Бесплатный фрагмент - 100 years of obscurity in the murder of the Romanov royal family

INTRODUCTION

Many books have been written and dozens of films and television programs created on the subject of the investigation into the murder of the royal family. Yet throughout nearly a hundred years of studying and examining the materials of the criminal investigation, the questions most crucial for uncovering the true circumstances of the Yekaterinburg tragedy of 1918 have never once been raised. In this book, we will attempt to uncover what has been consigned to oblivion for nearly a century.

For those who are not well acquainted with the topic of the royal family’s murder, let us recall that there are two official versions of the investigation into the murder of Emperor Nicholas II and members of his family:

The first version is based on the White Guard investigation conducted between 1918 and 1925 by investigator N. A. Sokolov [1]. According to this version, Emperor Nicholas II, his wife, his children, and those close to them (11 people in total) were shot in the basement of the Ipatiev House during the night of July 16–17, 1918. Their bodies were then transported to abandoned mines in the area of Ganina Yama near the city of Yekaterinburg, where they were stripped, dismembered, and destroyed with acid and fire until no remains were left. According to this version, no remains could have survived.

The second version is based on the investigation conducted between 1991 and 2015 by investigator V. N. Solovyov [2] and a Government Commission headed by B. Nemtsov [3]. This version also relies on the “Yurovsky Note” [9], which contains the recollections of Yakov Yurovsky, who took part in the burial of the Ipatiev House prisoners. According to this note, Emperor Nicholas II, his wife, his children, and those close to them (11 people in total) were shot in the basement of the Ipatiev House during the night of July 16–17, 1918. Their bodies were then transported to abandoned mines in the area of Ganina Yama near Yekaterinburg, stripped, and thrown into one of the shafts. Later, the bodies were retrieved from the shaft, relocated, and buried beneath a railroad tie bridge, except for two bodies that were burned — those of Tsarevich Alexei and Grand Duchess Maria (or a maid, according to Yurovsky’s recollections).

As can be seen, both versions differ only in the handling of the bodies: total destruction by fire and acid, or burial with partial destruction of two bodies. However, there are no discrepancies regarding the number of people killed (11 individuals), the place of the murder (the basement of the Ipatiev House), or the time of the murder (the night of July 16–17, 1918). In 1991, the remains of 9 individuals were discovered near Yekaterinburg under the “railroad tie bridge,” and on July 29, 2007, the charred remains of two adolescents were found not far from the first burial site. All remains were officially identified by investigators as those of the prisoners of the Ipatiev House — the royal family and their close attendants.

The Russian Orthodox Church, headed by Patriarch Kirill (and from 1993 to 2008 by Patriarch Alexy II), representatives of the Russian Imperial House led by Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, other relatives of the Romanov royal dynasty, as well as many scholars, historians, geneticists, and public figures adhere to the first version of the investigation. Therefore, they do not recognize the “Yekaterinburg remains” as the remains of the royal family. Representatives of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, the Government Commission, some Russian experts, geneticists, politicians, and public figures support the second version of the investigation. As such, they acknowledge that the “Yekaterinburg remains” are indeed the remains of all members of the royal family. Unfortunately, there is no version that offers an alternative to the two official ones — namely, a version involving a different scenario of the murder of the Ipatiev House prisoners with the survival of one or more members of the royal family. However, the investigative materials contain evidence of the existence of such an alternative version, which is presented by the author of this book in a form as accessible to the reader as possible.

This book is a compilation of the identified errors and omissions made by investigators, journalists, and historians concerning the circumstances surrounding the murder of the royal family members and those close to them in July 1918. The book also presents, through chronology and event analysis, the full history of the discovery and identification of the remains found near Yekaterinburg in 1991 and 2007. According to the official version of the investigative authorities, these remains belong to Emperor Nicholas II, Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, Tsarevich Alexei, Grand Duchess Maria, Grand Duchess Olga, Grand Duchess Tatiana, and Grand Duchess Anastasia, as well as to Anna Stepanovna Demidova, Yevgeny Sergeyevich Botkin, Ivan Mikhailovich Kharitonov, and Aloise Yegorovich Trupp.

The book presents media materials concerning the stories of the appearance and identification of the most well-known false Anastasias of the Romanov family — Anna Anderson (Chaikovskaya) and N.P. Bilikhodze, whose descendants and traces have reemerged in our days. And also, to the readers’ attention is presented an alternative version of the murder of the imperial family and a version of the escape of Grand Duchess Anastasia Romanova, whose descendants live on the territory of the former USSR.

CHAPTER 1. CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS 1991—2016

In order for even a reader unfamiliar with the subject of the Yekaterinburg tragedy of 1918 to understand what this book is about, we present a chronology of historical events of the last 20 years concerning the investigation of the murder of the members of the Imperial family, as well as the search for and identification of their remains.

EVENTS OF 1991—2000

— In the spring of 1991, the first “Yekaterinburg remains” were discovered near Yekaterinburg.

— July 10, 1991 — the official date of A. N. Avdonin’s report to the district police department of Yekaterinburg regarding the discovery of the “Yekaterinburg remains.”

— December 8, 1991 — the Belavezha Accords on the dissolution of the USSR.

— December 25, 1991 — the USSR ceases to exist.

— October 1993 — January 1998 — Formation and activity of the governmental “Commission for the Study of Issues Related to the Examination and Reburial of the Remains of Russian Emperor Nicholas II and Members of His Family.”

— July 10, 1996 — The Central Civil Registry Office of St. Petersburg carried out the official registration of death and issued death certificates for Romanov N. A., Romanova A. F., Romanova O. N., Romanova T. N., and Romanova A. N.

— In 1998, on July 17, a burial ceremony of the remains of the last Russian Emperor Nicholas II and members of the Imperial family took place in the Peter and Paul Cathedral in St. Petersburg, with the participation of President B. N. Yeltsin, at whose order, back in the Soviet era (1977), the Ipatiev House had been demolished, thereby destroying all evidence of the crime committed on July 17, 1918. One month after the burial of the first “Yekaterinburg remains,” an economic crisis and default occurred. The Government of the Russian Federation resigned.

— 1997—1999 — Vladlen Sirotkin, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor at the Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia and Professor at the Sorbonne, wrote books about the Russian gold of the Romanovs abroad, as well as the book Overseas Gold of Russia (“OLMA-Press,” 1999).

— In 2000, Vladlen Sirotkin wrote the book Gold and Real Estate of Russia Abroad (Moscow, 2000).

— In 2000, V. V. Putin was elected President of the Russian Federation. In the same year, the Russian Orthodox Church canonized Emperor Nicholas II and members of his family — the appearance of the icon of the Holy Royal Passion-Bearers. That same year, reports appeared in the media about the miraculous survival of the daughter of Emperor Nicholas II — Anastasia Romanova (N. P. Bilikhodze).

EVENTS OF 2000—2007

— In 2000, the Interregional Public Charitable Christian Fund of Grand Duchess Anastasia Romanova was registered. It is known that several branches of the fund were created abroad. Such branches operate in Moscow, the Moscow region, St. Petersburg, the city of Togliatti, Belarus, Western Europe, the Middle East, and Canada.

— In September 2000, the fund submitted to the State Duma documents testifying that the youngest daughter of Tsar Nicholas II, Anastasia, was alive and living under the name Natalia Petrovna Bilikhodze in the Moscow region. Materials of a court case in Tbilisi were also submitted, including 22 forensic examinations for the identification of N. Bilikhodze and A. Romanova, carried out in Russia, Georgia, and Latvia.

— A. N. Romanova appealed to the FSB of Russia with a request to verify these materials and filed an application with the Civil Registry Office (ZAGS) for the issuance of a passport confirming her identity.

— On June 11, 2002, a press conference was held in Moscow by the leaders of the Interregional Public Charitable Christian Fund of Grand Duchess Anastasia Romanova. They claimed that the daughter of the last Russian Emperor was not shot by the Bolsheviks in the Ipatiev House. In a few days the “Grand Duchess” was to turn one hundred and one years old.

