Anne Frank's Diary - A Hoax?

[moyal]

Let’s Talk About Anne Frank by Donny Ahzmond
(published by Miles Mathis)

 

[A Jay]

@moyal, it would be helpful if you would in your own words summarize what it is you're posting and why as in several threads now you've posted links without anything that would help people decide whether what you've posted might be of interest to them. In case you're not aware, it's considered common courtesy here to summarize things for people and not just post links without having done some work to meet people half way.

Also, you've not infrequently posted articles written or simply published by Miles Mathis. It was previously pointed out to you that Laura said he was so lazy and incompetent that he doesn't even deserve a place on the Historians Hall of Shame, which essentially means that his work isn't worth reading or sharing. Did you miss that message, do you disagree with the assessment, or is there a different reason for your continued posting of his work?

 

[Gwenllian]

Source: New book claims to solve mystery of who betrayed Anne Frank - DutchNews.nl

I could be wrong, but it was to be expected that 'experts' say that the above theory is "slanderous nonsense" as it throws an unfavourable light on the Dutch Jewish Council, so it appears to be damage control to me.

Dutch Sott published an article which stated that there was a "world wide embargo" on the conclusions of the investigation, so independent experts couldn't have a look at the findings beforehand. That should tell us something?

You can find a bit more about the Council here:

Wat was de rol van de Joodsche Raad tijdens WO2?

Bij uitgeverij Spectrum verschijnt donderdag het boek 1942. Oorlog op alle fronten. Het is het derde deel van een serie over de Tweede Wereldoorlog. Het rijk geïllustreerde boek - dat is gemaakt in samenwerking met het NIOD - zoomt in op het...

nl.sott.net

 

[loreta]

By the end of the day whether it is a hoax or not is not so relevant IMO. I am sure number of people across Europe during those days had to live in hiding and in the same or similar conditions described in this book and surely had same or similar experiences as described in the book.

I did not read all this thread, but I agree with you. I read this book when young, not by obligation. Since then, I love to read diaries, specially war diaries. Maybe it was this book that made my interest in war. I read the book again when adult, like it very much. Even if it is a hoax, the diary is a good book, for adults as for young people. It is well written, and it shows us how individuality is important, how it is important to be alone, how solitude is necessary. The character of Anne, if we can see her as a character, is interesting, her relation with her father, her mother, her sister and how she analyses all the people that live with her in this apartment. Hoax or no hoax the subjects are significant: human relations, solitude, danger, war. Perhaps it is a fictional book, perhaps not. If it is a fictional story, it is a good story. If it is a true story, also a very good story. And as you say, Deckard, how many people had similar experiences, how many young lives were in the middle of this tragedy. So if I was a teacher, I would recommend this book to my students, and tell them how important it is to write a diary. And to read diaries to learn what others lived, that can help us.

 

[Palinurus]

I could be wrong, but it was to be expected that 'experts' say that the above theory is "slanderous nonsense" as it throws an unfavourable light on the Dutch Jewish Council, so it appears to be damage control to me.

I agree that this looks like damage control but not for the reason you stated, since the Jewish Council evidently has no favorable status whatsoever in any historian's book AFAIK. For one example see: Jacques Presser - Ashes in the wind: The destruction of Dutch Jewry. (Dutch title: Ondergang).

Maybe you missed it, but it even says so explicitly in the first article:

Van den Bergh was a member of the Joodse Raad, or Jewish Council, which was set up in 1941 ostensibly as an organization for Jewish self government. In fact it was an instrument for the occupiers to facilitate the smooth selection and deportation of Jews.

@loreta and @Deckard
I quite agree with both of you.

@moyal
The article on Anne Frank's diary is 16 pages long and I haven't read it yet. Maybe I'll come back to it later on.

For now, I want to say that I've read a lot of Miles Mathis' writings on a great variety of subjects as a form of entertainment. I like his writing style and his no-nonsense approach, but after careful analysis I very much tend to agree with Laura's assessment - however harsh it may seem. He's not a serious scientist by any standard. That much has become clear to me.

