Document date 27 June 1980AIDates: machine-written — generated by an AI model from the transcripts, and it can be wrong. The scan is the source; the transcript is machine-generated from it.
FBI 164-81, Vault Part 45 p. 118 (DB Cooper-18222), Teletype, dated 27 Jun 1980, serial SE 164-81-8433 (as read from the transcript) — cooper.theunsolved.net/parts/Cooper-Part-45/pages/118
The scan is the source; the transcript is machine-generated from it.
PAGE TWO SE 164-81 UNCLAS
THE REAL HIJACKER. [REDACTED] PLANS TO WRITE A BOOK ON THIS CASE. [REDACTED]
LED THE SEATTLE AND SAN FRANCISCO DIVISIONS TO BELIEVE THAT HE
HAD OBTAINED A COPY OF THE POTENTIAL SUBJECT'S FINGERPRINTS FROM
MICROFILM EMPLOYMENT RECORDS. [REDACTED] WAS TO PROVIDE THESE
FINGERPRINTS TO THE SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ON JUNE 24, 1980.
THE SEATTLE DIVISION IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE BUREAU LEGAL SECTION
HAS AGREED TO NOTIFY [REDACTED] IF THE PRINTS DO NOT MATCH, WITHIN
FIVE WORKING DAYS FOLLOWING THE COMPLETION OF THE FINGERPRINT
COMPARISON. IF THE PRINTS ARE IDENTICAL, THE FBI WILL MAKE
ADDITIONAL CONTACTS WITH [REDACTED] AND HE HAS AGREED TO PROVIDE THE
FBI WITH ALL OF HIS RESEARCH DATA.
BECAUSE OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION, THE SEATTLE DIVISION
REQUESTED THAT THE LATENT FINGERPRINT SECTION OF THE IDENTIFICATION
DIVISION EXPEDITIOUSLY COMPARE THE FINGERPRINTS THAT THE SAN
FRANCISCO DIVISION WAS TO RECEIVE.
---
[REDACTED] APPEARED AT THE SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE ON THE
AFTERNOON OF JUNE 24, 1980. HE EXPLAINED THAT HE DID NOT HAVE
THE FINGERPRINT CARD FOR THE POTENTIAL SUBJECT. HE SAID HE
DETERMINED THAT THIS INDIVIDUAL HAD WORKED FOR A GAMBLING
ESTABLISHMENT IN THE LAKE TAHOE - STATELINE, NEVADA, AREA AND THAT