— July 8, 2002 — a report in Rossiyskaya Gazeta dated July 8, 2002, announced the death of N. P. Bilikhodze in December 2000 at the Central Clinical Hospital. A molecular-genetic study of fragments of biological material from the corpse of citizen Bilikhodze was carried out at the Russian Center of Forensic Medical Expertise of the Ministry of Health of Russia. The study, initiated by the same working group, began on December 18, 2000, and was completed on January 12, 2001. It was conducted by Doctor of Biological Sciences Pavel Leonidovich Ivanov.

— DNA testing disproved any kinship of N. P. Bilikhodze with the British royal family and with the Romanovs.

EVENTS OF 2000—2009

— In August 2007, the second “Yekaterinburg remains” were discovered near Yekaterinburg, and numerous examinations began. On August 21, 2007, Deputy Prosecutor General Alexander Bastrykin canceled the decision to close the criminal case on the murder of the Imperial family.

— On April 30, 2008, during a press conference held by E. E. Rossel in Yekaterinburg, at which he announced that the remains discovered in 2007 belonged to the children of Emperor Nicholas II, a fire broke out in the Church on the Blood, built on the site of the discovery of the first “Yekaterinburg remains.” Previously, in November 2007, the monastery had burned when a fire caused significant damage to one of the churches — in the name of Job the Long-Suffering.

— On March 2, 2008, on the anniversary of Emperor Nicholas II’s abdication of the throne (according to the old style calendar), presidential elections were held in the Russian Federation, in which D. A. Medvedev won.

— On July 17, 2008, Russia marked the 90th anniversary of the execution of the family of Emperor Nicholas II of the Russian Empire. On the same day, the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation announced that genetic and other examinations had confirmed that the remains discovered near Yekaterinburg in 2007 belonged to the children of Nicholas II — Tsarevich Alexei and Grand Duchess Maria.

— By the end of 2008, the global financial crisis began to affect the economies of Russia and the former USSR countries.

— On October 1, 2008, the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation decided on the rehabilitation of the last Russian Emperor Nicholas II and members of his family.

— On December 5, 2008, an international conference was held in Yekaterinburg dedicated to the final conclusions of experts on the identification of the remains discovered near Yekaterinburg in 1991 and 2007. That same morning (during the international conference), news arrived of the death of Patriarch Alexy II.

— On January 15, 2009, the Investigative Committee closed the criminal case on the murder of the Imperial family, placing a final point on the authenticity of the “Yekaterinburg remains” of 1991 and 2007. The materials of the criminal case were not published.

— In media reports dated March 11, 2009, in the article “Ural Forensic Experts Completed the Official Report on the Identification of the Remains of Nicholas II,” it was stated that “the report was made in a single copy” and that it would be submitted to the Investigative Committee under the Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation… Afterwards, all research materials would be handed over to Patriarch Kirill… and American scientists would deliver their report to Metropolitan Hilarion — the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. This procedure was originally planned for February but was postponed until May. A concluding conference was to be held in New York.

— On March 12, 2009, Russian scientists received the first results of genetic testing of the remains of persons from the entourage of Emperor Nicholas II (according to ITAR-TASS, citing the head of a department of the Institute of General Genetics of the Russian Academy of Sciences and professor at the University of Massachusetts, Evgeny Rogaev). Despite the fact that a final conclusion regarding the identification of all the captives of the Ipatiev House was made on December 5, 2008, and the criminal case was closed on January 15, 2009 — that is, three months earlier.

— On March 30, 2009, the chief expert on the “Yekaterinburg remains,” N. Nevolin, died in a car accident. Under his supervision, experts conducted a comparative analysis of DNA samples extracted from the bone fragments of the “Yekaterinburg remains” and DNA samples extracted from the blood on Emperor Nicholas II’s shirt preserved in the Hermitage.

— In August 2009, information appeared on the Internet about the publication by geneticist E. I. Rogaev in the international scientific journal PNAS of the genetic examinations he had conducted and the results of the DNA test from the blood on Emperor Nicholas II’s shirt. [Electronic resource]. URL: http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2009/02/27/0811190106.DCSupplemental/0811190106SI.pdf (accessed November 13, 2024).

— On September 15, 2009, a TV report showed that Israeli geneticists had proven that DNA tests can be forged, and very easily. They conducted an experiment demonstrating that DNA can be fabricated both from blood and from saliva. Thus, a 100% identification through genetic expertise can also be a 100% forgery. Knowing the original target DNA code, one can fabricate an identical synthetic one. Moreover, distinguishing them from each other is possible only through specific tests. Scientists concluded that such falsification practices had most likely already been used repeatedly by fraudsters. In addition, by taking a hair or other material from one person, it is possible to mix the extracted DNA into the blood or saliva of another person, thereby altering that person’s DNA.

— On October 20, 2009, the Russian Imperial House and Empress Maria Vladimirovna Romanova were denied a petition to reopen the criminal case investigating the circumstances of the death of Emperor Nicholas II and his family. She had submitted the request to the Prosecutor General’s Office in September.

— On October 9, 2009, the British journal Science reported that scientists had succeeded in discovering the gene for hemophilia in the remains found near Yekaterinburg in 2007, which presumably belonged to two children of Emperor Nicholas II (Tsarevich Alexei and Grand Duchess Maria [Anastasia]). The research team from the University of Manchester was headed by Dr. Evgeny Rogaev. According to him, this discovery was “the final confirmation of the authenticity of the remains of the Romanov family.”

EVENTS OF 2010–2014

— January 15, 2010 — Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, head of the Imperial House of Romanov, filed a petition with the Basmanny Court of Moscow demanding the annulment of the resolution to terminate the criminal investigation into the murder of Nicholas II and members of his family, and also requesting access to the Resolution on the termination of the criminal case, which still had not been provided to the relatives of Emperor Nicholas II living abroad.

— August 26, 2010 — The Basmanny Court of Moscow annulled the prosecutor’s decision to close the criminal case regarding the death of the members of the imperial family.

— September 14, 2010 — A massive fire broke out in the morning at the monastery of Ganina Yama, located near Yekaterinburg. The blaze erupted at dawn in the main cathedral of the monastic complex — the church dedicated to the Icon of the Mother of God “Derzhavnaya.”

— The criminal case concerning the circumstances of the death of the tsar’s family and those in their entourage was reopened in January 2011 (or, according to media reports, on November 25, 2010) and finally closed on January 14, 2011.

— July 10, 2011 — Eduard Radzinsky, the first person to discover the “Yurovsky Note,” was involved in a car accident in which a 24-year-old woman named Maria was killed. Radzinsky was considered at fault in the accident. The “Yurovsky Note” was first published in the magazine Ogonyok in 1989.

— Fires at the site of the “Yekaterinburg remains” — In November 2007 the dome and walls of the church dedicated to St. Job the Much-Suffering caught fire. On April 30, 2008 a church shop burned down.

— February 5, 2012 — In the night from Saturday to Sunday a fire broke out on the grounds of the Ganina Yama monastery complex, located in the town of Sredneuralsk. The abbot’s house of the functioning men’s monastery caught fire.

— From June 2005 to March 2013, twin sisters from the Republic of Belarus, through the Internet and appeals to monarchist and public organizations, claimed that Grand Duchess Anastasia Romanova escaped execution, was married, and had three children, two of whom died during the Second World War (a boy aged 11–12 from hemophilia, and a girl aged 13 from diphtheria), while the third (their father) Nikolai Pavlovich was the only surviving grandson of Emperor Nicholas II. The sisters also stated that members of their family were persecuted by criminal groups and that during the promotion of the impostor Anastasia N. P. Bilikhoidze in 1995–2001, fraudsters used their personal data (medical records, handwriting samples), when conducting examinations in civil court proceedings.

— In 2008 they had DNA tests performed on family members in several foreign genetic laboratories. The main DNA results were received only by the end of 2008–early 2009. In November 2008 the sisters privately contacted biologist and geneticist A. A. Klesov, but received nothing except insults to their human and female dignity, threats, and unfounded accusations. Their efforts resulted in three media articles:

— 1. A. A. Klesov, “To Die for the Grand Duchess 1” [http://lebed.com/2008/art5414.htm] (accessed November 13, 2024).

— 2. A. A. Klesov, “To Die for the Grand Duchess 2” [http://lebed.com/2008/art5434.htm] (accessed November 13, 2024).

