GreenElf

Aside from the statute of limitations having expired long ago, the family members have a perfect defense: Nobody really believed the skyjack story. They saw no hard evidence connecting Dewey and LD to the crime. LD was known to lie about many things including having an MD brother who treated him in the past. Lost of dysfunctional families humor known liars, like the war hero that never was in the military, the guy with the advanced degree who was a college dropout, etc. They just dont rock the boat. Enough of the strong arm stuff about family criminal culpability Bruce. It is only tangentially relevant and is a moot point at this late date. We are probing the accuracy and truthfulness of an adult's memory of what she claims to have witnessed at age 8. That's the main issue. You are making it hard to tell if Marla's closing up to you and lashing back is evasive or protective. If you piss someone off, even a truthful person, they sometimes clam up and lash out. That doesnt mean they were lieing to you. I'm not advocating treating Marla with kid gloves. She has made an extraordinary claim and she should expect extraordinary scrutiny. I think you could ask the same questions of Marla in a different manner and you'd find a different response. Border Collies accomplish a lot more than Rottweilers do, in my opinion. Tina probably would have let a Border Collie in, but understandably slammed the door on a Rottweiler. Find your inner Border Collie Bruce. It will actually improve your journalistic results. 377 Agreed.

Marla, I want to thank you for joining Dropzone (DZ). I respect and admire your courage in doing so. I want to: (1) provide a brief summary of the Cooper investigation, (2) provide comments regarding the DZ Cooper Forum in particular, (3) provide my current perspective regarding your story, and (4) provide some questions for you, given that you are kind enough to answer them. Please fasten your seatbelt. I think you will might appreciate the ideas I have contained. (A) Cooper Investigation Summary to Date Available Physical Evidence Forty years of attempting to gather physical evidence for the hijacking of Flight 305 has been confined to (1) an airline ticket w/signature, (2) a necktie with 3 DNA profiles, (3) as-of-yet unmatched fingerprints, (4) a stairwell warning placard and landing area, (5) unused parachutes/a de-corded reserve chute (6) $5,800 of partially disintegrated Cooper money/fragments, (7) a copy of the radar determined, FBI flight path, (8) Flight 305 flight log, minute by minute, with actual pressure “bump”, and (9) a simulated, reenacted pressure “bump”. I may be missing minor elements of evidence here (and have intentionally avoided breaking down each piece of physical evidence into separate elemental components), but what was mentioned should be generally regarded, to this point, as the full sum. Eyewitness Testimony From the flight crew’s eyewitness testimony, we were provided a physical description of the suspect’s height, weight, hair color/style, and eyes, as well as a physical composite sketch that was considered by the eyewitnesses to be only marginally accurate, and was therefore revised at a later date. We also were provided a fair description/profile of the suspect’s behavior/demeanor. Missing Physical Evidence However, as we all could acknowledge, the direct, physical evidence that we don’t have available to this point is far more significant. This would include (1) Dan Cooper’s body, (2) $194,200 in ransom money, (3) Dan Cooper’s parachute, (4) Dan Cooper’s cigarette butts (unfortunately), (5) Dan Cooper’s handwritten instructions for the flight crew, and (6) Dan Cooper’s individuated clothing/gear/hijacking equipment. All of these have kept the true identity of Dan Cooper from being confirmed for a uniquely long period of time. (B) Dropzone Cooper Forum Culture Investigative Frustration While you are obviously well aware of the FBI’s level of frustration with this case, you may not be as aware that the level of frustration among citizen sleuths – especially seasoned, invested, citizen sleuths – have remained palpable as well. The frustration among citizen sleuths with perceived lapses within the initial investigation, the sheer length of time that has elapsed in the unsolved case, the failure to make significant gains in accumulating new physical evidence over the years, and maybe most significantly, the sheer number of false leads, hoaxers, non-empirically-minded investigators, and attention seekers that have either claimed to know Dan Cooper’s identity or claimed to be Dan Cooper himself, has adversely affected the culture here in the forum. While everyone loves a really good mystery, and many get sucked into the Cooper investigation, citizen investigators committed to working on the case have been normally forced to travel down a fairly slow, often limited, and sometimes inefficient path of inquiry. This phenomenon has defined the Cooper Curse. Investigative Weakness In addition, if one factors in that humans of all types (even seasoned investigators) are occasionally prone to leaps of logic, prone to speculation and conjecture, prone towards self-importance, and prone to