http://museum-security.org/
NOVEMBER 14, 1997


CONTENTS:




Youngworth wins round in court
Figure in arts talks won't face key charge

By Stephen Kurkjian, Globe Staff, 11/13/97
Superior Court Judge Isaac Borenstein yesterday threw out a habitual-offender indictment that would have resulted in a Randolph antiques dealer being sentenced to 15 years in prison and would have jeopardized hopes of gaining his cooperation for the return of priceless artwork stolen from the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum. Although that indictment has been dropped, William P. Youngworth III is still scheduled to be sentenced in Norfolk Superior Court today for possession of a stolen motor vehicle. However, District Attorney Jeffrey A. Locke said he would appeal Borenstein's ruling and would ask that today's sentencing be put off until after the appeal is decided on. Although the maximum prison sentence on the stolen-vehicle charge is 15 years, such a penalty is rarely imposed. Martin K. Leppo, Youngworth's lawyer, said yesterday he would be disappointed if Youngworth received a sentence of more than 2 ½ years. Also, Leppo said he believes that a federal grand jury heard testimony several weeks ago concerning a meeting that Youngworth had with Gardner officials in September. According to sources, Youngworth persuaded one Gardner official to give him $10,000 to pay some pressing personal bills. The grand jury, according to Leppo, is focusing on whether Youngworth "extorted" the money out of the Gardner official on the pledge that it would result in the return of one of the 13 pieces of art stolen from the museum. None of the art has been returned. US officials and the museum have refused comment on the meeting and reports of the grand jury. Had he been tried under the state's habitual-offender statute, Youngworth could have received the maximum 15-year sentence for being convicted of possession of a stolen motor vehicle. Under the statute, a defendant can be sentenced to the maximum term of his current charge if he has been convicted on two prior occasions of crimes and served more than three years in prison on both offenses. Robert M. Goldstein, a lawyer in Leppo's law firm, asked Borenstein Monday to throw out the habitual-offender charge, arguing that insufficient evidence had been presented to the Norfolk grand jury that issued the indictment. Goldstein said that while Youngworth had been convicted on three prior offenses - an armed robbery in 1978 and unlawfully carrying a firearm and defaulting on a court hearing in 1987 - he had successfully gotten the sentence on the default charge vacated. Since the grand jury was never informed that the six-year sentence on the default charge had been vacated by a federal court in North Carolina, its indictment should be dropped, Goldstein said. Assistant Norfolk District Attorney Kim Gainsboro opposed Youngworth's motion, saying there was no documentary evidence from the federal court that the sentence had been vacated. She also said that since Youngworth had served more than three years in both the armed robbery and illegal gun possession cases, the indictment charging him with being a habitual offender should stand. Borenstein, however, sided with Youngworth, writing: "There was insufficient evidence before the grand jury to base an indictment for being a 'habitual offender,' specifically as to the two predicate offenses required and whether he was committed to prison on either." Leppo said yesterday that Youngworth, who is in Norfolk House of Correction awaiting sentencing, was encouraged by Borenstein's decision. "If there is anything that should bring a spring back in his step, it's to hear that he's not automatically going to be sentenced to 15 years in prison," Leppo said. Youngworth, who has stated that he is willing to negotiate with US officials for the return of the artwork stolen in 1990, declared recently that he would refuse to cooperate in those efforts if he were sentenced to 15 years in prison. Discussions between Youngworth and US officials have been stalled as both sides accused the other of a lack of trust and of unwillingness to compromise. Asked what impact Borenstein's ruling would have on Youngworth's position in the art negotiations, Leppo said: "As long as he doesn't get whacked by the judge on the motor vehicle charge, I think it could be a whole new ballgame."
This story ran on page B01 of the Boston Globe on 11/13/97. © Copyright 1997 Globe Newspaper Company.


(Times of London)
Sotheby's black night follows rival's day of triumph
FROM TUNKU VARADARAJAN IN NEW YORK
SOTHEBY'S in New York has been left facing the prospect of a multimillion-dollar loss after an auction of modern art failed to raise the sum promised to the seller. The sale of art from the estate of the hotelier Evelyn Sharp on Wednesday night ­ now being described as "Black Wednesday" ­ raised $41.2 million (£24.2 million), believed to be several million dollars below the sum guranteed by Sotheby's. The sale had been estimated to raise at least $57 million. Diana Brooks, the Sotheby's chief executive, refused to say how much Mary Kronson Sharp had been guaranteed from the sale, but insisted that the final losses could be minimal or "non-existent" if four unsold paintings fetched prices close to their estimates in the next few days. But the loss of pride is likely to prove sharper than any financial losses: the auction was held the day after Christie's auctioned the Victor and Sally Ganz collection ­ the largest single-owner sale yet, raising $206 million. Most of the 35 works sold on Wednesday went for less than their estimates. They included Modigliani, Picasso, Matisse and Chagall paintings which were described as being "second division" examples of the artists' work. The biggest setback came when the highlight of the sale ­ Modigliani's Reclining Nude With Raised Arms, which is the first nude by the artist to come on to the market for 13 years ­ failed to reach its $10 million estimate. But Ms Brooks denied that the auction had been a disaster. "We still have four paintings left, and if they sell over the next few days, as we expect them to, this will have been a successful auction."


(St.Petersburg Times)
Hermitage's Elusive Entrance Frustrates American Tourist
Dear Editor,
Imagine, if you can, being a tourist, going to the front door of the Louvre in Paris on a cold and rainy day when the gallery was open and finding the door locked and no obvious way to enter. Imagine further that after looking for a sign or directions you saw nothing. Finally, imagine you sat there for several minutes watching local residents come to the door, try to enter and then leave shaking their heads. You might, like they did, give up and say, well, I only have so much time, and I must move on to the next attraction before leaving this wonderful city. Then imagine that upon closer inspection you find a sign placed on a window 3 to 4 meters away in the native language which you unfortunately don't read. This is what happened to me at the Hermitage the other day and it was quite disappointing. I was visiting with a Russian friend who finally spotted the sign after talking with some road workers who pointed out the obscure location. Here in this beautiful and internationally famous city of St. Petersburg, the management of one of the most famous art museums in the world could not even take the time to clearly advise visitors who come from around the world that they had to use an obscure unmarked side entrance. The problem was made even more disappointing by the fact that I had traveled half-way around the world to visit and only had a limited amount of time. Because foreign guests are charged four times as much as Russians one would think the Hermitage could afford a simple sign in different languages telling tourists how to enter. In addition, upon leaving the museum the door from the Palace Square had unexpectedly locked itself and no one had the key and the embarrassed police were directing visitors in Russian to some unknown direction to get out. I hope in the future the management of the museum can be more sensitive to its potential visitors, both foreign and domestic, and see fit to reopen its main door or, if not, place conspicuous signs in several languages to assist the visitors to the gallery. One, however, should not just criticize and not recognize the positive aspects of a city. St. Petersburg can be proud of the fact that it is one of the cleanest cities in the world, which undoubtedly reflects the pride of its citizens. Its people are collectively the best dressed in the world. The city has a transportation system that is outstanding. The many cultural and musical offerings are fantastic.
Robert Larson
Eugene, Oregon, U.S.A.


(Museum-L)
From: Christian Mueller-Straten <VERLAGCMS@T-ONLINE.DE>
Subject: Re: Art Theft, WWII and Museum Ethics

Ansje Burdick schrieb:

>ART THEFT, WORLD WAR II AND MUSEUM ETHICS
>I am a graduate student in the Arts Administration program at the
>University of Oregon and am currently involved in writing my thesis.
>I have chosen a topic involving art theft, specifically the looting
>of works during World War II, ethics and museums. I just finished
>reading The Lost Museum by Hector Feliciano and was amazed. I'd not
>only like to recommend the book for anyone interested in art theft
>or involved with museums but would also like to hear your thoughts
>on the issues raised by the book.


Dear Ansje,
I would recommend to you - if you have not already done it - to take a look at the process of learning which is taking place in moment in the Swiss bank business. What did they do when it was proved that Jewish money from people who were murdered in German concentration camps (partly by cooperation of the Swiss government) was kept there for decades waiting that all heirs would die? At first they denied the whole thing. Than they made a very small offer. Than they made a bigger offer. Than they realized that this method causes lots of troubles for themselves. Finally, when this unbelievable behaviour was shown on TV, the catastrophe was complete. What I would be interested in, is: Is there a moral right of the winner of a war (situation), to loot objects, if the agressor, like Hitler's Germany, will be judged worldwide as a terror regime? And: As we all know from some newer wars of the nineties, it gets a custom to destroy willingly the so-called national heritage. In so far, looting of troops guided by knowledgable men (officers with higher education) leaves at least the chance to transfer the objects back one day. It may even save the objects from damaging by vandalizing idiots.
Best regards
CMS
Verlag Dr. C. Müller-Straten / MUSEUMS AGENTUR xxx xx xx
xxx Kunzweg 23, 81243 München x x
x x x Tel./Fax: 089-839 690 43, http://WebMuseen.de/VERLAGCMS
xxx x x xxx



table of contents
mail