Author Topic: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation  (Read 84156 times)

Offline Bruce A. Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3852
  • Thanked: 283 times
    • The Mountain News
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #960 on: November 24, 2020, 08:21:45 PM »
Titanium is only one piece of the tie puzzle. Please remember to include:

1. stainless steel shards
2. rare earth minerals
3. Lycopodium spores
 

Offline Unsurelock

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 348
  • Thanked: 40 times
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #961 on: November 27, 2020, 08:21:38 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Titanium is only one piece of the tie puzzle. Please remember to include:

1. stainless steel shards
2. rare earth minerals
3. Lycopodium spores

Titanium, stainless steel, rare earth elements:  all available on that aircraft, which had been in its own manufacturing environment. Look into casual transfer in places like the avionics bay. Lycopodium is too goddamned common to even bring up again.
 

Offline Lynn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 323
  • Thanked: 60 times
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #962 on: November 30, 2020, 02:46:35 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Smile. I was thinking that exactly - time to call Geoffrey Gray, but I hear he's living in Mexico City.
So have you Bruce or anyone else here seen the Unsolved Mysteries show with Dennis Farina?  the one with Florence Shaffner shown and interviewed?  She does an updated composite sketch saying the originals are not accurate.  The one she does shows a much tougher looking DB Cooper.  And he acts a a bit tougher according to her than portrayed in other shows?  I wonder why that sketch is not used?  First time I believe I saw it?  And like others one of the investigators speculates that he may have had enough to survive if he only had a knife and a cigarette lighter to start a fire.  We know he had both.
The problem is, Flo is easily the most unreliable of the main witnesses. The eye colour changed from brown to possibly brown and that can only have come from her, as no one else claims to have seen his eyes. All accounts show Flo exhibiting signs of shock and panic in a way Tina didn't and Mitchell (not knowing there was a hijacker aboard) wouldn't have. Tina, the witness who saw him the most, said the first sketch was the closest while others pointed to the second sketch. I'd still put my money on Tina, she was a marvel throughout the entire incident and spent far more time with DBC than anyone else. Flo kept wanting to update sketches with vague instructions like "his eyes aren't mean enough", which indicates a strong subjective filter over her memory, not to mention that later descriptions are rarely as accurate as earlier ones. And that particular doc, IMHO, was skewed to try to get a result that matched a particular suspect - one many tend to  dismiss on number of grounds, beginning with DBC specifying his grudge was not with the airline.
 

Offline Lynn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 323
  • Thanked: 60 times
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #963 on: November 30, 2020, 02:51:01 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If you read that guys post on YouTube, its BS.  He said he was being sarcastic.  I told him "I wish you did not do that.  There are people that take this very seriously"
Which guy do you mean? Just curious, been away for awhile and just catching up.
 

Offline Shutter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8712
  • Thanked: 838 times
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #964 on: November 30, 2020, 05:05:15 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That does not answer the two questions I asked.  I do not care if he ever answers or if he takes two years to answer.  It will likely be faster than catching DB Cooper anyway.  Actually I was wondering if a spectrometer is the same device basically and also if they considered whether he worked in the medical field because Titanium, which they say they found on the tie, is used in prosthetics and in surgeries very often.  So he could also have been in a medical facility or a place that was doing research with Titanium.  They started using it on dentistry first, around 1950 but it was already being widely used in medical field when DB Jumped into history

I have a buddy who has been into electronics since we were kids. after telling him some of the elements found on the tie he told me to look in the medical field. several elements are radio active that are found in the medical field. it was ignored when I posted it it several years back.
 

Offline hannahlili

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #965 on: November 30, 2020, 10:29:11 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That does not answer the two questions I asked.  I do not care if he ever answers or if he takes two years to answer.  It will likely be faster than catching DB Cooper anyway.  Actually I was wondering if a spectrometer is the same device basically and also if they considered whether he worked in the medical field because Titanium, which they say they found on the tie, is used in prosthetics and in surgeries very often.  So he could also have been in a medical facility or a place that was doing research with Titanium.  They started using it on dentistry first, around 1950 but it was already being widely used in medical field when DB Jumped into history

I have a buddy who has been into electronics since we were kids. after telling him some of the elements found on the tie he told me to look in the medical field. several elements are radio active that are found in the medical field. it was ignored when I posted it it several years back.

i found this on google - "For example, technetium-99m is used to diagnose bone, heart or other organ problems. Radioactive iodine is used in imaging the thyroid gland. For therapy, radioactive materials are used to kill cancerous tissue, shrink a tumor or reduce pain. There are three main types of therapy in nuclear medicine."
cooperite since 2017

reddit - hhthepuppy instagram - @_hannahlili
 

Offline Chaucer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 215
  • Thanked: 28 times
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #966 on: November 30, 2020, 10:56:49 PM »
But we’re these used in 1971?
 

Offline hannahlili

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #967 on: November 30, 2020, 11:13:08 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But we’re these used in 1971?

i'm gonna try and ask my pop-pop bc he worked in the medical field in 1971
cooperite since 2017

reddit - hhthepuppy instagram - @_hannahlili
 

Offline Shutter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8712
  • Thanked: 838 times
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #968 on: November 30, 2020, 11:16:58 PM »
In 1940, the Berkeley group confirmed that the human thyroid gland took up radioiodine, and the next year, the Boston group (with their brand-new cyclotron) was able to create these new radioactive iodines and used a mixture of I-130 and I-131 to treat patients with hyperthyroidism.
 

Offline georger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2396
  • Thanked: 330 times
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #969 on: November 30, 2020, 11:33:00 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In 1940, the Berkeley group confirmed that the human thyroid gland took up radioiodine, and the next year, the Boston group (with their brand-new cyclotron) was able to create these new radioactive iodines and used a mixture of I-130 and I-131 to treat patients with hyperthyroidism.

The first description of thyroid disease was that of Graves disease by Caleb Parry in 1786, but the parthenogenesis of thyroid disease was not discovered until 1882-86.

Parry was a former chimney sweeper.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2020, 11:34:19 PM by georger »
 

Offline georger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2396
  • Thanked: 330 times
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #970 on: December 01, 2020, 12:09:48 AM »
Royal Globe Insurance was a British insurance titan with offices in 140+ countries including offices-buildings in NY City. A competitor of Lloyd's of London. You might make note of these facts for future use.

It was Royal Globe who shared in the expense of a Cooper search in-and-around Lake Merwin, came to a settlement with NWA airline, and shared in the settlement of the Ingram Cooper money find lawsuit.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login)

 
« Last Edit: December 01, 2020, 12:22:34 AM by georger »
 

Offline georger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2396
  • Thanked: 330 times
Re: DB Cooper: The Definitive Investigation
« Reply #971 on: December 01, 2020, 02:36:38 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Globe Indem. Co., 225 N.W.2d 831 (Minn. 1975)
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Filed: January 24th, 1975
Precedential Status: Precedential
Citations: 225 N.W.2d 831
Docket Number: 44904
Author: Lawrence R. Yetka

225 N.W.2d 831 (1975)
NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., Respondent,
v.
GLOBE INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellant.
No. 44904.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
January 24, 1975.
*832 Robins, Davis & Lyons, Harding A. Orren, John C. Hart, and M. Arnold Lyons, Minneapolis, for appellant.
Dorsey, Marquart, Windhorst, West & Halladay, William J. Hempel, and Lane Ayres, Minneapolis, for respondent.
Considered and decided by the court en banc.
YETKA, Justice.

