WA WA - D.B. Cooper hijacking mystery, 24 Nov 1971 - #2

Status
Not open for further replies.
yes overwhelmed for sure! just 'skipped' over possible suspects ? even thought people DID call in his name?? doesn't sound like a very good investigation to me - I really don't think H-bach & Teddy were in this together... but that's just my opinion... :cool:

I agree for now. But, I do think it should be looked at, because I do believe it is a possibility. It is just so hard to believe that an FBI agent, could overlook such an "obvious" suspect. It's almost incomprehensible.

by the way - that sketch from '88 (I believe) of DB and the '74 piicture of Teddy - looks good to me!!

Thanks, so do I. It is amazing how that came together. We actually had already torn his life apart, and had been very suspicious of his actions, criminal history, finances, etc, before I caught the UM episode on television in 2002. Luckily, my VCR was recording, since I have yet to see that episode air again. As I mentioned, I took the tape to a photo shop, and they made the photo from the VCR tape for me. Technology, is amazing. And, we had already found that picture the year before. So, it's not like we thought he resembled the sketch. WE already had the suspect, and the sketch just sealed the deal as far as I'm concerned.



sorry for all the grouped posts here, but I usually print out what I haven't read and make notes to comment on later when I get to a computer...

No problem, we just appreciate having other's share their ideas and join the discussion. It really is a fascinating case.

left
 
Perhaps scandi's computer crashed. That has happened to me in the past.

Well, I have thought about this whole thing and now I am convinced the FBI will never go back and take a hard, new look at this case. And here's why:
The case became a big black eye for them when they didn't solve it. Finally, after many years most people forgot about the case. Current interest in the case is probably limited mainly to the Pacific Northwest area.

So let's pretend some local young FBI agent recently decided to examine the old case files - assuming those files are readily available. He or she immediately sees that the original investigation was botched/shoddy. Further examination of files reveals that later investigation was again botched.

Top that with the fact that new information about a possible suspect did not originate from within the FBI but comes from two "civilians".

The young agent begins to realize that far from boosting his carreer, to "catch' the perpetrator at this time and under these circumstances would likely result in even further damage to the FBI's reputation. In today's culture, there would probably be lots of publicity and questions would likely be raised about the integrity of at least one retired agent, if not more.

After realizing this, young agent then closes file and puts it back onto the shelf.
 
Always Shocked:

I must say, it is hard to argue with your logic.

I would like to think that the FBI would put arresting the "hijacker" of the only unsolved hijacking in the history of the United States, before politics and its' reputation, but, I am not that naive.

I hope that if this case is not prosecuted, it is because, either Teddy is innocent, or there is insufficient evidence.

Any other excuse, as far as I'm concerned, would border on criminal, since it is their job to close cases, regardless of the circumstances.

On one side, I agree it would be embarassing. On the other, it could show American's that the FBI does the right thing, does follow tips from citizens, and will relentlessly follow any tips.

So, I do agree with your assessment. However, I am an optimistic person, otherwise, I would have never had the guts to think that we could solve a case that the FBI could not crack for 35 years. When it comes down to it, I sincerely believe the FBI will do the right thing, and prosecute this case, if it is in fact our suspect, and the evidence is there.

IF not, we will simply write our story, and let the citizens of the US and elsewhere make their own decisions regarding the circumstances surrrounding this crime.

left
 
Agree with both. This is why it's important to keep this alive. An agent simply putting the file back in the drawer will *not* close this case if the story is made available to the public. An agent burying the case does not close it forever for the FBI.

If an investigative journalistic show such as 60 minutes or 20/20 won't take this on then the book will tell the story, and it will only be the beginning. Regardless, for over 35 years the FBI has already had a black eye. The sooner the public knows the details of this, the sooner the pressure will be on, really ON.

The FBI can dig a hole in the sand, but it can't hide forever.


OD
 
Well, I have thought about this whole thing and now I am convinced the FBI will never go back and take a hard, new look at this case. And here's why:
The case became a big black eye for them when they didn't solve it. Finally, after many years most people forgot about the case. Current interest in the case is probably limited mainly to the Pacific Northwest area.

So let's pretend some local young FBI agent recently decided to examine the old case files - assuming those files are readily available. He or she immediately sees that the original investigation was botched/shoddy. Further examination of files reveals that later investigation was again botched.

Top that with the fact that new information about a possible suspect did not originate from within the FBI but comes from two "civilians".

The young agent begins to realize that far from boosting his carreer, to "catch' the perpetrator at this time and under these circumstances would likely result in even further damage to the FBI's reputation. In today's culture, there would probably be lots of publicity and questions would likely be raised about the integrity of at least one retired agent, if not more.

After realizing this, young agent then closes file and puts it back onto the shelf.

I totally agree with your assessment. What surprises me is that none of the other, larger media outlets have picked this up to run with it. It makes a great story. If they are so worried about a lawsuit, it could even be fictionalized in true L&O "ripped from the headlines" fashion, if nothing else.

It is pretty quiet and Teddy isn't getting any younger. I'm kind of waiting for the other shoe to drop. Maybe there is stuff going on behind the scenes that I just don't know about, but I would think that this case might require media pressure to force the FBI to reopen the investigation.
 
What surprises me is that none of the other, larger media outlets have picked this up to run with it. It makes a great story. If they are so worried about a lawsuit, it could even be fictionalized in true L&O "ripped from the headlines" fashion, if nothing else.

Agree. Inside Edition did a wonderful job on the story. We are working on getting more investigative shows to produce a story. As one reporter said to me about this case, "it's just so hard to believe that Cooper could be so obvious".

Yes, well, most cases, the perp. usually is the more likely suspect than not. What most people can't believe is that a trained FBI agent could "miss?" such a logical suspect.


It is pretty quiet and Teddy isn't getting any younger. I'm kind of waiting for the other shoe to drop. Maybe there is stuff going on behind the scenes that I just don't know about, but I would think that this case might require media pressure to force the FBI to reopen the investigation.

Yes, it would be nice to know "exactly" what is going on. Funny how the FBI did the "perp" walks for all the wall street guys back a few years ago. I would love to view a similar "perp. walk", for a guy who actually committed a violent crime, threatened to kill 42 people, extorted 200,000, and cost us taxpayers $2,000,000 in the process.

Heck, if the other's get a "perp. walk", what does Cooper get, a "perp. parade"?

left
 
H-bach's thinking?

page 39 of H-bach's book, on Cooper jumping: "hell, he doesn't care where he goes! He just wants to get that airplane headed south. He's going to bail out as soon as he can".

Hmm. Then why didn't Cooper jump at 8:05 when the aft stairs were deployed?

I can't believe that a trained FBI agent, and a trained "pilot", would think that a person would think that a skydiver would just jump without having a pre-determined dropzone, or at least an "area" in which to jump.

Otherwise, if Cooper jumped ASAP, he could have landed on I-5, Ft. Lewis, McChord, etc. What kind of thinking is this?


On page 63 of H-bach's book, he states, "All my instincts as a pilot and as an investigative law officer told me he hadn't made it out of this caper alive".

Aren't LE officer's trained to always think the perp. had everything planned to a "t", and work down?

As Keifer Sutherland said in the movie "Sentinel", "that is the problem with instincts (gut feelings), once you have them, you only look for evidence which supports your instincts, and you discard other evidence"

" I got to give the case it' Bureau code name, only the second time I had done this in all my years with the FBI. The case was easy to name: NORJAK, for Northwest Airlines Hijacking."

How in the world after 20 years was this only the second time H-bach was in charge of naming a case. Does that suggest that H-bach was always assisting other agents on cases? I wonder how successful H-bach was in solving the other case? Or is it solved today?

"The name was suggested by Portland because this was where the criminal act had originated."

As we discussed, it appears Portland was put in charge of the case since it originated in Portland. I do know that long after H-bach retired, the case was eventually handled by the Seattle office. Maybe, it was simply for P.R., or maybe it was since Seattle was a larger office. Either way, I think the "ground rule" definitely played a "huge" part in this case.

left
 
Hard to believe isn't it? I believe that LC is even shocked. A man able to cash his own paycheck (pre-direct deposit) and...feed himself no less, is capable of this? LC....what will it take for you to listen to or at least consider the W.G.C. theory?

OD
 
Hard to believe isn't it? I believe that LC is even shocked. A man able to cash his own paycheck (pre-direct deposit) and...feed himself no less, is capable of this? LC....what will it take for you to listen to or at least consider the W.G.C. theory?

OD

What is the W.G.C. theory? I"ve considered and listened to all theories. I just need proof, circumstantial or physical, to go along with theories. And a motive? greed, cover-up, etc.?

left
 
Further fuel for the fire:

In h-bach's book, page 82

"there had always been a problem with the artist's rendering of Cooper we had released. It was the best that could be produced under the circumstances, but witnesses differed in their views, and at best it was a compromise"

"there had been three composites of Cooper, all based on eye-witness reports"

Wouldn't this tell a "rational" person that either one, or all the eyewitnesses were poor? Wouldn't this tell a rational agent to "interview" the eyewitnesses, to ascertain which of the witnesses appear to have "it together", and have the best head on their shoulders? I just don't understand how H-bach could admit this in his book, yet, release those sketches and put all their eggs in one basket. :doh: :doh:

H-bach, if all of this confusion existed regarding witnesses, and composites of Cooper, why didn't you interview the witnesses personally, take a "sketch artist" with you, and ask the witnesses to sketch a new drawing, or to sign off on the old one's.

For the record, Police 101, tells you that witnesses are suppose to be "seperated", and asked details of the crimes, and to make their own estimates of the perp. IT is not suppose to be a group thing. Otherwise, the person with the "strongest" personality will end up getting their recollection as the "official" sketch, and estimate for age, height, and weight.

Why wasn't this done. IF H-bach knew the witnesses didn't agree on the sketch, why did he use the sketch, the age, height, etc, from people who were not unanimous in their opinion related to the hijacker.

page 33

"But, FBI agents had their first solid lead in the case : a name and a description: Dan Coooper: age 30 to 55, about 5 feet 10 inches tall"

So, where did the fact that Cooper was "exactly" 45-55 come from? In h-bach's own book, he describes the range from 30-55. What is going on in this investigation? Why does H-bach state the age range as 30-55, yet, only use 45-55 on Television and his search? What witness was so crucial that all other information wasn't even considered?

Did Juluis Mattson know H-bach was only looking at suspects between 45-55?

IF so, why was McCoy even considered?

Why publish in your very own book, the age description of Cooper, yet, not even follow this during the investigation?

What the Heck was going on during this investigation?

This is so hard to comprehend. I can't beleive this? Why isn't the FBI investigating this "investigation"?

Why is it that Florence Schaffner had to go to a national television show 16 years after the crime, and tell Robert Stack "the sketch never looked like Cooper"?

Why didn't H-bach know this from day one? Why didn't H-bach re-consider his investigation in 1988? Why didn't H-bach recognize a certain local skydiver from those sketches, ya know, long nose, balding, big cheeks, big neck, stocky. Please?

Either he makes Barney Fife look like 007, or something fishy is going on here? Which is it?

I'll tell you, this is surreal. How can this happen to an agency like the FBI?


left
 
Further fuel for the fire:

In h-bach's book, page 82

"there had always been a problem with the artist's rendering of Cooper we had released. It was the best that could be produced under the circumstances, but witnesses differed in their views, and at best it was a compromise"

"there had been three composites of Cooper, all based on eye-witness reports"

This answers one of the biggest questions I had regarding the sketches. That being whether or not H-B had any involvement. If he didn't directly influence them in any way, he at the very least allowed them to be a "compromise" and I therefore have a very difficult time believing that he didn't affect them. A little digging found that the "Bing" sketch was made by interviewing the passengers. Passengers???? The only passenger who could even be considered an eye witness is the student "Mitchell" and he didn't really pay attention.

Then to think that H-B goes as far as calling the FBI to have them open a case/file on Duane Weber whose only connection to the case is that he resembles one of the sketches. Sketches that are basically worthless in identifying Cooper, and H-B knows it. There is no evidence whatsoever that Weber was even west of the Mississippi in '71, let alone Cooper. H-B has also stated that he thinks that Weber is one of the best suspects he's seen. ??? Based on what?? The entire Weber case is bolstered by stories from a Gin-tonic soaked Widow and a resemblance to a sketch we now know is worthless. H-B has known this all along. I'm sure that H-B also liked the fact that Weber was 6 feet under, so no one could ever question him.



Did Juluis Mattson know H-bach was only looking at suspects between 45-55?

What I want to know is whether or not either Julius, or H-B's direct supe were even made aware that:

1. Teddy existed and was rejected

2. That Teddy's name was called in 12 times the night of the jack.

3. That H-B knew Teddy.....and

4. That Teddy had a conviction for armed robbery....and..

5. That Teddy called the FBI (or H-B directly ???) the night of the heist.

The answer to these questions is critical to unlocking this entire thing. If the answer is "no" to one or more of these questions, then I know we've got a real problem here. In fact I'm pretty sure we do. If my theory is correct, it answers another equally critical question. That being how H-B was able to stay on this case as long as he did. Proactivity and WGC explain this because nothing else I can possibly think of make sense. It really just seems to fit like a glove.



Why is it that Florence Schaffner had to go to a national television show 16 years after the crime, and tell Robert Stack "the sketch never looked like Cooper"?

What you mentioned earlier is absolutely correct. After watching the segment you have to ask..."Was that sketch so difficult"? Even 16-17 years after the heist? Florence nor Tina would have had much opportunity to tell H-B that the sketches were inaccurate because he never interviewed them. Do you think this was by accident, or oversight? Not interviewing them would also allow him to maintain and proliferate the "novice" theory of Cooper and therefore keep the focus on "Big Splat" and the G-Pinchot and all it's "thickets". I think that anyone who hears the details of what Cooper did, regardless of their background would conclude that he was skilled and had planned this to a "T". It just all seems to fit. Accident or oversight just doesn't seem to fit all the peculiarities of the model of this investigation.

You've asked me many times whether or not I could prove this. Proving H-B's or anyone's volition is difficult to do. More so after almost 36 years, since in a case like this anyone can justify their process. No I couldn't prove this to a jury, but I have my own suspicion and plenty of ammo to support it. While certainly not a genius, I doubt that H-B is quite as "gray-challenged" as he's been made out to be.

OD
 
This answers one of the biggest questions I had regarding the sketches. That being whether or not H-B had any involvement. If he didn't directly influence them in any way, he at the very least allowed them to be a "compromise" and I therefore have a very difficult time believing that he didn't affect them. A little digging found that the "Bing" sketch was made by interviewing the passengers. Passengers???? The only passenger who could even be considered an eye witness is the student "Mitchell" and he didn't really pay attention.

I don't think H-bach had a lot to do with the sketches. H-bach mentions that he was waiting for the sketches from the Seattle office. Makes me wonder why H-bach didn't go to Seattle and talk over the case with the FA's, and passengers, as they were released from the plane. Heck, H-bach knew it would be his case. While the flight was circling and waiting for the chutes, H-bach could have easily flown to Seattle and waited for the passengers to be released. It's obvious that nobody thought ahead.

Then to think that H-B goes as far as calling the FBI to have them open a case/file on Duane Weber whose only connection to the case is that he resembles one of the sketches. Sketches that are basically worthless in identifying Cooper, and H-B knows it. There is no evidence whatsoever that Weber was even west of the Mississippi in '71, let alone Cooper. H-B has also stated that he thinks that Weber is one of the best suspects he's seen. ??? Based on what?? The entire Weber case is bolstered by stories from a Gin-tonic soaked Widow and a resemblance to a sketch we now know is worthless. H-B has known this all along. I'm sure that H-B also liked the fact that Weber was 6 feet under, so no one could ever question him.

It's funny, but, H-bach had to call the Seattle office again and again to get them to open a file on Duane. Odd that H-bach wanted the Seattle office to open a file on Duane, yet, he was too "stubborn" to ask Teddy for an alibi, or maybe H-bach didn't want to turn over that stone, or maybe H-bach was simply "fooled" by a very intelligent criminal.

During our lunch, I actually learned quite a bit about good old Duane. It seems that Duane's wife exaggerated certain things in order for Duane to look like a better suspect. Supposedly, H-bach was told that a ticket stub from Northwest Airlines from Portland to Seattle was found by Weber's widow. Of course, when asked to see the physical evidence, it turned into a "Geraldo" show, in which the dead dog was dug up, and no ticket was found.

ONe thing I did learn from our lunch, is that H-bach is "no longer" pulling the strings on this case. H-bach said he is "now just like everybody else and is not privy to what is going on during the FBI investigation". I thought that was interesting, and well overdue. IF the FBI had done this in 1982, maybe, this case would have been solved in 1982.

During our lunch, I learned that H-bach was lowering his expectations on whether or not Duane was Cooper. AS a matter of fact, H-bach admitted that Duane and Teddy had the same chance of being Cooper. H-bach put it at about 1%. Well, I thought, isn't a 1% chance good enough to at least ask for an alibi from Teddy? Funny, but if every suspect had a 1% chance, Cooper would have been caught within one year after the heist, since the list of suspects had reached 100 within one year.


What I want to know is whether or not either Julius, or H-B's direct supe were even made aware that:

1. Teddy existed and was rejected

2. That Teddy's name was called in 12 times the night of the jack.

3. That H-B knew Teddy.....and

4. That Teddy had a conviction for armed robbery....and..

5. That Teddy called the FBI (or H-B directly ???) the night of the heist.

The answer to these questions is critical to unlocking this entire thing. If the answer is "no" to one or more of these questions, then I know we've got a real problem here. In fact I'm pretty sure we do. If my theory is correct, it answers another equally critical question. That being how H-B was able to stay on this case as long as he did. Proactivity and WGC explain this because nothing else I can possibly think of make sense. It really just seems to fit like a glove.

Don't know the answer to those questions. Obviously, if H-bach did hide his prior relationship, Teddy's criminal past, etc, from the FBI, that would be a "criminal" act. However, H-bach didn't hide this from me. As for what happened in 1971, I was too young to know. But, FBI 101 tells you that the best predictor of future behavior, is the "criminal record of an individual". History tends to repeat itself.

I think that anyone who hears the details of what Cooper did, regardless of their background would conclude that he was skilled and had planned this to a "T". It just all seems to fit. Accident or oversight just doesn't seem to fit all the peculiarities of the model of this investigation.

While certainly not a genius, I doubt that H-B is quite as "gray-challenged" as he's been made out to be.

OD

YEs, anyone who thinks that Cooper wasn't an expert in skydiving is a complete moron. To even come upon such an idea, one would have to think of the plan, make certain it was the right time of the year, make certain the plane was a 727, etc, etc. This is not something that an ordinary criminal could think of who was not a skilled skydiver.

Heck, when we started this case, I didn't even know many of the terms that Cooper used as if they were part of his everyday vocabulary. Such as D-rings, aftstairs, interphone, etc.

As for H-bach's intelligence, I really don't know the level of his IQ. I can tell you that one must have a "reasonable" IQ,just to be accepted to the FBI. However, there are people with above average IQ's, who just aren't good at figuring out crimes, or reading people.

Regardless of the outcome of this case, I still think much of the blame has to go to the management level of the Portland office. Sure, H-bach screwed up, either intentionally or not, but, where were the bosse's? Heck, I sure wish that my boss gave me the latitude that H-bach had in this case. Heck, I could eat "peanuts" all day, and do nothing.

While I understand OD's point, I need a motive. Every crime has a motive. We all know Teddy's motive, revenge and money. What is the motive for a FBI agent, 8 years away from a pension to help a convicted felon out on a crime which is obviously going to get a huge amount of press?

If you can give me a "good" explanation of the upside for H-bach, and why there is a reasonable explanation for H-bach's lack of progress, I "need" an explanation as to why a respected FBI agent would "risk" his career, pension, freedom, reputation, etc, to help out a convicted armed robber, who would have been the most likely suspect of the planned crime. What did H-bach get out of this? Money, what?

I must say I have thought, over and over, about this particular topic, and I hope this is just a case of an agent making a basic mistake. Heck, every one of us has done "stupid" things in our lives. I laugh at some of the things I have done, and you know what, some of the people in my life, have probably "used" me, and to this day, I still don't realize it. Isn't that possible in this case? Isn't it possible that H-bach thought Teddy was a well-off respected business owner, who was friendly with H-bach, and just didn't fit the description of the hijacker? Heck, Mike Donahue, the KOIN reporter, told me, that he just doesn't think Teddy is the guy. I think he was honest in his opinion. Look at OJ, half of the country thinks OJ is innocent. ARE they all idiots, or are they just unable to fathom that somebody they "know" could do such a thing? Couldn't this be the same type of thing?

left
 
leftcoast said:
H-bach not calling back tipsters is beyond the realm of incompetent. IF you have a suspect, and are ready for an arrest, than ok. Otherwise, it was as if the "tipsters" were wasting time. And LE wonders why people don't call in tips.

Exactly!! Strange, eh?!

leftcoast said:
Hey Niner:
Sorry. But, "Hanse", is Robert Hansen,...

Oh - Okay! I remember him! Thanks

leftcoast said:
No problem, we just appreciate having other's share their ideas and join the discussion. It really is a fascinating case.

[yes, it definitely is! Going to pm Scandi re FBI tips!

leftcoast said:
Always Shocked:
I must say, it is hard to argue with your logic.

I was going to say the same thing... logic for sure!

Okay - off to read more...
 
Question: Where did the information that 12 people called in Teddy's name come from? Who were these 12 tips called in to? Were they supposedly all called in to the same FBI office? What was the supposed time frame for the calling in of these tips?

A thought about motive: My gut feeling is that somehow H-Bach would have suffered either public humiliation or a bigtime career problem if the focus of the investigation turned to Teddy. That he wasn't so much protecting Teddy per se, but that he was protecting himself. Self preservation and/or reputation preservation is a strong, strong motive in a lot of these kind of things. (Think Scooter Libby...think Richard Nixon, etc.)

What if, just what if, at some point prior to the event H-bach and Teddy encountered each other somewhere and a conversation ensued with Teddy-boy saying to H-bach something along the lines of "Hey, I think you FBI guys are stupid. Somebody could highjack a plane, demand a ransom, get the plane airborne again and then parachute out of the plane to safety - and the FBI would never catch him!"

Then it is a year later or two years later, or whatever, and lo and behold, a plane is highjacked, ransom is demanded, etc.

H-bach says to himself "Oh, jeez, could this be Teddy?". But then Teddy calls him on the phone, speaks to him and says "Hey, somebody did it. But it wasn't me. I'm here at home. Just got home from dinner and heard it on the news. Some coincidence, huh?" And H-bach is placated. He heaves a sigh of relief that this crime has NOT been done by someone he KNOWS and actually TALKED TO about this exact scenario. His thoughts about Teddy get pushed onto the back burner and he proceeds with his rather sloppy investigation.

But the knowledge of that old conversation remains lodged in the deep recesses of his mind.

The investigation, such as it was, proceeds. The eyewitness decscriptions of the perpetrator are widely varied. The age range alone spans decades. Sketches produced from these descriptions are vastly different. No one was physically hurt during the crime, and insurance paid off the $200,00 ransom. Media attention, which was fairly high at the time of the actual event, falls off. The common wisdom around the FBI office is that the highjacker splattered onto the ground. But gee, it would be nice to find some evidence of a body or a parachute, or SOMETHING to prove this theory.

And then, some months or perhaps even years down the road, it finally dawns on H-bach that there is no body to be found. That in all likelihood Teddy DID do this. And that he, H-bach, had contributed to Teddy getting away with it by his own gullible thinking - by being taken in by that 10:00PM phone call from Teddy.

At this point, what are H-bach's choices? Admit he had talked to a guy who had described the very crime prior to the event and who he had erroneously eliminated on the very evening of the crime? Go public with the fact that he had screwed up bigtime?

Nope, he made the decision to keep his mouth shut and save his career. And by golly, it worked for a long, long time.
 
AS:

Interesting theory:

AS for information about the tips regarding Teddy, it came from H-bach. The tips came in as soon as the hijacking was made public. Since H-bach didn't call back any of the tipsters, we don't know if the tips were simply because Teddy was a world champion skydiver, or if the tipsters actually had knowledge of the plan. As I mentioned earlier, that is why it would have behooved H=bach to call back the tipsters.

AS far as your theory, I tend to say it holds water.

My only question is, when do you believe h-bach figured it out. Was it while he was an active FBI agent? IF so, wouldn't his refusal to look at Teddy border on criminal?

I must say, that you and OD have similar opinions. I realize that it is hard to believe that an FBI agent could fall for such an amateur trick. '

One wonders if the orginal description of Cooper was a man of about 40, balding, long nose, stocky, if this would have changed H-bach's opinion.

Personally, I believe that H-bach was fooled by the phone call. Whether H=bach figured it out, before or after his retirement, I just don't know. Obviously, he won't even admit a mistaket today, when the world knows he made a horrendous mistake by not asking Teddy for an alibi.

So, I can buy your theory as one of many that I am considering. I find it easier to believe that h=bach looked the other way to save "face", than I can believe he was in on it from the beginning, and got a cut. That, I just don't believe, but, I wouldn't rule out either. So many things that H-bach didn't do, such as interviewing the FA's, asking Teddy for an alibi, simply defy logic for a trained FBI agent.

It's simple. Rule Teddy out, then allow him to assist in the investigation. Since H-bach never did this, we'll never know if he was outfoxed, or had ulterior motives. I sure hope he was outfoxed.

left
 
Strange coincidence?

Today, the prosecutor in the "pizza man" delivery case from 2003, spoke about the case, and whether or not the man was in on the bank robbery.(For those who don't know. In 2003, a man robbed a bank, with a bomb around his neck. He said he made a pizza delivery, and the homeowner made him rob the bank, or the bomb would go off. Unfortunately, it was not a hoax, the bomb did go off and kill the delivery driver, who the FBI now believe may have been an active participant in the robbery.)

Anyway, one of the co-conspirators, who is in prison for other offenses, and is charged with killing her boyfriend so he wouldn't rat her out, called the FBI thinking her name would surface, and she could outsmart the FBI by contacting them, and proclaiming her innocence.

Hmm????????? That ploy sure does sound familiar.

left
 
Yeah you know that ploy is probably as old as the investigative art itself. I'll just bet that history would show it's been used countless times. I could be wrong but I thought Raskolnikov used a variant of this in Dostovesky's Crime and Punishment, and he was a suspect from the beginning and caught.

Just when I start to think that H-B is just plain dumb, I'm reminded of the fact that he couldn't have made it 20 years as an investigator without a satisfactory record. I also think of the UM episode where he sure doesn't appear that way. I think anyone could understand where he could have been fooled by this for a few months, but not for years.

I can't see how pride would keep him from reevaluating the case and the rejected suspects. If after a year he realized it could be Teddy, why wouldn't he go back and close this one out? The biggest blow to his pride-or anyones-is *not* solving the case. Even worse would be being replaced (like say after a year or two) and someone else solves it in a few months and it's a suspect you rejected. How about after 36 years?

OD
 
It isn't like the FBI has a perfect crime-solving record. Check out these statistics.

"Laura Laughlin, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Seattle Division of the FBI, today released the year end bank robbery statistics for the state of Washington. The Seattle Division has jurisdiction over all robberies of federally insured banks in the state of Washington

The Seattle Division recorded 272 bank robberies and 3 bank burglaries during the time period of 1/1/2006 through 12/31/2006. The dollar loss to the state’s banking industry was $997,862.

The Seattle Division’s solution rate (bank robberies solved) was 70% with 5% solved at the time of police response and 95% solved through investigative process.

Here is a link to crime statistics by US city: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_06.html#p

No clearance rates give, though.

Nationally in 2006 there were 6,961 bank robberies, with a total loss of $69,776,820. Our state ranked 7th in total number of bank robberies even though it is 14th in population. Of the 56 FBI Field Offices, Seattle ranked 4th in over-all violations behind Los Angeles, Boston and Philadelphia."

Full article: http://seattle.fbi.gov/pressrel/2007/pr010907.htm

So, 30% of bank robbers get away with the crime, which means that in 2006 alone 2088 bank robberies were not solved! That is a lot, IMO!

Using the Seattle area statistic, of an average of nineteen bank robberies per day nationwide six of them will not get caught!

And then there is Oregon with a 61% solve rate for bank robberies:
"Preliminary analysis shows the State of Oregon ranks 17th for its overall number of bank robberies, bank burglaries and bank larcenies for 2006. It ranks second in terms of the number of solved cases in states with as many or more such crimes. In 2006, Oregon saw 178 bank robberies, three bank burglaries and zero larcenies. Of those, FBI Agents and local police officers have solved approximately 61% of those cases.

Washington ranked 9th overall with a total of 273 such crimes. It has a solution rate of approximately 73%. During this same period, there were a total of 7,238 bank robberies, burglaries and larcenies nationwide. The national solution rate is approximately 48%. Solution rates for 2006 will continue to go up as some of these older crimes are solved in 2007."

Full article: http://portland.fbi.gov/pressrel/2007/020107portland.htm


And this is from Rochester, New York:

"Half of the bank robberies that occur in the FBI's Rochester region are solved, and usually quickly. The longer a robbery remains unsolved, the less likely it will ever be, says Mark Thompson, FBI agent assigned to Elmira."

Full article: http://wrongfulconvictions.blogspot.com/2007/02/lawyer-helps-solve-bank-robbery.html


Am I the only person who finds this national rate of solving bank robberies to be shockingly low???? No wonder criminals are robbing banks, forgodsake!

(Where I live, in a suburb of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, we just had a bank robbery of a local bank located in a small suburban "strip mall" type of venue. There is "the strip" of stores, including a busy grocery store, and the branch bank is a separate free-standing building sitting at the edge of the parking lot. The bank robber WALKED AWAY from the heist. Simply "disappeared" - never to be seen again! The crime remains unsolved some three months later.)

I would hate to even see what the "solve rate" is for bank robbery in the Pittsburgh FBI office!

No wonder I am Always Shocked!
 
AS:

Thanks for sharing the statistics. Amazing.

I've been following the Mad Hatter bank robber from New Jersey. This middle aged man, has robbed 15 banks since last October in New Jersey. The FBI has photos of him in each robbery. HIs only disguise is a hat, and some glasses, and still no arrest.

Do you think if some guy called the New Jersey FBI field office, and he resembled the bank robber, and told the FBI office that he didn't want them to think he was the bank robber, that the FBI office would say, OK, then we'll cross your name off the list. Thanks for calling in. lol.

IT's funny, but my buddy and I were discussing what percentage of crimes that occur are solved. Obviously, it depends on which type of crime. Murders are close to 75% I believe. Overall, my own personal opinion is that only about 15-20% of crimes are ever solved. This includes burglaries, auto theft, etc.

Back to Cooper: I get your point. THe fbi not solving this case is not out of the norm., related to other crimes. However, when it comes to hijacking, it still is the only unsolved hijacking. Let's face it, when it comes to solving crimes, it all depends on how much money the FBI puts into the investigation. The Cooper case was unique, because the fBI spent a lot of money, and still got squat.

If you get a chance, check out the Mad Hatter profile on AMW's website. It is fascinating to me, that a middle-aged man would risk the remaining years of his life in jail, to rob a bank, with tons of video camera's. Just like the Hollywood bank robber from the early 90's in Seattle, eventually, your luck will run out. It's a game of probability. The more times you rob a bank, the more likely you will get caught.

left
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
167
Guests online
1,036
Total visitors
1,203

Forum statistics

Threads
589,937
Messages
17,927,904
Members
228,006
Latest member
Suesleuth
Back
Top