The passage in question is:
He opened the bag and inspected the contents which Mucklow said she observed was money packed in small packages with bank-type bands around each package.
1. These are not even Tina's own words! These are the words of a transcriber, an FBI agent conducting an interview, which then went to a typist! Bank-type bands are the words of a transcriber, but if they are Tina's words nowhere does it specify paper vs rubber bands. Any MORON can see that much!
Well, it isn't audio of her voice so you can always introduce a degree of doubt.. A trained FBI agent could have changed "rubber bands" to "bank-type bands", but that is a stretch. No, it is unlikely.
I asked over a dozen people what they believe "Bank-type bands" are in the context of handling bundled/packaged money.. All expressed what we know to be "currency straps",, none said rubber bands, NONE
2. From the above you cannot say 'Tina said this or Tina said that!' and be certain Tina said or meant: paper straps vs rubber bands.
I never said that she said it with certainty, YOU SAID WITH CERTAINTY that she meant rubber bands with no evidence, YOU said she was contacted about it but couldn't back it up. Do you see your own hypocrisy. You make a false claim about my statement when it actually applies to your own statement. 
3. ALL the evidence after days of interviews is that the bands placed on the bundles given to Cooper were rubber bands and not paper straps. Everyone but FLY of JACK believes that. All of this was posted at DZ years ago, and needs no elaboration or defense.
Yes, the bundles were in rubber bands. I never said they weren't. This is where you and Ckret screwed this up and I tried to tell you... To a bank "bundles" and "packages" have a very specific meaning. Most people do not realize this and misuse the terms. I read Ckret's posts and he used the term bundle instead of package. So, the bank would confirm rubber bands on the bundles, but Ckret had conflated the term with package.
To a bank in this context, "package" is a group of 100 bills and a "bundle" is a group of packages...
Get it, you guys fucked it up back on DZ and I was trying to correct the factual baseline.. you were discussing bundles when you should have been using the term package. YES, The bundles were in rubber bands, the packages (X100 bills) in Tina's interview were desribed as in bank-type bands. Ckret screwed up further and claimed that the bundles were altered while describing packages.. (conflation) the bundles were confirmed altered/randomized not the packages. Wrong terminology, wrong factual baseline and a complete clusterfuck.
Ckret
"Remember, the money was found bundled with the rubber bands around the bundles. they crumbled to the touch but where still in place. this tells us the money had to have been protected from the weather for the majority of the time it was missing, most likely in the bag."
WRONG - they weren't bundles, they were packages and part of a bundle... so I asked the question "Were the rubber bands found around each package (x100 bills) or found as a partial bundle?"
Ckret
"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. I can't imagine the bundles broke from the bag and entered the river at some other location and then multiple bundles land at the same beach several miles down stream. Once in the flow of the river there would be nothing to keep the bundles together to allow several of them to land at the same beach."
WRONG, there were multiple packages recovered in Bank terminology... not bundles
You guys conflated packages and bundles so any discourse with the bank is completely unreliable. The bank confirmed rubber bands on the bundles not the packages. You guys thought the packages were also bundles.
NOTE, the packages (x100 bill's) weren't altered/randomized, the bundles were. Bank bundles usually come in a stack of 5 packages, so they had to be randomized into different sizes. If the equivalent of 3 packages were found on TBAR that could have been one single randomized bundle.
4. FLY OF JACK is not breaking new ground but intentionally obfuscating-corrupting established facts in the case. How anyone could catagorise what FLY JACK is doing as groundbreaking or crucial totally misunderstands the issues at stake and I personally dont give a tinker's damn how they feel or what they think - they need to pull their head's out of their opinionated personal attack asses, for a change. Its as simple as that.
Just a lie and another personal attack.. (projection) it was you (and Ckret) that failed to understand the issue and conflated terms.. I am breaking new ground.. by clarifying the factual baseline...
5. In this matter here and now in this forum, it is fine to sit at a computer and type: Everyone's opinion matters and no opinion will be stifled, but as long as these "opinionists" continue to launch personal attacks calling people liars and mentally ill etc, the axiom that 'opinions matter' is just one more sorry empty piece of verbiage and meaningless! My opinion matters too - that is the issue at stake very clearly! Shutter needs to understand that also if he is going to have a worthwhile free-and-open forum, as opposed to some opinionist's skate boarding playground !
More personal attacks.. towards Shutter..
----------
The bank notified the FBI that the Ransom money was in "bank straps" though Ckret later claimed that was an error but provided no evidence. As early proven, his conflation and "evidence" on this specific matter is unreliable.
