The Betrayal of Anne Frank: A Cold Case Investigation(8)

Several other young historians—Christine Hoste, Circe de Bruin, and Anna Foulidis—undertook much of the research work in the city’s archives, including at the NIOD Institute for War, Genocide and Holocaust Studies and the Stadsarchief Amsterdam. They pored over thousands of files, took notes and wrote reports, set up appointments, and prepared the interviews. When asked how their research into the Holocaust had impacted them, they said it had been painful to enter that past but at least they had been focused on the Netherlands, for instance, Westerbork transit camp (now a museum), where they interviewed the museum director. Christine said she didn’t believe she could have coped with the camps inside Germany and Poland.

Thijs invited his friend Jean Hellwig, a guest professor of public history at the University of Amsterdam, to join the team as project manager. It was a natural follow-up to his earlier project, Warlovechild, which had collected stories, films, and photos about children of Dutch soldiers abandoned after the colonial war in Indonesia between 1945 and 1949.* “With my own eyes I saw the healing potential of finding historical truth,” he said. Jean then invited eleven students to help with the search, allowing them to do their university internship with the Cold Case Team.

The final addition to the team was Brendan Rook, a detective who’d served as an infantry officer in the Australian Army and spent more than ten years with the International Criminal Court in The Hague investigating war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide around the globe. While Vince was still with the FBI, he’d worked closely with the Dutch National Police Corps, and one of his principal contacts from that time introduced him to Luc Gerrits. Vince mentioned to Luc that he needed someone to bounce his ideas off, a fellow investigator able to isolate and focus on the facts that might lead to solving the crime. Luc met Brendan in The Hague and, after learning about his investigative background, mentioned the Cold Case Team to him. Brendan was extremely interested and soon arranged for a leave of absence from his work to join the team.

Vince and Brendan are kindred spirits. They share a unique way of seeing things. Whereas the Anne Frank House is a museum where hundreds of visitors line up outside, for them it was a crime scene. They pictured the events of August 4, 1944, and exactly where they took place on that pitiful morning.

Brendan said that each time he visits a crime scene, he discovers new details. Standing in front of the building today, looking at its four floors, its front attic, the windows, he knows one thing for sure: a professional policeman would certainly have deduced the existence of the back Annex, and it wouldn’t have taken him long to find the secret entrance.





4


The Stakeholders


In this increasingly complex cold case investigation, Vince was an outsider watching, as it were, from the periphery and having to figure out things that were self-evident to the Dutch. The upside of this was that he could remain dispassionate in the face of developments that drove the others crazy. The first shock to the group was the degree of acrimony among the various stakeholders of the Anne Frank legacy.

Thijs described the first meeting he and Pieter had had with a man he referred to as “from the world of Anne Frank,” namely Jan van Kooten, a former head of education and presentations (1983–2004) at the Anne Frank House.1 Thijs had asked Van Kooten if they could meet to discuss the organizations devoted to the story of the Franks. He wanted to know how the various groups worked and how they collaborated.

On Friday, March 4, 2016, Thijs and Pieter visited the office of the National Committee for May 4 and 5, the Dutch institution responsible for the annual Remembrance Day and Liberation Day celebrations.2 Van Kooten, currently the director, sat behind his large desk, looking rather intimidating. Thijs and Pieter were somewhat anxious, as it was the first official conversation in which they had to explain their idea: an investigation into what is popularly called “the betrayal of Anne Frank.” Their first question was cautious: What do we need to know when we start?

Van Kooten quickly pulled a blank sheet of paper and a marker from a drawer. For just a moment he stared at the paper. Then he started to draw circles and lines. He spoke softly but firmly. The two men could sense that he knew the world he described intimately and that he was choosing his words carefully—very carefully.

The drawing became increasingly complex, and it was clear that the world they were entering was difficult to explain. The essence was this.

There are three versions of Anne Frank’s diary:


The original journal.

Anne’s rewriting of the diary in her last months before the raid on the Annex. (In a broadcast on Radio Oranje on March 28, 1944, the Dutch minister of education, art, and science advised people to preserve their diaries so that there would be a chronicle of what the nation had gone through and survived. Anne rewrote her diary with the ambition of having it published.)3

The rewritten diary with adjustments by (or under the supervision of) Otto Frank. This is the version that has been published all over the world.



There are two Anne Frank foundations, both founded by Otto Frank:


Anne Frank House (AFS)/Anne Frank Stichting (Foundation) in Amsterdam. This was established in 1957 by Otto Frank to save the house and Annex at Prinsengracht 263 from demolition. The main objectives of the foundation are the management of the Anne Frank House and the propagation of the life story and ideals of Anne Frank. The foundation develops exhibitions, educational programs, and publications based on Anne’s life. It also manages the Anne Frank collection and opens the “hiding place” to the public.