When they catch the burglar I'll admit I'm wrong. Until then Nicosia himself is suspect number one.
That was my reaction as well. I was especially struck by his comment that the supposedly-stolen items included "files containing documents about Kerry that hadn't been reviewed yet by others".
So let's recapitulate: An author requests and receives a bunch of documents under the Freedom of Information Act, then makes some sensational charges against a Presidential candidate and garners a bunch of publicity. Nobody else has seen the documents and he has no other copies. When it comes time to back those charges up, the papers in question are conveniently stolen. So not only is he off the hook in providing the proof, but he gets another burst of free publicity. And if he can't get new copies later on, he simply charges that the government destroyed the evidence, and that generates still more publicity.
Frankly, the idea that someone stole those Kerry-related documents makes very little sense, especially if the purpose of such a theft was to deny the information to Nicosia. How could the thief possibly know that this was Nicosia's only copy? If it was really valuable information, one would expect Nicosia to have made several copies immediately and stashed them in safe locations.
I know a lot of people on this forum would like to believe the worst -- that Kerry is guilty of some politically-damaging actions, and the Democrats resorted to criminal tactics to cover-up the evidence. But in this case I think Nicosia is much more likely than Kerry to be guilty of a cover-up.