This programme contains some strong language.
As an arts journalist,
I've covered the theft of many great paintings over the years.
Most never return. When they do, it usually makes headline news,
and a journalist like me will tell the story
of how it was recovered,
once the art is safely hanging back on the wall.
But in June last year,
I got a tip-off from a reliable source
promising to take me on a journey
to recover paintings stolen in the world's biggest art theft -
works that, so far, have been missing for 30 years.
NEWS REPORT:The FBI tonight is looking for two thieves
who made off with a mother lode of art treasure
from a Boston museum overnight.
13 works of art, including three Rembrandts
and a Vermeer, were stolen.
Their value is now estimated at around a billion dollars.
My contact says he's been told where they all are.
It may sound incredible, but this is a man I've known for many years.
He used to be an undercover detective
with the Metropolitan Police's Art and Antiques Squad.
He now works as a private art investigator.
My source is a really well known and established
Dublin criminal figure.
He told me, simply, that he thought he knew exactly
where the paintings were,
that had been stolen from the Gardner Museum
on the night of St Patrick's Day 1990,
and no-one, except for this source of mine, knew where they were.
You're telling me there's a guy in Dublin, a known criminal,
who says he knows where the paintings are right now?
And that he is 99% certain that that's where they still are.
99% certain?
Which means 100%, yeah.
He reckons they're in West Dublin,
behind a wall.So you think he can get the paintings back?Yes.
That's extraordinary!
I mean, that is absolutely extraordinary after nearly 30 years!
So does a violent Irish gangster hold the solution
to a 30-year mystery?
If so, this could be one of the biggest art stories of all time.
I think the expression is, "It's a racing certainty".
However, the problem is - and it's a serious problem -
is no-one gets maimed or murdered. That's my main anxiety.
What, is that a worry I should have?
So why do I put so much faith in Charley Hill's words?
Well, over the course of a long career
he successfully recovered a number of masterpiece paintings,
including one of the world's most famous.
There was a trap door,
and he said, "It's down here."
I stood it on its end and then took the sheet off.
As I took the blue sheet off, to my amazement,
there was the central figure of The Scream,
but it was essentially an oil paint drawing of it -
and I thought, "What on earth is this?"
and then I suddenly realised,
"Ah, this is just the back of the painting."
He actually must have felt
this wasn't quite what he wanted to do, and then flipped it over -
and there was the painting.
The minute you hold something like that in your hands,
you know it's the real McCoy,
because it just jumps out at you as a masterpiece.
So, Charley Hill does have an almost unrivalled track record
when it comes to recovering stolen art -
and it wasn't just the Munch Scream.
He's also played a part in tracking down missing masterpieces
by Vermeer, Goya, Titian, and many others.
For my part, I first want to see the scene of the crime.
So I've come to Boston to find out exactly what happened
in the aftermath of St Patrick's Day 1990,
when two men approached the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum,
the finest in Boston, just after midnight.
What we're doing is walking past where the watch desk used to be,
where the thieves came in.
My guide is Anthony Amore, head of security.
Two guards?Yes.So they came,
they were dressed as Boston cops, weren't they?They did.
They came, they said, "There's a disturbance."
So, after they subdued the guards and put them in the basement,
they walked up the way we are going now.OK.
24 minutes after they've entered the building,
motion sensors start alarming to the watch desk,
but of course, there was no-one there respond to them.Right.
Now they're in here in the Dutch Room, and they start their work.
JOHN SIGHS IN DISBELIEF
That was the Rembrandt, right? That was the Storm On The Sea Of Galilee?
Yes. And this was probably one of the most famous paintings
in Boston at the time and it's this sweeping seascape,
Christ just before he stills the waters.Yeah.
Rembrandt has painted himself right into the portrait
alongside Christ and the 12 Apostles.
So it's not only his only seascape,
it's also a Rembrandt self-portrait at the same time?Exactly.
The thieves took down all four Rembrandts
which were hanging in the museum - and Anthony thinks he knows why.
There is a theme in all great art thefts. Rembrandt runs through them.
And I believe that's because the people who steal art
are common criminals who do all kinds of crimes.
There is not some specialised artist
that goes around the world stealing masterpieces.
Every great museum has a Rembrandt,
and they've all been, essentially, all been robbed.
They take that Rembrandt off the wall
and there's a Durer right next to it.
Didn't touch it -
because I guarantee you these guys had never heard of Durer.
Why wouldn't they have taken it?
They had all the time in the world.
That's another odd thing that Anthony tells me about this robbery.
Most art thefts are over in a matter of a few minutes.
But the two thieves in Boston stayed a leisurely 81 minutes
to choose their pieces.
So this is the fourth Rembrandt, here.Wow.
This was an etching, was it?Yes.
About two inches by two inches.
Another self-portrait?
Another self-portrait. Right.
But interesting, they haven't taken the frame.
That's another great mystery to this heist,
because they took this off the chest,
but then, when you turn the frame around,
there's about nine additional screws you have to take out.
And they took the whole thing apart. Imagine you're a thief.
And you're standing in the centre of this gallery.
And you have it to yourself.
But you spend an inordinate amount of time taking apart a small etching
and not bothering with these two.
And you're standing beneath Rubens and van Dyck
but you're working on a little etching.
It doesn't make sense.
While one thief is in here removing paintings from the frames,
the other takes five Degas.
We have eight Degas.
He took the five least valuable.
And each of those frames includes jockeys on horses,
and my theory is that the guy who took those
took them as trophy pieces
because he went to the racetrack and bet on horses.
