You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

This is very interesting.  If the agent's memory is correct, then his description of the condition of the money drives a wooden stake through the heart of the "plant" theory.  If the fragments were spread out like he said, that would be consistent with going through a dredger and/or being spread out by earth moving machinery.

It's really nice to have Dorwin's testimony, and I actually prefer the dredge theory, but all the evidence seems to run contrary. Larry Carr never produced anything more than a tablespoon of money fragments. A renowned geologist, who was there at the dig, said the money did not arrive via a dredge. Tom Kaye's analysis suggests the money was found outside of the dredge spoils. And if I remember right, there's four or five different versions of the "debris field" ranging from the fragments being produced by the Ingrams removing the money from the ground, to a small amount along "the tide line" to Dorwin's above description, to a massive field going three feet deep (through three different layers of sand) and being thirty feet in diameter.

As for the briefcase, there is no photograph of it, no one else talks about it, Carr never produced it and Cooper was not seen putting money into his briefcase (especially considering the briefcase was serving an entirely different purpose throughout the hijacking, as the bomb container). The briefcase found on the bar may just be some junk not related to the Cooper case, but if it had been saved, I think it would have gone a long way in dating the sand layer (if it showed evidence of being chopped up by a dredge, then it would prove both the experts wrong).

I look at Palmer's  and Kaye's interpretation of the site as opinions, not evidence.  Do I think they could be wrong?  Yes I do.  I lean more towards that than I do "Kenny buried it" or "D-Web threw a bag in a river".  I'm writing off the briefcase discovery.  Maybe Dorwin is projecting another crime scene on top of this one? 

The main question the money find could help answer is did Cooper survive the jump?  Unfortunately, the circumstances of the money's discovery   do not help answer that question definitively.

Dorwin told me a good share of the reason for the dig at Tena Bar was to look for any evidence of Cooper himself; that the money was not really that important. It was Cooper, anything biological or his chute, or any other physical evidence of Cooper, that they were most after. Dorwin said the brief case was "just a rumor"; that he never personally saw it or confirmed the "rumor". I have no idea why he spent so much time talking to Bruce about a briefcase as Smith reports, if it was just a rumor? I have no idea when this ‘briefcase’ was found and by whom? No other source has been able to confirm the finding of a briefcase. At one point told confessed he wished he had never mentioned this. He told me he thought this rumor had begun with a reporter.

I also got the sense after many interviews with Dorwin that a lot of this is personal with him. His life has been interesting and he likes to talk about it. Let's get one thing straight so there is no confusion: Dorwin was at the dig from about noon of the 12th to noon of the 13th when he was pulled away by more pressing duties, in line with his regular assignment as a negotiator. Dorwin supervised the initial canvas and started the exploration at Tena Bar but he was never the overall director of the Excavation, as Bruce tends to imply. Dorwin would be the first to correct that factoid.

Dorwin was never at the site when Palmer was and he never talked to Palmer at all. The grid-work at Tena Bar was a joint decision between Dorwin and other agents, as Dorwin explains, "almost forced on us by what we were finding in our initial canvas of the site”coupled with the fact of a large area of beach to be searched. The primary tools used in their work were a rake, a shovel, and sticks from nearby trees and shrubs to mark money fragment finds or other things of interest needing further inspection.

My interviews of Dorwin began in July 2010, following Bruce's interview in 2009. I used an intermediary who made an introduction for me before talking to Dorwin myself by telephone. To date, Dorwin and I have discussed maps, photos, particular points of discussion, etc. Other people have been interviewed as the need arose;  all to try and define what was found at Tena Bar by whom, and when things were found.

After clarifying Bruce's notes about Dorwin with Dorwin himself, it becomes clear to me that Dorwin is referring to several different patterns which emerged at different 'stages' in the initial exploration of Tena Bar. There was an initial inspection of the Ingram site itself (a), there was an inspection of the area around the Ingram site specifically (b), there was an inspection of the larger area of the beach going both north and south of the Ingram find (c) and it was at this point (c) that discussion ensued and the decision was made to lay out some kind of formal grid based on the evidence being found and marked with sticks.,

“Two figures still stick out in my mind”, Dorwin says. “20 yards and 60 yards. Those numbers marked two trails we had found. 60 yards is where surface fragments trailed off, and I remember thinking at the time the Ingrams might have followed this trail up to their find. A blind man could have followed that trail of fragments. The Ingram find was at about 40 feet from the water’s edge and we found fragments around it in a kind of circle out about 10 or 20 feet. There were more fragments behind it than in front of it (downstream of the Ingram find). But the 60 yard trail was about 4 to 6 feet wide mostly below the Ingram find, not above it. We explored with rakes and found that deposit continued below the surface layer of the beach. That 60 yard figure has always stuck in my mind. (laughs)."
 
After the grid, the three agents began a more in depth exploration of the areas they had noted in their initial canvas of the beach.

I will leave this here for future development ... these numbers “20 yards” and “60 yards” will be explained in more depth later, but I feel this better defines the notes and figures presented by Smith thus far.

Quote

Dorwin told me a good share of the reason for the dig at Tena Bar was to look for any evidence of Cooper himself; that the money was not really that important.

What gave them the impression Cooper might be in that area? does he have an opinion of the known flight path?

I knew you would ask!  Yes I asked. Several times. Many times. I revisited this issue with Dorwin many-many times as we have talked over the years and I could revisit it again with him today if need be.

Dorwin says "they" (everyone working the excavation) were told by Portland and Seattle lead agents including the agent in charge at Vancouver, that "Cooper landed in the Washougal and the money had come down the Washougal, period. No iffs, ands, or butts about it, according to Dorwin. And since the money bag was tied around Cooper's waste and he had a parachute on, perhaps pieces of all of those things might be at Tina Bar, or close to Tina Bar  ... in some common hydrological event, namely the winter floods of 1978-79. Dorwin said: "That's what all of the experts tell us".

So I asked, "Do you believe that? Did the agents all believe that?". Dorwin laughs and said, "No". Dorwin says every agent had his or her own personal opinion about this and the consensus was 'nobody knew for sure'. One agent came up with an ice theory that the money had come down the river encased in ice, washed up, and was found in 1980. Virtually every agent felt 'hydrology' was involved because nobody saw any evidence for a plant at Tena Bar, and they looked for evidence of a plant. Dorwin himself tends to believe the money came up in the '74  dredging and was chewed up and spread by the Faxios. He thinks that is the only scenario that explains the pattern of small money fragments spread through multiple layers. Dorwin says it's the "4-6ft x 60 yard" swath of fragments from the surface to as deep as two feet in places, all spread out in a common swath behind the Ingram find, in the direction of where the tractor spread the spoils in 1974. Dorwin doesn't think the flood of 78-79 could have laid down the complex debris field that he insists they found. Dorwin thinks that time and erosion exposed the dredging layers and the flood of 78-79 was the last large erosion event at Tena Bar, finally exposing the remaining portion of the dredge layer (with the money in it) at the surface.

Keep in mind, Dorwin is a behavioral analyst by training and disposition. Negotiating was his specialty with the FBI but he also has a strong scientific background. Dorwin thinks the Washougal theory is a weak theory. He says the only thing that could prove the Washougal theory is actual flight path data.  He says if Cooper landed in the Washougal there would be evidence of that there, not at Tena Bar. He says up until 1980 the standing theory was Cooper landed near Ariel. Dorwin thinks the Washougal theory was grasping for straws. He says there are other scenarios that could explain money being at Tena Bar and one of them is Cooper himself throwing the money bag in the river in a conflict situation, perhaps off one of the bridges between Vancouver and Portland in a hostile encounter. Or Cooper could have entered the water or could have been thrown off the Vancouver bridge or jumped, in a hostile encounter situation. Dorwin correctly says 'that's what a lot of local law enforcement people in Vancouver and Portland suggested'. Dorwin also says that Tosaw was in the mainstream of law enforcement thinking at the time when he sent divers down looking for Cooper's body or any other artifacts of Cooper, in the same area upstream of Tena Bar where Cooper money had surfaced.
Dorwin thinks the Washougal theory is far-fetched and unproven. He thinks other scenarios are more plausible and he reminded me that the FBI spent a lot of time checking John-Doe reports for any ‘body’ turning up anywhere in the Portland-Vancouver area. He says years were spent in that effort alone.

Another question: did Dorwin talk to Tom Kaye? What did Dorwin tell Tom? I'm going to leave that open for the time being. The fact is, Dorwin has talked to a lot of people. 

Lastly, I think Dorwin's account must be consistent with what the Tena Bar excavation photos show happening, on a daily basis. Tom saw high quality original photos of the excavation taken by the FBI and others when Tom and Carol were at the Seattle office. Dorwin’s account must fit with the evidence of the excavation itself, during the time Dorwin was present and after. I am going to leave that until next time -

I haven't found a video near Vancouver yet, but here is a diving video of the Columbia. 69 feet depth, 30 feet visibility..

Quote

Dorwin thinks the Washougal theory is far-fetched and unproven. He thinks other scenarios are more plausible and he reminded me that the FBI spent a lot of time checking John-Doe reports for any ‘body’ turning up anywhere in the Portland-Vancouver area. He says years were spent in that effort alone.

Something that is on my "wish list" for this case is to understand how bodies move through the Columbia waters. Where are the snag points? Where have bodies been recovered? I remember someone posting an account of skydivers landing in the Columbia and one or more of them were never found. What percentage of bodies that go into the Columbia are recovered? There must be people who have some idea...

Also, in this vein of thought, are the divers that Tosaw used available or open to answering questions about what the Columbia bottom is like?

The answer to the last is 'yes' but they are guarded in who they will talk to once they know your interest is DB Cooper and their work with Tosaw. It's usually best to use an intermediary in these circumstances, if you can. BTW, Tosaw and his divers found a few objects of interest in the Tena Bar area (some of this previously mentioned at DZ), and these objects were given to the FBI for analysis. There were several news reports about this through the years.

I haven't found a video near Vancouver yet, but here is a diving video of the Columbia. 69 feet depth, 30 feet visibility..

Wow!  30' of visibility is amazing for a river dive.  Most rivers have extremely poor visibility because of runoff, tannin and algae fed by phosphates.  That water looks fairly warm because the divers weren't wearing thermal protection on their heads.  Does anybody know what the vis. is like around Tina Bar?  From Google Earth, it looks to be a foot or two at most.   

Quote

Dorwin thinks the Washougal theory is far-fetched and unproven. He thinks other scenarios are more plausible and he reminded me that the FBI spent a lot of time checking John-Doe reports for any ‘body’ turning up anywhere in the Portland-Vancouver area. He says years were spent in that effort alone.

Something that is on my "wish list" for this case is to understand how bodies move through the Columbia waters. Where are the snag points? Where have bodies been recovered? I remember someone posting an account of skydivers landing in the Columbia and one or more of them were never found. What percentage of bodies that go into the Columbia are recovered? There must be people who have some idea...

Also, in this vein of thought, are the divers that Tosaw used available or open to answering questions about what the Columbia bottom is like?

I don't have much experience in rivers as large as the Columbia, but here are some generalities I do know.  The most common "snag" would be tree trunks which have been washed into the river via erosion.  Objects easily become entangled in the limbs and branches, and pressure from the flowing water pins them also.  The river bottom tends to scour around these obstructions, creating more areas for things to become trapped.  Over time, the tree decays and loses its limbs, usually the smallest first.  Most the time, these trees become logs and are washed downstream when they are shaken loose by heavy currents caused by flooding, etc.  Or, the rot in place, and slowly decay away.  It's a constant cycle for rivers.

As for bodies, I would think that most bodies in the Columbia would eventually "float".  I'm not sure what the max depth is, but bodies usually have to be in depths of greater than 60' for the lift of gases caused by decaying to be negated by depth.  Water temperature is a variable in this also.  Unless the drowning victim's abdomen is perforated, I would think they would "float" after a few days. 

Even if a body did float, the chances of spotting it are slim in a body of water as big as the Columbia, which is about a half mile wide near Tina Bar.  That's if trained professionals are looking, which the weren't in the months following the skyjacking.  A body could easily end up miles downstream, and eventually in the ocean.

I don't have his book. I'm sure the information is in there...

A quick search

"With the searchers wearing camera-equipped helmets, Tosaw watched the search as it happened, seeing what the divers saw in real time.

The river is about 400 feet across and 40 feet deep at that location. The divers concentrated on the shallows, going no deeper than 30 feet along the bank. They found all kinds of debris, including a 2,000-pound anchor believed to be about 100 years old -- but no sign of Cooper."


Don't understand the 400 feet across part...

I have Tosaw's book (which does not have an index) but I don't remember seeing anything about helmet cameras.

The river at Tina Bar is roughly 1000 feet wide.  The shipping channel is 40 feet deep and handles large ocean going ships.  Kaiser built Liberty Ships at Portland/Vancouver during WW2.

From personal experience just standing at the water's edge at Tina Bar, my guess is that NMI is correct about the underwater visibility being only in the neighborhood of 1 to 2 feet.

About trees in the river, remember that Bonneville Dam is about 30 or 40 miles upstream of Tina Bar and that the trees would probably enter the river downstream of that dam.  And my guess is that the Corp of Engineers would try to ground those trees as soon as they spotted them coming downstream.

Also, Mt. St. Helens blew its top about three months after the money was found at Tina Bar.  The ash from Mt. St. Helens fell mainly in the Columbia River watershed and went downstream from there.  With all the dams on the Columbia, some of the power generators were damaged by the ash in the water and shipping had to be stopped between Portland and the Pacific while that 40 foot shipping channel was dredged to get the ash out.  The Bonneville Dam Visitor's Center has a nice display on this topic.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I don't have his book. I'm sure the information is in there...

A quick search

"With the searchers wearing camera-equipped helmets, Tosaw watched the search as it happened, seeing what the divers saw in real time.

The river is about 400 feet across and 40 feet deep at that location. The divers concentrated on the shallows, going no deeper than 30 feet along the bank. They found all kinds of debris, including a 2,000-pound anchor believed to be about 100 years old -- but no sign of Cooper."


Don't understand the 400 feet across part...

I have Tosaw's book (which does not have an index) but I don't remember seeing anything about helmet cameras.

The river at Tina Bar is roughly 1000 feet wide.  The shipping channel is 40 feet deep and handles large ocean going ships.  Kaiser built Liberty Ships at Portland/Vancouver during WW2.

From personal experience just standing at the water's edge at Tina Bar, my guess is that NMI is correct about the underwater visibility being only in the neighborhood of 1 to 2 feet.

About trees in the river, remember that Bonneville Dam is about 30 or 40 miles upstream of Tina Bar and that the trees would probably enter the river downstream of that dam.  And my guess is that the Corp of Engineers would try to ground those trees as soon as they spotted them coming downstream.

Also, Mt. St. Helens blew its top about three months after the money was found at Tina Bar.  The ash from Mt. St. Helens fell mainly in the Columbia River watershed and went downstream from there.  With all the dams on the Columbia, some of the power generators were damaged by the ash in the water and shipping had to be stopped between Portland and the Pacific while that 40 foot shipping channel was dredged to get the ash out.  The Bonneville Dam Visitor's Center has a nice display on this topic.

Let me say with some humor that 'Tom and the FBI lab found no volcanic ash in between the bills' ! 
BTW this stuff is highly abrasive. Tom remarked on how "smooth" the surfaces of his bills were.