Boston’s Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum is known for its sprawling art collection, impressive architecture – and arguably the biggest art heists in history, only 35 years ago. The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum was robbed March 18, 1990, when two men stole 13 priceless works of art, including paintings like Rembrandt’s “Christ in the Storm On the Sea of Galilee,” Vermeer’s “Concert,” and an ancient, bronze, Chinese gu. The men, dressed in fake police uniforms, told the security guards that they were following up on a reported disturbance . The guards, against museum protocol, let them in through the employee entrance and then led them down to the basement; the men then restrained the guards for about five hours until real police officers arrived. This heist remains unsolved, with the Isabella Stewart Gardener Museum still offering a $10 million reward, with an extra $100,000 for leads to find a Napoleon-era eagle finial.
Ms. P, chair of the history department, teaches art history and knows all about the infamous heist. Her belief is that the robbery was very planned out and organized because the thieves could have stolen bigger or more expensive pieces of art, but they didn’t. The thieves were mostly targeting Rembrandt’s work, taking three of his paintings out of the 13 stolen works. “Rembrandt was a very recognizable painter,” says Ms. P. “The thieves were probably taking the art for someone else, maybe to use as a payment or trade offer. Like, they are probably still bouncing around an underground black market somewhere, which is probably why the pieces haven’t been found,” Ms. P theorizes. “They’ve probably been handed or traded off so many times that each piece of art is probably very, very far from the original thieves,”. “It also could’ve been a mafia job. I mean, the mafia was popular in the Boston area around that time, so they definitely could’ve had something to do with it,” she adds. .
The heist investigation is still a top-priority for r the FBI, even today. They’re still on the search for the pieces, but they haven’t found new leads since 2003. Many suggest that the art was destroyed or that it’s too much of a liability to sell. Ms. P speculated that “the person who stole the paintings would obviously not turn themselves in. However, if someone, like a grandchild, finds the art, then yes, maybe we would see them again,”. “I’m not sure if the art will ever be found,” Ms. P continues. “I would be surprised if they did find it.”
Ms. Liu, who also teaches in the history department and runs a class on museums, had similar and different answers to Ms. P.
One thing they disagreed on was whether the art would be found or not. While Ms. Liu is confident that at least some of the pieces will be found.
“Maybe we won’t find out where the art is now,” says Ms. Liu, “but I think that we definitely know where it has been, but the trail has been cold since 2003. I think that if the FBI had looked into the heist more immediately, then maybe they could have discovered more information, but obviously there were bigger priorities at the time.” Like Ms P., Ms. Liu think the heist is tied to the Boston mafia. .“The organized crime parties in Boston weres at least a little bit involved,” she believes.. “It seems like the art that the thieves took was so specific and planned out, it was like they were given a list. If it wasn’t directly a member of the mafia, I think that the thieves were definitely sent by them, and they at least know where it is now.”
Ms. Liu and Ms. P both agree that the art will be turned in. They both believe that since it’s been 30 years, the original thieves are either dead or in jail for other crimes. A common thread they mentioned was that maybe a distant relative like a cousin or grandchild would come forward with the art, though someone who was closer to the thieves may not reach out.
It’s surprising that now, 30 years after the heist, the art hasn’t turned up. . While the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum still offers a ten million dollar reward, it’s it might be a while before anyone comes through with a new lead. Ms. P’s comment here
