Talk:Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum theft

FBI agent Geoff Kelly update on the case
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2013/march/reward-offered-for-return-of-stolen-gardner-museum-artwork/special-agent-geoff-kelly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.11.90 (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Rick Abath
Why does the article name one guard, but not the other? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is the only name mentioned in the sources. However, due to WP:BLP, we may want to consider removing the name. TarkusAB  10:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * That's my point. Why do all the sources out there never mention Guard #2?  That seems quite odd.  And, as far as Abath, why remove his name?  And what BLP concerns?  His name has been quite "out there" for a long time.  And he himself gave interviews on TV, etc., about all of this.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Update: I see that the second guard is now identified and widely available in reliable sources: Randy Hestand.  Apparently, after all this time of maintaining his silence, he has started talking to the press, media, etc.  He is listed in the article now.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum theft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160624024938/https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/vc_majorthefts/arttheft/isabella/ to https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/vc_majorthefts/arttheft/isabella/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160624024938/https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/vc_majorthefts/arttheft/isabella/ to https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/vc_majorthefts/arttheft/isabella/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum theft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/ripped.html?c=y&page=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150915152819/https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2013/march/reward-offered-for-return-of-stolen-gardner-museum-artwork/image/hi-res to https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2013/march/reward-offered-for-return-of-stolen-gardner-museum-artwork/image/hi-res
 * Added tag to https://www.fbi.gov/boston/press-releases/2013/fbi-provides-new-information-regarding-the-1990-isabella-steward-gardner-museum-art-heist

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Robbery
It wasn't so much a theft as a robbery, actually. I believe we should rename to Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum robbery. EEng 05:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Most sources call it a heist, but maybe that's too poetic. You can move however you wish. TarkusAB talk 09:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's definitely more of a "robbery" than a "theft". (And, it's certainly a "heist".)  A "theft" implies that someone just took some things (almost akin to a burglary), behind someone's back, without anyone knowing, without "encountering" anyone ... but a "robbery" implies use of force and violence in order to steal the items.   In other words, it's the difference between stealing from an unattended museum (while it was empty and no one was there) ... versus encountering the guards and stealing the items after harming/threatening the guards.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

"Investigation of the Boston Mafia" section
While the added information is of course appreciated, this section is severely -- almost grotesquely -- overdetailed and rambling. For example, this passage:
 * David Turner was another associate of Guarente[104] Turner and Stephen Rossetti were frequent visitors to Guarente's weekend estate in Madison, Maine.[87] In the months before and after the theft, the Massachusetts State Police were watching Turner because of his suspected involvement in trafficking cocaine through the Dorchester garage.[105] In March 1990, just days before the heist, Turner drove to Florida to pick up a large amount of cocaine.[106] On March 15, Turner's credit card was used to purchase hundreds of dollars in merchandise from Florida shops specialized in electronic equipment for monitoring police communications that could determine if someone was targeted for surveillance.[107][108] His credit card was used next on March 20 to rent a car in Fort Lauderdale. His signature was used but not his social security number, suggesting that someone other than Turner may have been using his credit card.[108] Turner was back in Boston at least a few days after the robbery.[109]In 1992, Merlino and another associate Pappas were arrested for cocaine trafficking.[110] Pappas told authorities about Turner's involvement in several break-ins but did not mention the Gardner heist.[111] Merlino asked Turner to try and recover the stolen paintings, but Turner said he could not locate them, only saying he heard they were in a church in South Boston but could not find them.[111]Merlino began devising new schemes when he was freed from jail.[112] He organized the heist of an armored van headquarters building. Involved were Merlino, his nephew, Turner, Stephen Rossetti, and FBI informant Anthony Romano.[113] Because of information Romano gathered, the men were all arrested in a sting operation the morning of the planned robbery.[114] Turner was convinced the FBI let the plot proceed so they could arrest him to pressure him for information about the Gardner paintings. He maintained he did not know anything.[115] The men were sent to prison in 2002, with particularly long sentences because their robbery equipment included a hand grenade.[115] Turner's expected release from jail is in 2025.[116]

I believe there are two sentences in there related to the Gardner robbery. The rest should be condensed to one or two sentences giving context. This reads like a true-crime book or New Yorker piece. EEng 02:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback and I agree that it is overly detailed. I added the tag there so people know it's a work in progress...in progress of reduction, not expansion though. I also still have to go through Boser's book this weekend, probably Saturday. So the page should be much tidier by the end of the weekend. (Trying to get the page to FA for 30th anniversary in March). TarkusAB talk / contrib 02:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess the next step is dispute resolution or 3rd opinion or arbitration and I'll have you know that ... Oh wait... You agree... Well then... Good to know, sounds like this new material should really improve the article once it's properly massaged. EEng 02:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

In Popular Culture
After reviewing WP:IPC, I think the "In popular culture" section here should be removed. The concerns I have are that items are either (1) poorly sourced indicating lack of significance (2) non-fiction works which we are not cultural references though could be put under further reading if deemed reliable or (3) minor references with no real significance. Does anyone take concern with me removing this section? TarkusAB talk / contrib 17:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm in the California blackout/fire zone so I'm a little busy right now fighting off fires, wolves, and looters, but first I want to say I'm really glad you're doing so much to improve this article. Here's a criterion re inpopcult content I've been pushing for several years:
 * A fictional or semifictional portrayal of an article's subject is worth noting or discussing in the article on that subject to the extent that reliable secondary sources demonstrate that the portrayal either (a) had a significant effect on the subject or (b) adds to an understanding of the subject itself, or of the subject's place in history or popular perception.
 * (And here's a discussion of applying that standard in the context of a particular article: Talk:Lobotomy/Archive_2.) Based on this none of the current inpopcult material can stand, except maybe the Simpsons thing, depending on the content of the Herald piece. EEng 23:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also a thank you for all the good work. I'm in the 'keep' the section mindset, per "...adds to an understanding of the subject itself, or of the subject's place in history or popular perception." The section's fairly well-sourced entries showcases the popular perception and notoriety of this robbery, the major paintings taken, and the Gardner itself (with its sort-of-iconic empty frames). Especially notable are the cultural references to Rembrandt's Storm painting which, when recovered, may gain the same status as the Mona Lisa when it was recovered after an early notable theft that then grew, once it returned, into a notorious theft and upped the world-wide popularity and consciousness of what had been an important but much-less notable painting. Maybe a few edits, but most of the items in the section seem fine for the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * But you're overlooking the "requirement" (as stated above -- and remember that what's above is just my personal text, not an actual guideline) that reliable secondary sources demonstrate that the portrayal etc etc. In other words, we'd want (for example) a book on heist films saying, "For ten years few people outside Boston residents and art groupies knew about the Gardner robbery; but Knocking Over Mrs. Gardner's House changed all that." Except for the Simpson's episode (and I'm not saying even that's worth including) everything mentioned in the section now is merely cited to itself i.e. it exists. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As an essay WP:IPC itself isn't a requirement. Yet in this case not just The Simpsons but The Blacklist episode and others are adequately secondarily sourced (Boston Herald, etc.). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * They are adequately sourced but not culturally significant enough to deem a mention IMO. You can see the Simpsons clip here starting at 0:40. The robbery is mentioned and the paintings are shown for no more than 30 seconds. If the entire episode was about the robbery I'd want to mention it but this cameo carries no significance. The Herald is grabbing onto these stray mentions because the robbery is so rarely mentioned in pop culture. TarkusAB talk / contrib 13:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So Mr. Burns had the paintings! We should have known by the cut of his jib. The Blacklist mention is a good source and was a key plot point in the episode, and the other sourced brief but important popular culture items are notable in that the theft is notable. These sourced items certainly add to the 'popular perception' language favored by EEng. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree. If someone comments on all these references, then we can import that commentary into the article: "Media critic X has pointed out that the robbery is sufficiently well known that it is referenced in ..." etc etc. What we had in the article is just a bunch of random popcult references that Wikipedia editors happened to run into. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 21:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I trimmed the list down to only those with reliable secondary source mentions. TarkusAB talk / contrib 14:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The Drunk History exploration of the robbery seems a major cultural mention. WP:IPC is an essay, and not a policy or guideline, and not all popular culture mentions need a source or it would remove major things like this, so at least the obviously vertifiable Drunk History mention should stay. Just watched the ipod six-and-a-half minute summary, nice, thanks for calling attention to it. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The Drunk History exploration of the robbery seems a major cultural mention – Oh come on, RK! <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 21:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Even though comedy, Drunk History is one of the only shows on television (aside from PBS and other factual broadcasts) which delves into at least some historical events. It presents segments of history that many of its viewers (who probably tune in to see drunk people talk and others act out the words) have never heard of. So yes, it is a major cultural mention. Not Earthshakingly major, but tells the story to an audience who may be surprised at the enormity of this robbery. Can't wait for the hopefully upcoming series High History, which may have a different take on it. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess we have different ideas of major. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 22:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "not all popular culture mentions need a source"...since when? WP:IPC is an essay but WP:VER is a guideline. If it is a major cultural mention, then surely a newspaper or magazine would have written a story about it (no trivial mentions!). I can't find any that did. TarkusAB talk / contrib 14:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 100% behind this. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 21:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Have separated the books into a 'Further reading' section as suggested above, a good idea which probably shouldn't be controversial. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

State of the article
As I've said before, I'd like to bring the article to FA status and the main page for the 30th anniversary in March. As of now I think it's looking pretty good but there are some omissions. The Corsica lead written about in Wittman's book and discussed on Last Seen is not here, no mention of the Florida dig that lead to a septic tank, and Boser goes into some Bulger/IRA details not documented here, but I'm unsure how important these stories are to FA status on this article. The largest FBI investigation and most discussed is surrounding the Dorchester gang, which is documented here. Do people think it's ready for FAC? What concerns do people have? TarkusAB talk / contrib 16:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Take it from The Wise One. Don't bother with FA; you will come to tears, I assure you. Just make the article as good as you can and be be satisfied with the warm inner glow that comes from doing a job well. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 23:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Statute of limitations
I believe that I have read that they cannot prosecute the robbers, even if they are found, due to the statute of limitations expiring. Does anyone know for sure? If true, that info should be placed into the article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * OK. I found the info in the article.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually that's a simplistic analysis. In practice there's almost always some way to get at things like this e.g. continuing to conceal the location of the stolen property is an ongoing crime, that sort of thing. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 05:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I believe that you are exactly right about that. "They" (the FBI or the authorities) cannot arrest anybody for the actual robbery/theft per se, due to the statute of limitations.  But, they might be able to go with an "ongoing" and "current" crime, such as "possession of stolen goods" (or some such).  Good point.  Thanks.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Did the thieves know or do anything about the man-trap?
There is a two-door system that the uniformed thieves passed through. Sometimes this is called a man-trap because once someone enters the first door and closes it, they are trapped until someone in the secured area (past the second door) lets them out (in one direction or the other). When the uniformed thieves opened the first door, they would see the second and know they were entering a man trap. Well, all indications are that knew this head of time. But, this seems like an extremely risky thing to do without absolute knowledge that they would definitely be buzzed pass the second door, OR if they could make a contingency exit through the first door. So, what was their guarantee to be buzzed past the second door? If they had none, would it be possible to watergate the first door? OR, were they just that dumb? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.46.31 (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Apparently, one of the guards trapped himself, as the guard station was set up in the "trap". The thieves were let into a locked foyer that separated the side door from the museum. They approached Abath at his desk and asked if anyone else was in the museum and to bring them down; Abath radioed Hestand to return to the security desk--Quisqualis (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)