6 ms·

Trying to identify the thief using evidence from their return of the notebooks seems like it would discourage people in future from returning similar stolen obj

Trying to identify the thief using evidence from their return of the notebooks seems like it would discourage people in future from returning similar stolen objects. But I can understand not wanting the return of a stolen object to indemnify the thief, otherwise you’re encouraging “borrowing” things. Is there a general policy or thought on how to deal with this?

hwers 5y ago
Yeah if I were in a similar position in a future scenario and I found this story and it ended with public shaming and prison etc, then I'd just burn the thing instead of trying to return it.
- krisoft 5y ago
  > if I were in a similar position in a future scenario As in if you stole an invaluable cultural artefact? How often does that happen with you? How would it even happen once? > and I found this story and it ended with public shaming and prison You don't have to look at the end of this story. Thieves when caught end up punished. If there is some innocent explanation, then people don't end up in prison. But it is better be a very good one. > then I'd just burn the thing instead of trying to return it. And that makes you a terrible human being. Thank you for letting me know.
  - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
    It is entirely possible to find oneself implicated after the fact in an act one did not commit but did not speak up about, and then to feel more implicated through fear-paralysis inaction over a long period of time (through the guilt of not speaking up). This is why for example when the British police run public cold case campaigns they often stress that people might seek to come forward because "allegiances change" -- careful code that hints at leniency while seeking help from former co-inmates who have fallen out with the offender, spouses or abused partners leaving husbands, children escaping the control of malignant parents, etc., or people who have simply survived the now dead offender and are no longer terrified to speak. I would wager that many stolen objects are quietly destroyed by those who inherit them, rather than confront the difficulties returning them would involve.
  - II2II 5y ago
    The problem with innocent explanations is that they are usually impossible to prove. The problem with valuable artifacts, where there is both an incentive and history of theft, is that there is a tendency to presume guilt. Even if the innocent explanation is proven true in the end, the lives of those involved would probably be a living nightmare until it is resolved. Academic institutions are full of people who want to live a quiet life or build a reputation for the right reasons. They are full of people who come and go, most of which wouldn't know what they are looking at or whether it belonged there or not. Libraries and archives are among the few places that will properly inventory and catalogue what they have, and even the Cambridge University Libraries performed several searches to verify an error was not made on their end since it does happen. It may be unlikely, but I think that it is possible that the process for handling these materials failed somewhere and it took twenty years for someone to come across them. Their desire to drop them anonymously may have been for any number of reasons. Regardless of their reasons, I don't think that doing the right thing should be punished. I could also understand why someone would rather burn something than deal with a slow and possibly misdirected justice system.
    - krisoft 5y ago
      > I don't think that doing the right thing should be punished. I don't say that doing the right thing should be punished. I think the circumstances should be investigated and if it looks like someone did stole it that person or persons should be punished. > It may be unlikely, but I think that it is possible that the process for handling these materials failed somewhere and it took twenty years for someone to come across them. Sure and that is the innocent explanation. Are you saying that we shouldn't even investigate because there is a chance that it might be something innocent? Because that is what the original comment is asking about. > I could also understand why someone would rather burn something than deal with a slow and possibly misdirected justice system. I also can understand it. It still a terrible thing to do, and anyone who would do it I would consider a bad person.
- miniwark 5y ago
  Unfortunately this has effectively happened in the past. Artwork destroyed, not by the thief itself but by the mothers. By Artwork i mean Brueghel the Younger, Matisse, Monet, Picasso & Watteau. It was the case with Stéphane Breitweiser and Radu Dogaru mothers. The thieves were still caught but a part of history is definitely lost... So in the end it was more public shaming than just stilling! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St%C3%A9phane_Breitwieser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St%C3%A9phane_Breitwieser https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/jul/17/dutch-art-heist-paintings-burned https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/jul/17/dutch-a...
  - rob74 5y ago
    I was aware of the Radu Dogaru case, but not of Stéphane Breitwieser. And unfortunately the time he ultimately served (26 months, and 18 months for his mother - for stealing 239 artworks, of which 60 are still unaccounted for and presumed destroyed) does not really serve as an effective deterrent for future art thieves...
mannykannot 5y ago
My guess is that, to a person on the verge of stealing such an artifact, whether there is a policy of no investigation on safe return is near the last thing on their mind. A person acting on impulse isn't putting much effort at all into thinking it through, and the motivations and attention of someone who has planned the heist in advance are all focused in the opposite direction - they have already chosen on an action in which return plays no part. Therefore, I would lean towards there being no investigation, or at least no public investigation. The much trickier problem, not uncommon in art theft, is when the thief attempts to ransom the artifact.
- willcipriano 5y ago
  If they ever have a change of heart they may just decide to burn the evidence next time.
FiReaNG3L 5y ago
Thats assuming that the person that returned it is the same that stole it in the first place - I wouldn't be surprised if such an artefact has been sold a few times before finding someone decent that bought it to return it.
- sandworm101 5y ago
  >> someone decent that bought it to return it. Knowingly purchasing something in order to return it is never a good idea. More often than not it is in fact a crime. "I was going to return it" is not a good defense once they cops catch you in possession of a stolen object. One dark market is for known forgeries. Forged art, like counterfeit money, is illegal to own or sell. But some collectors want to collect forgeries. Some coin collectors enjoy fakes from legendary or uncaught master forgers more than they do legal coins. So there is a black market for such things. A 100$ bill is worth 100$. I wouldn't bother putting it in a frame. But a masterful fake 100$ is something very interesting imho. The fake can have a better story than the original.
  - robryk 5y ago
    > Forged art, like counterfeit money, is illegal to own or sell. Do you have a reference for that? At least in Poland that's explicitly not the case, and I'm curious how does that kind of legislation distinguish between a forgery and a replica.
OscarCunningham 5y ago
The logical policy would be to not use any evidence from the return, but to continue to allow investigation using the evidence from the theft. Of course most existing law enforcement agencies aren't trustworthy enough to credibly commit to this.
- mywacaday 5y ago
  I hope the person that returned them with the printed note is aware of the Hidden code in every printed page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Identification_Code?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Identification_Code?wp... I think they should be left alone for returning the notebooks. Personally speeking no artifact would be worth my own personal liberty or reputation regardless of how it was obtained. The return of lost artworks etc should be encouraged with an amnesty similar to gun/knife amnestys. If the items really are that important to society a reprocussion free return is worth it.
  - sandworm101 5y ago
    >> no artifact would be worth my own personal liberty or reputation regardless of how it was obtained. Exactly. But for many people possession of such artifacts is seen as protection against jail. Certain European organized crime figures have used the "return of cultural treasures" as a bargaining chip in plea negotiations. Possession of stolen art, or at least knowledge of where it is hidden, can reduce one's time in prison. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/magazine/what-is-the-value-of-stolen-art.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/magazine/what-is-the-valu... "A prison sentence, for instance, might be reduced in some jurisdictions in exchange for a criminal’s help in retrieving a missing Monet. In effect, an unframed canvas, easier to move across borders than its equivalent in cash or drugs, acts as a high-value and extremely pretty bank note." https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2020/10/13/steal-and-repeat-why-art-gets-stolen-time-and-again https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2020/10/13/steal-and-repeat-... "In other examples, it appears that anticipating the authorities catching up with them is exactly the reason why such prime works are appealing to criminals. “One thing I’m seeing more of is the use of such stolen works as a bargaining chip for [reducing] sentences,” says Robert Read, the head of art and private clients at Hiscox. “This trend was noted about a decade ago, but as sentencing gets more creative in the courtroom, it would appear that criminals are viewing it as more of an opportunity—in this case the more publicity and better known a work, the better.”"
jimnotgym 5y ago
Was it actually stolen though? Did a researcher take it to their office, mess up the paperwork to remove it, and was hit by a bus before they could return it. Do we even know when it went missing? It was discovered missing two decades ago, but was it in fact missing for longer but noone noticed? I can imagine someone finding it in an old cupboard when an old don died and being embarrassed that they didn't return it immediately, so they did this
- wging 5y ago
  The article mentions that they were taken out for photography in late 2000 and later noticed to be missing in 2001. That doesn’t make your idea impossible, but does mean we kind of know when they went missing.
starfleet_bop 5y ago
No good deed ever goes unpunished …

hwers 5y ago

Yeah if I were in a similar position in a future scenario and I found this story and it ended with public shaming and prison etc, then I'd just burn the thing instead of trying to return it.

krisoft 5y ago
> if I were in a similar position in a future scenario As in if you stole an invaluable cultural artefact? How often does that happen with you? How would it even happen once? > and I found this story and it ended with public shaming and prison You don't have to look at the end of this story. Thieves when caught end up punished. If there is some innocent explanation, then people don't end up in prison. But it is better be a very good one. > then I'd just burn the thing instead of trying to return it. And that makes you a terrible human being. Thank you for letting me know.
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago
  It is entirely possible to find oneself implicated after the fact in an act one did not commit but did not speak up about, and then to feel more implicated through fear-paralysis inaction over a long period of time (through the guilt of not speaking up). This is why for example when the British police run public cold case campaigns they often stress that people might seek to come forward because "allegiances change" -- careful code that hints at leniency while seeking help from former co-inmates who have fallen out with the offender, spouses or abused partners leaving husbands, children escaping the control of malignant parents, etc., or people who have simply survived the now dead offender and are no longer terrified to speak. I would wager that many stolen objects are quietly destroyed by those who inherit them, rather than confront the difficulties returning them would involve.
- II2II 5y ago
  The problem with innocent explanations is that they are usually impossible to prove. The problem with valuable artifacts, where there is both an incentive and history of theft, is that there is a tendency to presume guilt. Even if the innocent explanation is proven true in the end, the lives of those involved would probably be a living nightmare until it is resolved. Academic institutions are full of people who want to live a quiet life or build a reputation for the right reasons. They are full of people who come and go, most of which wouldn't know what they are looking at or whether it belonged there or not. Libraries and archives are among the few places that will properly inventory and catalogue what they have, and even the Cambridge University Libraries performed several searches to verify an error was not made on their end since it does happen. It may be unlikely, but I think that it is possible that the process for handling these materials failed somewhere and it took twenty years for someone to come across them. Their desire to drop them anonymously may have been for any number of reasons. Regardless of their reasons, I don't think that doing the right thing should be punished. I could also understand why someone would rather burn something than deal with a slow and possibly misdirected justice system.
  - krisoft 5y ago
    > I don't think that doing the right thing should be punished. I don't say that doing the right thing should be punished. I think the circumstances should be investigated and if it looks like someone did stole it that person or persons should be punished. > It may be unlikely, but I think that it is possible that the process for handling these materials failed somewhere and it took twenty years for someone to come across them. Sure and that is the innocent explanation. Are you saying that we shouldn't even investigate because there is a chance that it might be something innocent? Because that is what the original comment is asking about. > I could also understand why someone would rather burn something than deal with a slow and possibly misdirected justice system. I also can understand it. It still a terrible thing to do, and anyone who would do it I would consider a bad person.
miniwark 5y ago
Unfortunately this has effectively happened in the past. Artwork destroyed, not by the thief itself but by the mothers. By Artwork i mean Brueghel the Younger, Matisse, Monet, Picasso & Watteau. It was the case with Stéphane Breitweiser and Radu Dogaru mothers. The thieves were still caught but a part of history is definitely lost... So in the end it was more public shaming than just stilling! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St%C3%A9phane_Breitwieser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St%C3%A9phane_Breitwieser https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/jul/17/dutch-art-heist-paintings-burned https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/jul/17/dutch-a...
- rob74 5y ago
  I was aware of the Radu Dogaru case, but not of Stéphane Breitwieser. And unfortunately the time he ultimately served (26 months, and 18 months for his mother - for stealing 239 artworks, of which 60 are still unaccounted for and presumed destroyed) does not really serve as an effective deterrent for future art thieves...

mannykannot 5y ago

My guess is that, to a person on the verge of stealing such an artifact, whether there is a policy of no investigation on safe return is near the last thing on their mind. A person acting on impulse isn't putting much effort at all into thinking it through, and the motivations and attention of someone who has planned the heist in advance are all focused in the opposite direction - they have already chosen on an action in which return plays no part. Therefore, I would lean towards there being no investigation, or at least no public investigation. The much trickier problem, not uncommon in art theft, is when the thief attempts to ransom the artifact.

willcipriano 5y ago
If they ever have a change of heart they may just decide to burn the evidence next time.

FiReaNG3L 5y ago

Thats assuming that the person that returned it is the same that stole it in the first place - I wouldn't be surprised if such an artefact has been sold a few times before finding someone decent that bought it to return it.

sandworm101 5y ago
>> someone decent that bought it to return it. Knowingly purchasing something in order to return it is never a good idea. More often than not it is in fact a crime. "I was going to return it" is not a good defense once they cops catch you in possession of a stolen object. One dark market is for known forgeries. Forged art, like counterfeit money, is illegal to own or sell. But some collectors want to collect forgeries. Some coin collectors enjoy fakes from legendary or uncaught master forgers more than they do legal coins. So there is a black market for such things. A 100$ bill is worth 100$. I wouldn't bother putting it in a frame. But a masterful fake 100$ is something very interesting imho. The fake can have a better story than the original.
- robryk 5y ago
  > Forged art, like counterfeit money, is illegal to own or sell. Do you have a reference for that? At least in Poland that's explicitly not the case, and I'm curious how does that kind of legislation distinguish between a forgery and a replica.

OscarCunningham 5y ago

The logical policy would be to not use any evidence from the return, but to continue to allow investigation using the evidence from the theft. Of course most existing law enforcement agencies aren't trustworthy enough to credibly commit to this.

mywacaday 5y ago
I hope the person that returned them with the printed note is aware of the Hidden code in every printed page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Identification_Code?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Identification_Code?wp... I think they should be left alone for returning the notebooks. Personally speeking no artifact would be worth my own personal liberty or reputation regardless of how it was obtained. The return of lost artworks etc should be encouraged with an amnesty similar to gun/knife amnestys. If the items really are that important to society a reprocussion free return is worth it.
- sandworm101 5y ago
  >> no artifact would be worth my own personal liberty or reputation regardless of how it was obtained. Exactly. But for many people possession of such artifacts is seen as protection against jail. Certain European organized crime figures have used the "return of cultural treasures" as a bargaining chip in plea negotiations. Possession of stolen art, or at least knowledge of where it is hidden, can reduce one's time in prison. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/magazine/what-is-the-value-of-stolen-art.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/magazine/what-is-the-valu... "A prison sentence, for instance, might be reduced in some jurisdictions in exchange for a criminal’s help in retrieving a missing Monet. In effect, an unframed canvas, easier to move across borders than its equivalent in cash or drugs, acts as a high-value and extremely pretty bank note." https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2020/10/13/steal-and-repeat-why-art-gets-stolen-time-and-again https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2020/10/13/steal-and-repeat-... "In other examples, it appears that anticipating the authorities catching up with them is exactly the reason why such prime works are appealing to criminals. “One thing I’m seeing more of is the use of such stolen works as a bargaining chip for [reducing] sentences,” says Robert Read, the head of art and private clients at Hiscox. “This trend was noted about a decade ago, but as sentencing gets more creative in the courtroom, it would appear that criminals are viewing it as more of an opportunity—in this case the more publicity and better known a work, the better.”"

jimnotgym 5y ago

Was it actually stolen though? Did a researcher take it to their office, mess up the paperwork to remove it, and was hit by a bus before they could return it. Do we even know when it went missing? It was discovered missing two decades ago, but was it in fact missing for longer but noone noticed? I can imagine someone finding it in an old cupboard when an old don died and being embarrassed that they didn't return it immediately, so they did this

wging 5y ago
The article mentions that they were taken out for photography in late 2000 and later noticed to be missing in 2001. That doesn’t make your idea impossible, but does mean we kind of know when they went missing.

starfleet_bop 5y ago

No good deed ever goes unpunished …