New Forum & News Updates

[MarkBennett]

Reverse-engineering a witness' statement and recall:

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.

If this was a reverse engineering, this would have to be a major conspiracy involving several people.

The victim, Teresa Halbach, was a photographer for Autotrader.  Her last appointment was at Avery's house at his family's auto salvage business.  Her car was found hidden at the business and Avery's blood was found inside and his sweat on the hood latch.  In addition, pieces of bone identified as hers were found in his burn barrel.  A bullet was found with Halbach's DNA on it in Avery's garage matching Avery's rifle.

Avery's nephew was also convicted, but his conviction was thrown out for some pretty serious due process violations, but none of those reasons affect Avery.

You can dispute my recitation of the facts, but my main issue is films are made telling one side of the story that the public eventually accepts as truth.  HBO produced a movie about Phil Spector's murder trial with the premise of how could Spector have shot someone from less than three feet away and get no blood on himself?  The answer was the movie lied.  Spector had blood all over him.

Sean Penn produced a movie called "Fair Game" about the Valerie Plame case -- a CIA agent whose named was leaked by someone in the Bush Administration.  The movie was so slanted the Washington Post editorial board took the rare step of writing an editorial blasting the misleading nature of the movie.

And, the granddaddy of them all was "JFK" after which 75% of the US population believe the assassination was a conspiracy.  The movie was a cobbling together of several old conspiracy stories along with some new ones.  The combined movie is virtually all made up.

Maybe Avery's case deserves to be looked at, but "Making of a Murderer" was such a one sided piece of propaganda it raises the question that if someone can't making a case of someone's innocence without resorting to such tactics, do they really have any case at all?

[Mack]

Blevins and Jo are both one trick ponies.  If their pet suspects are discredited then they have nothing since neither has the ability to investigate or do actual research. Hence why they are so absurdly persistent in pushing KC and DW.  There is absolutely zero probability that KC or DW were DBC.  Neither has any evidence connecting them to the case and both have plenty of strikes against them as far as even being possibilities.  I think they should both be removed from the list of possible suspects and put on a list of publicity seekers and false claims. Because that's all they are. Absolutely no credible person that has reviewed the facts would believe KC or DW could possible be DBC.  Crush KC and DW and you crush RB and JW.  Far too much time is spent talking about them when they shouldn't even be at the table.  I guess that's easier said than done when you have to deal with them on a daily basis, but that's just my view from 30,000 feet.

[Bruce A. Smith]

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.
-----------------------------------

If this was a reverse engineering, this would have to be a major conspiracy involving several people.

The victim, Teresa Halbach, was a photographer for Autotrader.  Her last appointment was at Avery's house at his family's auto salvage business.  Her car was found hidden at the business and Avery's blood was found inside and his sweat on the hood latch.  In addition, pieces of bone identified as hers were found in his burn barrel.  A bullet was found with Halbach's DNA on it in Avery's garage matching Avery's rifle.

Avery's nephew was also convicted, but his conviction was thrown out for some pretty serious due process violations, but none of those reasons affect Avery.

You can dispute my recitation of the facts, but my main issue is films are made telling one side of the story that the public eventually accepts as truth....

Yes, all your facts are true, Mark. But you leave out important pieces of information, too. Neither Teresa Halbach's blood or related DNA samples were found in her car. How did Avery's blood get in Halbach's car, but not the victim's? That suggests that the killing was done elsewhere. It also allows for the planting of Steven Avery's blood.

The cops says that the killing was done in Avery's bedroom, but Halbach's blood isn't there, either. So where is it?

The Halbach homicide is complex, and made more complicated because her family isn't talking to any investigators in the media. They're locked tight, in total embrace of the Manitowoc authorities and the other counties that were brought into handle the case since the Manitowoc Sheriff's Department was so embroiled in the original Avery arrest and conviction on the bogus rape charges, for which Avery served 16 years in prison before being exonerated by DNA, and the murder charges were only brought forward on the Halbach case after Avery sued the Manitowoc folks for $36 million. Coincidence?

Since no other suspects were investigated in the Halbach murder other than Avery, the Halbach family could really advance the case if they would begin to talk about Teresa's life - who she dated, who loved her, who hated her, and who would want to kill her. We sure know who could possibly want to frame Steven Avery and who would have the capacities to do that - regardless of whether they actually did or not.  Manitowoc SD and crew had the motive and opportunity to frame Steven Avery. That is fact, too.

This case is a huge spaghetti bowl of truths and agendas. Please do us all a favor and not bring into the conversation distractions such as Sean Penn's latest movie, other Hollywood stuff, Phil Spector, et. al.

