DB Cooper

[FLYJACK 654]

18 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Here's my issue with it...As I explained last night, if I have an eyewitness making two statements that contradict each other, I'm going to err on the side of their statement that was made closer to the event. Absent some evidence to explain why they changed their statement, any solid investigator is going to assume that the statement made closer to the event is likely the more accurate version of the incident. I don't see why their opinions on the sketches should be treated differently. 

Yes, we have statements where they like Comp B, but most of those statements are almost a year or even over a year later. Their statements where they like Comp A were made within days of the hijacking. Tina said Comp A (with sunglasses) looked "100% like him", Alice said it was a fair likeness and couldn't offer any criticism, and Flo said she "liked the drawing very much". 

As I indicated, this isn't so much about hating on Comp B, but moreso about finding redeeming qualities with Comp A. I've made it very clear that I'm essentially a "Comp B" guy. However, clearly Comp A got something right otherwise they wouldn't have said such positive things about it. That's why I think a hybrid version of the two sketches is probably as close to accurate as you can get. When you look at guys like Donald Murphy, Allen Cooper, or Fred Catalano, they all look somewhat similar to my hybrid sketch. 

Additionally, my entire reason for even bringing this up is mostly academic. I doubt we have Cary if Farrell realized that she was talking about the initial sketch. I think we just have some sort of aged-up and modified Bing instead of the complete overhaul that took place. I find that to be interesting from a "case-history" standpoint. 

 

I don't believe that is true about Farrell and the Cary sketch,, it isn't causative. They were doing an updated sketch with many witnesses regardless. It is coincidental. They got complaints about sketch A and pursued a more accurate representation.

If the contradictions were equivalent, you could argue the earlier is more reliable,, but then why not argue the original sketch is more valid than sketch A.. it looks closer to sketch B... Sketch A is the outlier.

The process was more comprehensive for sketch B vs A and the FBI concluded it is the best/accurate likeness they could get.

But, sketch A seems to have been dominated by the stew interview in Minn... perhaps one stew dominated... a quick job,,  it is ridiculous.. way too young, nose way too small, hair wrong, eyes irrelevant, androgynous.. Sketch B involved more witnesses over more time and back and forth...

The process was different. They are not equivalent.

There are no redeeming qualities in sketch A. IMO, It should be ignored.

 

 

[olemisscub 466]

3 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

I don't believe that is true about Farrell and the Cary sketch,, it isn't causative. They were doing an updated sketch with many witnesses regardless. It is coincidental. They got complaints about sketch A and pursued a more accurate representation.

 

I don't believe Farrell would have attached KK5-1 to his memo if he thought it was about the initial sketch and not the Bing sketch. KK5-1 is clearly the basis for the reimagining of the sketch. All of the Comp B's are derived from KK5-1. If Farrell doesn't send KK5-1 to Rose, then we just get an older looking Bing. 

You're also overplaying how drastic the complaints were about Comp A. Nothing about their comments demanded such a dramatic shift (which is why, absent Farrell's apparent mistake, they would have been unlikely to completely overhaul it)

Tina - "looks 100% like him"

Flo - "like drawing very much"

Alice - "fair likeness...could not pinpoint any characteristic about the sketch she didn't like."

Bill - "Everything from nose up is good. Mouth is good."

Williams - "Thought the artist conception was very good, over-all"

Spreckel - "if face were widened one sixteenth of an inch...it would be an excellent likeness"

The only real complaints were from Gregory and Labissoniere. If you're an agent, there is nothing at all in the criticisms of Comp A that would lead you to think that you'd need a new sketch to look like an entirely different human being. The only thing that would make you think that you'd need a complete overhaul would be if one of the stewardesses, the only one who interacted with him before him became the hijacker, was adamant that the sketch was terrible. This is why we have Cary IMO. I'm not saying Cary isn't good or whatever. I'm saying that we don't get Cary unless Farrell thought Flo was talking about Bing. They'd have no reason to make him a completely different person otherwise. 

[FLYJACK 654]

Back to the map...

