DNA and the law

[Elspeth]

It is not acceptable in court if the chain of custody was broken, which I believe it might have been.

In a real court of law here in the USA, if it is proven that the chain of custody can not be proven then everything which surrounds the samples of the intestine will not be admitted into evidence during the case.

AGRBear

Could you provide some backup for this assertion? Such as guidelines from the American Bar Association or soemthing.

 

[AGRBear]

Could you provide some backup for this assertion? Such as guidelines from the American Bar Association or soemthing.

All you need to do is GOOGLE "legal chain of custody" and you'll find a number of sites that will explain what it means, what's accepted in court and what is not, including tests of DNA.

I'll quote the second one I found for those of you who are interested:

>> Legal
Chain of custody
Results of our formal DNA tests are guaranteed to be admissible any U.S. court of law due to the verified "chain of custody" and because the lab is AABB accredited. The chain of custody refers to the various chain of "hands" that the individual sample passes through. A legal chain of custody requires the samples to be collected in the presence of a third neutral party at a lab or hospital facility where all parties are photographed to verify their identity. <<


>>Home (self collection)
Chain of custody
Results from self collected DNA tests are normally not admissible in a court of law due to the lack of the "chain of custody". The chain of custody refers to the various chain of "hands" that the individual sample passes through. A legal chain of custody requires the samples to be collected in the presence of a third neutral party at a lab or hospital facility where all parties are photographed to verify their identity. If you need a court admissible test after completing a home test, we will apply the purchase price of your test to your court admissible test (see details).

You can still provide the results of a self collected DNA test to your attorney or Judge and they may accept the results if the outcome of the test is not being disputed. The results of a self collected test or a test without a valid chain of custody will have the following similar disclaimer (varies from lab to lab). "Paternity screening test results cannot be used in a court of law"<<

AGRBear

 

[Elspeth]

Yes, but these standards deal with collection of fresh samples for DNA testing, they don't address old DNA. There have been court cases where old DNA samples have been instrumental in overturning convictions, and these samples can't have had the sort of chain-of-custody standards that are set out for brand-new samples. The fact that such samples have been used in court cases means that these chain-of-custody standards, with a pair of eyes on the sample at every moment from collection to reporting of the results, aren't required in all cases.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Yes, but these standards deal with collection of fresh samples for DNA testing, they don't address old DNA. There have been court cases where old DNA samples have been instrumental in overturning convictions, and these samples can't have had the sort of chain-of-custody standards that are set out for brand-new samples. The fact that such samples have been used in court cases means that these chain-of-custody standards, with a pair of eyes on the sample at every moment from collection to reporting of the results, aren't required in all cases.

All those cases where people are getting their convictions overturned are based on stuff that's been stored for years. Where and how was it stored? File cabinet? Shelf in a storage room? Technically using the AA supporters' version of "MAYBE" something MIGHT have happened in storage, you could say that about anything and therefore none of it would be useful. Since, obviously, the courts don't look at it that way, there is no issue here. If something is stored under a certain name, and there's no proof or even reason to believe it may not be the original, then it is until proven otherwise. If it can't be, it stands. Same for the intestine.

Anyway Bear, now that all the bodies are identified AA hardly matters; we know she wasn't AN because AN was dead so why even pursue this?

 

[AGRBear]

If the chain-of-custody is established and the sample has been under court supervision, such as placed into the police storage area, then I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be used in a court years later.

In the case of AA's sample, it wasn't held in any kind of security at the hospital or later in storage.

The actual chain-of-custody started when the court became part of the case in 1992 and from that point one can establish exactly where it was in 1992, when they finally found it, until now.

If AWF doesn't wish to discuss this subject any farther, that's fine. But, I do and so do others who are interested in presenting accurate information.

AGRBear

 

[qui mal y pense]

Why does no one mention the DNA sample allegedly given by the DOE? The royal family has been accused of masterminding far more sinister things, why not absolve themselves of AA?

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Why does no one mention the DNA sample allegedly given by the DOE? The royal family has been accused of masterminding far more sinister things, why not absolve themselves of AA?

Oh, they have, plenty of times! Blaming the Queen is a big conspiracy theory, but why? Why would she care especailly now and why waste money on it? The whole idea she paid millions to mastermind many aspects of a fraud that all had to match up is ridiculous. Besides, LOOK at her! AA doesn't look a thing like AN and does look like FS. AND- the new DNA tests on the bones found in 2007 prove they are the two missing children so no one got away! (though there are those who also accuse the Russians of being in on it with the queen) Think now, why would it be worth it to them, and really, wouldn't a story of an escaped princess be more exciting and sellable than a dead one? The sad fact is no one escaped.

