Author Topic: Suspects And Confessions (Read 1315482 times)

Shutter · « **Reply #1950 on:** July 21, 2017, 08:21:18 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Missing evidence, wow!

Just when you think you have something figured out you get hit with things you didn't know, or things that were never released comes out throwing a wrench into everything..

georger · « **Reply #1951 on:** July 22, 2017, 02:24:33 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Missing evidence, wow!

Just when you think you have something figured out you get hit with things you didn't know, or things that were never released comes out throwing a wrench into everything..

It makes one wonder if anyone was keeping track of the case, compiling and reviewing evidence, ... but of course that would have taken manpower and time. Who were the real experts on the case keeping track who knew where the case was at any point in time and had a good handle on the "facts" that were emerging ... through all of those years! I know there were three agents who tried to keep track on their own time from 1971 to about 1980 (until each retired). One was Himmelsbach, the other two you never hear their names except from other agents. The other two never had a public persona and rarely gave interviews.

I mean just examine Colbert's summary files! A large number of the reports are about specific suspects being examined ... then there will be an unrelated evidentiary file thrown in. Who was keeping track of all of this stuff!?
Tom made the remark once that Larry's departure from the case was a major blow because we were losing someone who 'knew the system' - and knowing the system and where to look was a major asset we were losing.

Shutter · « **Reply #1952 on:** July 22, 2017, 05:25:12 PM »

Only the government would supply such useful information? a lot of these documents in the FOIA have nothing on them. you might as well cover the punch holes for the binder while your at it

Here is a photo they included of a suspect...I'm glad our tax paying money helps them in taking the time to make these documents? as if you could figure out who the guy is....might be the unknown comic, remember him on the gong show..

georger · « **Reply #1953 on:** July 22, 2017, 11:32:07 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Only the government would supply such useful information? a lot of these documents in the FOIA have nothing on them. you might as well cover the punch holes for the binder while your at it

Here is a photo they included of a suspect...I'm glad our tax paying money helps them in taking the time to make these documents? as if you could figure out who the guy is....might be the unknown comic, remember him on the gong show..

Meticulous photo analysis identifies that person as - Duane Weber!

Focus on the ears!

377 · « **Reply #1954 on:** July 24, 2017, 05:45:00 PM »

Colbert is tenacious. Tenacity is an essential quality when prosecuting FOIA requests. I ran a FOIA request through the Navy a while back. It was legit, was about late 1960s matters that had absolutely nothing to do with national security. The requests should have been allowed but they just wore me down with repeated denials. I appealed, but the appeal was denied. I finally threw in the towel. Colbert doesn't even have a towel. He just keeps charging. We may not agree on his suspect Rackstraw, but we all owe him a debt of gratitude for his relentless pursuit of relevant info possessed by the govt.

And gotta thank Gray too. He was admitted to the inner sanctum and shared a lot of his findings. He's moved on to thoroughbred racehorses and the good life through True Ink, but he used to hang out in the Cooper ghetto.

377

georger · « **Reply #1955 on:** July 24, 2017, 11:24:36 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Colbert is tenacious. Tenacity is an essential quality when prosecuting FOIA requests. I ran a FOIA request through the Navy a while back. It was legit, was about late 1960s matters that had absolutely nothing to do with national security. The requests should have been allowed but they just wore me down with repeated denials. I appealed, but the appeal was denied. I finally threw in the towel. Colbert doesn't even have a towel. He just keeps charging. We may not agree on his suspect Rackstraw, but we all owe him a debt of gratitude for his relentless pursuit of relevant info possessed by the govt.

And gotta thank Gray too. He was admitted to the inner sanctum and shared a lot of his findings. He's moved on to thoroughbred racehorses and the good life through True Ink, but he used to hang out in the Cooper ghetto.

377

Agree about Colbert. Indefatigable.

73blazer · « **Reply #1956 on:** August 31, 2017, 05:41:57 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I must of missed that?

Much of what Cooper demanded reflects tactical planning. His behavior dealing with people is quasi-tactical. He ID's Tacoma and McChord from the air. He gives a timeline for travel from MCChord to SEA with chutes. His refueling instructions concern balancing the plane ... for a smooth low velocity drop. His trim instructions are drop-tactical. His rigging is tactical. He jumps just south of a McChord-Moses Lake line. If he had flown that route a number of times then he knew the territory. He vanishes, nothing but placard found in that area.

I am still reading files - a long process.

But how does money get to Tina Bar!

I've said it before and I still think it's a good theory. Cooper put the money there, for Mucklow.

He wanted her to have it since the day of, contacted her and choose a memorable location where she could find it and it's the same timeframe she joined a convent. She may not know who he is, but she seems to know more than she says she does. Of course I have no evidence of this, so, it's all hot air and her privacy has been compromised time and again and I wish no further intrusions to her.... But short of the FBI's current methods (show us hard evidence and we'll maybe take a look otherwise GTFO), if you ever want to solve the mystery, you start with theories and follow them until their dead.

377 · « **Reply #1957 on:** August 31, 2017, 07:32:47 PM »

And how was Tina supposed to find the buried money? Doesnt this plant theory ignore the now well documented shard field that occupied a lot of area and volume of sand below the Brian Ingram bills? Nobody planted that shard field.

I used to think a plant was possible. After Shutter found that TV news footage showing clearly identifiable currency chards that were distributed throughout a large volume of subsurface sand, I gave up on the plant theories.

