[wterrell]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Krause was "fingered" as having possibly sold a stolen gun. In the article it did not state him by name. So DIRECT finger pointing was made. This conjecture was raised by Pete who stated that Krause showed this gun around several gun shows, a truthful statement. Wes stated and made a side comment about how it had to be obvious that he should have known better. And to me it appeared that Wes was meaning that Mike knew it was a stolen gun and still continued with the deal. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Ed, I made no comment concerning the gun being displayed at the gun shows. I let the statement of Pete go without a response because of the reason that you stated.
I did not make any statement that Mike knew the pistol was stolen and that he continued with the deal.
I cannot help the conclusions that you reached concerning the pistol and Mike. As you stated, these are your conclusions about the subject, not mine.
I did not say that he received stolen property. The only one who has brought up this line of conversation is you.
I trust to your integrity to admit to the veracity of my above statements.

If a man received provenance and documentation, and then does not research the facts, his actions are not wise.
That is the reason that in a real estate transaction, the abstract of title will not be sufficient to conclude the purchase but also requires an abstract opinion and also title insurance.
If a man buys property based upon a fake abstract he is not accused of stealing the property, but he has acted very foolishly in the purchase.
That is the conclusion at which you should have arrived, Ed.