One more thing- the sample given by Prince Phillip- it was blood, btw, and doctors were there, it wasn't a random hair sample mailed in as some seem to think-was not the first of the Victorian line to be sequenced. Earlier, a sample was taken from Sophie of Hanover to disprove a Tatiana claimant. Sophie's sample matched Philip's, and Sophie's was known before anyone ever went looking for AA's intestines.

 

[Elspeth]

Why does no one mention the DNA sample allegedly given by the DOE? The royal family has been accused of masterminding far more sinister things, why not absolve themselves of AA?

That sample has been confirmed because it gave an mtDNA match with a sample from another maternal-line relative of Tsarina Alexandra, and this other sample is supposed to have a reliable chain of custody. There are allegations that the sample given by Prince Philip doesn't have a reliable chain of custody, but I'm not sure what they're based on (apart from the erroneous claim that hair rather than blood was used). Nevertheless, the confirmation by the match with the other sample means that the chain-of-custody concerns are basically irrelevant.

 

[Elspeth]

If the chain-of-custody is established and the sample has been under court supervision, such as placed into the police storage area, then I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be used in a court years later.

Not all samples used in convictions or appeals have been held under those conditions. Sometimes you come across reports of samples being taken from items owned by the victim or the accused that didn't come to light for quite a while after the incident. In these cases, you need independent confirmation of the source of the sample otherwise you can't be sure that there wasn't tampering or some other problem.

In the case of AA's sample, it wasn't held in any kind of security at the hospital or later in storage.

Which is why the scientists were using the other sample too (the hair sample). Scientifically as well as legally, without the second sample they wouldn't be able to get beyond "putative" or "alleged," regardless of what the matches and mismatches were with the reference samples (the ones from Prince Philip and Karl Maucher). The match between the DNA from the hair sample and the intestine sample shows an exceedingly high likelihood that the two were from the same person.

Therefore, an attorney claiming that Anna Anderson was Grand Duchess Anastasia needs to do more than allege that there was a problem with the chain of custody of the intestine sample. He needs to explain why the chain-of-custody issue casts doubt on the origin of the sample (I assume the options would be accidental mislabelling, deliberate tampering, or massive contamination with DNA from one person). He then also needs to explain why a switched or contaminated sample would be giving a match with the hair sample.

The alternatives (and correct me if I'm missing something) are that the hair sample was also deliberately switched or tampered with, in order to make sure that the DNA from a Maucher relative was present in both samples, that the hair sample was from a different person than the intestine sample but they coincidentally had the same mtDNA pattern, or that the hair sample was genuinely from the same person as the DNA sample but that this person wasn't Anna Anderson.

The first alternative, involving deliberate switching of both the hair and the intestine samples, would have required someone to do the switch in different places, since the hair sample wasn't obtained from a source associated with the hospital and was anapysed at a different lab from the ones where the intestine sample was analysed.

The second alternative would require evidence about the likelihood that two samples alleged to have been from person A were actually from persons B and C yet gave the same mtDNA pattern.

The third alternative would require evidence about the likelihood that two samples alleged to have been from person A were actually from person B even though they were from quite different sources (a hospital specimen and some hairs in an envelope in a book belonging to person A).

There's another alternative, which is that the two samples really were from Anna Anderson. I think it would take a pretty poor advocate to not be able to convince a jury which of these scenarios was the most likely.

 

[AGRBear]

Not all samples used in convictions or appeals have been held under those conditions. Sometimes you come across reports of samples being taken from items owned by the victim or the accused that didn't come to light for quite a while after the incident. In these cases, you need independent confirmation of the source of the sample otherwise you can't be sure that there wasn't tampering or some other problem.



Which is why the scientists were using the other sample too (the hair sample). Scientifically as well as legally, without the second sample they wouldn't be able to get beyond "putative" or "alleged," regardless of what the matches and mismatches were with the reference samples (the ones from Prince Philip and Karl Maucher). The match between the DNA from the hair sample and the intestine sample shows an exceedingly high likelihood that the two were from the same person.

Therefore, an attorney claiming that Anna Anderson was Grand Duchess Anastasia needs to do more than allege that there was a problem with the chain of custody of the intestine sample. He needs to explain why the chain-of-custody issue casts doubt on the origin of the sample (I assume the options would be accidental mislabelling, deliberate tampering, or massive contamination with DNA from one person). He then also needs to explain why a switched or contaminated sample would be giving a match with the hair sample.

The alternatives (and correct me if I'm missing something) are that the hair sample was also deliberately switched or tampered with, in order to make sure that the DNA from a Maucher relative was present in both samples, that the hair sample was from a different person than the intestine sample but they coincidentally had the same mtDNA pattern, or that the hair sample was genuinely from the same person as the DNA sample but that this person wasn't Anna Anderson.