In spring 2009 (at the time of receiving all DNA test results), one of the sisters filed a statement with the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, which was investigating the circumstances of the murder and identification of the remains of Emperor Nicholas II’s family. Instead of a substantive response regarding an investigation in the reopened criminal case, she received only a formal refusal to conduct any examination or investigation.

After the appeal to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, the newspaper Trud, No. 051 of March 26, 2009, published an article entitled “Have You Enrolled as a Descendant of Genghis Khan” authored by E. Vorobyeva (link as of September 28, 2025: https://geno.ru/news/2582). The article was written in a form humiliating to the sisters; moreover, in the electronic version of the article a photograph of an unknown girl was published and captioned as a photograph of Natalya Izbitskaya. After this, the sisters sent a letter to the editor-in-chief demanding an apology and the publication of a retraction, as well as demanding the publication of their real photographs, the DNA test results, and their true story of how they learned of their connection to the Romanov dynasty. An online announcement of an article titled “What the DNA Conceals,” dated April 9, 2009, promised publication of all the data, but on April 9, 2009 the article was replaced with another.

In 2012 the twin sisters discovered details of a personal meeting in the summer of 1990 with V. V. Putin, the consequence of which was a false accusation against one sister of a crime allegedly committed against Putin’s pregnant wife in July 1990, which resulted in a miscarriage (employees of Leningrad University working there in 1990, including A. Sobchak, can confirm this public scandal and tragedy within the university walls).

As a result of a renewed appeal to the law enforcement authorities of Belarus and Russia, there was an attempt on March 8, 2013 to have one of the sisters illegally committed to a psychiatric hospital. The actions of law enforcement officers and psychiatric emergency workers led to a heart attack and the death of their father, Nikolai Pavlovich Izbitsky.

Several days after the funeral, a registered letter arrived from the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, dated February, stating that their appeal had been accepted for substantive review. The sisters never received a response on the outcome of this review.

— Late February 2014 — In Ural regional news, ITAR-TASS correspondent Georgy Letov reported on a historic discovery made by Professor V. V. Alekseev and a group of scholars from the Institute of History and Archaeology of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, confirming the fact of the escape of the youngest daughter of Emperor Nicholas II — Grand Duchess Anastasia Romanova.

— On March 27, 2014, the Basko publishing house in Yekaterinburg released Professor V. V. Alekseev’s book Who Are You, Madame Chaikovskaya? [link as of 28.09.25: https://tass.ru/ural-news/1064155].

— According to the scholars, the woman previously declared to be the impostor Anastasia Romanova — Anna Anderson (Chaikovskaya) — was in fact the true daughter of the Romanov imperial couple, who gave birth to a son in 1919, whose descendants now live in Yekaterinburg. This is Vladimir Momot and his family. He maintains a page on Proza.ru where he publishes his articles [link as of 28.09.25: https://proza.ru/avtor/annaanastasia].

EVENTS OF 2015—2016

— On the night of Friday to Saturday, February 27, 2015, B. E. Nemtsov — former First Deputy Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation and Chairman of the “Government Commission for the Study of Issues Related to the Examination and Reburial of the Remains of Russian Emperor Nicholas II and Members of His Family” — was murdered.

— On July 9, 2015, by decision of the Head of the Government of the Russian Federation M.A. Medvedev, an interdepartmental working group was created to study and rebury the remains discovered near Yekaterinburg in the summer of 2007, which, according to investigative findings, belonged to two children of the Imperial couple — Tsarevich Alexei and Grand Duchess Maria (according to foreign experts — Grand Duchess Anastasia).

— On September 11, 2015, the Working Group, headed by the Chief of Staff of the Government of Russia Sergey Prikhodko, after two months of complete information blackout, decided to bury the remains of the two children on October 18, 2015, in St. Petersburg next to other remains of members of the Romanov dynasty.

— On September 23, 2015, the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation reopened the investigation of the criminal case concerning the execution of members of the Russian Imperial House of Romanov and persons from their retinue.

— On October 14, 2015, on the Feast of the Protection of the Most Holy Theotokos, Gely Ryabov — who discovered the remains beneath the “bridge of railroad ties” — died at the age of 84.

— In mid-November 2015, two press conferences were held dedicated to the topic of the murder of the Imperial family and the identification of the remains discovered in 1991 and 2007 near Yekaterinburg. Video materials of the conferences were published on the website Russian People’s Line: “Scientific Conference ‘The Yekaterinburg Remains: Where Is the Truth and Where Is Fiction?’” [Electronic resource URL: http://ruskline.ru/video/2015/noyabr/21/nauchnaya_konferen

— ciya_ekaterinburgskie_ostanki_gde_pravda_a_gde_vymysel/, as of September 28, 2025, the video materials are not available for viewing)

— On November 10, 2015, on Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s website Open Russia, an article was published entitled “Twin Sisters Natalia and Elena Izbitskaya — Descendants of Princess Anastasia Romanova (Daughter of Nicholas II) — Proved Their Kinship by Taking a DNA Test.” The article included authentic photographs and DNA results. The article was removed in the fall of 2016. [Electronic resource]

— URL: https://openrussia.org/post/view/10482 (accessed November 13, 2016).

— On November 11, 2015, UralInformBuro published an interview with Vladimir Momot from Yekaterinburg (grandson of Anna Anderson – Chaikovskaya) regarding the inheritance claims of the lawyer and husband of Anna Anderson. [Electronic resource]

— URL: http://www.uralinfor...o-anastasii-tam-net/ (accessed May 10, 2016).

— On December 11, 2015, the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation brought charges of multiple murders against Mikhail Khodorkovsky and a court decision was made to arrest him in absentia. [Electronic resource]

— URL: http://m.sledcom.ru/news/item/998485/ (accessed November 13, 2024).

— On December 22, 2015, the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation carried out searches in connection with the Mikhail Khodorkovsky case in the apartments of employees of Open Russia and the press secretary of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Külle Pispanen. The searches were conducted under case No. 18/41–03. The result of the searches was the seizure of computers and monitors. [Electronic resource]

— URL: https://openrussia.org/post/view/11484/ (accessed November 13, 2016).

— From November 3 to 27, 2015, the tomb of Emperor Alexander III, the father of Emperor Nicholas II, was opened and his remains were exhumed.

— On November 20, 2015, the investigation was placed under the personal control of the Chairman of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, A. I. Bastrykin. The investigative team was headed by the Acting Head of the Directorate for the Investigation of Especially Important Cases, Major General of Justice I. V. Krasnov. Forensic investigator V. N. Solovyov was removed from the investigation of the criminal case, but he also joined the group, with his status elevated to Senior Investigator for Especially Important Cases. In addition, a special working group was created under the Investigative Committee of Russia, headed by the Chairman of the Investigative Committee Alexander Bastrykin. From the Russian Orthodox Church, Bishop Tikhon (Shevkunov) joined this group.

— On December 24, 2015, with the blessing of the Holy Patriarch, the remains allegedly belonging to Tsarevich Alexei and Grand Duchess Maria were placed under the Church’s safekeeping for the duration of investigative actions in criminal case No. 252/404516–15 concerning the execution of members of the Russian Imperial House in the Urals and Petrograd in 1918–1919.

— Information source: SINFO [Electronic resource]

— URL: http://ruskline.ru/news_rl/2015/12/24/ekaterinburgskie_ostanki_peredany_na_hranenie_cerkvi/ (accessed 13.11.2016).

— On December 24, 2015, the status of investigation No. 18–123666–93 was changed. It received a new title — “On the Execution of Members of the Russian Imperial House in the Urals and Petrograd in 1918–1919” — and a new case number, No. 252/404516–15. Within the framework of this criminal case, additional comprehensive studies will be carried out, including historical-archival, anthropological, and genetic examinations.

— {} An announcement was published on RNL stating that the Director of the State Archive of Russia, Sergey Mironenko, was dismissed from his position.

— [Electronic resource]

— URL: http://ruskline.ru/news_rl/2016/03/18/prognoz_rnl_sbylsya/ (accessed 13.11.2024).

— On October 7, 2016, the Saturday news program “Vesti” broadcast a report featuring the Vicar of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, Bishop Tikhon (Shevkunov) of Yegoryevsk, titled “Imperial Remains: The Church Trusts the Genetic Examination.”

— [Electronic resource]

— URL: http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=2805274&tid=48152 (accessed 13.11.2024).

— On Saturday, October 8, 2016, on the Feast Day of St. Sergius of Radonezh, after the Divine Liturgy in the Assumption Cathedral of the Holy Trinity – St. Sergius Lavra, a meeting took place in the Patriarchal chambers of the monastery between His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia and Prince Dmitry Romanovich Romanov, head of the Association of Members of the Romanov Family, as reported by Patriarchia.ru. According to His Holiness, “the remains are encrypted,” and none of the specialists conducting the examination knows in which container they are located. “I have a list compiled in the presence of other people — we know which remains are in which containers,” added His Holiness Patriarch Kirill, noting that the measures taken will allow one “to have confidence in this examination.”

— [Electronic resource]

— URL: http://ruskline.ru/news_rl/2016/10/10/ostanki_zashifrovany/ (accessed 13.11.2024).

CHAPTER 2. MISTAKES IN THE INVESTIGATION OF THE MURDER OF THE of the Romanov royal family

FIRST MISTAKE. IGNORING FACTS CONFIRMING THE EVACUATION OF THE FEMALE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY FROM THE IPATIEV HOUSE

In the materials of the investigation conducted by Investigator N. A. Sokolov (1919–1925), as well as in the materials of the modern investigation (1993–2009) under the direction of Investigator V. N. Solovyov, there is a common mistake. Both investigators failed to notice the facts confirming the evacuation of the wife and daughters of Emperor Nicholas II to abandoned mines.

Let us examine these facts.

THE FACT OF THE DISCOVERY OF THE BODY OF THE FEMALE DOG JEMMY AT THE ABANDONED MINES

For some reason, all the investigators who carried out inquiries into the circumstances of the murder of the captives of the Ipatiev House (hereafter referred to as IH) regarded the discovery of the body of a small female dog at the bottom of an abandoned mine shaft as the primary proof that the bodies of the murdered captives had been thrown into this shaft — rather than the captives themselves having been transported alive from the IH to the mine on the night of July 16–17. The body of the female dog Jemmy (belonging to Grand Duchess Anastasia Romanova) was found on July 25, 1919, at the bottom of an open mine by Investigator N. A. Sokolov. The dog had a broken leg and a fractured skull, which (according to the doctor’s conclusion) caused her death.

If one assumes that all the captives of the IH were killed in its basement, then why was it necessary to kill the dog (which did not die from a gunshot but from a cranial injury), then transport her body and throw it into the mine? Would it not have been simpler to bury her in the garden? Especially considering that another dog — a spaniel belonging to Tsarevich Alexei — was left alive and unharmed (after the tragedy, it was taken by the guard M. I. Lemetin). Could it really be that the executioners so hated the little dog belonging to the youngest daughter of the Imperial couple that they killed only her? And why then would they carefully ensure the transport of her body, along with the remains of the executed, only to carelessly forget it at the bottom of the mine? For some reason, the discovery of the body of a single dog belonging to the Imperial family at the bottom of an abandoned mine is regarded by investigators as the main proof of their death. Yet the survival of the spaniel of Tsarevich Alexei is not considered evidence that the Imperial family was not shot. None of the investigators, unfortunately, managed to draw the obvious conclusion that pets always follow their living owners.

From all of the above, only one conclusion can be drawn: there was no particular concern for the little dog belonging to Grand Duchess Anastasia. She was simply taken to the mines along with her mistress, thrown into the shaft, and forgotten. And in doing so, the perpetrators made their most fatal mistake. For it is precisely household pets — unwitting witnesses to events — that serve as physical evidence capable of revealing the secret of the Yekaterinburg tragedy: the male captives of the Ipatiev House were killed in the basement, while the female captives were transported to the mine for destruction.

FACT OF THE DISCOVERY AT THE ABANDONED MINES OF ITEMS BELONGING TO MEMBERS OF THE IMPERIAL FAMILY, WHICH THEY USUALLY TOOK WITH THEM ON LONG JOURNEYS

At the mine, items were found that belonged to the Imperial family, things they usually took with them when traveling (holy icons, small cardboard frames, bottles of smelling salts, a piece of the knapsack of Tsarevich Alexei). Also puzzling is the discovery at the mine of the remains of a small handbag (or wallet), fragments of candle wax, and part of a candle. Could it really be that the prisoners of the Ipatiev House (hereafter — IH) carried candles in the inner pockets of their clothes? But if they packed items into handbags, knapsacks (or wallets), then why was it necessary to transport all these belongings together with the corpses to the mine? Would it not have been simpler to leave them behind and destroy them in the furnaces of the house, as many other items belonging to the prisoners were destroyed?

It is also unclear why the prisoners — who were supposedly asked to go down to the lower floor of the house for one night “for security reasons” — would take with them the very things usually packed for a long journey. The most reasonable explanation for why all these items ended up near the abandoned shaft can only be one: the prisoners were preparing for evacuation beyond the IH, not to hide in the basement for one night, and they were taken beyond Yekaterinburg, but with their belongings reached no farther than the abandoned mine. All versions claiming that the Bolsheviks deliberately brought the prisoners’ belongings from the IH to the mines to conceal the crime or the crime scene are refuted both by the voluntary testimonies of participants in the execution and burial, and by official documents regarding the evacuation of the family of Emperor Nicholas II from Yekaterinburg.

DOCUMENTS CONFIRMING THE FACT OF THE EVACUATION OF THE FAMILY OF EMPEROR NICHOLAS II

The following telegrams and cipher messages are official documents confirming the fact of the evacuation of members of the family of Emperor Nicholas II:

— Cipher message of July 17, 1918, from Yekaterinburg by A. G. Beloborodov to the secretary of the Council of People’s Commissars N. P. Gorbunov for Y. M. Sverdlov:

“Transmit to Sverdlov that the entire family has met the same fate as the head; officially the family will perish during evacuation.” (“Передаите Свердлову что все семеиство постигла та же участь что и главу оффициально семия погибнет при евакуации”). If, of course, this text has any connection at all to the fate of the children and wife of Emperor Nicholas II. The cipher message does not specify which family is meant, who was evacuated rather than executed, or how the killing took place.

— Telegram found on September 5, 1918, by I. A. Sergeev, stating:

“The Romanov family, held together with him under guard, has been evacuated from the city of Yekaterinburg in the interests of maintaining public calm. Presidium of the Regional Council of Workers’, Peasants’, and Red Army Deputies of the Urals.” (“Семья Романова, содержавшаяся вместе с ним под стражей, эвакуирована из города Екатеринбурга в интересах обеспечения общественного спокойствия. Президиум областного совета Раб. Кр. и Красноарм. Деп. Урала”. ).

3.Telegram sent July 17, 1918, from Yekaterinburg by the Presidium of the Regional Council to V. I. Lenin and Y. M. Sverdlov, which spoke “of the execution of Nicholas II in connection with a White Guard plot,” and that his family “has been evacuated to a secure place.” (“о расстреле Николая II в связи с белогвардейским заговором”, о том, что его семья “эвакуирована в надежное место”).

4.Official text of the decree, published a week after the execution of Emperor Nicholas II in Perm:

“Decree of the Presidium of the Ural Regional Council of Workers’, Peasants’, and Red Army Deputies:

“In view of the fact that Czechoslovak bands threaten the capital of the Red Urals, Yekaterinburg; in view of the fact that the crowned executioner may escape the people’s court (a White Guard plot has just been uncovered, aiming to abduct the entire Romanov family), the Presidium of the Regional Committee, in fulfillment of the will of the people, decrees: to execute former Tsar Nicholas Romanov, guilty before the people of countless bloody crimes. The decree of the Presidium of the Regional Council was carried out in the night of July 16–17. The Romanov family has been transferred from Yekaterinburg to another, more secure place. Presidium of the Regional Council of Workers’, Peasants’, and Red Army Deputies of the Urals.”

“Постановление Президиума Уральского областного Совета рабочих, крестьянских и красноармейских депутатов: Ввиду того, что чехо-словацкие банды угрожают столице красного Урала, Екатеринбургу; ввиду того, что коронованный палач может избежать суда народа (только что обнаружен заговор белогвардейцев, имевший целью похищение всей семьи Романовых), Президиум областного комитета во исполнение воли народа, постановил: расстрелять бывшего царя Николая Романова, виновного перед народом в бесчисленных кровавых преступлениях. Постановление Президиума областного совета приведено в исполнение в ночь с 16 на 17 июля. Семья Романовых переведена из Екатеринбурга в другое, более верное место. Президиум областного Совета рабочих, крестьянских и красноармейских депутатов Урала”.

— On July 21, 1918, the official Bolshevik “Press Bureau” sent telegram No. 6153 from Moscow to the Yekaterinburg Regional Council, stating that “Emperor Nicholas II was executed on July 16, Tsarevich Alexei and Empress Alexandra Fyodorovna were sent to a secure place.” (“Император Николая II расстрелен 16 июля, Цесаревич Алексей и Императрица Александра Федоровна отправлены в надежное место”).

— Yet the telegram says nothing at all about the fate of the daughters of the Imperial couple.

If we compare the texts of all the telegrams, we get the following result: “the entire family… will perish during evacuation,” “The Romanov family has been evacuated from the city of Yekaterinburg.” (“все семеиство…. погибнет при евакуации”, “Семья Романова эвакуирована из города Екатеринбурга”).

There are numerous official documents and media reports confirming the execution of Emperor Nicholas II. It is unnecessary to provide a full list of them, as they have been published many times in various books by other authors attempting to uncover the true circumstances of the Imperial family’s murder. However, documents confirming the execution or evacuation of individuals close to Emperor Nicholas II (Anna Stepanovna Demidova, Yevgeny Sergeyevich Botkin, Ivan Mikhailovich Kharitonov, and Aloiziy Yegorovich Trupp) are absent both in the materials of the criminal investigation and in the 1918 media.

Furthermore, when comparing the circumstances of the murder of the IH prisoners in Yekaterinburg (11 people) with the circumstances of the murder of the prisoners in Alapaevsk (8 people), even in the materials of investigator N. A. Sokolov (chapter 26) [1], it is stated that before the executions, the prisoners in both cities were lured from their place of residence under false pretenses and taken to abandoned mines, where they were then killed. To quote:

“Only a single day separates the Yekaterinburg murder from that in Alapaevsk. There, a remote mine was chosen to conceal the crime. The same method was used here. The Imperial family was lured from their residence under false pretenses. The same was done here… Both the Yekaterinburg and Alapaevsk murders are the product of the will of the same individuals.” (“Всего лишь сутки отделяют екатеринбургское убийство от алапаевского. Там выбрали глухой рудник, чтобы скрыть преступление. Тот же прием и здесь. Ложью выманили царскую семью из ее жилища. Так же поступили и здесь…….И екатеринбургское и алапаевское убийства — продукт одной воли одних лиц”.

In the investigation of both murders (Yekaterinburg and Alapaevsk), certain facts can be highlighted that unite them, as well as certain facts that distinguish the two killings from each other. Let us examine them in more detail:

— Depth of the mines. In N. A. Sokolov’s investigation [1], there is a description of the depth and condition of the mines, which for some reason differs from the data recorded in the “Yurovsky Note” [9]. Near Alapaevsk, the mine had a depth of 28 arshins (19.9136 m) and was blocked with old logs. The mine near Yekaterinburg had a depth of only 3 arshins (2.4892 m), with water in the shaft measuring 1 arshin (0.7112 m), according to the “Yurovsky Note.” According to Sokolov’s investigation, the depth of the Yekaterinburg mine was 5 sazhens 7 vershoks (10.668 m and 31.115 cm). According to Yurovsky’s testimony, the Alapaevsk mine was 8 times deeper than the Yekaterinburg mine, and according to Sokolov’s materials, 1.8 times deeper. These discrepancies in the description of the mine depths may indicate either that different mines are being referred to, or that Yurovsky’s recollections are false testimony.

— Number of victims thrown into the mines. Eight people (1 corpse and 8 living) were thrown into the mine near Alapaevsk, while 11 people (or corpses) were thrown into the mine near Yekaterinburg, despite the fact that the second mine was 8 times shallower than the first according to Yurovsky’s testimony, and nearly twice as shallow according to Sokolov’s investigation. If a living person is thrown into a mine 19 meters deep, and another into a mine only 2.48 meters deep, the latter has 8 times greater chances of survival. Moreover, if even more people are thrown into the latter mine, the chances of survival would have been significantly higher.

— Timing and orders of the killings. The murder of the IH prisoners in Yekaterinburg occurred by order of the Yekaterinburg Regional Council on the night of July 16–17, 1918 (according to participants in the execution). The murder of the prisoners in Alapaevsk occurred on July 17–18, 1918, also by order of the Yekaterinburg Regional Council (according to the testimony of Chekist Petr Startsev, who arrived at the school on July 17 at 12 p.m.; Safarov from Yekaterinburg came to oversee them). If the Yekaterinburg method of throwing prisoners (or their corpses) into the mines was applied in Alapaevsk, then most likely the miscalculations made the day before were taken into account. Alternatively, both crimes could have been committed on the same day, and the subsequent actions regarding the bodies in Yekaterinburg were prompted by the mine’s insufficient depth or unforeseen circumstances.

— Condition of the prisoners. The prisoners in Alapaevsk were thrown into the mines clothed, while the prisoners of the IH were thrown into the mines naked (according to the testimonies of burial participants). In Alapaevsk, all money and valuables were confiscated from the prisoners beforehand; for the IH prisoners, there is no precise evidence of full confiscation. Therefore, undressing the IH prisoners at the House of Special Purpose (before being thrown into the mines) may have been undertaken solely to confiscate valuables hidden under clothing, or as an act of humiliation or violence.

— Use of explosives in the mines. The Yekaterinburg mine was rigged with grenades, and the Alapaevsk mine was also blown up with grenades. The bodies in the Alapaevsk mine were discovered on October 8–11, 1918, while no bodies were found in the Yekaterinburg mine, only some items belonging to the IH prisoners. If in the Yekaterinburg mine, according to Yurovsky’s dimensions, more than half filled with water, a load weighing about 700 kg (60 kg * 11 people) was thrown in, the water level could have reached the edges of the mine or overflowed. In that case, throwing grenades into the mines would have been extremely difficult, as their explosions could have simply scattered the water over a large distance from the mine, and the intended result would not have been achieved. Possibly, the insufficient depth of the Yekaterinburg mine was the reason for subsequent actions regarding the burial of the bodies. Alternatively, it may have been to conceal not an uncommitted murder, but the fact that some of the prisoners were saved.

Conclusions regarding the evacuation of the family, made by the first investigator conducting the inquiry, I. A. Sergeev, were also ignored by investigators N. A. Sokolov and V. N. Solovyov. Despite the confirmation of the evacuation of the members of Emperor Nicholas II’s family, the following conclusions can be drawn:

— All recollections of participants in the execution are false testimony (either entirely or partially). There is no evidence in the investigative materials confirming the death (execution) of all prisoners of the House of Special Purpose (IH) in its basement;

— The recollections of the execution and burial participant Y. Yurovsky constitute false testimony, and his note is an intellectual forgery (either entirely or partially). There is also no evidence in the investigative materials confirming the death of all IH prisoners outside the IH (on the way, at abandoned mines, or in other locations);

— The question of whether any of Emperor Nicholas II’s children could have survived remains open.

Additionally, the existence of an execution room in the basement of the Ipatiev House and the presence of human blood traces there cannot be taken to mean that:

— it was specifically IH prisoners who were executed in this room, and not other individuals;

— all IH prisoners were executed in this room, and not only some of them.

Given the numerous existing facts and evidence of the evacuation of Emperor Nicholas II’s family from the IH, it is unclear how investigator N. A. Sokolov could have made such an error. Since the 1993–2011 investigation was based on the criminal investigation of 1918–1925, it adopted the erroneous version that all prisoners were executed in the IH basement as the main evidence in the case. Based on the content of official documents, it can be concluded that only Emperor Nicholas II was executed on the night of July 16–17, 1918, while his family was evacuated from Yekaterinburg.

The authors of the book The Romanov Case or the Execution That Never Happened, A. Summers and T. Mangold (published in Russia in 2011, Moscow, Algorithm) [10], also provided multiple pieces of evidence supporting the version that the female members of Emperor Nicholas II’s family were evacuated from Yekaterinburg to Perm. The journalists-authors based their conclusions on the alleged existence of an agreement between the Soviet authorities and the German side regarding the delivery of two German princesses (in accordance with a clause of the Brest Peace Treaty of March 3, 1918). However, Summers and Mangold’s book contains a significant omission that makes the Perm version of the rescue of the Emperor’s wife and daughters unlikely — it fails to mention the murder of Empress Alexandra Feodorovna’s sister on the second day after the royal family disappeared from the Ipatiev House.

Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna Romanova was arrested two months later (May 7, 1918) after the conclusion of the Brest Peace with Germany (March 3, 1918) and remained in Yekaterinburg until May 19, after which she was transferred to Alapaevsk, Verkhotursky Uyezd, Perm Governorate. Until the liberation of Alapaevsk on September 28, 1918, the Soviet authorities disseminated information through the media about the escape (abduction) of all Grand Dukes, except Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna (telegram from Beloborodov dated July 18, 18:30, No. 374; announcement by Beloborodov on July 25, 1918, in issue 144 of Permskie Izvestiya, [Electronic resource] URL: http://gold-word2008.narod.ru/Sokolov26.html, accessed 13.11.2024). Therefore, until the discovery of the bodies of all Alapaevsk prisoners on October 7–11, 1918, it was officially considered that the German princess, the sister of Emperor Nicholas II’s wife, was a refugee and likely alive. However, after her remains were found, her death was confirmed, the cause of death established, and witnesses and participants in the murder were questioned, all official reports from Soviet authorities were proven false. This is especially true after it was established that the execution was carried out by order from Yekaterinburg, under the direction of Safarov, a member of the Ural Regional Council and close associate of V. Lenin.

These facts confirm that V. Lenin and the Soviet leadership manipulated disinformation regarding the rescue of the German princess, Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna. It is also difficult to believe that the German relatives negotiated with V. Lenin solely for the release of one German princess without requesting the release of the other. Therefore, all information disseminated by Soviet authorities about the evacuation of the second German princess, Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, could very well have been disinformation. All of the above makes the conclusions of the journalistic investigation by A. Summers and T. Mangold their personal interpretation of the information available to them, often contradictory, rather than established factual evidence.

Journalists A. Summers and T. Mangold concluded that the reported execution of all members of the royal family in the basement of the Ipatiev House and the destruction of their bodies at the abandoned mine were falsified. Their book contains several facts that contradict the conclusions of the official investigations by N. A. Sokolov and, likewise, V. N. Solovyov:

— The number of victims was fewer than 11, and during the execution, the victims were kneeling. This conclusion was drawn from a photograph of the execution room, which investigator Sergeev did not take immediately after July 17 but was taken almost a year later by investigator Sokolov, after parts of the floor and walls had already been removed;

— The absence of any damage (from bullets or bayonets) on the details of six women’s corsets may indicate that no shooting occurred while the victims were wearing the corsets. This fact was established based on the description of the condition of corset pieces found near the abandoned mine;

— The complete destruction of execution victims by fire and acid is unrealistic. This conclusion was based on the absence of victims’ teeth (human teeth cannot be dissolved in acid even if kept there for two weeks), and it is impossible to reduce a human body to ashes outdoors in two days. The conclusion was drawn based on an experimental test conducted by the book’s authors with the participation of experts.

The arguments suggesting that the physical evidence found at the mine (personal belongings, jewelry, the dog’s body, etc.) was planted to falsify the deaths of the IH prisoners are also questionable. Personal items (clothing, jewelry, shoes) could have been taken from either living people or corpses, either for the purpose of dressing, or as a means of humiliation and abuse (particularly toward young women). It is also strange that investigator N. A. Sokolov describes the corpse of the dog belonging to Grand Duchess Anastasia, while the authors of the book describe the corpse of the dog belonging to Grand Duchess Tatiana. Investigator Sokolov describes the mine as one where “the ice almost never melts,” whereas the book cites Alexander Sheremetyevsky’s account that “there was no ice at the bottom, only water.”

The conclusions of pathologist Professor Batchelor that the body of the dog Jimmy could not have been preserved in the mine for a year (having spent five months in water) are also not entirely convincing. Since the comparison was made not according to the actual climatic conditions of Yekaterinburg, but according to the climate of Canada, the conclusions cannot be considered objective, as even within a single climatic zone, temperature conditions can vary from year to year. Therefore, drawing such conclusions without analyzing the climatic situation in Yekaterinburg from spring 1918 to June 1919 is not serious, especially given the disputed information regarding the presence of ice in the mine.

The authors of the book also assert that the telegram sent by Beloborodov at 9:00 a.m. on July 17, 1918, and signed by him, could very well be a forgery. This telegram was presented by N. A. Sokolov in his book as the primary evidence of the execution of the entire Romanov family in the Ipatiev House: “Inform Sverdlov that the entire family has suffered the same fate as the head; officially, the family will perish during the evacuation.” (“Передайте Свердлову что все семейство постигла та же участь что и главу официально семья погибнет при эвакуации”). Sokolov’s book includes a photograph of the telegraph form with the ink signature of the Chairman of the Ural Regional Council, Alexander Beloborodov. The authors of the book present several arguments supporting their conclusions:

— The telegram was discovered by court member Sergeev on January 20, 1919, but was deciphered by expert A. Abaza at the request of investigator Sokolov only on September 15, 1920 (one year and eight months later), despite the fact that the telegram’s cipher was exactly the same as that of other telegrams found at the same time and deciphered (Dr. Huttenhain calls it a “Polyalphabetic Substitution” system);

— The Russian-language edition, published in Germany in 1925 (after the death of investigator N. A. Sokolov from a heart attack), appeared a year after the French edition and was heavily edited. In the French edition, Sokolov established the time the telegram was received by investigator Sergeev as January 20, 1919. In the Russian edition, this date was omitted. Furthermore, the paragraph in which Sokolov predicted that the words “family” and “evacuation” would “probably” appear in the telegram was completely removed from the Russian edition;

— A comparison of Beloborodov’s signature on the July 17, 1918, telegram (in the new style) and his signature on the receipt issued upon the transfer of the imperial family immediately after their arrival in Yekaterinburg in late April 1918 (in the old style), conducted by London Police forensic expert Maxwell Friedem, did not confirm that the signatures belonged to the same person. This allowed the expert to conclude that “the document is sufficiently suspicious to be used as independent evidence.”

Nevertheless, according to the “Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the Rehabilitation of the Imperial Family” dated October 1, 2008 (N 274-П08), [11] the fact of the execution of members of Emperor Nicholas II’s family is confirmed not by all materials of the criminal case, but solely by the aforementioned telegram of July 17, 1918, from Yekaterinburg, sent by A. G. Beloborodov to the Secretary of the Sovnarkom, N. P. Gorbunov, for Ya. M. Sverdlov. Additionally, the fact of the death of all members of Emperor Nicholas II’s family is confirmed only by photocopies of death certificates issued by the Central Civil Registry Office (ZAGS) of Saint Petersburg in 1996–1997, not by the materials of the criminal case. At the same time, the members of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation did not verify the legality of the issued death certificates or the authenticity of the signature on the telegram. Quoting:

“The fact of the execution of members of the Romanov family N. A. — Romanova A. F., Romanova O. N., Romanova T. N., Romanova M. N., Romanova A. N., Romanov A. N. by decision of the Ural Regional Council is confirmed by a telegram sent on July 17, 1918, to the Secretary of the Council of People’s Commissars Gorbunov by the Chairman of the Ural Regional Council, Beloborodov, to inform the Chairman of the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, Ya. M. Sverdlov.”

“Факт расстрела членов семьи Романова Н. А. — Романовой А. Ф., Романовой О. Н., Романовой Т. Н., Романовой М. Н., Романовой А. Н., Романова А. Н. по решению Уралоболсовета подтвержден телеграммой, отправленной 17 июля 1918 г. на имя секретаря Совета Народных Комиссаров Горбунова председателем Уралоблсовета Белобородовым для информирования Председателя Президиума ВЦИК Свердлова Я.М”.

“The fact of the death of Romanov N. A., Romanova A. F., Romanova O. N., Romanova T. N., Romanova M. N., Romanova A. N., and Romanov A. N. is established by the state registration of civil status acts and confirmed by photocopies of the death certificates of the named persons included in the case materials, issued by the Central Civil Registry Office of Saint Petersburg, where the cause of death is indicated as execution by shooting, the date of death as July 17, 1918, and the place of death as Yekaterinburg, Ipatiev House.”

