Anna Anderson's claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia

[ferrymansdaughter]

.

But technically, she didn't know German. As we've discussed before it's very possible for a person to have German lessons and not know it, I know several people in that category. Olga A. said 'German was never used in the family.' This means, even if it had been studied some it was not used and therefore not really known...

Well, I hate to be pedantic here but technically, she DID know German since she had lessons several times a week for some years (I believe the schoolbooks examined during the trial started in 1913) . Maybe she wasn't a fluent speaker - but neither was AA.

As for the rest of your diatribe - iread it again, it doesn't make sense.

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

Here's what I don't understand.

Prior to all the DNA stuff (and even after), people insisted that Anna Anderson was GD Anastasia.

Then the DNA came to light.

Now some people are insisting that she was Franziska something or other.

Why is there this desperate need to believe that Anna Anderson was anyone other than... Anna Anderson?

 

[OlgaNikolaievna]

Here's what I don't understand.

Prior to all the DNA stuff (and even after), people insisted that Anna Anderson was GD Anastasia.

Then the DNA came to light.

Now some people are insisting that she was Franziska something or other.

Why is there this desperate need to believe that Anna Anderson was anyone other than... Anna Anderson?

Because there is no such person as Anna Anderson. It was only a name made up for Miss Unknown from the asylums in Berlin who claimed to be Anastasia to use when she came to America. There was no real Anna Anderson so it's only right to want to know who this anonymous person was who was using this name and saying she was a grand duchess. The reason people say she was Franziska is because Franziska is the person detectives in the 1920's said the Miss Unknown really was and now the DNA has shown us this was true. In reading the accusations against Baroness Sophie Buxohevedon it's not surprising Anna Anderson and her supporters wanted to try to discredit her denouncement of Anna. Her statements against Anna being either Tatiana or Anastasia are very damaging. She remembered the girls so well she was able to describe in detail the formation of their teeth, fingers and nails. Being a person who knew the girls that closely and saying with no reservations at all that the Miss Unknown was not one of the girls looks very bad for the claimant and her supporting cast. Therefore Sophie must become an untrustworthy liar. I do not believe she was.

 

[Elspeth]

The DNA has strongly indicated that Anna was Franziska, but it hasn`t shown it unequivocally. The DNA evidence that Anna wasn`t Anastasia is much stronger than the DNA evidence that Anna was Franziska.

 

[Michael HR]

Forgive if I am wrong but did not the DNA show a match to a Nephew of AF thus suggesting that AF was of that family? If the match was positive it shows that AF/AA shared the same maternal line as the Polish Nephew.

You are also right in saying that the DNA did not match at all the maternal line of the Empress via the blood/DNA of Prince Philip, also of the same maternal line.

Therefore AA was not AN.

Therefore AA was AF

Michael

The DNA has strongly indicated that Anna was Franziska, but it hasn`t shown it unequivocally. The DNA evidence that Anna wasn`t Anastasia is much stronger than the DNA evidence that Anna was Franziska.

 

[Elspeth]

It did show a match, but it was an mtDNA analysis, not a genetic fingerprint. So it wasn`t a unique match, it was a match to a member of a group. The authors estimate that there`s a 1 in 300 chance that this match didn`t indicate a familial relationship, but that`s not an insignificant chance although certainly not a high one.

As far as the match with DNA from relatives of the Tsarina, there were mismatches, and that`s exceedingly unlikely if the subject really was related to the Tsarina herself.

This means that the likelihood that Anna Anderson wasn`t Anastasia is much greater than the likelihood that she was Franziska Schankowska, although the latter is also fairly likely on the basis of the DNA analysis. Without some major interference with the samples - the same interference in two or three independent cases - it`s virtually certain from the DNA that Anna wasn`t Anastasia. Because of the nature of mtDNA analysis, from the DNA it`s highly likely that she was Franziska Schankowska but it`s not virtually certain by any means.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

it`s virtually certain from the DNA that Anna wasn`t Anastasia. Because of the nature of mtDNA analysis, from the DNA it`s highly likely that she was Franziska Schankowska but it`s not virtually certain by any means.

Isn't it (at 100% exclusion) totally certain that AA was not AN, and virtually certain (at 99.9%) that she was FS? (since DNA proving who you are is never going to be 100%, only in cases of who you aren't) The likelihood she is anyone else other than FS is very, very small. (as posted in DaveK's detailed analysis) Combined with the fact that FS was the 'main suspect' other than AN all along, and that the pictures look just like FS, and that FS vanished from the same city in the same time frame, it's close to mathematically impossible she was anyone else.

 

[Elspeth]

Isn't it (at 100% exclusion) totally certain that AA was not AN, and virtually certain (at 99.9%) that she was FS? (since DNA proving who you are is never going to be 100%, only in cases of who you aren't) The likelihood she is anyone else other than FS is very, very small. (as posted in DaveK's detailed analysis) Combined with the fact that FS was the 'main suspect' other than AN all along, and that the pictures look just like FS, and that FS vanished from the same city in the same time frame, it's close to mathematically impossible she was anyone else.

The odds of Anna Anderson not being Franziska Schankowska were given in the Gill-Stoneking paper as 1 in 300, if I remember right (I'm away from home this week so I can't check). I'm told by someone a lot better at arithmetic than I am that that translates to 99.67%, not 99.99%. Gill and Stoneking weren't prepared to say that Anna Anderson was definitely Franziska Schankowska on the basis of the DNA evidence although they seemed to be confident that she wasn't Anastasia.

Whether other evidence in addition to the DNA evidence makes the Franziska Schankowska identification more likely is another matter. The original point was whether the DNA tests showed definitively that Anna Anderson was Franziska Schankowska, and they don't. They indicate a strong likelihood, but that's not quite the same.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

The odds of Anna Anderson not being Franziska Schankowska were given in the Gill-Stoneking paper as 1 in 300, if I remember right (I'm away from home this week so I can't check). I'm told by someone a lot better at arithmetic than I am that that translates to 99.67%, not 99.99%.

That was their estimate at the time but since then, as more DNA patterns among Europeans have been discovered, and the use of the Bayesian method, it turns out FS's DNA was more unique than originally thought, so now the odds are at least 1/5000 and possibly as high as 1/100,000. Here is DaveK's revision based on his own research using the original results and newer methods, and other factors:

Gill explained his 1/300 odds in his paper in 1995.

However, that data was outdated, and didn't incorporate the Bayesian method. It's not only mtDNA. How many people do you think there were a girl who looked like Anna Anderson, almost same age, same hair/eye color, who disappeared in a same time when AA appeared in the same region!! You have to take that into account by Bayesian inference (the court of law requires forensic scientists to use Bayesian). Here is my calculation. Come to think of it, I will also post the population genetics paper I cited in this calculation.

Question 2) Is the random match probability of AA’s DNA really 1/300?

Some AA proponents assert that AA’s specific mtDNA type is very common type, therefore a match between AA and FS is just by accident. However, this argument is fundamentally flawed. If so, why don’t they just show the data of someone who has same mtDNA? There are more than dozens populaiton genetics papers that you can check very easily. They can’t, because their claim is not true.

Before showing the evidence, I have to point out that the probability 1/300 reported in Peter Gill’s study in 1995 was outdated. Gill “guessed” the number from statistical average because he didn’t find AA’s mtDNA type in database available in 1995. Therefore, any unknown mtDNA in 1995 was estimated as “1/300” temporally, even if its actual probability is 1/5000 or 1/100,000 (!).

To get more accurate estimate, I checked all mtDNA (HVI) database available to me that contained 8,902 sequences of European Caucasian including US Caucasian, British, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Polish, Russian, Hungarian, Austrian, Dutch, Norwegian, Swedish, Ashkenazic Jewish, Belgian, Icelandic, Austrian, Bulgarian, Portuguese and so on. I also checked African and Asian population just in case. Most convenient sources are major human genetics journals such as Annals of Human Genetics and American Journal of Human Genetics (especially Annals of Human Genetics vol 67 (2003), p281 was helpful). Also computerized database were used, such as NCBI GenBank, European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), and US Department of Justice FBI CODIS database.

