THE SILVER LINING
Coping with Theft, Vandalism, Deterioration, and Bad Press
|
9. Picking Up the Pieces • The Lengthy Saga of a Library Theft
Jean W Ashton
On July 5, 1994, the Tuesday following Independence
Day weekend, Consuelo Dutschke, a curator who had been engaged in
cataloging Columbia University's Rare Book and Manuscript Library's
collection of medieval and Renaissance manuscripts, went into the
secured vault of the closed stacks to consult Western MS 29, a codex she
had been working on several weeks before. To her surprise, although the
preservation case was on the shelf in its proper place, the box was
empty. After a few moments of conversation with other senior staff
members to make sure that the manuscript had not been removed for some
legitimate reason, she came into my office with two colleagues to report
that we apparently had a major problem. A cursory shelf check had
revealed that in addition to Western MS 29, several other manuscripts
usually housed on adjacent shelves were also missing from their cases,
including at least two that had been examined by readers and reshelved
by staff in early June.
Although we sensed that something unusual was happening,
I decided to delay mentioning Consuelo's discovery to
the staff as a whole until after we had gathered more
information. While the three curators, joined by the
remaining member of the internal administrative staff, began to read the
Medieval-Renaissance shelves, card catalogs in hand, I went down to the
Columbia University libraries administrative office to alert the
university librarian to the possibility of a serious theft.
More than six years later, the consequences of this
theft of what eventually turned out to be $1.3 million worth of books
and manuscripts were still with us. We suffered a severe loss:
some of our materials were still missing, and many
could not be recovered intact because they had been mutilated.
Moreover, efforts to deal with the crime and its prolonged aftermath were
time consuming and upsetting for the staff. Nonetheless, by now we are
able to see some positive effects from what was a profoundly negative
experience.
First, thanks to the hard work of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI), the New York City Police Department, the U.S.
Attorney's office, and the international community of booksellers and
manuscript dealers, the thief was apprehended, sentenced, and removed
from his chosen sphere of criminal activity for a number of
years. [1] Second, issues relating to the safety of library
materials temporarily assumed a greater importance on the campus than
had been the case before, resulting in the installation of an
electronic security system in the Rare Book and Manuscript Library, the
establishment of a standing committee to deal with general collection
loss, reexamination of insurance practices, and better communications
between librarians and the university's legal and security staffs.
Finally a landmark opinion from the federal judge, Lewis A. Kaplan, who
presided over the sentencing hearing, articulated with great clarity to
the public at large the serious implications of the theft of cultural
materials. We understand that his decision to depart upward from the
recommended sentencing guidelines has had a measurable impact on
courts across the county. I hope, in the brief paragraphs
that follow, both to tell the story of the United States v. Daniel
Spiegelman and to offer some comments that may serve to guide others
who may find themselves in similar situations, [2]
Within an hour of the discovery that Western MS 29
was missing from the shelf, the associate librarian was in contact with
the Columbia University security office, the 26th Precinct of the New
York City Police Department, and, shortly thereafter, the regional
office of the FBI. Fortunatelyor rather, unfortunatelythe
Columbia libraries had been victim of two thefts of restricted
materials in the five years preceding 1994 (although quite different
ones and on a much smaller scale), and we thus had some idea of the
protocols and procedures to be followed. My own experiences at the New-York
Historical Society where I had been librarian before coming to
Columbia in 1993, had also made me particularly aware of the
institutional sensitivities that could make legal action difficult if
the issue was not handled quickly and carefully. The Blumberg case, with
its disappointing outcome for libraries, had only recently been
settled. [3] It was therefore gratifying to see that Columbia's
librarian had no hesitation in urging us to make sure that the crime was
reported and that the relevant Association of College and Research
Libraries (ACRL) procedural guidelines be followed to the letter.
As soon as the inventory was finished, a list of the
fourteen missing medieval codices and fragments and the eight Arabic
manuscripts that had disappeared from an adjacent shelf was compiled and
sent to our contacts in the rather tight community of dealers and
scholars who might be likely to come across such items or happen upon
them in the market. Within a few days, we had refined and amplified the
list by adding what secondary cataloging information we had in our files
along with, in some cases, photographs or photocopies. We made sure that
the Antiquarian Booksellers' Association of America, the International Foundation for Art
Research, and the relevant professional e-mail lists that we
subscribed to also had copies of the list. I think it safe to say that
within two weeks, most of the scholarly world interested in such things
knew as much about the Columbia losses as we did.
As might be expected, the internal consequences of
our theft were distressing and unpleasant. Members of the staff were
fingerprinted and questioned; lists of former employees were compiled
and reviewed; security and lock-up practices were subjected to scrutiny.
