From The Comics Journal 144, September 1991

Halegua: Screwed by the Negligence of an Institution?

RICHARD HALEGUA

Cincinnati, Ohio

I recently read the article in Comics Joural #139 regarding the theft of artwork from the Museum of Cartoon Art. Reading the article irked me somewhat. Though I am both mentioned and quoted, I had not been contacted by your magazine to clarify or corroborate statements made within it. My innocent involvement in that fiasco has cost me considerable money and effort, and I would very much like to have my viewpoint addressed.
It began in late 1987 with Sherman Krisher, one-time Museum janitor newly promoted to the prestigious position of Assistant Director. Shortly after his rise to the top he began to pilfer the collection of the Museum to pay credit card debts he accumulated to buy expensive gifts for his girlfriend. In March 1988, he drove down to New York City with a number of Prince Valiant originals by Hal Foster. By the end of the day he sold these to well known and unsuspecting dealers Peter Koch and Gary Dolgoff.
Soon afterward Krisher returned to their store with what can only be termed as a considerable stack of Hal Foster art, hoping to cash in on his pilfered goods. After some haggling, Mr. Krisher left with a check for several thousand dollars.
That summer, at the San Diego Comicon, the largest comic convention in America, Dolgoff brought fourteen Prince Valiant Sundays and sold them out for $1000 and up. Among his customers were art dealer Tom Horvitz, who, after discovering a sticker on the back indicating that the artworks might belong to the Museum of Cartoon Art, called the Museum and spoke with Brian Walker (son of Mort Walker, the creator of Beetle Bailey and Museum founder) querying him as to whether these are stolen articles. Brian explained that they were possibly pieces that were sold by the Museum in the past but that he'd check and get back to him.
Brian went to Krisher and asked that he check the collection. Sherman came back and told Brian everything was fine (just like the fox that the farmer sent to the chicken coop to see if any chickens were missing). Brian, in turn, called Horvitz and reiterated his belief that they were OK; Tom sold them in good faith, as did Dolgoff and Koch.
Later that year Krisher, who continued to raid the Museum with seemingly uninterrupted access and impunity, arrived at the Hartsdale, New York store of Dan Dupcak (aka Fantazia Comics and Cards) and sold him some 20 Valiant originals from the 1950s-'70s. Dupcak sold these to Bruce "Artman" Bergstrom, another dealer. Bergstrom also found stickers on the back of the art, and called the Museum, spoke with Brian Walker who again sent Krisher to check. Naturally, he said nothing was stolen.
That November, Dupcak called me and offered me a collection of originals including Prince Valiant and Dick Tracy originals. Later that month I also purchased from Bergstrom 15 more Prince Valiant pieces. I must stress that I bought these items in good faith from reputable dealers and I believe that they were sold to me in good faith. The Museum, I must also note, continually denied their ownership, and in there were no reported thefts of these items. As a matter of fact, at that point almost every art dealer in the hobby had sold or traded some of these pieces, resulting in pieces that traded over and over again. I wound up with these artworks because, as the Journal correctly said, I am described as the most aggressive businessman in the field and it would therefore be in my interests to buy this type of art when it becomes available in this market.
After I purchased these pieces I advertised in the Comics Buyers Guide - certainly not the actions of a dealer trading in "stolen" goods. But it was this ad which led to my being "targeted" by the Museum.
At about the time my ad appeared, Bill Croutch, author of several books, while doing research for his upcoming book on Dick Tracy, discovered and uncovered the thefts. He relayed this information to Barbara Hammond, the newly appointed director, who began her in-house investigation. Soon afterward I received a phone call from Ms. Hammond who, only after considerable prodding, revealed the true nature of her call and informed me that she believed I had received some Museum property. I requested from her a complete list so that I might check my stock, but she refused to provide one. Almost one month later, the first article revealing the theft appeared in the New York Times, which specifically mentioned pieces that I had purchased. At that point to protect my reputation, and avoid embarrassment for myself (and my clients as well), I had my friend and current Dick Tracy author Max Allan Collins make an overture to Mort Walker for the anonymous return of any art they could identify as stolen. In what I feel was a totally unnatural turn events, Mort Walker refused to accept the return of any artwork!
Mr. Walker commented in his "open letter to Bill Watterson" that the Museum could not retrieve any art because of lack of cooperation. He failed to mention that it was his own lack of cooperation.
At this point I contacted an attorney at the law firm of Bryan, Cave, McPheeters and McRoberts to provide advice on how to proceed in what I felt was a very sticky situation. Obviously, I was beginning to smell a rat. Within days my art gallery was visited by FBI agents. One of those agents was Bernard Kane, who explained that the thieves' attorney would renumerate any individual who would help to retrieve this material as Krishner (who had by now confessed to the thefts) would receive a more lenient sentence.
The same claim was made to my attorney, Mr. William McSherry, who agreed to advise me to cooperate with Krisher's attorney, Phillip Russell. Unknown to me and my counsel, these agreements were all lies. While I, in good faith, reacquired the art for their return, Mr. Russell and the authorities set up a sting operation where the art was confiscated with no reimbursement to me.
In addition, a number of news articles implied that I was knowingly dealing in stolen art, which is 180 degrees from the truth. I acquired the material in good faith from reputable dealers who had been assured by Brian Walker and the Museum of Cartoon Art that the art was of good provenance. As soon as I thought the work may have been stolen, I offered to return it for free to the rightful owners. The Museum just wasn't having any. I was made the scapegoat to cover the Museum's negligence in allowing the thefts to happen in the first place.
It was impossible for me to ascertain that the material was stolen. The Museum had been contacted several times in relation to possession of the art, and they denied having any. I bought only from reputable dealers who had contacted the Museum, which conforms with the standards of a good faith purchase as defined by law.
More importantly, I offered the material back to the Museum free of charge after knowledge of the theft - which is also within the boundaries of the law. In fact, that is the law.
However, the Museum was more cognizant of the public relations beating they would take than of the moral and ethical conditions that should have prevailed.
But those are not the only oddities here. Some of the more interesting items have not been discussed publicly.
What of the Museum's actions after uncovering the theft? They fired Krisher, that's all! It was not the Museum that filed charges. That was done by the Westchester Police. Furthermore, at Krisher's sentencing, the Museum requested that he not receive a jail sentence even though he stole more than $250,000 worth of art - less than half of which has been recovered.
Why has the Museum not pursued the retrieval of art from other individuals? Why, after refusing to accept art from me in March 1989, did they accept three pieces from art dealer Horvitz in May 1989?
And why does the Museum have listed on their "hot sheet" art sold by the Museum itself in 1982??
Does that mean the Museum does not keep accurate enough records to check so they may compile an actual list?
(For those wanting to know, the "hot sheet" item is a Prince Valiant Sunday page dated 5/28/67, which was sold to a retired police officer from Florida who has since been contacted by the Museum pertaining to this piece of art.) I am totally responsible for any negligent act I commit. Apparently I am also responsible for the negligent actions of institutions that do not have the ability to handle the responsibility of vast artistic endowments.
If the Museum had not given indiscriminate access to its vaults, or had the vaults been checked personally by Brian Walker, or had the Museum acted earlier to uncover the thefts, both I and my customers would have been saved cost and embarrassment. As I have been accurately quoted, I was "screwed for the benefit of a thief and the negligence of an institution." Thank you for your consideration, and I would be more than happy to elaborate on any aspect of this situation. I want to put this matter behind me, but not before everyone in this business truly understands the innocent nature of my involvement.
P.S.: As I finish this letter the late breaking news is that there has been another major theft of cartoon cels at the Museum. This time, apparently, Brian Walker spoke with the alleged thief prior to discovery of the theft and let him walk without so much as asking for identification. Way to go, Brian.
P.P.S.: Since his sentencing, in which the Museum pleaded for Krisher not to receive jail time for his crime, Mr. Krisher has paid less than $1000 of this paltry $45,000 in restitution and has contributed less than 50 of this 500 hours of community service. Nor has he spent a day in jail. And they say crime does not pay.

[_Given that TCJ also reported that Halegua had attempted to return the pieces before they were seized but was refused, I'm inclined to believe this fuller version of the story. It really shows a large negligence on the part of the Walkers and the museum.

Further, Walker used the thefts as an argument that comic strips were still doing well in his response to Watterson. Yet, it seems they only happened due to his and his son's incompetence. I guess it just shows that cartoonists and historians should not run museums. Museum curators should run museums._]