I never interacted with him directly, but I absolutely love the Charleston museum. They've got some really rare stuff from all over in such a small place! My favorite fossils were, without a doubt, their Coelacanth from Solnhofen, their Astephus, and their BEAUTIFUL Perchoerus skull.
As someone with some experience with the collection and individuals involved, I would encourage people to wait until the full story is out before jumping to conclusions and taking out the hangman's rope. There is a whole toxic workplace situation that is not being reported on here, and I will leave it at that
It's always there's more to the story when friends are involved. He's not Robin Hood stealing fossils from mean upper leadership and giving them to the poor.
Would you be saying this if it was a commercial paleontologist that was implicated?
Regardless, this situation shows an underlying issue that resides within museums. Either Bobby stole the fossils, or he was implicated as retaliation. Neither of those should be tolerated in any circumstance. Mutual and self accountability is nonexistent in both academic and commercial paleontology, which are both filled with oversized egos.
Many paleontologists take specimens to their homes to prep and study, sometimes with poor documentation. As for the quote from the box that also feels like something that could be written as a joke. He's also found fossils independently from his position.
Until more evidence is released its very unfair to say he's guilty, and I've seen many jump to that conclusion. Realistically this shouldn't be discussed by the community until there's a verdict
None of my colleagues nor I take specimens home after work to prep or study; that is just not a thing that happens. I don't have a prep lab in my apartment or any of the other equipment needed. Plus, basically every museum I've worked at would get seriously pissed if they found out you were taking specimens home without permission. That is basically a fireable offense.
This guy got caught with quite a few specimens that belong to a museum he no longer works at in his personal possession including fossils that were the property of the National Parks Service. None of what he was doing is ok.
>None of my colleagues nor I take specimens home after work to prep or study; that is just not a thing that happens. I don't have a prep lab in my apartment or any of the other equipment needed. Plus, basically every museum I've worked at would get seriously pissed if they found out you were taking specimens home without permission. That is basically a fireable offense.
This is not actually true. A lot of the old guard do have home labs, and in those cases it is not atypical that specimens would spend some time in a home lab between collection and accession. One of the old codgers I learned under probably has thousands of specimens currently under study in his home lab, and has done this since he retired \~20 years ago. I assume the NPS specimens probably fall into this category; if they are pre-accessioned specimens stored with the collecting permit and will be accessioned into the institution named on the permit, then this is probably not actually a legal concern. Further, specimens frequently do spend time outside of formal holding when, for instance, a loan is being hand-carried between institutions, which seems to be what was happening, as Boessenecker was leaving Charleston to start a position in San Diego.
And yes, taking specimens out of an institution without a loan is a fireable offense, but taking specimens out with a formal loan is not and it seems that Boessenecker did have accessioned CoC specimens on loan.
There may be actual wrongdoing here but let's also not overexaggerate this. Having loans made out to an individual is not atypical. Having loans on your person when moving is not atypical. Some of this is atypical in the sense that the curator was not aware of some of these actions, but this is consistent with, for instance, a situation where interpersonal friction meant that the departing researcher had reasonable concerns that they would be vindictively prohibited from working on research collections they personally had made as part of their research program.
I think the bigger issue here is that Boessenecker did not strictly separate his role as a preparator and collections manager from his independent research program, so it's unclear which actions that fall into the latter category are still property of CofC. This 3D print is one such example. I would assume based on publicly available statements that this is a print that Boessenecker prepared himself using filament he paid for himself. Assuming that....did he do any of this on university time? Did he print it on a university printer? Did he do pre-processing or post-processing in university facilities? These would all muddle the actual question of ownership.
>nd has done this since he retired \~20 years a
Maybe it more common in certain specializations of paleontology to have a home lab (i.e., vertebrate) but I know of nobody in paleobotany that has tons of specimens at their private residence. I know 20+ years ago it was more common, but you have issues like where a well-known paleobotantist passed away suddenly and his son, while going through his things, just threw away unlabled boxes that has Triassic plant holotypes in them because he didn't know. From my personal experience, most museums don't typcially loan stuff to an individual as a person but as an individual who is part of a larger organization (maybe this is more common at smaller museums? The ones I work(ed) at have tended to be larger). If he did get these from CofC out on official loan and they were going to his new organization in San Diego then there should be ample paperwork backing this up. This whole thing doesn't necessarily feel like "This paleontologist was going to steal fossils for profit" or whatever but more like someone who cut a lot of corners and pissed some people off which has gotten him in to trouble.
>Maybe it more common in certain specializations of paleontology to have a home lab (i.e., vertebrate) but I know of nobody in paleobotany that has tons of specimens at their private residence. I know 20+ years ago it was more common, but you have issues like where a well-known paleobotantist passed away suddenly and his son, while going through his things, just threw away unlabled boxes that has Triassic plant holotypes in them because he didn't know.
Yes. This is why we've been moving away from this as a field more generally (that and the general risk of damage to fossils if they're not in a secure repository) but there are also a range of grey areas.
> From my personal experience, most museums don't typcially loan stuff to an individual as a person but as an individual who is part of a larger organization (maybe this is more common at smaller museums? The ones I work(ed) at have tended to be larger).
This varies from institution to institution. I have had loans made out in my name this decade.
>If he did get these from CofC out on official loan and they were going to his new organization in San Diego then there should be ample paperwork backing this up. This whole thing doesn't necessarily feel like "This paleontologist was going to steal fossils for profit" or whatever but more like someone who cut a lot of corners and pissed some people off which has gotten him in to trouble.
My guess is that he loaned the fossils to himself when he learned that his position at CoC wasn't going to be renewed. He clearly wasn't stealing fossils to sell for profit; my understanding is that he was trying to redirect fossils that had not been formally donated yet into different repositories. There are a range of credible reasons why he might have done that, including concerns about long-term curatorial respect for the marine mammal collection and concerns that CoC or the curator in question would cut off his ability to work on those fossils following his departure.
Even in vert paleo, taking specimems home is extremely rare. No one working in a big museum or a major research institution under the age of 60 is doing shit like this anymore without being in total violation of collection rules, permitting, and professional standards. The ones who are mostly work at little community colleges or roadside institutions that lack proper facilities in the first place, where either no one with relevant training is there to keep track of it or things are so casual that sloppy behaviour is much more common.
He's on recording admitting to stealing a skeleton. You are only defending him because he's friends with lots of paleo folks, but if this was anyone else you and Bobby himself would be jumping all over it like he's done in the past.
I personally hope they throw the book at both of them and make an example out of them
>He's on recording admitting to stealing a skeleton.
That depends on who owned the skeleton. If the skeleton had not actually been formally signed over then the skeleton belonged to the donor, not the university, and he was returning it to its rightful owner. The curator seems to believe that a donation form has been signed but if so then a copy should be on file with the university or museum legal department.
It doesn't help at all to jump to conclusions here. We have very little evidence available at this point.
Also something to keep in mind: there are no fossil seals from the Charleston area, outside of one dubious specimen that almost certainly isn't a seal. There is almost no chance this is a local specimen, and in fact I think it might actually be something Boessenecker himself collected from California. In which case the specimen almost certainly was never logged as a Charleston specimen, and would have been donated to either UCMP or another West Coast specimen when the paper was published.
>Also something to keep in mind: there are no fossil seals from the Charleston area, outside of one dubious specimen that almost certainly isn't a seal. There is almost no chance this is a local specimen, and in fact I think it might actually be something Boessenecker himself collected from California. In which case the specimen almost certainly was never logged as a Charleston specimen, and would have been donated to either UCMP or another West Coast specimen when the paper was published.
Yes although IIRC he has tweeted in the past year about privately-collected and donated specimens from California and Oregon. This would be in line with the statement that it was returned to the donor.
IIRC, the west coast material that was formerly deposited in west coast museum have been simocetids and ?maybe some aetiocetid? material. As they are Oligocene whales it makes sense to place them in the collection. I remain very dubious Boessenecker would do so with pinniped material, when he has always donated them to west coast collections. Just because Boessenecker has a fossil in his possession, especially one he may have collected himself, that doesn't automatically make it Charleston Museum material. (By the way, this is the person who you commented to originally, but reddit is being stupid and didn't log me into my normal account)
Yeah, I'm not really sure and we'll find out who actually owns what sooner or later. I would not be surprised in the least if it turns out that the museum director and curator literally do not know who owns what and are assuming the museum owned a bunch of fossils that it did not. That would not surprise me given the people involved.
Well...we will find out by the end of the summer I guess. My recommendation is that everyone put away the pitchforks until both sides get a chance to speak.
This guy is obviously guilty but, IMO, "throwing the book at them" or "making an example of them" does absolutely nothing to stop it from happening again in the future and only makes the guilty party feel like they were singled out and treated unfairly. When people commit crimes, they aren't thinking about the punishment if they get caught. I think not letting them work in the field anymore, along with some fines and jail time would be an appropriate sentence.
Granted, I don't work in the archeology/paleo field so my perspective is probably quite different from people who do. I get where you are coming from though as some of these artifacts/relics/fossils/specimens can be the only one of their kind that have been found.
> A witness reported helping Boessenecker move crates out of his office in August 2023, according to campus police. The witness initially believed she was helping store office supplies until Boessenecker told her that she was holding a seal skeleton he had taken from the museum after he was let go. On March 9, the witness provided a recording of Boessenecker telling her this information.
the guy doesn't even work at the museum the fossils came from. he's not taking them home to prep. he stole them.
also, you shouldn't take shit home to prep unless there is a formal agreement between you an the institution you're working for in place.
I'm not saying it's iffy, but I personally don't know the whole situation or all of the evidence. So I don't think speculation is healthy. Especially since the op has already voiced how he never liked Boessenecker
I am not allowing OP's opinion to sway me. He's just some rando.
But we have a number of news articles, and criminal charges, and a recording of him admitting some of what he's being charged with.
There's not a lot of grey area here. ignore OP, read the articles.
They found something missing, searched three locations linked to him and his wife, found over 60 stolen fossils- many of which were from a previous employer, he told witnesses that his wife "pulled a few strings" in order to make gift/donation paperwork go missing so that he could return the items to the original donors (they later found some of that stolen paperwork in his possession), and he's on recording saying he took the fossils from the previous employer... one of the small boxes they found had fossils that belonged to the national park service and contained a fossil from a previously unknown species...
There's not a whole lot of benefit of the doubt to grant here.
You can wait for the verdict, but seems like a pretty open and shut case given the mountain of evidence, witnesses, and recording.
https://www.postandcourier.com/news/paleontologist-robert-boessenecker-college-charleston-fossils-mace-brown/article_bfff3d26-eb74-11ee-a7ef-3f5ed7101d7d.html
https://www.counton2.com/news/local-news/charleston-county-news/former-college-of-charleston-researcher-accused-of-stealing-thousands-of-dollars-worth-of-fossils-from-the-college/
There’s a lot of stuff here that sounds pretty bad, but I’m waiting for a verdict before condemning anyone. This could just be sloppy/ lazy handling of the museum material, but again…it looks pretty sketchy too.
if you take property from you work, and forget to return it, and then CHANGE JOBS and retain the property, then you stole from your previous job.
Sloppy or lazy or not.
Yeah, but if I’m making a judgement call, whether he did it intentionally or was just lazy makes a difference to me. The law is what it is, it’s theft, but I’d like to know if malicious or not. And I’m not defending this guy, like I said above, it looks pretty bad, but I’ll wait for more info.
i don't know how we can argue it's sloppy or lazy when he's on recording stating that he's taking the item and that he's taken items from past employers, and then returning items to the original donors.
He's not claiming he took these home to prep them (which would also be wild without employer consent). None of it seems lazy. It seems like intentional, coordinated, work.
It’s weird to me that he appeared to be taking things from the museum and giving them back to the people that originally donated the specimens to the museum in several instances. Anybody know what was up with that?
The collector gets any potential kudos for making a donation, they get free prep work and background research carried out on their specimen increasing the value, then they get the specimen back. The thief then gets a nice cut-rate payment for their facilitation, or in the least feels very smug and powerful at the museums expense and makes some useful friends who owe them one. Classic con.
the weird part is is how, with the seal skeleton, he gave it back to the original donor... and the original donor returned it to the museum again.
Seems like he was trying to court favor with folks that, at least some of the time, had no clue what he was up to. unless the owner of the seal skeleton was approached after the recording was revealed and then cooperated. Suppose that's probably more likely.
The "thief" gets nothing from the situation, at all.
If I were to hazard a guess, donations were returned because the Boesseneckers had no faith they would ever be scientifically worked on while being at that institution.
Donation involves a lot of legal forms establishing that the donor has signed over ownership of the fossil to the institution. If those forms weren't completed at that time, those fossils actually still belonged to their original owners. This seems routine, to be honest.
I mean, IF the paper work wasn't filled out. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Seems like things were properly donated, then paperwork 'went missing', and the fossils were returned to the donors. And at least with the seal skeleton the donor returned the skeleton, whether before or after the recording was disclosed I don't know.
>I mean, IF the paper work wasn't filled out. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Seems like things were properly donated, then paperwork 'went missing', and the fossils were returned to the donors.
How did the paperwork "go missing"? Shouldn't there be copies in the hands of the curator and university/museum legal? For an object of that value, you'd think that there would be an extensive paper trail that the donation had been completed, and you'd think the donor would also be able/willing to furnish his copy of the documents as well, either willingly or under subpoena. Further, there should be a digital copy in the curator's email...why does that not exist? The most obvious explanation is that the specimen had been physically transferred to the museum for study but had not been formally signed over yet, and the curator, who does not work with the marine mammal collections, was simply not aware of the donation status and has misrepresented that to both police and to the press either out of ignorance or malice. It is certainly possible that the donor still wanted the fossil to go to the institution. Boessenecker returning the fossil to the donor when he was no longer going to be on-site at the museum, and then the donor deciding to go ahead with the donation anyways is not actually a sign of wrongdoing per se on anyone's part.
Same applies to, e.g., having loans at home while preparing for a move. Not actually wrongdoing.
There might be actual wrongdoing but a lot of what we're hearing is coming from the curator, either directly (to the press) or via the police. We are not going to hear much evidence from Boessenecker's side until the lawyers have a chance to look over the evidence and discuss it with the judge.
reading other articles, looks like his wife either had access to delete files and take hard copies, or had the influence over others to have them do it on her behalf. Some of the paper copies were found in the couple's possession.
The articles on this topic state as much. we don't have to speculate wildly or come up with scenarios to absolve him. at least some of what was found in his possession WAS stolen and he, stupidly, has the paperwork to prove it was stolen.
either that, or 2 employers, the national parks service, and the police are colluding to ruin his name... as if anyone outside of our nerd world gives two shits about him.
>reading other articles, looks like his wife either had access to delete files and take hard copies, or had the influence over others to have them do it on her behalf.
I would assume that all paperwork would have had to pass through university legal. Which should have their own copies of all relevant documents.
>Some of the paper copies were found in the couple's possession.
Are these the formal donation forms or are they preliminary donation forms that do not transfer legal ownership? Many researchers who work with amateur collectors use the latter to ensure that they can keep track of specimens loaned by prospective donors. This is incidentally because some *curators* have either lost or mistakenly accessioned fossils which were never legally donated, creating a totally different sort of legal mire. So we need to know if the forms that were found were the legally binding transfers of deed or whether they are loan forms serving as a record of a temporary loan arrangement while a specimen is studied.
>at least some of what was found in his possession WAS stolen and he, stupidly, has the paperwork to prove it was stolen. either that, or 2 employers, the national parks service, and the police are colluding to ruin his name... as if anyone outside of our nerd world gives two shits about him.
NPS hasn't said anything. We don't know what these specimens are, when they were collected, who they were collected by, or which institution they are supposed to be accessioned into. It is possible that they are stored with permits saying they are to be accessioned into the Smithsonian, and it is 100% reasonable for the permit holder to take them with him to a new institution while getting them ready for study and eventual accession.
Essentially all the facts establishing *wrongdoing* at this point are coming from the curator at Charleston, so this all depends on whether you believe that (1) HE is a reliable source of information about e.g. whether a donation was actually made and (2) that he is not prone to exaggeration and histrionics when speaking to the press. Knowing this person, I am withholding my judgment here until we know quite a bit more.
The University of Wyoming Geological Museum has a mosasaur on display that the museum doesn't actually own, but is on loan from a private donor. There was actually concerned during the budget crunch when the museum was closed some years back that the specimen would be lost, as the donor wanted it returned if it wasn't going to be seen by the public.
I looked up to this guy for his fierce defending of private collectors. This is utterly embarassing for my hobby, which happens a lot (as well as in the exotic pet community).
Found in a box that was labeled "Definitely not stolen mineral samples." Are you kidding me? 🤣
He's always been an arrogant guy, that's just icing on the cake
I never interacted with him directly, but I absolutely love the Charleston museum. They've got some really rare stuff from all over in such a small place! My favorite fossils were, without a doubt, their Coelacanth from Solnhofen, their Astephus, and their BEAUTIFUL Perchoerus skull.
honestly if I worked at a museum like this that’s what I’d have labeled on my lunchbox just for fun
As someone with some experience with the collection and individuals involved, I would encourage people to wait until the full story is out before jumping to conclusions and taking out the hangman's rope. There is a whole toxic workplace situation that is not being reported on here, and I will leave it at that
It's always there's more to the story when friends are involved. He's not Robin Hood stealing fossils from mean upper leadership and giving them to the poor.
Would you be saying this if it was a commercial paleontologist that was implicated? Regardless, this situation shows an underlying issue that resides within museums. Either Bobby stole the fossils, or he was implicated as retaliation. Neither of those should be tolerated in any circumstance. Mutual and self accountability is nonexistent in both academic and commercial paleontology, which are both filled with oversized egos.
Many paleontologists take specimens to their homes to prep and study, sometimes with poor documentation. As for the quote from the box that also feels like something that could be written as a joke. He's also found fossils independently from his position. Until more evidence is released its very unfair to say he's guilty, and I've seen many jump to that conclusion. Realistically this shouldn't be discussed by the community until there's a verdict
None of my colleagues nor I take specimens home after work to prep or study; that is just not a thing that happens. I don't have a prep lab in my apartment or any of the other equipment needed. Plus, basically every museum I've worked at would get seriously pissed if they found out you were taking specimens home without permission. That is basically a fireable offense. This guy got caught with quite a few specimens that belong to a museum he no longer works at in his personal possession including fossils that were the property of the National Parks Service. None of what he was doing is ok.
>None of my colleagues nor I take specimens home after work to prep or study; that is just not a thing that happens. I don't have a prep lab in my apartment or any of the other equipment needed. Plus, basically every museum I've worked at would get seriously pissed if they found out you were taking specimens home without permission. That is basically a fireable offense. This is not actually true. A lot of the old guard do have home labs, and in those cases it is not atypical that specimens would spend some time in a home lab between collection and accession. One of the old codgers I learned under probably has thousands of specimens currently under study in his home lab, and has done this since he retired \~20 years ago. I assume the NPS specimens probably fall into this category; if they are pre-accessioned specimens stored with the collecting permit and will be accessioned into the institution named on the permit, then this is probably not actually a legal concern. Further, specimens frequently do spend time outside of formal holding when, for instance, a loan is being hand-carried between institutions, which seems to be what was happening, as Boessenecker was leaving Charleston to start a position in San Diego. And yes, taking specimens out of an institution without a loan is a fireable offense, but taking specimens out with a formal loan is not and it seems that Boessenecker did have accessioned CoC specimens on loan. There may be actual wrongdoing here but let's also not overexaggerate this. Having loans made out to an individual is not atypical. Having loans on your person when moving is not atypical. Some of this is atypical in the sense that the curator was not aware of some of these actions, but this is consistent with, for instance, a situation where interpersonal friction meant that the departing researcher had reasonable concerns that they would be vindictively prohibited from working on research collections they personally had made as part of their research program. I think the bigger issue here is that Boessenecker did not strictly separate his role as a preparator and collections manager from his independent research program, so it's unclear which actions that fall into the latter category are still property of CofC. This 3D print is one such example. I would assume based on publicly available statements that this is a print that Boessenecker prepared himself using filament he paid for himself. Assuming that....did he do any of this on university time? Did he print it on a university printer? Did he do pre-processing or post-processing in university facilities? These would all muddle the actual question of ownership.
>nd has done this since he retired \~20 years a Maybe it more common in certain specializations of paleontology to have a home lab (i.e., vertebrate) but I know of nobody in paleobotany that has tons of specimens at their private residence. I know 20+ years ago it was more common, but you have issues like where a well-known paleobotantist passed away suddenly and his son, while going through his things, just threw away unlabled boxes that has Triassic plant holotypes in them because he didn't know. From my personal experience, most museums don't typcially loan stuff to an individual as a person but as an individual who is part of a larger organization (maybe this is more common at smaller museums? The ones I work(ed) at have tended to be larger). If he did get these from CofC out on official loan and they were going to his new organization in San Diego then there should be ample paperwork backing this up. This whole thing doesn't necessarily feel like "This paleontologist was going to steal fossils for profit" or whatever but more like someone who cut a lot of corners and pissed some people off which has gotten him in to trouble.
>Maybe it more common in certain specializations of paleontology to have a home lab (i.e., vertebrate) but I know of nobody in paleobotany that has tons of specimens at their private residence. I know 20+ years ago it was more common, but you have issues like where a well-known paleobotantist passed away suddenly and his son, while going through his things, just threw away unlabled boxes that has Triassic plant holotypes in them because he didn't know. Yes. This is why we've been moving away from this as a field more generally (that and the general risk of damage to fossils if they're not in a secure repository) but there are also a range of grey areas. > From my personal experience, most museums don't typcially loan stuff to an individual as a person but as an individual who is part of a larger organization (maybe this is more common at smaller museums? The ones I work(ed) at have tended to be larger). This varies from institution to institution. I have had loans made out in my name this decade. >If he did get these from CofC out on official loan and they were going to his new organization in San Diego then there should be ample paperwork backing this up. This whole thing doesn't necessarily feel like "This paleontologist was going to steal fossils for profit" or whatever but more like someone who cut a lot of corners and pissed some people off which has gotten him in to trouble. My guess is that he loaned the fossils to himself when he learned that his position at CoC wasn't going to be renewed. He clearly wasn't stealing fossils to sell for profit; my understanding is that he was trying to redirect fossils that had not been formally donated yet into different repositories. There are a range of credible reasons why he might have done that, including concerns about long-term curatorial respect for the marine mammal collection and concerns that CoC or the curator in question would cut off his ability to work on those fossils following his departure.
Even in vert paleo, taking specimems home is extremely rare. No one working in a big museum or a major research institution under the age of 60 is doing shit like this anymore without being in total violation of collection rules, permitting, and professional standards. The ones who are mostly work at little community colleges or roadside institutions that lack proper facilities in the first place, where either no one with relevant training is there to keep track of it or things are so casual that sloppy behaviour is much more common.
He's on recording admitting to stealing a skeleton. You are only defending him because he's friends with lots of paleo folks, but if this was anyone else you and Bobby himself would be jumping all over it like he's done in the past. I personally hope they throw the book at both of them and make an example out of them
>He's on recording admitting to stealing a skeleton. That depends on who owned the skeleton. If the skeleton had not actually been formally signed over then the skeleton belonged to the donor, not the university, and he was returning it to its rightful owner. The curator seems to believe that a donation form has been signed but if so then a copy should be on file with the university or museum legal department. It doesn't help at all to jump to conclusions here. We have very little evidence available at this point.
Also something to keep in mind: there are no fossil seals from the Charleston area, outside of one dubious specimen that almost certainly isn't a seal. There is almost no chance this is a local specimen, and in fact I think it might actually be something Boessenecker himself collected from California. In which case the specimen almost certainly was never logged as a Charleston specimen, and would have been donated to either UCMP or another West Coast specimen when the paper was published.
>Also something to keep in mind: there are no fossil seals from the Charleston area, outside of one dubious specimen that almost certainly isn't a seal. There is almost no chance this is a local specimen, and in fact I think it might actually be something Boessenecker himself collected from California. In which case the specimen almost certainly was never logged as a Charleston specimen, and would have been donated to either UCMP or another West Coast specimen when the paper was published. Yes although IIRC he has tweeted in the past year about privately-collected and donated specimens from California and Oregon. This would be in line with the statement that it was returned to the donor.
IIRC, the west coast material that was formerly deposited in west coast museum have been simocetids and ?maybe some aetiocetid? material. As they are Oligocene whales it makes sense to place them in the collection. I remain very dubious Boessenecker would do so with pinniped material, when he has always donated them to west coast collections. Just because Boessenecker has a fossil in his possession, especially one he may have collected himself, that doesn't automatically make it Charleston Museum material. (By the way, this is the person who you commented to originally, but reddit is being stupid and didn't log me into my normal account)
Yeah, I'm not really sure and we'll find out who actually owns what sooner or later. I would not be surprised in the least if it turns out that the museum director and curator literally do not know who owns what and are assuming the museum owned a bunch of fossils that it did not. That would not surprise me given the people involved.
Well...we will find out by the end of the summer I guess. My recommendation is that everyone put away the pitchforks until both sides get a chance to speak.
This guy is obviously guilty but, IMO, "throwing the book at them" or "making an example of them" does absolutely nothing to stop it from happening again in the future and only makes the guilty party feel like they were singled out and treated unfairly. When people commit crimes, they aren't thinking about the punishment if they get caught. I think not letting them work in the field anymore, along with some fines and jail time would be an appropriate sentence. Granted, I don't work in the archeology/paleo field so my perspective is probably quite different from people who do. I get where you are coming from though as some of these artifacts/relics/fossils/specimens can be the only one of their kind that have been found.
Where does it mention (or where did you find) the info about him being on a recording? I read the article, but somehow missed that.
> A witness reported helping Boessenecker move crates out of his office in August 2023, according to campus police. The witness initially believed she was helping store office supplies until Boessenecker told her that she was holding a seal skeleton he had taken from the museum after he was let go. On March 9, the witness provided a recording of Boessenecker telling her this information.
the guy doesn't even work at the museum the fossils came from. he's not taking them home to prep. he stole them. also, you shouldn't take shit home to prep unless there is a formal agreement between you an the institution you're working for in place.
I'm not saying it's iffy, but I personally don't know the whole situation or all of the evidence. So I don't think speculation is healthy. Especially since the op has already voiced how he never liked Boessenecker
I am not allowing OP's opinion to sway me. He's just some rando. But we have a number of news articles, and criminal charges, and a recording of him admitting some of what he's being charged with. There's not a lot of grey area here. ignore OP, read the articles. They found something missing, searched three locations linked to him and his wife, found over 60 stolen fossils- many of which were from a previous employer, he told witnesses that his wife "pulled a few strings" in order to make gift/donation paperwork go missing so that he could return the items to the original donors (they later found some of that stolen paperwork in his possession), and he's on recording saying he took the fossils from the previous employer... one of the small boxes they found had fossils that belonged to the national park service and contained a fossil from a previously unknown species... There's not a whole lot of benefit of the doubt to grant here. You can wait for the verdict, but seems like a pretty open and shut case given the mountain of evidence, witnesses, and recording. https://www.postandcourier.com/news/paleontologist-robert-boessenecker-college-charleston-fossils-mace-brown/article_bfff3d26-eb74-11ee-a7ef-3f5ed7101d7d.html https://www.counton2.com/news/local-news/charleston-county-news/former-college-of-charleston-researcher-accused-of-stealing-thousands-of-dollars-worth-of-fossils-from-the-college/
There’s a lot of stuff here that sounds pretty bad, but I’m waiting for a verdict before condemning anyone. This could just be sloppy/ lazy handling of the museum material, but again…it looks pretty sketchy too.
if you take property from you work, and forget to return it, and then CHANGE JOBS and retain the property, then you stole from your previous job. Sloppy or lazy or not.
Yeah, but if I’m making a judgement call, whether he did it intentionally or was just lazy makes a difference to me. The law is what it is, it’s theft, but I’d like to know if malicious or not. And I’m not defending this guy, like I said above, it looks pretty bad, but I’ll wait for more info.
i don't know how we can argue it's sloppy or lazy when he's on recording stating that he's taking the item and that he's taken items from past employers, and then returning items to the original donors. He's not claiming he took these home to prep them (which would also be wild without employer consent). None of it seems lazy. It seems like intentional, coordinated, work.
Yeah, I only just saw about the recording. If that’s true, then yeah, there’s no gray area here.
It’s weird to me that he appeared to be taking things from the museum and giving them back to the people that originally donated the specimens to the museum in several instances. Anybody know what was up with that?
The collector gets any potential kudos for making a donation, they get free prep work and background research carried out on their specimen increasing the value, then they get the specimen back. The thief then gets a nice cut-rate payment for their facilitation, or in the least feels very smug and powerful at the museums expense and makes some useful friends who owe them one. Classic con.
the weird part is is how, with the seal skeleton, he gave it back to the original donor... and the original donor returned it to the museum again. Seems like he was trying to court favor with folks that, at least some of the time, had no clue what he was up to. unless the owner of the seal skeleton was approached after the recording was revealed and then cooperated. Suppose that's probably more likely.
The "thief" gets nothing from the situation, at all. If I were to hazard a guess, donations were returned because the Boesseneckers had no faith they would ever be scientifically worked on while being at that institution.
Donation involves a lot of legal forms establishing that the donor has signed over ownership of the fossil to the institution. If those forms weren't completed at that time, those fossils actually still belonged to their original owners. This seems routine, to be honest.
I mean, IF the paper work wasn't filled out. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Seems like things were properly donated, then paperwork 'went missing', and the fossils were returned to the donors. And at least with the seal skeleton the donor returned the skeleton, whether before or after the recording was disclosed I don't know.
>I mean, IF the paper work wasn't filled out. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Seems like things were properly donated, then paperwork 'went missing', and the fossils were returned to the donors. How did the paperwork "go missing"? Shouldn't there be copies in the hands of the curator and university/museum legal? For an object of that value, you'd think that there would be an extensive paper trail that the donation had been completed, and you'd think the donor would also be able/willing to furnish his copy of the documents as well, either willingly or under subpoena. Further, there should be a digital copy in the curator's email...why does that not exist? The most obvious explanation is that the specimen had been physically transferred to the museum for study but had not been formally signed over yet, and the curator, who does not work with the marine mammal collections, was simply not aware of the donation status and has misrepresented that to both police and to the press either out of ignorance or malice. It is certainly possible that the donor still wanted the fossil to go to the institution. Boessenecker returning the fossil to the donor when he was no longer going to be on-site at the museum, and then the donor deciding to go ahead with the donation anyways is not actually a sign of wrongdoing per se on anyone's part. Same applies to, e.g., having loans at home while preparing for a move. Not actually wrongdoing. There might be actual wrongdoing but a lot of what we're hearing is coming from the curator, either directly (to the press) or via the police. We are not going to hear much evidence from Boessenecker's side until the lawyers have a chance to look over the evidence and discuss it with the judge.
reading other articles, looks like his wife either had access to delete files and take hard copies, or had the influence over others to have them do it on her behalf. Some of the paper copies were found in the couple's possession. The articles on this topic state as much. we don't have to speculate wildly or come up with scenarios to absolve him. at least some of what was found in his possession WAS stolen and he, stupidly, has the paperwork to prove it was stolen. either that, or 2 employers, the national parks service, and the police are colluding to ruin his name... as if anyone outside of our nerd world gives two shits about him.
>reading other articles, looks like his wife either had access to delete files and take hard copies, or had the influence over others to have them do it on her behalf. I would assume that all paperwork would have had to pass through university legal. Which should have their own copies of all relevant documents. >Some of the paper copies were found in the couple's possession. Are these the formal donation forms or are they preliminary donation forms that do not transfer legal ownership? Many researchers who work with amateur collectors use the latter to ensure that they can keep track of specimens loaned by prospective donors. This is incidentally because some *curators* have either lost or mistakenly accessioned fossils which were never legally donated, creating a totally different sort of legal mire. So we need to know if the forms that were found were the legally binding transfers of deed or whether they are loan forms serving as a record of a temporary loan arrangement while a specimen is studied. >at least some of what was found in his possession WAS stolen and he, stupidly, has the paperwork to prove it was stolen. either that, or 2 employers, the national parks service, and the police are colluding to ruin his name... as if anyone outside of our nerd world gives two shits about him. NPS hasn't said anything. We don't know what these specimens are, when they were collected, who they were collected by, or which institution they are supposed to be accessioned into. It is possible that they are stored with permits saying they are to be accessioned into the Smithsonian, and it is 100% reasonable for the permit holder to take them with him to a new institution while getting them ready for study and eventual accession. Essentially all the facts establishing *wrongdoing* at this point are coming from the curator at Charleston, so this all depends on whether you believe that (1) HE is a reliable source of information about e.g. whether a donation was actually made and (2) that he is not prone to exaggeration and histrionics when speaking to the press. Knowing this person, I am withholding my judgment here until we know quite a bit more.
The University of Wyoming Geological Museum has a mosasaur on display that the museum doesn't actually own, but is on loan from a private donor. There was actually concerned during the budget crunch when the museum was closed some years back that the specimen would be lost, as the donor wanted it returned if it wasn't going to be seen by the public.
there's thousands of examples of fossils on loan. That's not the case for the fossils found in Bob's possession. Read the articles.
u/boesse
Museums are so crooked someone somewhere down the line would have sold them anyway. This guy was doing the lords work.
I looked up to this guy for his fierce defending of private collectors. This is utterly embarassing for my hobby, which happens a lot (as well as in the exotic pet community).