Forums: Skydiving: Skydiving History & Trivia: Re: [RobertMBlevins] Weber Review: Edit Log


Oct 15, 2012, 12:45 PM

Views: 19742
Re: [RobertMBlevins] Weber Review

In reply to:
MeyerLouie says in part:

'Blevins, I think Jo has pretty much shot down all of your arguments against her theory and premises. When I look at your KC=DBC theory, I have to ask, "where's the beef?" What proof have you offered? Zip. Don't think you have any room to criticize anybody else's lack of proof. That's pretty arrogant, Grand Miestro Peepee. Go practice your guitar now...'

Already did my practicing for the day...yesterday.

Most of those 'arguments' you cite don't address the issues I raised, but either play word games with them or somehow try to compare them to Christiansen.

There is a difference between offering evidence and actual proof of a crime. I think regarding the former we did quite well. There is a lot of evidence and witness testimony out there against Christiansen. Some of it has to do with Bernie Geestman's lies at key moments. Comparing the case between KC and Weber is actually pretty simple.

The only real evidence, if any, against Weber is the word of one woman. When I said 'physical evidence' I didn't mean fingerprints or DNA. I meant for example, a missing airline ticket stub, which cannot be produced. In the case of Weber, there ARE no witnesses. Just Jo. Even Gossett, if you believe his son(s) has a better case, since there is their testimony about certain quotes and incidents.

There are things which have been proven in the case of Christiansen. For example, we can prove he lent the alleged accomplice's sister five thousand in cash less than six months after the hijacking. We can prove he spent 16k in cash on a house less than eight months after the hijacking. And we can prove that Bernie Geestman, despite his denials, was involved in both these transactions. We can also prove that KC and Bernie were together, and missing, over the week of the hijacking. We can prove Kenny had parachute experience, although he hadn't jumped in some years. We can prove that without any visible means of how he acquired it, that Kenny died with a much larger estate than someone in his position could be expected to have. We can prove that Geestman told lies that directly relate to an effort to distance himself from any possible involvement in the hijacking. For example, when he said he couldn't have been involved because he was gone to sea with Foss Tugs ten to eleven months of the year in 1971. Foss says that is not true. Or when he said he didn't know the details on how his own sister got the loan from Kenny...but it was HE who delivered the money. Or when he said he didn't know how Kenny got his house for cash...when Kenny bought it from a couple where Bernie served as their Best Man at their wedding only three years previously.

None of that is proof Christiansen hijacked Flight 305, of course. But it IS evidence. And there is a lot more of that in KC's case than anything you'll find regarding Weber...Smile

My official stand on all of this is also very simple. I think we've presented enough evidence that the Seattle FBI should question the witnesses. This means Helen Jones, her daughter, Bernie Geestman, and Margaret Ann Miller-Geestman. Does anyone here have a problem with that? If so, I would like to know why.

I've started receiving responses from the Decoded cast on my question to them. I asked them to expand on the Geestman interview. Now, you should understand that at the time of filming, they did not know about Helen Jones' testimony, and AB had not yet discovered the tax document showing that KC bought his house from that couple in Puyallup that Geestman knew. Also...Decoded had to go on what evidence Porteous and I had at that time, plus the ORIGINAL edition of the book, which had actually been pulled by the time of filming. That said, here is what one of the cast members said this week. (I'm not revealing their name to you because frankly, I don't trust some of you)

'Geestman was very cagey, even shifty during the interview. My personal suspicion was that he was actually drunk. But in the end he was pretty convincing--probably having spent years answering questions and even convincing himself that what he was saying was the truth. I have very little doubt that Kenny is guilty, and I went away from the interview with Geestman confused and uncertain about his involvement as an accomplice.

You have to remember that we were given very little time to process the interview and think about all he had said--they filmed us coming out the door, and those were our initial, on the spot responses. Then we filmed about an hour later in the diner and still, not much processing time and we'd been running around filming for weeks, months even.

Having had more time to think about it it would not surprise me in the least if Geestman was an accomplice, or at the very least knew about it and aided Kenny in some ways before or after...'

After I received this message, I updated this cast member with some of the additional evidence we had gathered since filming. This filming would be two years ago this month.

Repetitive casting of the same script, expecting
different results, implies ......

One possibility is: ADD.

Example: my post here! (talking at a machine)


(This post was edited by georger on Oct 15, 2012, 12:48 PM)

Edit Log:
Post edited by georger () on Oct 15, 2012, 12:48 PM

Search for (options)