DNA and the law

[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.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3&Itemid=1

(for background informational purposes only)

 

[Elspeth]

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]

1:100? 1:1000? 1:6000?

[FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]Elspeth,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]Well. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In [/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]what borders th[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]is[/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif] chance varie[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]s[/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]? (depending on sort of mtDNA sequence):[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]1:100? 1:1,000? 1:6,000?[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]If I understand correctly, 1:6,000 [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]was[/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif] the best (highest) chance ([/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]in 1990-th years[/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]Do you know? [/FONT]

 

[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]

My question

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 [FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]and [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]ANR[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]had [/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]identical ears + heav[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]y[/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif] HV = 1 : (6500X10000) = 1 : 65 000 000!!![/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Thus, a probability of that Anna Anderson was Anastasia Romanova is [/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]65 million [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]:[/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]1 !!! [/FONT]
[/FONT]

 

[Elspeth]

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 [FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]and [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]ANR[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]had [/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]identical ears + heav[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]y[/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif] HV = 1 : (6500X10000) = 1 : 65 000 000!!![/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Thus, a probability of that Anna Anderson was Anastasia Romanova is [/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]65 million [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]:[/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]1 !!! [/FONT]
[/FONT]

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]

for Elspeth and ChatNoir too

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).»
[FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif]1. As AGRBear wrote earlier (#69): «Felix (Shanzkovsky) signed a sworn statement [this means it is not heresay but a legal document] that Fr[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]anziska [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif]S[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif].[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif] 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)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif]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 post[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]ed[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif] [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]the [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif]refer[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]ence[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif] [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]to[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif] internet-adress. This article was about a congenital HV and author wrote [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]that[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif] [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]C-HV was [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif]very-very rare [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]for Europeans[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif] (one [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]or two [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif]case on all France! - if I remember correctly)/[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif]Hey, [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]dear [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif]Chat[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Noir[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif]! Would you post it here? [/FONT]

 

[BorisRom]

<..>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.

 

[Elspeth]

Yes, but you're talking about matches and I'm talking about mismatches. If DNA samples from two people don't match, they don't match. Statistics are irrelevant.

You have two issues going on with mtDNA tests. Because mtDNA isn't a unique fingerprint, you can't make a definite identification of a person from his or her mtDNA. You can compare an mtDNA sample from an unknown person with mtDNA from a known person; if the two samples have differences in the sequence, you can say with great confidence that the two individuals aren't related through the maternal line.

Again, I'm not an expert so I hope I'm not misunderstanding things, but the "with great confidence" statement is based on the fact that mtDNA has a slow rate of mutation, so it's usually passed from mother to offspring unchanged. When the two people whose mtDNA you're comparing are from similar generations to each other, and when the common ancestress was only a couple of generations earlier, which is the case here (Prince Philip's great-grandmother was Anastasia's grandmother), you'd expect an exact mtDNA match. Instead of which, there are something like five or six mismatches. That simply doesn't happen with mtDNA in two or three generations. You might be able to explain away one mismatch on the basis of an unexpected mutation, but not five or six.

Now, if the two mtDNA sequences (the one from the unknown person and the one from the known person) do match, this is where you get into the realms of statistics. We have two cases where there are matches.

1. The Ekaterinburg remains (at least some of the skeletons) and Prince Philip.

2. Anna Anderson and Carl Maucher.

In the first case, according to the King and Wilson book, there's a 1 in 6000 chance of European Caucasians having the same mtDNA pattern as Prince Philip, and they say it's a rare profile. Their basis for the 1 in 6000 number is the Sykes book, "TheSeven Daughters of Eve," which I don't have [*scurries over to Amazon*] so I can't tell you where it originates. However, taking their word for it that it's a rare profile, this suggests that the match indicates relatedness rather than coincidence.

In the second case, according to the Gill paper, they checked the Maucher profile against 300 profiles in various databases and didn't find a match, so they concluded that this was also a rare profile. Again, the match indicates relatedness rather than coincidence.

In both cases, coincidence is still quite possible. You have to take into account other factors, such as the possibility that a group of nine skeletons of which four had the same mtDNA profile as Prince Philip could belong to a family group other than the Romanovs, or whether another group of people with the same individuals as this one (mother and three daughters, father, and some unrelated individuals) had also gone missing at around that time. For the Anderson-Maucher case, this is where things like the bunions and the ears and the language skills come into play. If Franziska Schankowska as an adult didn't have bunions but Anna Anderson did, then they aren't the same person. If one of them had blue eyes and one had hazel eyes, they aren't the same person. The mtDNA match with Carl Maucher isn't definitive.

