Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Crime Government The Almighty Buck Transportation

FBI Accepts New Evidence in 46-Year-Old D.B. Cooper Case (dailymail.co.uk) 123

An anonymous reader quotes the Daily Mail: The FBI is looking at an 'odd bit of buried foam' as possible evidence in the cold case investigation into criminal mastermind D.B. Cooper, according to private investigators. The potential evidence was handed over to authorities last week by the team of sleuths who believe the foam made up a part of Cooper's parachute backpack, the New York Daily News reports. Cooper, one of the 20th century's most compelling masterminds, hijacked a Boeing 727 at Seattle-Tacoma airport in 1971 and held its crew and passengers hostage with a bomb. Once his demand of $200,000 cash -- the equivalent of $1,213,226 today -- was reached and transferred onto the plane, Cooper had the crew take off before he parachuted out over the dense Pacific Northwest woods and disappeared.

The discovery of the foam comes just weeks after the FBI uncovered what is believed to be part of Cooper's parachute strap, which private investigators claim could lead authorities to his stolen fortune. In addition, the FBI also received three 'unknown' pieces of fabric that were found close to where the alleged parachute strap was located.

The 40-member cold case team is being overseen by a former FBI supervisor. At one point they essentially crowdsourced the investigation by requesting help from the general public, and the team now says they've found a credible source -- providing information substantiated by FBI field notes -- which has led them to this new evidence.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FBI Accepts New Evidence in 46-Year-Old D.B. Cooper Case

Comments Filter:
  • by chuckugly ( 2030942 ) on Sunday August 20, 2017 @03:46PM (#55053473)
    Imagine what all that cash will be worth now with all that interest over the years.
    • by El Cubano ( 631386 ) on Sunday August 20, 2017 @04:32PM (#55053651)

      Imagine what all that cash will be worth now with all that interest over the years.

      Imagine what all that cash would be worth if the Fed had not been on a money printing binge for the last...well, I don't remember when they haven't been on a money printing binge.

      If you wonder what I mean by "money printing binge" then look up "quantitative easing".

      • by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Sunday August 20, 2017 @04:49PM (#55053707)

        If you wonder what I mean by "money printing binge" then look up "quantitative easing".

        I'd rather look at the current inflation rate of 1.7%, below the Fed target, and way way below what the monetary hawks predicted. QE was the reason 2009 wasn't 1931 all over again.

        • by El Cubano ( 631386 ) on Sunday August 20, 2017 @05:08PM (#55053781)

          QE was the reason 2009 wasn't 1931 all over again.

          I understand QE and what is meant to do. I question whether doing it for basically 5+ years was the right thing.

          • by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Sunday August 20, 2017 @05:23PM (#55053833)

            I question whether doing it for basically 5+ years was the right thing.

            The downside to QE is high inflation, which didn't happen. So I question why you question it. While America was doing QE, the Euro Zone was doing austerity. The recession there was deeper and longer, and they still have an unemployment rate nearly double America's.

            • Some people think the economy is a morality play. And simply printing a lot of money is considered to be bad even if nothing bad comes of it.

            • by r0kk3rz ( 825106 ) on Monday August 21, 2017 @03:49AM (#55055479)

              I question whether doing it for basically 5+ years was the right thing.

              The downside to QE is high inflation, which didn't happen. So I question why you question it. While America was doing QE, the Euro Zone was doing austerity. The recession there was deeper and longer, and they still have an unemployment rate nearly double America's.

              This is what puzzles me, conventional wisdom states that printing money like that should result in skyrocketing inflation, which obviously didn't happen and many countries doing it are still fighting deflation.

              So what gives? Are tax havens really sequestering that much supply from the market? Is the money printed not making it into the general supply and just padding bank profits?

              • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21, 2017 @04:12AM (#55055543)

                The conventional wisdom is ignorant, in this case.

                A country's finances are different from a household's, but that's difficult for some people to grasp.
                This has nothing to do with dollars hiding in suitcases and tax havens (that's been going on for a while irregardless).

                • by muecksteiner ( 102093 ) on Monday August 21, 2017 @05:56AM (#55055767)

                  Except that it's not as easy as you make it to be. "A country's finances are different from a household's" is of course true - but also such a convenient excuse for lazy and inefficient governments and societies to mask their ineptitude by printing money.