Plaintiff brought an action in the District Court of Hennepin County, seeking recovery under an insurance policy issued it by defendant for losses sustained as the result of criminal acts of an unknown person perpetrated in the states of Washington and Oregon during an airline flight. From the judgment of the district court determining that plaintiff was entitled to recovery, defendant appeals. We affirm.
On September 29, 1965, defendant (insurer) and plaintiff (insured) executed an insurance agreement entitled "Blanket Crime Policy" and providing indemnity for covered losses not to exceed $250,000, with a $20,000 deductible clause. This policy was in effect at the time of the alleged loss.
On November 24, 1971, plaintiff, in the normal course of its air carrier business, was operating Flight 305, originating at Minneapolis, Minnesota, terminating at Seattle, Washington, with intermediate stops, including Portland, Oregon.
A male passenger, ticketed under the name of D. B. Cooper, boarded Flight 305 at Portland, Oregon, carrying a briefcase. Cooper took a seat in the tourist section at the rear of the passenger cabin. At or near the time of takeoff, at approximately 3 p. m., he proceeded to "hijack" Flight 305 by threatening to detonate what appeared to be a bomb concealed in his briefcase unless the following demands were met:
(1) $200,000 in cash, to be delivered to the plane at Seattle.
(2) Four parachutes, to be delivered with the money.
(3) No police interference.
(4) Refueling of the plane at Seattle.
The above demands were communicated to the pilot, Captain William A. Scott, who, in turn, radioed plaintiff's headquarters at Minneapolis-St. Paul, and advised the company officials of Cooper's demands. As a result of discussions with other crew members, Captain Scott decided to cooperate with the hijacker.
Plaintiff's Seattle ground personnel were notified of the hijacking and, further, received *833 home office authorization to procure the money and parachutes demanded by Cooper. In order to obtain the $200,000 in cash, arrangements were made with Seattle First National Bank, through its airport branch. The money was taken from the vault of the bank's downtown facility, and transported to the airport by bank personnel and the Seattle police. The release of cash funds after normal banking hours resulted in a debit to plaintiff's account which was repaid by a transfer credit on the next banking day.
Mr. William C. Grinnell, an officer of Seattle First National Bank, arrived at the Seattle airport at approximately 5 p. m. with the money. He first proceeded to the airport branch of the bank to pick up the branch manager, who then accompanied Mr. Grinnell to plaintiff's air freight terminal, a "premises" of plaintiff insured within the meaning of the subject insurance policy. An authorized official of plaintiff gave a receipt for the $200,000 while it was inside the terminal. Mr. Grinnell transferred possession of the $200,000 to Captain Elwood M. Lee, a Northwest official designated to transport the money to the hijacked airplane, which had landed at the Seattle airport and was parked at the end of a runway. Captain Lee proceeded to the airplane in an automobile and delivered the money to Stewardess Tina Larson, who carried the money into the airplane and surrendered direct physical custody of it to the hijacker. Upon receipt thereof, Cooper allowed the passengers to leave the airplane. Stewardess Larson also delivered the parachutes and other items to Cooper, who was still in the rear cabin of the aircraft. At that time, he allowed two other stewardesses to leave the airplane. Cooper, Stewardess Larson, and the cockpit crew of three men remained on board.
Pursuant to Cooper's instructions, the airplane took off for the stated destination of Mexico. However, intermediate fuel stops were negotiated with Cooper, the first of which was to be Reno, Nevada. The hijacker instructed the crew as to altitude, speed, and other details of the flight. After takeoff, Cooper ordered the remaining crew members to stay in the forward area of the aircraft and to keep the curtains to the tourist section closed. Shortly after takeoff, approximately 7:30 p. m., Cooper lowered the rear stairs of the airplane. Approximately halfway between Seattle and Portland, the instruments of the aircraft indicated that Cooper had jumped from these stairs. Upon landing in Reno, Nevada, the crew discovered that Cooper, the bomb, the money, and two parachutes were not on board. Neither Cooper nor the money has ever been located.

. . . .

