The passage in question is:

He opened the bag and inspected the contents which Mucklow said she observed was money packed in small packages with bank-type bands around each package.

1. These are not even Tina's own words! These are the words of a transcriber, an FBI agent conducting an interview, which then went to a typist! Bank-type bands are the words of a transcriber, but if they are Tina's words nowhere does it specify paper vs rubber bands. Any MORON can see that much!

2. From the above you cannot say 'Tina said this or Tina said that!' and be certain Tina said or meant: paper straps vs rubber bands.

3. ALL the evidence after days of interviews is that the bands placed on the bundles given to Cooper were rubber bands and not paper straps. Everyone but FLY of JACK believes that. All of this was posted at DZ years ago, and needs no elaboration or defense.

4. FLY OF JACK is not breaking new ground but intentionally obfuscating-corrupting established facts in the case. How anyone could catagorise what FLY JACK is doing as groundbreaking or crucial totally misunderstands the issues at stake and I personally dont give a tinker's damn how they feel or what they think - they need to pull their head's out of their opinionated personal attack asses, for a change. Its as simple as that.

5. In this matter here and now in this forum, it is fine to sit at a computer and type: Everyone's opinion matters and no opinion will be stifled, but as long as these "opinionists" continue to launch personal attacks calling people liars and mentally ill etc,  the axiom that 'opinions matter' is just one more sorry empty piece of verbiage  and meaningless! My opinion matters too - that is the issue at stake very clearly! Shutter needs to understand that also if he is going to have a worthwhile free-and-open forum, as opposed to some opinionist's skate boarding playground !

Has anyone (Flyjack?) bothered to ask Tom Kaye to give his input on this?  No! Of course not! 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have rehashed and rehashed the facts and figures and scenarios and theories of this case for years now.  I haven't been around lately, but I check in once in a while, and it's the same old stuff, nothing new, really.  We all have opinions and ideas and thoughts about the case.  Cut us a little slack, Shutter.  Getting into a heated discussion that one is really passionate about is not all bad.  Give us a little lee-way here. 

I agree, the name-calling has got to go, Smith and I have done it back and forth, Flyjack calls Georger a liar, someone calls someone else something else, and so on.  The name-calling is not okay, but the passionate debate is okay.   

Many of you, over the years, have noticed I don't really get into a lot of discussion about all the details, facts, and figures of the case.  I do that on purpose.
 What I said on the  Expedition Unknown program still holds -- I'm a field guy, I go to Cooper Country to look for evidence, I would rather be out looking for something tangible than to be arguing and re-hashing stuff we've been kicking around for so many years. 

Another thing, some posts are really hard to follow -- awkward sentence structure, poor grammar, some leave their participles dangling.  I do my best to concentrate on what everyone is saying or trying to say.  It would be nice to keep it simple, say things clearly, make it easy to follow your thoughts and logic.  I'm going to even give Bruce Smith a compliment (don't faint, everybody), but he likes to lay things out, itemized and numbered, and it's very easy to follow what he's saying.  I like that. 

This  forum reminds of a married couple who have fallen into the same old rut in their marriege and need to find something to "spruce things up a bit."  We need that here.  The new suspects come and go, as usual.  Looks like we need someone like "twisty butt" to pick things up a bit around here.

Meyer

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The passage in question is:

He opened the bag and inspected the contents which Mucklow said she observed was money packed in small packages with bank-type bands around each package.

1. These are not even Tina's own words! These are the words of a transcriber, an FBI agent conducting an interview, which then went to a typist! Bank-type bands are the words of a transcriber, but if they are Tina's words nowhere does it specify paper vs rubber bands. Any MORON can see that much!

2. From the above you cannot say 'Tina said this or Tina said that!' and be certain Tina said or meant: paper straps vs rubber bands.

3. ALL the evidence after days of interviews is that the bands placed on the bundles given to Cooper were rubber bands and not paper straps. Everyone but FLY of JACK believes that. All of this was posted at DZ years ago, and needs no elaboration or defense.

