+ Follow
Image by unsplash

Have you ever tapped your phone, ordered a pizza, and waited without a second thought for the delivery? Assuming the worst that could happen is a delayed delivery or missing toppings?

In today's world of food delivery applications and instant convenience, we pause to consider the real danger behind something as ordinary as a pizza order. For most of us, pizza is comfort, celebration, or a late-night lifeline during grueling exams and deadlines. But two decades ago, in a quiet town in Pennsylvania, a pizza delivery call turned fatal and into one of the most bizarre, shocking, and perplexing criminal cases in American history. One that involved a collar bomb, hidden clues, scavenger hunt-like instructions, a nationwide media frenzy, and a man named Brian Wells.

Known now as ‘The Pizza Bomber Case’ or ‘The Collar Bomb Heist’, it continues to be one of the most puzzling blends of true crime and conspiracy. What seemed like a routine delivery became a race against time, posing many more questions than it answered.

Was Brian Wells a desperate accomplice who got double-crossed? Or was he an innocent victim forced to play a deadly game? But most importantly, who exactly was Brian Wells?

He was the central figure of a crime that felt more like a scene from a Tarantino film than real life in Western Pennsylvania. What does that phrase actually imply? Let's delve right in.

On an ordinary summer afternoon in 2003, in the quiet town of Erie, Pennsylvania, a routine pizza delivery turned into a fatal spectacle. Brian Wells, a delivery driver, walked into a PNC Bank with a triple-band metal collar bomb locked around his neck and a bizarre, handwritten scavenger hunt map.

This was not merely a robbery; it was the beginning of an almost impossible plot, no less than Hollywood, that baffled the FBI for years. As we peel back the layers, we'll encounter a cast of characters that includes a suspected mastermind with a history of violence and mental illness, a corpse in a freezer, and a homemade device built to ensure a spectacular end.

THE BIZARRE CRIME IN ERIE: THE CASE OVERVIEW

On August 28, 2003, a 46-year old pizza deliveryman walked into a bank in Erie, PA, armed with a shotgun modified to have the appearance of a walking cane, and handed the teller a note demanding $250,000 in cash.

The note stated that the collar bomb, which was fastened around the man's neck, would go off if he did not get what he wanted.

Carrying a bag stuffed with more than $8000, the man, Brian Wells, walked back out of the bank as calmly as he had walked in. Although he didn't get far before being surrounded by police. However, the police are too slow in calling the bomb squad, and the device detonates.

Seven years after the events of 28 August 2003, at the PNC bank in the city of Erie, jury selection began in the trial of the woman described by prosecutors as their instigator. Marjorie Diehl-Armstrong, 61, they allege, orchestrated the robbery because she needed cash for a hitman to kill her estranged father.

Ms. Diehl-Armstrong is accused of arranging for someone else to order pizzas, rig the victim with the bomb when he arrived with the food, and force him to rob the bank. She was then to stop the time bomb.

But things went completely awry. Brian Wells, a 46-year old pizza deliveryman, and the victim, entered the bank, and told the teller that his walking stick was a disguised gun and showed her the bomb locked around his neck. But instead of collecting $250,000 as planned, he fled the branch with just $8,702.

It was then that the police intercepted. Wells collapsed to his knees in a car park and shouted that he was not responsible for the robbery, but had been coerced. “I'm not lying,” he cried. “I'm not doing this. This isn't me.”

Before the bomb experts could get there, the device went off, and Mr. Wells was killed instantly.

The FBI investigation into his death uncovered a complex plot described as “one of the most complicated and bizarre crimes in the annals of the FBI.”

In conjunction with the ‘Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF)’ and the ‘Pennsylvania State Police (PSP)’, the FBI investigation led to Marjorie Diehl-Armstrong and Kenneth Barnes being charged with the crime in 2007. The investigation determined the plot was masterminded by Diehl-Armstrong to receive an inheritance by hiring Barnes with the money from the bank robbery to kill her father. William Rothstein and Floyd Stockton were also found to have conspired in the crime, but Rothstein died before being charged, and Stockton was granted immunity in exchange for testifying against Diehl-Armstrong. Diehl-Armstrong was sentenced in 2011 to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, and Barnes received a reduced sentence of 22 and a half years in exchange for testifying against Diehl-Armstrong.

But was Wells just a casualty in the elaborate plan of a criminal? Or he, too, was an active participant? To know that, we must know more about Brian Wells.

WHO WAS BRIAN WELLS?

