In 1990, the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston was robbed of thirteen works of art, including three Rembrandts, a Vermeer, and a Manet.
25 years later, this unseen video footage was released, showing a small car backing up to the door. The footage is old and grainy and the lighting is dark, but if the best car spotters on Curbside Classic take a crack at identifying the car you might help finally solve this mystery.
Check out the story and video here, on the Boston Globe’s site.
Also, here’s the FBI’s side of the story. They are looking for help identifying the car.
Catch a crook? Statute has expired many years ago. While it would be difficult to actually display these works of art, whoever it is has the ability to show how they accomplished it without fear of prosecution. Civilly? I’m sure that with $500,000,000 at stake, the august wisdom of the legal profession would find some obscure law to pursue. Shakespeare was right.
Check out the FBI link, they are looking for help on the case.
http://1.usa.gov/1ICt7NL
Statute or not, the primary goal of the ongoing investigation is recovery of the works, and returning them to the museum.
The statute of limitations simply shields the thieves from prosecution; in this case (repeat, in this case, so please don’t cite “squatter’s rights”), I’m not sure if ownership will ever transfer to the current holders of the works.
Right you are Buzz. Stolen property is always stolen property and all rights lie with the original, rightful owner. If the statute of limitations expires or you unwittingly buy stolen property there won’t be criminal prosecution, but the goods go back to the rightful owner, or the insurance company if those rights have been relinquished in a settlement.
Rembrandt, Vermeer, small car at a museum. I’d say a Van Goghomobil.
Hah!
The art work would fit, I guess.
Perfect !
It was on CC where I learned that Vermeer also builds machinery.
They are headquartered in Pella, Iowa. But neither of these 2 vehicles has the shape of a hatchback.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Good one, Johannes!
Plymouth Horizon with a malfunctioning CHMSL?
I think the brake lights are bigger than a Horizon’s.
My guess was an early 80s Ford Escort or Mercury Lynx. Those larger taillights suggest Lynx.
Something like this…
I’m also thinking Escort/Lynx.
Me too.
If it’s a single light car, definitely a hatchback… Looks like a 1981-87 Mercury Lynx or Ford Escort. Might also be an 82-86 Nissan Datsun Sentra hatchback.
If a quad headlight car,(since the oncoming lights change to four) could be the following:
1983- 84 Toyota Camry hatchback
1983-85 Mazda 626 touring hatchback
1983-86 Mitsubishi Cordia
*All these models, changed to flush Euro halogen around 1985-88, so they can also be used as reference.
Thought, it was an AMC Spirit when it first parked. The video also sucks in quality, so…
You know, the more I look, the more I’m leaning towards the Spirit as well. The only thing that bugs me is that there were far more Lynx’s (I don’t think it’s an Escort, the tail lights aren’t wide enough) and relatively few Spirits. Neither one makes a convincing getaway car. But let us compare the video with this rear of the Spirit from the same angle. Hmmmm….
Yes, Greg… I’m learning towards Lynx, versus Escort.
My youngest brother’s 1st car was a mint, gold 1987 Mercury Lynx GS, back in 1993.
The factor we have to rule as the common denominator, to the car in the video is… What cars had a rear glass(hatchback) mounted brake light back then?
The Escort/Lynx and Nissan Datsun Sentra hatchback were a few.
Greg, just thought of this… Cars were made by law to all have a 3rd rear mounted brake lamp by 1986. The Spirit was made from 1979-83, which leaves it long gone by 1986.
Although, JC Whitney and Auto Palace sold an aftermarket rear brake light for cars that didn’t have it, or were manufactured before 1986… Also, a few elderly people mounted them on their older cars back then.
So that still puts the Spirit back in the game. 😉
Mitsubishi Cordia
Toyota Camry hatchback
Or an 82-86 Nissan Datsun Sentra
I would exclude this one. I think there is a narrow flat surface below the rear glass. The Camry and Lynx seem better candidates. The Camry seems too long though. There is very little rear overhang.
As far apart as those headlights are, it could be a 1978-79-80 Grand Prix. Can’t see the grille well enough to make that determination, though. And those are headlights, because the inboard ones are brighter than the outboard ones.
The Youtube clip in the links provided show that it is the rear of the car.
Wow, those are some bright taillights, then. Sorry, folks. After further examination, I can see the mirrors and the back glass. But I have no guess as to the make.
ford escort
Fox body Ford Mustang or Mercury Capri? Ford was stingy with how much of the tail light would light in that era, so that would cover the outboard light with the inset back up light. Also covers the quad headlights and the squarish body with a large glass area rear window. Would seem a bit of a small car though to steal that many paintings.
That roofline and squared taillights say Citation to me. No third backlight either, so must be pre ’86 unless it wasn’t working.
After downloading and fiddling with brightness and contrast, the body is fairly well visible. I’d say Omnirizon but not for sure. One unusual thing: the driver seems to have taken the precaution of turning off or removing the dome light, but a light on the dashboard comes on when the door is open. Presumably one of those ‘Door Is Ajar’ stupidities. It seems to be way over to the left, not in the speedo cluster. Might be a clue?
To all of the experts who have way more education than me,
Stop using shitty security cameras with even shittier film. If you have paintings that are worth millions, shouldn’t your security cameras at least produce images that can be identified! Your security sucked. The crooks knew it. That is why this crime has never been solved.
The video is 25 years old.
The video is black and white and the outside footage isn’t properly illuminated to give any definitive images. This crap technology is still in use everywhere. Colored film was not a novelty in 1990, and it sure isn’t today.
Well, you could register a letter of indignation to the museum. But probably whomever was in charge of security in 1990 is retired or has moved on by now.
In 1990, data storage would’ve likely been on VHS tapes. Two hours’ worth of footage at decent video quality; what we see here is likely the result of compromises to get tape changes down to once per shift (remember, tapes cost real money back then, each tape change brings the potential of being forgotten leading to complete system failure (out of storage space, the recording shuts down) and adding any redundancy whatsoever would double the data storage cost right away. How much are you willing to pay for a museum ticket?
Based on this high quality video, this is obviously a very fat man driving a 1982 AMC Concorde eating a tuna fish sandwich with some very colorful marbles in his pocket. If you squint your eyes you can clearly see that this man smokes Lucky Strike cigarettes and his favorite song is Blue Moon Of Kentucky by Bill Monroe. The stitching on his collar would lead us to believe that he has been in Maine because that stitching is consistent with LL Bean stitching. The crumbs on his lapel are obviously from eating fried clams at Reds Eats in Wiscassett. If you look closely, after the driver refuses the offer from the call girl, he can be clearly seen drinking a can of Moxie. Based on everything that I have seen from this high quality video, these paintings are just as lost as they were the day after they were stolen.
And, he has mismatched tires!
All I can see is that it’s a 1980s or older hatchback. Plus, it could be a rental car. If so, this is almost impossible to figure.
That’s not specific enough. You failed to indicate if the Concord was a DL or Limited model.
The description in the Boston Globe mentions this is the vehicle seen 24 hours before the heist – and that it could be the vehicle party goers saw the next night an hour before the robbery. But that doesn’t necessarily mean it was used to physically haul the paintings away. The footage is of the car going in reverse according to the article, so that is the front of the vehicle. Judging from the image, it looks like a car with pop-up headlights set close together and a swooping hood; perhaps a urethane front bumper. A vehicle similar to a C3 Corvette. You’d think the party goers would recognize a Vette as a Vette, and they referred to it as a hatchback only. Maybe a ’78-82 Vette with the curved back glass hatch. Grainy image aside, it at least has the look. . .
Ok, feeling stupid. Now that the video would stream, I can see that those extra lights are backup lamps and that it is the rear of the car. Oh well :-p
I don’t think it’s AMC, or a Lynx. The rear window proportions don’t look AMC, and the license plate lamps from a Lynx look like they came from the top down. These are on the left and right.
I think that it may be either a Yugo GV or a Hyundai Excel. But, we’ll probably never know for sure.
Disregard the Yugo. The rear lamps were mounted much lower on the car.
Matador, is that your own personal car? 😉
What about the early 80s Mazda 323?
Late 1980s Honda Accord? Whatever the kind of car, it is VERY likely that the car is long gone; junked. If the car is the most significant piece of evidence, identifying the make and model is probably too late to make much of a difference.
If it’s a 1986-89 Accord, it would be the hatchback, not sedan like you pictured.
You sure your pic is a 3rd gen Accord? It looks like a 1990-93… Which the car in video is definitely not.
** 1986-89 Accord hatchback
How about an 80’s Chevy Nova hatchback? (photo courtesy of the internet)
It’s possible to eliminate some models, but I don’t see how it’s possible to make a solid ID. The only things that are obvious to me (and most of you, I’m sure):
-There is a third brake light located toward the bottom of the hatch, not at the top toward the roofline
-The reverse lights are inset, so that eliminates those that were located at the corners below the taillights, such as the Omni
-The brake lights are located on the corners of the rear
-The license plate is in the middle of the rear light cluster, not mounted toward the bottom
Lots of cars of that era match that description, of course.
I should note that even though that there appears to be third brake light, it isn’t lit. So either it wasn’t working or else I am imagining it.