FLYJACK

It is just a matter evaluating evidence.. I have the same variability with Hahneman evidence. Hijacking a 727 for ransom and jumping out the rear stairs carries weight. Latin and swarthy carries weight. Hahneman also said , "don't try anything funny" Cooper said "no funny stuff.. it is interesting and worth noting but carries little weight.. Hahneman was estranged from his family and showed up for Christmas 1971. He gave his young son fishing gear claiming it was from the far East. Hahneman was a frequent liar so it was unlikely from the Far East. The Raleigh cigarette coupon book has fishing tackle in it.. This is interesting and worth noting but carries virtually no weight.

I found a vintage Penny's ad with the Towncraft Snapper Tie $1.50 (#3) and assorted Cuff Link, Tie Bar and Tie Tack sets... $5.00

My "case" is fine in this context.. IMO, This is so weak it has no value, that is my point. Some evidence is stronger than other evidence, recall is considered the weakest, let alone 40 year old recall. If I was a juror, you went to this woman to talk about KC being Cooper and you pushed a pic of a tie/clasp to her and asked "if the picture meant anything".. she said yes 40 years ago KC wore that clasp.. As a rational evaluation, I'd say BS.. She may remember a tie clasp, maybe she just told you what she thought you wanted to hear but no way she could ID it. It just is not believable. A prosecutor using a witness with an unbelievable claim discredits their case. Look at the case for Reca, it is based on 100% personal "recall". Just because people make a claim doesn't make it true.

Really, she remembers KC'c exact tie clip 40 years later.. I own several and can't remember them after a few years.. Maybe she recalls a tie clip, witness recall is the least reliable evidence.. If you are there to talk about KC and present a pic of the tie and clasp it isn't a leap for a "witness" to assume it is significant. People are very unreliable, they make mistakes and lie all the time.

It is interesting,, why would Calame and Rhodes write that book and push the McCoy narrative, they aren't dumb and had inside knowledge... I can't help but think they knew Cooper wasn't McCoy but were acting with ulterior motives.

Witness recall for specific tie clasp belonging to another well after the incident is really sketchy... I can't even recall my own tie clasps or ties.. I give it evidentiary weight of 0.0000000001 Show them a pic and they say yeah thats it... has no weight.

In 1991 Calame and Rhodes mentioned Cooper's tie.. trying to link it to McCoy. "The most compelling evidence, said Rhodes, a former federal probation officer, is that McCoy's mother-in-law identified objects Cooper left on the plane as McCoy's. The items were a mother-of-pearl tie clasp and a clip-on tie." https://www.newspapers.com/clip/20785219/some_suspect_richard_mccoy_of_being/

It seems the fingerprints are a Hail Mary... they have unidentified prints but are unsure if they are Cooper's, some agents have said he didn't leave any prints. Who knows?? FBI file #45 HIJACKER HAS MANAGED TO AVOID ARREST TO THIS TIME. BECAUSE OF LACK OF HIS FINGERPRINTS AT TIME OF THE HIJACKING IS ESSENTIAL TO APPREHEND HIJACKER WITH MONEY RETRIVED AS A RESULT OF ACTS OF AIR PIRACY. Georger has been wrong for over a decade, he gets the case facts wrong often, even makes up evidence. Instead of admitting it he uses ridicule to maintain his denial. He has ridiculed, smeared or lied about almost everyone...

New FBI file up #45 https://vault.fbi.gov/D-B-Cooper /d.b.-cooper-part-45-of-45/view Most of it on suspect "Jack Scott Farmer" .

The number of chutes wasn't the point.. It is the frustration of dealing with conflicts and inconsistencies within the FBI files.. If Flo's recall of the parachute demand in the note isn't correct,, what else is not correct.

The note dictated by Schaffner was the first demand communication = 4 chutes. If, as the FBI noted and he changed his demand from 2 chutes to 4 then that initial note is incorrect. Flo was recalling the text in the note,,

From the Palmer report.. "The upper layer consisted of six inches to eight inches of reworked beach sand and is the sand which contained the fragments and bundles of the recovered money. This sand also contained soda pop cans and other debris, which were not severely damaged or rusted. The post dredging sand contained older soda pop cans, rusted nails and spikes, and other rusted artifacts, which were in a much more deteriorated condition." The money was in the upper 6-8 inch sand layer which contained other debris that was not severely damaged or rusted.. That indicates the money was deposited more recently.

This is why this case is so difficult... FBI docs, witnesses.... Cooper dictated the following request "two back parachutes and two front parachutes.." This can't be true.. Cooper asked for two chutes then changed it to four. That note can't be accurate.

yup, some other hijackers gave/paid ransom money to crew or passengers, they handed back to authorities... A hijacker paying off crew is a brilliant idea... they would be compromised witnesses. The tip story and timeline just doesn't ring true.. somebody is being deceptive, it may one or more of the stews or the FBI holding back info.

Not age, there is seriously too much information.. I have thousands of documents on my computer. I am forgetting the info I already have, spent an hour looking for a Northwest 727 seat chart online and I already had it..

Timeline, Cooper orders drink from Flo while plane on Tarmac in Portland. Pays with $20, does NOT give tip when he gets change. Much Later, Tina brings money bag onboard plane, while Cooper inspecting it Tina asks for some money, takes it then (claims) she returns it. She claims it is against company policy to accept gratuities citing Cooper offering all the stews tip money from his pocket. Tina goes to get the chutes, Flo lifts the money bag to feel the weight. Cooper offers the stews drink tip money from his pocket. (about 4 hours after getting change from drink) As Flo and Alice are leaving, Cooper offers them packets of ransom money. (Calame and Rhodes..) At some point Flo went back into the plane for her purse. ----------------- Calame and Rhodes offered pack of money to each stew as they were getting off the plane at 14:30

He offered the tip money from the drink change he had 4 hours earlier... after receiving ransom money and after Tina claiming to return it due to a no gratuity policy. Quote Skyjack... "He fishes around the pockets of his pants for the $19 he received from Flo nearly four hours ago, on the tarmac in Portland, for the bourbon and Seven he ordered and spilled. He offers the change. Flo and Alice shake their heads. “Sorry.” “No tips.” He received the drink early in the flight and paid without offering a tip. After he had the ransom money the claim was that he offered tip money from his pocket...

Cooper offered the drink tip money AFTER the ransom was on board and about 4 hours after he bought the drink... After asking for some ransom money Tina said she handed it back claiming the no gratuity policy.. and she used the drink tip offer as an example. Problem,, Cooper hadn't offered the drink tip yet, that was later. Also, why did Cooper offer the stews drink tip money after he got the ransom and after Tina claimed the "no gratuity" policy to return some ransom packets.. Why would Cooper offer all the stews the drink tip money ($18) when he has the $200 k ransom and has already been told by Tina that they don't accept gratuities. IMO, the drink tip story is bogus or deceptive.

One other thing I find crucial... The missing bills... one packet was missing 20 bills. Why only one packet? the top one of a single bundle? Were they removed by a person or were they eroded away and just not accounted for?? One thing is for sure, the rubber bands were not "intact", there were fragments attached but based on the erosion of the packets and missing bills no way the rubber bands were "intact". I am not a fan of the suction dredge, I just can't see the money going through and ending up in that condition.. clamshell dredge is possible. The point I was making was the packets (100 bills each) went to Cooper in randomized bundles. How did TBAR packets get separated from their bundle but remain together? Either they were separated by a person prior or they landed as a single bundle and fell apart via erosion.

Cooper offered Tina a cigarette and she took one (at least).. 7 Raleigh's were identified and another one was assumed to be a Raleigh.. all attributed to Cooper. So, what happened to the cigarette Tina smoked? Was it one of those? Also... "It is felt Unsub was not an experienced criminal because of his mannerism exhibited after he received the ransom money. Unsub reportedly became somewhat childish, in his actions and comments while counting the money." How does Cooper count the money if it was randomized? Georger and Larry Carr got this wrong, Carr wrote.. "The money was packaged in varying amounts, so one bundle would have $500.00 another $1,000.00, there was no uniformity to it. I have been searching for the evidence report from the lab but have not found it yet, lots of files to go through. When I get it you'll be the second to know." There are many credible reports that the bundles were randomized... not the packets (100 bills). Carr incorrectly assumed the packets were randomized. What does this mean... Everybody assumes the 3 packets arrived at TBAR independently but together. That would indicate that they had to be in some container or placed there. This is completely false. The money went to Cooper in packets of 100 and those rubber banded into random sized bundles. We know the packets were not randomized then only the bundles could have been randomized. So, how did the three TBAR packets get removed from their bundle?? It is possible somebody removed them after Cooper got the money or they landed on TBAR as part/all of a single randomized bundle. That expands the means by which the money could have arrived at TBAR. It is false to conclude the TBAR packets could have only arrived independently.. Brian Ingram, who discovered ransom money in 1980: "We are out here making a campfire, my father and I, and that’s when we discovered the three packets of $20 bills, later to be proven as ransom money of D.B. Cooper."

Georger wrote.. Parrotheadvol replied Exactly. There's no need to go there.

Tom Kaye found a diatom on 377's Cooper bill, Georger Id'd it as Asterionella. Asterionella is common in the Columbia River.. However, Asterionella japonoca is a spring and summer species while Asterionella formosa is a winter species... So which one is it? Coulmbia River diatoms...

Increasing public interest helps books, films and narratives, it doesn't help advance the case. The public does not have the knowledge and ability to discriminate and process all the information in such a complex case. They accept what they are presented as fact rather than develop their own conclusions. It perpetuates uninformed opinions.

The Cooper case is too complex for a film to do it justice... To appeal to the widest audience a Cooper film has to be "superficial".. These films/shows don't advance the case. It may be entertaining but I don't expect anything new. Increased public interest isn't my goal... it doesn't advance the case, it perpetuates misinformation.

"The fingerprint lifts made during the search of the interior of the aircraft in the area where the hijacker was known to have been, such as the rear door, the area around the door, the lavatory door, as well as the seat area, susceptible to dusting, were submitted for fingerprint examination, but no fingerprints of value were found on any of the latents thus obtained. "