The first alternative, involving deliberate switching of both the hair and the intestine samples, would have required someone to do the switch in different places, since the hair sample wasn't obtained from a source associated with the hospital and was anapysed at a different lab from the ones where the intestine sample was analysed.

The second alternative would require evidence about the likelihood that two samples alleged to have been from person A were actually from persons B and C yet gave the same mtDNA pattern.

The third alternative would require evidence about the likelihood that two samples alleged to have been from person A were actually from person B even though they were from quite different sources (a hospital specimen and some hairs in an envelope in a book belonging to person A).

There's another alternative, which is that the two samples really were from Anna Anderson. I think it would take a pretty poor advocate to not be able to convince a jury which of these scenarios was the most likely.

Remember, in my hypotheses I already voiced that the lawyer on team A has convinced me that we cannot know that the sample of intestines were AA's, and, I've asked you and your lawyers on team B to convince me that the sample was AA's. I started with the concern of the chain of custody. You and others have jumped over this problem like it didn't exist. I'd call this a "leap of assumption".

As for the "hair in an envelope in a book belonging to person A", thus far this is all I know about it. I don't know your source. I don't know who "person A' is. I don't know if they placed the hair in the book and later found it. Or was this book found on some book shelf in a bookstore? How can I comment without knowing anything about it. Nor do I know about the tests? Who tested the hair? Source, please. And, from the little I'm grasping, it appears the chain of custody might be a problem.

As for lawyer on team B being good enough to convince me that there wasn't a reason, nor an opportunity nor enough money to tamper with the sample of the intestines, I assure you, in this hypotheses, the lawyer for team A did provide many very convincing reasons why people would have wanted the public to believe AA was FS and not GD Anastasia. Even today, as we write these post, there are political and personal reasons for people to want the door closed on this case, the brutal murders of the royal family, that has lasted 90 years.

All a lawyer on team A had to do is create doubt in the mind of the jurists and it's a real up hill battle for the opposition, lawyers on team B.

So, what evidence can you provide to convince those of us on the jury? Because what you've presented thus far has been presented rather arrogantly, almost as if I the other jurists are obliged to believe you and your team because you know about the DNA/mtDNA tests. Well, we can't get to the tests until you can prove the sample is AA's.

AGRBear

 

[Elspeth]

Remember, in my hypotheses I already voiced that the lawyer on team A has convinced me that we cannot know that the sample of intestines were AA's, and, I've asked you and your lawyers on team B to convince me that the sample was AA's. I started with the concern of the chain of custody. You and others have jumped over this problem like it didn't exist. I'd call this a "leap of assumption".

No, I haven't jumped over it. My first point about chain of custody is that it isn't an end in itself, the requirement exists for a reason. That reason is to make sure that the samples are from the source they're alleged to be from.

An unbroken chain of custody of a single sample is one way to make sure that the sample is from the source it's alleged to be from, but it isn't the only way.

Independent confirmation of the identity of the source by analysis of another sample, preferably one which has had no contact with the sample in question, is another way of making sure that the first sample is from the source it's alleged to be from. That's been done in this case, your claim of irrelevance notwithstanding.

My second point about chain of custody is that there appears to be precedent in the courts for evidence to be admitted from old samples for which the chain of custody isn't secure, as long as there's some sort of independent confirmation of their identity, and that hence the "independent confirmation" standard is a perfectly valid one.

As for the "hair in an envelope in a book belonging to person A", thus far this is all I know about it. I don't know your source. I don't know who "person A' is. I don't know if they placed the hair in the book and later found it. Or was this book found on some book shelf in a bookstore? How can I comment without knowing anything about it. Nor do I know about the tests? Who tested the hair? Source, please. And, from the little I'm grasping, it appears the chain of custody might be a problem.

Who tested the hair? Mark Stoneking and Terry Melton. You really didn't know?

Again, I'm coming back to the issue about the chain of custody not being the goal here. The goal is to establish the origin of the sample. Two independent samples gave the same result in an mtDNA test. The hair sample wasn't associated with the hospital and it wasn't tested at the labs that tested the intestine sample, so a simple explanation based on cross-contamination or a one-time sample switch isn't going to cut it.

Both samples were alleged to have been from Anna Anderson, and both gave the same mtDNA result. As I said before, there's a limited number of explanations for this result.

1. Both samples actually were from Anna Anderson (person A).

2. Both samples had been tampered with, in different places and at different times, to switch Anna Anderson's samples to samples from another person (person B - to show that we're talking about just one other person).

3. Both samples - the intestine in the hospital and the hair in the book - were genuinely from another person (person B), despite the labelling as belonging to Anna Anderson, and there had been no tampering.

4. The two samples were from different people (persons B and C) and coincidentally gave the same result in the mtDNA test.

