MarkBennett

I can't agree with that, Robert. If Kenny didn't surprisingly come into a bunch of money right around the hijacking, why would he be a suspect? Otherwise, you're no different than any other person who with a personal reason pointing them to a particular candidate. No different than Jo. No different than the Foremans. No different than Marla. Wait...I take that back. I reread "Blast" again and there is nothing to indicate that Marg Geestman or Bernie Geestman know anything about the hijacking. I get that Bernie may have been involved in some shady activities, but nothing ever on the scale of air piracy and kidnapping. Jo, the Foremans and Marla all have confessions or contemporaneous memories actually alleging involvement. You throw a lot of information at us in very long posts, but when you boil it all down, it comes down to what appears to be speculation by a few people. That doesn't mean Kenny wasn't the hijacker, it's just thin. There is an old legal adage: The lawyer with the facts on his side, hammers on the facts. The lawyer with the law on his side, hammers on the law. The lawyer with neither the facts or the law on his side, hammers on the table. The long posts appear to be hammering on the table.

I think showing KC bought the Bonney Lake house for cash would be very helpful. With no confession, not matching the description and most of the witnesses' comments speculative at best, the main KC argument is that his whereabouts where unknown during the hijacking and he suddenly had a lot of money. Spending a bunch of cash is central to the claim that KC is a suspect.

Robert, I should probably know better, but Smokin99, Mr. Shutter and others are actually helping you with the Christiansen case. You seem to write as if you are a disinterested Cooper researcher. No, you're the advocate for Kenny. Nothing wrong with being an advocate for a preferred suspect. Jo is. The Foremans are. Sailshaw is. That's fine. You wrote a book about Kenny and spent a great deal of time creating an FBI report on him. So, any direction that will help you prove him in or out moves along the research on your preferred candidate. I think of evidence like strands of a rope. The more strands, the stronger the rope. You start at a bit of a disadvantage with Kenny. No confession, no contemporary recollection tying him to the crime. That doesn't mean he's not not a suspect, just that you have to get your "strands" elsewhere. Next problem is the physical description. Too short. Too white. Too bald. Wrong color eyes. Much of your case is circumstancial and -- like Mr. Shutter said, I think -- a lot of he said-she said. And, let's face it there is a lot of personal baggage involved with Bernie Geestman coloring who is saying what. And, many of these witnesses are now elderly remembering details from 40 years ago. I think Smokin99 made a very good case on what is missing. If the crux of your case is that Kenny suddenly had a whole lot of money he didn't have before the hijacking, there should be some good paper trails on where it was spent. I think it's fair to say that path has not been explored. You can say Gray didn't either -- but that doesn't change the fact that much of your case is anecdotal evidence. I don't think the posters mean to say you haven't provided documentation - just that more is needed And, if you don't want to be the Kenny Christiansen advocate any more, that's fine. But then, don't keep linking to your FBI report.

Yeah...Northwest Airlines back in the late sixties and into the seventies was a real high-paying employer with great benefits. Before you take that statement as truth, maybe you should speak to some of the employees who worked for the airline back then. They might have a different story for you. And I don't mean the pilots, just anyone else who wasn't an exec in the front office or something. You know...the rank and file. You think $3.20 an hour was even CLOSE to good wages in the Puget Sound area in 1970-71? That's a laugh. I had a part-time job as a teenager back then working for a lumber company in the Sumner area, pulling plywood sheets off the dryer line. They paid me five bucks an hour. After the Big Boeing Layoffs, my dad had to take a job there for a while, too. He was the one who got me hired. He was paid more of course, due to his age and work experience. Here's one way to look at it: I was making more at the lumber plant than Kenny was after working twenty years for the airline. I suggest contacting Bruce Kitt at the NWA Museum. He can be reached by email and I'm sure he will be happy to fill in details on his opinion regarding worker pay and benefits. When they interviewed him on Decoded, he admitted that unhappy employees at NWA went on strike so much they had a nickname for them: Cobra. (Meaning: 'They strike at anything.') Bruce said that. Neither you or Georger believe there is a chance in hell that Kenny Christiansen was Cooper. You call direct witness testimony from named people as 'hearsay'. The definition of hearsay is exactly how it sounds. You are quoting what you heard someone ELSE say, without corroboration. The witnesses I interviewed, with very limited exceptions, testified to what they knew by direct knowledge only. On the document: Because of the age of the documents we're trying to obtain, they are not online and this means a personal visit to Tacoma and some fees. And I have serious trust issues going with certain posters on this thread, and in my opinion, for VERY good reasons. So...I don't think I owe anyone here a damn thing. I'll release WHAT I want, WHEN I want, which is...if you're lucky and I feel like it. I may even just save it all for the book next summer. And I couldn't care less whether you think Kenny was the guy or the evidence is hogwash. That is perfectly within your rights and you have company there. Kenny polarizes people when they read his story. Either they think he was Cooper very strongly, or the other way around. I'm used to this. I haven't received all of the available docs yet on Kenny's house, anyway. Looks like the one I got last week is simply an equity loan taken out on the house by the Grimes' couple in June of 1972, in the amount of $7,500. Christiansen is not mentioned in the document, and I don't have the slightest idea WHY they would do that and then sell the house to Kenny in July. Or October perhaps. Whatever you believe. This is why I won't post up a piece here, a piece there. What I'm going to do is get EVERYTHING first, and then create a report on it based on the documents and what the RE agent is able to discover. I'm even considering a visit to Mrs. Grimes, who is still living. This is against my better nature, since I've said I'm OUT of the hitting-the-bricks part of investigating Christiansen. Still, I may do it just out of curiosity. But don't get your hopes up. Even if Kenny bought the house for cash, it still doesn't prove he hijacked the plane. Robert, You have the right definition of "hearsay". Now, let's talk about "strawman fallacies". That's when you mischaracterize someone's argument, and then refute it. Mr. Shutter did NOT say Kenny was highly compensated by NWA. He said that his salary was not much below the median income as reported by social security. As Smokin99 said much of the case in favor of Kenny being involved in the hijacking is that he suddenly had a lot more money right after. Even though a great deal of that should be in public records, most of your argument is based on witness testimony nearly 40 years after the fact. Could they be mistaken after such a long period? To ask for documentation does not mean anyone is accusing them of lying. And finally, anecdotal evidence can not be taken by itself proof of the larger group. If you were making $5 an hour in November 1971 on a part time job, that is not typical. That is a GREAT paying job. Looking at a CPI history converting that to 2013 dollars comes out to more than $28 per hour. Good for you if you got that, but I bet few did as well. If you feel some on this forum are not fair to you, do not respond to them. But you shouldn't use that as a reason to avoid providing documentation.

That's right. And I have examined the other document, the one done by the Grimes' couple not in October, but the previous June. And what I'm doing right now is having an expert compare those documents and try to come to a conclusion about them. And...he is researching the property records for me. When I know, you'll know. Until then, I am releasing nothing further. Let's get a couple of things straight here. First, I am not the person who put forward that Kenny Christiansen bought that house for cash. You are MISINFORMED. That was Geoffrey Gray back in 2007, and he re-interated that point in his book in 2010. You understand this, correct? Geoffrey Gray...said...Kenny....bought the house for cash. I have questioned him on it, but not for a long time. He says YES. I asked if he was sure. Also YES. So I took his word for it. Today: Maybe there is doubt on this, so I am going to attempt to find the truth. And I know this is ambigious, but from what I have seen, what I have examined, and from certain witness testimony, I think the whole thing on Kenny's house, and the financials on it, as well as who was involved, smells to high heaven. That's an opinion. In reality, you should be going to GRAY on this question. I am not a real-estate expert. But I do know how to find resources and use them when needed. This is why I am having the property researched by someone who actually knows what they are doing, and letting HIM work with the docs. That way, I can be assured of the truth. The case I helped build against Kenny Christiansen does not rely so much on money, but on motive, whereabouts at the time of the crime, the testimony of witnesses, pictures (to a degree) and other things. Much is circumstantial, but it is a GREAT DEAL of circumstantial. It is not a myth. However, since I can't be absolutely sure, other proof is required. I will always believe it is a simple road to the truth on Christiansen, but I am not able to hit the on-ramp for that road. This must be done by either a legit media source, or the Seattle FBI. My opinion is that it is now beyond the scope of citizen sleuths. Until then, it will always be impossible to prove that Kenny Christiansen was DB Cooper. But there are other issues that are put forth without proof. Maybe some people's memory are faulty. For instance, you said that KC lent $5000 cash to a Geestman's sister, a ssingle woman with four children. She paid him back in two years, according to Blast. Your comment is how could someone as poorly paid as Kenny have $5000 to lend? On the other side, how could a single woman with four children come up with a $5000 in two years to pay him back? Think about the cost of living. Minimum wage in 1971 was $1.85 per hour. A person making double minimum wage and working full time earned about $7000 per year. How did this woman come up with that money? If it was a refinance, that would be recorded. On the other hand, what if it wasn't $5000. What if it was $500? p.s. In this article, you do say that KC purchased his house for cash. It's from 2011, but it's still on your web site. http://adventurebooks.newsvine.com/_news/2011/08/04/7257905-the-25-best-reasons-kenny-christiansen-could-be-skyjacker-db-cooper

