Speaker 1: Welcome to Criminalia, a production of Shonda Land Audio in
Speaker 1: partnership with I Heart Radio. If you have been joining
Speaker 1: us since earlier seasons, you may recognize this man's name
Speaker 1: from our shows about stalkers. Arthur Wellesley, first Duke of
Speaker 1: Wellington's famously stalked by Lady Georgiana Fayne, heiress and daughter
Speaker 1: of John Fayne, tenth Earl of Westmoreland and holder of
Speaker 1: many government offices. The Duke of Wellington is probably best
Speaker 1: remembered for his defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte at Waterloo. A
Speaker 1: military general, he became one of the leading military and
Speaker 1: political figures of nineteenth century Britain, and his portrait also
Speaker 1: became a target of theft from the National Gallery in London,
Speaker 1: though not for reasons you might imagine. The Duke was
Speaker 1: once quoted as saying, the only thing I am afraid
Speaker 1: of is fear. We wonder how he felt about ransom.
Speaker 1: Welcome to criminal Lea. I'm Maria from Marquis, and I'm
Speaker 1: Holly Fry. There are a couple of people we need
Speaker 1: to get to know surrounding this art theft. The artist
Speaker 1: who painted the portrait, Francisco de Goya, The man who
Speaker 1: sat for the stolen portrait, Arthur Wellesley, and the apparent thief,
Speaker 1: a man named Kempton Bunton. Let's start by talking about
Speaker 1: Goya and how he was given the honor of painting
Speaker 1: the general's portrait. Goya is regarded as one of, if
Speaker 1: not the most important Spanish artist of the late eighteenth
Speaker 1: and early nineteenth centuries. He was born Francisco Jose de
Speaker 1: Goya Elucientis on March thirtieth, seventeen forty six, in the
Speaker 1: small town of Fuende Toto's near Zara Zoga, Spain, in
Speaker 1: the northeastern Aragon region of the country. His father was
Speaker 1: Jose Francisco da Paula, a guilder, and his mother, Gracia Lucientez,
Speaker 1: was a member of a weakened noble family. When he
Speaker 1: was fourteen years old, Goya began a four year apprenticeship
Speaker 1: with Spanish Baroque painter Jose Luzon, who had studied in
Speaker 1: Naples in his late teen so in seventeen sixty three
Speaker 1: and then again in seventeen sixty six, Goya participated in
Speaker 1: competitions sponsored by the Real Academia de San Fernando in Madrid,
Speaker 1: but he was unsuccessful both times. Sometime after seventeen sixty six,
Speaker 1: and it's unclear exactly when he left, he traveled to Italy,
Speaker 1: where he is documented as living at least in the
Speaker 1: years seventeen seventy and seventeen seventy one. There he won
Speaker 1: an honorable mention in a competition held at the Academia
Speaker 1: de Parma, which got him the attention that he needed
Speaker 1: to obtain religious commissions back home in Spain. In June
Speaker 1: of seventeen seventy one, he returned to Spain, specifically to Zaragoza.
Speaker 1: On July seventeen seventy three, in Madrid, Goya Marian Jussefa Byou,
Speaker 1: the sister of Francisco Bayou, the leading Spanish artist at court.
Speaker 1: His brother in law greatly impacted Goya's career by getting
Speaker 1: him a position at the Royal Tapestry Factory in Santa Barbara,
Speaker 1: where Goya produced cartoons. In this instance, cartoons are the
Speaker 1: working designs that serve as guides for tapestry. They were
Speaker 1: often created on paper, but some, like Goya's, were executed
Speaker 1: on canvas and then woven into wold tapestry on a
Speaker 1: large mural scale. It was not unheard of for tapestry weavers,
Speaker 1: frustrated by their complex composition to return cartoons to Goya.
Speaker 1: There's an alternate narrative here about the cartoons that suggests
Speaker 1: it was German painter Anton Raphael Mengs who asked Goya
Speaker 1: to work on tapestry cartoons for the Royal Tapestry Factory.
Speaker 1: But regardless, his work on tapestry cartoons elevated his name,
Speaker 1: and that's the point here. While you can view as
Speaker 1: cartoons today at the Proto Museum, many of the original
Speaker 1: sketches were sold as works in their own artistic rights.
Speaker 1: Goya's career at the end of the eighteenth century was busy.
Speaker 1: He was very popular. He was unanimously elected to the
Speaker 1: Academia in Madrid in May of seventeen eighty, and five
Speaker 1: years later he was appointed its deputy director. He was
Speaker 1: esteemed among his contemporaries for his ability as a portraitist.