The reason why I investigated different regions separately was to see “population structure” due to ethnic subgroup, but prevalence of Tara clan was 10 +/- 2% in all countries in Europe, which indicates there is no siginificant structure (also see Science Vol 254 p1735). I’ll discuss this issue in Question 3.

TABLE 4 (Some examples of European mtDNA (HVI) studies)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
French (total = 109)
9 person has the most common type: CRS (no mutation)
Almost all other 93 person has a unique mtDNA (does not share mtDNA each other).
No one has AA’s mtDNA (16126C, 16266T, 16294T, 16304C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Autstrian (total = 101)
9 person has the most common type: CRS (no mutation)
Almost all other 80 person has a unique mtDNA (does not share mtDNA each other).
No one has AA’s mtDNA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
British (total = 100)
12 person has the most common type: CRS (no mutation)
No one has AA’s mtDNA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russians and Ukrainians (total = 201)
22 person has the most common type: CRS (no mutation)
No one has AA’s mtDNA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Polish (total = 436)
67 person has the most common type: CRS (no mutation)
No one has AA’s mtDNA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
US Caucasians total = 323
61 person has the most common type: CRS (no mutation)
No one has AA’s mtDNA


In all regions, by far the most common mtDNA haplotype (HVI) is CRS (Cambridge Reference sequence). About 10% of population in any country (except US) has this sequence (almost same prevalence as AB blood type), i.e. about 65 million European has an exactly same mtDNA sequence (at HVI). There is no known reason why this specific type is so prevalent. It seems just stochastic genetic drift event. A friend of mine jokes this mtDNA type is related to “beauty phenotype” expressed in their daughters, but I don’t think it’s true. (By the way, this CRS sequence itself from a British woman whose identity kept secret for some reason since 1981. A rumor goes that it was a researcher’s wife’s mtDNA.)

However, this CRS mtDNA is an exception. Almost all other mtDNA type is rare, usually less than 1%. For example, I checked Tsarina’s mtDNA type 16111T/16357C. There was 0 in database of 8902 caucasians. Tsar’s mtDNA was also rare, 0 out of 8902. And Anna Anderson’s mtDNA had 1 in 8902 (1 found in Iceland study). therefore the random match probability is 1/8902 = 0.01%: about 30 times rarer than the original Peter Gill’s estimate (1/300).

So, can I conclude from this DNA evidence alone? Not so fast. I think many people confuse DNA’s random match probability, likelihood ratio, with Posterior Odds. To discuss if AA is FS, we have to discuss posterior odds.

Bayesian inference is the logical/mathematical framework to interpret the combined probability of independent event. Forensic science in both US and UK are always interepreted in a logical sturucture of Bayesian inference. In the court, forensic exprert are instructed by judge to testify only regarding to “DNA random match probability” or “likelihood ratio”, but what really concern jury is the posterior odds. Here I try to be a jury rather than a DNA expert.

O (posterior) = O (prior) * DNA likelihood ratio

Roughly speaking, if two person’s sex, age, physical feature including height, hair color, face feature, prior odds are 1:10. Considering FS has been missing at almost exactly same time at same geological area as AA appeared, even conservative odds brings this to 1:100. DNA random probability is a simply inverse of likelihood ratio in this case, so my calculation shows:

O (posterior) = 1/100 x 1/9000 = 1/900,000 (that is to say, probability that AA is FS is 99.9999%)

As “reasonable doubt” is generally considered O(posterior)(threshold)
=1/10,000, it is reasonable to accept hypothesis that “AA is FS”.

Therefore, with overwhelming evidential support and lack of alternative scenario, I support the hypothesis that AA= FS.

 

[Elspeth]

I was reporting what Dr Gill himself had said. With years of scientific training behind me, I'm a lot more confident about an assertion of 1 in 300 in a peer-reviwed paper than in an assertion of 1 in 10,000 in what looks like more of an opinion piece. The 99.67% likelihood is still impressively high, as Dr Gill said; it just isn't iron-clad certain, especially as a stand-alone data point.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Is there any way we can contact him, and ask him if his estimations have changed based on the Bayesian method? Dr. Melton was very accesible, as was Ginter, I don't think I've ever heard of anyone writing Gill himself.

