Identification of the remains found in 2007: Alexei and Marie (Coble, 2009)

[Russophile]

My point is that if bones are missing it was due to normal decay and the acid, not anyone stealing parts and planting them somewhere else.

Wouldn't there be some "normal" movement from animals? They love to dig and snatch bones.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

If animals had found the pit, they'd have carried off a lot more. Imagine what a feast all those femurs would be to a starving wolf in the Siberian winter! The bones were buried under railroad ties, so no animal could get to them.

 

[AGRBear]

If animals had found the pit, they'd have carried off a lot more. Imagine what a feast all those femurs would be to a starving wolf in the Siberian winter! The bones were buried under railroad ties, so no animal could get to them.

Don't be mislead by Peter and the Wolf story. In some areas of Russia, the wolves by 1918 were eliminated, so, I'm not sure if there were any around Ekaterinburg. Perhaps there is a poster who could inform us about the activities of wolves in the area of Pig's Meadow and the two pits in 1918 to the July 2007.

My point is that if bones are missing it was due to normal decay and the acid, not anyone stealing parts and planting them somewhere else.

Since we have the mass grave to compare the remains with the two pits, normal decay would have been about the same, accept there was more acid and standing water in Pig's Meadow then the higher area of the two pits, which would have caused the remains in the meadow to deteriorate more than in the two pits. So, I don't think your suggestion that it was normal decay and acid which resulted in so few bones found in the two pits.

AGRBear

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Don't be mislead by Peter and the Wolf story. In some areas of Russia, the wolves by 1918 were eliminated, so, I'm not sure if there were any around Ekaterinburg. Perhaps there is a poster who could inform us about the activities of wolves in the area of Pig's Meadow and the two pits in 1918 to the July 2007.

You are telling the wrong person. I was responding to Russophile's post above mine suggesting animals at the bones, and I was disagreeing.

So, I don't think your suggestion that it was normal decay and acid which resulted in so few bones found in the two pits.

AGRBear

What's your suggestion, bear? That someone stole them and planted them in the burn pit(you have said this before) to make everyone think Anastasia was dead but she was really AA? That's a lot more far fetched than normal decay.

 

[AnastasiaEvidence]

What's your suggestion, bear? That someone stole them and planted them in the burn pit(you have said this before) to make everyone think Anastasia was dead but she was really AA? That's a lot more far fetched than normal decay.

That is hearsay. This can't be possible, THERE IS NO PROOF ! You don't have major evidence to back that up. Nobody could have possibly ever planted the bones somewhere. This is highly unlikely theory.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

That is hearsay. This can't be possible, THERE IS NO PROOF ! You don't have concreate evidence to back that up. Nobody could have possibly ever planted the bones somewhere. This is highly unlikely theory.

It's worse than hearsay, Bear made it up. Nobody else ever said that.It's just her own wild theory that makes no sense at all.

 

[AGRBear]

The fragments of the female bones found in July of 2007 are said to be missing from the mass grave, they may or may not be, therefore, to eliminate any rumors, the four markers should be established. .....
AGRBear

Until the Russians presents the four markers of the four grand duchesses, whom the Russians claim have been found, the rumors and theories will continue.

As far as I'm concern, my opinions lean toward Dr. Maples conclusion p. 262 in his book DEAD MEN DO TELL TALES on the remains found in Pig's Meadow:

>>None of the nine skeletons could be attributed to the fourteen-year-old Tsarevich Alexei, and none of them despite the Russians' initial hopes, could be identified with a girl seventeen years and one month old: Anastasia.<<

The Russians, for some reason, despite their "initial hopes" refuse to admit that Anastasia was not in the mass grave and continue to claim the missing remains are Marie's, whom they, now, claim, have been found in the two pits in July of 2007. This means, the bones found are still too old according to forensic science to be that of Anastasia. Therefore, it is possible that the bones found were taken from the mass grave and planted by someone to make it appear that all four grand duchesses have been found.

Until the scientists provide us with four markers showing there are four grand duchesses, and, that Anastasia, not Marie, was found in the two pits, I will continue to ask questions.

My questions about the real Anastasia's fate is separate from the story of Anna Anderson, whom I don't think was GD Anastasia or Franziska Schanzkowska. So, posters, don't be taken in my AWF's campaign in which she tries to claim I'm an AA = GD Anastasia supporter. I'm not. I'm just trying to untangle the information in search of the truth. And, I don't care where it takes me, I'm just enjoying the journey.

AGRBear

Just in cast some of you do not know who Dr. Maples was let me give provide you with the information provided on the back cover of his book:

>>Until his death in Februrary 1997, DR. WILLIAM R. MAPLES was distinguished service professor and curation-in-charge of the C.A. Pound Human Identification Laboratory at the Florida Museum of Natural History in Gainesville. He was president of the American Board of Forensic Antropology and a fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences.
...<<

GD Anastasia's remains missing from the mass grave was Dr. Maples' theory not Bear's.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Just in cast some of you do not know who Dr. Maples was let me give provide you with the information provided on the back cover of his book:

>>Until his death in Februrary 1997, DR. WILLIAM R. MAPLES was distinguished service professor and curation-in-charge of the C.A. Pound Human Identification Laboratory at the Florida Museum of Natural History in Gainesville. He was president of the American Board of Forensic Antropology and a fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences.
...<<

GD Anastasia's remains missing from the mass grave was Dr. Maples' theory not Bear's.

Bear, I do agree with Maples- and you- that Anastasia and not Marie was missing from the original grave. But everything is different now that the last two bodies have been found, meaning even if Anastasia had been missing, she's not anymore. The theory you made up is that there was no fourth girl found in the new grave, that some snuck pieces of one of the other three girls out of the old grave and planted them there to trick people. That's what I was talking about when I dissed your theory.

 

[AGRBear]

Bear, I do agree with Maples- and you- that Anastasia and not Marie was missing from the original grave. But everything is different now that the last two bodies have been found, meaning even if Anastasia had been missing, she's not anymore.
...[in part]..

We are told the 40 fragments are of a female, who's DNA/mtDNA show she is a sibling to the male bones which are Alexis', the son of Nicholas II and Alexandra.

The Russians tell us that the female remains belong to GD Marie. I assume this means the bones, also, tell us the female was the same age of 19 years plus four weeks which GD Marie was in July of 1918 and not the age of GD Anastasia who was 17 years plus five weeks old.

So, here is my concern. Dr. Maples with his knowledge of forensics has told us that GD Marie, age 19, was in the mass grave.

DEAD MEN DO TELL TALES p. 256:

>>.Body no. 5 belonged to a woman in her late teens or early twenties....Dr. Levine and I agree that she was the youngest of the five women....We concluded this from the fact that the root tips of her third molars were incomplete. Her sacrum, in the back of her pelvis, was not completely developed. Her limb bones showed that growth had only recently ended. Her back showed evidence of immaturity, but it was nevertheless the balck of a woman at least eighteen years old. We estimated her height at 67.5 inches. We believe this skeleton is that of Marie, who was nineteen years old at the time of the murders.<<


The Russians, however, tell us that the bones whom Dr. Maples believed were that of Marie's are not Marie's but Anastasia's, who was 17 years plus 1 month old, and that the remains found in the two pits are the 19 year old Marie's.

If the four duchesses have been found then two sets of bones should not forenicslly show two grand duchesses being 19 years old at the time of death in 1918. Therefore, one of the groups is mistaken. Or are they? Both can be correct if Marie's bones were taken from the mass grave and placed in the two pits.

So, let me ask this: Are all the female grand duchesses' hip bones found in the mass grave intact? If they were then the female's hip bone found in the two pits could not have been from the mass grave?

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Bear, what does the missing body in 1991 being Anastasia instead of Marie have anything to do with what's happening now? Whichever girl was missing she isn't anymore, since scientists have proven there were a male and a female in the burn pit, and added to the three girls from the first grave, that means ALL FIVE are now accounted for REGARDLESS of who was missing or not missing in 1991!

You, bear, seem to allege that the female found in the burn pit last year is not the fourth and missing daughter, but a part from one of the others. NO ONE in the news or anywhere else has even suggested this, just you, just here (except maybe on your forum too) Some AA supporters may agree with you out of a desire to keep their claimant dreams alive, but Bear,this theory is YOUR baby and no one else's, and it's really not valid.

Here's why:
1.The scientists and forensic specialists involved are satisfied all five children are now accounted for. No one has suggested proving it with separate profiles except you and a few other claimant supporters, and the scientists, unless they read these forums are totally unaware. Clearly, they are much more knowledgeable than any of us here on the subject, so if they are satisfied, why aren't you?
2. According to detailed accounts written by participants and reinacted in the National Geographic special, the two burned bodies were buried FIRST. The pit was completely covered up, ashes and all, and disguised. Realizing time did not permit burning all the others, they dumped eeryone else into the mass grave, covered it up and buried it with railroad ties on top.
3.This means that since the burn pit was buried FIRST and everything else was put in the mass grave, that completely shoots holes in any claims that residue from the mass grave accidently or incidently found its way into the burn pit- since the burn pit was first!
4.The idea that anyone could or would have taken a piece of the bodies of one of the three girls from the mass grave, burned it to match the burned body, and planted it in the burn pit to trick people years later IS PREPOSTEROUS and MAKES NO SENSE for the following reasons:
1- They were rushed for time, afraid of being caught. They wanted to get out of there, not goof around.
2-At the time, they were trying to hide the fact that the family was dead, not trying to cover up that someone lived (no one did) so the idea of 'survivors' or 'claimants' was not on their minds.
3-And most of all WHY would anyone do such a thing?
A: They never intended for the graves to be found- EVER- and made the famous quote 'the world will never know what we did with them.' So the idea that they'd plant anything to trick people who found the grave later is ridiculous.
B. Here's the biggie- DNA TESTING WOULD NOT BE INVENTED FOR ANOTHER SEVEN DECADES, meaning, at the time, no one would have had any idea such testing would come to exist, so why bother planting body parts so in the event of such tests you could fool them into thinking there was an extra girl? See how SILLY that is???!!

So, Bear, what exactly is it that you are alleging here? Please explain.

And don't bother posting all the Maples stuff, that is insignificant now, because it makes no difference which girl was missing since they've all been found. The issue at hand is, Bear seems to believe the fourth girl found in the burn pit last year is not the fourth girl but body parts from one of the other three. How and why?

 

[AGRBear]

... [ in part]...

You, bear, seem to allege that the female found in the burn pit last year is not the fourth and missing daughter, but a part from one of the others. NO ONE in the news or anywhere else has even suggested this, just you, just here (except maybe on your forum too) Some AA supporters may agree with you out of a desire to keep their claimant dreams alive, but Bear,this theory is YOUR baby and no one else's, and it's really not valid.
....

Since some of the early reports tell us that the estimated height of the female found in the pits was about 5 feet 2 inches tall while Maples tells us that body #5 was GD Marie and was about 5 feet 6 inches tall, which we know that she was. At this time, I tend to think, if the four markers are presented, that it's GD Anastasia's found in the pits.

Press replease found on S.E.A.R.C.H. 26 Nov 2008 tells us we haven't long to wait, 8 Dec. 2008
http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/New-Press-Release.html

'Till we hear the annoucement, I've a house to finish.

AGRBear

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Bear, for the last time, I am NOT NOT NOT talking about the Anastasia/Marie issue. I'm talking about you believing (as you have stated before) that bones were planted in the burn pit to trick people into thinking it was a fourth daughter.

So Bear, you do believe that Anastasia died with her family?

Oh and thank you for the Search Press release! I can't wait to see what they say! This should be posted in the 'new information' thread too because that's what it is, we finally have some! IF SEARCH is announcing it, then it must be really big, the real deal. They have not always endorsed announcements made in the press, so if they are for this one, that proves it's finally the answers we've been waiting for.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Here is some valuable information I would like to share. I have had personal contact with Dr. Michael Coble, and he said we can be assured that:

1. They do have FULL forensic DNA profiles for ALL seven members of the family, (including four separate Grand Duchesses) and we can finally put the issue to rest that all of the family died that night 90 years ago. (therefore all claimant stories are now proven beyond any doubt to be false)

2. Alexander III was NOT exhumed for the testing, that was a mistake by the Russian article, or relayed incorrectly in the translation. The 'father and son' mentioned were actually Nicholas and Alexei, not Nicholas and Alexander III as the one article implied. They did indeed test Nicholas's cousin, Andre Romanov, and his Y chromosome also matched Nicholas and Alexei perfectly.

3. The Russians have obtained a full nuclear STR pattern on the bloodstain in the Otsu shirt, and it does match the Nicholas skeleton profile.

4. It is true that we have astronomical evidence in the case. This puts an end to all speculation. Also, the argument that "It's some other family" is no longer viable.


5. He is in the process of writing the final report and scientific publication and should have something in the press soon. All results will soon be published in a scientific journal, and afterward will be posted here by Dr. Coble himself.

This is exciting news. I thank Dr. Michael Coble for his help and this information. You can all look forward to the upcoming publications.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Here is the press release from Dr. Coble, I post it with his permission:

US, European Scientists Report Findings of the Two Missing Romanov Children

An international team of researchers confirm the identity of the Tsar’s two missing children using forensic DNA testing.

Forensic DNA testing of skeletal remains of two individuals discovered in a field outside of Yekaterinburg, Russia in 2007 belong to Crown Prince Alexei Romanov and one of his sisters, ending one of the greatest mysteries of the twentieth century. The study, is published March 11th in the online, open-access, peer-reviewed journal PLoS ONE.

On July 17, 1918 Tsar Nicholas II, his wife Alexandra, their five children, the family physician, and three loyal servants were murdered by their Bolshevik executioners to prevent an attempted rescue from the nearby White Russian Army, who were loyal to the Tsar. After a botched attempt to hide the remains in an abandoned mine shaft, the Bolsheviks first tried to cremate two of the children (those discovered in 2007) and then buried the remaining nine bodies in a mass grave (officially discovered in 1991).

Dr. Michael Coble from the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory (AFDIL) in Rockville, Maryland, was invited by the Prosecutor’s Office of Russian Federation to conduct an independent investigation of the remains in October of 2007. Coble and Dr. Anthony Falsetti, of the University of Florida, traveled to Yekaterinburg in November of 2007 to examine the remains.

The results demonstrate the presence of a family group, and represent the most comprehensive examination of the Romanov remains to date. “Here we are able to give a full account of all of the Romanov family and can conclude that none of the family survived the execution in the early morning hours of July 17, 1918,” the scientists note in the paper.

“It’s rewarding to finally conclude this mystery 16 years after the first analysis of the remains,” reported Dr. Gill.

###
PLEASE ADD THIS LINK TO THE PUBLISHED ARTICLE IN ONLINE VERSIONS OF YOUR REPORT: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004838 (link will go live tommorrow)

CITATION: Coble MD, Loreille OM, Wadhams MJ, Edson SM, Maynard K, Meyer CE, Niederstätter H, Berger C, Berger B, Falsetti AB, Gill P, Parson W, Finelli LN (2009) Mystery Solved: The Identification of the Two Missing Romanov Children Using DNA Analysis. PLoS ONE