Thus the old saying 9/10ths of the law is possession. On the other hand any presumption can be overcome by facts. Presumption just determines who has the burden of proof.
In this case, the Electrician had access to the home of Picasso. Thus he could have STOLE the items. The items could have been lying around and the Electrician liked it and Picasso gave it to him. The items are "Etching" and other similar items NOT any real painting. Picasso may have planned to throw them all away but when his Electrician said he liked them, Picasso gave the items away.
Interesting case. Do we believe the Electrician? or not? If the court believes him, the heirs will lose, for if Picasso gave the items away, they have no claim to them. If the Court disbelieves the Electrician, then the heir's claim is easier, for the only other way for the Electrician to get these items was to steal them.
The best solution would be for the heirs to compromise. Admit nothing but pay the Electrician so much money for the items on the grounds he gives them the items. The Electrician is old and want to give something to his children and a grant of money may be enough. The items stay together as a collection, the heir get to keep control over the items and the Electricians gets something out of it. If this is litigated, everyone stand the chance of losing everything.
If it was NOT for the value of the items this case should never have gone to Court. The Electrician NEVER try to sell the items and actually approached the Picasso family on what to do with them. For that he was charged with theft. The family says a third party stole these items. It seems that there is some infighting between Picasso heirs and that is preventing any compromise. The Picasso Family story about how the items were stolen sound real, but so does the story of the Electrician. Factual Disputes like this is why we have trials. Most attorneys talk their clients out of trials and work out a win-win compromise as I proposed above, but it appears to much money is involved and the Picasso Family is to divided to compromise.
As to the Electrician, remember this is a CRIMINAL TRIAL, he would have to agree he stole the paintings and accept the jail time. Thus he has no reason to agree to such a compromise. He has to defend himself and he seems to have a good defence, he was given the items.
Also do NOT make to much about the French Civil Law rule that you are presumed guilty till proven innocent. On the face that is true, but that is only after the prosecutor has prepared his case and put it into the Dossier. All that means is based on the Evidence in the Dossier, the prosecutor had determined someone is guilty, but it is a determination that is subject to review by a judge. In many ways it is very similar to how we prosecute criminals today in the USA. The Prosecution makes up a case, bring the case to the court and in the court present the case, subject o cross examination by the Defence and the Defence own case. Unlike US prosecutions, if something is NOT in the Dossier prepared by the prosecution and provided to the Court and the Defence team, it is NOT admissible at the trial. No secret prosecution witnesses or evidence is permitted. In many ways the US has been slowly adopting the same position through the US has NOT adopted the rule that if something is NOT in the Prosecution case developed before the Trial it is barred from the Trial.
My point is the trial is technically unlike a US trial, but in many ways very similar and over time becoming more and more similar. The old saying of "Guilty until proven Innocent" is becoming more and more the American "Norm" in how most people view criminal defendants AND American Prosecutors depend on that assumption while still saying "innocent till proven guilty".
Just a comment about the trial, sounds driven by greed and inner-Picasso Family politics then anything else.
= new reply since forum marked as read
