Episode 7: The Checklist, The Heist, Solved

This is Suzanne Kenney and you’re listening to the Crime and Canvas Podcast. In the previous episodes, we learned about my mother Mary’s astonishing encounters with a mysterious man who we now know to be the billionaire Frederick R. Koch. We dove into the incredible master artworks he sold her, attempted to decode the crucial handwritten notes that tied him to the pieces, and followed my years of research that led to shocking discoveries in Miami. We then confronted the relentless institutional resistance in authenticating these valuable works and, most recently in Episode Six, unveiled the pivotal 1991 London art storage warehouse fire, its a direct connection to Koch, and how it aligns with a disturbing timeline of events, including a significant murder related to the Gardner Heist.

For years, this investigation has been a relentless pursuit, a labyrinth of scattered clues, frustrating dead ends, and a constant battle against a wall of silence. I’ve spent countless hours, days, and years trying to place every single piece of the puzzle, often feeling like I was pushing against an invisible force. 

You live with the questions, the nagging “why’s” that keep you up at night. You collect the facts, you build the timelines, you connect what you can, but there’s always that missing link, that final click that makes everything undeniable. And in that one electrifying moment, it just happens. All those isolated pieces, all those years of struggle, suddenly align with a clarity that hits you with the force of absolute truth. It’s not just a theory; it’s a profound knowing, a realization that can only come from living inside the puzzle for so long.

Now, in Episode 7: The Checklist, The Heist, Solved, we’re bringing all these explosive details together. I’m going to show you how the pieces align, expose the criminal’s hidden ‘checklist,’ and reveal how the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum Heist has been solved. Welcome to Episode 7.

May of 2012, an article was released that the FBI agents were digging in someone’s backyard using ground penetration radar and bomb-detection dogs searching for the stolen artwork from the 1990 Boston Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum art heist. I thought the FBI said they didn’t waste their time on art crimes from over twenty years ago? Now they’re questioning a seventy-five year old Robert Gentile–sworn mafia member and con-artist–like they care? It was disheartening. They could spend time and money on this twenty-two year old art crime, though not on my mother’s twenty-one year old art story? I doubt they believed she even had the artwork to begin with–it’s not like they ever checked.

A few weeks later in June, just as I thought they didn’t care about my mother’s story, we had the police at our home. It could have been for someone else, but when I walked out into the backyard, there looking down at me was an armed police officer with a rifle in the open door of a helicopter that stayed circling over our backyard. My husband left to drive around the neighborhood just to see if there were any more officers or some sort of accident nearby  when he returned, he stated he saw two officers walking along a canal on a side street near our house simply just talking. He explained they weren’t anxious or rushed, they were just there walking, nowhere near the helicopter. Not much later the helicopter left as did the rest of the officers–we never figured out why they were there that day.

We decided to look online for incidents in our area that could explain what just happened, yet there was nothing. Something within me said to research more about the Isabella Gardner Museum art heist since the authorities were on that case again. I was aggravated. 

Why were they focused on this art heist from 1990 and not interested in my mother’s art story from around the same time period 1991 to 1992. 

So,I pulled up an article that described the stolen artwork from the museum.  As I read down that list, it hit me with a stomach-turning click. It was like a key finally fitting into its lock. We didn’t have the stolen artwork, but in that moment, I knew exactly who did

As I read down the stolen list it started like this – five pen and pencil drawings, my stomach turned – my mother has five pen and pencil drawings. Then it states Degas and ours is by Calder I felt an instant sense of relief. This is a new experience or feeling when researching my mother’s story… Similar to when I found the news article of the fire in London. Oh I knew I was looking for a fire… i don’t know that I was looking for an art heist.

Next I read there is a stolen Édouard Manet painting- my mother has a Édouard Manet painting, my stomach turned again. I quickly Googled… phew, it wasn’t hers. It was a chef in a hat. I paused, remembering our Van Gogh also featured a turban/hat. Strange. And very Surreal.

I pause and think to myself if there is a connection to those bird paintings – oh – the bird finial. I am like what? What does this mean? Butterflies took over my stomach when I made yet another connection. Too many practically literal-mirroring connections.

