FLYJACK

The DOJ stated a fact,, no SOL for a capital crime. Speculation is fine and necessary but all speculation is not created equal.. Speculation that Cooper threw money into the River with the intention of it being found to throw off investigators is Ulis level crazy speculation.

Now you triple down.

No, I don't know everything, nobody does.. I do know that you have this wrong and doubled down. When I showed you the 1976 DOJ stating that the SOL would not apply contradicting your claim, you tossed it aside and tried to discredit it instead of re-evaluating your position. So, they knew the SOL didn't apply and went ahead with a last minute John Doe warrant.. maybe there was another reason for that other than the SOL. But, I don't see this as very important. The speculation that Cooper threw money into the River to be found to throw of investigators makes no sense whatsoever. Tossing money into the River would have zero expectation of being found. That is Ulis crazy.

Not splitting hairs.. The FBI does investigations and may recommend a case to the Prosecutor.. The Prosecutor decides whether the case should proceed.. not the FBI. OF COURSE THE DOJ CALLS THE SHOTS... In theory, they proceed based on the probability of winning but in reality there are other (dubious) considerations. In fact, the Prosecutor has no obligation to reveal any case that was rejected. If the FBI recommended charges for a Cooper suspect and the DOJ rejected the case we would never know. The DOJ's opinion was that the statute of limitations did not apply, John Doe warrants are controversial and may not have been constitutional. The purpose of the John Doe warrant was for public perception and to create a point of leverage over a potential Cooper suspect. At the same time the FBI admitted they didn't have the evidence and required the cooperation of Cooper to bring a prosecution.

Not so fast,,, In 1976, the DOJ determined the Statute Of Limitations would not apply,,, AND, the real reason for the John Doe warrant was for "publicity". The "public" perception of perpetual leverage over a suspect.

A person tossing a bundle of money into the River is a possibility but not with an expectation that it was going to be found. If it was tossed it was to get rid of it. There was no statute of limitations for a capital crime.. per Cooper FBI investigators. The trousers are mentioned in the FBI files and after investigating it was dismissed. 42" waist, too big.

Yes, but Tom Kaye said money was dry until Spring 1972.... not exactly. Actually, it is at least Spring 1972, but the money could have entered the Columbia R in any Spring from '72 thru '79... The Diatom's indicate that the money entered the Columbia R first in a Spring from 72-79 and became embedded in the sand within a relatively short time. I have 3 theories that fit this scenario. Also, the money didn't float it sank within minutes so it is not likely it washed up to the surface of the River and got deposited on TBAR.. The money spot was at about the 5-7 foot water level and the River frequently went well above that with the seasonal high water in Spring. You do not need the 72 and 74 record flood events to put the money spot under water. It is most likely the money went into the River in a Spring (72-79) when the River was above the money spot and the money tumbled along the bottom to its spot (which was effectively the River bottom) where it became buried. Of course, where was the money between NORJAK and its Spring entry into the River.

Here is Bruce Smith's photo of the card found in the chute returned to Hayden. https://themountainnewswa.net/2011/10/25/db-cooper-case-heats-up-again-with-controversy-over-parachutes/ The FBI couldn't read the card correctly.. The descriptor is below not above. MAKE: Pioneer TYPE: 26' Ripstop Conical SERIAL NO: 226 DATE OF MFR: Sept 1957 Here, they get the descriptors wrong, TYPE, SN and DATE. They also get the descriptors for other card (60-9707) found in the chute wrong. Those are two different packing cards both packed by Cossey same date May 21, 1971. 60-9707 found in the chute.. Here the FBI never got Cossey's records.. Did he not have them or did he realize he gave them the wrong description? FBI claims they can't eliminate a chute based on the serial number, but they did have the two packing cards. We have two back chute packing cards, packed the same date by Cossey both from the plane.. Tosaw's book claims that Cooper removed the packing cards and that claim supports the two cards being found. So, the FBI had the packing card and SN for the chute Cooper took and It does not match Cossey's NB6 claim. Cossey's claim was the only evidence for Cooper using his NB6.

I have never heard anybody claim or even entertain the idea that Cooper jumped and landed with the briefcase... He can't hold it, he would have to somehow tie it to himself and that doesn't make sense. Regardless, the buckle and hinge do not match an attache/briefcase and the about 10 feet thick of material has eroded since NORJAK..

