SUBJECT: and with no real relevance to any national issue, seriously erodes this Agency’s credibility and undermines our Resettlement Program. / 55157 DoclId: 32404522 Page 34 —
HW 55157 e@ Chairman Tunheim's proposal to advance the opening date of t CL BY: 611637 cl REASON: Section 1.56 7 DECt OW: XI _BRV FRM: Loc 582,’ . 5 November 1997 MEMORANDUM FOR: John Pereira@DCL = Fred Wickham @00 .~ \ ee Stricklan A” | Lee Strickland @ DA” Kathryn Dyer @ DCI ) OCI FROM: , J. Barry Harrelson JFK Project Officer OFFICE: CSIHRG SUBJECT: 17 November JEK Board Meeting~ CIA issues (update) REFERENCE: 1. The following CIA items are on the agen for the'17 November ARRB meeting: e (8) Reconsideration of the release aL fra as the location of the ci Record Center. In addition to written evidence being prepared by DA, the Agency has been offered the opportunity to bret the Board. t (Not Believed Relevant material from the 2017 per the JFK Act to the year 2010. H : The ARRB staff disagrees with the Board on this issue and will recommend that the release date remain 2017. However, they are not confident that the Board will accept their recommendation and has requested the Agency's position on the 2010 date. If the Agency opposes the 2010 change in the date, | will need a memo from the DO explaining why. We could offer a compromise--accept the 2010 date provided the Agency has the same right i in 2010 as 2017 to review and appeal the release of the records. | have ask OGC for a legal opinion. Please note that this decision affects only those documents designated "NBR" by ARRB. The documents declared to be Assassination Records (AR) will be re-reviewed and released, either sanitized or in full, during t the coming year. @ — {8} Proposed release of reference to CIA employee being wef id We have provided written evidence (DO note cornatedl_——Iod cof According to the ARRB staff, some Board members consider CIA use off __ hs an “open secret" and are inclined to release. We have been offered the opportunity to brief the Board. Docld: 3274045272 Page 35
HW 55157 ° Cuban Revolutionary Council (CRC) financial records. ARRB staff plans to recommend to the Board that monthly su summaries be considered ARs and the remaining material be designated NBR. Samples of these documents have been provided to DA, DO, and DCIIRO. If you have any comments or objections, please forward them to me by COB Wednesday. . e Documents containing long lists of names, crypts, companies, etc. These include both Agency documents and notes of HSCA staffers. (FYI- no action required at this time) The ARRB staff will ask the Board to delay processing of such documents and, in some cases, declare them NBR. The staff considers them marginal to the story and believes that they are not worth the time involved. _ (8) 2. We need to advise the ARRB staff no later than COB 12 November (Wednesday), if we plan to brief the Board on endif _®riten evidence is due to ARRB staff by COB 13 November (Thursday). They need at least one“day to: review the material and prepare their presentations for the Board. a - \ i ct {ono Becky Rant @ DA DoclId: 32740452232 Page 36 ““IFK Act 6 JFK Act 6
aS 5 Ct BY: 611637 . CL REASON: Section 1.5 € 7 DECL ON: XT orv Fria: COV 2-87 21 November 1997 MEMORANDUM FOR: John Pereira @ DCI Fredrick C. Wickham @ DO .. Lee Strickland @ DA aoe FROM: J. Barry Harrelson JFK Project Officer OFFICE: CSIHRG . SEK Rot 6 (1) (A) SUBJECT: ARRB meeting 17 November - Results eae JEK Act 6 (1) (B) REFERENCE: 1. Reconsideration of the release otL___pscia Records conte The Board accepted the Agency's request for reconsideration; postponed until 2017. 2. ClAuse of a The Board did not find the Agency's evidence persuasive; released. This determination affects 16 documents (3 duplicates) that were pending Board action. Future documents will be impacted by this decision. Copies of the documents have been sent to DO and OGC for reconsideration/appeal review. 3. Release date of: NBR'tecords: The Board moved the release date from 2017 to 2010 giving the Agency the right to review and appeal at that time. 4. Cuban Revolutionary Council (CRC) Financial Records: The Board accepted the ARRB staff's recommendation (concurred in by CIA) that only "General Statement for Month" records ° for January 1960 and to January 1995 be processed as Assassination Records, and that the approximately 6,000 remaining pages of financial records be declared to have "fo believed relevance (NBR)” to the JFK assassination. 5. Ramparts Damage Assessment Document: The Board accepted the ARRB staff's recommendation (concurred in by CIA) that the Paragraphs on the one relevant —SECRER- WW o55157 Docld:32404522 Page 37