Next there were three stolen Rembrandt paintings. We didn’t have any Rembrandts, but my mother had gotten four Pablo Picasso paintings. Thoughts started forming in my mind like puzzle pieces fitting together — you could trade four Picassos for three Rembrandts. And that’s when I realized, this wasn’t about exact matches. This was about a deliberate mirroring, a ‘checklist’ of sorts. While the Rembrandt-Picasso swap was less literal than the others, it allowed for the overall method to make sense.

Even with all this though, I still wasn’t completely sure with where this information was taking me until I saw the last one on the list. A Vermeer painting.

It wasn’t until I looked at the painting, contemplating everything, taking it all in one piece of artwork at a time. My jaw dropped. I was so stunned I began crying. My mind was spinning, utterly overwhelmed by this unexpected connection that added another layer to an already crazy, complicated story. How could I possibly turn back now? 

This was the moment no one, especially not me, expected to find themselves in. Not only was I not being heard but this crazy story just went completely off the rails.

And then, through the shock and the tears, the answer solidified. I had solved Fred’s checklist.

I knew right then that I had figured out why Frederick Koch had sold my mother that artwork.

For years, one of my most frequent questions was precisely why he sold her those particular pieces, with such wildly varying values. He could have simply sold her one Picasso, or the Van Gogh—either would have been enough for her to retire. Yet, he also included the three bird paintings, which together weren’t worth more than $100,000. But now, the answer to that question was crystal clear: It was all part of his checklist.

And that understanding, combined with finally solving the Jim Cassel print—the very piece I knew would solve her story—meant I had truly unraveled her entire narrative. Nothing was going to change my mind. Nothing. No one else would have either.

Many years ago, I remember sitting there in my mother’s home, looking at her artwork by Van Gogh, Picasso, and Manet – pieces you’re supposed to see in a museum, not your living room. I knew nothing about art like this firsthand. And I had picked up a torn and tattered print by Jim Cassel. I told my mother she should just throw it away, assuming it was worthless given its condition. But my mother stated firmly, “No! That is the most valuable piece!”

I was confused. How could this battered print be worth more than a Van Gogh or Picasso? My mother would further explain that the man – Mr. Koch – was visibly and emotionally attached to the print. His hands shook when he gave it to her. It was the only item he didn’t sell; he gave it to her, tucked inside a manila folder, which was in an envelope. 

Twenty years ago, holding that print, I instinctively felt, “This print is going to solve something huge one day. It has an emotional meaning.”

This was the same print I later offered to the FBI, hoping they could recover fingerprints from the folder, envelope or the print itself. It wasn’t handled that often.

Then, on the evening of June 18th, 2012, as I went down the list of stolen Gardner artwork, it all clicked into place. The portion of the Jim Cassel print we had always focused on for twenty years, the part I knew so intimately, depicted a man simply sitting and looking intently at a painting, you can see he is deeply absorbed in the canvas. And the stolen Vermeer painting, The Concert, also features a man seated and looking at a painting from the reverse/mirrored direction.

The connection was undeniable. There was also more connections that Vermeer was a Dutch artist, from a Dutch room, just like our Vincent van Gogh. There were just way too many little coincidences for me to let go of. In that moment, I knew right then I had figured out why Frederick Koch had sold my mother that artwork, and how he had used it as his checklist.

On the website under the evidence tab, in the top navigation, you can find the Jim Cassel print and other evidence we speak of in this episode. 

And now as we fast forward to October 2022, when I was contacted by someone who had the full picture of the Jim Cassel print – not just the section my mother and I had.

I was truly shocked to discover we didn’t have the full print. After seeing the complete image, I genuinely believe that if my mother had had the full print from the beginning, I wouldn’t have made the same connection I made when solving this story. The portion my mother received, the part I focused on for two decades, only shows the man looking at the canvas. 

The full print actually depicts the man painting a lady. This unique detail further validates that my original, incomplete view was crucial to my specific moment of discovery, helping to prove I truly solved it through this personal lens.

I also received another message through my website in July of 2024 from an art historian. They stated: “I just finished your book. Have you finally had the Van Gogh looked at the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam? And do you still have the rest of the artwork? 