But the thieves got it absolutely right
with one painting that they took - a Vermeer.
The most valuable stolen thing in the entire world.
It's one of his later ones.
Clearly, one of his bigger ones.
What would it be worth? Probably $200 million?
I mean, it's probably worth twice that.
That weighs on you.
I mean, you can't overstate the importance
of The Concert by Vermeer.
That's the white whale of stolen goods -
never mind stolen art.
So where does Anthony think the paintings are today?
In my mind's eye, they are in the local area.
In Boston?
Yes. Paintings don't leave the United States when they're stolen.
Hey, John.Geoff, how are you?Nice to see you again.Been a few years!
That's the view of the FBI, too, and has been right from the start.
The lead agent investigating this robbery for almost 20 years
is close to Anthony and feels the same frustration
that the paintings haven't been recovered.
I'm here at this museum quite often
and every time I go into the Dutch Room
and I see the empty frames on the wall,
it really gets to me, it really does.Still?Absolutely.
17 years of having this case,
it just, it hasn't diminished at all. At any given time,
maybe I have 30 to 40 cases assigned to me,
everything, a lot of art cases and violent crime cases.
But this one is just enduring and it just won't go away.
And I'd very much like it to!
I like to think of this as a fugitive investigation,
looking for these paintings. There's 13 fugitives out there.
And these are the worst fugitives to try and find.
Because even the craftiest fugitive still has to rent a car
and rent a place to live and get food and get a driver's licence.
They leave their traces?These are the perfect fugitives.Right.
If they're hidden in an attic somewhere, or down in a basement,
they'll never be found. And that's the problem that we have.
I think these paintings have been hidden somewhere.Yeah.
Looked in a lot of places. Just haven't found the right place.
I'm not the only one looking for these paintings.
There's retired detectives and private investigators
and journalists and gangsters and bloggers,
and there's no shortage of people who are out there and they haven't
found them either! So, it's not for a lack of trying.
This case has clearly become something of an obsession
for Special Agent Geoff Kelly of the FBI -
but the fact is the Bureau has been digging
for the missing Gardner art for 30 years now
and they've turned up nothing in that time -
no paintings, no arrests, nothing.
But the FBI are still convinced that their theory
that the Boston mafia was involved in the heist
and that the art never left America, is the right one.
It's time to go to Dublin to find out why my source,
Charley Hill, is convinced the FBI are wrong
and why, for him, it's not the Rembrandt but the Vermeer painting,
The Concert, which is key to the Irish connection.
Charley wants to take me to a stately house
an hour south of Dublin, where, twice,
another Vermeer masterpiece was stolen by Irish criminals.
You think that is the key to the Gardner heist?
That's precisely what I think.
Because whoever stole it in Boston
knew that a Vermeer was something to have, it was incredibly valuable.
It was the template, in a way, then?
Yeah, it stimulated to steal the Vermeer in Boston.Right.
Russborough House in County Wicklow
was owned by the Beit family in 1974.
Paintings in every room.
It houses a huge and expensive private art collection,
just like the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston.
The Beit Vermeer has had an interesting
and somewhat troubled, history.
26th of April 1974, in the IRA robbery,
19 paintings were stolen and a ransom demand was made
and the ransom demand in 1974 was £500,000,
plus the release of Dolours and Marian Price, who, at that time,
were serving sentences in Great Britain for terrorist crimes -
and mercifully, the paintings were recovered 11 days later.
Stolen again in 1986 by Martin Cahill,
otherwise known as The General, the leader of a well-known Dublin gang.
NEWS REPORT:Last night's second theft of the collection
valued at £50 million, nearly went badly wrong.
Vermeer would have hung just over here, opposite the fireplace.Ah!
And, of course, the gang came in through these fields.
The fields here. They had Land Rovers, didn't they?
Out there in the fields.Exactly.
Hiding behind the trees, I would have thought.Exactly.
That sort of thing, yeah. They broke a pane of glass.
And set off the alarm. Set off the alarm.
And the police came.They concluded it was just a false alarm.
NEWS REPORT:The local police did not rush to the scene
but phoned instead the curator, as the robbers hid nearby.
He checked, found nothing missing, then told the police
and went back to bed.
Of course they, took 18 paintings,
and seven of them they abandoned just up the road here.
This leads me to think they must have had expert advice
as to what was worth keeping.
For seven years, Charley,
as detective chief inspector of the Metropolitan Police Art Squad,
pursued the thieves and the stolen art.
Then, at Antwerp airport in September 1993,
he caught up with the Russborough Vermeer.
You were posing as a dodgy art dealer, wasn't it?
That was your undercover shtick at the time.
I'd seen the Vermeer a month before and had to let it go
because I needed all of them back,
but I knew that once they were going to let me have the Vermeer back,
they'd let me have the others. So it was a calculated risk
and it worked out fine.
He's been involved in quite a lot of these affairs.
And he has, probably, an unrivalled expertise in recovering.
The Russborough House Vermeer was returned to Ireland
and to the safer walls of the National Gallery in Dublin,
where it still hangs today.
Three Irishmen were arrested.
But it wasn't until almost ten years later
that Charley's theory about the Boston Vermeer received support
from a surprising, but convincing, source.
Charley has pointed me in the direction
of a detective chief superintendent in Newcastle,
who, in 2002, was investigating a murder case
when an Irish suspect being interviewed
brought up the subject of art.
We were investigating a very serious incident
up here in the early 2000s.
