Cold-case investigation calls Reuters an astonishing suspect in Anne Frank’s betrayal

Anthony Deutsch and Stephanie van den Berg

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) – A six-year cold case over Anne Frank’s betrayal has revealed an astonishing suspect in the mystery of how the Nazis discovered the hiding place of a famous newspaper in 1944.

Anne and seven other Jews were found by the Nazis on August 4 of that year after hiding in a secret annex on a sidewalk in the Amsterdam canal for almost two years. They were all deported and Anne Bergen died at Belsen camp when she was 15 years old.

Vincent Pankoke, a retired U.S. FBI agent and a group of 20 historians, criminologists, and data specialists, identified a relatively unknown character, Jewish notary Arnold van den Bergh, as the main suspect who revealed his hiding place.

Other experts pointed out that the evidence against him was not conclusive.

Researcher Pieter van Twisk, a member of the research team, said the key piece of evidence was an unsigned note from Anne’s father Otto, who was found in an old post-war investigation file, specifically named Van den Bergh and that he had transmitted the information.

He noted that Van den Bergh, as a member of the Amsterdam Council of War Jews, had access to hidden Jewish addresses and passed on lists of those addresses to the Nazis to save his family.

Twisk said only four of the initial 32 names remained after the investigation, with Van den Bergh as the main suspect.

Investigators confirmed that Otto, the only surviving member of the war, was aware of the note but decided not to speak publicly.

Van Twisk speculated that Frank’s reason for keeping silent about the accusation was probably not certain, that he did not want to make public the information that could further feed anti-Semitism, and that he did not want Van den Bergh. three daughters to blame their father for something they could do.

Otto “had been to Auschwitz,” Van Twisk said. “He knew that people in difficult situations sometimes do things that are not morally justifiable.”

While other members of the Jewish Council were deported in 1943, Van den Bergh was able to remain in the Netherlands. He died in 1950.

Historian Erik Somers of the Dutch NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide praised the extensive research, but was skeptical of its outcome.

He questioned the centrality of the anonymous note in Van den Bergh’s liability arguments and said the group made hypotheses that were not supported by other historical research on wartime Jewish institutions in Amsterdam.

According to Somers, there are many possible reasons why Van den Bergh was never deported, “because he was a very influential man.”

Miep Gies, one of the family’s assistants, kept Anne’s diary until Otto returned and published it in 1947 for the first time. It has since been translated into 60 languages ​​and captured the imagination of millions of readers around the world.

The Anne Frank House Foundation was not involved in the cold case investigation, but shared information from its archives to help.

Director Ronald Leopold said the study “has created a fascinating hypothesis that deserves important new information and further research.”

Using modern investigative techniques, a comprehensive database was compiled with lists of Dutch collaborators, informants, historical documents, police records, and preliminary investigations to find new avenues.

Dozens of suspects were displayed on a location and location map to identify a traitor based on their knowledge of their hiding place, motive, and opportunity.

The findings of the new study will be published in the book “The Betrayal of Anne Frank” by Canadian writer Rosemary Sullivan, which will be published on Tuesday.

The director of the Dutch Jewish organization CIDI, which fights anti-Semitism, told Reuters that he hoped the book would cover the wartime situation of the Jewish population in Amsterdam.

“If this becomes ‘done by the Jews’ it would be unfortunate. The Nazis were ultimately responsible,” said Hanna Luden of CIDI.