Willem married Sophia van Maaren on month day 1824, at marriage place. He had 7 siblings: Adrianus van Maaren, Catharina van Maaren and 5 other siblings. Willem was baptized on month day 1800, at baptism place. Willem van Maaren was born to Evert van Maaren and Neeltje van Maaren.

What happened to Karl Silberbauer Karl Josef Silberbauer tracked down and arrested Anne Frank and her family as they were hiding from the Nazis in an Amsterdam attic in 1944. Click here to see a video excerpt in which Miep Gies recounts the day of the arrest.Willem Van Maaren. The remaining staff was not interfered with. The hiders were taken away (and apparently their number was more than expected, as a second car had to be called for), along with two of the four helpers present that day. The doors to the stockroom stood open, and the first to enter was the Austrian Nazi SS OberscharfГјhrer Karl Silberbauer, followed by the Dutch NSB members (Dutch national socialists, allied to the Nazis) Gezinus Gringhuis, Willem Grootendorst and Maarten Kuiper. Willem passed away on month Did Willem van Maaren betray Anne Frank Suspicion for being the betrayer In several investigations after the war, Van Maaren was the prime suspect for the.The Attic seen from the back.For eight Jewish people in hiding at Prinsengracht 263 in Amsterdam, a more than 2 year period of hiding came to an end on the warm summer's day of August 4, 1944.

The Secret Annex had been betrayed, but by who?What are the problems with cases aganist Lena Hartog and Willem van Maaren. When the arrest of Anne.Of the eight Jewish hiders, only Otto Frank returned after the war, as did the two arrested helpers Johannes Kleiman and Victor Kugler. Johan Voskuijl worked in the Willem Gerardus van Maaren (August 10, 1895- November 28, 1971) was the person most often suggested as the betrayer of Anne Frank. How was the entrance to the secret annex concealed A veritable hiding place. Mercedita Haibullin Explainer.

In addition to these official reports, there are also the biographers of Anne Frank and of Otto Frank, Melissa MГјller and Carol Ann Lee, who each attempt to identify the betrayer in their books published in 19, respectively. In 2003, the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation released a report. The Political Investigation Department of the Amsterdam police force conducted an inquiry in 1948, and a second inquiry took place in 1963.

While it is a fact Sleegers knew the NSB member Gringhuis (who was present at the arrest), this in itself does not constitute proof.NSB member Tonny Ahlers visited Otto Frank at his office in April 1941, to confront him with a letter addressed to the NSB that mentioned a conversation between Frank and Job Jansen, a former employee. There is no concrete evidence that Sleegers betrayed the hiders. Anne describes this burglary in her diary entry of April 11, 1944. They actually fumbled with the bookcase that hid the entrance to the Secret Annex. Following the report of a burglary in the premises in April 1944, he and a police officer went to investigate.

It is known that Frank twice gave money to Ahlers, though probably not more than 50 guilders altogether. Subsequent investigations showed that he was indeed a frequent visitor at the Security Service, but that his role as courier was simply made up. Ahlers said that he worked as a courier for the SD (Nazi security service) and for the NSB, and said that he had intercepted the letter by chance.

In this way he may also have had contact with the stockroom manager Willem van Maaren (more about him later). This would have given him access to the stockroom of Opekta / Pectacon, later Gies & Co., when coming to collect ordered goods at Prinsengracht. Ahlers started a business in the same kind of commodities as Otto Frank's business. Can Ahlers have been the betrayer personally, or did he pass on information to the Nazi Security Service, for example? The latter is possible. This makes it difficult for researchers to distinguish fact from fiction.

It remains a speculative theory, woven into her pages. In her book she works towards identifying Ahlers as the betrayer, yet without explicitly labeling him as such. Carol Ann Lee, biographer of Otto Frank (2002), was the first to present this theory about Tonny Ahlers. She was an eye-witness and may have known and seen a great deal. It is regrettable that Ahlers' widow, Martha van Kuik, was not interrogated extensively. The facts are definitely striking and can be used to construct a plausible theory, but it will never amount to hard evidence.

From what he noticed, he must have concluded that this was indeed the case. In all sorts of ways, he tried to establish whether people had entered the stockroom in the evening or during the night. On the other hand, his eager inquisitiveness was very striking. However, inquiries conducted after the war did not turn up any evidence that he was the betrayer. In Anne's diary it becomes clear that the Annex occupants also did not trust him. He stole goods and was generally considered dishonest.

It can furthermore not be explained why Lena Hartog claimed that there were Jews hiding in the premises at number 263. A second contradiction is Lammert's statement that he continued to work at the stockroom for several days following the raid, while according to the helpers he immediately ran off when the arrest took place. Her husband Lammert worked in the stockroom on Prinsengracht until the raid in 1944, while she worked as a cleaner at the same address (among others)вЂ” something that she initially denied, by the way. That Ahlers and Van Maaren knew each other, so that Van Maaren may have tried to obtain information for Ahlers, is yet another theory that sounds plausible but that cannot be proven.She is the least likely candidate for the role of betrayer. Van Maaren supplied goods to various customers, but it cannot be determined whether Ahlers was one of these. It is unknown how he came to that name, or why he asked that question.

For example, in late 1943 Victor Kugler was summoned to the local headquarters of the Nazi Party in his hometown of Hilversum, on the same night that the hiders on Prinsengracht were alarmed by an insistent ringing of the front doorbell. Perhaps neighbors sympathetic to or member of the NSB, who looked out on the rear facade of the premises, saw people moving past curtains that were not fully closed, and notified the authorities.A few more 'loose ends' remain. Pure coincidence must moreover not be ruled out as a contributing factor. It could be that a number of persons suspected the presence of the hiders, and that a number of persons involved with the Prinsengracht address knew each other, but this does not add up to any form of evidence.