Bottom Line: what do you think Tom Colbert's intentions are with Bill Mitchell? Mark, you are one of the few people on Planet Earth to talk about Norjak with Bill Mitchell. What do you think is going on? Are you concerned for him? Do you think he is being led down a primrose path on the march to convict Rackstraw - or at least finish the last chapter in another super-dooper Rackstraw-is-DB Cooper story to Hollywood? This time with the caveat - I was sandbagged by Tina, but resurrected by Billy Mitchell.

On a personal note, whom do you think Bill is talking about when he says that he doesn't want to talk to American media because we are too "aggressive." Really, what does that mean?

[Bruce A. Smith]

Blevins and Jo are both one trick ponies.  If their pet suspects are discredited then they have nothing since neither has the ability to investigate or do actual research. Hence why they are so absurdly persistent in pushing KC and DW.  There is absolutely zero probability that KC or DW were DBC.  Neither has any evidence connecting them to the case and both have plenty of strikes against them as far as even being possibilities.  I think they should both be removed from the list of possible suspects and put on a list of publicity seekers and false claims. Because that's all they are. Absolutely no credible person that has reviewed the facts would believe KC or DW could possible be DBC.  Crush KC and DW and you crush RB and JW.  Far too much time is spent talking about them when they shouldn't even be at the table.  I guess that's easier said than done when you have to deal with them on a daily basis, but that's just my view from 30,000 feet.

That's my view from three feet, too, Mack. My pc screen is three feet away, and my phone is a similar distance. I give Jo five minutes and tell her I have to go. She always calls me, but the last two times she's also hung up.

As for Bobby, sigh.....

[georger]

Blevins and Jo are both one trick ponies.  If their pet suspects are discredited then they have nothing since neither has the ability to investigate or do actual research. Hence why they are so absurdly persistent in pushing KC and DW.  There is absolutely zero probability that KC or DW were DBC.  Neither has any evidence connecting them to the case and both have plenty of strikes against them as far as even being possibilities.  I think they should both be removed from the list of possible suspects and put on a list of publicity seekers and false claims. Because that's all they are. Absolutely no credible person that has reviewed the facts would believe KC or DW could possible be DBC.  Crush KC and DW and you crush RB and JW.  Far too much time is spent talking about them when they shouldn't even be at the table.  I guess that's easier said than done when you have to deal with them on a daily basis, but that's just my view from 30,000 feet.

+1 

[MarkBennett]

Bottom Line: what do you think Tom Colbert's intentions are with Bill Mitchell? Mark, you are one of the few people on Planet Earth to talk about Norjak with Bill Mitchell. What do you think is going on? Are you concerned for him? Do you think he is being led down a primrose path on the march to convict Rackstraw - or at least finish the last chapter in another super-dooper Rackstraw-is-DB Cooper story to Hollywood? This time with the caveat - I was sandbagged by Tina, but resurrected by Billy Mitchell.

On a personal note, whom do you think Bill is talking about when he says that he doesn't want to talk to American media because we are too "aggressive." Really, what does that mean?

I really don't know what Bill means about who is too "aggressive".  I could see Tina referring to you in her comments, but not Bill.  So, I really have no idea on that one.

As far as Colbert's intentions with Mitchell, I really don't see that the same way as you do.  Vicki and I talked to him the day after he talked to the History Channel.  He didn't want to reveal anything of what he said before the documentary aired.  He told us he promised not to, and we respected that.

But, Bill Mitchell really didn't give Colbert what he wanted.  He wouldn't say what Colbert wanted him to say -- that he recognized Rackstraw.  It was Colbert's group that said Mitchell really chose him subconsciously, which is perfect because Mitchell can't really dispute it.

Mitchell wrote the little blurb for Colbert's book, but it really is just platitudes -- Colbert was very professional, the coincidences are uncanny, blah blah blah -- but Mitchell never really jumps on board.

I'm just guessing, but I think that's about as far as Colbert is going to go with Mitchell.  Without him saying Rackstraw looked like the man in the row next to him, Mitchell has nothing else to offer Colbert.

I'm curious why you're concerned for Mitchell.  I haven't read Colbert's book, but I just don't see anything that would lead to that inference.

[Bruce A. Smith]

...I'm just guessing, but I think that's about as far as Colbert is going to go with Mitchell.  Without him saying Rackstraw looked like the man in the row next to him, Mitchell has nothing else to offer Colbert.

I'm curious why you're concerned for Mitchell.  I haven't read Colbert's book, but I just don't see anything that would lead to that inference.