Brian Douglas Wells was born on November 15, 1956, and grew up in Erie, Pennsylvania, as one of six children. He had also been described as “childlike” by some and had dropped out of East High School in Erie at 16. He worked as a mechanic before becoming a reliable pizza delivery driver for Mama Mia's Pizzeria for over a decade. Wells did not have any prior criminal record.

On the afternoon of August 28, 2003, Wells received a delivery order to a remote location near a television transmission tower. According to Wells’ later account to police, he was accosted by a group of people at the location who forced a homemade explosive collar around his neck at gunpoint, and gave him a sophisticated, cane-shaped shotgun. He was given a handwritten, nine-page set of instructions for a scavenger hunt, with each task providing clues and keys to delay or defuse the bomb.

Now, these are literal facts being presented. Albeit, two theories arise from these series of events.

VICTIM THEORY

Wells’ family maintained that he was an innocent victim forced into the crime. A friend, Jessica Hoopsick, later confessed she set Wells up as a “gopher” for the conspirators, claiming he had no prior knowledge of the robbery.

CONSPIRATOR THEORY

Federal prosecutors concluded Wells was an unindicted co-conspirator who participated in the planning and rehearsal. According to this theory, Wells believed the bomb was fake, intended to provide him with an alibi, and was only fitted with a real, undetonable device at the last minute by his double-crossing co-conspirators.

Wells’ involvement in the plot is a matter of huge controversy. The incident also gained extensive media coverage, including the 2018 Netflix series ‘Evil Genius’.

CONSPIRATORS’ CONNECTION TO WELLS

Immediately after his death, investigators searched Wells’ house and found a list of people he knew, which included the names of two prostitutes unknown to the other members of his family. One of the prostitutes he knew frequented Kenneth Barnes, who dealt crack and whose house was utilized by prostitutes.

SHAPE OF THE CONSPIRACY

At Kenneth Barnes’ home, he, Marjorie Diehl-Armstrong, and William Rothstein discussed ways they could make money. Diehl-Armstrong suggested Barnes kill Marjorie's father, Harold Diehl, so she would receive an inheritance. Barnes told her he was willing to do this for US $250,000 (equivalent to $414,074 in 2023).

Diehl-Armstrong, Barnes, and Rothstein all seemed to have suffered from compulsive hoarding. Compulsive hoarding, or hoarding disorder, is a mental health condition where people have persistent difficulty discarding or parting with possessions, regardless of their actual value. This difficulty stems from a strong emotional need to save items and causes significant distress when they consider throwing things away.

Barnes was a retired television repairman, crack dealer (crack cocaine is a highly addictive and powerful illegal stimulant drug made from powdered cocaine that has been processed into a solid, smokable form), and Diehl-Armstrong's ‘fishing buddy’.

WELLS AS A CONSPIRATOR

According to law enforcement reports, Wells participated in the planning of the bank robbery the day before and was aware of the complex plot; he believed the bomb would be fake but would serve as exculpatory evidence if he was caught. According to an FBI affidavit, two witnesses confirmed that Wells talked about the robbery about a month before it took place. Wells was also seen leaving Rothstein's house the day before the incident. It was believed Wells was killed to reduce the number of witnesses.

LEAD FACTS & TIMELINE REGARDING THE CASE

“It may be that his role transitioned from that of the planning stages to being an unwilling participant in the scheme,” U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan said.

THE TIMELINE

On August 27, 2003, Diehl-Armstrong, Barnes, Wells, and other unindicted co-conspirators met to discuss the next day's plot.

On August 28, 2003, at about 1:30 p.m., the co-conspirators used a payphone to order two pizzas for delivery. Mama Mia's Pizzeria received an order for two pizzas to be delivered to 8631 Peach Street, a rural address near an Erie TV tower, which happened to be next door to one of the conspirators’ houses. Wells would be the delivery driver.

Around 2 p.m., the co-conspirators put the bomb around Wells’s collar.

At about 2:28 p.m., Wells walked into the PNC Bank on Peach Street, selected a lollipop from a teller's station, and handed over a note demanding money and describing the collar bomb device. He carried a cane that concealed a gun. The teller gave Wells about $8,702 in cash. Outside the bank, a motorist and then the police detained him. During questioning, he said he had been forced to wear the collar; he also described being involved in some way in a scheme. The co-conspirators watched from a distance until Wells was stopped by police, at which time they fled.

Wells told police that the bomb on his neck was on a timer and that he had been forced to rob the bank. The bomb exploded before bomb technicians could arrive.

While police waited for bomb disposal technicians, the device detonated at around 3:18 p.m., killing Wells.

