Kelley on diary, Frank Anne

On Tue, 16 Jan 1996, Jeff wrote:

> The Franks had been arrested and had been taken away…….
> What happened next? Who found the diary?
> 1) “The franks and their friends were being taken away. MIEP remained frozen
> in her chair, too shocked, too stunned to move. Then she heard the sound of
> familar voices. ELLI and HENK were returning. Saying little to one another,
> the THREE left the office and moved down the hallway and on up the stairs to
> the hiding place. Moving from room to room they saw overturned furniture,
> books scattered, and drawers ransacked.”
> [Page 23. A place to Hide. True Sories of Holocaust Rescues. Jayne Pettit.
> USA 1993.
> 2) “At the end of the afternoon, the two [MIEP and BEP] went upstairs
> together with JAN GIES and VAN MAAREN, the warehouseman, and entered the
> secret annex. It was in chaos. the pages of Annes diary lay scattered on
> the floor and were gathered up along with other papers and books and taken
> downstairs.”
> [Anne Frank: Beyond the Diary: A photographic Rememberance. Puffin books
> 1995]
> 3) “The secret annexe was plundered during the police raid. A few days
> later, in a pile of old newspapers left lying on the floor, an OFFICE
> CLEANER found the notebooks containing Annes diary. Not knowing what they
> were, he handed them to Miep and Elli.”
> [Page 227 Anne Frank Diary. Published by Guild publishing by arrangement
> with Valentine, Mitchell and Co Ltd 1980]
> 4) “Henk said right away to van Matto, As soon as your assistants are away
> lock the door and come back to us. When van Matto returned, Henk said to
> Elli, van Matto and me [Miep Gies], Now weill go upstairs and see what the
> situation is.
> [Page 157. Anne Frank Remembered by Miep Gies 1987.]
> Anybody got an answer to this one yet?

Several of the “contradictions” that you seem to see are cleared up by
the simple fact that, in revising her own diary for hoped-for postwar
publication, Anne Frank herself changed some names of the people who
lived and worked at 263, Prinsengracht. While Miep Gies agreed to have
her real name in the published version, Jan Gies became “Henk” and Bep
Voskuijl became “Elli,” or “Elly.” (_Critical Edition_ pp. 61-62)
Similarly, the “Office Cleaner” of #3 and “Van Matto” of #4 both
clearly refer to W.G. Van Maaren, the warehouseman at the spice
company that the Franks lived above.

All four of the statements extracted above are consistent with the order
of events listed in _The Diary of Anne Frank: The Critical Edition_,
Edited by David Barnouw and Gerrold Van Der Stroom. New York:
1989. This edition reflects the intensive investigation of the diaries
undertaken by the Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation.
According to the _Critical Edition_, after the Jews hiding in the Secret
Annexe had been taken away,

“Miep Gies was left alone in the office while the two warehousemen were
below. Wisely, Bep Voskuijl [“Elly”] stayed away for the first few
She and Jan Gies [“Henk”] came back at about five o’clock. With Miep
Van Maaren they went up to the Annexe. According to Miep:

“They’d gone through all the cupboards. On the floor lay books,
papers and whatever else was of no importance to the `Green
At one point we found some loose pieces of paper, an old account
and the exercise books which we had given to Anne when the
diary was running out of space for her notes. We took
the diary, the account book, the exercise books and all the
pages away with us. But we didn’t dare stay up there too long
we were afraid that the `Green Police’ might come back”

Miep locked the diaries and the loose sheets away in her office desk.
One or more weeks later the Annexe was cleared by the removal
of Abraham Puls on German instructions. On that occasion Miep told Van
Maaren to go and collect any pieces of paper covered with writing that
might come to light during this operation and give them to her. This he
did, and she locked away those sheets, too, in her desk (page 62).

