Sat Reading Passage 1 Is Adapted From Gardner Art Through the Ages
Episode x: 'Last Seen' Live 60:51 Copy the code below to embed the WBUR audio histrion on your site
Copy the code below to embed the WBUR audio histrion on your site
Play
By the end of a process like the one to put together an investigative podcast well-nigh the most sensational unsolved art heist in history, the only thing more chaotic than our brains is the cutting room flooring. There are characters and storylines and theories that are so compelling, we but couldn't fit them all in or get quite as deeply with them as we'd have liked.
Enter a Last Seen live result. We — Kelly Horan, Jack Rodolico and Stephen Kurkjian — joined Ben Brock Johnson and the podcast'south fans at Faneuil Hall in Boston during the GlobeDocs Motion picture Fest to speak candidly about the Gardner mystery and unveil what it takes to make this podcast happen.
Kelly shares that she refused to use the tired phrase institute in most Gardner heist reporting, "Two men dressed as police officers…" and Jack tells us how the squad tried to sneak in more of its favorite phrase, "They wanted that gu." We get over everything from our favorite interviews to our all-time theories, harebrained and not.
Heed to a recording of the live issue by clicking the ruby player push button atop this post, or read the transcript below.
Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest updates, join our Facebook grouping to discuss the investigation and if you take a tip, theory or thought, we want to hear it.
This episode was adapted for the spider web by Amy Gorel.
Transcript:
KELLY HORAN: From WBUR Boston and The Boston Globe, this is Last Seen. I'm Kelly Horan. By the terminate of a process like the one to put together an investigative podcast about the well-nigh sensational unsolved art heist in history, the simply thing more cluttered than our brains is the cutting room flooring. There are characters and storylines and theories that are so compelling, we simply couldn't fit them all in or go quite as deeply with them equally nosotros'd have liked. Enter a Last Seen alive event, a recording of which you lot're almost to hear. Last Seen fans in the Boston area joined me and my colleagues Jack Rodolico and Stephen Kurkjian as he spoke candidly well-nigh the Gardner mystery and took the audience behind the scenes of the last year and a half of our reporting. The event took place at the Great Hall at Faneuil Hall in Boston and was part of the GlobeDocs Movie Festival. And nosotros were joined onstage by our WBUR colleague and host of the Endless Thread podcast Ben Brock Johnson.
BEN BROCK JOHNSON: Welcome, guys. How'south information technology going?
STEPHEN KURKJIAN: All well.
HORAN: Very well.
JACK RODOLICO: E'er skillful when we're with you, Ben.
JOHNSON: Also. I feel similar you guys have been — you've been sitting downwards on the couches near where we do our work at the iLab for so long, having these, like, really deep conversations about the reporting that you're doing. And we've all been listening to the episodes as they come out, which has been incredible. Merely I'm really excited to talk about behind-the-scenes stuff with you lot, so cheers for being willing to do this. Kelly, I want to kickoff with you. Equally yous prepared yourself to tackle this story and this project, what were you lot well-nigh excited about?
HORAN: Well, I was most excited, I think, nearly the journalistic challenge of taking on a story that has been so often told, in many places and in many ways, and in trying to make it new and fresh. One of the things I vowed earlier I took information technology on was to never say the judgement, "Two men dressed every bit police officers..." Considering I think that if you tin't even change up the basic facts, if they lose their sharp edges, then, you know, how can you lot make it new? And so I wanted to go back to the commencement and bring listeners something that they hadn't heard. And it'southward been gratifying because I've heard from people who said, "Oh, I heard about a podcast of the Gardner heist, and I thought, and then what? But then I heard the voices." And y'all hear the terror in a security baby-sit'due south vox. You hear the outrage in a defence force attorney'south vocalization. You hear the atheism in a suspect's vocalization. And that but made me glad that I picked radio 25 years ago considering information technology's all about the vocalization. And so I besides was wondering, can we make a podcast about art that people will want to listen to and that doesn't audio like "Masterpiece Theatre" and that makes you care that this is missing? And I call back the jury is yet out on that. But I have heard from people that they're happy when we talk well-nigh the art. And then I call back that...
JOHNSON: Look. What's wrong with "Masterpiece Theatre"?
HORAN: I love — people who know me will tell you that this entire thing would have been a period costume drama. [Laughter.]
JOHNSON: Totally fair.
HORAN: Simply, you know, I call up that information technology was the journalistic challenge of taking a story that is out there for anybody to read about and to bring new things to it and to advance it, I call up. And so I hope we did that.
JOHNSON: Jack, talk to me nigh why you remember this story is all the same riveting. I mean, it'due south been 28 years, right? Why is information technology even so compelling?
RODOLICO: I think the grabbiest thing about the story is that the FBI hasn't solved it, right? And it's — and that'south not a dig at the FBI. Information technology's a really hard case to solve. But in that location are a lot of superlatives when you look at this offense, the way it was done. At that place are parts of information technology that play on ideas yous have in your mind of the way somebody would pull off a heist — dressing up equally cops and tricking someone and taking a Rembrandt. You know, at that place are certain things — fifty-fifty if you don't know anything near art, which I would put myself firmly in that category, you know who Rembrandt is, loosely. So those things grab you. And and so all you have to do is dig just under the surface, and you realize information technology does not line upwards with your thinking nearly what an fine art heist is at all. Y'all know, there are no catsuit — what's the discussion? Cat burglars, right?
HORAN: Catsuited burglars.
