However, the claim has been contested by Helen Azar and George Hawkins (based on information provided by Margarita Nelipa), who dismiss the story as a myth being based in "absolutely no first-hand evidence". The authors' note that the story seems to originate from proven unreliable accounts of the executioner Peter Ermakov. Shorokhodov, in fact, left the Ipatiev House due to "illness and hospitalization rather than dismissal". They further report that any minor violation by the guards would result in being imprisoned in a local jail, adding to the unlikeness of the story. Moreover, Azar and Hawkins note there isn't evidence of Alexandra and Olga being angry with Maria, reporting the myth stems from a misconstrued passage in the Yurovsky note. The original note, in place of an alleged implication that an "imperial soul" needed passage for inappropriate behavior, reports that the Deacon actually said "This is what happened before and not with such important people. If one messed it up, it can cause a scandal, but in this situation, we can sort it out in good spirit." This was in response to Yurovky telling the Deacon that he could perform service but not converse with the imperial family. Consequently, the passage cited by King and Wilson as evidence of Maria being shunned is based on nothing more "than perhaps faulty translation in the original publication that referenced the alleged incident".