3 ms·

The Vanity Fair article said how FBI only seized human remains and those artifacts that were obviously illegally obtained. Miller got to keep majority of his co

The Vanity Fair article said how FBI only seized human remains and those artifacts that were obviously illegally obtained. Miller got to keep majority of his collection and wasn't even prosecuted. No word in the article what happened to rest of the collection after his death.

IncRnd 5y ago
> The Vanity Fair article said how FBI only seized human remains and those artifacts that were obviously illegally obtained. Miller got to keep majority of his collection and wasn't even prosecuted. No word in the article what happened to rest of the collection after his death. The VF article does not say "obviously illegally obtained" but that the FBI confiscated without a search warrant and against legal advice took more than just items they knew were illegally obtained. From the article: Some of the agency’s attorneys argued that Carpenter would need to establish probable cause on every single item, even though there were countless artifacts for which Carpenter hadn’t obtained evidence or even seen. Miller, for example, told Carpenter about an Anasazi pot Carpenter believed was illegal. But Miller had hundreds of Anasazi pots, and Carpenter didn’t have specific information on those, only the one. Establishing probable cause on each would be unreasonable and essentially impossible. Instead, Carpenter argued that Miller’s collection was “commingled,” meaning the FBI could seize a whole set of pots based on evidence of one. After back and forth with the Department of Justice, Carpenter won out. It also says they siezed a stack of his passports.
- distances 5y ago
  I meant this part: > The agents believed they’d seized the majority of the obviously illicit items. So they dismantled their village, took down their tents, and packed up. They even took the items with Miller's consent. You seem to be saying FBI took too much, which is a bit baffling to me. Seems to me the whole collection should've been seized, but I guess it wasn't worth the effort as nobody was interested in prosecuting and even museums didn't want the stolen hoard. Passports and photos were taken as evidence of the crimes, right? Apparently he also committed extensive tax fraud with claiming his trips as travel expenses, but those crimes were surely expired already.

IncRnd 5y ago

> The Vanity Fair article said how FBI only seized human remains and those artifacts that were obviously illegally obtained. Miller got to keep majority of his collection and wasn't even prosecuted. No word in the article what happened to rest of the collection after his death. The VF article does not say "obviously illegally obtained" but that the FBI confiscated without a search warrant and against legal advice took more than just items they knew were illegally obtained. From the article: Some of the agency’s attorneys argued that Carpenter would need to establish probable cause on every single item, even though there were countless artifacts for which Carpenter hadn’t obtained evidence or even seen. Miller, for example, told Carpenter about an Anasazi pot Carpenter believed was illegal. But Miller had hundreds of Anasazi pots, and Carpenter didn’t have specific information on those, only the one. Establishing probable cause on each would be unreasonable and essentially impossible. Instead, Carpenter argued that Miller’s collection was “commingled,” meaning the FBI could seize a whole set of pots based on evidence of one. After back and forth with the Department of Justice, Carpenter won out. It also says they siezed a stack of his passports.

distances 5y ago
I meant this part: > The agents believed they’d seized the majority of the obviously illicit items. So they dismantled their village, took down their tents, and packed up. They even took the items with Miller's consent. You seem to be saying FBI took too much, which is a bit baffling to me. Seems to me the whole collection should've been seized, but I guess it wasn't worth the effort as nobody was interested in prosecuting and even museums didn't want the stolen hoard. Passports and photos were taken as evidence of the crimes, right? Apparently he also committed extensive tax fraud with claiming his trips as travel expenses, but those crimes were surely expired already.