SAC Dallas to Director re Dallas consultant's claims on NORJAK and TWABOM, with observations and leads
Document date 11 December 1973
Also filed at: Part 95 pp. 465–471
Copies may differ in what was redacted.
Also filed separately as sections:
Report a problem
Email this to [email protected]
Id: Cooper-Part-33:102-108
Subject: Cooper Files: Cooper-Part-33:102-108 Document: Airtel SAC Dallas to Director re Dallas consultant's claims on NORJAK and TWABOM, with observations and leads Id: Cooper-Part-33:102-108 Page: https://cooper.theunsolved.net/documents/Cooper-Part-33%3A102-108 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 33 pp. 102–108 (DB Cooper-12202–12208), Airtel, dated 11 Dec 1973, serial SE 164-81-5095 (as read from the transcript) — cooper.theunsolved.net/documents/Cooper-Part-33%3A102-108
FD-36 (Rev. 5-22-64)
FBI
Date: 12/11/73
Transmit the following in ___________ (Type in plaintext or code)
Via __ AIRTEL __________ (Priority)
-------------------------------------------
---
TO: DIRECTOR, FBI
FROM: SAC, DALLAS [REDACTED] (P)
TWABOM
NORJAK
Re Bureau airtel to Dallas dated 11/21/73.
On 12/6/73, [REDACTED] with offices at 713 Noel Page Building, Dallas, Texas, was interviewed by Special Agents [REDACTED] [REDACTED] along the guidelines set forth in the above referenced airtel.
[REDACTED] advised that he has interviewed [REDACTED] on two occasions since the [REDACTED] aircraft hijacking attempt on 8/18/72. [REDACTED] was not specific as to his interview dates, but indicated that he had [REDACTED] [REDACTED] in Seattle, Washington sometime after 8/18/72.
---
4 - Bureau 2 - New York [REDACTED] (TWABOM) 2/- Seattle (164-81) (NORJAK) 2 - Portland [REDACTED] 5 - Dallas (1 - 164-191) (NORJAK)
UHS:gg (15)
---
164-81 - 5095 SEARCHED __ INDEXED __ SERIALIZED __ FILED __ DEC 1 4 1973
---
Approved: __________ Sent __________ M Per __________ Special Agent in Charge U.S.Government Printing Office: 19-- DB Cooper-12202
[REDACTED]
---
[REDACTED] stated that [REDACTED] made no direct admissions to him as to any other crimes [REDACTED] might have committed and made no specific admissions as to any involvement in NORJAK or TWABOM or any other CAA or DAMV related crimes other than [REDACTED] aborted hijacking attempt of 8/18/72. [REDACTED] stated that it is his studied opinion that [REDACTED] is responsible for the extortionate letter demands to 7 or 8 airlines in Portland, Oregon during January, 1972. Dallas files reflect that [REDACTED] is referring to the case captioned "UNSUB; aka [REDACTED]"
---
[REDACTED] further advised that [REDACTED] and he, therefore, believes that [REDACTED] could have been responsible for NORJAK and TWABOM. [REDACTED] furnished the following information in trying to establish his theory:
---
BACKGROUND AND CHARACTERISTICS OF [REDACTED]
---
1. [REDACTED] 2. [REDACTED] 3. [REDACTED] 4. [REDACTED] 5. [REDACTED] 6. [REDACTED] 7. [REDACTED] 8. [REDACTED] 9. [REDACTED]
---
DB Cooper-12203
[REDACTED] b6 b7C 10. [REDACTED] 11. [REDACTED] 12. [REDACTED] 13. [REDACTED] 14. [REDACTED] 15. [REDACTED] 16. [REDACTED] 17. [REDACTED] 18. [REDACTED]
---
[REDACTED] advised that in reference to the "UNSUB; aka, [REDACTED] case that he would stake his professional reputation on the fact that [REDACTED] was responsible [REDACTED] [REDACTED] He advised that he has had an opportunity to study copies of these letters, made available to him by the airlines, and has made the following observations on the writer of these letters:
---
1. [REDACTED] 2. [REDACTED] 3. [REDACTED] 4. [REDACTED]
---
3 DB Cooper-12204
[REDACTED]
5. [REDACTED]
6. [REDACTED]
7. [REDACTED]
[REDACTED] advised that [REDACTED] had the same [REDACTED] [REDACTED] as in the above case and in [REDACTED] he also used the terms [REDACTED] [REDACTED] feels that the above facts have to be more than a coincidence.
