Anna Anderson's intestine switch [Archive]

Franziska

16th February 2009, 08:39 AM

Actually there is no proof AA spoke Russian other than the word of mouth of a few supporters, and allegedly some insane asylum workers. Very possibly, they were mistaking Kashubian Polish for Russian, or lying to help her cause, and it never happened. Saying she spoke Russian early on actually hurts her case, because she didn't speak it later. This blows holes in the 'she was too traumatized by Ekaterinburg' theory of why she wouldn't use Russian. What, did she use it, and become delayed in her trauma later? AA was never proven to be able to speak, read or write it in front of the court or anyone else. One of the reasons she was rejected by some who saw her in the 20's was because of her lack of Russian. For example, Nicholas II's sister, one of Alexandra's friends, and Prince Yussoupov all found it strange that AA spoke exclusively in German, while the real Anastasia was fluent in Russian, nearly fluent in English,(she spoke it on a daily basis with her mother) and well versed in French, but had barely any German. Why would a Russian girl use German with other native Russian speakers? The real reason, of course, is that AA was not Anastasia, but actually Franziska Schanzkowska, who spoke German (and Kashoub Polish). Trauma?Then the word of mouth reports of her speaking it are contradictory to what occured later. The bottom line is, AA could not prove she spoke Russian and never wrote it. There is also evidence she knew no English before being coached before coming to America. French, a language Anastasia studied for years, was nonexistent in AA, other than, you guessed it, a few reports from supporters.

I could go on for hours on this subject, but right now, the main issue is the intestines don't even matter anymore since the two missing bodies have been found and identified. According to the scientists who did the work in the US Military Lab, (tests on the charred remains were done in several labs in the US, Austria and Russia, all drew the same conclusions) there are separate DNA profiles for each member of the family, including all four Grand Duchesses, and Alexei. NO ONE escaped, intestines or no intestines, AA was not Anastasia!

The proof is here:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=50507

ChatNoir

16th February 2009, 09:21 AM

Actually there is no proof AA spoke Russian other than the word of mouth of a few supporters, and allegedly some insane asylum workers.

Word of mouth? I don't think so. Nurse Erna Bucholz, a language teacher who had lived in Russia, testified before the Hamburg court that "Fräulein Unbekannt" spoke fluent Russian, not like a stranger who had learned it later. There are also notes about her speaking Russian in the protocols at Dalldorf.
During her stay in Berlin, it was very clear to everybody who came into contact with her that she understood Russian perfectly, but refused to speak it. Olga Alexandrovna wrote in a letter that "curiously enough, she seems to understand Russian, but answers only in German."
In the late 30's, when having a good period mentally, she used Russian freely with Professor Rudnev and Albert Coyle. Professor Rudnev would lend her Russian books to read, but the Nazi investigation into her claim made her shut herself in again, refusing to speak Russian any more.
Even her detractor, Nina Chavchavadze, said: It is not true that she cannot speak Russian.
Very possibly, they were mistaking Kashubian Polish for Russian, or lying to help her cause, and it never happened.
Yes, my dear Annie, grasp at any straw you can find. Saying she spoke Russian early on actually hurts her case, because she didn't speak it later. This blows holes in the 'she was too traumatized by Ekaterinburg' theory of why she wouldn't use Russian. What, did she use it, and become delayed in her trauma later? AA was never proven to be able to speak, read or write it in front of the court or anyone else.
Read above. And her written Russian was used in the Hamburg trial to prove that it was of rather poor quality. Unfortunately, Anastasia's schoolbooks showed that the Grand Duchess's written Russian was not much better. Her German actually had fewer mistakes than her Russian.
One of the reasons she was rejected by some who saw her in the 20's was because of her lack of Russian. For example, Nicholas II's sister, one of Alexandra's friends, and Prince Yussoupov all found it strange that AA spoke exclusively in German, while the real Anastasia was fluent in Russian, nearly fluent in English,(she spoke it on a daily basis with her mother) and well versed in French, but had barely any German. Why would a Russian girl use German with other native Russian speakers?
Olga Alexandrovna said after meeting her: "My heart believes that she is Anastasia." She afterwards wrote to her: "I remember when we were together (in Russia)"
Prince Yussupov was later willing to acknowledge AA as the Grand Duchess, provided he was paid for it.
The real reason, of course, is that AA was not Anastasia, but actually Franziska Schanzkowska, who spoke German (and Kashoub Polish).
Yes, Franziska spoke GOOD German and a little Kashoubian. AA spoke BAD German and didn't understand a word of Polish.
Trauma?Then the word of mouth reports of her speaking it are contradictory to what occured later. The bottom line is, AA could not prove she spoke Russian and never wrote it.
She certainly proved it enough times, and the written material in the Hamburg files clearly shows that she wrote it as well.
There is also evidence she knew no English before being coached before coming to America. French, a language Anastasia studied for years, was nonexistent in AA, other than, you guessed it, a few reports from supporters.
According to Inspector Grünberg's nephew, Conrad Wahl, she "spoke more English than German" already in the early 20's. An affidavit from Professor Rudnev states that "she raved in English during anesthesia." As Agnes Gallagher said: "It is clear to me that she knows English very well, the problem is to get her to speak."
I could go on for hours on this subject, but right now, the main issue is the intestines don't even matter anymore since the two missing bodies have been found and identified. According to the scientists who did the work in the US Military Lab, (tests on the charred remains were done in several labs in the US, Austria and Russia, all drew the same conclusions) there are separate DNA profiles for each member of the family, including all four Grand Duchesses, and Alexei. NO ONE escaped, intestines or no intestines, AA was not Anastasia!
Oh yes, I know you could go on for hours, desperately trying to change history. But whatever the outcome of the putative sample is, it does not change what took place.

Franziska

16th February 2009, 09:23 AM

I always wondered why the USSR was so shy about admitting they exectued the Romanov family? Cromwell wasn't shy about executing the King, and neither were the French Revolutionaries about Louis. Yet here the 'great revolution' against royalty and all that stuff is supershy about admitting they killed them when royalist forces were getting too close for comfort.

There's an explanation for this. Russia's new Bolshevik government was very unstable, still fighting a bloody civil war, and afraid of intervention from strong foreign powers that might be too much to handle. When the Russians left WWI and signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany, one of the provisions was that the Kaiser had demanded the 'princesses of German blood' -Alexandra, her four daughters as well as her sister Ella- be handed over safely. So, finding out that they had all been brutally killed would not have sat well with the relationship between Germany and Russia, or would it have given the new government of Russia, one who claimed to be fighting against the 'evil tyranny' of the Romanov regime, much good publicity to show they had killed not only the Tsar but helpless women and blameless young girls. It was only after the Soviet regime was confident in their power that they admitted to the killings. Unfortunately, the lies they spread in the meantime trying to leave the impression the family was alive (such as the "Perm sightings" of Alexandra and the girls) only caused rumors to spread that they had escaped, leading to many survivor claimants and conspiracy theories through the years.

ChatNoir

16th February 2009, 09:26 AM

Double post

Franziska

16th February 2009, 09:28 AM

Oh Chat, you had to find a new audience, didn't you? Sigh, I'll be back to answer all your same old claims later with the truth, but remember this is a forum based on disproving conspiracy theories, so I doubt you'll find any followers here. Sorry, you old intestines don't even matter anymore, now that the bodies have been found and identified and all the family member are proven to have died on July 16, 1918, disproving all claimants, especially that fraudulent Anna Anderson. If you believe someone paid off all those scientists, please name him now!

ChatNoir

16th February 2009, 09:29 AM

Double post.

Franziska

16th February 2009, 09:29 AM

ChatNoir

16th February 2009, 10:25 AM

Oh Chat, you had to find a new audience, didn't you?

Somehow, I thing you found it first......

Sigh, I'll be back to answer all your same old claims later with the truth, but remember this is a forum based on disproving conspiracy theories, so I doubt you'll find any followers here.
I am not interested in followers, but the truth that you so desperately try to squelch.

Sorry, you old intestines don't even matter anymore, now that the bodies have been found and identified and all the family member are proven to have died on July 16, 1918, disproving all claimants, especially that fraudulent Anna Anderson. If you believe someone paid off all those scientists, please name him now!

Seems to me that Maria was found twice

ChatNoir

16th February 2009, 10:27 AM

There's an explanation for this. Russia's new Bolshevik government was very unstable, still fighting a bloody civil war, and afraid of intervention from strong foreign powers that might be too much to handle. When the Russians left WWI and signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany, one of the provisions was that the Kaiser had demanded the 'princesses of German blood' -Alexandra, her four daughters as well as her sister Ella- be handed over safely. So, finding out that they had all been brutally killed would not have sat well with the relationship between Germany and Russia, or would it have given the new government of Russia, one who claimed to be fighting against the 'evil tyranny' of the Romanov regime, much good publicity to show they had killed not only the Tsar but helpless women and blameless young girls. It was only after the Soviet regime was confident in their power that they admitted to the killings. Unfortunately, the lies they spread in the meantime trying to leave the impression the family was alive (such as the "Perm sightings" of Alexandra and the girls) only caused rumors to spread that they had escaped, leading to many survivor claimants and conspiracy theories through the years.

Funny that Fräulein Unbekannt never subscribed to any of those rumors, but described the last night in Ekaterinburg already at Dalldorf.

Franziska

16th February 2009, 11:57 AM

Word of mouth?

Yes. All you describe is word of mouth. AA did not know Russian, and used German. Despite being coached in languages later, she was never good at anything but German, just like Franziska. If she knew Russian, why did Frau Rathlef and Tatiana Botkin have to make excuses for her being traumatized? (this being in 1925?)

the Nazi investigation into her claim made her shut herself in again, refusing to speak Russian any more.

What happened to the 'traumatized' theory? I'm sure she was terrified of those Nazis, though! Being Franziska, and knowing she had been declared legally insane in 1916, if her true identity was discovered, it would have meant a death camp for the mentally ill!

Even her detractor, Nina Chavchavadze, said: It is not true that she cannot speak Russian.

Again, word of mouth. There are many quotes from others detailing her lack of language skills in Russian, English and French.

Olga Alexandrovna said after meeting her: "My heart believes that she is Anastasia." She afterwards wrote to her: "I remember when we were together (in Russia)"

Olga gave the mystery woman a chance, felt sorry for her, but concluded truthfully she was not her niece. I have many quotes on this topic, too. Let's hope we don't have to bore the good folk here with our quote wars.

Prince Yussupov was later willing to acknowledge AA as the Grand Duchess, provided he was paid for it.

This is an unverified rumor, BUT- IF he did say that, how can you deny that her supporters of AA's weren't embellishing for a cut of the payoff if she won?

Yes, Franziska spoke GOOD German and a little Kashoubian. AA spoke BAD German and didn't understand a word of Polish.

AA used German exclusively as her language of communication before being coached in the others later. Anastasia spoke good Russian, English and French, but knew hardly any German. So this is a big blow to the AA case too.

She certainly proved it enough times, and the written material in the Hamburg files clearly shows that she wrote it as well.

Actually, no, and this was a big sticking point for her. In 1965, after many years of being coached, she answered a few questions put to her in Russian, but answered them in English. If she wrote anything, I've never heard of it, and it was easily copied, just as she tried to copy Anastasia's handwriting. Also note that AA NEVER took the stand in her own defense, anything she said was done in private away from the audience. Why? Afraid of getting caught lying and being humiliated? Or the old 'my father owns the courts' excuse?

According to Inspector Grünberg's nephew, Conrad Wahl, she "spoke more English than German" already in the early 20's. An affidavit from Professor Rudnev states that "she raved in English during anesthesia." As Agnes Gallagher said: "It is clear to me that she knows English very well, the problem is to get her to speak."

According to Olga Alexandrovna and Sophie Buxhoevedon, she spoke only German and did not understand a word of Russian or English (this 1922,1925) Dmitri Leuchtenberg, son of supporter George Leuchtenberg, said AA was a fraud, and that when she first came to stay with them she spoke only German until she was coached later in English. Despite her coaching, she never mastered English, even after many years in the US she spoke it horribly and with a heavy Polish accent. Anastasia knew English from babyhood, had a British nanny, and a mother who spoke to her every day in fluent English with a proper British accent, so AA's was not the English the real Anastasia would have spoken!

Oh yes, I know you could go on for hours, desperately trying to change history. But whatever the outcome of the putative sample is, it does not change what took place.

As I tried to tell you, all your claims of your 'putative' intestine sample are now not even important since the bones of the remaining two children have been found and positively identified as the biological children of Nicholas, whose remains were proven by testing with relatives and relics. Sorry, there's nothing 'putative' about those 2007 Ekaterinburg remains, they're real. Since the bodies are all accounted for, all claimants, including AA, are officially fake.

So, Chat, if you believe the scientists were paid off, the bones are fake, the Russians are falsifying, or whatever else you may come up with, please let us all hear it! Otherwise, you have no case.

Franziska

16th February 2009, 12:59 PM

I am not interested in followers, but the truth that you so desperately try to squelch.

What is that 'truth?' That Anna Anderson was Anastasia? But Chat, she wasn't and all the DNA tests prove it! Do you have an interesting conspiracy theory on why the DNA tests, ALL of them, were fake, or are you just going on how much you wish AA was Anastasia?

Seems to me that Maria was found twice

No, we have all four of them. There is a question of whether Maria or Anastasia was the 'missing' girl found in 2007 and which was the one in the 1991 mass grave, but now that we have separate nuclear DNA profiles for all four girls, it doesn't matter. We know they all died and are accounted for, officially, in history and science.

Funny that Fräulein Unbekannt never subscribed to any of those rumors,

That's because they didn't fit with her bogus 'escape in a cart' story! Ah but there were other fake stories going around besides hers.

but described the last night in Ekaterinburg already at Dalldorf.

For those who don't know, "Dalldorf" was an insane asylum in which AA lived when she came up with her "Anastasia" story. There were magazines, and books available in 1920 telling the story of the family, including Robert Wilton's "Last Days of the Romanovs", featuring interviews with many who were close to the family in the last days. Anderson's asylum roommate, Clara Peuthart, had a big collection of magazines featuring the Russian royal family.

ChatNoir

16th February 2009, 02:38 PM

Yes. All you describe is word of mouth.

Sorry, but it is not. It is court evidence and written material.
AA did not know Russian, and used German. Wrong again. AA DID know Russian, spoke it fluently in front of many witnesses, but used broken German.
Despite being coached in languages later, she was never good at anything but German, just like Franziska.
Wrong again. She spoke fluent English already in the 1920's, and was never good at German, something Franzisca spoke fluently, being a native German.
If she knew Russian, why did Frau Rathlef and Tatiana Botkin have to make excuses for her being traumatized? (this being in 1925?)
Nobody made excuses for her, they only stated a fact.
What happened to the 'traumatized' theory? I'm sure she was terrified of those Nazis, though! Being Franziska, and knowing she had been declared legally insane in 1916, if her true identity was discovered, it would have meant a death camp for the mentally ill!
How do you explain the fact that FS was declared legally insane, while AA was never ever declared insane by any doctor?
Again, word of mouth. There are many quotes from others detailing her lack of language skills in Russian, English and French.
Tell me, how do you KNOW that someone does not know what you are saying? Besides, AA answered all questions posed in Russian with her broken German. She clearly understood the language perfectly. She also spoke French according to Agnes Gallagher and Dominique Aucleres.
Olga gave the mystery woman a chance, felt sorry for her, but concluded truthfully she was not her niece. I have many quotes on this topic, too. Let's hope we don't have to bore the good folk here with our quote wars.
Again, both Olga, Shura and Gilliard left Berlin without being able to say that she was NOT Anastasia. Only 3 months later did Olga and Gilliard denounce her and stated that they had seen "right away" that she was "a first class actress". I think we all know a lie when we hear one.
AA used German exclusively as her language of communication before being coached in the others later.[ Anastasia spoke good Russian, English and French, but knew hardly any German. So this is a big blow to the AA case too.
And AA spoke good English, horrible German, and fluent Russian. (According to Gleb Botkin, with the same accent as the Tsar's children.) She knew French, but we don't really know to what extent. And don't forget that Anastasia's study books showed less errors in her German lessons than her Russian ones, so she must have had a decent grip on German.
Actually, no, and this was a big sticking point for her. In 1965, after many years of being coached, she answered a few questions put to her in Russian, but answered them in English. If she wrote anything, I've never heard of it, and it was easily copied, just as she tried to copy Anastasia's handwriting.
Sorry, but she did not copy Anastasia's handwriting. As for her Russian writing, Minna Becker stated that "Mrs. Anderson's script reveals a certain liveliness which is not to be found in her Latin characters. It's as though she had rediscovered her familiar climate." (These notes were written during the 1950's.)
Also note that AA NEVER took the stand in her own defense, anything she said was done in private away from the audience. Why? Afraid of getting caught lying and being humiliated? Or the old 'my father owns the courts' excuse?
She met in person with Judge Bäthge and Irene Neander on September 16, 1965.
According to Olga Alexandrovna and Sophie Buxhoevedon, she spoke only German and did not understand a word of Russian or English
From a letter written to Mordvinov in 1927, Olga writes: "Curiously, she seems to understand Russian, but answers only in German."
Dmitri Leuchtenberg, son of supporter George Leuchtenberg, said AA was a fraud, and that when she first came to stay with them she spoke only German until she was coached later in English.
Dmitri did not meet Anastasia and his belief is totally irrelevant. Besides, he has already been caught in too many lies.
Despite her coaching, she never mastered English, even after many years in the US she spoke it horribly and with a heavy Polish accent.
Obviously you have not seen the BBC tape from the 50's where AA speaks the purest English.
Anastasia knew English from babyhood, had a British nanny, and a mother who spoke to her every day in fluent English with a proper British accent, so AA's was not the English the real Anastasia would have spoken!
Remember, the children's English was so bad that Alexandra had to hire an English teacher for them.
As I tried to tell you, all your claims of your 'putative' intestine sample are now not even important since the bones of the remaining two children have been found and positively identified as the biological children of Nicholas, whose remains were proven by testing with relatives and relics. Sorry, there's nothing 'putative' about those 2007 Ekaterinburg remains, they're real. Since the bodies are all accounted for, all claimants, including AA, are officially fake.
And frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. The story is what it is, no matter what. And it seems to scare the pants off you the way you try to deny what happened. Is your faith in the DNA so weak?

ChatNoir

16th February 2009, 02:50 PM

What is that 'truth?' That Anna Anderson was Anastasia? But Chat, she wasn't and all the DNA tests prove it! Do you have an interesting conspiracy theory on why the DNA tests, ALL of them, were fake, or are you just going on how much you wish AA was Anastasia?
The truth is, that what happened, happened. Nothing more, nothing less.
No, we have all four of them. There is a question of whether Maria or Anastasia was the 'missing' girl found in 2007 and which was the one in the 1991 mass grave, but now that we have separate nuclear DNA profiles for all four girls, it doesn't matter. We know they all died and are accounted for, officially, in history and science.
So if this is the case, why do you even bother to argue about what happened before?
For those who don't know, "Dalldorf" was an insane asylum in which AA lived when she came up with her "Anastasia" story. There were magazines, and books available in 1920 telling the story of the family, including Robert Wilton's "Last Days of the Romanovs", featuring interviews with many who were close to the family in the last days. Anderson's asylum roommate, Clara Peuthart, had a big collection of magazines featuring the Russian royal family.
You really mean that Robert Wilton's book was lying around the library at Dalldorf? And that Fräulein Unbekannt read it in ENGLISH? And where did Clara Marie Peuthert keep her "large collection" of magazines?
Here is a quote from Nurse Thea Malinovski's testimony in Hamburg: "At Dalldorf there were a lot of daily newspapers, which always came late, usually days late. Among them the `Lokalanzeiger' and `Vorwaerts.'
These papers the patients were allowed to see. In the library there were mainly novels and very light sort of reading. Apart from that, Dalldorf had a whole backlog of illustrated magazines, but all of them were old, not
current, which had been given or left there by people of good will. It is out of the question that F.U. could have found or read historical or political books there that related to the tsar's family or to Russia"

Franziska

16th February 2009, 03:07 PM

Sorry, but it is not. It is court evidence and written material.

It's STILL just stuff some people said. Other people said other stuff that contradicted it.

Wrong again. AA DID know Russian, spoke it fluently in front of many witnesses, but used broken German.

Look, Chat, I am not 'wrong.' We've been through this many times. A few people she said things in Russian, others said she did not, and it hurt her case. Also don't forget that you contradict your own theory by saying she spoke it when other times she didn't because she was 'traumatized.' I guess she was only 'traumatized' if it was convenient, or if the right people were around? AA's German was not 'broken',it was her main source of communication all her life. Do you expect anyone to believe a girl fluent in Russian and nearly fluent in English and French but not knowing much German would suddenly forget her first three better languages and use only German? Get a clue, finally- AA used German because she was FS, just like the DNA shows us!

Wrong again. She spoke fluent English already in the 1920's

Chat, this is a LIE! People who met her said she knew or understood NO English, and others tell how she was coached in English sometime in 1925. And her English was never, ever fluent, even after many years in the US! AA did not grow up speaking English, as Anastasia did.

Nobody made excuses for her, they only stated a fact.

Here you contradict yourself again! You are now saying it's a 'fact' she was too 'traumatized' to speak Russian, yet you just said she spoke it fluently and lots of people heard her! So which one is it? This is what I mean!

How do you explain the fact that FS was declared legally insane, while AA was never ever declared insane by any doctor?

AA was put in plenty of asylums in her life, from the time she was found in the canal to the time Annie Jennings had her hauled away for her odd behavior in NYC all the way up to the time she was kidnapped by her husband who was afraid she'd be committed when she was elderly. Add to this the fact that she spent her life pretending to be a dead princess. Nuts for sure!

Besides, AA answered all questions posed in Russian with her broken German. She clearly understood the language perfectly.

Why not use Russian? What, traumatized again? Contradicting again!

She also spoke French according to Agnes Gallagher and Dominique Aucleres.

The ONLY incident was when this ONE supporter said she ordered beakfast in French. You don't even have to know it at all to read a menu, or quote what you are told. AA's French was nonexistent, one thing Anastasia's French teacher Gilliard noticed for sure!

Again, both Olga, Shura and Gilliard left Berlin without being able to say that she was NOT Anastasia. Only 3 months later did Olga and Gilliard denounce her and stated that they had seen "right away" that she was "a first class actress". I think we all know a lie when we hear one.

Lie? No, they gave a claimant a chance, decided it wasn't her. That's all.

And AA spoke good English, horrible German, and fluent Russian.

Chat, you are in a fantasy world with this, none of it is true!

According to Gleb Botkin

You mean the man who wrote all those books trying to tout her case, and likely was a main one who fed her the memories?

Handwriting: Want to see the evidence? She wrote like FS, not Anastasia.

Dmitri did not meet Anastasia and his belief is totally irrelevant.

His brothers shared Gilliard as a teacher with the Imperial children. He likely did know them.

Besides, he has already been caught in too many lies.

Of course, Chat, anyone who disagrees with your fantasy is a 'liar.'

Obviously you have not seen the BBC tape from the 50's where AA speaks the purest English.

I've seen all the ones from America where you can barely understand her, and her accent is far from British. Guess by then she'd lost her acting ability!

Remember, the children's English was so bad that Alexandra had to hire an English teacher for them.

You take his out of context- he meant their grammar, in the way an American child would not impress a British King (since it was Edward VII who said that)

Is your faith in the DNA so weak?

No actually I just came to this site to make fun of you and your stupid disbelief in the DNA,and all your silly friends' wild theories about how the DNA was switched. If you want to go a few more rounds, I can do it, but why bother? It's over! AA was not Anastasia! The body is found!

Again, the proof!

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=50507

ChatNoir

16th February 2009, 04:36 PM

It's STILL just stuff some people said. Other people said other stuff that contradicted it.
And this "stuff" as you call it, happens to be from the protocols at Dalldorf and court testimony in Hamburg.
Look, Chat, I am not 'wrong.'
But of course you are.
A few people she said things in Russian, others said she did not, and it hurt her case.
How did those people that said that she did not speak Russian know that she could not speak the language? Also don't forget that you contradict your own theory by saying she spoke it when other times she didn't because she was 'traumatized.'
I am never contradicting myself, and I have never used the excuse "traumatized". This is all your invention.
AA's German was not 'broken',it was her main source of communication all her life.
Except when she was in America when she spoke fluent English according to Xenia Leeds. Her German, according to the Duke of Leuchtenberg, was so faulty that it could never had been her native language.
Do you expect anyone to believe a girl fluent in Russian and nearly fluent in English and French but not knowing much German would suddenly forget her first three better languages and use only German? Get a clue, finally- AA used German because she was FS, just like the DNA shows us!
Don't forget she had an aneurism. Strokes do strange things to people's brains. And remember, she did not forget her languages, she just refused to use Russian most of the time. And her English was fluent.
Chat, this is a LIE! People who met her said she knew or understood NO English, and others tell how she was coached in English sometime in 1925. And her English was never, ever fluent, even after many years in the US! AA did not grow up speaking English, as Anastasia did.
Yes, you love to call it LIES when you cannot disprove it. Conrad Wahl, Professor Rudnev and Bella Cohen all heard her speaking English already in the early 20's.
Here you contradict yourself again! You are now saying it's a 'fact' she was too 'traumatized' to speak Russian, yet you just said she spoke it fluently and lots of people heard her! So which one is it? This is what I mean!
Read what I write! I said that she was traumatized, period. I am not using that as an excuse for anything.
AA was put in plenty of asylums in her life, from the time she was found in the canal to the time Annie Jennings had her hauled away for her odd behavior in NYC all the way up to the time she was kidnapped by her husband who was afraid she'd be committed when she was elderly. Add to this the fact that she spent her life pretending to be a dead princess. Nuts for sure!
Yes, in your book. But again, I have to teach you the facts: She was put in Dalldorf, not because she was insane, but because the Berlin Police had no idea what to do with her. She was put in Four Winds Sanatorium, not because she was insane, but because her hosts were tired of her. She was sent to Ilten, not because she was insane, but because her hosts wanted her out of the country.
The ONLY incident was when this ONE supporter said she ordered beakfast in French. You don't even have to know it at all to read a menu, or quote what you are told. AA's French was nonexistent, one thing Anastasia's French teacher Gilliard noticed for sure!
You forget Dominiques Aucleres, who spoke to AA in French, and right away AA answered back in the same language, with a "beautiful pronunciation."
Lie? No, they gave a claimant a chance, decided it wasn't her. That's all.
Yes, they decided that three months after seeing her and not being able to say that it was not Anastasia. Very, very convincing.
You mean the man who wrote all those books trying to tout her case, and likely was a main one who fed her the memories?
And you really think that two people so devoted to the IF would let an impostor take her place? You DO live in a fantasy world, don't you. As for her memories, AA and Gleb Botkin met in May of 1927, years after Frau Rathlef had filled a book with AA's memories.
Handwriting: Want to see the evidence? She wrote like FS, not Anastasia.
According to graphologists Lucy Weiszäcker and Minna Becker, the handwritings of AA and Anastasia were identical.
His brothers shared Gilliard as a teacher with the Imperial children. He likely did know them.What on earth are you talking about?
Of course, Chat, anyone who disagrees with your fantasy is a 'liar.'
Dmitri was the one who said that Kastritsky had witnessed against AA when he did nothing of the kind. Dmitri was the one who said that AA had made her confession in German at Easter, while the Priest reported to his mother that she had confessed in Russian. Do you want more?
I've seen all the ones from America where you can barely understand her, and her accent is far from British. Guess by then she'd lost her acting ability!
And I have seen the ones from America as well, and I did not have the slightest problem understanding her.
You take his out of context- he meant their grammar, in the way an American child would not impress a British King (since it was Edward VII who said that)
And AA's grammar was still a bit rusty, according to Xenia Leeds.
No actually I just came to this site to make fun of you and your stupid disbelief in the DNA,and all your silly friends' wild theories about how the DNA was switched. If you want to go a few more rounds, I can do it, but why bother? It's over! AA was not Anastasia! The body is found!
Yes, dearie, why bother. You get your facts all wrong all the time. Again.

Franziska

16th February 2009, 05:47 PM

Chat, your versions of the truth are inaccurate and all part of your dream version. You know I have answers to all your junk, and it's all on my site, too. You are wrong about all the languages, and you know I have quotes to prove it. All you hold onto is stuff from her supporters, and of course they're going to back her case! If she won, they'd get a cut of the loot! Don't forget Grandanor corp. that promised payoffs to investors in her case! The whole thing is such a pathetic fraud it's a disgrace. Now, looking back on it, more holes in the story show up all the time. And don't even get started on the pictures, and how much AA looks like Franziska, because that's who she really was!

But you know what, Chat? I don't think anybody cares how many point-counterpoint he said this, she said that's we can post, don't forget how many other forums have shut down the AA discussions because of you, including mine! Nobody here wants to be bored by that. This is not a history forum or an AA forum. This is a conspiracy theory forum. The conspiracy theory is that AA, despite many DNA tests proving her not to be Anastasia, proving her to be Franziska, and proving all the bodies of the royal family are found, that somehow your AA was still Anastasia. So what we need to know here is, what are the reasons you believe the DNA to be invalid? Because if you can't tell us, then you have no case, because regardless of how much junk you post, none of it makes the DNA go away. Sorry, the DNA proves that:

Anna Anderson was not related to the royal family- the intestines, tested in 2 labs, and the hair, tested in another, all had identical results- no match for the royals. The intestine sample was a match for the great nephew of Franziska, making it 99.9% likely that Anna Anderson was Franziska Schanzkowska. Add to that the FACT that the last two bodies were discovered in 2007, burned in the forest just as Yurovsky said they'd be, and that labs in the US, Austria and Russia all proved they were the remains of the last two royal children, and there's really nowhere left to go with this other than to keep repeating your same old litany of this person said this or that, but none of it will ever change a thing. If you cannot prove why the DNA tests- ALL the DNA tests, by all those labs over the years, not just the intestines, are wrong, then you lose! So let's hear your theories, and "I refuse to speculate" is not an answer.

ChatNoir

16th February 2009, 09:33 PM

Chat, your versions of the truth are inaccurate and all part of your dream version.
Sorry, it is not MY version, but the version from the witnesses who were there when it happened. Sorry that it contradicts you homespun theories.
You know I have answers to all your junk, and it's all on my site, too.
And as you well know, I have already torn your site to shreds.
You are wrong about all the languages, and you know I have quotes to prove it. You have quotes? You mean "stuff" that someone said?
All you hold onto is stuff from her supporters, and of course they're going to back her case!
Sorry, most of these people were not "supporters", they were only bystanders who happened to see what they saw.
If she won, they'd get a cut of the loot!
What loot? Even Grand Duke Andrew in the 20's clearly indicated that there was no fortune anywhere.
[/quote] Don't forget Grandanor corp. that promised payoffs to investors in her case! The whole thing is such a pathetic fraud it's a disgrace.[/quote]
Grandanor did not promise anything, it was all a chance the investors had to take, and not many did.
Now, looking back on it, more holes in the story show up all the time.
What holes?
[/quote] And don't even get started on the pictures, and how much AA looks like Franziska, because that's who she really was![/quote]
We already have the answer from no less than 9 scientists who stated that AA and Anastasia were the same person. And we don't doubt science, do we?
But you know what, Chat? I don't think anybody cares how many point-counterpoint he said this, she said that's we can post, don't forget how many other forums have shut down the AA discussions because of you, including mine!
You obviously care a whole lot. And your stupidity is what closed down every discussion we have ever had. With a little help from your hapless friends.
Nobody here wants to be bored by that. This is not a history forum or an AA forum. This is a conspiracy theory forum. The conspiracy theory is that AA, despite many DNA tests proving her not to be Anastasia, proving her to be Franziska, and proving all the bodies of the royal family are found, that somehow your AA was still Anastasia.
If you have read my posts, you will see that I don't care who AA was, I only want the facts to be known. Something you are desperately trying to prevent.
So what we need to know here is, what are the reasons you believe the DNA to be invalid? I never said the DNA was invalid, just that it came from a putative source.
Because if you can't tell us, then you have no case, because regardless of how much junk you post, none of it makes the DNA go away. Sorry, the DNA proves that:
No court of law has proved anything up till now.

Anna Anderson was not related to the royal family- the intestines, tested in 2 labs, and the hair, tested in another, all had identical results- no match for the royals.
That does not take anything away from the story. The facts are still the same.
The intestine sample was a match for the great nephew of Franziska, making it 99.9% likely that Anna Anderson was Franziska Schanzkowska.
Until his mother's birth certificate has been found, we will never know if he was maternally related to FS.
Add to that the FACT that the last two bodies were discovered in 2007, burned in the forest just as Yurovsky said they'd be, and that labs in the US, Austria and Russia all proved they were the remains of the last two royal children, and there's really nowhere left to go with this other than to keep repeating your same old litany of this person said this or that, but none of it will ever change a thing. If you cannot prove why the DNA tests- ALL the DNA tests, by all those labs over the years, not just the intestines, are wrong, then you lose! So let's hear your theories, and "I refuse to speculate" is not an answer.
I am not interested in proving anything, I just want the story of AA to be told without lies and personal assumptions. And if that is such a threat to you, I have my doubts that you really believe in the DNA.

Foolmewunz

17th February 2009, 12:11 AM

:catfight::catfight:

:popcorn2:popcorn2

Oh, yeah? Well, so's your old man!

(I love it when these crusaders show up after googling their pet monomania to defend or attack whomever is attacking their private sand castles. This one doesn't yet have the promise to be up there with the great Vampire Hunters in the Graveyard saga, but hey, with Russian tempers and all, we could see dueling pistols at dawn, yet!)

Chaos

17th February 2009, 02:45 AM

Wait, so a young woman speaking fluent Russian and broken German is proof that she´s Anastasia?

Wow.

There´s at least several dozen Anastasias attending my university. I never would have guessed...:D

Franziska

17th February 2009, 12:42 PM

Sorry, it is not MY version, but the version from the witnesses who were there when it happened. Sorry that it contradicts you homespun theories.

You forget, there were also plenty of 'witnesses' on the 'other side' who told a very different story. Who's wrong/lying? Let's see, how about the side proven wrong by DNA?

And as you well know, I have already torn your site to shreds.

Actually no, you just recite you same old garbage over and over, the same stuff I made the site to counteract. Besides, you forget I do have reality on my side.

Sorry, most of these people were not "supporters", they were only bystanders who happened to see what they saw.

Then how come those who weren't supporters saw something very different?

What loot? Even Grand Duke Andrew in the 20's clearly indicated that there was no fortune anywhere.

Then please tell me, what was the court case all about? Her 'name?' Doesn't 'name' = 'money?' Sorry, all those people were fighting for the loot. It was all about the money. It did turn out there wasn't any, but if they'd known that for sure, they wouldn't have fought so long. Fallows, Botkin and others lost their asses defending AA and got no payoff. Do you really think they'd have tried so hard for free?

What holes?

Like, the stupid escape story to start, and then that most of the quotes and alleged 'mysteries' you list are not what they seem once investigated more thoroughly.

We already have the answer from no less than 9 scientists who stated that AA and Anastasia were the same person. And we don't doubt science, do we?

Your discredited Nazi Otto Reche and others who were obviously wrong. The DNA trumps everything, you need to accept that. It does in any court case, over stupid eyewitness testimony, ear pictures and everything else. Men convicted on testimony and other evidence are freed by DNA testing. It's the final answer.

And your stupidity is what closed down every discussion we have ever had. With a little help from your hapless friends.

This is what happened, you and your band of insane lunatics who refuse to accept reality.

If you have read my posts, you will see that I don't care who AA was, I only want the facts to be known. Something you are desperately trying to prevent.

A. If you don't care, why do you fight her case so strongly and defend her endlessly?

B.And if you care so much about the 'facts' how about looking up the DNA results instead of decades old he said she saids that mean nothing now?

I never said the DNA was invalid, just that it came from a putative source.

That's what you say about the INTESTINES. What about the bones found in Russia in 2007, proving beyond all doubt all of the family died together and no one escaped? That is not 'putative' no matter how you try to twist the words of the scientists.

No court of law has proved anything up till now.

Nobody feels its necessary because we have an answer. If you want to fight the DNA go for it but you'll lose.

That does not take anything away from the story. The facts are still the same.

You still don't know the definition of a 'fact', do you? What you call facts are really just some comment from somebody. It may be a fact they said something, but that does not make what they said a fact. Learn the difference, finally! People say a lot of stuff, it doesn't prove they're right. And again,if you really want facts, there is the DNA evidence!

Until his mother's birth certificate has been found, we will never know if he was maternally related to FS.

