Poll

How did the money arrive on Tena Bar

River Flooding
1 (5%)
Floated to it's resting spot via Columbia river
2 (10%)
Planted
6 (30%)
Dredge
11 (55%)
tossed in the river in a paper bag
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 17

Voting closed: August 16, 2016, 09:05:28 AM

Author Topic: Tina Bar Money Find  (Read 324230 times)

Offline FLYJACK

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1322
  • Thanked: 77 times
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #4080 on: October 09, 2018, 05:43:17 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Has it occurred to anyone that the info regarding the packets being of different quantities is simply wrong? I have never understood the logic behind randomizing the packet, or bundle, sizes. On the other hand, making certain that the bills are not in sequential order does make sense.

Can anyone point me to the specific document(s) that state the packets were sized differently to appear hastily assembled?

This shouldn't have been a big deal...Guy demands 200K, bank grabs 200k (which everyone knows is packaged in groups of 100 bills), then sends them to Cooper. This is how the process should have gone. Why randomize anything?

The packets were not sized differently,, that is the issue..  it must have been the bundles.

The random sized bundles "to make appear hastily prepared" isn't in dispute it is mentioned by many and I think it is in the FBI files but don't ask me to go find it.. if I happen across it I'll post it.

Apparently the FBI asked the Bank to "make the money look hastily prepared" to make the hijacker think there wasn't time to mark the bills. Bank guy grabs 100 packets of $20x100's and rubber bands them together into random sized bundles.

If you fully understand the sequence of events for the money.. you can see the contradiction.

The bundles were randomly sized by the Bank employee right before sending the money to the plane.. everyone thought it was the "packets" because the term "bundle" is vague but since TBAR packets were not randomly sized and matched the original micro bill order it could only have been the bundles, groups of packages that were randomly sized.. that means the packets were rubber banded into random sized bundles.



« Last Edit: October 09, 2018, 05:55:44 PM by FLYJACK »
 

Offline EU

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • Thanked: 53 times
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #4081 on: October 09, 2018, 09:16:05 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Has it occurred to anyone that the info regarding the packets being of different quantities is simply wrong? I have never understood the logic behind randomizing the packet, or bundle, sizes. On the other hand, making certain that the bills are not in sequential order does make sense.

Can anyone point me to the specific document(s) that state the packets were sized differently to appear hastily assembled?

This shouldn't have been a big deal...Guy demands 200K, bank grabs 200k (which everyone knows is packaged in groups of 100 bills), then sends them to Cooper. This is how the process should have gone. Why randomize anything?

The packets were not sized differently,, that is the issue..  it must have been the bundles.

The random sized bundles "to make appear hastily prepared" isn't in dispute it is mentioned by many and I think it is in the FBI files but don't ask me to go find it.. if I happen across it I'll post it.

Apparently the FBI asked the Bank to "make the money look hastily prepared" to make the hijacker think there wasn't time to mark the bills. Bank guy grabs 100 packets of $20x100's and rubber bands them together into random sized bundles.

If you fully understand the sequence of events for the money.. you can see the contradiction.

The bundles were randomly sized by the Bank employee right before sending the money to the plane.. everyone thought it was the "packets" because the term "bundle" is vague but since TBAR packets were not randomly sized and matched the original micro bill order it could only have been the bundles, groups of packages that were randomly sized.. that means the packets were rubber banded into random sized bundles.

In my mind none of this makes sense. Again, WTF does "hastily assembling" the money accomplish?
 

Offline FLYJACK

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1322
  • Thanked: 77 times
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #4082 on: October 09, 2018, 10:43:56 PM »
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
Has it occurred to anyone that the info regarding the packets being of different quantities is simply wrong? I have never understood the logic behind randomizing the packet, or bundle, sizes. On the other hand, making certain that the bills are not in sequential order does make sense.

Can anyone point me to the specific document(s) that state the packets were sized differently to appear hastily assembled?

This shouldn't have been a big deal...Guy demands 200K, bank grabs 200k (which everyone knows is packaged in groups of 100 bills), then sends them to Cooper. This is how the process should have gone. Why randomize anything?

