If you don't trust statements in the article, then you have absolutely nothing to base any of this discussion on. Following your reasoning, why do you trust anything in the story, rather than just select pieces of it - does the bust even exist? Is the person in the story real or just made up? Is the bust even Roman?

Everyone here is discussing the situation, given the story reported. What else do we, armchair critics, have to go on?

Statements from articles should be considered, not absolutely trusted.

> What else do we, armchair critics, have to go on?

Everything outside of the article, the sum of our experience with the way the world works. Our experience with the way people work, the way people will give accounts of their actions that make themselves look good. The way the "telephone game" works, where the more people something goes through, the more uncertainty there is. Presumably, the journalist was told by the woman that she believed she couldn't keep it, yes? But the journalist didn't actually quote what she said. The journalist paraphrased what she said instead, rephrased it in his own words. This is generally fine, but you have to remain cognizant of the fact that it isn't precisely what she said. The comment I responded to claimed "She specifically stated this in her article", which simply isn't true. That commenter failed to perceive the difference between somebody being quoted, and somebody's statements being paraphrased. Even when you trust the journalist to act in good faith, there is a big difference between quoting somebody and rephrasing what they said.

Feelings?

No need to be so rude.

The story was ambiguous. Don't pretend it wasn't, and don't turn that into a giant strawman.

As a general rule, outside of the black market you will not find an auction house that touches a looted piece of art with a ten-foot-pole. Looted art is basically unsellable.

She certainly could have kept it on display in her private residence without anyone knowing anything about its provenance except her.

She didn't steal it and there's no way anyone could ever presume she knew it was stolen. IF she had kept her mouth shut.

This is actually an interesting question.

- If you find £10,000 cash in the street, do you keep it?

- If you find a watch in the street, do you keep it?

- If you bought a laptop from your cousin Vinny for $50 and found out it was stolen, do you keep it?

In my country of residence, all of these are crimes (theft by finding / knowingly handling stolen property).

Obviously, someone could choose to keep their mouth shut... but that would not change the fact of it being a crime punishable by law.

The average American commits 3 felonies a day.

I'm willing to keep found treasure as one of my 3.