DB Cooper

[c99acer 8]

4 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Not likely, the original money given to Cooper was rubber banded into bundles of packets and the FBI said it was in the same order and packaging.. 

From Tina's 302...

Small packages with bank-type bands around each package...Doesn't seem like she saw any rubber bands!

[FLYJACK 767]

3 minutes ago, c99acer said:

From Tina's 302...

Small packages with bank-type bands around each package...Doesn't seem like she saw any rubber bands!

Does not mean there weren't any.

Bundles were held together with rubber bands, that is the only method. The money was given to Cooper in bundles.

We don't know what was handed to Tina.

Her 302 only says "package"...

Edited May 30 by FLYJACK

[c99acer 8]

5 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Does not mean there weren't any.

I think it does, She defines the money as small packages. She defines the packages as banded with bank type bands. She NEVER states that there were bundles or groups or clumps or any other name of banding multiple small packages. She could see individual packages with each of those being banded with bank type bands. I believe Tina tells us what was in the bag better than any other witnesses involved in preparing the money. 

[FLYJACK 767]

15 minutes ago, c99acer said:

I think it does, She defines the money as small packages. She defines the packages as banded with bank type bands. She NEVER states that there were bundles or groups or clumps or any other name of banding multiple small packages. She could see individual packages with each of those being banded with bank type bands. I believe Tina tells us what was in the bag better than any other witnesses involved in preparing the money. 

Nope. There are maybe four FBI sources that I can recall saying the money was given to Cooper in bundles...

302's are not always precise and complete.. They are interview notes that are later summarized. 302's are not facts or conclusions they are investigative notes.

Tina's 302 does not indicate the money was not in bundles of packets.

Edited May 30 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 767]

7:19 in video

Himmelsbach.. Money was given to Cooper strapped in 100's and bundled with rubber bands..

A strap is bank lingo for 100 bills paper bank banded..

"There were ten thousand twenty dollar bills assembled in straps of a hundred bills to a strap and individual straps held together with rubber bands."

 

 

[georger 262]

2 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

 

7:19 in video

Himmelsbach.. Money was given to Cooper strapped in 100's and bundled with rubber bands..

A strap is bank lingo for 100 bills paper bank banded..

"There were ten thousand twenty dollar bills assembled in straps of a hundred bills to a strap and individual straps held together with rubber bands."

 

I could almost buy that. My sarcasm is very deep. Some will say intact bundles favors an early arrival. Burial slows deterioration... Tom has reasons for saying the money arrived very early, pre 1974 ? The bands may be telling another story. Whatever happened, several different independent facts about the found money must each be explained and be in agreement on the day Brian lifted the pieces of money from the sand. Toms diatoms must be explained and dated.

It is difficult to believe Cooper and the money landed at different times in different places, so some story transports the money perhaps in the bag to where the money becomes part of the Columbia alluvial system. If we could date and type Tom's diatoms according to region or area, it sure would help!     Fact is I have talked to a number of diatom experts over the years - most say the diatoms cannot be dated - then I read in a press release for some show that diatoms can be dated. !  Maybe somebody has already dated Tom's diatoms and the announcement hasnt been made? The Cooper case is never short on challenges!  

 

Edited May 30 by georger

[Nicholas Broughton 69]

13 hours ago, olemisscub said:

I agree that he wouldn't just make that up, but that doesn't necessarily make it true though. We've got Himmy and other agents throughout this case reporting things that they no doubt believed to be true but demonstrably were not true. 

I can see this going both ways, but I think at the moment I'd lean toward them not randomizing bundle sizes. Allow me the honest opportunity to persuade you. Here's my thinking. 

1. Baker was an ASAC in Portland. As we know, NORJAK wasn't a Portland case. Himmy fancied himself a NORJAK agent, but we know he wasn't. What Baker knew about NORJAK would have almost certainly come from what Himmy told him. Being on good terms and speaking frequently with guys like Carr, Detlor, and Fuhriman, I've learned a great deal about the way the FBI offices operate. The agents who are supervisors, ASAC's, and SAC's, are administrators. They apparently get on that track very early in their careers. I remember asking Larry if he ever tried to get an ASAC gig and he explained that he wasn't trained as an administrator so he never would have been an ASAC. It's why someone like Himmy spent 30 years with the Bureau and retired as an SA.

I say all that to say that an ASAC in Portland in 1980 would not have any special knowledge of NORJAK beyond what an SA with the most knowledge of the case told him. Since this concept of them randomizing bundles is nowhere to be found in the files, I think he got that from Himmy. And well, Himmy clearly didn't know shit about the money. Let's look at what he wrote in NORJAK. 

"At the urging of the FBI, $20 bills were used for the ransom". We know that's nonsense. The bulk of the ransom pack was $20's, so that's why Cooper got $20's. No other reason.  This notion that the FBI wanted to weigh Cooper down is demonstrably untrue. He also seems to insinuate that the money came from multiple banks. 

2. If the bundles were being randomized to look hastily assembled, then who gave that order? Who told the bankers to do that? It would have almost certainly had to come from the FBI. Well, we know from the files that the FBI were very, very standoffish at that point. There is no evidence that the FBI had any input into how the ransom items, money or parachutes, were gathered. NWO told the FBI to stand down and they did. We can see evidence of this standoffishness with regard to the money in Milnes' 302 about seeing the bag arrive at the NWO office. All he does is give a description of the bag as it appeared to him upon its arrival. He never touched it or handled it, nor did any of his agents. 

Plus, we have them interviewing Grinnell and asking HIM how the money looked. The FBI needed it on the record because they didn't know how it was packaged since they weren't involved in any way with the money exchange. 

3. So if it wasn't the FBI telling the bankers to do this, then who would have said to do such a thing? Harrison? If he had done so, I'm sure that would have mentioned in his lengthly write-up about the event. 

4. Who would have overseen the execution of this "randomizing of the bundle sizes"? It would have been Bill Grinnell. This is from the transcript of the audio recording of Cunningham's interview with Mr. Grinnell:

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

CC: OK. And you actually saw, at least of, some of the money being placed inside the bank bag.

WG: Yes.

CC: Do you recall if the Cooper money being randomized? You said normally money is placed in bundles of five packets.

WG: Mm-hmm.

CC: Sort of like bricks.

WG: Yes.

CC: Do you recall if Cooper’s money was five packets and then others were three and then others were four, or do you remember them being uniform?

WG: I didn’t see them close enough to know for sure at that stage because when we had the money prepared, we then started splitting up, and I went out to the police car, the plains clothes car, the local police department was providing to be able to head out to the airport. It’s possible, but I can’t say for sure.

CC: Do you…so, when we talk about “preparing” the money, it was ready to go and they just needed to grab it and throw it in the bag, right? Or were there other steps that were needed to be done before it made it into the bag? 

WG: There were other steps being done, and I don’t know if that’s because he requested it, or because someone at the bank was like, “OK, let’s do it this way.” Um, I doubt there was anyone who was in any position to see anymore than what I was seeing. That’s not to make me be the hero, but I was the guy who was moving back and forth and telling everyone “We need to get such and such out here.”

CC: When you say there were extra steps or multiple steps in preparing the money, what exactly were those steps? Did it need to be counted? Did it need to be wrapped a certain way? What types of things needed to be done to the money before it could be placed in the bag, do you recall?

WG: As I remember, and this would be going backwards a little bit from when this event happened…the bank recognized that there could be a situation  where we would have a client or a reason to have money to be made available in a situation like what was happening, and so there was a separate safe within the vault. There were some different bags set up with different denominations in just of a kind of “here’s what we would expect if there was ever a need, a kidnapping or something, what if they want $20,000? What if they want $200,000? What if they want a million?” So we had a place in the vault, and I don’t remember specifically, but I think it was a second safe within the main vault where we had some of that money pre-packaged if there was a need. As much as we could make it ready, we did. His request caused us to pull the money out of the bigger bag, and as long as we could verify it, so we could say, “Yeah, we verified that it left the bank, so it wasn’t anybody stealing anything out of the bag.” 

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
While Grinnell's interview doesn't totally rule out there being some intentional randomization occurring since he wasn't standing there eagle-eyed watching every bundle go into the bag, he does seem to indicate that he was in charge of the operation at that point. Thus, any orders given to the girls in the vault to randomize the bundles would have almost certainly come from him. His testimony gives us no reason to think such a thing was occurring. He doesn't mention such a thing in his 71 interview nor his 2023 interview. 

5. Randomizing bundles doesn't lend itself to a very clean or efficient accounting and increases the likelihood of a miscount. I imagine they'd be far more concerned about giving the hijacker an accurate amount of money over some concern that they need to dupe him into thinking the money was hastily assembled. If the money was in $10,000 bundles, then you just grab 20 bundles, throw them in the bag, and you have a clean accounting. It just seems like an unnecessary effort to have tellers pulling a packet out of one bundle and shoving it into another bundle. 

I think the weight of the circumstantial evidence points toward there NOT being a randomization of the bundles. 

PRO:
- ASAC Baker's quote in 1980.

CON:
- The man supervising the operation at the bank gave no indication whatsoever that they were executing such a plan in his 1971 interview nor in his 2023 interview. Hard to imagine you would omit that your bank was engaging in this effort to dupe the hijacker. 
- It's not mentioned anywhere in the files. 
- Such a directive/suggestion very likely would have come from law enforcement and we know their only involvement with the money was providing transportation.
- Baker was an administrator. He was commenting on a case that wasn't his office's case and that was 9 years old at that point. How would he have information from outside the evidence contained in the files? His source was probably Himmy and I think Himmy has demonstrated himself to be an unreliable source in regards to the Cooper case. 

Just my two cents. 

Makes perfect sense to me.  The money was precounted and prepackaged The serial were prerecorded.  The entire purpose of this stash of money was to make everything easy in the event something like this happened. Repackaging the money defeats the entire purpose.,

[FLYJACK 767]

7 hours ago, Nicholas Broughton said:

Makes perfect sense to me.  The money was precounted and prepackaged The serial were prerecorded.  The entire purpose of this stash of money was to make everything easy in the event something like this happened. Repackaging the money defeats the entire purpose.,

Defeats what purpose.. that makes no sense. Making the bundles a random size was to make Cooper think the money was just gathered/prepared and less likely marked.

The money is stored in bundles of 5 packets, that is $10,000 per bundle and 20 bundles total for Cooper. It would take no time at all to pull a few packets from those 20 bundles of 5 packets and make some new bundles.

Randomizing them would take less than 5 minutes..

Also, a packet is about 0.5" thick.. So, a bundle of 3 packets would only be about 1.5" thick. 

One witness said the money bag looked like it had bricks in it,, that is bundles... 

There is no doubt the money was in packets of 100 bills rubber banded into bundles.. most likely randomized sizes but not known for sure.

Edited May 30 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 767]

How tall was Braden in shoes...

He is listed at 5' 8" in records but those are almost always without shoes.

Braden is likely 5' 9" in shoes. 

Ryan started this height myth that won't die.. "Nobody would estimate somebody 5' 8" at 6 feet tall" ,, wrong. This is a made up opinion repeated over and over. It is an opinion with no factual basis. 

At least nine errors/flaws in the argument that get repeated..

1. Height is almost always reported without shoes, so add an inch. A 3" differential for Braden. Nobody seems to understand this and not using a suspects actual height in shoes is flawed. This repeated error makes the differential wider than it actually is.

2. Two male NORJAK witness had Cooper at 5' 9". Men are more accurate than women for estimating males. This is always ignored.

3. Witness height recall is known to be one of the least accurate descriptors. Nobody measured Cooper's height, recall is based on many variables.

4. Cooper was seated almost the entire time. Did Alice see him standing, did Flo after he handed her the note? How close was Tina when she saw him standing?

5. NORJAK has a relatively small primary witness sample size.

6. The FBI told agents to NOT eliminate based on height to 5' 8". Checkmate.

7. It is also provably false. For Hahneman's hijacking many witness had him at 6 feet. He is between 5' 9" and 5' 10" in shoes. The overestimate elimination claim is false.