Thank You - I humbly appreciate your statement. I am not asking Blevins to disclose information on Geestman inorder to interrogat him....I want to ask him questions about Paradise and what he was doing during his life in WA and I want him to see pictures of Duane and I want to ask him if he ever met this man and to ask him about his family and friends in the Puyallup. The man is the right age to perhaps have had contact with WEBER/COLLINS/DUSTY or what ever he might have called himself in WA. Perhaps Geestman has a past he does not want revealed...and I will sign a statement of confidentiality and will not use the information he provides me. I have many individuals I have spoke to who I have REQUIRED sign such a statement. I will swear not to use Blevins name nor discuss him in any manner. My interests lie in Geestman's connections to Puyallup up and certain times of his life when he MIGHT have met the man whose pictures I will present to him. Those selected by me and not by Blevins. I want to discuss Geestman's past in WA and any other place he may have had contact with Weber or the man in the pictures. I have other names to expose to him - things he has never read in a newspaper or book about Cooper. Perhaps Geestman can HELP me understand much of this. I will not discuss Blevins nor will I discuss Kenny. I am interested in Geestman and his history in WA. Because of Geestman's supposedly connection to things Duane told me himself he is right now the most important contact I could ever make with the past. There are things that surfaced in Blevins story about certain characters that I had been told about by Duane Weber. The woman and the horses - I had heard that story from the mouth of Duane Weber. Duane talked about Paradise and Puyallup. NOW, do some of you understand the importance of my making contact with Geestman? What I have mentioned above is my soul interest in speaking with Geestman and like myself - neither of us are getting any younger or healthier. Jo, I may have misstated. I didn't mean that I meant for you to interrogate Geestman. I only thought if he were with Kenny that weekend and weren't doing anything illegal (at least not TOO illegal, if that is such a thing). He might be willing to talk --especially since you wouldn't be threatening. But, you're right....if he wants it to be off the record, that's perfectly reasonable.

