The file goes into detail about how the FBI thought Verson fit into the pattern of events that includes the theft at Elayne Galleries. It comes in the form of the rationale for the sting. After summarizing the plan to buy the two additional paintings, it states:
Minneapolis investigation to date has determined there is high probability Renoir is a fake which may be substantiated by previous activities of [redacted]. Minneapolis feels burglary may well have been staged to retrieve fake Renoir, Rockwells being taken as added profit to burglars for the following reasons:
1) The 3 individuals who allegedly cased the gallery, one of whom, [redaction, medium length, four or five words], made a point to congregate in the area of the Renoir which was away from the main gallery area. This indicates the Renoir was likely the primary target of the theft.
2) There is a high probability the Renoir is a fake and of virtually no value.
3) Due to organized crime connections [redacted] and [redacted] it is feasible to assume [redacted] could have been contacted to retrieve the Renoir by organized crime types.
4) [Redacted] has been contacted by organized crime element for “contract” work in past.
5) If the above is the case, [redacted] would have ready outlet to fence Rockwells in addition to having easy access to returning fake Renoir to [redacted].
6) Minneapolis has determined [long redaction, maybe ten words] to theft which may indicate his [italics added] purpose of travel was to dispose of painting or paintings.
7) It is logical to assume [redacted] is out to defraud Verson and other buyer due to past activities [redacted] as well as the fact he is attempting to “move” them for additional $14,000 through arrangement set forth above.
8) In order to “move” Verson and other buyer for the $14,000 it would be essential to have spurious painting out of the way to preclude discovery of the scheme.
If this was a lawyer show on television, now would be the time when the investigator has to explain all those modal verbs: What do you mean, “may indicate”? Why is it “feasible to assume”? How likely are all these likelihoods? How probable are the probabilities?
The case being made, however conditionally, is for the Verson-as-dupe scenario, with mobsters from Miami hiring expert thieves to retrieve a fake painting. The thieves’ cut is possession of the Rockwells. It is as likely as any of the other scenarios, of which there are many. In one, Verson is a wannabe gangster who told some real gangsters about an opportunity, which they checked out more or less on a whim and found to their liking. In another, Verson is a ball-busting fence going for the money several ways at once, buying fake art and trying to sell it, arranging the theft of genuine art and overseeing its subsequent sale.
Variations on each of those scenarios make Sonia the central figure, which seems more likely. She had the necessary insider’s knowledge through Verson and the established connection with the Miami mob.
What all the postulated scenarios have in common is the names of certain people and either knowledge of or speculation about their activities. The names of the alleged perpetrators and some of their activities are redacted in the official version.
For example, scenario #6 above uses the conclusive-sounding verb “determined” to describe what has been learned about “his” purpose of travel. “He,” according to numerous other entries in the file, is a man who traveled from Chicago to Minneapolis shortly before the theft. He had worked on a contract basis for organized crime in the past (#4), and it is feasible to assume he was contacted by Rolando A and his confederate to retrieve the Renoir (#3).
The names of that man and three well-known Twin Cities characters—two of them with organized crime ties—are consistently mentioned in the hearsay, speculation, and alleged firsthand information about the theft at Elayne Galleries.
An informant, reached through a former Hennepin County attorney, claims to have firsthand knowledge.
“Sure I know who stole the paintings,” he says. “So did the cops and the FBI, but they didn’t have enough evidence to charge anybody.” He named four perpetrators, among them the thief from Chicago.
There are many allusions to individuals who seem to be those four in the FBI files (#1 above, for example), and they are the central characters in every scenario, on or off the record, that has been posed to explain it. Their descriptions, as freshly recollected by Russ and Elayne Lindberg plus other witnesses who were working at the gallery, appear several times in the files. Public documents concerning other matters in which they were involved indicate that they are logical suspects.
In 1981, one of them was facing trial for another matter. If convicted, his penalty was likely to be severe. Court documents state that he contacted the FBI and offered to return all the stolen paintings if that would result in a favorable plea bargain, but no deal was made. Those charges were ultimately dropped because a key witness refused to testify.
Three of the four are still living, and in deference to the laws of libel and defamation cannot be named, even though the statute of limitations has run out on the theft.
Kent Anderson passed away in 2007, at the age of seventy-two. According to his obituary, he was a resident of Ham Lake, Minnesota, when he died.
“Kent was there for the job, but mainly he was a fence,” says the informant. He supposedly had first rights to sell the stolen art, but he wasn’t able to do so.
Carol Hines of Hopkins, Minnesota, remembers Anderson fondly. He worked with Hines’s late husband in the commercial photography business in the 1960s, and they saw him occasionally over the years.
“Kent was a charming, good-looking guy back when I knew him,” says Hines. “He was six feet tall or so, had reddish-blond hair. Alligator shoes? Maybe. He could be a sharp dresser when he wasn’t down and out. He was one of the funniest people I ever knew—funnier than his brother Louie, in my opinion, but in a different way. I guess that whole family developed a sense of humor in order to survive. Kent just idolized the comedian Jonathan Winters, could mimic him perfectly. You’d laugh so hard it hurt when he was doing his Jonathan Winters shtick. He was smart, good-natured, but—how should I put it—out on the edge. I never knew him to be involved in anything illegal, and I can’t imagine him harming anybody, but I guess I wouldn’t be real surprised to find out that he took part in a theft. He was the kind of guy who’d fit in any slot, if you know what I mean, and he was up against it many times.”
Keith Harstad, a Minneapolis lawyer and developer, recalls Anderson as a guy who always wanted to have fun and raise hell, sometimes at other people’s expense.
“He was willing to try anything,” Harstad says. “I liked Kent, but was he a solid citizen? No, he wasn’t.”
Hines doesn’t remember Anderson being scarred up or having wires on his teeth, but their contacts were sporadic enough so she could have missed that. She recalls him being “one of Bill Cooley’s guys.” Cooley, the former mayor of Minnetonka, took pleasure in hiring rogues and ne’er-do-wells who were down on their luck to work at his west suburban dog pound. He kept them on the payroll until they got on their feet again, mostly because he liked to listen to their stories.
“I’m pretty sure Kent had a job as a dogcatcher out at Bill’s for a while,” says Hines.
A contact between an informer who talked to the FBI about the theft and one of the perpetrators he fingered occurred at Cooley’s kennel. There is reference in the files to surveillance that took place there as well.