SAC Minneapolis re stewardess critiques of composite sketch B, with Denver lead
Document date 2 October 1972
Report a problem
Email this to [email protected]
Id: Cooper-Part-28:167-168
Subject: Cooper Files: Cooper-Part-28:167-168 Document: Airtel SAC Minneapolis re stewardess critiques of composite sketch B, with Denver lead Id: Cooper-Part-28:167-168 Page: https://cooper.theunsolved.net/documents/Cooper-Part-28%3A167-168 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 28 pp. 167–168 (DB Cooper-9700–9701), Airtel, dated 2 Oct 1972 — cooper.theunsolved.net/documents/Cooper-Part-28%3A167-168
10/2/72
---
u3 K SU2 Z
---
AIRTEL
TO: ACTING DIRECTOR, FBI (164-2111) ATTENTION: GENERAL INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION
FROM: SAC, MINNEAPOLIS (164-73) (P)
SUBJECT: NORJAK
Re Seattle airtel to Minneapolis, 9/26/72; Minneapolis teletype to Denver, 9/29/72.
Northwest Airlines stewardesses [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] interviewed at Minneapolis and displayed new artist's conception sketch B. Northwest Airlines stewardesses [REDACTED] Northwest Air- lines and [REDACTED] [REDACTED] Denver, Colorado.
After being shown artist's conception B, stewardess [REDACTED] advised that she considered it to be an excellent likeness of the [guess: Unsub] and a very positive improvement over the previous artist's conception. She pointed out that she observed the [guess: Unsub] only with his sunglasses on, and therefore, could make no comment concerning the sketch, which did not display the [guess: Unsub] without the colored glasses. In general,
---
2 - Bureau 2 - Denver (164-60) 2 - Portland (164-41) (3)- Seattle (164-81) 2 - Minneapolis RRG:cmk (10)
---
164-81 - 3969 SEARCHED......... INDEXED......... SERIALIZED...1.2... FILED...2... OCT 5 1972 FBI — SEATTLE
---
DB Cooper-9700
---
b6 b7C
MP 164-72
---
she stated that sketch B appeared to be a likeness of an individual who was coarse and a hoodlum-type, which she did not consider the [illegible] to be. She stated that he was more refine in appearance than sketch B indicates. He did not appear to be as tough and rugged as sketch B indicates. [REDACTED] continued, stating that the nose on sketch B is too rugged and heavy, and she would consider his nose to appear like something "in between" the nose drawn on the early artist's conception and sketch B. She further stated that at this time she was not certain that the upper lip turned down at the corner as portrayed in sketch B. She concluded by stating in general sketch B was an excellent likeness.
---
[REDACTED] was interviewed and advised as follows:
---
She pointed out that during her contact with the [guess: subject], he for the most part was seated on her side so that she saw only his profile. She never [guess: observed] him from straight ahead, and most of the time he was whispering in her ear, and therefore, she was not in a good position to observe his facial features in great detail. She admitted that because of the time lapse, she is getting somewhat foggy in recalling his exact appearance and has looked at the artist's conception so often she feels she is influenced somewhat by this. After observing the new sketch B, she stated that she likes the original artist's conception better as being a good resemblance to the [illegible]. She felt that artist's conception B definitely was not a good similarity to the [illegible]. She felt that artist's conception B was not "him" and his appearance was [guess: lost] completely in the sketch without the [guess: completeness]. In particular, she noted that the hairline on sketch B was incorrect, and that she pre- ferred the hairline on the original artist's conception. She stated on the original artist's conception it would be identical
---
b6 b7C
---
- 2 - DB Cooper-9701
Serials: 164-2111, LV 164-60, MP 164-72, MP 164-73, PD 164-41, SE 164-81