There was never any means to a prosecution.. the FBI knew they didn't have enough evidence without a cooperating suspect. In 1976 the FBI held their own CooperCon and concluded that a prosecution was extremely difficult if Cooper was uncooperative. Eyewitnesses were weak and limited physical evidence. All latents lifted form the hijacked aircraft of no value... "this case considered closed"? 1987

Ulis is claiming the buckle and hinge were a legitimate find,,, that makes it worse than a plant.. Do they not realize that about 10 feet DEEP of material is completely eroded from that area.. The money spot isn't actually 15 feet into the River on the bottom, the River didn't rise the bar has been completely obliterated. and does anyone actually believe that Cooper jumped and landed with the briefcase...

The hinge and clasp look like they are from a guitar case, not a briefcase. Musicians I know get their guitars stolen often... it is a big problem.

This Reca nonsense has to end.. Somebody named Carl called in to the Steven Rinehart show 2008 during an interview with Larry Carr. Carl’s voice sounds exactly like Carl Laurin. The interview was in 2008 and Carl claims he taped his conversation with Walter Reca in 2008/2009. The tapes with Reca clearly show leading questions. Carl Lauren researched the case and fed info to Reca for the tape recordings. Reca sounds like he has early Alzheimer's in those tapes. Unfortunately, Carl’s research was poor. and he got some things wrong. The Reca narrative relies on him knowing info only the hijacker would know, that is not the case. All the info was available and Carl was researching it as evidenced by his questions to Larry Carr.. Carl at 10:39 Carl on our Salt Lake County line... Aug 2008 - interview of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) field agent Larry Carr by Steve Rinehart of K-TALK, 630 AM Salt Lake City, discussing the FBI's ongoing investigation of the NORJAK hijacking by Dan Cooper, Carl’s voice.. @ 25:22 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErCM9LSFrl0 SR: We have some callers. I want to continue asking you questions of my own, but let’s try to fit a couple of them in here, as we go. LC: Sure. SR: We got Carl on the Salt Lake county line. Carl, you’re on the air with Agent Carr. Carl: Yeah, hi. The FBI put on the newspapers the composite drawings. Now, are these pretty accurate in terms of the people who actually came in contact with the hijacker? LC: Yeah, you know everyone that came in contact with that gentleman in the interview with a sketch artist. They went about their process, developing all of the parameters of the individual’s face. They went back and constructed these sketches and then they were sent back out to the field. Each person looked them over. The three stewardesses involved looked them over, and there were some changes made to the original one. Once the stewardesses gave the thumbs up that this is the best representation, and that’s what was put out to the public. Carl: Okay, and then these thousands of suspects you developed, did they fit the basic description then? LC: Well, you know, a lot of them were ruled out basically on the physical descriptors of who D.B. Cooper was. Not necessarily the sketch, but basically the physical parameters; the dark complexion, or the olive skin complexion. Well, if your suspect’s fair skinned, and even if they weren’t solely ruled out on that, that’s one tick. Yeah okay, I guess if this person, if they were 5’7, as opposed to what was reported as 5’10 to 6’1, there’s another tick, that hey maybe this isn’t the right person. If they had blue eyes... Well, we’re pretty sure D.B. Cooper had brown eyes. So, you know, rule that off. Yeah, you know, a lot of the suspects were ruled because they didn’t fit the physical criteria. Carl: Yeah, I mean, since the FBI, they have this belief that the man may’ve been killed in the jump or when he hit the ground. Did the FBI conduct a search among the missing person reports? LC: Well you look at the databases back then, you know, long before the time of the computer, it was easier to connect the dots as far as missing persons go. So there was, of course, an effort at the missing persons database, but it just simply didn’t really exist back in that point of time. You know, it would’ve individual sheriff departments that would’ve collected the data, and someone had to do that. I couldn’t even guess how many sheriff’s departments there are in the United States, but I would imagine is was well into the thousands. Carl: Yeah, you know, is it possible when the hijacker got on the plane he would’ve changed his appearance? Like wearing a wig or maybe wearing these thick soled shoes so, you know, it’d make it appear that he might be taller, or maybe colored his hair a different color. Is that at all possible? LC: All that is possible, but when you look at how much time, especially Tina Mucklow, spent, the hijacker, shoulder-to-shoulder with him... You know, you can try these experiments yourself. Go ahead and put some makeup on your skin, if you’re fair skinned, and put enough on to swarthy, and then have someone sit next to you. You’re going to see that makeup, it’s going to be pancaked on to you. Same thing with a wig, it looked very unnatural, especially during 1971. So if someone’s wearing a wig, it’s going to be very noticeable. Carl: What seat was he sitting in before he, you know, hijacked the plane? LC: He was sitting in the very back, and I don’t have the file in front of me so... Carl: Was he sitting next to somebody else with whom he had a conversation? LC: No, he was sitting all by himself in a row of three. And, you know, ultimately, Flow Chapner sat by him originally, and Tina Mucklow the rest of the flight. Carl: What type of firearm did he have? LC: No firearm. SR: And a grenade. LC: No grenade. He had opened up his briefcase and there was either dynamite or road flares in there. Carl: Yeah, well interesting case. I wish you good luck Agent Carr. SR: Carl, thanks for the call. We appreciate it. Carl: Yeah, thank you. Goodbye.

At the very end they flash a new suspect... no name just a sketch.

Watched the new Expedition Unknown,,, Tom Kaye was good and the guys at the beginning discussing suspects was good, should have had Hahneman in the suspects but nobody (but me) really has enough info on him. The Walter Reca stuff was nonsense. The Eric Ulis stuff was ridiculous. Maybe the briefcase parts find was staged.. Josh has been known to do things like that.. But, Ulis claim is wrong.. it is 100% false that the Columbia River reached the money spot only in ’72 and ’74… The money spot was about the 5 to 7 foot level which was easily reached without the River at flood stage. The ’72 and ’74 flood levels were about 21 feet.. So, in June '72 the money spot was 12-15 feet underwater.. when Ulis claims Cooper was digging it up. The briefcase find is a joke, the money spot has lost maybe 10 feet of material depth to erosion.. the money spot plus 10 ft deep of material is long gone. I assume it was a plant for dramatic effect.

Cossey claimed the chute left behind was returned to him,, Cossey's replica Cooper chute... https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/b-cooper-replica-parachute-packed-190703299 At min 32.00s Cossey described the NB8 chute "he provided"...

FBI File #61 https://vault.fbi.gov/D-B-Cooper /d.b.-cooper-part-61-of-61/view

I explained the packing cards before.. there are three cards. 1 found in the opened front reserve. The opened front chute left on the plane is not part of this. It's card was 24 ft rip stop, SN DA 58-53912 yr Oct 1959 packed by Cossey Sept 16, 1971. 1 found in the back chute left on the plane. Pioneer SN 60-9707, July 1960 packed by Cossey May 21, 1971 1 in the back chute returned to Hayden. Pioneer SN 226, Sept 1957 packed by Cossey May 21, 1971 We are ONLY dealing with the two back chutes. Two cards and two chutes. One left behind and one missing. The card found in the back chute left on the plane did not match the chute and card returned to Hayden.. both noted above.. Both back chute packing cards were packed the same date May 21,1971. they must both represent Hayden's two chutes. The one Hayden got back now at the museum matched one of the cards,,, the other card MUST be from Hayden's other chute, the one Cooper used. It was staring right at us the entire time. My theory is that Cooper removed the cards and placed the one from the chute he took into the one he left behind. This is huge, they were looking for the wrong chute. This case is wide open now.

Yes, if this is what happened lots of things suddenly make sense including the FBI not being able to ID any found chute... relying on Cossey alone for the chute ID potentially undermined the case. That second Pioneer packing card found in the chute left behind had to be Hayden's other chute that Cooper used... there is no other reasonable explanation. It doesn't help with suspects but all the found chutes need to be re-evaluated. Hard to do after such a long time.

Your interview with Hayden is important. When you read the Detlor to Hayden did you read the descriptions at the bottom. Did he confirm? The Olive Drab/Tan harness. The early chute descriptions for the chute Cooper took doesn't match Cossey's NB6 description. My theory is the first and more accurate description came from Hayden. Later on the 26th Cossey described it as an NB6 Sage Green/Sage Green nylon.. completely different. Did Hayden ever confirm Cossey's description of an NB6. So far, the only source for the NB6 Sage Green/Sage Green is Cossey, that may be wrong. Cossey may have misremembered the Hayden chute,, that would mean that Cossey's NB6 description is wrong and all the chutes he rejected are back in play... Hayden also claimed the chutes were the same.. that does not support Cossey's NB6 claim. Further, the second Pioneer packing card found would have to belong to the chute Cooper used. I am particularly interested in the chute found in 1980 in the Lewis R near Heisson that was rejected and never looked at. It was found about 4 miles E of the flightpath at the 8:13 time. I got a feeling that was Cooper's chute. Bonus points, the chute was found about a mile from the Heisson store and just 200ft from the rail tracks.

I meant North East, but we'll see..

I have figured out a scenario that best fits the evidence… it was staring right at us the whole time. THIS IS HUGE.. IF TRUE. Bigger than Eric's ego.. This is a not a claim of fact so Georger shouldn't get his panties in a knot. The Conclusion first.. Cooper didn’t jump with Cossey’s ex-personal NB6 Sage Green container/Sage Green nylon chute. Cooper jumped with one of Hayden’s chutes.… It was,, PARACHUTE IDENTIFICATION MAKE: Pioneer Parachute Co. TYPE: 28' Ripstop Conical (Hayden quoted as 28', chute inspector 24’, one is a typo/error) SERIAL NO: 60-9707 DATE OF MFR: July, 1960 INSPECTED BY: May 21, 1971 by E J Cossey on riggers license number 159638 PACKING CARD: listed Brown Engineering Company, Post Office Box 1436, Patterson, California, 95363. Chute was described by Hayden as 28 FT white chute with an Olive Drab container and Tan cotton harness. The receipts… Hayden sent in two back chutes he claimed were identical,, (both cards = Pioneers) Cossey and Hayden never met but we know Cossey packed both of Hayden’s back chutes on May 21, 1971. Cossey claimed he never heard of Hayden. Cossey also failed to give the FBI any records for the chutes.. The FBI stated that Hayden described the chute Cooper took as 28 FT white Olive Drab container and Tan cotton harness. On Nov 26 Cossey is informed that a Pioneer was left on the plane whereupon he described the chute Cooper took as an NB6 Sage Green container and Sage Green nylon harness, his ex-personal chute. If Cossey never heard of Hayden, how can he be certain that was the chute Hayden got 6 months earlier. Cossey assumed that was the chute Hayden got, there is no evidence to support Cossey’s claim. We need to consider the sole source and the potential that Cossey’s chute assumption was wrong. Perhaps somebody else got chutes packed around May and Cossey mixed them up. If he had never heard of Hayden how does he know which chutes went to Hayden. Let’s proceed with the assumption that Cossey got the chute wrong. Hayden described the two back chutes he sent in as,, Number One: Civilian Luxury type, tan soft Cotton Material outside, 26 ft white canopy inside. Has a military chute inside of it. One or two burp sack in folds. Has foam pad cushion, and a frayed mark down the rib on the back, from rubbing on metal. (CHUTE NUMBER ONE MATCHES THE ONE RETURNED TO HAYDEN) Number two: Military back pack chute, standard military olive drab green on outside. 28 foot white canopy on inside, two burp sacks in back. Foam pad cushion. (elsewhere also states tan cotton harness) (CHUTE NUMBER TWO DOES NOT MATCH COSSEY'S, THE ONE COOPER TOOK) The description of burp sacks in both lends credibility to Hayden’s description. The chute left on the plane was examined and a card in the pocket indicated it was a Pioneer (24’) ripstop conical, SN 60-9707, manufactured July 1960 packed by E J Cossey May 21, 1971, rigger number 159638. The only discrepancy is the 28’ from Hayden vs 24’ from the person reading the packing card, probably a typo/error. The chute Hayden got back (left on the plane) was a different chute but similar, The card confirms it to be... PARACHUTE IDENTIFICATION MAKE: Pioneer Parachute Co. TYPE: 26' Ripstop Conical SERIAL NO: 226 DATE OF MFR: Sept, 1957 INSPECTED BY: May 21, 1971 by E J Cossey on riggers license number 159638 PACKING CARD: listed Brown Engineering Company, Post Office Box 1436, Patterson, California, 95363. What happened?? Here is an explanation,, the card found in the pocket of the chute left in the plane and returned to Hayden was from the other chute and placed there, probably by Cooper. Speculating, Cooper has both back chutes in front of him, he pulls out both cards, picks the 60-9707 chute and stuffs that card in the chute he left behind. You end up with the packing card from the chute Cooper took in the chute he left behind, The chute inspector found the card for 60-9707 in the wrong chute. Hayden got the chute back with the correct card so it must have also travelled with the chute and been replaced back later. Is the FBI aware of this? or just an error? The bottom line is the chute that Cooper jumped with may have been identified right in front of us the entire time. The ramifications are huge as Cossey would have been rejecting found chutes based on false criteria. The Cooper chute may have already been found and falsely rejected. One that stands out as important is the one found in the south Fork Lewis River within a mile of Heisson, a few miles E of the FP and about the 8:12 timeframe,, the sweet spot. That chute was rejected and never followed up on. This may be the identification for the actual chute Cooper used.. PARACHUTE IDENTIFICATION MAKE: Pioneer Parachute Co. TYPE: 28' Ripstop Conical (Hayden quoted as 28', chute inspector 24’, one is a typo/error) SERIAL NO: 60-9707 DATE OF MFR: July, 1960 INSPECTED BY: May 21, 1971 by E J Cossey on riggers license number 159638 PACKING CARD: listed Brown Engineering Company, Post Office Box 1436, Patterson, California, 95363. Chute was described by Hayden as 28 FT white chute with an Olive Drab container and Tan cotton harness.

The case for Sheridan as Cooper was ridiculously weak and desperate.. Sheridan was a nonsmoker and Ulis had claimed he faked it to throw off investigators, convenient right. The FBI files show that Cooper had cigarette stains on his right hand aka long term smoker. Ulis claimed the smoking thing caused him to accept Sheridan was not Cooper... perhaps an excuse. I really wished he kept going with Sheridan, now everybody will get another bogus narrative run through the media patched together by Ulis.. I predict a narrative based on a missing person from the NE who worked in a titanium machining environment who got road salt on his tie... That means Cooper was a no pull near TBAR on the Western Flight Path and best of all, it can't be proven wrong. Ulis spins the wheel in the Vortex another time.

No-pull was Carr's belief based on the "hard to pull" nonsense from Cossey and assumptions about the rejected chute instructions, Eric dropped Sheridan and is now quoting Carr's "hard to pull" narrative from an inside source (probably Carr).. that implies Eric will be a no pull guy,, though he hasn't stated it yet that is where it looks like he is going. Eric plants elements for his narratives in advance... it looks like he is planting a new narrative for a suspect from the NE after dropping Sheridan as a suspect. Prepping the ground with potential "no pull" evidence is how Eric rolls.. Ask him where he is on a no pull...

Cossey has a history of let's say extreme embellishments.... I agree that he likely modified his chute, but selling/packing a modified "too difficult to use" chute to Hayden, no way. Cossey must have told Carr one of his embellishments.. There are two problems here.. Cossey never mentioned the modification being too difficult until Carr interviewed him. Initially, he claimed the opposite. Cossey, could he have made it,, "oh yeah..." Now, Carr/Ulis are running with this nonsense to support a no pull theory... classic Also, the missing chute Cooper used was initially described by the FBI as an Olive Drab container with a Tan cotton harness. Then during Cossey's first interview on Nov 26, he stated it was a Sage Green container with a Sage Green nylon harness based on being told that the Pioneer was left behind. Did Cossey get it right or the FBI?? So, how did that go so wrong.. the other back chute description was accurate. Perhaps the mismatched packing cards fit in here.. Cossey packed those chutes six months prior to NORJAK and he failed to provide any records to the FBI.. He was going by recall.. What if he misremembered the Hayden chutes from six months prior. Hayden claimed they were identical. Cossey's chute is not. He has nothing to go by but a six month old memory. Cossey and Hayden never met. Everything from Cossey needs to be corroborated. Hard to sort out now. Every chute found was rejected by Cossey based on his identification of Cooper's chute. One that didn't match the FBI's initial description. What if Cossey was making comparisons to the wrong chute.