And he was being questioned by you
in relation to this serious crime that happened?
That's correct.He volunteered information about Boston?
We were told about the robbery that had taken place in Boston
and the fact that some other people involved in it were Irish -
and the fact that there were a number
of very, very valuable paintings,
and that we could buy them back if we wanted to,
that they were available and they were in Dublin.
Why was he offering you the paintings,
why did he think that YOU would have any interest?
If you can provide information on something else,
maybe the investigating officers will be distracted
and start to follow something else, rather than looking at you.
So, what did you do with that information?
On the basis that it was a potential lead that came out of nowhere,
made arrangements to go to the American Embassy in London.
You went to see a legal attache, who was probably FBI?
Almost certainly.
Because there was an undertone that it was Republican terrorism,
the response that I got was, "We don't deal with terrorists."
I'm sure they were interested,
I'm sure it probably did get them going a little bit -
but it's the underlying principle, and the moral and ethical values.
You know, if they were going to pay, where was the money going to go to?
And if it was going to go to a terrorist organisation, potentially,
it wasn't something they were prepared to do.
How did you first come across Charley, and what did you tell him?
I knew he worked for the stolen art squad.
I just thought there were still avenues
that could have been explored,
and if the Americans weren't minded to investigate, somebody else may.
And what's your gut instinct?
To get information about a crime such as that,
in those circumstances, is completely unusual.
I think the information was probably correct.
What makes you think that? Just a feeling.
Was just a feel. The information was probably correct.
Hearing that from a senior detective
must have seemed like real confirmation for Charley
that his theory was standing up -
and in the same year, 2002, that feeling was further reinforced
when he first met the man who is still today his key source
to recover the art. He's now revealed his name to me -
Martin Foley, nicknamed The Viper.
So, he's the man I need to speak to.
Today, he's a renowned Dublin criminal in his own right,
but Foley was, over three decades ago, also second-in-command
to Martin Cahill, the notorious Irish gangster known as The General,
who stole the Russborough House Vermeer in 1986 -
the one that Charley eventually recovered.
He's been a bane to the existence of the Irish police.Yeah.
He is someone who is more than a Dublin crook.Right.
He's not public enemy number one,
but he's been a public enemy
for longer than anyone else on this island,
over the past, 17 years, it is now.
We've established a bond of trust between one another.
The first time I met him, I asked about the Gardner pictures.
He said to me, "Well, I know all about that,
"but I'm not going to get involved because they'll kill me
"for sure if I do."Who did he think was going to kill him
if he talked about it or got involved?
I don't know. We can all speculate -
but my speculation is probably the same as everybody else's.
It had to be some hard men in the IRA
that would have taken exception to him involving himself in this.
For the next 16 years, Foley gave Charley no more details
until just before Christmas 2018.
That was a breakthrough moment.
He revealed a new piece of information
about two brothers that he insists were the thieves -
the Moyna brothers.
What I believe happened, Donal Moyna, his brother John,
they were the ones who went into the Gardner Museum
dressed as Boston police officers,
and took the paintings,
and then they were moved to West Dublin,
and there they were put in a safe house behind a wall -
and he never told anyone that the paintings were there.
And then, in 1998, Donal, who'd actually put the things away,
here in this city, was murdered,
and, you know, no-one knew where he'd put them.How do you know that?
Martin Foley told me that he was in business with Donal Moyna.
Martin has told me this story of how Donal did have a woman.
She knew where his safe house was.
And he knew her as well...Yeah.
..in the biblical sense, and she told him where the house was.
That's what Martin told me just before Christmas last year.
And that's why I've, for the past, well, just over six months,
been extremely gung ho and encouraged Martin,
when I've spoken to him, well, you know, let's see what we can do.
I want to meet Martin Foley as a priority,
but he's proving pretty elusive.
PHONE RINGS
VOICEMAIL TONE
Hi, Sonia, this message is for Martin.
Could he call me today? Many, many thanks. And hope you're all well.
Cheers.
There we go.Do you not have a mobile number for him?
That IS his mobile number.OK.
So he's not around.
Well, for fuck's sake, I don't know whether he is or not
but he's not answering the phone, that's for sure.Yeah.
It's just, given that there was a kind of a momentum,
and apparently there was an urgency to it, and he kept saying,
"It's happening, it's happening, it's happening",
you know, it's going to happen in the next few weeks.
And now there's not, and there must be some reason or reasons for it.
Right.And I can only speculate that he has spoken to people
who've said, you know, cool it.
I asked Charley to show me the kind of neighbourhood in Dublin
where he thinks the art might have been hidden.
I mean, you don't know where the safe house is.
I don't know where it is.
25 years ago, when he was looking for a safe house,
this is the sort of area.
It would have been inexpensive and anonymous.
I mean, it's a really, quite exciting thought, in a way,
isn't it, that the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum art
could be hidden... Anywhere...any of these houses.
Any given moment, the house could be knocked apart.
It could be refurbished. False wall come down.
Paintings fall out!
When you're here it feels so close,
but if ever there was a case drowning in theories, suspects
and false leads, it's this one.
Boston has kept throwing them up for years.
Seven books so far,
and even a recent ten part podcast series.
Kelly!Hi!
In Boston, I arranged to meet the investigative journalist
who made the podcast to put to her the Irish theory.
Boston had a big reputation for a long time, didn't it,
as a crime town and a place where things left,
left this port, on boats.
In fact, there was a famous incident, wasn't there,
that a cargo of arms,
rifles, explosives, on a fishing boat called the Valhalla, wasn't it?
It's true, yeah, the Valhalla.
Headed across to the Republic of Ireland.That's correct, yes.
During the Troubles.And...I think I know where you're going with this.
Well...If you can put arms on a fishing boat,
can you put 13 pieces of art? Easily.Yeah, I think so.
I mean, I don't think it's a terrible theory.
Erm...
It's tantalising in a lot of ways because at the time, in Boston,
there was great support amongst some for the IRA and the Irish community.
I mean, you could make a donation to the IRA at your local pub.
It's a good one, on paper.
I mean, there were links,
IRA links to people who had raided houses -
Russborough House got raided a couple of times.
It does seem that there's a connection.
You steal a Vermeer here, you hold it for collateral,
you steal a Vermeer in Boston.
Supposing, what if,
the robbers were beholden to, or even just in sympathy with, the IRA.
It's all very appealing on paper -
but I don't know how much it stands up in fact.
Because there's no evidence to support the speculation?
It wasn't an avenue of enquiry that I could go very deep into,
from what I was able to divine,
every thread that I pulled was interesting
but nothing really sewed together, so to speak.
Kelly doesn't seem very convinced by the Irish theory.
So what does she make of the FBI's certainty
that the Mafia were involved and that the art is still in America?
This is TRC Auto Electric. This is it?This is it.
One-time criminal front.
Current legitimate business.
The FBI's Geoff Kelly, in a very rare interview, years ago,
said that he believed that the plot to rob the Gardner
was hatched inside TRC Auto Electric.
This was, believe it or not,
the nerve centre at the time of the Gardner heist.
It was a front for quite a powerful criminal enterprise.
They did a lot of cocaine dealing, primarily
but I think, you know, fencing stolen goods,
carrying out other robberies.
TRC Auto Electric was Carmello Merlino's place.
In 1998, the FBI made him a key suspect.
He certainly conformed to their view of the thieves
as Italian-American Boston mobsters.
What Carmello Merlino doesn't know is that inside TRC Auto Electric,
he has not one but two confidential informants working for the FBI,
so we know from the confidential informant tapes
that Carmello Merlino was making calls from inside TRC Auto Electric,
trying to find out where the paintings were, who had them.
But the fact that he's trying to get hold of the paintings
suggest that he had nothing to do with the heist?
It could be that some of the people working for Carmello Merlino
carried out the heist
and then, the paintings were out of their control...Sure.
..and Merlino was trying to get them back...
Because that was the fencing joint?
They fenced a lot of goods going through that place
so, a lot of bad guys,
many of whom have been named in one way or another
in connection to the Gardner heist, either for having robbed the place
or tried to traffick the goods.
Months of surveillance led nowhere.
Despite that, 15 years later,
at their first televised press conference,
the FBI confirmed that they still believe the art was in America,
stolen or held, by Italian-Americans.
For the first time, we can say with a high degree of confidence,
we have determined that in the years since the theft,
the art was transported to Connecticut
and to the Philadelphia area.
Tips led to a house in Maine, where, allegedly,
paintings had been hidden.
They went to this house which was the former summerhouse
of Bobby Guarente.
Bobby Guarente and Carmello Merlino were criminal associates.
They found a hiding space that would have, they said,
have been big enough to hide something as massive
as Storm On The Sea Of Galilee,
which is about five feet by four feet.
Guarente's widow Elene, she apparently burst into tears
and said, "My Bobby had those paintings."
Specifically the Gardner paintings?
Yes, and "My Bobby had those paintings
"and he gave them to this guy,"
this other Bobby, Bobby Gentile. Gentile.
Anybody who knows anything about this case thinks that Bobby Gentile
may have not had something to do with the heist itself,
but may have been involved in fencing the paintings
or hiding them.
The FBI searched Gentile's house.
In his basement,
they found a list of black-market prices for the stolen art.
Gentile denied any knowledge
but a polygraph test suggested it was 99% probable he was lying.
In 2017, he was jailed for supplying guns. He's just been released.
He is a dangerous man, apparently, despite now being...early 80s,
but I've found his lawyer's number
and he's agreed to meet me, which is great.
I've got a few questions for you. Sure.About your client.Of course!
He is a member of an Italian-American
social organisation.OK. Right.
Doesn't he live - he lives near here, doesn't he?
He does, he lives about...
..15 miles from here.15 miles. OK.
Worth me going, having a word with him?
Er, no. That would not be advisable.
It's not because you're scared of him?Oh, Bob? No. No, not at all.
OK.There are people in this case that I've been afraid of.
One of them broke my hand.
When he squeezed my hand like that, he squeezed - he was so big,
he was about six foot five and I'd say 260,
and he was a very, very, well-built gentleman,
with a hand about a size of a Volkswagen Beetle.
So, Bobby Gentile, his house was raided, wasn't it?
Raided three or four times.
They didn't find what they were looking for.Right.
They were looking for the paintings?
They were looking for the paintings. Yeah.
In your dealings with Gentile, and he said to you,
"I know nothing about the paintings, I don't know where they are."
Do you believe him?
I got a phone call from Butner Prison Camp, where he was,
and they said, "Your client's dying,
"he's not going to make it through the night",
so I went in and I talked to him.
