ADIC Los Angeles to SAC Seattle re screenwriter's NORJAK claims and immunity request
Document date 15 November 1976
Also filed at: Part 38 pp. 334–337
Copies may differ in what was redacted.
Also filed separately as sections:
Report a problem
Email this to [email protected]
Id: Cooper-Part-120:357-361
Subject: Cooper Files: Cooper-Part-120:357-361 Document: Airtel ADIC Los Angeles to SAC Seattle re screenwriter's NORJAK claims and immunity request Id: Cooper-Part-120:357-361 Page: https://cooper.theunsolved.net/documents/Cooper-Part-120%3A357-361 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 120 pp. 357–361 (DB Cooper-55388, DB Cooper-55389, DB Cooper-55391, DB Cooper-55392), Airtel, dated 15 Nov 1976 — cooper.theunsolved.net/documents/Cooper-Part-120%3A357-361
FD-36 (Rev. 2-14-74)
FBI
Date: 11/15/76
Transmit the following in _______________ (Type in plaintext or code)
AIRTEL AIR MAIL Via _______________ (Precedence)
---
TO: SAC, SEATTLE (164-91) FROM: ADIC, LOS ANGELES (164-497) (P) RE: NORJAK OO: Seattle
---
On 11/5/76, [redacted], Encino Law Center, Penthouse 1, 15915 Ventura Boulevard, Encino, California, telephone [redacted] telephonically contacted the Los Angeles Office of the FBI and related as follows:
He represents a client who [redacted] affiliated with a motion picture studio preparing a motion picture to be released in the near future. [redacted] made reference to a hypothetical situation concerning a crime which occurred about five years ago, was very newsworthy, and on which the Statute of Limitations would run in about three weeks. He stated his client was concerned with the criminal liability of himself, the studio, and the screen writer who wrote the story on which the picture is based. This screen writer alleges the story is based on conversations which he had with the perpetrator of the crime after the crime was committed. [redacted] stated he did not know the validity of the information furnished to him by his client, [redacted] who has asked that he, [redacted] attempt to obtain some type of written immunization to protect himself, the studio, and the screen writer from prosecution upon release of the motion picture. [redacted] stated he believes the screen writer would voluntarily come forth, identify himself,
---
2 Seattle 2 - Los Angeles
crs/cks (4)
[handwritten/stamped, partially illegible]: Copy furnished [illegible] 1/3/77 [illegible] / [illegible]-7184
Approved: [illegible signature] Sent: ___ M Per: ___ Special Agent in Charge
GPO 1965 O - 992
DB COOPER-55388
LA 164-497
and submit to interview if such immunization were received. During this contact [REDACTED] stated he was not, at this time, at liberty to discuss details, names, or places but realized specific data would have to be made available if the United States Attorney (USA) was to arrive at a prosecutive opinion concerning the criminal liability of those associated with the production.
On 11/9/76, [REDACTED] telephonically contacted the Los Angeles Office and was advised by SA C. ROBERT STRANGER that this matter had been discussed with Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) [REDACTED] [REDACTED], Los Angeles, and AUSA [REDACTED] said he could grant no form of written immunization to Federal prosecution based on a set of hypothetical facts, however, he would be quite willing to discuss specific details with [REDACTED]. At this time [REDACTED] stated he now understands the hijacker, who used the name of COOPER while committing the crime allegedly [REDACTED] the screen writer [REDACTED] for some period of time about [REDACTED] and they resided out of the State of California. COOPER then reportedly left and according to the information being furnished him by his client, the producer, COOPER may now be dead.
He said that his sole concern in this matter is protection of his client, the studio, and the screen writer against Federal prosecution for harboring, accessory after the fact, or misprision of a felony. He felt the only way to insure this is to have some written document from the Government assuring they will not be subject to Federal prosecution if the screen writer voluntarily comes forth and relates details concerning his alleged association with COOPER. He understood the facts as presented to him indicated the screen writer's only association with COOPER took place after the crime was committed, during which time the facts of the crime were related to the screen writer and he later wrote a story based upon these facts.
On the afternoon of 11/9/76, [REDACTED] telephonically contacted the Los Angeles Office and advised his client has now indicated the following
- 2 - DB COOPER-55389
LA 164-497
---
details are related to the hijacking story allegedly based on the unidentified screen writer's association with COOPER:
(1) Two unopened sport-type parachutes were recovered about 25 miles north of Portland, Oregon, near Lake Merwin.
