New Forum & News Updates

[Bruce A. Smith]

I would think they are a step above the average person (the crew) they are trained for emergencies, and dealing with panic. nobody had a clue what was going on for hours due to there professionalism...they didn't let anyone see anything going on until the money, and chutes came a board. then the passengers were probably confused as hell.

I think they handled the situation very well. everyone went home that day, or evening...

Do you think the crew is lying when they say they moved the passengers forward early in the flight, and that no one sat any closer to the skyjacker than Row 14 for the majority of the time before they landed at Sea-Tac?

Why do you think the incident reported by Scott MacPherson about the significant intervention the flight attendants had to make with a drunken passenger in Row 10, approximately, in the middle portion of the flight never made it into the debriefing report? Did the FBI censor that in Reno? Did the crew mention it at all, or did they self-censor before they met with the FBI, and then the media?

Similarly, how come there is no mention in the crew debrief, or any where else that an armed FBI agent named "John," had come on board. Someone must have persuaded him to leave before there was a gun battle, or at least a confrontation with Cooper. Was that Alice? Whose idea was it to substitute an "FAA official" for FBI agent in the transcripts?

Did Tina really go outside to get the money when several passengers say that a "couple of men" brought it on board, and that she picked up the bundle at the forward part of the plane. Is that a false memory induced by trauma on the part of the passengers? Or is Tina spinning her story a little? Is that why the crew wants to put the story to bed, because there are too many little teensy-weensy spin jobs and white lies to cover up any more, and every is just too tired to keep the charade going?

Just askin'... and looking to connect the dots between the stories.

[georger]

Re: Skipp Porteous:

Skipp Porteous replied to my inquiry concerning the hefty essay attributed to him. He denies writing it. To wit:


I didn't write it the letter to you. I'm it Orlando, enjoying my retirement.

Sincerely,
Skipp

Also:

    On 8/11/2016 1:29 AM, Skipp Porteous wrote:

>      I didn't see it all. I'll read in the morning when I fully awake.
>
>     It's 4:00 in the in morning.
>
>     Sincerely,
>
>     Skipp
>

I wouldn't be shocked if Blevins wrote that post himself.   I suggest you remove it, not for Blevin's sake but for yours and Skipps.  Whatever the truth it may contain, it's rather low class.  Maybe it's funny and maybe it's true, but it's not consistent with the high quality of your website.  Especially since you have pretty good evidence it's a bogus.  Believe me, i LMAO but it's better to stay out of the mud.

I have every confidence that this is Skipp Porteous in this email. I have had several correspondences with him over the past few years, and the content and style of this email is classic Skipp.

In addition, the email IPs check out. I don't see the embarrassments in posting Skipp's message. The guy has physical and neurological impairments. So? I thought I was honoring him by letting him speak in his defense, with his words.

Besides, anyone whom continues to have the chutzpah to publish a book titled: The True Story of DB Cooper, and then have a picture on the front cover of a guy landing in daylight with a rectangular parachute and wearing a heavy parka and jump boots shouldn't begrudge a fellow researcher who is trying to set the record straight on a bogus post made in his name.

Skipp Porteous used to be a private investigator in New York City. If he wants a piece of me, he knows how to find me.  I should treat him with kidd gloves? Forgetaboutit!

Well, if this is Skip Porteous my hat's off to him! I hope his health improves. 

[nickyb233]

I believe that post was not from Skipp but none other then Bruce A. Smith which is fine with me because blevins is an idiot!

[Bruce A. Smith]

Wow, what a twist, Nicky. Never saw that one coming. But in Cooper World, anything is possible.

[MarkBennett]

More specifically, I think it's significant that one of the 3 main eyewitnesses (Mitchell) is saying RWR could be DBC. 

I don't recall Mitchell ever saying RWR could be DBC.  He pointed to his photo and said "that's Richard McCoy", whose photo he had seen as part of a British documentary Mitchell participated in 2008.    When did he say Rackstraw could be Cooper?  I suppose "I can't say one way or the other" is logically the same as "Rackstraw could be Cooper", but it's misleading.

