities, no statistics, nothing. Mismatches are mismatches, and this was a definite mismatch.<... End of. That certainty is 100 %, which is a lot better than 1-in-6500 or whatever. This is why people are paying so much attention to the DNA. A mismatch gives an unequivocal result. »

Sorry, I don't understand it. Any scientific research of DNA is connected with the general initial database of DNA (a database of genetic structures of Europeans). According to statistics, the probability of reception of identical genetic structures was 1:6000 (in 1990th years) (see FOTR). It means, that in one in 6000 tests the result of comparative test of DNA of two non-relatives may coincide (casually). However, it means also, that in one in 6000 tests the result of comparative test of DNA of two relatives may casually not coincide!
Thus, we can speak, that results of tests of DNA 1990th years have shown, that Anna Anderson was not the relative of Prince Philip with probability 6000:1 (- If the Anna Anderson samples really were from Anna Anderson).
I shall continue the questions a little bit later.

[BorisRom]

Elspeth, you wrote:
«If it's true that Anna Anderson had severe hallux valgus and Franziska Schankowska, as an adult, didn't have it at all, that would be a pretty strong indication that they weren't the same person. However, I've seen the statement that Franziska Schankowska had no hallux valgus disputed. And I don't know (and I suspect you don't know either) how relevant it is that Franziska didn't have bunions as a child (assuming that's true). We don't know the probability of severe hallux valgus in women born in the 19th century, as far as I'm aware (feel free to point to a source if you know of one).»
1. As AGRBear wrote earlier (#69): «Felix (Shanzkovsky) signed a sworn statement [this means it is not heresay but a legal document] that Franziska S. did not have such a deformity.» You can read more details about it in Peter Kurth's book (sorry, I don't remember the page right now)
2. As to «the probability of severe hallux valgus in women born in the 19th century» - I remember that ChatNoir wrote (much earlier, at King&WilsonForum) about the article in an medical journal of 1919 year and he postedthe referenceto internet-adress. This article was about a congenital HV and author wrote thatC-HV was very-very rare for Europeans (one or two case on all France! - if I remember correctly)/
Hey, dear ChatNoir! Would you post it here?

[BorisRom]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

<..>The quality of photos of Anastasia isn't all that good, and there seem to be experts on both sides of the fence regarding the ears, the facial features, the hair and eye colours, the height, and everything. The statement about the hallux valgus comes from a TB doctor, for heavens' <...>

See V.Momot's article («Anna-Anastasia»):
http://www.proza.ru/texts/2008/08/15/173.html
<<One of the most famous forensic experts of The Federal Republic of Germany Doctor Moritz Furtmajer settled the last doubts of anthropologists. In 1976 Doctor Furtmajer managed to discover that by absurd accident experts used the photograph of the patient of Daldorf, made from turned over negative, for comparison of the external ears. In another words they have compared the right ear of Anastasia to the left ear of “Froilein Unbekant” and of course got negative result about on their identity. After comparison of the same photograph of Anastasia with the photograph of the right ear of Anderson (Chaykovskaya), Moritz Furtmajer received concurrence for 17 anatomical positions. In West Germany Court for acknowledgement of identity a fact of concurrence for 5 positions out of 12 considered to be enough. Having corrected this mistake, he led to the end scientists’ disputes on identification of Anastasia.>>

V.Momot wrote also about graphological examination:
The first graphological examination has been made in 1927 at Gessenskiys’ request. It has been made by scientific worker of the Institute of Graphology in Prisna Doctor Lucy Vaizsekker. Comparing handwriting on recently written samples with the handwriting on the samples which had been written by Anastasia during the life of Nikolay II, Lucy Vaizsekker came to a conclusion that the samples belonged to the same person. In 1960 according to Hamburg’s Court verdict a graphologist Doctor Minna Bekker has been appointed to be a graphological expert. Four years later reporting about her work on the session of the Supreme Appeal Court in Senate, grey-haired Doctor Bekker stated: “I have never seen before so many identical signs in two texts, written by two different people”. One more important comment of the Doctor is worth to mention here. For the examination the samples of handwritten texts in German and Russian have been presented. In her report, talking about Russian texts of Madam Anderson, Doctor Bekker noted: “There was an impression that she got into familiar environment again”. As there was not an opportunity to compare the fingerprints, anthropologists have been drawn into the investigation. Their opinion has been regarded by the court as “probability close to confidence”. The researches, being conducted in 1958 by Doctors Aikshtedt and Klenke in Mainz University and in 1965 by Professor Otto Rehe, the founder of the German Anthropological society, led to the same result, that is:
1. Madam Anderson is not the Polish factory worker Franziska Shanzkovskaya.
2. Madam Anderson is the Grand Princess Anastasia Romanova.