The story about your mother and Koch was quite interesting. I have to point out though, that you misspelled Manet’s first name, it is not E-d-u-a-r-d-o but it’s just E-d-u-a-r-d Manet. I am an art historian and the Vermeer painting is “The Concert” which is a woman playing a harpsichord with an open lid in front of the listeners. The man is not sitting studying a painting but listening to the concert played by the woman to his left at the keyboard. I think your theory about the connection to the Gardner heist through similar paintings is a little too loose. But I did enjoy the rest of the story.” As for the spelling of Édouard Manet  I did in fact have it spelt wrong- I had it Eduardo. But they also misspell it. It’s E-d-o-u-a-r-d. So it seems a common occurrence with this first name. As for the depiction of the painting, they’re absolutely right but you would need to be an art historian to probably know this, and I am not.

So for me, it’s about the profound connection that formed in the moment of discovery on June 18th, 2012. With all the other pieces of the puzzle falling into place – the five drawings, the Manet, the bird paintings connecting to the stolen finial – The Vermeer, with the man seemingly focused on art, became a powerful mirror image of the Cassel print. It was a moment of profound, undeniable connection that wasn’t based on any deeper art historical knowledge of the Vermeer. I acknowledge that this interpretation is subjective and symbolic rather than purely literal. However, within the unique context of my family’s experience, and the overwhelming evidence I’ve uncovered, it holds immense significance and helped me connect the dots in a way that made perfect sense for me. I hope this explanation provides some clarity and sheds light on the thought process behind my discovery.

So while the number one question has always been, why did this billionaire do what my mother claims he did? But I am always wondering why he selected the pieces he selected to sell her and why give her this Jim Cassel print with such emotion? Now knowing the full print, you know the print this billionaire gave my mother was worthless. Yet, it is mentioned in the notes between Frederick and my mother twice. Seeming to validate the print had an emotional purpose behind it and proving it was selected for a purpose.

Again we’re all left saying why? So many what ifs paired with what abouts and it was starting to make our heads spin. 

By 2011, I had an entire wall filled with newspaper clippings, pictures, and a marker board with notes—it was like an early 90s crime board come to life in my office. It took a long time, but the web of strings slowly began to connect the pieces to the Koch family and their lies. And I finally felt I had enough evidence in 2011 when I called the FBI. I explained everything I knew over the phone.  I potentially had physical evidence that could link Frederick Koch to everything. There’s no way they could pass this up–an opportunity to solve an art storage fire, find an undiscovered Van Gogh, and connect ties to one of the richest families in America? They couldn’t ignore us like the art community had. Over the phone, I told the FBI that we have a print in a file folder that was in a manila envelope that’s only been opened a few times and likely still had fingerprints of the original owner on it.

 I also explained how my mother came to own this artwork. I told them about our struggles getting the work authenticated and how I think everything is connected. I never imagined  when I was done, the lady I spoke with would laugh. She told me I was wasting my time and that the FBI wouldn’t be wasting their resources on trying to recover twenty-plus-year-old fingerprints. Apparently, the Federal Bureau of Investigation didn’t have time for solving London’s art fire or the discovery of millions of dollars in artwork, or even investigating who forged it if the artwork was indeed fake.

I truly believe Frederick R. Koch and John Olsen were the men who robbed the Isabella Stewart Gardner museum for many reasons. 

The theory is that he sold my mother the artwork to right his wrongs. He sold the artwork like he was checking them off from a list. He had a reason he selected each piece that he sold her. Even though they were not the stolen artwork, most matched up with another to the Isabella Gardner museum heist artwork in some way like a Manet for a Manet, five doodles for five doodles, a bird finial for three bird paintings, a Dutch painting for a Dutch painting, and a man staring at a painting for a man staring at a painting.

My theory behind the reasoning for a billionaire art thief selling artwork for nearly nothing to a random woman at a flea market is because of grief and guilt. There were lawsuits and terrible feuds that pitted brother against brother and even twin against twin; Frederick and William versus Charles and David. Their mother, also named Mary (full name Mary Robinson Koch), grew angry with her sons for their in-fighting before she passed from a stroke on December 21st, 1990, only a few months after the museum heist. Most tragedies bring families closer, however after their mother’s death the brothers were still divided. 

