Sorry for the late reply but we did not see it until today when a good friend pointed it out.
You points are well made and said
history, not in rugDUMB by the way, proves when dishonesty goes unheralded it continues
when it is exposed that exposure often has two effects:
1. it stops the individual from further dishonesty
2. as well as stops others who, prior to the exposure, thought they might get away with similar activity
Exposure also leads to prosecution.
You mention so and so who cheated an institution -- are you afraid to name dennis dodds as the cheat and dishonest perpetrator?
If so why? dodds has been proven by our exposure to positively and beyond ANY shadow of doubt to have cheated LACMA, to have lied, and to have been completely duplicitous in the sale.
Plus the fact the buyer, in this case not the museum but a group of independent benefactors acting on the specious information provided by the museum, surely can not be blamed. That information came from dodds, by the way.
Your inference is completely unwarranted -- if you leave your wallet in your car and lock the door and a thief breaks your window and steals your wallet would you blame yourself? or the thief?
This analogy is apt in dodds's case -- dale gluckman, the now out of work former curator, approached dodds and asked him to find her a fantastic early rug -- he said, according to RK's conversation with gluckman, I have just the piece for you -- it has been in my private collection for years, never publicly offered, it is 16th century and a masterpiece of its type.
Gluckman then sent pictures of the rug to jon thompson, louise mackie and Walter Denny.
All three told her to go ahead with the deal, they assured her the rug was what dodds claimed.
So how could you, or anyone, blame the museum when dodds is totally and absolutely at fault?
Also, please remember dodds is not an unknown quantity -- he is not a bedroom dealer or a small time dealer.
He is the president of the largest and most well known organization in rugDUMB, he has been awarded numerous 'awards', and his 'reputation' is excellent.
So how could any responsibility be placed on the museum?
Fact is all of dodd's reputation, awards and notariety are as fake and phony as the late genre period reproduction/revival 'bellini' rug he pawned off on the museum's benefactors.
This is the fact.
Lastly had a significant amount of rugDUMB's population written to the museum to complain about what dodds did and to voice their displeasure at his actions and rebuke him for them -- trust RK -- the museum would have moved against him and tried to rescind the sale.
But because all of you, and you too Michael, kept your mouths shut dodds got away with his thievery and dishonesty.
RK was the ONLY person to speak up, and speak up with authority and fact we did, and will continue to.
So, sir, the fault is not LACMA's, the fault is yours and everyone else in rugDUMB who is/was too lazy, too scared and yes too stupid to right a grievous wrong.
By the way should dozens of letters arrive on Michael Govan's, the new director at LACMA, desk next week, RK is sure something would happen, and those letters would NOT be thrown away; those letters would start a ball rolling down the hill in dodds's direction.
This is also something you can trust.
Have a nice day.