Latent Fingerprint Section report to SAC Denver re NORJAK specimen examination
Document date 5 March 1973
Report a problem
Email this to [email protected]
Id: Cooper-Part-30:199-200
Subject: Cooper Files: Cooper-Part-30:199-200 Document: Latent Fingerprint Section report to SAC Denver re NORJAK specimen examination Id: Cooper-Part-30:199-200 Page: https://cooper.theunsolved.net/documents/Cooper-Part-30%3A199-200 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 30 pp. 199–200 (DB Cooper-10848–10849), Report, dated 5 Mar 1973 — cooper.theunsolved.net/documents/Cooper-Part-30%3A199-200
1-336 (Rev. 5-24-72) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Washington, D. C. 20537 REPORT of the IDENTIFICATION DIVISION LATENT FINGERPRINT SECTION
YOUR FILE NO. FBI FILE NO. [REDACTED] March 5, 1973 LATENT CASE NO.
TO: SAC, Denver
RE: [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
---
REFERENCE: Airtel 2-21-73 EXAMINATION REQUESTED BY: Denver SPECIMENS: Registration slip, Q1 Carbon copy of registration slip, Q2 Nine restaurant charge slips, Q3 through Q7 and Q10 through Q13 Bar check, Q9 Charge voucher (part of Q10)
Listed Q specimens further described separate Laboratory report.
Specimens examined and latent prints of value developed as follows:
Six fingerprints on Q2 Six fingerprints on charge voucher, portion of Q10 (designated Q10A) (Continued on next page)
---
2 - New Orleans (164-36) 1 - Seattle (164-81)
Enc. (14)
---
[signature] /64[illegible] 81-4493A SEARCHED _____ INDEXED _____ SERIALIZED _____ FILED _____ L. Patrick Gray, III, Acting Director
THIS REPORT IS FURNISHED FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
---
DB Cooper-10848
SAC, Denver March 5, 1973
One fingerprint on Q11
Latent fingerprints are not identical with finger- prints [REDACTED] b6 b7C
Five of the latent fingerprints and a latent impression previously reported in NORJAK case, Bufile #164-2111, Seattle file #164-81, were compared, insofar as possible, with available fingerprints [REDACTED] but no identification effected. Major case prints necessary for complete comparison. Remaining previously reported latent fingerprints in this case are not identical with fingerprints [REDACTED] No palm prints in Identification Division files for [REDACTED]
Specimens enclosed.
---
Page 2 LC [REDACTED]
---
DB Cooper-10849
---
b6 b7C
Serials: 164-2111, 164-36, SE 164-81
Similar documents
Very similar text — possibly a copy redacted differently, or another memo written from the same template.