The police initially suspected that something had been spied out beforehand. However, a closer examination of the crime scene situation rather indicates that it was a "normal" break-in. First, they started rifling through everything, and pillowcases that had been improvised on-site as "loot bags" were filled with "small items" (cigars, perfume, etc.). When they then found the built-in safe, the perpetrators' behavior apparently changed to specifically searching the basement for tools to break the safe out of the wall cabinet and the wall. They also picked out the angle grinder with suitable discs in the basement. The applied brute force then caused high property damage in the five-figure range. In the end, the broken-out but still locked safe was probably transported through the window to a getaway vehicle waiting outside. The "loot bags" were even left behind at the end, and only the safe as the "jackpot" was taken away.
The stolen goods were 95% jewelry that had accumulated over the decades. Among them were many unique pieces made by a relative who had jewelry-making as a hobby over the decades, whose high value was not even in the material itself (which is what the perpetrators are ultimately after—they basically melt everything down) but rather in the high manufacturing effort and accordingly high replacement value. Although most of it was insured, the real problem is the psychological damage caused. The police did not rule out that my mother might have disturbed the perpetrators during the crime. Fortunately, she did not encounter them directly but sensibly left the scene, locked the front door, rang the neighbors, and alerted the police. However, she only slept well again once the whole house had been appropriately upgraded. There is not much left to steal in the house today since almost half of the insurance sum went into the upgrades. And most of the replacement jewelry is today kept in bank safe deposit boxes.
I don't worry too much about the "strange characters." Unfortunately, that seems normal today if I look at various social media groups here from the area where people post their surveillance footage. Most people without video surveillance simply don't realize what is actually happening around their house. Meanwhile, friends occasionally ask me if I can perform a security assessment at their houses. It is quite interesting to compare my assessment (which is based on my own experience and research as well as various criminology studies, such as those from the Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony) with the statements from the police security advice; somehow, I have the impression the police are a bit stuck in the past and do not have the future in mind. Fifteen years ago, the statement "they won't come through the window" may have mostly held true, but if you invest money in security, in my opinion, the protection should ideally also take into account changing perpetrator behavior in the future. Sure, bulletproof glass may be overkill today, but if more and more people install secure window frames, then perpetrators will adapt accordingly over the next 10–15 years. From that perspective, I expect attacks through window glass to increase significantly in the future.
By the way, with windows, only the RC categories are usually mentioned. The RC categories are indeed a good indication of the frame's security, but the glass assigned to the RC categories remains the big weak spot if you only look at the RC category. For illustration:
RC1N: No requirements for the glass
RC2N: No requirements for the glass (testing is done with P4A glass, but manufacturers are allowed to market windows as RC2N category with ANY glass!)
RC2: P4A glass ("throw resistance"), test criteria: dropping 3x metal balls with a diameter of 10 cm and a weight of 4.1 kg from a height of 9 m
RC3: P5A glass ("throw resistance"), test criteria: dropping 9x metal balls with a diameter of 10 cm and a weight of 4.1 kg from a height of 9 m
RC4: P6B glass ("break resistance"), test criteria: must withstand 30–50 axe blows from a 2 kg axe
With a hammer and a screwdriver, it is very quick to create an access opening in a normal RC2/RC3 window due to the small area over which the force is concentrated. The normal lockable handles can then also be pried open relatively easily. Therefore, I actually recommend everyone to use at least RC2, preferably RC3, always with P6B glass and handles rated for 200 Nm or better. The rest is, in my opinion, rather a bad joke, so you might as well save yourself the trouble. The additional material costs for P6B glass are not as high as one might initially suspect. Whether the window manufacturer then wants to add a heavy markup on the material cost is another matter.
But of course, how much you want to invest remains up to each individual. Just please remember that a break-in is not only about material damage but also about the sense of security and the psyche, which can be significantly affected after a break-in.