Anna-Anastaia: the old and new versions and discussion

See http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004838

However, it is not so: Dr.M.Coble (et al), they write:

We read in “Introduction” of this article:

“The identity of the missing princess was the source of a high profile disagreement between Russian and US forensic anthropologists: the Russians were convinced that Maria was missing from the mass grave, while the American experts believed that Anastasia was missing …

We also present the results of a new analysis of the remains from the first mass grave attributed to Tsar Nicholas II, his wife Alexandra, Olga, Tatiana and a third daughter who could be either Anastasia or Maria. The DNA analysis of all three genetic systems confirms that the samples tested from the second grave are one female and one male child of Tsar Nicholas II and Tsarina Alexandra, solving the mystery of the missing Romanov children.”

We read in “Discussion”:

“It should be mentioned that a well publicized debate [2] over which daughter, Maria (according to Russian experts) or Anastasia (according to US experts), has been recovered from the second grave cannot be settled based upon the DNA results reported here. In the absence of a DNA reference from each sister, we can ONLY conclusively identify Alexei – the ONLY son of Nicholas and Alexandra.”

And we read in “Supporting Information”:

“Figure S1.

mtDNA lineage information of previous and present Romanov testing. *The identification of either Maria or Anastasia was not possible by DNA analysis alone. Either name could be interchangeable in this pedigree.”

Obviously, his (Dr. Coble's) other words, in chapter "Discussion" ("… we are able to give a full account of all of the Romanov family and can conclude that none of the family survived the execution in the early morning hours of July 17, 1918, ") – this contradicts to his other conclusions from other chapters, which I quoted above. As far as I understand, this his conclusion in "Discussion" is not based on DNA-tests. Probably, this is only his opinion.

Completely my comments to this article (of Dr.M.Coble et al) you can read in note 1 to his article:

I wrote the note on March 2 (2012). So far, Dr. M. Coble did not answer my question.

Thus, the identification of the female's samples from the second grave as Anastasia's samples (or Maria's) is only a hypothesis, NOT RELATED TO DNA-TESTS.

Thus, the hypothesis of Anastasia's rescue does not contradict this article (report) of Dr. M.Coble.

***

P.S. Why after the rescuing Anastasia took name Anna?

GD Anastasia was born on June, 5/18, 1901, and has been officially christened on the 17/30 of June. During that public christening she was given a name Anastasia. However, according to Orthodox canons, a child should have been baptized on 7-8th day of life. And this was the days of Saint Anna under the Orthodox calendar.

12/25 June – the memory of St. Princess Anna Kashinskaya , 13/26 June – the memory of St. Anna Vifinskaya.

Honoring St. Anna Kashinskaya was restored in 1909, when Nicholas II. Probably, at that time Anastasia has learned that St. Anna was her celestial patroness.

See also: http://proza.ru/2008/08/15/173

"Resurrection" of Franziska Shanzkowska

(My review on Amazon.com on the book “The Resurrection of the Romanovs: Anastasia, Anna Anderson, and the World's Greatest Royal Mystery” (father abbr. ROTR) by G. King and P. Wilson)

1. A lot of researches, but Hesse's archive?…

Of course, the authors have done a lot of researches (archives) – I give them their due in connection with this great work, and I agreed with some of their conclusions on several themes. However, they ignored the fact that some files (Hesse's archives) were created under the control of the most ardent enemies of Anna Anderson (under the control of "Uncle Ernie" and his lawyers). As I understand it, the book don't contains no one critical word about Hesse's archive (not even talking about a critical analysis of each document from this archive).

2. False resurrection of Franziska Shanzkowska

Authors rejected (without good reason) many evidence against Franziska Shanzkowska (hereafter FS) and in favor AA's self-identification (AA – Anna Anderson).

For example, they are (without any basis) rejected the recognition of the Berlin police the killing of FS (Grossmann, at 1920), and the authors (without a valid reason) assumed the version that the Berlin Police did a statement about the identification of AA as FS – all this is merely a by their “belief” and their “presumption” – as G. King himself wrote on Coldharbor-forum (further abbr. CH)