Hitler's Lost Spy (15 page)

The presence of these three senior officers at Annette's interview is significant. A routine interview of a vaguely suspicious individual did not demand the presence of three leading security personnel – and with war having been declared, there would have been many such interviews at the time. Annette was unknowingly at a high security level, and the prime reason for the heavyweight attendance may have been the intention to squeeze out information and to fill some holes in what was known, or rather what little was known, of Annette's operations and associates. Her activities were already well established and noted.

The interview commenced with the confirmation by Inspector Mitchell that the meeting had been arranged at her request. This was followed by thirty-nine routine questions, exploring Annette's family history, education, employment, marriage, relocation to Madagascar, her citizenship status and the reason for travelling to Australia.

The questioning then moved to her radio work and residential arrangements, including her extended stay at Medlow Bath, three months earlier. With the routine questions completed, she was then asked the reason for requesting the interview.

The answer was lengthy and appeared (from her statement) to be well rehearsed. She strongly objected to the decision removing her from broadcasting and detailed her attempts to have the decision rescinded. This included contacting
Mr Barnwell of the Aliens Department who, she added, went to the ABC and contacted Mr Wallace of the Talks Department and got all the guarantees for me. She concluded by adding – I saw Mr Barnwell and asked him about the Regulation by which I had been taken off the air. I went to Mr Prentice (the manager) and he said ‘Well I can't quite understand, and that is that'.

The questioning then moved to her husband.

Annette's Fourth Mistake – Pre-Booking her Return
Ticket

Q. Your husband was actually born in German
territory?

A. Yes, because before the war (World War I) Alsace
was German.

Q. He would be of German nationality?

A. Please don't say that. Alsace is not Germany. It is
in France.

Q. At the time he was born.

A. He would be born in Germany.

Q. You say he was in French employ?

A. Yes, the French Government.

Q. Do you regard yourself as being the same
nationality as he?

A. Yes. I undertook that quite voluntarily. I
understand it is not necessary.

The questions were calculated to clarify Robert Wagner's birth status, and to explore a possible platform for Nazi sympathies. But it was the answer to the next question that would glaringly expose a huge fault-line in Annette's groundwork of concealment.

Q. Have you any German affiliations in Australia?

A.
No. That is the question that was put to me by Mr
Prentice and Mr Prentice is of the opinion that having got well up in the broadcasting world as I have he thinks that I am being definitely worked against by some people who are trying to get me out. Yet I can honestly tell you that the only foreigner I know in Australia is the Swiss German Consul, Mr Henninger
¹⁴
. I don't know a single German in
Australia.

Annette's confident response to
German affiliations
was very cleverly programmed. Here is a lady who knows how to make the most of an answer – even when it's a lie. Her response to the question demonstrates four distinct levels in her structured argument. Firstly, she answers the question directly and makes the denial. This is good form for a convincing response – no contemplating and no hesitation. Then she ‘name-drops' 
Mr Prentice (one of her station managers), who she believes is an ally and will support her. This provides an independent and responsible endorsement for her answer. Next, she attempts to slightly deflect around the question by mentioning Mr Hedinger. This demonstrates an enigma, whether manipulated by her or not, of her understanding of what is meant by ‘German'. Mr Hedinger may speak German and has a German name, but he is not a German – and Annette knows the difference. By incorrectly inserting ‘German' before 
‘Consul' she is distancing herself from ‘real' Germans.

Finally she repeats her denial, wrapping up her position.

The question of
German affiliations
was clear and simple and Annette's response could have been a straightforward ‘no', or a few words expanding on this. 
She chose to detail her reply as a way of reinforcing her argument and adding conviction to her case, but this expansion ran the risk of bringing to light doubt about her entire reason for being at the interview should the answer not be credible – and it wasn't. For Annette, elaborating on a false answer would only have had the effect of underpinning the misgivings already in place.

Annette's response may have been skilful, and on other occasions she may have been convincing, but the question posed an inherent problem for her. By responding in this manner, she had unknowingly fallen into a simple trap, and her extended response only served to lock her in further. Inspector Mitchell
knew
she was lying – Rudolph Durkop, Arnold von Skerst and Robert Koehler being examples – all Germans and all Nazis. She
did
know Germans, and in the circumstances she could not have simply ‘made a mistake'.

It may be asserted that she deliberately lied for the sole purpose of enhancing her prospects of regaining her radio work. But events had already exposed her association with espionage, effectively rendering the entire interview as a face-to-face confirmation of facts already known.

Questions on Annette's citizenship and residency status commenced.

Q. Have you contacted the consulate, either French
or Swiss?

A. Yes, I contacted the Swiss consulate when I
decided I must get a prolongation of my permit. The first permit was for three months. I had a return ticket to Madagascar, or I should say Colombo. I came on purely a visitor's passport to this country. When this expired I made application for an extension to the Swiss consulate. That was when I went to Mr
Henninger.

Q. Did you not go to the French Consul?

A. I have been on one occasion, yes.

Q. Nominally you are …

A. Of course I should have gone to the French
Consulate. The only Frenchman I knew was Mr Myers who was in France. I don't mind saying that the two French Consuls I have seen I am not particularly enthusiastic about and I would rather had applied to Mr Henninger. He is much better as a
man.

Q. The French Consulate. How many times did you
say you have been there?

A. I have been there on two occasions. Once actually. 
I cannot remember the first time.

Q. You have registered?

A. I don't know actually. I took my passport. I went
the first time to the French Consulate on this matter to ask him his advice. I thought before going into the broadcasting world that I could teach French. I wanted his advice as to whether it was possible and where the best place was to start. I took my passport and he said it was not in order because it was a Swiss passport. In marriage I have taken the French certificate. To be a French passport I would have to have it transferred. It was transferred in Madagascar but he said it was not a legal passport. The third time I went was in a matter of French clients in relation to
McDowell's.

Annette's answers on the consular question are very strange. The number of Annette's visits to the French Consulate is uncertain. She does not appear to know. 
Initially she replies:
I have been on one occasion, yes.
This is followed by:
I have been there on two occasions. Once actually. 
In her answer above:
The third time I went …
The variable responses from Annette may not carry any undue significance, but for a lady on top of what she needs to say, it is highly unusual. It is very likely that Mitchell knew more about Annette's consular visits than she believed possible. Clearly, her consular recollections were not assisting her case, but Mitchell had more.

Q. Actually the Swiss and German Consulates are one and the same. The Swiss Consulate is the German Consulate.

A. No. For 700 years we have been Swiss people.

Q. I am afraid you do not understand. In Sydney the
Swiss Consul is also the German Consul.

A. Mr Henninger, the Swiss Consul is in Pitt Street, Sydney, but he has nothing, as far as I know, to do with the German people at all.

Q. You don't know that the German affairs in New South Wales are being handled by the Swiss Consul?

A. No. I am certain it is not so. There is no reason.

Q. You are not up to date by a long way. The German affairs are being attended to here by the Swiss Consul.

A. Well then all I can say is that that is the first time I knew of it. I do not think our Swiss country would like that. Although three quarters of our Swiss people speak a German dialect we have nothing to do with the Germans at all.

Annette's comment that
we have nothing to do with the
Germans at all
is incorrect. Switzerland's government retained high-level contacts with Hitler's Germany as did the banking and munitions industries. Social relations between individuals were also maintained at a high level. 
Following the outbreak of World War II Germany appointed Switzerland as the ‘Protecting Power' to manage the country's consular affairs in the nations with which Germany was now at war.

It is interesting that Annette did not ask
why
the Swiss Consul was now handling affairs for Germany. She responded with surprise at this development, and the reason she failed to ask the obvious question – how or why did this come about? – is because she already knew the answer, but pretended otherwise.

Doubts as to Annette's French pronunciation almost certainly provoked the following question:

Q. Actually your mother tongue would be what?

A. French.

Annette confirmed her mother tongue, but the doubts remain.

Now came the moment of truth, or rather, untruth. 
Inspector Mitchell asked Annette a series of questions, the answers to which would seal the case against her:

Q. What, if anything, do you know of a German named Kaemper?

A. I do not know him.

Q. Do you know Miss Marshall?

A. No.

Q. You do not know a man named Arnold Kaemper?

A. No. I have never heard of him.

Q. Do you know a family named Marshall at Clifton
Gardens?

A. No. Are they at The Manor?

Q. No. David Street.

A. No, definitely not.

Q. You have made it clear that you have no
connection or friendship or knowledge of any kind
with any German nationals.

A. That is a fact.

Q. You do not know Miss Dinah Marshall?

A. No.

The questions achieved their objective of determining if Annette would deny what surveillance of her had previously 
revealed. 
To 
avoid 
a 
possible 
misunderstanding, the Kaemper and Marshal questions were repeated. Annette's question ‘are they at
The
Manor
?' is probably an attempt to deliberately deflect her away from any possible association with the Marshalls. 
Annette would have known that family accommodation was not provided for at
The Manor
.

Mitchell then returned to her husband.

Q. You correspond with your husband.

A. Yes.

Q. Frequently?

A. No.

Q. Does he send you any money?

A. No.

Q. Have you asked him for any money?

A. No. I would not take it.

Q. I take it that having gone only (for) a visit he is
concerned about getting you back, is he?

A. Well, I think it is just as well you should know. I
know perfectly well that things being as they are and having people who would be glad to get me out of the broadcasting world. I am divorcing. I have no wish to go back to Madagascar. I am not going back to
Madagascar at all.

Q. Would you say you would have to go there and
arrange the divorce?

A. If I have to get it in French jurisdiction.

Q. In France.

A. It would complicate things. My doctor is very
much against my going because of my health. My husband will more than likely see my point of view
and see reason. If not I am prepared to fight him out.

The interview is now steered to a conclusion.

Q. Is there anything else at all you would like to make representation for other than what we have touched on here today?

A. No. I don't know of anything. What I was so
anxious to see you about … I have a feeling and Mr Prentice asked me if I knew any German people … I
would like to say … I think it is confidential, isn't it?

Q. Definitely.

A. He said there was most likely some woman
determined to get me out. She has succeeded only because she has not got my position. Whoever it was trying to get me out I don't know, but it does appear suspicious, if there was anyone I knew in Australia that in any degree had anything against me in any way at all I wanted to see if there is anyone trying to do me harm. I have told you the truth. If your investigations prove satisfactory I hope that you will put me back on the air. It is very difficult for me. It is
my career.