 

[PERLOU]

VIDÉO - Anne Frank : près de 80 ans après, son dénonciateur enfin identifié ? | TF1 INFO

[VIDÉO] HISTORIQUE - Après plusieurs années d'investigation, une équipe internationale d'experts vient de publier ses conclusions. On découvre ainsi le nom de celui qui aurait dénoncé la famille d'Anne Frank aux nazis. - VIDÉO - Anne Frank : près de 80 ans après, son dénonciateur enfin identifié...

www.lci.fr

HISTORIQUE - Après plusieurs années d'enquête, une équipe internationale d'experts vient de publier ses conclusions. On découvre ainsi le nom de celui qui aurait dénoncé la famille d'Anne Frank aux nazis.​

HISTORY - After several years of investigation, an international team of experts has just published its conclusions. The name of the person who would have denounced Anne Frank's family to the Nazis has been discovered.

 

[Palinurus]

@PERLOU
Thank you for sharing this link. It's about the same source material made accessible for French speaking readers/watchers.

Merci de partager ce lien. Il s'agit du même matériel source rendu accessible aux lecteurs/téléspectateurs francophones.

 

[cope]

Heard it on the 8am news. Spontaneously thought the diary was a hoax. Now that i read the tread i don't think a girl would write like that. People were harder, but basically decent, even in Amsterdam. This writer isn't.
My mother was the same age as Anne. She never said anything to me about being jewish. I guess she had to stay indoors, having the thick black hair. There were different rules for those only half jewish. They were middle class. Getting caught listening to a radio would mean deportation. Letting someone hide with you, idem. They got away once for my grandmother started raging perfectly like a german mother would to the soldiers. All young men were shipped to the Ruhrgebiet to build weaponry, arbeitseinsatz. So, only men that were collaborating could walk the street. The last winter was very harsh as people started stealing from and ratting on each other. People were afraid. Seems Anne was pretty well off, comparatively.
Looks like it is time now again, to write diaries. Hopefully they will show a learning curve this time around.

 

[Palinurus]

Dutch Sott published an article which stated that there was a "world wide embargo" on the conclusions of the investigation, so independent experts couldn't have a look at the findings beforehand. That should tell us something?

The following UPDATE sheds some light onto the embargo procedure.
Source: Experts question the latest Anne Frank betrayal theory - DutchNews.nl

Experts question the latest Anne Frank betrayal theory​

January 20, 2022

The orchestrated publicity onslaught accompanying Tuesday’s new book about the betrayal of Anne Frank included very strict rules for journalists given an advance copy, the Volkskrant reported on Thursday (in Dutch).

Individual journalists who were given exclusive access to the book were asked to sign a secrecy agreement and told that they would be held personally liable for any leaks about it ahead of the agreed publication date, the paper’s book editor Wilma de Rek said in a column.

The deal prevented journalists from approaching other experts to check and verify facts in the new book, The Betrayal of Anne Frank, which nevertheless generated headlines around the world, and was the subject of a CBS documentary.

Since then, several critics have come forward to express their concerns about the ‘85% certain’ theory that a notary and member of the Jewish Council named Arnold van den Bergh handed a list of addresses where Jews were hiding to the Nazis out of self preservation.

David Barnouw, co-author of the 2003 book Who Betrayed Anne Frank? told the Guardian he was not convinced.

‘The researchers rightly subject their findings to all sorts of caveats,’ he told the paper. ‘However, they are very firm in their conviction of that poor notary. While I wonder whether he had access to a list of Jewish hiding places. The Jewish Council was far too law-abiding to make such a list, I think.’

The New York Times also published an article questioning the book’s findings. Laurien Vastenhout, a researcher at the NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, told the paper there is no evidence that the Jewish Council did have a list of names and addresses of people in hiding.

In particular, she said, book is 'full of errors’ about the council. ‘The problem is they come out with this accusation without providing any real evidence.’

Importance

The Anne Frank House organization in Amsterdam gave the researchers access to its files but was not involved in the book.

‘Research into the arrest of Anne Frank continues to be of great importance.’ said director Ronald Leopold. ‘It offers insights into the actions, choices and motives of people under extreme circumstances.’