The packets were not sized differently,, that is the issue..  it must have been the bundles.

The random sized bundles "to make appear hastily prepared" isn't in dispute it is mentioned by many and I think it is in the FBI files but don't ask me to go find it.. if I happen across it I'll post it.

Apparently the FBI asked the Bank to "make the money look hastily prepared" to make the hijacker think there wasn't time to mark the bills. Bank guy grabs 100 packets of $20x100's and rubber bands them together into random sized bundles.

If you fully understand the sequence of events for the money.. you can see the contradiction.

The bundles were randomly sized by the Bank employee right before sending the money to the plane.. everyone thought it was the "packets" because the term "bundle" is vague but since TBAR packets were not randomly sized and matched the original micro bill order it could only have been the bundles, groups of packages that were randomly sized.. that means the packets were rubber banded into random sized bundles.

In my mind none of this makes sense. Again, WTF does "hastily assembling" the money accomplish?

They figured that if the money looked too neat and uniform that Cooper may think it was marked... probably makes no difference and no way to know.

Here is a pic of the McCoy ransom spread out, no idea what they did..
 

Offline georger

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
  • Thanked: 21 times
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #4083 on: October 09, 2018, 11:19:42 PM »
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
Has it occurred to anyone that the info regarding the packets being of different quantities is simply wrong? I have never understood the logic behind randomizing the packet, or bundle, sizes. On the other hand, making certain that the bills are not in sequential order does make sense.

Can anyone point me to the specific document(s) that state the packets were sized differently to appear hastily assembled?

This shouldn't have been a big deal...Guy demands 200K, bank grabs 200k (which everyone knows is packaged in groups of 100 bills), then sends them to Cooper. This is how the process should have gone. Why randomize anything?

The packets were not sized differently,, that is the issue..  it must have been the bundles.

The random sized bundles "to make appear hastily prepared" isn't in dispute it is mentioned by many and I think it is in the FBI files but don't ask me to go find it.. if I happen across it I'll post it.

Apparently the FBI asked the Bank to "make the money look hastily prepared" to make the hijacker think there wasn't time to mark the bills. Bank guy grabs 100 packets of $20x100's and rubber bands them together into random sized bundles.

If you fully understand the sequence of events for the money.. you can see the contradiction.

The bundles were randomly sized by the Bank employee right before sending the money to the plane.. everyone thought it was the "packets" because the term "bundle" is vague but since TBAR packets were not randomly sized and matched the original micro bill order it could only have been the bundles, groups of packages that were randomly sized.. that means the packets were rubber banded into random sized bundles.

In my mind none of this makes sense. Again, WTF does "hastily assembling" the money accomplish?

It accomplishes what someone wanted done - thats what it accomplishes. Its one of those pesky historical facts of the case - picky and choosing not allowed. The operation followed a lot of protocols with a host of decision makers. Good decisions, bad decisions, everything in between. Like no straps on the emergency fund bills held at the bank (a banking security decision). No straps on money prepared for Cooper (both an FBI and SF bank decision).

You know some time you and Flyjax should really talk to the people who actually conducted the case! That is called "evidence".   
 

Offline EU

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • Thanked: 53 times
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #4084 on: October 10, 2018, 12:07:55 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

It accomplishes what someone wanted done - thats what it accomplishes. Its one of those pesky historical facts of the case - picky and choosing not allowed. The operation followed a lot of protocols with a host of decision makers. Good decisions, bad decisions, everything in between. Like no straps on the emergency fund bills held at the bank (a banking security decision). No straps on money prepared for Cooper (both an FBI and SF bank decision).

You know some time you and Flyjax should really talk to the people who actually conducted the case! That is called "evidence".   

Prudence dictates caution. Critical thought demands thinking critically.

It is not as simple as taking what is stated as gospel. You know as well as I do that there are several examples in the NORJAK files of statements that are just flat out wrong.

The manner in which I approach things is to defer to what is being stated. However, occasionally, when something just doesn't make sense I'll question the veracity of what I've read. The statements with respect to the ransom are an example. It makes no sense to randomize packs of 100 bills. Think about it, does anyone think that Cooper really noticed, or cared, if some packets had 86 bills and some had 114 bills? Really?