Really, anything in the high 90% range is more than impressive. As I've said before, I've seen paternity cases and criminal cases decided on less, as little as 96% and no one ever cries foul as they do in the AA case (though their personal lives depend on it)

In the end, why would AA be anyone else than FS? FS and AN were always the only two suspects, one is ruled out.

 

[Russophile]

(I'm away from home this week so I can't check).

Good Lord Elspeth! You're on vacation and you're POSTING??
Oh.
Wait.
I did that when I was in Hawai'i. . . .

 

[Elspeth]

Is there any way we can contact him, and ask him if his estimations have changed based on the Bayesian method? Dr. Melton was very accesible, as was Ginter, I don't think I've ever heard of anyone writing Gill himself.

I don't know which of the authors did the statistical analysis, but a few months ago I contacted Dr Stoneking (the lead author on the paper) for his comments, which I've posted in the "The Gill Paper" thread. The relevant part of his response to me was this:

"These DNA tests therefore indicate that Anna Anderson was not Anastasia, and most likely she was Franzisca Schanzkowska. I would further add that these sorts of DNA tests are considered highly reliable and are used routinely in the forensic DNA community."

So as of earlier this year, his opinion was that Anna Anderson was not Anastasia but he wasn't as certain that she was Franziska, saying that most likely she was Franziska, which is a less definite statement than the one about Anastasia. I mean, if you asked him to give a yes-or-no answer about Franziska it looks as though he'd say "yes" - I'm not trying to suggest he thinks there's massive doubt. It's just that even recently it seems that this conclusion is less certain than the Anastasia one.

Really, anything in the high 90% range is more than impressive. As I've said before, I've seen paternity cases and criminal cases decided on less, as little as 96% and no one ever cries foul as they do in the AA case (though their personal lives depend on it)

That probably wouldn't be mtDNA testing, which isn't useful in paternity tests as far as I know. Once you're using different tests, the standards of proof will probably also be different.

In the end, why would AA be anyone else than FS? FS and AN were always the only two suspects, one is ruled out.

Doesn't mean there isn't a third person out there that nobody knew about. I mean, I can't answer this one because I'm not particularly bothered one way or the other who she was so I haven't been following all the hearsay evidence and other stuff; I just didn't like some of the posts that were trashing the reputation of the scientists involved in the DNA analyses.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

I don't know which of the authors did the statistical analysis, but a few months ago I contacted Dr Stoneking (the lead author on the paper) for his comments, which I've posted in the "The Gill Paper" thread. The relevant part of his response to me was this:

"These DNA tests therefore indicate that Anna Anderson was not Anastasia, and most likely she was Franzisca Schanzkowska. I would further add that these sorts of DNA tests are considered highly reliable and are used routinely in the forensic DNA community."

That sounds like a good response, thanks for writing him and sharing with us. It does seem the scientists were certain the sample was AA's, and far too much has been made of Gill's comment 'if you accept this is from AA' by those who want to hold onto hope. I really don't think the scientists would have gone to so much trouble over this and had the papers done and all if they had thought for a minute they were not AA's. Also the idea of a switch and misconduct is so offensive and preposterous it's not even a valid topic to discuss.

Doesn't mean there isn't a third person out there that nobody knew about. I mean, I can't answer this one because I'm not particularly bothered one way or the other who she was so I haven't been following all the hearsay evidence and other stuff; I just didn't like some of the posts that were trashing the reputation of the scientists involved in the DNA analyses.

I agree about the scientist trashing, but the 'anonymous long lost identical cousin' theory has also been a very frustrating thing to deal with in these discussions. *sigh* I can't understand why there would be so much consideration of such astronomical odds of the alternate position when it's obvious that all signs point to FS and where there's smoke, there's fire. In some versions, the mysterious cousin is a CHEKA plant.

 

[Russophile]

In some versions, the mysterious cousin is a CHEKA plant.

I have never heard of that. Do you have a book to reference so I can check that out? Thanks.

 

[Menarue]

Doesn't mean there isn't a third person out there that nobody knew about. I mean, I can't answer this one because I'm not particularly bothered one way or the other who she was so I haven't been following all the hearsay evidence and other stuff; I just didn't like some of the posts that were trashing the reputation of the scientists involved in the DNA analyses.

That is how I feel but with another dislike to add, I hate the idea of an impostor being able to get away with the pretense that she was the poor murdered GD Anastasia, Tatiana, Maria or even Olga. It is too cruel and an insult to their memory.

 

[Warren]

The Administrators are becoming increasingly concerned at some of the statements and claims being made in this thread. Members are reminded of the need to avoid posting statements that are libellous or defamatory.

To avoid the threat of legal action this means staying away from personal attacks against published authors. Personal attacks include accusations that certain statements in books are lies, or are based on lies, as well as accusations that the authors are liars or that their sources are liars (which implies that the authors have knowingly included false information).

There is a difference between saying that you disagree with someone, that someone is wrong, and that someone is lying. As you progress along that list you need to back up statements with increasingly solid proof. Please note that quoting posters or sources from other discussion boards does not constitute such proof.

Warren
for the TRF Administrators

 

[Anna was Franziska]

I have never called anyone a 'liar' and have purposely avoided posting anything that can make me be accused of that, and I believe if all the posts are read this will bear out. However, if this includes even statements such as that I don't believe everything that's in Rathlef's book because she was on AA's side, or that Chat doesn't believe anything in Gilliard's book because he was against her, then we really have nothing to discuss here anymore because basically all we do is match quotes and give reasons for not accepting each other's quotes.

I also must bring to attention that when it comes to accusations, direct or insinuated, no one has been more 'defamed' than the DNA scientists, Martha Jefferson Hospital, the British Crown and the Russian Gov't, in all the ridiculous accusations that the DNA testing was 'shady', there was intentional mishandling or wrongdoing to achieve a certain result, or that results or even bone fragments were invented and/or lied about to try to trick people. Even the very position that AA might still be AN after the DNA tests proved otherwise alludes to this position, for if the poster accepted the results, there would not still be a discussion, and if they don't accept the results, it has to be due to aforementioned reasons. As we all know, the open statements regarding accusations of tampering and/or incompetence of the scientists have been very common here, and I don't think it's right, now that the spectre of 'legal action' has been raised, that this issue also not be addressed.

Elsewhere, other mods and admins have even stated that unless valid proof of tampering or misconduct in the DNA testing be produced and proven, no such allegations should be made, and due to this, and the fact that, (barring conspiracy theories) all the bodies are now accounted for, no discussion of AA = AN as a viable, defensible position continue, (or that Heino Tammet= Alexei, etc) only the aspects of the claimant stories as they appear in a historical sense.

 

[ferrymansdaughter]

. …She remembered the girls so well she was able to describe in detail the formation of their teeth, fingers and nails. Being a person who knew the girls that closely and saying with no reservations at all that the Miss Unknown was not one of the girls looks very bad for the claimant and her supporting cast. Therefore Sophie must become an untrustworthy liar. I do not believe she was.

Can you tell me where you read this? I was not aware that that Baroness was a dental specialist, much less a manicurist. (Just how close did she get to the girls? I have this image of her peering closely into their mouths during her visits to Tsarskoe Selo .) Apart from which by the time she visited Dalldorf, AA had had several teeth removed the year before and so the Baroness wouldn't have been able to done any kind of comparison.

Incidentally, I believe it was Felix Yussopuv (Chat will be able to confirm this or correct me) who when shown a picture of AA's hands thought that it was a picture of Tsarina's hands.

 

[Michael HR]

It seemed to me, without going through all the threads again, that in the main it was the poster Chat-Noir that was calling people liars IMHO. He often states Gillard and the Baroness as liars in relation to AA etc. While I am new here I was surprised at the tone Chat_Noir takes to others who post valid views for discussion but if they do not agree with his they are shot down. A was F seem to be at the receaving end of this more than most. She puts forward a view that is supported by evidence in the form of DNA etc.

If people are long dead they can be called liars if needed as they cannot start a court action. Those alive I agree could and we should not without good evidence suggest. this Authors would normally be mistaken rather than issuing a lie knowingly in their works.

