Home Security Information

The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum Heist

Train robberies, bank robberies, robberies of jewels and precious metals have existed for hundreds of years. The security industry has grown ever more complex in order to eliminate or greatly reduce these thefts. Even to this day, an electronic and technological age that we exist in, not all attempts to protect valuables are successful. As thieves grow ever more sophisticated, the systems used for protection must be several steps ahead. A very distinctive and cunning heist occurred nearly two decades ago, where security was thwarted by ruthless thieves and priceless works of art were stolen.

The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum art heist occurred on March 18, 1990 in Boston, Massachusetts. In 81 minutes, two thieves dressed as Boston police officers conned their way into the museum past the watchmen on duty. The security system was taken apart and in this brief time, an hour and twenty-one minutes, thirteen pieces of artwork were removed from the museum. An alarm sounded, used to deter patrons from getting too close to the artwork, but the thieves located and then pummeled it silent. The estimated price of the artwork removed, which included Rembrandt’s “Storm of the Sea of Galilee”, was $200 to $300 hundred million. To this day, the theft remains unsolved and is considered one of the largest art heists in history. The Gardner Museum theft is one of trickery and technological advancements where disarming of a security surveillance system was used.

Most museums are very quiet about the security systems they use, so very little about what companies and methods employed can be found. Secrecy in tandem with devices seems to be commonplace in museums worldwide. Visual deterrents such as cameras and metal detectors are apparent in museums large and small. Most have a staff of security guards on duty in addition to traditional security systems, such as silent alarms and closed circuit cameras. These methods prevent all but the most bold and brazen thieves, who have been known to enter a museum in daylight, using weapons and force to commandeer the pieces from their displays. In the case of the Gardner Museum theft, it was not a case of a failed security system directly, but of trust fostered between the impersonators and those hired to guard the artworks.

In a recent reinvestigation of the case, it was revealed that the Gardner Museum was not nearly as protected as it should have been. The security system in place was not adequate. The guards hired were not very experienced, and one even stated he was sometimes stoned on the job. The security system utilized at the Gardner Museum included a security desk, four video monitors, and motion detectors in hallways which would trigger an inaudible alert to the computer system.

Such heists have increased museum security exponentially over the years. Security to guard artwork and artifacts has become more high tech than ever before. Theft is a major subject to museums and complicated by the fact that these priceless treasures are on display for the public. The balance is to find a way to allow the public to enjoy the artwork while guarding it at the same time. Two of the largest conflicts of opinion regarding protecting art are from the security perspective and from the curators. The security expert would rather lock these pieces away, guaranteeing their safe keeping. Meanwhile, the curator wants people to be able to see and practically touch the piece in order to fully experience it. Security consultants for the museum industry are specialists; even some former FBI agents are in the field. They realize that art thieves are clever, strong and sometimes are insiders at the museum working to commit their crimes.

At present, museums not only install the obvious door and window alarms but many advanced products in addition to human guards can be found. The use of infrared sensors that register the temperature of a room and can “see” the shapes of bodies moving, ultrasonic devices that trigger alarms if sound waves strike a foreign object, and microwave sensors which work similarly to ultrasonic devices but can be placed within walls are just some of the technology that is used in museum security. Cameras can be trained on an object and then programmed to sound an alarm if the object shifts from its original position. Wireless transmitters, similar to LoJack recovery devices used on automobiles, are also being considered for the protection of valuables. All of these products do well to protect against burglaries but not armed robberies.

A number of thefts also occur with an inside source that helps plan or implement the theft. Art handlers and sometimes published experts are involved in these crimes. Prevention of inside thefts has much to do with common sense as it does with checking the backgrounds of employees. Limiting access with card keys, investing in storage rooms that are better guarded, and educating guards to watch who they work with as much as they observe the public are all crucial to making museum security work.

Much has changed over the years on how museums kept their collections secure. In the not too distant past, an alarm would go off and light up a board in a security room. It would then be up to the guards to find which number was lit and locate it no matter what the size of the museum; obtain the guide to figure out if it were a burglar or fire alarm and possibly review procedures to use for that particular situation. At present, these processes have changed greatly. Now high-resolution cameras work in tandem in the centralized security center with computers to gather all of the data in one place, on screen in the location or remotely. Even with all of these items in place, security still requires some human interaction or response in order to make it work as intended.

Museums, whether private, national or worldwide, must stay on top of all current technological advances in security in order to protect priceless works of art and artifacts. No matter how sophisticated the security system is much of the ability to protect still relies on a human touch.