Anna-Anastaia: the old and new versions and discussion

"<…> The greatest controversy erupted today over the genetic identification of the remains: <…>b) Geneticist P. Ivanov tried to establish the genetic characteristics of a controversial teens teeth and of a fragment of a handkerchief soaked with blood heir of Nicholas Alexandrovich (after being wounded in 1891 in Japan). He was unable to identify any genetic parameters of these objects, or their gender. This requires an explanation.

c) The Russian geneticist L. Zhivotovskiy published a critical note about the shortcomings in the oficial genetic analysis (the journal "Annals of Human Biology", 1999, Volume 21, 6, pp. 569-577). Replies to this criticism was not followed.

d) In 1999, a Japanese professor T. Nagai and colleagues published a study of hair from the head of his brother Nicholas II – Georgy, his nail plates, the fingerprint stains sweaty vest Nicholas II and the blood-Kulikovskogo Tikhon Nikolayevich Romanov. The results do not coincide with the data of the official genetic examination carried out with the participation of P. Ivanov. The results of studies of T. Nagai were published in the journal "Medicine and Biology" (December 10, 1999, Volume 139. 6), and subsequently T. Nagai spoke at international conferences geneticists in Münster (Germany) in 2001, Melbourne (Australia ) in 2001 and at the International Congress of forensic experts in St. Petersburg in 2004.

e) In 2004, the American geneticist Knight et al published in the journal "Annals of Human Biology," the results of the genetic study of the remains of Elizabeth Feodorovna – the sister of Empress Alexandra Feodorovna. Knight's results are in conflict with the results obtained in the course of official genetic testing with P. Ivanov.

f) In 2003-2004, Yekaterinburg population geneticists have found that in the Ural population there is rather common kind of mutation, which is similar to the one found genetics in the United States. (with P. Ivanov) – (which they said as very uncommon).

All it means is that, regardless of the cause controversy, the results of genetic studies in any case is not absolute, and that they initially need to be thoroughly and repeatedly tested. In any case, the oficial results of genetic studies (with P.Ivanov) in any case can not be independent of evidentiary value in the identification of the Ekaterinburg remains as the remains of Tsar's family."

We'll look other problems and shortcomings of official DNA tests later in the section «"Resurrection" of Franziska Shanzkowska» (subsection «DNA-testing is not “A sacred cow”»)

In addition, Dr. Popov has put in his letter the following questions about the old and the new "Yekaterinburg remains" (quote from reductions in my retelling)

1. From the transcript of the initial inspection of the place of burial (11-13 July 1991) and from the explanation of the first searchers (Avdonin and Ryabov), we can conclude that the volume of excavation of burial were so small that it could not accommodate three skulls, allegedly found there and seized by these people. Dr. Popov writes (verbatim, in my translation): "Maybe these skull were not found and removed from the burial in 1979, but were placed into the grave in 1980, when Avdonin and Ryabov again" worked" in this grave?"

2. The skull, allegedly belonging to Nicholas II (skull number 4), has no trace of wounds he received in Japan in 1891. Meanwhile, the famous report of three doctors who provided medical assistance in 1891 in Japan, immediately after the attack: in this report doctors talked about a piece of bone 2.5 cm long, which they removed from head of Nicholas.

3. As I wrote above, the genetic examination of the new remains, "Alexis" and "Maria" (or "Anastasia") in 2007 was conducted with two teeth (which were found among these remains) – but some experts stated categorically that there are no morphological evidence that these two teeths could belong to any member of the royal Romanov's family

4. As evidence of the belonging of these remains to the royal Romanov's family, a photo superposition was performed. In many aspects, this photo superposition was, to say the least, imperfect. In particular, Dr. Popov noted that two experts photo superposition came to two different conclusions about the skull number 4 (allegedly belonging to Nicholas II).

5. Sculptural reconstruction of the heads of the royal Romanov's family is extremely unsatisfactory, because the sculptor knew who they should be similar. Dr. Popov also wrote (verbatim, in my translation ): "Such a reconstruction would have a conclusive legal effect only if "sculptor" has never seen in his lifetime the images of these people's faces, sculpted portraits which he produces."