                  There is actually skyrocketing inflation going on: the big difference is that it is not evenly spread across all markets. Remember when a person with a normal income had a chance of actually buying real estate for their own use? Say, the flat you live in? This has become fairly utopic for a sizeable part of the demographic pie: anyone except the top of the income pyramid are driven out of this market, as this is where the big players are trying to park their increasingly dubious freshly printed money. Same goes for a number of other "hard assets".

                  But I grant you, the economy has managed to avoid old-school social upheavals (read: hunger riots etc.) so far, as stuff you need for everyday survival have stayed decently priced, with only very moderate increases in price over the past few years. Real estate and living, though... ouch.

            • by shaitand ( 626655 ) on Monday August 21, 2017 @09:03AM (#55056509) Journal
              It did happen. The inflation didn't take the form of additional cash in the stream, it took the form of debt erasure. Not even the base amounts of the debt but billions in erased outstanding interest. It is much harder to see but if you think erasing billions of dollars in interest from the books isn't going to have an impact.

              Also, the way the inflation rate is calculated was deliberately changed to hide inflation from mortgage interest erasure.
          • by Thelasko ( 1196535 ) on Monday August 21, 2017 @09:43AM (#55056695) Journal

            I understand QE and what is meant to do. I question whether doing it for basically 5+ years was the right thing.

            Think of it this way. In the 2000s a bunch of money was "created". Around 2008 we realized that money was created fraudulently and didn't really exist. There was suddenly a contraction in the money supply. The Federal Reserve responded by creating more money. However, there is a limit to how fast The Fed can create money, so it took 5 years.

        • by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 ) on Monday August 21, 2017 @10:46AM (#55057027) Journal
          Using the same method of calculation as used up until 1990, it is actually about 5%. Of course, that's when a half gallon of ice cream was still half a gallon, and things like chocolate chips and sausage came by the pound, not 12 ounces. Smaller packages at the same price now, however, are not considered inflation - they judge by the price of the "typical size" of the item purchased, not per-ounce. And given that housing prices since 2013 have increased about 5% per year, and rent has followed, statistics that fudge all that to come up with 1.7% actual inflation are pretty much a lie.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20, 2017 @05:10PM (#55053787)


        Imagine what all that cash would be worth if the Fed had not been on a money printing binge for the last...well, I don't remember when they haven't been on a money printing binge.

        Exactly! If I plug 100 into late 2008, when QE first started, That's equivalent to 115 today. Wow.. $15 over 9 years! That's sure a lot of money!

        • by parkinglot777 ( 2563877 ) on Monday August 21, 2017 @07:15AM (#55055999)

          Exactly! If I plug 100 into late 2008, when QE first started, That's equivalent to 115 today. Wow.. $15 over 9 years! That's sure a lot of money!

          You are so lucky to get that high interest! I have been with my bank and they give me 0.01% APY interest for a saving account since 2008. How much interest would it generate up until today for $100? >:(

        • by ElizabethGreene ( 1185405 ) on Monday August 21, 2017 @09:32AM (#55056639)

          > Exactly! If I plug 100 into late 2008, when QE first started, That's equivalent to 115 today. Wow.. $15 over 9 years! That's sure a lot of money!

          A more clever girl would have taken that money and bought a foreclosure in 2008, then fixed it and rented it out to today. The realtor tells me the house is worth more than double what I paid for it.

          Has inflation in housing prices been universal?: I don't know. It _feels_ like it.

    • by K. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) on Sunday August 20, 2017 @04:43PM (#55053679)
      "All that interest"? I though the public has *lost* interest in this since then.
    • by siamesevodka ( 1852446 ) on Sunday August 20, 2017 @05:53PM (#55053955)
      The FBI screwed up when they didn't give him 2 million dollars! Just think what that would be worth today!
  • by Lorens ( 597774 ) on Sunday August 20, 2017 @03:51PM (#55053489) Journal

    Last year the fact that the FBI had closed the case made headlines, and now there are 40 people working on it?

    https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us... [fbi.gov]

    OK, looking at the press release, the "redirected" "resources", I suppose the FBI only officially closes a case when the perp is caught...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20, 2017 @03:51PM (#55053491)

    Hey. FBI, nobody gives a shit.