The whole chain-of-custody issue is to address explanation 2. The possibility that one sample was tampered with is quite high. The possibility that two samples, which had been located in different places, collected by different people, and analysed in different labs, were both tampered with in order to switch them for samples from a different person (person B), is a great deal lower.

Then the question becomes - is this extremely elaborate conspiracy to tamper independently with two different samples from different locations and tested in different labs really more likely than the notion that the samples were genuine?

As for lawyer on team B being good enough to convince me that there wasn't a reason, nor an opportunity nor enough money to tamper with the sample of the intestines, I assure you, in this hypotheses, the lawyer for team A did provide many very convincing reasons why people would have wanted the public to believe AA was FS and not GD Anastasia. Even today, as we write these post, there are political and personal reasons for people to want the door closed on this case, the brutal murders of the royal family, that has lasted 90 years.

My point here is that because of the hair sample, tampering with just the intestinal sample wouldn't have been any use. The intestinal sample would have then given a different result from what it gave, which means that it would have given a different result from the hair sample (which it didn't). Since they gave the same result, it means that neither was tampered with or that both were tampered with. The notion of just one of them being tampered with is ruled out.

All a lawyer on team A had to do is create doubt in the mind of the jurists and it's a real up hill battle for the opposition, lawyers on team B.

Interesting that you'd say that all you have to do is to create doubt in the mind of the jurists. While that may be true, creationists have managed to cast doubt about evolution in more than half the US population (and ditto for the climate change deniers and their PR success - and some of these people have been quite open about the fact that they're in the business of spreading doubt) but it doesn't mean that evolution is wrong or creationism is right, it just means that one side has better PR than the other. A clever lawyer can always cast doubt on scientific results because the American public is unfortunately predisposed to mistrust science and scientists. However, I would hope that this isn't really the standard you'd want to apply to this question. It's very easy to cast doubt on true results but it doesn't stop them being true.

So, what evidence can you provide to convince those of us on the jury? Because what you've presented thus far has been presented rather arrogantly, almost as if I the other jurists are obliged to believe you and your team because you know about the DNA/mtDNA tests. Well, we can't get to the tests until you can prove the sample is AA's.

It isn't arrogance, it's frustration. Every time I mention independent confirmation by a second sample, you just come back to the chain of custody of the first sample, as though this second sample was irrelevant. I have yet to hear a coherent explanation from any of the Anna Anderson supporters about how the intestinal sample and the hair sample gave the same result if they weren't both from her. Feel free to give a stab at it. Because that's the thing I'd be asking if I was a lawyer on the other side of the issue. I'd be asking whether you were claiming that a massive conspiracy was going on or whether you were claiming that it was an incredible coincidence. Which is really another way of asking why, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you're so sure it's a caterpillar

 

[AGRBear]

You have told me:
>>Who tested the hair? Mark Stoneking and Terry Melton. You really didn't know?<<

>>hair in the book<<

Where did someone find the book with the hair?
Why did anyone think the hair was AA's.
Who found the book?
Who is Stoneking and Melton?

Not everyone knows the details. As for myself, I'm sitting on the jury during this hypothetical case, so I have no prior information of this subject. If I did, I would have been excused by either side and never would have served on the jury.

Interesting that you'd say that all you have to do is to create doubt in the mind of the jurists. While that may be true, creationists have managed to cast doubt about evolution in more than half the US population (and ditto for the climate change deniers and their PR success - and some of these people have been quite open about the fact that they're in the business of spreading doubt) but it doesn't mean that evolution is wrong or creationism is right, it just means that one side has better PR than the other. A clever lawyer can always cast doubt on scientific results because the American public is unfortunately predisposed to mistrust science and scientists. However, I would hope that this isn't really the standard you'd want to apply to this question. It's very easy to cast doubt on true results but it doesn't stop them being true.

What has creationists have to do with this jury trial?

Yes, it may be frustrating to you and your lawyers, but, it's, now, up to you to convince me. The lawyers for team A knew their subjects and presented people who knew their subject. All were believable and held high credential in their field. Demeaning them is a trick that will not work. I need facts that will give me the information that will set aside their excellent presentation.

Tell me more about the hospitals' treatment of samples. Let me start this line of questioning for you and your lawyers: Do they have records showing AA's samples were never used for research?

AGRBear

 

[Elspeth]

You have told me:
>>Who tested the hair? Mark Stoneking and Terry Melton. You really didn't know?<<

>>hair in the book<<

Where did someone find the book with the hair?
Why did anyone think the hair was AA's.
Who found the book?
Who is Stoneking and Melton?

Not everyone knows the details. As for myself, I'm sitting on the jury during this hypothetical case, so I have no prior information of this subject. If I did, I would have been excused by either side and never would have served on the jury.

