[RedWine] Phantom in the... gallery

[RedWine]

A couple of private art galleries receive letters threatening them about planned thefts of specified, priceless pieces of arts within certain time. All galleries have modern, well - functionning security systems and also well - trained security guards. After having received the letters, all galleries even strenghten their security efforts. All galleries function normally, undisturbed, nothing out of ordinary happens. Some time after the dates specified in letters, the galleries become suspicious about said pieces of arts. All pieces of arts specified in the letters are proven forged.

How were the thefts done?

[GalFisk]

Were the thefts done after the threats? Were the threats necessary in order to carry out the thefts? Were all thefts done by the same method? Relevant how security efforts were strengthened? Were relevant people brought in to do this? Or hired as part of this?

[RedWine]

GalFisk:

Were the thefts done after the threats? Yes. Were the threats necessary in order to carry out the thefts? Yes. Were all thefts done by the same method? Yes. Relevant how security efforts were strengthened? No. Were relevant people brought in to do this? No. Or hired as part of this? Yes.

[GalFisk]

Did they hire more guards? Other security people? Other people? Were the people hired from somewhere relevant? Did they hire the bandits? Were the forgeries created before the threats? If not, was it impossible to create great forgeries before the htreats?

[RedWine]

GalFisk:

BLOOPER ALERT:
Now I see my earlier response is misleading. Hiring more people as part of strengthening security efforts is NOT relevant. Sorry!

Did they hire more guards? Other security people? Other people? Were the people hired from somewhere relevant? See above - details about hiring more security people are not relevant.
Did they hire the bandits? No. Were the forgeries created before the threats? Yes. If not, was it impossible to create great forgeries before the htreats?

[GalFisk]

Did the bandits go inside the art galleries? Were the originals moved as part of strengthening security? Were the buildings modified? Alarms relevant?

[RedWine]

GalFisk:

Did the bandits go inside the art galleries? No. Were the originals moved as part of strengthening security? No. Were the buildings modified? No. Alarms relevant? Only that all galleries had alarms and all alarms worked well.

[GalFisk]

Were the originals removed by humans? Robots? Other devices? Trap doors relevant? Were they removed during strengthening of security? After? Was a relevant aspect of security weakened? Did the bandits affect the things that were done to strengthen security? Were relevant objects brought into the galleries?

[RedWine]

GalFisk:

Were the originals removed by humans? Yes.
Robots? Other devices? Trap doors relevant? No to these.
Were they removed during strengthening of security? No. After? Yes.
Was a relevant aspect of security weakened? Not within the process of strenghtening the security. Did the bandits affect the things that were done to strengthen security? No. Were relevant objects brought into the galleries? No.

[GalFisk]

Was the removal done by: gallery owners? Security personnel? Other gallery workers? Bandits? Someone else?

[RedWine]

GalFisk:

Was the removal done by: gallery owners? This. Security personnel? Other gallery workers? Bandits? Someone else?

[GalFisk]

Relevant where the removed art was placed? If so: in another gallery? A bank vault? A security company? A private home? A safe? Edit: was art from the different galleries all placed in one place?

[Balin]

Was the point of the letters to get the art placed in a location where the bandits could swap out the forgeries?

[RedWine]

GalFisk:

Relevant where the removed art was placed? Yes.
If so: in another gallery? A bank vault? A security company? A private home? A safe? No to all. Probably a FA.
Edit: was art from the different galleries all placed in one place? No.


Balin:

Was the point of the letters to get the art placed in a location where the bandits could swap out the forgeries? Yesish.

[GalFisk]

Was the removed art placed: inside the gallery? In a relevant room? Or device? Or vehicle? Size of art relevant? Did it stay removed for: seconds? Minutes? Hours? Days? Weeks? Months?

[RedWine]

GalFisk:

Was the removed art placed: inside the gallery? No. In a relevant room? No. Or device? No. Or vehicle? YES.
Size of art relevant? No. Did it stay removed for: seconds? Minutes? Hours? Hours AND days. Days? Weeks? Months?

[GalFisk]

Vehicle: armored? Personal? Unremarkable? Is the art stolen form the vehicle? Is the vehicle stolen? Is the vehicle damaged? Has the vehicle been modified by the bandits? Is all art put in the same vehicle?

[RedWine]

GalFisk:

Vehicle: armored? Personal? This. Unremarkable? Not particularly. Is the art stolen form the vehicle? Yes. Is the vehicle stolen? No. Is the vehicle damaged? Yope, OTRT. Has the vehicle been modified by the bandits? YES. Is all art put in the same vehicle? No, but the mode of thefts is the same.

[GalFisk]

Are the vehicles owned by the gallery owners? Have they been modified during routine vehicle service? Is the art stored in the vehicle? Transported to a relevant place? Is a person hidden in the vehicle?

[RedWine]

GalFisk:

Are the vehicles owned by the gallery owners? Yes. Have they been modified during routine vehicle service? No. Is the art stored in the vehicle? No. Transported to a relevant place? Yes. Is a person hidden in the vehicle? No.

[GalFisk]

When real art is put in the vehicle, is fake art already inside? Is there a false wall or bottom? A way to enter the vehicle outside of doors and hatches? A way to unlock it?

[RedWine]

GalFisk:

When real art is put in the vehicle, is fake art already inside? No. Is there a false wall or bottom? No. A way to enter the vehicle outside of doors and hatches? No. A way to unlock it? No.

[JenBurdoo]

Is the art switched in the vehicle? At the museum? At the external storage location? Whilst moving?

[RedWine]

JenBurdoo:

Is the art switched in the vehicle? Yes. At the museum? No. At the external storage location? No. Whilst moving? No, but OTRT.

[JenBurdoo]

Between the locations? On the road? At a rest stop or gas station? A security checkpoint? Does anyone physically enter the vehicle to remove the artwork? If so, is he/she the thief, or is he/she deceived in some way?

[RedWine]

JenBurdoo:

Between the locations? Yes.On the road? Yes. At a rest stop or gas station? No. A security checkpoint? No. Does anyone physically enter the vehicle to remove the artwork? Yes. If so, is he/she the thief, or is he/she deceived in some way? The people who remove pieces of art from vehicles are either thief's accomplices or hired by the thief.

[Balin]

Is the art swapped while the car is moving? While it is stopped?
Relevant where the art is stored in the vehicle? In the trunk? The back seat?

[JenBurdoo]

Relevant what type of vehicle? Armored car? Truck? Van?

[RedWine]

Balin:

Is the art swapped while the car is moving? No. While it is stopped? Yes.
Relevant where the art is stored in the vehicle? Not much. In the trunk? The back seat? Assume this.

JenBurdoo:

Relevant what type of vehicle? Just ordinary private car. Armored car? No. Truck? No. Van? No.

[GalFisk]

Do the bandits cause the cars to stop? Do all cars stop in the same place? Does the driver let the bandit into the car? Does the bandit force entry? Enter without the driver's knowledge? Does the driver think there's a problem with the car?

[RedWine]

GalFisk:

Do the bandits cause the cars to stop? Yes. Do all cars stop in the same place? No. Does the driver let the bandit into the car? Yes. Does the bandit force entry? No. Enter without the driver's knowledge? This is possible. Does the driver think there's a problem with the car? Yes.

[GalFisk]

Does the bandit offeer help with the car? Is the car stopped by remote control? Does the car stop running? Does it fake a problem that makes the driver stop?

[RedWine]

GalFisk:

Does the bandit offeer help with the car? Yesish... Is the car stopped by remote control? No. Does the car stop running? Yes. Does it fake a problem that makes the driver stop? No, the problem is real.

[GalFisk]

Does it stop in a predetermined place? After going a predetermined distance? Randomly? Is it followed by the bandits until it stops? Is it out of gas? Is an electrical device or connection tampered with?

[RedWine]

GalFisk:

Does it stop in a predetermined place? After going a predetermined distance? Randomly? Quite randomly, but at a predetermined part of the route.
Is it followed by the bandits until it stops? No. Is it out of gas? No. Is an electrical device or connection tampered with? Possibly. What exactly is wrong with cars is irrelevant. It is not something very dangerous and something that would let the car leave its starting point, go some considerable distance and force driver to stop at a predetermined part of the route.

[GalFisk]

Do the bandits wait where the car will stop? Is the part of the route in a suitable location for the switch? Is the fake moved from another vehicle? From a building? A tent? A hidden place along the route?

[RedWine]

GalFisk:

Do the bandits wait where the car will stop? Not exactly. Is the part of the route in a suitable location for the switch? Yes.
Is the fake moved from another vehicle? Yes, no to the rest. From a building? A tent? A hidden place along the route?

[GalFisk]

Did they follow the car once it entered the location, and waited for it to stop? Did the driver open the car hood? The trunk? Do something to a wheel or tyre?

[RedWine]

GalFisk:

Did they follow the car once it entered the location, and waited for it to stop? Probably, but they needed to remain unseen by the driver.
Did the driver open the car hood? The trunk? Do something to a wheel or tyre? The driver did not do anything relevant to the car.

[Balin]

Does the car stop because of an electrical problem? Mechanical? Something with one of the tires? A flat?

[RedWine]

Balin:

Does the car stop because of an electrical problem? Mechanical? This, I think. Something with one of the tires? A flat?

[GalFisk]

Can the driver get the car to work again? Does it need towing? Are towers involved in the crime?

[JenBurdoo]

Is someone who stops to help relevant? One of the criminals?

[RedWine]

GalFisk:

Can the driver get the car to work again? No. Does it need towing? Yes. Are towers involved in the crime? Yes.

JenBurdoo:

Is someone who stops to help relevant? Yes, see above. One of the criminals? Yes.

[GalFisk]

Do the criminals put the car on a tow truck? Bring the car to its destination? To another relevant place? To a repair shop? If so: a repair shop controlled by them?

[JenBurdoo]

Are the towers permitted to enter the vehicle? If so, is the museum management aware of this? Is there something that prevents the management from recognizing that the towers are an obvious suspect?

[Balin]

Took me a second to realize that "towers" meant "people who tow" and not "tall buildings." Oops.

So the tow-ers are the criminals? Are there other criminals besides those who operate the tow truck?

[RedWine]

GalFisk:

Do the criminals put the car on a tow truck? Bring the car to its destination? This, no to the rest. To another relevant place? To a repair shop? If so: a repair shop controlled by them?

JenBurdoo:

Are the towers permitted to enter the vehicle? Yes. If so, is the museum management aware of this? Yes. Assume the museum manager is in the damaged car. Is there something that prevents the management from recognizing that the towers are an obvious suspect? Yes.

Balin:

So the tow-ers are the criminals? Yes. Are there other criminals besides those who operate the tow truck? Yesish. The criminals appear also in another part of the story. Whether these are the same people as towers or different accomplices, is irrelevant.

RECAP:

A couple of private art galleries receive letters threatening them about planned thefts of specified, priceless pieces of arts within certain time. All galleries have modern, well - functionning security systems and also well - trained security guards. After having received the letters, all galleries even strenghten their security efforts. All galleries function normally, undisturbed, nothing out of ordinary happens. Some time after the dates specified in letters, the galleries become suspicious about said pieces of arts. All pieces of arts specified in the letters are proven forged.

We already established that the paintings are stolen from the cars during transportation. Criminals damage the cars in the way they get broken in a definite part of their route. Then criminals appears as towers and, while pretending to be looking after the damaged cars, switch original paintings for the copies.
There is also another part of criminal activity that makes the thefts possible. It was not explored yet.

[GalFisk]

Is the other criminal activity related to: the galleries? The cars? The sabotage to the cars? The forgeries? Relevant how the forgeries were made? When? By what technique? Were they made by an artist?

[RedWine]

GalFisk:

Is the other criminal activity related to: the galleries? This. The cars? No. The sabotage to the cars? No. The forgeries? No.
Relevant how the forgeries were made? No, only that they were good forgeries. When? No. By what technique? No. Were they made by an artist? Yes.

[GalFisk]

Was something done to the galleries' buildings? Technical systems within the buildings? Gallery employees relevant? Was this crime committed before the threats? Before the thefts? Blueprints relevant? Spying?

[RedWine]

GalFisk:

Was something done to the galleries' buildings? No. Technical systems within the buildings? No. Gallery employees relevant? No. Was this crime committed before the threats? No, FA. Before the thefts? Yes, same FA. Blueprints relevant? Yes, if I get your question right. Spying? No.

[biograd]

Was the other crime committed by the same people as the thefts? by different people? were the victims of this criminal activity the galleries? Was that other crime committed once per gallery from which paintings were stolen? once per painting stolen? once overall, in such a way that many galleries were affected by it?

[RedWine]

biograd:

Was the other crime committed by the same people as the thefts? Yes. by different people? No. were the victims of this criminal activity the galleries? Yes. Was that other crime committed once per gallery from which paintings were stolen? once per painting stolen? This. once overall, in such a way that many galleries were affected by it?

There is still a FA concerning the nature of the activity.

[GalFisk]

Did the crime enable the crooks to make really good forgeries of the paintings? Are the forgeries themselves the crimes in question?

[RedWine]

GalFisk:

Did the crime enable the crooks to make really good forgeries of the paintings? No. Are the forgeries themselves the crimes in question? No.

HINT: the activity in question is itself legal (but morally questionable). It enabled the thefts.

[GalFisk]

Did the activity involve touching the paintings? Photographing them? Measuring their sizes? Doing something else to them?

[RedWine]

GalFisk:

Did the activity involve touching the paintings? No. Photographing them? No. Measuring their sizes? No. Doing something else to them? Noish, but explore.

[biograd]

So then the other crime was only a crime because it was done with the intent of theft?

Does the "other crime" relate to the threats? I assume it isn't the threats themselves, as that IS usually a crime in and of itself, and also because it was already mentioned in the puzzle statement. But maybe it enabled the threats?

Otherwise, did the other crime enable the thieves to know when the paintings had been removed from the galleries? allow them to know what car would be transporting them? You say that it did not involve touching the paintings, but this was OTRT... did they touch something on which the paintings were mounted? maybe affixing a GPS transmitter to them somehow so that they could be tracked?

[irishelk]

Is one of the above FAs that the letters were threats? Were they warnings? Were they sent by the criminals?

Did the other thing done in the gallery assure that the paintings would be moved? Assure the manner in which they would be moved? Did it involves the letters received?

[RedWine]

biograd:

So then the other crime was only a crime because it was done with the intent of theft? Yes.

Does the "other crime" relate to the threats? Yes. I assume it isn't the threats themselves, as that IS usually a crime in and of itself, and also because it was already mentioned in the puzzle statement. Correct. But maybe it enabled the threats? NO!

Otherwise, did the other crime enable the thieves to know when the paintings had been removed from the galleries? No, but OTRT. allow them to know what car would be transporting them? No. You say that it did not involve touching the paintings, but this was OTRT... did they touch something on which the paintings were mounted? No. maybe affixing a GPS transmitter to them somehow so that they could be tracked? No.

irishelk:

Is one of the above FAs that the letters were threats? No. Were they warnings? No. Were they sent by the criminals? Yes.

Did the other thing done in the gallery assure that the paintings would be moved? YES! Assure the manner in which they would be moved? Yes, if I understand the question right. Did it involves the letters received? Yes.

RECAP:

A couple of private art galleries receive letters threatening them about planned thefts of specified, priceless pieces of arts within certain time. All galleries have modern, well - functionning security systems and also well - trained security guards. After having received the letters, all galleries even strenghten their security efforts. All galleries function normally, undisturbed, nothing out of ordinary happens. Some time after the dates specified in letters, the galleries become suspicious about said pieces of arts. All pieces of arts specified in the letters are proven forged.

We already established that the paintings are stolen from the cars during transportation. Criminals damage the cars in the way they get broken in a definite part of their route. Then criminals appear as towers and, while pretending to be looking after the damaged cars, switch original paintings for the copies.
The criminals also do something else that involves the paintings and is connected with the letters. This activity assures the criminals that the paintings would be moved and also he manner in which they would be moved.

[Grip]

Do the letters mention that any specific artworks are to be targeted for theft? so the museum tries to have the art moved to a safer location?

[GalFisk]

Welcome back, RedWine! Are specific other manners the painting could be moved relevant? Are other manners sabotaged? Do the criminals indicate that they know about and/or will attack all other manners of transportation? Do they relevantly in some way omit mentioning the mode of transportation they want the galleries to use? Do the galleries think this mode of transportation is the only one the thieves don't know about? Or can't attack?

[RedWine]

Grip:

Do the letters mention that any specific artworks are to be targeted for theft? The letters indicate the specific artworks that would be targeted for the theft.
so the museum tries to have the art moved to a safer location? No, they strenghten the security without moving the artworks from their locations.

GalFisk:

Welcome back, RedWine!
Thank You, nice to be back!

Are specific other manners the painting could be moved relevant? No. Are other manners sabotaged? No. Do the criminals indicate that they know about and/or will attack all other manners of transportation? No. Do they relevantly in some way omit mentioning the mode of transportation they want the galleries to use? No. Do the galleries think this mode of transportation is the only one the thieves don't know about? No. Or can't attack? No.
Other modes of transportation are not relevant. But something else connected with transportation is.

[Lynne]

Was the removal done by: gallery owners? This.
Are the vehicles owned by the gallery owners? Yes.

Were the gallery owners the ones who stole the artworks?

the galleries become suspicious about said pieces of arts. All pieces of arts specified in the letters are proven forged.

Who became suspicious? The gallery owners? or the staff?

[RedWine]

Lynne:

Were the gallery owners the ones who stole the artworks? No, but good thought.
Who became suspicious? The gallery owners? or the staff? Not really relevant, assume the gallery owners.

[Lynne]

Did they have a genuine reason to put the artworks in their own cars?

[RedWine]

Lynne:

Did they have a genuine reason to put the artworks in their own cars? I'd say it was justified.

[Lynne]

Was the artwork put in the car as part of the security measures? Did the criminals under the guise of someone in authority ask for the artwork to be moved by car?

[RedWine]

Lynne:

Was the artwork put in the car as part of the security measures? NO! and very relevant.
Did the criminals under the guise of someone in authority ask for the artwork to be moved by car? No, but "criminals under the guise of someone in authority" part is correct and relevant.

[Lynne]

Was the artwork in the car supposedly for a sale?

[RedWine]

Lynne:

Was the artwork in the car supposedly for a sale? No.

[Lynne]

Was the artwork supposedly going for cleaning, other renovation, repair?

[RedWine]

Lynne:

Was the artwork supposedly going for cleaning, other renovation, repair? No, but getting closer.

[Lynne]

Was the artwork supposedly going to another gallery?

[RedWine]

Lynne:

Was the artwork supposedly going to another gallery? Could be, but place is not relevant. The purpose is.

[Lynne]

Did somebody else supposedly want to view the artwork, someone who couldn't get to the gallery?

[GalFisk]

Were the gallery owners made to doubt any particular security measure? Such as the loyalty of armored car drivers?

[RedWine]

Lynne:

Did somebody else supposedly want to view the artwork, someone who couldn't get to the gallery? No, but the concept of someone else viewing the artwork is correct.

GalFisk:

Were the gallery owners made to doubt any particular security measure? Not the security measure. OTRT. Such as the loyalty of armored car drivers? No.

[Lynne]

Are the paintings large or small?

[Grip]

Are the owners lending the artwork to someone else or something else?

[RedWine]

Lynne:

Are the paintings large or small? Can be either. Size is not the factor to the solution.

Grip:

Are the owners lending the artwork to someone else or something else? No.

[RedWine]

Important recently discovered points:

- the artworks were not moved for security,
- the purpose of moving them is relevant,
- concept of someone else viewing the artworks is correct,
- concept of criminals under the guise of someone in authority is correct,
- the gallery owners were made to doubt something, but not the security measures.

[Doriana]

Were the artworks moved for an exhibition?
Did the criminals set up a fake exhibition?

[RedWine]

Doriana:

Were the artworks moved for an exhibition? No.
Did the criminals set up a fake exhibition? No.

[GalFisk]

Were they made to doubt if their art was genuine? Were they taking it to be verified by an expert?

[RedWine]

GalFisk:

Were they made to doubt if their art was genuine? YES. Were they taking it to be verified by an expert? YES.
Care to put it together?

[GalFisk]

1. Thieves contacted galleries, saying they'd steal specific paintings at a specific date.
2. Galleries beefed up security.
3. The date for the supposed theft came and went.
4. Thieves either indicated that they had successfully stolen the paintings, or indicated that the paintings present were forgeries.
5. Thieves sabotaged cars of gallery owners to break down on the road.
6. Gallery owners took their genuine paintings to have them checked.
7. Their cars broke down.
8. Thieves masquerading as road assistants rescue the broken down cars.
9. During the rescue, they replace the paintings with forgeries.
10. The gallery owners are told that their paintings are indeed forgeries, and the carefully orchestrated narrative leads law enforcement on a wild goose chase as they try to figure out how the paintings were replaced inside the very secure museums.
Is that about right?

[RedWine]

GalFisk:

1. Thieves contacted galleries, saying they'd steal specific paintings at a specific date.
2. Galleries beefed up security.
3. The date for the supposed theft came and went.
4. Thieves either indicated that they had successfully stolen the paintings, or indicated that the paintings present were forgeries.
5. Thieves sabotaged cars of gallery owners to break down on the road.
6. Gallery owners took their genuine paintings to have them checked.
7. Their cars broke down.
8. Thieves masquerading as road assistants rescue the broken down cars.
9. During the rescue, they replace the paintings with forgeries.
10. The gallery owners are told that their paintings are indeed forgeries, and the carefully orchestrated narrative leads law enforcement on a wild goose chase as they try to figure out how the paintings were replaced inside the very secure museums.
Is that about right? Yes, very much so.

*****************SPOILER*******************
A group of thieves sent letters to a couple of art galleries, threatening that they would steal certain specified artworks before indicated dates. Galleries strenghtened security measures. Till the specified dates nothing out of ordinary happened. Shortly after the dates each gallery was visited by a thief in disguise of art merchant/connaisseur, who put the authenticity of said artworks in doubt. The gallery owners, thinking that the thefts had already been done, took the artworks to have them checked by a specialist by their private cars, neglecting strict safety measures. The cars had previously been sabotaged by the thieves so that they would break down in certain point of the journey. Then thieves appeared as a road assistance and switched the genuine artworks for forgeries somewhen in between pretending to be taking care of the cars.

Congrats to GalFisk and thanks to everyone who played.

[Balin]

Great puzzle - very clever!