RODOLICO: Yeah, there's no cat burglars. And in that location'southward really most no good information about where they are. I think we've told a good story despite that. But one affair that Steve said from the very beginning, which was terrifying to recollect about how we were going to practise this as a podcast, was — simply it actually stuck in my mind — is, the whole, everything is feathers. When yous look at this story, when you look at what the FBI has done — and they have worked really diligently — information technology'southward feathers. It'south even so theories after almost three decades. So you can kind of implant whatever you lot want on that in your mind. And then you start looking for facts. And they're fascinating. But they still don't lead yous to the art. I call back if it was solved 10 years afterward, nosotros wouldn't be talking virtually it now.
JOHNSON: Steve, you're the OG here, I feel like. You've been covering this story for decades, right? You wrote a volume almost the instance chosen "Principal Thieves." So you lot bring this level of experience with the story that I think is really unique. And I won't pretend that reporters don't take a reputation for existence like a domestic dog with a os when it comes to a sure story. But why haven't y'all let this thing go?
KURKJIAN: Thank yous. That's a great question. And I think it all goes down to the title of Nat Hentoff's biography "Boston Male child." And I am the "Boston Male child." I grew up in Boston, went to public schools in Boston and joined the Earth at a immature age and joined the Spotlight team when it was founded. And understand, the Spotlight team thrives because of the kind of reporting it does, purposeful reporting. And that's the style I felt about this story right from the start — that this needed some hard reporting. And equally an investigative reporter for my career, I do hard reporting. And I kept thinking in that location'due south a higher purpose to this. And understand, as we spoke hither, 28 years, the largest fine art theft in earth history, and it happened hither in my metropolis, in our city. And I just felt that if I continued on information technology and gave it more coverage, it would reach a larger audience, which is going back to why I feel this podcast is so special. And I'1000 just thrilled that I've been aboard with both Jack and Kelly and their team at WBUR. The Globe has washed a lot with this story, just it needed this partnership. It needed this other media to get heard. And I hope somehow, soon enough, nosotros'll get a recovery. That's my hope.
JOHNSON: And so in any narrative, information technology's the people that tin make or suspension the story. Information technology's good news that Last Seen is buttressed non just by this incredible story, which, of grade, we'll get into even more, but by a actually colorful cast of characters we become to see in this podcast. And, once again, I've been lucky enough to hear some of those, both equally a listener and as somebody who'due south been talking to you guys about the testify as you've been making it. Simply information technology seems similar at that place's an endless number of them. We become to meet these people, explore their intertwining relationships. Steve, do you accept a favorite moment, a favorite grapheme or a favorite relationship between characters in the podcast?
KURKJIAN: I met a bad guy who worked with a skilful guy to practise a remarkable thing here, which was to open a offense syndicate about to do a major robbery of a armored car depot. And Dave Nadolski is his name. He's the FBI amanuensis who got this young homo to practise all sorts of derring-do, simply just because of the trust that they built with one another, agent to an informant were we able to avoid an amazing, astonishing art theft — excuse me — a depository financial institution, armored car robbery that merely because of the trust that these two men had.
JOHNSON: Jack, what virtually y'all?
RODOLICO: The interview that I tin can't shake from my memory was an chaser named Ryan McGuigan. And nosotros interviewed him at 'BUR. There wasn't even a studio that solar day. We just sat in an part. And then there was nix — there was no scene built effectually him. In that location was nothing particularly spectacular about where we interviewed him. But he is a fascinating defence force attorney because he defends the latest, I'll call the latest person of involvement in the Gardner investigation, which is a Connecticut, aging Connecticut mobster octogenarian named Bobby Gentile. He'southward sitting in prison right now because of his suspected connection to the paintings — not to the heist, but to the paintings. And Ryan has dedicated this guy tooth and blast for vi years. The FBI set his client up on ii dissimilar stings. They got him to commit crimes twice. They held all this pressure over him to attempt to get him to talk nearly the paintings, and he never did. And the interesting thing virtually McGuigan is that he has a lot of theories about why that is that expand across, well, my client has aught to practice with it, right? I mean, that'due south what every defense force chaser is going to say. He'southward defending mobsters, so you tin't totally trust the guy. Allow's be honest, right? But what he has that very few people accept — very, very few people — is that he has looked inside the FBI investigation. He's looked over the fence with a very particular lens and with an eye on defending his client. Only there are so few people who would speak to the states who had whatsoever experience with the FBI and their tactics. And he makes a really compelling example that the FBI has tried again and once more to clasp individuals by helping them commit other crimes or catching them in the act of committing other crimes and then so saying, "OK, we're going to send you to jail if you don't talk." And it hasn't worked notwithstanding. I mean, it's a skillful tactic. It ofttimes works. Merely it leaves you scratching your head as to, why won't these guys talk? Is it because they don't know something, or they practise something and they still won't say something near it? But he's just sort of lived it in a way that very few people have. I hateful, he'due south exasperated with his client. He'southward exasperated with the FBI. He doesn't like anybody who has ever touched the Gardner investigation, and he can tell yous why and when he stopped liking them. So, I like him a lot.
JOHNSON: Kelly, I know you lot take some favorite characters also. I really want to hear from y'all about Isabella Stewart Gardner, though, because this is the person that I didn't know anything about before hearing this prove. And she's had a huge impact, non only in the urban center, simply she's a really important character, obviously, in this story. So can you talk a little fleck near her?
HORAN: If I must.
JOHNSON: It was one of my favorite parts of one of the episodes that we've heard so far, is hearing yous talk nigh her.