Are you really wanting a rehash of all these details from all these other threads? The attorney arguing the case that Anna Anderson wasn't Grand Duchess Anastasia would have these details to hand, as would the attorney arguing your case, and if you'd already been persuaded about the chain of custody, you'd already have been told a lot of these details.

We already know that the scientists who did the analyses are reputable scientists in relevant fields of study and that their results were published in a highly regarded peer-reviewed journal. Please don't tell me that yet another rehash of the professional credentials of Mark Stoneking and Terry Melton would make any difference at this point. I don't know if a jury would be impressed by Mark Stoneking's position as an acknowledged expert on mtDNA; I suppose it depends on the jury.

What has creationists have to do with this jury trial?

The same tactics. Plant doubt about a point of fact and declare victory.

Yes, it may be frustrating to you and your lawyers, but, it's, now, up to you to convince me. The lawyers for team A knew their subjects and presented people who knew their subject. All were believable and held high credential in their field. Demeaning them is a trick that will not work. I need facts that will give me the information that will set aside their excellent presentation.

As you very well know, there are facts all over the threads here and at Alexander Palace. I'm not going into a long rehash of all the details in this thread too. The point here is whether a sample requires an intact chain of custody in order to be admitted as evidence, which is what you claimed a few posts back, not whether a sample without an intact chain of custody would convince a jury of anything. The latter depends a lot on corroborating evidence, the skills of the lawyers involved, and the makeup of the jury, it isn't a black-and-white issue.

I'd simply like an answer to the question, which so far none of the Anderson supporters seem to want to answer, "I have yet to hear a coherent explanation from any of the Anna Anderson supporters about how the intestinal sample and the hair sample gave the same result if they weren't both from her. Feel free to give a stab at it. Because that's the thing I'd be asking if I was a lawyer on the other side of the issue. I'd be asking whether you were claiming that a massive conspiracy was going on or whether you were claiming that it was an incredible coincidence. Which is really another way of asking why, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you're so sure it's a caterpillar."

 

[AGRBear]

This is just one site where I found Mark S. mentioned:

Stanford study questions identity of alleged Romanov bones

I'll be back with something about Melton.


AGRBear

 

[AGRBear]

I just noticed that AWF has talked about Dr. Terry Melton in her first post on this thread.

Now, I'll have to go and read it.

Okay, I've read it.

AWF wrote in part:

In plain English, what this says is that NO SCIENTISTS have published
ANYTHING to date which has questioned the accuracy of her work,
INCLUDING the mtDNA analysis of AA, excluding her as GD Anastasia.

Nor am I questioning the accuracy of her work. Nor am I questioned the accuracy of Drs. Gill's and King/Ginther's works.

What I am questioning is the sample of AA's was not secure, in a teaching and research hospital where it could have been compromised between the years 1979 and 1992. Once the sample became part of a law suit, it was then and only them placed into a secured place. Only then can we have an unbroken chain of custody.

This is a site I found Mark Stoneking's name. Evidently he's connected to the Knight controversy.

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2004/march3/romanov-33.html

AGRBear

 

[Anna was Franziska]

I just noticed that AWF has talked about Dr. Terry Melton in her first post on this thread.

Now, I'll have to go and read it.

Okay, I've read it.

AWF wrote in part:


Nor am I questioning the accuracy of her work. Nor am I questioned the accuracy of Drs. Gill's and King/Ginther's works.

What I am questioning is the sample of AA's was not secure, in a teaching and research hospital where it could have been compromised between the years 1979 and 1992. Once the sample became part of a law suit, it was then and only them placed into a secured place. Only then can we have an unbroken chain of custody.

This is a site I found Mark Stoneking's name. Evidently he's connected to the Knight controversy.

Finger points to new evidence: Remains may not be Romanovs'

AGRBear

Bear, the quote you attribute to me was actually taken from a post by FA of AP from the Alt. Talk site. There is an entire thread here on this site on the Knight controversy as you call it but nobody has posted in it. It's been discussed a length on AP and shown to be inaccuarate and not even worthy of consideration.


Bear, please answer WHY, if you don't believe in claimants, that you grasp at every single straw and come up with any wild theory you can to try to make room for some after they've been proven false? This is not "a journey to the truth" this is a journey backward and away from it! If you "only enjoy the ride" it's a wild goose chase you crave, not answers, because we have them and you reject them. How can you ever get an answer if you always find reasons to doubt it, as outlandish as they may be? The truth is the truth and not what you would prefer it to be.

 

[Elspeth]

Nor am I questioning the accuracy of her work. Nor am I questioned the accuracy of Drs. Gill's and King/Ginther's works.

What I am questioning is the sample of AA's was not secure, in a teaching and research hospital where it could have been compromised between the years 1979 and 1992. Once the sample became part of a law suit, it was then and only them placed into a secured place. Only then can we have an unbroken chain of custody.

