tutchev (tutchev) wrote,

Biased research in the book by G. King and P. Wilson


That's what I Learned and Understood from Communication with Greg King.
(about “The Resurrection of the Romanovs: Anastasia, Anna Anderson, and the World's Greatest Royal Mystery” by G.King and P. Wilson)
I must say at the outset that while I have not read the new book of Greg King, and Penny Wilson (my English is so-so), but since the end of December 2010 (and still), I daily actively communicated with Greg King on their web-forum (my English is sufficient for this :) and we discussed about this book. I'll briefly lay out my conclusions below:

1. Of course, the authors have done a lot of research (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 decided to ignore 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). Moreover, if I understood correctly, they are not even told in his book on the causes of hatred "Uncle Ernie" to Anna Anderson (hereinafter AA) - obviously because this episode was one of the evidences in favor of the fact that AA was Anastasia.

2. Authors rejected (without good reason) many evidence against Franziska Shanzkowska (hereafter FS) and in favor AA's self-identification. 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) considered 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 forum ...
Another example: the authors reject (without any reason, as "little meaningful opinion"(!)) the reports of seven attending doctors of AA (four of whom were well-known psychiatrists) that (I quote) "they exclude any kind of fraud or hypnosis in AA claims to be Anastasia (" Anastasia. The riddle of Anna Anderson "by Peter Kurth \ in Russian, p .103, 104 \).
In particular, Dr. Bonhoeffer wrote:
"Her posture, facial expressions and elegance in manner of speaking suggests that she derives from an educated family ... She probably grew up surrounded by a great princess, she was a daughter of an (military) officer or some sort of a court of the tsar's family ... She could not take over all of the books or stories of other people. " ("Anastasia. The riddle of Anna Anderson" by Peter Kurth \ in Russian, p.103, 104, on my reverse translation \).
In addition, I cite below the evidences of psychiatrist from sanatorium "Shtillehaus” in Oberstdorf, where AA was in the autumn and winter of 1927 (" Anastasia. The riddle of Anna Anderson "by Peter Kurth \ in Russian, p. 150-153). Dr. E. Saathof (Chapter the sanatorium) in the final diagnosis wrote:
"It is absolutely impossible that Frau Tchaikovsky - an impostor." Dr. Saathof also wrote also: "I consider it impossible that this woman was from the lower classes of society ... I think it is absolutely impossible that this woman was deliberately played the role of the other woman. Moreover, the observation of her behavior as a whole does not contradict her assertion that she was the one who calls herself."
The conclusions others German psychiatrists and psychoanalysts were the same. These diagnoses are particularly significant given that the coincidence psychiatric diagnoses belonging to one national school, rarely exceeds 60-65% ("Diagnosis in psychiatry," Morozov GV Shumsky N G. http:// www.solarys-info.ru/ articles / article.aspx? Id = 6432 ).
I asked Mr. King (on web-forum CH) whether he knew of several opposite testimony of psychiatrists or psychoanalysts, or someone from physicians Anna Tchaikovsky? Or even one? - how you can easily guess, Greg King did not answer me this question.

I could cite many more such examples of apparent bias of this book (Greg King and Penny Wilson), but will limit the foregoing. Several customers on Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.com (in their Reviews) wrote:



3. G.King in the book and on the web forum (ColdHarbor) tried many times to present Dr. Sergei Rudnev as only a narrow specialist in one area of medicine (treatment of bone tuberculosis), and even as an inexperienced physician and/or a liar.
Probably, G. King did not bother to carefully look for information about this famous Russian doctor.
In fact, the high medical level Dr. Sergei Mikhailovitch Rudnev confirmed not only that he was famous in Russia and managed hospitals in Russia and in Germany (as well as the fact that he was caused by the Bolsheviks for the treatment of their leader Lenin), but also the fact that in 1925 he had cured AA in a very difficult situation for her, when many thought she would die soon. She died in 1984 and she was grateful to Dr. Rudnev all his life. In addition:
I quote the facts about Rudnev from the book "Hippocratic Oath" by Corresponding Member of the RAS G.Domogatsy:
"My father told me that the well-known surgeon Sergey Rudnev enjoyed the reputation of a brave doctor who takes even the most difficult, almost hopeless operation. … In the 1910's Dr. Rudnev built own clinic. In 1917 / 1918 Rudnev treated (in his clinic) the famous Russian General Alexander Brusilov".
Dr. Rudnev was also privat-docent at Moscow University: http://senar.ru/names/r/
A privat-docent - a position in higher education in Russia (until 1917) and Germany. Position privat-docent could occupy only a man with a PhD.
Dr. Rudnev was also a director of own hospital and the CHIEF surgeon of the Red Cross hospital in Moscow: http://celenie.ru/konchalovsky.htm
All these facts disproves all of obviously biased attempt of G.King to discredit Dr. Sergei Rudnev