Told him the situation that he was in and I also told him,
I said, "Bob, it's very likely that you're going to die here",
and he kept saying,
"I can't die here, I can't die here, I can't die here,"
and I said, "Bob, if you give me anything on these paintings -
"doesn't have to be the paintings,
"it just has to be something that they don't know,
"that is the truth,
"I guarantee you I will have you medevacked out of here
"and you could be at home with your wife
"and you could die in your own bed with your wife next to you."
It was at that moment that I knew that he had no paintings
because there were tears coming down his eyes
and he said, "Er, but there ain't no paintings.
"There ain't no paintings."
A week in Boston, and it feels to me
that this crime is no closer to being solved here.
As the lawyer says, even after 30 years, "there ain't no paintings",
let alone any arrests in relation to the theft
or the trafficking of the art.
So, am I being spun a line by a law enforcement agency
that's stumbling around for clues?
The lack of progress in Boston
makes the Irish theory seem more plausible -
but, then, Charley Hill is driven by instinct, hunch,
suspicion and unreliable sources.
And the key source, Martin "The Viper" Foley,
has suddenly got back in touch...
..but is it really wise to trust the word of a man
whose criminal record began 50 years ago, when he was a teenager?
Charley's convinced it is worth the risk
but I want the opinion of somebody who's observed Foley
closely from the right side of the law,
as the former head of the Garda Murder Squad here in Dublin.
We are now passing Mr Foley's house. Where he lives now?
That's still the family home.
I think, Gerry, that we maybe shouldn't be sitting here,
outside, if this is Foley's house!
I'll just pull over here for a minute.
Tell me about Martin Foley, the guy known as The Viper.
Vicious temper, when roused.
He was a great fighter, a great boxer.
Pound for pound, they reckon there wasn't a man in Dublin
could take him on.Right.
On one occasion, I was travelling with my family
and Martin passed by.
It was a summer's day, and he had his shirt off.
You could see the pockmarks on his back where the bullets
had exited and entered.
He was... He was like a porcupine.
I met him some years ago in Dublin.
"I'm working away now", he said. "I'm legit", and he says,
"By the way, if ever you need any job done", he said,
"look, there's my card!"
"Viper Debt Recovery And Repossession Services Limited."
He's a kind of enforcer on behalf of people who want their money back.
I'd say he was effective, you know.
If Mr Foley came to your house with his henchmen,
I think you'd...Pay up.
..find the money to pay up, you know?
But knowing Martin Foley, as you do,
and as you have done over many years,
if there was any suggestion that the paintings were here
and that Foley knew something about it, would that seem credible to you?
I must answer and say yes.
Yes.
He's an immensely intelligent and clever villain.
He has so many connections in very... In the north -
both here and, very important, in the north of Ireland,
with the Provisional IRA.
He wants to put the life of crime behind him.
Do you sense that this is a man who might be looking
for some kind of redemption for his crimes?
The fact is, he's an old man.
He's coming up to 70 years of age.
He's survived two, three, four assassination attempts.
He's had so many runs in with the Grim Reaper,
it would expiate a lot of his sins
if he could be shown to be the man that recovered
the biggest robbery... The biggest art heist ever.
That would appeal to Mr Foley, absolutely.
That's a surprising endorsement of the view
that Foley might be telling the truth.
So, I press Charley again to try and set up a meeting with The Viper.
PHONE RINGS
It's ringing.Yeah.
Hello?
Hi, Martin. It's Charley.
INAUDIBLE CONVERSATION
Ah, I'm OK.
If I'm honest with you, I half expected to hear a voice
and Charley say, "Martin, it's Charley."
I sort of half expected him to say, "Charley who?"
Martin, this is the biggest story
of its kind, this century, so far.
Well, I'm certainly going to keep trying. I'm not going to quit.
I think Charley's motives are good.
You know, I'm not following a lunatic here,
I'm not following a fantasist.
These things have to come back,
and you're the best person placed to help do that.
Martin, is there any chance
I could bring my friend John Wilson round to see you?
INAUDIBLE CONVERSATION
I think you may be mistaken about this
and I intend to prove you wrong.
I tell you what, would you think about it,
and if you change your mind, would you let me know?
Just stay well. Good luck. I'll hear from you. Cheers.
Right. Well.
I was going to say it's a breakthrough,
because you got through to him. He spoke to you.Yes.
But it didn't sound entirely positive.
He banged on about - not indemnity, but immunity.
This won't work. He won't get it.
To me, it sounded like he was saying, I've had enough.
That's EXACTLY what he was saying. I don't want to do this any more.
That's what he said.
Martin Foley may be the only person
that stands between this art returning to Boston
or staying behind a bricked up wall forever.
The possibility of that, even, is so tantalising
it's worth Charley pushing and pushing and pushing,
and I think he was doing that.
Clearly, Martin Foley wants immunity from prosecution,
but is that the real issue here,
or has he just been stringing us along, making the whole thing up?
I've come across a journalist,
somebody whose investigative reporting
of the criminal's activities
resulted in serious threats from Foley.
Your source for this story is Martin Foley,
one of the most dishonest and mendacious gangsters
I've ever come across.
I wouldn't believe the news on the radio in his car!
And, like, no criminal would.
Why do you think they put so many holes in the guy?
He holds the record in this country, for being shot more times
than anybody else. He's like a bloody sieve!
He's been shot on four different occasions.
That is an indicator that you really are good and world-class
and top of the pile when it comes to pissing people off.
Why do so many people want to kill this guy?
He was called The Viper because his boss, Martin Cahill,
and his colleagues in the criminal gang
did not trust him, because he's a snout.
He terrorised people.
Him arriving at your door was Armageddon for some people.
