The question of whether Anna was Anastasia, is arguably one of the greatest unsolved and (solved) mysteries in the world. Even to this day, people remain divided. The advent of DNA profiling and its eventual use in this case was expected to put the matter to rest once and for all. perhaps, in the minds of some people it did. However, there are a few facts still to be considered. Was Anna the best actress the world has ever known. How could a polish peasant girl in a society where class was everything, be able to have such a knowledge of customs and family matters?We all know how fake mediums and con artists operate, but this was done to such a degree to make it an act that has stood the test of time, bar the DNA, which I shall turn to shortly. It is a mystery that should have had the worlds greatest mystery solver on the case, Harry Houdini. As to the DNA, the stored evidence tested as not being Anastasia, however the evidence is only as relaible as the chain of custody. There is sufficient doubt as to its authenticity so as to prevent the rbeyond reasonanle dobt test of criminal courts being successfully pplied. It is known to have gone missing on an occasion, and that alone breaks the chain of custody. I note that previous comments state that all the Romanov bodies were accounted for. Again, this is an unproven fact. The test in aivil court is one based on the balance of probabilities. Even here, a court could face problems in deciding. It seems unlikely that Anna could have been completely unrelated to the issues from the knowledge she had. Could she have been a child of the Romanov court? Was she actually Anastasia? I think that the best answer is that we simply still cannot prove it and most likey will never know the truth
2006-07-03 05:45:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by u4su 2
·
3⤊
1⤋
No, it was conclusively proved years ago that she was not the daughter of the Czar. They tested both the Russian royal family DNA, and the DNA of the family they suspected she was from, and had definitive results.
No other claims have been shown to be true either.
2006-07-03 05:36:55
·
answer #2
·
answered by Flyboy 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
hi,the precise of my record has constantly been the question of ways the universe is going on forever and eternity .It googles my innovations to think of the universe has no shrink .I easily have purely study and discovered concept's that the universe is nearly a on no account ending staircase; meaning it has an end,that's purely we as earthlings from earth might desire to on no account attain it rapid adequate by way of fact that's consistently increasing.I constantly contemplate in this,each from time to time i think of,properly if it is going on " forever" or no longer ,what's at the back of forever ? or what's decrease than it ? And above it? the 2d secret that i think of baffles my innovations are paradox's . The 0.33 secret for me is the northern lights. the subsequent i've got purely discovered approximately,that's noted as "innovations to Brian communication " that's particularly telepathy ,yet scientists and psychics are springing up with some marvelous suggestion recently on it!and that i think that its a threat ,by way of fact i've got seen it take place all of the time whilst interacting with my close acquaintances.Michio Kaku a in call for psychic says this innovations-to-innovations communication might contain no longer purely the replace of advice, yet additionally the transmission of thoughts and thoughts, "by way of fact those additionally are area of the fabric of our innovations." there has been a learn executed to coach its a threat ,yet what baffles me is how ? that's quite marvelous and exciting to me,and that i wanna know extra so i do no longer might desire to talk anymore ,even with each thing " Silence is Golden" i've got discovered !
2016-12-10 03:58:23
·
answer #3
·
answered by binford 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Nope -- they found her remains in a mine with the rest of her family.
2006-07-03 06:39:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by Ranto 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
like the ? and seconed ans v intresting
2006-07-03 06:08:00
·
answer #5
·
answered by Diane E 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Are you talking about little ol' me?
2006-07-03 06:26:56
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
no
2006-07-05 05:47:07
·
answer #7
·
answered by terry m 5
·
0⤊
0⤋