retreat to entrenched Cooper-related investigative beliefs, you may understand at least a portion of the nature of frustration of some in the Cooper Sleuth Community towards a newcomer – even yourself - who steps forward with mostly circumstantial information directly pertaining to the DB Cooper investigation. Unfortunately, as you're aware, there can be only one DB Cooper. The review of various witness testimony in the Cooper investigation alone has been like a large-scale, never-ending version of that old TV game show, “To Tell The Truth”. As a side, 377 called your entry into the forum discussion a “journey on a kayak down the river Styx”, which is humorous … and laced with truth… An Apology Still, Regardless of the contextual background provided, and directly related to the fact that the FBI has not changed their public position stating that you are a credible witness, I feel you are owed an apology for any instances in which a journalist or citizen sleuth within or through this forum has, in an effort to gain information, turned their process of communication or inquiry into a hostile activity. All researchers, including journalists or scientists, are taught fundamentally to be transparent with their inquiry, to be selectively sensitive, and to alleviate or minimize emotional and psychological harm to clients in the course of their investigative conduct. For any level in which this has not happened for you thus far, please know that you have deserved better. I cannot condone this practice. While one may argue whether the limitations of recalling a 40 year old memory is both a strength of your case (i.e., the proof of an excellent memory), or a weakness (i.e. a conveniently limited circumstance to hide behind), in the event that Uncle LD’s culpability is proved, you will deserve to be commended for offering the information that you could accurately recall. (C) My Perspective Background My professional expertise in this forum does not specifically involve parachuting, journalism, or military expertise. My experience is in the field of psychology, particularly in the field of human credibility and motivation. I had a an opportunity to listen to your Symposium presentation, as well as to speak with you briefly at the Ariel Tavern celebration. At this point, I am inclined to believe in the plausibility of your story. My reasoning for this opinion is a combination of five factors: (1) The Inclusion of FBI Authority - As previously stated in earlier posts, the FBI, the organization with significantly more knowledge and authority on Cooper than any other comparative source, has thus far deemed you a credible witness. I regard this factor, more than any other, as significant. If this support were hypothetically removed, I would undoubtedly form a different opinion. (2) The Appearance of Credibility - Your personal and public presentation, demeanor, willingness to be vulnerable and willingness to allow for interview-associated flexibility within the investigation so far is suggestive of one who is being truthful about what they have witnessed. You intentionally avoided attempting to control the interview process at the Symposium, and were comfortable with all questions. In addition, you have faced varying levels of hostility for adhering to what you have believed to be the truth about Uncle LD. Although it is by no means impossible to avoid this inclination in practice, human nature suggests that people tend to avoid perpetually sustained environments of hostility for situations in which an intrinsic truth is absent and not worth upholding. I am not negatively swayed by your desire to write a book as a sign of falsely based, self-promotion, as some in the forum have suggested. From my understanding of human nature, this is a non-issue; people write books originating from both honest/valid motivations, as well as deceptive motivations. (3) The Presence of Reasonable, Consistent Answers - In the interviews in which I have seen you, including the Symposium, You have provided reasonable answers for all the questions that were asked of you, save the one that the FBI has asked you not to divulge. 377 and I agree that the description of the 1970’s walkie-talkies, you provided – a previously undiscussed detail among Cooper Sleuths – appeared accurate. In addition, your answers have been consistent. You have corrected individuals who have misquoted you on minor details of your story. (4) The Provision of a Reasonable, Circumstantial Explanation - Although your explanation has been mostly circumstantial so far (yes, I know you are attempting to change this, and we all would like an outcome based primarily on hard physical evidence), in my judgment, the unique nature of your circumstantial explanation is more satisfactory than any provided previously. Specific nuances of the case, details that were not previously known until recently, such as the Dan Cooper comic book connection, and the link to Boeing Inc. As you are probably aware, Bruce Smith’s recent article confirmed that a Dewey Cooper worked for Boeing in the late 60’s. Members of the flight crew have agreed on the similarities between LD’s photo and Dan Cooper’s composite. By comparison, in my judgment, only comparatively weak levels of circumstantial evidence have linked many other proposed culprits. Other culprits, such as Kenny Christiansen, have some elevated level of circumstantial evidence that parallels the Cooper facts, but in KC's case, I have difficulties with reasonably matching some aspects of the known profile description. (5) An Outside-The-Box, yet As-Of-Yet Non-Contradictory Explanation - In any given investigation that has taken 40 years and turned up little new physical evidence, there is/was always the chance that a fully logical, yet partly circumstantial, outside-the-box explanation would be required. For cases such as this, there are often significant reasons why a perpetrator is not immediately or quickly identified; why an individual can remain off of the recognized investigative radar. The story you have provided fits this profile. I recognize that this is certainly not the position of everyone on the forum; there are those individuals – some well-respected, veteran investigators – who will only be satisfied when direct, physical evidence has satisfied all questions in this case. However, while this would be the ideal in any case, I have significant doubts that there is enough evidence to accomplish this. I will be looking forward to Agent Eng's next public statement. (D) Questions For You (1) The necktie found on Flight 305 contained Titanium metal flakes, which have been linked to Boeing, where it appeared (as you stated) that Dewey worked. Were you aware of any previous situations in which Dewey and LD might have shared clothing? From what you can remember, did both uncles share similar characteristics in terms of weight and height)? (2) Do you have any specific memory based descriptions of what LD’s personality was like, prior to 1971? (3) Was the famous Sno-Cap Ice Cream shop on the west end of Sisters open when you lived there? It's in a class of it's own... (smile) Thanks for responding. Green Elf

As for Marla coming to the Forum it would be nice to have Snow on board, things would realy get interestig then. Snow would actually be a asset to Quade. When Marla apears here you can expect at least a 150+ of her followers/backer's to show. Agreed on Snowman. He would bring a valuable perspective. Let's wait and see if a contingency plan is needed (RE: potential sudden mass following). Best case scenario: individuals/family who have specific, first-hand knowledge and insight contribute helpful information. Worst case scenario: the Cooper forum posts becomes unnecessarily clogged with eager, albeit uninformed well-wishers and content become difficult to wade through. (Not that this has never happened previously from time to time). Green Elf

Yeah. Provably impossible since Triumph and MG are like Ford and Chevy. Did you see Marlas Facebook comment about being a shameless capitalist? She's a 99%er with her eyes on crossing the border. I just think coffee beans will get her there faster than Cooper schemes. I do think an 8 year old could remember a comic title for decades. I sure do. My friend down the street was obsessed with Aqua Man. Another was a die hard Batman guy. My brother liked Super Boy. A pretty blonde with an engaging personality and a detailed Cooper walkie talkie angle is hard to resist. Still, the facts as told fit a hunting trip and mishap as well or better than Norjack. I've yet to see anything that puts Dewey on the plane. Still, Marla doesn't impress me as a liar. She may be telling the truth as she remembers it. The lies could be LD's and Dewey's rather than hers. I'm going to talk with Ralph H soon. I want to hear his account of what Tina observed regarding the perceived ease or difficulty Cooper encountered putting his chute on. 377 Good news: Marla indicated she will be joining Dropzone soon, so we will be able to ask her questions directly. It's great she's making herself available. This will certainly shorten interview-related turnaround time, and hopefully, to a degree, help to reduce levels of speculation. I'm looking forward to her additional input in examining Uncle LD's case...while we wait for any official statement from the FBI. Regarding the vehicle issue, she also made a (FB) statement about Dewey owning a truck, although she thinks the truck was broken down. She also states that the duck blind was not taken with them in the vehicle on their trip, but was left at the house. Welcome aboard, Marla... Green Elf

No worries. Thick-skinned. Good advice. Green Elf

Mr. Blevins, Nice piece; you were true to your word. This interview-based article was very objective and well written. I note that by comparison, a previous article written by another journalist recently and linked to this forum, one which did add significant other details to the Cooper case, did not comprehensively accomplish this same objective. (1) It was interesting that MC cared to distinguish between the word "close" and "drop" (the case). (2) MC's speculation on how LD was exposed to Dan Cooper comics is plausible. From what both MC and Dale (Santa) have stated, it doesn't seem as if LD suffered for a lack of free time on his hands. Who knows the ports-of-call or airports he may have visited on his Navy forays around the world. It would be interesting to see if further information could be dug up (i.e., perhaps European-based refueling stops), and whether such ports-of-call and/or airports could be linked to common comic distribution points. In like manner, I wonder where and how exactly Dan Cooper comics were distributed in Canada. This might be asking a lot of MC's memory, but I also wonder whether she would recognize any particular comic book covers of LD's. If so, these could be corroborated with a particular issue ... and date of publication ... 3) I'm speculating here, but from what MC shared, I would be willing to venture that her book will be less detective novel, and more personal / family biography. My previous stated thoughts about closure may prove correct. People who are very sure of their position don't tend to write "defense-of-personal-theory" books - they tend to write "personal closure" books. 4) Point of clarification: Was the car referenced in the 9th question the Blue Triumph that MC refers to in the 10th question? Or, was the car she referred to in the earlier question Dewey's car? It is interesting that she noted that the car was not wrecked. Green Elf

(chuckle) Green Elf

I think the approach you have described here is the right approach ... I applaud you for proceeding in this way with the interview. Whenever I experience members of the media who have taken steps to avoid personal bias or organization-sponsored bias in their journalistic processes and published content (which seems rare in our modern, agenda-driven age), I value their contribution more highly. It's normal to have at least a degree of skepticism; after all, 40 years is a long time to conduct an investigation, not to mention to have to field so many false leads as false perpetrators have been continually implicated by others, or even themselves. We balance this knowledge with the knowledge that this case is like the lottery; there can only be one "winner" - and I use this term in a very loose, non-precise sense. However, acknowledging one's skepticism, yet giving someone the benefit of the doubt, is the ethical approach. Green Elf

Agreed. Other information I have reviewed in her communication with Geoffrey Gray, pre-Symposium suggests specifically that she was fully flexible and willing to surrender any control regarding how Mr. Gray wanted her portion of the presentation/interview to be proceed or be facilitated, specifically saying that no question was off limits, and that an extemporaneous approach (i.e., no rehearsed questions) was completely fine with her. This is not the approach that any person would first choose to take if they were willfully attempting to deceive another person, especially if doing so greatly increased the risk of exposure. People that behave in such ways normally protect their vulnerabilities and try to control the flow of information. In terms of the way she presented herself, she seemed personally confident, sincere, somewhat humble, and a combination of both direct and transparent in her responses. I did not mention this factor previously, but in dissecting her conversation, it does bear mentioning that she appeared to indicate during the symposium that a faith-related perspective has seemed to play somewhat prominently into her life experience and worldview, which is interesting for a couple of reasons. I'm not sure about everyone else's experience here, but my life has, from time-to-time, criss-crossed with individuals who have possessed existential-based, faith-related perspectives on life that are similar to Marla's. Setting aside the issue of whether the specific faith-related perspective in question could or could not be considered valid, what I have discovered in my interaction with such individuals thus far is that the level of personal credibility of such individuals has been extremely varied, although from a clinical perspective, generally more positive than negative. I have met and interacted with individuals who verbally emphasized the importance of a faith-based perspectives who were, in reality, untrustworthy. In my judgment/interpretation/experience with such individuals, the individual possessed a high degree of personal denial, a low degree of personal discipline, low degrees of social and relational skills, and a low degree of self-awareness. In other words, you might not agree with their verbal faith (remember, faith authentication is not the issue in the point being made) ... as it was very obvious that the individuals themselves were not particularly devoted to demonstrating the principles within their belief system, and had little or low regard for their personal honor, their word, or their character. Such individuals didn't care whether they personally exhibited trustworthy behavior. I have met and interacted with other individuals who verbally emphasized the importance of a faith-based perspective who were extremely trustworthy, maintained a high degree of personal discipline, maintained excellent social and relational skills and a high degree of self-awareness. These individuals I have met have prided themselves on being people of character and