Carr spoke with one of the two on the phone..I would have to look and see which is which..I believe Grinell was the security manager...this was during a discussion on the DZ back in 2007...it appears he spoke with Grinell twice..he was confused when he was told they used paper bands...he started thinking that someone had to of removed the paper bands and replaced them with rubber bands...once the second interview was done, Carr realized he only transported the money to the airport and went by the company policy on bundling money...the second interview explained that the money didn't come from circulation and was already to go with each "packet" in one hundred twenties...and said rubber bands were used so who ever got the money wouldn't know where it came from...obviously, the bank wanted no part of anyone knowing they were involved...next thing you would have bank robbers coming in for all the extra cash lying around...

The main point of this is here is no documentation about putting multiple "packets" together..if they were already in 100's who took the time to scramble the "packets" $500 wouldn't wrap with a rubber band very good? who took the time to sort out the list to where they knew the bundles were not changed when they checked the T-Bar bills?

This goes right back to my original point.. (paper vs rubber bands is irrelevant here)

If the Bank employee random/resized the "bundles" (to make look hastily prepared) how did TBAR money get in 100's and in original order... either he did NOT at all or he resized the bundles, groups of packets. He did NOT resize the packets.

Obviously the 10 yr old "narrative" is wrong. Ckret got it wrong, his statements are unreliable. The only solution that fits the evidence is that the Bank employee resized and rubber banded "bundles", groups of packets before sending the ransom money to the plane.

IMO, Ckret conflated the two distinct money assembly events and the terms/concepts of packets and bundles..


.

Quote

If the Bank employee random/resized the "bundles"

to date, the way I see this is no evidence other than Carr stating the bundles were different exist...the bank doesn't claim this anywhere..the information about this appears to be extremely limited...

I think it was more than Carr.. I have read many places from other FBI agents, but I'd have to go and find it.

Below is what FBI agent William Baker told the Oregonian on Feb 13 1980.

Alluded to at CitizenSleuths.com

Quote:
"Baker said the money was bundled into packages of several sizes at the time of the hijacking. "to make it appear that it was randomly done, as if it was done in a hurry." Because of that the actual amount could not be estimated, he said."

Tom already responded....not good news..

Hey, buddy!

When I sat down Bill Baker on camera (His soundbites are in the "New Doc Video Pitch" on home page), he had no recollection on anything involving the money preps.

Like I said a few days ago, I'm not certain that reports of resizing anything--packets or bundles--are accurate because it makes no sense. Furthermore, I asked what documentation backs up this claim. A newspaper report is highly suspect regardless of who the quote is attributed to.

Finally, FLYJACK keeps putting forward the notion that the packets couldn't have been resized because the three packets on Tena Bar consisted of 100 bills each. This is a major assumption. After all: How do you know that each packet had exactly 100 bills? And, where do you get that every pack was resized? Perhaps a healthy percentage of the packets weren't resized even if resizing was actually done.

Like I said a few days ago, I'm not certain that reports of resizing anything--packets or bundles--are accurate because it makes no sense. Furthermore, I asked what documentation backs up this claim. A newspaper report is highly suspect regardless of who the quote is attributed to.

Finally, FLYJACK keeps putting forward the notion that the packets couldn't have been resized because the three packets on Tena Bar consisted of 100 bills each. This is a major assumption. After all: How do you know that each packet had exactly 100 bills? And, where do you get that every pack was resized? Perhaps a healthy percentage of the packets weren't resized even if resizing was actually done.

All information and FBI agent comments suggests they were in 100's but they were also in a bill order that matched the original micro. So, they couldn't have been resized, the order would have changed.

Resizing the "packets" doesn't really make sense, they are only 1/2 inch thick, to make it look "random sized" you'd have to remove a significant amount, not 10 or 20 bills. Too small and it wouldn't hold together.

Something just isn't right here..  The simplest explanation that fits all the evidence is that the "packets x 100" were put into random sized "bundles".

There may be other explanations. I looked at a few but they are very speculative. That is why I asked...

As Shutter stated,, Ultimately the point is to determine how the 3 "packets" arrived together.

.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote

If the Bank employee random/resized the "bundles"

to date, the way I see this is no evidence other than Carr stating the bundles were different exist...the bank doesn't claim this anywhere..the information about this appears to be extremely limited...

I think that's correct - Carr is the sole source for 'bundles were different sizes' but again that supposedly comes from the bank employee who assembled the bundles.

FBI agent William Baker told the Oregonian on Feb 13 1980.

Quote:
"Baker said the money was bundled into packages of several sizes at the time of the hijacking. "to make it appear that it was randomly done, as if it was done in a hurry." Because of that the actual amount could not be estimated, he said."

I will have to find it...I'll get it tomorrow...trying to resolve the server issues...