4. Unfortunately, Greg King does not understand some very important things related to the validity of evidences and tests in the balance of probability theory (such as Likelihood ratio, hereafter LR).
DNA test is not “a sacred cow”, and Likelihood ratio (LR) of other evidences and tests may be far more convincing (much more) than the LR of DNK-test.
Meanwhile, for a proper understanding of DNA'LR (liklihood ratio of DNA) is necessary to know at least the simplest elementary foundations of probability theory. Greg puts the DNA-testing as "the cornerstone", but does not understand basic things that are needed to compare the LR of DNA tests with LR of other tests.
For example:
– the presence of a rare form/degree disease of feet (severe bilateral bursitis/HV, with stronger HV on the big toe of right foot) which AA had as like Anastasia had also [LR = “X”= at least 13000:1 – in accordance with the data of the Central scientific research institute of traumatology and orthopedics of Ministry of Health of the USSR, Dr. Galina Kramarenko, 1970, see http://proza.ru/2008/08/15/173 , http://proza.ru/avtor/annaanastasia ];
– the coincidence of the diagnoses of five German psychiatrists [LR=”Y”];
– AA's answers to 18 questions of Prince Sigismund (9 of which were complex and had no clear «clues» available in her books) [LR=”Z”].
I don't give here the calculations of LR the two last tests, in order not to overload this review on technical details. But all this evidence can be considered as tests also, and their probability-statistical analysis shows that LR of two of three of these tests is comparable in magnitude to the DNA 'LR (Likelihood ratio of DNA-test).
G.King wrote (on January 13):
>>I can tell you the results from the latest DNA test on AA conducted in September 2010 by Dr. Michael Coble who led the team identifying the 2007 Koptyaki remains using hair from AA that I had had in my house since October 1990: The DNA likelihood ratio is 4100 times more likely that AA was FS than that she was not ...<<
and he wrote (on January 14):
>>The likelihood, considering the 2010 tests AND the 1994 tests, that AA was NOT maternally related to FS: A 0.0000606175 chance that she was not related to Franziska<<
Obviously, we can calculate the total LR of the 2010 tests AND the 1994 tests as a number, reverse 0.0000606175 (1:0.0000606175) = 16496. Rounded this figure to 16500. Thus, we can say in other words: the LR, considering the 2010 tests AND the 1994 tests, that AA WAS maternally related to FS: 16 500 chance against only 1 chance that she was not related to FS.
Let's take the minimum figures LR of these three tests (which I wrote above), and let's calculate the aggregate total Likelihood ratio of these three tests = 13000 x Y.x Z. = 174 720 000 000: 1 - in favor that AA was Anastasia against only 1 chance that she was not Anastasia.
Now compare this to total LR of DNA-tests = 16500:1 - in favor that AA was FS ...
I remind also that no U.S. court will not accept as evidence of such the too small LR of DNA-tests(LR= 16500:1) [Judicial precedent in U.S. courts: the trial in the case of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky], and with improper storage conditions of the initial samples of AA [Judicial precedent in U.S. courts: the trial of the case of Simpson in Los Angeles].
I remind also that no U.S. court will not accept as evidence of such the too small LR of DNA-tests(LR= 16500:1) [Judicial precedent in U.S. courts: the trial in the case of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky], and with improper storage conditions of the initial samples of AA [Judicial precedent in U.S. courts: the trial of the case of Simpson in Los Angeles].
THE EXAMPLE (the trial of the case of O.J.Simpson in Los Angeles):
U.S. courts may reject evidence of DNA tests also for reasons of dubious origin of the initial samples. For example, the court in Los Angeles in the case of Simpson rejected DNA tests, because the blood on the back window of the car and socks in the house behind the couch were found a month later. Therefore, the court did not reject the version that the evidence could have been falsified.
Thus, I think, the U.S. courts would be decided to reject the first DNA tests of AA (1990-s), because the samples of organs of AA in the hospital were first allegedly lost, and several months later allegedly found. Also, U.S. court may decline the DNA test of Dr.Coble of 2010 (AA was FS with LR=4100:1), because the hair samples of AA were not issued official documents from the very beginning and it kept long time in informal settings.
THE EXAMPLE (the trial in the case of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky):
DNA identification was used in a U.S. court in a case of U.S. President Bill Clinton. Traces of semen (sperm) on the dress of Monica Lewinsky and President Clinton's blood were the source material for comparison. DNA (extracted from these samples) were compared to 7 loci (a term referring to the database size of the population-genetic analysis). This analysis showed that the probability of accidental coincidence is 1 in 43,000, - so the chances of correct identification (likelihood ratio) was 43 000:1.
NOW NOTE: The Court (Commission of Experts on the court DNA tests) considered this figure (43000:1) as clearly inadequate (too small). There were appointed as an additional examination yet of 7 other loci (the original base for a population-genetic analysis was expanded). The total probability of random coincidence was 1 in 7.87 trillion, which is three orders of magnitude than the world's population. This DNA likelihood ratio convinced the court that the sperm could belong only to Clinton and no one another man in the world.
Generally recommending in the U.S. the accuracy of DNA identification (DNA likelihood ratio) should be such what the corresponding genotype was unique in the population, which numbered are on a rank (in 10 times) more of magnitude than the world's population. Only such an accuracy ( DNA likelihood ratio) is considered in U.S. courts as the sufficient guarantee of accurate identification by DNA tests.
So, (AA/FS)'s DNA likelihood ratio [4100 : 1 /and 16500:1/] is absolutely inadequate (too small). Let me explain a little more detail:
The DNA likelihood ratio is 4100 times more likely that AA was FS than that she was not. What does this mean? This means that statistically among every 4100 people (randomly selected for DNA testing), there is one person whose DNA will match with the DNA of FS (and of her relatives). It means that (virtually) into every major skyscraper (where about 4100 people live in), there is one person whose DNA matches the DNA of FS. Or, in other words: in every village with a population of about 4100 people there is minimum one person whose DNA would give a match with DNA of FS.

It goes without saying that I am absolutely not questioning a professionalism (proficient) and scientific honesty and integrity of Dr. Michael Coble. We are not talking about it, but about the scope of the initial database population genetics, which he possessed when performing DNA tests of A. Anderson and F. Shantskovsky, as well as about the conditions of storage of tissue (and hair of AA) samples prior to their transfer to Dr. M. Coble.

Greg King wrote on their web-forum on Jan. 16, 2011 (at web-forum ColdHarbor):
>>Well, I am IGNORING all computations as I am a complete dunce when it comes to math.<< (large print of the G. King)
I told him then:
However, it is your misfortune, and that's your problem, Greg King!

Of course, I think (I hope and I want to believe) that Greg King and Penny Wilson wrote this book in a state of sincere (honest) mistake (and being blinded a glare of the "sacred cow" of DNA tests in 1994 and 2010). But this does not change the essence in full and the essence of their book «The Resurrection of the Romanovs: Anastasia, Anna Anderson, and the World's Greatest Royal Mystery».

Boris Romanov
Ph.D (Candidate of Technical Sciences), writer

P.S. Those readers who know little about the history of Anna Anderson (Anna-Anastasia), I advise you to first read the articles on this theme on the page of Vladimir Momot:
(http://proza.ru/2008/08/15/173, http://proza.ru/2008/08/15/195)
Tags: anna anderson, franziska shanzkowska, g.king, gd anastasia, p.wilson
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic