Front Cover (Figure 1)

Anne's father Mr. Otto Hans Frank holds the Diary in his hands. This picture appeared in Sondags Expressen of 10 October 1976, page 7. Notice that this Diary is neither "small" nor "little" nor does it resemble the Diary depicted in the AFFA brochure, page 5. This one has straight corners, the AFFA version has rounded corners. Also, notice the black border around the edge of the first page. Either Anne used a book of condolences as a diary or maybe these pages are photocopies bound into a proper book format? Photo: Pressens Bild/Photoreporters.

 

 

Figures 2 & 3

Front and back covers of the Cardinal edition of the Diary, 1963, New York. Observe here how leading personalities and newspapers endorse this fraud without questioning.

 

 

Figure 4

Extracted from the Cardinal edition, 1963. What would first arouse any investigator's curiosity is the bit about "Apart from a very few passages ... the original text has been printed." How do we know? Will Mr. Frank produce the original manuscript so that we can check out this claim?

 

 

Figure 5

Extracted from the American Cardinal edition, 36th printing, 1963. Compare this with figure 14, the British edition, which is supposed to be exactly the same. A close study will show that one has the "k" of "Frank" underlined and the other does not. Why is this? Who tampered with Anne's handwriting?

 

 

Figure 6

The author wrote this polite letter to Mr. Frank and was sharply cut off; see figure 8.

 

 

Figure 7

The author wrote to Mr. Frank asking for proof of the Diary's authenticity:

Mr. Frank wrote back on 22 April 1977 saying that he would do whatever he could to be of assistance. This was how he signed off. The full letter is reproduced as figure 17.

 

 

Figure 8

Even though Mr. Frank offered (in German) to answer any further questions (figures 7 and 17) he curtailed any further correspondence in this note of 4 June 1977.

 

 

Figure 9

The cover of Life magazine 15 September 1958. This is supposed to be yet another sample of Anne's handwriting. Compare with figures 5, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16 (all in one file)

 

 

Figure 10

Yet another example of Anne's handwriting; this time from the German edition of the Diary. Compare with the other styles.

 

 

Figure 11

Reduced from the original 30%. THis flyer is given out to visitors at the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam.

 

 

Figure 12

From Kindlers Literatur Lexikon, Kindler Publishers, Zurich, 1965, volume 1, page 64. This is supposed to be a reproduction of the very first page of Anne's original Diary. If this was the size of Anne's writing, is it possible that a "little (handwritten) diary" could contain the same amount of material as a 237 page printed book? Also, look at the corrections and alterations in another handwriting. Whose is it? Why were these corrections made? (Author's arrows.)

 

 

Figure 13

This further "example" of Anne's handwriting is taken from the official booklet published by the Anne Frank Foundation (referred to herein as AFFA) 5th edition, page 36. The printed edition never ends with "Anne M. Frank" but with "Yours, Anne." Who changed it?

 

 

 

Figure 14

Extracted from the British edition: Pan Books, London, 32nd printing 1975- This same excerpt appears in the American Cardinal edition, as shown in figure 5. But notice the line which appears here under "Frank." This does not appear on the American edition. Who removed it? Also, why does this 12 june 1942 entry not appear in the printed editions? Who deleted it and why?

 

 

Figure 15

Extracted from the British Pan Books edition of 1975. It does not appear in our American Cardinal edition of 1963. It is interesting in that it shows how Anne was keen on plagiarizing other works.

 

 

Figure 16

Another "exampe" of Anne's handwritning; this time from Das Grosse Dudenlexikon, Mannheim. How does it compare with the other "samples"?  

 

Figure 17

After our initial inquiry, Mr. Frank sent us this informatiive letter by registered mail. He enclosed what he called "proof" of the Diary's authenticity (figures 18, 19, 21). He says (in German) that it is onlyneo-Mazis who dispute the Diary's authenticity. In 1961 he had a court case against the "Studienrat Stielau" in Lübeck. In the process, two expert opinions were obtained and submitted to court ("Gutacktens"). There was a literary one by A. Hübner, (figures 19 and 21) and a graphological one by M. Becker (figure 18). He has enclosed photocopies. He says Anne's original diaries (note plural) and papers are kept in a bank safe in Basel and they will be pleased to answer further questions. This author took him at his word, and asked to examine the originals of the diary personally (figure 6). But Mr. Frank declined rather curtly (figure 8) - this time in Englich, for some reason. Maybe it sounds more austere?

 

Figure 18

This is a photocopy Mr. Frank sent this author with his letter of 22 April 1977 (figures 17 and 7). It is a letter from a firm of Hamburg attorneys to Mr. Frank in Switzerland. The attorney says that he has on file Frau Becker's authentication of the Diary, but it runs to 131 pages, so therefore he cannot send a photocopy of it! See text "Frau Minna Becker for a further comment by us.

 

 

 
Figure 19

Another one of Mr. Frank's enclosures of 22 April 1977. This he describes as a "very detailed proof of authenticity." It is supposed to have been written by a Dr. Annemarie Hubner of Hamburg University. It continues as figure 21. She appears to have submitted this "expert literary opinion" for use in the court case where Mr. Frank sued Stielau and Buddeberg for saying the Diary was faked. Contrary to Mr. Frank's description, the "Gutachten" is not detailed at all, and is merely a statement about the preliminary studies of this law suit.

 

 

 
Figure 20

This is the registered envelope in which Mr. Frank sent this author his letter of 22 April 1977 (figures 17 and 7) together with his so called "proofs" of the Diary's authenticity (figures 18, 19, 21).

 

 

 
Figure 21

This is the second page of Dr. Hubner's "Gutachten". The first page of it is figure 19. It appears that someone has pencilled in the fainter parts of the letter. The last paragraph was highlighted in red ink (arrowed) when we received it.