4. DNA-testing is not “A sacred cow”!
Unfortunately, Greg King (and all FS's fans) 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 four German psychiatrists [LR=”Y”= at least 840:1];
– 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”= at least 16000:1].
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, at CH-forum):
>>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, at CH-forum):
>>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.
Now, please, attention:
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 Anna Anderson was GD Anastasia against only 1 chance that she was not GD Anastasia.
Now compare this to total LR of DNA-tests = 16500:1 - in favor that Anna Anderson was FS ...
Now, please, attention once more:
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.Shanzkowska, 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 Cold Harbor):
>>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».
In any case, in fact, this book not only has some historical errors, but in King&Wilson's efforts to discredit all the witnesses in favour of Anna Anderson and the expert witnesses at the Hamburg trial, they discredit themselves.
Cinderella's glass slippers of Grand Duchess Anastasia
Very rare congenital deformation of feet "hallux valgus" of Anna Anderson (AA) and Anastasia Nickolaevna Romanova (ANR) puts a fat point in fierce disputes of supporters and opponents of Anna Anderson. In a fairy tale the princess was found out through glass slipper but if in a fairy tale the Prince has found out the Cinderella, in the life of Anna-Anastasia all has taken place on the contrary, and till now, in almost 90 years from appearance-occurrence of Anna-Anastasia in Berlin, even the significant part of members of the House of Romanovs does not recognize, that Anna Anderson was the rescued on July, 17, 1918 GD Anastasia. Fierce disputes on Anna Anderson's riddle proceed till now …
It is surprisingly that all knew about a rarity of this orthopedic disease, but until recently it occurred to nobody to address to experts-orthopedists and to learn exact medical statistics. Only in 2007 year an unknown engineer from Ekaterinburg (Vladimir Momot, his article was published in L-A newspaper “Panorama” in February, 2007) has made it. So, I cite:
«The first work about hallux valgus has been published by doctor Laforest in 1778. The largest works in XX century are D.E.Shklovsky's monography (1937), E.I.Zajtsev's(1959) and G.N. Kramarenko's (1970) dissertations. Working in the Central scientific research institute of traumatology and orthopedy of Ministry of Health of the USSR, Galina Nikolaevna Kramarenko has processed the statistical material collected as a result of mass inspections of women on diseases of static deformation of feet. In result she has obtained the following data. Hallux valgus, as a rule, appears at women of 30-35 years old. G. Kramarenko has found out, that the "isolated" hallux valgus 0,95 % suffer from number of the surveyed women. And the first degree of illness has been fixed at 89 %, and the third degree (case AA and ANR) only at 1,6 % from among the women having the given disease. Thus, one of 6500 women (in the age more senior than 30 years) suffers from this illness.
As to cases of congenital disease (case of AA and ANR), these cases are individual and meet extremely seldom. In head establishment of Russia on this problem the Research institute of children's orthopedic of a name of G.I. Turner for last ten years it is registered only eight cases of this disease. - And it is on hundred fifty millions [more exactly, on 142 million - B.R.] inhabitants of Russia».
Thus, the statistics of a congenital case «hallux valgus» makes 8:142 000000, or, approximately, 1:17 750000! Thus, Anna Anderson really was GD Anastasia with such probability (99,9999947)! By the way, this Research institute of children's orthopedic of a name of G.I. Turner is in Tsarskoe Selo where on June 5 (18), 1901 in 6 A.M. Anastasia NikolaevnaRomanova was born. It is very probable, that children's doctor Henry Ivanovich Turner (1858-1941) examined imperial children in the beginning of XX century in the Aleksandrovsky palace and diagnosed «hallux valgus» to small Anastasia…
The above mentioned statistics practically put down the negative results of the DNA-tests which have been carried out with the remains of some of her body-materials in 1994-1997 – because those years reliability of DNA-researches did not exceed 1:6000 – in three thousand times less authentically, than statistics of "glass slippers" of Anna-Anastasia!
And, finally, the statistics of congenital «hallux valgus» is actually the statistics of facts\artefacts (there are not doubts here) while DNA-researches are a complex (and difficult) procedure at which the opportunity of casual genetic pollution of initial materials is impossible to exclude, and even their ill-intentioned substitution.
***
In conclusion:
As you can see, I am a supporter of Anna Anderson, and I think, she really was Grand Duchess Anastasia. However, it is also clear that my opinions (expressed above) are not the "ultimate truth." My personal statements are only my value judgments. This also applies to my criticism of certain persons mentioned in this brochure.
Also, I apologize to the readers for my imperfect English.