‘At the same time, it has to be said that key pieces of the puzzle concerning crucial aspects of the conclusions are missing from this cold case investigation. This means that the conclusions go too far. You must not mark someone down in history as the betrayer of Anne Frank if you do not have conclusive evidence for this. More research is needed.’

Accident

There have been many theories about who betrayed Anne Frank and the seven others in hiding in the secret annex on Amsterdam’s Prinsengracht in 1944.

In 2016, the Anne Frank House published its own research suggesting the Frank family may not have been betrayed when their hiding place was raided in August 1944 but that the secret annex was found by accident.

That research looks at why the Prinsengracht office was raided in the first place. It suggests illegal employment and ration-coupon fraud played a role and may have led to the discovery and subsequent deportation of the family.

 

[Gwenllian]

Apparently the "sexy" portions were too much even for some Jews to stomach, and one of the first, if not only group, to voice their objections against the diary, were some Orthodox Jews who felt it gave the Jews a bad moral image. A proper girl would not act in such a way. Whether their objections were based on true moral grounds or for fear that the story was letting the cat out of the bag may be debatable. Talmudic sources are certainly not foreign to perverse sex. In any case, here we have yet another indication telling us that Mr. Frank's mannerism of accusing all
10

doubters as anti-Semities is not based on facts. In this manner he has been able to stop critics from voicing their objections in the open.

Heard it on the 8am news. Spontaneously thought the diary was a hoax. Now that i read the tread i don't think a girl would write like that. People were harder, but basically decent, even in Amsterdam. This writer isn't.

One of the things I remember after reading Laurent Guyenot's From Yahweh to Zion was their thoroughly materialistic and perverse/anti-spiritual viewpoint of sex. See this post here. It's also interesting how Gilad Atzmon theorised how "controlled opposition" emerges naturally among Jews.

In hindsight I am quite pleased that I never finished Anne Frank's diary. I read parts of it when I found the book in somebody's library and thought I ought to finish it, but it didn't appeal to me at all. And I read loads of girlie books when I was a child and an adolescent.

 

[Palinurus]

Apparently, the newly published research on the betrayal of the Frank family is still on the minds of many.
Source: Zwitsers Anne Frank Fonds kritisch over onderzoek: 'Grenst aan complottheorie '

NOS News - Abroad - today, 13:03
Swiss Anne Frank Fund critical of investigation: 'It borders on conspiracy theory'

The Swiss Anne Frank Fund is particularly critical of the conclusions of an international research team that investigated the 1944 raid on the Secret Annex. The fact that a Jewish notary is designated as a traitor, is nonsensical according to its chairman John. D. Goldsmith.

"This does not contribute to finding the truth, it only creates confusion. Moreover, the investigation is full of errors," Goldsmith tells the Blick newspaper (in German). "If the debate becomes so grotesque and nonsensical, we have a problem as a society."

The research team of 23 people spent six years investigating a variety of theories about the raid. This involved using modern tools such as artificial intelligence to discover links in the vast amount of documents gathered.

Immediately after publication, Dutch experts already criticized the conclusion that civil-law notary Arnold van den Bergh had passed on hiding addresses to the Nazis for reasons of self-preservation. The researchers could not find any evidence that such lists existed or that Van den Bergh was favoured by the Germans.

Director Ronald Leopold of the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam called the team's conclusion "a new perspective" in which "some important puzzle pieces are still missing." Because several follow-up questions still need to be answered, he saw the theory as a basis for further research.

Goldsmith of the Fund is much more critical. Evidence, he says, is lacking. "If the former FBI agent who was involved in this had delivered this work to his former employer he would not have gotten away with it," he said.

"The way 'investigation' was done was disappointing to us." He characterizes the research team as a commercial project that did not involve experts in the field of persecution of Jews. "We quickly realized this lack of this expertise and it's becoming clear now."

Malicious

Goldsmith calls the theory that a Jewish dignitary betrayed the Secret Annex grist to the mill of anti-Semites, especially since criticism of the book is less vehement in the international media. "In the Netherlands the reactions were scathing, but the reader in Minnesota or Chile now thinks: Anne Frank was betrayed by a Jew. We will have to rectify the consequences for years to come."

