OK, well, this is strange. From the letter from Charles Ginther that's posted over at AGRBear's site, there's this about Margarete Ellerick's sample:
Doc. EM1: Fax letter from me to Mr. Philip Remy dated July 11, 1994. "…I am sending you the data that I have for "Willi sample-M.E" [Margarette]. Nucleotides 16024-16474 were determined. In that region, variations from the Anderson sequence [ie, the Cambridge Reference Sequence] were found at 16126 T->C, 16266 C->T, 16294 C->T, and 16304 T->C. Base 161146 could not be determined on the gels…"
So, this is saying that for Margarete Ellerick, the only differences from the reference sequence were as follows:
16126 T->C
16266 C->T
16278 C->C (this one isn't different from the reference sequence but is added for convenience)
16294 C->T
16304 T->C
16311 T->T (ditto for this one)
This pattern of differences from the reference sequence is identical to that for Karl Maucher, as confirmed by one of the authors of the Gill paper as follows:
Doc. EM2: Letter from Dr. Kevin Sullivan, Forensic Sci. Service, UK, dated July 21, 1994, to Julian Nott of Canalot Studios. Forwarded to me by Mr. Philip Remy on August 1, 1994. "ANNA ANDERSON DNA TESTING. I confirm that the mitochondrial sequence of Karl Maucher ("Schanzkowska") matches exactly that of Margarete Ellerick, which you provided in your communication of 12 July. Nucleotides 16021 to 16400 inclusive, were determined. Variations compared to the Anderson sequence were as follows: 16126 C (Anderson=T), 16266T (Anderson=C), 16294T (Anderson=C), 16304C (Anderson=T). Base 16146 is A and therefore matches the Anderson sequence at this position…"
This gives the following, which is the same as the Ellerick samples and also corresponds to the data in Table 2 of the Gill paper:
16126 T->C
16146 A->A (not sure why this is significant, but whatever)
16266 C->T
16278 C->C
16294 C->T
16304 T->C
16311 T ->T
This is indeed identical to the sequence for Margarete Ellerick as told to Charles Ginther, with the added information that for Karl Maucher, base 16146 is A, which is the same as the reference sequence.
He says the following for the Anna Anderson blood sample:
The Anna Anderson sequence was obtained for nucleotides 16252-16397, a total of 146 bases. There were variations at sites 16278 (C->T), 16294 (C->T), and 16311 (T->C) relative to the Cambridge (or comparison Anderson sequence…).
This gives the following:
16266 C->C
16278 C->T
16294 C->T
16304 T->T
16311 T->C
which differs from the Ellerick sample at positions 16266, 16278, 16304, and 16311.
They attempted to sequence samples from other sources for confirmation but got such screwy results that they said they couldn't conclude anything. This means that although they attempted to do so, they didn't have the sort of independent confirmation that blood sample came from Anna Anderson that the Gill analysis had by being able to sequence the hair as well as the intestine. It looks as though Dr Ginther isn't ruling out the at least theoretical possibility that the sample was contaminated or that although it was labelled as being from Anna Anderson, the labelling was wrong. The chain of custody may be perfect, but if the sample itself isn't perfect, you aren't any better off.
From the information in the Gill paper, the Anna Anderson intestine and hair samples gave the following results:
16126 T->C
16266 C->T
16278 C->C
16294 C->T
16304 T->C
16311 T->T
This is different from the blood sample and identical to the Ellerick and Maucher samples.
Incidentally, there is also some information about the maternal relatives of Empress Alexandra. He said he sequenced DNA from Sofia Princess of Hanover and it matched the sequence obtained for Prince Philip by the Gill team. However, according to him, the differences from the reference sequence for Sofia were 16111 (G->A), 16357 (A->G), whereas in the Gill paper for Philip it shows 16111 (C->T) and 16357 (T->C). According to the reference sequence itself
MITOMAP Human mtDNA revised Cambridge Sequence (rCRS)
16111 is C and 16357 is T so I don't know where he's getting those Gs and As for Sofia or why he's saying it matches Philip. FWIW, in double-stranded DNA you have CG pairs and AT pairs, so we're seeing the same pattern but opposite nucleotides.
They didn't sequence nucleotide 16111 for the Anna Anderson blood sample, but they found a match with the reference sequence at 16357, which would be T. This doesn't match the Prince Philip sample, which has C at that position, and it doesn't match the Sofia sample, which has G. For the hair and intestine samples, there was a match with the reference sequence at 16111, which would be C (Prince Philip has T) and also a match with the reference sequence at 16357, which would be T (Prince Philip has C). Dr Ginther claims that the two sequences (Princess Sofia and Prince Philip) do match; if that's the case, it would help knock this business of "it can't really have been from Prince Philip" on the head, because the chain of custody for the Sofia sample seems pretty good.
I hope this is accurate - I started going cross-eyed some time ago.
It shows that the blood sample doesn't match the hair and intestine samples if I'm reading it right; the hair and intestine samples matched the Maucher and Ellerick samples but the blood sample didn't, and none of them matched the Prince Philip sample.
