Jack Trendall, Head Office, Security Officer, Seattle-First National Bank, seems to say stuff that makes me think the bills were strapped in 100 note packets
"Mr Trendall provided a list of serial numbers of $20 totaling $30,000 worth of notes, which although they were on the microfilm itself, were not part of the $200,000 worth of $20 bills which the hijacker received. Trendall states that the bank packs $2000 worth of $20 bills in packages of $100. Each packet there contains $2000 worth of $20 bills.
Trendall provided the first and last serial number in each of these $20 bill packets and advised we should subtract both of these numbers, as well as the 98 serials numbers between each of these groups of numbers in order to determine the actual serial numbers of the bills which the hijacker received"also, on page 60 it says
"The entire list of the ransom bills had previously been microfilmed by the Seattle-First National Bank, and has now been incorporated in a 34 page pamphlet of ransom bills"goes on to say how the ransom money was $250,000. Using only $20 bills, it was $230,000, and $200,00 of that was what Cooper got. And the original microfilm was of all $250,000
I really don't understand how all of this got jumbled up to say individual bills were randomly assembled into packets (and microfilmed in the order they were assembled) that evening.
It seems clear that they were microfilmed at some prior date, and I'll accept the micofilm order and order within packets matched
And using that order/microfilm they were able to deduce the amount of money found on Tena Bar and that it matched the order delivered to cooper.
Otherwise they would have had to microfilm that evening? which makes no sense for 10000 bills being done one at a time. The process was described before, and it was one at a time. Correct.
Flyjack may want to lecture me about this propagation of this line of thinking...
but I remember going back and forth with Carr on this a long time ago, because his assertion of randomization and micofilming that night made no sense (and the "bank bands" report was known at some time)
we do have more unredacted info though, from Geoffrey Gray etc now. so that's good.
It's hard to see how anyone could believe in "rubber bands only" on bills delivered to Cooper.
There's nothing that supports that. The stronger support is strapped, and possible rubber bands.
The rubber bands are supported only the Ingrams testimony on the Tena Bar money.
I think everything I say above is supported by files.
Anything Carr said should be discounted as hearsay. He had no "secret info"
Remember: if they had truly re-randomized the order of individual bills, into random-sized "packets"...they would have had to re-microfilm (or at least note by hand) the order of those bills, in order to have the info they seem to have used in 1980.
EDIT: the simplest thing to exclude, to make everything make more sense, is to say the Ingrams never saw rubber bands. Since that has the weakest support, it would make sense to ignore that testimony. Why ignore the strong testimony and support the weak testimony?
EDIT: I just noticed that I posted images of the unredacted FBI reports without any "True Ink" watermark. Obviously that's not possibly unless I was sitting in the FBI office and had access to the reports. Which is obviously not true. Also not "true ink".
Poll