Upward Departure

Paul Collins writing in (or is it on?) Slate has an article about why a stolen Shakespeare first folio is “the lousiest loot in the world to steal.”

It’s mostly true - as I’ve been saying for some time now - that extremely rare and well-documented books are really hard to turn into cash. But a hot folio is not completely valueless.

There is a small market for high value (and heavily discounted) illicit works of art. And there is always the question of a commissioned theft (”Boy - I’d really love a first folio. I’ll pay someone to steal one.”) or ransom, neither of which is uncommon in art world crime. But the thief in this case is just remarkably ill-equipped for the task.  

As I’ve said before, it is archives theft that’s the real growth industry. Small and obscure items (many falling into the Americana category) are where the real money is. I only wish the guys doing that work were as clumsy as the Durham folio thief.  

And that more people were paying attention.

So here’s something. The recent Shakespeare folio news involving a theft from Durham University reminded me of a little episode from last year.

Readers of the UD will remember Paul William Powell, a book thief who was caught here in the US trying to sell, amongst other things, a 1746 Micrographia Illustrata. He stole that book from a bookshop in northeast England, near his home, in 2002.  

In England, Powell was given probation for the book theft and allowed to return to his home. He was from the Trimdon area of County Durham, ten miles from Durham University.

A few months ago I wrote that Jay Miller would be out of jail on October 21st. I also wrote that I’d let you know if it changed. Well, it changed.

He’s now due to be released on November 13, 2008.

Mr. Miller, in terms of emails sent to me by parties wishing to remain anonymous, has been by far the most popular subject I’ve written about. Though the subject of James Brubaker has generated more than a few emails, too.

Jeremy points us to this Daily Mail article. You really must see it.

This guy is shaping up to be my favorite book thief (or illicit book seller or whatever he turns out to be) of all. I don’t know what I like the best. The champagne and cigar? The account of his kitchen-table interrogation? The shirt? The eyebrows? That he’s engaged to a 21 year old dancer in Havana? (Okay, I admit, that’s my favorite.)

I can’t wait to find out what happens in this case. But nothing in this piece suggests to me that he was the one doing the stealing. It may yet be the case, but it won’t make any sense if it’s true.

Several people have mentioned to me the recent re-acquisition of an important Shakespeare first folio. Jeremy wrote about it (quoting a couple of English newspapers) yesterday and the Washington Post has an article on it today.

The story is this:

A 51 year old rare book dealer, identified as Raymond Scott, showed up unnanounced to the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C., with the book in hand, asking them to confirm its authenticity.

The Folger asked to hang on to it for a couple of days - and then a couple more. They not only verified its authenticity, but also that it was the one stolen (along with other items) from an English university a decade ago.  Scott was arrested at the home he shares with his mother in northeast England, fifteen minutes from the university in question.

The Washington Post article mentioned that, according to the police, there was a silver Ferrari in the parking lot and Armani suits in his closet. The London Telegraph reports that the Ferrari was the latest car, after a Lamborghini and Rolls Royce.

To me, these facts muddle rather than clarify Scott’s position in this crime.

He is a book dealer who lives with his mother. This is incongruous with the fact that he also appears to have rather oppulent tastes (and substantial means). And the fact that any dealer in illicit books and artworks knows the first rule of UD: you can’t profit from blockbuster thefts by selling on the open market.

If this guy was the thief - or even a man who regularly dealt in these sorts of stolen materials - why would he take the stolen, most important Shakespeare first folio in existence to the Folger Library? He would have to be pretty close to insane to think that some of the world’s foremost Shakespeare experts won’t notice.

So unless this guy is insane, it seems very unlikely that he was the thief. (Not to mention the fact that, if he was the thief, he probably wouldn’t need the thing authenticated.)

I’m guessing he came by this secondhand. Maybe from an insider theft.  Of course, my guesses are notoriously wrong.

I’ll let you know when I know. 

Some of the stuff that Brubaker stole is going back to its rightful owners. Some of it. (The book I’m currently writing deals with an incident where the great majority of the items stolen never made it back to the libraries from which they were taken. I’m afraid that will probably be true here.)

This if from the Government’s Motion for Order of Forfeiture:

“The United States will provide written notice to all third parties asserting a legal interest in the above-described property and will publish notice in newspapers of general circulation of the Court’s Order and the United States intent to dispose of the property…”

A couple of people have questioned when they would be getting their stuff back. I assumed it would be much later than this but it appears that was wrong.