Frankly, randomizing bundles as FLYJACK has suggested appears more plausible. However, the witnesses attest to three independent packets...one has to defer to their testimony by default. Moreover, so one brick has one packet and another brick has three packets...this is supposed to avoid what problem or inference? It's plain ignorant.

That said, someone may well have dictated such actions because they overthought the situation. Nonetheless, my exercising due diligence should not be interpreted as ignoring "evidence" or imply ignorance.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2018, 12:09:50 AM by EU »
 

Offline georger

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
  • Thanked: 21 times
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #4085 on: October 10, 2018, 02:36:52 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

It accomplishes what someone wanted done - thats what it accomplishes. Its one of those pesky historical facts of the case - picky and choosing not allowed. The operation followed a lot of protocols with a host of decision makers. Good decisions, bad decisions, everything in between. Like no straps on the emergency fund bills held at the bank (a banking security decision). No straps on money prepared for Cooper (both an FBI and SF bank decision).

You know some time you and Flyjax should really talk to the people who actually conducted the case! That is called "evidence".   

Prudence dictates caution. Critical thought demands thinking critically.

It is not as simple as taking what is stated as gospel. You know as well as I do that there are several examples in the NORJAK files of statements that are just flat out wrong.

The manner in which I approach things is to defer to what is being stated. However, occasionally, when something just doesn't make sense I'll question the veracity of what I've read. The statements with respect to the ransom are an example. It makes no sense to randomize packs of 100 bills. Think about it, does anyone think that Cooper really noticed, or cared, if some packets had 86 bills and some had 114 bills? Really?

Frankly, randomizing bundles as FLYJACK has suggested appears more plausible. However, the witnesses attest to three independent packets...one has to defer to their testimony by default. Moreover, so one brick has one packet and another brick has three packets...this is supposed to avoid what problem or inference? It's plain ignorant.

That said, someone may well have dictated such actions because they overthought the situation. Nonetheless, my exercising due diligence should not be interpreted as ignoring "evidence" or imply ignorance.

three independent packets...one has to defer to their testimony by default. Moreover, so one brick has one packet and another brick has three packets...this is supposed to avoid what problem or inference? It's plain ign...


I have no idea what packets and bricks is. Or goblins or packages or unicorns or parcels or any of the other terms different people have thrown around with regard to the Cooper money/Ingram find. ........ but if these terms are all referring to the saame thing then I guess I can pick that up from context as different speakers use the terms and occasionally point to the thing they are referring to. If someone says one term implies straps used vs bands, that complicates things.

I know what Baker said and meant. I know what the security guy said and meant. I know what Kaye says and means. I know what Ckret said and meant. I think I know what Tina said and meant. I think I know what the Ingrams said and meant. I can see the bills sitting on the table in the groups Harold and Pat brought in. Then four more bills from Crystal. 

If it had been me I would have stuffed 10,000 twenties in a bag and given it to Cooper and said "here bud, sort it out in your free time!"  No straps, no bands, no bundles, nuthin but bills.  ;)

 :rofl:
 

Offline EU

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • Thanked: 53 times
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #4086 on: October 10, 2018, 10:27:03 AM »
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

It accomplishes what someone wanted done - thats what it accomplishes. Its one of those pesky historical facts of the case - picky and choosing not allowed. The operation followed a lot of protocols with a host of decision makers. Good decisions, bad decisions, everything in between. Like no straps on the emergency fund bills held at the bank (a banking security decision). No straps on money prepared for Cooper (both an FBI and SF bank decision).

You know some time you and Flyjax should really talk to the people who actually conducted the case! That is called "evidence".   

Prudence dictates caution. Critical thought demands thinking critically.

It is not as simple as taking what is stated as gospel. You know as well as I do that there are several examples in the NORJAK files of statements that are just flat out wrong.

The manner in which I approach things is to defer to what is being stated. However, occasionally, when something just doesn't make sense I'll question the veracity of what I've read. The statements with respect to the ransom are an example. It makes no sense to randomize packs of 100 bills. Think about it, does anyone think that Cooper really noticed, or cared, if some packets had 86 bills and some had 114 bills? Really?

Frankly, randomizing bundles as FLYJACK has suggested appears more plausible. However, the witnesses attest to three independent packets...one has to defer to their testimony by default. Moreover, so one brick has one packet and another brick has three packets...this is supposed to avoid what problem or inference? It's plain ignorant.

That said, someone may well have dictated such actions because they overthought the situation. Nonetheless, my exercising due diligence should not be interpreted as ignoring "evidence" or imply ignorance.

three independent packets...one has to defer to their testimony by default. Moreover, so one brick has one packet and another brick has three packets...this is supposed to avoid what problem or inference? It's plain ign...


I have no idea what packets and bricks is. Or goblins or packages or unicorns or parcels or any of the other terms different people have thrown around with regard to the Cooper money/Ingram find. ........ but if these terms are all referring to the saame thing then I guess I can pick that up from context as different speakers use the terms and occasionally point to the thing they are referring to. If someone says one term implies straps used vs bands, that complicates things.

I know what Baker said and meant. I know what the security guy said and meant. I know what Kaye says and means. I know what Ckret said and meant. I think I know what Tina said and meant. I think I know what the Ingrams said and meant. I can see the bills sitting on the table in the groups Harold and Pat brought in. Then four more bills from Crystal. 

If it had been me I would have stuffed 10,000 twenties in a bag and given it to Cooper and said "here bud, sort it out in your free time!"  No straps, no bands, no bundles, nuthin but bills.  ;)

 :rofl:

To be clear, your understanding is that Cooper received individual packets of cash with an average number of 100 bills each? Your understanding is that each packet more or less had 100 bills in it due to the randomizing of packet sizes by bank employees?
 

Offline FLYJACK

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1322
  • Thanked: 77 times
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #4087 on: October 10, 2018, 10:34:24 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

It accomplishes what someone wanted done - thats what it accomplishes. Its one of those pesky historical facts of the case - picky and choosing not allowed. The operation followed a lot of protocols with a host of decision makers. Good decisions, bad decisions, everything in between. Like no straps on the emergency fund bills held at the bank (a banking security decision). No straps on money prepared for Cooper (both an FBI and SF bank decision).

You know some time you and Flyjax should really talk to the people who actually conducted the case! That is called "evidence".   

Prudence dictates caution. Critical thought demands thinking critically.

It is not as simple as taking what is stated as gospel. You know as well as I do that there are several examples in the NORJAK files of statements that are just flat out wrong.

The manner in which I approach things is to defer to what is being stated. However, occasionally, when something just doesn't make sense I'll question the veracity of what I've read. The statements with respect to the ransom are an example. It makes no sense to randomize packs of 100 bills. Think about it, does anyone think that Cooper really noticed, or cared, if some packets had 86 bills and some had 114 bills? Really?

Frankly, randomizing bundles as FLYJACK has suggested appears more plausible. However, the witnesses attest to three independent packets...one has to defer to their testimony by default. Moreover, so one brick has one packet and another brick has three packets...this is supposed to avoid what problem or inference? It's plain ignorant.

That said, someone may well have dictated such actions because they overthought the situation. Nonetheless, my exercising due diligence should not be interpreted as ignoring "evidence" or imply ignorance.

EU,

The Ingrams testimony is 100% consistent. There is no conflict with any evidence.

The ONLY conflict is Ckret's understanding. It is a fact that Ckret was wrong,

Ckret...
"The money was packaged in varying amounts, so one bundle would have $500.00 another $1,000.00, there was no uniformity to it. I have been searching for the evidence report from the lab but have not found it yet, lots of files to go through. When I get it you'll be the second to know."

Ckret ASSUMED the random sized "bundles" were the "packets" of 100.

Contrary to Georger's persistent denial and mockery Banks use the term packet/packages for a group of 100 bills.

We have a clear conflict with the TBAR money, it was NOT random sized and was in the same order as the original micro.

