[104-10211-10001.pdf — page 159]
760,suppress unpleasant memories and would have no real appreciation of or respect for an "objective truth." His reporting, like his perception and his memory, might therefore seem distorted. He right recount events according to his mood of the moment. Thus, for example, if real attachments to family or friends is impossible for a psychopath, there woul be an explanation as to why NOSENKO cannot easily remember his childrens' birthdays, why in 1962 (or 1965) he appears to have lied--or been indifferent to the truth--about his older daughter's schooling, and why he cannot recall when he first married. In theory this hypothesis can explain any aberration, since it involves the unknowable. In its most extreme form, by describing NOSENKO as one unable to discriminate between fact and fancy, it would encompass and explain away the facts that his story is obviously untrue and contradictory in major ways; that his account of his personal and professional life and his rendition of the information he knows are so vague and unsubstantial; that he cannot (and/or does not care to) remender or recount how he did the things he did. Most important, it woula dismiss any conclusions based on NOSENKO's testimony since nothing NOSENKO said could be taken seriously. This hypothesis, however, is unsupportable because of several factors.First, NOSENKO claims--and other sources confirm--that he quickly rose to high supervisory responsibility in a counterintelligence organization which is known to require attention to detail. He would have risen in the KGB while overcoming the black marks in his file: scandal, indiscipline, negative background factors, and bad Party record. NOSENKO admits that his performance was not good; he was inattentive and inactive and almost none of his operational activity was carried out unaccompanied. That his rise resulted from his father's influence or GRIBANOV's is untenable, for his father died in 1956 and GRIBANOV's patronage (itself open to the strongest doubt) would not and could not be dispensed upon such a mental case. Mental aberration to the degree which would explain his poor performance under CIA interrogation would necessarily have hindered his performance of KGB duties, denied him special privileges, and and hence cost him the career which NOSENKO has claimed for himself.A second factor negating this hypothesis of a psychopathic personality is that such a person could be induced to recall certain details with the help of discussion, questioning, and reminders, whereas NOSENKO's vague and hazy reports seem to represent the absolute limits of his memory or knowledge. Years of questioning have not succeeded in dredging up any new details or incidents. Even when reminded, he could not recall, for example, one of KOSOLAPOV'S TDYs to Helsinki, the details of the seizure of electronic equipment from the U.S. Army Attaches at Stalingrad, the correct date of GOLITSYN's defection, or the presence of KHRUSHCHEV in Moscow at the time of the decision to arrest BARGHOORN.Another factor is the impossibility of applying this hypothesis to the totality of NOSENKO's reporting. If the hypothesis holds that some things are important to him and others are not, and that he therefore remembers the former and forgets the latter, it is refuted by the inability toTOP SECRET