ASAC Bibler re ten agents approved from Butte, Portland, Sacramento, San Francisco

Document date 9 March 1972

Part 64page 2371 pageDB Cooper-27083

Open in FBI Vault (Part 64, page 237 of the PDF)
Report a problem

Email this to [email protected]

Id: Cooper-Part-64:237-237

Subject: Cooper Files: Cooper-Part-64:237-237

Document: Memo ASAC Bibler re ten agents approved from Butte, Portland, Sacramento, San Francisco
Id: Cooper-Part-64:237-237
Page: https://cooper.theunsolved.net/documents/Cooper-Part-64%3A237-237

What is wrong (title, date, type, which pages belong together, copies)?


What does the scan show?

Open in email app

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 64 p. 237 (DB Cooper-27083), Memo, dated 9 Mar 1972, serial SE 164-81-24108 (as read from the transcript) — cooper.theunsolved.net/documents/Cooper-Part-64%3A237-237

SAC, SEATTLE (164-81) 3/9/72

ASAC PAUL R. BIBLER

NORJAK

[REDACTED] from [REDACTED] office called with reference to your teletype of 3/8/72. The 10 agents you requested have been approved and Butte will furnish 2, Portland 4, Sacramento 2, San Francisco 2.

They were instructed to be at the Longview Resident Agency by 6:00 P.M. on the 14th, pursuant to our teletype. If there is any change at all, we will have to get in touch with those offices and advise them.

---

PRB:eon (2) On 3/9/72 ASAC BIBLER advised ASAC McCARTHY in butte and on 3/10/72 I advised SAC MATTSON in Portland, GEBHART in San Francisco and WILLIAMS in Sacramento, that the agents should not necessarily report on the 14th, but that they should await a call from us, telling them specifically what date they should report and to what point they should report.

---

[signature] Sub. E. 164-81 - 24108 SEARCHED_____ INDEXED SERIALIZED /771 FILED /77 MAR 8 1972 FBI — SEATTLE [initials]

---

DB Cooper-27083

Serials: SE 164-81, SE 164-81-24108

Similar documents

Very similar text — possibly a copy redacted differently, or another memo written from the same template.