The family lawyer even went as far to say, “The callousness of counsel and of the plaintiffs is almost beyond my experience.” Apparently after her first stroke in 1989, their mother was called to testify in the brothers’ legal battles against each other even though she was still recovering and ended up disinheriting Frederick and William due to their nonstop lawsuits with their brothers. 

Frederick had once said he got his love of art from his mother, so had her passing triggered something in him? Had that moment been a tipping point in his life? Was he trying to rectify his past for his mother? His mother, named Mary to then find my mother named Mary to right his wrongs?

The murder of Robert Donati, discovered on September 24th, 1991 – a man accused of taking the art from the Isabella Gardner Museum – casts a long shadow over this timeline. If Frederick was indeed the one who robbed the museum, wouldn’t he feel immense guilt over a man dying because of his actions? Something like that could weigh heavily on the shoulders of even a billionaire with some conscience.

My initial thought was that Frederick’s brother William put him in an Airstream camper in Okeechobee, Florida, to recover from a breakdown after committing these crimes; William was busy with the 1992 America’s Cup and had no time for a fragile brother. But over the years, as I pieced together more, especially from the discoveries I’ll discuss in Episode Nine about the Woolworth heist connections, a deeper, more chilling realization emerged: What if he wasn’t just recovering?  

Over the years when thinking about this man and his arrival in Okeechobee always made me think he was hiding out from something. Why stay out there instead of at his brother’s mansion in Palm Beach?

When I first found the fire I thought that was why. He was hiding from from his actions of the fire. But then why start selling artwork directly related to that fire? What if he was hiding out? Hiding out from the mafia. 

They had just murdered his long-term business partner Robert Donati. He feared they were on to him too. They would know where to look for him at their homes.

So, they tucked him away where the mafia would never look – Okeechobee, Florida (population around 5,000 in 1991) – and an hour away from William’s home in Palm Beach. And this also explains why he chose to sell art directly related to that London fire – he was already in too deep.

While in Okeechobee all Frederick had was time to think. Time to figure out how to make things right. If he was going to be murdered by the mafia, he needed to get these deeds done. The flea market that these transactions occurred at were across the street from where he was staying. He is probably having a breakdown. Probably in a panic – fearing for his life. He definitely wasn’t thinking of the long term consequences of these actions. If the mafia was going to kill him what did it matter.

So, what options did he have while in Okeechobee? The flea market, just across the street. He needed to find someone. And when the person he stumbled upon was named Mary, his mother’s name, someone he was so desperate to make right with… he must have seen it as a sign. Sell it to this kind woman who shares his mother’s name, have her sell it back into the art world. She gets to retire, and the art world gets some unknown, precious art to talk about. A perfect solution for his ‘good deed’.

I, of course, asked why hadn’t he just sold it himself? But that wouldn’t be “gifting” it and anonymously to the art world. He can’t have his name out there. You’ve got these mafia looking for him. Or be this good deed to a person like my mother (extra bonus – right?) 

A way that didn’t leave him being figured out. And I mean there was no internet, you didn’t have all that then. And crucially, he made sure to charge her two to three dollars a piece. It wasn’t about the money for him, he was ensuring a legitimate transaction, a legal and binding sale, as part of his twisted act of “making things right.”  It also goes along with the international art trading and the knowledge that would come along with art and legal transactions. Anyhow he had to do a “good art deed” by selling the artwork in a way that seemed to make right for his crimes.

There was also a sketch done of the two men who robbed the Isabella Stewart Gardner museum and neither looked like Robert Donati. However, they do resemble Frederick Koch and the man I’d seen just a few months before–John Olsen. Even though they were disguised as police officers for the robbery, the resemblance was there. John Olsen looked at me with such an ah angry face that day it kinda burned into me. Anyhow they look way more like the culprits did than Donati. I also input the images into the Gemini AI and it confirmed this.

I reported what I believed to be the involvement of Frederick R. Koch and John Olsen with the Isabella Stewart Gardner museum on June 20th, 2012. I received no response back and figured I wasn’t taken seriously. I also emailed Robert Wittman and that was when he responded with I needed to take the art to Europe. Anyhow, nine months later on the next anniversary of the art heist, March 18th, 2013, the FBI came out and stated they now know the names of the two men who did the heist back in 1990, but refused to release the names. Why say anything at all if you aren’t going to release the names.

Weird timing? Right. The FBI just happens to solve the heist nine months after my email. Or 23 years after the heist. Without giving away any details? When you read news articles on the 1990 art heist and see the theories being reported, all of the theories are based on hearsay and authorities don’t support the reported theories. So how can these unproven theories be reported on? You never see the art heist theories that I share about my mother’s encounters (since 2011) in the news. They are just as worthy to be reported on as the reported statements from mobsters or people who deal with mobsters. Seems as if these mafia-mobster statements are the only statements the news wants to report on. Statements that can’t be fact checked any better than the statements I am sharing. So my mother’s story I do believe the mafia were involved. Just not the way it is being reported.

According to the media, Bobby Donati and several of his buddies were each pre-paid $100k to do the heist, a total of around $500k supposedly paid to these mobsters. But if that was the case, why would Donati still be in possession of any of the artwork? Why would he have buried it? Why would he have the bird finial? There are also claims Donati did the heist for leverage to get his buddy out of prison. But which is it? Him and several others were paid $100k each or they planned the heist for leverage? The media reports such conflicting information and ignores my theories totally.

There is also the fact that there were fingerprints found on Napoleon’s flag pole that don’t match Bobby or any of his buddies who had spent a lot of time in and out of prison. The fingerprints weren’t even in the FBI database. Remember when I called the FBI in 2011, offering the Jim Cassel print for analysis, and they laughed me off, saying they wouldn’t waste resources on old fingerprints? Imagine if that print held the match to the heist fingerprint? The FBI could have solved it back then, perhaps even recovered the artwork anonymously, and we would have been none the wiser, we would have believed they had properly investigated our story.

There was a letter sent to the museum in 1994, two years after my mother tried and failed selling the artwork at Sotheby’s and four years after the art heist. In the letter the author used words like “archival conditions,” and had extensive knowledge of the paintings and the international art trading world.

The writer proposed that if the museum was open to negotiating a deal that in The Boston Sunday Globe they insert a numeral “1” into the US-foreign dollar exchange listing for Italian lira on May 1st, 1994 in exchange for $2.6 million dollars and full immunity from prosecution for the thieves and everyone who held the paintings. It was also explained that they needed to act quickly because the artwork was being held in another country and could be purchased by a buyer who, if they did not know they were stolen, could get full legal ownership of the artwork.

And if you’re thinking that Donati could have written this letter, then let me remind you that 

Robert (Bobby) Donati was discovered murdered mafia-style September of 1991 shortly after being questioned by the FBI for being a part of the Isabella Gardner museum heist.

Plus, the letter was sent from New York, not Boston. Bobby Donati and his buddies lived in Boston, but Frederick Koch had a home in New York and his brothers had gone to MIT in Boston. And if the police thought it was Donati, why didn’t they just say it instead of keeping it a mystery? He was a known criminal and he’d passed away long before the authorities came out to say they solved the heist. If you think that’s odd, the discovery of Donati’s murder was thirteen days before the London art fire at the James Bourlet Storage warehouse in London. which was just a few short weeks before Frederick Koch showed up in my mother’s life to sell her damaged artwork with the damage being said to have come from a fire at an art storage warehouse.

I also want to reiterate the fact that Mr. Koch made sure to charge my mother two or three dollars a piece for the art. I know people ask, “Why would he sell it to her for so cheap when he could have just given it to her?” It comes down to his strategic thinking. He always ensured a transaction occurred so that the sale would be legal and binding. The person who wrote the museum the letter had to have known a lot about art and how that world worked, unlike Donati who nearly outed himself because he tried to sell the finial.

Which we discuss this in the Episode Nine. As discussed earlier, the 1994 letter to the museum stated that the author had “knowledge of international art trading.” They claimed the art was being stored in a country that if it was sold to a person that wasn’t aware of any crimes, could legally own the stolen artwork. And upon my Miami research I had found a company connected to Ed Koch called International Art Trading and an Art Restoration company. Both company addresses were in a parking lot for the North Miami Art Gallery, now known as the MOCA you can see these under the evidence tab on the website. The connections just seem too perfect.

My new theory, based on more recent discoveries I’ll discuss in Episode Nine about the Woolworth heist connections,Frederick and John were not just orchestrating one heist. They were long-term art and collectibles criminals, who strategically used figures like Robert Donati and his associates to move artwork. The mafia, in this scenario, was not the mastermind, but a tool in their much larger, invisible empire of art crime. 

Which I also touch on in regards to the Cambridge University Charles Darwin notepad theft. That I have confirmation pretty much that Coke did it – one of the cokes. I will be discussing more about the Cambridge in Episode Nine.

As I pieced together all the research from my mother’s encounters, the documents, and my investigations, a chilling timeline began to form. This isn’t just a series of random events; it’s a tightly interwoven narrative that points directly to a solution for one of the biggest art heists in history. You can view this complete timeline in the evidence link at crimeandcanvaspodcast.com, but let’s walk through the key events now. It all starts with the heist.

• March 18, 1990: The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum Art Heist. The very beginning of our story, a crime allegedly ordered by a billionaire.
• December 21, 1990: Mary Robinson Koch passes away. This is Frederick R. Koch’s mother, and notably, my mother’s name is also Mary.
• September 21, 1991: Robert Donati is murdered mafia-style. He is discovere on September 24th. He was a prime suspect in the Gardner art heist, reportedly killed because of it.
• October 7, 1991: Just 13 days after Donati’s is found murdered, the James Bourlet & Sons London warehouse art storage fire occurs. This fire destroys hundreds of millions of dollars in art and collectibles, and most of the items belonged to Frederick R. Koch. We talk about that in Episode Six.
• November 1991: Barely a month after the London fire, a stranger arrives in my mother Mary’s life. He introduces himself as “Ed Koch” and begins selling her artwork, claiming the damage to the pieces is from them being saved from a fire at an art storage warehouse. We still have some of this artwork and the handwritten notes from their visits, which confirm his identity as Frederick R. Koch. We don’t have most of the artwork though, just a few pieces.
• February 1992: My mother visits Sotheby’s, and they authenticate the Jane Peterson “Snowy Egret” painting, proving the early 90s time period of her story.
• March 1992: The stranger departs in a bizarre hospital scene, and a newspaper obituary is published claiming he died. But, as we know, he turns out to be alive.
• April 1992: Sotheby’s signs a contract with my mother on the Jane Peterson painting.
• Sometime in 1992: Teri Horton gets her Pollock painting which was mysteriously donated to a thrift store in California. I discuss this more in Episode Nine.
• In 1994, the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum received a letter from someone claiming to have the stolen art. This person had clear knowledge of international art transactions – a detail that instantly clicked with my Miami research and the “International Art Trading” company linked to an Ed Koch that we covered in Episode Four. What’s more, they requested to communicate via the newspaper. This isn’t the first time we’ve seen this play out. Frederick’s fake obituary was a newspaper event, and William Koch even had that fire article in the Palm Beach Post, three weeks after my visit with Robert Wittman reporting the fire and Frederick Koch. The pattern of using newspapers for these critical communications became undeniable.

My mother’s story, connecting me to master artists and grand heists, revealed a profound deception and injustice. It is against this injustice that I stand. This podcast is my unwavering defiance, a refusal to be complicit with those who seek to bury truth and silence voices. Attempts to intimidate me only affirm we are exposing the corrupt. My mother’s journey is a testament to systemic corruption, a desperate call for accountability, and the very bedrock of justice. Your decision to listen, share, and engage is how we dismantle their silence, ensuring this story reaches the public. We are building a community where every unheard voice finds its strength. It’s time to demand that justice prevails and the truth is finally reckoned with.

I urge you to take action. Email editors@propublica.org to demand coverage of my 15-year fight for justice. Tell them you’ve heard the evidence on the Crime & Canvas Podcast. Use #CrimeAndCanvasPodcast when you share this episode.

And remember, if you’re going through a similar struggle, if you have a voice that needs to be heard, visit uhv.news. I started uhv.news because every voice matters. It’s a place I started for others going through similar struggles or taking time to praise someone in their community.

Thank you for joining me on the Crime and Canvas Podcast. This is Suzanne Kenney. I’m grateful for your time and your willingness to hear this story. Let’s always remember, the truth is still the truth, even if no one believes it.