Where did you hide it? Come on, he's a match for AA and AA was found to be FS by Ernie's detectives in the 20s. No matter who she was, she still wasn't Anastasia.

I am not interested in proving anything, I just want the story of AA to be told without lies and personal assumptions. And if that is such a threat to you, I have my doubts that you really believe in the DNA.

This is not true. You are the biggest AA supporter on the internet and in the world, and you defend her endlessly. You continue to pass off garbage as facts while denying reality. So there you completely contradict yourself. You want 'facts', look at the DNA! If you still try to push the idea she was Anastasia anyway because somebody said x or y in the 1920's, then yes, you are still defending her case. You know you are, and you know who you are and why you're doing it. I posted this stuff last summer, why did you come here? Got desperate to find a place to take up for AA after RF shut down the discussion and started googling, didn't you? I didn't come here to fight, I came here to make fun of YOU and your stupid cronies and their ignorant insane theories.

You know, even if everything you said is accurate, which it is NOT, it still wouldn't make AA Anastasia, because Anastasia's body has been found. Chat I am still waiting for you to tell us why the DNA tests don't prove that the bodies are found.

Franziska

17th February 2009, 02:12 PM

neltana

17th February 2009, 02:16 PM

I would like to see ChatNoir's answer to this. If we put the language issue aside for a moment, don't the DNA tests on the bodies strongly suggest that all of the children have been found?

If not, why not?

Because, certainly, if all the bodies of the children are accounted for, the linguistic capabilities of AA/FS are not relevant, right?

ChatNoir

17th February 2009, 02:50 PM

You forget, there were also plenty of 'witnesses' on the 'other side' who told a very different story. Who's wrong/lying? Let's see, how about the side proven wrong by DNA?
By all means, bring'em on.
Actually no, you just recite you same old garbage over and over, the same stuff I made the site to counteract. Besides, you forget I do have reality on my side.
And that same old garbage happens to be what happened, no matter how much you try to distort it. This must be very important to you.........
Then how come those who weren't supporters saw something very different?
Like what?
Then please tell me, what was the court case all about? Her 'name?' Doesn't 'name' = 'money?' Sorry, all those people were fighting for the loot. It was all about the money. It did turn out there wasn't any, but if they'd known that for sure, they wouldn't have fought so long. Fallows, Botkin and others lost their asses defending AA and got no payoff. Do you really think they'd have tried so hard for free?
The case was about her identity. And yes, Fallows tried that hard for free, and Botkin made sure that any money that migth come his way would be given to the American Red Cross.
Like, the stupid escape story to start, and then that most of the quotes and alleged 'mysteries' you list are not what they seem once investigated more thoroughly.
The story seems unlikely, yes. But there are several witnesses to that one as well.
Your discredited Nazi Otto Reche and others who were obviously wrong. And who discredited him, and when?
The DNA trumps everything, you need to accept that. It does in any court case, over stupid eyewitness testimony, ear pictures and everything else. Men convicted on testimony and other evidence are freed by DNA testing. It's the final answer.
I your next post you seem to rely quite a bit on eye witnesses. And ears are like fingerprints, they are all different. Funny that AA and AN should have the same ones, isn't it?
This is what happened, you and your band of insane lunatics who refuse to accept reality.
And if we are a band of insane lunatics, why are you wasting all this effort on us?
A. If you don't care, why do you fight her case so strongly and defend her endlessly?
No, my dear, I just want the truth to be told, regardless of who AA was.
.And if you care so much about the 'facts' how about looking up the DNA results instead of decades old he said she saids that mean nothing now?
So why are you resorting to this kind of witnesses if you believe so strongly in the DNA?
That's what you say about the INTESTINES. What about the bones found in Russia in 2007, proving beyond all doubt all of the family died together and no one escaped? That is not 'putative' no matter how you try to twist the words of the scientists.
As I have already said, no matter who AA was, the story should still be told without resorting to lies.
Nobody feels its necessary because we have an answer. If you want to fight the DNA go for it but you'll lose.
Seems to me that you are the one doing the fighting here.
You still don't know the definition of a 'fact', do you? What you call facts are really just some comment from somebody. It may be a fact they said something, but that does not make what they said a fact. Learn the difference, finally! People say a lot of stuff, it doesn't prove they're right. And again,if you really want facts, there is the DNA evidence!
Unless, of course, when they are on your side.
Where did you hide it? Come on, he's a match for AA and AA was found to be FS by Ernie's detectives in the 20s. No matter who she was, she still wasn't Anastasia.
And if Martin Knopf was so sure that AA was FS, why did he have to resort to lying, falsifying photos and hiding evidence?
This is not true. You are the biggest AA supporter on the internet and in the world, and you defend her endlessly. You continue to pass off garbage as facts while denying reality. So there you completely contradict yourself. You want 'facts', look at the DNA! If you still try to push the idea she was Anastasia anyway because somebody said x or y in the 1920's, then yes, you are still defending her case. You know you are, and you know who you are and why you're doing it. I posted this stuff last summer, why did you come here? Got desperate to find a place to take up for AA after RF shut down the discussion and started googling, didn't you? I didn't come here to fight, I came here to make fun of YOU and your stupid cronies and their ignorant insane theories.
Quite frankly, I think it is awfully funny to see how riled up you get over this.
You know, even if everything you said is accurate, which it is NOT, it still wouldn't make AA Anastasia, because Anastasia's body has been found. Chat I am still waiting for you to tell us why the DNA tests don't prove that the bodies are found.
Of course it is accurate. And tha's why you feel so threatened.

ChatNoir

17th February 2009, 03:35 PM

Okay, for the record, here are the quotes from those who said AA did not know Russian, English or French and only used German (FS would have known German and Kashoub Polish)

Baroness Sophie Buxhoevedon, telling of her meeting with Anderson in 1922, reported:

.."speaking to her in English while using the types of phrases I would have used while speaking with the Grand Duchesses, but I did not refer to her by any name other than 'Darling'. She did not reply and I saw that she did not understand a word of what I had said."
So not replying means that you don't understand? How brilliant. Besides, I think AA was a little leery of miss Buxhoeveden since the family suspected her of betrayal during imprisonment. And, as we now know, not without reason.
Olga Alexandrovna, sister of the Tsar and a close aunt of the real Anastasia, on her 1925 meeting with AA:

When Olga entered the room, the woman lying on a bed asked a nurse: “Ist das die Tante?” [I]“That”, confessed Olga, “at once took me aback. A moment later I remembered that the young woman having spent five years in Germany, would naturally have learnt the language, but then I heard that when she was rescued from that canal in 1920, she spoke nothing but German – when she spoke at all- which was not often. I readily admit that a ghastly horror experienced in one’s youth can work havoc with one’s memory but I have never heard of any ghastly experience endowing anyone with a knowledge they had not had before it happened. My nieces knew no German at all. Mrs Anderson did not seem to understand a word of Russian or English, the two languages all the four sisters had spoken since babyhood. French came a little later, but German was never spoken in the family."
Funny, isn't it how the story changed over 50 years. The real story goes like this: When Olga entered, the invalid turned red, her eyes lit up, and she looked radiantly happy. When after some hours of conversation, Olga stepped out, Herluf Zahle asked: Now, who was the lady? AA answered: Aunt Olga, my father's sister. Zahle said: Why didn't you say so when she walked in? AA answered: I was so happy, I couldn't say anything. Later, this manuscript was sent to Olga for approval, and she found the rendition "quite correct". (See also Bella Cohen article in The New York Times." As for understanding Russian, we have Olga's letter to Mordvinov where she writes that AA seems to understand Russian, but answers in German. As for German never spoken in the family, here is a little tidbit for you: Found this in a biography of Louis & Victoria - The Family History of the Mountbattens, Richard Hough, Weidenfeld and Nicholson London 1984. ISBN 0 297 78520 6
Writing about the Mountbatten family's connection to the Russian Court and Louis Mountbatten claiming to be in love with GD Marie and wanting to marry her at age 13, Houghton states: 'They all spoke English among themselves, all fluently of course as if it was their only language. Then they spoke German to the German locals, French to the aristocracy, and the Russians spoke in Russian to their own servants. A happy, tightly knit community, relaxed in their own private insulated world.'
page 265
Dmitri Leuchtenberg, son of one of Anderson's biggest supporters, never believed her claim. His brothers had the same French tutor as the royal children. AA lived with his family for a time in the 1920's. In a letter to Olga A.'s biographer, Ian Vorres, he stated:

When Mrs. Tschiakovsky arrived in Seeon she did not speak or understand Russian; she did not speak or understand English, except for what she learned from lessons taken in Lugano and in Obersdorf before coming to Seeon; she did not speak or understand French. She spoke only German with a north German accent. Grand Duchess Anastasia, on the contrary, spoke always Russian to her father, English to her mother, understood and spoke French and did not speak any German.
Haven't we already exposed Dmitri as a liar? See previous post. And then read his father's written declaration, where he states that AA spoke, wrote and understood English, spoke a poor German and understood Russian perfectly. As a matter of fact, on Easter eve, she surprised her hostess by taking her by the hand at the end of the festivities and thanking her in fluent Russian.
Felix Yussoupov, cousin in law of the real Anastasia, met AA in 1927 and spoke to her in Russian, English, French and German. She only spoke German. He pronounced her a 'wretched creature', an 'adventuress' and a 'frightful playactress.'
But apparently she understood all the languages. And don't forget who was Felix's mother in law!
Here, her own supporter, Tatiana Botkin, sister of Gleb, makes excuses for AA's lack of language skills Anastasia would have had: (circa 1925)

"She has not only forgotten languages, but she has in general lost the power of accurate narration...even the simplest stories she tells incoherently and incorrectly; strung together in impossibly ungrammatical German." (Massie p.169)
Exactly, she spoke impossibly ungrammatical German. Much like Anastasia who never mastered grammar.
So if even her own backers admitted she didn't know Russian, what does that say about those who claimed she did? Clearly, they were either aiding her cause, outright liars, or mistaking Kashoub Polish for Russian.
I missed that line about not knowing Russian. Could you please repeat it?

in later years, her lack of Russian and English continued and worsened, always using German as her main form of communication (as Franziska would have)
It was not the English of someone who had spoken English since childhood as Anastasia did." said the English writer, Michael Thornton, when he met her in 1960. "The accent was Germanic, the sentence structure German, the grammar hopeless."
You seem to forget that she lived in Germany for 40 years.

Dave Howey, who met Anderson, by then Mrs. Manahan, when he was a cadet at a Virginia military academy in 1977, wrote of their meeting that "Her husband talked for her since she spoke very little English. Her only functional language was German, her Russian having been wiped out, we were told, as a result of the trauma from seeing her family gunned down in the cellar of a house in Ekaterinburg, Russia."
We were told. By whom?

Several witnesses, including an entire group in a church, reported AA screaming out in Polish in her old age once she became increasingly senile and ill.
This is just silly since neither FS nor AA knew any Polish.

See, this is another thing that nullifies your quotes, for every quote by one person swearing one thing, someone else says the opposite. How do we know who to believe? Easy! The ones who said AA was not Anastasia were right, and the DNA proves it.
Nothing nullifies my quotes, as I have shown you.

The reason I try to debunk all the allegations by the AA supporters besides the DNA is that they are never as presented, and not the whole story.
No, you seem eager to make up your own.
Even those who don't believe in AA often say, she had everything on her side and there were many unexplained things, but the DNA said no. This makes it look like there may be something wrong with the DNA since she had so much other evidence on her side. I'm saying, even without the DNA, if you examine the case more closely you'll see she was never Anastasia anyway, the details of the claims by supporters are never as presented as fact. The DNA is just the final proof.
So what is your problem? Don't you believe in your own conclusions?

Retrograde

17th February 2009, 05:08 PM

Prince Yussupov was later willing to acknowledge AA as the Grand Duchess, provided he was paid for it.

The best testimony money can buy!

What I want to know, is, why Anastasia? Why not claim to be Olga or one of the other sisters? Is it the name? Or the fact that there wouldn't be as much history with the youngest?

ChatNoir

17th February 2009, 05:13 PM

Franziska

17th February 2009, 06:16 PM

The best testimony money can buy!

What I want to know, is, why Anastasia? Why not claim to be Olga or one of the other sisters? Is it the name? Or the fact that there wouldn't be as much history with the youngest?

When the claim first started, she was "Tatiana". A fellow mental patient looked at one of her magazines of the royal family and told Miss Unknown, as AA was then being called, that she must be Tatiana. Russian emigres' came to see her, and she covered her head with a sheet. Baroness Buxhoevedon, a close friend of Tsarina Alexandra, pulled down the sheet and announced 'she's too short to be Tatiana!' After that, AA was forced to switch to the only Grand Duchess who shared her height, Anastasia, though she looked far less like her in the face than she did Tatiana.

Franziska

17th February 2009, 06:28 PM

By all means, bring'em on.

There you go being delusional again. I've already posted some. You called them liars, traitors, etc. the same old rhetoric.

And that same old garbage happens to be what happened, no matter how much you try to distort it.

We'll never know. We weren't there. People do lie and people do make mistakes.

The case was about her identity. And yes, Fallows tried that hard for free, and Botkin made sure that any money that migth come his way would be given to the American Red Cross.

Identity so she could claim the money in the alleged bank of England as Nicholas's heir. Remember how she told her supporters she'd heard her "Father" tell about the bank accounts in England?

Gleb only donated any money from her WILL to the Red Cross, this does not include anything gained while she was still alive. How sad he ran his family into destitution because of AA.

And who discredited him, and when?

If you would like to see some of his collegues writings about him, try When Medicine went Mad: BioEthics and the Holocaust by Arthur Caplan or From Racism to Genocide: Anthropology of the Third Reich, by Gretchen Schafft. Sorry, Reche represented a very dark side of Germany.

I your next post you seem to rely quite a bit on eye witnesses. And ears are like fingerprints, they are all different. Funny that AA and AN should have the same ones, isn't it?

In blurry, black and white photos, one of Maria instead!

No, my dear, I just want the truth to be told, regardless of who AA was.

Again, if you want the truth told, you'd accept the DNA.

As I have already said, no matter who AA was, the story should still be told without resorting to lies.

Then why do you distort reality and not tell the whole story on so many things?

And if Martin Knopf was so sure that AA was FS, why did he have to resort to lying, falsifying photos and hiding evidence?

Calling the FS picture retouched as you always do is self defeating.See, the picture looks exactly like AA. If it were doctored to look like AA, it still doesn't look like Anastasia! So therefore AA doesn't look like Anastasia!

Of course it is accurate. And tha's why you feel so threatened.

No it's not, and I do not feel the least bit threatened by your garbage. I just want it wiped out before any more innocent information seekers fall for your snake oil.

ChatNoir

17th February 2009, 06:34 PM

When the claim first started, she was "Tatiana".
No, she was not Tatiana, she was Anastasia. She came out to nurse Thea Malinovsky in 1921 with her identity, months before Clara Marie Peuthert mistook her for Tatiana.
A fellow mental patient looked at one of her magazines of the royal family and told Miss Unknown, as AA was then being called, that she must be Tatiana. Russian emigres' came to see her, and she covered her head with a sheet. Baroness Buxhoevedon, a close friend of Tsarina Alexandra, pulled down the sheet and announced 'she's too short to be Tatiana!'
This is correct.
After that, AA was forced to switch to the only Grand Duchess who shared her height, Anastasia, though she looked far less like her in the face than she did Tatiana.
Sorry, Annie, you are making up things here. With Fräulein Unbekannt telling Thea Malinovsky that she was Anastasia, there was no story to switch.

Franziska

17th February 2009, 06:46 PM

So not replying means that you don't understand? How brilliant. Besides, I think AA was a little leery of miss Buxhoeveden since the family suspected her of betrayal during imprisonment. And, as we now know, not without reason.

You can tell if a person doesn't understand you. And Sophie did not betray the family, that is a false story AA made up to attack her character after she denied her.

Here is more of Buxhoevedon's appraisal of when she went to meet AA as 'Tatiana' (Later "Anastasia")

The eyes and forehead showed some resemblance to the Grand Duchess Tatiana Nicolaievna, resemblance that disappeared, nevertheless, as soon as her face was not covered. I had to remove the cover by force, and I saw that neither the nose, the mouth, nor the chin were formed like that of the Grand Duchess.... tried to awaken the memory of the young woman by all the possible means; I showed to her an 'icon', with the date of the Romanov jubilee, that the emperor had given to some persons of the suite, after that a ring that had belonged to the empress; the latter had been given given to her in the presence of the Grand Duchess Tatiana. But none of these things seemed not to evoke in her the slightest recognition. She remained completely indifferent, she whispered some incomprehensible words into Ms. Peuthert's ear. Although I noted a certain similarity in the upper part of the face with the unknown -currently Mrs. Tschaikovski- with the Grand Duchess Tatiana, I am sure that she is not her. I later learned that the she supposes that she is the Grand Duchess Anastasia, but she does not physically resemble her in the least. She has none of the special characteristics that would allow any one who knew the Grand Duchess Anastasia well to identify her.

The real story goes like this:

There you go again.

And since you're interested in quotes from Mountbatten, how about this one?

"I can assure you that there is not the remotest doubt that this woman is not my cousin. She was seen by all our closest mutual relations, all of whom declared there was no resemblance." He once told the BBC, strongly advising them against interviewing her and helping her supporters, who, he claimed, "simply wanted to get rich on the royalties of further books, magazine articles, plays, etc."

Haven't we already exposed Dmitri as a liar?

YOU call him a liar along with anyone else who doesn't support AA.

Exactly, she spoke impossibly ungrammatical German. Much like Anastasia who never mastered grammar.

No, big difference. Ungrammatical is not the same thing as not knowing the language. Many Americans speak fluent but 'ungrammatical' English.(ain't got none o' that thar book learnin' for example) Anastasia's German skills were described as 'none at all' at worst to 'only a few German words' at best. This is what I've been trying to say, why would a girl who spoke Russian as her native language not speak it to fellow Russian speakers, and use a language she hardly knew? Uh.. because she was FS!

I missed that line about not knowing Russian. Could you please repeat it?

It's on page 169 of Massie's "Final Chapter", paperback. Just before that quote, it states that Tatiana Botkin was making excuses for AA 'forgetting Russian and English and speaking exclusively in German.' So Russian and English are the 'forgotten' languages mentioned.

You seem to forget that she lived in Germany for 40 years.

But as Olga A. noted, she was like that from the very beginning! She lived the last 16 years of her life in the US, yet still spoke horrible, broken English. The reason AA used German all her life is because she was FS.

We were told. By whom?

Look at the quote, the name is given.

This is just silly since neither FS nor AA knew any Polish.

FS knew the Polish dialect Kashoub, Kashoubian Polish.

Nothing nullifies my quotes, as I have shown you.

My quotes do, but mostly the DNA does. Oh yes the DNA wipes them all away.

ChatNoir

17th February 2009, 06:48 PM

There you go being delusional again. I've already posted some. You called them liars, traitors, etc. the same old rhetoric.
Yes, call me names, it makes you sound sooooo convincing.
We'll never know. We weren't there. People do lie and people do make mistakes.
Except when they speak in your favor.
Identity so she could claim the money in the alleged bank of England as Nicholas's heir. Remember how she told her supporters she'd heard her "Father" tell about the bank accounts in England?
Yes, IF there was any money.
Gleb only donated any money from her WILL to the Red Cross, this does not include anything gained while she was still alive. How sad he ran his family into destitution because of AA.
And how would he have gained any money when she was alive? He was never willing to take a penny from AA.
If you would like to see some of his collegues writings about him, try When Medicine went Mad: BioEthics and the Holocaust by Arthur Caplan or From Racism to Genocide: Anthropology of the Third Reich, by Gretchen Schafft. Sorry, Reche represented a very dark side of Germany.
Yes, I have seen him mentioned on page 28 in G.Shafft's book. The rest you have to fill me in on. Somehow, I don't think you have read any of the above books......
In blurry, black and white photos, one of Maria instead!
That photo was staged for a TV program.
Again, if you want the truth told, you'd accept the DNA.
I have no problems with the DNA, the story still remains the same.
Then why do you distort reality and not tell the whole story on so many things?
My dear Annie, if anyone can distort reality, it is you. Just take a look at your website or your MySpace site. Obviously, you are totally consumed with telling this story your own way
alling the FS picture retouched as you always do is self defeating.See, the picture looks exactly like AA. If it were doctored to look like AA, it still doesn't look like Anastasia! So therefore AA doesn't look like Anastasia!
According to any anthropological expert, the photo of FS never looked like AA, even after two retouchings, one for the Nactausgabe, the other for Gilliard's book. But I was not referring to the photo of FS, which, by the way, has never been authenticated. I was referring to the photo of Doris Wingender where she was allegedly wearing the suit that she gave FS upon her second visit. It had a belt and buttons drawn in after the fact in order to heighten the likeness to AA's suit.
No it's not, and I do not feel the least bit threatened by your garbage. I just want it wiped out before any more innocent information seekers fall for your snake oil.
Oh dear, I forgot. The innocent information seekers do not have the capabilities to think for themselves. You better keep up the good work and save them from people like me.

Franziska

17th February 2009, 06:51 PM

Sorry, Annie, you are making up things here. With Fräulein Unbekannt telling Thea Malinovsky that she was Anastasia, there was no story to switch.

Ah, I so totally expected the dreaded 'nurse' story I almost wrote my rebuttal in that post to save the time. No, sorry, there was no 'coming out' before Clara her roomate at the looney bin pointed her out as "Tatiana", or the same hoopla would have started that happened when she was said to be Tatiana and everyone came. No, don't feed me the 'she was scared' line. She never claimed to be a Grand Duchess until someone gave her the idea. The nurse told the newspaper 1922, then later backdated it to help AA's claim, claiming the newspaper made the mistake!

As the manuscript sent to the Nachtausgabe was not restored to me, for the credit of that journal I can only surmise, either that, by an oversight, I wrote 1922 instead of 1921, or that the mistake was due to a printer's error in the Nachtausgabe.

(Signed) Mrs. Dr. Chemnitz, nee Malinovski. "

We cannot prove the entire incident ever even really occured. I bet it didn't.

AA made no attempt to deny being "Tatiana" until she was pronounced 'too short.' If she had been accepted as Tatiana, we would have had Tatiana Anderson instead, but they were both still FS.

Are we allowed to post pictures here? If so I can show just how much she looked like FS.

Franziska

17th February 2009, 06:57 PM

Hey Chat, why did you ignore this person's question? Please answer.

I would like to see ChatNoir's answer to this. If we put the language issue aside for a moment, don't the DNA tests on the bodies strongly suggest that all of the children have been found?

If not, why not?

Because, certainly, if all the bodies of the children are accounted for, the linguistic capabilities of AA/FS are not relevant, right?

ChatNoir

17th February 2009, 08:25 PM

You can tell if a person doesn't understand you.
Oh yes, I am sure you can read the thoughts of anybody around you.
And Sophie did not betray the family, that is a false story AA made up to attack her character after she denied her.
Perhaps in an effort to spare herself from the same fate, or to guarantee her later safety, she (Buxhoeveden) found Rodionov, telling him not only of the fortune in jewels concealed beneath the clothing of the three youg women, but also where the items could be found: "The buttons on her coat aren't buttons," she revealed, "they're diamonds"; "the aigrette of that hat conceals a diamond form the Shah of Persia"; and "that belt there - underneath it are ropes of pearls."
(Bykov, October 17, 1927, in TsDOOSO, f. 41, op. 1, d. 149)

And in his 1922 memoirs, Yurovsky wrote of "the damn valuables and jewels we knew they had concealed in their clothes when they arrived, which caused troubles to no end."
(Yakov Yurovsky, unpublished memoirs, 1922, in Archives of the President of the Russian Federation, f.3, op.58, d.280)

Unknown to both of these men (Gilliard and Gibbes), and ignored by Buxhoeveden in her memoirs, was her interrogation that afternoon. A few members of the Ural Regional Soviet and Ekaterinburg Cheka entered the railroad coach where she waited alone, questioning her at length about her revelations to Rodionov aboard Rus. During the session, Buxhoeveden repeated her knowledge of the imperial family's hidden jewelry, a final betrayal that guaranteed her freeedom and helped seal the fate of the prisoners.
(Bykov, October 17, 1927, in TsDOOSO, f. 41, op. 1, d. 149)
Need I say more?

Here is more of Buxhoevedon's appraisal of when she went to meet AA as 'Tatiana' (Later "Anastasia")

I later learned that the she supposes that she is the Grand Duchess Anastasia, but she does not physically resemble her in the least. She has none of the special characteristics that would allow any one who knew the Grand Duchess Anastasia well to identify her.
[/I]
No characteristics, huh? What about the strawberry blonde hair, the blue eyes, the scar on the shoulderblade, the scar on the finger, the congenital bilateral Hallux Valgus? She didn't look very thoroughly, did she.
And since you're interested in quotes from Mountbatten, how about this one?

"I can assure you that there is not the remotest doubt that this woman is not my cousin. She was seen by all our closest mutual relations, all of whom declared there was no resemblance." He once told the BBC, strongly advising them against interviewing her and helping her supporters, who, he claimed, "simply wanted to get rich on the royalties of further books, magazine articles, plays, etc."
All our closest mutual relations? The only close relations who saw AA were Andrew and Olga, both recognizing her as Anastasia. Olga later recanted at the behest of Gilliard.
YOU call him a liar along with anyone else who doesn't support AA.
Anybody caught in a lie, is a liar. It's just that simple.
No, big difference. Ungrammatical is not the same thing as not knowing the language. Many Americans speak fluent but 'ungrammatical' English.(ain't got none o' that thar book learnin' for example)[quote]
Maybe if you care to read Tatiana Botkins description of AA's German, you will see that it was "only words strung together in impossibly ungrammatical German." Not even a shadow of fluency here.
[quote] Anastasia's German skills were described as 'none at all' at worst to 'only a few German words' at best.
And still her schoolbooks show fewer mistakes in German than in Russian. Obviously, she had a somewhat grasp of the language.
This is what I've been trying to say, why would a girl who spoke Russian as her native language not speak it to fellow Russian speakers, and use a language she hardly knew? Uh.. because she was FS!
Unfortunately, FS spoke fluent German, being a native.
It's on page 169 of Massie's "Final Chapter", paperback. Just before that quote, it states that Tatiana Botkin was making excuses for AA 'forgetting Russian and English and speaking exclusively in German.' So Russian and English are the 'forgotten' languages mentioned.
Massie's words, not Tatiana's. All she said, was: "She has not only forgotten languages, but she has in general lost the power of accurate narration, although not of thought. Even the simplest stories about her pet cat she tells incoherently and incorrectly; they are only words strung together in impossibly ungrammatical German." So there you are.
But as Olga A. noted, she was like that from the very beginning!
Pardon me, but didn't Olga say that she spoke no English?
She lived the last 16 years of her life in the US, yet still spoke horrible, broken English. The reason AA used German all her life is because she was FS.
So you knew her?
FS knew the Polish dialect Kashoub, Kashoubian Polish.
Kashoub is not a Polish dialect, but a language in itself. As Gertrude Schanzkowski said: I have forgotten it completely due to disuse.
My quotes do, but mostly the DNA does. Oh yes the DNA wipes them all away.
Sorry, nothing changes the story.

ChatNoir

17th February 2009, 08:30 PM

Double post.

ChatNoir

17th February 2009, 08:33 PM

Hey Chat, why did you ignore this person's question? Please answer.
As I have said so many times before: Nothing changes the story of AA, no matter who she was. What happened, happened, and I only want the story to be told truthfully. Then you can all decide for yourself who AA was. Just because somebody said she was Anastasia, does not make her a Grand Duchess. All I want, is a correct telling of the facts.

ChatNoir

17th February 2009, 08:43 PM

Ah, I so totally expected the dreaded 'nurse' story I almost wrote my rebuttal in that post to save the time.
And the only "rebuttal" you have, is that "I don't believe it." But that's the way you deal with everything that does not fit into your version, so, dear readers, get used to it.
No, sorry, there was no 'coming out' before Clara her roomate at the looney bin pointed her out as "Tatiana", or the same hoopla would have started
No, it would not. The nurses were professionals and kept her secret. The only one that was told, was Dr. Chemnitz. Both he and Ms. Malinovsky testified to this fact at the Hamburg trials.
that happened when she was said to be Tatiana and everyone came.
It happened because Clara Peuthert spread the rumor among the monarchists in Berlin upon her release.
No, don't feed me the 'she was scared' line. She never claimed to be a Grand Duchess until someone gave her the idea.
Sorry, dearie, she did.
The nurse told the newspaper 1922, then later backdated it to help AA's claim, claiming the newspaper made the mistake!
Why on earth would Thea Malinovski tell the paper 1922??? AA left Dalldorf in May of 1922, so by fall the same year she was no longer in contact with Thea Malinovsky. Somehow this does not seem to penetrate your skull, but I am not surprised.
As the manuscript sent to the Nachtausgabe was not restored to me, for the credit of that journal I can only surmise, either that, by an oversight, I wrote 1922 instead of 1921, or that the mistake was due to a printer's error in the Nachtausgabe.

(Signed) Mrs. Dr. Chemnitz, nee Malinovski. "
Exactly. And the Nachtausgabe had their own agenda with Fritz Lucke being paid handsomely from Darmstadt.
We cannot prove the entire incident ever even really occured. I bet it didn't.
I think you lose that bet.
AA made no attempt to deny being "Tatiana" until she was pronounced 'too short.' If she had been accepted as Tatiana, we would have had Tatiana Anderson instead, but they were both still FS.
She made no attempt to be ANYbody. Except for her confidential talk with Thea Malinovsky.

Are we allowed to post pictures here? If so I can show just how much she looked like FS.
Oh, God help us all.............

AnastasiaEvidence

18th February 2009, 04:32 AM

Sorry, nothing changes the story.
DNA never changed the story. It only helped prove that AA is NOT Anastasia by scientific evidence and proof.

Kashoub is not a Polish dialect, but a language in itself. As Gertrude Schanzkowski said: I have forgotten it completely due to disuse.
Kashubian or Cassubian (Kashubian: kaszëbsczi jãzëk, pòmòrsczi jãzëk, kaszëbskò-słowińskô mòwa; Polish: język kaszubski). It is a language spoken in Poland.Pomerania is a region in Poland. As I have said so many times before: Nothing changes the story of AA, no matter who she was. What happened, happened, and I only want the story to be told truthfully. Then you can all decide for yourself who AA was. Just because somebody said she was Anastasia, does not make her a Grand Duchess. All I want, is a correct telling of the facts.
Well, that facts are in Olga Alexandrovna, Sophie and Gilliard's book. They're the witnesses and experts know "actually" met AA and Anastasia.

Oh, God help us all.............
We have shown you all these photos of AA were she has no resemblance at all to Anastasia.

No characteristics, huh? What about the strawberry blonde hair, the blue eyes, the scar on the shoulderblade, the scar on the finger, the congenital bilateral Hallux Valgus? She didn't look very thoroughly, did she. What about AA's big lips, and large mouth with a long nose? That doesn't resemble that of Anastasia.
Gilliard himself said her features are NOT that of Anastasia.

The patient had a long nose, strongly turned up at the end, a very large mouth, thick and fleshy lips; the grand duchess, on the other hand, had a short, sharp nose, a much smaller mouth and fine lips .... Apart from the colour of the eyes, we could find nothing to make us believe that this was the grand duchess.

She made no attempt to be ANYbody. Except for her confidential talk with Thea Malinovsky.
According to Sophie Buxhoeveden she said that AA DID claim to be Tatiana first, but then Sophie said she was too short to be Tatiana. So that's when AA started to claim to be Anastasia.
Unfortunately, FS spoke fluent German, being a native.
AA also spoke German too. According to Olga Alexandrovna she states that she wanted to speak in German because that was the language she mostly knew.

Pardon me, but didn't Olga say that she spoke no English? Olga also said AA knew NO Russian, English or French.
When Olga entered the room, the woman lying on a bed asked a nurse: “Ist das die Tante?” from Olga's book... [I]“That”, confessed Olga, “at once took me aback. A moment later I remembered that the young woman having spent five years in Germany, would naturally have learnt the language, but then I heard that when she was rescued from that canal in 1920, she spoke nothing but German – when she spoke at all - which was not often. I readily admit that a ghastly horror experienced in one’s youth can work havoc with one’s memory but I have never heard of any ghastly experience endowing anyone with a knowledge they had not had before it happened. My nieces knew no German at all. Mrs Anderson did not seem to understand a word of Russian or English, the two languages all the four sisters had spoken since babyhood. French came a little later, but German was never spoken in the family”.Olga

Franziska

18th February 2009, 08:55 AM

Perhaps in an effort to spare herself from the same fate, or to guarantee her later safety, she (Buxhoeveden) found Rodionov, telling him not only of the fortune in jewels concealed beneath the clothing of the three youg women, but also where the items could be found

Perhaps? No, if you know the whole story you know just how stupid this theory is! The woman spent over a year running for her life from the Bolsheviks. She got no special favors and was only able to escape the country with the help of the British Military when they briefly held the town of Omsk. Also consider that at the time the family was transferred, no one had any idea what their 'fate' would be for anyone to want to avoid it! Right up until the last minute the family weren't even aware they were to be shot.

As far as 'where the items could be found' this also makes NO sense when you know the whole story. First of all, nobody had to tell the Bolsheviks the family had jewels. Rich people have nice stuff, and naturally they thought of that and searched their belongings and confiscated the valuables as soon as they arrived in Ekaterinburg. As for the ones sewn into the clothes, no one knew about those, or they would have taken them. They were totally surprised when they cut the bodices off the girls after they were dead and jewels fell out. They had also been totally shocked the bullets bounced off the girls, they had no idea they were packing jewels. So I'm afraid your 'unpublished' material is not at all accurate.(and that is putting it very nicely)

No characteristics, huh? What about the strawberry blonde hair, the blue eyes, the scar on the shoulderblade, the scar on the finger, the congenital bilateral Hallux Valgus? She didn't look very thoroughly, did she.

Strawberry blonde now? Funny how every time you list the hair color it changes. Besides, hair color means nothing, since it's so subjective to each person's view of color, and so easily changed with dye. Millions of people have blue eyes, and Gibbes said Anastasia's were grey. The scar on the finger story was a mixup, it was actually Maria who got her finger shut in the door and the person who relayed the story got it wrong. So you see YOU are the one not giving the correct 'facts' here, only your peculiar version of them.

All our closest mutual relations? The only close relations who saw AA were Andrew and Olga, both recognizing her as Anastasia. Olga later recanted at the behest of Gilliard.

See here's another example of your twisting and inaccurate info passed off as 'fact!' Olga did NOT 'recognize her as Anastasia' and 'recant.' She saw AA the first time and wasn't sure due to the horrible condition of the woman, but finally realized it was not her niece after all. (just like the story I told you about the woman who took home the wrong dog) The idea that Olga and Giliard 'accepted' and then 'denied' AA is FICTION, and YOUR own personal twisted view of it filled in with your own conclusions which are wrong. So tell me again about wanting the facts presented correctly? You have a long, long way to go.

Anybody caught in a lie, is a liar. It's just that simple.

How come only those who didn't accept AA are liars? Ever consider it was the other way around, since she turned out not to be Anastasia, her supporters must have been the 'liars'- either that or just really stupid.

Maybe if you care to read Tatiana Botkins description of AA's German, you will see that it was "only words strung together in impossibly ungrammatical German." Not even a shadow of fluency here.

Then please explain, if she was Anastasia, and was fluent in Russian, why was she speaking some sloppy version of German to a fellow Russian speaker like Tatiana Botkin? Could it be, oh, because she was FS?

And still her schoolbooks show fewer mistakes in German than in Russian. Obviously, she had a somewhat grasp of the language.

First, I am sick of you quoting schoolbooks you cannot produce and no one will show the public. How do we know? You also take the mistakes thing out of context. Anastasia was better with the Latin alphabet than the Cyrillic, therefore the other languages would have been easier for her to write. This doesn't prove she knew the language, only that she could write it on paper. Gee I can do that!

Unfortunately, FS spoke fluent German, being a native.

And AA chose to use German all her life, from the canal to the crematory, over the languages Anastasia would have known better. Sounds like FS to me!

Massie's words, not Tatiana's.

Then tell me which languages had she forgotten? Massie was right.

Pardon me, but didn't Olga say that she spoke no English?

Olga said that she spoke only German and that she whispered to the nurse in German. Why would a real Anastasia, a native Russian speaker, do this to her aunt, whom she would have known very well, and was another native Russian speaker? Easy, she wasn't her aunt and she wasn't Anastasia.

Sorry, nothing changes the story.