Speaker 1: Goya received his first and we should qualify that as
Speaker 1: first important portrait commissions in seventeen eighty three from the
Speaker 1: Conda de la Florida Blanca and the Infanta Don Luis,
Speaker 1: and he quickly became established as the portraitist of the
Speaker 1: leading members of Madrid Society. Goya painted on commission between
Speaker 1: seventeen seventy five and seventeen ninety one for King Charles
Speaker 1: the Third of Spain and later King Charles the Fourth
Speaker 1: of Spain, and both of those kings appointed him their
Speaker 1: court painter shortly after their coronations. Of his sixty three
Speaker 1: works for the two royal palaces, nine hunting scenes were
Speaker 1: destined for the dining rooms at San Lorenzo de las Correale,
Speaker 1: and ten cartoons for tapestries were intended for the dining
Speaker 1: rooms at El Pardo. At the end of seventeen ninety two,
Speaker 1: though Goya fell ill to a mysterious condition that incapacitated
Speaker 1: him for much of the entire next year. It left
Speaker 1: him permanently deaf and caused him to reevaluate his work
Speaker 1: and goals as an artist. After eighteen o one, we
Speaker 1: see that Goya was seldom given royal commissions, or at
Speaker 1: least seldom took them. That he continued to draw a
Speaker 1: large annual salary, and he continued to create portraits of
Speaker 1: government officials in which the sitter's rank was always clearly
Speaker 1: indicated in the piece, and that includes our sitter for
Speaker 1: today's portrait the Duke of Wellington. The portrait of the
Speaker 1: Duke of Wellington was painted by Goya during the general's
Speaker 1: service in the Peninsular War, was kind of between the
Speaker 1: final years of the war from eighteen twelve to eighteen fourteen.
Speaker 1: Wellesley was a leading military and political figure, and he
Speaker 1: served twice as Prime Minister. But as we mentioned earlier,
Speaker 1: he is best remembered for his victory over Napoleon at
Speaker 1: Waterloo in eighteen fifteen. His battle plans are still studied
Speaker 1: in military academies today, but right now we're looking at
Speaker 1: just a few years before Waterloo. In eighteen o eight,
Speaker 1: the French army invaded Spain and installed a new king,
Speaker 1: King Joseph, the first brother of the French Emperor Napoleon.
Speaker 1: The Peninsular War that followed, fought on the Iberian Peninsula
Speaker 1: from eighteen o eight to eighteen fourteen, was a period
Speaker 1: of really brutal conflict between the French and the Spanish,
Speaker 1: Portuguese and British militaries. Goya's portrait that we're talking about
Speaker 1: here was painted just after the Duke's victorious entry into
Speaker 1: Madrid in August of eighteen twelve. A triumphant moment that
Speaker 1: established his reputation as an offensive general. His wins were
Speaker 1: the turning point in the war. His victory against Napoleon
Speaker 1: cemented Wellington's status as a military hero, and he's credited
Speaker 1: in part as the reason for the restoration of the
Speaker 1: spain Fish monarchy, ironically as an asside on the Duke. Here,
Speaker 1: when he was young, he had no interest in a
Speaker 1: military career. Arthur had imagined himself pursuing his love of music.
Speaker 1: But here he was having a big moment in his
Speaker 1: military career. Who better to record it than the best
Speaker 1: portraitist Goya. We're gonna take a little break here for
Speaker 1: a word from our sponsors, and when we're back, let's
Speaker 1: begin by talking about what this painting actually looks like
Speaker 1: and who confessed to stealing it. Welcome back to Criminalia.
Speaker 1: So Goya actually created more than one portrait of the
Speaker 1: Duke of Wellington's, all within just two to three years
Speaker 1: of each other. Let's talk about which one went missing
Speaker 1: and why. Goya produced a large portrait of the Duke
Speaker 1: appearing on horseback. This is called the Equestrian Portrait of
Speaker 1: the First Duke of Wellington, and it was publicly exhibited
Speaker 1: in September eighteen twelve at the Real Academia de Bellas
Speaker 1: artist San Fernando in Madrid. In September eighteen twelve. That
Speaker 1: same year, he also completed a chalk drawing of Wellington.
Speaker 1: That piece now hangs in the British Museum. But the
Speaker 1: portrait of Wellington that we're interested in is the one
Speaker 1: simply known as the Portrait of the Duke of Wellington.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about what this famous portrait looks like. The
Speaker 1: head and Shoulders portrait was painted between eighteen twelve and
Speaker 1: eighteen fourteen, and it shows the Duke in a three
Speaker 1: quarter profile and he's facing towards his right. He is
Speaker 1: standing with his head held high. His uniform bears the
Speaker 1: insignia of several military orders and yes there are several
Speaker 1: watch this. His left breast bears three stars, the British
Speaker 1: Order of the Bath, the Portuguese Order of the Tower
Speaker 1: and Sword, and the Spanish Order of San Fernando. He
Speaker 1: wears two broad sashes over his right shoulder, the pink
Speaker 1: sash of the Order of Bath over the blue sash
Speaker 1: of the Order of the Tower and Sword. Around his
Speaker 1: neck hangs the Order of a Golden fleece on a
Speaker 1: red ribbon. The military gold cross hangs lower on longer
Speaker 1: pink and blue ribbons. Though the general was entitled to
Speaker 1: all nine gold clasps to the military gold cross, here
Speaker 1: he appears with only three, and art historians theorized that
Speaker 1: that might be to signify the battles he fought before
Speaker 1: the painting had been started. Experts report that the portrait
Speaker 1: appears to have been painted very quickly and with very
Speaker 1: high energy. It's largely thought this portrait was originally painted
Speaker 1: directly from life, and that Goya went back and then
Speaker 1: made changes. For instance, over the years he altered the
Speaker 1: Duke's pose, and he also made significant updates to the
Speaker 1: piece each time the Duke was awarded new metal and
Speaker 1: military orders. The painting had passed through the Duke's family,
Speaker 1: owned by various people, until it was owned by John Osborne,
Speaker 1: Duke of Leeds. He sold it at auction to an
Speaker 1: American collector, Charles Reitzman, for one hundred forty thousand pounds
Speaker 1: in early nineteen sixty one. In May of nineteen sixty one,
Speaker 1: Sir John Witt, the chairman of Trustees of the National Gallery,
Speaker 1: notified the Wolfson Foundation a major source of charitable funding
Speaker 1: and benefactor to the gallery. That quote, a highly critical
Speaker 1: situation has now arisen concerning a picture which is an
Speaker 1: essential part of British history. The Portrait of the Duke
Speaker 1: of Wellington had been sold at Sobbys. That was completely
Speaker 1: a totally legal transaction. But because the British government decided
Speaker 1: that they did not want this painting to leave the country,
Speaker 1: the Treasury teamed up with a charity, the aforementioned Wolfson Foundation,
Speaker 1: and together they matched Rightsman's bid would be more than
Speaker 1: two million pounds in today's prices. British Prime Minister Harold
Speaker 1: McMillan pledged forty pounds and the foundation remitted the remaining
Speaker 1: sum of one hundred thousand pounds. The gift was acknowledged
Speaker 1: in Parliament and by patrons of the arts, including Sir Witt,
Speaker 1: who characterized the funding as quote majestic, and in August
Speaker 1: of that same year, the National Gallery in London s
Speaker 1: Trafalgar Square unveiled its newest acquisition, the Portrait of the
Speaker 1: Duke of Wellington by the Spanish master Goya. And just
Speaker 1: like that, Goya's portrait of the Duke became really famous
Speaker 1: among the Brits locals visited the National Gallery to see
Speaker 1: what the fuss was all about and what all of
Speaker 1: that money had been spent on. But that celebration didn't
Speaker 1: actually laugh for very long at all. Eighteen days later, yeah,
Speaker 1: I said, eighteen days the Duke's portrait went missing from
Speaker 1: the wall. Guards didn't report seeing any intruders, no damage
Speaker 1: was done, and there were no traces of any equipment
Speaker 1: or weapons on the scene. Nothing appeared to have been touched,
Speaker 1: yet the goya was gone. The portraits absence was first
Speaker 1: noticed by two patrolling guards, but each assumed the painting
Speaker 1: had been temporarily moved by staff. That really wasn't an
Speaker 1: uncommon occurrence at the time. It was gallery policy to
Speaker 1: post a notice, which guards called tags, in place of
Speaker 1: a removed work to inform security and others of its whereabouts,
Speaker 1: but not everyone followed the process, and in this case,
Speaker 1: there was no tag on the goya or the empty
Speaker 1: space where the goya should have been. Because of lacks
Speaker 1: tag usage, no guard assumed, at least not immediately, that
Speaker 1: there had been a theft. At eight a m. The
Speaker 1: next morning, though with the piece still missing, security got involved.
Speaker 1: Guards searched the Galleries Conservation and Photographic Studios. By nine
Speaker 1: thirty a m. The Metropolitan Police were informed and over
Speaker 1: the next few days the building was inspected and the
Speaker 1: gallery staff was questioned. This was the first time in
Speaker 1: the galleries one thirty eight year history that a theft
Speaker 1: had happened. A reward of five thousand pounds was offered
Speaker 1: by the Metropolitan Police for its immediate return. All reports
Speaker 1: do suggest that there was a reward, but some suggest
Speaker 1: that it was actually offered by the newspaper The Daily Mirror,
Speaker 1: and there are even some reports that suggest that both
Speaker 1: of those rewards were offered just a few years apart,
Speaker 1: so you could see where that would get confusing. And
Speaker 1: yet with one or two rewards offered, there were still
Speaker 1: no leads. At one point the Metropolitan Police removed every
Speaker 1: single postcard of the portrait of the Duke of Wellington
Speaker 1: from the museum to use for identification purposes. In the
Speaker 1: year after the theft, a replication of the stolen work
Speaker 1: made a cheeky cameo in my favorite movie, the nine
Speaker 1: two Bond film Doctor No. It was hidden in the
Speaker 1: villains layer on crab Key, and about thirty minutes into
Speaker 1: the movie we see bond take a lingering look at
Speaker 1: a pretend portrait sitting on a gilded easel, kind of
Speaker 1: a wink and a nod to the audience that perhaps
Speaker 1: it was fictional doctor Julius No who was the villain
Speaker 1: who stole the Goya. But no, it hadn't fallen into
Speaker 1: the hands of spector, and doctor No was not behind
Speaker 1: this heist. Authorities and actually most people you might have asked,
Speaker 1: assumed that a professional art thief or a caper crew
Speaker 1: were responsible. Newspapers speculated that a gang of Italian thieves
Speaker 1: or perhaps even mafia, was behind the heist. Some speculated
Speaker 1: that perhaps a daring aristocrat sponsored its disappearance. I know,
Speaker 1: my first thought was probably the guy that tried to
Speaker 1: buy it wanted to take it the first Charles like,
Speaker 1: I'm like. But those assumptions all changed when the National Gallery,
Speaker 1: among others, began to receive handwritten ransom notes. Now enter
Speaker 1: Kempton Bunton, a sixty one year old Newcastle retired bus
Speaker 1: driver or perhaps cab driver or maybe truck driver that's
Speaker 1: a little unclear, living on eight pounds a week, national
Speaker 1: assistance in a sequence of five notes, which he called
Speaker 1: calms Bunton communicated several things to authorities, including one that
Speaker 1: he had the portrait. The first note was sent to
Speaker 1: the news agency Reuters on August thirty one, and here
Speaker 1: we quote from it. The act is an attempt to
Speaker 1: pick the pockets of those who love art more than charity.