"It borders on a conspiracy theory to make an assertion that gets picked up as fact. And conspiracy theories stick around for a long time, we know."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Foundation or fund?

The Anne Frank House Foundation in Amsterdam and the Anne Frank Fund in Basel were both founded by her father Otto. The foundation was established to preserve the Secret Annex and to spread the word about Anne Frank's ideals. The fund manages the copyrights to her work. Both organizations have had a somewhat difficult relationship at times.

The research team contacted both institutions at the beginning of the project. The Anne Frank House refused to cooperate, and requests to use their archives were not honored.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Other coverage in Dutch:
Anne Frank Fonds: onderzoek ‘coldcaseteam’ is koren op de molen van antisemieten
Anne Frank Fonds kraakt onderzoeksproject naar verraad
Opinie: ‘Mediagekte rond boek over vermeende Achterhuisverrader bewijst opnieuw: Anne Frank is big business’

In German:
Präsident des Anne Frank Fonds kritisiert Untersuchung scharf - Blick

 

[Palinurus]

Source (Dutch only): De ‘85 procent zekerheid’ over wie Anne Frank verraden heeft, is te stellig, zegt de man die de berekening maakte (Four illustrations omitted)

Anne Frank betrayal: 'guilt percentage' is not hard evidence, says man who calculated it

Cold-Case Investigation The "85 percent certainty" with which a Jewish notary was designated as an Anne Frank traitor was put too strongly, says the man who made the calculation. In any case, the application of such statistics to complex criminal cases has been criticized.

Frank van Kolfschooten - January 28, 2022 at 16:17

The news in brief
* The cold case team (CCT) that last week identified Amsterdam notary Arnold van den Bergh as the traitor to Anne Frank's hiding place "with an 85% probability" had been warned that this percentage was surrounded by uncertainty.
* Forensic analyst Frank Alkemade cited the figure in his report for the CCT with strong reservations and a large margin of uncertainty. The CCT left these unmentioned in the publicity surrounding the book.
* Alkemade was unable to independently check the facts and insights as provided by the CCT. This means that the conclusions may change if the underlying facts and assumptions prove different.

The percentage caused great surprise: the Amsterdam notary Arnold van den Bergh would have betrayed Anne Frank's hiding address to the Nazis with a probability of 85 percent. That is what a 'forensic statistician' had calculated, reported the international cold case team (CCT) (in Dutch) on Sunday 16 January, who spent five years investigating the possible betrayers of Anne Frank.

Historians with knowledge of the persecution of the Jews rejected the designation of Van den Bergh because of speculative reasoning and missing sources. In particular, the claim that Van den Bergh had access to address lists of people in hiding, collected by the Jewish Council, met with criticism: there was no evidence whatsoever for the existence of such lists, argued Leiden historian Bart van der Boom, (in Dutch) for example.

What kept circulating in newspapers and on social media was this 85 percent, a figure that incidentally is missing from the CCT's book, The Betrayal of Anne Frank, written by Rosemary Sullivan. That book does include the name of forensic analyst Frans Alkemade, who drafted the report from which the CCT derived the 85 percent.

Alkemade appears unhappy with the way the percentage came to public attention. That figure was presented by the CCT and the media as an "absolute probability," while he had reported it as a "conditional probability." "The difference between the two is not an insignificant subtlety," says Alkemade. "The conditional statement 'if this witness is telling the truth, then the probability is 85 percent that the defendant is guilty' has a fundamentally different meaning than the absolute statement 'The probability is 85 percent that the defendant is guilty'."

Alkemade's analysis in the Anne Frank case concerned the conditional probability that Van den Bergh was the informant, if the facts and insights provided to him by the CCT were correct. Moreover, Alkemade had no way of independently verifying all those facts and insights.

He explains that the cold case team only approached him when their investigation was already almost complete, on the advice of an employee of the cold case team of the police in The Hague. In the past ten years, Alkemade has regularly drawn up reports on the evaluation of evidence in criminal cases using so-called Bayesian analyses, on behalf of courts, the public prosecutor's office and lawyers of suspects. In addition to lectures at universities, he also teaches this subject to prosecutors, lawyers and judges.

