Carr states this from the lab test...

The only thing in the lab report was that the money was consistent with being submerged in water and that sand recovered off the money was consistent with silt from the Columbia.

Is silt only found at the bottom of the river?

What report or post by Carr are you referring to. ?

From DZ....

Post #653 of 1694
Nov 30, 2007, 2:07 PM

I forgot to separate my line from Carr's statement....I asked if silt was only found at the bottom....I'll correct my post.

I don't believe his theory that the bills came back up to the surface on it's own.

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

Is there anyone here than believes the money found on Tina Bar was a plant, and why, or how would you come to this conclusion.

I tend more towards dredging - because I think that is one method that explains a lot -- and, even with all the ifs, ands, and buts, no one that I know of has been able to successfully and definitively counter the dredging argument.

No one yet has been able to explain planting in any way that makes sense. To me, Duane throwing it off the bridge makes more sense than a purposeful plant.

Plus the dredge theory is not dependent on Cooper not making it or not making it - if he didn't die, he just didn't get to keep all of the money.

that's a very good point.

I dont think the dredging theory is going away easily!

The timing is right, the dredging-spreading scenario fits the morphology of the find site, and lab tests could very easily link the money with bottom sediment - if the right tests are run!

But, doesnt the dredging scenario almost require that the whole bag of money was sucked up vs. just a few bundles? I agree with the FBI/Dredging Co: a good fraction of the money is going to be destroyed by the auger and the forces in the dredging process. It's paper!

It's hard to say. I'm not an expert on this, but I could imagine the bag being torn apart by the bit possibly causing the money to be tossed about, and sucked up into the dredge leaving some on the bottom. the dredge will not come back to the same spot, but close to it. it basically mows the river floor, or sweeps it never going back to the same location like you would do with a lawn mower.

I just can't say anything for sure, nor can anyone else with other theories.....

I lean towards the idea the money bag landed in the Columbia upstream, and came to rest on the river bottom in a depression or against an obstruction.  The Columbia was dredged because of silt and sand building up on the bottom, so it stands to reason the bag was covered with silt/sand after coming to rest in the bottom.  The money bag was eventually dredged from the river bottom and this process could have unsheathed the money packages from the canvas bag, or the canvas bag could have deteriorated at some point.  The money ended up in a dredge pile, and eventually made it to the location of its discovery by mechanical earth-moving and/or erosion.

...how do we account for the rest of the bundles?

They may have stayed on the river bottom and decayed away or maybe they were destroyed during the dredging process. 

This is the entire post by Carr....

I found the cover sheets to the lab reports which summarize the findings. I also found the interviews of the Ingram family with regard to the recovery. I found the following:

The money was not stuck together with muck. The money was found under just a few inches of sand. They were still bundled with rubber bands, however, the bands crumbled to the touch when they picked them up. The Ingrams took the money to their house and laid it out to dry. The only thing in the lab report was that the money was consistent with being submerged in water and that sand recovered off the money was consistent with silt from the Columbia

From what I have read in the files the best theory I can come up with is that Cooper tied the money bag into a tight enough bundle that it stayed sealed for several years. As time passed the bag was pushed by the elements into a creek or feeder stream, finally into a high velocity creek that eventually pushed it into a tributary that feeds into the Columbia. Once in the Columbia the bag bounces along the bottom, snaging every now and then. Sometime in late 78 or early 79 the bag breaks open near Tina's Bar and a few bundles wash up and are covered buy the sand.

Ok. Let's examine this.

"I found the cover sheets to the lab reports which summarize the findings." Cover sheets plural. Lab reports plural. The "findings" being summarized are not for "all" of the lab reports but only for each separate lab report. Nowhere does SA Carr say: All of the lab report findings agree! In fact they do not agree. They may compliment each other but they do not duplicate each other or even necessarily form a comprehensive consistent picture.

Why are there multiple lab reports? The most basic answer to that is: because different packets of evidence were sent in separately to be examined. How many separate packets were there? We do not know. SA Carr does not tell us; all Larry says is "reports" and "findings". But there were at minimum three separate reports and findings. (1) The original Ingram bills turned in. (2) Another four bills turned in later for the family by Crystal Ingram. (3) Evidence collected by agents etal during the excavation. At minimum there are three sets of evidence submitted for analysis and each will have a cover sheet(s) and a lab report. Let's call these Submissions Q1, Q2, and Q3 for convenience. So... at the very least we know Larry's "cover sheets and lab reports" represent real-world evidence submissions Q1, Q2, and Q3, etc. It is how-many-ever there were.

From all of the cover sheets SA Carr reports the follow points: (a) The money was not stuck together with muck. (b) The money was found under just a few inches of sand. (c) They were still bundled with rubber bands, however, (d) the bands crumbled to the touch when they picked them up. (e) The Ingrams took the money to their house and laid it out to dry. (f) The only thing in the lab report was that the money was consistent with being submerged in water and that (g) sand recovered off the money was consistent with silt from the Columbia.

The first point is, we have to assume Larry is reading and interpreting the cover sheet summaries correctly, in his report above. I am not satisfied that is the case. For one thing there is the issue of the condition of the money which we know was in some case highly deteriorated. We know as fact that the money was so deteriorated that the FBI could only get an approximate count on the total amount ... finally gauged at $5800 or 290 separate bills. The money was so fragile an accurate count could not be made! And if other agents are to be taken seriously there were other fragments distributed over at least a 4x60 yard field which were not in the count.

Second: "(g) sand recovered off the money was consistent with silt from the Columbia". Sand off the money. Larry does not say "silt deposits between or among the bills...". Is Larry talking about sand recovered "off" the whole bundle(s) only? Or by "off" does he mean "off between the groups of bills" or "off between the bills". Was there sand between the damned bills!? Yes, there was. That sand is the "silt" Larry mentions. What else is in "silt" besides sand? What types of sand from what minerals? Did the FBI lab techs try to determine that? Did the FBI lab techs run any mineralogy tests on the sand types? Sand types differentiate one sediment type from another and help identify location. Apparently, Larry is saying dredging sediment is not involved because he doesn't mention dredge sediment-silt at all, in spite of the fact the dredging is a fundamental question in this whole issue.

The details would be in the lab reports themselves vs cover sheets. (g) above is a general statement and you cannot draw any hard conclusions from statements like that.

I think until something turns up of a definitive nature in the Cooper money, people are going to continue to cast this find in a number of shades, supporting one theory over another. When the money got to Tina Bar, how it arrived, etc., are going to continue to be debated ... for the forseeable future.
 

I wonder if Tom had access to this report?

So far as I know, yes. I think this would be in what Tom refers to this as the "Transcript" on his site, if I am deciphering Tom's 'code words' correctly.

Again this is not one report. It is a series of summaries of separate pieces of lab work done on multiple specimens of money submitted for analysis, on different dates, generally Feb 12 1980 through about the 15th 1980.

Again, Carr says: "I found the cover sheets (plural) to the lab reports (plural) which summarize the findings (of each separate lab report)."

Not all lab reports said the same thing. Carr is trying to give a general statement summarizing all of the summary reports and in doing that he leaves out important details reported in the individual lab reports. He reported to us what "he" thought was important after reading the separate summary reports, but Larry is not a forensic expert, any more than he is an avionics engineer. And Larry would be the first to admit this. He came to Dropzone in the first place to give public exposure to the DBCooper case, and to gain the analysis and technical expertise from people gathered there who could offer expertise he himself does not have or claim to have. That is why the FBI has Quantico and uses consultants, experts in various fields, and the like. 

This is not conjecture on my part but fact.

Kaye should be able to confirm everything I am saying. Take his word for it if you prefer.

ps: You can reprise my prior detailed posts on these reports Carr refers to in the posts I made at DZ starting back in 2009 on DZ, I believe. Certainly by 2010-11 I was posting about this reports. And then I stopped. Nobody was interested. So, look up my posts if you want and then email Tom and ask his viewpoint.

Money evidence was submitted to Washington in separate submissions by Seattle almost as soon as it was brought in to the Seattle office. Ingrams - two lots on two different dates - Harold & Pat bills - Crystal Ingram four bills on Feb 14th 1980. Excavation evidence submissions in several lots on different dates. The lab did its work as per examinations requested on each lot submitted, and filed their reports. In one case the lab was asked to basically 'look for anything significant' which was a wide mandate. One priority for the lab was looking for fingerprints. Then the lab looked for particles, sand types, mineralogy, etc. The last lab report was back to the Seattle office by about Feb 28th, I believe... looking at the notes I have.


   
   

Very likely, it is just that the edges were fragile and fragments came off when the money was handled. This would also explain varying reports of fragments. I've seen pictures though of buried, wet, damaged money and I've just not seen this particular characteristic.

I remember discussing this theory on DZ a while back. I also believe it looks like it was thrown in a fire. that's what they were clearing the area for, and if not mistaken had thought of that idea prior to turning it in?

Added:
I'm sure a basic test would have caught it though....