If the Bank employee did randomly size "bundles" it could only have been the groups of packets not individual packets. That fits all the evidence, the only conflict is the assumptions by Ckret and Georger.


« Last Edit: October 10, 2018, 10:41:24 AM by FLYJACK »
 

Offline FLYJACK

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1322
  • Thanked: 77 times
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #4088 on: October 10, 2018, 10:51:20 AM »
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
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Has it occurred to anyone that the info regarding the packets being of different quantities is simply wrong? I have never understood the logic behind randomizing the packet, or bundle, sizes. On the other hand, making certain that the bills are not in sequential order does make sense.

Can anyone point me to the specific document(s) that state the packets were sized differently to appear hastily assembled?

This shouldn't have been a big deal...Guy demands 200K, bank grabs 200k (which everyone knows is packaged in groups of 100 bills), then sends them to Cooper. This is how the process should have gone. Why randomize anything?

The packets were not sized differently,, that is the issue..  it must have been the bundles.

The random sized bundles "to make appear hastily prepared" isn't in dispute it is mentioned by many and I think it is in the FBI files but don't ask me to go find it.. if I happen across it I'll post it.

Apparently the FBI asked the Bank to "make the money look hastily prepared" to make the hijacker think there wasn't time to mark the bills. Bank guy grabs 100 packets of $20x100's and rubber bands them together into random sized bundles.

If you fully understand the sequence of events for the money.. you can see the contradiction.

The bundles were randomly sized by the Bank employee right before sending the money to the plane.. everyone thought it was the "packets" because the term "bundle" is vague but since TBAR packets were not randomly sized and matched the original micro bill order it could only have been the bundles, groups of packages that were randomly sized.. that means the packets were rubber banded into random sized bundles.

In my mind none of this makes sense. Again, WTF does "hastily assembling" the money accomplish?

You know some time you and Flyjax should really talk to the people who actually conducted the case! That is called "evidence".   

So how has that been working for you...

You have no suspect, no theory, you take no risk and sit back and attack the credibility of people with 100% false accusations who challenge assumptions and bring forward ideas.

There are really very few facts in this case, lots of assumptions, opinions and hearsay. Those assumptions  need to be challenged.


The people who are "experts" have failed to solve it, so we have to defer to their knowledge. I don't think so.


.
 

Offline Shutter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6152
  • Thanked: 467 times
    • Project 305
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #4089 on: October 10, 2018, 01:29:40 PM »
Topic locked until further notice !
 

Offline Shutter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6152
  • Thanked: 467 times
    • Project 305
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #4090 on: October 10, 2018, 05:49:08 PM »
Lets take a look at this problem....

Carr original thought paper bands were on the money after talking to the bank manager. he told Carr that the bundles were packaged with paper straps..."you were strapping the $20.00 bundles with $2,000 paper straps?" He said "yes" this would have been Burns or Grinell he spoke with...

Carr started thinking someone must of changed the bills from paper bands to rubber bands...

Carr later found out the security manager only carried the money to the airport..or was with the money while Burns carried the money and checked to verify money was in the bag..

Carr re-interviewed the bank security manger and found the bills were prepackaged and not from there circulated cash...the manager also noted that no paper bands were on the bills since they didn't want Cooper or anyone else that would of received the cash to know where it came from...

It appears that nobody has claimed the money was put together in the way Carr speaks, except Carr..the Ingram's don't mention any bands other than the one's on each bundle and the bank makes no reference to this configuration either other than packing the money in groups of 100. you would tend to believe the Ingrams would say whether or not rubber bands were holding them all together? They stated “the rubber bands were still intact” so why not the one's holding them all together?

There doesn't seem to be anything factual other than the term used by the banks..is it possible they did this, absolutely, but nothing is mentioned by anyone except agent Carr about the money being in different amounts..

Safecracker asked Carr about putting several packets into one bundle in 2007...
I do have one final question... am I safe to assume that there was no bundle of 300 ($6,000)? When I spoke of bricks earlier, I meant taking several bundles and rubber banding them all together. If so, then obviously we have more than one bundle found together.

