Quelle semaine! After thorough professional analysis, the curator has been confirmed that the painting was un faux. Embarrassed, ashamed and confused, the curator and all his staff were fully cooperative with an investigation into this plot, as well as the disappearance of Jack Vincent.
Two important revelations have emerged: perhaps most essential, Information passed between the wife and the curator has confirmed that the man who showed up to the job of restoration painter was not Jack Vincent. This was the first time the museum ever used Monsieur Vincent; he was recommended to them (by this Cabal…?). As such the man who showed up claiming to be Jack Vincent they assumed to be Jack Vincent.
Further, the evening before the incident with the music the curator happened to walk in on our now unnamed restoration artist, ‘working’ with the portrait in question while it was removed from the frame. When the curator inquired why the portrait was removed from the frame, the painter informed that the detail of the portrait was such that it required he paint off frame on the edges to create the desired effect. When further asked why the painting materials weren’t out, the painter said he just finished and was about to put the painting back on the frame with its traditional weave. The curator observed the painting and noted it was sufficient for display, and wished for the painting to be framed as soon as possible, so he observed as the artist reattached the painting to the frame.
Ah, but I note, the painting we saw in the exhibit? Attached with staples! It was not the same painting that the curator saw the painter put onto the frame; the replacement took place after the painting had gone on display.
From this I posit our thief likely had to change his tactic; he used the time to create a detailed replica and he was about to replace it smoothly when the interference of the curator forced him to make the replacement in the exhibition as opposed to the studio. This music piece, perhaps prepared before as a gloating measure, was now essential. He used it to distract the guards for long enough to slice the weaves, remove the true painting and put in the replica, with only enough time to staple the forgery. These staples were matched to the staple gun the Holmes found in the gift shop; our thief likely moved into the gift shop to hide from the security, and perhaps to make his escape.
From here our information is fuzzy; but if you will remember I was attacked, knocked out and disposed of in the utility closet. Holmes has proposed a solution to this attacker that I find intriguing. He believes that our perpetrator, concerned about the integrity of the painting, had not properly prepared for its containment. But in the gift shop he noticed that there were tubes used to contain mid-sized and full-sized posters. Recognizing the usefulness, he perhaps took one of the tubes himself and placed a painting inside; but in the hazard of the moment he made a misplacement took the wrong tube! Under his false security he left, and only returned when he realized his mistake. Only when he returned, he recognized me and realized I could ruin his case. Wishing to subdue me, unwilling to eliminate me and under stress, he knocked me unconscious and placed me in the closet while he surveyed for the correct tube.
All that said, we are left with no lead for the fate of Jack Vincent, but that of the sticker for the G’Raj Majal in Austin, and this name Melissa Glaser. For this we will have to go to Austin – which we are to do, tomorrow.
Although – je dois avouer; I am curious about Holmes behavior; he has been distant and silent all day and has refused to speak to me. He just stares at the fireplace, smoking his pipe…