|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
April 9, 2022 The defense by
|
|
[1] Although I was not involved in the research process, I have full confidence in the investigation led by Vince Pankoke into the betrayal of Anne Frank. |
How could Ms. Sullivan have confidence in
anything she can't check for herself? She doesn't
understand Dutch and German, so she was unable to
read any original document. She was also unable to
understand most of the studies about life in the
occupied Netherlands. And, as any academic knows,
confidence = belief = opposite to science.
|
[2] Certain critics have questioned the book’s conclusion: that a Jewish notary Arnold van den Bergh gave a list of anonymous addresses to the SD which included that of the Secret Annex where Anne Frank and her family were hiding. |
And why do they
question the conclusion? According to NIOD the critics pointed out
that the argumentation used in the book to
eventually claim Van den Bergh betrayed the Frank
family is incorrect. The cold case team, made many
assumptions and then builds arguments on those
assumptions. This makes the whole thing "a shaky
house of cards, because if any single step turns out
to be wrong, the cards above also collapse".
And indeed, many single steps turned out to be
wrong.
|
[3] This conclusion was reached in part because of the lengths to which Otto Frank and Miep Gies went to protect the identity of the betrayer. |
The fact that Otto Frank and Miep Gies
thought there had been a betrayer doesn't
necessarily mean that there had been such a person.
And even if there had been a betrayer, the only
“evidence” pointing to the notary, is an anonymous note, sent to Otto
Frank on an unknown date, somewhere after the war.
The first documented evidence of its existence dates
from March 31, 1958.
|
[4] It is the critics who refer to Van den Bergh as a “traitor.” The team is always careful to see him as a victim whose motive was to save his family from deportation and death under the Nazi occupation. |
This is an absolute distortion of the truth. In the book 77 times the word "betrayer" is used, repeatedly in connection with Arnold van den Bergh. In interviews after the publication cold case team members as well as Sullivan called the notary repeatedly “the traitor”.
|
[5] Without requesting a response from Pankoke and his team, the Dutch publisher AmboAthos printed an apology to anyone offended by the book and then withdrew the book. |
The proper name is “Ambo Anthos”. Apart from that: what Sullivan mentions here is completely irrelevant to the criticism on the book.
|
[6] Pankoke has therefore published his rebuttal on the web site: www.coldcasediary.com. |
This is another blatant lie. Vincent Pankoke hasn't responded at all on the report by the Dutch historians. His rebuttal was posted on March 21, one day before the historians' report was published. Pankoke's rebuttal is a response to criticism mentioned in earlier publications, and sub-standard reaction at that, based mainly on bluff and distortions.
|
[7] While new information is continually coming to light, Pankoke has been able to refute the distorted assumptions the critics say the team makes about the wartime Jewish Council, the existence of lists, and other matters. |
Another outright lie: Pankoke hasn't refuted anything at all.
|
[8] The team has also been careful to protect the identity of the granddaughter of Van den Bergh. The way she has been manipulated by the press is regrettable. |
This last remark by Ms. Sullivan is an outright insult – to the relatives of Arnold van den Bergh and the press as well. It suffices to refer to the statement by Mirjam de Gorter, Van den Bergh's granddaughter, to realize what mendacious creature this Canadian author really is.
To top of page.