But unless you can come up with some evidence that the DNA sample from Anna Anderson wasn't really from her, the mismatch with Prince Philip means she isn't Anastasia. Even if they both had bunions. Even if they both had blue eyes. Even if they had very similar shaped ears. Statistics are irrelevant in the face of a mismatch.

 

[ChatNoir]

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).»
[FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif]1. As AGRBear wrote earlier (#69): «Felix (Shanzkovsky) signed a sworn statement [this means it is not heresay but a legal document] that Fr[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]anziska [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif]S[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif].[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif] 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)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif]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 post[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]ed[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]the [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif]refer[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]ence[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]to[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif] internet-adress. This article was about a congenital HV and author wrote [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]that[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]C-HV was [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif]very-very rare [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]for Europeans[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif] (one [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]or two [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif]case on all France! - if I remember correctly)/[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif]Hey, [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]dear [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif]Chat[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Noir[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif]! Would you post it here? [/FONT]

Here is the link:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1398603

 

[ChatNoir]

The statement about the hallux valgus comes from a TB doctor, for heavens' sake.

Actually, Professor Rudnev was a surgeon. In Bella Cohen's article from the New York Times, she claims that he was called in to look at Anastasia's severe "protruding bone" on her foot in Russia, but advised against an operation.

 

[BorisRom]

Here is the link:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1398603

Dear ChatNoir,
thank you very much!
Boris

 

[BorisRom]

910 millon :1 (!!!)

Elspeth,
Well. Let me to approach to problem AA-ANR [FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]from statistical [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif](likelihood) [/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]estimations once again.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]We have at least three comparisons [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]AA and ANR[/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif] with known likelihood estimations:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]1. Medical statistics of HV [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]- for heavy HV = 6500:1 (and in view of accent on the right foot) = 13000:1[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif](I don't speak here about medical statistics of C-HV \18 million:1 \ as it is a question at issue from your point of view)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]2. Reliability of comparison of an auricle (ear) = not less than 10 000:1[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]3. Reliability of a graphological analysis = not less 7:1 (on the known published sources).[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Thus, probability of that Anna Anderson was Anastasia Romanova = (13000x10000x7) =910 million:1 (!!!)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]It is without taking into account all other certificates in favour of Anna Anderson (those other certificates which cannot be in likelihood estimations).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]910 million - it is in some times more, than all population of the Europe (including Russia) and the USA.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Under pressure of this likelihood estimation I categorically reject tests of DNA. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Conclusions: or the samples of AA were inappropriate, or the Ekaterinburg remains are not Romanov's remains, or Prince Philip has not clear origin. Or all this together. [/FONT]

 

[BorisRom]

Elspeth,
I'm very grateful to you for useful discussion.
It was useful and pleasant for me. I hope for the further conversation.
Boris Romanov

 

[Anna was Franziska]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]It is without taking into account all other certificates in favour of Anna Anderson (those other certificates which cannot be in likelihood estimations).[/FONT]

Like what? This person said this and that? Those estimations = 0.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]

910 million - it is in some times more, than all population of the Europe (including Russia) and the USA.

[/FONT]

That means she's reeeeaaallly not AN and then some!

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]

Under pressure of this likelihood estimation I categorically reject tests of DNA.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Conclusions: or the samples of AA were inappropriate,[/FONT]

Do you mean switched, tampered with, etc.? If so please give us proof. I'd say the chances all of them (intestine, hair, bones) were ALL tampered with are, oh, about 910 million to none.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]

or the Ekaterinburg remains are not Romanov's remains,

[/FONT]

Who are they?

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]

or Prince Philip has not clear origin.

[/FONT]

Are you questioning his paretage? Remember, even IF his mother had an affair, it would make NO difference in his mtDNA since that comes from the mother's line only, and we know she gave birth to him.

I don't mean to sound unkind but you are really getting extreme here. Why won't you just accept the DNA? Why do you feel it's so important to keep coming up with outrageous theories to make it go away?

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Now that numbers and odds are the issue, it's time to drag out Davek's estimations based on all those of European origins and see just how likely it is AA was FS.

What are the chances that Anna Anderson was Franziska Schanskowksa based on DNA?

By DaveK

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.

Anna Anderson was FS = 99.9999%
Anna Anderson was Anastasia = 0.00000000 (add 80 of zero here)0001% *
FS was murdered by Grossmann = 0.00001%
FS was murdered by other murders = 0.00002%
FS was killed by accident = 0.00002%
FS was living peacefully under other pseudonym = 0.00004%
FS was kidnapped by foreign intelligence agency such as KGB = 0.00001%
FS didn’t exist from beginning, she was a fiction by her family= 0.000001%

Anna Anderson was Franzkiska Schanzkowska = 99.9999%

 

[BorisRom]

<...>Are you questioning his paretage? Remember, even IF his mother had an affair, it would make NO difference in his mtDNA since that comes from the mother's line only, and we know she gave birth to him. <...>

About Prince Philip?
Really you think so? It is shockingly of you to think so! I am revolted! I meant another (a noble act): for example, adoption by family of the son of other woman.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

About Prince Philip?
Really you think so? It is shockingly of you to think so! I am revolted! I meant another (a noble act): for example, adoption by family of the son of other woman.

No I do NOT think so, I was asking what you meant by that. Adopted? is still an extreme grasp at straws. Royalty don't go around adopting random children. He was her child, she was by that time nearly 40 years old, and had several other children. There is no reason, for any reason, to doubt his parentage. I don't understand WHY it's so important for you to disbelieve the DNA tests that you come up with such wild stories?!

 

[Elspeth]

Actually, Professor Rudnev was a surgeon. In Bella Cohen's article from the New York Times, she claims that he was called in to look at Anastasia's severe "protruding bone" on her foot in Russia, but advised against an operation.

OK, hang on a tic, I think we're talking about different things. When Boris was claiming that Anna Anderson had congenital hallux valgus, I asked how anybody knew what her feet had been like when she was an infant, and he said that a doctor who'd been called in to treat her for TB had said that the hallux valgus was severe enough that it must have been congenital. Am I getting this mixed up with something else?

 

[BorisRom]

A-W-F
Just you have thought up this wild history, that "Prince Philip's mother had an affair". Not I have thought up it. My poor English stumbles at you. I suggest you to stop this ugly discussion. I am revolted!

 

[Anna was Franziska]

A-W-F
Just you have thought up this wild history, that "Prince Philip's mother had an affair". Not I have thought up it. My poor English stumbles at you. I suggest you to stop this ugly discussion. I am revolted!

Just so you understand, Boris, I do NOT think she had an affair, I was questioning what YOU meant by 'unknown origins' and guessed that might be what you were thinking. That's all.

 

[BorisRom]

Just so you understand, Boris, I do NOT think she had an affair, I was questioning what YOU meant by 'unknown origins' and guessed that might be what you were thinking. That's all.

I do not think, that «that's all». I think, that you should apologize to all participants of this forum and you should apologize to Englishmen especially. Your views revolt me.

 

[ChatNoir]

OK, hang on a tic, I think we're talking about different things. When Boris was claiming that Anna Anderson had congenital hallux valgus, I asked how anybody knew what her feet had been like when she was an infant, and he said that a doctor who'd been called in to treat her for TB had said that the hallux valgus was severe enough that it must have been congenital. Am I getting this mixed up with something else?

Professor Rudnev was the surgeon who operated on her infected arm at the Mommsen Clinic in Berlin. The muscles around the elbow and part of the bone were taken out, and twice more in the month of August the arm was lanced to drain the pus. At the elbow Rudnev inserted a silver joint, which paralyzed the arm at an eighty degree angle and left what remained of the bone permanently exposed. During the anesthesia, the patient "raved in English", but remembered nothing of it when she came to.
Following a detailed report of her physical condition Rudnev remarked, "On the right foot I noted a severe deformity, apparently congenital in nature, in that the big toe bends right over in the middle, forming a bunion."
In her 1927 article in the New York Times, Bella Cohen states that Rudnev (in Russia) was called in to look at Anastasia's "protruding bone" in her foot, and decided against an operation. I have not seen this confirmed anywhere else.

 

[Elspeth]

So the Anastasia in Russia was Anna Anderson, not the pre-1918 Grand Duchess Anastasia? I mean, we're not dealing with a doctor who had treated her before the massacre and then also treated Anna Anderson after she surfaced in the 1920s?

 

[ChatNoir]

The Anastasia in Russia was Grand Duchess Anastasia. According to Bella Cohen's story, we are dealing with the same doctor. However, I have not seen this confirmed anywhere. Rudnev was a staunch supporter of AA. He told an anecdote of walking past the palace on the day the Tsar declared war on Germany. He and a friend were pelted by paper balls from the balcony by Anastasia and Tatiana. When he treated AA at Mommsen, he asked her what she was doing on the day the Tsar declared war. She thought for a while, then laughed and told him that she and her sister were at the window, throwing paper balls at passers by.

