Identification of the remains found in 2007: Alexei and Marie (Coble, 2009)

[J Kendrick]

Originally Posted by AnastasiaEvidence

My point is that all the seven remains of the Romanovs have been found! There shouldn't be any questions asked. End of Story.

But...

The fact now is that the leading spokesman for the current investigation, Nikolai Nevolin, has just admitted publicly .. as it was reported by the Russian news agency Interfax just two days ago... that they have *not* found have enough remains for two among the 40-odd bone fragments that were found last summer.

That can only mean that one of those seven Romanovs is *still* missing!

... and therefore the basic point of your argument is not, in fact, true.

JK

[AnastasiaEvidence]

Originally Posted by J Kendrick

But...

The fact now is that the leading spokesman for the current investigation, Nikolai Nevolin, has just admitted publicly .. as it was reported by the Russian news agency Interfax just two days ago... that they have *not* found have enough remains for two among the 40-odd bone fragments that were found last summer.

That can only mean that one of those seven Romanovs is *still* missing!

... and therefore the basic point of your argument is not, in fact, true.

JK

That's very strange. So the remains are of only one person? All this time, I thought it was two remains of Alexei and Maria or Anastasia.

What he has now said here to Interfax is just another way of saying that they have only found evidence of one.... and not two.

Of Course.... Everyone here is completely free to draw his or her own conclusions.

JK

You are right. If that is so, then only one of the remain are missing. Six out of the seven remains been discovered??? I don't know. It could be something else.

[J Kendrick]

Originally Posted by AnastasiaEvidence

That's very strange. So the remains are of only one person? All this time, I thought it was two remains of Alexei and Maria or Anastasia.


You are right. If that is so, then only one of the remain are missing. Six out of the seven remains been discovered??? I don't know. It could be something else.

The leading spokesman for the investigation, Nikolai Nevolin, was quoted by Interfax on June 17th as just having said these words:

"... the quantity of the remains which have been found in "the second burial place" is not enough of that what should remain at burning two bodies".

That can only mean one thing. There is only enough for one... and, therefore, one must still be missing.

... and that is why they are now going back for yet another search again this summer in Koptyaki.

JK

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by AnastasiaEvidence

According to Yurosvosky's note he states that he buried two bodies in a different section. He said it was those of Alexei and Demidova (mistaken for one of the grand duchesses). The remains discovered in July of 2007 are of Alexei and his sister. The remains were found in a different section, from the 9 others discovered in 1991.

YUROVSKY'S ACCOUNT
It was mentioned that the ties had been laid there to let a truck pass. So, having dug up the entire area, they did not think to look under the ties. It is necessary to say that all our men were so tired. They did not want to dig a new grave. But as it always happens in such cases, two or three men started working, then the others began. A fire was made and while the graves where being prepared we burned two corpses: Alexei and Demidova. The pit was dug near the fire. The bones were buried, the land was leveled. A big fire was made again and all the traces were covered with ashes. Before putting the other corpses into the pit we poured sulpheric acid over them. The pit was filled up and covered with the ties. The empty truck drove over the ties several times and rolled them flat.YUROVSKY Acidently mistaken Anna Demidova for one of the grand duchesses (Anastasia or Maria)

< ed Warren: patronising remark > Yurovsky's a known liar just like that freak Ermakov.
This is why we keep going back to this subject: to uncover more evidence.

[AnastasiaEvidence]

< ed Warren: patronising remark > Yurovsky's a known liar just like that freak Ermakov.
This is why we keep going back to this subject: to uncover more evidence.

Yes, Ermakov, and Yurovosky are terrible for murdering the imperial family. There is this photo of Ermakov taken around where the mindshaft where the remains were. I already know all of this. It would be a good idea to keep the murderer's account in what happened because these are his personal records. It is very ample pieces of evidence. I've been studying this case for many years now!

The leading spokesman for the investigation, Nikolai Nevolin, was quoted by Interfax on June 17th as just having said these words:

"... the quantity of the remains which have been found in "the second burial place" is not enough of that what should remain at burning two bodies".

That can only mean one thing. There is only enough for one... and, therefore, one must still be missing.

... and that is why they are now going back for yet another search again this summer in Koptyaki.

That's very interesting. I'll have to do further research into this, then.

[OlgaNikolaievna]

I have questions for all of you who keep saying there are lies and a coverup. WHY. Why cover it up? There is no good reason this is why using this as an excuse makes no sense. It is only a conspiracy theory. WHO. Who do you think covered it up and for what reason? There is no reason! Why is it important to you to continue to cast doubt on the scientists and all officials involved to make it look like somebody is lying? I do not believe anyone is lying and this case is solved. My last question is why can't people accept reality and only want to make up strange versions of fantasy for themselves and to try to make others fall for it. That is fine for a fiction movie but please do not degrade the final rest of dead people for your own thrill because this is sad.

[Russophile]

Well ON, this is one of the things we're trying to figure out here. There are a myriad of reasons, one main one being that a heir or survivor could have claim to the throne of Russia. Though there isn't one at this time--and obviously the blood would be thin from merging with those not of a Royal Household, the popularity of one so-called survivor would put a mighty bee in the bonnet of the current regime of Russia, don't you think?
Then there are the crown lands, the resources, the money, speculations of deposits in off shore accounts. It's a big mystery.
You are very much entitled to feel the way you feel, and those of us trying to figure out the truth are very well entitled to feel the way we feel and will keep researching this subject to our hearts content.

[Marengo]

The popularity of a survivor? Do you actually think the grandson/daughter of a supposed survived Grand Duchess would be popular? Why? I highly doubt many Russians will care one hoot about it. And Anna Anderson does not have any descendats anyway, so what would be the catch there?