8. The original Cooper description was 5' 9" to 6 feet. It was changed to 5' 10" to 6 feet to reflect Tina because she saw him standing, that doesn't mean she was right and the two male witnesses were wrong.

9. The confines of a plane makes people appear taller, perception gets distorted. The doorway is lower, the overhead is low and causes people to duck to get into the seats.

 

So, how tall was Cooper??  in shoes, at least 5' 8", probably close to 5'10".

Using height in shoes below 5' 10" to eliminate a suspect is very poor judgement.

If he FBI used 5' 8"...  why do people make up some new arbitrary height??

 

Braden wasn't Cooper but not based on height assuming he was 5' 9" in shoes.

He had thinner hair, dimples and grey eyes..

 

Remember Ryan had Darren on his show and estimated he was 5' 9"..  Darren said no 5' 7"..  So, estimating height isn't as precise as people want to believe.

 

FBI.. 5' 8" is not sufficient to eliminate... and the FBI used 5' 8" to vet Elsinore suspects. Why do these facts get ignored... bad analysis..  never eliminate based on assumption.

Anybody claiming that a suspect under 5' 10" is too short and eliminated has to justify what they know that the FBI did not...  they can't so they just ignore it.

Edited May 30 by FLYJACK

[c99acer 8]

14 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

 

7:19 in video

Himmelsbach.. Money was given to Cooper strapped in 100's and bundled with rubber bands..

A strap is bank lingo for 100 bills paper bank banded..

"There were ten thousand twenty dollar bills assembled in straps of a hundred bills to a strap and individual straps held together with rubber bands."

 

 

Was Himmelsbach making the same statement before the money find? Did anyone mention rubber bands or bundles prior?

You stated just before this post 'maybe four FBI sources' reported the money was given to Cooper in bundles. I thought only the SeaFirst bank folks, Northwest, and Tina had seen the money - not any FBI sources? 

I will continue to go with Tina's assessment after she looked into the bag at the time of the hijacking and not someone recalling it nine years later or recounting what they heard from another. It seems to me any information or witness accounts, pre-money find, would be more reliable and closer to the truth. We are all influenced by the latest information and bend our stories to fit.

[FLYJACK 767]

20 minutes ago, c99acer said:

Was Himmelsbach making the same statement before the money find? Did anyone mention rubber bands or bundles prior?

You stated just before this post 'maybe four FBI sources' reported the money was given to Cooper in bundles. I thought only the SeaFirst bank folks, Northwest, and Tina had seen the money - not any FBI sources? 

I will continue to go with Tina's assessment after she looked into the bag at the time of the hijacking and not someone recalling it nine years later or recounting what they heard from another. It seems to me any information or witness accounts, pre-money find, would be more reliable and closer to the truth. We are all influenced by the latest information and bend our stories to fit.

No, you are wrong, the FBI said they weren't commenting on the packaging, it was hold back info because only Cooper would know. So, there were no packaging statements made prior to the find. Claiming there was no info before the find supports your argument is nonsense. Tina did not claim no rubber bands, a misinterpretation of her 302. Her "small package" claim is subjective, not meaningful.

Agent Pringle and Baker said at the time of the find the money was initially in bundles..

A witness said the money in the bag looked like bricks aka bundles.

The bank guys claimed it was kept in bundles.

You really have no argument.. clinging to a misread of Tina's vague 302 isn't convincing..

I don't really get why you think the money was not given to Cooper in bundles. There is no support at all for that position.

[monk71 2]

This old video (audio) seems germane to the current discussions. It is full of one witness' details, although some second-hand, and years later (I assume).

 

(6:18) sliced it open... put $250,000 in a black crew flight bag - handle, rope
Cooper in Lav for 45 minutes

Much would be easy to dismiss as BS... yet he is so specific on certain points. There is no way he counted all the money, but at the end he admits he counted the bundles (only)... maybe assuming all bundles were equal in number of packets/straps.

If some bundles were smaller (less packets/straps), more bundles would give a higher total false impression.