Defendant contends the third requisite element for coverage under Insuring Agreement II, wrongful abstraction within the premises, has not been fulfilled. It argues that the wrongful abstraction took place when Cooper assumed control of the airplane. Thus, it concludes that, since the $200,000 was not at the covered premises at that moment, there was no loss of money due to wrongful abstraction. This argument, too, must fail in the cold light of the fact that the hijacking consisted of a continuing course of related events beginning with the takeover of the airplane and culminating with the hijacker's successful escape with the money which was, when taken, owned by plaintiff.
During cross-examination both of plaintiff's officers in charge of insurance testified that they believed Insuring Agreement II provided coverage because they considered the airplane was a "premises" under this provision. When confronted with the definition of "premises" set forth in the policy, both witnesses admitted they were mistaken (as "premises" clearly does not include airplanes). Defendant thus argues that the "misconstruction and misinterpretation" by plaintiff's executives should not be the basis of finding that coverage existed under the policy. However, the decision of the trial court was not reached on the erroneous interpretation that the airplane was the "premises."
In continuation of the above argument, defendant concludes that since the wrongful taking did not occur until the hijacker first exercised dominion over the money (i.e., *836 when the money was delivered to him aboard the airplane) the wrongful taking did not occur within "premises" as defined in the policy. The authority cited in support of this theory is Saks v. St. Paul Mercury Ind. Co., 308 Mich. 719, 724, 14 N.W.2d 547, 549 (1944), which held that "the crime of robbery is consummated only when the victim is deprived of dominion over his money or property."
However, the Saks case deals with robbery. Plaintiff has cited two recent extortion cases which are more closely analogous to the facts and insurance policy now at issue. The first of these cases is The University Nat. Bank of Fort Collins v. Insurance Co. of North America, No. C-3603 Civil, June 5, 1972 (unreported memorandum decision by Chief Judge Alfred A. Arraj, D. Colo.), which involved a successful extortion scheme directed against a bank president who was led to believe that his wife and daughter were in the custody of a kidnapper. Pursuant to the demands of the extortionist, the bank president took a large sum of money from the bank and delivered it to a designated "drop site" outside the bank premises from which the money was thereafter taken, presumably by the extortionist. The insurance policy in that case provided the following coverage:
"Loss of Property (occurring with or without negligence or violence) through robbery, burglary, common-law or statutory larceny, theft, false pretenses, holdup, misplacement, mysterious unexplainable disappearance, damage thereto or destruction thereof * * * while the Property is (or is supposed to be) lodged or deposited within any offices or premises located anywhere * * *." (Italics supplied.) Unreported memorandum decision, p. 2.
The insurer denied coverage, alleging the loss took place at the drop site and thus did not occur within the premises. The court rejected this argument by stating:
"* * * We find this argument unpersuasive, because under the agreed facts the thief had effectively asserted control over the funds as of the time that Farnham [the bank president] decided to comply with the instructions. * * *
"* * * Rather, it seems obvious to us that once having determined the threat was viable and compliance called for, Farnham became an unwilling agent of the thief in effectuating the actual removal. Consequently, we find that the loss occurred at the moment Farnham took possession of the money with the purpose of depriving the bank of it." (Italics supplied.) Unreported memorandum decision, p. 3.
The court distinguished Saks v. St. Paul Mercury Ind. Co., supra, and Cartier Drug Co. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 181 Wash. 146, 42 P.2d 37 (1935), relied upon by defendant in the case at bar, on the ground that both cases involved personal confrontations between the thief and victim. The court found insignificant that the threat was communicated from a distance, concluding that the loss had occurred within the "premises."
The second and more recent extortion case cited by plaintiff is Bank of Dade v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 483 F.2d 735 (5 Cir. 1973), which is virtually identical to the Fort Collins case. The Dade court approved of the rationale of the Fort Collins case in reaching a similar holding.
It is apparent that much of the argument in the instant litigation was addressed to the meaning of the allegedly "clear" language of the policy at issue.
When that policy is read as a whole, we find it to be in the nature of a blanket or all-risk policy, as opposed to one which covers only specified risks. As defendant's counsel admitted in oral argument, mere unforeseeability of the manner in which the loss was sustained will not per se constitute grounds for the insurer to deny coverage. In the present case, where *837 there is blanket coverage and the risk at issue was not excluded, the insurer must fulfill its contractual obligation to indemnify the insured.

Moreover, as noted above, both parties have strongly argued that there is no ambiguity present in the policy at issue. However, the very fact that their respective positions as to what this policy says are so contrary compels one to conclude that the agreement is indeed ambiguous. The rule is well settled that ambiguous language will be strictly construed in favor of the insured.[2] Taulelle v. Allstate Ins. Co., 296 Minn. 247, 207 N.W.2d 736 (1973); Orren v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 288 Minn. 225, 179 N.W.2d 166 (1970).

Affirmed. In behalf of NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., Respondent

Globe Ins. moved to try and recover its loss through new searches for the Cooper money in the Lake Merwin area ... stretching into 1976.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2020, 02:38:27 AM by georger »
 
The following users thanked this post: nickyb233