—SEERER— orgariization- be protessed as a assassination record, and that the remainder of the CIA Ramparts Memorandum be declared NBR. The memorandum discusses the truth or fallacy of the allegations in Ramparts the Agency used non-governmental organizations for support and funding of worldwide anti-Communist operations. Over one hundred organizations are mentioned in the Ramparts article. The relevant organization is thediftétaticnal Restle bommuttee; the {RC-aided Oswald on his return to the US: 6. Book Cables Dissemination Lists: The Board accepted the Agency's request that book cable dissemination list be protected in full even if they contain stations that are releasable. ue 7 7. Document # 104-10072-10232 : The Board rejected the Agency's request to protect the full crypt (NLUCIO. The document has been sent to the DO for reconsideration/appeal review. , ’ 8. Other Documents: The Board accepted the Agency's and ARRB staff's recommendations on 204 additional documents. ~ Reconsideration and Appeals: If the Agency wishes to ask the Board to reconsider a decision or plans to appeal to the President, the ARRB staff has fequested that it be notified prior to the letter to the Agency informing the DCI of the Board's decision. We expect the letter on or around Dec. ist; the Board's determinations will also be published in the Federal Register on that date. As mandated by the White House, the Agency has seven days after notification to appeal a JFK Board decision to the President. Kathryn Dyer @ DCL Becky Dyer @ DA ; ae Act 6 (1) (A) Sent on 21 November 1997 at 05:04:45 PM , JFK Act 6 (1) (B) HW 55157 DBocld:32404522 Page 33
HW 55157 e b NOTE FOR: J.. Barry Harrelson FROM: Fredrick C. Wickham @ DO OFFICE: DATE: 10/10/97 12:10:24 PM SUBJECT: Nosenko Records a | have reviewed the descriptions of the folders proposed by the ARRB Staff. While | see this as a success to have them support our position and have some concern about the detail included within the descriptions. We had an occasion in the past to ask for-a legal opinion about a former employee's access rights to Nosenko's file and were told he is entitled protection under the Privacy Act. Nosenko has already personally expressed (in a letter to the Agency) his concern and objection about potential release of information about him. | think we should carefully consider the amount of detail included in the public release and whether it violates his rights under the Privacy Act. | trust the judgment of those that have reviewed these descriptions as to content in relationship to other released material and. classification but | just want to raise a mild concern about the detail contained in the descriptions of folder content. | will not object to the these if everyone feels compelled to accept them to protect the success we have achieved as long as they are determined to not be in violation of his privacy rights. - poe In future efforts to protect NBR information, | would like to see less-detail in the description if at all possible.’ 3 “ Sent on 10 October 1997 at 12:10:24 PM “JFK Act 6 (1) (A) JFK Act 6 (1) (B) DoclId:32404527> Page 39
3 Classification of Material Transmitted HISTORICAL REVIEW GROUP _ CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF INTELLIGENCE Phone # 703-613-1806 PLEASE DELIVER IMMEDIATELY ERR E REL EEEEE EERE REE ELKHART L AIA IAA EA RIAN . _ SENDING FAX NO. __703-613- CLASSIFIED FAX DELIVER TO: RECEIVING FAX NO. SYS~ 43 YE DATE TRANSMITTED: we PAGES TRANSMITTED: We : . (including cover sheet) | “SPR Act 6 (1) (A) JFK Act 6 (1) (B) | a TRANSMITTED BY: J) Ash ue , € ER EER RHR KEELER EK LRH LR EE ROE EE LR RE RR ME MESSAGE: Classification of Material Transmitted HW 55157 DBocld:32404522 Page 40