So, two scenarios.. Both don't make sense.
ransom money (currency strap) > Tina "bank-type bands" > TBAR (rubber band)
ransom money (no currency strap) > Tina "bank-type bands" > TBAR (rubber band)
Either,,
Tina,
is lying. (her Nov 30 story about handling the bundles sounds like a cover in case her prints are ever found on the money, maybe she didn’t handle the money on the plane but prior to Nov 30 interview)
is mistaken/misquoted. (very unlikely, but possible)
is truthful. (if so, then the money initially had "currency straps" and TBAR did not, were they removed? or ?)
There is "theoretical logic" for each..
The amazing coincidence… Tina smoked and joked with “Cooper”, she claimed to have asked for and handled the money, she took control of the situation, Tina lived in the same time/same area of Pa as hijacker Frederick William Hahneman, 9 miles from brother William H Hahneman’s bank AND moved 15 miles upstream from TBAR in the years prior the money discovery.
Then she underwent a personality change..
It is possible Tina was mistaken/misquoted but there is no evidence for it.
But if Tina was lying or truthful then,,
IMO,, either she is hiding something from the FBI or she has been pressured by the FBI to hide something. That may be the cause of her post hijacking behaviour...
I will keep this simple.
Any distinction between packages (x100 bills) vs bundles, never came up. What we were focused on was the bundles put in a bag and given Cooper. Bank and FBI officials recalled that the count per 'bundle' was irregular and that was done intentionally. The bank official who put each 'bundle' together testified he wrapped each 'bundle' with one or more rubber banks. The word 'packages' as something distinct from 'bundles', never came up.
My guess is the term 'small packages with bank-type bands around each package' attributed to Tina by the FBI agent, means the same as saying: 'in small bundles with bank-type bands around each bundle'. In any event, bank type bands' was not clarified as to paper vs rubber. Perhaps it was not clarified because nobody thought there was any deep mystery at stake to require technical clarification?
But Flyjack goes further saying: "IMO,, either she is hiding something from the FBI or she has been pressured by the FBI to hide something. That may be the cause of her post hijacking behaviour..."
I guess Flyjack is saying: 'Tina's failure, if it was her failure and not the transcriber's failure, in specifying paper vs rubber "bands" means: "IMO,, either she is hiding something from the FBI or she has been pressured by the FBI to hide something. That may be the cause of her post hijacking behaviour..." I wont touch that conjecture with a ten foot pole! It looks like another conspiracy theory to me that may be totally baseless.
Maybe, you should apologize...
and you conveniently left out my qualifier...
It is possible Tina was mistaken/misquoted but there is no evidence for it.
But if Tina was lying or truthful then,,
Flyjack your logic is flawed here. There is nothing to apologize for!
How many times do I have to say this - I'll say it again! I dont know what Tina meant by "small packages with bank-type bands around each package". I dont even know if these are Tina's words of some agent's words from his notes.
The points I keep trying to make to you are (1) nobody knows today what Tina meant! and (2) It is irrelevant if the corroborating testimony from others is true. Others being the guy who made up the bundles, or packages, or whatever you prefer to call them.
Unlike you, I am not willing or ready to try and surmise Tina Mucklow's "psychology" from one failure to distinguish paper vs rubber in one FBI interview transcription! That seems a very wild stretch on your part, to me. The sources of error could be almost anywhere! You keep attributing these words to Tina. These are the words of an FBI agent from his notes typed by some secretary. These words are not sufficient for a psychoanalysis of Tina Mucklow, or brand new hitherto unknown shocking facts in the Cooper case!
The bank guy wrapped the bundles given Cooper with rubber bands. The Ingrams encountered rubber bands on the Cooper money found at Tina Bar. Those are facts!
Its late. I have to get to other things ...
This is why I just can't discuss this case with you,, YOU STATED TINA MEANT RUBBER BANDS and now you don't know what she meant. You are inconsistent.. You screwed up packages vs bundles again..
1) Nobody knows what Tina meant,, you can say that about any witness interview evidence, you claimed she was contacted about it.. was that not true?
2) It wasn't corroborated. It isn't my terminology, it is the Banking industry terminology, you still don't get it. Bank was asked if the bundles were rubber banded, YES.. Ckret took that to mean packages.. but to the Bank packages are not bundles.. but to Ckret they are..
"The bank guy wrapped the bundles given Cooper with rubber bands. The Ingrams encountered rubber bands on the Cooper money found at Tina Bar. Those are facts!"
YES,, but what about the packages.... which Tina described with "bank-type bands"
Where were the rubber bands on the TBAR money, around each package or a fragment that may have comprised a bundle?
AND, you ignore the fact that I have stated that it is possible she was mistaken/misquoted...
But IF she wasn't mistaken/misquoted then we have a problem with Tina's cred wether the packages were "currency strapped" or not.. and that means she is hiding something related to the money.
Since you don't know if she was mistaken/misquoted how can you ignore the "theoretical logic", you can't.
Flyjack you are hard for me to follow. I think you have a lot of people confused and frustrated here, because you have not stated what your theory is, if you even have a theory? I guess you are trying to assemble facts about the money that somehow will allow you to evaluate Tina Mucklow's 'cred' (credibility) ?
I understand your claim that the banking industry uses the term "packages" vs 'bundles'. I am not in the banking industry so I dont know if your claim about that is even true, or why it matters. Ive told you everything I know to say on this matter.
I dont recall how the issue of rubber bands vs paper straps even came up when Ckret was involved. Maybe it was Tom Kaye who brought it up? I dont know. All I recall is there was a sudden doubt doubt about bands vs paper straps. Ckret contacted a number of people to resolve the question. I and others waited to hear the results of the inquiry. The verdict was rubber bands, not paper straps - applied to the "bundles" given Cooper and then in 1980 on the 'bundles' the Ingram's found. At that point the issue was resolved so far as I and others were concerned. Tom went ahead with his work and looked for any signs of rubber bands and other people proposed new tests and we began to make arrangements for those with several universities and private labs.
Again it would be helpful if you would simply state what your theory is, so people could have some idea where your thoughts are all leading, if you even have a theory at this stage?
Thanks and good luck, Flyjack.
You are confused because you assume I have a single theory that I am trying to push,, that is NOT the case, that is your bias. (Falsely) Ascribing motive gives you a point to attack and discredit. Understandable that when you guys covered this back on DZ you didn't know the bank terminology. It created an error, I am not being critical of that just trying to clarify it.. The "factual baseline" is never settled, I never assume it is correct especially in a 50 year old unsolved case.
This is like a maze, you run through it and establish the main corridor, then explore/map the branches to find the correct path to an exit.
Ckret said (paraphrase) there is a "factual baseline" that is universal and provable.. but there are also "theoretical facts" (ME) which come from history, experience and logic.. unprovable..
When you guys conflated the terms you established a false baseline, that was used to as a pretext to discard Tina's "bank-type band" statement. My goal is to first to establish and correct the "factual baseline" then apply "theoretical facts" in attempt to advance the case. IMO, Tina's take control, joke and smoke, ask for and handle the money behavior on the plane always strikes me as suspicious.. then her odd behavior post hijack.. can't prove it but can't ignore it.
Getting the terminology correct communicating with the Bank is absolutely crucial.. Ckret communicated with the Bank, they used the term Bundles to mean group of packages, Ckret used the term bundle to mean packages.. We can safely assume the Bank correctly stated the bundles were only "rubber banded", we can't assume via Ckret that they were referring to the packages. Therefore, Ckret's interpretation is entirely unreliable. A false factual baseline. Additionally, Ckret would have assumed the packages were randomized instead of the bundles.. inconsistent with TBAR..
If only 3 packages were at TBAR that may have been a single randomized bundle..
So, I am using the "factual baseline" and applying "theoretical facts/logic" to see where we go and test new ideas and ground. The destination is not predetermined. We may hit a dead end, we may explore the wrong line of logic but we might break new ground.
Researching Hahneman, two big coincidences (factual baseline), turns out Tina was from the same area in Pa as Hahneman and her school/residence was only 9 miles from the bank where the brother had a bank account.. Question, did they have contact in Pa? coincidence, Tina was 15 miles from TBAR when the money was likely deposited.. Question, did Tina discard the money at TBAR before 1980?
She was 15 miles from TBAR and 9 miles from Hahneman in PA.. that would be one hell of a coincidence.. could be a fluke, can't ignore it though.
Hahneman flew back and forth from his home in Pa to the Far East, Tina worked for NW Orient.. could they have had contact?
Tina's statement is clearly not "rubber bands", it is possible she was misunderstood/misquoted, anything is possible. But IF NOT, by logic, wether the ransom bundles had "currency straps" or not we have a problem with Tina.. that problem would be deception for herself or due to pressure from the FBI. Her behavior post NORJAK does support that possibility.