On July 1, the court ordered US Marshals to gather “all books, maps, plates, illustrations, or other contraband bearing indicia of having been stolen, either by marking or evidence of removal of makring, being the proceeds or traceable to the proceeds of crimes in counts I, II, and III above, seized by law enforcement authorities on December 12, 2007, together with all records of disposition as to stolen items already transferred to third parties.” 

If you’ve had stuff stolen and want to make a claim, watch the newspapers. The Marshals will “publish at least once for three successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation notice of this Order” and their intent to dispose of the property to “any person, other than the defendants, having or claiming legal interest in any above-listed forfeited property.”

If you have such a claim, you “must file a petition with the Court within thirty (30) days of the final publication notice or of receipt of actual notice, whichever is earlier.”

If you have an attorney, you may want to contact him/her at this point.

So regular readers will know that I’m a big fan (and sometimes participant) of C-SPAN’s BookTV. As I was checking out the schedule today I noticed that one Edward Renehan, document thief, was scheduled to appear. On November 8, 2007, he spoke to a group of older folks in Tarrytown, New York, and the video of this event, I discovered, has been in the BookTV rotation.

I tuned in. Unfortunately, at the appointed time the show was preempted by that of author William Link talking about Righteous Warrior: Jesse Helms and the Rise of Modern Conservatism. I can’t decide if the replacement was due to Helms’ death or Renehan’s admission of guilt.

Either way, you can see Renehan here.

In honor of the Lester Weber plea, I dug up this old story from more than a year ago. It’s a local news report of the civil (so, in this case, pre-criminal) charges filed against the pair. With video.

That’s right, video.

See the Webers. (Okay, so I guess it’s technically Weber and Childs, though, according to federal documents I found, it used to be the Webers, back in 2000, while Weber (Lester, that is) worked in Iowa at the State Archives and Records Program.)

See the Weber House. (of which Fred once asked: “Have you seen the Weber house? I have, and it needs a lot of repair.”)

See the front of the Mariners’ Museum, slightly obsucured by sprinkling water.

See Lester tell us he’d never steal from his employer.

In case you’ve been wondering (considering the infrequency of posts), I’m not taking the summer off. I am, in fact, working harder than ever.

I am knee-deep into researching and writing another book, this one a little closer to home. I won’t reveal more about it until it’s closer to being done, but it is a crime that took place here at the University of Illinois (and a few other places).

In my posts, I often take note of the similarities of these crimes. So it was the uniqueness of this crime that drew me to it (and has sustained my interest). It also allowed me to do something that I’ve never done (and never thought a book crime would allow me to do): a walking tour.

Yesterday evening, I gave a tour of certain parts of the main library at Illinois, pointing out the places where this crime took place, and was foiled. I’ve done this on my own several times, of course, in an attempt to describe the crime. But this was the first time I’d done it with a group of people.

A month or so ago I mentioned the idea to the director of the Rare Book and Manuscript Library here as an evening event for students at the Midwest Book & Manuscript Studies. I thought they might find it interesting. She did too, and suggested we open it up to people who work at, and friends of, the library.

I expected about ten people to show up for the 7:30pm event, and was suprised to find that there were about thirty. It wasn’t perfect, because it was my first time doing it, but it was a lot of fun. The Q&A session afterward alone took 45 minutes.

So I get the impression people are interested in this crime, and these crimes in general. And not just any people, but library people. And that’s what we need more of.

Readers are clamoring for Brubaker updates, so here is the latest.

I mentioned that Brubaker agreed to plea guilty to counts 2 and 3, and now that plea has been accepted by the court. Sentencing is set for September 15th.

What happens now is the pre-sentence report.

The probation officer, by July 28th, will produce a document about Brubaker, his situation and the crime. Both parties will get a chance to object to anything in the report, which will then be read by the judge. (For those of you who read my book, you’ll remember Daniel Spiegelman’s lawyers objected to several little things in the PSR, including the mention of an earlier border crossing arrest. There are tons of minor details in the report that defense attorneys object to as prejudicial. The parties first get a chance to negotioate about what stays in or goes and then, ultimately, the judge decides.)

All objections to the report will be resolved by negotiation by August 11th, or by the judge by August 25th. Then each side’s sentencing memoranda will be turned in by August 28th. Then responses to the sentencing memos are due on September 4th. Then the judge will retire to chambers with the sentencing memos, responses and the PSR. Then we cross our fingers.