Speaker 1: The picture is not and will not be for sale.
Speaker 1: It is for ransom one forty thousand pounds to be
Speaker 1: given to charity. Yes, while he kept Goya's priceless painting
Speaker 1: hidden in the back of his closet, Bunton sent anonymous
Speaker 1: notes to newspapers, the gallery, and other important people in
Speaker 1: the matter consistently stay eating. He would return the artwork
Speaker 1: on the condition that the government invest in more elderly care.
Speaker 1: The next calm was received by the Exchange Telegraph news
Speaker 1: agency on July four, nineteen sixty two, and that one
Speaker 1: stated that quote the Duke is safe, his temperature cared
Speaker 1: for his future uncertain. We want pardon or the right
Speaker 1: to leave the country banishment. We ask that some nonconformist
Speaker 1: type of person start the fund for one forty thousand pounds.
Speaker 1: Bunton's calm on December thirty one, nineteen sixty three, which
Speaker 1: also demanded a hundred forty thousand pounds arrived next, so
Speaker 1: that's quite a gap. On March sixteenth, nineteen sixty five.
Speaker 1: His note was marked as quote fifth and final calm
Speaker 1: and it read quote Goya's Wellington is safe. I have
Speaker 1: looked upon this affair as an adventurous prank. Must the
Speaker 1: authorities refuse to see it this way? I know now
Speaker 1: that I am in the wrong, but I have gone
Speaker 1: too far to retreat. He did not demand the ransom
Speaker 1: sum this time, but rather insisted that he would return
Speaker 1: the painting if it was agreed that it would be
Speaker 1: exhibited privately for one month and then all viewing fees.
Speaker 1: He suggested they charged five shillings a ticket collected during
Speaker 1: that time be paid to charity. The thief well, of
Speaker 1: course that guy should be granted immunity. One final correspondence
Speaker 1: was received on addressed to the Daily Mirror. In it
Speaker 1: was a left luggage ticket from the New Street station
Speaker 1: in Birmingham, four years after their investigation began. Police rushed
Speaker 1: to that left luggage locker, possibly the left luggage office
Speaker 1: at the station, but reports a little fuzzy on that detail,
Speaker 1: and that's where they recovered the missing artwork. About six
Speaker 1: weeks or less ish after the piece was found Kempton,
Speaker 1: Bunton turned himself in. We're going to take a break
Speaker 1: for a word from our sponsor, and when we return
Speaker 1: we will talk about what happened after Bunton entered a
Speaker 1: West End police station and confess to the robbery. Welcome
Speaker 1: back to criminalia. If Bunton didn't steal the painting for
Speaker 1: financial gain, then why did he steal it? Well, for
Speaker 1: reasons you might not think of. Things are about to
Speaker 1: get a little unexpected. In July of nive Bunton entered
Speaker 1: the now closed West End Central Police Station and announced
Speaker 1: that he was guilty of stealing Goya's portrait of the
Speaker 1: Duke of Wellington, but the police didn't actually take him
Speaker 1: seriously immediately. A detective sergeant later told the court that
Speaker 1: on Monday July five, he saw Bunton at New Scotland Yard,
Speaker 1: asked him what he needed, and was informed by Bunton
Speaker 1: that he was quote giving himself up for the Goya.
