Re: [Farflung] New evidence (see: 'whopper') about money find at Tena Bar
In reply to:
RobertMBlevins states from the comfort of his parallel universe:
“No shards. Never came forward until now? Fishermen, always got a whopper of a story, LOL. Without proof, it goes into the Cooper Fable Vault.”
Damn right sheriff! NO PROOF it is pure fable and fiction. Nothing more, you are a man of conviction.
RobertMBlevins reinforces his point with:
“Let's face it, anyone could say today that they found a few shards…”
That’s for sure, ANYONE could say that. Just like anyone could say they were the first to drive four Clydesdales abreast, and without confirmation, only the most gullible and least intelligent would ever believe such a preposterous statement. Without proof, Dan Cooper comics would be in the ‘dayroom in Shemya in 1951’. Such detail to include the ‘dayroom’ because when something is pure bullshit, you might as well toss away the dignity, and make up a whole story around a pile of fiction. LOL is right RobertMBlevins, you can only laugh and ridicule such dense and unaware conduct. Even more humorous when the exact same thing has been committed by the person throwing stones.
Try and follow this whopper.
Someone decided the Cooper lore vault needed some more compost, so they fabricated a magical pile of tree stumps, which contained a bag of twenties, found by a couple kids! Can you believe that someone was so lacking in self respect, that they repeated that one?
Evidence you ask? NONE. Not one bill, shard, fragment, photo, police report, news article, names of the kids, names of their parents, nada, nuthin, zip. Not one piece of verification. But there was a single person who told the story. Yep, and the reason it’s true is because she lives in Boulder, Colorado (I still have no clue what that’s supposed to mean, but is has been repeated 29 times) and is married to a cop (I still have no clue what that’s supposed to mean, repeated 29 times also). That’s supposed to be evidence, oh my god, talk about LOL. But it gets better, well better if you have a sense of irony, but not much better if you believe these things or are the source, then it’s worse, you will probably deny and deflect any association. So I guess I was premature in assuming that it gets better, it gets more weirder, would have been more accurate.
So this shop owner, who never saw the ‘stump money’, wasn’t a witness to the find, didn’t own the property, wasn’t associated with the area at that time, BUT (and this is a huge BUT) had never met the woman from Boulder, Colorado…. AND told the same story! There’s your venom-proof, proof right there!
Yep, some shop owner repeats some lore, and rather than being identified as blatant hearsay, it metastasizes into being proof that the bag of twenties, found in the magical stump forest, actually happened.
Robert replies: Well, I'm glad that you agree that the shards on the river story is lacking.
I can also see that I'm somewhat more skilled than you at the interview process. In the case of Carolyn Tyner and Dan Rattenbury and the alleged money found out back of KC's house...there are a couple of differences.
First, I do try not to 'lead' witnesses. For example, when I interviewed Tyner, I didn't ask her: 'Was money in a plastic bag found out back of KC's house in a pile of stumps by a young boy, like Dan Rattenbury claims?' That falls under the Stupid Interviewing Technique program.
I just asked if she ever found any money after KC died. It was Tyner who filled in the details, and those details happened to match exactly with what Rattenbury claimed. The reason it's important that these two didn't know each other now becomes obvious.
Carolyn and her ex did not have a good relationship. He was emotionally abusive to her, she says. She met Robin Powell (see picture) while Robin was living in the house with KC and Brian McWilliams. She later moved into the house, and then married Robin.
She was pretty young at the time, and I got the idea she was mostly kept around for cooking and cleaning and doing the wifey stuff. She also says that after KC died, Robin spent time searching through KC's belongings. This was confirmed by Lyle Christiansen, who noticed all of KC's stuff had been rummaged through when he flew out from Minnesota. Luckily, all the REAL valuables were at the West One Bank in Sumner.
Sometimes, you have to look at the supporting evidence that might lend some credibility to a story. For example, we know that Carolyn was telling the truth when she said KC left them the house, but that the lot out back was left to McWilliams. And we know that Carolyn and Robin Powell sold the house not long after probate cleared, moved to Nevada, and never returned to Washington State. Rattenbury was still years away from owning that house. But when he bought it, he got this story from the previous owner. And that story had NOT been linked to Cooper because Christiansen didn't become a suspect until 2007. This means no one involved in this story had any motivation to make it up to somehow spice up the Cooper/Christiansen story...because it was seven years between the time Rattenbury bought the house and when KC became a suspect. In addition, Carolyn Tyner did not claim that she suspected KC was Cooper. She said she just did not know, but that her ex-husband and Kenny were pretty secretive and never told her anything they didn't have to. I've had the thought that someone else should do a more in-depth interview with her on her life with Robin in the years they were living with KC, since they and McWilliams were the last ones to live with him before he died.
After all of that, Carolyn Tyner's story from 1995 still confirms what Rattenbury said. In all, at least three people knew about this money. Rattenbury, Tyner, and whomever told Rattenbury, i.e. the previous owner of the house. This house was sold at least twice more between the time Robin and Carolyn sold it, and when Rattenbury bought it. It was changing hands like a busy one-dollar bill.
Carolyn was quite free with the details about her life with Robin Powell, living with KC, and her present life in Colorado. She was consistent, open, and I could find no reason to doubt her word on events. When people lie, the first thing you do is ask WHY. What would motivate them to lie? What do they have to gain or lose by lying? In Carolyn's case, I could find no motivation. She just told me what she knew and left it at that.
None of this proves absolutely that this money existed, or that it was part of the ransom, or that KC was the hijacker. I have said this. But it is interesting when added to the other evidence presented against Christiansen. The large estate, the hiding spot above his bedroom, his sudden wealth (1971 standards), the lies by Bernie Geestman, and other things.
Scott Rolle, the former state prosecutor who was a cast member on Decoded said that sometimes the KC story is like looking at a puzzle where some of the pieces are still missing. But he said if you stood back and looked at the entire picture, you could get a good idea on what KC was about. I tend to agree.
I'm not going to tell anyone that the occasional mistake wasn't made while doing this investigation. Sure there was. There was no comic on Shemya, and the horses driven by Margie Geestman were in fact DRAFT horses, not Clydesdales...although I don't see what that has to do with the case.
But now you have two guys down in the Tena Bar area who claim to have found shards of the money BEFORE Brian Ingram...but the famous money find by Ingram has been known for over thirty years. This is much different than a story of two or more people who didn't know each other, and were separated by a thousand miles who give the same story on a bag of twenties...and have no idea that this story could be associated with the Cooper case. What would be the motivation to make this up? There was no possible link to the hijacking between 1995-2007, yet the story persisted. That's 12 years between the time the money was allegedly found and when Cooper became a suspect. Then it became obvious that this story needed to be checked as closely as possible. It's still inconclusive, but the principal witnesses gave the same story even though neither had ever met.
I have a couple of final points, and they regard this case in general, as well as the many people who have worked on it:
1) Name one person or organization that hasn't made a mistake along the way while investigating the case. Or to reverse this, got everything right. If they had gotten everything right, the case would probably be solved by now.
2) Just because one item might be wrong, doesn't mean EVERYTHING is wrong. And in the case of things that have nothing to do with the identity of the hijacker, or solving the case, those 'wrong' items can be discounted anyway. They are off-point.
(This post was edited by RobertMBlevins on Nov 17, 2012, 1:01 PM)