It’s been two weeks since groundbreaking research on the traitor of Anne Frank made the news.

Ambo Anthos, the Dutch publisher of the book The Betrayal of Anne Frank: A Cold Case Investigation — which is based on this research — now feels called to apologise for not having been more critical.

Gaps in research

Since 2017, a research team has attempted to solve the cold case of Anne Frank: who gave the address of her hiding place on the Prinsengracht to the Nazi occupiers?

Then, beginning this month, a breakthrough. 🕵️ The researchers publish a book that states with 85% certainty that the traitor was the Jewish notary Arnold van den Bergh.

But immediately after, critics spotted gaps in the researcher, causing Ambo Anthos to apologise for not having been more nuanced when publishing the book.

The apology, says Ambo Anthos in an official statement, goes out to all those who felt attacked by the book. The distribution of more copies has been put on hold until all doubts regarding the theory are convincingly cleared by the researchers, reports the NOS.

Why are critics doubting the research?

There are different reasons why critical voices have raised one or two eyebrows at the blaming of Arnold van den Bergh for the tragic fate of the Franks.

A key aspect of the theory is that Van den Bergh was a member of the Jewish Council (Joodse Raad) that collaborated with the Nazi occupiers to establish a connection with the Jewish community.

As a prominent member, it was argued, Van den Bergh had access to the addresses of Jews in hiding in and around Amsterdam. However, some experts point out that there is no evidence for this.

University professor Bart van der Boom, who is currently writing a book about Jewish Councils, adds: “You’re not in your right mind if you think that the members of the Jewish Council, respectable men, have betrayed 500 to 1000 Jews in hiding.”

The research team has not yet officially responded to all the criticisms.

What do you think about this backlash on the Anne Frank cold case? Tell us in the comments.

Feature Image: Unknown Photographer/Wikimedia Commons/Public domain

Last week, the Cross Cultural Human Rights Centre of the Vrije Universiteit (VU) in Amsterdam found itself caught amidst a crossfire of press reports critiquing questionable funding by a Chinese University.

For now, all activity of the research centre has been stopped, reports the NOS. An official statement by the VU, says that research is being conducted regarding the independence of their Chinese sponsors.

Why has the sponsorship been stopped?

The Chinese university that has been sponsoring the VU’s human rights research for years might have influenced the university’s stance towards human rights abuses in China.

Specifically, journalists criticised the website of the research centre, saying it played down the systemic suppression and severe human rights abuses against the Uyghurs in the Xinjiang province.

Dispute over who is to blame

It now looks like no one really knows who is to be held accountable for the year-long, questionable sponsorship.

During a phone call with the NOS, an employee has said that the centre did not choose autonomously to stop all of its activity. Thirty minutes later, the same person allegedly spoke to superiors and took back the statement claiming that it was in fact the VU’s choice to stop the human rights research.

Can you smell that? Something’s fishy. 🤨

What do you think of this story and who is to blame? Tell us in the comments!

Feature Image: PhotographerFromAmsterdam/Depositphotos