Speaker 1: He had brought a statement with him to the station,
Speaker 1: offering these three explanations as part of his confession. Quote
Speaker 1: one my secret has leaked. I wouldn't like a certain
Speaker 1: gentleman to benefit financially by speaking to the law. Two,
Speaker 1: I am sick and tired of the whole affair. Three
Speaker 1: by surrendering in London, I avoid the stigma of being
Speaker 1: brought here. In quote chains Bunton was really nothing like
Speaker 1: what authorities presumed or imagined. The thief would look and
Speaker 1: act like they were looking for a pro James Bond,
Speaker 1: and they got a man described by the New York
Speaker 1: Times as a quote burly, phlegmatic former truck driver. Bunton
Speaker 1: was arrested. He confessed he had taken the painting, yes,
Speaker 1: but he added he'd never intended on keeping it. To
Speaker 1: quote Bunton, my sole object in all this was to
Speaker 1: set up a charity to pay for television licenses which
Speaker 1: fund the BBC in Britain for old and poor people
Speaker 1: who seem to be neglected by our affluent society. Bunton
Speaker 1: was regularly fired from jobs, usually we discovered for speaking
Speaker 1: up for employees against management. He was also an aspiring
Speaker 1: playwright whose scripts have been rejected by the BBC. And
Speaker 1: he was an activist who saw television as a lifeline
Speaker 1: for lonely seniors. And he was especially concerned for those
Speaker 1: who were veterans of the First World War, including his father.
Speaker 1: Not all countries have or had this idea of a
Speaker 1: television license, so really stripped down here the idea is
Speaker 1: in some countries it's illegal to have a television without
Speaker 1: paying an annual fee for access to television programming. Bunton
Speaker 1: felt the fee for the British television license was too
Speaker 1: high for those on a fixed income or those having
Speaker 1: trouble making ends meet, and he protested by refusing to
Speaker 1: pay his own license fee, and as a result, in
Speaker 1: the year nineteen sixty alone, he had three short spells
Speaker 1: in jail. Today, if your age seventy five are older
Speaker 1: and you claim pension credit, you're entitled to a free
Speaker 1: TV license in the UK. Bunton, who passed away in
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy six, we can only assume would be really
Speaker 1: pleased to hear that. Following his confession, Bunton was charged
Speaker 1: with five offenses regarding the Goya heist. One two offenses
Speaker 1: contrary to Section two of the Larceny Act of nineteen
Speaker 1: sixteen by unlawfully taking the property of the trustees of
Speaker 1: the National Gallery by stealing the portrait of the Duke
Speaker 1: of Wellington and stealing the frame to two offenses of
Speaker 1: demanding money with menace by sending threatening letters to trustee
Speaker 1: of the National Gallery, Lord Robbins, as well as one
Speaker 1: of the world's great press magnates, Lord Rothermere, three and
Speaker 1: one offense of public since by quote the unlawful removal
Speaker 1: and wrongful detaining of a painting on display at the
Speaker 1: National Gallery. Bunton's case was initially heard at bow Street
Speaker 1: Magistrate's Court, but was referred to trial at the Central
Speaker 1: Criminal Court of England and Wales, commonly referred to as
Speaker 1: the Old Bailey, between November four and sixteenth of nineteen
Speaker 1: sixty five. He was represented by Jeremy Hutchinson, Queen's Council,
Speaker 1: a lawyer who had made a name for himself in
Speaker 1: the successful defense of Lady Chatterley's lover in nineteen sixties
Speaker 1: obscenity trial. The case for the prosecution was led by
Speaker 1: Edward Cussen and Brian Leary. Bunton's defense he wanted to
Speaker 1: undermine some of the charges against him. You'll see what
Speaker 1: we mean by that in just a moment, and of
Speaker 1: course to persuade the jury to be sympathetic to his situation.
Speaker 1: Hutchinson after the trial was quoted as saying that Bunton
Speaker 1: was quote just rather a darling. I had an affection
Speaker 1: for him. I had a great ace up my sleeve,
Speaker 1: which was at the ex President of the Royal Academy,
Speaker 1: Sir Gerald Kelly, had written to the Sunday Time saying
Speaker 1: this painting wasn't worth a hundred and forty thousand pounds
Speaker 1: and that he had doubts about its authenticity. In addition,
Speaker 1: in Bunton's defense, Hutchinson also wanted to demonstrate that the
Speaker 1: accusation of stealing we're going to air quote that in
Speaker 1: this instance, in the form of larceny in this case,
Speaker 1: would need proof of criminal intent to sell or to
Speaker 1: keep the work. The defense argued that, according to the
Speaker 1: language in the Larceny Act of nineteen sixteen, stealing was
Speaker 1: only a crime if at the time of the taking
Speaker 1: the person's intention was to deprive the owner of said
Speaker 1: property for good. The evidence in court was clear that
Speaker 1: Bunton had always said he intended to return the portrait
Speaker 1: to the National Gallery once a donation to charity had
Speaker 1: been made. In fact, he had stated that several times,
Speaker 1: and he had written it in his calms. Hutchinson argued
Speaker 1: in court that in the st the sense of the law,
Speaker 1: this was not technically a theft because Bunton had merely
Speaker 1: get those air quotes ready again borrowed the painting for
Speaker 1: that single use, and in regard to that missing frame,
Speaker 1: Council argued that it was simply common sense that when
Speaker 1: a painting has taken, so is its related frame their
Speaker 1: final point. There was no villainous intent here and no
Speaker 1: actual crime. At his trial, Bunton told the court that
Speaker 1: he heard the government had paid quite a lot of
Speaker 1: money for one small painting and he didn't feel that
Speaker 1: that was a fair thing. He described visiting the National
Speaker 1: Gallery to see what was so great about the Goya,
Speaker 1: and he explained how he navigated the heist. He described
Speaker 1: that contractors who had been doing some renovations had left
Speaker 1: a ladder lying in the street outside and a window
Speaker 1: in the men's restroom had been left unlocked. According to
Speaker 1: Bunton's story, he noted the galleries weaknesses and he took
Speaker 1: advantage of them. But I mean that's hardly a mastermind situation,
Speaker 1: just taking advantage of lack of security. A Metropolitan Police
Speaker 1: investigation at the scene revealed that yes, his story matched.