(2) There was an altimeter or a beeper in the money bag.
(3) There was a fire of some type in the local area the hijacking occurred in the State of Washington while the hijacking was in progress.
(4) Hijacker caused the pilot of the victim aircraft to contact jets following the aircraft and requested the jets to shut off their lights.
(5) The hijacker lost the money on his way down.
(6) Hijacker was badly wounded and nearly castrated upon landing after the jump.
---
On the same date attorney [REDACTED] appeared in the office of AUSA [REDACTED] Los Angeles, with Special Agents of the FBI present.
[REDACTED] advised AUSA [REDACTED] he represents a client who is a long time [REDACTED] and he desired some prosecutive opinion as to the criminal liability of his client, the motion picture studio, and the screen writer who allegedly associated with the man known as COOPER, who hijacked airplane in Seattle in 1971.
[REDACTED] stated he realizes his client is interested in ascertaining if the information being furnished by the screen writer is valid, as this could make the story on which the motion picture is based more valuable if based on fact.
[REDACTED] stated he believes he could arrange to have the screen writer come forth, identify himself, and relate details concerning his alleged association with the
LA 164-497
hijacker if he could obtain some written document immunizing his client, the studio, and the screen writer from prosecution. He continued stating information he has which is coming from his client, the producer, [REDACTED] were also aware of COOPER's identity and could possibly be subject to prosecution. He indicated the screen writer was not an accomplished professional writer and in preparing the story for production as a movie, it was re-written by professional writers. [REDACTED] stated he does not know the validity of his information stating it could be "a bunch of bologna." He added that he has not talked personally with the screen writer who now lives out of state and allegedly lived out of state during the time he was associated with COOPER.
AUSA [REDACTED] advised [REDACTED] he would decline to furnish any form of written immunization for anyone based on a set of hypothetical facts. He advised [REDACTED] that if the screen writer desires to voluntarily come forth, identify himself, and discuss the details of his association with the hijacker, and these facts as presented did not warrant Federal prosecution, he would so advise the screen writer at that time. AUSA [REDACTED] stated that if the screen writer or his attorney desires to prepare written specific details concerning his alleged assocation with the hijacker and submit it to him for prosecutive consideration he would respond in writing.
On departing the USA Office, attorney [REDACTED] inquired of SA STRANGER as to whether there had been an explosion on the ground beneath the victim aircraft when the hijacker had thrown a package, possibly containing dynamite, from the airplane. He was advised that the FBI could not respond to specific questions regarding details of the hijacking as the results of investigation in this matter are necessary confidential.
On 11/11/76, [REDACTED] telephonically advised he was in the process of formulating a letter to submit to the USA, Los Angeles setting forth the conditions under which he believes he could cause the screen writer to come forth and submit to interview regarding this matter. At this time [REDACTED] advised he has now
---
- 4 -
DB COOPER-55391
[illegible - two dark circular ink/stamp marks, possibly bleed-through from adjacent page or redaction dots]
---
LA 164-497
---
learned the unidentified writer and the subject allegedly served time together in an unidentified prison.
On 11/15/76, AUSA [redacted] advised SA STRANGER he had been contacted on 11/12/76, by attorney [redacted] [redacted] had indicated during this contact that the unidentified screen writer had allegedly traveled with COOPER through the southern and eastern states in the United States following the hijacking, and had no ties in the central or southern judicial districts in the State of California. AUSA [redacted] advised in his opinion this matter should be handled through the USA, Seattle.
He stated that, prior to being advised that the subject had no ties in this district, he had drafted a letter to be sent to attorney [redacted] AUSA [redacted] states he believes the conditions, under which the screen writer might [guess: might] voluntarily present himself without being subject to prosecution, are set forth in this letter. He is of the opinion the conditions set forth in the letter would be mutually satisfactory to attorney [redacted] client and the Government.
AUSA [redacted] advised he will not submit this letter since the USA, Los Angeles has no jurisdiction, however, he would willingly discuss his views and the contents of the letter with the AUSA, Seattle.
---
LEAD
SEATTLE
AT SEATTLE, WASHINGTON: Discuss the above facts with USA and apprise USA, Seattle of AUSA [redacted] willingness to furnish information from written document he has prepared but not submitted to attorney [redacted]
---
- 5* -
DB COOPER-55392
Serials: LA 164-497, SD 164-91