What Happened To The Romanov Family Essay Example

Source C provides a more elaborate description of the murders and the disposal of the bodies, which seems excessively detailed for a non-eyewitness account. The report confirms that the killings were carried out using revolvers and bayonets, but it is puzzling why it took so long for this information to come to light if Sergeyev had knowledge of it. In addition, the report indicates that a murder occurred in the house between July 17 and 22.

The possibility exists that the murders occurred on separate days, allowing for the Tsar to have been killed separately from the rest of his family. This idea is connected to source I, suggesting that not all were killed at once. Additionally, source D's reliability as an eyewitness account is called into question due to the informant's torture. It is possible that he was coerced into fabricating a story supporting the Whites, leading to a twist in the narrative.

My disagreement with the reliability of the eyewitness account stems from the possibility of a journalist altering the sequence of events without Pavel Medvedev's knowledge. Additionally, the notes being from an interview with a biased party, a white Russian, further adds to the questionable nature of the account. It is worth noting that Source E implicates Medvedev as a murderer, possibly shooting Tsar with two or three bullets. This information is based on his wife's recollection of Medvedev's statement, which may or may not align with the white interviewer's account.

Illustrating the unreliability of eyewitness accounts, source F—a photograph—may not be infallible. While photographs typically hold up as reliable sources, this particular one may have been manipulated to depict the scene of the murders.

Despite this uncertainty, source B lends support to source F by describing bloodstained walls in the photograph.

Although it's possible that the photograph was produced after source B was written in order to enhance its authenticity, there is still supporting evidence for the photo. Conversely, source G is simply a painting and therefore carries no factual weight, particularly given its reliance on a biased investigation conducted by the whites that is sympathetic towards the Tsar and his family. On the other hand, source H offers a diagram indicating the positioning of both the Romanov family and the guards prior to their murders, based on eyewitness accounts.

The text doesn't indicate the witnesses' affiliations, so it's possibly impartial. To determine which source is most beneficial to a historian, the creation dates for each source must be provided, as this would reveal which source is the most dependable. All of the sources could be interdependent and attempting to build a strong argument about what occurred at Ipatiev House. My personal opinion is that Source H is the most useful to a historian since it employs eyewitness accounts to generate a diagram and was published in a book. I believe that Source F, as a photograph, was arranged to appear like the murder scene, making Source H more reliable than Sources F and G.

Based on the information available about the murder scene, it is possible that the picture was created. Source G, which only used white sources and information, may have a bias. This source contradicts the others by stating that only the Tsar was killed when all other sources claim that the entire family was killed. Such inconsistencies raise

questions about the accuracy of those other sources. However, both sources G and H confirm that all members of the family were killed together.

According to Source J, in 1991, all the bodies of Nicholas II, his wife Alexandra, and three daughters were found together. However, Anastasia and Alexei - the heir to the throne - remained missing. The discovery was made by a local leader and not concealed, which adds to its intrigue. Furthermore, the report notes that "his wife and son have been sent off to a secure place," which is uncommon given Alexei's position as heir. If he were kept alive and hidden, there is potential for him to regain his status as monarch later on.

According to Source I, killing only the Tsar would not eliminate the entire royal family. This contradicts nine other sources that support each other with varying degrees of certainty. Although Source I claims that family members were killed at different times, their bodies were eventually discovered together. On the contrary, Source J largely confirms the other sources by stating that family members were supposedly killed and buried together. However, Anastasia and Alexei, two of the children, were not buried in the same pit.

After almost eight decades, the remains were found and underwent a series of DNA testing which confirmed they belonged to the Romanovs. This supports sources A, B, C, and D that all confirm the murders happened simultaneously. Additionally, sources F, G, and H suggest that the events occurred in Ekaterinburg. Evidence about these events mostly comes from two investigations carried out by the whites; however, the reds retook Ekaterinburg before these inquiries could be completed.