One of Tom Colbert's team said by selecting the Rackstraw's photo he subconsciously identified him, but that really seems like wishful thinking there.  Mitchell confused the photo of one of the two twenty something suspects (which he had seen earlier) with the other.

[brbducksfan]

More specifically, I think it's significant that one of the 3 main eyewitnesses (Mitchell) is saying RWR could be DBC. 

I don't recall Mitchell ever saying RWR could be DBC.  He pointed to his photo and said "that's Richard McCoy", whose photo he had seen as part of a British documentary Mitchell participated in 2008.    When did he say Rackstraw could be Cooper?  I suppose "I can't say one way or the other" is logically the same as "Rackstraw could be Cooper", but it's misleading.

One of Tom Colbert's team said by selecting the Rackstraw's photo he subconsciously identified him, but that really seems like wishful thinking there.  Mitchell confused the photo of one of the two twenty something suspects (which he had seen earlier) with the other.

Mitchell wrote a 4 paragraph testimonial for the book that was published on Colbert's website earlier this week.  I believe Shutter posted it in an earlier comment of this thread as well.

[MarkBennett]

More specifically, I think it's significant that one of the 3 main eyewitnesses (Mitchell) is saying RWR could be DBC. 

I don't recall Mitchell ever saying RWR could be DBC.  He pointed to his photo and said "that's Richard McCoy", whose photo he had seen as part of a British documentary Mitchell participated in 2008.    When did he say Rackstraw could be Cooper?  I suppose "I can't say one way or the other" is logically the same as "Rackstraw could be Cooper", but it's misleading.

One of Tom Colbert's team said by selecting the Rackstraw's photo he subconsciously identified him, but that really seems like wishful thinking there.  Mitchell confused the photo of one of the two twenty something suspects (which he had seen earlier) with the other.

Mitchell wrote a 4 paragraph testimonial for the book that was published on Colbert's website earlier this week.  I believe Shutter posted it in an earlier comment of this thread as well.

Thanks, Brb.

I went and reviewed the quote.  It's very precisely written to never say he recognizes Rackstraw as the passenger he saw on the plane.  It's more like he was impressed by the ninety-some pieces of circumstantial evidence.  And, he never says he thinks Rackstraw could be Cooper.

“When Tom Colbert called me I was a little reluctant to get involved. After all, it has been over 44 years and I’d told my D.B. Cooper story a million times to the authorities.  Additionally, my dealings with aggressive “Cooperites” had turned me off to the hijacking saga, and I have been purposely avoiding the American media.

But Colbert and the entire cold case team were very persuasive.  Their honesty, attention to detail, and credibility was impressive.  I decided that this would be interesting and a worthwhile effort. So my wife and I decided to take a trip to Portland to meet Colbert and some of his team.

The professionalism of everyone we met, including the production staff, was terrific.  They didn’t try and convince me to say something that I wasn’t comfortable with. Their only agenda was to get to the truth.

I thought the History Channel show was good, but to really understand their cold case you must read the book, The Last Master Outlaw. I’m not a lawyer, but the amount of coincidental evidence is amazing. I could understand if there were a couple of things that pointed Rackstraw’s way, but to have so many!”

Bill M. Mitchell / former University of Oregon Student

[377]

Colbert's ability to get substantial people to give written testimonials agreeing with his Rackstraw=Cooper conclusion is quite amazing. His advocacy skills are impressive to say the least.

No way Bruce would fake a Porteus post. I'd bank on that.

Jumping Sunday. A bit more spooked than usual. So many recent accidents and deaths in our Northern Calif skydiving community. But the needle is in real deep. Can't quit.

In 2018 I will have been skydiving for half a century. Trying to think of an appropriate celebration. My wife thinks a skydiving retirement party would be great.

377

[MarkBennett]

Colbert's ability to get substantial people to give written testimonials agreeing with his Rackstraw=Cooper conclusion is quite amazing. His advocacy skills are impressive to say the least.

