Don, Curators, colleagues, workmates and family certainly would have valuable evidence to submit, BUT it is then up to one or more *independent* experts in the fields of history, science, forensics etc to be consulted in order to asses each piece of evidence and or garner additional evidence and come to a joint conclusion/recommendation as to the authenticity of the origin/authenticity of the negatives. Now if somebody then wants to make a civil litigious claim because they dispute the expert's findings this is where the legal system gets involved whether we like it or not. If you are not willing to place a level of trust the legal system in your country then you need to come up with a better method, convince the authorities and have it implemented. All legal systems have accounts of wrongful convictions (whether done intentionally or not), but if we automatically distrust the legal profession because of a few bad apples then it all becomes too big a problem to solve unless you want to devote a few lifetimes to it ! rgds Peter On 29 July 2010 06:48, Don Sweet <don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Peter > > Surely you don't ask the FBI or the Attorney General or forensics experts > about the authenticity of artworks, and try to build a case "beyond > reasonable doubt". Using those strategies, commonly employed in > adversarial litigation, such as a criminal trial, just makes me more > sceptical. Not to put too fine a point on things, people have not just been > jailed for life, they been sentenced to death on the basis of statements > like that, only to be pardoned posthumously with the help of DNA analysis. > > If these are Adams' negatives, shouldn't we be hearing from experts such as > curators, and colleagues and workmates of Adams, and of course his family? > > My main point of course was that any coherent principle of compensation for > mistakes of this sort would need to work both ways. > > > Don Sweet >