tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1358633641450991704.comments2023-06-29T01:55:28.157-07:00James Ossuary Trial JerusalemMatthew Kalmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11277300314060736852noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1358633641450991704.post-32915572513068829802014-05-25T06:27:02.466-07:002014-05-25T06:27:02.466-07:00Hi Mr. Kalman, Thank you so very much for letting ...Hi Mr. Kalman, Thank you so very much for letting us know this. I am guessing that Mr. Golan, like Dr. Deutsch, will be suing the IAA, professors, and Internet bloggers who have continually called him a forger. It appears that they were unaware that the Hebrew, Ammonite, Aramaic, etc., Inscriptions, that make up our corpora, have a rate of over 90 percent coming from the antiquities market. Keep up your wonderful work. Thank you for your diligence and all of your hard work in covering this for over ten years. With Much Gratitude and Admiration, Michael Welch, Deltona, Florida<br />Michael Welchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04431336497944828125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1358633641450991704.post-62525293981403136402013-11-13T11:18:56.934-08:002013-11-13T11:18:56.934-08:00Not that this damage isn't a sort of crime aga...Not that this damage isn't a sort of crime against humanity but, didn't I read in one of Tabor's books that they already tested the patina in this inscription and actually found it to be a match with the ossuaries in the Talpiot tomb?J Braccohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11109766744897875140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1358633641450991704.post-36613590373103241872013-11-11T22:38:58.231-08:002013-11-11T22:38:58.231-08:00He was charged. He was on trial for 7 years. The ...He was charged. He was on trial for 7 years. The judge found the prosecution case unconvincing, as did the Israeli court of appeals. He was acquitted on all forgery charges.Matthew Kalmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11277300314060736852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1358633641450991704.post-69685075019311993002013-11-11T19:07:51.416-08:002013-11-11T19:07:51.416-08:00If they used the silicon to prove there case of fr...If they used the silicon to prove there case of fraud about the age of the patina why wasn't he charged. Or was it used to destroy what they found, just as they repute all evidence of David and Solomon. I believe the later. thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04143938086414803147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1358633641450991704.post-28086970486017135932013-10-19T20:41:49.305-07:002013-10-19T20:41:49.305-07:00I disagree with Mr Sapir's reading of the verd...I disagree with Mr Sapir's reading of the verdict. I think the discussion of a civil suit is largely theoretical and the IAA would be crazy to pursue it - MKMatthew Kalmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11277300314060736852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1358633641450991704.post-1879556568249560292013-10-19T14:10:41.115-07:002013-10-19T14:10:41.115-07:00Dear Mr. Kalman, Hi!!! Thank you so very much for ...Dear Mr. Kalman, Hi!!! Thank you so very much for your continued great work in covering all of this. I read on Dr. Jim West's blog where Mr. Yitzhak Sapir challenges your understanding of the verdict and thinks that it will be overturned in a civil trial in Israel. To me this does not make any sense. How can a stricter criminal trial which proved that Mr. Oded Golan purchased the Jehoash Tablet from a licensed by the State of Israel antiquities dealer, and his ownership was accepted by the Supreme Court of the State of Israel, be overruled by a civil court of Israel, which is supposed to accept a lower standard of evidence according to Mr. Sapir. How does this make any logical sense? With Much Gratitude and Admiration, Sincerely Yours, Michael Welch, Deltona, FloridaMichael Welchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04431336497944828125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1358633641450991704.post-61793218773123571432013-08-21T09:39:33.749-07:002013-08-21T09:39:33.749-07:00No Yitzhak, he was acquitted of forgery. Those we...No Yitzhak, he was acquitted of forgery. Those were the charges. What is this BS about being aquitted due to doubt?Eliyahuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09550781249705011630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1358633641450991704.post-81308229902599049542013-08-21T09:36:40.350-07:002013-08-21T09:36:40.350-07:00Come on Ray. This article is so to the point and ...Come on Ray. This article is so to the point and accurate that you look ridiculous as usual, siding against the facts. Golan was found innocent and the IAA never wanted the tablet during the trial. They can't prove he didn't acquire it legally before 1978. <br /><br />You must be paid by the IAA to comment.Eliyahuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09550781249705011630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1358633641450991704.post-57298644055457774392013-08-08T23:28:16.106-07:002013-08-08T23:28:16.106-07:00Thank you for your comment. Mr - and then only jus...Thank you for your comment. Mr - and then only just. Judge Farkash clearly thought the prosecution argument to retain the Jehoash Tablet was ridiculous, but said his ruling must await the high court decision on the appeal. The wording of his verdict suggests he expected the appeal to be rejected out of hand. As it should have beenMatthew Kalmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11277300314060736852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1358633641450991704.post-53933757276658428952013-08-08T17:04:15.757-07:002013-08-08T17:04:15.757-07:00Dear Mr./Dr. Kalman, Hi!!! Thank you so very much ...Dear Mr./Dr. Kalman, Hi!!! Thank you so very much for all of your very hard work accurately reporting the trial over the years. All of the information stated by Mr. Sapir was before this year's February decision of Judge Farkash. Is this correct? Above you wrote: “The state insisted on its view that this was not an antiquity, but a forged antiquity. Since, according to the state, it is not an antiquity, it cannot now contend that it owns the tablet according to the Antiquities Law, and therefore by law it should be returned to Golan,” Farkash wrote in a decision issued on February 12, 2013. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thank you for all of your time and hard work. With Much Gratitude and Admiration, Michael Welch Deltona, Florida<br /><br /><br /><br />Michael Welchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04431336497944828125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1358633641450991704.post-20805274870327831602013-08-05T14:15:40.468-07:002013-08-05T14:15:40.468-07:00Judge Farkash is indeed clear so I don't under...Judge Farkash is indeed clear so I don't understand how you got what you got. He ordered the Jehoash tablet to be kept in the state's possession until a decision by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, from the description above, seems to be leaning to confiscate the Jehoash tablet permanently.<br /><br />Also, having read more of the court decisions in the case it appears that the onus of proof that the item is before 1978 is upon the defendant, not the plaintiff.Yitzhak Sapirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10208312193149945171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1358633641450991704.post-25769971051886625612013-08-05T11:32:59.130-07:002013-08-05T11:32:59.130-07:00I think that they should purchase the tablet to co...I think that they should purchase the tablet to compensate Golan for the unnecessary trouble they have caused him and the extraordinary arrogance of their accusations.Tedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10064504497041464177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1358633641450991704.post-90524000614725538832013-08-05T00:19:39.115-07:002013-08-05T00:19:39.115-07:00And yet Judge Farkash's conclusion is quite cl...And yet Judge Farkash's conclusion is quite clear: he instructs in the verdict that the Jehoash Tablet should be returned to Golan.Matthew Kalmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11277300314060736852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1358633641450991704.post-76813184489056745872013-08-04T23:51:41.150-07:002013-08-04T23:51:41.150-07:00The court may have accepted it during trial.
It i...The court may have accepted it during trial.<br /><br />It is hard to say that it accepted it in the verdict. Please see sections #574-580 of the verdict. I will quote in part (it is long): <br /><br />"Regarding his claims, Golan's attorney agreed that ... 'things are not clear cut' but he showed a document that was retrieved from Abu Yasser saying an inscribed stone was bought from Hassan Abd al-Jawad of Deir Sammit .. with the signatures of the IAA from 1997 and 1988 (apparently). Golan's attorney agreed that 'inscribed stone' does not prove it is the Jehoash inscription but Abu Yasser's widow testified that it was and adds that he is aware that the widow's testimony is problematic and not clear cut ... Golan's attorney also shows an IAA intelligence report with intel from the late 90s about the discovery of an inscribed stone of importance at the Temple Mount in the early 90s. Because the IAA refused to identify the person who provided the intel, Golan's attorney had to accept Amir Ganor's testimony that i was not the Jehoash inscription. I [Judge Farkash] note that Golan's attorney was not exact since the intel report is from 2003 and not the late 90s. ... After I gave consideration to the arguments of both sides ... I find that Golan is an intelligent man ... Unfortunately, the truth was not his companion... Regarding this particular charge, I accept the plaintiff's accusation that Golan wanted to paint a picture at each point of time that was comfortable to him regarding ownership of the inscription ... [testimony from the trial where Golan admits he said things that were not true] ... "<br /><br />It's hard to say that the Judge accepts Golan's testimony regarding this authorized dealer. In fact, even Golan's attorney agrees that this evidence is problematic and Abu Yasser's widow's testimony on the subject is problematic. In the end, the Judge concludes that Golan is a liar in this particular issue. Golan's attorney also suggested that the item was found in the early 1990s (ie, after 1978) in the Temple Mount (where the antiquities law is considered binding by the courts, even if not enforced in practice on the Waqf).<br /><br />In any case, you have a different idea of ethics and morals than I do. In my opinion, if someone is holding something that is a state treasure, it is his moral duty to turn it over to the state and he really has no more right than anyone else to hold it. Just like Eshel and Bar Ilan University bought fragments of a Leviticus scroll and turned them over to the IAA, so too any honest person should. But it shouldn't be new that Golan is not honest. Judge Farkash repeats it over and over again in the verdict.<br /><br />The verdict in Hebrew - http://www.psakdin.co.il/fileprint.asp?filename=/plili/private/ver_tewx.htmYitzhak Sapirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10208312193149945171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1358633641450991704.post-55543390335276912282013-08-04T21:14:37.175-07:002013-08-04T21:14:37.175-07:00Thank you for your comment. Evidence accepted by t...Thank you for your comment. Evidence accepted by the court, and not appealed by the state, showed that Ofed Golan did not "find" the Jehoash Tablet, he bought it from an authorised dealer. He is therefore under no obligation - legal, ethical or moral - to "return" it to anyone.Matthew Kalmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11277300314060736852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1358633641450991704.post-25145247057509268352013-08-04T18:12:21.525-07:002013-08-04T18:12:21.525-07:00Your entire report is very skewed.
First, Golan w...Your entire report is very skewed.<br /><br />First, Golan was not simply acquitted of forgery. He was acquitted due to doubt. What this means is that the court found evidence to doubt the authenticity, but did not feel the evidence extended beyond a reasonable doubt necessary for criminal charges. The bottom line is that the court did find evidence to point to forgery.<br /><br />Second, Golan is obligated to return it if the item was found in Israeli territory after 1978. If the state can prove this, it can even force him to do so. But even if it can't prove he stole something doesn't mean he has no obligation to return something that he stole. Of course, 1978 is not a magic date. Before then, taking inscriptions isn't really ok either, ethically speaking. This means, that ethically even if it took place before 1978 he should return it. He may not be a thief under the law, but he is holding property he is not ethically or morally entitled to hold. <br /><br />Third, the state argued already beforehand that the patina on the back of the stone was ancient. So it is not making any magical about-face. Also, legally, the attorney has the obligation in representing its client to raise scenarios that the client does not believe are true but which advance the interests of his client. That is, if the attorney believes that the claim "maybe someday in the future it will be shown to be genuine" will advance the interests of its client, then the attorney is required to make that argument. It doesn't mean that the Antiquities Authority believes it will ever be shown to be genuine. Just as legally, the judge may find the evidence to suggest forgery but not beyond a reasonable doubt, so too legally, the state attorney can raise a suggestion that it is not a forgery. (In fact, if it doesn't raise a possible argument that could advance the interests of its client, it is negligent).<br /><br />So really, Golan should give up on the inscription from moral and ethical perspectives. Yitzhak Sapirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10208312193149945171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1358633641450991704.post-13184819886055524362013-08-03T23:25:46.545-07:002013-08-03T23:25:46.545-07:00Golan is only obligated to return it if the state ...Golan is only obligated to return it if the state can show it was found after 1978 and prove it came from Israel. They can do neither. Evidence accepted by the court showed he bought it from an authorised dealer, who had it listed in the inventory submitted to the IAA, who allowed it to be sold. All along they have argued it's a fake, anyway. Their only evidence it's not a forgery is the defence evidence that they have rejected for a decade.Matthew Kalmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11277300314060736852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1358633641450991704.post-34830057260047688192013-08-02T11:06:56.104-07:002013-08-02T11:06:56.104-07:00ODED GOLAN cannot have it both ways. If he allege...ODED GOLAN cannot have it both ways. If he alleged in court that the tablet was an authentic "antiquity," then he is obligated to return the antiquity to the state of Israel. Your article distorts the pointed issue, "Whether an artifact which is alleged to be authentic by a criminal defendant, is subject to forfeiture to the state pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Antiquities Law?" RAY OLIVER, ESQ.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01057869530057546864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1358633641450991704.post-406807397592981712013-01-26T08:27:08.718-08:002013-01-26T08:27:08.718-08:00Hi Matthew,
The Ossuary 'story' is unfor...Hi Matthew, <br /><br />The Ossuary 'story' is unfortunately marred by the highly tarnished reputation of Mr Golan in the public eye. There are a number of reported incidents which to my knowledge have not been addressed nearly enough (if at all) in the media, which have swayed the court of public opinion very negatively against Mr Golan, and as a consequence the authenticity of the ossuary inscription.<br /><br />It seems to me that this story is crying out for answers to the following issues, but none have been forthcoming: <br /><br />1. The 'forgery lab' The descriptions in the press sound very damning. In addition it makes the hypothesis that the famous 'old photograph' was a clever forgery sound reasonable.<br /><br />2. The report of Mr Golan's initial denial of owning the Jehoash tablet, seemingly disproven by photos of Mr Golan holding the tablet. This makes Mr Golan look like is capable of telling big lies.<br /><br />3. The report that Mr Golan didn't reveal certain incriminating warehouses to the police, and that he 'bargained' with police to only reveal the location of the Jehoash tablet if he would receive immunity. These make Mr Golan sound less than honorable.<br /><br />4. The treatment of the ossuary -- extremely careless packaging when sent to Canada (which caused it to break!), and his storing it on a toilet in a shed. Some also speculate that this location was chosen as a place to apply 'more' fake materials.<br /><br />5. The conviction. He WAS convicted of some charges. These also hurt Mr Golan's reputation.<br /><br /><br />Matthew, all of these together have caused many who have looked at the issue to decide that the ossuary inscription is inauthentic because the character of the man behind it has been fully discredited. <br /><br />Conversely, there are many who want to believe in the character of Mr Golan as a sincere and passionate collector, and see a number of reasons why they should, but simply cannot reconcile that idea with the issues raised above.<br /><br />Can you please respond to this?<br /><br />Thanks, <br />Ted<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />ExpertSizehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11041063796363732568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1358633641450991704.post-35006627537900890342013-01-21T07:49:00.820-08:002013-01-21T07:49:00.820-08:00Hi Matthew,
First, thank you very much for your ...Hi Matthew, <br /><br />First, thank you very much for your reporting on the Ossuary Trial! It was much needed and is appreciated.<br /><br />I am intrigued that you believe in the authenticity of the box given what appeared to be damning evidence found in Mr. Golan's apt. <br /><br />May I ask if there are a few primary reasons for your belief, and how they overcome the evidence that Mr. Golan was engaging in creating forgeries?<br /><br />I personally think the photograph evidence is very interesting, but the FBI expert testimony didn't rule out the possibility that the photograph had been taken, or modified, recently.<br /><br />I find the corroborating testimony of his parents and girlfriends to be, unfortunately, tarnished with the possibility of personal bias.<br /><br />Lastly, I find it telling that a 'prized possession' was shipped to Canada so poorly wrapped, and was kept on top of a toilet in a shed. His other prized possessions are surely worth millions but are kept behind glass.<br /><br />As much as I'd like to believe that Mr Golan's passion for artifacts indeed led him to a historic find (or several), in the case of the ossuary, I can't reconcile some of these evidences with authenticity.<br /><br />Would appreciate your thoughts on the matter. <br /><br />p.s. Is the 475 page report and other pages available? <br /><br />ExpertSizehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11041063796363732568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1358633641450991704.post-71166842251847705172012-05-30T11:26:06.043-07:002012-05-30T11:26:06.043-07:00thank you matthew- as always, excellent jobthank you matthew- as always, excellent jobJimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16698562143972216357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1358633641450991704.post-27752160687298216582012-03-04T08:38:27.777-08:002012-03-04T08:38:27.777-08:00Mr Kalman, Tabor and Jacobovici step in it again ...Mr Kalman, Tabor and Jacobovici step in it again assuming Christianity instead of Judaism. Jonah was always a Torah/Judaic book. How could Jonah be a Christian? It is so out of time chronologically, anachronistic if you will. The scholars like James Parkes from Oxford understood that before 135CE it was a sect of Torah/Judaism in, "Conflict of the Church and Synagogue."Eliyahuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09550781249705011630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1358633641450991704.post-87231457935794492552011-10-01T07:44:37.570-07:002011-10-01T07:44:37.570-07:00Mr Kalman,
Where is the judges decision?!!!!Mr Kalman,<br />Where is the judges decision?!!!!Eliyahuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09550781249705011630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1358633641450991704.post-54733871118083021712011-07-09T12:04:24.202-07:002011-07-09T12:04:24.202-07:00Golan's problem is one of credibility. How di...Golan's problem is one of credibility. How did he come to be the one with the missing ossuary from Talpiot? Was that question pursued in the trial?Eliyahuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09550781249705011630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1358633641450991704.post-81505818308395535242009-10-14T08:30:20.161-07:002009-10-14T08:30:20.161-07:00You mean nobody suspected it had been seeded there...You mean nobody suspected it had been seeded there?Michael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.com