"If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." -- Anatole France

[brbducksfan]

More specifically, I think it's significant that one of the 3 main eyewitnesses (Mitchell) is saying RWR could be DBC. 

I don't recall Mitchell ever saying RWR could be DBC.  He pointed to his photo and said "that's Richard McCoy", whose photo he had seen as part of a British documentary Mitchell participated in 2008.    When did he say Rackstraw could be Cooper?  I suppose "I can't say one way or the other" is logically the same as "Rackstraw could be Cooper", but it's misleading.

One of Tom Colbert's team said by selecting the Rackstraw's photo he subconsciously identified him, but that really seems like wishful thinking there.  Mitchell confused the photo of one of the two twenty something suspects (which he had seen earlier) with the other.

Mitchell wrote a 4 paragraph testimonial for the book that was published on Colbert's website earlier this week.  I believe Shutter posted it in an earlier comment of this thread as well.

Thanks, Brb.

I went and reviewed the quote.  It's very precisely written to never say he recognizes Rackstraw as the passenger he saw on the plane.  It's more like he was impressed by the ninety-some pieces of circumstantial evidence.  And, he never says he thinks Rackstraw could be Cooper.

“When Tom Colbert called me I was a little reluctant to get involved. After all, it has been over 44 years and I’d told my D.B. Cooper story a million times to the authorities.  Additionally, my dealings with aggressive “Cooperites” had turned me off to the hijacking saga, and I have been purposely avoiding the American media.

But Colbert and the entire cold case team were very persuasive.  Their honesty, attention to detail, and credibility was impressive.  I decided that this would be interesting and a worthwhile effort. So my wife and I decided to take a trip to Portland to meet Colbert and some of his team.

The professionalism of everyone we met, including the production staff, was terrific.  They didn’t try and convince me to say something that I wasn’t comfortable with. Their only agenda was to get to the truth.

I thought the History Channel show was good, but to really understand their cold case you must read the book, The Last Master Outlaw. I’m not a lawyer, but the amount of coincidental evidence is amazing. I could understand if there were a couple of things that pointed Rackstraw’s way, but to have so many!”

Bill M. Mitchell / former University of Oregon Student

Agreed, it is very precisely worded.  That said, the last 2 sentences of his testimonial clearly leave the impression that Mitchell thinks Rackstraw could be DBC.  He could have been definitive and said the opposite, something like "Rackstraw is not the guy I saw 45 years ago."

[MarkBennett]

More specifically, I think it's significant that one of the 3 main eyewitnesses (Mitchell) is saying RWR could be DBC. 

I don't recall Mitchell ever saying RWR could be DBC.  He pointed to his photo and said "that's Richard McCoy", whose photo he had seen as part of a British documentary Mitchell participated in 2008.    When did he say Rackstraw could be Cooper?  I suppose "I can't say one way or the other" is logically the same as "Rackstraw could be Cooper", but it's misleading.

One of Tom Colbert's team said by selecting the Rackstraw's photo he subconsciously identified him, but that really seems like wishful thinking there.  Mitchell confused the photo of one of the two twenty something suspects (which he had seen earlier) with the other.

Mitchell wrote a 4 paragraph testimonial for the book that was published on Colbert's website earlier this week.  I believe Shutter posted it in an earlier comment of this thread as well.

Thanks, Brb.

I went and reviewed the quote.  It's very precisely written to never say he recognizes Rackstraw as the passenger he saw on the plane.  It's more like he was impressed by the ninety-some pieces of circumstantial evidence.  And, he never says he thinks Rackstraw could be Cooper.

“When Tom Colbert called me I was a little reluctant to get involved. After all, it has been over 44 years and I’d told my D.B. Cooper story a million times to the authorities.  Additionally, my dealings with aggressive “Cooperites” had turned me off to the hijacking saga, and I have been purposely avoiding the American media.

But Colbert and the entire cold case team were very persuasive.  Their honesty, attention to detail, and credibility was impressive.  I decided that this would be interesting and a worthwhile effort. So my wife and I decided to take a trip to Portland to meet Colbert and some of his team.

The professionalism of everyone we met, including the production staff, was terrific.  They didn’t try and convince me to say something that I wasn’t comfortable with. Their only agenda was to get to the truth.

I thought the History Channel show was good, but to really understand their cold case you must read the book, The Last Master Outlaw. I’m not a lawyer, but the amount of coincidental evidence is amazing. I could understand if there were a couple of things that pointed Rackstraw’s way, but to have so many!”

Bill M. Mitchell / former University of Oregon Student

Agreed, it is very precisely worded.  That said, the last 2 sentences of his testimonial clearly leave the impression that Mitchell thinks Rackstraw could be DBC.  He could have been definitive and said the opposite, something like "Rackstraw is not the guy I saw 45 years ago."

I'll agree with that.  Mitchell definitively ruled out Duane Weber because he would have remembered someone with ears like that.  He COULD have ruled out Rackstraw because he was too young -- but he didn't do that.  And, that's not nothing.

I might be splitting hairs here, but to say that one of the witnesses said Rackstraw couldn't be ruled out -- while technically accurate -- implies that what he saw as a witness is what leads him to think he could be Cooper, when if you read his statement he's really not willing to go that far.  So, it's a little misleading to me.

But we're arguing minutia here.  I'll accept your point.  Let's call mine a concurring opinion vs a dissent.

[Bruce A. Smith]

Anybody get the feeling that Bill Mitchell is like a lamb being led to the slaughter?

Colbert is so slick. HE is the MASTER. I suppose it takes one to know one, eh? The fine shaving of truth by Tommy C is amazing. Over and over again, too!

And Bill has guarded himself so heavily for 44 years - not talking to media, refusing to talk with me now and intimating that I'm too "aggressive" for his tastes, but he loves the gentility and truth-seeking capacities of the TJC crew! Whew. I find that hard to accept.

To laud Tom Colbert for his overriding commitment to the truth is naĂŻve. Look what happened with the shards at T-Bar. When the Dorwin Schreuder/KATU findings didn't fit his Rackstraw narrative and I - and others here - pointed it out to him, he said "you guys can go play in the sand." Really, Tom? Really Bill? You're going in his new edition, Bill. Are you ready for the shit storm that's gonna come your way?

[Bruce A. Smith]

Reverse-engineering a witness' statement and recall:

When I'm not chasing Cooper stories, I've been following the Amanda Knox story. I know a lot of you guys love Alcatraz, Amelia Earhart, and such, but the travesties of justice are my true love. Amanda talked herself into a 30 year prison conviction for the murder of her roommate Meredith Kutcher, in Perugia, Italy, back in 2007 or so.

Amanda was totally innocent, but she wanted to be a good girl, didn't know too much Italiano, and the cops really wanted a conviction. So they kept her up until 5 am, fed her scenarios of how she could have done it, and by dawn's early light she was saying that maybe she could have gone it and now just can't remember any of it. That was good enough for the Politizia, who gave her a paper to sign, which she did to please them, and instead of going home with her boy friend, she went to her new home in a cell block.

Lots of Americanski rallied to her defense over the years, including several retired FBI agents, such as John Douglas, the elite profilist. Douglas uttered a memorable comment about witness steering:

"In the FBI we had a saying: We can convict anyone. The innocent only take a little longer."

Amanda was freed after four years and many trials and appeals. She now lives in Seattle, working as a journalist.

Another outrageous example of reverse-engineering a witness is found in the Steven Avery case in Mantowoking, Wisconsin. The Making of a Murderer docu on Netflix shows how slick some detectives can be, especially with boys not playing with a full deck.

I wonder who on the CCT knows how to back-peddle a guy like Billy M, eh?

[brbducksfan]

More specifically, I think it's significant that one of the 3 main eyewitnesses (Mitchell) is saying RWR could be DBC. 