“10/08/97 THU 15:00 FAX 202 724 0457 ARKH wy UU MEMORANDUM October 9, 1997 To: Jeremy Gunn Executive Director cc: Tom Samoluk Deputy Director _ From: Michelle Combs We Subject: Files on Yuriy Ivanovich Nosenko in the CIA Sequestered Collection (Microfilm Containing Information of No Believed Relevance to the ~ Assassination of President John F. Kennedy The information on Yuriy Ivanovich Nosenko contained in the CIA Sequestered Collection microfilm consists of approximately 3600 pages of interviews, transcripts, - memos, and reports. Of the total, approximately 1200 pages have been released to the public as open in full or with redactions. Of the 1200 released pages, roughly 800 contain information directly relevant to Lee Harvey Oswald and the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Although all of these 800 pages have been released in . redacted form, we have asked the Agency to re-review them under the standards of the JFK Act before we submit them to the Board. After my review of the Nosenko records and our discussion of the issues, it is my judgment that the remaining approximately 2400 pages are unrelated to the assassination of President Kennedy and should be processed as "NBR." These NBR records, which are described on the attached list, consist of such items as general family and professional contact information, Soviet intelligence methodology, personalities, _ and specific operations, and Soviet Navy information dating to Nosenko’s early career in Soviet Naval Intelligence. Much of the information consists of various attempts by the Agency in the 1960's to establish Nosenko’s bona fides. The October 1968 Solie Report, which has been released in redacted form and will be re-reviewed under the JFK Act, establishes Nosenko’s bona fides. The conclusions of the Solie report were reaffirmed in a 1976 report by John Hart. A brief summary of the conclusions of the Hart Report will also be processed for release. The approximately 2400 pages of proposed Nosenko NBR records have been reviewed carefully to confirm that they contain no material helpful to a deeper understanding of the assassination. During the review some additional material, not previously released, which may add to an understanding of the Nosenko story, was marked relevant and identified for processing and review. HW 55157 DBocld:32404522 Page 41 |
—_-_1U/U8/97 HU 15:uu FAA ZUZ 724 vaor Atudb . wy vue HW 55157 NBR Folder Summaries ‘ Each folder also contains an HSCA signature sheet. At least one member of the HSCA reviewed all but the last of the folders listed below. Reel 45, Folder 3 ‘During July and August 1965, Peter Deryabin, a Soviet defector, conducted.a series of ~ _ interrogations of Nosenko in conjunction with CIA efforts to establish Nosenko’s bona fides. This folder contains one 66 page verbatim transcript of two interrogation sessions which cover Nosenko’s family, background, early career, and Komsomol experiences. ; po es 3 Reel 45, Folder 4 This folder contains a 76 page verbatim transcript of two interrogation sessions by Peter Deryabin which cover Nosenko’s career, Party membership, Komsomol | personalities and procedures, military personalities and procedures, and his (then - current) incarceration by the CIA. Reel 45, Folder 5 - This folder contains one 59 page verbatim transcript of two interrogation sessions by Peter Deryabin which cover Nosenko’s military career, KGB buildings, personalities and procedures, and other Soviet intelligence people, roles, and titles. my Reel 45, Folder 6 ‘All the documents in this folder, but one, have been released to the public. The NBR document is a five page February 1964 memo from the Director of the Soviet Division (C/SR) David Murphy to the Deputy Director for Plans (DD/P) Richard Helms on plans to debrief Nosenko based on C/SR’‘s belief that Nosenko is a Soviet plant. Reel 45, Folder 8B This folder contains a 135 page report on Nosenko. prepared i in April 1969 by N. Scott Miler of the Counterintelli gence Staff (DC/CI/SIG) based on the comments and questions of Anatoliy Golitsyn. The report contains Golitsyn’s comments on inconsistencies he believes exist in Nosenko’s testimony and his recommendations for further questioning. Golitsyn believed Nosenko was a dispatched agent. DoclId: 3274045272 Page 42?
" 10/09/97 THU 15:01 FAX 202 724 0457 ARRB ; gj UU HW 55157 " Vv Reel 45, Folder 13 This folder contains one document. The document is a ten page extract fromthe 835 page study "The Case of Yuriy Ivanovich Nosenko” written by Peter Bagley of the Soviet Branch (DC /SB) in 1967. The document records Peter Deryabin’s conclusions on Nosenko’s bona fides. Deryabin does not believe Nosenko. a Reel 45, Folder 17 This folder contains an 89 page verba tim transcript of an interrogation session by Peter Deryabin which covers Nosenko’s career as a KGB officer, his marriage, and KGB buildings, personalities, and procedures. A two page key to the abbreviatioris in the transcript is dlso included in this folder. Ree] 45 Folder 19 This folder contains pages 349-602, part IV, of the 835 page study "The Case of Yuriy Ivanovich Nosenko" prepared by Peter Bagley in 1967. The study analyzes Nosenko’s biography, case work, and responsibilities as a Soviet intelligence officer. The conclusion of the report is that Nosenko is a dispatched agent under the control of the KGB. Reel 45, Folder 20 This folder contains an 89 page verbatim transcript of an interrogation session by Peter Deryabin which covers Nosenko’s career as a KGB officer and KGB buildings, personalities, and procedures. Reel 45, Folder 21 This folder contains an 85 page verbatim transcript of an interrogation session by Peter Deryabin which covers Nosenko’s experiences in and knowledge of Komsomol and _ Communist Party personalities, buildings, and procedures. Reel 45 Folder 24 ' This folder contains pages 1-84, parts I, IL, II, and TV, of the 835 page study "The Case of Yuriy Ivanovich Nosenko" prepared by Peter Bagley. DoclId:327404527> Page 43
10/08/97 THU 15:01 FAX 202 724 0457 ARRB ; wove HW 55157 Reel 45, Folder 25 This folder contains pages 85-348, part V, of the 835 page study "The Case of Yuriy Ivanovich Nosenko" prepared by Peter Bagley. — Reel 46, Folder 2A This folder contains pages 603-835, parts VI, VIL, and IX of the 835 page study ‘The Case of Yuriy Ivanovich Nosenko" prepared by Peter Bagley. Reel 46, Folder 2B . | ot This folder cohtains a variety of documents, some of which havé already been released to the public. The NBR documents include: 14 reports of interrogation sessions with » Peter Deryabin in July and August 1965; an unsigned May 1965 memo for Chief SR/CI on the 3-13 May interrogation sessions with a psychologist, an unsigned May 1965 paper analyzing Nosenko’s sessions with the psychologist which refutes the reported conclusions of the psychologist, and a November 1968 Memorandum of Transmittal to SB/CI/K on the 15 Deryabin-Nosenko July-August 1965 transcripts. Reel 46, Folder 3 This folder contains most of the 186 page report by John Hart commissioned by the CIA in June 1976. Chapter X, pages 159-176 inclusive are missing. The report is a reinvestigation of the Nosenko case in the context of reviewing the techniques of handling Soviet agents and defectors. It is highly critical of the handling of the Noseriko case by the Clandestine Service. The Hart Report endorses the conclusions reached in October 1968 by the Office of Security (the Solie Report) that Nosenko is a ' bona fide defector. Reel 46, Folder 5 This folder contains documents pertaining principally to personalities in the Minsk area during Lee Harvey Oswald's residence there. Some documents in this folder have been released to the public. The two NBR documents include: a nine page 1964 “homework assignment” prepared by Nosenko on KGB leadership in the provinces and a four page memorandum on KGB personalities in the Minsk area in the mid 1970's. Reel 62, Folder 2 - This folder contains an 82 page verbatim transcript of an interrogation session by Peter Deryabin which covers Nosenko’s background, marriage, and divorce. DoclId: 32404522 Page 44