Nobody is disputing that. We're just saying that an unbroken chain of custody isn't some sort of holy grail. The basic issue is the identity of the sample, not the purity of the chain of custody. If you're going to say that the lack of an unbroken chain of custody casts doubt on the identity, then you're going to have to explain the match between the intestine sample and the hair sample, which provides strong support for the identity unless you invoke an incredible coincidence or a successful conspiracy to tamper with both samples independently to switch both of them to samples from another person. So far none of the Anna Anderson supporters have come up with an explanation.

This is a site I found Mark Stoneking's name. Evidently he's connected to the Knight controversy.

Finger points to new evidence: Remains may not be Romanovs'

AGRBear

He isn't a coauthor on the paper describing the identification of the Romanov remains. Nor, for that matter, is Terry Melton.

Identification of the remains of the Romanov famil...[Nat Genet. 1994] - PubMed Result

The only place he was mentioned in that article you linked to was where he gave an opinion about the charge by Alec Knight.

Here are some sites about Mark Stoneking that are actually about him.

Mark Stoneking - Publications

and another

Mark Stoneking - CV

and another

NOVA Online | Neanderthals on Trial | Tracing Ancestry with MtDNA

This guy is a world-class expert in mtDNA analysis.

 

[AGRBear]

I think your attack upon me is called a "diversion". Are you doing so because you do not know the answers?

Back to subject please.

So, who found the hair in the book?

AGRBear

 

[Elspeth]

I think your attack upon me is called a "diversion". Are you doing so because you do not know the answers?

What attack?

Back to subject please.

I'm the one who IS on the subject. The subject is whether a flawed chain of custody makes a sample inadmissible as evidence. It would appear that it doesn't. In the present case, where there's independent confirmation of the source of the sample, that lends strong support to the identity to make up for the flaws in the chain of custody. This is often the case with ancient DNA samples, and it doesn't preclude their being used as evidence.

Your continued failure to address the question of how the two samples give a match if they aren't both from Anna Anderson is noted. That isn't an attack, by the way.

So, who found the hair in the book?

Look it up if you want to know. Stop asking if you already know. That isn't the topic we're discussing.

 

[AGRBear]

Elspeth,

I was not referring to your posts. I was responding to AWF's post. Sorry for the confusion.

No, I don't know who found the hair. I may have read about it somewhere but that was some time ago and I do not recall the name/names nor the details. Is it important? Well, not really if we're talking about the world's troubles. However, it is a fact which we need to know for this discussion, I believe. And, if you tell me where to find the source, I'd be more than happy to look it up and share it with everyone.

AGRBear

PS Someone has IM the information which is said to be in Kleir and Mingay's book THE QUEST FOR ANASSTASIA. I will dig out my book and read what it says about the hair which Elspeth is referring in her posts.

 

[AGRBear]

p. 221 of Kleir and Mingay's THE QUEST FOR ANASTASIA:

>>From Klier and Mingay:
The hair sample used by Dr. Stoneking and his researchers does not have an impeccable provenance. Susan Burkhart, a lover of the Romanov legend, one day dropped into a bookshop in Chapel Hill, NC, to browse through the latest selection of Anastasia and Romanov memorabilia made available to the shop from the sale of part of Jack Manahan's estate. As Susan was looking through one of the books she found an envelope, with the legend 'Hair of Princess Anastasia' written on the envelope. The hair was in a clump, as though it came from a hair brush, and it was dyed. Jack washed and tinted his wife's hair throughout their marriage. Of most importance, perhaps, from the scientific point of view, the hair had roots. While mitochondrial DNA is easier to obtain from a piece of tissue, it can also be recoverable from a small amount of material, such as a hair follicle. It is very difficult to extract DNA from a cut lock of hair.

Susan Burkhart contacted one of Anna's biographers. Peter Kurth. In partnership with Mandelbaum, they chose Dr. Stoneking to assist them in their search, offering 'to make him famous'. Dr. Stoneking is a member of the Department of Anthropology at Pennsylvania State University and has conducted wide-ranging research on population genetics, from which he has developed an extensive database. Six strands of hair were placed in an envelope and sent by Federal Express to Stoneking's centre, where he arranged for graduate student Terry Melton to do the actual scientific analysis.<<

P. 222

>>Melton received the six hairs and used five of them to extract the available mitochondrial.<<

>>...she was able to sequence it and compare it with the patterns from the Tsar and Tsarina published by Gill in Nature Genetics. She said there were dix differences across the region examined, which indicated no possibility that the hair came from a person related to the Imperial Family.<<

p. 223>>...'If she was not Grand Duchess Anastasia, who was she?' At the same time as conducting he scientific testing commissioned by the Schweitzers, Peter Gill, also carried out a DNA test sample supplied via film-maker Julian Nott. This sample came from the great-nephew of Franziska Schanzkowska, a man named Carl Maucher, who was the grandson of one of Franziska's sisters. His mitochondrial DNA matched the patter established at the Forensic Science Service.

Peter Gill....: 'This finding supports the hypothesis that Anna Anderson and Franziska Schankowska were the same person.'<<

>>The Foresnsic Science Service has a database of more than 300 Caucasian samples and found no matching sequence.... This led Gill to say 'the chance of matching the profiles is less than one in 300.'<<

I'll make comments later. I've got a contractor needing some answers.

AGRBear

 

[Elspeth]

p. 221 of Kleir and Mingay's THE QUEST FOR ANASTASIA:

>>From Klier and Mingay:
The hair sample used by Dr. Stoneking and his researchers does not have an impeccable provenance. Susan Burkhart, a lover of the Romanov legend, one day dropped into a bookshop in Chapel Hill, NC, to browse through the latest selection of Anastasia and Romanov memorabilia made available to the shop from the sale of part of Jack Manahan's estate. As Susan was looking through one of the books she found an envelope, with the legend 'Hair of Princess Anastasia' written on the envelope. The hair was in a clump, as though it came from a hair brush, and it was dyed. Jack washed and tinted his wife's hair throughout their marriage. Of most importance, perhaps, from the scientific point of view, the hair had roots. While mitochondrial DNA is easier to obtain from a piece of tissue, it can also be recoverable from a small amount of material, such as a hair follicle. It is very difficult to extract DNA from a cut lock of hair.

Susan Burkhart contacted one of Anna's biographers. Peter Kurth. In partnership with Mandelbaum, they chose Dr. Stoneking to assist them in their search, offering 'to make him famous'. Dr. Stoneking is a member of the Department of Anthropology at Pennsylvania State University and has conducted wide-ranging research on population genetics, from which he has developed an extensive database. Six strands of hair were placed in an envelope and sent by Federal Express to Stoneking's centre, where he arranged for graduate student Terry Melton to do the actual scientific analysis.<<

Well, I'm not sure of the relative timing, but in the early 1990s Dr Stoneking was already doing the Mitochondrial Eve stuff. I think that made him famous enough; I'm pretty sure it's better known to most people than his work with Anna Anderson's hair sample.

 

[AGRBear]

So, back to the hair:

>>Susan Burkhart, a lover of the Romanov legend, one day dropped into a bookshop in Chapel Hill, NC, to browse through the latest selection of Anastasia and Romanov memorabilia made available to the shop from the sale of part of Jack Manahan's estate.<<

Although this appears to be evidence which gives weight to the testing of the intestines which most believe are that of AA's, I'm not sure if it could stand alone if a judge disallowed the samples of the intestine due to the inability to prove the chain-of-custody.

>> The hair was in a clump, as though it came from a hair brush, and it was dyed <<could have been stolen from any of Gertrude's grandchildren's brushes and they would never had known anyone had been in their home.

And, why, if Jack or AA wanted to save hair, wouldn't he/she have saved cut hair, which was often done as keepsakes?

AGRBear

 

[Elspeth]

Although this appears to be evidence which gives weight to the testing of the intestines which most believe are that of AA's, I'm not sure if it could stand alone if a judge disallowed the samples of the intestine due to the inability to prove the chain-of-custody.

Why would a judge disallow a sample whose identity is based partly on the existence of the other sample? One of the most basic requirements in scientific analysis is to have results confirmed (or negated) on the basis of results from independent samples. I can see a judge cautioning a jury to be wary of the results from the intestinal sample if it was the only sample available - although under the circumstances, I'd be surprised if it was disallowed altogether unless they were able to prove some sort of underhanded behaviour by the hospital or some evidence that the sample was switched or tampered with. However, the whole point of that second sample was to confirm the identity of the first one. The results of the hair sample complement the results of the intestinal sample, and a judge with any degree of competence at all in cases of forensic biology should understand that.

could have been stolen from any of Gertrude's grandchildren's brushes and they would never had known anyone had been in their home.

Could have been stolen and put into an envelope labeled "Anastasia's hair"? Stolen when and by whom?

And, why, if Jack or AA wanted to save hair, wouldn't he/she have saved cut hair, which was often done as keepsakes?

You'd have to ask them. They were supposedly a pretty eccentric pair, weren't they? so it's entirely possible they did weird things once in a while.

