Mr.Liebeler. Did you get the feeling that Mrs. Oswald felt that if—I can say this because I have lived in New York for the last 7 years myself, so it doesn't bother me too much to bring it out. I am really a New Yorker. Did she have the feeling, do you think, that if these nosey New Yorkers would just leave her alone and keep out of her business everything would be all right? In other words, it was just a kind of situation that exists here in this city because of the nature of the city that was different from the way things were in Texas, maybe, or Louisiana, that thishad——
Mr.Carro. I don't have any doubt about it. I think she must have thought that we were making a mountain out of a molehill, and that in some other States—I was brought up in Puerto Rico, myself; if a boy didn't go to school or so nobody saw to it that he was brought to court, that he was sent to a psychiatrist, that the Big Brothers got involved in it, that you referred him here and there, and this is why I said she must have been threatened by this whole process; there is no question about it in my mind, that she could not see what all this fuss was all about. She said so, too. No question in my mind about that. I am sure that this had an effect on her decision to leave the State and take off, and particularly when she came to see us and we told her she could not go without the OK of the court, that the boy was under the supervision of the court, and he would have to remain so until the court felt that it was OK.
Mr.Liebeler. She did advise you, however, before leaving the State, that she did intend to leave the State of New York, did she not?
Mr.Carro. Well, she advised my colleague, Timothy Dunn, I was on vacation I think that month of January, she came in to see him, she was referred by the Big Brothers, who told her she could not leave without coming to see us, and she came in to tell him, and he told her before she did we would have to put the matter on the calendar and that it would be up to the judge.
You see, normally it is not that we don't allow it, that we prohibit it. Routinely, even if a boy is under supervision or probation, what you do is, if the parent comes in, you put it on the calendar, you go up and report to the judge, and the judge will ask the parent, or you will have the information, and the parent wants to go to Newark, N.J., or, you know, Louisiana, that they are going to live with such-and-such a person over there and the court may ask you to write to that jurisdiction, to go out and make a visit to that home to seeif it is a worthwhile home, and to see if there is a realistic plan or just not an effort on the part of the parents to take the boy out of the jurisdiction of the court, and you know if such a plan in reality exists and how feasible and how good is it in the interests of the welfare of the child, because for all the court may know, this is just a fiction on the part of the person to say, "I am moving out to Philadelphia," and they may not be moving at all. You go up to the court, get the child discharged, and they just remain where they are. And this way the boy doesn't have to report to the court any more and the parent doesn't have to bother herself with this sort of thing.
So she came in to tell us, and she was told that the matter would have to be put on the calendar and that the judge would have to pass on this.
Mr.Liebeler. But despite that fact she left the jurisdiction?
Mr.Carro. I wrote to her to come in, having heard, and the letter was returned "Moved, address unknown." I was asked about what happens then, and, well, there is very little that one can really do. We don't have extra-state jurisdiction, and we didn't even know where she had gone. This is about the sum total of what happened there.
Mr.Liebeler. Did you yourself try to find a place to place this boy?
Mr.Carro. Yes; from the very time that we had the recommendations of the psychiatrist, those that I had made were before the judge, and he went along and felt that this boy should be helped, and the next almost 9 months I spent in making referral after referral to the various institutions, the various clinics, to see if they would be able to service this boy either at home or within the institutional confines, because the psychiatric report was very distinctive in the fact that this boy did need this kind of help; and I mentioned that the tragedy of the whole thing was in this instance that because of his tender age and his religion, the facilities that we had here in New York were taxed, and somehow one factor or the other kept us from getting him the kind of help that he needed. It was either that it was a Protestant place and he was—well, he was a Lutheran, it was either a Catholic and he was a Lutheran, or one thing or another, but something mitigated their being able to service him.
I remember, for example, that the Salvation Army got a referral, and they felt they just didn't have the facility to give this boy the intensive treatment he needed. This was their reason for turning him down.
Children's village at the time, which could have given service to this boy and had the kind of setup, did not have any vacancies at this particular time of the year for this particular age boy; and so on down the line. Finally, the only recourse we had was to send it to our own psychiatric clinic, where we would do both, have him seen by a psychiatrist at our clinic, which normally we didn't even do, and at the same time receive the support of help from the Big Brothers, which was one of the recommendations that he should be seen by a male figure preferably because of the fact that he lacked a father, and we were actually complementing both without removing the boy from the home, and this is actually when the mother left. So that the boy was not going to be taken away; we were going to try to work out within, you know, the limits of the situation we had with the boy at home.
Mr.Liebeler. You mentioned that the boy was going to go to your own psychiatric clinic. That is a different proposition from the Youth House, is it not?
Mr.Carro. Yes. This is the psychiatric court clinic, that is on 22d Street, which in some instances, where we are not able to effect the kind of placing we need or so, we will utilize that as a last resort, and the boy would go there periodically and be seen by the psychiatrist.
Mr.Liebeler. It would be an outpatient-type situation?
Mr.Carro. An outpatient-type of situation, yes.
Mr.Liebeler. He never actually did do that, however, because he left the State?
Mr.Carro. No; because of the mother's own resistance to the thing and having left the jurisdiction. I don't think they got to see him once.
Mr.Liebeler. Would you say that Oswald was more mentally disturbed than most of the boys that you had under your supervision at that time?
Mr.Carro. Not at all, actually. I have handled cases of boys who committed murders, burglaries, and I have had some extremely disturbed boys, andthis was one of the problems, this was just initially a truancy situation, not one of real disruptive or acting out delinquent behavior. No; I would definitely not put him among those who acted as—I also have had boys whom we have placed who turned out to be mentally defective, mentally retarded, quite psychotic, and who really had gradations of mental illness, of disturbances that were far, you know, greater in depth than those displayed by Oswald; and the behavior which brought them before the court was certainly of a much more extreme nature.
Mr.Liebeler. Than his?
