This is about an exhibit which was introduced as evidence (you must have seen such things on Perry Mason) and has nothing to do with anyone lying or not. Unless you are saying that Berenberg Gossler was lying when he accepted in court that the schoolbooks showed that AN studied German? Surely not, since you normally extol the veracity of his statements as if your life depended on them.
I only stick with Olga Alexandrovna, Gilliard, Gibbes, Lili Dehn and Sophie books. Those accounts are most important because they are witnesses and know what OTMA studied and did during their lives.
Then why can't you tell the difference? You also seem confused as to what is considered hearsay so here is a link to a legal dictionary. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Heresay Exhibits introduced as evidence are NOT hearsay.
You and AWF are both refusing to accept that the Court Records show that GD Anastasia's schoolbooks were presented in evidence during the trials. You are also refusing to accept that BOTH sides were happy to accept their provenance. You similarly refuse to accept that the books show she studied German. As all of this is in the court records which have to be confirmed by both sets of lawyers and the judges, it is up to you two to PROVE that those records are inaccurate, not for us to prove that they are accurate. Or are you saying that all the lawyers and the various sets of judges were lying?
The difference between a FACT and an OPINION! Hearsay is not evidence at all, it's accounts that have not been proven true. It is also something that has yet to have been backed up by evidence and it's pure speculation. A fact: is defined as something that is true, something that actually exists, or something having objective reality that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation.
An opinion is a person's ideas and thoughts towards something which it is either impossible to verify the truth of, or the truth of which is thought unimportant to the person.
It has been said that Chat and I only press this point because we are trying to show that AA was AN. (I won't even bother to point out that it is AWF who keeps dragging AA into this debate - or indeed just about every debate.) How about we are pressing it because it is a FACT, regardless of who AA was. In fact her identity could be considered irrelevant. You are trying to twist the facts because they may (and it is only "may", not "do" since as I have said AA's identity actually could be considered of no relevance to this point) contradict your theory. It is like saying night is day or black is white. AE, you can say until you are blue in the face that there is no proof Anastasia had any German lessons but the facts patently contradict you.
It's actually you, Bear and ChatNoir who are trying to bring up AA again. Ferrymansdaughter, you started discussing about AA when you mentioned the German court trials. In all of my resources I NEVER mentioned AA because she had NOTHING to do with the life of the Romanovs. I never would get any resources from her. Well, when you mentioned AA, it seems to me like you're trying to prove that she is Anastasia. There wouldn't be any other reason why you're mentioning AA in the discussion about Anastasia knowing German.
I have to say I wonder why you get so het up and fly in the face of the obvious which is actually rather ridiculous. If you are so confident you are right, why can't you say "yes AN did study German but it doesn't mean she and AA were the same person."?
You're trying to make me believe in something that is not even true. Anastasia's own relatives and tutors stated that Anastasia did not study German. I would never accuse those people of being liars because they are the ones who told the whole accounts and truths of the imperial family. That would be very wrong and false to disrespect these people.