honesty. In other words, you might or might not value their faith (again, faith authentication is not the issue in this conversation) ... but you could be well aware that the individuals themselves did, and that they valued taking a principled, and thorough approach to both their word, their honor, and the character related aspects of their life. Such individuals cared deeply whether they personally exhibited trustworthy behavior. I have seen both types of approaches adopted to human behavior and experience. However, while Marla's testimony itself is still in the process of being verified (I repeatedly assert and freely acknowledge again that nothing Marla shared so far is certain), we can at least examine the process she took to sharing her testimony, and this seems more in line with how a person of character would behave; perhaps even the sort of person who's verbal faith perspective actually aligned in some ways with their demonstrated personal character. Keep in mind ... she did not have to attend the Symposium or answer - to share or otherwise. She could have simply opted to engage the legal minimum required of her, which would have been to alert only the FBI of her suspicions. This is only a hypothesized theory, but she may have felt that by choosing to share with the Cooper community, her story would receive a more robust level of acceptance. The truth of this DB Cooper case, to this point, is that a lack of direct evidence has been presented to solve this case ... after 40 years. In my opinion, the FBI has maintained many incentives to want to solve this case (personal credibility, public image) and not any incentive to leave it unsolved. For those few who have alleged a government coverup - that the government previously knew Cooper's true identity, but wouldn't say - I would contend that criminal investigation forces at all levels over the course of American and/or world history have generally shown far more comfortability with fingering the wrong perpetrator of a crime, rather than no perpetrator at all). We can assume that if the FBI previously could have solved this case, they would have. It is also possible to make the case that because inadequate levels of physical evidence have surfaced after 40 years (i.e., the supply line of new physical evidence has likely been exhausted), available circumstantial evidence may become more important over time. Marla's testimony is based upon a unique type of circumstantial evidence, and some of this evidence is fairly compelling. We all may certainly acknowledge their are certainly significant gaps in the information she has provided, but so far, no solid contradictions have yet invalidated her circumstantial claims. These two terms, "gap" and "contradiction" are not synonymous in meaning, and this must be taken into account. The FBI - the one representative organization who holds by far the greatest amount of evidence and knowledge related to the DB Cooper case - continues to maintain that she is a credible witness, and this position has not changed on a public level. In the meantime, what we can be certain of, is that we need to (1) remain patient, (2) work on aspects of the case that we can work on, and (3) be gracious to Marla until we know definitively whether her story is credible. We don't have control of a lot of the factors or inside information here, as the FBI does. I don't know Marla, but to be true to the noble process of investigative science, at the very least - she should be viewed as innocent until proven guilty, as any of us would want to be perceived, were we in her shoes at the moment. For any instances, including this one, when individual investigators are unable to remain patient for the emergence of evidence before passing judgment on prospective witnesses, we circumvent the investigative process, allow our own opinions to control personal investigation, and adversely influence potential progress. My conviction is that no one in the investigative community should be allowed to publicly disparage her, especially without presenting clear evidence that discredits her. I don't think it is beneficial to burn bridges wither her unnecessarily, especially in the event (however unlikely it may appear to some) that she could be helpful in bringing closure to this case. We may fault her for capitalizing on her notoriety, but I have not seen evidence that has confirmed she is unethically exploiting the media, as some in this forum are suggesting. It's a tough economy out there, and easily be responding to her level of sudden notoriety with a level of resourcefulness; if I believed my uncle was a famous dead dude, previously unidentified, I would want to capitalize financially as well. When we have may questions about her testimony, the ethical and honorable approach to scientific investigation would involve us speaking directly to her about these questions, and not triangulating any unfounded doubts through other individuals, especially on the forum. To consider ourselves objective individuals, we have a responsibility to withhold judgment of her, as well as withhold harmful portrayals of her, until which time her findings are verified one way or the other.

Jerry, Thanks for this information; at the symposium, I missed that comment from the retired FBI agent. We all should acknowledge that this is a considerably significant finding. Obviously, a correct flight path is fundamental to any hypothetically fruitful ground search. Yes, a new, verifiable search area and flight path might not produce a body now (in the event there was one), but could provide an extremely outside chance that other physical evidence can be obtained (as recent posts have stated). As also has been discussed previously at length, forty years is a long period of time. Individuals without specialized detection equipment could walk directly over a landing spot and not notice anything out of the ordinary. How exactly does this new information the retired agent shared alter the proposed flight path? I don't suppose the agent specified how many degrees the flight path was shifted? Was he given, or does he remember any of these unofficial, non-published coordinates? Green Elf

377, The missing parachute and the remaining missing money have always been perplexing, given that ground zero was searched carefully, and that other areas of Southwest Washington have been seached as well. To my knowledge, a lot of the historical search and current theory of 305's radar-guided flight path seems to have been directed along a mostly East-West, latitudinal line. Towns such as Orchards, Battleground, Ariel, and Washougal extend very roughly along this line. I'm wondering, what searches have been done historically or currently, if any, along a north/south longitudinal line? What towns, if any, extend along this line? My question is directly related to the pilot's notice of the infamous "bump" that was felt or measured minutes after 8:00pm - the moment when DB was assumed to have bailed. When FBI investigators subsequently reenacted this jump, did the evidence suggest whether it was possible to "fake" this bump? In other words, is it possible, in standing on those aft stairs with the engines screaming, that DB could have: ... prepared to jump, leaped (creating a "bump"), but as he did so, inexplicably tangled a loose portion of the NB8 chute, the money knapsack, or even the crudely fastened rope (used to tie the money knapsack around his middle section) to the aft stairs? ... lost his balance in preparing to jump initially (creating a "bump"), attempted unsuccessfully to regain his balance, fell off partially, but was able to hang on momentarily? ... prepared to jump, committed halfway, in a split second realized he wasn't quite ready (perhaps equipment, or nerves, or visual-associated geographical positioning), then attempted unsuccessfully to stop himself and regain his balance, fell of partially (creating a "bump"), but was able to hang on momentarily? Hypothetical Summary: My thought here would be that if the relatively quiet airstream bubble directly surrounding the staircase had created a aerodynamic scenario where it would have been possible for him to fall off the stairs with most of his weight (creating the weight release "bump"), yet continued to have allowed him to physically cling to a lower portion of the stairs (perhaps the hand rails - not sure, I will have to take a closer look at the pics) with his hands while his body was extended in a horizontal fashion, he might not have created another bump when he released. This would have allowed him to let go at a further time, and away from the conventionally suspected search areas. His drop zone and eventual landing spot, under this scenario, would have been further south/southeast. The pilots would not have known. Both of them plus Tina were minding their manners in the cockpit. There would have been a considerable amount of time for him to let go, I suppose. Even an airplane traveling as little as 185-200 mph can cover a lot of ground with a small hangup/malfunction such as this. Thoughts? Green Elf

Bruce, Your article provided the best source of information on Marla and her story of Uncle LD that I have seen thus far. Nice work. In perusing the content of the article, for some reason I smiled briefly at the details regarding the logistics of LD's passing, but mercifully, not at Tina M.'s expense. In the event that LD is correctly identified as NORJACK's perpetrator, the intersection of his life and Tina's is rather extraordinary. In what may truly be regarded as one of life's greatest little ironies ... a former NWO stewardess desiring to escape to a life of peace and solitude as a cloistered nun - away from Cooper-mania and the enduring level of emotional/psychological duress such unwanted attention had long brought her - unwittingly escapes to the same Western Oregon community where her greatest nemesis will finish out his days, completely unbeknownst to her. This nuanced storyline can only be described as Shakespearian. Green Elf

Jerry, Thank you for your response. I am grateful for your input. You are correct; we only have Marla's word for it that she has, in fact, taken a polygraph. You are also correct in that we have only Marla's word that the FBI will be closing the investigation. I would only add to this thought that the FBI has said her story appears credible. However, I would suggest that circumstance we are discussing here does not require an either/or scenario. It can easily be a both/and scenario. As most will acknowledge, organizations of all types, federal or otherwise, render official statements that are sometimes purposefully misleading, and sometimes such statements are unintentionally neglected and not kept current with knowledge-based revisions due to organizational timing or preparation issues. Organizations of all types care about controlling information for the purpose of effecting self-representation and social influence; what info. is released, how much info. is released, and when such info. is released. I don't claim this is necessarily occurring with the FBI in this case; I would merely claim that it might be the case. The existing official response at this point may vary greatly from what is known among internal circles. Your statement regarding Marla's recollection of Uncle LD's injuries is valid; again, we only have Marla's word on this. My point here, however, would be that for any witness (Marla or otherwise) it would not be objective to give her eye witness testimony the benefit-of the doubt in one scenario (in this case, Uncle LD's injuries), while choosing not give her the benefit-of-the-doubt in the other scenario (in this case, her statement about the polygraph and/or the FBI closing the case). Either way, we can only work from one assumption at a time; that her testimony is invalid and untrustworthy, or that her testimony is valid and trustworthy. We can try them both on to see if they fit[email], but not simultaneously. Regarding the walkie-talkies, it is good that you clarified your point. There is a slight difference in investigative meaning between recalling that a witness (Tina M.) did not see him with a communication device and asserting that he didn't have one. Regarding Marla, I'll agree with you in that there are gaps in her story where we may seem to need fuller explanations (if it is possible for her to add anything further), so I suppose calling them "holes" is fine. However, I would differentiate between holes and contradictions. If clear contradictions surface, then her story will be summarily dismissed. Until then, I want to keep an open mind to the possibility that there is more to know here. Green Elf

377, I’ve been following the DBC discussion closely for quite awhile (although not nearly as long as you have). I also attended the Nov. 26 symposium. I found your presentation on the NORJACK chutes to be outstanding. It should have been obvious to all attendees from your use of the audience volunteer that any individual with limited skydiving experience would have been hardpressed to both easily and quickly strap on the chute and correctly fasten that particular buckles and attachments within the short window of time described. In addition, your humorous description of the PDX airport security's inquiry into your NB6 chute was certainly a high point! Some food for thought: Marla's claim that the FBI has informed her personally that the case is winding down is certainly intriguing. Obviously, the general feeling of most of those who have posted on this blog recently seems to be is that her recent emergence as a potential witness, more than any other emerging witness at the moment, requires some critical scrutiny. The nature of her story is compelling at the moment, especially because it is new and because many existing candidates previously considered have been dismissed. While we wait for an official statement and any clarifying info., we are left with four scenarios. There are no other logical possibilities: (1) She is a liar (i.e., she is intentionally failing to tell the truth for some unknown reason). (2) She is crazy (i.e., she is unintentionally failing to tell the truth; she doesn't know the difference). (3) She is deceived (i.e.. she is a truthful witness to what she saw, but her suspicions of Uncle LD may be ultimately discredited). (4) She is a truthful witness, (i.e., incredibly, her suspicions of Uncle LD may be, after all of these years, correct). Although on an objective level we don't have any concrete evidence at this point to eliminate any of these above possibilities completely, we can use what we have to evaluate which scenario may be more LIKELY true of her and her story FOR NOW. Now let's examine each of these scenarios based upon the information we have to this point. Scenario #1: According to Marla and the FBI – providing both of these parties have been truthful – she passed a lengthy lie detector test. Although we don’t know the type of lie detector test she was administered, we don’t have any type of psychological evaluation on Marla to indicate whether her mental framework is the sort that could allow her to falsely pass a lie detector test, and we don’t know for certain that the FBI isn’t so anxious to close this case that they are willing to publicly accept the candidate who is most likely and/or most currently compelling as a way to save face (As a side note: Ckret’s appeal to the public did coincidentally end with, “…maybe someone will remember that crazy uncle…”) We don’t know any of this for certain, because even though you and other investigators of this case have had access to some levels of Cooper evidence, none of us are privy to all of it, being that we are not internally based in our profession within the FBI. However, in the absence of other evidence, at this point I’m willing to call Scenario #1 unlikely. Your opinion (I’m drawing this from your posts), my opinion, and the posted opinions of others would be that Marla is not a liar. Her story has not appeared to waver in terms of any of the major details. Her description of the powerful walkie-talkies owned by her Uncle and other details of the case was spot on. Scenario #2: Again, we cannot be certain here (Marla, to our knowledge, has never been asked to take a psych exam), but I have not heard of any rational person produce evidence yet to suggest she is crazy. In order for her to qualify as delusional and personally unaware of the reliability and validity of her story, she would have to deceive a great number of journalists, investigators, private citizens, and FBI agents, many or most of whom have at least some degree of psychological training in detecting crazy cognition, magical thinking, and delusion. On the contrary, she comes off as completely competent. She has done well professionally as an executive manager for a coffee company, and by all indications, is very well networked and resourced. As we all know, there is strength in numbers. Someone surely would have noticed if she was crazy. In my brief, one-time conversation with her, I did not notice any pathology. On the contrary, I found her competent in her mental faculties. In the absence of other evidence, at this point I’m willing to call Scenario #2 highly unlikely. If she was and is crazy, she has fooled a great number of competent, intellectually qualified people. Scenario #3 is more problematic, because the evidence she has offered is circumstantial first-person eyewitness testimony from a child’s alleged observations 40 years ago. We do not have any hard evidence yet to put Uncle LD in the back middle seat of Flight 305. Its entirely possible Marla is an innocent soul who is simply misguided and is not aware that she is looking for some form of personal closure for her experienced family dysfunction. Again, we will have to hope that time will uncover more information. If Marla is/was merely deceived, we would suspect that other friends and family members from 1971 would eventually shed some light on this possibility that she is deceived. However, it is interesting to note that other family members thus far (i.e., her mother) have corroborated, rather than challenged her account of Thanksgiving, 1971. I suppose, while it is theoretically possible that her mom is crazy too, the more family accounts that continue to corroborate her account, the less likely this is true as well. In the absence of other evidence, at this point I’m willing to call Scenario #3 possible, but not yet probable. This scenario, however, is logical, and no hard evidence can discount this scenario yet. Scenario #4 is not problematic thus far, given that from what others and I have been able to discern, the major details of her story overlap so far with what is known about DB and NORJACK. Marla’s explanation of LD’s fascination with Dan Cooper, Uncle Dewey’s connection with Boeing, her description of the high-powered walkie-talkies, and family reaction cannot be discounted until further evidence is made available. So, however unlikely it may seem, in the absence of other available evidence, I’m willing to call Scenario #4 possible, may even likely, but not certain. Marla should not be discounted simply because she has received public exposure and because she stands to profit from a future book deal. If I place myself in her position, and I believed my uncle was the NORJACK culprit, I would want to profit to. We must remember that history if full of individuals who have profited from both false pretenses and authentic, valid opportunities. The fact that she stands to gain much should not necessarily disqualify her story. A parting thought: There are highly intelligent people who have spent anywhere from a few hours to tens of thousands of hours attempting to solve this case for years and even decades – many people are aware of who these individuals are in this forum. It is important to note that from a psychological perspective, an invested devotion to any personal project such as this can provide a number of personal benefits for the individuals involved: a stronger sense of identity, a level of unique socialization, the pursuit of private goals, and a general sense of being needed. This is important to state, because all of us who have examined this case will want to take care to ensure each of us are mentally prepared to qualify a theoretically credible witness and accept the endpoint of this case – whoever this witness may be. This person does not HAVE to be Marla and Uncle LD; perhaps the suspect truly is someone else. However, if her story proves to be legitimate, any individual – including her – would, in the end, deserve an objective level of acceptance from the Cooper-sleuth community. Green Elf