Mr.Carro. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. He did not in fact appear to you at that time to be a real mental problem or prone to violenceor——
Mr.Carro. No. He appeared to have problems, but one of the problems in the situation seems to be, why wasn't this boy sent to the New York Training School for Boys at Warwick? And the fact is that the New York Training School for Boys at Warwick is for delinquent boys who commit crimes, really, and whose behavior is such that it is really criminal behavior; and you brand it delinquency because of the tag that attaches because he is under 16. You don't normally send a boy who just stays out of school. It is for boys who commit serious acts. And as a matter of fact, Warwick did not have what this boy needed: extensive psychiatric help. And that is why he was not sent to the only school we have in the city, which is Warwick, for the more serious boy. More seriously, it is even a drastic action to place a boy away who comes in for truancy, because truancy is itself a passive delinquent act. It is not an act which vitiates against society or mores or does harm to other people. It is an act of omission, a failure to go to school rather than an aggressive acting out, where you are destroying property or injurying persons or other things. And this is one of the factors in here.
It was surprising in this instance that we wanted placement and the reason we felt placement was needed in this instance was because although you may get boys acting out in other areas, there is always someone in the community who can help out, and the court will hesitate to put a boy away if some plan can be formulated within, because the court in social work feels that there is no substitute for love and parents, even in the best of institutions that you can place children.
But here the boy had no parents; he had no father; he wasn't going to school; he had no friends; he had—no agency was working with the family. He was on his own. He was just watching television all day. He wasn't mixing with anybody. He was an extremely introverted young man. He didn't want to go to school. So that in effect he had nothing going for him outside.
Mr.Liebeler. And in addition to all that, that his mother didn't show any inclination to cooperate.
Mr.Carro. She was ineffectual. She didn't want to cooperate and there was nothing that I as a probation officer could hang my hat on to say, "Keep him here in New York City. The mother will see him through, between his mother and I, this agency and I." There was nothing there out of the total community that would be a prop or a crutch to help him see these things through.
Mr.Liebeler. And it was these reasons that prompted you to recommend placement rather than a peculiar extreme mental disturbance in the boy himself, you would say?
Mr.Carro. Yes; it was just the sum total of the environmental factors rather than the boy's own inward manifestations of mental disturbance or psychotic disorder.
Mr.Liebeler. You mentioned before that his particular type of truancy was different from the kind of truancy that you many times run into where the kids will just take off and go fishing or just goout——
Mr.Carro. Fly kites or pigeons, you know.
Mr.Liebeler. Did you think it was different because Oswald just had a tendency to stay home and watch television?
Mr.Carro.No——
Mr.Liebeler. Wait,please——
Mr.Carro. I am sorry.
Mr.Liebeler. Or did you think that the fact that he had this different kind of truancy was a reflection of some sort of mental disturbance on Oswald's part, or would you say that it was just as much a function of environment, the environment that he found himself in here in New York?
Mr.Carro. Well, I don't think there is any question in my mind that there was an inability to adapt, to adapt from the change of environment. One of the things that probably influenced me in this is that I came to New York City when I was 9 years of age and when I came here I didn't speak a word of English, and I lived in what we call East Harlem, in an area where there was a Puerto Rican community within a Negro area, and I recall when I went to school there were four Puerto Rican boys in a class that was otherwise all Negro, and I used to virtually run home every day in the first 2 months I lived in the city, because at one point or another the Negro boys would be waiting for me outside to take my pencils, my money, and anything that I had in my hands.
I remember my mother bought me a pair of skates and I don't think I was downstairs for 10 minutes with the skates—I don't think I was down there for 10 minutes before they took them away from me. And I just stayed upstairs and waited for my mother at 5 o'clock.
Then eventually I made friends with the other three boys, and when somebody took my books, one of the other boys stayed with me, and I fought with the Negro boys until things worked out—and, as I remember, things didn't work out. I had to transfer to another school.
But I can see this kind of reaction taking place. You meet the situations. Either you meet them head on or you retreat from them.
Now he apparently had one or two incidents where he was taunted over his inability to speak the same way that the kids up here speak and to dress the same way or even comb his hair—you know, here the kids wore pegged pants and they talked in their own ditty-bop fashion. There is no—that this kid was a stranger to them in mores, culture and everything else, and apparently he could not make that adaptation, and he felt that they didn't want any part of him and he didn't want any part of them, and he seemed self-sufficient enough at the time that I recall that I asked him. He felt he wasn't learning anything in school and that he had other, more important things to learn and do.
Now, whether this was an artifice on his part, you know, a mechanism, I don't know—but it didn't—let me say it didn't trigger any reaction on my part that this was symptomatic of a deeper emotional disturbance. I thought that this was just symptomatic of a boy who had chosen one way of reacting to a situation that other boys would react to in another fashion.
Mr.Liebeler. I understand that some statements have been made, based apparently on the psychiatric reports or the observations of people who worked with Lee Oswald here in New York when he was 13 years old, to the effect that one might have been able to predict, from seeing the boy at that time, that he might well commit an act such as the assassination, or some similar violent act. Did you see any such indication in Lee Oswald?
Mr.Carro. No; naturally I didn't see it, and I would say that would be extremely difficult in order to be able to make that sort of projection or prediction. I have even, when I worked with the Youth Board as a streetclub worker, I worked in the street where we had no psychiatrists along with us and where we worked with much more psychotic and deeply disturbed boys, who did kill somebody right along the line, possibly a couple of months later, and even though, you know, the studies we have done here in the city and everything shows that there are a great many people who are extremely disturbed walking around, and the crutch that just keeps them on their marginal—what do you call—on this marginal living, where they just don't go out and commit some violent act, that you don't know what it is, what the factors are that keep them from just blowing up or exploding altogether.
I didn't see any particular behavior that would say that this boy would someday commit this act. I have seen it, let's say, in the Puerto Rican youth I am familiar with, the Negro youth, that sometimes they ascribe this to a crying out of people to say that they exist and that they are human beings, and they commit that violent act, just to get their one day in the sun, the day when all the papers will focus on them, and say, "I am me. I am alive."
