The Culture of the NORJAK Investigation

Posted by Sluggo at 5/15/2008 2:44 PM
Categories: Weekly Blog

The Culture of the NORJAK Investigation

There was no blog last week because it was Mother’s Day, and even at my advanced age, I must visit my Mom on Mother’s Day.

Speaking of advanced age, I want to talk about the culture of the NORJAK investigation.

Culture?  You might ask. Yes, the culture. I’m not saying “culture” in the sense of: sophistication, refinement, cultivation, or urbanity. I’m using the word in the sense of: ethos, philosophy, mores, background, and way of life. Since the NORJAK event happened over 36 years ago, a huge gradient has been formed between the culture of D B Cooper’s day, and culture of our current times. The international readers, may notice a North American bias in the blog. Well, I’m guilty as charged, because my “culture goggles” in regard to NORJAK definitely have a North American filter.

The cultural aspect of NORJAK has played a major part in the development of the “D B Cooper as a mythical hero” paradigm (meme). It has also stimulated the involvement of private citizens in an attempt to do what authorities have been unable to do, namely, solve the mystery. The cultural aspects of the case were what drove Ralph Himmelsbach and his colleagues, throughout the 1970s, to focus on some suspects while rejecting out-of-hand some others. The cultural aspects of the case were what caused some of the younger generation to idolize Cooper as a guy who “stuck it to the man,” or to laude him as a “modern day Robin Hood.” Remember, this was the effect of a man, described by many witnesses as forty-five to fifty years old, at a time when the younger generation was saying; “don’t trust anyone over thirty.”

Why were they saying that? When NORJAK happened, the Viet Nam war was in full stride, there was unrest on college campuses, and since the release of the “Pentagon Papers” the citizens of the United States had come to realize the unthinkable. Their government, the government of the people, by the people, and for the people, had been lying to them. The natural offshoot of that realization was, “Are they lying to us now?”

So what does all this mean to the amateur sleuth pouring over ancient records, newspaper clippings, magazine articles, and internet web-sites. It means simply, place all data (especially witness testimony) in the proper cultural context. Be aware of when the testimony was taken, who was recording the testimony or formulating the questions, and the cultural profile of the witness.

Here’s an example of cultural bias with no intent of malice. I was talking to someone very dedicated to solving the NORJAK mystery. This person is in his late thirties, or early forties, so he was a child when NORJAK happened. I asked about the possibility of Cooper (or a confederate) bringing his own parachute or a suitcase with proper jump gear on board (or having the confederate leave it on board). His response was; “That just isn’t possible.” I thought to myself, “I wonder how many plane trips he took in 1971?”

I was remembering an incident that I witnessed in 1970, when a man brought a fly-rod on an Air California flight. It was hilarious. The rule was anything you brought on board (which might include guns, explosives, drugs, etc.) had to fit under the seat in front of you or in the overhead bins. This guy had not put his precious fly-rod in his checked baggage, and the plane was pushing back before the stewardess discovered it. She finally took it from him, took it out of it’s tube-like case, and put it (standing upright and bent) in the galley with the case (broken down into two pieces) next to it. Now I ask you; “In 1971, could a Cooper confederate have brought a small case of clothes, or a parachute on board?” Filter your answer through the culture of the times.

Another example of possible cultural bias is the way some people perceive Jo Weber the widow of Duane Weber, who made a death-bed confession to being Dan Cooper. A point of contention involves two statements that Jo has made that seem at odds with each other. Here are the two statements:

In 1979 Duane took Jo on a trip along the Columbia River. Jo says her husband pointed to a power line cut and said to her, "That's where D.B. Cooper walked out of the woods." She said to him, “How do you know that?”' And he said, “Maybe I was on the ground.” Jo just took it as a joke.

In March 1995, when Duane was dying, he whispered; "I have a secret to tell you," "I'm Dan Cooper." Jo says; “The name meant nothing to me.”

What seems to be a contradiction really isn’t, if you look at it through your “cultural goggles.”

Let’s look at the 1979 trip to the northwest:

In 1979 Jo had been married to Duane for approximately one year. In 1979, D B Cooper was a vague memory in the minds of most people. If you used the name D B Cooper most would understand who you were talking about. They might think; “A hijacker… jumped from a plane… somewhere…”  In 1979, not one in a thousand people could have told you that the name used by “D B Cooper” to purchase the ticket was “Dan Cooper”. That was probably Jo’s mindset at that time.

Now think about the 1995 confession:

Duane was dying. They both knew he was dying. No salvation was on its way. He had family members who had died of the same thing. She knew he would pass in a short while. She was distraught. She was losing her husband of 17 years. She was going to be alone in life and away from her family. Now, if you were in that state, how would you respond to “I’m Dan Cooper” At the time, under the stress she was experiencing, she just didn’t make the link. Oh yeah, in 1995, (still) not one in a thousand people could have told you that the name used by “D B Cooper” to purchase the ticket was “Dan Cooper”.

So, I hope I have made a good case for being “culturally aware” when reviewing witness testimony. I have really only scratched the surface. Like I mentioned in my last blog, when talking about the difference in Himmelsbach’s description of Cooper’s behavior and Florence Schaffner’s and Tina Mucklow’s description of the same, it’s all about the color of your “culture goggles.”

How do you feel about the cultural difference between 1971 and now, as it relates to the NORJAK investigation? Leave me a comment.

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this post
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

  • 5/16/2008 9:49 AM TallCoolOne wrote:
    Humph..... I guess I never really thought about how much of an affect that could make in how a person perceives things. I will try my best to look at this (and likely many other things in life) without my 'goggles' on ............ (I won't go blind, will I?) j/k

    No seriously, it is a very good read and sure gave me a lot to chew on.

    Kudos!
    Reply to this
  • 6/9/2008 3:40 PM DB phone home wrote:
    Well that reconciles Jo Weber's brain burps in her story. I wonder if the Mr. was trying to blurt out, "I'm Dan Cooper's accomplice", but couldn't phrase it right. Anyway, the present cultural bias of Jo Weber is to set everything out in a strange manner which is hard to follow. As I read through your site, I hope to get her ducks in a row.
    Reply to this
Leave a comment

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Enter the above security code (required)

 Name

 Email (will not be published)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.