I think that one of the issues that is lost in this particular case is that the original poster stated that the material had been given to several other institutions as well, and additionally had questionable factual.

 

The original institution in question obviously had their sound reasons for de-accessioning this item. In our collections policy, we clearly state that the steps before we move to “witnessed destruction”, and those include attempting to find another home for the item in question.

 

The trained, professional museum staff of this organization obviously took all of the information they had about the item, (including the dubious information and the fact that it was duplicated in other holdings) and decided to dispose of it. The volunteer donating it to the new organization might not have conveyed all the information, and that would have been a problem.

 

I do not think the original poster wanted to call into question their de-accessioning process, simply what to do with a volunteer that had clearly over-stepped their boundaries.