Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Forgery case ends, acquitted on all forgery charges
20 views
Skip to first unread message
SolomonW
Mar 14, 2012, 8:49:08 AM3/14/12
to
This case that lasted seven years and was said to be the forgery case of
the century, (which is not saying much as it is only 2012) is over. The
defendants were acquitted on all forgery charges. One was found guilty of
what was seen of minor charges of illegal antiquity's dealing and
possession of stolen antiquities, something I am sure is true. This law
itself is a problem about what to do about antiquities that are not found
by authorized people. I doubt these laws are the right way of handling it.
The case was interesting to me partly because if genuine these artifacts
are of extreme historical importance. Not only, that but we are talking
many millions of dollars as they are among some of the most valuable items
in archaeology today.
It was also partly interesting to me because having experienced personally
forgeries, I was keen that someone brought the issue of antiquities forgery
before a court, but I never thought this case was the right one to do it.
One minor item, a decanter, the court found to be a fake, the rest the
debate will certainly continue as to whether they are fake or not. What was
decided here by the judge was "there is no evidence that any of the major
artefacts were forged, and that the prosecution failed to prove their
accusations beyond a reasonable doubt?"
The judge was particularly scathing about tests carried by the Israel
police forensics laboratory. He said they probably contaminated the
ossuary, making it impossible to carry out further scientific tests on the
inscription.
the century, (which is not saying much as it is only 2012) is over. The
defendants were acquitted on all forgery charges. One was found guilty of
what was seen of minor charges of illegal antiquity's dealing and
possession of stolen antiquities, something I am sure is true. This law
itself is a problem about what to do about antiquities that are not found
by authorized people. I doubt these laws are the right way of handling it.
The case was interesting to me partly because if genuine these artifacts
are of extreme historical importance. Not only, that but we are talking
many millions of dollars as they are among some of the most valuable items
in archaeology today.
It was also partly interesting to me because having experienced personally
forgeries, I was keen that someone brought the issue of antiquities forgery
before a court, but I never thought this case was the right one to do it.
One minor item, a decanter, the court found to be a fake, the rest the
debate will certainly continue as to whether they are fake or not. What was
decided here by the judge was "there is no evidence that any of the major
artefacts were forged, and that the prosecution failed to prove their
accusations beyond a reasonable doubt?"
The judge was particularly scathing about tests carried by the Israel
police forensics laboratory. He said they probably contaminated the
ossuary, making it impossible to carry out further scientific tests on the
inscription.
William Black
Mar 14, 2012, 9:01:48 AM3/14/12
to
wouldn't even have made it to court if the prosecution had been competent.
The fact remains that the stuff is almost certainly not what it purports
to be.
--
William Black
Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy a dog...
Weland
Mar 15, 2012, 1:33:39 AM3/15/12
to
Matt Giwer
Mar 15, 2012, 5:05:03 AM3/15/12
to
On 03/14/2012 08:49 AM, SolomonW wrote:
> This case that lasted seven years and was said to be the forgery case of
> the century, (which is not saying much as it is only 2012) is over.
Most important is the judgment includes a statement that the decision does
> This case that lasted seven years and was said to be the forgery case of
> the century, (which is not saying much as it is only 2012) is over.
NOT rule on the legitimacy of the artifacts. It says the prosecution failed to
make the case of forgery by the accused within the meaning of the law.
Clear hint to Israeli forgers, have someone else create the forgery and buy
it in an arm's length purchase.
--
Philosophy is to science as astrology is to astronomy.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4387
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/GAZA-pics/ a13
Thu Mar 15 05:02:43 EDT 2012
William Black
Mar 15, 2012, 6:07:31 AM3/15/12
to
of one individual.
Any one of his finds is a lifetime achievement.
Turning up three historically significant finds is unbelievable.
Turning up three historically significant finds directly relating to
two of the world's great religions is beyond unbelievable. It just
makes people want to know where the workshop is and who did the work for
him...
This is 'Mutton Street' stuff...
SolomonW
Mar 15, 2012, 6:30:43 AM3/15/12
to
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 05:05:03 -0400, Matt Giwer wrote:
> On 03/14/2012 08:49 AM, SolomonW wrote:
>> This case that lasted seven years and was said to be the forgery case of
>> the century, (which is not saying much as it is only 2012) is over.
>
> Most important is the judgment includes a statement that the decision does
> NOT rule on the legitimacy of the artifacts. It says the prosecution failed to
> make the case of forgery by the accused within the meaning of the law.
Which if you think about it, is a lot more then most archeological
> On 03/14/2012 08:49 AM, SolomonW wrote:
>> This case that lasted seven years and was said to be the forgery case of
>> the century, (which is not saying much as it is only 2012) is over.
>
> Most important is the judgment includes a statement that the decision does
> NOT rule on the legitimacy of the artifacts. It says the prosecution failed to
> make the case of forgery by the accused within the meaning of the law.
treasures have.
SolomonW
Mar 15, 2012, 6:38:10 AM3/15/12
to
items. That was the main reason why I had doubts about the case from the
start.
John Briggs
Mar 15, 2012, 11:38:12 AM3/15/12
to
On 15/03/2012 10:30, SolomonW wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 05:05:03 -0400, Matt Giwer wrote:
>
>> On 03/14/2012 08:49 AM, SolomonW wrote:
>>> This case that lasted seven years and was said to be the forgery case of
>>> the century, (which is not saying much as it is only 2012) is over.
>>
>> Most important is the judgment includes a statement that the decision does
>> NOT rule on the legitimacy of the artifacts. It says the prosecution failed to
>> make the case of forgery by the accused within the meaning of the law.
