the information is on google only because the BBC established th

matter and the Blake family in 2007 and Murray's subsquent claim of ownership one day before the auction in 2009.

Family fortune is fluid and changable ,unlike assets in the museum.  When 1st generation died, assets were divided; and same with second generation.   Murray is 4th  generation, not even having the same family surname, ie not from male descendant of the family.  He and his mother already changed their story many times.  I doubted they could find the painting ever included in their house insurance document or the will to back up they were ever left with such a painting. 

Perhaps I am bias. Murray looks like a capitalist pig; and the fisherman looked honest and my heart go to them when he kissed his daughter saying 'Bingo! it's now yours' when the expert first valued it as 30k.

Well Murray now said they wanted to keep the painting in the family. It's difficult to work out the settlement without a sale.   Would Vernay ever see a penny after paying their lawyer?

 

所有跟帖： 

• 回複：the information is on google only because the BBC established -apt- ♂ (192 bytes) () 07/08/2011 postreply 11:14:09

• Sotheby's didn't exercise the policy when it auctioned off one o -deerrocks- ♀ (101 bytes) () 07/08/2011 postreply 11:26:17