Above all, Source J can be considered as the most reliable and accurate source as it is a report from a British newspaper which mentions the use of modern techniques such as DNA tests along with dental records to identify the Tsar, Tsarina and three of their five children – daughters Anastasia, Olga and Tatiana. However, its contradiction with both Sources A to B declare them ultimately unreliable. This is perceptible as the subjective Sources A and B imply that only the Tsar was killed in the Ipatiev House while his wife and children may have escaped whereas the most reliable Source J exposes that only “Two of the imperial family’s five children were missing when archaeologists opened a shallow burial pit near Ekaterinburg in 1991”.
In conclusion, after referring to other sources, I believe that although Sources A and B give similar accounts, they can’t be considered reliable to a large extent as they are both distorted versions of the same information from Judge Sergeyev who was believed to be tortured by the Whites so he may himself have exaggerated his findings in the favour of the Whites. This is why Sources A and B both disagree with other sources.
- Study Sources A, B and C.
How far does the account in Source C differ from those in Sources A and B?
Source A and B are different from Source C in a number of ways. First of all, Sources A and B contradict Source C which states that the “entire Romanov family was massacred in the Ipatiev house”. Both sources A and B indicate that only the Tsar, his two servants, Dr. Botkin and the Empress’s maid – a total of five were shot there. This is evident as Source A states, “the Tsar, the family doctor, two servants and the maid were shot” and that “Empress, the Tsar’s son and the four other children were not shot” whereas Source B only mentions, “the Tsar is supposed to have been shot” and that “there is no real evidence as to who or how many victims there were” and that “it is supposed there were five – the Tsar, Dr Botkin, the Empress’s maid and two servants” which contradict what is being said in Source C.
Furthermore, there is a tone of certainty in both Sources A and B which are a complete contrast to Source C that doesn’t make any assumptions but informs us of what Sokolov found out for himself or what he found out from his “predecessor” Sergeyev. This is apparent since in Source B, doubtful phrases such as “there is no real evidence”, “it is believed” as well as the repetition of the word “supposed” are included which challenge Source C’s confident phrase – “Sergeyev . . .had no doubt about the fact that the entire . .. .” Likewise, in the subjective Source A, the tone of vagueness and indecision continues as it comprises opinionated exressions such as “I do not believe”, “it is my belief” and “it is believed”. Alternatively, although Source A and C agree on the fact that the executions were carried out in the Ipatiev House, B gives no mention of the location where the crime took place.
Besides, in Source B, a doubtful, unclear and almost confused impression of the British Eliot is created that he was not sure of what exactly happened to the corpses of the murdered members of the Romanov family but was just making assumptions of on what other people believed as he assumes, “On 17 July, a train left Ekaterinburg and it is believed that the surviving members of the royal family in it”. This is again a disagreement when inferred with Source C as it depicts a different picture of what happened to the murdered members of the Russian Royal Family describing, “On July, under the cover of darkness, a lorry carried the corpses to the Four Brothers mine. The main purpose was to destroy the bodies”. This builds up a clear picture that the more detailed Source C is a more stimulating and detailed account as it is focuses and describes what happened to the murdered Romanovs whereas A doesn’t.
Moving on, Sources A and C also disagree on the basis of where the Romanovs lived in the Ipatiev house before they were murdered. Did they live on the upper floor or on the lower floors? Source C informs us that they lived on the upper floor as it mentions, “the upper floor, where the imperial family lived” whereas Source A disagrees by pointing out, “the lower storey of the building where the royal family lived” while Source B doesn’t mention any detail associated with at which floor the Russian royal family lived in the Ipatiev house. Source C also mentions the dates when the murder was most likely to take place – “between 17 and 22 July a murder occurred in the house” whereas the objective Source A doesn’t.
On the other hand, Sources A and B, unmistakably, also possess similarities with Source C which can’t be ignored. First of all, all three sources – A, B and C agree on the fact that the Tsar was shot in the Ipatiev house where the executions of several people including members of the Romanov family took place. This is manifest as Source A states, “the Tsar . . . were shot there” which is backed up by Source B which assumes, “the Tsar is supposed to have been shot” verified by the more descriptive and informing Source C which mentions that the “entire Romanov family had been massacred in the Ipatiev house.” As mentioned before, Sources B and C include details of the events that occurred or may have occurred after the executions in the Ipatiev place even though what they say is completely different – Source B assuming the “surviving members of the royal family” may have escaped from Ekaterinburg on a train whereas Source C, contrastingly, explains, “a lorry carried the corpses to the Four Brothers mine” where the bodies were destroyed “with the aid of petrol and hydrochloric acid”.
Finally, the other major similarity between Sources A and B and C is the unreliability of these sources as all the information contained in these sources are influenced by Judge Sergeyev. Sergeyev, being the ultimate provenance and the origin of these sources, decreases the sources’ unreliability to a considerable extent as he was a supporter of the Provisional Government who were anti-Bolscheviks as they got rid of them. Moreover, he was employed in this Romanovs murder investigation by the Whites – military supporters of the Tsar and potential enemies of the Bolscheviks and hence he may be forced to produce a bias report which exaggerates the involvement of the Reds in this sabotage.
In conclusion, I believe that the Sources A and B are different to Source C to a large extent as they are different interpretations of the same information which came from the first investigator of the Tsars’ murder case. They were written by three different authors who had different purposes for writing their versions of the criminal events. Source A from an American newspaper and Source B - a report to the British government may have deliberately been distorted as both Britain and America were against the Bolscheviks who pulled Russia out of the war and increased the burden of responsibility of fighting on the Allies leading to the unnecessary losses of many of their innocent soldiers.
(c) Source D must be reliable because it is an eyewitness account. Do you agree?
Source D is the “nearest” to an “eye witness account” of the murders that took place on the night of 17th July 1918. However when considering the origin of the source one can see how the reliability of this source can be questioned. it is the notes from the “interview of Pavel Medvedev carried out by White Russians” who opposed the Boscheviks and hence they may have distorted the source against the Reds whom they were rivals of to fulfil their intention of proving that Bolscheviks were responsible for the murder of the Tsar and members of his family to attract support from the Russian public forcing them to turn their back on the Reds. This reduces the degree of reliability within the source straight away.
Besides, the source also mentions that Medvedev was “probably tortured by the Whites” which further makes it unreliable to a certain extent as he may have been forced or threatened by the White interviewers to say against the Reds in order to save himself from further torture. Alternatively, the fact that he was in charge of the men guarding the Russian Royal family and hence being a Red and getting interviewed by people who were dead against the Bolscheviks, he would probably not mention any of his involvement with the execution of the Romanovs without any torture to prevent any chances of persecution by the Whites. Therefore, there is every chance that he may have distorted the truth to a substantial extent.
Arguably, after inferring with other sources, I believe there is a considerable element of reliability in Source D as some of the information in this account is similar to that of sources. To start with, both Sources C and D agree that all the members of the Russian Royal family were killed on the night of 17th July in the Ipatiev house where the execution took place. This is evident as Source C mentions, “no doubt about the fact that the entire Romanov family had been massacred” and similarly Source D backs it up by clarifying, “all the members of the Tsar’s family lying on the floor” and that “the corpses were taken out to the lorry” implying they were all dead. Moreover, both of these sources agree that the corpses of the victims - the Romanov family and their servants were transported elsewhere by a lorry for their destruction. This is evident as Source D mentions, “The corpses were taken out to the lorry” and Source C confirms by conveying us “a lorry carried to the corpses to the Four Brothers mine.”
Source E mentions the involvement of Pavel Medvedev in the execution of the Tsars whereas Source D doesn’t. This is manifest as Source D states that according to Medvedev, he was told, “Go out to the street and see whether anyone’s there and if the shots will be heard” which he did and saw the Tsars “lying on the floor” assumed dead. In contrast, in Source E Medvedev’s wife mentions, “they killed them all. My husband fired too” and also it is also explained that Medvedev himself bragged to one of the other guards how he had “emptied two or three bullets into the Tsar” which proves him guilty. This creates an impression that Medvedev had in fact lied in Source D where he indicates he wasn’t involved in the executions of the Tsars. It proves Source D untrustworthy to a significant level. This is because Source D’s captions indicates, “Medvedev had been in charge of the men guarding the Royal family” which clarifies that he had been employed by the Bolscheviks whom the Whites were against and thus wanted to declare them guilty of the executions. Therefore, what Medvedev’s wife told the investigators disagreed to what her husband said in Source D because she may not have known or realised that the investigators were Whites who would persecute anyone who helped to kill their leader whereas Medvedev would have twisted the truth in Source D to save his persecution from the Whites which may well have been in the form of his execution. In order to save his head, he would have shown no involvement of his own in the murders that took place on the night of July 17th as the Whites were mostly the military supporters of the Tsar who wouldn’t have spared anyone who contributed in killing their leader and members of the Romonav family.
The most obvious Source, which enhances untrustworthiness in Source D, is Source E. As explained before, it is by Medvedev wife who told the White investigators exactly what Medvedev told her – he was also involved What Medvedev’s wife told the investigators contradicted to what her husband said in Source D because she may not have known or realised that the investigators were Whites who would persecute anyone who helped to kill their leader whereas Medvedev twisted the truth in Source D to save his persecution from the Whites which may well have been in the form of his execution.
Furthermore, the Whites were military supporters of the Tsar and were main rivals of the Reds whom they had lost the civil war to. Source D may be distorted as it is from the interview of Pavel Medvedev by White Russians” and the fact that “he was probably tortured by the Whites” hence it can be assumed that it was exaggerated in the disfavour of the Reds with the intention of proving them guilty so the Whites could fulfil their intention of declaring the cruel murder of the whole family by the Reds to get support across Russia. This would have allowed them to degrade the Bolscheviks as many already devastated Russians and foreign governments as that of Germany’s would be horrified, petrified and mortified to hear that the Royal family had been murdered by the Reds whom they had trusted and supported – people who promised to give them peace, land and food.
With all factors considered, I believe although Source D is the nearest we have to an eye-witness account, it is still very unreliable to a large extent as Medvedev’s version of the execution events in the Ipatiev House on 17th July contradict strongly with other sources more than they agree with them. The hidden component of fallibility in this source is further emphasised by Source E when Medvedev’s own wife admits to Medvedev’s blatant involvement in the execution of the Tsar and his family which he denied when he was interviewed by the White Russians as he may have felt that the Whites will pursue him if they found out he also contributed in murdering the captivated Russian Royal family whom a large number of the Whites were fanatic supporters of.
(d) Study Sources F,G and H. Which one of these sources is most useful to an historian studying the deaths of the Tsar and his family?
A modern historian would know from his background knowledge on the deaths of the Tsar and his family that in 1991, archaeologists found remains of the Tsar, his wife and three of their five children – daughters Anastasia, Olga and Tatiana buried in the burial pit near Ekaterinburg as confirmed by Source J, the closest evidence to the mysterious truth. He would know that the “founded five” were definitely the Tsars as the use of modern technology such as “DNA tests along with the dental records” positively identified them. Sources F, G and H will create different impressions in the historian’s mind. Their usefulness can be judged in the context of their origin as well as to what extent these sources agree with each other as well as with other sources.
Unmistakably, there are several agreements between the three concerned sources. To start with, Sources F and G both illustrate a door, next to people were shot. This is evident as in Source G, the Tsar is shown in the process of being shot by a Red Guard beside the door whereas Source F shows bloody bullet marks on the damaged wall paper also next to a similar looking door. The chances of the doors and the location of the executions portrayed in Source G and H being the same is increased because identical wall paper designs of wall papers can be seen in both sources. This also enables me to deduce that the executions were carried out by revolvers as sources B,D,I and E all talk about “bullets” “been fired” and Source C backs all of them up by adding, “the murder was carried out using revolvers”.
There is no denial that Sources F and G are both useful to a considerable extent as they are proved quite reliable. Source F is a photograph so it could hardly have been edited in any way by the Whites or the Reds for that matter to twist the truth against each other. However, because Source G is a painting the painting“based on the investigation carried out by the Whites” – the political rivals of the Bolscheviks who defeated them in the civil war, it may have be depicing an exaggerated picture – trying to prove the Reds guilty by showing the murder of the Tsar as very brutal and unkind carried out by guards wearing Red Stars on their uniform, symbolic of the Red army.
Likewise, Sources F and H both demonstrate that the executions took place in the basement of the Ipatiev House. This is backed up vaguely by Sources A and E which mention, “the lower story of the building . . . where the crime was supposed to have been committed” and “they were led downstairs, where they were put into a room” respectively. Nevertheless, Sources C and H clarify that the location of the execution to be one of the rooms of the basement as Source C states, “the bloody carnage took place in one of the rooms of the basement” which is in concord with Source H which elucidates, “position of the people in the basement”.
Meanwhile, Sources G and H indicate that the executions of the Tsar and his family members were carried out by the Red guards. This is obvious as Source G shows Red guards in the process of shooting the Tsar and wearing red Stars on their uniform, symbolic of the Bolschevik’s Red Army wheras Source H actually demonstrates the position of “The Guards” where the execution took place. Unlike source H, Source G is backed up by other sources to a large extent which suggest that it is superior as far as reliability is concerned. Source I mentions that the Ural President has decided to shoot Nikolas Romanov and agrees with Source G which, as mentioned before, depicts the Tsar getting shot by one of the Red Guards. Source A also agrees with Source G on the issue of the Tsar definitely being shot by the guards as it conveys us, “I believe . . . the Tsar . . were shot in the Ipatiev House”. Moving on, Both sources A and B also mention the presence of Romanov servants. Source A includes, “two servants and a maid” while Source B rephrases it, “maid and two servants” which are in agreement with Source G which shows three servant looking dreaded people crouched behind the “about to be shot” Tsar.
On the other hand, the element of usefulness in the Sources F,G and H is reduced as they disagree with each other in many aspects. Source G shows the Tsar about to be shot by a Red Guard but Source H does not show any evidence of his execution taking place but only shows the position of the Romanov family in comparison with the Red Guards. However, the execution taking place is evident as Source F – the photograph clearly shows the bullet marks on the left hand side of the door which is backed up by Source B which adds, “the position of the bullets” – on the bottom of the wall paper, indicated that the victims had been shot while kneeling and that other shots were fired into them when they had fallen on the floor.” However, there is an element of unreliability in the source as it does not portray whether any members of the Tsar’s family were killed other than the Tsar. This makes this source less useful. It is evident that the Tsar was not the only Romanov to be killed as Source J, the closest to the truth reveals that only “Two members of th imperial family’s five children were missing when archaeologists opened a shallow burial pit” and that “DNA tests along with dental records positively identify Nicholas II ,his wife”.
Besides, Sources C, D and E also disagree with Sources G over the issue of whether the Tsar was the only Romanov to be massacred in the Ipatiev House. Source C explains that “the entire Romanov family had been massacred” whereas Source G only shows the Tsar being shot. In addition Source D and Source E –– “all the members of the Tsar’s family lying on the family” and “they killed them all but Source G only shows the Tsar being shot which doubts its usefulness as it probably doesn’t tell us the whole picture – only shows the first series of events. Perhaps, the whole family were killed after the Tsar was shot or they may also have escaped on the train that “left Ekaterinburg on 17th July” as Source B suggests.
Similarly, Source H also disagrees with Source D to a measurable degree. Source D mentions that the members of the Romanov family were “led into the corner of the room” whereas Source H shows illustrates that the Tsar family, the family doctor and the three family servants were clustered nearly half of the room. Also Source D mentions, “eleven men walked into the room”. In contrast, Source H demonstrates that in actual fact there were 12 men present in the room. Because Medvedev, being interviewed by the Whites in Source D, would want to show no involvement of his own in the murder of the Tsar whom the Whites, he wouldn’t have included his own name in the list of soldiers as the Whites would not have spared anyone who contributed in murdering the man whom they were loyal military supporters of.
Furthermore, Judge Sokolov was also employed by the Whites for the investigation of the Romanovs murder case. As it is a known fact that the Whites wanted to portray the murder of the Romanovs as a very brutal one to be successful in their intention of using the merciless murder of the Romaovs to get support from across the many horrified Russians and foreign governments as that of Russia who would be mortified at the thought of the Reds, who, they held peace talks with, executing the Tsarina and her children with their connection with the Romanov family. For that reason they may have forced Sokolv to twist the truth in his reports and rectify his diagram in the favour of the Whites and hence attempting to prove the Red Bolscheviks guilty. This is how Source H can be considered useful as it would give a historian the flavour of the propaganda the Whites tried to use against their rivals Reds to decrease their popularity by trying to brand them guilty of the executions.
All factors considered, the three sources – Source F, G and H are useful to a significant extent. Source F may be measured useful to confirm that the victims had been shot while kneeling down and that the executions had taken place using revolvers as it evidently shows the bullet marks. Meanwhile, the portrayal of the bullet going straight through Tsar in Source G will assure the historian that the Tsar was definitely shot there and that the Whites may have used the painting as a source of misinformation against the Reds – their potential political rivals. They may have forced the artist of the painting to exaggerate the portrayal of the murder of Nikolas Romanov and prove it to be carried out by the Reds by the inclusion of the “red star sign” on the uniform of the guards shown persecuting the Tsar. Although Source H was also backed up by other sources it couldn’t be trusted as it came from Sokolov who was employed by the Whites and “parts of his report were never made public” as suggested by Source C which proves its usefulness as it indicates that Sokolov may have found more truthful information which the Whites and the Reds didn’t allow to publish as it may have tarnished their repute amongst the Russian public. Nonetheless, in my personal opinion, I believe that Source F is the most useful being a photographic piece of evidence due to its vagueness – the fact that it favours neither the Whites or the Reds by not showing who got murdered, how or whom by.
(e) Study Source I. Are you surprised by this source?
Source I states that the Ural president “execute by shooting Nikolas Romanov”. It is true that the Soviets had shot the Tsar as Source J – which revealed in 1994 what is closest to the mysterious truth, mentions that the “DNA tests along with the dental records positively identify Nicholas II” when archaeologists opened a shallow burial pit near Ekaterinburg in 1991. It is not so easy to find this surprising. This is because the Tsar presented a continuing problem for the Reds, if he escaped, he might help unite the White forces and possibly become their leader but if executed, he could become a martyr. Thereforce when the White forces closed in on Ekaterinburg in the summer of 1918, it seemed that a decision was taken by the Ural Soviets to kill him.
In my personal opinion, the overall unsurprising but hidden purpose of Source I was to protect Lenin and his Bolschevik party creating an impression that they were not involved at all in the murder of the Tsar or any of his family members since they may have lost support being branded as callous assassins of the Romanov couple and their innocent children by the Russian media. This is manifest as it seems incredibly unreliasitic and surprising that the Ural Soviet’s virtual leaders Bolscheviks weren’t even consulted before the decision was taken “to execute by shooting Nikolai Romanov which doesn’t seem to reflect on a realistic image of the Bolschevik authority. Also, the inflated and biased tone in this source against the Whites of whom Ekaterinburg is described to be “seriously threatened by” unsurprisingly creates an impression that in order to win the Russian crowds, the Bolscheviks used the Ural Soviet as the puppet to spread the untruthful message across Russia that they have no connection with the Romanov murder case as they have themselves been informed three days later – on 17th July to when the executions took place in the Ipatiev House and that the decision taken to execute the Tsar was a genuine one – for the good of the Russian people as he could be helped to escape by the “counter revolutionaries” whom Ekaterinburg was “threatened” of and whom the Bolscheviks were potential political rivals of.
Inevitably, the Reds were holding vital peace talks with the Germans at Brest-Litovsk. If the Germans were informed that the Bolscheviks had murdered the Tsarina and her children (with their connections to the German Royal Family) the talks might have been aborted which would have been a disaster for Lenin. This is why unlike the majority of the other sources, Source I from the District Soviet informs us of Tsar’s “wife and son … been sent to a secure place” instead of revealing that all of them have been massacred. Besides, had the Ural Soviet informed that the whole of the Royal family were murdered by Red Guards as Sources D and E explain, the Whites could use the cruel murder of the whole family to get support in favour of them. This is because many Russians and foreign governments such as that of Germany’s would be dismayed and mortified if the family were murdered.
Undoubtedly, Sources A, B agree Source I on the matter that the whole of the Tsar’s family was not killed as Source A states, “the Tsar . . . were not shot” and that “the Empress, the Tsar’s son and the four other children were not shot in that house”. Source B backs up to a fuller extent by adding, “On 17 July, a train left Ekaterinburg and it is believed that the surviving members of the royal members were in it”. Source G also backs up Source I as it portrays that the Tsar was definitely shot there.
Concordantly, Sources C, D,E all contradict Source I on the issue of who was shot in the Ipatiev House on 17th July 1918. Source I indicates that the Tsar was definitely shot but his “wife and son have been sent off to a secure place”. However, Sources C,D and E disagree as they state, “the entire Romanov family had been massacred”, “all the members of the Royal family were lying on the floor” presumed dead and “they killed them all” respectively. Furthermore Source J which is the closest to the truth also clarifies, “dental records positively identify Nicholas II, his wife and three of their daughters” but that mentions, “two of the imperial family’s five children” were missing and hence the two missing children were blatantly son Alexei and daughter Maria which creates an impression that maybe his son may have been “sent off to a secure place” as Source I suggests but definitely not his wife.
I think the element of surprise is not present in this source to a very large extent as the murders were planned and calculated in such a way by the Reds that it doesn’t even make them look guilty of executing the Romanovs which they obviously were.
f) How far does Source J confirm what the other sources said about what happened to the Tsar family?
Unmistakably, On the 11th of December1994, the British Newspaper – the Sunday Times from where Source J is from revealed the mystifying and mysterious deaths of the Tsar and members of some of his family. The source conveys us how “DNA tests along with the dental records positively identify Nicholas II, his wife and three of their daughters” with “Two of the imperial family’s five children missing” when archaeologists “opened a shallow burial pit near Ekaterinburg in 1991”. This source has to be considered the closest to the truth because of its confident tone thus “positively identify” as well as the fact that it mentions the use of modern genetic technology to back up the factual information it possesses. Therefore we can deduce that Source J can be justified as the most reliable source as this report on the murder of the Romanovs was published 76 years later in the modern era equipped with precise systematic methods as “DNA and dental records” that even though the dead bodies would have been severely disintegrated, their identification would have been made possible. Consequently, the trustworthiness of other sources can be judged by analysing to what extent they agree with Source J.
Undoubtedly, there are several sources which agree with Source J and hence can be considered reliable to some extent. These are Sources A, B, C, D. Firstly, Sources A and B agree with Source J on the number of people that were killed – five. Yet, it classifies different fatalities. We know this is true as Source A claims, “the Tsar, the family doctor, two servants and the maid were shot” whereas Sir Charles Elliot in Source B names “the Tsar, Dr Botkin, the Empress’s maid and two servants.” Moving on, Source J mentions the use of bayonets as a massacring tool in the murders that took place as the newspaper report informs us, “girls . . . had to be finished off by bayonets” and Source C backs it up as it mentions, “The murder was carried out using revolvers and bayonets”. In concord with Source D, Source C also backs up Source J that the corpses were transported to a mine by a lorry for their disposal. This is evident as Source C and D mention , “a lorry carried the corpses to the Four Brothers mine” and “The corpses were taken out to the lorry” which match with Source J’s comment - “The bodies were driven to a mine . . . the bodies were put back to the lorry”.
On the other hand, there are still some sources which don’t fully agree with Source J and thus have to be considered unreliable and bias depending on their provenance and origin. Unmistakably, Sources A and B are in disagreement with Source J on the notion of which of the Romanovs were murdered . Source A informs us, “the Empress, the Tsar’s son and the four other children were not shot in that house.” This disagrees with Source J as it declares that “dental records positively identify Nicholas II, his wife and three of their daughters” which means that they were killed. Sergeyev’s mention of only five members of the Royal Family instead of the entire Romanov family was most probably the reason why he was sacked as, although employed by the Whites, he didn’t help in portraying the Reds guilty enough.
Contrastingly, the “supposed” victims Source B names are “the Tsar, Dr Botkin, the Empress’s maid and two servants.” Like Source A, this source also clearly opposes Source J which tells us a different story – that “dental records positively identify Nicholas” but also his “wife and three of their daughters” but doesn’t mention any identification of the servants or Dr. Botkin. Conversely, the subjective Source I simply aims to redeem the Bosheviks who were thought by the Russian public to be guilty of the executions of the Tsar’s family as, surpsingly, it a message from the Ural Soviets to the Boscheviks in Petrograd – their blatant leaders which informs them that they have “decided to execute” instead of granting permission. This is why it can’t be trusted very much when it mentions, “his wife and son (Tsar’s) have been sent to a secure place” as the purpose of the source was simply to shadow as much of the Boschevik’s guilt in massacring the Tsars.
Besides, Source C also contradicts Source J on the notion of what happened after the bodies were taken by the lorry to the mine to a measurable degree. Source J reveals that after the bodies arrived at the mine, “the mine blown up by grenades whereas Source C gives a completely different account – “the bodies were chopped into pieces and burned”. The inclusion of the phrase “chopped into pieces and burned” and that “the fatty matter in the corpses ran out and mixed in with the soil” creates an exaggerated tone in the source and indicates us that as Sokolov was employed by the Whites – the potential rivals of the Reds, he had probably distorted the truth to create an extremely negative impression of the Bolscheviks as callous murderers not worthy of the Russian support they had.
Because at the beginning of Source C it is stated, “the entire Romanov family had been massacred”, we can assume that the “bodies” it talks about being transported to the Four Brothers mine were of the each of the massacred Romanovs. This is again a contradiction to Source J which conveys us, “Two of the imperial family’s five children were missing when archaeologists opened a shallow burial pit near Ekaterinburg in 1991”.
Moreover, Sources D and E have similar disagreements with Source J as they also indicate that all the members of the Romanovs were shot. Source D by Medvedev includes, “all the members of the Tsar’s family lying on the floor” and that “The corpses” presumably the Tsars therefore “were carried out to the lorry.” Likewise, Source E whose purpose is mainly to emphasise on how killed the Tsar also backs up Source D by adding, “they killed them all”.
Alternatively, though I believe the pictorial Sources of F,G and H don’t relate to any information in Source J, I still consider them useful as they all depict the manner in which the victims of 17th July were shot in the basement of the Ipatiev house.
In conclusion, I believe that Source J is not confirmed by other sources on the topic of what happened to the Tsar and his family to a very large extent although there are several similarities between Source J and other sources. Nevertheless, I still consider this source to be the most reliable because it backs up its report by extremely reliable and accurate scientific methods as that of DNA and Dental records. Therefore, as mentioned before, the element of reliability or the hint of untrustworthiness in other sources are the basis of how much they agree or disagree with Source J.