You seem to want to change it very much. And yes, finding out she wasn't Anastasia via the DNA does change quite a bit about the backstory because now we know who all were wrong and/or lying and we can figure out the answers to the 'mysteries' now that we have the answer to her true identity.

Franziska

18th February 2009, 09:14 AM

And the only "rebuttal" you have, is that "I don't believe it." But that's the way you deal with everything that does not fit into your version, so, dear readers, get used to it.

No I do give my reasons. Also, Chat, you really need to accept that a lot of times the reason is very simply "I don't believe it" because we know for sure that AA wasn't Anastasia, therefore a lot of what she said and did was not the way she and her supporters tried to present it. Finding out she wasn't Anastasia really answers a lot.

No, it would not. The nurses were professionals and kept her secret.

Or so you would like to assume. However if said nurse was against AA you'd call her a 'liar.' Chat, I am a nurse. I have worked with many other nurses. I know for sure, nurses are no better or worse people than anyone else. Some will do some things, some will not. But there's no way you can make a blanket statement about all nurses (or all teachers, or anything else)

It happened because Clara Peuthert spread the rumor among the monarchists in Berlin upon her release.

How did a patient at an asylum spread anything? Surely she had help. And don't think the people who worked there weren't interested in having 'famous' resident and don't think they weren't capable of 'helping' her cause by saying things that may not have been completely true.

Why on earth would Thea Malinovski tell the paper 1922??? AA left Dalldorf in May of 1922, so by fall the same year she was no longer in contact with Thea Malinovsky. Somehow this does not seem to penetrate your skull, but I am not surprised.

What doesn't penetrate your skull is the extreme likelihood the entire story was made up, or that it occured after AA 'came out' in the spring of 1922. People do lie, and people do get dates wrong.

Exactly. And the Nachtausgabe had their own agenda with Fritz Lucke being paid handsomely from Darmstadt.

So now we're finally back to the old 'paid off by Ernie' garbage. This is again YOUR version of things that is not true and cannot be proven.

She made no attempt to be ANYbody.
.

Not until Clara P. gave her the idea.

ChatNoir

18th February 2009, 09:18 AM

And as usual, you have nothing to back this up with. Yawn.......

Franziska

18th February 2009, 09:33 AM

If you'd like to see the sources and resources I've used in my research, they are listed on my website. Of course a lot of it is just common sense, knowing that AA was not Anastasia, and being able to put two and two together. You, on the other hand, still think you can put all this mess out there and somebody will 'decide for themselves who AA was'. Is this to say that you believe there are those who would believe your decades old he said she saids and listings and twisted snake oil over DNA testing? If you do not still believe AA was Anastasia, and want others to see the same, why are you doing this? And don't say because you want the 'facts' presented correctly because YOU are the ones distorting them and drawing your own conclusions (Ernie paid everybody off, Gilliard lied, Olga recanted under pressure, Buxhoevedon denied her because she was a 'traitor', etc.) Chat, look, the reasons those people denied AA was because she really wasn't Anastasia. The reason Ernie's detectives found her to be FS was because she really was. Now that we have the scientific proof, this stuff shouldn't even be an issue,and the reps of those AA and her supporters damaged need to be exhonorated. It's YOUR odd version of reality that is not presented correctly, and is left intentionally misleading in AA's favor. It's also completely useless and outdated now that the DNA has proven AA wasn't Anastasia, and even more so now that all the bodies of all the children are officially identified.

So- again- do you accept that all the bodies are found and that AA couldn't have been Anastasia? If not, please tell us why.

ChatNoir

18th February 2009, 11:56 AM

So why do you even bother putting up all that garbage on your website and MySpace and call it "research"?
You seem very threatened by the true story, no matter who Anna Anderson was. And your obsession with spreading your own gospel is, quite frankly, a little scary.

Franziska

18th February 2009, 12:41 PM

So why do you even bother putting up all that garbage on your website and MySpace and call it "research"?

I had to work to find the truth behind the myth spread by AA supporters for years. There are so many sites online that try to convince people she was Anastasia, I thought there was a real need for one telling the other side, and to explain about the DNA. I set out to debunk the AA myth in the way that Amazing Randi exposes myths, legends and conspiracies.

You seem very threatened by the true story, no matter who Anna Anderson was.

YOU are threatened by the truth, the real truth, because it destroys your fantasy. I am not threatened by your version at all and do not even believe most of it, especially not the way you tell it, and because it's all been disproven. As long as you are out here selling your snake oil, I'll be there too telling everyone not to buy into the fraud and fantasy.

And your obsession with spreading your own gospel is, quite frankly, a little scary.

You are really one to talk! Look at what you are doing! Going all over the internet trying to push your version of the truth and keep AA's myth alive despite the DNA. It's so important to you and your ego, but it's not fair to try to mislead innocent people looking for the right answers. And you are not only scary, you're weird and creepy, and a cyber stalker. You must sit there googling AA all day long. Sure are obsessive for someone who 'doesn't care.' You care very, very much.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

Franziska

18th February 2009, 12:49 PM

database error caused double post sorry

AnastasiaEvidence

18th February 2009, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by ChatNoir
So why do you even bother putting up all that garbage on your website and MySpace and call it "research"?
You seem very threatened by the true story, no matter who Anna Anderson was. And your obsession with spreading your own gospel is, quite frankly, a little scary.
Why do YOU even bother posting all that "hearsay" about AA being Anastasia that's not true? It seems you're so SCARED of the truth. At least Franziska is proud to tell the truth, and make websites to prove the truth. It seems you're so ashamed of the truth that AA never was Anastasia. And your obsession about spreading your Anna Anderson theories on forums is very creepy.

dudalb

18th February 2009, 01:36 PM

It is interesting how all the AA supporters dodge the issue of DNA evidence.
Shades of the OJ Simpson jury.
As someone who has a degree in history and is active in several historical organizations, I see more of obssesive supporters of crackpot historical theories then I care to remember.

AnastasiaEvidence

18th February 2009, 01:41 PM

And as usual, you have nothing to back this up with. Yawn.......

ChatNoir, the evidence was already posted many times on many forums. There's no need to repeat ourselves. YOU obviously, have NOT read the evidence because it's been shown to you so many times. You just ignore it. You act like nobody posted any resources when they actually did. The truth can NEVER be disproven! It's not like you post resources all the time to prove every one of your posts.

neltana

18th February 2009, 01:47 PM

As I have said so many times before: Nothing changes the story of AA, no matter who she was. What happened, happened, and I only want the story to be told truthfully. Then you can all decide for yourself who AA was. Just because somebody said she was Anastasia, does not make her a Grand Duchess. All I want, is a correct telling of the facts.

Fair enough.

I get that you feel the evidence supports the assertion that AA spoke several languages and that her story was consistent. It also seems that you feel that those who rejected her claim had a financial motive for doing so.

Putting that aside for a moment, ChatNoir, do you have a position on whether AA was a Romanov in light of the DNA evidence?

Because, as an outsider to this dispute with no real knowledge of the particulars, it seems that everything you say could be true and AA still might not be Anastasia...especially if the DNA results are to be believed.

I'm just trying to understand your position here.

Franziska

18th February 2009, 03:08 PM

I get that you feel the evidence supports the assertion that AA spoke several languages and that her story was consistent. It also seems that you feel that those who rejected her claim had a financial motive for doing so.

He believes that, yes, but the stronger evidence is against him. Also, his claim that those against her had a 'finanacial motive' is far outweighed by the much stronger possibility that those who supported her were the ones who had the financial motives, even from the beginning. The more you find out about this story, the more you see the holes in it.

Because, as an outsider to this dispute with no real knowledge of the particulars, it seems that everything you say could be true and AA still might not be Anastasia...especially if the DNA results are to be believed.

As someone with a lot of knowledge of the particulars, I can honestly say that the more you dig behind the things he brings up, the more they fall like a house of cards in the wind. But even though everything he says is not accurate, you are right to say even if it was, she still isn't Anastasia. Even without the DNA, there are reasons she was a fraud.

Putting that aside for a moment, ChatNoir, do you have a position on whether AA was a Romanov in light of the DNA evidence?

I'm just trying to understand your position here.

Okay Chat, here is a person who has no previous ties to the AA online wars of the last several years. Here's your chance to just answer the question.

And Chat don't bother to pretend you don't care about the case, everyone knows better than that. Especially those who have known you for years. The very fact that you are here alone proves that you do.

ChatNoir

18th February 2009, 03:11 PM

Neltana, I think you understand very well. In light of the DNA evidence, AA was apparently not a Romanov. But in spite of that, it does not change the story that went before. People recognized her, she had the exact looks, scars, ears, eyes,Hallux Valgus, handwriting etc etc of Anastasia. So instead of going off on a rant and try to change the story, it is much more interesting to see how she could pull this off for so long and how she could be a carbon copy of another and still be a different person altogether. I don't find it necessesary to attack the scientists, the only thing that is a bit shady, is the provenance of the sources for the DNA. The chain of custody, as we call it. This makes it very difficult to have a legal ruling on the subject, meaning that there is still no legal decision on whether AA was AN or not. And nobody has still found anything in common with AA and FS apart from a DNA from a man who may or may not be maternally related to FS. (The photo comparison on TV is just a joke. Nobody can identify anybody based on two photos taken at a different angle. Besides, the only existing photo of FS has never been authenticated. It may be any girl in Berlin for that matter.)
I think that if the people who really swear to the DNA were convinced by the results, they would not bother to try to change the story of AA since it would not be a threat to their conviction. This need to explain away facts is rather strange.

ChatNoir

18th February 2009, 03:16 PM

He believes that, yes, but the stronger evidence is against him. Also, his claim that those against her had a 'finanacial motive' is far outweighed by the much stronger possibility that those who supported her were the ones who had the financial motives, even from the beginning. The more you find out about this story, the more you see the holes in it.

As someone with a lot of knowledge of the particulars, I can honestly say that the more you dig behind the things he brings up, the more they fall like a house of cards in the wind. But even though everything he says is not accurate, you are right to say even if it was, she still isn't Anastasia. Even without the DNA, there are reasons she was a fraud.

Okay Chat, here is a person who has no previous ties to the AA online wars of the last several years. Here's your chance to just answer the question.

And Chat don't bother to pretend you don't care about the case, everyone knows better than that. Especially those who have known you for years. The very fact that you are here alone proves that you do.

Yes, here is my chance to answer the question, and as you see, I have done so. But in your insane obsession with telling your part of the story, you have already beaten me to it.
Quite frankly, I think you are exessively strange.

Franziska

18th February 2009, 03:40 PM

Yes, here is my chance to answer the question, and as you see, I have done so.

Actually you have never answered the question, do you believe AA was Anastasia, despite the DNA, and why?

Also, what does it matter who said what about her if she wasn't Anastasia? See, this is what makes it appear you are still trying to argue her case. You still seem to believe, as you have openly stated before, that these old quotes are equal to or outweigh the DNA evidence. Do you still believe that?

This need to explain away facts is rather strange.

Then why are you always making up stories about Gilliard, Olga and Bux to back up your theories? If you are so much about 'facts' you wouldn't distort them, and ignore the DNA.

Quite frankly, I think you are exessively strange.

Considering your strange and obsessive track record on this subject all over the net you have no right to try to put that accusation off on anyone else, though I do see this is your new 'tactic'. The very fact that you are here proves you haven't changed.

dudalb

18th February 2009, 03:54 PM

Frankly, If the DNA rules against Anna Anderson being Anastasia, that's it, game over, other evidence is sort of inconsequencial.

ChatNoir

18th February 2009, 06:01 PM

Actually you have never answered the question, do you believe AA was Anastasia, despite the DNA, and why?
As I have told you again and again: It's the story that interests me.
Also, what does it matter who said what about her if she wasn't Anastasia? See, this is what makes it appear you are still trying to argue her case. You still seem to believe, as you have openly stated before, that these old quotes are equal to or outweigh the DNA evidence. Do you still believe that?
Actually, it doesn't matter. What matters, are people like you trying to distort the facts.
Then why are you always making up stories about Gilliard, Olga and Bux to back up your theories? If you are so much about 'facts' you wouldn't distort them, and ignore the DNA.
It seems to me that you have made saints out of these people and cannot bear to hear anything against them. And nothing I write here on the net is made up by me, it is taken from reliable sources, which I have shown you again and again. But it is, of course, impossible to discuss with someone who only resorts to personal attacks when forced into a corner.
Considering your strange and obsessive track record on this subject all over the net you have no right to try to put that accusation off on anyone else, though I do see this is your new 'tactic'.
MY strange and obsessive track record? Excuse me, but who has built two websites about Anna Anderson filled with garbage? Who is ruining every thread about this subject with attacks on the ones who go against your holy writ?
The very fact that you are here proves you haven't changed.
And if you go back to the beginning, you will see that I totally ignored your post and answered another poster. And then you jumped in with both feet. As always.

Franziska

18th February 2009, 07:17 PM

Frankly, If the DNA rules against Anna Anderson being Anastasia, that's it, game over, other evidence is sort of inconsequencial.

Well, you would think so, to all reasonable and rational people.

DNA really is the final answer, and disqualifies other evidence. Frequently, we hear stories in the news of men freed from prison after many years because DNA testing, unavailable at the time of the trial, was recently done and proved the convicted man wasn't the one who committed the crime. When this happens, it's over, end of story. Though the man was put away and convicted for years on the eyewitness testimony of 'people who were there', and other evidence, once the DNA comes down, none of the rest matters anymore. And nobody goes running along yelling 'but but but you need to hear the rest of the story! What about what Bill said? Jill saw this and she was there! Adam swore it was him and he went to school with him so he should know! That picture showed the criminal had a green hat just like his!' No, none of this matters anymore, we then know, all those other people were either lying or mistaken. DNA said it wasn't him, end of story. So it should be with AA, but some people just can't let go.

ChatNoir

18th February 2009, 07:25 PM

And apparently, you are one of them!

Franziska

18th February 2009, 07:28 PM

I said, some people just can't let go of believing and holding out hope for the Anna Anderson story. I am not one of those.

Franziska

18th February 2009, 07:38 PM

Here are a couple of conspiracy theories:

This one was found on a message board back in 2004, the poster's name is omitted to spare his humiliation, but this is one that blames the queen.

I am not entirely convinced that Anna Anderson and Grand Duchess Anastasia were not the same person.

Even if, however, Anna Anderson was not Anastasia she was certainly not Franziska Schanskowska, regardless of what the DNA says.

I think there is a simple answer to the problem with the DNA. If you look carefully at the whole procedure you will find that there was only one European royal family directly involved- the Windsor, in England. The Hohenzollerns no longer have anything to lose politically [if Anna Anderson turns out to be Anastasia]. The Romanovs have nothing to lose politically, either- only the Windsors, who would suffer a massive public relations nightmare at having left a poor royal cousin in the gutter. There are already many in England who see the Windsors as incorrigibly corrupt, and who clamor for their removal. Does Prince Phillip want this scandal to make things worse? Of course not.

The Windsor family is one of the wealthiest in the world, with a fortune exceeding $25 billion for the queen alone. Also, contrary to what some people, the royal family of Great Britain is not absolutely devoid of power. In some ways they are still one of the most powerful families in the world.

It would not have been difficult, at all, for the Windsors to have rigged the results, in order to protect their own public relations image and political position.

Article by Rey Berry, which also supports the conspiracy theory involving the royals paying people off and an intestine switch:

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:DhvYt9Mso4MJ:www.freewarehof.org/manahans.html+site:www.freewarehof.org+%22rey+barr y%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us

Summary - and where I stand

A brief anecdote. One day in 1977 I joined Manahan and some German prince for lunch at the Hardware Store, a Charlottesville restaurant. The royal was a Romanov here to visit with Anna. He was balding and I joked to Jack that his hairbrush would hold very few Romanov DNA souvenirs for Jack to collect. For Jack and for the royal there was nothing out of the ordinary in that remark.

So here's my summary.

In science it's usually safest to look for the simple answer. When money and royalty are involved, the simple answer is usually wrong.

Beyond question, Anna Anderson believed she was the Grand Duchess Anastasia. Her bodily scars and damage were 100% consistent with Anastasia's. She possessed information only Anastasia would have known. Until we discover she learned these things in some other way, I believe Anna Anderson was Anastasia and the crucial DNA sample was switched in transit.

Witnesses said she survived the Romanov family massacre because the jewels sewn into her clothing acted as a bullet-proof vest. She and the jewels were smuggled out of Russia by Alexander Tchaikovsky, a conscripted soldier who was part of the unit assigned to dispose of the bodies.

Eventually she surfaced in Berlin, mentally unstable. Her attempt for recognition by her relatives was thwarted by reports, some by her, of Romanov wealth secreted away by the Tsar for his children in an English bank. If Anna achieved recognition, the fortune would go to her and not to the relatives she needed for recognition. So they refused. By the time the great wealth was found to be not so great, sides had been taken, positions had been staked out, hearts broken could not be mended, and the past was doomed to be prologue.

In the 1920s there was a much greater reason than money for one powerful, wealthy Romanov to deny recognition. The real Anastasia knew he had secretly been a traitor in 1916, and so did Anna Anderson. But that's beyond the scope of this page. The Real Romanovs by Gleb Botkin is one book that relates the details.

Late in life Anna married an American, Jack Manahan. When she died, Jack became her heir. Jack grew dotty in his dotage and before he died, he named as his heir a young woman believed, rightly or wrongly, to be a fortune hunter. She wasn't, but she showed great tenacity in fighting off challenges to Jack's will. By winning it all she came into enough wealth (millions) to pursue Romanov claims around the world for the rest of her life, should Anna Anderson be proven to be the genuine article. And this heir is a lawyer.

This echoed the situation of the 1920s when the son fathered by Alexander Tchaikovsky was considered a loose cannon heir who could deprive relatives of the Tsar and Tsarina of rank and inheritance.

All over again in the 1990s disproving Anna's claim became a burning issue among Romanovs. This new heir's ability to pursue Anna's claims rested - not on Romanov family acceptance - but merely on Anna passing a DNA test. If Anna passed, suits to recover past dispersals could begin, and the entire Romanov family would be insecure in their possessions.

The intestine tissue sample went from Martha Jefferson Hospital in Charlottesville, Virginia, to the UK by mail, and passed through many hands including customs before it reached the lab. Some of the most well-entrenched, influential, and resourceful people in Europe, including English royalty, had a huge interest in that package. Because it went by mail, no one can say with certainty that the piece of intestine that began the trip is the same piece of intestine that was delivered.

All we know is that powerful people desperately needed the DNA test to fail.

To the relief of Romanovs everywhere, that tissue sample failed the Romanov DNA test. It matched, they said, the DNA of Franziska Schwanzkowska, an unschooled, certified insane Polish factory worker with no Romanov connections and no access to the inside information everyone agrees Anna Anderson knew.

That they happened to have Franziska's family DNA available for comparison is another tie to the Romanov machinations of the 1920s, and the latest link in the long chain of plausible denial

----

Me again. I have always wondered what those who claim it was switched thought it was switched with? Did they kidnap a member of FS's family, cut him open, remove exactly the same piece of intestine AA had removed and sew him back up? Did they kill him and dump his body in a ditch? Did they pay him? See, this is just an example of how stupid it all is. They say it happened but the logistics and reasoning are impossible. If you ask them the details, they always cop out with answers like "I don't know, but something had to have happened." So, if there is no evidence at all other than someone's desire to hold onto the AA story, they really have nothing.

The whole idea that the British royals were involved in some sort of conspiracy to discredit AA makes no sense, and is certainly not a financial priority. There have been so many tests now they must be broke, and all those scientists must be retiring wealthy! It's so sad to attack the integrity of the scientists because of AA. But they and the queen are not alone, the conspiracies now extend to the Russians, who allegedly tampered with or falsified the new bones found in 2007, again involving attacks against the scientists involved. More on on that later.

ChatNoir

18th February 2009, 07:40 PM

I said, some people just can't let go of believing and holding out hope for the Anna Anderson story. I am not one of those.
And neither am I. I just enjoy a good discussion about her story without having to resort to lies and denials about what happened and getting mad at everybody that does not think like myself. I don't even care about setting up websites, preaching my gospel.

ChatNoir

18th February 2009, 07:49 PM

The post about AA not being FS, was definitely written by me. And I stand by that statement. NOTHING ties those women together except a DNA that came from a man that may not be maternally related to FS.
As far as speculation about the Royal Family, I have no idea who that might have been.

ChatNoir

18th February 2009, 07:52 PM

By the way, I think our readers should know that Annie (Franzisca) have an idee fixe that I am Peter Kurth, the author of "Anastasia, the Riddle of Anna Anderson." Nothing is further from the truth, but she refuses to accept that I am just an interested nobody.

Franziska

18th February 2009, 07:57 PM

And neither am I. I just enjoy a good discussion about her story without having to resort to lies and denials about what happened and getting mad at everybody that does not think like myself.

No, if you 'enjoyed a good discussion' you'd consider both sides and be fair about it. You have a distinct mission and you never waver from it. You have a long, long history of defending the AA story, calling the 'facts' 'proof' and getting upset over it. No, you have not been at all accepting of those who disagree with you, and I have suffered your abuse many places online. Pretending not to be reactionary now in front of a new audience does not change that. And you DO resort to lies and distortions, just as you have with your twisted versions of details and assumptions passed off as truth involving Olga, Gilliard, Buxhoevedon and Ernie, to name a few.

I don't even care about setting up websites, preaching my gospel.

Well, let's not go there, because I think you have.

And no, the post I just posted was not yours, unless you were using an alias. His initials were I.K.S. Is he a friend or follower of yours?

I am done arguing with you, I am going to concentrate now on what this site is about and posting more conspiracy theories.

So far, the culprits of AA supporters' conspiracy theories include the British royals, the scientists and the Russians. Anyone else?

ChatNoir

18th February 2009, 08:05 PM

No, if you 'enjoyed a good discussion' you'd consider both sides and be fair about it.
And I am being very fair about it. But how can you discuss with someone who states "I bet it did not happen" when the facts do not please you?
You have a distinct mission and you never waver from it. You have a long, long history of defending the AA story, calling the 'facts' 'proof' and getting upset over it.
Long, long history? Pardon me, but I came to the net about 5 years ago.
No, you have not been at all accepting of those who disagree with you, and I have suffered your abuse many places online. Abuse?
Pretending not to be reactionary now in front of a new audience does not change that. And you DO resort to lies and distortions, just as you have with your twisted versions of details and assumptions passed off as truth involving Olga, Gilliard, Buxhoevedon and Ernie, to name a few.
And what are those twisted details and assumptions? You better be prepared to give details here!
Well, let's not go there, because I think you have.
Well, dear readers, you see what I mean about the lady mistaking me for Peter Kurth.
And no, the post I just posted was not yours, unless you were using an alias. His initials were I.K.S. Is he a friend or follower of yours?
I NEVER use another alias! And I have no idea who I.K.S. is.
I am done arguing with you, I am going to concentrate now on what this site is about and posting more conspiracy theories.
Oh well, one can only hope.......

Franziska

18th February 2009, 08:11 PM

And what are those twisted details and assumptions? You better be prepared to give details here!

Did you even read my post? The answer was right there, I even named the names of the people involved. Go back and look. You know exactly what I was talking about, and the accusations and assumptions passed as your version of the truth are already right here on this forum in your previous posts. (the most aggravating thing about arguing with you is that a page later, you deny we discussed something and demand the details again. This is what makes threads go to dozens of pages and get shut down. In the words of the last mod who shut it down 'the repetative nature'. I call it 'dog chasing his tail.') This is why I am going to now focus on conspiracy theories, many of which have nothing to do with you.

ChatNoir

18th February 2009, 08:19 PM

You could have saved yourself all the ranting and told me the EXACT twisted versions I have passed off as truths. But, as always, you cannot back up your accusations. Pity.

Chaos

19th February 2009, 02:01 AM

You could have saved yourself all the ranting and told me the EXACT twisted versions I have passed off as truths. But, as always, you cannot back up your accusations. Pity.

He´re some piece of free advice: Go back to the beginning of this thread. Read every post by someone calling himself ChatNoir. *These* are the twisted versions she is referring to.

Alt+F4

19th February 2009, 06:10 AM

...the only thing that is a bit shady, is the provenance of the sources for the DNA. The chain of custody, as we call it.

Do you have any evidence that there was a switch-er-roo in regard to the 1979 sample?

Names please.

ChatNoir

19th February 2009, 07:23 AM

Do you have any evidence that there was a switch-er-roo in regard to the 1979 sample?

Names please.

No, I have never subscribed to the conspiracy theory. All I am saying, is that it may be difficult to obtain a legal ruling due to the chain of custody. In the meantime, it is very interesting to see how seriously this impostor was taken by Anastasia's family, her friends and the society in general.

ChatNoir

19th February 2009, 07:25 AM

He´re some piece of free advice: Go back to the beginning of this thread. Read every post by someone calling himself ChatNoir. *These* are the twisted versions she is referring to.

Sorry, there ARE no twisted versions.

Alt+F4

19th February 2009, 07:34 AM

No, I have never subscribed to the conspiracy theory. All I am saying, is that it may be difficult to obtain a legal ruling due to the chain of custody.

There has been a legal ruling and no one except conspiracy theorists question the chain of custody.

Glad to hear that you are not one of them.

Foolmewunz

19th February 2009, 07:42 AM

Franziska - Chat Noir,
This is getting rather tedious. Why don't you guys step out into the rest of the sub-forums and to paraphrase Paul Simon, stroll around the place and make yourself at home.
This is obviously an old argument from some other forum/blog, and it's not going anywhere.
Did to.
Did not.
Did to.
Poopie Head!

Not long ago, we had a similar influx from a bunch of vampire hunters-cum-ghost-marauders or whatever they were.... They all wound up getting banned, IIRC, because they just couldn't let it go and got more and more abusive with each other.

We really do have other things to offer.

ChatNoir

19th February 2009, 08:21 AM

There has been a legal ruling and no one except conspiracy theorists question the chain of custody.

Glad to hear that you are not one of them.

Would you be kind enough to post the particulars about the legal ruling?
Thank you.

ChatNoir

19th February 2009, 08:23 AM

Alt+F4

19th February 2009, 08:27 AM

Would you be kind enough to post the particulars about the legal ruling?
Thank you.

I have to be away from the computer for a bit, but in the meantime the legal matters regarding the tissue sample and Martha Jefferson Hospital are covered extensively in The Romanovs: The Final Chapter by Robert Massie.

neltana

19th February 2009, 09:05 AM

For me, the interesting thing is that, despite the passion of the discussion, the principals to this debate don't seem that far apart in their positions...neither seems to assert that AA was Anastasia, nearest I can tell. I admit that I find one side a little more persuasive than the other, but without going back to check their assertions and source their quotes, it is hard for me to judge.

Essentially, the debate is over the relative weighting of eyewitness testimony..."who said what when and how credible were they?" This can be hard to unravel, even for a jury in a court of law.

But I think Franziska makes a good point, this is a thread in a CT forum. So, we really should restrict ourselves to the question of whether or not their is evidence of a conspiracy, what was it and what are its implications?

I feel that this has veered off into a broader discussion of historical truth that goes beyond this scope.

ChatNoir

19th February 2009, 11:10 AM

I have to be away from the computer for a bit, but in the meantime the legal matters regarding the tissue sample and Martha Jefferson Hospital are covered extensively in The Romanovs: The Final Chapter by Robert Massie.

Yes, this is correct, but it only deals with the legal right to deal with the tissue. No decision has been handed down to legally make Anna Anderson the German factory worker Franzisca Schanzkowska.

Foolmewunz

19th February 2009, 11:21 PM

I think that should be "did too".
And why are you following this when the forum has other things to offer?

1. As leader of the Grammar Resistance, "Nyah, so's your old man!" But it's nice to see you posting on something other than Anna's entrails. Glad to see you have it in you!

2. If I was behaving like a monomaniacal anal retentive bore, I'd want to know. If you don't care, then carry on. (And the only thing I've looked at in the thread is that it's mostly back-and-forth between you guys. I actually scroll past them as all you're doing is repeating the same crap. I'm really just curious about what regular posters are commenting, and being a nosey old fuddy duddy, I figured maybe you guys hadn't noticed that you were in a dialogue and not a thread discussion.)

Alt+F4

20th February 2009, 06:28 AM

Yes, this is correct, but it only deals with the legal right to deal with the tissue. No decision has been handed down to legally make Anna Anderson the German factory worker Franzisca Schanzkowska.

Ah, you're moving the goalposts there. The issue was the chain of custody of the tissue sample. You have the burden of proof that Martha Jefferson Hospital (or some other parties) was in anyway complicit in switching the samples.

You have to also deal with the DNA results done on the two bodies discovered in 2007.

Independent DNA testing carried out by the University of Massachusetts Medical School, USA, made public in July 2008, on the final two remains confirmed the earlier Russian findings that the last two remains were indeed members of the Romanov family murdered in the Ipatiev House in Ekaterinburg. All members of Nicholas II's immediate family have now accounted for officially.

ChatNoir

20th February 2009, 01:01 PM

Oh yes, there would be lots of hurdles to jump for both sides. And the DNA tests have definitely overshadowed all other evidence. But it would still be fun to see how it all played out in a court of law. Something I don't think we will ever see.

AnastasiaEvidence

20th February 2009, 01:03 PM

No, I have never subscribed to the conspiracy theory. All I am saying, is that it may be difficult to obtain a legal ruling due to the chain of custody. In the meantime, it is very interesting to see how seriously this impostor was taken by Anastasia's family, her friends and the society in general.
ChatNoir,you do support AA? You said you do! That's a conspiracy theory. If you don't then why would you keep on saying that AA was Anastasia?

AnastasiaEvidence

20th February 2009, 01:14 PM

I said, some people just can't let go of believing and holding out hope for the Anna Anderson story. I am not one of those.

ChatNoir, you support AA by trying to prove that she spoke Russian and French and say that she looked like Anastasia. You also support Harriet von Rathlef, and all the others who believed that AA was Anastasia. You ignore what Olga Alexandrovna, Gilliard, Gibbes, or Sophie said about AA.

Franziska

20th February 2009, 04:26 PM

For me, the interesting thing is that, despite the passion of the discussion, the principals to this debate don't seem that far apart in their positions...neither seems to assert that AA was Anastasia, nearest I can tell.

This is the first time I've made it back to this page in 2 days thanks to 'database error'. It's important to know that we are very, very far off, and that ChatNoir does believe Anastasia was Anna Anderson. I have plenty of evidence, literally hundreds of links, to prove this. Anastasia Evidence has been a part of the discussions too on many sites and can be a witness as well. The reason he does not 'come out' and admit it here is because he knows this is a 'skeptic' forum and he will immediately lose all credibility and get laughed out of here. So he continues to go on the basis of 'getting the facts straight' which is contradictory to what he posts, since most of it isn't proven facts, are twisted versions of reality (thanks to those who've noticed this) and has a lot of his own personal views of things added in, such as saying Olga accepted AA as her niece and later recanted, which is not true. For someone who claims to care about 'facts' he denies the biggest one of all, the DNA evidence! Even with his other he said/she said remarks, there is a difference between there being a 'fact' somebody said something and what they said being a 'fact.' Anything in Anderson's favor is either equally contradicted by comments from people on the 'other side', and if you dig deeper into some of the statements, they are not at all the way he presents them and wants them to stand. I have done a lot of research and have found more holes in the story than in Blackburn Lancashire. If you think it's 'consistent' there's a lot I can show you on how wrong that is, beginning with the several different versions of her 'escape' story.

My position was clear, or so I thought. I am the one who started this thread, frustrated with Anderson supporters who will not give up, who believe comments that may or may not be true or accurate from many decades ago are just as important or more important than the DNA. While Chat himself will never admit to espousing a particular conspiracy theory as most of his like minded pals have, the very fact that he denies the DNA proves Anderson wasn't Anastasia shows that he believes something 'must have happened' or gone wrong, meaning he does technically believe in some sort fo conspiracy though he will not name which one. His position is to keep posting his same old rhetoric which he considers to be 'evidence in her favor' equal to the DNA, and sway people into thinking, well if all this happened, maybe something did go wrong with the DNA! So our positions are very, very different and I want to make that perfectly clear.

Yes this is a conspiracy theory forum, and that is what I came here to discuss when I started this thread last summer. But he came here with his same old arguments and rehashed rhetoric defending her cause, and like everywhere else on the net, it's reduced to a 'she was-she wasn't' quote war. It is very frustrating to me to see the argument degrade into this same old pattern that goes in circles and never ends and have some people see this and put me down on the same level with him, because my opinion of his position and his arguing skills is not very high. It's happened too many times. For me, I'd much rather discuss how Franziska did it, even in speculation and guesses, and the conspiracy theories various supporters of Anderson- and Alexei claimant Heino Tammet have to discredit the DNA. Most of the theories involve the British royals paying off the scientists, or the Russians falsifying information about the new bones. All of them directly or indirectly accuse the scientists involved, and Martha Jefferson hospital, where the intestine was stored, of fraud and misconduct. Though the 'intestine switch' has been the biggest one over the years, not one person can begin to tell us who switched it, how, or what it was switched with!

I want to explain more about the DNA, and since so many different tests have done now there is no doubt. There have been different DNA tests, all going against AA. There was the test on the intestine, done in 3 different labs, all getting the same result, Anderson's DNA did not match the royal family and did match that of the family of Franziska Schanzkowska, the Polish factory worker her opponents have claimed she was since the 1920's. There was also a test on a hair sample, same results, not Anastasia. Most recently, tests done on the bone fragments found in Russia in 2007 proved the two bodies were the last 2 missing children of Tsar Nicholas II, showing us once and for all no one survived and all claimants were false. I have even been in contact with some of the scientists who did the testing, and I do know for sure, it's over.

If anyone has any specific questions about the case, I'd be glad to answer.

ChatNoir

20th February 2009, 06:03 PM

You seem to know a lot more about me than I know myself. As I have said before: You are an obsessed woman, and excessively strange!

AnastasiaEvidence

20th February 2009, 06:31 PM

This is the first time I've made it back to this page in 2 days thanks to 'database error'. It's important to know that we are very, very far off, and that ChatNoir does believe Anastasia was Anna Anderson. I have plenty of evidence, literally hundreds of links, to prove this. Anastasia Evidence has been a part of the discussions too on many sites and can be a witness as well. The reason he does not 'come out' and admit it here is because he knows this is a 'skeptic' forum and he will immediately lose all credibility and get laughed out of here. .
Franziska is right. ChatNoir is a AA supporter and if you look on the Royal Forums in the Anna Anderson and Language thread you'll see ChatNoir trying to convince everyone on the forum that Anastasia was Anna Anderson. The threads had to close down on the RF because people was arguing around in circles again, discussing the same old mess.In those forums he tries to prove us wrong and say AA looked, spoke Russian, French, English and acted like Anastasia. He also called Olga, Gilliard and Gibbes liars. Chat, always supported the people who believed in AA.
Also, on Wikipedia there's many posts of him trying to convince everyone that AA was Anastasia.
That's why ChatNoir is making fun of us talking about AA. He's now acting like he haven't said anything about Anna Anderson being Anastasia. We aren't obsessed in AA, we are only trying to prove that she never was Anastasia. If Chat starts talking about AA being Anastasia here he'll be ashamed.

Franziska

20th February 2009, 07:03 PM

ChatNoir

20th February 2009, 07:10 PM

It's so sad how he tries to make other people who are trying to be sensible look crazy and weird

Don't worry, you are doing a wonderful job of it yourselves.

desertgal

20th February 2009, 07:21 PM

The conspiracy theories are that the Queen paid the scientists off not to admit Anderson was really Anastasia so her family wouldn't have to be embarrassed that they had rejected their Russian cousins' request for asylum in England in 1917, or something like that. [/url]

Has anyone else noticed how Machiavellian Elizabeth II is? When she isn't organizing the silencing of any and all persons connected to the AA affair, she's arranging the murder of an ex daughter in law, playing chess with the line of succession and plotting to disinherit her eldest son and any grandchildren who don't tow the royal line, planning sabotage on one prime minister or secretly helping another to stay in power, etc etc. She's also remarkably indiscreet - for all the 'secret' effort she puts into her various machinations, she apparently lets slip, left and right, exactly what she has conspired to do. It's amazing that, after 50 years on the throne, she hasn't actually overthrown the government and restored absolute power to the Crown. :p

tsig

21st February 2009, 02:42 AM

AnastasiaEvidence

21st February 2009, 05:08 AM

Thank you, Anastasia Evidence! He does go all over the net trying to take up for AA and push the ideas she might still be Anastasia despite the DNA. My own forum, now shut down, is loaded with the entire story. It's so sad how he tries to make other people who are trying to be sensible look crazy and weird when he is the one who believes in AA. He is obsessed with her and her story and refuses to believe it's over. He always finds a new place to peddle his snake oil. When I came here to talk about conspiracy theories, I never thought he'd show up here with the same old dog chasing his tail arguments. AA was not Anastasia, that's not even an issue. So let's discuss the conspiracy theories.
He also spreads his AA stuff at Bear's forum too.

