666 = Satan’s Song? Part 3: A secret search

 

A controversial theft

As mentioned, dozens of books and theories circulate about the theft of the Van Eyck painting. Hammer’s is merely another one, but one with some changes to the standard story or speculation. For example, he pushes the theft within a Nazi framework, and also argues that Goedertier was “fingered” for the crime. Indeed, Hammer seems to argue that Goedertier never confessed to the crime at all, but that it was his “friend”, Georges de Vos, a lawyer and soon to be Senator, who may have been a truer culprit – with Goedertier something of an amateur detective who discovered the real culprit.
Some of the theories surrounding the painting are “imaginative” and some are realistic. Again, Hammer’s sits within the possible, is even plausible, but is nevertheless at odds with the most likely scenarios.

A quick overview

The police investigation into the theft had stalled when the Bishop of Ghent received the first in what would be a series of 13 ransom notes, demanding 1 million Belgian francs – the equivalent to 33,000 Euros at the time – for the safe return of the panels. When the John the Baptist panel was returned, the bishop – under heavy pressure from civil authorities, who claimed that the cathedral altarpiece was actually owned by the Belgian government – nevertheless refused to turn over the 1 million francs for the return of the Just Judges.
The next typewritten letter from the man calling himself D.U.A. showed his anger. He chided the bishop for breaking an agreement “at the very moment when we are negotiating a relatively small ransom – in proportion to the value of the most precious painting in the world.” Hammer underlines the importance of some key phrases in DUA’s correspondence, such as the above – as in arguing this was the world’s “most precious painting”. Though important and a true masterpiece, it was not the most precious painting in the world as such – unless it contained a coded message that was linked with the “most precious” thing in the world?

DUA?

Nothing more was discovered about the elusive “D.U.A.” until seven months later, when Arsène Goedertier, a 57-year-old stockbroker, collapsed of a heart attack at a political rally. As he lay dying, Goedertier summoned his attorney, Georges de Vos, to whom he uttered his famous last words: “I alone know where the Just Judges are to be found: my study, keys, cupboard.” Then he died of heart failure. It is De Vos who Hammer argues was the true culprit – or a truer culprit.
Officially, when De Vos searched the dead man’s house, he discovered carbon copies of the 13 typed ransom notes, and a 14th letter addressed to the bishop, which had not yet been mailed. The man then informed his wife, and the authorities, and Goedertier went down into history as the person who stole the Just Judges.

The missing panel

It is here that some problems occur. Officially, there was no indication where the Just Judges could be found – though from his dying message, it is clear that the material he directed de Vos towards, would continue information of the missing panel’s whereabouts. Instead, we are led to believe that only a single cryptic line in the unsent note hinted at its whereabouts: “It’s in a place where neither I nor anyone else can recover it without drawing attention.” Obviously, this was insufficient to recover the panel.
Hence, some have argued that De Vos found more information, including the actual whereabouts of the missing panel, but that this was found to be damaged, and hence, that it was a “gentleman’s agreement” to leave the mystery intact, and the hope alive, rather than confront the nation with the sad loss of an important artefact. Some argue that the actual panel was recovered and that the “copy” that was made to replace the missing original, is not a copy at all, but the original itself. And there are dozen more similar theories…

Motive?

In any crime, motive is a required driver to label someone as guilty. Goedertier's widow insisted that her husband was innocent of the crime, if only because he lacked motive.
A key item of evidence linking him to the crime – apart from De Vos’ discoveries in Goedertier’s study – was the typewriter, which was used to type the ransom letters and which was also found in Goedertier’s study. The typewriter was rented. Apart from Karel Mortier, Patrick Bernauw has had a lifelong interest in the painting – as well as other esoteric subjects. Bernauw discovered that Goedertier had used a false identity when renting the typewriter: Arseen Van Damme. Bernauw explains that “In Latin the U and the V are the same letter. D.U.A. is an anagram of the initials A.V.D.” That, he notes, is one possible explanation for the mysterious pseudonym.

But in the months after Goedertier’s death, relatives indicated that Goedertier was well-off and did not need to resort to stealing this panel to get money. In short, that he lacked motive. At the time of death, he had more than 3 million francs in his bank account.
Mortier too has argued that Goedertier was indeed not in any financial need, but engineered the theft to provide funds for a political party he was close to, and which was in financial difficulties. Either way, it is clear that Goedertier, if he acted alone, acted within a larger framework. Still, why would someone with three million francs in his bank accounts and access to more, engineer a dangerous theft and then merely ask one million francs for it? And if he was going to donate that money, why did he not donate his own private money, rather than resort to a dangerous crime?

When LeBlanc enters the enigma

Goedertier’s wife revealed that, much to her annoyance, her husband was an avid reader of detective novels. Specifically, he was a fan of Arsène Lupin, the “gentleman thief” of Maurice LeBlanc’s mystery novels. Arsène, of course, was also Goedertier's first name. LeBlanc and Arsène Lupin have sometimes been dragged into the mystery of Rennes-le-Château, by e.g. Patrick Ferté’s “Arsène Lupin – Supérieur Inconnu”, yet few – if any, not even Hammer – have made a connection between Goedertier being interested in Lupin/LeBlanc, the theft of the painting and the mystery of Rennes-le-Château.

Maurice LeBlanc

To quote from Guy Patton’s Web of Gold: “In 1905, Maurice Leblanc created the character of the gentleman thief, Arsène Lupin. Leblanc’s many stories of his hero’s adventures contain a remarkable number of indirect references to the mysteries of Rennes-le-Château, especially that of the treasure. The extensive references demonstrate an in-depth knowledge not only of the region’s mainstream history, but of the traditions, symbolism and personalities now seen to be connected with these mysteries. But even more noteworthy, these stories were written fifty years before the more recent interest in the Abbé Saunière, Rennes-le-Château and the ancient treasure.”
Specifically, the novel L’Aiguille Creuse (The Hollow Needle) was of interest to Goedertier. The book is, of course, about art thefts and some, like Bernauw, believe that Goedertier found some inspiration in the novel. Just as Lupin would always leave a trail of coded messages after his thefts, Goedertier used similar coded language in his ransom notes.

Problems

Mortier discovered that Goedertier suffered from a rare eye disease that made it difficult for him to see at night. It would have been impossible, reasons Mortier, for Goedertier to pull off the theft in a dark cathedral at night on his own. So the former police chief concludes: “He must have had at least one accomplice.” Interestingly, in the interview for Radio Rennessence, Hammer argued that the real thief might have been a woman!
Though everyone agrees that the official verdict, arrived at in 1937, namely that Goedertier acted alone, is very unlikely to be truth, from there, opinions differ. Bernauw actually believes that Goedertier was murdered and that two of the men deemed most likely to have been Goedertier’s accomplices, Achiel De Swaef and Oscar Lievens, also died during the month following Goedertier's death. Ghent police failed to conduct homicide inquiries into any of these untimely deaths.

The Nazi Plot

Interestingly, Bernauw leans toward an explanation of the crime that has come to be known as the “Nazi plot” theory. Bernauw is one of those who agrees that Adolph Hitler, who came into power in Germany just a year before the theft, was indeed interested in this painting – for occult reasons. “Hitler dreamed of an 'Arian religion' that could compete with Christianity,” explains Bernauw, “and he used the Mystic Lamb in this context.” Bernauw believes that the true reason for stealing the Just Judges had something to do with the fascination of the top Nazis for the Mystic Lamb.
Bernauw’s theory is that Goedertier and his accomplices, De Swaef and Lievens, worked for a Nazi agent, and were later killed when they hid the stolen panel for him. It is, of course, a variation on Hammer’s theory – though the reverse, as Hammer argues Goedertier stole it so that it would not fall into Nazi hands.

Hammer’s variation on a theme

Hammer focuses his attention on Henry Koehn’s reinvestigation of the crime, which began on July 19, 1940. Hammer argues that Koehn received his orders from Walter Schellenberg, who himself received it from Himmler. Hence, the hand of Himmler is apparent – Hammer’s interpretation – both in 1934, with the theft (using Rahn), and in 1940, with the search for the missing panel. At this point, it should be said that Himmler’s involvement is non-controversial, as the Nazi command were interested in the panel and its recovery. The question is what precisely their motives were: artistic or occult – and if the latter, linked with Tom R.’s scenario.
Hammer next argues that Tom saw Koehn’s dossier and agrees that Goedertier was murdered. Again, Hammer or Tom R. could have taken this conclusion from the available literature on the subject, such as Bernauw’s books. Still, Hammer does contribute to the crime investigation itself, noting the intriguing coincidence that Koehn warned De Vos on October 30, 1914, and that on November 2, De Vos had a stroke, dying on November 6. It is also clear from transcripts of Koehn’s interviews with then Senator De Vos that the man was more than pushing to claim Goedertier was in financial problems and that he did need the money from this crime to survive financially – something the widow, and independent researchers since, have treated with suspicion.

Why?

As to the “why” of all of this: Hammer has identified Van Eyck as a man who “knew” where the Arma Christi were, and who worked into his painting a key indicator that would point out the location. In echoes of Priory of Sion and Da Vinci Code clues, Hammer argues that in the Just Judges panel, there was a face in the rocks behind this group of judges, which was indicated by the right index finger of John the Baptist on the other side. The face in the rocks was also linked with a cave, which itself was somehow linked with the cave of St Baume (linked to Mary Magdalene), identified elsewhere in the painting.
The Nazi party definitely looked upon their acquisition of the Spear of Destiny with great pride. According to Guy Patton, it is not at all unlikely that the Nazi Party wanted to have more. Their preoccupation with Rahn had revealed that they were very much interested in recovering the Holy Grail – which Rahn had held before them as a historical relic for the taking in the general area of Montségur, actually not too distant from Rennes-le-Château. As Patton argues: “legends and mysteries surrounding the nature and history of such treasure, but most particularly acquiring further such artefacts, must have been music to the ears of the Nazi leadership. Imagine the tempting possibilities of acquiring the Grail cup, supposed to have caught Christ’s blood from the Cross, or even the Ark of the Covenant. The sheer symbolic value of such treasures falling into Nazi hands after 1500 years, would have been incalculable.”
By stealing the painting, Hammer argues, the location of the most precious stash of Christian relics would not be identified by the Nazis… but by stealing the two panels, the real thieves could identify the precise location? If so, this line of reasoning – that the thieves of the Van Eyck could have pursued their own quest – is not developed in the book.

continued>>

Filip Coppens