You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Just ahead of Barb Dayton on the Cooper 10,000 list.

377

ORDER OF SUSPECTS:

1) Sheridan Peterson
.
.
.
1474) 377
.
.
.
2697) President Trump
.
.
.
5006) Reca
.
.
.
10038) Barb Dayton

EU/Lynn are with Sailshaw in choosing Peterson.  Here is a quote from back in 2014 from Sailshaw.  The piercing brown eyes made it to Wiki somehow too.  How hard was it to get brown contacts in 1971?  At some point Sailshaw thought Peterson was wearing contacts.  Below is his quote from Re: The DNA/The FBI/DB Cooper…Whats The deal? on October 11, 2014 at 11:54:06 AM.

Another aspect of DB is the disguise he use was so simple. He wore sunglasses to cover his eye color (what the FBI looks at to identify the suspect). The only time he took off the sunglasses was to show the Flight Attendants his eye color. They said he had "piercing brown eyes" which covered up hi actual blue eyes. No other disguise was necessary and it did the trick with the investigators.

Bob Sailshaw

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

EU/Lynn are with Sailshaw in choosing Peterson.  Here is a quote from back in 2014 from Sailshaw.  The piercing brown eyes made it to Wiki somehow too.  How hard was it to get brown contacts in 1971?  At some point Sailshaw thought Peterson was wearing contacts.  Below is his quote from Re: The DNA/The FBI/DB Cooper…Whats The deal? on October 11, 2014 at 11:54:06 AM.

Another aspect of DB is the disguise he use was so simple. He wore sunglasses to cover his eye color (what the FBI looks at to identify the suspect). The only time he took off the sunglasses was to show the Flight Attendants his eye color. They said he had "piercing brown eyes" which covered up hi actual blue eyes. No other disguise was necessary and it did the trick with the investigators.

Bob Sailshaw

Sailshaw had the right guy, Sheridan, but he tried too hard to prove it and took a few wrong turns.

Remember, Sailshaw insisted that Sheridan had quizzed him about the 727 aft stairs, but upon learning that he (Sailshaw) was only working on 737 air stairs quickly lost interest in Sailshaw. As noted in an earlier post I proved this was incorrect because neither the 727 nor 737 had flown yet.

Sailshaw also believed that Sheridan sent some of the news media letters claiming responsibility and taunting authorities. I do not believe this to be true. It doesn’t sound like the Sheridan I know. It doesn’t sound like the DB Cooper I know. There was nothing to gain and everything to lose if the real Cooper sent them.

Finally, the story about revealing his eyes to mislead witnesses because he was wearing brown contacts also doesn’t add up given the FBI files that pertain to the brief period of time when he wasn’t wearing sunglasses.

There is plenty of factual evidence pointing to Sheridan. Fantastic stories and explanations aren’t necessary

Since there is 0 proof that Cooper was either an expert jumper OR a complete novice jumper, I think the pool of possible jumpers must be in the millions. So I’d like to hear about the plenty of FACTUAL evidence involving Sheridan ? No doubt he’s qualified but EVIDENCE ?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

EU/Lynn are with Sailshaw in choosing Peterson.  Here is a quote from back in 2014 from Sailshaw.  The piercing brown eyes made it to Wiki somehow too.  How hard was it to get brown contacts in 1971?  At some point Sailshaw thought Peterson was wearing contacts.  Below is his quote from Re: The DNA/The FBI/DB Cooper…Whats The deal? on October 11, 2014 at 11:54:06 AM.

Another aspect of DB is the disguise he use was so simple. He wore sunglasses to cover his eye color (what the FBI looks at to identify the suspect). The only time he took off the sunglasses was to show the Flight Attendants his eye color. They said he had "piercing brown eyes" which covered up hi actual blue eyes. No other disguise was necessary and it did the trick with the investigators.

Bob Sailshaw

Sailshaw had the right guy, Sheridan, but he tried too hard to prove it and took a few wrong turns.

Remember, Sailshaw insisted that Sheridan had quizzed him about the 727 aft stairs, but upon learning that he (Sailshaw) was only working on 737 air stairs quickly lost interest in Sailshaw. As noted in an earlier post I proved this was incorrect because neither the 727 nor 737 had flown yet.

Sailshaw also believed that Sheridan sent some of the news media letters claiming responsibility and taunting authorities. I do not believe this to be true. It doesn’t sound like the Sheridan I know. It doesn’t sound like the DB Cooper I know. There was nothing to gain and everything to lose if the real Cooper sent them.

Finally, the story about revealing his eyes to mislead witnesses because he was wearing brown contacts also doesn’t add up given the FBI files that pertain to the brief period of time when he wasn’t wearing sunglasses.

There is plenty of factual evidence pointing to Sheridan. Fantastic stories and explanations aren’t necessary

Quote

Since there is 0 proof that Cooper was either an expert jumper OR a complete novice jumper, I think the pool of possible jumpers must be in the millions. So I’d like to hear about the plenty of FACTUAL evidence involving Sheridan ? No doubt he’s qualified but EVIDENCE ?

Cooper turned down instructions regarding how to dawn and use the parachute. This indicates at least a basic level of knowledge regarding jumping. Nothing more or less.

Other information regarding specifics of the 727; location of oxygen bottles, refueling time, 15 degree flap setting, altitude to stay under to avoid running out of oxygen, leaving jet un-pressurized, realizing that the airstairs could be deployed in-flight and upon take-off (very important and not well-known fact), understanding that Mucklow did not need to be tethered in the jet for fear of being sucked out (very important and not well-known fact) among others demands that Cooper had to have access to this data...or he just guessed and happened to be correct on all points.

Furthermore, the elements and particles found on the tie have to be explained. Cooper had to come across these items somewhere and somehow.

Cooper's familiarity with Tacoma from the air and McChord being 20 minutes from SeaTac also have to be reasonably explained.

All of these things point to a Boeing connection and a Sheridan connection. Also, many other things will be discussed in the report on July 10th which will fill in a lot of other gaps.

I'm with you on the notion that the proof is in the pudding.

If a US Attorney were to charge Sheridan Peterson with the skyjack, I predict he would walk away a free man. The standard for conviction is and will always be PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. None of the circumstantial evidence against him, even taken cumulatively, reaches that standard. Not even close. The FBI undoubtedly knows this. Remember, their role is not to "solve" the case but rather to present a prosecutable and winnable case. "Knowing" who Cooper is and being able to successfully prosecute Cooper are two very different things.

I had a client (now deceased) who the FBI "KNEW" had committed a serious crime but they didn't have enough evidence to prosecute. The US Attorney's Office instead went after him for federal loan fraud and won. The sentence was heavy because the judge probably shared the FBI's opinion that he had done much more. Although he was never late on a single mortgage payment, he had lied about sources of income on the loan application. It was like going after Al Capone for tax fraud when they couldn't prove anything else.

If Sheridan were charged, I'd volunteer to represent him pro bono. I am retiring soon and it would be a great retirement project. I believe I could get the case dismissed prior to trial based on the FBI's loss of the cigarette butts. The butts, if they had a good DNA sample, could convict someone, but they could also exonerate someone who was a possible match to the partial DNA found on the tie. Their loss is a loss of possibly exculpatory physical evidence, which is usually fatal to a criminal prosecution. That loss of potentially exculpatory physical evidence could be rendered harmless, however, by a credible and legally admissible confession or by the discovery of other unequivocally incriminating physical evidence.

And by the way, when you lose critical evidence, all the presumptions are construed against the party who lost it. Protests that the butts would not have had good DNA and therefore their loss should not result in a dismissal will very likely fall on deaf judicial ears.

377