The Shadows of United Bank Tower: Unveiling the Enigma | Rocky Mountain Cold Cases

Unravel the chilling mystery that still haunts the corridors of justice in Denver, Colorado. In Episode 24 of Rocky Mountain Cold Cases, we delve into the heart-wrenching events of June 16, 1991, at the United Bank Tower.
A robbery that turned into a brutal quadruple murder, leaving investigators grappling with the shadows of a heinous act. Meet James King, the former security guard arrested for the crime, as we navigate the complexities of a case that refuses to thaw. The United Bank Tower tragedy remains shrouded in unanswered questions. Join us as we explore the web of mysteries surrounding this enigmatic case that continues to defy resolution, leaving the community and investigators seeking closure.
Can the echoes of the past finally be laid to rest? Tune in to Rocky Mountain Cold Cases as we dissect the evidence, interview key players, and strive to bring justice to the victims and their families. Don't miss this gripping episode that shines a light on the lingering shadows of the United Bank Tower. 

Transcript

This is Rocky Mountain cold cases. I'm Rachel, and that's Adam. I'm Adam, and that's Rachel.

Oh, my. You forgot to say how to say your name just because you don't have. No, I just drank it, but.

Oh, my gosh. But I drank about, like, 4oz out of it. But I was.

I was, like, trying to think about how I could make that fun and was. It would have been like, I'm Rachel, and that's Adam. And I've been like, I'm Adam, that's Rachel.

I was just trying to flip it around, like, be weird. Okay. Yeah.

Anyway. Okay, the fun fact today. Yeah.

Is it fun? It should be. It's a fun fact. Well, I got the information from National Geographic and allthinteresting.com.

Yeah. Figured out Europeans used to eat mummies. End of fun fact.

Are you serious? That's the end of the fun fact or that they used to eat mummies? Both. Well, both. No.

Yes. They used to eat mummies. Mummies.

Like a tomb. Yes. Europeans used to eat the mummies.

Yeah. From a tomb. Well, they didn't take the fork and knife with them into the tomb and start devouring.

But, yeah, around when you don't partake of mummies. What time of the. Okay.

This apparently began in the 11th century when a substance found on a perusion persian mountainside that seeped from black rock asphalt was called mumia. Mummia was used for medical purposes. However, when western Europeans began translating islamic text, the word mamia was like an italian mamia.

Mammia was mistranslated into from what it actually was and instead was translated into a substance that came from mummies. Okay, so the National Geographic states, quote, mamia mummy. I'm so stuck on, like, now.

I feel like I'm. Yeah, I'm just. Quote, mammia was prescribed for everything from headaches to heart attacks, and a run on mummies followed.

Suddenly, people were ransacking egyptian tombs for the bodies within. However, there weren't enough mummies to meet the demand. Yeah, there's not that many.

There's definitely not that many now, because the Europeans kept eating them, they bury their treasures with them. So they were obviously stealing from the grave, kind of, in a sense. But also.

Then let's not let this go to waste and eat it. Well, yeah, because the western Europeans had read from islamic text that mammia was really useful medicinally, and they read that it was a substance, and they mistranslated that it was a substance from blackrock asphalt, but somehow they mistranslated it and was like, no, it's a substance that secretes from mummies. I'm actually quite intrigued by this and I have a reason why.

But how long did this continue for, do you know? I'm sure this keeps going. If I remember right, I didn't write down when it finally was going out of quote unquote fashion, but it was around the 18th, maybe way early 19th century. It started not becoming super popular when people realized that hygiene was really important.

Yeah. So this is why I'm intrigued. Okay.

You realize I just watched the new Napoleon Bonaparte. Yes, you did. And I was like, that sounds boring.

Yeah, well, there's a lot to that that I didn't know about or like, the history of that and everything. But one of the beginning scenes in this movie, and I would say I didn't quite care for it in the end, I don't know that I'd ever watch it again, maybe once more. But it was just like, there was a lot of.

And I think I shared this with you, and it's definitely part of the story of him and how he came to be and everything and trying to find or make an heir to the thing. So they incorporated a lot of love crap with it and the letters that were written back and forth. So this is now a movie review, but in one of the early scenes.