The flight bag having a handle does not seem match anything... but then again, established "facts" in the vortex seem to change as we see more puzzle pieces.

[monk71 2]

I don't know how Loren (and the FBI) would know that Cooper was in the lavatory for 45 minutes, but if this is correct, it could indicate the unsub having gastrointestinal issues. Chris Magee had colon cancer surgery in prison (and stomach cancer later)... just saying if you're looking for suspects. 

[FLYJACK 767]

2 hours ago, monk71 said:

I don't know how Loren (and the FBI) would know that Cooper was in the lavatory for 45 minutes, but if this is correct, it could indicate the unsub having gastrointestinal issues. Chris Magee had colon cancer surgery in prison (and stomach cancer later)... just saying if you're looking for suspects. 

FBI files have Cooper in the Lav for several minutes.. not 45..

Lauren Peterson is not credible so it is hard to know what if anything he says is true..

Edited May 31 by FLYJACK

[georger 262]

On 5/29/2025 at 9:55 PM, c99acer said:

From Tina's 302...

Small packages with bank-type bands around each package...Doesn't seem like she saw any rubber bands!

Yes sir. You are entirely correct. There were NO rubber bands on the money. Everyone who disputes this is STARK RAVING MAD!

In addition, there were little elephants running around in the money bag.

Edited May 31 by georger

[olemisscub 532]

On 5/29/2025 at 10:09 PM, c99acer said:

I think it does, She defines the money as small packages. She defines the packages as banded with bank type bands. She NEVER states that there were bundles or groups or clumps or any other name of banding multiple small packages. She could see individual packages with each of those being banded with bank type bands. I believe Tina tells us what was in the bag better than any other witnesses involved in preparing the money. 

Tina almost certainly only saw what Cooper handed to her. 

I have one of the Sea-First bank bags. It is filled with 20 bundles (paper not cash of course) precisely as Cooper was given. The bundles sit at the bottom of the bag. There is a huge amount of neck left. Because of this extra amount of material, it’s actually awkward to get a decent look inside the bag even when sitting on your own lap. 

It’s highly unlikely Tina saw inside the bag given the angle where she was standing/sitting once the money was brought on board. 

This isn’t a debatable issue. The money was in bundles.

The debate is over how many packets were in each bundle

[FLYJACK 767]

I think c99acer is arguing that the money went to Cooper in single packets and the rubber bands were added before the money landed on TBAR...

There is no evidence or argument to support this.. all the evidence indicates the money went to Cooper in bundles of packets..  It is not confirmed if they were randomized or in 5's.

[georger 262]

3 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

I think c99acer is arguing that the money went to Cooper in single packets and the rubber bands were added before the money landed on TBAR...

There is no evidence or argument to support this.. all the evidence indicates the money went to Cooper in bundles of packets..  It is not confirmed if they were randomized or in 5's.

Sooner or later, somebody is going to come up with the bright idea that 'we just dont know how the money was packaged' except that according to Tina 'there were bank type bands' on the groups of bills, whatever bank type bands means!, and according to the Ingrams there were intact remnants of rubber bands still in place around several groups of the bills, the Ingrams saw no sign of paper bank straps on the bills, ... and that's it! Fini Tissimo! 

Stop speculating!   Stop making stuff up! Stop guessing!  It may not matter at all!!

This small part of the Cooper ransom suddenly appears on a bank of the Columbia River a significant distance and nine years later from the last known area where Cooper probably landed, and no one has the faintest explanation for how and why! 

Forensics on the matter has failed to shed any new light on this mystery. And Tina Mucklow has still never been asked what she meant by "bank type bands"! It's a cluster-fuck ripe with speculation . . . because speculating in all anyone can do!

To complicate matters even further, the excavation and the forensic documentation of the find and find site, generates a whole new set of mysteries and uncertainties with no records or evidence of any kind the world could refer to later.

People might be well advised to start looking for DB Cooper, in their refrigerators?  

Edited May 31 by georger

[FLYJACK 767]

The "Sky Chef" matches... 

