Thank you for taking the time to read TheArtworkStory.com's emails about Mary's 1991/1992 art encounters with a billionaire and how it connects to the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum's 1990 art heist and the James Bourlot & Sons 1991 art storage/warehouse fire (over $100+ million destroyed - 1991 value) (read about it here).

Not sure if it is a matter of you not believing the story being shared or just not knowing how to help. We are reaching out to you for your assistance. We hope that you spent some time researching the crimes involved that we are discussing.

When you read the news articles on the 1990 art heist and see the theories being reported, the theories are based on hearsay and most of the hearsay if from  known criminals/mafia members. Not only are these unproven theories reported on, but because they are reported is probably why most of you struggle with what we are presenting. Because you never see the art heist theories from Suzanne about Mary's encounters which are presented at TheArtworkStory.com (since 2010) in the news.

The theories presented by Suzanne at TheArtworkStory.com include facts with supporting documents.

They are just as worthy to be heard as the reported statements from mobsters or people whom deal with mobsters. Seems as if these mafia-mobster statements are the only statements the news wants to report on. Statements that can't be fact checked any better than the statements being made by Suzanne at TheArtworkStory.com.

If the news actually reported Suzanne's theories, would others come forward with more information that could help solve not only this case but other art crime cases as well? One group might be Cambridge University and their stolen Charles Darwin notepads on the origins of life. Cambridge University got their drawings mysteriously returned. They 100% know who the thief is.

All the art heist theories the media reports on the FBI and museum won't respond to deny or confirm and yet the news still reports the unproven theories. Suzanne's theory and Mary's encounters deserve to be heard equally as the unproven ones being reported on. Isn't that called fair and balanced news reporting?

Suzanne's theory comes from her mother's encounters and lots of research; knowing what she knows from her mother's encounters and what the media has reported on. Remember the heist was supposedly ordered by someone very wealthy. It is claimed the mobsters were paid at least $500k sometime in the late 1980s.

From her mother's encounters Suzanne had found the wealthy person and his questionable art behavior prior to ever discovering the art heist. Suzanne solved the art heist from the artwork sold to her mother Mary by Mr. Koch. So if you put together the story of Mary's encounters with a billionaire and with the media reports of the mobsters connection one could make the following theory:

The mobsters were paid to do the heist and the billionaire that hired them decided he shouldn't risk his precious artwork in the hands of the mobsters. Maybe the dealings started to go south before the heist. He might have grown concerned that they might decide they want more money once they are in possession of the artwork or some other concern of dealing with mobsters.

The billionaire that paid the mobsters was David Koch. When David grew concerned over dealing with the mafia mobsters. David had his brother William convince Frederick to do the heist. It was a way for William and Frederick to make right for the $300+ million Frederick (William received even more) had just received from suing brothers David and Charles. (read about it here) Frederick showed much remorse by visiting with and selling Mary artwork that is why the theory is he did the heist for someone else vs for himself. Including the letter written to the museum in 1994 in an attempt to return the artwork.

According to the media, the bird finial wasn't the target, it was the flag the finial was attached to. The flag of the first regiment of the Imperial Guard of Napoleon I. "They began removing screws for a frame displaying a Napoleonic flag, likely an effort to steal the flag. They appeared to have given up partway through.... (read about it here)

If Donati did in fact have the finial, a theory could be if the Koch brothers carried out the heist and didn't let the mobsters do the heist, the mobsters might not have been to happy their street cred would look bad if anyone found out they didn't do the heist - so one of the Koch brothers gave Donati the finial as a peace offering. Go show you have the finial and the streets will believe you did the heist. This method also keeps all investigative eyes on Donati and the billionaires worry less about being caught.

In today's culture of fair and balanced reporting, why can't Suzanne and Mary's side of the story be reported on too?

Alexander Calder | Camille Bombois |  Édouard Manet | Jane Peterson | Jim Cassel | Kees van Dongen |  Pablo Picasso | Vincent van Gogh

© 1991-2024 The Artwork Story, All rights reserved.

You have received this email because you have subscribed to The Artwork Story as . If you no longer wish to receive emails please unsubscribe.