The Foreign Service Journal, January 2006

Munoz Alarcon nor have any idea how he learned of my name or why he accused me of having a connection to a multinational operation of which I had no knowledge. Without access to the testimony he gave to the vicari- ate, I do not know whether he even made those comments, or whether they are fanciful embroidery added by Prof. McSherry. • Regarding the disappearance of Mrs. de Molfino in Lima on June 14, 1980, I had asked my contact on pre- vious occasions why the government had found it necessary to permanent- ly “disappear” exiles it had captured aboard. His answer was that many of them had already been captured once before and placed into jail or prison, only to be released by civilian govern- ments. (I did not necessarily take this explanation at face value.) In the Molfino case, I reported the informa- tion I received concerning her im- pending abduction on June 19, 1980, in a memo to U.S. Ambassador Raul Castro. The issue of whether Washington should have intervened actively in this Argentine action was a policy matter above my pay grade to decide. • In any case, I never obtained any further information as to Mrs. de Molfino’s fate. But it is inconceivable to me that the Argentine security forces would have murdered her there and then gone through all the trouble of dumping her body in Madrid when they could have easily disposed of it in their own country, as happened in so many other cases. I can only assume that she was brought back to Argentina and then, instead of killing her, for some reason she was released and permitted to travel to Spain. While this did not happen often, there are other cases in which it was determined after interrogation that the victim was not directly or actively connected to a subversive organization and was let go, on the promise he or she would go into exile 72 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 6