Well now...come on. I've never provided Geestman's physical address to anyone except the Seattle FBI. If I inadvertently gave out that PO box, I don't know why I would have done that. He canceled that box years ago. If so, I apologize. Geestman's physical address is available in the unedited version of the KC report, but only to a legit media rep or law enforcement, or anyone NEUTRAL without pre-conceived notions on either the case itself or a particular suspect. I feel a certain responsibility to NOT make these peoples' contact information available on a public forum regarding one D.B. Cooper. I have seen what some Cooper Folks do, and it ain't a pretty thing, although most are okay. Look...I'm not afraid of the idea that if the media actually did a full-scale investigation of the report that they would discover that KC wasn't the hijacker. I've always said I wouldn't mind knowing one way or another. As far as 'for profit,' that's a laugh. I've turned down a total of (estimated) $24,000 between the History Channel, the Adrenaline Hunter show, and the film rights offer from the Paradigm client in New York. And we still haven't recovered all the costs we incurred researching and producing the book. And I couldn't care less. The truth is all I want, that's all, whether that truth is KC WAS or he WASN'T Cooper. Hey, I promise I won't toss myself off a bridge if a good media source proved Kenny wasn't the hijacker. Or if the FBI actually checked him out and discovered the same thing. But on the FBI angle, I would like to see confirmed reasons on how they came to that conclusion. Not that I don't trust them, but...(*smiles*) See: 'How the Seattle FBI Bought Marla's Story Hook, Line, and Sinker and Got Burned'. And how exactly would you know I 'smeared the memory of Kenny Christiansen'. That makes as much sense as what you accuse of your own husband, right? Besides, you should be telling this not to ME...but to people like Geoff Gray, who was the first to ID Christiansen as a possible suspect. All I did were some interviews, and attempted to discover the truth when people chose to lie. My Bad: Paradise Point IS on the Lewis River. My mistake. Robert, I agree it's a good idea to not post private contact information on a public forum, but please consider giving Geestman's contact information to Jo. She'd be contacting him about Skyjack, but not accusing him at all (since she's researching Duane). Say what you will about Jo, but she is excellent at ferreting out information. Contacting him could possibly give closure on KC as a suspect, since he is Kenny's alibi.

Robert, I went back and re-read "Blast" last night. I'm very skeptical about Marg knowing the truth. However, you have one thing nobody else with a preferred suspect has. IF Bernie Geestman was KC during that weekend -- you have someone who can provide KC an alibi or has knowledge of the crime. The FBI isn't going to talk to him -- if you want to find the truth, you're going to have to talk to Bernie.

Robert -- it's not that anyone is saying your report is not accurate. The issue is even if it IS accurate, it still doesn't tie Kenny to the hijacking.

Robert -- this is exactly Smokin99's point. There is no evidence that Kenny was the hijacker, either. And, even you would have to admit that theory is a far bigger stretch.

ALEX TREBEK: Next category.... CONTESTANT: I'll take political comments that could get me a vacation from dropzone.com for $100, Alex.

Robert M. Blevins says: I don't think that's correct. The episode of Decoded aired in January of 2011. Margaret Geestman sold her property in May of 2012. This is probably most problematic of anything you suggest. You want the FBI to haul a citizen in for questioning because there is a disagreement with a former spouse on who he was with on the day of the hijacking? Especially when there is no evidence that person (Christiansen) committed any crime at all. Doesn't that feel a little "police state" like to you? I'll defer to the attornies on this forum, but in that case why would Bernie Geestman answer any questions at all? You have evidence of something -- but of what? Someone is lying about what they were doing that weekend, but you have no evidence of any crime. If the Lindbergh kidnapping have occurred that weekend (or at least a Washington state version of it), your FBI report could be used to implicate Christiansen and Geestman in that.

That's not really Cooper related, but I found that little insight into the book business very interesting. Thanks for posting, Robert.

In case any of you met Karen Truitt at the DB Cooper symposium in 2011, I'm sad to report she passed away on Monday. Karen wasn't one of the speakers, but she had ties to the hijacking as her father was one of the passengers on flight 305. I talked to her at the symposium and like many others she came hoping to find some answers. She said she was a teenager at the time and her father, who was a federal employee, was whisked off the plane with the other federal employees when it landed in Seattle rather than be questioned with the other passengers. She said he wouldn't talk about the hijacking and she hoped the crime would be solved so she would have some closure. She was interviewed by the media who were there and she sat over by Marla near the front of the room during the presentations. She was a very nice woman and thought I'd pass this on in case anyone else met her there -- or talked to her at the symposium but didn't remember her name. Condolences to her family.

Robert, this was checked out by the FBI and there have been posts on it. Tom Kaye posted several months ago about a Canadian who disappeared about that time. And -- Vicki please correct me on this if I'm wrong -- Mel Wilson is only talked about as a potential suspect because he disappeared shortly before the hijacking.