There is no money, crownlands etc. nothing. All was confisdcated by the state. Even if there was something left I suppose it could have been claimed by other relatives for many years now, which did not happen. Where did you hear stories about all this money being kept somewhere? Apart from in some boulevard magazines I never read anything about it.

[J Kendrick]

Originally Posted by OlgaNikolaievna

I have questions for all of you who keep saying there are lies and a coverup. WHY. Why cover it up?

Who here has been using the words lies or cover up?

Why should there ever be any problem with questioning what people have been told?

.. and to answer your question...

One word: Politics

Politics were the reason that the murders took place in July of 1918... and politics are the reason for the way that the investigation is now being handled in June of 2008.

JK

[Marengo]

So how would politics today benefit from all the above?

[J Kendrick]

Originally Posted by Marengo

So how would politics today benefit from all the above?

Surely, answering that question here would be straying off-topic and require starting a new thread.

Would it not?

JK

[Menarue]

Originally Posted by Russophile

Well ON, this is one of the things we're trying to figure out here. There are a myriad of reasons, one main one being that a heir or survivor could have claim to the throne of Russia. Though there isn't one at this time--and obviously the blood would be thin from merging with those not of a Royal Household, the popularity of one so-called survivor would put a mighty bee in the bonnet of the current regime of Russia, don't you think?
Then there are the crown lands, the resources, the money, speculations of deposits in off shore accounts. It's a big mystery.
You are very much entitled to feel the way you feel, and those of us trying to figure out the truth are very well entitled to feel the way we feel and will keep researching this subject to our hearts content.

[quote] From Wikipedia.
Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia, (Mariya Vladimirovna Romanova, Cyrillic: Мари́я Влади́мировна Рома́нова) (born December 23, 1953) has been a claimant to the Headship of the Imperial Family of Russia and title Titular Empress and Autocrat of All the Russias since 1992. Throughout her life she has used as her title and style of pretension Her Imperial Highness Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia.
[quote]

Here it says she is a claimant to the throne. Who supports her in this claim?

[lexi4]

Originally Posted by J Kendrick

Surely, answering that question here would be straying off-topic and require starting a new thread.

Would it not?

JK

Yes, I think it would. But it would make a good topic.
Have any of you read Has anyone here read Sisu, the autobiography of Oskari Tokoi? While not about the IF or their murders at all, it does give a good idea of the lengths the Bolshiveks went to to search for survivors. What he write is only a mention but a good indicator nonetheless.
It's a good book. I highly recommend it.

[OlgaNikolaievna]

Originally Posted by Marengo

So how would politics today benefit from all the above?

This is what I keep asking too. What is supposed to be the big coverup, by who and why? If there's this big conspiracy of hiding that Anderson really was Anastasia please explain your reasons for believing this and why it would still be relevant today because to me it makes no sense at all. All I can see is the facts came in that Anderson wasn't really Anastasia and some people don't like that and want the mystery to continue so they keep coming up with strange theories of why it's all a conspiracy but so far I have seen no evidence or even any realistic theories to back this up. Please explain what you think happened and give names and reasons for your suspicions please.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by Marengo

And Anna Anderson does not have any descendats anyway, so what would be the catch there?

I'm shocked you haven't read your Anna Anderson history. I thought everybody knew that when she was Mrs. Tchaikovsky she claimed to have a son, was examined and found indeed to have had a child. < ed Warren: spruiking >

[Marengo]

I didn't know that she was examined and that she actually gave birth to a child. Still, the childs identity is unknown to the world and there is no evidence that Mr. Tchaikovsky ever existed either, Greg King and Penny Wilson established the names of the executioners and Tchaikovsky was not one of the names.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by Marengo

I didn't know that she was examined and that she actually gave birth to a child. Still, the childs identity is unknown to the world and there is no evidence that Mr. Tchaikovsky ever existed either, Greg King and Penny Wilson established the names of the executioners and Tchaikovsky was not one of the names.

And who's to say that they weren't lying about their names? If the survival story is true who wants it to be known that they plucked a surviving Grand Duchess up from a botched execution to go traipsing all over the Russian countryside with?

[BorisRom]

Originally Posted by Marengo

I didn't know that she was examined and that she actually gave birth to a child. Still, the childs identity is unknown to the world and there is no evidence that Mr. Tchaikovsky ever existed either, Greg King and Penny Wilson established the names of the executioners and Tchaikovsky was not one of the names.

Recently Ekaterinburg researcher Vladimir Momot has found in military archives the list of the soldiers of protection of Ipatiev’s House. The soldier of 1-st command Anton Chaikovsky (Tchaikovsky) was registered in this list! It was 1-st command (rota - in Russian) of 1-st Ural shooting division (polk - in Russion), created in Ekaterinburg in March, 1918.
Just yesterday (!!) V.Momot has published the article about it («Ночь без рассвета» - “Night without a dawn”):
http://www.arimoya.ru/ (in Russian)

[Anna was Franziska]

There is a new book out called "Ekaterinburg: The Last Days of the Romanovs" by Helen Rappaport. It's already available for those of you in Britain, US release is next year. If someone has this book perhaps they can read the accounts of Sir Thomas Preston, the British counsalate in Ekaterinburg. In his memoirs, he explained how everyone was forbidden to be on the streets that night, under penalty of death. There is no way anyone could have sneaked out unnocticed, and this especially shoots holes in the 'hidden in the house across the street' theory.

[ChatNoir]

I may be wrong, but I have also read that Thomas Preston was nowhere near Ekaterinburg that night.