Couple arrested in connection with Drents Museum heist
Authorities arrested suspects earlier this week in connection with the theft at the Drents Museum, which occurred over the weekend. The suspects, a couple from Heerhugowaard, were detained during a police raid that involved multiple units, including an arrest team and forensic experts. The raid, which took place in the Schoorlaan area of Heerhugowaard, led to the seizure of evidence, though the police have not provided details on its relevance to the stolen artifacts, De Telegraaf reported.
According to neighbors, the arrest took place when a team of police officers forcefully entered the couple's home. "It was around midday," said Rico, a neighbor who lives just two houses away from the arrested couple. "The police slammed the door in. They took the man and his wife." The couple's children, including a baby, were reportedly taken by relatives during the raid.
Witnesses described the scene as a heavy police presence, with an arrest team, regular officers, and forensic teams at the scene. “There were a lot of police around. It was clear something serious had happened,” Rico said.
"I find them nice. You don’t have any trouble with them, we just say hello," said Rico about the couple. "He seemed to go to work as usual. She was always home with the kids. I can't imagine that she was involved in any crime."
Although some residents speculated about the nature of the crime, including the possibility of drug-related activity, they were shocked to learn it involved a high-profile art theft. "I thought it would be drugs; that makes the most sense, right? But a robbery like this… that's even crazier," said one neighbor.
A shell vs. an onion
Ton Cremers, a former security head at the Rijksmuseum, raised concerns about the museum's security setup following the theft. "This robbery was absolutely preventable," Cremers said in an interview with NRC. He explained that museum security should include multiple layers of protection to prevent a quick breach. "If someone blows open the main door, they shouldn't be able to grab the most valuable pieces within two minutes," he said.
The Drents Museum has not confirmed whether the arrested suspects are connected to the stolen artifacts. The museum’s director, Harry Tupan, has stated that all necessary security measures were in place for the stolen items.
Cremers emphasized that museum security should be designed like an onion, with multiple protective layers before reaching the most valuable objects. “Apparently, in this case, there was nothing beyond the outer shell. If someone blows open the main door, they should not be able to grab the most important pieces within two minutes,” he said.
A key issue, according to Cremers, was the lack of additional barriers after the initial breach. “There should have been multiple doors inside, each requiring time to break through. Then come the display cases,” he explained. “I developed security standards over 20 years ago that called for display cases with at least 20 minutes of break-in resistance. Some have been tested by professionals hitting them with hammers for 30 minutes without success.”
Cremers dismissed cost concerns regarding better display cases. “Expense must be weighed against the importance of protection,” he said. “Six years ago, a small provincial museum in the Netherlands spent 24,000 euros on a custom-built display case for a vase from the Louvre. That case would have been strong enough to protect the stolen Dacian helmet. The Louvre made it a requirement before lending the piece.”
Security professionals agree that properly designed display cases can significantly delay thieves. “The glass must always be set in a frame,” Cremers said. “I understand that people want an unobstructed view of artifacts, but glass without a frame is never as strong. It should also be laminated, with a special film inside that prevents cutting, unlike a standard car windshield. Many jewelers use this kind of reinforced glass.”
Experienced criminals can often assess security measures in advance. “They know what to look for,” Cremers said. “If you hold a lighter up to single-layer glass, you see one flame reflection. If you see four, six, or eight reflections, it’s laminated glass. At the TEFAF art fair in Maastricht, cases were smashed in broad daylight with visitors present because they had weak protective film.”
There were no guards present during the heist, which is typical for museum security, according to Cremers. “You can’t expect security staff to physically intervene in a burglary,” he said. “When I was at the Rijksmuseum, security personnel in the control room had strict orders to retreat and call the police in the event of a break-in. That’s why strong glass is essential. It buys time for law enforcement to respond.”
Cremers pointed to multiple failures beyond just the museum itself. “If security was inadequate, then the insurance policy was flawed too,” he said. “Museum directors sometimes make inaccurate claims about security. Insurers often lack expertise in this area. The Romanian authorities failed by not setting clear security standards for their artifacts. The insurance company failed. The Drents Museum failed. The Dutch Cultural Heritage Agency, which partly covered the damage, failed. The entire system failed. This went terribly wrong.”
Drents Museum Director Harry Tupan previously stated in a press conference that “absolutely” additional security measures were in place for the stolen artifacts. Speaking on television Tuesday night, Tupan said, “All required security measures were included in the insurance contract. We fulfilled our obligations.”
In response to questions from NRC on Wednesday, the museum said, “For security reasons, we cannot comment while the investigation is ongoing.” The museum did not provide a statement regarding Cremers’ criticisms.