Thanks for keeping me on track, I guess. But in one of the earlier scenes of the movie. Join us next time for Adam's movie review.

They are in Egypt and they're like having like a face off or whatever they're doing. I don't even know. But I don't even know what the battle was.

But shooting cannons, I don't know if this is accurate, but one of the cannons shot a cannonball into the pyramid. And right in that kind of same scene, they were pulling a mummy out of a tomb thing. So your fun fact and the fact that they took the time to put that small snippet thing into that movie is very kind of fascinating to me that they went to that kind of intricate detail.

And it's fascinating. Even more so because if you just go watch the movie, you don't think much about it. It's like, oh, yeah, it's cool.

Tomb, whatever, great. They're just robbing it. But they were eating all sorts of kinds of reasons with the mamia.

I'm assuming it's mammia because it sounds like mummy, whereas Mamia does not. Yeah, well, okay, so people are raiding tomb raider. There's tomb raiding the tombs to get the bodies.

There's not enough bodies. So some people would steal bodies of criminals that were recently put to death. Quote.

This is again from National Geographic. Quote. The bodies were then embalmed with salt and drugs, dried in an oven, then ground into powder that apothecaries added to their home remedies.

So essentially they made, like, jerky out of them and then ground up the human jerky and sold to apothecaries. That's so crazy to me because these are old all the way into the. Within early 18th century or whatever.

These people. How old are these bodies? Like 800 years old. I'm not a historian.

6700 years. I don't know. I'm just going off of the year 1000 and then 1800.

I don't know. 1600, 700. 1400.

Anyway. You know what I mean? Yeah. Well, it was often seen as old bodies, as the body part eaten would fix the same body part in the ill or injured person.

So, for example, for headaches, ground up skull would be ingested in a drink sometimes. I also question where we're at in society and how the heck, how can we be so intellectually bright and look at the past and go, are you kidding? Like, the superstition and all of this stuff that people believe and still believe in. Like, the earth is not flat.

Anyway, continue. According to the article on all that's interesting, it claims that King Charles II had his own special drink called the king's drops, where he had ground up Skull mixed with alcohol. I mean, because that's like one way to choke it down, but yeah.

So from bodies not fully decomposed, the fat from the bodies would be used to treat open wounds because that sounds hygienic. They would melt down the fat, soak bandages in the fat, then wrap the injury, thinking that it would protect against infections. I would imagine it smelled horribly.

And this is why there was the black plague. I'm just kidding. That's not why.

But wow. People are not. Yeah, it's yucky.

But what's interesting, so you mentioned that King Charles II. Charles II and the importance of Napoleon in the history know he was a very important person within history. So being that he was more important than most people in the world at that time, it's very interesting because they had him.

When the tomb was opened up, he went and took like a peek inside, kind of like at the thing. And it's super interesting because it's like, were they still doing that then? And was that something that they were still kind of trying to practice and did that thing go to him. To.

This is your. You know what I mean? I don't know. It's way fascinating.

So, the blood, at one point, was seen as useful if it was fresh for a variety of reasons. So both sources. So all that's interesting, and National Geographic noted that people were encouraged to attend live executions and pay for a cup of the freshly drawn blood from the now deceased person.

All that's interesting also states that there is a recipe from 1679. It did not have the recipe listed that tells you how to make the fresh blood into marmalade. Put it on your morning toast.

No. It's going to cure you of many issues. No.

Maybe this is why it took so long for us to get technology that we have today. I don't know. I don't know how to make blood into marmalade.

No, that's what I mean. We had to let go of the past and our traditions to move forward and have touch phones. Anyway, we had a big leap, but it's true.

Okay. But that being said, at the end of the all that's interesting article, and this was interesting to me anyways, they pointed out that today we do use body parts placed in other people. To this day, this is now in the form of organ transplants and blood transfusions and plasma.

Yeah. So we're still kind of looking at it as a person's parts. Might still have some sort of value to heal another, which I guess is, like, the sole basis of what it was back then, too.

And so we're still doing that by placing other people's parts into our parts in a non sexual way. We have science. We have some science that backs all that.

They had science, too. Granted. I will say ours has proven successful and more sciency, but, yeah, they didn't know what a blood type was.

I didn't even know my blood type till a year ago. Yeah, but you know what I mean. And we understand who can be a donor, who can't be a donor.

There's a bunch of medical testing that has to go down before you can even become a donor, whether it's bone marrow, whatever. And then there's things that disqualify you from other things, like if you donate bone marrow, you cannot donate plasma later because of some of the stuff that you had to take in order to do that. So it's very interesting.

Donate a kidney. Right. But all of those things, they've been proven to actually work, where all of this is like a hope and a prayer.

Let's make sure that we do this and then the priest will give you some holy water, throw it on you, and we hope you get better. You know what I mean? I don't know. They're like, well, we could try it.

You're going to die either way. Okay. But the moral of the story is there are far less mummies now because people ate them for their magic powers.

Yeah. Okay. All right.

Well, are you ready for the case? Yes. I wrote this one many moons ago, as well. So I'm hoping that my notes make sense because they're looking like maybe they might not.

They'll figure it. We'll get it figured out. I got information from a Denver seven.com

article. Denverpost.com, ninenews.com.

Turns out I use nine news a lot when we go to Colorado. Oh, guess what state we're in. Colorado.

Got some Wikipedia stuff, something from a web archive and stuff from people magazine. People. There is also a book out about this that I will tell you the name of at the end because it'll give a bunch of this away.

I did not read the book, but I do kind of want to go find the book. All right. Hey, guess what state we're in.

I have no idea. I'm just kidding. Colorado.

I think he's. You know what? I can tell you the name of the book because the first line basically tells you what's going to go down. The book is called murders in the bank vault.

What? Murders in the bank vault. I think sometimes when you come up with some of these things and I don't even know. Right.

Yeah, no, you come into these stone cold, stone cold. I don't know anything. Even my fun facts and the fun facts.

And it's like the stuff that people are probably stealing wherever they're at, listening. I'm just one that listens in the car or mowing the lawn. But my point being is it's like wherever these people are at listening, they're probably still flabbergasted about the fact that people ate mommies or some are going any of that fact.

It may be, but I doubt it. Very special individual in a good way. But, yeah.

All right, well, we're in Colorado at a bank. Yeah. Did people get eaten? I do have at the top a little, like.

But it wouldn't surprise me. Anyway. I have a thing where I put, like, asterisks in my notes when it's like something I need to either double check, like, hey, go back to this or something.

That's like, hey, this is important type of thing. So I have this at the top. So the location of this incident is in a tall building about 50 stories high.

I don't remember why that's important to know, but just know this building is tall. 50 stories. 50 stories high.

Well, it was just kind of a weird, crazy thought because I went off on quite a big, heavy tangent about swift justice on the last episode. And I just think it's super interesting in the fact that I'm not trying to get too far into this, but given that I've given the preface of that, I've watched Napoleon. Wait, you watched a movie about.

Anyway, so was it good? Yes. Well, I was in it for the battle scenes and kind of seeing that all play out. Not necessarily what I told you about, but what I found interesting is it starts out with the French Revolution, right.

And chopping the heads off. Yeah. And so it's like swift justice.

Anyway, my little small advocate for swift justice and make an example out of these people that you get fresh blood for your marmalade. Maybe they did, I don't know. They drank the blood of the king and queen.

Right. Whatever. Anyway.

But no, they chopped the heads off in public and held it up. And it's like, whoa, we would not do that today. But also, if you did, people would knock their shit off anyway.

Wow, what a wonderful tangent. Sorry. There's nothing to do with a very tall bank.

I know it goes back to. Anyway. Maybe I'm just digging a hole.

I don't know where we're going, but we need to turn around. All right. Sorry.

All right. I'm not sorry. Anyway.

On June 16, 1991, the United Bank Tower in Denver, Colorado, was technically closed, but some employees were in the building counting money from recent deliveries from armored vehicles. At approximately 915 in the morning, an unknown man claiming to be the vice president of the United bank tower called the guard room of the bank from a security phone on the outside of the building. The unknown man asked for entrance into the bank, and an unarmed guard rode the elevator to the street entrance to allow who he thought was the vice president enter into the bank.

So the guy was impersonating the vice president or what? Yes. This man was wearing a hat, sunglasses, and had a mustache. The unknown man had the guard take him to the sub basement of the bank.