 

[AGRBear]

Why would a judge disallow a sample whose identity is based partly on the existence of the other sample? One of the most basic requirements in scientific analysis is to have results confirmed (or negated) on the basis of results from independent samples. I can see a judge cautioning a jury to be wary of the results from the intestinal sample if it was the only sample available - although under the circumstances, I'd be surprised if it was disallowed altogether unless they were able to prove some sort of underhanded behaviour by the hospital or some evidence that the sample was switched or tampered with. However, the whole point of that second sample was to confirm the identity of the first one. The results of the hair sample complement the results of the intestinal sample, and a judge with any degree of competence at all in cases of forensic biology should understand that.



Could have been stolen and put into an envelope labeled "Anastasia's hair"? Stolen when and by whom?



You'd have to ask them. They were supposedly a pretty eccentric pair, weren't they? so it's entirely possible they did weird things once in a while.

Remember, the lawyers on team A have already convinced me that there were a variety of people who wanted the world to believe AA was not GD Anastasia and could have tampered with the intestines and the hair to make it appear that AA was FS. And, you are trying to give me evidence that will sway my belief that AA was FS.

As I've mentioned in earlier posts, there were many different factions dealing with all kinds of political problems if AA was GD Anastasia. At that time people believed there was millions and millions of dollars still to be found and we all know what the thought of being rich can do to people. Then, there are always the "unknowns" who are "do gooders", who think they are helping to solve the problem my hook or by crook.

We know how volatile even this discussion can become due to the emotions of posters who never were personal involved with GD Anastasia, AA or FS so one should be able to imagine how heated things would become between those who were and still are personal involved.

Because we have excellent handwriting experts, did anyone every ponder over who wrote the words on the envelope? If it was either AA or Jack M. then that would be an easy one for an expert to discover.

Yes, both were eccentric in their old age. And, no, we don't know which one or if either placed the hair in the envelope. If they did not, then we do NOT know who the person was who did or where it came from [AA and Jack M.'s home or Posen]. So, this means we do NOT know who placed it in the evelope or the book. There are a lot of unanswered questions connected to this clump of hair.

Since we will not agree on the clump of hair due to our lack of more information, is there any other evidence you and your team B could provide that might be the key which will convince me that AA was FS? As my lawyer friends tell me, lawyers can't always depend just on DNA to convince a jury of 12.

AGRBear

 

[Warren]

So now the evidence has been dismissed we are back to the conspiracy theory. Sigh.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Remember, the lawyers on team A have already convinced me that there were a variety of people who wanted the world to believe AA was not GD Anastasia and could have tampered with the intestines and the hair to make it appear that AA was FS. And, you are trying to give me evidence that will sway my belief that AA was FS.

AGRBear

Who were these 'variety of people' and why would they care so much? More importantly, how did they allegedly achieve this, and what is the proof any underhanded dealings took place? If you have none, other than 'it must have', you really don't have a case. I'll be awaiting your list of names, dates, places and evidence proving your allegations.

 

[ChatNoir]

We have a book on the market now alleging that the Bush administration paid the CIA 5 million dollars in hush money in order to "prove" the existence of WMD in Iraq.
The growing hospital scandal at UCLA at present seems to involve up to 127 persons.
A scientist is believed to be the cause of the anthrax scare.
But we are supposed to accept the story of AA's putative intestines and hair whose DNA ties her to Franziska Schanzkowska with whom she had nothing in common instead of Grand Duchess Anastasia with whom she shared every single trait.

 

[Menarue]

So now the evidence has been dismissed we are back to the conspiracy theory. Sigh.

It seems so .......yawn.......

 

[Elspeth]

Remember, the lawyers on team A have already convinced me that there were a variety of people who wanted the world to believe AA was not GD Anastasia and could have tampered with the intestines and the hair to make it appear that AA was FS. And, you are trying to give me evidence that will sway my belief that AA was FS.

No. That isn't what I'm doing.

All I'm doing is taking issue with your assertion that a sample of old DNA with an imperfect chain of custody would be inadmissible as evidence in a court case.

Not only does it appear that old DNA samples which come to light after a trial can be used in a retrial, imperfect chain of custody notwithstanding, but in this particular case there's corroborating evidence from an independent source. Scientifically this is a very strong result. Legally you're claiming that it's all but irrelevant. I see no basis for that claim. Whether such evidence would sway a jury is another matter. The issue is whether the evidence would be allowed in the first place.

All this "the samples could have been switched" business is all very well - you can come up with all sorts of scenarios to cast doubt on the authenticity of a sample - but in order to have the samples ruled inadmissible you have to show that there's reason to believe that they're actually false. And "reason to believe" means that you need more than just handwaving to show that there's a problem with them. Both of them. Simultaneously. They'd both have had to be switched in order to give the same results (unless you're going to assert collusion by the scientists, which is potential defamation unless you have some backup). Unless your lawyer can convince the judge that this is so likely that the results are worthless, I see no basis for the judge to rule the samples inadmissible.