    How about spending my tax dollars on important stuff?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20, 2017 @03:57PM (#55053511)

    when a man could just purchase a ticket with bills, and hop on the plane, without having to even give his real name. These days, if you're taking the plane in America, you will be treated as a terrorist.

    (And yes, I do remember the time when two planes took down three buildings, the last of which went from structurally intact into a pile of rubble in its own footprint, in a 7 second free-fall due to some fires on the second floor.)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20, 2017 @04:14PM (#55053587)

    Once the investigation cost passes the current value of the money stolen, why continue the case?

    • by blindseer ( 891256 ) <blindseer@earthlink . n et> on Sunday August 20, 2017 @04:51PM (#55053711)

      why continue the case?

      Because it's good practice for more recent cases?

      I'm no detective or anything but I can imagine that these skills are "use it or lose it" like any other. If they aren't doing anything of a higher priority then why not?

      I can also imagine that there is matter of pride. There's someone that got away and finding out who did it, even this far in the past, does prove something, doesn't it?

      I vaguely recall an argument, from the UK I believe, on the funds spent by the military picking up lost hikers and skiers. Some politician thought this was a waste of government resources. A high ranking officer explained that if the military was not doing this service they'd have to concoct drills of similar difficulty to keep the people trained. Doing this service effectively cost nothing, kept people safe(r), and was an effective recruiting tool. Sending out civilians in a jeep instead of military in a helicopter would look cheaper at first but it'd also save no money in the end since the helicopters would be flying anyway. If war breaks out those same people would be picking up downed pilots and doing medical evacuations of wounded soldiers.

      Let the FBI go dig in the mud looking for rotted bank notes and bits of a parachute. If in the future they need some experienced people to find a suspect in a "hot" case then we know where to find them.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20, 2017 @06:09PM (#55054003)

        Let the FBI go dig in the mud looking for rotted bank notes and bits of a parachute.

        It isn't the FBI doing this, it is some group of people who felt look forming their own Mystery Club. I don't know if they have a Great Dane, a Revolutionary-era Ghost, or an unfrozen Caveman, but they might have a van with a psychodelic theme.

        See you went on a diatribe for nothing, because you couldn't bother to look up the facts, just went with your feelings.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20, 2017 @07:50PM (#55054291)

        Beware that British government and its colony governments often come up with great ideas like that to save money, rather than the elected official taking a minute or two to find out why something is done a certain way first, they just open their mouth and confirm they are an idiot to everyone else.

      • by Cyberax ( 705495 ) on Monday August 21, 2017 @12:00AM (#55055035)
        It makes no sense to investigate a case older than 30 years. The perpetrator will likely be dead or senile and if the case goes to court they likely won't be able to defend themselves - no witnesses will be reliable that long after the case and any material evidence will likely be lost.
      • by Z00L00K ( 682162 ) on Monday August 21, 2017 @12:33AM (#55055099) Homepage

        Like the Alcatraz escapees. Even tested as being possible by Mythbusters.

      • by SeattleLawGuy ( 4561077 ) on Monday August 21, 2017 @10:33AM (#55056971)

        why continue the case?

        Because it's good practice for more recent cases?

        I'm no detective or anything but I can imagine that these skills are "use it or lose it" like any other. If they aren't doing anything of a higher priority then why not?

        I can also imagine that there is matter of pride.

        Good practice, no. There are plenty of cases you can work on today to get good practice. It's not like there's a crime shortage.

        Pride is a part of it, so is disincentive. Criminal law is generally about two things: retributionism and consequentialism. Punishing the guy because you are angry with him and he deserves it (retributivism) is very rarely a sensible motive--it's mostly petty revenge because someone offends our notions of right and wrong and to hell with whether it makes sense. There are lawbreakers we may WANT to lock away for decades or to kill, but it's not always helpful. Consequentialism (side-constrained by a requirement that the defendant is also supposed to be guilty) tells us to punish the guy so he doesn't do it again, and to scare the hell out of the next ten guys who think about trying it. This is why it's much harder to plea-bargain a high-profile case; not only does the prosecutor want to look good, but because the hope is that the punishment is enough to discourage others from engaging in the bad act.

        Oh, and sometimes the public believes there's rehabilitation. Occasionally there are nods toward it, and certainly there are attempts to reduce recidivism, but generally criminal law theory recognizes that rehabilitation in not really a meaningful component of the modern criminal justice system.

    • by myid ( 3783581 ) on Sunday August 20, 2017 @09:09PM (#55054579)

      Once the investigation cost passes the current value of the money stolen, why continue the case?

      If we're sure that Cooper is dead, then I agree that it's ok to stop the investigation.

      But if there's a chance that he's alive, then I'd like to keep investigating the crime. Cooper hijacked a plane, and took people captive and threatened them. He shouldn't get away with that. We should send a message to potential future criminals that if they hijack, kidnap and threaten, then we won't stop hunting them down.

      • by Grishnakh ( 216268 ) on Monday August 21, 2017 @11:46AM (#55057477)

        We should send a message to potential future criminals that if they hijack, kidnap and threaten, then we won't stop hunting them down.

        Ever? Witnesses say the man was in his mid-40s. Should we keep hunting him down after the case is 60 years old (another 14 years from now)? But that time, he'll be well over 100 years old. How about when the case is 80 years old? By that time, he'll be around 125. At what point do you think we should give up "hunting him down" because there's no way he's still alive?

        Most likely, he didn't even survive the hijacking, and either died during the parachuting from exposure, or shortly after on the ground since he jumped at night, during a rainstorm, over a dense forest, with no protective clothing. His body was probably eaten by animals. I like to think that he somehow made it anyway, but even if he did, he's probably over 90 years old now if he's still alive.

        Do you want to keep trying to hunt down Jack the Ripper too? Maybe he's still alive! He'd be over 150 now though, but we should never stop, right?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20, 2017 @09:42PM (#55054671)

      I believe trademark and copyright should be civil cases investigated by the owner, not the FBI. That is a much worse waste of taxpayer money. Specially when there are circumstances and risks the company itself took. The FBI spends tax payer money tracking down questionable bootleg Cisco equipment. Cisco chose to move the factory to China which even the layman knows has lax co trips over intectual property and then expects the US tax payers to foot the bill when those same Chinese factories decide to make their own, sell the plans, or produce some extras. Win-win for Cisco. Cheap labor and manufactory and taxpayers help absorb the risk.

    • by gfxguy ( 98788 ) on Sunday August 20, 2017 @10:11PM (#55054757)
      Because they don't want to think people can think they can wait out prosecution. I agree that, at this point, it's entirely useless. And I promise you, many times the amount of the stolen money has already been spent (and I'm talking tax dollars).
  • by Bruce66423 ( 1678196 ) on Sunday August 20, 2017 @04:22PM (#55053621)

    Is this really the priority for the FBI? Is there no current crime to pursue? Or is this evidence that the fall in the crime rate in recent years has left the FBI without enough to do?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20, 2017 @04:43PM (#55053673)

      Is this really the priority for the FBI?

      No, it isn't.

      Is there no current crime to pursue?

      Not if Donald Trump pardons himself. He can do that, or so he says.

      Or is this evidence that the fall in the crime rate in recent years has left the FBI without enough to do?

      The only evidence it has is that you can be triggered over a pointless article.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <mojo&world3,net> on Sunday August 20, 2017 @04:59PM (#55053737) Homepage Journal

      Not sure we want the FBI deciding that some cases aren't worth the effort. Any open case should be investigated whenever possible.

      • by Bruce66423 ( 1678196 ) on Sunday August 20, 2017 @05:03PM (#55053753)

        Given that there isn't enough money to investigate every case to the nth degree, someone has to make decisions about what is to be the priority. Who can that be if it is not the FBI itself? The only alternative would appear to be a political appointee - which seems worse.

        • by SeattleLawGuy ( 4561077 ) on Sunday August 20, 2017 @05:39PM (#55053887)

          Given that there isn't enough money to investigate every case to the nth degree, someone has to make decisions about what is to be the priority. Who can that be if it is not the FBI itself? The only alternative would appear to be a political appointee - which seems worse.

          You could have the investigative agency need to get a court to sign off on closing a case, for example. You could also have priorities allocated by a committee that includes some people (whether voting or non-voting) from outside the FBI. Like maybe a citizen representative, or a victim representatives, or someone from DOJ outside the FBI, or a local law enforcement representative. For any large organization, there's more than one way you could reasonably set priorities, but you need to figure that out in the context of law and of organizational politics that are far beyond whatever will be discussed about them on Slashdot.

          • by gfxguy ( 98788 ) on Sunday August 20, 2017 @10:15PM (#55054777)
            You'd just be distancing and obfuscating the problem. Any committee would end up being some desirable position to have; people would start backroom dealing to be on the committee, wherein they could then be bought and sold, just like most politicians already are. It's a nice idea, though. Of course, it's a nice idea when an agency would know when to give up expending tax payer dollars. But Cooper is a high profile case, so someone must think the press is good.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20, 2017 @05:25PM (#55053839)

        Not sure we want the FBI deciding that some cases aren't worth the effort. Any open case should be investigated whenever possible.

        Who is 'we'? Do you suffer from multiple personally disorder?

        Define what is 'possible'. I would suggest that pissing tax payer dollars against the wall shouldn't be ' possible'.

      • by Zero__Kelvin ( 151819 ) on Sunday August 20, 2017 @07:03PM (#55054169) Homepage
        Every law enforcement organization does that every day.
      • by Reverend Green ( 4973045 ) on Sunday August 20, 2017 @08:31PM (#55054427)

        I say let 'em go for it. Every man-hour spent chasing dead robbers, is a man-hour not spent oppressing live dissidents.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20, 2017 @07:54PM (#55054297)

      Is good PR a waste of money? No. Everyone wants good PR, even at great cost. Even you - you buy nice things and do things to impress your friends which is essentially self PR.

      If the FBI cracks this, then good PR times. And it'll likely do good things for the careers of the agents working on it, since its such a well known and unsolved case.

  • by tomhath ( 637240 ) on Sunday August 20, 2017 @04:28PM (#55053643)
    Conspiracy theories aside, the evidence points to him being killed when he bailed out of the plane. Some mastermind.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20, 2017 @04:31PM (#55053649)

      But DB Cooper's mansion is just north of Houston.

    • by TechyImmigrant ( 175943 ) on Sunday August 20, 2017 @04:45PM (#55053693) Homepage Journal

      Conspiracy theories aside, the evidence points to him being killed when he bailed out of the plane. Some mastermind.

      That's what she wants you to think.

    • by El Cubano ( 631386 ) on Sunday August 20, 2017 @04:49PM (#55053705)

      Conspiracy theories aside, the evidence points to him being killed when he bailed out of the plane. Some mastermind.

      I still wonder about this. The amount of money he demanded ($200,000) seems like it was meant to be large enough to seem like a real demand, but small enough that it could be assembled fairly quickly. I cannot imagine that his real plan was to live out the the rest of his life on that sum, at least not anywhere near civilization. Even 45 years ago I don't think anyone could reasonably expect to live a few decades on that amount.

      He likely would have been smart enough to know that every serial number of every bill he was handed would have been recorded. I suspect that the $200,000 was intentionally a red herring and that he quickly disposed of it, knowing that considerable effort would be expended looking for those bills. If I had to guess, I would think that he probably had some other loot already (probably much more than $200,000) somewhere else that was intended to be his real nest egg.

      Of course, if what you say about him being killed shortly after leaving the plane then it is sort of moot.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20, 2017 @06:11PM (#55054011)

        So he has enough money in a 'nest egg' to retire. Hijacks a plane for a fraction of that amount, and parachutes into the woods. That's the stupidest fucking thing I have ever read.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20, 2017 @06:46PM (#55054111)

        There's an implicit assumption that Cooper jumped at 8:13 PM, when the aft stairs of the plane opened. Cooper failed to answer that time, but that doesn't prove he left the plane. The tail of the plane moved upward requiring the pilot to compensate, but that doesn't prove Cooper jumped then, either. Turbulence from the weather could have produced the same effect. The crew didn't open the cockpit door until arriving in Reno. If Cooper had jumped at 8:13 PM, that places the plane over southwest Washington, and bills were later found downstream of Vancouver, WA along Tina Bar. It's assumed that the bills had washed up there after ending up in a tributary of the Columbia River. Even if the bills fell out of the plane at the same time Cooper jumped, it simply shows that it occurred somewhere within the Columbia River basin. It could have been as far south as central Oregon. Nobody knows when Cooper left the plane except that it occurred after 8:13 PM and before landing in Reno. There are also a lot of questions about how the bills got to Tina Bar, when they arrived, why three packs of bills remained together while getting separated from the others, and why a few of the bills were missing.

        The weather was bad over southwest Washington but improved to the south. Even Salem, OR was dry a bit earlier in the evening and a little warmer, as per the upper air data. The bills could as easily have been transported by the Willamette River or another tributary or the Columbia River and have landed in Oregon rather than Washington. Had Cooper jumped a bit later than what is generally assumed, which is entirely possible given the evidence, it would have been far easier for him to survive the jump.

        Rather than making a hasty jump into bad weather over Washington, it's entirely possible that Cooper waited until the weather cleared before jumping. I propose that Cooper jumped over an area to the south that wasn't cloudy, where he could have more easily seen the ground, avoided rain, and would have faced a much lower risk of death due to exposure.

        This relies on the chance that turbulence caused the tail of the plane to suddenly move upward shortly after the aft stairs were lowered. This isn't implausible when considering that the flight was in poor weather over complex terrain. Cooper pretended he wanted to go to Mexico City while obviously planning to jump. He ordered the flight crew into the cockpit, even though the threat of a bomb had ensured their cooperation to that point and the crew had no incentive to take additional risks. It is quite possible that the crew was ordered into the cockpit precisely so they couldn't see when he jumped. There would have been no incentive to make a hasty jump into poor weather when he could have jumped at any point between Seattle and Reno. Admittedly, Cooper made poor choices regarding his choice of parachutes, but every other detail was carefully planned, and that might include misleading the crew as to when and where he left the plane.

        I know, it's a bit if a fringe theory, but hopefully way more interesting than the posts whining about tax dollars.

      • by Dan East ( 318230 ) on Sunday August 20, 2017 @09:29PM (#55054641) Journal

        None of what you said makes any sense.

        The amount of money he demanded ($200,000) seems like it was meant to be large enough to seem like a real demand, but small enough that it could be assembled fairly quickly. I cannot imagine that his real plan was to live out the the rest of his life on that sum

        As the blurb stated, that was $1,213,226 in today's dollars. That would last a normal person a few decades. Who said anything about living out the rest of his life on that money? It's a very big chunk of money, and represents $200k he got instantly for free without working for it. People commit crimes more serious (killing people) for far, far, far less money than that.

        I suspect that the $200,000 was intentionally a red herring and that he quickly disposed of it, knowing that considerable effort would be expended looking for those bills. If I had to guess, I would think that he probably had some other loot already (probably much more than $200,000) somewhere else that was intended to be his real nest egg.

        So in other words you're saying this was a very rich guy (a multimillionaire in today's dollars) who hijacked a plane and stole $200,000 just to hide the money forever because he knew it would be traced..... just for farts and giggles. If he had a "nest egg" greater than $200,000 already, and stole $200,000 he KNEW he couldn't spend, then... why didn't he just live off his nest egg?

        I presume there is some other motive you're alluding to you didn't state, because none of that makes any sense.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20, 2017 @10:21PM (#55054797)
        back then $200,000 would be enough of a nest egg to set yourself up for life. Buy 4 or 5 houses with a chunk left over to live off plus the rent. you seriously don't think that would be enough to retire on?
      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <mojo&world3,net> on Monday August 21, 2017 @05:06AM (#55055657) Homepage Journal

        $200,000 would be enough to live comfortably and start a good life in somewhere like South America around that time. Quite a few criminals went that route with similar or even smaller amounts of cash and did quite well out of it, as long as they used it to set themselves up rather than just spending it.

        I guess the issue there is that if he had used it to start a new life, you would think there might be some evidence of a foreigner suddenly arriving with a large amount of USD in cash. Then again, back then record keeping wasn't what it is today and even now many South American countries are not exactly in a hurry to help the FBI with information and record searches.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20, 2017 @05:05PM (#55053763)

    Give it up, he got away. Plus the statute of limitationslong expired.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20, 2017 @06:40PM (#55054091)

    Listen to convicted airline hijacker Martin J. McNally tell the story of how he was inspired by D.B. Cooper to hijack a commercial airline for ransom and parachute to escape. Recorded at MAC's apartment in May 2016, he shares a rollercoaster ride that hijacks true crime fans for a seven episode original podcast marathon from the mouth of the man who did it!

    https://ganglandwire.com/?s=McNally

  • by BlueCoder ( 223005 ) on Sunday August 20, 2017 @07:48PM (#55054281)

    I don't see the fuss over tax money spent on the investigation. It's one person cataloging efforts from interested citizens. It's a mystery that can provide new investigation techniques for future crimes even if it results in nothing.

    I would have more of a problem if they found the guy and decided to waste money in prosecuting after all this time.

    The FBI "claims" that no other money in the case was ever found other than beside that river ten years later. Not sure if I believe them. But there are many ways to launder money especially involving insurance and fires.

    I think it's reasonable he was a woodsman and knew the area. He probably did have googles; and at least light gloves which are not that hard to conceal. Probably had a few well concealed hidden caches near the rivers for changes of clothes and supplies. Maybe an inflatable raft. Hiked to some spot downstream of the river and hid the money before bugging out. I'd hide it in a tree. Probably had an accomplice waiting on the ground in case he hurt himself and to clean up his trail afterward. I can easily see someone taking a few bundles of money and camping out by the river only to be approached and hiding the money in the sand and then thinking the better of it to just leave it.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20, 2017 @07:59PM (#55054319)

      A man steals from a bank/corporation - of course it will be investigated over and over.

      If it was the other way around and corporation stole from people, nothing would happen.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20, 2017 @08:43PM (#55054469)

      I find this doubtful, especially if he jumped over southern Washington. There were heavy rain in the area and low clouds obscuring the ground from being seen at the flight altitude (around 10,000 feet above sea level). He also chose a parachute that lacked steering capability. Given that even the premise path of the plane was uncertain and it's virtually impossible to land close to a cache in the woods. This was also after 8 PM in late autumn, so there wouldn't have been visible landmarks to steer by in the woods due to darkness, let alone the weather. Once on the ground, it would have been very difficult to navigate in the woods from an uncertain starting position, even in daylight. That just seems unlikely to me. With an uncertain search area and the vastness of the Pacific Northwest, I can certainly believe that someone could go missing in the woods and never be found.

      It stands to reason that Cooper would have been aware of the dangers and could have exited the plane later than what is generally believed. Some have proposed this occurred as late as during the descent into Reno. I find it hard to believe Cooper would have survived to make it out of the woods in southwest Washington had he jumped there. He had a good knowledge of the Seattle area, quite possibly as a resident, and might have even been a Boeing employee. Recent evidence supports a link to Boeing. If Cooper had died in his jump, there should have been a missing person matching his description, possibly a Boeing employee not showing up to work the next Monday. The FBI looked for missing persons similar to Cooper's characteristics and didn't turn up anything, adding to the mystery.

      I just don't agree with your scenario. I think it's most likely that Cooper either 1) jumped over southwest Washington and died either from the jump or exposure, or 2) jumped later than is commonly believed and survived.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20, 2017 @08:26PM (#55054405)

    REMEMBER THE MURDER OF IAN MURDOCH, creator of Debian Linux and leading member of the Free Software community, killed Christmas 2015 by the notoriously corrupt San Francisco police department.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20, 2017 @09:12PM (#55054589)

    Interesting XKCD picture here [xkcd.com].

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20, 2017 @10:57PM (#55054899)

    The amount he stole can't even buy a modest house anywhere today. We take it as a fact of life but should we? Is someone profiting from this never ending inflation?
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21, 2017 @05:28AM (#55055695)

    I bet this has cost tax payers 10 million $. Money well spent...ugh.

  • by pesho ( 843750 ) on Monday August 21, 2017 @08:34AM (#55056339)
    I bet you FBI has never heard of this evidence, let alone accepted it. This is a guy selling his book. The sources are The Daily mail and NY Daily, both known for their responsible reporting of the facts.

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

Working...