For months, insurance adjusters, law enforcement officials from a
variety of units, and university administrators were likely to show up
at any time of the day for tours of the restricted areas. Registration
logs were examined, locks were changed, and keys were confiscated.
Personnel practices, which had been fairly strict to begin with, were
tightened so that no staff member was permitted in the stacks alone.
Everyone was a potential suspect. Although the tension eased
after a while as the day-to-day work of the library resumed, it was only
after the thief was identified and caught, and his means of egress
reported, that people were entirely confident that they or their
colleagues had not been in some way responsible for the loss.
Reconciling the need to get full information to the
book community with administrative pressure to maintain institutional
privacy presented a major problem that also affected the staff. Some
alumni, donors, and faculty members were upset and were filled with
unfounded suspicions when news of the theft reached them. Others were
even more upset when they felt they were not being fully informed. The
need to monitor the general flow of information about the theft kept
everyone on edge. Although the university's public information office
was responsible for press relations, reporters were likely to call
librarians or faculty members directly and it was hard not to blurt out
some comment that might mislead the public or hinder the investigation. Even after the
suspect was arrested, great care had to be taken not to say or do
something that might jeopardize the Columbia case.
Throughout 1994 and early 1995, we worked closely
with the detective from the local precinct and with the special agent
from the FBI. Several promising leads turned out to be useless, and on
one occasion a "sting" operation that had been set up and involved
crossing state lines failed at the last minute because of some confusion
about the appraised value of the particular items involved. Empty
manuscript boxes were found in another area of the rare book stacks on a
different floor, but because we did not think the two disappearances
were related, we found it particularly painful to report the second,
because it was beginning to seem even to us as if we had completely lost
control of the collections.
Late in the spring of 1995, to our relief, I began to
get telephone calls from a series of highly reputable manuscript dealers
in Western Europefrom Switzerland, France, Germany and the
Netherlandsreporting that a young man who apparently had several
pseudonyms had shown them pictures or given them descriptions of items
that corresponded to items on our list. Finally in June 1995, Sebastiaan
S. Hesselink, the owner of Antiquariaat FORUM in Utrecht, called me on a
Wednesday to report that a customer had brought him a picture and
description of a manuscript of the Roman de la Rose that he
recognized from the Columbia list. I notified the FBI, which was able to
mobilize Interpol in time to arrest Daniel Spiegelman the following
afternoon when he returned to the shop, manuscript in hand. The arrest
was reported by the Associated Press and the New York Times on
June 17, 1995.
But the story was far from over. Daniel Spiegelman,
who had in his possession several Columbia identification cards, issued
under a variety of names, as well as dealer catalogs and
information files, was not, as we had wrongly
suspected, a student or rare book specialist. Rather, he was a felon
who had served time in a federal institution on forgery charges some
years earlier. Sensitized by his unpleasant experience in an American
jail, he fought hard against the prospect of extradition to the United
States. According to later stories in the Dutch newspapers, he had tried
to commit suicide on the way to jail when he was arrested. When a
detailed plan of escape was thwarted, he was put into a
high-security facility. Eventually in an apparent attempt to gain
clemency by trading information, he revealed to investigators in the
Nether lands that he had several caches of stolen items hidden in New
York.
We were appalled to discover that the scope of
Spiegelman's theft was so broad. We had focused on the medieval and
Arabic items, which had been stored in a single location. Now, materials
turned up in his storage boxes and in the photographs found in his
possession that we had not known were missing: 237 maps from a very rare
German edition of the 1667 Blaue atlas that had been
extra-illustrated by an illustrious Columbia alumnus in the early
nineteenth century with his own collection of early maps and charts and
had been on display only a few months earlier; miscellaneous medieval
and early modern indentures; presidential and early Federal period
letters, including a note from George Washington to John Jay on the
occasion of the first session of the first meeting of the Supreme Court;
and stock certificates from Thomas Edison's early business ventures. We
felt as if we had discovered the theft all over again and felt doubly
vulnerable at the evidence that he had razored materials out of bound
volumes and penetrated deep into drawers and boxes of material that
were in the midst of files or document cases used only by specialized
researchers. It took us more than six months to gather accurate
information about the missing materials and to confirm
ownership of them in a way that would satisfy the law
enforcement authorities and the courts.
Despite the efforts of the accused thief and his
attorneys, extradition papers were prepared for submission in the beginning
of December 1995. At Columbia, because the counsel's office had no
one assigned to the case, we were dependent on calls from the police or
the FBI for information about what was going on. Suddenly on the last
business day of the year, a television news station in Oklahoma
telephoned the Rare Book and Manuscript Library to ask for comment on a
story that had appeared that day in the Dutch press: Daniel Spiegelman's
lawyer claimed that an American embassy official had revealed that
the FBI was investigating a possible link between his client and the
Oklahoma City bombing the previous April.
The FBI denied the allegation, but the most
sensational of the Amsterdam papers gave it full coverage. A published
photograph of Spiegelman, described as a suspected American terrorist,
was accompanied by the familiar image of smoke and burning buildings.
Releasing the story was, so we were led to believe, a ploy by
Spiegelman's attorney to buy time, because the Dutch will not extradite
anyone who might be accused of a capital crime in his or her home
country. It was a pretty spectacular form of defense, and it succeeded.
No connection between the accused and the bombings was established,
but the extradition was delayed for twelve months. Spiegelman was not
returned to New York until December 1996, a year and a half after his
arrest.
In April 1997, after being indicted for the theft of
$1.3 million worth of books and manuscripts from Columbia (along with
additional charges relating to the transport of weapons across state
lines and a forged passport), Daniel Spiegelman entered into a plea
agreement with the U.S. Attorney He did not reveal the location of any
stolen material that had not at that time been returned, but we were finally given
some clue as to how he had stolen the items in the first place. For various
reasons, information could not be freely shared by the law
enforcement agencies, but we have surmised and now believe that he
shinnied up an unused dumbwaiter shaft that extended from a public area
of the general stacks to the rare book floor and had used tools to
dismantle existing walls, reassembling them when he was through
(something that is no longer possible because of building
renovation).
He had made multiple visits to the stacks at night
when the Rare Book and Manuscript Library on the top floor of the
massive Butler Library was closed. By careful selection of materials
that were not likely to be in daily use or that were stored in files and
drawers where their loss would not be easily visible, he had covered
his traces successfully for several months. Because the items were not
tagged with electronic tape, he could leave the building easily without
alerting the security guard. The library's (now abandoned) custom of
storing duplicates of exhibition labels and catalog entries in the
preservation boxes had provided him with the information needed to sell
his harvest. At the time of his arrest, approximately one-quarter of
the stolen items, including more than two hundred maps from the
nine-volume Blaue atlas, were still missing.
A parole officer assigned by Judge Lewis Kaplan to
prepare a report to aid in sentencing contacted Columbia for
information in May 1997. It was at this point that we decided to use the
powers of the law to force some good from what had been a thoroughly
unpleasant experience. Susan Galligan, a Columbia attorney worked with
me to produce a letter for the court, in which we argued that
consideration should be given to the nature of the offense:
seven-hundred-year-old manuscripts and early maps were not the same as
fur coats or cash; they were cultural materials representing our shared
heritage. Moreover, they had been placed in libraries as
a public trust so that they would be available to generations of
scholars in the context of other scholarly materials. Somewhat to our
surprise, the judge agreed. At the sentencing hearing in June, Judge
Kaplan announced his intention to depart upward from the newly adopted
federal sentencing guidelines, which would have allowed a sentence of no
more than thirty-seven months. By this time, Spiegelman had spent
approximately twenty-four months in custody
The defense objected. Judge Kaplan gave Spiegelman
time to make his case, but also instructed the U.S. Attorney's office to
assist Columbia if it should prove to be necessary After a vain attempt
to find manuscript dealers who would agree to argue in court that the
"cultural value" argument was irrelevant, that is, that market value
was the sole determinant of worth, the defense lawyers asked for a
public hearing. For that hearing, they wrote a letter to the judge
enumerating points that they felt invalidated the Columbia position,
that is, they argued that the existence of photocopies made protection
of originals unimportant; that the thousands of surviving manuscripts
made the disappearance of single ones trivial; that incunabula
often existed in multiple identical copies; and that librarians were
not, in any case, adequate appraisers of value.
We responded by asking a group of scholars who had
worked on similar materials, including such well-known writers as Simon
Schama and Robert Darnton, to agree to testify about the importance of
original documents of the kind that had been stolen. David Kastan, a
Shakespearean scholar, was perhaps the most eloquent: materials such as
these, he argued, form the substance of history that has not yet been
written.
The experts ultimately were allowed to submit their
comments in writing instead of making a court appearance, but at the
hearing held on March 20, 1998, I was called to the stand
to testify in person. Using actual books and maps,
including some of the recovered items, I spent more than three hours
demonstrating to the court the difference between originals and copies
and explaining the nature of artifactual evidence. When the defense
objected to the participation of the Assistant U.S. Attorney in the
hearing, Judge Kaplan himself stepped down from the bench and donned
white gloves to examine items that had been found in Spiegelman's possession,
including the note from George Washington to John Jay and a
seventeen-foot-long vellum chronicle of the history of the kings of
France.
