Yes, and they KNEW him. For this reason, I don't find it odd that Ted never called in any suspects. Any that he'd have pointed out would have been more than likely to have fingered Ted. So in addition to the 12 ignored calls the night of the jacking, you would probably have even more people pointing you in Ted's direction in any attempt to investigate this case. It's entirely possible that even the logger pointed H-B back at Ted, but we'll never know.
Exactly. Why didn't H-bach sit back and think. It seems like he spent more time chasing new suspects, instead of thoroughly investigating the "good" suspects he already had.
Matt said it best, "it was as if H-bach was simply trying to find reasons to eliminate as many suspects as possible"
There is one simple problem with this logic. FBI agents don't get paid per each suspect they check out. Their goal is to find the perp., not set a world record to having the largest number of suspects in a case.
At some point in time, after the number of suspects hit, say 50. Why weren't these suspects categorized by a numbering or lettering system. 1 would be for excellent suspects with skydiving, criminal record, etc., 2- good suspect, but no criminal record 3- fair suspect, no skydiving, no criminal record 4- ex-wife mad at him,
This way, one could distinguish between excellent suspects, and those who are simply recipients of "revenge" by ex's, neighbors, etc.
I have mentioned "due diligence" many times on this board. You bring up a good point, and I'd like to clarify what I've meant by it, and how it particularly applies to this example...with an example:
The police get a call from someone who claims his neighbor's dog got loose in his yard and caused problems and they want you do do something. You're the officer who takes the call and you determine that the neighbor is a friend you know well, in fact you just had lunch with them today. Your friend doesn't have a dog, you know this for sure. Due diligence states that to clear the call you need to go out and talk you your friend, even if you know the answer. Then you go next door and talk to the caller and square things, and the issue is resolved, and the call is cleared. You cannot tell the caller that that neighbor is your friend, and you know for a fact that he/she does not have a dog, and that he must be mistaken, or do nothing about it. This is not the way it works for a public servant.
Hate to say it, but, H-bach wouldn't have even bothered to call back either party. He would have concluded that his friend didn't have a dog, and that it would be impossible for his friend's dog to be the one in the neighbor's yard. Therefore, the friend would be "eliminated" as the owner of the dog.
That is, until 2 years later, when he runs into his friend at the park, and low and behold, his friend is walking a dog. To his surprise, h-bach says, when did you get the new dog? His friend replies, old Duke, I've had him for over 10 years. You've just never seen him, because he is an outside dog.
I think this is pretty much how this case was investigated.
Understanding that, and looking at what H-B did....again I'm having a VERY tough time with the incompetence angle. The FBI got 12 calls that very night and one can only guess how many others in his meager investigation pointed him the same direction, and not one ounce of "due diligence".
I couldn't agree more.
Our whole lives we have heard about DB Cooper and how he either escaped, was killed, was part of the CIA, and some other out of this world explanations.
However, once the case was investigated properly by two so-called amatuer sleuths, it turned out that this case was just an ordinary caper, with an extraordinary plan, a unique getaway, and some major tunnel vision? or worse?
OD
. However nothing has been proven yet and until it is (in a court of law) Tosaw will use that has his trump card for not paying. 