____________________________________________________________

Bayesian probability model weighs impact of new evidence
The Bayesian model is named after Thomas Bayes (1702-61), an English pastor who established a mathematical formula about probability ("Bayes' rule"). Forensic investigators use it to calculate how the likelihood ratio of two hypotheses changes with new evidence. Stronger evidence, leads to greater change.

Bayes' rule shows that this change is given by two probabilities: the probability of getting certain research results if a hypothesis is true, compared to the probability of getting them if an alternative hypothesis is true. For example, in a DNA match between a trace and a suspect, the following two hypotheses can be compared: ' the DNA is from the suspect' and 'the DNA is from an unrelated person'.

If such a DNA profile is found in one in a billion people, the so-called likelihood quotient can be calculated from this: the probability of finding this profile if the DNA belongs to the suspect, divided by the probability of finding this profile if it belongs to an unknown person. The first chance is 1, because the suspect has this profile. The second chance is one billionth. The quotient is then one billion, a number that shows at a glance that there is strong evidence that the DNA trace belongs to the suspect.

But does this mean that the suspect is the perpetrator? Other evidence can increase or decrease the overall evidentiary value. If the suspect has, say, a watertight alibi, the probability that he was the perpetrator becomes zero at a stroke and the police can go looking for an unknown person with the same DNA profile.
________________________________________________________________

"The Anne Frank team asked me to also unleash such analyses on the various scenarios they had drawn up about the possible traitor, to support their own conclusions," says Alkemade, who is a physicist by training. "Historical research is a bit different from criminal research, but the Bayesian methodology is good to use for comparing the probabilities of the different traitor scenarios in this case. However, I did let the CCT know on several occasions that the results of my analyses should always be presented in the proper context and with many caveats. In a historical matter such as this one, you have fewer facts and information at your disposal than in a criminal case. And any additional evidence, incriminating or exculpatory, is usually lost, making the outcomes more uncertain."

Evidentiary value

Two individuals emerged from his analysis as the most likely scenarios: Ans van Dijk, who was executed in 1948 for betraying two hundred Jews; and the notary Arnold van den Bergh, who died in 1950, who had already come into the picture in the 1940s because of an anonymous message to Otto Frank, Anne's father, in which this notary was identified without evidence as the traitor. The 'Van den Bergh hypothesis' appeared the most likely after Alkemade's calculation, but only on condition that the CCT's assumptions about the possibility, the motive and the means of passing on Anne Frank's hiding address to the Nazis were indeed correct. Depending on the evidentiary value he assigned to these and various additional assumptions, he arrived at a probability of between 50 and 95 percent that Van den Bergh had been the Nazi informant, with 85 percent as the best estimate, he stated in his report.

That report contains several warnings to the CCT about the scope of his analysis. Alkemade writes that he deliberately used the term "informant" and not "traitor" because he also considered Nazi informants to be victims rather than perpetrators. He also writes in the report that his calculation does not prove that Van den Berg actually was the informant. "I do not draw that conclusion, nor should others. First of all, 85 percent does not come close to beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, you have to realize that we are investigating events from 75 years ago, which means that the collection of data we have to work with is limited."

Alkemade also points out in the report that even a 95 percent probability would be insufficient to identify a perpetrator. "If we were to convict suspects from 95 percent probability, that could mean that 1 in 20 prisoners is innocently in jail." An unacceptably high number, in other words.

Unknown archives

Despite Alkemade's warnings in his report, "85 percent" took on a life of its own due to the CCT's oversimplified presentation. Alkemade is now consulting with the CCT about a joint statement, in which that figure is qualified after all and which makes clear that archives not accessible to or unknown to the researchers can contain documents "that completely tip the scales". Pieter van Twisk, head of research at the CCT, has explained when asked that the CCT will respond to the criticisms next week. In that response, the handling of Alkemade's report will be explained as well.