HORAN: And so, you know, I was so glad to be able to do a truthful criminal offence podcast without the dead-woman trope, and then I realized there is a dead woman at the middle of my podcast. [Laughs.] Except she'south and then alive to me. Isabella Stewart Gardner, I would say, is the animating forcefulness of this podcast, of this investigation. We are all here this night because of what she built over in the Fens. And it's true. I do beloved her. She wasn't uncomplicated. And it'south like, well, all of the characters that we bring to you in the podcast, it'southward not one matter or another. It's non good or bad or black or white. I mean, at that place were nuances. But what she valued, among other things, was art, and so that's what she gave united states of america. And in guild for me, before I could really understand this heist and what information technology meant — I've never been good at numbers, I fudged my style through an econ major, and my dad's in the front row and can tell yous all about that — but $500 one thousand thousand didn't say anything to me. And then I wanted to understand what that loss would've meant to her, so I read nigh her. I read her correspondence. And what I realized is that each of these pieces that was stolen was something that she chose, and non only something that she chose, it was something that she put in its place. So when you become to the Gardner Museum and you lot see information technology where it is, it'south where she wanted you lot to run into it. I love control freaks, and I only thought that is, that's something to aspire to. Just she built the whole museum as well. And I dearest this story. I hateful, she drove the architect, probably, to the brink because he'd take his Italian stonemasons that she brought over cock a wall. And she'd come in and say, "No, take information technology down, practise information technology over." And then when she was frustrated that her stonemasons couldn't re-create the exact Tuscan pinkish stucco for her courtyard, she climbed a ladder and she did it herself. So, she's my kind of lady.
And to understand what was lost, I'll take the Vermeer, "The Concert," as my example. So, yous know, many of the paintings that she collected were sight unseen. She had dealers abroad who said, "This is why you should ain this." But for "The Concert," she traveled to Paris, and she went to the auction firm, and she sat there. She didn't bid herself; it would've been untoward. Merely every time the bid was raised higher, she would raise a handkerchief to her face up to signal to her secret heir-apparent in the room, go higher. And she went higher, and she shell the Louvre Museum. Furious, they were furious when they institute that it was going to an American woman. "The Concert" was her first major acquisition, and it put her on the map as a collector. But why did she dearest it? She loved information technology because her get-go love was music. And some say that her gustation in music was more sophisticated than her taste in art, which — and in "The Concert," what nosotros run across — John Updike wrote a verse form called "Stolen" about the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum heist. And in it, he says, the concert is stopped betwixt 2 notes. And y'all have a woman going like this. And Gardner, who loved music, responded to that, I call back, viscerally. And now it's gone. And that, for me, was my way into understanding why it mattered.
JOHNSON: Steve, you grew upward with the museum. You saw the paintings. So talk nearly how, in some ways, possibly nosotros as a society didn't value this work until information technology was no longer ours.
KURKJIAN: Yeah. I've thought long and hard about a recovery. How does a recovery happen? What this needs is, it needs the aid of the public. What's been missing from this, except for one or ii times, is a public appeal — a public entreatment that would be powered by a social media campaign. And the more than I thought most this in the summer of 2014, when every one of y'all kids were pouring a bucket of water ice over your caput, to enhance money for ALS research. You know what that did that summer? It raised $eighty one thousand thousand for ALS research. And I idea to myself, that'southward what's needed for this case, information technology's some media outreach 'crusade that type of campaign would reach the people who almost demand to be reached, which is, let's say, the have-nots in society, those people who know something. They don't know where the artwork is. I believe the FBI when they say the two thieves who stole it are dead. Simply they may have let their cousins or sisters or whatever know, "I know something," and it's those people who have to view this every bit a loss to all of us, including them. Why? Because this is the artwork of the ages. Everything passes. Art endures. And this is our fine art. Mrs. Gardner put those on the wall for us, put them on the wall for my father.
My male parent was a refugee from the Armenian genocide as a iii-year-sometime and came to Watertown and had, showed interest in art. They sent him — they got him a scholarship. And every afternoon, he would go back to the museum free of charge. She wanted all of us to be able to savor and be inspired past art. And that's as well in the bad guy world, in the accept-nots. Their child, likewise, their grandchild, besides, could be inspired by that fine art as my male parent was and became a successful commercial artist. And so that'southward the hope that we, perhaps fifty-fifty out of HUBweek, of GlobeDocs, an event similar this, that a campaign tin be built with social media to tell the globe information technology's non ratting on your bad guys; it'south non ratting on your tertiary cousin who may have had something to know about something; it's being able to inspire your children and your grandchildren with getting this artwork back. Retrieve what happened when Tom Brady's T-shirt that he wore, at that place were torchlight searches going on in my neighborhood. [Laughs.] At that place'southward Rembrandts missing. There's Vermeer missing. I want that enthusiasm to come to...
JOHNSON: Well-said. Now might be a good time to say if anyone here has the art, feel free to permit us know. I call up there'south some money involved. So let'southward only do a lightning circular here — a real quick lightning round. We accept a special guest coming up, and I want to give them proper time. But, you know, one of the amazing things near this story is merely the theories of, you know, all these crazy theories of what might take happened to this artwork. And you guys chase a lot of them. Then, Kelly, lightning round, you know, I don't know, 30 seconds. What'southward your favorite crazy theory about what happened hither?
HORAN: I have taken no end of ridicule for my theory. I just want you to know because I desire to feel your support and dear right now. My theory is that a man named Paul Stirling Vanderbilt, alias Paul Stirling Vanderbilt, who tried to rob a museum in upstate New York in 1980, returned to Boston to do it right a decade later. His name is Brian McDevitt from Swampscott, Massachusetts.
JOHNSON: Wow. OK. Jack?
RODOLICO: You going for a harebrained theory or, like, what I remember happened?
JOHNSON: I mean, I'yard a fan of harebrained, only that's just me.