I'm concerned that Colbert might push Mitchell, maybe even manipulate or seduce him to say RWR is Cooper. Bill is giving Colbert half of what he wants: ie: it could be RWR, the number of coincidences is very impressive, etc. So, I wonder if Colbert will push Mitchell any further. Another way of saying this is: what is pushing Colbert? How much money does he have riding on this venture? How much ego is getting bruised? Is his reputation in Hollywood at risk?

I've got a dog in this fight. If Colbert can get Billy to slide closer to saying, yeah, maybe it could be Rackstraw, then Tina gets thrown under the bus, and everything I've written about Tina and her memory/reclusiveness/unreliability gets used to bury her. I don't want that - I don't think that is appropriate or fair.

I had never heard of Tom Colbert or Robert Rackstraw until April of this year - after Tina had announced on camera to the LMNO guys that RWR was a No Go. Then TJC began researching Tina and wanted to know all about her memory issues. Oddly, he was using clips from old Mountain News stories. Colbert hadn't read my book; in fact, he didn't know that I had written one, and this is after he had at least a five-year relationship with other major Cooper researchers who are fully aware of my work. In fact, one researcher told me that Colbert had paid him over the years for his Cooper tutorials, and said that he was "paid very well by Colbert."

So, I don't think Tom Colbert really gives a shit about Tina - he just wants her out of the way of the Rackstraw Express. He certainly doesn't care why Tina might have memory issues, other than to develop more leverage against her to make her less of an impediment to the Rackstraw-is-DB Cooper scenario. I think millions of dollars and plenty of ego and reputations are at stake here.

At the least, I don't want my writing to be used against Tina in any way. I wrote what I wrote as an attempt to help her by ascertaining what has happened to her. I do believe that the "truth shall set us free." Her silence, with me certainly, may come back to haunt her, as her full story may never get told.

Similarly, I don't want the same thing to happen to Billy Mitchell. Clearly, he is not a strong-willed, tough-minded, courageous kind of guy. All he can really do is not answer the phone when a reporter calls. That worked to keep him safe for forty years. But Colbert got through to him, via LMNO, who is also very slick obviously, as they got a TON o' reclusive people in front of a camera: Tina, Bill R, B Mitchell, John Detlor, Bob Fuhriman, Petey, Curtis, Ayn, Montoya.

Now, I wonder what convinced them to do the show? Is LMNO's nice nicer than my nice? Was there money involved? Did the FBI encourage them to participate? I don't know, but I suspect the clincher was that they were all reassured that the HC docu would end the Norjak story once-and-for-all-times. Plus, the FBI was using it to piggyback a message to the American people that the DB Cooper story would be closed, and all the crew and feds might have breathed a sigh of relief because they wouldn't have to work 24/7 to keep their secrets intact.

What are all those secrets? I don't know, but I suspect that some of them might be little ones that have just snow-balled, such as when did the crew move up the passengers? How did the FBI agent deplane? Why is the Flight Path so fashookta*? Where are all the shards?

Mark, I encourage you to read Colbert's book: The Last Master Outlaw. It is superb, and clearly reveals how massive Colbert's operation is, along with how invested he is, and how he - and by extension his CCT - treat people.

If you like hamburger meat ground by the Wheels of American Criminal Justice, then you'll love Tom Colbert. Can you imagine the emails I'm gonna get from him after he reads this stuff? Whew! Where's that Tequila and Kevlar...

* Georger, I could use a little help with my Yiddish. What's the proper spelling here? T'anx.

[377]

Bruce asked: Is LMNO's nice nicer than my nice?

Apparently so Bruce.

Allison B (History Channel producer) is tough competition in the charm department. 😉

377

[MarkBennett]

I've got a dog in this fight. If Colbert can get Billy to slide closer to saying, yeah, maybe it could be Rackstraw, then Tina gets thrown under the bus, and everything I've written about Tina and her memory/reclusiveness/unreliability gets used to bury her. I don't want that - I don't think that is appropriate or fair.

Ok, it sounds like you believe that Colbert is still hounding Bill Mitchell to this day, trying to get him to say Rackstraw is Cooper.  I don't see any evidence that Colbert is even still contacting Mitchell or trying to influence him.

Colbert is a true believer in his suspect and Bill Mitchell is a logical person to talk to.  Jo talked to him.  Robert Blevins sent a package to Bill Mitchell (it was the wrong Bill Mitchell, but he still did it).

If he's not able to help, you move on.  I suspect Colbert will move on as well.  He needs some evidence to put Rackstraw on the plane and he's not going to get that from from Bill Mitchell.

Why do you believe otherwise?

[Shutter]

So, Bill Mitchell, who seems to be a nice guy who really doesn't remember much about Cooper since he never really had a reason for recall in his memory is overpowering a witness who spent over 5 hours with Cooper, and knew exactly who he was?

[Bruce A. Smith]

So, Bill Mitchell, who seems to be a nice guy who really doesn't remember much about Cooper since he never really had a reason for recall in his memory is overpowering a witness who spent over 5 hours with Cooper, and knew exactly who he was?

Shut, you want logic? Reasonableness? C'mon. This is Hollywood. This is fame and recognition. Millions of dollars at stake. This is a personal investment (in RWR) vs facts - and that's a titanic battle. Colbert is like Blevins in some regards, except that Colbert has an army of retired FBI agents, Heavy-Duty smarts, and Big-Time savvy.

It's like a tactical team equipped with night vision, 50 cal up-armored Humvees, and back-up drones vs Bobby B with a 380 auto and his '92 Subaru.

Who you gonna call when it don't look good?

[Bruce A. Smith]

I've got a dog in this fight. If Colbert can get Billy to slide closer to saying, yeah, maybe it could be Rackstraw, then Tina gets thrown under the bus, and everything I've written about Tina and her memory/reclusiveness/unreliability gets used to bury her. I don't want that - I don't think that is appropriate or fair.

Ok, it sounds like you believe that Colbert is still hounding Bill Mitchell to this day, trying to get him to say Rackstraw is Cooper.  I don't see any evidence that Colbert is even still contacting Mitchell or trying to influence him.

Colbert is a true believer in his suspect and Bill Mitchell is a logical person to talk to.  Jo talked to him.  Robert Blevins sent a package to Bill Mitchell (it was the wrong Bill Mitchell, but he still did it).

If he's not able to help, you move on.  I suspect Colbert will move on as well.  He needs some evidence to put Rackstraw on the plane and he's not going to get that from from Bill Mitchell.

Why do you believe otherwise?

Maybe Colbert will move on, but I doubt it. Bill's tacit support in the addendum paragraphs from the new edition of TLMO Shut provided a few days ago, really caught my attention. But that's all I have to go on. So, yes, a lot of this is projection on my part of what Colbert might do in the future.

[Bruce A. Smith]

Bruce asked: Is LMNO's nice nicer than my nice?

Apparently so Bruce.

Allison B (History Channel producer) is tough competition in the charm department. 😉

377

Go ahead, Mark, rub it in.

Yeah, I'm no match for Allison. Sigh. She's the one who bought my chocolate birthday cake, too. She's damn cute, too.

So, too, the History Channel has more juice than the Mountain News. That's just the way it is (TJTWII.)

[Bruce A. Smith]

So, Bill Mitchell, who seems to be a nice guy who really doesn't remember much about Cooper since he never really had a reason for recall in his memory is overpowering a witness who spent over 5 hours with Cooper, and knew exactly who he was?

Yup.

[georger]

I've got a dog in this fight. If Colbert can get Billy to slide closer to saying, yeah, maybe it could be Rackstraw, then Tina gets thrown under the bus, and everything I've written about Tina and her memory/reclusiveness/unreliability gets used to bury her. I don't want that - I don't think that is appropriate or fair.

Ok, it sounds like you believe that Colbert is still hounding Bill Mitchell to this day, trying to get him to say Rackstraw is Cooper.  I don't see any evidence that Colbert is even still contacting Mitchell or trying to influence him.

Colbert is a true believer in his suspect and Bill Mitchell is a logical person to talk to.  Jo talked to him.  Robert Blevins sent a package to Bill Mitchell (it was the wrong Bill Mitchell, but he still did it).

If he's not able to help, you move on.  I suspect Colbert will move on as well.  He needs some evidence to put Rackstraw on the plane and he's not going to get that from from Bill Mitchell.

Why do you believe otherwise?

Maybe Colbert will move on, but I doubt it. Bill's tacit support in the addendum paragraphs from the new edition of TLMO Shut provided a few days ago, really caught my attention. But that's all I have to go on. So, yes, a lot of this is projection on my part of what Colbert might do in the future.

I keep wondering about all of Colbert's experts - its a vita larger than some universities could offer! Except for a few who appeared on the program what did all of these people do, exactly? Anything? More chiefs than the Sioux Nation has! Or a battleship! Was this all fictitious or did these 'experts' actually do something behind the scenes?

Did al of these people agree Rackstraw was the guy?  I doubt it.