Anna-Anastaia: the old and new versions and discussion

This episode/ chapter concludes by saying that Fransiska's work had ended in violence, and she had no hope so decided to throw herself in the canal.... despite K and W previously having told us that (since the supposed attack in 1918) Fransiska had worked another whole season at the same farm (in 1919), and had actually only gone back to the Wingenders because the land work season had ended in the November!!! This chapter is just so UNCONVINCING!>>

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):

http://www.medinform.biz/stat1.php?id=24422

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.