Arguing around in circles only made things worse to where the mods had to shut down the threads because Chat couldn't stop running around in circles and repeating himself. That thread was over 200 pages long a argument on something that's already been proven nearly 60 years ago. DNA will always win, you can't prove that wrong. On the Franziska's AA forum ChatNoir and all his AA supporters were very rude to us they called us names, bad words and said disgusting things about us. They are going to act innocent on the big forums just to make people think what we are talking about is crazy. But, what we are saying is actually true. It was especially awful what Ferrymansdaughter and Russophile did to Esperanza. It's pathetic how the AA supporters are obsessed in AA. It's very creepy.:covereyes

Chaos

21st February 2009, 05:23 AM

*snip*
It's pathetic how the AA supporters are obsessed in AA. It's very creepy.:covereyes

All conspiracy theorists are like that. Creepy, deluded, hateful, compulsively dishonest - you name it, they are it.
But, personally, I think that Holocaust Deniers really take the creepy cake - why, I´ve seen one of them seriously claim Hitler was actually the best friend the jews ever had!

Just out of curiousity, can you or Franziska provide us with some links to ChatNoir´s behavior in other forums? I will probably regret this later, but I would like to see how he behaves when he doesn´t think he´ll be laughed out of town for this claims.

ChatNoir

21st February 2009, 08:06 AM

Yes it is. why do you do it?

My dear Neltana, before you even ask a question like that, you have to educate yourself about this story.

Chaos

21st February 2009, 10:18 AM

My dear Neltana, before you even ask a question like that, you have to educate yourself about this story.

Oh dear, it seems I forgot another common trait of CTers... claiming that anyone who doubts them just isn´t educated enough to believe.

ChatNoir

21st February 2009, 11:00 AM

AnastasiaEvidence

21st February 2009, 11:16 AM

All conspiracy theorists are like that. Creepy, deluded, hateful, compulsively dishonest - you name it, they are it.
But, personally, I think that Holocaust Deniers really take the creepy cake - why, I´ve seen one of them seriously claim Hitler was actually the best friend the jews ever had!
I know. That's why it's never good to distort facts. Chat is a very bad cat he's been on many forums trying to spread his AA junk. He spreads his AA junk and dump it into the forums.Anyone who tries to claim that AA is Anastasia they'll going to get laughed at real hard. Believing in AA is so ridiculous, it's just like believing that faiytales and Cinderella exist. Some people just don't know how to accept reality. It's like saying humans can fly.

Just out of curiousity, can you or Franziska provide us with some links to ChatNoir´s behavior in other forums? I will probably regret this later, but I would like to see how he behaves when he doesn´t think he´ll be laughed out of town for this claims.
Unfortunately, I can´t post urls until after my 15th posts. If you go on the Royal Forums website and in the Anna Anderson's claim to be Anastasia you´ll see ChatNoir trying to force everyone to believe in AA. He obviously has no life. He is endless. Now, he's acting like he never said anything.

AnastasiaEvidence

21st February 2009, 12:10 PM

Yes it is. why do you do it?
Because AA is Chat's Goddess. He's obsessed in her.

Franziska

21st February 2009, 02:43 PM

AnastasiaEvidence

21st February 2009, 04:18 PM

That's bizarre, and horrible!

Oh yes, we can. But I need to know if it's allowed to post such things on the open forum here. If not, they can be sent privately.

I already have the screen caps. It's just I need at least 15 posts to make links. I've sent something already to Chaos.

Chaos

22nd February 2009, 05:56 AM

Then maybe Neltana can explain what facts I am trying to explain away, Chaos can demonstrate how much he knows about this story, and Franzisca can tell me what I am distorting.
I will be here, waiting.

No, ChatNoir... YOU made the claims. YOU prove that AA is Anastasia. YOU prove that everyone who debunked her claims is conspiring to hide that she´s the real thing.

AnastasiaEvidence

22nd February 2009, 07:08 AM

No, ChatNoir... YOU made the claims. YOU prove that AA is Anastasia. YOU prove that everyone who debunked her claims is conspiring to hide that she´s the real thing.
ChatNoir did make the claims on many other forums. He's only hiding. He's exposed all over the internet trying to prove that Anastasia was Anna Anderson.

ChatNoir

22nd February 2009, 07:54 AM

No, ChatNoir... YOU made the claims. YOU prove that AA is Anastasia. YOU prove that everyone who debunked her claims is conspiring to hide that she´s the real thing.

And what claims were these? That whatever the outcome of the DNA was, it does not change the story that went before. Which does not mean that AA was AN, it is just a very, very interesting story that I have always enjoyed discussing. Unfortunately, there are people who want to change what happened into their own version. And that's why they have been thrown off several boards already.

Franziska

22nd February 2009, 09:36 AM

And what claims were these? That whatever the outcome of the DNA was, it does not change the story that went before.

It absolutely DOES. Because now that we know she wasn't really Anastasia, there is nothing in those old stories that cannot easily be explained away as someone being wrong or lying. There is no mystery, nothing left in her favor. Nothing at all.

Which does not mean that AA was AN, it is just a very, very interesting story that I have always enjoyed discussing. Unfortunately, there are people who want to change what happened into their own version.

Chat you have gone all over the place trying to convince people she may still be Anastasia. You think the old stuff from years ago is equal to our outweighs the DNA and if you can get people to see that they'll start wondering of the DNA was wrong. You have said many times before, and I can probably find the quotes and links, 'so the DNA said NO but these other things said YES and the evidence needs equal consideration!' and things like that, but NO, Chat, the DNA said NO and that means all your other stuff is reduced to useless rubble. In law, DNA overrides everything. Many men have been released from prison on DNA proof after having been convicted due to eyewitness testimony. So that shows us which one is more valuable, the DNA, not the old 'he said this she said that' commentary, yes, even if it's documented in court, that's all it is and is nothing up against the DNA proof.

YOU, Chat, are the one coming up with your 'own versions' such as:

xOlga accepted AA as her niece and recanted due to family pressure
xGilliard accepted AA, then 'turned on her' because he was 'paid off' by Uncle Ernie
xErnst of Hesse "Wicked Uncle Ernie" paid off the newspaper and detectives to make up the FS story
xDoris Wingender, who identified AA as her mother's boarder, Franziska S., was paid off by the newspaper
xIrene of Hesse was distraught all her life because she had to deny her 'neice'
xBaroness Buxhoevedon was a 'traitor' and AA was 'scared' of her
xXenia's sons said 'we always knew it was her!'A
xAnyone who denied AA or fought against her was a 'liar'
xall the relatives were 'paid off' to deny her to save the royal money (though, when you mention AA's case being over money, he denies there was any! There did turn out not to be any but AA and her supporters though there was at the time)
^^
ALL these claims by Chat are either blatantly false, or his own assumed, rationalized versions of what really happened, slanted to AA's favor, and none can be proven!

And that's why they have been thrown off several boards already.

I have only been 'thrown off' ONE forum, and it wasn't about AA, and it's also one of the forums Chat himself has also been thrown off of. Chat has been thrown off numerous boards and talk groups, including my forum, and he has gotten all AA discussion stopped on another forum due to his endless repetative, dog chasing his tail way of trying to 'argue.' One forum completely deleted itself due to all the nonsense. There is much, much evidence of all this so there's no need to deny it.

Again, if it is not permittable to post links to other forums' fights here, I can send PMs.

ChatNoir

22nd February 2009, 12:56 PM

And I am still sitting here waiting for my answers.......
Ranting and raving gets you nowhere.

Franziska

22nd February 2009, 07:08 PM

Chat, are you playing games, or did you not even read my post? I answered the question you asked me, which was what things are you distorting. They're just above your post all marked with x, just to name a few.

ChatNoir

22nd February 2009, 09:13 PM

But I am NOT distorting anything. Every post I have made, contains sources from where my information comes. The problem is you. All you do when something does not correspond with your position, is to say "It did not happen". Besides, I have never ever commented on Xenia's sons. And I have never said a word about anybody been paid off except Doris Wingender (1500 DM), Fritz Lucke (20000 or 25000 DM) and Martin Knopf. (Amount unknown) This has been documented, and I have no idea why you fight facts. Gilliard's economical circumstances improved when he took up the position as "The Representative of the House of Hesse", but we have no documentation as to whether or how much he was paid from Darmstadt.
As for Olga, we have been through this ad nauseum, and her own writings tell us that she recognized AA as AN. But have no worries, none of the above makes AA a Grand Duchess. It is simply interesting to see how people around her reacted. And remember, Gilliard was the one who told Olga to come to Berlin after visiting AA, and he was the one who promised to "do everyting he could for the Grand Duchess." Three months later, they both changed their story.
As for the relatives being paid off, this is something you have made up youself. And the only liars in this mess, are the ones exposed as such. I am really sorry that the reality does not fit in with your view, but don't worry. We have the DNA as the last proof that AA was no Grand Duchess, so what are you so upset about?

Chaos

23rd February 2009, 03:42 AM

AnastasiaEvidence

23rd February 2009, 04:48 AM

What a complete joke. ChatNoir on every other board you did all you could to prove the DNA wrong, and that AA was Anastasia. Now you're saying something totally different.

JimBenArm

23rd February 2009, 05:08 AM

What a complete joke. ChatNoir on every other board you did all you could to prove the DNA wrong, and that AA was Anastasia. Now you're saying something totally different.
I'm sorry. What happened on other boards is totally irrelevent to the discussion here. I am not interested in hearing about it, seeing links to it, or anything else.

ChatNoir's behavior may have been horrendous elsewhere. Too bad, so sad. What's his/her behavior there have to do with anything here? So far, all I've seen from both sides is a rehash of personal issues from other forums played out in this thread. Please, if you want to do this, go elsewhere.

Now, does anyone have anything other than a personal attack to post here, or is this Ad Hom central?

Don't drink the water. The well's been poisoned!

ChatNoir

23rd February 2009, 06:43 AM

I so agree.

ChatNoir

23rd February 2009, 06:46 AM

You, sir, are a very transparent liar. Which of your posts contains any sources on where your information comes from? I have seen none.

As I have already pointed out: You are completely uneducated about this story, and it is of course much easier to call somebody a liar than to do some research. My sources come from the writings of:
Harriet Rathlef Keilmann
Gleb Botkin
Peter Kurth
Any other questions?

neltana

23rd February 2009, 07:57 AM

Then maybe Neltana can explain what facts I am trying to explain away, Chaos can demonstrate how much he knows about this story, and Franzisca can tell me what I am distorting.
I will be here, waiting.

I think you meant to address that to tsig, not me...scroll up and you'll see.

I'm not accusing you of explaining away facts. I'm just trying to get clear on what it is you are asserting here, in this forum. I don't care what you have said elsewhere.

Sometimes, it seems like you accept the DNA evidence, then you seem to cast doubt on it. This is probably just my confusion, but if you could help clear it up, I would appreciate it.

Could you bottom line your assertions for me?--leave out the evidence, just say where you think the evidence leads. Over simplify it to 2 or 3 single sentence bullet points.

I think that might help focus the discussion a bit.

Franziska

23rd February 2009, 08:37 AM

As I have already pointed out: You are completely uneducated about this story, and it is of course much easier to call somebody a liar than to do some research. My sources come from the writings of:
Harriet Rathlef Keilmann
Gleb Botkin
Peter Kurth
Any other questions?

Chat YOU are the one who always calls people 'liars'! You have yet to explain how the things I marked 'x' in my post, which you always state, are true and not just your heavily biased, twisted versions of reality (which of course they are) Chat, you contradict yourself, saying you don't want to defend AA, only 'get the story straight', yet you distort things to your own viewpoint using your own assumptions and speculations as fact, and passing things off as 'fact' that cannot be proven. This leaves only one reason for you to be arguing this cause, and that is the goal of promoting the idea that, despite DNA, AA might still be Anastasia.

As for your sources, Rathlef and Botkin were both writers who made money promoting AA and her cause, so I'm afraid this drastically taints their testimony. Rathlef never knew the real Anastasia. She was influenced by being a member of the Anthroposophist movement and a follower of Rudolf Steiner, who felt it was their duty to take care of AA because of the damage the Russian revolution had caused to the world. It was due to Rathlef's writings that AA became a star in Berlin, and had plays and songs written about her, and cigarettes and candy named for her. It was Rathlef who honed and perfected AA's final draft of her 'escape' story, the one which survives today in Kurth's book and others. She went for a more sympathetic and less sensationalistic version, editing out some of the more bizarre episodes, such being chased through Paris by thugs, and the contradictory and inconsistent versions that were told in the early days by AA, Clara Peuthert and Baron Von Kliest. When Rathlef died of a burst appendix, AA accused her 'enemies' of poisoning her!

Gleb Botkin and his sister, Tatiana, children of the Tsar's family doctor, were her biggest longterm supporters,writing books and articles about her, and helped advance her cause to others. Gleb took her to America(just in time to keep her from being officially labeled a fraud by the German police) to be wined, dined and housed by wealthy socialites, from a Romanov cousin who hadn't seen Anastasia since childhood to Americans who wouldn't have known the real Anastasia from a Hollywood actress. It was Gleb who wrote the horribly hurtful letter to the royal family after they rejected AA, and started the war which led to the decades-long trial. I have thought for years, even before seeing Godl's article, that the Botkins were one of her main sources of info on the royals and her 'memories'.
http://www.serfes.org/royal/annaanderson.htm

Few of Anna Anderson's supporters were more cunning, knowledgeable or influential than Gleb Botkin; nephew of Serge Botkin and son of the Imperial Family's personal physician Dr Eugene Botkin who perished with his royal patients in the Ipatiev House in 1918.

Gleb Botkin had an intimate knowledge of palace life, having spent much of his youth near the Imperial Family. As such it's impossible he was deceived by Anderson, he must have known she was a fraud and used her for his own aims. Botkin was one of many sources of obscure information Anderson would recount as "memories" to astound friend and foe alike.

Kurth's book is the "AA Bible" and while it contains much information, there is little on the side of her not being Anastasia. The vast majority of anti-AA info I've found has come from other sources. Kurth seems to play the pro-AA attorney, giving information which will help persuade those to her cause, while conveniently avoiding things that would not. His view seems to be that she was a persecuted victim and suffered all her life due to money hungry relatives who refused a tragic girl who had survived the murder of her family just to be mean, and to keep any possible money for themselves. His is a good source of one side of the story, but once you find out the other information, it's easy to expose her charade and the 'mysteries' suddenly dissolve. Seeing through the smoke and mirrors of AA's myth becomes very clear.

Seeing so much pro-AA stuff online, and so much misinformation on homemade sites, I set out to become a 'mythbuster' for this legend so no further innocent information seekers would be misled into falling for a fantasy story.

Some of the sources for my info are the writings of Robert K. Massie, Dr. Berenberg-Gossler, Klier and Mingay, Frances Welch, Pierre Gilliard, Sophie Buxhoevedon, E.P. Winjats, Ian Vorres, and, of course, the DNA scientists.

ChatNoir

23rd February 2009, 09:05 AM

Neltana, this is a very, very complex story. Anna Anderson was found by science to have identical facial features, ears and handwriting to Anastasia. She also had the same hair color, the same eye color, the same scars on her body and the same affliction of her feet: Congenital bilateral Hallux Valgus. She was recognized by family members and friends to be Anastasia. Then comes the DNA verdict and overthrows all this evidence. I find the case fascinating, and now with the DNA having determined that she was not the Grand Duchess, I am very, very curious to see how she got as far as she did with her claims, why members of the family spent thousands of dollars fighting her claim instead of visiting her and rejecting her out of hand. Unfortunately, there are people who try to re-write her story and denying that some things happened. This is what I am trying to correct, but as you have seen from my opponents, it is much easier to kill the messenger than discuss this in a rational way.

ChatNoir

23rd February 2009, 09:18 AM

Chat YOU are the one who always calls people 'liars'!
Point me to just ONE post where I "call people liars." The only ones I have accused of lying, are Gerda von Kleist, Dmitri Leuchtenberg and Pierre Gilliard, all caught in the act.
You have yet to explain how the things I marked 'x' in my post, which you always state, are true and not just your heavily biased, twisted versions of reality (which of course they are) Chat, you contradict yourself, saying you don't want to defend AA, only 'get the story straight', yet you distort things to your own viewpoint using your own assumptions and speculations as fact, and passing things off as 'fact' that cannot be proven. This leaves only one reason for you to be arguing this cause, and that is the goal of promoting the idea that, despite DNA, AA might still be Anastasia.
See my previous post to you.

As for your sources, Rathlef and Botkin were both writers who made money promoting AA and her cause, so I'm afraid this drastically taints their testimony.
All of Frau Rathlef's earnings went to Anna Anderson. And Botkin said no to a 30.000 dollar contract with American newspapers because AA told him not to write about her.
Rathlef never knew the real Anastasia. She was influenced by being a member of the Anthroposophist movement and a follower of Rudolf Steiner, who felt it was their duty to take care of AA because of the damage the Russian revolution had caused to the world. It was due to Rathlef's writings that AA became a star in Berlin, and had plays and songs written about her, and cigarettes and candy named for her. It was Rathlef who honed and perfected AA's final draft of her 'escape' story, the one which survives today in Kurth's book and others. She went for a more sympathetic and less sensationalistic version, editing out some of the more bizarre episodes, such being chased through Paris by thugs, and the contradictory and inconsistent versions that were told in the early days by AA, Clara Peuthert and Baron Von Kliest. When Rathlef died of a burst appendix, AA accused her 'enemies' of poisoning her!
And Rathlef never ever tried to tell the world that AA was AN, she only chronicled her story.
Gleb Botkin and his sister, Tatiana, children of the Tsar's family doctor, were her biggest longterm supporters,writing books and articles about her, and helped advance her cause to others.
Simply because they recognized her as Anastasia.
Gleb took her to America(just in time to keep her from being officially labeled a fraud by the German police) to be wined, dined and housed by wealthy socialites, from a Romanov cousin who hadn't seen Anastasia since childhood to Americans who wouldn't have known the real Anastasia from a Hollywood actress.
No, Gleb did not take her to America, Xenia Leeds did. And she acknowledged AA as her cousin based upon AA's character and all the information she had about the IF's private lives.
It was Gleb who wrote the horribly hurtful letter to the royal family after they rejected AA, and started the war which led to the decades-long trial. I have thought for years, even before seeing Godl's article, that the Botkins were one of her main sources of info on the royals and her 'memories'.[quote]
It was Xenia and Alexander (who never met AA) who instigated the denial from 12 of the Romanovs. Only Olga had met AA. Gleb wrote his rebuttal in order for AA not to be deported as fraud, and the Romanovs kept quiet.
[quote]Gleb Botkin had an intimate knowledge of palace life, having spent much of his youth near the Imperial Family. As such it's impossible he was deceived by Anderson, he must have known she was a fraud and used her for his own aims. Botkin was one of many sources of obscure information Anderson would recount as "memories" to astound friend and foe alike.
[/I]
What aims?
Kurth's book is the "AA Bible" and while it contains much information, there is little on the side of her not being Anastasia.
Oh really? What about three negative court verdicts, the rejection from family members and acquaintances, the letters written against her claim, the Franzisca story? You obviously did not read it very well.
The vast majority of anti-AA info I've found has come from other sources. Kurth seems to play the pro-AA attorney, giving information which will help persuade those to her cause, while conveniently avoiding things that would not.
You better back this up.
His view seems to be that she was a persecuted victim and suffered all her life due to money hungry relatives who refused a tragic girl who had survived the murder of her family just to be mean, and to keep any possible money for themselves. His is a good source of one side of the story, but once you find out the other information, it's easy to expose her charade and the 'mysteries' suddenly dissolve. Seeing through the smoke and mirrors of AA's myth becomes very clear.
Not when you have to resort to speculations and fantasy as you have on your website.
Seeing so much pro-AA stuff online, and so much misinformation on homemade sites, I set out to become a 'mythbuster' for this legend so no further innocent information seekers would be misled into falling for a fantasy story.
And you should talk about misinformation on homemade sites...............
Some of the sources for my info are the writings of Robert K. Massie, Dr. Berenberg-Gossler, Klier and Mingay, Frances Welch, Pierre Gilliard, Sophie Buxhoevedon, E.P. Winjats, Ian Vorres, and, of course, the DNA scientists.

Yes, I have read them all.

neltana

23rd February 2009, 09:36 AM

I find the case fascinating, and now with the DNA having determined that she was not the Grand Duchess...

This is what I mean when I say that you and Franziska aren't too far apart in your claims. You both (at least in the context of this thread) agree that AA was not the Grand Duchess.

The only differences I see appear to revolve around how credible her claim--the claim you both agree was false--would be if the DNA evidence didn't exist...or I'm missing something. Most likely the latter.

That's why I keep asking for you guys to summarize the bottom line of your disagreement, putting aside the history of the debate. What, specifically, is the conspiracy theory we are discussing? Who conspired to do what to whom and when?

What significance do you draw from the things you cite: similarity in appearance, foot disease, etc? How do these things imply conspiracy to you?

ChatNoir

23rd February 2009, 10:46 AM

Franziska

23rd February 2009, 11:10 AM

Netlana, please believe me that we ARE far apart. No matter what he says, he DOES believe Anderson was Anastasia, he is just not admitting it here because he's trying a new approach with an audience he knows he can never sway with his usual rhetoric. If he's not going to admit to his true position, he's just playing games. His game now is to pretend to be rational and accept the DNA, but still present the 'other' evidence like it's just as valuable as DNA (other AA supporters have done this but their belief in AA always comes out in the end) This is totally out of character for him I resent him trying to paint AE and I as being the 'strange' ones. The very reason I came here last summer is because I was frustrated with him and his cronies and needed an outlet from the outrageousness of it all. I do appreciate that some of you can see him for what he is.

So, netlana, you are very wrong to think we are not far apart, because I know where he really stands, and it's on the opposite side of the mountain from me. We are very, very far apart. And no, I do not believe he's changed his mind in the last few days.He is trying to use a new tactic to present his views but still rehashes old commentary in hopes of challenging the DNA.I am stating outright AA ws not Anastasia, end of story, nothing else matters after the DNA. A problem for me is that most of the old evidence he uses is not at all what it seems when you investigate further, and in the end, the pro AA side has nothing at all.

How about this. For every person who says she spoke Russian, others said she did not. For every person who said it was her, others said she was not. The stories told by now dead different people decades ago cannot even be proven or verified. So what do we have? Nothing, really. Let's say they both cancel each other out, like offsetting penalties in football. Now, with all the 'he said this she said that she said Olga said this' quotes out of the way, what's left? Where is the hardcore proof that she was or was not Anastasia? There's only one answer for that, the DNA. Once DNA says it's not her, does anything else make any difference?

neltana

23rd February 2009, 11:11 AM

I have difficulties with implying a conspiracy, because quite frankly, I don't know who would have gone through all that trouble of switching intestines and planting hair. I am just trying to find out how two people can be carbon copies of each other, and still be two different people.
I came to this thread, commenting on AA's ability to speak Russian...
[snip]...I am looking for answers, not innuendos or speculations. So if any of you have the answers, let's hear from you.

Understood. This is my somewhat futile attempt to drag things back to the OP...or at least within the realm of CT.

Since this is a CT thread, I think most of us interpret your questions as attempting to suggest or otherwise lead to a conspiracy of some kind. The assertion that AA and AN were carbon copies of each other is bound to be controversial, but it need not imply a conspiracy, if true.

If there is no CT-related discussion, perhaps a thread should be started in the History forum to talk about questions of how the historical record should be interpreted.

You might be more likely to find more domain experts there.

ETA:

Netlana, please believe me that we ARE far apart. No matter what he says, he DOES believe Anderson was Anastasia...

Doesn't matter whether this is true or not, the poster is not the topic of the thread, IMHO. I know it's your OP and you wanted to discuss the CT...but so far it looks like you have no takers, for whatever the reason.

Franziska

23rd February 2009, 11:16 AM

They were not 'carbon copies' of each other. Most of the pictures were posed to look like famous pictures of Anastasia. Many were shadowy and parts of her face concealed by props. Compare the pictures of her before she started her claim to the ones after she got her 'makeover.' Also compare her to Franziska, she looks exactly like her.
http://www.freewebs.com/anastasiafranziska/photographiccomparisons.htm

Franziska

23rd February 2009, 11:33 AM

I know it's your OP and you wanted to discuss the CT...but so far it looks like you have no takers, for whatever the reason.

That's true, sadly we can't discuss the conspiracies as I had hoped. But please, do not say Chat and I are not far apart, because, really, we are.

Chat- I am still waiting for you to address my 'x' marked statements you've made and explain why these things are true and not just your own personal version. Clever ways of trying to distract from the subject, but let's have some answers. None of the claims you've made about those people are true, only your version.

I also want to know, once you take away all the commentary on both sides, what are you left with but the ultimate DNA proof?

AnastasiaEvidence

23rd February 2009, 02:21 PM

I'm sorry. What happened on other boards is totally irrelevent to the discussion here. I am not interested in hearing about it, seeing links to it, or anything else.

ChatNoir's behavior may have been horrendous elsewhere. Too bad, so sad. What's his/her behavior there have to do with anything here? So far, all I've seen from both sides is a rehash of personal issues from other forums played out in this thread.

Now, does anyone have anything other than a personal attack to post here, or is this Ad Hom central?

Don't drink the water. The well's been poisoned!That wasn´t a personal attack. What you just said is a personal attack. What happened on the forums proves that what how rude he´s been to many people.
I never called ChatNoir any names. But, his behavior was awful the other forums. I just mentioned the other forums just so I can prove to everyone that ChatNoir was trying to prove to everyone that Anastasia was Anna Anderson. I did that because now he´s acting like he never said anything about AA being Anastasia. I did that also to pure that he was lying. His behavior has a lot to do with how he acts on other forums. People just like to defend him, and act like he never said anything. There´s no need to defend him at all, he's guilty.
He acts a certain way on certain forums. He´s only acting different here because this is a forum where people make laugh about conspiracy theories.
That´s your opinion, JimBenArm since you don´t want to believe or see what ChatNoir really did and has already done in forums. It seems that you´re trying to say he´s innocent and didn´t do anything to anybody elsewhere. Since you say it doesn´t matter then you´re saying it´s okay for anyone to be rude everywhere and get away with it.

This is totally out of character for him I resent him trying to paint AE and I as being the 'strange' ones. The very reason I came here last summer is because I was frustrated with him and his cronies and needed an outlet from the outrageousness of it all. I do appreciate that some of you can see him for what he is.
Chat is trying to trick everyone into believing that. Of course, he´s going to act like he never said anything, but the posts from the other forums proves that he did try to force everyone into believing in AA.

neltana

23rd February 2009, 03:20 PM

It seems that you´re trying to say he´s innocent and didn´t do anything to anybody elsewhere.

Nobody in this thread has maintained that, as far as I can tell. I believe the word being used is "irrelevant."

You are attacking the speaker. You are saying that his position on this subject is inconsistent and his manner rude on other boards. Therefore, we shouldn't listen to what he says here.

That is pretty much the definition of "argumentum ad hominem." What you say could very well be 100% true, but it has no relation to AA, FS or AN.

Of course, he´s going to act like he never said anything, but the posts from the other forums proves that he did try to force everyone into believing in AA.

An odd strategy...I fail to see the operational difference between "agrees that AA was not AN" and "pretends to agree that AA was not AN." I pretend to like some of my coworkers...usually they are willing to settle for that.

If you are one of my coworkers, let me just add that you aren't one of the ones I only pretend to like. My regard for you is sincere.

AnastasiaEvidence

23rd February 2009, 04:19 PM

[QUOTE=neltana;4458286]Nobody in this thread has maintained that, as far as I can tell. I believe the word being used is "irrelevant."

You are attacking the speaker. You are saying that his position on this subject is inconsistent and his manner rude on other boards. Therefore, we shouldn't listen to what he says here. Well, I am saying that he's rude on other forums. But, I'm not saying any attack thats very offensive to Chat. All I'm saying is that he has proved on many forums that AA was Anastasia. Now here he's acting like he never done that.

That is pretty much the definition of "argumentum ad hominem." What you say could very well be 100% true, but it has no relation to AA, FS or AN.
Right. That is true. I was off-topic there. I'm going to just stay with the AN and FS discussion.

An odd strategy...I fail to see the operational difference between "agrees that AA was not AN" and "pretends to agree that AA was not AN." I pretend to like some of my coworkers...usually they are willing to settle for that.
Have you seen the posts from the Anna Anderson claims thread on the RF? You'll find many posts were he actually says AA was AN. Of course, he's not going to say AN is Anastasia because this is a place where conspiracy theories are laughed at.

If you are one of my coworkers, let me just add that you aren't one of the ones I only pretend to like. My regard for you is sincere.
I'm not a AA supporter. I'm very serious with my information. I don't believe AA is Anastasia. I've been proving many times that Anastasia was never Anna Anderson. I have said she couldn't be her, because AA did not know any Russian, French or barely any English. Olga Alexandrona herself said AA can't be her niece because she showed no knowledge in Russian or French. There's no evidence of the Imperial family speaking German, just as Pierre Gilliard said "I never heard none of family utter a word in German, not even Alexandra". But, AA spoke German a language in which Anastasia didn't know fluently. AA definitely couldn't have been Anastasia because AA claimed to be Tatiana first, then say she was Anastasia when Sophie Buxhoeveden said she was too short to be Tatiana.

Secondly, I believe FS is AA because I notice their strong resemblance in the photographs, and AA/FS mental, sick and physiological ways. I think AA only pretended to be Anastasia because she wanted to make money, and fame off of the Imperial family. I agree with the DNA as well.

Thirdly, I don't believe AA's intestine's were switched at all.

neltana

23rd February 2009, 05:35 PM

I believe the evidence, what I've seen of it, supports your position. While I don't feel I have done enough study to truly judge, I don't think AA was AN....

But let me ask this, why did AA's story get any attention? It seems odd to me that anyone would have given the slightest credence to the story of a mental patient who claimed she was royalty. And yet, judging by the amount of documentary evidence the three principles have been offering, a lot of people spent a lot of time and energy investigating this.

Is there something about AA's story that gave it initial credibility or did she just have a fantastic PR person?

JimBenArm

23rd February 2009, 05:58 PM

That wasn´t a personal attack. What you just said is a personal attack. What happened on the forums proves that what how rude he´s been to many people.It's not a personal attack. I said nothing about you, personally. I said that all the posts about ChatNoir and what they posted were an attempt to poison the well here against him/her. You have a history with ChatNoir elsewhere, and for some reason it's extremely important to you that we not accept what ChatNoir says here because of that.
I never called ChatNoir any names. But, his behavior was awful the other forums. I just mentioned the other forums just so I can prove to everyone that ChatNoir was trying to prove to everyone that Anastasia was Anna Anderson. I did that because now he´s acting like he never said anything about AA being Anastasia. I did that also to pure that he was lying. His behavior has a lot to do with how he acts on other forums. People just like to defend him, and act like he never said anything. There´s no need to defend him at all, he's guilty. Guilty of what? Not behaving as you want him to? Acting differently here than you've seen? Why is him behaving rationally here a bad thing?
He acts a certain way on certain forums. He´s only acting different here because this is a forum where people make laugh about conspiracy theories. Everyone acts differently in different company. So?
That´s your opinion, JimBenArm since you don´t want to believe or see what ChatNoir really did and has already done in forums. It seems that you´re trying to say he´s innocent and didn´t do anything to anybody elsewhere. Since you say it doesn´t matter then you´re saying it´s okay for anyone to be rude everywhere and get away with it.No, that is not what I'm saying. I am saying what you accuse him of is totally irrelevent to the argument here. So, his behaviour elsewhere was rude, awful, blah, blah, blah. It hasn't been here, and that's all that matters. Your histrionics about his behavior elsewhere only reflects poorly on yourself.

Chat is trying to trick everyone into believing that. Of course, he´s going to act like he never said anything, but the posts from the other forums proves that he did try to force everyone into believing in AA.
Can he force anyone to believe something? Wow, that's quite a super-power he's got there! Glad he's keeping it under wraps while he's here!

Here's a bit piece of advice. Worry about the facts presented here. If ChatNoir is a woo, it will eventually come out. All on its own. Bringing up past grievences from other forums does not do anything except annoy others here.

Take it for what it's worth.

ChatNoir

23rd February 2009, 06:11 PM

YOU, Chat, are the one coming up with your 'own versions' such as:
xOlga accepted AA as her niece and recanted due to family pressure
I have already answered this in other posts, but you don't seem to understand, so here we go again:
From Harriet Rathlef-Keilmann's book: Before her departure, she confided to the Danish Ambassador: "My intelligence will not allow me to accept her as Anastasia, but my heart tells me that it is she. And since I have grown up in a religion which taught me to follow the dictates of the heart rather than those of the mind, I am unable to leave this unfortunate child." Later, she would write to the unknown lady in affectionate terms: "Longing to see you" "You are no longer alone" "I remember when we were together (in Russia)". Then after three months, sudden silence.
xGilliard accepted AA, then 'turned on her' because he was 'paid off' by Uncle Ernie
Gilliard and Shura were asked to go to Berlin and see the patient by Olga. "If it is her, write me, and I shall come to Berlin." Well, Olga came to Berlin, so we must surmise that the verdict was positive. From Rathlef-Keilmann: It happened on the occasion of the first visit of Mr. Gilliard and his wife that I was able to speak with him alone in the corridor. He was very agitated and exclaimed in French: "Oh dear, how horrible! What has happened to the Grand Duchess Anastasia? She is a wreck. I want to do everything I can to assist the Grand Duchess." That day he asked Professor Rudnev, in my presence, if he thought that Her Highness would recover, and gave the invalid the title of Grand Duchess.
On their last visit, the Gilliards said to Mr. Zahle and his wife before their departure: "We are going away without being able to say that she is not the Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna." Then after three months, a sudden silence. Then Gilliard started calling himself The representative of the House of Hesse and travelled frequently to Darmstadt. What and if he was paid by the Grand Duke of Hesse is unclear.
xErnst of Hesse "Wicked Uncle Ernie" paid off the newspaper and detectives to make up the FS story
The FS story started with Doris Wingender coming into Fritz Lucke's office at the Nachtausgabe saying: I have some information on your Anastasia. How much is it worth to you? (Lucke's testimony in Hamburg) From Harriet Rathlef Keilmann: The Nachtausgabe made the following agreement with the witness Wingender, reproduced here in facsimile, (page 176) under which she was to receive 1,500 Marks for her trouble.
MUNICH, 4th October, 1927.
No 33, II Neuheuserstrasse,
Entrance, Herzog Wilhelmstrasse.
To the Editor, Die Tägliche Rundschau
Berlin, No. 66, Bülowstrasse.
The Duchess Olga von Leuchtenberg and Duke George von Leuchtenberg have charged me, as their legal representative, to impart to you the following information in the matter of "Anastasia."
Dr. Fritz Lucke, during his visit to Schloss Seeon at the beginning of April, 1927, mentioned, in the course of conversation with Her Serene Highness the Duchess von Leuchtenberg, that the firm of Scherl had received from the Grand Duke of Hesse, for investigations into the "Anastasia" affair, the sum of 20,000 marks (or 25,000 marks, the Duchess is not quite sure which of these two sums was named.)
The Duchess von Leucthenberg informed her husband of this on the same day, whereupon the Duke von Leuchtenberg asked Dr. Lucke in conversation, "So the Grand Duke has given the firm of Scherl 20,000 marks (25,000 marks)? To which Dr. Fritz Lucke assented.
You are requested to addres to me any further inquiries which may be necessary.
Yours respectfully,
SPENGRUBER,
Solicitor.

(Miss Agnes Wasserschleben also took part in the conversation and is ready to swear to the above-mentioned fact.)

xDoris Wingender, who identified AA as her mother's boarder, Franziska S., was paid off by the newspaper
I think we covered that.
xIrene of Hesse was distraught all her life because she had to deny her 'neice'
Irene was very disturbed by the affair, and her husband finally forbid all discussion of the case in the household since it upset his wife too much. (Peter Kurth)
xBaroness Buxhoevedon was a 'traitor' and AA was 'scared' of her
I have already given you the sources (Bykov) regarding Buxhoeveden's betrayal.
xXenia's sons said 'we always knew it was her!'A
I have never mentioned Xenia's sons anywhere.
xAnyone who denied AA or fought against her was a 'liar'
Gerda Kleist, Dmitri Leuchtenberg and Gilliard were all caught in the act of lying.
xall the relatives were 'paid off' to deny her to save the royal money (though, when you mention AA's case being over money, he denies there was any! There did turn out not to be any but AA and her supporters though there was at the time)
I have no idea what you are talking about. And when you read Andrew's letter to Mr. Kügelgen, you will see that there was no money anywhere.
ALL these claims by Chat are either blatantly false, or his own assumed, rationalized versions of what really happened, slanted to AA's favor, and none can be proven!
I beg to differ.