Ray Morrow, special agent in charge of the FBI's Pittsburgh office, called the three-year, ten-month-old case “an outstanding, old-fashioned investigation.

THE EVIDENCES

The police began sorting through a trove of physical evidence. In Wells’ car, they discovered the cane, which turned out to be an ingenious homemade gun. The bomb itself was a likewise marvel of DIY construction. It consisted of two parts: a triple-banded metal collar with four keyholes, a three-digit combination lock, and an iron box containing two 15 cm pipe bombs loaded with double-base smokeless powder. The hinged collar locked around Wells’ neck like a giant handcuff. Investigators could tell that it had been built using professional tools. The device also contained two Sunbeam kitchen timers and one electronic countdown timer. It had wires running through it that connected to nothing— decoys to throw off would-be disablers, and stickers bearing deceptive warnings.

The most perplexing and intriguing pieces of evidence were the handwritten notes that investigators found inside Wells’ car. Addressed to the ‘Bomb Hostage’, the notes instructed Wells to rob the bank of $250,000, then follow a set of complex instructions to find various keys and combination codes hidden throughout Erie.

It contained drawings, threats, and detailed maps. If Wells did as he was told, the instructions promised, he would wind up with the keys and the combination required to free him from the bomb. Failure or disobedience would result in certain death. “There is only one way you can survive, and that is to cooperate completely… this powerful, booby-trapped bomb can be removed only by following our instructions… ACT NOW, THINK LATER, OR YOU WILL DIE!”

Let's look at the evidence from a broader viewpoint.

The device: construction, forensics, and why it killed him

Forensic examiners described the device as a deceptively complex apparatus: a hinged collar locking around the neck, pipe-bomb charges, at least one clock-type kitchen timer, and an array of dummy wires and misleading components intended to confuse anyone trying to disarm it. The presence of decoy elements, such as toy cellphones or false wiring, suggested that the contrivers wanted to ensure a time-limited outcome and maximize confusion.

Officials called explosive ordnance disposal specialists after Wells was detained. The combination of the device's complexity, uncertain trigger mechanisms, and a ticking deadline made disarmament extremely hazardous. The device detonated before a safe disarmament could be attempted; the detonation killed Wells within sight of responding officers. Later forensic work concluded the weapon had been made to detonate and to confound attempts at removal, even if someone attempted to cut or otherwise tamper with parts of the collar.

The sophistication and the many deliberate misdirections on the device gave investigators the sense that the bomb maker knew what they were doing and wanted the device to function whether or not the one wearing it was cooperative. Forensic traces from timers, screws, wiring, and adhesives provided leads that connected to suspects and items recovered from their properties. The physical device thus both killed the victim and became the single most revealing piece of evidence.

The heist notes, the ‘scavenger hunt’, and bank footage

Investigators recovered handwritten pages with elaborate instructions that, if followed, would, in theory, lead a victim to the keys and combinations needed to disable the collar. The notes contained math puzzles, directions, and references that were inconsistent and, many analysts say, mathematically or temporally improbable to complete within the device's countdown window. That mismatch prompted theories that the instructions were meant to stall or confuse rather than to actually save the beholder.

Furthermore, video from the PNC Bank and nearby cameras showed Wells entering, interacting with a teller, and leaving with cash. The collar's presence was visible when he presented the note. The amount taken, which was far below some demands noted in the text of the instructions, raised questions about the plan's objectives and whether the heist had been botched or intended primarily as a contrivance for another end (for example, to justify a murder or to create a sensational distraction).

Beyond the notes and the device, investigators also recovered a cane gun connected to Wells and other material items that investigators matched to suspects, residences, and phone records. The collection of this physical evidence formed the backbone of later indictments and plea deals.

THE INVESTIGATION

Initial statements by Wells, including the claim that three Black men forced him, led investigators briefly down misleading lines of inquiry, but surveillance, physical evidence, and later witness statements refocused the probe.

A major early break involved William ‘Bill’ Rothstein, a man whose freezer later yielded a body and whose 911 call reporting that body led investigators into his orbit. Rothstein's connection to other suspects and to the kind of thinking that produced the collar device drew intense scrutiny.

Federal prosecutors indicted Marjorie Diehl-Armstrong and Kenneth Barnes in 2007; Diehl-Armstrong was portrayed as a mastermind figure with a history of violence and mental health issues, and Barnes eventually cooperated and pleaded guilty. Federal docket records and trial transcripts show prosecutors pursued a complex, layered case that relied on witness testimony, physical evidence, and forensic connections. Some investigative choices (including plea bargains and the decision not to charge the deceased Rothstein) later became points of contention and public debate.

THE SUSPECTS

Marjorie Diehl-Armstrong

With a documented history of mental health struggles and prior violent incidents, Marjorie Diehl-Armstrong was an eccentric, volatile woman. Prosecutors alleged she helped conceive the plan to secure money, in part to pay Kenneth Barnes to murder her father and secure an inheritance.

In 2003, Diehl-Armstrong also fatally shot her live-in boyfriend, James Roden, reportedly with a 12-gauge shotgun. After the killing, she reportedly enlisted Rothstein's help to dispose of the body. Rothstein claimed that he moved the corpse, stored it in a freezer, cleaned the crime scene at her house, including removing and replacing floor boards, cleaning walls, etc, then stored it in his garage freezer for several weeks. Rothstein later led police to the freezer when they investigated.

Diehl-Armstrong was charged with the murder and, in 2005, entered a plea of ‘guilty but mentally ill’. She was sentenced to 7 to 20 years in state prison for the murder and abuse of a corpse.

Prosecutors remarked that the killing of Roden was not allegedly random. They claimed Roden had known about the bank robbery plot and was potentially going to talk to the police. The murder, they argued, was meant to silence him before he exposed the conspiracy.

According to informants and an affidavit reported during the investigation, Diehl-Armstrong herself admitted that she killed Roden “because he was going to talk about the robbery. During interviews after her state sentencing, Diehl-Armstrong also told federal investigators that she had supplied some components used in the collar bomb, for example, kitchen timers. Additional allegations from informants claimed that the conspirators had met the day before the bank robbery at Rothstein's house. In the house, Rothstein, Diehl-Armstrong, Stockton, and probably Wells and others gathered. The DA's theory: they used that time to finalize the plan, assign roles, and measure the victim's neck for the collar bomb.

After being found competent to stand trial, following a psychiatric evaluation, Diehl-Armstrong was tried for the bank robbery and collar bomb charges. In 2010, she was convicted of armed bank robbery, conspiracy, and use of a destructive device. In 2011, she was sentenced to life in federal prison. That sentence was ordered to run consecutively with her state prison term for the Roden murder. On appeal, she faced several legal challenges, incorporating regarding mental competence and media coverage, but her conviction was upheld; her bids for plea deal reconsideration or reduced sentence were unsuccessful.

Therefore, she was indicted in 2007, tried, and ultimately convicted on conspiracy charges in a case that relied heavily on cooperative witnesses and Barnes’ testimony. Diehl-Armstrong was sentenced to life in prison; she died behind bars in the year 2017 due to breast cancer.

Her conviction, to this day, remains controversial to some observers who cite questions about witnesses' reliability and prosecutorial strategy.

Kenneth Barnes

Kenneth Barnes emerged as a cooperating defendant. Arrested on unrelated charges, Barnes revealed details of the scheme to relatives and later to investigators. He pleaded guilty and received a long sentence that was later reduced after cooperation and testimony against Diehl-Armstrong. Barnes’ accounts and the plea deal he struck were essential to the prosecution's narrative; critics counter that the incentive structure for testimony in exchange for reduced sentences complicates assessments of credibility.

William Rothstein

William ‘Bill’ Rothstein, unfortunately, died before prosecutors could bring charges against him. He is a central figure in many theories about the case: his 911 call about a body, his possession of odd artifacts, and statements from others placed him close to the device's construction and to planning discussions. Some investigators and journalists have suggested Rothstein may have been the true mastermind who died before being held to account, leaving unanswered the question of whether Diehl-Armstrong was central or merely one member of a broader conspiracy. Because Rothstein never stood trial, many mysteries about his exact role persist, and may continue to be so.

Floyd Stockton

Floyd Stockton was described by investigators as a ‘convicted rapist of a disabled teenager’. At the time of the heist, Stockton was reportedly living as a fugitive at the house of the other conspirator, William Rothstein. Prosecutors in the case identified Stockton among those who ‘conspired’ in the plot. According to police reports cited in reporting, on the day of the robbery (August 28, 2003), Stockton claimed he had been at a Shell gas station (the same payphone/order origin for the pizza delivery) at about 2:30 p.m., the very time when the bomb sequence was underway. The prosecution argued that his presence was indeed suspicious. Additionally, police allege that Stockton may have been the person who physically put the bomb collar around the victim, although there is ambiguity about who did what. Stockton was never formally indicted for the collar bomb plot; instead, he was reportedly granted ‘immunity’ in exchange for potential cooperation or testimony against the central figures. However, according to later reporting, Stockton never actually testified, or his testimony did not become central at trial, possibly due to health issues. He died in August 2022, with his death being ruled accidental, from acute respiratory failure, at age 75, as per a 2023 obituary.

Stockton's role remains murky since there is no public ‘smoking-gun’ evidence naming him as the bomb installer, namely, forensic traces, fingerprints, or recorded confessions that have been shared conclusively with the media. Many of the allegations about his involvement are unproven in court. Some accounts, including that of the co-conspirators, implicate Stockton, but those are entangled with plea deals, shifting stories, and cooperation incentives, which complicates their reliability.

Other persons of interest

Aside from the three central figures above, the investigation touched others— people who offered contradictory confessions, recantations, or second-hand knowledge. Documentary coverage (notably the Netflix series Evil Genius) introduced additional interview subjects and assertions, including claims by Jessica Hoopsick that she set Wells up by giving his delivery schedule to conspirators, claims that sparked both renewed interest and serious skepticism. The multiplicity of accounts, coupled with the fact that one major suspect was deceased, created a legal and narrative hole where alternative theories thrived.

MEDIA, DOCUMENTARY TREATMENT, AND ETHICAL CONCERNS

A man running down a street with a collar bomb, the haunting images of the device, alongwith such eerie notes, presented an extraordinary visual and narrative elements of the case. These odd factors, in turn, turned the case into a media sensation. Local outlets in Erie carried in-depth coverage; national outlets and later documentaries turned the case into an enduring true crime story. Reporters have a balanced fascination with the responsibility of humane reporting about a victim who died in front of officers.

Netflix's Evil Genius

The 2018 Netflix miniseries Evil Genius reinvigorated public interest by assembling interviews, archival footage, and new assertions. The series introduced viewers to characters who provided fresh, sometimes conflicting testimony. Critics praised its storytelling but warned viewers to treat uncorroborated confessions or highly sensational claims cautiously, especially where legal consequences or the reputations of the deceased and convicted were at stake.

This case raises perennial questions for journalists and documentarians: how to satisfy legitimate public interest without exploiting trauma, how to vet sensational claims uncovered in the course of production, and how to present plea-driven testimony in context. These debates are especially sharp where one of the pertinent victims is dead and cannot speak for himself.

OPEN QUESTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE THEORIES

Q. Was Brian Wells a coerced victim or a limited participant?

Evidence points both ways: some witnesses said Wells rehearsed parts of a plan. In contrast, family and others insist he was a dupe. The full truth is still convoluted and disputed.

Q. Who was the true mastermind?

Regrettably, Rothstein's death before any trial left a gap. Some investigators believe he was the central architect; others maintain Marjorie Diehl-Armstrong's organizing role was decisive.

Q. Were investigative decisions like plea deals and not charging the deceased adequate for finding out the truth?

Prosecutors use standard tools to secure convictions, but those choices limit how fully contested narratives are tested in courts.

Despite convictions, these deeply thought-out, boggling core questions remain. And they provide evidence that the Pizza Bomber Case might forever be remembered as the most mysterious multifaceted case, and will continue to be a subject of public fascination.

This case is not just a ‘mystery’ or merely a ‘sensational true crime. The case had been a prominent lesson in practice and in ethics. For law enforcement, it underscores the importance of interagency coordination on high-risk scenes, the value of careful forensic handling of devices and notes, and the complexities of witness management when plea deals are used. For journalists and producers, it is a reminder to balance narrative drive with rigorous corroboration and sensitivity to victims’ families. And for the general public, for us, it demonstrates how sensational facts can sometimes obscure deep, unresolved questions about culpability and motive. It thus, with a broader perspective, is not only a ‘case’ but a teaching in responsibilities and accountability.

This article has no intention of sparking fear in the hearts of every time we order dinner or to make us suspicious of the everyday convenience and comforts we enjoy. It is not a warning against delivery apps, or against the simple practice of ordering food, whether for celebration or for necessary sustenance.

Instead, the Pizza Bomber Case stands as a reminder of how real life can sometimes be stranger than fiction, how ordinary moments can intersect with extraordinary events, and how complex the search for truth can be behind any headline.

We continue to order pizza and other items from such apps, and we should (although, without exploiting the benefits of consumerism), but cases like these urge us to look a little closer, question what we think we know, and be alert at every moment as much as possible, keeping our eyes and ears peeled.

.    .    .

REFERENCES:

Discus