[104-10332-10009.pdf — page 50]
530▸ of the factors I had to consider in connectionted it, and I will continue to accept it until somevidence, not opinion...gs that Nosenko states is that the KGB neverThey didn't interview Oswald when Oswald stateey didn't interview Oswald when they decidedd sent him to Minsk.your knowledge of Nosenko, based on your knowld on your knowledge of KGB procedures and tech› credible when he says they never interviewedwhat is meant by interview, a formal interviewKGB headquarters, if that is what is meantring to is a KGB officer speaking face to face withg himself as a KGB officer, but speaking to himchooses, Nosenko says that never happened. Mynis credible?best of his knowledge, I will have to-I willccept that?ppen.the KGB didn't have a large book on him.er done to check out the feasibility of statementsxing to see what the experiences of other defectorsdebriefed by KGB officers? Was that ever done,individual had been interviewed for some otherthe Oswald case because the Oswald investigationsome who were in Russia in a proximate perioded, it is very possible. You would almost have toeriod of time because the international situationhe comparison should be within the approximatehow many lie detector tests, to your knowledge?y or all of these tests to have been valid?test to be a completely valid test; that is, theou be in actual discussion concerning the poly-se from our office because I am not an operator.nd I will only confine myself to questions relat-lie detector information into your report.onsider them to be valid, is that correct?1ly to not be valid, to be completely invalid.ay that Lee Harvey Oswald was a minor aspectbona fides?acterize the Oswald aspect?art to be considered.: it received the full consideration and theLee Harvey Oswald aspect?us amount of investigation done in 1964.en that Nosenko was not truthful in his rela-arvey Oswald, would that be significant as tois bona fide?I would have to consider.sible that he could be lying about Oswald ande was lying about Oswald.he was lying about Oswald, do you think thatwhether he was bona fide?531## IV. EXCERPTS OF DEPOSITION OF DAVID MURPHY BEFORE THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS ON AUGUST 9, 1978### INTRODUCTIONHaving heard from Nosenko and from an intelligence officer who believed him to be bona fide, the committee spoke to the CIA official who had overall responsibility for the interrogation of Nosenko during the years 1964-67, when Nosenko was kept in solitary confinement. Among other things, he was asked about the reason Nosenko was placed in solitary confinement, about why he questioned Nosenko's credibility, and about Nosenko's charge that his statements to the Agency were inaccurate because he had been drugged by the Agency. Portions of that transcript follow.## EXCERPTS OF DEPOSITION OF DAVID MURPHY BEFORE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS ON AUGUST 9, 1978Mr. KLEIN. When Nosenko defected in 1964, when he came to the United States, was he in the custody of the Central Intelligence Agency at that time?Mr. MURPHY. I don't want to be cute by saying I believe so. I am not exactly sure of the legal-I mean what his legal status was. Insofar as physical facts, he was in the custody of the IC..Mr. KLEIN. What division or unit of the Central Intelligence Agency had primary responsibility for Nosenko?Mr. MURPHY. The Soviet Russian Division.Mr. KLEIN. Of which you were the Chief?Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir.Mr. KLEIN. And what year did you leave the Soviet Russia Division?Mr. MURPHY. Beginning in 1968.Mr. KLEIN. And up until what year did the Soviet Russia Division have primary responsibility for Nosenko?Mr. MURPHY. I don't recall the exact time but it was certainly up until the spring of 1967.Mr. KLEIN. The investigation by Bruce Solie began at the end of 1967. At that time did the control or responsibility over Nosenko change from the Soviet Russia Division to another division?Mr. MURPHY. My recollection is that it changed in the spring or early summer of 1967 and the responsibility was turned over to the Office of Security of which Solie was a member.Mr. KLEIN. As Chief of the Soviet Russia Division, did you have the primary responsibility for what happened to Nosenko? And when I say happened, where he was kept, what he was asked?Mr. MURPHY. I was responsible for the case.Mr. KLEIN. ΟΚ.Mr. MURPHY. Although the case was handled by one of the groups within the Division.Mr. KLEIN. But they would report to you?Mr. MURPHY. Yes.* * *Mr. KLEIN. There came a time in 1964, April 4, I believe, when the treatment received by Nosenko greatly changed in that hostile interrogations began, is that correct?Mr. MURPHY. I am not sure I agree with the formulation of the question.Mr. KLEIN. Well, elaborate.Mr. MURPHY. No; the previous pattern of voluntary discussion of issues under consideration changed and Nosenko was not permitted to evade questions or to decide when he would or would not want to respond.Mr. KLEIN. Could you describe for us what the pattern was before, as far as conditions and how it was changed?