Carr replies
There were multiple bundles recovered under 3 to 6 inches of sand, just at the waters edge (according to the Ingrams) no bricks of money. I found reference to four bundles, of which the rubber bands were still around them, there were 290 20's. end quote...

Perhaps someone could try and locate Burns and Grinell and see what they remember...I seriously doubt Tina will talk to anyone about the case...
 

Offline Shutter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6152
  • Thanked: 467 times
    • Project 305
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #4091 on: October 11, 2018, 07:40:11 AM »
when I have time I will look at the site while at work...most of the time I'm out in the field so when I see the bickering getting worse I shut the thread down for a cooling off period..what good is it open with name calling and accusations being tossed around? zero...

Shutter
 
 

Offline georger

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
  • Thanked: 21 times
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #4092 on: October 11, 2018, 04:03:51 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Lets take a look at this problem....

Carr original thought paper bands were on the money after talking to the bank manager. he told Carr that the bundles were packaged with paper straps..."you were strapping the $20.00 bundles with $2,000 paper straps?" He said "yes" this would have been Burns or Grinell he spoke with...

Carr started thinking someone must of changed the bills from paper bands to rubber bands...

Carr later found out the security manager only carried the money to the airport..or was with the money while Burns carried the money and checked to verify money was in the bag..

Carr re-interviewed the bank security manger and found the bills were prepackaged and not from there circulated cash...the manager also noted that no paper bands were on the bills since they didn't want Cooper or anyone else that would of received the cash to know where it came from...

It appears that nobody has claimed the money was put together in the way Carr speaks, except Carr..the Ingram's don't mention any bands other than the one's on each bundle and the bank makes no reference to this configuration either other than packing the money in groups of 100. you would tend to believe the Ingrams would say whether or not rubber bands were holding them all together? They stated “the rubber bands were still intact” so why not the one's holding them all together?

There doesn't seem to be anything factual other than the term used by the banks..is it possible they did this, absolutely, but nothing is mentioned by anyone except agent Carr about the money being in different amounts..

Safecracker asked Carr about putting several packets into one bundle in 2007...
I do have one final question... am I safe to assume that there was no bundle of 300 ($6,000)? When I spoke of bricks earlier, I meant taking several bundles and rubber banding them all together. If so, then obviously we have more than one bundle found together.

Carr replies
There were multiple bundles recovered under 3 to 6 inches of sand, just at the waters edge (according to the Ingrams) no bricks of money. I found reference to four bundles, of which the rubber bands were still around them, there were 290 20's. end quote...

Perhaps someone could try and locate Burns and Grinell and see what they remember...I seriously doubt Tina will talk to anyone about the case...

Oh! So you opened it again. Good decision!

I can agree with most of yours above. But the obvious finally hit me last night after I came here and saw the thread closed. BTW I wasnt even here yesterday so wasnt involved in anything going on here, just for the record!

We are suffering because of a lack of a timeline and  who did what interviewing of whom on what date, and the results. I know for a fact Ckret's last interview of the bank employee who actually assembled the bundles, occurred AFTER (LONG AFTER!) Ckret was gone from DZ! Its no wonder some people accuse me of lying and making stuff up
because it suddenly became obvious to me last night there is 'nothing in the record' about the things I have been talking about! Ckret was long gone from DZ. So, lets try and construct this!

Ckret was at DZ from 2007/08 until .... ? March of 2009?
Date Ckret interviewed Burns and Grinnell ?
Dates Tom was working on three bills at his lab AZ - 2008-09 ?
Date Tom went to Seattle for first time - 2010 ?
Date Tom went to Seattle second time - 2011. That is definite.
Date Georger proposed and set people up the second time to do lab work on the money and evidence folder contents? 2010-11. That may have carried into 2012 ?
Date Ckret found and interviewed the guy at SeaFirst who actually assembled the "bundles" for delivery to Cooper ? Ckret was long gone from DZ and Georger barely posted about this at DZ so it never got publicized!. It may have been as late as 2012. But it might also have been clear back in 2010.