You wrote about him extensively
and revealed a lot to the extent of his criminal activities.
Did he threaten you directly as a result?
They doused my car with acid.
There was a plan in place to shoot me,
take me out of it, because I pissed them off so much through the years.
Foley was responsible for a very elaborate hoax bomb at my home.
Bomb squad believed it was so real they evacuated all my neighbours
one night, on a November night at three o'clock in the morning.
Made me very popular with my neighbours at the time.
And that was the culmination of months and months and months
and months of intimidation and threats.
Foley has told Charley
that not only does he know where the Boston art is, he can get it back.
Criminals want money, they don't believe in investment.
Criminal gang does not go out and say, "You know what, guys,
"we're going to rob this, we're going to bury it
"and in 20 years' time, it would be great little nest egg for us."
They don't think that way.
It is not within the cognitive capacity of the average criminal.
I would bet my salary for the next year
that those paintings will never be found
if Martin Foley is your touch on it.
That's a pretty damning indictment,
but leaving aside Foley's character,
The Viper may have a point regarding immunity.
Why would he help get the art back
if the main result for him might be prison?
In America, deals are often struck with criminals
and when a billion dollars' worth of art is at stake,
the incentive must be huge.
So in Boston, I ask Gardner Museum security chief Anthony Amore
and FBI special agent Geoff Kelly
what offer THEY would put on the table.
I mean, some people think
the offer's too good to be true, you know?
$10 million and immunity.
But that is the offer.
It's been stated publicly enough
that I think it would be difficult for the government to go back on it.
This is kind of our blanket statement to anybody,
when we're talking to people in their homes
or when we're talking with the media.
If you have information,
and you don't feel comfortable talking to the FBI
or talking to the Gardner Museum,
get an attorney, and have the attorney speak for you.
Does that sound like someone that's looking to arrest people? Right?
How often do you hear...
..law enforcement say,
"No, no, please have your attorney call us."You won't be arrested!
We don't need to speak to you.Yeah.
I think our greatest mission, aside from getting these images
out there, is to try to get the trust of the people
who have the information
because there's so much misinformation floating around.
You just heard it from the FBI.
We're happy to speak to your lawyer instead of you.
So does the man who would be responsible
for bringing the state prosecution
agree with the FBI's willingness to reach a deal?
We would be more likely to consider immunity
in this kind of case, because it's not fungible.
Money is fungible, money is money. A Vermeer? There's only one.
And so, if we want that back,
there's not too many ways to get it back
and so, if somebody walks in the door and they have it,
and they know where it is,
they kind of have the government over a barrel. Right?
Because there's no other way to get that particular painting back.
And so, I think, in a circumstance like that,
we would be more likely to consider immunity
than in a generic fraud case that just involves dollars.
If somebody in Ireland had that, what's the legal situation?
Let's say it was someone in Ireland. Yeah.Right?
And there's credible information that someone in Ireland
has some of these paintings. We would open up a channel
with law enforcement in Ireland to help us investigate,
and if something came of it,
then we would have discussions with prosecutors there
to try and figure out a global deal
involving the person who took the artworks.
There's no question that the people of Boston
would support the US attorney in trying to get the art back.
I was really surprised at just how passionate Bostonians are,
whatever their age, to see the paintings back in their frames.
There's something really interesting about walking in this beautiful room
and right in front of you is just empty frames.
You have to kind of sit and think about, why are those frames empty?
There was a gentleman in this room who was standing in front
of the empty frame and he told me how much he missed that painting,
and his coming here was almost like visiting a graveside.
It made me realise the very deep connections
that people have with works of art.
We've lost such a treasure, The Sea Of Galilee,
his only seascape.
It's a beautiful pain... It WAS a beautiful painting.
I don't know where it is. Wherever it is.
Makes me, er, cry,
just because those paintings now are not available -
to me, and to the world - any more.
And that's the death of something, isn't it?
Then comes an email from Charley that could horrify the art lovers
of Boston as much as it might excite them.
Foley seems about to dramatically move things on.
It says the idea of Foley's is to send one of the pictures
to the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum,
and he plans to do it anonymously.
"A small Degas should do the trick."
But I mean, this seems like...
..a completely mad plan.
I mean, if anything arrived back in Boston,
the FBI are going to take note and they'll be in Dublin
within six or seven hours, I would have thought.
So he said to you, "I'm going to send one of them back"?
That's what he said to me, yes.But it's like a hostage thing, isn't it?
It's kind of proof of life.
What? You mean snip off somebody's ear or finger.Yeah, yeah.
Send a Degas back is the equivalent of the ear.
That's a dangerous game, isn't it? Of course it is.
Just...tell him I'll come and talk to him now, if he's up for it?
If he's looking for immunity and he's worried about prosecution,
and all of those things, he doesn't have to worry about talking to ME
about helping YOU with your enquiry. He may think differently.
You've just got to realise that. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Because he doesn't trust anyone. He doesn't trust anyone.
Cops or journalists. So, I'm not coming in with you, then?
Not today, no.
First thing he'll think is he's been set up. Which he's not.
But do you think he suspects that anyway?He suspects everyone.Yeah.
While waiting, Charley sends me a message
about his meeting with Martin Foley.
"He was adamant that he would not talk to anybody
"until he got his letter of immunity."
"Maddeningly determined not to do anything
"unless he was not going to have his goose cooked."
While an immunity deal seems possible in America,
Charley says it's a very different legal situation in Ireland.