The AA debate is a valid debate in that from the DNA we see that she was not AN and therefore that leads to only one valid view point. As to those who supported her we can debate their reasons why they did so as some must have know she was not who she stated she was, Such as Botkin who had known the real AN. This would seem to go for all involved such as Gillard etc as their roles demand an explination from an historical point of view on both sides of the argument although AA not being AN is the winning side now as we all know.

As to modern day people we must be careful. Most of us would not say that the people who carried out the DNA testing have lied, why on earth would they, but some do argue this who do not like the results that have come out against AA. Some seem to suggest that even the Royal family are in on a lie to defraud the public with regard to the ID of AA and this must be disputed.

It seems to me that the only persons who have a reason to call anyone a liar are those who still try to suggest with a straight face that AA was AN as this would seem to be the only way to get around the strong evidence that she was a Polish factory worker who managed to fool many people over many years and damage and hurt the reputaitons of such people as GD Olga who deserve in light of modern evidence to have their point of view put and their reputations corrected to show that they were correct the entire time.

The whole AA episode was a lie that has gone on for long enough and with the assistance of the modern day evidence must be argued to show just who AA actually was and who and why others have supported her even to this day and age, including their possible reasons why.

 

[ferrymansdaughter]

Elsewhere, other mods and admins have even stated that unless valid proof of tampering or misconduct in the DNA testing be produced and proven, no such allegations should be made, and due to this, and the fact that, (barring conspiracy theories) all the bodies are now accounted for, no discussion of AA = AN as a viable, defensible position continue, (or that Heino Tammet= Alexei, etc) only the aspects of the claimant stories as they appear in a historical sense.

So what are you saying? That the debate on this forum should also be shut down?

 

[ferrymansdaughter]

I also must bring to attention that when it comes to accusations, direct or insinuated, no one has been more 'defamed' than the DNA scientists, Martha Jefferson Hospital, the British Crown and the Russian Gov't, in all the ridiculous accusations that the DNA testing was 'shady', there was intentional mishandling or wrongdoing to achieve a certain result, or that results or even bone fragments were invented and/or lied about to try to trick people. Even the very position that AA might still be AN after the DNA tests proved otherwise alludes to this position, for if the poster accepted the results, there would not still be a discussion, and if they don't accept the results, it has to be due to aforementioned reasons. As we all know, the open statements regarding accusations of tampering and/or incompetence of the scientists have been very common here, and I don't think it's right, now that the spectre of 'legal action' has been raised, that this issue also not be addressed.

.

Well personally I certainly disagree with that. You know perfectly well that I don't think AA was FS but I've never said that any of the scientists "intentionally mishandled", "invented results or bone fragments" (who did say that by the way - anyone?) or indeed that they were "incompetent". What I have said is that - unlike the Pope - I don't believe DNA is infallible (and I am not prepared to accept the opinion of someone you quoted who doesn't even give his full name). I respect your right to have an opinion - even if I don't like the way you voice it sometimes - so why can't you do the same for others without putting words in our mouths?

 

[ferrymansdaughter]

This article by Laurie Cohen originally appeared in the Wall Street Journal in November 1997 with regard to an unrelated criminal case.

“In the scientific community, though, the much-sought-after forensic tool is being greeted with skepticism. While juries may assume one type of DNA is the same as another, the truth is that mitochondrial DNA—which is inherited from the mother’s side only—doesn’t provide the same kind of unique fingerprint as nuclear DNA. The same mitochondrial DNA sequence is shared by siblings and their mother and all of a person’s maternal relatives for many generations. And a 1993 British study found that even among unrelated people, four out of 100 who were tested shared the same mitochondrial DNA sequence.”

http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/accuracy.html

Obviously it’s the bit I’ve highlighted that interests me. (See link for whole article.) I appreciate that a long time has passed since then but if this is true then that seems a bit less than 99% certainty to me. Elspeth, do you have any idea what study this refers to?

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Well personally I certainly disagree with that. You know perfectly well that I don't think AA was FS but I've never said that any of the scientists "intentionally mishandled", "invented results or bone fragments" (who did say that by the way - anyone?) or indeed that they were "incompetent". What I have said is that - unlike the Pope - I don't believe DNA is infallible (and I am not prepared to accept the opinion of someone you quoted who doesn't even give his full name). I respect your right to have an opinion - even if I don't like the way you voice it sometimes - so why can't you do the same for others without putting words in our mouths?

Perhaps you haven't alleged incompetance or intentional tampering, but others of the same position have. In addition to that, the very position that AA might still be AN even after the DNA ruled out AA being AN in FOUR TESTS which all matched up, and the bones found last year were found to be the last two missing children, proving there were no survivors regardless of what the AA results said, is just as much as saying that you do not believe or accept the results found by several scientists. Isn't that technically the same thing (or worse) as saying you don't accept certain quotes in certain books by certain people, and if one is an accusation, why not the other?

 

[Elspeth]

This article by Laurie Cohen originally appeared in the Wall Street Journal in November 1997 with regard to an unrelated criminal case.

“In the scientific community, though, the much-sought-after forensic tool is being greeted with skepticism. While juries may assume one type of DNA is the same as another, the truth is that mitochondrial DNA—which is inherited from the mother’s side only—doesn’t provide the same kind of unique fingerprint as nuclear DNA. The same mitochondrial DNA sequence is shared by siblings and their mother and all of a person’s maternal relatives for many generations. And a 1993 British study found that even among unrelated people, four out of 100 who were tested shared the same mitochondrial DNA sequence.”

http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/accuracy.html

Obviously it’s the bit I’ve highlighted that interests me. (See link for whole article.) I appreciate that a long time has passed since then but if this is true then that seems a bit less than 99% certainty to me. Elspeth, do you have any idea what study this refers to?

I don't entirely see her point, to be honest, because it was known from the start that mtDNA isn't a unique fingerprint. Since it's inherited, usually unchanged (I think, anyway), from the mother, it's obvious that it isn't going to provide a definitive ID of a particular individual. However, that isn't how the Gill researchers were using it; they were simply trying to show patterns of relatedness, which is an appropriate use of the technique.'

As for the comment about unrelated people sharing the mtDNA, that isn't surprising because some mtDNA types are a lot more common than others, and this has to be taken into account when deciding how significant your results are. The Cambridge Reference Sequence (aka the Anderson sequence, which has nothing to do with Anna Anderson) is quite a common one, which is why it's used as the reference sequence to compare other sequences.

I seriously doubt that mtDNA testing is regarded with scepticism in the scientific community. It may be the case in the lay community where people don't know one type of DNA from another, but mtDNA is quite a powerful tool for tracing family relationships.

 

[Elspeth]

Well personally I certainly disagree with that. You know perfectly well that I don't think AA was FS but I've never said that any of the scientists "intentionally mishandled", "invented results or bone fragments" (who did say that by the way - anyone?) or indeed that they were "incompetent". What I have said is that - unlike the Pope - I don't believe DNA is infallible (and I am not prepared to accept the opinion of someone you quoted who doesn't even give his full name). I respect your right to have an opinion - even if I don't like the way you voice it sometimes - so why can't you do the same for others without putting words in our mouths?

What do you mean in practical terms here? With a very few exceptions, people have a unique DNA fingerprint (nuclear DNA, that is). Also with a very few exceptions, mtDNA can be used to trace familial relationships. If a scientist comes up with a nuclear DNA match between samples alleged to have been from two people, or an mtDNA match or mismatch between two samples, what reason would you have to dismiss the results other than shoddy work by the scientist or deliberate attempts to mislead?

 

[ChatNoir]

It seemed to me, without going through all the threads again, that in the main it was the poster Chat-Noir that was calling people liars IMHO. He often states Gillard and the Baroness as liars in relation to AA etc.

From Botkin's book:

"But to quote all the instances in which M. Gilliard had stated deliberate untruths, or availed himself of retouched photographs and other faked or planted evidence, would require the writing of a whole book."
So, as you can see, I am not the only one. And if you have read my posts, you will also see that I have backed up my accusations against Gilliard. Now I would like you to find the post where I call the Baroness a liar.

While I am new here I was surprised at the tone Chat_Noir takes to others who post valid views for discussion but if they do not agree with his they are shot down. A was F seem to be at the receaving end of this more than most. She puts forward a view that is supported by evidence in the form of DNA etc.

And what do you expect me to do in a discussion? Just sit back and say "Oh, how right you are!" Honestly.........

If people are long dead they can be called liars if needed as they cannot start a court action. Those alive I agree could and we should not without good evidence suggest. this Authors would normally be mistaken rather than issuing a lie knowingly in their works.

Don't worry, Gilliard had to confess in the Hamburg court that he had been telling, eh, untruths. Why do you think he burned his papers?

The AA debate is a valid debate in that from the DNA we see that she was not AN and therefore that leads to only one valid view point. As to those who supported her we can debate their reasons why they did so as some must have know she was not who she stated she was, Such as Botkin who had known the real AN. This would seem to go for all involved such as Gillard etc as their roles demand an explination from an historical point of view on both sides of the argument although AA not being AN is the winning side now as we all know.

And this would involve reading a few books.

It seems to me that the only persons who have a reason to call anyone a liar are those who still try to suggest with a straight face that AA was AN as this would seem to be the only way to get around the strong evidence that she was a Polish factory worker who managed to fool many people over many years and damage and hurt the reputaitons of such people as GD Olga who deserve in light of modern evidence to have their point of view put and their reputations corrected to show that they were correct the entire time.

You mean that Olga was correct when she said: "My heart tells me that the little one is Anastasia"? And, by the way, FS was a German factory worker.

The whole AA episode was a lie that has gone on for long enough and with the assistance of the modern day evidence must be argued to show just who AA actually was and who and why others have supported her even to this day and age, including their possible reasons why.

As I said before, this would involve actually reading up on the matter.

 

[ferrymansdaughter]

What do you mean in practical terms here? With a very few exceptions, people have a unique DNA fingerprint (nuclear DNA, that is). Also with a very few exceptions, mtDNA can be used to trace familial relationships. If a scientist comes up with a nuclear DNA match between samples alleged to have been from two people, or an mtDNA match or mismatch between two samples, what reason would you have to dismiss the results other than shoddy work by the scientist or deliberate attempts to mislead?

Well how about the fact that - as you have said above - there are a few exceptions and unrelated people can have the same mTdna profile? I am simply saying that there is a possibility - however slight it may be - that the results are not 100% and since it doesn't square in my mind with a lot of the historical testimony, that bothers me.

 

[ChatNoir]

Incidentally, I believe it was Felix Yussopuv (Chat will be able to confirm this or correct me) who when shown a picture of AA's hands thought that it was a picture of Tsarina's hands.

This is correct according to Botkin. I do have the photo in Botkin's book, but no scanner, so I cannot post it here.

 

[Elspeth]

Well how about the fact that - as you have said above - there are a few exceptions and unrelated people can have the same mTdna profile?

This is, unless the scientists concerned are ignorant or dishonest or are working with something so outdated that newer discoveries have cast doubt on the results, taken into account when the results are reported. This is why an mtDNA match isn't given the same weight as a DNA fingerprint match, and why the Gill-Stoneking paper reported that there was still a finite possibility on the basis of just the DNA that Anna Anderson wasn't Franziska Schankowska. However, the mtDNA mismatches have ruled out the possibility of her being related to Tsarina Alexandra unless you fall back on shoddy or fraudulent work. Since Dr Stoneking told me a few months ago that the results show that Anna wasn't Anastasia and since Dr Ginther told someone else a couple of years ago that the Gill-Stoneking results are generally believable, I think we can probably rule out the possibility of the results being invalidated by developments in the techniques since 1994. That leaves incomptence and dishonesty as the only possibilities.

I am simply saying that there is a possibility - however slight it may be - that the results are not 100% and since it doesn't square in my mind with a lot of the historical testimony, that bothers me.

The results are as reported. Unless you want to invoke the spectre of incompetent or dishonest scientists or some massive and concerted and very well concealed tampering exercise by third parties, Anna Anderson isn't Grand Duchess Anastasia.