SAC Omaha to SAC Seattle re NORJAK, Cedar Rapids source on Bernard Cooper
This copy: Part 50 pp. 51–52Also filed at Part 106 pp. 134–135 (primary) · Part 69 pp. 90–91
This copy’s own title
SAC Omaha to SAC Seattle re NORJAK, source contacted at Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Document date 21 January 1992
Another copy of this document is the primary, most legible copy: Part 106 pp. 134–135.
Copies may differ in what was redacted.
Report a problem
Email this to [email protected]
Id: Cooper-Part-50:051-052
Subject: Cooper Files: Cooper-Part-50:051-052 Document: Airtel SAC Omaha to SAC Seattle re NORJAK, source contacted at Cedar Rapids, Iowa Id: Cooper-Part-50:051-052 Page: https://cooper.theunsolved.net/documents/Cooper-Part-50%3A051-052 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 50 pp. 51–52 (DB Cooper-20646–20647), Airtel, dated 21 Jan 1992, serial 164A-SE-81 (as read from the transcript) — cooper.theunsolved.net/documents/Cooper-Part-50%3A051-052
FD-36 (Rev. 11-17-88)
FBI
TRANSMIT VIA: PRECEDENCE: CLASSIFICATION: ☐ Teletype ☐ Immediate ☐ TOP SECRET ☐ Facsimile ☐ Priority ☐ SECRET ☒ AIRTEL ☐ Routine ☐ CONFIDENTIAL ☐ UNCLAS E F T O ☐ UNCLAS
Date 1/21/92
---
TO : SAC, SEATTLE
FROM : SAC, OMAHA (164A-SE-81) (RUC)
SUBJECT : NORJAK OO: SEATTLE
Re Denver airtel to Omaha dated 11/20/91.
On 1/7/92, contact was made with [REDACTED] b6 (Protect Identity), [REDACTED] b7C Cedar Rapids, Iowa, telephone number [REDACTED] in b7D connection with possible knowledge of D. B. COOPER. [REDACTED] thought an individual known to her as [REDACTED] of Cedar Rapids was D. B. COOPER.
Upon talking with [REDACTED] it was learned that she b6 knew an individual named [REDACTED] whom she met through [REDACTED] [REDACTED] advised that [REDACTED] had always b7D said he lived in the Council Bluffs area but [guess: unknown] exactly where. [REDACTED] on a wild hunch, checked the Cedar Rapids directories and came up with [REDACTED] and thought [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] were one and the same. [REDACTED] never bothered to check any further to see if the [REDACTED] even resembled each other.
After [REDACTED] initially reported the information to b6 Denver, and before investigating Agent contacted her, she b7C happened to see [REDACTED] and realized he was not the b7D same person known to her as [REDACTED]
---
(2) - Seattle 2 - Omaha SJH:so (4)
---
164IA-SE-81-900 SEARCHED......INDEXED [illegible] SERIALIZED [illegible] FILED [illegible] JAN 3 4 1992
---
Approved: [signature] Transmitted ____________ (Number) (Time)
DB Cooper-20646
164A-SE-81
---
[REDACTED] advised that she [REDACTED] [REDACTED] advised that she believed she will see him again in April or May, as [REDACTED] advised that she will advise FBI when she sees [REDACTED] again.
---
Due to [REDACTED] mistaken information as first reported, [REDACTED] will not be contacted since [REDACTED] freely admits that he is not the correct individual.
---
Since no further investigation is needed in the Omaha Division at this time, this matter is being placed in RUC status.
---
2* DB Cooper-20647
---
b6 b7C b7D
Serials: 164A-SE-81, 164A-SE-81-900
Similar documents
Very similar text — possibly a copy redacted differently, or another memo written from the same template.