You've already broached the possibility
that if you are in league with him in any way, if you're helping him,
if he gets nicked, you could get nicked?
So what are you doing about that?
Pointing out to you that you could get nicked as well.
Everybody connected with this, in any way whatsoever,
if you look at the laws from 2005 and 2006,
dealt with people benefiting from the proceeds of criminal conduct,
we are all on the sheet.
So it needs a fine legal brain,
it needs somebody who understands the game.
Well, I'm hoping we're going to meet somebody like that tomorrow.
Who's that?Well, James Hamilton. Right. The former DPP.Yes.
He's one of the most eminent lawyers in these islands.
Yeah.And whatever he decided, whatever view he took,
people would listen to, respect, and think about.
Well, I am keen to hear if an imminent Irish legal authority
can offer any hope in breaking this deadlock.
I assume the pictures are all here in Ireland.
How on earth, given the nature of the law
and the nature of the beasts involved,
how do we...how do we recover them?
It's a very, tricky, tricky problem.
I would say, myself, that probably the return of property
would be a legitimate factor to consider -
but you'd have to balance it against various other factors.
One consideration, for example, would be a reluctance
to see somebody profiting from their own crime.
One of the things that discourages people from stealing them
is that it's very difficult to see where they can find a market.
If they're going to have a market of governments
who are prepared to pay large sums of money, effectively,
to get them back, well, then you could be creating a problem.
That's true.
Although, in practice, they very, very rarely,
if ever, benefit from it.Yeah.
However, there is the $10 million reward.
Many people would say the word reward
is just a polite euphemism for the word ransom.
Don't you both distinguish between rewards and ransoms?
I think there is a distinction. It's a matter of proportion.Yeah.
I don't for a moment think that the Gardner pictures
are worth a billion. Half a billion, let's say.
A $10 million reward for half a billion dollars' worth
is proportionate, in my opinion - but then that's just my opinion.
It's not necessarily Mr Hamilton's or yours.
No, but then if that $10 million were to end up in the pockets
of some paramilitary group, you know.
If you're going to hand money over, effectively, or valuable
to organised criminals who might be responsible for a loss of life
or serious injury, and I think for law enforcement people,
that would weigh in the balance even against something as important
as getting back a very beautiful Vermeer or Rembrandt paintings.
There just doesn't seem any wriggle room in Ireland
for a deal like the one being offered in America.
From what I've just heard from James Hamilton,
it just seems like Foley has no chance whatsoever.
He will be seen to be benefiting in some way from the proceeds
of criminal activity, even if he had nothing
to do with it in the first place. I'm not giving up, John.
I'm not giving up. We're going to get these things back.
We've got to find a way to do it.So what are you going to say to Foley?
I'm thinking about it. I'm not sure at the moment.Could you say,
"Can I come and see you, because I've got some information"?No, no.
He doesn't think that way.
He'll think entirely at the moment of his immediate problems
and his family problems.
Well, that's what worries me, because you said six months ago,
we've got six weeks, he's going in there,
this stuff's going to come back.
You have to help him create the right legal conditions.
That was urgent then...Yes. ..and then nothing's happened.
The person I really need to talk to now is Martin Foley.
And I think you will, but I don't think he'll do it today.
I bet I don't even see him.
I'll certainly go round to the place and drop off a card.
Well, I'll come with you, alone.
I sit in the car, you knock on the door,
just turn up and say, "Look, I have some serious information here,
"this might change everything, but you need to know."
I'm going to have to have, at this point in the relationship, Charley,
I'm going to have to bring a degree of that scepticism
that James Hamilton will have, or the Garda would have,
or anybody would have. What's he really saying to you?
I don't want you to get whacked with a baseball bat.
I don't want to get whacked with a baseball bat
but I will sit in the car until you wave and say come in.
Just when I think this might be the breakthrough,
it becomes clear that Foley isn't even here
and a neighbour takes the gift that Charley has brought.
This is getting ridiculous.
The man who is sure he can help return
a billion dollars' worth of art
can't even arrange a meeting with his criminal source.
And then, suddenly, Foley is in the news again -
and in a way that might just help move things on.
This has just hit the Irish Times this morning.
"Martin 'The Viper' Foley ordered to pay 738,000 euros
"to settle tax bill."
What does that mean for the Gardner art,
for which there is a $10 million reward
and he's obviously seeking a cut?
Has he been weighing up the idea
that if he could get his hands on the art,
this is a way of paying the tax bill or of some deal...
..being done?
This is a bombshell, isn't it?
Did you know about this?Erm...
No, but then there's so many things I don't know
in relation to what we're trying to do here.
That's a final demand because it's an appeal that's been lost.
He's facing jail, isn't he?
He's certainly facing, you know, truth or consequences time.
With this tax demand,
he possibly has a way of paying that off.
I thought it was a racing certainty he'd be able to pay it off,
but that'll be the point I'll make to him.Yeah.
Erm...
But that's a major breakthrough though, isn't it?Well, I hope so.
My God, I hope so.
Once again, Charley is off to see Foley but, once again, without me.
Staying here in Dublin seems increasingly pointless.
I'm just back from Dublin, I've been back a couple of days,
and Martin Foley has hit the headlines in the Irish press again.
Splashed across the front of the Sunday World,
the biggest tabloid in Ireland, is the headline,
"Viper's Master Stroke -
"Artful dodger Foley claims he knows the whereabouts
"of stolen priceless paintings and seeks huge cash reward."
It's right across a double-page spread on the inside pages
under the headline, "Viper's MasterFleece."
The documentary is even mentioned here.
Charley Hill, there - "Pictured former detective Charley Hill
"was in Ireland this month with documentary makers from the BBC
"who are making a production about the hunt,
"which is concentrating on Foley's claims."
It's out there. The story is out there.
And now there's a response from the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum.
In fact, Anthony Amore, the security boss at the museum,
he says, "If Foley knows anything about our art,
"it's time to put up or shut up."
There are unnamed sources in this story suggesting Foley is a conman,
that he's after the reward, he's simply leading Charley Hill along.
There's a really uncertain relationship there.
Foley's in, Foley's out.
Foley is his man and suddenly he's splashed across the front
of Ireland's biggest tabloid.
And I guess he's thinking,
is this the end of the road?
And I'm thinking, is this the end of the story?
The Foley trail seems to be going nowhere
but then Charley takes me right back to the beginning,
to the Newcastle policeman and to that criminal
who told him that the art was in Ireland in the first place.
I've been trying to see him,
but he wouldn't take part in the documentary.
He's running scared.
I've seen the email chain from Charley Hill.
The latest one from this guy...
..who won't reveal his identity, I should say.
He says, "I will not be in any documentary.
"I have spoken to people about this and they have told me to stay away.
"It could be bad for my health."
He knows that he doesn't have the right to talk
without the go ahead of some even more serious characters than him.
I think this is a breakthrough.
An email from Charley.
His source - the guy who got him to Ireland in the first place,
he's back on. He will talk after all.
But he wants to remain anonymous.
He says he wants his face pixelated on screen or to be shot from behind.
I'm told he can't be seen with me in public
so he's told me to head to a remote country house hotel
near Waterford in the far south of Ireland.
I do believe there's an Irish connection in that robbery...
..but I don't believe that that Irish connection
is anything to do with the IRA.
What makes you think that? Because...
..I would believe I know who is involved.
In the robbery?Yes.
The actual heist itself or the transportation from...?
The heist.Really?
He would have a Republican connection,
but I'm 100% convinced...
..that he had no permission from anybody
to go and steal them paintings or have anything to do with them.
And I've seen documentaries on TV
stating that the IRA were involved in that robbery.
That's false,
because I know they're not.
You see, it must roll back to the start.
I became aware of those paintings, first in 1998.
And second in 2002, with someone else.
And I was asked to make contact with someone
who could arrange or negotiate those to be given back for a reward.
I started making inquiries, so I had to go upfront on it.
And I did.
And eventually I came to Charley...
..to negotiate those paintings.
So the person that was asking you to negotiate
the return of the paintings,
or to inquire to see if a deal could be done,
was a person who was involved in the heist in the first place?
Yeah.And who then transported the paintings to Ireland.
That's what he said.
How well did you know this person?
Very well.
A friend or a business associate? He'd be...
..a friend, and a good friend.
Cos there was a $5 million reward at the time...
That's correct...so this person,
your friend, was looking for a slice of...
When he was speaking to me, we were sitting near the beach
and he said, "If I could sell one of them for a million quid,"
he said, "I'd have enough pocket money for the next year or two."
Did he offer you a cut, was there a deal?
Oh, I would get my cut, of course.
I'd probably get 200 grand if it was a million dollars.
I would definitely get my cut.
Oh, another thing he said was...
Is it the Sea of Galilee, the Storm on the Sea of Galilee?
That's the Rembrandt painting.
..yeah, he said that's an inch shorter than it was.
It was cut out the frame or something.
He was telling me this because he said they're damaged.
He said, "That's damaged."
And I said, "How much damage?" He said, "Well, it's an inch shorter.
But a few years had passed...
..from the beginning I'd been asked to do this,
and what happened was when I went back
I was told, put that subject to bed and forget about it.
It had become too hot?Yes.
Your friend, who said he had control of the paintings...Yeah.
..he disappeared.
Somebody else must have known where the paintings were...Yeah.
..for you to have then been given these instructions, this advice.
You have to remember that there were two people on that robbery...Mm.
..and maybe a third or fourth somewhere else.
So there's more than one.
Just because one went missing, doesn't mean it ends the story.
The story don't end there.
Do you have any idea whether the paintings
are still in the place where they were originally hidden?
I couldn't get on the scent of them at all.
If they're there still in this country, they're in bed.
They're asleep somewhere.
I think the biggest stumbling block in the whole thing from day one
was to somebody invent the Republican connection.
Once they clear their name,
it opens the gate for the people that has control to do something.
The only hope, I'd say, is your documentary...
..when it's aired, out there,
if you emphasise the importance of getting them back...Mm.
..and play on people's heartstrings,
and remove the accusations
that the IRA stole the paintings,
you might have some hope.
I agree with that.
Do I believe what I'm being told?
Frankly, yes. It's a compelling story -
but it's all a far cry from six months ago
when Charley excited me with tales of a billion dollars' worth of art
hidden behind a wall in a house in West Dublin.
Stolen art that could be recovered.
So, have I been naive? Has Charley?
More importantly, will we ever see the return
of Degas, Manet, Vermeer and Rembrandt?
It's a loner's game, essentially. You have to play it as you see it.
I've been highly successful in the past doing this,
and this is the way I do it.
When is it going to end?
Uh...Are you putting any timeframe on it?
Do you have a cut-off point yourself?
Well, I' d much prefer it was sooner rather than later,
but I just have no idea.
Is there a point where you have to let it go?No.
No?No!