I worked with this young man in the case of the killing, this Raymond Serra, and this fellow, after blowing this boy's jaw up, he was flashing the victory sign like this [indicating], and when we visited him in jail he said, "Did you see my picture in the papers?" And the paper played this up as a coldblooded killer. And they don't realize that 2 days later, sensibility dawns on him, and these are the weakest, the most remorseful kids. This is just the bravado at the moment. And this is their one point in life where they draw everybody's attention—most of these kids in private life come from broken homes, and they take this opportunity to show that they are human beings.
Mr.Liebeler. Are you suggesting that this is one of the factors that motivated Oswald?
Mr.Carro. Well, I am saying that this is a young man who apparently was trying to find himself and really had been—you know, he had been knocking about a great deal from here to Russia and everywhere, and he had come back disgruntled, and nobody paid any attention to him. Some people are prone to this.
I wouldn't speculate on what drove Oswald to do this. I would say in my experience I have encountered many a boy who will do things like this to attract attention to themselves, that they exist, and they want somebody to care for them. It is hard to say what motivated him. I don't really know. I had no inkling of that at that stage.
As a matter of fact, he said when he grew up he wanted to go into the Service, just like his brothers, who were in the Service, and he said he liked to horseback ride; he used to collect stamps. But certainly these things that he said were the normal kind of outlet, the things any normal boy of 13 years of age would do. There was nothing that would lead me to believe when I saw him at the age of 12 that there would be seeds of destruction for somebody. I couldn't in all honesty sincerely say such a thing.
Mr.Liebeler. Let me ask this, Mr. Carro: After you became aware of the fact, after it was called to your attention that Lee Oswald had been under your supervision as a probation officer, did you have occasion to review the records of the case beforeyou——
Mr.Carro. No; I had no—there was nothing to review. Those kind of records were all kept in the children's court. The only recollection—and they were not furnished to me. The newspaper guy who came to see me seemed to have gotten, as I mentioned—there were five reports made, and they are sent out to different institutions. I don't know. I am not privy to how newspapermen get their information, but he seemed to have a better knowledge. He was just in a sense corroborating what I may have said at a particular point and all that, with me, and I had nothing to really go on, you know, that would refresh my recollection, except this conversation with this social worker, a friend of mine, who knew of the case, because they had gotten it from me, who called me to say that.
Mr.Liebeler. So that you yourself have not actuallyreviewed——
Mr.Carro. I have no independent record of any sort or had nothing to refresh my recollection about.
Mr.Liebeler. And you had not seen the court's papers or the petition that was filed, or thememorandum——
Mr.Carro. No; the only thing that I might have seen, and I don't—an FBI agent come in and spoke to me a couple of months ago, and I don't know if that was the original record he had with him, but he sat down, as you are, and spoke to me, and there was little I could add to what was in the record there.
Mr.Liebeler. The record that youprepared——
Mr.Carro. Well, I noticed it was my handwriting. He seemed to have my record with him. I had no independent recollection or evidence outside of the records he had.
Mr.Liebeler. The records which you would have prepared would be prepared by you in the course of your work as a probation officer, and they would have reflected your opinions at that time, is that correct?
Mr.Carro. Correct, and I would have nothing to add now at this point as to what happened 12 years ago.
Mr.Liebeler. Let me ask you to review a photostatic copy of a document that is captioned "Supplementary Facts and Explanations," which appears to be some sort of exhibit to a petition in connection with Lee Oswald. This particular document I refer to consists of eight pages and I would ask you to review that briefly, to look it over and tell me if you recognize what it is, where this gets into the proceedings and if it in fact sets forth the report of some of your work, reports to the Youth House, and would it be the record that was prepared at that time in connection with the court proceedings relating to Lee Oswald?
Mr.Carro. Yes; as I just briefly peruse over it, first of all, it is the form that is prescribed by the court for making a report by the judge, that you can readily notice it has a prescribed type of form where you begin with the identifying information as to the child, the nature of the petition, the initial court actions, and then you go into the actual history as to the family, previous court record, family history, and then you have paragraphs set off for the home and neighborhood, school record, religious affiliations, activities and special interests, mental and physical condition, child's version, which is the discussion with the child as to the nature of the incidence why he was before the court, parental attitudes, where you discuss with the parents; past records with other agencies and evaluation of the recommendation which is made by the probation officer based on his getting together all this data.
And you will also notice that included then beyond that report, which is signed by the probation officer, includes the summary for the probation officer, which is a summary of the psychiatric study, not the actual study.
And then this is a record of the various court actions which preceded, who appeared, when, and I note that my signature—not my signature but my name has been typed in with respect to the various actions that took place subsequent to the boy being returned to the court during the time he was under the supervision of the court, right up to January 1954.
Just perusing over this, I know that this is the various reports that I made to the court.
Mr.Liebeler. And it finally concludes with yourstatement——
Mr.Carro. Yes; concluding with the last statement of the court action of March 11, 1954, before Justice Delaney, where there was no appearance by the people; it was just the attendance officer, myself, the probation officer, before the court, and that Mrs. Barnes reported that she had contacted New Orleans and received no information as to the whereabouts of the family, and there was a question that a former associate thought that the family may have been living in California.
Justice Delaney discharged the case and Lee was no longer in our jurisdiction, which goes along with the fact that we had no idea; we attempted to find out; we wrote to Louisiana and New Orleans but couldn't get back any positive reports.
Mr.Liebeler. Would this particular document, which I will mark as "Exhibit 1" on the deposition of Mr. John Carro, April 16, 1964, at New York—would that have been attached to the petition or just a part of the record as a special report?
Mr.Carro. No; this would be part of the court record, and actually the petition is just one petition where the judges make their own small notations when the probation officer appears. And that is the docket. That is kept up in the courtroom in their files. These are the records—this is the actual record that is kept by the probation department, and the only thing that is sent to the other agencies is just this initial report. You don't send in the day-to-day or the month-to-month, other subsequent actions. So that this is a separate report.
Mr.Liebeler. Would this record in the ordinary course reflect all of the action taken?
Mr.Carro. Yes; this is the record.
Mr.Liebeler. In connection with the case?
Mr.Carro. This is the record that the probation officer maintains while the case is under his supervision until the case is closed and reflects the contacts with the child, periodic or—all the contacts and any work that the probation officer does he is supposed to report here and make a small notation.
Mr.Liebeler. Mr. Carro, I have initialed Exhibit 1 on your deposition for purposes of identification, and I ask you if you would also initial it near my initials so that we won't have any difficulty in identifying it. I am correct in my understanding, am I not, that you prepared this report?
Mr.Carro. Yes; this is my report and the entries herein, except for one or two that may have been made by Mr. Dunn—and I refer to the entry of 1-5-54, while I was on vacation—those bearing the name John Carro, bearing my name, are my entries, and this is my report.
Mr.Liebeler. Let the record show that the exhibit that we have marked is a somewhat illegible copy.
Mr.Liebeler. As you have indicated to me, the original was on yellow paper, which does not reproduce well. I will obtain the original and make it a part of the record. Can you think of anything else, Mr. Carro, about Oswald or your contacts with Oswald that you think would be of help to the Commission?
Mr.Carro. Well, I think that there has been so much written on it that you have probably a much more comprehensive report, since you have been able to get the actual records of these statements that I made at the time I wrote this. I doubt that I could really say anything at this point, 12 years later or so, that would be of any help to you.
Whatever I might say would just be an independent opinion on my own and I don't think that would be that valid. I think you have the original psychiatric report here, the social agency report, and whatever it is, and they are amply—I don't think that I could add anything independently that would be of help to the Commission.
Mr.Liebeler. In view of that, Mr. Carro, I don't have any more questions. I want to thank you very much on behalf of the Commission for coming here and for giving the testimony that you have. It is another example of the way the city of New York and the people who are associated with it have cooperated with the work of the Commission. The Commission appreciates it very much. We thank you sincerely.
Mr.Carro. I appreciate very much your having me over here. I would like to offer whatever help I can, and I hope I have been of some help in making whatever decision you have to make on this matter.
Mr.Liebeler. You have been very helpful, Mr. Carro.
Mr.Carro. Thank you.
The testimony of Dr. Renatus Hartogs was taken at 5:20 p.m., on April 16, 1964, at 7 East 86th Street, New York, N.Y., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.
Renatus Hartogs, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
Mr.Liebeler. My name is Wesley J. Liebeler. I am a member of the legal staff of the President's Commission investigating the assassination of President Kennedy. Staff members have been authorized to take the testimony of witnesses by the Commission pursuant to authority granted to the Commission by Executive Order No. 1130, dated November 29, 1963, and Joint Resolution of Congress No. 137.
The Commission has also adopted certain rules of procedure governing the taking of testimony of witnesses which provide, among other things, that each witness should receive a copy of the Executive order and the joint resolution to which I have just referred, as well as a copy of the rules governing the taking of testimony. The Commission will provide you with copies of these documents.
The rules concerning the taking of testimony provide generally that a witness may have counsel if he wishes. He is entitled to 3 days' notice, which I do not believe you had, but every witness is also entitled to waive that notice. I presume that you will waive the notice since we are here.
Dr.Hartogs. That's right, sure, yes.
Mr.Liebeler. We want to inquire of you concerning the contact which the Commission understands you had with Lee Harvey Oswald some time in 1953 or 1954.
Would you state your full name for the record, please.
Dr.Hartogs. Renatus Hartogs.
Mr.Liebeler. What is your address?
Dr.Hartogs. 7 East 86th.
Mr.Liebeler. Where were you born and when?
Dr.Hartogs. In Mainz, M-a-i-n-z, Germany, January 22, 1909.
Mr.Liebeler. When did you come to the United States, Doctor?
Dr.Hartogs. On December 4, 1940.
Mr.Liebeler. You received your education in Germany, is that correct?
Dr.Hartogs. In Germany, in Belgium. I have a Ph. D. from the University of Frankfurt-am-Main, which is Germany, and I have a medical degree from the University of Brussels Medical School, and then I came to the United States and I studied medicine again to fulfill the requirements of the New York State Education Department, and I have a medical degree from the University of Montreal Medical School. Then I have an M.A. from New York University, and that's it.
Mr.Liebeler. In what field is that?
Dr.Hartogs. In clinical psychopathology.
Mr.Liebeler. And youare——
Dr.Hartogs. I am a Ph. D. in clinical psychology and an M.D.
Mr.Liebeler. You are admitted to the practice of medicine in the State of New York, is that correct?
Dr.Hartogs. In the State of New York.
Mr.Liebeler. And you have taken the examination for the practice of medicine?
Dr.Hartogs. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. And you are admitted to practice medicine in the State?
Dr.Hartogs. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. You are regularly engaged, are you not, in the practice of medicine as a psychiatrist?
Dr.Hartogs. As a psychiatrist exclusively, yes.
Mr.Liebeler. How long have you been practicing here in the United States as a psychiatrist?
Dr.Hartogs. In the States since 1949.
Mr.Liebeler. Did you practice medicine in Germany?
Dr.Hartogs. In Belgium.
Mr.Liebeler. How long did you practice in Belgium?
Dr.Hartogs. 3 years.
Mr.Liebeler. Was that as a psychiatrist or in the general practice of medicine?
Dr.Hartogs. No, psychologist.
Mr.Liebeler. You are also the chief psychiatrist for the Youth House of New York City, is that correct?
Dr.Hartogs. That's correct.
Mr.Liebeler. How long have you held that position?
Dr.Hartogs. Since 1951.
Mr.Liebeler. What kind of duties do you perform as the chief psychiatrist at the Youth House? Tell us generally about what they are.
Dr.Hartogs. Yes, that's right. I examine all the children which have been remanded to Youth House on order of the court for the purpose of psychiatric examination, so not all children who are at Youth House are psychiatrically examined. There is only a specific quantity, number. As these children are psychiatrically examined by me and my staff, I submit my report to the court with recommendations and diagnosis, and it is up to the court to follow the recommendations or not.
I at the same time teach the staff. I give workshops in the psychiatric aspects of social work. I give seminars in which we discuss very interestingcases which have come up and to which the professional public of New York City is invited.
So, for instance, we gave such a seminar on Oswald. That is the reason why I vaguely remember him.
Mr.Liebeler. You were also, as you have testified, the chief psychiatrist for the Youth House in 1953.
Dr.Hartogs. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. Were your duties in connection with that job pretty much the same in 1953 as they are now?
Dr.Hartogs. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. How large a staff did you have in 1953, approximately?
Dr.Hartogs. Approximately I would say 300.
Mr.Liebeler. A staff?
Dr.Hartogs. Yes, staff, because we have three shifts, you see. We have about two staff members for every child.
Mr.Liebeler. I see. I thought you testified previously that there were other psychiatrists.
Dr.Hartogs. Oh, my staff?
Mr.Liebeler. Yes, on your staff, not at the Youth House, but on your staff.
Dr.Hartogs. Oh, I thought—on my staff we have three psychiatrists now.
Mr.Liebeler. About how many did you have in 1953?
Dr.Hartogs. In 1953 we had two, two or three. It changed continuously. Sometimes we had even four.
Mr.Liebeler. Do you remember the names of the other psychiatrists who were on the staff at the time Oswald was in the Youth House?
Dr.Hartogs. No, no. They are continuously changing. Sometimes they were just for a few weeks there, but I have remained on the staff continuously.
Mr.Liebeler. The Youth House is an institution of the city of New York, is that correct, or is it supported by voluntary contributions? Is it a private institution or is it an adjunct of the city of New York?
Dr.Hartogs. Right now it is part of the probation department of the city of New York, under the jurisdiction of the probation department. Previously it was a private institution with a private board. Then later on the city of New York took over as far as the administration and the payment of the salaries is concerned, but the private board was maintained. So today the private board still exists, but the probation department of the city of New York has the jurisdiction over Youth House.
Mr.Liebeler. Does the city of New York support it financially?
Dr.Hartogs. Yes, the city of New York pays for it.
Mr.Liebeler. Was that true, do you know, offhand, in 1953, or was it still a private organization at that time?
Dr.Hartogs. At that time it was a private organization, yes.
Mr.Liebeler. You are a citizen of the United States, are you not?
Dr.Hartogs. Yes, since 1945.
Mr.Liebeler. Would you outline for us in general terms what the procedure is with respect to a boy who is remanded to the Youth House for psychiatric observation. He is ordered by the court to go to the Youth House; he goes to the Youth House.
Dr.Hartogs. He goes to the Youth House, that's right.
Mr.Liebeler. What generally happens to him then?
Dr.Hartogs. When he is in Youth House he is given a preliminary screening as to what kind of a person he is, through human figure drawings. That is a special test that is given.
Mr.Liebeler. Who administers that, social workers on the staff?
Dr.Hartogs. Social workers, and the psychologists, they do that, a preliminary screening, because if we have very disturbed children right away from the beginning we—I see them right away on an emergency basis and send them out because we cannot keep too disturbed children in Youth House. We send them then to a mental hospital. So then this child goes into an intake dormitory where he is dressed, acquainted with the techniques of adjustment in Youth House, the Youth House philosophy. Then he is assigned to one of the dormitories, and then he is sent to school. We have our own school, P.S. 613. Wehave our own workshops for the children, recreation department. We have group service. We have our own hospital where the child is checked as to his physical health.
So the child is slowly but surely introduced in all these various departments.
Then the social worker has interviews with this child and with the parents of the child who are invited.
Then the school authorities prepare a report for me so that when I see the child I have in front of me the probation officer's report, the social worker's report on his contact with the child and the parents, I have the report of group service or household, as it is called, I have the report of the medical department, and I have the report of the recreation department, and I have also the report of the psychologist.
And then I see the child and examine the child, and then I incorporate in my report all these, my own findings with the findings of the Youth House staff.
Mr.Liebeler. Can you tell us approximately in 1953 how much of your time you devoted to the examination of children in Youth House?
Dr.Hartogs. 30 hours per week.
Mr.Liebeler. 30 hours a week. And about how many children would you see during the period of time in a week, average week?
Dr.Hartogs. During that, 10 or 12.
Mr.Liebeler. So that you would spend somewhere between 2 and 3 hours with each child, is that correct?
Dr.Hartogs. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. Is that still true?
Dr.Hartogs. No, I mean not with the child itself. The child is seen for about half an hour to an hour.
Mr.Liebeler. By you?
Dr.Hartogs. By me, but then I have also to study the record which takes half an hour, and then it takes about an hour to dictate, so that counts about 2 hours.
Mr.Liebeler. In your capacity as chief psychiatrist for the Youth House did you have occasion at any time to interview Lee Harvey Oswald?
Dr.Hartogs. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. Would you tell us when that was and all that you can remember about that interview in your own words.
Dr.Hartogs. That is tough. I remember that—actually I reconstructed this from what I remembered from the seminar. We gave a seminar on this boy in which we discussed him, because he came to us on a charge of truancy from school, and yet when I examined him, I found him to have definite traits of dangerousness. In other words, this child had a potential for explosive, aggressive, assaultive acting out which was rather unusual to find in a child who was sent to Youth House on such a mild charge as truancy from school.
This is the reason why I remember this particular child, and that is the reason why we discussed him in the seminar.
I found him to be a medium-sized, slender, curlyhaired youngster, pale-faced, who was not very talkative, he was not spontaneous. He had to be prompted. He was polite. He answered in a somewhat monotonous fashion. His sentences were well structured. He was in full contact with reality.