Shutter's points about the money and bank etc in his last post, are true - so far as I know. This was a reserve special emergency find ta the bank.All paper straps had been removed as a security policy. The assembly of "bundles" by a bank employee with one or more rubber bands on each bundle is true as per Ckret's last interview on this topic in 2010/2011 ?  (Tom Kaye, Ckret, and Brian Ingram know the date of this last interview because I know they were informed or involved. I have said before I cannot recover that date because all of the emails are on an old computer in Netscape format that I havent used in years ...).

There were no packets of bundles, or bundles of packets, packages of packets of bundles, or any such complex litany of words for the money assembled and sent on to Cooper. There were only "bundles" which is the term the bank guy and Ckret used. The bills from which these bundles were assembled "by hand" had already been randomised before the Cooper event even happened. No further changes in the order of the bills in that fund happened in the assembly of the bundles for Cooper. No paper straps were involved with that money at all.

What I have said agrees with 99% of what Tom and Shutter and Ckret all agree were the facts regarding the money. Ckret's last interview with the bank employee is not cited on Tom's webpage - why would it be? Tom wasn;t involved. But I was involved, Brian Ingram was involved, Ckret was involved, people at U-Wash were involved and waiting,   ...

This is the best I can do.  Good luck.     

     
 

 
 
The following users thanked this post: EU

Offline Shutter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6152
  • Thanked: 467 times
    • Project 305
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #4093 on: October 11, 2018, 04:18:41 PM »
Carr spoke with one of the two on the phone..I would have to look and see which is which..I believe Grinell was the security manager...this was during a discussion on the DZ back in 2007...it appears he spoke with Grinell twice..he was confused when he was told they used paper bands...he started thinking that someone had to of removed the paper bands and replaced them with rubber bands...once the second interview was done, Carr realized he only transported the money to the airport and went by the company policy on bundling money...the second interview explained that the money didn't come from circulation and was already to go with each "packet" in one hundred twenties...and said rubber bands were used so who ever got the money wouldn't know where it came from...obviously, the bank wanted no part of anyone knowing they were involved...next thing you would have bank robbers coming in for all the extra cash lying around...

The main point of this is here is no documentation about putting multiple "packets" together..if they were already in 100's who took the time to scramble the "packets" $500 wouldn't wrap with a rubber band very good? who took the time to sort out the list to where they knew the bundles were not changed when they checked the T-Bar bills?
 

Offline Shutter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6152
  • Thanked: 467 times
    • Project 305
Re: Tina Bar Money Find
« Reply #4094 on: October 11, 2018, 04:33:36 PM »
Carr in 2007

As for the "shocking " information about the money, I spoke with the individual who carried the money from the bank to the airport the night of the hijacking. When I was talking with him he recounted that they were in the vault running the money through the counting machine and strapping the bundles. I didn't catch it at, first but later in our conversation I caught on to the strapping part and said, "wait a minute." "you were strapping the $20.00 bundles with $2,000 paper straps?" He said "yes" and I almost fell out of my chair. 

So I then started putting calls into Brian Ingram. He called me back and we spoke about the discovery of the money. What I found was that the money was not recovered near the water but about 20 to 40 feet from the edge. He said he found it in an area that had recently been covered in water. So I thought, "well not really much of a difference." I then asked for the details about the condition of the money when he found it and he confirmed, after speaking with his parents, that the money absolutely had rubber bands around the bundles. This makes sense because there is no way paper straps would have kept the money together over the years. 

So this all means, on face value, that if the money given to Cooper by the bank had paper straps and the found money had rubber bands....... well you could see how I was a bit perplexed. This would mean that either Cooper lived and repackaged the money or someone found the money and repackaged it. Which would be "par for the course" with regard to this case. 

I then went back and re-interviewed the bank security manager and found out that he wasn't directly involved in packaging the money, only carrying it to the airport. He was relaying what their normal procedure was for processing and packaging money for shipment. 

The funds that were given to Cooper were not pulled from their circulating cash but from a security fund that was prepackaged for these types of incidents. This money was not strapped because the bank did not want any subjects to know where it came from so it was packaged with rubber bands. My head was spinning for a few days until I could get it straight. 
 
The following users thanked this post: EU