 

[Elspeth]

Elspeth,
Well. Let me to approach to problem AA-ANR [FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]from statistical [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif](likelihood) [/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]estimations once again.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]We have at least three comparisons [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]AA and ANR[/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif] with known likelihood estimations:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]1. Medical statistics of HV [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]- for heavy HV = 6500:1 (and in view of accent on the right foot) = 13000:1[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif](I don't speak here about medical statistics of C-HV \18 million:1 \ as it is a question at issue from your point of view)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]2. Reliability of comparison of an auricle (ear) = not less than 10 000:1[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]3. Reliability of a graphological analysis = not less 7:1 (on the known published sources).[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Thus, probability of that Anna Anderson was Anastasia Romanova = (13000x10000x7) =910 million:1 (!!!)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]It is without taking into account all other certificates in favour of Anna Anderson (those other certificates which cannot be in likelihood estimations).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]910 million - it is in some times more, than all population of the Europe (including Russia) and the USA.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Under pressure of this likelihood estimation I categorically reject tests of DNA. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Conclusions: or the samples of AA were inappropriate, or the Ekaterinburg remains are not Romanov's remains, or Prince Philip has not clear origin. Or all this together. [/FONT]

Unless you can show that the Anna Anderson DNA samples weren't from Anna Anderson, you can't reject the DNA results. Prince Philip's DNA sequence has been confirmed by the Ginther study, which I'm told involved solid chains of custody, so you can't discount that.

For one thing, where are you getting the doubling of the probability for hallux valgus that's worse on the right side? For another, as I have said, the match for the ear shape is under dispute. For another, what is the actual story behind the graphological analyses? I've heard an awful lot of "this WAS identical" and "this IS what happened" only to find that it may or may not have been or was fairly certain but not absolutely certain or that this identical eye colour was sort of um well bluish or grayish or hazel but was definitely identical or that the hair colour was identical although it wasn't exactly the same but hair colour changes over time so this is what it would have been if only....

The hallux valgus is a case in point. Early in these discussions, we were hearing that it WAS congenital. Solid fact, absolutely no doubt. Next thing is that we find that the author of a book claims that a doctor who wasn't a specialist in foot conditions had said it must be (in fact his report said "apparently congenital" which leaves a lot of room for doubt). If a doctor who wasn't a specialist had been that vague about the DNA results, you'd have discounted them immediately. I mean, you're discounting them now even though they've been published in one of the world's premier journals and the scientists, who are world leaders in their fields, are still standing behind the results.

You know the saying about lies, damned lies, and statistics, I presume. This is beginning to look a lot like that. You can use statistics to "prove" anything you want to. But one thing you can't do is to handwave away a DNA mismatch with a known relative unless you have some concrete reason for it. Which so far nobody's come up with.

 

[Elspeth]

About Prince Philip?
Really you think so? It is shockingly of you to think so! I am revolted! I meant another (a noble act): for example, adoption by family of the son of other woman.

Charles Ginther said that Prince Philip's mtDNA matched that of Sophie of Hanover, who was used as a DNA donor in his study. We've also heard a few times that the chains of custody in the Ginther study were secure. So that makes the origin of Prince Philip's DNA irrelevant. Anna Anderson's mtDNA had several mismatches with that of Sophie of Hanover, and it's known with some certainty (so I've been told, at least while people seemed to think the Ginther results contradicted the Gill ones, which, incidentally, they don't) that Sophie's sample actually came from her.

So you can leave Prince Philip out of the equation altogether. The intestine and hair samples yielded mtDNA that didn't match the mtDNA of Sophie of Hanover.

The mtDNA from four of the skeletons in that mass grave did do so, however. Which means that Anna Anderson's mtDNA was different in several loci from that of Anastasia's mother.

 

[Elspeth]

The Anastasia in Russia was Grand Duchess Anastasia. According to Bella Cohen's story, we are dealing with the same doctor. However, I have not seen this confirmed anywhere. Rudnev was a staunch supporter of AA. He told an anecdote of walking past the palace on the day the Tsar declared war on Germany. He and a friend were pelted by paper balls from the balcony by Anastasia and Tatiana. When he treated AA at Mommsen, he asked her what she was doing on the day the Tsar declared war. She thought for a while, then laughed and told him that she and her sister were at the window, throwing paper balls at passers by.

Is that the closest he got to Anastasia? I mean, he wasn't treating her as a doctor and saw her feet or anything like that, right? When he saw Anna Anderson's feet, he wasn't doing a first-hand comparison by the sound of it, if the nearest he got to Anastasia was being pelted by paper balls from a balcony while walking past.