RODOLICO: OK. Harebrained would be, if I am to believe...
JOHNSON: Aliens. No.
RODOLICO: You know...
JOHNSON: Sorry.
RODOLICO: You ask the questions. I answer them, OK?
JOHNSON: OK. Fair, off-white.
RODOLICO: Aliens. No. If I am to believe the erstwhile FBI agent, who is the founder of the FBI's Art Crime Squad, that he got this close to getting some criminals to sell him the Vermeer and the Rembrandt "Storm On The Sea Of Galilee," then they were at least 2007, in France or Corsica considering that was the theory at the fourth dimension. He was talking to these mobsters in Miami. They were connected to these criminals back on the other side of the ocean. They had really good intelligence coming in from French officials that were saying, "Yeah, these guys are talking about information technology on wiretaps that they are there," and...
JOHNSON: All right.
RODOLICO: And maybe — sorry, that was probably more than 30 seconds.
JOHNSON: Your 30 seconds is definitely.
RODOLICO: That theory keeps going from there — Corsican mobsters, Corsican mobsters.
JOHNSON: Corsican mobsters, OK. And door No. three.
KURKJIAN: My favorite anecdote here on where they are takes me into Bobby Gentile's living room, where I had spent three days merely fueled past Regina's Pizza. He said, I'g but talking to y'all considering you bring Regina's Pizza. This was during that very cursory vi-month menstruation that he wasn't behind bars. So at the end of our third day of interviewing, he said to me, "Shut off your record recorder; I want to inquire you some questions." I said, "Certain, Bob." I shut off my record recorder, and he said to me, "What do I become all about — what do I get for all this information I've given to you?" And I thought to myself, what's he getting at? Peradventure he thinks I'thousand an FBI amanuensis, and he wants — and he doesn't want to say anything because he'south been denying, denying, denying for all that, all those three days that he had anything to do with it. So I put out a harebrained idea of he and I would write a book, only, Bobby, I said, I demand to know the truth. No more BS. No more denying. When did you become the paintings? What did you practice with them? And where are they at present? You tell me that, nosotros'll write, you know, an incredible bestseller. You lot'll become all the money in the world, and you'll get the reward. And I'll become what I've all, at present long wanted for 20 years, which is a story nigh what happened to our, what happened to the Gardner'southward paintings.
Bobby looks at me, and he doesn't say, "You lot're crazy." He puts his head downward, and he keeps it downwards for x seconds. And and so he puts his caput up and says, "No, no, I don't know anything." So I get out to my car, say bye, and he — Bobby says — I said goodbye to Bobby, and I call Ryan McGuigan, his lawyer, and I said, "McGuigan, he's been lying to you. He'due south been lying the FBI. He's been lying to me for five hours." And says, "What the hell are you talking about? What did he say?" And I told him virtually waiting for 10 seconds before turning down my offer to tell me the whole matter. I said, "He knows something. He knows something." He says, "You know what he was doing during that 10 seconds, Kurkjian?" I said, "No, what, what? He was waiting. He was thinking." He said, "He wasn't thinking. He doesn't have anything. He was thinking to con y'all out of $10,000." And he says, "I know you wouldn't have given it to him, right, Steve?" Y'all're right. But another, you know, expressionless end.
JOHNSON: Off-white enough. I think Kelly won that circular for keeping it under 30 seconds. But all of those — all of those ideas are skilful.
JOHNSON: Speaking of whodunit, information technology is now time to welcome our special surprise guest to the stage. His name is David Nadolski, a retired FBI agent who spent 21 years in the bureau. Welcome, David. I'll requite you a fist bump, fist crash-land. There we go.
DAVID NADOLSKI: Stand upwards. Stand up. Come on. Stand upwards. Run into my twin brother.
(Laughter.)
KURKJIAN: We dress alike.
NADOLSKI: Yep, Mommy still dresses the states akin. [Laughs.]
KURKJIAN: Nadolski and Kurkjian — somewhere they meet.
JOHNSON: So for those of yous who have been listening, David is a primal character in Episode 3. And, David, welcome. Thanks. Thank yous for being here tonight. Nosotros appreciate it.
NADOLSKI: Oh, my pleasure.
JOHNSON: Before this evening, Steve shared that he sort of really appreciated the relationship between y'all and one of your confidential informants, Anthony or Tony Romano. Now, this is a reminder to everyone, Tony Romano was a member of the TRC Auto Electric shop crew, the headquarters for mobster Carmello Merlino's gang. Tony was tasked with giving yous info on any conversations that had anything to do with the Gardner art. He was the man who came to you with the data, which resulted in a raid for some other heist. Dave, talk near your relationship with Tony.
NADOLSKI: Well, Tony actually contacted me kickoff at i fourth dimension, earlier all this happened. We had a robbery at the John Quincy Adams museum, and several irreplaceable books were stolen at that time. And I was told that there was a prisoner at Hold prison who was interested in talking to me about this because he knows who did information technology. So I grab one of the detectives from Quincy, and we ran out to Agree. And beyond the street from the prison is a billet for the state police. And he was working on their cars. This guy is a mechanic. And then he told one of the ane of the troopers, he said, "Y'all know, I know something most this crime. Could you assist me get in front of an amanuensis?" So that's what the trooper did. He contacted our office. I was called. I went there with the detective. We sabbatum, found Tony in a room upstairs in the barracks, and he was just sitting in a chair similar this. And so we sat down in forepart of him, and he was, he was wearing his prison dungarees, which are blue jeans, bluish jean shirt, short sleeves, and his arms were covered in tattoos.
JOHNSON: For those of you listening at home, the mode he was sitting was sort of lax in his chair and his head looking at the ceiling.
NADOLSKI: Right, exactly.
JOHNSON: OK.
NADOLSKI: And and then we said, "Hey, hi, how are you lot doing? I empathize you want to talk to us about this crime." And he simply sort of looked at us and went back and looked up at the ceiling and didn't say much. And and so I looked over at the detective, and I thought, you lot know, "What's with this guy?" And I said, "Well, you know, Tony, I know you got to become back to the prison here pretty shortly, and we got things to do, but if yous want to talk to united states of america well-nigh this particular law-breaking, we're here. If it'southward a bad time, we'll come back."
Then he says,"OK." He goes, "Kevin Gilday did it." And I said, "Oh, who's Kevin Gilday? And he said, "He'south a guy from Quincy. He's a burglar, and I've known him practically my whole life. And we were in jail together, and he told me he was going to do this blazon of crime. He desire — he was really eyeballing that particular job." And so I said, "Well, thank you. I appreciate that." And long story curt, information technology was Kevin Gilday. And information technology was Tony'due south information to me that that helped solve that crime. We did recover the books. Gilday did v years. And all was well. So I called the parole board and said, "Hey, you know, I desire to talk to you virtually one of your guys." And of class, they said, "Oh, southward---. What did — who is it? And what did he do now?" And so I said, "Well, he did something good, really. His name's Anthony Romano, and I call up he'southward coming up for parole. And I want you lot to know that he provided the data that allowed me to solve this case and go these books back, then he did a good job." So they say, "Well, thank you. We appreciate that. You don't unremarkably don't go good information on guys, so." And that was how I met Tony anyhow, in answer to the question.
JOHNSON: Then the raid that was the result of Tony's work with the FBI, with you, brought a couple of key suspects into custody. You were there when everyone arrived, and you tried to become information out of these folks coming in well-nigh the Gardner.
NADOLSKI: How did that come up?
JOHNSON: Yeah, well, just tell me almost those conversations.
NADOLSKI: Oh, aye. Certain.
JOHNSON: Were you like, we do as reporters, you lot had a lilliputian notebook, and yous're kind of yelling at them as they get brought in?
NADOLSKI: I worked with the agent who was working on that item example. And then after, you lot know, this whole affair came down with the armored machine robbery, nosotros went and thought, well, what the heck? We'll yous give them — if they did know anything nearly this particular crime, we sat down with each one of them individually after the arrest for the armored, attempted armored machine robbery and just said, "You lot know, you're actually in a lot of trouble here. And equally such, you lot know, you're looking at a lot of time. However, if you've got anything to say about the Gardner, that's — that would help you." And each one said no. So that's how, that'southward the last time I talked to everyone nearly the Gardner.
JOHNSON: Fair enough. What makes some people talk and others not talk? What happened when some of these folks realized that Tony Romano was an informant?
NADOLSKI: Well, obviously, he was in a world of hurt considering he had to leave boondocks. And nosotros had discussed all that beforehand originally. And I had to go earlier the parole lath, by the way, before nosotros did annihilation and ask their permission and get their permission to work with Tony, who was on parole. And when I explained to them that the just way into stopping this attempted criminal offence, which was going to be the robbery of the Loomis Fargo vault facility in Easton, Massachusetts, where tens of millions of dollars was kept, was if nosotros had somebody on the within collecting data equally the planning went forward. And they bought information technology and said, "OK, Tony can work with yous." And so I said, but, you know, when it all ends, they're going to know he was involved, and so he's going to take to go into the witness security program and leave the land of Massachusetts and have his land parole transferred to another location, which they agreed to. So the adjacent matter was to talk to Tony well-nigh this whole thought and say, "Tony, if this works out and the information you provide is truthful and accurate, and we build a case, and it comes downwards, then clearly, they're going to know, 'OK, there's 5 of united states in this, committing this crime; there's 4 of us sitting here. Where'due south Tony?' " And so they'll know you lot cooperated. And he had to think about that for a long fourth dimension because he was a drug aficionado. And the reason he was in prison a lot, which he was, was because he would, when he got out, he would go back on drugs, and and then he'd start doing holdups. Y'all know, the thing that motivated him, I believe, was a desire to exercise something correct for a change. And he did.
JOHNSON: Why do you remember the paintings haven't been institute yet?
NADOLSKI: Why haven't they been located?
JOHNSON: Yeah.
NADOLSKI: Oh, I don't know. I accept no idea.
(Laughs.)
JOHNSON: Fair. That's an episode. Follow-up... Who do y'all think did it?
NADOLSKI: I got to tell you: I don't know.
(Laughs.)
NADOLSKI: I don't recollect information technology was Carmello Merlino, who seems to exist a prime doubtable popping up left and right. He'south expressionless now. But, I hateful, we talked to him several times. And nosotros ended Mel actually doesn't take them. And he is trying to get the reward money, merely who isn't? So...
KURKJIAN: At that place was time when he said to Tony, "I don't have them, but Chicovsky does. So I'll get them from Chicovsky, and then nosotros'll turn them in for $5 meg." And that's when Dave sits down with the FBI amanuensis on the Gardner example with Chicovsky at the VA hospital in Jamaica Plain. And Chicovsky says to him, "Mind, I don't have him, merely Merlino may. I'll go them from Merlino." So at that point, in my mind, information technology's, you know, a hall of mirrors in the intelligence world. This is a hall of con men. I would not want his job considering even if nosotros don't come up with information technology, we tin can tell this extraordinary story.
NADOLSKI: Aye, yeah. Neil Cronin was the case amanuensis from the bureau who was handling the Gardner case. And he had heard this song and trip the light fantastic toe from a lot of dissimilar people. And so, you know, his thinking was, "OK, if you lot say y'all've got them or tin can get them or whatsoever, whenever you get them, I want you lot to accept a picture. You have the paintings, you have yous, and you have a paper from today's date, with today's date on it in front of it so I know what,yous know, this is actually the day, you lot know, a recent picture." And nobody could practise that. Nobody ever of all the people that came forward, and there's lots of them with information, nobody could always institute ownership or possession.
JOHNSON: Well, go on listening. Thank you lot so much for talking to us from your space of expertise and for expanding on the question, I don't know. We appreciate information technology. We're going to take some audience questions at present. Just, merely, I'm going to ask for some other — thanks very much, Candice. I'm going to ask for another, similar, super quick lightning round with simply Kelly and Jack because yous guys haven't talked for a minute. So there's but then much we can fit into these xxx-minute episodes, right? And there are enough of them that anybody should go and listen to. But what'south something that didn't make it, didn't make information technology off the cutting room floor, or ended up on the cutting room floor, I should say. Kelly, what's a story or an angle that yous wish you could have chased that you didn't quite go to hunt?
HORAN: Whitey Bulger. At that place is a theory that the Gardner art is in Northern Ireland. And I was in northern... I was in Ireland in May. I was there with this Scotland Yard, old Scotland Thou undercover man who was absolutely convinced that the central to solving the Gardner case is in Ireland. And I then want to do the story of Ireland and the Gardner art and at least this one thief because it's so complex. And I call back there'south so much there, but I don't know that we'll have time.
JOHNSON: Season 2.
(Laughs.)
JOHNSON: What about y'all, Jack?
RODOLICO: Um...
JOHNSON: Steve's giving him suggestions.
RODOLICO: Practiced idea — not what I was thinking. There were so many fine art thefts in New England before the Gardner heist. There were hundreds of them. And there was a flow of time when I was convinced that nosotros could practise multiple episodes — we could — on all of the crimes that predated the Gardner and what those tell us about the Gardner. And in that location were people who were experts at disarming alarm systems in small museums, other people who were skillful at tricking cops in places like Greenwich, Connecticut, and on the Northward Shore and on Greatcoat Cod. There were so many paintings stolen in New England in the 20 or so years that never came back because they were lower-profile. They weren't Vermeers. They weren't Rembrandts. And we sat down with one guy who stole a good chunk of them, and he would not go on the record. And the thing that he said that haunts me nigh the Gardner heist is that when he had no place else to sell... He would endeavour to sell them on the black marketplace. He would try to sell them to a dealer. Sometimes he would sell them back to the FBI. If none of that worked, he would burn down them. He said he did it hundreds of times.
JOHNSON: This is — oh, sad. Go alee.
RODOLICO: This is non lightning. This is not lightning, sorry. There is no lightning with the Gardner. You can't ask a lightning question on the Gardner. I'grand not David Nadolski. I don't take a one-word reply. I wish I did. I wish I did. Simply that but makes, unfortunately makes a lot of sense as a possibility for what happened to the Gardner heist — that information technology could have happened. I hope it didn't. It's a good chance information technology didn't. But I could never shake that since he said information technology.
JOHNSON: This is an excellent transition to our showtime audition question, which is, what is the likelihood that whatever of the artwork has been destroyed? So anybody desire to take a crack at that per centum, over/under? I don't know.
KURKJIAN: I'll just recount ane interview I had with a guy who was — it was the first affiliate of my book. It was a guy named Louis Royce. And Louis had scouted the Gardner for a score since growing up in Due south Boston delivering papers to Whitey Bulger'due south house, he used to tell me. But he told me that — he didn't drink, and I was pouring myself another glass of wine, taking my notes in an interview — he said to me, "There'southward no way they would be destroyed." I said, "Why?" He said, "Y'all run into that bottle? The bottle isn't important, but the cork is. We'll hold onto the cork." And he reminded me, he said "Every mobster you run across whose house is raided, it takes ii days to empty a mobster's house." Why? 'Cause they keep everything. They're pack rats. They're non hoarders, but they're pack rats. They don't destroy anything. So it's non much evidence, just information technology's one thing that keeps me going to stay on the story. It's inside the 781, 508 area code, somewhere, there are 13 pieces of priceless fine art.
JOHNSON: Off-white enough. Hither's another question: Crimes always have collateral damage. Who or what is the biggest collateral damage of the Gardner heist, Kelly?
HORAN: I would say that we all are because nosotros don't get to come across these works. I mean, I really mean information technology. Anne Hawley, the erstwhile director of the Gardner Museum, likens the loss to what if you could never hear Beethoven or Louis Armstrong. I say, what if you lot could never hear Prince? But I think that it'due south true. If you value these works as a slice of who we are, then we all lose that they're gone.
JOHNSON: This is an interesting question that I think you guys get at in the evidence. But I'd love to hear y'all talk well-nigh information technology a lilliputian bit more. Why do you lot think the robbers stole the pieces they did? And there'southward a little sort of sub-question here. The Chinese beaker, I believe I'm reading that right, has e'er been a fascinating choice.
HORAN: We have a lot of theories most this.
JOHNSON: Proceed.
HORAN: Come up in close. OK, and so what we know is that Rembrandt is the most stolen creative person considering his body of work is so vast. So it's easier to false an attribution to Rembrandt. And then we know that, from the thieves' movements, we know that they went to the Dutch Room first. We know that they took the Rembrandts get-go. How practice you explicate the Chinese beaker? Information technology'south not even that pretty.
(Laughs.)
HORAN: How do you explicate the bronze eagle finial? In our reporting, we met the art thief who said that he used to case the Gardner Museum with another art thief. And our art thief said, "I wanted that beaker," because he's an aficionado of Asian art. And his friend wanted the hawkeye. And so that makes sense. Were they trophy grabs? Did they but snatch and catch? We don't know. But what we can tell you about the beaker is that information technology took some effort. It wasn't just something sitting on a table or knocked over. They had to cut through layers of material on the table so pry information technology off of a metal base. They wanted that gu. Then mayhap we know who did it or who inspired it. They wanted that gu.
RODOLICO: They wanted that gu is a line that was in i of our episodes similar eight times. And it has to exist there. And nosotros just were debating how many times — how many times practice nosotros demand to say it? And the good thing that we're here is that we got to say it twice.
JOHNSON: Nosotros just got two more than.
RODOLICO: I but desire to say, they wanted that gu.
HORAN: I've been made fun a lot over the course of this by my esteemed colleagues. And I've been promised by other people my own cantankerous-stitch. And I call back my cantankerous-stitch volition say...
JOHNSON: They wanted that gu.
HORAN: ...They wanted that gu.
JOHNSON: Fair. I want to pose this question to the self-proclaimed twins downwards there. Gentlemen, this comes from Zoe, historic period 10. Were you always scared interviewing someone?
NADOLSKI: Not me. I had a gun.
(Laughs.)
NADOLSKI: What about you?
JOHNSON: Solid one-liners from this guy.
KURKJIAN: No, I mean, the work that nosotros do as reporters — you don't do the dangerous piece of work that these guys, these people practice. You denote yourself. You tell them what you desire. You get to their seconds, which is commonly an attorney. You lot show up. You enquire them the questions you lot promised you would ask them. Y'all take meticulous notes. And you tell them yous're going to write it straight. That's all y'all have going for yous. But, you lot know, as reporters, nosotros ask the questions that whatever of you would ask. Merely you lot never surprise people. You never — and you never disappoint them as far as writing it straight. So that's why I'thousand — never always been afraid.
JOHNSON: I'm not certain who this is directed to, and then I'll let anybody take it. How did you get access to confidential 302s, which reminds me that revenue enhancement season is coming. I don't know. That'south just like a, I'thou non certain.
NADOLSKI: Wait a minute. Expect a minute. I don't think there were whatsoever confidential 302s involved, were at that place? There were?
(Laughs.)
NADOLSKI: A 302 is an FBI report.
HORAN: We got some. That'south all I'thousand comfy saying.
NADOLSKI: My brother...
JOHNSON: Fair plenty.
NADOLSKI: My blood brother is nodding his head.
RODOLICO: If nosotros wanted to tell yous, we would've told y'all in the podcast.
HORAN: We got them.
JOHNSON: Fair. I guess we're non getting an reply on that i. Oh, my lightning round suggestions have now been incorporated into audition questions. I like it. Lightning circular, plain this is for all of you, what painting is your favorite, and why?
RODOLICO: Of the ones that were stolen, presumably?
JOHNSON: I think we could get with that. Yeah.
RODOLICO: OK.
(Laughs.)
JOHNSON: Nosotros'll start with Kelly.
HORAN: Who, me? Oh...
JOHNSON: Yes.
HORAN: I don't know. I oasis't seen them.
(Laughs.)
HORAN: I'thousand really... I'1000 not existence flip. I desire to see them. Yous know, I'm...
JOHNSON: What's the — that'due south a painting, isn't it?
HORAN: So we accept "Storm On The Sea Of Galilee" [on screen], and what I love nigh "Storm On The" — I can tell you what I similar because I've read about them. But I haven't — you know, and so, OK, I have this thought that when you lot see a slice of art, information technology's an interactive experience. You are experiencing what the artist wants — intended for y'all to experience. But you're likewise experiencing in spite of yourself what you bring to it. I don't know what I bring to it. I've never stood earlier information technology. I tin can tell y'all what information technology was similar to stand up in front of the stretcher that once held "Storm On The Sea Of Galilee." That almost made me cry. It was similar seeing a expressionless torso. And that'southward really, that was a moment when I realized, "Holy moly, there are victims in this story." And I would love the opportunity to come across these works. I would say "Storm On The Sea Of Galilee" just because I beloved that Rembrandt painted himself in. He's like, yo... And I like that.
JOHNSON: Definitely not the Chinese chalice, you're proverb. Information technology'southward not...
HORAN: I didn't mean to put downward the Chinese beaker.
RODOLICO: Somebody wanted it.
HORAN: I just meant to say someone actually wanted it.
JOHNSON: Jack?
RODOLICO: I think that "The Storm On The Sea" is the near dramatic, and it'due south the one I've thought a lot about. Simply the i I'thou most perplexed by is the Vermeer, "The Concert," because I don't call up I've ever seen a Vermeer. And they, in that location's only 34 or so. I say or so 'cause information technology's not totally clear exactly how many there are of his, but there's not a lot. And my agreement is that he was this chief of light. And y'all don't — that does not come across in a photo of that painting, which is all I've e'er seen. I look at it, and I tin can say, "OK, I approximate that's a masterpiece." Like, what do I know? But I have the feeling that if you lot stood in front of it, yous would get it. And apparently, Norman Rockwell was really inspired by Vermeer. He does things with lite. And that was something that continued with me at one point. When I looked at a Rockwell in the process of reporting this, I was similar, "Oh, that'southward Vermeer, that'due south light. I get it now." But I withal don't know what it would be like to see the shadow and the light cast across the floor next to the people singing. And that's the thing, I think, I'd most like to encounter.
JOHNSON: Steve?
KURKJIAN: Yeah, I think the painting that I would exist most interested in seeing of, I mean, this "Sea Of Galilee" is the only time he painted the sea, that Rembrandt painted the sea. He loved it and so much he painted — etched himself in hanging over the gunnels. And there were enough people who appreciated art and knew his work that they put a niggling edge up so that people didn't point at, put their finger on the canvas. But my — the one I desire to know most about is the Manet that was stolen from the Blue Room. And if you oasis't heard the second episode, in which we talk of the possibility of there being a theft inside the theft, that in fact the bad guys only idea they stole 12. In fact, information technology was — when, in fact, there was an extra painting stolen from the Blue Room and how that fits into this whole extraordinary hall of, you lot know, hall of con men, hall of mirrors, but also hall of masterpieces. This — information technology's extraordinary that that painting was stolen from a room where there are no signs of bad guys being in the room. Everywhere else, bad guys' footsteps are shown because the museum had a motion detector equipment installed. There is no footsteps of bad guys in that room. Yet, that room is missing the Manet. So that's the 1 I want to — that's the one I would like to, one if I could see, the Manet.
JOHNSON: Dave?
NADOLSKI: I was agape you were going to phone call my name. I got to tell you, my favorite painting is probably "Dogs Playing Poker."
JOHNSON: OK.
(Laughs.)
JOHNSON: Totally off-white, totally fair.
KURKJIAN: You see why nosotros dear this guy?
JOHNSON: I think we can get y'all a copy of that. I think that one is...
KURKJIAN: A reporter'south best source.
JOHNSON: Totally fair. I similar this question. What happens to stolen paintings in general? What kinds of lives do they have after they've been stolen? I always thought that they'd just go placed in Dr. Evil's lair above the sharks with light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation beams on their heads. Just how does this stuff exist in the real globe?
RODOLICO: And then information technology'south, information technology's, it goes back to, information technology'due south not what you remember, which is people who steal art are not, generally, are not fine art thieves. They're criminals. And stealing a painting is function of a portfolio of dealing drugs and dealing with weapons and things like that. And art is often just a commodity. It's kind of stupid to steal a Rembrandt. Like, there are a couple of actually good reasons to do information technology — to get yourself out of prison. Just you can't sell it. It's a lot smarter to steal from, I'yard, like, endorsing this. [Laughs.] If you lot want to steal a painting, get to your local gallery. Merely you don't want to steal a portrait. Yous know, you don't desire to steal something actually distinctive. And there are plenty people who steal paintings who understand that. Kelly and I talk a lot about, in the mornings about our Google alarm about art thefts. And 99 per centum of them is, somebody walked into a gallery, yous know, with a camera on them and ripped it off the wall. And they're trying to find the guy. That's a lot of fine art theft. And when they find them, they find them, you know, that — they have another criminal, they have a long criminal record. So, and and then sometimes, and I'll only add to that, in the U.S., it'southward not very common to steal from a major museum. In Europe, information technology's really common. And recall virtually how much more art they have, and think about the churches that they take that are full of art. And just broaden your definition of art — annihilation historical, annihilation that's unique, correct? So at that place's more an organized crime element to art theft in Europe, where there is a black marketplace and there is a ransom market. In the U.Southward., the Gardner heist is the total anomaly. There'south just really about nothing like it.
HORAN: Well, and to piggyback off what Jack said, I was astonished to learn in the class of our reporting that ISIS supports its mission past stealing art, past looting antiquities. So...
RODOLICO: And the Taliban did before them.
HORAN: And the Taliban did earlier it. And information technology's — you know, then one-time in the 1970s, what we saw across Europe were these, as Jack said, unprotected churches, poorly guarded museums, was art theft. And it kind of pierced this veil, I think. You know, I think of an award system. And I think we sort of call up of, y'all know, you don't — who would steal from a church? Who would steal from a museum? Just information technology began to happen. And art-napping as a term emerged as a affair. And the people who steal art we want to think of equally this kind of, you know, goatee-stroking Dr. No in his lair with his masterpiece. And really, the evidence shows that it'due south much cruder. It's not about the fine art. Information technology'south not about loving the art. It's about trading it equally a commodity. And if you were to sell information technology, yous would but get about 10 percent of the value. And as Jack said, I'grand not advocating. Only you would want to become for something that isn't very well-known — merely a tip.
(Laughs.)
JOHNSON: OK. So I take a last question from the audience here. Are there whatsoever surviving relatives of Isabella Stewart Gardner? If so, what do they think?
HORAN: I don't know what they think. Yeah, at that place are. There was a lovely human being, I think, I tried to get an interview with him. Jack, his name is Jack Gardner. Isabella Stewart Gardner'southward husband was named Jack. Her son, who died earlier he was 2, was named Jack. I don't know what they call up. I know that from my contact with the museum that they care deeply about Isabella Stewart Gardner'south legacy and that they want to see these works back. And they were very excited to know that nosotros were doing something that might assist in the effort to, at the very least, raise awareness of what these things await like so that on the off chance that someone sees it, they can say something.
JOHNSON: Thanks all for being here. Thank you to Kelly, Jack, Steve, Dave. Please give them a hand.
(Applause.)
Last Seenis a production from WBUR and The Boston Globe. Digital content was produced in partnership with The ARTery, WBUR's arts and culture team. Read more than on the Gardner heist from The Artery.
Source: https://www.wbur.org/lastseen/2018/11/19/last-seen-live
0 Response to "Sat Reading Passage 1 Is Adapted From Gardner Art Through the Ages"
Post a Comment