The Hunt Museum has welcomed the findings of an independent review, which has refuted allegations that John and Gertrude Hunt dealt in material seized by the Nazis during World War Two.

The evaluation report by Dr Lynn Nicholas of the Royal Irish Academy emphasised that there is "no proof that John and Gertrude Hunt were Nazis, that they were involved in any kind of espionage or that they were traffickers in looted art".

Museum Virginia Teehan said that all involved are satisfied that the inquiry has reached a conclusion and "the report is very balanced so we are happy to concur with its findings". She added that members of the Hunt family were also very pleased with the outcome.

The allegations questioning the ownership of items in the museum were first made in 2004 by international Jewish human rights organisation, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, and the review also discussed the evidence in the case- largely based around a single army intelligence file.

The file contained letters to the Swiss dealer Alexander Von Frey but establishes no transactions between this man and the Hunts.

The review said that the allegations caused "inexplicable pain to the Hunt family and severely damaged the reputation of John and Gertrude Hunt" and that it was "alarming" that the "unfounded" claims were based on one file.

"There has been much talk about moral obligation during this inquiry. It is, of course, important to recover and return items unlawfully taken during World War II, but it is equally obligatory, in the pursuit of justice, to protect people and institutions from unproven allegations," it added.

The review complimented the museum for setting up an internet catalogue and giving people everywhere the chance to enquire about the "provenance of any individual item" if they wished. No-one has raised any doubts about the origins of items since the website was set up two years ago.

The Simon Wiesenthal Centre was criticised for not revealing information about the evidence sooner while the Hunt Museum asserted that there was a "distinct lack of co-operation" by the organisation.

Comments (0) »

Show/Hide comment form

Name

Email

Title

Comment

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment