SAC Omaha to SAC Seattle re NORJAK, Cedar Rapids source on Bernard Cooper
Document date 21 January 1992
Also filed at: Part 50 pp. 51–52 · Part 69 pp. 90–91
Copies may differ in what was redacted.
Also filed separately as sections:
Report a problem
Email this to [email protected]
Id: Cooper-Part-106:134-135
Subject: Cooper Files: Cooper-Part-106:134-135 Document: Airtel SAC Omaha to SAC Seattle re NORJAK, Cedar Rapids source on Bernard Cooper Id: Cooper-Part-106:134-135 Page: https://cooper.theunsolved.net/documents/Cooper-Part-106%3A134-135 What is wrong (title, date, type, which pages belong together, copies)? What does the scan show?
A person reads every report. Corrections are made by hand, to the data — titles, dates, names, which pages belong together — never to the scans, and they can take a while to appear.
FBI 164-81, Vault Part 106 pp. 134–135 (DB Cooper-48424–48425), Airtel, dated 21 Jan 1992, serial 164A-SE-81 (as read from the transcript) — cooper.theunsolved.net/documents/Cooper-Part-106%3A134-135
FD-36 (Rev. 11-17-88)
FBI
TRANSMIT VIA: PRECEDENCE: CLASSIFICATION: [ ] Teletype [ ] Immediate [ ] TOP SECRET [ ] Facsimile [ ] Priority [ ] SECRET [X] AIRTEL [ ] Routine [ ] CONFIDENTIAL [ ] UNCLAS E F T O [ ] UNCLAS
Date 1/21/92
---
TO : SAC, SEATTLE
FROM : SAC, OMAHA (164A-SE-81) (RUC)
SUBJECT : NORJAK OO: SEATTLE
Re Denver airtel to Omaha dated 11/20/91.
On 1/7/92, contact was made with [REDACTED] (Protect Identity), [REDACTED] Cedar Rapids, Iowa, telephone number [REDACTED] in connection with possible knowledge of D. B. COOPER. [REDACTED] thought an individual known to her as BERNARD D. COOPER of Cedar Rapids was D. B. COOPER.
Upon talking with [REDACTED] it was learned that she knew an individual named [REDACTED] whom she met through her escort service. [REDACTED] advised that [REDACTED] had always said he lived in the Council Bluffs area but unknown exactly where. [REDACTED] on a wild hunch, checked the Cedar Rapids directories and came up with BERNARD COOPER and thought [REDACTED] and BERNARD COOPER were one and the same. [REDACTED] never bothered to check any further to see if the [REDACTED] even resembled each other.
After [REDACTED] initially reported the information to Denver, and before investigating Agent contacted her, she happened to see BERNARD COOPER and realized he was not the same person known to her as [REDACTED].
---
(2) - Seattle 2 - Omaha SJH:so (4)
164A-SE-81-[guess: 9100] SEARCHED _____ INDEXED _____ SERIALIZED ___ FILED ___ Approved: [signature] Transmitted ________ (Number) (Time) Per JAN 3 1 1992
DB COOPER-48424
164A-SE-81
---
[REDACTED] advised that [REDACTED] advised that she believed she will see him again in April or May, as [REDACTED] advised that she will advise FBI when she sees [REDACTED] again.
Due to [REDACTED] mistaken information as first reported, BERNARD COOPER will not be contacted since [REDACTED] freely admits that he is not the correct individual.
Since no further investigation is needed in the Omaha Division at this time, this matter is being placed in RUC status.
---
b6 b7C b7D
---
2*
---
DB COOPER-48425
Serials: 164A-SE-81
Similar documents
Very similar text — possibly a copy redacted differently, or another memo written from the same template.