Stolen Romanian treasures were transported in a sports bag, prosecutors say

The four archaeological treasures from Romania that were stolen from the Drents Museum on January 25 were transported in a sports bag, according to the Public Prosecution Service (OM). Gold microtraces were found in the bag, the prosecutor said Wednesday in the court in Assen.

The empty sports bag, along with discarded clothing, was found just one day after the art theft in a container on Pelikaanstraat in Assen, along the escape route to Rolde. A local resident also found a plastic bag and clothing in the container that resembled the suspects’ attire.

The clothing contained glass shards that, according to the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI), most likely came from the blown-up entrance door of the museum and the smashed display cases.

The stolen objects were part of the exhibition Dacia – Kingdom of Gold and Silver. They include the famous golden helmet of Cotofenesti and three golden bracelets. The museum had the historical pieces on loan from the National History Museum in Bucharest. The loot is still missing.

The OM reported at the second preliminary hearing that a crowbar was found in the exhibition room of the museum containing DNA from suspect Jan B. (20) from Heerhugowaard. He was arrested on April 23 and is said to have purchased a sledgehammer and a mallet at a hardware store two days before the art theft.

The other two suspects are Douglas Chesley W. (36) and Bernhard Z. (35). All three are exercising their right to remain silent. Z. was not present in court.

In court, B. came face to face with W., whom he had referred to as "the mastermind" of the theft during a conversation with undercover agents prior to his arrest. They are said to have acted "as a team," and B. reportedly stated that the loot is still out there.

W., speaking in a packed courtroom, declared his innocence and said he found it difficult to sit near B. "Because he talked about me. I would like to give him a few slaps," W. said. At the end of the hearing, the presiding judge asked B. whether he felt threatened by W., but B. remained silent.

W.’s lawyer attempted to have his client released. The court rejected this request, citing the severity of the suspicions and the impact of the crime. “The theft of art treasures is on a different level than a smash-and-grab at a jeweler,” the judge explained.

The next hearing is scheduled for October 16, when the court will discuss the defense lawyers’ requests for further investigation.