Speaker 1: Building renovations had been in progress at the gallery on
Speaker 1: the day that the painting disappeared. Their report included that
Speaker 1: a window in the men's restroom, which overlooked the inner
Speaker 1: of the buildings two courtyards, had apparently been left open,
Speaker 1: and they confirmed that a builder's ladder had been placed
Speaker 1: beneath that open window. The police had taken samples of
Speaker 1: dirt found on the window sill. Those samples were found
Speaker 1: to be identical to mud in the inner courtyard. Similar
Speaker 1: mud marks had also been found on the top of
Speaker 1: one of the gates leading into St Martin Street off
Speaker 1: of Trafalgar Square. Putting this all together, the Metropolitan Police
Speaker 1: concluded that whoever had stolen the artwork had left from
Speaker 1: the inner courtyard, gone through the bathroom window and scaled
Speaker 1: the outer gate into St Martin's Street. A government enquiry,
Speaker 1: led by a Lord Bridges convened to examine how a
Speaker 1: person was able in the early hours of the morning
Speaker 1: to exploit building repairs in the gallery, remove the painting
Speaker 1: scale the wall on St Martin Street and seemingly disappear.
Speaker 1: Sir Philip Hendy, director of the National Gallery, offered his
Speaker 1: resignation over the matter, but the trustees of the gallery
Speaker 1: refused to accept it. There were, though a number of
Speaker 1: security changes implemented, including a night patrol with a guard dog,
Speaker 1: as well as the addition of a new larger rule
Speaker 1: of national security advisor to museums and galleries. Because Buntam
Speaker 1: had returned the painting, he was found not guilty of
Speaker 1: its theft. Additionally, a member of the Metropolitan Police fingerprint
Speaker 1: branch testified that while a thumb print matching Bunton was
Speaker 1: found in his alleged correspondence to Lords Robbins and Rotherier,
Speaker 1: police had lost those letters prior to Bunton's arrest, which
Speaker 1: meant that they had no proof he had a hand
Speaker 1: in writing any threatening letters. He was acquitted on all
Speaker 1: charges except one. He was found guilty of stealing the
Speaker 1: portraits frame. During investigation, Bunton had told authorities that he
Speaker 1: had thrown the frame into the River Thames, but during
Speaker 1: his trial, Bunton, through his council, stated quote, I had
Speaker 1: no intention of keeping the painting or of depriving the
Speaker 1: nation permanently of it. As to the frame, I believe
Speaker 1: it was gold colored and I left it on August
Speaker 1: one or twenty second in nineteen sixty one, in a
Speaker 1: cupboard under the stairs in a house where I lodged,
Speaker 1: which was within three miles of King's Cross. It is
Speaker 1: not true that I threw the frame into the Thames.
Speaker 1: I said this because I did not want to get
Speaker 1: the landlady into trouble. Concluding his trial, just as Arhold
Speaker 1: spoke directly to Bunton stating, quote motives, even if they
Speaker 1: are good, cannot justify theft. Creeping into public galleries to
Speaker 1: extract pictures of values so that you may use them
Speaker 1: for your own purpose has got to be discouraged. You
Speaker 1: will go to prison for three months. The case, too,
Speaker 1: lead to an important clause being inserted into the Theft
Speaker 1: Act of nineteen sixty eight, making it illegal to quote
Speaker 1: remove without authority any object displayed or kept for display
Speaker 1: to the public in a building to which the public
Speaker 1: have access. And for his crime of frame theft, Bunton
Speaker 1: did spend three months imprisoned at HM Prison Forward in
Speaker 1: West Sussex, doing so, satisfied with having made his political
Speaker 1: statement in court. So you know how sometimes we have
Speaker 1: stories of them. We have a butt, We have a
Speaker 1: butt with the capital but it was not actually Keptain
Speaker 1: Bunton who did it. I know, I know, there's a
Speaker 1: huge twist here. Wasn't expecting that now the person who
Speaker 1: really stole the goya was not Kempton Bunton at all.
