That's a pretty inapposite analogy (not the least because unlike a missing bank robber, Obama's identity and location are hardly in doubt, making the "never caught" aspect totally off), but if I had to make it parallel the facts of Obama's eligibility, it'd go something like this:
A man publicly announces that he's going to rob a bank. When and where. He becomes a nationally known figure, and his autobiography about his dreams of bank-robbing becomes a bestseller. His relationship to that particular bank-robbery is mentioned in practically every background story on him. No one ever does anything to stop him. Finally, he robs the bank, as promised. Everyone knew he was going to, and now everyone knows he has.
And the legal system's response is...absolutely nothing. The bank doesn't report a robbery, the police don't record one, the feds don't investigate, and the US Attorney doesn't prosecute. They don't even acknowledge that a bank was ever robbed, though the guy is still a national figure and still talks about taking the money.
That's your analogy for you. The fact that it plays out rather absurdly is due to it being such a poor analogy to begin with.
From the moment he announced for the office of POTUS, people with the Constitution in one hand, the facts of his birth in the other, and a brain above, were questioning his qualifications.
Again, that's just untrue.
Obama announced his run for the Presidency in February 2007. No one, anywhere, was questioning the facts of his birth until March 2008, and no one alleged that his father's Kenyan nationality made him Constitutionally ineligible until June 2008.
I know you'd like to push back the dates of when all this started, and pretend like it didn't begin over a year into his campaign, but you're wrong.
If a tree falls in the woods and you don’t hear it, did it fall???