How about some answers for this? Where are you Peter Nash?

[packs]

If they were stolen 30 years ago I would think the statute of limitations for the NYPL or the HOF to file a claim would have long since passed.

I'd like to see his articles criticizing the NYPL and HOF for failing to maintain their collections and failing to follow up on stolen items. That is the real atrocity.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by packs

If they were stolen 30 years ago I would think the statute of limitations for the NYPL or the HOF to file a claim would have long since passed.

The statuate of limitations having passed means that the thief can't be prosecuted. The items, however, remain stolen property, and are always subject to return.

[packs]

Why do you think they don't try to reclaim the items? I thought I read somewhere that they don't want to admit they lost them.

[prewarsports]

Because they cant prove they were stolen.

[David Atkatz]

Of course they could prove they were stolen--if they wanted to.

[prewarsports]

Proving that they once owned them is not evidence of theft, it suggests it probably took place, but it is not proof. If you know something the FBI didn't uncover during their 3 year investigation with the NYPL I am sure they would love to hear about it.

[David Atkatz]

Nonsense. If the Library claims them, it would be incumbent upon the present owner to produce a chain of ownership proving that they were legally removed from the Library.
The Library, for whatever its reasons are, however, declines to claim them.