4. FLY OF JACK is not breaking new ground but intentionally obfuscating-corrupting established facts in the case. How anyone could catagorise what FLY JACK is doing as groundbreaking or crucial totally misunderstands the issues at stake and I personally dont give a tinker's damn how they feel or what they think - they need to pull their head's out of their opinionated personal attack asses, for a change. Its as simple as that.

5. In this matter here and now in this forum, it is fine to sit at a computer and type: Everyone's opinion matters and no opinion will be stifled, but as long as these "opinionists" continue to launch personal attacks calling people liars and mentally ill etc,  the axiom that 'opinions matter' is just one more sorry empty piece of verbiage  and meaningless! My opinion matters too - that is the issue at stake very clearly! Shutter needs to understand that also if he is going to have a worthwhile free-and-open forum, as opposed to some opinionist's skate boarding playground !

Has anyone (Flyjack?) bothered to ask Tom Kaye to give his input on this?  No! Of course not! 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have rehashed and rehashed the facts and figures and scenarios and theories of this case for years now.  I haven't been around lately, but I check in once in a while, and it's the same old stuff, nothing new, really.  We all have opinions and ideas and thoughts about the case.  Cut us a little slack, Shutter.  Getting into a heated discussion that one is really passionate about is not all bad.  Give us a little lee-way here. 

I agree, the name-calling has got to go, Smith and I have done it back and forth, Flyjack calls Georger a liar, someone calls someone else something else, and so on.  The name-calling is not okay, but the passionate debate is okay.   

Many of you, over the years, have noticed I don't really get into a lot of discussion about all the details, facts, and figures of the case.  I do that on purpose.
 What I said on the  Expedition Unknown program still holds -- I'm a field guy, I go to Cooper Country to look for evidence, I would rather be out looking for something tangible than to be arguing and re-hashing stuff we've been kicking around for so many years. 

Another thing, some posts are really hard to follow -- awkward sentence structure, poor grammar, some leave their participles dangling.  I do my best to concentrate on what everyone is saying or trying to say.  It would be nice to keep it simple, say things clearly, make it easy to follow your thoughts and logic.  I'm going to even give Bruce Smith a compliment (don't faint, everybody), but he likes to lay things out, itemized and numbered, and it's very easy to follow what he's saying.  I like that. 

This  forum reminds of a married couple who have fallen into the same old rut in their marriege and need to find something to "spruce things up a bit."  We need that here.  The new suspects come and go, as usual.  Looks like we need someone like "twisty butt" to pick things up a bit around here.

Meyer

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The passage in question is:

He opened the bag and inspected the contents which Mucklow said she observed was money packed in small packages with bank-type bands around each package.

1. These are not even Tina's own words! These are the words of a transcriber, an FBI agent conducting an interview, which then went to a typist! Bank-type bands are the words of a transcriber, but if they are Tina's words nowhere does it specify paper vs rubber bands. Any MORON can see that much!

2. From the above you cannot say 'Tina said this or Tina said that!' and be certain Tina said or meant: paper straps vs rubber bands.

3. ALL the evidence after days of interviews is that the bands placed on the bundles given to Cooper were rubber bands and not paper straps. Everyone but FLY of JACK believes that. All of this was posted at DZ years ago, and needs no elaboration or defense.

4. FLY OF JACK is not breaking new ground but intentionally obfuscating-corrupting established facts in the case. How anyone could catagorise what FLY JACK is doing as groundbreaking or crucial totally misunderstands the issues at stake and I personally dont give a tinker's damn how they feel or what they think - they need to pull their head's out of their opinionated personal attack asses, for a change. Its as simple as that.

5. In this matter here and now in this forum, it is fine to sit at a computer and type: Everyone's opinion matters and no opinion will be stifled, but as long as these "opinionists" continue to launch personal attacks calling people liars and mentally ill etc,  the axiom that 'opinions matter' is just one more sorry empty piece of verbiage  and meaningless! My opinion matters too - that is the issue at stake very clearly! Shutter needs to understand that also if he is going to have a worthwhile free-and-open forum, as opposed to some opinionist's skate boarding playground !

Has anyone (Flyjack?) bothered to ask Tom Kaye to give his input on this?  No! Of course not! 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have rehashed and rehashed the facts and figures and scenarios and theories of this case for years now.  I haven't been around lately, but I check in once in a while, and it's the same old stuff, nothing new, really.  We all have opinions and ideas and thoughts about the case.  Cut us a little slack, Shutter.  Getting into a heated discussion that one is really passionate about is not all bad.  Give us a little lee-way here. 

I agree, the name-calling has got to go, Smith and I have done it back and forth, Flyjack calls Georger a liar, someone calls someone else something else, and so on.  The name-calling is not okay, but the passionate debate is okay.   

Many of you, over the years, have noticed I don't really get into a lot of discussion about all the details, facts, and figures of the case.  I do that on purpose.
 What I said on the  Expedition Unknown program still holds -- I'm a field guy, I go to Cooper Country to look for evidence, I would rather be out looking for something tangible than to be arguing and re-hashing stuff we've been kicking around for so many years. 

Another thing, some posts are really hard to follow -- awkward sentence structure, poor grammar, some leave their participles dangling.  I do my best to concentrate on what everyone is saying or trying to say.  It would be nice to keep it simple, say things clearly, make it easy to follow your thoughts and logic.  I'm going to even give Bruce Smith a compliment (don't faint, everybody), but he likes to lay things out, itemized and numbered, and it's very easy to follow what he's saying.  I like that. 

This  forum reminds of a married couple who have fallen into the same old rut in their marriege and need to find something to "spruce things up a bit."  We need that here.  The new suspects come and go, as usual.  Looks like we need someone like "twisty butt" to pick things up a bit around here.

Meyer

I wondered where you went, I was going to go to your house with baseball bat to see if you were ok but I don't have a baseball bat.

First, fact, Georger has been telling lies, he has several times accused me of writing a book to discredit.. 100% LIE,  and that isn't name calling... that is expressing a FACT.

I hate writing and I am not good at it. In fact, I hate writing this comment. I make more money in an hour trading equities than I could ever in a lifetime of writing.. My only motivation for the Cooper case is an intellectual challenge and exercise... (BTW, you see what I found about Hillary's email server, yes Comey did coverup (lie) for her - her email server was shared with...)

Second, over the last few months I posted a significant amount of new info on Frederick William Hahneman, it is so compelling that he is now my number one research suspect.. his brother number two.. the best known suspect by far.

I'd suggest you read that info... it is all new and very compelling but still researching..

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The passage in question is:

He opened the bag and inspected the contents which Mucklow said she observed was money packed in small packages with bank-type bands around each package.

1. These are not even Tina's own words! These are the words of a transcriber, an FBI agent conducting an interview, which then went to a typist! Bank-type bands are the words of a transcriber, but if they are Tina's words nowhere does it specify paper vs rubber bands. Any MORON can see that much!

Well, it isn't audio of her voice so you can always introduce a degree of doubt.. A trained FBI agent could have changed "rubber bands" to "bank-type bands", but that is a stretch. No, it is unlikely.

I asked over a dozen people what they believe "Bank-type bands" are in the context of handling bundled/packaged money.. All expressed what we know to be "currency straps",,  none said rubber bands, NONE

Quote

2. From the above you cannot say 'Tina said this or Tina said that!' and be certain Tina said or meant: paper straps vs rubber bands.

I never said that she said it with certainty, YOU SAID WITH CERTAINTY that she meant rubber bands with no evidence, YOU said she was contacted about it but couldn't back it up. Do you see your own hypocrisy. You make a false claim about my statement when it actually applies to your own statement.

Quote

3. ALL the evidence after days of interviews is that the bands placed on the bundles given to Cooper were rubber bands and not paper straps. Everyone but FLY of JACK believes that. All of this was posted at DZ years ago, and needs no elaboration or defense.

Yes, the bundles were in rubber bands. I never said they weren't. This is where you and Ckret screwed this up and I tried to tell you... To a bank "bundles" and "packages" have a very specific meaning. Most people do not realize this and misuse the terms. I read Ckret's posts and he used the term bundle instead of package. So, the bank would confirm rubber bands on the bundles, but Ckret had conflated the term with package.

To a bank in this context, "package" is a group of 100 bills and a "bundle" is a group of packages...

Get it, you guys fucked it up back on DZ and I was trying to correct the factual baseline.. you were discussing bundles when you should have been using the term package. YES, The bundles were in rubber bands, the packages (X100 bills) in Tina's interview were desribed as in bank-type bands. Ckret screwed up further and claimed that the bundles were altered while describing packages.. (conflation) the bundles were confirmed altered/randomized not the packages.  Wrong terminology, wrong factual baseline and a complete clusterfuck.

Ckret
"Remember, the money was found bundled with the rubber bands around the bundles. they crumbled to the touch but where still in place. this tells us the money had to have been protected from the weather for the majority of the time it was missing, most likely in the bag."

WRONG - they weren't bundles, they were packages and part of a bundle... so I asked the question "Were the rubber bands found around each package (x100 bills) or found as a partial bundle?"

Ckret
"There were multiple bundles recovered under 3 to 6 inches of sand, just at the waters edge (according to the Ingrams) no bricks of money. I found reference to four bundles, of which the rubber bands were still around them, there were 290 20's. I can't imagine the bundles broke from the bag and entered the river at some other location and then multiple bundles land at the same beach several miles down stream. Once in the flow of the river there would be nothing to keep the bundles together to allow several of them to land at the same beach."

WRONG, there were multiple packages recovered in Bank terminology... not bundles

You guys conflated packages and bundles so any discourse with the bank is completely unreliable. The bank confirmed rubber bands on the bundles not the packages. You guys thought the packages were also bundles.

NOTE, the packages (x100 bill's) weren't altered/randomized, the bundles were. Bank bundles usually come in a stack of 5 packages, so they had to be randomized into different sizes. If the equivalent of 3 packages were found on TBAR that could have been one single randomized bundle.

Quote

4. FLY OF JACK is not breaking new ground but intentionally obfuscating-corrupting established facts in the case. How anyone could catagorise what FLY JACK is doing as groundbreaking or crucial totally misunderstands the issues at stake and I personally dont give a tinker's damn how they feel or what they think - they need to pull their head's out of their opinionated personal attack asses, for a change. Its as simple as that.

Just a lie and another personal attack.. (projection) it was you (and Ckret) that failed to understand the issue and conflated terms.. I am breaking new ground.. by clarifying the factual baseline...

Quote

5. In this matter here and now in this forum, it is fine to sit at a computer and type: Everyone's opinion matters and no opinion will be stifled, but as long as these "opinionists" continue to launch personal attacks calling people liars and mentally ill etc,  the axiom that 'opinions matter' is just one more sorry empty piece of verbiage  and meaningless! My opinion matters too - that is the issue at stake very clearly! Shutter needs to understand that also if he is going to have a worthwhile free-and-open forum, as opposed to some opinionist's skate boarding playground !

More personal attacks.. towards Shutter.. 

----------

The bank notified the FBI that the Ransom money was in "bank straps" though Ckret later claimed that was an error but provided no evidence. As early proven, his conflation and "evidence" on this specific matter is unreliable.

So, two scenarios..  Both don't make sense.

ransom money (currency strap) > Tina "bank-type bands" > TBAR (rubber band)

ransom money (no currency strap) > Tina "bank-type bands" > TBAR (rubber band)


Either,,

Tina,
is lying. (her Nov 30 story about handling the bundles sounds like a cover in case her prints are ever found on the money, maybe she didn’t handle the money on the plane but prior to Nov 30 interview)
is mistaken/misquoted. (very unlikely, but possible)
is truthful. (if so, then the money initially had "currency straps" and TBAR did not, were they removed? or ?)


There is "theoretical logic" for each..

The amazing coincidence… Tina smoked and joked with “Cooper”, she claimed to have asked for and  handled the money, she took control of the situation, Tina lived in the same time/same area of Pa as hijacker Frederick William Hahneman, 9 miles from brother William H Hahneman’s bank AND moved 15 miles upstream from TBAR in the years prior the money discovery.

Then she underwent a personality change..

It is possible Tina was mistaken/misquoted but there is no evidence for it.

But if Tina was lying or truthful then,,

IMO,, either she is hiding something from the FBI or she has been pressured by the FBI to hide something. That may be the cause of her post hijacking behaviour...

I will keep this simple.

Any distinction between packages (x100 bills) vs bundles, never came up. What we were focused on was the bundles put in a bag and given Cooper. Bank and FBI officials recalled that the count per 'bundle' was irregular and that was done intentionally. The bank official who put each 'bundle' together testified he wrapped each 'bundle' with one or more rubber banks. The word 'packages' as something distinct from 'bundles', never came up.

My guess is the term 'small packages with bank-type bands around each package' attributed to Tina by the FBI agent, means the same as saying: 'in small bundles with bank-type bands around each bundle'. In any event, bank type bands' was not clarified as to paper vs rubber. Perhaps it was not clarified because nobody thought there was any deep mystery at stake to require technical clarification?

But Flyjack goes further saying: "IMO,, either she is hiding something from the FBI or she has been pressured by the FBI to hide something. That may be the cause of her post hijacking behaviour..." 

I guess Flyjack is saying: 'Tina's failure, if it was her failure and not the transcriber's failure, in specifying paper vs rubber "bands" means: "IMO,, either she is hiding something from the FBI or she has been pressured by the FBI to hide something. That may be the cause of her post hijacking behaviour..."      I wont touch that conjecture with a ten foot pole! It looks like another conspiracy theory to me that may be totally baseless.

Maybe, you should apologize...

and you conveniently left out my qualifier... 

It is possible Tina was mistaken/misquoted but there is no evidence for it.

But if Tina was lying or truthful then,,

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The passage in question is:

He opened the bag and inspected the contents which Mucklow said she observed was money packed in small packages with bank-type bands around each package.

1. These are not even Tina's own words! These are the words of a transcriber, an FBI agent conducting an interview, which then went to a typist! Bank-type bands are the words of a transcriber, but if they are Tina's words nowhere does it specify paper vs rubber bands. Any MORON can see that much!

Well, it isn't audio of her voice so you can always introduce a degree of doubt.. A trained FBI agent could have changed "rubber bands" to "bank-type bands", but that is a stretch. No, it is unlikely.

I asked over a dozen people what they believe "Bank-type bands" are in the context of handling bundled/packaged money.. All expressed what we know to be "currency straps",,  none said rubber bands, NONE

Quote

2. From the above you cannot say 'Tina said this or Tina said that!' and be certain Tina said or meant: paper straps vs rubber bands.

I never said that she said it with certainty, YOU SAID WITH CERTAINTY that she meant rubber bands with no evidence, YOU said she was contacted about it but couldn't back it up. Do you see your own hypocrisy. You make a false claim about my statement when it actually applies to your own statement.

Quote

3. ALL the evidence after days of interviews is that the bands placed on the bundles given to Cooper were rubber bands and not paper straps. Everyone but FLY of JACK believes that. All of this was posted at DZ years ago, and needs no elaboration or defense.

Yes, the bundles were in rubber bands. I never said they weren't. This is where you and Ckret screwed this up and I tried to tell you... To a bank "bundles" and "packages" have a very specific meaning. Most people do not realize this and misuse the terms. I read Ckret's posts and he used the term bundle instead of package. So, the bank would confirm rubber bands on the bundles, but Ckret had conflated the term with package.

To a bank in this context, "package" is a group of 100 bills and a "bundle" is a group of packages...

Get it, you guys fucked it up back on DZ and I was trying to correct the factual baseline.. you were discussing bundles when you should have been using the term package. YES, The bundles were in rubber bands, the packages (X100 bills) in Tina's interview were desribed as in bank-type bands. Ckret screwed up further and claimed that the bundles were altered while describing packages.. (conflation) the bundles were confirmed altered/randomized not the packages.  Wrong terminology, wrong factual baseline and a complete clusterfuck.

Ckret
"Remember, the money was found bundled with the rubber bands around the bundles. they crumbled to the touch but where still in place. this tells us the money had to have been protected from the weather for the majority of the time it was missing, most likely in the bag."

WRONG - they weren't bundles, they were packages and part of a bundle... so I asked the question "Were the rubber bands found around each package (x100 bills) or found as a partial bundle?"

Ckret
"There were multiple bundles recovered under 3 to 6 inches of sand, just at the waters edge (according to the Ingrams) no bricks of money. I found reference to four bundles, of which the rubber bands were still around them, there were 290 20's. I can't imagine the bundles broke from the bag and entered the river at some other location and then multiple bundles land at the same beach several miles down stream. Once in the flow of the river there would be nothing to keep the bundles together to allow several of them to land at the same beach."

WRONG, there were multiple packages recovered in Bank terminology... not bundles

You guys conflated packages and bundles so any discourse with the bank is completely unreliable. The bank confirmed rubber bands on the bundles not the packages. You guys thought the packages were also bundles.

NOTE, the packages (x100 bill's) weren't altered/randomized, the bundles were. Bank bundles usually come in a stack of 5 packages, so they had to be randomized into different sizes. If the equivalent of 3 packages were found on TBAR that could have been one single randomized bundle.

Quote

4. FLY OF JACK is not breaking new ground but intentionally obfuscating-corrupting established facts in the case. How anyone could catagorise what FLY JACK is doing as groundbreaking or crucial totally misunderstands the issues at stake and I personally dont give a tinker's damn how they feel or what they think - they need to pull their head's out of their opinionated personal attack asses, for a change. Its as simple as that.

Just a lie and another personal attack.. (projection) it was you (and Ckret) that failed to understand the issue and conflated terms.. I am breaking new ground.. by clarifying the factual baseline...

Quote

5. In this matter here and now in this forum, it is fine to sit at a computer and type: Everyone's opinion matters and no opinion will be stifled, but as long as these "opinionists" continue to launch personal attacks calling people liars and mentally ill etc,  the axiom that 'opinions matter' is just one more sorry empty piece of verbiage  and meaningless! My opinion matters too - that is the issue at stake very clearly! Shutter needs to understand that also if he is going to have a worthwhile free-and-open forum, as opposed to some opinionist's skate boarding playground !

More personal attacks.. towards Shutter.. 

----------

The bank notified the FBI that the Ransom money was in "bank straps" though Ckret later claimed that was an error but provided no evidence. As early proven, his conflation and "evidence" on this specific matter is unreliable.

So, two scenarios..  Both don't make sense.

ransom money (currency strap) > Tina "bank-type bands" > TBAR (rubber band)

ransom money (no currency strap) > Tina "bank-type bands" > TBAR (rubber band)


Either,,

Tina,
is lying. (her Nov 30 story about handling the bundles sounds like a cover in case her prints are ever found on the money, maybe she didn’t handle the money on the plane but prior to Nov 30 interview)
is mistaken/misquoted. (very unlikely, but possible)
is truthful. (if so, then the money initially had "currency straps" and TBAR did not, were they removed? or ?)


There is "theoretical logic" for each..

The amazing coincidence… Tina smoked and joked with “Cooper”, she claimed to have asked for and  handled the money, she took control of the situation, Tina lived in the same time/same area of Pa as hijacker Frederick William Hahneman, 9 miles from brother William H Hahneman’s bank AND moved 15 miles upstream from TBAR in the years prior the money discovery.

Then she underwent a personality change..

It is possible Tina was mistaken/misquoted but there is no evidence for it.

But if Tina was lying or truthful then,,

IMO,, either she is hiding something from the FBI or she has been pressured by the FBI to hide something. That may be the cause of her post hijacking behaviour...

I will keep this simple.

Any distinction between packages (x100 bills) vs bundles, never came up. What we were focused on was the bundles put in a bag and given Cooper. Bank and FBI officials recalled that the count per 'bundle' was irregular and that was done intentionally. The bank official who put each 'bundle' together testified he wrapped each 'bundle' with one or more rubber banks. The word 'packages' as something distinct from 'bundles', never came up.

My guess is the term 'small packages with bank-type bands around each package' attributed to Tina by the FBI agent, means the same as saying: 'in small bundles with bank-type bands around each bundle'. In any event, bank type bands' was not clarified as to paper vs rubber. Perhaps it was not clarified because nobody thought there was any deep mystery at stake to require technical clarification?

But Flyjack goes further saying: "IMO,, either she is hiding something from the FBI or she has been pressured by the FBI to hide something. That may be the cause of her post hijacking behaviour..." 

I guess Flyjack is saying: 'Tina's failure, if it was her failure and not the transcriber's failure, in specifying paper vs rubber "bands" means: "IMO,, either she is hiding something from the FBI or she has been pressured by the FBI to hide something. That may be the cause of her post hijacking behaviour..."      I wont touch that conjecture with a ten foot pole! It looks like another conspiracy theory to me that may be totally baseless.

Maybe, you should apologize...

and you conveniently left out my qualifier... 

It is possible Tina was mistaken/misquoted but there is no evidence for it.

But if Tina was lying or truthful then,,

Flyjack your logic is flawed here. There is nothing to apologize for!

How many times do I have to say this - I'll say it again!  I dont know what Tina meant by "small packages with bank-type bands around each package". I dont even know if these are Tina's words of some agent's words from his notes.

The points I keep trying to make to you are (1) nobody knows today what Tina meant! and (2) It is irrelevant if the corroborating testimony from others is true. Others being the guy who made up the bundles, or packages, or whatever you prefer to call them.

Unlike you, I am not willing or ready to try and surmise Tina Mucklow's "psychology" from one failure to distinguish paper vs rubber in one FBI interview transcription! That seems a very wild stretch on your part, to me. The sources of error could be almost anywhere! You keep attributing these words to Tina. These are the words of an FBI agent from his notes typed by some secretary.  These words are not sufficient for a psychoanalysis of Tina Mucklow, or brand new hitherto unknown shocking facts in the Cooper case!     

The bank guy wrapped the bundles given Cooper with rubber bands. The Ingrams encountered rubber bands on the Cooper money found at Tina Bar. Those are facts!

Its late. I have to get to other things ...

This is why I just can't discuss this case with you,, YOU STATED TINA MEANT RUBBER BANDS and now you don't know what she meant. You are inconsistent.. You screwed up packages vs bundles again..

1) Nobody knows what Tina meant,, you can say that about any witness interview evidence, you claimed she was contacted about it.. was that not true?

2) It wasn't corroborated. It isn't my terminology, it is the Banking industry terminology, you still don't get it. Bank was asked if the bundles were rubber banded, YES.. Ckret took that to mean packages.. but to the Bank packages are not bundles.. but to Ckret they are..


"The bank guy wrapped the bundles given Cooper with rubber bands. The Ingrams encountered rubber bands on the Cooper money found at Tina Bar. Those are facts!"

YES,, but what about the packages....  which Tina described with "bank-type bands"

Where were the rubber bands on the TBAR money, around each package or a fragment that may have comprised a bundle?


AND, you ignore the fact that I have stated that it is possible she was mistaken/misquoted...

But IF she wasn't mistaken/misquoted then we have a problem with Tina's cred wether the packages were "currency strapped" or not.. and that means she is hiding something related to the money.

Since you don't know if she was mistaken/misquoted how can you ignore the "theoretical logic", you can't.

Yes, the bundles were in rubber bands. I never said they weren't. This is where you and Ckret screwed this up and I tried to tell you... To a bank "bundles" and "packages" have a very specific meaning. Most people do not realize this and misuse the terms. I read Ckret's posts and he used the term bundle instead of package. So, the bank would confirm rubber bands on the bundles, but Ckret had conflated the term with package.