On April 24, 1998, Judge Kaplan issued a
thirty-seven-page opinion sentencing Spiegelman to sixty months in federal
custody a restitution fee for the unrecovered items, and a
three-year period of probation. Although many of our maps and
manuscripts are still missing, Judge Kaplan's eloquently argued
statement has had, we understand, an impact on the conduct of similar
cases nationwide and, we hope, has thus been of service to libraries and
other cultural repositories.
What have we learned and what can we say to others
facing similar problems? From our experience, I offer several
recommendations that may help both to keep the barn doors closed and to
find the pathways most likely to retrieve the livestock should you be
unlucky enough to experience a theft.
First, know as much as possible about your
collections. Having up-to-date cataloging data is essential.
The fact that some of our records for the Arabic material were
incomplete or confusing, for example, made it difficult to track that
material, some of which has not yet been recovered. In the absence of
catalog records, other records are important, such as vertical file
folders, publication information, notes from users, and dealer
descriptions. Second, keep appraisals of your most valuable materials
up to date and readily available, because law enforcement agencies may not be able to pursue cases if
the items stolen do not have a predetermined market value. We spent days
and days working on valuations, becoming indebted along the way to
scores of dealers, auctioneers, and professional appraisers, who,
because they were working without seeing the items, were understandably
reluctant to give estimates. None of such information about rare items
should be kept with the items, nor should it be easily accessible. (We
have guessed that in some cases, documents and codices were stolen
solely because exhibition labels housed in their boxes identified the
materials and explained their importance.)
Next, establish good relations with your
institution's legal counsel, security division, risk management office,
and administration before a theft occurs. We spent hours explaining
what we had, what our procedures were, and how rare books libraries
operated to university officials, who, on the one hand, had no idea that
such valuable material was present on campus and, on the other hand, did
not understand why we had not instantly perceived the loss. Working with
the university's office of the general counsel and the public
information office would have been much easier had they been primed
ahead of time about the use and storage of our collections. The security
staff should be familiar with your physical space and aware of any
particular areas of vulnerability. It also helps to have a library
security officer in place in a time of crisis to deal with law
enforcement agencies and attorneys.
Be as open as possible about a theft should one
occur, and be prepared to argue for such openness against those who
object to reporting an incident for fear that the institution's public
name will be tarnished. The practice of keeping things quiet in the hope
of avoiding publicity is old-fashioned and counterproductive. Negative
consequences are bound to happen when a theft occursdonor
complaints, for example, and alumni headshakingbut they are, on
the whole, trivial next to the problems that arise from concealment or
evasion. We found the thief and recovered some of the materials only
because we published a list of what was lost on the Internet within
forty-eight hours of discovery of the loss and followed it up with
personal letters to dealers and publication in professional journals.
When, however, we agreed to the request of the public information office
that a statement to the general interest media, that is, an official
press release, not be issued unless newspapers called us (which at first
they did not), some faculty members were distressed at not being
informed and called a reporter themselves, which led to awkwardness all
around. Moreover, we are convinced that the only way to ensure that
thefts of cultural material are treated seriously without silly jokes
about overdue library booksas appeared after the Blumberg
theftis to take a strong public stand in defense of library
resources.
Our story is not over: there are many unanswered questions.
Two months after the April 1998 sentencing, a front-page article
in the New York Times revealed that one of the lawyers in the
case had not really been a lawyer at all and that Spiegelman thus might
be entitled to a retrial. Fortunately this did not happen. Then, in
October 1999, I was called by an autograph dealer in Connecticut, Basil
Panagopolous, who had been offered some of our unrecovered documents.
Spiegelman had escaped from his work release program in Manhattan, had
retrieved materials from some secret cache, and had crossed state lines
to sell them. He was given a twenty-four-month sentence on May 24,
2000, by Judge Loretta Preska, with three years of probation to follow.
Although he claims to have sold everything, we suspect that many things
remain in his possession.
Although in retrospect it seems predictable, we have
been astonished, ruefully amused, and a bit uncomfortable to observe
that the criminal and the crime itself seem to have
achieved a life of their own. Diane Johnson's recent
novel Le Mariage turns on the theft of a medieval manuscript by
an American and a subsequent murder. [4] When apprehended, the
miscreant is happy to be in the Netherlands because he cannot be
extradited to a country where the death penalty might be imposed, a
detail clearly derived from newspaper coverage of the Columbia theft.
When I discussed the Columbia case with Miles Harvey the author of a
recent book on the Gilbert Bland thefts, he suggested that I do an
Internet search for Spiegelman's name. [5] We found a seemingly
endless and self-perpetuating list of Web sites suggesting that
Spiegelman's involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing was being covered
up by the United States government, that his theft was intended to fund
that tragic event, and that he was quite possibly the elusive John Doe
Number Five. We have downloaded the contents of well over eighty sites
for reference, but our file on the case is still open. [6]
chap9.html
|