– his son Paul Robinson, detected the “fakes” first, and warned him not to buy more paintings at Randy Potters
Background: During the Hatfield trial, Donald Robinson did allow, to Judge Paul Martial twice, that he was a bit of a dunce, but that his son Paul was wiser than he was, and caught on to the supposed “fakes” quicker than he did, and tried to dissuade him from continuing to buy more suspect Potter paintings.
- “At, at one point, I was still convinced that they were good and my son, who’s running the gallery today, tried to tell me they were not good and I still overrode him and bought a few…” (Court Transcripts, p 18, Hatfield v Child May 31, 2011)
In case you missed his court testimony in May 2011, Robinson repeated it for you, under oath, a year later.
- “I should say that my son, Paul, after about half-way through when those purchases were made, perhaps five or six at a time at various auctions, my son Paul at the gallery, who now runs the gallery, he told me that I should not buy any more and he was suspicious of them, and I argued with him and bought a few more, to my great regret.”
Q. Okay, so your son had suspicions…
A. He did.
Q. …you didn’t. (Court Transcripts, p 20, Hatfield v Child Feb 23, 2012)
My Take: Perjury, Delusion, or Dementia?
Really? Now why would he say something so silly? Twice. In court before a judge?
That “argument” would have been something to see…
Oh, and “to my great regret…” What was the problem he regretted? He never returned a single one back as a supposed fake; so he couldn’t have been unhappy. He never asked for a refund for a single supposed fake; so he couldn’t have believed he was ripped off. And he even told Judge Martial he sold many of them successfully “for a small profit.” Where is the evidence for regret and unhappiness?
That is nothing to sneeze at; it should be a point of pride! Considering he paid $54,000 for fakes, which he testified in court were “worth nothing” were “worth zero” and managed to turn a profit on some $54,000…
So much of this is odd indeed, because two documents exist which prove exactly the total opposite – that it was Paul who introduced his Dad to the mother lode of genuine Morrisseaus at Potter’s in the first place. Paul’s signature on an appraisal of two paintings from the Potter auction is on a document that immediately predates his father attending his first buying spree there.
The evidence is pretty clear that far from trying to dissuade his father from going to Potter’s, it was in fact Paul, after being alerted by the paintings Matt Fountain brought into the gallery to be authenticated, who sent his Dad to investigate this sudden flood of Morrisseaus being auctioned.
Thanks to Paul’s auction alert, it’s pretty clear, that his father then went to numerous auctions, bid on 90 lots and ended up with 31 Morrisseau BDP paintings.
There is a second document also signed by Paul, on another appraisal of two paintings of the same type from the same auction, issued a full five months after his father told the National Post that all the paintings at Randy Potter’s were fakes…
He should have told his son who apparently still hadn’t wised up many months later and was still cashing in on appraisals, for Potter-sourced paintings his Dad had been calling fakes for months…
Can anyone figure out why Donald Robinson would testify in court to something which is the complete opposite of the historical documentary record?