Mr.Liebeler. He was?
Dr.Hartogs. He was in full contact with reality. I found his reasoning to be intensely self-centered, his judgment also centering around his own needs, and the way he looked at life and his relationships with people. This was mostly in the foreground. So this is what I remember actually.
Mr.Liebeler. You say that you have reconstructed your recollection of your interview with Lee Oswald by thinking of the seminar that you gave; is that correct?
Dr.Hartogs. The seminar; that is right.
Mr.Liebeler. Do you have any independent recollection of the interview with Lee Oswald itself?
Dr.Hartogs. Only from remembering the seminar, what kind of a boy he was and what I said at that time, I was able to reconstruct the picture of the boy as I just described it; yes. That is how I proceeded.
Mr.Liebeler. Tell us about the seminar, Doctor. How did it come that you gave this seminar on Oswald, to whom was it given, what was the general subject matter of the seminar?
Dr.Hartogs. Yes; every Monday afternoon, at 1:30 until 3 o'clock, the professional Youth House staff gets together in order to discuss an interesting or unusual child. At that time we selected Oswald because of the reason which I indicated, the discrepancy between the charge and the seriousness of his personality disturbance, and the seminar was opened by the Youth House director; then the social worker talked about the development, background and early history of the child; then the Youth House recreation department and household talked, and then the school department gave a report; then the psychologist reported on his findings, and then I acquainted the people who were present with the findings of the psychiatrist and recommendations which I made to the court.
Mr.Liebeler. Whose suggestion was it that Oswald be used as a subject matter for the seminar?
Dr.Hartogs. I believe it was mine, because I was the one to select these children.
Mr.Liebeler. Was there any report of the proceedings of the seminar prepared?
Dr.Hartogs. No; it is all spontaneous.
Mr.Liebeler. Just a spontaneous, informal sort of thing?
Dr.Hartogs. That is right.
Mr.Liebeler. No one made any memorandum of what occurred at that time?
Dr.Hartogs. No.
Mr.Liebeler. Do you have any records relating to the seminar?
Dr.Hartogs. No; there are never any records, never anything written down; it is purely informal.
Mr.Liebeler. The only writings that would have been at the seminar would have been the reports that had been previously prepared by you and by the other members of the Youth House staff; is that correct?
Dr.Hartogs. Right.
Mr.Liebeler. Do you recall what recommendation you made to the court in respect of Oswald?
Dr.Hartogs. If I can recall correctly, I recommended that this youngster should be committed to an institution.
Mr.Liebeler. What type of institution, do you recall?
Dr.Hartogs. No; that I don't recall. No.
Mr.Liebeler. But you are quite clear in your recollection that you recommended that he be institutionalized immediately because of the personality pattern disturbance; is that correct?
Dr.Hartogs. Yes; that is right. That I remember; yes.
Mr.Liebeler. How long did Oswald stay at the Youth House, do you know?
Dr.Hartogs. Not exactly. Not exactly. Anything from 4 to 8 weeks, that is the average stay.
Mr.Liebeler. The Youth House is a place the basic function of which is observation of children in a controlled environment; would you say?
Dr.Hartogs. Controlled environment for the purpose of psychiatric observation or for the purpose of detention pending court appearance, or custodial care of the child pending his commitment, I mean his actual transfer to a child-caring or custodial institution such as a training school. These are the three purposes.
Mr.Liebeler. The Youth House is not the kind of place where a boy would be kept indefinitely after he had been committed, or something like that?
Dr.Hartogs. No, the average is about 2 to 3 months; I mean 3 months is maximum.
Mr.Liebeler. Can you recall what kind of institution you recommended that Oswald be committed to?
Dr.Hartogs. I never make a recommendation as to the name, the specific institution. This is a prerogative of the court.
Mr.Liebeler. Do you make a recommendation as to the type of institution to which you recommend a child?
Dr.Hartogs. Yes; I do that, either a mental hospital or training school or residential treatment center, but I do not recall in this case what I recommended.
Mr.Liebeler. But you do recall quite clearly that you did recommend, because of this boy's personality pattern, disturbance?
Dr.Hartogs. Yes; that he should not be placed in the community.
Mr.Liebeler. Or placed on probation?
Dr.Hartogs. Yes; that is right.
Mr.Liebeler. Do you recall being interviewed on this question by the FBI?
Dr.Hartogs. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. Do you remember approximately when they interviewed you?
Dr.Hartogs. No; I don't know the date.
Mr.Liebeler. Do you remember that you told them the same thing, that is, that you recommended institutionalizing Oswald as a result of his psychiatric examination which indicated that he was potentially dangerous?
Dr.Hartogs. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. Would you tell us how you first became aware, after the assassination, that Lee Oswald was a child with whom you had had previous contact?
Dr.Hartogs. The first time was, I read it in the newspaper, Justice Kelley, you know, Florence Kelley, made a statement to the press that Oswald had been in the Youth House, and she revealed details of the psychiatric report which immediately made me aware of the fact that I was the one to examine the child, because this was my wording.
Mr.Liebeler. Do you remember the wording?
Dr.Hartogs. For instance, incipient schizophrenia, I think she used; potentially dangerous is something which I use. These are some of the expressions.
Mr.Liebeler. These expressions are peculiar to your particular type of work?
Dr.Hartogs. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. And not generally used by others?
Dr.Hartogs. And by me generally in dealing with children.
Mr.Liebeler. Did you keep the newspaper clipping by any chance that indicated this?
Dr.Hartogs. No, no.
Mr.Liebeler. What did you do after you learned or became aware that Oswald was a child with whom you had had contact?
Dr.Hartogs. I didn't do anything. I didn't do anything, but the New York Times sent a reporter, and he questioned me on whether I was the one to examine this child, because they read it, and I said that I did not know for sure, but it is possible.
And what happened then? Then very soon the FBI came in here and said, "You are the doctor who examined Oswald," and from then on I know for sure that it was me, because they must have read a report.
Mr.Liebeler. Now, up until the time that the FBI came and said that you were the doctor who interviewed Oswald, did you still have some doubt in your mind as to whether you had actually interviewed the boy?
Dr.Hartogs. I was not convinced, I was not sure, until I then reconstructed everything in my mind.
Mr.Liebeler. As you have indicated, byrecalling——
Dr.Hartogs. That is right, then I recalled everything.
Mr.Liebeler. Did you make any statement to television people in connection with this at all?
Dr.Hartogs. About Oswald?
Mr.Liebeler. Yes.
Dr.Hartogs. No; on the day after President Kennedy died, the television people asked me to make a statement on television in general about why somebody might kill the President. I did not mention any name. I did not refer to any individual. I just made some general psychiatric remarks as to what kind of a person would kill the President.
Mr.Liebeler. Do you recall approximately what you said?
Dr.Hartogs. That a person who would commit such an act has been very likely a mentally disturbed person, who has a personal grudge against persons in authority, and very likely is a person who in his search to overcome his owninsignificance and helplessness will try to commit an act which will make others frightened, which will shatter the world, which will make other people insecure, as if he wanted to discharge his own insecurity through his own act, something like that in general terms.
Mr.Liebeler. Was it indicated by you at that time, or was it indicated on the television broadcast that you were the psychiatrist who had examined Lee Oswald?
Dr.Hartogs. No, no.
Mr.Liebeler. It was not?
Dr.Hartogs. No, no. They didn't know. They called me because they call me very often to give some psychiatric explanations of murderers or something like that. They did not know, and I did not know for sure.
Mr.Liebeler. At that time neither one of youwere——
Dr.Hartogs. And they selected me. I mean it was a fantastic thing.
Mr.Liebeler. It was purely coincidence?
Dr.Hartogs. Coincidence that they selected me.
Mr.Liebeler. So you made no reference at that time to the examination which you had made of Oswald?
Dr.Hartogs. None at all. I didn't know.
Mr.Liebeler. Dr. Hartogs, do you have in your possession a copy of the report which you made at the time you examined Oswald?
Dr.Hartogs. No.
Mr.Liebeler. Have you had any opportunity to examine a copy of that report since the assassination?
Dr.Hartogs. No.
Mr.Liebeler. So the recollection that you have given us as regards your diagnosis and your recommendations is strictly based on your own independent recollection, plus the reconstruction of your interview with Oswald from the seminar that you recall having given?
Dr.Hartogs. Right.
Mr.Liebeler. Do you remember anything else that particularly impressed you about Oswald? The FBI report indicates that you were greatly impressed by the boy, who was only 13½ years old at the time, because he had extremely cold, steely eyes. Do you remember telling that to the agents?
Dr.Hartogs. Yes, yes; that he was not emotional at all; he was in control of his emotions. He showed a cold, detached outer attitude. He talked about his situation, about himself in a, what should I say, nonparticipating fashion. I mean there was nothing emotional, affective about him, and this impressed me. That was the only thing which I remembered; yes.
Mr.Liebeler. Now, you recall also that Oswald was a slender and pale-faced boy?
Dr.Hartogs. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. Can you remember what particular thing it was about Oswald that made you conclude that he had this severe personality disturbance? What led you to this diagnosis?
Dr.Hartogs. It was his suspiciousness against adults, as far as I recall, his exquisite sensitivity in dealing with others, their opinions on his behalf. That is as far as I recall it.
Mr.Liebeler. Did you form an opinion as to his intellectual ability, his mental endowment?
Dr.Hartogs. Yes; but that I don't recall for sure. It was at least average at that time.
Mr.Liebeler. I want to mark "Exhibit 1" on the examination of Dr. Renatus Hartogs, April 16, 1964, in New York, a photostatic copy of a document entitled "Youth House Psychiatrist's Report," indicating a report on case No. 26996; date of admission, April 16, 1953, exactly 11 years ago; date of examination, May 1, 1953, with regard to a boy by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald. I have initialed a copy of this report for identification purposes, Doctor. Would you initial it here next to my initials.
(Witness complies.)
(Photostatic copy of document entitled "Youth House Psychiatrist's Report" marked "Exhibit 1.")
Mr.Liebeler. Would you read the report and tell us if that is the report that you prepared at that time?
Dr.Hartogs. That is right, that is it. Interesting.
Mr.Liebeler. Doctor, is your recollection refreshed after looking at the report that you made at that time?
Dr.Hartogs. Yes, yes; that is the diagnosis, "personality pattern disturbance with schizoid features and passive-aggressive tendencies." Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. On page 1, at the very beginning of the report, you wrote at that time, did you not, "This 13-year-old, well-built, well-nourished boy was remanded to Youth House for the first time on charge of truancy."
Dr.Hartogs. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. On the last page of the report there is a section entitled "Summary for Probation Officer's Report," is there not?
Dr.Hartogs. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. And you wrote there, about two or three sentences down, did you not, "We arrive therefore at the recommendation that he should be placed on probation under the condition that he seek help and guidance through contact with a child guidance clinic, where he should be treated preferably by a male psychiatrist who could substitute, to a certain degree at least, for the lack of father figure. At the same time, his mother should be urged to seek psychotherapeutic guidance through contact with a family agency. If this plan does not work out favorably and Lee cannot cooperate in this treatment plan on an outpatient basis, removal from the home and placement could be resorted to at a later date, but it is our definite impression that treatment on probation should be tried out before the stricter and therefore possibly more harmful placement approach is applied to the case of this boy?"
Dr.Hartogs. Yes. It contradicts my recollection.
Mr.Liebeler. Yes. As you now read your report—and it is perfectly understandable that it is something that might not be remembered 11 years after the event; I have no recollection of what I was doing 11 years ago.
Dr.Hartogs. I did not know that I made this ambiguous recommendation.