Speaker 1: Although Kempton took the blame, the actual thief was the
Speaker 1: then twenty year old John Bunton, Kempton's son. In nine,
Speaker 1: John turned himself into authorities, much like when Kempton did.
Speaker 1: At first, the police didn't pursue his claim despite his confession.
Speaker 1: The Director of Public Prosecutions decided that because there was
Speaker 1: no evidence available, it would be easier to just close
Speaker 1: the case on the matter. Plus, if they decided to
Speaker 1: try John for the theft of the goya, they would
Speaker 1: have to put Kempton back on the stand, where he'd
Speaker 1: have to admit he perjured himself during his trial, so
Speaker 1: they did not. In though the confidential file detailing John's
Speaker 1: confession was released to the public, John Bunton was a
Speaker 1: temporary van driver living not very far from his father's home.
Speaker 1: In his confession, he described the heist as so first,
Speaker 1: he needed to stand on a parking meter to get
Speaker 1: himself over the galley's back wall, to get into the
Speaker 1: main building of the gallery. He then used a nineteen
Speaker 1: foot ladder left by contractors to climb through an unlocked
Speaker 1: window of a men's restroom. At the top of the
Speaker 1: main stairs. He found the painting on an easel sectioned
Speaker 1: off within a roped off enclosure. John told the police, quote,
Speaker 1: I went up to it, took hold of it and
Speaker 1: carried it back to the gem's toilet. He described climbing
Speaker 1: back out the window, down the ladder, and retracing his
Speaker 1: steps to the back of the building by St. Martin Street.
Speaker 1: He stated, quote, I climbed over the wall, still holding
Speaker 1: the picture in one hand. I put the picture on
Speaker 1: the back seat of the car and drove back to
Speaker 1: my room in Grafton Street. I then put the picture
Speaker 1: under my bed. There's also one small detail that John
Speaker 1: added that we can't resist including here. He actually had
Speaker 1: to roll start his black Wolseley, the getaway car, because
Speaker 1: it would not budge. Says John's son Chris, Quote, the
Speaker 1: Duke of Wellington painting was taken from this gallery and
Speaker 1: he spent four and a half years in my grandparents
Speaker 1: council house in Newcastle. He continued, quote, my dad never
Speaker 1: expected to get away with it. It was an idea,
Speaker 1: that's all it was. He was working in London at
Speaker 1: the time, living in a rented room, and he wondered
Speaker 1: if it was possible. He saw the open window in
Speaker 1: the bathroom and the ladder behind the gallery, and one
Speaker 1: thing led to another. Chris has stated his father was
Speaker 1: in and out of a gallery within just a few minutes,
Speaker 1: right around five a m. And had no plans to
Speaker 1: destroy or to sell the work. Once he had it,
Speaker 1: his plan was to give it to his father kempt
Speaker 1: In According to John, quote he intended to use it
Speaker 1: as a tool in his campaign and that it should
Speaker 1: ultimately be returned to the National Gallery. When the police
Speaker 1: asked why he or his brothers hadn't come forward sooner,
Speaker 1: John replied, quote, he told us not to ordered us.
Speaker 1: It was his wish. John's son continued, quote, My dad
Speaker 1: looked up to his father. He was the one person
Speaker 1: who always supported him. Because he knew of John's crime,
Speaker 1: Kempton began sending notes to newspapers asking for a charitable
Speaker 1: donation because he hoped that such an act would put
Speaker 1: his son in a better light if he were to
Speaker 1: be arrested. Eventually, Kempton insisted on taking the blame himself,
Speaker 1: says Chris quote, Kempton was a flawed character. He wasn't
Speaker 1: the best father, but he did this extraordinary thing to
Speaker 1: save his son. If my dad had gone to prison
Speaker 1: at that age, it would have ruined his life. Detective
Speaker 1: Inspector George Chandler, part of the investigation into the art deft,
Speaker 1: included in his nineteen sixty nine report after John's confession. Quote,
Speaker 1: at the time of the offense, Kempton was fifty seven
Speaker 1: years old. He is a tall, heavily built man who
Speaker 1: now weighs somewhere in the region of eighteen stone, and
Speaker 1: it is extremely unlikely that he would have had the
Speaker 1: agility to scale the outer wall and make his way
Speaker 1: unaided to the toilet window. He would also, in my view,
Speaker 1: been incapable of returning to the wall and climbing over
Speaker 1: it without causing some damage to the painting, whereas his son, John,
Speaker 1: who at the time was only twenty years of age,
Speaker 1: is still of good physique and would have been quite
Speaker 1: capable of taking the painting in the manner in which
Speaker 1: he describes this echoes Justice Arvold, who pronounced in court
Speaker 1: that the theft based on the small size of the window.
Speaker 1: Kempton allegedly climbed through with the painting. Must have been
Speaker 1: a quote remarkable athletic eat for the two and thirty
Speaker 1: eight pound man who had retired from driving because of injury.