I don't recall Mitchell ever saying RWR could be DBC.  He pointed to his photo and said "that's Richard McCoy", whose photo he had seen as part of a British documentary Mitchell participated in 2008.    When did he say Rackstraw could be Cooper?  I suppose "I can't say one way or the other" is logically the same as "Rackstraw could be Cooper", but it's misleading.

One of Tom Colbert's team said by selecting the Rackstraw's photo he subconsciously identified him, but that really seems like wishful thinking there.  Mitchell confused the photo of one of the two twenty something suspects (which he had seen earlier) with the other.

Mitchell wrote a 4 paragraph testimonial for the book that was published on Colbert's website earlier this week.  I believe Shutter posted it in an earlier comment of this thread as well.

Thanks, Brb.

I went and reviewed the quote.  It's very precisely written to never say he recognizes Rackstraw as the passenger he saw on the plane.  It's more like he was impressed by the ninety-some pieces of circumstantial evidence.  And, he never says he thinks Rackstraw could be Cooper.

“When Tom Colbert called me I was a little reluctant to get involved. After all, it has been over 44 years and I’d told my D.B. Cooper story a million times to the authorities.  Additionally, my dealings with aggressive “Cooperites” had turned me off to the hijacking saga, and I have been purposely avoiding the American media.

But Colbert and the entire cold case team were very persuasive.  Their honesty, attention to detail, and credibility was impressive.  I decided that this would be interesting and a worthwhile effort. So my wife and I decided to take a trip to Portland to meet Colbert and some of his team.

The professionalism of everyone we met, including the production staff, was terrific.  They didn’t try and convince me to say something that I wasn’t comfortable with. Their only agenda was to get to the truth.

I thought the History Channel show was good, but to really understand their cold case you must read the book, The Last Master Outlaw. I’m not a lawyer, but the amount of coincidental evidence is amazing. I could understand if there were a couple of things that pointed Rackstraw’s way, but to have so many!”

Bill M. Mitchell / former University of Oregon Student

Agreed, it is very precisely worded.  That said, the last 2 sentences of his testimonial clearly leave the impression that Mitchell thinks Rackstraw could be DBC.  He could have been definitive and said the opposite, something like "Rackstraw is not the guy I saw 45 years ago."

I'll agree with that.  Mitchell definitively ruled out Duane Weber because he would have remembered someone with ears like that.  He COULD have ruled out Rackstraw because he was too young -- but he didn't do that.  And, that's not nothing.

I might be splitting hairs here, but to say that one of the witnesses said Rackstraw couldn't be ruled out -- while technically accurate -- implies that what he saw as a witness is what leads him to think he could be Cooper, when if you read his statement he's really not willing to go that far.  So, it's a little misleading to me.

But we're arguing minutia here.  I'll accept your point.  Let's call mine a concurring opinion vs a dissent.

Concurring opinions works for me.  Please recognize, I'm not advocating that Rackstraw is DBC...to the contrary, if Mitchell had said something similar to Tina regarding Rackstraw I think you'd probably have to rule him out.  The fact that Mitchell didn't is, at minimum, interesting.

[EVickiW]

More specifically, I think it's significant that one of the 3 main eyewitnesses (Mitchell) is saying RWR could be DBC. 

I don't recall Mitchell ever saying RWR could be DBC.  He pointed to his photo and said "that's Richard McCoy", whose photo he had seen as part of a British documentary Mitchell participated in 2008.    When did he say Rackstraw could be Cooper?  I suppose "I can't say one way or the other" is logically the same as "Rackstraw could be Cooper", but it's misleading.

One of Tom Colbert's team said by selecting the Rackstraw's photo he subconsciously identified him, but that really seems like wishful thinking there.  Mitchell confused the photo of one of the two twenty something suspects (which he had seen earlier) with the other.

Here is the photo of Rackstraw (Colbert used in the lineup of photos that were presented to Mitchell).  Here is the photo of McCoy that is used on Wikipedia.