This account covers pretty much the same points as the published
Mr. Roberts posts. I note that 1) omits Van Maaren’s participation in
the first search of the Annexe; this does not seem a significant
omission. 2) is virtually identical to the account in the _Critical
Edition_, and 3) seems an accurate recap of the second search of the
although the section cited by Mr. Roberts fails to mention the first
of the Annexe. Again, # 4 is consistent with the _Critical Edition_’s
narrative of events.

>>>Posted and E-mailed to Mr. Roberts and to Tom Moran.
Followups to alt.revisionism, please. E-mailed
replies to this message will be posted to Usenet unless otherwise
requested by sender<<<

Marty Kelley ([email protected])

“I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven’t
got the guts to bite people themselves” –August Strindberg

Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 11:42:12 -0700
From: Marty Kelley
Subject: Huber in the library (Was Re: Anne Frank)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On 25 Jun 1996, one of the entities posting as M Huber wrote:

[regarding the _Diary of Anne Frank_]

> The Diary… is a fraud, a hoax. In our local library, I have altered the
> index and cards to reflect the truth, ie, it is categorized as ‘fiction.’

I have done a little research into the penalties for vandalizing
libraries’ collections as you have claimed. It’s rather interesting.
The laws most likely vary from state to state; in Arizona, this would be
prosecuted under Arizona Revised Statutes 13-1604, as a charge of
“aggravated criminal damage.” (The crime is apparently more serious
regular vandalism when it is perpetrated against a religious or
educational institution, or against a cemetary or funerral home.)
Depending on the dollar value of the damage done, the crime could be a
class 1 misdemeanor or a felony.

You might also like to read up on some other cases involving vandalism
public and university library materials:

TITLE: KKK vandal sentenced. (to 200 hours community service for
placing Klan recruitment stickers in books in the Henderson
State University Library)
SOURCE: American Libraries v. 27 (Mar. ’96) p. 17

TITLE: Librarian jailed for vandalism. (former children’s staffer
incarcerated for damaging Clifton, N.J. facility)
SOURCE: Library Journal v. 121 (Feb. 1 ’96) p. 18

AUTHOR: Kristl, Carol.
TITLE: Library sleuth collars neo-Nazi book defacer. (at Cleveland
State University)
SOURCE: American Libraries v. 25 (Dec. ’94) p. 976-7

Marty Kelley ([email protected])

“All that I care to know is that a man is a human being–
that is enough for me; he can’t be any worse.”
–Mark Twain

Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 13:03:36 -0700
From: Marty Kelley
Subject: Re: Anne Frank
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Sat, 29 Jun 1996 [email protected] wrote:

> Marty Kelley wrote:
> >On Tue, 25 Jun 1996 [email protected] wrote:
> >> I don’t think there is much question of it being a hoax. In fact back
> >> when Alex Haley was paying off someone to shut up about the man’s book
> >> being plagarized to be put into Roots, there was a mention of several
> >> other such payoffs. One of which was the Diary.

> >Are you now claiming that you believe Anne Frank’s diary to be a hoax?
> >In the past, I believe you had stated that you didn’t know. Please
> >clarify your position on the authenticity of the _Diary_; I would also
> >like to know why you think it’s a hoax (if you do).
> I said exactly what I said. That there was a plagarism settlement.
> What would be of interest is finding the book the plagarism was claimed
> to be from and which parts were involved.

You are apparently confusing (as many people have) the diary itself with
the legal fracas over the publication rights to the *stage adaptation*
of the book. Playwright Meyer Levin originally contracted with Anne’s
father, Otto Frank, to write a play based on the diary. Levin wrote a
script which was rejected by several producers, and Otto Frank went on
grant the rights to do an adaptation to another playwright (I don’t have
the name with me as I write). The second attempt at a play was
successful, and was the basis for the later movie. Levin sued, claiming
that the *play* had been plagiarized from his adaptation, and eventually
Frank and the second playwright settled the case _without_ admitting any
wrongdoing, and Levin agreed to give up any claim to the rights to a
dramatic adaptation. At NO POINT in any of the legal proceedings did
of the parties claim that the Diary itself was anything other than what
it is: Anne Frank’s own writing.

