I did find a published bill list from 1973, all the bill #'s are alpha-numerically sequential aka re-ordered. Not in bundled physical order.
Some of you touched on this in DZ... but didn't connectto TBAR regular bundles or resolve.
Georger's post..
"Or an unaccounted for $20 slipped through the cracks of the
various accountings?
Here is Tom's version "directly from 'the' FBI documents" he
says:
So you don't waste any more time on this. Directly from the FBI
documents:
"Ransom money in the amount $200,000 was made up entirely of
used, random 20 dollar bills. It was obtained from the
Seattle-First National Bank, Main Office, and was part of a
ransom package of 250,000, which had been maintained by the
bank for such emergencies."
"The entire list of the ransom bills had previously been
microfilmed by the Seattle-First National Bank, and has now been
incorporated in a 34 page pamphlet of ransom bills."
Here is Larry's more detailed version:
"This is a big misunderstanding about the money, it all had to be
manually scanned. Tellers had a bill list of all 10,000 20's and if
someone came in with a boat load they would do a spot check
to see if any of the serials poped up." ... and ...
"The money was provided by Seafirst bank which is now Bank of
America. The money had been earmarked for situations such as
these and was always on hand. It had been photographed and
serial numbers recorded by their security so the FBI did none of
this.
The money was then transported by SeaFirst bank security to a
Seattle police detective who then drove it to the airport and
handed it over to NWA. The money was bundled in various
counts so that no bundle was the same. Each bundle was
secured by rubber band and different counts so that it appeared
the money was hastily gathered." ... and
"I then went back and re-interviewed the bank security manager
and found out that he wasn't directly involved in packaging the
money, only carrying it to the airport. He was relaying what their
normal procedure was for processing and packaging money for
shipment. But the bank switched its procedure in this case.
The funds that were given to Cooper were not pulled from their
circulating cash but from a security fund that was prepackaged
for these types of incidents. This money was not strapped
because the bank did not want any subjects to know where it
came from so it was packaged with rubber bands. " ... and
"Everything was scanned into a microfiche as they assembled
the bundles ..." .... and ...
"The money: The FBI does not provide funds for situations like
these. In this case SeaFirst Bank loaned the money to NWA, who
then repaid SeaFirst in the following days. NWA then submitted a
claim to their insurance company, who fought it, but ended up
paying the claim after a court battle. "
$$$,$$$.$$
The FBI was passive in this whole transaction. It was NWA who
received a "loan" and had to account for it. Apparently, from
what Tom says, the loan was for $250,000 and it was NWA on
the hook who then had to account for which bills were used and
which were not used and were being returned to Sea-First ...
with the FBI assisting in the accounting and verification?
This accounting had to agree with the claim NWA gave to its
insurance agent.
The entire list of the ransom bills given to NWA had previously
been microfilmed by the Seattle-First National Bank. As the
money was placed into bundles at the bank a new microfiche
was made of that list of bundles. The FBI was given a copy of
the bank 'bundles' microfiche in a canister. (Was $250k put into
bundles or just $200K? )
(the money was not micro'd 2x, the non DBC money was manually recorded, only top and bottom bill in bundle to deduct from original micro list, the original micro was given to FBI with all $250k of bills recorded)
Eventually the FBI compiled a SERIAL list of the bills it said had
been part of the Cooper $200,000, probably using the bank
microfiche of the new Cooper bundles. (Tom says: "has now
been incorporated in a 34 page pamphlet of ransom bills.")
The FBI and at least two other entities would have had to have
had copies of the Sea First 'bundles' microfiche. NWA, and the
bank itself, and later NWA's insurance company and the Court!
That microfiche is evidence not just for the FBI and law
enforcement but for NWA and the bank, and then the insurance
company, and the Court - because this transaction went to trial
when the insurance company at first refused to pay!
So when Tom says the canister is lost ... what about the other
copies and canisters or duplicate paper printouts et cetera? !
Tom few lines of "Directly from the FBI documents" merely
scrapes the surface of this affair. Larry previously described it
as "making my head spin".
This is not to be critical of Tom. I am just saying there is
more to this than a few lines conveys.
More than one player had copies of the bank's 'bundles
microfiche' - in one form or another. That was mandatory for
a host of reasons. Once the matter went to Court, now more
copies are required. So, the loss of one copy/canister cannot be
all that crucial or if it is .... then we have a different kind of
problem! All Tom encountered was a loss of the microfiche at
one source only.
The picture I have is the FBI was passive in this whole matter.
They helped facilitate. The transaction was between Sea-First
and NWA. Then handed off to the FBI to give to Cooper.
Had the FBI captured Cooper at length and then found its
damned canister was missing, does anyone seriously think a
duplicate copy of the microfiche could not have been produced
quickly? Guess again!
Everything is done in triplicate!
This isn't the corner grocery store losing it's broom.
Lastly, what does RANDOM mean in this matter? Used $20s
stockpiled from countless sources ... did the bank actually
use a 'Linquist sorter' to sort the bills by serial number into
a trully random distribution. I doubt that. I think the word
random is relative in this case and the totality of socalled
'random' serial numbers comprising bundles, would not be quite
as random as one thinks, especially if no real effort was made to
randomise; like using Linguist's random sorting machine. . .
which incidently casinos in LasVegas refused to use, because
a casino depends on a non-random predictable distribution of
cards etc... a distribution skewed in favor of, the house."
Poll