I have only been 'thrown off' ONE forum, and it wasn't about AA, and it's also one of the forums Chat himself has also been thrown off of. Chat has been thrown off numerous boards and talk groups, including my forum, and he has gotten all AA discussion stopped on another forum due to his endless repetative, dog chasing his tail way of trying to 'argue.' One forum completely deleted itself due to all the nonsense. There is much, much evidence of all this so there's no need to deny it.

Again, if it is not permittable to post links to other forums' fights here, I can send PMs.[/QUOTE]

Franziska

24th February 2009, 07:46 AM

But let me ask this, why did AA's story get any attention? It seems odd to me that anyone would have given the slightest credence to the story of a mental patient who claimed she was royalty. And yet, judging by the amount of documentary evidence the three principles have been offering, a lot of people spent a lot of time and energy investigating this.

Is there something about AA's story that gave it initial credibility or did she just have a fantastic PR person?

AA, unlike most other claimants, did have savvy backers, and good promoters. Harriet Rathlef wrote stories about her, and got her so much attention in Berlin that cigarettes and candy were named for her and plays and songs written in her honor. Another thing in her favor is that she picked up the backing of people who had actually known the Romanovs, so she had the advantage of inside information other claimants didn't have. Gleb Botkin and his sister also wrote books and articles about her, and interestingly enough one of Gleb's fiction novels, written before his AA book, was very much like her story. Gleb was creative even as a child, drawing pictures and inventing an entire imaginary land of personified animals to entertain the royal children. You can see these in a book written by his daughter. So, while of course there is no proof since people don't leave paper trails of fraud, there is reasonable doubt on the Botkins. They had the intimate, yet limited, knowledge of the royal family and their private lives to help her with her 'memories' (in fact when AA was asked to go stay with the Duke of Leuchtenberg, she refused to go without Tatiana Botkin. Her 'Cyrano' perhaps?) Also, Gleb had the creativity and imagination to create and perpetuate such a fairy story. John Godl's online article, which also points a finger at Botkin, says he was 'cunning' and intentionally used AA for fame and possible fortune.

Of course they were not the first or only ones to back her. One thing I never knew when I first got interested in this story at age 12 (years before DNA testing existed) is that there were a full half a million Russian refugees and emigres' in Berlin at the time AA surfaced. It's also interesting that Gleb's uncle was the head of the Russian Emigre' society in Berlin, and that was the group that sent people to see the 'unknown woman' claiming to be Anastasia. The sheer numbers of Russians means there was a literal goldmine of info that could have been tapped for 'memories' and other 'astounding' information on the royals and pre revolutionary Russia. One theory I heard is that she took what she learned from one emigre to impress another.

We will never know if she was intentionally fed memories, learned them incidently in conversation, or a mixture of both. We will also never know for sure the names of those who may have very likely instigated and carried out a fraudulent plan to get money from the family of the dead royals. But since DNA has proven her not to be the grand duchess, and since other DNA tests have now proven that the entire family died together and no one escaped, we have to, by logical deduction and common sense, realize that a lot of the people associated with AA's claim may well have been lying or embellishing to help her cause for a possible cut of any money (at the time there were rumors of millions, even billions, in England and Switzerland for anyone who could prove themselves the tsar's heir)

AA was cemented as a legend when the 1955 movie "Anastasia" starring Ingrid Bergman came out. Though it was fictional even to the bogus AA story, not to mention history, it gained a legion of devoted fans who wanted to believe. Even today on other boards I see people say "I think it was her because I love that movie" Both the royals and the anti-AA lawyers have stated this image was nearly impossible to fight. People WANTED her to be Anastasia, and anyone against her was a villian. So it was a combination of sensationalism, media attention and savvy promotion, combined with, possibly, wishful thinking for a piece of a world gone away. It was much easier, and more fun, to believe in an escaped princess than a crazy Polish factory worker.

Now that the DNA is out, I can't accept that anyone would even have any doubts. Though the 50's movie did much to perpetuate AA's legend, it's interesting to me that newer, younger Romanov fans who grew up with the 1997 Anastasia cartoon do NOT believe in AA, because they read up on the story and found out the true story,and all about the DNA. These are some of the best Romanov fans, because they care about the actual family and real Anastasia, and not some eccentric old woman in Charlottesville who lived a lie.

Franziska

24th February 2009, 07:57 AM

Chat is trying to trick everyone into believing that. Of course, he´s going to act like he never said anything, but the posts from the other forums proves that he did try to force everyone into believing in AA.

Exactly. Thank you so much for helping to point all this out. It IS important to those of us who know his history to say this, because it does make a difference when considering his position. I do not appreciate being told he and I are 'not far apart' when I know better. Honestly, for a skeptic forum full of usually suspicious types and hardcore mythbusters, I am completely shocked that he has managed to fool even one or two people. Chat is the #1 worldwide defender of AA, and anything he says can and will be used to support that position, regardless of how he packages it for a different audience.

Disbelief

24th February 2009, 08:15 AM

AA, unlike most other claimants, did have savvy backers, and good promoters. Harriet Rathlef wrote stories about her, and got her so much attention in Berlin that cigarettes and candy were named for her and plays and songs written in her honor. Another thing in her favor is that she picked up the backing of people who had actually known the Romanovs, so she had the advantage of inside information other claimants didn't have. Gleb Botkin and his sister also wrote books and articles about her, and interestingly enough one of Gleb's fiction novels, written before his AA book, was very much like her story. Gleb was creative even as a child, drawing pictures and inventing an entire imaginary land of personified animals to entertain the royal children. You can see these in a book written by his daughter. So, while of course there is no proof since people don't leave paper trails of fraud, there is reasonable doubt on the Botkins. They had the intimate, yet limited, knowledge of the royal family and their private lives to help her with her 'memories' (in fact when AA was asked to go stay with the Duke of Leuchtenberg, she refused to go without Tatiana Botkin. Her 'Cyrano' perhaps?) Also, Gleb had the creativity and imagination to create and perpetuate such a fairy story. John Godl's online article, which also points a finger at Botkin, says he was 'cunning' and intentionally used AA for fame and possible fortune.

Of course they were not the first or only ones to back her. One thing I never knew when I first got interested in this story at age 12 (years before DNA testing existed) is that there were a full half a million Russian refugees and emigres' in Berlin at the time AA surfaced. It's also interesting that Gleb's uncle was the head of the Russian Emigre' society in Berlin, and that was the group that sent people to see the 'unknown woman' claiming to be Anastasia. The sheer numbers of Russians means there was a literal goldmine of info that could have been tapped for 'memories' and other 'astounding' information on the royals and pre revolutionary Russia. One theory I heard is that she took what she learned from one emigre to impress another.

We will never know if she was intentionally fed memories, learned them incidently in conversation, or a mixture of both. We will also never know for sure the names of those who may have very likely instigated and carried out a fraudulent plan to get money from the family of the dead royals. But since DNA has proven her not to be the grand duchess, and since other DNA tests have now proven that the entire family died together and no one escaped, we have to, by logical deduction and common sense, realize that a lot of the people associated with AA's claim may well have been lying or embellishing to help her cause for a possible cut of any money (at the time there were rumors of millions, even billions, in England and Switzerland for anyone who could prove themselves the tsar's heir)

AA was cemented as a legend when the 1955 movie "Anastasia" starring Ingrid Bergman came out. Though it was fictional even to the bogus AA story, not to mention history, it gained a legion of devoted fans who wanted to believe. Even today on other boards I see people say "I think it was her because I love that movie" Both the royals and the anti-AA lawyers have stated this image was nearly impossible to fight. People WANTED her to be Anastasia, and anyone against her was a villian. So it was a combination of sensationalism, media attention and savvy promotion, combined with, possibly, wishful thinking for a piece of a world gone away. It was much easier, and more fun, to believe in an escaped princess than a crazy Polish factory worker.

Now that the DNA is out, I can't accept that anyone would even have any doubts. Though the 50's movie did much to perpetuate AA's legend, it's interesting to me that newer, younger Romanov fans who grew up with the 1997 Anastasia cartoon do NOT believe in AA, because they read up on the story and found out the true story,and all about the DNA. These are some of the best Romanov fans, because they care about the actual family and real Anastasia, and not some eccentric old woman in Charlottesville who lived a lie.

Thank you for the concise background. I bolded a part that, while you may find it crazy, is par for the course concerning CTists. Check out the 9/11 sub-forum and look at the handwaving of DNA evidence.

Franziska

24th February 2009, 08:19 AM

From Harriet Rathlef-Keilmann's book:

Chat, this is a version written by, at the time, her biggest supporter. Olga denies this, and tells a very different story.

Direct quotes from Olga in her biography, "The Last Grand Duchess" by Ian Vorres:

p. 174

When Olga entered the room, the woman lying on a bed asked a nurse: �Ist das die Tante?"[Is this the Aunt?] �That�, confessed Olga, �at once took me aback. A moment later I remembered that the young woman having spent five years in Germany, would naturally have learnt the language, but then I heard that when she was rescued from that canal in 1920, she spoke nothing but German � when she spoke at all- which was not often. I readily admit that a ghastly horror experienced in one�s youth can work havoc with one�s memory but I have never heard of any ghastly experience endowing anyone with a knowledge they had not had before it happened. My nieces knew no German at all. Mrs Anderson did not seem to understand a word of Russian or English, the two languages all the four sisters had spoken since babyhood. French came a little later, but German was never spoken in the family."

�My beloved Anastasia was fifteen when I saw her for the last time in the summer of 1916. She would have been twenty four in 1925. I thought Mrs Anderson looked much older than that. Of course, one had to make allowances for a very long illness and the general poor condition of her health. All the same, my niece�s features could not possibly have altered out of all recognition. The nose, the mouth, the eyes were all different.�

P. 175

The Grand Duchess [Olga Alexandrovna] remarked that the interviews were made all the more difficult by Mrs Anderson�s attitude. She would not answer some of the questions, and looked angry when those questions were repeated. Some Romanov photographs were shown to her, and there was not a flicker of recognition in her eyes. The Grand Duchess had brought a small icon of St Nicholas, the patron saint of the imperial family. Mrs Anderson lookes at it so indifferently that it was obvious the icon said nothing to her.

The mistakes she made could not be all attributed to lapses of memory. For instance, she had a scar on one of her fingers and she kept telling everybody that it had been crushed because of a footman shutting the door of a landau too quickly. And at once I remembered the incident. It was Marie, her elder sister, who got her hand hurt rather badly, and it did not happen in a carriage but on board the imperial train. Obviously someone, having heard something of the incident, had passed a garbled version of it to Mrs Anderson.

Gilliard and Shura were asked to go to Berlin and see the patient by Olga. "If it is her, write me, and I shall come to Berlin." Well, Olga came to Berlin, so we must surmise that the verdict was positive.

No, we must not 'surmise' anything. In those days, AA was withered away due to TB of the bones, frail emaciated. She was covered with scars both from the TB and from the explosion at the factory where she worked as FS. It was honorable of Gilliard and Olga to give her a chance, and see if perhaps she was Anastasia with amnesia in horrible physical shape, but they finally realized it wasn't her (just like the lady who took home the wrong dog by mistake because he was skinny and dirty but later realized he wasn't hers)

What and if he was paid by the Grand Duke of Hesse is unclear.

Ever consider he just plain realized it wasn't Anastasia, and maybe was a little unnerved at being temporarily tricked, and then wanted to help stop an imposter?Gilliard then wrote a book denouncing AA, and spent the next several decades fighting her in the court case, years after Uncle Ernie was dead.

From Harriet Rathlef Keilmann: The Nachtausgabe made the following agreement with the witness Wingender, reproduced here in facsimile, (page 176) under which she was to receive 1,500 Marks for her trouble.

First, this is from Rathlef, making it authenticity suspect. Second, even if Wingender did accept money for her story, this does not mean it was a lie. Times were hard in postwar Berlin, she had valuable info, why not capitalize? Even today, people get rich selling their stories of famous people to magazines and tabloids. Larry Birkhead, for one, is a millionaire because of telling true tales on Anna Nicole.People also get paid for telling TRUE stories.

Irene was very disturbed by the affair, and her husband finally forbid all discussion of the case in the household since it upset his wife too much. (Peter Kurth)

If Irene was 'disturbed' it was because the claimant story always brought back the hurting memories of the fact that her 2 sisters, 4 nieces and a nephew had been brutally murdered by the Bolsheviks. She didn't have any doubts about AA, as you always seem to imply by saying she was 'upset'. Here is the letter you speak of, written on behalf of Irene's husband, Prince Heinrich, to Baron Von Kliest, AA supporter who kept harassing him to give AA another chance:

His Royal Highness has requested me to inform you that he as well as his wife, after the latter's visit to your protegee, have come to the unshakable conviction that she is not a daughter of the Tsar, specifically not Grand Duchess Anastasia. Prince Henry considers the matter as it concerns himself and his wife as cleared up and finally settled and insists that you refrain from the further sending of letters or requests to himself or to the Princess.

Chat, ALL this letter is saying is that Irene saw AA, gave her a chance, declared she was not her niece, it's over, stop bugging us, leave us alone, she's not Anastasia. Anything you assume between the lines about her being distraught over being forced to deny her 'niece' is purely in your imagination.

I have already given you the sources (Bykov) regarding Buxhoeveden's betrayal.

And I have told you that your 'unpublished' sources are seriously in doubt, and that all the real evidence proves nothing on Bux. (I've already posted it earlier in this thread)

I have never mentioned Xenia's sons anywhere.

Then was it a grandson? Where do you get that quote 'we always knew it was her' you always use?

Gerda Kleist, Dmitri Leuchtenberg and Gilliard were all caught in the act of lying.

Of course, anyone against AA was a 'liar' to you. But don't forget, AA herself was 'caught in the act of lying' as well as most of her supporters when the DNA proved she wasn't Anastasia! (I'll give a small percentage of her supporters the benefit of being just plain gullible instead of liars, but still wrong)

I have no idea what you are talking about. And when you read Andrew's letter to Mr. Kügelgen, you will see that there was no money anywhere.

Then what happened to AA's famous declaration about 'we'll be okay because there is money in England'? You know very well if everyone knew there was no money there would have been no court case. There did turn out to be no money , but in those days, most people believed there was. A 30 year court case does not drag on when no one hopes to gain financially.

You contradict yourself with this, because your main defense you always use to discredit those who were against AA is that they were paid off/denied her due to money, and that her greedy, heartless relatives turned their backs on her so they could keep the money. Gleb Botkin openly accused them of this in his 1928 letter:

Your Imperial Highness!

Twenty four hours did not pass after the death of your mother when you hastened to take another step in the conspiracy against your niece...Before the wrong which Your Imperial Highness is committing, even the gruesome murder of the Emperor, his family and my father by the Bolsheviks pales! It is easier to understand a crime committed by a gang of crazed and drunken savages than the calm, systematic, endless persecution of one of your own family, the Grand Duchess Anastasia Nicholaevna, whose only fault is that, being the only rightful heir to the late Emperor, she stands in the way of her greedy and unscrupuous relatives.

You can't deny this! It was all about the money, for both sides. AA and her supporters hoping to gain money, the royals trying to stop an imposter from stealing money she was not entitled to because she wasn't Anastasia, as well as parading around acting crazy using the name of their murdered relative. If the real Anastasia had lived, she'd have been openly welcomed and accepted by the family.

Franziska

24th February 2009, 08:36 AM

Thank you for the concise background. I bolded a part that, while you may find it crazy, is par for the course concerning CTists. Check out the 9/11 sub-forum and look at the handwaving of DNA evidence.

Thanks. I'll check it out. I didn't know that was happening with 9-11 too! People are wacky.

ChatNoir

24th February 2009, 08:46 AM

Chat, this is a version written by, at the time, her biggest supporter. Olga denies this, and tells a very different story.
Yes, this is written by Harriet von Rathlef Keilmann, who then sent her manuscript to Olga for verification. Olga returned it, finding the rendition "quite correct". The Ian Vorres account came half a century later and bears little resemblance to Olga's formal testimony at Toronto (March 23-24, 1959, Hamburg.)

The Grand Duchess [Olga Alexandrovna] remarked that the interviews were made all the more difficult by Mrs Anderson�s attitude. She would not answer some of the questions, and looked angry when those questions were repeated. Some Romanov photographs were shown to her, and there was not a flicker of recognition in her eyes. The Grand Duchess had brought a small icon of St Nicholas, the patron saint of the imperial family. Mrs Anderson lookes at it so indifferently that it was obvious the icon said nothing to her.
From Bella Cohen's article in the New York Times: “In addition Anastasia had a protruding bone on her left foot. That protrusion is still there. Her ears are the same size and shape as Anastasia’s. Anastasia’s middle finger was slightly crushed in her childhood when a servant caught it in an automobile door. The middle finger is still slightly out of shape. Her hair is darker than was Anastasia’s, but it has the same wave.”
The sight of her childhood nurse spurred the girl into sudden talkativeness. Not even the visit of the Grand Duchess Olga had inspired her to such an affectionate outburst as that which she greeted her nurse. More than once she exclaimed: “Zhura, are you really here?” All this Sascha, the nurse, told me at the home of the Ambassador.
The girl asked if the Grand Duchess and Sascha remembered the circular staircase that led up to the quarters of the Grand Duchesses from the room of their mother. Do you remember how we used to stand on that staircase and say good morning to her?” she asked. “And on Monday mornings mother would let us come down to her room and watch the hairdresser do her hair. We children used to sit on little stools at her feet.”
She turned to the Grand Duchess Olga: “I remember an old invalid lady-in-waiting – Bal – Bal,” the hand went up to her head, “oh, if I could only remember – Balyanova!”
There was such an invalid lady-in-waiting, but very few outside the intimate court circle knew of her presence.
“A woman used to come to my mother and solicit funds for an orphan asylum. Did you know her?”
“What was her name?” The Grand Duchess asked.
“Belgard,” the girl answered.
The Grand Duchess Olga has said that a woman by that name did come to the Czarina for such funds, but that the fact was little known.
“So you remember, Zhura, I had two parrots?” the girl asked, and Zhura nodded, for that was true, too, though the outside world can hardly have known of it.
Another incident related by the girl and not recorded in any book took place on the royal yacht Standard. Anastasia, seeing a sailor standing very stiff while on guard, thought it would be good fun to walk back and forth before him in order that he would have to salute her repeatedly. Then she thought it would be even better fun if she tickled him. “I did,” she remembered ruefully, “and father took me down to my cabin and spanked me. I was not a good child.”
Later, the girl remembered that her sister and she each got a pearl and a diamond or two pearls and two diamonds for their birthday necklaces. This fact was corroborated by the Grand Duchess Olga, who added that it was falsely supposed that the girls received whole pearl necklaces for their birthdays.
Zhura showed her a green stone pendant, shaped like an egg, which hung from a thin chain round her neck. The girl did not remember it. Anastasia had given it to the nurse after first wearing it herself, as was the custom.
Next, Zhura brought out a small snapshot of a table beside which sat a woman whose face was hidden by a bell attached to a rope from the ceiling. On the other side of the table were two girls, but only one face was visible. Anastasia smiled slowly. “That was you,” she said to her nurse, pointing to the woman whose face was hidden by the bell. “And that was Tatiana and back of her was Maria. I teased you with that bell.” The Princess Anastasia herself had snapped the picture.
Certain published details of Anastasia’s childhood the mysterious girl could not recall; for example, the little plays the royal children used to present at Tobolsk. Yet she recognized Gilliard, the tutor, and said to him, “You have cut your beard off.” She remembered many things, however, according to Sascha, Gilliard and the Grand Duchess Olga, that happened in the royal household and are not related in any published account.

Grand Duchess Convinced.

To the Ambassador the Grand Duchess has reported: “Zhura says that is the body of Anastasia, but her face is that of Tatiana. I realize, of course, that Anastasia, when she was a child, was so fat and Tatiana was so slim that we never even thought of the resemblance between the two. Besides, Tatiana was six years older than Anastasia, and already a grown woman, whereas Anastasia was still a child, with the plastic face of a child. Her excessive thinness has certainly brought the resemblance out between the two, *** if she is Anastasia.”
Then she added the words already quoted:
”My head says Anastasia cannot be alive***that no one of them could have survived. But my religion tells me to follow my heart. And my heart says she is Anastasia.”
After the Grand Duchess had left for Copenhagen, the girl received a postcard from her saying, “Remember you are no longer alone.”
The girl slipped the card under her pillow, where a little brass swastika lies. The swastika was the lucky symbol of the Czarina and one which she scratched on the walls of the room in Ekaterinburg where they were executed. The girl will never allow the swastika to be removed from her.
Professor Rudnef, the girl’s physician, believes she is Anastasia. He was the assistant Kremlin physician in Moscow and was called in to look at Anastasia’s foot. That protruding bone had been bothering her. He treated her for it, but did not advise operating.
When I came to the hospital, I found her closely guarded. All her food is specialty cooked for her by her nurse, Fran von Rathlef; all gifts of sweets are analyzed; all flowers brought by strangers thrown away – so great is the fear of Soviet conspiracy.
On my first visit, the Russian assistant of Dr. Rudnef came to apply an electrical treatment to the arm. He talked only Russian to the girl, asking her if the current were too strong, where the pain was worst, if it didn’t burn, could she stand it? To these questions , she answered in her broken German, but would not reply in Russian.
We talked about her pet kitten, Kiki. She wished to send it to the children of her aunt, the Grand Duchess, but could not part with it. “When my arm gets better, I shall be able to sew again,” she said; “then perhaps I shall earn enough money to buy a cat to send.” All the Grand Duchesses sewed, but Anastasia was most adept at it, according to published records.
The next time I called, I brought some Alpine flowers with me. The girl’s wyes drank in their wine-red color and her fingers caressed their orchid-like shapes. “They are beautiful,” she whispered. “Danke.”
“Do you like flowers?” I asked suddenly in English – we had been talking only in German.
“Ye-e-s,” the girl replied, also in English. Then her hand went up to her mouth and her eyes closed. That was the first English word she had spoken in any one’s presence. “You understand English, then?” I said, reverting to German.
The girl opened her eyes again. “A little,” she answered slowly. “If I heard it spoken around me, it would come back to me in a month.” The Grand Duchesses could speak English, French and German as well as their native Russian.
“I have had a letter from my aunt,” she said later. She had the letter under her cover, I suspect near her heart. She extended it to me. It was written in Russian and addressed to her nurse. A translation of it follows:
I send to my little one who is ill a silk scarf, my own, because it will keep her warm. I hope the scarf will be upon her chest and hands and keep them warm during the cold Winter. I bought this scarf in pre-war days at Yalta in the Crimea. Have you got my postcard? I am awaiting news.
I think of you always. My heartiest greetings to all three inhabitants of Room 18. How is little white Kiki, the kitten? Greetings to Professor Rudnef. I embrace you. OLGA.

The mistakes she made could not be all attributed to lapses of memory. For instance, she had a scar on one of her fingers and she kept telling everybody that it had been crushed because of a footman shutting the door of a landau too quickly. And at once I remembered the incident. It was Marie, her elder sister, who got her hand hurt rather badly, and it did not happen in a carriage but on board the imperial train. Obviously someone, having heard something of the incident, had passed a garbled version of it to Mrs Anderson.[/I]
And according to Shura, the incident happened, but she could no longer say which girl got hurt. Admiral Shilling's niece remembered the incident well, as did Karl Berg and Captain Sablin from the Standart, who was present.

(more later, I gotta go to work.)

neltana

24th February 2009, 08:53 AM

I do not appreciate being told he and I are 'not far apart' when I know better. Honestly, for a skeptic forum full of usually suspicious types and hardcore mythbusters, I am completely shocked that he has managed to fool even one or two people.

This forum tends to consider claims, in particular extraordinary claims, skeptically. But I personally try to avoid discussing the claimants, except when it is necessary to do so in order to evaluate information for which they are the source. It has nothing to do with being fooled.

Back to the historical topic:

So really, if I'm understanding your contention, there was a conspiracy here in some form, involving Rathlef, Gleb, AA, etc. It sounds to me like you are are saying that this wasn't case of mistaken identity on the part of her core supporters...that they must have known the truth. They were supporting the AA = AN story even though they knew it was false.

Now, I think of Bigfoot proponents and how there seem to be a lot of people who sincerely believe...they want to believe so much that they end up doing all sorts of things that seem deceptive: cherry-picking evidence, misinterpreting things and demonizing their opponents.

Could that be what happened here? Could her core supporters have wanted to believe in the story so much that they helped manufacture it...confirmation bias is a powerful thing, after all. AA could have simply been delusional, not deceptive.

Is there a "smoking gun" that proves conspiracy over wishful thinking? I'd also be curious to know ChatNoir's answer to this question.

Franziska

24th February 2009, 10:17 AM

So really, if I'm understanding your contention, there was a conspiracy here in some form, involving Rathlef, Gleb, AA, etc. It sounds to me like you are are saying that this wasn't case of mistaken identity on the part of her core supporters...that they must have known the truth. They were supporting the AA = AN story even though they knew it was false.

If it had been only a small, brief incident, I could accept that it was a mistake or wishful thinking. However, because this case went on in courts for decades, and there were so many people involved and so much at stake, I now find it impossible not to believe at least some of them knew exactly what they were doing. There is no 'smoking gun' for this, as I've said for years, nobody leaves a paper trail of fraud, nobody writes in their diary 'today I fed AA memories.' If people were doing this, they'd have to be quiet about it because getting caught could mean jail for fraud for so many. You may call this a 'conspiracy' but considering that there was a fraudulent claim that is now proven false, we know for sure that the people who took her side were wrong. Are we to accept that every single one of them was completely innocent and fooled? Are we to accept, as Chat contends, that they were all perfect angels who only wanted to help AA and wanted no money? Logically, that is very unlikely. This thing does seem to have been 'masterminded' by some very cunning people. AA herself was mentally ill and would not even take the stand herself or testify on her own behalf(maybe she was afraid of getting caught lying?) At the very least, we know for sure one person knew it was all a lie and faked along, and that is AA herself. While in her old age she may have slipped into believing her own story, but in the early days, such as when she hid under the covers from those who came to identify her, when she told Doris W. 'they've mistaken me for someone else', and when she practiced character assassination against those who rejected her, she knew exactly who she was and what she was doing.

So it comes down to, do you accept that THAT many people were innocently fooled for that long? Not only can I not accept that, there is the factor of some person or persons plotting and masterminding this whole thing, since it WAS false. Yes, I do believe, from all I've seen, that some people did it on purpose. It really wouldn't have worked if somebody hadn't planned and plotted well. If you call this a 'conspiracy' then you have to give that label to both sides, since AA's supporters believe there was an evil plot to discredit AA from the early days when she was denied, identified as FS, fought in court, all the way up to the DNA today. The 'other side' is nothing but conspiracies.

Now, I think of Bigfoot proponents and how there seem to be a lot of people who sincerely believe...they want to believe so much that they end up doing all sorts of things that seem deceptive: cherry-picking evidence, misinterpreting things and demonizing their opponents.

Could that be what happened here? Could her core supporters have wanted to believe in the story so much that they helped manufacture it...confirmation bias is a powerful thing, after all. AA could have simply been delusional, not deceptive.

This is what I personally feel about Peter Kurth's book and his position, as well as a few other AA supporters of today. I believe they believe she was AA and it has led them to resort to those sorts of things you mentioned- in fact they are a perfect description. But I can't say the same for those in the old days who would have known the real Anastasia, those who were deeply involved in the entire case. For it to have gone that far, someone had to know what was going on and be doing things intentionally. There is NO WAY she could have gotten by for 60 years tricking people, she herself was not smart or sane enough to pull that off.

For me, one very glaring thing that stands out against Botkin is that in his book, he described Anastasia has having 'a short flat chin and a large wide mouth.' If you look at pictures, not posed, shadowy ones but clear, face forward ones, you can see that Anastasia had a long, thin face, long, curved chin and a very small, narrow mouth with small thin lips, while AA has the short, flat chin, large, fleshy, shapeless lips and a wide mouth. This sounds a lot like Gleb trying to convince his audience AA looked the same as Anastasia. Since he knew the real Anastasia, he'd have known better. Also remember his book "The Baron's Fancy" written before AA's case took off is very much like what later happened with AA. Planned? In her book, "Romanov Fantasy", Frances Welch alludes heavily to this and I agree.(I do not believe Gleb's daughter, Marina, who instigated and paid for the DNA tests on the intestine knew AA was a fraud or she wouldn't have done it. If he was guilty of fraud, he didn't tell his young daughter what he was doing, and who would? Gleb died in 1969, the tests were done in 1994)

Another really big thing that stands out is that AA's ghostwritten autobiography borrows directly from books written by people who knew the family published in the early 20's,and especially from Robert Wilton's 1920 "Last Days of the Romanovs." Some of the things in that book are directly lifted from that book, though sometimes paraphrased. This proves that the person helping her out writing the book could not use AA's real memories, because she didn't have any.

But of course the biggest blow against AA and her supporters is that the DNA went against them, proving everyone who defended her was either very gullible or had some kind of ulterior motive, mainly financial (the other side accuses the anti-AA camp of the same thing, but now who was right? Thanks to the DNA we know for sure) It was too long, involved and plotted to have been completely innocent.

The last 'mysteries' left in this case are how Franziska did it, who helped, who knew what and when did they know it. I've tried to bring this up for discussion on several boards over the years, but unfortunately it always gets derailed by the AA supporters jumping into the threads with 'what about the ears' and 'but so and so said this' until it turns into just another rehash that causes people to lose interest and go away. Still, I'd love to try to find out.

ChatNoir

24th February 2009, 11:02 AM

Ever consider he just plain realized it wasn't Anastasia, and maybe was a little unnerved at being temporarily tricked, and then wanted to help stop an imposter?Gilliard then wrote a book denouncing AA, and spent the next several decades fighting her in the court case, years after Uncle Ernie was dead.
What is so strange here, is that both Ernie and Gilliard could have travelled to Berlin together and rejected AA out of hand, and the whole thing would have been over. Instead, Ernie spent thousands of dollars fighting her claim, and Gilliard with his collaborator went through all the trouble of writing a book. They even had the photo of FS worked over to heighten the likeness with AA, and they tried to distort some of the stories that AA told in order to make her seem unreliable. Why go through all these machinations? And why was Ernie unwilling to go to Berlin for fear that his visit would end up in the press? Was he that scared by a mere impostor? The whole thing is more than strange. Of course, his fight against AA did not start until Amy Smith brought the news of AA allegedly having seen Ernie in Russia during the war. That pulled the trigger on his campaign, in spite of neither AA, nor Frau Rathlef going public with the claim. The publication was done from Darmstadt, claiming that AA had read about the rumors in the Entente Press.
First, this is from Rathlef, making it authenticity suspect. Second, even if Wingender did accept money for her story, this does not mean it was a lie. Times were hard in postwar Berlin, she had valuable info, why not capitalize? Even today, people get rich selling their stories of famous people to magazines and tabloids. Larry Birkhead, for one, is a millionaire because of telling true tales on Anna Nicole.People also get paid for telling TRUE stories.
So the authenticity is suspect, huh? You better read the court reports from Hamburg where Miss Wingender admits to being paid 1500 marks for identifying FS. That is a fact, so stop dancing around it.
If Irene was 'disturbed' it was because the claimant story always brought back the hurting memories of the fact that her 2 sisters, 4 nieces and a nephew had been brutally murdered by the Bolsheviks. She didn't have any doubts about AA, as you always seem to imply by saying she was 'upset'. Here is the letter you speak of, written on behalf of Irene's husband, Prince Heinrich, to Baron Von Kliest, AA supporter who kept harassing him to give AA another chance:

His Royal Highness has requested me to inform you that he as well as his wife, after the latter's visit to your protegee, have come to the unshakable conviction that she is not a daughter of the Tsar, specifically not Grand Duchess Anastasia. Prince Henry considers the matter as it concerns himself and his wife as cleared up and finally settled and insists that you refrain from the further sending of letters or requests to himself or to the Princess.
I did not refer to the letter to Kleist, but the observations from members of her own family. According to them, Irene would wring her hands and say: "She is like her, she is like her. What if it is her?" Of course, it doesn't matter any more, the DNA has determined that she was not.
Chat, ALL this letter is saying is that Irene saw AA, gave her a chance, declared she was not her niece, it's over, stop bugging us, leave us alone, she's not Anastasia. Anything you assume between the lines about her being distraught over being forced to deny her 'niece' is purely in your imagination.
I have no idea why you figth the true story so vehemently when the last proof is on your side? And this is the umpteenth time that you tell me that things are purely in my imagination. Why are you so afraid of the real story that you have to make up your own?
And I have told you that your 'unpublished' sources are seriously in doubt, and that all the real evidence proves nothing on Bux. (I've already posted it earlier in this thread)
Unpublished? Please explain yourself.
Then was it a grandson? Where do you get that quote 'we always knew it was her' you always use?
I have never used that phrase, and I challenge you to disprove me!
Grand Duke Alexander's grandson was invited by Ian Lilburn to see Anna Anderson in Unterlengenhart. They came unannounced, and as soon as AA saw Alexander's grandson, she ran into the house and shouted through the door: That can only be a descendant of Grand Duke Alexander, I recognize him on his "oceanlike" walk. (AA never met Grand Duke Alexander). Ian Lilburn talked her out from the house, and they had a nice visit together. The grandson found that AA reminded him of his grandmother Xenia and his aunt Irina Yussupov.
Of course, anyone against AA was a 'liar' to you. But don't forget, AA herself was 'caught in the act of lying' as well as most of her supporters when the DNA proved she wasn't Anastasia! (I'll give a small percentage of her supporters the benefit of being just plain gullible instead of liars, but still wrong)
Again, I have named the people who were caught in the act of lying. Whether they supported AA or not, is not important. The fact is that they told lies and cannot be trusted.
Then what happened to AA's famous declaration about 'we'll be okay because there is money in England'? You know very well if everyone knew there was no money there would have been no court case. There did turn out to be no money , but in those days, most people believed there was. A 30 year court case does not drag on when no one hopes to gain financially.
AA never said that. It was her mother, the Tsarina, who told Lili Dehn that "at least we have a fortune in England."
You contradict yourself with this, because your main defense you always use to discredit those who were against AA is that they were paid off/denied her due to money, and that her greedy, heartless relatives turned their backs on her so they could keep the money. Gleb Botkin openly accused them of this in his 1928 letter:
Grand Duke Alexander was the one who stated to The New York Times that AA was trying to cheat him out of the money. Or something to that effect, I am at work without my books for direct quotes. His wife Xenia hit the ceiling when she went to the Bank of England on the tenth anniversary of the death of the Tsar and found any possible accounts blocked. Thus started the trouble between AA and Xenia Leeds.

Your Imperial Highness!

Twenty four hours did not pass after the death of your mother when you hastened to take another step in the conspiracy against your niece...Before the wrong which Your Imperial Highness is committing, even the gruesome murder of the Emperor, his family and my father by the Bolsheviks pales! It is easier to understand a crime committed by a gang of crazed and drunken savages than the calm, systematic, endless persecution of one of your own family, the Grand Duchess Anastasia Nicholaevna, whose only fault is that, being the only rightful heir to the late Emperor, she stands in the way of her greedy and unscrupuous relatives.
And do you know why Botkin wrote this? Obviously not. After 12 members of the family denounced AA as a fraud, the immigration service could have thrown AA out of America on short notice. Therefore Botkin wrote a rebuttal that stopped just short of libel. If Xenia and Alexander sued him for such, AA would be allowed to stay in the country until the case was determined, and if they did not, their accusations were unproven as far as the immigration was concerned.
You can't deny this! It was all about the money, for both sides. AA and her supporters hoping to gain money, the royals trying to stop an imposter from stealing money she was not entitled to because she wasn't Anastasia, as well as parading around acting crazy using the name of their murdered relative. If the real Anastasia had lived, she'd have been openly welcomed and accepted by the family.
AA's supporters had little hope of money. Grand Duke Andrew wrote in his letter to Mr. Kügelgen that there was no money to be found anywhere, and he still supported AA. Gleb Botkin secretly donated all possible proceeds from AA's will to the American Red cross. Her lawyers worked without retainers, so I don't quite understand what supporters were going to gain anything. The Grandanor Corporation, instigated by Edward Fallows, was an attempt to secure him the funds needed for his investigation, and a chance for the investors to be paid off IF there was any money found, but very few wanted to take a chance on the venture, and the corporation failed in raising money. Fallows died pennyless after paying the expenses out of his own pocket.

Franziska

24th February 2009, 11:21 AM

So the authenticity is suspect, huh? You better read the court reports from Hamburg where Miss Wingender admits to being paid 1500 marks for identifying FS.

As I stated, this does not mean it wasn't true. People do get paid for telling true stories, too, and get rich off them from ET and the tabloids. The DNA showed us that AA was FS, therefore, Wingender was telling the truth.

I did not refer to the letter to Kleist, but the observations from members of her own family. According to them, Irene would wring her hands and say: "She is like her, she is like her. What if it is her?"

Yawn, I've seen that one overused too, but when I looked for the original source of it, lo and behold, it was only in an interview with one of her supporters. No proof here! This is just an example of how something so weak and unproveable has found its way into AA lore as 'fact'.

I have never used that phrase, and I challenge you to disprove me!

This is funny because you've challenged me so many times and I have found things you denied saying, but right now I don't have time. Next time I run across it I'll post it.

The grandson found that AA reminded him of his grandmother Xenia and his aunt Irina Yussupov.

Which the real Anastasia did not resemble in the least. That's another thing, some who accepted her never accepted her as "Anastasia" specifically, but 'she reminds me of her Grandmother!' or 'her eyes remind me of Nicky' or 'she raised her hand to be kissed like a true lady of breeding'. This stuff is not a real endorsement since it's not personal.

Again, I have named the people who were caught in the act of lying. Whether they supported AA or not, is not important. The fact is that they told lies and cannot be trusted.

Anything against AA is a 'lie' to you so that's not much. And, Chat, AA was the biggest liar of all.

And do you know why Botkin wrote this? Obviously not. After 12 members of the family denounced AA as a fraud, the immigration service could have thrown AA out of America on short notice. Therefore Botkin wrote a rebuttal that stopped just short of libel. If Xenia and Alexander sued him for such, AA would be allowed to stay in the country until the case was determined, and if they did not, their accusations were unproven as far as the immigration was concerned.

Give it up, Chat, AA's case was about MONEY. Sure he had to hurry and get her out of Germany when she was just about to be declared a fraud. America was a fine new audience, one who wouldn't know any better. He promoted her well and helped her cause.

Gleb Botkin secretly donated all possible proceeds from AA's will to the American Red cross.

No, not 'all possible proceeds'. As I explained earlier in this thread, the Red cross thing was for her WILL only- since she was young at the time that wasn't of much value, just an attempted symbolic gesture by Botkin. He never denounced getting money from her while she was still alive.

Her lawyers worked without retainers, so I don't quite understand what supporters were going to gain anything. The Grandanor Corporation, instigated by Edward Fallows, was an attempt to secure him the funds needed for his investigation, and a chance for the investors to be paid off IF there was any money found, but very few wanted to take a chance on the venture, and the corporation failed in raising money. Fallows died pennyless after paying the expenses out of his own pocket.

Do you really think anyone would have worked without retainers or invested in Grandanor (which stands for GRANd Duchess ANastasia Of Russia) if they knew there would be no payoff? That is complete nonsense. Fallows did not intend to die penniless, and he sure wasn't taking her case just to be nice. Get real.

ChatNoir

24th February 2009, 11:27 AM

This forum tends to consider claims, in particular extraordinary claims, skeptically. But I personally try to avoid discussing the claimants, except when it is necessary to do so in order to evaluate information for which they are the source. It has nothing to do with being fooled.

Back to the historical topic:

So really, if I'm understanding your contention, there was a conspiracy here in some form, involving Rathlef, Gleb, AA, etc. It sounds to me like you are are saying that this wasn't case of mistaken identity on the part of her core supporters...that they must have known the truth. They were supporting the AA = AN story even though they knew it was false.
I have great difficulties to believe that the Botkins knew the truth. With their endless devotion to the Imperial Family, they would never have let anybody take the place of their old playmate. Tatiana Botkin stayed on the sidelines, but never wavered in her belief that AA was AN. "Can't people see what's beforer their eyes?" she would say.
Gleb Botkin met her in May of 1927, still believing that his sister had been wrong. But it was instant recognition from both sides, AA went right over to him, gave him her hand and said:"Oh, how do you do." No fear of being exposed. And Gleb never wavered in his belief. One should think that as much time as she spent with the Botkins that they would have discovered the cracks in her story, but no such thing. When Tatiana said to her one night: "I will help undress you like my father did when you were ill," AA right away answered "Yes, measles". And it was not a known fact that Dr. Botkin performed nurses duties for the girls during their bout with measles. When Tatiana unpacked the little medallion from the hospital in Tsarskoe Selo, AA recognized it right away. Where on earth did she get all this information from?
Now, I think of Bigfoot proponents and how there seem to be a lot of people who sincerely believe...they want to believe so much that they end up doing all sorts of things that seem deceptive: cherry-picking evidence, misinterpreting things and demonizing their opponents.
And we all know that it certainly has been enough of that going around. But what about science? Professors Eyckstedt, Klenke, Reche, Furtmayr and Vanezis all declared AA and AN to have identical faces and identical ears. Graphologists Minna Becker and Lucy Weiszäcker both found the handwritings from the two women to be identical.
Could that be what happened here? Could her core supporters have wanted to believe in the story so much that they helped manufacture it...confirmation bias is a powerful thing, after all. AA could have simply been delusional, not deceptive

Is there a "smoking gun" that proves conspiracy over wishful thinking? I'd also be curious to know ChatNoir's answer to this question.
I have so far seen no real conspiracy, although the original FS story comes rather close.

ChatNoir

24th February 2009, 11:43 AM

As I stated, this does not mean it wasn't true. People do get paid for telling true stories, too, and get rich off them from ET and the tabloids. The DNA showed us that AA was FS, therefore, Wingender was telling the truth.
If Doris Wingender was telling the truth, why did she describe FS as "taller than us (she and her sister), grubby, big boned with black stumps for teeth? Why did she change the time of FS's second visit from spring to "summer"? Simply because Martin Knopf told her that it had to be August, so they compromised and said "summer". Why did she produce doctored photographs to the court? Why did she refuse to take the oath? Why did she run away from the courtroom?
Yawn, I've seen that one overused too, but when I looked for the original source of it, lo and behold, it was only in an interview with one of her supporters. No proof here! This is just an example of how something so weak and unproveable has found its way into AA lore as 'fact'.
Again, why are you so afraid of the real story?
This is funny because you've challenged me so many times and I have found things you denied saying, but right now I don't have time. Next time I run across it I'll post it.
I shall be looking forward to it!
Which the real Anastasia did not resemble in the least. That's another thing, some who accepted her never accepted her as "Anastasia" specifically, but 'she reminds me of her Grandmother!' or 'her eyes remind me of Nicky' or 'she raised her hand to be kissed like a true lady of breeding'. This stuff is not a real endorsement since it's not personal.
See my post about scientists.
Anything against AA is a 'lie' to you so that's not much. And, Chat, AA was the biggest liar of all.
Only the lies that have been exposed. And I have backed up every allegation.
Give it up, Chat, AA's case was about MONEY. Sure he had to hurry and get her out of Germany when she was just about to be declared a fraud. America was a fine new audience, one who wouldn't know any better. He promoted her well and helped her cause.
Gleb did not get AA to America, he had no funds for that. He was approached by Mrs. Derfelden who put him in contact with Xenia Leeds, and it was she who eventually brought AA to New York. And the only one in Germany who wanted AA declared a fraud, was uncle Ernie. The police renewed her papers every year. Gleb definitely was a staunch supporter, but only wrote as much as AA would allow him. She was not fond of publicity, even when it was in her favor.
No, not 'all possible proceeds'. As I explained earlier in this thread, the Red cross thing was for her WILL only- since she was young at the time that wasn't of much value, just an attempted symbolic gesture by Botkin. He never denounced getting money from her while she was still alive.
I think you have to read up on this. Botkin never took a penny from her, and would not in light of the situation have accepted anything.
Do you really think anyone would have worked without retainers or invested in Grandanor (which stands for GRANd Duchess ANastasia Of Russia) if they knew there would be no payoff? That is complete nonsense. Fallows did not intend to die penniless, and he sure wasn't taking her case just to be nice. Get real.

ALL her lawyers worked without retainers, not only Fallows.

ChatNoir

24th February 2009, 12:07 PM

I have several times referred to Andrew's letter to Mr. Kügelgen, so I am posting a copy of it here for you all to see.

Villa Alam, Cap d'Ail, A/M. 8th July, 1928

Mr. P. S. von Kügelgen
Berlin-Zehlendorf,
Kleistrasse 20.

My dear Paul Pavlovich,

In order to obviate the possibility of any misunderstanding whatever, I should like to indicate in general lines the object of my work.
When I began my investigations, it became obvious to me that everything that had hitherto been done had been carried out unsystematically, that no accurate reports existed, and that no one had been inspired by a fixed purpose.

It is perfectly obvious that the question of the "Unknown," as she was called, must be dealt with in such a manner that the first point to be established is whether it was as all probable that one of the Princesses was rescued from Ekaterinburg. Inquiries made with this object in view have yielded no documentary evidence; but it transpired that the rescue of one of the Prencesses was not merely probable, but might almost be regarded as an established fact. The absence of precise information admittedly renders it impossible to treat this hypothesis as proved, and for this reason many people disagree on the point. Nevertheless, facts are known to me which have convinced me, although at the moment I do not feel myself justified in divulging them, since this aspect of the case must be handled very carefully.
The question next arises, whether the "Unknown" sho appeared in Berlin is identical with the Princess. As documentary evidence is lacking, we are forced to content ourselves with the interrogation of the patient herself. chiefly in regard to verifying her recollections. As far as this is concerned, I must state that her reminiscences, so far as I have been able ro examine them, yield a description, clear in every respect, of actual facts. Everything which she recalls is an absolutely accurate description of the life of the Royal Family, including details which have never appeared in the Press. My own opinion is that the things which the patient remembers are such as only the Princess herself could recall.
We next come to a question which has given rise to considerable doubt, whether the "Unknown" resembles the Princess in appearance. I have seen her personally, and was greatly impressed by the striking similarity; I was even more struck by the general family resemblance, which is in some respects of almost greater importance than a personal likeness. My impression was, of course, a personal one, but it was so strong and so convincing that I could come to no other conclusion than that the patient could only be the Princess Anastasia Nikolaevna herself.
All the doubts so far expressed by the Press are completely removed by the scientific and practical results of my investigations. ALthough I was prepared to admit that there might be objections, I have been compelled to regard them as entirely unfounded and unproven. My opinions are confirmed by the similar manner in which these objections have been treated by Duke George von Leuchtenberg.
As regards two other questions, it is absolutely necessary that they should be fully confuted: the first is whether any political influence enters into the case. The reappearance of the Princess can have no political significance, since, in view of the fact that male members of our dynasty survive, her chance of succession is a very remote one. The second question is that of material interests being involved. Long before the "Unknown" appeared, I carefully investigated all the rumours concerning the existence of the millions alleged to have been left by the late Tsar; in every case these rumours proved to be unfounded, as I expected. Unfortunately it has to be borne in mind that this statement is being used as a means of throwing suspicion on all who took any part in my inquiries, by accusing them of being influenced by self-interest and speculative motives.
The object which I undertook when commencing my work is and continues to be the same - to establish the truth, be it what it may. All who have helped me for nearly two years are inspired by the same aims, so that I am grieved and angered by the accusations levelled against them, even more so than by those of which I myself am the victim, The investigation has never deviated from the prescribed methods, and has embraced with equal readiness all material whether favourable or otherwise.

No matter how much time is required, the investigation will be pursued until the truth is established and proved, for it is just as inconceivable that a stranger should claim to be the Princess, as that the Princess herself should be in such a distressing position.
I must not omit to express my gratitude to the German Press for its help in much of my work, and would like to express the hope that in the future it will devote to the matter the same attention and accord the same unbiased treatment, and thus help me to ascertain the truth.

In conclusion, I wish to emphasize the fact that I regard it as my duty to carry my investigations to a conclusion, and that I shall spare myself no labour in my efforts to endure that truth triumphs in the end.
Everyone may rest assured that I shall be the first to admit it, if in the future evidence is produced that I have been mistaken, and that the patient is not the Princess. If, however, proof is forthcoming that I was right, and that she actually is the Princess, it will afford me an extraordinary moral satisfacton that I and all who have so devotedly helped me have fulfilled this duty to the end. This will be the greatest reward for all of us.

Sincerely yours,
Andrew.

----------------

AnastasiaEvidence

24th February 2009, 02:49 PM

[QUOTE=JimBenArm;4458675]It's not a personal attack. I said nothing about you, personally. I said that all the posts about ChatNoir and what they posted were an attempt to poison the well here against him/her. You have a history with ChatNoir elsewhere, and for some reason it's extremely important to you that we not accept what ChatNoir says here because of that.Guilty of what? Not behaving as you want him to? Acting differently here than you've seen? Why is him behaving rationally here a bad thing?
Everyone acts differently in different company. So? All of your sentences in your posts says something that is very offensive and rude. If you can't say anything nice, and it seems all you want to do is try to redicule and make me look foolish. You know very well, it's you who's trying to start trouble.

I never said that him behaving rationally here is a bad thing. Don't pretend like that wouldn't be so surpising that he's acting different here than other forums. It's very obvious, and I've already answered that question. You're to busy telling me off, and acting very immature, instead of staying on-topic. The only thing I'm angry at is Chat making lies about something that's not true.But, it is a bad thing he's lying about never saying that AA was Anastasia. ChatNoir is trying to trick everyone into believing something that's not true. This discussion is about AA's intestine switch NOT ChatNoir.
I don't want to get in a debate.No, that is not what I'm saying. I am saying what you accuse him of is totally irrelevent to the argument here. So, his behaviour elsewhere was rude, awful, blah, blah, blah. It hasn't been here, and that's all that matters. Your histrionics about his behavior elsewhere only reflects poorly on yourself.
Well you're "remarks" proves you know nothing about what has happened, or what I'm trying to say.

Here's a bit piece of advice. Worry about the facts presented here. If ChatNoir is a woo, it will eventually come out. All on its own. Bringing up past grievences from other forums does not do anything except annoy others here.

Take it for what it's worth. I would never take any advice from you. I know that this discussion is only about Anna Anderson's intestine switch. I don't want to argue with you. If you don't agree with me, then that's you. But, here you are trying to ridicule me. Well, as I said before that's your opinion. You don't have the right to tell me what to do. At least I'm being honest here. But, you rather for me to say "Oh, Chat's being fair here, and it doesn't matter if he lied on this forum, it's all okay". I'm tired of people not being honest, and wanting to hide something that's not true especially, if they have been very vexatious.

Do me a favor and leave ME alone. Don't bother me in the future. I don't want to talk to you about any of your preposterous nonsense you're accusing me of. Neither do I want to see anymore of your ridiculous rubbish. Yawn! to all of your posts.

ChatNoir

24th February 2009, 03:42 PM

AA herself was mentally ill and would not even take the stand herself or testify on her own behalf
Of all the doctors who examined her from 1920 up to the time she died, none ever found her mentally ill. For me, one very glaring thing that stands out against Botkin is that in his book, he described Anastasia has having 'a short flat chin and a large wide mouth.' If you look at pictures, not posed, shadowy ones but clear, face forward ones, you can see that Anastasia had a long, thin face, long, curved chin and a very small, narrow mouth with small thin lips, while AA has the short, flat chin, large, fleshy, shapeless lips and a wide mouth. This sounds a lot like Gleb trying to convince his audience AA looked the same as Anastasia
You seem to forget that Gleb Botkin is supported by all the scientists who compared AA's face to that of AN. Even you admit the striking likeness, but excuse it on "posing, biting lips, shading etc. etc." Another really big thing that stands out is that AA's ghostwritten autobiography borrows directly from books written by people who knew the family published in the early 20's,and especially from Robert Wilton's 1920 "Last Days of the Romanovs." Some of the things in that book are directly lifted from that book, though sometimes paraphrased.
And if you check the bibliography list in von Nidda's book you will find that Robert Wilton's book is not among the books listed.
This proves that the person helping her out writing the book could not use AA's real memories, because she didn't have any.
Nobody "helped" her write that book, it was written without her consent and knowledge and borrows heavily from Frau Rathlef and Gleb Botkin.

ChatNoir

24th February 2009, 04:03 PM

AA, unlike most other claimants, did have savvy backers, and good promoters.
Could we please have the names of those "savvy backers, please."
Harriet Rathlef wrote stories about her, and got her so much attention in Berlin that cigarettes and candy were named for her and plays and songs written in her honor.
Actually, to Frau von Rathlef's horror, serialized publication of her book was now scheduled for February 1927 in the Berliner Nachtausgabe, a mass-circulation evening tabloid with a reputation for political provocation and rabble-rousing. She could not have chosen a more unsuitable forum. (Kurth)
Another thing in her favor is that she picked up the backing of people who had actually known the Romanovs, so she had the advantage of inside information other claimants didn't have.
Again, may we have some names, please.
They had the intimate, yet limited, knowledge of the royal family and their private lives to help her with her 'memories' (in fact when AA was asked to go stay with the Duke of Leuchtenberg, she refused to go without Tatiana Botkin. Her 'Cyrano' perhaps?) Also, Gleb had the creativity and imagination to create and perpetuate such a fairy story. John Godl's online article, which also points a finger at Botkin, says he was 'cunning' and intentionally used AA for fame and possible fortune.
I think you forget that AA's memories were chronicled by Frau Rathlef long before the Botkins entered the scene.
Gleb's uncle was the head of the Russian Emigre' society in Berlin, and that was the group that sent people to see the 'unknown woman' claiming to be Anastasia.
Neither Serge Botkin nor his deputy, Baron Osten-Sacken, ever went so far as to proclaim openly his faith in Anastasia's identity. "Practically no one among the Russian refugees believes in her," wrote a man who spoke with Botkin about Anastasia, "but, as he says, it is because they do not know her."
The sheer numbers of Russians means there was a literal goldmine of info that could have been tapped for 'memories' and other 'astounding' information on the royals and pre revolutionary Russia. One theory I heard is that she took what she learned from one emigre to impress another.
The problem with this theory, is that the Imperial Family lived such a intensely private life, and with so many of their closest servants and connections killed in the revolution, not many people knew much about the daily life of the Tsar and his family.

Franziska

24th February 2009, 08:38 PM

You seem to forget that Gleb Botkin is supported by all the scientists who compared AA's face to that of AN. Even you admit the striking likeness, but excuse it on "posing, biting lips, shading etc. etc."

No, Chat, I do not see any resemblance. I am only pointing out how most of the pictures who are supposed to look like her are posed that way, use props to hide the parts of her face that don't match, and how she sucks in those huge, thick, wide lips because she had to know they looked nothing like Anastasia. The way she changed from her pre-claim days to her post-claim glamour makeover is to me more proof someone deliberately coached her. I'm also saying, if others think they see some resemblance they are being fooled by the poses.

The problem with this theory, is that the Imperial Family lived such a intensely private life, and with so many of their closest servants and connections killed in the revolution, not many people knew much about the daily life of the Tsar and his family.

So please tell me, if no one who lived knew anything about the family, who could verify if what she said was right or wrong? Again you contradict yourself.

Also, what is the point of this recent onslaught of postings I do not have time to answer, as I just got off work and am very tired. Go on, tell us why you did it, if it's not to try to show that AA was Anastasia?

Franziska

25th February 2009, 07:43 AM

Instead of getting into a quote matching war with you again, I'm going to try a new tactic and just ask you to explain something: IF there was no money, and everyone knew there was no money, why the 30+ year court case? Why were the relatives greedy and unscrupulous? Why were they fighting this imposter? I know if I ask why she was fighting if not for money, you'd say 'her name her identity', because that's what you always say. But please, explain why, if there was no money, anyone would be trying to keep her from that 'identity?' By taking this approach, you defeat your own defense that she was only lied on and denied by a bunch of greedy relatives who wanted to take her money. So now tel us Chat, what is the story?

That is question #2

question one was the one I asked you last night

So please tell me, if no one who lived knew anything about the family, who could verify if what she said was right or wrong? Again you contradict yourself.

Please answer these two burning questions for us.

ChatNoir

25th February 2009, 10:29 AM

No, Chat, I do not see any resemblance. I am only pointing out how most of the pictures who are supposed to look like her are posed that way, use props to hide the parts of her face that don't match, and how she sucks in those huge, thick, wide lips because she had to know they looked nothing like Anastasia. The way she changed from her pre-claim days to her post-claim glamour makeover is to me more proof someone deliberately coached her. I'm also saying, if others think they see some resemblance they are being fooled by the poses.
When we look at the snap-shots throught her life, we all know that she did not have any "glamour makeover." The few really nice portraits of her from New York were taken by a professional photographer.
So please tell me, if no one who lived knew anything about the family, who could verify if what she said was right or wrong? Again you contradict yourself.
I did not say that no one were left, only that very few people knew anything from the private lives of the Imperial Family. Frau Rathlef, who knew nothing of the Tsar's family, relied on Pierre Gilliard up till January 1926 when he all of a sudden stopped all correspondence and turned against her. She would also find certain documentation in books that would come out some time after AA had made a statement and confirm that she was correct. An interesting example is the following: When Amy Smith went to Darmstadt to ask Ernie to come to Berlin at the request of AA, she met with count Hardenberg. During the conversation, she stated that AA had talked about Anya Virubouva as an intimate friend of the Tsarina. Hardenberg said that the name was completely unknown to him. He then phoned Madeleine Zanotti, a former lady in waiting to the Tsarina, and asked her if Anya was a friend of the Empress. The answer was no. Later, Ernie read Amy Smith's papers, and confirmed that he knew about Viroubova, but the given name was wrong, it should have been Anna, and she was never an intimate friend of his sister. Later, the Tsarina's diaries were published, and they proved AA right.
Also, what is the point of this recent onslaught of postings I do not have time to answer, as I just got off work and am very tired. Go on, tell us why you did it, if it's not to try to show that AA was Anastasia?
It is only to show that you do not check the facts before you post. Nothing of this makes AA into a Grand Duchess, but I do at least try to stay within the script.

ChatNoir

25th February 2009, 10:41 AM

Instead of getting into a quote matching war with you again, I'm going to try a new tactic and just ask you to explain something: IF there was no money, and everyone knew there was no money, why the 30+ year court case?
The court case was about AA's identity. It dragged out a long time due to the war. Because of the war, a lot of damage was done to the material. Then her American lawyer died, and his daughter refused to release his papers to the courts since her father did not get paid, and a lot of evidence got lost. The Danish Royal Family confiscated Herluf Zahle's files, and are still unwilling to release them. The case was then appealed twice after the first verdict, but ended non liquet. Her claim was neither refuted, nor confirmed.
Why were the relatives greedy and unscrupulous?
The only ones who seem to have been in it for the money, were Xenia and Alexander.
Why were they fighting this imposter?
Seems like they took her very seriously.
I know if I ask why she was fighting if not for money, you'd say 'her name her identity', because that's what you always say. But please, explain why, if there was no money, anyone would be trying to keep her from that 'identity?' By taking this approach, you defeat your own defense that she was only lied on and denied by a bunch of greedy relatives who wanted to take her money. So now tel us Chat, what is the story?
The story is, as you know, that the main opposition came from Darmstadt, and was later carried on by the Mountbattens. It all started with AA's claim that she saw Ernie in Russia in 1916. And, of course, Barbara of Mecklenburg was the butt of the suit, since the lawyers wanted to keep the case in Germany. If you really read Peter Kurth, you should remember all of this.

Franziska

25th February 2009, 10:48 AM

When we look at the snap-shots throught her life, we all know that she did not have any "glamour makeover." The few really nice portraits of her from New York were taken by a professional photographer.

Isn't that what 'glamour shots' are? I'm saying there is a DRASTIC difference from the mugshot and the pics taken in the asylum before her claim kicked into gear and the ones in the late 20's after she took up with Gleb do not look like the same person. One of the main differences is, the lips are carefully sucked in or the entire lower face disguised with props such as the feather boa.

I did not say that no one were left, only that very few people knew anything from the private lives of the Imperial Family.

So, if there were people who knew, there were people who could tell. (and write books)

Later, the Tsarina's diaries were published, and they proved AA right.

No, not AA, because she wasn't Anastasia. Whomever was 'right' was the person/persons who gave AA the info.

Nothing of this makes AA into a Grand Duchess

They why are you doing it? If you're only 'interested in the story' why not tell the other side, or a mixture of both? But no, you're always in AA's favor.

The court case was about AA's identity.

As I stated in my previous post, what does the 'identity' mean with no money, and why would relatives fight so hard an expensive and aggravating battle for over 30 years just to stop a person from having their 'identity?' No, it had to be money. Also, you still obviously believe that the relatives 'knew' she was Anastasia and fought her anyway. WHY would they do that, if she was the real thing? At least the 'money' theory gives it a reason, this leaves NONE, no point at all. Let's see, a 30 year trial just to deny someone their identity, even though, according to what you allude to here (and have openly stated many times elsewhere) they knew she was their 'niece?' Please give a GOOD reason WHY anyone would do this, if not for money. You aren't making much sense.

The only ones who seem to have been in it for the money, were Xenia and Alexander.

Then praytell what were the others after? And why would Olga A. back up a sister she didn't even speak to because of an argument over their mother's jewels she got partially stiffed out of? Why would the Mountbattens care? Why would Barbara Mecklenberg care? Again you aren't making a lot of sense.

Seems like they took her very seriously.

So here again, you allude that they believed she was Anastasia. So, again, WHY fight her if there was no money? And why would anyone hate/fight a real Anastasia, especially if she couldn't take the (nonexistent) throne and, as you claim, wanted no money? Illogical, Mr. Spock would say.

The story is, as you know, that the main opposition came from Darmstadt, and was later carried on by the Mountbattens.

Yes, I do know, but some here may not. I am not asking who did it, I'm asking you why they'd do it, costing them so much time, money and stress, if the claim was not about money? You STILL seem to be saying these relatives were out to stop AA because they thought she was Anastasia. WHY would they do that and why would it matter?

It all started with AA's claim that she saw Ernie in Russia in 1916.

Yes you use this a lot, like Ernie had to 'shut her up' and disprove her because she had this 'damaging' information. However, this is unrealistic since there is no proof the trip ever took place, there was a book out in 1922 alleging the trip, so it was no secret. Don't forget Ernie died in 1937, as did his wife and all but one heir, who died together in a plane crash. So why would the case carry on another 30+ years after he was dead? Not making sense, again. Seems there would have to be a much larger motive, say, money?

And, of course, Barbara of Mecklenburg was the butt of the suit, since the lawyers wanted to keep the case in Germany.

She was the Granddaughter of Irene, and the real Anastasia was dead before she was born. So why would she fight this person who claimed to be her long dead cousin, just to keep her from having her 'identity'? Please, this doesn't add up.

ChatNoir

25th February 2009, 11:01 AM

Why does the real story get you so riled up?
And as for the photos of AA, we have to remember that from 1920 until 1927, the woman went through some very serious illnesses. She was missing her front teeth, and the one side of her mouth was paralyzed. This is probably why the photographer chose to hide it with the boa in one of his photos. But the bone structure does not change, and this is what scientists use in identification. And regardless of who AA was, all the serious studies of her face came to the same result: She was identified as Anastasia. Of course, a facial study from photos does not override a DNA test. But it is still interesting to see how much alike those two ladies were.

Franziska

25th February 2009, 11:29 AM

Why does the real story get you so riled up?

You mean, your version of the 'real story.' Why do you feel the need to continually post about it? ANY of it?

And as for the photos of AA, we have to remember that from 1920 until 1927, the woman went through some very serious illnesses. She was missing her front teeth, and the one side of her mouth was paralyzed. This is probably why the photographer chose to hide it with the boa in one of his photos.

You guess. Or it could be because she and/or her backers were trying to disguise features that did not resemble Anastasia.

But the bone structure does not change,

No, it doesn't, and that is why AA's wide face with wide jaws and a short, flat chin was nothing like Anastasia's long, thin face and long, curved chin.

and this is what scientists use in identification. And regardless of who AA was, all the serious studies of her face came to the same result: She was identified as Anastasia.

"All the serious"? You mean, one by a discredited Nazi and one guy using a pencil and ruler on some faded photos? The most modern, high tech 'serious' facial comparison came from Geoffrey Oxlee in 1994, using computers. He declared AA was Franziska Schanzkowska.

Of course, a facial study from photos does not override a DNA test.

Then why keep trying to use it?

But it is still interesting to see how much alike those two ladies were.

They weren't much alike at all, really. And if you're so 'interested' let's see you post some 'interesting' items that do not favor AA.

Leaving for work now, and I really do have a job. Gone 'til 11-11:30 PM EST, don't expect any more from me until then.

ChatNoir

25th February 2009, 11:33 AM

They why are you doing it? If you're only 'interested in the story' why not tell the other side, or a mixture of both? But no, you're always in AA's favor.
The "other side" is the DNA, which settles the whole thing. Pardon me if I still find the story interesting.
As I stated in my previous post, what does the 'identity' mean with no money, and why would relatives fight so hard an expensive and aggravating battle for over 30 years just to stop a person from having their 'identity?' No, it had to be money. Also, you still obviously believe that the relatives 'knew' she was Anastasia and fought her anyway. WHY would they do that, if she was the real thing? At least the 'money' theory gives it a reason, this leaves NONE, no point at all. Let's see, a 30 year trial just to deny someone their identity, even though, according to what you allude to here (and have openly stated many times elsewhere) they knew she was their 'niece?' Please give a GOOD reason WHY anyone would do this, if not for money. You aren't making much sense.
You also have to remember, that if she had been Anastasia, she knew all the skeletons in the closets.
Then praytell what were the others after? And why would Olga A. back up a sister she didn't even speak to because of an argument over their mother's jewels she got partially stiffed out of? Why would the Mountbattens care? Why would Barbara Mecklenberg care? Again you aren't making a lot of sense.
Olga did not join the court battle, she was only called in to testify. The Mountbattens? Well, that you have to ask them about. Barbara Mecklenburg was just "picked out of a hat" in order to keep the trial in Germany. She had, among others, received a small amount of the Tsar's money that was found in Germany, and the suit was a formal demand that she returned the money to its rightful owner.
So here again, you allude that they believed she was Anastasia. So, again, WHY fight her if there was no money? And why would anyone hate/fight a real Anastasia, especially if she couldn't take the (nonexistent) throne and, as you claim, wanted no money? Illogical, Mr. Spock would say.
Yes, it is all very strange.
Yes, I do know, but some here may not. I am not asking who did it, I'm asking you why they'd do it, costing them so much time, money and stress, if the claim was not about money? You STILL seem to be saying these relatives were out to stop AA because they thought she was Anastasia. WHY would they do that and why would it matter?
I have asked myself that question many times: Why didn't Olga, Gilliard, Irene, Ernie, Xenia et al just pay another visit to AA and reject her out of hand? It would have been so much easier.
Yes you use this a lot, like Ernie had to 'shut her up' and disprove her because she had this 'damaging' information. However, this is unrealistic since there is no proof the trip ever took place, there was a book out in 1922 alleging the trip, so it was no secret.
No, it was no secret. After AA had made her claim, and Darmstadt had taken it public, the witnesses came out of the woodwork, the one after the other. Don't forget Ernie died in 1937, as did his wife and all but one heir, who died together in a plane crash. So why would the case carry on another 30+ years after he was dead? Not making sense, again. Seems there would have to be a much larger motive, say, money?
Or maybe they all believed AA when she stated that there was a dowry in an English bank for the four Grand Duchesses. As I have said before, Xenia and Alexander seem to have believed that there was money to be had.

ChatNoir

25th February 2009, 11:45 AM

You mean, your version of the 'real story.' Why do you feel the need to continually post about it? ANY of it?
No, not "my" version, but the version of those who were there when it happened.
You guess. Or it could be because she and/or her backers were trying to disguise features that did not resemble Anastasia.
Well, if you look at the two other glamour shots available, you will see that her entire face is showing, twisted mouth and all.
No, it doesn't, and that is why AA's wide face with wide jaws and a short, flat chin was nothing like Anastasia's long, thin face and long, curved chin.
For those of you who wonder what the two women looked like, go to http://peterkurth.com/ANNA-ANASTASIA%20NOTES%20ON%20FRANZISKA%20SCHANZKOWSKA. htm and take a look at all the photos there.
"All the serious"? You mean, one by a discredited Nazi and one guy using a pencil and ruler on some faded photos?
No, I mean the Nestor of modern German Anthropology who for a year studied the case and took new photos of AA under the same angles and light conditions as the old photos of Anastasia. And if he was so discredited (a claim you have not till now been able to justify), why would the German courts select him as their foremost expert?
The most modern, high tech 'serious' facial comparison came from Geoffrey Oxlee in 1994, using computers. He declared AA was Franziska Schanzkowska.
Yes, he did. With one single photo of AA and one single (unauthenticated) photo of FS, taken from slightly different angles. Not exactly scientific. Later, also using very sophisticated equipment, Dr. Peter Vanezis together with several other scientists showed that the ears of AA and AN were identical, as were their faces. But then again, even this cannot override a DNA test, it only shows again how much alike these two women were.
They weren't much alike at all, really. And if you're so 'interested' let's see you post some 'interesting' items that do not favor AA.
Would the DNA do?

neltana

25th February 2009, 02:43 PM

During the conversation, she stated that AA had talked about Anya Virubouva as an intimate friend of the Tsarina. Hardenberg said that the name was completely unknown to him. He then phoned Madeleine Zanotti, a former lady in waiting to the Tsarina, and asked her if Anya was a friend of the Empress. The answer was no. Later, Ernie read Amy Smith's papers, and confirmed that he knew about Viroubova, but the given name was wrong, it should have been Anna, and she was never an intimate friend of his sister. Later, the Tsarina's diaries were published, and they proved AA right.

According to Edvard Radzinsky in "The Rasputin File," Anna Viroubova was well know, even notorious, before and after the revolution. I think the book has a political cartoon that includes both her and Rasputin and there were rumors that she had "undue influence" over the Tsarina.

She was notorious enough, I believe, that her counterfeit diaries were published around 1927...after this account, to be true. However, not hard to understand how somebody got a hold of this information. Hardenberg might not have known who it was, but many others did.

Just throwing this out there....

ChatNoir

25th February 2009, 02:59 PM

neltana

25th February 2009, 04:18 PM

Neltana, I wholly agree with you. This happened in 1925, and it is incredible that Hardenberg did not know who Anya was. And even more so that Madeleine Zanotti said that the she was no friend of the Tsarina. Ernest of Hesse knew the name, but stated that miss Viroubova was no intimate friend of the Empress. On the other hand, Frau Rathlef had no idea of who Anya was, so maybe the story was not so well known outside Russia.

I've read literally ones of books on the subject, so I'm quite an expert. Couldn't say how well known she was in Germany in the 1920s...apparently not well enough. I suppose, given the rumors of exactly how close she was to the Tsarina, perhaps they just pretended they didn't recognize the name. She was kind of a "skeleton in the closet," at least as far as some were concerned.

That's the problem with history. People aren't always fully forthcoming in their accounts. Sometimes the best we can do is determine who said what when, document our sources, draw inferences and then wait for someone to tell us we're wrong!

ChatNoir

25th February 2009, 04:52 PM

As for Madeleine Zanotti, she was also the one who stated that the plaster casts of AA's feet did not at all look like the feet of Anastasia, although she must have known of the Hallus Valgus that the Grand Duchess suffered from. Maybe she knew what side her bread was buttered on and just gave the answers that she thought Ernest of Hesse would want....

JimBenArm

25th February 2009, 07:22 PM

All of your sentences in your posts says something that is very offensive and rude. If you can't say anything nice, and it seems all you want to do is try to redicule and make me look foolish. You know very well, it's you who's trying to start trouble. All of my sentences are offensive and rude? Want to back that up with some actual proof? Point out where I've been rude. If I've been offensive, report me to the moderators. Otherwise, stop with the histrionics already. And I don't know what kind of trouble I'm starting by asking you to not be abusive towards another member of this forum. I have restrained from reporting your obnoxious behaviour only because you are new here. Continue it, and not only will I continue to point it out, I will report you to the moderating team. That is a promise.

