You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I don't really expect an answer from you...

long string of Flyjack vapor rub clipped ....

Its funny you would say "T_Bar money contradiction" because that typifies your ignorance about the T_Bar money facts as we know them.

For one thing, there came a point in Kaye's work when we all sat back and mused at how 'consistent and unremarkable' the Tina Bar money was! That's the complete opposite of your analysis, but of course you have no analysis so you would have no way of knowing that since what you have is a lot of gall and endless opinions about something you seem to know nothing about, in reality! Add to that the fact you wont listen to anyone due to your ATTITUDE ... that pretty much traps you as a clueless case to be avoided.

Even the FBI reports were consistent: nothing remarkable in or about the money, still in the same order as given to Cooper, particles examined consistent with Columbia River water only and no other geological region, etc. Several people laughed and remarked: 'that is last thing we hoped to see!'. I suggested we look deeper. Tom's sample was only three bills and no other materials... the only thing remarkable was that the FBI had wasted its time trying to finger print some of the bills using its old arcane method of silver nitrate testing.

That basic picture has lasted to this day, until you arrived of course claiming "contradictions in the Tina Bar money"! And the basis of your contention is word-juggling-numerology cherry picking from various and sundry documents and writings... where you claim everyone was using "formal banking terms" ?

Yours is a remarkable achievement in the annuls of storybook science!        

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

CEASE FIRE!!!!!

Flyjack states as fact: "If the Bank employee randomized /resized the ransom money then how did TBAR get in prior order and in 100's, not randomized/resized."

Your question itself is bogus, misleading, and factually wrong. The bank employee did not  "randomized /resize" anything!. Employee Baker who we interviewed did not resize anything - he merely pulled bills off the line and assembled "bundles" consisting of approx 100 bills per bundle, some more, some less, and he wrapped each bundle with one or two rubber bands. He did not have to randomize anything - the bills were already randomized and accounted for (by a list) at the bank. Start and stop marks were placed on the bank's list of its bills to indicate the contents of each bundle being assembled by Mr. Baker to be given to Cooper. The FBI then apparently made its own list of Cooper bills later, but the two lists should match in contents (serial numbers). 

Then you say: "how did TBAR get in prior order and in 100's, not randomized/resized." ?

Nobody has the faintest idea what you mean by this. Once again your question presumes false claims of yours.

The problem is in your math, your accounting, your terms/words, and your insisting on claims and beliefs that are in contradiction of all other recognised information I know of.

I cant do anything about your problems so I will ignore them and you from now.   

Well here is some actual history factually correct because before it was over both Tom and I were involved.

Again, I dont recall how or why the issue of paper straps vs rubber bands even surfaced - but the issue did surface suddenly for some reason.

Ckret decided this needed to be nailed down so he found and interviewed the security officer who had been in charge on the day the money was assembled for Cooper at SeaFirst. Ckret hope the security guy would have all of the facts about how the money was packaged for Cooper. It turned out the security guy had had no direct involvement in packaging the money for Cooper but he gave Ckret the name of the guy who had been personally involved; a Mr. Baker. At length Ckret got Baker's contact info, and eventually I did also. Ckret interviewed Baker and then did a followup a day later. Baker had been personally involved in the process which he described as being very labor intensive and rushed.

Baker's description of how he assembled the "bundles" of money for Cooper, the use of start and stop marks on an existing bank list of serial numbers of its emergency fund, denoting the contents of every bundle assembled and rubber banded for Cooper ... that info has been given before.

But Baker made two vital comments to the current problem. (1) The bank's emergency fund of bills ($250k) had never been paper strapped or banded. The whole fund consisted of loose bills stored in boxes. (2) No paper straps or bands had ever been involved with any of those bills. Paper straps had been intentionally avoided by Bank Security because they did not want any intended recipient (a criminal) to know where the money had come from, the name of any particular bank, etc. That had always been the policy with this emergency fund. No paper straps, no rubber bands, no identifying markers of any kind. (3) Baker assembled bundles for Cooper placing one or two rubber bands around each "bundle". (4) Baker did not resize or resort or record or "randomize" in any fashion. The loose bills were already in random order! Baker simply assembled bundles from the bills presented to him already in random order.
     
Paper straps were specifically avoided  as a part of SeaFirst's Security program with its emergency fund.

Whether accepted or believed or not, paper straps were PROHIBTED FROM USE as a SeaFirst Security policy with respect to the emergency fund and its use. No paper straps were used in assembling the Cooper money into bundles.

This is very old news! Some people just refuse to read the thread! Which is fine! 

Any more time spent on this straw man nonsense, is a total waste of time and prevents real progress from being made in the Cooper case.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Well here is some actual history factually correct because before it was over both Tom and I were involved.

Again, I dont recall how or why the issue of paper straps vs rubber bands even surfaced - but the issue did surface suddenly for some reason.

Ckret decided this needed to be nailed down so he found and interviewed the security officer who had been in charge on the day the money was assembled for Cooper at SeaFirst. Ckret hope the security guy would have all of the facts about how the money was packaged for Cooper. It turned out the security guy had had no direct involvement in packaging the money for Cooper but he gave Ckret the name of the guy who had been personally involved; a Mr. Baker. At length Ckret got Baker's contact info, and eventually I did also. Ckret interviewed Baker and then did a followup a day later. Baker had been personally involved in the process which he described as being very labor intensive and rushed.

Baker's description of how he assembled the "bundles" of money for Cooper, the use of start and stop marks on an existing bank list of serial numbers of its emergency fund, denoting the contents of every bundle assembled and rubber banded for Cooper ... that info has been given before.

But Baker made two vital comments to the current problem. (1) The bank's emergency fund of bills ($250k) had never been paper strapped or banded. The whole fund consisted of loose bills stored in boxes. (2) No paper straps or bands had ever been involved with any of those bills. Paper straps had been intentionally avoided by Bank Security because they did not want any intended recipient (a criminal) to know where the money had come from, the name of any particular bank, etc. That had always been the policy with this emergency fund. No paper straps, no rubber bands, no identifying markers of any kind. (3) Baker assembled bundles for Cooper placing one or two rubber bands around each "bundle". (4) Baker did not resize or resort or record or "randomize" in any fashion. The loose bills were already in random order! Baker simply assembled bundles from the bills presented to him already in random order.
     
Paper straps were specifically avoided  as a part of SeaFirst's Security program with its emergency fund.

ok, I figured it out, CKRET conflated packets and bundles and also conflated two distinct money assembly events. This is the problem with hearsay,, Ckret got it wrong and made assumptions. Everybody ran with it for the last ten years, but it never made sense and never fit the evidence.


Money assembly event #1 - Well before NORJAK, the Bank employee took loose circulated bills from a "box" and ran them through the recordak producing a micro of the bills in order. The bills were banded in packets/packages of 100's (paper or rubber not relevant). This was the emergency stash. $230,000 in $20's and $20,000 in $10's. All were recorded in order on the micro.

Money assembly event #2 - The afternoon of NORJAK the Bank employee took 100 packets of $20 x 100 bills from the emergency stash and gathered them into random sized bundles (groups of packets). These were forwarded to the plane.


The Bank sent the micro with all bill numbers to the FBI, the 10's were ignored. Since the micro included 1500 bills NOT given to Cooper the Bank recorded the start and stop for each of the 15 packets left behind. The 15 pairs of numbers were given to the FBI to be marked on the list, those and all bills in between deducted to produce an accurate ransom bill list.  This proves the packets were in 100's and same order as micro.


TBAR was in 100's and in same order as original micro. This fits all the evidence. It also means that for the ransom assembly #2 during NORJAK the packets were bundled into random sized groups with rubber bands.

All the evidence and logic suggest that the 3 TBAR packets arrived as one single bundle and that means the money didn't have to be humanly placed/dropped/planted or arrive in a container. The means of arrival are expanded and not restricted.