>
> Which if you think about it, is a lot more then most archeological
> treasures have.
No, it isn't.
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 05:05:03 -0400, Matt Giwer wrote:
>
>> On 03/14/2012 08:49 AM, SolomonW wrote:
>>> This case that lasted seven years and was said to be the forgery case of
>>> the century, (which is not saying much as it is only 2012) is over.
>>
>> Most important is the judgment includes a statement that the decision does
>> NOT rule on the legitimacy of the artifacts. It says the prosecution failed to
>> make the case of forgery by the accused within the meaning of the law.
>
> Which if you think about it, is a lot more then most archeological
> treasures have.
--
John Briggs
Weland
Mar 16, 2012, 1:50:18 AM3/16/12
to
There are a number of private and public collections that can boast the
same thing.
Matt Giwer
Mar 16, 2012, 3:53:33 AM3/16/12
to
On 03/15/2012 06:30 AM, SolomonW wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 05:05:03 -0400, Matt Giwer wrote:
>
>> On 03/14/2012 08:49 AM, SolomonW wrote:
>>> This case that lasted seven years and was said to be the forgery case of
>>> the century, (which is not saying much as it is only 2012) is over.
>>
>> Most important is the judgment includes a statement that the decision does
>> NOT rule on the legitimacy of the artifacts. It says the prosecution failed to
>> make the case of forgery by the accused within the meaning of the law.
>
> Which if you think about it, is a lot more then most archeological
> treasures have.
In modern times the context gives an artifact its provenance. The things
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 05:05:03 -0400, Matt Giwer wrote:
>
>> On 03/14/2012 08:49 AM, SolomonW wrote:
>>> This case that lasted seven years and was said to be the forgery case of
>>> the century, (which is not saying much as it is only 2012) is over.
>>
>> Most important is the judgment includes a statement that the decision does
>> NOT rule on the legitimacy of the artifacts. It says the prosecution failed to
>> make the case of forgery by the accused within the meaning of the law.
>
> Which if you think about it, is a lot more then most archeological
> treasures have.
usually labeled "treasures" are those which have no provenance and were
"identified" back when it was policy to use the bible as a guide. Simply the
more archaeology became a science the fewer grandiose discoveries.
--
Philosophy is to science as astrology is to astronomy.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4387
Fri Mar 16 03:48:33 EDT 2012
Bill
Mar 16, 2012, 8:08:28 AM3/16/12
to
man.
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
SolomonW
Mar 17, 2012, 5:37:34 AM3/17/12
to
SolomonW
Mar 17, 2012, 5:39:39 AM3/17/12
to
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 03:53:33 -0400, Matt Giwer wrote:
> On 03/15/2012 06:30 AM, SolomonW wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 05:05:03 -0400, Matt Giwer wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/14/2012 08:49 AM, SolomonW wrote:
>>>> This case that lasted seven years and was said to be the forgery case of
>>>> the century, (which is not saying much as it is only 2012) is over.
>>>
>>> Most important is the judgment includes a statement that the decision does
>>> NOT rule on the legitimacy of the artifacts. It says the prosecution failed to
>>> make the case of forgery by the accused within the meaning of the law.
>>
>> Which if you think about it, is a lot more then most archeological
>> treasures have.
>
> In modern times the context gives an artifact its provenance. The things
> usually labeled "treasures" are those which have no provenance and were
> "identified" back when it was policy to use the bible as a guide.
This is nonsense many such archeological treasures have nothing to do with
> On 03/15/2012 06:30 AM, SolomonW wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 05:05:03 -0400, Matt Giwer wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/14/2012 08:49 AM, SolomonW wrote:
>>>> This case that lasted seven years and was said to be the forgery case of
>>>> the century, (which is not saying much as it is only 2012) is over.
>>>
>>> Most important is the judgment includes a statement that the decision does
>>> NOT rule on the legitimacy of the artifacts. It says the prosecution failed to
>>> make the case of forgery by the accused within the meaning of the law.
>>
>> Which if you think about it, is a lot more then most archeological
>> treasures have.
>
> In modern times the context gives an artifact its provenance. The things
> usually labeled "treasures" are those which have no provenance and were
> "identified" back when it was policy to use the bible as a guide.
the bible.
> Simply the
> more archaeology became a science the fewer grandiose discoveries.
John Briggs
Mar 17, 2012, 4:29:47 PM3/17/12
to
--
John Briggs
SolomonW
Mar 18, 2012, 1:05:08 AM3/18/12
to
The first problem is if you have been to an actual dig, you will see that
many items are almost impossible to identify. I think many are wrongly
identified. Then very few archeological relics could justify the sort of
tests and experts that these had in the case. Then most have been handled
many times so making it almost impossible to test them. Then security in
many places is not that good, over the years it is possible that these
relics have been switched.
I can add but this will start you off.
John Briggs
Mar 18, 2012, 9:23:03 AM3/18/12
to
Silly me.
--
John Briggs
SolomonW
Mar 18, 2012, 9:49:13 AM3/18/12
to
JTEM
Mar 22, 2012, 3:45:24 AM3/22/12
to
SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
> This case that lasted seven years and was said to be the forgery case of
> the century, (which is not saying much as it is only 2012) is over. The
> defendants were acquitted on all forgery charges.
I've been meaning to say: This case would
> This case that lasted seven years and was said to be the forgery case of
> the century, (which is not saying much as it is only 2012) is over. The
> defendants were acquitted on all forgery charges.
never have gone to trial in the U.S. We have the
right to face our accusers here, and the main
government witness, a confessed forger who
worked for the bad guys, refused to travel to
Israel (from Egypt) and testify.
0 new messages