Tuesday, October 13, 2009

"'It's a lot of money he gave up'"

The guy whose Warhols were stolen has cancelled the $25 million insurance claim. Richard Weisman "simply couldn't stand the thought of insurance investigators poring through his personal records and interrogating his family and friends before he stood any chance of collecting." So no pay-out. And no reward for information leading to the return of the artwork.

Now, don't jump to any conclusions. Even though Weisman's alarm system wasn't activated when he left town before the theft. Even though his ex-wife and son had access to the house. Even though that access included the nanny. For the son. Who is 16. Even though Detective Don Hrycyk feels compelled to share this anecdote: "He said he recently solved another case involving five Warhols stolen in 1989. The thief in that case turned out to be the victim's son, who was 17 at the time and had sold the works for drugs and money, Hrycyk said. The thief has since become a prominent art-gallery owner." No. Jumping to conclusions here would be just plain rude.

But I do wonder who the 37-year-old "prominent art-gallery owner" is. And is claiming to be an art-theft victim some kind of new trend for the wealthy?

No comments: