georger 244
Recommended Posts
QuoteThe article I posted that named Schreuder as the agent "in charge" of the beach search, and making the "3 feet down" comment, spelled his first name wrong.
Interestingly, he was one of the 3 agents who negotiated with the attempted hijacker Tripp (the guy who tried twice). They shot him the 2nd time.
Oddly, Tripp said he wanted to go to Afghanistan. Tripp was one of 17 children.
In any case, Dorwin Schreuder appears to be alive.
Maybe Bruce can interview him about the beach search?
BRUCE: This would be a most excellent interview...another FBI guy on the money search..but this guy seems more connected to the overall thing than the last guy!
He was an FBI negotiator..so watch out!
Quote
Notes, Dorwin Schreuder, Interview January 17, 2010
8 pm, Sunday, January 16, 2009
Hi eveyone. I'm making a special guest appearance tonight. 377 emailed me and asked that I talk with retired FBI agent Dorwin Schreuder. Happy to do a littel pinch-hitting from time-to-time. Besides, the Jets just won in San Deigo and I'm feeling happy!
In a delightful two-hour phone conversation, I learned that Dorwin Schreuder was the FBI agent who took over the Portland office’s Norjak case from Ralph Himmelsbach when Himms retired in 1979.
Dorwin, himself retired since 1993, is an easy-going guy, full of stories, and a true gentleman. He jokingly confessed that his memory is not absolute, and that I had gotten him “cold” and that if he had some time to prepare for an interview he could review his notes and be able to give facts and figures more accurately. However, I didn’t want to take a chance on any filtering of information, so I encourage Dorwin to just travel down Memory Rd and I’d be happy wherever it took us.
Here is my report on the interview:
Dorwin supervised the evidence retrieval operation at Tina’s Beach, although he was not the first FBI agent to arrive on the scene, which he believes was actually the field office agent from Vancouver, WA. He recalls getting a call to go out to Tina’ Beach and “bring lots of rakes and shovels.”
His Portland Public Information Officer (PIO) Billie Williams also called to say that he couldn’t make it to the site to handle the press and asked Dorwin to act as PIO for this portion of the investigation. Dorwin agreed and ultimately became the PIO for the Portland Office.
“There were a ton of media out there for days,” Dorwin said, referring to the scene at Tina’s Beach.
When they started, they visualized an informal grid pattern, radiating out for twenty yards from where Brian Ingram found the money and all the way down to the water.
“We went at it like archeologists,” Dorwin said, explaining that they preferred not using any heavy equipment initially. The usage of backhoes was much later in the retrieval.
In that initial search they found “thousands of teeny shards of money the size of a man’s fingernail, up to the size of a silver dollar.”
Dorwin said the pieces were well-preserved and layered in clean sand.
“No matter how deep we dug we found money – homogeneously mixed to a great depth.”
Dorwin said that most agents were digging at a depth of 1.5-2 feet deep and that they dug at least four holes “at least four deep.” He said they found shards in most holes and evenly placed all the way to the depth of four feet.
Dorwin also said that the dredger “Bedell” was parked off-shore in the Columbia, and he concluded as self-evident that the money had been shredded by the dredge and thrown up on the beach as part of deposition of material.
Outside of the 20-yard circle the shard finds diminished. Then they brought in the backhoes, but did not find any more shards of money.
However, Dorwin also said that they found “part of the leather briefcase – enough to contain the bundle that the little boy found (Brian Ingram).”
Dorwin continued to talk about the briefcase throughout our conversation, mentioning it several times, and specifically said that the portion they had retrieved was “about a third to half of the briefcase.”
At the end of our chat, I asked him if he was sure about the briefcase find, as I had never heard anyone else say that it was part of the findings at Tina’s Beach – or anywhere else.
He insisted on his statement.
When I told him that I had thought the money was tied up in a cloth satchel from the bank, he paused, and then very soberly said, “Hmmm, you’re beginning to make me doubt myself.”
We talked a bit more about this, and Dorwin confirmed that he was not at the site when the briefcase was found, since only the Ingrams were there, but, in addition, he had never actually handled the briefcase – or any of the evidence – at any point in the case.
He was a little hazy about the actions of the Seattle office, and when I asked him initially about the activities of the Seattle guys, he said, “Oh, yeah, they were involved,” but when I pressed him on how many, their names, and exactly what they did, he backed off and claimed that maybe it was only the Vancouver office agents that actually came on site and handled the evidence.
Dorwin believes that all the evidence ended up in Seattle. He thought that some of it was in the Portland office, too, for a time.
I asked him about the relationship between himself and the Seattle office, particularly with SAC Seattle Charlie Farrell, when Dorwin was the case officer for Norjak in Portland, he seemed to become a bit vague, but left me with the impression that he was confirming that Farrell was still SAC.
Dorwin was the Norjak case officer until his retirement, and his involvement with the case was minimal in the latter years. However, in the early 80s, he got about six strong leads a year and plenty of “wannabes” to check out.
The Norjak case file in Portland is enormous. Its shelf spans an entire wall.
“A lot of good work was done on that case.”
Dorwin believes that Cooper never survived the jump and “augured” somewhere, and the animals of the forest disposed of the remains. He believes that the money, “protected by the briefcase” made its way to the Columbia and got chewed up by the dredge and deposited at Tina’s Beach.
His voice had a trace of uncharacteristic frustration when he said, “We never found a thing, other than what was recovered at the beach.”
Dorwin also told me about his experiences negotiating with three different skyjackers. Dorwin has a Master’s Degree in Behavioral Sciences, and sounds like he was a superb negotiator.
Glenn Tripp
“Now, Glenn Tripp - that’s a sad tale – the story of that little guy,” Dorwin said at the beginning.
Dorwin was involved in the second Tripp skyjacking, the one where Tripp died. In fact, Dorwin was on the phone with Tripp when FBI agents, coming into the place through the cockpit, shot and killed the young man.
“At first, Tripp was described as being very violent and abusive to the passengers. But I was just beginning to make some progress with him over a ground-based phone when he was shot.”
Dorwin described how he had a portable office set up close to the place and talked to Tripp on a mobile phone, and was patched in somehow to the telecommunications on the plane.
“I was just beginning to get him calmed down and he was describing his bomb to me. Then he said he ‘was shielded’ and then I heard a loud bang. At first, I thought Tripp had dropped his phone.”
Dorwin said it was a shocking experience to be talking to a suspect when he is killed by other agents.
2. TWA, Portland
“My second case was a TWA flight out of Portland, Oregon. The skyjacker wanted to talk to a certain Portland Police Officer about some kind of beef, and the officer was a neighbor of mine.”
Dorwin described that the plane was on the ground, and he had negotiated the release of all the passengers, and then the crew, except for the Captain.
“It became a real case of the ‘Stockholm Identification Syndrome,’” Dorwin said, whereby the Captain tried to defend the skyjacker, who was a young man.
“He was an older gentleman, a fatherly-figure, and we talked to the skyjacker through the Captain’s radio. Well, the Captain bonded with the skyjacker and when I had negotiated with the skyjacker to come down the stairs where we would meet him, the Captain said, ‘I want to go with him.’”
Ultimately, all was resolved and the skyjacker taken into custody.
3. Eugene, Oregon skyjacking
Dorwin’s third skyjacking negotiation was on a short flight from Eugene, Oregon to Hillsboro, Oregon, at a small private airport just outside of Portland. Dorwin said the skyjacker was a very depressed individual and an alcoholic.
“He was very depressed and wanted to commit suicide, but he did have what it took to take his own life so he wanted us to do it for him.”
4. Dorwin’s Biggest Case: The Ecclesia Athletic Association
The case that Dorwin is perhaps most proud of, and certainly the one on which he did the most investigative work, was his role in bringing a fellow named Broussard to justice.
Broussard was a cult figure from LA who moved to the Clackamas area of Oregon with a number of followers. They attempted to train dozens of children to become star athletes, but their disciplinary regimens were quite severe, and one child died.
The Clackamas Sheriff’s department responded to the murder and rescued fifty-three children from the compound.
Dorwin spent three years on the case and was able to return indictments on nine adults.
5. Dorwin’s Current Case
Dorwin is still involved in police work. When he was a newbie at the Bureau – he joined in 1967 – he was stationed in Tucson, Arizona. He transferred to Portland in 1976.
During his time in Tucson, a fellow agent’s grown daughter disappeared from Tucson airport after arriving to pick up her husband on an incoming flight.
“We worked diligently on that case for years,” Dorwin said, “but we never got anything. It happens sometimes.”
However, a suspect has been indicted recently, a guy who is currently serving a prison sentence on another crime. The suspect had told a buddy in jail, and the word got out.
Now, Dorwin has been asked to give depositions in the case.
Ta, ta, for now......
Oh, wait, one more thing. I have been diligently trying to correspond with Sheridan Peterson, as 377 has also asked me to chat with that fellow. Petey is cranky and suspicious, and very selective on who, what and when he communciates. At the moment we have exchanged a couple of emails. Is he Cooper? I dunno, but Petey has been investigated twice by the FBI in conjunction to Norjak. First in 1971, just days after the heist, and then a few years ago by the Bureau's San Francisco office, who had three agents investigating him and got DNA samples (voluntarily, I believe) from him. Not sure on the results or findings. I have asked the SF PIO for an update, but somehow they have not gotten around to calling me. Hmmmm...
BTW: Georger, I loved the Sultans of Swing rap bit.. Bring it on, Brother.
snowmman 3
bruce said "BTW: Georger, I loved the Sultans of Swing rap bit.. Bring it on, Brother. "
hey bruce great to have you back..that was my bit..I'm impressed you got the source song right.
It was kinda cool huh? kind of like slam poetry..it works even if you're not thinking of the song.
I meant to start with "money for nothing, chicks for free" but landed on Sultans by accident..they've got a similar rhythm no? ....
thinking of jo's mythology of duane as the song-singing, free-drink-getting, girl-pregnant-making ranger-jumper-hanging, dog-about-town...but the Sultans of Swing thing worked good.
I've got to read your post in detail now.
hey bruce great to have you back..that was my bit..I'm impressed you got the source song right.
It was kinda cool huh? kind of like slam poetry..it works even if you're not thinking of the song.
I meant to start with "money for nothing, chicks for free" but landed on Sultans by accident..they've got a similar rhythm no? ....
thinking of jo's mythology of duane as the song-singing, free-drink-getting, girl-pregnant-making ranger-jumper-hanging, dog-about-town...but the Sultans of Swing thing worked good.
I've got to read your post in detail now.
snowmman 3
I'm just at the first paragraph of Bruce's Dorwin interview, and it's great..I'm tingling.
I love seeing a professional at work.
Sounds like the phone call was fun, Bruce!
still reading!
I love seeing a professional at work.
Sounds like the phone call was fun, Bruce!
still reading!
snowmman 3
This stuff is just great!
Bruce reported
"In that initial search they found “thousands of teeny shards of money the size of a man’s fingernail, up to the size of a silver dollar.”
Dorwin said the pieces were well-preserved and layered in clean sand.
“No matter how deep we dug we found money – homogeneously mixed to a great depth.”
Dorwin said that most agents were digging at a depth of 1.5-2 feet deep and that they dug at least four holes “at least four deep.” He said they found shards in most holes and evenly placed all the way to the depth of four feet. "
Bruce reported
"In that initial search they found “thousands of teeny shards of money the size of a man’s fingernail, up to the size of a silver dollar.”
Dorwin said the pieces were well-preserved and layered in clean sand.
“No matter how deep we dug we found money – homogeneously mixed to a great depth.”
Dorwin said that most agents were digging at a depth of 1.5-2 feet deep and that they dug at least four holes “at least four deep.” He said they found shards in most holes and evenly placed all the way to the depth of four feet. "
snowmman 3
I'll state the obvious, but Ckret was apparently clueless about the real details of the money find.
It may be that stuff didn't get written down for the Seattle files, or Ckret didn't read something.
But in any case, these new facts totally change the complexion of things, in my opinion.
I was surprised to see "thousands" mentioned (that's probably a bit of hyperbole, but who knows? it's consistent with what people were saying the Fazios said???)
All this seems amazingly consistent with what one might guess at for money thru the dredge.
Doesn't it seem, from all the stuff we know about Himmelsbach now, that Himmelsbach was clue-free also?
So Himmelsbach was clue-free, which led to Jo being clue-free, and Jerry Thomas being clue-free. Blind leading blind.
It may be that stuff didn't get written down for the Seattle files, or Ckret didn't read something.
But in any case, these new facts totally change the complexion of things, in my opinion.
I was surprised to see "thousands" mentioned (that's probably a bit of hyperbole, but who knows? it's consistent with what people were saying the Fazios said???)
All this seems amazingly consistent with what one might guess at for money thru the dredge.
Doesn't it seem, from all the stuff we know about Himmelsbach now, that Himmelsbach was clue-free also?
So Himmelsbach was clue-free, which led to Jo being clue-free, and Jerry Thomas being clue-free. Blind leading blind.
snowmman 3
Bruce reported
"Dorwin also said that the dredger “Bedell” was parked off-shore in the Columbia, and he concluded as self-evident that the money had been shredded by the dredge and thrown up on the beach as part of deposition of material. "
The money was 1980, the dredging with 1974. I don't think they were dredging in 1980.
I'll have to look into this. Maybe he's misremembering.
Bruce: maybe you have to call back on this?. There was no dredge parked right there on the photos we have that look out across the columbia on the money find days in 1980. (just the channel buoy)
"Dorwin also said that the dredger “Bedell” was parked off-shore in the Columbia, and he concluded as self-evident that the money had been shredded by the dredge and thrown up on the beach as part of deposition of material. "
The money was 1980, the dredging with 1974. I don't think they were dredging in 1980.
I'll have to look into this. Maybe he's misremembering.
Bruce: maybe you have to call back on this?. There was no dredge parked right there on the photos we have that look out across the columbia on the money find days in 1980. (just the channel buoy)
snowmman 3
(edit) Bruce: why would the SF office trigger a look at Petey "a few years ago"? Ckret wasn't on the case then. What would have triggered such an event? Petey had already been back in the country from China for a couple of years.
This sounds suspicious. Were they lying? Could it have been triggered just a year ago? (11/2008)
bruce reported
"but Petey has been investigated twice by the FBI in conjunction to Norjak. First in 1971, just days after the heist, and then a few years ago by the Bureau's San Francisco office, who had three agents investigating him and got DNA samples (voluntarily, I believe) from him. Not sure on the results or findings. I have asked the SF PIO for an update, but somehow they have not gotten around to calling me. "
This is great detail Bruce. We've rarely heard about people who got a serious lookover from the FBI.
How did they find Petey in 1971? He wasn't in the USA, right? Could that be an untruth?
All we get is the stuff about Duane from Jo.
Nice to see reasonable suspects got a look over.
Really interesting if they looked at him so early in 1971.
Maybe I need to change my opinion of the FBI investigation back then! (but not of Ckret!)
This sounds suspicious. Were they lying? Could it have been triggered just a year ago? (11/2008)
bruce reported
"but Petey has been investigated twice by the FBI in conjunction to Norjak. First in 1971, just days after the heist, and then a few years ago by the Bureau's San Francisco office, who had three agents investigating him and got DNA samples (voluntarily, I believe) from him. Not sure on the results or findings. I have asked the SF PIO for an update, but somehow they have not gotten around to calling me. "
This is great detail Bruce. We've rarely heard about people who got a serious lookover from the FBI.
How did they find Petey in 1971? He wasn't in the USA, right? Could that be an untruth?
All we get is the stuff about Duane from Jo.
Nice to see reasonable suspects got a look over.
Really interesting if they looked at him so early in 1971.
Maybe I need to change my opinion of the FBI investigation back then! (but not of Ckret!)
snowmman 3
Could the dredge have chewed up the briefcase from the channel and spit it out also? Is the idea that the money was just a couple of bundles inside the briefcase? So maybe just the briefcase was lost???
(edit) I just read the rest of your report. so maybe his memory is wrong? But maybe its right? Who knows!
Bruce reported:
Outside of the 20-yard circle the shard finds diminished. Then they brought in the backhoes, but did not find any more shards of money.
However, Dorwin also said that they found “part of the leather briefcase – enough to contain the bundle that the little boy found (Brian Ingram).”
Dorwin continued to talk about the briefcase throughout our conversation, mentioning it several times, and specifically said that the portion they had retrieved was “about a third to half of the briefcase.”
(edit) I just read the rest of your report. so maybe his memory is wrong? But maybe its right? Who knows!
Bruce reported:
Outside of the 20-yard circle the shard finds diminished. Then they brought in the backhoes, but did not find any more shards of money.
However, Dorwin also said that they found “part of the leather briefcase – enough to contain the bundle that the little boy found (Brian Ingram).”
Dorwin continued to talk about the briefcase throughout our conversation, mentioning it several times, and specifically said that the portion they had retrieved was “about a third to half of the briefcase.”
snowmman 3
You reported that Dorwin said "Bedell"
There is no "Bedell"
There was a "Biddle"
It was involved in a collision in 1977 with the SS Hawaiian in fog on the Columbia. (at Astoria, OR)
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=CzgzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UDIHAAAAIBAJ&pg=3392,3918319&dq=columbia+river+dredge&hl=en
(edit) The Biddle, built in 1947, is a 351 foot vessel with a 60-foot beam and a depth of 30 feet. It is used to maintain the Columbia river bar about five months per year. It spends 4 1/2 months maintaining the San Francisco bar, and the other 1 1/2 months working at other major west coast harbors (1977)
from
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=3qkSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9_gDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4524,1967726&dq=columbia+river+dredge&hl=en
I don't think the Biddle was used there in 1974. sounds like the Biddle is used out where the Columbia hits the ocean, at the bar.
(which is why the collision was by Astoria)
Maybe ask Dorwin about the Biddle again. It doesn't make sense.
There is no "Bedell"
There was a "Biddle"
It was involved in a collision in 1977 with the SS Hawaiian in fog on the Columbia. (at Astoria, OR)
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=CzgzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UDIHAAAAIBAJ&pg=3392,3918319&dq=columbia+river+dredge&hl=en
(edit) The Biddle, built in 1947, is a 351 foot vessel with a 60-foot beam and a depth of 30 feet. It is used to maintain the Columbia river bar about five months per year. It spends 4 1/2 months maintaining the San Francisco bar, and the other 1 1/2 months working at other major west coast harbors (1977)
from
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=3qkSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9_gDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4524,1967726&dq=columbia+river+dredge&hl=en
I don't think the Biddle was used there in 1974. sounds like the Biddle is used out where the Columbia hits the ocean, at the bar.
(which is why the collision was by Astoria)
Maybe ask Dorwin about the Biddle again. It doesn't make sense.
georger 244
(Ckret doing the same thing with Tom Kaye?)
No. Ckret is very independent and objective, and I like that about him. Ckret has to answer to people
just like all of us ...
georger 244
QuoteQuoteThe article I posted that named Schreuder as the agent "in charge" of the beach search, and making the "3 feet down" comment, spelled his first name wrong.
Interestingly, he was one of the 3 agents who negotiated with the attempted hijacker Tripp (the guy who tried twice). They shot him the 2nd time.
Oddly, Tripp said he wanted to go to Afghanistan. Tripp was one of 17 children.
In any case, Dorwin Schreuder appears to be alive.
Maybe Bruce can interview him about the beach search?
BRUCE: This would be a most excellent interview...another FBI guy on the money search..but this guy seems more connected to the overall thing than the last guy!
He was an FBI negotiator..so watch out!Quote
Notes, Dorwin Schreuder, Interview January 17, 2010
8 pm, Sunday, January 16, 2009
Hi eveyone. I'm making a special guest appearance tonight. 377 emailed me and asked that I talk with retired FBI agent Dorwin Schreuder. Happy to do a littel pinch-hitting from time-to-time. Besides, the Jets just won in San Deigo and I'm feeling happy!
In a delightful two-hour phone conversation, I learned that Dorwin Schreuder was the FBI agent who took over the Portland office’s Norjak case from Ralph Himmelsbach when Himms retired in 1979.
Himms?. Himmelsbach retired in February 1980 so
far as I know, not in 1979 ?
If H had retired in '79 Bruce, he wouldnt have been there to shake hands with the Ingrams in Feb 1980, now would he?
snowmman 3
It was scheduled before the money find.
It happened immediately after the money find.
he had to retire at 55, the fbi retirement age.
Money was found 2/10/1980
Himmelsbach retired 2/28/1980 (Fri..got exact date at 2nd link)
Last day of the month in Feb.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=SvIiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VMwFAAAAIBAJ&pg=952,2900302&dq=himmelsbach+retirement&hl=en
this link says retired Fri..paper was Sat. 3/1/1980
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JccsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=PRMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4759,15754&dq=himmelsbach+retirement&hl=en
It happened immediately after the money find.
he had to retire at 55, the fbi retirement age.
Money was found 2/10/1980
Himmelsbach retired 2/28/1980 (Fri..got exact date at 2nd link)
Last day of the month in Feb.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=SvIiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VMwFAAAAIBAJ&pg=952,2900302&dq=himmelsbach+retirement&hl=en
this link says retired Fri..paper was Sat. 3/1/1980
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JccsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=PRMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4759,15754&dq=himmelsbach+retirement&hl=en
georger 244
QuoteIt was scheduled before the money find.
It happened immediately after the money find.
he had to retire at 55, the fbi retirement age.
Money was found 2/10/1980
Himmelsbach retired 2/28/1980 (Fri..got exact date at 2nd link)
Last day of the month in Feb.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=SvIiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VMwFAAAAIBAJ&pg=952,2900302&dq=himmelsbach+retirement&hl=en
this link says retired Fri..paper was Sat. 3/1/1980
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JccsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=PRMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4759,15754&dq=himmelsbach+retirement&hl=en
uhh volume of money + frags = volume of brief case ? If no then that implies . . .
377 22
Great job Bruce!!!!!!!!!! Could Dorwin be right about a briefcase????
I used to see the Biddle a lot when I was fishing near SF. It was always working in the 4 Fathom Bank area (called the Potato Patch locally) keeping the SF entrance ship channel deep enough for most merchant vessels. The Biddle was huge and looked like a ship rather than a barge like vessel. The channel shoals up with sand and keeping it dredged is a never ending job. It never could be kept deep enough for fully loaded supertankers. They had to go elsewhere.
Great to have you back Bruce.
Nice cover on Knopfler Snow. Lyrics fit.
I regret to say that a live Cooper is looking less likely, but it's not impossible.
Petely has some inconsistencies in his stories. I am surprised the FBI is so certain that they have Coopers DNA. Maybe they did process the cig butts.
377
I used to see the Biddle a lot when I was fishing near SF. It was always working in the 4 Fathom Bank area (called the Potato Patch locally) keeping the SF entrance ship channel deep enough for most merchant vessels. The Biddle was huge and looked like a ship rather than a barge like vessel. The channel shoals up with sand and keeping it dredged is a never ending job. It never could be kept deep enough for fully loaded supertankers. They had to go elsewhere.
Great to have you back Bruce.
Nice cover on Knopfler Snow. Lyrics fit.
I regret to say that a live Cooper is looking less likely, but it's not impossible.
Petely has some inconsistencies in his stories. I am surprised the FBI is so certain that they have Coopers DNA. Maybe they did process the cig butts.
377
2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.
snowmman 3
QuoteQuoteIt was scheduled before the money find.
It happened immediately after the money find.
he had to retire at 55, the fbi retirement age.
Money was found 2/10/1980
Himmelsbach retired 2/28/1980 (Fri..got exact date at 2nd link)
Last day of the month in Feb.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=SvIiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VMwFAAAAIBAJ&pg=952,2900302&dq=himmelsbach+retirement&hl=en
this link says retired Fri..paper was Sat. 3/1/1980
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JccsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=PRMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4759,15754&dq=himmelsbach+retirement&hl=en
uhh volume of money + frags = volume of brief case ? If no then that implies . . .
if the briefcase is false memory (which would be odd.. the guy had a lot of detail, like not all of the briefcase, just some of it)...
the real question is:
why did Ckret, minimally, not give us the real detail on the shards? He continually said just the 3 bundles.
I think he just didn't know.
If he didn't know, could he not know about the leather briefcase?
There's a whole set of records in Portland? Were they transferred to Seattle? Maybe that's the problem?
snowmman 3
We continually come back to implicating 377
377 admitted, under enhanced interrogation techniques "I used to see the Biddle a lot when I was fishing near SF"
377...out with everything..Confess! We have ways, you know...
Ha! Then we'll make you understand! Biggles! Fetch...THE CUSHIONS!
377 admitted, under enhanced interrogation techniques "I used to see the Biddle a lot when I was fishing near SF"
377...out with everything..Confess! We have ways, you know...
Ha! Then we'll make you understand! Biggles! Fetch...THE CUSHIONS!
snowmman 3
377 said "Petey has some inconsistencies in his stories."
well beyond inconsistencies, if there are any (1971 w/FBI?, or current FBI?..is that info from Petey or who?) it's always interesting when someone provides a lot of detail about their life, but then leaves out some parts.
I always wonder why the left out parts, were left out?
well beyond inconsistencies, if there are any (1971 w/FBI?, or current FBI?..is that info from Petey or who?) it's always interesting when someone provides a lot of detail about their life, but then leaves out some parts.
I always wonder why the left out parts, were left out?
Well, If there were remains from the Briefcase that in my puny mind implies that there may have been a better chance for survival.
I do not think he would have tried to hold onto the Briefcase during the jump. He may have tossed the Briefcase before the jump? The 3 wads of bills were maybe thrown into it as a ruse, or perhaps it was the bundles he tried to tip Tina with. Great stuff Bruce!
I do not think he would have tried to hold onto the Briefcase during the jump. He may have tossed the Briefcase before the jump? The 3 wads of bills were maybe thrown into it as a ruse, or perhaps it was the bundles he tried to tip Tina with. Great stuff Bruce!
snowmman 3
QuoteWell, If there were remains from the Briefcase that in my puny mind implies that there may have been a better chance for survival.
I do not think he would have tried to hold onto the Briefcase during the jump. He may have tossed the Briefcase before the jump? The 3 wads of bills were maybe thrown into it as a ruse, or perhaps it was the bundles he tried to tip Tina with. Great stuff Bruce!
Yeah that's possible.
Maybe he jumped after the Columbia?
Regardless of whether the briefcase was there, the dispersal across 20 yards radius (or diameter?) underneath sand, makes it hard for me to believe any "drift/float to Tena Bar" theory.
I mean doesn't it seems like it has to be shredded up a bit mechanically? It doesn't seem to me that natural forces would do that 20 yard dispersal under sand.
(edit) we wrestled a bit early in the thread with "what are the facts". Sluggo proposed the gold standard of "what Ckret tells us". It sure seems like there is no gold standard, and it's unclear what the full breadth of possible "facts" are.
Orange1 0
Quote(edit) Bruce: why would the SF office trigger a look at Petey "a few years ago"? Ckret wasn't on the case then. What would have triggered such an event? Petey had already been back in the country from China for a couple of years.
This sounds suspicious. Were they lying? Could it have been triggered just a year ago? (11/2008)
bruce reported
"but Petey has been investigated twice by the FBI in conjunction to Norjak. First in 1971, just days after the heist, and then a few years ago by the Bureau's San Francisco office, who had three agents investigating him and got DNA samples (voluntarily, I believe) from him. Not sure on the results or findings. I have asked the SF PIO for an update, but somehow they have not gotten around to calling me. "
This is great detail Bruce. We've rarely heard about people who got a serious lookover from the FBI.
How did they find Petey in 1971? He wasn't in the USA, right? Could that be an untruth?
All we get is the stuff about Duane from Jo.
Nice to see reasonable suspects got a look over.
Really interesting if they looked at him so early in 1971.
Maybe I need to change my opinion of the FBI investigation back then! (but not of Ckret!)
Hey Bruce, thanks for the cameo and all the info.
FBI going after Petersen would be very interesting - because it would show that the investigation did range quite far. Unless Petersen is just saying this to try throw Bruce off his trail. Has the 1000-odd list of suspects ever been published so we can cross-check?
The briefcase bit is also very interesting, and even if he somehow got that bit wrong, the bits about all the shards of money definitely adds a new dimension to the money find. It also corroborates yesterday's discussion about most or all, rather than just some, of the money ending up in the river.
As for the briefcase vs money bag... who knows. We only have Tina's word for the moneybag around the waist story IIRC. I don't think she would have had reason to lie, but people make honest mistakes - what if she didn't see what she thought she saw? Or, what if he tried to do it that way, gave it up as a bad job and then tied the briefcase to himself without her seeing that bit? etc
As for Ckret knowing or not knowing about the bits of briefcase, I mean, it's entirely possible that stuff got lost. The cigarette butts got lost. The case has been ongoing for nearly 40 years when other stuff has been more important and case officers have looked at it on an as-and-when basis. The stuff may well be somewhere in the evidence lockers, misclassified, misplaced, whatever ... pre computer age it must all have been harder to keep track of too.
377, did you see the news about them doing away with LORAN?
Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.
snowmman 3
We have a lot of photos of the money find location in 1980.
While we don't have perfect precision, I think we have a pretty good idea of the money find location.
Some of the articles out there, imply Tom Kaye had access to technology (GPS) or information that allowed him to pinpoint the location better than anyone else could.
I don't think that's true. He had access to Brian Ingram. Brian was a kid then.
What information did Tom Kaye have, that we don't, that would improve his locating ability?
I guess he also talked to Fazio.
What am I missing? Does anyone really think Tom Kaye has some measurement of "money location" vs "dredge spoils" that we don't have?
If so, what information is he using, and why do we not have it?
Sounds like B.S. to me.
(edit) I also wonder if people think physically being at the site added value. If so, what? The area isn't obscured by tree canopy, and we have a lot of satellite photos from over the years. Why would Tom Kaye's site visit have added any information?
While we don't have perfect precision, I think we have a pretty good idea of the money find location.
Some of the articles out there, imply Tom Kaye had access to technology (GPS) or information that allowed him to pinpoint the location better than anyone else could.
I don't think that's true. He had access to Brian Ingram. Brian was a kid then.
What information did Tom Kaye have, that we don't, that would improve his locating ability?
I guess he also talked to Fazio.
What am I missing? Does anyone really think Tom Kaye has some measurement of "money location" vs "dredge spoils" that we don't have?
If so, what information is he using, and why do we not have it?
Sounds like B.S. to me.
(edit) I also wonder if people think physically being at the site added value. If so, what? The area isn't obscured by tree canopy, and we have a lot of satellite photos from over the years. Why would Tom Kaye's site visit have added any information?
QuoteAs for the briefcase vs money bag... who knows.
Could you get $200K in 20s into a briefcase?
If not, some of it would still need to be tied on anyway.
I have used 1/4 rope to launch rafts with the help of 3 friends.
If it loses stability, and you are the last one holding on, you want to get rid of it. It will streamer and twist above your head.
A briefcase tied to one wrist would probably beat you up a little.
So, tieing a bag around your waist would hold the best
chance of success. Perhaps any extra money could go
in the briefcase as a second option (if you lose it, you lose it).
I was told that the briefcase idea was tested by an extremely experienced jumper after the event.
He said it was a really bad idea.
I guess that someone has done the obvious thing and
tested the money for DNA. If the case was still attached
at the bottom of the river... the dredge would have
given Cooper the same treatment.
Probably nobody was looking for bone frags.
That would certainly explain why no money was ever passed.
snowmman 3
I was wondering if Geoffrey Gray's Cooper book is going to be accurate, new or complete or ???
He seems to write a lot of crime stories.
A recent one about Tackmann is interesting.
Can see a list of his recent articles here (from NY magazine)
http://nymag.com/nymag/author_200/
He seems to write a lot of crime stories.
A recent one about Tackmann is interesting.
Can see a list of his recent articles here (from NY magazine)
http://nymag.com/nymag/author_200/
Red Cross, local church, community United Way -
G.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites