DNA and the law

[ChatNoir]

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.

As I said, I have never heard any confirmation of him treating the Grand Duchess Anastasia, only the statement from Bella Cohen who interviewed Shura and Olga. And probably talked to Dr. Rudnev while visiting AA at the Mommsen clinic. (I just went back and re-read the article, and Bella Cohen states that Dr. Rudnev himself told her that he was called in to see Anastasia in 1914 and treat her foot.)

 

[ferrymansdaughter]

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

As I have already pointed out to you before, you dragged this off another board and don't seem to know who "Dave K" really is. Therefore please stop quoting him as an authority on DNA. If he doesn't have the necessary scientific background then it is only his opinion which counts for no more than anyone else's - including mine or yours - and he should not be quoted as "an expert". ​

 

[Anna was Franziska]

As I have already pointed out to you before, you dragged this off another board and don't seem to know who "Dave K" really is. Therefore please stop quoting him as an authority on DNA. If he doesn't have the necessary scientific background then it is only his opinion which counts for no more than anyone else's - including mine or yours - and he should not be quoted as "an expert". ​

If he had come up with numbers that claim she was AN, I bet you wouldn't take issue with him or questions his 'expertise.' We cannot blame a guy for not wanting to reveal his real name or workplace on a public forum but this does not mean he doesn't know what he's doing. Apparently all the scientists who HAVE given their names and labs aren't good enough to impress you, either, so does it really matter? As long as anyone says AA is not AN, you will never accept what they say, regardless of credentials.

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.

Perhaps due to a language barrier, you still do not understand. I DO NOT think anyone had an affair, this is not my 'revolting view', I was simply asking YOU if that's what you thought since you questioned his 'origins'. So it's YOU who owes the apology for alleging he had 'unknown origins!' (whatever it is you meant by that, and perhaps you should have been more specific)


While you're apologizing, how about apologizing to the scientists involved in all the DNA tests whose honesty, integrity and competance you question with your outrageous theories, as well as those who gave the samples for comparison.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

only the statement from Bella Cohen who interviewed Shura and Olga.

So, we have ONE person's word of some possible yet questionable second and third hand stories. That's not very strong evidence.

And probably talked to Dr. Rudnev

Probably? Is that all? Can't you see how weak all this 'he said she said he talked to her she interviewed him she gave this statement saying this person said that' is? Even if they did talk to Dr. Rudnev, he was a supporter, so that taints the validity as well. Really, the vast majority of your AA 'proof' is based on such hearsay and loose information (whether or not it also became 'testimony'). They are really a house of cards that fall in the slightest wind. The probability of inaccuracies and even lies is very strong. Talk about a bad chain of custody, it reminds me of the game of gossip! Hardly anyone is going to believe such stories over DNA.

 

[AGRBear]

...9in part]...

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).

....

Here is an excellent example as to how Tsar's rare DNA /mtDNA and coincidence can jump out and strike:

Bryan Sykes, who wrote THE SEVEN DAUGHTERS OF EVE and a professor of genetics at the Insitute of Molecular Medicine and Oxford U., who became involoved in all of this, discovered that he and Nicholas II have a ancestor in common. [Read his chapter THE TSAR AND I, when you get a chance.] p. 76:

>>Though I like the odd vodka, I have never considered myself a Romanov, but I couldn't help noticing that my own DNA sequence matched that of Tsar Nicholas II.<<

Thus far, I haven't seen any data on Kashubians, which we know FS was a part.

If AA wasn't FS then they, too, may be distant cousins.

As far as daveK's identity is concern. He doesn't need to tell us who he/she is. However, I don't think we can use him/her as an expert. The rest of us are smart enough to read what he/she has written and find out for ourselves if his data is accurate or not.

I'm known only as AGRBear and have no intentions of revealing who I am. There is no need. When I post, I try to back up my thoughts, speculations, and/or facts with sources. It's enough that AGRBear receives threats via PMs and e-mails, which is close enough for me and my loved ones, and I don't need these "nut cases" in my personal life.

