olemisscub

This is so dumb. You think Roy Rose needed a mugshot to properly age a drawing up? No. He did not. KK5-1 was sent to Rose because the FBI thought Flo was saying the Bing sketch needed to look more like that. This isn’t complicated You absolutely know I’m right and are just being belligerent because I discovered something that you did not. Grow up.

I found your criticism to be a petulant joke

Lighten up, Francis

I asked that stewardess that. She said they spent an afternoon during their stewardess training focus on how to handle hijacks. Essentially, they were told to just keep the hijacker happy and keep passengers calm. She said they were taught where to put a bomb on the plane that would cause the least amount of damage. Said they were told to wrap any explosive device in blankets and shove it against a particular place (I've forgotten). She said that later on in the early 80's they did a more extensive training and their teachers were guys from Mossad.

Colorized and aged with a wider nose and pointier chin as per eyewitness suggestions.

Just to get this straight. It's your belief that even if they KNEW that Flo had no major complaints with Bing, they STILL would have sent KK5-1 to Roy Rose instead of just saying "recommend you adjust the sketch to make him look mid 40's"?

Well, regardless of whether they thought she was reliable or not, the Cary sketch was created with KK5-1 as a template because the FBI mistakenly thought she chose KK5-1 in opposition to the Bing sketch.

He's a grown man in his mid-30's. He has personal agency to do whatever he wants. I looked into a suspect with him. Doesn't mean I'm his handler nor that I ever was. I just counted 6 other people whom I'm also currently assisting with their suspects. I'll continue to introduce suspects to the Vortex whom I think deserve to be investigated, same as I did with Braden and Vordahl. Just this past year I've introduced Leigh Seller and also Orville Lyons and James Roman (I spoke publicly at CooperCon about all three). There's another suspect being introduced soon in a book that I've greatly assisted on. If I find a suspect compelling, I'll gladly promote them as warranting further investigation by members of the Vortex.

And I entirely disagree. She was the cause of them overhauling the sketch instead of merely aging him and coloring him. If you genuinely think that your two best witnesses said a sketch "looked 100% like him" and that they liked the sketch "very much", then you don't create a completely new likeness, you merely make adjustments to it. They thought one of their best witnesses hated it, so they decided to start fresh. It's not complicated.

You're misunderstanding the timing. Hopefully this chart clears it up.

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9T_MDj9lgY

Nothing new in latest Vault except that this would be cool to see

Indeed. I guess she forgot that she liked all of the sketches when they came out except for the initial sketch. She also says in that episode that she can still see his face vividly despite telling the FBI in 1976 that she had completely lost what he actually looked like in her mind.