[Harmless Teddy Bear]

I'm not necessarily saying she should have known in 1963,

Then we agree. I have no problem with them suing her for the return of their property it was the claim that she "must have known" that bothered me. That kind of thing could set a dangerous legal president.

But she knows now. Rightfully it's not hers, legally it is now. I'm ok with that, but I find her actions interesting.

Once again I think we agree. I would find it laudable if she, after having won, would turn around and say that now that she knew she would return it to the family.

But I do understand her not settling the case. I wouldn't, because that would be admitting that I willingly and knowingly received stolen property. Or maybe I am giving her too much credit.

[QQQQ]

Well said.The problem is if anyone of us,unknowingly (let’s say at the flea market) would buy item that was stolen and eventually someone can identify as his/hers property,we have to return it regardless what we paid for the item. p.s. and yes,you give Liz too much credit.

[SJackson]

Once again I think we agree. I would find it laudable if she, after having won, would turn around and say that now that she knew she would return it to the family....But I do understand her not settling the case. I wouldn't, because that would be admitting that I willingly and knowingly received stolen property. Or maybe I am giving her too much credit.

It's an interesting human dilemna. Whether she knew or not in 1973, it was an accepted transaction at that time. Not really something a buyer would give a lot of thought to. And she was buying it from Sothebys. Nice if it could have been settled with a museum donation or something