Y-chromosome STR analysis of the male remains — comparing the Y-chromosome markers, which are inherited through the paternal line — produced an exact 17-marker match with Nicholas II and with Prince Andrew Andreevich Romanov, a living patrilineal relative used as a reference. The probability of this match occurring by chance was astronomically small. The male remains were Alexei’s.
Mitochondrial DNA analysis of the female remains matched the maternal Romanov profile — the same profile identified through Prince Philip’s reference sample in the earlier testing. The remains were those of a daughter of Alexandra. Which daughter — Maria or Anastasia — was not determinable from mtDNA alone, because Maria and Anastasia shared identical maternal mitochondrial DNA (having the same mother). Russian scientists maintained that the missing child from the 1991 grave had been Anastasia, and the 2007 female remains were therefore Maria. American researchers argued the reverse: that the missing child from 1991 had been Maria, making the 2007 female Anastasia.
This naming dispute is genuine and unresolved, but it does not affect the fundamental conclusion: all five Romanov children are represented across the two grave sites. There is no missing child. The biological evidence for escape, which had been one of the necessary premises of the Anderson claim, does not exist.
The 2009 publication of the comprehensive analysis by Coble and colleagues in PLOS One provided the full scientific record of the 2007 discovery and the integrated analysis across both sites.
—
## The Emotional Lives of Believers: What Conviction Does to Evidence
One of the most instructive dimensions of the Anderson case is what it reveals about how deeply held belief interacts with evidence — specifically, how people with direct experiential access to the relevant facts can reach completely opposite conclusions and maintain them with equal sincerity.