Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="sand, post: 24486623, member: 118540"][USER=92635]@Kaleun96[/USER] Perhaps, I'm being thick headed. That's always a possibility. I may be incorrect. Also, all of what I've said, may be rendered moot, when the full evidence is presented, at the trial. Perhaps, when the full evidence is presented at the trial, it will become obvious, that Mr. Beale is guilty.I just wanted to point out, that it seems to me, that the affidavit is missing some important pieces of information. My analysis is only based on the affidavit. Perhaps, other evidence has been made publicly available, of which I'm not aware. I'm not saying, that Mr. Beale is innocent. I'm just saying that, to me, the information in the affidavit, leaves open the logical possibility, that Mr. Beale didn't know that the provenance was fake, when Mr. Beale sold and shipped the Eid Mar. Perhaps the missing information will be revealed, during the trial. I strongly believe, that a person is innocent until proven guilty, at least beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, I don't want to convict Mr. Beale in my mind, if I have a reasonable doubt.In the affidavit, there are the following 2 paragraphs, which I call "paragraph 1" and "paragraph 2".<img src="https://content.invisioncic.com/k321387/monthly_2023_04/image.jpeg.d0b7414d32163c92c8d8825be6d0c817.jpeg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" />Then, later in the affidavit, there is this paragraph, which I call "paragraph 3".<img src="https://content.invisioncic.com/k321387/monthly_2023_04/image.jpeg.9a9cfb69ed5018757ed67a945ad2dd91.jpeg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" />The 1st piece of missing information, for me, is as follows. The last sentence of paragraph 2 bothers me : "According to Informant #2, when the informant told Vecchi and the defendant that this provenance was false, Vecchi and the defendant offered 100,000 Swiss francs for Informant #2 to sign provenance documents, which Informant #2 refused to sign." I don't like the use of the word "informant" with a lower case "i" and no number. I would prefer that the word "informant" with a lower case "i" and no number, be replaced with either "Informant #1" or "Informant #2" or "Informant #3" etc. The use of the word "informant" with a lower case "i" and no number, to me, causes the sentence to be ambiguous. I'm not 100% certain, whether the word "informant" with a lower case "i" and no number, refers to "Informant #1" or "Informant #2" or "Informant #3" etc. I saw that, in the NvmisForvms thread, one person believes, that it is obvious, that "informant" with a lower case "i" and no number, refers to Informant #2. It seems highly probable, that the person in the NvmisForvms thread, is correct. But, I'm not 100% certain. Also, a different person in the NvmisForvms thread, mentioned, that paragraph 3 combined with paragraph 2, lead to the conclusion, that "informant" with a lower case "i" and no number, refers to Informant #2 in paragraph 2. I agree, that paragraph 3 strengthens the argument, that "informant" with a lower case "i" and no number, refers to Informant #2 in paragraph 2. However, to me, it is not 100% certain, that the incident in paragraph 3, is the same incident discussed in the last sentence of paragraph 2. To me, it seems possible, that the incident in paragraph 3, happened after the incident in paragraph 2.The 2nd piece of missing information, for me, is as follows. For the rest of this post, let us suppose that, in paragraph 2, the word "informant" with a lower case "i" and no number, refers to Informant #2.In paragraph 2, it says that, Mr. Beale said that Mr. Beale paid for the provenance (this provenance may not have been the same thing, as the 100,000 Swiss franc offer that Mr. Beale made to Informant #2, as far as I can tell). That itself is not illegal, as far as I know. It seems possible, that Mr. Beale believed, that the provenance was correct, when Mr. Beale bought the provenance.Let us suppose that, after Informant #2 told Mr. Beale that Informant #2 believed that the provenance was fake, Mr. Beale offered 100,000 Swiss francs to Informant #2 to sign provenance documents. For me, it seems like, there are questions and possibilities, which have not been ruled out. Perhaps, Mr. Beale didn't believe Informant #2. Perhaps, Mr. Beale still believed that the provenance was correct. Also, perhaps Mr. Beale was saying, that if Informant #2 later decided that the provenance was correct, then Mr. Beale would pay Informant #2 the sum of 100,000 Swiss francs, to sign provenance documents. In other words, perhaps Mr. Beale did not want Informant #2 to lie. Perhaps, Mr. Beale was just saying, that if Informant #2 later decided that the provenance was correct, then Mr. Beale would pay 100,000 Swiss francs for Informant #2 to sign provenance documents.I agree, that this would create the appearance of a conflict of interest, on the part of Informant #2. The offer of payment, would cause Informant #2 to be tempted to lie, in order to receive money.Perhaps, in general, it is unethical, to pay someone, or to accept payment, to simply sign a document, which attests to the truth of something.The affidavit doesn't seem to mention, what was the nature of the provenance, which Mr. Beale bought (this provenance may not have been the same thing, as the 100,000 Swiss franc offer that Mr. Beale made to Informant #2, as far as I can tell). Perhaps, Mr. Beale paid for an old document about the Eid Mar, from long ago. Perhaps, Mr. Beale paid for old photographs from long ago, of the Eid Mar, in an old collection. Perhaps, Mr. Beale paid for an old bill of sale or invoice, for the Eid Mar, from long ago. Perhaps, Mr. Beale paid someone, to do provenance research. All of those things, seem ethical.But, if the provenance that Mr. Beale bought (this provenance may not have been the same thing, as the 100,000 Swiss franc offer that Mr. Beale made to Informant #2, as far as I can tell), was Mr. Beale paying someone to simply sign a provenance document, without doing any research or other work, then that seems ethically questionable, although perhaps not illegal.[/QUOTE]

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches