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?
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.
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.
>> 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.
"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."
"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.”"
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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...
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
Oops, mislaid it and my library card, sorry about the late fee...
Speaking of 'thefts' from university libraries, I remember back from my undergraduate days there was a crackdown following apparent losses (unfindable books apparently checked in) wherein the uni instituted a big upgrade in physical security, personnel, entry/exit scanners and book tags, unopenable windows - particularly sweltering in summer. Still, after some weeks more books were going missing. Head of Informatics looked into it, and quickly spotted the problem - they were using a default admin password on their VAX library management software, and it had been passed around liberally. He further needed to explain to them how easy it would be to virtually check-in a physically checked-out book, or just delete the reservation record, before they understood.
The brown paper bag being laser printed really cuts down the field of who could have done it... A paper bag won't go through a typical home laser easily... and if it does, it will leave dents in the transfer roller with the folds of the bag, identifying it.
I'm gonna guess it's an insider... And there is probably a managed commercial printer in the building which will have a job log showing who printed it...
Most commercial printers leave yellow microdots too...
That's a standard, brown A4 envelope. A standard inkjet or laser will print on them without any problems. The printers I have can accommodate them with no problems. If it's a top feed economy laser printer, it's even easier for them.
Black/White lasers don't insert microdots most of the time. Also looks like it's printed in economy mode, so tracking it would be very hard, if not impossible.
I’d assume an insider took it, forgot they had it, and recently they (or perhaps their child) realised what it was.
But as for how it could’ve been laser printed, my experience of Cambridge is a nerd density similar to Hacker News, so I wouldn’t rule out someone making their own laser printer, nor someone using the Cambridge Makespace laser cutter on a really low power and dusting toner on by hand (would that even work?), nor something else equally ridiculous by normal people standards.
It’s the cling film they were wrapped in that makes me sure they we outside the building.
My theory, an academic “forgot” they had “borrowed” them. Probably found a innocent broke student to deposit the package outside the office in the library in exchange for a sandwich. They will certainly have cctv of the person returning it.
Alternative that seems at least equally likely to me: a student took them, either as a stupid dare/prank or with the thought that they could sell them; then realised they had no idea how to go about fencing such an item, and stashed them away; now, 20+ years later, they've finally grown-up enough to decide that they're never going to make a fortune selling them, and should do the decent thing by returning them unharmed.
If that's the case, the cling-film may be 20 years old, which is probably something analysis can establish.
Or, the academic who took them eventually died; in sorting through their stuff, their heirs realised what this was and wanted to return them, but didn't want anyone's name dragged into it.
In that scenario, the cling-film is more likely recent, just used to package them for returning.
> My theory, an academic “forgot” they had “borrowed” them.
Or genuinely meant to borrow them for some reason, but couldn't be assed with the process involved. Maybe it had been mentioned to someone who worked in the library at the time who was a friend, nudge and a wink and I'll get them back next quarter.
6 months passes, the friend moved jobs and no longer have an easy route of return. Ignore the problem until it's far too late to solve in any useful way.
Economist and author Anja Shortland of King's College London talks about her new book, Lost Art, with EconTalk host Russ Roberts. When a famous painting disappears into the underworld of stolen art, how does it make its way back into the legitimate world of auction houses and museums? Drawing on the archives of a private database of stolen objects--the Art Loss Register--Shortland discusses the economics of the art world when objects up for sale may be the result of theft.
Also the Menil Collection's Byzantine Chapel:
Mrs. de Menil, who resolved to rescue the frescoes, which were purportedly being sold on behalf of an art dealer. Provenance research revealed Cyprus as their place of origin and, with this knowledge in hand and permission from the Orthodox Church of Cyprus, the Menil purchased the frescoes on behalf of the Church. The Menil subsequently entered into a formal agreement with the Church, which granted permission to restore the frescoes (a three-year process), resulting in a long-term loan of the works
