In an unusual turn of events, a man accused of bank robbery attempted to evade punishment by asserting that ‘it was form of art’. Former MIT professor Joseph Gibbons made headlines in 2015 when he was apprehended by law enforcement authorities for stealing $1,000 from a New York-based bank on the last day of 2014. Gibbons approached the counter, handed over a succinct note to the tellers that read: ‘THIS IS A ROBBERY. LARGE BILLS. NO DYE PACKS / NO GPS.’
Despite the explicit directives communicated in the note, the bank personnel didn’t abide by his intricate set of rules and handed over a dye pack among the demanded cash. The pack burst inadvertently as Gibbons attempted to flee the premises, smearing him with a distinctive dye that marked him as the perpetrator.
The dye on his clothes would have been more than enough evidence to identify him as the robber. However, that was hardly the only evidence against Gibbons. He had inadvertently generated additional evidence by filming the entire act himself, leaving no room for doubt regarding his identity as the perpetrator was vividly caught on the bank’s surveillance cameras.
The local police made a breakthrough in the case after receiving an anonymous tip a few days post the robbery. This led them to a hotel located near the scene of the crime. Upon investigating the tip-off, they stumbled upon a camera in one of the hotel rooms which perfectly matched the one captured in the bank’s surveillance feeds as held by the perpetrator during the robbery.
When questioned about his motive behind the heinous act, Gibbons’ response was nothing short of astonishing. As reported by The Guardian, Gibbons asserted that the act of bank robbery was an ingenious form of ‘performance art’, driven partly by financial destitution.
Unimpressed by this unique defense, the authorities presented Gibbons with fairly serious charges. These comprised of third-degree robbery, fourth-degree grand larceny, and fourth-degree possession of stolen property. Disregarding his justification that his actions were driven by artistic expression, authorities advised Gibbons to consider a plea bargain.
Given the weight of the allegations on him, Gibbons was encouraged to accept a plea deal. As a part of the deal, he confessed to the first charge and was subsequently sentenced to serve a year in prison. Despite admitting to the act of a different bank robbery he was spared from any additional charges.
Perturbed by the whole ordeal, the former professor expressed his feelings to the New York Post. He claimed to be ‘upset’ noticing that the bank teller during the November robbery was ‘truly unnerved’ by his robbery note. Gibbons admitted his intention was to bring a touch of humor to his offense and was taken aback by the bank staff’s calm demeanor, as though they were discreetly alerting the authorities.
In his exclusive chat with the Post, Gibbons confessed: ‘What eventually pushed me over the edge was the sheer desolation of not having any money, no place to live, and nothing to eat. This extreme desperation drove me to take such drastic measures.’
Gibbons further added, ‘I kept the camera rolling as I sprinted down Grand Street to the subway. I felt the dye pack explode while I was on the run, but I decided to hold onto it. I fancied it would be a fascinating keepsake of this unusual adventure.’
To Gibbons’ dismay, he was ultimately exposed by one of his former students who reported him to the police, cause he was anxious about Gibbons’ peculiar behavioral shift.
The post Bank Robbery or Art Performance? The Unusual Motive of an Ex-MIT Professor appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