377

Bruce A. Smith · « **Reply #1958 on:** August 31, 2017, 10:15:50 PM »

Besides, Tina was just down the road a few miles recuperating in her health facility in Gresham, Oregon. DBC could have just dropped off a few bucks. I'm sure she would have enjoyed a visit.

Or then again, maybe not...

She's kind of touchy in that regards, in my experience...

Robert99 · « **Reply #1959 on:** September 01, 2017, 12:46:36 AM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

And how was Tina supposed to find the buried money? Doesnt this plant theory ignore the now well documented shard field that occupied a lot of area and volume of sand below the Brian Ingram bills? Nobody planted that shard field.

I used to think a plant was possible. After Shutter found that TV news footage showing clearly identifiable currency chards that were distributed throughout a large volume of subsurface sand, I gave up on the plant theories.

377

And the money and chards at Tina Bar were probably there by the mid-1970s which is also a long time before Tina joined the convent (apparently just to get away from Bruce).

73blazer · « **Reply #1960 on:** September 01, 2017, 11:04:27 AM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

And how was Tina supposed to find the buried money? Doesnt this plant theory ignore the now well documented shard field that occupied a lot of area and volume of sand below the Brian Ingram bills? Nobody planted that shard field.

I used to think a plant was possible. After Shutter found that TV news footage showing clearly identifiable currency chards that were distributed throughout a large volume of subsurface sand, I gave up on the plant theories.

377

The chard field only suggests the money was there at least 6monthss and probably a year or two, beyond that I would say you wouldn't have found much of anything at all. The rubber bands being intact suggests less than 1 year. At the risk of derailing the suspects thread I'll just say my theory is .....Yeah, a long shot possibly flawed...., I know. But hey, it's fun to speculate....

377 · « **Reply #1961 on:** September 01, 2017, 12:31:56 PM »

73 Blazer wrote: "But hey, it's fun to speculate.... "

It sure is fun. Some of the Cooperites think THEIR speculation produces facts. I know that mine merely produces guesses.

377

Robert99 · « **Reply #1962 on:** September 01, 2017, 01:02:31 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And how was Tina supposed to find the buried money? Doesnt this plant theory ignore the now well documented shard field that occupied a lot of area and volume of sand below the Brian Ingram bills? Nobody planted that shard field.

I used to think a plant was possible. After Shutter found that TV news footage showing clearly identifiable currency chards that were distributed throughout a large volume of subsurface sand, I gave up on the plant theories.

377

The chard field only suggests the money was there at least 6monthss and probably a year or two, beyond that I would say you wouldn't have found much of anything at all. The rubber bands being intact suggests less than 1 year. At the risk of derailing the suspects thread I'll just say my theory is .....Yeah, a long shot possibly flawed...., I know. But hey, it's fun to speculate....

Do you have a theory as to how and why the bundles of money were found under only a couple of INCHES of sand while some of the chards were found at depths of two or three FEET in the sand?

The TV segment that 377 refers to above shows a large chard being dug out of about a two foot pit and then handed to another FBI agent. The agent's name was Dorwin Schrauder (sp?) and he then walked about five or ten feet to the camera and showed the chard and stated that it looked like it had been buried there about "4, 5, or 6 years", or words to that effect.

For a chard to be buried that deep is going to require a lot of sand being moved and probably by water that was quite a bit higher than the elevation where the chard was found.

377 · « **Reply #1963 on:** September 01, 2017, 01:10:03 PM »

Shutter wrote: "Only the government would supply such useful information? a lot of these documents in the FOIA have nothing on them. you might as well cover the punch holes for the binder while your at it "

Agree 100% Shutter. Having once held high level DOD security clearances I had a first hand look at how ridiculous over classification and redaction can get. It's worse than you think. A LOT worse. Want to look important? Make all your work product classified, proprietary, need to know etc. Some things that were classified SECRET were widely available in the public domain. Sure, there were many justifiably classified documents but quality control was sorely lacking.

I challenged one engineer who was marking public stuff as classified and he responded that the fact that HE knew about certain public info should be protected as SECRET. Lord help us.

In my work as a criminal defense lawyer, prosecutors used the excuse of protecting the ID of confidential informants for redacting nearly everything of value in documents they were required to provide.

Wiki-Leaks was inevitable.

377

377 · « **Reply #1964 on:** September 01, 2017, 01:19:45 PM »

R99 wrote: "Do you have a theory as to how and why the bundles of money were found under only a couple of INCHES of sand while some of the chards were found at depths of two or three FEET in the sand?"

Nope. Could the stacks possibly have been more buoyant or draggy in a dredge discharge and somehow worked their way up higher than the semi homogenized sand-chard material? That's a weak explanation but all I can think of at the moment. Your thoughts?

I think the chances of the bill stacks being planted in the exact same location as a widely dispersed chard field is near zero. Nobody will convince me that the chard field was planted. Do you concur?

377

Author Topic: Suspects And Confessions (Read 1315482 times)

Shutter

Re: Suspects And Confessions

georger

Re: Suspects And Confessions

Shutter

Re: Suspects And Confessions

georger

Re: Suspects And Confessions

377

Re: Suspects And Confessions

georger

Re: Suspects And Confessions

73blazer

Re: Suspects And Confessions

377

Re: Suspects And Confessions

Bruce A. Smith

Re: Suspects And Confessions

Robert99

Re: Suspects And Confessions

73blazer

Re: Suspects And Confessions

377

Re: Suspects And Confessions

Robert99

Re: Suspects And Confessions

377

Re: Suspects And Confessions

377

Re: Suspects And Confessions