Speaker 1: So if you started out thinking that this was going
Speaker 1: to be an open and shut case about the stolen
Speaker 1: painting of a military general, it's kind of anything, but
Speaker 1: wasn't it. The portrait, upon its return, was shown at
Speaker 1: a press conference on and it went back on display
Speaker 1: at the National Gallery immediately after, and you can see
Speaker 1: the Duke's portrait there still if you'd like. I don't
Speaker 1: think they serve any highst hooge there though, So I'm
Speaker 1: gonna tell you that I really did theed on the
Speaker 1: name here because part of me kind of wanted to
Speaker 1: figure out a name based on the sloppy protocols in
Speaker 1: place over a painting that had just been attained through
Speaker 1: a lot of fancy footwork in terms of funding and
Speaker 1: like making it happen because it was such an important piece.
Speaker 1: Then we stuck it on an easel with a rope
Speaker 1: around it, and then we left a bunch of windows
Speaker 1: open right next to it. It was it'll be fine.
Speaker 1: I kind of wanted to do that, but I didn't.
Speaker 1: I went with a slightly more obvious name for a
Speaker 1: drink though, that I think is really quite delightful. And
Speaker 1: we're calling this the False Confession. You're gonna be happy
Speaker 1: because there's bourbon in this. This one is gonna before
Speaker 1: you do anything else, put a martini glass in your
Speaker 1: fridge to chill it. So while you're making the rest
Speaker 1: of it, you're cooling off your glass because you just
Speaker 1: want to chill your receptacle into your shaking tin. You're
Speaker 1: gonna put an ounce and a half of bourbon, three
Speaker 1: quarters of an ounce of lemon juice, three quarters of
Speaker 1: an ounce or jaw. If you don't have more jab
Speaker 1: but you have another almond syrup, throw it on in there,
Speaker 1: that's fine, and then two ounces of pineapple nectar. I'm
Speaker 1: not crazy crazy like a fox. So then we're not
Speaker 1: even done yet. So you're gonna shake this, give it
Speaker 1: a really good shake with ice. You want to basically
Speaker 1: make it super duper cold, because there will be no
Speaker 1: ice in the glass. That's part of why we're pretty chilling.
Speaker 1: You're gonna take that cold glass out though, and You're
Speaker 1: gonna pour just a little bit of gold Schlagger into
Speaker 1: it and then turn it carefully so you coat the
Speaker 1: interior of the glass. But it's just like a film
Speaker 1: of gold schlager. If you have any left at the bottom,
Speaker 1: you pour it out you don't want it, and then
Speaker 1: you strain that shaken cocktail into it, and then you
Speaker 1: sip it and you go home. Mama, I would confess
Speaker 1: to stealing things that, yeah, I would take the blame.
Speaker 1: I am deeply in love with this drink. I have
Speaker 1: to on you. It came together accidentally. As I mentioned,
Speaker 1: I think early in the season, I'm doing something with
Speaker 1: these drinks that I haven't revealed yet, and we'll I'll
Speaker 1: probably tell you at the end. So any time I'm
Speaker 1: doing them, I have a set of criteria in my
Speaker 1: head and that leads me to pick things out that
Speaker 1: I would include that will all be revealed in time.
Speaker 1: But this one turned out to be even more delightful
Speaker 1: than I anticipated. It is yummy. It's a nice transition
Speaker 1: drink again, a seasonal transition drink, because we are here
Speaker 1: in the northern Hemisphere into autumn now. But for some
Speaker 1: of us that live in warm places, you get like
Speaker 1: a warm day and then a cooler day, and then
Speaker 1: a warm day and then a cooler day. And this
Speaker 1: because of the cinnamon of the gold schlager, and like
Speaker 1: the warmth of the bourbon, the pineapple brings out. There's
Speaker 1: a sweetness that bourbon naturally has and it really brings
Speaker 1: that out really nicely, so delicious. This is an easy
Speaker 1: one to do the mocktail for You are just going
Speaker 1: to sub out that bourbon like we often do for
Speaker 1: a black tea in lieu of your gold schlager. You're
Speaker 1: just gonna do a cinnamon syrup. And if for any
Speaker 1: reason you can't get a cinnamon syrup, just make a
Speaker 1: simple syrup on the stove and throw a couple of
Speaker 1: sticks of cinnamon into it and let that simmer on
Speaker 1: low for a bit and then take those out and
Speaker 1: strain it, and your golden you have a great little
Speaker 1: cinnamon syrup to use for whatever you may desire. Great
Speaker 1: on pancakes, by the way, it is very good. That
Speaker 1: is the false confession, which is so yummy. It will
Speaker 1: make you confess to things you didn't do. Hopefully I
Speaker 1: will confess that I always have fun doing this show,
Speaker 1: and this season has been such a delight so far,
Speaker 1: and there is more to come, so we're thankful that
Speaker 1: you are along for the ride. And next week we
Speaker 1: will have another heist and another beverage, and we hope
Speaker 1: you're here with us. Criminalia is a production of Shonda
Speaker 1: land Audio in partnership with I Heart Radio. For more
Speaker 1: podcasts from Shondaland Audio, please visit the I Heart Radio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.