AGRBear

 

[BorisRom]

Congenital HV

<...>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). <...>

Elspeth,
With due respect,
And earlier and now, I think, that AA and ANR had congenital HV. It has three certificates: of the case record of AA in hospital in Daldorf, of the surgeon doctor Rudnev and of ShuraTegleva (the nurse of ANR). However, some time ago I began to speak about «heavy HV», because many opponents (of AA) at this forum stated categorical disagreement with my opinion. I have proved (I hope), what even only «heavy HV» in aggregate with other likelihood estimations shows probability of that AA was ANR = not less than 910 millions:1.
Certainly, it is possible to joke of this theme (there is a lie, there is a bald lie and there is a statistics). However, no jokes change this probability.
Let me to paraphrase this joke:
There is the lie «AA was not ANR» , there is the bald lie «AA was FS» and there is the statistics (likelihood estimation) AA=ANR
What of these is a true?
Boris
P.S. In any case I should recognize, that your criticism of my proofs is partly fair and completely objective.

 

[ChatNoir]

So, we have ONE person's word of some possible yet questionable second and third hand stories. That's not very strong evidence.



Probably? Is that all? Can't you see how weak all this 'he said she said he talked to her she interviewed him she gave this statement saying this person said that' is? Even if they did talk to Dr. Rudnev, he was a supporter, so that taints the validity as well. Really, the vast majority of your AA 'proof' is based on such hearsay and loose information (whether or not it also became 'testimony'). They are really a house of cards that fall in the slightest wind. The probability of inaccuracies and even lies is very strong. Talk about a bad chain of custody, it reminds me of the game of gossip! Hardly anyone is going to believe such stories over DNA.

As I was saying, I have no other sources to confirm this, and it is very possible that Ms. Cohen was wrong here.

 

[Elspeth]

As I said, I have never heard any confirmation of him treating the Grand Duchess Anastasia, only the statement from Bella Cohen who interviewed Shura and Olga. And probably talked to Dr. Rudnev while visiting AA at the Mommsen clinic. (I just went back and re-read the article, and Bella Cohen states that Dr. Rudnev himself told her that he was called in to see Anastasia in 1914 and treat her foot.)

Apologies if you've already said this but I'm getting deeply confused here. Where is this article you're referring to?

 

[ChatNoir]

Apologies if you've already said this but I'm getting deeply confused here. Where is this article you're referring to?

The article was written by Bella Cohen and appeared in The New York Times in 1927. You can all buy it from their archives for very little money.

 

[Elspeth]

Elspeth,
With due respect,
And earlier and now, I think, that AA and ANR had congenital HV. It has three certificates: of the case record of AA in hospital in Daldorf, of the surgeon doctor Rudnev and of ShuraTegleva (the nurse of ANR). However, some time ago I began to speak about «heavy HV», because many opponents (of AA) at this forum stated categorical disagreement with my opinion. I have proved (I hope), what even only «heavy HV» in aggregate with other likelihood estimations shows probability of that AA was ANR = not less than 910 millions:1.

I completely disagree with those statistics. All the aspects that you're claiming are certain are in fact under dispute. If all of them were certain, and if it were shown that the DNA samples had been exchanged, that would be one thing. But as it stands at the moment, the DNA results seem to be firmer than just about any of these others, which are all anecdotal and far flimsier than you're making out. You can't discount the DNA results unless you can show that the DNA samples weren't from Anna Anderson. And by "show" I do mean show, not just handwave away as "must have been tampered with."

 

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by BorisRom
Elspeth,
With due respect,
And earlier and now, I think, that AA and ANR had congenital HV. It has three certificates: of the case record of AA in hospital in Daldorf, of the surgeon doctor Rudnev and of ShuraTegleva (the nurse of ANR).

The Hallux Valgus has more than three "certificates".
Dr. Theodor Eitel: "The big toe on the right foot is in a conditon of pronounced abduction (Hallus Valgus.)"
Harriet von Rathlef Keilmann: "Thenar eminence of both feet, particularly the right foot."
And here is part of a report from Professor Rudnev which does not tell the same story as Bella Cohen's article:
"In the right foot I found a serious deformity; this was of a hereditary nature, and such that the big toe was bent right in towards the middle and formed a ball.
I had previously heard from the doctors attending Her Royal Highness the Grand Duchess Anastasia about the shape and change in the right foot."
Does not sound like the garden variety bunions that people get from wearing tight shoes.

 

[Elspeth]

How did he know that the bunion in Anna Anderson was hereditary? I've been looking on all sorts of websites (I'm drawing the line at spending large amounts of money on a book on foot disorders), and nowhere have I found a statement that severe hallux valgus and congenital hallux valgus are the same thing. The word of one doctor who wasn't a specialist in foot diseases really doesn't carry a lot of weight.

 

[Elspeth]

I don't think any of us KNOW enough about hallux valgus to be sure of how seriously it should be taken as evidence of anything. I'm just seeing a bunch of assumptions and assertions based on common sense being presented as hard fact - and somehow being considered to be so factual that they outrank the DNA evidence in reliability. I realise that Anna Anderson supporters don't wish to accept the DNA evidence, but this is a mighty flimsy basis on which to reject it.

 

[ChatNoir]

I don't think any of us KNOW enough about hallux valgus to be sure of how seriously it should be taken as evidence of anything. I'm just seeing a bunch of assumptions and assertions based on common sense being presented as hard fact - and somehow being considered to be so factual that they outrank the DNA evidence in reliability. I realise that Anna Anderson supporters don't wish to accept the DNA evidence, but this is a mighty flimsy basis on which to reject it.

The fact is: Both AA and AN had pronounced Hallux Valgus. Amazing how lucky an impostor can get.

 

[Elspeth]

Well, she wouldn't be much use as an impostor if she didn't have similar physical characteristics.

 

[BorisRom]

Well, she wouldn't be much use as an impostor if she didn't have similar physical characteristics.

Elspeth,
Whether you can tell also:​

We would be assured, that AA=ANR, if not negative results of DNA-tests.

 

[BorisRom]

Sincerely and warmly

Elspeth,
I thank you... for silence in reply to my question (the post 146). I highly estimate your silence - without "ulterior motives".
I shall accept any your answer to this post with understanding.
Sincerely and warmly
With due respect
Boris Romanov

 

[Elspeth]

Sorry, Boris, I missed that post; I've been rather busy elsewhere for the last day or two. However, my answer to that question is the same as always - I don't know. Nor do I particularly care. I'm not especially interested in Anna Anderson, but I deeply dislike seeing reputable scientists having their names dragged through the mud for the sake of conspiracy theories. That also hold true for scientific disciplines like evolutionary biology, climate change research, environmental science, space exploration, and stem cell research.

Hope that answers your question at least to an extent.

 

[BorisRom]

Elspeth,
Yes, I thank you for this answer now.
King regards
Boris Romanov
P.S. I have seen what I hoped in your answer to see. It is a pity, that my English is insufficiently good.
Certainly, I with understanding shall concern to if you will clean those words which you consider superfluous in my answer.

 

[tsarskoe]

I should say Hallux Vulgus is not at all rare. It is a coincidence that both AA and ANR had it, but since it is not rare this fact is not very impressive.

 

[ChatNoir]

I should say Hallux Vulgus is not at all rare. It is a coincidence that both AA and ANR had it, but since it is not rare this fact is not very impressive.

And how many teenagers do you know who has "the big toe bent over in the middle so that it forms a bunion"?

 

[Elspeth]

And of course the answer to that question will be posted in the Anna Anderson Claims thread, right? On account of it isn't about DNA.

 

[tsarskoe]

Sorry Elspeth, I will repost this in the correct forum.

Thank you

 

[Anna was Franziska]

List of legal cases decided by mtDNA testing like AA's. Legal precedence proving the DNA test on AA WOULD hold up in court!

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) Cases

1. State v. Council, 335 S.C. 1, 515 S.E.2d 508 (S.C., Apr 05, 1999) (NO. 2493 2) council.PDF
2. People v. Klinger, 713 N.Y.S.2d 823, 2000 N.Y. Slip Op. 20450 (N.Y.Co.Ct., Sep 05, 2000) (NO. 0849/00) klinger1.PDF
3. State v. Smith, 100 Wash.App. 1064, 2000 WL 688180 (Wash.App. Div. 2, May 26, 2000) (NO. 23406-8-II) smith.htm
4. State v. Underwood, 134 N.C.App. 533, 518 S.E.2d 231 (N.C.App., Aug 17, 1999) (NO. COA98-648) underwood.htm
5. State v. Ware, 1999 WL 233592 (Tenn.Crim.App., Apr 20, 1999) (NO. 03C01-9705CR00164) ware.PDF
6. Adams v. Mississippi, 2001 WL 410800 (Miss.App., Apr 24, 2001) (NO. 2000-KA-00242-COA) adams.PDF
7. Connecticut v. Pappas (Connecticut Supreme Court Ruling, SC16257, release date 7/24/01) pappas1.PDF
8. Sheckells v. Texas, 2001 WL 1178828 (Tex.App.-Dallas) Sheckells.htm
9. Tennessee v. Scott (S.Ct. of Tennessee, No.96-C-1362, 10/3/00) scott.PDF
10. People v. Holtzer, 2003 WL 722452 Mich.App., Feb. 25, 2003. Holtzer.PDF
11. New York v. Ko, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 4/22/03 Ko.PDF
12. Magaletti v. State Fla.App. 2 Dist.,4/4/03 magaletta1.PDF
13. Lewis v. Alabama, Crim. App. Alabama, CR-99-1155. 5/30/02. lewis.PDF
14. U.S. v. Beverly, 369 F.3d 516, C.A.6 (Ohio), 2004. US V. Beverly.PDF
15. Wagner v. State, Maryland Court of Special Appeals, No. 2034 1/3/05. Wagner.PDF
16. Michigan v. Mason, Michigan Court of Appeals No. 251533, 12/21/04. Mason.PDF
17. U.S. v. Chase, Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Criminal Division, No.F-7330-99, 1/10/05 chase.PDF
18. State v. West, 274 Conn. 605, --- A.2d ----, 7/26/05, The fact that mtDNA hair analysis is more precise than microscopic hair analysis does not render evidence regarding the latter inadmissible. The necessarily imprecise character of the hair identification goes to the weight of the microscopic hair analysis testimony, rather than its admissibility. west.PDF
19. People v. Sutherland, Illinois Supreme Court, # 99047, 9/21/06, Admissibility of the mtDNA evidence was not at issue on appeal but the trial court ruled it was admissible pursuant to Frye. Sutherland.PDF
20. Vaughn v. State, Supreme Court of Georgia, No.S07A0740, 6/4/07, Admissibility of the mtDNA evidence was upheld. Vaughn v. Georgia.PDF
21. State v. Brochu, Vermont Supreme Court, 2008 VT 21, No. 2005-177, 3/7/08, the court concluded that it was not an abuse of discretion to admit mtDNA evidence under the relevancy standard where the defendant’s mtDNA profile was commonly found in the population. The defendant has not challenged the science and technology behind mtDNA evidence. Brochu.PDF

There are other rulings where courts have allowed mtDNA evidence in at trial. Some of those cases are listed below:

1. R.v. Murrin (British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver). murrin.htm
2. Connecticut v. Pappas pappas.PDF (see above appellate decision)
3. Florida v. Magaletti magaletti.PDF (see above appellate decision)
4. Maryland v. Williams williams.PDF
5. Colorado v. Than than.PDF
6. Colorado v. Sierra-Omi ni Sierra-Omini.PDF
7. California v. Johnson (San Diego County) johnson.PDF
8. Delaware v. Hammons, Delaware Superior Court, 3/28/02 (NO. 9809019760) Hammons.PDF
9. U.S. v. Coleman, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri. coleman.PDF
10. Minnesota v. Zanter Zanter.PDF
11. California v. Scott Lee Peterson (Stanislaus County) 11/18/03 peterson.PDF
12. New Jersey v. Jimenez, 9/1/04 Jimenez.PDF
13. R. v. Woodcock, Ontario Superior Court of Justice O.J. No. 5186, Court File No. 8808-97, 8/18/06. Woodcock.PDF

 

[AGRBear]

If there were lawyers involved, they would use court cases to prove or disprove a point they were making. You can place a hundred more examples on this thread that support your case AWF, and, a lawyer could post a hundred examples that would support AA's case.

None of this is going into court.

Why?

AA is dead and and the Romanovs are happy with the DNA reports.

If this long lost child of AA's pops up and makes a claim, then we'd see this in a court.

Until then, we're just amateur sleuths posting now and then with various opinions on what we've read, seen or experienced.

And this amateur sleuth is still hovering over the problem of "chain of custody", which does cause doubts, in this case.

AGRBear

 

[mmullins207]

Anna wasn't Franziska. Because Anna appeared in Berlin weeks before Franziska disappeared.

Hang on. Wasn't there DNA testing that said Anna was Franziska ? So that means the DNA testing was fake.

Hang on. Didn't the DNA testing also say Anna wasn't Anastasia ? The DNA testing saying Anna was Franziska was fake. So why wouldn't the DNA testing saying Anna wasn't Anastasia also be fake.

You're having a lend of us.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Anna wasn't Franziska. Because Anna appeared in Berlin weeks before Franziska disappeared.

Wrong. FS wasn't reported missing immediately as people are sometimes not even today. Her family lived many miles away, and there were no cell phones and email to keep in constant contact. So it took the people she was boarding with a little while to figure out she hadn't just run off, and contact her family. This does NOT mean they were accounted for at the same time. They were not.

Hang on. Wasn't there DNA testing that said Anna was Franziska ? So that means the DNA testing was fake.

No it wasn't. Many reputable doctors and scientists were involved, including Peter Gill and Terry Melton. I have spoken to Melton myself.

Hang on. Didn't the DNA testing also say Anna wasn't Anastasia ? The DNA testing saying Anna was Franziska was fake. So why wouldn't the DNA testing saying Anna wasn't Anastasia also be fake.

You're having a lend of us.

The 1994 DNA tests not only said AA wasn't Anastasia and matched FS's family, but recent discoveries in 2007 of the last two missing bodies and further DNA testing in 2008 have proven all of the royal family are now accounted for, dead in Ekaterinburg in 1918. The DNA is not 'fake'. If you knew the whole story, you would know this is true. If you are really interested in the truth and not an entertaining conspiracy theory, I could give you some links to educate yourself on the matter so you could understand and know for sure. Are you?

 

[ChatNoir]

Wrong. FS wasn't reported missing immediately as people are sometimes not even today. Her family lived many miles away, and there were no cell phones and email to keep in constant contact. So it took the people she was boarding with a little while to figure out she hadn't just run off, and contact her family. This does NOT mean they were accounted for at the same time. They were not.

And how do you know this?
And what about Felix, who stated that his birthday card from Franzisca arrived 8 to 14 days late? His birthday was on February 17th. And Franzisca excused her tardiness with having had too much work.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Oh, Chat, there's no proof that card even existed, or when it was sent or when it arrived. Also you can't expect the mail was as rapid as it is today. You're talking about a ravaged, destitute postwar city in the middle of political turmoil, and even more rioting and unrest in outlying areas. Who knows how long it would take a letter to arrive in Pomerania from Berlin in 1920? But mainly, it doesn't matter, because the question of AA's identity is now over. Also, this is OT to this thread, "DNA and the law." Remember, the AA's claim thread was closed to to repetition, and here it goes again...

{removed accusation of another member having multiple IDs-Lady Jennifer}

 

[ChatNoir]

Oh, Chat, there's no proof that card even existed, or when it was sent or when it arrived.

No, there is no proof. Only Felix Schanzkowsky's recollection of it.

Also you can't expect the mail was as rapid as it is today. You're talking about a ravaged, destitute postwar city in the middle of political turmoil, and even more rioting and unrest in outlying areas. Who knows how long it would take a letter to arrive in Pomerania from Berlin in 1920?

Obviously, you don't know German "gründlichkeit" very well. There is also no proof that Felix was in Pomerania at the time.

But mainly, it doesn't matter, because the question of AA's identity is now over. Also, this is OT to this thread, "DNA and the law." Remember, the AA's claim thread was closed to to repetition, and here it goes again...

No, the identity question is not over. DNA has only established a maternal relationship to the Schanzkowskis, not that AA was FS.

{removed quote & response to deleted comment from above-Lady Jennifer}