02-01-2017, 12:46 PM
I really don't see how the material quoted above casts any doubt over ownership.
The letter quoted says:
"This book was left to me by a close friend in his will".
That statement makes it obvious that both were the successive owners: if Baresch had not been the owner he could not have "left" it in his will, therefore this clearly establishes that the owner until his death, and the act of being "left" something in a will makes the recipient, Marci, its legitimate new owner.
There is really nothing ambiguous there at all.
Of course there's always the option that the whole thing is a lie concocted to trick Kircher, but if that is the case, it is a well constructed lie, and I see nothing that betrays it in the wording of the letter.
The letter quoted says:
"This book was left to me by a close friend in his will".
That statement makes it obvious that both were the successive owners: if Baresch had not been the owner he could not have "left" it in his will, therefore this clearly establishes that the owner until his death, and the act of being "left" something in a will makes the recipient, Marci, its legitimate new owner.
There is really nothing ambiguous there at all.
Of course there's always the option that the whole thing is a lie concocted to trick Kircher, but if that is the case, it is a well constructed lie, and I see nothing that betrays it in the wording of the letter.