To SAC Seattle re Marion, Iowa source suggesting NORJAK suspect

Document date 27 May 1992

Part 69page 601 pageDB Cooper-29346

Part of: To SAC Seattle re NORJAK suspect, no further leads · 27 May 1992 · Part 50 pp. 218–219

Open in FBI Vault (Part 69, page 60 of the PDF)
Report a problem

Email this to [email protected]

Id: Cooper-Part-69:060-060

Subject: Cooper Files: Cooper-Part-69:060-060

Document: Memo to SAC Seattle re Marion, Iowa source suggesting NORJAK suspect
Id: Cooper-Part-69:060-060
Page: https://cooper.theunsolved.net/documents/Cooper-Part-69%3A060-060

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 69 p. 60 (DB Cooper-29346), Memo, dated 27 May 1992 — cooper.theunsolved.net/documents/Cooper-Part-69%3A060-060

Memorandum

To : SAC, SEATTLE (SE 164A-81) (P) Date 5/27/92

From : SA [REDACTED]

Subject: NORJAK OO: SEATTLE

---

ARMED AND DANGEROUS

Re Sub: J. (miscellaneous persons); Denver's airtel to Omaha, dated 11/20/91; and Omaha's airtel to Seattle, dated 1/21/92.

[REDACTED] suggested that an individual known to her as [REDACTED] who lived in Marion, Iowa, might be identical to the unknown subject (UNSUB) in this matter. She stated she met [REDACTED] through an [REDACTED], and he was [REDACTED]. On one occasion, [REDACTED] recalls seeing a [REDACTED] [REDACTED]. When [REDACTED] asked, [REDACTED] he replied, [REDACTED]

[REDACTED] furnished no other information which would indicate that [REDACTED] might be identical with the UNSUB, but it was a feeling that she had.

The Omaha Division advised by airtel, dated 1/21/92, that contact was made with [REDACTED] in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. [REDACTED] advised she was mistaken about [REDACTED]. She had looked through a city directory and found the name [REDACTED] and she thought this person was identical to a [REDACTED]; as it turns out, she later met [REDACTED] and realized he was not the same person known to her as [REDACTED]. She further advised she [REDACTED] [REDACTED], and she believes she will see him again in April or May, at which time she will contact the Omaha Office to furnish further information which may lend credence to the fact that she believes [REDACTED] is identical with the UNSUB in this matter.

---

2 - Seattle (SE 164A-81) (2)

---

SUBJ [illegible]A-81-9153 SEARCHED SERIALIZED MAY 2 7 1992 SEATTLE

---

DB Cooper-29346

Serials: SE 164-81