FLYJACK

Another possibility is that Cooper dropped money in a stew's purse.. after refusal,, Remember, Alice went to the back to get her purse.. were all the stew's purses stored in the back near Cooper... But, it would be discovered later and then it would be harder to explain to the FBI.

Maybe,, for whatever reason I just don't accept the fingerprint excuse.. because there were so many other overlooked potential sources for prints.

Smudged prints.. he may have modified his fingertips..

Not really, my father wrote notes on matchbooks all the time. It is always possible it was an error in the FBI notes but then that can applied to virtually everything in the case.. If it wasn't for notes and he left other potential prints why would he want to retrieve an empty matchbook.

It never made sense to me, the argument that he took the matchbook because it had his prints.. He left other items and "offering" the money that had potential prints.. It wasn't about the prints, he didn't care about them.. probably because he had obscured them.

We agree I also think he obfuscated his prints.. In the FBI files..

Like TBAR, we will never know for sure.. just a bunch of theories to argue about.

Most of the other letters are. Those three letters stand out from the rest as possible,, They don't seem like randos.. two of them had an agenda. Why would some rando want to convince that Cooper was dead and a really good guy?? Sounds more like Cooper or an associate trying rehab his character and end the search... and I don't think he was dead.

This is not true, Cooper did leave evidence behind. Cigs, tie, drinking glass, magazines, the open chute, the packing cards he handled, and the money the stews "refused" could have had his prints.. doesn't sound studious. The notes he took had hijacking comms writing on them,, the matchbook had notes written on it. He took it because of the notes not prints.. he didn't care about prints, maybe he had obscured his fingertips.. I don't see that an argument either way..

The problem with your analysis.. The letter's aren't necessarily factual.. "Bedridden" was Sept 72,,, and "Bahamas" was March 72.. Neither is necessarily true. IMO, the Sept 72 is an attempt to convince that Cooper had died,, he hadn't. (Clara did the same 10 years later)

It is a boast.. doesn't mean it can't be Cooper. I think it was an initial contact for a shake down. The 4 codes in the letter for each news media were meant for a follow up to confirm the ID of the writer.. but there was never any follow up. The writer bailed on his plan, just like the person who contacted Gunther wanted money but just dropped out. The follow up would probably have been a money for info scheme. I did find a solution to one of the codes, it may be a coincidence but it would have to be 1 in over 100000 odds.. The unredacted letter I posted, the coded letter(s) and this one are the ones I consider possibly from Cooper and worth examination.

If in a week or two later there was a missing bundle from the ransom, everyone would be looking for an explanation. The crew would be under initial scrutiny.. if they placed that article or not. It was the only way they could make a public statement... and get in front of it. If they knew a bundle was missing and was about to be exposed from their perspective it makes sense to make that slightly altered narrative public. Judging whether it was the right move is another issue. This isn't proof, it is just very suspicious and outside the norm for Tina and it supports the broader TBAR theory. You can nit-pic and rationalize away virtually everything in this case because there are actually very few provable facts, that is why this is such a tough case... We need to accept some things as possibly true to vet them until proven false. Doesn't mean you believe it but it is part of the inquiry process... when you automatically reject things that are possible but unproven then there is no advancement.

I disagree, that article and timing of it is a significant piece,, it is completely out of character,, Tina never divulged any case evidence and didn't discuss the case for decades.. It is such a rare piece of info that it stands out. They even twisted the facts to make her look better... Cooper didn't offer her money, she asked for it.. it came from her or the people around her and it was intentional. The info about her taking the money was not public, why was it revealed. Bucks County pop was 434,000 in 1972.. Clearly, if we knew exactly how it got in the paper and why that timing it would make a difference.

The idea is to have it out in the public domain to point at later if needed.

You are overthinking it.. what of it was all still in the closed bag. BUSTED. It would be more risky to manufacture a false story than to slightly fudge what was already told to the FBI. I think the slightly altered story in the paper was a pre-defense... Remember Tina asked for some money and took it,,, that doesn't look good. They knew of an imminent ground search and if they also knew a bundle was missing they would act proactively to get ahead of that being discovered.. it doesn't mean they would have made the right or the best move. But if a bundle was missing, Tina and the other stews would have been looked at by the FBI. No question. If a missing bundle was made public then the media and public would have questions and speculation about the stews/crew.

Anybody think this might be Cossey? Looks sort of like him..

Since Tina's sister is mentioned, it probably came from her or her husband Lee.. Plus the timing, content and context is odd.. right before the search published March 8 and it coveys no other info,, other than to present a distorted and favourable view of Tina's money interaction. Imagine if there was a random piece saying only,,, Tina smoked a cigarette with Cooper... There may be an innocent explanation but it just doesn't pass the smell test.

I was only conveying that the newspaper article appeared just prior to the search, giving context for the timing of the article.. Neither the article nor Tina's brother in law had any influence on the search whatsoever... I would think the FBI never knew about the article. I agree it is crazy to think the article impacted the search in any way or was intended to impact the search.. IMO, the article was only intended to front run the results of the search.. if money was found and some missing they would have publicly seeded a slightly false and more favourable narrative.. The article said she was offered and refused because it wouldn't be right.. Tina actually asked for some money and took it, then claimed she gave it back due to company tip policy,, that isn't exactly duress. If some money was discovered missing.. that would likely have been made public and Tina would be under public scrutiny.. and whether anything was made public or not the FBI would scrutinize Tina, that would be an obvious part of their investigation. As a victim, I also do not believe anything would have happened to her. The motivation for planting that article would be based on their perception of what may happen... to get ahead of all potential outcomes. The actual outcome is not relevant. Why would the article appear at all.. that article was completely out if character for Tina to publicly reveal case evidence.. the only other remote reason I could come up with would be that her fingerprints could be found on some of the money. But she still broke the rules by publicly disclosing case info.. and if no money was missing she had nothing to worry about.. in fact finding prints would substantiate her money story. The most likely explanation is that they planted the story because they knew if the ransom money was found, a bundle was missing. If a bundle was missing they would look at Tina,, and other stews. This was an extensive ground search, there was a good expectation that Cooper and the money would be found. This topic is polarizing and people get emotional defending Tina because she was a victim,, I get that. If she did end up with a bundle of money, nothing would have happened to her. I don't blame her, but if she did cause a bundle to end up at TBAR she should just say so, nothing would happen to her. But being objective, this is a good theory for TBAR. NOT PROOF. The only money we know of that was separated from the ransom was the money Tina asked for and took. The amount was not disclosed but potentially the same as TBAR. The ransom bundles were made random, meaning there could have been 3 packets in 1 rubber banded bundle. The money didn't land on TBAR the night of the hijacking, there was a delay before it went into the River during Spring at least a year before being found. That article setting a favourable narrative appeared right before the extensive ground search. Tina was moved by her sis and brother in law to about 8 miles upstream of TBAR in 78/79, she then moved to Eugene.. Flo said Tina was hiding something. The money was rounded off as if tumbling along the bottom of the river. So, did her brother in law toss the money in the Columbia river about 8 miles upstream in spring 78/79... blocks from Tina's residence.. We will never know. This is just one theory for TBAR.. It isn't proof.. There are many other theories.. I have another I think is really good but I don't think TBAR will ever be solved.

Maybe, if a bundle were missing there would be public speculation, but more importantly there was no expectation that the fact that she requested and handled some money would remain quiet. They wouldn't know what would be made public. The FBI would care what happened to the missing money. I agree that nothing would happen to her though.. If the FBI did find out she had some money then it would become public.. Publishing that newspaper piece gets them in front of all potential outcomes. It is a strategic move.. they even spun it. Classic front running. but none of this has anything to do with suspending the ground search. I never said that.

Very unlikely, I doubt Tina is telling anyone outside of her sister and FBI brother in law. Her brother in law would have managed this and tossed the money if she did keep it.

I said if the money was found and some missing, they would look at Tina because she admitted taking some.. naturally. I never said guns blazing,, I doubt anything would have happened to her. Her ex husband did say that they were surveilled by the FBI at one point,

We know that the sister and brother in law were very protective of Tina.. I agree that if she did keep it and turned it in nothing would happen to her, maybe he put it in her purse and she found it later and got scared.. This is a polarizing issue because people view Tina as a victim and she was but this news piece brings in a new element. The problem is when you put all the pieces together it actually makes sense for TBAR. No, it can't be proven.

If money was missing and it was made public then Tina would be looked at by the public.. If money was missing and not made public then the FBI would look at her..

No, I didn't even allude to it.. If you took it that way, it wasn't meant to be.. it is a crazy idea. That is why I didn't understand your comment... I never said that, meant that, believed it or alluded to it.

BINGO... Only the FBI had Tina's initial statement, if the search found money missing and it was made public Tina would get both public and legal scrutiny. Getting that statement into the public would "front run" public opinion to potentially prepare a public or legal defense, if needed. That is the only reason I can imagine that spun story was planted.. They were concerned that the money would be found and some would be missing.. Why?