Ronald Meester, professor of probability theory at the Free University [in Amsterdam], was extremely curious about the calculation of the 85 percent, but did not find that percentage in the book that he bought immediately after its publication. He did read, however, that the cold case team had consulted Alkemade, with whom he had been at loggerheads regularly in recent years over his use of Bayesian models in criminal cases, which he considered irresponsible. Meester does agree with Alkemade that you can use a Bayesian model for scenario analyses in historical research. "That's not fundamentally different from criminal cases, which by definition are about something that happened in the past. And even there, there can sometimes be a lot of time between the events and the criminal case, think of Nicky Verstappen's case, who died back in 1998."

Meesters objection is that Alkemade hangs a number on a very complex situation, not only in the Anne Frank case, but also in his reports for criminal cases. "His analyses concern the criminal case as a whole, to which he then attaches a number. That goes way too far and gives the false impression that you can work magic with Bayesian models."

Meester points out that no judge has yet accepted Alkemade's reports on entire criminal cases, while the use of Bayesian models to interpret evidence has been fully accepted for parts of criminal cases in the form of "plausibility quotients" [see box above].

Oversimplification

Meester is joined by Marjan Sjerps, a statistician at the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI) and an extraordinary professor of forensic statistics at the [Municipal] University of Amsterdam. "What Alkemade does is called 'linear Bayes' in the literature, because it oversimplifies reality. A better application of the Bayesian model actually reveals how complex that reality is. You can't reduce a complex court case to a simple calculation."

According to Sjerps, the Bayesian model is well suited to infer how strong evidence and especially combinations of different evidence are. " Bayesian models have also proven to be very useful in making visible common thinking errors. These models also highlight the importance of formulating an alternative hypothesis to the prosecutor's hypothesis: to avoid tunnel vision."

Frans Alkemade is not impressed by the criticism of his work. "In my analyses I basically use the same mathematical methodology as the NFI, only I also include 'initial probabilities' and evidence other than purely forensic evidence. The NFI doesn't venture into that because they think it would put them in the judge's shoes too much. But I think my reports do help judges to get a better sense of the weight of the various pieces of evidence in a criminal case. I also often see elements of my analyses reflected in the verdicts. And, of course, I always present my calculations with the same cautionary statements as I did with the traitor scenarios."

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

 

[Palinurus]

Source: Dutch publisher of new Anne Frank book apologises for any offence - DutchNews.nl

Dutch publisher of new Anne Frank book apologizes for any offense​

January 31, 2022

The Dutch publishers of a new book about the betrayal of Anne Frank have delayed a decision about a second print run pending ‘answers from the investigative team to questions that have arisen’ following the publication earlier this month.

Ambo Anthos said in a letter (in Dutch) to its authors that it apologized to everyone who felt offended by the book, which claims a Jewish notary was 85% certain to have handed the Frank’s secret address to the Nazis.

The publisher, which bought the Dutch rights to the book four years ago, now says it should have been more critical about the book Who Betrayed Anne Frank? and that it had been caught up in the momentum toward its international unveiling.

The book was launched to a highly orchestrated publicity onslaught, including very strict rules for journalists given an advance copy.

According to the Volkskrant, individual journalists who were given exclusive access to the book were asked to sign a secrecy agreement and told that they would be held personally liable for any leaks about it ahead of the agreed publication date.

The deal prevented journalists from approaching other experts to check and verify facts about the book, which nevertheless generated headlines around the world, and was the subject of a CBS documentary.

Criticism

Since then, several critics have come forward to express their concerns about the ‘85% certain’ theory that a notary and member of the Jewish Council named Arnold van den Bergh handed a list of addresses where Jews were hiding to the Nazis out of self preservation.

Several historians have noted there is no evidence that the Jewish Council had a record of addresses where people were hiding. And John D. Goldsmith, head of the Basel-based Anne Frank Fund, which was founded by Otto Frank, said in a Swiss newspaper interview that the book is ‘full of mistakes‘.

He also said he was concerned about the ramifications of the claim that a Jew betrayed Jews. This, he said, is what he fears will stick in people’s memory.

Theories

There have been many theories about who betrayed Anne Frank and the seven others in hiding in the secret annex on Amsterdam’s Prinsengracht in 1944.

In 2016, the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam published its own research suggesting the Frank family may not have been betrayed when their hiding place was raided in August 1944 but that the secret annex was found by accident.

Meanwhile, the new book’s lead researcher Pieter van Twisk has said he is working on a reaction to the criticism and added that his team never said they had definitely uncovered the truth.

Similar coverage: Publisher apologizes for book on Anne Frank betrayal

Coverage in Dutch:
Excuses van Nederlandse uitgever voor boek over verraad van Anne Frank
‘Oprechte excuses’ voor boek over verrader van Anne Frank; voorlopig geen herdruk
Excuses uitgever voor boek over verraad van Anne Frank
Excuses uitgever voor boek over verraden Anne Frank

Hoe de coldcase rond Anne Frank verkruimelde
‘Het project ‘De verrader van Anne Frank’ was veel te hoog gegrepen’

 

[Palinurus]

Source (Dutch only): Onderzoekers Anne Frank gebruikten namen deskundigen zonder toestemming

NOS News - Domestic - today, 13:52 - Updated today, 15:57
Anne Frank researchers used names of experts without permission

Without their knowledge, names of experts were mentioned in the grant application and in the acknowledgements of the controversial investigation into the betrayal of Anne Frank. So reports Trouw (in Dutch). The study appeared in book format last month.

The project management included prominent experts in the application for a grant of 100,000 euros from the City of Amsterdam, even though they were not members of the research team.

Immediately after the conclusions in the book were made public last week, criticism of the research came from many quarters. There was admiration for the large amount of information that the team had managed to uncover using modern methods, but the conclusion that the civil-law notary Van den Bergh betrayed the residents of the Secret Annex was based too much on assumptions, according to experts.

Publisher Ambo Anthos apologized on Monday (in Dutch) for the book that appeared after the investigation. The publisher said it should have adopted a "more critical" attitude.

'Name dropping'

The grant application stated that former FBI agent Vince Pankoke is conducting research with "a select company of police investigators and leading historians." Then, according to Trouw, there is a list of American researchers, researchers working for the project and Dutch historians who have made their mark in the field of research on the German occupation.

But several historians and researchers tell the newspaper that they were never asked to be named before publication. NIOD archivist Hubert Berkhout responds, "I see it mostly as namedropping, because I was definitely not a team member."

Many of the experts involved in the study appear to have been spoken to by the team mainly during the exploratory phase, in 2017. They were no longer asked for further advice or an opinion on the findings.

In the acknowledgement, the authors write that they should not assume that consulted experts endorse the findings. When questioned by Trouw, some of them appeared to actually have refused to cooperate, although they were mentioned. Project leader Pieter van Twisk would not comment on the matter to the newspaper Trouw.

'Municipality not substantively involved'

The municipality of Amsterdam says it provided "a one-time contribution of 100,000 euros to the researchers for their research in the sources of the Stadsarchief [City Archive], among others." The data generated by the research will be made available for follow-up research.

Furthermore, the municipality "had no substantive involvement in the research, the methodology of the research, or the outcome of the research, as we never do with independent research. A council letter is currently being prepared," according to the statement. A spokesperson did not respond to questions about the grant application.

'Take book off the shelves'

Several Jewish organizations are now calling for the book to be taken off the shelves altogether. Chairman Ronny Naftaniel of the Central Jewish Organization (CJO) calls the book " shoddy work." "A smoking gun is completely missing here," he states. According to Naftaniel the theory about the betrayal by the notary is "extremely speculative," he tells Het Parool (in Dutch). [Note: in the Parool article it actually is Emile Schrijver, director of the Jewish Cultural Quarter, who makes these statements].

The European Jewish Congress (EJC), a congregation of 42 European Jewish organizations, is also calling on the publisher to stop publishing the book in other countries. "A potentially explosive claim should be substantiated beyond all doubt and reviewed by critics before publication. However, this has not been done," states EJC President Moshe Kantor.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Dutch coverage:
Coldcase-team Anne Frank gebruikte namen van deskundigen zonder hun toestemming
Europees Joods Congres vraagt ‘Het verraad van Anne Frank’ uit handel te nemen
Hoe een Duitse uitgever níet misstapte met boek over verraad Anne Frank: ‘Dit is een verstandig voorbeeld’

 

[Palinurus]

Source (Dutch only): Projectleider Anne Frank-coldcase: ‘Zes jaar integer onderzoek is uitgelopen op een hetze’

Interview: Pieter van Twisk
Project Manager Anne Frank case: 'Six years of an investigation with integrity has turned into a witch hunt'

Pieter van Twisk

"The uniqueness of our research is that it was precisely non-scientific," says Pieter van Twisk, research leader of The Betrayal of Anne Frank. He thinks there's a lot of vilification going on.