I never said that him behaving rationally here is a bad thing. Don't pretend like that wouldn't be so surpising that he's acting different here than other forums. It's very obvious, and I've already answered that question. You're to busy telling me off, and acting very immature, instead of staying on-topic. The only thing I'm angry at is Chat making lies about something that's not true.But, it is a bad thing he's lying about never saying that AA was Anastasia. ChatNoir is trying to trick everyone into believing something that's not true. This discussion is about AA's intestine switch NOT ChatNoir. Yes, it is about that. Yet you seemed to want everyone to care more about what was said elsewhere than in this thread. Why? Because ChatNoir didn't stick to the script you'd written? Why focus on him? You are the one obsessed with making sure everyone thinks a certain way about him. Is he evil? Did he poison your dog? Is he the one from the grassy knoll? What exactly makes you so obsessive about making sure everyone hates him?
I don't want to get in a debate.Too late! You're in one now! And losing quite badly!
Well you're "remarks" proves you know nothing about what has happened, or what I'm trying to say. All I can go by is what you write here. Sorry, I don't read minds. Try Uri Geller or Sylvia Browne for that.

I would never take any advice from you.
Well, there's your problem right there! No wonder you're having problems!
I know that this discussion is only about Anna Anderson's intestine switch. I don't want to argue with you.
Then don't.
If you don't agree with me, then that's you. But, here you are trying to ridicule me.
No, you're doing a fine job, all on your own. No help from me needed.
Well, as I said before that's your opinion. You don't have the right to tell me what to do.
As a matter of fact, this is a free speech country, so I can tell you what to do. Whether you do it or not is up to you.
At least I'm being honest here.
Who accused you of being dishonest? Disingenious, unfair, more-than-a-little touchy, maybe. But dishonest? Nah.
But, you rather for me to say "Oh, Chat's being fair here, and it doesn't matter if he lied on this forum, it's all okay". I'm tired of people not being honest, and wanting to hide something that's not true especially, if they have been very vexatious.No, what I want you to do is act like an adult. Try it sometime.

Do me a favor and leave ME alone. Don't bother me in the future.
But you're my new bestest friend! How could I leave you alone?
I don't want to talk to you about any of your preposterous nonsense you're accusing me of.
Show me where I'm wrong.
Neither do I want to see anymore of your ridiculous rubbish.
Better close your eyes!
Yawn! to all of your posts.
Yeah. That's why you posted all this. Because it didn't bother you. You're funny!:wackytwitcy:
Sorry. You just aren't ready for a big person forum. Try again, when you grow up some.

Toodles! I'm sure I'll be mocking you more later!

Franziska

25th February 2009, 09:12 PM

She was notorious enough, I believe, that her counterfeit diaries were published around 1927...

Forget her fake diaries. Anna wrote a book of her own memoirs, "Memories of the Russian Court", published in 1923. It has also been a good source for AA and her supporters to draw upon for 'memories.'

Franziska

25th February 2009, 09:13 PM

Maybe she knew what side her bread was buttered on and just gave the answers that she thought Ernest of Hesse would want....

There you go again, claiming people against AA were paid off by Uncle Ernie:rolleyes:

ChatNoir

25th February 2009, 09:20 PM

Forget her fake diaries. Anna wrote a book of her own memoirs, "Memories of the Russian Court", published in 1923. It has also been a good source for AA and her supporters to draw upon for 'memories.'
Yes, and according to AA, she read it (in English) at Schloss Seeon in 1927.

ChatNoir

25th February 2009, 09:21 PM

There you go again, claiming people against AA were paid off by Uncle Ernie:rolleyes:
And exactly where did I say that Madeline Zanotti was "paid off" by Uncle Ernie?

Franziska

25th February 2009, 09:28 PM

No, not "my" version, but the version of those who were there when it happened.

You add your own slant on everything. And other 'people who were there' say a lot of different things, but of course, you say they were all paid off by Uncle Ernie. Strange, the nobility lost most of their money after WWI, the guy and most of his family died in 1937, and the palace was destroyed by Allied bombing in WWII, yet you believe his influence carried on for decades. This doesn't make any sense.

Well, if you look at the two other glamour shots available, you will see that her entire face is showing, twisted mouth and all.

For those of you who wonder what the two women looked like, go to http://peterkurth.com/ANNA-ANASTASIA%20NOTES%20ON%20FRANZISKA%20SCHANZKOWSKA. htm and take a look at all the photos there.

Oh yes, those are the lip biters and shadowy, grainy ones I'm talking about that are supposed to make them look alike at first glance, but look more closely. Take a look at a more objective and face forward view, and you'll see AA and Anastasia did not look alike at all.

http://freewebs.com/anna-anderson/photographiccomparisons.htm

why would the German courts select him as their foremost expert?

Chat the trial took place originally in the Nazi years, and during the 50's the old Nazi anthropologists were still around. We also don't know that some of them were not 'paid off' with promises of money if AA won. Hey, you accuse the other side of being 'paid off' but since the AA side was wrong, sure looks a lot more like they were the ones who may have been 'paid off.' Anyway the DNA disproves her being Anastasia so what's your point?

Yes, he did. With one single photo of AA and one single (unauthenticated) photo of FS, taken from slightly different angles. Not exactly scientific.

Chat you have no idea what you're talking about. Oxlee is a very respected and famous British forensics specialist who has been awarded by British military intelligence and is used as an expert witness by the British courts. His work is very professional and respected. You don't know that he used only one picture, just because that's all that was shown on the TV show. But his 1994 computer tests were the most modern and high tech ever done on the pictures, and he found AA and Franziska to be the same person, just like the DNA.

Later, also using very sophisticated equipment, Dr. Peter Vanezis together with several other scientists showed that the ears of AA and AN were identical, as were their faces.

No one ever said 'identical', they just said a good match, however, the pictures were old, black and white and grainy. NO face test was done by that team, you are incorrect to make that statement.

Franziska

25th February 2009, 09:32 PM

And exactly where did I say that Madeline Zanotti was "paid off" by Uncle Ernie?

Right here:

Originally Posted by ChatNoir View Post
Maybe she knew what side her bread was buttered on and just gave the answers that she thought Ernest of Hesse would want....

Even if she was only paid in bread and butter, you still imply here her views on the subject were influenced by Ernie. Again, you use the excuse that people would have accepted AA but were paid off/influenced/intimidated out of accepting her by those greedy relatives!

Yes, and according to AA, she read it (in English) at Schloss Seeon in 1927.

"According to AA" means nothing, since the woman lived a LIE for decades and was therefore dishonest. The book was available in 1923 so you cannot prove that one of her supporters did not have earlier access. Consider that she did not have to read these books herself, she could have been told things in the books by other people.

ChatNoir

25th February 2009, 09:49 PM

You add your own slant on everything. I do? Then please give me some examples, or stop lying.
And other 'people who were there' say a lot of different things, but of course, you say they were all paid off by Uncle Ernie.
Names, please. And the only ones that we KNOW were paid by Ernie, were the employees at Scherl Press.
Strange, the nobility lost most of their money after WWI, the guy and most of his family died in 1937, and the palace was destroyed by Allied bombing in WWII, yet you believe his influence carried on for decades. This doesn't make any sense.
As I already have said, the Mountbattens carried on the legacy.
Oh yes, those are the lip biters and shadowy, grainy ones I'm talking about that are supposed to make them look alike at first glance, but look more closely. Take a look at a more objective and face forward view, and you'll see AA and Anastasia did not look alike at all.
I will not argue this point with you, the experts have spoken.
Chat the trial took place originally in the Nazi years, and during the 50's the old Nazi anthropologists were still around. We also don't know that some of them were not 'paid off' with promises of money if AA won.
And who is insinuating "payoffs" here?
Hey, you accuse the other side of being 'paid off' but since the AA side was wrong, sure looks a lot more like they were the ones who may have been 'paid off.' Anyway the DNA disproves her being Anastasia so what's your point?
Again, I am not accusing the "other side" of being paid off. Stop these accusations, or I will report you to the moderators.
Chat you have no idea what you're talking about. Oxlee is a very respected and famous British forensics specialist who has been awarded by British military intelligence and is used as an expert witness by the British courts. His work is very professional and respected. You don't know that he used only one picture, just because that's all that was shown on the TV show. But his 1994 computer tests were the most modern and high tech ever done on the pictures, and he found AA and Franziska to be the same person, just like the DNA.
He only used ONE photo of FS which is unauthenticated and he never had a chance to see her profile or her ears. The whole thing is VERY unscientific.
No one ever said 'identical', they just said a good match, however, the pictures were old, black and white and grainy. NO face test was done by that team, you are incorrect to make that statement.
A match of 5 out of 5 is identical.

ChatNoir

25th February 2009, 09:51 PM

Even if she was only paid in bread and butter, you still imply here her views on the subject were influenced by Ernie. Again, you use the excuse that people would have accepted AA but were paid off/influenced/intimidated out of accepting her by those greedy relatives!
And why did she apparently lie on both occasions? We know that she was employed by the House of Hesse.
"According to AA" means nothing, since the woman lived a LIE for decades and was therefore dishonest. The book was available in 1923 so you cannot prove that one of her supporters did not have earlier access. Consider that she did not have to read these books herself, she could have been told things in the books by other people.
Well, in that case we have to assume that she spoke and read English already in 1923.

Franziska

26th February 2009, 08:18 AM

I do? Then please give me some examples, or stop lying.

I have, already, repeatedly, in this very thread. This is a perfect example of why the threads you're in go in circles, go on for dozens of pages repeating themselves, and are eventually shut down by frustrated mods.

As I already have said, the Mountbattens carried on the legacy.

Would you please explain what 'legacy' this was, and why, if money was not an issue, and they truly believed AA to be Anastasia, would they fight in court for 30 years to deny her? This doesn't make sense, but, course, it's not the true story, which was that it was about money and they did not believe in her.

I will not argue this point with you, the experts have spoken.

They certainly have. Oxlee and his modern facial comparisons, and the DNA scientists. AA was FS.

And who is insinuating "payoffs" here?

I don't deny it at all. I'm trying to show you that if anyone was 'paid off' it was AA's side, since they were the ones who turned out to be wrong.

Again, I am not accusing the "other side" of being paid off. Stop these accusations, or I will report you to the moderators.

Oh yes you are. Go ahead, when I have more time I'll gladly dig out all the quotes and posts that prove me right, you've done it here alone enough times to prove it, not to mention hundreds of times elsewhere. I'll only need the ones here.

He only used ONE photo of FS which is unauthenticated and he never had a chance to see her profile or her ears. The whole thing is VERY unscientific.

Oh Chat, you have no idea what you are talking about! Oxlee is one of the leading experts in the world on facial fusion, and his work is accepted in high courts and by military intelligence. It's a very highly respected and accurate procedure. His tests were far more high tech and precise than the old ruler-and-pencil ones done by your Nazis. Here's more on Oxlee and his work:

http://www.kalagate.co.uk/staffgeoff.htm

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:OsEYy4K6xlwJ:www.ablen.com/hosting/imagefusion/news/ImageFusion2003conference-uk.pdf+%22oxlee+image+fusion%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

A match of 5 out of 5 is identical.

It wasn't 5 out of 5 it was a score of 5. Are you saying this, blurry b&w pics, some grainy, some using Maria instead, some backwards, means as much as DNA? Do you think this is of equal value and deserves equal consideration? I hope not, because you'd be wrong.

And why did she apparently lie on both occasions? We know that she was employed by the House of Hesse.

There you go again, how is this NOT an assumption/leading statement that the person was 'paid off by Ernie?'

Well, in that case we have to assume that she spoke and read English already in 1923.

No, we don't. We can just as easily assume someone read it to her, or someone read it and told her about its contents. Witnesses have told us that in 1925 she knew or understood no English until she was coached (Olga A., Felix Y., Sophie B., Dmitri L., all of whom you call 'liars'.) The book was also published in other languages.

ChatNoir

26th February 2009, 08:53 AM

I have, already, repeatedly, in this very thread. This is a perfect example of why the threads you're in go in circles, go on for dozens of pages repeating themselves, and are eventually shut down by frustrated mods.
No, you have not. You are just going in circles without managing to back up your accusations.
Would you please explain what 'legacy' this was, and why, if money was not an issue, and they truly believed AA to be Anastasia, would they fight in court for 30 years to deny her? This doesn't make sense, but, course, it's not the true story, which was that it was about money and they did not believe in her.
If they did not believe in her, all Ernie had to do, was to confront her face to face and tell her that she was not his niece, something he refused to do.
They certainly have. Oxlee and his modern facial comparisons, and the DNA scientists. AA was FS.
Yes, based on an unauthenticated, blurry black and white photo. Funny how an old photo all of a sudden becomes so useful......
I don't deny it at all. I'm trying to show you that if anyone was 'paid off' it was AA's side, since they were the ones who turned out to be wrong.
And as usual, you cannot back up your allegations.
Oh yes you are. Go ahead, when I have more time I'll gladly dig out all the quotes and posts that prove me right, you've done it here alone enough times to prove it, not to mention hundreds of times elsewhere. I'll only need the ones here.
Then go ahead and prove it, or I will call you a liar.
Oh Chat, you have no idea what you are talking about! Oxlee is one of the leading experts in the world on facial fusion, and his work is accepted in high courts and by military intelligence. It's a very highly respected and accurate procedure. His tests were far more high tech and precise than the old ruler-and-pencil ones done by your Nazis. Here's more on Oxlee and his work:
Are you calling Professors Furtmayr, Eyckstedt, Klenke and Vanezis Nazis? Do you know what libel is?
It wasn't 5 out of 5 it was a score of 5. Are you saying this, blurry b&w pics, some grainy, some using Maria instead, some backwards, means as much as DNA? Do you think this is of equal value and deserves equal consideration? I hope not, because you'd be wrong.
Her right ear got a 5 on a scale from 1 to 5. Her left ear got a 4 due to the photos not taken from the exact same angle.
There you go again, how is this NOT an assumption/leading statement that the person was 'paid off by Ernie?'
Being employed and "paid off" are two entirely different things.
No, we don't. We can just as easily assume someone read it to her, or someone read it and told her about its contents. Witnesses have told us that in 1925 she knew or understood no English until she was coached (Olga A., Felix Y., Sophie B., Dmitri L., all of whom you call 'liars'.) The book was also published in other languages.
And who read it to her? Clara Peuthert? The Bachmanns? Frau Rathlef? None of them spoke English. And what witness told us that she knew or understood no English in 1925? Again, I repeat: Conrad Wahl remembered "die kranke Dame" as someone who spoke "more English than German" in 1922-23. Professor Rudnev stated that she "raved in English" during anesthesia at the Mommsen Clinic in 1925. Bella Cohen states that she answered "Yes" when she asked her in English if she liked flowers. Frau Rathlef states that in Lugano, AA met an English woman aboard a boat on the lake. She spoke English with the woman, and also took down several pages of dictation, but made some spelling mistakes. Now I would like to hear YOUR witnesses.

ChatNoir

26th February 2009, 08:54 AM

And, oh yes, please show me the post where I call Buxhoeveden, Olga and Felix liars. Thank you.

Franziska

26th February 2009, 09:01 AM

And, oh yes, please show me the post where I call Buxhoeveden, Olga and Felix liars. Thank you.

Do you believe and accept what they said about AA? NO.

Do you go out of your way to post excuses as to why they were against her or not telling the truth about her? YES.

You need to learn, Chat, that a post doesn't have to say "GILLIARD IS A LIAR" (though you've said that openly as well) When you disagree with what a person said, and go out of your way to prove that they were not being honest, and even give reasons and ulterior motives why you discredit their word (such as 'she knows what side her bread is buttered on') this is the same as calling them a liar. Same with your 'paid off' allusions.

Franziska

26th February 2009, 09:10 AM

No, you have not. You are just going in circles without managing to back up your accusations.

How about going back rereading the thread?This is something you will never do. I am still not sure if you are doing this to play games, or if your memory is that bad, but you've been doing this to me for years now.

If they did not believe in her, all Ernie had to do, was to confront her face to face and tell her that she was not his niece, something he refused to do.

Did you ever consider that Ernie could tell from a picture that she was nothing like his niece? Or that the denial of his sister Irene was enough for him? He didn't want to give the faker any more value or publicity.

Yes, based on an unauthenticated, blurry black and white photo. Funny how an old photo all of a sudden becomes so useful......

It's the bone structure and position of features he tested, it's not the same as the blurred lines in the twists of a person's ear in a blurry, enlarged photo.

And as usual, you cannot back up your allegations.

You don't even bother to read my posts.

Then go ahead and prove it, or I will call you a liar.

Chat, unlike you, I have a job and other things to do than to go back through all the old posts picking things out and reposting them because you're too lazy to see them. Anyone who's been reading this thread has already seen them. You're just playing games again.

Are you calling Professors Furtmayr, Eyckstedt, Klenke and Vanezis Nazis? Do you know what libel is?

Reche was a Nazi, I'm not sure about the others, however, their methods are now outmoded and proven wrong by more modern, higher tech tests such as the facial fusion and the DNA, so, game over.

Being employed and "paid off" are two entirely different things.

But don't you imply that the person would always do what their employer wanted in order to remain employed? You have cast doubt on people and their word using Ernie's financial backing as an excuse for it. Same thing.

And who read it to her? Clara Peuthert?[/quote]

There were half a million Russian refugees in Berlin in 1920. Many came to see AA. Could be a lot of people. I'm not saying it happened, but there was the opportunity.

Frau Rathlef states that in Lugano,

Frau Rathlef was a big promoter of AA. Dmitri L. tells us that it was in Lugano that she received her first English lessons.

ChatNoir

26th February 2009, 09:47 AM

Do you believe and accept what they said about AA? NO.
Do you go out of your way to post excuses as to why they were against her or not telling the truth about her? YES.
You need to learn, Chat, that a post doesn't have to say "GILLIARD IS A LIAR" (though you've said that openly as well) When you disagree with what a person said, and go out of your way to prove that they were not being honest, and even give reasons and ulterior motives why you discredit their word (such as 'she knows what side her bread is buttered on') this is the same as calling them a liar. Same with your 'paid off' allusions.

What I do, is stick to the script. And if I find out that somebody's testimony is incorrect, or has changed over time, I point it out. I have pointed out the people who were obviously lying. As for Olga, her version of the story changed very much over the years, but I don't know if the fiction was written by Vorres or not. Baroness von Buxhoeveden mentions nothing of her betrayal in her book, and quite frankly, one would not expect her to. But if you want to call these two liars, then by all means, go ahead.
Madeleine Zanotti showed great ignorance about Anya Viroubova and Anastasias Hallux Valgus. Had she no clue? Was she helping Ernie? The reason is unclear. But if you want to call her a liar too, go right ahead.

ChatNoir

26th February 2009, 10:14 AM

How about going back rereading the thread?This is something you will never do. I am still not sure if you are doing this to play games, or if your memory is that bad, but you've been doing this to me for years now.
Again, all you have to do, is to show my post(s) here, if you can.
Did you ever consider that Ernie could tell from a picture that she was nothing like his niece? Or that the denial of his sister Irene was enough for him? He didn't want to give the faker any more value or publicity.
The real reason was, according to Amy Smith and Frau Rathlef, that he was afraid the news of his visit would end up in the press. Count Hardenberg said of the photo of AA: Funny, she does not look like Anastasia, nor Tatiana, but a mixture of the two.
It's the bone structure and position of features he tested, it's not the same as the blurred lines in the twists of a person's ear in a blurry, enlarged photo.
Yes, that must have been very accurately done from two photos taken from slightly different angles.
Chat, unlike you, I have a job and other things to do than to go back through all the old posts picking things out and reposting them because you're too lazy to see them. Anyone who's been reading this thread has already seen them. You're just playing games again.
And who has told you that I am unemployed? I am writing this from my office in Los Angeles. You have a way of making up stories, don't you!
Reche was a Nazi,
And if I remember correctly, your beloved uncle Ernie died in one of Göring's planes.......
I'm not sure about the others, however, their methods are now outmoded and proven wrong by more modern, higher tech tests such as the facial fusion and the DNA, so, game over.
So you are calling Dr. Peter Vanezis' methods outmoded and proven wrong? May we know by whom?
But don't you imply that the person would always do what their employer wanted in order to remain employed? You have cast doubt on people and their word using Ernie's financial backing as an excuse for it. Same thing.
As i have said: Uncle Ernie was allegedly paying The Scherl Press (Nachtausgabe, Fritz Lucke) 20,000 or 25,000 DM. He also paid detective Martin Knopf per Grand Duke Andrew. And thats all! Got it?
There were half a million Russian refugees in Berlin in 1920. Many came to see AA. Could be a lot of people. I'm not saying it happened, but there was the opportunity.
Yes, there was opportunities for a lot of things. But I prefer to stick to the things that are known.
Frau Rathlef was a big promoter of AA. Dmitri L. tells us that it was in Lugano that she received her first English lessons.
Yes, Frau Rathlef got the story out there. And AA did read English in Lugano. And wrote it as well. As Faith Lavington said: It is very clear that she knows English very well, the trouble is to get her to speak. When Agnes Gallagher picked her up for her trip to America, she was informed that AA spoke little and no English. But on board the "Berengaria" AA started to speak English, and by the time she landed in New York, she spoke nothing else. (Kurth)

Franziska

26th February 2009, 10:45 AM

What I do, is stick to the script.

Yes you sure do, and that's why you always repeat yourself and disregard everything everyone else said.

Again, all you have to do, is to show my post(s) here, if you can.

Again, I already have, especially in the 'x' marked items and the part about the 'bread and butter.' I have to be at work at 3, and have lots to do. Lucky you if you have nothing better to do than to read every single post on every page just to try to appease someone.

Yes, that must have been very accurately done from two photos taken from slightly different angles.

No, angles distort things. You need two face forward pictures. I trust Mr. Oxlee, an award winning specialist, knew exactly what he was doing. All I have to do is look to see AA is FS.

And who has told you that I am unemployed? I am writing this from my office in Los Angeles. You have a way of making up stories, don't you!

YOU are the one making up stories, you've told several, none of which I believe. Don't even bother to go there, this isn't about you.

And if I remember correctly, your beloved uncle Ernie died in one of Göring's planes.......

You do not. Ernie died in his bed. It was his wife, son, daughter in law and grandchildren who died in the crash. Hey maybe AA sabotaged the plane! And set off the bomb that killed Mountbatten! And cut the brake lines of Gilliard's car so he'd crash after leaving her trial in 1958! Oooh rich with conspiracy!

So you are calling Dr. Peter Vanezis' methods outmoded and proven wrong? May we know by whom?

I was confused because you spelled his name wrong. However, he did not ever declare his ear tests meant anything in AA's identity and certainly does NOT endorse AA being AN. He did NO face tests, you are wrong on that one.

As i have said: Uncle Ernie was allegedly paying The Scherl Press (Nachtausgabe, Fritz Lucke) 20,000 or 25,000 DM. He also paid detective Martin Knopf per Grand Duke Andrew.

What about Gilliard? And the foot cast lady?

And AA did read English in Lugano. And wrote it as well.

That was where she took lessons.

As Faith Lavington said:

And later said that AA's reaction to Doris Wingender was that of someone she knew and disliked, and that the FS picture looked like AA.

ChatNoir

26th February 2009, 11:21 AM

YOU are the one making up stories, you've told several, none of which I believe. Don't even bother to go there, this isn't about you.
Somehow it seems to me that you are spending a lot of time making this about me......
I was confused because you spelled his name wrong. However, he did not ever declare his ear tests meant anything in AA's identity and certainly does NOT endorse AA being AN. He did NO face tests, you are wrong on that one."Fueling the flames were the results of tests done by Dr. Peter Vanesis, who was conducting a study for a British documentary film based on photographs of the face and ears of Grand Duchess Anastasia and Anna Anderson. He delivered his report with "100% certainty" that Anna Anderson was Anastasia" From "Wikipedia talk".
What about Gilliard? And the foot cast lady?
Again, I have repeatedly stated that the financial dealings between Gilliard and Ernie are unclear, if there were any. Madeleine Zanotti was in the employ of the House of Hesse. Got it?
That was where she took lessons.
And what was the name of her teacher again?
And later said that AA's reaction to Doris Wingender was that of someone she knew and disliked, and that the FS picture looked like AA.
How would Faith Lavington know about AA's reaction to Doris Wingender? She was not present, the Duke of Leuchtenberg was the only witness. According to him, it was clear that the two ladies had never seen each other before. The photo of FS used by the Nachausgabe, was the very, very retouched one where they even gave her earrings for good measure.

Franziska

26th February 2009, 08:54 PM

"Fueling the flames were the results of tests done by Dr. Peter Vanesis, who was conducting a study for a British documentary film based on photographs of the face and ears of Grand Duchess Anastasia and Anna Anderson. He delivered his report with "100% certainty" that Anna Anderson was Anastasia" From "Wikipedia talk".

Oh Chat! I can't believe you used Wiki talk as a source! It's mostly just a bunch of fighting and ranting, mainly yours! That incorrect statement is not in the article anymore since Dmitri had it proven inaccurate and taken out. I know where you got it, Kurth's "Tsar" book, but sorry, his statement is FALSE. Watch the NOVA special, no one said anything about 100% certainty, and certainly did not say AA was Anastasia! The book also says face tests proved her to be AN but there were no face tests in that show other than Oxlee's which proved her to be FS. The book also falsely goes onto say the same tests were repeated in the US with the same results. Again FALSE. Get your facts straight!

Again, I have repeatedly stated that the financial dealings between Gilliard and Ernie are unclear, if there were any. Madeleine Zanotti was in the employ of the House of Hesse. Got it?

Sure, I get it, you believe anyone who denied AA was a liar, and/or paid off by somebody. You believe anyone working for Ernie was taking bribes to lie against AA and deny her as Anastasia when really (in your mind) she was. But sorry, she wasn't, and all those people, even Ernie, were right to deny her.

And what was the name of her teacher again?

Most likely Lavington. Dmitri Leuchtenberg knew all about it, maybe we can find more of his personal papers and look into it.

How would Faith Lavington know about AA's reaction to Doris Wingender? She was not present, the Duke of Leuchtenberg was the only witness. According to him, it was clear that the two ladies had never seen each other before.

According to Lavington, they obviously had. She WAS there, read Frances Welch, pages 133-134:

Anna did not receive Doris (Wingender) very graciously, pointing and shrieking "that must go out!" in German as she (Doris) entered the room. One of the attendants, an English governess named Faith Lavington, wrote in her diary that she found Anna's reaction extremely suspicious. "One would hardly treat an unknown person in such a fashion. 'Anastasia' did not even seem to trouble about the two men (Detective and reporter) she concentrated entirely on the woman."

page 134, about the picture:

One of the Duke's daughters confessed to Lavington that though she had accused the detective of faking the photo (of FS), her heart sank because the likeness (to AA) was unmistakable.

The photo of FS used by the Nachausgabe, was the very, very retouched one where they even gave her earrings for good measure.

Yawn and ho hum, you always say this. You still haven't gotten the message that by saying it was 'retouched' to look like AA you actually shoot yourself in the foot and defeat your own point, because the picture DOESN'T LOOK LIKE ANASTASIA! Therefore, AA doesn't look like Anastasia!(she looks like FS)

ChatNoir

27th February 2009, 07:37 AM

Oh Chat! I can't believe you used Wiki talk as a source! It's mostly just a bunch of fighting and ranting, mainly yours! That incorrect statement is not in the article anymore since Dmitri had it proven inaccurate and taken out. I know where you got it, Kurth's "Tsar" book, but sorry, his statement is FALSE. Watch the NOVA special, no one said anything about 100% certainty, and certainly did not say AA was Anastasia! The book also says face tests proved her to be AN but there were no face tests in that show other than Oxlee's which proved her to be FS. The book also falsely goes onto say the same tests were repeated in the US with the same results. Again FALSE. Get your facts straight!
And where are your facts to back up your rantings? Besides, I am talking about an English documentary, not the NOVA program here in the USA.
Sure, I get it, you believe anyone who denied AA was a liar, and/or paid off by somebody. You believe anyone working for Ernie was taking bribes to lie against AA and deny her as Anastasia when really (in your mind) she was. But sorry, she wasn't, and all those people, even Ernie, were right to deny her.
Is there anything else that I believe? You seem to be very much informed on this subject.
Most likely Lavington. Dmitri Leuchtenberg knew all about it, maybe we can find more of his personal papers and look into it.
I don't think Lavington went to Lugano to give English dictation.
According to Lavington, they obviously had. She WAS there, read Frances Welch, pages 133-134:
Anna did not receive Doris (Wingender) very graciously, pointing and shrieking "that must go out!" in German as she (Doris) entered the room. One of the attendants, an English governess named Faith Lavington, wrote in her diary that she found Anna's reaction extremely suspicious. "One would hardly treat an unknown person in such a fashion. 'Anastasia' did not even seem to trouble about the two men (Detective and reporter) she concentrated entirely on the woman."
And here is the story as told by the Duke of Leuchtenberg who was there as the only witness:
"The invalid, who on this day did not feel at all well, and had to keep her bed, did not know what to make of the stranger's visit, and her unexplained appearance in her bedroom aroused in her nothing but genuine and very natural astonishment. As the strange person seemed to her uncongenial and unsympathetic, she said, "Please, that must go out!" When this did not at once take place, she repeated her words, whereupon the Wingender woman very decidedly and without hesitation left the room. It was not much otherwise with the visit of Mr. Knopf, whose obviously quite incomprehensible remarks about greeting from the Shantskovski family the invalid met with silent bewilderment. Finally, the visitors went once more into the invalid's room, without me as a witness, she having consented to this at my request, wretched though she was. Even the man Knopf described her to us afterwards, appropriately, as 'a litle heap of misery.' This confrontation, too, had no other result. It, to, hardly lasted for more than two minutes. The invalid was very much disturbed by the appearance of the strange people, who were obviously not congenial to her, as she always was by strangers' visits; but she did not understand anything. I had difficulty in giving the affair a semblance of probability and making it plausible to her. She was mainly disappointed, for I had announced the people as acquaintances, for whom she had prepared herself readily. I must confess that this confrontation, which was so decisively to substantiate the apparently irrefragable case of Nachtausgabe, made on me an invevitable impression that there was here something fundamentally wrong." (The Duke of Leuchtenberg's notes.)
From Gleb Botkin's book:
"So Knopf came here with some prostitute from Berlin, and she gave one look at 'the Little One,' and shrieked: 'She is Francisca!' Whereupon Knopf demanded her surrender. You should have seen my kindly husband then! He got so scared that he came to me and said: 'Well, we have to deliver her to Knopf. What else can we do? I cannot break my word of honor.' Then I told him: 'I'll show you what else we can do!' And I called Knopf and the prostitute into the hall, threw open the entrance door, and said sharply to them: 'Get out! And if I see any of you anywhere near my castle, I'll have you arrested and thrown into jail.' You should have seen them run!

page 134, about the picture:

One of the Duke's daughters confessed to Lavington that though she had accused the detective of faking the photo (of FS), her heart sank because the likeness (to AA) was unmistakable.
The photo used by Nachtausgabe was retouched to the hilt to make it look like AA.
Yawn and ho hum, you always say this. You still haven't gotten the message that by saying it was 'retouched' to look like AA you actually shoot yourself in the foot and defeat your own point, because the picture DOESN'T LOOK LIKE ANASTASIA! Therefore, AA doesn't look like Anastasia!(she looks like FS)
The photo was supposed to look like AA, not Anastasia.

Franziska

27th February 2009, 07:46 AM

And where are your facts to back up your rantings? Besides, I am talking about an English documentary, not the NOVA program here in the USA.

Watch NOVA's "Anastasia: Dead or Alive." It's all there. What English documentary? I have asked you to provide name and details of this alleged other program for years, you have not, therefore I must assume it does not exist. (and BTW, NOVA was an English documentary!)

I don't think Lavington went to Lugano to give English dictation.

But we don't know that. When you think through it, it makes perfect sense. Why would they bring in an English governess for AA, a grown woman? It seems highly possible she was being used as an English teacher. We do know she was having AA read nursery rhymes, perhaps this was a way of teaching her English. Why else would Lavington be there? Ever think of that? Her diary may reveal the truth about this situation. Since Welch managed to access it, maybe we can do the same.

And here is the story as told by the Duke of Leuchtenberg who was there as the only witness:

He was NOT the only witness. Apparently, there were several people there, including Lavington,(her diary states that she was, and her diary is the source used by Welch. She obtained the diary from the Ian Lilburn collection) the detective, reporters, the Duke's adult children and who knows who else? Here is the official story:

Massie, page 180, account of a writer for the paper:

... Mrs. Tchiakovsky (AA) faced with charges of assuming a false identity, had no choice. According to a writer for the Berlin Nachtausgabe, who was present with Martin Knopf, this is what happened:

The witness, Fr. Doris Wingender, enters the room. Franziska Schanzkowska lies on the divan, her face half covered with a blanket. The witness has barely said 'good day' before FS jerks up and cries in a heavily accented voice "That THING must get out!" The sudden agitation, the wild rage in her voice, the horror in her eyes, leave no doubt, she has recognized Wingender.

Wingender stands as if turned to stone. She has immediately recognized the lady on the divan as FS. That is the same face she saw day after day for four years. That is the same voice, the same nervous trick with the handkerchief, that is the same Franziska Schanzkowksa.

The photo used by Nachtausgabe was retouched to the hilt to make it look like AA.

If you're talking about the earring one, it was not a photo but an artists' rendition. It did not look more like AA, in fact it looked a lot less like her than the photo. But the photo looks exactly like her.

The photo was supposed to look like AA, not Anastasia.

But, but but--- AA was supposed to be Anastasia, so shouldn't a picture of AA look like Anastasia?

Cuddles

27th February 2009, 08:12 AM

What an odd thread.:boggled:

neltana

27th February 2009, 09:51 AM

At least it's an energetic one!

Watch NOVA's "Anastasia: Dead or Alive." It's all there. What English documentary? I have asked you to provide name and details of this alleged other program for years, you have not, therefore I must assume it does not exist. (and BTW, NOVA was an English documentary!)

A lot of NOVA material is done in partnership with BBC productions. I suspect that ChatNoir is referring to this one:

The Mystery of Anastasia
Peninsula Films for Channel Four
Produced and directed by Julian Nott
Channel Four, 5 October 1994

The Nova documentary Anastasia—Dead or Alive was first broadcast in October of 1995 and lists Julian Nott as a co-producer. Thus, it is likely that they share some of the same content and focus.

Franziska, this might be why it sounds like ChatNoir is talking about the NOVA documentary but insists he is not.

ChatNoir

27th February 2009, 09:54 AM

Thank you, Neltana, you saved me a lot of digging.

ChatNoir

27th February 2009, 10:03 AM

Watch NOVA's "Anastasia: Dead or Alive." It's all there. What English documentary? I have asked you to provide name and details of this alleged other program for years, you have not, therefore I must assume it does not exist. (and BTW, NOVA was an English documentary!)
See Neltana's post.
But we don't know that. When you think through it, it makes perfect sense. Why would they bring in an English governess for AA, a grown woman? It seems highly possible she was being used as an English teacher. We do know she was having AA read nursery rhymes, perhaps this was a way of teaching her English. Why else would Lavington be there? Ever think of that? Her diary may reveal the truth about this situation. Since Welch managed to access it, maybe we can do the same.
I am at work, and I don't have my books with me. But I think Faith Lavington had been the governess to the Leuchtenberg's children. She did coach AA in English for a short time, the ladies then had a falling out, and did not speak for the rest of AA's time at Seeon.
He was NOT the only witness. Apparently, there were several people there, including Lavington,(her diary states that she was, and her diary is the source used by Welch. She obtained the diary from the Ian Lilburn collection) the detective, reporters, the Duke's adult children and who knows who else? Here is the official story:
Yes, dear, he was. Why would Lavington be in the room? She and AA were not on speaking terms. They all heard the story from the Duke afterwards.

Massie, page 180, account of a writer for the paper:

... Mrs. Tchiakovsky (AA) faced with charges of assuming a false identity, had no choice. According to a writer for the Berlin Nachtausgabe, who was present with Martin Knopf, this is what happened:

The witness, Fr. Doris Wingender, enters the room. Franziska Schanzkowska lies on the divan, her face half covered with a blanket. The witness has barely said 'good day' before FS jerks up and cries in a heavily accented voice "That THING must get out!" The sudden agitation, the wild rage in her voice, the horror in her eyes, leave no doubt, she has recognized Wingender.

Wingender stands as if turned to stone. She has immediately recognized the lady on the divan as FS. That is the same face she saw day after day for four years. That is the same voice, the same nervous trick with the handkerchief, that is the same Franziska Schanzkowksa.

No need to go to Massie for this one, it was reproduced in Peter Kurth's book many years earlier. And what kind of story do you expect from a paper that was paid very generously from the Grand Duke of Hesse? The really interesting part here is that Die Nachtausgabe very carefully avoided any confrontation between AA and any members of the Schanzkowski family, they only relied on a paid witness.
If you're talking about the earring one, it was not a photo but an artists' rendition. It did not look more like AA, in fact it looked a lot less like her than the photo. But the photo looks exactly like her.
Yes, dear, it is the alleged photo of FS, retouched very heavily.
But, but but--- AA was supposed to be Anastasia, so shouldn't a picture of AA look like Anastasia?
No, AA was FS according to the DNA, therefore it is very strange that they had to retouch the photo to heighten the resemblance to AA.

Franziska

27th February 2009, 09:07 PM

At least it's an energetic one!

A lot of NOVA material is done in partnership with BBC productions. I suspect that ChatNoir is referring to this one:

The Mystery of Anastasia
Peninsula Films for Channel Four
Produced and directed by Julian Nott
Channel Four, 5 October 1994

The Nova documentary Anastasia—Dead or Alive was first broadcast in October of 1995 and lists Julian Nott as a co-producer. Thus, it is likely that they share some of the same content and focus.

Franziska, this might be why it sounds like ChatNoir is talking about the NOVA documentary but insists he is not.

What I am looking for is PROOF that anyone said 'with 100% certainty' that AA was Anastasia due to those ear tests. I have not seen this at all. I own a copy of the NOVA show. The only facial tests were done by Oxlee and he found her a match for FS. There were NO other set of tests repeated in the US that said according to face and ears AA was AN. None of this is true, though it is often claimed by Chat. I want proof of this, and I am sure it will not be found.

In fact, I suspect the show you mention may even be the same thing as the NOVA special. Last year, the National Geographic special showed in the US under the name "Finding Anastasia" and under a different name in Britain, though it was exactly the same show.

Franziska

27th February 2009, 09:20 PM

I am at work, and I don't have my books with me.

You say this a lot though the work line is getting very old. Guess you're not a butler after all, since they don't have offices and sit at desks. That was just one of your stories, you make up quite a few.

Yes, dear, he was. Why would Lavington be in the room? She and AA were not on speaking terms. They all heard the story from the Duke afterwards.

I have offered you proof that she was there. Are you calling her a liar? It was in her diary, a place not meant to brag to the public or influence anyone, but was only seen after her death by a recent writer, Welch. What reason would she have to lie? And maybe their 'falling out' happened AFTER the Doris incident, when Faith lost faith.

And what kind of story do you expect from a paper that was paid very generously from the Grand Duke of Hesse?

Here we go with all the 'paid off by Ernie' conspiracies again. Yawn.

a paid witness.

According to Welch, Doris was only to be paid IF AA could be proven to be FS. When she first contacted them with her story that she recognized AA as FS, they apparently didn't believe her and wanted to prove it first. Doesn't sound like a set up, does it?

Yes, dear, it is the alleged photo of FS, retouched very heavily.

No, AA was FS according to the DNA, therefore it is very strange that they had to retouch the photo to heighten the resemblance to AA.

Again, Chat, you cannot see that you shoot your own foot off by claiming the picture was retouched to look like AA BECAUSE IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE ANASTASIA and if AA was Anastasia the picture would look like her! Whoever is in that FS picture, she looks exactly like AA, and nothing like Anastasia. And for the record, it was only enhanced to emphasize features and clarify, not change appearance.

ChatNoir

27th February 2009, 10:10 PM

You say this a lot though the work line is getting very old. Guess you're not a butler after all, since they don't have offices and sit at desks. That was just one of your stories, you make up quite a few.
I am, as I have told you on other boards, a corporate, executive butler. I have my own office, my own computer, and a LOT of free time on my hands. Ah, life can be so beautiful..........
I have offered you proof that she was there. Are you calling her a liar?
No, my dear, I have Francis Welch's garbage book also, and there is nothing in Faith Lavington's diary that shows that she was in the room.
And maybe their 'falling out' happened AFTER the Doris incident, when Faith lost faith.
Yes, you are right, their falling out seems to have happened in October, a long time after the Franzisca incident.
Here we go with all the 'paid off by Ernie' conspiracies again. Yawn.
Yawn all you want, and then read the announcement from Spengruber.
According to Welch, Doris was only to be paid IF AA could be proven to be FS. When she first contacted them with her story that she recognized AA as FS, they apparently didn't believe her and wanted to prove it first. Doesn't sound like a set up, does it?
Let's look at the FS story again. Doris Wingender entered Fritz Lucke's office with the words: I have some information about your Anastasia, what's it worth to you?
It turned out that she had "recognized" Franzisca from a photo that was little more than a smudge of ink, a white blob with two black circles for eyes and another where mouth was supposed to be. "Why", said judge Bäthge, "from that you could recognize anybody or nobody."
But the Nachtausgabe did not have much time, Lucke remembered. "We were under pressure...What could we do?" Doris Wingender was under contract promised to be paid 1,500 DM upon identifying AA as FS, and also procuring a document showing that FS had moved to a new address on March 9th. That document was never produced, but Miss Wingender swore that the woman she saw at Seeon was FS. Martin Knopf, in the meantime, contacted Anna Wingender, and was allegedly given the clothes that FS had left behind on her visit in 1922. The Kleists identified the clothing as belonging to AA, according to Knopf, and this was reported in the Nachtausgabe, in spite of the fact that Baroness Kleist signed a notarized affidavit to the fact that the story in the Nachtausgabe was false. And what happened to the clothing, a valuable piece of evidence? It simply vanished. Later in court, Miss Wingender produced two photos, one of herself, and another one of AA, both apparently wearing the same suit. It turned out that the suits were not identical, and one photo had a belt and buttons drawn in after the fact.
Again, Chat, you cannot see that you shoot your own foot off by claiming the picture was retouched to look like AA BECAUSE IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE ANASTASIA and if AA was Anastasia the picture would look like her! Whoever is in that FS picture, she looks exactly like AA, and nothing like Anastasia. And for the record, it was only enhanced to emphasize features and clarify, not change appearance.
As far as enhancement goes, please to to PeterKurth.com and look at the "three faces of Franzisca", then decide for yourselves.

ChatNoir

27th February 2009, 10:14 PM

What I am looking for is PROOF that anyone said 'with 100% certainty' that AA was Anastasia due to those ear tests.
I am sure that Channel Four can provide you with a copy.
I have not seen this at all. I own a copy of the NOVA show. The only facial tests were done by Oxlee and he found her a match for FS. There were NO other set of tests repeated in the US that said according to face and ears AA was AN. None of this is true, though it is often claimed by Chat. I want proof of this, and I am sure it will not be found.
The NOVA program was produced in Boston.

Franziska

28th February 2009, 08:22 AM

Ah, life can be so beautiful..........

No comment...

No, my dear, I have Francis Welch's garbage book also, and there is nothing in Faith Lavington's diary that shows that she was in the room.

So you are calling Faith and Welch liars?

Let's look at the FS story again. Doris Wingender entered Fritz Lucke's office with the words: I have some information about your Anastasia, what's it worth to you?

So what? I'm sure the guy who took the pictures of Britney Spears shaving her head contacted people to sell them, too, but he sure didn't make it up. You need to realize that people do sell TRUE information, valuable information. She needed the money. Her wanting money for it does not in the least bit mean she was lying. Really, it shows more that it was true, she held the key and wanted to cash in. Who wouldn't? Times were hard in Berlin.

I have also addressed the versions of the pictures on my site, first thing. It's still AA/FS. You try so desperately to dream and explain away and get rid of FS, but sorry, she was your AA. You really are very silly to try to discount the reality of AA being FS now that the DNA has proved this to be true.

I am sure that Channel Four can provide you with a copy.

The NOVA program was produced in Boston.

Chat, you never mentioned the program from the other persons' post so you obviously don't know a thing about it, or its contents. It is highly possible that it is the same program as the American one, and it has a different name. You can't put this off that easy, Chat. You made some very serious claims you cannot prove, and the burden of proof is on YOU. PROVE Vanesis ever said AA was AN, PROVE he did face tests, and PROVE other tests were done in the US. You cannot, because they do not exist and there is no record of them. I have dug through every search engine on the web, none of that stuff is ever mentioned, and if you can't prove it does, it doesn't.

Franziska

28th February 2009, 10:14 AM

As if this is going to help, or stop Chat's rants, the DNA results have now been peer reviewed and published. All of the royal children died in 1918 and are accounted for:

http://www.physorg.com/news154788736.html

http://story.russiaherald.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/871e5a31f6912bb3/id/471534/cs/1/

http://www.genomeweb.com/sequencing/dna-tests-confirm-remains-russian-royals-killed-during-revolution

ChatNoir

28th February 2009, 11:45 AM

So you are calling Faith and Welch liars?
No, I am calling Welch's book a garbage book, and I am not seeing anything in Faith Lavington's diary that mentions her being in the room when the confrontation took place. Please READ my posts!
She needed the money. Her wanting money for it does not in the least bit mean she was lying. Really, it shows more that it was true, she held the key and wanted to cash in. Who wouldn't? Times were hard in Berlin.
Yes, times were hard. And maybe that's why Doris Wingender changed the time from FS's visit from spring to August. "Knopf said it had to be August, so we compromised and said 'summer'." AA was, as usual when she ran away from the Kleist's, staying with Clara Peuthert, something miss Peuthert later testified to. So the whole Franzisca story was one big lie from one end to the other.
I have also addressed the versions of the pictures on my site, first thing. It's still AA/FS. You try so desperately to dream and explain away and get rid of FS, but sorry, she was your AA. You really are very silly to try to discount the reality of AA being FS now that the DNA has proved this to be true.
And I have no problem with the DNA, which, however, has not proven AA to be FS, just having a connection to Carl Maucher's maternal relatives.
Chat, you never mentioned the program from the other persons' post so you obviously don't know a thing about it, or its contents. It is highly possible that it is the same program as the American one, and it has a different name. You can't put this off that easy, Chat. You made some very serious claims you cannot prove, and the burden of proof is on YOU. PROVE Vanesis ever said AA was AN, PROVE he did face tests, and PROVE other tests were done in the US. You cannot, because they do not exist and there is no record of them. I have dug through every search engine on the web, none of that stuff is ever mentioned, and if you can't prove it does, it doesn't.
I must confess it has been a long time since I saw this on TV, so let's go to page 160-161 in Klier and Mingay and see what they have to say about this:
The judges appointed the anthropological expert, Professor Otto Reche. He visited Anna in Unterlengenhardt, took exact measurements of her face, studied hundreds of photographs, dismissed all the earlier reports and ended his investigation with the words:
'The general conclusion is therefore: proof that Frau Anderson is the Grand Duchess Anastasia.' His study concentrated on the width of the cheekbones in relation to the face and to the lower jaw, and the height and width of the eyesockets and of the forehead.
These tests echo the more modern comparison using computer technology, employed by Geoffrey Oxley, who compared the faces of Anna Anderson and Franziska Schanzkowska in this way for Julian Nott's television programme on Anna Anderson, shown on Britain's Channel 4 on 5 October 1994 as The Mystery of Anastasia. He came to the conclusion that they were probably one and the same person.
Julian Nott commissioned Professor Peter Venezis (sic), Regius Professor of Forensic Medicine at Glasgow University, who also assists the police in identification work, to make a comparative study of Anna's ears with those of the Grand Duchess. A team of five people looked 'completely blind' at a number of pictures portraying Anna Anderson, Grand Duchess Anastasia and others. They were not told who they were trying to match as they submitted the various images to a video superimposition technique imprinted on computer monitors. There was one dissident in the team who did not agree, but four members matched Anna's ears with those of the Grand Duchess.
'There was a remarkable similarity,' said Venezis. 'I wanted to give them a 5 [the highest match] but I couldn't because they were taken at different angles. We were also looking at vastly dissimilar ages.' Venezis is merely the last in a long line of scientists to confirm that if Anna is an impostor, then she is a very lucky one. In the absence of fingerprints and, until recently, DNA evidence, ears were considered the best scientific test available. The similarity of Anna's ears to those of the Grand Duchess is no longer disputed.

Only one thing here: I clearly remember from the program that the right ear was given a 5, a perfect match, and the left was given a 4 due to the different angle.

ChatNoir

28th February 2009, 11:47 AM

Franziska

28th February 2009, 09:13 PM

I am just trying to stick to the facts.

Then why don't you?

ChatNoir

1st March 2009, 08:17 AM

Then why don't you?

??????

Franziska

1st March 2009, 09:09 AM

neltana

1st March 2009, 10:50 AM

What you post are not 'facts' but cherry-picked commentary we cannot prove as 'fact', combined with your own personal slant on things (e.i. 'she knew what side her bread was buttered on, we all know he was on Ernie's payroll, etc.)

The real facts are the DNA evidence. That's all we need.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090225132526.htm

That is all we need if we are only interested in determining whether or not AA was Anastasia. It sounds like ChatNoir is more interested in looking at the possible motivations behind both sides of the debate. These seem legitimate historical questions.

We know which side ended up being right, of course. But it doesn't logically follow from this result that every proponent of AA was a liar or a fool and every opponent of AA was a dispassionate lover of truth.

If ChatNoir's purpose in pointing out the ear and facial similarities is to argue that some of the AA proponents may have been in earnest, I think there may be something to it...especially when we consider the confirmation biases of the folks involved here. Sometimes it only takes one piece of supporting evidence to get people to overlook scads of contradictory stuff.

ChatNoir

1st March 2009, 02:04 PM

ChatNoir

1st March 2009, 02:10 PM

That is all we need if we are only interested in determining whether or not AA was Anastasia. It sounds like ChatNoir is more interested in looking at the possible motivations behind both sides of the debate. These seem legitimate historical questions.

We know which side ended up being right, of course. But it doesn't logically follow from this result that every proponent of AA was a liar or a fool and every opponent of AA was a dispassionate lover of truth.

If ChatNoir's purpose in pointing out the ear and facial similarities is to argue that some of the AA proponents may have been in earnest, I think there may be something to it...especially when we consider the confirmation biases of the folks involved here. Sometimes it only takes one piece of supporting evidence to get people to overlook scads of contradictory stuff.
Actually, I came here to answer another poster, and right away miss Franzisca attacked. My purpose is only to look at the story the way it happened, without injecting my personal opinion too much, and back it up with whatever sources I can find. And when we know the entire story and the positive results from numerous scientists as to the many likenesses between AA and AN, I can understand that there are people who still believe in the conspiracy theory.

Franziska

5th March 2009, 07:33 AM

My purpose is only to look at the story the way it happened, without injecting my personal opinion too much, and back it up with whatever sources I can find.

But what you actually do is tell only selected things from the story which are obviously meant to lean heavily in AA's favor, and inject a lot of your own personal bias. You are, as always, defending AA.

And when we know the entire story and the positive results from numerous scientists as to the many likenesses between AA and AN, I can understand that there are people who still believe in the conspiracy theory.

So, you're saying that all the questionable old stuff from years ago outweighs, or is at least equal to, the DNA, so much so that the DNA results can be doubted?

I have personally found the opposite to be true, the more I investigate the truth behind the alleged 'facts' from her claim, the more I find that I don't even need to the DNA to see what a fraud it all was.

But anyway, here's the latest on the DNA testing, complete with the DNA markers for each individual member of the family, proving they all died together in 1918 and every one of them is now accounted for. One of history's great mysteries finally has a conclusion.

http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2009/02/27/0811190106.DCSupplemental/0811190106SI.pdf

Alt+F4

5th March 2009, 09:20 AM

That is all we need if we are only interested in determining whether or not AA was Anastasia. It sounds like ChatNoir is more interested in looking at the possible motivations behind both sides of the debate. These seem legitimate historical questions.

What I find interesting is how AA was able to pull this off for so many years. I guess believing Anastasia escaped was easier for her relatives to handle than the horrible reality of what her final moments were like.

tsig

5th March 2009, 09:21 AM

Actually, I came here to answer another poster, and right away miss Franzisca attacked. My purpose is only to look at the story the way it happened, without injecting my personal opinion too much, and back it up with whatever sources I can find. And when we know the entire story and the positive results from numerous scientists as to the many likenesses between AA and AN, I can understand that there are people who still believe in the conspiracy theory.

Funny, I'd think you'd want to look at the sources first and then form an opinion.

ChatNoir

5th March 2009, 10:03 AM

Funny, I'd think you'd want to look at the sources first and then form an opinion.
Believe me, I have looked at the sources. But with so much material both for and against, it's hard to form an opinion. That's why I always kept looking for new information. However, now with all the DNA material in place, we know that AA and AN were not the same people in spite of the amazing likenesses. But I am still not convinced that AA was a German factory worker.

Alt+F4

5th March 2009, 10:06 AM

But I am still not convinced that AA was a German factory worker.

Why?

ChatNoir

5th March 2009, 10:07 AM

But what you actually do is tell only selected things from the story which are obviously meant to lean heavily in AA's favor, and inject a lot of your own personal bias. You are, as always, defending AA.
What personal bias? And I am certainly not selecting the material, I am only answering your posts.
So, you're saying that all the questionable old stuff from years ago outweighs, or is at least equal to, the DNA, so much so that the DNA results can be doubted?
If some scientists are so questionable, why are others not?
I have personally found the opposite to be true, the more I investigate the truth behind the alleged 'facts' from her claim, the more I find that I don't even need to the DNA to see what a fraud it all was.
My dear, you are not "investigating", you are just making up things or selecting statements that go against AA, never mind if they are believable or not.
But anyway, here's the latest on the DNA testing, complete with the DNA markers for each individual member of the family, proving they all died together in 1918 and every one of them is now accounted for. One of history's great mysteries finally has a conclusion.

http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2009/02/27/0811190106.DCSupplemental/0811190106SI.pdf

And I don't think any of us have a problem with that.

ChatNoir

5th March 2009, 10:20 AM

Why?

First of all, none of her family recognized her as their next of kin. She had, according to her family, none of the scars that AA had, no deformities of the feet, wore shoes three sizes bigger than AA and was reportedly 2-3 inches taller. She received no scars in the explosion at AEG, and also had a scar on a finger that could not be found on AA. She spoke GOOD German and a little Polish, no Russian, English or French. Her hair and eyes were of different color than AA's, and her face and handwriting were found by several scientists to be different. And where did she learn court etiquette? And where did she learn so much about the private life of the IF? And how did she recognize so many of the people from the court? And where did she learn to play the piano, play tennis, embroider, paint and draw? She also had no record of a pregnancy. AA was found on February 17th, 1920. FS disappeared sometime in March 1920. Her brother Felix's birthday was on February 17th, but the card from Franzisca came between 8 and 14 days later, and she excused herself for being late due to a lot of work.

Franziska

5th March 2009, 10:39 AM

What I find interesting is how AA was able to pull this off for so many years. I guess believing Anastasia escaped was easier for her relatives to handle than the horrible reality of what her final moments were like.

She had a lot of people helping her who had known the family, so they could have given her information. The long, expensive court battle and the media, including movies, gave her attention and sympathy that no other claimant received. When you look deeper into the details, most of the people who knew the family best did NOT believe in her claim, including the closest friends and siblings of Nicholas and Alexandra.

ChatNoir

5th March 2009, 10:53 AM

She had a lot of people helping her who had known the family, so they could have given her information.
And who were these?
The long, expensive court battle and the media, including movies, gave her attention and sympathy that no other claimant received.
Would you believe that when the movie was made, Hollywood had no idea she was still alive?
When you look deeper into the details, most of the people who knew the family best did NOT believe in her claim, including the closest friends and siblings of Nicholas and Alexandra.
But how many of these siblings saw her? Irene, who was deeply upset over the whole affair, and Olga, who said "My heart believes that she is Anastasia."
The Botkins never wavered in their belief, neither did Xenia Leeds. Volkov stated that "I believe she is the Grand Duchess". Grand Duke Andrew stated that: "I have seen Nicky's daughter." Maria Rasputin signed a notarized statement saying that AA was AN. Gilliard left Berlin "without being able to say that she was not the Grand Duchess." Shura said "I loved her so much, why do I love this patient just as much? If you knew how agonized I am now."

Alt+F4

5th March 2009, 10:58 AM

AA may or not may not be FS, but it's for certain she was not Anastasia. We may never know who AA really was but I don't see any reason why she couldn't learn all the languages and skills that Anastasia had.

I'm reminded of the folks who don't think Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him because he was too average to write such genius.

Franziska

5th March 2009, 11:01 AM

Well, Chat, as bored as I am with all this, if you're going to continue to spread your misinformation and snake oil, I'm going to have to straighten it out, again.

First of all, none of her family recognized her as their next of kin. She had, according to her family, none of the scars that AA had, no deformities of the feet,

It must be noted that those who saw the first meeting of the brother and AA/FS said they obviously did know each other, but after talking alone for awhile, he denied her. Once the family had denied her, they couldn't accept her. What good would it do? She'd be put in jail for fraud, owe lots of money for a false claim, and in Nazi Germany, be put in a concentration camp for the insane (since FS had been declared insane in 1916) NO good could come from claiming her for her or her family, they denied her for all their own goods. As one said 'we left her to her 'career' as "Anastasia."

wore shoes three sizes bigger than AA and was reportedly 2-3 inches taller.

"Reportedly" is very weak here.All this is hearsay and memories many years after anyone had last seen her. People estimate heights wrong, it happens all the time. This is not based on medical records, only guesses years later by a former coworker and boarding house lady. No proof here.

She received no scars in the explosion at AEG,

This is false. She did indeed suffer scars from dropping a grenade at work in the munitions factory. The man next to her was eviscerated before her eyes. She suffered scars and other wounds. AA supporters deny this, though it's been documented by Robert Massie and others, because they want you to believe the scars were from "Ekaterinburg."

and also had a scar on a finger that could not be found on AA.

Could have come from working at the brewery or munitions factory.

Also, it was Maria and not Anastasia who'd gotten her finger slammed in the door.

She spoke GOOD German and a little Polish, no Russian, English or French.

There is much, much evidence that AA did not know any Russian, English or French until coached after starting her claim (see all the mess on the language issue taking up several pages earlier in this thread) AA's supporters went back and forth between making excuses for her lack of Russian being due to being "traumatized", yet other times, claimed she spoke it wistfully talking to butterflies in the garden! Doesn't sound very traumatized, which is it? Anyway, she was never proven in public to be able to speak Russian (again all this has been hashed at length in this thread already)

Her hair and eyes were of different color than AA's,

No one ever said what color FS's eyes were. The hair color changes every time Chat tells this story. Hair color means nothing since it's subjective to each person's perception of color, and can easily be dyed.

and her face and handwriting were found by several scientists to be different.

A discredited Nazi and others whose pencil and ruler techniques have been outmoded. In the 90's, Geoffrey Oxlee, a respected British forensics specialist declared AA and FS to be the same person in his facial comparisons. Handwriting samples show similiarities between AA and FS, not Anastasia. (there is a photo to prove this)

And where did she learn court etiquette?And where did she learn so much about the private life of the IF? And how did she recognize so many of the people from the court? And where did she learn so much about the private life of the IF?

Supporters. We will never know their names for sure since people don't leave paper trails of fraud, but Berlin had a half million Russian emigres' in the 20's, and many had known the family. I personally believe she was coached a la 'My Fair Lady' by Baron Von Kliest and others (he had planned to collect 50,000 crowns if she was accepted by the Dowager Empress as her granddaughter) and likely later the Botkins, some of her biggest backers and children of the family Dr. who had known the real Anastasia. In addition to all this, there were many German magazines featuring pictures and stories on the family and their palaces; in fact, AA's insane asylum roomate kept a collection of them. Also, several books about the family written by those who had been close to them were published in the early 1920's.

And where did she learn to play the piano,

Chat always claims AA could play piano, but in reality, her left arm was paralyzed from the elbow down following surgery in 1925. So this is another smokescreen that fades when you look at reality.

play tennis, embroider, paint and draw?

Since when do only princesses do these things?

She also had no record of a pregnancy.

Means NOTHING. In those days, an out of wedlock pregnancy was a disgrace, and was often hidden. There is also no record of AA's pregnancy or alleged baby left in a Romanian orphanage.

AA was found on February 17th, 1920. FS disappeared sometime in March 1920.

So, the boarding house people didn't report her missing immediately because they didn't know if maybe she'd just skipped out or something. People do that. Even today, I see cases on the news where people are not reported missing for a couple weeks because those who knew them aren't sure if they really disappeared or just went off for awhile. In those days, there was no internet or cell phones and most poor people didn't even have phones, so people were not in constant contact like they are today. Her family was many miles away. This is not usual at all.

Her brother Felix's birthday was on February 17th, but the card from Franzisca came between 8 and 14 days later, and she excused herself for being late due to a lot of work.

How does this prove anything? The card has never bee proven to even exist.To me what stands out is that she attempted suicide on her brother's birthday- perhaps a way to guilt trip him for an estrangement? If the whole story of FS were known, I'm sure it would rival the false one of AA in interest and emotion.

Alt+F4

5th March 2009, 11:03 AM

She had a lot of people helping her who had known the family, so they could have given her information.

That's probably what happened and I bet many of those people weren't even consciencely aware they were doing it. Perhaps AA believed she really was remembering it.

I don't think anyone was lying about what they believed.

ChatNoir

5th March 2009, 12:53 PM

Well, Chat, as bored as I am with all this, if you're going to continue to spread your misinformation and snake oil, I'm going to have to straighten it out, again.
You? Straighten it out? Don't make me laugh. Again.
It must be noted that those who saw the first meeting of the brother and AA/FS said they obviously did know each other, but after talking alone for awhile, he denied her.
Those? I am sitting here with Dr. Völler's and Herr Schuricht's written declarations about the meeting. At no time were AA and Felix left alone. The only one who states this, is Dmitri von Leuchtenberg, the same one who lied about Kostritski.
Once the family had denied her, they couldn't accept her. What good would it do? She'd be put in jail for fraud, owe lots of money for a false claim, and in Nazi Germany, be put in a concentration camp for the insane (since FS had been declared insane in 1916) NO good could come from claiming her for her or her family, they denied her for all their own goods. As one said 'we left her to her 'career' as "Anastasia."
Pure speculation.
"Reportedly" is very weak here.All this is hearsay and memories many years after anyone had last seen her. People estimate heights wrong, it happens all the time. This is not based on medical records, only guesses years later by a former coworker and boarding house lady. No proof here.
Her shoe size was reported to Shuhricht by the family. Both Wingender sisters were 5'3", and they both remembered FS as "a little taller than us."
The foreman at AEG remembered her as being around 5'4". AA was just under 5'2".
This is false. She did indeed suffer scars from dropping a grenade at work in the munitions factory. The man next to her was eviscerated before her eyes. She suffered scars and other wounds. AA supporters deny this, though it's been documented by Robert Massie and others, because they want you to believe the scars were from "Ekaterinburg."
Documented by Massie? How? He only makes a statement with no back-ups. According to FS's own family, including Felix, FS received no injuries at the AEG explosion and did not go into a hospital before later. A medical report from AEG backs this up.
Could have come from working at the brewery or munitions factory.
The scar stemmed from an injury at the bottle washing factory in Bütow, and was missing from AA's finger.
Also, it was Maria and not Anastasia who'd gotten her finger slammed in the door.
It is very possible that Maria got her finger pinched, but we have 4 witnesses corroborating AA's story, and none mention Maria's finger being crushed.
There is much, much evidence that AA did not know any Russian, English or French until coached after starting her claim (see all the mess on the language issue taking up several pages earlier in this thread)
And where is this evidence?
AA's supporters went back and forth between making excuses for her lack of Russian being due to being "traumatized", yet other times, claimed she spoke it wistfully talking to butterflies in the garden! Doesn't sound very traumatized, which is it? Anyway, she was never proven in public to be able to speak Russian (again all this has been hashed at length in this thread already)
Read Fallow's notes from 1938, and you will see that she spoke fluent Russian with both Dr. Rudnev and Mr. Coyle. Also the protocols at Dalldorf state that the unknown woman spoke Russian with the nurses there.
No one ever said what color FS's eyes were.
True, they could not remember those luminous, blue eyes.
The hair color changes every time Chat tells this story. Hair color means nothing since it's subjective to each person's perception of color, and can easily be dyed.
AA was reddish blonde all her life. FS, according to Felix, was dark blonde, her hair in a braid and always curly in front.
A discredited Nazi
Discredited by whom?
and others whose pencil and ruler techniques have been outmoded.
So Dr. Vanesis is now outmoded?
In the 90's, Geoffrey Oxlee, a respected British forensics specialist declared AA and FS to be the same person in his facial comparisons. Handwriting samples show similiarities between AA and FS, not Anastasia. (there is a photo to prove this)
As it says in Klier and Mingay's book: He thought they were probably the one and same person. Without ever having the chance to see FS en profile or check her ears.
upporters. We will never know their names for sure
Correct.
likely later the Botkins, some of her biggest backers and children of the family Dr. who had known the real Anastasia.
And you really think that the Botkins, who had lost their father and brother in Russia, would allow an impostor to take the place of a member of their beloved IF? Besides, they met her long after she filled a book of memories. In addition to all this, there were many German magazines featuring pictures and stories on the family and their palaces; in fact, AA's insane asylum roomate kept a collection of them. Also, several books about the family written by those who had been close to them were published in the early 1920's.
The magazines at Dalldorf were all old and from before the revolution, according to Thea Malinovsky. And Clara Peuthert did not keep a collection of them, I have no idea where you have that from. Sources, please.
And what books? Names and publication dates, please.
Chat always claims AA could play piano, but in reality, her left arm was paralyzed from the elbow down following surgery in 1925. So this is another smokescreen that fades when you look at reality.
No, Chat does not claim that, it was claimed by Vera von Klemenz who sometimes accompanied the Tsarina in Russia.
Since when do only princesses do these things?
Since when do uneducated factory girls learn these things?
Means NOTHING. In those days, an out of wedlock pregnancy was a disgrace, and was often hidden. There is also no record of AA's pregnancy or alleged baby left in a Romanian orphanage.
There is medical records showing that AA had a child. No such record anywhere for FS.
So, the boarding house people didn't report her missing immediately because they didn't know if maybe she'd just skipped out or something.
This was not a boarding house, but a private home. Frau Wingender's profession was running a knife grinding cellar in North Berlin.
How does this prove anything? The card has never bee proven to even exist.To me what stands out is that she attempted suicide on her brother's birthday- perhaps a way to guilt trip him for an estrangement? If the whole story of FS were known, I'm sure it would rival the false one of AA in interest and emotion.
And you are the one accusing me of putting my personal slant on things? Sheeesh......

ChatNoir

5th March 2009, 12:58 PM

That's probably what happened and I bet many of those people weren't even consciencely aware they were doing it. Perhaps AA believed she really was remembering it.

I don't think anyone was lying about what they believed.
But if this is what happened, you also have to explain how she knew things that had never been published anywhere. The IF was an intensely private family, and anybody who was close enough to know details from everyday life, should also have been able to unmask AA.

yodaluver28

5th March 2009, 07:59 PM

But if this is what happened, you also have to explain how she knew things that had never been published anywhere. The IF was an intensely private family, and anybody who was close enough to know details from everyday life, should also have been able to unmask AA.

The physical evidence shows that she wasn't a member of that family, therefore she got whatever information she seemed to know about them from somebody. Someone who either had a connection to them or had studied them intently because there's no way she got whatever it was she may have known firsthand since she was clearly not a member of the family.

Seanette

5th March 2009, 08:29 PM

Frankly, If the DNA rules against Anna Anderson being Anastasia, that's it, game over, other evidence is sort of inconsequencial.

I'd have to agree. DNA isn't exactly subject to the same lapses as human memory, honesty, etc.

Objective fact apparently is that Anna Anderson is not Anastasia Romanova, based on DNA comparisons to known relatives of Anastasia.

So what's left to debate? I'm not that familiar with this debate myself, so could be missing something (I rarely rule that out), but I really don't see where there's any room to argue with objective proof.

Seanette

5th March 2009, 08:53 PM

Franziska

5th March 2009, 08:59 PM

Those? I am sitting here with Dr. Völler's and Herr Schuricht's written declarations about the meeting. At no time were AA and Felix left alone. The only one who states this, is Dmitri von Leuchtenberg, the same one who lied about Kostritski.

Well, Dmitri said they were left alone. It all depends on whom you choose to believe.

Her shoe size was reported to Shuhricht by the family. Both Wingender sisters were 5'3", and they both remembered FS as "a little taller than us."
The foreman at AEG remembered her as being around 5'4". AA was just under 5'2".

LIKE I SAID, estimates and guesses made years after seeing her, no proof.

Documented by Massie? How?

From the investigative papers of Dr. Berenberg-Gossler, lawyer opposing AA.

A medical report from AEG backs this up.

No such report exists. One person claimed it did, and then got very angry when asked to produce it. That factory is long gone and there are no records. You need to stop stating this as fact when it's not.

It is very possible that Maria got her finger pinched, but we have 4 witnesses corroborating AA's story, and none mention Maria's finger being crushed.

It was Olga Alexandrovna who knew it was Maria and said 'someone passed a garbled version of the story to AA'.

And where is this evidence?

LIKE I SAID, go back to the earlier pages of this thread where it was discussed at length. See Chat, this is how you go in circles,making threads go on for dozens of pages and eventually getting shut down when mods tire of the repetition. (as has happened all over the net) Is your memory really that bad, or do you just enjoy baiting me?

Read Fallow's notes from 1938,

Fallows was AA's lawyer who began her case, and leader of "Grandanor' corporation, which sold shares of what money AA might win. Do we trust him?

True, they could not remember those luminous, blue eyes.

Funny no one ever remembered the real Anastasia as having 'luminous blue eyes', Gibbes said they were grey, most others never mention their color. So if AA had unforgettable eyes, they sure weren't Anastasia's.

AA was reddish blonde all her life.

And I could show you quotes from other forums where you change the color every time this comes up. But again, hair color is subjective and easy to dye so it counts for nothing.

FS, according to Felix, was dark blonde, her hair in a braid and always curly in front.

HairSTYLES are easier to change than hair color. So take the braid out. Means nothing. The picture of FS shows a side parted hairstyle identical to AA's when she was found.

Discredited by whom?

Earlier in this thread, I listed you several books containing the information.

So Dr. Vanesis is now outmoded?

Vanesis did no face tests.

As it says in Klier and Mingay's book: He thought they were probably the one and same person. Without ever having the chance to see FS en profile or check her ears.

What?

And you really think that the Botkins, who had lost their father and brother in Russia, would allow an impostor to take the place of a member of their beloved IF?

Who knows what people would do?

The magazines at Dalldorf were all old and from before the revolution,

Of course. That's why they had all the pics and details of the family. But some were of after, alleging one of the Tsar's daughters escaped. This is what gave the two insane women(AA and Clara) the idea to make up the story that became AA's claim.

And Clara Peuthert did not keep a collection of them, I have no idea where you have that from. Sources, please.

It's in many books that she did, and she was the one who showed AA the pictures and told her she looked like Tatiana.

And what books? Names and publication dates, please.

SIGH! Again, is this a game? You know the answer to this one too!
Last Days of the Romanovs 1920 Robert Wilton
Thirteen Years at the Russian Court 1921 Pierre Gilliard
The Real Tsaritsa 1922 Lili Dehn
Memories of the Russian Court 1923 Anna Vyrubova
Life and Times of Alexandra Feodorovna and Left Behind - Sophie Buxhoevedon

No, Chat does not claim that, it was claimed by Vera von Klemenz who sometimes accompanied the Tsarina in Russia.

And what does this have to do with AA? She was never in Russia.

Since when do uneducated factory girls learn these things?

Have you read the "Little House" books? All young ladies, rich and poor, learned embroidery, anyone can learn music, anyone can draw! Some of the greatest musicians and artists in the world were from 'poor' families.

There is medical records showing that AA had a child. No such record anywhere for FS.

HOLD ON a minute, this is how you are misleading. The 'medical records' are only an exam at the asylum saying AA had at one time been pregnant. There is no record of the baby's birth or existence. This is why AA had to make up the story of the Romanian orphanage, since she had to explain a baby. What happened to FS's baby? We'll never know. It was illegitimate, a shame in those days. Maybe it died, maybe she threw it in the trash can, maybe she put it on someone's doorstep, maybe she had a miscarriage or an abortion. But FS was pregnant, because AA was and AA was FS.

But of course, none of this even matters, since the DNA has proven AA not to be related to the royal family with 100% exclusion, proved that she was related to FS's family with 99.9% probability, and the bones found in 2007 are without question the children of the Tsar, meaning all five of his children are accounted for, meaning no claimants were real. Now it doesn't even matter if the intestines were switched, it's over.

Unless some still believe the Queen has paid off all those scientists to fake the results to discredit AA:rolleyes: