ADIC Los Angeles to SAC Seattle re NORJAK prosecutive discussion
Document date 15 November 1976
Part of: ADIC Los Angeles to SAC Seattle re screenwriter's NORJAK claims and immunity request
Also filed separately as sections:
Report a problem
Email this to [email protected]
Id: Cooper-Part-61:254-255
Subject: Cooper Files: Cooper-Part-61:254-255 Document: Airtel ADIC Los Angeles to SAC Seattle re NORJAK prosecutive discussion Id: Cooper-Part-61:254-255 Page: https://cooper.theunsolved.net/documents/Cooper-Part-61%3A254-255 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 61 pp. 254–255 (DB Cooper-25459–25460), Airtel, dated 15 Nov 1976 — cooper.theunsolved.net/documents/Cooper-Part-61%3A254-255
FD-36 (Rev. 2-14-74)
FBI
Date: 11/15/76
Transmit the following in ___________ (Type in plaintext or code)
AIRTEL AIR MAIL Via ___________ (Precedence)
-----------------------------------------------------
---
TO: SAC, SEATTLE (164-91)
FROM: ADIC, LOS ANGELES (164-497) (P)
RE: NORJAK OO: Seattle
---
On 11/5/76, [REDACTED] Encino Law Center, Penthouse 1, 15915 Ventura Boulevard, Encino, California, telephone [REDACTED] telephonically contacted the Los Angeles Office of the FBI and related as follows:
He represents a client who is [REDACTED] [REDACTED] affiliated with a motion picture studio preparing a motion picture to be released in the near future. [REDACTED] made reference to a hypothetical situation concerning a crime which occurred about five years ago, was very newsworthy, and on which the Statute of Limitations would run in about three weeks. He stated his client was concerned with the criminal liability of himself, the studio, and [REDACTED]
[REDACTED] alleges the story is based on conversations which [REDACTED] with the perpetrator of the crime after the crime was committed. [REDACTED] stated he did not know the validity of the information furnished to him by his client, [REDACTED] who has asked that he, [REDACTED] attempt to obtain some type of written immunization to protect himself, the studio, and [REDACTED] [REDACTED] from prosecution upon release of the motion picture. [REDACTED] stated he believes [REDACTED] [REDACTED] would voluntarily come forth, identify himself,
---
SEARCHED ___ INDEXED ___ SERIALIZED ___ FILED ___
DB Cooper-25459
LA 164-497
---
and submit to interview if such immunization were received. During this contact [REDACTED] stated he was not, at this time, at liberty to discuss details, names, or places but realized specific data would have to be made available if the United States Attorney (USA) was to arrive at a prosecutive opinion concerning the criminal liability of those associated with the production.
---
On 11/9/76, [REDACTED] telephonically contacted the Los Angeles Office and was advised by SA [REDACTED] that this matter had been discussed with Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) [REDACTED] Los Angeles, and AUSA [REDACTED] said he could grant no form of written immunization to Federal prosecution based on a set of hypothetical facts, however, he would be quite willing to discuss specific details with [REDACTED] At this time [REDACTED] stated he now understands the hijacker, who used the name of COOPER while committing the crime allegedly [REDACTED] for some period of time about [REDACTED] and they resided out of the State of California. COOPER then reportedly left and according to the information being furnished him by his client, [REDACTED] COOPER may now be dead.
---
He said that his sole concern in this matter is protection of his client, the studio, and [REDACTED] against Federal prosecution for harboring, accessory after the fact, or misprision of a felony. He felt the only way to insure this is to have some written document from the Government assuring they will not be subject to Federal prosecution if the screen writer voluntarily comes forth and relates details concerning his alleged association with COOPER. He understood the facts as presented to him indicated [REDACTED] only association with COOPER took place after the crime was committed, during which time the facts of the crime were related to [REDACTED]
---
On the afternoon of 11/9/76, [REDACTED] telephonically contacted the Los Angeles Office and advised his client has now indicated the following
---
- 2 - DB Cooper-25460
Serials: LA 164-497, SD 164-91