Anna-Anastaia: the old and new versions and discussion

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 ).

In 1931, AA's doctors Dr Willige, at the Ilten Sanatorium wrote: "To be able to [impersonate another] would require a surpassing intelligence, an extraordinary degree of self-control and an ever alert discipline – all qualities Mrs Tschaikowsky in no way possesses." ["Anastasia. The riddle of Anna Anderson" by Peter Kurth \ in Russian, p.286-287\; Dr Willige's report is in EHF at Harvard.]

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.

Dr. SERGEI RUDNEV

G.King 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: http://www.inr.ac.ru/ads_icons/history/zz/dom.html

"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.

As I understand it, King & Wilson recognized that wounds and injuries (on the head, the body and legs) of Anna Anderson were a much more severe than injuries FS (which she received as a result of a squabble in 1918) – this is why King & Wilson are trying to discredit Dr. Rudnev (who diagnosed AA in 1925). But they "forget" (?) that these wounds and injuries (of AA) were also described in March 1920 at the clinic in Daldorfe.

Quote from the reviews (by "chocolate lover") on Amazon.com:

<<Another example of K and W's arguments being unconvincing is regarding the supposed attack on Fransiska during her time working as a farm worker. They are trying to put forward their argument of where the serious injuries (later seen on Anna Anderson, but never before noted on Fransiska) could have occurred. They regularly note in their footnotes their source as a summary by Herr Meyer called 'Evolution of Fransiska Schanskowska to Anastasia'in the Darmstadt Staatarchiv – but I can find no mention anywhere in their book of who he is – and why his 'evidence' should be believed. The attacker is unnamed, the weapon is guessed at… presumably there were no witnesses, nor hospital records to convince us, nor quotes from fellow workers… it all seems a bit of a 'theory' put forward by someone trying to fill in a few gaps (and create a few injuries on Fransiska, just for good measure). I noticed a lot of inconsistencies in this part… especially that the attack supposedly happened in early Autumn, and Fransiska turned up back at the Wingenders that same Autumn, where Doris is supposed to have noted that Fransiska maybe had some wounds, especially 'the mark on her head'(!) Is this supposed to really account for the broken upper, lower jaws and nose area which we have been told (in this book!) were absolutely definite injuries on Anna Anderson. And the scar from an injury straight through Anna Anderson's foot – which K and W imply happened during this 'farm attack' on Fransiska – had it healed so quickly that she did not limp a little, or complain of pain from it?? The Wingenders never even mentioned it.