Once there, the unknown man shot and killed the guard, hiding his body in a storage area and took the guard's keys like his key card. What year did this happen? 1991. Before this date and time.

Was it okay for people to go up into the bank with a hat and sunglasses on because now? I mean, I would assume so. Well, when you go to the bank now, on the door, it says, please take. There's a dress code kind of thing.

In 91, you could still leave your kids in the car while you ran to the grocery store. Yeah, but I guess what I'm saying is maybe after this occurrence, was that, like, a thing? Do you think this was the catalyst to. You can't wear a hat in a bank and sunglasses.

I don't think this was the catalyst to that. But I could be wrong. One of many.

I don't know. Anyway, I don't know. So from there, the murderer went to the guard room.

So we're down in the basement. I wish there was a map. Maybe in the book there's a map.

Anyways, there was no map for me. Where's the map? Sorry, I'm the map. Okay.

From there, the murderer went to the guard room and came across two other unarmed guards. Yeah, the murderer shot and killed the two guards, at which point, a third unarmed guard arrived to the room and was then shot and killed. They're running to the gunshots.

Not necessarily. But they're unarmed. Yes.

They've had to have heard some of the gunshots already. I would think so, but I think it would depend where they're at in the building, because remember, they're in the basement. Did the guy have a suppressor on the gun? Not that I remember reading about.

Okay, so we're in the guard room still now with three guards dead in the guard room, the murderer then took videotapes, bank keys, a two way radio and pages of a guard logbook. The murderer then made his way upstairs to the vault, where employees were counting cash. When he entered the vault, the murderer ordered the six employees to lie on the floor and cover their eyes.

He then directed a manager to fill a bag full of cash, after which he left the bank from start to finish. The incident lasted about 45 minutes. The murderer killed four unarmed guards and took nearly $200,000.

The end. This is a cold case? Yeah. Are you kidding me? The money disappeared and no one knows.

No one knows. That's not the end either. Though I didn't figure it was.

I was at least hoping not to be one of those. Like, the dead ends. Yeah, the dead ends.

But I'm like, what? Okay, yeah, all right. You have more. So when police searched the bank, they found out that the murderer took steps to leave as little evidence behind as possible, including picking up bullet shells and wiping away fingerprints.

This is why it's a cold case. The guards that were killed were Philip Lee Mankoff, Scott Raymond McCarthy, William Rogers McCullen, Jr. And Todd Allen Wilson.

Just seemed nice to say their names. The guy planned this like it wasn't an afterthought, like, I'm hurt up for money. Maybe he was a little bit, but not, like, so struggling that it was an impulsive, emotional decision.

It was a planned out, thoughtful, mindful thing that he decided to do and execute on some point later on. July 4, 1991, just three weeks after the robbery and murders, a former police officer named James King was arrested for the robbery and murders. James King worked for the police for 25 years, then went on to work as a security guard at the bank for about a year before retiring.

In a four hour search of James's home, investigators found a map that depicted the outside of the bank, as well as some fake ids. But it's a cold case. But, like, was he framed? We just want to take a moment to thank our awesome listeners for being here, for being a listener, and if you've been here for a little bit and would like to show your support for our podcast, please give us a rating on Apple Podcasts or Spotify or wherever you're listening, somehow, some way, show your support.

With that said, if you would not mind giving and sharing this out with a friend or family member, we would be super grateful. With that said, let's get back to the episode. In a four hour search of James's home, investigators found a map that depicted the outside of the bank, as well as some fake ids.

What? But it's a cold case. But, like, was he framed, or did he just keep information that he shouldn't have? TBD. Oh, TBD.

But he was, like, arrested for it. But they weren't, like, proving him. He was arrested for it, but he didn't plead guilty.

Or how did, like. Okay, you got more information? I have a little bit. Oh.

So, the evidence against James was that when James was in a money counting room with six bank employees, five of them would later identify James as the killer. So remember the six people in the room, and he was like, get on the ground. Close your eyes.

Five of them claimed it was James. James had told police when they searched his home that he had disposed of his 38 caliber police service revolver. Are you proud of me? I got the caliber and everything.

Say that again. 38 caliber police service revolver. Yeah.