Journalists A. Summers and T. Mangold, in their book, assert that the eyewitness testimonies regarding the death (execution) of all members of the imperial family, provided for the work of investigator N. A. Sokolov, are unreliable and contradictory. The following facts support their conclusions:

— The main witness to the execution was the guard Medvedev, who surrendered to the White Guards under the name Bobikov. He died on March 25, 1919, after being interrogated by Sergeev;

— Until February 1919, Sokolov’s investigation had only the testimony of Gorshkov, which had passed through four hands, who claimed that all family members were killed upstairs in the dining room;

— The testimony of Letemin, who was not in the Ipatiev House on the night in question and “doubted what he was told the next day,” is also unconvincing;

— Even photographs of the witnesses to the execution were not taken to verify their identities;

— The conclusions drawn by investigator Nametkin and court member Sergeev are more convincing than those made by investigator Sokolov.

It is difficult to disagree with the facts mentioned above, especially since all conclusions by forensic investigator Nametkin were made between July 30 and August 8, when he conducted the forensic investigation, inspecting the Ipatiev House from August 2 to 8, 1918. According to investigator Sokolov, Nametkin only examined the upper floor of the house. On July 30, investigator Nametkin, accompanied by others, traveled by train to Iset station, from there to Koptyaki, and from Koptyaki to the mine via a small path, inspecting the abandoned shaft under the supervision of prosecutor Magnitsky for 1.5 hours. Not finding the bodies of the Ipatiev House prisoners in the shaft, he returned to the city and did not revisit the abandoned shaft. From August 8, 1918, the case was handed over to court member Sergeev, who inspected the lower floor of the Ipatiev House from August 11 to 14, 1918. In the room marked II, Sergeev discovered on the south wall an inscription in German: “Belsazar ward in selbiger Nacht Von seinen Kenchten umgebracht.” Sergeev did not photograph room II (the execution room) as he found it. The photographs were taken by investigator Sokolov, and therefore reflect its appearance after parts of the walls and floor had already been removed. Court member Sergeev never visited the abandoned shaft. When the case was handed over to investigator Sokolov in February 1919, he inspected the Ipatiev House from April 15 to 25, 1919. He inspected and excavated the abandoned shaft from June 23 to July 10, 1919, reaching it on foot from the Ipatiev House.

All of the facts mentioned above indicate that investigator Nametkin and court member Sergeev conducted the investigation based on a single version — the version of the family’s evacuation to another city. Therefore, they did not pay sufficient attention to the abandoned shaft, where all the main physical evidence was found by investigator Sokolov. To quote Sokolov:

“Objects noticeable to the eye, such as a finger, Jimmy’s body, many bones, were found at the bottom of the open shaft, where they (in the small well) were covered with soil from the clay platform. Noticing some remaining objects, the perpetrators threw them into the shaft, having first broken the ice, and covered them with soil.”

There is another important fact that led to the mention of the works of journalists A. Summers and T. Mangold. The book The Romanov Case, or the Execution That Never Happened was published immediately after the conclusion of the court proceedings regarding the identification of Anna Anderson (Tchaikovskaya) with Grand Duchess Anastasia Romanova. A large part of the book deals specifically with the likelihood of the daughters of the imperial couple being saved and with the identity of Anna Anderson (Tchaikovskaya). The book cites the 1967 ruling of the Hamburg Court of Appeal stating that “the plaintiff, who sought recognition as Anastasia Nikolaevna, Russian Grand Duchess, was unable to present sufficient evidence for such recognition” and that “one cannot speak with complete certainty about Anastasia’s death in Yekaterinburg, as this has not been proven,” which is accepted as a legally significant fact. In 1970, the Federal Supreme Court in Karlsruhe upheld the verdict of the Court of Appeal but noted that “the plaintiff’s identity as Anastasia was neither established nor disproved.”

Nevertheless, the conclusions drawn by the authors of the book, with the participation of experts from special services and the London police, refute the claim that all members of the imperial family were executed in the basement of the Ipatiev House, but do not prove that the female members of the imperial family were evacuated beyond the Ganina Yama area (i.e., the abandoned mines). They also refute the claim that all the bodies of the Ipatiev House prisoners were completely destroyed, but do not contradict the possibility that the remains found near Yekaterinburg in 1991 could belong to the imperial family. The publication of the book in Russia in 2011 (Moscow, Algorithm) against the backdrop of media reports about descendants of Anna Anderson (Tchaikovskaya) appearing in Yekaterinburg is also not coincidental. However, this will be discussed in detail in other chapters of the book.

SECOND MISTAKE: IGNORING THE LEGISLATIVE REFORM OF JULY 1918 AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

The most significant oversight by the investigators in the case of the murder of members of the imperial family and their associates was the failure to analyze the impact of the legislative reform on the tragic fate of the imperial family. The materials of both investigations lack a historical analysis of the Fifth All-Russian Congress of Soviets, held in Moscow from July 4 to 10, 1918. Neither investigator N. A. Sokolov nor V. N. Solovyov assessed the consequences for members of the Romanov Dynasty of the following normative legal acts adopted at the Congress:

— The RSFSR Constitution of July 10, 1918, which established the dictatorship of the proletariat based on the suppression and destruction of the ruling class [4];

— The Decree of the Council of People’s Commissars “On the Nationalization of the Property of the Deposed Russian Emperor and Members of the Former Imperial House” of July 13, 1918 (hereinafter — the “Nationalization Decree”) [5].

Furthermore, when qualifying the criminal case in the “Resolution on the Termination of the Criminal Case” of 1998, in part 12, the following normative legal acts of the Soviet regime were omitted:

— The Decree “On the Restoration of the Death Penalty” of June 13, 1918. From that moment, execution by shooting could be applied according to the sentences of revolutionary tribunals (hereinafter — the Decree of June 13, 1918) [6];

— The Decree of the Council of People’s Commissars of February 21, 1918, “The Socialist Fatherland Is in Danger!”, which restored the death penalty in the form of shooting without judicial trial. This Decree stipulated that “enemy agents, speculators, thugs, hooligans, counter-revolutionary agitators, German spies are to be shot on the spot” [7].

Since the above legal documents were not cited by investigator V. N. Solovyov in the investigation materials, this led to an erroneous qualification of the criminal case in the 1993–1998 version. The actions of the individuals who committed the murder (shooting) were classified as a criminal offense, rather than as an act of political repression. The investigation was also based on the assumption that, at the time of the killing of the Ipatiev House prisoners, the death penalty was prohibited, although the above-mentioned normative legal acts prove the opposite. This constitutes yet another serious error of the investigative authorities.

Indeed, on October 26, 1917, by the decision of the Second All-Russian Congress of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, the death penalty was abolished. However, already on November 22, 1917, the Council of People’s Commissars (CPC) issued Decree on Court No. 1, according to which workers’ and peasants’ revolutionary tribunals were established to combat counter-revolutionary forces. For cases of exceptional importance, on May 16, 1918, a Revolutionary Tribunal under the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (VTsIK) was established, consisting of a chairman and six members.

After the CPC issued the Decree “The Socialist Fatherland is in Danger!”, the death penalty in extrajudicial form had already been applied since February 1918. Unfortunately, it was not possible to find the text of the Decree of June 13, 1918, neither in published printed editions of Soviet-period documents nor in electronic libraries. Only mentions of the Decree of June 13, 1918, can be found in articles and on websites such as Wikipedia, Studopedia, and other media:

— Website “Studopedia,” [Electronic resource] URL: http://studopedia.org/8-128780.htm (accessed November 13, 2016)

— Website “KM.RU,” [Electronic resource] URL: http://www.km.ru/v-rossii/2010/09/05/istoriya-rossiiskoi-federatsii/1081-neobkhodimo-proizvesti-besposhchadnyi-massov (accessed November 13, 2024)

It is peculiar that the mentioned Decree of June 13, 1918, was adopted the day after the escape on the night of June 12–13 from the hotel of Grand Duke Mikhail Romanov (according to Soviet media reports). On June 21, 1918, Admiral Shchastny became the first person sentenced to execution by a revolutionary tribunal.

