Here is what Leonardo Notabartolo thinks:
Key takeaways from Notarbartolo's comments:
The thieves were well-prepared professionals. Notarbartolo characterized the culprits as a "very experienced team that acted very, very quickly". Their brazen use of a crane during opening hours and their rapid escape point to an organized criminal gang rather than amateurs.
The heist was likely an inside job. The swiftness and apparent ease of the robbery suggest the perpetrators had detailed, pre-existing knowledge of the museum's weaknesses. Notarbartolo himself relied on inside information for his heists, and he recognizes similar patterns here.
The valuables were likely quickly broken up. Notarbartolo, whose expertise is in jewel theft, pointed out that unlike paintings, jewels have a high intrinsic value that can be realized by breaking them down and selling the component parts. This makes them harder to trace than unique art pieces.
The thieves made critical errors. Despite their professional approach, Notarbartolo criticized a key mistake the robbers made: dropping the Empress Eugénie crown during their escape. As an experienced thief, he would consider this an unacceptable error that left behind a crucial piece of evidence.
The motivation was likely financial, not for a private collector. While acknowledging the possibility of a private buyer, Notarbartolo suggested that the thieves' actions were motivated primarily by financial gain rather than passion for art. The fact that they targeted easily deconstructed jewelry over the less-valuable but historically significant Regent Diamond supports this theory.
In summary, Notarbartolo viewed the Louvre theft as a sophisticated operation that exhibited professional planning but was ultimately marred by a few critical mistakes. His insights highlight the difference between stealing easily liquifiable gems and uniquely identifiable works of art, offering a perspective only a veteran thief could provide.
This is Leonardo Notabartolo’s own, Antwerp diamond heist
en.wikipedia.org