Laura van Baars - February 3, 2022, 13:55

Eight experts and scientists in the field of World War II declared Wednesday in Trouw that they were not part of the team that carried out the controversial investigation into the betrayal of Anne Frank. However, they were listed in a grant application for that purpose. According to the astonished project leader Pieter van Twisk, their statement is part of a "smear campaign" against the research. "It is basically a tempest in a tea pot," he said.

On the list of names of the research team for a grant application to the City of Amsterdam, there are at least six experts who were not members of that team and were not aware of that presentation. How do you explain that?

"We were still in an early phase of our research, speaking to many experts. Everyone was blazing with enthusiasm for the big data approach, with the help of a former FBI investigator Vince Pankoke. They wanted to cooperate and they also knew that we needed money, such research is enormously expensive. The names of the experts have been on our website for years without a word of criticism. Indeed, it could well be that not everyone was aware that their name was on that grant application in 2017. But at the time of application it was also not yet clear exactly how the research team would be set up."

These experts, whose names do appear in the book, do not support the way the research was conducted. Historical science should have been the core, only then the forensic approach using big data.

"It was an approach that they all found very interesting in 2017. And now that our research has suddenly become controversial, they are distancing themselves from it. David Barnouw personally presented himself in the media in 2017 as a "consultant" to the cold case team."

"Not all experts have remained equally involved over the years. We worked with a small dedicated core team of people who were fully informed and actively investigated. This was surrounded by a layer of advisors in specific areas. We only asked for advice when there was a reason to do so. During the investigation, information flowed only inwards and not outwards, and so the advisors were often not informed, sometimes partially and occasionally completely. Controlling information is crucial within an investigation because information leaking outward can frustrate or otherwise affect the investigation."

Doesn't the criticism also lie with the outcome of the investigation: designating a Jewish man who can no longer defend himself as a traitor?

"We don't come up with a traitor. We come up with the most likely suspect. That's really a very important distinction. The man had already been named as a suspect; we didn't do that. We didn't bring out his name either. We don't say anywhere that he is the traitor or the perpetrator."

"Even before everyone had read our book, the criticism erupted. Nobody mentions that we are investigating dozens of possible traitors. I dare say that nobody knows this case as well as Vince Pankoke, me and possibly Gertjan Broek of the Anne Frank House. We've been investigating with integrity for six years, and the material we have is enormous. We have also exonerated a great many people, but no attention is paid to that. We do indeed come up with the most likely betrayer. You don't want to know what we're getting over ourselves about that now."

The large-scale presentation of Anne Frank's Traitor turned against the project. It created a commercial impression. Do you regret that?

"Nobody got rich from this research, everything went into the project. So that image is not correct at all. The emphasis that was placed on the person of the traitor did indeed mask all the other information that the investigation yielded and that is a great pity."

When are you going to respond substantively to the criticism that has been leveled at the investigation?

"After the publication of our research, the critics tumbled over each other. We were not even asked for a response. On Thursday or Friday we will come up with the points to which we will respond substantively, such as the SD lists, the message to Otto Frank in which the betrayer is mentioned, and about Van den Bergh going into hiding."

--------------------------------------------------------------
Commentary historian David Barnouw:

"In the beginning I met with Pankoke a few times and attended one meeting and was Historical Advisor or something. But in order to participate further, I had to sign a non-disclosure agreement and I didn't feel like it and so I didn't further hear anything."

Ronald Leopold of the Anne Frank Foundation previously let it be known in the New Israelite Weekly:

"Let me be clear: our co-operative Gertjan Broek was not a member of the research team. None of us were members. We only made our archives available at the beginning of this project. That is part of our public function. The team made use of that a few times. The contact was tenuous."

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)