Mr.Liebeler. As you read this report and reflect on this report and on the boy, Oswald, as he is revealed through it, do you think that possibly it may have been somebody else that was involved in the seminar or are you convinced that it was Oswald?
Dr.Hartogs. No; that was Oswald.
Mr.Liebeler. That was Oswald?
Dr.Hartogs. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. It would not appear from this report that you found any indication in the character of Lee Oswald at that time that would indicate this possible violent outburst, is there?
Dr.Hartogs. I didn't mention it in the report, and I wouldn't recall it now.
Mr.Liebeler. If you would have found it, you would have mentioned it in the report?
Dr.Hartogs. I would have mentioned it; yes. I just implied it with the diagnosis of passive-aggressive. It means that we are dealing here with a youngster who was hiding behind a seemingly passive, detached facade aggression hostility. I mean this is what I thought was quite clear. I did not say that he had assaultive or homicidal potential.
Mr.Liebeler. And in fact, as we read through the report, there is no mention of the words "incipient schizophrenic" or "potentially dangerous" in the report.
Dr.Hartogs. No; I don't know where she has it from, but these are my words. I use it in other reports, but here it is not.
Mr.Liebeler. "Passive-aggressive tendencies" are fairly common in occurrence, are they not amongst people?
Dr.Hartogs. No; it is not so common. It is the least common of the three personality traits. It is either a passive-dependent child or an aggressive child, and there is a passive-aggressive child. The passive-aggressive one is the least common.
Mr.Liebeler. Would you describe for us briefly what the passive-aggressive tendencies are, how do they manifest themselves, what do they indicate?
Dr.Hartogs. They indicate a passive retiring surface facade, under which the child hides considerable hostility of various degrees.
Mr.Liebeler. It would indicate to some extent a hiding of hostile tendencies toward others?
Dr.Hartogs. Yes. But usually in a passive-aggressive individual the aggressiveness can be triggered off and provoked in stress situations or if he nourishes his hate and his hostility for considerable length of time so that the passive surface facade all of a sudden explodes, this can happen. I said here that his fantasy life turned around the topics of omnipotence and power. He said also that "I dislike everybody," which is quite interesting, I think, also pertinent.
Mr.Liebeler. You indicated that his mother was interviewed by the Youth House social worker and is described as such-and-such. That would indicate, would it not, to you that you personally did not see the mother?
Dr.Hartogs. That is right. I did not see the mother personally, but the information I have from the Youth House social worker's report.
Mr.Liebeler. You indicated in the second sentence of the summary for the probation officer's report, "No finding of neurological impairment or psychotic mental changes could be made," did you not?
Dr.Hartogs. That is right.
Mr.Liebeler. What do you mean when you say that "No finding of psychotic mental changes could be made"?
Dr.Hartogs. This child was not suffering from delusions and hallucinations.
Mr.Liebeler. Would you couple that with the concept of neurological impairment which indicated no brain damage or anything of that sort which would cause hallucinations or disturbance of the personality?
Dr.Hartogs. Yes.
Mr.Liebeler. Do you remember the circumstances of Oswald's home environment here in New York at the time he came?
Dr.Hartogs. No.
Mr.Liebeler. You have no recollection of that. If I were to tell you now that this boy came to New York with his mother, his father having died before he was born, to live with one of his older brothers, and that they lived with the brother here in Manhattan on 92d Street for a short time, after which friction developed, and they then moved to the Bronx, the mother worked all day, to support the child, in a department store here in New York or in Brooklyn, and the boy apparently found difficulty in his relations with others at school because he dressed differently, being from Texas, they lived apparently on the Grand Concourse, which has been described to us at that time as being a generally middle-class Jewish neighborhood, in which the boys did not dress in levis or quite so casually as Oswald did; that he was given some difficulty because of the fact that he did not speak the way the people did in New York, he spoke with a southern Texas accent and did not understand the patois of the city; assuming that those things were true, would that be a partial explanation, do you think, of the way that he reacted to you during the interview as reflected in your report?
Dr.Hartogs. No; I would not say. This was not the personality disturbance which was the result of the situation of changes or conditioning; this was more deeper going. A personality pattern disturbance is a disturbance which has been existing since early childhood and has continued to exist through the individual's life. It is not the result of recent conditioning.
Mr.Liebeler. After reading your report, are you able to form an opinion or did you form an opinion at that time of what might have caused this particular personality pattern disturbance in this boy?
Dr.Hartogs. I mentioned it, I think, in the report, the lack of a father figure, the lack of a real family life, neglect by self-involved mother. Yes; I think these are the three factors.
Mr.Liebeler. After reviewing the report, do you have any other remarks that you think would be helpful to us in trying to understand what motivated this boy, assuming that he was the assassin of the President?
Dr.Hartogs. No.
Mr.Liebeler. That you haven't already talked about?
Dr.Hartogs. No.
Mr.Liebeler. I will ask the reporter to set forth the text of the report at the end of the deposition. I want to thank you very much for giving us the time that you have, and on behalf of the Commission we want to tell you that we appreciate it very much. Thanks very much, Doctor.
Dr.Hartogs. Okay.
"This 13 year old, well-built, well-nourished boy was remanded to Youth House for the first time on charge of truancy from school and of being beyond the control of his mother as far as school attendance is concerned. This is his first contact with the law.
"He is—tense, withdrawn and evasive boy who dislikes intensely talking about himself and his feelings. He likesthegive the impression that he doesn't care about others and rather likes to keep himself so that he is not bothered and does not have to make the effort of communicating. It was difficult to penetrate the emotional wall behind which this boy hides—and he provided us with sufficient clues, permitting us to see intense anxiety, shyness, feelings ofawkwardnessand insecurity as the main reasons for his withdrawal tendencies and solitary habits. Lee told us: 'I don't want a friend and I don't like to talk to people.' He describes himself as stubborn and according to his own saying likes to say 'no.' Strongly resistive and negativistic features were thus noticed—but psychotic mental content was denied and no indication of psychotic mental changes was arrived at.