SAC Atlanta to SAC Seattle re Rome, Georgia composites (file copy)
This copy: Part 43 p. 406Also filed at Part 43 p. 407 (primary) · Part 43 p. 408 · Part 69 p. 180 · Part 76 p. 125
This copy’s own title
SAC Atlanta to SAC Seattle re Rome, Georgia Deputy U.S. Marshal shown Cooper composites
Document date 13 March 1980
Another copy of this document is the primary, most legible copy: Part 43 p. 407.
Copies may differ in what was redacted.
Report a problem
Email this to [email protected]
Id: Cooper-Part-43:406-406
Subject: Cooper Files: Cooper-Part-43:406-406 Document: Memo SAC Atlanta to SAC Seattle re Rome, Georgia Deputy U.S. Marshal shown Cooper composites Id: Cooper-Part-43:406-406 Page: https://cooper.theunsolved.net/documents/Cooper-Part-43%3A406-406 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 43 p. 406 (DB Cooper-17650), Memo, dated 13 Mar 1980 — cooper.theunsolved.net/documents/Cooper-Part-43%3A406-406
SAC, SEATTLE (164-81) 3/13/80
SAC, ATLANTA (164-642) (P) (SQ 2)
[REDACTED] CCA OO: SEATTLE
---
Re Atlanta airtel to Seattle dated 7/23/79; and Seattle airtel to Atlanta 1/22/80.
On 2/1/80, Deputy U.S. Marshal [REDACTED] U.S. Marshal's Service, Rome, Georgia, was provided with composite photographs of subject. [REDACTED] advised that he had not actually seen the individual whom he believed might be identical with subject, but [REDACTED] had met this individual. His only reason for suspecting this individual was that [REDACTED] knew his last name to be [REDACTED] and he lived on a large estate immediately [REDACTED] [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] did not believe him to have any visible means of support. He therefore believed that [REDACTED] money must be illegal, and that was the reason he thought that individual may be identical to subject. He had no substantial information that he was identical to subject, however.
---
After recontacting Deputy [REDACTED] numerous times, on 2/27/80, he advised that he had not had a chance to show the photographs to [REDACTED] and that he himself had still not seen [REDACTED] The photographs were returned by Deputy [REDACTED] at that time.
---
ADMINISTRATIVE
In view of the fact that there is no reason to suspect the individual referred to by [REDACTED] of being identical with subject, other than the fact that he has the name [REDACTED], no further investigation being conducted regarding this particular individual in the Atlanta Division.
---
(2) - Seattle (2) - Atlanta RCL/cer (4)
---
[illegible handwritten notation] -8308 DB Cooper-17650
Serials: AT 164-642, SE 164-81
Similar documents
Very similar text — possibly a copy redacted differently, or another memo written from the same template.