SafecrackingPLF

One thing I'm curious about regarding the tie... suppose he does take it off before he puts his gear on... Then why oh why is the tie clasp still on the tie? Did this guy not know that you clip the tie to your shirt? This would have had to been removed while removing a tie. And one last thing, was cooper wearing a jacket underneath his raincoat? If so, were they both worn in an open style? We've always been told Cooper wore a black tie with a pearl "tie tack"... is this what the witnesses reported, or was this based on the evidence left behind? I'm not insinuating they're two different things, I'm just wondering how this description was generated.

I'd say anyone, let alone a suspect, who can be shown to have jumped from planes professionally or recreationally would have that "advantage" over Weber. Although, the (demo) front pack that Cooper jumped with... does this support military, expert, or a novice jumper? Or is the front chute consistent with all of the above? As for the tie, of course the most they could ever get off of it with regards to a fingerprint would be a partial, since both the clip & clasp would be fairly narrow. I'm also bewildered as to why Cooper removed it, if he actually did remove it... afterall, it was a clip on. If he didn't want to jump with it on, then why did he wear it in the first place? Another question, does loosening your collar make that much difference when strapping up your gear? I'm also presuming he had a raincoat on and he strapped up his gear over the top of it. If he actually removed this tie, why did he remove this tie? I'd love to hear what the sky diving community would say about this.

My guess... the person was posting their derived conclusions to support their argument that skyjack71 had no evidence. No prints? No DNA? Unless the person knows what they're talking about, then maybe. Otherwise I see it as a strawman argument based only on their imagination of what the evidence is. All of us don't know anything about either the prints that were found, where they found, where they weren't found, or the DNA, how it was derived, where it was obtained, how the comparison was made, and most importantly to what degree we can rely upon either identification method. Let's face it, neither the finger prints nor the DNA has been explained, at all. As you can see regarding only the money that was found 17.5 years ago, there was a lot of misinformation and the assumptions of the FBI at the time simply didn't account for the facts, nor were the theories explained adequately for an observer to reach the same conclusion. Here's what I know about Cooper & his awareness of avoiding capture: 1. He asked for all the notes back, presumably to prevent handwriting or fingerprint analysis. 2. He wore sunglasses during the later portions of the flight, presumably to make identification more difficult. Cooper at least thought it through this far. If he was that meticulous with the handwritten notes, then to what degree can we assume he was meticulous with his prints? Were Cooper's prints found on the drinking glass? Were any? Or were they wiped clean before he left the plane? Were there prints on his armrest? Were there prints on the wheel that lowers the stairs? My guess would be that Cooper wore gloves during his escape and that he wiped off the hard surfaces he may have touched. In other words, most likely Cooper left zero prints. Ckret might be able to shed some light on this. Regarding DNA, the cigarettes would certainly have DNA. The rim of the drinking glass would have DNA. For the reasons outlined above, I find the tie quite perplexing. For someone who was meticulous about the notes, he just discards the tie and leaves it behind on accident? (I can actually believe this if he was caught up in the moment)... what other mistakes did Cooper make? OR, was the tie purposely placed there? I don't know the answer, do you? Ckret, did they ever obtain finger prints off the clip or the tie clasp? As for Florence Shaffner, seeing a small picture on a cell phone from a person who wants to show that Kenneth Christiansen was Cooper probably isn't the best measurement of accuracy. If you want to compare Duane to the Composite (the best description we have of Cooper), then you can do it yourself. The FRS (facial recognition software) already demonstrated Duane as the best match of everyone its database. As for age differences of photos, the best way to avoid a pitfall is to: show a photo taken at the same time as the crime, or show a photo taken a few years before the crime. People age more at the end of their life than they do mid-life. I would never use an aged photo for comparison purposes, I'd use (If I'm going to error in some way) a younger photo. For example, see the photo of Duane taken in the early 1960s (1962??) and the 1971 composite of Cooper. I used the most detailed composite instead of the least detailed (which is also what people should do when comparing to composite photos). Further, I'm not sure I'd trust Florence or Tina 36 years after the fact. You would need a sequence of photos, maybe even video of the person to really get an idea if they can accurately finger someone. And the best way to do a photo line-up?? Well, let's just say that we don't show up with one suspect and ask if its that suspect. You need suspects who all resemble the composite, and none of the pictures should have been shown to the witness previously. You then ask if any of them are the suspect. In the history of criminal investigations, poor photo line-ups have fingered the wrong suspect NUMEROUS times, sometimes leading to wrongful convictions. Ckret can back me up on this one.

Thank you Ckret. I think your idea of the money bag winding up at the site does explain the bundle. I also think it's possible for several bundles to wash up within the same square foot naturally if a "pool" was created from trapped waterflow.... but I still would think it next to impossible to have several bundles stacked unless they were already stacked when deposited. There are other explainations that might fit, including my original idea of decomposing compression... if several bundles were already sticking to each other and only had to travel for a few minutes/miles, then that would also be consistent, in my opinion. What I like Ckret is that we're all able to put the myths to rest because you're giving us facts. We cannot trust what the news tells us. Along those lines, Orange posted several PDF's, and I browsed through one of them and happened to notice several reports of Cooper having both a attache case and a paper sack. I've never heard of Cooper having a paper sack with him, is this true or is this more false reports?

Thank you Ckret! I do have one final question... am I safe to assume that there was no bundle of 300 ($6,000)? When I spoke of bricks earlier, I meant taking several bundles and rubberbanding them all together. If so, then obviously we have more than one bundle found together. A "few" inches is quite a bit different than 6-8 inches. I'd say 2-4 inches is a "few" inches. Can waterlogged bills at the bottom of a river find a way to float to the surface? We know that damp or dry bills CAN float. Waterlogged, I'm not so sure about... I used to work at a water park somewhere in the NW, and when I'd clean the pools in the morning, I'd often find a 5, 10, or even 20 in the pool. These bills were NEVER floating, they were ALWAYS at the bottom. I'm not an expert at fluid dynamics of the Columbia river, but my mind would tell me if the bills were at the bottom of the river, it would take a large upward draft to bring items already on the bottom up to the surface. A severe change in depth would do this, but it would have to be a change in depth all the way across the river, or the items would just go around the obstacle. This is path of least resistance. Let's suppose for a moment that right where the money was found, there was a shallow spot in the river... am I safe to assume that there was no bundle of 300 ($6,000)? In other words, we're talking multiple bundles all found together. Yes?

Very interesting pictures. I was curious why Ckret never mentioned the size of the bricks. Suppose there were no bricks, only bundles of 100 (so 100 total bundles of 100 bills each secured by a ruberband). In this case there's really only two plausible theories: 1. The money was buried there 2. The money was buried somewhere else The reason is because of the compression. The bundles were all sticking to each other. You could argue they stuck to each other because sitting under 6 to 8 inches of sand and decomposing would provide enough compression & "muck" (as we're told) to glue these three bundles together. However, we know they weren't purposely buried there. You might argue they were placed there post 1974, but it wouldn't make any sense. If there were no bricks and only bundles, this would mean the bills washed up ashore already stuck upon each other. This would imply compression during the rotting. This would not fit the "most likely" theory that investigators came up with in early 1980. I highly doubt the bundles would stick to each other all the way down several high velocity creeks and streams. The whole bag would have had to go down those streams carrying all the money with it, and there would be water in between the bundles preventing them from sticking to one another very strongly. If there were bricks, then we can say the bundles stuck to themselves because the rubber band(s) held the bundles together. Otherwise, we're back to only one possibility: the money was buried elsewhere and somehow washed up at Tena's bar.

Thank you. So it's the linen they put into the bills to strenthen them, NOT the cotton. Got it.

Excellent! The composition of the bills couldn't be totally linen & cotton. Some of it has to be paper, or else it couldn't tear. Still, if I want to run an experiment, it would seem using one of today's dollar bills would be similar to the 20s of the mid to late 60s (which is probably the majority of the loot given to Cooper). Ckret... did the FBI ever test the specie of mold on the money? We can assume what organisms might have been growing on it, but I'm curious if this is already known.

I'm not sure how the composition of our bills has changed over the years. I'm basing my assumptions on our bills being a blend of paper fiber & cotton. Both are susceptible to mildew & mold. If I leave a shirt outside for a few days it will begin to have a mildew smell. In the fall in the NW, the amount of moisture in the air due to humidity and rain would be substantial. Over time, this would only get worse. The bag would protect the bills for some time. How long would be speculation, but I'm sure it would not be 6 years. Since the bills were deposited post 1974, then we know we have at least 2 to 3 years of decomposition. If you believe in the splatter theory, then you also have to believe this same money traveled several miles through course and high velocity creeks. Like I said, I will eventually look at the landing site to get an idea of what creeks would be around, especially if there are any creeks that feed into Washougal. On the face of it, I find it highly improbable that money found its way to the Columbia through several small creeks or streams, but without taking the time to actually look, the theory would seem plausible. After the money was found, Himmelsbach believed that Cooper survived the jumped and sought out water and died near water. That's a lofty explaination for the facts. I will visit some old vancouver maps at the regional library later on in December. I will post my thoughts at that time. Someone hiding the money for several years and then discovering it's been ruined through years of dark moisture does fit the facts quite nicely. Cooper surviving, burying the case & parachute, carrying the money bag to a creek and then dying (without a body ever being found) seems a bit of a stretch to maintain the splatter theory. Simply put, the money that was found seriously jeopardizes the splatter theory. To feed into Washougal would require a creek running east. Most creeks that I'm aware of run west and would feed into the Columbia down stream from where the money was found... but I would like to confirm this.

Ckret didn't say that he agreed with the assessment, he only reported what they said at the time. The reason I asked about the likely landing area is to determine what creeks might be around there. I too find it highly unlikely that the money traveled that far, but I will look at a map and draw my own conclusions. If the money was above 1974 strata, then no amount of arguing would convince me it was placed there before 1974. Also, if you believe the money was purposely planted there, then why are 10 bills missing? Even if 10 bills happen to just dissipate through time, there's only 3 bundles there. It's not probable that 3 bundles constituted a brick, which if buried would have been buried as a brick. From what I can tell, it would seem Ckret has adequately dispelled the "buried" theory. If that money was buried, it was NOT buried where it was found. No zipper or draw string on the bag... my instinct tells me this makes the splatter theory absolutely impossible. The money would not have remained dry for 6 years, let alone anything more than 6 years. This money would have began decomposing immediately. Already decomposing money flowing down high velocity creeks, on the face of it, doesn't sound as though it fits the theory, but like I said, I'll look at the landing area and draw my own conclusions. Once again, great post Ckret.

Exellent post! For clarification, what type of bag did the FBI put the money in? What material was it made of? Where was the zipper (if there was one) located? Second question, approximately where was the reported "blip" where they figured Cooper jumped? Some type of direction & proximity to a known landmark would be helpful (eg. 3 miles southeast of woodland). It wouldn't have to be exact, just close. Was there any other river dredging from 74 to the time the money was found? I'm going to have to look at some old maps to find this Tena's bar. I always figured it was within a reasonable distance to catepiller, maybe west to southwest of felida... as long as we're close, the location is elementary other than the terrain where the money was found. Thank you Ckret for helping the community try to unravel some of the mystery.

Exactly. These are the points I was making. It's a $6,000 gamble and only helps authorities. The condition of the money does not support them being buried where they were found. Ckret, you can put the buried theory to rest simply by telling us how many bundles were in a brick. I guarantee it was not three bundles to a brick, it was likely 5 or 10. Regarding Mayfield and his having students "buy" new facilities... the post itself outlines that he had robbed banks before. Why does he need to skyjack a plane? Go back to the questions I had and address them. The Mayfield theory hasn't been adequately explained for the FBI or anyone to truly accept it. As for the money that was found. The condition & location do not support the splatter theory. They also do not support being buried at that location or really even buried at all. Being buried in a container would support the condition of the bills, especially if they were buried in a container for 9 years compressed to each other (crammed in). Dumping a stack or several stacks of mildewy and rotten cash that had been underground in a less than airtight container would explain the condition. The location would also be explained if the dumping occured either adjacent or within a few miles east of where the money was found. The timeline on this would be pivotal as well, if too much time passes between the dumping and discovery, then we have the running water problem again. A person dumping a stack or numerous stacks of cash that were already rotted and compressed together only a few months before discovery would fit the facts. It would also address motive because the money would certainly have been rotted and damaged after 9 years. Skyjack71's story is plausible. If her story isn't true, then a very similar situation must have happened.

Now I know who you think committed the crime. As pointed out in another's post, Cooper putting on a faulty front chute isn't something a typical instructor would make. Again, Cooper makes a big "gamble" to throw off authorities? This time with his life? I believe it was this past Sunday that the Oregonian ran a full page photo of the Cooper sketch. Would someone who lives (and skydives for that matter) commit the crime of the century in their own backyard? We've just discussed how the most likely plan A was jumping near Sea Tac as the plane took off. Let's not forget, Cooper argued with the Pilot about the stairs and did NOT specify a flight path. At this time, it had gotten dark. If Cooper's original plan was to jump right away, which is suggested by the details of the crime, then the idea that someone had a partner waiting on the ground completely misses the facts. Suppose there really was a confederate on the ground. Without specifying a flight path, it would be impossible to predict the landing point beforehand. Mayfield being on the phone by 9 pm really shoots holes in this already improbable scenario, because he'd likely have to travel some distance to meet up with the alledged confederate. Further, he'd have to get to a payphone that quickly and make the call to the police to "create" his alibi. Aren't there better ways to create an alibi besides calling the FBI and telling them it would be easy to pull a crime like this? Just have someone vouch for you! Even with this, you're stuck in Portland where the attention is focused. Also, since you've called the FBI, now it's almost certain they'd pay you a visit, even if it's just to talk. Who's to say they don't snap a photo for a photo line-up? Once again, a very risky gamble if this was Mayfield. Does this guy have a gambling addiction??? Furthermore, how would Mayfield have known that the eye witnesses would describe someone that does NOT match his description? Another gamble! It simply does not add up. One last thing, Cooper did not specify a flight path. He requested Mexico City. Cooper had NOT factored in refueling. Would an instructor think this plane could make it from Seattle to Mexico City without refueling? If not, why would he agree to Reno and not say, San Francisco?

Let's run with the "Cooper buried the money" idea for a moment. Cooper would have taken at least one brick and buried it. How far down? Well, certainly more than a few inches deep, it would have been down more than 8 inches. If he buried it deep enough, say 12+ inches, then the mildew and water damage would be explained. Below the surface of the sand there's generally a steady supply of moisture if not complete water. The ideal condition to produce mildew like that would be stale water, which could happen if the bills were underground. If this place was totally dry and free from river flow (even in high tide) then a steady stream of rain for nine years would certainly decay the buried bills. Where the "Cooper buried the money" theory gets sketchy is that only 290 bills were found. This isn't even 300. For argument's sake, let's say 10 bills just disintigrated over time. We would still be at 300 bills. Ckret, do you know how many bills made up a brick? Assuming stacks of 100 bundled together (which were intact) and bricks of ?? rubber banded together, you would expect to find an entire brick if it were purposely buried. The reason is because now there's NO running water to wash away the other bands. A bulldozer could not even dig up any additional bills. Let's suppose Ckret comes back and says each brick was only 3 bundles or 300 bills, now we have to ask ourselves how long could that money stay underground in that condition without completely rotting out? Could it be 9 years? I don't know because I don't know how dry it was there. I also suspect Brian only grazed the sand a few inches when he unearthed his find, but we would again need Ckret to shed some light on that. Even if we still find a way past these obstacles, now we have to ask ourselves about motive. Why would Cooper purposely bury a brick of cash in the sand by the river? What's the goal in doing this? Is the goal for it to be found? If it's to be found, then it would have to be buried just beneath the surface, and it's a gamble at that (is it really worth $6,000 to gamble?). Burying the money leads to one conclusion... Cooper survived the jump. Why would Cooper eliminate an outcome for investigators? It only makes their job easier. Many people have said they think Cooper put that money there to "throw off the cops". Throw them off of what? Why would Cooper want anyone to know that he ventured southwest? Why would he want anyone to know that he survived? Why would he gamble $6,000 for this "throw off"? Finally, why throw them off that way? Why not put the money in a more prominant place so the gamble wouldn't be as servere? Why not plant the money near the landing site to confound investigators? Burying the money simply does not make sense. If Ckret can come back and tell us that the money was in bricks of something other than 300, then the buried money theory really falls apart. The bills sticking to themselves does suggest compression. This could be from compression of the bands, or it could be from the bills being compressed (such as the buried money theory).

Thank you for responding Ckret. I knew that article mentioning the money found in a bag had to be a mistake. Many posters here have mentioned that Cooper never specified a route, though he was saying to head south to Mexico. He also wanted the jet to take off with the stairs lowered. Wouldn't it seem that the original plan of Cooper's was to jump in Burien or the Des Moines area (in other words, Sea Tac area)? If I understand correctly, the money had no bands left and it was all clumped together. Given the rot and that it was found near water, does the fact that the bills were stuck to themselves support nine years of being in water flow? Most things expand in water, and running water has a tendancy to tear fibrous materials apart. The weathering on the bills (stuck to themselves with the outer edges all moldy and decomposing) do not lend themselves to 9 years of water logging and even slow water movement. What type of condition would create a stack of bills that sticks to themselves with the outer portions suffering from mildew? Remember, we're talking about 9 years. Figuring out this clue might become a key that unlocks the mystery of deciphering Cooper's fate.

This question about $100 bills verses $20 bills is crazy. Answer your own question by asking yourself, what is the most counterfeited denomination? Why? Though Cooper did not ask for $20s, from what I know, he asked for "small bills." There's probably a reason why he asked for small bills and it could be a reason no one ever "found" one of the Cooper bills in circulation. The DNA question is very valid. For instance, in the Zodiac case, they did a DNA comparison from one of the letters to the lead suspect Arthur Allen. The problem was the letter that was tested wasn't known to be a true Zodiac. Similarly, if an article has been handled for 3 decades and you're testing trace DNA, how are we assured the DNA profile is that of the real suspect and not someone else? Along the same lines, DNA from the suspect must be from the suspect and free of any contamination. I for one would like to know more about what we know about the DNA. Was the DNA from the tie cross tested against the DNA on the drinking glass or cigarettes? Skyjack71 mentions a letter sent to Reno. In late 1971, the Seattle AP reported that several letters were sent to various newspapers claiming to be from Cooper (much like the Zodiac case). One of those letters was sent to a Reno newspaper. Ckret, can you shed some light on the letter that arrived at a Reno newspaper in late 1971? I'm curious to know what it said and if it was handwritten or not. Particularly, how was it signed? An eyewitness that places a lead suspect in Portland at the time of the crime is fairly significant evidence. Let's locate that registration to see if this eyewitness account holds water. The person made an earlier post on this tread so they're probably still around. Skyjack71 raised an interesting question regarding the faulty chute. Up until last month, all the literature said that Cooper left the chute (with an "X" on it?) and now we're told one of the chutes he used was faulty. Which is it so that we know... did he jump with a bad chute or did he leave it behind? If he jumped with a bad chute, was his other chute also faulty? The so-called splatter theory seriously falls apart because of one piece of critical evidence. Brian Ingram's money found at frenchman's was around 20 miles away from the drop zone, and that's if you travel in a straight line. The odds of the duffle bag flying open upon impact and stacks of cash finding their way from the woods in Cowlitz county all the way to the river bank near catepillar are absolutely infinitesimal. Further, the money would have had to travel this distance in the course of 9 years and still be legible enough to retrieve serial numbers off of them after that time. One of the articles posted here a few days ago mentions this money was found buried in a bag, is that true? If so, what type of bag was it? If there was any bag at all (and that's the first I've heard of a bag) then it's completely foolish to believe in the splatter theory since the stacks of money weren't in bags when given to Cooper. The reporter must have gotten this detail mixed up. Furthermore, the "missing person" angle also supports the ascertion that Cooper survived the jump. Ckret, it's great to have you here on the forum. Through your diligence, the community at large can make some progress in this case. Maybe someday it will finally be put to rest.