No offence, but even basic perfumeries will clear out their window displays and put them in safes or other secure storage for the night, to talk of a store that sells watches with price tags in the thousands of dollars - unless your argument is that the alleged looters were kitted out for a full-on burglary heist and not, as is usually the case, simply lashing out opportunistically.
Beyond that, there are other holes in the story like how exactly the police managed to come up with the $2.4M figure apparently without any collaboration from the store itself, or what motive Rolex SA would have to lie about losing $2.4M in merchandise.
But as always, people are primed to believe that the police _must_ be telling the truth somehow, even in a post about a whistleblower laying out years of lies and deception on their part.
The watches were not stolen, because, as the article states, the watches had been moved long to a safe location long before.
But I'm wondering about your scenario: if the watches had been stolen, how would it make sense for the store to lie about this? Rolex, a member of a conspiracy against the police?
