Could Jerry really have been close enough to see the driver's eyes under a police cap?
You know, he described himself as being surprised, taking a couple of steps forward and looking at the man, and this description is what he gave.
There's a contradiction between Jerry's story and what the guard at the Gardner desk told the police. Jerry said the car sat there for a while. The guard said the car drove up to the museum and the thieves got out.
That's correct. When you look at the police report that was filed the next day, the police said, "Guard #1 said he was sitting at his desk and saw the headlamps kind of shine in onto the video camera and then the cops walked in."
There's no window out to Palace Road from the desk, is there?
There was no window at that desk, but the guard does have a number of monitors. And that story conflicts with this story of the eyewitnesses who were outside who say that they saw these individuals sitting there for a while beforehand. There are possibilities of why that discrepancy could be there. Those headlamps could have come from another car, but it is a curious aspect to the guard's story that does conflict with the eyewitness accounts.
What do we make of the guards' testimony?
We have two guards. We have Guard #1, who's the one who let them in, and there are a number of curiosities to his story. He said he let them in, and that he stepped away from the panic button. But we do know that early investigators looked at him quite closely, and we know that he didn't do particularly well on the polygraph test. I believe he was called in front of the grand jury. And nothing has happened since then. So all I can say is, there are a number of curiosities in this story. I mean, clearly investigators have looked closely at him. Perhaps they could look more closely at him, but in the current state we don't have enough evidence to say that he was involved or that he was not involved. And I certainly don't want to sound like I'm saying he was involved.
In your book, in that fantasy sequence near the end, "G" says, "Sure, a guard made some money, I'll tell you that."
I had to chuckle when you called it a fantasy sequence, I wouldn't dispute that that isn't true. I hadn't thought of it quite like that.
A "plausible scenario"?
Yeah. I mean, it was to me, in trying to get a sense of the story as a whole, and I do still think about that G character, because I think somewhere he sort of exists, but that wasn't your question. I think there's a lot of evidence to suggest an inside connection. The thieves were in the museum for over an hour. That suggests a high degree of confidence that they had the run of the place. While perhaps you would have known that the panic button was the only connection to the outside world, stealing some of those security-tape items that were behind a locked door — that, in my mind, does not suggest something you would hear in a barroom conversation. Two guards are talking over here, and they say, "Oh, that panic button is our only connection. . . ." Perhaps, but that specific knowledge to me suggests that there was an inside connection. We don't know if it was the guards who worked that evening or another guard, or someone who'd left three years before and said, "Here's a tip." That's sort of the unknown. But I think we do have good evidence that's been there for a long time that to me suggests some sort of inside connection.