The original map is several pieces.. if you look here you can see a join.

The horizontal line with the hash marks.. WASH is cutoff and the "20:10" notation is partially under the attached piece. This matches the 1971 maps.

So, the marks and times were written on it the separate map pieces, then they were attached together before the path was drawn..

and because Boeing made a colour negative and copies of the map,, and the join appearance it is likely that this "yellow" laminated map is a colour print, not the original.

Edited December 6, 2023 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 654]

14 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

I don't believe Farrell would have attached KK5-1 to his memo if he thought it was about the initial sketch and not the Bing sketch. KK5-1 is clearly the basis for the reimagining of the sketch. All of the Comp B's are derived from KK5-1. If Farrell doesn't send KK5-1 to Rose, then we just get an older looking Bing. 

You're also overplaying how drastic the complaints were about Comp A. Nothing about their comments demanded such a dramatic shift (which is why, absent Farrell's apparent mistake, they would have been unlikely to completely overhaul it)

Tina - "looks 100% like him"

Flo - "like drawing very much"

Alice - "fair likeness...could not pinpoint any characteristic about the sketch she didn't like."

Bill - "Everything from nose up is good. Mouth is good."

Williams - "Thought the artist conception was very good, over-all"

Spreckel - "if face were widened one sixteenth of an inch...it would be an excellent likeness"

The only real complaints were from Gregory and Labissoniere. If you're an agent, there is nothing at all in the criticisms of Comp A that would lead you to think that you'd need a new sketch to look like an entirely different human being. The only thing that would make you think that you'd need a complete overhaul would be if one of the stewardesses, the only one who interacted with him before him became the hijacker, was adamant that the sketch was terrible. This is why we have Cary IMO. I'm not saying Cary isn't good or whatever. I'm saying that we don't get Cary unless Farrell thought Flo was talking about Bing. They'd have no reason to make him a completely different person otherwise. 

Not buying it.

I just posted where the stews said B was better. The FBI said B was better.

They went through a comprehensive feedback process of creating an updated sketch so everything is incorporated in it. KK5-1 is irrelevant... Even if it was an error by Farrell it doesn't change the result. There is no causation.

Sketch A is ridiculous, it looks nothing like the witness descriptions. It is garbage. IMO, it was rushed and the stews..

Flo is flakey.. Tina is being deceptive.

 

Edited December 6, 2023 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 466]

Just now, FLYJACK said:

Not buying it.

I just posted where the stews said B was better. The FBI said B was better.

They went through a comprehensive feedback process of creating an updated sketch so everything is incorporated in it. KK5-1 is irrelevant... Even if it was an error by Farrell it doesn't change the result. There is no causation.

Sketch A is ridiculous, it looks nothing like the witness descriptions. It is garbage. IMO, it was rushed and the stews..

 

This isn't about whether Bing is ridiculous or not or if you think it is garbage. I'm talking about the investigative process and what was going through their minds in 1972.

Show me the feedback against Bing that would have made them want to create a totally different sketch as opposed to just putting Bing in color and aging him up. Farrell CLEARLY indicates that they are doing this mainly because of Flo's insistence that the sketch was terrible. It's very clear causation.

Absent that document you still think Farrell would be like "hey Exhibits Section, we need you to completely redo this sketch that all the stews like because Robert Gregory, a guy who admits to only seeing the hijacker twice, wants this guy to have fuller cheeks and look more ethnic." Hell no. Farrell did this because he THOUGHT one of his primary witnesses thought the sketch sucked. This isn't that complicated. 

[FLYJACK 654]

26 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

This isn't about whether Bing is ridiculous or not or if you think it is garbage. I'm talking about the investigative process and what was going through their minds in 1972.

Show me the feedback against Bing that would have made them want to create a totally different sketch as opposed to just putting Bing in color and aging him up. Farrell CLEARLY indicates that they are doing this mainly because of Flo's insistence that the sketch was terrible. It's very clear causation.

Absent that document you still think Farrell would be like "hey Exhibits Section, we need you to completely redo this sketch that all the stews like because Robert Gregory, a guy who admits to only seeing the hijacker twice, wants this guy to have fuller cheeks and look more ethnic." Hell no. Farrell did this because he THOUGHT one of his primary witnesses thought the sketch sucked. This isn't that complicated. 

You are creating a red herring.. several actually.

The sketch was redone regardless of Farrell's error.

We know, they wanted to address complaints including age and complexion, they involved many witnesses over time with back and forth feedback.. Farrell's potential error is irrelevant for the final product.. You are imagining causation.

You really think they would ONLY incorporate witness suggestions ONLY restricted to complexion and age..

That is nuts.

Edited December 6, 2023 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 466]

4 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

You are creating a red herring.. several actually.

The sketch was redone regardless of Farrell's error.

We know, they wanted to address complaints including age and complexion, they involved many witnesses over time with back and forth feedback.. Farrell's potential error is irrelevant for the final product.. You are imagining causation.

The same people who liked Bing also liked Cary a year later. That is incongruent. They are literally different people.

Answer my question. Does KK5-1 get sent to Roy Rose if Farrell is aware that KK5-1 was picked in opposition to the initial sketch and not Bing? Farrel thought she was saying "I prefer this mugshot over Bing", THUS, that is why Cary began as a derivation of KK5-1. No other reason. This is not imagining causation. You've dug your heels in and are refusing to be wrong or have your mind changed. I'm quite certain I'm right on this. Comp B, as we know it, doesn't look the same without his mistake. 

[FLYJACK 654]

2 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

The same people who liked Bing also liked Cary a year later. That is incongruent. They are literally different people.

Answer my question. Does KK5-1 get sent to Roy Rose if Farrell is aware that KK5-1 was picked in opposition to the initial sketch and not Bing? Farrel thought she was saying "I prefer this mugshot over Bing", THUS, that is why Cary began as a derivation of KK5-1. No other reason. This is not imagining causation. You've dug your heels in and are refusing to be wrong or have your mind changed. I'm quite certain I'm right on this. Comp B, as we know it, doesn't look the same without his mistake. 

Maybe it does get sent.. maybe not.. nobody knows.. and it doesn't matter. Either way the result is the result.

Do you think they would update the sketch and only use age and complexion feedback from witnesses,, ignore all other input. If they are updating the sketch they are taking all feedback.

They used KK5-1 as a basis, so what, it resembles that guy in the hat image some liked.

 

Stews said B was better and the FBI said it was better. What do you know that they don't...

 

 

[olemisscub 466]

well thanks for nothing, Unsolved Mysteries. They could have at least shown this footage. 

[CooperNWO305 146]

What is the timeline on this latest sketch discussion?

Initial sketch done. I call it the Cliff Robertson or Bruce Greenwood for my own memory. 
 

Flo doesn’t like it and others. Flo asks to do a ID kit. She likes the pic made from the kit. 
 

When is Rose doing the Bing A? While Flo and Farrell are working together on the kit?

Rose does the Cary Grant/James Bond/Dean Martin when? 
 

Why not just age and darken the initial? Why not do the same with Bing?

The initial and the A were within days of eachother. When was B started? We know the finish date. 
 

Was A going on concurrently with B? I don’t think so. So why doesn’t Rose know that his A was ok supposedly? Wouldn’t he have asked that?

I understand that memories close to the event are usually better, but even that discussion has its faults in that people love to say that people in crimes don’t remember. But some do. And there are a number of times we’ve used recent testimony as more gospel than old (Mitchell saying that he looked old and it was not really a skin anomaly). Yet in his 302 he indicates it was more than just an old guy. 
 

I don’t see sketches as the same thing as “what color was his hat” “what type of gun” etc. The sketches were a constantly adapting process. 
 

OleMiss you have been doing good research and I like talking sketches more than flight path. My rub with a number of folks to include EU and Colbert (not you) is that they use the sketch they like that looks like a random pic of their guy cropped and in black and white or poor quality and then put those side by side. I can do that with anyone. I can show people my old IDs like military or concealed carry and no one would recognize me, even I don’t. 
 

There is just so much going on with the witness testimony to get anything perfect. There is a lot going on with people trying to muddy the waters on the flight path, and I’d rather not see that happenwith the sketches if possible. Some of it is going on already with the green eyes of Jude to make it seem that Cooper did not have dark eyes. The FBI liked the B and it is 50 years later. Seems like the burden of proof is on those to disprove B and if B is put in question, then prove A or initial. 
 

I’m not buying that one mistake by one agent on a huge case would lead down the path that the main sketch was all wrong. Bing looks nothing like the KK. Bing looks like an alien or AI. 

Edited December 7, 2023 by CooperNWO305

[FLYJACK 654]

I always thought the first sketch looked like Jack Lord..

The original Hawaii Five-O was very popular at the time. Jack often wore sunglasses in the show, different styles.

 

The document shows that Flo was referring to the first sketch and not sketch A when she mentioned KK5-1.

Sketch A was done quickly primarily in the meeting with the stews.

That is where it ends.

Farrell referred to Flo's KK5-1 comment in the context of looking older vs Sketch A, that is clear in this paragraph of the 302.. 

So, there is no indication that Farrell got the images mixed up. He was comparing Flo's KK5-1 to sketch A which confirmed that A looked too young.

The 302 also notes other witness complaints about sketch A being too young.

So, it wasn't just Flo's KK5-1 but many witnesses that prompted them to redo the sketch older and in colour to show the complexion.

The sketch B process was far more comprehensive than sketch A...

The stews and the FBI said that sketch B was the most accurate likeness..

Farrell noting Flo's KK5-1 is incidental not causative. 

I don't see any evidence that he misapplied the KK5-1 comment, it appears he was applying it to sketch A in the context of age.

There is nothing to change the Stew/FBI indications that sketch B was the most accurate.

IMO, for many reasons sketch A is garbage and should be ignored, that bad sketch may be responsible for the case being unsolved. 

[FLYJACK 654]

and with sketches vs images...

I have many pics of Hahneman and in them he looks like 3 or 4 completely different people.

[olemisscub 466]

1 hour ago, CooperNWO305 said:

What is the timeline on this latest sketch discussion?

Initial sketch done. I call it the Cliff Robertson or Bruce Greenwood for my own memory. 
 

Flo doesn’t like it and others. Flo asks to do a ID kit. She likes the pic made from the kit. 
 

When is Rose doing the Bing A? While Flo and Farrell are working together on the kit?

Flo does the kit with agents in Minneapolis (Farrell is in Seattle office) on the afternoon of the 25th.  She bitches about how the sketch sucks, so they contact their Bureau chiefs who decide to put Roy Rose on a plane on the 26th. 

Rose draws Bing (with sunglasses) as he sits with the stews on the 27th. 

Rose does the Cary Grant/James Bond/Dean Martin when? 

He draws it in the middle of August 72. He completes it on August 23rd. 
 

Why not just age and darken the initial?

Because Flo hated the initial, agents in Minneapolis reported this, and so they realized they needed to overhaul it. 

Why not do the same with Bing?

Because Farrell THOUGHT Flo hated Bing, and so he believed they needed to overhaul it. 

The initial and the A were within days of eachother. When was B started? We know the finish date.

Farrell sent the memo to DC on August 7th. It's not known when Rose actually started on it but it's completed on the 23rd.  

Was A going on concurrently with B? I don’t think so. So why doesn’t Rose know that his A was ok supposedly? Wouldn’t he have asked that?

I'm sure Rose just did what he was told. He worked for the Exhibits Section in DC. 
 

I don’t see sketches as the same thing as “what color was his hat” “what type of gun” etc. The sketches were a constantly adapting process. 

Remembering someone's face a year later is surely difficult. The fact that any of the passengers specifically could remember details a year after the fact of a person they saw once and had no reason to remember is curious. I'm generally going to err on the side of what the stews had to say about Cooper's appearance than the passengers. 

There is just so much going on with the witness testimony to get anything perfect. There is a lot going on with people trying to muddy the waters on the flight path, and I’d rather not see that happenwith the sketches if possible. Some of it is going on already with the green eyes of Jude to make it seem that Cooper did not have dark eyes. The FBI liked the B and it is 50 years later. Seems like the burden of proof is on those to disprove B and if B is put in question, then prove A or initial. 

I'm not attempting to muddy waters. I'm simply pointing out from a "case-history" perspective, that I personally find it fascinating how close we probably came to never even having a Cary sketch. As I've said, I have no agenda here. I personally think he probably looked like a mix of both sketches. As much as we all like Comp B, we simply cannot ignore the fact that a mere three days after the event, the two primary witnesses liked Composite A. They sat there with a sketch artist as he drew it and gave real time instructions to him and they both endorsed it.  That was an actual event that occurred and we can't discount that.  

I’m not buying that one mistake by one agent on a huge case would lead down the path that the main sketch was all wrong. Bing looks nothing like the KK. Bing looks like an alien or AI. 

Yet this is seemingly what occurred IMO. Again, look at Farrell's memo from August 4th. Just imagine you were Farrell and you had statements from your two primary witnesses that say the sketch "looks 100% like him", and "likes drawing very much", but that those witnesses thought he needed to look older. Would you simply ask that the sketch, that both your witnesses really like, be aged up or would you ask the sketch artist to create a completely new sketch from scratch? Yet, if you believed, as Farrell mistakenly did, that one of your primary witnesses said "this sketch sucks and it should look more like this mugshot", well then you'd probably do exactly what Farrell did i.e. tell your bosses "hey, the sketch looks too young and also one of my top witnesses says that it sucks and it should look more like this mugshot." 

 

[olemisscub 466]

26 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

 

The 302 also notes other witness complaints about sketch A being too young.

 

Yet he ALSO uses Hancock's statement from Nov 25th and makes no indication that this is a reference to a SEPARATE sketch. 

It's clear to me that Farrell's constant references to "THE artist's conception", and his use of a Nov 25th statement while seemingly discussing Bing, means that he must have thought there was only ONE batch of sketches (the Comp A's). 

[CooperNWO305 146]

5 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

 

Good info.  What has added to my interest is the introduction of some of the pictures and ID kit. The KK that Flo picked out..did any other witnesses like that one? If Flo didn't like the initial, but liked Bing, yet she picked out the ID kit picture, wouldn't that in itself discount the A sketch? The kit pic looks nothing like the A, granted it does not look like B either. But B at least looks like a person.

[FLYJACK 654]

Just now, olemisscub said:

Yet he ALSO uses Hancock's statement from Nov 25th and makes no indication that this is a reference to a SEPARATE sketch. 

It's clear to me that Farrell's constant references to "THE artist's conception", and his use of a Nov 25th statement while seemingly discussing Bing, means that he must have thought there was only ONE batch of sketches (the Comp A's). 

You are imagining it,,  he is comparing Flo's KK5-1 to sketch A and commenting that the difference is that KK5-1 looks older.. that is confirmed by the other witnesses who also say too young.. The totality of the witness complaints caused sketch B to be done.

It does not say or imply that Farrell got the sketches mixed up..

 

and Sketch B was not finalized in a week,, it took months...

[olemisscub 466]

21 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

You are imagining it,,  he is comparing Flo's KK5-1 to sketch A and commenting that the difference is that KK5-1 looks older.. that is confirmed by the other witnesses who also say too young.. The totality of the witness complaints caused sketch B to be done.

It does not say or imply that Farrell got the sketches mixed up..

Farrell makes no indication that he's referring to multiple sketches in that memo. "THE (singular) Artist's Conception"

Yes, he's comparing KK5-1 to Sketch A because he THINKS that Flo said it sucks. Why else would he put the language in there about her hating the sketch?? This really, really isn't complicated. With respect, I think you're just being hard-headed. It's obvious that this entire memo is a criticism of Comp A. If he knew that Flo actually liked the way Comp A looked, then he wouldn't have included all that stuff about her hating the sketch.

