Jump to content
The Education Forum

David Murphy


Recommended Posts

Has anyone ever looked at the career of a CIA high-ranking officer named David Murphy?

He was involved in the CIA station in Tokyo and later became had of the CIA Soviet Union Division.

I am not yet sure of the exact dates he held these positions but it is possible his path crossed with Oswald--at least that Oswald was in Japan when he was and was in the Soviet Union when he was.

Later I will post why I think it might be worth spending a little time investigating the career of Mr. Murphy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone ever looked at the career of a CIA high-ranking officer named David Murphy?

He was involved in the CIA station in Tokyo and later became had of the CIA Soviet Union Division.

You have the chronology of his postings reversed.

I am not yet sure of the exact dates he held these positions but it is possible his path crossed with Oswald

Possible? Perhaps.  Likely?  No.  See below.

--at least that Oswald was in Japan when he was and was in the Soviet Union when he was.

Wrong and wrong.  Murphy was in Berlin 1951-61, inclusive.  Then head of CIA's Soviet ops, but based in Langley, not Moscow.  Stationed in Japan in '66, not during LHO's tenure there, then CIA Chief of Station in Paris '68-74.

Later I will post why I think it might be worth spending a little time investigating the career of Mr. Murphy.

You might start by "investigating" the dates of Murphy's various postings before positing his "possible" nexus with Oswald. 

If the purpose of your forthcoming post is to disclose that Angleton accused Murphy of being a Soviet mole, let me preemptively point out that Angleton made that same accusation against a number of his fellow CIA officers.  To date, not one such accusation has been found to have any basis in fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will tomorrow summarize why Murphy was thought to be a mole.

The reason I happened across Murphy's name was investigating a claim made by that right-winger Victor Marchetti (found in a footnote to "The Man Who Knew Too Much") that Marchetti believed there was a high-level mole with an Irish name in the Soviet Division of the CIA.

So if I am reading Robert's dates right it appears that Murphy was in the Soviet Division of the CIA during the period that Oswald defected and was in the Soviet Union.

Obviously the CIA practices compartmentalization but if LHO was on a CIA directed mission to the Soviet Union it would be logical that a high-ranking member of the Soviet Division would know of Oswald.

I did not mean to imply that Murphy would necessarily have MET Oswald.

More on Murphy tomorrow.

John once stated he was going to contact Marchetti to determine if Marchetti still subscribed to the theory that the assassination was orchestrated by the "KGB section of the CIA". Wonder whether John ever did?

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will tomorrow summarize why Murphy was thought to be a mole.

Why stop at Murphy?  Why not summarize the so-called "evidence" used by Angleton in his internal witchhunt against all the unfairly accused fellow CIA officers.  Are you aware, Tim, that the damage wreaked by Angleton's fruitless madness was so great, legislation was passed to compensate those who had unjustly been forced out of their positions, or out of CIA entirely?  One man came close to destroying CIA.  His name was Angleton, and the Soviets could have had no better friend.  Murphy was just one of dozens of loyal officers who were injured as collateral damage, in his case by the mutually exclusive relaltionship between Golytsin and Nosenko.   

The reason I happened across Murphy's name was investigating a claim made by that right-winger Victor Marchetti (found in a footnote to "The Man Who Knew Too Much") that Marchetti believed there was a high-level mole with an Irish name in the Soviet Division of the CIA.

And Angleton was told by Golytsin, whom Angleton thought was a divinely inspired oracle, that a Soviet mole inside CIA had a name or nickname or codename that started with the letter "K."  Soon, just about anybody who met that description was packing bags for their new, non-sensitive assignment, or updating their resumes.  These fragmentary "clues" to a mole's identity do more to cripple the Agency, by impugning the innocent, than the mole himself.   So Marchetti smells trouble in an Irish name?  Gee, Desmond FitzGerald sounds pretty Irish to me.  Let's demote him, and every other Irishman we can think of.  Wonder what little birdie told Marchetti that.  

So if I am reading Robert's dates right it appears that Murphy was in the Soviet Division of the CIA during the period that Oswald defected and was in the Soviet Union.

Yes.  For somewhere in the region of a year Murphy ran the Soviet ops in Langley while Oswald was in Minsk.  Contrary to your original claim, Murphy and Oswald were not in Japan at the same time, and it's unlikely that they were in the USSR at the same time, though the latter is less certain.

Obviously the CIA practices compartmentalization but if LHO was on a CIA directed mission to the Soviet Union it would be logical that a high-ranking member of the Soviet Division would know of Oswald.

The only caveat I would ask you to consider is that if Oswald was a "vest-pocket" operation, unauthorized by and unknown to any and all inside CIA except a single high-level CIA functionary, Oswald was completely deniable, expendable and "off the books."  If, for example, Oswald was dispatched to the USSR by Angleton, then Murphy, Paisley, Bagley and dozens of others might not even know about him.  Or he may have been assigned a cryptonym, but only the dispatcher knew the identity of the man behind the codename.  The purpose of compartmentalization is to ensure sensitive information isn't known by anyone other than those who need to.  If Oswald's putative Soviet "mission" was such a vest pocket operation, very few people would know, perhaps only one.  

I did not mean to imply that Murphy would necessarily have MET Oswald.

Usually when somebody uses the expression "paths crossed," they mean that two people met, not that they were simply in the same country together.  Otherwise, the last time I was in the USA, I guess our paths crossed, Tim.  In that context, it's meaningless to the extent of not being worth uttering.

More on Murphy tomorrow.

Don't stop at Murphy, Tim.  Please itemize the dozens of others whose careers were ruined or stalled, or who were unjustly maligned by Angleton.  Taken individually, each such case might have a patina of justification.  It is only when one sees all the persons burned at the stake, or betrayed to enemy services and killed, that one can fully comprehend the incalculable destruction wrought by Angleton and his talking chimp Golytsin.

John once stated he was going to contact Marchetti to determine if Marchetti still subscribed to the theory that the assassination was orchestrated by the "KGB section of the CIA".  Wonder whether John ever did?

Tim was once asked to obtain Veciana's testimony from Gordon Winslow.  Wonder whether Tim ever did?  Or if Winslow had it to provide? 

Remember "Familiar [Cuban] Faces in Dealey Plaza" Tim?   If they're so "familiar" and they were there, why are they so damned hard to find?  And why is the evidence for your assertions so slow in coming, assuming that this time it will arrive at all?  Inquiring minds want to know.  You've made the assertions; now try backing them up with facts.  Winslow's the chap who gave you your much coveted and vaunted "lifetime membership" as an "accredited assassination researcher" and lives just down the turnpike from you.  If he synopsized Veciana's testimony on his website, surely he must have a transcript.  When can we expect you to obtain same from Winslow, in order that you can provide proof for your assertions?  Your habit of making unsubstantiated claims destroys any value you might have to the hypothesis you purport to represent.    

Edited by Robert Charles-Dunne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following posts are not addressed to Robert neccesarily but I will be addressing some of the points in his last post:

I had written:

Obviously the CIA practices compartmentalization but if LHO was on a CIA directed mission to the Soviet Union it would be logical that a high-ranking member of the Soviet Division would know of Oswald.

To which Robert replied:

The only caveat I would ask you to consider is that if Oswald was a "vest-pocket" operation, unauthorized by and unknown to any and all inside CIA except a single high-level CIA functionary, Oswald was completely deniable, expendable and "off the books." If, for example, Oswald was dispatched to the USSR by Angleton, then Murphy, Paisley, Bagley and dozens of others might not even know about him. Or he may have been assigned a cryptonym, but only the dispatcher knew the identity of the man behind the codename. The purpose of compartmentalization is to ensure sensitive information isn't known by anyone other than those who need to. If Oswald's putative Soviet "mission" was such a vest pocket operation, very few people would know, perhaps only one.

I think Robert's point is well-taken. {For those keeping track of such things this may be our third point of agreement.} Presumably, if LHO was sent by American intelligence on a mission to Moscow (well, to the Soviet Union but I actually adore alliteration) it makes sense that only a limited number of people should know about it. How many actually did is anybody's guess since the CIA has denied that LHO was a CIA operative and I am convinced Robert would not claim any personal knowledge of that issue. Heck, I'm on the payroll and the CIA won't even tell me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote:

John once stated he was going to contact Marchetti to determine if Marchetti still subscribed to the theory that the assassination was orchestrated by the "KGB section of the CIA". Wonder whether John ever did?

John has not yet responded to this inquiry so let me use this post to ask him again if he had the opportunity (or if he can tell me how to contact Marchetti). Unless we here from John to the contrary, we can assume that Marchetti still believes that "the KGB section of the CIA" may have orchestrated the JFK assassination.

Re Robert's point about the source of the summary of the Veciana HSCA deposition, I will contact Gordon (he has been on a vacation I know) to determine who prepared the summary of the Veciana deposition. It could have been a member of his research group. But I will follow through on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...