Post by blackfeather on Sept 19, 2018 0:55:47 GMT
I have run into this recently, and found this quite interesting. At the minimum it looks like some are trying to make money off of a dead girl.
Below a smattering of quotes from various links and in the back of my mind is who is making money off of this and how does this affect each side of the controversy. Here is the story so far.....
The accusation...
"Almost from the beginning there were charges that the diary was a hoax. Some of these charges were based on the gross inconsistencies between various translations and editions of the diary in book form; it was clear that the text had been heavily edited to help it sell well in different markets. Other charges were based on internal inconsistencies and credulity-straining elements in the diary itself.......
When Hamburg pensioner Ernst Roemer, 76, began spreading the accusation that Otto Frank had himself written what he was passing off as his dead daughter’s diary, Frank sued him. As usual, the court upheld the authenticity of the diary. Handwriting experts testified that the entire diary, including loose notes and insertions, had been written by the same hand, and that hand was Anne Frank’s.
Roemer appealed the court’s decision against him, and more handwriting experts were called in. Their conclusion was the same: Everything in the diary was in the same handwriting; there was no forgery.
Roemer appealed again, and this time the court asked for the technical services of the Federal Criminal Office (Bundeskriminalamt, similar to our FBI), which carried out a careful analysis of the original manuscript of the diary with microscope and ultraviolet illumination in order to confirm its authenticity — in particular, to determine when it was written.
The report of the technical experts was given to the court in April of this year, and it contained a bombshell: large portions of the alleged “diary” were written in ballpoint pen ink — which was not manufactured prior to 1951!
Were it not for the previous testimony of the handwriting experts that the entire diary, including the portions written with ballpoint pen, is in the same hand, the father might have claimed that he only “edited” his daughter’s work, “clarifying” passages here and there. But the evidence was quite unambiguous.
For example, the testimony of Hamburg graphologist Minna Bekker in an earlier trial was: “The handwriting of the diary in the three bound volumes — including all notes and additions on the glued-in pages as well as the 338 pages of loose material — including all corrections and insertions is identical . . .”
nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/anne-frank-hoax-exposed/
and
konigbooks.uk/blogs/news/anne-frank-diaries-fraud-by-otto-frank
So was this graphologist correct or did she just testify what she was expected too say and didn't study the writing closely?
The other side...
Anne wrote the body of her diary with a fountain pen. Anything written in ballpoint pen was clearly done at a later date. First, there are two loose notes written by someone else and attached to Anne’s papers after the war. Second, some of Anne’s original diary entries have page numbers written in ballpoint pen, but these were obviously added at an early stage in the compilation process.
Anne’s diary and the ballpoint pen:
Anne wrote the body of her diary with a fountain pen—that is, a pen that uses wet ink. The only traces of ballpoint pen ink are confined to two loose scraps of paper put with the diary materials later (probably by Otto Frank). They are clearly in a different handwriting than Anne’s. When Otto Frank organized the books and papers after the war, he also probably numbered the pages partly in ballpoint pen and partly in colored pencil.[2] No single entry from Anne Frank’s diary is written in ballpoint pen.
www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/af3-ballpoint-pen/
also see...
web.annefrank.org/ImageVaultFiles/id_14671/cf_21/tenquestions_en.PDF
This is a far cry from the other article where it says "a large portion" was written in ball point so which is it?
Finally the latest..
Finally, the long time fraud of Anne Frank's diary was publicly admitted by the Anne Frank
Foundation. Anne Frank's diary was co-authored by her father and thus the credibility of
the diary ultimately comes to an end.
THE OFFICIAL ADMISSIONS FROM THE ANNE FRANK FOUNDATION,
AND THE EVIDENCE OF TWO DISTINCT HANDWRITINGS:
The Basel, Switzerland, Anne Frank Fonds (Anne Frank Fund), which controls the copyright
to the Diary of Anne Frank, has admitted that the book was in fact at least co-authored by
Otto Frank, Anne’s father, after the war.
