[104-10332-10009.pdf — page 52]
13-00000532before was one of pretty much permitting words, we wanted his cooperation and we reasonable manner, but his preference was ng, to want to go out socially all the time, o continue to work. And the most important e decision to confront him with inconsisten- id and passing it on.lay living conditions, were they changed? rmitted to leave. He was not permitted to-to-day treatment, not the actual interroga- recreation, was that changed at that time? that early. I don't remember that.* * *is it correct that Nosenko was interrogated ision?ular subareas on which he was interrogated.know. Subject areas? This is a guess, this is n was made based on what the CIA people to get an admission and to break on that. on points that they had collateral on. By aid what this man is saying is not the truth and, therefore, let us hit him hard on this, vere tactical considerations relating to pos- of the interrogators which then offered the et the truth.normally the case, gives you other break- ts to be interrogated was essentially a fac-that after April 4 the subject areas were him, to break him, as opposed to a desire use to you in your role as an intelligence the operation.impression. The answer is yes because by at the man was not telling the truth, that wn to be untrue and that, therefore, made or his behavior and his statements were id not appear to make sense to accept as is you could be sure that that data was in doubts about this, leaving aside the moti- e way in which he presented it, that the able.* * *ubstance of what Nosenko had to say aboutmean, when he first said it back in Februarystance of it?ing I said would be polluted by so much ist of the message was that Oswald was ence Services, that he was never debriefed ecause I was personally involved in the eally pin it down.sent by Nosenko?believe that it would be possible for the mained indifferent to the arrival in 1959 perator who had served at what was an it to be strange. It was only later, I think, er ramifications began to emerge that it me even more unusual.eems to me almost to have been tacked on dn't seem to be part of the real body of:533the other things that he had to say, many of which were true. You understand that Nosenko was much of what he said was true.Mr. KLEIN. You are talking about other areas?Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir. This one seemed to be tacked on and didn't have much relationship, and it seemed to be so totally dependent on not just one coincidence but a whole series of coincidences, for him to have been there and all that sort of thing. That is what I mean.* * *Mr. KLEIN. Do you recall any other specifics about what you could not accept in Nosenko's statements about Oswald?Mr. MURPHY. Yes, that they just this is part of the first one-no contact was ever made, that he went up to Minsk and lived happily and well with no contact. The Soviet Union with foreigners don't do that. I mean, he is the only person. Read the accounts of what happened to this poor gentleman, what happened to Jay Crawford in Moscow and their intensive debriefing of him on the layout of the American Embassy. It didn't seem to be possible.Now, again, that does not constitute proof, doesn't constitute any breakthrough. It seemed to me to be strange.Mr. KLEIN. Would you distinguish between first the fact that nobody debriefed Oswald when he first came to the Soviet Union, nobody tried to find out what he knew as a marine, as a radar operator, and, second, the fact that once they decided to allow him to stay, nobody debriefed him to find out if he was some kind of a Western security agent or working for OIA?Mr. MURPHY. Yes, they would be two different points. The first point clearly involves the KGB and GRU. This is simply a chap arriving with this background and no one taking the time just from a military intelligence technical point of view, telling us how it worked when this thing came in at 90,000 feet what did the blips look like. I don't think they had many American radar operators handling operational traffic involving U-2's.Mr. KLEIN. How would you react to a statement by Nosenko that although the KGB knew Oswald was a marine, they did not bother to question him, and because of that, never knew that he was a radar operator or that he worked at the base from which the U-2's took off and landed?Mr. MURPHY. I think it would be strange.My other point, going back to your first question, that is, the first aspect of your question, which is the initial arrival and lack of debriefing. There is no indication here that the GRU was advised, which in the case of a defector, there is no operational interest in a defector. GRU would be properly the out- fit that would want to be talking to any marine. They will talk to a marine about close order drill. You follow me? It doesn't require that he be known to have been a radar operator or that he be known to have been a-they would talk to him about his military affiliation just as we would.I realize that there is a body of thought which says that some people think the Soviets are 10-foot tall. I don't believe they are. I think they are very, very, very much the other way. What I find difficult on the part of many Ameri- cans is that they will not ascribe to the Soviets the same elemental competence that we have. That is all I ask. And, therefore, we in Germany will talk to a private in the East German Border Guards, period. The GRU would be interested in talking to a private. He was a corporal in the Marine Corps, who had stated to a consul in a consular office, which is manned by the Soviets, Soviet locals and what have you, fully accessible to the Soviets, unlike the higher floors of the Embassy, that he wanted to talk about his experiences, that he wanted to tell all. I guess I found it difficult to believe this is one of the things that made, or many other aspects of the case, but this is one of the things that created an atmosphere of disbelief that there must be something to this case that is important, vitally important to the Soviet Union and we can't understand it.Yuri may be right, he may be right, but at the time it was very hard to believe.* * *Mr. KLEIN. And on the basis of your experience and knowledge gained over almost 30 years, is that what is giving you trouble with Nosenko's statements about Oswald?Mr. MURPHY. And other things.Mr. KLEIN. Do you know of comparable situations where somebody wasn't questioned like this, was just left alone, as Nosenko says Oswald was?