|
Double Speak
Double Think
Double Plus Ungood For You
 By Kerry Joyce July 2, 2025 With Soviet era servility the Boston Globe began their front-page coverage of the story by reporting that: "Federal investigators, in an unprecedented display of confidence that the most infamous art theft in history will soon be solved, said Monday that they know who is behind the Gardner Museum heist 23 years ago and that some of the priceless artwork was offered for sale on Philadelphia’s black market as recently as a decade ago."Eight days later, however, the Boston Globe, in an unsigned editorial, contradicted the Boston Globe's own characterization of the press conference in their reporting. "Whether this is an expression of confidence or desperation is anyone's guess," they wrote. Twelve years and over a hundred Boston Globe newspaper articles later, in addition to a ten-episode Boston Globe podcast, Last Seen and a four-episode Boston Globe Netflix documentary (This Is A Robbery), and absolutely nothing to show for it in terms of progress in the FBI's investigation, what can we conclude? Was this FBI announcement, an act of desperation or of confidence? There were definite signs of desperation by the FBI at the press conference. Their progress report's most recent and definitive date concerned the possibly sighting of some stolen Gardner art "about ten years ago." Why the ten-year wait? Subsequent stories said the information had been brought to the FBI's attention three years earlier. OK then, why the three-year wait? And anyway, the Boston Globe had already done a front-page story about how the "federal officials investigating the 1990 Gardner Museum heist plan to launch a public awareness campaign similar to the one that led to last year’s arrest of James 'Whitey' Bulger," while the FBI and the Gardner Museum could not even be bothered to say anything about it.  "Museum officials would not comment for this article. But Amore sounded optimistic recently at a lecture at the Plymouth Public Library when he said he believed the works will be found," the Globe reported. Desperate too was the bureau's claim of knowing the identity of the thieves, but refusing to name them. DesLauriers said that knowing the identity of thieves was "opening other doors"Wouldn't sharing that information with the public open even more additional doors? The utter lack of any tangible progress in the twelve years since the 2013 press conference, would seem to indicate that the event had not been a prelude to an anticipated dramatic break in the case, at least one from the government or investigative side of things. DesLauriers did say that "with today's announcement we begin the final chapter..." But that was twelve years ago in a case that is 35 years old. As of today, the final chapter spans over one third of the time that the FBI has been investigating it, and with little promise of it being resolved any time soon. In terms of recovering the art, far from being something the FBI was desperate about, the FBI has shown time and again, that it is not something they are desperate about all. Consistently, the FBI had demonstrated they had other priorities concerning the case than apprehending the criminals certainly, or even recovering the art.In the 2005 Gardner heist documentary, Stolen, William Youngworth complained: "The FBI takes this public posture that 'listen we just want the stuff back and we don't really care how it comes back.' That's not true. I mean I have sat there behind closed doors and they only have one agenda the only thing they want is names," and "they want an informant, more than they want the art back." adding, "They give people passes for 19 murders, you know, we're only talking about some pictures here." Youngworth may have a point. There have been at least three known attempts by individuals to strike a deal for the major pieces of the Gardner art, and in all three cases, the FBI has been credibly accused of interfering with a return. One involved a ransom note the museum received in 1994. Another was the case of the French criminals who offered to broker a deal for some of the stolen Gardner art, which they claimed was held by Corsican gangsters, and a third was when William Youngworth offered to return the art but on advice of counsel, demanded that he be given immunity from prosecution for anything related to the Gardner heist, a condition the feds refused to accept, for Youngworth, while then extending a similar offer to Myles Connor twelve years later: "For years convicted art thief Myles J. Connor Jr. boasted that he knew who committed the brazen art heist at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in 1990 and could help recover the masterpieces," the Boston Globe reported March 15, 2010. "Last summer, federal prosecutors decided to find out if he actually knew anything." "They gave Connor and a longtime friend, Edward J. Libby, letters of immunity that promised to shield them from criminal charges if they helped recover the 13 stolen paintings and artwork, according to Connor, Libby, and Robert A. George, a Boston criminal defense lawyer who engineered the agreement." "But once again Connor came up empty-handed."The immunity was extended to Connor in 2009, the same year Connor signed a deal with Harper Perennial (A division of Harper Collins) to write a book about his lifetime of criminal exploits. Called The Art Of The Heist, it was published in 2010. It seems that the feds were desperate, but not for anything related recovering the stolen Gardner Museum, but as always for control of their false Gardner heist narrative. What about confident? Was the FBI's press conference "an unprecedented display of confidence," the case would soon be solved? The FBI did show a tremendous amount of confidence. Not that "a recovery was imminent," however, but that DesLauriers, the SAIC of the FBI's Boston office, could safely step outside of the FBI's official and false Gardner heist narrative, like an astronaut leaving his spaceship to make needed repairs to the outside of his craft, and deliver a real world message to the Gardner heist thieves, and the public, and then go right back to business as usual that very same day with their old pre-press conference narrative, confident in their power to switch narratives as effortlessly as shifting gears in a Maserati, without any grinding push back from the news media. While DesLauriers was making his announcement, that day, the Gardner heist lead investigator, Geoff Kelly, mingled with favored reporters gathered there that same day and continued to promote and perpetuate the official story the FBI had been developing, revising and perfecting over the previous dozen or so years. At the time of the 25th anniversary in 2015, Anthony Amore Stealing Rembrandts co-author Tom Mashberg wrote that "Two years ago, at a news conference in Boston aimed at drumming up leads in the case, Mr. Kelly and Mr. Amore outlined this theory, that it was the handiwork of a bumbling confederation of Boston gangsters and out-of-state Mafia middlemen, many now long dead."So, while FBI Boston's SAIC said one thing at from the podium, while at the same press conference, the Gardner heist lead investigator, Geoff Kelly was working the room, and disseminating a "theory" that contradicted what DesLauriers had just said. "From my reading of this [Fox News] article, retired Norfolk County prosecutor Matt Connolly wrote in the Patriot Ledger," "the FBI is still wandering around in the dark looking for a candle. [More like keeping people in the dark with something they're calling a candle.] FBI Agent Geoffrey Kelly said that because the paintings were sliced out of the frames 'that’s indicative of a rank amateur when it comes to art theft.' How does that square with knowing the identity of the thieves?" Connolly wrote. [The Fox News article quoted DesLauriers as saying that "we have identified the thieves who are members of a criminal organization with a base in the mid-Atlantic states and New England." "If you know who the thieves are, you know whether they are amateurs or not," he continued."Kelly also said about two of the thieves. 