PARIS: The thieves who stole crown jewels from the Louvre in October evaded police with just 30 seconds to spare due to avoidable security failures at the Paris museum, a damning investigation revealed on Wednesday.
The probe, ordered by the culture ministry after the embarrassing daylight heist, revealed that only one of two security cameras was working near the site where the intruders broke in on the morning of Sunday October 19.
Agents in the security control room did not have enough screens to follow the images in real-time, while a lack of coordination meant police were initially sent to the wrong place once the alarm was raised, the report unveiled at the French Senate’s Culture Commission stated.
“It highlights an overall failure of the museum, as well as its supervisory authority, to address security issues,” the head of the commission, Laurent Lafon, said at the start of a hearing.
One of the most startling revelations was that the robbers left only 30 seconds before police and private security guards arrived on the scene.
“Give or take 30 seconds, the Securitas (private security) guards or the police officers in a car could have prevented the thieves from escaping,” the head of the investigation, Noel Corbin, told senators.
He said that measures such as a modern CCTV system, more resistant glass in the door cut open with angle grinders, or better internal coordination could have prevented the loss of the jewels — worth an estimated $102 million — which have still not been found.
Major security vulnerabilities were highlighted in several studies seen by management of the Louvre over the last decade, including a 2019 audit by experts at the jewelry company Van Cleef & Arpels.
Their findings stressed that the riverside balcony targeted by the thieves was a weak point and could be easily reached with an extendable ladder — exactly what transpired in the heist.
‘Stunned’
Corbin confirmed that under-fire Louvre boss Laurence des Cars had not been aware of the audit which was ordered by her predecessor, Jean-Luc Martinez.
“The recommendations were not acted on and they would have enabled us to avoid this robbery,” Corbin said, adding that there had been a lack of coordination between the two government-appointed administrators.
Police believe they have arrested all four intruders, who escaped on powerful motorbikes, having carried out the heist in the Apollo Gallery in around 10 minutes in total, according to the investigation.
The revelations on Wednesday are likely to pile more pressure des Cars, the first woman in the role who was appointed by President Emmanuel Macron in 2021.
Questions have swirled since the break-in over whether it was avoidable and why a national treasure that is the world’s most-visited museum appeared to be so poorly protected.
France’s lower house of parliament is carrying out its own inquiry, while des Cars and Martinez are set to be grilled by senators next week.
Last month, France’s state auditor said security upgrades had been carried out at a “woefully inadequate pace” and the museum had prioritized “high-profile and attractive operations” instead of protecting itself.
Senior police officer Guy Tubiana, a security adviser at the culture ministry who took part in the investigation, told senators he was “stunned” by what he had discovered at the museum.
“There was a succession of malfunctions that led to catastrophe but I never would have thought the Louvre could have so many malfunctions,” he said.
Staff at the Louvre at set to go on strike on Monday to demand management act against what they see as understaffing and overcrowding at the museum, which welcomed 8.7 million people last year.
At the weekend, the museum revealed that a water leak had damaged 300 to 400 journals, books and documents in the Egyptian department in late November.
![]()
Louvre thieves escaped with 30 seconds to spare, probe reveals
Short Url
https://arab.news/yyba3
Louvre thieves escaped with 30 seconds to spare, probe reveals
- Probe found only one of two security cameras was working near the site where the intruders broke in on the morning of Sunday October 19
Air India crash still shrouded in mystery six months on
AHMEDABAD: What caused an Air India Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner to crash, killing 260 people? Six months on, investigators have yet to provide clear answers, fueling disputes between pilots, the airline and the manufacturer.
As required by international law, India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) published a preliminary report one month after the June 12 disaster, when the plane exploded into flames shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad in western India.
That report provided some technical information, but the investigation is still ongoing.
- What happened? -
Air India flight 171 took off at 1:38 p.m. from Ahmedabad airport with 230 passengers and 12 crew members on board, bound for London Gatwick Airport.
Less than a minute later, it crashed into the buildings of a medical university campus, located a few hundred meters (yards) from the runway.
Video footage shows it taking off but failing to gain altitude, before crashing in a fireball.
The crash killed 241 of the 242 people on board and 19 on the ground.
Only one passenger survived but was seriously injured.
Among the dead were 200 Indians, 52 British nationals, seven Portuguese and one Canadian.
- Initial findings -
The AAIB report published on July 12 said that the fuel supply switches for both engines were almost simultaneously placed in the “off” position just after takeoff.
“In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cut off (the fuel supply). The other pilot responded that he did not do so,” the report states.
The aircraft then began to lose altitude.
The report also notes that an auxiliary power unit, intended to provide power to the aircraft in the event of engine failure, deployed automatically.
Less than 10 seconds later, both switches were returned to the “on” position.
Immediately afterwards, “one of the two pilots” managed to transmit “Mayday, Mayday, Mayday,” before the plane crashed.
The 15-page document does not mention whether the turning off of the fuel switches could have been caused by pilot maneuver, or by any kind of malfunction.
- Controversy -
As soon as it was published, the report met strong criticism.
Pilot associations argue that the dialogue between the captain and his co-pilot, which the report merely paraphrases, suggests the possibility of human error without providing evidence.
They also pointed out that the AAIB did not recommend at that stage any control measures on the aircraft or its engines — effectively ruling out the possibility of a technical failure, or a maintenance or servicing defect.
A war of words erupted between the families of the victims, lawyers and pilots on one side, and the airline and the manufacturer on the other.
The father of one of the pilots took the case to the Supreme Court.
Pushkaraj Sabharwal, 91, father of pilot Sumeet Sabharwal, said the preliminary investigation was “profoundly flawed.”
In his petition, seen by AFP, he argued that it appeared to “predominantly focus on the deceased pilots, who are no longer able to defend themselves, while failing to examine or eliminate other more plausible technical and procedural causes of the crash.”
- Hypotheses -
British lawyer Sarah Stewart, who represents around 50 families of victims, also favors a scenario not involving the pilots.
“The factual information raises a troubling spectre that this accident may have been caused by uncommanded fuel cut off, suggesting a possible failure in the Boeing systems,” she said in a statement.
Air India CEO Campbell Wilson, in a speech on September 10, said that the “preliminary report indicates nothing wrong with the aircraft, nothing wrong with the engines, nothing wrong with the airline’s operation.”
Some experts, however, seem to doubt this.
“There were electrical faults reported before the crash on this plane,” former commercial pilot Amit Singh, founder of Safety Matters Foundation, told AFP.
“The narrative of the report is built in such a way that the reader tends to believe that the pilots are responsible” even though “a lot of the data presented are not sourced,” he said.
The final report “could be manipulated,” he warned.
Aviation expert Mark Martin goes even further, calling it a “cleverly designed cover-up.”
“Boeing did exactly the same after the 737 MAX crashes — they blamed the pilots,” he said of the accidents in 2018 and 2019, noting that an investigation later found a design flaw.
“Boeing cannot afford to take the blame for the crash,” said Martin.
Contacted by AFP, the US aircraft manufacturer declined to comment.
As required by international law, India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) published a preliminary report one month after the June 12 disaster, when the plane exploded into flames shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad in western India.
That report provided some technical information, but the investigation is still ongoing.
- What happened? -
Air India flight 171 took off at 1:38 p.m. from Ahmedabad airport with 230 passengers and 12 crew members on board, bound for London Gatwick Airport.
Less than a minute later, it crashed into the buildings of a medical university campus, located a few hundred meters (yards) from the runway.
Video footage shows it taking off but failing to gain altitude, before crashing in a fireball.
The crash killed 241 of the 242 people on board and 19 on the ground.
Only one passenger survived but was seriously injured.
Among the dead were 200 Indians, 52 British nationals, seven Portuguese and one Canadian.
- Initial findings -
The AAIB report published on July 12 said that the fuel supply switches for both engines were almost simultaneously placed in the “off” position just after takeoff.
“In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cut off (the fuel supply). The other pilot responded that he did not do so,” the report states.
The aircraft then began to lose altitude.
The report also notes that an auxiliary power unit, intended to provide power to the aircraft in the event of engine failure, deployed automatically.
Less than 10 seconds later, both switches were returned to the “on” position.
Immediately afterwards, “one of the two pilots” managed to transmit “Mayday, Mayday, Mayday,” before the plane crashed.
The 15-page document does not mention whether the turning off of the fuel switches could have been caused by pilot maneuver, or by any kind of malfunction.
- Controversy -
As soon as it was published, the report met strong criticism.
Pilot associations argue that the dialogue between the captain and his co-pilot, which the report merely paraphrases, suggests the possibility of human error without providing evidence.
They also pointed out that the AAIB did not recommend at that stage any control measures on the aircraft or its engines — effectively ruling out the possibility of a technical failure, or a maintenance or servicing defect.
A war of words erupted between the families of the victims, lawyers and pilots on one side, and the airline and the manufacturer on the other.
The father of one of the pilots took the case to the Supreme Court.
Pushkaraj Sabharwal, 91, father of pilot Sumeet Sabharwal, said the preliminary investigation was “profoundly flawed.”
In his petition, seen by AFP, he argued that it appeared to “predominantly focus on the deceased pilots, who are no longer able to defend themselves, while failing to examine or eliminate other more plausible technical and procedural causes of the crash.”
- Hypotheses -
British lawyer Sarah Stewart, who represents around 50 families of victims, also favors a scenario not involving the pilots.
“The factual information raises a troubling spectre that this accident may have been caused by uncommanded fuel cut off, suggesting a possible failure in the Boeing systems,” she said in a statement.
Air India CEO Campbell Wilson, in a speech on September 10, said that the “preliminary report indicates nothing wrong with the aircraft, nothing wrong with the engines, nothing wrong with the airline’s operation.”
Some experts, however, seem to doubt this.
“There were electrical faults reported before the crash on this plane,” former commercial pilot Amit Singh, founder of Safety Matters Foundation, told AFP.
“The narrative of the report is built in such a way that the reader tends to believe that the pilots are responsible” even though “a lot of the data presented are not sourced,” he said.
The final report “could be manipulated,” he warned.
Aviation expert Mark Martin goes even further, calling it a “cleverly designed cover-up.”
“Boeing did exactly the same after the 737 MAX crashes — they blamed the pilots,” he said of the accidents in 2018 and 2019, noting that an investigation later found a design flaw.
“Boeing cannot afford to take the blame for the crash,” said Martin.
Contacted by AFP, the US aircraft manufacturer declined to comment.
Latest updates
© 2025 SAUDI RESEARCH & PUBLISHING COMPANY, All Rights Reserved And subject to Terms of Use Agreement.