S3D Re: Termination of auction - please read

[E R Swanson <ers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hayden makes some good points. However, if some third party thinks they're
stolen, the person they need to contact is the victim, not George, and
inform him/her of the situation. That makes it possible for the principals
to get it figured out. That old saw "possession is 9/10 of the law" still
tends to hold true. George would never knowingly *buy* anything he thought
was stolen. It seems like it's up to the owner, if there is one, to make a
claim. It's not up to George to go on a long and involved quest based upon
a supposition. Just my opinion...

On Sat, 5 Feb 2000, Hayden Baldwin wrote:

> George,
> 
> Again in my opinion, it is NOT the photographs, it is perceived as possible
> stolen property by a third party. If that third party has direct knowledge
> that it is stolen then it is reasonable to make the inquiry if the "victim"
> is known. This applies to anything that is in our possession not just
> photos. HOWEVER, the injured party has to be known. The person that
> contacted you, did they say the photos "could be" or "are" stolen property
> and they know who the victim is? If not then it is a moot point. Any item we
> buy that is used is possibly "stolen" property!  :-)
> 
> Unless you are directed to a victim of a crime you have the full right to
> sell the item.
> 
> Hayden
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dr. George A. Themelis <DrT-3d@xxxxxxx>
> To: Multiple recipients of list SELL-3D <sell-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2000 1:58 PM
> Subject: S3D Re: Termination of auction - please read
> 
> 
> > >I am looking at this strictly as possible stolen property...
> >
> > I understand... It makes sense from an x-police investigator...
> >
> > The viewer is so heavy and so ugly that even if they
> > paid me, I would not steal it... :-)  One remote
> > possibility is that the family did not know that
> > there were slides inside this big ugly thing when
> > they threw it in the garbage... They should have known
> > better, IMO.  But most probably they did not care to
> > keep the viewer or slides.  If these were prints maybe
> > they would have kept them... but slides... and stereo
> > slides... that's a bit too much.  Or maybe they just
> > kept a few (or more).  There are many possibilities here...
> > I just don't think it is my job to do the investigation.
> > And if I do this one, where do I stop?  I have boxes and
> > boxes of personal stereo slides in my collection...
> >
> > George
> >
> >
>