In short: the only “plagiarism” case regarded the *stage adaptation*,
the diary itself. The diary was first publshed in the early 1950’s; the
play was produced in the mid to late 50’s, and the lawsuit came a bit

I would suggest that you read _The Diary of Anne Frank: The Critical
Edition_. Its introductory chapters discuss the Levin-Frank case in
quite a bit of detail, and also include a report by the Netherlands
forensic investigators who authenticated that the diary is indeed in
Frank’s handwriting.

I must ask you again: do you accept or reject the authenticity of Anne
Frank’s diary? Please present the reasoning behind your opinion.

Marty Kelley ([email protected])

“All that I care to know is that a man is a human being–
that is enough for me; he can’t be any worse.”
–Mark Twain

Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 10:58:40 -0700
From: Marty Kelley
Subject: How Anne Frank Died (was Re: A little Q&A on the holocaust)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Mon, 20 May 1996, Matt Giwer wrote:

> [email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:
> >The claim that she was suffering from typhus in Auschwitz was
> >made by you. Can you back it up, or is it one more of your lies?
> But then, even without typhus, it is not clear what kind of labor
> skills a 14 year old would have had to have been kept alive in
> the first place.

First off, Anne Frank was a little over 15 when she was arrested, not
14. The _selektions_ upon arrival at Auschwitz were very arbitrary;
not particularly noteworthy that she survived when she first arrived at
Auschwitz the night of September 5-6, 1944. Incidentally, of the 1,019
people who arived at Auschwitz on that transport, 549 of them, including
all children under the age of 15, were gassed the same day (Sept. 15).
Among the adults gassed was Herman Van Pels, who had been in hiding with
the Franks. (_The Diary of Anne Frank, Critical Edition_, p. 50)

The _Critical Edition_ of the diary makes no mention of Anne and her
sister being ill when they were evacuated from Auschwitz as the Germans
attemprted to close down the camp in advance of the approaching Soviet
Army. While the records of transports from Auschwitz do not list names
of individual prisoners evacuated, it seems likely that Anne and Margot
were among a transfer to Bergen-Belsen on October 28 1944 (_Critical
Edition_ p. 52). The fact that both died sometime in late February or
early March 1945 suggests that they did not
contract typhus until *after* their arrival at Bergen-Belsen, which
experienced a massive typhus epidemic near the *end* of the winter of
1944-45 (_Critical Edition_ p. 54-55).

Mr. Giwer’s contention that Anne Frank was already sick when she was
from Auschwitz to Bergen-Belsen is quite simply incorrect. If anyone
else in this group has made that claim, they are similarly incorrect.

Source: _The Diary of Anne Frank: The Critical Edition_. Edited by David
Barnouw and Gerrold Van Der Stroom. New York: Doubleday, 1989.

Marty Kelley ([email protected])

“We are now living in an era where the wall between news and
entertainment has been eaten away like the cartilage
in David Crosby’s septum.”
–Al Franken, in _Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot_

Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 13:57:45 -0700
From: Marty Kelley
Subject: Re: Introduction to Mason’s “straight facts”
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Sun, 24 Sep 1995, Tyrone Mason wrote:

> > Even _The Diary of Anne Frank_ is a hoax. Portions of
> > the diary were written with a ball point pen. These pens
> > were not in use at the time Anne Frank lived.
> >Since the government of the Netherlands has conclusively
> >demonstrated that this is a false assertion – and noted that
> >the ball point pen writing appeared on two slips of paper
> >inserted (perhaps as placemarks) into the diary, and no-where
> >else, will you now retract your false assertion, and admit
> >that your “information” wasn’t “straight?”
> Again proove it.

The word is PROVE, Mr. Mason. Having gotten that straight,I would
suggest you get yourself to a library and check out _The Diary of Anne
Frank: The Critical Edition_ (New York: Doubleday, 1989), which has a
complete discussion of the process of verification and analysis that the
diary manuscript was subjected to. The Dutch forensic examination of
diary determined that all substantial parts of the diary (most of which
was bound in three diary volumes of blank pages, and some of which
of loose sheets of paper found with the bound volumes) were written by
Anne Frank, using a fountain pen and ink. (The discussion of the
materials of the diary–paper, ink, glue, et–can be found on pp. 102-
of the _Critical Edition_, and the handwriting analysis runs from pp.
104-165. The two slips of paper mentioned in the post you mention above
were left in folders holding the loose sheets of Anne Frank’s writing
were not in the bound diaries themselves). They are in ballpoint pen,
a noticeably different handwriting, and “as far as the factual contents
the diary are concerned, the ballpoint writings have no significance
whatsoever” (_Critical Edition_ p. 160). These notes, written in 1959
Dorothea Ockelmann, were apparently left in the folders of loose sheets
Mrs. Ockelmann when she collaborated with Minna Becker on an early
investigation of the diary (footnote, p. 160, see also p. 87).
Photographs of these notes appear on pp. 160-163. The Critical Edition
does not provide English translations of the notes by Mrs. Ockelmann; if
you really think it matters, I’ll try to find someone who speaks German
to translate.

Other postwar emendations to the diary, some in pencil, some in an ink
differing from that used by Anne herself, include small typographical
corrections, the addition of page numbers, and other insignificant
changes. Such corrections (and there are only 26, “varying from a
letter to three words,” that are in a hand other than Anne’s) “were
made by Otto Frank with a probability bordering on certainty” (p. 164).

Anne Frank wrote her diary. It’s proven. Read the first 174 pages of
the _Critical Edition_ (the chapters which document the history of the
book and its verification), and then come back and try to
convince us that there’s any reason to believe the diary is a forgery.

Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 16:23:54 -0700
From: Marty Kelley
Subject: Re: Holocaust half-truths
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On 25 Sep 1995, Henry Ayre wrote:

> As Doctor Robert Faurisson pointed out in his extensive article on the
> diary of Anne Frank, the work, even in its original form lacked internal
> consistency and reason.

Faurisson’s fraudulent assertions about the diary have been extensively
analyzed in _The Diary of Anne Frank: The Critical Edition_ (New York:
Doubleday, 1989). In a chapter on Holocaust deniers’ attacks on the
diary’s authenticity, David Barnouw points out that Faurisson
quotes the diary to give the impression that certain events were
impossible. For instance, Faurisson cites a passage in which Anne says
spilled bag of beans made “enough noise to wake the dead” and claims
such noise obviously would have led to the Franks’ discovery. What
Faurisson leaves out is the very next sentence in the diary: “Thank God
there were no strangers in the house” (_Critical Edition_, p. 95).
Barnouw systematically dismantles Faurisson’s argument quite handily.

> Moreoever, two specimens of handwriting, each
> alleged to be that of Anne Frank, are so radically different that no one,
> expert or amateur, would attribute them both to the same person.

That’s certainly going to be news to the Netherlands State Forensic
Laboratory, which determined that, based on comparisons with other,
verified samples of Anne Frank’s writing before the family went into
hiding (letters, postcards, a poem she wrote in a friend’s autograph
album), the entire text of the diary itself (or “diaries,” to be
bound volumes and a number of loose sheets of paper) is in Anne Frank’s
handwriting (_Critical Edition_ pp. 159-60; the complete discussion of
the methods of verification runs from pp. 102-165). Otto Frank, Anne’s
father, added page numbers and made small typographical changes to the
original manuscript, but changed nothing of substance. There are only
instances of such emendations (ranging from changing a single letter to
changing three words) in the entire text, and all of them,”_considered
as a
whole_, were made by Otto Frank with a probability bordering on
certainty” (p. 164; emphasis in original).

> Anne Franck was a real person, a tragic figure upon the vast canvas of
> millions of individual tragedies involving all the people of Europe. Her
> greatest tragedy, however, is that her name is now blatantly used to
> conjure up as true happenings that were largely, if not totally,
> fictional. Does her soul now clash violently with that of her father?
> H. Ayre.

What I wonder about is why you find it necessary to try and discredit
_Diary of Anne Frank_ at all. After all, if you acknowledge that the
Nazis had a policy of rounding up Jews and putting them in concentration
camps, and THAT’S ALL, why sling mud on the diary, which makes no
of gas chambers or an organized policy of extermination?

All it does is present a victim of the Nazis, describing in her own
words, the trauma inflicted on two families trying to avoid the Nazis’
detention policy. It gives a human face to one of countless victims
whose only crime was being Jewish. It makes plain that the Nazi policy
against Jews caused real suffering, even before the victims of those
policies were rounded up. Even if I accepted your version of the events
of 1933-45 (which I most emphatically do not), I can’t quite see why you
would want to argue that the diary is fake–there’s nothing inconsistent
in it with your version of what the Nazis did.


>>Posted and forwarded by e-mail; followups to alt.revisionism. E-mail
from Holocaust deniers will be subject to posting in alt.revisionism
unless otherwise requested<<
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.nationalism
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 18:24:34 -0700
From: Marty Kelley
Subject: Re: McVay: Is he Lying or Just not telling the whole truth????
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

[note: followups trimmed]

On 27 Sep 1995, HAPLO wrote:

> Second He has also stated that only 2 pieces of paper were found to be
> written in ball point pen in the Anne frank diary’s. This is a Lie .
> there was in fact 3 hardbound notebooks and 324 loose pages bound ina
> fourth notebook. Portions of the diary’s specifically the Fourth books
> were found to be written in ball point pen. Wich was not available
> openely till 1952. Test have been performed and found that the fourth
> book must have been added after the war.

I’m not sure where you’re getting your information from, Haplo, but
you’re misinformed. According to the Netherlands State Forensic Science
Laboratory, the ink markings in the text of the diary itself

“on the diaries and on the loose sheets, consist, in the main, of gray-
fountain-pen ink in which iron was clearly present. . . Only after 1950
were inks with no, or a much lower, iron content introduced. . . .
“The results of the document examination can be summed up as
“None of the tests produced any indication tht the diaries, the
loose sheets, and the items submitted for comparison, together with the
ink deposits found in them, are of later date than the supposed period
origin” (_The Diary of Anne Frank: The Critical Edition_. David Barnouw
& Gerrold Van Der Stroom, eds. New York: Doubleday, 1989. p. 104)

The forensic examination of the diaries and loose sheets found NO
sicnificant sections of the diaries to be written in ballpoint pen.
Handwriting analysis determined that the entire text of the diaries (the
three bound volumes and the loose sheets as well) were in Anne Frank’s
handwriting (summary of findings in _Critical Edition_ pp. 158-60; the
full discussion of the handwriting analysis runs from pp.104-165). The
only emendations to the diaries and loose sheets are Otto Frank’s
addition of
page numbers, and twenty-six instances of changes of text (these ranging
from a single letter to three words), also all by Otto Frank (_Critical
Edition_ p. 164).

Anne Frank wrote her diary. That question has been settled beyond any
reasonable doubt, as you would realize if you’d read the book I’ve been
citing. And as I’ve asked a couple of other Holocaust Deniers, why are
you so intent on claiming her diary is a forgery? It says nothing
inconsistent with your distorted version of what the Nazis did.


>>posted and e-mailed; followups to alt.revisionism. E-mailed replies to
this post will be posted to alt.revisionism unless sender requests

Marty Kelley ([email protected])
“The trouble with this dandy new communications technology is that while
it enables people to communicate like whizzes, it doesn’t give them
anything more interesting to say” –Molly Ivins

Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 00:05:46 -0700
From: Marty Kelley
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII