Will those making money from false accusations escape justice?
Immediately, many reported that Arnold van den Berg, the Jewish notary recently capriciously accused of betraying Anne Frank, did not have the character, track record, information, motive, or opportunity to betray the world-famous diarist as that new, flimsy book and its publicity allege.
Within days after the publishers and ‘research team’ lifted the embargo on the book, knowledgeable Dutch Jews and specialized Dutch historians, without exception, trashed the shocking but baseless conclusions. It was deemed shoddy, amateurish, unscientific, and, in short, a bunch of nonsense. As I blogged extensively and promptly, in English, to no avail.
Other early appeals to the American publisher were ignored too. Even an early petition by the European Jewish Congress fell on deaf ears. After a couple of months, Dutch historians specialized in the Holocaust and WW II published a book detailing all the mistakes. That refutation was reason enough for the Dutch publisher to recall the malicious book. But the 69-page English translation of the historians’ repudiation had no influence on publishers in many other languages and YouTube publishers that, to this day, continue to make money out of this slander. Many times, I reported to YouTube these clips, seen by millions, but they just kept them on. Amazon finally has the libelous book on sale (60% off) but still is selling it.
Now, a newer, most thorough rejection so far, going over every flawed detail, has appeared in English, and the Algemeiner reported it. Everyone’s excuse that they didn’t know this was baseless slander is now dead.
Then, how do English, Spanish, German, and other publishers still dare to continue spreading this defamation about a dead Jew who can’t defend himself? He was, if anything, a through-and-through decent person if not a measure of a war hero for, as a dignitary, protecting many Jewish victims of the Nazis for as long as he could until he had to go into hiding.
I somehow would wish that the alive relatives of the falsely accused would receive the emotional and financial support to sue the pants of those who made and still make money off this libel. I don’t wish ill on anyone, but just for justice’s sake, let’s right this wrong. It needs quite a lot of publicity to undo all the undeserved bad press this noble Jews has received 70 years after his demise. But, a trial would also be a warning to other amateurs on any subject to ensure they know what they’re talking about before they drag someone’s name through the mud because it would sell like hotcakes.
I’m not sure, though, if the self-appointed judges in this kangaroo court were malicious at any point. We’ve seen it before: amateurs who were hypercritical and exhaustive when rejecting standing scientific research but then, about their own flimsy theory, forgot to dissect it, and then were too stubborn to admit to having nothing to show for themselves.
These ‘researchers,’ after spending much time and money with no results but lots of dead ends, made a desperate jump to a theory they both didn’t substantiate properly nor did they scrutinize. I don’t think that their aim at any point was fame or money. Rather, because of human weakness and amateurism, they could not draw the logical conclusion that it was a pity of all effort, time, and money, but nothing was found. That’s scientists’ daily bread. If one historian would have been interested to join them, s/he could have told them, though the others would probably have voted her down; the most likely reason why no historian wanted to work with them.
True, the amateur slanderers had twisted the facts a bit and boasted and exaggerated their thoroughness and expertise, but I’m not sure if that was to such a degree that that could be called deceitful and fraudulent.