10/09/97 THU 15:01 FAX 202 724 0457 |. ARK uve ‘Reel 62, Folder 3 This folder contains a 74 page verbatim transcript of two interrogation sessions‘by Peter Deryabin which detail Nosenko’s career progress and a disciplinary problem and its resulting impact on his promotion schedule. 7 Reel 62, Folder 5 This folder contains two verbatim transcripts (33 and 46 pages) of interrogation sessions by Peter Deryabin which cover specific KGB operations and a particular KGB operation targeted against an American tourist. me Reel 62, Folder 6 “34 This folder contains one 22 page verbatim transcript of two interrogation sessions by Perter Deryabin which cover a particular KGB operation targeted against an American tourist. € Reel 62, Folder 7 This folder contains one 84 page verbatim transcript of two interrogation sessions by Peter Deryabin which cover Nosenko’s education, Navy career, and a particular KGB operation targeted against an American tourist. Reel 62, Folder 8 _ This folder contains an eight page verbatim transcript of an interrogation session by Peter Deryabin in which Deryabin encourages Nosenko to confess that he was sent under KGB control and to think about becoming a double agent. Nosenko responds that he has been telling Deryabin the truth all along. Reel 62, Folder 9 The folder contains 51 pages of 12 Deryabin reports on his interrogation sessions with Nosenko in July and August 1965. The information in these reports summarizes information detailed in the actual interrogation transcripts. Reel 62, Folder 30 This folder contains a mix of intra and inter-Agency memoranda pertaining to the handling of Nosenko and is labeled “TS Material from Deryabin Safe.” This folder was not examined by the HSCA staff. Thirty-seven pages of documents have been released HW 55157 Docld:32404522 Page 45
iG/G9/97 THU 15:02 FAX 202 724 0457 ARRB igjoog to the public. The 97 pages of NBR documents include: correspondence with various US Government agencies and the Attorney General, memoranda on Nosenko’s day to day handling, emergency procedures for Office of Security guards assigned to Nosenko, a report to the CIA Inspector General on the Nosenko case, Nosenko’s request for political asylum, copies of his subsequent contracts with the CIA as an independent contractor, and additional reports, memos, and briefings concerning the-Nosenko case and his handling. , me Combs e:\nosenko4.wpd File 4.20.5, 4.0.2, and 2.4 HW 55157 DoclId:32404522 Page 46
_ DEC 12 192 @9247PM 7 wife | CIA HAS NO OBJECTION TO . _ | DECLASSIPIG!7101! ANDIOR September 22, 1998 "RELEASE C} ‘SORMATION _ | INTHIS DOCU: -_ To: Laura Denk Executive Director ec: =. Bob Skwirot CIA Team Leader From: Michelle Combs CL Comm Lea Associate Director for Research and Review oe Subject: . iy Working Files on Yuriy Ivanovich Nosenko Containing Informatibn: Not elieved Relevant to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy Previously, the Review Board voted to declare NBR approximately 2400 pages of material on Yuriy Ivanovich Nosenko contained in the CIA sequestered collection microfilm unrelated to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. - ‘The Review Board staff has since examined an additional two boxes of working files on Nosenko produced as a result of the search for records related to the Kennedy assassination. This material either duplicates or is the original copy of the sequestered _ collection microfilm material previously declared NBR.- For example, many of the _ original tapes from which transcripts were produced are found'in the working files. The Board previously declared the transcripts, which are found in the sequestered collection microfilm, to be NBR. The files contain no new material Which would add to the understanding of the Nosenko story. I recommend that # the Board declare the contents of the two boxes of working fileson _ < BAW 55157. 7 Nosenko, to be NBR. e:\combs\nbr\nosenko.wpd | _ File 2.4, 4.0.2, and 4.20.5 Docld: 32404522 Page 47
’ HW 55157 DoclId: 32404522 ‘Page 45 CI-277-94°. 31 August,1994 MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD SUBJECT: Discussions with Center for. the Study of Intelligence on the Release of Material Relating to Yuriy Nosenko oe 1. On 3 August I had as. series, of discussions with the staff of the Center for the. ‘Study of Intelligence (CSI) at. the Center's office in the Ames Building. Our discussion | centered on the disposition of more than 3,200_pages ating to the career of former KGB officer- Gocuments are being reviewed for declassification and release as required’ by the JFK law. 2. The peclassification Problem: CSI's de- classification. staff has. ‘carefully reviewed the Nosenko material. [ra _ career Directorate of Operations --is representing the DO in the review process. noted that the material can be divided into two | parts: * Approximately 800 pages that deal with Nosenko's infor- | mation about Lee Harvey Oswald's life in the Soviet Union and his relationship with the KGB. e A body of counterintelligence staff studies, inter- rogation reports, file reviews, and bona fides studies on Nosenko totaling some 2,400 pages. These studies contain sensitive personal and operational material. For example: WARNING NOTICE CL BY SIGNER INTELLIGENCE SOURCES 7 _DECL OADR JOR METHODS INVOLVED ‘ 3 “DRV HUM 4-82: mB 7 f 4
BSCR eine aweentem es JFK Act 6 (1) (A) JFK Act 6 (1) (B) HW 55157 Docld:324045292 Page 49
he study of jth Center for t jal Relating SUBJECT: Discussions W Intelligence on the Release of Mater to yuriy Nosenko CONCUR: gohn pereira (A (cst) Date Barry Harrelson (CST) Date > , S pate “SEK Act 6 JFK Act 6 hy Sy $ HW 55 : : 157 Docld:32404522 Page 50
SUBJECT: Discussions with Center for the. Study of Intelligence on the Release of Material Relating to Yuriy Nosenko poserc/ac/Frop] «ek / 76246 Distribution: orig - John Pereira, Barry Har for Concurrence and Return to CIC/AG AD/CSI csi Harrelson) _ ‘@7ete Chrono - CIC/AG Chrono-.. - CIC/AG pefector File pepe ye tt : _ 7 oO -GBCRET- WW i ‘ 55157 Docld:32404522 Page 51 (31 Aug 94) relson,. JFK Act 6 (1) (A) JFK Act 6 (1) (B)
581 EXCERPTS OF DEPOSITION OF DAVID MURPHY BE- ‘ORE THE HOUSE SELECT.COMMITTEE ON ASSAS- INATIONS ON: AUGUST 9, 1978 © Ho INTRODUCTION -ed it, and I will continu idence, not opinion... :.- ‘gs that: Nosenko states is They didn’t interview Os ey didn’t interview Osw. d sent him.to.Minsk, - that the KGB wald ‘when O ald when they aed [aving heard from Nosenko and from an intelligence officer who Boved ‘him to be bona fide, the committee spoke to the CIA official vho had overall responsibility for the interrogation of Nosenko dur- ing the years 1964-67, when Nosenko was kept in solitary confine- ment,;Among other. things, ‘he was.asked about the reason Nosenko was placed ‘in solitary’ confinement, about why he questioned No- #. senko’s credibility, and about: Nosenko’s charge that his statements » credible when he speaking face to face wit} . ats r ha ate : u est of his knowledge. I wj Ppened. My . to the Agency were inaccurate because he had been drugged by the ote eet 2 WIM have. to—y Agency. Portions of that transcript follow. ccept that? °° a hee Meme wa en ee vat ‘Dpen. ' ee “JEXCERPTS OF DEPOSITION OF DAVID Murrizy Berore House Seiecr COMMITTEE oN oT. ASSASSINATIONS ON AUGUST 9,1978 — - . Mr, Kier. 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. Murpuy. I don’t. want to be cute'by saying I believe so, I am not exactly -.gure of. the legal—I mean what: bis legal status was. Insofar as physical facts, - s in the cust of the IC. #... : . : atte KLEIN. Whet division ‘or. unit of the Central Intelligence Agency had pri- ‘ mary responsibility for Nosenko? c ; - ‘Mr, Murpry: The Soviet Russian Division. Mr. Krxtn. Of which you were the Chief? Mr. Murpuy. Yes,sir. 90° . o Mr. Kiern. And what year did you leave the Soviet Russia Division? Mr. Morpry. Beginning in‘1968. . .. Mr. Kiern. And up until what year did the Soviet Russia Division have primary responsibility for Nosenko? _ Mr, Murpxy. I don’t recall the exact time but it was certainly up until the spring of 1967. Mr. Kein. 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. Murpny. 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. Kein. 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. Murpuxy. I was responsible for the case. Mr. Kien. OK. oo. . : Mr. Murpruy. Although the case was handled by one of the groups within the Division. oe ; ’ Mr, K1emn. But they would réport to you? Mr.Mourpny. Yes. 2 . . * * _ * . * : . * * 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. Murpxy. J am not sure I agree with the formulation of the question. Mr. KLern. Well, elaborate. _ ‘Mr. Murpry. 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. Kern. Could you describe for us what the pattern was before; as far as conditions and how it was changed? er done to check out ‘the feasihiiie om 1 . at: easibility of gt. . deren’ what the experiences of other desauents lefed by KGB officers? Was that ever dan individual had been interviewed fo... nad. deen intervie the Oswald case because the Oswaler .80me who were iit Russia in. : im ate *8 very possible: ‘You would almost heen line because the inte i i ion - le comparison should be within the appa uation : r some other investigation how many lie detector tests, to your knowledge? ; y or all of these tests to h a test to bea. completely vali du be in actual discussion ¢ e€ been valid? - d test; that is, the oncerning the poly- ‘nd I will only confine myself t¢ ‘questi rater. tcterize the Oswald as ? ut to be considered. Peet! ‘at received the full consi f Samet, Oswald aspect ?. unt of investigation done in 1964. wrvente avouen vous not truthful in hig rela- . is Done anes v would. that: be significant as to t would have to consider, sible that he could be lying about Oswald and © was lying about Oswald. | | deration and the he was lying about Oswald, ‘whether he wag bona fide? ao you think ‘hat
532 Mr. Murry. Well, the pattern before was one of pretty much permitting. Nosenko to call.the shots. In other words, we wanted his cooperation and we wanted to discuss these things in a reasonable manner, but his preference was not to sit still for a fulli day’s briefing, to want to go out socially all the time, which made it difficult the next day to continue to work. And the most important aspect, I think, of the change was the decision to confront him with inconsisten- cies as opposed to taking what he said and passing it on. Mr. Kie1n. What about the day-to-day living conditions, were they changed? Mr. Murpuy. Well, he was not permitted to leave. He was not permitted to , depart. Mr. Kern. Other than that, his day- to-day treatment, not the actual interroga- _ tion sessions, but his food intake, his recreation, was that changed at that time? . Mr. Murpxuy. I don’t think so, not. that’ early. I don’t rémember that: * * * * * 7 * * Mr. KLEIN. Subsequent to April 4, is it correct that Nosenko was interrogated by people from the Soviet Russia Division? | (Mr. Murpuy. That is right. Mr. Kern. And how were the particular subareas on which he was interrogated. ‘ chosen? Mr. Murruy. I am not sure. I don’t know. Subject areas? This is a guess, thisis _ a recollection, but I think the decision was made based on what the CIA people thought offered the best opportunity to get an admission and to break on that. In other words, I think it was based on points that they had collateral on. By '. that I mean other information which said what this man is saying is not the truth - © or this man does not know about this and, therefore, let us hit him hard on this. :: And so it was a fully tactical, these were tactical considerations relating to pes-. session, of information in the hands of the interrogators which then offered the. best opportunity to get through and get the truth. \One breakthrough it was felt, as is normally the case, gives you other break- - throughs. The decision on what subjects to be interrogated was essentially a fac- tor of the tactics of the debriefing. Mr. Kiern. Would it be fair to say that after April 4 the subject areas were determined by a desire to try to catch him, to break him, as opposed to a desire to gain knowledge that would be of use to you in your role as an intelligence agency? In other words, knowledge of the operation. Mr. MurpHy. That is an accurate impression. The answer is yes because by the end of April there was a view that the man was not telling the truth, that parts of what he was saying were known to be untrue and that, therefore, made no sense, and although the reasons for his behavior and his statements were not clear, it made no sense then, it did not appear to make sense to accept as valid any data he might provide unless you could be sure that that data was in fact correct, and there were so many doubts about this, leaving aside the moti- vation for it, the contradictions or the way in which he Presented | it, that the information was not considered acceptable. * * * * *€ * * Mr. Kvern. Were you aware of the substance of what Nosenko had to say about Oswald? — Mr. MurPHY. ‘From the very first. I mean, when he first said it back in February or March. e _ Mr. KLEIN. Do you recall now the substance of it? Mr: Murpuy. No; not exactly, anything I said would be polluted by so much |... back and forth. I know that the thrust of the message was that Oswald was never of interest to the Soviet Intelligence Services, that he was never debriefed by them, and I can guarantee that because I was personally involved in the affair. There is more detail, but I can’t really pin it down. Mr. KLEIN. Did you accept this statement by Nosenko? Mr. Murpuy. I did not. I did not believe that it would be possible for the Soviet Intelligence Services to have remained indifferent to the arrival in 1959 in Moscow of a former Marine radar operator who had served at what was an active U~2 operational base. I found that to be strange. It was only later, I think, that as the Nosenko case and its other ramifications began to emerge that it seenied to me that the Oswald story became even more unusual. I think I mentioned the other day it seems to me almost to have been tacked on - or to have been added as though it didn’t seem to be part of the real body of
151 Thursday y. n‘and therefore’ woul no seem £1 me. that in fairness , to. b th th Aoril 2,.. (jet ‘Lindenbaum - Ss seph Dolan David Er | Reapecttully yours; . P foan. Douglas ack Rosenthal f pack Marshall David Filvaroff Willian Foley es ian Orrick va Marshal McShane fe David Filvaroff< ~ dilliam Geoghegan, Edgar Cahn, OL; gurke. “Marshall ~ =. Bree (eee Yeapley - “Tdilivan Foley, Crin Di -Ebefector. Case]. : “Ndressec Brandeis Unive: © Students (40). in AG's. office “Sol Lindenbaum / a 6:45 pin. - John Douglas \ : 6:56 pom, ‘. ~dilliam Orrick / \ - 7:06 p.m. . \ David Filvarof FA - 7:12 v.im, ‘Joseph Dolan . 7:15 pem. / Eridav, Avril 3, 1964 . fF » John burrner CWintte Fotor) 9:15 a.m. SAU . — ¢ * Sol Lindenbaum ; P) 9:30 a.m. sad a Harold Reis. /) Civil 9:30 acme ' SAW , ‘David Filvaroff ~ ) Rights 9:30 a.m. SAd \. Burke Marshall. briefing 9:30-a.m SAN. \ Sack Rosenthal > 2. 9:30 a.m. SAW . Joseph Dolan do $:30 am. SAW a f- NdeBK to Puerto Rico.) .10:15 a.m.
SECOND SESSION SEPTEMBER 22, 25; AND 26,.1978 -" VOLUME IV Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Assassinations U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 41-373 O ‘ WASHINGTON : 1979 _ ‘For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office , Washington, D.C. 20402 Stock Number 052-070-04906-5