This is one of the more rarely seen cases; from doing a little searching on this board, it appears it did air on Lifetime a few times, but I saw it on crystaldawn's DVDs volume 6. The story, briefly, for those who haven't seen it, details a daring bank robbery in which the thief entered the bank sometime during the night by drilling out the lock on the back door (he had previously thrown a rock through a back window to determine if any tampering with the back entrance would draw police response; it didn't). After entering the bank (but concealing his work so that it would appear the back door was still locked), he glued the buttons which activated the silent security alarms in such a manner so as to prevent their use. Then, when the first tellers arrived the next morning and after they had opened the vault, he crept from a hiding space and surprised them, holding a gun on them and ordering them to fill his bags with money. He then emptied the vault. All told, he collected $130,000. Finally, he handcuffed one teller to an immovable object inside the vault, and another teller to a movable cart.

Before he could make good his escape, however, another teller arrived, and saw him inside the bank from the outside. This teller immediately went to a payphone and called the police. According to the two tellers inside, the robber at this point seemed to disappear, and, after a few moments, the teller cuffed to the immovable cart moved towards a telephone and called the police from inside the bank. While on the phone, she claimed to be able to hear the robber moving around on the bank's second floor. This led the police, whose station was in close proximity to the bank, to deploy a SWAT team to surround the bank, assuming they had trapped the robber inside, and move into "hostage rescue" mode. The teller who made the call locked the other teller inside the vault, cutting off any access the robber would have had to her, and then was able to escape herself. After calling for the thief to come out several times without response, the SWAT team entered the bank and removed the other hostage. A search of the bank turned up no trace of the thief.

I retell this whole narrative because, although the segment never implies this, it seems to me the first teller is very likely involved. The robber had intimate knowledge of the bank's operation and security systems; how did he obtain it? Then, when the robber had been spotted, he was able to escape, evidently because of the tactical error made by police in choosing to surround the bank under the assumption he was inside, instead of sealing a perimeter of several blocks to look for suspicious persons attempting to flee the area. This error was made directly because of information given to them by the teller who called from inside the bank, who claimed she heard the robber on the second floor. Moreover, she was able to reach a telephone only because she was conveniently tied to a cart with wheels, even though the thief was smart enough to tie the other teller to something that could not be moved.

My guess is the initial plan was just to have him clean out the joint, but, when the teller who arrived but never got inside the bank spotted him, they needed to move to a backup plan. The backup plan was quite clever: figuring that, if something went wrong, the police would be notified while the robber was in the bank, the thief and the teller agreed that he would tie her in such a way that she could get to the phone and make the claim he was still inside the bank to the police, even while he was just managing to escape. This plan, of course, caused the cops to focus their energies on the bank itself, instead of the surrounding area, and allowed him to escape.

Does anyone know if this case was solved? The UM segment does not give the real name of the bank, so it is hard to track out on the internet.

Does anyone know if this case was solved? The UM segment does not give the real name of the bank, so it is hard to track out on the internet.

In the Lifetime update, it was mentioned that the cops had a suspect, but he died in a motorcycle accident before they could make a case against him. The case is considered closed, even though I can't say for a fact that it was ever officially solved.

At the time of the suspect's death, whatever evidence the cops might have had was likely insufficient to charge him (which could explain why UM did not reveal the suspect's name). But it may have been just enough to convince them that the suspect in question was involved in the robbery.

I remember this case. I had never thought of the possibility that it could have been an inside job, but I think that I agree with you, mozart.

I remember this case. I had never thought of the possibility that it could have been an inside job, but I think that I agree with you, mozart.

Yeah, me too. I never even considered that possibility, however that theory seems the most possible.

I always thought it was very strange that one of the tellers was able to hear the robber moving around, and still he was able to disappear even though the bank was surrounded by the SWAT team.

mozartpc27, your posts are impressive.

The robber had intimate knowledge of the bank's operation and security systems; how did he obtain it?

He threw a brick into the back door to test the security system, and nothing happened. And then, of course, he used the super glue to prevent anyone from pushing one of the alarm buttons.

As for bank operations, typically they'll case the place shortly before robbing it, to get a feel for how the operations go.

I had to rewatch this one last night to investigate it from the teller/inside job angle. It does seem odd that he would tie one of them to something that's moveable and the other one not. Also, he only ties one of her hands, so her other hand is free - which she takes advantage of by calling the police. That's very risky though. Hey I just thought of something! The robber tells them that if they call the police, he'll know because he's got a scanner. Maybe this was an inside job, that would be immensely risky for the teller to call the police when he's got a scanner and it still in the building.

He threw a brick into the back door to test the security system, and nothing happened. And then, of course, he used the super glue to prevent anyone from pushing one of the alarm buttons.

As for bank operations, typically they'll case the place shortly before robbing it, to get a feel for how the operations go.

I had to rewatch this one last night to investigate it from the teller/inside job angle. It does seem odd that he would tie one of them to something that's moveable and the other one not. Also, he only ties one of her hands, so her other hand is free - which she takes advantage of by calling the police. That's very risky though. Hey I just thought of something! The robber tells them that if they call the police, he'll know because he's got a scanner. Maybe this was an inside job, that would be immensely risky for the teller to call the police when he's got a scanner and it still in the building.

But if it's an inside job it wouldn't matter if the teller called the police the robber and the teller would have agreed ahead of time exactly when to call police.

This would have been when he already got all the money (which he did) and then all he had to do was leave and she calls the police to distract them around the bank while he has already left.

It's definitely an interesting theory but if it's seems so plausible then why didn't law enforcement ever think of it?? UM has mentioned in other cases when it could be an inside job so why not this one?

It's possible but it seems kind of far fetched based on the way the segment was presented.

But if it's an inside job it wouldn't matter if the teller called the police the robber and the teller would have agreed ahead of time exactly when to call police.

This would have been when he already got all the money (which he did) and then all he had to do was leave and she calls the police to distract them around the bank while he has already left.

It's definitely an interesting theory but if it's seems so plausible then why didn't law enforcement ever think of it?? UM has mentioned in other cases when it could be an inside job so why not this one?

It's possible but it seems kind of far fetched based on the way the segment was presented.

Because the teller that was tied to the moveable cart calls the police and (at least claims) that the robber is still inside the building because she can hear him move around upstairs.

Hmmm Mozart's story doesn't all sound that far fetched, it would help answer some basic questions like how the robber was able to escape and why was one teller cuffed to something movable and not very secure.. or it could be a chain of co-incidences..? Were the tellers interviewed on camera? I think they were or I could be mistaking it for another bank robbery. I'll hafta watch this one again for sure.

mozartpc27, your posts are impressive.

Thanks wiseguy182. I'd been away, so I didn't have a chance to look at the board in a couple of days.

The fact that the teller took a chance even though the robber claimed to have a police scanner suggests that either 1) she had the guts to call his bluff or 2) that she knew ahead of time there would be no consequences for her doing it. I think it could either way.

Tossing the brick at the window, in my mind, is the one thing that actually argues against an inside job, if it was indeed the thief who tossed the brick. If he had guaranteed access from one of the tellers, why would he need to go through that whole process?

I'm not 100% certain it's an inside job, but it does seem like a distinct possibility. One thing that really bothers me about the segment is that UM never proposes a theory as to how the thief escaped, even though Stack begins talking like he is going to give the police theory (as Stack introduces the police theory of how the robbery was committed, he makes reference to the apparent "disappearance" of the thief, like that is something the police theory will explain ... but it never does). I don't know how the teller could have mistakenly heard "noises" on the second floor. At the same time, there were no exits from the second floor. If he went up there, he could not have gotten out. Ergo, she's got to be lying, right?

Because the teller that was tied to the moveable cart calls the police and (at least claims) that the robber is still inside the building because she can hear him move around upstairs.

So what? If it's an inside job she is lying so he can get away and she had nothing to fear since she is in on it.

But the last poster brought up a good point. If the teller called police and knew the robber had a scanner then wouldn't she be risking her life if the robber was still upstairs and he heard that the cops are on the way??

If it was an inside job then the scanner was just a ruse to throw the cops off.

It's definitely intriguing about the inside job possiblity but I'm still dubious since there are too many loose ends in this case.

The fact that the teller took a chance even though the robber claimed to have a police scanner suggests that either 1) she had the guts to call his bluff or 2) that she knew ahead of time there would be no consequences for her doing it. I think it could either way.

True, plus the other teller hadn't been locked in the safe yet, so she was actually risking two lives.

Sorry that this is off-topic but a question to wiseguy182:

The guy in your avatar was in a story where he was attacked by his 100-pounds possesed-by-a-ghost wife?

That was an awesome story :)

Sorry that this is off-topic but a question to wiseguy182:

The guy in your avatar was in a story where he was attacked by his 100-pounds possesed-by-a-ghost wife?

That was an awesome story :)

Yep, that's him. I thought it would be a popular and funny avatar as his segment is a bit of a favorite here on the boards as most posters think its an absurd, although great segment.

Hey Mozart, that is a very interesting theory that I had never thought of before! I dont know why but I had for some reason never thought of the possiblity the super glue robbery could have been an inside job. Now that I think about this more, and I re-watched the case again tonight, I do think it is more likely that this was an inside job.

As Mozart said, I think the two tellers on the inside of the bank were in on the robbery and that their original plan was foiled when the third teller showed up unexpectedly and called the police. However as Mozart said the back up plan turned out to work brilliantly. The teller told the cops that she could still hear the robber moving around upstairs so that the cops would focus on the robber still being in the bank and then the robber could successfully escape.

I think that the window was broken and the super glue done more for the purpose of making it look like a random robbery, obviously the tellers wouldnt want to be found out that they were in on it so they would want to throw off the cops as much as possible.

I dont think the guy would throw a rock like that through the window even at night unless he already knew there was no alarm system that would go off and he just wanted to throw off the cops by making them think he was testing for an alarm system.

The only other possibility is that this was a random robbery and that the teller was just mistaken in thinking she heard the robber moving around upstairs. However it just simply doesnt make sense that he would go up there when there were no exits from there, so even though I never considered the theory before Mozart brought it up, I now think it is highly likely that this robbery was an inside job.

Unless the bank manager (who was the one that noticed the crime going on inside and called police from the pay phone) arrived particularly early that day, the teller who may or may not have been in on it would have had to known about what time she usually arrived.

I always assumed that the robber went upstairs because there was more cash up there? Otherwise, I have no idea why he would go up there, as there were no exits and nothing else up there for him.

I just rewatched this segment, but I haven't seen the update. Does anyone know if Lifetime mentions the teller and the possibility she was in on it??

I just rewatched this segment, but I haven't seen the update. Does anyone know if Lifetime mentions the teller and the possibility she was in on it??

I didn't know there was an update. Hasn't the case remained unsolved?

I didn't know there was an update. Hasn't the case remained unsolved?

It was a very brief update. In it, Stack said there was a suspect, but he died in an traffic accident before a case against him could be made. The case is considered closed.

Having not seen the case on UM, I am basing my opinion about it from the detailed OP, plus the small update that the suspect had been killed in a car crash. Now logic plays a big factor into my opinion, however sometimes my logic does not make sense not even to me.

So he begins his work at night, he sucessfully enters the bank then superglues the buttons on the alarm thus making them ineffected. He then hides until the tellers come in the morning.

He ties one to a movable object, the other one to something a bit non movable. I think he made a mistake in tieing the one teller to something that could move, he may have thought it was a stationary object. He only handcuffed them to prevent them calling for help. He did not factor in the manager arriving when they did.

So he simply leaves, I think the one teller was mistaken when she thought she heard him upstairs. Or he could have been upstairs and jumped out a window, he would not have been injured if it was only the second floor. At any rate he is gone.

As for the police scanner. If it was on him the tellers would have heard noises coming from it, unless it was turned off. Scanners are not quite even on the lowest settings. Now if it was his vehicle, he had already left and him coming back inside the bank would be a very stupid mistake.

The teller was not invovled, if she were invovled it would have been found out by now. If I was a bank teller and invovled in a robbery I would want a piece of the action. Now when it comes to obtaining money in illeagal ways people will spend it very foolishly. It would be easy to know if she was invovled just by looking at her spending habits. If all of sudden she is sporting new things it would be a bid red flag. On the other hand some are smarter then others and she might have brought things little by little as not to draw attention to herself. However I don't think she was invovled as I have said it would have been easy to find out if she was.

the robber more then likely cased the bank out and I am not talking about a day, I am thinking he cased it out over weeks or months. Getting to know the schedules of the employee's, who would be there at the time. The manager showing up seemed to be of a surprise so I am inclined to think she/he arrived at work early that day. As for the security system, back then they were not as reliable as they are now, the robber could have worked at one point for a security company, or he could have tried the super glue trick on a home security system. But I would take it they were less common then as they are now. At any rate the robber did his homework.

Oh another thing, if the teller was correct that she heard the roober upstiars, who is to say that he just didnt' simply jump out of a window, or hid upstairs until the end of the day and left the same way he came in.

I remember this one, did he ever get caught?

I remember this one, did he ever get caught?
http://unsolvedmysteries.wikia.com/wiki/Crazy_Glue_Bandit