The admission proves that the book, which is still heavily promoted as a "holocaust memoir",
is in fact largely a postwar fabrication which contained parts of the young Anne’s diary with
extensive additions added by her father. This is obvious from even a cursory look at the
actual diary. See, for example, the image below of two pages from the diary, which shows
both Anne’s real youthful handwriting and her father’s obviously adult handwriting, although
he signs his entries as “Anne Frank.”
Normal copyright on books extends only 70 years after the author’s death. As Anne Frank died
of typhus in Bergen Belsen in February 1945, the book theoretically entered the public domain
in February 2015. But, as the New York Times went on to say, the Anne Frank Fonds has now
decided to try to extend copyright on the book past the 70 year cut-off period by admitting
that Otto Frank, who died in 1980, was indeed a "co-author" after all.
www.deviantart.com/der-himmelstern/journal/Anne-Frank-Diary-Fraud-Finally-Admitted-586457430
The actual article in question...
Foundation officials “should think very carefully about the consequences,” said Agnès Tricoire, a lawyer in Paris who specializes in intellectual property rights in France, where critics have been the most vociferous and are organizing a challenge. “If you follow their arguments, it means that they have lied for years about the fact that it was only written by Anne Frank.” .....
“The longer they can claim copyright protection, the longer they can ask money for publication of the works,” said Stef van Gompel, a professor at the University of Amsterdam who specializes in copyright law.
www.nytimes.com/2015/11/14/books/anne-frank-has-a-co-as-diary-gains-co-author-in-legal-move.html
So which is it? Was this authentic or was it partially fabricated in order to make money, is claiming her father as author just another way to keep the gravy train going for the Anne Frank Fund, or did he fabricate some of it? Each translation was claimed to be tailored for the target audience, were this differences in language or good marketing? Can the book be trusted as the true writings of a young girl or is it partial fiction? I personally no longer know for sure how genuine the book is but it looks to me like this is currently about making money off of a dead girl. One has to question how far back has this been the motivation?
Below a smattering of quotes from various links and in the back of my mind is who is making money off of this and how does this affect each side of the controversy. Here is the story so far.....
The accusation...
"Almost from the beginning there were charges that the diary was a hoax. Some of these charges were based on the gross inconsistencies between various translations and editions of the diary in book form; it was clear that the text had been heavily edited to help it sell well in different markets. Other charges were based on internal inconsistencies and credulity-straining elements in the diary itself.......
When Hamburg pensioner Ernst Roemer, 76, began spreading the accusation that Otto Frank had himself written what he was passing off as his dead daughter’s diary, Frank sued him. As usual, the court upheld the authenticity of the diary. Handwriting experts testified that the entire diary, including loose notes and insertions, had been written by the same hand, and that hand was Anne Frank’s.
Roemer appealed the court’s decision against him, and more handwriting experts were called in. Their conclusion was the same: Everything in the diary was in the same handwriting; there was no forgery.
Roemer appealed again, and this time the court asked for the technical services of the Federal Criminal Office (Bundeskriminalamt, similar to our FBI), which carried out a careful analysis of the original manuscript of the diary with microscope and ultraviolet illumination in order to confirm its authenticity — in particular, to determine when it was written.
The report of the technical experts was given to the court in April of this year, and it contained a bombshell: large portions of the alleged “diary” were written in ballpoint pen ink — which was not manufactured prior to 1951!
Were it not for the previous testimony of the handwriting experts that the entire diary, including the portions written with ballpoint pen, is in the same hand, the father might have claimed that he only “edited” his daughter’s work, “clarifying” passages here and there. But the evidence was quite unambiguous.
For example, the testimony of Hamburg graphologist Minna Bekker in an earlier trial was: “The handwriting of the diary in the three bound volumes — including all notes and additions on the glued-in pages as well as the 338 pages of loose material — including all corrections and insertions is identical . . .”
nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/anne-frank-hoax-exposed/
and
konigbooks.uk/blogs/news/anne-frank-diaries-fraud-by-otto-frank
So was this graphologist correct or did she just testify what she was expected too say and didn't study the writing closely?
The other side...
Anne wrote the body of her diary with a fountain pen. Anything written in ballpoint pen was clearly done at a later date. First, there are two loose notes written by someone else and attached to Anne’s papers after the war. Second, some of Anne’s original diary entries have page numbers written in ballpoint pen, but these were obviously added at an early stage in the compilation process.
Anne’s diary and the ballpoint pen:
Anne wrote the body of her diary with a fountain pen—that is, a pen that uses wet ink. The only traces of ballpoint pen ink are confined to two loose scraps of paper put with the diary materials later (probably by Otto Frank). They are clearly in a different handwriting than Anne’s. When Otto Frank organized the books and papers after the war, he also probably numbered the pages partly in ballpoint pen and partly in colored pencil.[2] No single entry from Anne Frank’s diary is written in ballpoint pen.
www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/af3-ballpoint-pen/
also see...
web.annefrank.org/ImageVaultFiles/id_14671/cf_21/tenquestions_en.PDF
This is a far cry from the other article where it says "a large portion" was written in ball point so which is it?
Finally the latest..
Finally, the long time fraud of Anne Frank's diary was publicly admitted by the Anne Frank
Foundation. Anne Frank's diary was co-authored by her father and thus the credibility of
the diary ultimately comes to an end.
THE OFFICIAL ADMISSIONS FROM THE ANNE FRANK FOUNDATION,
AND THE EVIDENCE OF TWO DISTINCT HANDWRITINGS:
The Basel, Switzerland, Anne Frank Fonds (Anne Frank Fund), which controls the copyright
to the Diary of Anne Frank, has admitted that the book was in fact at least co-authored by
Otto Frank, Anne’s father, after the war.
The admission proves that the book, which is still heavily promoted as a "holocaust memoir",
is in fact largely a postwar fabrication which contained parts of the young Anne’s diary with
extensive additions added by her father. This is obvious from even a cursory look at the
actual diary. See, for example, the image below of two pages from the diary, which shows
both Anne’s real youthful handwriting and her father’s obviously adult handwriting, although
he signs his entries as “Anne Frank.”
Normal copyright on books extends only 70 years after the author’s death. As Anne Frank died
of typhus in Bergen Belsen in February 1945, the book theoretically entered the public domain
in February 2015. But, as the New York Times went on to say, the Anne Frank Fonds has now
decided to try to extend copyright on the book past the 70 year cut-off period by admitting
that Otto Frank, who died in 1980, was indeed a "co-author" after all.
www.deviantart.com/der-himmelstern/journal/Anne-Frank-Diary-Fraud-Finally-Admitted-586457430
The actual article in question...
Foundation officials “should think very carefully about the consequences,” said Agnès Tricoire, a lawyer in Paris who specializes in intellectual property rights in France, where critics have been the most vociferous and are organizing a challenge. “If you follow their arguments, it means that they have lied for years about the fact that it was only written by Anne Frank.” .....
“The longer they can claim copyright protection, the longer they can ask money for publication of the works,” said Stef van Gompel, a professor at the University of Amsterdam who specializes in copyright law.
www.nytimes.com/2015/11/14/books/anne-frank-has-a-co-as-diary-gains-co-author-in-legal-move.html
So which is it? Was this authentic or was it partially fabricated in order to make money, is claiming her father as author just another way to keep the gravy train going for the Anne Frank Fund, or did he fabricate some of it? Each translation was claimed to be tailored for the target audience, were this differences in language or good marketing? Can the book be trusted as the true writings of a young girl or is it partial fiction? I personally no longer know for sure how genuine the book is but it looks to me like this is currently about making money off of a dead girl. One has to question how far back has this been the motivation?