'They were clever in how they got into the museum, but the working profile points to inexperienced art thieves.' It seems to me if you know who they are you don’t have a 'working profile.' You know what their experience is." "I’m cynical not so much because the FBI, like the gangsters, treats truth like an overcoat to be used only when necessary," Connolly added. "It’s because as Joe Friday would say, 'the facts don’t add up.'"What was the precipitating event, which caused DesLauriers to step outside of the FBI's own alternate reality, and make this announcement, one that was significantly at odds with had been the official narrative of the case in recent years, continued to be the official narrative for Geoff Kelly in speaking with Fox News and with Tom Mashberg of the New York Times that day, and remains the official narrative to this day? Most likely it was the emergence of Rick Abath as a public figure in the Gardner heist story, after 23 years, of hiding in the shadows, and being shielded from public scrutiny in the news media. Deciding to go public, of his own volition, his motivation, he said, was "to gain publicity for a book he is writing about the robbery," Abath had done an interview with the Boston Globe. The article appeared in the Globe only four days before the FBI's press conference. It contained some troubling information about the FBI investigation like: “'After 19 years of not hearing a word from the people charged with the task of solving the Great Museum Robbery, they popped up; they wanted to talk,' Abath wrote in the manuscript he shared," the article stated. But it contained more concerning information about Abath, and his possible involvement in the case, courtesy of the FBI: "After 23 years of pursuing dead ends, including a disappointing search of an alleged mobster’s home last year, investigators are focusing on intriguing evidence that suggests the former night watchman [Abath] might have been in on the crime all along — or at least knows more about it than he has admitted," Stephen Kurkjian wrote. In addition to the interview with the Boston Globe which was turned into an FBI sourced hit piece on him, Abath had earlier also done an interview at CNN headquarters in New York City, on February 21, 2013. Though it would not air until March 20, 2013, two days after the FBI's press conference, Abath's interview was known to Kurkjian. He had participated in the same Anderson Cooper 360 news segment on the case, and in a public appearance in Cohasset, MA in 2024 claimed that he was the one who had set up the Richard Abath with the CNN interview.In addition, Kurkjian, as he himself admitted in his book, was in the habit of sharing information about the case, which he came upon with the FBI. In describing his frustration in trying to find out what FBI the press conference was going to be about he complained that "a previously helpful investigator, with whom I had been sharing information on the case for what seemed like ages, suddenly distanced himself from me." The fact that the FBI was suddenly taking an interest in Abath's possible culpability, and that Kurkjian is the one reporting it, right before their press conference, is a pretty strong indicator that the FBI knew about CNN's interview with Abath, and that they knew it from Kurkjian. What's more, Kurkjian and the Boston Globe deliberately concealed the information that Abath had done a CNN interview, in this news story, which featured the FBI suddenly casting aspersions on Abath. That knowledge puts the FBI's sudden interest in Abath's culpability after 23 years of protecting him, and mostly ignoring him in a somewhat different light.Not only did Kurkjian not report the existence of the interview, but in the photo caption, that accompanied the news story it says that the photo was taken in an "undisclosed location." It was obviously taken the taken the same days as the CNN interview, and most likely at CNN headquarters, unless Joe's coffee shop in the lobby of Times Warner Center didn't want their name used for some reason. He is wearing the same pressed shirt; his hair and beard are identical in the Boston Globe photo and in the CNN interview.  In addition, that is not what Abath told the Boston Police, who interviewed Abath first: "The victim states that after gaining entry the suspects told the victim they were responding to a call for the kids outside the building." Boston Police report (page 4 of 7). DesLauriers gave Abath a mulligan, and let him change his story. But now Geoff Kelly, the former guard lead investigator, in his retirement and with Abath now deceased told the Boston Globe that he is convinced Abath was involved. "He said Abath had given his two-week notice around the time of the theft, and must have taken the Manet since he was the only one who entered that gallery." And that was before the thieves even showed up. So, Kelly is saying he is convinced that Abath was in on it based on information the FBI had in 1990, which had been reported in the Boston Herald in 2009, and other news outlets since. If Kelly is convinced in 2025, based on information that was known in 1990 then Kelly was convinced in 2013 as well. The only conclusion is that they waited until he died because they were afraid of what Abath might say. And if they were afraid of him in 2023, they were afraid of him in 2013, and in 1990. And if they were protecting Abath, they are protecting the other thieves also.The day after the press conference, DesLauriers said to Emily Rooney in an interview on WGBH: "We're not in a position to identify those responsible, Emily.""Why not?" Rooney asked. "Because it would hinder our ongoing investigation. It would hinder our ability to vet new information and to analyze new information as it is coming in." After over a dozen years, this is clearly not a plausible explanation. The real reason must be because the identity of the thieves is classified information. As they did with Abath, when he behaved himself, and until he went public on his own voluntarily 23 years later, they are protecting the identities of the other thieves. |
Copyright © 2025 All Rights Reserved kerry@gardnerheist.com