Also, in C Sokolov does not say how he obtained his data, as does Sergeyev in A. However, Sir Charles Eliot does differ somewhat when he says ‘there is no real evidence as to who or how many victims there were’, as the other two clearly state their beliefs about the incident.
The reason that Sergeyev was sacked is for two possible reasons. One could be that he was not a good enough detective. The other one is perhaps because he realised that there was very little to no incriminating data, and perhaps that he was not prepared to lie as viciously as Sokolov had done in his report.
c) Simply because source D is an eye witness account, this does not make it accurate.
The first reason for this is because even witnesses can forget, and may give wrong or inaccurate data. Also, Pavel Medvedev did not even see the actual killing, and so is only a witness of the events preceding the murders. This is because he was sent out of the room just before he heard shots. He was told to go outside to find out if the shots could be heard, which is suspicious considering that Ekaterinburg was a war zone, and hearing shots was not uncommon.
Next, I will consider the possibility that Medvedev was tortured. Perhaps, in order to give some evidence supporting his ideas, he forced Medvedev into saying what forms source D. Also, if he was being interrogated by the Whites, supporters of the Tsar, he would have tried to downplay his role in the murders, probably to escape further torture. This is probably the reason why he said that he was sent out, even though he was the man in charge of guarding the Romanovs, and there was probably no one there able to order him.
Also, source E contradicts source D. In source D, Medvedev’s wife states that he fired, as well as many others, on the Romanovs. This, I believe, establishes Medvedev’s guilt. It is even said in source E that he tells another guard that he, himself had ‘emptied two or three bullets into the Tsar’, further establishing his guilt, and showing that he must have lied when being interrogated by the Whites.
d) To establish which of sources F,G, and H is of the most use to a historian investigating the deaths of the Tsar and his family, we must first analyse them. I will start with F.
F shows a wall with many holes in it. This is the wall against which the Tsar and his family were supposedly shot and killed, as both judges Sergeyev and Sokolov had thought. They have no evidence supporting this, and in fact most of their investigations are not based on concrete evidence, as we can see in sources A, B, and C. This implies that either they were under pressure from the Whites, or that they were unreliable when it came to investigative purposes. Also, if the Romanovs were murdered there, then surely there would have been some bloodstains; this suggests that this was not where the Romanovs were murdered, if in fact they were murdered.
The wall could have been wrecked by anything, not necessarily gunshots. This also suggests that the evidence is questionable. It may also have been doctored.
It does however agree with other pieces of evidence, such as E, D and possibly C, because C states that ‘several people were murdered because one person could not change his position so much and submit so many blows’. F agrees with C because there are many holes on the wall and on the floor, which could mean that there were many shots fired from many different angles in that room. This does not make it more reliable, but does suggest that many others believed that the room was involved. Overall, source F is not very reliable.
Source G is a painting of the death of the Romanovs, based on an investigation by the Whites. As we know, the Reds had the Romanovs in their possession, at Ekaterinburg. The Whites, who had wanted to restore the Tsar to the throne, were very close to capturing Ekaterinburg, and so the Reds killed or sent off the Tsar, we cannot be sure. What we do know is that they had disappeared.
Later the Whites did capture Ekaterinburg, and appointed Judge Sergeyev to investigate the Royal family’s disappearance. The flimsy evidence gathered was shown in this painting. I feel that it is unreliable for the following reason.
The Whites had wanted to demonise the Reds (and so lowering their public support) by making the death of the Romanovs seem horrible; it was to be used as propaganda. So, we can clearly see that the White’s would exaggerate any slightly incriminating data to use against the Reds; they were biased against them. It is just a duplication of the White’s investigation (as it is meant to be), and therefore not very good to a historian researching the Romanovs’ deaths.
Source H shows the position of people in the basement, the Romanovs and their servants, and the guards who would shoot them. As this is based on what Judge Sokolov was told by witnesses, who can often be mistaken, and as such we cannot assume that the diagram is reliable. Also, as the guards were all Reds, and all the others in the room were killed, it seems unlikely that they would be able to interview anyone other than a guard. As we know, a Red guard would not talk of the ‘murders’, and so for Sokolov to have said he interviewed witnesses suggests that they were tortured, and so they could have said anything (to escape further torture). Also, Sokolov might have simply made it all up. Therefore, I do not find this piece of evidence to be reliable or useful to a historian researching the deaths of the Tsar and his family.
Out of all the sources F, G and H, I would find F to be the most reliable, simply because it is backed up by the most other pieces of evidence, i.e. descriptions of the deaths,
e) Source I is not surprising in some aspects. Ekaterinburg being seriously threatened by the counter revolutionaries (the whites) is not surprising, as it is supposed that this was the reason the Romanovs were killed, or just the Tsar, if this source is to be believed.
What is surprising is that ‘his wife and son have been sent to a secure place’. This is surprising because the Tsar’s son, although he was a haemophiliac and was at great risk of dying due to even a small cut, could one day father children, and retake the throne. This is what would have happened, had the Whites captured Ekaterinburg and ‘rescued’ the Romanovs (and his children would take over afterwards, if he had any), effectively continuing the Tsarist rule. This, of course, is assuming that the Whites managed to wipe out the Reds, which at the time seemed likely, and that the son of the Tsar lived long enough to have children (which might have seemed unlikely, seeing as he had haemophilia). It seems surprising that the Reds would have taken such a risk.
Also, if the wife and son of the Tsar were not sent off to a secure place, what about the daughters of the Tsar? Why weren’t they sent off to a secure place as well? Also, if the wife and son of the Tsar were sent to a secure place, this can make one assume that the Reds were not going to kill them. However, after the war had finished, with the Reds winning, the wife and son of the Tsar had disappeared, which leads me to believe that they were not in fact sent off to a secure place, but were actually murdered along with the rest of the family.
For these reasons, I do find the message surprising and unbelievable.
f) To see whether source J confirms the other sources about what happened to the Tsar and his family, we must compare them source by source.
Source J does not confirm all of what Sergeyev thought (in sources A and B), as he believed that the children were not shot, and that the survivors were sent away from Ekaterinburg, which is where the bodies were found.
Source J does confirm some of what Sokolov thought, as they both say that the corpses were driven to a mine, however Sokolov does not state what happened to the bodies next, and that they were not buried in the mine, but actually in a swamp. However, I am still somewhat sceptical of this report (source J), as this too doesn’t mention how it knows what is said in the report. Also, it says that the girls had to be finished off with bayonets because jewels in their underclothes deflected bullets, which I find to be highly unlikely and leads me to believe that much of the report was made up or exaggerated in order to make the story more exciting and readable, as it may have been reported in a less mainstream newspaper, and therefore I feel that it is a little less reliable.
Source J confirms nothing which Medvedev said in sources D and E, except that five people were killed.
It does somewhat disprove the statement in source I saying that the wife and son had been sent away, as source J says that the wife was found, however there is no mention of the son.
In conclusion, I would say that source J does confirm many things about what happened to the Tsar and his family, according to the sources I have been given, but fails to confirm exactly how they were killed, who was killed, and when.
By Charles Motraghi