Though the article did not. How many people did he shoot? Four. Well, that's why he didn't leave any bullet casings.

It was a revolver. 38 caliber revolver. Okay.

So he got. Gotten rid of his police service revolver. And though the article that I was reading did not say when or where James had done that.

So, like, cool, you got rid of it, dude. When? Where did you sell it? Did you, like, throw in a link? There is nothing. There is nothing more evidence against James.

Was that a practice that the police department has? Where, when the department bought ammo, they would put the ammo in buckets, and over time, different brands of ammo would be mixed in the bucket based on what type was bought at the time? Yeah. Okay, so officers essentially had ammo from different brands loaded in their firearms. So unless you're really picking through those bullets to make sure all your bullets matched, you could have two, three, however many brands of bullets in your gun.

Like federal Remington. Yes. So many different bullets in your gun at one time.

The bullets from the crime scene, 17 of them in total. I don't know why he has 17 shots. I didn't say.

But 17 in total, taken from the victim's bodies, were up to five different brands. How many brands do you have in your guns? Maybe two. No.

So there's different stuff. So there's target loads, and then there's, like, self defense loads, but you have. There's federal, there's Hornady, there's.

Okay, but how many do you have in your gun? Probably two. If I've ever loaded it, it might have two different types. So that's what I'm saying.

Five seems like a lot, especially because the. Usually it's one, but if I ever have a variable, it might be like I switched a box. And one magazine has that half of the new box.

Yeah. So five, I feel like, is quite excessive. There was also documentation that James had also filed for bankruptcy in 1986.

So, in summary, James used to work for the police. Then he went. Worked for the bank as a guard for a year, then retired.

And he. In his home, there was a map of the bank. Yeah.

All of a sudden, his gun is gone. But the bullets found at the scene had many different ammo types, which was normal for someone who has worked in policing. Law enforcement.

That's the word. And he had also filed for bankruptcy in 1986, so he also needed some monies. And then this happened in 1990.

119. 86 to 91. So he went five ish years before going, you know, I'm going to try and settle my debts or whatever.

Well, when questioned, I guess bankruptcy settles your debts. I don't know. Anyway, when questioned, James did admit that he was in the area the day of the murders, attempting to find a chess club that police later found out didn't even exist.

Yeah, I was there, sir. I was looking for this community chess club that doesn't exist. If you have an alibi, that's going to be good, that's going to work, that's going to be feasible and believable.

But anyway, the defense for James would argue the lack of reliability of eyewitnesses to accurately remember what the murderer looked like. To be fair. Have I done this as a fun fact? I don't remember.

There is lots of studies that eyewitnesses are actually notoriously incorrect and are easily. Their memories can be easily manipulated very easily. Yeah, because they're not.

The way we remember something and the way that it actually happened are always different. Very different. His attorney would further try to prove this when he discovered that four days after the murders, the FBI showed the tellers in the vault the pictures of the bank guards from the last several years.

None of the tellers identified James King until they were shown a photo lineup with James in it weeks later. So essentially, lots of pictures of guards with James King in the array, and none of the tellers identified him. But then you put James in a lineup of criminals, quote unquote criminals, like a photo lineup.

Well, you've now already shown them his face. So you've already shown them his face and kind of basically told them essentially that he was a guard. But now you're also putting in some setting, event stuff so that now you know that that same face that you saw is now in a criminal setting, which makes you more likely to pick that person.

Yeah. They've been given people that have worked in the past, whatever. Right.

So they see, let's say, six to twelve different individuals. But then when you have that criminal lineup, none of those other individuals are in the criminal lineup, most likely. Yeah.

Except for the one. The one. It was the only familiar face.

Right. And so everyone's going to go, oh, yeah, I think I remember that face. Yes.

Not because he was actually the person that was there doing the crime, potentially, but because you are thinking because it's a familiar face, because of the preexisting situation that occurred. So to me, these are valid points that the defense is bringing up, but there's also valid points that he had some weirdness going on in his house. Yes.

Apparently in a basement storage room of the bank. An alarm was set off at 04:00 a.m. And a guard turned off the alarm from a guard room.

But it does not appear that the storage room was searched for why the alarm went off. So this led people to think that maybe James had an okay. But every guard that came, I mean, I guess if you know that it's going to go down, you might just avoid the situation or you might be the person that fills the bag.

Yeah, that's true. I have heard one where that was a thing where the accomplice was the one who filled the bag. So the defense reasoned that the guard who turned off the alarm was in on the robbery and had helped stash the murderer in the storage room before the robbery.

Or. Yeah, the person that first got killed isn't actually like the person. The guard that let him in was also the accomplice.

The guard that let him in, he got killed. But no, that's what everyone thinks. Oh, no, he did.

No. Have you ever watched? I mean, like, have you ever watched. So the guard, it's a fake guard.

The guard that was normally in that position, he's already sitting dead in the safe. Okay, so this is sounding like some sort of Star wars craziness. Not Star wars.

What are some of those movies? Anyway? It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because it didn't happen in this situation. All right, we know of.

There's some people out there that know what I'm talking about. Anyway, continue. So I do, if they have a Wikipedia page, when I look at these things, I do peruse the Wikipedia page, but know not a complete idiot.

And I know that anybody can change those pages. So usually what I do with those pages is I hurry and peruse it to see, is this solved? Basically, yeah. And then I can get some preliminary information just to see if it's interesting enough to make a whole episode where I'm going to find a lot of information.

Then I scroll all the way to the bottom. It has all the sources, and then I just pick and grab from those sources if I can. So that being said, it was weird that this wiki page had some other info that was interesting to me, but I also couldn't for sure find anywhere else.

You know what I mean? But it was kind of interesting. So James went on trial. The trial lasted for three weeks, which who can remember three weeks worth of trial stuff? There's no way I would remember.

And the jury deliberated for nine days before finding James King not guilty. How they got to that, I'm not sure, but there it is. James actually has a son who years later told the Denver Post shortly after James'death, that his father lived a hermit existence after the trial and would rarely leave his home.

The son also said, for several years after the trial, the FBI watched James. To this day, no one had been convicted of the robbery or murders. So that being said, if James is in fact really innocent, that's awful to go through all of.

Awful. Yeah. No, and I completely agree.

It is awful. The whole justice system is broken. We've talked about that, or I've shared that opinion or thought, and the prison system is broken, and all of it needs a little bit of a fix.

But again, and then going into my whole spiel about swift justice, this would be a case that doesn't need that. Yeah. There was quite a bit of information I could, because sometimes I only have one good source.

So this one had several good sources. But I feel like there's a lot of information that's missing, which is kind of why I want to look at that book, because it doesn't really say what other suspects they might have. It doesn't really say how they thought about James in the first place.

Like, what made them go, we should actually look into him and get a search warrant for his house. And there's no information on the trial to be, like, what made it so that he was proven not guilty? Because all we really have are those two things of, like, the eyewitnesses were kind of tampered with a little bit. I don't know.

I have a lot of questions still about how they got to James, because sometimes police get tunnel vision. Right? They're like, oh, you know who probably did it? The guy that we don't really like that worked here a while back, and then I know he worked at a bank because I would go in and he was a guard and because he used me as a reference. So probably it was like.

But I mean, some of the stuff with James is weird, especially the chess club. Why are you making up a chess. I mean, what was the point in that? Let's pretend here that he is legitimately innocent.

What was the point in that? Yeah, I don't. You're. No, you're absolutely right.

But I guess sometimes I think, and maybe being that he was once a police officer, he's like, I need to have an alibi of some kind. But let's. Again, pretending that we know 100% that he's innocent, why wasn't his real alibi better than making up a chess club? I don't.

In the. No, I get what you're saying. Like, oh, I was going to this cafe, or I was going to McDonald's or whatever.

I also wonder too. Why the guards were all unarmed. I'm not saying bank guards should all have a gun, but did they not have a taser? Yeah, no, that's very interesting.

I think that things are changing a little bit. But also, people don't always trust people with a gun. And I say this because there are some security.

I shouldn't say this actually, but I'm going to say this anyway. There are people that are like, oh, I'm a security guard, but it's like, you shouldn't have a gun on you. They might carry a personal firearm, but technically they shouldn't be carrying their personal firearm if they're in a role position of you're a security guard.

But sometimes I think those security guard people are depending on the security are not quite all there. I think it depends on the person. So when I was in my early twenty s, I was friends with some boys who did work low level security, and there were some where I'm just like, I can see why they don't issue you guys a gun.

And there's some where I feel like they would stay level headed. And the ones who would stay, who I feel like would stay level headed and not rush to use their gun were the ones who weren't really cocky about them being a security guard. The ones who didn't think it, making them think they're a tough guy.

They're just like, yeah, this is my job. Whereas the ones who are just like, this is my job. I could mess anybody up.

I train for this. And it's like, you make me nervous. Yes, exactly.

Yeah, I guess that's exactly what I was leaning into is there are people out there that are like, oh, yeah, I'm a security guard. And you're like, no, you're not. You're like a mall cop, dude.

There's a difference between being a full level guard with a gun and there's a difference between the guards or the people that are going to carry a gun that go and actively train on that like once or twice a week. But again, and I'm not saying that the guards should have been armed, I'm not saying that any bank guard should be armed. But I just wonder, did they just have walkies and maybe a police baton? Was there not tasers? Was there not, I don't know, something generally, because what's the point of having a completely unarmed guard at a bank? What is the point? It depends on the bank, too.

But if you're like a high level big bank where you're kind of like the headquartered one that has a big vault or safe or whatever, have at least one guard there that is trained, not, like, just watch the computer. But that's easier said than done, right? I think that person. Sometimes this is a sad situation, but sometimes people in those positions don't take their job seriously enough to train for the events that could occur.

And I mean, like, yeah, cool, you're a guard, and, yeah, they give you a gun, but you're fat. I'm sorry, but can you really run a mile and a half, or can you physically chase that guy down? They become, like, complacent. Yeah, well, it hasn't happened yet.

Probably won't happen. It's an easy day. And so they're like, yeah, well, I could have had my gun on me today, but stuff doesn't go down, so I quit wearing it.

All those kinds of things. And you look at that, and generally those are, like, a security risk. Or when people become complacent and they don't check badges or they're leaving badges lying around, those are all things that become, like, a heightened threat level or a security violation or risk or whatever.

Well, I don't know. I guess I'm just stuck the most on the guards because it's a big enough bank that you felt like you needed at least four on duty on a day when the bank's not even technically open. Yeah.

So I am just confused on the level of security there. I don't know, because if it was, like, a smaller bank, like one of our little local banks, there's not armed officers, there's not unarmed officers. I'm not sure if there's even an armed officer.

That's what I'm saying. If we go down the street to the bank, there's not. But you know what? Our technology.

And this is kind of neat, but the technology we have today. I went into the gas station the other day to pay, and they're like, yeah, just insert the money in the front of the desk, and then it'll spit out your change. Oh, yeah.

And I'm like, so what's your job? He's like, yeah, I kind of just stand around a lot, but you need to have them to buy, like, your smokes and alcohol. But it was just funny because I was like, so, can I get a discount because I'm doing the work now? That's how I feel about self. Check out a little bit.

Oh, we are on a tangent. Anyway. Oh, my gosh.

I didn't even mention that. June 16, 1991, when this happened, was Father's day. June what? June 16, 1991.

Oh, Father's Day. If you try to look up the keys, it's the Father's Day bank massacre. Okay.

Guards died, and they were probably dads. Unless they were, like, the mall. I'm just kidding.

Just kidding. Yeah. I can't believe I forgot to mention that it was a father's day.

I thought you first said June 6 16th. Yeah, and I was like, no, that's d day. Anyway, so, yeah, that's the case.

Nobody knows what happened. I really got to find that book. I forgot it existed.

And now I'm very interested because I have so many questions. Well, if you. But there's enough here to write a book about it, so there's got to be a lot of more information.

Yeah, well, you should find that book, and then we can just do a double tap on this. Yeah. All right, that's it.

That's the episode. If you guys haven't yet, please give us a rating on Apple podcasts. Give us a review there if you want, or give us a rating on Spotify.

I don't think people can give us a review on Spotify. You can rate, though, but you can rate us. And if you would like to support the channel, I believe there's a support link on Apple podcasts.

And then, yeah, share this with a friend that might find it interesting. Sharing is caring. Yeah.

We really appreciate you guys. Thanks. Catch you later.