Robert M. - Even if you had grounds to complain, I don't think Bruce's statement that KC's relationship to teenage boys was "troubling" is an issue. Take Michael Jackson. Michael was acquitted of the pedophilia charge. I agreed with that. I felt Michael Jackson never grew up and was just having the kind of sleep over a kid would have. So, I believe Michael Jackson was innocent. Now, if someone asked me if I thought he relationship with those children was troubling,I'd have to say yes. I don't think Bruce accused KC of anything. I agree with Mr. Shutter that is a little odd that the person who published a book accusing someone of kidnapping and air piracy would be the one complaining about this.

Sorry, Tom. I'm not a big poster, but I was there and would have introduced myself, but I got the sense it was 5:00 and the museum was closing and they wanted us to leave. Will do next time.

I just returned from the Cooper exhibit at the Washington State History Museum. I watched Tom Kaye's presentation and a question popped into my head after leaving. If anyone else on here was there (Maybe Tom himself), maybe they can make sure I heard correctly. Tom was talking about the Amboy Chute and said he thought the chute (with the 1946 date on it) MIGHT have been the same chute that had been packed in the dummy chute that Cooper took with him (put in the container just fill it out). Kaye said the kids who found the chute could not dig it up, so they cut the cords and gave the chute to the FBI. He would like to know where the chute was found so he could ask the owner if he could dig at the site and see if anything else (the container?) is buried there. If anyone on this forum heard Tom's speech, can someone let me know if my recollection is correct? Mark p.s. It was nice to meet Bob Sailshaw and Meyer Louie today!

Robert, Did Lyle Christianson say Kenny had told the family he was gay? It's very possible the family knew Kenny was gay before Kenny himself. It's also possible Kenny thought it was a secret -- even though his family knew all along. Back then coming out was a huge risk and someone could be disowned from his family. Unless Lyle said he's certain that wasn't the secret Kenny wanted to tell him, it's still possible that's what it was.

I think RobertMBlevins point on JP Patches is probably correct. When JP Patches went off the air in 1981 it was the longest running active childrens program. There were longer running runs, but they had already ended. That being said, RobertM, do you see why you draw such snarky responses? That is off topic. This is a DB Cooper forum. I know about your other jobs, who your business partners are, how you were lost in the woods for 30 days, what you think about capital punishment and your thoughts on the Boston bombing. That's true of you and only you. I don't know that about anyone else on here. Sometimes I think you're being bullied on here, but do you not see that you are bringing this on yourself?

Jo, you would be surprised what people look up on Facebook. There is a page for people who want to bring back Bacon Thins crackers for gosh sake! And, although people might not find it directly -- many find it through other people. Facebook is worth a try.

RobertM, that would seem to apply to KC as well, would it not?

Thank you, Mr. Shutter. Maybe the memories from when someone is 8 years old are off, but no one spends that much time with the FBI and undergoes a lie detector test when they make up a story unless they want to get into a heap of trouble. Challenging Marla's story is fair game. But, the ad hominem attacks is why RobertMBlevins lacks credibility when he comments on Marla. Jo, Marla and even RobertMBlevins himself all had things told to them (either directly or through non verbal responses like someone turning ashen when asked a question about the hijacking). It was a personal experience to each of them, so each of them believe it. Maybe one of them is correct, maybe none of them are. But I don't see any reason to think that any of them are lying about what they saw or heard. (Bob Knoss - I'm not ready to commit on. I still think he might just be toying with us).

Do we have to do arithmetic? Could we do Latin instead? An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument.[2] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy,[3][4][5] more precisely an irrelevance.[6]

Again, I have to quibble with your conclusions. If Marla were only interested in money or fame, she would have written a book. She talked to the FBI without being named publicly for a year. For all the talk about publishing a book, she still hasn't done so nearly two years after her name became public. And, until you mentioned hearing something about her being on the history channel, how often does anyone hear anything from her? Rarely. True, she may enjoy being part of a major unsolved crime and might like to get her 15 minutes of fame and make some money off of it. But that doesn't make her a liar or a charlatan. Parts of her story are based on memories from when she was eight years old. Part of it is speculation trying to fill in the gaps. Inquiry and critique of those items is fair game. My complaint with you is that you immediately branded her a liar.