Court told of terror as pair 'stole da Vinci masterpiece from castle'

Published on Monday 1 March 2010 21:54

THE theft of a Leonardo da Vinci masterpiece from a stately home in Scotland has been described to a jury.

• Leonardo da Vinci's Madonna of the Yarnwinder, which was stolen from Drumlanrig Castle in 2003. Picture: Getty

A tour guide at Drumlanrig Castle said two men stole the work, Madonna of the Yarnwinder, after she was grabbed from behind and told she would be killed if she did not lie on the floor.

One of the men stood guard with an axe while his accomplice removed the painting from its showcase on a wall of the Duke of Buccleuch's home.

As an alarm began to sound, they made their way to a doorway leading to an external staircase, and escaped.

Stills of the robbers taken from CCTV at the castle were shown to the High Court in Edinburgh yesterday, but both had their faces covered as they passed the camera.

The evidence was given at the opening of the trial of five men who are accused of plotting in 2007 to extort 4.25 million from the duke and the insurer, Hiscox UK, for the safe return of the painting, which had been stolen four years earlier.

The five are: Marshall Ronald, 53, of Skelmersdale, Lancashire; Robert Graham, 57, and John Doyle, 61, both of Ormskirk, Lancashire; Calum Jones, 45, of Kilmacolm, Renfrewshire; and David Boyce, 63, of Airdrie, Lanarkshire.

It is alleged that one of the men had warned that "volatile individuals" might "do something very silly" if the police were informed about negotiations which led to the painting being presented to undercover officers at a meeting in the offices of a Glasgow law firm.

Alison Russell, 25, said she had been a tour guide for a few weeks at the castle in Thornhill, Dumfries and Galloway, in August 2003. The da Vinci was one of the castle's main attractions and was displayed in the "staircase hall".

Just after opening time at 11am, two men came into the hall. She thought it strange, because people usually took longer to reach that part of the castle.

"I started telling them a few things about what was in the room but they did not seem too interested in listening to me," said Ms Russell.

"I stood back to let them have a look. One of them came from behind and put his hand over my mouth and told me I had to lie down on the ground or he would kill me if I didn't. I did as he asked me, and I lay down just under the staircase."

She was told to keep quiet, and she heard the painting being removed from its case on the wall and the alarm sounding. The men then fled.

Sarah Skene, 73, another guide, said she had heard a commotion and went into the staircase gallery. She recognised the voice of a male colleague who stated: "Please, don't do it. Retreat. Retreat."

She added: "I went in and saw a male standing in front of the painting with an axe in his hand. He was guarding the picture. Another male went behind him and pulled the picture out of the box it was in. They disappeared out the window."

John Monatgu-Douglas-Scott, the 9th Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, was the owner of the painting. He died a month before the work was recovered, and was succeeded by his son, Richard Montagu-Douglas-Scott, the 10th duke.

It is alleged the five accused conspired between July and October 2007 to extort 4.25m from the dukes and his insurer by threatening that it would not be returned, or would be damaged or destroyed, if they did not pay the money – 2m before and 2.25m after a handover.

The Crown has set out in the indictment a series of components of the alleged plot.

Ronald is said to have contacted a loss adjuster, stating that he could return the painting. According to the charge, he then negotiated with men he knew as John Craig and David Restor, whom he believed were acting for the dukes, but who were undercover law enforcement officers.

The indictment claims that Ronald, Jones and Boyce drafted an agreement between Marshalls Solicitors, of Skelmersdale – the "facilitators" – and John Craig – the "intermediary" – in which a date was agreed for the painting to be made available.

Three days in advance, the intermediary was to pay 2m into the law firm's client account. Another clause in the agreement stipulated that "the intermediary warrants that he and no other person acting on his behalf … has given any notification or information relating to the terms of the said agreement (nor will do so until after the completion date) to the law enforcement agencies".

The trial continues.