MarkBennett

Following Georger's advice, I've been going back and reading the thread. Robert, do you know when you first pointed out you had other interests and were done with DB Cooper? August 22, 2010! And, I didn't just find one random one, there are several! http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3930600#3930600 "Sometimes I just get tired of chasing this stuff, and I will be honest here: I will be glad when the History Channel guys finish filming (Sept 8-12 in Seattle) and the modifications to the book are uploaded. Then I can move on to something else. My next project is a series of interviews with a young lady who was in horrible car accident in Tacoma at age 19. " Don't tell us you don't have the Cooper curse!

Robert, All I can say is you seem to live in an alternate universe. Do you not know why the other site was created? This site had devolved and a place was needed to discuss Cooper. Were you the only one to blame? No, it takes two to tango, but you always seem to be one of the ones dancing. And, no, Cook's comments over there were not appropriate either, and many of us have complained about it and it has been stopped. But Cooper Royalty? Sorry, that's just not so.

Danielle1010, It's always good to remember that most of us aren't as good as our friends may think or as bad as our enemies believe. It hasn't been proven that Geestman has done anything wrong at all, nor has he had the chance to defend himself. You are entitled to your opinion just like the rest of us, but if you met him in person he might not be as bad of a guy you think he is.

Not exactly, but Scott Rolle was right about something they spoke to Geestman about off-camera. Geestman tried to toss his ex-wife under the bus, saying the same things he told me in his original interview: That Kenny and his wife were close, and that his wife was probably involved. Then, ON-camera, he says Kenny could be the hijacker. ] There clearly is some lingering resentment between Geestmans. Both of them would point to the other as possibly involved in the hijacking -- which is not something someone would do to a reporter/researcher if they were actually involved. But, neither of them -- and you believe they know -- would say Kenny is involved. And, you say Bernie wouldn't act the way he did if he were innocent. Well, it's highly unlikely he would agree to appear on a TV show discussing the case if he were guilty. This is all speculation on my part, just like it's all speculation on yours. There is nobody or no facts that tie Kenny to the hijacking at all.

Oh, no...another Geestman question. Boy, am I going to get it for answering. (*laughs*) I will try anyway. Robert, I don't object to you answering this question. It's interesting, but you can't tie any of it to the hijacking.

Take him up on it, Robert. There are lots of property records that haven't been researched!

I don't know if anyone has been shut out. I sent Robert an email asking to be added to the list and I intend to go and report back here what is presented. I see no reason he can't exclude people he feels will be disruptive at his presentation. Isn't that the reason the other forum had to be created?

Robert, Just like the others with a favored suspect, you are starting from the position that you know who the hijacker is and then try to fit the existing evidence into your story. The problem is you start a step behind the others. Jo, Marla, the Foremans -- they all heard or believe they heard someone say their preferred suspect is the hijacker. Marge and Bernie might point fingers at each other, but none will affirmatively point to Kenny. That's ok....it's just a hurdle to overcome. You can do it, but there has to be more. The number of emails you get supporting Kenny as the hijacker don't count. Those are probably not from people who as knowledgeable about the case as those on this forum. Having lots of supporters don't help your case. To paraphrase Einstein, if you could prove it, you wouldn't need any. Then, you come down to the physical description. Too short....The SHORTEST description anyone gave was 5'9". You're trying to stretch a 5'8" man into that description. Too bald....You suggest he could have been wearing a toupee. Look the drawing from Flo's description. Severe widow's peak. That is the look of a balding man, not a bald man, and certainly not a toupee wearing man. Too white...You suggest he could be tanned. The description was closer to southern European than tanned. Even if you decide to stay with the tanned angle, why was he still tanned when it is almost December? Who suggests he was tanned in the late fall? Then, there is the description of Kenny's personality. By all accounts, he was a good guy. Everybody liked him. He had no criminal history. Is this the kind of guy that would kidnap 30+ people and ransom them? He doesn't fit that. He had a grudge against Northwest Airlines? He stayed with them 20 years AFTER the hijacking. That fact belies both the grudge and the claim he came into a bunch of money. Then, you get into his finances. You originally started with his house. We now know he didn't buy it for cash. The house he bought was not a house a wealthy man would have bought. This was a house not much larger than a trailer on a rural highway. We now know he assumed a mortgage for half of it. Is the financing of the other half suspicious? As near as I can tell -- it's not suspicious. It's just that nobody has taken them time or made the effort to look it up. The loan to Dawn Androsko. That raises lots of red flags. That $5000 loan is worth $25,000 in 2014. Who borrows that kind of money from a stranger? Wouldn't she worry someone would break her legs if she didn't pay up? And, how does a single woman with three kids pay back that kind of money in two years? There's a lot more to that story. You seem to take a lot of it at face value. You then say A. Bernie says Kenny could be the hijacker B. Bernie was with Kenny that weekend Therefore -- Kenny is the hijacker. For someone who says Bernie is a big liar, you seem to believe he wasn't lying when he made that first statement. We don't know for sure what Bernie or Kenny were doing that weekend, or even if they were together, but lets stipulate that they were. If we go back to Occam's Razor - the simplest explanation is most likely -- they were doing something they didn't want anyone to know about. It's quite a leap (no pun intended) to assume he's the hijacker. So, since you like to post lists, let's review. 1) Kenny doesn't match the description 2) He has no history of criminal activity 3) He lived in a small home and kept working after the hijacking 4) He left an estate not inconsistent with the sale of timber land in the early 1990s. 5) You base your case on witness testimony, but none of the witnesses will state Kenny was Cooper. You can tell a good story and make it sound like Kenny is a good suspect. But, when you step back and look at it, the question is not "Is Kenny a viable suspect?". The question is "Why is Kenny a suspect at all?".