Where did they come from,, answer,, almost anywhere,, hotels, plane flights and restaurants. Possibly even NorthWest Airlines.

Tina reached to grab company matches,, were those the Sky Chef ones?? Was Sky Chef the inflight catering for NW.. maybe.

Could Cooper have obtained them on another Sky Chef catered flight to Portland??

Sky Chef was a subsidiary of American Airlines, they had inflight catering contracts on 30 airlines as well as airport locations and hotel deals.. July 1971.

 

I have been trying to figure out if NorthWest had used Sky Chef.. AI says "yes" but that needs verification. Was Sky Chef the NW catering service and did they supply Sky Chef matchbooks??

 

Restaurant locations.. undated.

Edited June 1 by FLYJACK

[georger 262]

16 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

The "Sky Chef" matches... 

Where did they come from,, answer,, almost anywhere,, hotels, plane flights and restaurants. Possibly even NorthWest Airlines.

Tina reached to grab company matches,, were those the Sky Chef ones?? Was Sky Chef the inflight catering for NW.. maybe.

Could Cooper have obtained them on another Sky Chef catered flight to Portland??

Sky Chef was a subsidiary of American Airlines, they had inflight catering contracts on 30 airlines as well as airport locations and hotel deals.. July 1971.

 

I have been trying to figure out if NorthWest had used Sky Chef.. AI says "yes" but that needs verification. Was Sky Chef the NW catering service and did they supply Sky Chef matchbooks??

 

Restaurant locations.. undated.

Were Sky Chef matches available at the marina on Caterpillar island ? Just down stream from the Ingram find? Was Cooper docked there or knew somebody there? Probably not ...

[FLYJACK 767]

This is the reason sketch B was created..  

Sketch A looked too young and lacked 'latin" complexion.

Agents were wasting time with suspect leads that were too young or the wrong complexion. 

 

 

[olemisscub 532]

19 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

 

Was Sky Chef the NW catering service and did they supply Sky Chef matchbooks??

 

Yep. Found this a while back for my book. May have mentioned it in my matches video too. Not sure. 

 

Full article:

https://i.ibb.co/fVFmrGCt/The-Oregon-Daily-Journal-1968-05-23-31.jpg

fwiw, Broer just posted in EU's group that there was a Sky Chef opened in Mexico City in 1971 at the Mexico Palace Hotel. 

[FLYJACK 767]

49 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Yep. Found this a while back for my book. May have mentioned it in my matches video too. Not sure. 

 

Full article:

https://i.ibb.co/fVFmrGCt/The-Oregon-Daily-Journal-1968-05-23-31.jpg

fwiw, Broer just posted in EU's group that there was a Sky Chef opened in Mexico City in 1971 at the Mexico Palace Hotel. 

So, the obvious question is,, was the Sky Chef matchbook available on NORJAK and did Tina grab those. Tosaw claimed she grabbed "company" matches.

[FLYJACK 767]

Sky Chef lounge at PDX?

[olemisscub 532]

13 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

So, the obvious question is,, was the Sky Chef matchbook available on NORJAK and did Tina grab those. Tosaw claimed she grabbed "company" matches.

I gave this a lot of thought when I was making my matches video. My general rule of thumb is that in the case of a conflict, I go with the earlier reference. We've got Tina saying "HE had ANOTHER book of matches...". Had Tina given him a matchbook from the plane, I don't see any reason for her to even say this to the FBI and to go into detail describing it. Additionally, Cooper was clearly a heavy smoker and soon ran out of matches from ICS. To think he didn't have additional matches doesn't make too much sense to me. 

Also, the rest of that bit in Tosaw's narrative goes against her 302 as well. He says the first matchbook was put into the ashtray yet Tina in her 302 says it was the seat pocket. Tosaw says that Cooper retrieved it from the ashtray yet Tina says that she is the one who retrieved it from the seat pocket. 

Finally, we have the FBI themselves using the Sky Chef matchbook in an attempt to backtrack Cooper. So it was clearly their understanding that Tina was telling them that Cooper brought the matches on board with him. Obviously if she had given him those matches then they wouldn't have undertaken such an effort.