He even says in a later memo that Comp B was created "in view of Schaffner's most recent comments." It's very clear to me that this isn't solely just about him wanting the sketch to be aged like KK5-1. If this was merely about age or about KK5-1, he wouldn't have included the language about her hating on the sketch. 

I really don't know why this is so difficult to understand. If it was merely about age, then you just age up the sketch that your two primary witnesses both really liked. You don't completely overhaul it and create a new sketch from scratch just to show age better AND suggest that he look different as well. To me there is overwhelming evidence that he thinks Flo was talking about Bing. I honestly don't think it's even debatable. There is prima facie evidence here. He literally says they are creating a totally new sketch because of her "recent" comments. 

and Sketch B was not finalized in a week,, it took months...

You think I don't know this?

 

Edited December 7, 2023 by olemisscub

[CooperNWO305 146]

Is this the sequence?

[FLYJACK 654]

2 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

 

The singular artist conception is sketch A...  

You are trying to read Farrell's mind... it does not indicate he thought Flo was referring to Bing,,  he was referring to A. He was comparing KK5-1's age to sketch A.. 

It doesn't even matter what Farrell thought..

You are creating an argument from a premise then added speculation which does not lead to your conclusion.

Your conclusion is not supported.

The fact is the production of sketch B was very comprehensive vs A...

(above you said completed in a few weeks)

The stews and the FBI said it was the most accurate likeness.

If they are going to revise the sketch under the premise to make the age and complexion more accurate why wouldn't they incorporate all input from witnesses..

Answer is they wouldn't.. Your argument makes no sense.

You expect them to get feedback from witnesses ONLY for age and complexion and nothing else..  

Hey witnesses look at the revised sketch we have done,,, but we don't want to hear about any issues other than age and complexion... don't change anything else.

[FLYJACK 654]

I have to add Flo is flakey and Tina is deceptive. 

They were the primaries for Sketch A, we know it is bad and doesn't fit the descriptions. They did it in a rush.

The nose is ridiculous, the mouth was changed, the hair wrong and the eyes were a guess. Age, complexion and androgynous look,, absurd.

Take all those out and you have very little.. the sketch is useless.

I am surprised that sketch was even produced, it is clearly inaccurate.

The process for sketch B was far more comprehensive and accurate.

 

If anybody wants to stick with sketch A,,, good luck with that.

[olemisscub 466]

9 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

The singular artist conception is sketch A...  

You are trying to read Farrell's mind... it does not indicate he thought Flo was referring to Bing,,  he was referring to A. He was comparing KK5-1's age to sketch A.. 

 

Well this CLEARLY indicates their mistake. This is from May 72 and was written in part by Detlor, so maybe he's to blame for the mix-up, not Farrell. You had some wiggle room to argue about those memos we were previously discussing, but this is inarguable unless you want to be intellectually dishonest. It's very clear that they think Flo is talking about Comp A in this document from May from when they first thought about re-doing the sketch. There's an entire page that follows that one and they don't say a word about him needing to be older or about KK5-1. They straight up thought that Flo said that Comp A sucked. It's undeniable. 

[FLYJACK 654]

22 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Well this CLEARLY indicates their mistake. This is from May 72 and was written in part by Detlor, so maybe he's to blame for the mix-up, not Farrell. You had some wiggle room to argue about those memos we were previously discussing, but this is inarguable unless you want to be intellectually dishonest. It's very clear that they think Flo is talking about Comp A in this document from May from when they first thought about re-doing the sketch. There's an entire page that follows that one and they don't say a word about him needing to be older or about KK5-1. They straight up thought that Flo said that Comp A sucked. It's undeniable. 

So what.. Flo later said the sketches were no good.. there are contradictory statements, I said Flo is flakey. 

That doesn't specifically refer to KK5-1.. that is one of the summaries that are often inaccurate..

But even if it is so, that doesn't support your conclusion. It is irrelevant.

The fact that sketch B was revised using input from all witnesses undermines your argument.

 

If you really want to elevate Sketch A using some bizarre logic, go ahead... you stick with that, I hope you do.

Edited December 7, 2023 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 466]

6 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

 

But even if it is so, that doesn't support your conclusion. It is irrelevant.

omg. Never change, Flyjack. That was a literal checkmate. My conclusion was that they never would have completely overhauled the sketch without them misunderstanding what sketch Flo was referring to. This document is the first time that they decided that a new sketch was needed. They write "a key witness said the sketch sucked" and the very next sentence is "so it is recommended that we make a new sketch". 

Again, for the millionth time, do you really think they'd have ordered a totally new sketch if they thought that their primary witnesses were in agreement? Absurd. They KEEP highlighting "Flo said the sketch sucked". That's literally in FOUR MEMOS: 5-30-72, 8-4-72, 8-7-72, and 8-23-72.

And I'm not elevating Comp A or denigrating Comp B. I think you view everything anyone does in this case as suspicious and with an agenda. My only agenda is to get the history of the investigation right for my book. It should be clear to anyone who is objective that they think Flo is talking about Comp A. 

[CooperNWO305 146]

42 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Well this CLEARLY indicates their mistake. This is from May 72 and was written in part by Detlor, so maybe he's to blame for the mix-up, not Farrell. You had some wiggle room to argue about those memos we were previously discussing, but this is inarguable unless you want to be intellectually dishonest. It's very clear that they think Flo is talking about Comp A in this document from May from when they first thought about re-doing the sketch. There's an entire page that follows that one and they don't say a word about him needing to be older or about KK5-1. They straight up thought that Flo said that Comp A sucked. It's undeniable. 

But in May of 1972 the A sketch was readily available.  I'm not seeing this the same way as you are, so I guess I'm the same as Flyjack. I don't see the checkmate.  Can you comment on the pictures I posted?  If Flo liked KK5-1, then why stick with the A sketch and not do the B sketch?  Wouldn't her picking out KK5-1 lead them to do a new sketch and not necessarily her not liking the initial?

In Flyjack's defense, there has been some shady stuff going on the past year, mainly with Vordahl.  So to think there is an agenda is not some off the wall thought.  I've stated that I think you've distanced yourself from the Vordhal stuff, but to be blunt, you were kind of Nicky's handler for a long time, and what he did reflected on you.  You'll break out of that with your non-fiction book, but it is what it is.  There are still fake FB accounts out there, and people joining groups twice.

I'm finding it best to be careful about who I team up with.

Edited December 7, 2023 by CooperNWO305

[FLYJACK 654]

21 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

omg. Never change, Flyjack. That was a literal checkmate. My conclusion was that they never would have completely overhauled the sketch without them misunderstanding what sketch Flo was referring to. This document is the first time that they decided that a new sketch was needed. They write "a key witness said the sketch sucked" and the very next sentence is "so it is recommended that we make a new sketch". 

Again, for the millionth time, do you really think they'd have ordered a totally new sketch if they thought that their primary witnesses were in agreement? Absurd. They KEEP highlighting "Flo said the sketch sucked". That's literally in FOUR MEMOS: 5-30-72, 8-4-72, 8-7-72, and 8-23-72.

And I'm not elevating Comp A or denigrating Comp B. I think you view everything anyone does in this case as suspicious and with an agenda. My only agenda is to get the history of the investigation right for my book. It should be clear to anyone who is objective that they think Flo is talking about Comp A. 

No it isn't...  

They knew from many witnesses that the age and complexion were off, it was B&W after all,, anybody with a brain could see sketch A was too young and didn't show the "swarthy" complexion..

Sketch A looks younger than the first sketch..

I said from the start that Flo was incidental not causation..

They even wanted to do a profile and a standing image..

There is no evidence that revising the sketch was SOLELY due to Flo... that is disproven by the evidence and reason.

 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2023 by FLYJACK