---
[REDACTED] advised that in reference to the TWA aircraft bombing in Las Vegas, Nevada on 3/8/72, he has made the following observations concerning the individual or in- dividuals responsible for same:
1. [REDACTED]
2. [REDACTED]
3. [REDACTED]
4. [REDACTED]
5. [REDACTED]
---
4
DB Cooper-12205
[REDACTED] stated that in view of the above, the individual responsible for TWABOM had the same [REDACTED] [REDACTED] and it could, therefore, be possible that [REDACTED] could have been responsible for same. [REDACTED] feels that [REDACTED] also had the mobility during this period of time a and also probably had access [REDACTED]
---
[REDACTED] stated that he has not had access to a copy of the TWABOM [REDACTED] and without being able to review that note, he cannot make any additional observations as to whether or not [REDACTED] might have been responsible for pre- paring same.
---
[REDACTED] made the following observations con- cerning NORJAK. He advised that [REDACTED] again would have had [REDACTED] to pull that hijacking off. He feels that [REDACTED] is highly familiar with the area where COOPER might have jumped which could have been in the vicinity of Stateline, Nevada. He advised that [REDACTED] could have dressed and acted in a conservative manner which would have been con- sistent with [REDACTED] earlier [REDACTED] He advised that [REDACTED] and claims he has certain [REDACTED] (not further detailed) which may be similar to COOPER. [REDACTED] also feels that there is a high similarity between [REDACTED] behavior and COOPER's in that COOPER showed the flight attendant an alleged explosive device which is the [REDACTED] [REDACTED] also pointed out that [REDACTED] in his demand note and that this same special vehicle request was also present in NORJAK (parachute - special vehicle) and [REDACTED] this case had a description of a special vehicle).
---
[REDACTED] advised that during his [REDACTED] [REDACTED] he tried to [REDACTED] which might tie him into NORJAK. [REDACTED] became very [REDACTED] over this line of questioning and [REDACTED] advised that he was informed by jail personnel that approximately 10 minutes after he finished [REDACTED] was quite agitated and requested to telephonically contact [REDACTED] [REDACTED] by jail personnel as saying
[REDACTED] feels this is unusual con- duct for [REDACTED] unless he was perhaps involved in NORJAK.
---
DB Cooper-12206
OBSERVATION
[REDACTED] was friendly and courteous to the interviewing Agents. [REDACTED] and his relationship to NORJAK, TWABOM [REDACTED] was not that well organized and lacked professional specificity. The interviewing Agents felt he was attempting to prove a "pet" theory and only used convenient facts to attempt to estab- lish his theory. [REDACTED] made available no transcripts or original tapes of his interview with [REDACTED] and was re- lating to facts off the [REDACTED] Throughout the interview, [REDACTED] made comments that he would like to con- tinually be cooperative to the Bureau and that the Bureau had a definite need for a man of his background in cases of this type. [REDACTED] said he would make his services available as a paid consultant. He advised that to some extent, he [REDACTED] could make information available that he has compiled on [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] outside of medical or legal channels. [REDACTED] stated that he feels that he would not be violating [REDACTED] in making this information available as he could make strip tapes from his original tapes without identitying [REDACTED] These tapes could then be [REDACTED]
---
[REDACTED] TWABOM, NORJAK [REDACTED] he [REDACTED] TWABOM case and any other transcriptions of pertinent conversation that might have taken place in those cases between the unsubs and the airlines or law enforcement personnel.
---
RECOMMENDATION
Dallas does not recommend that [REDACTED] be utilized as a paid consultant in the capacity as outlined above and it leaves to the Bureau the determination as to whether or not any information should be disseminated to [REDACTED] concerning past aircraft hijackers and related crimes. It should be noted that [REDACTED] appears to be presently cooperative with the Bureau and it might not be in the best interest of the Bureau to alienate or ignore him when perhaps a limited dissemination of information desired by him can be beneficial to the Bureau in view of his continuing research in this [REDACTED]
---
DB Cooper-12207
---
6
[REDACTED]
---
LEADS
---
The FBI Laboratory is requested to compare [REDACTED] case with the demand letters in the case cap- tioned UNSUB; aka, [REDACTED] Portland, Oregon," [REDACTED] to determine if prepared on the same typewriter or the same paper.
---
The FBI Laboratory is also requested to compare the demand note in case captioned, [REDACTED] with the handwriting in [REDACTED] in the case captioned, "UNSUB; aka, [REDACTED] etc.," Bufile [REDACTED] to determine if identical or if written on the same paper.
---
The FBI Identification Division, Latent Fingerprint Section, is requested to compare the fingerprints on file of [REDACTED] with the latent fingerprints developed on the demand letter in the [REDACTED] case and the case captioned, [REDACTED] to deter- mine if identical.
---
The FBI Identification Division, Latent Fingerprint Section, is also requested to compare the fingerprints on file of [REDACTED] with any latents that might have been developed in the NORJAK case to determine if identical.
---
7
DB Cooper-12208
---
b6 b7C
Serials: DL 164-191, SE 164-81, SE 164-81-5095