The fact of holding the Fifth All-Russian Congress of Soviets from July 4 to 10, 1918, was of particular significance in the fate of the prisoners of the House of Special Purpose. On July 4, 1918, Y. Yurovsky was appointed commandant, and Chekists were engaged for the internal security of the Ipatiev House. This fact is directly related to the upcoming Congress in Moscow and the adoption of the first Constitution. The draft Constitution was assigned to the Commission for its development by the resolution of the VTsIK on April 1 (March 19), 1918. Therefore, the deputies of the forthcoming Congress of Soviets were well aware of its agenda — of the constitutional consolidation of the power of the Soviets, based on the dictatorship of the proletariat and the nationalization of all property of the members of the Russian Imperial House. Against the backdrop of the ongoing civil war and growing resistance to Soviet power, the adoption of the Constitution was a crucial new victory for the organizers and supporters of the autumn 1917 revolutionary coup. Therefore, fearing disruption of this significant event, all measures were taken to strengthen the security of the Ipatiev House, whose prisoners could have become a symbol of civil resistance against Soviet power. For this reason, the extermination of the members of the Romanov Dynasty became a consolidating stage of the victorious constitutional consolidation of Soviet authority.

In Chapter 24 of his book, N. A. Sokolov [1] only made a supposition about the reasons and the people who motivated Y. Yurovsky to commit the crime, quoting:

“Was he (Yurovsky) the person who decided the fate of the royal family? Yurovsky settled in the Ipatiev House on July 4, and, a few days later, brought in the executioners. Obviously, in this period between July 4 and 15, some other people, who decided the fate of the royal family, awakened Yurovsky’s criminal activity.”

(“Он ли (Юровский) был тем лицом, кто решил судьбу царской семьи? Юровский сел в дом Ипатьева 4 июля, и, через несколько дней, привел туда палачей. Очевидно, в этот промежуток времени между 4 и 15 июля какие-то иные люди, решив судьбу царской семьи, пробудили преступную деятельность Юровского”).

In the history of the adoption of the Decree “On the Nationalization” of July 13, 1918, and the Constitution of July 10, 1918, there is another crucial fact: both legislative acts were published in Izvestia of the VTsIK and the Moscow Council of Workers’ and Red Army Deputies only on July 19, 1918. This means that they came into legal force only on the day of the burial of the royal family’s remains under the “bridge of sleepers.” It becomes evident that all actions against the members of the Russian Imperial House (in Yekaterinburg and Alapaevsk) were hastily carried out to coincide with the date when these legislative acts came into legal force — July 19, 1918. This confirms that the authorities of the Urals acted on the instructions of the Moscow authorities, who were preparing their (the legislative acts’) publication in the media.

All of the above-mentioned historical documents constitute direct evidence of the legalization by representatives of Soviet power of methods of repression (political and economic) against members of the Monarchical Romanov Dynasty, the consequence of which was their physical elimination. Since the highest officials of the executive and legislative authorities, who signed these documents, bear legal responsibility for the consequences of the issued regulatory and legal acts, they should also bear criminal responsibility (V. I. Ulyanov, Ya. Sverdlov, and other representatives of Soviet power). However, for some reason, neither the Senior Criminal Prosecutor of the Main Investigative Department of the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation, V. N. Solovyov, nor the members of the Governmental Commission led by B. E. Nemtsov, nor, even more so, the judges of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, noticed this fact, to put it mildly, in the materials of the conducted criminal investigation. Yet, these documents could serve as a primary factor in qualifying the criminal case and identifying the list of persons accused of committing the crime.

When investigators, prosecutors, and judges, in the course of investigating a criminal case, fail to notice inconvenient legislative acts, including the main Law — the Constitution — this can indicate only one thing: that in this criminal case, all other inconvenient documents (witness testimonies, archival documents, expert opinions, etc.) will also not be included.

There is another significant oversight by both investigators. The materials of both investigations lack official documents confirming the confiscation of property after July 13, 1918, both from members of the royal family under arrest in Yekaterinburg and from representatives of the Russian Imperial House in Alapaevsk. Only some witness testimonies and entries in the diaries of Emperor Nicholas II and Empress Alexandra Feodorovna exist. Let us examine them. Both investigative materials state that after the authorities of Alapaevsk received a report about the alleged escape of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich Romanov from Perm, a prison regime was introduced for the exiled on June 20, 1918. In the investigative materials of N. A. Sokolov [1], the witness testimony of the visiting cook Krivova confirms the fact of property confiscation, quoting:

“Approximately a month later, the situation of the Princes sharply worsened: all their property was confiscated — shoes, linen, dresses, pillows, gold items, and money; only their working clothes and shoes and two sets of linen were left… From this time, all walks outside the school grounds were prohibited, and it was forbidden to make any purchases at the market.”

(“Приблизительно через месяц положение Князей резко изменилось к худшему: у Князей было конфисковано все их имущество — обувь, белье, платье, подушки, золотые вещи и деньги; оставлено было только носильное платье и обувь и две смены белья… С этого же времени были запрещены всякие прогулки вне школьной ограды и запрещено было делать какие бы то ни было закупки на рынке”).

Both investigative materials also indicate a deterioration in the condition of the prisoners of the Ipatiev House following the escape of Grand Duke Mikhail Romanov from Perm. According to the witness testimonies of clergymen in the investigation of N. A. Sokolov, on May 20 (June 2), when Priest Storozhev came to serve, and on July 1 (14), when Priest Father Meledin came to serve, “no jewelry or ornaments were noticed on the daughters and on Alexandra Feodorovna,” and Emperor Nicholas II had the St. George Cross on May 20 (June 2), but on July 1 (14) the priest “did not notice” the cross on the Emperor.

Entries in the diary of Emperor Nicholas II [8] for the period from July 4 (June 21) to July 8 (June 25), 1918, record the confiscation of valuables from all members of the royal family by the commandant of the House of Special Purpose, Yurovsky. Yurovsky, with his assistant, “made an inventory of the gold items of the members of the royal family (rings, bracelets, etc.), most of which they took with them.” All the valuables were then placed in a box sealed with a seal, which was left for safekeeping in the bedroom of the imperial couple. Yurovsky came every day to check the integrity of the seal on the box with the valuables. The diary of Empress Alexandra Feodorovna [8] also records the confiscation of all valuables on July 4 (June 21), except for those that could not be removed (my two bracelets, one child’s bracelet for each, and my husband’s wedding ring). There are no records in the diaries of Emperor Nicholas II or his wife about the fate of the box with valuables after June 25 (July 8), i.e., after the adoption of the above-mentioned legislative acts (the Constitution and the Decree “On Nationalization”). Furthermore, the last entry in Emperor Nicholas II’s diary was made on July 13 (June 30), the day the Decree “On Nationalization” was adopted.

From all of the above, it can be concluded that by July 13, an inventory and conditional confiscation of all valuable property of the royal family had already been carried out. Considering this fact, the presence of many personal items of the royal family, including valuables, in the Ipatiev House and in the abandoned mine after July 13 requires separate examination and explanation.

In Chapter 25 of N. A. Sokolov’s book, when determining the role of Yakov Movshevich Sverdlov in the murder of the royal family, there is one fact confirming the confiscation of property from members of the royal family, including their diaries. On July 21, the official Bolshevik “Press Bureau” sent telegram No. 6153 from Moscow to the Yekaterinburg regional council, dated July 19, 1918, which stated that “the CEC now has at its disposal important materials — the documents of Nicholas Romanov, his handwritten diaries, which he and his wife and children kept in recent times.”

Investigator N. A. Sokolov concluded that the diaries and letters of the royal family could not possibly have been delivered to Moscow to Ya. Sverdlov on July 18 (as mentioned in telegram No. 6153), since they were with the royal family in Yekaterinburg and delivering them would have required overcoming a long distance and several days of travel. They could only have been delivered to Moscow after the murder of the royal family, quoting:

“How could these letters have been taken from him before the murder? To do so would reveal the intent to kill. These letters were taken from the Tsar, stepping over his corpse.” (“Как же можно было раньше убийства взять у него эти письма? Сделать это — раскрыть умысел убийства. Эти письма взяли у Царя, перешагнув через его труп”).

.