It’s a popular story line in movies and literature that a heist or scam takes place, then the investigators immediately narrow down the suspect list to only 2 or 3 super-criminals who have the skills required to perform the given heist.
I have always written this off as a plot device that allows the story to progress much more quickly than the standard police investigation. It all seems a little too “deus ex machina”.
But, I have always wondered if there is any truth behind it… Are there a dozen or fewer supremely talented career criminals out there - the sort that would have access to building plans, custom make the required tools, and so forth as in popular mythology?
More often, a bomb maker might put a signature element in his detonator (see: Lockerbie Bomber, Unabomber, etc.) or a hit man may have a signature element that has to be there for him to get paid.
Not many serious criminals will leave Riddler-like clues, though.
There certainly have been cases of serial killers (Zodiac et alia) that have left Joker-type messages and puzzles for law enforcement. However, whenever one of these pillars of society is caught, they’re almost always just lucky rather than actually skilled in some fashion. (Green River Killer, BTK)
It would take a very different class of criminal to, for example, steal high-end jewelry or paintings than to walk up to a parked car and shoot the occupants.
Are there high-end merchandise thefts - large amounts of currency, jewelry, paintings, etc - that are more than the usual “smash & grab” operations that are popularly reported?
Yeah, like they saw it in some movie and decided it would be a good idea. It’s an easy way to get recognition but most “super criminals” got so far by not being so ostentatious and short sighted.
This is used in Home Alone to show how Daniel Stern’s character leaving calling cards means that he is both incompetent and stupid because he basically leaves evidence that he committed past crimes as well.
I think it’s mostly a movie device as it’s usually portrayed.
I know there are some people who have reputations with the police, but the police usually raise up their prime suspects based on connections or locations, not skills. For example, a local park has drug problems. When a volunteer reported license plate numbers to the police, several of them were from West Seattle (which is a bit of a drive from us, but it is where the ports are). Given the drug arrests and the connection to that part of town, the police were pretty much certain that a particular guy was supplying the drugs being sold in the park, and that many of the sales were probably to other dealers.
In another case, a neighbor’s new chrome rims were stolen. The cops were pretty much certain it had to be someone at the shop that installed them because of the special tools required to remove them, and other thefts from customers of the shop.
So, again, it’s more an issue of proximity and interconnection than of being a “super-criminal” with special skills.
I just finished reading a book called “The Napoleon Of Crime” about the real-life thief Adam Worth who was one of the inspirations for Professor Moriarty. He was a master criminal of sorts.
Well, ask yourself… when’s the last time you heard of a Cezanne being stolen from the Louvre? When’s the last time anyone actually stole the Crown Jewels from the Tower of London? When’s the last time a master thief stole a priceless relic from the WHite House?
Short answer… it just doesn’t happen.
Now, ARE there occasionally big heists that end up netting millions of dollars? Sure, the Lufthansa Caper chronicled in the movie*** Goodfellas ***comes to mind. But even then, the robbers weren’t masterminds, just garden variety Mafia thugs who went after a big score the old-fashioned way.
Well, there was a half-million-dollar jewelry heist in Chicago earlier this week. The thieves broke into the sushi restaurant next door and then knocked a hole in the adjoining wall.
I’m thinking of the scene from Heat …
“If we arrest them now, all we have them on is break and enter. They haven’t stolen anything yet. They’ll get a few months max.”
Yes, there’s a spectacular crime every so often - maybe every year or two. But seriously? You need how much to live the good life - $100,000 to $250,000 a year barely covers it? A gang of four or so would need to do a million-dollar heist every year just to live the good life; or 10 heits of $100,000. Doing the Oceans 1x thing and living in villas and a few rooms in a 5-star hotels while reconnoitering ups the price even more.
Then there’s the money-laundering aspect as discussed in a dozen prior threads. How are you going to pay for the suite at the Waldorf with cash without being noticed? How do you plan to turn a few hundred pounds of gold bars into legitimate bank balances? Plus - who buys a stolen Cezanne? The market for those has to be pretty specialized… It’s difficult enough for drug cartels, but at least they have a steady stream of income rather than sporadic big heists.
More likely, every so often some bonehead who’s doing life on the installment plan, 2-5 years at a time, stumbles on a great idea - “My girlfriend works at this jewelry store and they have the stupidest alarm system you ever saw… No motion detectors!”
Preemptively?
One assumes they are all free individuals with no warrants out for arrests.
I suppose we should round up the usual suspects each time a crime is committed.
It does sound more optimal than randomly shaking down the closest kin just because most of the time a homicide is committed by someone known by the victim.
I once saw a documentary about a master thief (Steve Blumberg - I’m pretty sure I am remembering the name). He stole books. He was the son of a rich family. He was never employed in the traditional sense. He bought a house in Iowa (I believe) because it was centrally located within the US. He stole books from lots & lots of university collections. The documentary said that he used elevator shafts and air ducts to move past many security features.
One main reason that he was able to get away with his crimes for many, many years was that he never sold a book. After his eventual capture, the police found that his house was FULL of books.
Hello good people,
I’d always thought that crime and the acquisition of money per se, once sucsess is reached, tend to become boring. The Game becomes everything.
Thieves become dictators/politicians/Bankers, Hitler anyone?
Drug dealers see above.
So, in answer, the most sucsessful criminals have that skill-set amongst many others and would probably appear as very high/over acheivers in many other fields.
Just my DAG!
Peter