A group of Dutch historians has published an in-depth critique of the work and conclusions of a cold case team, who said they had pieced together the “most likely scenario” of who betrayed Jewish teenage diarist Anne Frank and her family
By MIKE CORDER Associated Press
Mar 23, 2022 at 3:57 p.m
• 4 minutes reading time
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterEmail this article
THE HAGUE, Netherlands – A group of Dutch historians has published an in-depth critique of the work and conclusions of a cold-case team that said it had pieced together the “most likely scenario” of who betrayed Jewish teenage diarist Anne Frank and her have family in German occupied Amsterdam during World War II.
The Cold Case team’s research, published earlier this year in Canadian scientist and author Rosemary Sullivan’s book The Betrayal of Anne Frank: A Cold Case Investigation, drew immediate criticism in the Netherlands.
Now, in a 69-page written “Rebuttal,” six historians and academics describe the cold case team’s findings as “a shaky house of cards.” The book’s Dutch publisher reiterated an earlier apology and announced Tuesday night that it would be removing the book from stores.
The book states that the person who revealed the location of the Frank family’s secret annex in a canal building in Amsterdam was likely a prominent Jewish notary, Arnold van den Bergh, who disclosed the location to the German occupiers of the Netherlands, to save his own family from deportation and death in Nazi concentration camps.
The Dutch historians reviewed the team’s work and concluded that the “accusation was unfounded”.
The historians said the book “shows a clear pattern in which assumptions are made by the CCT (Cold Case Team), a moment later held to be true, and then used as a building block for the next step in the logic train.” It makes the whole book a shaky house of cards, because if any step turns out to be wrong, the cards on top of it fall too.”
In response, Cold Case team leader Pieter van Twisk told Dutch broadcaster NOS the historians’ work was “very detailed and extremely solid” and said it “gives us a number of things to think about, but for now I don’t see that Van den Bergh can finally be removed as the prime suspect.”
Since the book’s release in January, the team has posted extensive responses to criticism of their work on their website.
Dutch filmmaker Thijs Bayens, who came up with the idea of assembling the cold case team, admitted in January that the team didn’t have 100% certainty about Van den Bergh.
“There is no such thing as a smoking gun because treason is awkward,” Bayens told The Associated Press at the time.
The Frank family and four other Jews hid from July 1942 until their discovery in August 1944 and their deportation to concentration camps in the annex, which was accessible via a secret staircase hidden behind a bookshelf.
Anne and her sister died in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp. Anne was 15. Only Anne’s father, Otto Frank, survived the Holocaust. He published her diary after World War II and it quickly became an enduring symbol of hope and resilience, read by millions around the world.
The director of the Anne Frank House Museum, located in the building where the Frank family was hiding, said in January that “many missing pieces of the puzzle remained. And those parts need to be studied further to see how we can evaluate this new theory.”
On Wednesday, director Ronald Leopold said the question marks the museum had in January over the cold case team’s conclusions “are supported by the counter-examination of leading historians.” You must not expose anyone to history as a traitor to Anne Frank unless you have conclusive evidence. We hope that this counter-inquiry will clear the Van den Bergh name of guilt, including for his relatives, including granddaughter Mirjam de Gorter.”