Mr. LIEBELER. During the time that you worked as a probation officer
did you have occasion to make the acquaintance of Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. CARRO. Yes, I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. Will you tell us everything that you can remember about
that in your own words?
Mr. CARRO. Well, I was first assigned to the case, I believe it was
about April of 1953. This was a petition that had been brought before
the court by the attendance bureau relating to this boy, Lee Harvey
Oswald, because of his truancy from school. He had been absent quite
a great deal of time on a prior term, on a transfer to a new school;
he had just neglected to attend school altogether, and the Board of
Education has a bureau who send out an attendance officer to find out
why the boy is not going to school. Apparently their efforts were
fruitless so that the attendance bureau of the board of education had
referred the matter to the court for a petition, and the mother had
been asked to come into court with the boy.
My recollection, as I recall, is that initially the mother did not
bring him in and the judge ordered a warrant for her to bring the boy,
and when she did come in with the boy a petition was drawn, alleging
truancy, the judge made a finding of truancy, and ordered that the boy
be remanded to Youth House for what they call a sociological study.
The case is then assigned to a probation officer in the court to
make further investigation to bring back to the court for a possible
determination as to the case.
This is the instance that I came into the case. The judge having made
a finding and ordered an investigation, I was the probation officer
assigned to do the investigation in the case.
Mr. LIEBELER. The original finding that the judge made was that Oswald
was a truant, and the first finding also ordered Oswald to be committed
in the Youth House, is that correct?
Mr. CARRO. Remanded, yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Remanded.
Mr. CARRO. Pending investigation, and for a sociological study while
there.
Mr. LIEBELER. Would the probation officer work with the boy while he
was in the Youth House or basically after he got out of the Youth House?
Mr. CARRO. No, actually the probation officer's job would be then to
develop a history of the family which would entail talking to the boy
about the nature of the difficulty which brought him before the court,
talking to the parent as to what the parent knew and the boy's whole
background from early childhood, whether there was trauma, whether he
was a nailbiter, you know, the whole family history, brother, sibling
relationship, parental history, look into the school record. In this
particular instance it was most important because there was a question
of truancy. Also find out about the religious affiliation, whether the
boy went to church, look into the environmental surroundings, where he
lived; visit the home, talk to the boy, himself, about the nature of
his act and why he did the things he did, and actually, in essence, get
a full report, about as full as possible as to the boy's background,
his parents, his whole situation, make a recommendation to the court,
get the reports from the school as to what the probation officer deemed
should happen in this instance.
Unlike the special sessions and other courts where the probation
officers do not make recommendations, in Children's Court the probation
officer does make a recommendation which the judge then can go along
with or reject or take it under consideration. This was aside from what
was going on in Youth House.
In Youth House the boy that is sent there, every worker that has some
contact with the boy is required to write something about the contact,
and they are in fairly good position because they watch this boy in his
off moments for 2 to 3 weeks, in his everyday activities, and he is
also seen by a psychiatrist while he is there, and then this report,
along with what the probation officer has been able to get from visits
to the home, the parents, talking to the boy himself, is collated and
put together, and this forms the basis for the material that is given
to the judge, so that the judge is in a better position to render a
decision of what should happen, whether this boy should be placed,
whether he should be returned home, whether he should be given therapy,
whether he should be put on probation, strict probation, or whatever
the judge would deem in the particular instance.
Mr. LIEBELER. In this particular case you recall that Oswald was
remanded to Youth House?
Mr. CARRO. Yes, he was remanded from the very first day to the Youth
House because he had not even bothered to report to school. I forget
whether he had just turned 13 or he was still 12, but in New York
State we have a law that requires each boy to attend school until at
least 16, and this was a young man of tender age who had at this point
taken it upon himself to just not bother to go to school any more,
and furthermore, this was not the usual hooky-playing type--when I
say hooky, the type of boy who does not go to school, to truant with
his other friends, to go to the park, fish, play, or whatever it is.
This is a boy who would not go to school just to remain home, not do
anything.
The judge felt that since there was no father figure at home and it was
just a mother who worked, that this was not a salutary situation for
a boy this tender age to be in, and he felt he wanted to find out a
little more about this boy before he made decision, and consequently he
asked for the study at the Youth House.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know who worked with Lee Oswald at the Youth House?
Mr. CARRO. No; I only know that--I did not know the staff by name. I
had been there on some occasions, so I do not know specifically who. I
know he was seen by the psychiatrist, Dr. Hartogs, because they do send
you their report afterwards, and I did receive a Youth House report,
but I don't recall who specifically had the daily contacts with Lee
Oswald.
Mr. LIEBELER. How does it come that you remember receiving Dr. Hartogs'
report?
Mr. CARRO. Well, because since he was sent there and he is the
doctor who does the report, this comes back to the court, and it is
incorporated into the final report before it is put out, and Dr.
Hartogs, I knew, was the one who did it for the court. He was the chief
psychiatrist or so. All the reports were signed by him, almost, that
came to us.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know whether Dr. Hartogs actually interviewed
these children and talked to them?
Mr. CARRO. I don't know.
Mr. LIEBELER. Or did he just administer the work of other
psychiatrists, do you know?
Mr. CARRO. I don't know if he had, you know, colleagues who did the
work for him. As a matter of fact, I don't know how many times he
saw Lee or his mother. All we used to get is a report signed by Dr.
Hartogs. I don't know if he personally saw this boy or not.
Mr. LIEBELER. What else can you remember of your contacts with Lee
Oswald?
Mr. CARRO. Let me tell you my recollection of the Oswald case. As you
can imagine, from 13 years ago, this was an odd thing, because I did
not realize that Oswald was the person that had killed Kennedy the
first couple of days. It was only almost--I believe it was after the
burial or just about that time, while I was watching the papers, on the
day that he actually was killed by Ruby, that I saw some pictures of
the mother, and I started reading about the New York situation, that
it suddenly tied in, because, you know, something happening in Texas,
1,500 miles, is something you hardly associate with a youngster that
you had 10 years prior or 12 years prior.
A friend of mine called me up, a social worker, to tell me, "Carro, you
know who that case is?"