I think we can all agree on that. You're Kenny's sponsor. I think it's safe to say most of us don't consider Kenny a viable suspect. So, if you don't talk about him, I think we'll have moved on. But, if you've researched Kenny's financial and property transactions, I will be curious to see what you've come up with. I can tell you if you found bank statements showing $200,000 in deposits right after the hijacking, you might change my mind!

OK. Now I'm confused. This is probably my doing. I wrote asking about Dick Blume, who Robert inferred might also be involved when he first came to the thread. This was Robert's post on August 21, 2010 This was Robert's post on August 23, 2010 And, believe it or not, that last sentence was also written in 2010...Kinda feels like deja vu, doesn't it?

Remember Chuck Cunningham? No? A couple of years after the Cooper hijacking a TV show called "Happy Days" starring not so little Ronny Howard premiered on ABC. Ronny played Richie Cunningham and lived with his parents, his brother Chuck and his sister Joanie. After the first season, Chuck went off to college and was never seen again. When the series ended several years later, the Cunningham parents talked about the joys of having their two children. Chuck, as it turned out, never existed I guess. What is the point of that story? Well, I've been going back and reading the early days of the thread. Do you remember the Kenny Christianson story has it's own Chuck Cunningham. Going back to August 2010, Robert Blevins reported Bernie, Kenny and a third man were together that weekend of the hijacking. His name was "Dick B.". No more information was given because Mr. B was dead, but his wife was still living. Then, suddenly, just like Chuck Cunningham, Dick B. has disappeared from the story. So, Robert Blevins, why has Dick B. disappeared from your story?

I'd say you did answer my question. I just have to ask it very precisely because we all run information through our own personal filters and sometimes we don't all see it the same way. And, to be honest, you very often have a take that is different than others. My point was, I had never heard that Kenny's family said they didn't believe Kenny's deathbed confession wasn't that he was gay, just that they already knew he was. Back then, homosexuality was not something anyone talked about. We've come a long way in the last few years, but even when Bill Clinton signed don't ask/don't tell, support for gay marriage was still in the high 30s of approval. In the 1940s, being gay made you a social outcast and subject scorn at best and violence at the worst. The candor described in your script of the conversation between Kenny and his family about his sexual orientation might not be unusual today. But, in the 1940s, it seems more likely the subject was not discussed much if at all. Your source on how much it was talked about between Kenny and his family would pretty much have to be Lyle, but your interviews with him, as far as I've seen were never published.

Thanks, Robert. That was an interesting article. I know you probably think everyone is ragging on you, but in this case I'm not. It's actually a real comment. I read the first few pages of your Kenny script you posted in the last week or so, and this article said the biggest issue you had with writing was unrealistic dialog. I have to say when I read the script and you were writing about Kenny telling his parents he had joined the army, and they talked openly, honestly and very matter-of-fact-ly that he couldn't because he was gay. That struck me as very unrealistic. In the 1940s (and even well into the 1990s) it was not something that was talked about. Kenny's family said they knew he was gay, but it seems highly unlikely Kenny ever admitted it or the family ever talked about it. In fact, I still think that was Kenny's secret he couldn't tell his brother. He didn't know he brother already knew.

Now, that sounds like something Yogi Berra would say.

Well it's totally obvious Lyle and you are full of it! From your and Lyle's original statement of a stamp and coin collection valued at $200,000! you now reduce it to $40,000, which is actually worth and sells for some fraction of that. And of course we still don't know (havent been given) any specifics of the contents of the so-called collection. The 'collection' has suffered deflation: From $200,000 > $40,000, to probably $5000-$8000 actual value or less ... for a lifetime of collecting. And the unspecified contents could be anything. Thus, your claim of Kenny's unexplained wealth falls just like the rest of your claims have fallen apart under scrutiny. Of course Gray never reported finding any signs of excess wealth in Kenny's affairs. Lyle even adds: Lyle says that a great deal of the money that was left behind in Kenny's estate came from the sales of land he had purchased years earlier. Where is this great excess of wealth you and Lyle still hang on to claiming? I am beginning to wonder why Gray even bothered with this (the Kenny story) not to mention you? It looks to me like much to do about nothing and no relationship at all to the DB Cooper story. Kenny Christiansen was an employee of NWA and that is all he was. Neither you or Gray have even shown that Kenny ever mentioned the DB Cooper hijacking - to anyone! Because in reality Kenny's life concerns were a thousand miles away and elsewhere, just as Gray convincingly showed in his original article on "Temptation and Speculation"! So your debate is with Gray! Not us or here. Gray's book was not an advocacy for Kenny. As he described it at the last symposium, it discussed four suspects -- Kenny, Duane, McCoy and Barb Dayton. I asked him if he had a current favored suspect and he said he was most interested in Peterson. Gray's article did not look at Kenny's finances at all. So, I don't see Gray really entering the debate.

But, how did Dawn get $5000 to pay Kenny back? That's $25,000 in 2014 dollars and she was a single mom with 3 kids. That raises questions. And, even if it were true, how does anyone know that Kenny lent her his own money and was not a go between for someone else? Finally, why do you think Marge Geestman knows whether Kenny is the hijacker? She only said "If Kenny was on that plane, he was only doing his job" after you repeatedly tried to make the case to her that Kenny was DB Cooper. Nobody (as far as I know, other than Lyle) actually came out and said Kenny was DB Cooper. It just seems like a lot of speculation.

Let's assume that everything in your story is true. How did Kenny buy a house? We know he assumed a mortgage for half of it. What about the other half? Maybe the sellers carried the contract. Who knows? This was during the Boeing bust and sellers had to be very creative. And, Kenny, who bought timber land a decade before seems like just the type who would look for such a deal. As far as the loan to Dawn Androsko, you kind of jump to the conclusion that it was Kenny's money, so he must have come into it somehow. Maybe it wasn't his money. Maybe he was a go between. Without some sort of documentation, it's all speculation. There is nothing in Kenny's actions, financial situation or circumstances that don't also have some logical simple explanation. Now, if for your August presentation you've discovered new information, I might change my mind. But, so far, I just don't see it.

The question is how literal do you want to take that statement. "No taller than five-nine" would allow for a person to be five-eight, but also five-two, four feet, or even one inch tall. I suspect that what the witness was really saying was he believed the hijacker to be about 5'9". That is the shortest of any of the witnesses, but because he added "no taller than", you use that to include a suspect shorter than every witness's recollection. Also, some of the descriptions (particularly the flight attendants) were not just something they were asked to recall later. They most likely purposefully made mental notes about the height, hair color, weight, etc. of the suspect contemporaneously. And, as Carr says, the descriptions given by Flo and Tina are very similar. Even you have to admit, Robert, you have to squint pretty hard to make Kenny fit as a suspect -- too short, too white, too bald. And, by all accounts -- especially yours since you interviewed many of his friends -- he was a good guy. A guy who never showed any inkling of attempting this kind of major crime. It's interesting...if, when you were interviewing Bernie Geestman, and you brought up that you researching Kenny being tied to the hijacking, if he would have said "That's pretty funny. I used to kid him all the time because he looked just like that picture. But, Kenny and I were camping together when it happened, so I think I would have known about it if he did it", you probably wouldn't have written your book. But because he didn't want to admit what they were doing, you've tied him to a major hijacking.

Let me get this straight....You came back to this thread to tell everyone you're planning to have an event that pretty much everyone on this thread is expressly NOT invited to. But, it's other people, not you, who are rude on DZ. Got it.

Good point. And, it would be wrong to say Kenny didn't get a hearing from the FBI. Larry Carr worked with Geoff Gray and they still speak today (at least according to Gray). So I believe Kenny did get a hearing. If there is new evidence on Kenny, it will stand on it's own. If there is new evidence, why wait to release it? If it needs to be presented at a media event, I suspect its more sizzle than steak.

That's fine. I'm planning to be there. I only feel the need to respond to you when you make some sanctimonious comment.

But, since you don't claim Lyle, you have no witness that will declare affirmatively that Kenny was involved in the hijacking. And, you have no interest in pursuing property records to support your financial claims. You're right. We shouldn't compare your claim to Marla's.

Paradoxically, if I were an innocent man convicted of murder, I would want to get the death penalty. That would guarantee me years of reviews and appeals of my case and a chance for reversal. With life in prison, I'd likely be locked up and forgotten.

That would surprise me as well. I doubt you could get a ground jury to return an indictment on that evidence. We're not getting far on Kenny's financials, because property records are not online prior to the mid 1980s, so it's hard to research remotely. I might have to take a day off and go down to Tacoma and check. If the records were to show that Kenny purchased his house by assuming a mortgage for half of it and getting a real estate contract for the other half (basically seller financing) and Kenny didn't lend any money to Helen Jones, but merely facilitated a transaction with another lender -- all as possible as what has been speculated so far -- there wouldn't be much left to tie him to the case.

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” - Daniel Patrick Moynihan